Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors reject Appleland comprehensive-plan amendment after debate over historic landscape and future land use
Summary
After a public hearing and competing testimony, the Board of Supervisors voted to deny CPPA 1‑24, an applicant request to change about 96 acres from business to residential and to move the parcels into the county’s urban development area; planning staff and the applicant had recommended approval but the board split 3–4 against the amendment.
The Frederick County Board of Supervisors denied Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendment CPPA‑1‑24 (Appleland properties) after a public hearing March 26 that featured residents, staff and the applicant debating historic preservation, road alignments and the appropriate future land use.
Why it matters: the application sought to change about 96 acres from a business designation to residential and to redraw the county’s future transportation map in that area; proponents urged an age‑restricted residential use and protections for historic resources, while opponents and some supervisors said the change would conflict with broader county development goals.
Planning staff explained the request would move the subject parcels into the county’s urban development area and change the adopted land‑use map from a business (orange on the county map) to residential (yellow). Staff also said the applicant proposed policy text encouraging age‑restricted housing on the site and that the planning commission recommended approval following its public hearing.
The applicant’s representative, Ty Lawson, said the applicant intends to pursue an age‑restricted rezoning if the plan amendment is approved and noted the applicant had engaged with neighboring property owners and the town of Stephenson. Supporters from the neighborhood — including resident Matt Schaefer — told the board they preferred a 55+ development over other potential commercial or industrial uses and said they had volunteered to place historic overlays on nearby properties.
Opponents argued the conversion would remove business land the county could use to grow employment and revenue and questioned whether the age‑restricted plan would actually be built. Resident James Mulder said the county had already authorized age‑restricted projects elsewhere and urged the board to deny the plan change. Supervisor Dunn explained he changed his earlier vote to support the amendment because of the area’s historic significance and the perceived benefit of an age‑restricted transition, but the final tally failed 3–4.
Vote: Supervisor Wells, Supervisor Dunn and Supervisor Jewell voted in favor; Supervisor LeArrow, Supervisor Lockridge, the Vice Chair and the Chair voted no. The motion to adopt CPPA‑1‑24 failed and staff will leave the existing business land‑use designation in place unless the applicant brings a revised proposal that addresses board concerns.
Ending: Board members who opposed the change asked planning staff to consider the area in the regular five‑year comprehensive plan update; proponents said they will consider whether to resubmit a rezoning request tied to stronger preservation commitments.
