Councilmen look to bring Stronghold on board with Sugarloaf plan

Sep. 14—Two Frederick County councilmen on Tuesday proposed separate amendments to the Sugarloaf Mountain preservation plan to appease the mountain's owner, in hopes of keeping the landmark open to the public.

Tim Goodfellow, the lead county planner for the Sugarloaf Treasured Landscape Management Plan, said the Sugarloaf plan changes "really nothing" about how Stronghold can use its land.

But Republican Councilmen Phil Dacey and Steve McKay recommended, in separate amendments, that the council exempt Stronghold's land from development restrictions of the plan's overlay zoning district, which covers all 20,000 acres of the plan.

Dacey proposed exempting all 3,400 acres of Stronghold's land from the overlay zoning district. McKay recommended that the council exclude only certain areas within Stronghold's land from the overlay.

Stronghold, the owner, requested in August that the county remove the organization's land from the overlay zoning district. Its board members said will close the mountain to the public if the council approves a plan that Stronghold opposes.

"I'm taking them at their word," Dacey said during Tuesday's council meeting. "I think it would be a shame to try and play chicken with them."

McKay proposed 17 amendments.

"Five of the amendments are exactly what [Stronghold] asked for," McKay said. "I want to find a solution that they're agreeable to."

Dacey also proposed that the council remove from the Sugarloaf plan any changes to the allowable uses and zoning of Stronghold's land.

The council, Dacey wrote in his amendment, should have a process separate from the approval of the Sugarloaf plan — scheduled to conclude in late October — to work with the organization to establish a zoning category that "accommodates Stronghold's needs."

Dacey said Stronghold, which for decades has made mountain access free to the public at no cost to taxpayers, has been a good steward of the mountain since the organization was established in 1946.

The councilman introduced his amendment to rid the Sugarloaf plan of what he said would be unnecessary zoning and development standards on Stronghold, including restrictions on structures and facilities the organization could build on its land.

Before introducing his amendments, Dacey said the council should remand the Sugarloaf plan back to the Planning Commission to draft a version that makes Stronghold content and keeps Sugarloaf Mountain open.

The Planning Commission held 10 hours-long workshop meetings on the plan from September 2021 to June 2022, then approved a final version and forwarded it to the County Council in July.

Remanding the Sugarloaf plan back to the Planning Commission could effectively push a final vote on the plan to the next council, which will take office in December.

"That's a political decision being encouraged by people who aren't happy with the plan," Councilman Kai Hagen, the council member most strongly in favor of the plan, said of Dacey's proposal.

McKay opposed remanding the plan, too, and said, "Rather than punting, I think we just need to do the job."

The Sugarloaf plan would rezone and shield from development nearly 20,000 acres between Monocacy National Battlefield and Frederick County's border with Montgomery County.

From the county line, the preserved area's western boundary winds along the Monocacy River to Monocacy National Battlefield.

Interstate 270 is the eastern line between the rural Sugarloaf land and suburban development in Urbana. The highway has been a divider between rural land and suburban development.

In a second amendment, Dacey proposed that the council undo changes the Planning Commission made and revert the plan back to its September 2021 form.

Doing so would remove nearly 500 acres on the west side of I-270, near the Md. 80 interchange in Urbana, from the planning area. The change would also strike land north of Md. 80, including Monocacy National Battlefield.

"I think the [county's] staff had it right the first time, when they gave it to the Planning Commission," Dacey said.

Residents of the Sugarloaf area who oppose Dacey's amendment have called it "egregious." Hagen was equally impassioned.

"I cannot think of a line in Frederick County more important to preserve than this one," Hagen said of I-270. "We do not have to be the first county government that decides to cut down the redwood tree."

Tom Natelli, the CEO of Natelli Communities — the Montgomery County-based development company largely responsible for development in Urbana — owns property within the nearly 500 acres that are the subject of Dacey's amendment.

Natelli has for months called on the council to revert to its September 2021 version of the plan, when his land would not be confined to development standards of the plan area.

The area is a main access point into the Sugarloaf area from the interstate and has been designated as a growth corridor in the Livable Frederick Master Plan, which was meant to guide development in the county and which the Sugarloaf plan is a part of.

Members of the Sugarloaf Alliance, a nonprofit organization seeking to protect the natural and historical aspects of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, have said for months that omitting the nearly 500 acres from the Sugarloaf plan could allow development on the west side of I-270. For decades, growth in the area has been confined to Urbana, on the east side of the interstate.

In addition to his amendments appealing to Stronghold, McKay proposed removing from the plan land-use designation changes from "Agricultural" to "Natural Resource," which allows low-intensity uses and activities compatible with resource conservation.

The Frederick County Division of Planning and Permitting has recommended that portions of 163 properties be rezoned as part of the Sugarloaf plan. Most recommended land-use changes are from "Agricultural" to "Natural Resource."

Some people who own land in the Sugarloaf area have said this change would restrict how they use their property. Others have said they welcome the chance to preserve more rural land in the area.

Goodfellow said county planners were more focused on resource conservation than on conserving subdivision rights when drafting the plan.

McKay also proposed removing wording on page 54 of the 200-page plan that states the scale and scope of future development within the Urbana Community Growth Area, along Interstate 270, "may result in a limited plan amendment," a reference interpreted as an expectation of possible growth there.

"It seemed to be a bit of a slap in the face," McKay said. "The fact is it can happen. ... I just don't think we can predestine it."

Follow Jack Hogan on Twitter:

@jckhogan