Good evening, Rockville.

Today is May 11th, 2026, and we will convene Mayor and Council meeting number 13-26.

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

To the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Good evening, everyone.

We are joined here by May Mini Mayor Keir Newell.

She goes to Bayard Rustin Elementary School, and she is the winner if the I of the If I Were Mayor contest that was done among all fourth graders throughout the entire city of Rockville, and we're so very proud of her.

Can we give her a round of applause?

So she not only won at this level, and this is decided upon by a state level organization, but her essay was so good that she was one of 11 members who went to Annapolis to uh get a certificate, and it was 11 people statewide.

So we're not only proud of her work and her vision for Rockville, but the fact that she was recognized in the entire state is greatly appreciated.

This is a contest that is led by the Maryland Municipal League, and the idea is to encourage civic participation and to get folks thinking about what they would do if they were in charge.

And she has many, many good ideas, and we're gonna hear from her today.

But I want to thank her for her courage.

She met with uh many officials in Annapolis toward the building.

Delegate Spiegel was very kind enough to give her a personal tour, and uh she asked great questions.

So I'm with that.

I'm going to ask um Mayor, Kira Newell to please read her essay.

Do you want to do the podium or here?

Um, I can go up there.

Come on.

If I were mayor, I would make it my mission to ensure our community is a safe, healthy, and caring environment for all residents.

First, I would focus on our schools.

To ensure every student gets a world-class education, every school needs the right tools.

This means modern science labs, libraries filled with updated books, high-speed Wi-Fi for research and homework, healthy meals, and fun after school clubs.

Second, I would transform our parks.

Playgrounds should be fun, but they must also be safe.

I will replace hard ground prickly surfaces with extra soft bouncy rubber tiles.

This ensures that every child, including those with mobility challenges, can play comfortably and safely without a fear of a hardfall.

Third, I would launch a bi-weekly newsletter titled From the Desk of the Mayor of Rockville.

It would share both the highlights and lowlights of our city.

It is important to listen to residents, share honest updates, and address concerns so that everyone feels hurt.

Fourth, I would make it a priority to stop by community events to meet with residents face to face.

Finally, I would bring us together through sports.

Since pickleball is incredibly popular here, I would organize an annual wide city tournament.

We already have amazing courts.

A giant yearly tournament would be the perfect way for the community to compete, show off their skills, and celebrate together.

Rockville is already a great place to live, but with the right leadership, it can be extraordinary.

If I were mayor, I would empower every resident to help me build the best community in Maryland.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we could have used you during the budget process.

So her charge was to not only think about where we've been, this has been a contest that's been going on for many years.

Maryland Municipal League is 90 years old, 90 years old this year.

And so I know we have a number of things we're celebrating the 250th anniversary of our country, the 90th anniversary of the Maryland Municipal League, and she was to think about not only Rockville today, but Rockville for the next 90 years.

So I think you have great ideas, and we will.

I know all of my colleagues were taking notes.

Okay.

Now she's going to continue to lead us in a portion of our meeting.

City Clerk, Miss Sarah Taylor Farrah.

Are there any changes to this evening's agenda?

Madam Mayor Newell, there are no changes on the agenda for this evening.

Thank you.

Say thank you.

Thank you.

City Manager, Mr.

Jeff Mahillick.

Can you please present the city manager's report?

Minimair Newell, adult size mayor, Ashton, I guess.

Members of City Council, good evening.

Minimor Newell.

That's the best pronunciation, first five ever heard.

So congratulations and thank you.

On behalf of my whole family.

I do have some fun things to report.

Our Department of Public Works Equipment Show is this Tuesday, May 19th from 10 30 to 4 30 p.m.

at Maddie's Stopanic Park.

That is uh very exciting, and we have a lot of students show up and clamor on and some excellent equipment.

Um, hopefully we can get a lot of participation.

We also have a brand new playground equipment at Falls Girl Park, bright and shiny.

So if anybody wants to check that out, it's outstanding.

Um Bike to Work Day is this Friday, May 15th.

All kinds of activities throughout the city would encourage people to look on our website for locations that they can bike to on their way to work.

And finally, something we always look forward to every year.

The farmers market reopens this Saturday, May 16th.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Do you have any questions for him?

Um, no.

Okay.

I will also note the city has been working very hard on a number of events uh and with partners.

I think there's also the community walk and roll event, May 14th.

I know some members of uh our pedestrian and bike community wanted us to raise that.

There is a nonprofit symposium this Thursday.

Please check that out.

Uh Glenview Mansion is celebrating 100 years.

They have a major event, and we're gonna be continuing our efforts to do the neighborhood connects throughout the city, and our next one is in Rockshire.

Uh please find out more of our events.

Look at Rockville MD.gov, and you can also explore our partners at Explore Rockville.

Okay.

Mayor Newell, would you like to say anything else or do you have any other questions?

Um thank you.

She has some homework and to prepare for school tomorrow, but you'll be seeing Mayor Newell around the city.

She's going to be touring with our police.

Uh, she's gonna be visiting our big truck show that's coming up next week on Tuesday, so please come and join her.

And she's gonna participate in our uh Memorial Day ceremony if she's available.

Uh but please wish her well.

I want to thank all of the fourth graders who took time to write an essay and to share their ideas.

Uh, we're uh gonna be announcing for the first time this year some additional finalists because we want to honor those at other schools uh who were finalists as well.

So thank you, Mayor Newell.

We greatly appreciate all that you've done.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I'll see you soon.

Can someone help us with this chair?

That's okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're gonna make one minor adjustment to the agenda.

Uh, we want to thank our district 17 team.

They're gonna be presenting this evening.

I know some have events prior to this.

I want to thank Delegate Spiegel for being here.

Uh, first of the crew to join us, we will move this presentation back until we see the rest of your colleagues join.

Thank you.

We're now gonna proceed to community forum.

We uh really value this time and want to hear from the community.

All persons, please address the mayor and council and speak in a professional, civil and courteous manner.

Uh and please be respectful of each other.

Each person should will be allowed three minutes, and we ask you to stick to the three minutes allowed.

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 take those who have signed up in advance.

I also wanted to note that we have some public hearings this evening.

We will have a separate call for those uh opportunities to speak as well.

If you inadvertently signed up for community forum and you mean to sign up for public hearing, just raise your hand and I will know to move on.

Okay.

Welcome, Arina Luen.

Welcome.

That's my first time.

I'm sorry.

Please excuse me.

Good evening.

My name is Irina Luhan.

I am executive director of Universal Aid for Children of Ukraine.

And I'm a Rotarian of Rockville Rotary Club, a director and representative to District 7620 to International Committee Ukraine USA.

I'm very happy that Mayor Monique Ashton is an honorary member of our club.

And it gives me more confidence to speak today with you.

Rockville Rotary has wonderful tradition to display flags in the Memorial Day.

About 400 flags.

Each one represents a hero.

Some are fallen heroes, some are family members who are alive by people who want to honor them.

And the memory about fallen heroes lives as long as we live and take with us this memory.

Several years ago in this field, there were very special LA of flags which were erected to honor members of Universal Aid for Children of Ukraine, the organization which I have the honor to represent.

These are people who are alive, thank God they all alive now, all the volunteers working without rest in Ukraine in Odessa, providing help to orphans, children, emergency doctors, coordinators, everybody.

She's a wonderful, wonderful young girl.

And when I looked at her, I was proud to see her as a mini mayor.

And also I feel that hundreds of children in Odessa Ukraine, the same age.

She was probably 9, 10, 11, something like that.

So the children who lost their parents, who escaped uh through the minefields, and found refuge in Ukraine in Odessa, and they depend on the help from Universal Aid for Children.

And I'm here today.

Rockville is a city known for compassion, diversity, global awareness.

We are seeking now to connect with leaders who care about children, justice, and community, and help ensure that vulnerable Ukrainian children are not forgotten.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate your testimony.

Welcome, Lakessa Carter.

I actually meant to sign up for the public hearing.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Kathleen Kleinman.

We are working to get uh ADA accessible community forum, and we will be better.

I'm really excited about that.

Okay, my name is Kathleen Kleinman, and I am a city resident here in Rockville.

And I just want to encourage all of you to participate in all of the community to participate in the Rockville Pedestrian Advocacy Committee meeting today this week, which is actually a spring rock and roll event on May 14th, which is Thursday at 6 p.m.

The walk and roll will begin at Burgundy Shopping Center and at the intersection of First Street and Baltimore Road.

And we walk through the neighborhood, we walk along the sidewalks, we identify issues, and we get to know our neighbors, and we get to have a nice conversation with not only the the mayor and council, but we but many of the members of the public works department.

Everyone is who is interested is welcome.

Um and we especially like to invite our city manager, Jeff Mahillick, personally.

Um we we have a good dialogue, we usually walk for about an hour, and hope we all hope for good weather.

If you need more information, uh the the committee contact information is on the Rockville website, and Brian Brian Barnett Woods is the staff person who facilitates our activities, and he has the most information.

And Brian Barnett Woods is the staff person who facilitates our activities, and he has the most information.

So we invite you to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Lily Borkle.

Thank you.

This is not the zoning just yet.

So we can we'll come back.

Thank you.

I'll make a note.

Okay.

I see a couple others that say zoning.

So Adrian Gardner, is that you want to wait for the zone for the public hearing?

We will do that.

Yes, you're thank you for your patience.

Welcome.

Former Council Mark Bushela.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Mayor and members of the council.

I'm speaking about voting.

And following up on the last time you took this, I can only conclude that there's too much to do and too little time to do it.

And a lot of work needs to be done.

So I would encourage this body to do only what you really need to do for 2027, because the clock's always already running, and defer the rest and leave that to the next mayor and council who that can then do it, take care of it in their first year.

I want to speak a little bit about the ranked choice voting.

And my good friend Vincent Rousseau said there had never been three candidates for mayor, but in 2007 there was.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, JD Kumar.

City of Rockville, Maryland Government Council and Mirror Ashton.

Thank you for this opportunity.

This open democracy forum.

My name is James Druba Kumar, J.D.

Kumar, Democrat candidate for United States Congress, House of Representatives for this Maryland District 8.

My website is vote jdk.com.

I'm EIC, explainer in chief, not humble on this.

Website is vote jdk.com.

Now I pledge allegiance to the flag of British America, Continental America, which is an East India Company, EIC inspired USA independence flag.

I pledge allegiance to USA America everywhere.

Rule of law, rule of law.

Firstly, this is from Montgomery County, Maryland government.

None of them are at my level.

You especially, many of you women have not valued my new male role as a caregiver for my elder mom this past decade plus Montgomery County, Maryland government.

You haven't valued this.

I'm older than most local government leaders by average of eight to ten years or more, including all of you.

A lot of experience.

Most of Montgomery County, Maryland government in diapers, sucking then, sucking now.

When I was listening to and supporting some of your we got our own thing now and don't need you, dibbly dibbly do your version of doo-doo brown civil rights leaders.

Montgomery County, Maryland government, this is terrible.

And so Montgomery County, Maryland government, please note again that I'm the only long history of humanity, the 21st century leader here in the world.

No joke, very unique inputs, exposure, generationally and current merit merit earned.

Honorables Mayor Ashton and Council.

City of Rockwell, Maryland government on the Jedi.

Congratulations on establishing the JEDI initiative.

Absolutely necessary if we still have discrimination.

However, please balance all of your whereas, whereas, as discussed.

Ciudad, whereas, Ciudad, whereas, Ciudad Whereas, this is a place across from a city in this in a southwest city called El Paso, whereas whereas CDAD, whereas, C Dad whereas just a little bit more distance from another city in the Southwest called Lubbock.

Whereas, whereas Ciudad Whereas, C Dad Whereas.

Thank you.

This RAN Corporation wealth issue, like many issues, has multiplicities.

We have unprecedented illiterate migrant entry.

Not an invasion at all if you've been used for your work.

Remember, your humanitarian humanitarian value should not be based just on traditional work.

Very irrelevant, this EIMC community, part of our USA America.

But these narratives require an EIC explainer in chief.

There are two extremes in the wealth gap.

The illiterate class versus the genius class, this new 21st century genius class.

Let's get our game right on this.

Let's understand this when we talk about wealth gap, whereas, whereas CDI, whereas thank you.

That exhausts the list of those who have signed up in advance for community forum.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Welcome, Mr.

Becker.

I have no problem with starting.

Please proceed.

Good evening, my name is John Becker.

I live in Americana Center, which is across the street from the Rockville Metro Station.

Couple of quick points here.

I understand there's some pothole repairs taking place throughout the city starting last month.

I do want you to note that there are a number of them in town center that need to be addressed.

Some of them have been there since the middle of the last decade.

Street repaving.

I've seen the list of streets that are being repaved.

Monroe Street is not on the list, even though a portion of it was paved a couple of years ago.

I think that needs to be looked at, especially where it's in front of where it meets uh Monroe Place.

Um I heard at today's leadership planning meeting mention of a DAR event at the Glenview Mansion.

And I uh I support that uh event and that taking place, but that there was some mention as far as some things in the past, and keep in mind that the daughters of the American Revolution did not allow Mary and Anderson to perform at their constitution hall in 1939, and there was a lot of brew aha over that, and rightfully so.

So again, everybody has a past, and I just if you're going to mention one thing, you should probably mention that.

Uh finally, uh briefly, uh, on the election code and the rewrite right and everything.

I think it's it just took too long, and we are here at a point now in May June, and this point should have been in January.

So there is a reason for that, and we need to bring that up to the public so they understand.

And following back on uh count former council member uh Pushela's comments.

We can only do so much.

Um I'm looking forward to attending the BSC meeting later this week, and hopefully they can get some things through there.

And I wish to wish good luck to our city clerk and our city attorney, as well as the BSE Board of Supervisors of Elections on their efforts they're going to be doing.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Okay.

All right.

I have noted the names uh who have signed up here for the public hearing.

We will call you when it's that time.

We'll now proceed to our agenda item nine, which is the consent agenda.

We have a number of items on this list.

9A is the authorization for the city manager to execute the Mali Price Dwelling Unit Homeownership Program Agreements and approval of an authorization for the city manager to execute the declaration of restrictive covenants for Potomac Woods phase two development between the mayor and council of Rockville and EYA Development LLC, subject to approval as to the legal form by the city attorney.

This will bring this project will bring new housing to the city of Rockville.

B to ratify the execution of that certain separation and release agreement dated April 28th, 2026, as well as the approval of minutes.

Is there anyone has questions about any of these consent items or can we take them as a whole?

If not, do we have a motion to approve?

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, uh Mayor.

Uh I'm moved to approve uh items A, B, and C.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Shaw seconds.

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

Aye.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

We'll now move on to the public hearing.

Public hearing on zoning text amendment TXT 2026 00271, the draft zoning ordinance, mayor and council as applicants.

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

Welcome.

Thank you so much, Madam Mayor, and good evening, members of the council.

So as mentioned, we will be having our third and final public hearing, one each for the zoning ordinance rewrite and the comprehensive map amendment.

In just a moment, I think we'll see a presentation before us, and we'll go over the timeline for the project.

But as you all will recall, we have had a number of meetings with planning commission leading up to our work sessions and public hearings with the mayor and council.

And we are now here for the thank you.

And just to note there are two public hearings, and uh we will explain the difference between the two.

Yes, of course.

Um as as you all are aware, we've had a number of meetings prior to this one, um, two with mayor and council, including public hearings and work sessions.

I was following Planning Commission's recommendation back on February 25th.

So we have two more or a work session this evening and another coming up next week, but the public hearing that we are approaching at this time is related to the zoning text amendment.

And that for that public hearing, anyone who would like to provide testimony on the text of the zoning ordinance, any of the regulations contained therein now would be the time to do so.

And it's back to you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

I want to thank everyone who has sent in written comments.

There are many, and my colleagues and I have had a chance to review the ones that were sent in.

There were several that also came in this afternoon.

I know we have tracked them for the record, but I want to note that my colleagues and I will be able to look at those as well.

I'm gonna sign start with those who have signed up in advance, and then I'll uh take the folks from the room who have signed up after that.

Welcome Lily Burkle.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

My name is Lily Berkeley.

I'm a local mortician and the co-founder of Willow Green Funerals, a local funeral startup working to bring more green funeral options to families in the area.

We are on the hunt for property right now, and while we continue our property search in both Montgomery County and the city of Rockville for our future funeral home.

Um, our startup is currently using office office space through our sustainable business incubator, Bethesda Green, which is in downtown Bethesda.

My business partner who's here tonight, Adrian, Adrian Gardner.

We were part of the very small grassroots team that helped enact the Green Death Care Options Act almost exactly two years ago to this day.

While the state law has passed and regulations to govern the new law are nearly in place, whether or not we could invest in Rockville property remains unclear without making adjustments in the current zoning ordinance.

The Green Death Care Options Act could not have passed without overwhelming support, very enthusiastic support from uh Senator Cheryl Kagan as well as Senator Jeff Wallstriker and delegate Ann Kaiser.

The City of Rockville has the opportunity right now to clearly support families looking for greener death care options.

Surveys from the National Funeral Directors Association show that nearly 70% of Americans are interested in green death care options.

They also show that if there are no other options on the table, then in the next 20 years, 80% of Americans will choose traditional fire cremation.

For each one of those fire cremations, we know that over 500 pounds of carbon dioxide are released into our air.

It does not have to be that way.

We know Rockville residents, much like the rest of uh Montgomery County and the state of Maryland, take great effort in helping to protect the environment, whether it's by recycling or composting food, uh using solar energy, driving an electric vehicle, and we know that many of these same residents are interested in honoring the earth, honoring the environment in their death as well.

So I'd like to spend just a couple minutes introducing what the new options are.

The first is called water cremation, also known as alkaline hydrolysis.

It's often called aquamation.

It's legal in 28 states.

It's been around for 30 years, and this process gently breaks down the body using 95% water, uh heat, and an alkali.

Water cremation returns your loved ones' cremated remains, what people commonly call ashes, um, back to to your family in an urn, but without any emissions.

So there's no emissions at all, and it uses 90% less energy.

Um this was the same death care option that Archbishop Desmond Tutu, he chose for himself when he died in 2021.

It is gaining popularity, and our hope is that Rockville residents will also be able to access this.

In addition to water cremation, the new state law legalized something called natural organic reduction.

This is a soil transformation process.

Uh sometimes it's called terramation or even human composting.

This natural process takes advantage of our body's own gut microbes, um, and it it's kind of controls but speeds up the natural decomposition process.

Termation takes place inside a completely sealed vessel, it's inside a building.

Um, these vessels are monitored for oxygen and moisture levels.

Your body is laid on a bed of plant material, placed inside that vessel, and then the natural decomposition process begins.

The end of the process, your family is given soil, which can be used in your own garden.

The natural process, it heats up naturally, it kills pathogens, it breaks down pharmaceuticals that are in the body.

It's really, you know, it is really a beautiful process.

Maryland was the seventh state to allow for natural organic reduction in 2024, and just two years later, there's already another seven states, or at 14 states right now that have enacted this.

Our hope is that local zoning can keep up with the demand for these greener death care options so that Rockville families will not have to go elsewhere to obtain them.

And we believe that with just a few adjustments to the current zoning that this can become a reality for Rockville.

So my business partner Adrian is going to dive in specifically on the proposed amendments as well as the community impacts, and I'm very glad to answer questions, and I thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome, Adrian Gardiner.

So thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the council, and um thanks to my business partner uh Lily Berkeley.

Um I have to confess, because this is actually my fourth um zoning ordinance rewrite.

Um I spent time uh for 20 years working with the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, and we work through two iterations of the Prince George's ordinance, one with the Montgomery County ordinance anyway.

I also want to thank your staff because your staff has been phenomenal through throughout all of this, um, as we've had an opportunity to talk about it.

Um but I kind of if uh we did hand out a deck, and if you look at um page eight, kind of want to focus on community impact.

And the good news is that there's really just a couple of tweaks that we think that would uh make this a reality because the question for the city of Rockville is whether the zoning ordinance should reflect new opportunities or not.

And so we've tried to come up with a way to make some minor adjustments to the uh rewrite that would simply make this a possibility.

Um in that regard, um, turning to page nine.

Um, we kind of wanted to focus on the community impact.

And this is like the this is the 30,000 foot level.

Because if you consider what the community impact is a for a funeral home with alkaline hydrolysis, funeral home without it, funeral home with natural organic reduction, a funeral home without it, there really isn't any reason that it would have any different community impact.

And so you already have in your zoning ordinance places where funeral homes are accepted.

And we're not asking you to really change much of that, but it's the point is that the it will not have impact.

So turning to page 10.

If you look at the definition of cremation or crematorium in your current zoning ordinance, the state law made it clear that cremation really is incineration.

And so this is a very simple adjustment that will make it clear that water cremation is not included.

And this is like the most straightforward lowest hanging fruit, we think to simply make it clear that water cremation, even though that's a colloquial term, it's not alkaline hydrolysis, is not included, so that it would not be prevented under the zoning ordinance.

Turning to page 11.

We think that you should allow those uses explicitly in the definition of a funeral home so that it would allow alkaline hydrolysis and uh natural organic reduction, which are defined terms in the state law, and we think it should allow that.

Turning to page 12.

If you wanted to have conditional use standards before you would allow it, we think that it should be based on trips and truck traffic into the facility.

And finally on page 13.

Thank you very much.

We will look at this and appreciate your commentary.

Okay.

We'll also discuss with staff.

Thank you very much, and um, we appreciate you.

Thank you.

Welcome Park Nicholson.

Hi there.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'd like to discuss um uh the deer uh fencing and deer mesh issue under Article 8.

Uh, as a gardener and a homeowner in Rockville with a corner property um with deer mesh both inside and front yards.

Um, I have some experience with the issue.

Um I'd like to support a standard that a little bit closer to the option three um that you have before you on the Article 8, which is closer to the county standard without unnecessary conditions.

