Bills to regulate agritourism industry fail in split vote

After months of discussions and multiple rounds of amendments, two bills aimed at regulating Frederick County's agritourism industry were rejected by the County Council in a 4-3 vote on Tuesday.

Council President Brad Young and Council Vice President Kavonté Duckett, both Democrats, joined Councilmembers Steve McKay and Mason Carter, both Republicans, in voting against the bills.

Councilmembers Jerry Donald, M.C. Keegan-Ayer and Renee Knapp — all Democrats — were in favor.

Donald introduced the two bills — one to update the county zoning ordinance and another to update the building code — at a meeting in August.

With the bills, Donald hoped to address concerns from some in his council district about excess light, noise and bonfire smoke emanating from agritourism operations near their homes.

Both bills were based largely on the recommendations of a workgroup convened by Frederick County Executive Jessica Fitzwater in June 2023, but differed from the recommendations in a few areas, such as the number of fire pits permitted and the number of days per year an agricultural building could be used as part of an agritourism enterprise.

The proposed changes drew backlash from some in the agricultural community, who felt either that their voices were not represented on the workgroup or that Donald disregarded the workgroup's findings when drafting his bills.

The largest source of opposition to Donald's bills were representatives of Summers Farm, whose fall festival has been the subject of complaints since the business' relocation to the Middletown area in 2022.

Following the initial backlash to his proposals, Donald sponsored amendments bringing the allowable number of fire pits back to 20 instead of 10 and bringing the number of days per year an agricultural building could be used for agritourism from 90 to 120.

Donald also put forward an amendment to remove a section of the zoning bill requiring owners and operators of agritourism enterprises to submit annual paperwork with the county's Office of Agriculture. He replaced it with a section requiring owners to respond to an annual inquiry from the office.

Carter made further changes to the bill with amendments setting an effective date of July 1, 2025, and removing a section that allowed zoning certificates for agritourism enterprises to be revoked based on community complaints.

An amendment from Young was also adopted, upping the maximum number of fire pits to 30, or five for every 25 acres.

n his comments before the vote, Young said he had hoped to support the bills and wished the council had additional time to work on them.

To avoid running afoul of the 90-day clock for taking action on legislation, the council had to vote on both bills no later than Nov. 18 — one day before its next regular meeting.

McKay and Carter both objected to a portion of the zoning bill requiring agritourism enterprises to get and maintain a county certificate for their operations.

Carter said the certificate requirement would give the county's zoning administration too much discretion, creating uncertainty for business owners.

McKay called the certificate requirement "a major point of departure from the workgroup's recommendations."

Duckett said he was worried the bills would address issues associated with one agritourism operation at others' expense.

"We can say one bad apple ruins the bunch," Duckett said. "But the reality is we're going to hurt other business by implementing this."

In response to Duckett's comments, Keegan-Ayer pointed out that many council actions are taken after problems are brought to their attention by individual constituents.

Keegan-Ayer said this was the first time she can remember a bill going through multiple rounds of amendments and suggested that councilmembers on the opposing side should have voiced their hesitation sooner.

"In my mind, perhaps we need to be a little more thoughtful early in the process to start thinking of ways to amend things when they're first brought to us," Keegan-Ayer said. "I think Councilmember Donald has done his due diligence and has tried to find a compromise."

Knapp disputed the idea that Donald was seeking to regulate a specific agritourism operation through his legislation.

"I'm not approaching this as 'how can we deal with this one farm?' because it's not going to be this one farm. It's a broader issue," Knapp said. "Clearly, this will be refined and looked at again, but in the meantime, I think it's appropriate that we start to put in some parameters to address the needs of all of our residents."

In his comments at the end of the meeting, Donald said he was "very disappointed," but respected the will of the council.

He encouraged council members in the majority and those who spoke out against his bills to work together on an alternate solution.

"Ball's in your court with this one," Donald said.