Board and planning commission decline to advance two large data‑center plan amendments; members call for countywide study

The Frederick County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission on Oct. 26 did not move forward at this time with two proposed comprehensive-plan amendments that would enable large data-center campuses in the Back Creek area and near Route 37.

Both proposals — Meadowbrook Technology Park, a roughly 644-acre request to re-designate rural land for mixed industrial/technology park uses (presented as intended to allow data‑center development), and Winchester Gateway, a 105.63-acre proposal to add the property to the county's sewer and water service area and allow technology/industrial uses — prompted sustained public comment and lengthy questions from supervisors and planning commissioners concerning water use, noise, power transmission and the loss of agricultural land.

At the Meadowbrook presentation, applicant representatives described the technical reasons for choosing the site, citing scale, proximity to an existing high-capacity substation and access to long‑haul fiber and Winchester Water. An applicant representative said current engineering estimates show a maximum proffered water usage of roughly 700,000 gallons per day and that the design includes recirculation and mitigation measures. The applicant also said modern data‑center design and proffered acoustical measures aim to keep noise within county performance standards.

Despite those representations, multiple planning commissioners and supervisors voiced strong reservations. Planning Commissioner Molly Brennan — who said she moved to Frederick County from Loudoun County to escape the proliferation of hyperscale data centers there — urged caution and said she opposed moving the Meadowbrook application forward. Concerns raised by board and commission members included the long-term effect on groundwater and regional water supplies, the adequacy of wastewater and transmission infrastructure, noise and generator-test frequency, the visual impact on farmland and the potential for incremental ‘‘creep’’ of additional data campuses across rural land.

By the time Winchester Gateway was discussed, several supervisors and commissioners said the county lacked a clear, countywide policy about whether and where hyperscale data centers should be located. Some commissioners argued that, if the county wishes to consider data centers at all, it should identify preferred locations and standards through the comprehensive‑plan update rather than reacting parcel-by-parcel. Others urged a town‑hall style briefing with independent experts on power transmission, generation, water supply and environmental impacts before any project-specific studies proceed.

Outcome and next steps: Both project teams were told the joint panel would not forward the applications for further study at this time. Several board members and commissioners asked staff and the Economic Development Authority to convene technical briefings and public engagement — including neutral third-party experts on transmission and water — so the county can evaluate whether it wants to accommodate hyperscale data centers and, if so, where and under what standards.

What was not decided: The county did not adopt any ordinance, change zoning, or deny future rezoning requests on either parcel; rather, supervisors recorded a policy-level consensus not to advance these particular comp-plan amendment applications now and asked staff for broader study and public engagement. If the board later decides to permit such uses, any development would still require rezoning or conditional-use approvals and environmental, traffic and utility studies.