Evening, Rockville.

Today is December 1st, 2025, and we're beginning meeting number 29-25.

Welcome everyone.

Let's begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please join as you're able.

And I also want to note that Isaac McGee, who is a Life Scout from Troop 457 is here to help us and will help lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please come forward.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you very much.

We're always pleased to have our scouts join us and help lead us.

We're now going to be moving on to our proclamations and recognitions.

I ask my colleagues to please join me.

Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving.

And uh today we're honoring our human rights and uh acknowledging human rights day in Rockville, Maryland.

We do this every year, but this year it seems to take even more import.

Uh I think sometimes we take human rights as an established thing that happens everywhere, and we know that is not the case, that it's something we have to continue to work towards and to protect and to honor the dignity of our fellow man and human.

Uh we're seeing a lot going on across the country and across the world.

And I'm very thankful to have a human rights commission to have a mayor and council and staff and residents who really believe in the importance of human rights and all people being treated equally and fairly and with dignity.

And with that, I will read the proclamation.

Whereas December 10, 2025 marks the 77th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And whereas the declaration establishes multiple rights, such as freedom, equal dignity, peace, and overall worthy worth of every human being, and whereas maintaining fundamental human rights is the basis of a democratic society.

Whereas the theme for 2025, Holocaust Remembrance for Dignity and Human Rights.

And whereas the Human Rights Commission, appointed by the Mayor and Council, is in charge with improving human rights for Rockville community, promoting appreciation and the understanding of diversity.

Now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland, do hereby proclaim December 10 as human rights day in Rockville and encourage Rockville residents to appreciate the importance of human rights, both locally and globally, to educate themselves on human rights issues and to advocate for those rights whose rights are violated.

Councilmember Councilman Shaw moves the proclamation.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Rillary Seconds, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Thank you.

And I also should note that Rockville continues to get 100% marks in human rights, but there's always room for improvement.

And I thank the Human Rights Commission for your work to help us to hold us accountable and to help move us forward.

And then also to plan opportunities so that people can celebrate the diversity and make Rockville more inclusive.

With that, I'd like to welcome the co-chairs of the Human Rights Commission, Rebecca Murphy.

I don't see Gab Gabriel as we, but if you would have the commissioners come forward and share a few words.

On behalf of the Human Rights Commission of the City of Rockville, we graciously accept this proclamation from the mayor and council.

As we celebrate the 77th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are grateful to live in a city that strives to protect the inalienable human rights of all of its residents.

Well, this day is an important celebration of the progress we've made to uphold the dignity and safety of all people.

It also serves as a stark reminder that we cannot take these rights for granted.

This year's theme, Holocaust Remembrance, calls us to reflect on one of history's darkest chapters, a time when human rights were not merely neglected but systematically destroyed.

The Holocaust stands as a devastating testament to what happens when hatred goes unchecked, when indifference replaces action, when the rights and dignity of individuals are stripped away.

Each of us has a role to play, speaking up against injustice, standing with the vulnerable, and ensuring that never again is not just a phrase, but a promise we keep every day.

Whereas Kwanzaa is an annual celebration of African American culture, born out of the turbulent civil rights era of the nineteen sixties, and whereas Kwanzaa was created by Dr.

Maluna Kerenga, who first celebrated it in nineteen sixty-six.

It was derived from African harvest festival traditions from various parts of Africa, including West and Southern Africa.

And whereas Kwanzaa is observed for seven days from December twenty-sixth through January first, and now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland, hereby proclaim and observe December twenty-sixth, two thousand twenty-five through January first, two thousand twenty-six, as Kwanzaa in Rockville, and invite all residents to understand its principles and enjoy the celebration of the first fruits of the year, and to practice the seven principles all year round.

Aye.

And I believe uh the City of Rockville resident, Miss Jackie DePew is here to uh accept and say a few words.

If you want.

And go tigers.

Oh my new best friend.

One, two, three.

One more.

One, two, three.

Thank you.

Oh, there you go.

That's right.

Okay.

Thank you all for coming out.

Uh, we are now going to have a brief recess.

Uh, we appreciate everyone coming forward for the proclamations and recognitions.

We have a lot to be thankful for in Rockville.

We'll be back here at about six thirty to uh reconvene our agenda.

Thank you all.

Good evening, Rockville.

Today is December 1st, 2025, and we're reconvening meeting number 29-25.

We'd like to turn to agenda review.

Ms.

Judy Penny.

Council members, there are no changes to this evening's agenda.

Thank you very much.

We now move to the city manager's report.

Mayor Ashton, members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

As the council knows, we continue to make a number of wayfinding and different visual improvements to the city.

And I'm curious, did anybody happen to see the CSX bridge over Park Road today?

Yay.

It was pretty cool, right?

I think we know what it used to look like.

Used to be a magnet for graffiti, and now it says iHeart Rockville.

So really excited about that.

It took a little while, but um, I think it looks really fantastic.

So thanks for that.

Um, also just want to suggest it's still um leaf collection season.

We've collected so far 1,600 tons of leaves in the city.

We're gonna try to break our record this year, and we continue to try to find creative ways to recycle those leaves in our parks and other places.

Also hope people notice that we did make some improvements to the Redgate Dog Park.

We added an accessible pad and sidewalk to make sure that more people, particularly those who are mobility challenged, can get to that park with our dog and provide a good experience for not only the pedestrian but also for the dogs.

So we're excited about that.

Also, if you haven't been in results, Rockville, I would encourage you to go on the website.

We've added a couple of big components there, including how we're implementing our comprehensive plan.

It's our biggest dashboard, and I think you'll find it really interesting.

And lastly, people who may have comments on this forthcoming budget can still go online, fill out a comment card and provide that feedback to city staff and to the city council.

That's all I have, Mayor.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Uh, I will just note since you mentioned the budget survey, there's a simple QR code you can find on our website or outside the chamber.

It's in multiple language.

We do really, really want to hear everyone's feedback.

Uh, I also wanted to uh thank you for the work on the CSX Bridge.

This is something that the Mayor and Council has talked about.

We've been trying to get done, and also the pedestrian bridge.

So we're adding to uh the wayfinding, but also vibrancy and some level of improving some of our spaces.

So we appreciate that.

I also wanted to hope that I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.

I want to thank the City of Rockville residents for contributing and volunteering to support families in need.

We have seen a record number of people who need help.

And the City of Rockville, nonprofits, and residents really stepped up.

Uh at the holiday drive, uh, 750 families were served.

Uh, and there was a school who needed additional support, and the team quickly got some bags right in time for the holiday.

So I just want to say thank you.

That would not be possible without the support of our staff and our residents, and we appreciate you in this time where we all have to band together to make it work.

So um, thank you very much.

And I see my colleague, Councilmember Larry has a comment.

Yes, um, just two quick things.

One as um a different perspective in Mr.

City Manager's report, that the alternative to putting your leaves at the curb is to leave the leaves.

Um, there are a lot of benefits, and I would be uh if I did not uh put forward that it does create an environment for many of our beloved insect friends like lightning bugs and lunomoths.

So that's the first thing.

And then super quickly, the second point is that December 1st is also uh World AIDS Day.

And while we don't have a proclamation for it, um many of us uh in the community have known or have lost a loved one to AIDS or knows somebody who is HIV positive, and just wanted to note and remember um that this day is uh still a day in 2025, and that we still do not have a cure.

Dr.

Miles.

So sorry, Madam Mayor.

Uh, just want to echo the thanks to city staff.

I think you mentioned it and the folks um that helped out.

Uh, just want to special shout out to the Latino youth program that came out for the holiday drive.

I learned a few new dances in addition to uh being outworked by high school students at third of my age.

So uh thanks to them and their parents.

Thank you, Dr.

Miles.

Okay.

We'll now be moving on to community forum.

All persons shall address the mayor and council and speak in a civil and courteous manner, and members of the audience shall be respectful to others.

Each person is allowed three minutes.

And we ask that you stick to those three minutes allowed.

There is a time clock in front of you to monitor.

You will hear an audible beep at the end of your three minutes.

That means please conclude your remarks.

Before you begin, please state your name and if you leave in the live in the city of Rockville for the record.

Well, move on to those who have signed up in advance.

And if anyone else would like to speak, we will then call you.

I'd like to first welcome Alex Balida.

Madam Mayor, members of the council, good evening.

I'm Alex Bolito.

I've been a homeowner in Newmark Commons since 1985.

I want to thank all of you first of all for your patience in listening to and receiving the many hundreds of appeals from my fellow Newmark residents over the past several weeks.

And you're going to be hearing from more of them in a bit.

And we're delighted to be part of the Rockville community.

And we want to keep Rockville and Newmark strong, vibrant, and welcoming, not just for us today, but for future generations.

We're not blind to the need for more housing in Rockville, especially affordable housing.

But we don't believe that should mean stripping away trees and filling every vacant plot of land with high-rise residences, which is why we have been urging you to rescind the proposed redesignation of an undeveloped nine-acre plot, nine-plus acre plot, a budding Newmark with just such structures.

We recommend you keep the current zoning designation for that plot, which would allow potential building of single family homes.

You have all visited Newmark, and you're familiar with the plot of land in question.

You know about the stormwater facility, the wetlands, and the wildlife there.

You've seen the heavy tree growth on the land, and you know Newmark's own tree canopy is one of our most cherished features.

Your own 2040 comprehensive plan stated in its section devoted to Newmark, quote.

New development should be designed to protect and enhance existing forest stands and tree canopy to the greatest extent possible.

It also said this about what the city favored for the plot in question.

Again, quoting development on that site that retains the stormwater management facility and is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.

Please remember that goal.

Make sure Rockville's future development is quote compatible with adjacent neighborhoods, neighborhoods like ours.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we welcome Jean O'Mara.

Good evening.

I hope you all read my email from November 22nd regarding the Montgomery County Deer Fencing Amendment.

But knowing that I have two minutes and 45 seconds, I'm going to touch on the most pertinent issues.

Rockville homeowners, as we all know, have been faced with tremendous deer pressure over the last 10 years.

I would like the mayor and council to consider adopting the Montgomery County 2003 Deer Fencing Amendment.

Currently, the City of Rockville has no guidelines around deer fencing or deer mesh, despite the urgent need and the overwhelming demand from the citizens for relief from the ongoing and severe property damage and the serious health risks due to the exposure of deer ticks and Lyme's disease.

I'm asking you to consider the deer fencing amendment that has been in effect for the last 22 years for Montgomery County residents.

This is a common sense, reasonable, discrete, and effective way to alleviate the property damage and the health implication by the heavy deer load in the city of Rockville.

And let me clarify, this would not be changing our current fencing.

This would be an additive amendment just to address deer fencing, as Montgomery County did.

Rockville can keep in place any current fence guidelines and simply add the deer fence guideline.

Currently, the City of Rockville has zero guidelines regarding again this deer fencing or deer mesh.

And in the absence of these guidelines, we should default to the Montgomery County Deer Fencing Amendment.

Why it's important that this is an additive amendment is our current fence guidelines for corner lots in particular are limited to four feet as side yards and backyards.

The highest fence that can be is four feet.

The Montgomery County Deer Fence Code accounts for this and gives guidelines for those homeowners that own corner lots, and they allow eight foot protection as long as it does not go in front of the home.

Again, another common sense solution.

I won't go into all the deer population.

I'm sure you saw my email with uh what the deer load is, but it is worth noting that Maryland ranks number 10 for tick-borne diseases, and in particular the 20850 zip code is listed on the CDC website as a high risk region.

While there's absolutely no way to completely protect yourself, being able to stop the deer from going into your own backyard really brings your exposure down and allows children and families to more freely enjoy their backyard.

I've been disappointed in the city's willingness to work with homeowners on common sense solutions.

There's been little latitude shown, addressing the rising issues caused by the deer population.

Let me remind you as of the county's data, the deer population left on check doubles every two years.

Double.

So those numbers that I would have read earlier have already increased by fourfold.

It is unacceptable that we are met with rigidity and zero ability to make exceptions regarding deer fencing in the city.

The city does have an obligation to address this situation that's created by the lack of deer control messages, which stopped as we know in April of 2021.

Latitude must be granted for homeowners in the city of Rockville that own both historic and non-historic homes, homeowners that live in corner lots.

Non-corner lots.

Thank you.

Next, we welcome Susan Knowles, who is speaking for Miss Margaret Chow.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council.

My name is Susan Knowles, and I would like to read this statement for Margaret Chow, who has been a resident in Newmark Commons since 1984.

She was unable to attend tonight's citizen forum.

I urge you to reconsider the proposed high density zoning designation for the small 9.75 acre parcel of land adjacent to Newmark Commons and other Rockville communities for the following reasons.

Redesignating the current zoning of this parcel of land to a high density residential designation will reduce, if not entirely eliminate the existing stream and natural habitat for nature and wildlife, a source of enjoyment for all who walk through the area.

The ecosystem for the area would change.

Do you really want it to be replaced by high-rise apartments and parking lots?

Two, while no development details are available yet, any high density development, such as high-rise apartments and 25 units each should not be allowed because they are not compatible with any of the surrounding neighborhoods, not just Newmark.

Three, every high density housing project comes with increased traffic, traffic control, and parking problems, in addition to the increased burden placed on nearby schools and public services.

The boundaries for communities near the parcel need to be respected and protected to maintain the character, integrity, and safety of the surrounding communities.

Traffic should not be routed through any community to facilitate access to the highway.

The roads and residential communities are not designed to handle heavy through traffic.

In Newmark, we have three bus stops for elementary school students.

Students from several neighborhoods, not just Newmark, walk through Newmark to get to Julius West or Richard Montgomery.

Newmark residents and residents along Potomac Valley enjoy walking or jogging in the neighborhood.

And children walk to the Newmark pool, tennis courts, playground, and basketball courts.

Elderly residents of Potomac Valley Nursing Home and their visitors are often seen either walking or being pushed in a wheelchair to enjoy the weather in beautiful gardens.

Increase through traffic would cause congestion and put the safety of walkers at risk.

Development of any project should not be at the expense of existing communities.

I urge you to seriously consider hearing the presentation tonight, but postpone the vote so staff, mayor, and council have additional time to consider the concerns of our community.

I thank you for your time and look forward to future discussions on the topic.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Kristen Rosnison.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

My name is Kristen Rasmussen, and I lived in Newmark Commons for two and a half years.

I wish to express my grave concern with the process followed as part of the comprehensive map amendment application being considered tonight.

Residents of the areas affected by the proposal to rezone the land parcel known as ZORID ID 17 for high density development have had insufficient time to engage with city leadership on the matter.

I'm also concerned that the mayor and city council have not carefully considered the implications of rezoning the parcel for high density development, which appears to be the end goal of the map amendment process for this parcel.

In recent years, Rockville has been increasingly affected by flooding.

This is one reason why the City Council developed its climate action plan in 2022.

As you know, the Rockville Climate Action Plan makes specific references to protecting the city's tree canopy, reducing Green Greenhouse gas emissions, and taking steps to mitigate flooding.

My neighbors and I are aware that this parcel is currently zoned for townhome and single family home development, which we're not opposed to.

If developed, it would mean that some trees would be cut, but we fear that zoning it for high density housing would all but assure the loss of most, if not all trees in the area.

This clear cutting would result in greenhouse gas emissions and the loss of much needed pollution and cooling buffer for adjacent communities.

High density development and consequential tree loss would also put communities at risk of increased flooding, which is already a major concern due to the impact of climate change.

I implore you as council members to uphold commitments laid out in the city's climate action plan.

Doing otherwise would defy logic.

High density development would also mean many more cars on the safe streets of Newmark Commons, on which children, including my young son, ride their bicycles.

More cars on the road would make the area less safe for the children and other residents of Newmark Commons and adjacent neighborhoods who walked through its streets from nearby schools and to the town center.

My neighbors and I have outlined many reasons to remove the rezoning of parcel Zorid ID 17 from consideration as part of the MAP amendment application.

At the very least, I ask that you'd consider delaying tonight's vote to give more time to consider our concerns regarding the implications of the MAP amendment and how and how likely follow-on development could affect communities such as ours.

In the case of this parcel, high density development would have overwhelmingly negative consequences for its surrounding residents and even the wider city of Rockville.

I wish to thank you for listening to our input and for taking our concerns into consideration.

Thank you.

Welcome, Lori Krug.

Thank you, Mayor Ashton and Council members.

My name is Laurie Krug, and I have been a resident of Newmark Commons for three and a half years.

I'm here to request that you halt further consideration of rezoning parcel and planning area 12.

Below is an aerial image of Area 12 with its full foliage.

I'm grateful that each of you took time to visit this peaceful and precious parcel that abuts Newmark and stands under its magnificent trees.

I really treasure the tranquility of a neighborhood that is nestled in suburban green space, where towers, trees tower over us and provide us a natural canopy of shade in the summer, converting CO2 to the oxygen we breathe, and serving as a home to numerous species of owls and songbirds and pollinating insects that contribute to our delicate ecosystem.

The green space of this parcel provides a critical zone of protection for foxes, raccoons, deer, rabbits, and turtles to sire their offspring.

This parcel also serves to trap pollutants in the waterways and mitigate flooding.

I actually witnessed this type of soulless destruction of land when I lived in Atlanta, Georgia.

Young trees are planted in neat grid patterns, and the landscaping is aesthetically pleasing.

But the wildlife that once called that land home is displaced, and the intact canopy is forever lost.

Our character and connection to the ecosystems that support us is being eroded at an unprecedented rate.

In 2023, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill to reduce the loss of tree canopy.

I found the map of forest conservation easements in Rockville and was alarmed at the fragmented nature of these easements.

The 10-acre parcel we're talking about does abut a small easement around the Potomac Valley nursing home, but it is not included.

This parcel of mature trees plays a vital role.

It protects the wildlife, our water, and buffers our neighborhood from the noise and heat of I 270.

The comprehensive plan states that compatibility will be a major factor considered when rezoning.

Newmark Commons is a nationally recognized historic neighborhood designed to integrate the natural landscape.

Its wining roads and pedestrian walkways and a wooded setting foster a residential environment where neighbors take daily strolls and engage in a way that just does not happen on busy roads or intersections.

Our neighborhood lake is home is home to migrating waterfowl, falcons, and great blue herons.

The proposed rezoning of this parcel threatens the historic and environmental integrity of our community.

