Howard County Zoning Update

Below is a link to the sections of the Comprehensive Zoning text as passed by Council regarding farming: http://www.mdhorsecouncil.org/hoco_zoning.htm.

HELP for Howard County Farm Owners

HELP for Howard County Farm Owners

Assembled by the University of Maryland Extension (Aug. 2013)

Farm owners want to do what is best for their plants, animals, and the environment, but sometimes it can be hard to know where to start! Fortunately, there are a lot of free and useful resources to help farmers make well‐informed and responsible choices.

The attached resources should give all farm owners a place to start when considering implementing best management practices for their operations or just looking for trustworthy information.

General Agricultural and Environmental Information

University of Maryland Extension

http://extension.umd.edu/

Howard County Extension Office

http://extension.umd.edu/howard‐county

Extension is a nationwide educational network that brings the research and knowledge of landgrant

institutions to people in their homes, workplaces, and communities. University of

Maryland Extension (UME) is a statewide, non‐formal education system within the College of

Agriculture and Natural Resources at the College Park Campus and the University of Maryland

Eastern Shore. Faculty and staff at the state and county level provide Maryland citizens with non

biased, research based information in the form of events, publications, workshops and classes.

UME offices are located in every county as well as in Baltimore City. Our agricultural specialists

can help you with farm finances, design, and management of the land and livestock.

eXtension

http://www.extension.org/main/communities

eXtension is an online resource unlike any other search engine or information‐based website. It

provides peer reviewed, reliable, free information from university extension educators in the

form of articles, webinars and videos. An “Ask the Expert” feature allows questions to be

submitted directly to university specialists. eXtension resources cover a wide range of topic

areas including but not limited to the following:

Ag Safety and Health Hogs, Pigs, and Pork

Animal Manure Management Horses

Animal Welfare Organic Agriculture

Apples Plant Breeding and Genomics

Bee Health Sheep

Beef Cattle Small and Backyard Flocks

Blueberries Small Meat Processors

Corn and Soybean Production

Howard Soil Conservation District

http://www.howardscd.org/SCD/SCD_HomePage.htm

The Howard Soil Conservation District's staff of trained specialists helps landowners make wise

land use decisions for their properties. Cost sharing assistance from federal, state and/or local

sources may be available for conservation practices that control erosion and improve water

quality. The Howard Soil Conservation District is solely authorized to review sediment and

erosion control plans and small pond designs for all proposed developments.

Home and Garden Information Center

http://extension.umd.edu/hgic

The HGIC provides information on growing lawns, flowers, and vegetables, along with

answering plant and garden pest questions.

Farm Business Resources

Beginning Farmer Success

http://extension.umd.edu/newfarmer

Beginning Farmer Success is a UME partnership program providing farmers with tools and

education to explore, refine, develop and implement farm businesses.

Maryland Rural Enterprise Development Center

http://extension.umd.edu/mredc

MREDC, a UME Community Resource and Economic Development Online Initiative, is a onestop‐

shop for the 21st century agricultural/natural resource entrepreneur, provides successful

rural business innovation strategies for your farm business plan, and your production and

management techniques. Learn anywhere by using the many distance learning tools delivered

on MREDC in audio, video, or other interactive format that are organized in modules. These

unique modules and tools are designed to help you get information quickly and make informed

decisions.

Nutrient Management

UME Nutrient Management Program

http://extension.umd.edu/anmp

http://extension.umd.edu/anmp/farmer‐training‐certification

The University Agricultural Nutrient Management Program, which is funded by the MDA,

provides the following services: nutrient management plan development for Maryland farmers

through a network of nutrient management advisors located in all 23 county Extension offices;

and continuing education and technical support for certified nutrient management consultants

and certified farm operators via state and regional nutrient management specialists.

Howard County UME Nutrient Management Advisor:

Krista Mitchell

3300 N. Ridge Road, Suite 240

Ellicott City, MD 21043

410‐313‐2709

Fax: 410‐313‐2712

Email: kristaw@umd.edu

Small Flock Poultry Production

UME Small Flock Production

http://extension.umd.edu/poultry

The Small Flock Production section of the UME Poultry website contains information on caring

for both egg and meat production birds along with links to MDA’s regulations regarding selling

of eggs and meat in Maryland.

