Subject
title
Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR) Work Session - Review of Remaining Topics: Amenity Space, Landscaping, Signs, Nonconformities, Findings, Subdivision and Plats, Neighborhood Conservation Plans, Historic Preservation and Recommended Rezoning Near the Twinbrook Metro Station.
end
Department
CPDS - Zoning Review & Other
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the Mayor and Council hold a work session to discuss and provide direction on the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR) and Comprehensive Map Amendment (CMA).
Change in Law or Policy
The adoption of the new Comprehensive Zoning Map will replace the existing zoning map in its entirety. The adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance will replace the existing Zoning Ordinance in its entirety.
Discussion
Background
The city is undertaking a comprehensive rewrite of the city’s Zoning Ordinance to modernize this chapter of the city code so that it better accommodates the changing living, working, and recreation trends of the 21st century. In conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite, the city’s zoning map will be updated through a Comprehensive Map Amendment that will implement the rezonings recommended in the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The following objectives have been identified for the project:
• Implement many of the recommended land use actions identified in the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan, including implementing the Plan’s zoning recommendations.
• Accomplish goals from the city’s ongoing FAST Initiative, making the development review and permitting process Faster, Accountable, Smarter, and Transparent.
• Incorporate planning and zoning best practices that have become common in the field of urban planning and in other similarly situated communities.
• Incorporate the city’s commitment to equity, resilience, and sustainability, as described in the 2021 Mayor and Council social justice resolution and the 2022 Climate Action Plan.
• Ensure compliance with current federal and state regulations.
• Create a modern ordinance that can accommodate the changing living, working, and lifestyles of the 21st century.
• Create a user-friendly, accessible, and well-organized document that provides appropriate graphics and information to aid in its understanding.
The September 29 work session is intended to focus on the following elements of the ongoing ZOR and CMA project:
• Amenity space
• Landscaping
• Nonconformities
• Signs
• Subdivision
• Historic Preservation
Authorization to file the zoning text amendment and comprehensive map amendment is planned for December 2025.
Amenity space
The current Zoning Ordinance requires private developments to provide a specific amount of open area or, in certain cases, “public use space.” Where public use space is required, it is treated as a subset of open space, with any public use space provided counting toward the open space requirement as well. Public use space is intended “to promote an appropriate balance between the built environment, public parks and other open spaces intended for respite from urban development, and to protect natural features and preserve the character of the City”; however, both requirements are currently defined very broadly, and the current Zoning Ordinance does not ensure that the open space or public use space provided by developments in the City is of high quality.
The ZOR proposes to replace the structure of the current requirements with a new requirement that will guarantee residents have access to high-quality recreational and social areas while helping to reduce pressure on existing parks and amenities. The ZOR proposes to introduce a requirement for “amenity space” that is more narrowly defined than the current open space and public use space. Specifically, it will require that all development projects subject to the amenity space requirement provide contiguous, high-quality, amenitized space for residents, employees, patrons, and the public, including those for both passive and active uses. The proposed changes would generally reduce the amount of space required to be provided, but greatly increase the quality of these spaces. Additionally, understanding that the proposed requirements would make it necessary for applicants to provide more meaningful, contiguous, amenitized space, which may be a difficult requirement to meet in the City’s densest transit-oriented zones, the proposal would also allow flexibility in the MXTD zones for a portion of the required amenity space to be accessible only to residents of the development, such as on a rooftop. With few exceptions, amenity space would continue to be required to be publicly accessible. Amenity space requirements could also be met through dedication of land to the city, fee-in-lieu, or alternative compliance.
Substantive recommendations are as follows:
• Transition from broadly defined “open area” and “public use space” to “amenity space,” which is defined to include only high-quality space with amenities, including those for both passive and active uses.
• Require amenity space for residential and mixed-use projects in the mixed-use zones, residential medium density zones, and the Residential High Density zone, except when the project:
o Consists of five or fewer dwelling units
o Is a non-residential use with a gross floor area of 20,000 square feet or smaller
o Is on a site of one acre or less in the MXTD-235, MXTD-200, and MXTD-85 or 20,000 square feet in any other zone, or
o Is a 100 percent affordable residential development located within ¼ mile of a public park or publicly accessible amenity space
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance exempts all affordable housing projects, as well as projects that consist of Housing for Senior Adults and Persons with Disabilities; however, staff does not propose continuing these exemptions as currently written, due to concerns regarding the equitable provision of recreation and amenity space for all Rockville residents.
