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.

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.

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

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

Um very briefly, uh, three other comments.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

The next speaker.

The next speaker is Bill Commoners, to be followed by Vince Biasi.

Good evening.

Bill Commoners with Lurch Early and Brewer.

I'm here recommend representing the Tower Dawson LLC, the owner and original developer of the Tower Oaks Plan Development, and the property just to its north.

Tower Dawson is a business resident of the city, having moved its offices to 2,000 Tower Oaks Boulevard, their lead platinum building.

I have two subjects for you this evening.

The first is the current zoning ordinance provisions related to planned developments.

I urge you to keep these provisions in the new ordinance with as little change as possible.

To allow orderly implementation of the planned developments, the zoning ordinance should retain the general and individual plan development zone standards, the plan development governing documents definition and development standards, and the APF provisions and durations.

The amendment provisions for plan development should also be kept, but in the more simplified process in the ZTA.

The ZTA changes the extension provisions for APF that are applicable, moving from an almost assured five-year extension to allowing two two-year extensions and subject to greater discretion and therefore uncertainty.

This should be fixed by retaining or reinstating the five-year extension and its criteria.

The second subject relates to the former school site just north of Tower Oaks.

The owner has always been supportive of the recommendation in the comp plan and as carried forward by the staff to rezone the property to the RMD 25 zone.

This zoning could allow more homes and therefore might actually be economically feasible.

Denser, taller design will also allow clustering of buildings on smaller parts of the property with correspondingly less roads and utility corridors than for single-family homes, and thus less impact on the natural environment.

Development under the current R90 zone, while not economic to start with, would also require far more clearing and physical impacts.

By abutting Tower Oaks, the property has points of regular access that can be avoid the use of the Don Mills Court cul-de-sac, leaving that only for emergency use as is already planned and allowed.

Our understanding is that the planning commission proposed a creative compromise for this property two weeks ago.

Map the RMD 25 zone as recommended, but provide that if the only regular access would be from Don Mills Court, then the density would be limited to 10 units to the acre.

Tower Dawson supports this compromise proposal as they understand it.

To that end, we've suggested some language to the staff to add development standards to the RMD 25 zone to effectuate the access limitation.

And in this way, there might be an economic way to provide the added housing without the community impacts.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Vince Biassi, to be followed by Pat Reber.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Rockville Planning Commission, Vince Biazzi with the law firm of Lurch Early and Brewer.

I'm here tonight on behalf of my client, Mr.

Zion Avasar, who is unable to make tonight's hearing due to the weather.

Mr.

Avasar is the owner of the property located at 5946 Halpine Road.

5946 Halpine is a small property strategically located within sight of and just a short walk from the Twin Brook Metro Station.

The property is the transition location between the intense development that was approved for the Twinbrook Metro Station and the surrounding residential community.

Multi-story buildings and parking garages are approved to be adjacent and confronting between the property and the metro station.

On the other side of the property to the east is the townhouse development known as Cambridge Walk 1 and 2.

In spite of its transitional location, the subject property is zoned R60.

Considering the surrounding uses and zoning, retaining the R60 zoning on the property at the time of the comprehensive rezoning in 2009 and the Twin Brooke Plan was either an oversight or an error.

Not rectifying this matter through the Rockville Pike Plan was a lost opportunity.

Each time I had previously asked the city to correct the zoning if the direction that was given was to address this at the time of the comprehensive plan.

The Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the current city zones do not allow the proper development scope to make this transition site viable.

But the RMD infill zone now being recommended does not do the job any better than any other existing zones that I've discussed for years with the city staff.

I have always envisioned and shown to city staff a concept for a small apartment building to support the housing needs of the city near Metro.

The exterior would be articulated to read from the outside like a series of row homes with projections and recesses to provide facade interest and break down the mass of the building.

But the interior would be divided in about 35 apartment units.

The building would have a pedestrian scale street presence and be pushed closer to the metro station so that it can pull away from Cambridge Walk to create separation and space for landscaping.

To move matters forward and rather than try to modify the RMD infill zone, we have drafted standards for a proposed new zone to implement this type of transition project.

Just as called for by the comprehensive plan.

This zone can also be used in transition areas around other metro stations as well.

In this way, additional housing can be encouraged on small sites proximate to transit, but in a way and at a density that makes doing so economical.

This property on Halpine Road, within a stone's throw of the Metro Station is the perfect place to begin use of the new Metro Station Transitional Housing Zone.

Thank you for your attention and consideration of this proposal.

Thank you.

The next speaker, please.

The next speaker is Pat Reber.

Ms.

Rieber is online.

Oh, there.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Good.

Hi.

I'm Pat Reber.

You've seen me before.

Uh good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners.

I'm here on behalf of a large majority of Newmark Commons residents.

When you meet with Mayor and Council to discuss alternative, less dense zoning possibilities for ZORID 17 in Area 12.

As they have requested, we hope you will support the city's stated goal that new development be compatible with adjacent communities.

We look forward to that discussion as our community was not included in Area 12 discussions to create the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

We also know that other accommodations have been made with other communities over the past year or so to change recommendations to be more compatible.

We appreciate that the commission acknowledged our concerns in the last work session.

However, if the discussion was any indication, the recommended RMD 25 is in fact set in stone.

This we were told is because changing it would erode the years-long public process in which we had no say.

Thus, we are curious to see how RMD 25 can be massaged into being less than RMD 25 by adding design guidelines that would make it more compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.

When some of us visited the visualizing density examples, we found them surrounded by commercial or multifamily zones.

ZORID 17 is the only parcel being pushed toward RMD 25 that is isolated from transport and next to R90 homes.

As you know, a big concern of ours is how this inaccessible plot will be reached.

In September, we were told that Don Mills Court would be the logical point of access in contradiction to longstanding agreements.

We heard for the first time in January 14 that staff has received testimony from the representatives of Tower Oaks that they would anticipate accessing this property through their property and not through Don Mill's court.

And I'm going to thank Bill Commoners for supplying that testimony.

I think it was right before the last hearing.

I want to thank Commissioner Pittman for clarifying whether state law requires that a recommended rezoning must be adopted, as implied in the last briefing document.

She received the explanation that it was not a legal requirement, but rather tradition in Rockville that interim zoning levels in a comprehensive plan are never offered or discussed or negotiated.

Thank you for your time and for listening to me this evening.

And our colleague of mine, Anna Astrid Molina, has tried to get onto the web access and cannot get on, so she asks if I might be allowed to read her testimony if and when her name is called.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So Ms.

Molina actually is the next speaker that has signed up.

Yeah, I think Reber, can I read her testimony, please?

Okay.

All right.

Um she just texted it to me.

I couldn't get it up on my computer.

Um, her name is, my name is Anna Astrid Molina.

I have lived in Markwood, that's Potomac Valley neighborhood, for 30 years.

Our community is so seamlessly compatible with Newmark Commons that most cannot tell where one ends and the other begins.

I am here to ask you to reject the rezoning of parcel ZOR ID 17 from R90 to RMD 25.

I'd like to address some misconceptions mentioned in previous sessions.

Commissioner Zinotz suggested that the property's incline would hide a high rise from view.

In reality, the topography does the opposite.

The highest point begins at I 270, the nursing home, and slopes down toward Don Mills Court.

Any 75 foot structure built there will not be hidden.

It will tower over our single family neighborhood, creating a massive visual intrusion.

Furthermore, while Potomac Valley Road was described as a no friction road, the reality on the ground is different.

Between three shifts of nursing home staff, visitors, and the three to four heavy emergency vehicles that pass through daily and park on the street, this road is already at capacity.

Adding additional traffic is a recipe for gridlock.

The jump from R90 to RMD into 25 is not a gradual one.

It is a seven-level leap in density.

We are concerned that if this plot is combined with the adjacent 20-acre Tower Oaks parcel, the actual density impact will be triple what has been presented.

This site is uniquely unsuitable for such density.

A previous Montgomery County Board of Education study explicitly stated that under no circumstances should vehicular access be permitted through the residential neighborhoods to the north.

Yet that is exactly what this rezoning would do.

Additionally, this parcel contains unmarked graves that require relocation.

This is a sensitive site that demands a cautious low-impact approach, not a high-density apartment complex.

Looking at the city's own visualizing density examples, every high density comparison used, like King Buick or Halpine was already surrounded by commercial or multifamily zones.

Parcel ZORID 17 is the only parcel being pushed toward RMD 25 that is isolated from major transit and surrounded by R90 homes.

The city's 2040 plan emphasizes community involvement, yet our neighborhood was not engaged until the process was nearly over.

Our testimonies and the petition with almost 700 signatures prove that this recommendation currently lacks the input of those most affected.

In 1997, Tower Oaks presented a compatible R90 rendition with an entrance through Don Mills Court.

That plan respected the character of Markwood and Newmark Commons.

We ask you to honor that compatibility and maintain the R90 designation.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker is Mark Persheila to be followed by Jeffrey Ganz.

Thank you, members of the Planning Commission.

I spoke at the last hearing much as a representative of a College Garden Civic Association tonight.

And I would like to speak about the adequate public facility ordinance.

And my opinion is the adequate public facility ordinance.

It's time for it to be tossed out of the zoning ordinance.

Right now, there are four standards: water, sewer, traffic, and schools.

Water and sewer don't need to be in there because you can't build without water and sewer anyway.

That's by state law.

Traffic is often used as a way to develop to uh delay or hinder or even stop development.

But then when I was on the city council, we spent a good three years stopping the expansion of I-270.

Why?

Because we stopped development in this part of the county, and then people go and live north in Frederick County, and all of a sudden they need 15 to 16 lanes to get through Rockville.

So that's uh something you got to keep in mind that even if you delay development within the city because of traffic reasons, you you still have to deal with that traffic sooner or later.

School capacity, this is the one that really uh governs elections.

Uh here we are allowing the Board of Education and the County to make decisions that impact the kind of development and where that development can go within the city of Rockville.

And they make their decisions on their own criteria.

They don't, they're not considering development and where it should go next to transit, for example.

And then I did read the draft APFO, and I found that the draft APO mentions none of these criteria, which I find is very odd.

All the all the criteria are listed in the adequate public facility standards.

The APFO as it has been practiced over the years, as basically it's a future killer for our young children.

Look at Crown High School.

That was originally posited to relieve overcrowding in part in Richard Montgomery cluster, but now because of other considerations, will Crown High School become a holding school, or will it become the new location of what is now the Wooton cluster?

And and those kind of decisions, which are made purely for the school's uh own needs, what then happens to Rockville and where it can develop.

And for example, in Rockville's town center, which is covered completely by the Richard Montgomery cluster.

So there have been at least three um really controversial developments that have been um governed by the APFO.

And I just in my 10 seconds want to mention that what is now known as the Reed used to be the Bainbridge, used to be Silverwood, would not have occurred under the uh ordinance and the standards and house govern right now in this draft.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Jeffrey Gans to be followed by Lerone Sharon.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you.

Um my name is Jeffrey Gans.

I'm a lifelong resident of Rockville, having uh been born and raised in Woodley Gardens and currently live in Montrose, um, off of Rollins and Evelyn.

Um, I'm here to speak tonight to the rezoning happening over there, and just want to thank um Mr.

Wateleck and uh the uh property owners on their um and this mayor and council uh for hearing us, listening to us and coming up with what we believe is a compromise that we can not ideal, but we can live with in keeping the Martha Terrace uh property as it is with the pool in the clubhouse and the change of zoning with the buffer along Rollins and the density for the rest of the property.

Um we do have concerns going forward with any development that might happen there that we have talked to the owners about that we would want to keep track of and be mindful of uh the park there.

Montrose Park is the most utilized park in the city of Rockville.

Uh it is over capacity, it doesn't have enough space if you go there on any nice spring day.

The park is full, um, which is great.

But any denser development there is going to just stress that park further.

So some type of increased green space would be ideal or reworking of the park to allow for more playgrounds and play space.

Um, the pool in Clubhouse is also at a capacity that any higher development there would certainly impact what goes on there.

And we've talked to the developers about that or the owners about that, and you know, they are mindful of our concerns there.

But most importantly is parking and traffic.

Um, parking when these communities were built was at a very different uh formula than what is used today for parking.

So where you have an abundance of parking right now, uh any new development that's going to be dense is going to have likely decreased parking from what's there now, uh causing people to either park on the streets or into the neighborhoods, and so we want to be mindful of that as well as increased traffic in the communities with the other development going on in the area along the Twin Brook area, uh the Twin Brook Quarter and the new developments that will be happening there.

But all in all, uh in an ideal world, nothing would happen here, but we know we're not living in an ideal world, and we appreciate the compromise and look forward to seeing uh how this all plays out in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Lauron Sharon.

Hey.

Good evening, uh Commission members, uh Chairman.

Uh I appreciate the time that uh you give us to speak.

Um, me as well as other neighbors spoke uh previously also in front of the mayor and council members and have been in touch with uh uh Mr.

Veselec and his his team, they're doing a great job.

Uh I don't need to repeat everything that my good neighbor said.

I'm also from the Montret neighborhood, lives in Rollins.

Um just want to again repeat that whatever decisions are being made, uh, we would like to make sure that there is a balance that is being kept between the needs of a growing city, but also keeping in mind the current residents that are being affected by the changes that are going to happen.

