The countdown continues… two Council meetings remaining in this term. Hence, we will have some rather packed agendas for these last two meetings.
Of particular note are 5 pieces of legislation that deal with growth, development, and housing. First up, of greatest concern (and potential impact) to me, is O-14-25. This would double the allowed density in certain Planned Developments along our major corridors. I have an amendment to scale this back and only allow growth if we have a solid plan in place for addressing the associated safety and traffic impacts. More on this legislation below. We also have O-17-25 that would implement a 10% cap on short term rentals per blockface, which is a much needed step. And also O-15-25 (Accessory Dwelling Unit code tweak), O-18-25 (allowing duplexes in R-2 districts as they once were in the past), and O-29-25 (Tyler Ave overlay).
2025 election updates
General election reminder
Even though I was not on the Primary Ballot since it was an uncontested race, I will be on the November ballot and ask for your vote and continued support as I look to serve you for another 4 years. Please considering donating as I hope to send out some additional mailers to voters to better engage everyone.
Need help door-knocking
If you would be interested in joining me in door-knocking, we will be having groups go out every weekend this month. So please get in touch! It’s a great way to meet your neighbors.
Savidge Yard signs
If you would like a Savidge campaign yard sign in your yard, please let me know and I’ll get one to you soon.
Legislative action summary from last meeting
- O-19-25 - Regulation of Tours in Historic Annapolis – postponed (I voted aye)
- O-24-25 - Election Report Deadlines. - postponed (I voted aye)
- O-32-25 - Lease of City Property - 2031-2036 Fall Boat Shows – approved (I voted Aye)
- O-36-25 - Lease of City Property - 2031-2036 Spring Boat Shows - approved (I voted Aye)
- R-35-25 - 181 Prince George Street Sidewalk Easement – postponed and referred to Environmental Matters Committee (I voted aye)
- R-36-25 - Fees for Clearing Snow and Ice from City Sidewalks – approved (I voted Aye)
- R-38-25 - Re-assigning Fiscal Year 2025 and Fiscal Year 2026 Community Grants – approved (I voted Aye)
- R-39-25 - Itinerant Merchant Sales in the Historic District for a Flea Market – approved (I voted Aye as amended)
Stay healthy and stay safe,
Rob
Next Council meeting – 10/13/25 (agenda)
This meeting starts at 7pm and will be televised on local cable, YouTube, Facebook, and the City website. You can submit public testimony at http://www.annapolis.gov/testimony. This will be an in-person meeting.
Public Hearings
There is no legislation up for a public hearing, but you are welcome to comment during the “Comments by the General Public” item towards the beginning of the meeting.
Legislation being introduced on first reader
- R-43-25 - Annual Meeting and Tourism Industry Reception Fee Waiver – this would waive $4,000 in fees associated with this event.
- R-44-25 – A Resolution Calling for Reinvestment in Pedestrian Safety, Transit Access, Affordability, and Climate Action over Highway Expansion – This is hot off the press so I don’t have a copy to share, but this is a Resolution I’ve been working on regarding SHA’s planned expansion of Route 97 to 6 lanes. They are having a press conference on October 20th announcing the first phase of the design process. I have concerns about this expansion. While I do acknowledge the interchange with 50 has issues, and improvements there are certainly needed, I’d like to see this work look at more options besides just auto lane expansion. Both the City and State have agreed to climate goals, Bay restoration goals, and affordable housing goals, yet this proposed expansion works directly against those commitments we have made. We need alternatives to automobile traffic. Expanding 97 compounds the problems as it will increase usage and reliance on autos, given that expanding roads induce demand. More asphalt will have a negative impact on the Bay. The transportation sector represents 30% of our carbon emissions, and our City Dock is flooding because of climate change. So let’s not perpetuate that. Lastly, in order to create affordable housing we need to reduce the cost of living by giving people a cheaper way to get around, such as expanding transit options. Just recently, we had a protest of parents on West street (as state road) asking for more crosswalks and safety measures. I would much prefer that MDOT money go towards these initiatives, and go to supporting the transit plans MDOT and Annapolis (And the County) are already working on. At the very least I think SHA should be looking into incorporating a dedicated bus rapid transit lane and/or planning for eventual installation of a fixed rail system that we could one day connect to. This project is estimated to cost upwards of $135 million, with most of it ($90m) coming from the federal government.
Legislation on second reader (i.e. final vote)
- CA-1-25 - City Council compensation commission - For the purpose of updating the process for setting the City Council's compensation; removing it from the Council Elections Article of the City Charter and inserting it under The City Council Article; and removing the requirement that the Council's compensation commission sets the City Manager's compensation. I’m inclined to support this, pending input from you.