• Allow flexibility in the MXTD (where the Plan prioritizes density and where land is at a premium) for 50 percent of the required amenity space to be accessible only to residents of the development, such as on a rooftop.
Landscaping
Landscaping and vegetative screening requirements aim to enhance aesthetic appeal, reduce visual and noise impacts, and promote environmental benefits, such as increased shade. Requirements for landscaping and screening are currently contained in the City’s Landscaping, Screening, and Lighting Manual, which was most recently amended in 2015. As part of the ZOR, the landscaping and screening portion of the Manual’s requirements are proposed to be pulled out and codified; the lighting requirements are proposed to be retained in the Manual and will be updated via a separate process.
The Manual’s landscaping and screening requirements, with some exceptions, primarily focus on buffering parking lots from adjacent rights-of-way and uses to ensure a smoother and more aesthetically pleasing transition. The ZOR will restructure these requirements from narrative format into tables for ease of use. City Forestry staff have also reviewed all required planting strips, including strip width and the mix and quantity of plant materials, to ensure plant materials will be able to survive while also performing their intended purposes. The ZOR will also include new specifications for planting materials, including height and caliper, consistent with City Code Chapter 10.5 and best practices, which will help add clarity to the Zoning Ordinance.
The following bullet point addresses one issue with the current landscaping and screening requirements that warrants further conversation, along with the Staff’s recommendation. Staff will request Mayor and Council guidance on this item.
• The current Manual requires industrial uses abutting residential uses to provide a 30-foot landscaped buffer with a minimum six-foot opaque wall or fence (the wall/fence requirement may be waived). This requirement lacks specificity and treats all industrial uses in the same manner. For example, both Heavy Industrial uses and Research and Development uses would require the same 30-foot buffer and wall/fence, although their impact is anticipated to be very different. Staff recommends the context-sensitive buffer requirements for industrial and similar uses when these uses are shown in the table below.
|
Use |
Proposed Requirement when Abutting Residential |
When abutting… |
|
Heavy Industrial (This use is currently not permitted in any zones within the city.) |
30-foot buffer & 3-foot berm |
All uses other than Heavy Industrial |
|
Light Industrial |
30-foot buffer & 3-foot berm OR 15-foot buffer & 6-foot opaque fence or wall |
Residential |
|
General Warehousing |
30-foot buffer & 3-foot berm OR 15-foot buffer & 6-foot opaque fence or wall |
Residential |
|
Alcoholic Beverage Production |
30-foot buffer & 3-foot berm OR 15-foot buffer & 6-foot opaque fence or wall |
Residential |
|
Automobile Repair Establishment |
30-foot buffer & 3-foot berm OR 15-foot buffer & 6-foot opaque fence or wall |
Residential |
|
Self-Storage Facility |
10-foot buffer OR 7-foot buffer & 6-foot opaque fence or wall |
Residential |
|
Gas Station |
10-foot buffer OR 7-foot buffer & 6-foot opaque fence or wall |
Residential |
The proposal outlined in the above table would increase the requirements for Heavy Industrial uses to apply when they abut any use; allow flexibility for less-intense industrial uses, such as Light Industrial, General Warehousing, and Alcoholic Beverage Production; and add new buffering requirements for Automobile Repair Establishments and Gas Stations. In naming the uses specifically, it would also eliminate the possibility for any interpretation that buffering requirements apply to Artisanal Craft Production and Research and Development, which are included in the Zoning Ordinance’s general “Industrial” use category.
Signs
The Zoning Ordinance regulates all signs to be installed in City limits, with the intention of promoting public safety and reducing visual clutter. The City’s sign ordinance specifies types of signs permitted, allowable sign sizes and locations, style (in certain cases; described below), and processes by which signs may be permitted. In addition to the below recommendations, the sign ordinance is being comprehensively reviewed by ZoneCo for updates to modernize requirements and also to restructure the underutilized optional sign package.
