Good afternoon again, everybody for the second environment matters committee meeting for July 9th.

So for the record, um, you do roll call.

We have Alderman Huntley.

Present.

All right, and we did our other business at the last meeting.

So for this one, uh, just to open up the business, which is going to be legislative action on 016 26.

And then so that item is open, and now I'm going to adjourn and allow um rules and city government to adjourn.

To open, I'm sorry.

I call this meeting to order July 9th, 4 36 p.m.

This is the rules and city government committee.

I'll start off with roll call.

As Alderman Frank Thorpe present.

Present.

All right.

And we have Alderman Shannemeyer.

All right.

And myself, Alderman Smith Brown chair.

Uh, we are going to move forward with the approval of the minutes.

Uh agenda first, actually.

Is there a motion to approve of the agenda?

So moved.

All right.

There's a second here.

All in favor of that.

All right.

Thank you.

Now is there approval of the minutes from our meeting on June the 4th, 2026.

Uh, Mr.

Chairman, uh, I will make a motion to approve in a second, but I think there does need to be some cleaning up of the notes.

There's some unbolded stuff that Frank did this and Keanu did that.

Um, so uh, but I I move to approve the minutes uh after the cleaning up.

All right, so we have a motion on the floor to uh just need to postponing it.

Okay, we'll postpone if there's a match.

That's a motion to postpone if there's no um all in favor here.

Um we have that.

Thank you.

Next we have on the agenda a legislation 01626 forest conservation program amendments to conform with state law from our sponsor Alderman Savage.

So let's begin with this legislation.

If you don't mind Alderman Savage sharing with us just an overview of this, where it came from, why is it so pressing?

Uh, then we can dive into the uh detail and amendments.

Yeah, so to open up, just ask Mr.

Adams to join us to the table here.

Could you give us a just an update presentation on where this is coming from?

This legislation.

Um, City Forester Brian Adams, and uh, so overall, this isn't a big change to our current law.

Uh, be fairly easy to implement into our current process.

Uh Forest Conservation Act has been around since 1991, and it was enacted to try to stem the loss of forests in the state of Maryland on properties 40,000 square feet or bigger, and it requires you to inventory the site, identify sensitive areas, try to work around them, and if you have to remove stuff, you have to replant remove trees, you have to replant them.

Um, and as the years went by, the state continued to lose forest, even with the law in place.

So there's long been a push to um make the policy make the law more restrictive, which brings us to the past couple years.

There was a Senate bill and a house bill that were passed in 2023.

Mr.

Adams.

Yep.

Apologies for Antruppen, but I want to in case people want to walk through as you're talking.

There is a handout that shows the changes.

It should be the top one of your packet.

Um, which it goes through some of the changes that I think Mr.

Adams is gonna walk through.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

I will say this, yeah.

This this document that was on top is a really good explanation summary of all the changes.

Um, I'm gonna just go through them in the order that they come through in the in the bill.

Um, the biggest change overall is just moving from a no-net loss policy to a net gain.

Uh, we want to actually see an increase in canopy in the state of Maryland.

They are gonna measure that every four years.

Um, so the majority of changes came out of the Senate bill.

Um, there's some new definitions.

I won't get into the details, but there's a number of new definitions included.

Um, there are some new exemptions that have been added, exemptions to the law, which includes tree farms, orchards, managed forests, and um also federal government facilities to employ at least 2,500 people, and then there was some altering of the current exemptions, and that's the solar facilities are exempt from afforestation, which means the creation of new forests and transit-oriented development has a reduced mitigation rate.

And finally, the multifamily housing of 25 or more units is also a reduced reforestation rate.

The state law is now moving to one-to-one replacement ratio, which the city was already doing with our last update, maybe eight years ago.

So each acre of forest removed has to be replaced with one acre.

So we are already at that level, and we actually retain a threshold at which, if they clear below that, we actually will require a two to one mitigation.

Big addition is the addition of urban areas as priority retention and protection areas.

So now they are being treated the same as environmental areas like stream buffers, wetlands, and they are going to be priority for retention.

So that'll mean there's some extra steps involved in clearing those.

Another new requirement is that unforested riparian buffers have to be aforested or reforested, and that's an effort to enhance water quality.

There are new notification requirements prior to the approval of a forest conservation plan for adjacent landowners.

And if you are clearing a priority retention area, you have to allow for public comment as well.

The department planning and zoning now must provide a written justification for clearing of priority retention areas.

This is a new uh requirement.

And they've added some alternatives for meeting the reforestation aforestation requirements, which include restoring degraded forests, planting green infrastructure, and um we already use uh street trees as a as a as a way to meet our our goals.

Um so these alternatives are in place unless the DNR determines that we are still losing forest, in which place they can you know um take some of those options away.

Um just make sure I've covered everything.