Um I appreciate the council and the mayor's discussion of this issue and the analysis that mesh is not the same as the permanent deer structure.

Um, and so uh I think we don't need to overcomplicate the issue so much.

Um but using mesh is particularly in front and deer yards, Rockville can adopt the county standards, which really would allow for a height even up to extending eight feet uh with the appropriate materials.

Um adding more conditions on to things like that, like a setback requirement would really kind of make it more like a fence, um like a permanent structure, um, and also adding a requirement for homeowners to install an expensive fence that's permanent in the front yard before installing mesh, just seems unfair.

Um, and so under ideal circumstances, we wouldn't be talking about this at all.

We'd have a deer management plan for the city, but for now I hope um you could support an amendment closer to option three.

Um, that's the county standard without additional um uh requirements on top of that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome Kate Berman.

And for those who came in the room, we welcome you.

We all have a time clock in front of you.

Do we have Kate Berman here?

Okay, I will come back to that name.

I know we're a little bit early.

James Nation.

Welcome.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is James Nations.

I'm a tenure resident of Rockville, and I serve as president of the board of directors of the Newmark Commons Homeowners Association.

We know that you're facing a difficult challenging task as you consider how to rezone the 9.75 acre tower Dawson parcel that adjoins our neighborhood in planning area 12.

How can you provide new homes, generate tax revenues to service those homes, and simultaneously protect Rockville citizens and environment.

The best way we can help you in this decision is to be clear about what we are seeking and why.

Our primary concerns focus on human safety, neighborhood compatibility, and the environment.

Our communities have a half dozen school bus stops that drop off students who walk to their homes in Newmark Commons and beyond.

We want to keep them safe, as well as the runners, the dog walkers, and the people on bicycles and electric scooters who move up and down our streets.

We ask you to restrict access to and from any new housing built on the parcel to the streets to the south and not through the residential streets of Newmark Commons and Markwood.

We recognize the need for emergency access to the site, and we need to monitor the wetland mitigation areas that cover half of the parcel in question.

Minimizing daily traffic in our neighborhood is an important safety issue for our families.

We welcome the less dense zoning options that the mayor and council are considering instead of RMD 25.

We're asking you to rezone the area as residential medium density 10 with a height limit of 40 feet.

RMD 10 would provide scores of new homes, but still maintain a density compatible with our neighborhoods.

A higher density, such as RMD 25 would threaten our neighborhood's safety, its historical integrity, and our environment.

And turning to the environment, the Tower Dawson parcel is key natural habitat for our city.

And one of the reasons Rockville is nationally recognized as a city of trees and is one of the most livable mid-sized cities in the United States.

The forest on the Tower Dawson parcel helps dampen the noise of traffic on I 270, and it protects the habitat of the foxes, deer, birds, and box turtles that live with us in Rockville.

In a nutshell, and in conclusion, we welcome bicyclists and hikers to our neighborhoods, but we ask you to restrict vehicle access through our neighborhoods to keep our families safe.

We ask you to designate the parcel as RMD 10 with a height of 40 feet to maintain compatibility with our adjoining neighborhoods.

And we ask you to conserve the maximum amount of natural habitat to protect Rockville's forest, wildlife, and citizens' health.

We know that the final decision rests with you, our mayor and council, and we thank you for listening to us, for visiting the site with us, and for working with us to protect our neighborhoods and our families.

Many plans and discussions still lie ahead before any homes are constructed on the site.

But we look forward to working with you and the developer during the coming years.

And we look forward to someday welcoming our new neighbors to Rockville, the finest city in Maryland.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And now welcome Anna Astrid Molina.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Anna Astrid Molina.

I live in Marwod for 30 years.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak in this democracy.

I am here to urge you to reject the RMD 25 rezoning of parcel source ID.

Can you please put the sign down?

You can put it near her, but we have to be careful about approaching the thank you.

We appreciate this and support the suggestion made by the mayor and council for the lower density designation of RMD 10, still at six level up and 222% increase in density from our current R90 zoning.

We especially support the split zoning approach that maintains lower heights as a buffer towards Markwood and Newmark Commons.

Furthermore, we insist with your suggestion and confirm with Mr.

Commoners that vehicular access must be through the contiguous to contiguous tower oaks development, restricting Don Mills court to emergency vehicles only.

I want to thank the staff specially for meeting with Markwood residents last Friday.

However, after reviewing the examples and knowing the slopes on the plot, we realize that any building higher than the nursing home will create a significant noise pollution.

Because of the topography, there is no natural barrier to stop the sound.

My home is only 20 feet tall.

Even a 40-foot building will loom over this.

Adding 100 units on RD10 will still create acoustic impact that will negatively affect our quality of life.

There is also a profound moral reason to limit density here.

Research published in 2025 by Julian Magnin confirms that this plot was part of the 1825 addition to the poor farm.

While the almshouse was demolished in 1948, burials of the county's most vulnerable residents continue until 1983.

Funeral director George Snowden estimated 500 burials.

But county planners recently estimated the number could exceed 1,000.

After the county jail was built, these individuals, the poor, the elderly, and the mentally ill, were buried by prisoners in unmarked graves.

They were treated as if their life has little value.

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

The reference used and some pictures are on the back of this testimony.

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

Please prioritize our shared history and the quality of life.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Julia Binder.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council.

My name is Julia Binder.

I live in Newmark Commons and I'm a member of the HOA board.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you again.

Last week, Mr.

Wasilak and Ms.

Simmons attended the Newmark Commons board meeting to review plans and answer questions.

We appreciate them coming then, as well as last September.

I will point out that had meetings like these occurred when the change in zoning designation for ZOR ID 17 was first being contemplated years ago.

You and we might have avoided over the last six or seven months sitting through hours of testimony and work sessions.

Even though we are a neighborhood contiguous to Z ORID 17, Newmark Commons was not contacted until 2025 about increasing the density from R90 to RMD 25, an increase of more than 500%.

The proposed change sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at the interactive zoning map posted on Engage Rockville.

Why put 10 acres of high density zoning in an area surrounded by R90, R60, and planned development like Newmark Commons and villages at Tower Oaks.

We've not been able to identify any other examples in Rockville of a proposed zoning change of this magnitude next to a residential area such as Newmark and Markwood.

If the zoning designation needs to be changed at all, Newmark Commons is agreeable to RMD 10 with a height cap of 40 feet, in effect, more than doubling the number of units that can currently be built on ZORID 17.

This can be considered compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods of Newmark Commons and Markwood.

This, in conjunction with prohibiting access or egress from the parcel via Newmark Commons and Markwood, protects the safety of the many school children, pedestrians, and cyclists who traverse our neighborhoods.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Welcome, Kristen Rasmussen.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

It's nice to see you again.

My name is Kristen, and I've lived in Newmark Commons for almost three years.

I wish to express my concern along with my neighbors with the process followed as part of the comprehensive map amendment application being considered tonight.

The lack of transparency and the surrounding the process as well as the lack of time that the community has had to engage with the city has been disheartening to say the least.

In recent years, Rockville has been increasingly affected by flooding.

This is one reason why the City Council developed its climate action plan in 2022.

And as you know, the Rockville City Action Plan makes specific references to protecting its tree canopy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and taking steps to mitigate flooding.

And this these are ways to do that, to maintain these resources.

To propose the high density zoning, which would therefore therefore open the door to high density development potentially on land that contains an area that serves to mitigate flooding is to go against the city's own environmental action plan.

As my neighbors have considered, I'm also very concerned about the transportation that might move through if the if the road is allowed to cut through to the north into Newmark Commons, would have a huge impact on the traffic going through the area, which is already quite extensive.

And if the road were proposed, the result would be more cars on the safe streets, what are now the safe streets of Newmark Commons.

These roads include children like my young son who travel on their bicycles, and as well as children going from the uh from the high school and the middle school to other neighbors, so it's not just uh within Newmark Commons area.

My neighbors and I have outlined many reasons to remove uh the rezoning from the parcel from consideration, the high density rezoning and consider a lower density.

In the case of this parcel, high density development would have overwhelmingly negative consequences for surrounding residents and even the wider city of Rockville.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Do we have Margaret Chow?

Welcome.

Madam Mayor and City Council members, good evening.

My name is Margaret Chow, and I've been a resident of Newmark Commons for more than 40 years.

I have also served on the Newmark Commons HOA board as a board member and as the president for more than 10 years.

I'm here tonight to thank all of you for your unanimous decision to disallow any roads in Newmark Commons to be open for access due to new development on the parcel adjacent to Newmark.

Prohibiting the opening of roads maintains the safety, character, and integrity of not only the Newmark Commons community, but also the safety, integrity, and character of the nearby Markwood community, the homes along Potomac Valley, and the safety of all the bikers and pedestrians who walk through Newmark to get to Julius Horst Middle School, Richard Montgomery High School, or the Potomac Valley Nursing Home.

Opening any roads in Newmark would give all drivers in the area, not just those in the new development, the ability to cut through Newmark to get to I-270.

This would seriously erode Newmark's roads and create a heavy flow of traffic throughout the day.

I ask that this prohibition be codified and applied to all communities where traffic from new developments would severely compromise the safety, character, and integrity of the existing communities.

This codification would also prevent this issue from reappearing every 20 or 30 years.

I don't know if that's been thought through.

Finally, I'm here to urge you to approve the RMD 10 zoning for this parcel.

While development of this land next to Newmark seems inevitable, the RMD 10 designation with a cap on a height not to exceed 40 feet seems to be the most compatible with the existing neighborhoods.

RMD's lower density as compared to RMD 15 should result in fewer cars on the newly developed property, thus minimizing any chance of quote, overflow parking in Newmark Commons parking lots.

Any developer must work with the property it has and should not be able to modify existing communities to accommodate its new development.

While keeping the existing zone RMD 90 would be ideal, the only other viable option is RMD 20, which would be more in keeping with the nature and compatibility of the surrounding communities than the RMD 15 designation.

I urge you to adopt RMD 10 for this parcel unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Right on time.

Welcome, Pat Rieber.

After Pat, we'll have Martin Rice.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good to see you again.

And thanks for listening.

I'm Pat Reber.

We moved to Newmark Commons in 1985.

First, I keep hearing from staff and some council members that there is a considerable testimony that supports RMD 25 for the plot next to us and objects to consideration of lower density.

Some of it was said to be flooding in before last week's hearing.

We are puzzled by this, as over the past nine months, the only oral testimony we have heard on behalf of a 500 percent increase in density on this property has come from the landowner itself.

In the hundreds of written testimonies documented recently on the Engage Rockville website, we spotted only five or so emails supporting RMD 25 on this plot.

Second, we welcome the unanimity behind closing residential access through Don Mills Court.

We do not, however, regard this as a get that requires us to accept RMD 15 as a give.

This get is a safety issue.

It serves the safety of our two neighborhoods, plus all the student and adult walkers and vehicles that pass through this dangerous Falls Road interchange every day.

Third, this map shows the 9.75 acre plot in question, plus another five acres of woodland to the north, and please use your imagination with the plain brown paper, the 20 acres of woodland to the south.

We understand the owner's need for economic feasibility, but please consider this.

About half of the plot in question appears to be unbuildable due to wetlands, wetlands mitigation, a stream, and the stormwater filtration plant.

Until a natural resources survey is done, it's not clear if any of it is floodplain, which could be subtracted from the buildable acreage.

An RMD 10 zone would effectively double the number of homes on buildable area.

That is, instead of 10 homes per acre over the entire 9.75 acres, there would be 20 homes per acre on the buildable five or so acres, just short of the original 25 units per acre envisioned in 2021.

In fact, RMD 10 offers more than twice the current zoned density.

According to the topographical map, the highest point of the buildable acreage is right behind the Potomac Valley Nursing Home.

For noise abatement reasons, that's why we were asking for the height limit of 40 feet.

And again, thank you for listening to us over and over and over again.

And this is the area.

Sorry.

Right here, that is the most is the highest.

Thank you very much.

I think we are at time, and I just want to be mindful of the sign that's in front of our state leaders.

I just if you could maybe move it to the side if that's possible.

Good evening.

Thank you.

My name is Marty Reese.

I live at nine Don Mills Court.

And for over 53 years, I've looked out my window and seen the former poor farm site, a tranquil unforested 10 acres.

Recognizing the city's desire to add housing, my community has not opposed the rezoning of the R90 site.

However, since we do not know who will own the site or what will be proposed to be developed there a decade from now, we have chosen to take a conservative position and recommend an RMD 10 density with a height from 35 to 40 feet.

I have identified two items that I noted during this zoning process that needs to be addressed.

First, our homeowners association was never notified of the potential zoning change because it was in a different planning area.

This should never happen again, and a written directive to the planning department is suggested.

Second, and Pat got into this a bit, the zoning is designated for the entire site acreage.

In reality, thus, a potential designation of RMD 15 would permit 150 housing units over the 10 acres.

In reality, though, there are only five buildable acres.

150 units on five acres permits 30 housing units per acre.

Obviously, this was not desired.

The planning process should document that only the buildable acreage at the time of the construction should be considered for the desired zoning.

Finally, I want to thank you for your time.

It's your most rare commodity.

Listening to our concerns and visiting the site to visualize the physical environment is sincerely appreciated by our entire community.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Dick Stoner, followed by Mark Pascella.

Hello, folks.

I'm Dick Stoner, a 40 year city resident.

I know I'm not here about Newmark.

I'm here on behalf of Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors to share some thoughts and some actual research on the proposed zoning ordinance.

Affordability in all aspects of life is the main issue in 2026, and housing affordability is obviously near the top.

It's vital, I don't need to tell you, but it's vital that our municipalities tackle these issues.

And it's with this in mind that we want to offer GCAR support to the city in Rockville in the efforts to rock the code.

Last year, staff from the city's community planning and development services reached out to GCAR to discuss the zoning rewrite with the goal of delivering the missing middle component.

GCAR and community development staff met several times to discuss the work GCAR has done on zoning and housing legislation proposed at the county level.

GCAR offered to produce and present a report on the expected impact of the proposed zoning rewrite.

Unfortunately, uh conversations with the department fell away, and we never got back and forth on that.

But despite that, GCAR's public policy committee has moved ahead with the project, so we're here to present some specific findings.

The review was built on market conditions and the development standards outlined in the zoning rewrite.

It modeled townhouses, cottage courts as separate topologies in addition to apartments, condos, and teardowns.

And three main points came from the research.

Number one is that the zoning rewrite is not expected to negatively impact existing home prices.

Number two, the unit conversions would predominantly be for sale, not for rent.

And third, most probably most importantly, 21 net housing units are projected by this study over 10 years.

Now that's because 467 properties are identified as being affected by it.

So it's depending on your outlook, it's it's a relatively modest impact, but GCAR believes that the thriving economy is important and that attainable housing is also important across the spectrum.

So the Rockville 2040 comprehensive plan will lay the groundwork for the next few decades.

We urge you to maximize the impact of this zoning rewrite on the um and lay the groundwork for a prosperous housing future and a bustling local economy.

We look forward to sharing the full the full report with you, and uh please do not hesitate to reach out to GCAR for any few further information.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Good evening again, Madam Mayor Council.

I'm speaking on my own behalf this time.

Um, but first, I do have a few things from the College Garden Civic Association.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, for having the CGCA handout copied and distributed to all the council.

The last meeting I noticed, and we appreciate being heard.

For college gardens specifically, we asked for two changes, one on a purpose statement and one on prohibiting access from MXCD to small streets as per the current zoning ordinance.

On tonight's agenda, the staff write up on the uses section of the zoning rewrite is not sufficient.

I gave a model, and you saw it last week, and I'll show it again.

This was not followed.

There are potentially large changes for the single family zones, and none of the staff materials address these.

Further, there's nothing in the staff materials that enables any neighborhood association to really know the difference between the old and the new zoning.

Now, speaking solely for myself, it's time for the adequate public facilities ordinance APFO to go.

It does not ensure adequate public facilities.

And in effect, it is anti-housing, anti-prosperity, anti-child, and anti-young adult.

I will review the four items.

First, water and sewer.

Other statutes ensure adequate water and sewer.

Here the APFO is redundant.

Traffic.

This city fought a more than three year battle to stop the widening of I 270.

If you really want to screw up traffic in Rockville, continue to inhibit development here, send it to the north, then watch the pressure build up to widen I 270.

A widened I 270 will impact city streets up to Highway 355 and Wooton Parkway.

And then four schools.

Here the AF APFO puts key development decisions in the hands of the Board of Education and the County Council.

Consider the tragic decision to relocate the Wooton cluster to Crown High.

If this goes through, this decision could impact housing development and the Richard Montgomery cluster, including town center.

It all depends on where boundary lines are drawn.

The only reason we can have development now in the RM cluster is that the Crown High was supposed to relieve the RM overcrowding.

Now related to the APFO, there are the standards.

It takes now a supermajority to change any of the adequate public facility standards.

I don't know when this change went into effect, but in 2011, the approval of the Silverwood annexation next to Shavy Grode Metro, you know this better as the Bain Bridge and now the read was approved on several three to two votes, including a three to two vote to change part of the APFS.

Had there been a supermajority rule at that time, the reed would still be a parking lot today.

It houses 417 families, including some three bedroom apartments, only an eight-minute walk to the metro platform deck.

Please eliminate the supermajority requirement.

Thank you.

Welcome Lakesa Carter.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Lakeesa Carter.

I've lived in Rockville in this neighborhood of Twin Brook for 15 years.

My daughter graduated from Rockville High School in 2014.

Today my daughter still lives with me, not because she wants to, but because she cannot afford to purchase a home in the city where she grew up, and she really wants to build a life.

I consider myself extremely fortunate.

I'm an Air Force veteran.

I had the opportunity to use my VA loan to purchase my home, which still was a little difficult because I had to withdraw from my TSP retirement account to do that.

Today I can't afford my house.

Housing prices are significantly higher as we know.

Property taxes are going up.

Interest rates are no longer at historic lows.

I currently work as a full-time realtor.

I am a member of GCAR, and I and like many working families, my income does fluctuate.

Home ownership in Rockville would likely be a dream for me today if I hadn't bought years ago.

I have a grandson now, and I really want him to grow up in Rockville.

I've lived all over the world.

Rockville is actually my favorite city.

I'm not going anywhere.

It's really important to me as a realtor.

I've worked with homeless veterans.

I don't want to see anyone homeless.

The city's own vision speaks about ensuring that current and future residents have a diverse array of quality housing choices that are affordable and livable for all socioeconomic levels.

I believe we must commit to that vision.

The research that GCAR has presented regarding the proposed zoning changes show that modest increases in housing opportunities are not expected to negatively impact existing home values.

It would only affect a small percentage of existing single-family housing stock.

That should give us confidence to really think bigger and act more boldly.

As a homeowner, I would also welcome affordable pathways for residents like myself to create multi-generational or small-scale multi-unit housing opportunities for our own properties.

Many homeowners have the space.

I have the space to contribute to housing solutions, but the cost and zoning barriers are prohibitive and remain too high.

A modest approach may not produce the meaningful affordability outcomes our community truly needs.

I encourage the city to reimagine the zoning ordinance with robust, practical and really forward-thinking housing solutions that create opportunities for my grandson, future residents, which I'm trying to bring everybody to Rockville.

And I really thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you.

Did Kate Berman join us?

Okay.

All right.

I want to acknowledge that we received a great number of written comments.

Okay Berman.

Well, yeah, hi, how are you?

Hello, everybody.

Good to meet you again.

I remember you coming to my house.

I remember meeting you.

Um, so um I live in the Hungerford neighborhood.

Does anybody live there?

No, okay.

Neither does any of the planning commission.

Um, I would love for any or all of you to come visit us.

We sent you an email inviting you.

We haven't had a response yet, but I'm not giving up.

We have the best neighborhood in Rockville by far.

I've lived in it for 30 years.

I wouldn't want to live anywhere else either.

Absolutely.

Yes.

I'm passionate about it.

People call me the mayor of Hungerford because I love my neighbors so much.

Um, since we lived here, things have changed.

Um, much for the better, obviously.

Um to public servants like you.

Thank you.

I know you're paid so much to be here.

Thank you.

Um we moved here, um, there were no deer in the neighborhood at all.

Zero.

I had a professional come in and plan my yard, planted a lot of hostage and all kinds of wonderful things.

Um, and then Tower Oaks was developed.

And then all the deer just crossed over Wooton Parkway and got stuck right in our neighborhood.

Hungerford and Newmark Commons.

So we have 270 here, we have 355 here, Falls Road, and Woodmont.

So they just got crunched.

There was no plan for what to do with them or where they would go.

I mean, we didn't think about it.

Um, and in that time, I tried to adjust.

I planted different plants, I sprayed different things, I did all the things that everyone does.

Anyway, point being then I caught Lyme disease from my own front yard.

Um Lyme is just not a disease, of course, it can be killed with antibiotics.

Sometimes you have co-infections, it's very complicated.

Anyway, 10,000 out of my pocket later, I'm cured.

I built deer mesh.

Um deer mesh, if anybody knows what residential deer mesh looks like.

I just want you all to see my house with deer mesh around the entire property.

Eight feet.

You can't see it.

I have neighbors who have done the same thing without fencing in the front, just the deer mesh.

It's not attached to a fence.

This is what it looks like.

You can't see it.

Again, this is not a corner property.

This is right in the middle.

You can't even see the flowers here.

This people stop and take pictures and pose in front of this house.

Only because she's got this.

Thank you very much.

Option three is what we want.

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all who have testified.

We have several written comments.

We also have an additional public hearing that will be coming up.

I'm going to pause uh momentarily because we have our D17 state leaders here today who are going to be sharing a very special presentation for us.

Just want to make sure we're having the staff change out and the presentation to move forward.

And we welcome you.

So welcome, Senator Kagan.

Delegate Ryan Spiegel, delegate Julie Polakovich Carr, and I know Delegate Vogel would like to be here, but has a family commitment.

Right.

You're going first.

