City of Rockville Planning Commission Meeting - February 4, 2026: Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and Comprehensive Map Amendment
City of Rockville Planning Commission Meeting - February 4, 2026
On February 4, 2026, the Rockville Planning Commission held a hybrid public hearing and work session (Meeting #3-26) to discuss the zoning ordinance rewrite (TXT 2026-00271) and comprehensive map amendment (MAP 2026-00126). The commission addressed follow-up items on rezonings in the Montrose and Newmark Commons areas, reviewed draft language updates, and made recommendations on several development review and historic preservation provisions.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Pat Reber (705 Newmark Esplanade, Newmark Commons) opposed the proposed RMD 25 zoning for Parcel ZORID 17 in Area 12, citing compatibility issues with the historic neighborhood and unmarked burial grounds. She requested RMD 10 zoning and access only from the south.
- Alex Bolita (Newmark Commons) similarly opposed RMD 25, arguing that any access through Newmark streets would endanger children and overwhelm amenities. He proposed RMD 10 with single-unit detached homes, duplexes, and townhomes, and access only from the south.
- Laurie Krug (322 Newmark Esplanade) supported lower density (10 units/acre) but opposed any road connection from the southern Tower Oaks parcel, which could compound traffic. She urged no exceptions for vehicular access through Newmark.
- Mike Berman (821 Bowie Road, Hungerford) spoke on deer fencing, urging the commission to adopt Option 3 (allowing deer mesh in front yards) for health reasons, citing Lyme disease. He criticized the current draft for prioritizing aesthetics over health.
- Susan Knowles (Newmark Commons) recalled a 1984 city staff report that recommended against vehicular access through Newmark and noted unmarked graves on the poor farm site.
- Ken Becker (general partner of Rollins Park, Congressional Towers, and Rollins Congressional Clubhouse) proposed a revised modification for the Montrose area: a notch extension of the RHD zone south adjacent to the MXCT zone, but terminating 200+ feet from Rollins Avenue, to allow flexibility for development at East Jefferson Street and Rollins Avenue.
- Lerone Sharon (Rollins Avenue, Montrose) supported the staff alternative plan with a 400-foot buffer, but objected to the property owner's request to extend the RHD zone, which would put tall buildings directly facing residences.
- Mark Prasheila (816 Fordham Street, former council member) urged the commission to demand more time and materials on the zoning ordinance, requesting a crosswalk from the old to new code. On deer, he noted the city's historical efforts and suggested a summary of past work sessions.
- Nancy Picard (Peerless Rockville) supported streamlining procedures and enforcement for demolition by neglect, but expressed concern about third-party nominations, changes to demolition review, and owner consent requirements, which could undermine protections for underrepresented groups.
Discussion Items
- Montrose Area Rezoning: Staff presented the alternative proposal (now the staff recommendation) that rezones most of the area to RHD (up to 100 units/acre) but retains R75 on Martha Terrace and RMD 25 along Rollins Avenue (400-foot buffer). The property owner proposed a notch extension of RHD adjacent to the MXCT zone. The commission heard from staff that community consensus supported the 400-foot buffer, but not the owner's alternative. The commission voted to support the staff alternative.
- Newmark Commons/Tower Oaks Parcel (Area 12): Staff proposed a text amendment limiting density to 10 units/acre if vehicular access is provided from a secondary residential street abutting single-unit detached dwellings. Commissioner Zions proposed modifying the language to "if any vehicular access" (rather than "if sole access") to better protect the neighborhood. Staff agreed. The commission adopted the third bullet (any vehicle access) but not the first two (cul-de-sac, etc.).
- Language Update: Staff reported reviewing the draft for plain language and removing subjective terms like "visually appealing" and "high quality" except in purpose statements. The commission agreed to replace "aesthetic" with "visual", remove "high quality" (use "durable"), replace "happiness" with "welfare", and replace "alternative modes" with "all modes" in the general purpose statement.
- Purpose Statements: Staff recommended removing purpose statements from divisions on parking/loading and bicycle/pedestrian facilities, but retaining them for amenity space and landscaping/screening (referenced in waiver provisions). The commission concurred.
- Development Review Processes: Staff provided an update on notice requirements, the development review manual, approval findings, and appeals timelines. The commission supported: (1) maintaining existing mailed notice radiuses per mayor/council direction; (2) online posting of level one site plan decisions; (3) the development review manual updates; (4) eliminating the 15-day timeline for administrative appeals, keeping a uniform 30-day appeal period; (5) retaining the staff proposal for approval findings (three findings: consistent with the plan, adequate public facilities, conformance to code) without a separate compatibility finding (3-2 vote, with a divided view noted).
- Amenity Space Exception: Staff reaffirmed the exemption for 100% affordable units within a quarter-mile of a public park. The commission supported the recommendation.
- Historic Preservation: The commission discussed delisting, self-inflicted harm, and conversion of historic structures. They supported: (1) a two-tier delisting process: majority vote if the property has lost its characteristics, unanimous vote for other good cause; (2) no change to the staff draft regarding self-inflicted harm (existing penalties are adequate); (3) a recommendation to the mayor and council to consider allowing additional dwelling units in historic structures and tax credits to incentivize preservation.
