Neighbors ask hearing examiner to limit or reverse Here We Grow Stables permit after summer camps and ticketed events

A group of neighbors urged a Howard County hearing examiner on Oct. 21 to rescind or narrow a special farm permit for 3260 Pfefferkorn Road, saying the new owner used the property this spring and summer as a broad summer-camp and events business rather than a riding academy and small farm stand.

Matthew Dunlop, who lives adjacent to the property, read portions of the applicant’s submitted materials into the record and described advertisements and schedules the neighbors say advertised full-day camps and family events. “The camp would consist of rotating stations which allow children to develop essential life skills, hands on activities such as responsibility of grooming, feeding, riding ... while also allowing a broader vision of farming and farm animals,” Dunlop read from the application and told the examiner he believed DPZ either misapplied the law or failed to enforce the permit’s limits.

Neighbors pointed to a May 24 ticketed “Barnyard Bash” with vendors, a mechanical bull and alcohol sales, multiple social-media posts for spring break and summer camps, photographs of bounce houses and dozens of children on site, and what they described as a steady stream of vans and cars during advertised hours. Tricia Dunlop said the change in use has eroded privacy and quiet; she told the examiner she and her husband spent about $24,000 planting trees and shrubs to restore screening.

“Barnyard Bash...is approved contrary to the law and should be revoked or it should otherwise be remanded with specific instruction,” Lisa Chang, a neighbor who lives about 350 feet from the farm, said in her written statement read into evidence.

Neighbor Carrie Brinzer, who lives directly adjacent to the property, said the family’s health and daily life have been affected: “We will have to move away if the subject property keeps being used as it currently is,” she told the hearing.

The applicant, Alexis (Lexi) Young, testified that she consulted county planners and an engineer before applying, and that DPZ advised her that horses must be a primary focus of operations. Young said she sought to “act within compliance of the regulations,” that she owns and cares for equine animals at the farm, and that summer programming was intended to center on horse instruction and care. “I was very transparent about what my intentions were for the farm,” Young said.

Appellants’ counsel argued the documentary record — application materials, email exchanges among DPZ staff (admitted as exhibits), and social-media advertisements — demonstrates that the applicant promoted and then operated activities that a local ‘farm camp’ or broad summer camp would require conditional-use approval and that the property (on a local road) is ineligible for a farm-camp conditional use. Defense counsel objected repeatedly that the hearing should not be used as a surrogate enforcement proceeding and urged that any out-of-scope activity should be addressed through a zoning-violation complaint to DPZ.

Counsel for the appellants asked the examiner to either reverse the permit or remand to DPZ with instructions to limit the permit to what zoning allows; defense asked that the appeal be dismissed or that additional evidence be allowed before any such ruling. The examiner denied a motion to dismiss and left the record open to allow submission of supplemental exhibits and written statements.

Procedural next steps: the hearing examiner left the record open until Oct. 25, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. for parties to file supplemental exhibits; a written decision and order will follow after the record closes.

What remains in dispute is legal: whether the records DPZ reviewed supported approval for the fuller set of activities neighbors describe, and whether camps of the type operated require conditional-use approval that the site would not qualify for. DPZ staff who processed the permit did not appear as witnesses at this hearing; both sides relied on the agency’s emails and on testimony from neighbors and the applicant.

The hearing is administrative and the examiner’s written order will explain whether the permit stands as issued, will be remanded to DPZ for clarification, or will be rescinded. The record will close on Oct. 25, 2025 at 4:00 p.m.