Committee debates changes to appeals process for property development; hearing scheduling, record definition and virtual attendance discussed

The Economic Matters Committee reviewed proposed amendments to the city appeals process for property development (referenced in the meeting as O‑03‑2024 / O‑33‑24). Director Richard Kubiak described the legislation as clarifying when appeals stay local actions and as intended to speed Board of Appeals decisions.

Director Kubiak told the committee, “An appeal filed pursuant to this section does not stay the action from which the appeal is taken unless provided by state law or an order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.” He explained the change is intended to make clear that when an appeal leaves local jurisdiction and goes to circuit court, a court — not the appeal filing itself — determines whether to impose a stay. Kubiak said the code changes apply primarily to appeals that go to circuit court and do not change the state‑law provision that an appeal of an administrative director’s decision to the local Board of Appeals automatically stays the activity under appeal.

The committee debated a set of procedural changes intended to reduce delay at the Board of Appeals. Key elements discussed included a requirement that the Board set a hearing no later than 45 days after the appeal filing (discussion of changing to a 60‑day window arose), a requirement that hearings be “conducted expeditiously” and new language to define the administrative “record” used by the Board: the record would "comprise the information available to the director at the time the decision being appealed was made." Kubiak said the changes were meant to discourage multiple preliminary procedural meetings and written briefing cycles that have lengthened appeals in some past cases.

Committee members debated several drafting options. Alderman Gay argued for a shorter scheduling window and asked that the code allow virtual participation; he moved to remove the phrase “in person” from a requirement that “parties to the appeal shall be heard in person at the hearing.” Planning staff recommended simply removing “in person” so the code requires parties be heard without mandating physical attendance; the committee approved that change unanimously. Alderman Savage and others asked for flexibility to address scheduling/backlog concerns; staff said the board is required to meet monthly and that a modest extension to 60 days had been discussed but rejected by some members in favor of a firm scheduling target.

The committee considered a rules‑committee amendment that inserted the word “last” so that the Board of Appeals would be required to reach a decision “within 40 days from the date of the last hearing.” Director Kubiak and others cautioned that this language could be misread and that the ordinance already contemplates a single hearing that may be continued; the committee ultimately made an unfavorable recommendation on that rules amendment (committee vote recorded as an unfavorable recommendation) so the proposed insertion will not move forward from this committee.

Committee members also discussed the Board of Appeals’ process for issuing written decisions. Some members raised concerns that delayed written findings can be a further bottleneck; Kubiak said the Annapolis board has generally issued findings in a timely way and that written‑decision timing was not addressed in the current ordinance draft.

The committee voted to postpone final action on the ordinance until the May Economic Matters meeting to allow the director, law office and the Board of Appeals to review outstanding drafting questions. The chair moved to postpone, the motion was seconded and the motion to postpone passed by voice vote.

No final ordinance vote occurred at this meeting. The committee recorded the following formal committee actions related to the ordinance and its amendments: a unanimous committee vote to remove the word “in person” from the hearing requirement (enabling virtual testimony), an unfavorable committee recommendation regarding the rules committee amendment about “last hearing”/40‑day decision timing, and a majority vote to postpone final action to the May meeting so staff and law can refine language. Committee members asked Director Kubiak to return in May prepared to discuss any revised amendments and the board’s procedural rules.