Yeah, like I said, the biggest the biggest increase is just the policy overall, and that they're trying to now uh you know, at the minimum, maintain but more actively increase um forestry and forest land and canopy coverage in the state of Maryland, and as I said before, most of these are just small procedural changes to our current ordinance and um you know shouldn't be a big lift in for the city, Mr.

Adams, and just a few um before I turn this back over to the floor.

Um, a few other things.

Housekeeping one item, we have a fairly firm stop end time of 5:30.

Um I'm sure that the studio would would like us to try to end by then.

Um so I may try to speak up at times to keep us moving.

Uh second thing is to clarify um process for our discussion.

What I would propose is that we take up the base legislation first before we get into the amendments.

Um I'm saying that partly because the underlying legislation, as Mr.

Adams and the law office can confirm.

We're we're quite deliberate with making sure that the underlying legislation is simply conforming in intention as far as meeting the state requirements.

The amendments constitute some new items, but they're mostly along the lines of adjusting our code to make it work for the state, but also to make sure we preserve some of the improvements that we've made over the past nine years with on the council, but also before that with when the mayor, current current mayor is on the council.

We'll get into that when the amendments come up.

So with that, I guess any other any questions for Mr.

Adams on the underlying legislation, the intent or content.

People a moment because I know it's a lot of information.

I don't know, whoever's chairing.

You can both call on me if you want.

So I'm looking at the part about the expanded mitigation menu.

This is really just a context question.

But I understand this doesn't dramatically change it.

For forest mitigation banking, is uh do all do impacts in the city have to be offset within the city or somebody yes?

Okay, thank you.

That was my only question.

We actually currently don't have any mitigation banks just because we're tight on space.

So we usually try to mitigate on site.

How often is the fee and loo used and rarely.

Really?

Okay.

You know, with the um with the addition of the street trees, it's made a huge difference for for the urban area because they they're able to get their mature credit in square footage.

So they plant, you know, um, so that's made a big difference.

And that really on our projects is usually how a lot of the reforestation is met.

Do we set that fee and lie as part of the regular city fee schedule?

Yeah, okay.

Interesting.

Yeah, I um I just know it it became it's very easy for those fees to get out of whack with what the market would be, and so um it's kind of orthogonal to this, but uh just something to pay attention to.

So thank you.

Yeah, and just to piggyback back back on that a bit, um, we some of the things we've changed over the years um was the the fee and lo because in past practice there used to be a provision called the break-even point, um, which essentially allowed the developer to it's what prevented us from getting the no-net loss.

We basically got rid of that provision, but at the same time we realized the developers weren't having to do any kind of mitigation because of this break-even point.

We got rid of that.

When we got rid of that, we had to bump up the fee to make sure they did the mitigation and not just pay the fee and loo.

Uh, and so we gave them a lot of options on the mitigation and priority order, and it sounds like it's been working pretty well.

Um, they can even do things like maintaining existing forests, but they get less credit, and like you said, street trees, all kinds of things.

So, yeah, there's a lot of history to that.

Let me talk about the hello, thank you.

Um, when we talk about trees that are planted, street trees, what have you?

Is there a process in place where we check up on those trees over a period of time?

I've seen many of times where uh we'll plant a tree uh and then the tree dies in the next months or so because it's not taken care of, it's too much sun, not enough water, what have you.

So, how do we measure the ones that are actually living and the ones that may die sooner than we would like?

Yeah, great question.

So there's two separate tracks.

So for for development projects, we have a bond, a landscape bond that the developer puts down, covers the cost of all the landscaping that's installed, and then there's a uh inspection period for um at each year for two years following to ensure that everything has survived.

And so up until two years from the project install date, you can come back to them and say you've got to replace these trees and then extend the bond for another year to ensure they survive.

With forest conservation projects, it's even longer.

There's actually a five-year maintenance agreement for um forest conservation projects, and then finally for city planted trees, street trees, um, there's always mortality when we plant trees, especially street trees in an urban environment.

Um, and it's not until the last couple years that we started to develop a really good maintenance and follow-up plan because our budget didn't allow for it in pat in the past.

So we are at a point now where trees that I'm we are planting as street trees are also being watered and continue to be maintained for two to three years.

Okay.

Any other questions from the committee on the underlying legislation?

Committees, sorry.

All right.

Um, people are ready to move on to amendments then.

So to walk through, if I may, um co-chair, I don't know what to what to call you.

But um, we have um in the packet you have there is a flow chart.

If but if I subjust holding off on that for a minute and turn to the next page, which lists all the amendments, um and it starts at amendment two simply because there was a one that we realized wasn't needed any longer, um, so it jumps right to two.

And this one is on the stream buffer definition, and uh the state actually adopted our stricter standards as far as the buffer, the the buffer distances.

Um change there, but there was a suggestion from the office of law to add some criteria for the director as far as when it might make sense to expand those buffers.

And so these are provisions that talk about slopes of 15% or greater, highly rotable soils, um, and a few other things.

