Good evening and welcome to the City of Rockfield Historic District Commission meeting number 09 2025.

Excuse me.

Today is Thursday, October 30th, 2025.

I am HDC Chair, Anita Neil Powell.

I am joined by my fellow commissioner, Seth Dimbo, Peter Falserman, Michael Goldfinger, and Mercia Shiny.

We are also joined by City State.

Chair Fazuri, Preservation Planner, Cynthia Walters, Deputy City Attorney, and Katie Dervish, comprehensive planning manager.

The historic district commission meeting will take place virtually via WebEx.

The public is invited to participate.

The virtual meetings can be viewed on Rockfield 11, Channel 11 on County Cable, and live streamed at www.rockfieldmgate.gov forward slash Rockfield 11.

Each meeting is also available for viewing soon after the meeting is held at WWW.gov slash video on demand.

The first item on the agenda is number one, committee and organization report starting with Pierre Schrockfield.

Is anyone from Pierce Rockfield staff here to give a report?

Excuse me.

Okay, thank you so much.

The next item is Pete Lincoln Park Historical Foundation.

I am the president of the foundation.

I do not have a report.

C public comments open for this time to set aside for members of the public who want to comment on any non-agenda item.

Is there anyone from the public waiting to comment on any issues not on the agenda?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

We will now move on to item D, HDC and staff comments.

Are there any announcement or comments from the commissioners?

Thank you.

Are there any announcement from the staff?

Thank you.

Next on the agenda is item number two, certificate of approval, starting with a 2026-179-COA.

The applicant is CNG contracting.

Contractor signed Robert Wolfe as the owner.

It's for a certificate of approval to replace an 8 by 10 foot shed in the rear yard.

Ms.

Pazeri, is there a staff report?

Yes, there is.

Hold on just a moment.

Let me get the right one.

Okay.

Okay.

This is a certificate of approval application for 2026 179 COA 419 Reading Avenue.

This is the house.

The applicant is asking for a certificate of approval to construct a shed in the rear.

He's looking to replace it.

The house itself was built in 1896.

As you can see, it's a wooden shed with wood framing, and it's pretty much deteriorated beyond repair.

So you're looking at the front of it, and you're looking at the side of it.

The applicant is seeking to replace it with a new custom made shed.

And let me give you this.

So this is the custom made shed that they're looking to replace it with.

As you can see, um, it's got double doors on the end where uh equipment can be taken in, and it's got a single door in the center there.

It's got a high roof, a gable roof.

The windows are stationary, but they look like they're double hung with um flanked by uh shutters.

And basically it's going to be uh custom made.

It's got dormers, I mean not dormants, but it's it's it's got all the details of a house, but as I shed.

And so as you can see on the plan here, the original shed, as you can see, it sit it's set right in the corner of the property.

They are planning to move the shed out six feet on either side so that it's not up against the um fence, the neighboring fence.

So uh the proposal to install a 10 by 12 shed in the rear yard uh meets the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation number nine and technical brief number 16 accessory structures.

So do you have any questions for me?

The owner is here.

Um I have a question.

Sure.

Okay.

I am reading it's an eight by 10, and you're saying it's a 10 by 12.

Yes, it is a 10 by 12.

Originally, when we received the uh application, it said eight by 10, but when they sent us additional information that we asked for, that number was corrected.

Okay, thank you so much.

Sure.

I have a question, is Bashiri.

Right.

Okay, so you did mention that the house was constructed in 1894.

Okay, so we'll so I'm just wondering, I didn't will it alter with the original design.

Not really.

The original design has really been altered.

So as you can see here, um, it's very much been altered.

It's it's nowhere near what it was originally, but it was only designated in 2003 in this design.

So we've it really is not going to be the same at all.

It's not gonna um be anywhere near it.

There are a few comments if I can slip in here.

Sure.

Um and it's mostly um, I don't really have any problems with the overall concept, but the the uh material that was submitted um has some glaring errors and it suggests sort of a slipshot approach.

So I just like to put these into the record if you don't mind.

Sure.

The owner is here if you'd like to ask a question.

Well, I just want to read this list of things that I found that seem to um conflict with the uh um with what's what's shown in the presentation.

Okay, dope.

First thing that it's described as an A-frame, which it's not.

Um it's basically standard construction with two intersecting a gable route.

Um it noted an overhang from the slab of six of one feet.

Uh if you do the math, it comes out to actually six inches all around.

That ought to be noted.

Um it shows a four-inch dimension running full length of the slab.

And I'm just wondering what that's supposed to indicate.

Um the site plan shows it doesn't show 419 ready avenue.

I think it's um uh uh um I'm not mistaken Anderson Avenue from a previous middle.

Um and finally the description is a little misleading that says the north elevation faces the house.

I mean the north elevation faces the house, not the west as described, and the west elevation faces the yard, not the north.

I believe that's the corrections.

Okay, we'll make those correct.

It's just uh, I mean, it it shows sort of a um suggests perhaps a kind of hastily put together plan.

Um, and I hate to think that that's the case.

I don't think it was all necessarily the plan.

It may have been me hastily trying to get reports together because we pulled this meeting together so quickly.

Ah, so there's that that chance too.

Okay, well, since it's you, uh Sheila, um is all is forgiven.

Yeah.

But thank you.

I'm making a note of B sinks here.

Okay.

I can send you an email with that.

Oh, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Yeah, just so um so the record.

So we have it on the record, yeah.

Yes.

Thanks, Sheila.

Thank you.

Are there any more questions for staff?

Are there any more questions for staff?

Okay.

Um the applicant and owner, representative present.

Um, yeah, I'm I'm here.

I'm the owner.

Um yeah, just let me know.

Um, so yeah, uh, a lot of the points that I did uh hear um from uh I think it was uh Mr.

Goldfinger.

I'm I'm guessing I got it right.

Uh um so the thing is uh that's great.

I want to make sure I get the names right.

Um so yeah, it was put together a little bit uh hastily.

Uh I do agree with that.

Uh, but let me explain.

So from the slab, the concrete slab, uh the current one was actually like how should I put it uh filled in and it wasn't even up to code.

Um the previous shed is like the previous shed you see there that was of course not part of the original house, is also not the currently not up to code because it's not supposed to be against the property line.

So what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to make it all up to code, current code, um the uh for not just Montgomery County, City of Rockbow, and also for the historic committee.

Um the shed is actually going to be custom made by uh Amish.

I'm trying to do that to make sure uh that um it replicates the time period um of uh of when the house was built in 18 uh 96.

Um the house actually uh original house, as you can see.

I worked very closely with Sheila.

Um a lot of uh remodeling uh done to keep uh its historic nature.

Uh the previous owners that I actually bought from foreclosed on um actually did a lot of damage to it originally, and so uh I worked with Greg, who has a um 20 plus years experience uh working down south in Florida with a lot of historical properties down there.

Um so the idea is to the idea is that the it's totally rotten.

Um the cement that was originally poured is not to code, whoever the previous owners were, um kind of were doing it uh without uh um without historical knowledge or trying to keep keep the historical figure.

So what I'm trying to do is replicate the historic nature um of not just um the current house.

Um it's also going to be painted uh white, uh like uh um we you know uh a lot of people now are calling it uh uh the uh um uh Casablanca of the neighborhood.

Um as you can also see on the top right, I did put reading avenue on on the front end.

Northbound is um at the bottom right, uh, is the compass.

Uh it's yeah, maybe not exactly north, uh uh uh north uh uh uh west uh to be precise.

Um and then uh again, I I have been working closely with Sheila because at the back there is used to be a uh walkway.

Um some of the old walkway is actually there, uh, but it's in disarray.

So you know, uh step by step we're improving the whole neighborhood, and I know Sheila's working closely with a lot of neighbors.

So that's the idea behind it.

Um you know, it's trying to keep the uh historic nature of not just um you know a new shed, but uh historic nature of the of the historic area that it's around.

Okay, thank you.

So uh Mr.

Lizo, can you please state your name and your excuse me, your address for the record?

Uh yes.

So my yeah, myself, homeowner uh for 419 Redding Avenue.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant or the owner?

No, but I have a question for Ms.

Bashir.

Is that the question for Ms.

Bashir?

Sure.

Okay.

All right, so Ms.

Bashir, uh does the city um like how the cutoff platform where we're like um maybe educating residents on the need to look after his property so that they're not damaged?

No, uh we don't have a program for that sense.

Uh we do have our code and enforcement officers that do uh inspections, and when they do see a problem or they're notified of a problem, then that's when it's dealt with.

Okay.

But I mean, people with the properties, they do know that they need to maintain their properties.

Uh yeah.

And any other questions for the staff or for the owner.

Is anyone from the public waiting to comment on this agenda item?

Ms.

Bajiri, uh, were any written comments received for the for this item?

No, we did not receive any written comments.

There are no further questions for staff or the applicant.

I will close the public hearing and open the floor for the commissioners to discuss this item.

Are there any questions or comments that you would like to offer from the commission?

Yeah, uh, madam chair, if you don't mind.

Mr.

Goldfinger.

Thank you.

