Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charles County planning commission recommends denial of zoning change that would allow data centers
Summary
After hours of public testimony, the Charles County Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of ZTA 25-187 — a zoning text amendment that would permit large data centers in industrial and some PUD areas — citing unresolved risks to water, the power grid, noise and community health. The recommendation will be forwarded to the county commissioners for final action.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charles County’s Planning Commission on June 1 recommended that the County Commissioners deny Zoning Text Amendment ZTA 25-187, which would have created a defined land-use category for data centers and set conditions for their siting and operation. The motion to recommend denial passed unanimously after more than four hours of in-person and virtual public testimony.
The hearing began with a staff presentation. Charles Rice, planning staff, summarized revisions to the draft ordinance sent back by the Board of County Commissioners: limiting permitted zones to industrial categories (removing business-park and low-density rural zones), keeping Planned Unit Development (PUD) areas governed by docket 90 eligible, increasing the minimum building setback from residential structures from 400 to 500 feet, making use of nonpotable water mandatory “if a data center is designed to use water for cooling or humidification,” removing a 30% open‑space requirement for industrial lands, and requiring applicants to pay for public-infrastructure improvements and meet emission-performance standards for on-site diesel generators.
Why it mattered: Residents, environmental groups and some local officials urged the planning commission to wait for a statewide study and to require stricter protections before creating a permanent local land-use designation. Dozens of residents described expected harms to groundwater, the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay tributaries, chronic noise impacts, higher household electricity costs, and disproportionate effects on low-income and majority‑Black neighborhoods. Several speakers called for a moratorium and for independent, third‑party environmental and economic impact studies paid by applicants.
Residents and organizations who testified cited multiple concerns. Hannah Boaten of Newberg told commissioners the projects would “deplete and contaminate groundwater,” create heat islands and continuous noise and would “cost us everything” if adopted. Suzanne Benau called for strict limits on water withdrawal and effluent quality, site‑specific third‑party environmental assessments and capped power demand for any single facility. Tina Wilson, a homeowner who identified herself as from Issue, Maryland, said she would submit an inquiry to the county attorney and the ethics commission after alleging that a county commissioner serves on an industry steering committee, which she said posed a conflict of interest; that allegation was raised as public testimony and was not resolved during the hearing. Union representatives including Tom Clark and Don Slim testified in favor of the amendment or its revision, emphasizing construction and trade jobs.
Commission discussion and action: After public testimony concluded, a commission member moved to recommend denial "as written," citing the commission’s earlier March 2 concerns and the need for additional analysis on size limits, decommissioning, independent environmental and socioeconomic studies, community benefit agreements, and adjustments to setbacks and noise restrictions. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously; staff said the commission will forward its recommendation to the county commissioners, who make the final zoning determination.
What’s next: The planning commission scheduled routine business and noted its next meeting on June 15. The county commissioners will receive the planning commission’s recommendation; no final action on the ZTA has been recorded in this hearing. The public record remains the primary documentary source for the claims and requests made at this session.
Reported statements in this account come from the public hearing transcript and from speakers identified on the record. Statements of environmental, health, economic or technical effects reflect the claims and testimony presented at the hearing; where studies or numerical estimates were cited during testimony they are attributed to the speaker who made them and were not independently verified in this report.