These are all things that are existingly listed in the Forest Conservation Act or our city code, um, but that's kind of where that's coming from.

So this is just to make the new criteria a bit easier on staff and legally sound if um, I don't know if there's anything the law office wants to add to that.

No, you've captured it very well, thank you.

Questions on that one?

Yes, that was number two.

I think for the sake of the trying to think how we want to do this.

We can either move these individually as committees, uh, or we could do at the end all at once.

Is there a preference from we go through them all?

Yeah, and then come back and vote.

Okay.

Currently we're in the way in the rules because we're currently in a rules of city government meeting, so what we have to do, we're opening up the floor for if you don't mind presenting each of these amendments, and then we may have to vote if we do decide to vote, or just you know, we can adjourn that y'all have yummy, but we we're not having two meetings at the same exact particular time because we kind of have to vote and you go all can't look correct.

We did you guys just cannot vote together.

Yeah, we can we kind of do whatever we want.

We just have to have our votes separate.

So, yes, can we go over all the amendments?

That'd be great.

That's fine with me.

Thank you.

Okay, so that was number two.

Um other questions on that one.

Move on to three.

Number three, uh, bit of a correction.

So this uh actually, um, Mr.

Adams, do you want to speak to this one's?

I didn't miss state.

You want to correct me on this one as you uh originally for the report every year we provide an annual reports DNR about the projects that we've approved over the past year, and it used to be due on March 1st.

Uh, as part of this legislation a couple years ago, they changed that date to August 31st, I guess, to align with the fiscal year better.

So rather than the calendar year, they went to a fiscal year.

So that's just changing our date from March 1st to August 31st.

And that's for all jurisdictions in the state of Maryland.

Any questions on that one?

I do.

I'll just I think I think you just answered my question, but I want to confirm this annual report goes from July 1st to June 30th.

So you have July and August to complete the report.

Okay.

Mm-hmm.

That's that aggressive and fantastic.

Thank you.

Questions?

All right.

Moving on to number four.

This one is I think maybe a little more complicated, but this is where the flow chart comes up.

Um so the appeal process, this is and again, uh Turnal Office of the law 2 at some point on this one, but um through some excellent research by their office, uh, which I'll get into a little bit, but basically the the state bill set a requirement, because of some case law, um, which I'll ask the office of law to speak a little bit to, but which establishes that there needs to be a point of there needs to be a point where uh the forest conservation plan can be appealed, an appealable decision, and so and that they have 30 days to do so.

And so this amendment tries to accomplish that goal while keeping our own city processes intact.

Um so if you look at the existing process, you'll see on the flow chart where a department currently makes the determination that a plan is complete and correct.

Uh and the problem with that is there's no real appealable decision point, approval point.

Um so currently it goes through with the grading permit review, or it goes to the planning commission, and so depending on which body it goes to, it goes to different appeal body.

Uh if it goes to through a grading permit process, then it goes to the building board of appeals.

So keep in mind we have the building board of appeals, which is chapter 17, and then we have the zoning board of appeals, we just call the board of appeals, which is in chapter 21.

Um so this has it go to chapter 17, planning commission.

Um people can appeal that if they wanted to appeal the forest conservation plan, though, they would have to appeal the entire application and it would go to the circuit court.

Um and so there are a couple problems with this.

Current setup, which I think office of law pointed out, which we're trying to fix with this.

Uh the proposed flow would be um that there is a clear, which comes out of the case law, um, that there is a clear appealable decision on the forest conservation plan, um, and that basically once that appeal window passes, there's no second bite of the apple as far as internally.

Um so that would go to either the planning commission and um, and they would still, so I guess I should say before it goes to the planning commission, there would be an opportunity for an appeal.

Um I believe I'm not misstating this, but um there'd be an opportunity to appeal, but it would have to go to circuit court, uh, that's following the typical planning commission process.

If it doesn't have to go to the planning commission, it goes to the grading permit, and it would then have to, if it's appealed, it would go to the Board of Appeals just for the Forest Conservation Act portion.

I don't think I'm explaining this super well.

Uh Office of Law, I don't know if you want to anything you want to add, clarify for me, perhaps the case law that led into some of this.

Yeah, I think that case law is kind of helpful context.

So there was a case before the Maryland Supreme Court where Chesapeake Bay Foundation uh did not like the forest conservation plan that was approved for a development, and so instead of waiting until the final development plans were all approved, they just went ahead and appealed the forest conservation plan by itself because it was going to be a number more months until the local government approved the whole plan set.

And the developer objected to that and said you you can't appeal the forest conservation plan independently.

You're supposed to wait until the whole project plan, such as the site plan or the subdivision plan are approved.

And so that went up on appeal, and the Maryland Supreme Court, which it was a split decision, but the majority said no CBF is right, they can appeal uh the forest conservation plan independently.

