Subject
title
Public Hearing and Work Session on Zoning Text Amendment Application TXT2026-00271, for the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and Map Amendment Application MAP2026-00126, for the Comprehensive Map Amendment; Mayor and Council of Rockville, Applicants
end
Department
CPDS - Zoning Review & Other
Discussion
Background
This is the second in a series of Planning Commission work sessions during the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (ZOR) and Comprehensive Map Amendment (CMA) adoption process. The first work session was conducted on January 14, 2026. Additional project background was provided in the staff report for the January 14 work session.
The following materials can be accessed via the project webpage, engagerockville.com/zoningrewrite <https://engagerockville.com/zoningrewrite>:
• Highlights: Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance
• Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance Table of Contents
• Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance (full text)
• Staff Draft Comprehensive Map Amendment
Ultimately, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council.
Fencing
The topic of fencing to protect yards from deer incursions has arisen from the community. Due to the increasing deer problem for residents, the Mayor and Council have directed staff to develop options for consideration that would reduce the possibility of deer accessing and congregating in individual yards, searching for plants as food sources.
The draft Zoning Ordinance regulates fencing in general by limiting the height of fences located in the front, side and rear yards of residential property. The maximum height of fences in side and rear yards is eight feet, while the maximum height of fences in front yards is four feet. For corner lots, the code specifies that the yards adjacent to both street frontages are front yards, with fence height limited accordingly. Through lots also have two front yards for zoning purposes abutting each street frontage. Neither the current code nor the proposed code describes the type materials that are allowed, so the city allows for maximum flexibility regarding fence types.
Montgomery County adopted regulations specific to deer fencing in 2003. The County’s text amendment defined deer fencing and created a distinct type of fence with associated regulations. While the County’s fencing regulations limited all fences to 6.5 feet in height, the 2003 ZTA allowed deer fences to have a maximum height of eight feet in the side and rear yards but not in the front yard. In Rockville, both the current and proposed Zoning Ordinance permit all fences in the side and rear yard to have a maximum height of eight feet in the side and rear yards and four feet in the front yard, unless the property abuts an arterial roadway and a height of six feet is permitted.
Many city residents have installed deer fences in their rear and side yards and successfully barred deer from entering those areas. However, prohibiting deer in all yard areas, particularly those that are considered front yards by zoning but are practically side or rear yards, has proven to be difficult, given the height limit of four feet in front yards. This has an outsize impact on corner and through lots.
Staff have identified the following options for consideration for where deer fencing may be located on a lot; all options include retaining the current height limits in the side and rear yards for all fences but would allow for deer fencing only, up to eight feet in height, in certain areas:
Option 1: Retain current limitations in the front yards that are between the dwelling and the street but allow for deer fences in the front yard by zoning that is not between the building and the street. In most cases that would be the practical rear yard of the property.
Option 2: Retain current limitations in the front yard between the building and the street but allow for deer fences in the front yard by zoning that is practically a side yard for a corner lot or a rear yard for a through lot.
Option 3: Allow deer fencing in all yards, including front yards on corner and through lots.
Figure 1: Deer fencing options
Other related considerations for the regulation of deer fencing include:
• Clearly defining what type of fencing qualifies as deer fencing;
• Requiring a compliant fence in front yards whenever a deer fence is installed due to the temporary nature of deer fencing and to increase the compatibility of an 8-foot-tall fence in front yards; and
• Requiring a setback from the property line abutting a street when deer fencing is installed. This might be four or five feet to provide for a landscaped area in front of the fence.
Staff recommendation:
Staff recommends that Option 2 be considered for incorporation into the draft Zoning Ordinance for both corner and through lots. This would place those lots on equal footing with interior lots regarding fencing specifically to prohibit deer in what most residents consider to be their usable rear and side yards, while maintaining consistency regarding fence height in front yards. Staff further recommends that a minimum setback or an otherwise compliant fence be installed along with the deer fence to reduce the visual impact of a structure that is eight feet in height adjacent to the public right-of-way.
Use Standards
In the current Zoning Ordinance, uses and use standards are addressed in various locations. As with other topics (including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, discussed during January 14 work session), the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance relocates relevant requirements to one location (draft Article 6, Uses and Use Standards) for ease of use and transparency.
