Committee questions 50% native-plant rule over recreational green space, inspectors and sod growers

The Montgomery County Planning, Housing and Parks Committee spent the bulk of its Oct. 6 work session reviewing ZTA 25-10, a zoning-text amendment that would require at least 50% native plant species in specified open-space landscaping for new development applications.

Council staff summarized July public hearing input, noting testimony both supporting greater native-plant use for biodiversity and climate resilience and opposing the change from members of the agricultural and sod-growing community, who warned it could threaten local sod farms. Staff said the planning board recommended placing the native-plant language only in the general landscaping section (6-4.3) to avoid unintended effects in rural-open-space requirements.

"Native plants are essential to sustaining our biodiversity, building climate-resilient landscapes, and also supporting pollinators," the package sponsor said, framing the ZTA as part of a broader Native Plant Protection Act. Staff clarified the proposal uses a Mid-Atlantic regional definition (Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virginia, and D.C.) and would bar species on Maryland’s invasive-species list.

A central committee question was how to measure the 50% requirement. Staff offered four options: by area (square footage), by plant category (50% within each category such as trees, shrubs, grasses, perennials), by the plant-list count (half the items on an approved plant schedule), or by mass/size (weighted by trunk/canopy). Planning staff said the planning board favored the per-category approach to preserve diversity, while some landscapers told the committee they preferred the plant-list-count approach.

Planning staff and DPS explained how enforcement would work through existing site-plan and inspection processes. Robert Kronenberg of the Planning Department said site plans already include a plant schedule and proposed adding a native/nonnative column to make tracking explicit. DPS deputy director Ihsan Motezdi described the inspection sequence: a preconstruction meeting with the landscaper, a final inspection tied to bond release, and a one-year reinspection when the county holds 50% of the surety bond until survival and replacement obligations are met.

Committee members pressed a practical tension: whether the 50% standard would be fixed at the time of planting or effectively recalculated at the one-year reinspection as plants grow or shift. Staff clarified that reinspections verify compliance with the approved landscaping plan and require replacement in kind if plantings die; the committee debated whether the ratio itself would be reopened at reinspection, and staff said the enforcement focus is adherence to the approved plan unless an applicant seeks to amend it.

Councilmembers raised equity and recreational-use concerns for residents of townhomes and multifamily buildings, who often rely on small shared greens for informal play. Council Member Balcom said: "We don't have native sod. We don't have native grasses that we all know to play on," arguing an outright 50% requirement could reduce usable play space. She and other members proposed an amendment to exempt preexisting laid sod or clearly define "recreational" or "programmed" open space so required native plantings do not unintentionally eliminate play areas.

Staff also flagged the local economic impact: currently grown sod varieties are generally nonnative and would not count toward the 50% threshold. The packet included a proposed amendment from Council Members Balcom and Lukey to subtract sod/turf area from the calculation (so that the 50% native requirement would apply only to the remaining area), a compromise some councilmembers supported.

Committee members asked planning and DPS to return with clarified wording on measurement options, a precise definition or treatment for recreational/programmed open space, and more detail on availability and market capacity for native plants and cultivars. Planning staff noted cultivars are allowed by the planning board recommendation but acknowledged pros and cons about genetic diversity.

The committee did not take a formal vote on ZTA 25-10 and left the item open for additional refinement. Chair Friedson closed the discussion by thanking farmers, DPS and planning staff and acknowledging the complex balance between environmental goals and recreational access and local industry impacts.

The committee will continue work on measurement methodology, the scope of applicability, and any targeted exemptions before considering amendments or a vote at a future meeting.