Delegate Spiegel is going to kick us off.

And unfortunately, Delegate Vogle sends his very much uh love and best regards he is out of town and then out of the country.

But we'll talk a little bit about some of what he did.

Delegate Spiegel, kick us off.

Thank you, Senator.

Uh, thank you, all mayor and counsel again for the record, delegate Ryan Spiegel.

It's always a pleasure to be before you, uh, especially as a former municipal official.

Although I must say that while we deal with so many difficult and complicated issues at the state level, I don't miss zoning text amendments.

But I must say I am so impressed by the engagement and the comments and the civility of the members of the public who have come here to share their thoughts with you as at tonight's hearings.

And so that's been really nice to see.

And I'm also particularly happy to be here on a night when we were able to see our mini-mayor earlier as Mayor Ashton mentioned, the mini mayor when she was visiting Annapolis with her family some weeks ago, and Mayor Ashton was there as well as part of the Maryland Municipal League event to recognize all of the winners of the fourth grader if I were mayor essay contest.

It was a great opportunity for me to meet the mini-mayor and show her around Annapolis a little bit, and that was a really special treat.

And she did a great job earlier this evening running the beginning of the meeting.

Put out an annual end of session letter.

I have brought several hard copies of my letter tonight.

I know Senator Kagan has as well.

I don't know.

Well, you can always get Delegate Polakovich carr and delegate Vogel's letters as well.

And these are filled to the brim with information and analysis about the details of the policies and legislation that we undertook in Annapolis this year.

And so I would encourage you and members of the public to reach out to us or to find a copy here at City Hall because we have uh left a number of those.

Uh as the mayor and council know, and as some members of the public know, uh in December, we swore in a brand new uh Speaker of the House of Delegates in Maryland, uh Jocelyn Penya Melnik, and she has been a dynamic leader since day one.

And in recognition of the challenges with the costs of living that so many Rockville families and families across Maryland are dealing with, as well as the challenges of dealing with a federal administration that is uh to put it mildly at odds with us in terms of civil rights and protecting vulnerable communities.

Uh the speaker put forth an agenda that focused on three priorities affordability, accountability, and opportunity.

And everything we did on the House side, and I believe pretty much everything that was done on the Senate side as well, was keyed towards these priorities to try and make life better for working Marylanders dealing with all of these challenges.

And my colleagues are going to talk about some of our significant accomplishments as a legislative body on other issues like energy and child care and elections and other priorities.

But I am the member of our district delegation uh who serves on a budget committee.

So I just want to talk a little bit about uh the state budget.

As you know from last year, we were facing a massive $3.5 billion structural shortfall that we managed to close at the end of the 2025 legislative session.

And over the summer, we felt pretty good about where we were, despite all the challenges going on in the world and in our state.

But unfortunately, the federal government then, in its infinite wisdom, chose to pass something they called the one big beautiful bill act, HR1, which we call the big ugly bill.

And the ripple effects and ramifications of that bill are very serious and significant for the state of Maryland.

Uh it brings huge potential cuts and actual cuts to Medicaid funding for our state, huge cuts to SNAP funding for food security programs, and significant ramifications for our tax policy because people don't always know this, but some state tax formulas are tied to federal tax formulas, and that means that we end up generating less revenue as a result of that.

And so we faced a huge new challenge over the summer and fall, and it uh amounted, based on our uh independent analyses, to about a 1.5 billion dollar new projected shortfall in our state budget going into the 2026 legislative session.

And we work together uh as a as a an appropriations committee where I serve and in the Senate side, uh, the Senate budget and taxation committee, and really as an entire legislative body to address this challenge.

And I will say, because we do see in the news media sometimes coverage of this idea that Maryland has deficits, which I will put in air quotes.

We never actually have real deficits on a year-to-year basis.

We always balance our budget in Maryland because under our state constitution, we are required to do so, and we do.

When we talk about deficits in Maryland, really we're talking about projected future shortfalls based on what we estimate will be our revenue and what we estimate will be uh our typical uh set of expenses that we estimate we will need to make in order to meet the values and the priorities that we care about here in Maryland.

Uh, but we don't ever actually have real deficits.

So we got together, we worked very hard, we made some difficult cuts, but in the end, we were able to balance our budget, close that 1.5 billion dollar gap, and continue to invest in the priorities and values that we believe in as Marylanders with a balanced budget that does not raise any tax increases or fee increases at the state level.

I want to say that again and make sure that the public hears it.

No tax or fee increases this year at the state level.

In fact, oh wow, applause.

Okay.

I haven't seen that before.

I appreciate it.

In fact, uh, we project that we are going to end the fiscal year with about 200 million dollars in cash reserves.

That's a surplus.

Uh, and uh we have a $2 billion uh plus uh rainy day fund for future emergencies.

So we're very, very proud of that.

And we are still able to invest a record $10 billion in K through 12 public education, $2 billion in public higher education, over $400 million in rental aid relief and homeless services programs, um, $1.5 billion for food security programs, $14 billion for Medicaid and children's health insurance programs.

And so we have really, really tried to make sure that we are reflecting our values of helping those in need, affordability, accountability, and opportunity.

I want to talk separately about the capital budget, which is separate from our our operating budget, and working together with this incredible team uh that I feel really honored to work with, Senator Kagan, delegate Polakovich Carr, delegate Vogel, who, as the senator mentioned, sends his regrets.

We were able to deliver in a tough budget year and a tough fiscal situation.

Really, what I feel very good about saying is an impressive list of capital investments for local projects to benefit the residents and businesses here in Rockville.

And that includes $9.7 million to complete the new library uh at the Rockville campus of Montgomery College and to renovate the theater building in Montgomery College at the Rockville campus.

$7.7 million for critical water and sewer projects here in Rockville.

Uh and then $325,000 for much needed improvements to the old aging pedestrian bridges at Twin Brook Twinbrook Park and Dogwood Park.

Uh, another uh $950,000 in renovations for the Ringhouse Senior Living Center, something we're particularly proud of, $1.5 million for a new uh youth performing arts rehearsal facility in Rockville for an amazing nonprofit called Young Artists of America that really gives wonderful opportunities for our regional and local youth to experience the performing arts.

Um another $100,000 to develop a plan for the economic revitalization of Rockville's North Stone Street corridor, uh $150,000 for playground upgrades at Bell Elementary School.

Uh $350,000 for the Montgomery History Center building in downtown Rockville, uh, $200,000 to restore and preserve the historic Lincoln High School building in Lincoln Park, which I know we've all been working on together, and an additional $350,000 that was actually a resurrected amount of money from an expired fund for the Twin Brook Recreation Center.

So this is really an incredible laundry list of investments that we are going to be making as a state in the city of Rockville and its partners.

And this does not even include uh police aid, highway user revenues, which is of course the state formula for transportation assistance to the city of Rockville, and many other buckets of money that are generated uh by funding formulas elsewhere in the budget, including $54 million in capital investments for construction projects at public schools throughout Montgomery County.

So we're very, very proud of those accomplishments.

And I couldn't have done it, we couldn't have done it uh without your help uh without the incredible partnership that we have, not only with the mayor and council, but with your staff, with the volunteers and advocates in the city of Rockville and all of our stakeholders and partners who showed up and advocated for these important projects and allowed us to deliver uh these funds.

I want to also talk about uh immigration because we are proud that Rockville is one of the most diverse cities, not only in the state of Maryland, but in all of America.

And as we are dealing with the fallout from uh ICE and DHS and the Trump administration's policies, it is absolutely critical and incumbent upon us as local and state leaders to protect and support our wonderful immigrant community.

And I'm proud of the fact that together our team and our legislative uh body in Annapolis was able to pass another laundry list of protections and progressive policies uh to show that we are supporting and protecting our immigrant communities.

We passed a bill to ban so-called 287G agreements, uh, which ICE uses to essentially deputize local law enforcement.

That can't happen in Maryland anymore.

We passed an anti-masking law.

We passed an expansion of the Maryland Values Act, which expands the type of places that are considered sensitive, protected places that it's more difficult for ICE to just kind of barge into.

We passed protections on personal data that is collected and maintained by state and local government so that it can't be shared with the federal government under uh inappropriate circumstances.

And we passed actually at the last moment at the end of our 90-day legislative session, we passed the Community Trust Act, which also makes sure that we cannot uh misuse uh our corrections system and our corrections officers uh in a way that would violate civil rights.

Uh so we really tried to do a lot in terms of making sure that we were sending a signal to the public and to the immigrant community that we are protecting them.

I just want to mention, I know uh I'm getting the elbow from Senator Kagan because you guys didn't give me the three minute clock, uh, which is why I was surprised when you came up here with me and had to stand next to me as I spoke.

Uh but um I just want to mention a couple of bills that I was uh uh a lead or co-lead sponsor on.

We passed uh the Vulnerable Adult Banking Protection Act because of the incredible increase in uh consumer financial fraud that is happening, particularly targeting seniors.

Uh delegate Pam Queen from Montgomery County and I teamed up on that.

The governor is signing that bill into law tomorrow.

So we're very proud of that.

And uh residents of Rock will be will, Rockville will be able to benefit from that as well.

With that, I'm gonna turn it over to my wonderful colleague, Delegate Polakovich Carr to talk about other priorities.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, council members.

It's great to see you all.

And we'll just start with a thank you.

Thank you all so much for the great advocacy and partnership throughout the session and really throughout the year, and the same city staff as well.

Um, we really love working with the city of Rockville and the city of Cathersburg too.

Um, it is it is really a great partnership with our whole delegation.

Um, so as my district mate mentioned, affordability really was a big major issue for this session, and there's a lot we could highlight on that front, but I do want to just take uh the bulk of my time to walk through a few areas where we really were mindful and passed meaningful legislation this session because we know many families are struggling right now, whether they are displaced federal, former federal workers or contractors or simply just struggling with skyrocketing energy bills and many other day-to-day costs.

Um, starting with energy, and I apologize, Senator Kagan, if this was going to be something in your presentation, okay.

Uh, we passed a very comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with um rising electricity rates.

We know families across the state, across Mar, across Rockville, um, really are feeling that impact.

Um, this legislation does a whole lot of things, but the bottom line is that households are gonna see at least 150 dollars a year savings.

Many households will see higher savings than that.

Um, I think bottom line on the energy front uh for folks to realize is that as more data centers are being built, not just here in Maryland, but especially in Virginia and other states in our region, it really is having a large impact on our electricity grid, and that is a big reason for the escalating energy costs.

But we took a number of actions on that front, which I won't take the time to unpack.

What was probably one of the longest bills that we we passed this session.

Um let me move on to child care.

I think you know that for the last three years, I chaired the early childhood subcommittee in the House.

Uh, and under our new speaker, Jocelyne Payton Yamalnik, I have a new subcommittee assignment.

I now chair the revenue subcommittee, but remain very active on child care.

Um, child care continues to be an area where many families are struggling as well.

For folks who don't have little kids at home anymore.

I think many people are surprised to know that uh the cost of having an infant or toddler in child care is more than sending a child to University of Maryland College Park.

And of course, you have no time to save for that, right?

When you have a baby or a toddler.

Um, we have a great program in Maryland, uh, the Child Care Scholarship Program that helps working middle income and low-income families to get their children and infants into high-quality child care.

Um, that program has received uh a record amount of funding last year, and thanks again this year to the work of the legislature and Governor Moore, that is true.

Um, but unfortunately, there doesn't quite meet the demand or the the demand um exceeds the the funding in the program.

Um and so we've had a partial freeze in enrollment in that program since last summer.

And there are more than 5,000 children who are otherwise eligible to receive a child care scholarship, but who are waiting on this wait list sometimes for months at a time.

Uh so we took pretty substantive action this session on that front.

Um, in sight of it being a very difficult budget year, we did identify and allocate an additional 20 million dollars for this program to bring about a thousand children off of the wait list.

And then we also passed a pair of bills, one of which I was the sponsor of to make some structural changes to that program to really ensure it's longer term financial uh viability.

So the net result of that is about 3,700 kids are going to be able to come off the wait list in the coming months, and it really is gonna be very meaningful for those families.

Um let me also uh touch on another point on affordability in the education space, but at the higher ed side of things, um, many Maryland borrowers who have uh student loans from college are struggling in the midst of some changes at the federal level.

Um, and without going in kind of the the technical details on all of that, I'll just say we have a great tax credit here in Maryland, the student loan debt relief tax credit.

That's an existing program.

It's out there right now.

If you have uh unpaid um college loans that you need some help with, you may be eligible for this tax credit.

We made some meaningful changes to that program this session uh so that borrowers who are caught up in kind of the federal mess can continue to take advantage of that tax credit and have a little more flexibility.

Uh moving on to the housing front, I want to very much uh thank the mayor and council.

Thank the city for your your continued partnership on the legislation I've sponsored now for two years, um, along with delegate Von Stewart from our neighboring district to prohibit landlords from using very sophisticated software to basically illegally collude to set occupancy rates to set rents.

Unfortunately, that bill did not move again this session.

Um, some of the the changes that happened uh with new leadership in the House is that legislation now is in a different committee.

I think we had a very good educational hearing on that front this year, and we have a commitment from House leadership to continue to work on that issue over the interim.

So I'm hoping to see some progress so that next session we really are in a good position to move forward.

Um, I'll also give a shout out for a piece of legislation that delegate Vogel uh sponsored this session to protect renters from junk fees.

Um his legislation did pass the house and really would have meant um, you know, some meaningful transparency for renters before they're signing their leases and then not caught off guard uh with fees for trash or pets or for whatever else.

That legislation didn't make it through the Senate this year, but we were pleased to pass that out of the House, and I think he'll be coming back with that, hopefully.

And then the last piece of legislation I'll just end with.

Um, again, always appreciate the partnership from the city on roadway safety.

I'm very pleased that our local legislation to allow Rockville and Gaithersburg to potentially use stop sign cameras is gonna be signed into law uh tomorrow by the governor.

So appreciate your advocacy on that front for the public.

Um, this is just the beginning of the process.

This is just an authorization that would allow the municipality to put automated cameras in school zones for safety reasons at intersections that have a stop sign.

Um, hopeful that you all will, you know, as you go through the public process on that, that that'll come up to a favorable outcome, but always, of course, happy to work with you on that.

Uh and now we'll turn it over to Senator Kagan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Cheryl Kagan, very proud to be the senator for Rockville and Gathersburg, and great to see all of you here in person.

Um before I start, I just want to thank my staff, my chief of staff, a Brill Hunter is here, and Amy Garmer, who was unfortunately for her, but luckily for us, uh, laid off by the Elon Musk craziness.

And so she worked on my team this session, and we just had we got a lot done, and they're both here tonight.

And Amy is a Rockville resident.

Uh so grateful to them both.

I also want to give a shout out in case she's watching to former council member Beryl Feinberg because we know that she's facing some health challenges, and I'm gonna miss her thoughtful questions after our uh presentation.

Um, I also want to thank Christine Crone is here, Jeff Mahalik, Linda, Sarah, and everyone else who partners with us in addition to you all.

And just to make sure I don't forget stuff, and because it's a little fun, uh, quick PowerPoint running through some of what we did.

You all have seen in the press a lot about redistricting.

We did not choose to do it in the Senate.

Is someone else doing this?

Because I'm doing this.

Okay.

Uh okay, this is very sensitive.

I'm on it.

Okay.

The House chose to do redistricting.

The Senate did not.

It continues to be a point of contention.

We'll see what happens.

Uh both my colleagues have referenced a new speaker.

She's fantastic, and it's a whole new energy and partnership now.

My committee, I'm vice chair.

There are only four committees in the Senate.

That's four chairs and four vice chairs.

I'm very lucky to work with Brian Feldman as my chair.

And we have more bills in our committee than any others in the entire General Assembly.

So we are always very busy, and you'll see EEE up there.

That's my committee.

Energy, education, energy, and the environment, and I always say, and elections.

Sarah always appreciates that.

Working across the aisle isn't always possible in a Trump administration, but when possible, and this is a wonderful Republican colleague that I will miss a lot who's retiring.

A lot of what delegate Spiegel talked about with ICE and other challenges.

We passed an emergency bill dealing with education with elections.

The Trump administration is talking about not letting people's ballots be counted.

And if you're in the military and you're serving overseas, Maryland is one of 15 states that says, as long as it's postmarked by election day, we are going to count your ballot.

So we affirmed that, strengthened that, and that is being signed into law tomorrow.

We also, you may notice Sergeant Aquilino Gunnell and Harry Dunn, two of the January 6th heroes from the insurrection, they came and joined me to testify.

I believe, and every Democratic Senator co-sponsored.

I believe that anyone who was convicted of a crime related to the January 6, 2021 election, should not get the privilege of serving on a gubernatorial appointed state commission, board, work group, task force, anything.

And yes, I know most folks were pardoned.

They were still convicted.

And so we'll see if that happens down the road.

But it was a great educational opportunity for people.

Public safety is always a big thing.

And I will give a shout out to delegate Joe Vogel who worked with me on my 9-1 bill, 911 bill.

You all know that I've been working on 911 for 12 years now, working in Carl Henn's memory.

Rockville's wonderful leader and former council candidate.

And we have passed a lot of legislation, and this year we are looking to increase the retirement benefits for our 911 specialists, the create the dedicated, courageous women and men under the headset.

The budget delegate, I don't know that this is someone else doing this.

Yeah, okay.

That's the chair of the budget and taxation committee, delegate Spiegel carried that very well, so I'm not going to spend more time on that.

Just before session, we brought back a bunch of money for student mental health in Montgomery County.

Because no matter how often we talk about it, it's astonishing how many people don't know about it.

Everyone is taught about 911 from the youngest age.

988 is the suicide and mental health crisis lifeline.

Please, if you are listening, if you're within the sound of my voice, if you're city staff and can help continue to push this out, so many people are unaware, and people taking their own lives is just a tragedy, a horrible tragedy that we should work to avoid.

After many years, the General Assembly did pass a bill to lock up phones during the school day, with some exceptions for students who have needs for that, but that will be good for mental health as well.

One of the issues that didn't get a lot of uh attention, and I talked about it in context of Wooten, actually.

Wooton needed capital improvements and didn't get them in time.

And there are a lot of reasons, and I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole.

But Thursday night before we adjourned on Monday at midnight, right before adjournment, there was a new program, a new proposal of five million dollars.

It came in as 40 million.

It got trimmed down to five million dollars of funding for charter school improvement, capital improvement.

And they don't have to wait in line the way traditional public schools had to, the way Wooten had to.

They just get to have an access to $5 million.

And as you all know, in Montgomery County, there is or was one charter school.

It opened this calendar year and is already closing.

They could have been eligible for funding.

So I was able to amend the bill to make sure that there are some guardrails, some oversight, some accountability before they get the money.

And I think it's just the beginning, but it was kind of a one-person crusade, and we got it passed, which is great.

Nonprofits.

I am often described as the senator for the nonprofit sector.

I had four bills for the nonprofit sector this year.

Uh, another one of those is being signed tomorrow.

And we continue to work for this two invisible sector.

There are more than 41,000 nonprofits in Maryland.

They make up about 12 to 15% of our workforce and our economy, and people say we've got to help the small businesses, which is true, and I always say, and nonprofits.

One of the bills that we finally got through after passing in the Senate five times, we passed my green bill.

And Delegate Polakovich Carr is dressed appropriately.

There we go.

And delegate Spiegel.

Green is the green and renewable energy and efficiency for nonprofit organization.

I've talked about it here for too many years.

It's a revolving loan fund for nonprofits to be able to show up with just 10% of the cost of solar panels or infort or insulation improvement or something, and there will be interest free creating those opportunities.

The Delegate Polakovich Carr talked about.

They both said so many important things.

I had to put a picture up of our own beloved delegate Kumar Barve, who is now elevated by the governor to not just be on the public service commission, but chair the public service commission.

He still lives in Rockville Town Center, and he is immersed in all of these policies.

Public safety has been discussed a little.

That's my former Senate colleague who's now the chief of the Maryland State Police.

911 specialist, I already referenced, and I'm looking forward to continuing to work on those.

My top priority bill, and I'm really excited, is also being signed into law tomorrow.

One of my six bills that's being signed tomorrow is creating a statewide 311 system using artificial intelligence to lighten the load on our 911 centers.

The Baltimore Sun discovered that more than 80% of the calls into Baltimore City's 911 centers were not for emergencies.

And people learned that they should call 911 if they have a problem and they don't know where else to go.

So literally, when it's what time's the library close, or where can I get a flu shot?

Or there's a loud party next door.

They don't know where to call.

So Montgomery County is one of only six jurisdictions that has 311.

We're going to go statewide, and Maryland will be the very first state in the country with a statewide 311.

So we're blazing a path, and I'm really proud of that.

We're starting big.

That's the uh our county and municipal partners.

You guys probably know Craig Maloney, a Rockville resident who came to me years ago with a complaint about architects, and this year we finally came up with the right solution, and that consumer protection bill is being signed into law, has already been signed into law, was signed in, and I couldn't be there.

Affordable housing has already been discussed, always something that we think about, part of economic development.

Sarah, elections.

We got a couple of uh election bills passed, including how often do you are you voting down the ticket, and you get to the ballot measures and you have no idea what it's asking you to figure out.

So we are requiring plain English, no jargon, no legalese, no double negatives, no passive voice.

And we've been working on it for years.

That is being signed into law tomorrow.

Faithless electors.

So for members of the electoral college who are intimidated or changed their mind or whatever, they will be fired and replaced.

A third election bill that's also being signed tomorrow is about keeping our polling places safe, allowing better security, better oversight, and enforcement so that people feel secure when they go to vote.

There's more too.

Ranked choice voting, I will tell you, is uh being added tomorrow in a bill, uh being added to our law books finally for the first time.

So we are making progress as Rockville, Gaithersburg, Greenbelt, Annapolis, Frederick, and many others are considering considering implementing ranked choice voting.

The state will be ready for you.

