T&EITEM2
June 24, 2013
Worksession 4
Committee members should bring their packets from the February 25 and Aprill
worksessions. Most items in those packets are not duplicated here.
Committee members may be asked to retain this packet for future reference.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy & Environment Committee
~Michael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attomex
Amanda Mihill, Legislative
Attomey~
SUBJECT:
Worksession
4: Bill 35-12, Trees - Tree Canopy Conservation
Bill 35-12, Trees - Tree Canopy Conservation, sponsored by the Council President at the
request of the County Executive, was introduced on November 27,2012. A public hearing was
held on January 17, 2013, along with Bill 41-12 (see selected testimony, ©29-54).
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee worksessions were held on
January 28, February 25, and April 1.
Bill 35-12 would broadly:
• establish a fee-based program to mInImIZe and compensate for the loss and
disturbance of tree canopy as a result of development;
• provide for County mitigation when tree canopy is lost or disturbed; and
• establish a fund that the County can spend for tree canopy conservation projects,
including plantings of individual trees, groups of trees, or forests, on private and
public property.
At the January worksession Executive branch staff presented an overview of Bill 35-12
and the issues it raises, and answered Committee members' questions. (See Executive staff
presentation, ©63-96.) The Committee did not take any further action on this Bill at that
worksession. At the February worksession, Executive branch staff updated the Committee on
discussions they have had with various stakeholders on key issues. At the April worksession
Committee members requested more data from Executive staff on tree preservation programs in
other comparable jurisdictions.
Circle numbers from
29-161
may be cited in this memo but are not included in
it.
They
are included in the February
25
and April
1
Committee packets, which Committee members
should bring to this worksession. This was done to save a few trees.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Committee Recommendations To-Date
At its April 1 worksession, the Committee made the following recommendations:
• exempt the Parks Department from Bill 35-12;
• do not exclude quarry operations from Bill 35-12 (the Bill would already exempt non­
coal surface mining conducted in accordance with applicable state law);
• verify that agricultural activity is not subject to Bill 35-12 (Executive staff continue to
affirm that agricultural activities are not subject to the bill because they do not
normally require a sediment control permit); and
• grandfather existing projects (see Executive stafflanguage below).
Remaining Issues for Committee Discussion
1) How do other jurisdictions handle tree canopy protections?
At previous
worksessions, Committee members asked Executive staff to research other jurisdictions that have
tree canopy laws and compare them to Bill 35-12. The initial response from DEP staff before the
April 1 worksession is on ©146-158. As DEP staff noted when it transmitted this material:
This was not any easy task due to the wide variability and complexity of laws in other
jurisdictions (imagine someone trying to interpret our Forest Conservation Law, which
still sometimes confuses County staff). However, we hope this gives an indication that
(1)
other jurisdictions have enacted tree protection programs and (2) the approach to
doing this varies greatly.
DEP staff also transmitted a USDA Forest Service Study on urban tree canopy retention (see
©136-145). DEP staff noted that:
This study analyzed the recent change in the urban tree canopy in 20 jurisdictions across
the country. Clearly, some of the results of this study would not be applicable to more
rural areas of the County, but I think it is applicable in the more urbanized areas (which
are increasing). The conclusion notes "Despite various and likely limited tree planting
and protection campaigns, tree cover tends to be on the decline in U.S. cities while
impervious cover is on the increase. While these individual campaigns are helping to
increase or reduce the loss of urban tree cover, more widespread, comprehensive and
integrated programs that focus on sustaining overall tree canopy may be needed to help
reverse the trend of declining tree cover in cities."
More recently, DEP transmitted information on several comparable jurisdictions (see
© 162-181), showing that fees charged elsewhere would substantially exceed those proposed in
this Bill.
2) Is the fee-based approach outlined in Bill
35-12
a good way to protect and manage
the County's tree canopy?
Many organizations and speakers questioned different aspects of the
approach in Bill 35-12. For instance, Renewing Montgomery argued that if the County's goal is
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
to retain tree canopy, the law should apply to all property owners, regardless of whether they
need a sediment control permit.
Committee members may wish to discuss the following questions about the Bill's scope
and approach with Executive staff and other stakeholders:
• Proposed §55-9(a) (see ©12, lines 279-283) provides that the Bill's objective is to
retain existing trees and that "every reasonable effort should be made to minimize the
cutting or clearing of trees and other woody plants ... " Is this language intended to be
a general policy goal, or instead to function as a substantive regulatory standard? We
believe this language, if not entirely hortatory, is at best a broad policy goal.
• Why does Bill 3 5-12 apply only to properties that must obtain a sediment control
permit? Why not apply the Bill to all properties? Or trigger the restrictions after a
particular amount of tree canopy is disturbed?
• As essentially a fee-based approach, Bill 35-12 would not require replacing any tree
canopy where it is removed (i.e., the bill does not require on-site replacement when
possible). Should it?
• How would this Bill overlap the forest conservation law? Will most properties that
are subject to the forest conservation law also be subject to the tree canopy law?
Should properties subject to the forest conservation law be exempt from the tree
canopy law? The Maryland National Capital Building Industry Association (BIA)
and attorney Timothy Dugan argued that properties that are subject to the forest
conservation law should not be subject to a tree canopy law. Effectively they are not;
under ©12-13, lines 291-294, any disturbance in a tree canopy that is identified as
part of a forest in a natural resources inventory/forest stand delineation and subject to
a forest conservation plan would not have to pay mitigation fees.
• Much of the Bill's content seems to assume a more direct regulatory approach than a
simple fee requirement, and in Council staffs view would not be necessary if the
only action needed to comply with this Bill will be to submit limits of disturbance
information and pay the fee that is calculated accordingly. For example, on ©13-17,
lines 296-342 and 346-387 appear superfluous.
3) Should Bill
35-12
set canopy goals?
Many organizations, including Conservation
Montgomery and West Montgomery County Citizens Association, urged that Bill 35-12 be
amended to include specific tree canopy goals. Some individuals suggested establishing a no-net
loss tree canopy goal; other organizations suggested setting a countywide goal of 55%, with a
minimum goal of 40% in all areas evaluated in a county tree canopy assessment. The Bill does
neither.
4) Should the Parks Department be exempt?
The County Planning Board and many
environmental organizations expressed concern that Bill 35-12 would cover the Parks
Department in its requirements. As Board Chair Carrier noted in her letter on ©31-32, many
park capital projects involve work under tree canopy and the Department strives to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate the negative effects of park projects on native tree canopy. At the
February 25 worksession, Executive staff noted that although they were willing to amend Bill
35-12 to assure that the fee the Parks Department pays would be directed back to the Parks
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
system, they concluded that the Parks Department should not be exempt entirely from the bill.
Committee recommendation: exempt the County Parks Department from this Bill.
5) What other exemptions
(if
any) should be allowed?
Several organizations or
individuals requested exemptions from the fee requirement:
• As drafted, Bill 35-12 would exempt any tree nursery activity performed with an
approved Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plan (see ©6, line 121-123). The Soil
Conservation District and the Agricultural Advisory Committee would broaden this
exemption to include any agricultural or conservation activity performed with an
approved Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plan (see ©112-115).
Because
agricultural activities are normally not required to apply for a sediment control permit, we
concur with Executive branch staff that this exemption would be unnecessary.
• Bill 35-12 would exempt any non-coal surface mining conducted in accordance with
applicable state law (see ©7, lines 149-150). Tri-State Stone and Building Supply
requested the Council to amend the law to specifically exclude quarry operations (see
letter from Linowes and Blocher, ©119-121). We see no reason to do so; a quarry
normally would have little tree cover, but ifit does the requirements should apply.
Committee recommendation: do not adopt either amendment.
• Pepco (see Pasternak email, ©183) asked for an amendment, similar to language in the
redraft of Bill 41-12, to clarify that utility vegetation management activities are not
subject to this Bill. While Council staff concurs with Executive branch staff that those
activities likely would not be covered by this Bill, we agree with Pepco that inserting
language similar to that in lines 100-106 of draft 16 ofBi1141-12 on line 136 of this Bill
would avoid negative implications and make that result certain.
6) What
is
the appropriate mitigation fee level?
Bill 35-12 would require the payment
of a mitigation fee set by Method 3 regulation. The fee would not apply to the first 5% of the
tree canopy disturbed and, as already mentioned, would not apply to canopy that is subj ect to
forest conservation law restrictions. Some environmental groups, including Conservation
Montgomery, urged DEP to set a fee that is high enough to provide incentives to save trees or
cover the cost of replacement trees. The Planning Board was concerned that Bill 35-12 does not
set a specific mitigation rate.
When Committee members pressed Executive staff for proposed fee levels, DEP staff
submitted a fee scale based on the forest conservation law's fee-in-lieu payment ($1.05/square
foot at 40,000 square feet) (see ©128-135). To show how the fee is calculated on sample sites,
DEP submitted a Powerpoint presentation (see ©184-198).
Committee members expressed an intent to insert whatever fee level that is approved into
the law, at least as the initial fee, possibly subject to revision through a regulation that the
Council would have to approve (not a Method 3 regulation, as the Bill proposed). In the
worksessions so far, Committee members have not discussed in detail what fee levels are
appropriate.
Bill 35-12 would set a fee based on the amount of tree canopy within the limits of
disturbance, regardless of how much if any canopy is actually removed. Should the fee structure
instead be measured by how much canopy would be removed?
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
7) What mitigation credits should be allowed?
Some environmental organizations and
building community representatives seem to agree in theory regarding credits for on-site
planting. Conservation Montgomery recommended a 25% canopy fee credit for trees replanted
on site (the higher the fee, the higher the level of credit that should be allowed) and a tree
protection credit for unusual efforts to save trees on site. Larry Cafritz, a custom builder, said
that there should be an appreciable credit for homeowners to replant onsite. The Planning Board
argued for a credit for protecting individual trees and their critical root zone and for replanting on
site. Additionally, BIA expressed concerns that Bill 35-12 does not include a credit for
stormwater management structures that builders are now required to install on lots to capture
stormwater, which can require some trees to be removed.
