OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Rockville Planning Commission Work Session on Zoning Amendments - February 11, 2026

Meeting Portal — Wednesday, February 11, 2026
BodyRockville, Maryland
SessionMeeting Portal
DateWednesday, February 11, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:57:42

Transcript — Verbatim
0:03

Good evening, Rockville.

0:05

Today is Wednesday, February 11th, 2026.

0:08

This is meeting number 4-26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission.

0:14

I am Mong Sun, Chair of the Planning Commission, and joined in chamber by Commissioners Jeff Zainz, Cheyenne Salahing, Sulan Piedman, Eric Futen, and Jamie Esponosa.

0:29

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

0:34

Tonight's agenda includes public hearing and work session number four on zoning tax amendment and comprehensive map amendment.

0:43

This will be followed by our regular scheduled commission agendas.

0:47

Does any commissioners have any thoughts about today's agenda before we proceed?

0:53

Hearing none, okay.

0:55

So let's uh proceed with our today's agenda.

0:59

So the first one is public hearing and work session number four on zoning tax amendment TXT 2026, dash 00271, the draft the zoning ordinance and the map amendment, MAP2026, dash 00126, the comprehensive map amendment.

1:19

Mayor and council of Rockville are the applicants.

1:22

So Mr.

1:23

Westlack, is there a presentation from staff?

1:27

Uh yes, madam chair, just very briefly.

1:29

I want to take take the time to thank you all for the work that you've done to date on the zoning ordinance review.

1:35

I know it's been uh more meetings than you're used to and longer meetings than you're used to.

1:39

And um, we have one more uh public hearing and work session scheduled for you.

1:45

So um what we'd like to achieve this evening is uh have you provide all the direction that you feel you need to to us so that we can prepare your recommendation memo for presentation to you next time.

1:59

So that's what that's our goal.

2:01

And um so we look forward to that.

2:04

But um we have a number of topics to discuss, but before that we also have a public hearing.

2:09

And uh if there are no questions, um I would suggest that you move to the public hearing at this time.

2:15

All right, thank you, Mr.

2:16

Westlet.

2:17

So uh before we proceed with public hearing, if you intend to testify tonight and has not signed in, please sign you on the sheet at the back of the room and uh uh you will be registered.

2:31

And also before we proceed, I like I like to remind folks the time limits.

2:35

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

2:41

However, one representative of an organization, such as uh HOA or community group will be allowed up to five minutes for a presentation.

2:50

There is a clock in front of you, and Mr.

2:53

Um Mr.

2:54

Dumains will start the timer when you begin speaking.

2:57

And at any time, clarification questions may be asked by members of the commission, and please adhere to these time limits.

3:04

They will be enforced by me.

3:07

And uh, when you come forward, please state your name and address for the records.

3:12

With that, let's welcome the first speaker of tonight.

3:17

Madam Chair, the first speaker is Alex Belita, to be followed by Kenny Paskin.

3:25

Good evening, Commissioners.

3:26

I'm Alex Belita.

3:27

I live in Newmark Commons, and I too want to join in thanking you for having all this extra work that these sessions uh consist of.

3:38

And again, I'm here tonight on behalf of 700 or so residents of Newmark Commons and Markwood to ask a simple question.

3:49

Why haven't you considered options to RMD 25 for the 9.75-acre tower oaks parcel next to Newmark, as the mayor and council asked you to do in December?

4:00

Because unless you've been having private talks amongst yourselves or with staff, these public work sessions have been repeatedly seeing you stick to RMD 25.

4:11

There's been no open discussion of rezoning that plot RMD 10 or RMD Infill.

4:18

There was some tweaking last week that I recognize that would limit development on this plot, depending on vehicle access.

4:27

But you made clear that limited development would still be under the provisions of RMD 25, which would enable construction of high-rise structures, something RMD 10 wouldn't do.

4:40

We've argued in front of you and the mayor and council that this kind of development is not compatible with our neighborhoods, as the comprehensive plan asks.

4:50

But then again, um, we heard you discussing late in last session.

4:55

Eliminating the word compatible is a determinative consideration.

5:00

And all I can say to that is wow.

5:04

Um, as I recall, there was some frustration here when we first brought up the mayor and council's call for a review of RMD 25 on the grounds that this was decided years ago.

5:15

We know the attorney representing the property owner has said no one objected to it back when it was first brought up.

5:24

That's true, but very disingenuous because this plot is Tower Oaks, zone 12.

5:32

We live in Area 3, our neighborhoods.

5:36

And we didn't learn of this proposed upzoning until last year, and then only because a couple of our neighbors got a letter.

5:44

Our HOA president, and I checked, says the HOA was never told.

