Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

center partnered with the Chesapeake Conservancy, the Maryland College of Agriculture Natural Resources, and the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab to conduct the study. This study produced a high resolution inventory of forest cover and canopy of the state. The main finding of the study is that it it determined that while the pace of net forest loss has slowed over the years, it has continued whereby from 2013 to 2018, 19,000 acres of forests were lost and it confirmed that existing forest conservation measures were successful in reducing forest loss. As a result of the Hughes Center study, there was motivation at the state level to affect a f policy shift from no le no net forest loss to net forest gain. This policy shift to be achieved by the state through policy which includes uh state strengthening the forest conservation act which is the subject of our presentation this morning and implementing various programs to support sustainable forest management and growth. the measure um of that also includes um uh measure measuring um excuse measuring excuse me the support sustainable forest management um implementing various programs to support sustainable forest management growth as I just mentioned and also measuring uh statewide canopy assessment every four years as as part of this um uh program

every four years

every four And that that would be through and don't correct me if I'm wrong through this this hard resolution uh study hard resolution technology that the the Hugh study is implementing. Uh Senate Bill uh 526 was signed into law in May 8th uh 2023 and H bill 1511 was signed into law May 9th 2024 with the main changes of the Forest Conservation Act being made in Senate Bill 526. The date of this enactment is uh coming up July 1st 2026. The overall policy shift of this legislation as I just mentioned uh goes from no net f forest loss to net forest gain. Legislation provided for changes in the Maryland natural resources title f five forest and parks subtitle 16 forest conservation 5-161 through 5-1612 which is the subject of of u which is where the forest conservation act um comes from given all the of the changes per this legislation. This leg legislation warrants a repeal and replacement of the queen ant of the of our current uh what we have in the forest conservation act in chapter 18 182. So now I'm going to hand it over uh to Doug who will get into the highlights of the text amendment changes uh to the forest conservation act.

So with the new regulations uh the activity that triggers application of the forest conservation act it remains unchanged. It's major minor subdivisions, site plans, grading permits, and sediment control permits that are over 40 on land over 40,000 square ft. Um they have added some exemptions in the new um the new code. Um it includes storm water management, stream restoration projects, some federal government facilities that employ over 2500. Um solar is exempt from aforestation but must meet reforestation standards on site. And uh a notable revised exemption is that the intraf family transfer was reduced in scope from it included grandparents, aunt, stepids, the whole list of of relatives. It only applies to owner and child now with a maximum clearing of 20,000 square feet. uh reforestation rate is now one to one. So if you cut a tree, you have to plant a tree. Um riparian bust buffer restoration is required. So your your mitigation planning requirements should be focused in these areas if they're on your site. Um because regardless if your mitigation is planted or exhausted, the riparian buffers have to be planted anyway. Um, I don't know that the county has too many riparian buffer outside critical area, but there there definitely some. Um, there's also been some new priority areas that have been added. Uh, they include forest, interior, dwelling species habitat, uh, tier 2, tier three waterersheds, urban forest, and water protection areas. The applicant is to avoid cutting in these areas. If they cannot, they must provide a narrative to the county that

the county deems acceptable to be able to cut there. And if if there's any cutting in those areas, uh adjacent property notification has to be made and the county has to allow for written comment on the plan. I'm sorry, Doug, before you can go back to that last slide that's next to the last bullet says department. Is that planning and zoning department? Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. So there are expansion of the types of far stand delineations that are to be completed. There's a simple intermediate and a full there are some reduced mitigation rates um you know instead of one one I think it's a quarter and a half to one for transit oriented development multifamily and within priority funding areas or growth area. There's also an opportunity for judicial review now um if an individual petitions the state um I guess if they don't like a plan or such or don't believe it should have been approved. So that that uh opportunity exists. Now in preparation of these uh we've worked internally to develop uh whole new set of calculation worksheets, checklists, updating the code language. We worked with GIS department to improve our um FCP records inventory and map all our properties in the county that have easements on them. Uh we're definitely in a better position to track forest conservation data data and other elements such as net canopy loss projects in the county. Uh there's also been internal discussions to increase the fee and loo rate in order to ensure it covers the county statemand mandated canopy requirements. uh thus averting any potential financial ability liabilities for the county in the future. Uh looking ahead, we're we're working with internally and with the NR staff to finalize our plan. Um it's anticipated to be before you for review next month. Um it could then it would then move on to the county commissioners for approval. The state does have a hard deadline of July 1st for implementation. Um, we also intend to do some outreach

efforts through QACV, um, emails, website updates just to let citizens and community know, local engineers, surveyors, and developers of the anticipated changes coming up. So, take any questions on that. Any questions for Doug or Marielen? If I'm thinking about this correctly, this applies to applications for activity as opposed to uh timber operations on a farm. Correct. Um that has nothing to do with this.

No. So commercial timber harvest, they're they're a part of there's a small section in the act for that, but they could still proceed. Um, I don't think any criteria relative to those was changed. There's still a declaration of intent when you do it. Um, there I don't think there was any changes to that. As a practical matter, we've reforested 100% anyway, but I just was wondering if this encumbered the process at all.