Transparency, I've been working for so many years with delegate Mark Corman.

Each year we uh make good progress.

Sadly, at midnight, the bill that I had in my hand died, but we'll bring it back, we'll pass it early next year.

So we think uh government that operates in sunlight is the best kind of government.

Health care among the health care bills was over-the-counter contraception for our college kids to make sure that we know what they need and and uh how they're using it to make sure we're providing good choices and good health care.

Nancy Pelosi spent the day in Annapolis, and uh the women legislators just celebrated her, so I had to put her in this.

Um, and with the president of the Senate during Women's History Month, he really showcased all the amazing work that my colleagues and I are doing.

I was proud to be the Senate sponsor of a bill strengthening our conversion therapy law in Maryland.

We passed it in 2018, but in light of the Supreme Court decision, we came back with something really strong.

We're going to keep working on it.

The speaker and the president are supportive.

So hopefully next year, when we have more time, and it's not an election year, we think we can move that next year.

Just a couple more things.

Antisemitism is something that keeps showing up in Rockville and around the state.

We've got to fight it.

No kind of hate.

Islamophobia, homophobia, we just have to do better.

People with disabilities always are on our minds.

It was a hard year in the budget, but maybe when times are better, we'll be able to continue our support or expand our support.

I am the one senator on the Maryland State Arts Council and had a bill protecting artists, and we're going to keep working on that.

We had the diplomats, the ambassadors from Romania and Taiwan among the leader, the leaders who came to visit us.

Obviously, I had to put something up with our beloved Jamie Raskin, who shows up and is partnering with us on so many issues.

Young people, anyone watching, you know you can be a high school page.

We never get people from Rockville or Gathersburg.

So high school students, we'd love to have you come down and serve as a high school page in the Senate, in the House.

Maryland Day with the Senate president.

We're almost done.

Shadows, I've had some wonderful constituents and friends come down and follow me around, learn about what it's like.

Councilmember Jackson came down and spent the day with me last year.

That was way fun.

And again, had to put a picture with Joe Vogel, even though Delegate Vogel isn't here.

The four of us are so lucky to be able to work together.

And this is Ryan already talked about young artists of America.

Very excited.

This opportunity is on the rear side of Congressional Plaza.

Great opportunity for high school students.

The bridges that we got funding for, thank you for taking us on a site visit.

We think those are meritorious.

And there's so many things.

Delegate Spiegel read a bunch of member things on the list, and it's a long list, as you can see.

Look who's there.

My podcast, Kibbitzing with Kagan.

Brief conversations with people I find fascinating.

Certainly, our mayor is fascinating.

It's also nonprofit leaders, government leaders and community folks, even Scrabble and Music.

So check that out.

Hometown holidays and is coming up Memorial Day weekend.

The parade is on Monday.

I pledge not to break my elbow or fall on the stage this year.

That's my big commitment.

Yeah.

But I am having it cut open again, taking the medal out.

Gaithersburg Book Festival this Saturday, so definitely check that out.

That's always really fun.

All four of us give out, distribute senatorial and delegate scholarships.

I give away tens of thousands of dollars.

My deadline is a week from today at five o'clock.

No late applications will be accepted.

No artificial intelligence.

Go online, Cheryl Kagan.org, please spread the word.

I want great applications.

I have a volunteer senatorial scholarship selection committee who helps guide the selections.

They help us score and rank anonymously, so there's no bias in any of it.

And then we give out a lot of money.

And my colleagues also have.

All over social media, you can check those out all over the place.

And this is an election year.

And in mostly Democratic Montgomery County, the primary election day is the election.

So waiting until November is not okay.

That means if you're not a Democrat or you're not a Republican, if you are unaffiliated, as almost a million Marylanders are, you go to show up in the primary and you are given a ballot for school board.

And that's it.

And school boards really important, but you also need to vote for attorney general and comptroller and senator and delegate and county executive.

We're getting a new county executive, bunch of new county council members, including in our district here.

So please, please, please do your homework.

Make sure you are registered and affiliated so you can cast a full ballot.

And if you did not get the uh the mailer by email, my eight-page wrap-up.

Uh my staff and I spent a lot of time folding them and getting them to you.

Uh the post office took their sweet time getting them to you.

Literally, it took about two weeks to get them from Annapolis to Rockville and Gathersburg, but you should all have them.

I know.

Crazy.

Uh so happy to uh take questions and thank you for your attention.

First of all, thank you so much for being here.

We greatly appreciate all of your work.

I know many of us had a chance to visit you in the flesh uh in Annapolis a couple of times.

And what I can tell you all is they work very hard.

Uh I've seen meetings happening until 10 midnight, uh, and it is a 90 day sprint.

It feels like you have finals every day.

To anyone who thinks that the rest of the year, they say, what do you do the rest of the year when the Senate isn't in session?

We're in the community, we're here.

We're at ribbon cuttings and public safety events and just and working on our legislation for next year, serving on boards and commissions.

We are everywhere, and it is a very year-round job.

So thank you.

Question I will just also note that I we have a very good working relationship with our state delegation.

I know many of us contact you all and are able to get support and stay in communication.

I think it has been growing stronger and stronger and greatly appreciate all that you do on behalf of Rockville and Gaithersburg.

We'll give them a shout out too.

I um have a couple quick comments.

You noted the uh rent algorithms as well as the junk fees.

Uh, we are gonna be taking that on in Rockville.

Uh so wanted to flag that to your attention.

Uh we meet on the landlord tenant code next week.

So stay tuned and thank you for your state work on that.

I want to thank you for raising the 988.

Uh it is mental health awareness month.

It is serious.

Uh, and people who need help on mental health does you don't have to have a defined disorder.

You could just not be feeling well that day.

And so reaching out to get support, get resources.

There is no judgment.

People will keep it confidential.

Wanna really encourage people to do that.

Um, thank you for mentioning that you're going to be ranked choice voting ready.

I know there's a year tied to that, isn't that correct?

Of when the machines will be ready.

What we passed is about municipal elections and municipal special elections.

So we are taking a step at a time, and nothing is about mandating.

It's if a municipality chooses to look at ranked choice voting, the state needs to be ready for it.

And the hardware and software need to be RCV compliant, and we are reassured that it will be.

Excellent.

Thank you for that.

And I know that when you came last year, we asked you about that.

Yep.

One step at a time.

Thank you very much.

And um also want to thank you so much for uh the scholarships that you provide to many of our residents.

Dr.

Miles and I met today with someone who graduated college and is starting his own nonprofit to give back, uh, and he got those scholarships.

So uh it really does help people make it through, and it was meaningful to hear about the impact it had on someone's life directly.

Um you guys talked about a lot of bills just for the residents who are listening.

How could they find out about what passed if they wanted to get a list to track?

Because there are many new laws and updates.

Do you want to?

I'll do it, you do it.

Yeah, I'll say in general, I think all of us have our end of session letter either on our websites or you could email our offices to get a copy.

But you know, if a resident has a particular issue that they're interested in and just want to get a synopsis, they're welcome to email any of our offices and we can help them point them in the right direction.

I'll just add that the state legislature has a great website.

Uh it may take a you know a few seconds to sort of get comfortable with it after you're surfing around and clicking around on it, but you can look up any bill by topic, by bill number, and at the top of the page, once the bill pops up, as the mayor and council know full well because I know you do this a lot.

There is a timeline.

Uh and it's in real time.

It will tell you where the bill is and how far it got.

And it will tell you did it stop in committee and never make it out of committee, or did it pass the house and not make it through the Senate or vice versa, or was it signed by the governor into law?

And I would encourage folks to take a look at our state legislature's really good website.

Excellent.

And one more thing I'd add is if you have any suggestions, if you've got ideas for legislation, the example I gave with Craig Maloney and the architecture board, which is now going to be um given new enforcement capacity and a confidential portal and all that, and that was because of his contacting me.

So please feel free to reach out to us.

We're curious to know what's on your mind.

Thank you.

And I know that uh timeline is moving up for you all.

So I would imagine if you want to hear those kinds of ideas this summer, not during session.

Oh gosh, yes.

Because you're already filing your bill.

So just one that's a flag back.

Because I know that happens and people requested things.

Yes.

Sooner is definitely better than later.

And I'll say thank you for working to protect our values and our people from immigration to child care and our schools and public safety.

We're looking forward to more of the work that you're doing.

And thank you for the money.

Really appreciate it.

I'm gonna just ask my colleagues if they have some brief questions.

Councilmember Valeri.

Hi.

Thank you.

I'll ditto everything the mayor said to keep it quick.

Um, but not that I don't care about each and every one of you.

Um, but I did wanna I wanted to note on the statewide 311 Senator Kagan, and thank you for that.

I think it's awesome.

Um, I just want to flag, and I think I mentioned this in a previous um briefing that you gave us as sometimes when Rothville residents call Montgomery County 311, they're told just to call City Hall, and they're not actually given any information.

So just wanted to flag um that that is um maybe if there's guardrails there as well.

Um I don't know if that's a uh a training thing or something, but um My chief of staff is already taking notes as a high we're on it.

It's it's very frustrating, and I've I you know I I've experienced it as well myself, um, where actually then I called this was before I got elected before any of us were here.

I was then told, oh, you live in Twinbrook, you are in the county.

I was like, well, actually, I'm in the city of Rockville, but thank you.

Um I also wanted to note and thank you for mentioning 988, and thank you to the mayor, you can text 988 as well.

Um, and so if you don't feel like talking to humans um on the phone, and not everybody does, and especially when you are um in need of assistance, you can text and also get that help.

So thank you for for mentioning it, and thank you as always for all the support for the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So on behalf of Dr.

Miles, please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Just a quick follow-up question.

The specifics of the scholarships, I think each one of your office offers is there, age requirement minimum maximum.

Um just putting out there for the listening public.

Thank you for asking.

All the information can be found on our websites, but we all do it a little differently.

We also all have different deadlines.

So I mentioned that mine is a week from today at five o'clock.

Five o'clock, not 5 15, 5 o'clock.

And uh Amy's gonna slam the door closed, and that'll be it.

Uh, but others, I think delegate vocals is another week or so later.

Your doors are open still.

Three of us are still open.

So definitely do your homework.

A senatorial scholarship, and not to not to brag, but just to be clear.

Repeat.

And ours is not a one-time grant, but it's for your whole four-year career, and it's undergraduate or graduate, and we can we each craft them our own ways, and we each have budgets, but it's a lot.

People should really apply.

Thank you for the question.

And just to make clear for the public, um, if you're going to Montgomery College, that's eligible.

Certain trade schools in Maryland, that is also eligible undergraduate graduate as was mentioned.

It even if you're taking online courses at an out-of-state school, that might also be eligible.

You have to fill out some additional paperwork, but there really is um a lot of flexibility with them.

Um, so folks should look into it.

Apply to the scholarships, everyone.

I know it's graduation season, so on behalf of my colleagues and I, we wanted to actually do a little special thank you today.

I know we had an initially, we don't do this every year, but we know that this is uh an important time, and we wanted to just read something to you all if you would don't mind.

Uh, we want to honor the work that you're doing and saying, whereas the Maryland State District 17 delegation is Senator Cheryl Kagan, delegate Julie Polakovich Carr, delegate Ryan Spiegel, and delegate Joe Vogel, and whereas the mayor and council of the city of Rockville do hereby extend the sincere appreciation and recognition of the D-17 delegation for their steadfast advocacy and continued support of the city of Rockville and its residents.

Whereas the city of Rockville is very fortunate to be able to be represented by such a dedicated dedicated delegation whose leadership and commitment have advanced the city's 2026 state legislative priorities.

And whereas in particular, we are grateful and acknowledge your successful efforts on securing 325,000 and LBIs, legislative bond initiatives for the Twin Brook Park and Dogwood Park and many more through the years.

And whereas these critical infrastructure projects directly support Mayor and Council's Vision Zero initiative and advances shared city and state goals.

The improvements will enhance safe access for pedestrians, cyclists, individuals of all abilities to key community destinations, including parks, schools, recreations facilities, and transit.

And whereas the replacement of these bridges at Twinbrook Park and Dogwood Park will provide safer, more reliable connections.

Whereas the multi-year effort to modernize communications through uh 911 as well as and I we have specific roles for each of you in terms of your work through the year, so I won't go through all of those, but just want to say a huge thank you to all of you for your dedication for your hard work and for making us proud.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right.

What an honor.

Okay.

Aren't you glad we only do this once a year so you don't go past midnight?

Awesome.

Frame can close for that.

Okay.

You can look at Amy's first.

All right, go ahead.

Okay.

One, two, three.

Thank you.

And we can just get this version.

We'll tell Joe that he uh just.

I want to thank the listening public and our uh state delegation for being with us today.

Uh we have another public hearing to proceed on.

I do want to note that um we started the last public hearing a little bit early, so if anyone was not able to testify during that last public hearing because we were early, uh, please feel free to see Judy or sign up in the back.

Uh, but just wanted to let you know.

Um we will accommodate given our timing.

We'll now begin uh public hearing nine, public hearing number three on zoning map amendment application map twenty twenty-six-0126 for a comprehensive map amendment, mayor and council of Rockville applicants.

I'd like to welcome back Holly Simmons as well as Evan Johnson and Jim Wasilick of the Community Planning and Development Services Group.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So, as mentioned just now and earlier this evening, we are preparing for the comprehensive map amendment public hearing.

So, anyone wishing to testify specifically on the proposed rezoning map itself, um, any of the specific proposals for rezoning or the map as a whole, this would be the time to provide testimony on that legislative item.

Back to you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

I am um, all right.

I'm just looking to see if there's anyone else who has not had a chance to sign up yet or speak.

Miss Sarah Terraferrell, do we have an updated list?

Okay.

I don't have anyone on this signed up, but I don't know if they're out in the hall and they can't hear us.

Okay.

So I'm gonna call folks in the hallway.

If you're planning to speak in this hearing, we welcome you.

Please raise your hand if you would like to speak.

I will call.

Please feel free to come.

Good evening.

My name is Ron Tipton.

I've lived for 20 years in New Mark Commons.

I'm here to um uh comment on the discussion previously about the uh proposed zoning amendments.

And I'm gonna I'm not gonna go through the issues.

What I want to say is really uh I'm looking at it from your perspective, because I know some of you may or Mayor Ashton and others came out to our community, really appreciated that.

You know, we really care deeply about our community and about the this is we're on the National Register of Historic Places, and yet what you know personally, I would hope nothing else would be built on the property we're talking about, but that's not gonna happen.

My point to you would be, and I've spent over 40 years of my career working in the Congress and also working for nonprofits.

And you know, I think we have a we have a situation here where yes, there is an important reason for more housing.

There's no question about that.

And yet we also have a community that's very special, and that high-rise development would have a really negative impact in so many ways.

I think the RMD 10 is a reasonable compromise.

And I think that if I were sitting up there, you know, in the dais with you, and I were thinking about well, how am I going to handle this?

You know, I've heard from this and heard from that.

I really think this is would be a fair and equitable and and a positive um decision to limit the development, allow some development, and keep the wonderful ambience we have at Newmark Commons.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Please feel free to come up.

Please state your name and whether you live in the city of Rockville.

Just want to make sure we have it for the record.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Sandra Crow, and I've lived in Newmark Commons for the past 10 years.

And as many of you know, Newmark is a bit of a sanctuary within Rockville.

Cherry blossoms in the spring dance with color and aliveness.

The longevity of trees signal continuity and serenity of the community allow for drinking in the natural essence all around us.

The current possible zoning for RMD 15 or above threatens this.

The zoning would allow for 15 units, including possible apartments, and it has looser site standards, including a smaller minimum lot frontage and less required open area than what we are advocating for, which is RMD 10.

In particular, RMD 15 is a greater threat to the wetlands that a cop that occupy the 9.75 Tower Oaks property.

It's home to blackbirds and frogs and salamanders and turtles and snakes and deer.

And as you heard from Kate a couple testimonies ago, when the deer have no place to go, they will be everywhere else.

They will be in the streets, they will be in people's yards, as will be the turtles and the snakes.

The other day I saw a turtle that was run over by a car, and it was so painful for me to see, and that I knew that that could be a harbinger for what might happen if this if this property is completely taken over by um by development.

So wetlands, why are they important?

They act like natural sponges and filters.

They store floodwater, slow runoff, improve water quality, and support wildlife.

They reduce erosion, maintain streams during dry periods, and store carbon, which can help moderate climate impacts.

They provide habitat for birds and reptiles, making some of the most biologically productive ecosystems.

We need the wetlands.

So have we asked questions such as what are possible stormwater implications for this property?

Is climate change mitigation a factor here?

RMD 10 is less impactful on this precious space that houses so many of our animal neighbors.

So I ask you to give that space the honoring that it deserves, and this impending zone change threatens this.

And I'll end with a quote from Wendell Barry.

Whether we and our politicians know it or not, nature is party to all our deals and designs.

And she has more votes, a larger memory and sterner justice than we do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good evening, Madame Mayor and Council members.

I did not intend to speak, but after the last speaker, I thought I'd add just a little footnote.

I have been living in the New Mark Commons and the City of Rockville for 50 years.

Well, the biggest draw was the day we walked into the community, if you had no idea we were looking for a house there.

We signed the contract the next day, not knowing what City of Rockville was.

We're living in DC at that time.

One of the things I learned that you may not have heard.

A few years ago, my wife and I were at a concert, and somebody sitting next to me said she lives in the Tao Rooks neighborhood, and she loves neighborhood where she walks, and it's like a little Venice.

I said, I've lived there for so many years.

Where is that?

She was describing our community because of our lake and the topography and the houses there.

So I think I just wanted to add that that she may not be the only one who said a little venice, and I'm sure the word gets around, who has said that about our neighborhood and which is part of City of Rockville.

Thank you.

Can you please state your name for the record?

Raj Gupta.

Thank you.

G U P T A.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Please state your name and whether you live in Rockville.

Good evening.

My name's Debbie Chalfee.

I'm with the Art Deco Society of Washington, and I had wanted to testify about the historic preservation part of the rewrite.

Is now the right time, are you doing that later?

Speaking to anything on the okay, great.

Well, like I say, I'm representing the Art Deco Society of Washington, and thank you for considering the written comments we submitted and our testimony tonight.

As you know, historic preservation is rarely a cut-and-dried right or wrong, black and white kind of thing.

There's a public interest in preserving noteworthy architecture and sites for their own sake and to preserve a community's history and fabric, which is why the county, the state, and even the federal government provide uh financial assistance and tax credits to owners of historic properties to help them in maintaining and restoring them.

Historic preservation also recognizes that times and needs change.

Hence, historic designation does not prevent change or alteration.

It simply means a significant change to an exterior must be reviewed and approved in accordance with law and guidelines.

This is most often a matter of balancing a variety of interests, negotiating options, and figuring out ways to adaptively reuse buildings for new purposes.

Typically, here in Rockville, there are several governmental bodies involved that are accountable to elected officials and to the public.

In other words, the entire process of historic designation is structured to balance interests and be a check on extreme positions.

Thus, we are utterly mystified about why such an extreme and unbalanced rewrite of the historic preservation provisions is being proposed.

What problems in the current process are so frequent or severe that these so-called solutions are justified.

If you, like us, are not aware of any significant flaws with the ways in which nominations are initiated, studied, deliberated upon, and voted upon, then we urge you to take a much more surgical approach to changes or even drop this article altogether from the current rewrite until you can spend more time on investigating and discussing what precisely needs to be changed.

At a minimum, you should delete the unanimity requirement for historic preservation.

Majority rule is used for all the other land use matters that come before you, controversial or not, and should continue to be used here.

Neither Maryland nor Montgomery County require owner support in order to designate a property as historic.

And requiring unanimity would be contrary to what the National Trust on Historic Preservation would consider to be best practices.

Also, as we pointed out in our written statement, to require anonymity would permit one commissioner on the HDC or one council member who may just be ideologically opposed to historic preservation or believe that property rights should be absolute.

They could hold up designation of any property, even if the majority of the public and the majority of the council would want to do that.

So we think it's very important that you delete the unanimity requirement and continue to make decisions by majority rule.

Second, we urge you to maintain the evaluations by the Historic District Commission for all demolitions.

The HTC is the body that has the substantive expertise and the undivided mission to evaluate historic resources.

This is a prudent requirement because demolition is forever.

Finally, please maintain multiple paths to nominations for historic designation.

Rather than cutting the community out of the design of the initiation process, community groups whose missions focus on history often have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening and are in the best position to alert the HDC to evaluate a property.

I appreciate your attention, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Welcome.

Please state your name, whether you live in the city of Rockville.

This is regarding this zoning ordinance rewrite.

So my name is Anna Street Molina, and I have lived in Markwood for 30 years.

During last week's meeting with the staff, Markwood residents learned that because the comprehensive map amendment amendment is city initiated.

The laws does not require written mailers or physical signage.

Instead, the city relies almost exclusively on newspaper notices as stated in section 25.06.01.

To increase transparency, I am proposing a change in the zoning ordinance rewrite to mandate email notifications.

When our current ordinance was adopted in 2014, the Gazette was a free local paper delivered weekly to every home.

The following years, it's the circulation.

Relying on newspaper of general circulation is now an outdated strategy that leave our residents in the dark.

Email communications is not cumbersome, it is efficient.

The city already manages several successful newsletters from the Rockville Reports to the Senior Center and Arts updates.

Integrating zoning alerts into these existing digital channels is low cost, high impact, and a high impact way to ensure citywide issues actually reach city residencies.

Please prioritize meaningful outreach over the legal technicalities.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of council.

My name is Nancy Picard.

I'm speaking on behalf of Peerless Rockville's board of directors this evening.

Tonight, we would like to remind you that historic preservation is for the public good as a proven effective tool for a very wide range of public goals from enhanced property values to heritage tourism, economic development, and more.

The city of Rockville has had a long and admirable history of preservation, resulting in a unique, unique civic identity and a desirable place to live and work in Montgomery County.

