[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6153267,"mediaKeyId","5493784-9a071cc0a9e372af9112f2b0d2c2dc3b","parentId",5493784,"title","Committee rejects autumn exemption to gas-powered leaf blower ban; seeks enforcement fix and outreach","audioSeconds",4673,"startMs",1199000,"endMs",5872000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5493784-9a071cc0a9e372af9112f2b0d2c2dc3b&start=1199&end=5872","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5493784-9a071cc0a9e372af9112f2b0d2c2dc3b/thumbnail_1199000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6153267/Montgomery-County/Maryland/Committee-rejects-autumn-exemption-to-gas-powered-leaf-blower-ban-seeks-enforcement-fix-and-outreach","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153267-81a5611b001287b398e1d78e6f985115/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055114&Signature=mxoCGlbRl5r5T1pbLFPZTc9Z3wbc8ZGrVue0ag2GnS6Kt0CkiwnXHR14PbDFnOiSFgGIsaEqOg04dxgEntl6PIS7sS3GWffXuOUCkZeARIrMA~wbnDdl~FUD9wVXK2WTkxEJmWOMttKpnW-Gqi4USmT8kFcR2RA~nYKqflbOmXMNIX-yEbLGQ6DlZE2AkQ69Z-GXiTC88nFSjcf8zpUpMyGRvnUCX2BN134w-zU9cIgWYVNrb2sJ6gaefPtqwRBKoSh~7t8etPS3r3ugywVHV7ywbHIAUayc7HEYlgd0HOKu~Aqau5hIKgUqEqcyBzTj~JLfY~WVD2d-LO1aYFaa-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montgomery County, MD","date","2025-07-29T07:08:15Z","article","Montgomery County's Transportation and Environment Committee on Monday voted 2-1 against expedited bill 19-25, an amendment that would have created a seasonal exemption allowing gas-powered leaf blowers during autumn months. The vote followed a lengthy discussion about enforcement, a county rebate program to help landscapers convert to electric equipment, and concerns about requiring photographic evidence to submit complaints.

Why it matters: The underlying law, enacted July 1, bans gas-powered leaf blowers in the county. Supporters say the ban reduces noise and protects workers and residents; opponents — including many landscaping businesses — argued the industry has not had sufficient time or money to transition and that current battery technology and infrastructure present operational challenges.

Committee debate focused on enforcement mechanics and the county's rebate program. Stan Edwards of the Department of Environmental Protection's Division of Energy, Climate and Compliance said, \"since the law took effect on July 1, we've had, we've opened 76 cases,\" and explained the current complaint form requires photographic evidence to advance to a civil citation. He told the committee that DEP would be able to accept two-party complaints or to remove the photograph requirement only after a legislative change.

DEP staff and council members outlined how the county has distributed rebates to support conversion. Amy Stevens of DEP said the county allocated $325,000 in rebates in fiscal year 2025; the county received an appropriation of $300,000 for fiscal year 2026 and had begun issuing vouchers. Mary Tropellini (DEP) said the FY25 distribution included 308 residential rebates of $100 each (totaling $30,800) and 205 commercial vouchers ranging from $1,000 to $1,500.

Committee members voiced concern about operational realities for commercial landscapers in the fall. Councilmember Andrew Balcom said some companies have purchased dozens of units and still need many more, and described battery limitations: \"How long does the battery last? 30 minutes,\" he said, describing runtime on high power. Several councilmembers and staff noted that large distributors sometimes provided their own rebates and bulk discounts, which meant some larger landscaping firms did not use the county voucher program.

Members discussed alternatives to the photograph requirement on the complaint form and the difference between single-party and two-party complaints. Edwards said DEP lacked staff to respond in real time to most noise complaints (the department has six environmental investigators covering all environmental code enforcement) and that the two-party complaint provision was designed to allow residents to file reports outside working hours.

Councilmember Gabe Albornoz (bill sponsor) and others said they supported the original year-round ban but wanted to address enforcement mechanics that could encourage bystander photography and possible targeting of workers. The chair and several members agreed that changes to the enforcement language should be pursued in a separate, expedited piece of legislation rather than by amending bill 19-25 in this session.

Final action: The committee voted 2-1 against adopting expedited bill 19-25. Members said they would pursue corrective legislation to remove or revise the photographic-evidence requirement and to clarify complaint and enforcement procedures, and asked DEP to amend its online complaint form and continue outreach to landscaping companies and residents.

Other specifics recorded in committee:
- Fines for a class A violation are $500 for a first offense and $750 for a subsequent offense, as stated by DEP staff.
- DEP reported approximately 76 complaints opened since the July 1 effective date of the ban and said the agency had six environmental investigators for enforcement.
- DEP noted rebates have been distributed but in many cases covered only a fraction of the market cost; residential rebates were $100 per voucher, commercial vouchers ranged $1,000'$1,500.

