Rockville today is May 4th, 2026, and we're beginning meeting 12-26.

Please join me as you're able in the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation under God.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us today.

I know one of our colleagues will be here shortly, but just want to go ahead and get started with some very important proclamations and celebrations.

I'm going to ask my colleagues to join me at the podium so we can get started.

Okay.

So thank you, everyone.

We have many proclamations and celebrations today, so we're going to try to be expeditious but also celebrate our community.

They range from cultural celebrations to health observances, as well as some important public safety and operational things that our city really works hard to make sure we're achieving for our residents.

I'll start off with a few proclamations that relate to topics where we don't have someone accepting, but we wanted to make sure that we are honoring those proclamations.

So we will have about four of those to proceed.

The first one is a proclamation from May 2026 recognizing ALS, and ALS is better known as Luke Garrick's disease.

It's a fatal neurodegenerative disease characterized by degeneration of cell bodies of the lower motor neurons in the gray matter of anterior horns of the spinal cord.

We're also going to be acknowledging Greek genocide remembrance day in Rockville, Maryland.

Whereas the city of Rockville is home to many, many diverse ethnic and religious communities who came to the United States seeking refuge from war, ethnic and religious persecution, and the genocide of the Anatolian Greeks and is a tragedy that took the lives of an estimated 900,000 Greek people during World War One.

And it is noted by scholars as the model used by the Nazis for the Holocaust.

Whereas Jewish American history commenced in 1492 with the expulsion of Jews from Spain, and this action set off a period of intense Jewish migration, seeking to escape the clutches of Inquisition.

Some Jewish people in the 16th century sought refuge in the Calvinist Republic of the Neverlands, and hundreds of their descendants crossed the ocean to settle in the new Dutch colony of Recife in Brazil, where Jewish communal life became possible for the first time in the new world.

We recognize Jewish American Heritage Month and the rich culture that it provides in the city of Rockville.

We proclaim May 2026 as Lyme Disease Awareness Month in Rockville, Maryland.

Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease United States caused by bacterium Borealia Brigdorfer and is transmitted by the common black-legged tick found in nearly one half of all U.S.

counties.

And ticks that carry Lyme disease can also carry at least 15 other pathogens, many of them transmitted within minutes of being bitten, with one painless tick by frequently resulting in multiple infections, including bacteria, parasites, and viruses.

Madam Mayor, I move all five proclamations.

Thank you very much.

Do we have a second?

Councilman Valeria Seconds.

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

Aye.

Thank you very much.

We also want to recognize Glenview, which is honoring its 100th year, Glenview Mansion.

It has a long and storied history.

I will also note that the entire land at the Civic Center has a long history in Rockville.

It was cleared by enslaved peoples.

And we have now reclaimed it for the people, for all people.

Whereas in 2026, the City of Rockville celebrates the 100th anniversary of Glenview Mansion and recognizes its evolution from its early 19th century origins through its transformation into a prominent neoclassical estate and ultimately into a public civic asset for all people and operated by the city of Rockville since 1957.

Now, therefore, the mayor and council hereby recognize the 100th anniversary of Glenview Mansion, honoring its rich history and multifaceted multifaceted events, celebrating its enduring legacy as an inclusive and cherished gathering place for our community.

Do we have a motion to approve?

Councilmember Jackson.

I make the motion to approve.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right.

It's been moved.

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

And with that, I'd like to welcome the recreation and parks advisory board.

And while she's coming up, please make sure that you check out our calendar of events.

There are many activities happening to commemorate Glenview Mansion.

Come on this side.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you, Mayor and Council and all community members here.

We invite the entire community to celebrate Glenview Mansion's 100th anniversary by attending a variety of events scheduled throughout the year.

As part of the celebration, please join Glenview Mansion and Peerless Rockville for their co-sponsored speaker series event on May 14th at 7 p.m.

at Glenview Mansion.

This free event will feature a guided walking tour of the mansion along with light infringements.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you very much.

Come on, let's take a picture with you.

And thank you for serving.

Thank you.

Good evening.

It is my honor to uh present the National Public Service National Public Service Month proclamation.

Whereas National Public Service Recognition Week has been recognized and organized annually since 1985 by the Public Employees Roundtable, PER, and its members' organization to honor the men and women who serve our nation as federal, state, county, and municipal employees.

Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Aye.

And I believe we have Farak Matite, our assistant deputy city manager, to accept the proclamation.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

On behalf of all of the city employees, I want to thank you for this proclamation.

All right.

All right.

It's actually Peace Officers Memorial Day, and it is it falls in the week of police week.

That's great.

Okay.

Just want to make sure I had the right one.

All right.

Whereas the Congress and the President of the United States have designated May 15th as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which it falls as police week.

And whereas the members of the Rockville City Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the residents of Rockville.

Now, therefore, the Mayor and Council of Rockville, Maryland, do hereby proclaim May 10th through 16th, 2026 as National Police Week, and May 15th, 2026 as Peace Officers Memorial Day in the City of Rockville, and call upon the residents to commemorate this observance by thanking our police officers, past and present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion have established an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights, safety, and security of all residents of Rockville and the surrounding communities.

Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Aye.

And we have with us today our wonderful police chief, Jason West, and I believe some other representatives from Rockville's own police department.

Thank you, Mayor and Council for recognizing uh Peace Officer Memorial Day in National Police Week.

You know, I personally have uh former friends and colleagues whose names are on the wall in the memorial in DC, who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.

Um, but it's not lost on me that every member of our police department, and I'm very proud to stand here with Corporal Rogers and Corporal Lewis, who are longtime veterans of this police organization.

It's not lost on me that they're in harm's way every day that they come in to serve our residents of Rockville, and they do incredible work every day.

Unfortunately, not everybody hears about those things.

You know, across the nation a lot, we hear about the bad things, and they do happen.

But good things happen in this city every day because of officers just like them, and that's what's important to me today.

So thank you again for honoring us this week.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will read the Women's Health Week proclamation on behalf of Councilmember Fulton.

And this is a good time to make sure you're getting your health checkups if you don't have it scheduled already.

Whereas National Women's Health Week celebrates the extraordinary progress in women's health and recognizes that more needs to be done to safeguard the health of women for generations to come.

Now, therefore, the mayor and council Maryland do hereby proclaim the week May 10 through 16th as National Women's Health Week and encourage the community to engage, keep up to date on news and your health screenings, as well as activities that benefit the health and well-being of women and all families.

Colleagues, can someone move the proclamation?

Councilmember Shaw.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Valeri.

Thank you.

And we have with us all those in favor.

There we go.

I got excited.

Aye, all right.

We have with us registered nurse practitioner Abaomi Walker.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members.

Um, I'm honored to receive this proclamation on behalf of uh Women's Health Week here in Rockville.

Um, as the mayor's previously stated, I have spent the past 20 years of my life serving women as a women's healthcare nurse practitioner from all aspects of life, um, from high-risk obstetrics, postpartum, um, women's oncology units, um, and the minopause transition.

So I have seen women at all aspects of their health through all aspects of their life.

And as we approach Mother's Day, I would um implore all of you to think about all of the women in your lives, including the woman that brought you forth, whether she is here presently on this earth or above us, um be mindful of the women in your community.

We all benefit when women are healthy um mentally, physically, and emotionally.

And so think about that when you select your representatives and the policies that they will advocate for.

Thank you.

Oh, he was taking a picture.

You want to come?

Dr.

Miles.

Yeah.

It is my honor to read uh the National Kids to Parks Day, whereas May 16th, 2026 is the 16th annual National Kids to Parks Day, organized and launched by the National Park Trust, held annually on the third Saturday of May.

And now, therefore, the Mayor and Council of Rockville, Maryland, do hereby proclaim May 16th, 2026 as National Kids to Parks Day, and urge the residents of Rockville to take their children to one of the many great city of Rockville Parks.

Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Thank you.

And we have Ms.

Marsha Duma here to receive the proclamation from the Recreation and Parks Advisory.

Sure.

Hello again.

This has a lot of personal meeting because when I first moved here, I had very young children, and I used the parks for their all the wonderful children's activities, and it made a huge difference in our family.

So I'd like to thank the mayor and council and all the community members who have made all these programs possible.

The City of Rockville's Recreation and Parks Department will be officially celebrating Kids to Parks Day at Croydon Creek's Spring Festival and Kids to Parks Day event on Saturday, May 16th, between 10 and 12 noon.

It's a free event for families with nature games, crafts, animal meet and greets, woodland hikes, and sustainability vendors and exhibits.

There's a going to be a face painter, an ice truck, and much more.

Thank you all.

So it's my honor to present the proclamation recognizing the public works employees, especially the amazing public works employees of our fair city.

Whereas public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to public health, high quality of life, and well-being of our residents' everyday lives.

And now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville do hereby designate the week of May 17th to 23rd, 2026 as National Public Works Week week in the city of Rockville, and call upon all residents and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing public work services and to recognize the contributions which public works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life.

Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilman Valerie, seconds.

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

Excellent.

And now I believe we have Jim Woods from our public works department to say a few words and accept the proclamation.

Good evening.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, for recognizing uh National Public Works Week.

Um, each year the Public Works Department uh likes to take time during National Public Works Week to really recognize the contributions of our employees and to celebrate our successes.

Um, this year in particular was pretty challenging.

I think everybody remembers uh Snow Creed in uh that's a new one for us.

Um and yeah, so we had a very challenging winter, uh, very challenging with some uh difficult water main breaks that we dealt with.

Um but our employees who show up every day um and respond to emergencies 24-7 are really what um provides that success for our department.

So we really want to take time uh during National Public Works Week to recognize them and to celebrate um the week.

We we highlighted our um our events with our annual truck show, which will be held again this year on Tuesday, May 19th at Matty Stepanic Park from 10:30 to 4:30.

So it's a great opportunity to come meet our employees, learn about our services, and most importantly, hop on a truck and honk a horn.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Cool.

Good afternoon, thank you for this opportunity, madam mayor.

I get to read the proclamation with regard to Asian American and Pacific Islander Day.

It reads as follows, whereas the Asian population makes up more than 20 percent of the Rockville population, according to the census data.

Now, therefore, the mayor and council of the city of Rockville do hereby proclaim May 2026 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month and encourage all residents to acknowledge acknowledge rather embrace, commemorate and celebrate with this vital group of our population here in Rockville.

With that, Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

All right, I think we have somebody here to receive it.

I read on the paper correctly.

Mr.

Lynn.

Good afternoon, please come forward.

Thanks for joining us today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

On behalf of the Asian Pacific American Task Force, I'm very honored to receive this mix uh proclamation.

And if you haven't been to uh lunar new year event, you you miss a whole lot.

We had the last one on February 21st.

We have over a thousand people attending.

And we're going to continue doing that every year.

And I hope everyone will be there next year in 2027.

And I'm very proud to be an Asian American.

I've been here almost half a century.

And this is the wonderful city and the best place for Asian to grow the business and stay and grow the family.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I failed to mention what the last proclamation, although I missed the Lantern Festival this year.

We had another activity, I think it was soccer practice that night.

Uh Girl Scouts yesterday, there, the local troop did a presentation on Asian American and Pacific Islander Month, uh, complete with food, which was delicious.

So y'all missed out.

Now I have the honor and pleasure of reading the proclamation for building safety month.

It reads as follows.

Whereas this city of Rockville, Maryland is committed to recognizing that our growth and strength depend on the safety and the central role our homes, buildings, and infrastructure play, both in everyday life and when disaster strikes.

And now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland, do hereby proclaim the month of May 2026, 2026 rather, as Building Safety Month in the City of Rockville.

We encourage our residents to join us as we participate in Building Safety Month activities.

And with that, Madam Mayor, I move this proclamation.

I think we have somebody here to receive this one as well.

Ms.

Carl.

Good to have you both here this evening.

All three of y'all.

Awesome.

I'm gonna step aside.

Somebody else from the audience when I saw it.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Keena Campbell, Chief of Inspection Services for the City of Rockville.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the council for this proclamation and the acknowledgement of Building Safety Month.

I'm joined here tonight by the fire marshal for the city, Carl Young, and Catherine Lopez, one of our permit technicians.

The overall theme of this year's Building Safety Month is built to last, and there are four weekly themes.

And in the interest of time, I'll just go through two of them.

This week's theme is safe homes, strong communities, and it's a reminder for all homeowners to look around your homes and see if there are any repairs that you need to ensure safety.

To help with this theme, as a courtesy, the inspection services division is offering free residential deck inspections to the first city residents who make a request.

Visit our website for more information about this complimentary service that will be offered this month only.

Also, as you're looking around your home and considering projects, visit our website or please reach out to us to see if a permit is required before you start any work.

Week two is voices of the built environment, and during this the second week of the month, we will shine our spotlight on the team who is committed to ensuring our community is safe and that existing buildings are properly maintained.

So just a little bit about our division as we shout out our great employees.

The inspection services division is made up of administrative support, permits technicians, engineers, plan reviewers, building fire, and code enforcement inspectors who last year perform more than 25,000 plan reviews or inspections.

Our services include building and fire protection systems plan review, building and fire inspections, property maintenance compliance, rental licenses for single family and multifamily and rentals for hotels, motels, fire safety licenses for home day cares and assisted living facilities.

So as you can see, we've we've got a we've got a lot going on, but we're we're we're excited to do it, and everyone is committed to uh ensuring safety for the residents and visitors to the city.

Um I'd like to close by also just highlighting that today is the observation of International Firefighters Day, which is a day to honor all firefighters on their courage and their service to our community and to remember those who who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

So again, thank you.

All right, make up it is my um sincere um honor to give the proclamation for mental health awareness month, and I think that it benefits the city for us all to focus on various policies that will be most supportive to those in the community um living with mental illness or have loved ones with mental illness.

Whereas in May 1949, Mental Health Awareness Month was established by Mental Health America to encourage people to consider their mental health as important for overall health.

And whereas the City of Rockville Department of Housing and Community Development reaches out to Rockville residents about mental health wellness and substance use prepared with educational seminars as well as emergency assistance and information and referral services to support their striving for success in home, school, and community.

Now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland, do hereby proclaim May 2026 to be mental health awareness month and encourage the Rockville community to remember this year's theme, more good days together, and to always seek help if and when it's needed.

Madam Mayor, I'm honored to move the proclamation.

Aye.

And we have someone to accept this.

Yes.

Oh, thank you.

Correct Beasley.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

A little shorty.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, about one in five U.S.

adults experience mental illness each year.

If we look around this room, that could be a colleague, a family member, or even ourselves.

Mental Health Awareness Month reminds us how important community really is.

We all go through hard moments, and having people around us who care can make a big difference.

Being a supportive part of our community means checking in, listening, and offering support without judgment.

It also means speaking up and fighting the stigma around mental health, so people feel safe asking for help.

Even small actions can help someone feel less alone.

When we look out for each other, we create a stronger, more connected community where it's okay to ask for help.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

So it's my pleasure to uh proclaim uh this month, May 2026, as uh older Americans month in uh Rockville, Maryland.

Whereas May is Older Americans Month, a time for us to recognize and honor older adults and their immense influence on every facet of American society, and therefore, the mayor and council of the city of Rockville, Maryland to hear Barbara claim May 2026 is older Americans month.

This year's theme, champion your health, focuses on provision, wellness, and personal responsibility as key aspects of healthy aging.

It encourages older adults to take an active role in managing their health, advocating for themselves, and making informed decisions that support independence.

We call upon all residents to recognize the contributions of our older residents and promote programs and activities that foster connection, inclusion, and support for older Americans or older adults, sorry.

And with that, Mayor, uh Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Thank you.

Councilman Seconds.

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

And believe we have two uh commissioners on the uh council commission on aging, Vicky Gottlich and Dick Verzana to come up and uh take the proclamation, maybe say for words.

Thank you.

Um we want to thank the mayor and the council for the support for older um citizens or non-citizens, older residents of Rockville.

We particularly appreciate your support for the senior center and for um the village community and the services you provide.

And in keeping with um champion your own health on May 20th, the senior center is having um its annual health fair, and so we encourage all older residents of Rockville to attend this great fair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So May is also National Preservation Month.

Whereas May is designated as preservation month by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

This year's theme, all people are created equal, is a national effort to recognize the individuals and organizations that pour their time, energy, and resources into protecting places and inspire others to do the same.

And now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland, recognizing that the efforts of historic preservation enrich our present and enhance our future, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as preservation month and call upon the community of Rockville to enjoy historic homes, sites, and landscapes.

Madam Mayor and move the proclamation.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Jackson seconds.

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

Aye.

Now I believe we may have people from the historic district commission or PLS Rockville here.

I don't see them.

Okay, well, we welcome them to come to the clerk's office and accept the proclamation.

So May is also stroke awareness of month in Rockville, Maryland, uh, whereas stroke is a leading cause of disability and death impacting individuals and families across the nation.

And now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland do hereby proclaim May 2026 to be Stroke Awareness Month, and encourage the Rockville community to remember that this year's theme, make May Purple, and act fast, this F period, A period, S period, T period, and then meet something, go to American Stroke Association and look it up.

I can't uh remember exactly what it means.

And to always seek help quickly and immediately.

Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Councilman mayor below seconds.

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

Aye.

And I believe we have uh our own Mary Grace Siebel to come up and uh second the proclamation and say a few words.

Uh-huh, thank you.

I'm accepting this uh in memory of my good grandmother, Nora Meehan from County Galway.

She was an immigrant um and she died of complications of a stroke.

Um we also lost my 66-year-old cousin this year, two months ago uh to a stroke.

Um hit her fast and hard, and um we're still kind of reeling from how how quickly we lost her.

So only 36% of people in the U.S.

could recognize symptoms of a stroke.

So I want to talk about that for a minute.

Um the full phrase is be fast.

Um balance, if somebody's balance is off, if there are changes in their visions, that's eyes.

Um the F stands for face, so if there's drooping of the face or one side of the body, arms and legs can become weak.

Uh the speech difficulty, if they can't pronounce a sentence, just say it out loud.

Um, and time is critical.

Um they call the first hour the golden hour, and that has a lot to do with um how much stroke victims actually recover.

So call 911 as quickly as possible.

And hopefully um you'll have your relatives and your friends around for a very long time.

Thank you.

And May is also bicycle month in uh Rockville, Maryland.

And whereas the bicycle plays an important role in the lives of many Rockville residents by providing a means to travel to work, school, parks, and a popular form of recreation.

Now, therefore, the mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as bicycle awareness month, and urge all residents of Rockville to seek opportunities to ride a bicycle this month and throughout the year, to recognize the importance of bicycle safety, and to be more aware, uh aware of people bicycling on our streets and roadways.

Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Dr.

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

Aye.

And I believe that Jake Jakovich, the uh Rockville Bicycle Advisory Committee uh chairman is not here, so we'll leave this with the clerk's office.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Well, while we're getting set up, um, I'm I'm very honored um to be giving out the next proclamation.

Um, and this one is in honor of Taiwanese Americans.

Um, you know, I I do love bubble tea.

I love our bubble tea festival, but there is so much more as well.

Um wonderful contributions uh to the community from Taiwanese Americans.

So I do want to note that, but I also wanted to note how much I love bubble tea.

Okay, and they do.

Um whereas America has been continually renewed and enriched by the many different people who choose to come here and become residents.

Each brings part of their own heritage to contribute to our common culture over time.

Generations of Asian Americans have helped make America what it is today.

Whereas more than 700,000 Taiwanese Americans live in the United States with a significant Taiwanese American population in the city of Rockville.

Now, therefore, the mayor and city council do hereby proclaim May 10th through May 17th, 2026 to be Taiwanese American Heritage Week, and encourage all residents to observe, celebrate, and enjoy this special week.

Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Councilman Seconds.

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

Hi.

And I believe we have some very special guests to accept the proclamation.

Thank you.

We welcome it.

We love it.

Rolling with an entourage.

Who would like to be first up?

Uh good morning, Mayor and uh City Council and our friends.

Uh it's my behalf of a WAPATC chapter.

Uh, it's my honor to receive 2026 Taiwanese American Heritage Week from CT of Rockville.

And uh we look forward to continuing work together with our United States.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good evening, uh, Mayor Ashton.

Uh members of City Council, uh, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.

Uh, I'm Minji Chen.

I'm the current president of Taiwan Sister Cities, and also former uh national president of FAPA.