Firstly, tonight, we urge you to retain the current policy that all demolition permits require an evaluation of historic significance.

There has not been a citywide evaluation of Rockville's historic resources since 1986.

In the past 40 years, historic contexts have evolved, and there have been significant improvements in recognizing and also valuing the experiences of African Americans, Asian Americans, women, and other marginalized groups.

There is no survey of significant architecture, people, andor events from this time from which Rockville's population became dramatically, very dramatically more diverse.

Removing the requirement now risks the permanent destruction of sites vital to the history of underrepresented groups.

Two, we strongly oppose requiring unanimous HDC and mayor and council votes to both initiate and approve sectional amendments to add new properties to the historic overlay zone.

This one change is highly unusual and has the potential to decimate Rockville's historic preservation program, allowing a single dissenting vote to derail the city's entire preservation process.

It negates regularly accepted standards for historic preservation.

It negates the expertise of the HDC as a body, and it also goes against accepted practice for zoning adoption.

Peerless Rothell believes no other Rockville zoning ordinance requires unanimous voting, making this an unprecedented barrier that undermines a process of professional review and community input.

Even worse, the current draft allows just one historic district commissioner to stop an eligible property from even being filed, which would stop further review by the mayor and council.

Think about that.

Thirdly, we support the ability for third parties to initiate evaluations of significance.

The current process already requires nominators to provide rigorous justification, identify specific qualifying criteria, and present a formal case before the HDC.

There is no evidence whatsoever of frivolous or retaliatory nominations.

Rather, the current process has been consistently rare and invited only serious, well-considered entries.

We urge you to keep Rockville's nomination process democratic and transparent.

Fourth, we have strong concerns regarding the addition of a delisting process that why itself may be appropriate, but currently is too vague to protect resources that have already been found to be significant to the city.

We firmly oppose moves to delist based on current whims or external pressures.

Historic significance is not a temporary status to be discarded when convenient.

It is a permanent record of our community's identity.

In all, we are troubled by the disproportionate inclusion of onerous requirements in the proposed HP article.

Collectively, these changes create a zoning ordinance that is more difficult, discouraging, and restrictive for preservation efforts.

These proposals represent a sharp departure from the vision established in the Rockville 2040 comprehensive plan, which explicitly calls for the city to proactively identify and safeguard its physical and cultural heritage to preserve the themes and periods of the city's history and development, no matter the error.

Thank you for hearing me tonight, and please consider the lasting impact of the proposed changes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, this is about the zoning ordinance, right?

Correct.

It's related.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, thank you, Mayor Ashton, and City of Rockville, Maryland Council for this opportunity.

JD Kumar to speak here again today, Democrat Canada, U.S.

Congress, Maryland District 8.

Website is vote JDK.com.

Now I apologize if not exactly direct on this zone topic, but I believe very relevant this information.

So it depends on what this relationship is, is or isn't, isn't.

So pretty wow today, Epstein Repstein, Tacoma Park, Cinco Ocho Led King and District 17, like wow.

This is an example of candidate J.D.

Kumar inspired competition.

I think they got my info, and so they come up here and make these buku dinero proposals after decades.

But I have a lot of respect for Mr.

Ryan Spiegel.

I do.

Now I know people who in school who needed cheat notes and crib notes, but it's all good.

Um again, they're not inclusive.

Um but uh no worries.

It's all good for the greater good, greater good.

Make greater good, greater good again.

Now, if I go to US Congress, your zoning and all your logistics here and beyond will be generationally and historically changed.

Traffic will be reduced 60 to 80 percent here and nationwide.

And so this is the reason I said this was related.

This is a huge multi-trillions of dollars nationwide and global initiative.

I have articulated and set the tone on this.

Let's discuss.

So easy to endorse me, District 17 is same old segregation, child's play.

Um, otherwise, you will be relying on Montgomery County government that has been cheating City of Rockland, Maryland government for decades, whereby you cannot expend more services optimally.

For example, JEDI, Jedi Consultants' tremendous idea should be compensated properly for the work uh that they need to expand.

That is so necessary what they're doing.

What a bargain for the work they do, Mayor Ashton.

Uh, city should appreciate your ability to get these good deals.

Now, more zoning related.

A local-based hydropower and solar wind combo, new technology grid.

Spain was a leader in uh the wind portion.

This will generate thousands of jobs, but it's no longer Spain, it is China.

So this portion I've been discussing, the 250 billion dollars five-year plan for this US Congress District 8, which is 50 billion per year, is very easy to get this.

Believe me, just a fraction successful intelligent negotiation by me.

Now, this clown show county Lrich, this clown show Epstein, Repstein Elrich thinks that my proposals.

That would be great because we have to kind of stay with public hearing.

I mentioned my ideas to him and he thinks that I can't do it.

And that's a manufactured blubberdub.

I know how to do it, I know how to get it done.

Um, I don't think he has the history, geography, international trade, business, economics, many subjects deficient.

So going back to this.

Thank you.

That's that's the end of the time.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Welcome.

Is anyone else who'd like to speak about zoning?

Please state your name and whether you live in the city of Rockville.

Thank you.

Um, Kenny Peskin, uh, representing International Sign Association out of Alexandria, Virginia.

I do not live in in Rockville.

Um, but my association, ISA uh welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the zoning text amendment.

Um we have um uh spoken and met with um planning staff and testified um in February as part of the planning commission process.

We are in general, we're supportive of the proposed uh signage provisions of the zoning ordinance.

Um specifically, we strongly support several changes that were incorporated into the April 20th draft text um as a result of the staff and planning commission process and feedback.

Um we strongly support the inclusion of uh Article 10 freestanding sign standards for illumination that will allow for continued use of internally illuminated freestanding signs in zones that currently allow them.

Um the practice exists and will be uh continued uh in the future.

Um, we also strongly support changes um that were made in uh the definition of electronic message centers.

Um, generally electronic message centers are prohibited under the current ordinance and will be prohibited in the future.

Um, but for certain categories of uh signs that are really not visible to passing motorists, things like um bank drive-through lane indicators, um parking garage capacity indicators, um quick service restaurant menu boards.

Um there are revisions in the in the definition that specifically exclude that from the pro from the prohibition, and we think um those changes will significantly um reduce future impact for Rockville's retail businesses.

Um, but there's one other area where a change was made in the April 20th um version that I think is consistent with the spirit of what we had requested, but might not have the um impact intended.

Um in the section for exempt signs from permitting requirements, um, the language says signs displaying gasoline prices, which must comply with state law on and signs displaying electric vehicle charging prices.

Um, those categories um would not have to apply for a permit.

Um but we have some concerns that the city's definition still would apply to gas station price changers, um, even if something may be um eliminated um from the permitting requirement.

We think that if it's still prohibited by virtue of its definition, it might remain prohibited.

The draft ordinance references state law, but we're concerned that the reference might be insufficient.

Maryland Business Regulation Code 10-315 contains several requirements for fuel retailers to display accurate pricing information, including if prices differ for cash or credit.

It also includes a preemption against any local ordinance that might limit the number of signs or the area of those signs.

If, for example, local ordinance might prevent a fuel retailer from displaying numbers that meet the required eight inches by three and a half inch size for a character.

But the state law mandates that the stations be able to display pricing information, but it appears silent on the discussion as to what technology might be used to display that price.

Is that the state law doesn't address electronic signs at all?

Therefore, International Sign Association recommends that the draft ordinance be revised in the definition of electronic message centers to additionally exclude electronic displays in association with the gasoline sales use.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Okay.

I will turn it back to staff.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

I believe that is all we have for this agenda item.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate everyone who has come out to testify and provide feedback.

I know that this is the public hearing, but just wanted to flag if people continue to send comments how will you be handling those because I know that we might continue to get comments throughout.

Absolutely.

So the record, to my knowledge, remains open until the ordinance and the comprehensive map amendment are adopted.

So folks can certainly continue to provide comment both to mayor counsel at Rockville MD.gov, also to the community planning and development department as well.

I will note that as we get closer to releasing a final draft on June 1st, our ability to fully respond to and integrate comments does become more challenging.

And the mayor and council's final work session is planned for next Monday, May 18th.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate everyone who is listening and providing feedback.

Engage Rockville is another place where you can continue to provide feedback and see where we are.

Okay, so colleagues, we have uh two work sessions to come.

I'm thinking we might want to take a brief break now.

We are close to on time, just about 10 minutes behind.

Uh, however, I think if we can do five minutes, or do you need longer?

I'm hearing seven.

All right, we'll see you back here.

May 11th, 2026.

And we're reconvening meeting 13-26.

We're now moving on to our work session, which is item 12A.

Work session number three on zoning text amendment application TXT 2026 00271 for the zoning ordinance rewrite and map amendment application map 2026 00126 for the comprehensive map amendment.

Mayor and Council of Rockville applicants.

We'll be focusing today on articles six through eight, uses and use standards, zone and zone standards, and general development requirements.

I'd like to welcome back Holly Simmons, who's deputy zoning manager, as well as uh Jim Wasilick, chief of zoning, and we also have their backup team who are helping them in the leadership.

Evan Johnson, director of community planning and development services, recognizing John Foreman, Development Services Manager, as well as from the city attorney's office, Nicholas Jumai.

Welcome.

Thank you so much.

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

So this evening is our third of four work sessions on the zoning ordinance rewrite and comprehensive map amendment.

As mentioned earlier, our fourth one will be next Monday.

Bear with me for a moment here.

I'm not sure.

Is someone else able to advance the slides?

Oh, too many.

All right.

There we are.

All right.

So you have before you the work session outline.

We will, as uh our mayor mentioned, be going over articles six through eight, but before that, we do have a number of follow-up items from the planning commission recommendations that were before this body back on April 13th.

So with that section, we are proposing to go through slide by slide.

There are five of them.

They all pertain to items in Articles 6 through 8.

And with each of those slides, we are seeking direction from the body.

So we'll go through those first.

Um and then when we come to Articles 6 through 8, where we'll go over the key changes from the old ordinance to the new ordinance, which are reflected in the highlights document, and then in some instances in our revised staff draft.

Um, we will be proceeding or we're proposing to proceed through those articles kind of as a whole.

You'll recall that the red text, the red bold um italics correspond to direction that we've received from the body previously, whether it was in one of our pre-release work sessions in 2025 or earlier in April of this year.

And then the black text is additional key changes.

Also at Marin Council's request, we are going to go over light industrial rezonings.

We do have two of those that are proposed in the or that were recommended in the comprehensive plan, and we will go over those this evening, along with brief mention of next steps.

And before I move on, I would be remiss not to mention we also have a member of our consultant team, Michael Stein with Zone Co is on the line.

He'll be available if there are instances where we need to turn it over to him during QA.

So first up, our planning commission recommendations.

The very first one relates to gross floor area restrictions, and I will hand it over to my colleague, Mr.

Wazilak.

Thank you, Ms.

Simmons.

Uh Mayor and Council, you may recall that there were gross floor area restrictions on certain use types uh within our zoning ordinance.

Uh the planning commission recommended removing many of those.

And in your discussion, you actually remember recommended removing almost all of those.

And so our recommendation now is to retain the ones that are in the residential zones, and those deal with ADUs and cottage courts, home based businesses, and accessory structures.

Um, but we also recommend that all the ones that deal with uh mixed use zones that those be eliminated.

Um we did want to highlight one, which was the single tenant commercial use, and we think we believe that that one should be eliminated as well.

That eliminated any any store to uh a 65,000 square foot footprint.

Um in the IL zone, um we recommend eliminating those GFA restrictions uh and replace that with a requirement that the use be accessory to the principal use, uh, and that's to kind of continue the fact that the IL zone is for industrial uses.

It's not intended to be a mixed use, but certainly some of those other types of uses are supportive of the industrial use, and that was our intention for that recommendation.

And uh be happy to answer questions or um look forward to your direction.

You want us to pause now?

Excellent.

We'll do that differently this time.

All right, so I am gonna start on this side of the table this week.

Councilman Van Grant.

Um thank you.

Um I you definitely listened to our feedback.

This is exactly kind of at least from my perspective, exactly.

I think the direction that we're going to.

Um, I might have some follow-up questions with regard to when we're getting into some of the details in Article 6 and some of the specific use to usages, but at least with regard to the specific issues of eliminating the GFAs in the IL zone and the mixed use zone, I support it completely.

Thank you.

And I want to also just say my colleagues, if you don't have questions, it's fine.

Feel free to pass.

Councilmember Shaw.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jackson.

No, I also support there's no questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

I know this is something I raised, and it was it was just I was scratching my head on what what this was.

And so you guys really listen to our feedback.

Um, I think this will help with economic activity.

You also talked about you know protecting the residential zones.

So I think there's a nice balance here.

Um I have two questions.

When I was looking at the chart and the staff report, it talked about uh food established 25% of the GFA of the building, does not apply to carry out, and then I think there was one for office or retail uh 25% of the GFA of the building.

Can you just explain that?

I believe those are in the industrial zones that we were looking at.

And yeah, the intention there is was to limit um how much of a particular space that those uses could take up so that this the use still maintains its industrial focus, um, but allows for office use um in case that industrial use requires a certain amount of office or um could use some retail space to to sell the product that they're manufacturing.

I I would add though, everything um that Mr.

Wazlack said is correct, but we are proposing to eliminate those um at this time as seen on this chart.

It might have been a little bit more confusing on the chart that's in the attachment to the staff report, but the current proposal is to eliminate those restrictions.

Okay, thank you.

On the chart, it has the current zone and then the revised draft, and then it didn't say like an explanation eliminate.

So I appreciate your clarification there.

That's great.

Councilman Valeri.

Yes, thank you.

Um I am in uh strong agreement with all the recommendations as noted uh in particular, and and I just want to uh raise this as something that we talked about previously, but this actually um this chart gives a good kind of context for it, and that is um probably one of our most celebrated mixed use um success stories in recent history um is 80,000 square feet, which is 15,000 above the cap, and that is Wegman's the anchor of Twimber Quarter.

So I'm extremely excited about eliminating this restriction because I think that um that is a model.

I do want to note um that you know um the creation of a champion project status was um uh part of how that was made possible.

So um I I just want to flag, put a pin in it that I think that that deserves kind of a broader conversation as well, um, whether or not we uh keep the kind of geographical location of champion projects, whether or not we just um use what we have learned through that process and expand it throughout the city.

Um I I just want to note that, and I'm extremely um excited that we're getting rid of that.

I'm also in the industrial light zone extremely excited that we're eliminating um the GFA restrictions, um, especially because it does allow for that kind of flexibility um to allow for um you know uh being a uh secondary um to the actual industrial use, allowing for you know, grabbing a coffee at Mayorga, um, as some of us may do, um, is not the principle, but it does allow for that kind of connectivity to the neighborhood and to the community.

So um I think this is very reasonable and I support it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Fulton.

No questions fully support these recommendations.

Thanks.

Yeah, I have no questions either, Madam Mayor, and thanks to staff for answering my questions in advance.

Thanks, Dr.

Miles.

And I want to say thank you for including the history and the in the staff report.

I think I read about 10 times the there wasn't a time in our history when people didn't want big box doors.

Um I think given economic activity and you know some of the things that we want to attract, like a Wegmans and other kinds of places, I think we're kind of changing that history.

Uh so we want economic activity, we are open for business, and I do think that once this does go through, I want to make sure that we're collaborating with Rockville Economic Development Inc.

so that they are able to tell folks in the community and work with site selectors to know what's possible here.

I did have one question about the ADU piece that my colleagues somehow reminded me of.

Uh, you noted um sorry, uh the state law removed restrictions on attached, uh, but it does not remove restrictions on detached, is that correct?

It's not you don't have to answer that now, but I just want to make sure that we were fully aligned with state law.

So what we have proposed for the restrictions on the accessory dwelling units is in alignment with state law.

They did two primary things, I believe it was back in 2025.

One is requiring that you cannot have a restriction on an accessory dwelling unit that is any lower than 75% of the dwell principal dwelling scrolls floor area.

Our current ordinance restricts you to 50%.

So we did raise that.

The other thing is that accessory dwelling units are not allowed to count toward the lot coverage on a site.

And so we revised the definition of lot coverage to specifically exclude accessory dwelling units.

So if our if our city attorney wants to add anything to that, he is absolutely able to.

Thank you.

And then did the state law, I remember this being a discussion with some of the state meetings I was at.

They were also saying that ADUs can be in HOA communities.

Can you confirm whether that happened?

Can we just madam mayor?

I'll have to double check on that.

I don't recall.

Okay.

I know that was part of an early bill, and I want to just make sure that we're tracking so that we're fully in alignment.

Okay, we're ready for the next section.

All right.

Next up is established setbacks.

So this is something that we also saw briefly on April 13th.

As you'll recall, established setbacks are the average distance from the front lot line of all buildings on a block face currently in our R zones and our RMD zones.

Your setback is a numerical standard, for example, 25 feet from the front lot line, or in instances where that established setback is greater, that's what applies.

So this always pushes homes away from the street.

And in addition to doing that, it is quite complicated for individual homeowners to calculate.

In many instances, it also only results in maybe a foot or two of additional distance from the street.

But the calculation, you still need to go ahead and do the calculation, figuring out the distance of all of your neighbors' uh properties from that front lot line.

So we recommended and the planning commission supported removing established setbacks from the ordinance entirely.

And I believe it was this body members suggested could we retain this but make it optional and bring houses toward the street in instances where the established setback is less than that numeric standard.

So we actually did find precedence for this.

They can default to the setback of the zone.

But for folks who might like to do that calculation and think that it would make a difference for them, this would be an option.

So this is our current recommendation to retain established setbacks as optional and where they are applicable, they would be less than the setback of the zone, having the impact of in some instances potentially bringing homes to the street.

And with that, I will turn it back to you all.

Thank you.

Councilmember Shaw.

I want to thank the staff for listening to us on this issue.

I support the recommendation, and I think this provides more clarity.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So this might actually be more reflective of where I think you all landed as a body last time.

The difference is staff's recommendation.

Previously, staff was saying let us just eliminate this entirely.

And I think what the body suggested allows additional flexibility.

And so we did go investigate to see is there a structure for doing this?

Um, could this make sense for the city of Rockville?

And now we are coming back, I think aligned with uh where you all landed.

Thank you.

And when it says bring homes to the street, can you clarify that?

Yes, that's maybe a little bit too informal.

Um, what it would do instead of requiring a greater setback, it would require or it would provide the option of having a lesser setback.

And what's the least amount of setback that could happen?

We are not proposing um that there would be a least amount of setback if there I don't frankly know if it would be necessary.

I believe I understand from Mr.

Wazlack that we think that this would apply in very few instances throughout the city.

However, if we did want to have a minimum, um I think we could put a stop gap in there as well.

I was just wondering like there is a natural line in neighborhoods, and I'm just wondering if it's going to be like literally bring it to the street.

So I that's what I want to be mindful of.

I didn't want anyone to lose their rights in the last proposal, but I'm wondering if this gets us like literally, as you note, right to the streets.

So could that happen?

Because that would really stick out strangely.

One thing we've considered is the fact that uh even though house facade may be at the setback line, the zoning ordinance actually allows a front porch to encroach 12 feet into that setback line.

So that may come be kind of a break point that provides some separation that we're seeing in our neighborhoods, um, something that we could go on to.

Yeah, I want some additional like examples of what could happen here for me uh personally, um, just so that it's like literally like not right at the sidewalk.

Um, if that's not but I again I don't want people to lose property rights from where they are now.

That was my biggest concern when the last proposal was brought forward.

Councilmember Leary.

Yes, hi.

Um the uh the flexibility provision, um does that specifically need to um explicitly need to be drafted into the ordinance text tonight, or is that something that is in the staff implementation detail what we would do is take the direction back and put that in the final draft.

We do have text um that we could model this off of, and certainly if if and you know, if the body gave us the direction to implement this, we would put it into the final draft.

And if you did not like it at that time, you'll see it again.

Okay.

Um, I was just and and I am thank you for for answering that.

I just wanted to see how um that would go in practicality.

Um and I think as part of that too, um, you know, maybe um sharing some uh examples would be helpful um to Madam Mayor's point as well.

Um I think I think generally I really like preserving um you know the the option for it because I think that you know these mandatory established setbacks really lock in, lock us all into um the you know low density patterns that we're trying to like correct for here, right?

Um and I think uh I really do strongly support eliminating them.

I think this optional provision, so applicants can use a lower setback uh when it benefits their project is a a very um elegant solution to what we're trying to do here.

So thank you for that.

Councilmember Fulton.

Very pleased with where this landed, no questions, and I support it.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, madam.

I also support it.

Thank you.

Councilman Van Greg.

You guys are literally two for two.

Uh, you listen to us exactly what we're looking for.

This is absolutely, I think the right thing, because it essentially says we can make it easy, or to make it a little bit more difficult, it'll benefit us.

Exactly the right way to go.

Staff spot on thank you all.

So, next up is front yard coverage.

The definition for our front yard coverage is the percent of the front yard covered by driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks, regardless of paving material or perviousness.

And that last phrase, the regardless of paving material or imperviousness or perviousness, is really important in this instance.

I will note that this was introduced in 2009 with our last kind of comprehensive update to the zoning ordinance.

It really was focused on aesthetics.

I know there's been some questions around stormwater, um, some questions around lock coverage.

This would not change the lot coverage requirements for the site, and it also would not change the stormwater requirements in city code, which are contained in chapter 19.

So, as noted previously, our recommendation and the planning commission's recommendation was to eliminate the front yard lock or the front yard coverage requirement.

Again, this would not impact lock coverage or the city's stormwater regulations, um, but it would make the ordinance much easier to administer.

Typically, we are finding that folks have not conformed to this requirement upon enforcement, which is not an ideal situation.

Councilmember Jackson.

I'll come back to you.

I'm still noodling on this one as well.

Uh, because I think that um I I do I I am concerned about um and I think you you're meaning this.

