Montgomery County committee unanimously approves bill clarifying agricultural building exemptions

Montgomery County’s Economic Development Committee unanimously approved Bill 7-26 on March 23, a measure that defines when buildings used for agricultural purposes are exempt from county building-permit requirements and narrows an exemption for spaces where the public consumes food or beverages. The committee approved the measure as amended in committee.

Council President Gonzales opened the session and said the bill, sponsored by Gonzales, Council Vice President Mary Ann Balcom and Council Member Lukey, aims to reduce uncertainty for both regulators and property owners. Council staff told the committee the bill was introduced Feb. 10, 2026, and that a public hearing on March 10 drew supportive testimony, with staff summarizing impact statements as: no climate or fiscal impact, minimal racial and equity impact, and generally positive economic effects due to reduced fees and clearer requirements.

Council staff said the core of Bill 7-26 is a county definition of “agricultural purpose” that mirrors language in the county zoning ordinance (chapter 59) and chapter 2b on agricultural easements. The proposed definition explicitly includes farm work and the storage of agricultural instruments and products, the business administration of farming, and processing of agricultural products to prepare them for market. "The intent of this bill is to shed some light so that there is less gray area," said council staff.

Staff also explained a targeted change to the exemption language: buildings or structures in which customers or other members of the public consume food or beverages would remain subject to Chapter 8 of the county building code. A staff clarifying amendment cites Maryland Public Safety Article §12-508, which narrowly defines certain agricultural buildings that do not require a change-of-occupancy permit for agritourism activities; the amendment makes clear the county did not intend to impose new permitting requirements on structures already exempt under state law.

Mike Shuffle, director of the Office of Agricultural Services, told the committee his office supports the bill and did not believe the measure would create additional regulatory hurdles. "I believe it was very clear what the intent of this bill was, and it wasn't to create more regulatory hurdles for anybody who wants to do this," Mike Shuffle said.

Rabia Savakan, director of the Department of Permitting Services, endorsed the clarification as well, calling it likely to make enforcement and administration easier. Savakan and staff explained that when a single structure has multiple uses, DPS commonly looks for structural separations—such as firewalls—or other design features to determine whether different parts of a building should be treated as distinct for permitting purposes.

Council Vice President Mary Ann Balcom asked specifically about dual-use facilities such as farm-based alcohol producers that have production and tasting rooms in the same building. Balcom said she wanted to ensure the bill would permit renovations to production areas or business offices even if a portion of the building is open to the public. Staff and DPS responded that, in practice, separations in design and demonstration to DPS (for example, showing distinct structural elements or fire separation) typically allow portions to be treated separately for permitting.

Council Member Lorien Silk asked how many recent permit applications DPS had received for agricultural structures that would become exempt under the expanded definition. Rabia Savakan said the department did not have an exact count but would "guesstimate under a dozen" applications in recent years. Silk also asked whether controlled-environment-agriculture operations would be covered; Office of Agricultural Services and staff said the county zoning definition of farming generally includes controlled-environment agriculture, but final determinations depend on site-specific conditions and encumbrances.

Council Member Tomlucchi confirmed that existing state agritourism exemptions would continue to apply and sought assurance that a farmer’s residence on the property would not automatically disqualify the land from being considered "land used exclusively for agriculture." DPS Director Savakan confirmed that a farmer living on the property would not automatically remove eligibility, although certain occupancy thresholds or activities might trigger permit requirements.

After discussion, Council Vice President Mary Ann Balcom moved to approve Bill 7-26 as amended; Council Member Lorraine Sales seconded the motion. The committee voted and passed the bill unanimously.

The bill will proceed to full council for further consideration.