Dr. Nick Zimmermann

Associate Professor, Animal and Avian Sciences

Extension Poultry Specialist

University of Maryland, College Park

Phone: 301‐405‐2805

Email: nickz@umd.edu

Dr. Jonathan R. Moyle

Associate Professor, Extension Poultry Specialist

University of Maryland, Eastern Shore

Phone: 410‐742‐1178 ext. 309

Email: jmoyle@umd.edu

Sheep and Goat Resources

UME Sheep and Goat

http://extension.umd.edu/sheep‐goats

http://www.sheepandgoat.com/

UME Sheep and Goat Specialist, Susan Schoenian maintains these websites full of great

information for sheep and goat owners.

Susan Schoenian

Phone: 301‐432‐2767 x343

Fax: 301‐432‐4089

Email: sschoen@umd.edu

Maryland Sheep Breeders Association

http://www.marylandsheepbreeders.org

Maryland Dairy Goat Association

http://www.marylanddairygoat.org/

Equine Resources

University of Maryland Equine Studies and Equine Extension

http://www.ansc.umd.edu/equinestudies/

The Equine Studies Program at the University of Maryland offers educational programs for

youth and adults interested in learning more about the care, use, and management of horses.

Dr. Amy Burk

Associate Professor & Extension Horse Specialist

Equine Studies Program Coordinator

Phone: 301‐405‐8337

Email: amyburk@umd.edu

UME Equine Rotational Grazing Demonstration Site

http://ansc.umd.edu/ERG/

The Equine Rotational Grazing Demonstration Farm is part of the Central Maryland Research

and Educational Center in Clarksville, Maryland. The site was developed to educate equine farm

operators how to better manage their pastures to benefit horses and the environment.

Educational events are held there throughout the year.

Horse Outreach Workgroup

http://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/Pages/horse_pasture_manure_info.aspx

The Horse Outreach Workgroup provides how‐to documents to help horse owners with their

pasture and manure management issues. The workgroup consists of representatives from local

Soil Conservation Districts, MDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension,

University of Maryland, the Equiery, and the Maryland Horse Industry Board. The MDA’s Office

of Resource Conservation provides coordination for the workgroup.

Howard County MDA Equine Planner

http://www.howardscd.org/SCD/SCD_staff.htm

Based in the Howard County Soil Conservation office, MDA Equine Planners offer free advice for

horse farm operators on establishing best management practices for their farms and properties,

providing one on one consultations regarding pasture management, environmental concerns,

water management, and erosion control.

My Horse University

http://www.myhorseuniversity.com/

My Horse University (MHU) was established in 2005 at Michigan State University, the pioneer

land‐grant university with nationally‐ranked programs in equine science and management.

MHU brings research and knowledge from world‐renowned experts to online courses and

products. MHU’s courses provide a comprehensive and convenient learning experience for horse

enthusiasts throughout the world.

Howard County DPZ releases specific amendments reflecting July 19 meeting with stakeholders

Courtesy of The Equiery: http://equiery.com/blog/?p=1819

On Friday, July 19, 2013, officials from the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning and the Councilwoman chairing the Comprehensive Zoning Planning Committee met with state equine industry leaders as well as Howard County stakeholders to review problematic amendments to the county zoning plan. For a detailed list of who was involved with that meeting,please read our July 19 post. Lively discussion continued over the weekend and well into the start of this week, making it a herculean challenge for DPZ to finalize the changes to the amendments, but late yesterday, Tuesday, July 23, those changes were finally released.

Earlier today, The Equiery posted the amendments as straight text. DPZ provided this handy, color coded version to make it easier to follow all the changes, so we are now providing this version as well (in case this seems to be a redundant post; we do intend to remove the earlier post). Bluereflects changes made as a result of the meeting with stakeholders on Friday, July 19.

The County Council will vote on the comprehensive zoning plan tomorrow, Thursday, July 25. Councilwoman Mary Kay Sigaty assured participants in the stakeholder’s meeting that refinements could continue to be made, even after the Council votes on the overall comprehensive plan.