In 2015, through their ruling in the case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signs. Generally, this ruling reduces a municipality’s ability to regulate the message on signs (e.g., whether the messages are “religious,” “political,” or “real estate,” etc.) and has prompted many jurisdictions to adopt sign regulations that are “content-neutral” to minimize risk. To address the ZOR’s goal of complying with federal regulations, the following is recommended:
• Make all sign regulations content-neutral. Define all sign types according to the structure, design, or location of the sign rather than the sign’s content. Remove distinctions between commercial and noncommercial signs, flags, etc.
The sign ordinance also includes regulations related to color and design consistency, which were initially adopted in the 1960s to curtail a proliferation of unsightly signs along Rockville Pike. Individual shopping centers were required to submit “sign plans” that specified one color (subsequently expanded to one main color and two accents) and one letter style to be used on all signs within the shopping center. Though not common among other jurisdictions in the region, this practice persists to this day, with a wide array of outcomes. Some shopping centers are governed by sign plans that were approved in the 1980s and specify only one color and one letter style; others were approved more recently and include significantly more detail on sign color, letter style, placement, measurements, etc. Ultimately, however, the stylistic specifications of each sign concept plan do not correspond with the regulations contained in the sign ordinance; cause difficulty when a company wants to use a trademarked logo; and may preclude smaller businesses from using culturally relevant colors and letter styles in favor of homogeneity. To address these issues, the draft ZOR recommends:
• Eliminating the requirement for sign plans and associated regulation of color and design consistency.
Nonconformities
“Nonconformity” is a term that captures both uses and structures that were lawful when established but which no longer conform to the requirements of the zone in which they are located. Generally, creating nonconformities is to be avoided, but in certain instances, it can be part of a broader strategy to implement City goals and transform the built environment over time to better match the City’s vision. In these instances, creating nonconformities allows the existing nonconformities to persist while encouraging their eventual replacement.
For example, through a review of relevant uses by CPDS and DPW - Environmental Management Division staff, two changes are proposed that would create minor nonconformities to implement the goals of the Climate Action Plan and the Town Center Master Plan:
• Gas Stations. Gas Stations are currently a Special Exception use within the MXTD zone; however, understanding that Town Center is proposed to be rezoned to the MXTD-235, MXTD-200, and MXTD-85, the ZOR recommends that this use be reclassified as Prohibited within these zones to support and enhance their transit-oriented, walkable character. Existing Automobile Filling Stations would be allowed to continue, but development on-site would be constrained by the Zoning Ordinance’s nonconforming use provisions. No new Automobile Filling Stations would be permitted.
• Drive-Through Windows. Drive-through windows are allowed only when associated with banks, pharmacies, restaurants, and cannabis dispensaries. Currently, restaurants with Drive-Through Windows are not permitted in the MXTD zone, but banks and pharmacies with Drive-Through Windows are permitted, so long as they are “incorporated and enclosed within a building or structure” (Sec. 25.13.04.b and .d). For the same reasons stated above, the ZOR recommends that all Drive-Through Windows be reclassified as Prohibited within the MXTD family of zones.
If created, these nonconforming uses will be allowed to continue operating, but any future changes will be constrained by the Zoning Ordinance’s nonconforming use requirements (described further below), or they will need to transition to a modern use aligned with the zone.
In addition to creating limited nonconformities, the ZOR proposes to change the requirements that govern nonconformities. Currently, the regulations contained within the ordinance are confusing and quite restrictive. For example, under the current Zoning Ordinance, it would not be possible for a business owner to replace their nonconforming building in kind if it were to burn down or otherwise be destroyed by a natural disaster. Additionally, the current regulations make it difficult for nonconforming buildings and uses to come closer to conforming with the zoning requirements. Finally, existing nonconformities are currently unable to increase their nonconformity by even a nominal amount, whereas in some zoning ordinances, limited expansions are permissible.
Understanding the scope of the issues, the ZOR proposes to simplify, clarify, and amend nonconformity requirements as follows:
• Allow structures housing nonconforming uses to be altered for certain purposes, including to bring the nonconforming use into greater conformity with the Code; for maintenance, safety, and ADA compliance; and for improvements to a façade or stormwater management and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
• Allow structures housing nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures to be replaced or repaired in kind in the event of a fire, flood, or other natural disaster or emergency.
• Allow for nonconforming uses to expand by up to 20 percent, subject to approval by either the Chief of Zoning or the Planning Commission, depending on the extent of the expansion.