Um parking is definitely an issue.

I can say that where I live right now, there is already some you know concern about about parking, traffic is a concern in our neighborhood, especially being used often as a cut through uh from the pike and the 270.

And uh we just want to make sure that as the city grow in the area is being developed, um, you know, we are we're you know also being considered uh as part of the process.

Uh thank you very much and um have a great evening.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

So, madam chair, that concludes the list of folks who have signed up in advance.

Um, I do have five individuals who are online, and so we need to uh find out whether they wish to speak.

And so the first one is just a phone number uh that begins with 2406.

And uh if you wish to speak, you're now unmuted.

Can you hear?

Can you speak?

Or would you like to provide testimony?

Okay, hearing them, maybe we we try the next speaker.

Uh the next person is Barbara Adams.

Hello?

Would you like to speak?

You can mute yourself.

Well, can we mute Barbara?

A mute.

Okay, we maybe we can try the next speaker.

The next speaker is Jihai Lee.

Hello, Jihai.

Would you like to speak?

Amute yourself.

So can they unmute themselves or can we unmute?

I have made them panelists, so they should be able to.

If you like to speak, but unable to unmute, can you uh make a tax or something?

So we have two more individuals.

Um just a moment.

Let's try the fourth one.

So the next is Margaret Chow to be followed by Sandra Crow.

Thank you for that.

Hello.

Hello.

Can you speak or can you unmute yourself?

Okay.

Maybe we'll try the next one.

And this will be the last one.

That is uh Sandra Crow.

Would you like to speak or unmute yourself?

Okay, it seems like none of them like to speak at this moment.

So maybe we close the uh public hearing for now.

And commissioners, would you like to provide some comments and thoughts at this time?

I just have a couple of questions.

Number one, I don't know that we received this proposed new zone by the owner of on Hellpern Drive that testified.

Did we get that in testimony?

We've been having you been having some back and forth uh with the applicant, but there's hasn't been anything formally submitted from the property.

So it hasn't proposed a new zone.

Um on the issue of graves on the site of um where we're proposing the um RD 25 zone that used to be the poor house uh school or poor house facility, if you will.

Um can staff look at what's already been done on looking for graves on that site.

We can direct it on the history.

I know there's been a lot of uh that with regard to the Tower Oaks property and property across 270.

So we will look we will look into that and see what we can find out.

Okay, and just for the record, I didn't say that development would be hidden on the RD 25 site.

I said the site was lower than the residential development at Newmark Commons.

Um it's it's lower than I 270, but I didn't say it would hide all buildings, just for the record.

Thank you.

Any other comments from North?

I did, and I can potentially hold this to new business, but earlier during the public testimony, we had an individual who um spoke on behalf of someone who was unable to log in at the last minute, you know, completely understand that.

I was looking at rules of procedure, and we actually don't address proxy testimony in it.

And so to our council, might be a good idea.

Uh it's been a few years, I think, since we looked at the rules of procedure, is to potentially have a discussion about that, because I could see a future where there's an organized campaign where one person might provide testimony for a group of people.

And I don't I don't have the answer, right?

But that's something potentially we may want to discuss to have for a rules of procedure, so we have a way forward if that occurrence were ever to happen again.

So yes, we'd be happy to look into that.

And just to be clear, under the current rules, um, that the discretion of whether to accept it or not would fall to the chair, and I agree it would be clearer if we had it in the actual rules themselves.

Thank you.

And I think maybe it's worth to bring back to us this rules and procedure to to clarify.

Yeah, thank you for clarifying today.

It's up to my discretion to do that.

Thank you.

And and the other commissioners.

Yeah, I just commissioner Piedman.

Yeah, I just for the the tar oaks and um so coming from Piedmont also clarified um staff has clarified the tar oaks.

Um parcel, it is not illegal to suggest a new zone.

Uh yet rather than um adhere to the comp plans recommendation.

Is that true?

That's correct.

It's not a legal issue.

Uh, what I stated at the last meeting was that uh in my experience, and this is the third comprehensive map amendment that I have experienced, that uh the mayor and council typically have either implemented the recommended zone for a parcel or not recommended the zone and left it as it existed.

So this will be something different uh from our past practice.

And just really speaks to kind of the the integrity of the recommendations in our comprehensive plan, that that's the way it's kind of played out.

And just to follow up on uh what Mr.

Waslick said, um, to be clear, the law isn't silent on this issue.

So um there is there is an expectation in the land use article in various places that the zoning ordinance and the zoning that you place on property uh in the city be in accordance with or in or consistent with uh both phrases are used with the plan.

So the default is what Mr.

Waslick mentioned, which is that we are implementing the requirements of the comprehensive plan.

Um there is some flexibility.

Um for example, modifying zones that are recommended or or looking at the plan to see whether there's additional flexibility.

Um and so my recommendation to the commission is that you know you with the idea that your goal here is not to conduct a new comprehensive planning effort, but is to really implement the comprehensive plan that you nevertheless feel unconstrained in your in your discussions about what to do with this property.

I mean your job as the planning commission is to is to try to recommend to the mayor and council the best zoning that you can with the underlying goal of ultimately implementing the comprehensive plan.

Um but I didn't want to emphasize that it's not it's not as if you have completely complete free reign here, and you could you know you could put industrial industry industrial zone on the property, for example.

There are some limits to what the mayor and council can ultimately do.

Um the last thing I wanted to say too is you know it may be that our office, the city attorney's office would be advising the mayor and council, depending on the options that were presented to it.

Um I don't think that that advice is strictly necessary right now for the planning commission, again, given that you're only making an advisory recommendation uh to the body not to have a legal argument, but isn't it true that in uh priority funding areas um uh can uh consistency with the master plant does not include the density and land use of the master plan?

Uh it is true, and again, Commissioner Zions is raising one of the points of flexibility that we may have, depending on the recommendations that the mayor and council ultimately want to put on the property.

Yeah, I'm just looking at so since this is the only uh RMD 25 in this area, but uh look at the tar oaks, it is a planned community, and the the townhouse portion of the tar oaks is recommended for the IMD 25 as well, right?

Even look at this keys with tar o it's not just outstanding in its context.

But I feel maybe we we can have more discussion in the next meeting when we discuss this, but I feel like the compatibility is important future.

If we can incorporate the this language into uh the zones regulation, since it's right next to a historical district.

Any other thoughts or to the extent that would go to findings that are necessary in subsequent approvals?

That is I didn't find a compatibility finding in uh in future site plans, for example, that we could put in when we get to uh the looking at the finding sections of those processes.

Yeah, maybe we can discuss at that portion.

And with that, we can um conclude the public hearing and now we can go to our uh zone ordinance agenda.

Mr.

Westleck, please proceed with staff presentation.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Uh we are going to uh proceed with the work session.

And the first topic is fencing, which I'm going to cover.

Um this is an issue uh really related to deer fencing uh that has been raised uh by the community kind of at roughly the same time that the draft zoning ordinance was coming forward.

Um there was a a recognition that there are deer fences being installed that are in violation of existing uh fence regulations in the city.

So our current regulations for all fences, regardless of material, is um just regard to height, is four feet in front yards and eight feet inside and rear yards.

Of course, for corner lots and through lots, um they have more than one front yard.

And uh so that can be impactive, particularly if what is a front yard by zoning is actually a rear yard in all practicality uh for a particular property.

So recognizing that the deer uh deer pose a problem to uh not only to the plants that are on properties, but to you know, for the health of individuals uh when they're having outside activities.

So we wanted to um address this issue in the mayor and council um essentially directed us to incorporate some change recommended changes uh as we were moving into the Zor.

Um has been raised by uh a citizen that Montgomery County had a zoning text amendment that addressed deer fencing in particular.

Um I did want to note that uh our fence regulations in the counties are different.

And uh from what I read in the current code for Montgomery County, all their fence sites are maxed out at six and a half feet except for deer fencing, whereas uh in the city, an eight-foot fence is permitted in the side and rear yards.

So the county had to do a text amendment to get to that eight feet, which apparently is a typical height uh that will that can be purchased and that can prevent deer from uh encroaching in in yards.

So the recommendation that we are coming forward with uh consists consists of a number of things.

Uh that includes uh clearly defining what is a deer fence uh in the city.

Um currently our zoning code does not distinguish among types of fence, and so we would uh recommend that a deer fence, if there are going to be different standards that apply, uh also be defined.

And of course, there are certain types of fencing that would not be appropriate and at an eight-foot uh level.

So that we think that um all of that should be um part of the definition.

So and we came up for uh came up with a number of options to um allow fences up to eight feet in certain yards uh with regard to corner lots and through lots.

And uh in your brief book, we showed um three options.

I believe they're on the next slide, that uh we have considered.

And uh why don't we just move forward to that slide?

I think it illustrates I can talk from that.

So the um the current situation with regarding fence height on the far left is in the white area of this particular property, that is considered to be a front yard, fence height limited to four feet.

The blue shaded area is uh side and rear yard, and so a fence could go up to eight feet there.

But of course, the issue is if you if this is your property, you think of your rear yard as everything kind of behind the house.

So um, so we devised an option that would potentially accommodate that uh in the darker blue area, so the area along the street frontage, which is functionally rear yard, but technically front yard by zoning, uh, you could have up to an eight-foot deer fence in that area.

Option two would take that a little bit further and allow for deer fencing along the um essentially between the home and the street right-of-way.

Um I note that the although the county already allows eight-foot deer fence, they also do not allow uh deer fencing between the home and the street fryage.

Although uh from a practical perspective, uh we also recognize that side yards uh frequently are an area of activity and landscaping that would want to be protected.

And of course, the final option is option three, which essentially would uh allow for eight-foot deer fencing uh that covers the entire property.

Um we're not recommending this option just because um the potential impact on uh the appearance of front yards.

Um I think our fence rigs have been in place for a number of years, if not decades, and so our fence heights have been maxed at four feet for a long time, and I feel this would be uh fairly disruptive uh to neighborhoods to allow for eight feet fences, eight-foot tall fences uh in a front yard scenario.

So our recommendation is uh option two, which kind of strikes the balance uh between uh protecting the bulk of a property from deer incursion and uh kind of balancing uh appearance in front yards as well.

A couple of options that uh we think might want to consider are um kind of combining a deer fence with uh a compliant fence in those areas where it would not otherwise be permitted.

Uh we have some uh I think good examples of fences that have done that uh in our historic district where a compliant picket fence uh is combined with a deer fence.

You can almost not see the deer fence uh in that scenario.

Also, another option we think could be uh requiring a small setback for deer fences from the uh public right-of-way, perhaps uh four to four to four to five feet to allow for some landscaping uh in that area as well.

So those are some potential options uh that you might want to consider.

And uh again, our option for addressing this issue uh is the uh option number two, which we provide well, we think provides a balance between uh protecting uh the majority of a property from deer incursion and uh and balancing the the character of neighborhoods.

So with that, uh I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you, Mr.

Watlack and Commissioners.

I'll try again.

Um go ahead, go ahead.

Just so we know the materials you're considering it, it would be uh oh, you know, like a two-inch or four-inch mesh of either poly or metal or something.

Yes, I think so.

One thing that the county code does, it does define very clearly what constitutes a deer fence.

So I think we could uh mimic that.

Thank you.

No, I I mean I want to commend staff uh to try and address uh public feedback on this issue.

I will say that it seems to me that we're trying to solve a problem that isn't within your responsibility, right?

Which is the city lacks a aggressive wildlife management policy, right?

And and you're doing the best you can.

Uh, but I feel like there's other avenues to address this problem that the public can kind of focus on.

I would hope.

That being said, you're you're confronted with the problem in front of you, so I'm supportive of staff's recommendation on this.

Um, but it is starting to take steps down a road where people start saying, well, this isn't enough anymore.

We need higher fencing, higher fencing, and then all of a sudden we are in a situation where we're truly changing the character of Rockville, right?

Because now homes don't seem as welcoming as uh they were before.

So I just want to make those comments.

I want to thank Commissioner Espinoza for bringing up one of my favorite topics was the uh lack of an adequate or any wildlife urban wildlife management plan in the city of Rockville.

And I agree that this is uh shoehorning a solution into the zoning code that is really a policy change uh at in another department.

Um I I get it right.

I I would support uh change in the deer fencing just because we you know we've been asked to look at it, and if we need to make some updates to it, that's fine.

And it should be clarified what the difference between deer fencing and regular fencing is.

I agree with that, but I think that the city really needs to take a look because so all of a sudden, and uh well, let me back up.

How many houses does this affect?

Do we know?

Do we know what the impact of this is right now?

No, it we really don't.

Uh it was the issue was generated by by one uh situation, but as we have found, there are certainly others uh that fall into the same situation.

So in deer dystopia, when we have a deer fence around many, many houses, where do the deer go then?

Then we have a problem with deer in the streets.

We have them concentrating um in denser packs or herds, which is not that just makes Lyme disease and everything else worse.

So it's almost like we're gonna solve one problem and get another one.

And the deer eat my plants all the time, it's awful.

I mean, I I I get that, but I I'm I'm I'm worried that by fixing it temporarily with this, we create more and worse problems for other departments in the city of Rockville to deal with, and we're not really adequately managing the deer herd in the city of Rockville.

