Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Exceptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Director Kubak lays out Annapolis special‑exception zoning process and staff/board roles
Summary
Director Kubak told the Economic Matters Committee that special exceptions are impact‑based zoning uses decided by the board of appeals after a public hearing; staff prepares reports but the board makes findings under code section cited in testimony (21 26 050, A–G).
At the May 6 Economic Matters Committee hearing, Director Kubak briefed members on the city’s special‑exception process, telling the committee that a special exception is a use allowed only after a public hearing and findings under the zoning ordinance.
Kubak said the primary decision‑maker is the board of appeals, which conducts a public hearing, applies the standards set out in the zoning code (he cited section “21 26 050,” standards A through G) and issues findings. Staff prepares detailed reports addressing each enumerated standard to help the board, but staff is not the adjudicator and the board may accept or reject staff reports as evidence.
He described the intent behind special exceptions as a policy tool to evaluate uses with potentially unique local impacts—examples discussed included gasoline/convenience stores, restaurants and outdoor dining—where the ordinance delegates an impact test to the board rather than making the use permitted by right.
Committee members asked about checks on staff discretion. Kubak noted that parties to a special‑exception case may cross‑examine staff at the hearing, that the board may require further studies, and that staff sometimes works with applicants in advance but remains responsible to present an unbiased analysis for the board’s consideration.
Kubak acknowledged that many of the ordinance standards are qualitative and require judgment and that the council could make certain uses permitted by right subject to specific, measurable standards if it wished to reduce discretionary reviews.
The briefing helped frame subsequent committee discussion about whether some uses (for example, outdoor dining) might be reconsidered in the code so staff could approve them administratively if objective standards were specified.
