Worcester County planning commission unveils 2026 draft comprehensive plan; residents press for protections against data centers and to retain E‑1 zoning

The Worcester County Planning Commission presented its final draft 2026 comprehensive plan and opened a public hearing where residents raised concerns about utility‑scale digital infrastructure and urged the commission to retain existing E‑1 zoning protections.

The presenter, a planning staff member, told the hearing the draft is a 20‑year guide developed under state planning guidance and informed by a 2023–2025 public engagement effort that produced more than 1,500 active participants. She said the plan aligns chapters with Maryland’s planning principles and that all submitted comments to date have been added to the record and will be forwarded to the county commissioners.

Why it matters: The draft sets policy direction on land use, housing, economic development and natural‑resource protections that will shape future zoning and capital decisions. It also identifies growth areas and uses a development‑capacity analysis to estimate how many dwelling units could result if those areas were fully built out.

Key plan highlights

• Planning horizon and review: The presenter said the plan is a long‑range guide with a 20‑year horizon and that, by state law, local plans are reviewed and updated as necessary every 10 years.

• Public engagement and structure: The draft is organized into 12 chapters; each contains goals, objectives and action items. The presenter said more than 1,500 people participated in outreach and that a public comment portal will remain open through the county commissioners’ upcoming hearing.

• Growth capacity and housing targets: The commission’s development‑capacity analysis estimates that full build‑out of designated growth areas could yield about 8,307 new dwelling units. The presenter also cited state housing production guidance and staff calculations saying Worcester County would need roughly 375 units per year through 2045 (about 7,500 units) to meet the referenced target.

• Agriculture and preservation: The draft proposes expanding the county’s Priority Preservation Area (PPA) to include a northern rural legacy area described in the record; the presenter said roughly 84% of the county is in agricultural or resource‑protection zoning.

Public comments: digital infrastructure and zoning

Several residents used the hearing to press for greater specificity in the plan’s land‑use and economic development chapters.

Wendy Green, who identified herself as the owner of property adjacent to a proposed site on Route 611 and spoke for the Assateague Maryland Coastal Community Coalition, said the draft “does not address, define, or regulate utility scale digital infrastructure and data center development.” She warned that recent zoning conflicts over a subsea cable landing proposal show heavy tech infrastructure is “actively targeting our coastal lands” and urged the commission to add “strict digital infrastructure zoning overlays” that would prohibit high‑impact tech complexes from encroaching on coastal preservation areas.

A Berlin resident who identified herself only as Jackie said cable landing stations and data centers are “private companies” that “do nothing for us as a community, except destroy our beautiful nature” and urged the commission to ensure the plan prohibits those facilities in sensitive areas.

Zoning: E‑1 district and local character

Multiple Southpointe residents urged the commission to retain the E‑1 zoning designation for their community. Marybeth Tye thanked commissioners for keeping E‑1 in Southpointe after neighbors submitted comments. Diane Stelzer, secretary of the Southpointe Association, said the association representing about 350 homes opposes changing the E‑1 designation because it preserves the community’s character and environment.

Alex Shandrowski, who lives on South Point Road, opposed language in the draft that he said labels the area as “sprawl,” arguing the E‑1 designation has preserved lot sizes and rural character and that residents value that distinction.

Questions about growth‑area selection and infrastructure

Mark Spencer Propper, who noted he had submitted a letter on behalf of BLS Realty, said one proposed growth area (referred to in the record as “Shao”) has remained undeveloped for two decades because it lacks regional water and wastewater infrastructure and is unlikely to be developed without substantial public or private investment. He urged the commission to prioritize growth areas where water and sewer can realistically support development, such as areas nearer Ocean Pines and River Run.

Steven Katsanos and other commenters urged the commission to include clearer implementation mechanisms—tightening standards for variances and exceptions and ensuring an assessment of adequate facilities (roads, water, sewer) before development is permitted.

Next steps

The planning staff member said the commission will finalize the draft and forward a recommendation to the Worcester County commissioners, who will hold their own public hearing prior to any adoption. The public comment portal will remain open for additional submissions. The planning commission closed the hearing and recorded that the commission will revisit comments at upcoming meetings before transmitting the draft onward.

Quotes from the record

• “The draft does not address, define, or regulate utility scale digital infrastructure and data center development,” —Wendy Green, Assateague Maryland Coastal Community Coalition.

• “They are private companies. They do nothing for us as a community, except destroy our beautiful nature,” —Jackie, Berlin resident (no last name given).

• “Keep it E‑1,” —Diane Stelzer, secretary, Southpointe Association.

What to watch for

The county commissioners’ public hearing on the draft is the next formal opportunity for public comment before any adoption. The planning commission’s recommendation and how commissioners respond to requested changes—particularly any new language addressing digital infrastructure or modifications to how E‑1 and growth areas are applied—will determine whether the protections residents requested are added to the final adopted plan.

Ending note

All submitted public comments to date are part of the record and will be provided to the county commissioners along with the planning commission’s recommendation.