Inside the Qualified Data Center Task Force, Part 2: Priority-Based Siting

Where data centers go matters as much as whether they are regulated at all. This post evaluates the Task Force’s siting recommendations against Smart Digital Growth’s priority-based approach.

Proposed NVIDIA Data Facility in Cambridge, U.K.. Image by Richard Croft.

The Qualified Data Center Task Force’s recommendations take meaningful steps toward improving how data centers are sited in Prince George’s County. The harder question is whether those steps are enough.

In Part 1 of this series, we outlined what the Task Force was asked to do, how it worked, and the principles that shaped its recommendations. In this post, we turn to the first and most consequential test: where data centers are allowed to go.

GCHIC’s Smart Digital Growth framework starts from a simple premise: siting is not a secondary issue. It determines whether data centers coexist with communities or overwhelm them; whether environmental impacts are manageable or compounding; and whether scarce land is used strategically or locked into single-purpose infrastructure for decades. That is why priority-based siting is the first pillar of our framework—and the benchmark for evaluating the Task Force’s recommendations.

At its core, Smart Digital Growth treats data centers as essential—but land‑intensive—infrastructure that must be planned deliberately. Grounded in Plan 2035, the framework emphasizes clear siting priorities, enforceable standards, and meaningful community integration so digital growth reinforces, rather than undermines, the County’s long‑term planning and equity goals.

Smart Digital Growth Pillar 1: A Quick Refresher

Because where data centers are placed matters so much, Smart Digital Growth begins with a clear hierarchy for where they belong:

1. Prioritize grayfields and underperforming commercial sites.

   Vacant offices, obsolete strip malls, and aging industrial parks already have infrastructure and do not displace higher-value uses. This approach aligns with Plan 2035’s emphasis on reinvestment and compact growth.

2. Allow TAC and NAC siting only under strict conditions.

   Town Activity Centers and Neighborhood Activity Centers can accommodate data centers only if they are compact, multi-story, context-sensitive, and integrated into mixed-use development.

3. Treat rural and agricultural land as functionally inappropriate.

   These areas lack the infrastructure needed to support large power loads and are too valuable for conservation, food production, and climate resilience.

4. Protect preserved lands and environmentally sensitive areas absolutely.

   No trade-offs. No exceptions.

5. Use a codified siting hierarchy, not case-by-case discretion.

   A clear hierarchy prevents loopholes and ensures predictable, community-centered decision-making. To work properly, it should be written into the zoning code and developers should be required to justify why a lower-priority data center site selection is warranted.

What the Task Force Recommends on Siting

The Task Force proposes a package of siting-related changes intended to narrow where data centers may locate and to reduce conflicts with sensitive areas. These include maintaining by-right status for data centers in industrial zones; requiring a Special Exception in Rural Residential (RR) and Agricultural (AG) zones; prohibiting data centers in NAC and TAC Core and Edge zones; and strengthening protections for preservation lands, green infrastructure corridors, Rural Legacy areas, state-designated permanently preserved agricultural lands, and certain areas near transit stations. The Task Force also recommends creating a Data Center Redevelopment Overlay Zone to incentivize reuse of brownfield and underutilized sites.

Taken together, these measures would move data center siting away from a permissive, countywide approach toward a more selective framework. On paper, they would tighten where data centers may go. In practice, however, the details matter.

Where the Task Force Aligns With Smart Digital Growth

Before turning to areas of disagreement, it is worth acknowledging where the Task Force recommendations clearly move in the direction GCHIC has advocated in Smart Digital Growth.

The Task Force makes real progress by emphasizing reuse of brownfield and grayfield sites, reflecting sustained community input that vacant and underperforming land should be prioritized before consuming new land. It also reinforces a core planning principle by strengthening protections for preserved and environmentally sensitive areas, signaling that some lands are simply inappropriate for intensive digital infrastructure.

In addition, the Task Force shows greater respect for transit priorities by limiting data center encroachment around transit centers, recognizing that these areas should support people-focused, mixed-use development rather than single-purpose infrastructure. Finally, the report acknowledges that the by-right siting structure in place when the Task Force was convened encouraged inappropriate siting and limited public oversight, aligning with long-standing concerns raised by GCHIC and others.

Taken together, these recommendations represent meaningful advances.

Where the Task Force Falls Short

Despite these advances, the Task Force’s siting recommendations stop short of the priority-based, rule-driven approach needed to deliver consistent and equitable outcomes.

1. A blanket ban on TAC and NAC locations

The Task Force’s recommendation to prohibit data centers entirely in TAC and NAC zones would avoid any potential conflicts between data centers and nearby residential and commercial land uses. But that recommendation also forecloses more nuanced redevelopment approaches that could accommodate data center development in urban mixed-use settings.

GCHIC’s Smart Digital Growth framework does not treat TACs and NACs as inherently incompatible with data center placement. Instead, it allows data centers in these locations under strict conditions that emphasize vertical design, mixed-use integration, and efficient land use. Under this framework, Lerner Enterprise’s Brightseat Tech Park plan for an 86-acre single-use industrial data center development at the old Landover Mall site would not be possible. By contrast, a compact, urban-style data center integrated into a mixed-use redevelopment with housing and street-level activity could be a viable use under a priority-based siting framework.

2. Rural and agricultural areas remain open via Special Exception

Allowing a Special Exception pathway for approving data center development on rural and agricultural lands would make it relatively easy to construct data centers in areas that fundamentally lack the infrastructure to support large-scale industrial development. This is the very thing that Smart Digital Growth aims to prevent—because the costs to taxpayers and our ecosystem would be too high.

3. No explicit siting hierarchy

Rather than ranking locations by land use suitability, the Task Force recommendations rely on a limited set of prohibitions and liberal discretionary approvals through the Special Exception process. The Smart Digital Growth framework, on the other hand, calls for a codified site selection hierarchy and a rigorous review and approval process.

4. Reliance on an overlay zone to achieve appropriate siting

The Task Force’s proposed Data Center Redevelopment Overlay Zone reflects the right instinct—prioritizing brownfield and underutilized sites. Unfortunately, that approach relies on a mechanism the County has recently worked to move away from. The 2018 zoning code rewrite sought to reduce overlay-based zoning in favor of clearer use permissions and objective standards, precisely to improve predictability and public accountability. History has shown that the kind of overlay zone the Task Force recommends would reintroduce a permissive and discretionary approach to data center siting that would likely result in those facilities being constructed in the wrong places.

These decisions are fundamentally about opportunity costs. Where data centers are placed affects whether scarce redevelopment sites are available for housing, mixed-use centers, and job‑rich development, or instead become locked into single‑purpose infrastructure for decades. Poorly chosen locations can strain power and water systems, expose sensitive environmental areas to cumulative risk, and weaken the coherence of surrounding communities. Ultimately, siting choices determine whether data center development reinforces or undermines Plan 2035’s core goals for compact growth, equity, and long-term resilience.

What Must Be Strengthened During Implementation

As the County Council considers the Task Force’s recommendations, the focus should shift from broad policy direction to enforceable rules, such as those set out in GCHIC’s Smart Digital Growth priority-based siting framework. Decisionmakers should be required to weigh opportunity cost and land use suitability explicitly when evaluating proposals in prime redevelopment areas. These guardrails are necessary to ensure that data center siting policy produces consistent, equitable, and plan‑aligned outcomes.

In Part 3, we’ll examine how the Task Force recommendations address energy use, water demand, noise, and environmental performance—and how those recommendations compare to those outlined in GCHIC’s Smart Digital Growth framework.