Annapolis officials have a goal to establish 50 percent tree canopy cover.
Annapolis officials have a goal to establish 50 percent tree canopy cover. (File photo)

New legislation to protect forests and trees from development in Annapolis could set a standard of no net loss thanks to a proposed amendment that would require developers to replant everything they cut down.

The amendment proposed by Alderman Jared Littmann, D-Ward 5, would require developers to replace every removed tree. The amendment is attached to the city's new version of its Forest Conservation Act legislation, which has been in the works for years.


Annapolis has not had its own law and instead has referenced the state's law when approving developments.

The city's legislation seeks to strengthen protection of its forests from development while still giving developers some leeway when building near streams, cutting down trees and submitting plans to the city. The new version of the law also requires public meetings on impacted forests and allows the city's Planning Commission to consider forest conservation plans when making decisions on developments.

"I don't know if this (bill) is better than the last one, but it has the support of several councilmen from different perspectives," Littmann said. "(We came) up with language that the four of us could be comfortable with."

Five sponsors on the council have signed on, including bipartisan support from Alderman Sheila Finlayson, D-Ward 4, and Mayor Mike Pantelides. Previously there were two versions of competing legislation, with Finlayson the sponsor of one and Littmann, Alderman Ross Arnett, D-Ward 8, and Pantelides sponsoring the other. Alderman Joe Budge, D-Ward 1, also supports the bill.

That sponsorship could be tenuous based on the history of the city's law, which has bounced back and forth in the council. If the five sponsors remain, the legislation could have an easy path, pending any radical changes that cause aldermen to jump ship.

Having no net loss would make it easier for the city to reach its goal, set in 2006, of 50 percent tree canopy coverage throughout the city by 2036.

David Iams, chair of the Planning Commission, wondered how the city would ever reach its canopy goal if developers are able to cut down trees.

The commission met June 2 to discuss the law and recommended the city carry through with the no net loss amendment. The commission plans to meet Wednesday to release and approve its findings on the new law.

"We can't lose anymore forest," Iams said. "How will we ever get to 50 percent?

Apart from trying to maintain council support, the amendment could face state challenges as the Department of Natural Resources has pushed back against local laws strengthening the reforestation thresholds. This is despite an attorney general's opinion that supports local threshold laws being stricter than the state law — a disagreement that has not been finalized.

DNR essentially certifies that the city's law meets state standards, and if the department believes the threshold is too strict, they could kick the law back to the city.

A DNR spokesman wouldn't comment specifically if DNR would certify the city's law, but did say conversations with the city have been going well.

In a phone interview, Pantelides called the forest conservation bill one of the core pieces of legislation before the council alongside efforts to revamp the city's adequate public facilities rules.

By establishing its own set of forest conservation rules, the city creates a road map for its developers while providing protection to its environmental assets, Pantelides said.


The mayor supports the legislation as written and said Littmann's amendment should be considered as a separate piece of legislation. He said he is supportive of no net loss thresholds, but he was concerned it would put the city at odds with DNR and may jeopardize the whole bill.

A lot of work has been put into this legislation to find compromises for all sides, he said.

"There are people that have extremes on both sides: Some people wanted unlimited growth and others want to save every tree, and we wanted to strike a balance," Pantelides said.

Developers are likely to oppose Littmann's amendment. Space in the city is sparse, so having somewhere to replant the trees would prove a challenge and could stall development.

One Annapolis developer said in an email the provision wasn't "workable," but declined to comment further.

If Littmann's amendment is defeated, he wouldn't say whether that would shatter his support for the legislation.

"I don't have a straight answer for you," Littmann said. "I'm definitely pushing for the amendment. I'd be willing to consider alternatives, but it would be difficult."

As it stands, the Forest Conservation Act is trudging through the city's legislation process.

It was introduced May 9 and was sent to a variety of committees and commissions. It isn't slated to appear for a public hearing during Monday's meeting.