Good evening, Rockville.

Today is Wednesday, September 10th, 2025.

This is meeting number 11-25 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission.

I am Jamie Espinosa, Chair of the Planning Commission.

I am joined in chambers tonight by Commissioners Susan Pittman, Commissioner Eric Fulton, Commissioner Mungsoon, and Commissioner Syan Salahouden.

Tonight's meeting is being conducted in person and virtually by WebEx.

Tonight's agenda includes a mandatory referral application.

Then this will be followed by a regularly scheduled commission items.

So for our first agenda item, it is a mandatory referral application STP 2025-00512 to establish Montgomery County Diversion Center and install associated site improvements within a portion of the existing property at 1307 Seven Locks Road in the MXT Mixed Use Transition Zone.

Montgomery County, Maryland applicant.

Over to Mr.

Wasilak for any staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and members of the commission.

This application is a mandatory referral application.

And that is the mechanism by which public projects are reviewed by the local planning commission.

And so a little different than the site plan process that you're used to.

I do have uh Nelson Ortiz, uh, our principal planner to make the staff presentation on the application.

Mr.

Wasach, before we do that, uh are we um allowing for public testimony tonight?

Yes.

So as a notice to folks in the audience and to anybody on WebEx, if you could please sign up on the sign-up sheet in the back of the room to indicate that you plan on providing public testimony.

Now to clarify the commission's procedures, we don't take questions from the audience.

The way to pose your question to the commission is to provide public testimony.

And when we get to that portion, I'll provide the ground rules for how to do that.

But if you do wish to either ask a question or to address us, please ensure you sign up at the back.

All right, back to you, Mr.

Waswak.

And that Mr.

Ortiz is here to make the staff presentation.

There you go.

Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.

Nelson Ortiz with Community Planning and Development Services Department.

This is mandatory referral application, STP 2025 512.

This is for the proposed Montgomery County Diversion Center.

The property is located at 301307 Seven Locks Road.

The property has been developed, is currently developed with the detention center located in the center.

The detention center is flanked by office buildings.

The proposed project for the Montgomery County Diversion Center is uh located at the corner of Seven Locks Road and Wooden Parkway and identified in the yellow highlighting.

The land use designation for the subject property is civic and public institutional.

The property is zoned mixed use transition.

The entire property is 26.23 acres in size.

However, the limits of disturbance for this project is approximately 4.75 acres.

And again, as I mentioned, the property has been developed.

To the west of the property and to the southwest are residential neighborhoods.

To the south of the property across Wooden Parkway, are public buildings also owned by the applicant, Montgomery County.

And to the east of the property is I-270.

Uh just on the other side of I-270.

The properties are it's mostly vacant with some uh commercial office on uh Wooden Parkway.

So just some background on this.

Uh the detent the detention center was built in 1961.

Further development of the site uh occurred thereafter.

Uh this uh redevelopment of the site has been uh subject of various uh presentations by the county to the mayor and council uh going back uh a few years.

This redevelopment of the site has been subject of various presentations by the county to the mayor and council going back a few years.

The proposed redevelopment has evolved.

Some proposals previously included a restoration center, a criminal justice center, a bus depot.

Again, the project has evolved with time with the diversion center now proposed near the intersection of seven locks of wooden parkway.

And no other plans are proposed at this time with this application.

The site, the rest of the site might be further developed, but again, nothing else is proposed at this time.

So the applicant, Montgomery County proposes to renovate an existing maintenance office building to the diversion center based according to the application documents and the county's website for this project.

The diversion center is a 24-7 365 facility that provides voluntary short-term stabilization services to individuals experiencing a mental health or substance use crisis.

The county aims to divert individuals in crisis from hospital emergency rooms and thereby reduce the current burden on first responders and emergency personnel and free up some medical emergency resources.

The diversion center will also employ coordinators to engage clients in discharge planning and follow-up.

Clients for this diversion center will be referred and transported by local hospitals and county agencies, and the diversion center will not be open to walk in clients.

As far as the facility itself, the facility is 16,490 square feet and will be two stories.

The main entrance to the facility is on the east side of the building away from the seven locks road right of way.

As far as the uh findings, uh staff uh does find the project uh consistent with the plan in terms of its location, character, and extent.

The project is located on an existing property recommended for civic and public institutional uses by the plan.

Uh the proposal will be maintaining uh a visual buffer onto seven locks.

The comprehensive plan speaks to uh this property uh in a certain section of the plan.

Uh the plan specifically says that the city and the county uh should work together to maintain a visual buffer between the Montgomery County Detention Center and the adjacent residential neighborhood, as well as to reduce light pollution, inmates release directly to Seven Locks Road and other impacts.

Uh as I mentioned previously, the county has made several presentations to the mayor and council previously, and uh the applicant has committed to development of a client release plan to minimize the impacts and release to Seven Locks Road.

And uh one of the uh presentations uh last year, uh the county uh uh did commit to and there were discussions about the creation of a MOU, a memorandum of understanding, and so staff is anticipating that an MOU uh will be in place before the facility opens.

Um the although the project is not required to uh meet or it isn't subject to the city zoning requirements, the project does meet the dimensional standards of the MXT zone.

Uh traffic generation uh will be street uh spread out throughout the day.

So uh there'll be minimal impact during the peak hours, and the project is also compliant uh with the FTPO and stormwater management requirements of the city.

And so with that, staff does recommend approval with conditions of this mandatory referral application.

Uh I've added a recommended motion in case the planning commission uh would like to uh entertain uh the motion.

Um Jim Wasselak, their staff online, uh, as well as uh the applicant team who are all available to answer any questions you may have.

And that concludes uh my presentation.

Thank you.

And for clarity, do we have a presentation by the applicant or they're just standing by for questions?

We there's no presentation by the applicant.

Uh okay.

So I turn it over to my fellow commissioners.

Do we want to start with any questions?

Okay.

Uh thanks for the presentation.

So I noticed like uh there's no plans or uh renderings of this building.

I know it's the union design, so can you elaborate on the what kind of features had been included in the renovation and maybe a little bit help?

Yeah, um, as you uh mentioned correctly, the uh architectural uh drawings are still conceptual.

Uh the applicant is still working on them and hasn't finalized them.

Um the applicant, of course, is here and can uh uh elaborate, but uh one of the key features that they will be adding and they have presented before is the facade that uh will be fronting along seven locks.

I know there is a high emphasis on making uh that facade uh resemble uh uh residential uh kind of removing the uh uh impression that it's a uh uh diversion center or a uh facility, uh trying to make it more compatible with the neighborhood.

So again, that facade um the uh western facade is is intended to be uh dressed up more uh as residential, and again the applicant can uh elaborate further on that uh no, not as part of my presentation.

Did you have any follow-up?

You want them to elaborate?

Sure, yes, please.

Yes, uh elaboration, however, just so we don't, you know, uh Mr.

Wasach, you have to put whoever speaks under oath, correct?

Not this evening.

No, not this evening.

Okay, yes, please go ahead.

Good evening.

My name is Hamid Omidwan Division Chief of Building Design Construction in Department of General Services.

Thank you for taking our application.

Yeah, this project has been in cooperation with the residents, experts, the county, the city, and the intent from day one was to create right now, it's kind of a very dilapidated institutional building.

Uh, but we're gonna redo the entire facade, and it's gonna look like kind of, and we're sorry that we did not put presentation of the building.

We thought this is for the site approval, but uh definitely those pictures are available online, and we can also provide them to you, all those elevations.

But they kind of look like we broke the entire length into five segments with different brick materials, different colors, so they look like townhomes, exactly like townhomes with the roof lines modulated to represent uh residential look uh around there.

So it's a it's gonna look totally different.

