[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6488721,"mediaKeyId","5599846-a0bc5fe91a90993b2cfda85f4b63e516","parentId",5599846,"title","Caroline County adopts emergency amendment to agricultural processing setbacks","audioSeconds",448,"startMs",6009000,"endMs",6457000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5599846-a0bc5fe91a90993b2cfda85f4b63e516&start=6009&end=6457","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5599846-a0bc5fe91a90993b2cfda85f4b63e516/thumbnail_6009000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6488721/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-County-adopts-emergency-amendment-to-agricultural-processing-setbacks","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6488721-c6db9f1c200961a24ec45ebe876f3fc2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770596150&Signature=eKg3J6y0IQsrG~j-57-q02yFJrcx8O~40gIqERxrkO~rSEmJ4blQdkteP-04aEGtTHFymeaSJXVescLgrMp9h5cySOlSXnOMXv3yRaDsCRIvKNrVszkw6fePx9Jj-SzcAnspeXmm8GJlOozwuGGqkPKfikSYznMzDGnK6t99qVjMxZfVCeukZNr3FwIaTdJEwXChVU37JP3RjUx8hwuUGJBXwKkYV0QPVZdSWtlAwrGOvJSQaElNknoomWUhCdMFlpFp7lb~nr2Iu6yfT-JGSSjadokO9ZLZRF11x2A75DovLLzEuTx4eja8obrbmQSKfah3-P7u4MNg51zU0czfxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Caroline","date","2025-08-19T00:00:00Z","article","Caroline County commissioners enacted an emergency ordinance on Aug. 19 to amend section 175‑34 of the county zoning code addressing agricultural and fishery products processing plants.

The amendment, introduced July 22 and heard at a public hearing on Aug. 5, changes two provisions: it reduces the minimum setback for flour, feed and grain packaging, blending, storage or milling from 500 feet to 200 feet from all lot lines when those activities are permitted in the R (Rural) zoning district; and it clarifies that any commercial slaughtering and processing of farm animals, fish or seafood must be located at least 500 feet from all lot lines.

County Attorney Stuart Barrell presented the bill at third reading and noted that because it was introduced as an emergency measure it took effect upon enactment: “This bill was introduced on July 22 with the first reading. The public hearing was held on August 5. And to my knowledge, we did not receive any public comment on that. And we are scheduled today, for the third reading and the potential enactment. As this is, an emergency bill, it would become effective today if it is passed.”

A commissioner moved to adopt Legislative Bill 2025‑008, a second was given, and the board voted in favor; the clerk announced, “Ayes have it.” The transcript does not record individual roll‑call votes. The measure was enacted immediately as an emergency bill.

What changed

- Flour/feed/grain packaging, blending, storage or milling: minimum setback in R district reduced from 500 feet to 200 feet from all lot lines when the activity is allowed.
- Commercial slaughtering and processing: required to remain at least 500 feet from all lot lines.

Next steps

Because the ordinance was enacted as an emergency measure, it is effective immediately. The county clerk will publish the enacted text and the code will be updated to reflect the amended section 175‑34.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Caroline - Caroline County Commissioners Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Commissioners enacted an emergency bill (LB 2025‑008) that narrows the setback for flour/feed/grain packaging and milling in rural districts from 500 to 200 feet and confirms a 500‑foot setback for commercial slaughtering and processing.","taxTitle","Caroline County, Maryland","taxId",61674,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6488727,"Caroline County staff to align local solar rules with state law, consider ag‑preservation fee for commercial projects on farmland",2402,3562000,5964000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5599846-a0bc5fe91a90993b2cfda85f4b63e516&start=3562&end=5964","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5599846-a0bc5fe91a90993b2cfda85f4b63e516/thumbnail_3562000.jpg","/articles/6488727/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-County-staff-to-align-local-solar-rules-with-state-law-consider-agpreservation-fee-for-commercial-projects-on-farmland","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6488727-9b71b8d990a37182875025c562fa0bcb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770596150&Signature=EavEumnDsTvT-ksWmggBFFY7gSuS1kzJCFBDsLOTRRYAWaGQw-APpZDY18au9EKTQI8LyWTwKccAt72Ypo0vidfhONh~IYww4wr~iJVyYTcSSRVilnaYWjqt8VoQEzAfG4LI1FQO3P08-yGTSHqsStJxzyDE6EbbomEwASMC9XoIbjUi0yeB6ZPkKfY6JsNrzKf2SZZNFawvG0Dit1P9CUfwLMZy-xpEeYneYIv2CSrWqt4xdn98yPHVl53XwoF~NEtVsNcvKctxfYCAVULBiBlsgEcHf2uf4UeEqILa30Jp4H6BQrNtDYHF2p1khwNRlv3YK8EVTv~Zf6GbvuuUGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caroline County commissioners and staff on Aug. 19 reviewed proposed changes to the county’s solar regulations, focusing on how state law (including a recent net‑metering provision) affects local siting, setbacks, vegetative buffers and a proposed compensatory contribution for projects on agricultural land.

