OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Rockville Planning Commission Public Hearing and Work Session on Zoning Ordinance Rewrite – January 28, 2026

Meeting Portal — Wednesday, January 28, 2026
BodyRockville, Maryland
SessionMeeting Portal
DateWednesday, January 28, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:53:27

Transcript — Verbatim
0:02

Good evening, Rockville.

0:04

Today is Wednesday, January 28th, 2026.

0:08

This is meeting number two-26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission.

0:13

I am Mong Sen, Chair of the Planning Commission, and I'm joined in chamber by commissioners Jeff Zainz, Shenyen Salah Hadin, Susan Pitman, Eric Futen, and Jamie S.

0:25

Ponosa.

0:27

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

0:31

Ton's agenda includes the public hearing and working session number two on zoning tax amendment and the comprehensive map amendment.

0:39

Then this will be followed by our regular scheduled commission items.

0:44

Before we proceed, does any commissioners have any uh thoughts about tonight's agenda?

0:51

All right, Hing then.

0:52

Let's proceed with our first agenda, public hearing and working session, uh work session on zoning tax amendment application TXT 2026-2027 one for the zoning ordinance rewrite and the map amendment application MAP 2026-00126 for the comprehensive map amendment.

1:16

Mayor and the council of Rockville are the applicants.

1:19

So, Mr.

1:20

Westleck, uh there are staff presentation.

1:25

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission, uh, just a brief introduction prior to the public hearing.

1:30

Um, I just wanted to let you know what our uh agenda looks like for this evening.

1:35

Uh if we go to the next slide.

1:41

So we're gonna talk a little bit about the timeline and schedule and then go into the public hearing.

1:47

We have uh currently seven speakers who have uh signed up in advance.

1:52

And then once the public hearing is concluded, uh we will go into the work session and with the topics uh that you see on the slide uh in that order.

2:01

And then we'll talk a little bit about next steps at the very end of the day.

2:07

Thank you, Mr.

2:08

Westleck.

2:09

So let's proceed with the first uh public public hearing.

2:13

And uh so before we proceed, let me just remind everybody the um the rules.

2:21

So if you intend to testify for any of today's agenda and has not signed, and please sign in on the sheet um uh on the back in the back of this room.

2:32

And um I'd like to remind folks for the time limit for the public testimony.

2:37

So each individual will be allowed for three minutes to provide comments on the application and items.

2:45

However, one representative of an organization such as the HOA Work Community Group will be allowed up to five minutes.

2:53

And there is a clock in front of you.

2:56

So Mr.

2:56

Dumains will start the timer when you begin speaking.

3:00

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

3:06

And please adhere to these time limits and they will be enforced by me.

3:11

With that, let's welcome our first speaker.

3:14

And please state your name and address for the record when you come front.

3:21

The first speaker is Pat Harris, uh, to be followed by Bill Cominers.

3:30

Good evening.

3:30

Pat Harris with Lord Charlie and Brewer here this evening on behalf of a number of townhouse developers.

3:36

Um, primarily what I want to do is highlight some of the issues that I uh set forth in our January 27th letter.

3:43

And most importantly, are the provisions of 6.3.13, which have to do with front-loaded townhouses, and there's a limitation proposed that says that the standard limited garage door shall be no more than 50% of the ground floor facade of a townhouse.

4:02

First of all, it's a little unclear whether the 50% is pertaining to the width or the area of the facade, so that needs to be clarified.

4:10

But more importantly, a strict interpretation either way would effectively preclude front-loaded townhomes.

4:17

Uh the reason for this is most townhouses, as you probably know just from driving around, have two-car garages, and those garages are typically the doors approximately 16 feet in width.

4:31

But the standard townhouse ranges in width from 16 to 24 feet to require that the garage door could not be more than 50 percent, would require a 32-foot wide townhouse, which immediately sort of contradicts the whole notion of a townhouse, which are narrower units that are deeper, not longer units that are shallower.

4:53

Um that the provision also already provides that townhouses must be designed to accommodate all utilities.

5:00

So it's a little unclear what the purpose of this of the garage provision is trying to accomplish.

5:08

One thought is that it's merely trying to control the aesthetics of a townhouse, but if you looked at the attachments that we submitted to our letter, I'd say that you can have very attractive front-loaded townhouses.

