Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Frederick City and County News of Interest VOL. 5, NO. 4 | April 11, 2026

 
VOL. 5, NO. 4  |  April 11, 2026
Frederick City and County News of Interest
Please join our monthly email list by clicking here.
Learn more about CRG at the bottom of this newsletter.
For quick access, click on a title here and jump to that article, below:
______________
Heads Up! The City’s FY2027 Budget meetings are beginning so be prepared to attend or provide suggestions in person or through e-comment. If you don’t weigh in, your concerns cannot be addressed. 
_______________

City: Data Center Zoning Text Amendment
In the second City Development Review Conference (DRC) held on March 23, Trammell Crow representatives and their attorneys Dean and Graditor argued that their proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to allow data centers within City limits should be incorporated into the City’s Land Management and City Codes. They suggested they would re-examine the center’s façade/articulation, suggested lowering the City’s allowed noise level to 55 decibels, agreed to use Tier 4 or Tier 4 equivalent diesel generators, accept 500 feet or ¼ mile setbacks, and would not use groundwater for cooling. In the next months, the City would provide total water volumes that any future data center could access, derived from assessing future water demand associated with the City’s long-term residential development plans. The company will return in late April for further DRC discussions followed by the Planning Commission in mid- to late May. The discussions ended with an estimate that any ZTA text would not be considered by the City Council until August at the earliest.  

Of great concern for CRG and many, many City residents who signed the just-submitted petition challenging the County’s expanded data center zone is an assumed consideration of the ZTA by the City Planning Commission and Council. For example, over the last 3 weeks, more than 100 Dearbought residents adamantly opposed any data center immediately across the Monocacy from their community. So, is the apparent inference by the ZTA advocates that the ZTA processing and inclusion in the Land Management or City Codes is to be in front of the City Council in 6 months? How could this occur if the agents did not address the multiple planning department comments from the first DRC meeting on February 3? Perhaps the ZTA will still be challenged by planning staff in the late-April DRC meeting on those issues. Or are the TC-Dean schedule and processes already in place without meeting the most important conditions from the planning department’s responses to the initial ZTA application on February 3?  CRG hopes that the Planning Department staff will STEP UP to demand fact-based replies to their concerns from February or reject the ZTA in April.

City Affordable Housing Progress & Sidewalks
The City Public Works Committee held its March 24 meeting to receive substantial input on possible City programs to expand affordable housing (AH). Presentations were made from the County’s Affordable Housing Council, the Frederick County Housing Solutions Task Force, and the newly formed City of Frederick Affordable Housing Task Force advocating their strong recommendations for a new City commitment with specific funding from City revenues, followed by construction as soon as possible thereafter. Identified as feasible options are ways to ensure AH includes changes to City zoning, adequate public facilities requirements, incentivizing building options, granting tax breaks, providing gap funding to cover costs between property acquisition and actual construction, and reducing City processing times. The legislative committee members (Brehm, Hempel Irani, and Shackleford) were keenly interested, and their comments indicated their strong support for moving forward now. Additionally, on April 6, the Government Operations Committee considered Housing Resolution text (https://cityoffrederick.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=45&clip_id=6357&meta_id=198127) that sets the number of units to be built each year, as well as annual progress reporting. It will move on to the City Council for final revisions and adoption. CRG STRONGLY supports continued and rapid City funding for AH. 

In the same meeting, City staff detailed City policies and requirements for sidewalk maintenance and replacement, including costs for its City-identified and fiscally supported contractor vs. a homeowner’s hiring an outside contractor for needed repairs. City sidewalk repairs are complaint-driven and to date about $2.2M has been spent on repairs of about 2 miles of sidewalk. As a Council priority, expect additional Council discussions and possible changes to City procedures and funding for future sidewalk upgrades.