It is my great honor to stand before you today, express our sincere credit gratitude to your continued support of Tony's American Heritage Week and the Taiwan Bubble Tea Festival at Rockville.

Tony's American Heritage Week was established in 1999 during the Clinton administrations through the dedicated efforts of FAPA, the Foremostan Association of Public Affairs.

Since then, it has served as a meaningful bridge, bringing in communities together, celebrating the culture heritage and strengthening the friendship between Taiwan and the United States.

Because of your commitment to community engagement and cultural diversity, events like the Bubati Festival continue to grow and strive.

Bring people together through a shared uh shared experience and values and tradition.

We had over 15,000 people join us last year.

This year we are very excited to announce that the Bubble D festival at Rockville will take place September 19, 2036.

We hope to bring more people to join us.

Bubble Tea and Tony's food.

And that has connected people across generations and borders.

We warmly invite all of you to join us this for this spatial occasion.

And your presence will mean a great deal to us and to the community.

We uh thank you once again for your support.

We look forward to celebrating with you in September.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Thank you all for celebrating with us.

I'll call this many May.

There are a lot of celebrations of culture, of our infrastructure, of our quality of life, our people who helped do all the work behind the scenes, as well as make sure you're taking care of your health.

Thank you all of you for joining us, those online and those who are here with us in person.

It means a lot that you take time out of your busy schedule to share your insights with us and to celebrate with us.

We will be taking a brief break until about 6:30, and we'll then begin our meeting.

Thank you all for the community.

We'll begin with agenda review.

Ms.

Sarah Taylor Pharrell.

Madam Mayor and Council members, there are no changes for the agenda this evening.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

City Manager, City Manager's Report, bless you.

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

Earlier today, we heard a little bit about chasing problematic water main breaks.

Well, we're still chasing one, unfortunately.

That's the one that we're experiencing along Wooton Parkway.

We had a pretty significant water main break, and we've been trying to do all the repairs.

I'm not making excuse excuses, but I'm going to give you the reasons why.

The first weekend, our asphalt plants weren't open just yet.

Second weekend, we didn't have warm enough weather and it was damp.

And this weekend we got some work done.

But as we got into the site and started looking at the damage created by the water main break, we found out that a lot of the um material underneath water main break was um really compromised.

So we're having to go in there and dig all that out, replace the material.

You got to do all that work first before you put any asphalt over the top because you put asphalt over a top to a base that's not compacted, all it's gonna do is crater.

So it's taking much longer than we um thought it would, but we're on it.

I don't want people to think that we're not we're walking away from that site because we're far from it.

We'll continue to work on it.

Our hope is with good weather and less um surprises underneath the water main that we'll get that worked on this weekend.

On to better news.

Um, the summer program registration for Rockville residents begins tomorrow, May 5th at 8 30 a.m.

I know people get excited and anticipate that, so I want to remind everybody.

And then new for this year, we're gonna have Thursday, May 7th is for general registration for non-Rockville residents.

So again, Rockville residents are getting priority.

And then lastly, and this is great news the summer concert series at Town Square is all set, and we hope people come down and enjoy those really nice musical events.

That's all I have, Mayor.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I just want to acknowledge that uh policy for Rockville residents going first and then opening up to all is a newer policy.

Want to thank the recreation and parks team for listening to our feedback and resident feedback on that.

Um, I did want to just also uh acknowledge the Rockville Arts Festival that happened this weekend.

It was an incredible event, two days.

Uh, and it was really nice to see so many people from all over coming to enjoy arts and humanities in the city of Rockville.

Thank you to VizArts for that.

I also wanted to acknowledge uh, in addition to some business owning openings that we had in the city, uh, we had an incredible large-scale statue of Harriet Tubman on the Bill Dawson House property.

Uh, there is a scholar named Tony Cohen who is making the trek from the Underground Railroad.

From he started here in Rockville, uh, then went to Sandy Spring today, and he is making the track all the way to Canada.

Uh someone acknowledged that history and the work of the community, and thank you to Montgomery History and others and Dr.

Tony Cohen for uh creating that note.

Councilman Jackson and I really enjoyed that ceremony.

Okay.

All right.

So we'll now move on to our community forum.

This is a chance for us to listen to residents and to hear feedback, concerns, and questions.

We do have some city staff at the back in case there is something that needs attention, and we will uh encourage you to visit our team in the back if needed.

Please address the mayor and council and speak in a civil and courteous manner.

And please also be respectful to audience members and be respectful of each other.

Each person is allowed three minutes, and we ask that you stick to that time.

There is a time clock in front of you, and you will hear an audible beep at the end of your three minutes.

Please state your name and if you live in Rockville for the record.

We'll now proceed with those who have signed up in advance.

Welcome, Libby Adams.

Hello.

Back again.

Um everybody knows my story, so I'm not going to share it again.

I'm just gonna, you know, kind of break it down.

It's been 332 days since I found toxic black mold in my apartment.

It's been 308 days since the city came to inspect it.

247 days since the apartment was forced to do an actual mold test, and my family was sent to a hotel.

We have been back, we were sent back 158 days ago, which means we spent 72 additional days in an apartment with toxic mold after um the city inspected it and said it was cleared.

It has been 178 days since they sent an email saying that their industrial hygienist said that our belongings needed to be cleaned.

It's been 86 days since we've abandoned our apartment.

146 days since Barry did the reinspection clearing our apartment.

I did a test 40 days ago, shared the results with you guys 33 days showing toxic mold, active mold growth.

Uh I've been back here, what, three times since then?

Um, 28 days since I asked for an inspection, 21 days since I asked for a follow-up, and then finally I heard from Barry's, but it's been 20 days now since I've heard from him.

I haven't had any update or nothing.

Um, and it's been 27 days since landlord tenant wanted me to sign a release, um, releasing the apartment from all of their responsibility.

I don't feel like my family should have to sign anything in order for the apartment complex to be held responsible for what is obviously their responsibility.

There is a mold protection act in Maryland, which means the Rockville City has to follow it, yet I don't see anything being done on behalf of that.

Um my test, which I share with you guys indicated that the mold was in the HVAC system, which means that it is spreading to everybody else there.

Still nothing is being done.

So again, I am here to present myself to Rockville residents as an advocate.

It is time that we um come together to speak up on the ways that we're being taken advantage of and require you guys to actually do something to help us because I'm not the only one, I'm just the only one here, and you guys know that.

I've pointed that out so many times.

Um, so I got 20 seconds left.

My phone number is 657-855-3194.

I can be reached at Fields of Rockville complaints at Gmail, Mold in Rockville City at Gmail, and Mold in Gaithersburg at Gmail.

Um, I urge everybody to reach out to me so that we can come together and hopefully have something done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, we have Cassidy Ayers.

Actually, I'm ready.

Okay.

Thank you for coming.

Mr.

City Manager.

Mayor, thank you for giving me the opportunity to uh comment on this.

We do appreciate Ms.

Adams coming forward and expressing her concerns.

We acknowledge and understand that a lot of the concerns she has is due to a disagreement between her and her landlord.

Um, it's an unfortunate circumstance to be sure.

City of Rockville staff have been out to the site and all through the the building on multiple occasions, done a number of different inspections.

If additional inspections are needed out the site, we're certainly willing and able to go out there and conduct those inspections wherever possible.

If Ms.

Adams wants to talk to a member of our staff, we can get those scheduled.

We're happy to do that.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, I guess a rebuttal.

What do you said?

Uh you can meet at the at the back with Mr.

Matite.

Uh, we have uh sections are nice, but if you guys Deborah Moore is next.

Ms.

Moore uh is virtual.

All right, let's go.

Oh, hi again.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, very good.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Deborah Moore.

I am a Rockville citizen.

Yeah, I am here representing the Human Services Advisory Commission.

It is my honor and pleasure to thank this body for the funding provided in the FY27 budget for caregiving organizations.

Funding for these organizations has always been a priority item of consideration.

Given the times we're currently finding ourselves in, the need for this funding is more paramount than ever.

In addition to the generosity of our community partners and to the city of Rockville residents, this much needed funding continues with an eye towards continued advocacy for those who need it.

Whether we're talking about housing or medical assistance, food security, or the myriad of other areas this funding addresses.

Funding levels in the FY27 budget continue to show strong advocacy for the need to keep these organizations going.

Again, on behalf of the human services advisory commission, we give our sincere and hearty thanks to you for continuing your tradition of strong robust support for those often referred to as vulnerable in our community.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

That exhaust of those who have signed up in advance community forum.

Like to open the door to see if anyone else will have to speak.

And also to continue that we have a hearing.

Okay.

We'll now move on to agenda item 9A.

Which is consent agenda.

If uh everyone at the days can just check your computers and make sure that you are on mute.

Thank you.

Okay.

Agenda item 9A, adoption of a resolution to designate Cindy Walters as acting city attorney.

9B, authorization for the city manager to approve public improvements easement associated with sidewalk maintenance on lots six through eight, Shady Groove Neighborhood Center.

That supports our vision zero reference.

That was discussed during our budget work sessions.

We have item 9D, which is the authorization for the city manager to execute the model priced dwelling unit homeownership program agreement and approval of author authorization for the city manager to execute the declaration of restrictive covenants for village at upper rock development between the mayor and council of Rockville and Toll Mid-Atlantic Company, subject to approval as to legal form by the city attorney.

That is the creation of new Molly Price 20 units for ownership in the city of Rockville.

And you can learn more on our site.

9E, adoption of a resolution to establish the service charge rate for municipal refuse collection and to establish a charge for unreturned refuse and recycling cards pursuant to section 20-6 of the Rockville City Code.

Agenda item 9F, adoption of a resolution to declare the official intent of the mayor and council to reimburse expenditures for certain projects from the proceeds of tax exempt obligations under the U.S.

Treasury Income Tax Regulation 1-150-2.

Item 9G, adoption of a resolution to close completed capital improvement program projects.

9H, adoption of a resolution to establish the equivalent residential unit rate to be used in calculating the stormwater management utility fee pursuant to Chapter 19 entitled Settlement Control and Stormwater Management of the Rockville City Code and to establish a fee for the application for credit against the stormwater management utility fee for private stormwater management facilities.

Those are all of the consent items we have.

Councilman Valeri.

Yes, Madam Mayor, I'd like to pull uh item C, please.

Thank you.

Do you want to uh ask questions first, or do you want is that something you want to vote on separately?

Um can I do both?

Can I ask questions and okay okay?

Okay, all right.

So uh colleagues, can we prove all of the rest?

Is that is everyone okay with all right?

Would you like to make a motion to move the other items?

Uh Madam Mayor, I move the following items on the consent agenda.

A adoption of resolution to designate Cynthia Walters as acting city attorney, B authorization, etc.

D, E, F, G, and H.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Shaw seconds.

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

Aye, excellent.

Thank you.

It's unanimous.

Please proceed, Councilman Valeri.

Sure.

Um, so on the um master fees.

I know that we had um the we talked through some of these during our our budget work session.

Do the fees as noted in the consent agenda item do those reflect all the changes that mayor and council agreed upon.

They do.

Okay.

Um, I think I'll just put a pin.

I think it's always helpful.

We can't always red line things.

I know it's very tough when we don't have apples to apples, but um when it takes a little bit of time to determine whether or not a change has been reflected in a new even if we just got like a quick summary, this, this, and this.

Um, I think that that would be helpful.

Uh in addition, you know, if there are items that we didn't have a discrete straw poll to, um, that would be helpful as well.

Um, I just wanted to note that procedurally.

Um to the point of some of the concerns that I saw in in the consent agenda item.

I saw that the um the fence slash small accessory fee remains at 100, um, which shows an increase of 150% a jump on a routine homeowner permit with no phase in.

Is that accurate?

That's correct.

Okay.

Um Madam Mayor, for that reason, um, and I think there are some other questions as well.

Um, I think there was a significant change in the annexation fee uh that I don't recall us having that conversation at all.

So for that reason, Madam Mayor, I would like to maybe go back to the drawing board on this item, get a little bit more information, particularly as it impacts residents.

Um, I'm I'm hesitant to pass this on consent.

Um, so if my colleagues would agree to that, I know I personally heard from residents on the fence fee, and that is a significant increase.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Uh Mr.

Mahillick, I know I also personally raised them some others about some of the increases in fees.

You we worked to try to get things under double digits.

There's some that were still uh higher.

Uh, this is one of them.

Uh can you just provide some background to the mayor and council as to the rationale?

And I also will just note that when we compare we we talked about in the future uh picking some more targeted areas to do comparisons with, and then also considering the fact that there's an automation fee, find and find ways to compare more apples to apples.

So, Mr.

Mahillick, if you could please provide more context.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, when we originally presented the entire fee schedule to council at a work session, there were a number of comments from the body.

Um, the body clearly gave direction the majority to for us to take another hard look at it.

We did went back, took a fine-tooth comb through it all, came back with a number of recommendations which significantly lowered a number of those fees.

Um we thought that the fees as adjusted were in very good order.

Um, heard from the majority of the council as a follow-up that those fees are good in the future.

If you want us to call out and try to do the best we can to show how the fees would change, we can certainly do that.

And any time you guys have a question about a fee in advance of the meeting, if you give us a heads up, we're happy to do that research.

But the feedback tonight's very helpful.

And moving forward with with future budget discussions and any changes of fees, your feedback tonight is helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Valeri.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Mr.

City Manager.

I know that this was not easy.

We have um a bajillion different fees, and I think that it's it's a tough one.

I think also it's a tough one for residents right now, um, in particular, with the situation that we're all facing as a society as residents, for us to put that sort of burden on them when I don't really see the good cost benefit analysis to the increase in that.

Um, I I know it seems like uh small potatoes and maybe worth it to you know wait, but I for residents right now to have a year of spending a hundred dollars on a fence permit when that is clearly above the Montgomery County fee.

I I feel that that is uh it it's it's outsize, and I'm I'm really curious about that.

Similarly, I don't recall the the conversation about the annexation fee change.

So I would be interested if you have, and I I definitely heard your answer on the fence on the annexation non-residential fee.

Was that something that got adjusted since March 9th?

Mr.

Mahillick.

Members of council, um, all the fees were presented full transparency once and then a second time again.

So those there are not new fees included in your schedule this evening.

So yeah, no, sorry.

Can I also just um if you want to just answer the the uh question about the fence fee and then council next, and then council McGolson is right after.

Yeah, the challenge with with many of our fees, including the fence fee and others, is the cities had a long-standing policy to try to do as much cost recovery as possible.

We know that.

So when we came up with a whole fee schedule, we we looked at cost recovery.

We looked at pure cities include and the county to see where we're come in line, and we made some adjustments based on the feedback we received from council.

But one thing I stressed to the body, and generally I saw agreement was that we have to be really careful about making some of those fees so small that the costs of processing those fees are passed to others.

These really are um user fees.

In other words, if someone applies for a fence permit by way of example, then most of the cost should be borne by the person applying for the fence.

Otherwise, if we're doing taking in the application, reviewing the plan, doing the inspection, we still have all those costs.

We're passing those costs off to somebody that isn't actually going forward with the permit.

Having said all that, we still significantly adjusted our fees downward per the direction of council.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Valeria.

Um yes, no, and I I appreciate that um, and I understand completely Montgomery County is 78 dollars for their fenced fee.

Um, so we're still significantly higher than the county.

So I I'm I'm really curious about um where the hundred came from.

I understand, and trust me, I know that none of this is easy, but I am really concerned with this one.

Councilmember Fulton, please.

So I just wanted to to clarify like substantively approval of an individual fee is fair game, and I I appreciate raising concerns.

But just from a procedural perspective, we have seen the full fee schedule two times.

We have never straw polled individual fees the same way we do not straw poll individual line items on a budget, like or every little tiny thing that happens here.

So I just don't want to set the expectation of the public that we would be straw polling all elements of a package that we are approving.

It's incumbent upon us to have read it and raised questions.

But I'm fair game to discuss any of the individual fees, but from procedurally, I just wanted to be clear about that.

Thank you.

Councilman Van Grack.

I I just want to note um I know that this body gave a really detailed perception with regard to the fees that were put forward initially in the budget.

And I know that I want to really note that staff did an extremely diligent effort to focus on those fees that would be most importantly focused on residents, as well as focused on broad-based development that would be potentially by square footage, which could be significant.

I know that not all of them were reduced, but I know that staff did a you know, Mr.

Mahale can correct me if I'm wrong, staff did a really detailed analysis to try to determine what fees we've been doing to the point where we've been losing money on doing those efforts, and that you guys went through and really did as I understand it when it was presented the rever the revised determination that you really took it down to where even in some of the other revisions, we're essentially losing money on those efforts.

Do I have that kind of recollection correct?

Yeah, you're exactly right.

We went the entire team with public work, CPDS, finance team, my office went through all the fees, received clear direction from council that take another hard look.

We did come back, lowered a ton of the fees to the tune of $642,000.

So big, big big change.

So I just want to say I really appreciate the effort that you took back.

You really took the mayor and council's feedback to light to staff, I know really worked.

And while I know it wasn't perfect because there are still fees that we really need to recover where we had really been on the opposite direction.

I just want to note that I really appreciated what staff did and appreciated the revised effort, which really put into chart where you've reduced it in comparison to prior years.

Mr.

Mahillan, can I just ask a question about um this?

There were some significant increases this year.

I know that we pushed back and you came and evaluated and we had to make some changes in the budget because of it.

Um I know that we have to do cost recovery.

Uh, but just to confirm, this was your big update.

You will not be coming back to us next year with a bunch of increases.

Is that correct?

Generally speaking, they may be some adjustments.

But generally speaking, you do not anticipate a push for major fee increases.

This is a one-time review that you're trying to look at all of them and make changes, just so the body's aware of where we are in the cycle.

I generally agree with you, Mayor.

The way you qualify it, I agree.

We're always gonna if we see a fee that we think is woefully below what we think is is appropriate, we'll bring those forward, but you're correct.

We're not planning on bringing forward a whole say change, wholesale changes in fees again next year.

You're correct about that.

Okay, thank you.

And I will just say when you look at the fees next year, and again, we're delivering a budget without any tax increases.

I know that there are discussions in other jurisdictions about that.

Um, you will you also factor in that there is an automation fee.

So you if you're comparing a fee, you also have to add out automation fee to another jurisdiction.

Understood, yes.

Thank you.

I have a procedural question.

Councilman Valeri.

I have a procedural question, and um maybe this is for Ms.

Ms.

Walters.

Um if there is one fee that perhaps some of us have very strong feelings on.

Could the rest be passed on consent and then that one voted on separately, or how would you know what I'm saying?

Like, am I making sense?

I don't know if I'm making sense.

You're asking to, and it's not we don't typically will pull one.

That's why I was one point.

Yeah.

Uh, but uh I will let the city attorney answer the question.

I was just curious.

I was saying that's irregular, but I don't know that there's anything that would um permit or prevent you from pulling one fee.

Okay.

I think it's highly unusual.

Highly irregular.

I I appreciate it.

Um, and and thank you, and thank you to Mr.

Mahalik.

I know that a lot of work was was put into this.

I just don't want us putting any more fees than we have to on residence backs.

Mr.

McHillick.

Just seems minor, but I think it is really important.

Adopting the budget tonight, there's multiple pieces and parts.

Everything has been woven together very carefully based on a series of work sessions that we've had with the council, including the last meeting of the work session where we balanced everything out to the penny.

I'm obligated to present you guys with a balanced budget.

We've done that.

So even taking out one fee.

So if you remember, it's not just one fee for one person, it's one fee, and then we have to project how many permits would not be then charged a similar fee, and that leaves a bit of a hole in our budget.

So I just want to be clear about that.

That's not major, but it is.

Yeah, thank you.

I will just note that um I did not like all the fees.

We I appreciate the body weighing in, and we removed or reduced significantly many of them.

Is it exactly perfect with what I like?

No, uh, but the majority supported uh the package that's in front of us, and the the budget has been prepared with it.

So uh but what I will say is that this is the major fee update, and you know the body is I don't think would be anticipating another major update like this next year, and you have confirmed that with us.

Councilman Van Grack, and then we'll go for the vote.

All right, we would just get a move for um the approval of um consent item consent agenda item nine.

Thank you.

Do we have a second, Councilmember Shaw?