Let's think carefully about all precious bits of green space that are left.

Let the intent of Newmark to peacefully embrace nature continue.

One quick solution is to take this parcel off the table for further consideration before your next vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, we welcome Rebecca Parliakin.

Please tell me how to say it properly.

Thank you so much.

Hi everyone, my name is Rebecca Parlakian, and I've been a resident of Rockville for 27 years.

And I'm here to ask you to adopt Montgomery County's Deer Fencing Amendment or ZTA 0312 that was adopted in 2003.

As someone who watches it happen every day in my front yard, hungry deer destroy every plant in their path, whether or not it's supposed to be deer friendly or deer unfriendly.

This is not a problem that requires complex root cause analysis.

Rockville's deer population is just out of control.

Hungry deer are destructive deer.

And if you've ever walked through the garden center at Home Depot, you also know that plants are expensive.

It can cost hundreds of dollars to put a few bushes in.

And over time, plantings in a front yard or backyard can add up to thousands of dollars.

But it's not just money.

Those gardens that represent decades, years and years of time and effort, and that financial investment, that time investment can be gone in one afternoon if a hungry deer gets in your backyard.

But currently, when homeowners try to protect their financial investment in their property by installing removable deer mesh, the city's current policy is to find them up to 1,000 per day.

Come on, this is nonsense.

Government, city government can't have it both ways.

You can't ignore your responsibility to manage the deer population and then fine your citizens for trying to protect their investment in their property.

I mean, I think I speak for everyone who's managed to survive 2025 till December 1st, that we're all looking for less nonsense in our government.

We're all looking for a little common sense, and the common sense solution is very clear.

Allow homeowners to install removable deer fencing.

It solves a problem the city refuses to address.

It's removable, and it doesn't require homeowners to spend thousands in permanent fencing.

We don't need to make this more complicated than it has to be.

It's just time for just common sense.

I urge you to adopt Montgomery County's Deer Fencing Amendment ZTA 0312.

Thank you for your support.

Thank you.

Next, we have Michelle T.

Michelle, welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Ashton and Council members.

My name is Michelle Tonga Tanaseri, and I am a concerned homeowner in Newmark Commons.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for your leadership on Rockville's 2040 comprehensive plan.

I also appreciate the time you recently spent meeting with our community.

It demonstrates your commitment to listening and engagement.

Newmark Commons, as you know, is a historic and environmentally sensitive neighborhood in planning area 123.

We are deeply concerned about the proposed rezoning to RMD 25 in planning area 12, which directly affects our homes.

This process has been ongoing since fall of 2024.

Yet only a few immediate homeowners received letters of notification in June, and the broader community only became aware in late September 2025 through word of mouth.

This delay highlights a gap in equitable and transparent engagement.

Since November, residents have mobilized quickly, collecting over 600 signatures encompassing 245 households, roughly 64% of our Newmark Commons community who oppose the rezoning.

The 2040 plan notes that the city holds an easement in this portion of Area 12 for a stormwater management facility with agreements in place with Don Mills Court residents.

Despite this, Newmark Commons residents at large were not briefed on plans affecting this parcel.

The 2040 plan identifies Newmark Commons as part of planning area three and emphasizes citywide priorities such as environmental protection, preservation of open space and tree canopy, neighborhood stability, and careful consideration of infrastructure and traffic impacts.

These goals align with the values, the values you all have collectively championed.

Thoughtful, equitable decision making, responsible growth, environmental and climate resilience, and safe walkable streets.

In this context, it is critical that any zoning decision fully account for environmental infrastructure and community impacts before moving forward.

Given adequate engagement and input, five communities citywide have proposed rezonings reversed during this process, showing that adjustments can be made when impacts are better understood.

Newmark Commons has not yet received that level of engagement or review.

We respectfully request that the mayor and council hear tonight's presentation, but not take a vote this evening, allowing staff and council time to fully consider community, environmental, and infrastructure concerns.

Additional engagement will ensure equity, transparency, and a process consistent with Rockville's 2040 comprehensive plans.

Thank you for your time and commitment.

Thank you very much.

Next, welcome Pat Rieber.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

My name is Pat Reber.

I'm a resident of 40 years in Newmark Commons in Rockville.

I speak for the C 630 or so signatories on a petition that you're familiar with, who in turn, these 630 represent 67%, Michelle, sorry, it's 67% of homes in Newmark Commons.

Two weeks ago, we only had 58%, so you can see we are still knocking on doors.

We are here tonight to specifically ask you to stop the proposed dense zoning of one specific property, Z O R ID 17 in planning Area 12.

We understand that this should be possible for you this very evening when you consider the CMA.

We know that at least five other neighborhoods have been able to convince the city to change originally proposed rezonings.

We ask that the same courtesy to further discuss and consider be extended to our community.

We ask that you hear the presentation from your staff this evening, but delay your vote until you have time to consider alternatives.

We who live within 500 feet of the parcel only received notices in June of 2025 via US mail.

Yet, by October 2024, a full year ago, notices had been sent out to all communities and to residents within 100 feet of the parcel, according to the CMA document.

We don't know how we fell between the cracks, but it has put us at a considerable disadvantage for time.

We were only able to start informing the community in late August and September.

From the beginning, we have made clear that we are not opposed to residential development on this property.

Please be clear about that.

We have repeatedly stated our openness to less dense alternatives, but we're told your staff did not have the authority to do that.

Tonight is the first chance we've had to hear you discuss this proposal and our concerns in formal session.

Will you tonight please take the time to discuss something less dense, something more compatible with its adjacent community of Newmark Commons?

RMD 25 would invite a drastic change in density from the underlying zone of Newmark Commons.

Is that compatible?

Barring this courtesy, we are left with a feeling that we are at the last minute boarded onto a train, speeding towards an unavoidable destination of May 2026.

Please, we ask you, stop the train now.

Let us work to find a better fit for this parcel and our neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Welcome, Erin Mahoney.

Hello, my name's Aaron Mahoney.

I've been a resident of Rockville for 23 years.

And I'm here to talk about, well, talk in support of amending the zoning for deer fencing.

And I brought some visual aids.

Some of this self-well.

Because currently the city zoning allows fencing, eight-foot fencing in side yards and rear yards, and four-foot fencing in front yards.

And this is the little uh illustration that's in the city's zoning where this is the front yard, side yard, rear yard.

However, if you live on a corner lot, your front yard now becomes double.

Because the set the yard that runs along the adjacent street now becomes a front yard as well.

And you're limited to four feet here and four feet here.

And the way the city is reading the regulations, according to my understanding, they're actually pushing this new front yard all the way back to the furthest point from the street instead of the closest point from the street.

So even in this illustration, in the zoning, um city zoning ordinance, this poor house would be able to put an eight-foot deer fence around maybe maybe a third of their yard.

So I'm gonna ask, you know, that I emailed you guys earlier.

So that's got my more composed thoughts.

But you know, we live in an interior lot, so we have options.

We can put up an eight-foot fence.

But for people who live on corner lots, they just really don't have realistic options.

To be able to, I mean, to tell them, oh, you can only do four feet until you get to the furthest point of your house.

For a lot of people, that just ruins all their opportunities.

And so either they can have nothing, or they're just frustrated and wasting their time.

So I would ask that the city amend their zoning to allow for deer fences that on corner lots, similar to what would be allowed on an interior lot, so that people can protect their yards, their kids can play without worrying about deer ticks and Lyme disease.

If I had we have three deer that live in our yard permanently.

And it's really not fair.

There's a lot of houses in Rockville that have big side yards, and for a lot of them, that's their only yard.

So if you guys could see your way to doing that, that would be really great because I think it would benefit everyone in all neighborhoods.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we welcome Drew Void Diego Kamar.

Um this is uh very important for me to do this preamble every week to remind all, and also because of different or new audiences.

I use up my first minute minute or so on this, but no choice.

I'm a perfectionist, and I have to be detailed on this, so please consider adding more time.

So here goes.

Honorables Mayor Ashton.

Thank you for presiding and leading on this open democracy forum.

Thank you.

As mentioned previously, I'm evaluating possible candidacy for U.S.

House Rep Congress and Montgomery County, Maryland Government Council.

Please note that I'm EIC explainer in chief.

I'm not being pompous, just factual, never good to be too humble.

This is good advice for all.

Don't be too humble.

National Guard.

I have stated their vulnerabilities on several occasions.

I have alerted this to his Majesty President Donald John Trump administration also.

Last week, a day before Thanksgiving, they were attacked here in our national nation's capital.

We need more protections.

You all should be part of empowering more American citizens.

Disclaimer, all this, not all my thoughts.

There's a limited access forum.

I get three minutes here, and this is not necessarily information for or against any of you individually or as a council.

This is for county government audience here and beyond.

I've never I've never done any public speaking prior to my opportunities here, perhaps once or twice.

I'm very good speaking directly, individually or in small groups, so this is new for me.

We also have a lot of ongoing complications at home due to fair housing discrimination and civil rights violations, abuses against us.

So I'm not prepared at an optimal level.

Now, my preamble, I pledge allegiance to the flag of British America, who are founders and framers of our USA Constitution, not this Montgomery County, Maryland government, Latin America, Central America, illegals undocumented, seceded county already, already seceded people, really seceded.

Believe me on this, we had some real problems coming here.

Next years and decades.

British America is our African slavery lineage also.

Very important to detail this.

You can say British Africa America, and this is in earnest as of the latter part and start of the 18th century, 18th century.

I emphasize no pandering here on this.

No suck-up, no suck up.

I spell it different for emphasize S U K O P.

It should be adopted by the dictionaries as a new word in 2025.

No suck up against vulnerables with those in power and majority every year.

Deference, yes, respect, yes.

Let's not do the suck up.

Quite often many non-white immigrants do the suck up.

They try to make me second class citizen all over again.

No, thank you.

Don't come here.

Don't do the Minnesota Samoan Somalian Eritrea Worldlord on me.

Don't come here if you're gonna make me second class citizen all over again.

That's it.

Thank you.

That exhaust the list of those who have signed up in advance.

I have received several written testimonies.

I want to see if anyone else would like to speak.

Okay.

Senator Kagan, and then I see the a couple other hands.

I'm gonna bring my tea just in case I start coughing.

Uh Madam Mayor, wonderful members of the council for the record.

Cheryl Kagan, 39-year resident of Rockville and a resident of Newmark Commons.

It's good to be here with so many of my neighbors.

Uh I am not gonna talk about the lake or the zoning or the deer.

Uh I am here because I'm very proud to be the senator for Rockville and Gaithersburg, and this is the last chance I've got before we convene in January.

And so I'm just gonna speak very briefly uh on behalf of delegates uh Julie Polakovich Carr, former council member, uh, delegate Ryan Spiegel and delegate Joe Vogel.

We are preparing to return to Annapolis for a really stressful 90 days.

Uh the budget is gonna be unlike any in my tenure, and we're gonna be having to make some hard decisions.

Having said that, I'm looking forward to, we're looking forward to being an advocate for Rockville's needs and for municipal needs.

Um, I appreciate those of you who are able to join us to show us some of the priorities to get legislative bond initiative money, and we are gonna fight like uh tigers to get that.

Uh delegate Spiegel is on the appropriations committee, which is especially helpful, and he'll be working it in the background.

Uh, I want to make sure to announce that we are having a virtual town hall on January 15th.

It's gonna be on Zoom at 7 p.m.

And we're welcoming constituents to Annapolis on January 26th.

It's a Monday night.

We will be providing dinner, and then uh we'll give you on a behind the scenes tour and let you watch the Senate and House for a little bit.

Um scholarships are available both semesters.

We just closed ours for spring, but we always have those available.

Um, and I just wanted to mention just a few, my legislative priorities.

You all know that I've been working on 911 in memory of our Rockville neighbor Carl Henn for 11 years now.

Today, the unanimous work group report was delivered to the governor in the General Assembly moving forward still in support of our 911 specialists.

I also got unanimous bipartisan support for the creation of a statewide 311 system in Maryland, which I'm really excited about.

It will make our government more accessible to residents regardless of their language, and it will also lighten the load on our 911 centers.

I will have four bills for the nonprofit sector, continuing to work as the senator for the nonprofit sector.

Um, I will continue my work on election reform and consumer protection and always in support of our municipalities.

There's very much more we can do.

I just want to close with referencing that one of my bills was inspired by a Rockville constituent who came to me with a consumer complaint, and it uh is likely to become law next year.

We're gonna fix his problem finally.

It took a few years, but we've been working and should be able to get that done this session.

Happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Good luck this session.

Thank you.

Okay, that exhausts the list of those who've signed up in advance.

I saw a couple of hands.

Please come forward.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Marty Reese.

I've lived in Rockville and New Moore Commons for about 53 and a half years.

And I've seen the city grow up quite a bit.

I just wanted to add to what my fellow Newmarker community has indicated that the site we're looking at, which is a 9.75-acre site.

Well, they've talked about the wetlands, the infiltration basin.

On the other side of the site is I-270.

I suspect that someday someone's going to try and expand I-270, which will move it, cut more off of the site.

Also, I-270 presents a problem for noise and pollution, and it's not where one wants to really put housing.

I just wanted to add that to what's been on the mentioned already.

Thank you for your time.

And thank you very much, all of you, for coming down and having the interest to talk to us and look at the site and see what you're talking about.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Do we have anyone else who would like to speak?

Welcome.

Former Councilmember Mark Vishela.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Mayors, uh, members of the council.

I'm changing the topic to King Farm Farmstead, which is no surprise to you at all.

Um I I just want to address a few things I've heard the comments from this uh this body uh last few months.

Did the Department of Recreation and Parks do a good job with the charreds?

Absolutely, they did in a variety of ways.

They had two different physical occasions on two different nights, different parts of the city.

That was great.

The graphics were great.

Uh what was really outstanding was the staffing, both by city staff and the contractor, uh, very knowledgeable.

If you had a question, you could very easily find somebody.

So I have no problem with the charettes at all.

Um, were they worth doing?

Yes, they they're somewhat duplicative of what had been done before, but that's fine.

However, uh, where my uh complaint is is that they cannot really be the only source of information.

Um, you know, they have a focus, and the focus was primarily on features.

Some issues were not really raised or hardly raised.

Um, you know, the community impact, uh, historic uh preservation, uh, context of other recreation and park offerings.

But um there's this other thing, uh, you have another source of information which you know, I'm a statistician.

Uh it's called administrative data.

So this is not even necessarily statistically collected data.

It's data like from your budget, especially on your capital uh program.

Uh there's other kinds of data.

There's a proposed theater.

Well, has anybody uh scanned Montgomery County for all the theaters in Montgomery County?

There's actually quite a few of them within a few miles, uh the Gaithersburg Arts Barn, about 120 seats.

Very nice offering.

So are you really duplicating?

Those are the kinds of things you need to be looking at.

Um I had another problem with a Shrek kind of thing, which I think are a wonderful way of introducing a topic, but it's the self-selection.

The people who come up to uh uh something like a shrewd are the kind of people have grand visions and uh you know, is it really what the the community as a whole uh wants?

Um I will also uh uh bring to your attention it's been said, well, the dairy barns have been treated, they've been stabilized.

That's absolutely true.

So, you know, uh some of you said, well, let's continue with that.

But in the plan, if you take uh, you know, at least what the drawings are showing you, it's not actually a continuation of been done to the dairy barns, it's actually an internal read redoing totally.

And especially with the support beams and stuff that are already there, all comes out and and it's redone in a different way in order to provide something like a theater.

So that those are the kinds of things you ought to be looking at.

Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor and Councilmember Jackson for providing me the the heads up on the final draft coming out.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

I think I saw a few more hands.

Anyone else would like to speak?

Okay.

All right.

I want to thank everyone for coming and testifying before the mayor and council.

I also want to acknowledge that we received a number of written comments as well, and we have had a chance to review those comments.

We'll now be moving on to our consent agenda item.

And just to note for those who are watching, we will then be moving on to our discussion on the zoning text amendments.

For the consent agenda 9A, we have a warden authorized city manager to execute a rider agreement with environmental quality resources, a Maryland limited liability corporation in the amount of up to 125,000 for the initial term ending September 2026, and up to an additional 1205 per year with optional renewals through September 2029.

The pricing is consistent with the City of Baltimore contract, RFQ 00348 for integration vegetation management services.

We have agenda item 9B, which is award and a procurement contract in the amount of 103,005 through July 21, 2026, an additional amount up to 414,000 for up to a four-year for one year contract renewal options with Q and Chemical Company of Keone, New Jersey.

This is a procurement contract in the form of a purchase order, and it's being awarded in response to IFB 426 for supply and delivery of 15% sodium hypochlorite to the water treatment plans.

We have item 9C authorization for the city manager to approve amendment three with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for the enhanced mobility grant to extend the period of performance.

Item E, award and D, sorry, award and authorize the city manager to execute a writer agreement with Empire Escape and Maryland Limited Liability Corporation and the amount not to exceed 125,000 for the initial term, with terms including annual option renewals for an amount not to exceed 125,000 through June 2030.

And the pricing is consistent with the original QA county contract, RFQ 00348 for integrated vegetation management services center.

Lastly, we have 9E, which is approval of our minutes from the dates of November 3rd, 2025 and November 10th, 2025.

Colleagues, I want to see if you'd like to pull any of these or take them as a whole, and we can entertain a motion for that.

Councilmember Shaw.

I'd like to make a motion, Madam Mayor.

Yes, please.

I move to approve consent agenda items A, B, C, D, and E.

Do we have a second?

Dr.

Miles.

A second, Madam Mayor, can we have discussion?

Yes, absolutely.

All right.

Uh it's been seconded.

We have uh a question.

Dr.

Miles, please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

More of a discussion point for the listening public agenda items 7A and 7D might look duplicative.

Um was informed by staff that that's intentional and that it gives them some flexibility to meet some of the law removal projects as they occur of note.

And I think one of them also includes tree planning.

One of them is an MFDV, the other is not, but just for the listening public, just let you know that we are reading what's in front of us.

That's all.

Thank you.

Any other questions or discussion points?

Okay.

All right.

We have a motion that's been made and seconded.

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

Excellent.

All right, it is unanimous.

We're now moving to our action portion of the agenda.

We have uh two items, authorization to file zoning text amendments to revise and replace chapter 25 of the city code, also known as a zoning ordinance.

And it's my understanding that we're going to receive one presentation from staff under both of these items A and B.