The Mayor and Council along with staff, identified select uses and use standards as an area of interest to be discussed during the adoption process. These include accessory dwelling units, group homes, townhouses, adult-oriented establishments and shoot galleries (specifically, the different location requirements), and electric vehicle charging. Also identified were the restrictions on gross floor area that apply to various uses in certain zones.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were added to the city’s Zoning Ordinance relatively recently, with attached ADUs being added in 2023 and detached ADUs added in 2024. Under the current Zoning Ordinance, attached and detached ADUs are codified in separate sections (Sec. 25.10.15, Regulations for attached accessory dwelling units; and Sec. 25.09.03, Accessory buildings and structures, respectively). Attached ADUs are subject to a wider range of use-specific and operational requirements, including owner-occupancy, entrance location, addressing, and detailed legacy provisions, while detached ADUs are regulated primarily through size limits, development standards, and ownership requirements.
The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance consolidates ADU regulations into one location. It also uses the 2024 detached ADU ordinance as a framework for simplifying regulations, applying a common set of use standards to both attached and detached units and shifting emphasis away from operational controls toward form-based requirements. The Staff Draft removes owner-occupancy and addressing requirements, clarifies and simplifies legacy provisions, maintains size limitations for detached ADUs, and relies on underlying development standards to regulate the scale and compatibility of attached ADUs.
Group Homes
In the current Zoning Ordinance, large group homes (serving nine to 16 residents) are allowed only by Special Exception. As part of a broader effort to convert most Special Exception uses to conditional or permitted uses as recommended by the ongoing FAST 2 initiative, the consultant team recommended allowing large group homes as a conditional use to reduce process and support housing goals, subject to additional use standards designed to retain the intent of the Special Exception approval. Those standards would prohibit placement of large group homes in apartments, cottage courts, multiplexes, and townhouses; and in the single-unit residential zones would require a minimum separation of one-quarter mile from other large group homes, intended to limit concentration of higher-intensity residential uses.
Townhouses
The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance establishes limited standards for front-loaded townhouses (those with garages facing the street instead of an interior alley) that are intended to proactively address site development issues identified by DPW staff. Specifically, front-loaded townhouses typically dedicate significant space for driveways and curb cuts, causing conflicts with required site elements, including utilities, street trees, stormwater management facilities, storm drains, etc. In addition to requiring that front-loaded townhouses must be designed to accommodate these site elements, the Staff Draft requires that garage doors may only take up 50 percent of the ground-floor façade, and that driveways may be no greater than 10 feet wide within the first eight feet of the curb.
Adult-oriented Establishment and Shooting Gallery standards
The Mayor and Council requested information on location requirements for these two uses - specifically, why they differ. Based on research and analysis conducted by the project’s consultant team, As a result, most cities which require additional setbacks for both adult-oriented establishments and shooting galleries do not require the same setback for each.
• Adult-Oriented Establishments. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance prohibits adult-oriented establishments “within a structure that is located within 1,000 feet of the nearest property line of any residence, school, church, library, public facility, or public building.”
Zoning codes often restrict adult-oriented establishments and sexually-oriented establishments from being located near schools, day care, parks, residential uses, and similar adult-oriented or sexually-oriented establishments. While the exact separation varies across jurisdictions, the logic underpinning the regulation is consistent. The separation of such uses is based on a concern about physical and negative externalities. These externalities include documented concerns such as increased crime rates, diminished property values, and the potential exposure of minors to environments deemed harmful to their development.
• Shooting Galleries. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance prohibits shooting galleries “within 200 feet of a residential zone.”
By allowing the firing of firearms, shooting galleries can present a physical safety hazard if established in an inappropriate location. However, the basis for locational restrictions on shooting galleries is the tangible physical risks and environmental impacts rather than any social or moral externalities. The overriding concerns are the noise created by shooting firearms and the need to prevent the accidental discharge of a bullet or projectile beyond the property line.
Table 1 compares the location requirements in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance to similar regulations in other cities.