Uh no, I just um, you know, aside from the um things I I noted in the presentation.

I think it's a wonderful solution.

Um, and we'll go a long way towards improving the uh the community, and I compliment the owner for taking this initiative.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments or from the commissioners?

I hear a motion for 2026-179-COA certificate of approval to replace it.

Let's see 10 by 12 foot shed in the rear yard.

Commissioner Falseman.

Is there a second?

I guess I can all in favor of the motion.

Are you gonna read them?

It doesn't move the motion.

Um, did anyone read the motion?

Well, no, yeah.

Mr.

Falseman.

The chair and I have brainwaves, so she thinks I already communicated so much.

Um I thought you're in the commission approved.

Yeah, I'm in the commission's uh approved certificate of approval application 2026 179 COA at 419 Reading Avenue.

The work meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation number nine, a technical brief number 16 accessory structures.

Okay.

All in favor of the motion, raise your hand.

Okay, thank you.

The motion passes five to zero.

Thank you very much, and good luck on your project.

No, thank you very much.

Um for the board.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Next item on the agenda is B 2026-175-COA.

The applicant is Jacqueline Dupree.

Owner.

Ms.

Baseri, is there a staff report?

Yes, there is.

Just a moment.

Okay.

This is a certificate of approval application for 2026 175-COA for 302 Lincoln Avenue.

Uh, this is the house on Lincoln.

It was built between 1880, 1894, 1895.

Um, so you as you can see here, it sits on the corner of Lincoln Avenue.

And there is a park right next to it.

Uh, it is unusual in its masonry design um for Lincoln Park, I think for its age and for its design, it's an Italian aid design, which was pretty unusual at that time.

It's more of a formal design as opposed to what we would usually see in Lincoln Park of houses that were usually vernacular built, you know, family members built them.

So this one seems to have been a bit of a more professional design.

Uh, this picture that I have here in the center, it was one that the owner sent me, so we were able to see that prior to the stuckle being placed on there, and I understand the stuckle was originally pink, that it was actually a brick.

And so it was then covered over later uh in later years of probably fashion as it changes, that's what happened.

But also, here's a rendering of the building as well that was done, I think circa 1978 when it was being um placed in our Maryland uh inventory of historic uh properties and being designated.

So the proper the applicant is looking to do um replace the windows, and as you can see here from the windows, um they have already been replaced several times.

So the ones that are in there, the existing windows are vinyl.

So if you're looking at it, you're seeing the front, the uh rear of the building, and then the uh sides of the building.

So you can see one side does have a uh an enclosed uh stairway that leads to the uh into the house, and this is on the rear, and then the other side.

So you can see on the sides, it doesn't really have much in and as far as windows aside in the back.

Most of the windows are on the front.

So just looking at the condition, you can see they have wood framing around them, but the windows themselves are uh vinyl and they're in very poor condition, and also the wood itself is in poor condition too.

You can see where it's been deteriorating over the years.

So the applicant is seeking to replace the windows with a um with a window that is I'm sorry, fiber combination fiber and um vinyl, and instead of having the one over one like they currently have, the uh applicant is seeking to do a two over two, which is more appropriate for the style of the building.

It would have had more of a detailed window than the one over one.

So they're looking to replace it with the two over two that will have simulated divided lights so that it appears to be like a historic window.

And as you can see here in the rear, the applicant is proposing to add a doorway.

Currently, the only thing on the rear of the building is a single window on the second story.

Um, so the applicant is currently looking to add a doorway directly beneath that window.

Currently, you can see the existing doors.

This is the front door, and then the rear door.

Uh, they do need to be repaired, but they will be um kept in place.

But the new door will be very similar to the existing doors as far as the panels go.

Uh will be um two over two, as opposed to having the uh six light door uh door configuration, and also an additionally, the um applicant application says it's being that the staircase, the rear staircase or the uh enclosure for the stair is being replaced.

But the um architect says that it's in good condition and then this really needs some repair, it does not need to be replaced.

So you can see it here on the plan where it's showing, but uh the architect says that it just that it is a wood siding and it just needs to be replaced.

And there are stairs, there is stairs that lead up to the uh doorway in the back here, and those will have to be replaced.

See if I can find a better picture of that.

No, I'm not finding anything better.

So staff recommends approval of the proposal to replace windows, repair the doors, and add a rear doorway, repair the back porch and add a roof membrane.

Oh, that's the other thing I didn't talk about.

There is a flat roof, and they are looking to um remove the chimneys.

There's a chimney in the rear, as you can see right where I'm pointing at, and there is a chimney in the front.

You can barely see it, but it's right up here.

They're looking to remove both chimneys, and one in the front is masonry, the one in the rear is um just a steel.

They're looking to remove both and put a uh rubber membrane on top of it to just to seal the building itself, keep any leaks from coming in on the roof because flat rivers are notorious for that.

So staff recommends approval of the proposal to replace windows, repair the doors, and add a rear doorway, repair the back porch, add a roof membrane, and remove the chimneys.

The work will meet the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation number nine and technical brief number three windows and doors.

Do you have questions for me?

Yes, I hope we've told me specially sure.

All right, so those chimneys must have been there for a reason, isn't it?

There's interior fireplaces that were there.

What the one in the rear will would have been for a kitchen, the one in the front would have been for a fireplace.

Okay, so either chimneys on no day.

Is that any where the fight uh like the smoke cut be leaving the building?

Um they won't be using either one.

Yeah.

Okay.

Are there any other questions at the staff?

Yeah, um, I just have another notice, another oversight.

Um the doors as described, it's it was page 33 of the brief book.

I don't know how what page it is on the presentation on the submission.

Um but the rear door was noted as 26 inches by 68 inches, and I believe you mean to say two foot six inches by six foot eight.

Uh I think that on the um plan it said 2668 new door.

Really?

Yes.

Six foot eight is um five foot eight inches tall.

It's um that's I will look back again, but I'm pretty sure that that's what that said.

It looks um I think this was for the new door that they're cutting into the uh rear wall.

I'm gonna it's on the it's on the plan that's um in the packet, not on not on the um one that's in the report, but it's on the plan that's in the packet.

We'll let up.

Um 68 inches is short for a door.

Um that's five foot eight inches.

Five feet eight inches, yeah.

Right, right.

So um just make sure that we're putting the correct motion.

That was the only thing I noticed.

Okay, yeah, I'm pulling it up.

It says 20, looks like it says 2668.

Right.

Um thank you for your questions.

The applicant or the owner present.

Um Madam Chair, I have a question for uh the staff commissioner.

I have a question about the um in particular the um the chimney at the front.

Is I'm just curious in terms of like altering the look of the property.

Is that I mean, is is it original?

Does removing it impact significantly the the look of the property?

Um and if so, is that an issue for the historic?

It is original, but it's not um a it's not a feature of the house.

Let me put it that way.

So it doesn't take away from the historic um features of the house.

And additionally, because of the height and the way the house is set, you can't really see it unless you're standing way back and looking at the house.

It's not something that you see if you're just standing right in front of it.

Okay, that makes sense.

Thank you.

Sure.

Are there any other questions for the staff?

Okay, seeing them is the uh owner present or in attendance, madam chair.

The owner is on the call.

Um Jacqueline, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Okay, there it is.

Good evening, everyone.

Okay, um Stephanie, can you state your name and address for sure?

Jacqueline DePew, I am the owner of 302 Lincoln Avenue.

Thank you for being with us tonight.

Do you have any comments you wish to offer?

Yes, so a couple of changes.

The rear door.

Um, if you go back to the plans, let's see here.

Yeah, keep um actually can you go one?

There it is.

Okay, yeah.

Wait, go back one, go forward one more, I believe.

Uh is it the plan of the um like this one?

That one.

There it is.

Okay, sure.

Where I highlighted.

Okay.

Where are you highlighted?

Yeah, go back with the plans from uh oh the ports, the porch plan.

Okay, that one.

This plan there it is.

Okay, okay.

So um I made a adjustment to it.

You see where the two purple X's, um, one of the small one and the big one.

The small one is indicating that I am not opening that back door at this time.

Is that existing an existing door?

You think?

No, that's the one on the back where um I believe you indicated that it was going to be opened.

Yes, there it is.

That is not going to be opened.

Okay, but there is a door there.

There was a door there.

Okay, there was a door.

Okay.

Yeah, it was it was bricked in decades ago.

Oh, okay.

That might explain the size.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

And something else you wanted to point out.

The chimney removal removals.

I've decided not to remove them.

Okay.

Yes.

And the windows.

I see that Craig is on here.

He's working with me.

And um, I don't have the I was looking for it.

He has the type of windows that we're actually going to be installing.

Okay.

Does Craig want to come up?

Craig did send me this information.

Is this the same window, Craig?

Before introduce yourself, please.

Sorry.

I'm sorry, Nita.

It's okay.

Okay.

Um.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, we can hear you.

Um, yeah, the windows are uh to be.

No, before you start, can you please introduce yourself?

Yes, Craig Maloney, I'm the architect with CEM design architects here in Rockville.

Thank you.

