Washington County imposes 12‑month moratorium on new data‑center applications after heated public hearing

The Washington County Board of County Commissioners voted 4‑1 on June 30 to adopt an ordinance pausing acceptance, processing and approval of new data‑center applications for 12 months while county staff and the planning commission complete a study and draft regulatory changes.

County Attorney Zachary Kefir introduced the draft ordinance, saying it would “defer the acceptance, processing, reviewing and approval of applications for data centers for a period of 6 months” while the county develops a definition and evaluates infrastructure and environmental impacts; the board ultimately extended that window to 12 months after deliberation.

The public hearing drew more than a dozen speakers with sharply divided views. Dave Williams of Smithsburg urged a longer pause, arguing six months is insufficient: “To do that effectively, I suggest that 6 months is not long enough for this study and 12 months is more appropriate,” he said, citing water‑supply concerns and the need for a task force. Geologist Kathleen Thompson warned of groundwater vulnerabilities and potential contamination if large water‑using facilities are allowed without local safeguards.

Other speakers backed a measured pause rather than a ban. Tom Thorson said a moratorium will give the county time “to develop sound land‑use policies, pursue community benefit agreements, and position our county to attract data‑center partners who invest in our shared future.” By contrast, several commenters said the item appeared politically timed around the election and demanded transparency about whether developers had already approached the county; one commenter used profane language and was cut off by the chair.

Commissioners discussed scope and timing. Staff told the board that planning, permitting and plan review for a major data center would not happen overnight, and that staff initially recommended 12–18 months to complete analyses of water use, grid impacts and zoning. Commissioner Wagner, who moved for a 12‑month deferral, said the county must “get this right” rather than act hastily. Commissioner Parrot voted against the motion and later explained his opposition, expressing concern about signaling to prospective employers; he emphasized a desire to remain business‑friendly while safeguarding residents.

The ordinance passed 4‑1. The board directed staff to begin the study and to coordinate public hearings with the planning commission; any substantive ordinance changes would come back to the board after public hearings at the planning commission and at the board itself.

Next steps: staff will compile analyses of water, electric grid and land‑use impacts, review model ordinances used by other Maryland counties, and return with proposed language and a recommended public‑hearing schedule within the moratorium window. The ordinance does not affect existing uses or previously approved facilities.