City: ADUs: — An Answer to the Affordable Housing Gap or Just Something to Talk About? 
In 2021, the (then) Board of Aldermen (BOA) approved Ordinance G-21-15 establishing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an additional permitted residence type, with the intention of increasing availability of housing stock in the city. These residences could be in single family, duplex, or townhouse units, integrated into the standing unit or as a separate structure on the lot. The expectation was that this option would be very popular with a substantial subset of homeowners in the City. Much to the legislators’ surprise, there have been (as of this writing) NO applications for ADUs. 

About a year ago, the City endeavored to learn why and disseminated a survey via the City of Frederick website. The survey’s cover page noted that “The City’s Housing Committee is expanding options for homeowners to help increase affordable housing in Frederick” and the survey asked several questions ranging from whether a respondent knew what an ADU is, whether the respondent had considered an ADU, what might have deterred the respondent from proceeding, etc. Unfortunately, while 192 individuals appeared to have looked at the survey, only 32 individuals responded.  The survey, while well-intentioned, could not, with any degree of reliability or validity, pinpoint the reasons for residents’ lack of interest in this type of housing.

Not to be deterred, the BOA and now the City Council charged the Planning Staff with reworking the Ordinance to solve the problem — without, we assert, actually knowing the nature of the problem. Over the course of the past few months, staff and Planning Commission (PC) members have considered several tweaks focused on parking, allowable size of an ADU, and owner occupancy. At its most recent workshop, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed and discussed the latest iteration of the modified Ordinance and heard comments from City residents. 

Overall, public comment was:
— not favorable to eliminating the owner-occupancy requirement. A commenter noted that allowing both units to be rented would essentially split the property into two lots. Another commenter said that elimination of this requirement essentially creates an investment which is not the Housing Committee’s stated goal (see para. 2 above). The PC agreed, instructing staff to retain this requirement, while agreeing that further discussion is needed to clarify whether a deed restriction should be in place to ensure the property continues to be owner occupied or if this restriction is eliminated when the property is transferred. (NOTE: CRG advocates for maintaining this deed restriction in perpetuity. If, gradually, a neighborhood with several single-family lots with ADUs becomes, de-facto, two lots, the character of the neighborhood is lost forever). 

— concerned about the community character when ADUs up to 1,200 SF are added to lots which are generally not large, in the downtown and close-in suburbs . After considering this issue, PC members agreed to recommend that the Ordinance retain the previous 800 SF limit for ADUs. 

— mute for the most part on the parking issue. Although the 1,300-foot (approximately ¼ mile) distance from a residence to a transit stop does not address the issue of lack of public transit to the places many folks need to reach, PC members recommended retaining the change to parking in the proposed revisions to the Ordinance. 

Overall, the sense of the discussion was that ADUs are — potentially — a welcome addition to the City’s housing mix. However, the barriers to construction are substantial. For example:

— Insufficient financial incentives: As one commenter noted, building a separate ADU is likely not affordable as construction of an 800 SF 1br/1ba would be about $300k. Based on these construction costs, it would take an owner 13 years to recoup her/his investment at about $1,800 monthly rent for one family.  

— Lack of understanding of the ADU process: Another problem is that most homeowners who would like to proceed with an ADU face a poorly defined process. While interested in going forward with an ADU, homeowners do not have a one-stop shop to help them along the way. Several City of Frederick webpages provide “what to do” guidance and links to other documents and people to contact. It is a process of finding one document, reading that and then referring to the several documents linked to the first, and then reading those and, once again, referring to the linked documents, and contacting the several persons/offices referenced in the several documents. Oy vey! It seems there is a real need for a comprehensive “How to do it” guide. CRG suggests a single office/person to contact to start the journey with an A-to-Z checklist of the steps, a copy of each form needed and instructions on how to complete each, and so on. If the City really wants to stimulate ADU construction to address affordable housing, its leaders need to put in the effort to make the wish a reality.  

— Fees in Lieu (FIL): A final commenter succinctly summed up what could be a basic problem: i.e., that the FIL provision in current code is a major deterrent to affordable housing in the City. If FILs did not exist, more affordable housing would be planned and built.