5:21

Also, you know, in there are some instances where townhouse front loaded are necessary, either because you have uh environmental uh constraints in the back, so you can't put an alley in the back of a townhouse, and also front-loaded townhouses allow for a backyard, which rear loaded do not, um, which is family-friendly.

5:40

So we asked the city to take a closer look at this provision and and query whether it's necessary.

5:47

I know there's an um an effort to try to provide more housing, not less housing, and this is another this presents an obstacle.

5:55

Um, the same provision also has um a criteria that limits the width of a driveway to six to ten feet for townhouses.

6:04

And again, uh most townhouses and especially front loaded townhouses, the the driveway is 16 feet in width.

6:13

Um very briefly, uh, three other comments.

6:17

One is the RMD setback requirements for the 10 and 25 RMD 10 and 25.

6:23

The setbacks proposed are 20 and 25 feet, which is much more comparable to what you'd expect in a single family home.

6:30

We think 15 feet is much more comparable for to try and encourage that medium density development in those zones.

6:37

Um the other points are set forth in my letter, um, and I can follow up with staff on those.

6:44

Thank you.

6:45

Thank you, ma'am.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use██████████████████████████████████████38%
Zoning Ordinance Rewrite██████████████████18%
Sign Regulations██████████████14%
Urban Planning████████8%
Procedural██████6%
Legal Matters████4%
Public Safety███3%
Community Engagement██2%
Public Works██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Rockville Planning Commission Public Hearing and Work Session on Zoning Ordinance Rewrite – January 28, 2026

The City of Rockville Planning Commission, chaired by Mong Sen, convened on January 28, 2026 (Meeting #2-26) for a public hearing and work session on Zoning Text Amendment TXT 2026-2027 (Zoning Ordinance Rewrite) and Comprehensive Map Amendment MAP 2026-00126. The meeting included testimony from seven registered speakers, followed by detailed discussions on zoning provisions, and concluded with regular commission items.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Pat Harris (representing townhouse developers) opposed proposed Section 6.3.13 limitations on front-loaded townhouses, stating the 50% garage door facade restriction and 6–10 ft driveway width requirement would effectively preclude this housing type. He noted front-loaded townhouses allow family-friendly backyards and are necessary when environmental constraints prevent rear alleys. He also argued RMD 10 and 25 setbacks (proposed 20–25 ft) should be 15 ft to encourage medium-density development.
  • Bill Commoners (Tower Dawson LLC) urged retaining existing planned development provisions with minimal changes and criticized the ZTA’s shift from a five-year APF extension to two two-year extensions with greater discretion. He supported the former school site’s rezoning to RMD 25 and endorsed the commission’s proposed compromise limiting density to 10 units per acre if access is only through Don Mills Court.
  • Vince Biazzi (for property owner Zion Avasar, 5946 Halpine Road) argued current R60 zoning is an error for a site transitioning between intense metro development and single-family homes. He proposed a new “Metro Station Transitional Housing Zone” to allow a roughly 35-unit apartment building designed as row homes, providing transit-proximate housing without excessive density.
  • Pat Reber (online, representing a majority of Newmark Commons residents) opposed RMD 25 zoning for ZORID 17, citing incompatibility with adjacent R90 homes, lack of transit access, and the property being the only parcel pushed to RMD 25 that is isolated from major transit and surrounded by low-density neighborhoods. She read a statement from Anna Astrid Molina (Potomac Valley resident) who added that the topography would cause a 75-ft structure to tower over homes, traffic from existing nursing home and emergency vehicles already strains capacity, the density leap from R90 to RMD 25 is seven levels, combining with the adjacent Tower Oaks parcel could triple density, unmarked graves require relocation, and a petition with nearly 700 signatures demonstrates lack of community engagement.
  • Mark Persheila (College Garden Civic Association) argued the Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (APFO) should be eliminated, contending water/sewer requirements are redundant, traffic delays push development elsewhere, and school capacity decisions by the county board conflict with city planning. He stated the draft APFO omits key criteria and called APFO a “future killer.”
  • Jeffrey Gans (lifelong Rockville resident, Montrose area) thanked the city for a compromise on Martha Terrace rezoning that preserves the pool and clubhouse with a buffer along Rollins. He expressed concerns that denser development would strain Montrose Park (already at capacity), the pool and clubhouse, and cause parking spillover and increased cut-through traffic.
  • Lauron Sharon (Montrose neighborhood) echoed Gans’s concerns, asking for a balance between growth and current residents, noting existing parking and traffic issues.
  • Five online attendees were unmuted but did not speak.