LIVESTOCK: ANIMALS TYPICALLY KEPT FOR FARMING PURPOSES, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COWS, GOATS, HORSES AND OTHER EQUUS, POULTRY AND OTHER FOWL, SHEEP, OR SWINE. FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC ANIMALS RAISED BY AQUAFARMING ARE CONSIDERED TO BE LIVESTOCK. CATS, DOGS, RABBITS AND OTHER SIMILAR SMALL ANIMALS OFTEN KEPT AS PETS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE LIVESTOCK. BEES ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE LIVESTOCK.

Revise a current definition:

ANIMAL UNIT: A UNIT OF MEASUREMENT USED TO REGULATE THE NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK [[ANIMAL TYPES]] ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT OR PARCEL, BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO FARMS [[BASED ON THE POTENTIAL FOR PASTURAGE]]. ONE ANIMAL UNIT EQUALS THE FOLLOWING:

A. ONE HORSE, [[OR]] MULE, OR COW.

B. TWO PONIES, MINIATURE HORSES, DONKEYS, OR PIGS.

C. FOUR LLAMAS OR [[ALPACAS]] OSTRICHES.

D. [[FIVE]] TEN SHEEP, [[OR]] GOATS, OR ALPACAS

ANIMAL UNIT RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER LIVESTOCK OR IMMATURE ANIMALS OR FOWL SHALL BE MADE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS USING GENERALLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON ANIMAL UNIT EQUIVALENCIES AND THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED RATIO THAT ONE ANIMAL UNIT APPROXIMATELY EQUALS 1,000 POUNDS OF LIVE ANIMAL WEIGHT. FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC ANIMALS IN AQUAFARMING FACILITIES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANIMAL UNIT REQUIREMENTS.

Revise a current definition:

[[76.]] Farm: A lot or parcel [[principally]] used for farming [[, WHICH RECEIVES THE AGRICULTURAL USE ASSESSMENT FOR TAX PURPOSES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMAR 18.02.03.]] THAT IS 3.0 ACRES OR LARGER. [[[Council Bill 9-2011 (ZRA-130) Effective 7/4/11]]]

Revise a current definition:

[[77.]] Farming: The use of land for agricultural purposes, including: [[agriculture, apiaries, horticulture, orchards, agricultural nurseries, viticulture, aquaculture, silviculture, and animal and poultry husbandry. Farming includes basic processing of agricultural products as defined in this section (see “agricultural processing, primary”), but shall not include the acceptance or disposal of land clearing debris or rubble which originates off-site or the commercial feeding of garbage or offal to swine or other animals. The breeding, raising, training, boarding and general care of livestock for uses other than for food, such as sport or show purposes, as pets, or for recreation, shall be considered a normal farming function, but kennels are excluded from this definition.]]

A. CROP PRODUCTION, APIARIES, HORTICULTURE, ORCHARDS, AGRICULTURAL NURSERIES, VITICULTURE, SILVICULTURE, AQUACULTURE, AND ANIMAL AND POULTRY HUSBANDRY;

B. THE GROWING, HARVESTING AND PRIMARY PROCESSING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS;

C. THE BREEDING, RAISING, TRAINING, BOARDING AND GENERAL CARE OF LIVESTOCK FOR USES OTHER THAN FOOD, SUCH AS SPORT OR SHOW PURPOSES, AS PETS OR FOR RECREATION.

D. THE OPERATION OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT THAT IS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A [[PRINCIPAL]] FARMING FUNCTION. AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT MAY BE USED ON FARMS THAT ARE NOT THE FARM ON WHICH THE MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IS NORMALLY STORED;

E. THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BARNS, SILOS AND OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE BULK REGULATIONS;

F. THE TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE, HANDLING AND APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER, SOIL AMENDMENTS, PESTICIDES AND MANURE, SUBJECT TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS; [[AND]]

G. THE TEMPORARY, ONSITE PROCESSING OF CHICKENS OR RABBITS ON A FARM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGRICULTURE ARTICLE OF THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND; AND

[[G]]H. OTHER USES DIRECTLY RELATED TO, OR AS AN ACCESSORY USE OF, THE PREMISES’ FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.

