Annapolis holds heated public hearing on accessory dwelling unit ordinance

The Annapolis City Council held a public hearing Monday on ordinance O15-25, which would revise the city's accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules. Supporters and opponents packed the chamber and urged the council either to adopt the changes to expand housing options or to withdraw the bill for more study.

Proponents argued ADUs increase housing supply without substantially changing neighborhoods. Max Gross, speaking for the Anne Arundel County Association of Realtors, said ADUs provide "gentle density increases" that can help keep younger workers and families in Maryland. "Accessory dwelling units are an excellent use of something referred to as gentle density increases," Gross said, asking the council to pass the ordinance.

The nut graf: The hearing revealed deep disagreement about whether this version of O15-25 would further housing affordability or instead enable investor-driven conversions that reduce long-term housing and neighborhood cohesion. Opponents repeatedly warned that removing residency requirements and allowing larger ADUs would fuel short-term rental (STR) growth and developer activity rather than create stable affordable housing.

Opponents told the council the changes would be a net harm. Katie McDermott urged the council to withdraw O15-25 and said the bill removes an owner-occupancy requirement and would expand opportunities for out-of-state or corporate ownership. "This eliminates the residency requirement and it expands the opportunities for corporate ownership," McDermott said. Trudy McFaul, who said she has owned an ADU for 44 years, argued the owner'presence requirement is essential oversight: "I am a firm, firm believer ... that the owner needs to be present on the property with an accessory dwelling unit."

Multiple speakers tied ADUs to ongoing problems with short-term rentals. Several residents said the city already struggles to enforce existing STR rules and warned that loosening ADU limits would make enforcement harder and accelerate the conversion of long-term housing into transient units. Ben Sale told the council the timing, shortly before an election, was politically fraught and that enforcement had been inconsistent.

Planning staff and the planning commission's report were frequently referenced during remarks. Opponents noted the planning commission had recommended unfavorably, saying it expects adverse consequences for neighborhoods and that the bill as drafted could work at cross-purposes with stated ADU goals.

Speakers urged different remedies: some asked for a coordinated package addressing ADUs, duplexes and STR regulation together; others asked for a moratorium on STRs while the council considers ADU changes. Laurie Sullivan, who said the proposal would effectively rezones neighborhoods without adequate engagement, recommended the council slow down and work the three related bills together.

The hearing closed without a final vote on O15-25; council members received written material and testimony and indicated more discussion and possible amendments may follow. A copy of the planning commission findings and submitted written testimony were accepted into the record.

Ending: Council members can consider changes in committee or on later readings; no final action on O15-25 was reported during the meeting.