We're just allowing some homeowners to keep them off their plants.

And they they just come they fill it's like um you know it it it's like when you buy a bigger house, you're just gonna fill it with more stuff, right?

Deer fill the space.

They the you it takes a lot to manage a herd of deer thank my fellow commissioners for asking some big picture questions, invoicing some big picture things on on the macro level, um, and in particular uh commissioner Zions for asking questions, you know, as I as I read through this, I had an idea in my head of what a deer fence might be, and that really guided my thinking when I thought about this, but we haven't yet defined deer fencing, so it's kind of putting the the deer before the cart to twist an analogy as I think about it.

Um but getting to to the micro of this specific thing, setting aside what I think are very legitimate comments by my colleagues about the the bigger picture.

Um would these fencances and what we're talking about here, is it we talking about just perimeter fencing, or would these also apply to what I've seen people do where deer fencing for lack of a better word, around four by eight plots of a garden in the front of a house.

Essentially it would apply to any fence that's within kind of the shaded area uh on the examples.

So it it could apply to kind of individual areas.

Because I'm thinking that's the follow-up question of like what defines a fence as a structure.

Is it you know, if is it around the property, is it around just a small thing?

And I think having the definition of what it what a deer fence is absent that I should say, it's it's difficult to for me to at least kind of come to a conclusion here.

Uh though with what I think a deer fence is, I have an idea.

So I hadn't even considered the notion that deer fence was like a proper noun kind of thing.

Uh it I thought what we were talking about was any sort of fencing can go up to eight feet, and and I guess that's meant at that height to be uh, you know, preventative maintenance around deer attacks.

Uh like I so I guess I'm coming to the realization that I absolutely agree that if we're gonna define, if we're gonna have rules around deer fencing, then it I think the definition of what comprises a deer fence really needs to be um spelled out because it's a it's a specific thing that we're talking about, and I thought it was just kind of a general fence, right?

Just went up to eight feet.

So I think that's definitely an issue.

And the other point that you guys made, I hadn't considered that either, but it's absolutely true that this kind of does seem like slippy slippery slope area.

Um the good news is that you know we have a city, we live in a city where they have commissions like this commission, which is populated by um volunteer citizens, and um, you know, it sort of is our job to be diligent on making sure that those slippery slope issues don't turn into those worst-case scenarios that we're compliment contemplating right now.

The reality of it is that um these deer are all over the place, they are nuisances already, they're already on the streets.

Um, and um, you know, the the I think expanding the uh you know from the current option to option number two, where we're adding you know a handful of feet more of of uh of fencing, uh I don't think it's necessarily gonna make a huge deal from a wild less cons conservation perspective.

But the reality of it is that whatever uh if ever we get to the point where we're managing these deers in a more holistic way, um the goal of that management is not gonna be extermination.

So the deer fencing, I think is always gonna be needed, it just may not be utilized as much.

Yeah, I agree with uh my final colleagues um point.

And when I first read this, I I really thought the deer fencing is different from regular fencing, like a board on board fencing, for example, uh not not deer fencing would be a see-through fence, just a very um thin material mesh.

You if is that the intention for this?

Yeah, that is the case, and uh, I guess we're I was remiss in not including a photograph of deer fencing, that it is uh kind of mounted on very thin poles with mesh in between, uh that almost looks like more of a temporary fence than say a permanent fence that's wood or or some other more permanent material.

Uh but yes, that is the case, and um the county's code defines uh the mesh and you know how big the um the different pieces of of everything is.

So um that's something that we could bring back to you uh if you're agreeable to including a definition of deer fence, then we could bring that back to you uh for your consideration.

And that was that is part of our recommendation that deer fence in particular be defined.

Yeah, I I think that's a better idea, yeah, with the definition and some pictures to call it show what this meant will be.

Yeah.

Okay.

In case it's useful in the meantime, and I I apologize for jumping in, um, but we do have Montgomery County's definition, if you all would like me to read it in the meantime.

Yes, please.

Sure.

So it is a fence that is up to eight feet high and constructed of an open mesh ranging in size from 1.5 by 1.5 inches to two by 2.75 inches made of heavyweight plastic or similar material that allows a clear view through the fence and maybe constructed with a wood metal or fiberglass posts.

So do we plan to use a similar definition?

Yes.

Yes.

I mean, that's something that uh can be purchased at you know, at stores that sell fencing materials.

So we can include that in the code.

So I have a question.

So when you compare the Rockville code with the Montgomery County code, the front yard, our code allows up to four feet, and the Montgomery County allows up to 6.5 feet.

Is that the front yard line is where the bottom line of that blue area that is?

The uh in this scenario, the little projection in red, that's the front porch.

So the front, the the main, I guess, building wall of the house is kind of where the blue ends.

So everything forward of that, uh including of the front porches is part of the front yard.

But the fence is only allowed up to the blue line.

An eight-foot tall fence.

Eight foot tall.

So we're the four foot apply.

The four foot area is the white area.

So in the white area, a four-foot deer fence is allowed.

Any type of four-foot tall fence.

Yeah.

We're not here at four feet, you're not deterring deer.

Somewhat argued eight feet.

You're probably not deterring there, especially when that fence starts sagging and people aren't replacing them and they become an ISOR.

Yeah.

Just throwing that out there.

I've seen it happen.

We had an eight-foot deer fence at our home in Texas, and it was um just kind of for show.

No, right.

And I've lived in Minnesota in rural parts, which is just deer fencing everywhere.

So, folks who aren't aware what it looks like when every home has deer fencing, you know, we're in for a rude awakening.

I'm just putting that out there.

No deer fencing, it was a status symbol, but but apparently somewhere people put it in for show.

I mean, if it's not functioning, um, do we allow it?

And it's not aesthetic authentically pleasing.

If you have the not uh the unambitious deer, it'll work.

It's it's worked in the in the count in the county for the most part.

Yes, there are incursions, if you will.

Um, but it's uh it works.

Uh and I would recommend uh going with the county definition and option two.

So commissioners, do we want to bring back this topic where we can make um recommendation today with counties definition?

Yeah, I mean, I'd be comfortable making a recommendation with counties definition now that we have it.

I I don't necessarily need to see a picture.

I I concur with my two colleagues.

Okay, so do we all agree we can recommend option two with county's definition?

Yes.

Okay.

I I think we do when we transmit this with our comments.

I I would like some of our comments to be included, that this really is part of a much larger problem.

And it we're not gonna solve this with deer fencing.

Um, if that's okay with my fellow commissioners to include the comments.

This is we we need a comprehensive urban wildlife management plan.

Other communities have them.

You can find them online.

Yeah, we can include that in your in your memo recommendation memo.

Thank you.

Okay.

I agree.

Thank you.

Uh maybe we come off to the next topic.

Okay, the next topics uh are use standards, and Holly Simmons, who is remote this evening, is gonna cover those.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Wazlack, and good evening.

Um, Madam Chair, members of the commission.

Uh, for the record, Holly Simmons deputy zoning manager with the city.

I do apologize that I'm not able to be there in person this evening.

So moving on to use standards, we do have a number of key changes in this area.

This honestly is one of the largest.

Um I would say one of the largest structural restructuring um restructurings in the zoning ordinance.

Currently, our ordinance does not have a set-aside article that deals with uses and use standards specifically.

They are distributed throughout the code in a number of different places, but we really wanted to bring them all together in one location, uh, primarily for transparency and ease of access.

So I'm gonna run through the key changes.

A lot of these you have seen previously at your, I believe it was August 13th work session on uses and parking, but it's worth revisiting them, and then we will focus in on a number of specific uses, which were also addressed in the brief book.

Touch on those, I'll address each one of them in turn.

And then I think if there are ones that the commission would like to return to, we can take them one by one.

So starting off with our key changes, we did work to ensure that all of our use terms are defined and defined with clear and current definitions.

We also worked to update the list of uses.

This included eliminating uses which are currently obsolete or not anticipated to be seen much in the future, adding new uses, one of which we'll discuss here this evening.

And in certain instances, consolidating uses where it made sense.

As we currently have them, they're divided between four or five different articles with different sets of zones, but that makes it quite difficult to be able to understand if you have a use, what are the what zones could you locate that use in without flipping back and forth through the code?

And also there were many different because the ordinance has been updated through time, there are many different use terms used for similar uses in different articles within those separate tables.

So we worked to bring all of that into one location and make it consistent.

And for accuracy, we redefined permitted versus conditional uses.

So currently in our ordinance, a permitted use is understood to be a use that has no use standards.

However, if you look throughout all of the various articles of the current zoning ordinance, there are many permitted uses which do have use standards.

So we redefined those permitted uses to say if you have a use standard that applies in every single zone, you are still considered to be permitted.

And then if there are standards that vary from one zone to the next, for example, you have to comply with a certain standard in the MXB zone, but you don't have to comply with that same standard in the MXNC zone, then that would be a conditional use.

And then finally, transition many special exception uses to permitted or conditional uses.

And this was as recommended by our ongoing FAST2 effort, which aims to make our development review and permitting processes faster, accountable, smarter, and transparent.

So that is a high-level view of the key changes when it comes to uses and use standards.

There is another one that I have bookmarked in the nonconformity section because it applies a little bit more directly there.

And I'll go into some of the specific uses that we did want to highlight for you all this evening.

So this really this list really was generated primarily by members of the Mayor and Council calling out specific uses that they wanted a bit more information or discussion on, and then also a few uses identified by staff.

The first one is accessory dwelling units.

So as I'm sure you're aware, our current ordinance permits both attached and detached accessory dwelling units.

They were addressed in two different zoning text amendments in 2023 and then in 2024.

And because of this, they were codified in different sections of the zoning ordinance.

So as with many things that you heard two weeks ago and this evening, we took those standards and again consolidated them into one location.

So when it comes to the detached and attached ADUs, we did work to simplify the regulations to the best of our abilities, applying a common set of use standards, removing owner occupancy requirements, and addressing requirements, particularly from the attached ADU requirements.

Currently, it says our zoning ordinance says that an attached ADU may not have a different address than the primary dwelling unit, and we've removed that requirement.

And then it maintains size limitations for detached ADUs.

The next use is large group homes, and this is specifically group homes that are serving nine to 16 residents.

So these group homes are something that are licensed by the state or the county.

So it's not just a house that houses a lot of folks.

It is something specific and separate.

And we do have permissions also for standard group homes, which are smaller, anything up to eight residents, but then these large group homes really are group homes serving nine to 16 residents.

So currently these are treated as a special exception, which requires additional process and additional findings in our current zoning ordinance.

And again, in keeping with FAST 2, the staff draft transitions them to a conditional use.

So with that, we did work to identify use standards that might still keep some of the same intent of that special exception.

And those are really a two-part standard.

One is that they're not permitted in apartments, cottage courts, multiplexes, or townhouse units, and then in the single unit residential zones, they would be required to have a minimum one quarter separation from other large group homes.

We also wanted to touch on front loaded townhouses.

So these are specifically townhouses with garages that are facing the street.

And you've heard some testimony this evening.

We also have received written testimony from folks in the development community, including the Maryland Building Industry Association.

So the standards that are proposed here are really intended to address conflicts due to limited frontage and dedicated and dedicated driveways in those limited frontage lots.

So our Department of Public Works identified that it can be very difficult for these front-loaded townhouses specifically to accommodate all of the site elements, including wet and dry utilities, stormwater management facilities, street trees, and storm drains, etc.

So we did want to specifically state in the use standards that they must be designed to accommodate site elements, including those that I just listed.

And then we also further are proposing that garage doors may only take up 50% of the ground floor facade and driveways may be no greater than 10 feet wide within the first eight feet of the curb.

These standards are things that we did work with our consultants to try and come up with again items that would limit the impact or limit the conflict between all of the site elements and the driveways on these narrower lots.

And worked with our Department of Public Works really to home in on these standards.

So we certainly have heard testimony though that this may be difficult for the building community.

Next is adult-oriented establishments and shooting galleries, specifically their location requirements, and this is something that the mayor and council wanted a bit more information on.

When it comes to adult-oriented establishments, currently our zoning ordinance prohibits these uses within 1,000 feet of any residence, school, church, library, public facility, or public building.

And we are not proposing to change that requirement in the staff draft of the zoning ordinance.

When it comes to shooting galleries, there's currently no location restriction, but we are proposing to prohibit them within 200 feet of a residential zone.

So you will notice that the location requirements are different in our proposals for adult-oriented establishments and shooting galleries.

We did inquire with our consultants as to why they recommended a different locational requirement for shooting galleries as opposed to the adult-oriented establishments.

Quite a bit of information is included in the staff report that they were able to provide to us, and it really comes down to the intent of those locational requirements.

With the shooting galleries, the concern seems to be much more around noise and the impact of noise on adjacent residences, whereas with the adult-oriented establishments, it's more of kind of a moral concern.

Next up is electric vehicle charging.

So this is a completely new use.

We are proposing through the staff draft that this would be allowed in all zones.

However, sole purpose EV charging hubs would be restricted to auto-oriented and industrial areas.

So you can see on the table here the areas that the staff draft proposes an EV charging hub could be a principal use, and then all of the other zones where it could be accessory to a different principal use.

