Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.
The Transportation and Environment Committee of the Montgomery County Council, chaired by Councilmember Evan Glass, met on October 19, 2026, to consider two items: legislation on forest conservation for agricultural brush management (Bill 35-26) and the facility planning study for the New Hampshire Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor. The committee took unanimous action on both items.
Councilmember Marilyn Balcombe, the bill sponsor, explained that the legislation streamlines the approval process for routine vegetation maintenance on agricultural land by removing the requirement for pre-approval from the planning department when a landowner has an approved soil conservation and water quality plan. The bill originally specified two categories of exempt activities, but the Planning Board proposed an amendment to simplify the language, exempting "agricultural activities" that are performed under an approved conservation plan. The committee heard from Christina Soranto and Kelsey Desmond from the Planning Department, who supported the amendment as a clearer version of the bill's intent, and Mike Scheffel from the Office of Agriculture, who noted the existing pre-approval process created timing challenges for farmers.
Councilmember Balcombe expressed disagreement with the Racial Equity and Social Justice (RESJ) impact statement's conclusion that the bill could burden equity focus areas, arguing that the exemption already exists and streamlining would not affect tree removal or replanting. Chair Glass acknowledged the difficulty of applying RESJ analysis to this sector.
The committee voted unanimously to adopt the Planning Board's amendment and then passed the bill as amended without objection.
The committee received a presentation from MCDOT's BRT team, led by BRT Implementation Manager Jamie Hinson and Project Manager Justin Willitz, along with consultant Adat Diain Amdhar from Kittleson & Associates. The study covers the 8.5-mile corridor from Eastern Avenue to Randolph Road, with 70 percent of the corridor within a half mile of an equity area. Current peak-hour bus speeds average under 10 miles per hour.
The team presented five alternatives. After analyzing travel time, cost, and impacts, they developed a "hybrid alternative" (Alternative 5) that combines curbside bus lanes in southern segments, mixed-traffic operations with queue jumps in constrained segments, and additional curbside lanes in the north. This alternative provides the best balance of travel time improvements for BRT, local buses, and general traffic, at an estimated capital cost of $114 million (excluding $28 million in rolling stock).
Key stakeholder support was noted: the Prince George's Council preferred the hybrid alternative; the City of Tacoma Park supported it and requested coordination with its New Avenue Bikeway project; the State Highway Administration supported both Alternative 2 and the hybrid; and the Montgomery County Planning Board recommended advancing the hybrid alternative.
Councilmember Kate Stewart, whose district covers part of the corridor, emphasized the importance of a one-seat ride to Fort Totten and the need to integrate with the Tacoma Park bikeway and pedestrian safety improvements.
Good morning, everybody. It is Monday, October 19th. Welcome to the Transportation and Environment Committee. We have two items on the agenda today. First is Bill 3526 forest conservation trees applicability brush management. And the second item is a thorough uh review on the New Hampshire Avenue BRT facility planning study. But first, I will turn it over to Councilmember Balcombe as Bill 3526 is her piece of legislation. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Whoops. And gone for four days. I don't know how it works. Thank you, everyone. So the just to preface the sole purpose of this bill is to streamline the forest conservation approval process for routine maintenance on agricultural land by clarifying the jurisdiction over the approval process. Current code provides an exemption for brush management, specific brush management activity with specific parameters. However, the landowner must apply for that exemption from planning. This takes time and money, and in most cases is redundant with the work that the soil conservation district has done. This bill does maintain the exemption, just re uh removes the requirement for approval. There is an amendment in the packet, and if you would like to turn it over to Mr. Gorzak. I would very much like to turn it over to Mr. Gorzlock. Absolutely. Thank you, Chair Glass. And if it's all right, I'll run through everything, including that amendment, just because I think it's best to have that whole conversation together. As Councilmember Balcom indicated, um, under existing law, any person who expects to cut clear or grade more than 5,000 square feet of forest or any champion tree must request an exemption from the forest conservation law set forth in Chapter 22A of the county code. Um and prior to performing that work, even if there is an applicable exemption, a landowner must receive confirmation from the planning director that the activity is not, in fact, exempt. Um so as introduced, what bill 3526 would do would clarify the relationship between agricultural activities and the exemption process. So as introduced, there were sort of two different groups of activity that would be that it would be very clear that the requirements of Chapter 22A do not apply, and that the landowner would not need this pre-approval from the planning director prior to engaging in those activities. The two very narrow activities. One was work performed in accordance with the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Services, Field Office Technical Guide, and also with an approved soil uh and uh water quality, uh soil conservation and water quality plan from the soil conservation district. And the second was a very narrow uh limited work and performed in accordance with uh the USDA's field office technical guide, uh, standard 314 for brush management. The the law just basically just says if you're performing work within one of those two categories, then you the the landowner can go ahead and do that work without the pre-approval process from the planning department. Um quickly running through the impact statements which are set forth in the packet. Uh the Office of Legislative Oversight indicated no impact for climate assessment, a negative impact for RESJ, positive impact for economic impact, and uh the uh Office of Management Budget indicated no financial impact. There was uh uh some testimony largely in support of the bill, um, some indication um to make sure that the there was a clear process to ensure that it was not um improperly used. This amendment was not and properly used to clear forests rather than manage brush and invasives. Um and most importantly for conversation today, the planning uh board planning department um submitted testimony um suggesting that the language was a little bit unclear in its opinion, um, and proposed alternative language that is set forth in the staff report on page three. Uh the planning board's amendment is again intended to address just concerns raised by the planning department in its public testimony that it was just a little bit unclear and a little bit too complicated what was going to fall in and what was not going to fall in. Um so very simply what the planning board's proposed amendment um does is it deletes pretty much all of the new language that was going to be set forth in the bill. Um and it's it's I'd say fair very fairly within the the the confines of the bills introduced, so there's not any sort of public notice issues or anything like that. And it just proposes new language that would say that the requirements of this chapter, chapter 22A, do not apply to agricultural activities, which is a defined term, including routine vegetation maintenance performed on land that has a soil conservation and water quality plan approved by the soil conservation district. I will note that that language I just read has been very, very slightly modified by central staff completely non-substantively, um just to make it a little bit of cleanup. Um my understanding is that this was intended to be sort of a non-substantive amendment from the planning department in that is aimed to achieve the same goal as what the lead sponsor had set forth, um, which is to say that when landowners are performing agricultural activities, such as like routine vegetation maintenance, what we think of as true agricultural work, um that when you have a an approved soil conservation and water quality plan from the SCD, then you do not need to get this pre-approval from the planning department. Um the committee did invite um representatives from the department of uh the planning department as well as from the Office of Agriculture if the committee has any questions. Uh thank you very much for for that overview. Uh if our guests from uh planning and from the Department of Ag can come on up, that would be helpful. And if everybody could just introduce themselves quickly,