Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews rewrite to clarify enforcement of clearing and pruning in critical and conservation areas
Summary
Bill 67-25 would clarify county code definitions for clearing and pruning, create a ‘pruning’ term tied to ANSI A300, and add a Habitat Enhancement Plan pathway allowing larger managed vegetation work (up to 1 acre) in sensitive buffers; staff said changes respond to litigation and enforcement ambiguity.
On Sept. 9 the Anne Arundel County Council reviewed Bill 67-25, a rewrite of clearing, pruning and related provisions in the county’s floodplain/erosion and stormwater management code intended to clarify enforcement and create a streamlined approval option for larger vegetative management.
Kelly Kenny, Supervising County Attorney, said the rewrite is intended to “clarify the county's existing violations” after enforcement interpretations were challenged in court. Kenny explained the bill separates the definition of clearing (moved into Article 16) from the more complex cross-references that previously required staff — and sometimes judges — to trace multiple code sections to reach a violation. “This bill really helps kind of stop that matrix,” she said, adding the activity defined is the same but the pathway in the code will be clearer.
The draft also creates a distinct definition of “pruning” and, at the request of the Critical Area Commission, refers pruning standards to the American National Standards Institute document ANSI A300. Kelly Kenny said the Critical Area Commission specifically asked that pruning reference ANSI rather than a spelled-out definition so industry standards can evolve without a code rewrite.
Eric Michaelson, Senior Environmental Policy Officer in Inspections & Permits (INP), described a new Habitat Enhancement Plan intended to let landowners and communities propose managed vegetation work up to 1 acre in environmentally sensitive areas. “This allows a streamlined permitting process by using the Habitat Enhancement Plan,” said Raghu Badami, Assistant Director of INP, adding that the plan avoids engineering-grade grading permits for many vegetative activities and would be approved administratively by INP forestry staff.
Councilmembers raised accessibility questions. Some speakers said ANSI materials are not always publicly available, and Councilmember Fiedler asked whether relying on an externally authored standard could be viewed as delegating legislative authority. Kelly Kenny and staff said ANSI is available online, the Critical Area Commission requested that reference, and INP planned to post guidance, FAQs and to share a hard copy at the department so property owners can review standards without purchase.
Members also pressed whether the bill would prohibit poor tree practices such as topping; Kenny said tree topping is not allowed and would be treated as an unacceptable pruning practice under the ANSI reference. Staff noted a modest permit-fee structure in the draft: a Habitat Enhancement Plan fee of $250 and a Vegetation Management Plan fee of $75. Staff said that routine, seasonal maintenance could be addressed within a one-time plan rather than repeated permit fees.
Kenny and INP staff said the rewrite preserves the county’s ability to enforce protections in buffers and steep slopes, while giving waterfront communities a tool to manage vegetation comprehensively and avoid repeated piecemeal approvals. No formal vote occurred in the work session; staff offered to return with additional administrative guidance and to consider exemptions (for example, a potential 2,500-square-foot de minimis pruning exemption for forest conservation easements).