B is authorization to file a comprehensive map amendment application to implement the zoning ordinance rewrite, including zoning recommendations in the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Town Center Master Plan.

I'd like to welcome Holly Simmons as well as panelists Craig Simoneau, John Foreman, Jim Wasselick, and Nick Dumay.

And I also want to welcome Jim Wasselick, who's going to be on hand to support action item B as well.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the city council.

Um, I am Holly Simmons for the record.

So up on our agenda this evening is uh first off a present a project timeline.

I know you all have seen this many times before, but we'll go over it briefly again at the top of this agenda.

We'll be going into some information regarding our authorization to file agenda items, some orientation to the many materials that were included in your agenda packet, contents of the comprehensive map amendment, information regarding the adoption process and schedule, and then we'll have plenty of time for questions and suggested motions at the end.

So again, you've seen this before, our project timeline.

Currently, we are at the authorization to file milestone.

Um, so this is something we've been working toward for just about two years now.

Very pleased to be at this date.

Over the next six and a half months, we will be proceeding through the adoption process, assuming that Mayor and Council does move forward with authorization to file the zoning text amendment and the comprehensive map amendment this evening.

And just a note we are planning again, assuming Mayor and Council decide to act on these to release our public draft of the draft zoning ordinance and comprehensive map amendment on Engage Rockville tomorrow.

Going over a bit of information regarding authorization to file.

So we do have before you our draft zoning ordinance and draft zoning map.

These are best understood at this time as staff recommendations.

I know we've been through a number of work sessions where you all have provided direction to us, and that has really informed the development of both of these items.

However, they are at this point a staff recommendation set to proceed through quite a bit of public review and work sessions, public hearings, et cetera, before the end of this spring.

As I noted, we are proposing to release the draft as well to engage Rockville on our project page.

So with authorization to file the zoning text amendment, this begins, as I know you are well aware, the review and adoption process and authorization to file does not indicate approval of or concurrence with the draft that you have before you.

It's really just a starting point, kind of giving us the go-ahead to go and file the paperwork to start the process.

When it comes to authorization to file the comprehensive map amendment, this is being considered as a separate agenda item.

So I know you all are aware of this, but you have two separate items to authorize the filing of and their adoption processes are planned to run concurrently.

Brief orientation to the materials included in the brief book for this evening.

So there is a highlights document.

This is intended to be kind of the broad strokes of what you see in the nearly 300-page zoning ordinance.

It includes quite a bit of information about the background and development of the project, high-level overview of the new draft zoning ordinance itself, including highlighting key changes from the current ordinance to the proposed draft.

It includes a number of synopses of Mayor and Council work sessions that we've had prior to the release of the file the final or the first draft of the consolidated document and includes Mayor and Council direction in there.

These synopses are not intended to be meeting minutes and they don't include all of the information in those work sessions.

However, they do outline the specific direction that was received.

And it does not include full details of the draft ordinance.

So this document really is best understood kind of as an entry point, a jumping off point for someone who wants a high-level overview.

It provides a good high-level overview, but all of the meat and potatoes are really stored within the draft zoning ordinance itself.

We've also provided a table of contents as kind of a reference material.

It is intentionally provided separately from the next item, which is the zoning text amendment itself.

Then we have an update to the community engagement summary that you all saw last in April.

And we have a digest of the public comments that we've received on the zoning ordinance rewrite project through November 10th when this brief book was first compiled for review.

So we have continued to receive comments since November 10th.

We are certainly continuing to track those and register them with our public comments, and we're planning on updating that digest prior to the first work session with the Planning Commission.

And with that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Mr.

Wazilak, to go over the materials and information related to the comprehensive map amendment.

Thank you, Ms.

Simmons.

Again, Jim Waslack with Community Planning and Development Services.

And typically there are zoning recommendations within that plan that could cover areas of the city and in fact the entire city.

What you'll find in this document is we're actually confirming the zoning of a large part of the city and making the recommended changes that are in the comprehensive plan.

We thought it was important to include a document that shows the actual proposed rezonings and calls them out.

If you just looked at the zoning map itself, which is what ultimately you will take action on, it would be perhaps difficult to compare and contrast and realize what all the changes that are proposed.

I would uh note that just like the uh ZOR, this document reflects the mayor and council's work session discussion.

So we've included included uh the proposed rezoning document, the actual draft amendment with map amendment, which is the PDFs of all of the uh entire city that uh shows what ultimately would be the final zoning for each property within the city.

We included the uh included the description of existing and proposed zones.

Uh, we thought it would be helpful for uh the community uh as well as anyone who wants to review uh the comprehensive map amendment, and of course, the uh similar uh public comment digest uh related to the CMA uh which is we've separated from the ZOR.

So uh again, the document that we have shown you is includes the properties that are recommended to be rezoned, um incorporates the feedback from the mayor and council work sessions.

It also includes properties that are not recommended to be rezoned, but perhaps were recommended in the comprehensive plan.

And I did want to review all of those uh as we move forward.

And just as a reminder, this is uh there is a relationship between the CMA and the ZOR, and then they should be uh reviewed and processed and ultimately adopted uh concurrently.

So just to review uh the contents of the CMA and what properties actually are proposed to be rezoned.

Um, we'll start kind of with the um metro-oriented properties.

Uh this is at the Shady Grove Metro, uh, where properties are zoned MXTD.

And uh based on your direction, you uh wanted to see these zoned MXTD 235, which is a new zone recommended in the in the town center plan.

The town center planning area itself, uh you will recall had three character areas.

We developed zones that reflect those character areas, and the rezoning uh reflects those, uh, with the exception of the planned development that are actually within the town center, uh, those will be retained.

And at the at the Twinbrook Metro station, uh based on your direction, we are rezoning properties currently zoned MXTD to MXTD 235, and then within the South Pike planning kind of sub-area of the planning area, properties that are zoned MXCD are recommended to be rezoned to MXTD 200.

Mr.

Mr.

Bosslink, sorry, can I is it possible that you can help just provide some context on the zoning changes?

Uh just just so that it may sound like alphabet soup to the listening public.

So I just wanted to make sure that we're clarifying what those letters mean.

So the zones themselves.

Okay, yes.

So MXTD is um mixed use transit district.

MX always stands for mixed use.

We have a number of mixed use zones, and MXCD is mixed use corridor district.

So if you think of the Rockfell Pike and the kind of mixed use orientation of the pike, um the entire corridor is zone MXCD.

So MXTD allows for a mix of uses, office retail, residential, uh, institutional at a high density.

235 means the dense the um actual maximum height of the zone by right, and the zone actually allows for additional bonus of 100 feet on top of the 235.

So these are the highest density zones, um, and they are proposed to be uh adjacent to our metro stations.

Going back to the Rockville station, but um kind of surrounding it.

The east side of the Rockville station is proposed to be rezoned from MXNC to MXCD, NC being neighborhood commercial.

Again, C D is corridor district.

This allows for additional development additional height on this property.

And that is again the east side of the Rockville Metro Station, bounded by Park Road and South Stone Street Avenue.

And then the other areas here are those that are recommended for rezoning from R60, which is our single family detached zone to the RMD infill zone, which allows for duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, quads, etc.

Properties in this vicinity have already been rezoned based on the Stone Street corridor.

This would expand the application of the RMD infill zone.

Similarly, at the Twinbrook Metro, there are adjacent properties that are recommended to be rezoned from R60 to RMD infill, as shown in red here.

And then there's also a strip of property that's currently zoned, light industrial, that is proposed to be rezoned to the MXB or mixed use business.

Again, this is incorporated, this is from the comprehensive plan.

Staying within the Twinbrook neighborhood area, you will recall that there are a number of rezonings proposed as a result of the bus rapid transit that will ultimately be constructed in the Versmill Road corridor.

Most of the court is currently zoned R60, except for the Twinbrook Shopping Center areas.

And the proposal in the comprehensive plan was to rezone this corridor to the RMD infill zone, again to allow duplex triplexes townhouses in addition to single family homes.

And then where there are stops in the BRT, that those properties would be rezoned to MXNC or neighborhood commercial.

I did note that the comp plan recommendation included where we thought the stations were going to be located at Edmondston and Broadwood.

We now know that the station has been relocated to Twinbrook Parkway, and there's also one recommended for Atlantic Avenue.

Those shopping centers are already in the MXNC zone, so they are not recommended for rezoning.

And there is a couple of other isolated properties, namely the Burgundy Park Shopping Center, which is currently MXC or mixed use commercial.

It's our low density residential neighborhood commercial.

If you think of the Woodley Garden Shopping Center, that's probably the prime example.

The recommendation in the comp plan was to recommend it or to rezone it to MXNC or neighborhood commercial.

And then there's also a park property that is recommended for rezoning to RMD 10 in the comp plan that would allow for townhouses up to 10 units per acre.

And finally, I believe on this slide is the property at 1000 Twinbrook Parkway.

The current zone there is R60.

It is an institutional use, and the proposed zone and the comprehensive plan was to be rezoned to RMD 15, which should the property redevelop, would allow for singles towns and perhaps low density multifamily.

Moving to the southern southern portion of the city, this is adjacent to East Jefferson Street, if uh familiar with the Rollins Park Apartments and the Congressional Towers apartments and their associated community center.

This is recommended in the comprehensive plan to be rezoned to a high density residential zone, which the city does not currently have.

But one of our tasks was to develop a higher density residential zone for this site.

And we developed the RHD or residential high density, which would allow for a similar mix of uses, but also increase the density up to 50 units per acre.

And I did note that the East Jefferson Street frontage was recommended in the comp plan to be rezoned to MXCT, which is a mixed-use transition zone between high density zoning potential on the east side of East Jefferson, and this on the west side would mimic uh that same zoning pattern.

This property is the one that you've heard some testimony about, not only this evening, but prior.

This is the 9.75-acre former school site, uh, ultimately not used as a school, that is currently zoned R90 and recommended for rezoning to RMD 25 in the comprehensive plan.

And we are bringing forward that recommendation as it was recommended in the plan.

There are some properties that, based on your prior work sessions that are not included in the map amendment, as we brought it forward to you, and that includes property within Lincoln Park that was recommended to be rezoned from R60 to RMD infill.

And based on your direction to receive feedback from that community, and they noted quite accurately that the mayor and council had adopted their conservation district amendments just recently.

And the intent of the conservation district was to maintain the single family detached nature of that community.

And so rezoning within their conservation district would seem to be in opposition to that.

The proposed rezoning of the MXT, certain properties that are in the MXT zone in the West End planning area is not brought forward based on your direction.

You did not want to down zone those properties.

So those are not included.

Similarly, you do not want to zone downzone the Piccard Drive Corridor between Redland Boulevard and West Goody Drive from MXE, which it currently is zoned to MXCD, which would be a reduction in height.

So those properties are shown to be MXE in the application.

And finally, there are properties, two properties owned by Jerusalem Mount Pleasant Church on Bell Avenue that are currently MXT and were proposed in the plan to be rezoned to R60.

And again, you do not support the re downzoning of those properties, so those are shown as still in the MXT zone.

I did want to show you one resource that the community will have as we move forward in the process.

And that is an interactive zoning map that our research team produced to be able to be shown on our engage Rockville page that will indicate the proposed zoning and the current zoning map.

So if you use the slider that's right in the middle right now, you can toggle between what is proposed, if I can do it myself, what is proposed and what is not.

So if you slide to the left, you'll expose more of the proposed zoning.

And if you slide it to the right, you'll see what the zoning has been.

It also allows for you to zoom in.

So if you really want to get into the detail and show individual properties, you can certainly do that.

Or if you want to click on a property and get specifically what the recommended zones are, you can do that as well.

So we think this will very be very useful tool for folks as we move forward in this process.

I want to wonder.

This is actually the very beginning of the adoption process this evening.

As Holly mentioned, uh, what is before you is a draft zoning ordinance and draft zoning map that are the result of more than two years of work.

Uh and the uh multiple work sessions that we've had with you with planning commission with the community uh during that time period to uh develop uh a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map.

So it's kind of the end of the beginning, uh if you will.

Uh the adoption process is specified in our code currently, and it's unlike any other code amendment process that you're probably familiar with.

Uh, you it does require this step, which is the authorization to file.

Um, what that means is when you, if you hopefully you will make a motion to authorize us to file the application, all that does is we file the application with the city clerk based on what we've provided to you and any changes that you might make, and then that initiates the specified review process, which is requires planning commission recommendation.

Planning commission will have work sessions, take testimony from the public, and then uh once they make a recommendation to you on both of those items, you will be required to hold a public hearing and also likely have work sessions and work through all of the issues that you've heard from the public and from the planning commission, anyone else who has weighed in.

So there's a very much more rigorous process than other code amendments that you may be familiar with.

It's the same process that our zoning text amendment follows, just we have a much more extensive document that's included in that text amendment.

Some of the things we are going to be doing during the adoption process, should you authorize the filing this evening, uh, we will be engaging with additional boards and commissions during the planning commission's review, which is scheduled for January and February.

We will be reaching out to all of our boards of commissions, and if they want us to make a presentation, or we would invite them to uh provide comment, we are happy to do so.

We will uh be outlining some community engagement opportunities.

So if community wants to uh become familiar with the final documents uh that we have produced and that have been authorized by you, you can do that.

Um probably the biggest thing is that this is an iterative process.

And again, as we've said, this is these are drafts that we provided for you.

Um you can certainly make some tweaks this evening if you if you would like.

But the process really is meant to um provide that rigorous review with the planning commission, with the public, with our other boards and commissions, so that we have the work sessions with the commission, work sessions with you to uh develop the revisions to the uh to the document, both the map amendment and the zoning ordinance amendment.

Uh I I was here for the last time that we did this, and I just happened to find the errata sheet from the planning commission's review of the text amendment.

Then there were more than a hundred changes made by the commission.

So I just want to uh make sure that everyone understands that that is what happens now.

So the changes can be made as we move through this process.

This is just the very beginning, and uh we look forward to working with you and the planning commission, everyone else uh who is interested in uh participating with us.

Again, adoption is anticipated in late spring of 2026.

And just to review the very, it's actually a very tight timeline, might not seem like that, uh, but it does involve a lot of work uh in a fairly compressed timeline.

Um, should you authorize this evening?

Um, we have a couple of uh public work sessions or orientation sessions for the community uh on December 4th and January 7th.

Uh, we will be essentially making this presentation to the planning commission next week and uh inviting them to tell us what types of items they would like to focus on in their work sessions.

We know the public will be making comments, and so they'll want to address those.

And so uh I've actually uh gave them a little advance uh and give them the link to your brief book so they could start looking at the zoning ordinance and letting us know what they would like to focus on during their review.

So similarly, um, if there are items that you, the mayor and council would like to focus on that uh maybe you haven't heard public testimony about, certainly we'll be addressing the ones that you have heard testimony about and providing you options and uh perhaps some direction on different ways you might want to address those issues.

So that's how we would like to proceed with the Planning Commission, your public hearings, and then work sessions in the spring uh leading up to an adoption uh on June 1st.

And with that, I'm gonna turn it back over to Ms.

Simmons to uh talk a little bit more about engagement for the process.

Thank you, Mr.

Wazlack.

I'll keep this brief.

You've seen some of this information before.

Our engage Rockville page, as I mentioned previously, is intended and planned to be updated with the materials included in your brief book this evening to help the public understand um a bit about our draft as well.

Certainly, folks can continue to subscribe to email updates on our engage rockfill page.

And I did want to say just a bit about the virtual orientation community meetings that we have proposed for December 4th and January 7th.

We are proposing them just after this authorization to file meeting and just before the planning commission's first work session.

Those will be virtual at 7 p.m.

We're intending for those to be very dynamic.

So we'll do a bit of a deep dive into the interactive map that Mr.

Wazlac just showed you all very briefly, and we'll also go through some of the documents, including the highlights document to just acquaint folks with what is in that document and how they can use it to navigate the larger zoning ordinance as well.

And then one final thing before we pause for questions.

We did want to say thank you.

Thank you to you all very much for all of the time that you've spent on this to date.

Thank you to members of the community that we've had the chance to spoke to speak with, and that folks that we will have the chance to speak with in the future.

The planning commission as well.

And then thank you.

We have two slides worth of folks on staff who've had their hands on this project over the last two years, and it simply would not have been possible without every single person who has touched this.

So we really do appreciate all of the time and effort and care and dedication that has gone into getting us again to what Mr.

Waslak called the end of the beginning.

And I would just like to take the liberty and add that the one person that we probably owe the most to is sitting to my left, Ms.

Simmons.

She came on board and picked up the process after it had already begun and ran with it.

And we are here tonight primarily because she was able to manage all of those people and all of us to produce the documents that you have before you.

So much thanks.

And with that, we'd be happy to answer questions.

This has been a long process to get here.

So back in 2021, the comprehensive plan was produced, but the full plan can't go forward without this step.

And so this is really your effort to help us implement the comprehensive plan, which had significant community feedback way in by mayor and count by the previous mayor and council, by staff.

There have been people who have uh come anew and helped to refresh and to uh create this.

I know in June 2023, uh there was a contract awarded to start helping with the zoning ordinance rewrite.

So I want to just recognize the long history and journey that you've all been on, uh, and then now to um be able to see this draft here before us, and thank you for releasing it on November 20th, and it's on our our our brief books now.

If anyone wants to take a look who hasn't had a chance to yet, um I really just want to say thank you.

I know that there's a lot of work.

We have had a couple of work sessions already.

Um, and uh it's you know, you did a nice job of documenting where we have been.

I also want to thank the community, both on participating on the comprehensive planning process and now this.

And through that process, we've had residents come and go and taking a fresh look at this as well.

And some who are seeing it for the first time.

So I just want to say we appreciate all the feedback from the community and coming to share your thoughts with us.

I know members of the mayor and council have been trying to look at the addresses and go around the city to see how do we bring that um what's proposed on paper to life.

Um, so I I just want to say a huge thank you to to everyone all around.

Um, I know that we have a lot to discuss tonight.

Um, and I was thinking that I have some just broad process questions, and then I would like to hear from my colleagues if they have any broad process questions, and then perhaps we can work with the map amendments to start and then go into the zoning.

I know that's we get this, you know, that's a larger, bigger document, um, if that's okay with you.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so that process questions that I have.