Discussion Items

1. Proxy Testimony and Rules of Procedure Commissioner Espinoza raised that proxy testimony (one person reading another’s statement) is not addressed in current rules. Staff noted the chair has discretionary authority, but the commission agreed to consider clarifying the rules after completion of the zoning rewrite.

2. Deer Fencing Regulations Staff presented three options to allow eight-foot deer fences, addressing conflicts where corner/through lots’ front yards function as rear yards. Option 2 (deer fencing between the home and street right-of-way but not the entire front yard) was recommended. Commissioners debated broader wildlife management concerns but supported Option 2 with Montgomery County’s deer fence definition (open mesh, 1.5×1.5 to 2×2.75 inches, heavyweight plastic or metal posts, transparent). The commission directed staff to include a note recommending the city develop a comprehensive urban wildlife management plan.

3. Use Standards (presented by Holly Simmons)

  • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Staff’s consolidation of standards (removing owner occupancy and separate address requirements for attached ADUs) was accepted without objection.
  • Large Group Homes (9–16 residents): Staff proposed transitioning from special exception to conditional use, with standards limiting location and requiring 1/4-mile separation in single-unit zones. Discussion clarified that limits on unrelated individuals are being moved to property maintenance code. Commission supported the staff draft.
  • Front-Loaded Townhouses: Proposed standards required accommodation of site elements plus restrictions on garage door width (≤50% of facade) and driveway width (≤10 ft within 8 ft of curb). Public testimony and commissioner arguments criticized these as precluding front-loaded townhomes and reducing family-friendly backyards. Commission voted to remove the garage door and driveway width restrictions, retaining only the requirement that townhouses be designed to accommodate all site elements.
  • Adult-Oriented Establishments and Shooting Galleries: Staff proposed no change to adult establishment 1,000-ft distance requirements, and for shooting galleries, a new 200-ft buffer from residential zones. After debate, the commission straw-voted 4–2? (transcript shows only two commissioners for staff proposal) to recommend no new location restriction for shooting galleries beyond existing zoning (industrial zones only). The transmittal will note the divided opinion; Commissioner Futen supported the staff proposal.
  • Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging: Commission supported the staff draft allowing EV charging hubs as principal uses in industrial, MXB, MXC, and MXCT zones and as accessory in other mixed-use zones.
  • Use-Based Gross Floor Area Restrictions: Mixed views emerged; some commissioners favored elimination, others were cautious. Commission directed staff to provide a full list of all such restrictions and further analysis before making a recommendation.

4. Non-Conformities Staff’s draft grandfathered all previously conforming uses, allowed non-conforming uses to expand by up to 20% through a process, permitted certain site improvements, and allowed in-kind replacement after natural disasters. Commissioners supported the grandfathering, improvement, and disaster provisions. A straw vote on the 20% expansion allowance showed only two commissioners in favor; the commission will recommend against allowing expansion of non-conforming uses.

5. Development Standards (Front Yard Coverage and Established Setbacks) Staff eliminated rear yard lot coverage requirements and asked whether the commission wanted to also eliminate front yard coverage and established setback requirements. Commission voiced no opposition to retaining staff’s draft approach (i.e., keep front yard coverage and established setbacks as currently drafted, beyond the already-removed rear yard coverage).

6. State Legislation Update Staff briefed the commission on three pending bills: Starter and Silver Homes Act (potentially reducing minimum lot sizes), Maryland Housing Certainty Act, and Bambi Act (regulatory certainty, fee collection, design guidelines). No action taken; staff will monitor the legislative session and may adjust the draft ordinance before final adoption (target June 2026).

7. Regular Commission Items

  • Staff Report: Special meeting set for February 4, 2026 (continued public hearing and work session); work session scheduled for February 11, 2026 (likely without public hearing).
  • Public Hearing Scheduling: Commission deferred decision on whether to hold a public hearing on February 11 to the February 4 meeting.
  • Old Business: Commissioner Zainz requested an update on the state grant for redesigning the Park Road/South Stone Street intersection near the metro station.
  • New Business: Commission agreed to revisit rules of procedure to address proxy testimony after the zoning rewrite.