Findings of Approval
To approve Project Plans, Site Plans, and Preliminary Plans of Subdivision, Approving Authorities must make several findings. In the current Zoning Ordinance, some of these findings are highly discretionary, and the intent of the finding is substantially addressed through regulations contained in City Code. The ZOR proposes to rework and simplify these discretionary findings to be objective, accessible, consistent across application types, and strongly tied to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and regulations governing life safety, natural features, public facilities, and the like. This will ensure that the grounds for approving or denying project plans, site plans, and preliminary plans are uniformly applied to all development applications and are unambiguous for both applicants and Approving Authorities.
The most significant reframing is proposed for the findings identified as five through 12 in the table below. In part because the findings are not tied to clear standards, they have rarely been determinative in staff’s recommendations to approve or deny applications. As a result, Staff anticipates that the proposed revisions will provide substantial improvements in terms of clarity, objectivity, and accessibility while having minimal impact on the final outcomes of future applications.
As outlined in the table below, under the ZOR, project plans, site plans, and preliminary plans of subdivision will still need to demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, adequate public facilities, and conformance to all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable law governing health, safety, natural resources, and the environment of the City.
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Approval Findings for Level 1 and 2 Site Plans, Project Plans, and Preliminary Plans of Subdivision
|
ID |
Existing Finding |
Applies to… |
Proposed Replacement Finding |
Rationale |
|
1 |
The application will not conflict with the Plan. |
• Project Plan • Level 1 & 2 Site Plans |
The application is consistent with the Plan. |
The proposed revision (positive instead of double negative) strengthens the Comprehensive Plan consistency finding. |
|
2 |
The application will not violate or adversely affect the plan. |
• Preliminary Plan |
|
|
|
3 |
The application will not overburden existing and programmed public facilities as set forth in Article 20 of this chapter and as provided in the adopted adequate public facilities standards. |
• Project Plan • Level 1 & 2 Site Plans |
The application is supported by adequate existing and programmed public facilities as set forth in [the APF section of the ZOR] and as provided in the adopted Adequate Public Facilities Standards. |
The proposed revision ensures that the APF finding is uniform for all approval types and clearly references both the APFS and the APF requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. |
|
4 |
The application will not overburden existing public services, including but not limited to water, sanitary sewer, public roads, storm drainage, and other public improvements; |
• Preliminary Plan |
|
|
|
5 |
The application will not be unsuitable for the type of development, the use contemplated, and available public utilities and services. |
• Preliminary Plan |
The application conforms to the requirements of this Chapter and other applicable law governing health, safety, natural resources, and the environment of the City. |
The proposed revision is intended to retain the overall intent of the current findings, while making them clear, objective, and accessible. The general thrust of the current findings is covered by federal, State, County, and local regulations. For example, suitability and compatibility is tied to assignment of zones and uses within zone; health and safety are addressed through various portions of city code, including the Zoning Ordinance, Road Code, Building Code, and Fire Code; and natural resources and stormwater are addressed through the Floodplain Management ordinance, Forest and Tree Preservation Ordinance, and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management ordinance. |
|
6 |
The application will not be incompatible with the surrounding uses or properties. |
• Level 1 & 2 Site Plans |
|
|
|
7 |
The application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. |
• Project Plan • Level 1 & 2 Site Plans |
|
|
|
8 |
The application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the subdivision or neighborhood; |
• Preliminary Plan |
|
|
|
9 |
The application will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. |
• Level 1 & 2 Site Plans |
|
|
|
10 |
The application will not adversely affect the natural resources or environment of the City or the surrounding areas. |
• Project Plan • Level 1 & 2 Site Plans |
|
|
|
11 |
The application will not unreasonably disturb existing topography, in order to minimize stormwater runoff and to conserve the vegetation cover and soil. |
• Preliminary Plan |
|
|
|
12 |
The application will not constitute a violation of any provision of this chapter or other applicable law. |
• Project Plan • Level 1 & 2 Site Plans • Preliminary Plan |
|
|
Subdivision and Plats
Along with development regulations, the Zoning Ordinance contains regulations governing subdivision (generally, the division or assemblage of land, whether for sale or development) and the preparation of plats (the maps showing subdivision boundaries and location of lots) for recordation in the Montgomery County land records. These regulations are contained in the Subdivision and Plats article. This article provides the processes for approval of preliminary plans of subdivision, record plats, and ownership plats, as well as requirements that apply at time of subdivision, including standards related to streets and public infrastructure, public utility easements, and public sites and open spaces.
