Committee backs O-3324 appeals process for Annapolis property development as amended

The Housing and Human Welfare Committee voted to recommend favorably to the full City Council Ordinance O-3324, a measure that revises the appeals process for property development in Annapolis, after debating two committee amendments and a proposed timeline change.

Committee members discussed two committee amendments in depth. Amendment 1, offered on behalf of the Rules and City Government Committee (Finlayson amendment), would have inserted the phrase “after the last” to require the Board of Appeals to reach a decision within 40 days from the date of the last hearing. The committee recommended an unfavorable recommendation on Amendment 1, with members and a city director arguing the phrase could be read to allow multiple hearings on a single issue and create confusion about when the decision clock starts.

Director Chris Jakubiak, who the committee said helped draft the ordinance, told the committee the bill as drafted is legally sufficient and that the clock starts at adjournment: “When the hearing ends, the chair adjourns the hearing as opposed to recess. At the adjournment, that is when the clock starts to tick.” Committee members used that explanation to support rejecting Amendment 1.

The committee also considered a proposal to shorten a scheduling deadline from 45 days to 30 days. Committee members debated tradeoffs for volunteers on the Board of Appeals, calendar timing (whether a 30-day deadline could cross a monthly meeting cycle), and potential burdens on small homeowners. A motion to adopt a 30-day deadline was brought for debate and voted on by the committee; the record indicates no change was adopted and discussion moved on.

Amendment 2, from the Economic Matters Committee, removed the words “in person” from a line that had read “parties to the appeal shall be heard in person at the hearing,” so the ordinance would state simply that parties shall be heard at the hearing and shall not be required to appear in person. Committee members said the director signed off on that change to allow flexibility for virtual appearances; the committee voted in favor of Amendment 2.

After those decisions the committee moved and passed a motion to recommend O-3324, as amended, to the full City Council. The committee chair formally moved a favorable recommendation and the committee voiced assent; the record shows the motion passed with no recorded opposition.

Committee members said the ordinance has been reviewed in multiple committees and that staff and boards and commissions implicated by the ordinance had been consulted. Members asked that the city law office review any lingering wording questions before the full council to ensure clarity around timing and procedure.

The ordinance and its committee amendments will appear before the full City Council for further debate and final action.