Committee hears update on Admiral Oaks; planning issues citation over water intrusion

The Annapolis Housing and Human Welfare Committee heard an update on the Admiral Oaks apartment complex May 29 after city planners said an engineering firm’s review into water intrusion into units had not yet produced a final report.

City planning representative Albert Manasa told the committee the city had moved to issue a municipal citation to the property owner and manager citing a failure to maintain a watertight foundation, walls and roof structure. “It's a thousand dollar fine,” Manasa said, adding the municipal code provision that authorizes that fine also allows the city to issue the penalty on a weekly basis if the owner does not correct the violation or engage with the city.

The committee was told the engineering firm has been on site but had not yet returned a written report. Planning staff said they observed opened sheetrock, visible water under baseboard trim and what appeared to be mold behind walls during on-site inspections, and that a mold remediation firm has been retained by the property’s consultant.

Why it matters: planning staff said the action targets the most critical condition for building longevity and resident safety — persistent water intrusion into occupied units on the ground floor — and that the citation both levies a fine and requires abatement plans or permits. If the owner contests the citation, the matter is handled through the city’s Office of Law and the municipal infraction proceeds toward a court docket.

What the committee was told and next steps: Manasa said the citation requires a response within a short deadline (he described it as approximately one week to respond, either to pay/comply or to contest). If the owner neither contests nor responds, the city can issue repeated weekly citations at the statutory amount until the owner responds. Planning staff also told members they have stopped issuing rental licenses for ground-floor units in the garden apartment buildings while the problems remain; staff did not present a current, verified count of displaced households and said they would follow up with the committee on occupancy and relocation status.

Committee members asked whether units had been formally condemned; planning staff said they have not condemned units at this time and that formal condemnation would require additional action and would trigger landlord obligations under state law for rehousing when applicable. The committee asked staff to report back with the number of impacted families and whether formal condemnation or other enforcement steps are required.

No final decision on demolition, receivership or other long-term remedies was taken at the meeting; the citation and any ensuing court action were described by staff as the immediate enforcement pathway.