It's not it's not a like a small subplan of the larger approval, it's its own approval itself, subject to appeal.

And the dissent said, you know, that's not right.

You there's nothing in the state code that says that it's a separate appealable um decision.

And so the general assembly addressed that by adding something to this SB 526 that said in no uncertain terms that there's a right to judicial review of a forest conservation plan approval.

But the General Assembly didn't delve into all the details of precisely what would constitute that final approval, and nor did the Maryland Supreme Court case.

And so that's where in this amendment four, we try to drill down a little bit to uh get to the idea that the forest conservation plan can be appealed by itself.

You could just appeal that if you wanted to, but we're still tracking, we're still basically, because in Annapolis, the forest conservation plan can still be revised by, for instance, the Planning Commission.

That forest conservation plan isn't really final until the planning commission has said if it's a planning commission track, you know, we approved this whole package.

And so we're we're kind of accomplishing both things there by saying through this amendment that there's a distinct appeal right from a f from a forest conservation plan approval, but we're also recognizing that in Annapolis, that isn't going to occur until in the Planning Commission track, for instance, the final plan, subdivision plan, or what have you is approved.

Same concept with a grading, a grading plan, but in that case, it's the department of planning and zoning that's making the approval.

Um, and what we and what Alderman Savage mentioned that we were going through and trying to square was um you have different sec different sections in the code uh talk about where do you appeal something and how long is that do you have to make to do that appeal?

And so we're trying to get some consistency with these appeals of the forest conservation plans approvals.

So that's why we we're sticking with the idea that if it's a if it's a planning commission track, you appeal directly to the circuit court at that at that point, and that's that's still going to be the case.

You could, if you wanted to just appeal the forest conservation plan approval to the circuit court at that point, you could, or your appeal could cover both the forest conservation plan and the whole subdivision approval.

The same idea, but when it's a department approval instead of the planning commission, uh the amendment proposes that that go to the Board of Appeals before you go to circuit court.

And the reason for that is is that when the department approves it, that's more of an administrative approval, and we are we want to try to give people the opportunity to uh take an appeal of that within our own governmental system before it goes to circuit court.

Whereas with the planning commission, they're really a decider of last resort on um the types of applications that come before then and them, and that's why you could go straight to circuit court uh from the planning commission.

Um, so I realize that it's it's sort of complicated, but we're trying to uh you know give effect to the the new uh requirement or the new rights in state law that expressly recognize the right to appeal um uh a forest conservation plan while also recognizing that that's going to occur within a sequence that we have for uh development approvals, and maybe unlike some other jurisdictions, you can still amend or the forest conservation plan still might be amended up until that final department or planning commission approval is given.

That being said, though, I think you could write on the topic here.

For anyone who may be wondering, you know, as a developer coming into town and they're about to build um the property, what have you on their land?

Can you tell us or give us maybe a time scope of leading us up to a forest conservation plan and what that means when like what's the process of a forest conservation plan, um, you know, who develops it and all this?

Like, could we get that?

I refer that to the answer.

Yes, please.

Yeah, so when a developer is looking at a site that meets this requirement of 40,000 square feet or greater, and there's no exemption.

They basically hire a professional.

There's a there's you have to be a qualified professional by the DNR, there's requirements, and you're hired to do a delineation.

It's called a forest and delineation of the property and categorize the sensitive areas, the forest and very detailed inventory of the site, and that is supposed to lead into the planning process for how they develop the site.

Um that leads to the development, and then there's the forest conservation plan comes out of that process of the development.

They decide what's gonna stay, what can they keep, uh, what needs to be replaced, and they develop a plan that comes in with the grading permit or the the development plans.

And so it is a long process.

Um the forest stand delineation is early in the process, so it could be months, you know, from the time they do a delineation until we actually see a plan coming in, and we review the forest and delineation comes to us for review, and then they also will submit a preliminary forest conservation plan once they've developed that with their site plan.

Any other um questions on amendment for Alderman Howard?

So what I'm trying to understand is the and the answer might be that this is irrelevant, but what I'm trying to understand is how these processes impact whether a uh project gets stayed or not.

Right, we passed this legislation last year, or maybe it was early the year before that said rather than every project, every time we get this appealed automatically gets stayed, we let the circuit court make the determination on whether a project gets stayed or not.

And so I'm trying to understand in these cases if it gets appealed to the circuit court, and for that matter, if it gets appealed to the board of appeals for the planning commission, is it automatically state?

Maybe Alderman Savage is one with the answer.

Well, so we changed this maybe two years ago, three years ago, but I think it's like late 24.

Yeah, so what it was changed to is that um what's changed to is that it appeals on to internal city bodies like Board of Appeals or Building Board of Appeals, um, those would have a stay.

So, for example, if the grading in this case, if the grading permit is appealed, there would be a stay until um that appeals determined uh settled.

If it gets appealed to the circuit court, since that's really not our body, I believe we'll have to discretion to plan and zoning.