- CA-2-25 – City Council Pay and Benefits Deadline For the purpose of allowing the City Council until the general election to finalize pay and benefits for the upcoming term. This modifies the Charter to give the Council more time to enact any Mayor-Council salary recommendations from the Salary Review Commission. I’m inclined to support this, pending any comments from you.
- O-14-25 - Implementation of Annapolis Ahead Comprehensive Plan 2040 – This legislation would primarily do two things: 1. It would adjust the height allowed for rooftop accessory structures along Dock street downtown, and 2. It would increase the allowable density for planned developments.
For #1, the rationale is to allow accessory structures like elevator shafts in order to allow for roof-top dining, likely associated with a boutique hotel of some kind. We are hoping to activate this part of City Dock in order to attract more foot traffic for our planned City Dock improvements (i.e. the park and usable public space). The previous restaurants that have been located in this area have not done very well; that is why we are looking to enable something new. I have a proposed amendment to modify this to expand upon the definition of accessory structure (as requested by the Planning Commission) and to clearly prohibit any habitable space on the roof, as I want to ensure there are no rooftop rooms offered if it were to become a hotel. I’ve also created a code section and definition for green roofs, which would be enabled as a part of this legislation. Lastly, I’ve improved the setback language to ensure that the historic viewshed is better preserved.
For #2, the Planned Development changes proposed in this legislation would double the density allowed for Planned Mixed Developments and increase the allowable density by 50% for Planned Residential Developments. I have a strong concern about any growth/density that is allowed that does not at the same time address or plan for addressing the associated infrastructure impacts, in particular traffic/transportation and parking concerns. In my view, proper planning should address these things. Hence, I do have an amendment to modify this section to take a transit-oriented development approach rather than a density-driven development approach. The latter is problematic because then we have to deal with the impacts of growth moving forward with only the hope that government will respond. By taking the transit-oriented development approach, we bring developers to the table to ensure they are partnering with us to improve transit/transportation infrastructure we grow. My amendment would reduce the proposed density increase but grant an even higher increase only if the developer signed a Community Benefit Agreement to meet needs such as below market rate housing, environmental enhancements, or transportation improvements. They would also need to adhere to a transportation demand management plan that would ensure they are focused on multi-modal options. It would also require the City to place a Tax Incremental Financing district on these areas to ensure future tax revenue from the increased density goes towards addressing our transit/transportation/safety needs (i.e. building out the solutions). An added incentive for the developers, if they agree to these things, would be a reduced parking requirement so that they can have a better design for their projects. My point with this is, if we have sufficient high value transit, we don’t need as much parking. And ultimately, I am a strong believer that we need to provide for alternative modes of transportation besides cars. Forest Drive is the most dangerous road in the County and we should not take steps that perpetuate that. We need a solution and that’s what I’m aiming for with this and other efforts. Lastly, it’s important to state that with my amendment developers will not be granted the higher density bonuses unless the City has a planned project for high value transit along the designated corridors.
Bottom line, I will only consider supporting this legislation if my two amendments pass. Even then, I am not entirely positive I will support it, because I feel like this legislation, which in my view is very impactful, should be going back to the public and Planning Commission if amended, for new comments and consideration by the Council. Ultimately, I’m inclined to say this legislation can/should wait for the next Council and administration, but I may change my mind if my amendments pass. I would love to hear your feedback on this legislation to help guide my vote.
- O-15-25 - Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements For the purpose of removing the residency requirement for property owners who have an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on their residential property; defining "ownership" in Title 21; limiting short-term rentals to one of the two dwelling units on an ADU property; and generally related to Accessory Dwelling Unit requirements of Titles 21 and 17. This legislation seeks to remove the current code requirement that the owner of the ADU shall reside in either the ADU or the principal structure, and also clarifies that only one structure may be utilized as a short term rental, not both. Since introduction, the sponsor has tried to address some public concerns regarding short term rentals and has introduced an amendment that will state that in order for either structure to be used as a short term rental, one building must be owner-occupied. I feel this is a good way to limit short tern rental usage. Also, I have an amendment to address concerns raised by the public about having too many ADUs in neighborhoods. My amendment would set a 10% cap per blockface for ADUs, and would only allow a concentration up to 35% if a transportation demand study is completed and approved. If this legislation moves forward, I will likely support it if amended as I feel these amendments would address the concerns we have heard. That said, if you have thoughts to the contrary I will consider them.