Unlike other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision and Plats article has remained largely unchanged in recent years, and in fact was not significantly revised or updated during the 2009 rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance. The current structure of the article presents meaningful opportunities for reorganization and simplification to assist code users, such as organizing existing subdivision application types into two broad categories (“minor subdivision” and “major subdivision”) to align with the required approval processes, and locating all subdivision standards in one Division, while also updating these standards for accuracy, clarity, and completeness.
The ZOR also proposes more substantive changes to align subdivision standards with city goals and objectives. These include:
• Placing the authority to accept land dedications or reservations at the time of subdivision with the Mayor and Council, as land dedication often has financial and long-term maintenance implications which, are best addressed under the Mayor and Council’s policy and budgetary responsibilities. (Under the current Zoning Ordinance, this authority lies with the Planning Commission.)
• Allow record plats for minor subdivisions to be approved by the Chief of Zoning (currently, this requires Planning Commission approval), streamlining the process for simple, low-impact land divisions, saving time and resources for both applicants and local governments, helping to reserve public hearings for more complex or controversial projects that warrant greater scrutiny. This would include the below types of subdivisions, so long as they meet all applicable code requirement and require no extension of public facilities.
o Dividing land into four or fewer lots fronting an existing road;
o Adjusting or eliminating a common property line between lots;
o Consolidating two or more lots into one lot;
o Correcting information shown on a plat;
o Replating a piece of property to show the dedication of land, or to incorporate land that had previously been dedicated but is now being abandoned; and
o Conversion of a part of a lot into a record lot.
• Eliminating provisions related to “cluster developments,” which are unlikely to be used again.
• Permitting pipestem lots (which have been expressly prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance since 2006) to increase options for single-family homes that make use of underutilized land on existing lots.
Figure 1. Existing Pipestem Lots in Twinbrook
Neighborhood Conservation Plans
The Zoning Ordinance currently contains provisions related to special “neighborhood conservation plans,” through which neighborhood conservation zoning districts can be established. Neighborhood conservation plans can be initiated in one of two ways: 1.) The Mayor and Council identify areas for designation through a master plan process; or 2.) local property owners may petition the Mayor and Council to initiate a neighborhood conservation district study. The “neighborhood conservation plan” concept was introduced into the Zoning Ordinance in 2009. While the city has many master plans, the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Conservation Plan is the only example of a neighborhood conservation plan within the city.
The ZOR recommends that the concept of “neighborhood conservation plans” be eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance. Eliminating neighborhood conservation plans will not impact the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Conservation District Zone, which will continue to exist in its current form unless it is proposed to be amended, in which case it can be amended through a standard zoning text amendment or sectional map amendment. Master plans, including neighborhood or area plans that address specific areas of the city, will still be undertaken through the master planning process, and rezonings or other changes to the zoning map can continue to occur through sectional and comprehensive map amendments; however, these initiatives would be based solely upon the priorities and timing of the Mayor and Council and aligned with the broader priorities for the city as established in the Comprehensive Plan.
Comprehensive Map Amendment
At their May 5, 2025 work session, the Mayor and Council supported the new MXTD-235 zone, one of a ‘family’ of three Mixed-Use Transit District zones being created to implement the recommendations of the 2025 Town Center Master Plan, being applied to the MXTD properties near the Twinbrook and Shady Grove metro stations to ensure that these properties are positioned to be similarly competitive to those in Town Center and transit-oriented properties in Montgomery County. This recommendation implements the Comprehensive Plan’s principle to “Steer the most-dense development to mixed-use, transit-served locations” and the Climate Action Plan’s Action C-16 to “Implement the Comprehensive Plan to steer the densest development/redevelopment to mixed-use, transit-served locations, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and emissions, and conserve/restore environmental areas.”