Because if there's something that, but typically uh as far as if it's a significant forest clearing or not, but I'd have to look at the the code.

I think you're right.

I'll pull up that legislation, but I think that was a compromise we ended on, because in general, I liked the idea of saying the court should be the one to determine it, but for trees in particular, we said, you know, this is something where there could be an irreparable impact.

Let's also give the planning and zoning director the option.

Uh that's uh I'll I'll try looking it up, but that makes sense to me.

You recall Mr.

Adams and realistically the forest conservation plan is early enough in the process relative to the other permits you would need.

But I think getting a stay on that, it's not necessarily going to hold up your whole project because you're still working on another permits.

Does that make sense to you, Mr.

Adams?

Yeah, I mean, you can still continue with the review process of the other plans, right?

The grading the other associated grading or building permits, whatever other approvals you need.

Just looking up the uh amendment.

So this is something actually we might need to tweak in the legislation since you brought that up just to point out to the office of law.

We might need to make that a committee amendment, but if you look at page seven of the legislation as introduced, um line 13 is the stays section.

Just that we'll need to, I guess we'll need a uh correcting amendment, assuming some of these pass, number seven that would change the building board of appeals to the board of appeals throughout the entire piece of the legislation.

Um and so that then it would state that um then this entire provision would carry over as intended, which would say that let's see.

So that no cutting of the forest would be allowed during the appeal window, so that 30 days, and then if there is an appeal filed to in this case, if we change it to the board of appeals, then there would be a stay until the appeal is resolved.

Um after the board of appeals would issue their decision, that it says the department may require a stay pending if there's they may require a stay if there's a petition filed to the circuit court, and so to your point, it's not a requirement, and um it just goes on further to say that the noting of an appeal does not stay, it doesn't prevent staff from continuing the review.

Because I think to something you alluded to, they can still continue doing the rest of the grading permit review or the site design, whatever it is while the appeal might be pending in the process.

Okay, I I think where I'm at with this is that it doesn't really impact your amendment for, but that I'm not totally comfortable with the language on stays in the underlying legislation.

Uh the idea that we're we're gonna say even once we give you your permit, we're gonna wait around for 30 days is kind of crazy to me.

Like we just gave you the permit.

Why do you have to wait 30 days?

That's it's if somebody files an appeal, yeah, maybe we have a stay, but like if we're just waiting for somebody to maybe possibly file an appeal, why are we all sitting around?

Well, because I mean my point with that would be it can take as somebody who's been on both sides involved in both sides, it could take time to put together an appeal, and you don't know until a permit's actually issued what you're potentially appealing.

You have to, I mean, community groups would have to track down an attorney.

That takes a lot of time, put in together reports for the and it would be again assuming if there is some validity to the appeal, we would hate to have the trees be removed in those interim.

So it my counter that would be 30 days is a short amount of time when you're looking at the overall um time it takes to actually build a project.

Um that's where I uh I'm trying to understand if this is the limiting step, like if 30 days might be no problem if at the same time you're getting issued this, you're also getting it's you're waiting on something that's gonna take 60 days.

But if that's the case, then there's no need to include this.

And so, uh, yeah, I mean, I'm I'm fine to support the amendment, but I might want to work on something else on this portion about stays.

Fair enough.

Happy to work with you on that.

Um anything else on amendment four.

Okay, hearing nothing else.

Um moving on to amendment five.

This is notice of plan approval.

Um so again, this is not a requirement coming from the state, which is why it's an amendment, but it basically just makes sure that the notification of the final approval is posted.

Um, again, because I I think it's as somebody who's obviously been involved in like watershed groups and whatnot.

I think it's people tend to read the paper every day.

Uh they don't necessarily go to the city website to check a permit status every day, some do, um, but most people don't, and so that's why I thought it'd be good to include some kind of requirement where the which we do on other portions of the development process, just require that the applicant put something in the paper that says um, you know, forced conservation plan for Esport Lofts.

I'll pick on them because they don't have any force that you know it was approved, so the people at least know and see that that decision was made.

Uh Alderman Thorpe.

So I and the legislation may uh require this, but um we have had cases in Word 8 where trees were removed without uh neighbors knowing, and there's a requirement in the code when you want to do something to a bulkhead that you have to actually send a letter to the neighbors.

And while I like to think that people read newspapers, as you said, um, I think that puts the burden on the neighbor to watch as compared to putting the the burden on the applicant to send a letter through the postal service.

Um, the requirement, well, case that we could talk about whether email should replace that or whatever, but but it puts the burden on the applicant to inform the people who are mostly impacted by it, and I would suggest we may want to include that kind of requirement.

Can I add that so the addition of the comment or notice in the state legislation sort of covers that, and it's that 20 at least 20 days before approval of the final forest conservation plan, you have to notify all adjacent landowners.

