Supervisors table data‑center zoning changes after extended public comment; board seeks further review and possible conditional‑use approach

The Frederick County Board of Supervisors on March 12 held a lengthy public hearing and discussion on a proposed amendment to Chapter 165 of the county code to define and regulate data centers, then voted to table the ordinance and return with revisions and a future public hearing.

County staff presented a package of proposed changes that would: add a definition for data centers; impose performance and siting standards (including a proposed 200‑foot buffer from residential zoning and a Category C full screen buffer); require pre‑approval water‑use estimates to be reviewed by Frederick Water; limit generator cycling/testing to Monday–Friday, 8 a.m.–5 p.m.; require noise studies before certificate of occupancy and at 24 months; and distinguish power generation facilities from transmission/distribution facilities (with conditional‑use requirements for power generation in the RA district). Staff said the draft reflects best-practice research, consultations with industry, environmental groups and JLARC (the General Assembly’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission).

Supervisors raised multiple policy questions on setbacks, whether data centers should remain by‑right in industrial districts, and noise limits. Supervisor Blaine Dunn asked whether the generator-cycling limit applied to operations or testing; staff clarified it applies to testing. He also suggested data centers in some districts should require conditional-use permits; several supervisors supported converting some by‑right allowances to conditional‑use review to preserve public notice and case‑by‑case scrutiny.

Public comment included technical and health concerns. Linda Reed (Shawnee District) told the board her sound‑engineer brother described the draft 75‑decibel limit as “still very loud. It's the equivalent of listening to a vacuum cleaner in the same room at all the time,” and raised drought, wildfire and water‑availability concerns. Nicole Russell (Red Bud) cited older studies on hearing risk and urged setbacks of 500–1,000 feet based on lessons from other jurisdictions; Joseph Rand (Stonewall) urged a county study of potential water use and capacity before allowing more data centers.

Staff asked the board to table the ordinance until March 26 so staff could incorporate pending state changes and further board direction; staff advised that if the board wanted to adopt additional restrictions the county would need to re‑advertise and hold a new public hearing in compliance with state law. The board voted to table the item and directed staff to prepare a revised draft for March 26 and to schedule a subsequent public hearing on April 9 (to allow time for re‑advertisement if the board adds substantive changes). The motion passed unanimously by roll call.

Staff and supervisors said they will study alternative setbacks, the decibel standard, conditional-use permitting for some districts, and the county’s water capacity and environmental impacts before returning with a revised ordinance and a new public‑hearing schedule.