City: Cricket Stadium Update
Two meetings on March 23rd (the Airport Commission and a City Council workshop) focused on the proposed Cricket Stadium:

Airport Commission discussion/decision
The Airport Commission approved the Cricket Stadium to be built in the flight path of Frederick Airport. There were two major conditions. First, the approval only applied to the sports stadium complex and no future additions of residential, multi-use, commercial, or any other incompatible improvements. Second, there could be no aerial displays of fireworks or use of drones, lasers, or upward pointing lights without prior airport approval. 

During the meeting, the Washington Freedom representative indicated that the Freedom had no plans to build a hotel on the property. The hotel was shown in an earlier drawing of the property.

City Council Workshop
The City Council workshop elicited several important pieces of information from the AcerInfra’s representatives and the Washington Freedom’s representatives. There were to be no concerts in the Cricket Stadium complex, responding to the concerns expressed by many nearby residents. Additionally, the original 500 parking spaces would be reduced to approximately 300. Assuming the maximum capacity of 10,000 attendees, the developer anticipates 91 busses (bringing 5,000 attendees from out of town) would park in front of the property, on grass. Another 4,500 attendees would park at the fairgrounds and be bussed to the stadium over a 3-hour period. The remaining 500 people would come by Uber and Lyft. 

The developers mistakenly asserted that no one would be able to park in nearby neighborhoods. However, current County regulations do permit parking on most of the neighborhood streets. The streets that do not have a double yellow line like Quinn Orchard Road would be legal for street parking. We expect that attendees would prefer parking there instead of waiting up to 3 hours to reach the stadium by shuttle bus. 

A drawing of a similar stadium revealed a structure with seats made of grass berms — like grass berms in a circle. The stadium was to seat 5,000 attendees and there would be another 5,000 lawn seats. No actual specs were provided to reflect the height of the stadium, what part of the stadium would be filled-in floodplain of the Monocacy, or how high the stadium would be above the existing houses.

Public comments were both favorable and unfavorable. Supporters spoke to economic benefits; those in opposition were concerned about environmental issues along the Monocacy River and the traffic that an estimated 126 buses (information provided by the developer’s traffic management group), and an additional 1,200 plus vehicles (4,500 attendees with 3.5 people per vehicle), would cause. (Note: the 4,500 number is the developer’s estimate; the 3.5 people per vehicle reflects the ION sports and events complex parking experience with 1,000 parking spaces for an arena that seats 3,500 people.)

City: Immigrant Community Values
In one of the most inspiring City legislative sessions in years, the City Council UNANIMOUSLY accepted Council President Diaz’s protections for our immigrant communities from ICE's unlawful arrests and possible deportations. Many impassioned residents commented on the importance of ALL community members in what Frederick is and should be in the future. The ordinance lays out limits on ICE investigations, arrests, seizures and City employee assistance. CRG strongly and unanimously agrees that Frederick is our City because of EVERYONE, and the Council’s support lead by President Diaz was a statement that we value all residents here. Thank you, everyone who spoke at the April 2 meeting and those who submitted comments. As one attendee said walking out of the Council meeting, it’s not very often we walk out so gloriously happy that our elected officials agree!

City: Land Management Code Revisions
On April 6, the City’s Government Operations Committee discussed the proposed revision options for the Land Management Code (LMC). The effort would require approximately 2 years with several options presented on procedures to be followed. The Committee strongly supported substantial resident participation in a commission/advisory panel with perhaps a legislative project manager familiar with land use and planning brought in to oversee the panel, identify local and regional experts to periodically participate, and to coordinate planning staff input to assist in the revisions. Long overdue! To see a draft of the proposed actions, go to https://cityoffrederick.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=45&clip_id=6357&meta_id=198124.

County: Data Center Updates
Emergency County Board of Elections Meeting and Orders to the Sustainable Monocacy River Commission
On Sunday, March 22, the County Board of Elections (BoE) called an emergency meeting on petitions submitted by residents to place a referendum on the fall ballot for the County’s Digital Overlay Zone Ordinance, which the County Council passed in January. The BoE considered public comment urging them to vote to verify and count the 22,169 signatures of County voters, and then to review the legal possibilities for the referendum’s inclusion on the ballot. The BoE ratified more than 20,000 signatures by April 5 so the referendum can be on the fall ballot. Hooray for residents!