Table 1. Adult-Oriented Establishment and Shooting Galleries Location Requirements
|
City |
Locational Requirement |
|
|
Adult-Oriented Establishments |
Shooting Galleries |
|
Rockville, MD - Proposed |
Prohibited within 1,000 feet of any residence, school, church, library, public facility, or public building. |
Prohibited within 200 feet of a residential zone. |
|
Carroll County, MD |
Prohibited within 1,000 feet of religious, public, or residential use. Prohibited within 2,500 feet of a similar use. |
N/A |
|
Montgomery County, MD |
Prohibited within 750 of residential zone or school, library, park, playground, recreational facility, religious facility, or similar uses. |
Outdoor shooting galleries are prohibited from predominately abutting developed lots. |
|
Fairfax County, VA |
Prohibited within 1,000 feet of religious facility, school, or similar use. |
N/A |
|
Prince George’s County, MD |
Prohibited within 1,000 feet of an agricultural or residential zone and school, library, recreational facility, day care, church, or similar use. |
N/A |
|
Baltimore County, MD |
Prohibited within 1,000 feet of religious facility, school, recreational facility, library, childcare, or residential zone. Prohibited within 2,500 feet of a similar use, tattoo parlor, or body-piercing establishment. |
Prohibited within 500 feet of any residential use other than a multi-unit dwelling. |
|
Frederick County, MD |
N/A |
Prohibited within 250 feet of property line or public right-of-way. Prohibited within 450 feet of an occupied structure. |
|
Anne Aurndel County, MD |
Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a residential zone or a dwelling, school, library, park, childcare, religious facility, video lottery facility, or similar use. |
Indoor galleries prohibited within 100 feet of residential zone and 50 feet of road intersection. |
Electric Vehicle Charging
The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance adds Electric Vehicle Charging as a new use, defined as “a lot or portion thereof containing one or more electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces and associated electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).” The Staff Draft identifies use permissions to allow EV charging in all zones, while directing sole-purpose EV charging hubs to auto-oriented and industrial areas. The use permissions are as follows:
• Principal use: I-L, I-H, MXCD, MXCT, and MXB zone
• Accessory use: All Residential zones, all MXTD zones, MXNC, MXC, MXT, MXE, and Park zone
Members of the Mayor and Council identified EV charging as one of the uses within their areas of interest. Previously, some members raised questions regarding the proposed use permissions for EV charging, noting that limiting EV charging to an accessory use could constrain the ability of existing gasoline service stations to transition over time to sole-purpose EV charging facilities. In response to these concerns, the Planning Commission could consider an alternate approach of allowing EV charging as a Conditional use in all MXTD zones, MXNC, MXC, and MXE zones, subject to the condition that the use may only be established when converting from a gas station.
Use-based gross floor area restrictions, generally
The current zoning ordinance includes floor area restrictions for certain uses in the lowest-intensity mixed-use zones. Floor area restrictions are intended to serve as a means of controlling a use’s intensity, in addition to any height and setback requirements of the zone. As with other quantitative requirements, the consultant team reviewed all dimensional use standards, including gross floor area restrictions, to recommend updates. As a result, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance retains many of the current ordinance’s floor area restrictions in principal while modernizing and updating the specific limits. See examples in Table 2, below.
Table 2. Example Gross Floor Area Restrictions
|
Use1 |
Current Zoning Ordinance |
Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance |
|
Auctioneer & Commercial Gallery |
Limited to 2,500sf in the MXNC, MXC, and MXT. |
Restriction eliminated |
|
Health and Fitness Establishment |
Limited to 4,000sf in the MXNC, MXC, and MXT |
Limited to 5,000sf in the MXNC, MXC, and MXT |
|
Laboratory, Medical or Dental |
Limited to basements or cellars in the MXNC |
Limited to 10,000sf in the MXNC |
|
Retail Establishment |
Limited to 2,500sf in the MXT, except for grocery stores and pharmacies |
Limited to 5,000sf in the MXT, except for grocery stores and pharmacies |
However, it should be noted that some zoning ordinances do not include any restrictions on a use’s size, and restrictions like these could be viewed as working counter to the city’s economic development goals. For example, nearby Gaithersburg’s zoning ordinance generally does not include similar limitations.
Additional key changes in the Uses and Use Standards Article include:
• Grandfathers uses which were conforming prior to the effective date of the ordinance. This allows the continuation of uses currently in existence and avoids creating nonconformities due to changes in use permissions or standards.
• Ensures use terms and definitions are clear and current.
• Updates the list of uses contained in the Zoning Ordinance. This includes eliminating and consolidating uses. It also includes adding new uses and associated use permissions and, where applicable, use standards.
• Organizes use permissions into one comprehensive use table allowing for comparison across zones. Locates all use definitions and standards within the same division, significantly increasing transparency and reducing the need to search the ordinance. Currently, use permissions are addressed across multiple tables that were developed over time. As a result, use terminology and definitions are not always applied consistently. The Staff Draft consolidates use permissions, definitions, and standards into a single, centralized location.
• For accuracy, redefines what a ‘Permitted’ versus a ‘Conditional’ use is. In the draft, Permitted uses may or may not have use standards, and any use standards associated with Permitted use apply regardless of zone where the use is located. Conditional uses have use standards that differ from one zone to another.
