(1/2024) Does the Sugarloaf Mountain area require an additional protective zoning layer with additional land use restrictions? Most of the Sugarloaf area is geographically unsuitable for high-density development and industrial uses already, which is why most of it is zoned for Agriculture and Resource Conservation. I have thought about this question regularly for the last two years, understanding that the vote to approve the Sugarloaf Treasured Landscape Management Plan Overlay District Map would eventually come before the County Council to be accepted or rejected. That vote came on December 19th, and I voted to reject the proposed Overlay map. Also voting to not pass the proposal were Council President Young, Vice President Duckett, Council Member Carter, and Council Member Keegan-Ayer. The vote was 5-2, and the overlay did not pass.
I’ve had many conversations with informed and passionate people on both sides of this issue. I met with anyone who wanted to meet with me, and with some several times. I reviewed meeting minutes and re-watched previous County Council and Planning Commission meetings to try to get the most complete understanding of how we arrived at this point, the desires of all the stakeholders, and the County’s approach to this large area plan.
The Planning Commission resubmitted to the County Council the essentially unchanged Overlay Plan that was remanded to them by the previous Council. Given the initiatives stated in the overall Sugarloaf Area Plan, and the way they are worded, this is not surprising. They would most likely return with the same plan again for a third and fourth time if it were remanded with unchanged criteria.
Some of that criteria made it impossible for me to support the implementation of the Overlay District. For me, it establishes something that too closely resembles exclusionary zoning. It was too late for me to disagree with the passing of the Sugarloaf Treasured Landscape Plan by the time I joined the County Council. I had then and continue to have deep concerns with large area plans that use zoning that results in the county supporting higher property values for some residents in the name of land conservation, while other residents continue to find themselves struggling to afford housing anywhere close to where they work, and that these real economic inequalities, resulting from zoning, are not being considered.
What I’m suggesting is that we need examine how county zoning can perpetuate historical housing inequalities when considering future area plans, and I would argue the Livable Frederick Master Plan. Are we making if difficult for property owners to subdivide their land to accommodate additional family members living nearby in accessory dwelling units or other arrangements? Other types of modern exclusionary zoning policies include parking restrictions, building setbacks, overly stringent environmental reviews, and design reviews.
I was very concerned that if the Treasured Landscape Overlay District Map passed, that it could be replicated in other areas in Frederick County, particularly in northern Frederick County, where the supply of reasonably priced housing for working families is already limited. I will continue to raise the issue of how our zoning and land use affects the ability for residents to find housing they can afford, and to make sure we are not using zoning to unwittingly discriminate against low and middles income households.
Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts on this issue or anything else at rknapp@frederickcountymd.gov.
Wishing you a very Happy New Year!
