Wicomico County Council narrows kennel setback, grandfathers existing special exceptions after public outcry

The Wicomico County Council on Feb. 18 adopted a revised kennel ordinance after reconsidering a veto and working through several amendments that council members said were needed to avoid unintentionally shutting existing kennel businesses.

Council President Cannon opened discussion after the county executive's veto of Legislative Bill 2025-01 required the council to reconsider the measure at its next legislative session. The bill, as originally amended at a prior session, had included a 1,000-foot separation requirement between kennels and neighboring residences; council members and staff said that figure would have effectively prevented many existing or prospective kennel operations from complying.

The council replaced the 1,000-foot separation with a 500-foot standard, struck the prior wording that measured set‑backs from property lines in a way that created uncertainty, and added provisions to grandfather existing kennels that had been permitted by special exception before Jan. 1, 2025. The council also added a provision allowing the Board of Appeals to modify the separation requirements as part of the special-exception hearing process.

Vice President Merritt said the earlier 1,000-foot figure was a mistake he intended to correct: “I made a mistake on that thousand foot. It would be near impossible for any existing kennel owner or someone who wanted to get into the kennel business to be able to adhere to that thousand foot rule,” he told the council during discussion.

Planning staff told the council that eight existing kennels had active special exceptions and that the amended language would allow those operations to continue as nonconforming uses under the code, while subjecting future expansions to the special-exception process. Planning Director Tracy Taylor and Department of Law staff helped craft substitute language, including a three‑year sunset for certain nonconforming privileges tied to specific conditions.

County Executive Julie Giordano, who had vetoed the earlier version, said her concern was unintended economic harm to kennel owners after the emergency amendment. “While I understand that the council may not have intended to shut down kennels, the reality is that the original legislation had that consequence. Intentions matter, but so do outcomes,” she said during public comment.

Neighbors and kennel operators took turns at the podium during hours of public comment. Some neighbors described a long-running noise problem at a particular property; nearby residents urged the council to use zoning tools to address quality-of-life impacts. Kennel owners and operators described investments in buildings and employment, and asked the council to preserve the special-exception route rather than a near‑categorical ban.

The council adopted the revised bill as amended by roll-call vote of 6 to 1. The council directed staff to provide clear notices of the codified changes to kennel owners and to retain the item on the calendar for review in a year to assess whether the amendments are working as intended.

The vote record, as taken during the session, was: Councilman Holloway — Aye; Councilman Hastings — Aye; Councilman Wynne — No; Councilwoman Shields — Aye; Councilman Baker — Aye; Vice President Merritt — Aye; Chair votes Aye. The bill passed as amended, 6–1.

What happens next: The new code language will be codified in the county zoning code. Property owners who currently operate under a special exception were told they would be informed in writing of their status and any sunset provisions that apply. The council also asked staff to schedule a one‑year review on how the ordinance is working.