Planning staff said the draft would preserve accessory (residential) solar while aligning larger projects with state definitions and standards. The board discussed a proposed requirement that commercial solar projects placed on USDA‑classified prime or statewide‑important farmland make a compensatory contribution to the county’s agricultural‑preservation fund.

Why it matters

The draft distinguishes accessory rooftop systems, ground‑mounted farm systems used for net metering, and larger commercial or community solar arrays. Staff and commissioners discussed three sizing thresholds — under 1 megawatt, 1–5 megawatts, and larger projects — because state rules referenced in the draft apply different siting and review requirements at different capacities.

What commissioners and staff debated

- Thresholds and setbacks: Planning staff said projects 1 megawatt and above would be subject to minimum state siting standards; under 1 megawatt accessory systems would generally remain subject to existing local zoning setbacks (typically 40 feet front, 10 feet sides/rear in rural districts). Staff recommended carving project sizes out in the county’s table of uses so reviewers can apply rules by megawatt class.

- Compensatory preservation contribution: Commissioners discussed directing a per‑project preservation payment into the county’s agricultural‑preservation fund rather than sending all collected funds to the state program. Planning staff described two buckets of funds tied to development and transfers and said the county currently forwards funds to a state preservation program (referred to in the discussion as the county contribution to the state program). One commissioner said he wants any county‑collected contribution used for farmland preservation in Caroline County.

- Buffers and screening: The draft relies on state buffer language but staff recommended using the maximum buffer allowed where practical and tightening rules so screening cannot be satisfied by vegetation on neighboring properties alone. Commissioners asked staff to clarify whether existing wooded vegetation on an adjacent parcel can satisfy the requirement and suggested preferring on‑site screening.

- Battery energy storage: Staff and commissioners noted confusion about recent code changes and whether state legislation addresses battery energy‑storage safety. One staff speaker summarized that they had not found binding changes in recent legislation that alter local safety provisions: “There has not been anything that has that has been changed... there is... nothing in this bill That addressed battery energy, storage, safety. No.”

- Timing and fees: The draft would require compensatory payments when a building permit for a solar project is approved; staff said collection would follow permit issuance and be deposited in a county fund. Commissioners discussed whether the county should hold funds until the state program resumes or stand up a local program that directs funds to county priorities.

Next steps

Staff will revise the draft to: add separate table‑of‑uses entries by megawatt size, confirm which zoning districts and septic/forest tiers will allow larger projects, clarify buffer/screening language (favoring on‑site screening), and specify when and how compensatory preservation contributions are collected and held. The board directed staff to return the revised ordinance for first introduction as soon as possible.","Commissioners reviewed draft amendments to solar siting rules, including how to treat accessory rooftop solar, net metering, a 1‑megawatt threshold, setbacks, screening and a compensatory preservation contribution for solar sited on prime farmland. Staff will refine the zoning table, fee timing and buffer language before introduction.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6488731,"Caroline County commissioners review draft public‑nuisance ordinance; staff to refine appeals process",3135,444000,3579000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5599846-a0bc5fe91a90993b2cfda85f4b63e516&start=444&end=3579","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5599846-a0bc5fe91a90993b2cfda85f4b63e516/thumbnail_444000.jpg","/articles/6488731/Caroline-County/Maryland/Caroline-County-commissioners-review-draft-publicnuisance-ordinance-staff-to-refine-appeals-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6488731-bacc109eb3982147e923f5efabcd4a90/orig.mp4?Expires=1770596150&Signature=iHdOqYxbRkMo~R~YSg4fPnbBnaAwIsO1ZP9w182B2VX4jblPmZkh1ysqoAZlsjEPeeD5jrsmD8N-TNKKhIuq9f-e46MVN7jiDUjZnvLxsGOKC3hQp46nOSc0YsaVt8wkX0JcYlyxh8ud9lSbCEXLRnInTKf0xfZPSm78UFLKsnSBpCWfV~-fmuIFVCcMXNUKs1XjxpQMedVDacZO7E712UJWQYV0AfQSS8Vg~CZMQmoEY4IYyEoA5sWlqiINb5jT4PnBf76wyM2-sdnhEDV5Bkm0rxRAqu8Pkvt2r0zmfv~nyxsv3svghNmWMdN3Bg3dRAGM0ehtGFfmEsJFtKEJwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caroline County commissioners discussed a draft ordinance on public nuisances during an Aug. 19 workshop, receiving legal and health‑department input and directing staff to tighten definitions and the appeals process before formal introduction.

