Frederick County Data Centers: How We Got Here — A Sourced Timeline

This did not happen in one vote. Frederick County’s current data-center landscape emerged through decades of industrial land use, a major land sale, development approvals, county zoning rules, state energy policy, environmental permitting, public workgroups, litigation, and temporary development pauses.

The Short Version

What is settled: Frederick County changed its law to allow data centers on qualifying industrial land. The County Council later adopted a data-center overlay map and related planning changes. Some projects also received approvals before the newest pause.

What is not settled: The County has not approved every future building shown or discussed. Individual projects may still need site plans, permits, utility decisions, environmental reviews, and other approvals. The rules, agreements, court cases, and state actions described below can also change what happens next.

Who made the main decisions: The Frederick County Council changed County law and adopted the overlay. County Executive Jessica Fitzwater created the workgroup and issued temporary pauses. The Planning Commission reviewed plans and made recommendations or project-level decisions. Maryland lawmakers, the governor, state regulators, courts, landowners, utilities, and developers also shaped the result.

What this means for residents: The biggest decision was not one building permit. It was a series of choices that opened a legal path for a new large industry, selected land where it could be considered, and left many costs, protections, and project details to later decisions.

Jump to a Section

• How to read this timeline
• Where things stand now
• The Eastalco site and early foundation
• The 2022 vote that allowed data centers
• The first pause and the County workgroup
• Bill 25-05 and the grandfathering change
• The overlay rules, amendments, and map
• The 2026 referendum, election, pause, and negotiations
• What happens next
• What we are still investigating
• Revision history

How to Read This Timeline

• Documented means supported by a cited primary source.
• Reported means supported by credible reporting while a primary record is still being sought.
• Unresolved means the event is established but a material detail remains uncertain or conflicting.

Our plain-language rule: We use the real words found in laws, maps, contracts, and meeting records. Then we explain them. Readers should not need a law degree, planning job, or government background to follow a public decision.

Where Things Stand Now

Frederick County is not accepting new data-center applications through July 1, 2027. The pause does not stop projects already under construction and does not apply to properties that received qualifying development approvals before the County Council considered CB 25-09 on June 17, 2025.

On September 14, County Executive Jessica Fitzwater rejected Catellus's application for a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement for the Frederick Digital Campus. The proposed $110 million community-benefits package attached to that agreement therefore should not be described as secured funding or an enforceable commitment.

On September 23, Gov. Wes Moore signed Executive Order 01.01.2026.16, creating a statewide review framework for data-center facilities or campuses with projected or actual peak demand of at least 25 megawatts when they seek covered state action. The order creates a task force, written framework determinations, signed statements of commitments, and a public dashboard that must be updated at least monthly. It is a state review framework, not a statewide construction moratorium, and it does not by itself erase earlier local approvals.

Maryland law required a Data Center Impact Analysis and Report to be submitted to the governor and General Assembly by September 1, 2026. FredCo Paper Trail has not located the completed report in the official public materials checked as of September 27. That is a status and accountability question, not proof that no report exists.

Sources: Frederick County data-center page · County Executive rejects the proposed agreement · Maryland Executive Order 01.01.2026.16 · Maryland Data Center Impact Analysis law

Timeline

> 1969–2017 — Eastalco Is Created, Closed, and Cleared

Alcoa began aluminum manufacturing near Adamstown in 1969. Manufacturing ended in December 2005, the facility closed in March 2010, and demolition was completed in early 2017. Environmental remediation and land-use covenants continued to matter to later redevelopment.

Source: Maryland Department of the Environment

In plain language: The data-center campus did not begin on untouched land. It grew out of a former heavy-industrial property whose size, power connections, cleanup history, and redevelopment potential made it unusually attractive.

📯 Horn’s take: The old factory explains the opportunity and the burden. Existing industrial land and power lines made the site attractive to developers. The cleanup history gives nearby residents a sound reason to ask what remains underground, how groundwater will be watched, and who pays if redevelopment disturbs contamination. “Former industrial site” does not mean “risk-free site.”

> June 14, 2019 — Frederick County Signs a Nondisclosure Agreement With Amazon

The Frederick County Office of Economic Development entered into a nondisclosure agreement with Amazon Web Services and two AWS affiliates. The agreement limited information about AWS products, services, and the proposed project to people with a “need to know.”

Who signed it: Helen Propheter, then executive director of the Frederick County Office of Economic Development, signed the NDA for the County on June 14, 2019. The records reviewed do not show that each County official signed a separate copy.

The records refer to the confidential AWS proposal as Project Holiday. Its later zoning work, closed meetings, collapse, public-records requests, and eventual disclosure appear under their actual dates below.

Source: the signed Amazon nondisclosure agreement

In plain language: Frederick County’s economic-development office agreed to keep information about Amazon’s proposed project confidential before residents knew the proposal existed.

📯 Horn’s take: The first documented step in this local data-center story was not a public plan, hearing, or announced policy. It was a confidentiality agreement signed by the County’s economic-development director.

> July 1, 2020 — Maryland Begins Actively Incentivizing Data Centers

Maryland’s Data Center Maryland Sales and Use Tax Exemption Incentive Program takes effect.

Source: Maryland Commerce

In plain language: Before Frederick County settled its local rules, Maryland had already begun using tax policy to compete for this industry.

📯 Horn’s take: Maryland made data-center investment cheaper before Frederick residents knew Amazon was helping shape local rules. The state created a financial reason for companies to come. Frederick County’s NDA limited what the public knew about one company’s plans. Different governments made those choices, but the choices worked together.

February 19, 2021 — Staff Discuss How Long CDI Can Remain Unexplained

Michael Wilkins, then director of Development Review and Planning, asked Kimberly Golden Brandt how the proposed CDI floating zone could accommodate parks, agricultural processing, and other agricultural uses without “letting the cat out of the bag.” Brandt, then director of the Livable Frederick Planning and Design Office responsible for comprehensive planning and the Sugarloaf plan, replied that she had wondered how long the County could “get away with ‘critical digital infrastructure’” before being pressed to explain it.

March 11, 2021 — AWS Is Positioned to Receive the Draft

Wilkins circulated draft CDI language internally and wrote that Economic Development Director Helen Propheter would pass it to AWS.

March 12, 2021 — The Draft Moves Outside County Government

Propheter sent draft zoning language to private land-use attorney Bruce Dean while copying County Executive Jan Gardner, Wilkins, and Brandt.

March 23, 2021 — The Development Side Returns Proposed Changes

Dean returned an implementation memorandum and suggested zoning language on behalf of Amazon.com Services LLC and Rodgers Consulting. The email went to Brandt, Wilkins, and County official Gary Hessong. It copied, among others, Tom Natelli, Eric Soter, Rodgers president Dusty Rood, and attorney Lisa Graditor. Dean proposed allowing nongovernmental electrical substations as a principal CDI use. Earlier drafts reviewed in the released record lacked those provisions. The enacted law included them.

Late March or Early April 2021 — A Planner Warns About Secrecy and Deception

Tim Goodfellow, the Livable Frederick environmental planner working directly on the Sugarloaf plan, questioned why the CDI changes were being developed privately rather than through that public planning process. He warned that the approach could expose the staff and Planning Department to charges including secrecy, obfuscation, dishonesty, and deception, and said he did not want their integrity sacrificed to the initiative. The Frederick News-Post identifies the email as March 29. A later Circuit Court description identifies an April 2 email. The original chain must be checked before assigning a final date.

April 6, 2021 — The Sugarloaf Plan Is Halted for the Data-Center Initiative

Planning and Permitting Director Steve Horn wrote that forward progress on the Sugarloaf plan had been halted while the County sorted through the specific properties under consideration for the data-center initiative.

April 12–13, 2021 — Officials Consider a Less Revealing Explanation

Council Legislative Director and Chief of Staff Ragen Cherney asked Chief Administrative Officer Rick Harcum how to answer a councilmember asking why the Sugarloaf draft had not been presented. Harcum asked Horn whether it was “safe” to say that other staff priorities had temporarily caused the delay. Horn said that was fair and correct. That answer concealed the material fact Horn had documented one week earlier.

Frederick News-Post report on the released records, republished by Yahoo · Circuit Court description of the records and disclosure ruling · County record identifying staff roles

> June 23–28, 2021 — Quantum Loophole and TPG Acquire Eastalco

Alcoa completes the sale of approximately 2,100 acres to a Quantum Loophole–TPG Real Estate joint venture for $100 million. Alcoa and Maryland Commerce then announce plans for a large data-center campus.