Um the windows we plan to specify are Anderson 100 series.

So they're a composite window.

It's a wood fiber and polymer composite.

Um it comes pre-finished, and uh Anderson does not recommend painting it for the life of the pre-finish, which is 10 years, but it is a paintable material, unlike vinyl.

Um it's double glaze, low E simulated divided light, and um we're we have photographic evidence that the windows were uh two over two in one time that would have been the 1930s that we saw that we have the photo.

Um but that's why we went back with the with a two over two window.

Okay, are there any other comments from the owner?

No.

Okay.

So commissioners, are there any comments?

Uh questions you have for the owner for the architect.

Oh, excuse me, I'm sure.

I have one other comment.

Okay.

Um the the roof proposed is a TPO membrane, so it's a polymer membrane.

It's actually better than a rubber roof, and the roof on the uh side edition, that's an enclosed porch with the wood siding on it.

The roof on that will be asphalt shingles to replace the asphalt shingles that are there right now.

The stairs are internal, it's not a stair enclosure.

Okay.

So is there anyone from the public wishing to comment on this agenda item?

Madam Chair, this is Nancy Picard.

I'd like to make a comment if that's allowed.

Uh yes, could you please state your name and address for the record?

Yes, thank you.

This is Nancy Picard, executive director for Peerless Rockville.

Um, I just wanted to weigh in a second and um you know say uh that I'm really delighted to see that Jackie has brought this forward and that the family is able at this time to um work on this project.

It's a significant, obviously significant property um in this community, and um I know that um it's a very important property for the family as well.

Um very happy to hear that they're looking at keeping the chimneys, um, if possible.

Um, but I did also have a question.

I know there was just a conversation about the back door.

I noticed when you were showing those pictures that there was ghosting of the door.

You can kind of see the ghost of a door, but also probably the brick detailing above that looks like it's maybe there as well.

So I I just I don't know if the door is in or out, but if the door does come back, I'm just wondering if you know I'd like it if that is a detail that would would stay or be protected in some way.

Thank you.

But um congrats to all it looks great.

Plans look great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Was that a question?

Miss Nancy.

Is that a question of the I I do have that question?

Maybe maybe the uh architect or our applicant know better about that because it's hard to see from the picture, and it just looks to be there, but I'm I'm not really sure.

Okay.

If I could address that.

Yes, please.

Um yes, there was a door there, or it might have been a window there.

We're not sure, but it was bricked in at some point.

The the um evidence for that opening is the uh fan arch, brick arch over top of the what would have been the opening.

So that's where we place the proposed door right there.

And that proposed door was 2668, which is two foot six inches by six foot eight inches.

So Mr.

Goldfinger is correct on that.

So thank you.

Are there any other questions from anyone from the public?

Okay, seeing none.

Um Ms.

Bajeri, were there any written comments we see on this item?

No, no, they were not.

Okay.

No further questions for staff or the applicator owner.

I will close the public hearing and open the floor for the commissioner's discussion.

Are there any um other comments from the commissioners?

COA.

I'll read the motion, Madam Chair.

I move the commission approved certificate of approval application 2026-175-COA at 302 Lincoln Avenue.

The work meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation Number Three, Windows and Doors.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Dimbo, is there a second?

Second.

Is that Commissioner?

Okay.

Any discussion on the motion.

Um motion.

So let's see.

All in favor, raise your hand for the motion.

I can't see everybody, so okay.

So it's five to zero.

Motion passes.

Thank you, and good luck on your project.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So the next item on the agenda is C 2026-166-coa.

Is Kelly Lesby might excuse me if I Commissioner Falsman have a question?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Uh good evening.

Uh I'm going to recuse myself from this item on the agenda for a potential conflict.

Uh, and I'd like to make it clear that I will not be participating in the discussion, and I will not be participating in the vote this evening.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Of course.

You're excused.

My request is retroactive certificate of approval to retain a half courts for what's caught in the side in the side yard.

Is there a report, Miss Bashari?

So, Madam Chair, I'm gonna give you a report today.

Um, Ms.

Bashiri, are you gonna screen share or do you want me to screen share?

Um I think I'll have you screen share.

Sure.

If you all don't mind, just give me one second here to pull this up.

Okay.

All right.

Are you all able to see full screen mode of my presentation?

Okay, perfect.

Um, good evening.

Uh, we're mixing it up today, and I'm gonna give this deck to rest Sheila's voice a little bit because she's been a busy bee these last couple of weeks.

Um, but we are here to um present application 2026-166-COA, which is for a certificate of approval application at 401 West Montgomery Avenue.

Uh, 401 West Montgomery Avenue is located fronting West Montgomery Avenue within the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District.

Um, you can see in this aerial image on the right side, um, kind of the setting of the home.

This home is set back off of West Montgomery Avenue, like many of the other homes within this historic district.

Um, over the years, the applicant has made several alterations to the property as part of a renovation to accommodate them and their family.

Um, you can see here some work that was being done to the sidewalk many years ago in order to restore that.

So the application before us here tonight is a retroactive certificate of approval to retain a half court sports court that has been inside installed on the side yard of the property.

This would be on the western side of the main structure.

Um, this property has quite a bit of history.

Staff were first made aware of the installation of this court in January of 2023.

At the time it was installed without a certificate of approval by this body.

Um, and as I mentioned earlier, the application that we are hearing here tonight is to be able to retain the court in its current existing condition.

Um, so in these two images here, you can see um changes to the court and the area in front of the court over the last several years.

Um, over the past, I would say two and a half, almost three years.

Um, the applicant has brought forward some changes in an attempt to make the court a bit less visible from the public right of way.

So the photo that you see on the left side of the court that was taken in January of 2023 when the city was first made aware that the court had been installed.

Um, and then the photo that you see on the right side of the screen, you can see that there are some evergreen trees that have been planted in front of that side yard.

Um, a little bit harder to see from this image, but the applicant also switched to the fencing in that front area in front of the court to make it less visible.

The landscaping and the changes to the fencing was made with a certificate of approval granted by this body in October of 2023.

Um, this is kind of a site plan showing the location of the court relative to the residents and the rest of the property.

Um so you can see the court is over here on the western side of the property.

When it was originally installed, the hoop for the court was over here on this side furthest away from the residents.

Um so it was kind of abutting the adjacent property line that has since been relocated.

The hoop is now on the other side of the sports court closest to the residents here.

And then here you just have a couple of images that show the court from inside of the yard.

And again, you can see in this first picture on the left how the hoop was initially on the one side of the side yard, and now on the right, you can see where it's in its current location, which is closer to the main structure of the home.

Again, these are just some um additional images.

The image that's on the left is an older image taken when we were first aware of the court.

So you see there's um a smaller fence, there is not that evergreens, um, but here in this side you can see the evergreens that have been added.

Um, so staff's analysis.

Um, as detailed in our staff report, we do not find that this proposal meets Secretary of Interior Standards 129 or 10.

And as a result, um, staff does not recommend approval of this certificate of approval application.

Um, I will turn it back over to you all as a body.

There are a few motions here for your consideration.

Um, a few things I do want to note before I officially turn it over to you all.

Um, we did receive quite a bit of public testimony on this case submitted via email.

Um, commissioners, you have been made aware of those and have been copied on those as they've come in for the public and those that are watching yesterday afternoon.

Um, the cutoff for testimony was 4 p.m.

yesterday.

So yesterday afternoon after 4 p.m., we have uploaded um all of the testimony received up until that point in time to the city's website with this agenda item.

So that is all public record.

Everyone can see that.

Um, I do also want the body to know that we have several folks who have signed up in advance um to speak during the public hearing portion of this agenda item.

And I will turn it over to you, madam chair.

Oh, you are still muted.

Thank you very much.

Ums Gerbus regarding this item.

I have a question, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I'm curious about the extent to which the attempt to hide it from the um with the with the landscaping um and the change of the fences thing.

Whether that makes any difference to the to the to the evaluation that staff did in terms of their recommendation and whether or not um it whether or not it mitigates anything about this in terms of its visibility from the public right-of-way, um, and whether or not it it meets it it changes anything about the uh the existence of that court.

Yeah, that's a great question.

So the four standards that staff have quoted here in our staff response aren't actually speaking to visibility of the right-of-way, they're speaking to spatial relationships largely and kind of the context of the historic district.

Um, so the screening is less relevant for those specific standards.

Um, Miss Bashiri, you are expert on standards.

So if I am saying anything that you want to add on to, please don't hesitate to do so.

Okay.

Okay, are there any other questions?

Did she uh respond to your question?

Yeah, thank you very much.

I appreciate that, Katie.

Um, is there anyone else who have any comments or questions of um this therapist?

Is the applicant or owner present or in attendance?

Yes, I am.

Okay, could you please uh if you have any comments, could you please state your name and address for the record?

Yes, my name is Kelly Kaleppe.

I live at 401 West Montgomery Avenue, and I'm the owner of the home.

So I can just start.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

I um I have my notes all written down so that I stay on track here.

Um good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name's Kelly Calepe, and I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight.

