Good evening, Rockwell.

Today is Wednesday, October 8th, 2025.

This is meeting number 13-25 of the City of Rockwell Planning Commission.

I am Jamie Espinosa, Chair of the Planning Commission.

I am joined in chambers tonight by Commissioners Susan Pittman and Eric Fulton, and online by Commissioner Meng Soon.

Commissioner Shayen Salhuddin should be joining us in chamber shortly.

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

Tonight's agenda includes final record plat applications subdividing lots of the Danick Technological Park Subdivision, a level two site plan application at 198 East Montgomery Avenue, a work session on the zoning ordinance rewrite, and all this will be followed by a regularly scheduled commission items.

So our first item tonight is final record plat applications PLT 2025-00632, PLT 2025-00633, PLT 2025-00634, PLT 2025-00635, and PLT 2025-00636 to resubdivide lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Danick Technological Park Subdivision in conformance with Project Plan PJT 2017-00007 and level 2 site plan STP 2020-00393 located in the MXE mixed use employment zoning district at 15815 Shady Grove Road, 15825 Shady Grove Road, 2 Choke Cherry Road, and 2092 Gaither Road, Toll Mid Atlantic LP Company Incorporated Applicant.

Over to Mr.

Wasilak for any staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the Commission.

As you noted, these are final record plants that will implement the prior approvals for the Shady Grove Innovation District.

This is phase one of that project.

And our principal planner, Kimia Zolfigarion is here to make the staff presentation online.

Thank you, Jim.

Good evening, members of the Commission.

As noted, this is a final record plat application for the Shady Grove Neighborhood Center Platz.

And you will be seeing the presentation for that on the screen.

The subject property as shown on the aerial map seen on the right here is located at the addresses of 15815 and 15825 Shady Grove Road, 2 Choke Cherry Road, 2092 Aether Road.

The land use is OCRM, Office Commercial Residential Mix.

The zoning district is MXE, mixed use employment.

It consists of a land area of approximately 11 acres, which combines uh all the five proposed plots and the existing uses office.

What you can see on the aerial image here is the existing four lots of five through seven.

Just a little bit of background for this application.

A project plan PJT 217-0007 was approved in 2019.

Level 2 site plan SCP 2020-00393 was approved in 2020 for phase one of the approved project plan.

An additional major site plan amendment, SCP 2024-00489 was approved in 2024, amending one of the conditions of the site plan, level two site plan that was originally approved back in uh 2020.

The applicant is proposing to resubdivide lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Danak Technological Park Subdivision per SCP 00393.

Uh, and a one-acre park is also approved with the original site plan, which will be conveyed to the city.

With that, staff recommends approval with conditions of final record platz PLT 2025-00632, 00633, 00634, 00635, 00636.

And this concludes the presentation with a recommended motion as shown on the screen here.

Thank you.

Do any of my fellow commissioners in the chambers have questions of staff at this time?

Hearing none, uh, Commissioner Sun online.

Do you have any questions?

Do we have a presentation by the applicant?

Representatives by the applicants are on the call.

Um, and uh I will let them take over any uh presentations that they might have.

Sorry, my apologies.

I was muted.

This is Pat Harris on behalf from Lurch Erleen Brewer on behalf of Toll.

We have no comments.

We're happy to be at this point in the process and looking forward to delivering needed townhouses to the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think this one's gonna be a short one.

Does anyone have any follow-up questions?

Hearing nothing in the chambers, Commissioner Sun.

Hearing nothing, uh staff.

Can we put the proposed motion back on the screen?

Do any of my fellow commissioners uh want to make a motion?

I move that we approve final record platz PLT 2025-00632, 00633, 00634, 00635, and 00636 to resubdivide lots five, six, seven, and eight of the Danick Technological Park Subdivision, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

I second.

All those in favor, raise your hand, say aye.

Aye.

Uh the motion the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

That brings us to item.

Thank you.

That brings us to item number two, uh level two site plan application stp 2025-00503 to permit conversion of 13,011 square feet of previously approved street level retail in 13 residential units at 198 East Montgomery Avenue, Comstock 33 Munro LC applicant.

Over to Mr.

Wasalak for any staff presentation.

Oh, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, this is also an implementation step for a project that you've seen previously, uh, which was to convert uh some of the retail space at Boulevard 44 to residential loss, uh, which require a project plan approval, which the mayor and council did recently.

And senior planner uh Christopher Davis is here to make the staff presentation after I swear him in.

If you could identify yourself for the record.

Yes, Christopher Davis with community planning and development services.

And will you provide truthful testimony and see me?

I will.

Thank you.

So this is the level two site plan for 198 East Montgomery Avenue, as Mr.

Waseleck indicated.

This site plan looks to implement uh project plan, which was uh approved by the mayor and council just last month in September of 2025.

The subject project area is shown on the screen at 198 East Montgomery Avenue, highlighted in red.

The site is located in planning area one, corresponding to the town center, and the site area is approximately 1.41 acres.

The land use designation is CRM, corresponding with the commercial residential mix designation, and the zoning is the PDRCI zoning corresponding with the plant development for Rockville Center Incorporated with an equivalent zone of MXTD.

The specific proposal by the applicant is for a conversion of the ground floor retail space, which was previously approved through the a project plan.

It corresponds with 13,011 square feet of street level retail commercial space that will be converted into 13 residential units.

As you can see from the site plan on the screen, the units will front the abutting streets at Helen Hinnegan Way, East Middle Lane, and Monroe Street.

Again, this specific site plan is required by the zoning ordinance to implement the project plan approval.

So as the commission may be familiar, the project plan did come to this body for review and recommendation and was ultimately approved by the mayor and council on September 15th.

That approval authorized the change of use to the ground floor retail and adjust the mix of uses in the building overall.

So in review of this level two site plan, staff has found that it meets the necessary requirements for approval.

Specifically finding one that the project will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor injurier injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

Staff has found that the improvements will be limited to the existing building and will meet all necessary safety and adequacy requirements.

Staff also has found that the project will not violate any provision of the zoning ordinance.

In addition, the site will maintain compliance with the zoning ordinance and the applicable standards.

Finally, staff has found that the project will not be incompatible with the surrounding uses and properties.

Further, the project will provide additional residence to the area to support neighborhood commercial uses in town center.

The applicant has met all necessary notification requirements as required by the zoning ordinance.

Specifically, there was a pre-application area meeting held on December 9th, 2021, and a required post-application area meeting on February 25th of this year.

So having found that all the necessary requirements have been met.

Staff does recommend approval of level two site plan application STP 2025 00503 to permit conversion of 13,011 square feet of street street level retail into 13 residential units at 198 East Montgomery Avenue, subject to the findings and conditions in staff's report.

And with that, Mr.

Chair, that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Any of my fellow commissioners in chambers have any questions of staff.

Hearing none, Commissioner Sun, do you have any questions?

No.

Is there a presentation by the applicant?

Yes.

Ma'am, we have a strict 10 appearances before us per year policy.

And I think you're getting very close to the probably getting pretty close.

Thank God it's the calendar year is almost over.

Would you identify yourself for the record?

I'm Nancy Reglan from the law firm of Shulman Rogers.

I'm here as counsel for the applicant Comstock 33 Monroe.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thank you.

All right.

So we have been here before on this project more than once.

And we actually gave you an advanced look at a lot of the perspectives during the project plan.

So I am going to go through some of them again just for the record, so that this is a complete record.

If there's anybody watching online, they can also see them in the course of the site plan.

With me tonight is Chris Green, who's a vice president of Comstock, and we have architects and engineers online if there should be any questions.

And I will also add a couple of comments telling you about some things that have evolved as we've moved forward into the detailed engineering.

So if we can add the next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

So this is the illustrative showing the corner of Middle Lane and Monroe to see how the existing conditions is now being changed with urban frontages.

Next slide, please.

And again, these are the middle lane, and the two things that I wanted to show about this segment of the conversion is that there are two lobby entrances here, one from middle lane.

It's with the red arrow at the top, and also a lobby entrance from Monroe Street, and it takes you back into this interior corridor, which allows people, even though they have a on street door to the sidewalk, they can have private access through the rear of their units through this lobby entrance, and it also gives them access to their mail and package, to some storage areas, and to the trash room.

Next slide, please.

So this is from Monroe Street.

This is the boulevard lofts entrance on the left, and then there's a colored door that's the first entrance.

Next slide, please.

And this slide is provided here because there's a condition to the site plan that says about stormwater management.

And this is the only area of the outside, other than the planting of the landscaping that we're actually doing work, and we're regrading the sidewalk on Monroe Street, because these are fairly sloped from middle lane up to East Montgomery Avenue in order to get an ADA entrance into the Boulevard Lofts lobby and to the first unit entrance.

We have to regrade it a little bit so that there's a landing right there.

So it's less than 250 square feet, so just to let you know that's what the conditions are about right there.

Next slide.

Okay, so this is the Monroe Street three bedroom.

Because in front of all of these windows on the three-bedroom is actually transformer grates in the sidewalk, and we can't put any planters out there.

So the door has been recessed to allow for privacy and delineation away from the pedestrians walking on Monroe.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so as we move along the Monroe Street heading down towards middle lane, these are the first of the units, and you can see how the front doors have been pulled back to give room for planters.

And you can see each of these doors.

And what the applicant is looking at is film on those door panes in order to give them some privacy, but to give them some light through those doors.

Next slide, please.

And you can see as we move along the same thing, planters that are indented into the building face.

Next slide, please.

And it takes us to the corner of Helen Hennigan Way and Middle Lane.