So the locations identified for it to be a principal use or permitted as a principal use would be in either of the industrial zones in our mixed-use corridor district and mixed-use corridor transition district, which are a bit more auto-oriented, as well as the MXB, our mixed-use business zone.

And then in our more walkable mixed-use neighborhood commercial district and mixed use transit districts, as well as our lowest intensity mixed use commercial, mixed use transition districts, and then our more employment focused mixed use employment district.

And then in our more walkable mixed-use neighborhood commercial district and mixed use transit districts, as well as our lowest intensity mixed use commercial, mixed use transition districts, and then our more employment focused mixed use employment district, these would be still permitted, but only as an accessory use.

When we previewed this with the mayor and council, some members of the mayor and council did raise concerns about this, particularly when it comes to the potential to allow an existing gas station to convert into a sole purpose EV charging station.

So we are asking the planning commission to consider whether you think it would be appropriate to revise the use permissions to allow EV charging as a principal use in specifically the MXE, MXNC, and MXTD zones.

Understanding that the reason that we did not recommend them in those zones is because they are intended to be a bit more walkable or higher employment generating, but this is something for consideration.

Finally, zooming out just a bit, we also wanted to speak generally about our use-based gross floor area requirements.

So a number of our lower intensity mixed use zones do have restrictions for the gross floor areas of a use.

So we did examine all of these.

They were reviewed and updated by our consultant team along with all of the dimensional standards that are specific to uses.

And we are proposing to carry them forward in principle from the current zoning ordinance into the staff draft with revisions.

So there is a table in your brief book.

It's copied here on this slide with just a few example uses, their current use or gross floor area restrictions, and then also the staff draft proposal.

So you will see changes from one to the other.

We did want to note in just a general discussion about these use-based gross floor area restrictions.

Some zoning ordinances do not employ them at all.

For example, our neighbor Gaithersburg really does not make use of specific use-based gross floor area restrictions, very little, if at all.

Whereas our zoning ordinance does make use of these.

And in a lot of ways, the use permissions are integrated, that they're kind of integral to our use permissions.

So it is a way of limiting intensity in some of these lower intensity zones.

But it certainly can also impact what is what is feasible or what is permitted in the zones.

And that is the last slide in this section.

So I will pause there.

Thank you, Musimus.

And let's open for discussion.

So do you want us to discuss um topic by topic?

Yeah, maybe let's do that.

Can you go back to the first topic?

I will say with some of these, um, if the commission has additional thoughts, that is excellent and welcome.

Some of them it is really just a preview or an overview of what is in the staff draft.

Sure.

So any um comment or thoughts on the ADU topic.

Okay, that maybe we can move to the next large group.

Large group homes.

I'll just say for it's interesting that there's a definition for large group homes, but there's no limit on unrelated individuals in a household.

So effectively, I can have 16 unrelated people in a house.

And if it doesn't require a state license, that's fine.

But if I require a state license and go through that procedure, then I give them a zoning problem.

So it seems to me we're we're sort of um making it tougher for supervision in a group house than we are to have an unsupervised group house.

And I don't know if the city wants to do that.

Um just provide a little I apologize.

Uh Ms.

Simmons, you want to go ahead.

Would love to.

Thank you.

Um, I'm sure that Mr.

Dumay was going to say essentially the same thing that I am going to, um, which is this is something that we discussed at length back in August.

Uh, Commissioner Zionce, and I know you don't have the benefit of having been here in August.

Um, currently our zoning ordinance does, as you say, put a cap on the number of unrelated folks who can live in the same in the same dwelling.

When we looked at, and it it is quite convoluted, it includes the definition of uh what is a boarding house and the use permissions, and it ties to um something else entirely that I'm forgetting.

It took me many times with Mr.

Wazlack explaining to me exactly how it all works out to have this restriction on the number of individuals who can live within one dwelling for me to fully understand it, which uh certainly raised, I think a question and a problem for us of how do we make it more transparent.

So ultimately, we the policy that is in the current zoning ordinance, which does restrict unrelated individuals within one dwelling unit to five, is still being retained in city code.

However, it is being moved to our property maintenance code, um, which is where many more of that type of regulation live.

And part of the reason that we made that recommendation back in August was that this is not a restriction that varies from zone to zone.

It is consistent throughout the city, and so it didn't seem like it needed to be something reflect with reflected within our zoning regulations necessarily.

However, um I think the issue that you're raising is exactly right, and we still are proposing to retain it within city code.

The on the update of that portion of city code is currently ongoing with our our colleagues in the Department of Housing and Community Development.

And Mr.

Dumay, if you had anything to add, or if I've mischaracterized anything, please do not hesitate.

Commissioner Zions, are you okay with well?

Uh I mean, it's sure does seem like a zoning limitation to me, but I uh agree and understand there are other limitations on number of people in dwelling units by health codes.

Now those those limits get to be 50 square feet per person, and they're they can really pack people into a house that you wouldn't want to see.

Uh but I think it's more traditional just to have a household definition uh within a dwelling unit.

A dwelling unit is a place in which one household exists, and that seems pretty simple.

But uh I don't I'm not trying to beat dead horses or dead deers.

Um maybe I'm missing something.

But the single family home with up to five unrelated individuals.

Um that's a I'm thinking that's just a regular house.

It's got one kitchen, maybe a couple of bathrooms and a few bedrooms.

Um a large group home structurally, I would think would have one kitchen, lots of bedrooms, maybe each one has a bathroom.

So maybe structurally they're similar but not quite identical architecturally.

Like, is there a difference between a single family home and a large group home structurally?

Is it just square footage?

I don't think there need not be.

They can be the same.

They need a sanitation facilities and cooking facilities and sleeping facilities.

Um other than that, they can be designed in any way.

Within the limits of the zone.

Yeah, that's exactly right.

Structurally, there does not necessarily need to be a difference.

The definition of a large group home, since that's the one we're looking at right now, is that it's a facility that is licensed by the state and county and operates as a group home or domiciliary care home, offering residential accommodation, supervision, or assisted community living to, in this instance, nine to sixteen um residents or the limit set by state or county law, whichever is less.

So the definition for the small group home is the same, except that the limit on the residence is three to eight residents, or the limit set by state or county law, whichever is less.

But you're exactly right.

The facility itself, um, it could be within your standard single unit detached development.

So maybe I'm missing something.

So it sounds like what you're saying is we do have, in fact, a regulation that regulation limits the number of people to five that are unrelated living in a house, and that if you want more than five, presumably that's when you apply for a license to do a group home.

In this case, we're talking about large group homes.

So this encompasses the portion between uh uh so I guess a small group home would be five to eight, and then a large group home would be nine to sixteen.

So I I I guess I'm not really understanding how it is that we would get from five to pecking them in at 50 per uh 50 foot a person.

What am I missing there?

Of course, they have to be licensed as well, which is different than the health code standards.

So um the licensing might have some other requirements as well.

Uh but uh it seems to me again the the definition of a household goes into the definition of what's a single family, but that's just me.

Uh and and then I understand some restrictions on group homes, but otherwise I don't.

Commissioners, if it would be helpful, um, one of the other reasons that we wanted to make the switch, the question really in our minds as staff was you know, where is the appropriate place to put the restriction on the number of unrelated people that can live in a single family uh or single dwelling unit, um not whether to have it or not.

Um, and and because this is an issue that we have in Rockville where individuals illegally rent their homes to more people than really the homes can safely accommodate.

Um when we uh at in the city attorney's office have to take a municipal infraction to the district court, one of the things we have to do is explain the violation.

And what we have found is that it's much easier to explain uh, for example, a violation of our uh landlord and and rental code or a violation of our property maintenance code than to go through the steps of trying to explain that the individual was cited for a zoning violation for, for example, operating in a legal boarding house, um which is the current, which would be the current violation if we were to cite somebody for violating that provision of our current zoning ordinance.

It requires just some additional explanation and additional steps, and candidly, we didn't see a reason to include it.

Um, the other challenges with including it in the zoning ordinance traditionally is that it required us to define a family, um which also is problematic as you can understand.

Um so again, from from my perspective, certainly, there's literally no downside to the avenue that we've chosen to take.

Um it should result, frankly, in more efficient enforcement and and clearer violations that we can issue.

Okay, so the the initial assertion was that it was easier to make a house of 16 people that was unregulated than it was to make a house of 16 people that was regulated.

That's not actually true.

That that this ordinance would make sure that that does not have that's the only thing I'm trying to get at, right?

I I don't want there to be a loophole here that says uh let's just go ahead and do this and make it easier for it to be illegal than it is that than it is to be legal.

That's not what we're looking at here.

Right.

It it's my error for not reading all of Rockville's codes instead of just the code.

I'm not trying to blame anyone.

I'm not looking for a Mia Copa.

I'm just trying to get from from the authority, that's in fact the case.

Is it that that's correct assertion?

That is certainly our intention, yes.

All right, thank you for the clarification.

Commissioner Flutter.

Uh Mr.

Jume anticipated my question, so thank you very much.

Now, with that understanding, of course, I I'm okay with making these conditional uses to the extent that we can, as opposed to doing everything by special exception.

Okay, so it seems like we come to a conclusion on this topic.

We recommend the staff draft.

Okay.

Thank you.

Then we can come to the friend loaded issues.

Uh no, I got it.

I got it.

Couple couple questions.

Um first question, uh would this apply to all townhomes, including MPDU units?

As written, it would apply to all front-loaded townhouses.

So if they are rear-loaded where the car comes in um to a garage in the rear accessed by an alley, it would not apply, but it would apply to any unit that has the garage on the front.

Okay.

Um, second question: if we are updating the regulations to require that all of the the conflicts be met with the the wet and dry utilities and and everything that DPW has identified.

If we are already putting that in, uh then why an additional design standard guidance?

What what more is to be accomplished with that than is not covered by the initial thing that we're we're putting in there to be out of conflict with those things?

It's a good question.

Um we had extensive conversations between the Department of Community Planning and Development Services and the Department of Public World.

Um, and I believe we reached a place where particularly folks in our Department of Public Works who have great difficulty in getting all of the site and the necessary site elements to be addressed on site, wanted just I think additional reassurances over and above simply stating that in fact the applicant does need to address all of their um requirements on site.

The only thing I'll say in follow-up to that, I guess to my fellow commissioners and in general large, is I'd like to see us be able to hold developers, property owners to that higher standard, um, generally speaking, full stop without then going into things about the the driveways and the garage door facades.

Um, we hear a lot of things about how uh let developers do creative solutions and they'll figure it out.

Well, they can figure this out.

So just speaking as a citizen, someone who used to live in a townhouse when I had little kids, and now I'm old and I got big kids, so it doesn't really matter to me so much.

But I can tell you that uh I was appreciative uh when I was uh a young up and comer um of having a house that I could afford to live in that I could have my kids still play in the backyard.

Um if I didn't have that, it would have been an entirely different experience for those kids.

Um and by essentially putting in a design element that negates the possibility of having a uh uh uh a backyard for a type of housing that is really geared towards people with young kids, I think that's a disservice we're doing to all the residents of the city.

I I don't like it at all.

I wouldn't want to live there.

I might go to Gettysburg instead.

I I agree with everything being said.

Uh I think we should recommend the standards that they facil that the the project needs to accommodate those things we need to accommodate, but not have absolute standards for uh the minimum maximum driveway width or uh percentage of garage door space.

I think we can reach that happy medium.

I agree with that.

I do want to just mention that there is a body of research that shows that front loaded uh townhomes discourage streetscapes, they discourage walkability, they discourage front porches and and activation out in front, but I also get the backyard thing.

So it it's I think we need to make sure we're still encouraging a mix of front-loaded and rear-loaded townhomes, um, and not shutting one down in favor of the other or and also I mean, understand the Department of Public Works has concerns, and I think we need to really balance that out with the needs of development and the need our housing needs.

Um yeah, I hear there are two sides of this, right?

And so I just want to understand.

Does staff know how much of the front loaded townhouses has been approved or built in the recent years?

How many?

I'm not sure we could say with specific numbers.

I know some of the more recent townhouse developments have been a mix of front-loaded and rear-loaded townhouses, you know, to kind of fit on the sites that uh which frequently are infill sites.

So to make that all work, it's been a mix of of them within a single development.

Well, I was thinking like given this is something that we worked with the public works, and that there's something that we encourage the pedestrian um frontage of everything, and maybe we want to leave some flexibility in the code to say in certain situations and variations can be made based on the quit some criteria, some difficulties or the just leave some flexibilities.

That's what the recommendation would do.

It would say you have to accommodate the facilities and infrastructure you need, but not have a uh a particular standard for the maximum driveway side or the maximum garage door.

So it would give the developer flexibility to solve the problem.

So, does that encourage um more pedestrian friendly environment?

That doesn't say well, the those pedestrian amenities were would be all part of the the full package for for the design of the project.

So it would have to provide sidewalks and and all of that.

Yes, the buildings would be set back and a driveway in the front, but the uh the inf pedestrian infrastructure would still be there, and we still have to accommodate everything else that our public works department requires to service those units.

I I just think having an overarching rule that negates one type of housing uh or one type of design um when we have a process in place that we would allow us to judge the pedestrian friendliness of any given you know site plan when it comes in front of this commission.