County: Rezoning Effort / IW2
In response to recommendations from the County Executive’s Investing in Workers and Workplace (IW2) work group comprised principally of developers and builders, numerous privately-owned properties have been proposed for rezoning to light or general industrial parcels, thereby increasing potential acreage for construction and operation of industrial, commercial, and some residential development (https://frederickcountymd.gov/8726/Investing-in-Workers-and-Workplaces).

Vigorous opposition was expressed during the March 18 and April 8 County Planning Commission meetings, with the majority of landowners and long-term primarily agriculture community members aggressively challenging the rezoning. According to staff, if land is rezoned, the current activity on the parcel can continue, so at least farmers’ livelihoods would remain in place and their property tax determined for the primary use of the land, i.e., agriculture-based property taxes. Another hearing will be held (April 15) with any PC recommendations conveyed to the County Council for its own workshops, hearings, and a decision. CRG applauds the long-term landowners for arguing for their rights to use the land as they choose!

County: Affordable Housing Project
CRG applauds the County’s decision and design for the construction of 145 affordable housing units on Himes Avenue in the Prospect Center Project.  It will be built by Conifer LLC, the same firm that is completing the Overlook East Project on East Patrick Street. The units will be provided to residents within the 30%–80% Area Median Income (AMI) range, a huge step forward for housing for our lower income residents. BRAVO!

County: Green Infrastructure Plan
From a County press release: The Frederick County Green Infrastructure Plan will move forward in the legislative process on Tuesday, April 14 when the County Council begins review of the Planning Commission’s Recommended Plan. The Plan focuses on critical issues related to the natural and built environment, community resilience, and environmental stewardship.

New Political Party
A Maryland Forward Party has been formed with a stated commitment to back candidates responsive to local community priorities. Its website is www.marylandforwardparty.com so check it out for its missions and goals.

Upcoming Meetings and Events
City Planning Commission, April 13, City Hall, 101 North Court Street, 6:00 PM: several items, including a developer-proposed change to Mixed Use 1 and 2 zoning to allow for gas stations in these zones only 100 ft. from residences
City Public Works Committee, April 14, City Hall, 4 PM: Housing Authority presentation that includes Lucas Village rehab
County Council, April 14, Winchester Hall, 5:30 PM: Consideration of County Green Infrastructure Plan
County Planning Commission Meeting, April 15, Winchester Hall, 9:30 AM: Investing in Workers and Workplace plan hearings

Contributors: P. Gallagher, R. Huber, S. Jakubczyk, M. Rosensweig, K. Sellner
Please join the Citizens for Responsible Growth monthly email list by clicking here.

See the CRG blog at: responsiblegrowthfrederick.com

CRG is a grassroots coalition of Frederick residents who prioritize responsible growth, expanding infrastructure, and a functional natural environment. We advocate for development that accommodates projected population increases while fostering a strong and diverse community fabric and increasing economic opportunities. Our comprehensive approach emphasizes public safety, traffic mitigation, increasing school capacity, and housing for all members of our community.

Many Frederick residents want to know — but cannot find — information about how to participate in discussions of important local issues. The City and County generally hold meetings from 3–10 p.m., making it impossible for most of us to attend meetings or weigh in on issues of interest. Our mission with this monthly newsletter is to highlight City and County activities so you can learn more and, with your limited time, weigh in on areas of growth and development, City and County policies, and other local activities. Occasionally, opinions or longer stories will be offered by knowledgeable experts/readers. We welcome suggestions for articles focused on specific topics. Contact Kevin Sellner (kgsellner@gmail.com), Marge Rosensweig (marjorierosensweig@gmail.com), or Steve Jakubczyk (jakubczyksteven@gmail.com) for consideration of your issue.
Check out our Facebook page!
Check out our Facebook page!
Find us on Instagram
Find us on Instagram
at No comments:

Sunday, March 8, 2026

Frederick City and County News of Interest VOL. 5, NO. 3 | March 5, 2026

 
VOL. 5, NO. 3  |  March 5, 2026
Frederick City and County News of Interest
Please join our monthly email list by clicking here.
Learn more about CRG at the bottom of this newsletter.
For quick access, click on a title here and jump to that article, below: ______________
CRG Challenges the Trammell-Crow Proposed City Data Center Text Amendment
M2 vs M1 Zoning
In December 2025, shortly after Councilmember Nash withdrew her proposed Data Center text amendment, the Trammell Crow (TC) Company, through Attorney Bruce Dean, proposed their version of a text amendment that would also allow data centers within City limits. The developer’s proposal appeared to be an industry wish-list woefully short on specifics. Other justifications included insistence on by-right zoning, comparisons of data center water usage to car wash water usage, suggestions that a data center’s computing arrays are equivalent to a server room at a local laboratory, and a failure to acknowledge previous Planning Department zoning rulings based on earlier efforts to introduce data centers into the City, all egregious arguments and positions.

CRG will provide more examples in the next newsletters and news blasts to challenge the TC-Dean claims. Challenge 1 is the notion that the TC-Dean amendment for data centers at two properties off Gas House Pike warrant light industrial M1 zoning. From the Land Management Code:

M1 district is intended to provide for offices and those industrial activities which do not require special measures to control odor, dust or noise and which do not involve hazardous materials and whose environmental impacts are contained within the property limits. The M2 district is intended to permit general or heavy industrial activities not able to meet the criteria applicable in the M1 districts.

In a March 29, 2022 letter, City Planning Staff responded negatively to a similar effort by a previous developer to place data centers in a Light Industrial M1 Zone, partly because the described uses between a Business Support Service under M1 Zoning and the industry standard for data centers were incongruous and hence not at all similar.

CRG firmly objects to M1 zoning and instead insists on M2 for heavy Industrial Operations because a 90’ high data center meets none of the M1 criteria. It would require controls of the following:
  • Dust: As has been shown in the construction of Aligned and Rowan centers outside of Adamstown, residents have routinely complained of center construction generating non-stop dust from site grading and continuous truck traffic, with sediment-laden streams, wells, and potable water with at least two cases of resident health issues and expensive residential water treatment installation.
  • Noise: This is beyond debate. Loudoun County residents have had to move bedrooms to below ground basements and stack mattresses against windows to curtail noise from diesel generator tests; the generators are bus-sized power supplies with reported noise of diesel train locomotives. Imagine the noise levels should a brownout occur and all data center generators operate simultaneously.
  • Hazardous Materials: Such materials will surround each center through diesel fuels within each generator and stored supplies on campus. At 2,000 gallons/generator and 48 generators per data center building (based on one Aligned data center building), plus stored diesel for refilling the generators, that would be almost 200,000 gallons of diesel on-site.
  • Water Storage: Similarly, many data centers store water as backup supplies for cooling systems or drought and low flow use restrictions. Storage requires biocide addition to minimize bacterial and fungal growth in storage containers, all hazardous to soil microbes, wildlife, and public health. On discharge, if not pre-treated, these compounds would inhibit wastewater treatment of our public treatment plants prior to discharge into local waterways, jeopardizing mandated federal and state discharge and water quality requirements.
  • Toxic Emissions: Testing and operations of the backup diesel generators on a data center campus yield high greenhouse gas emissions including CO2, NOx, diesel fumes, and PM2.5 particles which are readily delivered down-wind outside the data center’s parcel boundary to neighbors, respiratory-distressed individuals, crops and soils, local waters, and eventually the river and bay, in conflict with the state’s 2022 Climate Solutions Now Act.
Additionally the huge data center impervious surface areas (>100 acres) prevent water percolation and replenishment of groundwater thereby reducing baseflow for local waters outside the parcel boundaries while also yielding flashy surface runoff for down-slope areas beyond the data center campus and its property line.