Um, when we have uh this draft that we may file, um can you explain uh if we have changes, how that would be incorporated into what is presented to the to the public for the public hearings.

Certainly.

If you give us direction uh as the mayor council to make changes to either the ZOR as we presented it or the comprehensive map amendment, uh we would make those changes before we would file actually formally file the application with the city clerk.

Okay, thank you.

And then if you could show us just the work session, the schedule that you have again, and uh just for the listening public and for us of uh do you have a thought into how you plan to organize these work sessions by theme, or do you want us to provide feedback on that as well?

Certainly, we would like your feedback on things that you would like us to focus on and bring you uh more information about.

Um I had been thinking that we would organize them similarly to to your work sessions if you had to date.

Um we have some broad topics like development review, historic preservation, et cetera.

Um, but if there are more specifics, uh we will get into those as well.

And certainly we want to get into and address the public comment that we receive.

Okay, thank you.

And then um, just from a process question, I know that I I raised, I would raise either under Old New Business or during this session about the deer mesh piece.

When would you like that kind of feedback?

Uh so we can get because I know that may take more time.

I think it's probably appropriate to bring it up during this uh session.

Um we feel that there is um first of all, I'd like to kind of explain what our regulations actually are if we if you want to talk about those.

Uh but the best option we feel is to incorporate that direction uh into uh your direction for the Zoor, and then we can bring back some potential options for you to consider.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I will go to process questions, and then I would like to come back and share some feedback on the um the map amendments.

I particularly, I know that you've shared the feedback from some of the neighborhoods.

We also heard from Newmark Commons as well as the Montrose community, and I'd like to make sure we're having a chance to discuss that as a body as well.

Uh colleagues, any process questions.

I saw uh Councilmember Fulton, Councilman Valerie, and then Councilmember Van Greg.

Thank you.

Thank you for this.

I it's great work, and I love that uh you've got a good plan for further engagement and further refinement from from a sort of process perspective.

My my one overarching question uh is the comprehensive map amendment is meant to enact the recommendations that were made in the in the comprehensive plan from last term.

Uh but I do see, and so I work from the assumption that what we're gonna see from you is implementing what the comprehensive plan says.

But you did say that there are some things that have already changed from the comprehensive plan.

Um, and there are some things that we've asked during work sessions that we might want to see along Rockville Pike.

East Rockville, uh, the community itself has asked for changes from the comprehensive plan.

And my understanding is well, those kinds of things need to actually come second.

There's a sort of a weird chicken of the egg, that's fine.

Help me understand what we can make changes to now versus what need to wait for a different process.

Because it doesn't seem as clear-cut as I thought it was.

I would say um, as an example, most of the changes in zoning that we have brought forward to you are included in the comprehensive plan.

And we brought every single one of those to you in work session.

Um you gave us direction that you do not want to move forward with several of those, and we have not included those.

Um if you want to kind of lean forward a bit, and you've kind of have done that to a degree with the rezonings at the metro stations.

Uh, we feel there's a rationale to do that based on your decision and adoption of the town center plan.

Uh, we feel that there can be similar zoning patterns at our other metro stations.

Beyond that, uh, we really feel that because our zoning and our comprehensive plan really needs to be in sync, we can't go much beyond that in terms of uh changing zone that wasn't complimented contemplated by any comprehensive plan.

City manager hasn't followed.

And then I'll have a follow up.

If I could add, Mayor.

Um just regarding the chicken and egg comment in case people are wondering what they're talking about.

Um, when they had the key initiatives discussion not so many weeks ago, there was some discussion about doing you know a Rockville Pike neighborhood plan.

In other words, what can we do with increased density?

There's also um a discussion about doing an East Rockville neighborhood plan.

So that would be a plan that could start basically right about when you're adopting this new zoning map amendment.

That doesn't mean you couldn't come back after those plans are done and then make additional modifications to your zoning ordinance text and your zoning map.

It just will happen right after.

It's just those things don't always line up perfectly, but you can do some planning processes, then come back and change zoning again.

I I appreciate that, and I was prepared for that process, but I'm still but there are individual parcels that the comprehensive plan says one thing, and we've decided not to do it.

So the line is somewhere between an individual parcel and sort of whole areas.

So what you're considering now actually is a comprehensive map amendment.

We're looking at zoning for the entire city based on the comprehensive plan, which addressed the entire city as well.

Um, in reality, only certain areas were recommended for rezoning in the comprehensive plan.

Um there are other processes when you do like the town center plan, that was a plan for its specified area of the city and made recommended zoning changes to that particular area.

Um you could do that again with your Rockville Pike plan and any other kind of uh neighborhood plan that you might want to engage with.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

And again, thanks for this work.

Uh I was clear and I can understand all of it very well how you got there, and I look forward to the rest of the process.

Thank you.

Just a clarifying question on 355.

So when we did the Rockfeld Rockville Town Center Master Plan, we made some changes that we were also able to then apply to the Twinbrook without it exactly aligning with the comprehensive plan.

And when we did the Rockville Town Center Master Plan, we did discuss upzoning 355.

Is that a way that you could get more housing and it's very transit rich and it's like the town center.

And so since we were able to do the Twinbrook area, could we not also do other frontage on 355 alone since it's very similar to the Rockville Town Center Master Plan?

I just I worry about the timing and how long that could take.

And that is where you know we have some large parking lots, and that's where you know housing could really support our city.

And it's right near transit.

So I just wanted to flag that we apply a likeness of thought to the Twin Brook without going in and doing the map uh a neighborhood plan there.

And I'm just wondering if 355 is a special condition.

I do also recall that the East Rockville community would like a plan redone, and that hasn't been done, I think, in about 20 years or so, and I support that relook, but I would I just think because 355 is unique and the way we've applied the town center thinking and zoning to Twinbrook, that there may be a rationale for including 35.

And I just wanted to see if there's any possibility for the mayor and council to make a decision on that.

Yeah, I mean, we considered that, um, but we really thought that there was a stronger tie with the actual metro station areas to the town center, because there's an overall policy in the comprehensive plan to increase the density at our our transit stations.

So we thought that even though there's not a specific zoning recommendation at the Twinbrook station to do what we're recommending and what you agreed that we should do, um, we feel that there's an there are policies in place that support that change in zoning.

Different than, say, the Rockville Pike Corridor, which is you know in a mile and a half corridor, it has its own neighborhood plan with very specific recommendations.

It did anticipate the BRT, but uh at this point that plan is is approaching 10 years in age, so it's probably appropriate to look at that.

And you know, it may be that that corridor is not uniform, and you want to look at different parts of it uh to do the plan for that pike corridor.

So um we feel that the chicken and egg uh that really the comprehensive plan amendment or neighborhood plan that you want to do for Rockville Pike really appropriately should become first, and then we can, as the city manager said, we can make the zoning changes uh as a result of that planning effort.

Okay, and the just last two points.

One is that we did make changes around transit.

I'm glad you said that, and BRT is running 355.

So they're actually would be making a case for thinking about the housing and upzoning in those high high transit areas because BRT is doing that, and two, just a clarification is it not advised, or that Mayor and Council cannot.

Okay.

Oh, that's our recommendation uh based on state code that the comprehensive plan and the zoning should be in sync.

Um, and I will say, just to uh further clarify the zoning at our metro stage, is it really did anticipate high density at our fixed rail stations as opposed to the BRT.

Um, like I said, the the pike plan was done uh with BRT uh in mind and anticipated, but uh it did not recommend rezoning.

And one point I should make is the zoning that's in place allows for five and six-story buildings along there.

Um we haven't seen many of those.

Um so the mixed-use zoning that we did in 2009 uh actually allows for mixed use development in that quarter, it's just not there presently.

Thank you.

Up to five to six.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll if there may be an opportunity to also get a legal opinion on that as well.

Um, I understand from a planning perspective, I fully respect the profession and uh the advice in terms of alignment.

I just want to make sure we also have an understanding from a legal perspective, if that if we can get a legal perspective by the sometime during this discussion.

Councilman Valeri.

Thank you.

And um, I do want to echo everybody's thanks.

I feel like we should sometimes do like blanket, like thank you, and you and the community, and um, or I sometimes I say ditto, but only because everybody has already done all the good things.

Um so I'll just associate myself with with everybody else's gratitude.

Um, and as somebody who was the president of their community association when the comprehensive master plan, the known as Rockville 2040 began, I have seen this journey from the beginning of those charades.

Now it's before me, and I know exactly the level of work that has gone into to all of this.

It is to that point that I'm struggling a little bit now sitting here because looking at the comprehensive master plan and what has evolved out of it.

It is now I think contributed to an inequality of zoning changes in the city.

Because you had a neighborhood like Twinbrook that once we got there said, yeah, we should have this and we should have this and we should have this.

And so those were all past.

If you had a neighborhood that said, no, we don't really want anything.

Well, then that has dropped into perpetuity, it feels like it's not, but it's what it feels like.

So now we have a situation where seven of the 11 zoning changes are in east of 355.

We have four of the 11 are south of Wooten Parkway that also kind of spans, you know, east to west.

Again, we have an inequality of how we are shifting and changing as a city.

We're shifting and changing as a whole, you know, like the the population and demographics and the need for affordable housing, it's universal.

But we're still looking in these same areas a little bit more, a little bit more.

And this is a uh societal issue, right?

And I think everybody in the city, of course, we have affordability issue.

But no, don't do anything here.

So now we're really leaning on the um Mikey from the Life Serials commercials.

Well, Trin Book likes it, so let's build it there.

East Rockville likes it, so let's build it there.

When really we need to look at the entire city.

We have to look at every area in fill.

And so what I'm hearing now, um, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, and I feel like Jim and I could geek out about zoning way too long, um, is that anything that deviates from the past comprehensive master plan?

Things like changing the amount of infill throughout the city, that could not be done in any other way but to reopen the process, or is what are the next steps?

Let me start there.

I think if you wanted to apply the RMD and fuel zone to more properties in the city, I think it really would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan to achieve that.

So that and that's what I kind of thought.

So I almost see that as like the um invisible, unspoken of um third track.

We're doing dual track with the comprehensive map amendment, and we're looking at the ZOR, but then that third track is okay, we are sometime has shifted even from the 2040 plan adoption, and there is a new approach to um development and housing in the city, and I think it's evolving, and we have a deepened crisis.

So is this something that um would make sense to kind of have that um as an option?

So as we go through this process and we see, well, this could be alleviated by if we did X, Y, or Z, that might not be in the adopted 2040 plan, but we want to, as an elected body, put a pin in it and have that discussion to kind of um as a uh as a parking lot for all those ideas, right?

Um I I just want to put that to my my colleagues as well, because I think we're we're gonna see a lot more items, right?

Like this is just the the first swipe at the issue, and I think along the way, there may be other things that as time and thinking has evolved, um, we might want to look further into.

Um, but if it's not recommended, if it's explicitly not recommended in the comprehensive, the adopted comprehensive master plan, then that's what we would have to do, except how are we able to implement the town center master plan without like before the Zor.

So we had the floating zone, if I recall correctly.

Okay.

So in theory, couldn't those changes be.

Does it have to be all contiguous?

Would be my first thing.

And then secondly, wouldn't the floating zone be an option for the pike, the pipe plan 355?

Because that would be a contiguous um stretch of area of land where we want to change either change the zoning significantly enough that it would deviate from the comprehensive master plan.

That makes sense.

I think so.

We have had two floating zone regimes, one that implemented the comprehensive plan, the Rockville 2040 plan, and one that implemented the town center master plan rezonings, recommended rezonings, knowing that this process was coming forward, and if someone wanted to move forward sooner than we were moving forward, then they could rec they could apply to have their property rezoned.

And we've had one property uh that was rezoned as a result of those.

Um, but you still kind of need the framework for what the floating zone might consist of.

Um so we needed a minimum, I think, um plan guidance and then direction from your zoning ordinance that would tell you what zones you could apply for as a as a floating zone.

Oh no, and I agree with that.

Um I think that the Madam Mayor touched on it, and that is this kind of funny, and the antiquated sense of transit-oriented development, where we're so focused on Metro and Wamada, but you know, looking at things like the BRT and and frankly, the BRT is the basis for all that upzoning along Bears Mill.

So it to me it makes sense then that that would be the connection for 355 outside of you know the the pipe plan is that you're that would be the the reason for it basically.

Um that's kind of my thinking.

Um it does not get to the issue of equity, and I I do want to keep stressing this because I think that that's how we're gonna get there.

I think that's how we're gonna get out of the housing crisis, increasing the density by dispersing it uh in all corners of the city, I think is how it's gonna get there.

My last question is process, I swear, Madam Mayor.

Um you mentioned about the hundred changes the last time that um you were here for this process.

Um, and I was just curious.

Um that hundred changes from was that from mayor and council or kind of overall.

That was what I looked at was actually the planning commission's errata sheet.

So that was the changes that they made to the version that was authorized for filing back in 2008.

They had a series of work sessions and they made those changes as a recommendation to the mayor and council at that time.

Gotcha.

So the planning commission was the first pass of edits.

Okay.

So that is actually helpful.

In that um, last question, I swear, Madame Mayor, in that um, those hundred changes from the planning commission, were there significant changes to them themselves, the planning commission in similar that we're looking at here, where it changes the um either administration or authority of the planning commission.

Do you remember off the top of your head?

I don't my my impression is that it's there weren't as significant changes like the like that.

Um it was a different process, and we actually had planning commissioners and council members that were on the citizens group that were recommended that recommended the draft and developed the draft.

So some of that was already kind of baked into the the draft that we brought forward.

Interesting.

I really like that.

Um that is all my my grilling right now.

But thank you so much, and thank you, Mr.

Wasilik, for the trip down memory lane for you.

Thank you.

And I also just kudos to being here for the second ZOR, your second ZOR.

Uh Councilman Van Grott.

Thank you.

And uh of course, I'm clearly gonna start with a thank you.

And I think that's important because obviously you're gonna hear some comments both from the community and from the mayor and council here with regard to some issues, some process, but I think it needs to be said the degree to which this was a Herculean effort.

You guys not only have gone forward for putting forward this drastic change, which is needed in the city, but you've been hearing from the mayor and council individually and at our work sessions.

Please do it quickly.

Please do it quicker.

We want to see it because we realize the value of doing this as a whole for the city.

And even if we're talking about specific areas or the process to make it better, I think it's critical that you need to know the appreciation with regard to the detail that you put forward and that you've listened to us get it to us as quickly as possible.

And so I just want to show extreme appreciation because you guys have really put in, I'm sure days and nights in putting this together.

I've got two general uh process questions.

Um, first is with regard to engagement, because you know that the mayor and council is critical in engagement.

And I went through, I know you really put in details within what um what you put forward is the degree to which you had engagement with different groups within the city, and specifically within the different areas.

But I know that in talking with some of the members of the community, in fact, even when we were at the walk with the Newmark Commons, a lot of them, and I even heard the initial impacts didn't even get to them.

In fact, they don't even remember receiving an email from the initial comp plan.

And I know that we've we're really stressing email is critical to use.

And I know that we went through the emails, and it wasn't until kind of into 2025 that we started following up with phone calls with regard to it.

Probably a good idea for us to, because emails change, we're not sure if we've got the right one to kind of make sure that we get a hold of people because we've heard it here today with regard to people not hearing from us until they deem it's too late.

I don't think it is too late because hearing from them now, this isn't even permanent.

So we can make adjustments even if something goes through today, we can still make adjustments.

But um, to the extent we don't want people to feel left out from being able to provide input.

Similarly, I noticed that with regard to the community associations and the groups.

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, I want to make sure I'm reading it right.

We focused on those community associations and groups that were directly affected by zoning issues.

And is that correct?

That is, I would say that that is correct.

We reached out specifically to neighborhood associations and community associations that had a proposed rezoning within or adjacent to their defined boundaries.

Okay, so and I guess that goes to my suggestion.

Um, especially now that we're getting into more detailed and more permanent issues.

I noticed there wasn't a single community association or group anywhere west of 270 at all that was contacted whatsoever.

And we heard from people with regard to fencing issues, which is part of the zoning.

We've got fencing issues.

We heard from them this past week with regard to things and their groups.

I kind of looked up to see where they were emailing us from, and a number of them were not in any of the community association or groups that we contacted, but they clearly have a vested interest in some of the things that we're doing.

So a suggestion going forward to the extent we can broaden the community association and groups that we impact, but also make sure that we kind of follow up with phone calls as well as just emails.

I think will just help us.

And again, I want to stress that you guys did do not only Herculean effort with the work, but did do um great in community engagement.

I'm just making these suggestions because I think we can do better, and I don't want us to fall into any issues that people are feeling that they've come late to the party with regard to giving their input to us.

Um, the other question and comments that I want to make is similar to what my colleagues were saying with regard to some of the things that might not be here in what we put forward.

Um, and it's potentially two suggestions.

Um, there was a discussion you heard from my colleagues with regard to the 355 corridor, and there's clearly some issues with regard to coordinating with the comp plan.

But I'm pretty confident, I know I've checked my notes, we did say, hey, this is something that we want to do.

And I know when we get to some the more detailed issues we get to, there's also things that I noted that I'm pretty sure that we had either made some majority view of or even unanimous view that also isn't incorporated.

I'm guessing that in a lot of those situations, just like with the 355 355 corridor, there's some impediment, right?

Whether it's with the comp plan or some other reason why it's not included.

However, in what we were provided, there was no explanation for some of their them being missing.

And so I think the way to address that is to say something in this briefing.

We know that the mayor and council gave direction during this work session that we want to do this.

However, in order to accomplish it, this is what we would do legally.

That way we now have our own roadmap, and there's no confusion as to why it's not there.

Similarly, having some idea that at least lets us and the public be aware that, hey, we did already make this decision, or at least had a straw poll with regard to this idea, the public now knows this is part of our thinking, because if we're doing a zoning ordinance rewrite and this comprehensive map amendment, that's really talking about the whole city.

The public now knows this is part of our thinking, because if we're doing a zoning ordinance rewrite and this comprehensive map amendment, that's really talking about the whole city.

But if we're leaving pieces out because there's a part needed, that's something that we can at least inform everybody.

And when it goes to the planning commission, they might be saying, Well, why isn't this there?

Well, we had voted on it, and we had or straw poll, informal vote, but that's the missing part, and it signals to everybody, the public, the planning commission, and to ourselves what that roadmap would be.

I'm presuming that's something that we can put into this document, right?

