Summary

  • Frederick County rejected Catellus's proposed development-rights agreement on September 14. Jessica Fitzwater said protection from future local laws was an unacceptable price for community benefits.
  • A separate signed order extends the application hold to July 1, 2027, unless changed earlier. It exempts property with a qualifying approved APFO letter predating June 17, 2025.

Two weeks after promoting a proposed $110m community-benefits package, Frederick County has declined the bargain. On September 14, county executive Jessica Fitzwater rejected Catellus's application for a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement for the Frederick Digital Campus in Adamstown.

Her explanation identifies a disagreement about future control, not whether the proposed benefits met local needs. In the county's published video transcript, Fitzwater says they would have met important needs, but that shielding a fast-changing industry from future local laws was too high a price. That is her stated reason for rejection; it is not a finding that the developer sought immunity from every state or federal requirement.

The distinction matters because the county simultaneously extended a different measure: a hold on specified data-centre applications. Refusing the proposed agreement and pausing an application process are not the same as cancelling every existing right to develop.

An offer was being considered, not money already received

The county's September 1 announcement presented the package as $110m in developer-funded community benefits. It also said Catellus's application began a public process and invited comments through September 10. The September 14 action rejects that application. The record does not establish that a signed benefits contract has been repudiated or that money already paid is being returned.

The county had promoted both community investments and reductions in the campus's impacts. Rejecting the proposed exchange leaves the terms of any future negotiation open. It does not, by itself, establish what will happen to every element of existing development approvals.

The underlying developer application could not be accessed for this report. Its detailed duration, legal exceptions and payment triggers are therefore not characterised here. The decision and the executive's reasoning are documented in the county's own announcement and transcript.

The signed order draws a narrower line

Executive Order 05-2026 took effect on September 14 and replaces Order 04-2026. It directs planning and permitting staff to stop accepting, considering, processing or reviewing applications for Critical Digital Infrastructure Facilities and the specified infrastructure's electric substations, as determined by county staff.

The order expires on July 1, 2027, unless superseded or ended earlier. That date is the limit of this administrative hold, not a promise that a project will receive permission or be ready to build on the following day.

Its exception turns on a specific document. The hold does not apply to applications on property that obtained an approved Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Letter of Understanding before June 17, 2025. An APFO letter is the stated test—not merely a site's age, a developer's purchase date or an unspecified earlier approval.

This exemption does not grant every other permission a project needs. Nor does the order establish which individual campus parcels satisfy it. That would require the relevant property-level approval records. A countywide headline is a poor substitute for that distinction.

Regulatory certainty remains part of the price

The order cites the unfinished state data-centre impact report as part of its rationale, describing its status at signing. Fitzwater's transcript also refers to waiting for the next county council and the state's study. Those political objectives should not be substituted for the signed order's actual scope and expiry terms.

For developers, the announcement separates two questions that can otherwise become blurred: whether an existing approval route survives this hold, and whether the county will agree to additional certainty about future rules. The first depends on the order and the property's record. The second was the proposed bargain the executive declined.

There is no documented blanket closure of operating facilities in these decisions. The immediate commercial signal is a refusal to exchange the described regulatory protection for the proposed benefits, alongside a longer but qualified application hold.

Sources