5:49

And we think you ought to consider reconsider your notification requirements to ensure meaningful citizen engagement at an early date.

6:00

Thank you very much.

6:01

Thank you.

6:05

The next speaker is Kenny Peskin to be followed by Anna Astrid Molina.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning Ordinance Rewrite████████████████████████████████████36%
Zoning And Land Use██████████████████████22%
Sign Regulations███████████11%
Procedural████████8%
Sign Ordinance Rewrite███████7%
Urban Planning█████5%
Technology and Innovation████4%
Community Engagement██2%
Historic Preservation██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Planning Commission Work Session on Zoning Amendments - February 11, 2026

The Rockville Planning Commission held a public hearing and work session on February 11, 2026, to continue review of Zoning Text Amendment TXT2026-00271 and Comprehensive Map Amendment MAP2026-00126. The meeting included public testimony and discussion on compatibility standards, floating zones, sign regulations, transition heights, bonus heights, RMD Infill density, transitional provisions, and other zoning provisions. The Commission provided direction to staff for the preparation of a recommendation memo to be reviewed at the next meeting on February 25, 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Alex Belita (Newmark Commons resident, representing 700 residents) questioned why the Commission has not considered RMD-10 or RMD-Infill zoning for the 9.75-acre Tower Oaks parcel, arguing that RMD-25 would allow high-rise structures incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. He raised concerns about notification procedures, stating the HOA was not informed.

  • Kenny Peskin (International Sign Association) opposed the proposed prohibition on internally illuminated freestanding signs, stating it would render many existing signs nonconforming and harm businesses along Rockville Pike. He urged the Commission to review his written comments on comprehensive sign plans and electronic message centers.

  • Anna Astrid Molina (Markwood resident) expressed frustration that the staff recommendation for parcel SOR ID 17 reflected only the developer's input and ignored the community. She argued that high-density development would create traffic gridlock and safety hazards, and that the site contains unmarked graves. She requested a lower-density designation like RMD Infill.

  • Mark Prushela (President, College Garden Civic Association) presented a resolution asking the Commission to extend the approval timeline (Planning Commission to April 2026, Mayor and Council to September 2026) and to produce an annotated redline crosswalk between the current and proposed zoning ordinances to improve public understanding.

Discussion Items

  • Compatibility Finding: The Commission discussed whether to add a separate compatibility finding for project plans and level two site plans. After debate, a straw vote showed majority support for adding the finding. Staff recommended applying it to project plans and level two site plans only. Commissioner Salahding expressed support. The issue will be reflected in the memo.

  • Floating Zones: Staff recommended against retaining floating zones in the new ordinance at this stage, citing the need for a separate comprehensive planning exercise. Commissioner Zainz suggested flagging the concept for future consideration by the Mayor and Council. The Commission agreed to not include floating zones now.

  • Local Map Amendments – Owner Consent: Staff recommended no owner consent requirement for local zoning map amendments. Commissioner Zainz proposed requiring owner consent unless overridden by a unanimous vote of the Mayor and Council (similar to historic preservation). The straw vote favored staff's recommendation; Commissioner Zainz's alternative will be noted in the memo.

  • Transition Heights and RHD Zone Setbacks: Staff proposed new transition height requirements (stepbacks at 50 feet and 85 feet when abutting single-unit residential zones) and additional side/rear setbacks for the Residential High Density (RHD) zone when abutting residential uses. The Commission concurred with the recommendations.

  • Bonus Heights: The Commission affirmed the staff draft provisions for bonus height in MXTD zones based on affordable housing provision and under the Maryland Housing Expansion and Affordability Act.

  • RMD Infill Zone Density: Staff recommended revising the density standard from 1 dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet to a minimum lot area standard of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, with a cap based on dwelling form. The Commission supported the change.

  • Sign Regulations:

    • Internally illuminated freestanding signs: Staff clarified that the draft intended to retain existing policy allowing them in most zones, and that this was a technical correction. The Commission supported restoring the allowance.
    • Electronic Message Centers (EMCs): The Commission discussed whether to maintain the current prohibition or allow EMCs with restrictions. Opinions were divided; some commissioners wanted to see specific regulatory language before making a recommendation. Staff will include discussion of both perspectives in the memo and will attempt to propose draft regulations for further review.

  • Extensions of Expiration Dates: The Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to widen eligibility criteria for transitional provisions, including extending the approval deadline to two years after adoption for pending applications.

  • Use-Based Gross Floor Area Restrictions: The Commission supported staff's categorization of restrictions to retain (e.g., ADUs, cottage courts, certain industrial uses) and to eliminate (e.g., instructional facilities, wholesale establishments, hotels, etc.).