And you can see that we have a nice unit on the corner.

Next slide, please.

And as we go up Helen Hennigan Way, there is two units right here at the beginning of Helen Hennigan Way, right at the corner of Middle Lane.

And then you can see this gives us an opportunity though, because the ways the building is designed and where the garage is to be able to do landscaping in the ground.

And it will be a mix of evergreens with some annuals, and they will be all maintained by the building.

Next slide, please.

So where the woman is standing, she's actually in front of the residences on the lane lobby.

So they're sitting right there as a break between all these units.

And then if you've walked up Helen Hennigan Way, you know that the building floor actually transfers to a different elevation, which is why this is the one unit where the floor is the most stepped, um, that has the uh stair and landing, uh, and then the two additional units, and then another lobby unit, uh lobby door, to do the same thing as we saw in middle lane, which is to give you a rear access for all of these residents for privacy if they don't want to use their front door.

Okay, next slide, please.

Okay, and then that's I'm just pointing out where the residences are and where that rear corridor is, and there'll be trash collection back there for these units as well from there.

Next slide, please.

And then the last visual on Helen Hennegaway.

And the one thing that I want to point out, because this is one of our last perspectives, is you'll see that each of these stores are different colors.

They were a spectrum of colors, and as the uh design has evolved, um they're looking more at reducing the size of the spectrum of the colors and keeping them more consistent.

Um so we may see when they're actually built that the door are are not this range of yellows and reds, and that they may be within a smaller spectrum of colors.

All right, next slide, please.

Okay, so to close, we do accept the staff's conditions, and we thank you for your consideration of the site plan.

We're very excited on behalf of the applicant to be able to provide this kind of alternative dwelling unit for people who want to live in town center.

And so we respectfully request that it be approved so we can move forward to permits as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Uh any questions of uh the applicant from commissioners in chambers?

Nope.

Uh Commissioner Singh, do you have any questions of the applicant?

Uh I just have some comments.

I think as with you've cast last time, uh, we're just want to make sure the uh the windows will be uh noise, uh mitigated for all the units.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yes, we have gotten your comments back on that, and uh they are looking at that closely.

Um the windows in the Ansel above it already has uh noise impacts, and so they're designed in certain way for that.

So they assume that they're gonna be the exact same type of windows in order to mitigate um noise as well as privacy.

So we take we've taken your feedback.

The architects are online, they've heard.

So any follow-up questions from any of the commissioners.

Hearing none, uh Mr.

Davis, can you put up that recommended motion, please?

Mr.

Chair, if you could ask if anyone would like to speak.

I don't see anyone online.

Oh, okay.

You're re taking public testimony.

Okay.

Uh do we have anyone in chambers who would like to provide testimony?

Can you ask questions?

Uh well, ma'am, uh you can ask questions through testimony, right?

Like you can make points through testimony and uh then we could potentially follow up with staff or the applicant if we so desired, but we don't take questions from the audience.

Okay, so anybody in chambers want to provide testimony?

Hearing none, anybody online uh want to provide testimony.

Hearing none.

Is there a motion?

Uh Mr.

Chair, I make a motion.

Make a motion to approve level two site plan of permit application STP 2025-0503 uh to permit the conversion of 13,011 square feet of street level retail into 13 residential units at the 198 East Montgomery Avenue property subject to the findings and conditions in staff's report.

Is there a second?

Before our second, can I just reiterate the fact that if you've got a question, you can absolutely ask that question via public testimony.

You can't necessarily expect an answer today, but it will at least be on record.

So if you would like to provide public testimony, now is an extremely appropriate time to do so.

Well, before we go there, we have a motion on the table.

Okay.

So I get there's a motion on the table.

I wanted to put that out there.

No, no, I I appreciate that clarification.

I'm just thinking with the motion on the table.

Let me ask would you want to provide public testimony after uh Commissioner Saladin explained?

Okay.

So my suggestion here, Commissioner Pittman is to withdraw your motion.

What about Commissioner Fulton?

Or Commissioner Fulton, sorry.

Pittman on the right, on my left.

My apologies.

Commissioner Fulton.

Mr.

Chair, I withdraw my motion.

I appreciate that.

And we could reopen to provide public testimony, ma'am.

If you if you give me a second, I'd like to provide the rules.

Um 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.

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

Please adhere to these time limits.

They will be in force.

If you intend to testify for any of today's agenda items, we ask that you sign in on the appropriate sheet on the stand in the back of the room.

Once public testimony is concluded, the commission will enter into discussion deliberation on the application among the members.

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 the hearings will be kept on file with the city's cable television office, and we put it on the planning commission's webpage for viewing.

Okay.

Now with that preliminary uh instructions, ma'am, please come forward, state your name and address, and uh you'll be sworn in.

My name is Connie Robinson.

I live at two Helen Hennigan Way, residence on the lane.

Now, Mr.

Wasselak will swear you in.

Ma'am, you've identified yourself for the record.

Uh, will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

Thank you.

And ma'am, there's a timer in front of me, and it will start as soon as you start speaking.

Okay.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

I'm just concerned.

Um, the apartments residents on the lane were supposed to be senior apartments.

Um, they didn't quite live up to all of that for the seniors as far as the design and some pretty long hallways.

But I just wanted to know will there be a possibility of some of the residents getting a chance for to apply to these apartments?

They're right up under us.

Um, the law apartments.

Um, and will they be super expensive or will they have some affordable housing?

Is that it, ma'am?

Okay, thank you.

Uh I think that concludes the public testimony based off that.

Uh, do any of the commissioners in the chambers have any questions of either staff or the applicant who's still in the room hearing none?

Uh Commissioner Sung, since you're online.

Do you have any questions of staff or the applicant?

Uh seeing none.

Uh is there a motion?

Do any of my fellow commissioners want to make a motion?

Mr.

Chair, I, Commissioner Fulton would like to make a motion.

Please go ahead, Commissioner Fulton.

We got to sit you guys further apart.

We look so much alike.

Uh I move I move that we approve level two site plan uh application stp 2025-00503 to permit the conversion of 13,001 square feet of street level retail into 13 residential units at 198 East Montgomery, subject to the findings and conditions in staff's report.

Is there a second?

A second.

All those in favor raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

That brings us to our third agenda item.

That's a zoting zoning ordinance rewrite, ZOR work session, review of remaining topics, amenity space, landscaping, signs, non-conformities, finding subdivision and plots, neighborhood conversion plans, historic preservation, and recommended rezoning near the Trembrook Metro Station.

Over to Mr.

Waslock for any staff presentation.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh this is the fourth in a series of work sessions on the zoning order and three right project uh that we've uh held with you as the planning commission.

Uh we've had a corresponding series of work sessions with the mayor and council, uh, as you know.

Um we are working toward uh putting together the draft uh document that will be the uh new zoning ordinance.

Um, but it will be a draft and uh it will be also be a zoning text amendment.

Uh, you've seen many of those uh in your tenure, and uh the process for this text amendment will be the same as the zoning text amendment process that you're familiar with.

Uh we will be bringing the draft text amendment and the draft map amendment uh to the mayor and council on December 1st.

Um they were required to authorize the filing of both of those uh items, and then we'll proceed through the uh formal public uh hearing process, public hearings uh in front of yourselves and also in front of the mayor and council.

And we anticipate work sessions with both bodies as well as we work toward the final document, which we expect um will be acted on uh in late spring of 2026.

So tonight we have a number of topics that we would like to discuss with you.

And uh I am joined by my colleagues Holly Simmons and Katie Gerbis online to kind of walk you through these topics.

We'd also like to talk a little bit uh about the process.

Um we know where you have uh we've come a long way, uh I'll put it that way.

Uh, when we started in 2023, and uh we are in the process of now drafting the final zoning uh text amendment, and which will result in the ZOR.

So these work sessions have been set up to gain guidance from the mayor and council on a number of topics.

Although I will say the work sessions do not cover every single thing that is changing in the zoning ordinance, and uh, but they do cover the items that we felt we needed direction uh as we were putting together the document.

So uh when the document does come out in draft uh for December 1st, uh there will be some things that we haven't talked with you or the mayor and council about, uh, but we will have a document that kind of goes through the high-level changes uh between the current zoning ordinance and the zoning ordinance that we are um proposing and you'll be considering.

So I just wanted to talk about that.

Um another aspect uh, of course, is the zoning map.

Um we had received direction from the mayor and council to conduct some additional outreach with uh neighborhoods that were have expect to be concerned with rezonings, and we have done that.

Uh we're not proposing to discuss that this evening, and but we will provide our recommendation on all of those uh as we uh get to authorization to file on December 1st.

So, with that, uh I'm going to turn it over to uh Ms.

Gerbis, who will uh walk you through the historic preservation recommendations.

Thank you, Mr.

Rosalek.

Um nice to see everyone virtually here tonight.

We have quite a few slides here to provide you with an update on what we are proposing revising in the zoning ordinance relative to historic preservation.

I'll warn you up front, the most slides of any topic are on this topic.

Uh so once we get through this, it should be smooth sailing for the rest of our work session here this evening.

So going back a minute before we look ahead, I wanted to remind you all about the historic preservation work plan.

Um, this is a document that was endorsed by the mayor and council in May of 2023.

Um, and really at its core, it's exactly what it sounds like.

It's a work plan.

So it kind of lays out the staff actions, um, budget requests, what our division's priorities are here in historic preservation over the course of 10 years.

And ultimately the end goal of the historic preservation work plan is that once we've done all of these discrete actions.

I think there's about 40 or so actions in the work plan total, that we would be able to update our preservation plan, which sort of sets the policy direction and policy guidance for preservation in Rockville.