Um it's a controlled environment, so it's not like people come in and go all day because only uh public safety offices bring them down into the Sally port, which is like a garage on the lower level.

They drop them in and they get released, and and it was mentioned the plan is that there's a transportation plan to release them elsewhere, take them and deliver them somewhere else.

So all the precautions, land escaping, the site design traffic was designed to soften the image uh of the site.

And although we did not present it right now because it's another project which we soon come to you for it, is behind this close to 270.

We're gonna relocate uh the MCDC that it is now to become a new justice center with a more modern, better system, and then eventually the existing one will go away.

And at this point, we have no plan for it.

At least I don't know if there's any plan yet.

So it it would be tremendous improvement to that neighborhood and the impression that it puts in there.

Thank you.

I appreciate the efforts to make it uh more compatible with uh the neighborhood.

And just to clarify, so I know you have the controlled environment.

So can the patients be uh go outside?

Any of that activity?

No, no.

This is it's named Diversion Center because it's a new model in the country and it's not like everywhere, it's in few places in the country.

The idea is rather than with the criminals and the ones that are uh intoxicated and and they bring them in, don't mix them.

Uh these guys need clinical attention, so they divert them to here as soon as the public officer realizes that this is not they shouldn't go to really detention centers.

So for processing.

Again, it's not a jail, it's a processing center.

So they divert them there, and then they agree to a treatment plan for 72 hours max, and then they're there until they release them with when they find they're sober taken care of, or uh that's that's the generic plan that they have.

So there is no walking.

The walking would be in different facilities of HHS in Picard Drive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions or any follow-up on this topic from any of my fellow commissioners?

Uh thank you.

Actually, picking up on something you said in MS Ortiz, you said the term, I I didn't catch it.

Uh essentially the the departure plan for the customers of your facility.

Um I'd like to just elaborate a little bit more on that.

One thing I did hear you say was take them and release them somewhere else.

Um I'm sure that's not what the plan says, but I just want to understand uh when temporary residents of the diversion facility are ready to leave.

What what is that plan that you're working on?

They're still figuring it out between the transportation system and the county.

What it what I meant is that they won't be released out of the door.

Uh they would go into some kind of a transportation provided by the county.

They will take him to other destinations like their home or other crisis centers, and they deliver them there.

But the intricacy of it is not clear yet.

They're working on it as we're speaking.

Uh but they're not gonna be open the door and say thank you, go to the community.

That's that was what I tried.

Okay, no, that that that makes perfect sense.

So if I am in impatient for three days and it's time for me to go, I cannot walk away from this facility.

I cannot walk and take a bus away from this facility.

I am escorted by county personnel to a another location, a second location.

That's the plan right now, but again, the exact detail of how the transportation is going to work.

Executive is still working on it.

Got it.

We're here constructing it, but there are planning.

No, I I understand that.

And I know you're a design and construction.

I know a lot of the the banter about this project is centers on what we're discussing right now.

So I just wanted to be a little more clear on that.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I'm gonna ask a direct follow-up on his question.

So the discharge of an inpatient, I mean, it will be only if the person is successful in diversion, right?

If someone is not successful and they've been diverted, say from like pretrial confinement or something, I assume they're probably gonna be put back into that process.

Am I right there?

Yes, they are.

That would be the decision at the very beginning.

If they don't agree to the treatment, they want to stay here.

They go to detention center.

But if they agree to the treatment, then they'll be there.

And then uh the doctors will decide, okay, you can be released, they they talk it over, they find according to the criteria with the state attorney and the healthcare, they decide that this person is ready to be discharged.

Then it will follow with that.

However, if it's not, I'm sure I'm sure they need to uh they're still developing all these up.

This is new concept, and only a few places are implemented.

So uh they're developing uh as to re-admit them again or transfer them to crisis centers elsewhere, which they could go under more treatment.

So that's still unknown.

Thank you.

Any any follow-up on this topic from any other questions?

Um I the renderings are up.

Could we take a look at the I have a question, but it's on a different topic.

So maybe before we move on, if we could look at these.

Right.

So back to Commissioner Sung about the renderings.

Any questions on them?

Or yeah, I don't have a question.

So you mentioned this is a two-star building, but why it looks like a one store?

Oh, okay.

There's the vision trends.

Okay.

These are from different points of view.

This is from North West, and it's kind of perspective exaggerated.

You don't really see it that way.

The other perspective is what the community will see.

The black that is not really black, but it's it it's the Sally port.

Here it is, this as you could see, there's our one, two, three, four, five segments, and we even have more refined elevation than this.

But the idea is to break it uh so that it looks like more like a res newer style of residential development than an institutional building.

Again, this is an existing facility, and there is a wall already around we're trying to cover it with these uh facades to give it that impression.

Yeah, I have no more questions.

I appreciate uh showing out this, yeah.

So I have a question that's kind of related.

It maybe it might be a little bit more um related to the entry of clients rather than the exit of clients, but um I appreciate the fact that there's not really an uh that the staff has found that there's not really an impact on traffic generally as a result of this project.

But what would you say to the folks who maybe worry about the fact that while the traffic itself hasn't increased um that since the customers of this facility are coming via um you know on a referral basis, they're coming via presumably ambulance or cop car or something.

Um is there a uh is it reasonable for a resident to have a concern around noise at you know odd hours of the night, especially given the fact that folks aren't coming of their own uh accord?

My understanding is that no.

I mean, number one is that imagine there are a hundred people that are brought to the current detention center, and then 10 of them are this type of candidates that they can go to diversion center.

So the total traffic is not gonna change, but it's gonna be separated from each other.

And therefore the uh the public safety cars that are coming is not gonna be increased or decreased.

It's still the same.

It's just that some of them before they go all the way into the seven locks, right at the gate.

And that was another intention previously we wanted to have this facility way up uh on the into uh seven locks, and we decided to put it close to Wooten so that it would not penetrate into residential a lot.

Previously, we wanted to have this facility way up on the into seven locks, and we decided to put it close to Wooten so that it would not penetrate into residential a lot.

Um this way uh it basically it's the same thing, and they come and they go into the Sally port.

Uh and and the nature of these clients are different than the ones that they don't come in here.

So I think this facility is going to be very quiet.

Yeah, answer the question.

So no, there will be no noise generated.

These cars don't siren, nothing.

They don't police cars don't put their lights on or anything, they just bring somebody and go to the garage, they close the door, they admit that person, and that's the end of it.

So generally these clients are coming from the detention center over to this facility, or they're coming from somewhere else.

Like they're coming from Shed Grove hospital, are they coming from another police station?

They could come from multiple places.

They don't come from another detention center.

These are the ones that are either arrested or uh they call them and they say this patient, this per this person was in the hospital emergency now, but imagine a police officer was with them in emergency.

After that, they say now you gotta take him to your center, then they get admitted in here.

They bring them in here.

Um I don't believe there would be an ambulance, but um could be once in a wall one, but they're not like putting sirens or anything like that.

These are just it's not emergency situation.

They this is not an urgent care.

This is uh emergency operation.

This is just a rehabilitation center.

So despite the fact that we're it's it's specifically described as serving folks that are currently undergoing a crisis, we're not calling that an emergency.

It's it's different.

It's it's a crisis, but it's not an emergency.

So it's not.

So they're coming in to deal with a crisis, but it's not so urgent that anyone would ever need to use a siren.

Absolutely.

These are these are people that they they're they're drunk, they're not sober, they're addicted, they bring them in most of the time in normal detention center, they put them in somewhere, they go to sleep in a corner, and there's no health care social provider that goes in, what's wrong, what's going on, take care of them separate from other criminals.

So this way, um they got they're in there.

Um, we think most of the time they would be rehabilitated and go back to their life, uh, but they're not they're not criminals.

Thank you.

Thanks for the clarification.

Any direct follow-up on this line of questioning?