For all the above reasons, a TC-Dean request for M1 zoning for urban data centers is completely unsubstantiated — it’s M2 zoning or nothing to even consider the possibility of data centers within City limits.

City: Legislative Committees
Reconstituted City Council committees have begun discussions on options the new Council may pursue in new and/or revised resolutions, ordinances, and policies. These include Public Works, Government Operations, and Community and Culture. Important foci of these committees include affordable housing options (Housing Continuum, Accessory Dwelling Units, Single Room Occupancy units), data centers, brownfield assessments, sidewalks, parking, Land Management Code revisions, and City-wide art. CRG encourages residents to check Frederick, MD Public Meetings (https://www.cityoffrederickmd.gov/901/Public-Meetings) at the end of each week to identify the committee focus issues for the following week.

Your input is needed, and wading in late to City discussions will keep your opinion from being incorporated in any final decision, permit, ordinance, or policy. Commenting early and often is absolutely critical!

City: Long-standing Planning Department Review Procedure
We only recently learned that the City’s Development Review Conference (DRC), in place since 2011, is a vehicle for the City Planning Department's early review of proposed developments, annexations, buildouts, etc. and is held between staff and applicants following submission of early ideas on projects.

Several CRG members had been told several years ago that the LMC-identified (Land Management Code) Planning Department review in its DRC was no longer an active policy in the City’s considerations of project compliance, in essence to relay to applicants shortcomings in meeting LMC requirements. The DRC meetings are posted at https://www.cityoffrederickmd.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=61&Type=&ADID= with projects listed for review at specific times.

To attend, e-mail the case planner for the project of interest and he/she will send you the staff report and invite you to the DRC meeting for that project. For another attendance option, contact jgriek@cityoffrederickmd.gov. As a cautionary note, we believe that attendees other than staff and applicant representatives are not permitted to provide comment, unless asked.

City (and County?): Commitment to Transit-Oriented Development Designs
On February 19, the City Council discussed a state initiative for transit-oriented development (TOD, https://cityoffrederick.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=12&event_id=5646&meta_id=195732) and the Council agreed to apply to the state’s program. The program would incentivize development initiatives (including affordable housing) near mass transit opportunities, such as the downtown MARC station. CRG is hopeful that, through collaboration with the County, the station behind the Target store in the S. Frederick Corridor will also be included. Incentivizing development in these areas is the basis of the S. Frederick Corridor County form-based code plan, so we hope state assistance for City and County TOD will be adopted as our corridor plans move forward.

County: Hot Topics
Where to begin? So much is happening:

Referendum on Data Centers
The County Council has adopted a 2600-acre Critical Data Infrastructure Overlay Zone (OZ) expanding data center construction and operations beyond the Eastalco 1600-acre buildable area. This expansion is strongly opposed by many residents who assert that only the initial 1600 acres of the Eastalco site should be built until a state-sponsored Cost and Benefit analysis due in September 2026 is completed and we have some initial data (e.g., noise and vibrations, emissions, stormwater impacts, water demand and post-center treatment of campus discharges to prevent damage to our water treatment facilities) from operations of the permitted Aligned and Rowan sites.

The fear of irreparable damage and net revenue shortfalls from the larger data center campus in the OZ is now resulting in a resident-driven call for a ballot referendum to allow residents to decide on size of any future County data center campus. That effort is well underway so please, as a registered Frederick voter, sign the referendum petition. Last date to sign is March 15. More info about how and where to sign is at fcdcreferendum.org.

Other issues include: All of these will be rigorously discussed and voted on by the County Planning Commission on March 18, so please read the relevant documents on the County PC’s website (https://frederickcountymd.gov/7992/Planning-Commission).
Public comments are due by March 16 for the IW2 plan so start to read and comment now!