No, not for commercial timber harvest. So you may have said it and I just missed it, Doug, but uh so my understanding is the current program is one to one. You cut one down, you plant one, right? I mean, yes, but beginning July that's reforest aforestation is we're going to plant a whole woods or something. Yes. So what's the ratio now? Cut one, plant 10 or a forestation, whatever it is, you're you're the one talking about. So a forestation has thresholds that must be met on site. Um there's usually 15 or 20% depending on the land use. So 20% what of the site um must be must be forced. Yes. Okay.

That'll be the forestation portion. And then if you do cut any trees on the site, you'd have to replace them. Now it doesn't matter if you can plant those. If there's a spot that's undevelopable but will grow trees, that'll work fine. So some of the cost that they have to Yeah, there's an entire list or sequence um where it could be planted. Uh what type has to be planted? Is the state determining what varieties of trees they have to plant? No, we we prefer native but but I don't think it's in code that we have to do native critical area. Did they change it? So it may maples and oaks and things like that is what you're saying, right? cherry tree.

I think we've made exceptions to that. Correct me if I'm wrong in the back. If there was unavailable stock, let's say, at local nurseries, we went through this with Mike, I think, or if or if an applicant could justify the use of a particular type of tree for aesthetics or color palette or something. There were some some nuances there.

Rob Gunter, planner. Um, yes, native species. There is in that sequence that Doug mentioned down at the bottom of the list where we would allow a certain size landscaping area associated. Let's say the uh Dollar General couldn't meet all of their aforestation and we didn't want to accept fee and Lou. If they had a certain size area of their landscaping they were proposing, we could allow that to count as forest conservation as well. And then that may be decorative uh plantings and shrubs. So there is a fee and loop provision with this. There is. Yep. Any way we can weasel out of that out of the fe? Yeah.

But we typically only accept it in growth areas and it's down the bottom of the list. Yeah. There's other findings that have to be made in order to accept the fee.

They have to they have to approve um whatever reasons are valid, not just, hey, we just want to do it. Um typically we're only accepting it in the growth area on smaller parcels. Um, we like trees. I'm not sure how many other people really do, but we've only taken a very minimal amount of fee and Lou in the last several years because we want them to plant them. Whether that's just eight trees that are used to additionally screen between two types of development. Um, the code does give us the ability to maneuver some of that for different reasons so that we can try and get all the trees on site. I'm not a big fan of fee and loo particularly in this situation, but it may be a tool that makes sense on occasion. I mean, I don't see any sense in trying to ban it.

Yeah. No, I mean, it's it's a valid uh you know, it just it just is sometimes they can't plant it, but we don't particularly want it either. We can't spend it. Um you need a place to put trees in the ground or or buy land. And right now the fee and l rate is in the growth area is 30 cents per square foot and outside it's 36 cents per square foot of area that they're required to plant. Uh you can't even buy trees for that let alone a piece of property. Um so I'm not sure what we can do with it if we do accept it. While you're while you're here, Mr. Gunther, can you speak to where we are in that? I mean, do we have more money than we can put trees in the ground or it's the opposite or do you need to get back to us on that?

Um, no. We have fee and money now. We're currently in the process of completing a project across the street at the Y. Um, so it's trees are going in the ground. That fee loo is being depleted slowly but very slowly. Okay. But it is. So, so did you just say you have nowhere to spend the money if you get it? Yeah, we have to uh So, I just did the arithmetic. I had to I got my calculator. That's $13,000 an acre roughly. Put that in the land preservation program.

It has to be used for approved uh forest conservation activities. So, you have to plant trees. You can maintain existing forest. I'm not entirely sure what that means. You could buy land with it to um create a mitigation bank for future forest conservation. Um the state dictates what we can spend that money for. Um I Yes. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Thanks so much for putting that together. Greatly appreciate that. Thank you. Chairman, yes.

If I could just take a moment, uh Amy Morta, planning director. I just want to publicly commend staff for its hard work on this forest conservation update. The law has been changing over the last several years and as we've seen with so much legislation there are requirements on local governments to come in line with state changes, state mandates and we take those deadlines very seriously. So this enactment deadline was to, you know, hit hits the ground in July, July 1st. And having met with our new forester, whose name is Greg Gisimman, uh it took staff who had been working on this update for well over a year. It took staff a long time to coordinate with the state. Uh that position had been vacant for a while. um the the model ordinance that local jurisdictions had been promised has still not been published. So our staff has been very proactive in working on this update because it's very difficult for our development community when there is a disconnect between what is in the code the state provisions and what is in our code when we're not updated and in sync. So, just to note that, and I know if Sharon were here, she'd love to hear this sentence. I think we will be the first county to update our code in a timely manner. So, we really are leading the charge. It has been a completely collaborative effort with the whole staff. They're all very well-versed in these changes and have been living in this document for for well over a year as the um legislation has been evolving. So, I just wanted um to thank them and to let you know that we're um we're ahead of ahead of the pack on this

update. Agreed. And on behalf of the commission, we'll convey that uh second that. And I think it also says quite a bit about your leadership, Amy, in that you're fully staffed. You've got some some bench strength that you've built over the years. So, congratulations to all of you. Thank you so much. Um, discussion of articles, whatever XXVI is, guarantees and covenants 27.