No, I I do have a relevant follow-up on this question.

Um, and I may have missed it in the staff presentation.

Uh what's the maximum occupancy expected of the diversion center currently?

It is uh uh there are two segments in it.

Uh each one has 16, uh, either recliners or bed.

So it's like 32 uh on papers as 32 to 40.

Um, and then the rest of them are staff, and uh it's not like detention center that they may get a lot of visitors.

Uh it needs to be by appointment, either the parents or or family members that they need to come and see where they are, what they which is all controlled.

Um so uh about the ones that have no card because they brought them in are about maximum of 40, and the staff are about 40 to 45 maximum could be, which parking are provided for them and some visitors.

Thank you.

Unless anybody has any follow-up on this line of questioning, is there any new questions of any of the the county or city staff here?

I have one.

Please go ahead, Commissioner Pitt.

Uh you're proposing to remove 18 significant trees and six specimen trees.

You're required to put 50 trees or a commensurate amount of fee and loo planting for this.

Do you have an idea of what that ratio is going to be?

That's a lot of significant trees and specimen trees.

Are you what is the plan here?

I have no doubt at the end we will plant more than what we cut.

The land escaping plan is not fully developed yet, but we have ideas on our drawings that where we're going to plant them.

So anywhere that uh we have land escaping, decoration land escaping around our six drop-off circle and whatnot, but then the rest of the site where the parking is all the way up is going to be planting with the trees.

And when the justice center comes on the back, it becomes complete, and we have even more trees, and the site becomes a whole different one.

But yeah, the intention is to replace them.

So to plant the 50 trees, not use the fee and lo mechanism.

Jason, what's our plan?

We won't be able to plant everything back on site.

We won't be able to plant everything.

Okay.

It looks like we already submitted our preliminary forest conservative.

Okay.

And will I assuming there'll be trees that could at some point be significant and specimen trees many, many years from now, some natives, etc.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other follow-up on that line of questioning or any other questions?

Go ahead, Commissioner Son.

Yeah, I have a new question.

So you just mentioned that this kind of uh center is a new model.

So can you give us some like successful models elsewhere?

That some it's like some experience.

Yes, the the HHS and uh public safety uh they have traveled to a couple of places uh to see them.

Uh I have not been with them uh, but they have seen them and frankly, uh HHS right now uh in past three, four months, they brought a consultant who's expert in these things, and they brought a new vision, and as of the because of the vision, we've already relayed out the interior of the building.

Um this new concept, but examples are out there.

Um two of three of them I know that are out there, and we would be happy to provide you with the names of them.

Any follow-up?

Any follow-up on this line of questioning?

Any other uh areas that any of my fellow commissioners would like to discuss or ask questions of maybe one more.

Uh you know, the plan notes that this facility would be run by either um Department of Health and Human Services or a health and human services contractor.

Do we know which one that'll actually be?

Is this facility envisioned to be a taxpayer-funded facility, or is this a for-profit institution?

Running this facility requires expert in this field.

So the goal at this point is to hire an expert uh with experience uh to run it uh with some agreement about funding the operation with the county, but I am not uh familiar yet with what that agreement could be because generally speaking, what happens is that we publish that this is the facility we want somebody to run it, and then when they apply, then the negotiation goes as to how it works.

So uh any of those combinations could happen.

Any follow-up?

Go ahead, Commissioner.

I have a procedural question for Mr.

Wasilak, maybe Mr.

Jume.

We do not see mandatory referrals that often.

Can you review what happens next after this this meeting tonight?

So the planning commission uh is the approving authority for a mandatory referral application.

Uh, if you approve the application with the conditions, uh then they can proceed with the project and and all the follow-on approvals that they need to do.

Uh, if the commission would not approve it, uh, as Mr.

Ortiz noted, the county council could overrule or uh essentially overturn your decision of denial and the uh project would still move forward.

Thank you.

Any other questions of either city or county staff here tonight?

So is that to say that this is the sort of the last stop for gas if uh the public wanted to uh you know add testimony, right?

Yes, that's correct.

Just wanted to make that make sure that was clear, Mr.

Chair.

Um farmers Montharian from our transportation staff has his hand up if you'd like to.

Oh, yes, please hear from Sir Good evening, farmers McTorio.

I just wanted to based on the testimony provided by the county official.

Uh the traffic report that we got include a statement, it says uh patient will be delivered to the site by EMS police and will be discharged to a private vehicle or to a public transit.

But I heard the testimony that they said people uh the patients will not be discharged to a private vehicle or public transit.

So I want to make sure the statement in the traffic report need to be or track with the statement need to be adjusted.

Is that correct?

Sir, if you could answer that city staff's question about kind of as I said, the details of how that transportation will work is not determined yet.

Uh but they're working.

So the key is that the county makes arrangement for these people to be released and delivered to the destination that is required rather than they walk out.

No, I appreciate that.

Um go ahead, uh I guess it's a follow-up question for Mr.

Wazalik or a city attorney.

Um it's about the timing of why we're reviewing this mandatory referral now when it seems like there are many things that are not necessarily available to us to see in their complete or final state.

The patient transportation plan, the landscaping plan, the renderings.

Um why are we here right now?

So the commission is limited in its review to reviewing the project based on its compliance with the comprehensive plan in terms of its location, its the extent or the character and scale of the project.

And so you are not looking at it for all those you know, typical findings that the commission is required to make for a site plan approval.

It is just those those three things that state code uh essentially limits the localities to make.

So the details are somewhat less than you might see in a site plan because you're not making those same findings.

Any follow-up based off of that.

Okay, if not, sir, thank you.

Grab a seat.

I suspect after public testimony we may ask you some questions.

So please sink tight.

Um Mr.

Wasalak, I'm assuming that leads us straight into public testimony.

Okay.

Before we start that, let me uh read some uh guidelines.

Each individual will be allowed three minutes to provide comment on the application.

However, one representative of an organization, such as an HOA or community group will be allowed up to five minutes for a presentation.

Your timer is right here in front of you.

Mr.

Wasselak will start it uh once you begin speaking after he has sworn you in.

At any time, clarifying questions may be asked by members of the commission.

Please adhere to these time limits.

They will be enforced by me.

If you intend to testify for any of today's agenda items, as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, please uh sign in on the appropriate sheets on the stand in the back of the room.

Once public testimony has concluded, the commission will enter into discussion and deliberation on the application among the members, though we may ask staff for clarification based on uh public comment.

These proceedings are being televised and recorded.

We ask that you state your name and address for the record, allow a moment for staff to swear you in and speak loudly and clearly when you testify.

A video recording of these hearings will be kept on file with the city's cable television office and will be posted on the planning commission's webpage for viewing.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Wasalak, uh who is let's start with people in the room before we go online.

Who do we start with?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

There are five uh members of the public that are present in the room tonight that are signed up to speak.

Uh I will note that we will not be swearing in uh the speakers this evening.

The first speaker is uh Sherry Solomon to be followed by Laurie Brody.

Um can we reverse that because her speaking is more I'm gonna respond to her.

Sure.

So please, ma'am, cut come on forward.

Now, ma'am, is there uh are you speaking here uh on behalf of yourself or are you representing an organization?

Uh well I'm speaking as uh for myself in the plea yeah, yep, please state your hold hold on before we start.

Please state your uh name and address for the record.

It's Lori Brody.

I live at 1132 Bets Trailway, which is right across the Falls Road, uh right by the seven locks.

All right, ma'am, and you have three minutes, please go ahead.

Okay.

Uh I didn't expect to speak, so please excuse me, I'm not a public speaker, but I am a registered nurse and I do work at the crisis center.

And I've been following these uh com these meetings online, and I I do have uh some concerns because I think we're hearing from these experts, they're building experts, but they don't work with these people.

