NEWS &VIEWS You Can Use
What is Wrong with Anne Arundel County? Can you imagine having to pay $6,000 for en-
gineering plans and permits to plunk down a 10 × 20 run-in shed? How about thousands of dol- lars for engineering plans and permits to remove a dead stump on your farm? Can you conceive of a county charging the same per-square-foot build- ing permit fee for a run-in as they do for a house? Well, horse farm owners in Anne Arundel County certainly know what that is like, as Anne Arundel County is quickly earning the reputation of being the least horse-friendly county in Maryland. Anne Arundel offi cials might want to rethink their poli- cies, as the recently released Maryland Department of Agriculture equine census indicates that the horse industry is still one of the most robust of industries in Maryland. In the meantime, as Steuart Pitt- man from Dodon Farm in Davidsonville reports, horse people in the county are working hard to course-correct.
Phase 1: How Bad Is It, Really?
On very short notice, sixty-one people at- tended the June 15, 2011 meeting of the Anne Arundel Horse Council at the Pip Moyer Rec Center to express concerns about the applica- tion of building and grading permit require- ments on farms. Pride was expressed by many that at a time when grain farmers are leaving the county for more welcoming areas (6,000 acres lost between 2002 and 2007, according to USDA Ag Census), horse people are continu- ing to work with the Soil Conservation District to install best management practices, improve their pastures,
reduce erosion and nutrient
runoff , and keep up with the marketplace by building barns and riding arenas to serve their clients. T e county has 950 sites where 4,500 horses reside on 10,200 acres (2010 Maryland Equine Census).
It was noted that County Executive Leopold
has reviewed our group’s emails and acknowl- edged that we have identifi ed a problem that needs to be resolved. He was represented at the meeting by Bea Poulin. It was also noted that Councilman Jerry Walker, who was out of the state and represented by staff , has off ered to work with us to draft and present legislation to the County Council to better defi ne agricultural exemptions. Councilman Benoit also was repre- sented by staff at the meeting and has expressed interest in working with us on a solution.
What follows are highlights of the discus- sion that will guide our follow-up in the com- ing weeks. 1. William Bower of Drum, Loyka, and As- sociates, who has represented horse farms in the permitting process and serves as a technical advisor to our group, explained how one goes about obtaining a “Standard Grading Plan” and a “Grading Permit.” When asked about the cost to hire his fi rm to obtain these, he estimated $1000 for the “Plan” and $4000 to $6000 for the more onerous “Permit.” 2. Jim Stein, District Manager of the AA
Soil Conservation District, put forth details of a document that he and George Eberle of Permits and Inspections had drafted explain- ing when farms need building permits, grading permits, and standard grading plans. He said that the Board of the District would be decid- ing whether to approve the document at its June 21 meeting. Mr. Stein described the docu- ment as a compromise between himself and Pemits and Inspections. 3) While the group thanked Mr. Stein for be- ing the fi rst county offi cial to attempt to clarify when farmers need permits, the document was criticized on a number of points. T e primary objections were that it states that farmers are required to have Building Permits for every- thing over 64 square feet, as well as expensive Grading Permits for most of the buildings that we construct, routine clearing of hedgerows and encroachment of woods on pastures, trail clearing and stream crossing maintenance, and many other situations that are commonplace on farms. People were unhappy about the prospect of hiring engineers and obtaining grading per- mits for these farm activities. We felt that Mr. Stein’s defi nition of exempt Agricultural Land Management Practices was too restrictive. Mr. Stein off ered to postpone action by the SCD Board and await suggestions from our group for new policy. 4) George Eberle, Acting Director of Permits and Inspections, acknowledged that Anne Ar- undel County is diff erent from most Maryland counties in that there are fewer agricultural ex- emptions to permitting requirements. He also acknowledged that the staff uses the same for- mula for calculating building permit costs by square footage for a barn as for a house, and
that there is a requirement for a grading plan whenever a tree stump is removed, whether the tree is dead or alive. Mr. Eberle did not off er opinions on whether existing law and practice is justifi ed. He simply stated the requirements as he understood them. 5) Mr. Stein acknowledged that the County
Soil Conservation District Board had passed a resolution in 2007 stating that wineries on farms where vineyards exist and indoor and outdoor riding arenas are nonagricultural buildings. He promised to ask the Board to reconsider that policy after reviewing HB955, the 2009 bill passed by the Maryland General Assembly specifi cally stating that equestrian activities taking place on farms are agricultural. When asked if he would also seek reconsidera- tion of the policy with respect to wineries he made no commitment, but commented that making wine is processing the agricultural product, and that the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Farm owners reminded Mr. Stein that stripping tobacco, pasteurizing milk, can- ning vegetables and many other farm activities are similar in nature. Again, the sense of the people in the room was that an eff ort was being made to restrict the defi nition of agriculture, thereby leaving farmers to deal directly with the staff at Permits and Inspections who have no training in agricultural issues and whose fees and fi nes are high enough to prevent farm- ers from improving their operations. 6) Harry Ketts, a Maryland Horse Coun- cil member from Prince George’s County who serves on that county’s Equine Industry Task Force, explained that in his county it is the Soil Conservation District staff that works with farmers to ensure that their construction and grading projects are done in an environ- mentally responsible way. Because the work on farms is reviewed by SCD staff , farm buildings are exempt from grading permits and building permits, thereby saving the county signifi cant staff hours. T ey require only electrical and plumbing inspections. 7) Many people in the group described ex-
periences with Permits and Inspections staff whose knowledge of agricultural practices was nonexistent. T e level of frustration among farm owners was high.
continued on page 10
IF YOU HAVE NEWS, VIEWS OR UPDATES TO CONTRIBUTE, PLEASE SEND THEM TO Editor at The Equiery, P.O. Box 610, Lisbon, MD 21765 • FAX: 410-489-7828 • email
editor@equiery.com.
Be sure to include your full name, phone number and address. All submissions become the property of The Equiery. 8 | THE EQUIERY | SEPTEMBER 2011 800-244-9580 |
www.equiery.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104