If if it is I'm I still think we have work to do on stormwater management, and I've been very clear and consistent on that.

Um, especially in our older neighborhoods, we are having flooding issues, and we don't have the floodwater management plan.

We haven't touched the building code.

I know there's a lot of issues on that.

I see neighbors fighting on you and causing my house to flood and my yard is flooded, and it's just as a thing.

We've heard it in drop in.

Uh and so I just want to make sure, you know, because it says regardless of paving material imperviousness, that's the part that really sticks to me.

That's the concern I have.

Uh so I will really flag, I want to flag that in particular.

Um, that's that's a sticking point.

I don't know if there's anything you want to say about that.

No, I actually think that that's an excellent point.

And this is something that currently is carried forward in the staff draft and in the revised staff draft from our current ordinance.

So our colleagues, our friends over in the Department of Public Works are well versed in implementing our stormwater regulations, but this is in the zoning ordinance.

So this is something that DPW never sees.

They don't assess whether it's pervious or impervious, and we in the zoning department just look to see if it's covered.

So you could have a 100% pervious paver parking area in your front yard, and we would count it toward this because aesthetically our zoning ordinance says this is displeasing.

So in DPW, they look at chapter 19.

Any time that something that a development comes in and it meets our threshold for review of stormwater requirements, they're assessing um the site for water quantity, stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, and safe conveyance.

All of that is kind of governed at a high level by state requirements, but we at the city of Rockville say the state requirements are not quite good enough for us, and we actually have a lower threshold than the state does.

So our stormwater regulations are quite robust.

And at the same time, the state is updating their stormwater regulations, and we plan as the city to update ours following when they update theirs.

And if you're even looking at kind of like a more comprehensive level aside from the site, I'm sure that you all are well aware that our friends again in DPW are undergoing a kind of citywide flood resiliency master plan.

That is a process that's currently ongoing.

It also has an engage Rockville page, and they're encouraging folks to call to attention specific flooding areas throughout the city so that the city can address them at a more comprehensive level.

Thank you.

Yeah, and that that speaks to my concern about moving forward with this now, particularly with the allowing for uh impervious.

I understand my my sensitivity and heart goes out to allowing some parts of it because there are areas that like you can't park in front of a home.

People want to have a loop in front, and I under because they're you know, I'm thinking about some homes under the you know part of the last part of Manikee, some parts of Twinbrook, some parts of uh Hungerford where there's just not a lot of parking, and so uh, and I know people also trying to see EV, so I know sometimes people want to be able to create some little circle in front of the house.

So I I have some sensitivity and you know the what the new reality is for people at the same time, we are dealing with climate change.

Uh we are we recognize that what we have is not enough, and particularly in our some of the older neighborhoods and you know the trajectory of what is going on, we're gonna have to deal with flooding.

We're we're changing our pipes to deal with flooding, we're changing um you know a lot, and I know a lot of cities in Maryland are dealing with this.

So that's my concern.

I I can't support at this point um allowing the um impervious fully uh to have you know just a free reign on that.

So that's that's where I stand on this particular one.

Councilmember Larry.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um I appreciate um the concerns that you raised, and and perhaps others are concerned about it.

I I will bring a couple examples as to why I'm not concerned.

Um, and living in one of the lowest points in the city, the sump as it were, like hanging out with stormwater people.

I know I live in the sump, um you would think that I would be more concerned with this.

I think to a certain extent, it was trying to um this provision was trying to um adjust for a problem that really didn't materialize.

Overnight, there was not a bunch of people that decided to pave over their entire front yards, and those kind of uh situations would exacerbate things like stormwater management.

I will say that we can't regulate what is probably one of the most destructive uh in terms of stormwater management, and that is lawns.

So for all the people that have a front yard, nothing but grass and nothing else, that is probably equally detrimental to stormwater management.

Um and we don't regulate that.

And personally, I think aesthetically, I think it could look better than all on.

Um, but you know, zoning is zoning, not aesthetics.

And I'm, you know, I I really want to uh stay in that lane of what um you know we're looking at.

I'm not trying to draft rules to determine what something's gonna look like.

My concern is well, if we do not eliminate this, then are we inadvertently um creating greater challenges for people who do need to increase front yard coverage because they're trying to adapt a home because they have um a mobility impairment or any other sort of disability where they would need to adjust for um a longer run up to a front door again, something I have personal experience with we had to do this at the home that I grew up in so that my dad could actually have a ramp that eased up into the front door.

So I'm very loath to not eliminate it for that reason.

Um again, it's a an issue that um the problem didn't materialize.

We didn't have, you know, um, you know, they people paving over everywhere.

I want people to be able to adapt their home.

Um if they do have um a mobility impairment or they moved into a home where they do need to add uh a ramp to the front uh yard.

So um I do have a quick question before moving on.

Um as you noted here, um would under if we didn't eliminate it, um, would permeable pavers count toward the coverage?

I think I'm I raised this before, but I can't recall.

I don't have the best memory.

Yes, they do.

They do.

So right now the existing issue, you know, is is treating pervious and impervious in the same sense, even though one is better for stormwater management.

So I I would much rather eliminate this front yard coverage again.

It's not a problem that the city is actually facing.

Um it was an aesthetic concern.

We're here about zoning, and I don't think aesthetics should play a role in zoning, and I don't want to hinder the ability of people to adapt their homes if they have mobility impairments or other needs like that.

So Councilman Valeria's point, can you clarify what happens if someone is trying to adapt their home for ADA purposes and how you handle that?

Are there limitations?

Sorry, Madame Mayor.

So if the but if they um if the percentage of the front yard coverage increases and then specifically, would it fall under the ADA?

No.

No, can someone what do they allow more flexibility currently?

It's just a carve out for yeah, I saw us curious.

Fair enough.

The current code allows for um if the improvement does not meet the zoning requirement but is needed uh to accommodate the home, it does allow for that to uh to be installed.

So there is a carve out that already exists, so um, and there is no requirement between pervious or impervious for that, is there I'm sorry?

Oh my gosh, sorry.

I was like, why is Kate trying to hit me?

Assist you assist me.

I exactly her assisting her, I'm kidding.

Um like there's no requirement if they are allowed that in that exception that um that coverage will not have to be um pervious, you know what I mean?

Pervious um materials to as part of that coverage.

No, okay.

No, so I I I just think we're we're all debating a problem that doesn't really exist in the city, um, and we're not I I just don't again going back to the aesthetics thing.

I don't think that we should be looking to our zoning code to in enforce aesthetics.

Councilmember Fulton.

So I'm in favor of this recommendation, and I feel like I should explain why given the the conversation.

Um part of the whole purpose of what we're doing with the zoning code rewrite is to rationalize, make sense, have the right places in our code, do the right things.

And I hear you, and I think you make a lot of sense that stormwater is a problem.

There are the appropriate avenues to deal with stormwater, and it's not this.

Um I hear also that we want to make a code that is um to easy to enforce and and for people to understand and to be read in plain language and people know what it means.

So for that reason, I think that we should handle stormwater via stormwater regulations, and we should uh remove this requirement.

Because I also take your word that it is based on aesthetics.

And just so you know, through the rest of this conversation, anything that is based on anything being aesthetically displeasing will be something I'm not in favor of.

Thanks.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Again, thanks staff for answering this or beginning to answer this question for me in advance.

They have already raised a question that I um highlighted.

It was then packet page 89.

And both the response that you all gave me via email in the discussion tonight sounds that I I I gather that if there was going to be a significant increase in impervious or or more specifically, if there was going to be an impact on stormwater, DPW would be involved, and there would be some sort of check and balance in that in that way.

So it is is a concern as expressed previously.

I just I trust that the city will do what's right.

Um my concerns are have been outlined and um I guess yeah, I'll just have to trust y'all so I can I can vote in support of it.

Councilman Van Grack.

So um I I definitely acknowledge that this is uh tough.

There are some competing interests here.

Um, but I think that there's a conflict here between kind of helping residents with kind of a fee simple use of their own property and what the city may or may not be able to address.

And I think you know in addition to which it's challenging to enforce.

Um so I think for all these reasons, I actually support it.

Umly because we've got challenges with regard to what people want to do or what their grandfathered into their property um and legislating into that with uh goals that we may or may not be sure what their direction is makes the most sense.

So I thank staff for this uh um um proposal and I do support it.

Councilman Basha Thank you.

I want to also thank staff.

Um I I do support this recommendation.

Um I think just because we may eliminate the requirement doesn't mean that people uh won't have front yard coverage.

Um and I do think that there are other ways uh that we could address stormwater regulations.

Um so overall, yes, I do support this.

Councilmember Jackson.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

So just because something is challenging to enforce doesn't mean that we should just uh remove it.

And um I'm with the mayor uh with the concerns about the storm stormwater uh regulations.

Now you guys have made me feel better um uh about your recommendation by saying that um Department of Public Works uh will handle um the stormwater um uh looking at the stormwater water uh coming off the the yard.

But can you just describe that process for me?

Since it's more public works, they shifted it to me, which is perfectly fine.

I mean whenever we're gonna have additional impervious cover on a lot that creates additional stormwater to the extent that it could cause um any type of flooding, particularly on adjacent private property, we would have some public works department to come in and do a calculation on how much stormwater we think is going to be generated.

Are there appropriate easements and swales in place to convey the stormwater to appropriate location?

And then can that stormwater also be um treated and held back to prevent flooding downstream?

So now that was a lot, but that's the analysis that they would do.

No, I I appreciate that.

So my question, because you you say that it's challenging to enforce, and as I understand it, um it was usually we found out about it later.

And so people have already done that.

So is there a way for uh the city to then come in and say you need to do X and X and X to to your property to conform with the Yeah, yeah, stormwater?

I'm sorry.

It's part of the building permit process.

If we were concerned about issuing a building permit, that would create so much impervious cover and let's just say nuisance stormwater that we would have public works take a look at it, and we may add a condition to the building permit.

But what if it's already been built?

I mean, it could become a private matter.

If we issue a permit and the structure is in place and it's creating a challenge and we signed off on it, so it could be a matter between two private property owners.

All right.

Well, yeah, I support the recommendation, um, but I still have some can concerns.

But uh you guys uh um if kind of uh give me some comfort uh in how you're gonna handle uh the summer water, so yeah, I I guess I'm comfortable with your recommendation.

Question just to follow up on what he said.

So essentially there may be more stormwater issues that come up because we don't have additional you know, considerations if the it gets covered, and it'll just be a legal matter between the two residents.

Is that what I'm sorry, I may be simplifying that too much.

No, I would let me let me try it again.

So if someone is adding so much impervious cover onto their property through a permit process, whether it's a driveway, a new structure, et cetera, then we would ask the public works department to probably have the property owner do an engineering survey to determine again how much SOMAR is being created, can it be channeled appropriately away from their property and any other um private property, and there's a is there an opportunity downstream from that point to collect the water, treat it, and most importantly, not create a flooding situation downstream.

So all that analysis could be part of us issuing a permit.

So would that be ahead of time, or would it be after there's a problem?

Yes, after the complaint.

Our goal would always be to do it ahead of time.

Oh, yeah.

At the permitting stage.

So we do that now.

Correct.

And so we don't we won't have the requirements to, you know, you can cover as much as your front as you want, right?

And we the the team will do a calculation on stormwater.

Because I council member Jackson and I were in a drop-in, and literally um some a resident is just there are some neighboring conflicts that are happening where um uh pervious uh just land not landscape, but a just a platform a deck or something, it was you know impervious, excuse me.

Um, and it was causing a lot of water into their like ankle ankle high, um, and they are in an older neighborhood where the water doesn't funnel out, the resident was not required to run the water back.

And I've just heard this from a number of residents in Rockville, again, some of the older neighborhoods.

So they were allowed to do that now, and they weren't told to be kind to your neighbor and run it back.

So I that's why I'm that's why I'm raising the question because we've actually heard the feedback.

We understand the concern.

But do we have a fix for that?

Not sure the the reason I'm pausing is it just it really depends on the details, right?

How big is the law, how much impervious cover they're adding, what is the condition, if any of any swales on adjacent properties.

I mean, I'll just be candid.

If a if a lot was built in Rockville over the past, I'll just say 10 years conservatively, right?

There's a really good chance they're built with appropriate slopes with appropriate side yard drainage with appropriate rear yard drainage, even catchment basins that lead to the street to a drumwater downstream stormwater management area.

So I'm not worried about those so much.

But if it's a if it's a part of the city that has insufficient stormwater management in the whole area itself, and then they add impervious cover, and we're thinking, gee, this looks like it's gonna creep onto the adjacent property owner's property, then we'd ask for the analysis.

So again, it really depends on the property location and the improvement that are being proposed.

That is super helpful.

I just because we are hearing some challenges, there's something that is unique about what we're doing now, and I've just I'm just trying to make sure we don't exacerbate that all around the city.

And uh if maybe we could do some follow-up with DPW just so that we know what is the process for stormwater, because it tends to happen where there's something in the old neighborhood, house gets redone, and now it's in an older neighborhood that doesn't have the stormwater management piece.

So and I was also curious as to um, you know, if you all ever thought about allowing um pervious versus impervious.

That's just a consideration.

I just think that for me personally, I I think that we need to think about those things for the city.

So councilmember Valeri.

Just to give an example, um, as somebody who does live in one of the older neighborhoods, and again in the sump, um, so I feel very I feel strong kinship on this issue.

There are um a myriad of uh individuals in or around where I may or may not live that have grandfathered in, so zero uh possibility um of us to do really anything, right?

A stormwater exit out of the curb, which is we don't do now.

However, it's done, those are all grandfathered, and what can often occur, which does every winter is that there's a giant ice flow in front of an entire block, and none of us can do anything about it that then melts, and then as to our our flooding situation.

So every there are a lot of less than ideal situations.

I agree in the permitting process, if it's caught, it's going to be caught.

However, I I'm less concerned, I think long term on those rather than how we can help to mitigate some of the the multitude of grandfathered in situations, which I think are actually deeply in um more problematic.

Thank you.

Next up is deer mesh, and I will hand it over to Mr.

Wazlark.

So the staff draft of the ZOOR will add a definition for deer mesh and also standards separate from our normal requirements for fencing, uh which regard with uh which relate to height.

Uh we talked about this with the planning commission and the staff and the commission's recommendation is option two, uh, which uh addresses kind of the corner lot issue where um two front yards were not allowed to have the higher fence that would eliminate uh potential deer encroachment.

So this uh option essentially puts corner lots on a the similar plane as a an interior lot.

So the front yard would not have that protection, but the rear and side yards would.

There are options if the mayor council would consider um you know covering the front yard as well, um, that we think uh you should consider if if you would like to.

Uh, but our recommendation is still for the option two.

Thank you again uh for hearing us out on bringing this forward, uh, because there is a very big difference between mesh and fence, and I think we've seen a lot of examples throughout the city.

I do think we need to talk about what do we do about the increasing Lyme disease and the increasing rise of Alpha Gal more broadly, but that's out of the context of the ZOR.

Um I stand where I was uh at the last session on this one.

Um I think that there should be some allowances in the front.

Uh and I um noted uh the options that you gave.

So one is I I'm okay with allowing around individual plants.

I think that is a a good option.

Um there was also a discussion in the in the brief book that um offered the opportunity for people to have deer deer mesh up front as well with uh 10 feet from the right-of-way in the front of the house.

Um so I still support the side of the house and you know, allowing people to have it on the side of the house and corn a lot.

So I just want to make sure that's clear.

But specifically with not allowing an option two, you can't do anything about the front.

And most of the neighbors I've met with, they've actually gotten Lyme disease in the front of the house working, you know, adjacent right near their property front.

So um I that's that's one of the things I think we could do is if maybe it's not right up on the sidewalk, but if there's some level of setback, or people can also um include it around individual plants, I think that gets to what we were I was hoping to accomplish.

So that's my feedback.

Councilmember Valeri.

This is truly one of my favorite topics.

I went like this for a reason.

Um, but mostly because I've talked to a lot of the community members in that we heard from tonight in the Hungerford community, um, heard about it uh in Twinbrook and East Rockland talked to the residents that are concerned about this.

And I think that ultimately the the challenge here is that we do not want to treat people's ability to protect themselves or the investment in their landscaping based on the shape of their plat.

And I have a very I have a problem with that.

So for instance, uh a family on an interior lot, um, you know, they're trying to establish a front garden, right?

Um, and deer eat it every year from the street side through the front yard, their corner lot neighbor on the same street, facing the same deer, suffering the same damage, can instill deer mesh under option two.

They, however, cannot because they wouldn't fall under those standards.

So I I want to be able to protect everybody's ability um to keep themselves and or their landscaping investment safe.

Um I'm I definitely lean harder on the side of public health.

I'm very grateful that we heard from uh a Lyme disease survivor here tonight.

That's you know, there's a lot other reasons beyond that.

Um, but I think that as a public health good, as a matter of equity, that option three.

Again, um we're we're talking about see through mesh.

Um we saw pictures of it.

You can't see it from far away, right?

Um, and it is in no way intrusive nor unsafe.

So I'm I'm I would depart from staff recommendation and would support option three because it treats all plats equitably.

Councilmember Fulton.

I support option three CEG, my reference to not being in favor of anything designed specifically on aesthetics being displeasing.

Option three lets people protect their property.

That's why I'm in favor of it.

Thank you.

Dr.

Miles.

I support a staff's recommendation of option two.

Thank you, Councilman Van Crack.

So uh actually, similar to the may the mayor, I'm I'm slightly torn here because on one hand, you know, from the policy perspective, I understand option two and why staff recommended it.

On the other hand, I have also heard from a lot of people that have the front yard issue.

Um, and I don't know where that middle ground can be.

I know that there's a limited amount of restrictions that you can do with regard to fences close to the property because it's not really the setbacks that's often applied to um properties, but I also know that people are having these issues with regard to their front yard as well.

And there are people who have significant planning and are spending more time in their front yard than their backyard.

I think at this point, I'd probably default to option three with no other middle ground.

Um, but I think to the extent we can have some ability to allow fencing in the front yard would be beneficial.

Thank you, Councilman Shaw.

I agree with option three.

Um, because of the public health issue.

Um my concern is also just about cost.

Um, I'm not sure if this would be this would require more burden on the property owner.

Um, but other than the cost issue, I support option three.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thanks, uh Mayor.

So thank you uh for uh all the work uh on letting out the options and uh uh the planning commission as well.

I just want to say, I mean, you know, it seems like we're gonna we're doing this because uh people are getting Lyme disease and uh other um I mean investments and and uh landscaping, but you know, the the the broader uh context is that we're still gonna have a problem with deer.

And I know that this isn't the time or place uh to discuss it, but it seems to me that there's nothing we can do without corroboration from the county and the state and uh even the federal um authorities because there's a lot of uh federal lands around here, and even if we were successful in removing deer in the city of Rockville, deer don't know that there's a city boundary, so they just keep uh coming in.

So but that's another discussion for another time.

Now I I think that when I look at it, you know, I I think that a lot of uh points have been made, and uh my colleagues uh made a lot of good points about um the various options.

I think at the end of the day, um for option three.

Thank you.

Can you also clarify that there's not a requirement to use part of a gate and then part of a mesh?

I that was something that was concerning to me that we heard in testimony.

We could they could just have full-on mesh for the whole thing, correct?

Yes.

Okay, all right.

Some there was some comment about having to attach to a fence, so I don't think that is a thing.

That was an option that we presented that you could consider requiring, but it doesn't have to be that.

Yeah, I think that would not be good.

Okay.

So I think you've Mr.

Mahalek.

Okay.

And just to clarify, given the direction that we're going in, and I know I raised this a while ago.

Can we just drop the fines that the the standing?

I know that we put them on pause, but there's several residents who were there were fines that were looming.

Can we just drop those?

Yeah, we're not gonna follow up with those fines.

Okay, I think that we should notify them too, because some of them of course yeah, we just to be clear, we never find anybody in the first.

No, but they did get notice of violation.

Notice of violation, you must take this down, or you're gonna be fined a thousand dollars a day.

That was very stressful to residents, and I want to make sure that they they're easy, their burden is eased.

Understood.

Thank you, and thank you very much for uh helping us to evolve this to be um to deal with the times.

Councilman Valerie.

On that point as well, um there um the resident one of the residents from Hungerford was denied a permit um to simply put up mesh on her property.

Um and so if we could circle back with her as well, um, however, we move forward um because she has held back on doing so because um she was waiting for this conversation and was actually dinged for doing the right thing, which was looking to see whether or not she needed a permit.

So I think that would be great to circle back with her as well.

We can do that.

Could you also let us know if someone needs a permit to put mesh up?

Yeah.

Well, you can get back to us.

It depends if it's a structure or not.

If it's just mesh going up, that doesn't need a permit.

If they're building a superstructure or putting mesh on a fence, that's different.

But it's it's nuanced.

So thank you.

All right, and final uh slide in our planning commission's recommendation section of the presentation.

We have come to our planning area 12 Tower Oaks proposed rezoning.

So as the body is aware, our comprehensive plan recommends the residential medium density, 25 dwelling units to the acre zone.

This is also something that was recommended by our planning commission with an additional footnote that would require a lesser density if the site were to be accessed primarily from um Don Mills court.

The language is a little bit more general, but that's if that's the impact.

Understanding that the mayor and council wanted some additional options.

Uh, we did provide the body with a table back on April 13th that laid out some options with different topics and goals related to access to the site, density, and the form of development.

And from that time, and based on that chart, some feedback that we received from you all back on April 13th, along with consideration of the comprehensive plans recommendation, the city's housing goals, and further conversations with the community.

Um if the body does not move forward with the RMD 25, we are recommending the RMD 15 with an increased height from what is currently allowable in the RMD 15 of 40 feet up to 55, which would allow for two over two development.

The transition height that this body has seen previously, although it has been a little while, um, but it would require a step back above the second story for any structures over 50 feet.