I do every day.

I work at the crisis center, I deal with the shelters.

We built the stabilization room at the crisis center that has four beds.

I saw how difficult that was.

One of my questions is are there any medical professionals on the board of building this facility?

Because that that's a big error if you don't have a doctor or a nurse to consult with.

That's good.

Um I think they're not being honest with the public when they say this is a voluntary facility.

If it's a voluntary facility, any person can walk out at any time of the day or night, period.

No one can stop them.

That's the difference between a voluntary and involuntary facility.

Um there will be sirens, it can be at all times of the day or night, because once someone gets there, let's say they're detoxing and they have a seizure, or they become disruptive and violent.

They're gonna be calling 911 right away, and you're gonna be hearing an ambulance.

So you're not being honest with the public when you say, oh, it's all voluntary, people will come, they will be they will be driven to their home.

Most of these people don't have homes.

All we see at the crisis center is homeless people, people who are not documented, people who live at the shelter, have substance abuse issues, it's a revolving door.

Um so what you're ending up doing is putting 40 beds in right by the jail, which is not a good message for mental health, because if you're trying to get help for mental health, you don't want to see a jail next door.

Um the other thing I want to say is let me see.

It's very dangerous to detox in a facility like this.

We don't do it at the crisis center because you could die from alcohol withdrawal.

I used to work at Medstar only, and even there we transfer people to the ICU because it's very dangerous to detox from alcohol.

So I hope they're not gonna be dropping people who are highly intoxicated off at this facility because they're gonna be really liable if they do and something happens to that person.

Um I mean, at the crisis center, I see police and the fire department on a daily basis, multiple times.

I can't imagine, and we have four inpatient beds in our residential program, which I run with my supervisor, and then we have another four beds in the stabilization room.

So I I can't imagine that you're not gonna see an increase in traffic for whoever's gonna be bringing these people, and most of these people don't have homes, so where are you gonna drop them off to?

They have no homes.

You know how many how long we have people that are staying weeks in the crisis center because there are no shelter beds because the shelter doesn't open till November 1st.

So please please uh finish wrap up your thought there, maybe um.

So these are just my concerns as uh living in the area.

I mean, I'm not as close as some other people, but uh I'm just concerned about some of the things that are being uh said to us that I don't feel are accurate.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us tonight.

Ms.

Wasalek, who is next?

Next speaker is Shari Solomon to be followed by Dan Priwis.

Ms.

Solomon, please come forward, state your name and address for the record, and then you can start.

My name is Sherry Solomon.

My address is six Pasha Burk, Potomac, Maryland.

Um I live directly behind the where this is going to be built.

Um it was my parents' home, it's now my home, and I am really really scared because from what I understand and from talking to Lori, these are alcoholics, these are addicts, these are people that the hospitals do not want.

The hospitals are getting them out because they are very disruptive.

So they are brought by the police to this diversion center.

Um, according to law, you cannot keep anybody unless you're a criminal, and there will be criminals there.

Um, and the the criminals you cannot let them go.

Um, but anybody who's coming in from the hospital who's not a criminal, they can get up and they can leave in three hours, and where are they gonna go?

Um the site has a very big wooded area.

Homeless people could just get up and start hanging out in this green area.

And then there's a shopping center, there are homes and townhomes and condos all around this area.

So these people could be in our backyards, they can be walking around drunk.

Um, their friends could be picking them up.

Um, they could be, you know, hot rotting around.

I mean, it will my fear is it will change the neighborhood drastically.

We won't want to go to the shopping center to go shopping anymore.

The police, it's gonna be like a war zone.

And then we've got the um the ambulances, the um the police that will be making noise.

Um we can hear 270 from our home.

So I'm sure that we will be able to hear all this police and ambulance activity.

Um those are my most major fears, and I'm sorry.

You know, you're not an expert and you're doing your best.

But what you're saying, they were talking originally about having an Uber contract.

These people don't have to get in an Uber.

They could say, no, my friend's picking me up.

And then they could be walking around because they're addicts, they're liars.

They they don't tell the truth.

They just want to get out.

They want to bed for the night or whatever it is.

So that's those are all my concerns, and I pray that you do not accept this.

It should not be in a residential area.

It should be in an industrial area like where Lori works.

Um it does not belong there.

So thank you for your listening and understanding.

Thank you for your comments.

Uh Mr.

Waslack, who's next?

Next speaker is Dan Prewis, to be followed by Leon Feerstein.

Mr.

Prius, if you can come forward, state your name and address for the record.

Uh good evening.

My name's uh Dan Daniel Previs.

I live at 2512 Oak and Shield Drive in Rockville.

Uh we're in the Potomac Springs neighborhood, which is quite close to uh where this facility will be.

So naturally I am very concerned about uh the discharge problem.

And I submitted um a written letter to the commission back on July 20 uh 2025.

So hopefully that's in the record, and you'll have an opportunity to review it.

Um my concern uh based on what I've heard this evening is that everything about the discharge issue is very preliminary.

Uh I think the county has their heart in the right place.

Um I think they don't want to be discharging people into the neighborhood, but we don't have an actual plan, and the devil is in the details.

Uh I'm also concerned that this plan we've heard is evolving.

Uh we don't have details about that.

We don't know if there's gonna uh a contractor, who the contractor is, what security arrangements they'll have, and so forth.

And I was suggested by uh counsel that all this is beyond your purview because your job is only to consider whether this proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Well, guess what?

The comprehensive plan on page 374 um refers to making sure the people from the detention center are not released directly to Seven Locks Road.

Well, the same logic applies to the diversion center.

So it is part of your responsibility and within the ambit of your duty here to make sure that people are not released onto uh Seven Locks Road.

And this is your apparently your one opportunity to weigh in on that, and you don't have any of the facts necessary to evaluate that.

So I would um I would respectfully submit that the right thing to do is to deny approval of this until such time as uh some of these details are available to be reviewed, to be assessed, and to make sure the details uh fit with what these representations are.

Um there's this question about whether these people can can leave voluntarily.

Um I don't know that it's legal to uh confine someone if they say they want to leave and their treatment is over.

So I don't know where they're getting this.

They I think they have good intentions that they want to offer transportation and they want to do it that way, but I'm not sure they're gonna be able to do it that way.

And therefore, I think that's another concern that really needs to be fleshed out.

You need to have an understanding of what the legal basis is.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments, sir.

Mr.

Waslack, who's next.

The next speaker is Leon Feerstein, to be followed by Adam Van Greg.

Mr.

Feerstein, please come in on behalf of an organization.

So you know, reset uh five minutes, which organization we'll be speaking in?

Falls Ridge Homeowners Association.

Thank you, sir.

If you could set your name and address for the minute, yeah, I Leon Fearstein, I live in uh Falls Ridge, which abuts the uh the uh land that we are talking about specifically.

Um and I also am a member of the Seven Locks Alliance.

And I want to first acknowledge that I think the county has actually done a great job after some uh initial bumps, uh, including the community as a stakeholder in this plan.

So I I also think as a as a community, we're actually appreciative that the county is going to this effort to create this facility for the community.

Um the concerns I have are not necessarily about whether this community whether this facility should be here, but more about the operation of the facility and the compliance with the plan that uh that Rockville has put in place.

Um I also want to make sure uh that the questions that the mayor and council have asked of the council uh of the county have been answered.

As of yet, they have not.

Um and that is not necessarily because the county does not want to answer it, but they have not gone back before the mayor and council to answer those questions.

They also have not answered all of them yet.

They're still in the process, um, which I believe, uh as Dan was saying, this is premature.

Uh there are still a lot of the details that affect whether this building and the operations of this building fit within the community that it is being put is in a residential area, uh, which again, the 2040 plan specifically states it must maintain this area, must maintain its residential character.