To me, that's a better way to manage this whole process because you can't say sitting here today that there's a particular way to build every single home on every single lot in every single piece of infill in Rockville that is better for pedestrian-wise than another one, right?

We it really needs to be sort of a bespoke decision for a bespoke uh level two site plan, which we we'd see anyways.

And that's that's my question.

When is when a plan's brought to us, wouldn't the Department of Public Works say, well, the the requirements of this site mean that the driveways can be no greater than 10 feet wide and that kind of thing.

Wouldn't that be part of the Department of Public Works assessment of each site?

So I so I think that's what we're all getting at here is that we really don't need that restrictive language in the zoning code because the Department of Public Works is going to bring that forward when a project is brought forward.

You know, if there are not standards and they're gonna judge uh by what's presented and provide that evaluation, right?

Proposed they're gonna look at it.

Yeah, for the requirements of that site.

Is that correct?

I mean, that's what we do, right?

Yes, absolutely.

Coming from there.

Okay, so what I hear is we come to a conclusion, maybe we don't include that two restrictions when the garage doors may only take up to 50%, and then the driveway may be no greater than 10 feet.

So we take out those two restrictions and keep the rest for this recommendation.

Do we commissioners agree on this?

Okay.

Thank you.

And let's move to the next topic.

What a great comparison.

Adult businesses and shooting galleries.

And where I come from, shooting galleries are not indoor facilities for shooting guns.

There's something else a little more less congenial to uh residential living.

Uh in any event, the first thing I wanted to know, is there any evidence of the complaints about adult-oriented establishment?

Is there real evidence that they decreased values or increase crime and or part of that crime would be minors seeing uh pornography?

That would be a crime.

That's not something different.

But is there real evidence of those two things?

So we did reach out to our consultants about this question.

I'm sorry, I know I'm like a voice from the sky.

Um we did reach out to our consultants about this question, and they did inform us that there is some evidence of this.

However, the studies are not particularly recent.

I will say when it comes to the adult-oriented establishment standard, because we were not proposing to change it, we did not go and do a thorough review of what is the existing literature to understand um a current response to your question.

But there is contained within your brief book a comparison of similar um similar standards for nearby jurisdictions.

So it is not completely um out of the ordinary to have a standard of this nature.

To follow up on that as well from a legal perspective, um, unsurprisingly, there is quite a lot of um case law, including before the US Supreme Court on the regulation of adult establishments.

Um what I will say, two points to make is one is both the city's ordinance and um consistent with what's referred to as the secondary effects doctrine under under U.S.

Supreme Court law is designed primarily to regulate the negatives exactly the negative externalities or the negative secondary effects of these uses.

It's not related to the speech content of the use.

So I wanted to put that on the record.

Um the other point to make is that the thousand foot limit from uh, for example, residential properties or um churches or public facilities is consistent with regulations that have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court over probably a 30 or 40 year period.

Um, but to miss Simmons' point, it is true that in this case we we didn't do an independent dive into sort of new new negative externalities.

We were relying on presumably the research that was done when these regulations were first put into effect in Rockville.

I had a similar question about the shooting gallery change.

What was the feedback to drive that?

I mean, I I know that the brief book talked about concerns versus safety and noise.

I I'm just curious as to how that was like how that was received, right?

Because uh my understanding is there is no outdoor shooting galleries in Rockville, they're all indoor.

And I could be wrong on that, but I was just curious as to how that feedback from the public is received on that.

So to date, we have not received feedback from the public on that specific standard.

It was raised by Mayor and Council, this comparison between the adult-oriented establishments and the shooting gallery location requirements.

So we know that it is on their radar.

Um the proposal really was generated by our consultants.

However, if the planning commission were not comfortable with it or wanted to stick with what our current standard is of the no location restriction, I think that would probably be perfectly appropriate as a recommendation.

Or we could look at the language that we propose to include regarding, I think it's the animal boarding establishments, particularly where it talks about um kind of noise proofing and soundproofing, so that that type of facility could be in denser areas to serve um folks who live nearby young professionals, et cetera.

And I guess my follow-up is to Mr.

Dumay, since Rockville has never had this restriction, right?

Are we concerned at all about potential litigation if we impose this now with no history?

I I realize surrounding jurisdictions have included it, and I think the court would apply an intermediate standard here, but my concern would be opening the city up to extended litigation on this.

I mean, I think ultimately, well, first of all, there are different standards involving speech and sort of the health safety and welfare regulation of uses that may pose dangers to the community, like for example, the use of firearms.

Um, I think the city is going to have to rely on an explanation of why it believes that the additional uh distance restriction would promote or preserve the public health safety and welfare.

And so to the extent that that would need to be added to the record, I mean, that would be my recommendation is that we we expect essentially that we justify the change.

Um but you know, I guess I'll leave it at that.

But but here's what's in the material that you gave to us on shooting galleries.

The overriding concerns are that the noise created by uh shooting firearms and the need to prevent the accidental discharge of a bullet or projectile beyond the property line.

I don't know of a bullet that only goes 200 feet.

What are it's ridiculous to say that that is something we're protecting by this distance.

Aside from the fact the the definition of shooting gallery is an indoor range.

Um, but in any event, it does my heart a disservice to say that we have a less restrictive definition for shooting galleries than we do for adult businesses.

But that's just me.

So I got a question.

We we had something similar um when we I think it was during our vape shop discussion where it was, and I can't remember if it was a thousand feet, if it was more or less than a thousand feet, but a similar prohibition of where they can be located.

And that prohibition ended up with basically no place in Rockville could you actually put in a uh a vape shop under that proposal.

Do we know like under this thousand feet?

Do we know like under this thousand feet does is this a de facto ban like have we done that that that map exercise we have not uh although one thing that um maybe is not being considered here on both of these is that there are only certain zones that these uses are even permitted in so um shooting galleries and I believe adult oriented establishments are only permitted in the industrial zone.

So they're not permitted on Royfield Pike they're not permitted in those areas where you're gonna find a school or church or library or a public facility already in most cases but certainly there are churches that are in close proximity to the industrial zone.

So it's kind of putting the additional layer on it in addition to the zoning that dictates the location uh that can deal with more specific situations that's an important clarification.

So a quick follow up and I don't know if you'll be able to answer this but when did Rockville gain the authority to regulate shooting galleries?

Was it when the city incorporated or is it more recent development in the 20th century?

Like there's there's a state law that says you cannot outlaw a shooting range but I don't know that you know I don't know what Rockville has done.

So the city's had the the authority to regulate uses nuisance uses to the extent this is considered a nuisance use for as long as it's had zoning authority.

So that would have been since for about for the about the last hundred years.

So my concern here is we haven't done anything in a hundred years and now we're doing it and I don't know that to Mr.

Dumay's point the record is there to explain why we're doing it now.

And so I'd have serious concern including this ordinance.

So I know we're not voting on it we're just making a recommendation but that would be kind of my view.

And you know I guess I'll contradict you a little bit I do see a difference right between adult oriented establishments and shooting galleries.

The Boy Scouts wouldn't necessarily go right to adult oriented but they would go to a shooting gallery that's just my view.

I I do but but the thought of the distance we're recommending prevents strays bullets is is not credible.

So I why not make them both the same at least a thousand square foot from any residence for the shooting galleries will that work?

Do we still have some land that would qualify I think it probably would um it would address kind of the perimeter residential in some parts of the city that are adjacent to the industrial zone.

So um but I think there still would be some industrial zone land that would that would remain um but we can you know look at that a little closer to to let you know more definitively so do we currently have a shooting gallery definition?

It's a definite oh sorry you mean in the current code do we have a definition?

That I don't know oh actually in the current code I don't believe that we do I would need to confirm that but I can look up really quickly what the current uh or what the proposed shooting gallery definition is if you all are interested I have it here now I'm interested it's only indoors or yes outdoor any establishment which as part of its activities provides a location in which firearms are discharged indoors okay well with indoor then it's yeah can we can we change this to indoor shooting range instead of shooting gallery I don't know maybe it's me it just seems the definition of the door that you call it right okay I can see I think I tend to agree that um for safety reasons that the distance should be greater and standardized to uh the adult businesses um but I get what you're saying about we're setting the precedent with this correct that's what I'm hearing you and Commissioner Espinoza talk about that this would be setting the precedent because we we're going from nothing to a thousand feet is that correct um yes I mean as with any use we're you know as with any use we ought to as a city be making good faith efforts to ensure that our regulations are are appropriately designed right for for appropriate public purposes our general police powers as a city are very broad um but generally speaking we want to ensure that there's a rationale for our for our regulations regardless of what the use is whether it's something that's protected speech for example like the adult oriented establishments or or the discharge of firearms but you know again the question for the ultimately for the mayor and council is going to be to determine whether there's sufficient evidence in the record sufficient support in the record in this case to justify creating a restriction that didn't exist previously and and is it is it ensuring the the you know for the protection of the of the public um

Um, but generally speaking, we want to ensure that there's a rationale for our for our regulations, regardless of what the use is, whether it's something that's protected speech, for example, like the adult-oriented establishments or or the discharge of firearms.

But you know, uh again, the question for the ultimately for the mayor and council is going to be to determine whether there's sufficient evidence in the record sufficient support in the record in this case to justify creating a restriction that didn't exist previously, and and is it is it ensuring the you know for the protection of the of the public?

Um, I I don't know that just it, you know the idea that conceptually shooting galleries or the discharge of firearms should be equated to adult-oriented establishments, and therefore we should equalize the distance is necessarily the justification that we want.

Obviously, these are different uses and the harms that would be created by the uses are quite different as well.

Um you can draw some parallels.

For example, the the lowering of property values, which is something that could be considered in the regulation of adult-oriented establishments.

So I think the question for the planning commission in making recommendation is do you think that restriction is justified?

Do you think it should be increased?

And if so, why?

Or do you think we shouldn't have a restriction at all, a locational restriction?

And and that could be based on our past experiences in the city.

Do we have these uses?

And if so, if we had complaints.

So do we currently have a shooting gallery exist in Rockview?

I'm not sure, to be honest.

I think Atlantic shooting gallery is in the city of Rockwell, but I'm not entirely sure.

I think Atlantic is a gun store.

I don't think they have shooting galleries.

They have a shooting gallery nearby.

So really but I'm not we we'd have to check it.

Yeah, I think they used to be, but I'm not sure now.

So it's a permitted use now.

Shooting galleries or permitted use.

Yes.

Without restriction.

They are a special exception.

There are special exception use in the industrial zones, the same as the adult-oriented establishments, and that is currently the case and proposed to remain the case.

Thank you.

So the fact that it's special exception and that it is restricted to certain areas, there are restrictions.

Not that there aren't restrictions, there are restrictions.

We're incorporating one additional restriction.

And could the justification not just be that we're bringing our use uh rules more in line with other local jurisdictions?

Are is there is there a an application currently in flight right now for one of these?

So if we're setting a precedent without any um you know, use case without with without any current application out there, then I I I guess I don't really understand where our liabil or additional liabilities coming from.

If we already have uh uh restrictions and that you know what we're pro what we're proposing is very much akin to what local other local jurisdictions already have in place I I think in the staff's um report, there are some jurisdictions have more wider uh more uh larger distance, and some jurisdictions don't have any restriction.

So it's really up to us to determine.

That's what I was gonna say.

It's a mixed bag, right?

Some do, some don't, and so I don't know that the city has established a rationale why we're doing this now, especially if there's no feedback from the public on it.

Um I think I've made my position clear.

I don't think we should change it, right?

We should just leave it as current.

I see a big distinction between a shooting gallery and adult-oriented.

So I'm not in line with the distance.

Um that's just kind of my be and and I am concerned about in this current environment opening the city up for extended litigation on it, potentially I agree with Commissioner Espinosa.

I see a big difference between adult-oriented establishments and shooting galleries.

Uh so I don't see a need to wholesale equate those two.

Um these are different purposes and different people have different reasons for wanting them to be separate.

I don't have an issue with the change for the shooting galleries, the big caveat is unless it opens us up to potential litigation to the the potential conflicts that that Commissioner Hesbonus was talking about.

Um but yeah, just wholesale kind of equating these two in terms of distance.

I I don't think that's I don't have an app take on that.

I think that uh adult-oriented establishments are fine the way they are, and the status proposal to leave it that way is fine.

Um shooting galleries, I like the extra layer of protection as necessary as long as it's justified and it doesn't open us up to potential harm or litigation.

But if there's an avenue that would see the city come under duress for that, then it's not worth the squeeze.

Any other things?

So my thought is the 200 feet, it doesn't amount to anything.

I mean, it's a indoor facility.

If uh it doesn't have bulletproof walls, then it should have been a shouldn't have been approved for construction in the first place.

I don't think anyone's gonna get hit by a stray bullet from an adequately built indoor shooting gallery.

Uh I don't see why why we need to make a change there.

So I hear two opinions.

One is we just keep the current um current zoning ordinance, no restrictions, and another opinion is to uh keep the staff proposed 200 feet.

So maybe we we have a draw vault.

I'll go no restriction.

So shall we have a stroll vote on this?

Yeah, so um who in favor of just keep ET is for current zoning, please raise your hand.

Okay.

So who is in favor of staff's proposal, please raise your hand?

