Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Frederick County advisory group maps potential employment-growth areas, flags water, zoning and transport constraints
Summary
At a June 25 advisory group meeting, Frederick County planners and local members identified municipal infill, key highway corridors and specific local sites for future employment growth while highlighting constraints including the water/sewer amendment process, ORI/MXD zoning limits and inadequate transportation infrastructure.
Frederick County planners and members of the Investing in Workers & Workplaces advisory group met June 25 to map where the county should focus future employment growth and to identify policy and infrastructure constraints that could limit development.
Denis Superczynski of the Division of Planning & Permitting opened the meeting and summarized the plan's goals: expand the non-residential tax base, prioritize targeted industries and ensure an adequate supply of developable land while maintaining county character. He urged the group to think long term about workforce participation, locational advantages and disadvantages, and noted target sectors such as life sciences.
Advisory groups divided into four small teams for a strategic mapping exercise. Participants identified redevelopment and infill in municipalities as primary opportunities, calling out the City of Frederick and the area east of the city that has seen recent annexations. Other areas flagged as potential employment centers included the Town of Thurmont, the City of Brunswick, the I-70/Route 75 area near New Market, and several corridors including Jefferson Pike toward Feagaville and the Mount Phillip/Elmer Derr/Mount Zion corridors. The Ballenger/New Design area north of the Eastalco/Quantum site also drew interest from at least one group.
"We need to be selective and prioritize targeted industries while keeping the County's character," Superczynski said, framing the mapping work around where infrastructure and zoning can feasibly support growth.
The groups also identified constraints that could limit development or slow timelines. Participants raised the county's water/sewer amendment process as a procedural bottleneck; zoning limits in the ORI district and the land-use mix restrictions embedded in the MXD zone were described as regulatory constraints; and inadequate local transportation infrastructure was cited as a recurring barrier. Brian Sweeney noted that the Data Center Workgroup had recommended use of a floating zone in at least one context, and planners noted that PUD and MXD are the county's most frequently applied floating zones.
Superczynski reminded members that the comprehensive plan's typical timeframe is about 10 years, but that economic development needs and related reviews can occur more frequently. He also reported ongoing coordination with the Water Resources Element and the Triennial Update of the Water and Sewerage Plan, and said several transportation projects discussed will require state and federal support.
The meeting concluded after presentation of the mapping results and a brief discussion of next steps; no formal votes or motions were recorded. Members and staff will incorporate the advisory group's input into the comprehensive-plan process and follow-up technical work on water, sewer and transportation capacity.
The advisory group adjourned at 4:00 PM.
