[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6569542,"mediaKeyId","3181302-ec049a6d36db991c283ebcf306dcc02b","parentId",3181302,"title","Annapolis committee backs ordinance to expand home-based childcare and align city rules with state standards","audioSeconds",1711,"startMs",3153000,"endMs",4864000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3181302-ec049a6d36db991c283ebcf306dcc02b&start=3153&end=4864","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3181302-ec049a6d36db991c283ebcf306dcc02b/thumbnail_3153000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6569542/Annapolis/Anne-Arundel-County/Maryland/Annapolis-committee-backs-ordinance-to-expand-home-based-childcare-and-align-city-rules-with-state-standards","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569542-ee2e8a07d58b3b6dfe1fcbf01fbb1a06/orig.mp4?Expires=1776087297&Signature=fQuVHEXQpgAQ5rKgOeZIHd4gtPGQk3hELKcGxr4NsDzyWBEGxRIi9OBMQEHKIf0SV1j81dp44nN0Pq79d6JXfLlL8FJhGteeyd5kd0WheVUnoRs2FYAjsL5CsD986E0~Tsqi~~8QAfihBv3svKntNeOVVNEwT7LcZvVgg~-WH3L6BWe03q9JzfuA-8gLJ9sMhZ2nHZQQa4bjUAlv400XVlQfNMAQMfXHr~JftUOGn16VxX~tv39kLCwO409EdC7jpwKYm-DSXjFe1zElgzp~iT~7hro4Nm3VD1hMX~nKiel9NbDdUjwyHN4MUmfBve0QK7U7ug~8dw1ka5EYfzrdQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Annapolis, MD","date","2025-05-02T18:23:06.7Z","article","The Annapolis City Government Committee on Oct. 26 voted favorable recommendations on a package of changes to the city's childcare rules (filed as O125) and forwarded the ordinance to the full City Council with committee members and sponsors continuing work on one remaining drafting detail.

Sponsor Alderman Gentlemeyer summarized the measure as \"three moving pieces\": aligning city childcare regulations with recent state updates, allowing \"large\" family childcare homes (9 to 12 children) where state law permits, and removing a local restriction that limited nonresidential employees at home-based childcare sites. (Alderman Gentlemeyer)

Committee members voted in favor of two sponsor amendments and ultimately recommended the overall ordinance for council consideration. Amendment 1 removes certain off-street parking requirements for family childcare homes to reduce the development burden on small, home-based providers; Savage described that change as a response to the reality that pick-up and drop-off patterns, rather than long-term employee parking, drive most daily demand. Committee members who represent dense neighborhoods said they were sympathetic but warned about potential spillover parking impacts.

Amendment 2 fixed an inadvertent drafting error that would have allowed larger childcare facilities in environmentally sensitive \"critical areas.\" Alderman Savage and staff described that correction as an important catch; the committee voted to recommend the fix.

A third change, proposed at the Education Commission's suggestion, would remove the city's separate outdoor-play-area standard for childcare centers and rely instead on state standards found in COMAR (the Code of Maryland Regulations). City staff clarified the relevant COMAR citations and agreed to clean up the amendment's text before final council consideration. The sponsor withdrew an initial motion on that amendment to allow reworking of the language but asked that the committee forward the overall ordinance to the full council with the expectation the amendment will be finalized before final council action.

Director Jakubiak, who had reviewed the drafts with the sponsor, called the measure \"an important piece of legislation\" that \"ensures that the city code is compliant with the state definitions and code and generally allows for daycare facilities.\" (Director Jakubiak)

The committee discussion also included brief debate about where parking limitations should remain in place: some members asked that constraints be retained in certain neighborhood commercial (NC) districts to avoid adding curb parking pressure in dense areas. The sponsor agreed the language could be tailored further to address district-specific concerns.

After discussion and a small number of procedural corrections to draft COMAR citations, the committee voted to give a favorable recommendation to O125 and authorized the sponsor to refine the Education Commission amendment before full Council consideration. Multiple aldermen joined as sponsors at the committee's request.