Alcoa announcement · Maryland Commerce announcement

In plain language: This is when the idea became tied to a specific owner, a specific 2,100-acre property, and a $100 million land transaction.

📯 Horn’s take: The purchase put an enormous development opportunity under private control. The land’s future value would depend heavily on public decisions about zoning, water, sewer, electricity, roads, generators, and development agreements. The buyer paid for the land. Government decisions would help determine what the land could become.

Summer–September 2021 — Public Clues and NDA Questions Surface

News began to surface that Amazon was considering data centers in southern Frederick County, but the proposed locations and the County’s earlier work were still unclear.

How did Sugarloaf Alliance know to look? It did not begin with proof that Helen Propheter had signed a specific agreement. The clues came together during the Sugarloaf Plan fight. Residents saw sudden, unexplained boundary changes that removed roughly 490 acres west of I-270 from the plan; Natelli-related land was replatted; news and rumors in summer 2021 connected Amazon to possible sites in southern Frederick County; and the County Council held closed sessions on August 16 and 24 about an unnamed business proposal. Sugarloaf says there were also occasional public mentions of an NDA.

What remains unresolved: We have not yet located a record identifying who first mentioned an NDA publicly or the exact words used at the September 7 and September 15 meetings. We can document the trail of clues and requests, but not yet the first person who connected them.

Envision’s August 24, 2021 Natelli/property request · February 2022 Frederick News-Post report republished by Yahoo

October 5–19, 2021 — Envision and Sugarloaf Request Records

The first direct NDA request we have confirmed was filed by Envision Frederick County, not Sugarloaf Alliance, on October 5, 2021. Envision said NDA questions had already been raised at the September 7 County Council meeting and the September 15 Planning Commission meeting. That request sought agreements involving Council members and staff during 2020–2021, so it was not well-shaped to capture the 2019 agreement signed by Propheter.

Sugarloaf Alliance took a wider route. On October 19, 2021, Stephen Black and the group’s then-president filed two Maryland Public Information Act requests seeking records that could explain the sudden Sugarloaf Plan changes and the rumored AWS/CDI proposal.

Envision Frederick’s October 5, 2021 NDA request · Circuit Court account of how Sugarloaf’s records case began

> December 2021 — Foundational Development Approvals

The Frederick County Planning Commission grants preliminary-plan and initial Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance approvals that underpin development now underway at Quantum Frederick.

Source: Frederick County Data Center FAQ

In plain language: Later zoning debates did not start from zero. Important development rights and infrastructure findings were already in place.

Attribution still needed: The County FAQ confirms the approvals but does not identify the Planning Commission members present, the motion maker and seconder, or each member’s vote. Those details remain on the reporting list.

📯 Horn’s take: These approvals gave the developer a head start that later pauses and political fights did not erase. Residents who later argued about whether the campus should proceed were confronting rights and approvals that the Planning Commission had already granted.

February 9, 2022 — The Failed Amazon Proposal Becomes Public

The Frederick News-Post publicly described the failed roughly $30 billion proposal and reported that Council members said they had not signed an NDA. The County still did not confirm whether staff had signed one.

February 2022 Frederick News-Post report republished by Yahoo

> March 15 / May 14, 2022 — CDI Becomes a Permitted Industrial Use

The County Council adopts Bill 22-05 by 7–0. The measure defines Critical Digital Infrastructure, permits CDI facilities and related substations in Limited Industrial and General Industrial zones subject to site-plan approval, and adds design requirements. It takes effect May 14.

Yes: Jerry Donald, Steve McKay, Jessica Fitzwater, M.C. Keegan-Ayer, Michael Blue, Phil Dacey, and Kai Hagen. No: none.

This vote did not approve every later building. It changed the countywide use table so qualifying projects could proceed to site-plan review.

Vote record · Public-hearing minutes

In plain language: The Council did not approve specific data-center buildings that night. It changed County law so data centers were allowed on certain industrial land. Developers could then submit plans for individual buildings. Those plans still had to go through the County’s site-plan review process.

📯 Horn’s take: All seven Council members created the legal path. Their vote moved data centers from an industry proposal to an allowed industrial use. It did not guarantee a building, but it removed the need to win a separate fight over whether data centers belonged in those industrial zones at all.

June 2022 — Sugarloaf Sues for the Records

When the County did not provide a timely, complete response, Sugarloaf sued in June 2022. Its broader requests, the indexes of withheld records, and court-ordered releases eventually exposed the 2019 NDA and the drafting record.

Circuit Court account of how Sugarloaf’s records case began · Maryland appellate opinion describing the records litigation

📯 Horn’s take: The troubling part is not only that one official signed an NDA. It is the pattern that followed. County officials worked with Amazon while residents saw unexplained land-plan changes, heard rumors, and watched closed meetings without receiving a full account. The first direct records request was too narrow to reach the 2019 executive-branch agreement. Sugarloaf then had to make broader requests and go to court before the public received the NDA and much of the drafting record. By the time residents could read the agreement in June 2023, the County Council had already changed County law in 2022 to allow data centers on qualifying industrial land. This does not prove that every private discussion or withheld record was illegal. It does show that residents had to reverse-engineer a major public-policy process after important work and decisions were already underway.

> May 10, 2023 — Aligned’s First Major Site Plan Is Approved

The Planning Commission approves Aligned Data Centers’ site plan for Building One on Quantum Frederick Lot 106.

Planning Commission record · Staff report

In plain language: This was a project-level approval under the 2022 rules. It shows how quickly a general zoning change can turn into a specific facility plan.

Attribution still needed: The sources currently cited here do not yet establish the members present, the motion maker and seconder, or each Planning Commission member’s vote. The meeting record and video must be checked before those names are added.

📯 Horn’s take: This vote turned a countywide permission into a real building plan. It did not approve the entire campus, but it moved the issue from “Could data centers come here?” to “Does this building plan meet the rules already written?” For neighbors, that distinction matters: site-plan review can change details, but it is not a new County Council vote on whether the industry belongs there.

> May–October 2023 — A 504-Megawatt Generator Dispute

Aligned asks the Maryland Public Service Commission to exempt 168 diesel emergency generators, each rated at 3 megawatts, from the full Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity process. The Commission treats the fleet as an aggregate 504-megawatt generating station, denies the initial request, and later offers a provisional exemption capped at 70 megawatts. On October 25, Aligned rejects that order and says it will not proceed with the Frederick project.

Maryland PSC annual report · PSC Order No. 90830

In plain language: The argument was not about a few emergency generators. State regulators confronted a backup fleet with the combined capacity of a large power plant, exposing a hole in rules written before hyperscale data centers.

📯 Horn’s take: The Public Service Commission treated 168 generators as one 504-megawatt power source because that was their combined capacity. Aligned rejected the 70-megawatt limit and threatened to leave. The dispute put the developer’s schedule and business model against the state’s existing power-plant review system.

For nearby residents, the review process determines how closely the state examines the combined noise, diesel exhaust, greenhouse-gas emissions, operating hours, and health effects of the entire generator fleet. Reviewing each generator separately can hide the scale people would experience collectively. The legal process changed, but the generators’ combined effect on the surrounding community did not.

June 6–16, 2023 — The NDA and Drafting Record Become Public

Sugarloaf Alliance publicly posted the actual Amazon NDA it had obtained through Maryland Public Information Act requests. This is the first public posting of the signed agreement we have confirmed. A Circuit Court judge ordered more than 100 previously withheld records produced on June 8. The County released nearly 800 pages on June 15. The Frederick News-Post reported the central emails on June 16.

What the records establish: Amazon and private development representatives received, reviewed, and proposed changes to generally applicable zoning language while residents did not know what CDI meant, which project was driving it, or why their public Sugarloaf process had stopped. County planners recognized the transparency problem internally.

Evidence boundary: The documents establish an information and access imbalance. They do not prove that Amazon wrote every provision, that every official possessed the same information, or that every private communication was illegal.

📯 Horn’s take: The public received the central drafting history approximately fifteen months after every councilmember had voted to enact the CDI framework. Public comment on a finished bill was not equal access to the stage when its assumptions and language were being constructed.