  • Technical Corrections: Staff outlined planned corrections including pipe stem lots, bicycle parking, driveways/drive aisles, and cluster subdivision overlay zones. The Commission endorsed the corrections.

  • Townhouse Regulations: Commissioner Zainz requested staff respond to testimony from Pat Harris regarding setback and parking requirements for townhouses. Staff will provide analysis for the next meeting.

  • Electronic Zoning Map: Commissioner Zainz suggested adopting an interactive electronic map as the official zoning map. Staff stated current language does not prohibit it. The Commission agreed to include the suggestion in the memo.

Key Outcomes

  • Majority straw vote in favor of adding a separate compatibility finding for project plans and level two site plans.
  • Commission endorsed staff recommendations on transition heights, RHD setbacks, bonus heights, RMD infill density, use restrictions, and technical corrections, with most to be incorporated into the staff draft.
  • On electronic message centers, no consensus was reached; staff will reflect the discussion in the memo and may propose draft regulations for the next meeting.
  • Commission agreed not to include floating zones at this time but will recommend future consideration.
  • Commission did not support adding an owner consent requirement for local map amendments; Commissioner Zainz's alternative will be noted.
  • Next meeting scheduled for February 25, 2026, to review the draft recommendation memo and provide final direction to staff.
  • Public comment digest and draft planning commission memo will be provided for review in Word format.
  • Additional discussion on townhouse regulations scheduled for the next meeting.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, Rockville. Today is Wednesday, February 11th, 2026. This is meeting number 4-26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission. I am Mong Sun, Chair of the Planning Commission, and joined in chamber by Commissioners Jeff Zainz, Cheyenne Salahing, Sulan Piedman, Eric Futen, and Jamie Esponosa. Tonight's meeting is being conducted in person and virtually by WebEx. Tonight's agenda includes public hearing and work session number four on zoning tax amendment and comprehensive map amendment. This will be followed by our regular scheduled commission agendas. Does any commissioners have any thoughts about today's agenda before we proceed? Hearing none, okay. So let's uh proceed with our today's agenda. So the first one is public hearing and work session number four on zoning tax amendment TXT 2026, dash 00271, the draft the zoning ordinance and the map amendment, MAP2026, dash 00126, the comprehensive map amendment. Mayor and council of Rockville are the applicants. So Mr. Westlack, is there a presentation from staff? Uh yes, madam chair, just very briefly. I want to take take the time to thank you all for the work that you've done to date on the zoning ordinance review. I know it's been uh more meetings than you're used to and longer meetings than you're used to. And um, we have one more uh public hearing and work session scheduled for you. So um what we'd like to achieve this evening is uh have you provide all the direction that you feel you need to to us so that we can prepare your recommendation memo for presentation to you next time. So that's what that's our goal. And um so we look forward to that. But um we have a number of topics to discuss, but before that we also have a public hearing. And uh if there are no questions, um I would suggest that you move to the public hearing at this time. All right, thank you, Mr. Westlet. So uh before we proceed with public hearing, if you intend to testify tonight and has not signed in, please sign you on the sheet at the back of the room and uh uh you will be registered. And also before we proceed, I like I like to remind folks the time limits. So each individual will be allowed three minutes to provide comments on the application. However, one representative of an organization, such as uh HOA or community group will be allowed up to five minutes for a presentation. There is a clock in front of you, and Mr. Um Mr. Dumains will start the timer when you begin speaking. And at any time, clarification questions may be asked by members of the commission, and please adhere to these time limits. They will be enforced by me. And uh, when you come forward, please state your name and address for the records. With that, let's welcome the first speaker of tonight. Madam Chair, the first speaker is Alex Belita, to be followed by Kenny Paskin. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Alex Belita. I live in Newmark Commons, and I too want to join in thanking you for having all this extra work that these sessions uh consist of. And again, I'm here tonight on behalf of 700 or so residents of Newmark Commons and Markwood to ask a simple question. Why haven't you considered options to RMD 25 for the 9.75-acre tower oaks parcel next to Newmark, as the mayor and council asked you to do in December? Because unless you've been having private talks amongst yourselves or with staff, these public work sessions have been repeatedly seeing you stick to RMD 25. There's been no open discussion of rezoning that plot RMD 10 or RMD Infill. There was some tweaking last week that I recognize that would limit development on this plot, depending on vehicle access. But you made clear that limited development would still be under the provisions of RMD 25, which would enable construction of high-rise structures, something RMD 10 wouldn't do. We've argued in front of you and the mayor and council that this kind of development is not compatible with our neighborhoods, as the comprehensive plan asks. But then again, um, we heard you discussing late in last session. Eliminating the word compatible is a determinative consideration. And all I can say to that is wow.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com