Um I think in addition to that, right?

The in the 2040 plan, uh it also says that Seven Locks Road is a uh walkway and should be treated that way.

As of yet, the county right now, and and again, I don't know if it was in this plan, is only looking to change just in front of where this building is going and not actually putting a walkway along Seven Locks Road as it should be.

Uh, it's become actually a major thoroughfare, a lot of people running biking between uh falls and and Wooton.

Um it also uh the plan today does not address release, as Dan was saying.

This is a very important issue.

This is actually one of the most, if not the most important issue.

And it's one of the challenges we've had with the operation of the detention center that currently exists there.

There had been an MOU in place with the city, but that MOU somehow got lost.

Uh and the operations of that detention center changed over time.

And that's a concern here, too, right?

There, I think really do believe the county promises uh and really wishes to to cooperate with the community.

That doesn't mean it will continue that way.

Without a memory memorandum of understanding with the city, the operations of this facility and and the safety procedures can change at any moment.

Today, uh, some of the walk-in and walk out uh is currently at Picard Drive without a memorandum of understanding.

The county could actually move those facilities and those operations here.

They own the land.

Once it's built, it's built.

Um so this is the one opportunity to actually define the operations and the safety of this building.

Um and so that's why, again, I I think that this plan doesn't address some of the uh, you know, things like the county has promised no walk-ins, but again, that could change.

The county has promised that they will escort walkouts, but isn't sure that it's legal.

Um, and again, without those, they will put the building here and they will then change the definition because they have to, because the building has to operate once it's there.

Uh the fence plan is not in place, community notification plan is not placed.

The staffing is unclear as to security that will be on premise, how that security will be funded, whether there will be police presence there.

Um the um escorting from the detention center, which will eventually, and by the way, it wasn't showing in the plan, but will eventually be within uh the criminal justice facility will, and it's in their their proposal, will be rebuilt behind, at least for now.

There's another CIP for that uh be rebuilt behind this facility.

Um they are not saying how they will escort people from the existing detention center to this facility in a safe way.

It's not fenced in, there's no security.

That, you know, that is a TBD, and again, I think without that, that's a major thing for our community.

That's literally walking behind people's houses.

And when I say behind people's houses, it's as close as we are right now.

Um and so that is a major concern of our community of the city of Rockville.

People bike it down that path that they're going to have to escort.

They walk down that path.

Um, and in addition, on the noise front, I I do appreciate that you know that they people come in uh potentially not without sirens, but that again that hasn't been established in a memorandum of understanding.

Uh there also likely will need to be, unfortunately, uh people transported to the hospital, right?

It's not a hospital, doesn't it?

That there is a noise factor that has not been addressed here.

Um again in signage.

Signage isn't part of the plan, but signage is all over the place.

The big blue signs that got all stuff all over the place.

Those are right there on City Passive Trace.

Anyway, uh please finish your sentence, sir.

Yeah.

So in in conclusion, I believe that a memorandum memorandum of understanding with some of these guarantees must be in place in order for the commission to uh to be able to have confidence that the plan in place is the plan that will continue to operate once the building is built.

Thank you.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you for sharing your comments with us.

Uh Mr.

Waslock, who's next?

Next speaker is Adam Van Grak.

And the following speaker will be uh the first of our online speakers.

Thank you.

Councilman Van Greg, are you here tonight in a personal capacity?

Personal capacity.

Thank you very much.

Adam Van Grak, I live on three Northrop Court, just off Wooten Parkway.

And I actually grew up in the Ryzen Realm Horizon Hill neighborhood, not too far from the detention center.

And one of the reasons I have uh vested interest in this is I remember as a kid actually there being a couple different releases from the detention center and helicopters flying over my house looking for uh escapees.

So for that reason, I think it's important to address this detention center.

Now, first and foremost, this detention center is a wonderful idea.

I commend the county for looking at this detention center, and this location is a good location for it and for the county's relationship with the city and working with us is wonderful.

There's just a few things that I think we have to get right.

And just as some of the previous speakers have spoken about, the council has talked about getting back to us with regard to issues, issues that the planning commission themselves, um Commissioner Fulton, Commissioner Espinoza, um, addressed.

Now, I think one of the the ways to address this is the way that we're looking to address it as is.

Now, there could be a rejection and looking back to have the county get back to us, but the motion that staff has put forward says that we approve it with conditions.

There's 14 separate conditions that staff has recommended.

However, there's specific items within the plan that we're anticipating could be there that are not part of the conditions.

Item number one, you've heard the discussion with regard to a discharge plan.

Now the discharge plan is something that is within our comprehensive plan with regard to this facility.

That could be the 15th condition that we put as one of the staff recommended conditions as we approve what has happened, meaning to say we approve this, but with the condition of a discharge plan, and we can add what that condition would be.

In addition to which there has been talk of a ver visual or significant buffer from the facility of the neighborhood.

Now, in the staff report, it notes that in terms of character, the plan recommends maintaining a visual buffer.

And it says that it appears the proposal will maintain a visual buffer.

That's not in the conditions, though.

We can add that as another or 16th condition of this approval.

So there are ways in which we can make sure that there are parameters that the city would like to see within this facility as part of the conditions.

There's a way to actually, in addition to which, the walkway, there's a question of whether it's good to be an acceptable walkway.

That could be the 17th condition that we add to this.

So there are ways in which we can make sure that the community is protected, make sure that there's parts of this detention this not detention, this diversion center that is acceptable to the community that will protect the community that can be put as part of our conditions of the approval.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you, council member.

Um Mr.

Wasach, you said we did have people sign up who are online.

Yeah, right now there are a total of seven uh individuals that are online.

I do not know whether all of them wish to speak, but I will just call them out and unmute them.

But before we do that, Mr.

Wasilak, do we have an online timer that they can see?

I don't think so.

Okay.

Uh if we can call on them.

All right, the first speaker is a call-in speaker, uh, beginning with numbers.

Uh it's area code 301 and then three.

Uh you're unmuted, and you can speak if you wish to hearing nothing, Mr.

Waslock.

Let's go to the next speaker.

The next speaker is also a call-in speaker, and that number is area code 408.

You're unmuted if you wish to speak hearing nothing, Mr.

Wassock.

Who's the next caller?

The next the next caller is C D you'll need to unmute yourself if you wish to speak hearing nothing, Mr.

Hearing nothing, Mr.

Wasalak, who's the next caller?

Next speaker is Janice.

Are they unmuted?

I'm not able to unmute that person.

The next speaker is Leonardo Bullard, the which uh that person is unmuted.

Mr.

Bullard, are you there?

Hearing nothing, Mr.

Wasilak, who's the next speaker?

Uh the next speaker is Mary Ann Miss Mary Ann, are you there and ready to speak hearing nothing, Mr.

Wasalak?

Who's the next speaker?

And the this is the final online speaker.

This is Richmond.

Caller identified as Richmond.

Are you here to speak?

Okay, hearing nothing, Mr.

Wassock.

I think we have no online testimony.

Yes.

Okay.

Um turning it back over to the commission.

I have no questions of either city staff or county staff.

I think the best way to do this is uh for someone to throw out a question and then we can go from topic to topic based on what people want to discuss.

Commissioner Pittman, I see you're ready and intent to hit that button, so please go ahead.

I I have more of a comment.

And I understand the the nature of this application.

The county is not required to bring all the details that a site plan would require.

But we are a good community partner, I feel with the county, and it would have been a good show of faith for you to bring some of these details forward to alleviate the confusion and the fear of the community.

Uh and so I'm sorry that some of these details were not included.

It's hard to approve a plan that feels very incomplete, although we are, you know, a municipality within the county.

I know there's a a lot of trust and a lot of collaboration between the two organizations.

So I wanted to put that out there and see what you all had to say about that.