So of those 40 some odd work um items that we have or actions, there are six work items.

Um one of those six, work item A, specifically talks about necessary updates to the zoning ordinance that are needed.

So through this zoning ordinance rewrite process, we are looking at all six of those items.

Um that being said, almost all of the edits that you will see discussed here tonight come directly from that historic preservation work plan.

There are a few that are staff suggestions based on feedback we've heard, what we've seen work in other places, potentially issues that we've seen with that code here in Rockville.

Um, your staff report has quite a bit of detail on which of these recommendations come from which documents were staff generated.

Um and the last thing for you all to be aware of is the historic district commission did discuss these edits at their July meeting.

They were positive, like favorably for almost all of them, a couple of tweaks that they had suggested.

But so at this point in time, the HDC has reviewed this as well as the mayor and council when they had their work session on Monday evening.

So now to go through these changes, the certificate of approval, we're having a couple proposed changes here.

As a reminder, certificate of approvals or COAs is what we often call them.

These are essentially the permit that is required to do any exterior work on any of our locally designated historic sites and structures here in Rockville.

There are very, very limited things that do not need a certificate of approval at all.

And even more limits on what staff could approve themselves.

It's really limited to three things.

Staff can approve a sign, we can approve a fence, and we can approve the removal of a diseased, dead or hazardous tree.

Anything else must come to the full historic district commission.

You have to submit an application five weeks in advance of the meeting date, go through a hearing process, staff write a staff report about the compatibility of that alteration with the historic district, then ultimately you would get permission to make that modification or you would not.

The other thing to note about certificate of approvals is currently they expire after one year.

So if you got your approval on January 1st of 2025, come January 2nd of 2026, that would have expired.

And if you did not request a extension in advance, you would have to go through that process all over again.

So the two changes that we are proposing to make here, one is creating a system whereby staff can administrative administratively approve certificate of approvals for work that we think is minor, common, not really very impactful.

So a couple examples I have here of work that we believe would fall into that description.

If there's a minor alteration to a certificate of approval that was previously approved by the historic district commission, so say you came to us with a very specific make and model of the front door that you want to have replaced, and the HDC said yeah, you can install Company A's model seven door.

And let's say company A stops making that model seven door, and you have to go to a model eight door, which is practically the same, it's the same dimensions, it has the same characters and future features.

Um, you would still currently under our current code be required to get a whole new certificate of approval.

Um so if there are minor things like that and the kind of substance of the work has already been approved, we believe that staff should be able to sign off on that.

Um, other things, we're talking minor landscaping here.

Um perhaps you are swapping out your mailbox or your light fixture.

One that we see a lot of that we would really like to administratively approve has to do with the installation or replacement of utility meters and devices.

So if you want to install, let's say uh ring camera or a motion activated light outside of your property.

Maybe you need a new HVAC unit.

And as a result, um, the unit that sits outside is going to look very different than what's there now.

We should be able to administratively sign off on that as staff and not make you go through a full lengthy process.

Regarding the expiration date, our proposal here is to extend this expiration period from one year to five years.

That would be consistent with what the ZOR is proposing for several of our other planning application types and their respective expiration dates.

Moving into local designations.

So right now, anyone can file an application that would nominate a property for local historic designation.

You do not need to be affiliated with that property in any capacity in order to do that.

I can wake up tomorrow and say that house over there, I'm gonna nominate it.

Additionally, property owners are not required to consent to the nomination of their property or the actual designation of their property.

And this is something that we've had a lot of feedback on in the past couple of years, where we have had some cases where either the property owner was vocally against designation, or we've had um most recently in four courthouse square, which came before you all in 2024, I believe it was, um, where the property owner didn't take a stance one way or another.

Um, so it kind of puts you all as approving bodies and recommending bodies in a little bit of an awkward spot.

Um, it's easy if the property owner is like, yes, I really want this, please do it.

Um but when the property owner says no, or the property owner isn't taking a stance one way or another, um, you know, ultimately we are rezoning a property when we put it into the historic district.

It comes with a whole new set of regulations.

So we want to be aware of the property rights there.

And I believe a few members of this body had kind of expressed during the four courthouse square process how this felt problematic for them.

So that being said, proposed revisions that we have here is first we're gonna limit who can file an application that nominates a property for designation.

And our proposal is to limit that to the property owner themselves, the historic district commission, or the mayor and council.

If there is a third party who is not one of those groups who is interested, so if I was interested in nominating a property, um, I would then let the property owner, historic district commission, or mayor and council know and say, hey, I really think you should consider this property.

Here are the reasons why I think you should consider it.

Um I can't speak for property owners, but I can speak for the historic district commission since I'm one of their staff liaisons, um, that we would report that out to them and then they would have a discussion as to whether or not they wanted to consider filing a nomination application for that property.

The other thing that we are proposing here is owner consent and how that's factored into this process.

Um our proposal that you see on the slide before you is that if the property owner consents, we would want the majority vote of the mayor or the HDC to file a sectional map amendment and then ultimately a majority vote of the mayor and council to in fact rezone that property to the historic district zone.

That's what it currently is now.

We just need a majority.

The proposal that we initially brought to the mayor and council on Monday would be saying that if the owner does not consent or is silent in their consent, um, that a unanimous vote would be required.

So it would still be possible to designate that structure.

Um, if, say there's a really important resource that we are truly at risk of losing forever, even if the property owner doesn't want it, there's still an avenue to go ahead and designate that property, but it raises the bar.

It makes it a little bit more challenging to do so.

I will add that on Monday night's mayor and council meeting, there was discussion and general consensus to kind of add a third option here.

So to make it where if the owner consents, we just need a simple majority.

So in the case of the historic district commission, they're a body of five, so that would be three for the mayor and council, that would be four.

If the owner vocally and adamantly does not consent, then that would be unanimous.

But if the owner is silent on the issue, that was the case we had in four Courthouse Square.

They didn't say they liked it, they didn't say they didn't want it, that we would need a supermajority.

So it would kind of be a three-pronged approach there to reflect the owner's wishes in the process as well.

Again, I want to clarify there would still be a way to designate against the owner's wishes, but it would just make that bar a little bit harder.

Delisting.

Um, so the delisting is the process of taking a property and removing it from our historic district zone, which is really removing it from our local register of historic places.

Right now, we do not have the ability in our code to do that.

So as a result, there are structures that physically do not exist anymore that are still on our local register.

The best example that I have is just a block away from where you all are here.

Um, the district court building that was originally the site of the 1977 Rockville library, that library ended up being demolished to make away for the district courthouse, but that library is still on a register.

So when I go and I count up our historic districts and I do a report showing what all those sites are, we still see that library.

So our proposal here is to create a process to remove a property from the historic district zone.

If the site or structure has lost the physical characteristics that justified its designation.

So in the case of the library, it's just straight up not there anymore.

So we should remove that from the register.

Perhaps we have an instance where there was a natural disaster or a fire of something of that nature that has ruined all or a very large portion of the property.

We should have a way to pull that off of our register so that way our register is the most up-to-date and accurate list of historic properties here in Rockville.

Next slide.

Demolition by neglect.

So I'm gonna literally read you the definition of demolition by neglect in our zoning ordinance.

And it reads that demolition by neglect of historic properties is the failure to maintain property or any component thereof located in a historic district so as to jeopardize the historic integrity of the property.

So we have this definition, it's a defined term, but it doesn't actually appear any more than in that definition in our ordinance.

So it says what it is, but it doesn't say you can't do it.

It doesn't list a punishment or a penalty for doing that.

So here we're proposing to make those two revisions, expressly prohibiting demolition by neglect.

I'm just saying that if you have a historic structure, you have a certain obligation to maintain that structure.

And we're not talking like peeling paint.

We're talking like roof has caved in, and as a result, it's lost the entire second floor of the building.

We're talking, you know, big things that are kind of an intentional neglect that happens over an extended period of time here.

So we would be proposing to prohibit that and then allow a municipal infraction to be levied in instances where we do find there is a case of demolition by neglect of a historic structure taking place.

And then I think this may be my last slide here.

Um this is about evaluations of significance.

We shorthand that as EOS.

Um, so evaluations of significance, this is the process where we review a property to determine if it meets any of our nine criteria for historic designation.

Um there are two ways that an evaluation of significance can be triggered.

The first is if you file a nomination application to designate that property.

So we already talked about that.

That would trigger this evaluation of significance.

But the second reason that that would get triggered is currently in Rockville, any time a demolition permit comes through, we are required to do a full evaluation of significance.

It doesn't matter how old the structure is, it does not matter the condition of the structure, it still has to go through a full evaluation of significance.

Um so we mentioned a hypothetical example of there was a fire and a structure was you know partially or completely taken down as a result of that.

If it was partially taken down and you wanted to demo the rest of it, you would need a full evaluation of significance.

Um let's say there was a structure that was built last year that for whatever reason we've decided it needs to come down.

Obviously, a structure that was built a year ago is not historic, but we would still be required to do a full evaluation of significance.

So we're seeing quite a few of these come through in the last couple years as our community is looking to redevelopment opportunities, especially in commercial areas, as we're taking um vacant and obsolete office buildings offline and repurposing that land largely as residential, although not exclusively.

Um, those are all requiring evaluations of significance.

As we've had redevelopment in some of our commercial corridors of um shopping centers and things of that nature, that all still needs a full evaluation of significance.

Um the EOS process is very laborious from a staff perspective.

Um we have to do a lot of research, it's quite a heavy lift from staff to um research all of these different nine criteria.