Just before the April worksession, DEP staff submitted an outline of a potential credit
program for tree protection and tree planting (see ©159-161). Much ofthe detail in this proposal
could be contained in the implementing regulation, but the basic thrust and the minimum or
maximum credits would need to be inserted into the Bill.
Renewing Montgomery proposal As an alternative to the fee and credit structure that
DEP advocates, a group of small builders, Renewing Montgomery, has proposed an option for
smaller lots (those less than 20,00 square feet) that in their view would be less expensive, fairer,
less subject to administrative discretion, and result in more trees being replanted onsite. For their
proposal, see ©175-181. BIA endorsed their approach (see BIA letter, ©182.)
Essentially, Renewing Montgomery would allow, at the ov.nerlbuilder's option, the
applicant to commit to plant a certain number of trees onsite, regardless of whether any trees
were previously there or were removed. The applicant would have the option to pay a set in-lieu
fee, based on the cost to plant a replacement tree, somewhat lower than DEP proposed, which (as
with the fee under this Bill) would be used to plant trees somewhere in the County. Renewing
Montgomery's formula for trees on-site and in-lieu fees is shown on ©177, and site-specific
examples are shown on © 178-181.
Variations on this proposal could include:
• requiring a certain minimum number of shade trees (say half of those proposed) to
be planted onsite in all cases unless in its plan review the Department of
Permitting Services (DPS) finds that exceptional circumstances make planting the
required trees onsite infeasible; and/or
• limiting the use of this option to lots where application of state and County
stormwater management requirements results in the loss of all or most trees, as
Renewing Montgomery argues is often the case.
If planting trees onsite is allowed as an alternative to a mitigation fee, in Council staffs
view a builder's warranty of 1 or 2 years should be required for each tree planted.
8) Should the uses of the Tree Conservation Fund be restricted?
Environmental and
builder representatives raised concerns about the Tree Conservation Fund. Conservation
Montgomery and Ashton Manor Environmental urged that the Bill be amended to assure that the
fund is not used for salaries and other administrative expenses. In Council staffs view, this can
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
be regulated through the operating budget process; if too much of the Fund turns out to be used
for less important purposes, the annual operating budget resolution can include appropriate
restrictions.
9) Which
if
any projects should be grandfathered?
Both attorney Timothy Dugan and
Larry Cafritz requested that Bill 35-12 grandfather existing projects. The Bill does not
specifically provide when it would take effect or how it would apply to projects that filed
applications for sediment control permits or forest conservation law approvals before the Bill
takes effect.
Executive branch staff proposed a relatively narrow transition clause:
Sec. 2.
Transition.
This Act does not apply to any lot where a sediment control permit
or final forest conservation plan was approved before March L 2014, unless the property owner
later submits an application to the Planning Department to amend the approved final forest
conservation plan.
Building industry representatives prefer a transition clause which exempts any lot where
an application for a building permit, sediment control permit, or forest conservation plan was
submitted before that date.
This packet contains:
Circle #
Bill 35-12
Legislative Request Report
Memo from County Executive
Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement
1
19
20
22
29
63
97
102
In February
25
Committee packet
Selected testimony and correspondence
Executive staffpresentation
County Attorney opinion
In
April
1
Committee packet
More selected testimony and correspondence
Revised Executive staffpresentation with proposedfee levels
USDA Forest Service Study on urban tree canopy
Summaries ofselected tree laws in other jurisdictions
DEP outline ofpotential credit program
In this packet
DEP comparisons with other jurisdictions
Renewing Montgomery proposal
BIA email endorsing Renewing Montgomery proposal
Pepco email
DEP Powerpoint presentation on fee calculation process
122
136
146
159
]62
175
182
183
184
F:\LAW\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Prograrn\T&E Memo 4,Doc
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
35-12
Concerning: Trees - Tree Canopy
Conservation
Revised:
10/25/2012
Draft No. 1
Introduced:
November 27,2012
Expires:
Mav 27,2014
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
---l..!N~on~e!.__
_ _ _ _ __
ChI _ _ Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
I
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request ofthe County Executive
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
save, maintain, and establish tree canopy for the benefit of County residents and
future generations;
maximize tree canopy retention and establishment;
establish procedures, standards, and requirements to mlmmlze the loss and
disturbance of tree canopy as a result of development;
provide for mitigation when tree canopy is lost or disturbed;
establish a fund for tree canopy conservation projects, including plantings of
individual trees, groups oftrees, or forests, on private and public property; and
generally revise County law regarding tree canopy conservation.
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 55, Tree Canopy Conservation
Sections 55-1, 55-2, 55-3, 55-4, 55-5, 55-6, 55-7, 55-8, 55-9, 55-10, 55-11, 55-12, 55-13 and
55-14.
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
lleamngordefinedkrnL
Added to existing law by original bill
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following
Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
1
Sec. 1. Chapter 55 is added as follows:
Article 1. Purpose and General Provisions.
55-1. Short title.
2
3
4
This Chapter may be cited as the Montgomery County Tree Canopy.
Conservation Law.
55-2. Findings and purpose.
5
6
7
ill
Findings.
The County Council finds that trees and tree canopy
8
9
10
11
constitute important natural resources.
filter groundwater,
reduce surface runoff, help alleviate flooding, and supply necessary
habitat for wildlife. They cleanse the air, offset the heat island effects
of urban development, and reduce energy needs. They improve the
quality of life in communities
.by
providing for recreation,
compatibility between different land uses, and aesthetic appeal. The
Council finds that tree and tree canopy loss as
f!:
result of development
and other land disturbing activities is
f!:
serious problem in the County.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ru
Purpose.
The purposes of this Chapter are to:
ill
ill
ill
save, maintain, and establish tree canopy for the benefit of
County residents and future generations;
maximize tree canopy retention and establishment;
establish procedures, standards, and requirements to minimize
the loss and disturbance of tree canopy as
f!:
result of
development;
19
20
21
22
23
(±)
provide for mitigation when tree canopy is lost or disturbed;
and
24
(J)
F;\LAw\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\BiIl I.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
25
26
ill
establish
£
fund for tree canopy conservation projects, including
plantings of individual trees, groups of trees, or forests, on
private and public property.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
55-3. Definitions.
In this Chapter, the following tenns have the meanings indicated:
Critical Root Zone means the minimum area beneath
£
tree. The critical
root zone is typically represented
Qy
£
concentric circle centering on the tree
trunk with
£
radius equal in feet to 1.5 times the number of inches of the
trunk diameter.
Development plan means
£
plan or an amendment to
£
plan approved under
Division 59-D-1 of Chapter 59.
Director of Environmental Protection means the Director of the
Department of Environmental Protection or the Director's designee.
Director of Permitting Services means the Director of the Department of
Pennitting Services or the Director's designee.
Forest conservation plan means
£
plan approved under Chapter 22A.
Forest stand delineation means the collection and presentation of data on
the existing vegetation on
£
site proposed for development or land disturbing
activities.
Land disturbing activity means any earth movement or land change which
may result in soil erosion from water or wind or the movement of sediment
into County waters or onto County lands, including tilling, clearing, grading,
excavating, stripping, stockpiling, filling, and related activities, and covering
land with an impenneable material.
Limits of disturbance means a clearly designated area
disturbance is planned to occur.
In
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
which land
50
CD
F:\LAW\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\Bill 1.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
51
52
53
54
55
Limits of tree canopy disturbance
means all areas within the limits of
disturbance where tree canopy or forest exists.
Lot
means
£!
tract of land, the boundaries of which have been established
Qy
subdivision of
£!
larger parcel, and which will not be the subject of further
subdivision, as defined
Qy
Section 50-1, without an approved forest stand
delineation and forest conservation plan.
56
57
58
59
60
Mandatory referral
means the required review
Qy
the Planning Board of
projects or activities to be undertaken
Qy
government agencies or private and
public utilities under Section 20-302 of the Land Use Article of the
Maryland Code.
61
62
Natural resources inventory
means
£!
collection and presentation of data on
the existing natural and environmental information on
£!
site and the
surrounding area proposed for development and land disturbing activities.
63
64
Person
means:
(ill
To the extent allowed
Qy
law, any agency or instrument of the federal
government, the state, any county, municipality, or other political
subdivision of the state, or any of their units;
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
®
(£)
An individual, receiver, trustee, guardian, executor, administrator,
fiduciary, or representative of any kind;
Any partnership, firm, common ownership community or other
homeowners' association, public or private corporation, or any of their
affiliates or subsidiaries; or
@
Any other entity.
Planning Board
means the Montgomery County Planning Board of the
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, or the Planning
Board's designee.
76
o
F:\LAw\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\8ill I.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
77
78
79
Planning Director
means the Director of the Montgomery County Planning
Department or the Director's designee.
Preliminary plan of subdivision
means
f!
plan for
f!
proposed subdivision
or resubdivision prepared and submitted for approval
121
the Planning Board
under Chapter 50 before preparation of
f!
subdivision plat.
Project plan
means
f!
plan or an amendment to
f!
plan approved under
Division 59-D-2 of Chapter 59.
Public utility
means any water company, sewage disposal company, electric
company, gas company, telephone company, or cable service provider.
Qualified professional
means
f!
licensed forester, licensed landscape
architect, or other qualified professional who meets all of the requirements
under Section 08.l9.06.0lA of the Code of Maryland Regulations or any
successor regulation.
Retention
means the deliberate holding and protecting of existing trees and
forests on the site.
Sediment control permit
means
f!
permit required to be obtained for certain
land disturbing activities under Chapter 19.
Site
means any tract, lot, or parcel of land, or combination of tracts, lots, or
parcels of land, under
f!
single ownership, or contiguous and under ,diverse
ownership, where development is performed as part of
f!
unit, subdivision, or
project.
Site plan
means
f!
plan or an amendment to
f!
plan approved under Division
59-D-3 of Chapter 59.
Special exception
means
f!
use approved under Article 59-G of Chapter 59.