• Comprehensively updates the list of uses, use permissions, and use standards to:
o Accomplish the goals of the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
o Implement best planning practices.
o Make regulations more modern and user-friendly.
o Increase equity.
o Address identified issues.
o Reflect state and federal law.
• Transitions many Special Exception uses to Permitted or Conditional uses. This is based on recommendations of the FAST 2 initiative to make development review and permitting processes Faster, Accountable, Smarter, and Transparent. In certain cases, the Staff Draft introduces new use standards for transitioned uses.
Nonconformities
The Nonconformities article (draft Article 9) addresses uses and structures that were lawful when established but which no longer conform to the requirements of the zone in which they are location. The goal in amending the article was to simplify and clarify the requirements for such uses and structures to continue and to be brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The Nonconformities article in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance loosens restrictions on
Key changes include:
• Allows for nonconforming uses to expand by up to 20%, subject to the Nonconforming Use Expansion approval process. Currently, expansion of nonconforming uses is generally not permitted. This process replaces the nonconforming alterations process, which requires additional findings.
• Renames the ‘Nonconforming Alterations’ approval process to the ‘Nonconforming Use Expansion’ approval process for accuracy and clarity.
• Allows certain site improvements to be approved through the standard process (not the Nonconforming Use Expansion approval process), including:
o Bringing the nonconforming use into greater conformity with the Code;
o Maintenance, safety, and ADA compliance work; or
o Improvements to façades, stormwater management, or pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
o In the existing Zoning Ordinance, these improvements would be subject to the nonconforming alterations process.
• Allows nonconforming uses and structures to be replaced or repaired in kind in the event of a fire, flood, or other natural disaster or emergency. Currently, this would not be permitted.
The October 8, 2025, Planning Commission work session included a discussion of nonconformities. During that work session, staff outlined their intention to create nonconformities in certain zones to allow the existing nonconformities to persist while encouraging their eventual replacement. Specifically, gas stations and drive-through windows were proposed to be Prohibited uses in all MXTD zones. However, based on input from Mayor and Councilmembers, the Staff Draft includes grandfathering language (referenced in the Uses and Use Standards section above) that would treat any existing gas stations or drive-through windows in the MXTD zones as permitted uses, while prohibiting new MXTD gas stations or drive-throughs.
2026 Starter and Silver Homes Act (HB239; SB36)
Background
For situational awareness, staff is bringing two pieces of proposed legislation to the Planning Commission. The first is the Starter and Silver Homes Act of 2026, a bill introduced as part of Governor Moore’s 2026 legislative agenda. A related proposal was introduced but not enacted in 2025. The bill’s underlying goal is to expand affordable homeownership options for first-time homebuyers and seniors statewide, principally by preempting local jurisdictions from enacting or enforcing certain zoning and subdivision regulations. The bill was pre-filed in late October 2025 and formally introduced in January 2026 as cross-filed bills HB239 and SB36. It is currently pending committee hearings.2 Ultimately, the bill may not be enacted, or it may be enacted with or without further revisions. If passed in its current form, the act would have significant implications for the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Rewrite project (outlined below).
City staff are not recommending that the Planning Commission take a position on the bill. Instead, the bill is brought to the Planning Commission’s attention for the body’s awareness and for an opportunity to provide comments to the Mayor and Council for their consideration.
Bill Overview
The full text of the bill is found in Attachment 1 - Starter and Silver Homes Act Below is a brief summary of the bill. Note that the bill’s definition of ‘single-family home’ includes townhouses, and likely cottage court dwellings and detached accessory dwelling units.
As currently drafted, the bill generally would preempt the City from adopting or enforcing:
1. Any rules or regulations that would establish:
• Minimum lot sizes greater than 5,000sf for any lot served by public water and sewer on which a single-family home could be located;
• Minimum square footage or exterior dimension requirements for single-family homes;
• Lot coverage maximums for single-family homes and any accessory structures;
• Setbacks for single-family homes and any accessory structures greater than:
o Front/rear: 10 feet
o Side: 5 feet
• Design, architectural, or aesthetic elements for single-family homes;
2. Any rules or regulations that would prohibit the placement of townhouses in single-unit zones (i.e., this would require that townhouses be allowed in all areas in which detached single-family homes are permitted);
3. Any rules or regulations that would prohibit an improved lot in a single-unit residential zone from being subdivided into three or fewer lots that conform to local law, unless the improved lot was created by subdivision within the preceding three years.
