Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge stricter siting and oversight for data centers and waste-to-energy projects during Wicomico County public comment
Summary
During public comment, residents and community leaders urged the Council to adopt clearer zoning and inspection rules for AI/data centers and waste-to-energy proposals (including Hickory Mill), called for town halls with state agencies, and criticized perceived delays in internal county processes and transparency.
Multiple residents used the public-comment period to press the county for clearer regulation and oversight of large developments and state-funded projects.
Monica Brooks, president of the Wicomico County NAACP, praised new PAB appointments but pressed for transparency in county audits and staffing, saying delayed audit information “makes absolutely no sense” and urging stronger mechanisms so the internal auditor can complete work.
Rhonda Tomko raised specific concerns about the Hickory Mill biorefinery and asked the Council to resume inspections of the site under an existing stop-work order, to draft emergency zoning rules targeting waste-to-energy projects, and to invite the Maryland Department of Agriculture to a public town hall so residents can ask about oversight and millions in state grant funding. “Our residents deserve answers regarding the millions that have been awarded to a grantee who has allegedly failed to comply with grant requirements,” she said.
Jim Atkins, a former private-sector executive and resident, and Joe Venosa and others urged the Council to consider local legislation or moratoria to manage the siting and impacts of AI data centers — citing energy, water and land use concerns — and recommended following other Maryland counties that have moved to limit certain uses until local rules are in place. Atkins urged proactive planning to protect farmland and community resources, and Venosa suggested charter changes to give the county more authority to respond to obstruction in local governance.
Several commenters also criticized recent press coverage and social-media items involving county leadership; one speaker asked for the council’s public position on a widely circulated exchange between the county executive and the sheriff. County legal counsel read a prepared opinion noting the council’s limited investigatory authority and the practical constraints of pursuing a criminal inquiry; he recommended caution and explained the scope of county powers to subpoena county devices and seek forensic analysis only for limited, specific questions about county equipment.
Council members acknowledged the concerns and said staff will pursue appropriate work sessions, town halls with state agencies for site-specific issues, and planning updates to the comprehensive plan to improve public engagement on siting questions.