Okay, I I guess we have a clear result.

So we are in recommending keep the current appropriate current zoning code.

So we're saying that we're not going to have any location restrictions on shooting galleries.

Is that what we're saying?

So what we're saying is we're not doing the 200 feet of a residential zone.

Well, the current is no location restriction.

Well, no location restriction except for the fact that it is only available, you're only able to build one in certain zones, right?

In the industrial zone.

So that is a location restriction.

It's just not it's not uh uh I guess bound by feet in in terms of its uh proximity to a residential zone.

So our industrial zone in South Lawn, is that are there any of the like the old print shop, that big print shop that's on the corner of South Lawn and corners.

Isn't that within 200 feet of residential?

So someone so someone currently could take that building over and put a shooting gallery in there right across from twin right across from the Lincoln Park um uh center.

But they'd have to go through special exception, and so all of the kind of nuisance things and compatibility would be looked at as part of that process.

Right.

Just to I think because I think this this body does not approve special exceptions, so you don't have the experience of seeing what that approval process looks like.

In contrast to both conditional uses and permitted uses, special exceptions are not a it's not a buy-right use.

And there are a number of findings that the Board of Appeals has to make to ensure that a special exception can locate within a particular zone, one of which to Mr.

Waslick's point is um that the use at the location selected will not constitute a nuisance because of noise, traffic, number of people, or type of physical activity.

The Board of Appeals also has to ensure that there's not a change in the character of the neighborhood in which the use is proposed, that the use is not detrimental to the use or development of adjacent properties in the neighborhood.

It's a long way of saying, and I think some of the commissioners have have reached this conclusion as well, that it's difficult to see that the 200 foot restriction would impose an additional safeguard that wouldn't be adequately considered through the special exception process.

Of course, the commission can recommend whatever it would like, but it is a it's a fairly detailed and discretionary review that's involved in special exception approval.

And at the at the risk of belaboring the point, I'm realizing that the staff report probably was not sufficient to address the full range of this conversation.

Um, and for that I apologize.

There are also other standards that are proposed for shooting galleries, which I think probably more specifically get at the concerns related to noise and safety than perhaps this location requirement does.

For example, um, one of the standards would be that the facility's design must comply with occupational safety standards, including air filtration for lead and noise exposure limits.

The applicant must apply a security plan, which at a minimum contains a continuously operating video surveillance system located on all exterior entrances.

Um a coded locked, a coded keypad lock must be installed at each entrance into the shooting gallery, and it must be constructed in a manner such that a bullet of the maximum caliber fired within the range cannot escape from the structure, etc.

Uh so me Miss Siemens for those requirements that is not new proposed.

That is already in the zoning ordinance.

Those are not in the zoning ordinance.

Those were recommended by our consultants and reviewed by city staff.

So will they be in the new ordinance?

They're proposed to be contained in the new ordinance, yes.

Okay, so thank you for clarifying that.

So would that trigger any litigation issues?

Because that this location restriction is not the only new requirement that imposed for shooting gallery, sounds like based on Ms.

Simmons statement.

I mean, I I'm just throwing it out there.

I don't think Mr.

Dumay agrees with me that the risk is high.

Um I'm just more concerned of the current environment.

I I just don't see the need for a change.

Um especially with just a 200 foot change.

So if the we we we agree on this current no location restriction, but other restrictions, Miss Siemens just did will be incorporated into the new zoning code, right?

Okay, then I I feel comfortable.

Keep this location restrictions.

I just for the record, I'm not comfortable with that.

I I would I would prefer the staff plan and I would actually go a little further.

I see that Baltimore, I think it's Baltimore County has 500 feet.

And I say that as someone who shoots, who goes to shooting galleries, I have an NRA handgun license.

So I I have experience with this, and I'm I don't you know know other people's experiences, but just for the record, I'm outvoted, but for the record, I would prefer the staff proposal.

So can so since we just voted on this, right?

And so the commissioner uh commission as a body um vote on the keep the current location, current no location restriction, but can we incorporate our concerns into the transmitter to the mayor and council on this issue since it's debated?

Okay, so do we have any other comments on this topic?

Okay, um it's the time is about to approach nine o'clock, and so shall we have uh a short break for this meeting, given it might last longer commissioners?

Or you want to keep going?

Okay, then let's keep going in there.

Okay.

Then let's talk to the next topic is the EV charting station.

The I I think the staff has good recommendations with the concern for existing gas stations and allow them to be converted to EV stations.

I'd recommend the staff recommendation.

I'm good with that in at the risk of asking a question that's slightly off topic.

Um gas stations, um, you know, they're gasoline, they're brown fields, you have to do a lot of uh remission to get them to green states and do things with them.

In a world where, and I know they understand the impetus for this is we want to keep the the mixed use zones that are more pedestrian friendly and walkable.

Is there a world in which a gas station converts to an EV charging station and then can be built on top of as part of just a mixed use development?

Does that make sense what I'm saying?

To me, the question makes sense.

I don't know, and this is my personal knowledge.

I don't know of any projects um where that has happened, but that certainly doesn't mean that it couldn't happen.

I think it it seems like it would be within the realm of possibility, but again, I I do not have um specific knowledge there.

I won't hold it against you, Miss Simons.

Thank you.

No, it's it's just EVs uh charging stations exist in parking garages, and to the extent that 10 people are charging their cars, you could call it a future gas station, except it's electronic vehicles today.

So yeah, you could do it, but we'll see if it happens.

Any other thoughts?

I I would just say I'm comfortable with this.

This looks good.

Yeah, I'm comfortable with this too.

So no other um thoughts then maybe we we keep staff recommendation.

Thank you.

And let's move to next topic.

Use-based growth floor area requirements.

Drop them all.

Are we really afraid of too many uh health care facilities?

Is that a hazard to the public that it becomes a larger facility?

Uh we don't like medical uses, uh, you know, the limits are in the zone already.

If that's the use the market wants to put there, we should interfere with that.

I wouldn't know the reason why.

Any other thoughts.

I agree with coming from the science.

I think we don't need the um the square footage limitations.

I I I agree with you.

So are you saying are you are you saying that you agree with the staff draft zoning ordinance that eliminates the restriction on auctioneer and commercial gallery space, or you think we should eliminate all of these?

I I would be in favor of uh uh eliminating the restrictions for all of these proposed uses, not just the art and gallery one or the auctioneer and gallery one.

Yeah, come if you're on P.

I also agree with the need the square footage limitation.

Yeah, they need zone for those use.

So these uh these zones that we're talking about are specifically supposed to be low intensity mixed use zones.

Right?

There they are they are zoned this way because that is the intent.

The intent is to keep a portion of our mixed use zones low intensity.

And the reason we have that is because there are and have always been, as long as the current zoning ordinance has been in place, restrictions.

So if we take those restrictions out, what about these zones?

What keeps these zones low intensity?

The FAO.

I would say nothing.

Well, in that in that case, you're really looking at um your bulk regulations, your height restrictions, your setbacks, um, and not the restrictions on these specific uses.

But there would still be um as as you all have discussed before, limitations on what could be built in terms of form in these zones.

So that's to say it staff's uh assessment is that these restrictions don't actually keep these low intensity zones being used as low intensity zones.

That protection already exists, and these changes are then to what end.

This is this is actually a rather complicated question for me.

Um, and frankly, I think my thoughts um personally and professionally on these use-based gross floor area restrictions have kind of gone back and forth.

As noted, some ordinances simply don't use restrictions like these.

Um but ours uses them, I wouldn't say aggressively, but they are certainly present, particularly in the lower intensity zones.

Um I would say that there is something of a logic to which uses are allowed in some of these zones based on these gross floor area restrictions, but then they also certainly um can cause issues for proposed development.

I'm sure Mr.

Wazlack could tell you all about a recent proposal we had with a veterinary office in the MXMC, which wanted to um occupy a larger portion of the building because that simply was the space that they were fitting out.

Um and it ran up against issues with the gross floor area restrictions that are currently in our zoning ordinance.

Um things like that, I think certainly are unintended consequences.

So kind of the middle ground that we took with the staff draft was to keep these restrictions in place because it is quite a large policy change to eliminate them entirely, but ask Zone Code to update them to be more reflective of modern standards.

Um certainly if the planning commission says no, we don't want these anymore.

I think that probably would be in alignment with um broader goals of the mayor and council related to economic development.

Um but we might I I would say we might want to bring some specific ones.

I think if that is a direction that we are given, we can certainly take that um and move forward with it and perhaps reserve a little bit of time for additional conversation if we come up against any specific questions.

And Mr.

Wazilak, I know that you have much more experience with these restrictions than I do.

So if you had anything to say, or if you um disagreed with any anything I have said in my comments, I would be happy to hear that as well.

No, I would just add that I think these restrictions came into being the last time the code was rewritten.

And essentially along the lines of what Commissioner Saladine was discussing, where you have a small scale neighborhood shopping center where it might be okay to have a fairly boutique health and fitness fitness establishment, but you don't want a one life to take over the whole center and just be that.

So has it been effective in the in the 16 years that we've you've had it?

I I don't particularly think so.

Uh I think it was uh well intended, but hasn't really resulted in anything other than perhaps a negative, like uh Ms.

Simmons was mentioning about the um the uh veterinarian that um you know essentially they had to create a fiction where they split up their 5,000 square foot phase space into two 2500 square foot space to meet this requirement.

So any other thoughts, Commissioner?

I just a question.

So where in Rockville, so if we eliminate all square footage um limits, are we talking about you know there'll be a cost code on the pike and things like that?

Or where what are we what it can you kind of illustrate what that might look like?

Well, in the in the zones where the limits exist are MXNC.

So that's properties like the Twinburg Shopping Center and those retail areas right there.

Uh MXC, which is uh the Woodley Gardens Shopping Center, or currently Burgundy Park.

Uh MXT, of course, are the properties that are in the transition zone uh between town center and uh residential neighborhoods that um most of those properties are in the historic district, not all of them.

So um these are the very lowest intensity zones um that the city has uh for the mixed use areas.

It wouldn't be Rockville Pike and you know the more um intensive mixed use zones.

It's the low intensity mixed use zones that these exist in.

So we could potentially see Twinbrook Shopping Center replaced by one or two big box stores.

Is that correct?

It is um it's possible, it's possible now.

Um, I mean, only certain limitations, certain uses are limited.

So under MXNC, you wouldn't see a fourth a 5,000 square foot fitness establishment.

So you wouldn't see that, but you wouldn't, you might see a large retailer that wouldn't that isn't limited by the square foot limitation.

Yeah, listening to the conversation, I just feel like currently the limitation is only applied to those four categories, right?

Not in other category.

Why is that?

Uh other categories don't have the limitation.

That's what I feel like.

Since IVR will limit the density of the development, so why we impose this arbitrary limitation on those four categories?

That's an excellent question.

And I think it's really just a point of clarification.

This table is not showing all of the gross floor area restrictions across all of the uses.

This is a sampling.

So if you were to look through all of the standards in our draft article six, you would see many other uses that perhaps in the MXT or the MXT and the MXC or the MXT and the MXC and the MXNC in certain circumstances are um you would see many more uses that have these restrictions as well.

So this is really just intended um as an illustrative example.

So are those proposed increased imitation?

Well, what is the basis of those new limitation square footage?

So the basis was the review that we asked our consultants to do.

So as with other portions of the code, um, particularly, I think two weeks ago we discussed with you the updates to the parking ratios, which they went ahead um and did a review for best practices and based on their personal and professional or their professional experience, what they thought would make sense.

Um, we also asked them to do a review of these gross floor area requirements, understanding that this was likely going to be a topic of discussion, but if they were to be retained, we wanted to make sure that they were updated based on um their professional recommendations.

Any other thoughts?

Shall we have a vote?

So who is in favor of the staff's recommendations, still keep some limitation, please raise your hand.

Okay.

Can I just say one thing?

I I'm not sure that I'm comfortable either way.

Like I don't think if if it's down between the staff's recommendation and eliminating all, um, I'm not comfortable with either of those things.

Uh I I still don't like what I've heard is we've had them for a long time.

Um, what I've also heard is that staff doesn't necessarily find them very useful.

Um they haven't necessarily had the um the intended consequence.

And then what I've also heard is we found ways to get around them as a result.

Um so I'm not sure where we end up on this, like and and now we're we're we're hearing that this is actually not all of them, there's a bunch more.

And uh, you know, without seeing those bunch more, I'm not sure I could provide uh so maybe maybe it's best if if no one else has these concerns or questions, uh, I'd just maybe abstain.

I'm with Commissioner's events on this.

Gaithersburg doesn't have these restrictions.

I'm assuming other jurisdictions nearby don't.

So I don't see why Rockville does.

I would say that every example that Mr.

Wasselick mentioned is a neighborhood serving um uh shopping center, and they're loved by their neighborhoods.

And I realize that, you know, that we need to update this, and that's great.

But I think by getting rid of them entirely, we may lose some of those neighborhood serving establishments that are so well loved by their neighborhoods.

It's not like it's not like Twin Brook Shopping Center is going out of business.

It's not like Woodley Gardens shopping center isn't loved um and always crowded.

Same thing with Burgundy, you know, East Rfield Love Hates Burgundy Center.