Second.

All right.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

And uh those who uh oppose, thank you.

And no abstentions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

And I I do want to say I appreciate the spirit of my colleague, Councilmember Valerie.

That's the spirit of which I came to the fees.

We want to be very mindful of costs and affordability as well as economic development.

So please keep that in mind for next year's budget.

Okay.

So we are now moving on to a public hearing, and I want to encourage staff to get in place for this public hearing.

Uh it is for the zoning text amendment TXT 2026 00271, the draft zoning ordinance, mayor and council applicants.

I want to welcome Holly Simmons, Deputy Zoning Manager from the Community Planning and Development Services, as well as Evan Johnson and Jim Wasselick.

Welcome.

And also, if you could just make sure you're clear about what we're accepting feedback on.

I know there were two hearings last time.

Thank you for your guidance.

Absolutely.

Um thank you, Madam Mayor, and good evening, members of the council.

So as stated, we are here for our second public hearing, uh, second set of public hearings after our April 13th meeting at which we had our first set of public hearings.

We did go ahead and per Mayor and Council's request at a third public hearing on May 11th.

So that is one week from today.

So uh we are we are right in the middle here with public hearings.

This will be this evening on um two items.

The first is our zoning text amendment for the zoning ordinance rewrite.

So, as folks will recall, anyone hoping to provide testimony on the text of the zoning ordinance, the policies contained therein, this would be the public hearing to provide testimony on that.

And once we've concluded that public hearing, we will proceed on to a public hearing on the comprehensive map amendment.

So for folks wishing to testify on any proposed rezonings or the zoning map itself, that is the time to provide testimony.

Um with that, madam mayor, I believe I'll hand it back to you, but happy to provide any additional detail.

Thank you.

To Sarah Taylor Farrell, has this been properly noticed?

And I'll say that for both hearings.

Yes, Mayor Mayor, both public hearings have been uh publicized in the wash and on the city's website.

Okay, thank you.

I'm going to read the folks who have signed up in advance uh for this particular one just because I don't want to create confusion with the two public hearings, but for this one in particular on the zoning text amendment draft zoning ordinance, as Ms.

But for this one in particular on the zoning text amendment to have zoning ordinance, as Ms.

Simmons mentioned.

We have uh council member former council member at Mark Fishela, uh representing the College Garden Civic Association, and then we have received written comments from several people.

I also see that we have uh JD Kumara and Anna Astia as well.

So uh I will see if you if you were wanting to do this section, please let us know.

I will call for folks after we're done taking those who have signed up in advance.

Welcome, Mark Pajela.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the council.

Um I I'm going to read you some of the resolutions that the College Garden Civic Association passed at its March 24th meeting.

That was a special meeting specifically on the zoning um ordinance review.

And just to remind everybody, it's as I understand it's complete repeal and total reenactment of the zoning ordinance.

So the first resolution I'm going to read to you tonight.

The College Garden Civic Association Association resolves Mayor and Council that the Section 25.7.1.4A purpose of the small lot single unit residential zones be re-routed as follows.

The small lot single-unit residential zones include the R-90, R-75, R Dash 60, and R-40 zones.

These zones are intended primarily for single unit residential uses on smaller lots than those in the large lot single-unit residential zones.

Now, what we're asking is to add the following.

The purposes of these zones include one, provide appropriate located areas for residential development that are consistent with the plan and public health and safety.

And two, stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the existing residential neighborhoods.

And that text came out of the current zoning ordinance.

So it's not made up, but it's sorely missing from the proposal.

Then on proposed resolutions, two of them on differences on uses in zones.

The College Garden Civic Association resolves that mayor and council instruct city staff that the uses of small and large lot single unit residential zones be tabulated in a similar manner to the one I presented at the College Garden Civic Association and officially be appended to the staff highlights document and distributed to all neighborhood associations.

Well, it looks like this, okay.

And the highlights document that was produced by city staff is good as far as it goes, but totally missed out on differences in uses.

And there are a large number of differences.

Some are due to state law and some are due to this body.

And we you really should know the difference there.

State there's approximately four state laws that impact this zoning ordinance revision.

We should know how they do that.

And I don't see how we can do our job as association leaders without that.

Um that leaves the second resolution.

The College Garden Civic Association resolves that mayor and council instruct that the table clearly indicate which changed uses are due to state law and which are due to mayor and council direction.

And then there are two resolutions specifically impacting the college gardens neighborhood.

And the first resolution, the College Garden Civic Association resolves that mayor and council for MXCD zones, which would be college plaza.

Put back the notation, quote, no vehicular access to any secondary residential street, end quote, in the new zoning ordinance.

That comes out of the current ordinance.

It's missing in the proposed.

That really uh protects more directly the Ivy, which is uh multi-unit uh, you know, rather than the single family homes directly, but college plaza, if it's ever redeveloped, you know, having secondary streets right coming right onto that very highly parked Rutgers Street would would be a disaster.

So uh that's that.

And uh secondly, we acknowledged one thing that we really want you to keep, so no changes here.

The College Garden Civic Association agrees with the proposed MXE designation, that there be no vehicular access to any regional street from the MXE zone.

And there we have in mind, it's called the Goody uh it's a it's a plaza next to us, which has four or five office buildings, which could go to residential.

We'd be fine with that, no problem.

It's just you know, we that should not then spill out into our neighborhood directly, and that's for that one.

You just have to keep what is in the proposal.

Uh finally, we we also um for you know pass some resolutions on process that's already been sent to you.

I think you're you're just coming through this zoning ordinance way too quickly.

We ask that you um pass it earliest in September 2026.

I understand the next uh next meeting you have will be on uses, for example, but we won't see any staff input on uses until then.

Uh we have our next College Garden Civic Association meeting, our regular spring meeting on May 12th.

You're all invited, 7 p.m.

College Gardens Elementary School All Purpose Room, and I'll have to give a review at that time for what you all covered through May 11th.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Can you please pass any documents you want to our city clerk, please?

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

We now have Anna Astrid.

Welcome.

And while she's coming up, I wanted to flag that uh Engage Rockville has the documents with summary of changes in case folks are trying to follow along with what we're talking about.

Welcome.

Good evening.

Um my name is Anastri Molina and I leave in Markwood.

Uh I just want to um regarding the text amendment.

Uh sorry, I'm not as prepared, I thought I had another chance, but I said you're going to discuss these tonight.

Um regarding notifications for rezoning.

I know that when uh it is for uh amendment is only newspaper notification and through the website.

But uh the time I believe when the um the current code was written, you know, we have newspapers at the time.

So we have the Gazette, which was weekly, and um, I think that the website was actually easier.

Now there's like two websites that we have to look at.

And the newsletter, you know, I I just was wondering, you know, how how many people subscribe to the newsletter for the zoning, and since December to now it's only like 230.

So I don't think that is a significant part of the population that are receiving the information.

I believe uh by now we all have emails, and the CD has a lot of emails that you know we could provide to, especially to residents like me that have no uh homeowners' associations, and uh I think that will be good to improve in that um text amendment rewrite.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, J.

Ducamara.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak as part of this portion of the public hearing?

We'll have another focus on the maps.

Okay, thank you.

I'll turn it back to staff.

Is there anything you want to say before we move on to the next one?

No, you're perfectly fine to move on.

Okay, thank you.

We next move on to public hearing number two on map amendment, MAP 2026 00126, comprehensive map amendment, Mayor and Council of Rockville applicants.

And thank you, Holly Simmons and Jim Wasselick.

All right, so this will also be our second public hearing on the comprehensive map amendment.

Again, we will have a third public hearing on this item next Monday.

Um, and for folks who are interested, in addition to providing appropriate notice in the Washington Post, we also provided an email update to subscribers to our engage Rockville page after this was um solidified for next week.

So with that, um happy to turn it back over to you for the public hearing.

Thank you.

I'd like to open up to Alex Belida.

You're first, followed by Tanya Rock Rockovskaya.

I apologize.

Good evening.

I'm Alex Bolita, uh resident of Newmark Commons since 1985.

And I want to extend my thanks to you, uh all of you, um, for your understanding, as we have appeared here before you time after time to express our concerns about the original proposal to rezone a small parcel of land next to us, RMD 25.

We're grateful that you have agreed there should be a much lesser level of development density, and that there should be no direct road link between that plot and our community except for emergency access.

Now, on behalf of the residents in Newmark and Markwood, who have discussed the various new options that have been presented by the planning staff, we would urge you to specifically adopt RMD 10 as your final zoning decision.

At the same time, we would ask you to limit building height to no more than 40 feet.

This is the solution most compatible with our community and would provide for a better quality of life for the new residents of that plot.

I want to acknowledge the planning staff's willingness to offer options that vary from the comprehensive plan recommendation and the planning commission's efforts to respond to our concerns.

Thank you all.

We also welcome the contribution of the attorney for the plot's owner for advancing the idea of emergency access only through Newmark and Markwood.

But today we've heard some suggestions that because he advanced this idea, we should accept a higher density level like RMD 15 and taller height limits.

Please don't do this.

While we support the goal of increased housing, we still consider this level of development incompatible with our neighborhood, as well as with the plots heavily wooded terrain and wetlands and the noxious proximity of I-270.

Now I'm proud of our Newmark residents and our newly elected HOA board for standing up and defending our position before the city.

Will you now show us that Rockville has a government that listens to its residents?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Welcome, Tanya Rakhovskaya.

Please note for everyone whether you live in the city of Rockville.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good evening.

I am Tania Rachovska.

My family moved to Newmark in 1997.

We chose this community because it was safe, quiet, and beautiful historic neighborhood.

We love this family-oriented environment so much that when our older daughter started, the family of her own should also bought a home in Newmark.

And now her family of six enjoys the advantages of raising children in this wonderful community.

Just yesterday, the new Mark Swim team had a kickoff meeting for this season when our daughter Sir Child will join two older siblings as a member of the team, just like their mother when she was growing up.

Because of this deep family connection, preserving the character and nature of our community is extremely important for us.

I want to thank you for listening to our concerns about the proposed rezoning over the last several months and agreeing that lower development density and no extra traffic through our community, except for emergency access, would help to preserve the character of our wonderful neighborhood.

Thus, together with a hundred other residents, I ask you to designate RMD 10 with 40 feet height limit for Zor ID 17.

We insist on lower density development to preserve green areas supporting the wildlife that is abundant in and around Newmark and the character of our neighborhood, which is a nationally recognized historic community.

I do hope that Rockville Mayor and Council will kindly consider our appeal and agree with our arguments.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much.

Anna Astrid Molina.

Good evening again.

Good evening again.

My name is Anastri Molina, and I have lived in Markwood for over 30 years.

I want to thank you, Mayor and Council, for recognizing that Markwood legs and HOA and that our residents were not properly notified or involving the conversations.

We appreciate your suggestion of lower density designations like RMD Infield or RMD 10, including above or close to Newmark Commons and Markwood and a greater allowances closer to Tower Oaks.

We support the proposal that primary access must be through the contiguous Tower Oaks planning development confirmed by Mr.

Commoners, restricting Don Mills court only to emergency vehicles.

These, along with pedestrian walkways, allows for growth while maintaining the safety and cohesion of our neighborhoods.

To that end, we will be requesting further clarifications from staff to on the specific item as in examples for these different designations.

There is a sacred reason for this high density that is unsustable.

Research written by Julianne Mangnin and published by Montgomery History in 2025 has revealed that the numbers of burials at the poor farm is far higher than previously thought.

With 231 confirmed and estimated over 1,000 remains, for the first 100 years, no records were kept.

The most vulnerable residents, the poor, the elderly, and those with mental illness, were buried in unmarked grave because they have no other recourse prior to social security.

This site also holds the remains of uh John Deeks and Sidney Randolph, victims of the 19th century lynchings.

I hope that the city will commit to identify these remains and treat them with respect when they're that were they denied in life.

I respect that was missing when the 100 remains were previously relocated to Parkland Cemetery.

Finally, we must address the noise pollution.

Even with traffic is restricted through Bootham Parkway, knows of future residents will uh directly impact Newmark and Markwood.

Currently, the high noise labels from 270 and nursing home traffic is cumbersome.

My backyard wall and fence currently bound and amplify the noise.

So on days with a heavy nursing home activity, it is impossible for me to work from home, forcing me to find quiet at the library.

I ask you to honor the dignity of those buried there and the safety of those living here.

Please prioritize our shared history and our quality of life over high density development.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Welcome, Lori Krug.

Dear Mayor Ashton and Council members, my name is Laurie Krug, and I'm a resident of Newmark Commons, who, along with my husband, invested our life savings to purchase a town home four years ago.

I am here to comment on the rezoning of Parcel 12, the 10 acre wooded property near Newmark Commons in Markwood.

I first spoke to you in December, where I tried to emphasize the beauty of the tree canopy, since Parcel 12 is often depicted merely as a geometric shape on a cold map.

I have attended additional planning meetings these last few months, and I truthfully have begun to despair.

Since it seemed rezoning was preordained, and the developer held all the cards.

No road was a no-brainer to keep us safe from car traffic from hundreds of homes to the south, and I'm excited that we can all agree to lock that resolution down.

It was also terrific that the council members and their discussion recognize the complex issues of this property that my neighbors have brought to your attention.

With regard to this mature tree canopy, unmapped historical burial sites, stormwater management concerns, in addition to the need to be compatible with our nationally recognized historic neighborhood as described in the comprehensive plan.

With regard to rezoning, I remind you that RD 10 capped at 40 feet accommodates a much higher density than the current R90, and this will prevent incompatible high rises by future developers.

In conversations with our neighbors, I agree this is the best path forward, and I welcome Jim Wassilak's presentation to our board meeting this coming Thursday.

Please keep compatibility, history, environmental impact in mind as you consider one of the last intact parcels of mature canopy in Rockville.

Tower Dawson has a clear track record of clear cutting prior to development, exposing our community to the noise and pollution of 270.

Replanting trees with a goal to restore even a portion of the current tree canopy won't be realized in our lifetimes.

And wildlife that we have not even surveyed will be displaced and an ecosystem will be lost.

I like many Newmark residents have a strong connection to the trees and wildlife.

And you actually are the stewards of this precious parcel.

Your decision on the rezoning is an important one that paves the way for development, and we urge you to make sure that as compatible with our community, we will stay engaged well after the zoning decision is finalized to monitor the details of development.

And I hope to help position Newmark as a partner when planning pedestrian walkways to connect their new homes to our highly prized footpaths as a conduit to schools and Rockville Town Center.

Please, RMD 10 at 40 feet.

Thank you for engaging with us.

Thank you very much.

Welcome Susan Knowles.

Hi, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Susan Knowles, and I am a resident of Newmark Commons.

I'm also proud to say that we are one of the most diverse communities and neighborhoods in the city of Rockville.

Our community represents many different nationalities, including Ukraine, Russia, India, Iran, Germany, Argentina, and Spain, and numerous languages are spoken here.

We have always been a very welcoming community throughout our almost 60 years representing the city of Rockville.

Even our street names reach out to the global community, having roots in such countries such as the United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden, and Canada.

I'm not sure Radburn, New Jersey counts as global, but it does have representation in our community street names.

When our community was built, Edward Bennett took a census of all trees that were 12 inches in diameter in our 96 acres and built the houses and townhouses around them.

We appreciate the zoning plan that now realizes how important it will be to preserve as many trees as possible in this 9.7 acre plot of land adjacent to Newmark, lessening the environmental impact to our neighborhood, Markwood, and the new homes that will be developed.

We appreciate the addition of access for walking and biking into our neighborhood, which was discussed at the last work section.

We already are a bike route to Dogwood Park, and I know that some of you already ride your bikes or take leisurely stroll through our neighborhood.

Please continue to work on creating a new neighborhood with density RMD 10 with a 40 foot height limitation, keeping it compatible in relation to established neighborhoods and the property's proximity to I-270.

We appreciate you listening to all of us as we represent the neighborhoods surrounding this undeveloped parcel.

Thank you for your time, and as you can as you continue to meet with us in person and listen to our concerns.

It is appreciated and shows that your constituents still have the power to make things happen for the betterment of the city of Rockville.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Julia Binder.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Julia Binder.

I'm a newly elected member of the Newmark Commons HOA board.

Part of the reason I earned the highest number of votes among the candidates is because of my involvement in the group that opposes the plan for rezoning ZORID 17 to RMD 25.

I want to thank you for making time to listen to the hundreds of residents of Newmark Commons and Markwood in taking the first steps towards supporting the health and safety of our communities.

It was an unexpected and gratifying surprise to hear your discussion on April 13 and to learn that the majority seems to support the RMD 10 designation for the 9.75-acre tower Dawson property.

Thank you for touring this parcel with us, taking meetings with us, listening to our testimony, and reading our letters.

I'm very grateful for your consideration of the voices of your citizens in addressing our concerns about pedestrian safety, environmental impact, Montgomery County history, and respect for sacred grounds and weighing your decisions.

Mr.

Wazilak has asked to meet with the Newmark HOA board this week to present the latest discussion by the mayor and council on the proposed rezoning of the adjacent 9.75-acre parcel and allow him to gain feedback for you.

I trust your tentative approval to permanently block vehicle access to Newmark Esplanade, Don Mills Court, except for emergency fire and city vehicles, will be reflected in the final plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome Pat Rieber.

Good evening and thank you for listening to us again.

I know you've listened to us a lot, and now here we are again.

My name is Pat Reber.

I have been a resident of Rockville since 1985.

My husband, whom you heard earlier, and I raised three children there.

I wish to explain why so many residents of Newmark Commons and Markwood are advocating for the RMD 10 zone for this plot.

We are 100 people working actively on this issue.

Two-thirds of our more than 400 households, including Markwood, are represented on a petition we circulated last year opposing RMD 25.

It is it has about 700 signatures.

We appreciate that you have heard our witness over the last month since September, we have been coming to you and are considering a lesser density.

The current zoning on this plot is R90, or about 4.5 homes per acre.

The recommended zoning of RMD 25 in the comprehensive plan calls for nearly six times that density.

Both RMD 10 and RMD 15 offer the owner considerably more density than it currently has.

We are advocating for RMD-10 because it would be more compatible with our current communities, but also because of the terrain on this plot, only half of it is buildable.

The rest is wetlands, wetland mitigation, and a city-operated stormwater filtration system.

That means that with RMD 10, all 100 units would be crowded onto the five acres that are butt up against I-270.

In a sense, the density on those five acres would be equivalent to RMD 20.

Also, at the April 13 meeting, a majority of Mayor and Council indicated support for RMD 10, and we took additional impetus for our position on that.

At the same meeting, you heard that the Newmark HOA board voted to oppose RMD 25 and asked the city to find a less dense solution.

Planning staff has reached out to our board to provide an update on May 7th about the new options, and we welcome this initiative.

We are not opposed to building on that plot.

What we want is a density that is compatible with our two neighborhoods and respects the safety and security of our neighborhood.

We've got a lot of kids walking to Julius West's school every day.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Welcome, Bill Commoners.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Ashton, members of the council.

My name is Bill Commoners, and I'm here representing Tower Dawson LLC, the owner and the original developer of Tower Oaks Plan Development and the former school site that you've been hearing so much about for so long.

The owner has always been a supportive of the recommendation and the comprehensive plan and carried forward by the staff to rezone the property.

But as a compromise to address the concerns expressed about the staff's recommendation, Tower Dawson supports the rezoning to RMD 15, a 40% reduction from the density originally proposed with the RMD 25.

The RMD 15 zone is the best alternative in our view within the context of the choices of zones that are available to consider in the comprehensive map amendment.

Toward Dawson believes that the RMD 15 will both address concerns about density while also supporting the city's efforts to increase the housing supply.

Tower Dawson believes that this is a feasible alternative that can strike a balance of the greatest range of choices of unit types and sufficient density to support economic feasibility, while protecting community concerns and being coupled with the access restrictions that everyone seems to agree on.

Tower Dawson notes that the appropriate route of access to serve the property will be from the land within the Tower Oaks Plan Development, located to the south, rather than from the abutting community.

The only connection would be for emergency access.

Higher density under the RMD 15 presents an opportunity to achieve economical development of the property.

The significant development costs can be spread across a greater number of dwelling units.

And the combination of the density potential with the RMD-15, coupled with access from the South and emergency access only from Don Mills Court, finally makes development of the property feasible to consider.