Um so that's things like the architecture, but that's also like did an influential person live there or do an activity there.

Um was this an important site to um the culture of Rockville in some way?

So it's really quite a lot of research, um and we have to do it a lot.

And there are cases where we think it's pretty obvious there's no historic significance here, but we're still required to do it.

So our proposed revisions here is saying that we only have to bring an evaluation of significance to the full historic district commission if the structure has been identified in our historic buildings catalog as potentially having historic significance, or if as staff are doing their research, we think it meets at least one of those designation criteria.

If either of those two cases happen, we go ahead and we bring it to the full HDC.

In an instance where it's not in our historic buildings catalog, staff are researching, we don't see that it meets any designation criteria.

We believe that staff should have the ability to sign off on that administratively and not bring it to the full commission.

The other addition here that we are proposing is a note adding that if we've done an evaluation of significance in the last five years, we shouldn't be required to do another one simply because a new triggering event has happened.

So this would prevent us from doing things kind of back to back and the off chance that something happened in that year in between or whatever it would be.

Um we think this would significantly improve response times for staff and really lighten our workload here for cases that are pretty cut and dry.

So that is our historic preservation section.

Holly and Jim, do we want to take any questions now or wait until the end?

I think we'd probably take questions now by topic.

So how do we want to approach this?

Do you want to go through the areas where you are seeking feedback and questions?

We can just kind of go one by one.

We certainly can do it that way.

Holly and Jim, is that how you'd like to handle this?

Well, the work session was really intended to um one, provide information to the to the commission on some of our recommendations and what the mayor council had discussed about them.

You're not obligated to to weigh in on any or all of these.

Certainly welcome to.

And if you'd like to discuss them, get more information, that's fine.

Or if you'd like to make a recommendation, that's also fine.

For just kind of ease of administration, I'd like to go one by one so we aren't throwing questions at different topics and going back and forth on slides.

So if we can kind of start at the beginning and we can pull the commissioners.

And you know, we may not have any questions or feedback.

So Holly, I think we could skip this one because this is really just background information.

All right.

So certificate of approval.

Do any of the commissioners in chambers have any questions or feedback on this proposal?

I got one.

So can I get a clarification?

So it sounded like what we were saying was if the property owner was against the idea of a historic designation that we needed a majority vote of mayor and council.

But if a property owner was agnostic, then we needed a supermajority.

Is that right?

Or did I mishear that?

Yes.

So Holly, if you could, that's on a separate slide here.

So if we can hold the question until we get to that topic.

No, this certificate of approval.

You see what I'm saying?

That way we're not going back and forth.

Oh, my bad.

Yeah, yeah.

This is not the we'll hold that question until we get to that topic.

So on certificate of approvals, do any of the commissioners in chamber have any comments?

Hearing none, Commissioner Simon.

Uh I have a question.

Uh so you mentioned the extended experiment uh expiration period is to five years.

So does the applicant still have options to extend that?

I would need to look exactly how it's drafted in the code that we're kind of working on behind the scenes.

Nick Dumay, do you recall?

I know we talked about this.

I think we said that after five years they would not, but I don't have that up in front of me at this moment to confirm for sure.

Sure.

Yeah, Commissioner Son, I can answer that question.

So the way that we're proposing to draft the new zoning ordinance, there is a common extension provision in a separate section of the ordinance um dealing with sort of the general administration of all sorts of different uh plans and approvals.

Um generally we are allowing extension of implementation periods.

Uh, but Ms.

Gerbis is right that uh tentatively in our current draft, the decision was made that for certificates of approval, we really do think it's reasonable for folks to get their construction completed within the five-year period.

And because the sort of historicity of structures can change over time, we felt that extending beyond the five-year period, which is already a pretty generous implementation period, um, might raise some issues.

So that's certainly something that the commission could comment on, but that's the decision I believe that we've made at this point.

Thank you.

I think I agree.

I think from one year to five years, the applicant already has plenty time to construct the work and five years is long enough.

The structure might change tool.

So I agree with this.

Thank you.

Any follow-up from any other commissioner?

Okay, hearing none, let's move on to the next topic.

The local designation process and consent.

Any of the commissioners in the chamber have any questions or comments on this one?

This is Shelly and me, right?

Yep.

Oh, yeah.

Yep.

So take it away.

Yes.

So as staff proposed, kind of in the working draft that was mentioned earlier, it was a two-pronged approach approach.

So if the owner um, you know, in writing consents, it would be a majority.

If the owner does not in writing consent, it would be unanimous.

Um so that would apply if the owner is silent or if the owner in writing said no.

Um, what the mayor and council discussed on Monday night is they want to make a third option.

So there's a difference between an enthusiastic yes, an enthusiastic no, and being silent on the matter.

So in the case of an enthusiastic yes, it would be the majority.

In the case of a I'm silent on the matter, it would be a supermajority.

And in the case of an enthusiastic no, it would be a unanimous.

That does answer the question.

In my mind, um, any land, you know, any owner that doesn't take a stance on this is tantamount to saying yes.

So in my mind, that's kind of how it should be uh treated.

Not proposing a change necessarily, but um, if they're agnostic to me that that means that the will of the city should prevail, in which case it shouldn't, you know, that we shouldn't have a higher bar for that than then than the uh enthusiastic guess.

Any follow-up comments or questions in the chamber.

So since the HDC is five members, so a supermajority is four, because five would be unanimity.

Uh, what about for mayor and council?

I believe it's it's at six, Mr.

Dumay.

Um I think that if we uh because we don't have the supermajority defined right now in the code, this is something the mayor and council just recently recommended rather than use the term supermajority, although that's what we're using when we describe it, we would probably specify a number.

So it could be five, for example.

I was just curious.

Thank you.

We we've done that elsewhere in the code where we've talked about supermajorities for the mayor and council.

Got it.

Thanks.

Not to get too far down in the weeds, but if you start specifying numbers and then HDC is not full, you know what I'm saying?

Like we're missing two people that we're supposed to have.

So that uh that would make give me pause.

And I I don't have strong feelings about the two versus the three metrics, but that might be something to think about.

That if you start putting specific numbers in there and then you don't have a full compliment on the historic district commission, you might get stuck.

That's a very good point.

Yeah, we would think about that for sure.

I think I want to rephrase what I said earlier.

It's not in my mind, it's not being agnostic, right?

If you're uh an owner and you don't opine, it's indifference.

And indifference in my mind is a um, you know, like at that point, it becomes obvious to me that the city's decision should should uh should prevail.

Commissioner Singh, any comments or questions on this one?

Yeah, I just want to clarify.

So you'll say when the owner doesn't give opinion, is the owner being informed about this?

Yes.

So that is in both our current code and the proposed code, too, that within a certain number of days um from an application coming in, the owner is required to be notified via certified mail.

Obviously, if we know who the owner is, then we have contact information, we will also call them or email them.

Um, but we would also have it by certified mail.

So there is that formal record.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't have any strong opinion on this.

Any follow-up?

Okay, hearing none.

Let's move on to the next one.

D listing.

Any questions or comments uh in the chamber?

I would just say this is a great idea.

I I can't believe I I really can't believe that we can't delist.

And so I'm glad you guys picked up on that and are doing it.

Hearing nothing else, Commissioner Singh, any questions or comments on this one?

Yeah, I have a have thought have a side situation.

Let's say like uh this building is uh called a fair and uh partially damaged and it might is not entitled in all the criteria, but the owner were or someone is rebuilt to his original status.

Was that process or the new building still considered historic?

Yeah, so it would in that case.

So if you were reverting a building to kind of what its original um, you know, character looked like the original design and stuff, yeah, that would absolutely still be a historic building.

Um, in preservation, there's kind of a couple of different terms that I think are used different in the preservation world than in like the layperson world.

Um rehabilitation, preservation, and restoration.

So what you're describing would be a restoration.

We are bringing it back to what it once was at the time versus preservation is we're keeping it frozen in whatever it is right now.

Um, or a rehabilitation is you know, we're we're keeping the historic character, but we're bringing or modernizing it in some way.

So yeah, that would absolutely still um be a historic structure.

And delisting is not something we think will happen often.

Um we are limiting who would be able to initiate this process because this is not meant to be a tool.

If I'm tired of having a historic designation on my site, um, you know, maybe I don't want to go through those regulations.

That this is not the tool for that.

Um, this is really in those weird cases, like the library where it physically does not exist, but it's still on our register.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Yeah.

I have a question on the previous slide.

I'm sorry, I just thought of it.

This is why you get his name wrong all the time.

Um I just want to ask the planning commission does play a role in the historic designation process, and it's not mentioned on the slide.

I just want to make sure that our role will remain the same in what's being proposed here, correct?

Yes.

So it would still be a sectional map amendment process.

So that would be initiated by the historic district commission.

So this vote of the HDC here is referring to the initiation of that sectional map amendment.

Then, like all map amendments, it would come to you all as a body for your recommendation, and then ultimately the final authority lands with the uh mayor and council.

Okay.

And so then the votes on this body in situations where unanimity is required by HDC or Mayor and Council does not necessarily impact as currently drafted, yes, because you would be making the recommendation, not actually making that final decision.

Okay, no, that that's fine.

I'm okay with that.

And I think just as I think about it, I I certainly had reservations about the the not having owner consent.

I think I still lean more towards unanimity across the board, whether it's uh no consent or indifference as it is, but uh I think that there's there's a I think I'm in the minority on that, but I did want to just state that.

Thank you.

Okay, so on delisting, any follow-up comments or questions?

Okay, hearing none.

Next topic.

Demolition by neglect.

Any questions or comments in the chamber?

