Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents question rushed sale of Spy Road parcels after soil-contamination studies
Summary
Speakers at the July 14 meeting urged caution over ordinance O20-25, which would transfer Spy Road parcels to an authority for $1 while remediation and reuse remain unclear. A longtime local attorney and other residents said recent environmental reports show contamination and urged fuller disclosure and planning before a transfer.
At the July 14, 2025 meeting, the Annapolis City Council took public comment on ordinance O20-25, a proposed sale of city-owned property at 932 and 935 Spy Road to a resilience authority for $1. Several residents urged the council to slow the process, citing recent environmental findings and unanswered questions about future use.
Dan Clements, a local attorney and a member of the Spa Creek Conservancy household, summarized past planning on the parcels and flagged new environmental work. He said a 2018 plan to place townhouses on the site was abandoned after studies showed deep soil contamination and that the Maryland Department of the Environment had indicated excavation to remove contamination could require digging 10–15 feet and could cost “at least $10,000,000.” Clements said a more recent “stage 2” study he reviewed showed contamination on both sides of the creek and that the ordinance’s text provides no specific use or remediation plan for the parcels.
“The ordinance … says you’re going to sell it for a buck to the resilience authority, and that’s all it says,” Clements told council. He said the city and the authority planned to pursue federal grant funding and that the sale appeared rushed to meet application deadlines; speakers asked for more clarity on how grant funds would be used and whether remediation would precede construction.
Council members and staff confirmed that additional hearings and committee review would follow; no action was taken on O20-25 July 14. The ordinance drew repeated questions about setbacks from Spa Creek — a 100-foot setback is used in some Department of Environment guidance — and whether planned uses would comply with setbacks and sediment/contaminant controls.
The council closed the public hearing on O20-25 and indicated staff and the relevant committee will return with additional information. Residents urged the body to provide a clearer remediation plan and to identify how grant funds and remediation responsibilities would be assigned before any transfer occurred.