Actual NDA and Sugarloaf Alliance publication page · June 2023 Frederick News-Post report republished by Yahoo · Circuit Court account of how Sugarloaf’s records case began

> June 12, 2023 — County Pauses Certain Industrial Rezonings

County Executive Jessica Fitzwater signs Executive Order 04-2023 and creates the Data Centers Workgroup. The order pauses individual zoning-map requests seeking Limited Industrial or General Industrial zoning until the workgroup finishes its report and the County Council has time to consider changes.

The pause is narrower than a blanket construction moratorium. It does not erase approvals already granted, stop the Aligned site plan approved a month earlier, or prohibit every data-center-related review. It temporarily closes one route by which additional properties could seek industrial zoning while the County reconsiders its rules.

Executive Order 04-2023 · County workgroup page

In plain language: The County pressed pause on expanding where data centers might go, but it did not press pause on everything already in the pipeline.

📯 Horn’s take: The word “pause” sounded broader than the order was. The order protected the County’s chance to rethink new industrial rezonings. It also protected previously approved projects from that pause. The public debate slowed one route while developers already farther along could keep moving.

July 6, 2023 — David Irving Appears in a Quantum Permit Record

Maryland Department of the Environment records identify David Irving in an authorization for an 81.59-acre construction-stormwater project at 5601 Manor Woods Road. A related MDE monitoring record lists Irving with a Catellus email address.

What this establishes: Irving’s documented connection to Quantum permitting began by July 2023. It does not, by itself, establish his precise corporate title or the complete contractual division of responsibility among Quantum, Catellus, and related entities.

July 6, 2023 MDE authorization · MDE monitoring record

> August 2023–March 2024 — Workgroup Studies the Issue

The 11-member Data Centers Workgroup begins meeting publicly on August 2, after the June rezoning pause. It meets again on August 30, September 27, November 15, December 13, January 10, January 25, and February 8.

The meetings move from basic orientation into the actual pressure points: siting, water and sewer capacity, electricity, noise, environmental standards, tax incentives, community benefits, rural broadband, and lessons from Northern Virginia. The group hears from County divisions, Potomac Edison, Quantum Loophole, outside experts, advocates, industry representatives, and members of the public.

On March 1, 2024, the workgroup releases its final report. Among other recommendations, it calls for tighter siting and sustainability rules and consideration of an overall limit on future data-center development.

Meeting dates, materials, minutes, and recordings · Final report

In plain language: County Executive Jessica Fitzwater created the temporary holding pattern by issuing the moratorium. She also created the 11-member Data Centers Workgroup to study what Frederick County should do next. The workgroup held eight public meetings and gave its recommendations to Fitzwater and the Frederick County Council. The workgroup could recommend new rules, but it could not make law. Fitzwater could propose policies and issue certain executive orders. The seven-member County Council had to introduce, amend, and vote on changes to County law.

📯 Horn’s take: The workgroup gave officials a menu, not a command. Its public meetings put water, power, noise, taxes, jobs, and community benefits into the County record. But residents were still dependent on Fitzwater and the Council to turn recommendations into enforceable law. The important follow-up question is not only what the report recommended; it is which recommendations officials later strengthened, weakened, delayed, or left out.

Who Served on the Data Centers Workgroup

The membership changed during the process. The final March 2024 report lists 11 members. Council member Renee Knapp and Karen Cannon, executive director of Mobilize Frederick, were co-chairs.

• Daryl Boffman, business and technology consultant and civic leader
• Harry George, retired telecommunications executive and environmental advocate
• Faith Klareich, chair of the Frederick County Sustainability Commission
• Mike McHale, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 24
• Kelly Schulz, executive director of the Maryland Tech Council
• Brian Sweeney, Frederick County Farm Bureau representative
• Chris Vigliotti, Brunswick City Council member
• Paul Walker, retired client-solutions executive and environmental advocate
• Kraig Walsleben, Rodgers Consulting

The County’s June 2023 announcement also named attorney Tom Lynch. The final report does not list him as a final member, but says Lynch and County senior adviser Pat Murray participated for several months. County Executive staff supported the group but were not listed as voting members.

Three subgroups did much of the detailed work. Harry George, Brian Sweeney, and Kraig Walsleben studied where data centers should go. Faith Klareich, Mike McHale, and Paul Walker studied water, power, noise, waste, and other sustainability issues. Daryl Boffman, Kelly Schulz, and Chris Vigliotti studied taxes, jobs, and community benefits.

Official workgroup page · Final workgroup report

In plain language: This was not a panel made only of scientists or only of data-center companies. It included government, business, labor, farming, technology, and environmental voices. That range matters. It also means readers should look at who wrote each subgroup recommendation instead of treating “the workgroup” as one person with one point of view.

What the Environmental Findings Could Mean for People

Water: The report says Rowan’s site plan allocated 440,000 gallons of cooling water per day. That was 40 percent of the 1.1 million gallons per day allowed for the first phase of the larger campus. An allocation is permission to use up to that amount. It is not proof that the project uses that amount today.

📯 Horn’s inference: Water promises affect more than the company. Large planned demand can shape decisions about public pipes, treatment capacity, drought planning, and who pays for new systems. Residents need both the maximum allowed amount and the actual amount used. One number without the other can mislead.

Electricity: The report says large data centers can use hundreds of megawatts of power. It says Rowan’s approved site was expected to use 230 to 250 megawatts when fully built. The report also warns that the cost of expanding the regional power grid may be shared by customers connected to that grid.

📯 Horn’s inference: The public question is not only whether the grid can deliver the power. It is who pays for the added lines and equipment, whose projects wait in the connection line, and whether household and small-business customers are protected from costs created by a few very large users.

Noise and air: Cooling machines and other equipment can run all day and all night. Backup diesel generators make noise and release greenhouse gases and other air pollution when they operate. The report called for sound measurements before construction, regular testing afterward, complaint-based testing, trained staff or independent testing, and meaningful enforcement.

📯 Horn’s inference: For nearby people, averages are not enough. A loud nighttime event can matter even if a yearly average looks acceptable. Testing before construction creates a “before” number. Testing afterward shows what changed. Without both, residents may know their neighborhood sounds different but have a harder time proving how much it changed.

Land, light, and buffers: The workgroup recommended larger setbacks, replacement of failed screening plants within 90 days, responsible outdoor-lighting rules, and attention to views, soil, forests, waterways, historic places, schools, parks, and homes. It also said officials should consider environmental justice: whether a community already carries pollution or industrial burdens before adding another one.

📯 Horn’s inference: A buffer is not empty space on a map. It can determine whether a family sees a tree line or an industrial wall, whether lights reach a bedroom, and how close constant machinery sits to a home, school, park, or place of worship. Environmental justice asks a second question: are the same communities being asked to carry one burden after another?

Monitoring and enforcement: The workgroup recommended regular measurement of noise, air quality, water use, and stormwater performance. It also suggested independent third-party monitoring and enforcement strong enough to matter.

📯 Horn’s take: A protection that is never measured is mostly a promise. A limit without clear reports, public access to the results, and a real consequence for breaking it puts residents in the position of discovering and proving the problem themselves.

What the report does not prove: These findings describe risks, planned demand, and recommended protections. They do not prove that every project will use its full water allowance, cause a rate increase, violate a noise limit, or harm a particular person. Those questions require project records, measurements, and enforcement data.

Sources: Data Centers Workgroup final report · County meeting archive, materials, minutes, and recordings

> May 9 / July 1, 2024 — Maryland Changes Generator Law

Gov. Moore approves the Critical Infrastructure Streamlining Act of 2024. The law changes how certain onsite emergency generation for critical infrastructure fits within state generating-station review. Environmental air permitting remains separate.

Source: Chapter 411

In plain language: The legislature changed the state process after the Aligned dispute. That made generator oversight a state-policy question as well as a local land-use question.

📯 Horn’s take: Aligned lost under the old rule, rejected the regulator’s limit, and threatened to abandon the project. The General Assembly then changed the rule. The practical beneficiary was the data-center industry, which gained a different route through state generating-station review. Separate air permits still apply, but they do a different job.

September 6, 2024 — David Irving Appears in a Quantum Substation Permit Record

A separate Maryland Department of the Environment authorization identifies David Irving in a permit record concerning 63.31 acres of grading for a Quantum power-substation project.

What this establishes: Irving’s documented involvement continued into the substation-permitting process. The record does not establish his precise corporate title or the complete division of responsibility among Quantum, Catellus, and related entities.

September 6, 2024 MDE authorization

> September 19, 2024–January 2025 — A Promised Council Vote Is Removed

County Executive Jessica Fitzwater introduces two data-center bills on September 19, 2024. One proposes a Critical Digital Infrastructure “floating zone.” Under that plan, qualifying land would not become eligible for a data center automatically. A developer would have to ask for the special zoning on a specific property. The Planning Commission would hold a hearing, and the seven-member County Council would vote yes or no on that parcel.

By January 2025, Fitzwater’s administration has removed the floating-zone system from its rewritten proposal. County government-relations director Victoria Venable says the administration is trying to reach the same goal without the “additional bureaucratic step” of applying the floating zone. That step was a public review followed by a vote of the elected County Council.

On January 7, Council members table the administration’s bill after objecting that major changes had not been clearly explained. Fitzwater later asks the Council not to introduce that version. Council President Brad Young and Council member Renee Knapp eventually bring forward a different system: one overlay map covering many parcels at once. The Council would vote on the map, but not separately on every future data-center parcel inside it.

What changed for residents: The first plan gave the public a hearing and gave elected Council members a separate vote each time the special zone was requested for a property. The later overlay approach moved the main political fight to one countywide map vote. Once a qualifying parcel was placed inside the overlay, nearby residents would still have site-plan and permit processes, but they would not get another Council zoning vote just because a data center was proposed there.

📯 Horn’s take: Calling the Council vote a bureaucratic step hides what residents lost: a public, parcel-by-parcel decision by the officials they elected. The overlay was faster and more predictable for developers because it settled eligibility across a large area at once. It also left residents with less political leverage when a particular project reached their road, neighborhood, wells, or power lines. The public record shows who removed the step and what replaced it. It does not, by itself, prove a private motive.

Sources: WFMD — bills introduced, September 19, 2024; Frederick News-Post via Yahoo — administration removes the floating zone; Frederick News-Post via Yahoo — Council tables the bill; A Miner Detail — September 5, 2026 analysis and source trail.

> March 25–July 19, 2025 — Bill 25-05 Changes Who Keeps the Old Rules

Bill 25-05 proposed new siting, setback, noise, vibration, screening, and environmental-review rules for Critical Digital Infrastructure facilities and related substations. The Council held a public hearing March 25, considered 25 amendments on May 6, adopted the amended bill May 20, and made it effective July 19.

Final vote: Renee Knapp moved adoption and Kavonté Duckett seconded it. M.C. Keegan-Ayer, Duckett, Mason Carter, Knapp, and Brad Young voted yes. Jerry Donald and Steve McKay voted no. The bill passed 5–2.

The grandfathering change: The introduced bill protected facilities and substations that had already received site-plan approval or conditional approval before the new law took effect. On May 6, Carter moved Amendment 2 and Duckett seconded it. Their amendment moved the cutoff backward. A facility could keep the earlier rules if it had merely submitted a site plan to the Division of Planning and Permitting. It did not have to win approval first.

Vote on Amendment 2: Keegan-Ayer, Duckett, Carter, Knapp, and Young voted yes. Donald and McKay voted no. It passed 5–2.

Introduced bill: approval threshold · May 6 amended bill: submission threshold · Final enacted bill · May 6 minutes · May 20 minutes

What this actually changed: “Grandfathering” decides which projects must follow a new law and which may continue under an older rulebook. Moving the line from approval to submission enlarged the protected group. Paperwork filed before July 19 could matter even when the Planning Commission had not yet decided whether to approve it.

📯 Horn’s take: The five-member majority gave more pending projects a chance to avoid the newer safeguards. That helped applicants who had filed paperwork but had not yet earned approval. For nearby residents, the practical risk is that setbacks, testing, screening, or review requirements adopted as protections might not apply to every pending project. The vote proves the rule was broadened. It does not prove the change was written for one applicant; the County’s project-by-project applicability decisions are needed to show who benefited.

> April 1 / August 13, 2025 — A Quantum Substation Crosses the New Cutoff

Frederick County’s project log records application SP277520 for the Quantum Frederick Lot 304 Substation, also called the Bauxite II Substation, on April 1. The Planning Commission did not approve it until August 13. Bill 25-05 took effect between those dates, on July 19.

April projects-received record · August 13 agenda · August 13 minutes

What the dates show: This substation had been submitted before the new law took effect but had not yet been approved. That places it inside the category Amendment 2 added. The County’s formal decision about which rulebook governed this particular application has not yet been located, so the timeline does not claim the amendment definitely determined the outcome.

In plain language: The original bill would have protected projects that had already won approval. Carter moved the line backward—from approval to paperwork—and five Council members agreed. This Quantum substation appears to have crossed through that opening, but the final proof is the County’s applicability decision.

📯 Horn’s take: The dates show why one word in a law can move real money and real protections. Changing “approved” to “submitted” can preserve an older rulebook for a multimillion-dollar project that regulators have not yet approved. That can save an applicant time or redesign costs. It can also leave residents without protections lawmakers said were needed. Here, the timing fits the new exception, but we still need the County’s written applicability decision before saying the amendment caused this substation to receive older treatment.

April 9–July 9, 2025 — Quantum Moves From Candidate Review to a Coordinated State Team

On April 9, the Maryland Coordinated Permitting Review Council reviewed project-selection criteria and a draft list of prospective projects. DHCD Deputy Secretary Julia Glanz was present, although the published April minutes do not name Quantum or attribute a nomination to her.

A council report depicts final selection on June 9, while the formal minutes say the council endorsed six projects—including Quantum Frederick—on June 11. Those same minutes refer to Working Group review at a June 16 meeting, creating an unresolved chronology conflict. The minutes do not record individual votes or identify who nominated Quantum.

On July 9, with Glanz again present, the council reported that all six owners had signed participation acknowledgments and that dedicated teams would meet July 21 to identify permits, sequence tasks, and flag bottlenecks.

April 9 minutes · June 11 minutes · FY25 Q4 report · July 9 minutes

> May 6, 2025 — The Council Chooses Which Safeguards Survive

The Council considered 25 amendments to Bill 25-05. The votes show not only that the bill passed, but which protections the members accepted or rejected.

Amendment 1 — adopted 5–2. Duckett and Carter allowed CDI land to touch residential land if the required 200-foot setback was met. Keegan-Ayer, Duckett, Carter, Knapp, and Young voted yes. Donald and McKay voted no.

Amendment 2 — adopted 5–2. Carter and Duckett replaced “received site-plan approval” with “submitted a site plan.” The same five members voted yes; Donald and McKay voted no.

Amendment 3 — adopted 5–2. Knapp and Young added sound and vibration testing within six months after occupancy and every two years afterward, with correction required within 180 days. The same five members voted yes.

Amendments 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 — rejected. Most were McKay proposals for stronger height or setback limits, different electrical-grid location criteria, a stricter environmental-justice standard, landscape protection, baseline or pre-operation sound and vibration testing, and narrower emergency exceptions. Most failed 2–5, with Donald and McKay voting yes. Amendment 7 failed 1–6, with McKay alone voting yes. Amendments 4 and 17 still require exact operative wording before this timeline quotes them.

Amendments 6 and 8 — withdrawn. These were related substation proposals. A withdrawal means the Council took no final vote.

Amendments 12, 19, and 23 — rejected 3–4. These would have created complaint-triggered third-party sound or vibration testing with 30-, 60-, and 90-day deadlines and a retest. Donald, McKay, and Keegan-Ayer voted yes. Carter, Duckett, Knapp, and Young voted no.

Amendments 13, 14, 16, and 25 — adopted unanimously. These clarified location language and added electrical equipment to noise-source and screening provisions.

Amendment 20 — adopted 6–1. It added colleges and universities to the list of sensitive uses. Knapp voted no; the other six members voted yes.

Amendment 24 — rejected 3–4. It would have sent site plans to the County Department of Energy and Environment for comments about sustainability and water. Donald, McKay, and Carter voted yes. Duckett, Keegan-Ayer, Knapp, and Young voted no.

What the pattern means: The same five-member majority that broadened grandfathering also repeatedly rejected pre-operation testing, baseline measurements, landscape protections, and several enforceable complaint deadlines. That does not mean the final law contained no protections. It means the Council chose monitoring after occupancy over several proposals designed to establish conditions or require corrections before a facility opened.

📯 Horn’s take: This was where broad promises became measurable protections—or did not. The majority accepted some monitoring after a facility opened, but rejected several proposals that could have created baseline evidence, earlier testing, faster complaint responses, stronger buffers, or direct environmental-department review. For residents, the difference is practical: it can be harder to prove that a new facility caused noise or vibration when no independent “before” measurement exists. It can also mean living with a problem while testing and correction deadlines run.