Next steps: Committee members asked the county attorney and DEP to draft language for an expedited ordinance or amendment that would remove or revise the photograph requirement and clarify whether a single-party complaint is sufficient, then return to the committee for a vote. DEP said it could also amend the online complaint form to remove the current required-photo field while staff and the county attorney work on a legislative fix.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","July 28, 2025 - TE Committee Worksession","oneSentenceSummary","The Transportation and Environment Committee voted 2-1 against expedited bill 19-25, which would have created a seasonal exemption for gas-powered leaf blowers. Members asked the executive branch and DEP to revise enforcement procedures and the online complaint form and plan follow-up legislation to change the photographic-evidence requirement.","taxTitle","Montgomery County, Maryland","taxId",3351,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6153272,"Committee unanimously approves technical revisions to county forest conservation law",575,611000,1186000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5493784-9a071cc0a9e372af9112f2b0d2c2dc3b&start=611&end=1186","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5493784-9a071cc0a9e372af9112f2b0d2c2dc3b/thumbnail_611000.jpg","/articles/6153272/Montgomery-County/Maryland/Committee-unanimously-approves-technical-revisions-to-county-forest-conservation-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153272-dc84faf63851fb4207df80a8e1bec67e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055114&Signature=dux1D4rAOyHxmQWbaiQxYUoP7gNt3Hcws48pNgu001Pbglb~cthvtTswTeozhGlguocJ7VdqsIReBlTkwJ7bd7oYmpG~GJVVOV6p9ObIEvNG2fsWZuD02LDzwdh5u2AXBV8EjNVLTuP9Za7px33k6ulzgeIrptg2wIJNn6Ar~OVRowO2Hqg9WXIHmqTjft6ICB5CDH6v-GJ8pXQp7xMT9RfiRRZAM7d235Krl6ivoimEoR4wmNhkXIjx3cR8PYZjMCg7WmZ41Wn8mufMqNk6jbA9UzgwtO27mwnGzs-riRs8A3DwgHoWBI~eXfm2r9SQvzh6vM-S43i7jV0z~I1ucA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Montgomery County Transportation and Environment Committee on Monday approved technical revisions to bill 18-25, the planning board's update to the county's forest conservation law, voting unanimously to accept an amendment that restores the previous legal definition of \"tree.\"

The measure, introduced by Montgomery Planning to align county code with Senate Bill 526 (2023) changes to the Natural Resources Article of the Maryland Code and to clarify several local provisions, was discussed at length by staff and committee members before the amendments passed. Christina Sorrento, chief of the Environment and Climate Division with Montgomery Planning, told the committee the agency had used a 1-inch caliper as a working measurement for enforcement but was \"completely fine with the amendment\" to revert the definition.

Why it matters: The bill updates county code to reflect state law changes and clarifies provisions on tree-saving plans, afforestation for solar photovoltaic facilities, retention requirements and the reinstatement of forest mitigation banks. Public testimony had focused on how the bill defined a \"tree,\" with agricultural stakeholders warning a 1-inch caliper definition could hamper normal farm maintenance.

Planning staff explained the change was intended to clarify how staff applies the definition after earlier consultation with Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Sorrento said, \"this is the definition we've always used,\" and characterized the proposed 1-inch caliper as a practical starting point, not a new policy shift.

Councilmember Andrew Balcom (motion) and Councilmember Luedtke (second) offered an amendment to restore the previous code language and remove the 1-inch caliper measurement from the definition. Balcom said the amendment \"just reverts back to what was already in the code and eliminates measuring at least 1 caliper out of the definition,\" citing testimony from farming and ag-preservation stakeholders. The committee voted to adopt that amendment unanimously.

Committee staff also proposed a technical amendment to consolidate newly added plan definitions into the county's expedited approval plan language (section 7.305 of chapter 59). The chair accepted that staff recommendation without objection; the revision replaces separate references to \"bio health priority campus plan\" and \"mixed income community plan\" with a single reference to \"expedited approval plan.\"

After the amendments, the committee held a final vote on the legislation and recorded unanimous approval to advance the bill.

The committee recorded no changes to enforcement or penalties in this session; discussion focused on aligning language with state law, restoring prior local definitions where public testimony raised concerns, and streamlining plan references so future zoning-text-amendments need not repeatedly update chapter 22A.

The planning staff said the fiscal-impact, racial equity and social justice, and climate assessments all reported minimal or no impact from these technical changes.

Looking ahead: With the committee's unanimous backing, bill 18-25 will proceed through the council process with the accepted amendments. Planning staff and council members said they appreciated the public input that prompted the clarification and technical edits.","Montgomery County Transportation and Environment Committee voted unanimously to accept technical amendments to bill 18-25, aligning local code with state changes and restoring the prior definition of \"tree\" after public concern about a new 1-inch-caliper threshold.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee rejects autumn exemption to gas-powered leaf blower ban; seeks enforcement fix and outreach

Committee unanimously approves technical revisions to county forest conservation law