My family and I have cared for our home at 401 West Montgomery Avenue for many years, restoring and maintaining its historic character piece by piece.

We've worked hard to be good stewards of both this property and the standards that protect it.

I'm here tonight regarding a small half-court basketball court that we installed for our children's safety and play.

We are not asking for an exception or special treatment.

We're asking only for a consistent and proportional application of the same standards that guide every project in the West End.

Those of visibility, historic fabric, and reversibility.

Over the next few minutes, I'd like to walk you through our story chronologically to show our intent, the steps we took in good faith, and how we've continually tried to meet both the spirit and the letter of your preservation standards.

So a little timeline and background.

The story of this property and this project really begins with my parents, James and Barbara O'Connell, who purchased 401 West Montgomery Avenue in 2001.

They fell in love with its architecture and history, but also knew they were taking on a home that needed serious care.

In 2013, when my brother moved out of state, my husband and I moved in at my parents' request to help maintain the property.

For several years, we lived there here as caretakers and renters, trying to keep the home functioning while managing ongoing upkeep challenges.

The first turning point in 2020.

While we are here tonight to discuss the topic of retaining a basketball court, not removing trees.

May 2020, the city ordered the removal of a large dead tree hanging over West Montgomery.

My mother and the homeowner at the time arranged for that tree, two others that were rotted through the center, and several similar side yard trees that were dangerously leaning over the neighbor's roof.

I have pictures of those stumps in the initial report for HTC, where you can see Ray had taken photos from the window where you can see the trunks rotted all the way through to the bottom.

The trees on the side were not rotted through.

However, and while I was not familiar with the historic district commission at that time or its regulating authority with the city, the thresholds I measured the threshold of the stumps afterwards with the uh tape measure.

I went out there and I've also posted that picture and confirmed that those trees were under the 12-inch at breast height requirement from the IHDC, meaning that no HDC consideration would have been required for those specific side tree removals.

As far as I understand, that's what this uh the application says.

A commitment to restoration.

By June 2020, my parents decided not to sell.

I also do have a copy of the check for that tree work with my with the owner, my mother's signature on it.

If we needed, I just did not have a chance to post all of that stuff yet.

Or didn't have a chance, but um.

So by June 2020, my parents decided not to sell but to restore.

We began a major HDC approved rehabilitation, hiring a contractor experienced in classical and traditional architecture.

He handled all permitting and the HDC coordination.

Our family's role was focused on the details.

I researched and replicated missing trim, restored the iron fence, revived the radiant heat, repaired original windows, and exposed and repointed the original brickwork.

Nearly every part of the home was touched with care and respect for its history.

As you can see in photos that I didn't have time to get together for to send to Katie.

I didn't know how to send that many.

Despite considerable care, by December 2021, construction had affected the tree's critical root system.

Our contractor warned that its stability could be compromised and advised us to seek guidance from a licensed tree company.

The professionals at Three Brothers Tree Company did in fact confirm the roots were critically injured and that the tree would likely decline quickly.

On December 7 December 17th, 2021, I submitted a permit to the city to remove that tree on behalf of the homeowner, my mother, Barbara O'Connell.

I was informed by Jim Wasselick, chief of zoning by email, that tree removal in the historic district required HTC approval instead of a city permit.

In this email, I was introduced and directed to city preservationist Sheila Pashiri and City Forester Sean Ryan.

And again, I I have this the emails.

I can read them out loud if you would like.

But because the crown still appeared healthy, they could not recommend a removal at this time or at this visit due strictly to the appearance of the crown on the tree.

As a mother with two young children, and after witnessing a nearly identical tree fall two doors down and take out half of the house, I had to make a safety first decision and remove the tree entirely.

I take full responsibility for this, but I also do not regret protecting my family and our neighbors who regularly use the alleyway to traverse the West End neighborhood.

Later that fall, Miss Bashiri reached out in regards to the tree removal and we met to discuss.

During that conversation, I was introduced to the process of HTC approval.

During this meeting, I also mentioned our plan to install a basketball hoop as a holiday gift for my parents to our children.

I was told at that time that no approval would was required to move forward with the installation.

Right after on December 21st, 2021, that I became the owner of 401 West Montgomery Avenue.

Relying on my understanding from the meeting with Sheila, we installed the hoop and the half court surface in January of 2023.

A few days later, when a neighbor raised a drainage, a water drainage concern, I reached back out to Ms.

Bashiri to confirm our installation was in keeping with the HTC guidelines, and I learned for the first time that the HDC review was required.

We immediately engaged in communication and tried to resolve the issue in good faith.

Compliance and good faith actions.

When we received the notice of violation related to the large tree removal, we accepted responsibility and fulfilled the required remedy in March of 2023, planting six new canopy trees on city property at our expense.

Uh which I have the invoice for was written to from uh so this was from me for 2,250 to plant the six canopy trees on city property.

We after that, we have thoughtfully and respectfully submitted three permits to the HTC beginning in February of 2023, and we followed the correct procedural processes.

Um we had our uh COA to approve the enclosed patio, which was approved February 16th, 2023, the retroactive certificate of approval for the court, which was denied.

Um, and then in June of 2023, we had the COA to replace the fencing and landscaping and the courtesy review for the sport court, where I was granted an extension, but no real recommendations.

On October 19th, 2023, after eight months, oh, over eight months after the original application was submitted and after meeting with Miss Bashiri and Katie Gervis, uh design guidance as to how I about the sorry design guidance.

I reach I met with them seeking design guidance on how to best meet the guidelines and to bring my property into compliance.

Um, the only advice I was given during the eight-month wait was to possibly reclocate the court to the rear yard, where on our inclined lot, it would become more visible from West Montgomery Avenue.

This would be in direct conflict with the HDC's own guidelines to reduce visibility from the public right-of-way.

Dismantling the court, legal processes, and the path to today.

In November of 2023, after the court's retroactive retroactive approval was denied, we hired an attorney and fully dismantled the court.

By November 13th, following a meeting with city representatives, it became clear that the city would move forward with abatement regardless of our compliance dismantling the rest of the court.

Through late 2023 and early 2024, we faced the realities of litigation.

As the process continued, the legal cost became unsustainable.

We ultimately withdrew after spending nearly 20,000 in legal fees, and we were no closer to a resolution.

After our legal representation ended, I followed my attorney's guidance as far as the path moving forward, which was legal counsel and my legal counsel advised me to wait for the official citation and bring the matter to district court because this was the most affordable option and a more feasible path moving forward without legal counsel.

Sorry.

My next section is the unsafe in between.

From November 2023 through May 2024, the property, our home continued to sit in an in-between state.

The court removed, but the area now unsafe for my children to be where they once slapped and played.

Tiles were stacked, metal bars remained near the fence, and the glass backboard sat on the ground with posts sticking out.

In May of 2024, ahead of a family gathering with many small children in attendance, we laid the tiles flat to eliminate trip hazards.

It was not a functional court, simply the safer of two imperfect options.

While we waited for next step, um, finally uh August 2024, a code officer, code enforcement officer comes to inspect the site.

We expected the citation to arrive shortly after that.

It did not.

We made ever uh yeah, it did not.

Um we made an effort to move the process along.

Oh, sorry, we did not, we made an effort to move the process forward procedurally by reinstalling the hoop.

As expected, our citation arrived in the mail shortly after.

The citation was formally issued on June 27, 2025.

That's 10 months after the code inspector visited our home.

That citation charged me with installing the court without prior HTC approval.

This is the mistake I have acknowledged from the very beginning, and I am prepared to pay that fine.

What remains in dispute is not accountability but abatement.

Whether this small screen reversible surface must be destroyed despite meeting the commission's standards in meaningful ways.

The historic district, the historic district commission's charge is clear to preserve the history that makes these homes in the community unique.

Your own guidelines emphasize key principles of visibility, historic fabric, and reversibility.

Those are the same standards that have guided every decision my family has made.

From the beginning, we focused on minimizing visibility from the public right-of-way.

The very tests your guidelines rely on.

The court we're located with existing landscaping is not visible from West Montgomery Avenue.

In fact, moving it further back as suggested would raise its elevation and move it and make it more visible to the street.

We designed our landscaping to respect the view from the public sidewalk and to maintain the historic character of the facade.

The historic fabric.

Again, I realize we've spent a lot of time talking about trees when we are here to talk about a reversible play surface, but due to some inconsistencies, I think it's important to separate these two issues.

I would like to reiterate clearly, no trees were removed to build this court.

The side yard trees that were removed were taken down years before the play court was ever installed by the previous owner of record, who also happens to be my mother, and the notice of violation was already in the process of being resolved by the time the court was installed.

Remediation has been fulfilled for the trees.

Tree removals and the installation of the play service are unrelated events.

Furthermore, no contributing structures were affected.

The work was contained within the rear side yard, a reversible surface resting on grade.

Therefore, the question before you tonight is simply whether the small screen reversible court may remain in place.

Furthermore, oh sorry, reversibility.

On reversibility, the court does not alter the house itself or remove any historic features.

The Secretary of the Interior Standard 10 says new work should be compatible and if removed in the future, leave the property's essential form and integrity unimpaired.