Sources: May 6 amended Bill 25-05 · May 6 Council minutes · final enacted bill

> May–September 2025 — The County Writes the Data-Center Rules

County leaders propose a new way to decide where future data centers may go. Bill 25-09 is introduced June 17, followed by public hearings July 15 and August 26. The Council takes up eleven written amendments on August 19, then adopts the amended bill 5–2 on September 2.

Final vote: Brad Young, Renee Knapp, M.C. Keegan-Ayer, Kavonté Duckett, and Mason Carter vote yes. Jerry Donald and Steve McKay vote no.

This vote creates the legal machinery for a Critical Digital Infrastructure Overlay Zone. It does not yet choose the final parcels. Think of it as writing the rulebook first; the Council draws the playing field later.

📯 Horn’s take: Five Council members voted to make a larger future data-center area legally possible. The parcel map came later, but this vote decided how close projects could come to homes, which environmental protections were firm, which were flexible, and how much power the Planning Commission would have at site-plan review.

Under the adopted rule, a data center needs two layers of land-use permission. The parcel must be inside the special overlay boundary, and the portion used for the facility must have Limited Industrial or General Industrial zoning—the labels LI and GI on County maps. Where qualifying industrial land touches residentially zoned land, the facility must be at least 500 feet from the shared property line, roughly one and a half football fields. That is a minimum buffer, not automatic permission to build.

Sources: official Bill 25-09 amendment packet · August 19 Council minutes · September 2 Council minutes

What this means for residents: These rules set the minimum protections before a project reaches a neighborhood. They shape how close facilities may come to homes, what noise and screening requirements apply, what reviewers must consider, and which harms officials can require a developer to reduce. A later site plan can add detail, but it starts from this rulebook; protections rejected here do not appear automatically later.

> May–December 2025 — The State Study Is Required, Vetoed, and Revived

HB 270/SB 116 requires a statewide analysis of environmental, energy, and economic impacts. Gov. Moore vetoes the legislation May 16. The General Assembly overrides the veto December 16. The delay matters: consequential Frederick County decisions continued while the study requirement was stalled.

Source: Maryland General Assembly legislative history

In plain language: The study was supposed to inform policy, but the veto delayed the work for seven months while Frederick County continued making durable local decisions.

📯 Horn’s take: The order of events matters. Frederick County made lasting land-use choices before the state finished the study meant to measure data centers’ costs and benefits. The later report may guide future decisions, but it cannot undo those earlier votes.

August 13 / September 10–11, 2025 — Named Developer Access and a Closed Quantum Briefing

Council implementation slides identify David Irving as Quantum’s developer representative and establish individual 30-minute monthly meetings where developers, agency staff, and technical teams could raise issues and assign agency follow-up. The Quantum meetings were scheduled for the second Thursday of each month beginning September 11.

On September 10, the full council entered a closed session from 2:15 to 2:52 p.m. for a Catellus presentation about Quantum Frederick. Glanz is listed among the closed-session attendees. The published agenda and minutes do not state the specific statutory closing exception or show individual roll-call votes; a separate written closing statement may exist and should be requested. The records also vary between “Irvin” and “Irving” and misspell Catellus once.

What this establishes: DHCD participated institutionally through Glanz, and Quantum received a direct recurring channel to the project team. It does not establish that DHCD Secretary Jake Day personally attended, voted, directed the selection, contacted Catellus, or acted on a permit.

August 13 implementation slides · September 10 agenda · September 10 minutes

> August 19, 2025 — Eleven Amendments Expose the Choices Inside Bill 25-09

The amendment packet shows the other choices the Council considered. Some would have added stronger limits. A rejected amendment did not become law. That does not always mean the final law ignored the same issue.

Amendment 1 — rejected. Steve McKay proposed removing the bill’s route for a data-center tract to abut residentially zoned or residentially planned land with an increased 500-foot setback. In plain language, it would have kept the overlay away from residential land. The final bill allowed the two types of land to touch if the data-center buildings were farther away.

Amendment 2 — rejected. McKay proposed deleting the County’s stated five-to-one agricultural-preservation intention and adding language that the overlay itself could not include or abut residential land. The five-to-one promise stayed in the bill. But it is a statement of what the County plans to do. It is not an automatic rule. The land would be preserved through a later community-benefit agreement.

Amendments 3 and 5 — rejected. McKay proposed fixing June 17, 2025 as the reference date for protected-land maps and allowing an exception for tracts already inside an existing Community Growth Area. One version covered data-center facilities and the other covered their electric substations. The date mattered because maps change. The exception also mattered. It could let some land inside a growth area avoid the protection.

Amendment 4 — rejected. McKay proposed removing “to the maximum extent practicable” from several requirements to avoid or minimize effects on views, roads, historic sites, schools, homes, ecosystems, watersheds, parks, and preservation programs. In plain language, McKay wanted firmer wording. The final wording gives an applicant room to say that more protection is not practical.

Amendment 6 — adopted. McKay changed “may consider” to “shall consider” when the Council evaluates proximity to schools, colleges, day-care centers, health-care facilities, and homes. “Shall” makes consideration mandatory. It still does not require the Council to reject a parcel near one of those uses.

The result of this change: Nearby schools, day-care centers, health facilities, and neighborhoods cannot simply be left out of the Council’s discussion. The public can ask the Council to show where and how it considered them. But the amendment sets no required distance, does not order the Council to choose the safest parcel, and does not let nearby residents stop a project. It creates a duty to consider people. It does not promise a particular result.

Amendment 7 — adopted. McKay preserved the ordinary additional approval criteria for a parcel owner who later seeks an individual rezoning inside the overlay. The original language would have excused those applications from part of the usual test. In plain language: being placed inside the overlay did not become a shortcut around the full individual-rezoning review.

Amendment 8 — rejected. Jerry Donald proposed barring the Council from putting the overlay over land that still had Agricultural base zoning. The vote failed 3–4. Its rejection became especially important later: the final map could place the overlay over agricultural parcels whose comprehensive-plan designation was changed to industrial while their actual base zoning remained agricultural. Those parcels were positioned for a later rezoning fight, not made immediately buildable.

Amendment 9 — rejected. McKay proposed expressly authorizing the Planning Commission to require natural topography, berms, and larger setbacks during site-plan approval to protect nearby sensitive uses. The vote failed 2–5. The final bill still says harm must be found and reduced. But it does not include this clear list of tools the Planning Commission could order.

Amendment 10 — adopted. McKay clarified that a parcel containing some land designated Natural Resource could be placed in the overlay, but the protected portion could not be counted toward development density and could not host overlay uses.

Amendment 11 — adopted. The County Executive’s amendment changed the industrial-use table so CDI facilities and their substations would be tied to the new overlay system rather than handled only through the older special-exception labels.

Why this matters: The final 5–2 vote tells readers whether the bill passed. The amendment votes show what kind of bill passed. The Council must consider nearby schools and homes. The normal rezoning test still applies. But the Council rejected a ban on placing the overlay over land still zoned for farming. It also rejected a clear list of protections the Planning Commission could order.

Official final amendment packet · August 19 meeting minutes · September 2 meeting minutes

In plain language: The Council did not simply vote “data centers, yes or no.” It made a series of smaller choices about homes, farmland, environmental buffers, later rezonings, and who could demand more protection at the site-plan stage. Several stronger or more explicit restrictions were proposed and voted down.

📯 Horn’s take: The majority preserved flexibility for landowners and developers. It required officials to consider nearby people, but rejected several rules that would have forced greater distance, stronger environmental wording, or clearer site-plan protections. “Consider” leaves the final choice with government. A fixed ban or minimum protection would have taken some choices away from government and developers.

October 8 / November 12–13, 2025 — “No Major Challenges,” Construction Activity, and Weak Tracking Data

On October 8, with Glanz present, the council reported “No major challenges” for Quantum while Phase I was under Frederick County Soil Conservation review and MDE, MHT, and MDOT SHA were engaged. The same meeting disclosed that agencies had not consistently verified project-tracking entries and that many required dates and status fields were missing or logically inconsistent.

On November 12, the council reported that two data-center developers had purchased Quantum parcels, construction was underway, and the developer was working on rezoning; the next Quantum project-team meeting was scheduled for November 13. The public-dashboard deadline was then listed as “TBD.” These are council status statements, not independent verification of every construction or zoning detail.