That this is it, it's I mean, not really a complete.

I mean, we could approve it as council member Van Grack uh suggested with additional conditions.

Um but I wanted to put that comment out there and see what you all had to say.

So I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying.

I mean uh small details in my mind, um, are absolutely, you know, trust is absolutely warranted on those things.

But to me, these are like this is like fundamental stuff, right?

Like this is the stuff that is the most concerning for the folks that live around that area.

I would expect that while you know maybe the elevation wasn't quite done, maybe this will, you know, like but but but not having a plan on how people leave the facility to me is an oversight that is so um so plainly um in my mind just it it's it should have been something that was uh the headline here and it's not even a footnote.

It's hasn't even been, you know.

I I guess it's been contemplated, but the fact that there's no plan and now you're looking for an approval to me just seems so very carped before the horse.

Um I I'm just not really sure what to make, you know, what the what to do with that.

Um so I hear you.

And not to beat the horse too dead, but we could even if we um added that as a condition, we don't know what would be in it, right?

I mean, if we said that a condition of approval is to have a discharge plan in place and to have an MOU with the city, we really that could be anything.

Well, I'd take that one step further and and and just point out the fact that it if the the county's been working on this for a really long time and they haven't been able to come up with a plan.

So I'm not even sure where to start with that, and I don't think it's really our place to do that.

Um yeah, to follow up, I feel like uh um I feel like if we we proposed uh approval with conditions, there are so many conditions that it requires more time and uh discussion to what the conditions might be.

And this time there are so many unresolved issues here.

Uh I don't feel comfortable on for the approval with conditions.

Okay, because I I want to agree.

I want to back up a minute and agree with something that's been said tonight, and that's this is a really worthwhile project, and it deserves uh to be done well and right and for the people who need it for the community, you know, for for our greater community.

So I I think that's part of the discomfort is that there's a lot writing on this.

It's a great project.

Um and it just feels so very incomplete.

Right, maybe the primatro time as the commissioner said, and also I I was hoping that there were some president or successful models that we can look into because the several models they have the operation in place and the things they have done, you have lesson learned.

Maybe you're gonna share more of that and then when it's ready, that will be helpful.

Commissioner Pittman, I assume you have comments.

Please go ahead.

Oh no, I'm sorry, Commissioner Fulton.

Sorry.

Sorry, I confused the.

Ironically, Commissioner Pittman has stolen several of my questions and context.

That's why I confused the two.

Go ahead, Commissioner Fulton.

So allow me 30 seconds of exposition here.

Um so I have as a as a resident uh and planning commission member followed the activities on this site for a while, and I echo Commissioner Pittman that I think the as I understand nature of a diversion center is uh extremely admirable.

Um, to the point that I think the description of it tonight may not have done it justice.

Um but again, I'm not a professional.

Um I agree in large part with many of the concerns of my commissioners.

The word incomplete comes to mind.

The goal of the mandatory referral and the task of this body, uh, as Mr.

Wazilik answered my question earlier, uh, was three things.

Um of which is character.

And character is the one where I'm getting hung up, it's very loosely defined.

Um I would never use the phrase character to define who does or does not belong in the community.

Um, but to me, not knowing whether a facility is mono or multimodal is essentially hiding the character of what that location's purpose and facility will be.

Um so to me, without that information, we have what appears to be definitive information in our book about whether or not persons will be discharged directly to private vehicles or not.

But I've heard maybe that will be true, or maybe that won't be true.

Uh, because the plan is not formed.

It's it's concepts of a plan.

Um so I don't believe that this body, certainly not myself, can make any kind of a recommendation without knowing what the character of the day-to-day operations of this facility are going to be.

I have no idea if there will be people walking in, biking in, scootering in, um, or if it's only in and out by private vehicle, public vehicle.

Um, all of these things are unknown, and all of these things to me are essential to the character of this facility in this location.

Um this is in incomplete, even for mandatory referral for me to approve.

So I do have questions of Mr.

Wassock, Mr.

Wasserlack, uh the official date of application is August 4th, 2025.

Is that correct?

I would ask Mr.

Nelson or Mr.

Ortiz to confirm that.

The date was uh the application was filed in May, towards the end of May.

The application was originally scheduled to come before this body uh the second planning commission in July.

However, the applicant requested to postpone the item because they had attendance issues.

Yeah.

And so and I'm sorry, I should have clarified from the beginning we have 60 days to approve as a body.

What's the what's the date that we're looking at, right?

You see what I'm saying?

Because if we don't make a decision within 60 days, it's approved.

So what's the date that the clock started running?

Yeah, I think it's the date that Mr.

Ortiz just mentioned.

We're we're past the 60 days at this point at the applicant's request.

Right.

So I'm assuming there's some sort of tolling that happens.

So do we have a date that we as a body have to act by?

You see what I'm asking there?

I do.

Uh I'm not sure I know the answer to that at the moment.

And the reason I'm asking you is to see if I can buy more time to potentially get some request for information in and responded to.

So I don't know if we want to take a minute and potentially come up with that time period.

You see what I'm asking?

Because if the 60 days is tomorrow, then we have to make a decision tonight.

If the 60 days is 30 days from now, we might be able to put this on an agenda item in two weeks or in a month, and then potentially vote if we have additional information.

If I may, so the applicant requested that the item be postponed until today, until this hearing.

So I would imagine that today is the day that the applicant has requested that the item be heard for a final decision.

And I know that uh Mr.

Dumay is also online and can elaborate on that.

That's what I was about to ask.

Mr.

Dumay, I saw your camera turn on very quickly as soon as they use the word toll.

So uh what what's your uh insight on this issue?

So I would recommend that the planning commission act on the application today.

The you know traditionally the city has accepted applicants' agreement to extend mandatory or the 60-day mandatory referral deadline, but there isn't anything in state law that expressly authorizes extensions.

Um and in any case, we would typically take extension requests, you know, in in writing as authorized by the appropriate person, you know, on behalf of the applicant.

It's a long way of saying that uh allowing the application to extend beyond today would increase the chance, even if it is relatively small, that the applicant in this case would claim that the mandatory referral has been deemed approved.

Um I also want to point out, you know, it is possible after because again, in part there's so little detail on mandatory referral applications in state law, it is possible for an applicant to resubmit a mandatory referral application that has been denied, uh, particularly if the grounds for denial are made clear to the applicant.

Uh so I'm not suggesting that the commission do any one thing in particular, but I do think it would be a mistake to again extend this, you know, on on its own initiative, have the planning commission extend the review period for an additional period of time.

No, thank you, Mr.

Dumay, and taking away my ability to punt.

Um so that brings us back to a decision.

I I I agree with Ms.

Dumay that uh decision should be made tonight.

I have no further questions of staff.

Does anyone else have any further questions of staff or uh items for discussion?

Otherwise, I would consider a motion.

Um I just want to point, I don't want if we deny this, I don't want to shut down collaboration between us and the county.

And if we say no, we can't pass this, then they can override it and just do what they want, right?

And so to have a hint, not that the county would do that.

But do we want to consider additional conditions?

Do we want to what do or do we?

I mean, I I feel like none of us are particularly comfortable with this plan.

Um I hear what you're saying, Mr.

Dumay, you might want to put your camera back on.

Um a question uh from what I heard Commissioner Pittman say.

Uh if this body were to recommend approval with additional condition or conditions, um what's saying very hypothetically, uh we wanted a condition that there was um an access and egress plan to address the concerns that members of this commission have about how people get to and from the facility.

Uh does the creation of that plan satisfy that condition, or would that plan have to be then reviewed and recommended uh by this or another body before that condition is satisfied?

So legally the answer is it's entirely up to you.

