Annapolis committee backs ordinance adjusting appeals process, pauses amendment allowing broader new evidence

Alderman Brooks, chair of the Economic Matters Committee, said the committee met virtually on May 21 and moved O-3324, an ordinance described in the meeting as governing the appeals process for property development in Annapolis, out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended.

The committee’s action followed extended discussion about whether on-the-record appeals should allow any new evidence, and, if so, how broadly. Alderman Solomon Savage, who introduced a simplified version of an amendment he had proposed earlier, described it as a limited exception that “just basically says things are still gonna be conducted as, on the record, but it does allow the chair to, allow new evidence at their discretion.”

The issue mattered to committee members because on-the-record appeals typically focus on whether a prior decision was made using the information available at the time. Director Jakubiak explained that a de novo hearing “starts from the beginning” with witnesses and cross-examination, while an on-the-record appeal reviews whether the director made an error using the existing record. He said allowing new evidence could trigger additional fact-finding, including further hearings, depending on how broadly a chair exercised discretion.

Assistant City Attorney Ashley Leonard told the committee she would consult colleagues who handle appeals more regularly before giving a definitive legal opinion. “I would like to speak with the 2 attorneys in my office, Carrie Berger and Jessica Caracci, who handle these more regularly,” she said, adding that some cases alleging an error or inaccuracy could already be addressed under current procedures without a separate amendment.

Members discussed practical examples in which new evidence might be important. Savage said an inaccurate property survey discovered after a decision could be critical to an appeal: if a structure appears to be on one property but a corrected survey shows it is on a neighbor’s lot, the new survey could change the factual basis for the decision. Committee members also raised a hypothetical about discovering habitat for an endangered species after a decision; staff said whether that would count as new evidence would be “very case specific.”

Following discussion, the committee voted to take no action on Amendment 3 while requesting a formal opinion from the law office on the scope of new evidence in appeals. The committee then moved O-3324 forward with its current set of amendments — recorded in committee as Amendment 1 receiving an unfavorable recommendation and Amendment 2 receiving a favorable recommendation — and gave the ordinance a favorable recommendation as amended.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to approve the agenda as amended (removing AP 29 and AP 34): approved (voice vote). - Motion to approve minutes of the May 16 meeting: approved (voice vote). - Motion to approve a block of reappointments to multiple boards and commissions (Claire Conger; Ryan Chipwood; Nadine Chen; Bill Williams; Christina Aist; Patricia Dawn Moyer; Craig Harrison; Peter Trojan; Alan Miller): approved (voice vote). - Motion for no action on Amendment 3 to O-3324: approved (voice vote). - Motion for a favorable recommendation on O-3324 as amended (Amendment 1 unfavorable, Amendment 2 favorable): approved (voice vote).

Committee members said they did not intend the law office consultation to delay the ordinance’s progress; several members emphasized they wanted clarity on whether existing procedures already permit the types of evidence changes Savage described. The committee did not adopt a standing rule expanding the scope of on-the-record appeals; instead, it sought a legal opinion and moved the ordinance forward.

The committee adjourned after completing the agenda.