October 8 minutes · November 12 minutes

> December 23, 2025 — The Council Chooses the Larger Map

The Planning Commission recommends an overlay of about 1,585.8 acres, or 0.37 percent of Frederick County. The current source set does not yet identify every Planning Commission member present or each member’s vote on that recommendation; those names and votes remain under review. On December 23, the Council instead directs preparation of an overlay of about 2,614.9 acres, or 0.61 percent. That is roughly 1,029.1 acres more than the Planning Commission recommendation and about 48.5 acres more than the County’s July draft.

Final map vote: Brad Young, Kavonté Duckett, Renee Knapp, M.C. Keegan-Ayer, and Mason Carter vote yes. Steve McKay and Jerry Donald vote no.

The meeting packet contains fourteen amendments. The first seven, associated with McKay and Donald, proposed parcel removals, boundary corrections, recordkeeping changes, and added planning context. They included proposals to remove Windridge; remove the Noffsinger, PC1, and PC2 areas; correct parts of the Community Growth Area boundary; relabel maps as approved rather than recommended; add a summary of Council action; preserve the Planning Commission map in an appendix; and add language explaining that some parcels would move through development in stages.

Amendments 8 through 14, introduced by Keegan-Ayer, supplied the coordinated map changes behind the larger final configuration. They expanded the Community Growth Area, changed comprehensive-plan land-use designations to Limited Industrial, moved selected land out of proposed Rural Legacy or Priority Preservation areas, changed water-and-sewer classifications, assigned General Industrial zoning to selected parcels, updated the overlay map, and designated one removed parcel as Natural Resource.

County maps have several layers. Each one does a different job. A Community Growth Area shows where the County expects growth. The comprehensive plan shows the County’s long-term goal for the land. Water and sewer labels show where public pipes are planned. Base zoning controls what may be approved now. The overlay marks the special data-center area. Changing several layers can move land closer to industrial use even when another zoning vote is still needed.

That staged treatment appears in the final plan. Some properties received the growth-area, industrial-plan, planned-utility, and overlay layers but kept Agricultural base zoning. The owners could not build a data center right away. But the changes made a later request for industrial zoning easier to support. Property 9 received growth-area, industrial-plan, and planned-utility treatment but was not placed in the final overlay.

The public record had closed December 19. Amendments 8 through 14 bear a December 23 introduction date. We have not yet confirmed when each draft was sent or posted before the vote. We will not claim that the process broke a rule without those records.

Official amendments 1–14 packet · Adopted CDI overlay plan

In plain language: This was not merely a vote to color a map. The Council selected a map substantially larger than the Planning Commission’s recommendation and changed several planning layers that affect what land may become developable later. Some parcels stayed agriculturally zoned for the moment, but the surrounding policy pieces were put in place.

📯 Horn’s take: The Council majority chose an outcome that benefited selected landowners and closely matched important developer requests. By moving more property toward industrial use, planned utilities, and data-center eligibility, the Council increased those owners’ development opportunities, and potentially their land values. What we have not yet proved is that enriching landowners was the Council members’ private motive or that developers dictated their votes.

January 14–21, 2026 — The Council Schedules Its Public Permitting Dashboard

On January 14, council minutes said the public dashboard was expected to go live January 21. The minutes also record Julia Glanz seconding approval of the December meeting minutes.

The dashboard eventually became publicly accessible, but the Planning Department landing page continued to say “Coming Soon” when checked October 5. The live map showed only four Quantum records, all without a permit description, submission date, or approval date.

January 14 minutes · live ArcGIS dashboard · Planning Department landing page

> January 20, 2026 — The Plan and Map Are Formally Adopted

The Council adopts Resolution 26-01 and Ordinance 26-01-001, effective the same day. The January 20 minutes record the Council signing both instruments but do not display a fresh member-by-member roll call. A property must be inside the overlay and have LI or GI base zoning before a CDI site-development plan can be submitted.

Council minutes · Ordinance and map

In plain language: The December direction became binding land-use policy. But inclusion in the boundary still did not equal automatic permission to build.

📯 Horn’s take: This is when the larger map stopped being a proposal and became the County’s rule. Land inside the boundary did not receive a building permit that day, but qualifying property moved much closer to data-center development and could become more valuable for that use. Residents near those parcels lost the chance to argue later that data centers should be excluded from the area as a whole; later reviews would focus more narrowly on whether a specific plan follows the adopted rules.

> Spring–June 2026 — Residents Qualify a Referendum, and Challengers Sue

Residents tried to place the overlay ordinance before County voters. The petitioners submitted 24,053 signatures. The referendum coalition later reported that 21,029 were validated, and the County Election Director found the petition sufficient.

Who organized the petition: The Frederick County Data Center Referendum Committee was chaired by Elizabeth Bauer. The public coalition included Envision Frederick, Sugarloaf Alliance, CCAN Action Fund, Mobilize Frederick, Frederick County Farm Bureau, Frederick County Landmarks Foundation, and other groups.

Who challenged it: The court record identifies Quantum Maryland LLC, Windridge Properties LC, NDR Properties LLC, Frederick Data Owner LLC, Rowan Frederick LLC, Rowan Frederick II LLC, Rowan Frederick III LLC, Joan Aquilino, Theodore H. Butz, Justin Cassity, and David S. Pleasants among the challengers. This list identifies parties to the litigation. It does not by itself establish who paid for or directed the case.

In June, the Circuit Court for Frederick County ruled that the zoning ordinance was not subject to referendum under the County Charter. It also found that the petition’s black-and-white maps did not fully and accurately reproduce essential information shown on the ordinance’s color maps.

> June 23–25, 2026 — The Data-Center Fight Reaches the Primary

Democratic voters selected Tiffany Grant and Renee Knapp as the two at-large County Council nominees. Council President Brad Young, who had voted for the larger CDI overlay, finished third with 11,459 votes—909 behind Knapp. In District 1, Louisa Conklin won with 3,366 votes, or 59.31 percent.

Two days after the primary, Frederick County Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Rick Weldon wrote that Young “appears to be a victim of the data center focus of this election cycle.” He also described several losing candidates as victims of opponents who “specifically and myopically opposed them.”

Weldon and the Chamber had advocated for data-center development. His statement was an interested participant’s interpretation of the result, not a neutral finding about voter intent.

Certified Frederick County primary results · A Miner Detail report and commentary on Weldon’s posts · Frederick County Chamber staff page

In plain language: The data-center dispute had moved from meeting rooms to election politics. Some candidates connected to the fight lost, including Young. But a vote total cannot tell us every voter’s reason. The races involved different candidates, districts, parties, and issues.

📯 Horn’s take: Weldon’s post matters because it shows how a powerful business advocate read the election: opposition to data-center policy had become strong enough to threaten candidates he valued. Calling opponents “myopic” turns disagreement into a judgment about voters. The provable conclusion is narrower. Young helped approve the larger map and did not advance. That is political accountability. It is not proof that the map was the only reason he lost—or that every other losing candidate lost for the same reason.

> June 30–July 24, 2026 — Maryland’s Highest Court Keeps the Map off the Ballot

The Maryland Supreme Court affirmed on June 30 and published its full opinion July 24. The judges decided charter and petition requirements. They did not decide whether the overlay was good policy, whether the mapped acreage was appropriate, or whether data centers would help or harm Frederick County.

June 30 court order · July 24 court opinion · Coalition account of validated signatures

In plain language: Residents did the work required to collect and validate thousands of signatures. But the courts held that this kind of zoning ordinance could not be sent to voters through the County referendum process and that the maps were legally inadequate. The ruling removed the ballot route without endorsing the Council’s policy.

📯 Horn’s take: Developers and landowners succeeded in keeping the ordinance off the ballot. They did not win a court ruling that the policy was good for Frederick County. They won on the legal limits of referendum and on defects in the petition maps. The result protected the Council’s map and removed voters’ attempted route to reverse it.

> July 1, 2026 — County Pauses New Applications Through December 31

One day after the Maryland Supreme Court keeps the overlay ordinance off the ballot, County Executive Fitzwater signs a new order pausing acceptance and processing of new CDI-facility and related-substation applications through December 31. The pause does not apply to certain properties with development approvals predating June 17, 2025, and it does not stop projects already under construction.

Do not confuse this exception with Bill 25-05: The July 2026 announcement describes an exception based on earlier development approvals. The 2025 law contains a separate grandfathering rule that the Council broadened from site plans already approved to site plans merely submitted before that law took effect. A project may therefore encounter more than one cutoff rule at different stages.