I think my only comment or kind of question comment is why would this does this apply to structures that are not designated?

Like can someone just it does not.

It only applies to structures that are historically designated.

So you could have oh, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

No, go go right ahead.

So I think we're on the same line there.

Yeah, so you could have just uh a house that's built in 1983 or 85, whatever that is outside the zone of historic preservation, and you could just neglect it, and that's okay.

Well, that would fall under our typical property maintenance code.

Okay.

So our code enforcement team would be out there, and you know, that chapter of the city code kind of lists what is and is not acceptable from that regard.

This would be above and beyond because it's possible that you are neglecting and damaging the historic character and historic features of a historic property without actually being in violation of elements of the property maintenance code.

Does that make sense?

Oh, yes, thank you.

Okay, very clear.

Thanks.

Any follow-up questions or comments in the chamber?

Commissioner Singh, any questions or comments on this one?

Okay, hearing nothing else.

Next topic.

Evaluation of significance.

Any questions or comments in the chamber.

Hearing none, Commissioner Stung.

Do you have any questions or comments on this one?

No, next topic.

That's all for me.

We'll pass it over to Holly.

Thank you so much, Katie, and good evening.

So diving right into our next topic, as the commission is aware, our zoning ordinance includes a number of um development requirements, things that apply to all developments or a broad variety of developments, including things such as our parking and loading requirements and our pedestrian and bicycle facilities requirements, which you all heard more about during our August work session.

Um, another example is landscaping and signage requirements, which are included in the staff report for this evening's work session, but which we will not be addressing directly in the presentation.

And also what we are proposing to call amenity space.

So this amenity space requirement would in fact take the place of two different requirements that we currently have in our zoning ordinance.

Open area and what is sometimes required as a subset of open area public use space.

Currently, these are required for a broad variety of developments, and we are getting the quantity of open area and public use space that is required generally, but within that quantity, we really are not getting the quality of public use space, particularly that we are looking for.

So we are proposing to reconfigure these two requirements as amenity space with a new definition that is clearer, more narrow, and specifying criteria that really get at quality over quantity.

So with this, we would be slightly reducing the quantity that is required, but greatly increasing ideally the quality of amenity space that we are receiving.

We are proposing that this space would continue in most cases to be publicly accessible.

It would be required generally for mixed-use projects and residential projects in the mixed-use zones, the residential medium density zones, except for the RMD infill and our proposed residential high density zone, with some exceptions.

And we are also proposing that there would be flexibility, particularly in the mixed-use transit district zones, in understanding that these are intended to be our most high density walkable zones where space really, space and land really are at a premium costs are higher.

So although we are proposing that this requirement still be in place for the MXTD zones, we are proposing that up to 50% of that amenity space could be available to residents only.

So for example, an applicant could come in and propose that the rooftop of a multifamily apartment building be amenity space and not make it available to members of the public.

We are also proposing that this requirement could in instances be met through dedication of land or through a fee and lieu or alternative compliance if an applicant comes up with a better alternative.

We would want to see that entertained as well.

So that is the high level on this.

I would say that on Monday evening's mayor and council work session, mayor and council did agree that this was a good direction to go in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

So I think it might make sense to pause per topic area to give us the time to process and then ask questions instead of getting a ton of information and then trying to remember questions.

Do any of the commissioners in chamber have any questions or comments about this proposal?

So is it accurate that we are proposing to eliminate the current exemptions for affordable housing projects, senior persons, disability persons projects across the board?

Is that right?

That's an excellent question.

In the draft currently, we do have a number of exceptions.

Currently, as you stated in our zoning ordinance, we do have a broad exception for any project that is for housing for seniors with disabil housing for seniors and persons with disabilities, and also affordable housing projects.

We did discuss this exemption both with our recreation and parks uh colleagues and our housing and community development colleagues, and ultimately landed at a place where we would have an exemption that's a little bit narrower.

So it would be for an application for a residential development, which is 100% affordable at an average AMI of 60% or less.

And that is also located within one quarter mile of a public park or publicly accessible amenity space.

So that is the current what's in the current draft.

Okay, so we're not eliminating the exemptions for senior housing for housing for disabled and for um.

Uh so only for that low AMI population.

100% low low AMI.

That is in that category of the housing for seniors and persons with disabilities and also affordable housing.

Yes, we would we would not be including or we are proposing not to move forward with the exemption for housing for seniors and persons with disabilities and slightly revising the exemption for affordable housing projects as stated in my previous response.

I will note that we do have four, I think four other exemptions.

I am happy to go over what those are proposed to be, if that would be useful.

I think it would be.

Please do.

Absolutely.

Okay, I I don't want to cut off your line of questions.

No, no, no.

I think that's actually I think it's totally appropriate.

Like my my concern is about equity, right?

Like anytime we carve out a certain population that gets treated a little bit differently, right?

I I I'm concerned about equity and my concerned about um the maybe unforeseen consequences that may in fact work against the goal of the um of the proposed rule, and that is to increase development um for disadvantaged folks.

Uh when we create a situation where there's some amount of inequity or maybe tilting the um you know the the playing field on one side versus the other, we end up uh you know with a with an environment that actually inhibits that development that we're trying to encourage rather than you know actually making it easier.

So that that that's kind of the crux of my uh my my question here.

So yes.

So yes, I would like to see here more.

Absolutely.

So as currently drafted, the following applications would be exempted from this requirement.

So the first is an application for up to five dwellings.

The second is an application for an industrial use or an automotive use.

The third is an application for a non-residential use with a gross floor area of up to 20,000 square feet.

The fourth is the one we've already gone over, and then the fifth is kind of a two-parter.

It's an application covering a site area that is either in the MXTD zone, one acre or less, or in all other zones where this is a requirement, 20,000 square feet, which is just under half an acre or less.

Just giving everybody a minute.

So basically smaller projects and industrial focused projects.

I would say that's a fair characterization.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other follow-up comments or questions from in the chamber?

Commissioner Sung, do you have any comments or questions on this item?

Sure.

Uh yeah, I'm just thinking uh first I want to ask like how much reduction in the amount space required compared uh to the current requirement.

That's a great question, a little bit of a tricky one to answer.

Currently, our open area and public use space requirements vary based on zone and on the size of the development and on where they are in relation to the South Pike area.

Um there are a number of different factors, and I would say kind of generally the requirements right now for public use space, I believe vary between 10 to 15 percent.

Jim's nodding his head as well.

And we're proposing that they be 10% across the board where this is a requirement.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I think it's reasonable, and uh I think maybe the simpler is better to understand and for everyone to remember that tool.

And so I'm just consider uh the point of the equity, right?

So if we we require for every product, let's say around the 10%, and the instead of exemption for all those uh different groups, and can we maybe require um smaller percentage?

Or maybe they can do the fee in law.

I feel like uh if they they um the affordable housing if there's also a cost that you see for the housing, but if they can pay a smaller fee for them to um kind of build to a public park, the city that the residents can walk walk there, that that's also better, maybe better than totally exempt from the requirement.

Just one thought.

And another thought I have is uh I totally agree with this um quantity versus quality.

And do we have a clear definition of what does high quality amenity space mean?

Like what items or facilities wish with the least in there to determine the high quality.

We do we have a working definition in the draft, and I think this is the main way that we are um conceptualizing and regulating what what that high quality looks like and is.

Um, I will read the beginning of it and then kind of give you a framework for understanding the rest of it.

So currently the working definition is amenity space is an area within a development site designed to meet the active or passive recreational needs of residents, patrons, employees, and the general public.

Amenity space includes but is not limited to, and then we have a list of eight different four instances.

I think it is important to remember or keep in mind that it is a list of things it includes but is not limited to.

So if there are things that are kind of in the same vein, um those would also be included.

And then we have a list of six additional items that clearly state amenity space does not include the following.

If it would be useful to hear that list, both of those lists as well, I'm happy to share them.

Sure, please share with us.

Absolutely.

So amenity space includes but is not limited to active and passive recreation areas such as children's playgrounds and totlots, sport courts or fields, informal green spaces, and picnic areas, fountains and swimming pools and associated improvements.

That's number one.

Two, urban plazas or other gathering areas improved with seating and shade, three, linear parks and trails, four publicly accessible interior gathering spaces, five natural and forested areas and water courses, six historical resources, seven, those portions of a stormwater facility, including walkways and landscaping designed for human enjoyment, and eight landscaping, which is contiguous to or integral to the features listed here.

And then the next list, amenity space does not include the following.

One private yards, two street rights of way, including sidewalks located within those street rights of way or easements, three vehicular parking lots and required landscaped and circulation areas, four walkways when not otherwise associated with amenity space, five driveways and drive aisles, and six land covered by structures not designated, not designated for recreation or gathering.

Thank you.

It's a lot.

Yeah, I think it covers the all the facilities in there.

Any I don't have no, thank you.

Um questions in the chamber.

Oh okay, Miss Simmons back to your presentation.

Thank you so much.

So next up is non-conformities.

So we're moving out of our kind of general development requirements and into the question of what do we do with a use or a structure that used to conform to our requirements, but that no longer conforms to our code requirements.

So all of this information is on one slide, but I do want to um provide a little bit of a framework here.

We kind of have um recommendations in two buckets corresponding to the first two bullet points in the current heading.

So the current issue is there's one current issue at the first bullet point and a recommended change at the first bullet point in proposed, and then the second bullet point under current corresponds to the next three under proposed.

So I'll take them one at a time and go a little slow.

Um we are the two buckets really are proposed changes in the use table, which would create strategic nonconformities, and then the second deals with the regulations that govern non-conforming uses and structures.