Subwatershed
means the total drainage area contributing runoff to
f!
single
point, and generally refers to the 8-digit hydrologic unit
codes~
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88 .
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\Billl.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
35-12
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
Technical Manual
means
~
detailed guidance document adopted under
Section 55-13 and used to administer this Chapter.
Tree
means
~
large, woody plant having one or several self-supporting
~
stems or trunks and numerous branches that can grow to
20 feet at maturity.
Tree
includes the critical root zone.
height of at least
Tree canopy
means the area of one or many crowns of the trees on
including trees in forested areas.
~
site
Tree Canopy Conservation Fund
means
County to be used
~
special fund maintained
lIT
the
specified in Section 55-14.
Tree canopy cover
means the combined area of the crowns of all trees on the
site, including trees in forested areas.
Tree canopy cover layer
means the Geographic Information System (GIS)
layer, or shape file, that contains polygons outlining the aerial extent of tree
canopy in the County or any portion ofthe County.
55-4. Applicability.
Except as otherwise provided under Section 55-5, this Chapter applies to any
person required
lIT
law to obtain
~
sediment control permit.
55-5. Exemptions.
This Chapter does not
mmlY
to:
(ill
any tree nursery activity performed with an approved Soil Conservation
and Water Quality Plan as defined in Section 19-48;
(Q}
any commercial logging or timber harvesting operation with an
approved exemption from the requirements under Article II of Chapter
22)\;
{£}
cutting or clearing trees in
~
public utility right-of-way for the
construction or modification of electric generation facilities approved
under the Maryland Code Public Utilities Article if:
®
F:\LA
W\B
ILL$\I 235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\BiIIl.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 35-12
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
ill
the person cutting or clearing the trees has obtained
f!
certificate
of public convenience and necessity required under Sections 7­
207 and 7-208 of the Public Utilities Article; and
ill
@
the cutting or clearing of forest or tree canopy is conducted so as
to minimize the loss of both;
routine maintenance or emergency repairs of any facility located in
public utility rights-of-way;
ill
routine or emergency maintenance of an existing stormwater
management facility, including an existing access road, if the person
performing the maintenance has obtained all required permits;
til
(g)
any stream restoration proj ect if the person performing the work has
obtained all necessary permits;
the cutting or clearing any tree
Qy
an existing airport currently operating
with all applicable permits to comply with applicable provisions of any
federal law or regulation governing the obstruction of navigable
airspace if the Federal Aviation Administration has determined that the
trees create
f!
hazard to aviation;
(h)
cutting or clearing any tree to comply with applicable provisions of any
federal, state, or local law governing the safety of dams; or
ill
any non-coal surface mining conducted in accordance with applicable
state law.
Article 2. Tree Canopy Conservation Requirements, Procedures, and
Approvals.
55-6. Tree Canopy
=
General.
W
Submissions.
A person that is subject to this Chapter must submit to
either the Director of Permitting Services or the Planning Director the
following information on the amount of disturbance oftree canopy.
(J)
F:\LA
W\B
ILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\Bill l.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 35-12
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
ill
Any person required
Qy
law to obtain
~
sediment control permit
for land disturbing activity that is not subject to Chapter 22A
must submit
~
limits of tree canopy disturbance concurrently with
the sediment control permit application to the Director of
Permitting Services under Section 55-7.
m
Any person engaging in activity that is subject to Chapter 22A
must submit
~
limits of tree canopy disturbance concurrently with
any other plan required under Chapter 22A to the Planning
Director under Section 55-8.
(hl
Timing gf submissions.
The person must submit the limits of tree
canopy disturbance for review in conjunction with the review process
for
~
sediment control permit, forest conservation plan, development
plan, project plan, preliminary plan of subdivision, site plan, special
exception, or mandatory referral. If
~
natural resources inventory/forest
stand delineation is required, the person must include the aerial extent of
the 'tree canopy with the natural resources inventory/forest stand
delineation as specified in Section 22A-1 O.
W
@
Incomplete submissions.
The Director of Permitting Services or the
Planning Director must not approve an incomplete submission.
Review gf submissions.
Each submission required under this Chapter
must be reviewed concurrently with the review of any submission
required under Article
I
of Chapter 19 or Chapter 22A.
ill
Coordination gf review.
The Director of Permitting Services and the
Planning Director may coordinate the review of any information
submitted under subsection
ill
with other agencies as appropriate. The
. reviews may be performed concurrently, and in accordance with, any
review coordination required under Chapter 19 or Chapter 22A.
(i)
F:\LAw\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\Bili 1.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
35-12
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
ill
Time frame gf validity.
An approved limits of tree canopy disturbance
submission remains valid for:
ill
not more than
either
~
2.
years unless the Planning Director has approved
final forest conservation plan or preliminary forest
conservation plan that includes the limits of tree canopy
disturbance;
ill
not more than
2.
years unless
~
sediment control permit has been
issued
Qy
the Director of Permitting Services and remains valid;
or
ill
(g)
.2.
years
if the accuracy of the limits of tree canopy disturbance
194
195
has been verified
Qy
~
qualified professional.
Issuance gf sediment control permit.
The Director of Permitting
196
197
Services must not issue
~
sediment control permit to
f!
person that
required to comply with this Article until:
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
ill
the Planning Board or Planning Director, as appropriate, or the
Director of Permitting Services has approved an applicant's
limits of disturbance; and
ill
(ill
the applicant
ill!Y§
any fee required under this Article.
55-7. Tree Canopy
=
Submissions to the Director
of Permitting;
Services.
.
General.
The limits of tree canopy disturbance information submitted to
the Director of Permitting Services must document the extent of the
existing area of tree canopy and the total area of tree canopy to be
disturbed
Qy
the proposed activity.
!hl
Incorporation gf limits gf tree canopy disturbance.
The limits of tree
canopy disturbance infonnation for the subject property must be
incorporated in
~
sediment control permit or the site plan submitted for
f!
building permit.
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\I235 Tree
Canopy
Conservation Program\8i11 I.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
35-12
211
212
213
(£)
The limits
Q[
tree canopy disturbance.
The limits of tree canopy
disturbance information for the subject site must include:
ill
f!:
map delineating:
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
®
the property boundaries;
the proposed limits of disturbance including any off-site
areas;
an
(Q
the aerial extent of existing tree canopy cover on the
subject site,
YQ
to 45 feet beyond the proposed limits of
disturbance;
CD)
the intersection of aerial extent of existing tree canopy
cover and the limits of disturbance; and
.em
ill
CA)
any additional information specified
hy
regulation; and
f!:
table summarizing the square footage of:
the property;
the limits of disturbance of the proposed activity;
the aerial extent of existing tree canopy cover;
the limits of tree canopy disturbance; and
any additional information specified
hy
regulation.
The Director of
an
(Q
ill)
.em
@
Modification to limits
Q[
tree canopy disturbance.
oftree canopy disturbance if:
Permitting Services may approve
!!
modification to an approved limits
ill
the modification is consistent with this Chapter, field inspections
or other evaluations reveal minor inadequacies of the plan, and
modifying the plan to remedy the inadequacies will not increase
the amount of tree canopy removed as shown on the final
approved plan; or
ill
the action is otherwise required in an emergency.
®
F:\LAW\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\Bili L.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
35-12
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
ill
Qualification gfpreparer.
If
~
tree canopy cover layer developed
by
the
County is available and is used without alteration,
~
professional
engineer, land surveyor, architect, or other person qualified to prepare
erosion and sediment control plans under Chapter 19 is also qualified to
prepare the limits of tree canopy disturbance information under this
Section. Otherwise, the limits of tree canopy disturbance information
must be prepared
by
~
qualified professional as defined in Section
08.19.06.01 of the Code of Maryland Regulations or any successor
regulation.
55-8. Tree Canopy
=
Submission to the Planning Director.
{ill
General.
The limits of tree canopy disturbance information submitted
to the Planning Director must document the extent of existing tree
canopy and the total area of tree canopy to be disturbed
by
the proposed
activity. The Planning Director may
the information to identify the
most suitable and practical areas for tree conservation and mitigation.
Limits gf tree canopy disturbance.
A
person that is subject to this
Section must submit the same limits of tree canopy disturbance
information as required under Section
ill
Incorporation gf the limits gf tree canopy, the natural resources
inventory/torest stand delineation, and torest conservation plan.
If an
applicant is required to submit
£!
natural resources inventory/forest stand
delineation, the extent of tree canopy must be incorporated into that
submission for the same area included in the natural resources
inventory/forest stand delineation. If an applicant is required to submit
~
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
forest conservation plan, both the extent of tree canopy and the limits
of tree canopy disturbance must be incorporated into that submission for
the same area included in the forest conservation plan.
®
F:\LAW\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\Billl.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
@
Modification to limits
gf
tree canopy disturbance.
The Planning
Director may approve
f!
modification to an approved limits of tree
canopy disturbance that is consistent with this Chapter if:
ill
field inspection or other evaluation reveals minor inadequacies of
the plan, and modifying the plan to remedy those inadequacies
will not increase the amount of tree canopy removed as shown on
the final approved plan; or
ill
the action is required because of an emergency.
.liD
Submission for special exception.
If
~
special exception application is
subject to this Chapter, the applicant must submit to the Planning Board
any infonnation necessary to satisfy the requirements of this Chapter
before the Board of Appeals considers the application for the special
exception.
55-9. Tree Canopy
=
Fee to Mitigate Disturbance.
ill
Objectives.
The primary objective of this Section is the retention of
existing trees. Every reasonable effort should be made to minimize the
cutting or clearing of trees and other woody plants during the
development of
f!
subdivision plan, grading and sediment control
activities, and implementation of the forest conservation plan.
(hl
Fees paid for mitigation.
Mitigation required to compensate for the loss
or disturbance
~
tree canopy must take the fonn of fees set
Qy
~
regulation under Method
which the applicant
Pill
to the Tree
Canopy Conservation Fund. Mitigation fees are based on the square
footage of tree canopy disturbed and, therefore,· increase as the amount
of tree canopy disturbance increases.