It is not a guarantee, nor is the density to be achieved a guarantee.

It is an opportunity to apply, subject to a plan which would then be reviewed by the city staff with their normal uh rigor.

But for all the foregoing reasons, Tower Dawson supports the rezoning of the property to RMD 15 as a compromise with the recommendation of the city's comprehensive plan and as the best choice among the rezoning choices that are available.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Welcome, Thomas Crumley.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Thank you very much for hearing me.

Thank you.

I've been able to meet with a couple of you about this issue.

I am a member of the Newmark Commons Board of Directors.

I've lived in the neighborhood since 2021.

And I never really got involved in local politics until I attended a virtual zoning meeting last fall.

So that was my entry.

This issue energized me to run for the board and become involved.

And uh I've had the chance to meet with some of you.

Mr.

Commoner spoke last week.

He said that he didn't have a plan.

I understand that.

I was an attorney for the United States Army for 25 years.

Big organizations may not have a formal plan, but they're always considering things in the background, and I guess that's what we're worried about.

We hear about talk of access from the South.

What if this parcel is sold?

What if Tower sells this when it's increased to RMD 10 as we advocate or RMD 15?

Will that access have to come through Don Mills Court?

I'm not a real estate lawyer lawyer, but uh will it be subject to something like reverse uh condemnation?

So that's the city attorney's job, but um that's something that concerns us.

Most of us love or like that development that they've built.

It's very handsome, it's very nice.

Uh we believe that we can work with them, but we would ask that there's be a greater amount of transparency, a greater amount of contact, that they reach out to us and talk to our um our uh group, our neighborhood, and so that's what I wanted to say.

Thank you for your time and consider as consideration.

I know this is a difficult issue.

There's a lot of passion, and I believe we have a very thoughtful group of neighbors that want to provide more housing, they just don't want to have a very high dense traffic and all the other attendant issues.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I see Daydu Kumaras on the list, but I don't see him in the room.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Okay.

Thank you to all who have testified and shared your feedback.

I know we've also gotten written testimony, and we appreciate all the input.

So I'd like to uh turn it back to staff if you could share a couple of closing comments about public hearings and when the people can participate again and how they can share their feedback.

Certainly.

So we do, as I mentioned previously, have one additional public hearing coming up next Monday, and we also will have a work session later this evening for folks who are interested, particularly in the changes from the old ordinance to the new ordinance when it comes to our articles one through five.

Um I'm sure it will be an engaging conversation.

Um also at the end of this work session, uh probably would like to discuss with mayor and council the potential of bringing this particular rezoning back for discussion at next week's work session.

Um that is something that we do not currently have outlined a time slot for it in over the course of the next three work sessions tonight, next week, and the following week.

So we do want to make sure that there is time to discuss that proposed rezoning, and as a number of our residents did mention during their testimony.

Mr.

Wazlack and I are planning to attend the Newmark Commons Board Association or board meeting this coming Thursday.

Um, and we are also working to connect with Mark Wood uh regarding the same.

Thank you very much.

So uh you heard it here.

There will be another public hearing on May 11th and work session on that date.

Uh that we also have one scheduled for May 18th.

That is work session number four.

Uh please look at engage Rockville uh per our request.

Last time staff included the full document plus a red line version.

Uh and then I just wanted to note the feedback of our residents given the um how far reaching this is in terms of the city.

I know we have, I heard something a couple of hundred people on our registration list.

If we could get the confirmation as to how many people are on that newsletter, and perhaps considering to actually send it broader to the Rockville reports list, given that this is a citywide initiative.

Yes, absolutely.

And we do regularly update through Engage Rockville.

We've had um we've had notices in every single monthly engage Rockville since I think January, and we also do push them out through the online version as well.

I believe there's actually an update in this week's uh Rockville reports.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

We're gonna come back to this very topic, uh, but we are moving on to our work session regarding budget.

We have an action item actually.

So those who are interested in this topic, please stay tuned.

We'll come back.

We do have to take care of our budget to make sure our city can operate effectively and efficiently.

So we're now moving on to agenda item 11A, adoption of an ordinance to appropriate funds and levy taxes for fiscal year 27.

I'd like to welcome Kim Francisco, Deputy Chief Financial Officer in our finance department, as well as Stacy Webster, who is the CFO and Director of Finance.

Welcome.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council.

Tonight's action represents the culmination of a thoughtful and public FY 2027 budget process.

Staff appreciates the mayor and council's leadership throughout the process, including the clear direction provided through multiple work sessions, public hearings, and budget discussions.

The ordinance before you appropriates funds and levies taxes for the FY 2027 operating and capital budgets.

It reflects the direction provided by the mayor and council and maintains the city's real property tax rate at 29.2 cents per 100 of assessed value, a rate that has not increased since 1995.

The personal property tax rate also remains unchanged.

The adopted budget totals 186.8 million across all operating funds and includes a 125.6 million capital improvements program.

These investments support core services, infrastructure, public safety, parks, utilities, community services, and long-term capital needs.

I'd like to recognize the mayor and council's continued commitment to community engagement.

This year's process included four public hearings, proposal project submissions, written testimony, a community budget's priority survey that received 537 responses.

That level of participation reflects both the strength of Rockville's civic culture and the mayor and council's commitment to making the budget process accessible and transparent.

The final budget adjustments also reflect a balanced approach, responding to community and stakeholder feedback, incorporating updated revenue assumptions, supporting community services and enrichment grants, and adding funding for a city placemaking plan.

This budget advances equity through affordable housing, recreation assistance, community safety and neighborhood services.

It supports environmental stewardship through climate, stormwater recycling, fleet, and building energy investments.

It also reinforces Rockville's economic stability by maintaining a flat property tax rate while continuing to invest in infrastructure and economic development.

Thank you.

To conclude, we are very grateful for the mayor and council's careful review, thorough questions, and continued support throughout the whole budget process.

We're also thankful for the leadership and direction provided by our city manager, Mr.

Mahallik, as well as the contribution of our budget team behind me, Mary Sue Martin and Dan Chambers, the city's executive leadership team, and the department staff who helped build the operating and CIP budgets.

With that, Mayor and Council, we respectfully recommend that you adopt the FY27 budget ordinance by two motions.

The first to amend the ordinance as shown in attachment one, seconded and passed, and the second, a motion to adopt the amended ordinance seconded and passed.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I want to extend a huge thank you to you all for coming together where with a very robust budget, but one that keeps our future in mind and doesn't just think about what we want today, but really plans for the future.

I appreciate the thorough section of CIP as well as the budget balancing that we've all had to do to make sure that we maintain excellent city services while also maintaining our budget bond rating, uh triple A bond rating.

I also appreciate uh the careful nature which you worked with us through the community grants.

I know there'll be a work session this summer to discuss those further.

Uh my only lar overarching question is this body gave a couple of things that said, please make sure this is reflected in the narratives, please reflect this as you know, this is in the KPIs.

I know one of them was a senior uh center entrance KPI that was uh noted that that needs to be corrected, and a few other small minor things that came up.

Those things that we said, will this be reflected in the final draft?

That will be coming correct.

We have notes on all of those requested revisions, and those will be incorporated into the adaptive budget documents.

Excellent.

Thank you so very much.

Okay.

Well, colleagues, uh, I also want to note to our residents that we did not increase taxes.

I've said it earlier, uh, but one I think it's worth mentioning uh affordability is something we do care deeply about while also being good stewards of taxpayer dollars and living our values as the mayor and council.

Colleagues, uh, we have some motions to make.

Uh first we have to amend the ordinance.

Uh is anyone have any other questions?

Councilman Valerie.

Um, no, and thank you.

I uh I won't be very long.

Um I am uh deeply distressed that the mental health specialist position was not restored uh in the budget.

Um I I hope that this body can have a real serious conversation about walking the walk on mental health.

We give out a proclamation, honoring mental health awareness, then we cut a mental health specialist while at the same time funding to police officers and a police sergeant.

And I think we can do both.

I think that we are an expansive enough city that we can increase our officers on the beat, and we can provide services that actually help our officers stay healthier.

I think that this was extremely short-sighted.

I I'm not quite sure, you know, maybe we can get to that point.

Maybe we can get to a budget amendment point as well on this, but um this body needs to have a little bit of a a reckoning on on living our values.

I think budgets are living values.

And I can't, I sat here going, do I vote against the budget?

Um, or do I both I'm gonna vote for it because I think it needs to function, but it is under extreme duress because I want to live my values in my votes.

And right now, without restoring that, I just can't do that.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilmember Shaw.

I want to echo the mayor and thank staff for all of your work with the budget.

Um, and I just wanted to highlight uh with the zero increase in property taxes, um, how important affordability is and housing stability, particularly with the zero in property increase.

I mean, with the property rate, zero the zero property rate increase.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

So I just want to jump on the train and say thank you so much uh to staff.

Uh this year is my third budget uh uh and uh this process has been even smoother than uh the the past two.

And I think that's a testament to uh your uh diligence in uh crafting something that really takes them takes it apart bit by bit and that walks us through it uh so that we and the general public can like understand it, digest it, and um really uh get to the the the the crux of of the matter.

And also the um engagement that you have done was uh fantastic.

The survey, um talking to people um really does make a difference to our residents.

They know that they can um propose CIPs, they know that they can uh talk about services they need or services that they like.

Um and I would be remiss not to say that I really do appreciate um you monitoring the uh economy and what's going on with the the state government and the county government and uh the federal government um and looking at that and making sure that you know we're protected, that that if there is a downturn in the the economy that uh we noticed it and we're not playing catch up, uh which is uh uh uh a really uh good thing to have.

So I just want to say thank you to that.

Uh it's been a great process, at least for me.

Uh it's even better than before.

And uh one thing that I would uh say uh I left uh well, we left out uh one group uh that's the financial advisory board, um, and they do a great job in um looking at the budget, uh communicating questions to uh you uh all and uh we would be remiss not to give them a big thanks as well.

Thank you.

Councilman Van Grack.

I have a feeling you're gonna hear more thank yous.

I know we've said a lot during all of our work sessions, but I also want to echo staff phenomenal job to not have any increases for um to not have any increases to our property taxes, and also make sure that we are getting the services at the high quality that we continue to do so to make sure that we are making sure that our public safety personnel and our public safety organizations have what they need, and we're making sure that the capital projects, including new capital projects, are getting done well.

Um, this is a tremendous work by staff.

And I know you incorporated a lot of the changes that we put forward in our work sessions in putting together what we have before in our in our agenda item.

So I just want to access my express my sincere thanks for staff for a job phenomenally done.

Thank you, Councilmember Fulton.

I won't pass up an opportunity to fangirl the finance team.

Excellent job.

I've been involved in many budgets in my day in many different organizations.

I am consistently impressed by how you all run this budget process.

So thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you all.

I've already made my comments known about mental health, the specialist, but I do uh take uh city staff at their work.

We'll just get the data and see how things go.

Um certainly want to make sure people have access, and if we can continue to do that, so be it if not, then we can make adjustments as needed.

Thank y'all.

We all said thanks, and we we really mean it.

We appreciate all of your hard work.

Um, I will say that I too was concerned about uh the mental health specialist.

Actually, this weekend, uh, someone went into a faith-based institution who was not feeling stable.

And uh a police member responded, did bring the person to psychiatric support.

Uh that situation turned out well, but I do know that um what I'm hearing among our community is that people are feeling stressed and mental health is really important.

So I want to make sure this is a topic we actively monitor.

Our police need mental health supports and our community need mental health support.

Actually, we all need mental health supports.

Um it's very stressful and trying times, and I want to make sure that our police have the resources that they need and the community to de-escalate and get people to proper support.

So uh this is something I I do want us to continue to monitor.

I am concerned.

I've raised it, but I do support the overall budget.

This is one area that I have concern that I would like to keep monitoring.

With that said, thank you to all of you.

I want to uh just see if anyone is willing to make the motion.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

I move to amend the ordinance to appropriate funds and lemby taxes for fiscal year 2027 as modified.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Shaw seconds.

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

Excellent.

Thank you.

We need the motion to adopt the amended ordinance.

Councilmember Van Grak.

Madam Mayor, I move to adopt the amended ordinance to appropriate funds and levy taxes for fiscal year 2027.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Fulton seconds.

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

Excellent.

Thank you.

It has passed.

You have a budget.

Uh, I know that will be posted.

Can you just share information about when people can look at this glorious document on this final form?

We will have the adopted budget document posted no later than July 1.

Thank you.

And I will I would be remiss if I say the county is still adopting their budget and the ground could shift, and so we'll continue to monitor their work through mid-May to see how it impacts our budget.

Thank you very much.

Thank you to everyone who participated in our surveys as well as our CIP projects.

Colleagues, I'm proposing we take a quick 10-minute break just to uh allow us to be refreshed and go into a very hearty and important zoning ordinance rewrite discussion.

That work sessions coming up next.

One shade.

Good evening, Rockbow.

Welcome back to meeting 12-26.

Today is still May 4th, 2026.

We're now moving on to our agenda item focused on our 12A work session on zoning text amendment application TXT 2026 00271 for a zoning ordinance rewrite and map amendment, application map 2026 00126 for the comprehensive map amendment, Mayor and Council of Rockville as applicants.

We're looking at articles one through five of the ZOR, general provisions, which also include definitions, interpretation and measurement, administration, development applications, permits, procedures, and zones and zoning map.

I'd like to welcome back Holly Simmons, Deputy Zoning Manager at the Community Planning and Development Services, as well as Jim Waselik and Evan Donsen.

Welcome.

Thank you so much.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council again.

As noted, we are back for our work session on the zoning ordinance rewrite this evening.

So getting into our topics, we are going to go through, as the mayor said, Articles one through five.

I did want to make a note before we get into things that you will see text that is in red italics bold, and that is reflective of direction that we have received previously from the mayor and council.

There's also black text as well.

Those are changes that have been made also.

So we'll go through the key changes from again the old ordinance to the new ordinance.

And then we will have question and answer at the end.

So we're going to go through articles one through five, pause for question and answer, and then get into next steps.

And I should note as well that we are also joined by our colleague, Mr.

John Foreman.

He is online with us and he will be covering article four this evening.

So first up is Article 1, general provisions.

This article really lays out the legal framework and the general purposes of the zoning ordinance, kind of basic building blocks.

So our key changes in the general provisions article is uh starts with eliminating the ability to waive comprehensive plan consistency findings.

This is something that our current ordinance contains.

It's a waiver that is really never used, and we don't think that it's appropriate.

Comprehensive plan consistency should be and is required for our approvals.

It also removes regulations pertaining to vesting of zoning rights.

This is something that's governed by state law and subject to change.

So we have proposed to eliminate this from our ordinance to avoid repeating state law where possible and allow flexibility for state law to change.

This article also includes new transitional provisions, which we've discussed previously, most recently at our April 11th work session.

It revises our zoning text amendment process to allow authorization to file a zoning text amendment by mayor and council only.

Currently, our ordinance allows filing by any interested party, which we think is a little bit too broad.

Interested parties should certainly have the ability to petition mayor and council to file a zoning text amendment, but understanding that there's quite a bit of staff time and resources, time before the planning commission, the mayor and council involved in a zoning text amendment.

We did think that it's appropriate for the mayor and council to have that authority.

And then also revises the annexation process described in the zoning ordinance to provide more detail and to better align with state law.

You all may be aware that our annexation process is a little bit more robust than state law, but there are areas in our current ordinance that are inconsistent with state law.

So we wanted to keep the process generally intact as is, but align it with state law where necessary.

Moving into Article 2, our definitions, interpretation, and measurement.

This article really, as one would imagine, defines many of the terms in the zoning ordinance.

It provides guidance on interpretation and then also instructions for calculating and measuring certain standards, particularly including things like height and setbacks, and also outlines encroachments, which are exceptions from our height and setback requirements.

So the first key change in this article is ensuring that all terms are properly defined and up to date.

This is something that our current ordinance had some room for improvement.

We discussed this with you all previously back in May of 2025, I believe.

It also simplifies, clarifies, and makes consistent our measurement standards.

For example, when it comes to height, building height is measured differently in different residential zones, and we thought it made the most sense to make that measurement requirement consistent from one zone to another.

It also, I'm sorry, do we need to pause for a moment?

Yeah.

Can we have more one more copy of this?

Thank you.

Please proceed.

Absolutely, thank you.

So the new draft also allows encroachments of covered unenclosed porches into the rear yard setback.

This is something that we allow into the front yard.

Unenclosed porches can encroach a maximum of nine feet into the front yard, but that same allowance is not provided for the rear yards.

We thought that does not make a ton of logical sense.

So we've extended that encroachment into rear yards as well.

And it also allows in kind replacement of existing non-conforming air conditioners and heat pumps in residential zones.

So currently, if your air conditioner is projecting into a side yard setback, you don't meet that side yard setback, you are not allowed to replace that air conditioner in kind in its current location, which can be quite difficult when folks have their air conditioners go out in the middle of July.

And we're really looking for a fast process for them to be able to replace that.

Currently, it's a little bit of an extended process, so we want to correct that.

Article three, administration.

So this article provides general information on administration, including sections that deal with various approving authorities, entities like yourself, the planning commission, the board of appeals, et cetera, processes for appealing development decisions, applications, and notification requirements, and processes for amending the zoning ordinance itself.

So in this article, we have two main key changes.

We're clearly identifying the appropriate appellate body for administrative decisions.

Our ordinance currently deals with appeals from administrative decisions, but not as clearly or as comprehensively as we would like it to.

So we've gone and filled gaps there.

It also simplifies our provisions, allowing extensions of plan and permit expiration.

So right now, various different plan and permit types have different expiration periods.

We've gone through though and made those largely consistent across plan and permit types, generally allowing for two one year extensions approved by the chief of zoning.

There are certain exceptions to this.

For example, our sign permits are treated a bit differently, as are certificates of approval in historic district zones.

And with that coming up on Article 4, I will pass it over to my colleague, Mr.

John Foreman.

Thank you, Ms.

Simmons, and good evening, Mayor and Council.

I wish I were there in person, but I wasn't able to be, so thank you for letting me attend remotely.

If we could go to the next slide, please.

So we have two slides this evening.

The first, as Ms.

Simmons noted, and as you can see from the red, these are items that mayor and council has seen previously and provided direction on.

Most of these items were associated with the FAST two initiative to streamline processes and to improve transparency.

As we discussed in those work sessions, these changes are changes are really critical for economic development and to ensure that new housing and particularly affordable housing are built.

The changes in the latest staff draft are consistent with that mayor and council direction and were supported by the planning commission.

So I'll go through them.

The first notes that the change allows applications to proceed from project plan to a level one site plan.

What this means is that once a mayor and council approves a project plan, currently the project has to develop out through site plans that are level two that go to the planning commission.

This change would allow the chief of zoning following the mayor and council's approval to administratively approve those site plans.

There's no change to the mayor and council's approval authority under this change.

The next item is to eliminate the pre-application meeting process while retaining the post-application area meeting.

We currently require two area meetings at the beginning of a project.

We found that these are redundant and not well retended, uh well attended.

So we have changed to combine those into one area meeting.

So what the points table is is a table that determines what type of approval process is required for a certain proposed development.

This will determine whether it's a level one site plan approved by staff, a level two site plan approved by the planning commission, or for the largest projects, uh project plan approved by mayor and council.

The change would be to one element of that, which is the residential area impact.

Um, and really unlike the other changes, this is really not intended to change process.

This is intended to be a clarification.

We found that that as it's written now, it's very unclear and requires a level of analysis to determine the residential area impact and is currently drafted as it's a much simpler and more clear and transparent measure.

And I'll note we evaluated prior cases and found that this would not have had an impact on the level of approval, but it would have been much easier to administer.

Finally, the last bullet is to increase the number of projects eligible for level one site plan approval, which is chief of zoning instead of level two, which is planning commission.

These are for certain residential type projects, smaller residential projects, as well as research and development uses in the MXE zone.

Again, there's no change to mayor and council's authority under this or any of the changes on this slide.

Go to the next slide, please.

Other changes in this article include removing the planning commission review of special exceptions while retaining Board of Appeals as the approving authority for those.

Currently, the planning commission provides a recommendation on consistency with the comprehensive plan.