The draft would add a definition and abatement procedure to chapter 175 and set out how the county and the health officer would identify, notify and — if necessary — abate public nuisances. County Attorney Stuart Barrell said the measure aims to give local structure to powers that already exist under state law: “A public nuisance is something that affects an entire area, the public at large or perhaps a section.”

Commissioners and staff told the board the proposal is intended to provide clearer, faster local responses to problems such as burning, long‑term trash accumulation, occupied recreational vehicles and abandoned structures while preserving due process for property owners.

Key points discussed

- Scope and definitions: Commissioners raised concern about the line between private and public nuisance. Barrell said the state’s Health‑General language and case law distinguish public nuisances from private disputes, and that there is no fixed numeric threshold: “A public nuisance is one that goes beyond that. It doesn't have to affect 2, 3, 4. There's no, there's no set number.”

- Agricultural exemptions: The draft would exclude conditions resulting from farm operations that follow generally accepted agricultural practices unless they pose an immediate safety or health hazard. Commissioners noted agriculture has been a recurring concern in past attempts to address nuisances.

- Enforcement and evidence limits: Planning and codes staff currently view many complaints from public rights‑of‑way because staff lack authority to trespass. Director of Planning and Codes Crystal Dads said the county’s current enforcement often relies on photos and neighbor reports and that a local ordinance could let codes staff issue civil citations more quickly: “If you were to adopt burning regulations and use, you know, our processes we have in place through civil citation... they get cited. They don't do it again.”

- Coordination with health department and legal counsel: Health Officer Robin Cahor described recent complaint activity for environmental health issues and stressed the need for legal support when abatement escalates: “There were, like, 15, I think, over a 6 month period, that were investigated. A few of them notices were issued. Once the notice of violation is issued, it usually rectifies the situation... It's after that where it's the issue.” Cahor said she can pursue emergency action under state authority but needs local legal resources for timely abatement.

- Appeals and hearing forum: Commissioner Larry Porter voiced worry that appeals could overrun the regular commissioners’ calendar if many landowners contest abatement orders, noting the board should avoid creating too many new bodies. Porter said he did not want the county to end up regularly scheduling multiple hearing dockets: “My biggest concern in this entire thing.” Staff discussed alternatives including special meetings, the Board of Zoning Appeals or a new advisory panel.

- Budget and lien/clean costs: Staff flagged that abatement by the county requires budgeted funds or a lien/collection mechanism. Commissioners noted that while liens are an option, up‑front county outlays may be needed for emergency abatement.

- Priority issues raised: commissioners and staff identified three priorities to address in drafting: open burning enforcement, temporary habitation in recreational vehicles when it creates unsanitary conditions, and abandoned or derelict structures that pose hazards or depress neighborhood property values.

Next steps

Staff agreed to meet — including planning and codes, the health department and administration — to refine language on triggers, appeals and legal representation and to circulate a revised draft before any formal introduction. A public commenter who follows county preservation issues offered to tour properties and work with staff on identifying sites that could fall under the proposed ordinance.

The workshop discussion did not include a vote; commissioners directed staff to continue drafting and return for a future introduction.","County officials and staff discussed a proposed ordinance defining public nuisances and formalizing abatement procedures, focusing on definitions, due process, agricultural exemptions, appeals and budget implications. Staff will meet to refine language before introduction.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Caroline County adopts emergency amendment to agricultural processing setbacks

Caroline County staff to align local solar rules with state law, consider ag‑preservation fee for commercial projects on farmland

Caroline County commissioners review draft public‑nuisance ordinance; staff to refine appeals process