To provide credit for on-site
landscaping, mitigation fees must not be applied to the first
~
percent of
the area of tree canopy disturbed. Canopy identified as part of any
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\Billl.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
forest delineated in an approved natural resources inventory/forest stand
delineation and subject to
f!
forest conservation plan is not subject to
mitigation fees under this Chapter.
Article 3. Enforcement and Appeals.
55-10. Inspections and notification.
Uti
Permission to gain access.
The Director of Permitting Services or the
Planning Director may enter any property subject to this Chapter to
inspect, review, and enforce.
{hl
Plan to be on site; field markings.
A
.£QPY
of the approved limits of
tree canopy disturbance must be available on the site for inspection
Qy
the Director of Permitting Services or the Planning Director. Field
markings must exist on site before and during installation of all tree
protection measures, sediment and erosion control measures,
construction, or other land disturbing activities.
304
305
306
307
308
W
Inspections.
ill
The Director of Permitting Services must conduct field
inspections concurrently with inspections required for
f!
sediment control permit under Article
activity subject to Section 55-7.
309
310
311
312
I
of Chapter
1.2
for any
inspections
m
ill
The Planning Director must conduct field
concurrently with inspections required for
f!
forest conservation
plan for any activity subject to Section 55-8.
The Director of Permitting Services or the Planning Director
may authorize additional inspections or. meetings as necessary
to administer this Chapter.
@
313
314
315
316
317
Timing
Q[
inspections.
The inspections required under this Section
must occur:
318
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\BiII I.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
ill
111
after the limits of disturbance have been staked and flagged, but
before any clearing or grading begins;
after necessary stress reduction measures for trees and roots
have been completed and the protection measures have been
installed, but before any clearing or grading begins; and
ill
after all construction activities are completed, to determine the
level of compliance with the limits of tree canopy disturbance.
ill
Scheduling requirements.
A person must request an inspection by:
ill
111
the Director of Permitting Services within the time required to
schedule an inspection under Section 19-12; or
the Planning Director within the time required to schedule an
inspection under Section
22A-15.
ill
Coordination.
The Department of Permitting Services and the
Planning Department must coordinate their inspections to avoid
inconsistent activities relating to the limits of tree canopy disturbance.
55-11. Penalties and enforcement.
ill
Enforcement authority.
The Department of Permitting Services has
enforcement authority for any activity approved under Section
and the Planning Board has enforcement authority for any .activity
approved under Section 55-8.
(Q)
Enforcement action.
The Director of Permitting Services or the
Planning Director may issue g notice of violation, corrective order,
stop-work order, or civil citation to any person that causes or allows g
violation of this Chapter.
(ill
Civil penalty.
The maximum civil penalty for any violation of this
Chapter or any regulation adopted under this Chapter is $1,000. Each
day that g violation continues is g separate offense.
®
F:\LAW\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\Bi111.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
@
Other remedy.
In addition to any other penalty under this Section, the
Planning Board may seek any appropriate relief authorized under
Section 22A-16.
55-12. Administrative enforcement.
W
Administrative order.
In addition to any other remedy allowed
Qy
law, the Planning Director may at any time, including during the
pendency of an enforcement action under Section 55-11, issue an
administrative order requiring the violator to take one or more of the
following actions within the time specified
Qy
the Planning Director:
ill
ill
ill
ill
ill
®
stop the violation;
stabilize the site to comply with
£!
forest conservation plan;
stop all work at the site;
restore or reforest unlawfully cleared areas;
submit
£!
limits of tree canopy disturbance, forest conservation
plan, or tree save plan for the net tract area;
place forested land, reforested land, or land with individual
significant trees under long-term protection
Qy
£!
conservation
easement, deed restriction, covenant, or other appropriate legal
instrument; or
ill
(Q}
submit
£!
written report or plan concerning the violation.
E{fectiveness gforder.
An
order issued under this Section is effective
when it is served on the violator.
Article 4. Administration
55-13. General.
W
Regulations.
The County Executive must adopt regulations, including
technical manuals, to administer this Chapter, under Method 2. The
@
F:\LAw\BILLS\I235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\Bili I.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
regulations must include procedures to amend
disturbance.
@
~
limits of tree canopy
Technical manual.
The technical manual must include guidance and
methodologies for:
ill
ill
preparing and evaluating maps of the aerial extent of the tree
canopy and the limits of tree canopy disturbance;
providing protective measures during and after clearing or
construction, including root pruning techniques and guidance
on removing trees that are or may become hazardous;
380
381
ill
ill
if)
monitoring and enforcing the limits of disturbance and the
limits of tree canopy disturbance; and
other appropriate guidance for program requirements consistent
with this Chapter and applicable regulations.
382
383
384
385
386
Administrative fee.
The Planning Board and the County Executive
may each,
!IT
Method
J
regulation, establish
~
schedule of fees to
387
388
389
390
391
administer this Chapter.
@
Reports.
On or before March
1
of each year, the Department of
Permitting Services, the Planning Board, and the Department of
Environmental Protection each must submit an annual report on the
County tree conservation program to the County Council and County
Executive.
~
392
.393
394
Comprehensive
plan
for
mitigation•
The
Department
and
maintain
of
a
Environmental
Protection
must
develop
395
396
comprehensive CounIY-wide plan to mitigate disturbance to tree
canopy. The Department of Environmental Protection should develop
the plan in consultation with the Planning Department, the
Department of Transportation, the Department of General Services,
397
398
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1235
Tree
Canopy Conservation
Program\BiIll.Oocx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
the Department of Economic Development, the Soil Conservation
District, and other agencies as appropriate.
ill
Sediment control permit application.
To prevent circumvention of
this Chapter, the Planning Director and the Director of Permitting
Services may require
~
person to submit an application for
~
sediment
control permit enforceable under this Chapter if that person:
ill
limits the removal of tree canopy or limits land disturbing or
construction activities to below requirements for
control permit; and
~
sediment
ill
later disturbs additional tree canopy or land on the same
property, or
Qy
any other means, such that in total,
control permit would be required.
~
sediment
55-14. Tree Canopy Conservation Fund.
ill
General.
There is
~
County Tree Canopy Conservation Fund. The
Fund must be used in accordance with the adopted County budget and
as provided in this Section.
ill
Mitigation fees paid into the Tree Canopy Conservation Fund.
Money
deposited in the Tree Canopy Conservation Fund to fulfill mitigation
requirements must be spent on establishing and enhancing tree
canopy, including costs directly related to site identification,
acquisition, preparation, and other activities that increase tree canopy,
and must not revert to the General Fund. The Fund may also be spent
on permanent conservation of priority forests, including identification
and acquisition of
disturbance occurs.
~
site within the same subwatershed where the
W
Fines paid into the Tree Canopy Conservation Fund.
Any
fines
collected for noncompliance with
~
limits of tree canopy disturbance
@
F:\LAWlBILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\BiIll.Docx
.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 35-12
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
or forest conservation plan related to tree canopy disturbance must be
deposited in
£!
separate account in the Tree Canopy Conservation
Fund. The Fund may be used to administer this Chapter.
@
Use
qf
the Tree Canopy Conservation Fund.
ill
Any fees collected for mitigation must be used to:
(A)
ill)
establish tree canopy;
enhance existing tree canopy through non-native invasive
and
native
mvaSlve
speCIes
management
control,
supplemental planting, or
£!
combination of both;
(g
ill)
establish forest; and
acquire protective easements for existing forests or areas
with existing tree canopy that are not currently protected,
including forest mitigation banks approved under Section
22A-13.
ill
The canopy established under paragraph (I)eA) should shade
impervious surfaces, manage stormwater runoff, and generally
increase tree canopy coverage. Trees native to the Piedmont area
of the County should be used, if feasible, to
requirements of this Chapter.
the mitigation
ill
The establishment of tree canopy to satisfy the mitigation
requirements of
£!
project must occur in the subwatershed where
the project is located. Otherwise the tree canopy may be
established anywhere in the County.
@
F:\LAw\BILLS\1235 Tree Canopy Conservation Program\BiIIl.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
------~---~------.--~
.......
"'~
~. "--'-'~-.--'--""-----
-
--
..
~...
~..
.
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
BilllS~12
Tree Canopy Conservation
DESCRIPTION:
This bill introduces requirements for fees when tree canopy is
disturbed. Generally,
it
applies when a sediment control permit is
required under Chapter 19 of the Montgomery County Code and the
trees are not subject to Article II of Chapter 22A. The bill requires
the fees to be used to plant new trees to mitigate for the loss of
benefits provided by the tree canopy. The new trees will
be
located
using a comprehensive approach to enhancing tree canopy across the
County.
.
Currently, the Forest Conservation Law (FCL) does not apply to most
---disturbances to individual trees outside of forests during
.
development. Also, it does not apply to development activity on lots
less than approximately one acre. In recent years, a significant
increase in development activity on small lots that are not subject to
the FCL has raised awareness of the value oftrees to all residents, as
well as the need to provide communities some compensation for the
loss of trees when development occurs.
This bill is designed to provide mitigation for the loss or disturballce
to tree canopy not cwrently regulated by the FCL, as well as
specifying that the fees
will
be used to plant trees across the county
using a comprehensive approach that will enhance the existing
canopy.
.
Department of Permitting Services, Maryland-National Capital Park
&
Planning Commission, Department of Environmental Protection
See Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement
See Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
The Forest Conservation Law, Chapter 22A ofthe Montgomery
County Code, requires mitigation when forest land andlor champion
trees, as well as certain other vegetation, are disturbed.
Stan Edwards, Division Chief, Division of Environmental Policy and
Compliance, Department of Environmental Protection (7-7748)
This bill applies to all municipalities if the land disturbing activity
requires a sediment control pennit under Chapter 19 of the
Montgomery County Code that is approved and enforced by the
Departmel'lt of Pennitting Services.
Class A
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
lsiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
October 25,2012
TO:
Roger Berliner, President
County Council
FROM:
-
Q
~.
Isiah
Leggett.............