If you find the court is reversible, then it complies with standard 10.

If it were not reversible, abatement would not be a viable remedy.

The pre-project condition of that area of the yard, a flooded muddy pit, was not a distinctive character defining landscape feature.

With the installation of the court, we were able to regrade and reslope the yard and re remediate the area for proper water drainage.

Requiring removal of the court would impose a significant cost.

Approximately the estimate I've gotten for my contractor is $30,000 to abate and restore the area, and another 25 if we were looking to relocate the court.

And none of that would have any significant preservation benefit.

Consistency and fairness.

Our small half court basketball court is less visible than many approved hardscape features in the district.

In practice, the standards seem to be applied with reasonable flexibility across the West End, while it appears the same reasonable flexibility does not apply to me.

For example, historic homes like the one right next door to me, uh Aaron Mahoney's house, um, have received certificates of approval for dense facade plantings.

When Rockville's landscaping and trees guide, which is the same standard that I'm being held to, advises that front yards should remain mostly open and uncluttered without large heads privacy hedges blocking the front of the house.

Other examples include paved patios, extended driveway driveways through rear rear and side yards, basketball hoops installed in concrete foundations, recreational play equipment in front and inside yards, all visible from the streetscape, exist on both historic and non-historic properties on almost every single street throughout the West E.

There are too many pictures to even submit, but I can none of these features destroy the historic fabric of the historic West End.

They are all necessary allowances that let families safely use and enjoy their properties.

When screened property properly and built with low profile, reversible and combat compatible materials, these features add to everyday life, contribute to neighborhood character, and reflect our community's ideals of family access, health, and connection.

We're not seeking an exception, only the even proportional application of the standards that already exist, given the facts and context specific to this case.

In reality, we've made difficult choices that have come at a real cost.

We have accepted responsibility when mistakes were made, and we responded to every notice meeting and requirement in good faith.

I have followed all legal pathways forward since learning about the HTC review process in my meeting with Sheila.

We have done everything possible to preserve this home and to make things right when we fell short of the process.

We have replanted canopy trees, restored original features, and stayed engaged with city staff at every stage.

Our goal has never been to bypass rules, only to find balance between preservation and real family life.

This half court does not alter the historic facade.

No historic materials were altered, damaged, or removed.

It remains screened from public view, and while expensive, it is fully reversible.

By every preservation standard, visibility, fabric, and reversibility, it fits within the framework the commission uses every day.

I respectfully request approval of the retroactive certificate of approval to retain the half court in its current location.

It protects the public view, preserves the home's historic integrity, and keeps our children safely at home, all within the boundaries of your standards.

Uh if this doesn't go my way, there are a lot of very serious consequences tied to this, and I just ask for uh you to evaluate the whole situation and um thank you for your steward stewardship of Rockville's historic homes for taking the time and the care that you give in to reviewing our case multiple times.

Uh and again tonight, we do truly value this process, and uh we too truly appreciate all of the work you all do to uh maintain the historic integrity of the neighborhood and we really appreciate the opportunity to be heard.

Thank you.

You want to say something?

Oh, go ahead.

My son said he wants to say something.

I have not I have not previewed it, so I don't know what it's going to be.

Times uh and again tonight we do truly value this process and uh we too truly appreciate all of the work you all do to uh maintain the historic integrity of the neighborhood um and we really appreciate the opportunity to be heard you want to say something go ahead my son said he wants to say something I have not I have not previewed it so I don't know what it's gonna be I'm a little nervous okay you don't want to say anything no you said you were gonna speak from the heart okay you want to say something okay thank you for letting them play in their backyard I appreciate you guys thank you very much for listening thank you thank you um are there any questions from the for the applicant from any of the commissioners I have a question okay thanks so much okay thanks Miss Kelly for that presentation and obviously you love your house it's very obvious so I don't have this quiz I remember uh this situation came to HDC some two years ago and I think uh we suggested some kind of recommendations like move um the only recommendation sorry I'll let go ahead finish excuse me yeah because I think there was uh one of them that says it can be moved to the back of the house I don't know whether I'm correct but I was also wondering whether you follow the recommendations I was suggested those like some two years ago yes I I worked with I did speak with Sheila and Katie about the various options the only uh suggestion you know potential suggestion I received was that to move it to the back of the house um which is again part of the problem is that the only solution I'm being given is a $50,000 solution um that's just not feasible and um for my family so that even though it's you know I appreciate that recommendation it's just that's not a real recommendation for um that I'm capable of doing are there any other questions Mr Sindai did she answer your question yes indeed okay are there any other questions from the commissioners um commissioner yeah I have a statement that I put together um um I listened to this uh this project before um commissioner goldfinger may I ask a question may I ask a question first you have any okay do you have any questions for the applicant for the I'm sorry no questions okay um but you will be allowed to speak when we have commissioner comments okay ah absolutely thank you no worries um are there any other questions or comments yeah so I have an audience it's not which is okay so she mentioned that the recommendations that we're given was not feasible so I don't know whether she reached out to anyone to let them know we do read sorry to let them know oh I told them immediately when they suggested that that that was uh not something I was going to be able to afford uh paying I I can't can't afford 5000 to reload the relocate the court um and then there's also other issues as far as critical root systems in the back of the property and uh the court is it it will even though there is open land there are root systems for the trees that are still back there um that would potentially be damaged by moving that court into the rear and it would also then be again more visible to the main road on this the way our uh yard in our lot is created for water drainage it's a higher elevation in the rear okay about any other questions well I have two questions um one question is you mentioned that there was some conflicting information and I heard it but I really didn't catch it but are there any other basketball court in the historic district in West End well directly across almost directly across from me on a historic home there is um the view from the road is the same exact view as mine was without when before I had the trees and the landscaping where there is a cement pad which also happens to be a driveway with a basketball hoop installed in the cement now there are things like that around the entire west end that's just one example and it seems as if as long as you are also parking your car on the cement in your side yard with the basketball hoop then it's okay um however because I am not parking my car on top of the court it's it's a problem I I just it's the same it's in the same locations it's the same setup it's a more visible from the street and I I just then to for us to say that that that my situation is not fitting into um the historic you know neighborhood and

Um, however, because I am not parking my car on top of the court, it's it's a problem.

I I just it's the same, it's in the same locations, it's the same setup, it's a more visible from the street.

And I I just then to for us to say that that my situation is not fitting into um the historic, you know, neighborhood and it's it's not matching the facade.

It's just I just I think if you're looking at the pictures and you're driving by and you're listening to public opinion on the matter, I do not think that that is the case.

And when I was saying inconsistencies in the report, I'm simply talking, I don't even really mean inconsistencies so much as I mean missing information and not the full story.

Um, and you know, as far as tree removal, I think that it was reported to the best of your knowledge at the time, but I just wanted to clear up my side of it so that everyone understood the actual details.

That's all.

Okay, I just wish we would be having this conversation sooner.

You know, I haven't I thought I mentioned it.

I apologize.

I did thought I think I had mentioned it in one of our in-person meetings, but I I could be mistaken on that.

I'm not sure.

Uh I I've mentioned throughout these entire hearings that these trees we were not removed for the sport court, and yet it continued to show up in every single staff report.

I was basically basketball court.

Um being installed before it got an approval before it came before the HDC.

I was strictly talking about not the trees.

Right.

I was talking about the basketball court itself.

Oh, sorry, then could you repeat it?

I apologize.

I just wish that you would have come before us before you installed.

You know, you're in a historic district.

Oh, me too.

Gosh, me too.

Oh, and I will be the first to advocate for historic processes.

Okay.

I also wish I had done that.

Yeah, that would have really uh to take away some of the cost that you have to or had to put out.

If we've had this discussion before you installed the basketball court.

Yes, and I agree.

I know you're taking accountability, and I get that, but it still doesn't take away the fact that it's there and was there without approval.

I agree, but I also think that the retroactive certificate of approval should not be denied simply because of that fact.

And I have um, you know, I have been I have been very vocal throughout this the past few years in the neighborhood with the community about how difficult and uh expensive and anxiety-filled this entire process has been, and I would not recommend this path to anyone.

Um I wouldn't wish this on any of my neighbors, and uh, you know, if there will ever be someone here advocating for going through the correct process, it uh will be me.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments from the commissioners?

Okay.

So is there anyone from the public wanting to comment on this agenda item?

If so, I will turn it over.

I will send it on this part of the agenda over to staff, Miss Bajier.

Uh yes, we did have several people that were interested in speaking.

Um I have the list here.

Um, the first woman that we have signed up is Erin Marsenek.

I hope I pronounced your name properly.

Erin, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak.

Um, you have three minutes for your comments.

Thank you so much.

Um, somebody keeps stopping my video.

So I would appreciate if I could see you now.

Thank you.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Aaron Marcinek, and I live with my husband and two young sons at 622 Goldsborough Drive and the Woodley Gardens neighborhood.

We've been in our Rockville neighborhood for nearly 15 years.

It's a wonderful place to raise a family because our community is so diverse, bright, vibrant, kind, accepting, and beautiful.

