Calvert County commissioners order new rules for data‑center projects after heated public outcry

Calvert County’s Board of County Commissioners responded to a sustained wave of public comment on May 5 by directing staff to draft zoning text amendments that would apply to any data‑center project that has not received final site‑plan and permit approvals and is not vested by construction. The board also recorded that staff will not be directed to fast‑track data‑center applications while those amendments and required reviews proceed.

The action followed more than an hour of public testimony from residents who said they were alarmed by partial permit filings, sudden rezoning of forested land near Calvert Cliffs and the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, and what they described as insufficient public notice. Speakers urged a moratorium while independent studies of water use, noise, traffic and grid impacts are completed and posted for public review.

“Remove all data‑center language from the 2025 zoning ordinance right now,” said Patrick Clarity, a candidate for commissioner in District 1, arguing for a full reset of the process. Other speakers cited reports of very large power draws and possible impacts on electricity rates, and raised emergency‑response and cumulative‑risk concerns for a county with volunteer‑heavy fire and rescue services.

County staff and legal counsel described the standard development‑review sequence: concept and site plans, multi‑agency technical review (stormwater, environmental health, transportation), planning‑commission public hearings and final approvals. Staff said it received a submission of documents from AWS and is reviewing whether the materials meet application intake requirements; if accepted the package will be posted to the county project page. Staff reiterated that fees and formal application intake are prerequisites to triggering the review timeline.

Commissioners stressed the need for a transparent public process. “This must be collaborative,” one commissioner said, adding that they would be a ‘‘watchdog’’ during reviews. The board’s motion directs staff to ensure new text amendments include language making them applicable to projects not yet vested and to prohibit fast‑tracking; the motion passed by majority vote.

What’s next: planning and zoning staff told the board the planning commission and environmental commission will review potential text amendments beginning June 2. Drafted ordinance language will go through public hearings before any changes are adopted. Staff said any applicant that has not begun literal construction would need to revise plans to comply with newly adopted rules.

Claims and counterpoints: residents repeatedly asserted that rezoning had been used to convert preserved forest into industrial zoning without standard neighbor notice; staff said that applications and any supporting agreements will be posted when formally accepted. Residents cited PJM projections, SMECO testimony and press reporting about potential large power draws; county staff said grid‑scale consequences require technical analysis and that some statewide reviews are also pending.

The board did not adopt a moratorium on development at the May 5 meeting. Instead, its instructions to staff effectively require that applicants without vested construction rights comply with any new local requirements before receiving final permits. The county will leave the public record open on some items (for example, the armory grant hearing) per statutory notice where appropriate. For now, the county’s comprehensive public‑hearing process — including planning‑commission review — remains the formal pathway for deciding whether and how data‑center projects move forward.