Annapolis Rules & City Government Committee Meeting - October 3, 2025
Annapolis Rules & City Government Committee Meeting - October 3, 2025
The Rules & City Government Committee of the Annapolis City Council met on Friday, October 3, 2025, from 3:31 PM to 5:50 PM in City Council Chambers. The committee considered seven pieces of legislation, including accessory dwelling unit requirements, historic duplexes in R2 zoning, the Tyler Avenue Complete Community overlay district, a business revitalization district regulation change, exempt service job classifications, the Market House lease, and a city council compensation commission charter amendment. Key votes included the failure of the ADU bill after amendments, no recommendation on the duplex bill due to lack of a second, favorable recommendations for the Tyler Avenue overlay and BR district change, and no action on the Market House lease due to ongoing negotiations.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Katie McDermott (50 Franklin St.) spoke on O-15-25 and O-18-25, urging the committee to require owner occupancy and prohibit short-term rentals to prevent investor conversions. She cited a citizen audit on Charles Street finding ~60% of properties were short-term rentals (legal and illegal), and warned that without safeguards, investors would buy duplexes and raise rents to $1,500/night. She recommended a six-month moratorium and a comprehensive housing plan.
- Keith Bouchard (18 Brice Rd.) and Jody Danek (2981 Friends Rd.), representatives of the Market House tenant (New Market House, LLC), stated they had agreed to nearly all city requests in the revised lease and expressed interest in a longer term to justify investments in bathroom upgrades and other improvements.
- Laurie Sullivan (25 Wagner St.) cautioned the committee that negotiating a lease extension eight years before expiration created a negative public perception of backroom deals, noting that 20-year leases are standard, not 50, and that other downtown small businesses do not receive similar terms.
Discussion Items
O-15-25: Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements (ADU)
- Sponsor Alderman Schandelmeier explained that the bill removes the owner-occupancy requirement to align with 2023 FHA loan changes, which prohibit such restrictions for ADU financing. He offered Amendment 2 to retain owner occupancy for short-term rentals to address proliferation concerns.
- Alderman Arnett opposed the bill, arguing it removes the family-oriented purpose of ADUs ("granny flats") and opens the door to investor speculation. He stated the comprehensive plan already targets 700 new affordable housing units and that this approach is unplanned and antithetical to the plan. He noted the Planning Commission unanimously disapproved the bill.
- Alderman Schandelmeier countered that ADUs provide smaller, affordable rental units and cited his own experience living in a non-owner-occupied ADU as a young renter. He argued that under best-case scenarios, only 2% of lots would gain an ADU.
- Eric Leshinsky, Chief of Comprehensive Planning, stated his department supports the bill and noted that the current ADU law (since 2021) has not produced a windfall of construction or neighborhood nuisance.
- Alderman Savidge offered a floor amendment (later numbered Amendment 3) to cap ADUs at 10% per block face, with a possible increase to 30% after a mobility assessment. Staff expressed concerns that the 10% cap was too low and would hamper ADU construction.
O-18-25: Re-Allowing Historic Duplexes in R2 Zoning Districts
- Sponsor Alderman Huntley (not present) sought to allow duplexes in R2 districts where they resemble existing single-family homes.
- Eric Leshinsky supported the bill, calling it a modest incremental change consistent with the comprehensive plan. He noted about a quarter of R2-zoned properties would be affected, and that duplexes historically characterize Annapolis.
- Alderman Arnett opposed, reiterating concerns about unplanned density and potential for developer-driven conversions, particularly in lower-property-value areas. He argued the bill does not address infrastructure or community services.
- Alderman Schandelmeier supported the bill, stating it could produce cheaper homes (e.g., two $330,000 units instead of one $450,000 tear-down renovation) and help retain young families.
- Alderman Savidge offered a floor amendment similar to his ADU cap but withdrew it after discussion; Alderman Arnett moved to change the cap from 10% to 30%, but the motion failed 1-2.
O-29-25: Tyler Avenue Complete Community Overlay District
- Eric Leshinsky presented the overlay for the Tyler Avenue corridor from Forest Drive to Bay Ridge Avenue. Goals include safer streets, expanded housing options, and community open space. Key provisions: maintain 35-foot height limit, reduce minimum lot size for single-family homes to 2,700 sq. ft., allow duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes and cottage clusters, require a 10-foot public easement for streetscape improvements. He noted upcoming striping and parking formalization within a month.
- Alderman Arnett expressed initial concern about lack of retail incentives but ultimately supported the bill, calling it "capital P planning." He moved to recommend favorably.
O-30-25: Business Revitalization District Regulation Change
- Eric Leshinsky explained the bill increases floor area ratio from 2.0 to 2.5 to align with height limits in the BR district (Clay St./West Washington St.). Two amendments from sponsor Alderman O'Neill: one allowing rooftop structures up to 12 feet, and one striking a geographically restricted clause (Ward 8 only) to make boundary-consolidation citywide.
- Alderman Arnett noted the FAR increase is a short-term fix but hoped future code reform would replace FAR with better measures.
O-34-25: FY 2026 Exempt Service Job Classifications
- Acting City Manager Buckland briefly presented. The bill updates the list of exempt service positions.