County Executive
~
.,-o-v-
SUBJECT:
Proposed Legislation: Tree Canopy Conservation Program
I am transmitting for Council introduction a bill that creates a Tree Canopy Conservation
Program which is intended to protect and enhance the County's valuable tree canopy. I am also
transmitting a Legislative Request Report, Fiscal Impact Statement, and Economic Impact Statement
This bill introduces requirements for fees when tree canopy is disturbed as a result of
development activity. Generally, the bill applies when a sediment control permit is required under
Chapter 19 of the Montgomery County Code and the trees are not subject to the County's Forest
Conservation Law (FCL). The bill requires the fees to be used to plant new trees to mitigate the loss of
benefits that were provided by the disturbed tree canopy.
When the FCL was adopted, the majority of development in the County was OCCUlTing on
large, previously undeveloped parcels, much of which was forested. The FCL was intended to provide
compensation for the loss of forested land through the long-term protection of undisturbed forest or the
planting of new forests. As the amount of undeveloped land in the County has diminished, the majority
of development is now occurring on smaller, previously undeveloped
"in-fiU"
properties or as the result
of redevelopment of previously built-out sites. While these parcels contain
few
forests, they often contain
significant tree canopy due to the presence ofindividual trees or clusters of trees not meeting the
definition of a forest. These trees provide significant benefits to communities; including helping to
reduce ambient temperatures, clean the air, manage stormwater, and generally increasing the economic
value of the property_ However, the majority of these trees are not covered under the FCL and, as a
result, there is no mechanism requiring compensation for the loss of these trees.
The Tree Canopy Conservation Program would be implemented by the Department of
Permitting Services or the Montgomery County Planning Department, depending on the nature of the
development activity. The process bas been designed to be as streamlined as possible by incorporating
tree canopy review into the existing sediment control permitting process or the existing FCL review
process. The bill outlines the process for determining the extent of disturbed tree canopy subject to
regulation, but the specific fee structure would be set by regulation.
montgomerycountymd.gov/311
240-173-3556 TTY
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Roger Berliner
October 25, 2012
Page 2
If you have any questions about this bill, please contact Bob Hoyt, Director ofthe
Department of Environmental Protection, at 240-777-7730 or bob.hoyt@montgomerycountymd.gov.
Attachments (4)
c.
Bob Hoyt, Director Department of Environmental Protection
Joe Beach, Director, Finance Department
-----Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief
Administrati.ve-Officer~~--.-­
Marc Hansen, County Attorney
Diane Jones, Director, Department ofPermitting Services
Jennifer Hughes, Director. Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
MEMORANDUM
September 25, 20]2
-~------.---
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Timothy L.
Fire~.
e Chief Administrative Officer
Jennifer
A.
Hu~
• Irector, Office ofManagement and Budget
Joseph F. Beach irector. Department of Finance
Bill XX-12 ­ Tree Canopy Conservation
Please find attached the fiscal and economic impact statement for the above-referenced
----,­
legislation.
JAH:ms
Attachment
c: Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin. Offices of the County Executive
Joy Nunni, Special Assistant
to
the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public Infonnation Office
Michael Coveyou, Department of Finance
David Platt, Department ofFinance
Stan Edwards, Department
ofEnvironm~ntal
Protection
Barbara Comfort, Department ofPermitting Services
Reginald Jetter, Department ofPennitting Services
Alex Espinosa, Office of Management and Budget
Amy Wilson, Office of Management and Budget
Matt Schaeffer, Office ofManagement and Budget
Naeem Mia, Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
----.--.-.-.------.. .
. ..
-~-=~-=---
-----­
_._-----
--.-.----------
....
~.--.-.---
-
-
..
-
---.-_._._-----._---
..
_-.-------_.
Fiscal Impact Statement
Bill XX-12 - Tree Canopy Conservation
1. Legislative Summary
The proposed bill revises County law regarding tree canopy conservation in an effort to
save, maintain, and establish tree canopy for the benefits of County residents and future
generations. The bill would maximize tree canopy retention and establishment by
establishing fees to be assessed when disturbance to the tree canopy occurs; these fees
would then fund mitigation activities to restore the disturbed tree canopy.
The Department of Pennitting Services (DPS) and the Maryland National Capital Park and
.Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) will administer the law; the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) will have oversight of tree canopy restoration activities.
2. An estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether
the revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget.
Indudes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
DEP has indicated that new work created as a result of this legislation (tree canopy
restoration activities)
will
have costs that will correlate to the amount of received fees.
While the cost of future work is not known, DEP has asserted that any future costs related
to tree canopy restoration activities will not exceed collected fees.
A. M-NCPPC has estimated a cost of$12.480 annually and a one-time first-year
expenditure of $3,600 related to planning the tree canopy restoration policies outlined in
the bill. Some ofthe specific planning activities related to tree canopy restoration
conducted by MNCPPC
1
include:
• Development of a planting plan (One-time investment of 20 work hours)
• Annual Report development (20 work hours)
• Development of a Fee Schedule (One-time investment of 40 work hours)
• Annual adjustment of fee schedules (8 work hours)
• Plan Review Time (60 forest conservation plans per year@ 3 hours per plan)
B. DPS has indicated fiscal impacts relating to the inspection and fine assessments of tree
canopy disturbance of approximately $67,118 annually in the following work areas:
500 additional inspection and assessment projects ($25,752/annually)
• Permit Technicians (250 work hours): $8,878
(.5 Hrs each project@ Grade 19 midpoint salary of$56,828 plus benefits
2
or $35.5Inlr)
• Permit Services SpecialistslPlan Reviewers (125 work hours): $6,166
(.25 Hrs each project
@
Grade 26 midpoint salary of $78,929 plus benefits or $49.331hr)
• Inspectors (250 work hours): $10,708
(.5
Hrs
each project
@
Grade 23 midpoint salary of$68,53I plus benefits or $42.831hr)
200 additional complaints relating to tree loss ($41,366/annuaJly)
• Permit Technicians (200 work hours): $7,102
(l
Hr
each project
@
Grade 19 midpoint salary of$56,828 plus benefits or $35.5 I/hr)
Cost estimates are based on a rate of$60 per hour.
2
Benefit calculation is 30 percent of base pay.
1
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
--------_-::..-.....:.-=-=-=-.....:.-===-==-. -----
------_.. . . . =======::::.
..
-..
-=-:.-~=====--='*~-=--.:.:::..--=---=-======-
• Inspectors (800 work hours): $34,264
(4
Hrs
each project @ Grade 23 midpoint salary of $68,531 plus benefits or $42.831hr)
Revenues resulting from this legislation
will
depend on the determination of a rate model
for tree canopy disturbance fees. The rate model will be established via method 2
regulation.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
DEP has indicated that new work created as a result of this legislation (tree canopy
restoration activities) will have costs that will correlate to the amount of received fees.
While the cost of future work is not known, DEP
has
asserted that any future costs related
to tree canopy restoration activities will not exceed collected fees.
DPS reports future expenditures of approximately $62,118 annually (as explained above).
The total six-year expenditures for DPS are approximately
$402,708.
M-NCPPC reports annual expenditures of $12,480 with a one-time startup charge of
$3,600 to implement the planning and implementation plan for the bill (as explained
above). Total six-year expenditures for M-NCPPC are approximately
$78,480.
Revenues resulting from this legislation will depend on the determination of a rate model
for tree canopy disturbance fees. The rate model
will
be
established via method 2
regulation.
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would
affect retiree pension
or
group insurance costs.
Not applicable. This bill does not affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
5. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if the bill authorizes
future spending.
The bill authorizes the creation of a Tree Canopy Conservation Fund that would fund tree
canopy restoration activities in the future.
6.
An
estimate
of
the
staff
time needed to implement
the bill.
While DEP does not expect the need for additional staff time to implement the bill, future
staff needs could change depending on the extent of tree canopy restoration activities
resulting from the bill.
DPS reports the need for an additional 1,625 work hours annually in different job classes
to implement the bill.
:MNCPPC reports the need for an additional 208 hours annually and 60 hours
to start up the program in the first year of implementation.
7. An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other
duties.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
While DEP does not expect the need for additional staff time to implement the bill, the
actual impact on staff will depend on the extent oftree canopy restoration activities
as a result ofimplementing the bilL
DPS reports that the bill would impact both the workload of permitting staff and permit
reviewing staff. Estimates for costs of additional work are provided above.
M-NCPPC reports that the bill would impact the workload of forest conservation
planners. Estimates for costs of addition work are provided above.
8. An estimate of costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
Not applicable.
9.
A
description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
DEP has indicated that costs and revenues relating to tree canopy restoration will be
dependent on the amount of fees received. The rate model for fees will be established by
method 2 regulation.
Article IV, Section 55-13(c) allows for the establishment ofa fee for administering the
program;' this fee would
be
adopted under method 3. An administrative fee has not been
established but could impact revenue and cost estimates.
Article III, Section 55-11(c) establishes a maximum $1,000 civil penalty for violation of
the proposed legislation. Fines would be deposited into the Tree Canopy Conservation
Fund and could be used to implement any part ofthe bill. Estimates of revenue from
these fines are difficult to predict without knowing the extent ofthe violations.
10. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficu1t to project
DEP has indicated that costs and revenues relating to tree canopy restoration will be
dependent on the amount of fees received. The rate mode) for fees will be established by
method 2 regulation.
Article IV, Section 55-13(c) allows for the establislunent of a fee for administering the
program; this fee would be adopted under method 3.
An
administrative fee has not been
established but could impact revenue and cost estimates.
Article III, Section 55-11(c) establishes a maximum $1,000 civil penalty for violation of
the proposed legislation. Fines would be deposited into the Tree Canopy Conservation
Fund and could be used to implement any part ofthe bill. Estimates of revenue from
these fmes are difficult to predict without knowing the extent ofthe violations.
11.
If
a bill
is
likely to have no fiscal impact, why that
is
the case.
Not applicable.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
12. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
This bill creates a Tree Canopy Conservation Fund as the account for fees collected as a
result of tree canopy disturbance and the source of funds for tree canopy restoration
projects. DEP would manage this fund.