So, yes, certainly.

Okay, now the final suggestion, and I think this is more another macro suggestion.

I think, and I think it's most important with something like this.

We've had some significant work sessions that I think have been extremely valuable as we've gone through here.

And we also can see that we as I just talked about, and my colleagues have talked about some confusion about whether we had made a vote or made a straw poll or come to a majority decision on something that doesn't happen to be there.

And I guess this is more to the appointed than it is to staff.

I know that traditionally we don't put and there's been discussion, straw polls or informal votes in our minutes.

However, that could be something helpful to the public and ourselves when trying to figure out what were the decisions that we came to informally, and I think it could also help direct staff, because then we've got the minutes and the record.

And I guess I know there's been some discussion with the appointed with regard to whether that's something that we could do.

And I know I'm talking I don't want to speak on behalf of the body, but to the appointed, is that something that we can start doing so that we have more transparency, more clarity to staff, and more of a clarity for ourselves.

If it's okay, mayor, if I could.

There are times I tried during a meeting to make sure I can count.

I say count to four or five, you guys know what I mean.

Um I'll just make a point.

I'll try to make a point of doing that more often to make sure because there are times when I'll see a couple of heads nodding.

But maybe not four.

So I'll make sure then that way the clerk can um put it in the minutes.

I'm happy to do that.

In fact, I think we'd prefer it in cla to your point, uh staff has clear direction.

And and I guess that I guess that helps because I want to make sure, and I guess uh to the director of council operations and the clerk, it is there a signal that we need to do to make sure that we can get some of these informal issues uh on the minutes.

Or as Jeff said, I can count to whatever we're gonna do.

This is something we can put in the minutes.

Minutes or action minutes, so we can give you a summary of something like that, but they won't be in the minutes.

I I think that may be a broader discussion for all of our items.

However, um, I do think that whether it's the election code discussion or this one, it is very helpful to be able to see what you all interpreted as our decision, so that we have a roadmap going forward, particularly for complicated things.

As I mentioned, election code and something as big as zoning.

I'm not saying that for every single topic, but big items, I think it's good to track the body's feedback.

I understand the direction, I'll talk to my colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm just seeing if anyone has process questions.

Councilman Bashaw.

I wanted to echo my colleagues' um remarks, um, and thank you very much.

Um, so I do have a few process questions around equity, and I know that it was mentioned that equity was one of the key objectives within this whole process, and as we know, equity is a process itself.

Um it notes in the briefing book that the city's uh that the objective is focusing on um the city's ongoing commitment to equity, resilience, and sustainability as outlined in both the 2021 mayor and council social justice resolution.

Just to be clear, is that the 10-21 resolution to endorse and commit and commit to the establishment of government policies and practices that promote racial and ethnic and social justice?

Yes, it is that okay.

Was there a reason why, you know, since we are committed to it, is there a reason why the title was not spelled out or shared?

Um, because even if you Google the 21, 2021 mayor and council social justice resolution, that doesn't come up.

It's just very hard to find what we're saying we're committed to.

So we'll in future documentation, we'll make sure to add that clarification.

Thank you for bringing that up.

Okay.

Can you also share the methodology that you will have in terms of advancing equity, particularly racial, ethnic and social justice equity?

Because I didn't see any demographic data, particularly in the community engagement.

I think I even saw two renters when the city has like 50%.

I didn't see any demographic data based on race, ethnicity.

And we want to make sure we are getting feedback throughout all our communities.

And particularly some of the communities that have been harmed historically by planning decisions way, way before we were here.

But we want to just make sure that we're truly having an inclusive process.

And that's not just by what we say, right?

But also the data to back it up.

So I can you share a little bit about your methodology.

When it comes to engagement specifically, I think we recognized at the outset that we probably were not going to get data that represented the demographics of the city.

We certainly worked very hard to reach all different types of people.

We had specifically a focus group for renters.

We had a number of folks respond and to show up, which we were very happy that they did.

We also had another renter in a separate focus group.

We made time for every single person who was involved in the project back in the fall to attend a focus group if they wanted to.

We had three open invitations.

So at no point did we exclude anyone.

We did work pretty hard to try and reach folks.

We showed up to the Twinbrook Library.

Oh gosh, I'm gonna get the name of the club wrong, but basically their English language club and spoke with folks there.

We've attended the Lincoln Park Civic Association meeting quite a number of times if we're talking about specific communities that we outreach to.

And certainly we did aim to reach as many folks as possible.

When it comes to having an eye on equity in the text itself, we really worked to remove language that might make past practices persist.

So if we're talking about character, we tried to remove neighborhood character as much as possible and use objective and clear standards.

Um removing things like visually or aesthetically appealing, things that might result in exclusive practices.

We also reviewed all of our use standards to work to ensure that they were not exclusionary as well.

And we've we worked to do that throughout the draft.

So I think those are two different tacks when it comes to engagement and when it comes to putting a critical eye to the document itself.

We also relied rather heavily on recommendations from the American Planning Association's equity and zoning policy guide.

Um they had very specific recommendations which were incredibly useful to us as well.

Um I I just also wanted to share uh within 10-21, it says um institute methods that have worked in cities around the country to update, eliminate, or create government policies, practices, and programs to dismantle racial disparities.

And in Mount Gomery County, when they did uh Thrive 2050, um, there were like targeted focus groups to make sure that you were getting input from various different groups that you need input from, particularly renters.

Um I think um the the document talks about quote underrepresented groups, but oftentimes when you're looking for feedback, folks that are have the ability to be engaged and have the time and have the resources may be the ones that hear about things first, right?

And um others, it may be more challenging for them to show up.

So some of the the things in in the county's lessons learned was to really go out, target and go like go to uh those specific neighborhoods.

So I I think that can be something that we can work on in the future, um, because it was surprising to see two renters and some of the some of the feedback from just renters in general from that plan was not just around affordable housing, but also the fear of displacement.

Um which uh, you know, it that it's a longer term process, and often, you know, renters um you're worried about your next year's rent increase, probably not decades with with zoning.

Um, because of your focus is on trying to stay in your community.

Um, and so I think it's really important to hear those voices through more targeted ways of engagement when we talk about affordable housing.

Um I sorry, I just had a few more questions.

Um, uh did you work with the JADI team in any way or collaborate with the JADI team in planning the outreach and engagement?

Or do you have plans to work with the Jedi team with outreach and engagement?

Certainly we can do that.

Um we did work, I think initially uh we did meet with uh that team uh as we were kind of gearing up for the process.

Um one of the things that uh we did do, because we had a consultant team that we were working with, that they provided us an analysis of our current zoning and uh what are some of the barriers within our current code that we needed to overcome in our rewrite.

So we kind of did two things.

We got some input based, some substantive input from our consultant team that have looked up codes around the country, and we also did some specific, had some specific discussions with our Jedi team, uh, but we want to kind of ramp those up a bit now that we're going to have a document that we want people to to read and take a look at.

Um and then my last question was around um there were some areas where it talked about upzoning that wouldn't quote displace the current community.

Um can you just share some more details around that?

Um I think this was in the description for um RHD.

I think it notes that it won't displace.

Uh how could you share just more details?

Like how how do you know that and what data?

There was a um a recommendation in the comp plan for um that concern to address that concern um that it did also recommend upzoning that area, but knowing that uh it's a very vibrant community, some of our kind of naturally occurring affordable housing in the city um that we didn't want to uh displace those residents to the degree that we would like to not do that.

So um we try to put some language into the text that addressed that uh comprehensive plan policy.

Okay.

I just I think generally there is a concern if we're saying it's not going to displace, and then there's that real fear of being displaced around affordability, particularly now.

Um so it's just something to consider when we're engaging with the community that is actually having the lived experience of being displaced.

So thank you.

Um I just wanted to say thank you again.

Um I think this is one of the most important things this body will do this term because it is helping to set zoning um for the next several years, and we know that these plans take a very long time.

From and then we can do the comp plan, and then it has to then go through another ZOR.

So I I appreciate your your uh patience with us and helping us to make this the right document.

Um I did want to note uh to some of the comments of my colleagues.

I believe in previous sessions we did note an interest in looking at uh 355, and there were some also who were interested because of the equity question, right?

You you can't do infill everywhere, there's HOAs in many parts of the city, but neighborhood shopping centers was a way to look at at that more fairly and equitably across the city.

Um so I just I wanted to note that.

And then the third thing I wanted to flag is um, and it's a question that I've heard from some of my colleagues.

I believe that the zoning ordinance, how does that interplay and the you know, zoning changes into play with what can happen in HOA communities?

There's some rules that we have to follow.

Can you please explain that and how our zoning and allowing change for changes given that there are HOAs that have their own rules?

And so we have a whole series of planned developments in the city.

Um into the future.

So the city's um zoning kind of takes precedence, but if the HOAs have regulations that go beyond or more stringent than our zoning rules, then there's obviously a property owner would have to abide by those rules as well.

I was more speaking to the fact that some of my colleagues mentioned NFL, and you you can't necessarily rezone and do infill in HOA communities.

So I just want to clarify that.

Yeah, there was one uh well that we have one example, and that's at Rock Shire Village Center where there was a comprehensive plan recommendation for what might occur uh should that property redevelop.

We knew that was being considered uh by the owners, and so there was a plan policy put in place in the comprehensive plan, and then because um you're correct, the city can't rezone uh those properties without the consent of the um the HOAs or the within the plan development, those developments exist, but um that applicant was able to come forward and make application based on the comprehensive plan policies that were put in place.

So um, and you see that uh in various uh amendments to your to the plan developments that have been adopted over the years.

Thank you.

But that was for the shopping center.

Yes, that wasn't uh overlaying on on homes.

I just I just wanted to comment on the info question.

Uh and it's more the older neighborhoods where that can occur, which we've seen in different places.

Right.

And so uh the neighborhood shopping centers are the way potential way to create more of that equitable distribution to one of my colleagues' comments.

Just wanted to flag that.

Okay.

Um I know that we're gonna potentially move into the map amendment next and looking at um some of the specific maps that you talked about.

Um I some of my colleagues would like a quick five-minute break, and then we will after do the map, uh, then we will take another break after that and then do the ZOR uh the more text edits.

Is that okay?

All right.

Yes.

Thank you, colleagues.

December first, twenty twenty-five.

Uh sorry, can I welcome back Rockville.

Wait, you you're counting down.

Go ahead.

Right.

Today is December first, twenty twenty-five.

We're reconvening meeting number twenty-nine twenty-five.

Uh we were discussing the authorization to file zoning text amendment to revise and place chapter twenty-five of the city code, or also known as a zoning ordinance, as well as the authorization to file a comprehensive map amendment application to implement the zoning ordinance rewrite.

I'd like to welcome back Jim Wasselick and Holly Simmons.

We had a detailed discussion about the process.

Uh should they see fit.

Uh we received uh or you have received, I should say.

Uh a number of um pieces of correspondence.

Not every uh one was in against the rezoning, there were a few that were in support, but the majority of were against the rezoning.

Uh we did have some suggestions that perhaps another zone uh other than the existing zone uh would make some sense and kind of achieve and fulfill the um comprehensive plan uh recommendation for the property in in a slightly different way.

Thank you.

And I looked at what we did on the other neighborhoods.

And we got good community feedback there.

And then Lincoln Park, we kept most of the upzoning there.

There's just one area that we did not because of some of the transit concerns.

Just out of curiosity, is there another entry point that you were anticipating for that RMD 25?

Well, we know that the property owner is Tower Dawson, who owned the property to the South and been the primary developers of Tower Oaks.

So there's potentially an access way through the South that would not come through Newmark Commons or Markwood.

So we have had some discussions very preliminary with with those owners.

But that's certainly a possibility.

And what road would that come from?

That would come from Tower Oaks Boulevard extended northward through the what's known as the residence hotel site within Tower Oaks.

Okay.

And then it is currently zoned for single family.

Yes.

And you are looking at RM25.

Yes.

And can you just explain that?

Yeah, when we started getting uh correspondence uh in opposition to that comp plan recommendation, uh we tried to go back into the records uh from the comp planning team as to how they arrived at that.

Um it's not entirely clear to us, but we do think that because one of the overall um policy guidance aspects of the comprehensive plan is to increase housing and different types of housing, different levels of affordability.

Um, that we think that that recommendation was made uh for this property, which is undeveloped currently, to uh be able to achieve some additional types of residential development on this site.

Um we think that the higher density was probably recommended because there are some kind of real physical constraints to development on the property.

Um certainly there's tree cover, there's also stormwater management facility and some wetlands mitigation areas that make it somewhat difficult.

So they would if development would occur, probably flexibility uh would be in order.

Uh, if you have a property that zoned R90, you can essentially divide it all up into single-family homes, and uh you wouldn't necessarily be able to keep the features uh that are desired on the property.

So I really feel that uh the RMD recommendation was made to afford that flexibility.

Okay, thank you.

That is uh very helpful.

I um just wanted to note there was some comments about language and the comprehensive plan about compatibility as well.

Do you feel like this we're still aligning with the other the narrative of the comprehensive plan?

So we have some some recommendations that might appear to be at odds because the clan plan clearly does recommend if this particular zone.

Um it also recommends compatibility.

Um those are things that are looked at when a div actual development application is brought forward.

Um there may be some things that could be built into the the zone uh that would afford that.

Um every zone has setback requirements and perhaps additional limitations might be in order in terms of height, but um we feel that the overall impact of an actual development would be reviewed at that point.

What we're doing now is just changing the zone.

It allows for the potential of additional residential units, but how that actually will work on the site is is certainly not uh part of this action.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, but just in looking at the plan and that topography and the current um transit options there.

Uh so I just I wanted to share that feedback.

Councilman Valerie and then Councilmember Jackson and then Councilman Van Greg.

Thank you.

Um, and I I uh appreciate uh where Madam Mayor is coming from, um, and just to not exit um the new mark commons question.

Um I think the other thing that you heard or read when you read emails or you talked to folks is that um it would make traffic worse.

And you hear this a lot with um in general when you go around the city and you talk about pedestrian improvements and safety issues.

To me, the first thing I hear is that there are existing issues with traffic mitigation, and so I just want to put a pin in it for everybody, um, not asking for a straw poll or anything, but that this might also be an opportunity to do a um traffic assessment, pedestrian safety um audit of the entrances and exits to Newmark Commons to determine if there are efficiencies or safety standards.

I know of one off the top of my head, because actually when I went out to Newmark Common to do the walk, it was dark by the time I was walking out of the neighborhood, and the one exit or entrance um that is does not have um a crosswalk nor a signalized crossing, it was very difficult for cars to see, you know.

I think there are challenges, and I think there are things that to make um traveling, whether it's by car, um being a pedestrian, bicycle, whatever, I think there's always ways to make things better and safer, irrespective of you know the discussion at hand.

So I just wanted to to flag that.

Um, and I did take pictures actually at night, so yeah I'm happy to share that with everybody.

I'm like Mr.

DPW is back there.

Um so yeah, and so I just wanted to um acknowledge that I um during our our our break just now, um I think that I think one of the challenges um I know that I had with this agenda item as I was getting ready for it, is that it did not feel to me like you know, that this was you know ready to be our draft as a mayor and council that it was hard for me to tell in the moment again, maybe me, but I also have a full-time job in addition to uh reading all the lovely pages between the map amendment and the ZOR.

Um I I didn't even get through to the point where I could start giving edits, and I think that um something someone someone said to me really rang true.

This in many ways is not our draft.

This is the draft that's prepared absolutely, produced by staff, but this is the community's draft, and I want to start framing it in that way because the community needs to engage with this draft, they need to read through it.

Um, and I know the community has full-time jobs as well, so I'm gonna take folks a little bit of time, but um I think that we can up here can only benefit from getting those that input and the community outreach occurring and also speaks to um council member Shaw's points as well that if what then comes before us, I'm not saying that the community is going to agree on everything 100%, right?

But you at least feel that you've been invested in as a resident of the city.

You were, you know, folks listen to you, you learned from your neighbors about this is really important here, that's really important here.

Um I think that doesn't detract at all from the timeline, but I just want to be super crystal clear with the community and residents and um everybody that this is yours.

This is not, you know, we're here to listen and to observe and to get um you know the explanations from the experts like yourself and Ms.

Simmons.

Um, but we have not sat with this in a way that it is meaningful yet, I think to mayor and council.

I'm gonna speak for myself.

It's not meaningful to me yet because I have not sat with it that long.

However, I think that it will be more meaningful knowing that the outreach has occurred and that the community has given their edits and their feedback.

And so I really want to maybe reframe how we even talk about it on um explore Rockville.

I think that it's you know, again, you mentioned it's an iterative process.

I I totally get that.

Um, but I think we can be even more clear and more concise in the language that we are using so that and we heard it here tonight too, frankly, from um the Newmark Commons community that felt like they were um kind of they found out about this toward you know, before it might be too late.

And that actually concerns me too, because I don't want anybody in the city to feel that way, to feel like, oh, um, you know, that the the train is moving and they're about to like fall off the back before you can hear from feedback.

So that is concerning to me, but I think more so it's it's really feeling invested in it.

So to that extent, while I do have I do have a laundry list, uh, Mr.

City Manager, I will not um deny it.

I have I've come around to this sense of my laundry list really means nothing until I hear more of a reaction from around the city to Councilmember Van Graak's point.

Not just the people closest to the areas with change.

Um, but I think we need to hear from the entire uh city on this, and then that way we know what we're getting um, I think to work from thank you uh for that feedback.

I saw Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

I've been uh quite up to this point just uh listening, but first I gotta say thank you for the work that you've done, the engagement, uh all this uh presentation uh with Stellar, and I really uh appreciate um uh you taking to the time to explain it uh so well uh to me, but also to our our residents.

Uh I want to echo uh what my uh fellow council member uh uh council member Valerie uh said.

Um and I I want to follow up on uh the point that the mayor uh made uh uh earlier.

Um she was talking about uh Newmark Commons and looking at other uh uh options for uh the zoning.

And I I just would second that.

Um it's not that I disagree uh perhaps with uh what your recommendation is, but I just want to see other options.

I think um her recommendation of uh NFL was good, but also I mean uh um uh RMD 10 or our RMD uh 40 or others, but I I just think that uh we should have options.

Now can you put pull up the uh the map um of um uh Newmark Commons real quick?

