Annapolis committee revises outdoor-dining rules, keeps special-exception review in place

Annapolis Finance Committee members on Feb. 19 voted to favorably recommend changes to the city’s outdoor-dining ordinance (O-10-24) that will allow restaurants to seek seasonal outdoor-dining permits lasting 3, 6 or 9 months within a calendar year, while leaving intact the city’s requirement that restaurants secure a special exception under the zoning code.

The ordinance’s amended text says a permit "shall be valid for 3, 6, or 9 months from January 1 to December 31, and the months do not need to be continuous, but need to be specified," language the committee adopted after several rounds of amendments.

Why it matters: The ordinance affects restaurants, residents and the city’s land‑use process. Committee members framed the changes as a way to preserve outdoor dining that surged during the COVID era while protecting nearby residents through the special‑exception review and by setting hours and other conditions.

What the committee decided and why: Alderman Arnett, who introduced the ordinance, said the measure ‘‘is very clear … outdoor dining is very popular amongst the patrons, and it is also popular with the restaurants.’’ Alderman O’Neil and others pushed for more flexibility in permitted months after meetings with restaurant owners who said nine months would better match local conditions and customer demand.

The committee rejected an amendment from Alderman Savage that would have removed the special‑exception requirement. City Attorney Michael Lyle advised that removing the special exception without changing the zoning code would be "legally insufficient" because restaurants are currently allowed only by special exception under Title 21 of the zoning code. Lyle told the committee: "You can't remove the special exception without changing your zoning code relating to restaurants first." Alderman Finlayson said she opposed that amendment for the same legal reasons.

On timing and continuity: Committee members debated whether the permitted months should be contiguous and how to balance restaurant flexibility with resident expectations. The committee accepted an amendment specifying that the permitted months need not be continuous but must be stated in the application so the city can enforce the schedule.

Hours and other operational rules: The committee also approved targeted time exceptions for certain public areas and granted limited extensions for defined locations during holiday weekends. Multiple amendments clarified that special exceptions, once granted, are not subject to annual review unless the applicant seeks a change.

Enforcement, ADA and permitting mechanics: Committee discussion included where appeals and review authority should rest (the city attorney advised that some proposed transfers of appeal authority would be legally insufficient), and members removed redundant noise‑mitigation language that the Office of Law said was already covered elsewhere. Policy staff and the city attorney said changes to the zoning code would be required before any action that attempted to allow restaurants as a matter of right.

Reaction and next steps: The committee debated whether the council should postpone a third reading after the committee’s amendments; Alderman Arnett said the mayor may reasonably ask whether the volume of amendments justifies delaying the final vote so the public can review changes. The committee’s favorable recommendation moves O-10-24 to the full council, where passage or further amendment is possible.

Ending: The ordinance, revised through multiple amendments, now heads to the council for consideration and possible additional review; the committee flagged that substantial edits might prompt a postponement of the third reading to give the public time to review the final text.