Good morning again. Uh, Stephanie Jones, long range principal planner. Uh so the last item on your agenda um essentially is to talk about um what you had requested back in our meeting in December um was to talk about uh basically what the planning commission's role is when it comes to covenants um and basically how you know amendments to covenants come before them. Um if you recall the Meadow Creek subdivision, you all um heard that in December. But really what I wanted to convey to you is really what the code says um because we don't see these very often. So when these things come up it's like well how did this you know end up here on the planning commission. Um so in the code in 181-204 it basically says that the planning commission has to find that the requirements of article xxi vi um and chapter 18 there we go have been fulfilled. Um essentially generally um these uh covenants are confirmed through staff and also uh legal has to confirm them. Um generally we don't bring those uh specific covenants before you as part of your your staff packets um only because they've been confirmed and they meet legal s sufficiency prior to and then following in 181-205 it really talks about the amendments and that's what um I think your discussion and your concerns were really around around um what it says is that a covenant may not be amended or changed in any manner without prior written approval of the planning commission or other agency or person dy authorized by the county to approve the change or amendment. So that is really the code provision that um anytime there is a proposed change to a covenant it has to come before you um in order for you to make that determination. Um like I said currently we don't bring you the original covenants um but if an amendment was to come in that's when

when you would see it. uh really um if you're looking to make any changes to how this process is done um that can be done and I've kind of outlined those on uh page two there's really four options. One is just continue you know as we have and if there are amendments that come in we would bring them before you. Um it doesn't happen very often. Um although we've had one today for open space and one in December but Rob has a short hasn't happened very often.

Um two u basically is they'll leave the code as it reads. Um and then basically we would provide all of those covenants to you at the time in which their original submission is made. Um if you want to read them look at them. Uh three as well is to leave the code as it is but really to apply um the part of the code in 18204 that says um other agency or person duly authorized. So it says planning commission or you know the person that's authorized to do so. At this point in time as far as I know there hasn't been um that person has not been designated. So that falls to the planning commission. And if you would like to um have the county commissioners basically indicate who that person is that's authorized to do so um if anytime there is an amendment that comes into a covenants um we could we could do that. Generally um it would probably be the planning director as to who would be the one that's authorized to do so. But also if you're looking um you know if you want the flexibility to see some of them if one does come in uh we could make it that you know the planning commission or the the director can convey it to the planning commission if they deem appropriate. Um I don't think this would be a code update. It would just be more uh policy and also the county commissioners um you sending the recommendation and them approving. So, um this gives flexibility then for the planning commission to not have to see them. So, if it's something so minor, you know, you wouldn't have to come before you. Um if so, um also, you know, the remainder last item would be um if you're really looking to change how the code is now and how it's applied, uh we could look at what look at it with a comprehensive code update, um and kind of move it around as you deem appropriate. um whether you don't want to see any amendments or however you see

see fit. Um so if you're looking for um you know the application to change in any manner, we can talk about that or if you're fine with the way it happens because it doesn't happen very often. Um you know we can continue on that path. I would say in asking this question and I mentioned it to you early, it was not my intent to change anything as much as it was for information. Uh the only thing that would make sense to me is this rather vague other designated person and if we have an opportunity to specify that we might consider doing that and I certainly would recommend the planning director or something of that nature. I'm a big fan of solving problems at the lowest level possible.

Yes. And so I would happily defer to the authority of the planning department. So if you the way it's currently being managed, has it ever not worked? Have you ever been sued, the county ever been sued because we didn't look at something? Has the planning commission ever been sued because we didn't look at something? Not that I'm aware of. I imagine the only complaint I'm sure I'm answering the question. Yeah, I'm sure the only complaint is the timing that it takes because it has to go through staff review then be placed on an agenda and wait until you have a meeting to review and approve it. That's probably really the only complaint. Kind of like Ben wanting to fix things at the lowest level. I kind of like not fixing things that work.

It ain't broke, don't fix it. And that's an option too as well. You don't have to make any changes or, you know, I think it's I think I'm going to speak now or speak up if I'm mis misreading the room here, but it sounds like we're staying the course. Okay. This is something that is rare and if it if it becomes not so rare, we have tools in front of us and other options to designate possibly. We feel relatively comfortable uh with with planning director being the voice maybe in consultation with the chairman of the bit of the commission just as a as a courtesy. But I think most of us up here are nodding our heads and saying that that's fine. Yeah. Is do you make sure I'm clear? Do you want to move forward with the designate or we're just going to keep status quo? I

I think we're fine. Okay. All right. Just making sure. I want to make sure. Bring one next. Yeah. Right. Unless we go unless we get three meetings. Unless we unless we get a few more. We're not reading the We're not reading the wall. Right. All right. Any other questions for Stephanie or staff? Fantastic. Motion to adjurnn. Thank you so much. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Uh motion made. Second. The meeting is closed.