So you were saying that if they develop that um land, that your understanding is that there would be a road connecting uh it to uh Tower Oaks we've had some preliminary discussions with the owners of this property who also own the property to where on that map is Tower Oaks.

It is you should be able to see the arrow on the screen.

They own the property south.

So I mean they own this property tower because it's immediately south of it.

That's a little bit of a problem to me is you can't even see the the road uh that we're talking about connecting uh it uh too.

So for me, I mean the most uh uh obvious way to get out uh is uh through Newmark Commons, either that or construct a road through that uh uh uh wooded area, which just seems counterintuitive uh for um the the city that talks about green space.

Um so that's one thing.

I want to turn to um the uh other one.

So this uh Montrose.

Um this is I think that's the next slide.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah.

So can you describe to me uh because you know, that's the other um um community organization and community that did approach us.

Um and talk about a little bit of um what you're gonna do with the uh zoning um uh kind of uh layout um you know to kind of meet some of the of some of uh of their concerns.

So we did have some discussions uh with the Montrose community.

Umlike the New Mark Commons recommendation in the plan, the plan recommendation here was that there should be a higher density residential zone developed, which the city does not currently have that is strictly residential.

RMD 25 was is the current zone on this property, and it's essentially maxed out in terms of the density that's potential.

So to increase uh the potential for additional residential units in this area because it is transit proximate uh to the twinbrook station, the recommendation in the plan was that the residential density should be increased.

Um so we considered uh similar zones in City of Gaithersburg and Montgomery County and developed uh a residential zone that would have a maximum density of 50 units to the acre while maintaining the current height limit, which as we all know, the height limit in RMD 25 is 75 feet, and uh this the existing development has kind of hit that limit uh the congressional towers side of the development, but not the rest of it.

So there's still some potential there to increase the density in terms of number of units on the site.

Um we know it would be a different development pattern.

Uh this is very uh garden apartment style from the early 1960s, and the the high density development would not mimic this.

So one of the things that we talked to the community about was maintaining the height, which they seem to be supportive of.

We also talked to the community about where this property, uh, which is all owned by a single developer, where it is either abutting or uh across from single family residential homes in the area.

So along Rollins Avenue and along Martha Terrace, we know that that condition exists.

And so we put a cap of on the height in those areas uh of 45 feet, so that the impact of the additional density would not be immediately felt uh on those areas.

Oh well, thank you.

I mean, and and that just goes to to my point uh that I wanted to make, and so thank you for uh uh indulging me a little bit.

Um that this is an uh iterative document.

So no matter what we do here tonight, uh there's gonna be changes, there's gonna be feedback uh as other communities become aware of um you know what's proposed, they're gonna have uh feedback to the mayor and council, to the planning commission, uh, and to the the city, and is the document itself is gonna change, it's gonna be living and breathing.

So I think that's just a good reminder to the the council, but also to the residents that this is not really set in stone, that this is a starting point, but that we're gonna end up in a different place than where we've begun.

And that this, if if we do uh decide to go forward uh with the um the the ZO and the uh comprehensive uh map uh amendment, that it's not the not the final decision, it's just a beginning, it's just a jumping off point.

And with that, Mayor, I yield back.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Van Grack.

Uh thank you.

Um and you know, uh talking to staff and obviously readering what my colleague says, nothing here is final.

This is meant to be, just as Mr.

Waslick told us, you know, in previous drafts, the um when we've done overall zoning adjustments like this, there is gonna be massive changes, even before we see it again, regardless of what we do now.

Um, and it's for that reason, you know, uh it and I that there's no question that um there's gotta be that there's a number of adjustments that the mayor and council really want to see here.

Um you've heard about it.

I mean, I I've talked about it uh before.

I think whether it's in an adjustment to what we do here or made a note of it, I think two of the most important areas that for the city's growth.

I mean, we've heard from a lot of different communities talking about the um heck we we can talk directly, and I'll get to it in a bit.

The Newmark Commons, that's a small little area, but we're talking about the 355 corridor and our transit centers.

That's where we really want to focus.

Um, and we specifically talked about, and I haven't heard a response, and I mean we can get to it if we want to.

We talked about even broadening even more around Twinbrook Metro Center than what we've got here.

And I think we I think we had done a straw poll.

I'm not sure, and there could be a restriction that we might need to adjust and make an amendment to the comp plan.

But that's an area that really could help because that's directly walking distance to a metro center.

And we've talked about with and we and when we were discussing it before, we talked about the degree to which we really expanded both the density and the height surrounding town center.

And you guys did a great job listening to us with regard to those areas directly around the Metro Center, which is great, but there could even be more surrounding that area, and I've heard from a number of property owners that want that ability because we've got literally a metro center here that people could walk to.

That's ideal.

So to the extent there can be some note or adjustments or an understanding about what we would have to do to get there, so we can signal that to the planning commission, that'd be great.

Similarly, with regard to the 355 corridor, and I understand that there's gonna probably have to be some amendments to the comp plan because that's a pretty drastic change, no doubt.

But I'd like an understanding about how we can incorporate that to what we're doing here.

This is the zoning ordinance rewrite.

This is the comprehensive map.

I mean, we are literally talking about the whole city, and I think it's I I don't know if I want to use the word, you know, uh it's incumbent among us to look at the picture as a whole.

And if this is a direction that we're really gonna be looking at to this 355 corridor throughout all of 355, that really could affect how we're looking at even some of the other neighborhoods like Newmark Commons and some of the other areas to make sure that we're getting the density in the areas that we want to.

Um, and so I know that it it's almost certainly going to be too difficult in the next month or so to put all of that in there.

But to the extent there can be some type of notes that we understanding, and maybe again, I talked about it as part of the minutes, you know, that we put here and understanding that this is a direction that we want to see and understand how we can get those areas.

I think it's critical because just as my colleagues were talking about, what we're doing here today and what we even file whenever we do so, um, and and you know, we could do it today.

I've got no problem with that.

Whatever we do here, it's just a placeholder, and it's a placeholder for a jumping off spot.

And I don't want to necessarily delay it too far because we've got to get this um done sooner rather than later.

The more we delay this, the more we're delaying.

We've heard applicants come to us with regard to potential floating zone amendments issues, where they're waiting for us to pass this as well with regard to what um developers are doing in town center.

So I don't want to put the uh um, I I've been using this phrase a lot this week the uh perfection is the enemy of the good.

We've got to move forward, but we also have to do so understanding.

Uh similarly, we we clearly have a concern from the committee with regard to this area on Newmark Commons.

You know, we're all talking about it because it's an issue.

And one of the areas that we've heard about, and we've heard about it from them and we've heard about it from other communities, is the infrastructure.

Um, and I don't know to the degree to which, and maybe it's part of what we're gonna be doing in the next six months, we've really evaluated the infrastructure.

I mean, we've got this conflict between what the comp plan has talked about with regard to this area.

It says compatible neighborhoods and compatible buildings, but I I gotta tell you, I don't know the RMD 25 is compatible, but then it says RMD 25.

You know, whether it's something that we do that's a compromise, like a like an infill, or trying to say we don't want to be too much, I think we've got to look careful about look tread carefully with regard to just jumping to a number if the comp plan itself and is narrative says something different.

Um, and I think treading carefully is kind of the the key here because just like I talked about before, we've got almost unanimous direction with regard to some high transit areas that I think are key for development that is really gonna push Rockville towards a the necessary um development that we want to see.

But at the same time, if we've got smaller streets and infrastructure with regard to those buildings that we're looking to do, that might be a mistake.

Um so I think we've got to there's clearly going to be some choices to be made and some evaluations that we do, and that I think we need to adjust what we've got here, but we've also got six months to do it.

So whether we try to make this document perfect, which I don't know how quickly we can do that, because I've got changes that I just talked about here that I think are pretty significant.

Um if we do make changes before we file, I'd like to see some of those changes adjusted.

Um and I think we'd like to do it.

But to my colleague, Councilmember Valeri makes a good point.

We've already heard that we've got a little, we have not heard from everyone in the community.

Even the Newmark Commons community came and they feel like they got late notice.

And we got communities that we haven't even heard from with regard to potential changes.

And I want to make sure that the decision that we make fully is with the community addressed, and that we're not, you know, heck, making a mistake, like we we might be with regard to Newmar Commons.

Um, and I want to make sure that what we're doing here really incorporates what this mayor and council wants to see with development and not missing any parts.

And I have some other comments with regard to some other parts, but we'll get to this a little bit later.

Thank you.

I just want to reiterate uh something that we heard on leadership planning meeting is um we there are a number of options for filing.

We could file tonight, no changes.

We can file and give direction on one of the big things we want to see adjusted.

And the city manager says that they they can do that.

Uh and the third option is um uh, you know, potentially coming back and seeing something more more fully baked and and revised.

So this he kind of they kind of laid out three options for us this morning.

I just wanted my colleagues to keep that in mind.

Uh Councilmember Fulton.

Thank you.

Uh in thinking about this, I'll build on some of the comments from my colleagues.

The way that I look at this, it's not unlike our budget process every year, right?

Like the city manager and staff comes forward with a proposed budget.

It's published.

The entire community can see it.

We get feedback from boards and commissions, we get feed, we do like we have public hearings, we get feedback from everyone, then we dig in with that information, and mayor and council make changes based on the information from the feedback, and then make final decisions.

So when I look at it that way, the sooner we can publish this thing and get it on the engaged Rockville and start that engagement, the better.

Like I don't want to delay that.

But I also know that there are, I agree, significant changes that I think will not only come from us, but from getting it out there of the engagement.

Um you talk about whether we can perfect it tonight.

I can't, I can't, I don't want to do anything until I've gotten all that feedback from the draft being out there.

Um I don't think that the point of the engagement is to have that before we make too many suggestions.

That being said, um, so my view would be we should just get this out and get the feedback.

Um, that that with two other points.

One, it is true that there are some big issues that this body has said that we'd like to pursue that are not I mean one could make an argument, but that are not contemplated by the current comprehensive plan.

I don't want to lose that, right?

So I fully agree that like on a separate track or a separate, we should say here's what staff's recommendations are based on the comp plan and where we're moving forward.

And here's the things that this body has said they want to pursue that aren't here, and some options for how we might pursue them.

I I really think we need that.

Um, and we should just get moving on it.

The third thing, I will open the door because I think we're all just sort of talking around it.

If there is a specific parcel that has been discussed in great detail that this body wants to give direction on tonight to finish that conversation, we should do that thing.

Um but otherwise I say we should just get it out there.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, don't have a whole lot more to add to what's already been said.

Uh I had a minor point that staff filled me in on with regard to the EV charging conditional versus um just per minute on um relatively arcane portion of the zoning or ordinance rewrite to the larger questions with regard to what to do tonight.

I think we have as a general rule try to be more mindful of the constraints that we can safely remove to foster development to allow for projects to get started quickly and to do so while giving developers, investors clear rules of the road.

And I think this is a large step to that.

And I would want to put it out as quick as possible, but I'm sympathetic to both the community and the concerns raised by my colleagues, and we're largely associate myself with your with your comments, Councilmember Fulton.

Um we can make edits to it.

I think there are other neighborhoods that will also be have some concerns about it.

Just because they I mean they're hustling.

You know, we know where a lot of the work bands are in our community.

Um want to be mindful of that too.

Um so moving forward, I you know, making sure that we're doing a good outreach as was um outlined by our our colleague, Councilmember Shaw, to that we can get people at the table in a form that's best um can it conducive for their schedules, um, but also to do so expeditiously because we need to get this done like soon.

So I think I've said enough.

I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I I do want to note um in terms of our feedback, because I I've heard from the community, oh, this is mayor and council's draft, and it's not quite yet.

So um, and so I want to make sure that it's clear that this is not mayor and council's draft, and there are things that mayor and council are trying to signal.

I would like to see that included in the narrative versus just post it as is.

Yeah.

Um, and I'm wondering if you have the time to make that change before these things go forward.

Um, and I I do agree, and you know, we've talked about this neighborhood shopping centers and 355 are areas that mayor and council is interested in looking at.

I think we should be transparent with the public up that about that up front, and it should be in the narrative.

I didn't see it in the notes on the discussion for that night.

I would like something like that to be captured so the public can see our intent.

One thing I've heard from the public is they don't have time to watch all of our meetings, right?

And so to the extent that we can summarize the big items and make sure that we're clear of the direction we're headed in, I think that would be helpful for the public.

Uh so I I just I wanted to make sure that that specifically is captured.

I also agree um on my my colleagues' comment about the equity considerations and zoning has been used as a tool to create an equity in the past, and we have an opportunity to create equity, better equity going forward.

I think something acknowledging that in a draft like this is important.

Um what are we trying to achieve?

Why are we doing the things that we're doing?

I think it sets uh you know some understanding for the public uh on that front.

So we do have a housing affordability crisis.

Um we have now uh the average age of someone buying their own home is now 40.

Yeah.

Uh MCPS enrollment is declining big time.

There are some larger issues that we're trying to, it's not just words on the paper, but we're trying to have a new vision for the city, a more equitable, including inclusive vision, a safer city.

And um I just wanted to comment that I think we should tell the public that what's the point of this exercise.

Um, so I wanted to note that there.

To the comments uh my question, my colleague, uh Councilmember Fulton.

I do think that uh this particular area uh for the Newmark Commons area is one that should be re-examined.

Um I shared a suggestion I would like to hear what my colleagues think, if they're if they're willing to share.

Um the other question I had on Montrose Community, which you have here, it's my understanding.

I I I think what you included here for the upzoning makes sense and what we're trying to achieve near Metro.

Um to the comments on displacement and impact on community.

The green space is currently a pseudo-community center, and the city of Rockville does not have a community center in this community, and this is acting as such.

And so I that's one that I gave pause to in questioning the rationale for potentially losing that, unless the city plans to build something.

So I I want to make sure we're taking care of all of our neighborhoods equitably, and I've heard how much that means.

So that that green space in particular is one that gives me pause.

I support the density everywhere else.

Um, but I have concern about losing that neighborhood amenity, which the city has not provided because we are trying to do another thing with to have child care, and the community center has been taken over to provide child care, which I still support.

We need child care, but that leaves a gap.

And I'm wondering about displacement and the overall impact on the quality of life in that community, especially since we're potentially going to add more density here.

Um, so that's one area that for me I give pause to.

Councilmember Shaw.

So also just to follow up on um some of the comments around equity.

Um, I think it's important to uh look at specifically who is being burdened, who is benefiting from our decision.

Um, and that's that's really like the bottom line in an equity process is to identify who's who who's benefiting, who's who's being burdened.

Um and um so I I think that would that's that's essentially the equity lens in which we say that we are applying based on 10-21.

Um additionally, um I do have concerns with the proposed zoning for the Montrose community.

Um I did uh ask uh when we looked at this, I believe it was a few months back around traffic as well.

Um, just to follow up a um Councilmember Valeri's point in Newmark Commons, um, I would I wanted to see um a similar type of analysis with traffic.

Um, and I I did ask for that previously.

Um in addition, um, you know, uh I do know that some of the community members really value that community center, and they even shared um that the costs to rent that community center, like for weddings and for other religious events, um, they would not be able to afford any other place.

Um, and so that is a very, especially now where affordability is uh a major concern.

Um, and particularly when you have uh a large renter community in that community, that really does concern me.

So I do want to look at other options than what has been proposed here for the Montrose community as well.

Councilman Valeri.

I just have a not really a point of order, but um uh a process point.

There have been several threads that have been spoken up here so far or woven or however you want to frame this.

Are there things that we need to explicitly state?

Maybe, Madam Mayor, do we make a pause here to say this is the direction and we enumerate that because I know it would be helpful for me going forward, most likely would be helpful for the community as well, stating these are the things that um we thought had would be included, or however you want to process it, but I feel like this might be a natural pausing point to to make sure that everybody's voice has been heard on some of these key threads.

Uh can we finish the New Mark and Montrose community?

I think we had, and then hear from the city manager on the big things that he wants to include.

I know that he also is interested in hearing our feedback general big items, uh, because it'll help shape the work session plan.

Okay, so if we could weigh in on these two things and then move over to that.

And that's completely fair.

Um I I guess I didn't weigh in on these two things, so if it's okay if I do that now.

Um I actually agree with um one of I I can't remember which one of my wonderful colleagues said this, but would we be talking about in particular the Newmark Commons parcel if we had more expanded zoning changes across the city right now?

I'm always afraid of this.

And actually, some of the community members who are here might recall me stating this, but transit-oriented development is almost becoming lazy shorthand in many ways to avoid actual really hard tough discussions.

Um it goes back to the Mikey likes it life serial phenomenon, right?

Well, if we all we have to really talk about is transit-oriented or transit adjacent, well, those communities already really want it.

Well, I think at a certain point, um, and this kind of goes back to the equity lens too.

If we look at the transit locations in the city and what literally being called on the wrong side of the tracks, right?

There were certain communities that were on the wrong side of the tracks, and there were the rest of the communities.

So I think that, you know, I think it would be easier in many ways to say, let's just, you know, let's let's scrap these two zoning changes, and let's actually have some courageous, uncomfortable discussions about broadening the the the sphere of zoning changes is so minute that it's 11 pages as opposed to like 500 plus in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

It would be, would these even be issues or would they be proposed if we were coming at this from an equal footing?

I I I don't think so.

So I I'm challenged by this because I do think that we're quibbling about this parcel here and this corner here when we're missing the broader picture in many ways.

I don't know quite how to square this, but I I feel an intense sense of you know if these are two things are changed, then are we going back to to Mikey likes it and and trying to find those densities to increase?

I mean, even here, and I'm I'm not gonna cast aspersions on Councilmember Van Grack at all.

Um, but even here, you stated something like we've got you know so much more that we can do, and especially right here by Twinbrook Metro.

We can only do so much by Twin Brick Metro.

We're not gonna solve the housing crisis at Twinbrook Metro alone or Rockville Metro alone.

We've got to think bigger, and frankly, I think we got to think beyond transit.

Um I I'm committed to the idea that um as much as I love transit-oriented development as a non-uh driver, it it's turning into a very easy way to to avoid tough discussion.

So having said that, um, I am I am fine with RMD infill.

Um, if we wanted to do that or take it completely off the table for the New Mark Commons area.

Um I'm actually on this in particular in the Montrose.

Um, I'm with everybody that losing a community center, unless we were thinking of something really bold in the city and creating uh uh a mixed use residential and community center, which would be phenomenal.