- O-17-25 - Limiting Short-term Rentals per Blockface – This legislation would set a 10% cap on short term rentals, meaning that any blocks with over 10% STRs would have a moratorium on new licenses. Currently we do not have any cap, so there can be as many STRs on a blockface as the market allows. I don’t agree with that, so I commend my colleague Alderman Huntley for introducing this. Because of this, I am inclined to support the underlying legislation. Moreover, I have an amendment that would make this even stronger, in my opinion. The biggest flaw with this legislation is that it does not provide an actual path to achieve that 10% goal. What I am trying to do with my amendment is create such a path by stating that there will be no new STR permits for two years on streets with over 10% density of STRs, and that in two years we will zero out all existing permits and start a lottery. The lottery will award STR licenses prioritizing City/County owners in good standing first, and only going to out of town owners during the last round of the lottery. This is based on the New Orleans lottery model. I have another amendment that would state that the 10% cap does not apply to owner-occupied STRs. My rationale with this is that it is much less impactful to simply be renting out individual rooms to visitors, as opposed to entire houses for parties. I am inclined to support this legislation, pending input from you.
- O-18-25 - Re-Allowing Historic Duplexes in R2 Zoning Districts For the purpose of allowing duplexes to be built in R2 zoning districts, provided they resemble the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood; and generally related to R2 Single-Family Residence district requirements. This would allow duplexes to be built in R2 zoning districts, provided the architecture fits with the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood. I believe this legislation will be withdrawn, but personally I support the underlying legislation. I see this as being very incremental change, as it would require owners to sell their homes and then be re-built into duplexes. Such a shift will take some time. Plus, this used to be an allowed use. Furthermore, we have entire communities that are duplexes in Ward 7, and I have not heard many concerns about infrastructure issues. That said, I welcome your thoughts on this legislation.
- O-19-25 - Historic tour regulation – This legislation would create a licensing requirement to help prevent predatory, often out of town tour companies from displacing local operations. I support this effort as I’ve seen it done in larger Cities, and I do think it’s needed. However, I believe this legislation will be withdrawn and potentially re-drafted in the future.
- O-21-25 - Annapolis Harbor Lines at 423 Chester Avenue on Back Creek – I do not support any changes to the harbor lines that would narrow the navigable channel. I believe this legislation will be withdrawn. If it is not, I am planning on voting against it, pending input from you.
- O-24-25 - Election Report Deadlines. This seeks to modify the election reporting deadlines to increase reporting and public transparency. While I support improving transparency, I feel the number of reports is sufficient and I’m wary of overloading our Board of Elections. I’ll likely vote against it, pending input from you.
- O-29-25 - Tyler Avenue Complete Community Overlay District – This initiative will lead to an improved Tyler Avenue community by enabling efficient use of lots, improved sidewalks, increased street trees, improved transit, and in coordination with our efforts to re-design Tyler Ave/Hilltop with pedestrian safety in mind. I’m inclined to support this effort, pending input from you.
- O-30-25 - Business revitalization district change – This is a localized change to a particular zoning district that largely impacts Ward 2. Per the staff report, “The purpose of the legislation is to correct a key bulk standard for the BR, Business Revitalization zoning district.” I’m inclined to support this, pending input from you.
- O-34-25 - exempt service classifications change – This is just a technical correction and I’m inclined to support it.
- R-5-25 - Maryland hall waiver – This would waive permit fees of $55k for phase III of planned renovations. Given this is a non-profit, I’m inclined to support this effort, but may also abstain. If you have input please let me know.
- R-33-25 - speed camera fines – This would create a tiered fine system for speeding tickets at cameras. I’m inclined to support this effort, pending input from you.
- R-34-25 - market space fee interest waiver – We allowed outdoor dining in Market Space downtown during COVID, and continued thereafter. Technically businesses paid a fee to repurpose these parking spaces. While they have paid the fees, we have heard concerns that they were too high so we are at the least proposing to waive the interest on these fees. I’m inclined to support this effort, pending input from you. I believe that this space should be more open to the public via outdoor dining, as opposed to just parking for cars, and am happy to subsidize any effort to do so. Also, we have plenty of spaces for parking in the downtown garage so we don’t need to have parking in this Market Space area.
- R-35-25 - 181 Prince George Street Sidewalk Easement – This would allow one particular house to store their trash out front in a wooden enclosure that has a very unique circumstance. In this case the particular unit does not have a backyard storage area so this is their only reasonable option, and I feel they have made great efforts to have the structure be indiscrete. I’m inclined to support this legislation, pending input from you.
- R-41-25 - Military bowl parade – We have been waiving fees for this parade and non-profit for a while now, and I have no issues continuing to do so, pending input from you.
- R-42-25 – Compensation of Acting City Manager Victoia Buckland. This would officially extend the pay for Ms. Buckland to continue serving as the acting City Manager until we have a replacement for City Manager by the next Mayor/Council. I am inclined to support this, pending input from you.
Showing 1 reaction