Annapolis committee postpones fence-permit overhaul after members raise scope and enforcement concerns

The Annapolis City Government Committee on Oct. 26 postponed consideration of O30-24, an ordinance that would revise fence- and wall-permit requirements in City Code Title 21, after committee members and city legal staff raised questions about scope, administration and unintended consequences.

Alderman Gavin Savage, the bill sponsor, told the committee the ordinance was meant to clarify an existing provision that "fences and walls shall not be located to unduly obstruct light and air from neighboring properties or public ways." He introduced a consolidated "Amendment 4" combining earlier drafts, law-office copy edits and planning commission recommendations, and said the goal was "to provide some more clarity to what I think was the original intention of that code." (Alderman Savage)

Committee members and staff pressed the sponsor on several provisions they said need rework. Legal staff and the planning director warned against language that would make an applicant's right contingent on approval by adjacent property owners. "Generally, in constructing zoning ordinances, we don't want to make a right contingent on the approval of someone else," said a representative from the Office of Law, who cautioned the committee to avoid giving private neighbors veto power over otherwise lawful development.

Director Jakubiak and other committee members suggested alternatives. One proposal that drew support would replace a requirement for "written approval from adjacent property owners" with review or approval authority vested in the planning director or department, so neighbors' concerns could be channeled through staff review rather than a private veto.

Members also questioned proposed new limits on maximum fence height, and how the ordinance would treat ordinary vegetation or fences that are already in place. Alderman Arnett said the draft risked "taking away a property owner's right" if it applied too broadly; other members noted many existing side- and rear-yard fences in residential zones likely would not satisfy the planning commission's suggested definition of an "open fence." Savage acknowledged those concerns and said he would consider narrowing the measure, including possibly removing the proposed height cap.

The planning commission recommended reframing the "light and air" language to an "openness" concept and offered a definition the ordinance would adopt; staff and several aldermen said the way that definition is combined with a four-foot threshold in the draft could make many existing fences noncompliant. The committee also heard clarification from Cynthia Reuter, legislative analyst with the Office of Law, that a change in citation style (switching to a section symbol and condensed reference) was an office preference and not a substantive alteration of existing code.

After discussion, the committee voted to postpone action so the sponsor can revise Amendment 4 and meet with staff, including the director of planning and zoning and representatives from the Historic Preservation Commission. The committee recorded the motion to postpone and voted in favor.

Savage said he will "take this back to reword it" and work with staff to address the concerns, including the adjacent-owner approval language, the open-fence definition, and whether to exclude historic-district rules from the proposed changes. The ordinance remains active but will return to committee after the sponsor and staff draft clarifying language.

The committee's postponement halts the ordinance's progress pending those revisions; no permanent decisions were adopted at today's meeting.