So to address the strategic non-conformities first, generally um we try to avoid creating non-conformities, however, there are certain instances when doing so is viewed as strategic.

And we have two examples that we wanted to highlight in the mixed-use transit district zones.

Uh so the first is gas stations, which are currently a special exception, which have a higher standard of approval and need to go before the Board of Appeals, additional process to be approved in the mixed-use transit district zones.

And the second is drive-throughs.

Currently, in our zoning ordinance, only four use types are permitted to have drive-throughs at all.

They are banks, pharmacies, cannabis dispensaries, and restaurants.

And I will say of those four in the MXTD zones, restaurants with drive-throughs are not permitted at all.

The other three are permitted so long as they are located inside of a building or a structure.

So we're probably talking about a parking structure, maybe not a hotel lobby so much.

But that is the requirement that they be located inside of a building or structure if they're located within the MXTD.

We did a full review of the uses in the mixed use transit district zones.

Just understanding that again, this is intent, these are intended to be our most walkable, highest density transit oriented zones.

So we were looking at them through a comprehensive planning lens with the comp plan in mind, and also through the climate action plan lens.

So we did ultimately land at a place of recommending that these should no longer be permitted within the mixed use transit district zone.

The uses could continue if they are currently in existence.

If they are made non-conforming, if they are no longer permitted within this zone or these zones, they would be subject to our nonconformities regulations, which we're going to go over in just a moment, the changes that we're proposing there, or they could be brought into conformance with our code requirements.

So to move on to the second bullet point under that current uh current heading.

Our nonconforming uses and structures regulations currently are quite confusing and they are overly restrictive.

So we are proposing three broad recommendations to address this situation.

The first is that we are proposing to reduce the process required for non-conforming structures and uses to be altered in certain instances.

These are really things that things are scenarios that we would like to encourage if a property owner has a non-conforming use or structure, but they want to improve it with pedestrian or bicycle facilities.

Stormwater improvements, same deal.

Any facade work, maintenance for safety and ADA improvements, and work to actually bring the nonconformity into greater conformance with our code requirement requirements.

All of these things right now would require additional process and additional standards to do.

Under our proposal, that would be a minor site plan amendment.

If you damaged by accident or by natural disasters, so today, if you owned a small business and it burned down, you could not replace it in kind under our regulations, which we do not think is appropriate.

We do think that if if that destruction happens through no fault of your own, you should be able to replace it in kind.

And finally, our code does not allow for the expansion of any non-conforming uses whatsoever.

However, we do have nonconforming uses that have been in existence a number of years.

I'm sure Mr.

Wazlack could tell you a few examples of those.

But we do think that there should be allowances for not nonconforming uses to expand a nominal amount.

We are recommending 20% at this point in time.

And this we are proposing would have to go through that additional process, that non-conforming alterations process.

So if you want to reduce your non-conforming use, we want to ease the process.

If you want to increase or expand it, that additional process would apply as proposed.

So that closes out our recommendations for nonconformities.

Very happy to answer any questions.

Is that 20% by square footage?

What's the metric there?

And is that annually or in total?

These are excellent questions.

Um, let me pull up the language that we have.

So currently the language is a non-conforming use may be expanded by no more than 20% of the total square footage of the use at the time it was rendered nonconforming.

So it would be 20% total from the time that it was rendered nonconforming, and it is in the draft based on square footage.

I think we're all just processing all of this.

Um any other questions in the chamber comments.

Did I I'm sorry.

Did I hear you right that it's not permitted to have a drive-thru for a gas station?

But it is permitted to have a drive-thru for a cannabis dispensary.

You can't drive through for something you need to drive, but you can drive through for something you're not allowed to do if you're driving.

I think some of that comes down.

Uh the short answer is yes, but some of that is going to come down to our definition of drive-through.

Um, and I think that the the fueling bays at a gas station would not be considered a drive-thru.

So certainly you can have an area where a car could, you know, stop and then traverse through those fueling stations.

We just would not classify it as a drive-thru, but it is also correct that we do permit drive-throughs for cannabis dispensaries, yes.

Which I'm not necessarily against, but I would be against it if it meant that you couldn't have a drive, you couldn't drive through a gas station.

But you're I I get what you're saying.

That's not what you mean by drive-through.

Gas stations are cool.

Got it.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments in the chamber?

Commissioner Sung, do you have any questions or comments on this on these proposals?

I would just comment the fact that uh in my mind, um, I think it's not fair to penalize anyone who is doing business currently.

Um, that the because of the fact that the um the city is sort of playing catch-up and and making decisions ex post facto, right?

So limiting a business's ability to expand or to remain profitable in a changing environment because the regs change to me is not fair.

Um, they had an idea, they executed on that idea, and that idea was put in place and has been successful to date.

We as a city um uh should encourage that sort of behavior.

Um, and they shouldn't be limited because we're we're we we as a city are playing catch up uh to maybe something we should have thought about or we didn't know about.

So uh in my mind, limiting their ability to expand because they're non-conforming by virtue of no nothing other than the city change their mind is unfair.

Any follow-up in the chamber?

Uh Commissioner Selling made me think of this.

So for the final bullet point we were talking about allow non-conforming uses to expand by up to 20%.

Uh, is that a one-time deal, or could I expand by 20% and then come back and expand by another 20% and come back and expand by another 20%?

Excellent question.

So, based on the language in the draft, currently it would be a total of 20% from the time that the use was rendered nonconforming.

So it would be kind of based off of that point in time.

You could come back for 5%, 7%, 8%, up to that total of 20%.

Uh Commissioner Sung, do you have any questions or comments on this proposal?

I'm just thinking like so.

Under this new change, what use will become the new non-conforming yields?

So what kind of yields will be affected by this?

By the proposal to create the strategic non-conformities or by the changes in regulations governing non-conformities.

I'm sorry, I'm just seeking a little clarification.

Maybe the creating the strategic nonconformities affected by this.

Yeah, yeah.

What affected by this?

Yes.

So generally it would be drive-throughs and gas stations, which are currently in existence in the MXTD zone, or the areas that are proposed to become one of the new MXTD zones.

So that would be the MXTD 85, 200, and 235, which, if you'll recall, those correspond to the town center master plan character areas.

Okay.

So it's mainly yeah, if I think the drive-through use.

Drive-throughs and gas stations, yes.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

I'm fine with that.

Yeah.

Any alibis in the chamber.

Okay.

Hearing none.

Back to you.

All right, moving on to subdivision and platz regulations.

So one of the quirks of our zoning code is that it does also deal with subdivision.

Other jurisdictions may separate this out into an entirely separate chapter, but ours does not.

It addresses it within the zoning ordinance.

So subdivision generally speaks to any time that you are creating entirely new lots or you are moving lot lines.

This section of the zoning ordinance honestly to me was very exciting.

It wasn't touched in the 2009 rewrite of the ordinance.

So there was a lot of opportunity to really work to create a new structure that helps clarify our regulations and outline how our processes really work when it comes to subdivision.

So I'm going to touch on that more specifically in just a moment, one of those kind of foundational structural structural elements, things that we've introduced.

But the first thing that we identified that we are proposing to change within this portion of the zoning ordinance is that currently the subdivision regulations allow planning commission to accept land dedication.

And as we thought about this, really keeping in mind the financial and long-term maintenance implications that land dedication entails and the mayor and council's policy and budgetary responsibilities.

We really thought that we need to kind of correct this and move that authority from the planning commission to the mayor and council.

So that is the first recommendation to place the authority to accept land dedication with Mayor and Council.

The second one, um, I am going to talk a little bit about the framework that we are introducing into this portion of the zoning ordinance in order to lend a little bit more clarity.

Um currently the planning commission approves all plats, including minor subdivisions.

We have uh a definition of minor subdivision in the ordinance, but we don't really use it in the subdivision regulation.

So we thought that could be a helpful tool to lend a bit of structure to group different types of subdivisions and plats into minor subdivisions and major subdivisions.

And that helps us to more clearly outline the process for the minor, which is less versus the major, which is more.

If you are subdividing four lots and there's a need to extend utilities, you're a major.

If you don't front a public street, you're a major, but everything below that threshold would be considered a minor subdivision.

So from that, we kind of can do two things.

One is we can say, okay, we have this group of minor subdivisions.

All of these things currently, if they came in for review, we would plat, we would process them as a final plat only.

They would not need to go through a preliminary plan process, but it's just not clearly laid out in the ordinance.

So now we're clearly laying that out that if you're one of these minor subdivisions, all you need to do is get a final plat.

If you're a major, you need to do a preliminary plan followed by a final plat.

The other thing is that we can define who the approving authority is.

Currently, as I'm sure you all are aware, the planning commission approves all plats, including those things that we are proposing to call minor subdivisions.

Under state law, planning commission is allowed to delegate that authority, that approval authority down to a staff level and make it an administrative action.

That is something that we are proposing to do is also included in the FAST recommendations last September.

Um that is something that cannot be done solely through the zoning ordinance.

So this is something we actually will be asking.

This is the one area where we do have a question for guidance from you all.

Um, because state law dictates that if if that is to be delegated, it is delegated from the planning commission to staff.

So your action would be required there.

And I'm sure um Mr.

Dumay could give you all the ins and outs of exactly how that needs to occur.

We are also proposing uh moving on to the next bullet point to remove cluster subdivision provisions from the zoning ordinance.

Currently, these are included.

We have not seen a cluster subdivision since 1996.

They were much more popular in the 60s, 70s, 80s as a way to um do green field development, subdivide um single family subdivisions on slightly smaller lots and be able to kind of cluster those lots away from environmental features, but we really just have not seen these provisions used in quite a number of years.

