May 4th: An Important Date for Years to Come
As many of you know, one of the biggest agenda items for local building industry groups this year was the scheduled phasing in of the new Stormwater Management regulations which were to apply to projects that had not achieved “final approval” for their erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans by May 4, 2010.
THE CONCERNS:
The stormwater management regulations implementing the 2007 Stormwater Management Act were causing a lot of concern to developers and builders mainly for two reasons:
- The grandfathering provisions were not very favorable for projects in the pipeline that may not be able to achieve “final approval” prior to May 4, 2010; and
- The regulations as written may have had the effect of making infill development and redevelopment more difficult and therefore less attractive as a development site – especially problematic since a major tenement of “Smart Growth” relates to reducing suburban sprawl through infill development and redevelopment of existing sites.
Building and housing industry groups were gearing up to testify before the House Environmental Matters Committee on HB 1125 on Wednesday, March 10th, but this meeting was canceled in light of the announcement that a new compromise had been reached (kudos to MML, MACo, NAIOP, CBF, 1000 Friends, MDE and MSBA for their roles in reaching this agreement). Under the compromise agreement, Maryland Department of the Environment will issue emergency regulations to revise the stormwater requirements that more fully address these two chief concerns.
THE COMPROMISE:
Grandfathering: Those projects that have received some sort of preliminary approval (but not “final approval”) prior to May 4, 2010, may be granted an administrative waiver by the local jurisdiction. A project that has been granted an administrative waiver will not be required to meet the new regulations, but will be governed by the stormwater ordinance in effect as of May 4, 2009 in the jurisdiction where the project is located. The administrative waiver will expire if the project does not attain “final approval” by May 4, 2013, or begin construction before May 4, 2017.
The administrative waiver may be extended, but ONLY IF the project has received a “Preliminary Project Approval” prior to May 4, 2010 AND was subject to a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement, a Tax Increment Financing approval, or an Annexation Agreement. An extension granted under this circumstance will expire when the DRRA, TIF, or Annexation Agreement expires.
Redevelopment Sites: The emergency legislation will define redevelopment as “any construction, alteration, or improvement performed on sites where existing land use is commercial, industrial, institutional, or multifamily residential and the existing site impervious area exceeds 40 percent.”
For all redevelopment projects, the stormwater regulations require reducing imperviousness, implementing ESD to the MEP to provide water quality treatment for one-inch of rainfall, or using some combination of these for at least 50% of the existing impervious area.
There are several alternative stormwater management measures that may be considered if addressing 50% of the site’s impervious area cannot be accomplished. These include a combination of ESD and on-site or off-site structural Best Management Practices (BMPs), or other options including:
- participation in a stream restoration project;
- pollution trading with another entity;
- Watershed Management Plans;
- payment of a fee-in-lieu; and/or
- Partial Waiver of the treatment requirement to the extent that ESD is not practicable.
In deciding what alternatives measures may be required, a local government may consider:
- whether the project is in an area targeted for development incentives, such as a PFA, a designated Transit Oriented Development (TOD) area, or a designated BRAC Revitalization and Incentive Zone;
- whether the project is necessary to accommodate growth consistent with comprehensive plans; and
- whether bonding and/or financing has already been secured based on an approved development plan.
CONCLUSIONS:
I think this is a good compromise for all: it doesn't water down (pardon the cheesy pun) the intent of the Stormwater Management Act because all new projects will be required to comply with the new regulations - but it does give those projects that have made substantial progress fair footing in terms of allowing them to be constructed according to the rules in which they began the often costly and time intensive process of developing property. The next step, of course, will be the drafting of the emergency regulations implementing the terms of the compromise. I'll track the progress here to keep you posted.
For more information, check out this story in today's edition of the Baltimore Sun by Timothy B. Wheeler. Hat tip also to the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association for their advocacy efforts on behalf of their members and the industry.
Last week, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting with Brad Beeson, the Director of Marketing for .jpg)
.jpg)
have introduced some interesting bills relating to green building. Here's a synopsis of four of those bills:
I mentioned last week that I learned a lot both from the instructor as well as from my classmates during my "Green Building for Building Professionals" course. The instructor of the course, 
n early February, I took the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) “.jpg)
If you're interested in news and original commentary on green building, environmental laws, and other sustainability initiatives impacting Maryland, follow me on Twitter 
It's true - and this Council is charged with some pretty important responsibilities (expanded by 
There are a couple of interesting upcoming events and presentations concerning green building and smart growth in Maryland that you may want to consider attending..jpg)
Now, on to S. 1816 – let’s begin with a few basic facts:
