1.  First, the Executive laments that the twenty-four-inch measure proposed is “arbitrary.” Perhaps, to the extent that this forest conservation bill incrementally improves upon the State-mandated thirty-inch minimum, which is itself arbitrary. And despite what’s said in the veto letter, there’s good precedent for exceeding that arbitrary minimum both here and in a neighboring jurisdiction: already in this County’s two historic districts—historic Ellicott City and Lawyers Hill in Elkridge —any tree twelve inches or greater in diameter is protected; and already in Montgomery County, trees twenty-four inches or greater are deemed “significant” and so deserving of a “tree save plan.” More compelling, though—and as we spelled out at the introduction of this particular legislative change in July 2021—is that countless trees twenty-four inches in diameter, and smaller even, already should be protected pursuant to current State and County mandates, but they never, ever are. Any dogwood tree, for example, eighteen inches’ diameter or greater already is deemed highest-priority conservation, but you will not find one identified on any forest delineation plan submitted to the County’s Department of Planning and Zoning, or any waiver request to fell them. That’s because in applying for and considering site development plans, the submitting developers and the approving County read out the second part of a two-part State minimum: what must be protected are both (i) trees of a certain prescribed diameter (whether thirty inches or twenty-four) and (ii) those with diameters at least 75% of the State Champion Tree. Howard County’s published Maryland Champion Trees, March 2020 lists all kinds of trees that already are eligible for forest conservation protection at diameter measures far less than twenty-four inches.
2. A second stated reason for the Executive’s veto of this forest conservation bill is that a twenty-four-inch measure does not distinguish among native, non-native or invasive trees. We do not disagree, but neither does the current thirty-inch measure. Rather, that kind of distinction is addressed elsewhere in the County Code (as recently even as a result of the Executive’s own CB62-2019, which repealed and reenacted the Forest Conservation of Howard County) or by more detailed regulation, which as the veto letter itself mentions, includes the County’s 180-page Forest Conservation Manual.
3. Last, the Executive alleges that a twenty-four-inch measure will likely increase Department of Planning and Zoning staff time “by at least 50% for each plan and request.” Besides such a claim being at odds with what the Director of that Department reported directly to the Office of the County Auditor as the legislation was pending, so long as the law is actually adhered to, there would be no additional staff requirement at all. The same number of sites presumably would be visited, the same number of thirty-inch or greater trees would be there—targeted or not for removal, and so would the same number of additional trees deserving protection pursuant to current State and County law because their diameter is 75% or greater of a State Champion Tree. The only additional staff time would result, as the Director described earlier this year, from an incremental increase in additional waivers specific to some subset of trees between twenty-four and thirty inches in diameter, no more. Compare that to the new tree-cutting application/approval process proposed by the Executive in his alternative CB64, and CB78 looks like a downright bargain.