I am so grateful to be a part of it and to have it be my home.

I've found lifelong friends here, and so have my children.

So I'm here tonight to speak in support of my neighbors and friends, the Calepe family who are seeking a retroactive certificate of approval for their small half court basketball area.

For years, this family has gone back and forth trying to resolve, which should be a simple issue, the right for their children to play safely in their own backyard.

That is something that is very deeply personal to me.

Um, particularly given that this area has experienced a lot of um children being hit by cars.

Um, and we had one happen very recently, and so I I beg you to take that into consideration, especially since they're on the busy road.

Please allow my video to continue.

Um, whoever keeps stopping it.

Um this structure does not change the historic character of their property or their neighborhood, our neighborhood.

It's a modest family oriented space, a basketball court that brings joy, laughter, and community to our children.

It also happens to be very meticulously landscaped and cared for.

You can't even see it from the road.

Our city prides itself on being accepting and kind and caring.

We celebrate neighbors who look out for one another and families who give back.

The Calepe family does exactly that.

They coach youth sports, including my son's soccer team, teaching our kids teamwork resilience, and leadership.

The very values that make our Rockville community strong.

In fact, Mr.

Kalepe's sister taught both of my children at their Rockville Montessori.

It just goes to show that there's a beautiful influence that this family continues to have on our beloved Rockville community.

Imposing a significant abatement fee for a simple recreational space goes against the spirit of the preservation policy.

That policy was designed to protect our shared history, not to discourage the kind of family life and neighborhood connection that keeps that history alive.

I ask you to consider this basketball area is part of that living history.

A place where children learn, grow, and form memories right here in our town.

The Calepe family has preserved the integrity of their property while providing a safe and positive outlet for our youth.

There isn't a price you can put on that.

Please grant the retroactive certificate of approval and let this family and this community continue to thrive together.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else from the public?

Yes.

We have our next registered speaker is Erin Mahoney.

And I am getting a note from our staff at Channel 11 that is saying that members of the general public are not allowed to have their cameras on when we're live streaming meetings, only members of the commission and staff.

So Aaron, apologies.

That's why things had been turned on and turned off.

And so for the other members of the public who are signed up to speak, if you can just keep that in mind as well.

Unmute yourselves, but leave your cameras off, please.

Aaron Mahoney is our next speaker.

Um, so do you want me to turn my camera off?

Yes, please.

Okay.

All right.

So I'm Erin Mahoney.

I live at 405 West Montgomery Avenue, next door to the Calipe family.

I think the Calipe family is great as well, and they've done a great job taking care of their house.

None of that is relevant to this basketball court.

It's first off, I know I only got three minutes, so I gotta be quick.

It's not small.

It's 30 by 40 feet at least.

It's not in the backyard.

It's in the side yard.

A lot of the, I was reading really quickly through a lot of the comments.

A lot of people say, oh, keep it in the backyard.

If it were in the backyard, I would not have a problem with it.

It's not in the backyard.

It's in the side yard.

And at some point, it's three feet from my house.

So what about the integrity of my historic property?

And I have no control over it.

So I can't remove it when I want.

But let me go really quickly through some of the comments.

Um, ask I remember talking with Sheila at some point, and she mentioned that Kelly had said, oh, they like to put up a basketball hoop.

Putting up a basketball hoop is not the same as installing a half court basketball court.

That it would be visible in the backyard is just absolutely not true.

We have the same grade in our backyard as the neighbors.

Um we put up uh almost five foot retaining walls so we can with permission prior to installation, we put it in the backyard for parking.

It is not visible from the street.

Our cars are not visible from the street, and unless they have a 10 or 12 foot tall car, it would not be visible from the street.

So to put it in the back further away from West Montgomery, I don't see how that possibly could make it more visible.

Um and I don't so when Kelly said that they removed it completely, they did not remove it completely.

They left the concrete pad, which is 30 by 40, and so all they took down was the hoop and the grating, which does help with the noise, but I can still hear every time that basketball bounces and they play every day.

Um most of the time.

Uh it's my understanding that district court is not the appropriate place to deal with a denial from the uh historic district commission.

The proper place to do that is circuit court.

They did appeal to circuit court, but then withdrew their appeal.

Um, they claim that it wasn't safe with everything in the backyard for their kids to play.

Well, they left all of the equipment for the sport court sitting there.

They could have actually removed it and then it would have been safe.

Um, is it reversible?

I mean, I don't know.

I think they can jackhammer up the concrete base and I guess regrade and landscaped it.

They certainly regraded the backyard.

Um a lot of the trees, they're not that many trees left back there.

Um I know I'm not sure who took down the trees, whether Kelly's parents own the property or Kelly did, but Kelly was living at the house at the time.

Um we did put up a front hedge, which we got permission for because we have a front porch that we use.

If y'all want me to take the hedge down, let me know.

I'm happy to do it.

Um I don't know too many houses that have concrete in their side yards.

Certainly, we put in a driveway in our backyard.

We got permission for that ahead of time.

It's flush to the ground, it is not noticeable, the car is not visible from the street.

Um, you know, a lot of the comments, even when I was reading through real quick, even Kelly's sister who lives at 11 Laird says, please let them keep it in their backyard.

They're different rules for backyards as opposed to side yards, and they're not the same.

And again, if this was in the backyard, I would have no problem with it.

Um I had notes, but now I can't read them.

Um, sorry.

Uh let's see.

Sorry.

Um, I just get really frustrated that everybody keeps calling it small.

I cannot hear anything.

You can't hear me.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you.

Continue, please.

Okay.

Um, I'm just really frustrated that it keeps being referred to as small.

You know, my neighbors on the other side have a back patio with a portable hoop.

That's small.

This is not small.

Um, and to say, well, a basketball court is the only alternative to a muddy yard.

We put in French drains and we have a swale.

That's how we dealt with it.

That's how most homeowners would deal with it.

Um, to ask for consist consistency and fairness, how is I mean, I think it's bad for the whole neighborhood, but how is this bad?

I mean, consistent and fair to us.

We take care of our home.

We do all the things we're supposed to do.

We're proud of it, just like Kelly and Merlin are proud of their house, and they should be.

But I think this distracts certainly from us.

Every window in our house that face east looks on this court because it runs the whole distance from the front of the house to the rear of the house.

Um it's really frustrating to me as a homeowner that this just tells me if I want to do something controversial, don't ask ahead of time, just put it in and then drag my feet as long as I possibly can, and eventually I'm gonna wear the HDC down, and you'll let me do what I want to do.

Um I mean I'm just so disappointed to be here again.

This is our third time at these meetings.

Um in the past, y'all have asked me what I think.

Well, this is what I think.

I if the HDC had agreed to the retro approval previously, I would have lived with that, but they didn't, and the neighbors wouldn't remove it, and so here we are again asking to get retro approval again, and they say they can't put it in the backyard or it I mean they're telling you their only acceptable option is for them to keep it, you know.

They could have put something smaller in the backyard if they feel like the space isn't big enough, um, but they don't want something smaller, they want something big.

Um I'm just so frustrated.

I know I feel like I'm not expressing myself really well.

I was taking quick notes and now I can't actually read half of them.

Um but I think a lot of times I feel like people are misrepresenting what's actually there.

I think it's great that kids play in the yard.

Our kids played in the yard, they played in the backyard.

Most houses don't have the side yard the size of 401 West Montgomery, and that is unique.

But you know, most people would put this in their backyard or they wouldn't do it at all.

And to the argument that, well, it's just too expensive to remove is just ridiculous.

Um I just that can't be how we make decisions for the HDC because really that's that's the lesson I will take from this is if I want to do something that's expensive and I think it's not gonna be approved.

Let me go ahead and do it, and then we'll just fight about it later.

Because that's the argument.

Well, don't make me remove it because I've spent all this money, and I think that's really unfortunate, but that doesn't change things, and the fact that you've done a really good job someplace else doesn't mean you get to not do a good job here.

So I'm just at my wit's end.

Um I feel like I know Kelly keeps saying she really feels like it's been misrepresented.

I feel like she misrepresents things.

Um I get it that we all make we all present things in ways that are going to be most beneficial to ourselves, but this objectively is a problem, and I just if you guys approve it, I just really have no respect.

I'm sorry for the HDC going forward.

I will just that will be it, and I think it's hard for people like me who before we bought this house, I actually went and listened to a bunch of the meetings and watched videos because I wanted to know what I was gonna be in store for, and I mean, I just think this sends a really bad message and it sets a really bad precedent.

And on a personal note, in terms of my property, I I'm I'm stuck with it, and I just so frustrated, and I feel bad for the neighbors because I like them, and I love seeing their kids play, but I just don't think this is acceptable.

So that's it.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you for your testimony.

Um is there anyone else?

We have one more individual who has signed up in advance.

Um, that is Joan Nicolayson.

I hope I'm pronouncing your last name properly, Joan.

You you are Katie.

Um hi, I'm John Nicholys, and I live at 151 South Adams.

I actually came to Rockville as an infant until 11 Layard Street.