We find that the Board of Appeals is able to make this finding on their own and can do so in a much more streamlined manner than having this go to the planning commission and adding weeks or more to the approval process for these.

So for a site plan, the difference here is that a minor amendment is approved at the staff level, whereas a major amendment would go to the original approving authority.

The issue is that the current language is very unclear and difficult to administer for applicants, staff, really everyone involved in the process.

So this is a, with the exception of the next bullet.

The exception to that is in the next bullet where currently for a change of use, where no other change on the site is occurring.

So this isn't only a change of the use of the property, no external construction.

Those currently do require a minor site plan amendment.

We found that there's really no value in going through that process.

Staff's able to review for compliance with required elements at the time of building permit.

And so there is a new provision that exempts changes of use from a site plan amendment.

The next bullet is to create new permit categories for fences and small sheds.

This I want to be clear, this is not requiring a new permit or a new process.

This is really codifying our current process.

This language really just clarifies that that permit is required through the zoning ordinance.

And then finally, throughout the ordinance, we place the ability to approve waivers and alternative compliance with the approving authority for the parent application.

There are some provisions in the ordinance now that regardless of who approves the project, a certain body is tasked with being the approving authority for that waiver.

For example, there are certain architectural elements that are exempt for from the height requirement under certain conditions.

Those conditions can be waived, but only by the planning commission.

So for example, if there were a project plan that were before the mayor and council, the mayor and council would not be able to approve that waiver because it's only eligible for approval from the planning commission.

So it's a lot more clear just to allow the approving authority of an application to also approve waivers for that application.

And that concludes my section, and I'll hand it back to Ms.

Simmons.

Thank you, Mr.

Foreman.

And finally, last but not least, Article 5, our zones and zoning map article.

So this portion of the zoning ordinance establishes the city's zoning districts and our official zoning map, and also includes processes for amending the zoning map.

In this article, we do have three key changes.

The first is to include a new table showing all of the zones and their abbreviations as well as our corresponding categories.

So this is not really a substantive change.

This is something we already have in effect, but it is helpful for the reader to orient them with all of our zones in one location.

This section clarifies that the historic district zone, the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Conservation District Zone, and the cluster development layer are overlay zones.

Currently, these are either miscategorized or not identified as zones at all.

So this is really clean up to place them in their correct location, categorize them correctly, and then be able to apply them as such.

And finally, it removes reference to our interim floating zones and associated floating zone map amendments, which were instituted back in 2023, I believe, following our comprehensive plan.

The intent there was to bridge the gap between the recommended the recommended rezonings in the comp plan and this comprehensive map amendment that we are currently undergoing, allowing a process for those zones to be applied in advance of the comprehensive map amendment.

So because we are now updating our zoning ordinance and updating our zoning map, we've identified that those interim floating zones, that interim period has ended and they are no longer necessary.

So with that, and before we get into any next steps, we did want to pause for questions.

I know that was a fair amount of information, so we are happy to provide any additional that is necessary.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

I know that there may be small nits or you know, questions on line items.

It's my understanding we will not be going through each one of those this evening, but we can email those to you all for inclusion.

So I just wanted to say that at the outset.

There's a lot in here, and I want to thank you also for including the red line change in addition to the rewritten piece.

I think that's really important for the public to see.

Um can we go?

Can we take this by the sections so that we can stay organized versus jumping all over?

Um and there maybe some general questions that we have as well.

Um, so we have the general provisions and definitions.

I know we've heard from members of the public about uh just clarifying the way we include charts.

I know we've seen the residential use chart and uh proposed by the College Guard and Civic Association.

How are you all taking some of that feedback from the community?

So we've introduced a number of new charts and tables into the ordinance along with graphics as well.

The intention of both of those things really is to clarify our provisions, make the ordinance more user friendly, um, and generally just make it easier to uh maneuver.

I do believe that the one comment that we've heard regarding kind of a comparison between what is in the ordinance and what what is in the old ordinance, what is in the new ordinance is something outside of what is actually within the text of the staff, the revised staff draft of the ordinance itself.

Is that a heavy lift or is that possible for the public to be able to track those changes?

I believe so I would say yes, it is possible.

Um I would caveat uh that comparing the old use table to the new use table would be um we would need to caveat it quite a bit, I believe.

Something that you'll see in next week's work session is that our uses have changed quite a bit.

We're updating them, we're modernizing them.

So certain uses, archival records storage, duplicating surfaces, um, taxicab stands, things of that nature are no longer being carried forward in our ordinance.

Other uses are um re-termed.

And then we're also using our use permissions, which are permitted, conditional, um, special exception.

The way that we're using them is slightly different, particularly when it comes to permitted and conditional uses.

In the new ordinance, we have a number of permitted uses which have use standards associated with them, but because they're required in all zones, we've not called them conditional.

Um, and I will say also in our current ordinance, we have uses that have use standards associated with them.

So our our current ordinance would technically consider them to be conditional, but they're still contained in kind of an odd location or they're hidden a little bit, and so that's not reflected in the use table.

So, all of that to say it is something that we could do, but it might not be as informative as our residents hope that it would be.

Okay, thank you.

And then the last question overarching that we got about this general piece is being able to understand the differences between what is what we're introducing and what is state law.

What is your thought there?

That is something that I would defer to our city attorney's office.

Um, happy to speak about that.

So it it would depend to some extent on what the mayor and council was looking for.

Um, one of the things that's important to note about the way the land use article interacts with our zoning ordinance is that you know, generally speaking, the land use article sets out a framework under which we we operate, but then all of the details or I shouldn't say all, but most of the details are really the local jurisdictions to flesh out.

So it's a long way of saying, you know, planning commission is required to approve record plots and uh and take a role in in the development of comprehensive plans.

Comprehensive plans have to contain certain information, for example, but the details of our zones, you know, where they're located and and what they include is entirely up to the local jurisdiction.

So it's a long way of saying, although there are certain specific requirements that this new zoning ordinance uh does um reflect, like for example, the housing expansion and affordability act requirements that allow for certain bonus density.

For the most part, it's safe to say that state law provides the skeleton and and and you all really flesh out that skeleton.

So it would be a little bit challenging to go kind of section by section and identify, you know, this comes from state law or this does not.

It's all it all to some extent derives from state law, but for the most part, the details come from you.

Um but again, I'd be happy to provide more information depending on the question the mayor council has.

Excellent.

I think when we get into the map section, that will have things like uh the state is now allowing certain types of housing by metro.

They are allowing certain types of housing by a faith-based institution.

So I'm not sure if people would be able to track that by reading the current draft, or what would you suggest that they do?

Um, I do think we could probably put together um uh some amount of information that explains how we have reflected the housing expansion and affordability act into the code because you're right, madam mayor, it is integrated, it's not all integrated in one section.

There's not a housing expansion and affordability act section.

Um, it's done in a variety of ways.

So we could provide more information on that, certainly.

That might be helpful in the um the engage rock will have a page with a list of links just to say state law expansions or something like that, just so the public is aware.

I'm gonna see before we go into these charts, we're gonna go down the line.

Is anyone else has any broad questions before we go through these sections?

Okay, Dr.

Miles, would you like to question at the current moment?

Thank you.

Councilmember Fulton.

Also, no questions right now.

Thanks.

Councilmember Valerie.

Yes, hi.

Um, so I had uh uh just a question because it kind of connected.

Um I'm just wondering if there uh we were kind of coordinated in our approach in changing the annexation process, because I did notice that the fee changed.

So were there significant barriers previously that we were trying to correct for?

Um, because I I kind of wanted to get a little better sense if if that's what was holding us back previously that we really needed to make those changes.

I think I know the answer, but I'm gonna try it and then see.

We did not significantly change the way we're going to do the annexation process to be where we had it before.

I think we've added some clarity in the zoning ordinance rewrite, but those clarity changes didn't involve additional work, which would result in higher fees is about if I'm understanding your train of thought.

I just think it's been cleaned up.

I think it's easier to understand now our annexation process, but it didn't generate additional work, additional requirements would which would relate a higher fee.

Yeah, and actually the fee was significantly reduced.

So previously the fee was like 10k plus, and now it's about 400, 500.

So I was just trying to see if there was a direct connection, like we are correcting for things that were previously hurdled to the annexation process.

Okay.

That was my only question.

Thank you.

Uh, question, just if you can expand on the removing regulations uh pertaining to vesting.

I know that you mentioned that was because state law covers that.

How would I I'm just sensitive to people say I have got to look at like a million documents to figure out what I need to do?

How do we make this easy for people to understand what they need to do?

So I'll start, and I believe Mr.

DMA will uh clean up after me.

Um I would say this is likely so this is likely an area that um folks are not going to need to look at frequently for to like understand our processes or something of that nature.

It's really dealing with um your ability to develop with your current approvals, and this is something currently state law addresses.

I believe our ordinance right now is a little bit inconsistent with it.

We've also seen additional changes even since we began rewriting our zoning ordinance.

So understanding that this is something that really state law does govern and they govern it comprehensively.

We did want to just remove it from our ordinance to ensure that there is consistency there.

And Mr.

Dumay, I'm assuming you may have things to add, so please feel free.

I do not you describe that very well.

I'm happy to answer any questions, but I think that's a good description.

Thank you.

And can you just share more information about the transitional provisions?

Certainly.

So the transitional provisions we looked at in some detail on April 13th.

These are the provisions that would govern our current applications, which are in process now.

If you have a project plan, a site plan, it's under review, it's headed toward approval, but it's not there yet.

This would allow for the applicant to proceed under our current ordinance, even after the adoption of the new ordinance.

So certainly anyone who wanted to transition over to the new ordinance, we would enable that as well.

I think we do anticipate that some applications may want to go that direction.

Perhaps the process is more favorable to them.

The standards that we have in the ordinance.

So if there are applicants that want to proceed under the current ordinance, which we we may have some of those as well, uh it would enable them to do so.

Thank you.

And I know last time we met, we talked about, I think it was a two-year period.

Is that relate to this section?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay.

Um if you also I'm fine with it, and I appreciate the changes in the planning commission's recommendations.

The only thing I that gives me pause is um our economy is in such a state of flux with issues related to increased cost pressures on everything from gas to figuring out tariffs.

And there are some people who are in a state of I'm not sure yet.

And so that's the only thing that's given me pause.

Is like, how do we recognize where we are in our society in terms of people being able to move on projects because mostly if it all those things affect financing and the ability to get things done?

So that that's something I was just was just trying to figure out how are you considering that issue.

I might take a swing at that one.

It I think we are in some unprecedented times.

Um other places I've been when we've done an update like this, so two-year period seemed perfectly reasonable and actually maybe even generous.

But with our economy of the way it is, I think once we get up to that two-year period, we should report back and just see if that needs to be extended even more.

And just because we there may be changes, how do we send a note to ourselves to say make sure that we check back?

Because I do think it's worth it.

I think that there are people who maybe there are projects that are shifting timelines because of I was you know, listening to a lot of financial uh uh the Wall Street Journal and other projects, and also talking to some folks even focused on affordable housing.

Uh, and you know, the cost of everything is really impacting the bigger picture of what what they can get done.

So I think we've been pretty good when we were making um these types of big changes to programs, policies, et cetera, over the past couple years to say, you know, we're gonna come back in a year, come back in two years and let you know how it's working.

Um we can do that if if this is indeed adopted on June 29th, and we'll make a note two years, actually before that, probably a year and a half, we'll come back and let you know how it's working.

Okay, that will be very helpful.

Thank you for flagging that.

Uh and then I know we're revising the ZTA process, and it makes sense that we'll come to Marin Council.

You are clarifying a petition process, correct?

So he will know how to ask us.

That is something we certainly can do.

Is that something we can put as a follow-up?

I think just so that we know the process is clear as to how to, it's not just pulling us over at an event.

There's a very formalized process that everyone knows how to follow it.

I think that would be very helpful.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Jackson.

No, no questions.

Councilmember Basha.

No questions.

Councilman Van Greg.

Thank you.

Just um a couple general questions with regard to the annexation process.

So, first, I noticed that we're putting it here at the front, as opposed to into some of the other sections where we're essentially assigning zoning.

Is it was that is there a rationale to have it at this earlier part as opposed to coordinating with some of the other sections.

I um I would be almost embarrassed to say perhaps how long we spent reorganizing this ordinance.

So there's certainly there certainly is a rationale there.

We went through pretty much every section, subsections within sections, reorganizing them to get us from 21 21 articles down to 13 where we think that things are in locations where you would really look for them, whereas some things now are a little bit hidden.

Um I don't remember the specific rationale for this.

Perhaps Mr.

Dumay does.

And if not, I will say that there was one.

Yeah, I think I'm also digging deep in into my memory to try to try to remember why we did that.

I I think generally we considered, you know, division one was was intended, or Article 1, excuse me, was intended to include kind of the basic information, the general information about the zoning ordinance, and also things that were sort of outside of the normal course, whether it was a change to the text of the zoning ordinance or addition of new new elements to the city.

But I think honestly it was probably this is this was sort of our catch-all article.

Okay.

Um great.

So the next question I have is first of all, fantastic job.

I think this really lays it out significantly smoother than what is previously.

But one question I did have with regard to some of the mechanics.

I mean, it lays it out pretty clearly some of the and using the codes musts and shall with regard to the process because there are certain requirements.

Was there any thought to actually putting because there are some time limits within here and in other parts?

And there's specifically a time limit where we're talking about 30 days before the public hearing with a notification.

Was there any thought to putting some time limits to some of the other preliminary requirements or musts to the point where an annexation might get bogged down and could be just sitting in an area or on the planning commission's desk or somewhere else that could allow someone to essentially halt the process if they disagreed with it, knowing that there's a requirement of a must or shall in that step.

So Councilmember Van Greg, I think that's actually a good point.

Um and something we could certainly look at.

Um for example, um the decision to have the planning commission craft an annexation plan is something that isn't specifically required by state law, and of course, also could result in a situation where there is a is a delay.

Um I think that would be a good opportunity or a good uh place to to put in a time limit of some sort.

Um and I think we just have to look at the other provisions to see if there are other places, but I think that that would probably be a good change that we could make.

Gotcha.

That was only substantive uh issue I had with the first article, so thanks.

Article one down.

Let's go to article two.

Councilmember Fulton.

I again don't have anything to start with.

Thanks.

Councilmember Valerian So thank you.

Um, and I guess I'll I'll do my thank you all.

You're all absolutely awesome for trying to organize all of this.

Um, and this is very clear to me.

Um, and and thank you for the the red line draft as well.

I liked that quite a bit, um, mostly because I don't have a good memory.

Um so I think I brought this up in a previous work session, but we don't currently have uh none of the uh residential high density zones allow for mixed use, correct?

Because this was in regards to um when we were talking about the area around mantrose and whether or not um you know making making developments like that even more attractive by allowing even a limited uh first level retail option.

Um that is generally correct regarding the residential high density zone.

Um I can check to confirm my suspicion.

I believe there's an incredibly limited amount of retail, which is allowed in the residential high density zone, but I don't believe it is permitted to have access from the exterior of the building.

Okay, because that would be my only um issue to raise just generally um in any of these uh residential high density areas.

Again, you could limit it the amount of of retail, right?

But wouldn't it, and I'm saying this because y'all know I love coffee, wouldn't it be cool to have like your own little like you know, local coffee shop?

Because if you have a building that has a high level of of residence, or you know, you are surrounded by uh a broader neighborhood, I think it does something for community cohesion as well as uh giving an opportunity for residents to kind of you know um come together in a in a way that is not very like prescriptive.

So that would be my only quibble.

So that would be my only quibble, my only feedback really is that um maybe we need to think a little bit um as a body more creatively around, you know, um while we do have a specific reason for these high density zones, I think that um having that kind of flexibility for something that is kind of practical in a way, right?

Like I think that that makes sense.

So thank you for that.

Um my last question is on um if there are any sort of definitions that are ambiguous, not by the the drafting of it, but just you know, as as people have identified, who resolves those ambiguous definitions?

Would that be uh the chief of zoning?

Would that be the Board of Appeals?

Um, who is it all the above?

So we're talking about once the ordinance is adopted, if there's a yes, it would be at this point in time the chief of zoning, and that is included in the interpretations section.

No, that's great.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I have a question about um champion projects.

Um that's in the definitions.

It's limited to South Pike, and I was just curious what if we were to have more champion projects in the city.

Have you given any thought to that?

Uh, is that something that we should encourage?

Uh it's very, very limited.

And I just, you know, they may be amalgamation given what we're trying to do in town center.

I just wanted to call that out specifically because it hasn't, it was described in the in the you know, 2016 Rockville Pike Neighborhood Plan.

It was essential for the Twinburg Quarter project.

So I just wanted to raise that specifically.

So you're absolutely correct.

Champion projects are something that derive directly from the 2016 Rockville Pike Neighborhood Plan and were applied from there to the South Pike area.

I don't believe that there's anything that would prohibit us from expanding them further throughout the city.

However, if there are considerations there that I am not thinking of in this moment, I would certainly defer to my colleagues, Mr.

Wazilec and Mr.

Dumay for further thoughts.

I wonder if we could talk to your team and ready between planning and ready to come together to talk about this issue.

I know we're talking about um Rockville Pike as a broader area in terms of our efforts to try to do that, but also specifically looking at Rockville Town Center as well.

So I think it's worth a refresh on this to see how we might be more inclusive and get our goals done.

Um, but I I think it's important not to just leave that section as is.

I think that's a point really well taken.

Um, and I would say the my only thought there is just considering whether I think we probably would need a little bit more time to understand whether this is something that could be accomplished through the zoning ordinance rewrite, particularly in our timeline, or if this is something that should be considered more fully through the update to the Rockville Pike neighborhood plan.

Um, but I think it's you know, the point is well taken.

Yeah, I would also look at it could be town center, right?

Think about what's going at Womata and surrounding properties.

So I I do think that I it's a very good point that the Rockville Pike Plan is somewhere we can look at it.

Um, but I also think that we need to look at Rockville Town Center.

So I don't want to, I want you guys to put your minds together to figure out what you think is best and how you can advise us on this.

Uh, because I don't want to put you on the spot right now, but just to note that this is something we should look at and consider how do we not tackle, but how do we consider and strategize around this?

If that's okay.

Okay.

Um the other piece for this article, um, there were discussions on density um in section 25 on the initial draft.

And I was just curious to see again things that are going on on a macro level that impact us.

FEMA came in and did uh floodplain maps back in February of 2025.

Um how is that impacting Rockville uh and in terms of how you're looking at density where where you can build.

So when it comes to density, and this is this is a little bit this maybe a little bit too much detail, but um our in the original staff draft, we retained the way that we conceptualize density in terms of like the the defined terms, and we actually didn't define density.

Instead, we defined usable lot area, which um based on some of the comments of our development community, we looked at it and we thought, you know what?

This actually is density.

What we're describing here is density.

So in the revised staff draft, we did change that a bit, um, eliminating the usable lot area term to be density.

And in that section in density, um, it does specifically deduct out the gross area of the site that is 100 year floodplains.

So that is that is rather typical.

Um, and it is something that we did not propose to change.

Certainly, it would impact the area of a site and density calculations if there are floodplains on the site.

I raise it because, and thank you.

That was a fantastic explanation.

I raise it because I know that there's some projects where we've been looking at housing and just hearing what's going on in the county, um, where people have a plan and they're like, oh shoot, now we're in the floodplain map.

And it's like there's so many things that we can and can't do when it's like the project is scrapped, or we have to revision the whole thing.

And there were just so many rules on other areas that we had that were like, okay, can we get around the floodplain and make sure that we're keeping people safe and not building on it?

But we might have to make adjustments in other areas.

I'm just thinking about how do we make sure that we are operating with a new reality so that we're making sure that homes are safe and not a situation we're putting people at risk, and adjusting so that we can make sure that housing can happen in a safe way.

So that if that makes any sense.

I just that's something I think that we need to look at uh because this is new for us, and I'm thinking of some specific you know, things that I've heard in the community that um has been, you know, we can't build here because it's floodplain, but now we can't do anything over here because of this other rule.

So have we looked in totality of the impact on Rockville and how we may need to adjust our definitions and our other zoning requirements.

So I think it's um I'm glad you're asking this follow-up question because I think there are two things at play.