That there's a gonna going to be a forced conservation approval on this property.

Yeah, mail or email?

Uh it's mail.

Okay.

Yeah.

This amendment sort of goes beyond that and makes an announcement to everyone, not just the neighbors.

So there is a requirement now to notify all adjacent landowners.

Okay.

And this does include a notification uh written notice to the budding and adjacent property owners.

But um, I know there uh are you done on the thorpe or.

Well, I mean, I'm good, but that's not what it says here.

This amendment uh written notice to abutting and adjacent property owners.

So there's there's somewhere a disagreement.

I guess the question, Mr.

Adams, is there do you know where the state where we worked in that state uh on page two?

It's on page 12.

It says retention clearing justification.

Is that what you're referring to?

It says notice and public comment.

Notice and comment before, at least 20 days before approval of a forest conservation plan.

Yeah, the department shall then that's what it's saying a provide notice that is consistent with department notice requirements to all property owners abutting and adjacent to the boundary of the subject property of any proposed clearing of a priority retention area as described in blank blank blank blank blank.

Um I'm good if we work through that.

So it's Alderman Huntley.

Thank you.

It seems to me like what we just heard is that this is not necessary, right?

That there is already a requirement for notification.

Did I hear you correct, Mr.

Oh, you don't have to weigh in on is this necessary or not.

But can you help me understand?

It sounded like you just said there's already a requirement for notification separate from this.

I think the difference is that the before.

What the state added is just 20 days before the approval, it goes to all adjacent and abutting property owners, whereas this amendment includes the notification in the paper, which would go out to a broader audience.

And is when it says upon the approval, that's after the approval takes place.

Yeah, that is the there is a difference.

This is before and that's after.

So why am I not noticing people the same way before now?

Yeah, before it seems like it should be the time you need it.

Once it's approved, who cares?

It's beautiful out there.

You can go look it up if you want.

Uh, Alderman Thorpe's point.

Like, like I think it should be the burden should be on the paper, right?

Because then you have to buy the paper, it's costs money, we know.

No, I mean, I'm saying I think like if somebody wants to be noticed about what's going on on somebody else's property, the burden should be on them rather than on people who are trying to do stuff on their own property.

So it sounds like we already have that that requirement in here once.

We don't need to add it in a second time after the plan is finalized and everything's already set, right?

Yeah, I see your point.

Let me I guess it hinges on one of the comments in here because it does with the with the language from the state, it says provides provide notice that is consistent with department notice requirements to all property owners abutting and adjacent.

So one of the requirements questions would be: what are the department notice requirements?

Wow.

I believe I believe this was brought up in a discussion with the DNR and they said, you know, what is your typical way of notifying neighbors?

It's usually going to be by letter.

Um, but they didn't clarify exactly what they wanted to see.

Okay.

So for the sake of uh so I get what so the I guess the only the difference would be um who we want to get notified.

One would be Dean Rs is just adjacent property owners, unless there's a requirement in the code to get it posted in the paper already, which I'll I'll I guess we'll have to check, but versus the amendment that would have at least be in the paper.

I think there's already a requirement in our code to put it on the website.

There is um, so I'm not.

Are there any other questions on this?

Because I do want to we need to move on to the next one.

If there are anything else burning on this amount.

Yeah, I I think the newspaper it's great, and the broader notification that we're talking about is great, but I think the adjacent properties, abutting properties, the requirement to should be on the burden should be on the applicant to inform them.

Um not directly.

Not the whole city or the whole ward or whatever.

I would I would be if there was a way to go broader for the immediate notification than adjacent and abutting.

I don't know if there's a legal way to do that, but there's some properties that there might only be two P two properties abutting, but it'd be of major interest to a lot of people.

Um so I don't know if there's a way to go broader than that.

Mr.

Adams.

I think one way to clarify would be to since the state is requiring the 20 days before approval to the abutting and adjacent property owners, we could clarify that that should be by mail, and then in this amendment, this you could remove the notice to abutting adjacent property owners because that would be redundant, right?

And just make it the website and the newspaper to get the general the the broader announced word out.

Um I'm gonna ask Ms.

Reuter to make that change for me, but um it can't yes, but can we also agree like we we should not write in our code that things need to be advertised in the newspaper?

This is 2026 here, right?

Like it can go on the website, and a hell heck of a lot more people are gonna see it than if it's in the newspaper.

I'm gonna fight that very hard.

You want to cut down more trees?

Well, I also believe very strongly about history and the record.

Papers are called the record for a reason.

They're searchable, they're in our archives permanently.

Um, and um, but I I we need to move on.

So is there anything else burning on this one?

I would just agree with you wholeheartedly because uh maybe we want to get rid of the word printed, but to be in the newspaper, because that does say print and online, exactly.

So I I would hate to go away from it for legal record, but today when you say a newspaper, it's printed and online.

So it should cover exactly what you're talking about.