Following the May 5 work session the owners of 1460 and 1488 Rockville Pike, properties currently zoned MXCD (Mixed-Use Corridor District; maximum height of 75 feet), sent a letter to the Chief of Zoning (see Attachment 1 - 1460 and 1488 Rockville Pike Comment) expressing support for the proposed rezonings described above and “request[ing] the City expand on its initial recommendations for the South Pike area in the CMA to include additional properties to the north and west, which will ensure that market-responsive zoning is in place for the continued revitalization of this important section of Rockville Pike.” Specifically, they request that the City consider rezoning properties within ¾ miles of the Twinbrook Metro Station to the new MXTD-200 (the MXTD zone that corresponds with the Town Center Master Plan’s Core Character Area).
Upon further analysis, staff agrees with the basis for the request, finding that such a rezoning would provide a transition similar to the one planned for Town Center while also supporting Comprehensive Plan goals related to transit-oriented development; however, staff’s recommendation differs slightly from the request of the property owner. Instead of rezoning all properties within ¾ mile of the metro station to the north and west, staff recommends rezoning the properties currently zoned MXCD that are generally within ½ mile of the Twinbrook Metro, shown red in Figure 2 below, which corresponds with the South Pike context and development pattern. Properties shown in blue are currently zoned MXTD and are proposed to be rezoned MXTD-235, as supported by the Mayor and Council at the May 5, 2025, work session. A transition to lower-density properties to the west will be afforded by the MXCT (Mixed Use Corridor Transition) Zone along East Jefferson Street.
Figure 2. Properties Proposed to be Rezoned to MXTD-200 (in red; Previously supported rezoning to MXTD-235 shown in blue)
Historic Preservation
In 2023, the Historic District Commission (HDC) and subsequently the Mayor and Council, endorsed the 2023-2033 Historic Preservation Work Plan (HPWP) as an internal document designed to update and modernize Rockville’s preservation program. This document laid out 40 work items across six different themes. Work Item A within the HPWP called for making updates to the Zoning Ordinance to address the following:
• Streamline and clean up existing code;
• Prepare a zoning text amendment regarding the local designation process and local designation criteria;
• Prepare a zoning text amendment regarding administrative Certificate of Approvals;
• Develop a new section on delisting procedures;
• Prepare a zoning text amendment on parties of interest and required owner consent; and
• Prepare a zoning text amendment regarding demolition by neglect.
Since the HPWP was endorsed two years ago, the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite project has been flagged as the primary vehicle to make these updates.
The following bullet points outline the issues with our current code regarding historic preservation that are flagged in the HPWP, followed by the staff’s proposed revisions to solve these issues.
• Issue: Historic preservation regulations are currently located within several different articles of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25. As a result, there are many cross-references to different articles, and it can be difficult for the user to locate and understand all regulations regarding historic preservation.
o Solution: Create a new article to house all regulations tied to historic preservation. This would make these regulations easy to find in one consolidated location.
• Issue: The Historic District Commission (HDC) utilizes nine criteria when evaluating a property for local historic designation. For a site to be locally designated, the site must display at least one of these criteria, as agreed to by the HDC and the Mayor and Council. These criteria are not codified in our Zoning Ordinance; instead, the code references outside documents where these criteria can be located.
o Solution: Create a new section codifying our nine designation criteria. This will be more user-friendly and provide a stronger legal connection between the criteria and designation. Additionally, staff propose requiring that, in addition to meeting at least one of the designation criteria, the site must also display integrity to be designated. This would prevent a structure that may meet designation criteria but is in a severe state of disrepair from being designated.
• Issue: There is currently a restriction that a Certificate of Approval (COA) application may not be submitted within one year of an identical Certificate of Approval application being submitted and denied by the HDC. The intent behind this is to prevent applicants from consistently submitting the same application repeatedly, hoping that it may eventually get approved. There is no limit, however, on consecutive Evaluations of Significance. This means that if the HDC or Mayor and Council deny an application for historic designation, an applicant may immediately file a new application, starting that process over. Conversely, this also means that every time there is a proposed demolition of a structure, it must undergo a full Evaluation of Significance, even if one was recently completed for the property.
o Solution: Add a regulation that a site or structure does not need to be reviewed for potential historic designation if it was previously evaluated for historic significance in the preceding five years. The one exception to this rule is that the property owner may file one application for an Evaluation of Significance within the five-year period.
