Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forest Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calvert County adopts state‑required forest conservation changes, sparking questions about where replanted trees must be located
Summary
The Board adopted text amendment 26‑01 to align county rules with state law (Senate Bill 526), increasing reforestation ratios and tightening retention rules. Residents pressed the board on whether reforestation can be planted far from cleared sites; staff said replanting must remain in‑county and starts in the affected watershed.
The Calvert County Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt text amendment 26‑01, updating the county’s forest conservation rules to comply with state law changes enacted in Senate Bill 526.
Planner Will Heager told the board the state law replaces variable reforestation formulas with a simpler standard: generally “1 acre of forest planted for every acre of forest removed,” with reduced ratios for development inside priority funding areas and for large multifamily projects. He said the change will “result in a significant increase in the amount of reforestation required for development projects, broadly speaking.”
Why it matters: the amendment expands mandatory replanting and tightens retention standards countywide, which staff and environmental groups have framed as strengthening tree protections. Heager also described county-proposed flexibilities — including crediting large historic ‘monument’ trees and allowing individual trees or planted green infrastructure to satisfy up to 25% of planting requirements in town centers.
During public comment, Lusby resident Patrick Flaherty criticized the board for moving quickly on forest language while not addressing perceived data‑center loopholes. “If you can amend more than a 100 lines of forest conservation text, you can certainly address the glaring deficiencies in the data center provisions,” Flaherty said. His remarks urged the board to use the same energy to limit data‑center development under local rules. The board did not adopt additional data‑center restrictions in this amendment.
A focal technical question from commissioners and residents was where required reforestation must occur. Colleen Bromitt, the county’s environmental planning regulator, said mitigation follows a priority sequence: mitigation must begin on‑site, then within the project’s watershed (the state specifies an eight‑digit watershed, with further narrowing possible), and if no suitable sites exist there the county can look elsewhere in Calvert County. “It has to be somewhere in the county,” Bromitt said, and property owners must justify each step through the hierarchy if they seek off‑site reforestation.
The staff presentation also clarified that solar energy generating systems are exempt from afforestation requirements (planting before tree removal) but not from reforestation when trees are removed for a solar project. Heager said the state mapped priority‑retention areas broadly and that in some cases the mapping could include most county forests, triggering public comment rights where clearing affects priority retention areas.
The board moved and adopted 26‑01 as presented to bring the county into compliance with state law; staff noted the counties were late to adopt ordinance updates and that the state’s model legislation guided the drafting. Brinkley and Bromitt said the county will continue conversations with Maryland Department of Natural Resources about possible local refinements but that many requirements are mandated.
The amendment will take effect 10 days after adoption. Residents and commissioners asked staff to pursue additional clarifying language in follow‑up amendments about reforestation placement and potential inequities if replanting can be placed far from the site of impact. Staff said those conversations can continue, but any local deviation from the model ordinance would require state sign‑off.
