Howard County council debates agritourism ZRA changes over festivals, noise and shared driveways

Council members spent the first hour of a hybrid November work session pressing Department of Planning and Zoning staff to narrow and clarify several elements of the proposed agritourism zoning rewrite (ZRA).

The council opened by asking whether the ZRA should be delayed to let staff and the public refine amendments. Chair Walsh said the administration’s timing created a compressed review window and suggested tabling the bill to January to give staff and members more time. Linda Eisenberg, director of DPZ, told the council she had provided a companion document summarizing proposed changes and jurisdictional comparisons but acknowledged staff had not yet drafted specific amendments: “We have not started any amendments for any of those,” she said.

Much of the debate centered on how the code should treat festivals and other agritourism events. Council member Miss Rigby asked whether the draft had adopted testimony from the previous public hearing on poultry definitions and farm‑vehicle personnel. Miss Young urged a month for additional review: “I think giving us another month to really look at this and spend time with it,” she said. DPZ staff described a scale‑based approach intended to reduce conflicts for smaller lots, noting Howard County’s lack of a distinct ag zone compared with neighboring counties.

Council members pressed staff about festival limits and whether amplified music should be treated differently from fall‑harvest or craft festivals. One council member framed the worry simply: if the code allowed up to 52 events, it could invite large music festivals and substantial neighbor disruption. DPZ replied that the county does not see neighboring jurisdictions restricting the number of events but that a sliding acreage threshold was under discussion to distinguish small‑scale operators from larger venues.

Shared driveways generated sustained concern from residents and members. A speaker who identified herself as a neighbor urged that any approval process require a recorded agreement so future buyers would be aware of commercial uses on a shared driveway; DPZ described a proposed maintenance agreement and the option of affidavits signed by all shared‑driveway users. DPZ said the draft originally required affidavits and proposed replacing some regulatory language with maintenance agreements “so that way, they would have some type of agreement” among property owners.

Noise enforcement was another recurring theme. Council members asked where noise enforcement and penalties were codified and whether police response times and equipment would allow real‑time enforcement. DPZ said code enforcement favors compliance first, with citations and court actions for persistent violations, and pointed to Title 24 for penalty authority. Council members noted that prior, targeted zoning fines in emergency legislation had proven effective in reducing party‑house problems and asked whether similar escalation and the ability to revoke special farm permits could be part of the toolbox.

The Manor Hill Brewery case framed many of the council’s practical questions. Chair Walsh noted that multiple hearing‑examiner findings had raised noncompliance issues at that property and asked whether the ZRA’s changes would erase those findings. DPZ answered that some notices of violation could be alleviated by the ZRA but that other compliance issues likely would still require conditional use approvals.

Why it matters: The ZRA would change how Howard County permits agritourism enterprises such as farm festivals, small breweries, accessory event structures and farm‑based alcohol production. Council members repeatedly urged staff to convert public testimony into specific, recordable amendments and to clarify enforcement pathways before the bill goes to a vote.

What’s next: Council members asked staff to compile the testimony into a tracked set of possible amendments and to consider tabling the measure to allow more detailed redrafting and outreach.