What the pause does not mean: It is not a shutdown of every data-center project. It blocks a category of new County applications for a limited time while protected older projects and construction can continue. To know whether a particular project is stopped, readers need its filing date, approval history, construction status, and the exact rule the County applied.

A second order requires developers to show that they have registered with the Maryland Public Service Commission’s large-load customer registry before entering County development review.

The County also announces that negotiations over a community-benefit agreement for the Quantum Frederick campus are restarting after the referendum litigation. The County says the project has already produced more than $50 million in recordation-tax revenue and that it retained DAI to advise on community benefits.

Source: Frederick County’s July 1 announcement

In plain language: The court ruling ended the ballot route. The County then opened a different track: another temporary pause, more public-information meetings, and renewed negotiations with the developer over benefits and long-term development terms.

📯 Horn’s take: Again, “pause” did not mean stop. The order protected qualifying earlier approvals and construction already underway. New applicants had to wait. Developers already holding the right paperwork kept their advantage.

July 1, 2026 — State Report Discloses a Quantum Site Visit and Unresolved Coordination Problems

The permitting council’s year-end report includes a page labeled “Quantum Frederick Site Visit” but does not provide the visit date, attendees, notes, photographs, or project-specific action items. The same report says pilot-project teams encountered conflicting guidance from different divisions within the same agency and acknowledges that no system lets project teams or the public track one project’s progress across all state permits.

The report’s later Quantum operational-team roster names Sylvia Mosser of Maryland Planning, David Irving of Catellus, Scott Goldman of MDE, Dixie Henry of the Maryland Historical Trust, and Kenya Lucas and Anish Thomas of MDOT SHA District 7. DHCD is not listed on that later operational team.

July 1, 2026 council year-end report

> July 1–September 1, 2026 — The 62-Day Negotiation Window

July 1 and September 1 are 62 days apart. On July 1—one day after the Maryland Supreme Court left the overlay ordinance off the ballot—the County publicly says negotiations over community benefits for the Quantum Frederick campus are restarting. On September 1, the County announces a proposed community-benefit package and says Catellus/Quantum has submitted a proposed Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement, commonly called a DRRA.

A DRRA is more than a promise to pay for community projects. It is a contract between a developer and the County. It can set the project’s rights, duties, schedule, and penalties. It can also decide which laws will apply for many years. That is why the path from “community-benefit negotiations restarted” to “a proposed DRRA was submitted” deserves its own timeline.

The public record reviewed so far does not establish that officials held 62 days of public meetings. It establishes a 62-day calendar window between the restart announcement and the filing announcement. The complete meeting-by-meeting negotiation record has not yet been located.

Important questions remain. When did someone first suggest a DRRA? Who suggested it? When did the first draft go out? When did the talks cover how long the deal would last? When did they cover locked-in development rights, future law changes, penalties, or the pause on new projects? Which elected officials took part? Who spoke for the developer? Where are the open-meeting records?

Frederick County law requires negotiations between a County elected official and a DRRA applicant or the applicant’s agents to occur in open session. That does not prove anyone broke the rule. It does mean the public may ask where the talks happened and where the records are.

We are preparing a public-records request. It will seek calendars, meeting notices, minutes, recordings, draft agreements, marked-up drafts, emails that sent the drafts, and the names of everyone involved. Until those records are obtained, this timeline labels the 62 days as a negotiation window—not as 62 documented days of meetings and not as proof of wrongdoing.

In plain language: The County told the public on July 1 that benefit talks were restarting. Sixty-two days later, the public learned that the package was also connected to a proposed long-term development agreement. The missing piece is the day-by-day public record showing when that shift happened and who negotiated the consequential terms.

📯 Horn’s take: The public can see the announcement at the beginning and the proposed deal at the end. It cannot yet see the negotiations in between. That gap matters because the discussion grew from community benefits into a contract that may protect development rights for years. The record does not yet prove that officials met unlawfully. It does show exactly which records the County should produce.

Sources: County’s July 1 pause announcement · County’s September 1 announcement · proposed DRRA

> September 1, 2026 — A Proposed Community-Benefit Package Is Announced

Later status: On September 14, County Executive Jessica Fitzwater rejected Catellus's DRRA application. The proposed benefit package announced on September 1 did not become a binding agreement. The proposal remains part of the public record, but its listed payments and projects should not be treated as secured commitments.

Source: County Executive Rejects Community Benefits Agreement

The County announces a package described as a $110 million agreement with Catellus, master developer of the Frederick Digital Campus. It would reduce planned CDI development from 18.3 million to 15 million square feet, reduce potable-water use after reclaimed-water infrastructure becomes operational, and establish 433 acres of nature reserve alongside other investments.

This is a proposal, not a final agreement. The County says it is not executed, has not been accepted by the County Executive, and still requires Planning Commission review, a public hearing, and County Council action.

Unresolved valuation: the announcement says $110 million, its seven listed monetary categories total $111 million, and the draft describes approximately $100 million in monetary contributions plus non-monetary commitments. FredCo Paper Trail treats the controlling valuation as unresolved until the County reconciles the figures.

County announcement · County Data Centers page · Public-comment portal · Draft agreement

In plain language: The headline describes benefits, but the underlying document is also a long-term development-rights agreement. The public needs to weigh both sides of that trade before it becomes binding.

📯 Horn’s take: The $110 million headline sells what the public may receive. The agreement also needs to be read for what the developer receives: protected development rights, a schedule, remedies, and possible insulation from later changes in County law. Community benefits are one side of the bargain. The value of the rights the County would lock in is the other.

Why the document type matters: A Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement, or DRRA, is a binding development agreement between a developer and the County. It can establish development rights, construction schedules, responsibilities, enforcement terms, and which County laws will govern the project for years. That is different from a stand-alone community-benefits agreement focused mainly on payments or public projects. This proposal combines community benefits with legal terms governing development.

> September 2, 2026 — The County Holds an Informational Open House

The County holds an open house at the Claggett Center in Adamstown. The event uses separate information stations instead of a town-hall format or formal public hearing. Residents can question officials and staff individually, but the room does not hear one shared exchange or create one public transcript of all questions and answers.

Sources: Frederick County’s official open-house announcement · DC News Now advance report, republished by AOL · Frederick News-Post post-event report

Independent follow-up reporting: Erik Anderson reported for the Frederick News-Post on September 3 that residents had mixed feelings about whether the open house provided good answers to their questions. The report confirms that the Maryland Department of the Environment and County divisions used separate tables to answer questions. The DC News Now report was published before the event and remains labeled as advance coverage.

Reporter’s note: C. L. Horn’s operator attended and made a contemporaneous written record after speaking with County representatives and County Executive Jessica Fitzwater. That record is a recollection, not a verbatim transcript. It says questions were raised about when the package became a DRRA, what future laws it could constrain, environmental monitoring, public participation, and possible costs to residents. Statements remembered from individual conversations will not be presented as exact quotations without a recording or independent confirmation.

Why the format matters: An open house can help one person get a detailed answer. But when answers happen at separate tables, residents cannot easily compare what different officials said, hear one another’s questions, or leave with a single public record of unresolved issues. An informational meeting is also not the same as the formal hearing where the legally authorized body receives testimony before acting.

📯 Horn’s take: The County offered access to officials, but not a shared public examination. A resident might get a useful answer at a table, yet everyone else could miss the question, the answer, and any contradiction. That format lowers public accountability at the moment residents are being asked to understand a complicated agreement with long-term effects on land, utilities, enforcement, and public costs. It may be good customer service; it is not a substitute for a recorded hearing before the body that can approve or reject the DRRA.

September 9, 2026 — The County Holds a Second Informational Open House

Frederick County held its second data-center informational open house at the Urbana Volunteer Fire Department banquet hall. The County describes the September 2 and September 9 events as informational sessions and posts the presentation materials on its data-center page.

In plain language: The open houses gave residents access to County departments and information. They did not constitute a legislative hearing, a Planning Commission decision, or a public vote on the proposed Catellus agreement.

Source: Frederick County data-center page and open-house materials

September 14, 2026 — Fitzwater Rejects the Catellus Agreement and Extends the Pause

County Executive Jessica Fitzwater rejected Catellus's application for a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement for the Frederick Digital Campus. She also signed an executive order extending the County's pause on new data-center applications from December 31, 2026, to July 1, 2027.