My father opened his construction company in the front parlor and then built our home on uh 123 South Van Buren where they live.

I grew up that they lived for 50 years, and now I've been in this home on South Adams for over 40.

So I met uh Katie of I mean excuse me.

I met Kelly a few uh years ago, and um since I was Alice Kelly's cousin, um, who used to was a prior owner, when she found that out, she said, Oh, you've got to come and look at the house, and was very pleased to to have to have a look because I knew they did a lot of work, and um, so I you know uh I was also by the way, uh on the board of uh Peerless Rockville.

I'm team West Rockville, big time, and um, so when I see a family going to that kind of trouble that they have done uh with with the you know, the not just the remodeling that this the saving and the attention to detail, my goodness, of um saving a house from 1890 or whenever it was built, and then raising her family and committing to the community and all the activities that they have.

And I know how much Alice loved raising her children in that house, and to see her little boys have a chance for that too.

I I mean, I just as you know, I like to say I'm Team West Rockville, but I'm saying you go, Kelly.

And uh also uh I did I've taken several walks and taken a strong look at that at that uh landscaping because I did think it initially it was way too visible from the street, but I can imagine.

Of course, people are obviously upset about it, but I think it is so skillfully done.

Um that uh I can't imagine it should really create much of an issue.

But here's something I heard tonight that I am gonna take you you all to uh to task for um because I was so shocked that she put put up the big fence and that you actually suggested that she lower the fence or change the color or whatever it was and add the add the landscaping, which was a great expense, and now you're telling her she's got to rip it out.

I mean, shame on you all.

I'm just saying that.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Ms.

Kerbis, is there anyone else who from the public who wishes to speak?

We do not have anyone else who had signed up in advance.

Um, if there are any members of the public on the call, if you can just indicate so the raise hand feature.

It looks like we do have one more, Madam Chair, um, Nancy Picard.

Nancy, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Thank you, Katie.

Um, and I will stay with my camera off as well.

Um I'm Nancy Picard, executive director of Peerless Rockville, and um gosh, you know, we sent a letter, and I think it might have gotten in after the four o'clock deadline.

So I just wanted to, you know, say a few uh words.

We've sent in testimony previously on this case and have really kind of just sat back and watched and you know, trusted the HDC and the staff to know the rules and procedures and to um make decisions on this case.

Um I just want to say that I know that you guys are in a very difficult position here, and that there was I did read through all of the comments, and I know that many came in.

Um it's a diff, you know, it's a hard place to be with the cost associated and everything, but um I do feel that there are guidelines and standards and rules and procedures that are are in place that are in place for a reason.

I think that lots of time and attention, staff time, HDC time, court time, neighbor time a lot have been dedicated to this, and I really am just going to ask that you you know continue to respect the guidelines and standards and also the integrity of the historic district, which which is what you're called to do.

Um also I think that the city really needs to take action on this.

Uh this particular applicant has been given many, many, many extra chances and opportunities.

Um I know some of the comments tonight made it sound like the city was lapse on the responsibility.

My understanding of that was the city was going to great, great lengths to actually accommodate this particular family and um try to find a solution that would not involve going to court.

I just want to mention from some of the things that I read.

A lot of the comments from the community center on this being in the backyard.

Um it's not in the backyard, it's in the side yard.

It is not true that recommendations were not given.

I was at the meetings.

The HGC very much recommended this be in the backyard, and that it would likely be approved in the backyard.

That did happen.

So it does seem like the fairness and consistency here.

It doesn't just impact her family, it does impact neighbors, particularly the neighbors next door.

And um I just think that the applicant herself tonight talked about a tree that was previously taken down.

Um that says a lot to me because she self-described that the forester said not to take the tree down, but they took the tree down anyway, and then we're given an abatement.

And tonight I heard her request abatement again several times for this court.

I just don't think that that's always the answer.

Sometimes just putting up additional trees is not the way, or Bush is does not always fix the problem.

So those are just some thoughts.

Again, they are a lovely family, they have done wonderful one things to the property.

This is not make them bad or wrong.

It's just unfortunate that it came in late, and now that the situation exists.

So thank you for your time and attention and letting me speak tonight.

Thank you very much.

Any other hands?

No.

This is Aaron Mahoney.

Can I make one more comment real quick?

If you're going to approve this, could you excuse me?

So excuse me.

Thank you, but um, we're gonna just move on.

But thank you very much for wanting to speak a second time.

Is there any Madam Chair?

I see no other hands raised.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, Ms.

Gervis were any written comments received for this item.

Yes, quite a few.

You all as commissioners have received an amended brief book link um yesterday afternoon.

That includes um those comments.

Okay, thank you.

Um I will close the public hearing and open the floor for commissioner discussion.

Are there any other comments from the commissioners?

Commissioner Goldfinger, you had a yes, madam chair.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Welcome.

Um yeah, I followed this uh this issue, and I did uh prepare some uh statement, uh, which I'd like to read.

Um, the preservation of Rockville's historic neighborhoods and buildings does so in accordance with national and local codes, standards, regulations, and does so regardless of the character of the property owners.

Remind you also that Rockville has an extremely knowledgeable and helpful staff ready to assist owners of historic properties with solutions that meet those standards.

In this particular case, you know that the property owners are fully aware of the restrictions on historic buildings, having engaged having to engage with the HDC and city staff at least four times prior to installing the basketball court, which by the way, and noted it's located in the side yard, not the backyard with many who wrote dated.

And I'll return to that a little later.

The owner's decision to install the court without any consultation with the HC and City Ctrl suggest that they knew that the side yard location would not have been approved.

Furthermore, during previous reviews of this project, we noted that the same basketball court located in the large rear yard of the property would have been an acceptable solution.

I would also remind you that owning a historic property carries certain responsibilities for preservation that are not required in properties not so designated.

We have to assume that you were fully aware of these institutions when you decided to purchase this property.

However, by all accounts, the current location of the basketball court violates the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation, numbers one, two, nine, and ten.

And right here, I'd like to digress for a bit, and uh, because I think it's important.

Uh if I can find it.

I would like to read um the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation standard number two, uh, because so much has been stated about this.

And it says, and I quote the historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.

The removal of distinctive materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

And our staff has added this explanatory note.

The installation and the current location of the basketball court change the character of the property.

Side yard was an important feature of this historic property.

Current application won't alleviate this issue.

So in other words, side yards in these houses is a very important element to the historic nature of those large homes along West Montgomery Avenue.

Um and they are to be treated as soft scape, not hard state.

Putting a 30 by 40 foot uh concrete uh pad in there for basketball court violates the uh the sense of this soft uh space between between houses.

Um and they said in requesting a waiver, you're asking the HDC to violate its responsibility to preserve the city's historic factor.

Such a move would set a dangerous precedent, as it was noted, open the entire city to further erosion of its historic treasures.

I urge my colleagues to join me in denying the request for approval.

Thank you very much, madam chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Goldfinger.

Are there any other questions or comments from any of the uh commissioners?

Michael's actually made a lot of the things that I was thinking.

Um thank you for that, Michael.

I appreciate your your comments.

Um what I keep coming back to, and I think I said this when we discussed the previous applications, was you know, in my mind, it would be appropriate to do a retrospective approval if in the first place this would have been approved.

And what I keep coming back to is that I can't see how it would have been.

It's um uh you know, given that um, and and and also this this goes back to what something that the owner said made up made a point of a few times during during her presentation earlier was that this isn't really different.

Like what she's done is very is very much in kind with a lot of the other approved alterations that have happened in the in the west end and in historic districts in in the city.

Um, and I feel like that's patently untrue.

And I and I and I understand that she has she has a perspective on this that's different from mine, but you know we don't we very very rarely in the three years I've been on this commission, and then a lot of the training I've done where I've where I've heard people talk about work of other commissions around the country.

Um experts talk about the work of other commissions around the country.

It's very rare that that things don't get approved because the um residents of the historic districts work with staff and and come to a conclusion, you know, come to projects and and and agree upon projects that will work, and then they come to us.

So and and if there are if there are questions, they're usually questions about a single one of these um standards.

This one patently is not just one, it's four of the standards that are that are in um that are in question.

And it seems to me they aren't in question.

It's very clear that that the violence what the violations are here.

Um Michael talked in in depth about the second one.

Um I was I I keep coming back to this protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

And I and even despite the mitigation that that happened with the uh with the landscaping, um, which I think there's also some misunderstanding about our role in that.

Um it still is it still is there and it still does impact on the environment and on the community.

So um that's that's most of what I have to say.

I I um I think almost everything else that's been said about um the character and um commitment of the owners, the you know, the character of the family, the commitment of the owners to to the process and to the to the to the rehabilitation of their home and to the city, all of that is obviously clearly true.

Um this came up in a lot of the comments.

It's all beside the point, fundamentally, right?

Well, what at least from the point of view of what the historic district commission's remit is.

What our remit is is to preserve that based on these is to preserve the historic um character of our city based on these guidelines, based on these recommendations, based on these national standards.

That's what matters here, and that's what that's that's what will influence how I decide to vote on it.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Yeah, I do have a comment, Madam Chair.

