URGENT: Rt. 80 Boundary Amendment to be Proposed for the Sugarloaf Plan

Petition updatePreserve the Sugarloaf Treasured LandscapeURGENT: Rt. 80 Boundary Amendment to be Proposed for the Sugarloaf Plan

Sugarloaf AllianceFrederick, MD, United States

Aug 29, 2022

Thank you for signing the petition supporting the Sugarloaf Treasured Landscape Management Plan. For more information and to receive newsletter updates from the Sugarloaf Alliance, visit our website Sugarloaf-Alliance.org.

8/29 URGENT: Amendment Expected to Propose Rt. 80 Boundary

**COUNCIL MEMBERS MCKAY, FITZWATER and KEEGAN-AYER NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU NOW if you live in Frederick County, MD**

- Steve McKay (District 2), SMcKay@frederickcountymd.gov, 301-600-1034
- Jessica Fitzwater (District 4), JFitzwater@FrederickCountyMD.gov, 301-600-2336
- M.C. Keegan-Ayer (Pres., District 3), MCKeegan-Ayer@FrederickCountyMD.gov, 301-600-1101

Tell them you support the I-270 boundary. Tell them that candidates who listen are important to you. Tell them that a Rt. 80 boundary ruins the Sugarloaf preservation plan - it's the start of suburban sprawl on the west side.

We have been advocating all year for the Sugarloaf Plan boundary to reflect the historical I-270 separation of dense development on the east from more rural, low-density areas to the west. That boundary runs all the way from the Montgomery County line to the Monocacy River and supports preservation of forests, waterways, farms, historical sites, and scenic countryside. This summer, the Frederick County Planning Commission endorsed that I-270 boundary choice, declining the narrower Rt. 80 proposal put forth in the July 2021 draft.

Because the Rt. 80 boundary would exclude developer-owned property from the environmental protections of the Plan, commercial interests are hard at work trying to convince the County Council to revive the Rt. 80 boundary. We understand that a Council Member will offer an amendment returning the Sugarloaf Plan boundary to Rt. 80, possibly as early as this week.

It is unclear how many Council Members will support this amendment, but it's sounding like too many. We have to show up.

Please visit Sugarloaf-Alliance.org to learn what you can do to support preservation of the Sugarloaf Treasured Landscape Management Plan.

Sugarloaf Alliance Demonstrates Developer Influence over Plan Review at the State Level
Sugarloaf Alliance filed Maryland Public Information Access requests to the State of Maryland, because we suspected that the developer who owns properties between I-270 and Rt. 80 had undue influence on the required state-level review of the draft Sugarloaf Plan. Sure enough, it turns out that the developer briefed both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Planning as well as the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Commerce. The Commerce response to Frederick County especially reflects talking points in the briefing document and often made by the developer.

The developer and other opponents of the Plan often cite the Commerce Department’s letter responding to the Plan in their arguments, but clearly this was, at least in part, a back-room production and may have unduly influenced Planning Commission choices (such as the last-minute “amendments” paragraph).

Our letter explaining this to the Frederick County Council is posted at Sugarloaf-Alliance.org under "Topic Discussions." Here’s the direct link.

Sugarloaf Alliance Sues Frederick County for Failure to Respond to Public Information Requests

For most of this year, Sugarloaf Alliance has been pressing Frederick County to release documents relating to the setting of the Sugarloaf Plan boundaries. Frederick County has failed to respond as required by law. We followed through by filing suit.

There was never an explanation for setting the Rt. 80 boundary in the early pre-publication circulation of the first draft. There was never an explanation for the Thurston Road cut-out that mysteriously appeared before the publication of that July 2021 draft. Both boundary areas exclude, rather precisely, developer-owned property. The Sugarloaf Alliance is determined to learn and share how those lines came to be drawn. Maps illustrating the sequence are posted at our website sugarloaf-alliance.org under "Topic Discussions." Here’s the direct link.

Earlier this year, the Planning Commission opted to eliminate the Thurston Road cut-out and return the eastern boundary to I-270. That is how the boundary is drawn in the current draft. However, pressure is mounting on the County Council to go back to the earlier developer-favored boundary at Rt. 80 and carving out his chunk on Thurston Road. An amendment to this effect may be introduced on Tuesday, 8/30.

From our point of view, there are several problems. In terms of the preservation goals of the Plan, development of the acreage west of I-270 make no sense. It’s high ground, and local the streams and the Monocacy will be affected, the view and bucolic rural character of the area will be destroyed, and it’s pretty clear that the suburban sprawl “domino effect” will be in play as rural properties adjacent to dense housing development or commercial or industrial buildings seek rezoning, too. The rationale for the Rt. 80 boundary makes no sense either - there’s no highway interchange design on the books well beyond the expected life of this plan, yet the developer is fighting hard for his “interchange properties” and against the Sugarloaf Plan, and he’s spending a lot of time and money to do it. What’s on HIS drawing board? Something.

Transparency in Government

The other concern we have is the transparency issue in the county process. Boundaries were set with no explanation. Secret meetings were held with Amazon Web Services. A “poison pill” sentence appeared at the last minute of Planning Commission consideration, with no discussion, before the vote. The developer had privileged briefing sessions with the state reviewing agencies as they prepared their reports on the Sugarloaf Plan, and he now bases talking points on those developer-influenced review letters. Maybe it’s our imagination, but Saturday's Frederick News Post editorial reads like they just had a meeting with Somebody. This morning (8/29) FNP published a pro-Rt. 80 boundary “As I See It” commentary from the Chamber of Commerce CEO, again citing those developer-influenced Maryland Commerce and Planning Dept. review letters as though they were independent and objective.

This is the first of ten area plans under the Livable Frederick master plan. Are we ok with this process? Are folks in the other 9 planning areas ok with this kind of behind-the-scenes process, coming your way?

Just to be clear, the county planning staff have done exemplary work in preparing the Sugarloaf Plan. We feel confident that the problems we’re trying to bring to light do not originate with the staff. We support the Plan and the staff's good work.