Appeal hearing opened over whether poultry-litter biorefinery is allowed in A-1 agricultural zone

The Wicomico County Board of Appeals opened a hearing on an appeal (case WA2507) challenging the zoning administrator’s determination that processing poultry litter on-site through a biorefinery is not an allowable use in the A-1 agricultural district.

County staff, represented in the hearing by Zoning Administrator Clark Meadows and attorney Erica Wits for the Department of Planning and Zoning, presented a staff report and supporting exhibits. Staff recounted that a stop-work order was issued after the county learned a building permit for an agricultural storage building was being used to construct a structure intended to house a biorefinery. Meadows summarized the record: the applicant had told staff the facility would process poultry litter from the farm to produce biochar and a small quantity of biofuel; the biochar would be bagged on-site and used by the Maryland Department of Agriculture while biofuel would be trucked off-site for sale.

Meadows advised the board that relevant definitions in chapter 225 of the county code distinguish “agricultural products” as harvested plant or animal products and explicitly exclude processed products; section 225-25 (definitions) and related use-table provisions led staff to conclude the planned processing activity is a processed product and thus neither an agricultural product nor a customary accessory activity in A-1. Staff’s recommendation was that the board uphold the zoning administrator’s decision and sustain the stop-work order.

Counsel for interested neighbors and property owners (including attorneys Zachary Kelsey and Danielle Diamond) told the board they support the county’s determination and plan to present testimony from adjacent landowners raising concerns about industrial intensity and neighborhood impacts. Counsel for the appellant, including Ryan Showalter and co-counsel, argued the activity is consistent with county definitions and should be allowed either as a permitted use or, at minimum, as an accessory to agricultural operations; they said the operation mirrors processing that occurs on poultry farms elsewhere and invited the board to reverse the zoning administrator’s decision.

During staff testimony the board examined exhibits including building-permit materials, photographs, a University of Maryland information package submitted by the applicant, and correspondence from the Maryland Department of Agriculture. Meadows testified the Department of Planning and Zoning had not received zoning guidance from MDA prior to receiving the March 12 letter that addresses the technology but does not address local zoning.

Cross-examination began in the record excerpt reviewed. The county’s position emphasizes three legal points enumerated in the staff report: (1) the County Code’s definitions do not recognize the processing of poultry litter into biochar or biofuel as an agricultural product; (2) the processing activity is not listed as a permissible principal use in A-1; and (3) the activity is not “customarily incidental” to poultry production under the accessory-use definition. Appellants argue those interpretations misapply the code and that the board should interpret the activity as consistent with customary agricultural accessory activities.

No final decision is recorded in the portion of the transcript reviewed; the board indicated it may deliberate and prepare a draft resolution for consideration at a later meeting. The record and testimony entered tonight will form the administrative record for any later appeal.