Annapolis committee amends fence-permit rules, delays final vote for fiscal review

The Annapolis Rules and City Government Committee on a virtual session advanced and amended proposed changes to the city’s fence-permit rules in Title 17 while postponing final approval until staff supplies a staffing and fiscal-impact statement.

The committee adopted a set of amendments that sponsor Alderman Savage said were meant to close a loophole exposed by a recent ward case in which a long perimeter fence was removed without a permit. “What I found out… was that a significant length of fence — I think over 600 feet — was removed without a permit,” Alderman Savage said, and the proposed code change would make clear that large removals require a complete application.

The key amendments the committee approved were: removing a 400-foot exemption so that no existing fence may be removed or demolished without a complete application; requiring applicants to show existing trees of a certain size within three feet of the proposed fence on scaled drawings; and changing the building board of appeals’ discretion to a duty to reverse or modify orders that are contrary to the code. Alderman Arnett moved the first amendment (removing the 400-foot threshold) and the committee voted in favor by voice. Arnett also moved the tree-proximity amendment, which passed. Sponsor Savage’s two technical amendments (one restoring inadvertently stricken language and one changing “may” to “shall” for the board’s corrective duty) were also approved by the committee.

Planning staff warned the changes would increase review time. Planning Department staff told the committee they already review required items when available but that the proposed ordinance likely will produce more returned applications, more site visits, and more appeals. Director Jakubiak (planning director) estimated a modest fiscal impact for additional staff time — roughly $10,000 to $12,000 annually — based on an increase of about a half hour of review per fence application and additional administrative work. He told the committee the department processed 189 fence permits through Dec. 1 and approved 174. “We would anticipate spending more time on fence applications,” he said, adding that more appeals could also require staff attendance at hearings.

Committee members debated scope. Several members, including Arnett, argued for removing the 400-foot carve-out entirely so that any demolition or removal triggers the application requirement; Savage said he would accept that broader wording. The committee also discussed whether the requirement that trees be shown would force homeowners to retain professional surveys; staff and members said the code language only requires a scaled drawing that can be hand-sketched in many cases, not a full topographic survey, but that practice and interpretation should be clarified in guidance.

The committee did not complete final action on the ordinance. After the amendments were adopted, members moved to postpone final committee approval so staff could provide a complete staffing and fiscal-impact note and so the office of law could confirm technical wording. The motion to postpone passed by voice vote.

The postponement means the committee’s amendments will be forwarded as committee-level changes and the revised ordinance will return for further review once staff reports are attached. In addition to the technical adjustments the committee approved, members asked the administration to clarify enforcement practice, how appeals are notified to applicants, and how the code’s application standards will be interpreted in day-to-day reviews.

The committee’s discussion included multiple references to Title 17 of the Annapolis code, the building board of appeals, and the department’s internal review practices. Staff and committee members said the changes are intended to restore code provisions they said were already written but not consistently enforced, while balancing homeowner burden and staff workload.

The committee indicated it will revisit the ordinance after staff provides the requested fiscal and staffing impacts and any clarifying legal advice from the law office. Until then, current permit practice remains in place.

Ending: The committee’s amendments change how the city will require documentation for fence removals and installations and narrow the appeals board’s discretion; final committee recommendation to the full council is postponed pending staff impact documents and legal review.