Council refers Carr's Manor annexation petition to public works and planning for study

The Annapolis City Council on June 16 accepted for preliminary review a petition to annex roughly 7 acres known as Carr's Manor and referred the matter to the Department of Public Works and Planning & Zoning for technical analysis and recommendations.

The referral came after more than an hour of public testimony in which neighbors split between opposing annexation — citing cost, taxes, existing septic and wells and concern about development — and residents who support annexation and said the area lacks reliable sewer and water service. Petitioner representatives told the council the parcel is largely surrounded by city property, is close to existing utilities and that failing septic systems and a high water table created environmental and public-health concerns.

Why it matters: Annexation would change which government provides sewer, water and other municipal services. The council’s referral asks departments to analyze what municipal services would be required, recommend a priority for capital improvements, and identify likely sources of funding — all steps the council said are necessary before any legislation would be drafted.

Petitioners and council discussion Attorney Alan Hyatt, speaking for the petitioners, said the petition meets the technical filing requirements and asked the council to refer the item so city engineers can work with petitioners on a utility plan. Petitioner Rob Bontempo, who owns property in the neighborhood, told the council the area contains a mix of older homes, some too small to support modern septic systems, and said prior annexation attempts dated to the late 1990s and early 2000s had failed for non-technical reasons.

Several longtime residents opposed annexation at the meeting. Christine Costello and other neighbors said their septics are working and said they feared higher taxes and development if the city annexed the street. Karen Nemes and others said much of the petition drive was led by owners who do not live on the affected lots and asked the council for a transparent, independent cost and impact study.

City staff and council guidance Acting City Manager Jackie Geld told the council the city had only accepted the petition for administrative processing and had not validated that it is complete; she said departments will need to confirm outstanding technical and procedural information. Alderman Ottoman Savage, who led the council discussion, said the vote would not be a final decision to annex but would direct departments to work with petitioners to develop the information the next council can use for a formal hearing.

Motion and next steps A motion by Alderman Ottoman Savage to refer the petition to Public Works and Planning & Zoning and to direct petitioners to work with those departments on the municipal-services description, priority of improvements and funding sources (city code section 2.52.30(e)) carried on voice vote. The council instructed departments to return technical findings to a future council; any ordinance or resolution to effect annexation would be introduced only after those studies and a formal public hearing.

The city set aside funds in the current fiscal year to support annexation work, but staff emphasized that no final city position on annexation had been taken. The petitioners and neighbors were urged to remain engaged through follow-up meetings with Public Works and Planning & Zoning.

Ending: The referral completes the statutory “preliminary review” step; if departments and petitioners produce a package acceptable to the council, the matter would return for a public hearing and, potentially, for ordinance drafting in the next council term.