Um they're something of a vestigial limb, and we are proposing to remove them.

We are also proposing to allow the creation of new pipe stem lots.

So in 2006, it was introduced via a zoning text amendment that uh a prohibition on creating pipe stem lots, and I can actually move us to the next slide so you'll see a visual representation of two pipe stem lots in the Twin Brook neighborhood.

These are lots which are kind of interior, maybe behind other lots, and access is provided through the STEM of the pipe, which you can see kind of at the right and the left here.

Um lots, we do think that allowing these again would be in alignment with the city's housing goals, and it would allow for the use of um underutilized kind of rear yards on infill properties, particularly ones where they are um excessively large over the minimum lot size requirements, and certainly where they can provide that access from the public right-of-way.

So that is um that is the synopsis for the recommendations regarding subdivision and plots.

We do have our one question for feedback.

Um, just do you support allowing record plots for minor subdivisions to be approved by the chief of zoning?

Certainly subject to delegation from this body.

And also happy to answer any other questions regarding the other recommendations.

Can you go back two slides just for a moment?

One more just to give us a second to look at the current and proposed, and then we'll go back to your question.

Before we address the question staff has for us, do any of my commissioners in the chamber have any questions or feedback of staff on the proposals that are on the screen?

I do.

Um is there any context you can give us on why those pipe stem lots were prohibited in the first place?

Because to me, this is a no-brainer, but I I want to understand what I'm not thinking about here.

There was a concern uh obviously 20 years ago that these types of lots were out of character with our existing residential neighborhoods.

There had been some subdivision plants that were within existing communities that were not viewed as a good thing for that community.

And so the mayor council decided to eliminate their possibilities.

Um I will say that we had did have um pipe stem lots in larger developments that were kind of within, say a planned development uh that had lesser impact, but it was really those ones that were within existing communities that had caused uh issues.

Um appreciate the context.

Okay.

I think the teenagers in those homes didn't want to take the trash out to the curve.

Kind of a long walk.

Um any other questions or comments on this slide?

Commissioner Sung, any questions or comments before you get the staff's questions?

Okay, if we can go forward a couple of slides.

So here's my preliminary question.

You know, I I'm always reluctant to take away the public character and feedback of like the planning commission.

But I can understand why for ease of administration, this might make sense.

When it comes to delegation, what would staff's recommendation be on the term of a delegation?

I ask that because I don't want to tie the hands of a future planning commission.

And I think any delegation, because I don't think there's any now, should be looked at periodically, whether or not it continues to make sense.

And I suspect Mr.

Dumay is going to give me the response of it's kind of up to us.

But what would be staff's recommendation as to length of a delegation?

I think we haven't specifically talked about setting a particular term.

Um my recommendation would be that the delegation would be open-ended.

Um it's really unusual because it would it would it's required by law, the delegation is required by law to be memorialized in local law.

So not only the criteria that staff would utilize, but the delegation itself would have to be at least acknowledged in local law in order for it to happen.

Mayor and council is the one that adopts local law.

I think it's really probably if a future planning commission, let's say, in 10 years decides that they didn't think the delegation was appropriate.

Um, I don't see anything in state law that would prevent them from effectively revoking the delegation.

And we would probably ask that at the same time or roughly the same time that the zoning ordinance was adopted, if we move forward with delegation, the planning commission would adopt a resolution that would expressly delegate.

Um, but personally, I wouldn't recommend that you know you create like a pilot program or set a particular term in part because it it's honestly it will probably generate discussion uh and and and work at the end of that term that probably isn't necessary if the system is working appropriately.

I also think that when you see a draft of the subdivision regulations, you really will see that as um Ms.

Simmons noted, the types of subdivisions that are proposed for administrative approval really are incredibly minor and and and really at least in my view, very appropriate for administrative approval.

So the only other concern, and I completely understand in your position and staff's position, why an open-ended delegation might make sense.

My concern is when we're all gone, after years, potentially decades of administration, people might forget that it was a delegation that granted this authority.

And it just that's the way it's always been operating.

And and it kind of gets lost and forgotten that the planning commission could potentially take that back.

And so I don't know how we could potentially address that concern.

Yeah, one thing in part in recognizing the fact that the delegation isn't necessarily guaranteed.

Um, you know, one proposal that we had been batting around was actually writing into the code specifically that you know, sub subject to the delegation of the planning commission, you know, staff may administratively approve the following subdivisions.

So it's not setting a term, but it would be a memorialized in the code for anyone to see at any time that that this is subject to a delegation.

Um and and again, I mean it would be incumbent on a future planning commission to see that language and say, wait a second, do we do we want to continue doing this or not?

But I think it would be really readily apparent to anybody looking at the code that that there is this delegation and it would need to need to continue.

Any other questions or comments um in the chamber?

Commissioner Sung.

Um but staff is looking for feedback.

So um my initial feedback is I have concerns, but ultimately for ease of administration, I would be supportive of a delegation.

Um I don't know how my other fellow commissioners feel about it.

I would say that I also am generally supportive of this, but I do understand um Commissioner Espinozes' concerns that it could get lost in the shuffle without some kind of and will be reviewed every five years or every 10 years, or having it as part of our rules of procedure that you know this, hey, by the way, don't forget this is delegated authority.

So I I get that.

Uh, but I also get that these are really very minor.

And I think Mr.

Jumey, some of the language you proposed would help to clarify all that.

I'll just uh echo that I'm supportive of this um with some of the caveats that my fellow commissioners have said, but anything that I think uh makes things easier for for both staff and the volunteers and the the people of Rockville, I I support this.

I agree.

Any comments or questions, Commissioner Sun?

Yeah, I'm also agree with this.

I think is is like uh well doing the zoning rewrite for this faster track.

I think there's minor uh subdivisions.

I agree with the dedication.

Um I think the the terms in the zoning ordinance will remind everyone that it can be reverted in the future if that is included and um in support.

Ms.

Simmons, is that enough feedback for you?

It is.

Thank you.

Moving on to findings of approval.

So as I'm sure you all are aware, um many of our approvals include findings that need to be made.

So for site plan applications, project plans, and preliminary subdivision plans.

The findings, um, the findings that these applications require are highly discretionary.

Although they are essentially intent upon accomplishing the same thing between these three application types, they are very inconsistent across them.

They are also substantially addressed through our regulations, and finally, because of this, they rarely determine staff's ultimate recommendation on any one of these application types.

So we've looked at them.

Um there's a comprehensive table of all of the various findings of approval in the staff report, which you can review if you if you feel a desire.

But generally, we are proposing to rework and simplify and simplify the findings of approval to be objective and accessible, to be consistent across all three of these application types to be very strongly tied to the comprehensive plan and also strongly tied to city regulation.

So specifically, we're proposing to narrow the findings down to three three primary findings.

Is the application consistent with the comprehensive plan?

Is it supported by adequate public facilities?

And does it conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance and other applicable law governing health, life safety, natural resources, and the environment of the city?

So that is all for this topic.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any comments or questions in the chamber or online?

Okay, hearing no neighborhood conservation plans are up next.

So neighborhood conservation plans were created conceptually with the 2009 update to the zoning ordinance.

These plans can be initiated by a petition of local property owners, and in the intervening time, the only neighborhood conservation district plan that we have adopted is the Lincoln Park Conservation District Plan and district.

Um the possibility to create any new neighborhood conservation plans.

But any new any new plans of this nature would need to be initiated through our master planning process.

So this could include neighborhood plans.

Um any of our plans, neighborhood plans could continue to be initiated and amended through those processes.

So we really are viewing this as kind of cleaning up the code and eliminating what is essentially a duplicative process.

Any questions or comments?

Commissioner Sun, any questions or comments?

But yeah, I have one.

Uh for this one.

So the nature of this plan, I assume, is uh emphasized on the conservation and the historical preservation aspect.

So for the aspects being integrated in the standard master plan process.

So like if other neighborhoods want to do a similar plan.

So can this collaboration elements be included in those plan?

If Ms.

Gerbis is still on the line, I think it might be best to defer to her.

So I think the answer is yes.

Commissioner Sam, would you mind stating that question again just to make sure I'm following properly?

Right.

So I'm just thinking like the the what's different this type of plan than the other standard master plan by name, I assume you the coloration infra size, right?

The emphasis on the coloration aspects.

So if other district neighborhood plan won't we have a conservation elements of that plan, can that element be include be included in the standard and master plan process?

I would think so.

As I understand it, this would be kind of eliminating standalone neighborhood conservation plans, but wouldn't necessarily prevent the inclusion of some elements that would be in a neighborhood conservation plan from being in other policy documents and planning documents.

I think it would be okay to do what you're proposing.

Um Mr.

Jume, do you have any thoughts on that?

Sure, yeah, I'd be happy to provide a little bit of context.

Um I know I'm not and we're gonna play a kind of tag team here.

Mr.

Waslick might also have something to say about it because he was around when we created these.

Um in the current ordinance, the purpose of a neighborhood conservation district zone isn't specifically historical preservation.

Um I can read the purpose, it's only a sentence.

It says neighborhood conservation district zones are overlay zones intended to provide a vehicle to implement programs for the revitalization or conservation of older areas or districts within the city possessing distinctive features, identity, or character worth retention and enhancement.

So there's an historical element there, but there's nothing in that purpose statement that it's in any way inconsistent with all of the variety of topics that can be addressed through a typical master planning process.

So as Ms.

Gerb has said and and Ms.