Revise a current definition:

[[193.]] Structure: Anything constructed or built [[, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground, or attached to something having permanent location on the ground]]. The following shall not be considered structures for bulk regulation purposes:

a. [[Awnings]]ACCESSORY ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, AWNINGS, bus shelters, exterior lighting fixtures, fire hydrants, mail boxes, telephone, ELECTRICAL OR CABLEequipment boxes, newspaper boxes and survey monuments;

b. Gardens, driveways, walks, patios, and parking surfaces;

c. Ground level decks, limited to decks elevated 18 inches or less above average grade and having no railing, walls or roofing;

D. OUTDOOR BARBECUES AND FIREPITS IF 18 INCHES OR LESS HIGH ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE.

[[d.]]E. Noise barriers or noise walls;

[[e.]]F. Signs are not considered to be a structure or part of a structure, and are regulated by the Howard County Code.

[[f.]]G. Stormwater management facilities;

H. ALL STRUCTURES EXEMPT FROM SETBACK COMPLIANCE IN SECTION 128.0.A

I. OUTDOOR RIDING RINGS, RUN-IN SHEDS OR SIMILAR FARM STRUCTURES WITH A MAXIMUM OF THREE WALLS AND A MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT OF 500 SQUARE FEET, AND COMPOSTING BINS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY-BENEFICIAL FARM STRUCTURES.

[[g.]]I. Similar minor structures as determined by the Department of Planning and Zoning on a case-by-case basis.

Revise a current definition:

ZONING PERMIT: A DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE HOWARD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING AUTHORIZING AN ENTITY TO BEGIN [[AN ACTIVITY]] CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR USES [[PROVIDED FOR]] AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 128.0 OF THESE ZONING REGULATIONS.

In each district which currently permits farming:

Farming.[[[[]], provided that on a [[lot]] RESIDENTIAL LOT OR PARCEL of less than 40,000 square feet [[, no fowl other than for the normal use of the family residing on the lot and]] no livestock shall be permitted[[]]]], HOWEVER, RESIDENTIAL CHICKEN KEEPING IS ALLOWED AS NOTED IN SECTION 128.0.

Revise current subsection in Section 128.0:

10. LIVESTOCK ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS OR PARCELS

[[ONLY]] IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WHERE IT IS ENUMERATED AS AN ACCESSORY USE, LIVESTOCK ARE PERMITTED ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS OR PARCELS SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA BELOW.

A. THE LOT OR PARCEL SIZE SHALL BE [[3 ACRES]] 40,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER.

[[B. THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE SHALL BE IN USE AS A DWELLING.]]

C. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK ANIMALS IS ONE ANIMAL UNIT OR FRACTION THEREOF FOR EACH [[1.5 ACRES]] 1.0 ACRE OF LOT AREA, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT A HIGHER RATIO MAY BE ALLOWED AFTER THE PROPERTY OWNER OBTAINS AND IMPLEMENTS A NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND COLLABORATES WITH THE HOWARD COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT.

D. THE ANIMAL SHELTER LOCATION(S) SHALL COMPLY WITH THE ANIMAL SHELTER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 128.0.[[B.]] A. SETBACK VARIANCES, HOWEVER, MAY BE APPROVED BY THE HEARING AUTHORITY.

Revise Section 128.0.A.4

[[4. Required Setback for Certain Farm Uses

200 feet of an existing dwelling on a different lot:

a. An animal shelter including a building, shed, roofed structure or movable shelter that houses or provides protection for animals other than household pets, except for apiaries which meet the requirements of subsection O; or

[Council Bill 55-2010 (ZRA-117) Effective April 13, 2011]

b. The storage of manure.]]

