Neighbors, expert tell Carroll County BZA forest-conservation plan contains conflicting calculations; hearing continued

Appellants asking the Board of Zoning Appeals to overturn a Department approval of a forest conservation plan for 2239 Bachman Valley Road argued on Nov. 25 that the plan contains multiple, contradictory numbers and insufficient legal justification for removing specimen trees.

In an opening and detailed expert testimony, appellants' counsel Alex Vota said the plan’s calculations are “a mess” and inconsistent across sheets, which prevents the county from determining whether the 15% conservation threshold required by Carroll County’s chapter 150 has been met. Vota and witness Ruth Grover, a land planner accepted as an expert, pointed to two different net-tract-area figures printed on the plan (12.32327 acres and 10.13044 acres) and to multiple, different afforestation and retained-forest acreages listed elsewhere on the same set of sheets.

Grover testified she found conflicting values for the conservation threshold and planting obligations — for example, the plan shows threshold and planting figures of roughly 1.51957, 1.84849, 0.69991, 0.36417 and 0.78763 acres in different boxes — and she said the discrepancies make it impossible to verify statutory compliance. “This plan does not make sense,” Grover said during her testimony, advising the board that the county could not accurately determine conformance with the Forest Conservation Act while those contradictions remain.

Appellants also flagged an internal conflict over floodplain mapping. Grover and counsel showed plan sheets that depict a 100-year floodplain crossing the western wooded portion of the site, and other plan text that states the church property “has no existing floodplain within the net tract area.” Grover said floodplain acreage must be included in the net-tract calculation and that the omission further undermines the plan’s math and the county’s ability to judge compliance.

On the variance claim, Grover told the board the applicant’s short-form variance submission does not satisfy the ordinance’s variance criteria because it: (1) fails to describe all specimen trees (the site development plan shows five specimen trees proposed for removal while the variance form discusses four), (2) offers only conclusory statements that “reasonable alternatives have been exhausted” without evidentiary support, and (3) omits specificity required by section 150.14 for special conditions, undue hardship and nexus. “They didn’t demonstrate how they met any of the criteria,” she said.

Assistant County Attorney Liz Moore, appearing for the Department of Planning and Land Management, told the board the underlying plan and the specimen-tree variance were processed through the department, that the property owner is Mr. McCoy, and that the variance application (VFC22012) was submitted on Oct. 11, 2022 by Daniel Staley of DRS and Associates on the owner’s behalf. Moore noted County staff recommended approval and that the director granted the variance in 2022; she also said Department of Natural Resources staff advised the county it was within its authority to act.

County landscape and forest conservation specialist Jonathan Bowman testified later that the forest conservation plan went through multiple submittals and corrections and that his office approved an August submission (approval recorded 08/06/2024) and then approved a corrected September submission (approval recorded 09/24/2024). He said the most recent corrections addressed items he had requested.

A central procedural dispute arose late in the hearing when appellants said they had relied on plan files available on the county website and in prior public-information responses but were not provided the September corrected submittal Bowman referenced. Appellants asked for time to review the newer submittal; the chair granted a continuance. The board agreed to continue the forest-conservation portion to a March session so parties can examine the updated plan and supporting calculations before further argument or a decision.

Neighbors who testified — including Shirley Ann Appleby and John Tremeloni — told the board they oppose the removal of specimen trees and urged a careful review. The hearing record includes multiple appellant exhibits (regulatory excerpts, plan sheets, annotated maps and the director’s decision) that the board admitted into evidence.

The board did not take a final vote on the variance or plan at the Nov. 25 hearing; it continued the matter and will revisit the forest-conservation plan and variance after parties have had opportunity to review the September correction submitted to the department.