County authorizes limited stream work for school outfall; neighbors say buffer impacts are understated

The county’s Development Engineering Division authorized a necessary‑disturbance finding allowing the Maryland International School project to extend a stormwater outfall through a priority retention area and a 75‑foot stream buffer to a perennial stream, the hearing record shows. The written acknowledgment included references to a 20‑foot linear width of stream disturbance for the rip‑rap outfall and required the applicant to secure authorizations from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and satisfy other conditions before final signature SDP approval.

Neighbors challenged the scope and sufficiency of that determination at the June 16 hearing. Appellant David Mark and other witnesses said the county’s short, one‑paragraph application and the DPZ letter do not enumerate square feet of buffer disturbance, do not show how the contractor’s limit of disturbance (LOD) maps onto buffer and forested areas, and do not demonstrate that less‑impact alternatives were analyzed as the code requires for buffer and steep‑slope work. “There’s a lot more disturbance than what they asked and what the county approved,” Mark said, pointing to a marked‑up plan showing a larger corridor of buffer and forest impacted by access and grading.

Project engineer Robert Vogel testified that the stream work was coordinated with Soil Conservation District reviewers and that MDE issued authorization for the stream rip‑rap and outfall linear footage. He explained the engineering rationale: a short armored outfall avoids uncontrolled gullying between the outfall and the stream and reduces the risk of downstream erosion if the outfall were placed differently. Vogel said the plan uses a roughly 20‑foot working width at the water line and that limits of disturbance are graphically shown on the plan set and will be staked before construction.

Appellants asked the examiner to vacate or remand DPZ’s necessary‑disturbance determination for failure to evaluate the code’s criteria (minimization of disturbance, lack of reasonable alternatives, and required mitigation/monitoring). Applicant counsel argued the county appropriately conditioned approval on MDE and other authorizations, that the engineering justification was supplied in the application materials and by Vogel’s testimony, and that the applicant has already pursued additional work and approvals to address erosion risk.

The hearing concluded with the examiner saying written orders will follow. The dispute is likely to inform whether the county’s letter adequately satisfies the code’s required justification language and whether contractors must adopt further mitigation.