Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calvert County commissioners send draft data‑center rules to planning commission after public concern
Summary
The board advanced staff’s site‑specific option (Option C) for proposed text amendment 26‑23, which would require industry‑prepared water services plans, third‑party technical review, metering and annual water reporting, and strong generator/emissions standards; commissioners directed staff to take the draft to the planning commission for public hearings amid strong public comment.
Calvert County’s Board of Commissioners on March 10 directed staff to take a staff‑preferred draft (called “Option C”) of proposed text amendment 26‑23 to the Planning Commission for further review and public hearings. The amendment would add development conditions for large data centers, focusing on water use, infrastructure costs and emissions.
Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning Rachel O’Shea presented three options for cooling and water use and urged the board to consider a site‑specific approach. “This is just a work session,” O’Shea said, describing Option C as one that requires a water services plan prepared by a Maryland‑licensed professional engineer and, where appropriate, third‑party review of that plan paid by the applicant. The draft also calls for metering and annual reporting of cooling‑related water use and prohibits the use of groundwater wells for cooling or humidification.
Staff and several commissioners framed Option C as a flexible, evidence‑driven approach that recognizes the rapid change in cooling technology. Planning staff said the third‑party reviewer would evaluate proposed systems and the plan’s likely impacts on public utilities and ratepayers; if a data center is designed to operate without water for cooling, the applicant may provide a sealed certification in lieu of a full water plan.
Commissioners repeatedly emphasized the need for public input. “The environmental impact is paramount,” one commissioner said during debate, urging more public hearings and more analysis before any code change is adopted. Commissioners also asked staff to hold additional community‑facing sessions and to bring the proposal through the normal planning commission recommendation and board public‑hearing process.
Residents filled much of the public‑comment period to press the board on water, electricity demand and geographic siting. Megan Faringer, representing a neighborhood group, told the board she and others want stronger, enforceable protections and voiced concern about cumulative impacts of multiple projects. Other speakers asked the board to consider limits on diesel storage, stricter noise controls and decommissioning bonds.
The draft amendment also contains provisions on infrastructure and emergency backup generators: applicants would be responsible for the full cost of on‑ and off‑site infrastructure improvements required to serve the facility; stationary diesel generators serving server rooms would be required to meet US EPA Tier 4 final emission standards (or equivalent) and comply with Maryland Department of the Environment permitting.
Next steps: commissioners directed staff to present Option C to the Planning Commission, continue technical work (including drafting the water services plan requirements and third‑party review process as ordinance language), and schedule public hearings at both the planning commission and BOCC levels. No zoning text amendment was adopted at the March 10 meeting; the item remains under active review.
