Tax Map/Block/Parce! No. 40-4-535 Case 6539 OFFICIAL DECISION BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND APPLICANT: Harvest Bloom Farm, LLC 10713 Glenwild Road Silver Spring, MD 20901 ATTORNEY: David K. Bowersox, Esq. Hoffman, Comfort, Offutt, Scott & Halstad, LLP 24 North Court Street Westminster, MD 21157 REQUEST: An application for a conditional use for Farm Alcohol Production and two setback variances. LOCATION: The site is located at the North side oflHampstead-Mexico Road, approximately 700 feet East of Cape Horn Road, Hampstead, Maryland on property zoned "A" Agricultural District in Election District 8. BASIS: Code oflocal Laws and Ordinances sections 158.071.01, 158.071.02(A)09), 158.168, and 158.133. HEARING HELD: January 28, 2025 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION On January 28, 2025, the Board ofZoning Appeals (the Board) convened to hear an application for a conditional use for Farm Alcohol Production and two setback variances. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Board made the following findings and conclusions. Timothy M. Holland testified in the case. He is an employee ofJJ Custom Builders. Exhibit 1 was offered into evidence through him. Itis a new sketch with red highlighted location for setbacks and a title block at the top ofthe sketch and some added language for the narrative in the upper left corner. Iti is essentially the same as the sketch provided to the Board weeks ago. There is no County road immediately near the site. Exhibit 1 is a sketch to help the client determine the capacity ofthe site. The orchard would be 12,200 square feet. There would be no planting where the septic system is located. Kevin Hilton testified in the case. He is the manager of a winery in Silver Springs, Maryland. He works with farm alcohol producing businesses. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in hospitality management. Based on his experience from 75% to 90% ofthe operation would involve beer production. With this project he wants to highlight the agricultural setting and the landscape in the area. He further wants people to experience being on a farm in Carroll County. He would like to have young families come to visit the location. There would be a playground there. The 3.71 acres are under contract to Harvest Bloom Farm, LLC. The road frontage to the site is Maryland Route 482. The site is located on unimproved property. He intends to grow berries, brambles and hops at the site. The hops and berries will be used in beer production, but he will also have nonalcoholic beer production. He will also have fruit trees for privacy. He would get 90% of his malt from Carroll County. He would use Carroll County products in the business. The primary use on the site would be agricultural. There will be a place for tasting and sales in one structure at the site. The proposed building would be 2113.58 square feet. See Exhibit 1. There would be no distilling of spirits at the site. There would not be a full restaurant. The County would play a role in the food served there. He intended to have acoustic music played there but not bands. The music would be played from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. He stated that the impact of a farm alcohol operation is positive for the community. It would not have as much of an impact as Coppermine. Phase I would include the initial building site to be completed in 2025. There is a well on the site and it has been approved for septic. He is not intending to have banquets and weddings at the site. There will not be a weekly concert series there. He estimates that about twelve people would work at the site other than himself. The timeline for phase II parking expansion would be from two to three years. The facility would be closed on Mondays and Tuesdays. It would open on Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. It would be open on Fridays and Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. Exhibit 2 is the well completion report. Exhibit 3 is an email in support from Mark Howard. Exhibit 4 is an email from Joel Howard. Exhibit 5 is an email communication from Laurie Ruby an adjoining property owner. These emails are from December, 2024. Mr. Hilton has had a communication with Coppermine about his proposed use. Coppermine operates until 9 p.m. It has four outdoor playing fields and indoor playing fields. It also has an entrance off of] Maryland Route 482. Coppermine has tournaments and league play. A January 10, 2025, memorandum from the Department of Planning and Carlisle Fillat, Comprehensive Planning Technician, stated that the staff finding was that this request is consistent with the Carroll County Master Plan as amended in 2019. Stephanie Howard testified in the case. Her residence is adjacent to the site. She stated that the property was not large enough to support all ofthe operations. She had concerns about more bird droppings and additional traffic. She also wanted to know how wastewater would be managed. The source for Opposition Exhibit 1 was the internet. The language quoted is not part oft the Carroll County Code. Joel Howard testified in the case. He tries to be a good neighbor, but he believed that this use for the property was like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. He stated that his brother sold the site in question to the current owners of the site. He wanted real farmers to remain on the site. Real farmers do whatever they can do to bring income onto the property. He has lived in Carroll County for generations. He believed that the alcohol producing business should look for other locations to conduct its business. Laurie Ruby has another email communication in the file from January 2025. She had major concerns about more traffic on Route 482. There is a concern about noise, lights and the general disruption of a rural life. The Board was convinced that authorization ofthe request with regard to a conditional use for Farm Alcohol Production was consistent with the purpose oft the zoning ordinance, appropriate in light of the factors to be considered regarding conditional uses ofthe zoning ordinance and would not unduly affect the residents of adjacent properties, the values of those properties, or public interests. Based on the findings of fact made by the Board above, the Board found that the proposed project would not generate adverse effects (i.e. noise, traffic, dust, water issues, lighting issues, property depreciation, etc.) greater here than elsewhere in the zone. The Board also approved the two variances. The property needs variances because ofits size and shape. The Board found that the request met the Pritts test. The Board placed these conditions on the use of the property: 1) Acoustic music hours would end at 6 p.m. 2) The business hours at the site could be open from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. 3) The business hours at the site could be open from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. hEBA E-72095 Date Melvin E. Baile, Jr., Chairman Decisions ofthe Board of2 Zoning Appeals may be appealed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County within 30 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Land Use Article, Section 4-401 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Pursuant to Section 158.132 (E) of the County Code, this approval will become void one year after the date ofi issuance if the construction or use for which the certificate was issued has not been started. Contact the Office of Zoning Administration at 410-386-2980 for specific compliance instructions. Pursuant to Section 158.133(H)(3) of the County Code: (3) Approvals. (a) Ifthe application is approved by the BZA which does not require a site plan, the approval shall become void unless a building permit conforming to the plans for which the approval was granted is obtained within six months. (b) An approval for which a building permit is not required shall become void unless the use or variance is implemented within one year of the date of the written decision. (c) An approval for which a site plan is required shall become void unless the concept site plan has been submitted for distribution to the reviewing agencies and accepted by the Bureau of Development Review, or its success agency, within six months from the date of the written decision. An approval for which a site plan is required may become void ifthe property owner or developer fails to take action to secure an approval of the site plan from the Planning Commission in a timely manner, as determined by the Bureau of Development Review. YABZAIFORMSIDecision format. doc