One is the calculation of density, and the other is where development can be located on a lot.

So if I am not mistaken, we would not permit development within a non-title floodplain.

However, that density, um any density, actually, I guess you wouldn't you wouldn't calculate the density off of that either.

Um, but the dwellings would not be allowed in the floodplain.

So I don't I don't know if that's a good idea.

Yeah, we don't want we don't want houses in places that are gonna cause they're gonna get flooded.

We've seen that happen in other parts of the country.

Um but I'm thinking of like some areas along Research Boulevard, for example, that you know have now come into the floodplain map.

Do we have are we adaptable enough to think about you know how do we get projects done given that we have more floodplains in the community?

And maybe we can come back to that, but I just it's something I'm thinking about holistically is are we thinking big picture given that we need to be take extra precaution for safety?

So okay.

Would this section uh also cover the signage pieces I saw in your we had a little bit of discussion about that, but I think is section 25 exempt certain uses and signage types.

Where did you guys net out on that?

Is something you're gonna bring back to us later to discuss more fully?

Yes, that will be covered in the work session on May 18th.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Councilmember Jackson.

No questions.

Councilmember Shaw.

No questions for this section.

Councilman Van Crack.

So my only subsive comment here uh deals a little bit with what the mayor said, and that's because um section 25, I think it's 225 on the e definitions talks about electronic signage, and just I think that we were a little bit broader than what you have there.

So just something to go back to the previous discussion.

So I mean, we don't even go over it again, but just take a look.

I think we were a little bit broader.

That's it.

Thank you very much.

So now we're moving on to Article 3.

Councilman Valeri.

Article three.

I love Article 3.

Sorry, I was also looking at the reviewing my map.

Okay.

Um I really like um the the inclusion of more detail on how to appeal the administrative decisions.

Um I think any any clarification there is just a net positive for accountability.

So I really like that part.

But I was looking at the, you know, the draft proposal.

Um that basically that the cheapest zoning could extend most development approvals up to two times by two years each time.

Okay.

Um for quote good cause shown.

I'm always concerned about that phrase.

Um and kind of, you know, what is the good cause standard?

Maybe this is for Mr.

DeMay as well.

And you know, I guess the the other point attached to that is then is there any public notification when an extension is granted.

Just to speak to the first part of the question.

Um I do understand kind of the general concern about good cause, good cause shown, other good cause.

It is quite squishy, but I think in this instance that's something that we really were looking to have a certain amount of flexibility there, just understanding kind of to the mayor's point earlier that we don't necessarily know what market conditions are going to be, whether projects are moving forward.

So if there is some form of good cause without overdefining or predetermining what that might be, we thought that it would make sense to extend approvals that have already been granted.

Um it comes to notice.

Perhaps Mr.

Dumay can recall.

Um I also would need to check the code um to see whether notice would be required.

Um, but just maybe I can provide a little bit more context on good cause while Miss Simmons takes a quick look at it and see if she can find it.

Um just to give you additional clarity.

I agree with everything Miss Simmons said, but in addition, I mean, we from a legal perspective, we purposefully put good cause in there as effectively like the standard immediately above no reason at all.

And so what the good cause standard means is that there needs to be sort of a written justification and a decision that is rendered.

It can't be for no it can't be for no reason at all.

Um but you know, when if it were to go to court, for example, any justification that was in writing that would be reasonable that a reasonable person could rely on would then be sufficient.

And I think you know, from a legal perspective, that's certainly adequate, and I think it accomplishes the goal that staff wanted, which was to make this as expedited a process uh as possible.

Yeah, that makes sense, and thank you for that.

And you know, if maybe we don't have that notification process, you know, maybe it's just even something simple as like making it accessible or post it on our website, you know.

Um we might not have the requirement, um, but I think you know, any sort of um uh in in you know engaging people more and and being as as transparent as possible, um I think could do a lot of good to engendering goodwill.

Um and thank you, Mr.

Dumet.

That is by far the best explanation of that term um that I have gotten to date.

So thank you.

Um that that makes a lot more sense in in this sense in this circumstance.

So thank you.

I'm gonna apologize.

I had one other question about uh solar canopies in the previous section.

Is it okay if I ask a question?

Um just to note that um solar canopies, uh there's a lot of uh rules around uh permanent canopies, and I think you put at 40 and 50 feet.

I I don't know what the right number is, but I just want to make sure that we are not um being so restrictive that we're not gonna get what a typical parking lot would would allow for.

Um so I'm concerned about some of the 50 feet pieces if we're starting to see people wanting to do that within their businesses.

Um and even the city as well.

So I I would I just would like some information about that distance and what is appropriate, what is best best practice in other places.

Can we be with with going green in mind given electricity costs?

I just want to be mindful of that.

I apologize for going back to that.

Um in terms of this this article, broad questions on, I know we as a body had a very thorough discussion about the approval processes and what goes where.

Um, but in general, the changes we've made.

How much faster is it gonna make multifamily or you know, new biotech business?

What are we what are we talking about here in terms of what are we gaining?

We're moving from X time to X time, generally speaking.

I know this is project dependent, but what are we achieved here?

I would say generally it seems like we might have shifted into Article 4 territory a little bit.

Okay, all right, that's fine.

That and that's perfectly fine with me.

I would defer to uh Mr.

Foreman who's on the line.

We're getting in deep on article four.

Thank you, Miss Simmons.

Would you like me to answer that now?

I'm gonna hold, I'm gonna follow the rules.

Um the other piece is the extension on premise.

So this makes a lot of sense given the market conditions.

The other thing is that we've also seen residential as well as commercial, commercial residential, where projects are just taking way longer, they're sitting there unfinished.

How do we reconcile that with this?

Because I feel like you can't have a building that you know the public right-of-way is not has been closed for way longer than it should be.

And or I've seen in the past, like uh roof that had a tarp on it for two and three years uh in some parts of the city.

So can you help us reconcile?

How do we be understanding and consider market conditions, but also like not just allow people to leave projects half finished?

This is another one where I will probably start the answer and then defer to colleagues.

Um I think when we're talking about the project approvals that would be subject to these extensions, we're really talking about things that have been approved but are not yet under construction.

Things where we have an approval in place, it's set to expire.

Um so I want to set that to one side.

Then for projects that are under construction, I actually think, and this is this is something that we have on our list of things to go back and assess their impact to the city and our development processes.

The Maryland Certainty Act, which was passed um in this legislative session, may have some impact on that.

Um, Mr.

Dumay, I don't know if that is if that is accurate to reference at this point in time or if you have any thoughts there.

Uh no, I'll just say um you know putting aside the legislation that was adopted this session because we do want to spend a little bit more time digging into that and understanding the way it would affect our zoning ordinance.

Um did raise a good second point to the explanation I gave about good cause.

Another benefit of having that standard is to your concern about you know what if you have a tarp on a property and it's been it's derelict and it's clearly not moving forward.

The chief of zoning is not, as this is written, ever obligated to grant an extension.

And so just because the applicant believes that good cause has been demonstrated for an extension does not mean that the chief of zoning is obligated to grant the extension.

Uh the chief of zoning would just need some sort of a substantial reason for denying it, one of which might be, for example, the fact that the project clearly is not moving forward, the extension is not likely to result in the project uh reaching completion.

Thank you very much.

And uh I we have to also think about what is how can we get someone to move that's not moving?

And I don't know that's covered here, but that may be another section to consider.

Um the section 253-1581, memorialized chief of zoning to update duty to update the development review manual manual.

Who's currently charged with doing that?

That is currently the chief of zoning, it is just not memorialized within our city code.

So that is something, it's not a process change, it's not an approval change.

It's just stating it clearly in code that that is one of his authorities that he already has.

And what does it say in the current code of who does that?

Currently it's silent.

It's silent.

Okay, thank you for thinking that through and adding that.

Um, and then section division three, two general general application provisions.

It says eliminate notification procedures.

Can you just give some background on that?

I think you may, is it because it's covered in another section?

I actually I need to pull this is in the revisions revisions document that we're talking about right now.

Yeah, it's looking at Article 3 Administration, Division 3, 2 General Application Provisions, Section 2532 1.

Um so that is something I will have to look up and come to.

No problem, no problem at all.

And uh for the notice requirements for division 3.

Um, where you put make sign inspection of repair replacement requirements explicit versus implied.

Can you provide more background on that?

I am so sorry, I need to pull up that document.

Okay, no worries.

I will let you come back.

No, I don't want to put you on the spot.

I appreciate I know there's a lot of elements to this.

Councilmember Jackson.

No questions.

Okay.

Councilmember Shaw.

No questions.

Councilman Van Gray.

Um, so just on one question with regard to kind of the appeals section, which significantly more clear than the previous version.

So fantastic job.

Um, but um I have one question that I want to kind of juxtapose the way the appeals are here with um Article 4, which I'll get to when we get to Article 4 because more appropriate.

But the one question I had here is dealing with the timing and the notices.

Because correct me if I'm wrong, under this section, we're putting the timing upon the letter and the date of the letter.

Yet the question is how are we sending it?

Because if we're sending it by mail, we could preclude the ability.

I know in title seven, when we're talking about the appeals to the court with an administrative agency, which I think this couches at, it would be based on the sending of the letter and some of the other actions.

So I guess that last the last point on the appellate section, we're just saying the date of the letter without any necessarily insurance that it's being sent, or upon receipt when we're talking about timing.

Is that did was there a discussion of that?

Is there something we can essentially maybe amend that to give more ability?

Because I can tell you personally, there have been significant situations where things one, I know that sometimes if a decision is made like Friday at five, it might not go in the mail till Monday or Tuesday.

Similarly, we've got issues with the mail where sometimes it takes a week or two, and if it's taking two weeks and there's a 30-day time limit, we've just precluded two weeks of it.

So is that something that was thought of or something we might be able to amend to be able to clarify?

One to make it more closely aligned with Title VII if they go into court, but two internally to make sure that we're not precluding someone's rights.

Uh sure.

Um when it comes to our internal um appeal deadline, the mayor and council can certainly modify that.

Um it could make it from the date of transmittal, it could make it from the date of receipt.

Um one concern that I would have would be with uh extending the or rather beginning the 30-day appeal period from the date of receipt, as I'm I'm sure the mayor and council can appreciate you know the date of receipt may vary for a variety of individuals, unless we're doing certified mailing, it's very difficult for us to determine that period of time.

Um I think the intention was to uh make sure that it was in compliance with um with the Maryland rules.

Um and so I'm looking at the Maryland rules right now because I wanted to make sure I'm I'm remembering this correctly.

Because it it's in Title 7 when they're talking about the immunity, like are you talking about a 7203?

Correct A2.

Yeah.

We're talking about sending of the notice.

Correct.

Exactly.

Yeah, and so I think that we could very easily make that change.

Um I I'm sure that staff generally wants to send it more or less as soon as it's dated.

But I think again, the council members made a very good point.

Sometimes there's a delay, so I think we could very easily make that change.

Yeah, I think mirroring it to 7203A2 is exact it's it's it strikes the balance that not makes it too onerous, but ensures that we're making sure and there's a record of it because if there's a date stamp, there's a record of it as opposed to whether it's sitting on someone's desk or desk, or alternatively with receipt, when was it received?

Because I'm assuming these are probably going first class mail.

That's correct.

Perfect.

And also I think that aligns because in that last section where we're talking about appeals, we're talking about the administrating um the uh I want to get the exact phrasing right when we're talking about the um approving authority, that could be the final one that triggers Title VII, in which case we got to make sure that we're tracking with the rules in Title VII, which is talking about A2.

Absolutely, yes.

We can read that change.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Going back down the line, council members.

I see you're good.

Councilmember Fulton.

I do have one question, thanks.

And I apologize for not raising this probably at some point earlier.

When I was going back through and reading just the very beginning, uh, when we're setting out the different approving authorities, I noticed a difference between so for the planning commission, the qualification is resident.

For the Board of Appeals, the only qualification is resident.

For the historic district commission, there's like education requirements and expertise determinations.

Is there a you guys are nodding?

There's a reason for that where there's such a difference between the the three.

Uh yes, uh councilmember.

Um there are education requirements in state law.

If you give me just a second, I can I can I could find those for you.

Um, but I believe that and again, this has been a little while, but I believe that all of the educational requirements that we include in our code are mandated by state law.

Um we can double check that and make sure that that's the case, but I don't believe we're adding anything extraneous.

I would have assumed it derived from state.

It it does make me wonder, like so the state concluded that there's also rules on planning commissions and the like.

Like, so there's a state determination that there's specific requirements for historic district commission.

I guess we just follow the state and decide that they're the only seems to me that the planning commission and the board of appeals have equally significant and important roles, and it's odd to have a different requirement for one buy than the other three.

But I I'm not advocating that we do, it's just an odd difference.

Did you have I just had something to add to that?

Um the planning commission and board of appeals are required to pass an education course that the state of Maryland puts out.

Um so they so everyone who was appointed to those positions has kind of a base level of knowledge.

So the HDC is does not have such a requirement.

So that's incredibly helpful.

Is that is that here?

Like where is that requirement?

That state to put it, but but that it's not reflected here.

Correct.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you.

Probably Councilmember uh Fulton's point.

Should it be?

If it's a state requirement and we're putting it in one section, why not just be consistent?

We don't have the LMA stuff in there though.

Think just think about it and let us know what you have to do.

Yeah, we'll take a look.

That was awesome.

I have one small question in this article about sheds.

Is that appropriate to raise now?

There's a discussion on small sheds.

So we will the substance of accessory buildings and structures is something we will address in next week's work session.

Just to give you a preview, I was conferring with my colleagues.

I recall when back around 2023, uh, we were told that we were reducing our requirements for small sheds to be more reasonable because people were having to produce ridiculous amounts of burdensome documentation for like a manufactured shed that they bought on Amazon or Home Depot.

So I I can't tell that we've made those changes here.

So I just wanted to see if I know that some folks are newer from when that happens, and I just wanted to see are we being consistent with what we intended in 2023?

And if you could circle back with us.

I would say yes, because uh the building code does not require, I mean, building permit is not required for those types of structures.

Um they are reviewed only for zoning compliance, make sure it worked with them in the correct location, but in terms of documenting what might be required structurally for those uh types of permits, that's not required anymore.

Okay, I was just speaking to the create new permit categories for fences in small sheds, and wanting to better understand that, making sure we're not going back to the more onerous process.

Right.

So that's correct.

We're not really what we're doing is filling a gap here.

We currently, as Mr.

Foreman mentioned, require a permit for a shed and for a fence, but there's no um there's nothing codified in our ordinance now that actually has kind of like lays out the framework and the requirement.

So um it's really just a hole that we need to fill.

I will say if we're looking back at 2023, it's possible that we're talking about a zoning text amendment um that was passed.

Didn't we update the setbacks for accessory structures in 2023?

We did, but I think the issue is kind of the permitting aspect of making it exactly.

And I'll I'll just say I did hear from a resident in the past two weeks.

Like, what is why is it take so much work to get a permit for my shed?

So something's not quite fixed, but I'd like to learn more later.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions on this article?

If I may add in reference to your questions earlier, Madam Mayor, so about section 25321, where our revisions document says that we've corrected the general application requirements division applicability to accurately reflect the contents of the division.

I think that's what you were referencing.

Um we eliminated notification procedures.

That is literally just deleting the words and notification procedures.

Um incorrectly identified that that division addressed notification procedures.

It's actually addressed in the next division.

So we said, okay, we need to clean this up because it actually doesn't pertain to notification procedures at all.

So we're not deleting the notification procedures from the ordinance, just those words from that section.

Okay.

And in other places in the old version, we had like send something out with a bird in a paper.

Like I just I'm being facetious, but like are we have we updated our times with like the our notification procedures?

The time I'm sorry.

Not time specifically, but like our processes.

Like we're not saying like it must be in a printed newspaper.

I I just want to make sure that we look at that in totality to update with the times of electronic media and other things that go beyond something in one paper.

I'm sorry, I mean I would say we've we've updated them to the degree that we can.

Um one thing about newspaper advertising, that's actually a state requirement.

So we change that.

Um and that's only for public hearings, formal public hearings in front of the mayor and council.

Um we don't require newspaper notice for site plans that go to the planning commission, et cetera.

But we have added some things in in terms of electronic notice and how we can accomplish that.

Right.

I think it's just like where we only say you have to do a newspaper, are we thinking about the more expansive ways we communicate in our world today?

And just taking a look at that beyond the basic requirement of did you put an eight font ad in a newspaper?

I think we can probably add some things into the development review manual as well that may not necessarily be a requirement, but certainly would be recommended.

Yeah, I I just want to make sure that we're updating for our times.

That was something that's come through in a couple sections all all over our city legal documents in terms of what we're required for notification.

I think the body has been really trying to be much more robust in our communications.

All right.

So section four, I know I was started to ask some questions about this.

Do you want to answer now?

This is asking.

Yeah, would you mind just repeating the question for me?

So I'm making sure to answer it correctly.

It's the same as I mentioned before.

Not no addition.

You just need if you can hear me, can you all hear me okay?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Um, so I understood correctly.

I think the question was to give an estimate of the time savings for the the streamlining, how much time would that save a project for like a multifamily project, for example, something along those lines?

Yeah, so we've made some changes to you know, streamlined processes.

What I'm trying to understand is what are we achieving in terms of total time because time is money, time impacts small businesses, large businesses, residents.

So what what are we what are we achieving in terms of the streamlining?

Is it that we've moved from a project taking two years to one year, project taking you know 18 18 months to six?

Just if you can give us a sense of what we're achieving.

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you for the question.

Um, as you said earlier, that it's very project dependent, and so you know, it can really vary from project to project.

Uh what we have done is looked at historical averages for certain types of uh projects.

And so we've looked at, for example, a level two site plan approved by the planning commission, generally takes on average around seven months.

Um we don't actually do enough level ones to really look at them as a comparable, but for site plans that are subject to staff approval, like minor amendments, those take on average under four.

So it's a difference of about three months between staff approving a site plan and the planning commission approving a site plan.

That's again not to say that every project's gonna realize that or uh you know have almost a 50% reduction in time, but that's an example of the type of reduction that we're looking for.

We also looked at overall approval timeframes, and we were finding that for the project plan, it was taking a year and a half on average for projects to be approved, which is way too long.

Honestly, it's too long for a project like that.

So we looked at the project overall and and evaluated how fast could somebody approve uh get approved.

So, how fast could this be approved?

Not to say that an applicant will be able to to do that or would be would do that, but in theory, it could be done in six months.

Um, it's a it's an achievable thing now where it wasn't before because of the steps that were identified and the meetings that were required where now we've streamlined that.

So again, these are these are hypotheticals, but they are meaningful time differences, and um these things really do add up.

Thank you.

And as you're making these changes to our zone zoning code, you're are you adjusting or maintaining review times?

So do you think because staff is taking on more that you're gonna increase your view review times, are we really gonna be able to stick with our current times or better?

We are always looking at our review time frames uh in terms of how are we doing with meeting them and what are our staffing levels relative to that?

Are we able to meet the review time frames?

I'll say we have no intention right now of raising any review time frames because of these changes.

That would really be counterproductive to have more administrative approvals, but a longer review time frame, you end up in more or less the same place.

That's that's not the intention.

Um so what I would say is that we're currently not looking at expending extending the staff review time frames.

Uh we're actually focusing on how we can uh what we can do internally to further streamline and and to meet the time frames at a higher percentage.

Um so to answer your question, no, we're not looking at extending the staff review time frames.

Okay, that is very helpful.

I think the intent of all this with mayor and council is to try to streamline and make things more effective and efficient.

And then my final two questions is we also want to make sure that we are protecting our residents, and so if you could speak to the PAM process and how we're still gonna make sure we collect resident feedback when I say PAM pre-application process, uh, and you know how we collect community feedback.

Can you just explain that for the listening public?

Yes, I can speak to that.

So the same notification that's currently required will continue to be required.

So the mailed notification will go out.

Uh, there was a question about this earlier.

Um we already do a variety of electronic notification above and beyond the code requirement or even anything in the development review manual.

We will continue those processes and actually expand those, both posting things online in terms of meetings, um requiring developers to post signs, all those things will be maintained in the new code.

Um I'll actually be speaking with you in a little more detail in a future meeting uh on the FAST 2 initiative to go into some depth on some of these things.