• Issue: Nearly any exterior alteration to a designated historic site is required to come before the Historic District Commission for review and approval prior to being implemented. There are very limited exceptions where staff can administratively approve work to historic properties; these exceptions are limited to fences, signs, or diseased/hazardous trees. The requirement for all other alterations, even those that are minor in nature, to come before the HDC takes considerable staff time to review the application and write a staff report, and delays the property owner from making these enhancements to their property.
o Solution: Create a process whereby staff may administratively approve a Certificate of Approval (COA) for certain work deemed to be minor or common. COA applications must still be submitted, but in certain instances, staff could approve the COA without bringing the case to the HDC. Staff propose that the following work may be administratively approved:
• Construction of an accessory structure, such as a shed;
• A minor alteration to plans already approved by the HDC;
• Replacement of an existing driveway with different materials;
• Installation or replacement of minor landscaping features;
• Installation or replacement of exterior light fixtures;
• Minor paving work, such as walkways or sidewalks;
• Installation of storm doors and windows; or
• Installation of utility meters or devices.
• Issue: There is no way to remove a property from the historic district overlay zone. As a result, structures that no longer exist and/or have lost all of their historic integrity will remain as designated historic sites, as there is no process to remove them.
o Solution: Create a process for removal of a property from the historic district overlay zone if a site or structure has lost the physical characteristics that justified its designation, known as “delisting.” Delisting would only be allowed in very specific circumstances, and only the Mayor and Council or the property owner may file an application to remove the historic designation. The process for removing a site or structure from the historic district overlay zone would be similar to the process for designating a site as historic: it would require a review and recommendation by the Historic District Commission, the filing of a sectional map amendment, and Mayor and Council approval.
• Issue: Currently, anyone may file an application to nominate a property for historic designation. The applicant for the designation nomination does not need to be affiliated with the property in any way. In the past, third parties have filed applications for designation for properties they have no affiliation.
o Solution: Revise the code so that only the property owner, Historic District Commission or Mayor and Council may file an application nominating a property for historic designation. If a third party is interested in seeing a site be designated, they should appeal to one of the aforementioned parties and ask one of those groups to file a nomination.
• Issue: Property owners are not required to consent to the designation of their property as historic. As a result, there have been properties that are designated against the wishes of the owner. Furthermore, the lack of a requirement for owner consent has been flagged by the HDC, Planning Commission, and Mayor and Council as problematic during recent nominations.
o Solution: Revise the code to address property owner consent with historic designations. If the property owner consents, in writing, to the nomination, a majority vote of the HDC is required to file a sectional map amendment, and a majority vote of the Mayor and Council is required to rezone the property to the historic district overlay zone. If the property owner does not consent to designation, or is silent on the matter, a unanimous vote of the HDC and Mayor, and Council would be required. This would establish a higher bar for those properties without owner consent, but would still allow designation to happen in a circumstance where a truly exceptional historic site/structure was at risk of being lost forever.
• Issue: The term “demolition by neglect” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, but there are no other references to the term, and it cannot be enforced. Demolition by neglect of historic properties is defined as “failure to maintain property, or any component thereof, located within a designated Historic District Zone so as to jeopardize the historic integrity of the property.”
o Solution: Revise the code to expressly prohibit demolition by neglect and allow a municipal infraction to be issued in cases of demolition by neglect.
The changes outlined above address the six work items in the HPWP tied to the Zoning Ordinance and call for updates to the code to enhance Rockville’s preservation program. While doing this review and drafting a new historic preservation article, staff have made several other recommendations that are not tied to the HPWP, but staff believe should be implemented.
• Issue: All structures, regardless of age or condition, must undergo an evaluation of significance before they can be demolished. The results in extensive staff time spent researching property history and drafting reports to the HDC, chronicling the property’s history. Additionally, requiring all proposed demolitions to come before the HDC for a full Evaluation of Significance adds time and an additional barrier to the redevelopment process. In many cases, it is clear to staff early on that the property does not meet any of the nine designation criteria, yet a full report and vote of the HDC is still required. For context, in Fiscal Year 2025, nearly 40% of the HDC’s cases were Evaluations of Significance for the purpose of demolition. In Fiscal Year 2024, 50% of the HDC’s cases were Evaluations of Significance for the purpose of demolition.
o Solution: Evaluation of Significance applications will still be required to be submitted for all proposed demolitions, but must only come to the HDC if the structure is located within a historic district, is identified in the Historic Building Catalog, or is determined by staff to potentially meet at least one of the designation criteria. In other cases, staff will review the application and property history and have the ability to administratively sign off on the Evaluation of Significance when it is clear that the property does not meet any of our designation criteria or does not display integrity.