Key Outcomes

  • Deer Fencing: Adopted Option 2 with Montgomery County’s definition; note on comprehensive wildlife management plan to be included in transmittal.
  • Front-Loaded Townhouses: Removed specific garage door and driveway width restrictions; maintained site element accommodation requirement.
  • Shooting Galleries: Recommended against 200-ft location restriction; transmittal will note minority support for staff proposal.
  • Non-Conforming Use Expansion: Majority voted against allowing 20% expansion; recommendation to exclude that provision.
  • Use-Based GFA Restrictions: Staff to provide full list and further analysis before final recommendation.
  • Minutes: Minutes of Meeting #15-2025 (November 12, 2025) approved.
  • Schedule: February 4 special meeting and February 11 work session set; public hearing decision deferred.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, Rockville. Today is Wednesday, January 28th, 2026. This is meeting number two-26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission. I am Mong Sen, Chair of the Planning Commission, and I'm joined in chamber by commissioners Jeff Zainz, Shenyen Salah Hadin, Susan Pitman, Eric Futen, and Jamie S. Ponosa. Tonight's meeting is being conducted in person and virtually by WebEx. Ton's agenda includes the public hearing and working session number two on zoning tax amendment and the comprehensive map amendment. Then this will be followed by our regular scheduled commission items. Before we proceed, does any commissioners have any uh thoughts about tonight's agenda? All right, Hing then. Let's proceed with our first agenda, public hearing and working session, uh work session on zoning tax amendment application TXT 2026-2027 one for the zoning ordinance rewrite and the map amendment application MAP 2026-00126 for the comprehensive map amendment. Mayor and the council of Rockville are the applicants. So, Mr. Westleck, uh there are staff presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission, uh, just a brief introduction prior to the public hearing. Um, I just wanted to let you know what our uh agenda looks like for this evening. Uh if we go to the next slide. So we're gonna talk a little bit about the timeline and schedule and then go into the public hearing. We have uh currently seven speakers who have uh signed up in advance. And then once the public hearing is concluded, uh we will go into the work session and with the topics uh that you see on the slide uh in that order. And then we'll talk a little bit about next steps at the very end of the day. Thank you, Mr. Westleck. So let's proceed with the first uh public public hearing. And uh so before we proceed, let me just remind everybody the um the rules. So if you intend to testify for any of today's agenda and has not signed, and please sign in on the sheet um uh on the back in the back of this room. And um I'd like to remind folks for the time limit for the public testimony. So each individual will be allowed for three minutes to provide comments on the application and items. However, one representative of an organization such as the HOA Work Community Group will be allowed up to five minutes. And there is a clock in front of you. So Mr. Dumains will start the timer when you begin speaking. And any at any time, clarifying questions may be asked by members of the commission. And please adhere to these time limits and they will be enforced by me. With that, let's welcome our first speaker. And please state your name and address for the record when you come front. The first speaker is Pat Harris, uh, to be followed by Bill Cominers. Good evening. Pat Harris with Lord Charlie and Brewer here this evening on behalf of a number of townhouse developers. Um, primarily what I want to do is highlight some of the issues that I uh set forth in our January 27th letter. And most importantly, are the provisions of 6.3.13, which have to do with front-loaded townhouses, and there's a limitation proposed that says that the standard limited garage door shall be no more than 50% of the ground floor facade of a townhouse. First of all, it's a little unclear whether the 50% is pertaining to the width or the area of the facade, so that needs to be clarified. But more importantly, a strict interpretation either way would effectively preclude front-loaded townhomes. Uh the reason for this is most townhouses, as you probably know just from driving around, have two-car garages, and those garages are typically the doors approximately 16 feet in width. But the standard townhouse ranges in width from 16 to 24 feet to require that the garage door could not be more than 50 percent, would require a 32-foot wide townhouse, which immediately sort of contradicts the whole notion of a townhouse, which are narrower units that are deeper, not longer units that are shallower. Um that the provision also already provides that townhouses must be designed to accommodate all utilities. So it's a little unclear what the purpose of this of the garage provision is trying to accomplish. One thought is that it's merely trying to control the aesthetics of a townhouse, but if you looked at the attachments that we submitted to our letter, I'd say that you can have very attractive front-loaded townhouses. Also, you know, in there are some instances where townhouse front loaded are necessary, either because you have uh environmental uh constraints in the back, so you can't put an alley in the back of a townhouse, and also front-loaded townhouses allow for a backyard, which rear loaded do not, um, which is family-friendly. So we asked the city to take a closer look at this provision and and query whether it's necessary.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com