Um, but there's a variety of electronic notifications, some of them even implemented fairly recently.

Um so those will all still occur.

We will also still have a post-application area meeting, which is at the very beginning of the process when we receive an application before we review and issue comments on it, the area meeting has to occur, and uh the applicant has to hold that meeting after all those notifications have gone out.

So the the community will still have that early heads up about the project and ability to provide feedback both directly to the applicant right there at that meeting uh with staff listening.

So all those things still exist, it just happens once instead of twice, because as I said, we were finding that there was only repeat uh repeat um visitors to these meetings, and they the the two meetings just weren't necessary.

Um but we're basically feel like we're still accomplishing all the intents of the meeting, which is the one meeting.

Thank you.

And I did find the section article for division 4.1 section two uh five four one one that speaks to the newspaper notice, it does just say newspaper notice, and so that's the section I'm speaking of is can we be a little bit more clear that that is not really up to date?

I know it's a state law requirement, but I think we require more of ourselves in terms of notice, and I I wonder if we can update that section to be more expansive.

Um Madam Mayor, if I could just speak to that for one second, just from a legal perspective.

Um, Mr.

Wassler's suggestion about putting additional noticing requirements in the development review manual is a really good one because it encourages staff to do that without actually imposing a legal obligation on the city to do it.

One of the concerns that I would have in exceeding the state mandated notice requirements in our own code is that it could, and I'm just advising you if this, of course, you could decide to do it.

Um it it could uh result in in decisions being rendered invalid if we meet state requirements, but we fail to meet our own internal noticing requirements, and because the state requirements typically apply to some of the legislative actions on the part of the mayor and council, again, as your attorney, I would just want to make sure you're aware that imposing these additional requirements could moderately anyway raise the legal risk that you could invalidate the decision if, for example, additional email notification didn't go out.

So it's a long way of saying I think there's a way to for staff to do it without actually making it a legal obligation.

That's fair.

Uh, where can Mayor and Council access a development review manual?

I believe it's available online, and I know staff can give you more information on that.

And that's the old one.

You haven't updated, you haven't made any updates yet.

That's correct.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to update the development review manual until after the zoning ordinance was adopted.

Okay.

So we will you be able to flag to us when it's updated so that we can look at it.

Okay, because I know we take a lens from equity and looking at underrepresented audiences, and just we want to make sure I know we've weighed in on communication before, so I just that's something that's of interest.

Um and then the last piece is increases the number of projects eligible eligible for level one site plan approvals that have level two site plan.

Can you just um provide a little bit more context on that for the listening public?

I can.

There is a list in the code now that uh or in the ZOR, the draft zoning ordinance now that outlines a few specific project types that would be eligible for level one site plan, which is staff approval, uh, regardless of the number of points.

So even if they were to be a level two by points, they would be eligible for a level one site plan.

And I can just list those off.

Those are research and development uses in the MXE zone.

The conversion of non-residential uses to residential use were recommended by the plan.

Residential developments proposing 20% or greater moderately priced dwelling units, housing for senior adults and persons with disabilities, and residential developments with 19 or fewer units.

Thank you.

And so you say there's no change to the mayor and council authority, but it there isn't.

But some of those kinds of projects would have previously been coming to the mayor and council.

Is that right or not?

No.

Those that section only allows those that would have been a level two site plan approval by the planning commission to now be a level one.

Anything that would have previously been a project plan would continue to be a project plan, and there's no override for that.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jackson.

All right.

So I didn't have any questions before uh I read through it and uh was fine.

But Mayor's question uh earlier about uh small sheds, uh, made me uh kind of uh look at this uh um provision.

And uh her point about uh buying a shed from like Amazon or um I guess Home Depot, it's already constructed.

Um would that fit in this uh provision 24443?

Uh because it says construction of an enclosed structure of 200 square feet or less.

So what about when it's already constructed?

And they're placing it on uh a lot.

Yes, Councilmember Jackson.

That that's what this is intended to do.

And so to back up and really walk through the whole history here.

Previously, the building code required a building permit for small sheds, which meant that um sheds were required to miss to submit structural plans and to go through the same review process as any new building permit, so say a new house, for example, and that is what the onerous uh regulations we were talking about previously were.

That was changed in the building code to no longer require those under 200 square feet to go through that process.

However, those still are subject to setbacks in the zoning ordinance.

So now all we do is review those for zoning compliance as Mr.

Waslick mentioned, basically set checking the setbacks.

We're not doing the same level of structural building plan review as we were previously under a building permit.

So it's really just a zoning check on the setbacks that we're doing now.

It's a much faster review, and we've adjusted our time frames accordingly.

Uh, you can now get a small shed permit and and much less time than you could before.

Um, however, it's not explicit in the zoning ordinance that that permit is required, it's no longer a building permit, um, but we needed to be explicit that it does still require a level of permit and to be clear, we're not going back to how it was before.

We're not requiring the same structural plans, those kinds of things for those prefab sheds.

It's only just clearly stating you do have to get an approval so we can check the setbacks.

All right.

Thank you.

Council Boschash.

I wanted to thank the staff for making this process more efficient and clearer and streamlining it.

Um, I had a question to follow up on the notifications.

I know it was mentioned that there were a lot of ways online uh to share their notifications.

Can you just provide a little bit more detail?

And I I recognize that this is more of a practice than what's in the code.

So could you just share a little bit more?

I will be glad to preview it now.

And I'll say this this is I'm intending this to be a topic of our FAST2 work session uh on June 8th.

So I I think I can go into a little bit of depth and show a little bit more examples during that.

Uh but just to kind of run down the list now, we have a development watch webpage where all active projects are listed where the public can go and search and find by address uh information about the project, such as application materials, plans, uh upcoming and previous and upcoming meetings, things like that.

We also maintain a map with much of that same information.

So you can find some of the same information in two different ways, either by an address on the website or on the development watch map.

Um so within the development launch page also we have a newsletter, and I'll put in a plug for everyone to please sign up for that newsletter.

This is something that we maintain monthly and send out any new applications that were received, any resubmittles that were received, as well as just topics of general interest.

So we've been posting a lot in the newsletter about the zoning ordinance rewrite.

And this is not an automated thing or something that just gets pushed out.

Staff actually goes through and puts care and drafts the newsletter.

So we think it's a really helpful tool.

And so we encourage folks to sign up for that.

We've also made some improvements under the new website to post more notices online.

So we've now posted our area meetings, the pre and post-application meetings we were just discussing.

Those are now on the city's calendar, as well as you can see those directly from the development watch page.

There's a link you can click, it's a much easier way to see those.

There's also email notice required to boards or sorry, uh, for uh neighborhood associations.

Um so those are the general electronics that I'm that I can think of right now.

But like I said, uh we can come back during the FAST two, and I can go into a little more detail on those.

I'd appreciate that.

And I think it would be interesting to see just over time based on analytics, how many people are viewing the page and if that's increasing over time.

Thank you.

Councilman Van Greg.

Thank you.

Um, just a few things.

Um I understand and I we've got to juxtap when we were talking about the appeal section before.

Obviously, for the most part, everything that's a decision by one of the bodies by one of the decisions making goes to the Board of Appeals.

But I noticed that we've got here, and I know this is kind of something that's not a big change, but we're talking about the Board of Appeals dealing with the special exceptions.

And I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the main rationale there is to have kind of speed because it's more easy to address the Board of Appeals than going through the planning commission process.

Is was that the main goal there?

I think I'll say the main goal there was to streamline the process while still maintaining the Board of Appeals as the approving authority.

They already are the final deciding body on the special exceptions.

The role of the planning commission is really just a recommendation on consistency with the comprehensive plan or not.

So we felt like there was really limited value in having uh a case go to two different boards, basically spit splitting the um the findings amongst the two boards when one board, the board of appeals is capable of making them all without changing the approval authority.

So great.

So that goes to my question because um I understand in the with the Board of Appeals, essentially looking at a decision that was made by one of the bodies as to whether it was proper.

But the special exception seems to be more of a policy issue in deciding whether we want to proceed with a special exception.

Has there been any thought about using the planning commission in that avenue as opposed to the Board of Appeals?

Uh Councilmember Van Grack, if I could answer that question, um, I'm I'm verifying for you now, but the Board of Appeals is kind of an unusual body in the land use article in that it it actually has very specified roles, one of which is the review of special exceptions.

Um I I do want to triple check to make sure that that's correct.

Um and I will I will let you know if I am wrong, but I believe that um the Board of Appeals is required to be the approving authority for special exceptions in the same way that the planning commission is required to approve Platz, for example.

So then I guess that goes to my next question with regard to both the special exception process that we're talking about with the Board of Appeals and also with the waiver.

Um, similar to when we were talking about the um annexation, in both of those processes, we've got a lot of musts and a lot of shalls.

Whereas there doesn't seem to be a timing issue.

And just as the mayor was talking about, we've got an issue where we've got a timely issue.

And I think a lot of us have heard with regard to waivers and special exceptions about it being stalled, or hey, I submitted it months ago, where is it?

Similar to what we were talking about with annexation or what I was talking about with annexation, has there been any thought about putting some of the timing restrictions within a lot of those musts and shalls with regard to both the waiver and the special exceptions.

Um if staff doesn't mind, I can kick this one off, but I'm gonna I'm definitely gonna need staff to follow up.

Um the reason I wanted to kick it off is to provide the distinction between the two cases to some extent.

So, in in the first case that we were talking about, what we wanted to avoid was a situation where the planning commission, through its own inaction, for example, could effectively prevent the mayor and council from moving forward with an action that it was entitled to take because that initial the planning commission recommendation was required.

Yep.

Um in this case, for example, Board of Appeals and approval of special exceptions, that's a regulatory approval that's not really any different than the planning commission with the site plan or the mayor and council with a project plan.

In this case, for example, Board of Appeals and approval of special exceptions, that's a regulatory approval that's not really any different than the planning commission with the site plan or the mayor and council with a project plan.

And so while legally you could put effectively shot clocks on those approvals or deadlines, that that actually goes into sort of a different category of legislation where you have legislatively imposed timelines for development approvals.

And I think staff should probably weigh in on whether that's something that they would want to see, for example.

So and I just want to be clear, I agree with you 100%.

I understand that they're different concerns with regard to the time limits.

The only reason I bring them up is because while they are different concerns with regard to potentially holding up what the mayor and council wants to do, they also potentially have the ability to hold up what's happening, whether it's through an annexation that the mayor and council wants to go forward, or a waiver or special exception that a developer wants to do that the mayor and council isn't involved, but if the mayor and council might have been involved, they might say, why is the development on this project taking you know five months to get a waiver, and it's well, there was a must and it just hasn't happened yet, and we don't have to use your great words a shot clock on it.

Well, I uh yeah, yeah, I don't know if uh uh Mr.

Russell, if you want to talk about it.

I would just add for in particular for the Board of Appeals, they actually have imposed their own shot clock uh by practice uh that there are filing deadlines by which if you file by a certain date, then you are heard on a certain public hearing date.

So they have those for variances and also for special exceptions.

So you you and I are completely on the same way.

I would just pause it, and I know with you know, I'm just one, but just pause positing whether it might be worthwhile for us to put some of those shot clocks within the code itself so that we can, and there can always be an exception to the shot clock, like we can always say, you know, with with approval from X, Y, and Z, this time could be extended, but some type of measurement to ensure, much like we were talking about before, things don't lay around when I think this body's talked about, we want to streamline the process as best we can, and some of these issues could create a halting of the process.

So, and I know this isn't something we can just sit here and answer, but it's just something to bring up that because you know, even what the mayor was talking about, streamlining this process, um, there are things we can do to impose, and I know this has happened in a lot of other jurisdictions in counties and statewide um permitting where there is a shot clock.

We've seen it in Virginia, where they've put time limits in the actual code saying if we can't meet these limits, then you know what?

There needs to be consequences on us.

So, and I think that helps the process, and it would give those who are seeking those permits, those waivers, those special exceptions from us, some guarantee that more likely than not, it's gonna be done in this time.

That's the only I don't know if you want to comment on that, but that's the only comment I I have on the section.

And council member, at the risk of overstepping, and I apologize if I am on on a kind of a policy issue.

Um I I was in, I spent a number of years in the Montgomery County Planning Department and did see the way that some of the internal shot clocks worked um kind of from the inside.

Um and I would only propose just as an idea, um, it it may be helpful because I you know, having worked with staff on a number of the uh changes to the legislation that we believe is going to expedite the approval process.

It may be helpful to gauge how we we've done over the course of six months or a year with the process improvements that we've made.

And that way we can identify if there are still delays in certain types of approval, we can be a bit more targeted in imposing shot clocks shot clocks.

Um, it was one of the things that we experienced in Montgomery County was that uh shot clocks can make sense, but sometimes if they're not tailored appropriately to the development, it can create actually more problems even for developers than you would necessarily imagine.

So again, apologize for stepping out of my way.

No, I I think that's a perfect response because uh we don't want to impose the time limit just to impose them.

We want to impose them when they can create a solution.

Like, for example, as you if you said if you find that everything for the most part is going 30 days within one process, but we're having problems two or three times, maybe we need to impose it so we have those outliers back in where everything else are.

So I think that's you know, I don't think you're overstepping your grounds.

I think it's exactly the type of thinking that we want in this process.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Miles.

Thank you, Councilmember Fulton.

Councilmember Valeri.

Yes, I mean I had stepped out of the room.

So I apologize, but I um I do have I think one issue, and I know you probably touched on it, Madam Mayor, but I I I did want to give my my my two cents as I am want to do um on the elimination of the pre-application meeting.

Um while I I completely appreciate that we're looking at streamlining and looking at inefficiencies as somebody who was on the other side of the dais not that long ago, um, pre-application meetings were the best way to engender goodwill with the community about a project coming in.

I remember very vividly the pre-application meetings for Twinbrook Quarter.

And we would not, as a community association, been able to effectively educate folks about what it actually will be, what it will look like, you know, and and answer all these questions if we didn't have that that access to the pre-application meeting.

I think it also, you know, I think ultimately, you know, projects benefit from getting the input, maybe not the input from all residents, but you can get some really good ideas, right?

Um, I know for instance, you know, I um looking at things like the inclusion of a dog park within a project, right?

Like you'll hear from from folks.

Um, and honestly, like it eliminating that is actually gonna be giving more of an advantage to the people who have been around the block on on development, right?

So, like I guess overall, my my question is I want to understand um the people who relied on the PAMs are exactly the people we're trying to make this code more accessible for.

So small businesses or community organizations, first-time applicants.

I kind of want to understand what replaces that function if we don't have a PAM.

I would say the post-application area meeting would serve that same uh function.

It's still at the very beginning of the project, before the initial review, um the community will see the project as soon as it's ready to be released for application, so there's still the opportunity to do all those things you mentioned to provide to learn about the project and provide that feedback.

Um and it's it's early on.

So, but it I mean, in practicality, like it does actually create less of a flexibility um because it's not the first public touch point is after, you know, um the the filing.

So it's kind of uh every some uh parts of a project are already baked in by the time you know the post-application meeting would occur.

Um so wouldn't it benefit us in terms of you know working with the community rather than creating an oppositional relationship to start that earlier rather than later?

That was the reason it was set up this way, from my understanding.

Um, and you're completely right in theory, it seems that that would be the case.

But what we've found is that before an applicant wants to go public with a project, they're going to commit to a level of design, both of conceptual design of the site to determine the yield, the stormwater layout, the natural resource inventory, they're already dedicating this, and once they come in for the PAM, they've already got that baked in.

So that's where I say it's become sort of redundant.

Um, I think the idea was that as soon as somebody got an idea for a project, they would come in and do a PAM, where what we found is that they really do a lot of the behind the scenes work already and then do the PAM.

So it it's already in that situation now where a lot of it's already baked in.

So I I I and I I hear what your your your point on that for sure.

I think this is a you know, assuming that we're looking at folks who are comfortable with the process as well.

Um, that wouldn't necessarily be the case for someone who's never developed in the city of Rockville or is a small business owner, or this is just a change, you know, um, for something that they they've normally done.

I think the other part about it is that without a PAM, then basically all the pre-application guidance would still be occurring.

It's just going to be in private conversations.

It's not going to be within the public sphere.

So from a transparency standpoint, again, um, if if we want people to feel part of the process, um, then having more conversations uh openly with the community rather than behind closed doors, I think would be better.

Um, and again, I say this as somebody that is I'm sitting up here before, but I I felt seen validated and part of the process of a development because there was the pre-application meeting.

And ultimately, I think that boy, by eliminating the PAMs and the DRC meetings, then it's kind of just compounding the problem in a sense because everything, you know, if we can coordinate things earlier, if we can get people on board, have a seat at the table from the get-go.

That is going to be a much more effective way to kind of bring people in and see, you know, the net positives or you know, make it even better.

So I think that's one of my biggest issues with eliminating the PAM.

While I understand what you said about people not, you know, maybe not getting the attendance uh at these meetings.

Sometimes that's a good thing.

Maybe people are just like, hey, yeah, do whatever.

But um I think maybe for for bigger projects, I think that we should reserve the the PAM as a place for the community to feel part of it.

Um so I just wanted to say that I know that um just super quickly, it's funny because I was looking up the um the development review manual while I was up here.

Um, and I I noticed something.

Um, and I should have known this before because I remember getting a million of them.

Can it's very small thing.

Could we change the name to the resident guide to development review?

We could currently call it the citizen's guide to development review.

Or a community guide to development review.

I think any of those would be better than uh citizen guide to development review.

This is Jim knows.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Wasselick knows.

I think at one point I had a stack like this because it goes out with every um notification, and I got all the notifications.

So I think that would be helpful.

Um finally, we talked a lot about prefab sheds, but we also talked about um prefab ADUs and whether or not that would be part of could we streamline that that would encourage those folks who can have an ADU uh on their on their parcel on their property to maybe um choose to have one if we make it easier for them if there are you know prefab tiny homes and stuff like that.

Um how would that fit into the the ZOR right now?

So ADUs is actually something that we can touch on next week in Article 6 when we talk about our uses and use standards.

Okay, cool.

I just wanted to, I know we were talking a lot about sheds, and I was like on the prefab side of things, like I just don't want to lose the flexibility or the incentives for people, um, make it as easy as possible for that.

Um I think that that may double check.

Um yeah, I I just I really do support um PAMs, PAMs are a good thing.

I know that it makes people a little jumpy at times, but I you know it I think it makes people jumpier when they don't know something is coming.

Um I appreciate too that we we have certain must um you know post uh uh a notice, especially under the state law, um, until the state updates their definition to go beyond, you know, um carrier pigeons and newspapers, that but we could be more positive and forward thinking about it and maybe even making it a much more explicit section, maybe under development review or some other place to be able to get us up to uh 2026 standards.

So I would support doing something like that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I also support uh changing the name to be more inclusive to different kinds of residents in the city.

I think that's an easy fix, uh, one of the easier ones you could work on.

Um I did want to go back to the comment of my colleague about um the grievance process.

Uh I appreciate that you updated it from 15 days to 30 days.

That's something we provided feedback on in a previous session.

So thank you for that.

But I do agree with the comment on the date of the letter, like it really should be the date of mailing or of something like that's not fair because there have been significant lags between date of letter and mailing.

Um so and if we're only giving 30 days, we should just be fair on when it actually intends to go out.

Um I also wanted to um note the comments about you know, Councilman Grack and I were talking about uh just the point of all this is and some of the process changes we're trying to make is to improve time uh and to get housing done faster and more effectively and efficiently with residents in mind and you know, being context sensitive.

Um but so I I do I do really want to hear you know more specifics on how we achieve that.

Um that's something that I I think is important, but I do note that um during our economic development uh strategic planning session that we had with Rockfall Economic Development Inc., it was shared that there are jurisdictions that say if we don't meet certain time frames, permit fees are are refunded.

Um or you know, there there are other things, other ways that you could look at it as well.

But I do think that some level of accountability with us that we're saying we are the best city to do uh, you know, to work with.

We respect your time, we respect your process, we're gonna protect our residents and our community, but this is a give and take.

And and so if if that is, you know, I know some jurisdictions says if we don't do video by certain time it's approved, or I know that's maybe extreme.

It's you know, if we don't review it by a certain time, then um your fees get refunded.