I just think where there are opportunities to make things easier on folks, we should do it rather than trying to make it as hard as possible.

Like, if nobody's gonna read the newspaper, why are we making people do something extra?

Okay, let's not go.

I have more people who read the paper than go online and I will work.

I have a lot of seniors.

But let's move on because we have to uh we have to go to the next amendment.

So amendment um six is the next one, and this is so this one.

I try to explain this best I can.

Um basically the new state law took effect July 1st.

So that means right now, during the until we get this passed, this if somebody comes in with an application, they're subject to the state program.

Problem is we have changed this again with the current mayor when he was alderman even for the past nine, ten years to make improvements on the state legislation.

But the problem is we lose all that with the state.

We have no basically we lose our conservation threshold, we lose our fee and lie, we lose um the mitigation priorities that we've set aside, all those things we lose because right now we're undergoing the state.

So even if this passes on whenever our next last meeting in July, if somebody submits in this window, they could make the legal argument that they're subject to the laws of the time of application, which would be um the state laws.

And so to in order to avoid that ambiguity, what I'm proposing is to add this section at the end of the legislation.

We've taken this approach in the past that basically just says that anything approved on the interim this past 30 days um is going to be is going to have to that this legislation applies to anything that doesn't have final approval.

And so if they've submitted, they're gonna have to comply with the new law, which is going to be our new law updated with the state code.

So yeah, that's basically it, and I oh uh yes, um city attorney.

Yeah, just one thing that I think we need to take a look at.

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of including this in here.

The the final clause in here where it says accept that this ordinance does not apply to any application that is vested under Maryland law, including an application vested under the Maryland Housing Certainty Act.

I I do maybe want us to look at that issue.

I I understand the intent of the language, but and for those who aren't aware, the Maryland Housing Certainty Act is gonna come into effect, I believe, in October, and the goal of that is to basically say we want developers to have some certainty when they get uh approvals, they are then vested um early, rather than Maryland right now is a late vesting jurisdiction.

So we're gonna let them vest under current law for I think it's five years.

But we just want to make sure that I don't want I I wouldn't want this language in here to mean that somehow this ordinance isn't going to apply to projects that vest under the Maryland Housing Certainty Act, because we clearly intend that this new ordinance will apply to all those.

But the I think your point, Alderman Savage, here is well taken in that we want to make sure that if you don't currently if you don't have a forest conservation plan that's been finally approved, um, this is going this law is going to apply to you.

Yeah, that's yeah, I think we're aligned on this.

Yeah, I am happy to reword this, but um, there are questions about this underlying intention with this amendment.

I was not my raising my hand.

Sorry, I was scratching my neck.

I know I was waiting for you.

I no, I just have an issue with newspapers.

All right.

So all right.

If there are no questions on this, then uh Mr.

Chair for rules would uh be what do you think about proceeding with some of the votes?

So we weren't gonna vote on much, maybe a couple of amendments, the ones that are more straightforward, uh such as amendment three, which is the timeline, the annual reporting uh timeline that made sense to me if you felt that that was okay, unless Alderman Thought, if you had a uh um a motion to on any of these amendments.

I mean, I would open the floor for that.

I just I think at our next meeting is when we wanted to uh officiate everything.

I I would be willing, if my fellow member of the rules committee would be willing to put together a motion that says the rules committee recommends approval of all these amendments.

I I don't know that I need any further discussion.

I just wanted to give Alderman Shandemeyer an opportunity to look at over this meeting since he'll be at our next meeting, um, most likely uh just in case he had questions or thoughts.

I just did want to exclude him from that conversation.

Um that's mainly why I'm saying that too.

Also, give us more opportunity uh to look over it.

But yes, if if that's all right, are we gonna but postpone these amendments until our next meeting?

I can approve them since I was on the legislation.

Okay, so uh let's if you're okay with that, Alderman uh Thorpe, uh make a motion for amendment two.

Let's start at the top, amendment two.

We can uh make a motion to uh give a positive or favorable recommendation for amendment two.

Amendment two, yes, starting with amendment two.

Uh well I can do that, but I I'm gonna repeat myself five times.

Frank, make the motion to approve amendments.

Right.

Does anybody hold out on amendment four if that's okay?

Uh that's a little lengthier, um, as well as amendment five, but um Aldman Shannon, excuse me.

Aldman Shannon is not here to see that.

So Alderman Thorpe, if we can move maybe two, three, and uh six, I'd be comfortable with that.

Okay.

I move that the rules committee recommend approval of amendments two, three, and six.

All right.

So there's a second for a favorable recommendation for amendment two, three, and six.

All in favor, thank you.

Mr.

Chair, yes, before you conclude, can I just suggest one of the reasons for doing the joint meeting was to make sure we limit staff time?

So I think before you adjourn, make clear if you're gonna need staff at the next meeting to continue any dialogue on these amendments.

