Committee recommends O16-26 to align citys forest conservation rules with state law

A joint session of the Rules and City Government Committee and the Environmental Matters Committee recommended approval of ordinance O16-26 on July 9, advancing a package of amendments to the citys forest conservation code intended to align local rules with recent Maryland law.

City Forester Bridal Adams told the committee the most significant policy shift in the new state law is moving "from a no net loss policy to a net gain," with canopy measured every four years. Adams said the state now sets a 1:1 replacement ratio for removed forest (the city already applies that standard) and adds new definitions and exemptions, including carved-outs for tree farms, orchards, managed forests and some federal facilities. The state also elevates urban canopy areas to "priority retention and protection areas" and requires previously unforested riparian buffers to be reforested to improve water quality, Adams said.

The committee considered a set of technical amendments: updating stream-buffer criteria, changing the annual reporting deadline from March 1 to August 31 to match the fiscal year, clarifying the appeals pathway for forest conservation plans, tightening notification practices, and setting transitional rules for applications during the July 1 law changeover. Adams explained that mitigation options have been broadened to include restoring degraded forests, planting green infrastructure and using street-tree credits, and that the city typically mitigates on-site because it does not operate mitigation banks.

The office of law summarized relevant case law and statutory context. The city attorney told the committee that a Maryland Supreme Court decision involving the Chesapeake Bay Foundation confirmed that a forest conservation plan can be appealed as a discrete approval, creating a separate right of judicial review; "CBF is right," the attorney said, noting the General Assembly then clarified there is a right to judicial review of a forest conservation plan approval. The amendments aim to reconcile that state-level right with the citys existing review routes (department approvals appealed first to the board of appeals; planning commission tracks appealed directly to circuit court).

Committee members pressed staff on operational details. One member said: "The idea that we're gonna say even once we give you your permit, we're gonna wait around for 30 days is kinda crazy to me," arguing the stay language could delay projects; others responded that a short appeal window gives community groups time to retain counsel and seek judicial review before trees are irreparably removed. City Forester Adams said development projects post landscape bonds with two-year inspection periods and that forest-conservation projects carry five-year maintenance agreements; street trees the city plants are now maintained for two to three years to reduce mortality.

Members also debated notice requirements. The state requires written mail notice to abutting and adjacent property owners at least 20 days before approval; the local amendment would add a broader public notice (website and newspaper posting) after approval. Alderman Frank Thorpe said he favored mailing neighbors directly so the burden is not on residents to scan public notices; other members argued newspapers remain important as permanent, searchable records, while some members preferred modernizing to web-first notices to reach more readers.

Procedurally, the rules committee voted in favor of recommending amendments 2, 3 and 6 as a package; later the environmental matters committee recommended the ordinance with amendments 2, 3, 4 and 6. Votes were taken by voice and recorded as "Aye" on the motion; individual roll-call tallies were not recorded in the transcript.

The committees asked staff and the city attorney to refine language on stays and transitional vesting (including ensuring the citys intention is preserved for projects that might vest under the Maryland Housing Certainty Act). The council rules meeting to finalize the package was set for July 23, with the city council agenda target at the July 27 meeting.

Whats next: The committees advanced a recommendation; final action will be on the City Council agenda after staff and legal edits. If approved by the council, the ordinance will update local code to match state requirements while preserving several locally preferred protections such as mitigation priorities and the citys fee-in-lieu structure.