Developer pitches 300‑MW data center on county‑owned site; residents press for moratorium and transparency

A Maryland‑based developer presented a conceptual plan on March 24 to build a 300‑megawatt data‑center campus on roughly 133 acres of county‑owned property that had been identified in a past master plan for a regional park. Tommy Natale of Natale Holdings told the Board of County Commissioners the campus would include four large data halls, a substation and supporting infrastructure, and said the company would commit $30,000,000 to design and build a regional park if the county sells the site and the transaction closes.

The developer emphasized the project would reuse previously disturbed areas and pay for required grid upgrades. "We will secure that if we move forward at the time of closing with a construction bond that the county will hold," Natale said during the presentation. Consultants described a conceptual layout with the nearest house about 1,000 feet from the buildings and average building footprints of about 220,000 square feet.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents focused on three practical risks — where the electricity will come from and whether new demand will raise local rates, how much water the campus would use for cooling and whether reclaimed wastewater plans would affect local water or stream flows, and concerns about noise and generator emissions. Opponents also questioned the process: multiple speakers and commenters said the public learned late in the process about developer contacts and confidentiality agreements and called for a pause so independent analysis and broad public engagement can occur.

Commission discussion and the moratorium question Commissioner Hart said he will introduce a motion on April 7 for a two‑year moratorium on new data‑center approvals; he framed the pause as time to commission independent studies and ensure broad public input. "If the county sells you that property, moratorium is immaterial," Hart said, arguing that a sale would effectively green‑light the project. Natale responded that a multi‑year delay would likely make the project unviable because of power‑availability timing with utilities and interconnection queues.

Technical, environmental and fiscal questions Developer representatives said the campus would connect to the regional grid through an interconnection agreement with the local cooperative utility (SMECO) and that the project would pay for interconnection upgrades rather than passing them to existing ratepayers. Consultants said the site is adjacent to an existing wastewater treatment plant and that reclaimed (non‑potable) water would be sized and polished for cooling needs rather than relying on new wells.

Multiple commissioners and public commenters asked for written studies and enforceable commitments — for example, binding limits on diesel‑generator emissions, traffic‑management plans for construction, and details on how reclaimed water would affect stream returns or aquifers. The developer said tests and environmental studies would be provided during a formal permitting and site‑plan review process.

Public reaction and next steps The meeting drew a prolonged public comment session (in‑person and online) in which dozens of residents said they opposed locating a large data center on county land previously promoted as a regional park. Calls for a moratorium, independent environmental review, and stronger public engagement were frequent; speakers in favor cited local jobs and new tax revenue and urged the county to negotiate stronger community benefits.

The county and developer agreed to hold additional public information sessions; the developer indicated one would be held in District 1. Commissioners scheduled a vote on a moratorium motion for April 7 and moved to resume executive session to discuss the proposal further. No final land sale or approvals occurred at the March 24 meeting.