Yes, our next official meeting, because this was a special meeting, is I believe July at the end of July, I think the 20th-third at noon.

So that's our official meeting.

This is a special meeting.

That's when we'll be able to hopefully he can um zoom in, and if not, then we'll I just want to give opportunity for him to maybe give some feedback and thoughts from Alderman Shannon.

Um, but that's our official meeting where we can finalize everything.

That's what we were thinking.

Can I just ask a question?

So I I'm super inclusive here, so nothing I'm about to say.

Am I looking to leave out any Alderman and specifically Alderman Shannemeyer?

But are you saying we're gonna bring back the staff?

And or are you just saying that we're gonna have an opportunity for the three of us to discuss?

Oh, yeah, at that point, we wouldn't necessarily you wouldn't necessarily have to come unless we have questions we can email you or something.

But we've I think got the majority of the questions and thoughts today, unless you had any uh left over.

Um so no, that would be a meeting where we're literally gonna go through the remaining amendments and the actual legislation and just move forward on it.

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

I mean, I just don't want to bring back the city attorney and the deputy city manager and and Brian and and all that.

Um, right.

That is our official meeting the 23rd.

So whoever normally would come would come.

Um it wouldn't be additional staff time because that's the meeting we usually have.

Unless you really think if we can make a final decision today, this that'd be ideal for everybody, including environment can right.

But again, it but if some if somebody still has to come to the next rules meeting, including us, the kind of defeats the purpose of doing this today.

I don't have to do that.

You don't have the the that's not what it's about.

The our next rules meeting, we have multiple things on the agenda and it'll include this, and it's just giving a little more time for the larger amendments, and if we have questions, we'll email, but there's no need for anyone else to come back and answer any questions.

We've asked most, I'm just giving us a little more time.

Not gonna rush through everything all in one day.

I'm not one, I'm not gonna do that.

Um, so we're given this.

Yeah, so the amendments were two days ago.

About uh I received those, I believe two days ago, if that's not incorrect.

Two of them are extremely extensive.

Um the other three, which we just passed a little more straightforward.

Our next meeting, we'll finalize everything.

I think I think we'll still be in time to add it to our agenda for our council meeting at the end of July.

If that's correct, we'll have time to do so.

And then we can move forward on making sure we get this enacted uh by state law standards.

Just to confirm, our meeting is the 23rd.

Yes, and the city council meeting is the 20th.

Twenty seven twenty seven twenty seventh so that's enough time.

Okay.

Yeah, we've talked about it.

That's why I'm saying this do we have to adjourn in order for them to vote yeah, you have to vote on the legislation as so we're postponing can we not postpone the we're moving to postpone the uh the main legislation because we we can't I mean the other amendments aren't yet incorporated in which ones are left which is five and four four and five five and four yeah four and five were not acted on yeah we didn't act on those two.

Okay so but that raises my question maybe four is the most substantive but that is also where we really need the office of law so again for the sake of time I'm just wondering you said you want to dig into that a bit more I'm just worried that's gonna bring staff back again but so who we're gonna have at our next meeting are we not gonna have anyone here on the 23rd again that was the point of today is to make sure we didn't have to do that.

I would probably be here anyway that's not so the 23rd meeting we had originally plan and it was staying no matter what I mean that's our that's our that's our monthly meeting the 23rd not for this particular legislation.

Oh but this will be added to finalize the this to move forward on the other amendments you don't necessarily have to be it's okay if you're not able to be here's no worry we're gonna get through it we'll ask the questions ahead of time and we'll just move it move along I'm just saying for these two amendments alongside the main piece of legislation we shouldn't rush on that just immediately as if that meeting will still give us enough time to add it to the agenda.

Okay, your point on four is four was not controversial right I was the one who asked questions about it and then I determined that they were not actually related to the amendment well let's let's let's let them conclude because we need to conclude for the studio um so have you concluded your actions for rules and I have to do this I think making a motion so for the legislation can we move to um postpone the final legislation and if not we just won't do anything.

Okay no action on that thank you all right so I have to have the adjourned okay we're moving to adjourn uh this yeah is we're moving to adjourn this meeting so moved all right I'll second that okay no objection thank you blessings all right and then readjourning environmental matters for our vote on this legislation is there a motion from the floor to move uh any of the amendments I would uh Chairman Savage I'd like to make a motion to move amendments two three four and six uh to favorably rec to move them yeah I'm moving those amendments is there second to that fine second all those in favor of recommending O sixteen twenty six with amendments two three four and six um please say aye aye our motion carries thank you and um we'll just deal with the six or five on the floor is fine all right I think that concludes environmental matters thank you I'm gonna oh yes so all the four but you need to make a recommendation on the entire legislation we just did we have grouped it all into one including the amendments I didn't hear that okay just yeah thank you and um motion to adjourn is there a second second all right all those in favor please say aye aye motion carries thank you meeting is adjourned have a good evening