County Council Elections Are This Fall.
A recent FNP article details campaign contributions, perhaps indicating where candidate policies lean. Take a look at https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/continuing_coverage/election_coverage/developers-pacs-political-figures-among-donors-for-frederick-county-council-campaigns/article_40e80eb1-1e83-57f6-bd1c-ec77a24e6185.html

County and City: Housing Assessment
The long-awaited County and City Housing Assessment has just been released (https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/5746). It indicates that 3,185 units/year are needed to house a population projected to increase. Criteria for the estimates for affordable housing (AH) were cost burden (monthly housing costs >30% of income) and a maximum annual income of $75,000.

Discussions for a few important aspects of the Assessment include:
1) Any County housing funds would build solely AH units and not all housing as advocated by many builders and developers as these vested individuals and companies suggest lower cost homes vacated by owners for purchase of higher cost units would then open those lower cost homes for lower income buyers (trickle down has not worked in Frederick: S. McKay, 2/24/26 County Council meeting).

2) Waiving or lowering Impact and APFO fees and requirements for AH units; note that the County would need to pick up costs should Impact and APFO fees be waived or reduced (S. McKay, 2/24/26 County Council meeting).

3) Consider a hierarchical fee structure for a development’s units with the AH units paying less than the remainder of the development’s market priced housing (S. McKay, 2/24/26 County Council meeting). And

4) Adopt a hybrid MPDU (Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit) policy for the required 12.5% of any development as AH. This would be a requirement that some number of housing units MUST be built as AH with the remaining portion of the 12.5% as MPDUs paid in MPDU fees. The Assessment has also been presented to the City Council (February 26) and to the public-at-large at the A.C. Burr Library (March 2).

County: Mobilize Frederick Climate Summit
A 2-day climate-specific meeting was just held at Hood College with many exhibitors, excellent breakout sessions and workshops, several highly relevant presentations for City and County issues, as well as personal activities to pursue to reduce your own climate impacts. Go to https://www.mobilizefrederick.org/2026-summit-overview for details!

Upcoming Meetings and Events
County Data Center Referendum Petition Drive, ONGOING until March 15: learn more at fcdcreferendum.org
City Planning Commission, March 9, 6 PM, City Hall: ADUs, Trammell Crow final site plan extension, ADUs
CIVICON, March 10, 6 PM, Hood College: J. Day, Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development Director
MWCOG Webinar, ‘Economics of Data Centers’, March 11, 2 PM (https://www.mwcog.org/events/2026/03/02/data-centers-in-the-dmv-water-forum/)
MDE Remedial Action Plan presentation, March 16, A.C. Burr Library, 6:30 PM: Brickworks Lot 6
County Planning Commission, March 18, 9:30, Winchester Hall: Housing Element, Green Infrastructure Plan, Investing in Workers and Workplaces Hearing


Contributors: P. Gallagher, S. Jakubczyk, M. Rosensweig, K. Sellner
Please join the Citizens for Responsible Growth monthly email list by clicking here.

See the CRG blog at: responsiblegrowthfrederick.com

CRG is a grassroots coalition of Frederick residents who prioritize responsible growth, expanding infrastructure, and a functional natural environment. We advocate for development that accommodates projected population increases while fostering a strong and diverse community fabric and increasing economic opportunities. Our comprehensive approach emphasizes public safety, traffic mitigation, increasing school capacity, and housing for all members of our community.

Many Frederick residents want to know — but cannot find — information about how to participate in discussions of important local issues. The City and County generally hold meetings from 3–10 p.m., making it impossible for most of us to attend meetings or weigh in on issues of interest. Our mission with this monthly newsletter is to highlight City and County activities so you can learn more and, with your limited time, weigh in on areas of growth and development, City and County policies, and other local activities. Occasionally, opinions or longer stories will be offered by knowledgeable experts/readers. We welcome suggestions for articles focused on specific topics. Contact Kevin Sellner (kgsellner@gmail.com), Marge Rosensweig (marjorierosensweig@gmail.com), or Steve Jakubczyk (jakubczyksteven@gmail.com) for consideration of your issue.
Check out our Facebook page!
Check out our Facebook page!
Find us on Instagram
Find us on Instagram
at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)