Key Outcomes
- Montrose Rezoning: The commission voted to support the staff alternative proposal (with 400-foot RMD 25 buffer along Rollins Avenue, retaining R75 on Martha Terrace, and RHD for the bulk of the area).
- Newmark Commons/Tower Oaks: The commission voted to support RMD 25 zoning with a footnote: "If any vehicular access to the property is provided from a secondary residential street that abuts single-unit detached dwellings, the maximum density is limited to 10 units per acre." The first two suggested bullets (cul-de-sac, etc.) were not recommended.
- Language Updates: The commission directed staff to implement the agreed changes to the purpose statement and remove subjective terms from the draft ordinance.
- Approval Findings: The commission voted 3-2 to retain the staff recommendation (three findings), with a note that the vote was divided. The majority supported the staff proposal; the minority favored adding a separate compatibility finding.
- Historic Preservation: The commission recommended a two-tier delisting process and urged the mayor and council to explore mechanisms for allowing additional dwelling units in historic structures and increasing tax credits.
- Next Steps: The next meeting is February 11, 2026, which will include further public hearings and work sessions on zoning map amendments, floating zones, development standards, APFO, signs, and transitional provisions. The final recommendation to the mayor and council is scheduled for February 25, 2026.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, Rockville. Today is Wednesday, February 4th, 2026. This is meeting number three-26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission. I am Mong Sun, Chair of the Planning Commission. I'm joined in chamber by Commissioners Jeff Zines, Susan Pittman, Eric Foten, and Jamie Esponosa. Ton's meeting is being conducted in person and virtually by WebEx. Tonight's agenda includes public hearing and working session number three on zoning tax amendment and comprehensive map amendment. Then this will be followed by our regular scheduled commission items. Does any commissioners have any thoughts before we proceed? Hearing none, uh, let's proceed with our today's first agenda, which is public hearing and working work session on zoning tax amendment application TXT 2026-00271 for the zoning ordinance rewrite and the map amendment application, MAP 2026-00126 for the comprehensive map amendment. Mayor and Council of Rockville are the applicants. So Mr. Wasleck, is there a staff presentation? Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission will give a brief introduction prior to the public hearing. As you stated, this is the third in a series of public hearings and work sessions on the zoning ordinance rewrite and comprehensive map amendment process. Tonight is also a public hearing prior to your work sessions. I did want to note we would like to change the order of the topics for the work session and move the follow-up items for the rezonings for the Montrose and Newmark Commons areas and do those first since I think most of the speakers are present to uh to hear how that discussion goes. And then we'll proceed with the um the order of the topics as it's shown on the screen. So unless there are any questions, we'll transition into the public hearing. Any questions? Hearing none. Before we start, so let me uh um let me talk about the rules of the time limits. So if you intend to testify for any of the today's agenda items and has not signed in, please sign in on the sheets and at the back of the room. And be and each individual will be allowed three minutes to provide comments on the application. However, one representative of an organization, such as an HOA or community group will be allowed up to five minutes for a presentation. There is a clock in front of you, and Mr. Dumains will start the timer when you begin speaking. At any time, clarification questions may be asked by members of the commission. Please adhere to these time limits and they will be enforced by me. And when you come forward, please state your name and address for the record. With that, let's welcome our first speaker. Madam Chair, the first speaker is Pat Reber, to be followed by Alex Bolita. Welcome. Good evening again. Um my name is Pat Reber. I live at 705 Newmark Esplanade, which partly and inside Newmark Commons, which partly surrounds the panel in question. That's ZORID 17 in Area 12. I also speak for neighboring Markwood. Newmark Commons is recognized in the National Register of Historic Places for the pioneering mid-century approach by developer Edmund Bennett. The parcel next to us also is historic as part of the footprint of the defunct Montgomery County Poor Farm and 200 years of unmarked human burials. We appreciate efforts to accommodate our concerns. What is being offered as a footnote, less density in exchange for more traffic through us is not acceptable. We also note the difference between 10 units per acre suggested in the draft and RMD 10, which we ask be substituted for RMD 25 for the purpose of compatibility. We insist that any development on this parcel be accessed from the landowner's southern panel. It's disingenuous to suggest that we should be able to accept increased traffic because of an earlier expectation of vehicular use from what was once a school site. Those plans were abandoned before anyone moved in to Moomark, Newmark. As our Don Mills resident Mark Wetterhan notes in his written testimony, quote, no one has agreed to accept any level of noise or disruption by virtue of a government initiative that was abandoned at least 52 years ago. End quote. From 2015 to 2025, planning conversations that led to the RMD 25 designation did not include residents whose homes, traffic, safety, and quality of life would be most directly affected. In 2011, Rockville had decided that direct notification was no longer needed if a change was part of a comprehensive plan effort to suggest that since the community offered no opposition for 10 years, RMD 25 must be accepted.
openpublica.com