The bill exempts historic districts, agricultural land, and conservation property, and specifically states that the bill does not supersede applicable building or fire codes, or public health and safety regulations necessary to address threats to public safety.
Considerations for the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance
Should the bill pass during the 2026 legislative session, Staff anticipate that the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance would be revised to reflect State law. As such, Staff analyzed the full text of the proposed bill to understand implications for the ongoing development of the city’s new Zoning Ordinance. Staff analysis included a) identification of provisions within the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance that would require revision, should the bill be enacted in its current form, and b) a critical review of identified policies to determine if any may be revised proactively. This staff report addresses both elements of this analysis.
First, should the bill be adopted in its current form, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance would need to be revised as follows:
• Minimum lot size. Update minimum lot size requirements in the R-400, R-200, R-150, R-90, R-75, R-60, and Lincoln Park Neighborhood Conservation District to 5,000sf.
Table 3. Minimum Lot Size Comparison
|
Zone |
Current Zoning Ordinance |
Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance |
Starter and Silver Homes Act |
|
R-400 |
40,000 sf |
5,000 sf |
|
R-200 |
20,000 sf |
|
|
R-150 |
15,000 sf |
|
|
R-90 |
9,000 sf |
|
|
R-75 |
7,500 sf |
|
|
R-60 |
6,000 sf |
|
|
Lincoln Park Neighborhood Conservation District |
6,000 sf |
|
|
R-40 |
4,000 sf |
4,000 sf |
• Single-unit home size minimums. Pending clarification from the State on whether detached ADUs qualify as ‘single-family homes,’ eliminate minimum detached ADU footprint requirement. These are currently set at 400sf in both the existing and Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance.
• Lot coverage maximums. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance includes overall lot coverage maximums, as well as rear yard lot coverage maximums, for all single-unit residential zones. The Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance eliminates the rear yard lot coverage maximums, as they are overly restrictive and inequitable, particularly when considering the development of detached ADUs on smaller lots. Should the bill pass in its current form, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance would need to be revised to remove all lot coverage maximums from the R-400, R-200, R-150, R-90, R-75, R-60, and R-40 zones.
Table 4. Lot Coverage Comparison
|
Zone |
Current Zoning Ordinance |
Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance |
Starter and Silver Homes Act |
|
|
Overall |
Rear Yard |
Front Yard Coverage (Single Frontage & Thru Lot / Corner Lot) |
Overall |
Rear Yard |
Front Yard Coverage (Single Frontage & Thru Lot / Corner Lot) |
|
|
R-400 |
15% |
15% |
10% / 5% |
15% |
Eliminated |
10% / 5% |
Prohibits all lot coverage requirements |
|
R-200 |
25% |
|
20% /10% |
25% |
|
20% /10% |
|
|
R-150 |
|
|
25% / 12.5% |
|
|
25% / 12.5% |
|
|
R-90 |
|
25% |
30% / 15% |
|
|
30% / 15% |
|
|
R-75 |
35% |
|
35% / 17.5% |
35% |
|
35% / 20% |
|
|
R-60 |
|
|
40% / 20% |
|
|
40% / 20% |
|
|
R-40 |
40% |
|
45% / 22.5% |
40% |
|
45% / 22.5% |
|
The current Zoning Ordinance and Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance also include maximums for front yard coverage in all residential zones. This ‘front yard coverage’ differs from ‘lot coverage,’3 and it is not yet clear if the city would be prohibited from regulating front yard coverage under the proposed State bill; however, upon further consideration, staff recommend removing this requirement from the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance. (See additional information in the Front Yard Coverage and Established Setbacks section below.)
• Setbacks. Update setbacks for the R-400, R-200, R-150, R-90, R-75, R-60, R-40, and RMD-Infill zones. Separately, establish specific townhouse setbacks for the RMD-10, RMD-15, and RMD-25 zones (currently, townhouse and apartment setbacks in these zones are the same). Update all accessory structure setbacks.
