Prince George’s County Planning Board defies staff recommendation to oppose data center amendment

Despite pleas from dozens of residents and an unfavorable recommendation from its own staff, the Prince George’s County Planning Board chose to take no position on a proposal that could allow data centers in the county’s agricultural and residential areas.

The board’s discussion on the draft amendment to the county’s zoning ordinance came several weeks after the Prince George’s County Council passed a moratorium on data center development for up to two years, or until the council approves legislation to regulate the facilities.

The separate planning board, which is made up of appointees of the county executive, considered the amendment from District 2 Council member Wanika Fisher during its regular meeting Thursday.

Planning department staff recommended the board oppose the amendment, saying the proposal is a piecemeal attempt to address data centers that conflicts with the moratorium.

“We essentially have a bill here that is a targeted approach. It is not a comprehensive piece of legislation,” Heather Urwiller, a special program management coordinator at the planning department, told the planning board. “It is counterintuitive to the resolution that passed two weeks ago.”

Under county regulations, amendments to the zoning ordinance must first go through the planning board, which sends a nonbinding recommendation to the council.

On Thursday, the board unanimously voted to accept the staff’s analysis of the amendment, but to take no position. If a council member chooses to move forward with the amendment, they can formally introduce it as a bill.

Fisher was unavailable for an interview, according to her staff, because she was traveling back from a conference in New Orleans. She said in a written statement to The Banner that she proposed the amendment because she thinks it’s important to discuss the role of data centers in the county’s future. She said she understands residents’ concerns about building data centers near their homes and thinks the facilities would have the best results when placed away from dense population centers.

“The moratorium bill is only in place if there are no regulations put in place around data centers,” Fisher’s statement said. “This bill actually puts in regulations and community standards.”

Multiple community members expressed disappointment with the proposal, saying it was not comprehensive and did not adequately address the placement, construction and operation of data centers.

In testimony to the planning board, Glenn Dale resident Henry Wixon said comprehensive legislation should address electricity and water usage, air pollution and environmental justice.

Fisher’s proposed amendment would exempt data centers located on more than 200 acres from detailed site plan requirements. It also would set minimum project sizes and increase the minimum distance between data centers and residential buildings and places of worship in agricultural and residential zones.

The amendment would only allow data centers on certain properties within agricultural and residential zones, such as those with high voltage transmission lines or sanitary landfills, as well as sites “officially designated as a Brownfield.” One reason planning staff recommended the board oppose the amendment is because it does not define a brownfield.

“We don’t know what is considered a brownfield based on the text of the amendment,” Urwiller said. “We don’t know the parameters.”

Residents at the public hearing agreed with Urwiller and expressed concerns about what could happen to agricultural land and farms. Only one person, IBEW Local 26 political director Tom Clark, spoke in favor of the amendment.

“No one here is against growth or development,” said local organizer Imara Crooms, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for county council in the June primary. “Growth has to serve the public good. Respect agricultural preservation and align with community consent.”

Fisher’s proposal would also require community benefit agreements for these data centers. These contracts between developers and local governments can help communities offset negative impacts of data centers. But Fisher’s proposal doesn’t include any specific requirements for the agreements or for community involvement, Urwiller noted.

Planning staff also said the amendment could lead to significant environmental impacts, including worsened air quality and noise pollution. The draft amendment is also inconsistent with recommendations from the county’s Qualified Data Center Taskforce, Urwiller said.

Backlash over a large data center proposed for the site of the former Landover Mall led the county in 2025 to issue a moratorium on development and to form a Qualified Data Center Task Force. The task force studied the potential risks and benefits of data centers and outlined recommendations for the county. It published its final report in November 2025, but the council has not taken any action based on its suggestions. Other localities in Maryland, including neighboring Montgomery County, have also taken action to pause data center development.

The site of the proposed data center in Landover is not one of the two zones considered in Fisher’s amendment.

Opponents of the proposal said it’s inappropriate to introduce bills opening up new areas in the county to data centers when there aren’t adequate laws to regulate them, especially with the two-year moratorium in place.

“The planning board should know enough to understand enabling additional expansion of where data centers can be built is a really bad idea, especially in the absence of protective legislation,” Greg Smith, who serves on the board of Sustainable Hyattsville, said. “I’m disappointed, but not at all surprised.”