Um, then I would want to preserve um as much as we could to preserve access to a community center and have the broader discussion of this community needs a community center.

Um I don't want to lose that thread.

Um I'm actually challenged a little bit by the idea of not, and I tried to find a good zone for this.

Um it's kind of MXCT, but not really.

And that would be getting into um an even smaller transition that would also allow for neighborhood retail.

So I'm not thinking necessarily of like office space, but specifically a uh residential retail um lower height in some ways that would allow for more walkability for those sort of amenities while still creating a transition because really looking at the the red-zoned area, I I think it would be it makes sense that you have it right next to that MXCT, which is really a small sliver.

So why wouldn't the like retail options continue as you go you know further into the neighborhood?

So those are kind of my initial thoughts.

Um I think that whatever we do to preserve um the uh naturally occurring affordable housing that is in the red zone needs to be incentivized.

But I guess my fundamental fundamental philosophical problem with the fact that we have 11 slides for a city of 70,000 people, and this is what we're we're kind of quibbling about.

So I don't know, feeling cynical today, but hopefully that is direction from me.

Thank you, Councilmember Jackson.

Would you want to speak to the uh thanks, Mayor?

Uh yeah, no, so I uh support um what the mayor and uh um council member uh Valeria have uh said about Montrose and and uh council member uh Shaw uh also um think that the not the community center but what functions as uh de facto uh community center um should uh you know remain uh uh a bottle part of that uh community.

So uh I support um uh what the mayor has proposed.

Thank you.

Oh, Councilman Van Grack.

Yeah, um with regard to Montrose, as I said before, I I don't know what we're gonna do with this.

Uh a lot of that there's a lot of concern here.

I have no trouble with either doing RMD infill or just keeping it the same way as before.

I mean, I know that there's a potential concern with regard to what could be allowed with RMD infill.

This is just the filing, so it really I think is fine for us to be discussing that as a potential option or just keeping it the way it is.

I think either one is fine for us at this point to have a discussion.

Um, but not to the degree that it that it was currently uh um put to RMD 25.

With regard to the Montrose area, I think that everything that we were talking about previously should be there with regard to RHD.

Um, but with regard to the area of the green space, I I don't know if there's really spot here for us to discuss exactly what we want to do with the community center of the building, but with regard to that area, um keeping it the way it is seems reasonable.

There's green space, there's a community use, you know.

Thank you.

And so that Montrose community, the red and yellow are up zone to 75 feet.

Is that right?

Well, they're actually the RMD 25 is already at 75.

Right, but it's becoming arguable.

But it would be it would increase the density gap as opposed to the height limit.

Okay, perfect.

So that's more density, height is still 75.

And then um the yellow area that goes to 75.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Excellent.

Okay.

Uh I I heard four on mantros.

Um three and a half on Newmark, but I don't know if others have uh talked to Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I associate myself with comments of uh Councilmember Van Gret.

That helps.

Do you have my numbers in there?

What that are you in that that's in the half for new marks or are you on New Mark?

Just so we can be clear with staff.

So I I would like to explore the options.

Okay.

Um I think you outlined RMD info.

Right.

Um that works for me.

Okay.

Mr.

Mahaleck, can you please uh tell us what you interpret?

Yeah, I heard um clear direction on Montrose and Mark Commons, the land, and we'll make sure if council decides to file tonight that we'll add some narrative to the website and to the document itself that describe what we heard from council regarding those two designations.

Thank you.

And can you also clarify our intent to do more on 355 and neighborhood centers and say may not be part of this process?

You guys look at back to us, but so let me rattle off the whole thing.

I apologize for your justice about those two.

One, you've asked us to include um consideration of the neighborhood commercial centers, how we might be able to add density there, Rockville Pike, Twinbrook Metro zoning, I heard, and then making sure that there's that we're trying to be more equitable and inclusive throughout the community, both through the process but also through the land use outcomes, and all that will be included in the narrative on top of what could be filed tonight by council.

Thank you.

Councilman Fulton, just two clarifications on that because it's my own personal thing.

East Rockville uh zoning with our intention to do a plan there too.

I think we should be transparent about any place where the zoning that we intend might not be in what we're putting out to the public.

Does that make sense?

I think we had majority support on that.

Yeah, we did.

I just didn't hear.

Um, and then I think overall, one of the pieces that I think we all agreed to early on is in the narrative when it goes out, being really clear that this is you know, this is the initial staff proposal based on the comprehensive plan, and we and mayor and council are seeking feedback before we sort of make our final assessments on it.

We're happy to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I have a map question, it's not one of the maps that are listed here, but we've heard from the superintendent that there is an interest in understanding and looking at the zoning at the MCPS property.

Um, given what you all have heard, are we properly zoned for that?

Um I'm just I just wanted to, it may not be something we talk about tonight, but I just wanted to put a marker that said that there are discussions about a P3 in that area, and we need to learn more.

We're gonna have to circle back with that, Mayor.

I apologize.

You gave me a heads up, but we just didn't have time to connect.

So no worries.

Um I just want to flag that as a map we may want to look at again.

Um looking to see if there are any other map amendment specific questions.

I um I have some others.

Okay.

Um the the non-conformities, would that be in the map or the ZOR that you'd like to hear that?

That would be in the text.

And the ZOR.

Okay, perfect.

Um, all right.

Everyone, anything else on the maps that we've been presented with?

And I I take my colleagues' point that when this comes back, I do think it would be helpful to see other major parts of the city because obviously there's a lot happening, not just on these 11 maps, but if that's all, I it just can you help explain.

We chose these 11, but there are other parts of the city that are also impacted by the zoning ordinance rewrite uh and the comp well.

I'm just looking at research boulevard, for example.

We talked about some changes on research boulevard.

How will that look on the map?

Um at in the comprehensive plan.

I didn't see it here specifically, but I just want to make sure there's there are larger areas that we have seen changes or discuss changes in the comprehensive planning process, but I didn't see a map specific folks on.

Yeah, we definitely can look into that and bring you some recommendations.

Okay, we've received some questions on research boulevard.

We also have seen interest in mixing up housing and office.

So I think it'll be helpful for our colleagues to get a fresh look at that.

Councilman Valeri.

I just want to be clear on the 355 to see it expanded beyond the boundaries of uh Rockville Town Center.

Are we talking?

I just want to be clear for my own sake from northern border to southern border.

So we're talking from Shady Grove Road to Twinbrook Parkway.

Yes.

Okay.

That's what I heard from our colleagues.

Okay.

I just might I just wanted to be, yeah.

No, I just want to make sure that we're doing all of it because I think, and I I I don't I don't know if there's a way to um include this in the community outreach.

But I think that one of the reasons that um the town center master plan in particular, that community outreach process was great, and also King Farm as well.

Um, the King Farm Farmstead, which is now the farmstead.

We have to kind of start shifting the conversation around zoning from what are people against into what are people envisioning.

And I think that um any way that we can get from people like what is possible, what would as a community like affirmatively, what would you like to see here?

Um, and really trying to draw that out of people.

I think that'll go a long way toward uh effective community engagement.

And then I do want to co-sign.

We just have to be super clear in all of our our language, super clear, you know, um eighth grade reading level, like let's not use acronyms, any anyway, because we're all steeped in this, but the majority of our communities not.

And um, I'm I'm grateful for everything that you guys are doing.

So I know it's it's tough in a communications level.

Um, and but I think I think anything we can do to be clear, it'll just make it an even better, almost easier community engagement process too.

I will be transparent.

We have cheat sheets on the on the zones.

Uh, and I appreciate you because I do think that sometimes it sounds like alphabet soup, and it's like, well, what does that mean for what can go there and the heights?

So I would request that we do that same for the community so that they can track what we're doing because the map just looks like a bunch of lines and colors.

Um, and I appreciate that you're gonna have an interactive map and that they'll be able to see the heights and descriptions, correct?

On that, will they be able to see heights and descriptions?

Maybe we'll have those same descriptions available for those that are looking at the map.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

I I actually um also wanted to note that you guys did a nice job.

We requested to have the um addresses put on the maps.

I think the community should be able to see that version as well because it's hard to tell what properties which uh when you're looking at the city, and when you put the address date, you can actually map and see a street view.

Um, so if that is a version that can be shared, is that possible?

One of the really nice things about the interactive map is when you click on a property, it brings up a pop-up that does include the information about the address as well.

It does excellent.

And um, but when you do engage Rockville, you're putting presentations up because you tend to put presentations up.

I'm just suggesting that the presentation be the version with the addresses so that people can track that we have it because you did that for us, but I want to make sure the public has that same courtesy.

Okay.

Um any other map questions.

All right.

Zor, do we need a break or you can we plow through everyone?

It's not long, but okay, all right.

Please flag if you need a break.

Um, the issue on non-conformities is one, and then I also want to talk about deer mesh.

Do you have a preference?

Completely up to you.

Happy to talk about it there.

Okay, let's do the deer mesh first.

Um, I I understand that um our code does not distinguish between regular fence and deer mesh.

We we then, if we receive a complaint, we have to apply the code as a fence.

Is that right?

Correct.

That is correct.

Okay.

And I'm sure that's painful for you all too, as it is for our community, and the notice of violations about a thousand dollars a day.

I just I think that seems quite unfair.

Um, I know it's just the the rules what we're operating with, but I think we should change those rules.

Um, we do have a large deer population, more than there ever was.

Montgomery County does distinguish in their code between fence, permanent fence, and deer mesh.

And I'd like to be able to see what can we do to adjust that and make sure we're getting that included as part of this process.

Um, and that would also potentially pause, I think have an impact so that people who are being fined now that might be put a hold on that until we have that broader discussion.

So I just wanted to put it as can we review that as a potential ZTA edit as part of this process and see if my colleagues are open to that.

Councilmember uh Valeria, I mean we can also do a straw poll if you guys prefer.

Oh, yeah, no, no.

I just had I had a question about like I I agree um for sure.

Um, but um probably more so than the last topic.

What can we do to either pause or address or whatever to do it now?

Because not only from the residents that came here, um, but I heard from residents in Hungerford, um, that neighborhood as well.

Um, and um some of the community there are actually being asked to um uh remove things off of their property because it's being uh deemed so they're not even getting fined yet, but would get fined if what is erected there does not come down.

So I want to find a way to kind of thread the needle.

Um, you know, pausing the fines is is if we can do that, that would be great.

We can pause enforcement on this discrete item alone, that would be great.

I think we have to fix it for sure, but it's there's also an immediacy to it that I don't know if this process will be fast enough for that.

Yeah, Mr.

Mahalek, I know you shared some thoughts for us because we gave you a heads up on this topic.

Go ahead.

You did, thank you, Mayor.

Um, if I hear clear direction from Council tonight that you want us to develop potential deer mesh option for the city of Rockville, then I'll take that as clear direction.

We are gonna study it.

And if there's any active notices of violation, we'll put those on a stay and also sit tight.

Tope, that's clear.

Thank you.

And I I will note that um there are so many properties across the city that have this.

Um it seems that if a neighbor calls, that's the only one that's being uh enforced, is my understanding.

And also I just wanted to note most people don't get permits to put a little fence around, uh not fence, but a mesh or protective barrier for new trees that are planted.

And that would potentially not have a distinguishment between fence at all either.

So I just I want to note that people are using deer mesh to also protect young trees, which we want to see grow in the city.

I saw 10 on my walk this weekend.

Um and I wouldn't want those folks to get thousand dollar fines either.

So thank you.

I just want to go to Councilman Van Grack and maybe we can do a straw poll on this.

So on this issue, obviously I agree.

I want to address the deer mesh issue.

And I think it's not just deer mesh, it's other mesh.

It's these areas that can be interpreted as a fence, but are being interpreted the same way a permanent fence are.

So I think this is a broader issue, and I think it's even more than that.

We haven't had a chance to discuss fencing, but actually, and I know that this is not the time or place to us to get into the nitty-gritty details.

However, we've got a lot of issues that even in what we've put forward and drafted can be adjusted, I think, for the benefit of the residents.

This whole issue that we heard a little bit about a community forum with regard to side lots.

I have to tell you, it's being interpreted very broadly by the city, I think because of some not clear definitions within the code.

I've heard from a resident that was clearly not a corner lot, but they were up against kind of a wooded area.

That was interpreted by the city as frontage, even though it's clearly not frontage, and they were told they can only get a four-foot-high fence.

We've got to, I think, with regard to the fencing rules of the city, be a little bit more clear.

I know some jurisdictions in Maryland even clarify with regard to the height of a fence and where it isn't the fence, what setback that is from the property line.

We don't do as clear a definition, and that means you can go right up to the property line in certain cases, but there seems to be, I think, a number of ways that we can make fence fencing rules and regulations in the city much more clear.

And I think part of that, not that problem in clarity deals with a lack of definitions because different anything that can be interpreted currently in the city of Rockville, and I'm including the current code, that is a structure that is placed could be deemed a fence.

That could be someone who's covering an area of their lawn slightly because they don't want people walking over it that's two foot high because of stormwater management.

That could be deemed a fence.

Tree structures.

So more definitions of clarity of the different materials or permanent or semi-permanent is going to help clarify that.

In addition to which I think we need more clear definitions as to what is a frontage, what is a sidage, what is a backyard, and where those different heights can be.

The difference between an eight foot fence for privacy or even deer restrictions is drastically different than a four-foot fence.

Deer can jump over a four-foot fence.

Some deer can jump over a six-foot fence.

So there needs to be, I think, more clarity with regard to fencing policies, fencing regulations that I think sometimes from a government perspective, we think, oh, no big deal, it'll all get through.

But sometimes we're talking about major fines.

And in addition to that, people who are making decisions about the fencing on their property need clarity.

Because I've talked to people who have even said to me, I don't know what to do.

I'll look at the code, I'm not sure either.

And then the city gives one interpretation when they're trying to get a permit, then someone else who didn't get a permit is just said, oh, well, that's okay.

So the more clarity that we have with fencing, and I think we need to have more clarity, is gonna make it so that we don't get all of a sudden ambushed by you know uh dozens and dozens of emails with regard to an issue because we've had inconsistent enforcement and unclear definitions.

So I think this is a broader issue than just deer fencing that I think we can correct, and I also support what my colleagues were saying in city manager where you were saying that given this issue, we might want to stick a pause in this because it's something that we're trying to fix.

Thank you.

There is a new there is a section on fences.

I reviewed it.

I agree we need to go in more in depth on it, and uh just want to see if my colleagues we will have that discussion uh, as maybe that's part of one of the work sessions we talk about, but can we also just put a pause on this issue with the deer fence?

I saw four thumbs, yes and yes.

Um try to vote twice just like the dots, I remember.

Okay.

Um thank you for that.

The other issue that's come up that I didn't see quite captured in the highlights is this issue of non-conformities.

And Mr.

Mahalik, you mentioned that you were gonna have some more thought on it.

Um, there was uh an issue on potentially removing uh drive through capacity for banks and food along through 55 is an area.

Um, and just wanted to see where where things landed on that, and I just I want to make sure I understand where we're headed.

Um so where we landed just briefly is to move forward with the recommendations that we provided during the work session that related to uses and parking.

So implementing the use standards that we discussed.

However, what we did add, and you'll see this on page 325 of your brief book.

Um, the first key change in the uses and use standards section is that we added provisions to grandfather uses, which were conforming prior to the effective date of the ordinance.

So if there's a drive-thru that's currently in existence that would become non-conforming because of the adoption of those use standards, we've said nope.

If you're already in existence, you're already conforming on the date prior to the effective date of the ordinance, you are still seen to be conforming with grandfather those uses.

Thank you.

Um, I will just say my personal preference, and I know we can revisit this, is that I don't want to take uses away from landowners there because we want to see turnover.

I wouldn't want someone not to say, I've heard people say, I'm not gonna do anything because once I do it, then I have to I have to follow the new rules on a number of things.

And so I have concerned with our economic development needs of allowing that because you do have situations people do drive-through on low level and then put housing or office above.

And if they try to do that, they might lose the capacity.

So I'll just I want to be on record saying I do not support that.

Um, but I appreciate the lease the grandfather at this time.

So anyone else have any other major topical clarifications or any comments on nonconformities.

Councilman Van Grag.

I'm just gonna say that fully agree.

Yeah.

I mean, I I mean, if we're truly gonna be understanding and wanting to kind of encourage people to use the property as best we can, this is something I think is important.

Um is that captured in the notes on this section?

I don't I didn't see it.

We have a section that talks talked about nonconformities in the summary, but I didn't see our discussion on this concern.

So the change that I just referenced is actually outlined in the uses and use standards section because that's where that grandfathering is.

Um the non-conformities discussion is synopsized on page 318 of the brief book in the highlights document, um, where we referenced the two recommendations of staff to create strategic nonconformities in the mixed-use transit district zones and to simplify and reduce the regulation of nonconformities.

And then based on the direction that we did receive during that work session, um we understood that Mayor and Council as a body um uh supported that's those staff recommendations.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fulton.

No, I think I just wanted to I wanted to, that was my recollection too.

Like there are discussions of things and people voice their opinions, but it like the whole body didn't always come down to, and we'll be able to take a vote on that when we get the final thing to vote on.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

And uh I had a number of smaller, not smaller other issues that I'm not gonna to go detailed on.

There was um, I think councilmember Miles noted something about EV parking and solar.

There's some pieces that convey that perhaps there's limitations on solar canopy.

Um so I just wanted to to understand what the intent was there because I I understood in the past that there was discussions that the city was open to having solar canopy, but there's some places where it seems like it's it's not clear that we're allowing that.

That's an excellent question.

Um solar canopies are general generally addressed in two different sections of the zoning ordinance.

One is going to be in the draft Article 6, which again is that use as a new standards section, and there's a new use that we are proposing for EV charging.

Now it's treated differently in different zones.

So where you see it as a conditional use, generally the condition is going to be that it is accessory to another principal use.

So for example, in our residential zones, you can have EV charging, but it needs to be accessory to the dwelling on the lot.

Um, you will see that in other zones as well.

I think it's really useful to kind of look at that table of use standards and then also look at the section that deals directly with electric vehicle charging to see the specifics.

I'm not gonna be able to outline all of them right now.

Um, the other place where you will see more reference to electric vehicle charging canopies is going to be in article draft article eight.