That is what we have in the staff draft and the revised staff draft for our mixed use zones when they abut or confront um single unit or townhouse development, and then access from Don Mills Court would be restricted to emergency bicycle and pedestrian access only.

I will say the language around that may shift based on which zone the body ends up with, just to ensure that it would apply only to this site and not to other existing residential medium density sites throughout the city.

So the final thing that you're seeing on this slide, other than a uh an image of the property on the right hand side is also a table, which includes the three zones that we've really heard the most consideration about.

Uh-oh.

What did our meeting?

I will be back with you in just a moment.

Let us know if you need us to take a pause.

I will defer to our IT staff on that.

Okay.

All right, we'll just take a quick bio break and come back.

Welcome back, Rockville.

Thank you for your patience.

We had some technical difficulties.

We are recon meeting meeting thirteen dash twenty six.

Welcome back to staff.

Thank you so much.

So picking up where we left off, the table at the bottom of the slide shows um some information about the different zones under consideration.

You can see the zones themselves on the left hand side, the density that the zones afford, the anticipated total dwelling units based on the full area of the site, uh nine point seven five acres that might be derived based on that density, and the number of moderately priced dwelling units based on our requirements for moderately priced dwelling units.

Um because I I do have concerns about that sort of I support it, especially when it comes to things like uh pedestrian access for sure and and bicycle access and obviously emergency, but I do have concerns if we are not looking equitably across the city in terms of two residential areas and how we are um treating all areas fairly.

Um my second question is the MPDU unit generation.

This is under the current MP MPDU, it's getting late, um generation regulations, which could change, correct?

Okay.

Um and of course could change during any proposed development that comes forward.

Okay.

I just wanted to be clear on that because I think that one of the most compelling arguments for me at the end of the day where I'm leaning toward is in knowing that we have a housing crisis and that we've got to look at all areas.

I'm still looking at a lot of those big lots.

What's the 270 and what we can do to increase housing over there as well?

Um I do agree to a certain extent um what we heard from um the the realty community.

I think that we do need to think big um and try some new things.

Having said that, um I am landing on RMD 15.

Infill wasn't an option to my understanding, and it will bring in uh more of the dwelling units that we need.

There is this baked-in um exemption uh for access from Don Mills Court that is unique that should hearten folks, but RMD 15 um makes sense given what our our goals are.

Councilmember Fulton I agree with staff's recommendation and I'll explain why.

Um I do agree that the original zone in the comprehensive plan was too high for that area uh at 25.

I also think that we restricting the access alleviates uh the the largest at least public safety concern, and I think that's a a good thing.

Um I also know that all of our other like rules and policies apply, right?

Our pedestrian safety master plan applies, our climate action plan applies.

All of our rules on development about preserving trees and planting trees applies.

And any future proposed development under RMD 15 will go through a review and need to be approved and will be engaging with the community.

The other thing that I will say that actually swayed me in doing this, I know we all spent a lot of time looking around the property in in Newmark and uh Markwood.

I went and looked at other properties that are RMD 15 uh in the city, and if I'm if I'm not wrong, uh there's one, uh there's two, one in college gardens and one in Woodley Gardens, directly abutting uh tree-filled streets on a route to schools, and it works really well, and it's really compatible.

Um and when I saw areas where it does work and it the community blends nicely, and even there's no restriction on access.

Uh so when I saw what it could look like and balanced all those concerns, I do think that the uh recommendation here is appropriate for that space.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, madam.

A couple questions.

There are um some newer uh relatively newer, it appears to attach units within Newmark.

I don't know if it's Tinger Court.

Um but what are those are there different zones within Newmark Commons?

It's all one zone.

It's a flight.

It's all one plan development that was approved as a what we call them planned residential units back then, uh was approved for the single family detached and attached.

There is a group of town homes that were built a little bit later than the others.

And do we have an again?

This is not fair because I'm just thinking on the fly and give you the questions in advance.

I apologize.

Those that are grouped together, the in a so they're the townhomes, uh, which of which there are many.

What would those be on average do you guess if you had put them in a zone in terms of the the height of the townhome?

Height and density, density.

I mean the townhomes of that style were roughly 10 units to the acre.

Um that was the reason for when we were at the code the last time we created the RMD 10 zone, because we had a special procedure that allowed just town homes, and that was the density limitation then, and so they were similar in style and form and density to what what is in uh Newmark right now.

Got it.

Um again, apologies for thinking out loud, not thinking in advance.

Um I mentioned before, and this is another curveball of a question.

There's a kind of a couple of areas.

There's a part that's kind of looking at it on a different map, but they're the point is the same.

So there's a part that abuts 270, and our picture is to the left or to the west, and then the part that abuts Newmark Commons and uh to the east or to the right.

Um as I mentioned before, and I don't know this is possible.

I I guess two questions.

The uh one of the questions is if there were just development on the portion most closest to 270, the further the portion furthest west, furthest left in our picture.

Where would how would like where how would they get access?

Like what where would how would they dump on the Wooten or it had to be a new road that be built or to where we can maybe falls or something like that?

Or what are the what do y'all envision?

I think we anticipate, and the um the property owner of this property and the property to the south anticipates that access would come from the south through the Tower Oaks plan development.

Got it.

Um as I mentioned before, I think a couple of sessions ago, it'd be my preference.

I don't know if this is even possible for the portion that abuts Newmark to be undevelopment or very minimal development, and the portion closest to 270, you know, could go RD 15 or 25.

Um, but I I'm trying to preserve the character of what's there and taking into consideration the relatively dense, at least.

I mean, there as you as you already mentioned, there's a single family as well as Tach Townhomes and attached sort of one two levels.

Um I'd like the RMD 10 in that area at the most, the portion that's to the right that abuts Newmarket and something more um dense for for the left.

I don't know if that's possible, but that's that's where our land that's I'm splitting hairs.

Um I get it.

And if I need to make a definitive vote based on the numbers, just let me know.

But that's what I would approve.

Or be supportive of.

That's all.

Thank you, Councilmember.

That was one of the options I raised last time too.

So I I support, I appreciate what you're asking for.

I don't know if that if that was technically possible.

Do you want to answer his question on that?

Just so that the rest of the body knows.

Certainly, a property can be split zoned, if you will.

Um, ultimately it will be subdivided uh when it's developed.

Um it would just have to be definitively where that zoning boundary is uh on the property if it's not going to follow a property boundary that exists.

Yeah, because that would allow for more housing near 270, and then consider the feedback.

That was something that we raised last session.

So I I do think if you could if you think about any options for that or recommendations that might be helpful.

I'm hearing is that possible because some people are thinking about changing opinion.

So it is technically possible.

Okay.

Go down.

Do you want to say anything?

Yeah, no, I would I would absolutely closer to 270 when I go upward in the same kind of transition that we do in other parts of the city.

So you support Dr.

Miles.

Yes.

Suggestion.

Yes.

2515.

Oh, you're so he said 1050.

Sorry, 20, yeah.

Yeah, I'm 2515.

Okay.

He was he's 25.

He said 2510.

Yeah.

Got it.

Councilman Van Grack.

Thank you.

Um, I I think it's it really important to acknowledge um the public.

I have to tell you, because um, the public really came to us and said RMD 25 is too much.

And it's that uh we have you know, still members of the public here.

Pat Reaver, who's been a true amazing advocate and the community bringing together to realize hey, what we had in the com plan might not be accurate.

And then also more importantly, because I think more important than even the density, what we've heard is it's critical for us to protect that neighborhood of Newmark Commons with regard to traffic.

And so staff's recommendation here to restrict the access related to emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian access is absolutely critical.

Um, and um I note that staff's recommendation here is 40% less dense than what we were talking about with the comprehensive plan.

That's a significant reduction, and I think it really goes to the community coming to us and saying we want less density, we don't want access of this new development into our neighborhood.

So um I think that's pretty significant.

So I do support the staff's recommendation.

I think it's a really good compromise of where we are with that reduction and restricting the uh um access to Don Mills Court.

Thanks.

Councilman Bushell.

First off, I did want to thank staff.

I know uh we've gone back and forth on this, and you brought back some really great recommendations.

Um staying with the consistency of the neighborhood, I do recommend um the RMD 10.

I also just have some concerns and um which comes from some lived experience around uh housing near highways and higher level of asthma and some public health issues.

So I do have some concerns around higher density near um near highways.

Um and I I also agree with the access.

Um and it could be at a later time, but I'm interested in exploring um what the process is just to learn more about uh former burial sites Councilman Jackson.

Thank you, uh Mayor.

First, thanks to staff uh for uh listening for going back to the Planning Commission and uh going through this process.

I know it's been a long one.

And to the public, especially to uh Newward Commons and Markwood, I mean, their advocacy has been uh nothing short of uh spectacular.

Uh I know that I and other council members have met with them, have heard uh from them, whether it's in phone calls or emails, uh petition, um, or uh meeting with us one-on-one and um uh before the council meetings, and then uh testifying.

I mean, we have uh heard you.

Um and I know that I and other people have gone out to the site.

Uh I've uh met with uh residents and their homes, and there's two main points that I think the council and the staff has really uh taken to heart.

The first is our RMD 25 is out.

Um, you know, I think uh we all recognize that it was just uh too much uh for that that that site, uh especially that close to uh near uh commons and and markwood.

Um but the second thing that I really heard loud and clear, and uh I think staff has uh addressed uh rather elegantly uh was uh the access to from Don Mills Court.

Um, you know, to have it be emergency, bicycle, pedestrian access only.

I think is it is crucial.

Um, and I think that is really um what I heard light and clear from the community was uh closing off the that access.

Um and thank you also to uh uh the the developers record representative.

Um I know that we've had conversations and um they were productive in terms of um you know at least giving me an idea of what was possible uh on that side.

So that all that to say um I I do uh agree with staff's uh recommendation.

Um I think that RMD uh 15 is uh a good um uh compromise.

And uh I just uh I look forward to um you know seeing it in writing and looking at the final uh draft and making sure that um it's what we said and what the community uh said that they uh can um can live with thank you I counted four on that uh already.

Um but I do want to ask some questions.

Uh I align with myself with the comments that Dr.

Miles shared in terms of uh uh lower density right next to the neighborhood and then increasing higher.

Um but I do have questions about um just thinking about our future residents.

Would there be a noise buffer for them between 270 uh and the housing?

And um we we you know just last budget season talked about two neighborhoods where we're doing noise studies because it's you know the quality of life and the noise is an issue, and that has even more.

I I can tell you I live blocks away from 270, and I hear it.

Um so I just was curious when for current residents we will see um you know removing trees does have an impact on that.

Will it be when you talk about adding trees and you know thinking about the site, will that the noise be considered so that we can protect residents' quality of life as well?

Yeah, Mayor, um, I think that's absolutely something we would consider and talk to um the developer and also the adjacent neighborhood as far as the development review process, nor focusing on zoning, but I think getting some feedback from council tonight, so if and when this property goes to development will be good for the property owner to hear before they put together a site plan.

So if and when this property goes to development will be good for the property owner to hear before they put together a site plan.

Thank you.

I know we've handled that through, you know, for example, some parts of Newmark have sort of a barrier between themselves and Maryland to help with that.

It's not perfect, but it helps a little bit.

Um we've had berms in other areas, so I just I think that's something to consider for quality of life.

I know that you have tree replacement rules, so the total number of trees will have to be replaced.

Is that correct?

If if I might add just about the noise, and this is something that Mr.

Waziloch will go over a little bit later in the presentation, but in draft division 8.8, we do have a requirement that a noise mitigation plan may be required at time of development application.

So I think that's a point very well taken and something that we are um anticipating that the draft would address.

When it comes to the trees, that is um taken care of through our forest and tree preservation ordinance, which I'm sure you all are are well familiar with at this point in time, but that would apply to this development.

Thank you.

And that was on the list for additional updates in the future, by the way.

Um then the other piece that I've heard concerns from residents about is just water management, and I believe that that would also go through the review process.

Absolutely.

Okay.

So although it's we're split on this one uh with RMD 15 winning out.

Um, I just want to make sure that there's some of the key key critical factors that staff will be working to make sure that is you know protected.

Um then I I appreciate you helping uh to address the issues that we raised when we first started talking about this in terms of the emergency access and some of the transportation concerns that residents had with a lot of traffic going through the neighborhood.

So thank you for doing that as well.

I know um a lot of people have provided feedback on this, and I I see you know where we are.

I just want to thank the entire community and all stakeholders, the people who own the land, the people who live near there for sharing feedback.

This is what the democratic process is designed to be, and uh appreciate all the feedback that we've given and staff for listening and finding some compromises.

And I know that given the feedback we've shared with you and some of our concerns, you'll also look at some additional ways to protect our residents.

Did you have anything else?

Councilman Valeri.

Yes.

Um, so it it does not sound like we're doing 25 closer to 270.

I will note and um to anyone's concerns about being healthy and and living closer to 270, that there is a nursing home right there.

And there is also an incoming development on the other side of 270 around Fortune Terrace.

Um, so I I think that while not, you know, maybe not for everybody, there are some folks I think that would be more than happy to.

Quick question on um in looking at the map as it's and I was trying to look it up on mine real quick.

The parcel right above to the left behind the the nursing home.

What is what zone is that again?

That's R90.

So that is R90 right behind the the nursing home.

Just to the northwest.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

So that remained R90, or is R90 rather.

Um, and because that I I find that interesting as well, um, given some of the concerns that we've heard ongoing um and the fact that that remains an undeveloped um parcel as well.

So just something to flag.

I do want to just note super quickly, we heard loud and clear, just for the, you know, put a pin in it, maybe future discussion.

We heard um that not all the communities, especially those without an HOA were not being connected.

Sounds like we got that on a uh a good uh plan now.

Um we also heard not only about existing traffic concerns um in and around the New Mark Commons community, but specifically um along Potomac Valley Road and at the Potomac Valley Road intersection with Falls Road, and where there is a bit of a mixing bowl there.

Um I I just want to put a pin in it for staff for future consideration of looking at um some sort of existing traffic study/slash mitigation and any sort of actually any sort of mitigation for what appears to be uh tractor trailer traffic on that road servicing the existing nursing facility.

Um I think a lot of times when we hear concerns about traffic, there may be existing issues and anything that we can do now in advance of any sort of future development would be great.

Um my final point, I just want to recognize that we heard a lot from the community on uh the archaeological remains and the poor farm cemetery, that um a portion of it is is here, goes under 270 on the other side as well, around seven lakhs and um I share this with Mr.

City Manager, but also wanted to note that um I I think that it is more than appropriate um and would be recommended to have uh historical signage on behalf of the city, recognizing that that's what um existed, exists uh on um you know to to recognize that this is the land that um where folks of of all sorts of um backgrounds were were buried without marker.

So I think any way that we can capture capture that um historical knowledge and and put a sign up, I would be appreciative if we could do something similar, not having anything to do with zoning, but just to recognize um that this is what exists there.

I know this came up during the seven locks uh diversion center conversation.

Um, and I think it's it's probably well well due to to have something like that.

So um I just wanted to to note those those few things that came up during this discussion, what we heard from the the Newmark Commons and Mark Wood community, and I hope we can do some of those things around traffic and historical recognition.

Thank you.

Um can you also just remind us that there are built-in provisions uh that would protect you know that would address the cemetery issues.

I support the historical signage as well.

That's another that's not a zoning requirement, but it's just a consideration.

Um, when it comes to the concerns about archaeological resources and particularly related to the poor farm, a couple of things would come into play.

When any development comes in, we do require a natural resources inventory, which shows um environmental features like steep slopes and wetlands and streams, but also cultural resources such as archaeological resources, historic sites, et cetera.

So there is kind of out of base level things in our code that would indicate whether there are archaeological resources on the site.

At the same time, there are state requirements regarding um buried remains, which our city attorney's office could speak to much much more so than I myself could.

But I will credit the community for bringing this um clearly to light.

We do think that our zoning ordinance can be bolstered when it comes to archaeological resources.

So this is something that we are looking into kind of clarifying our requirements around archaeological resources.

It is something, frankly, that because Rockville is so built out, we have so little undeveloped land that it has not come up as frequently as it might in other areas.

But we certainly do think that this is there's room for improvement in our ordinance as well, and the community is to be credited for raising that to light.

Thank you.

And so in an in a future work session, are we going to hear something about that before this is passed or not?

It is something that given the short time frame for this particular project.

I would anticipate if we are able to do anything in again the brief the brief time that we have before issuing a final draft, it will be preliminary.

And we would anticipate bringing it back as a zoning text amendment in the future, but certainly prioritizing it.

Okay, so in the very near future, if it doesn't hit this draft.

Okay, thank you.

And just final question, since it came up last session.

If there was a blend of RMD 10 and then RMD25 near 270, you could get a higher number, the higher number of units.

Isn't that right with the blend of it or not?

Would it equal with the RMD 10 and the what was the other one?

My apologies.

Closer to 270 allowing for 25, that you could get higher number of units, right?

Our city manager is exactly right.

It kind of depends on where you draw the line if you're comparing it to just flat RMD 15 versus a combination of the 10 and the 25.

I think there's certainly possibility there that you could, but again, depending on where you draw the line.

Okay, that's helpful.

I know we we have a forum just general RMD 15, but I just wanted to ask the question since I know that was raised last time.

Okay.

Oh Fulton?

I rarely do this, but um it's gonna be a while until we do another comprehensive plan.

Uh, because that was a miss.

So just flagging that for I'm flagging something for the next comprehensive.

Was that did that actually happen?

Uh do we know?

Uh, and then also like the neighborhood of Markwood said they didn't get feet reach outreach too.

I don't know if that's how we consider non-HOAs.

I know that's something that this body has been trying to make sure that we are taking care of all residents, not just those with community associations or HOAs as far as the comprehensive plan, uh, which that outreach began in 2015 with listening sessions for each planning area, which Markwood and New More Commons and Hungerford are in the same planning area.

Tower Oaks, of course, is in a different planning area.

So I don't know whether there was kind of cross-pollination uh between the two and as the process move forward.

We have documentation of those listening sessions taking place, but that's really about it.

Where so it isn't some notices are part of the zoning.

That's that's part of our rules.

So what would need to be changed there?

If if I could add to um some of what Mr.

Wazalog said about this process particularly, I think the idea of more robust engagement is something that we really have been prioritizing.

So looking forward, that is certainly something that we continue to intend to do as we did with the town center master plan and as we did with the zoning ordinance rewrite, specifically engaging civic associations and neighborhood associations that are not only having parcels that are proposed for rezoning within them, but also specifically engaging the ones that are adjacent to them.

When it comes to folks who do not have an HOA, a civic association, a neighborhood association serving them.

We um use a variety of means, including regular updates in both the print and online versions of Rockville reports, coordinating closely with CCE to post social media updates, building out Engage Rockville, which I think is something we've used much more consistently and heavily since the time of the comprehensive plan.

Although, if I'm not mistaken, I think that was maybe one of the very first projects that it was used for.

So we can thank the comp plan for Engage Rockville.

Um, and also providing direct mailed notices to property owners that were proposed to have their property rezoned, and those who are in a in a reasonable distance of them.

Umce right now, but we do use electronic means to keep folks updated again, whether it's through Rockville reports, social media, engage Rockville, our development watch newsletter, which if anyone is interested in the room, I certainly encourage you to sign up for.

We do push out regular updates through that as well.

Um so I think you know the community engagement is something that we take very seriously at a staff level.

So I am hopeful that we are we are doing the job there that we aim to do.

Thank you.

I I think it's helpful just to flag that um we want to make sure that we're building systems in place that uh outlive us, all of us.

Uh so we know staff changes, council changes, and so to the extent that there can be protocols or things in writing on what should happen, so that adjacency is something that we look at more deeply as well as you know, the focus on uh everyone and finding ways to reach people who may not be represented by HOAs and and community organizations.

I think it's just important to memorialize that in writing in some process.

Um, I think that that's something that we've heard loud and clear over a number of topics that we've talked about as a body.

So I just wanted to flag that as well.

And I will note that I did hear some comments about sending an email to every resident.

We don't have the email addresses of every resident.

We Rockville reports theoretically should go out to every resident.

So maybe the creative ways to put more detail in Rockville reports because the print copy, um, because that does go to every single household, or it should if uh all's going well with the post office.

Um, so I just wanted to flag that as a tool.

Now, sometimes things are so broad, it says we're doing a comprehensive plan and we're doing so people don't know to pay attention, so we just might have to find ways to flag it to say this is in your community, or just flagging what neighborhoods we're talking about.

And I just want to note um where the this will be staff's recommendation on the max height, right?

I know that you mentioned that is needed for the two of the twos.

Okay, thank you.

Colleagues, any other comments on this one?

Okay.

So we are now into the portion of the presentation where we will go through articles six, seven, and eight, starting with uses and use standards.

So again, we'll be focusing on the key changes from the old ordinance to the new ordinance.

Anything in bold red italics is something that the body has already provided us direction on, and it is reflected in the revised staff draft.

The black is also reflected in the revised staff draft.

It is just something that we have not received specific direction on.

So in this article, the revised staff draft grandfather's uses, which we're conforming prior to the effective date of the ordinance.

This is something that we did hear interest from, and we are proposing that this be effective through 10 years from the adoption date of the ordinance.

The uses and use standards article also ensures that terms and definitions are clear and current.

It updates the list of uses contained in the zoning ordinance.

Currently, our ordinance has things like archival records storage or taxi cab service, which we don't necessarily think are going to be proposed in the future.

We also organize the use permissions into one comprehensive use table, which allows for comparison across zones.

Currently, I think we have five different use tables scattered throughout the ordinance, which use sometimes different use terminology to refer to the same uses.

They don't always represent all of the uses in our ordinance.

So we put all of that in one location.

It also transmit transitions many of our special exception uses to permitted or conditional uses.

This is something that you all have discussed before, as with the other red items, and it's related directly to the FAST two work program.

