The Annapolis Rules and Government Committee voted to recommend favorably on Ordinance O-3024 — an update to Title 21 of the zoning code addressing fence permit requirements and clarifying provisions on "light and air" obstructions — after the sponsor substituted a revised amendment and the committee removed a proposed privacy-fence restriction.

Alderman Savage, the ordinance sponsor, told the committee she withdrew three earlier amendments and presented a substitute amendment (amendment 4) that rewrote the legislation to simplify it. "I would ask that the committee take no action on amendments 1 through 3 because I'm going to be I'm not gonna be introducing them," Savage said.

Under the substitute language described by the sponsor, the code would: require fences along forests or open space with no homes within 50 feet to have gaps equal to at least 50 percent of the fence surface; prohibit "privacy fences" (defined as constructed primarily of non‑translucent material with minimal openings) within 10 feet of a facing window on an adjacent property; and give the planning and zoning director discretion to adjust fence height on rear or side yards with slopes of 15 percent or greater.

Committee members debated the privacy-fence prohibition at length. One alderman argued the 10‑foot rule would effectively bar privacy fences across many R‑2 zoned side yards where side-yard setbacks typically are six feet. After discussion, the committee approved a motion to strike subsection b (the privacy‑fence prohibition) and the accompanying definition from the substitute amendment. The motion was adopted by voice vote.

The committee also directed staff to add language to the ordinance allowing nonconforming fences to be requested "by special exception" (Cynthia Reuter, Office of Law, read the proposed language back to the committee: "at the end of 5 a, it'd be a comma, or other fences by special exception."). That special‑exception path would allow property owners whose proposed fences do not meet the new minimums to seek relief.

The committee and staff discussed the 15 percent slope threshold used in the substitute amendment. City Attorney Mike Lyles cautioned that the question raised was primarily spatial/technical rather than legal: "This is not a legal issue. It's a spatial issue..." Participants asked whether the code should reference "15 percent grade" or "15 degrees," and staff said they would confirm standard drafting and correct the technical phrasing before the full council.

Committee members also noted the planning director had reviewed and supported the amendments in concept. The committee voted to recommend the ordinance to the full council as amended; the recommendation was by voice vote and no roll-call tally was recorded in the committee record.

The full council will receive the ordinance, the substitute amendment and the committee's recommendation; committee members said they expect any remaining technical fixes (slope wording and drafted special‑exception language) to be handled prior to or on the council floor.