I believe it's um division two, if I'm not mistaken, um, but where it deals with parking and loading requirements, and in there we've added special provisions for electric vehicle um canopies or electric solar canopies.

I'm sorry, um, solar canopies over parking.

Um that's not really addressed in our current ordinance.

So we did think that there needed to be more clarity about those solar canopies, when they can be provided, where they can be provided, if and how they can encroach into the dimensions of a parking space, how they interact with landscaping requirements specifically for surface parking lots, etc.

Okay, I think that would be helpful to better understand as we go through that because it seemed like there were some places where the way it was written that we were discouraging solar canopy, which we have an energy crisis or on the brink of one.

Uh, and I just want to make sure that we're not we have we understand what we're doing on that that front.

Um this is minor, but it's important to say our notification requirements have not come up to where we are in 2025.

It says newspaper multiple times.

I yes, we have to post something in the newspaper, and that's all we have to do.

Um and in terms of what the feedback I've heard from my colleagues on community outreach and feedback, I think we should revisit what should we be quiet to do as a city for some of the notifications.

Uh, I didn't see that touched in any of the sections.

It's like you put a newspaper, we can say we did it.

Um I know we're doing more than that, but I think we should signal and come up with the times.

I do know that um there's some state requirements on newspapers, I'm not saying we're losing that, but there could be like that we're including it on our website and sending in me.

It just needs to look at what how do we communicate?

And I know you all have done some great surveys in the city of Rockville and like how do people get notified about things?

I just want to make sure we're looking at that and having recommendations.

Councilman Valerie.

Super quick on that point.

Um, because I was trying to look up the state law on this too.

There's a lot more flexibility in state law that I know in particular for things like the Maryland Board of Physicians, um, notification can be done um digitally through um online only news sites of note, um, which also makes things a little bit more equitable as well.

Um can you can oh come on, Councilmember Shaw?

Just a quick comment or possible question.

Um is the news outlet that we have to use is Washington Post?

Is that okay?

No, it's just it's just whatever, sorry, it's whatever broad regulation.

So broad the language is broad circulation in the state law doesn't necessarily specify in our our ZOR.

And and um, and I I just assume we're ensuring that whatever outlet we're using, there's not a paywall or anything there.

Is that correct?

I I don't think that's I don't I don't think you can stipulate we I'm not sure that we can, but I will leave that for further question for staff.

Yeah, we'll we'll make sure when we bring this topic back for work session.

Thank you.

Um there were some questions about um we had asked that we align with state law when it comes to faith-based uh land as well as uh land near transit.

Has that been accomplished?

Yes, so I believe that you're referencing um specifically the housing expansion and affordability act.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but where you'll find the language that would implement um or align with state regulations is going to be in two locations.

Um for our single unit residential zones, it's generally a footnote in the development standards table.

So that would be in the tables in draft article 7.

And then for other um for other zones, we would be looking at the use standards.

So specifically for apartments, um, multiplexes, et cetera.

That will be in article draft article six um uses and use standards.

I could go into into the details of why it needed that breakdown.

I don't think you all need that information at this point in time, though, but again, if you'd like it, happy to provide.

That's okay for now, uh, but just want to make sure it's covered.

And the the maps that people will look at that are interactive will show what's allowable, correct, based on state law or not.

What it will show is the zone that it corresponds to.

And then, and this is kind of just how the zoning map interacts with the text.

You look at the map, you can tell what zone you're in, and then you're able to go look at what regulations apply in that zone.

So there is, you know, you need to reference the two in tandem.

Okay.

Um I want to give some thought on that.

I I do have some concern because I've I know that there have been people who have looked at pieces of property and there was not a reference to state law.

Uh, and so I just I'm trying to find find a way to make it as easy as possible so that people can see what is possible and each on all on the map.

Um, and so even though it is zoned for that piece, if it is a faith-based institution or near that proximity to transit, it should also say that when they go in there that that is what's available, I would think.

And I don't know if there's a way to do that.

I think I think that it would be possible.

I would need to confirm, but I I would tend to say if it might create the impression that that is the only thing that applies when there are many, many other requirements and provisions that also apply.

So I think there's it would just be kind of weighing the trade-offs in the messaging of, oh, this is available, but there are many other things that are contained within the 300-page zoning ordinance that are not, we would not be able to put every single provision onto the map itself.

I I agree.

I'm just thinking particularly about the faith-based in transit.

Um, so thank you for that.

Um in the summary on the zoning ordinance rewrite, the uh approval process streamlining.

Um, you noted that Mayor and Council was not yet uh supporting three and four.

Did you did you address, did you update it to include three and four in this draft, or are you gonna come back to us after you've gone to the planning commission and then determine whether we want to go in that direction?

I believe you're are you referencing on page uh 315 of the brief book work session too?

Yes.

So at that time, Mayor and Council were not comfortable with recommendations three and four.

However, our colleague John Foreman came back on.

I am not certain.

I believe John is on the line, so I might defer to him on which work session um we came back and did present more information and follow-up.

It might have been August 4th, and I believe those concerns were resolved at that time.

Um but again, I would defer to John for specifics on that.

Good evening, everyone, John Foreman Development Services Manager.

Holly said it exactly correctly.

Um that was the update to mayor and council on the August 4th work session, and those two items were um clarified, and the majority of the mayor council did provide direction to proceed with those two items at that time.

So you incorporated that into this draft.

Can you can you just that not now, but point to the pages where it applies so that we can see how it's implemented?

We'll circle back.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, the other item that we were gonna come back to have a discussion on, and I don't know how you handle it, is the amenity piece.

Um, I did look at the amenity section, but there were there was a discussion just to be able to inform the mayor and council.

If a property is uh right next to a park, do they still have to have an on-site amenity or do they do a payment in lieu of what are you recommending there?

So we do have allowances, and you'll see this again referenced in the highlights document on page 329 of the brief book.

Uh, we have a note that the draft allows amenity space requirements to be met through dedication of land to the city, fee and loo, or alternative compliance.

So there is flexibility there for the provision of that amenity space.

Okay.

Um for adult establishments on page 474.

Um there's a separate section that there's that as that section, but then it's a separate section on gun shops, or gun shooting facilities.

Shooting galleries, shooting galleries.

Um those don't have the same restrictions in terms of being near schools and parks.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

So just looking at page four.

Oh, is the question about the shooting?

You're so are you saying we treat other adult establishments separate from gun shops?

Correct.

And is that because of state law?

Or like why why wouldn't we treat them like the same adult establishment?

So they're they are defined differently.

I don't know what the history is there.

The adult-oriented establishments are more associated with um like adult-oriented activities that do not include firearms.

Um if I can state it lightly.

Um so the regul the regulations are different.

Um, I don't know the history of why they are treated separately.

They are defined separately.

The use standards are different.

I do see where the adult-oriented establishment does have locational requirements that reference a certain distance from residences, schools, church, libraries, public facilities, public buildings.

If the shooting gallery does not have those same requirements, I don't recall off the top of my head, but that's certainly something that we could discuss as an option through.

I did not see them being treated that way, and I was it just made me go, hmm.

So it's something I I would be interested in exploring.

I don't know where my colleagues then on that, um, if that's something we can get input from the public or staff on.

Uh colleagues, are you open to uh I was looking up?

Okay, see one, two, a couple of head shaking.

I see four get feedback.

Okay, perfect.

And then the last thing I wanted to ask is um in town center.

I noticed that there's something, there's a language about beer production.

Uh there is like the old Gordon beer space.

Open to I was looking at okay see one to a couple of head shaking I see four get feedback okay perfectly and then the last thing I wanted to ask is um in town center I noticed that there's something there's a language about beer production uh there is like the old Gordon beer space so it says something about like can't be within I five there's an X feet but would that prohibit them from filling from filling that space with a beer production because there is housing above they didn't actually do brewing we have people who want to are we talking about the alcoholic beverage production use versus the alcoholic beverage production limited use is that yes is that okay excellent so the state has different um licenses for different types of alcoholic beverage production facilities we actually are proposing through the zoning ordinance rewrite to reduce um some of the restrictions that we currently have around the alcoholic beverage production limited use which is more of your um small scale wineries brew pubs meteries etc and allowing those in additional zones and we actually also propose to reclassify them from an industrial category use to a um retail and services use that's helpful I didn't see that quite represented here maybe I didn't read it properly you know I it seemed like we still had some interesting restrictions on that given what we're seeing around the city and the potential uses I just wanted to flag that as an area of concern um and then the other areas of concern is there are a number of designations that like a health and fitness facility only 5k feet we are seeing training facilities like that is a a trend where people are like going to lacrosse training or basketball training that is something that is providing valuable filling of space so I don't know why we have some of those restrictions.

This is something actually that we would like to speak with you all further about through the work sessions.

You'll notice in the use standards that there are a number of areas where different uses have restrictions on their gross floor area.

That is something that we've carried forward from our current ordinance we have modified those requirements in many cases we asked our consultants to do a full review of every single use that has a limitation on their gross floor area.

However there are ordinances in existence that have no gross floor area limitations based on use and that is certainly an option.

Yeah it just seems so arbitrary and given the economic viability and uses and the train changing trends I think we're cutting ourselves off on what is possible in the city so I don't want to be the only one speaking on this but I just I don't know if you're already planning to have that discussion or you need us to do a straw poll.

Okay.

It's something that we would already like to speak with you about perfect great I didn't see it in that note but I support that um ADUs um I wanted to note that it says that we can't have uh ADUs if you have a a granny flat you can't also have an ADU and I'm not sure where that why that is but I just wanted to flag that as well granny flat well people call them fine but mother lost weeds whatever you call them those are my big ones I just wanted to pause and see if you have any questions or anyone else has anything to add okay can I repeat what I heard mayor yes great so if council decides to file tonight in addition to the narrative that we heard regarding the map would also include narrative that we will consider the council will consider along with plan commission recommendations staff recommendations additional discussion regarding fencing including deer mesh nonconformities solar canopies notification requirements adult uses gross floor area restrictions and ADUs does anyone have anything else to add yeah uh the one other small thing I thought about is some of our appeals only have 15 day windows I'm not sure where that comes from uh but it seems like that could be harmful uh to folks and it also doesn't specify business days it just says 15 days I just I don't know if there's a rationale for that if you all have had those discussions I mean someone could be away and miss the 15 day if it's okay with the body we can bring that bark to that little piece.

Are you guys okay with that?

Okay yes okay thank you all I want to just turn to my colleagues to see uh how you want to proceed um I know that some things that we asked be updated before you put it out to the public are you able to do that if we were to file like the narrative on this is staff's recommendation mayor that there's some of those things that we wanted to see addressed.

Mayor that there's some of those things that we wanted to see addressed.

So I just want to make sure we're clear.

We were gonna file the maps in the text, the way it's written, but we're gonna say we receive direction regarding Montrose, Newmark Commons, etc.

Narrative on top of that, and on the first page of the code, but we're not gonna go in and change the code.

I want to make sure I'm clear on that.

But you're going to include in the document that is public facing so people can see our intent.

Yes.

Colleagues, are you okay with that?

I think Councilmember Valerie.

Yes.

I I'm I'm fine with that again, as long as there's super duper clarity on where we are in the process so that there's no confusion, so that maybe for folks who maybe want to share their opinion that they didn't don't agree with maybe the I I just I I think I think that's why I said it.

This is the community draft now.

You've gotten a very top-level feedback from us, but um I just think we need to be even more explicit than perhaps the city has been in the past.

Can you do that?

Understood.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jackson, do you have a comment?

No, I'm ready for a motion.

Do you want to make a motion?

I will.

All right.

I move to authorize the filing of a zoning tax amendment to revise and replace chapter 25 of the city code, also known as a zoning ordinance.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Fulton seconds.

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

Uh so we also need to do the second part for B, which is the authorization for the comp comprehensive map amendments.

Councilmember Fulton.

I move to authorize the filing of a comprehensive map amendment to implement the zoning ordinance rewrite and zoning recommendations in the Rockville 2040 comprehensive plan and town center master plan as presented.

Councilman Valerie, seconds, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Okay.

Excellent.

All right.

And I've been told that uh when we get the revised draft, we'll have a couple weeks to review it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the planning team and everyone who touched it from all departments.

We appreciate you.

Thank you.

Um can I just ask you how are you publicizing some of these?

Uh you have like stuff happening this week, so we do.

We sent out an e so we I actually will say um I think we have one of the highest subscriber rates on our engage Rockville page of any of the projects in the city.

So thank you to the community for their interest and support in this process.

Um we sent out an e-blast regarding both this meeting and our um upcoming community engagement session last week.

We are also planning on including information in every single issue of the Rockville reports between now and June related to any ongoing engagement.

We are going to be posting everything imminently.

I know we have some changes to make, so if it's not tomorrow, it'll be um midweek this week.

And we're going to send out an e-blast there as well, make an update to our engage Rockville site.

Um I don't think that I am missing anything.

Is that have I covered it all?

I was gonna just ask for the people who have written in with comments.

Maybe you shouldn't also just as staff is following up, see if they want to join the listserv going forward so they're getting updates because they clearly show some level of interest, but they may not know how to get more in updates in the future.

That is not something that I have been including in responses, and I absolutely will in the future.

That's a great suggestion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, I think we can close this agenda item for tonight.

Okay, to be continued.

And uh, Mr.

Mahaleck, if you'll just uh share with us in the future some of the work session breakouts so the thematically.

Happy to thank you.

Councilmember Valeri.

Could we also get um because I think I caught most of it, but if you could just circulate what you captured as the decision points and um there were the two lists that you created, Mr.

T manager, that would be really helpful.

Excellent.

All right, now we're moving on to our councilmember Van Grek.

And again, uh following up on that, to the extent there's some way that we can have either some type of public facing or clarification of the issues that we have provided direction of, whether it's in the minutes or some other method that I'll let the appointment figure out.

I don't want this just to be kind of an email to us.

I want there to be clear way for us to find it and others to know what we've directed.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh mock agenda, I saw no hands.

I know that we discussed that already.

Um we do have the December 8th agenda brief book already, and that's out.

So I want to flag that to the listening public.

Um, old new business.

I think I had to do that.

Councilmember Shaw.

Um, so a couple of meetings back.

Um, we did decide as a body to extend the notice of the evictions to 14 days, and that is absolutely what we should be doing right now.

Um, however, uh without sharing that notice with the city, um, I think it it doesn't position the city to respond to residents when they need help.

Um, and so I did want to ask my colleagues if we can um request an amendment uh to ensure that when an eviction notice is being sent to the tenant, it is also being sent to the city, and this would this would mimic the um county's bill as well, but it just provides us the 14 days to figure out to connect with the tenant to see how they need help, to see if they need emergency assistance.

Otherwise, we're relying on the tenant to somehow have the means to come to us, and that's not all tenants.

That that's not the majority of tenants.

Um and so this allows us to be more helpful in in a situation where one of our residents is in trauma.

Thank you.

I do recall this raise being raised, and I believe Mr.

Mahalik said he wanted to have some disc system discussions with staff on it.

I know we're having a discussion next week on Monday, uh, and landlord tenant.

Can you provide us a response on that?

I just can I just let Mr.

Mehalick respond just to make sure that we know, and then I'll go back to you.

So that may you're correct, and Councilmember Shaw, you're correct.

I mean you brought you to bring it up.

I think I did mention that we had a work session coming up.

It'll be robust, and if this is a topic of discussion where you guys will would like some feedback of one should we requirement into what will we do with the information, which for us is more important, um, we'd be very receptive to that.

Councilmember Shaw.

So I I went through the briefing book and I didn't see it there.

Okay.

Um, and so in order for us to have a discussion on it, it should at least be in there.

Um, and I I I just find it very challenging to have this um type of code change, um, if we're not enforcing it.

Um, or if we're if there's no way for the city to know.

Um, and and so that's why I'm asking for this amendment.

And this is the way it's it's also being um structured in in other legislation.

And so what I'm what I'm asking is um is if perhaps the city manager could draft something and we could put it in the briefing booklet uh or some language to have the language ready and to put that in the briefing booklet so that we would have an opportunity just to discuss it because currently it's not nothing is there.

I haven't had a lot of time to think about it.

Um I'll do the best.

I the packets already out.

Um, but I'll ask staff if we can bring it up as part of the presentation on Monday.

Okay.

Can you also, as you're doing that, see what mechanisms there are to work with partners to be able to get auto alerts from them as well, like because they probably get them in batches.

Or I know the sheriff's office certainly knows, but there may be also a way to work with a partner to get that information because even though there's a code change, a landlord may not know.

I've raised before that um we give out rental licenses, but there's not a lot of education or you know, ref referring to what the laws are.

Uh, and uh well, eventually we'll get to that.

I'd love to see, and that we'll have a discussion about with landlord tenant um to see how we can better educate both res tenants as well as landlords.

Um, I've seen some other sites that have good models for that.

I also just wanted to say thank you because um it's if you go to the landlord tenant piece, it's the first item that's on that page.

So that's a really good start to being able to educate people on that new ordinance that we just approve it last month.

So I appreciate that.

Councilmember Shaw.

Yeah.

So I also just wanted to add um in the the other bills that we're we are actually modeling this this extension off of.

Um it makes the landlord responsible for that.

Um and actually um what has been proposed is that uh that if they don't notify the city or they don't notify the jurisdiction, they would get a citation.

Um, and so it's it's it's just very very clear.

Um, and I think this also provides an opportunity for um maybe the landlord to to work with the tenant instead of going through an eviction.

Um but it it this is what can help to prevent that eviction.

Councilmember Valeri.

My only um suggested edit to what councilmember Shaw just said is to switch that to fine and something to that effect.

Long story short, I think we do need to talk about enforcement structure when we're talking through landlord tenant, um, because I think that that's something that was raised with the deer fencing issue in particular, um, is that it seems very punitive in nature on residents in one regard, and then it does not seem punitive in other regards.

So I'd like to see that discuss next week too.

Councilmember Fulton.

Probably unnecessary at this point, but I struggled when we start talking substantively about the merits of new issues in old new business when there's not notice.

I think we have a plan to talk about it.

I think we got a good answer.

We'll talk about it next week.

We'll make sure it's there.

Um, when we're all sort of the community knows that we're gonna talk about it in substance, and we have time to think about it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right, anything else into old new business?

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Councilmember Valerie.

I move that we adjourn.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Jackson seconds.

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

Thank you.