Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Archaeologists, preservationists and residents urge council to revise Bill 14‑25 after warnings it would shift decisions to developers
Summary
Bill 14‑25, which would change how archaeological resources are reviewed on development sites, drew broad opposition from professional archaeologists, preservation organizations and residents. The council voted to hold the bill to March 17 to allow more work on amendments.
Bill 14‑25, a proposed change to Anne Arundel County’s subdivision and development code governing archaeological resources, prompted extended public comment and expert testimony at the March 3 county council meeting and was placed on hold for further work until March 17.
Supporters of the current county process — including former county cultural‑resources staff and professional archaeologists — told the council the bill would remove or weaken the county’s ability to require preservation and would allow developers to choose data recovery and site destruction without sufficient county control. “Bill 14‑25 would upend the county’s ability to protect its archaeological resources in a meaningful way,” said Jane Cox, a professional archaeologist and former administrator of the county’s cultural resources program. Cox said Phase 3 data recovery should remain “an act of last resort” after alternatives are exhausted.
Paul Spadaro, president of the Magothy River Association, said the bill was “a giveaway to the development community” and warned that developer‑funded reports can be biased. “By making the developer responsible to write historic reviews…only leads to abuse,” he said, citing a prior review he described as failing to identify known historic resources.
Office of Planning and Zoning staff told the council they had concerns about the bill’s current draft. Deputy Planning and Zoning Officer Christina Pompa summarized letters from state and regional preservation professionals and said the proposal appeared to shift critical decisions away from county professionals. Darien Beberangan, acting planning administrator for cultural resources, explained that the bill as drafted would allow an applicant to submit a Phase 3 data‑recovery plan that the county could review but that the language lacked objective criteria to deny or require additional mitigation. Kelly Kenny, supervising county attorney, said the Office of Law is working on possible amendments to provide clearer approval criteria and a stronger role for OPZ.
Following public testimony and council discussion, Councilman Volkke moved to hold the bill until March 17 to allow additional drafting and stakeholder engagement; the motion carried 7–0. Council members said they had heard expert and citizen concerns and invited the administration and Office of Law to develop amendments addressing criteria for approval, exhaustion of alternatives before Phase 3, and other procedural safeguards.
Why it matters: Bill 14‑25 would change how the county balances development with preservation of irreplaceable archaeological sites, including unmarked burial grounds and sites of cultural significance. Professional witnesses argued that the county should retain clear, objective authority to require preservation and that the current draft lacks sufficient safeguards. The council’s decision to hold the bill reflects a desire for more work and broader stakeholder input before any final vote.
What’s next: The council asked the administration and Office of Law to draft potential amendments and to engage preservation professionals and community stakeholders ahead of the March 17 meeting.