If approved by the City Council, the ordinance would permit family childcare large (9\tto 12 children) consistent with state law, eliminate some city-level parking requirements for home-based providers, correct the critical-area drafting error, and align outdoor-play-area standards to COMAR for childcare centers.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Rules and City Government Committee May 2 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Annapolis City Government Committee on Oct. 26 voted favorable recommendations on O125, a package of changes that would allow larger home-based childcare (9\tto\t12 children), remove some city parking requirements for family childcare homes, and align city outdoor-play standards with state COMAR rules.","taxTitle","Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland","taxId",59348,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6569546,"Annapolis committee postpones fence-permit overhaul after members raise scope and enforcement concerns",2697,444000,3141000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3181302-ec049a6d36db991c283ebcf306dcc02b&start=444&end=3141","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3181302-ec049a6d36db991c283ebcf306dcc02b/thumbnail_444000.jpg","/articles/6569546/Annapolis/Anne-Arundel-County/Maryland/Annapolis-committee-postpones-fence-permit-overhaul-after-members-raise-scope-and-enforcement-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569546-d0846125280399c49fb9b72315c164ae/orig.mp4?Expires=1776087297&Signature=OaNgSc6Ro2XHvEp8rBNL4GfyvST-M25btuWiNdO4rmT0vUPIfhWfNmsQcO5SY0cH83NN3j9bpFQT~~~CmVPKYan~pz9UM~ypJnFOYl5G8j1eokN6aaZ0Lw8CjLfWLUe876~NrRRiHWEunp095WTDVaOsvoWZ-ZBM~Z7crSBNLDTeF9vtyAoUVkL8ebuoi~dS--UqAS3IitML9p2E5hnPFA0ufrRRblo~KG-sutJ8hG4B27VWCsMFmisMwsXDcEyJRrr0xXHC2wNm-f9jE6ibats0CBdhQdRfpyMf0pN-cuTahXsn5UyRqTfxEctw0lqZzKOrOUxShAjaJ3G5V3w4Dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Annapolis City Government Committee on Oct. 26 postponed consideration of O30-24, an ordinance that would revise fence- and wall-permit requirements in City Code Title 21, after committee members and city legal staff raised questions about scope, administration and unintended consequences.

Alderman Gavin Savage, the bill sponsor, told the committee the ordinance was meant to clarify an existing provision that \"fences and walls shall not be located to unduly obstruct light and air from neighboring properties or public ways.\" He introduced a consolidated \"Amendment 4\" combining earlier drafts, law-office copy edits and planning commission recommendations, and said the goal was \"to provide some more clarity to what I think was the original intention of that code.\" (Alderman Savage)

Committee members and staff pressed the sponsor on several provisions they said need rework. Legal staff and the planning director warned against language that would make an applicant's right contingent on approval by adjacent property owners. \"Generally, in constructing zoning ordinances, we don't want to make a right contingent on the approval of someone else,\" said a representative from the Office of Law, who cautioned the committee to avoid giving private neighbors veto power over otherwise lawful development.

Director Jakubiak and other committee members suggested alternatives. One proposal that drew support would replace a requirement for \"written approval from adjacent property owners\" with review or approval authority vested in the planning director or department, so neighbors' concerns could be channeled through staff review rather than a private veto.

Members also questioned proposed new limits on maximum fence height, and how the ordinance would treat ordinary vegetation or fences that are already in place. Alderman Arnett said the draft risked \"taking away a property owner's right\" if it applied too broadly; other members noted many existing side- and rear-yard fences in residential zones likely would not satisfy the planning commission's suggested definition of an \"open fence.\" Savage acknowledged those concerns and said he would consider narrowing the measure, including possibly removing the proposed height cap.

The planning commission recommended reframing the \"light and air\" language to an \"openness\" concept and offered a definition the ordinance would adopt; staff and several aldermen said the way that definition is combined with a four-foot threshold in the draft could make many existing fences noncompliant. The committee also heard clarification from Cynthia Reuter, legislative analyst with the Office of Law, that a change in citation style (switching to a section symbol and condensed reference) was an office preference and not a substantive alteration of existing code.

After discussion, the committee voted to postpone action so the sponsor can revise Amendment 4 and meet with staff, including the director of planning and zoning and representatives from the Historic Preservation Commission. The committee recorded the motion to postpone and voted in favor.

Savage said he will \"take this back to reword it\" and work with staff to address the concerns, including the adjacent-owner approval language, the open-fence definition, and whether to exclude historic-district rules from the proposed changes. The ordinance remains active but will return to committee after the sponsor and staff draft clarifying language.

The committee's postponement halts the ordinance's progress pending those revisions; no permanent decisions were adopted at today's meeting.","The City Government Committee postponed action on O30-24, a revision to fence and wall permit rules in City Code Title 21, after questions about who may approve deviations, a proposed citywide height limit, and definitions that could render many existing fences noncompliant.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Annapolis committee backs ordinance to expand home-based childcare and align city rules with state standards

Annapolis committee postpones fence-permit overhaul after members raise scope and enforcement concerns