I mean it.

So I I feel like that these are true, truly walkable neighborhood serving um places that um and they they are I mean, sure, they serve a business purpose, but they also serve a gathering purpose, and they also serve as community space.

So I'm not I I think the staff draft is fine, but I'm not in favor of getting rid of them entirely.

So hearing um different opinion, shall we guide the staff to do some maybe further research on why those recommendations uh valid them will be useful and maybe bring back this topic, give us more justifications.

And just a list of all the restrictions and all of the uses.

Uh if this isn't a complete list, it's just the three.

Um, then let's let's look at all of the FAR restrictions uh for all the uses.

Is that a feasible direction?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Then let's move to next topic.

That's the consensus of the commission that that's what you want to do.

I'm fine with.

Yeah.

Okay.

Now we can bring back this topic.

Thank you.

So we have next topic.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

So next up is a brief discussion on non-conformities, really just going over the key changes in.

Nope, this is just one slide.

The key changes in this section.

So I noted this earlier.

Um, but in our uses and use standards article, we are proposing to grandfather all uses which were conforming prior to the adoption of this new zoning ordinance.

So that would effectively mean that we are creating no non-conformities or no non-conforming uses through the adoption of the zoning ordinance.

This is not something we initially were recommending when we came and spoke with you all back in August about uses in parking.

Um, but it is something that we ended up incorporating into the staff draft based on um concerns expressed by some of some but not all of the Mayor and Council.

We are also proposing through the staff draft to allow non-conforming uses to expand by up to 20%.

This would be subject to the non-conforming use expansion process, which is replacing our our uh what we think is kind of inaccurately named non-conforming alterations process, which does have um additional steps and findings over and above our normal site plan or project plan processes.

The staff draft also allows certain site improvements to be approved through the standard process, so through a site plan or project plan, those would include bringing the non-conforming use into greater conformity with the code, if it's work for maintenance safety and ADA compliance, or improvements to facades, stormwater management, or pedestrian and bicycle fillet facilities.

And then finally, the staff draft allows non-conforming uses and structures to be replaced or repaired in kind in the event of a fire, flood, or other natural disaster or emergency, which the current regulations regarding nonconformities would not permit.

So this is everything that we have for you in this section.

Thank you.

Let's open for discussion.

Just just so you know, for comparison, this is extraordinarily liberal on nonconformities.

It's saying that, gee, we really didn't want to make you illegal when we made you illegal.

That you can still exist, you can still increase, you can still rebuild.

And it also allows rebuilding in the case when the structure is non-conforming.

Uh this is really flat out policies.

The the general zoning doctrine would would say if you made it non-conforming, you didn't want it.

And it should expire over time.

But this goes the other way.

It's all okay, you can do it.

We're just nicer in Rockville.

I mean, this this to me harkens back, I think Commissioner Salhideen brought up our conversation about uh vape and smoke shops uh earlier in this meeting.

And we had a conversation uh just around this topic about um the fairness or equity of declaring, you know, if of if uh someone in a in a vapor smoke shop that's kind of grandfathered into its location or something like that were to want to make improvements or anything, they'd be unable to because they're non-conforming, they're kind of locked into place, and so that hurts the local business owner.

Um, and so I understand, Commissioner Science, that that this is kind of that liberal thing, but I think it's also comes from a uh perspective that there are business owners who run these businesses, and you know, they should not be completely handcuffed from their their trade, so to speak.

That's that's what I'm reminded of when I was reading some of this.

Yeah, I I agree.

I don't think this is liberal.

I think this is pragmatic, and I think pragmatism is really what is necessary here, right?

You want to make these things no longer illegal, and you want to also make these structures and uses um able to be improved upon and be made more legal without tripping over red tape to get there.

Um, so to me, I I like this proposal.

Um I'm I'm in line with it.

Please don't consider the thought that I called it liberal as a bad thing.

Liberal can be a good thing too.

No, no, it's not good or bad, it's a description, and it's not, but it's just not one that I agree with.

Okay.

Um why are we allowing them to expand?

It's a non-conforming use, and at some point we you know, we would like for them to be conforming if they sell the business, and then it are we still doing that where if the business changes hands, it needs to be brought into conformity.

So I would say that one I'm not sure about.

And then also if it is that bottom bullet allows non-conforming uses and structures to be replaced or repaired in kind, especially the structures, I would say need to be brought up to some sort of standard code and not built like it was.

You know what I'm saying?

Like it should be, yeah.

I I know it's got to meet the building standards, but it should be brought up to what the zoning code says as well.

At least the structure, even if they're if the use is still the non-conforming use.

Uh otherwise, I I think it's fine.

Any other thoughts on this?

Yeah, so the so for the expended up to 20%, what is the rationale for staff to recommend this 20%?

What's the current code?

Oh, basically, the current code really doesn't allow expansions of non-conforming uses.

So they're kind of locked in place.

And to be honest, the city doesn't have a lot of non-conforming uses.

Obviously, there are some uses at predate zoning.

And there are some uses that have just been grandfathered every time we do our zoning rewrite or a certain text amendment, because no one wants to confer a non-conforming status on a particular property.

And I remember when we wrote the code last time, we heard testimony from property representatives that you know lenders and others do not want to deal with properties that have non-conforming status.

So we basically grandfathered in the code, grandfathered uh uses that were going to become non-conforming, that if they were conforming under the prior code, then they would continue to be conforming or not non-conforming, if you will.

So to be honest, we don't have a lot of non-conforming uses, but we thought the ones that we do have should have a little bit of flexibility to expand.

Um we do allow now under the current code to um allow for maintenance issues and things like that to bring them up to building code or ADA requirements, things like that.

But that's about it.

And um, you know, to these are businesses to um allow them to continue operating as they were.

We thought a little bit more flexibility than the flexibility that was allowed by the rewrite the last time was in order.

And we're so we came up with a 20% number.

Thank you.

That I think it makes sense to me.

And then I agree with um Commissioner Pitma on the last point.

If the structure is destroyed by fire, all that if they are allowed to rebuild the they they all tool building to towards more conformance.

Commissioners, do you agree?

Or well, I can envision a world where it's a purposeful person burns it down because they're not happy it exists, right?

Because you got to assume something changed within the city, uh they're non-conforming and someone burns it down because it's still there, you know, that wouldn't be fair to the business owner.

And I know I'm coming up with a crazy hypothetical, right?

But I can envision a circumstance like that.

So bringing them to where they were in the event of just a natural disaster.

I'm okay with that.

Like I said, Rockville's uh nicer.

I I kind of agree, like call be jaded, but I I agree.

I I think you create some perverse incentives uh for people to do bad things, although at the same time there's plenty of laws out there that would get that guy for doing that thing regardless.

Um but I think there's also considerations to say, you know, like well, if we don't allow that, but that's all that insurance will pay for.

Well, now we're stuck with a spot that has a slab in a burned down building with nothing to do with it, right?

If we if we say it has to be improved, but the insurance money isn't sufficient to improve, it's just enough to rebuild, which often is the case.

Now that guy is stuck between a rocket hard place.

And that's that doesn't do the city any any favors.

But isn't it true that that it would have to build to building code?

So if it uh emergency and building code, right?

This is use use standards.

It no, it allows non-conforming repaired, it's the structure that we're talking about, repaired or replaced in kind.

In kind, but meaning code, at least building code, not zoning code.

Because it might be it might be um uh uh nonconforming because it's uh exceeds the height.

It might be non-conforming because it exceeds the lot coverage or setbacks, and and we're this would allow them to rebuild for whatever they had, but to the new code, building code so would we um recommend them to rebuild the structure towards a greater conformity to the code instead of just building it as it was?

Yes, and and to Commissioner Zion's point that we're talking about height and massing and things like that.

Yes, absolutely.

I think they should make their new building more conforming.

More conforming but not conforming.

Is that a standard we can uh go with?

Yeah, Commissioner Zions is hitting on a good point.

We really, yeah, it's kind of it's easy, it's easy for us to determine whether the structure is rebuilt as it was, but we would have to define what we mean by greater conformity, um, which is sort of different than if somebody, for example, is coming in for an expansion and they want to add add to the structure or or or or in and and we can review that particular proposal and determine whether it for whatever reason is bringing the structure into greater conformity.

For example, you know, uh moving the structure back to accommodate a setback, for example.

So it's a long way of saying I don't think we could, I don't think we could require that the structure be rebuilt in greater conformity to the code without specifying what we mean by that.

If you wanted to pick a standard and say it has to at least conform to the setbacks, that you can do without saying it has to conform to all of the other bulk restrictions.

But in the in the third point of the PowerPoint, it does allow certain set improvements to bring the non-conformity in greater conformity with the code.

So how do you determine in that situation?

So actually, Ms.

Simmons, would you like to answer this one?

I know you had an example in mind.

I and well, no, I I I'm afraid if I give you the answer, I might be giving you hers.

So I wanted to give her the chance to speak first.

Honestly, Nick, if you remember my examples from many months ago, I defer to you to present them.

I'm sure you'll do an excellent job.

Thank you.

So I think if I'm remembering correctly, because believe it or not, we really did spend a lot of time on a lot of these provisions of the code.

It's just been a while.

The thought was um, let's say, for example, we have a structure, the structure is very old, it's becoming a bit dilapidated, and the property owner would like to make certain improvements to the structure.

Um of the things that that might involve would be, for example, uh replacing a roof or again moving a moving a structural wall.

And what we wanted to avoid was a situation where we were preventing a property owner from improving a structure that housed a non-conforming use uh in a manner that would number one improve the structure and improve the building stock of the city, and number two, would actually have the effect of maybe, for example, if they're putting in a new roof, they're ex their one of the non-conformities is a height nonconformity.

Well, maybe the new roof is not bringing the structure to the current height requirements, but it is reducing the structure's height by two or three feet, right?

We didn't want to be in a situation where we can say no, you can't put the new roof on, even though it would ultimately mean that your nonconformity would be five feet instead of ten feet, for example.

I think that was the thought process behind the idea that um that we would that we would do that.

And and the idea that the idea is that it would be easier for staff to evaluate because we would be evaluating a particular proposal by the applicant, and we could determine, okay, well, is this doing something to again to reduce the non-conformity in some way?

Um part of the thing too is again you as you can tell with this entire provision is we really were trying to be accommodating to existing buildings and existing uses.

So that was the thought process behind it.

But wouldn't that same thought process for improving a building go towards rebuilding the building?

Could we use the same language?

So the challenge I think would be a situation where in this case we're saying the alteration is allowed because you are reducing the non-conformity.

In contrast, if you are building a structure from slab, and all we say is you have to in some way make the structure less non-conforming or more conforming to the code without specifying what we mean by that, it leaves the question really open as to well, what do we mean?

Do we mean that when the structure is rebuilt, you can reduce the height non-conformity by two feet?

Or do you have to reduce it by five feet?

Or do you have to bring the height into full conformity, but you can maintain uh a square footage nonconformity, right?

That's where it we we couldn't just say you have to be more conforming because it would allow a developer, it would allow a property owner to just say, okay, well, you know, again, I'm just making up these examples, but I have a little bit more windows, so I'm closer to the glazing requirements of my front facade, or I've I've reduced the height by six inches and therefore I'm in greater not I'm in greater conformity.

I think if you really wanted the structure to be more conforming, you would have to provide some degree of you know clear standards to apply.

That makes sense, thank you.

It seems it's not very clear to define.

Can we say like maybe the bulk book regulation, like the setback height, all those limit to those category?

I mean, that would be an example of a of a clear non-discretionary standard.

So uh whether that's a good idea or not, like I'll leave that to staff and the planning commission.

But legally, yeah, I mean, you could say you can rebuild the structure in kind, but you have to comply with this one particular standard, whatever that standard would be.

I just wouldn't be able to identify that for you.

Yeah, I feel like you know, we give the nonconforming a flexibility of even expanding 20%, right?

And this is in the situation that the structure is totally demolished, and it's it's a brand new opportunity to bring to conformance, and there should be something we encourage them to do to conform.

Well, it's not it's not always demolished, right?

I mean, something can happen, a fire, a flood, or whatever, it's not necessarily demolished, it could be repaired, it could be replaced, right?

This particular point is replaced or repaired in kind.

So it's not always starting from zero.

Sometimes it could be starting from 90%, right?

The but you know, the what I go back to is what's the worst case scenario?

The worst case scenario is that the very few buildings that we have right now that are non-conforming continue to be a few buildings that are non-conforming, right?

Whereas if we add some additional hoops that they have to jump through that they may or may not be able to afford to jump through, we go from a few buildings that are non-conforming to maybe a few buildings that are just unusable.

Right?

It becomes a blight rather than being exactly what it was before, but newer.

Can I suggest a straw poll at this point?

Because we've gone back and forth, and I'm not sure.

It sounds like from this discussion we might be split 50-50 on just approving staff recommendations and then potentially half of us wanting to see minor changes.

So that's my suggestion potentially.

Okay, yeah, Lena.

Let's do a straw pool and uh who in favor of the staff's recommendation, please raise your hand.

I'll go sideways for another uh I understand the rebuild and repair in kind.

I've got that.

I don't love it, but I've got it.

But I I disagree with the ex allowing them to expand by 20%.