Um in other words, there are situations where information may not be available to you, but the simple provision of a plan or additional information down the road would be enough to satisfy you as a body that the requirements of the recommendations of the comprehensive plan have been met.

Uh what I've heard tonight is that that would not necessarily be the case.

Um because as some of the members of the body have noted, the plan could say anything.

Um I know that it's it's possible for the planning commission to condition approval of this mandatory referral on a subsequent agreement that's entered into um between the city and the county.

Um you have a lot of flexibility in what your condition is ultimately going to look like.

Um, but the the short answer to your question is it really depends on on you and and what you think would satisfy the recommendations of the plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Dumay.

So back to us.

So I want to ask a lad if we approve, do we approve the plan?

Well, we also approve the operation of the project.

I feel like the the the county here, they were building the building, right?

And it seems like operation is is another entity or something.

So are they two different things, or we can put the condition to ensure the operation is in place as we expect it.

I think that's a question for you, Mr.

Bossak.

I think you can put conditions that would um help you make the findings of the location character and extent.

Um, in other words, transportation to and from the site, you're not telling them you know what the doctor should do inside the building, but you are addressing the issues of the site and it functions and how it impacts the uh the community and how it relates to the comprehensive plan.

So I'll throw this out for a con uh discussion item.

I appreciate uh all the public testimony.

Um and the public testimony from council member Van Greck regarding the conditions.

I personally don't feel that we could at all come to as a body draft conditions tonight, right?

Based on Mr.

Dumay's recommendation that we make a decision tonight that I think would satisfy every member of this body that could lead to a majority of approval based on the discussion.

Um I'm just throwing that out there because we could be here for a few hours and still not get to three votes on agreement on a condit on the language of a condition.

Does that make sense?

I think it makes sense, and um truthfully, I'm I I'm most hesitant because um like others have mentioned here, like I it would be a real shame to do something today and add a condition today that was poorly conceived um that ends up handstringing the realization of this project.

This project is a project that is worth realizing, and I don't want this body to be the one that's responsible for putting something out there that ends up becoming unsurmountable for the for the project, right?

And and that to me is um you know that it would just uh in my mind be inappropriate, frankly, for us to to just insert something that we thought off off the you know off the cuff.

Um my concern, and this is my understanding of the mandatory referral procedure.

So feel free, uh Mr.

Wazlick or Mr.

May to jump in if I'm incorrect.

Uh that if we vote uh to recommend, great, they go ahead and move forward.

Uh if we vote to not recommend the county council has the ability to overturn what we say with a vote.

And we have in both of those scenarios no control beyond tonight.

If we put conditions in or some sort of another extension, we can have more information and more of the control in this mandatory referral process for something that'll be in our community, for which we might not all agree on what they are, but I think we all have reservations on.

So if the conversation is let's just button it up tonight because we might be here a long time, or we might uh not be giving it due diligence.

I I worry that we have just given up anything beyond tonight to talk about this project.

Just uh if I may, I'm just listening to what the commission is saying.

Uh I'm wondering if the MOU route is a better way to go.

Um so you could just develop one condition that the county shall enter into an MOU with the city and addressing certain issues without having to get into the specificity, and that would occur you know as the project moves forward and before it's operational.

So I just thought I would suggest that as an as an option.

Mr.

Rosselak.

If the county can overrule what we decide tonight, can they overrule parts of what we decide tonight?

Can they just say we're not doing those conditions?

I believe that they can.

We have had other government entities do that uh to uh mandatory referral approvals that that you've issued.

I don't know if Mr.

Dumay has a has a different take on it.

Yeah, Mr.

Dumay, to you, yes.

Did you catch the question?

Yeah, absolutely.

I I would agree with with Mr.

Wasselik.

I think you know, the the public entity that is the applicant for mandatory referral really has a lot of latitude um in proceeding, and particularly if it does reach the two-thirds vote that's required by state law, I think they can essentially do whatever they would like to do, whether that would be you know not following certain conditions or simply just moving forward with the plan, regardless of uh of any of the recommendations of the planning commission.

No, no, that thank you for the question and comments, Commissioner Fulton and Pittman.

I think that kind of gives us a path forward.

But just to be clear, the applicant would need to appeal whatever decision, even if it is a decision to approve with conditions, they would appeal that decision um to the county council, right?

I'm understanding that right.

So, Commissioner, I want I want to clarify that point.

Really, it's not clear.

Um, I know that certain public entities have taken that view.

And and I think it in in even as it relates to recommendations made by this planning commission in the past that conditions of approval would need to be adhered to in order for the approval to be considered complete.

And so if they wanted to deviate from those conditions, they would need to take it back to their legislative or or or governing body, in this case the county council.

Um, it is entirely possible for the county council or the county to take a different view.

I think that would be the wrong legal view, but our ability to challenge that is somewhat limited under state law.

Um, you know, mandatory referral is really kind of a one-off process.

So and it doesn't expressly contemplate conditions of approval.

So I just want to make that clear.

Um I think it's very typical for mandatory referral review, both with in Rockville and in my experience with uh Montgomery County uh Planning Board for mandatory referral approvals to be made with conditions, but I really can't guarantee how the applicant will ultimately treat those conditions down the line.

No, I appreciate that.

And you do have the quote of the evening, which I think was to be clear, Commissioner, it's not clear.

So I appreciate I appreciate that.

Um I will use that with my spouse.

So over based on where this discussion is going, I look to you, Mr.

Fulton, potentially to lay out uh conditions that we can craft the motion from so I'm picking up on the condition of an MOU, which seems to be something that uh might be might allow us to lay out concerns without so much specificity that uh that we we we start walking in circles.

Um so I'm typing.

So as you put that together, can I just ask one more question?

On the MOU route, like the if if we approve with the condition, and that condition is that there's an you know an MOU in place that is sufficiently agreeable to both sides of the of the coin here, we still don't end up with another stop somewhere along the way for public input, right?

Now it goes from this governing body down to you know some negotiation that happens directly between the county and the city.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

There's also uh based on the discussion and and what's transpired, there's also if we can propose uh recommended a new recommended motion that takes up this uh idea of an MOU as well.

I can also um uh share that as well um and see if there's revisions or if the planning commission is amenable to the condition.

Um second.

While they're working on that, I would add that um we address the buffer issue in the that's included in the comprehensive master plan, add a buffer uh ensure that a buffer uh that comports with the comprehensive master plan uh is included in the project.

Like please even looked.

Um anything related to the forest conservation plan that you had questions to earlier.

Um yes, I would say that the buffer should include um a higher ratio of replanting to fee and loo.

And native hardwoods should be at the top of the list.

I don't know how you want to say that motion language, but I'll just add on the screen is also a condition that can assist with the drafting um that you're doing, Commissioner Fulton.

All right, so yeah, so what I see up on the screen address is um thank you, buffer in terms of thank you.

That's how it looks on my screen all the time.

Um I see that this relates to to buffer kind of in terms of distance.

Um, and that is certainly one of the things that I know this body is concerned with.

Uh can I ask why it we've put the uh a waiver for the this condition may be waived at the city's discretion?

Or I'm not sure why we would waive a condition.

This is just the proposal that the commission can entertain that sentence, of course, could be stricken if the commission decides that it should.

Okay, thank you.

So I I would like to add to any condition uh language around uh adding into that the member of memorandum of understanding clearly details divergent center patient access and egress signage uh visual buffer to include the higher a higher ratio of replanting to fee in lieu with emphasis given to native flora to comport with the comprehensive master plan.

That is what I was working on, and we can weave into what's on the screen somehow.

We might get close to an agreement here.

Can we also address the noise ethio?

I can add in noise.

I mean, I don't know if this is procedural, but can you just like text me this language that's up on the screen?

Or email it.

Yes, I'm sure.

Or I can or you can or you can transcribe what I'm saying, one of the two, so that you and I can figure it out.

