To Mike Knapp -- MC County Council
Jim Brown's Letter on
Equine Zoning Text Amendment
Dear Mike: After I testified on the Silverman equine ZTA on behalf of Sugarloaf Citizens Association (SCA),you asked for me to provide you with a priority list of the amendments Sugarloaf would like to see added to the ZTA and other clarifications we feel are important. Here for your consideration are our concerns. We hope you will raise and pursue these as the Council proceeds with their analysis before a final vote.
First let me start by saying that SCA salutes the growth of the horse industry in Maryland and especially in Montgomery County as one of the key economic foundations on which rests the viability of the Agriculture Preserve. We recognize that horse businesses are agriculture business. We are not challenging, indeed we support the right of horse businesses to exist in Agricultural zones. The only issues are: Size and behavior of the commercial operation and hence, what regulations are necessary to protect the surrounding community.
SCA is concerned about the larger scale, commercial aspects of the horse industry. Every other type of farm operation in the county faces various types of regulation, designed to protect the land and landowners.
Regarding the ZTA introduced by Councilmember Silverman:
1. SCA feels strongly that the "equestrian exemption" from the Forest Conservation Law must be dropped. Park and Planning staff agrees with this and it is noted in their October 2 report to the Council.
2. The setback proposals for building and areas to "record lots" reflects a lack of understanding about the Ag Preserve. Many of the homes in this area are not on subdivided properties and hence are not "record lots," rendering the setbacks proposed as meaningless.
3. The lighting standards proposed are ambiguous and may not provide protestion to adjacent landowners.
4. The proposed ZTA exempts noise created between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., while Montgomery County code limits noise at the property line between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends. Equine operations should comply with the existing County code.
5. It must be clarified that acreage requirements refer to actual pasture, not total property area.
6. Under A. Operation Criteria, #3, we are concerned that no distinction is made between buildings, show rings, paddock areas and manure storage; they are all to be 50 feet from the nearest residential property line. 50 feet is going to be too close for manure storage if the adjacent property owner has their house nearby. Why do paddocks need to be set back 50 feet? The common definition of a paddock is a "fenced-in area for grazing ." Why shouldn't you be able to fence up to or quite close to your property line? Pasture with grazing horses is a reasonable property buffer. And how does an "outdoor arena" with setback of 100 ft differ from a show ring, setback 50 ft? No definitions are provided.
7. Three levels of equestrian events were defined: minor, major and informal. How does the Council plan to enforce these? How were these numbers selected, i.e. on what basis do you determine when a show of a certain size has a greater or lesser impact? Furthermore, location counts. Traffic is impacted by what type of road the facility fronts: e.g., winding, narrow roads will present more traffic difficulties than wider, straighter roads.
8. Can the ZTA address "trip generation?" For the sake of example, let's say 2 large equestrian facilities exist, each with 75 horses, one a breeding and training facility, the other a boarding and lessons facility. The traffic for the former will consist of support for the horses, e.g., farriers, vets and trainers, plus those considering purchasing animals. The traffic for the latter, in addition to what we've just named, will include dozens of owners coming to ride their horses, to take lessons, and to trailer their horses out and back to shows and trail rides. Obviously the boarding facility is going to generate a lot more traffic than the breeding and training facility. Noise and lighting will also likely differ between the two types of facilities.
We've also reviewed Park and Planning's staff recommendations.
1. We agree with Park and Planning on the finding # 3. A "grandfathering" clause should be added to the operating criteria proposed for Division 59-A-6, to protect existing riding stables; and perhaps provide a timeframe for larger facilities that are out of compliance with the new regs to make necessary changes.
2. We also agree with Park and Planning that existing "nutrient management" rules now being followed in the County should be followed strictly by all equine owners and operators in the RDT.
Notwithstanding anything we've said, we also think it is very important that private landowners who keep small numbers of horses not be negatively affected by the ZTA. Nor do we want want to see local group gatherings like pony clubs or hunt clubs curtailed. We would be pleased to discuss any of the above concerns and appreciate very much your willingness as our Council representative to push for changes in ZTA 03-21,SRA #3-01 and FCRA #29-03. Jim Brown, President, Sugarloaf Citizens Association
Mike Knapp's Response
Dear Jim, Thank you for your comments and follow-up to the public hearing earlier this month. As you know, the equestrian facility proposal has a number of components, and we have been working to put together a matrix with as many group's perspectives represented as possible so that we can see on an issue-by-issue basis where (and if) there is need for legislative language, where language is required if there is any consensus among groups and then where there are clear areas of disagreement that may need to be bridged. The format of your comments is thorough and very helpful and we'll plug this into what we've already done. I look forward to speaking with you further on this issue. Again, thank you for your efforts in this regard, and your continued advocacy. Warmest regards, Mike