This is anticipated to cut down on time and process, no longer requiring an approval from the Board of Appeals.

And it eliminates the gross floor area restrictions for many uses as discussed this evening.

Further on uses and use standards.

We've comprehensively updated the list of uses, use permissions, and use standards to accomplish a number of goals that you see on the slide before you, accomplishing the goals of the Rockville 2040 comprehensive plan, implementing best planning practices, making more making regulations more modern and user-friendly, increasing equity, addressing identified issues, reflecting state and federal law, just a whole slew of goals.

We really did take a comprehensive look at this article and update throughout.

And finally, this is not something that we would consider a key change, but more a note on the changes that occurred in this article.

Accomplishing those goals that I just went over often does involve trade-offs.

So for example, if the uses that are permitted change from the MXCD to the MXTD, or if they change within the MXTD, for example, increasing height and intensity, but having fewer auto-oriented uses.

That is a decision that we made that we do think reflects some of those goals, particularly around walkability, vision zero, density near metro stations, et cetera.

Or when we're thinking about converting special exception uses to permitted or conditional uses, in that instance, we're reducing and streamlining processes, but in certain instances we do have additional use standards that are intended to continue to ensure that the impact on surrounding uses is lesser.

So generally, with that taken into consideration, the rewrite of the zoning ordinance and this article in particular results in reduced regulation, increased flexibility and streamlined processes, balanced with other city goals and priorities.

And I'm sure that you all can imagine, but there were many, many conversations when you have all of these kind of competing priorities and competing goals about where ultimately to land.

So with that, that is it for uses and use standards.

And I will turn it over to Mr.

Wazilak to go over our zone standards, Article 7.

So much like that.

There are use requirements and standards.

There are standards that apply to zones and all the uses within that zone.

Some of the key changes in the zoning ordinance include having new development standards for the new zones that are being created, such as the residential high density or RHD zone.

We've modified development standards in a number of other zones, including increasing the height in the both the MXNC and the IL zones to 65 and 60, respectively.

We've clarified the mixed-use zone setback standards.

Uh we've clarified the mixed-use zone setback standards and increase flexibility for development of diverse housing types in the RMD infill, uh modernize the RMD 25 development standards, and revise certain development standards to reduce nonconformities, all kind of as a package to create more flexibility for development as we move forward and achieve some of the housing goals that the mayor council would like to uh by you know making our zones clearer uh in terms of what the requirements are, but also kind of reducing those specific requirements so it's easier for uh housing to be achieved.

Uh we've also uh revised plan development zones specifically to allow for use permissions that are based on the equivalent zone and not kind of restricting the plan development uses to the uses that were specified in the original plan development approval as a way of modernizing the plan development and not requiring uh an applicant or a developer to revise the plan development to just add a single use to the to the PD.

Other things uh that these zones and zone standards uh incorporate include uh the bonus heights that are included in the state's housing expansion affordability act as well as the town center master plan that was adopted last year.

It introduces modern height transition provisions between lower and higher density uh sorry intensity zones, um, different than what we had previously in the code.

Uh, we think they'll be more effective and easier to implement.

We have significantly revised the design standards for the MX zones and also provided more flexibility through the alternative compliance procedure.

So that if it's something that a designer or a developer comes up with that may not be meet the exact letter of the code, that we can consider that as something that meets the uh the intent.

We've eliminated the creation of new neighborhood conservation district plans through the zoning ordinance.

Um, that one will not impact the existing neighborhood conservation district plan, which is Lincoln Park, and also allows for potentially if a neighborhood through its neighborhood planning process wants to actually create another neighborhood conservation district, they can do it in that way.

And we'll turn it over to Holly for uh Article 8.

Thank you, Mr.

Wazlack.

Can I ask a question?

That was a lot.

Do we want do you want any feedback on this in particular on the all the things you just said?

So we have been intending to pause for a question and answer at the end, but ultimately it is the decision.

Okay, because you want feedback on that block, correct?

Or not?

So we we asked the areas where we need feedback at the front, those five questions we asked you.

The rest were just saying this is what we heard from council, this will be put in the code.

If there's questions, we need clarification, we can do that.

But we don't need additional direction unless we got something wrong.

Okay.

You guys go.

Okay.

All right.

So in our general development requirements article, we actually have we have many divisions in one location.

And these all applied generally at time of development.

Um I will say it kind of kind of brings together many things that were situated in odd locations throughout our ordinance.

So I think we're really pleased with the structure here.

The first thing to get into is accessory structures.

So changing from the old ordinance to the new, we have eliminated rear yard lot coverage requirements.

However, the total lot coverage requirements still apply.

And this is something that was viewed to be inequitable, particularly for smaller lots where you've kind of divided up the lot and said, here's how much coverage you can have in the backyard, similar to here's how much pervious or impervious surface you can have in the front yard.

At this time, it is applying a much more standard zoning restriction that would be just lot coverage applied to the entire site as opposed to front and rear yards, and also adding provisions for the RMD for accessory structures in the RMD infill.

Currently, these requirements only apply to our single unit R zones.

Next up is parking and loading.

A lot of this, you all have seen before.

You'll note all of this red here.

But our minimum parking requirements have been updated in a number of ways.

We've really worked to right-size the minimum parking ratios for the individual uses.

So if you see the parking table in the ordinance, that whole thing has gotten a really good look.

Our consultants did an analysis comparing it to other jurisdictions, understanding that we wanted to increase flexibility with those parking ratios, really bring them up to modern standards.

We're also proposing, as with the county, to eliminate parking requirements within one half mile of metro and one quarter mile of bus rapid transit.

This is something that also is supported by the town center master plan, but it's proposed to be expanded citywide.

Revising how and when our minimum requirements apply, specifically to increase flexibility for nominal increases in gross floor area or changes of use that do not involve an increase in gross floor area.

Introducing by right adjustments, this is something we went over in quite a lot of detail many, many months ago, but sectioning out specific specific instances that we want to promote, EV charging, MPDU apartments, provision of pickup drop-off spaces, et cetera, and saying if you are doing these things, they count for more parking, or you get to reduce your parking requirements, which is also something that we see in Montgomery County and our development community said, Hey, have you considered this?

It would be very helpful.

We have a new process for requesting parking reductions.

And this is based also off of surrounding jurisdictions.

We've updated the shared parking provisions based completely off of Montgomery County, much more straightforward using the ULI shared parking model, which is kind of industry best standard as opposed to a bespoke table in our zoning ordinance.

And then removing the option to defer parking requirements.

Currently, our ordinance does say, hey, if you can't meet your requirements right now, you could maybe meet them in the future.

But the way that you do that is incredibly complicated.

Some of the reasons that you could defer parking is if there's an environmental feature that we want to preserve.

And we said, well, if we want to preserve it now, why would we want to allow you an option to install this parking in that location in the future?

And we really don't think that this is something that will be necessary given all of the flexibility that we have baked into the ordinance when it comes to our minimum parking requirements.

Finally, on this slide, we are loosening the maximum parking requirements while expanding the zones that are subject to parking maximums.

Currently, if you look at our ordinance, we have parking maximums that apply to our mixed use transit district and our mixed use corridor district.

And our code says your maximum parking requirement is exactly the same as your minimum parking requirement, which means you have to hit it on the nose, you can't go over, you can't go under, very restrictive in practice.

So we've said that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Let's set the maximum at 125% of the minimum and apply it to more of our mixed use zones.

Also in parking and loading, we have introduced, we have reintroduced compact parking spaces.

These were in our ordinance up until 2009.

They were removed, but we said, you know, this is something that is quite typical, so let's put them back in.

We've introduced new minimum requirements for pickup and drop-off spaces.

This is something that our colleagues in DPW really deserve a lot of credit for working with us to come up with standards that would work.

Pickup drop off is an emerging need, particularly in urbanizing areas, but it is something that there is no standard way that we could find that jurisdictions deal with this right now.

Some of them deal with it on-site, some of them deal with it off-site, sometimes it's very complex method, using referencing like parking demand management systems.

So we worked really collaborative collaboratively to come up with a solution that I think we're really happy for, happy about when it comes to pick-up and drop off.

And then also introducing new minimum requirements for commercial loading spaces.

Right now, our ordinance deals with them qualitatively, saying here's what your loading space looks like, but it doesn't tell you specifically when you need one.

So we have clarified that.

We received robust comments from the environment commission and also the Transportation and Mobility Commission, and we've been working with our colleagues in the environmental management division to update those standards, even from what you see in the revised staff draft.

We've also introduced new requirements for pedestrian visibility where sidewalks intersect driveways, and in just a moment you're going to see a graphic that it took.

It took our colleagues in DPW 15 minutes to explain to me when it was just text.

And now we have a beautiful picture.

And we're also allowing solar canopies over parking spaces.

Again, something we worked really closely with the environmental management division to come up with.

So now a break to see our lovely graphics.

If you look at our ordinance right now, you will see many graphics, all of which are in black and white, many of which look like they were Xerox nine times before they were uploaded onto MuniCode and shared, shared with folks in the community and our reviewers.

So we are really, really pleased with Zone Co's subcontractor who was able to provide us really lovely graphics.

In the upper left hand corner, probably my favorite graphic in the ordinance.

This is our loading spaces graphic.

Another thing that I simply did not understand until our graphics producer came back with this very nice graphic.

You also see those safety zones on the right hand corner, and our parking space dimensions, which are a little bit more straightforward, but still very helpful to have in graphic form.

On to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

This is the last one for me before I hand it over to Mr.

Wazilak to go over amenity space and a few other divisions that are a little bit uh a little bit quicker.

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, I think we're really excited about this division as well.

Currently, our pedestrian and bicycle facilities requirements exist within the zoning ordinance, but they're a little bit less robust and they're scattered in a number of different locations.

So we've pulled them together.

We worked with our pedestrian and bicycle coordinator, we took feedback from our back and our pack, and now have a pedestrian and bicycle facilities division.

So the first thing that we did here, and you all have seen this before and provided us direction.

We've required bicycle parking for both principal and accessory uses.

Currently, our ordinance requires bicycle parking oddly for only principal uses, which is unlike our vehicular parking requirements.

You have to meet minimum standards for both principal and accessory uses.

But our bicycle standards don't apply for accessory uses currently.

So we said we need to fix that, and now our bicycle parking requirements will apply for both principal and accessory uses.

As with our vehicular parking table, we have worked with the consultant to update and right size our minimum bicycle parking requirements.

We've included new requirements for pedestrian walkways within parking facilities, connecting out to the street, providing sidewalks along the fronts of buildings.

If you have quite large parking lots, which we don't anticipate in going forward, but if you did have one, you would have additional requirements for walkways between parking spaces.

We've clarified our bicycle parking location requirements.

Currently, this is something that our ordinance deals with in great detail, and it is very confusing.

So we've simplified it down into maybe two sentences, where right now it's probably 10 or 15.

We've added new design standards for short-term bicycle parking.

You're going to see some graphics related to this in just a moment, and we've provided flexibility through waiver provisions.

This is something we've aimed to do throughout.

There are always going to be instances or circumstances that we can't anticipate, and we do want to ensure that there's flexibility to deal with those unanticipated situations as well.

So more graphics.

Upper left-hand corner, you see our short-term bicycle location requirements, the little orange lines between the entrance of the building and the racks themselves is intended to depict 50 feet.

That's how far your short-term parking can be from the main entrance.

On the right-hand side, you see our design of required bicycle parking.

So this is really intended to provide you dimensional standards showing also that each rack provides two bicycle parking spaces, which we don't always get.

But now that we have these dimensional standards shown really clearly, we think that this will help a lot with implementation.

And lower left-hand corner, you see our bicycle rack design requiring two points of contact, requiring they be securely locked or securely bolted to the ground or a wall, and also ensuring that it's a style of rack that will allow for a U-Lock to connect to the bicycle through two points.

And if you will indulge me, that U-Lock drawing was probably one of the hardest things to get right in when it came to the graphics in the ordinance, having it connect to two parts of the bicycle, having it not be some wonky wave of metal, making sure that the sides are straight.

It took probably four of us for uh 20 minutes to work through with our graphic designer how to get that right.

So small details, but it is right now.

And with that, I will hand it over to Mr.

Wazilak to go over amenity space.

So amenity space, as you'll recall, is the uh new term for public use space and open area that we have in our current code.

And uh it provides for a requirement for amenity space provided on new development sites at a uniform rate of 10% of the land area of the development plan.

There are certain exceptions for when amenity space is not required, including for very small residential projects that are perhaps five uh units or under.

We exempt small to mid-size non-residential projects and small to mid-sized residential projects in the mixed use transit district zone.

Uh the requirements for affordable projects are uh have been tightened and more specific uh in the code.

We've established design and configuration requirements that respond to the actual location of the site and uh the features that uh could be highlighted in the public use space.

We've allowed for more flexibility in the MXTD zone, and that some of those uh some of the public use space can actually be restricted to those users that uh live on site as opposed to being actually publicly accessible.

And we've provided for options that could be uh land dedication, a fee in lieu of actually providing the public use space or an alternative compliance scenario.

And these are just some examples of actual public use space around the country uh that we hope will be emulated uh in the city based on our new requirements.

Uh one of the overall things uh in upgrading the definition for amenity space is that we hope we will get more meaningful uh open space uh for our developments that we have not been able to achieve uh under the public use space requirements.

So we're definitely hopeful that we will achieve better, better amenity spaces moving forward.

We've introduced uh some other requirements, including for land at a butts park.

You cannot uh excavate or grade within 25 feet of any forest that's located on the city-owned park.

Um, our environmental guidelines uh likely will be updated here in the near future.

We haven't made any changes with regard to how they are referenced in the code.

Um, the code does include um new landscaping and screening requirements that were brought in part from our landscaping and lighting manual that currently exists, but we're now incorporating those into the code so it's very clear that what is required.

Uh we've also made some adjustments to those requirements, including having new specifications for certain plant materials.

We've updated our uh parking lot perimeter planting strip requirements, uh, which also have a landscaping requirement within them.

And we've clarified uh which industrial or semi-industrial uses require transition buffer yards uh from residential uses.

Uh, under the lighting, uh, we really haven't made any substantive changes, uh, the same with noise requirements uh for noise.

Uh certainly new developments are subject to uh federal requirements for interior noise, and we also employ a manual from park and planning to look at site design uh as part of our uh site plan review and how to mitigate noise on exterior spaces as well.

Uh for utility lines and equipment.

Uh the only real changes we're clarifying that those requirements apply to gas utilities.

Uh, we always think of um electric lines, but they also actually do apply to gas utilities.

And uh finally, in for adequate public facilities, uh we've the highlight there is we've eliminated the complex process for extending an APF approval and clearly requiring that the APF approval is tied specifically to the development review uh approval that's issued.

And then we also wanted to kind of go over those light industrial uh rezonings at your request.

Uh there are just a couple of those.

Uh I'll go over the one that's in the South Lawn industrial area first.

Uh, you may recall that this proposal is to rezone all of the property on the on the that are that's highlighted in red uh on the left-hand side from the IL or light industrial zone to the mixed-use employment zone MXE.

Uh, one of those reasons is because there's actual residential units uh in the David Skull Courts community uh at the very end of First Street.

Um so this would uh put those uh resident residences uh into a zone that actually allows for residential use.

And uh to provide some first compatibility, we recommended rezoning the um remainder of adjacent parcels.

So there are approximately nine acres uh of this rezoning that is um the David Skull community, and there's about eight acres of adjacent land that would be rezoned from IL to MXE.

The one thing about MXE is that it actually allows for light industrial uses within that zone.

So we're not losing um, I don't think a lot of light industrial potential um other than the land that's already uh is in residential use, but um when the land is zoned MXE, you can still have a light industrial use.

So those existing uses um will be fine.

And you're probably also familiar, there's a um retail center at the corner of Taft Street and East Cutie Drive.

Um a non-conforming use, uh, so we're making that uh actually more conforming by uh by rezoning it to the MXE, uh, which allows for that mixed use.

The other rezoning that we wanted to highlight is on Lewis Avenue uh in the vicinity of Halpine Road.

Um this is a uh property, it's about five and a half acres in total that is currently zoned IL and uh is proposed to be rezoned to the mixed use business zone.

Um so this actually would kind of eliminate the light industrial category of uses, but it does retain uh in the MXB some uses that we might think of as industrial, like auto repair or uh like uses.

So we just wanted to highlight that and and give you some uh background on those two uses uh that you would requested information about this and with that I think we can turn it back over to the body for discussion.

We are happy to go over next steps um following following discussion question and answer.

Thank you.

And just to clarify, I know we're doing six through eight now.

Uh we'll be getting to the back half next time.

Yes, correct.

Next week we will be going over articles nine through 13, which is the conclusion of the zoning ordinance.

Yeah, okay.

I do want to flag it as 1136, and so um we have consistently been about two hours on zoning, so I think we need to plan for that in the future.

That this is not an hour discussion.

Everything you said is important, but I just want to make sure that um we're we're planning appropriately given our experience with this, and so much of it is very important.

So I wanted to raise that.

Um, I also just want to I promise I would always do this as we run late, just to confirm my colleagues are okay to plow through tonight because we haven't even started election code, and maybe we want to have the preliminary discussion on election versus that the two sections so that we can get a sense of where staff is.

But I just I I want to raise this issue.

I promise I would always check time check us, and I think it's important to do that.

We have staff who are needing to drive home as well.

So uh colleagues, just we'll be very brief on this so we don't take councilman Valeri.

This is super brief.

Um to not give short shrift to this portion of the zoning ordinance.

I would propose that um maybe per questions for what you guys just went through to move that to next week, um, and then we could get through the election code.

Councilmember Shaw.

I had a question on amenity space.

Okay, so you have questions on this piece.

Okay, yeah.

Colleagues, are you are you okay to do you Councilman Valerie proposed potentially moving questions on this till next week so we can focus on the election code or uh does anyone have any other suggestions?

I just want to make sure we're doing a time chat.

Council member Fulton.

I'm concerned about the time.

I don't think that we can give all of it, it's due tonight.

However, I would finish what we've started rather than pause something we started and start something new.

So you're proposing not to do election code or at least to have the preliminary discussion on how we handle where we are on election code.

Because I think we should still we have to get yeah, we should not discuss the substance of the election code.

If we need to decide where we're headed, then maybe okay.

Dr.

Mouse.

Thank you, Madam Where.

I'm with my colleague, Councilmember Fulton on this one.

Just finish what we have.

I don't have much, um, and then figure out what we can do with the lighting code.

Strategic direction-wise versus line by line.

Okay.

Councilmember Fulton, you're up on this section.

Oh, yes.

I actually only had one question to start with, and I don't even know that it's I was prompted by former council member Pershela, and I was looking at the APFO portion of it, and I'm at a minimum, there's no requirement for us to review the standards at any point in time in there.

Doesn't it just say periodically?

I believe that that is correct.

We should have a requirement for a every so many years we have to do it, and it's it looks like the last one was in 2019, and I'd like to do it.

That's my only comment right now.

Thanks.

Dr.

Mouse.

I don't have anything substantive on this one.

Thank you.

Councilman Van Greck.

I think I just have two.

There's some smaller things that I can possibly get to the email, but one, um, I want to go to um Article 6.

Um, and this might be a question for Mr.

Dumay.

Um, we're uh talking a lot about definitions.

And I know that I love the specificity that's getting into, and I have to admit, I think staff's done a fantastic job of really kind of honing in on deposition uh deposition definitions.

Um the question I had is um has there been any discussion with regard to some of the more clear definitions, and as I've noted, as at least I've seen revise categories that are in there that would potentially further restrict either property uses or development.

And that that might be a macro question to come back to, but I've kind of you know, because of the specificity, which I love, I'm worried about the effect that that could have in property usage and future development.

Councilmember, I think that's one we'd probably want to get back to you on.

Okay.

Um, just to kind of revisit some of the conversations that we had when we were drafting.

Okay, great.

And that that's something we can have a further discussion during the next work session if we need to.

Um, and the other question is uh with regard to article eight, and talking about parking, um, when we're talking about removing the option to defer the parking requirement, are we talking about removing the option that we've used in the past to allow zero parking requirements, or are we talking about not having the deferring, which could have a later evaluation of parking?

It's it's the latter.

Okay, yeah.

That that's what I thought.

And great, that answered my question.

Thanks.

And I approve of that.

Councilmember Shaw.

On the amenity space, um, I like what is being proposed.

Um, but I did have a question about what we're considering as small residential.

Um, because I know in our landlord tenant code, uh, small includes I believe eight units or less.

Um, so it may be inconsistent with other parts of our code.

Um, and so um I would just suggest looking at that, um, just to make sure that what we're saying is small is different from one part of the code from the other.

We can certainly do that.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh don't really have any questions.

I would just uh a second what my uh colleague uh council member Fulton had to say about the uh adequate uh public uh utilities of the APF.

I think that is something that we should revisit, especially in light of um what we saw with the um uh school debate, and uh it's it's something that has really been uh uh a concern of mine, and so I just I want to take this uh opportunity to highlight it and say that I agree with uh council member Fulton.

Thank you.

Um I have a couple questions.

Um under Article 8, Division 2.

Um, I know that we have the eliminated minimum parking requirements, half mile metro, quarter mile of bus rapid transit.

Uh it says no additional ADA parking is proposed to be required.

So I'm just curious about that.

Would the ADA require that there would still be a requirement for ADA parking spaces, or is it a percentage of parking?

That's something I wanted to just clarify.

That's an excellent question, and it is based on the proportion of the parking that is proposed.

That is how the Maryland Accessibility Code treats it, and that's how the ADA requirements um are structured.

So we did look at what is standard for this, um, and also including what Montgomery County has done, and it is to require uh if if there's no minimum required, that would be the same for ADA parking as well.

I have concerns about that, and given our my colleagues and I, my just generally trying to be more ADA friendly.

I'm just curious to see if anyone else is concerned about this in particular.

Councilmember Fulton.