So um that's a very brief comment.

So um as here you see commissioners, just like other commissioners mentioned, we're actually here to not we're not here to go against guidelines, you know.

I didn't know that the applicants plans a lot of money, but unfortunately, we're here to preserve properties and not to go against guidelines, you know.

That's just what I want to say.

Okay, thank you very much.

And I do agree with my colleagues, you know, that our role here on HDC is to protect the character of the neighborhood, and that's what we're trying to do.

I mean, we there's much more that we do, but we want to make sure that we protect the neighborhood, not just one family.

So was someone gonna say something?

Madam Chair, may I make a further statement?

Mr.

Goldfinger.

Um, I just want to clarify too.

There was uh several comments on the fact that um that you know, if placing the um basketball court in the backyard would make it more visible to the street.

I don't think the visibility street level is that critical.

Um specifically, we've um we've approved new construction rear yards of historic buildings that are quite visible from the street.

Um the the issue here is the reservation of the grassy side yards of these houses.

Um I don't think that um that stating that placing it in the back would be more visible from the feet is that critical.

I don't know if I've made myself clear, but I hope so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments from the commissioners?

All right, one more thing, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to thank staff for their excellent and untiring work on this whole um series of applications.

It's been incredibly helpful to me, and I think to the other commissioners uh having their um professionalism on this on this particular case.

I agree with you.

I hear a motion for all in favor, no, just joking.

Um I hear a motion for 2026-166-COA retroactive certificate of approval to retain a have courts for court in the side yard.

You please read the motion.

Um Chair, I move the commission.

Yes, thank you.

I move the commission denies certificate of approval application 026-166-COA 401 West Montgomery Avenue.

026-166-COA.

401 with McGovern.

The Secretary of the Standards rehabilitation.

Numbers one, number two, number nine, and number 10.

Described in the findings of fact in the stamp report.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Mr.

Shungay.

All in favor of the motion, please.

Any further discussion on a motion?

All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

The motion passes for the zero.

So thank you very much.

And so good luck, but thank you for your presentation for everyone's presentation and testimony.

The next item on the agenda is number three discussion.

A old business came from Fromstead Master Plan.

Is there a staff report?

We do not have a formal staff report.

We do have a handful of staff comments.

If you don't mind, Madam Chair, I believe Commissioner Fosselman is going to rejoin the meeting so that he can participate in this section.

So if we can just give a moment so he can participate.

All right.

Perfect.

Welcome back.

Welcome back to Commissioner Fossilman.

Thank you.

And Katie, you're keeping me up to date.

Sure, any time.

So just a couple of remarks from staff on the King Farm Farmstead master planning process.

I know this has been discussed by this body at our last two meetings, I believe it was.

So the mayor and council discussed the draft plan at their October 20th meeting.

At that meeting, they were scheduled to also consider adoption of that plan, and they decided not to adopt at that meeting, but rather to direct staff to make some changes to the plan that was presented and allow more opportunity for the public to comment on the process.

So that would allow a few weeks for the public to review and provide any comment that they may have on that document.

A couple of other reminders and kind of notes.

I know this is something this body has been watching closely.

It's something staff have certainly been working behind the scenes with other city staff across departments on.

But that question came up at the mayor and council meeting of is this required to be sent to the Maryland Department of Planning?

Is it required to follow that same process as say our comprehensive plan was?

And it does not because it is a different type of planning document.

I also want to note that this body or this any changes to the property because it is city on property, we'll have to go through the mandatory referral process.

You all as a body have seen mandatory referrals in the past.

That's where, you know, even though it's a public agency that is proposing to do something, they are required to come to you all as the commission and get a certificate approval from you all before anything proceeds.

Um, I know there's been some question as when is the appropriate time in the process for the HDC to be involved and at what level of involvement without a doubt when it comes time to approving alterations, that is your all jurisdiction.

Um that is expressly stated in our city codes.

There is no way that we can get around you when it comes to that point in the process.

Um a couple other notes.

Mayor council did direct at their meeting staff to make a couple of changes um to the draft that was previous previously released.

I don't have the full list of them, um, but the most notable ones that I think this body would be interested in hearing is they asked to remove any references or plans for adding on in addition to the dairy barn structure.

There were some comments made at that meeting um updating the plan to better incorporate how we can tell the history of the site um throughout the renovations and programmatic elements that would be brought there.

I know those were two issues this body has previously talked about.

Um and then the last thing that I have to say, and this is something that we spoke at length with the city manager and um our CBDS director about is staff, um which I would say applies to commissions, boards and commissions as well.

We are expressly told that we are not to take action and take direction when we are directed to do something by a singular member of the council.

We need four or more to agree in an open session to give us direction.

Um, I know during that meeting, I believe there were two council members that said, well, I would like HDC to do this, maybe HDC could do this.

We did not get a count of four on any of those items, which is what we would interpret as direction and directive to you all as a body.

So I just wanted to point that out.

I know it gets tricky when we have um, you know, maybe one or two people saying some things, but others aren't saying them some things.

At the staff level, we are not to make any action unless four or more in a public session direct.

And I would think that that same logic should apply to this body as well.

Um so at that point, I will turn it over to you all for your discussion.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Um, I know I'd asked for this to be on the agenda tonight, Aiden, and I appreciate that you that we're talking about this, Katie, since uh I know we wanted to try to just focus on the COAs for tonight.

But um, and I haven't had a chance to to watch the, I know I said I would to watch the mayor and council's discussion of the the proposals.

Um but I do think we should I uh I mean if the body decides this isn't appropriate, I can always do it my myself as I've done in the past as a as a as a member of the community.

Um, but I would think it would be beneficial for us to at least respond in some way and give the mayor and council a the benefit of our expertise on on the on the plan at this point, even if it is sort of some general comments rather than you know the the formal role that we will have later on in the process.

Um so I would like to see us um review the plan, discuss it at our next meeting, and if we think it's appropriate, um you know, review the changes because that is that correct.

Is it am I correct that the they'll come out before our next meeting and then mayor and council won't be discussing it until after our next meeting?

So that gives us a window, right?

Um that is correct.

Now I will note it's currently scheduled to be released on the 17th of November, and your next meeting is the 20th.

Right.

Um, so that is a pretty short turnaround.

So there is time, but it's not weeks of time to slowly digest.

Um I would like to see us discuss it at our next meeting and then and then figure out if we want to submit something to Mayor and Council to comment on it or provide them with our expertise.

Which is, I mean, I guess for now that's all I I really think we should be doing.

And I'm sure we're all tired after that meeting.

So it's up to, but I'm happy to hear what other people think.

So quick question when is um next meeting?

November, what's the date about next meeting?

The 20th of November.

20th.

Okay, and you're saying that the report will be released on November 17th.

So 17th.

So we would have three days to look it over or then come back to the commission to discuss it on the 20th.

Correct.

We do not have an HDC meeting scheduled between November 20th and when the mayor and council will make their vote.

You said December 8th.

That is correct.

Thank you.

So I would agree with Commissioner Dimbo that you know we can review the report and then we can discuss it at our next meeting.

And perhaps come up with some language to send on behalf of HDC to the mayor council regarding the um farm farm state master plan.

Is there any objection to doing that?

To weighing in and sending um information from the HDC to Mayor Council.

Is that a yes?

That's a no.

I agree.

Yeah, I think that's important to do.

Okay.

Okay, so we will definitely have the King Farm Master Plan on our next at our next meeting on November 17th.

Hopefully come up with some language to send to Mayor and Council.

Is that what I'm hearing?

I mean, that's what I'm saying.

So is that a yes, or is that um madam chair?

Yes, it might be hard for you to see, but I have my hand up.

Um just I want to reiterate what I said at the last meeting.

This is this is our job.

This is what we're supposed to do.

This is what the mayor and council want from us.

This is what the staff wants from us.

They want to hear our opinions.

Um, and that that's what we're supposed to be doing.

So I totally agree with what Steph had said and what you had said and everyone else.

So I think we should make a statement.

Um, and then when the time comes, we do a more formal review.

That's great.

But we maybe they want to hear from us.

So yeah, well, we are the experts, right?

Well, I don't know about experts, but we are we are that's our job, right?

That's why we're here.

That's why you have HDC, right?

Right.

I can agree with myself, it's okay.

So okay, so Miss Um Bazier or Ms.

Gervis, and we will have the King Fall master plan on our next agenda for discussion.

Yep, we will put it on, and I will just kindly nudge you all when it gets closer to that being released um to take a look at it ahead of that meeting so we can come prepared to have a discussion.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Okay, seeing none.

So the next item is new business.

Commissioners are is there anything you would like to discuss or have questions of staff that have not been discussed thus far?

Reference to new business seeing none.

So the next item on the agenda is number four adjournment.

So is the motion to adjourn the meeting?

I move to the meeting.

Okay, okay.

So the motion was made by Commissioner Shinye, and second by Commissioner Falserman.

All in favor of the motion to adjourn the meeting.

Raise your hand.

The motion passes five to zero.

Thank you all and have a good night.

Thank you.