13. The foUowing contributed to and concurred with this analysis:
Stan Edwards, Department of Environmental Protection
Barbara Comfort, Department of Permitting Services
Reginald Jetter, Department of Permitting Services
Rose Krasnow, MNCPPC
Amy Wilson, Office of Management and Budget
Matt Schaeffer, Office of Management and Budget
Naeem Mia, Office of Management and Budget
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Council Bill XX-12, Tree Canopy Conservation
Background:
The purpose of this legislation is to: 1) save, maintain, and establish tree canopy for the benefit
of County residents and future generations; 2) maximize tree canopy retention and establishment;
3) establish procedures. standards. and requirements to minimize the loss and disturbance of tree
canopy as a result of development; 4) provide for mitigation when tree canopy is lost or
disturbed; and 5) establish a fund for tree canopy conservation projects, including plantings of
individual trees, groups of trees. or forests, on private and public property. The proposed
legislation generally revises County law regarding tree canopy conservation.
The requirements of this bill are applicable when a sediment control permit is required under
Chapter 19 of tbe Montgomery County Code and the trees are not subject to Article II of Chapter
22A. The bill supplements the Forest Conservation Law (FCL). The FCL does not apply to
most disturbances to individual tress outside of forests during development, and it does not apply
to development activity on lots less than approximately one acre.
1.
The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Not applicable
2.
A description of any variable that could affect the economic impact estimates.
The economic impact of the bill wil1 vary based on a number of factors including the amount of
acreage that is the subject of the sediment control permit, the area of tree canopy on land covered
by sucb a permit, the amount of the fee imposed per square foot of tree canopy disturbed as a
result of the development activity subject to the permit, and the market conditions at the time of
development. The cost of development for each property will be affected by the amount of tree
canopy disturbed times the fee.
3.
The
Bill's
positive or negative effect, if any on employment, spending. saving,
investment, incomes, and property values in the County.
The bill may increase the cost for developing some properties, and those costs may affect the
gross profit margin to the developers or the price of the property. However, some studies
indicate that property with trees can have a higher value than property that is cleared of trees. To
the extent that the proposed legislation encourages developers to retain trees, they may realize a
higber return than if they clear the site. However, this analysis would vary by property and
market conditions and would need to factor in the cost of removing trees as well as the impact of
the cost of the fee. With a specific fee structure it will be possible
to
estimate these potential
costs.
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Council Bill XX-12, Tree Canopy Conservation
4.
If
a Bill
is
likely to have no economic impact, why
is
that the case?
Not applicable; see item
3.
5.
The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: David Platt and Mike
Coveyou, Finance and Stan Edwards, Environmental Protection.
F.
Beach, Director
ent of Finance
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Circles 29-101 arefound in the February
25
Committee packet
and are not reprinted in this packet
Circles 102-161 are found in the April
1
Committee packet
and are not reprinted in this packet.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Jurisdictions Surveyed
• Prince George's County
• Fairfax County
• Washington, DC
• Athens-Clarke County, GA
• Austin, TX
• Portland, OR
2
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Key Questions
Analysis included three general parameters:
• Scope - What types of properties and activities are covered?
• Process - What is the jurisdiction's review and approval
process?
• Mitigation Requirements - How do the mitigation
requirements in other jurisdictions compare to Bill 35-12?
3
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Additional Questions
• How likely are to you review each scenario? In other
words
do you see many plans that look like these?
• Does it matter whether or not the development is new
construction or a tear-down and rebuild?
• Would it matter if these lots were developed as single-lots or
as part of a subdivision?
• Would zoning have an impact on the outcomes?
• Would the condition of the trees make a difference?
• Are there any other aspects that influence the outcome
(e.g.
J
critical areas)?
J
4
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Jurisdiction Overview - Washington,
DC
• Special tree permitting system "requires fees to compensate
for loss of community assets and maintain character of
neighborhoods/l
• Applies on residential and non-residential property
• Applies to removal of any tree
55/1
in circumference
(17.5/1
in
diameter) or greater
• Mitigation can be payment of a fee ($35/circumference inch)
or planting the same number of inches removed
• No review process except to verify hazardous and nuisance
trees
7
~
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Jurisdiction Overview - Athens-Clarke County,
GA
• Athens-Clarke County created the Community Tree
Management Ordinance to
II
sustain and enhance the
functions and benefits of trees and the community forest for
its citizens"
• Applies on non-residential property and residential property
when subdivision results in five or more lots (does not apply
to pre-existing SF lots)
• Requires minimum canopy coverage through conservation of
existing canopy and planting
• Review process with staff similar to MC's FCL process where
reviewer discretion is required
8
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Jurisdiction Overview - Austin, TX
• Austin's requirements are "designed to achieve a balance of
re-forestation and preservation ... to achieve the best long­
term benefit for the communityll
• Applies on residential and non-residential property, including
trees potentially affected on adjacent properties
• No grading or other disturbance is allowed within Y2 of the
CRZ of all trees
19"
or larger
• If trees are removed, standard mitigation is 100% diameter
inch replacement, up to 300% diameter inch replacement for
specimen trees
• Review process with staff similar to MC's FCL process where
reviewer discretion is required
9
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Jurisdiction Overview - Portland, OR
• Portland's Urban Forestry program regulates
1/236,000
street
trees, 1.2 million park trees, and innumerable private
property trees ... to differing degrees"
• Applies on residential and non-residential property
• Requires minimum canopy coverage through conservation of
existing individual trees and planting
• Requires 1/3 of all trees over 12" diameter to be preserved on
site; if preservation cannot be met, then mitigation in form of
planting or fee-in-lieu of $1,200 for each tree removed
• Review process with staff similar to MC's FCL process where
reviewer discretion is required
10
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Information Provided to Other Jurisdictions
• DEP
obtained information from
DPS
for three sediment control
applications (small, medium, and large lots) filed in
Montgomery County_
• For each plan,
DEP
provided the other jurisdictions:
• A
site plan, with the extent of tree canopy delineated
• A pre-development aerial photograph of the property
• A table with data on the area of
(l)
the property, (2) the
tree canopy, and (3) the tree canopy disturbed
• Data on the diameter, location and family of individual
trees on the site.
11
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Summary of Plans Reviewed
Plan 1
I' <Plan·2······j
Plan 3
158,976
58,105
37%
114,435
31,475
9,023
126/6941
5,658
L.
63%
I
9,708
1
",'i1i4;Ol.5',1
5'3%':1
·.27,929'1
.
".
',.
,;
6,323
I:;),,).
14.;:8ZP>
1
12
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Plan 1
PRlYItU ,
8.' ·x9oS
·d
'
·
o.pjh
.
Lot
9,023
ft2
63%
.'
.
'
Canopy
DATO
DRYWEll.
t1
868 III.
DA TO
DRYWEl..L
t:l
576_
"\.
.
.
...
...
'
......
V_''''''''
13
@)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
D
N
-
a..
ro
C
N
+-'
'+­
~
'?f2.
L.f)
m
II
0)
~
,
~
N
II
+-'
0
-'
0
ro
U
C
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
''''''",<:,:.~
;..:.,
,.~
,."",
,
N
~
\..0
,.......
Q)
LI)
00
M
II
+oJ
...
*'
,.......
II
m
.....J
o
U
a.
o
c
ro
-
c...
m
c
ro
,j"
.,~",,1.~'\>
y
J
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Jurisdiction Comparison
If the plans were implemented exactly as shown on these
drawings, the fees would be:
Athens-Clarke'. ~ounty,
,
.
,
GA
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
\f
r~
renewingmontgomery
Tree Canopy Bill 35-12 was introduced without including comments from the
building industry so
it
is flawed beyond the ability to amend it. There has
never been any study or data that demonstrates there is a problem that
requires legislation.
The most recent MNCPPC study shows our canopy is
thriving by any standard.
Why rush to this far reaching legislation that is
based on anecdotal evidence. Renewing Montgomery has a better proposal.
Our proposal provides more incentives for the property owner to replant trees
on their property and avoids devaluing properties that have trees. In addition
our proposal increases the County canopy by requiring replanting even on
properties without any trees.
County regulations require the removal ofthe trees
so
the focus should be on replanting a renewable resource.
In summary our
proposal allows the property owner and their neighbors to benefit from
replanting trees, thereby providing an incentive to replant.
The following is a list of the specific improvements our proposal includes:
1. The new trees will be planted where trees are removed and will thrive.
2. The new trees will add value to the property.
3. This alternative will both replace and increase the County tree canopy.
4. The fee in lieu is based on the value of a new tree - not satellite imagery
of canopy square footage, which will include invasive species and canopy
overhanging from adjacent properties. Basing the fee on the value of a
tree will avoid establishing a fee that may be used as a deterrent to home
im provements.
5. All properties subject to a sediment control plan will have a tree planting
requirement - regardless if there were existing trees.
6. Tree replacement requirements will be based on a chart that accounts for
the size of the property to establish a realistic replanting plan.
7. The required trees will be listed on the sediment control plan; therefore
they will be bonded and inspected by the County - exactly like the trees
planted in the right of way. No additional plans, plan review, or County
inspections are needed.
8. We request the Council authorize a County canopy study to identify if
there is a problem to address. The new state law requires the state to do
a canopy coverage assessment for each county, every 5 years. The state
goal is 40%, the current coverage is 50% for Montgomery County. Our
County has
200/0
more canopy coverage than Fairfax County.
9. The County will educate the general public and citizen associations on
the benefits of trees. The County will promote the various Tree Planting
Tax Incentives that are contained within the new state tree bill before
generating new fees, new regulations, and new staff positions.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
We oppose this Bill because it will not result in planting trees or increasing the
canopy where the trees are removed. Other than a deterrent for home
improvements, it is just another fee that is unnecessary since the County
already has over 6 million dollars to plant trees. The Bill will require additional
engineering and consultant fees both on the private and public side, which will
quickly negate any incentive to replant trees. The fee will add no value to the
lot and effectively transfers the responsibility for replanting trees from the
property owner to the County. The Bill will actually encourage property owners
to remove trees to avoid the fee, and the general public will be outraged that
the County is now regulating trees on their private property which they planted
and maintained.