O-33-25: Lease of City Property – Market House
- Acting City Manager Buckland stated a revised lease (redline) had been sent to the tenant, who provided initial feedback; negotiations are ongoing with a goal to finalize by the October 15 finance committee meeting.
- Alderman Finlayson expressed support for a longer lease to ensure tenant investment, but noted she had not seen the final terms. Alderman Arnett preferred to wait for a completed contract. The committee took no position.
- Alderman Schandelmeier praised the current tenant's success and cautioned against pushing too hard on lease terms, which could drive away a local operator.
CA-1-25: City Council Compensation Commission (Charter Amendment)
- Acting City Manager Buckland and Legislative and Policy Analyst Reuter presented the charter amendment, which removes the City Manager's compensation from the commission's duties and moves the article to under the City Council. A separate charter amendment (CA-2-25) would adjust the deadline for commission recommendations. Staff noted potential contradictions between the two bills. The committee took no action to allow CA-2-25 to proceed through committee first.
Key Outcomes
- O-15-25 (ADU Requirements): Amendment 1 (Schandelmeier – increase size limit to 1,200 sq. ft., allow tap into main water/sewer, fee exemption for long-term rentals) passed 2-1 (Arnett nay). Amendment 2 (Schandelmeier – retain owner occupancy for short-term rentals) passed unanimously. Amendment 3 (Savage – 10% cap per block, up to 30% with mobility assessment) passed 2-1 (Finlayson nay). The bill as amended failed 1-2 (Schandelmeier aye; Arnett, Finlayson nay).
- O-18-25 (Historic Duplexes): Arnett's amendment to change cap from 10% to 30% failed 1-2 (Arnett aye; Schandelmeier, Finlayson nay). Motion to recommend the bill favorably failed for lack of a second; the committee took no position.
- O-29-25 (Tyler Avenue Overlay): Recommended favorably unanimously on voice vote.
- O-30-25 (BR District Change): Amendment 1 (rooftop structures) and Amendment 2 (boundary-consolidation) each passed unanimously on voice votes. The bill as amended recommended favorably unanimously.
- O-34-25 (Exempt Job Classifications): Recommended favorably unanimously on voice vote.
- O-33-25 (Market House Lease): Motion to take no action due to ongoing negotiations carried on voice vote.
- CA-1-25 (Compensation Commission): Motion to take no action (to allow CA-2-25 to be processed) carried on voice vote.
Meeting Transcript
Uh Alderman's uh Arnett and Alderman Chandlemyer are present and um I'm not seeing the council chamber, so I can't see who else might be there. Um could you fix that on my camera, please? We have a couple folks in the audience, madam chair, who may want to testify for some things, and Alderman Savage is still here for uh amendments and possibly his own legislation. Okay, so uh I was just taking the roll and I'll acknowledge that Alderman Chandlemaier uh is joining us. Uh I will begin by approval of the agenda. Uh Ms. Jackson, we have something to add to the agenda, I believe. Yes, Alderman. Yes, madam chair, I move we amend the agenda to add CA 125. Okay, can I get a second? Second. All right. All in favor of the agenda as amended, please say aye. Aye. Okay. Next item is approval of the minutes. The term ending minutes from September 9th, 2025. Motion. So moved. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay, going on to legislation. Uh the first is 01525, accessory dwelling unit requirement. Uh Alderman. Channel Meyer, this is your legislation. Would you like to speak to uh the changes that I'm looking at? Yes, madam chair. Uh so the legislation removes the current owner occupancy requirement that we have for accessory dwelling units in the city. When we first passed the our accessory dwelling unit law in 2021, uh the FHA did not allow for loans to be granted to get them, but in 2023, the FHA changed its regulations to allow for accessory dwelling units to receive uh for A to Us to qualify for FHA loans, but one of the caveats is they cannot be in jurisdictions with rental restrictions. Um and owner occupancy requirements are one of those restrictions. And page 18 on the regulations for of the new updated regulations showcase that. Um I understand a lot of the concerns that planning and zoning staff have around short-term rental proliferation. Uh, we do have an amendment later on to address that to keep the owner occupancy requirement for short-term rentals. Uh, and then I also have on another amendment some other changes for some other things that have been blocking accessory dwelling unit construction here in the city and emerging as barriers. Okay, I'm looking at the legislation now, and it looks like there are two uh changes, and one does speak to owner occupancy, and the other uh uh, and that's on page three, and the other on page four deals with uh licensure. Are those two amendments you're referring to? So that is not the amendment I was referring to when I was originally trying to draft this. Uh we were trying to deal with the concern of how can we prevent both from being short-term rented? And that was one of my ways to try and tackle it, but with amendment two, which still maintains the owner occupancy requirement for any short-term rentals. Uh that portion on page four lines 10 through 12 will be a bit moot. Okay, so you're you have an amendment to your own legislation. The first amendment the first amendment one. Uh, so I guess I'll move that so we can discuss it. So I'd like to move amendment one. It's been moved properly or seconded. Is there a second to open discussion on amendment one? I'll second so we can discuss, but I'm opposed. Okay. So uh we gonna discuss the legislation itself.
openpublica.com