Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Baltimore County residents urge strict limits on hyperscale data centers at planning board hearing
Summary
At a May 21 public input meeting, residents, faith leaders, labor representatives and environmental groups urged the Baltimore County Planning Board to restrict or ban hyperscale data centers, citing water and power use, noise, environmental justice and limited local jobs; staff outlined a moratorium and a report timetable under Bill 326.
The Baltimore County Planning Board heard more than three dozen speakers on May 21 as community members urged limits or bans on hyperscale data centers and pressed the board to reflect those concerns in recommendations to the County Council.
Delegate Sheila Ruth, who represents District 44B, said the scale and resource demands of modern hyperscale data centers require new guardrails. "Baltimore County must develop common sense guard rails to guide development," she said, urging the board to prohibit by‑right placement in sensitive areas and to block siting in Chesapeake Bay critical areas.
Why it matters: County Council Bill 326 (Feb. 2026) directs the planning board to produce a report on data centers by Oct. 1, 2026 that assesses typical electricity and water use, compares economic benefits and recommends zoning, permitting and community‑notification policies. Steve Laperty, director of the Department of Planning, told the board the bill also established a moratorium on permits for data center projects "until January 1, 2027 or 90 days after the report is submitted." Staff said the board will receive a draft report July 16, hold a public hearing Sept. 3 and the council could vote Sept. 17.
What the public said: Testimony emphasized four recurring concerns.
- Water and drought risks: Several speakers warned that large data centers can be heavy water users. "Large data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons of water a day," said technology executive John Todd, who urged strict regulation and study of water impacts. Faith leaders, farmers, parents and youth testified that county wells, springs and small streams could be stressed by big new draws during an ongoing regional drought.
- Electricity and grid costs: Multiple commenters said data center growth is already driving transmission upgrades and could increase resident utility bills. Residents and local advocates asked that any required grid or distribution upgrades be borne by developers rather than ratepayers.
- Noise, air and health impacts: Environmental planner Susan Weirman urged the county to strengthen noise standards to cover both high‑ and low‑frequency sound from cooling systems and backup generation and to require pre/post construction acoustic surveys by qualified engineers.
- Equity and siting: Several speakers, including community association leaders and faith organizations, said that siting rules have concentrated proposed projects in working‑class and minority neighborhoods. Delegate Ruth and others urged that data centers not be sited near residential areas, schools, parks, agricultural land or Chesapeake Bay critical areas.
A range of policy responses were proposed. Angie McCarthy, co‑chair of Marylanders for Data Center Reform, recommended redefining "hyperscale" at 20 megawatts and requiring developers to use locally owned contractors and unions, source 100% new renewable energy, and prefer batteries and load‑shifting for backups rather than diesel generators. Ryan Ambrose, a business agent for Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 486, argued that modern closed‑loop cooling can reduce freshwater use significantly and that data center construction can provide multiyear work for local trades if projects are phased.
Opposing viewpoints and tradeoffs: Speakers who favor more restrictive rules nonetheless acknowledged that data center projects can bring construction dollars and tax revenue. Rebecca Sharf, a retired Verizon data center employee, said large facilities typically produce few permanent jobs after construction and asked for economic and health impact studies before approvals. Others, including construction‑trade representatives, urged the county to use the moratorium and the study period to craft enforceable standards rather than an outright ban.
Next steps: County staff and the planning board will fold submitted written testimony and the public hearing record into the draft report. The planning board is scheduled to receive a staff draft on July 16; a public hearing on the board’s recommendation is tentatively scheduled for Sept. 3, with a County Council vote expected Sept. 17. The moratorium on permits remains in force until Jan. 1, 2027 or until the final report is submitted and the 90‑day period thereafter elapses.
The planning board closed the public comment period and invited written submissions; its next regular meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2026 (virtual).