If it's a non-conforming use, it's something we want to see sunset or go away.

I I don't think we should allow expansion.

So I would say to take that out.

So it seems like for the last point, the most majorities agree to stick to the staff's recommendation.

And I have some different thoughts, but that's okay.

And for the first point to allow expansion to up to 20%, let's have a straw vote.

Who in favor of this recommendation, please raise your hand?

Commissioner Zions and URPOS.

Okay.

So I guess for this scenario, please just transmit our stroll vote result, and uh that is our recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

And we can move to the next topic.

Next next up is uh a couple of development standards, which we did want to bring to you, and these are things that we have.

Um, one of which we've reconsidered since the publication of the draft ordinance, and the other of which we did want to discuss with you whether it should be retained, although it is reflected in the draft as well.

The first up is our front yard coverage requirements.

So front yard cut yard coverage is the percent of the front yard that is covered by driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks.

This is something that I understand from Mr.

Wazilak was introduced into our zoning ordinance in 2009, and it really was intended to stop front yards from turning into parking lots.

Um, but it seems that that is a concern that really has not particularly materialized.

So one other thing to understand about this requirement is because it's at grade, it's quite difficult for us to enforce.

Um, it's not subject to a specific permit.

So most of the time that we are um requiring property owners to come into compliance, it is actually after the fact and through enforcement efforts, which is not a not an excellent position to be in when it comes to um again enforcing zoning requirements.

So we do have a comparison here.

It's quite a lot of information.

The lot coverage requirements, overall and rear yard, which I will note that is different and separate from the front yard coverage requirements.

But we already did in the staff draft propose to eliminate, and so you won't see it reflected there, those rear yard lot coverage requirements.

So this is more coverage by building and structure.

I am not sure when the rear yard lot coverage requirements went into effect.

I'm sure Mr.

Wazilak could give you a semblance of an idea, but those we uh viewed to be kind of questionable from an equity standpoint, particularly when considering constructing detached dwelling units.

So those we did eliminate from the draft, and you see that reflected in the highlights document as well.

We are not proposing to change the overall lot coverage requirements, but we are interested to understand if the planning commission would have an appetite for eliminating the front yard coverage requirements.

Similarly, the staff draft retains established setbacks.

Um, and these are setbacks that are applied in most, I think it's actually all of our residential zones, both the single unit residential and the medium density residential zones, have established setbacks.

So you have your standard setback that's very easy to understand, maybe it's 25 feet from the front yard, and then in all instances, our zoning ordinance also says or the established setback up to a certain set amount, whichever is greater in the single unit residential zones, or whichever is less in the medium density residential zones.

In the medium density residential zones, the established setbacks were actually introduced in 2021, and we don't think that they have really been at play at all.

But at a bare minimum, having an established setback, which is where you average the distance from the front lot line of all of the buildings on a block face to understand what is what is you know the midpoint of all of these, and then that is the setback that applies to your new dwelling.

It's very difficult to calculate, it is not a very transparent standard, and it is intended to retain kind of the existing development pattern of a block face, but that can also in a way retain existing again inequities that we see in space.

Um, Mr.

Wazilak, I'm sure if you all would like an example of how this has played out on a recent project, I'm sure he can recount that for you as well and the end results there.

But those are the two things that we are asking at this time if you have any interest in reconsidering both our front yard coverage requirements and the established setback requirements, which are in the draft, but could be removed.

Thank you, Missima's comments.

And the thoughts on those two topics of staff's recommendation.

No opponents.

No.

Okay, this is simple one.

So we're in your agreement with Steph.

Thank you.

Excellent, thank you.

And finally, we did want to provide just a brief update on pending state legislation.

You all may be aware that the state's legislative session began on the 14th when we were all meeting the last time, and it concludes 90 days later on April 13th.

So state legislators are hard at work crafting legislation and moving it through the process.

But we did want to highlight for you three bills, two of which were proposed by Governor Moore's administration, and another, which is proposed by Senator Brooks.

Um, this may be a bit obvious, but we did want to go over potential outcomes.

The bills may be amended over the course of the next nearly 90 days.

Um, in fact, that is probably likely, and then ultimately the bills may be passed and enacted, or they may not pass.

The impact of the three bills that we are going to go over for this project are that we would need to go back and revise certain sections of the staff draft of the zoning ordinance in order to come into conformance with state law.

So, this is why we want to make you aware of this at this time.

The first that we wanted to highlight is the Starter and Silver Homes Act.

So this act is one of Governor Moore's bills and it would expand the intention is to expand affordable homeownership options for first-time home buyers, that's the starter homes, and then seniors, that's the silver homes.

And it would do this by preempting local jurisdictions from adopting and enforcing zoning provisions related to certain development standards, use permissions, and subdivision regulations.

The brief book goes into a whole lot of detail on this bill, but I'll give just one example of the types of development standards that we're talking about here.

If this bill were to be enacted in its current form without any amendments, just kind of smooth sailing through it gets adopted exactly as is, we would be looking at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet for every single one of our single unit residential zones, except for our R40 zone, which already has a lower, a lower minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet.

But anything above that R60, R75, R90, all the way up to R 400, they would be reduced effectively down to 5,000 square feet.

And with that, I will hand it over to my colleague John Foreman, who has been waiting patiently for his moment all evening to go over the Maryland Housing Certainty Act and the Bambi Act.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Again, John Foreman Development Services Manager here to speak to you very briefly about these two dueling housing acts that are that are at play right now.

First, the Housing Certainty Act.

I'll say it's a much more narrowly focused bill, focusing on as it says they're insulating housing projects from changes to local land use laws and providing certainty for developers.

It's a much more expansive bill.

We only more recently became aware of this.

So you had some information about the Housing Certainty Act in your brief book.

You didn't have anything on this.

But in reviewing this, there are there's some overlap between these two, but there's much more in the Bambi Act, including things regarding tax incentives, housing production targets and reporting requirements, among other things.

Where there is overlap is regarding this regulatory certainty.

So on the next slide, just really briefly some examples of what this is.

These are excerpts from the bill.

This is not an entire description of either of these bills.

But where there's some commonalities is regarding regulatory certainty.

Both of them do lock in regulations at the time of a complete submittal.

So those that's a similarity between between the two.

Although I say I'll say they define complete submittal somewhat differently.

So even when they're similar, there's some difference there.

Construction certainty is another element addressed in both.

Basically, this means when you have final approval, well, at a point when you have, well, I'll say your vested from a certain point you have an ability to build that project.

In the Housing Certaint Act, it's five years from your final approval.

In the Bambi Act, it's three years from the time of your submittal.

So there's different differences there.

Another area that's addressed in both, but different is timing of impact fee payments.

These are for things like water and sewer and transportation impacts and the Certainty Act, these can't be collected by a local jurisdiction until a project has met all requirements for an occupancy permit.

So that's the very, very end.

This is actually how we generally do this now in Rockville.

The Bambi Act is a little more lenient on that.

It allows 50% to be required at the time of building permit issuance with the remainder to be collected prior to occupancy permit.

And then finally, there are nothing to do with design guidelines in the Housing Certainty Act.

However, the Bambi Act actually requires city to cities to adopt design guidelines addressing the elements you see there, parking height, lot area, open space, circulation, landscaping architecture.

So some very different things.

Some similar items addressed, but very different ways.

And I think the point of all this is to show that where we are with the zoning ordinance rewrite, we're not at a point to try and understand what's going to happen with these bills because not only are they subject to change, as Ms.

Simmons mentioned, but they're even dueling bills that do different things at this point in time.

So I'll hand it back to Ms.

Simmons to complete the presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Foreman.

So I think to wrap it up before we get to any final questions, um, just looking forward with all of these bills and any related bills that may be uh may come to the fore over the next two and a half months.

We will be continuing to monitor the state's legislative session and what's happening there specifically with these bills, but then with other bills as well.

Our legislative staff will be briefing the mayor and council on these bills, and we will certainly continue to keep you all apprised through the planning commission's portion of this adoption process.

But at this time, as Mr.

Foreman noted, we are not proposing to make any changes to the staff draft in response to this, as we noted, pending legislation.

However, if any of these bills are adopted, um, which likely will happen later in the legislative session after we have concluded the planning commission's portion of the adoption process, we would be in the position of updating the zoning ordinance to comply with state law, um, likely aiming for that to occur before final adoption of the zoning ordinance as the legislative session does end in April, and we're tracking toward a June adoption.

And with that, I will turn it back over to you, Madam Chair, for any questions.

Thank you for the presentation.

And I understand this is just information session.

We don't need to give any recommendations, but we can open for some cash at this point.

Just one question.

Uh, wouldn't if if the bill is adopted that that does the 5,000 square foot uh maximum, if you will, for a single family house, wouldn't that just override the zoning ordinance?

It wouldn't require a change.

I would state law would supersede our zoning ordinance, but obviously we'd want our zoning ordinance to reflect state law.

I mean, the the idea would be we want our zoning ordinance to accurately reflect whatever the law actually is.

Um we also may need to provide part of the reason we would look at the zoning ordinance after the legislation as well is to maybe determine if we are limited in in in one respect by state law, for example, in in minimum lot sizes, maybe we would want to make other changes to do whatever we'd want to do to protect neighborhoods or or whatever the case might be.

So I certainly wouldn't recommend that we not reflect the the state law uh requirements in our new zoning ordinance, particularly because we're in the rewrite process.

And uh I do know that Montgomery County is looking at the impacts of this.

That is, you know, what are the the vacant lots, what are the developed lots, what what will this look like on a map as well?

Is staff planning on doing the same for the density changes in the 5,000 square foot limit bill?

We have not discussed doing that sort of analysis.

Any other thoughts commissioner hearing them maybe just um keep us informed in this process?

But after we we hand this our recommendation to mayor and the council, we don't have another opportunity to revisit if we hear uh I mean that's true, that's not something that's baked into the schedule.

If you vote strongly about something in particular, I mean the record, the public record will be open.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hearing no other comments, maybe um we can proceed.

So is this all for tonight?

We can suggest it is that that concludes the work session for this evening.

Any other thoughts on this topic?

Okay, hearing none.

Thank you.

And so now we conclude our um uh agenda number two on the agenda.

So let's move to our regular commission items.

Um Mr.

Westleck, do we have a staff liaison report?

Uh, just very briefly, um, there will be a special meeting next week on February 4th, uh, that will be continuation of the public hearing and work session uh format.

Uh a number of topics are lining up for that meeting, including some that have been uh suggested by commissioners, um including uh brief discussions on our uh approach to print approach to plain language, uh purpose statements, uh etc.

Talking about the development review process, and we also want to bring back the um follow-up on the rezonings, the uh Tower Oaks and Montrose area rezonings.

So we think that'll be a uh robust session as well.

And then uh there will also be a work session on the next week, February the 11th.

Um not planning on including a public hearing at that session necessarily, uh, but if the commission feels that we should, I think that's certainly feasible.

But I think at some point we need to have discussion among yourselves and and be thinking about a recommendation.

So we did not schedule a public hearing then.

Um that concludes my report.

Thank you.

So commissioners, regarding the subsequent meeting agenda, do you have any thoughts on whether we open the public hearing on the February 11th meeting?

Can we decide next week if we feel like we if we still have a lot of people coming?

Maybe we can decide next week.

If we wait.

Yeah, sorry.

Is that enough time?

Is would that provide sufficient notice if we decide next meeting to have a public hearing on February 11th?

Or no.

I mean, I think it can.

Um these aren't formal public hearings that require advanced notice.

So we can just get the word out uh on engage Rockville that you will be taking testimony at that meeting.

Okay, then I feel comfortable we can decide uh next meeting.

Thank you.

And uh so now we move to the next any old business.

I I actually have a question, it's kind of really old business.

The um and I don't mean to put you on the spot, and please feel free to come back with an answer.

We don't have to answer it right now, but there was at one time uh state grant money, I think.

I think this is right, uh to redesign the intersection of Park Road and South Stone Street at the metro station.

You know, it does that weird little, it's got the hot right turn, and it's got the there was I think the last thing I heard about it was several years ago, and it was under design.

Do you can you find out Mr.

Rosselak where that is?

Because that was a that was a kind of a cool thing that was being paid for by grant money.

Yes, I will find out the status of that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And any new business.

Uh Commissioner Esponosa has brought up that new business.

I think we covered it, right, Mr.

Dumay, about changing the rules of procedure.

We we did, and just to be clear, we we would probably take this to you well after we finish with the zoning ordinance report.

But of course, yeah.

But but I actually think it is a good idea to revisit the rules after a few years.

Okay, thank you.

And uh so now we are about to approve the minutes, and uh in the agenda there are four minutes, but we received one minute from November 12th last week, uh the last year, right?

So any comments for that minutes.

Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve?

I make a motion to approve uh the meeting minutes for meeting number 15-2025.

I second the motion.

Oh, in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the meaning is it's proof.

Thank you.

And any FAI and correspondence, the the commission has received a number of pieces of correspondence that we have forwarded to you all related to the ZOR.

We received, thank you.

And so that's our last agenda.

Do we have do I have a motion to adjure?

So moved.

Second.

Oh, in favor, say aye.

Aye.

The meeting is adjured.

Thank you, Rockville.

Good night.