Springfield Farm, a family owned and operated poultry farm which has been operated by the Smith family on Yeoho Road in Baltimore County for seventeen generations, has obtained approval to sell its locally produced poultry and egg products directly to the public from the farm. In an opinion issued by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on February 6, 2013, approval was granted for the Smith family to open a “farmer’s roadside stand” within a barn proposed to be constructed on the property. The decision ends years of a contentious dispute between the Smith family and some of its neighbors over the propriety of the proposed roadside stand.
“This is a victory not only for Springfield Farm and the Smith family, but for the entire agricultural community of northern Baltimore County”, said Lawrence E. Schmidt of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, the Smith family’s zoning attorney. “It will allow the Smith’s to market their product directly to the consumer, rather than through a middleman.”
In order to for the proposed barn/stand to be approved under County zoning law, the Smith’s needed to demonstrate that the operation could be conducted without detrimental impact to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. Additionally, under the County’s complex zoning ordinance, the Smith family was required to demonstrate that the proposed barn was legitimately accessory to the underlying farming operation, with at least fifty percent of the products being sold raised on the property or adjacent farms managed by the Smith family. The decision by the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the decision of the Board of Appeals of Baltimore County, which had previously approved the request. The proposal had also been approved by the Zoning Commissioner of Baltimore County, before an appeal to the Board of Appeals. The Board’s decision was itself appealed to the Circuit Court of Baltimore County and was reversed by the written decision of Judge Susan Souder. However, the Court of Special Appeals reversed Judge Souder’s decision and reinstated the findings and conclusions of the Board. The appellate court concluded that the proposed stand was accessory to the day to day agricultural activities of Springfield farm and met all of the other requirements of law.
