Wicomico residents, county officials clash over permit for alleged biorefinery in A‑1 farm zone

WICOMICO COUNTY — County zoning and building officials and local residents sparred at an appeals hearing over whether a structure permitted as a storage pole building is actually an industrial biorefinery operating in an A‑1 agricultural district.

Zoning Administrator Mr. Meadows said poultry production is a permitted use by right in the A‑1 district and that the county’s zoning code treats poultry houses as part of broader agricultural operations subject to design standards. "Poultry production is permitted by right in the A‑1 district," he said, adding that the county does not require an additional use approval for poultry operations, though standards vary by property size.

The dispute centers on a large building on Atkins Road that the property owner permitted as a pole building for storage. Kia Safai, Wicomico County chief building inspector, said his office accepted a permit application listing the intended use as "storage," but that on-site inspections found structural work and equipment inconsistent with a simple storage shell. "The structural design that was submitted to the department as a storage facility was significantly different than the actual structure that was being constructed," Safai said, describing a concrete platform, bolt connections, and other elements he said supported heavy equipment and a crane system.

Why this matters: Residents said the building appears designed for industrial processing and raised concerns about air emissions, truck traffic, potential contamination of nearby wells and the paleo water channel that runs through the neighborhood. Several neighbors asked the county to treat the facility as an industrial use and to enforce zoning that, they say, excludes industrial operations from A‑1 agricultural zones.

What officials said: Meadows and other county staff told the hearing that the zoning code defines a "poultry house" to include appurtenances such as litter storage, manure sheds, incinerators and composters and that the county’s right‑to‑farm provisions import a broad definition of "agricultural operations" from other sections of the county code and state law. Meadows read aloud the zoning definition: "Any structure, including all related buildings and appurtenances designed and used for the growing of poultry, this includes but is not limited to fans, feed bins, litter storage, manure sheds, incinerators, composters, and cold storage." He also testified the zoning chapter presumes permitted uses will be provided for in at least one zoning district and that, where a term is defined elsewhere in the county code, that other definition controls.

On manure and related activities, Meadows said the zoning code does not require permits for the transport of poultry manure, the application of poultry litter to fields, or for on‑site composting tied to poultry operations. "The zoning does not require that," he said when asked whether the county requires permits for transport of poultry manure.

What the building inspector found: Safai said his office took photos showing equipment with names linked to a bio/biochemical company and components he described as related to a biorefinery. He told the board the site "looked like a concrete platform with connections that would carry some type of heavy equipment," and that some items suggested electrical service and processing equipment. Safai said some work remained incomplete and that the building was not operational at the time of his visit.

Resident concerns: Dozens of neighbors spoke or were represented at the hearing. "We were blindsided," said Greg Tallent, who said he lives about eight houses from the property. Tallent and other residents cited health concerns from potential emissions, the smell of burning biomass or manure, increased heavy‑truck traffic on narrow local roads and the potential for groundwater contamination. Several speakers noted vulnerable neighbors with asthma and retirees living nearby.

Neighbor testimony also raised the paleo channel overlay: interested parties asked whether the county considered provisions specific to the paleo water channel when assessing the permit. County staff clarified that the department did not deny the permit on the basis that the parcel is located in the paleo channel overlay and that the paleo overlay was not the stated basis for the zoning administrator’s decision.

Permits and discrepancies: Safai said the county received two building permit applications for the site and that the applicant listed the larger building’s cost at $12,000 while the county’s internal estimate for a storage building of that size was about $144,000. Safai explained the county uses internal estimating methods and will accept the applicant’s declared value when issued.

Procedure and next steps: Safai said his office brought the matter to planning and zoning for administrative review after his site visit to determine whether the actual use matched the permit. He said the building had been reviewed and issued under storage (an S‑2 occupancy) rather than as a processing facility (F‑2 in the International Building Code), which carry different construction and review requirements. Safai also said he had authority to issue a stop‑work order based on construction inconsistencies.

What was not decided: The board did not issue a final ruling on whether the structure is an industrial biorefinery or an accessory agricultural operation during the portion of the hearing in this transcript. Residents submitted exhibits and asked the board to consider them; at least one permit application was entered into the record as Exhibit I. County staff said zoning and building reviews would continue.

Community context: Neighbors said the property adjoins long‑held family farms and residential lots on Atkins Road and Hickory Mill Road. Speakers argued the A‑1 zone’s purpose — to preserve rural character and agricultural viability — would be undermined by industrial processing on the site.

Closing: The hearing continued with interested parties offering exhibits and the board considering whether to admit them and whether additional witnesses should testify. County staff and neighbors agreed the matter required further review to reconcile building‑code classifications, zoning definitions and on‑the‑ground conditions.