And this is where the fun part will start, because we'll all we'll all try to come to an agreement as a group.

And Miss Ortiz, you can add in, I did not uh the final sentence about the the waiver.

Um looking at a kind of a complete thing.

I guess I don't understand if they're in compliance, why would we wave it?

I mean it does does that make sense.

Are you able to answer whether or not you would entertain an MOU as a condition?

Entering into an MOU with the city as a condition.

So MOU with whatever you understand a relationship you're requesting these things, and there's no reason for the county not to comply or not to respond to you as to why they don't want to comply.

So I would recommend it.

Replanting.

Replanting, sorry.

Yeah, not re-ratio, yeah.

Oh, reason, yeah.

So before we spend too much time wordsmithing, uh I look to city staff to give us any input they have on the language that we've included.

Positive or negative.

Just at the very beginning, I would say it should be prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.

Make sense.

And Mr.

Chair, I would just note um, and and uh Sean Ryan, I know is on on the uh meeting as well.

Uh I'm not the only thing I'm not sure about is whether the higher ratio of replanting to fee and loo makes sense in this context.

I think the visual buffer will need to have planting.

Obviously, the visual buffer can't be accomplished with in loo payment.

Um I don't know, I don't know if there's uh there's a way to word that that just makes clear that again, uh you know, the visual buffer needs to be adequate to to shield the the site and and and then of course emphasis can be given to native flora, but I would certainly defer to staff's uh uh forestry um expert on that.

We're already using the word adequate, so how about an adequate visual buffer?

Um can we make sure that the viral buffer is plant-based?

It can be a fence or something that also buffer.

I think we can take care of these two things by saying that the buffer comports with the comprehensive master plan.

Um I think it I think Commissioner Fulton kind of says that addressing the facilities.

I think we can take out adequate this we're we're looking what we want is for the county to follow our comprehensive master plan, right?

So I think we can do that, and I see I understand what Mr.

J May is saying about the ratio, and if if Mr.

Ryan's still on, I'd love to hear from him about can we require a higher ratio of replanting to fee and loo?

Or should we just take that out and just leave the native flora part in there?

Yeah, hi Commissioner Pittman.

This is uh Sean Ryan with CBDS.

Um I think that in theory, um, in this, you know, um for this condition, you could require the higher ratio of the replanting to fee and loo.

I think that's would be allowable in the condition.

Now if the site can accommodate that or not, um I'm not sure.

They have submitted a forest conservation plan, which has been through one round of review.

Um I will say that it is very, very heavily planted.

Uh in particular, the area immediately adjacent to the parking lot between the facility and the rights of way, those areas are heavily planted.

Um, but off um off the top of my head, I'm not entirely sure if given the space that they have and given the amount of replacements required, if they would be able to achieve that uh this condition in the current way that it's written.

Thank you.

So we're looking at removing the words to include a higher ratio replanting fee in lieu.

Yeah, I think so.

So if we can do that, Mr.

Ortiz.

Did you catch it?

Any other comments from city staff.

Well did we want to remove the word adequate and replace that by saying uh buffer that comports with the master plan?

I I think Commissioner Fulton says that up front, compliance with the comprehensive plan regarding maintenance of an of a buffer from the residential areas.

And I think that way if we just link it more to the what he says up says first about the CMP.

I I personally would like to leave the word adequate.

You want to leave the word adequate?

Because you guys are saying it's meaningless.

I actually think it may end up having meaning in an MOU.

Unless city staff has heartburn.

So it sounds fine.

Yeah, hearing nothing from city staff.

Uh any other comments or changes from my fellow commissioners.

So are we going to refer to this potential condition as condition 15 or just um a condition drafted here tonight, Mr.

Dumay?

Um, I don't think it matters what number the condition is given.

Um it just in you've done this before, I think, as a body, but the motion would just you know be to approve the mandatory referral with the conditions in the staff report, and then as Mr.

Ortiz has noted, as well as the following condition, and staff will just add that to you know what whatever whatever number it would end up being.

Okay.

Unless there's any other comments from any of my fellow commissioners, I think we have reached a point where I can ask this question.

Would any of my fellow commissioners like to make a motion?

Oh, I have to repeat.

Um, all right.

I would like to move uh that this body approve mandatory referral stp 2025-512, subject to the conditions in the staff report as well as the following condition.

Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the county must enter into a memorandum of understanding with the city addressing the facility's compliance with the comprehensive plan regarding the maintenance of an adequate buffer from the residential areas to the uh to the facility, patient access, release, and egress to and from the facility, signage, noise, and visual buffer with emphasis given to native flora.

Do I have a second second?

All those in favor raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay, that brings us to our next agenda item.

That is Mr.

Wasalak.

Do we have a staff please on report tonight?

Uh yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, your next meeting will be two weeks from this evening, which is September 24th.

And uh we do have a some final record plants uh for that agenda uh that have uh been noticed.

So um so they'll be uh on that agenda after that it'll be uh meeting will be on October 8th, and that will be a ZOR work session.

And following that on the 22nd, uh, we have some applications that are at the uh Shady Groove Innovation Center uh a site plan as well as final record plots in that development.

So uh have a fairly uh robust series of agendas coming up.

I appreciate that.

Mr.

Wasalak.

Um, so do my fellow commissioners, I know for a fact that I will not be available at the next planning commission.

Unfortunately, um I have military duty and I won't be able to call in as I have in times past, and uh I just will be away and I apologize for that.

Uh so that would be my first absence of the year.

Uh as chair under our rules of a procedure, I can designate a member of the commission to serve in my absence.

Uh in line with past practice, we usually have the prior chair uh serve as the temporary chair when the current chair is absent.

So to that end, I would put forward uh uh Commissioner Salahuddin to serve uh while I'm not here.

I'm assuming that's not an issue.

No issue there.

So that's uh done on October or the meeting after that.

Um I also will be absent, but I should be able to call in and chair uh via video teleconference, so that won't be a problem.

Just letting everybody know to ensure we have a quorum at our next meeting.

With that, uh Mr.

Wasslock, any old business?

No.

Any new business?

Not really business, but um well, I suppose it is.

Um I did want to let you know about some uh changes in staffing with CPDS department and uh Jenny Snap, who frequently had been attending your meetings as our deputy director, uh, has moved on to a position with Montgomery County and their housing department, and so uh we wish her well.

Um and I also uh want to let you know that our director Ricky Parker will be retiring uh as of October 3rd, and so we will be um there will be an acting director uh appointed, and uh right now John Foreman is the acting deputy director since Jenny left.

So just to let you know about those things, and um hopefully the next meeting I'll be able to tell you who our acting director is.

I appreciate that, Mr.

Wasilak.

That brings us to meeting minutes.

I saw two sets of minutes, the first being from April 23, 2025.

Is that correct, Mr.

Wasilak?

Yes.

Do any of my fellow commissioners have uh any comments on that set of minutes?

Uh barring any comments.

Uh is there a motion on approving uh meeting minutes uh from April 23rd, 2025.

I move to to approve the motion from approve the meeting for the April 24th.

23.

23rd meeting.

Second.

All those in favor, raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

That brings us to meeting minutes from May 14th, 2025.

Any of my fellow commissioners have any comments on that set of hearing none.

Uh do I have a motion?

I um have a motion to approve the meeting meeting from the uh May 5 15th, 14th, May 14th, 2025.

Do I have a second?

All those in favor, raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Which passes unanimously.

Okay, that brings us to is there any FYI or correspondence, Mr.

Wasalak?

No, there was not.

Okay, thank you.

That brings us uh to the end of our meeting.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

Move to adjourn.

Second, who said uh is there a second?

Second.

Only one can second.

Second.

All those in favor raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Good night, Rockville.