• Issue: Certificates of Approval expire one year from the date that they were approved. It is not uncommon for COAs to expire before the applicant has completed the work, requiring them to stop and receive a new COA before continuing.
o Solution: Extend the expiration date for Certificates of Approval from one year to five years. This would allow the applicant more time to make their improvements, especially amidst a changing economic climate, and put COA approval timeframes in line with other approvals issued by CPDS.
• Issue: Rockville is a Certified Local Government (CLG) by the National Park Service. This means that we have committed to upholding certain standards and practices in our preservation program. Our CLG Agreement requires that HDC Commissioners hold certain qualifications to be eligible for their roles, but these qualifications are not listed anywhere in our code.
o Solution: In the section of our code that authorizes and gives powers to Approving Authorities, add the required qualifications for Historic District Commissioners per our CLG Agreement.
• Issue: Our current code provides a list of reference documents that can be consulted for design review during the Certificate of Approval process by the HDC. One of these documents is from 1977, and as such, is outdated and no longer reflects the diversity that exists within Rockville’s historic districts.
o Solution: Remove Adopted Architectural Design Guidelines for the Exterior Rehabilitation of Buildings in Rockville’s Historic Districts (1977) from the list of documents to consider when reviewing designs for Certificates of Approval.
The Historic District Commission reviewed all of these proposed changes and provided feedback to staff at their July 17, 2025, meeting. The Commission was overwhelmingly positive about these changes. A summary of the discussion amongst the HDC during their July meeting is included in this staff report as Attachment 2 - HDC Discussion on Proposed Code Revisions.
Mayor and Council History
The Mayor and Council approved a project charter for the ZOR project in October 2022. Since the project was initiated, staff have provided periodic updates on the project via email. The first Mayor and Council work session for the project, which focused on the Comprehensive Map Amendment, was held on January 27, 2025. A second work session, focusing on process improvements, was held on April 24, 2025. A third work session, focusing on new zones, revisions to existing zones, height transitions, and follow-up from the January 27 work session, was held on May 5, 2025. A fourth work session, focusing on land uses and parking, with an update on recommended process improvements following Planning Commission input, was held on August 4, 2025.
Public Notification and Engagement
Engagement for the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR) and Comprehensive Map Amendment (CMA) has been ongoing since Fall 2024. In the time since the last staff report for the Mayor and Council work session on August 4, 2025, staff have conducted notification and engagement actions, as follows:
• Rockville Reports, City social media channels, email blasts, and newsletters to inform the community about scheduled meetings (both community meetings and Mayor and Council/Planning Commission work sessions) and opportunities to learn more.
• Virtual public meeting on July 31, 2025, on Land Uses and Parking, overviewing information presented to Mayor and Council on August 4. Eight people attended.
• Virtual meetings with neighborhood associations, as follows:
o New Mark Commons Board of Directors and residents, September 4, 2025. Fifty-four people attended.
A public meeting related to the Review of Remaining Topics: Amenity Space, Landscaping, Signs, Nonconformities, Findings, Subdivision and Plats, Neighborhood Conservation Plans, and Recommended Rezoning Near the Twinbrook Metro Station is scheduled for September 25, 2025.
Finally, this project also builds on and furthers the goals and policies established through the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Extensive outreach and engagement were conducted over a period of five years to inform the Rockville 2040 Plan.
Boards and Commissions Review
The ZOR and CMA will be reviewed by city boards and commissions as per the project charter upon release of a draft ordinance and zoning map. To date, the Planning Commission has received regular updates on project progress as well as work sessions with similar content to those of the Mayor and Council, with the most recent update occurring on August 13, 2025. The Environment Commission and the Transportation and Mobility Commission also requested and received briefings on November 7, 2024, and May 27, 2025, respectively.
Additionally, the Historic District Commission was briefed on the project and provided feedback on the proposed changes to historic preservation regulations at their meeting on July 17, 2025.
Next Steps
The adoption process for both ZOR and CMA is planned to begin with the Authorization to File the Zoning Text Amendment and Comprehensive Map Amendment, scheduled for December 1, 2025, with public hearings and work sessions by the Planning Commission and Mayor and Council in early 2026 prior to adoption.