4. ANIMAL SHELTER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS

STRUCTURES USED FOR THE HOUSING, BOARDING, OR SHELTERING OF ANIMALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BARNS, BUILDINGS, HUTCHES, SHEDS, ROOFED STRUCTURES, AND PREFABRICATED MOVEABLE ANIMAL HOUSES, AND ANY AREAS USED FOR THE STORAGE OF ANIMAL EXCREMENT, [[SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 200 FEET FROM ANY EXISTING DWELLING ON A DIFFERENT LOT AND]] SHALL COMPLY WITH THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT. [[THE FOLLOWING ARE EXEMPTED FROM THIS REQUIREMENT:]]

IN ADDITION, ANIMAL SHELTERS MEASURING LARGER THAN 500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 200 FEET FROM ANY EXISTING DWELLING ON A DIFFERENT LOT AND ANIMAL SHELTERS 500 SQUARE FEET OR SMALLER SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM 100 FEET FROM ANY EXISTING DWELLING ON A DIFFERENT LOT. THE FOLLOWING ARE EXEMPTED FROM THIS REQUIREMENT:

A. SHELTERS USED FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS.

B. SHELTERS USED FOR RESIDENTIAL CHICKEN KEEPING WHICH COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH STRUCTURES AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 128.0.D.

C. APIARIES WHICH COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 128.0.N.

Revise Section 128.0.I

There are 8 special farm uses with varying criteria and we have clarified for each the language about not having a significant adverse impact on neighboring properties. We’ve clarified that this means:

“FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, ADVERSE IMPACT SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY IMPACT NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH FARMS FOLLOWING GENERALLY ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OR FARMS OPERATING PERMITTED USES UNDER THIS SECTION”

Details from the Howard County Zoning Meeting on July 16, 2013

Susan Gray's Recap of the Howard County Zoning Meeting:

It was pretty amazing. Despite an article on the front page of the Sunday
Sun with the inaccurate headline "County officials back off controversial
new livestock, farm rules," almost 70 folks showed up for the rally and/or
to testify. That is quite a number, particularly given the newspaper
article and the short time frame for getting the word out. We had great
representation from backyard horse and pony owners and all kinds of groups:
4H, Pony Club, Spur & Stirrup, TROT, PVDA, Saddlepals, League of Maryland
Horseman, Central Maryland Saddle Club, to name a few. Howie Feaga,
President of the Howard County Farm Bureau and owner of a lovely boarding
facility on an agricultural preservation property in the County was there to
support us, as was the Patuxent Riverkeeper, Fred Tutman. [We counted 68
people at the rally, and then 30 people testified to the Council on the
problematic proposals concerning small farms (the vast majority of the
people testifying); about 10 more had signed up to testify but had to go
home before being called on -- a great showing.]

I think everyone made it very clear that the small farm community was upset
that they were not considered in the drafting of these proposals that came
to light last week; that they were not deterred by the Department of
Planning and Zoning's reassurances that they were actually trying to
"liberalize" things for the small farm community; and that these proposed
regulations would pose real problems to the small farm community if adopted.
Numerous, super speakers addressed these issues and also how environmental
concerns were best addressed through collaboration with Soil Conservation
Service and implementing best management practices, instead of through
animal to acreage ratios. Speakers gave the Council concrete examples of
how small farming practices are conducted and how the proposed regulations
would negatively affect them. 

As of several hours before the hearing, the Department of Planning and
Zoning had made several language changes in the proposed regulations. As of
the last draft published, there were still very significant issues
outstanding. The primarily issue to my mind is ensuring that small
farmers retain their ability to keep livestock as a matter of right, instead
of as an accessory use as the County proposes. Also, very importantly, the
latest iteration of the proposed regulations still contains setback
requirements and very significant limitations on the total sq. footage that
accessory structures can cover. Finally, as to the issue of number of
animals allowed per acre, the draft proposed increasing the number of
animals allowed somewhat--from the 1 horse per 1.5 acres as initially
proposed to 1 horse per acre. But the draft still contains no requirement
that this animal limitation would be lifted if the livestock owner worked
with the Soil Conservation Service to develop a conservation plan. The
latest draft language specifies that the limitation "may" be lifted, but
does not make lifting the limitation mandatory.

We've made progress but there is still quite a ways to go in a very short
time frame. We'll see what happens. I think it was obvious at the hearing
that the Council heard our concerns. The question is now, what are they
going to do about it and how are they going to vote? Thanks again
everybody for getting involved Tuesday night. It really does take a village
to make things work. 

Susan G.