The rejection ended that proposed agreement and the package of negotiated benefits attached to it. It did not revoke earlier development approvals or stop work that the County says falls outside the new-application pause.

In plain language: The proposed agreement stopped. New applications remain paused longer. Previously approved construction did not automatically stop.

Source: County Executive Rejects Community Benefits Agreement

September 23, 2026 — Maryland Creates a Statewide Data-Center Review Framework

Gov. Wes Moore signed Executive Order 01.01.2026.16. The order applies to covered data-center facilities or campuses with projected or actual peak electric demand of at least 25 megawatts when they seek state engagement such as a permit, incentive, approval, or letter of support.

The order creates a Maryland Data Center Accountability Task Force and directs it to issue written findings of Aligned, Conditionally Aligned, or Not Aligned. It also calls for signed statements of commitments and a public dashboard, updated at least monthly, showing project identities, requested state actions, projected power and water demand, determinations, commitments, and annual reports.

The framework may affect the timing, conditions, incentives, and discretionary support attached to state action. It does not replace existing environmental, utility, or land-use law, and it is not a statewide moratorium.

In plain language: Maryland created a new public review layer. Whether it changes a particular Frederick project depends on the state action that project seeks, the task force's determination, the commitments made, and the authority of the agency making the underlying decision.

Sources: Executive Order 01.01.2026.16 · Governor's September 23 announcement

Related FredCo Paper Trail coverage: Maryland Added a Data-Center Review. Frederick Still Needs to Know What It Changes.

October 8–9, 2026 — Quantum Sues Frederick County Over the Data-Center Pause

Quantum Maryland LLC filed an eleven-count lawsuit against County Executive Jessica Fitzwater, Frederick County and the Frederick County Planning Commission. The case challenges Executive Order 05-2026, which stopped the County from accepting or processing certain new data-center applications through July 1, 2027.

Quantum also filed emergency motions seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, an expedited hearing and assignment to a judge outside Frederick County. The company wants the court to invalidate the pause, reopen the application process for Phase III of the Quantum Frederick campus and award damages connected to an alleged transaction valued above $500 million.

The lawsuit does not ask the court to approve Phase III. Its allegations have not been proved, and the transaction’s stated value is not necessarily Quantum’s recoverable loss.

On October 9, attorney Timothy Maloney entered an appearance for all three defendants. Fitzwater publicly denied Quantum’s accusations and said the County would fight the lawsuit. As of October 13, the official docket lists the case as open and shows no ruling on Quantum’s emergency motions.

In plain language: Quantum says Frederick County unlawfully prevented it from entering the development-review process. That is different from saying the County reviewed Phase III and denied a project that otherwise satisfied every requirement.

📯 Horn’s take: This lawsuit is now part of the cost of the County’s decision-making. The County rejected the long-term agreement and extended the immediate application freeze on the same day. Quantum responded by placing the County, the Planning Commission and Fitzwater personally into litigation three weeks before the election. The complaint is not a verdict. It is evidence that decisions made largely outside public view have now produced a very public legal and financial risk.

Sources: Maryland Judiciary docket, Case No. C-10-CV-26-000874 · Complaint and emergency-motion analysis · County’s current data-center status page

What Happens Next

The next phase is likely to unfold through implementation records rather than one decisive public meeting.

Watch for the Maryland task force's membership, published guidance, first project listings, framework determinations, and launch of the state dashboard. Those records will show whether the new process produces comparable public evidence and enforceable commitments or mainly coordinates existing agency reviews.

Watch for the Data Center Impact Analysis and Report required by September 1—or an official explanation of its status. The executive order says the task force's guidance should take the report into account, making the missing public status more consequential.

Watch Frederick County's development-review files, permits, Planning Commission agendas, road closures, and construction activity tied to earlier Quantum Frederick approvals. The extended pause changes what can enter the pipeline; it does not empty the pipeline already there.

Watch the public-record trail behind the rejected Catellus agreement. Drafts, emails, meeting notes, and negotiating records may show how the proposed terms were developed, which alternatives were considered, and why the County Executive ultimately rejected the application.

What FredCo Paper Trail Is Still Investigating

• Who supplied, edited, and received the first CDI zoning language before the public process began.
• The full record of “Project Holiday,” the County’s contacts with Amazon, the 2019 nondisclosure agreement, and the noticed August 16 and August 24, 2021 closed sessions—including attendees, closing votes, subjects discussed, and what decisions followed.
• The complete inventory of Quantum, Rowan, Aligned, substation, utility, and infrastructure applications and approvals, with submission, conditional-approval, final-approval, permit, and construction dates kept separate.
• For every Planning Commission action cited in this timeline: the members present, the maker and seconder of each motion, the recorded vote of each member, recusals or absences, and the source record. Where minutes provide only a tally, seek the meeting video or another roll-call record and state what remains unavailable.
• The County’s formal determination of which Bill 25-05 rules applied to Bauxite II and every other project protected by the submitted-site-plan amendment.
• Who requested or drafted Bill 25-05 Amendment 2 and which pending applications stood to benefit on May 6, 2025.
• Who owns each parcel added to the larger overlay, which parcels remain agriculturally zoned, and who gains a future rezoning option.
• When community-benefit talks began, what happened in the reported February 12 and February 18, 2026 sessions, who paused negotiations during litigation, and who restarted them.
• When a DRRA was first proposed, who circulated each draft, which elected officials negotiated with which applicant representatives, and where the required open-session records are.
• The exact legal relationship among Quantum Loophole, Quantum Maryland, Catellus, Rowan, the property-owning companies, and other applicant entities.
• Which DRRA promises are mandatory, who measures compliance, what triggers enforcement, what penalties or remedies exist, whether duties survive a sale, and which future laws would or would not apply.
• Why the proposed package is described as $100 million, $110 million, and $111 million in different places, and which figure represents enforceable value. De-emphasized September 27, 2026: The proposed agreement was rejected, so none of these proposal totals became enforceable value.
• Who pays for new power, water, sewer, road, monitoring, and enforcement needs—and what protects households and small businesses from costs created by large users.
  Related FredCo Paper Trail coverage: Frederick’s Data-Center Debate Needs Comparable Numbers, Not Just Big Ones
• Where the overdue Maryland Data Center Impact Analysis is, who now owns the deadline, and what County decision would actually change because of its findings.

Our rule: A missing record is not proof of misconduct. It is a reporting question. These items will move into the dated timeline only when a source establishes what happened, when it happened, and who did it.

Revision History

October 14, 2026 — Disclosure Chronology Reorganized

Shortened the nondisclosure-agreement overview, linked it to the full transparency investigation, and moved the public-disclosure milestones into their chronological positions: summer–September 2021, October 5–19, 2021, February 9, 2022, June 2022, and June 6–16, 2023. Tightened the June 14, 2019 entry so later drafting, closed meetings, public disclosure, and Propheter’s current role no longer interrupt the chronology. Linked each member of the 7–0 CDI vote to that person’s public-role profile.

October 13, 2026 — Transparency Chronology and Structure

Integrated the February 2021–June 2023 disclosure record into its chronological positions. Added the named officials and private representatives, the Sugarloaf delay and proposed explanation, the unanimous Bill 22-05 vote context, and the court-ordered release. Removed the stacked update reports from the opening and consolidated revision notes here. Added the October 8–9 Quantum lawsuit, emergency motions, defendants’ appearance and current docket status.

October 5, 2026 — State Priority Permitting

Added the state priority-permitting chronology for Quantum Frederick, including permit records, council selection and implementation dates, the closed Quantum briefing, recurring project-team access, later status reports, the public dashboard, and the year-end site-visit disclosure.

September 27, 2026 — Major Update

What changed: Updated the current-status and next-steps sections; recorded the September 9 open house, the September 14 Catellus decision and pause extension, and the September 23 Maryland executive order; clarified that the proposed community-benefits package was not secured; de-emphasized reconciliation of its competing headline totals because the rejected proposal created no enforceable value; linked the public-cost investigation question to existing FredCo Paper Trail coverage; added the update-highlighting system and this revision history.

Why: The timeline stopped on September 2 and contained forward-looking language about events and deadlines that had already passed. Material County and state decisions after publication changed the status of the proposed agreement, the duration of the County pause, and the state review process.

September 5, 2026 — Original Publication

What changed: Published the first sourced version of the timeline.

Why: To place Frederick County's data-center decisions, approvals, disputes, and unresolved questions into one chronological public record.