The advantages of our alternative over the proposed Bill.
1.
Trees will be planted where they are removed - not somewhere else.
2. The private sector can plant a tree at a far less cost and faster than
the County.
3. Trees will be planted even if no trees are removed thereby increasing
the County canopy.
4. Will not regulate trees on private property which has historically been
a basic inherent property right.
5. Will not penalize or devalue those who own properties with trees.
6. The new trees will have an immediate impact on those most affected
by the removal of trees.
7. There are no fees that may act as a deterrent to home improvements
or the removal of hazardous trees.
8. The required plan is simple and inexpensive and does not require
additional costs for arborists or engineers.
9. The County has over 6 million dollars for trees. Why essentially tax
only those property owners seeking to improve their property. The
Bill will not produce much revenue but will act as a deterrent to those
who want to improve their property.
10. No additional County staff, satellite overlays, or plans are needed
to implement this alternative.
11. Will not penalize property owners for removing invasive species
such as bamboo and mulberry trees.
12. Will not penalize or discourage property owners for removing
dangerous trees prone to storm damage such as poplars and locust
trees.
13. The current source of funding for County-Wide tree planting is
appropriately tax revenue generated on a County-Wide basis. This
Bill avoids targeting only property owners who remove trees on their
private property.
14. A current canopy study will allow the County to evaluate the
existing canopy and evaluate the effectiveness of our proposal.
15. Will allow time for community associations to be educated on the
benefits of trees, incentives, and to provide input.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Tree Canopy Planting Requirement min 1.5" caliper trees for future canopy goals
19-Jun-131
I
lot Size
to
to
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
20,000
I
Total
Trees Rqd
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
#of
Shade
1
2
3
3
4
5
5
#of
Ornamental
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Total
trees/acre
17.4
18.7
19.4
19.8
20.1
20.3
16.9
18.9
Avg.
Optional
Fee in Lieu
{2}
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
400.00
650.00
900.00
1,050.00
1,300.00
SF at Maturity Canopy
Canopy
Coverage
Planted {l}
(%
of lot)
1,900
3AOO
4,900
5,300
6,800
38%
49%
54%
48%
52%
to
10,001 to
12,001 to
14,001 to
16,001 to
6,001
8,001
[;]
Avg.
Canopy Area, Diameter, Radius and Estimated DBH of Tree Trunk
!
SF
Diameter
Radius
DBH
1500
43.71
21.86
29
400
22.57
Orn. Tree
11.29
15
Athens - Clarke County, Georgia: Mature Tree Canopy Sizes for Trees Growing in Urban Areas
Very Small Canopy: 150 square feet (approximately 12 x 12 feet)
At
Maturit~
Shade Tree
=
=
Small Canopy: 400 square feet (20 x 20 feet)
Medium Canopy: 900 square feet (30 x 30 feet)
Large Canopy: 1600 square feet (40 x 40 feet)
~
ICost for 1.5" caliper tree:Ornamental is $150 And Shade is $250. *
*Based on Montgomery County DPS Bond Estimate for a Street Tree - see link belQw
http://peImittingservices.montgomerycountymd.gQv/DPS/bond/!3Ql"lg!;E!;timflte.aspx
file:v3(4)
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
N
60.00'
LOT-1
1
6,000 Sq. Feet
I
I
~~~------~------~I
I
I
I
I
1
1""1
=
q
1
~I
I
1
I
PROPOSED
2
~
STORY
HOUSE
307. COVERAGE
lFi
I~
I~
115
o
I
1
-
I
I
COVERED
PCRCH
I
I~
DRIVE'WAY
ORNAMENTAL
TREE
.
~
I
I
N 90-00'00" E
60.00'" ­
\'------­
ZONING:
PROPERTY ZONED: R-60
-STREET­
0
1
FRONT YARD: 25.0' OR EBL
SIDE YARD: 8.0' MIN; TOTAL OF 18.0'
REAR YARD: 20.0'
20'
40'
60
1
!
MAXIMUM
COVERAGE:
30%
~-_-
I
SCALE: 1"=20'
POTOMAC VALLEY
SURVEYS
DATEID6-13-13
20010 FISHER AVENUE, SUITE F
POOLESVILLE, MARYLAN 0
1-888-.349-5090
TREE CANOPY
EXHIBIT-1
.
R-60
ZONE
6,000 SO.FT.
LOl
­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LOT-2
8,000 Sq. Feet
_
.-£0,0' BRL _ _
I
I
I
I
(III
0
0
12')(12'
PATIe
I
I
IP
<;;)"
1m
I~
/
dl
po
~--------~--~--~I
I
0
0
<;;)"
It
III)
I~
o
M
i
r
o
o
J
o
~
-
-
t:;1
I
PROPOSED
2
~
STORY
HOUSE
2BI. COVERAGE
PER INFIL REG's
M
I
,
I
I
I
_ ::::!l::--____
ORNAMENTAL
TREE
I:-r-'-:'?:T-l
_ _ _ _ _
CDVERED
PDRCH
DRIVEVAY
I
N 90"00'00" E
70.00"
-STREET­
ZONING:
PROPERTY ZONED: R- 60
FRONT YARD: 25.0' OR EBL
SIDE YARD:
B.O'
MIN; TOTAL OF 18.0'
0'
20'
REAR YARD: 20.0'
MAXIMUM COVERAGE:28.0% PER INFILL REG's
, . . - . - . -
40'
:
1------,
60'
SCALE: 1"=20'
POTOMAC
VA~LEY
SURVEYS
DATEIQ6-13-13
TREE CANOPY
EXHIBIT-2
R-60
ZONE
B.OOO SO.FT. LOT
20010
FISHER AVENUE. SUITE F
POOLESVILLE. MARYLAND
1-888-349-5090
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
12'X12'
en
0
0
0
PATIIJ
til
0
q
~
~I
1'1"11
~l
~I
f!1j
......
0
0
PROPOSED
2
STORY
HOUSE
I~
-
t -)
OJ
b
q
ORNAMENTAL
TREE
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I~
18
I
11"1
261:
CDVERAGE
PER INFIL REG's
I
I
I
I
I
....
N
tTl
b
ct
I
_,u
30.O'BRL
COVERED
PIlRCH
DRIVe:\iAY
-STREET­
ZONING:
PROPERTY ZONED: R-90
FRONT YARD:
30.0'
OR
EBL
SIDE YARD: 8.0' MIN; TOTAL OF 25.0'
0'
20'
REAR YARD: 25.0'
MAXIMUM
COVERAGE:26.0% PER INFILL
REG's
~--
40'
Ii
60'
I
SCALE: 1"=20'
POTOMAC VALLEY
SURVEYS
DATE.06-13-13
TREE CANOPY
EXHIBIT-3
20010 FISHER AVENUE, SUITE F
POOLESVILLE, MARYLAND
1-888-349-5090
R-90 ZONE
-=
10,000 SO.FT.
LOT
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
N 90'00'00"
E:
. ... :t . . . .-'--:-; ---­.
:.
" ' . .
".,'
r'• •
···::·1
I
LOT-4
I
__- - - . . . . . ,
12,000 Sq. Feet
1
I
1
1
'"
C
o
II
o
o
~
1"'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
le'X12'
PATIO
I
I
I
1
1
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROPOSED
2
i
STORY
HOUSE
247. COVERAGE
I
I
I
1
PER INFIL REG's
I
I
I
1
I
__________ J
CIlVOlED
P[JRCH
I
-,--...,~
DRlVEVAY
ORNAMENTAL
TREE
N 90"00'00=-E
-go.oo·
W
ZONING:
-STREET­
PROPERTY ZONED: R-90
FRONT YARD: 30.0' OR EBL
SIDE YARD:
B.D'
MIN; TOTAL OF 25.0'
0'
20'
REAR YARD: 25.0'
~
_
_
MAXIMUM COVERAGE:24.0% PER INFILL
REG's-JIII
N
I
40'
I
60'
SCALE: 1" =20'
POTOMAC VALLEY
SURVEYS
20010
FISHER AVENUE, SUITE F
POOLESVILLE. MARYLAND
TREE CANOPY
EXHIBIT-4
1-888-349-5090
-
R-90 ZONE
12,000 SO.FT.
LO!
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of2
Faden, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Robert Kaufman [rkaufman@mncbia.org]
Thursday, June 20,201310:34 AM
Faden, Michael
Floreen's Office, Council member; Riemer's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office, Council member;
larry@cafritzbuilders.com; tOdd@toddwood.com; Clark Wagner; cw@carterbuildersmd.com;
mimibkress@aot.com; Chuck Sullivan
Cc:
Subject: Tree Canopy Amendments
The Renew Montgomery organization, a separate organization unconnected to MNCBIA, recently submitted a
proposal to amend the canopy bill that allows builders an alternative to the canopy calculation and
fee
recommended by the County Executive. Under their proposal, a property owner will be required to plant a
specific number of trees on a lot that is being improved with a sediment control permit based on the size of the
lot. The property owner can choose to plant the required number of trees or pay into a fund a fee based on the
cost of a tree replacement using DPS calculations. The addition to the sediment control permit will include a
bond amount for the tree and will include the cost of the tree in determining the application fee based on the
Method
3
Regulations for Land Development permits.
The MNCBIA position has always been to support the canopy goals of the County with an effort to add, save or
replace trees on a lot not covered by the existing Forest Conservation Law during development and if it is not
feasible or desirable to plant the trees on site than to allow the builder/owner to pay into a fund for planting
trees elsewhere in the community. The fee should be based on the actual costs of a planting a new tree
selected from the list of acceptable trees. The high cost (can be up to $8000) of removing mature trees on in-fill
sites serves as a natural deterrent to removing mature trees. Additionally, the value of the lot can be enhanced
with healthy trees offering a further incentive to save trees and plant trees on site.