Simmons said earlier, you know, this is this is entirely duplicative of a completely legitimate you know, scope of a of a of a master plan.

So if down the road we wanted to create a master plan for a particular neighborhood because we recognize that it was worthy of preservation and we wanted to look at a variety of of things we could do to preserve and enhance a neighborhood, that's entirely appropriate to be done through the master planning process.

Um the other thing I will note is that the neighborhood conservation district zone process itself includes a number of really unusual elements that I frankly have never seen before in in my career, and and I think it it goes a long way in explaining why the process has never really been used again because it's it's far simpler and and um and straightforward to go through a standard master planning process.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think uh by understanding that I think by combining maybe not combining eliminating this one and uh to be included in the standard process and you generally really in support of that.

I just want to emphasize the this conservation elements should be included in the standard process, and we don't want to forget about that.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions or follow-up in the chamber?

Okay, hearing none.

All right, I believe that this is our final topic for the evening.

Um, we are revisiting one more recommendation related to our comprehensive map amendment before releasing the draft map um in short order.

If you will recall back in our work session, I believe it was in May, we recommended um rezoning the area shown on the right portion of the screen in blue to our newly proposed MX T D 235.

So that corresponds to the Town Center Master Plan Maryland 355 character area and would allow heights up to 235 feet as a base with a hundred-foot bonus.

Um Mayor and Council supported that.

We also presented this information to this body.

Understanding that it's um kind of resting on the precedent set by the town center master plan, but also the support of the comprehensive plan when it recommend the and the climate action plan when they recommend to CR Densist development toward our transit-oriented areas.

So following that meeting, we received a letter from a property owner in one of the areas on the right side of the screen in red saying, you know, we looked at your recommendation, we appreciate um and support Mayor and Council's support of the proposed rezoning, and we think you should look a little bit further.

We appreciate and support Mayor and Council's support of the proposed rezoning, and we think you should look a little bit further.

The Town Center Master Plan has kind of a stepped approach, and this is not mirroring that.

So we did go back and take another look and ultimately are recommending that the MXTD 200, so the area or the zone that corresponds with the core character area, which has a base height of 200 feet with an additional bonus height of 100, be applied to the areas in red.

These are generally areas that are within a half mile of the metro station down at Twinbrook and that are currently zoned MX C D or mixed use corridor district.

What was Mayor and Council's feedback?

They were very supportive and also encouraged that additional properties throughout the city be rezoned as well.

Ultimately.

Okay.

Commissioner Sun.

Nope.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you all.

We did want to take just a moment to go over next steps, understanding that this is the last work session that we are having leading up to the release of the initial draft of the zoning ordinance.

Mr.

Wazilak did go over our timeline.

I know you all have seen this a number of times before.

So suffice it to say, we are at the at the red.

We are at the red point, which makes us look like we are quite toward the end, and we really are at the end of the beginning.

I would say we're headed toward that adoption process.

Release, release of that first draft of the zoning ordinance and zoning map, and then we will have a whole adoption process, which you all have seen many times before with zoning text amendments and map amendments.

I think you know the drill there.

This really we are we are leading up to the beginning.

So we did want to go over the next steps.

Um we've had a number, as you are aware of pre-release Mayor and Council and Planning Commission work sessions.

These began in January of 2025.

We've covered a lot of really significant policies, though, as Mr.

Wazilak said at the top of this item, certainly not all of them.

There will be a lot of information in the zoning ordinance that is new that we haven't addressed yet, but we have gotten direction on kind of big ticket items that has helped us do what we hope is a good job of that first draft.

So when we get to authorization to file the zoning text amendment and the comprehensive map amendment, those will proceed as two separate items introduced on December 1st.

We will be doing a public release of the draft map and draft zoning ordinance as well.

We will also, as Mr.

Wazilak said, be um preparing what we're calling a Cliffs Notes version of the zoning ordinance that's going to highlight major changes.

It's um going to be a more user-friendly document that if you wanted just to see the highlights, you could go and look just at that document, or if you want to use it as a jumping off point to kind of dive into topics of interest in the zoning ordinance, you will know where to go.

So they're really intended to be used in tandem.

And this, as you all are aware, authorized uh authorization begins the review and adoption process, which we are anticipating will take uh six months from its outset, ending in late spring of 2026.

As you're aware, we will have formal public hearings both before this body and before mayor and council.

We will have additional work sessions.

There will be plenty of opportunity for public comment.

Um, and we will also we're also anticipating that there will be revisions and amendments to that draft.

I'm sure that comes as no surprise to you all.

And as I said, we are again tracking toward adoption in late spring of 2026.

So I think we might have addressed all of the question and answer at this time, but we did want to pause and see if there's any any remaining question.

Spring 2026 seems ambitious to me, but that's just me.

So we'll see, we'll see.

Um questions or comments in the chamber.

Just a general thank you for getting to this point the end of the beginning as we move towards the beginning of the middle of the end.

Um just all the work that's gone into this and that will I that we appreciate it.

Thank you.

And particularly tonight, I saw a lot of things that just made sense, makes things more efficient for again for staff for us up here and makes it easier kind of to live work in Rockville.

So thank you very much.

Any other questions, comments?

Commissioner Sun.

Yeah, I just want to echo Commissioner Foot's point.

I really appreciate the staff hard working on this.

I think we are making uh really good progress on the modern adding those code and make this easier for everybody to yield and understand.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Miss Simmons.

Thank you, Miss Gerbis.

Uh Mr.

Wasilak, over to you for staff liaison report.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just looking ahead.

Your next meeting will be uh two weeks from this evening on the 22nd.

We have a final record plat as well as a project plan amendment uh coming forward to you that evening.

The project plan is the 41 Maryland Avenue project that you have seen before at briefing.

Um so there'll be those two items.

Uh looking ahead beyond that, uh, your next meeting would be on November the 12th, and there is a site plan for Shade Grove Neighborhood Center slash innovation district uh phase two, uh lining up for that meeting, as well as an ownership plat for uh 850 Nelson Street, which is the Woodley Gardens uh pool and school.

Thank you.

Any old business?

I think we have some old business.

I have just two quick things.

Mr.

Rosselak, do we know what's going on with 255 Rockville Pike?

Is that progressing?

Do you know?

It doesn't appear to be.

Yeah, they are not on our advanced calendar.

Um obviously the applications are on file, but um we do not have a projected date, then the next step would be to come forward to you for recommendation.

So let me see if I can find out more about that when I can email the commission.

That's such a vital project for us here in the city.

So um, and the other thing I just wanted to share with my fellow commissioners that Mr.

Wassilak and I accepted the um proclamation for planning month um on Monday night at Marin Council.

It's very nice.

The mayor herself did made the proclamation, said some very nice things about us and about the staff and just the whole process.

It was really nice.

So I just wanted to share that.

And thank you for being available available to accept that.

Also, I will not, I just as a reminder, I will not be at the next meeting.

That's it.

I'm done.

Good for us.

Good job, guys.

That brings us to new business, and I did want to bring up something because Mr.

Wassilak, I think uh, as you mentioned, we have one meeting left in October.

We're only have one meeting in November, and then one meeting in December.

I know I will be out of the country in December.

And I bring that up because uh our rules of procedure say that we have to elect a chair um in December or at any other time before that.

So since I know I won't be there in December and we only have five commissioners, right?

That leaves us only four.

And you know, for any election, I don't like even numbers.

So um I just throw that out there.

We can wait till December to do it if we we think that won't be an issue.

We could do it in November potentially, and have the person, you know, fill in for me in December and then formally take over in January, however, we want to do it.

I don't think we have to make a decision tonight, but I'm just bringing it up so we can think about it and potentially discuss it in October to make a plan um of how we want to proceed if that makes sense.

Any other new business one quick item, a reminder.

It is October, and that is Walktober in the state of Maryland in the city of Rockville.

I think today may have even been walk to school day.

Um, but two items uh for my fellow commissioners and anyone who is interested.

Uh next Thursday, the 16th, uh Rockville Pedestrian Advocacy Committee and others are hosting a neighborhood walk in Twinbrook.

Um, I can circulate the information because I forgot to write it down before I got here, but I know it's about 5:30, six o'clock in the evening.

And then on the evening of uh the 30th of October here at City Hall, there will be a candlelight vigil to uh remember and memorialize uh those who have uh we've lost to uh traffic in incidents over the past few years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Fulton.

Any other new business?

Um I just wanted to go back to Commissioner Espinoza's uh point about holding the election in November.

I would be in favor of that.

I won't be here next week or next time to say that.

So thank you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We'll let you know what we decide.

Yeah.

Um one other new business, Mr.

Wasselak.

Since we are getting near the end of the year, you know, some of our commissioners have busy schedules.

If we could get proposed meeting, I I know we meet the first Wednesday, but if there's any changes that you forecast throughout the year, because I know sometimes we'll hold we'll hold an August work session or maybe have to move something because of a holiday.

If you're aware of something like that, getting a proposed schedule, you know, November, December would be very good.

We can look into that.

And uh also there will be work sessions on the zoning ordinance.

Um, probably in the January, February time frame.

So I don't know if we'll need to add meetings uh for that, but um we will be mapping that out here in the very near future and can let you know what we think.

Okay, uh I didn't see any minutes.

So correct.

So that brings us to any FYI or correspondence.

I think you were copied on several pieces of correspondence regarding a rezoning uh adjacent to Newmark Commons.

That's part of the comprehensive map amendment.

So if those are the only ones that I was uh aware of.

Okay, and for those that have stuck it out with us, that brings us to the end.

Uh is there a motion to adjourn?

I move to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor raise your hand, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.