I think that's fair, uh and that's what we're trying to achieve, uh, and that's something I'm hopeful that we can look at.

And maybe I don't know if that would be in June.

Would that be an appropriate time to discuss that more more in more depth?

As you talk about fast.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Um, the other thing I wanted to just go to in terms of um, because we talk about definitions and kind of setting this whole thing up.

How is ZOR acts?

Can it be accessed in in Spanish in other languages?

This is a great question, and we will get back to you on that.

Okay, thank you.

This came to me because um I and also the the permitting website.

Uh, if you could get us feedback on that.

I know our website has some levels that are dynamic and can be Google translated.

Sometimes when you're getting technical with law, maybe that it may not be the best translation, but I want us to think about that in mind because we recently encountered a business, um, it actually wasn't in the city, it was outside the city, wasn't us, but uh their contractor did not speak English, and there were a lot of things missed in the process, and it caused the business to have an opening without a permit.

Uh so anyway, I just think that we need to think about the systems we use and the different kinds of contractors that are out there managing things for the small businesses and how we're making that accessible so people know our rules and they can access and track our systems.

Councilmember Van Greg.

So just uh two other things touched on that I want to follow up.

First, I want to thank Councilmember Valeri.

I think it's a really good point with regard to citizens and residents to the extent we can make that change.

I think it's more inclusive.

I think it's a very good point.

Um, but I do want to bring up something else um I didn't touch on.

Um I completely understand how with regard to pre-application meetings, there can be changes.

Um however, I actually do support the staff's recommendation.

Um, I think this is exactly the type of thing that we're looking for to streamline to get it going.

Um I do agree with uh um what was said before by um Councilman Valeri that we can definitely get into situations where at the I've seen it where pre-application meetings can change it.

That being said, um, and this is prior to me being on council, I've been to many pre-application meetings that are almost verbatim the same as the post-application meeting.

And while I know that there are certainly situations that it can be caught at the post-application meeting, that's still a time that we can make changes because there's amendments, there's uh process through it.

So um while I understand that there easily is situations where things are caught pre-application, I actually do think that staff made kind of a really good suggestion that goes to what the mayor and council are kind of looking for in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

So thanks to staff.

Thank you.

Uh last comments on this section, Councilman Valeri.

Just wanted to state really quickly, and and thank you, Councilmember Van Grack.

I always love a good compliment from Councilmember Van Greg.

But um, I do want to note that I also think that um in addition to maybe providing feedback that be creates changes, I think it's more about making changing the culture of development bad, you know, and making it more of like a community conversation as well.

Um maybe everything, maybe something changes, maybe nothing ever changes, but I think it allow allowing that to be a space, whether or not people avail themselves of the space, you know, we we can't force people to go, but we can make it um, you know, the Rockville way that we want to hear from residents.

And so that that's my I think probably my bigger concern.

Council Ken Greg.

Great great points.

Can I ask staff's professional opinion on uh minor amendments of that uh section 2542?

Um, this is another area I've heard consternation on where it's like I made a small change because I was envisioning something five years ago, and then when I got into it, now I have to go all the way back and do a lot of a lot of extra work.

What is there validity to that?

What do you guys think?

Have we done enough editing here in the minor amendment section?

Back and start and others may have more.

Um I would say the the most one of the most probably main sources of frustration with that section is the lack of clarity of it, and someone doesn't know looking at it, what they're gonna be required to do as it's written now.

It's it's very confusing.

It's confusing for staff, even we have to huddle converse, go through trace the trace the references in the sections to figure out which process somebody goes through.

All that takes time, both with the person looking at it initially with staff going through it.

So there's time burn up front there before you even get to the process.

I would say the more clarity that's built in, the better, but the more transparency, the better.

Um, and I think it's pretty clear now that there's a uh a fairly clear and robust list of things that are eligible for minor amendment.

Uh, but also add that the change of use that I mentioned earlier is really where I've seen the most frustration with the site plan process.

It's very difficult to tell someone you're changing a use inside the building, but you need a permit to for your site.

There's a kind of a logical gap there, it doesn't really make a lot of sense.

And so that's where I think the a lot of the frustration comes from is we're just changing the use, we're not doing anything outside, and yet we still have to get a site plan amendment.

And I think fixing that will go a long way to get rid of some of that frustration.

So, do you think we've tackled the areas where you've seen the most frustration in a meaningful way that also protects our residents?

That's a that's always I want to make sure I always say that I do with the caveat, as Mr.

Dumay mentioned earlier.

I think we need to continually evaluate these things because there may be a scenario we're not envisioning that comes up.

So I don't want to tell you, yes, I think we fixed it, and then we found a scenario that we weren't envisioning, but I do think we've covered the scenarios that I've seen the most frustration, yes.

Okay, and we've gotten external feedback.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you very much.

Section five.

Is this the fun part?

I love that.

It is fun, yes.

Do you want to just refresh our minds on this section, please?

Absolutely.

So Article 5 deals with um the establishment of our zones, our official zoning map, and then also um processes for amending the zoning map.

So the three key changes that you see on your screen are adding a new table that just simply outlines what are all of the zones in the city that we are making use of.

It also clarifies that the um zones listed in bullet point two are in fact overlay zones.

So there's a base zone that applies, and these lay on top of that and add additional nuance and regulations, and then removes reference to our interim floating zones, which as mentioned previously are interim in nature and will no longer be necessary with a comprehensive map amendment.

Thank you.

And although we're talking about map zoning maps, you're not specifically looking for feedback at this time on the new mark situation.

Correct.

That's what I thought.

As you said next week.

Okay.

My broader question is something I've mentioned several times in different settings and uh and my one-on-one with the city manager.

Um, is also about um just general understanding of industrial changes that are happening.

That's just a broader issue of how much industrial space are we losing.

Um, when we were part of the economic development uh work session, many of us heard that um there's very low vacancy and a lot of interest in that area.

So if we're thinking about economic growth, I just would love to the body to get that answer as we dig into sections like this.

Absolutely.

I think that kind of breaks down in two parts, one of which we will be discussing during next week's work session, um, particularly talking about digging back into the gross floor area restrictions.

We did get feedback from Rockville Economic Development Incorporated.

We did get feedback from Rockville Economic Development Incorporated, um aimed at allowing some of those kind of ancillary or accessory uses to expand larger into a building than they currently would be in the proposed draft.

So that is something again, we're gonna get into that next week.

We'll touch on that more specifically.

I think the other area is the comprehensive map amendment.

We do have one property down near Twinbrook that is currently zoned IL, which we are proposing and proposing to implement the comprehensive plan recommendation of rezoning it to MXB or mixed use business.

Thank you.

Um so that would be more for next week.

If we can get like a I don't just uh a way to say total area, like where are the areas where this is happening and how much are we losing in this process?

I think that's a challenge with having US so many years pass between when we do the comp plan and now things life changes, uh the environment changes, and so uh this is sort of a new growth area, and I know we have to you know just take a fresh look at at what we're doing, make sure we're not causing harm from an economic development perspective.

Councilmember Jackson, your take on this section.

No, thank you.

Um I really don't have any questions on this section.

Uh I I think it's uh well laid out.

My only question I think would be um if I'm a resident of the city and I see this chart, uh uh R 400, uh RHD, IL MX T D, we're gonna go to actually find out, you know, not only um what the abbreviation stands for, but what uh it actually means uh in terms of uh uh zoning.

It's a great question.

Um the best place to go for kind of base level information about the zone, your next stop would be Article 7, our zone standards.

Councilman Bishop, are you good?

Yeah, okay, Councilmember Shaw.

Councilmember Jackson asked my question, so I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Just to help uh piggyback, is there a reason that it's not combined?

I'm sure you had one.

So Article 5 really deals with the establishment of the zones.

So outlining what are they, um, just basically speaking them into existence, if that makes sense, and also the zoning map itself, as well as the processes for amending them, but then getting into the specific development standards that apply to each zone.

We did um section that out, and our current ordinance does the same thing.

So that if you are proposing development in one of those zones, your first landing page most likely is going to be Article 7.

So this is kind of the basis for um having development standards, having design standards, having any sort of general um general development regulations that apply on a zone-by-zone basis, but it doesn't go into the specifics of the regulations that apply in those zones.

Thank you.

Councilman Van Greg.

Um yeah, thanks.

So uh you've heard it from my colleagues, you've heard it the chart's great.

It really lays it out fantastic.

Um, but another compliment to this section, which circles back to some of the things that we're talking about, the very last part of the section when it's talking about notice and notification of decision.

It is really nicely laid out.

What has to happen with regard to, and this is in section in the zoning map amendment nine uh C9.

That's a really nice layout of what must happen with regard to a decision happening.

If we copy that type of language into some of the other sections, we get clarity.

And then that same section has a requirement, which could lead lead to what Mr.

Dumay, you and I were talking about, leading back to the section seven, sorry, Maryland Rule 7203A2, which talks about when it's being sent.

So again, complimentary with regard to that section, but it could be used to go to as a I guess template for some of the other sections which aren't nearly as clear.

Thank you, Dr.

Miles.

No comments, Councilmember Fulton.

Not specific, but commenting on some of the previous conversations about shot clocks and timing and must.

Um I am in favor of what I think was proposed by Mr.

Dumay is like we've we've got these changes, let's put them in place, let's trust staff to see how what progress it makes.

If we don't make enough progress, then revisit.

I don't know that we should be putting the firm requirements on the front end or or the sort of the permit is waived.

Let's just see how we do.

And if it's not working, we can revisit.

I think putting those types of things in on the front end create legal risk to the city and let's decide if we need it first.

That's just my take.

Y'all know I love maps.

Um, and I do, and I've had more fun with the swiping feature on these maps.

You have no idea.

Like, and and I was even sitting here because I couldn't remember.

Um, so thank you for this.

This is just phenomenal.

Um, did I misinterpret or remember incorrectly?

Are we doing um any sort of specific overlay for a transit-oriented development in a specific zone?

No.

Okay.

Um, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't like maybe I had a dream about it.

I don't know.

But um that that makes sense to me because again, you know, we don't know what transit's gonna look like.

Um so there's that um just on a practical practical note, um, because I was trying to get a sense of like, you know, oh, what this would look like in the proposed zoning for what is currently um Timber Quarter.

When I clicked on it and I click on it, it says it proposed Rockville zoning district PD-TC.

Um, can you explain a little bit more about that?

Because then it says plan development twinburg comments, but that's also the other side of the Metro, if I'm not mistaken.

Mr.

Wazilec can probably add more information here, but that property is within a planned development zone.

Yeah, no, and then I and I figured as much, and actually that also, you know, if we wanted to streamline everything, that actually kind of kind of feeds into like you know, um, the whole champion project.

Do we treat that differently than other I you know it it's the standard, sure, but I I think the zone should be the zone.

I'm happy to to uh quiz Mr.

Waslick later exactly on the swiping.

Um, but thank you for that.

Um then finally, and maybe this is just me, it probably is just me, but I I actually mentioned it to some of our um some of the folks from Newmark Commons that have been coming here, and I said, you know, we've got to all you know come together as a city to alleviate the impacts of this housing crisis.

To that extent, um, and and I'm sure um Mr.

Wasilisk or um Ms.

Simmons can probably answer this.

Why wouldn't we ever propose to adjust the zoning for the R400 and R200?

Thinking long term on these ginormous parcels of land, and you know, even for the the property owners themselves who may want to create a a duplex, maybe it, you know, as a uh aging in place consideration.

I'm I'm kind of trying to think through because I know a lot of it we can't actually address the zoning because it's covered under um uh what is it, the cluster overlay and some things, but I'm I'm trying to get a handle on you know these these giant R400 and R200 um and and kind of why we wouldn't plan for the future on those zones.

I think this is an excellent point, and it's actually something that quite early in the process we did consider whether the R400, 200, and 150 should all be condensed down into one zone, and specifically the R150, which would have a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet as opposed to 20,000 or 400 or 40,000.

Um so all of that to say we did consider it, but at the end of the day, we did not perceive that the comprehensive plan provided guidance to do that thing.

I think at this point it is absolutely an area of opportunity and something certainly to be considered for the future.

No, I I appreciate that because again, I you know, um we we can only do so much around transit until transit expands significantly, and and you know, um we can't keep only looking at our metro areas, and I say that as somebody in one of those areas, right?

We have to provide a bunch of different options.

So I would really be interested in particular, um, those areas looking at um again, allowing for the greatest flexibility, both for you know, the current property owners or future property owner that does want to do something differently with those ginormous parcels, but also too.

I noticed that um the area of what is it, Woodmont is R400.

Okay, so would that maybe at some point people don't go to country clubs anymore?

And would that preclude then um being able to uh have a different sort of housing development on that property?

I think I understand that historically the R400, when applied to our country clubs has kind of served as a holding zone.

Um I think the the thought among staff is that if one of those country clubs were to develop, it would be excellent to have a master plan in place that would really guide the development of the country club.

Um I'm sure Mr.

Wazlak has more thoughts on that as well.

The one the one final thing I would say on that is that we are through the comprehensive map amendment rezoning a portion of the country club to I believe it's RMD25.

It has been quite a while since I've looked at that specific portion of the property though.

No, I appreciate that.

And I really wasn't trying to to quiz, but it's just I think it's and I mentioned this previously, and um to my colleagues as well, it's significant when you look at the overall map of the city where we are looking to change the zoning and where we are not.

And if we are gonna be focused on geographic equity, if we're gonna be living by our equity statement, then we gotta walk the lock and look at the entire city.

That's what two cents, and I'm off my soapbox.

Thank you.

I have uh quick comments on this.

Um for this draft, is there a reason we don't have a table of contents?

I was just scanning through and going back and forth, but for the revised staff draft specifically.

That is a great question.

It's something that certainly could be generated.

Um we did provide a table of contents for the staff draft, so that would be that would be easy to update.

Okay, that will be super helpful because I'm kind of scanning through just to find things.

Um I appreciated your comments earlier to my colleagues on the meanings, uh, the definitions and meanings and heights and descriptions.

Um I had a question about um the local amendment applications.

It's I I guess you it's the goal is to not have someone keep coming back and back and back once a decision has been made.

Is that right?

I think that generally, I mean, that is the impact of the provision that I think you're referencing, which precludes an applicant um or a property owner from coming back within I think 12 months of having a prior decision rendered.

Um that is something that is currently in our ordinance.

We cleaned up that language a lot.

It was incredibly confusing in the original staff draft.

We hope that it's less confusing in the revised staff draft, but yes, that is the intent.

It's pretty clear.

I think it well, well done.

Um the only thing I asked is is there any such is there a situation where it's not someone um trying to work the system but legitimately has a change or something that they need help on, or something has changed about the application that you all have seen that what they now have to wait a year.

Is there is there a for a legitimate reason, is there another path forward?

I might defer to Mr.

Wazlak and Mr.

Dumay.

With local map amendments, they really are supposed to be based on a change or a mistake.

So I think the idea that a change might have occurred within 12 months of a prior decision being rendered or a mistake, a new mistake being identified after the decision has been rendered, uh, there might be a very very slim slim to no chance of that being the case.

But Mr.

Dumay, if you have something additional to add.

Great ditto.

That's a staff ditto.

Um, and this is uh minor for me, minor comment, but I know we'll address it later in section 11.

But section 2531 C7C.

I my personal perspective is supermajority vote of the mayor and council, but I did want, I I know we'll talk about that more later.

Can you jump in ahead again?

No, it's actually in this section of the references that there's a lot of cross-referencing in this document, which is good, and I'm sure trying for the staff.

Um so those are my major comments on this section.

I'm just trying to see if there's anything else.

I think those are the big ones.

Councilmember Fulton.

While you're getting that, I was just gonna say, I I think my comment, and I know I I'm not gonna speak for you, Councilman Van Greg, but the spirit of what we're trying to do with giving ourselves some time on this is actually to be use it as a marketing tool and attracting businesses and housing here.

And we have heard that it's worked in other places.

So I think that I agree with Councilmember Fulton that we should see where we are, but I also agree that we should look and say, okay, how are we comparing ourselves to other jurisdictions?

And is it like an incentive for people to come here versus other places?

Councilman Van Greg, I'm gonna say, you know, similar to what you know, Mr.

Dumay, you said, first of all, if we're meeting or exceeding what other jurisdictions are doing, well, let's advertise it, right?

On the other hand, um, if there's outliers with regard to we're always doing it, and we realize that looking at it, we maybe we need that time limit, and we can advertise that.

I mean, part of what we're trying to do here is streamline this and let people who are looking for application know there's gonna be a lot of less red tape in Rockland.

Now we're not gonna approve everything, but we're gonna make it reasonable to come through, which is one of the main goals.

Yeah, and I think the comment was the cost to the jurisdictions that were doing it was not high, actually, because they were hitting it mostly, but it was something that was very attractive.

So I know that's more to be discussed, but why don't I raise that?

Comes from our Fulton.

I think you all just gave me enough time to answer my own question, but let me just ask to clarify.

Uh a application to I to designate a individual property for hor historic designation is a sectional map amendment or a local map amendment.

That is a great question.

And that is I would I'm just smiling because uh I was scratching my head about that when I came to Rockville six years ago as well.

It is a sectional map amendment.

Um, I think the idea, as it was explained to me, was that effectively it's an addition to an existing overlay zone, effectively, and so we are technically looking at a at a portion of the city other than the individual property, even though in effect all we're doing is just looking at an individual property.

It's an addition to an existing zone.

So then it thank you for that.

I think I I got there, but it just it then follows, and I'm looking at the section here in the um that uh the sign requirement in case of a local amendment, the owners of the subject property must post an application sign, does not apply to historic designation.

Correct.

Okay, just want to make sure I got that right.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I will say thank you for asking folks to put QR codes on the signs that are posted.

It's been very helpful to our residents.

I think this is our last section, and we're ready to talk about next steps.

All right.

So next up, we have uh three meetings left really that are planned.

The May 11th work session, where we will go over articles six through eight, May 18th work session for articles nine through 13.

We will publish a uh final staff draft zoning ordinance and map uh planned for June 1st.

And Madam Mayor, as you mentioned multiple times earlier this evening, we also did release our revised staff draft back on April 20th, one week after the April 13th Mayor and Council work session.

Um, and then we are headed toward uh toward as of this morning a June 29th adoption date, as I understand it.

So this slide next week will be updated for you all with the correct date there.

Um I did want to also raise, as I mentioned earlier, for consideration at next week's work session, we would like to speak about the comprehensive map amendment.

That is not something that was included expressly on um Mayor and Council's agenda previously, but we do think that that would enable time for discussion as well as um, you know, it's not the absolute last work session we have on our on our timeline for you all.

So if if you are agreeable to that, we can certainly send an update out to our engage Rockville list tomorrow or the next day.

We'll also be speaking with the Newmark Commons board as mentioned earlier on May 7th, and uh had the opportunity to touch base in person with a Markwood resident this evening.

So we'll be coordinating a time to speak with them as well.

Thank you.

This was an excellent presentation, a lot of depth to cover, and I want to thank you and my colleagues uh for the attention to detail that you all have put forward.

I think it was a very robust discussion.

Okay, we will see you next week.

We're now moving on to you.

We are early.

I just wanted to say that we got excited.

Let's continue that, Trent.

Uh, mock agenda.

Uh we had a great discussion this morning.

Um, I just uh will note that um I'll share with my calls not everyone was on LPT.

I did raise the issue of the election code.

I want to thank the city team between the city attorney, city clerk, and uh city manager for inserting an additional election code work session.

Um it is currently on May 11th.

I I will share I have some small trepidation about not having enough time to get the um BSC's feedback because they meet on the 7th.

So I do think that is so critical that we get the feedback on the finance section.

So I don't know if they if we we can even just get informal if it's not going to make it in the brief book, uh, but something where we uh the mayor and council can be informed by the gen the general concepts of what the BSC has had to say.

Mr.

Mahillick.

We all met this afternoon at 4 15 at the exact same conversation as you mentioned, and we're gonna ask the BSC to put in writing to not only staff on May 8th, their written comments, but also provide it to council so we can all be looking at it at the same time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anything else on mock agenda?

I know we discussed more depth this morning.

Okay, old new business.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Councilmember Fulton.

Move to adjourn.

Thank you, Councilman Valerie.

Seconds, all those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the public.