The alternative proposed by Renew Montgomery meets the objectives of the MNCBIA and therefore the
MNCBIA removes our objection to the bill with the addition of this amendment. We note however that the
proposal shows a gap between lots larger than 20,000 square feet and less than 40,000 square feet. Our
recommendation is to allow the property owner the choice to follow the replacement chart for canopy
disturbance below 20,000 sq. ft. and require the property owner to meet the canopy calculation and pay the fee
for disturbances between 20,000 sq. ft. and 40,000 sq. ft. While there may be occasions where a property
owner may need to clear a significant portion of the lot to meet storm water management grading
requirements, this is likely to be rare and unusual. Perhaps DPS can consider an exemption for storm water
management where the grading of the site may be necessary to clear cut the site to provide the best
management of the flow.
The MNCBIA observes that the County, including the developed parts often called down-county, shows a
significant canopy of over 49% throughout the County and over 60% in Bethesda. Perhaps the best it has been
in the past 200 years. We also note, that the major reason that builders today clear trees on in-fill sites is to
meet the recently passed storm water requirement for 100% management ON-SITE. Given the extraordinary
existing canopy and the conflict with the County's own regulations, the canopy bill remains problematic at best.
But we can still make a reasonable contribution to conserving our precious tree canopy. We can help by
removing old trees or invasive species or trees inappropriate for urban environments and replace them with
trees more appropriate. This can help minimize damage during severe storms and may help reduce
maintenance costs and still add value to our neighborhoods. As an industry, we are proud of our contribution to
the canopy of the County through the Forest Conservation Law and through our efforts to save or plant trees as
part of our landscape designs. Trees clearly add value to a home, a community and a County.
S.
Robert
Kaufman
6/20/2013
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of2
Faden,
Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Mihill, Amanda
Thursday, June 20, 201310:56 AM
Faden, Michael
Subject: FW: Bill 35-12, Tree Canopy Conservation - Utility Vegetation Management Carve Out
From: ipasternak@pepco.com [mailto:ipasternak@pepco.com]
Sent: WednesdaYI June
121
2013 11:10
AM
To: Faust
l
Josh
Subject: Bill
35-121
Tree Canopy Conservation - Utility Vegetation Management carve Out
Josh:
Following up on our conversation, I am writing to ask for Councilmember Berliner's assistance in
amending Bill 35-12 to achieve a result that I believe all parties agree is the right result -- namely, that
the provisions of the bill do not apply to utility vegetation management. I have been working with the
Executive branch since before the bill was formally introduced but we have been unable to bring this
matter to closure.
This issue has been addressed in the Roadside Tree Bill (Bill 41-12). We worked with Mike Faden and
reached agreement on language that addresses our concerns. We appreciate Roger's cooperation and
understanding in making clear, from the very outset, that our legitimate issues would be addressed.
Bill 35-12 is intended to capture development activity. In fact, in his October 25, 2012 transmittal
memorandum to the Council, the County Executive stated that the bill "introduces requirements for fees
when tree canopy is disturbed as a result of development activity." Our vegetation management is not
development activity. In their communications with me, the County Attorney and Kathleen Boucher
have let me know that it makes sense to exclude utilities from the Tree Canopy bill using the same
language that is in the latest draft of Bill 41-12. But they haven't signed off on the language yet.
Where we seem to be hung up is this: Executive staff believes that no carve out is needed because the
provisions of Bill 35-12 are directed at development activity triggered by a County sediment control
permit, and utilities do not need a County sediment control permit for vegetation management. We don't
disagree conceptually, but we are concerned that there are some ambiguities in both the sediment control
law and this bill that allow for interpretations and scenarios in which our routine vegetation management
could theoretically be covered. From the utility perspective, all we are asking is that the bill state
unambiguously that its provisions don't apply to vegetation management activities. The intent of the bill
is not to include utility vegetation management, which is not development activity, and it makes perfect
sense to make that clear by using the same language that has been agreed to and accepted by all parties
in Bill 41-12, the Roadside Tree bill.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Best regards,
Jerry
-----------------
6120/2013
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Process Summary
• Applicant submits plans and supporting data describing area
of:
- LOD
- Predevelopment canopy
- Canopy protected (optional)
- Area for plantings (optional)
• DPS verifies calculations
• Fee is assessed
• DPS enforces LOD as they do now, and verifies certain aspects
of tree protection and planting plans (e.g., protection
measures are in place, trees have been planted, etc.)
16
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
N
,: I
.
!
7\ \
-
c..
--
V)
(])
.......,
c
co
.......,
(])
~
~
c
::J
U
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
,
,,~d"C~'."f1'"
c
o
--
--
-
~.:
J,
~
o
ro
(]J
c
(]J
(]J
O
U
...c
+-'
--
-
0...
(]J
ro
c
~
+-'
--
til
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
c
e_
......,
OJ
C
0
ro
-
OJ
e_
0
a.
U
OJ
OJ
ro
c
0
..c
......,
r-­
L..
~
C
0
O
.....I
0.
C
It!
Q)
Q)
.5
>
0
-
a..
OJ
......,
e_
ro
U
...
0
.....
c
Q)
E
Cii
>
Q)
"C
Q)
0.
V')
0.
...
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
-
..c
(]J
ro
ro
.....,
o
o
l
-
C
,;,;.C
ro
c
<~
.t:!
••
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Calculation of Mitigation Fee
Square Feet
Canopy within LOD
Less Canopy Protected
Less Canopy Planted x 0.25
Area Requiring Mitigation
14,870
14,870
Acres
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.34
Incremental Area (sq.
ft.)
From
0
2,001
4,001
6,001
8,001
10,001
15,001
2.000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
To
Increment
Fee ($/sq.
ft.)
$0.25
$0.35
$0.45
$0.55
$0.65
$0.75
$0.85
Mitigation
Fee
$500
$700
$900
$1,100
$1.300
$3,653
$0
$8,153
6
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Vl
OJ
s....
::J
Vl
OJ
ro
~
C
0
......,
U
OJ
......,
0
s....
CL
OJ
OJ
s....
..c
......,
ro
C
$
-'
0
0
.!:
a.
0
c
U
-
CL
ro
a>
a>
....
"0
.....
c
a>
a>
.....
u
a>
.....
0
....
V')
OJ
......,
"0
E
a.
0
ai
>
a>
a..
a>
....
a..
a.
0
c
ro
u
a>
....
a>
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Data Table with Tree Protection Data
.Area··bt'Lot·(sq:·ft.):······<
26,694
27,929
14,870
.Area
ofCah:8;p;Y1:~roteftEidJSq
..ft.
r .
1,809
13,061
8
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Calculation of Mitigation Fee
Square Feet
Canopy within LOD
Less Canopy Protected
Less Canopy Planted x 0.25
Area Requiring Mitigation
13,061
14,870
1,809
Acres
0.34
0.04
0.00
0.30
Incremental Area (sq.
ft.)
From
0
2,001
4,001
6,001
8,001
10,001
15,001
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
To
Increment
Fee ($/sq.
ft.)
$0.25
$0.35
$0.45
$0.55
$0.65
$0.75
$0.85
Mitigation
Fee
$500
$700
$900
$1,100
$1,300
$2,296
$0
$6,796
9
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ro
Vl
Q)
~
«
tl.O
C
--
+-'
C
-
0...
Q)
~
ro
OJ
I-­
..c
+-'
--
S
c
co
0
0
-'
-
0...
Q)
.!:
0.
0
C
U
ro
"U
Q)
+-'
--
lI")
,=
.......
Q)
Q)
"U
ti
Q)
....,
a..
0.
0
C
Q)
Q)
c
Q)
0
...
Q)
....,
u
Q)
....,
E
Qj
a..
e
C
0.
0
0.
0
>
Q)
U
ro
U
ro
"U
~
a..
,=
,=
Q)
Q)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Determination of Trees to be Planted
Credits Factors Specified in Bill
Category of
Tree Size
Small
Medium
Large
Assumed Area of
Canopy at
20
Years
Minimum Open Soil
Su rface Area (ft2)
400
800
1,600
100
200
400
Credits for Example Property
Planting Area
Tree Type
Large
Large
Medium
Canopy Area
1,170
1,600
1,600
800
1,600
1,600
7,200
1,800
11
860
Large
Large
Total Assumed Canopy Area
@
20
Yrs
Canopy Credit (Canopy Area x
0.25)
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Data
Table with Tree Protection
Data
Area of Lot (sq. ft.) "
:
26,694
27,929
14,870
1,809
1,800
11,261
Area of
LOD(sq~ft.J
Canopy within LOD (sq. ft.)
Area of Canopy Protected (sq. ft.)
Area of Canopy Planted (sq.
f1:.)xO.25 , ,.'
,
,
AreaRequiring~ntigation(sq~ft.),'
"
12
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Calculation of Mitigation Fee
Square Feet
Canopy within LOD
Less Canopy Protected
Less Canopy Planted x 0.25
Area Requiring Mitigation
14,870
1,809
1,800
11,261
Acres
0.34
0.04
0.04
0.26
!
Incremental Area (sq.
ft.)
From
0
2,001
4,001
6,001
8,001
10,001
15,001
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
To
Increment
Fee ($/sq.
ft.)
$0.25
$0.35
$0.45
$0.55
$0.65
$0.75
$0.85
Mitigation
Fee
$500
$700
$900
$1,100
$1,300
$946
$0
$5,446'
13
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
'+­
--
--
""C
~
..c
+.J
--
o
$
-
CL
--
+.J
V)
ro
c
o
o
OJ
-'
~
o
C
U
III
Q)
Q)
~
.....
c
Q)
a;
-c
Q..
Q)
E
o
>
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Calculation of Mitigation Fee
Square Feet
Canopy within LOD
Less Canopy Protected
Less Canopy Planted x 0.25
Area Requiring Mitigation
7,862
0
0
7,862
Acres
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.18
Incremental Area (sq.
ft.)
From
0
2,001
4,001
6,001
8,001
10,001
15,001
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
15,000