Table 5. Setback Comparison
|
Zone |
Current Zoning Ordinance |
Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance |
Starter and Silver Homes Act |
|
|
Front4 |
Rear |
Side (Abutting street / Abutting land) |
Front |
Rear |
Side (Abutting street / Abutting land) |
Front |
Rear |
Side |
|
R-400 |
50’ |
50’ |
30’ / 20’ |
50’ |
50’ |
30’ / 20’ |
10’ |
10’ |
5’ |
|
R-200 |
35’ |
35’ |
25’ /13’ |
35’ |
35’ |
25’ /13’ |
|
|
|
|
R-150 |
|
30’ |
30’ / 13’ |
|
30’ |
30’ / 13’ |
|
|
|
|
R-90 |
30’ |
25’ |
20’ / 11’ |
30’ |
25’ |
20’ / 11’ |
|
|
|
|
R-75 |
25’ |
20’ |
20’ / 9’ |
25’ |
20’ |
20’ / 9’ |
|
|
|
|
R-60 |
|
|
20’ / 8’ |
|
|
20’ / 8’ |
|
|
|
|
R-40 |
|
|
25’ / 10’ |
|
|
25’ / 10’ |
|
|
|
|
RMD-Infill |
20’ |
|
15’ / 5’ |
20’ |
15’ |
15’ / 5’ |
|
|
|
|
RMD-10 |
|
|
8’ |
|
20’ |
8’ |
|
|
|
|
RMD-15 |
15’ |
15’ |
|
15’ |
15’ |
|
|
|
|
|
RMD-25 |
25’ |
|
10’ |
25’ |
|
10’ |
|
|
|
Requirements for ‘established setbacks’ would need to be eliminated. Upon further consideration, and in advance of final action on the bill, staff recommends removing established setbacks from the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance. (See additional information in the Front Yard Coverage and Established Setbacks section below.)
• Design standards and guidelines. Remove single-unit and townhouse design standards and guidelines from the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance. This would include decommissioning the East Rockville Design Guidelines, and eliminating the proposed townhouse design standards and likely the cottage court design standards (both of which are contained in draft Article 6, Uses & Use Standards).
• Townhouse use permissions. Update the use table to permit townhouses in the R-400, R-200, R-150, R-90, R-75, R-60, R-40, MXC, MXT, and possibly the MXE zones.
• Subdivision. Update draft Sec. 25.7.5.3(a), Lincoln Park Neighborhood Conservation District overlay zone subdivision standards, to allow resubdivision of improved lots in the same manner as would be allowed in standard base zones.
Front Yard Coverage and Established Setbacks
As noted, upon further consideration, staff recommends the removal of the front yard coverage and established setback requirements from the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are contained within the existing Zoning Ordinance and carried forward in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance.
• Front yard coverage. Front yard coverage was introduced with the 2009 update to the Zoning Ordinance. While lot coverage requirements limit the portion of a lot that can be covered by buildings, the front yard coverage limits the portion of a front yard that can be covered by driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks. It was intended to guard against front yards being turned into parking lots; however, this concern has never turned into a prominent issue. Additionally, this regulation can be difficult to enforce, as this at-grade work in itself is not subject to any specific permit and so compliance has typically been gained through after-the-fact enforcement actions.
• Established setbacks. Established setbacks are applied to the front yard setbacks of the R-400, R-200, R-150, R-90, R-75, R-60, R-40, and RMD-Infill zones. Established setback is defined in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance as “the average distance from the front lot line of all buildings on a block face (one side of a street between two intersecting streets)” (draft Sec. 25.2.3.3(b)(1)). The Draft further states, “When the majority of existing buildings located on the block face exceed the required front yard setback, the established setback applies as the front yard setback from new development. Where the established setback would be less than that required in the zone, the front setback of the zone applies” (draft Sec. 25.2.3.3(b)(1)A). Figure 1 (draft Figure 2.3.3-1 in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance) illustrates the established setback.
Figure 2. Established Setbacks
Historically, established setbacks were used to preserve and continue existing development patterns; however, viewed from another angle, established setbacks can entrench low-density development patterns, perpetuate historic choices and inequities from earlier eras, and conflict with modern goals related to walkability, efficient land use, and street interaction. These setbacks can also reduce predictability and understanding for homeowners and builders, as an ‘established’ setback is more difficult to calculate than a numerical standard. For these reasons, staff recommend removing established setbacks.
Table 6. Established Setbacks
|
Zone |
Current Zoning Ordinance |
Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance |
|
R-400 |
50 ft. or the established setback, whichever is greater (up to 100 ft. max.) |
|
R-200 |
35 ft. or the established setback, whichever is greater (up to 100 ft. max.) |
|
R-150 |
35 ft. or the established setback, whichever is greater (up to 60 ft. max.) |
|
R-90 |
30 ft. or the established setback, whichever is greater (up to 60ft. max.) |
|
R-75 |
25 ft. or the established setback, whichever is greater (up to 50 ft. max.) |
|
R-60 |
25 ft. or the established setback, whichever is greater (up to 50 ft. max.) |
|
R-40 |
25 ft. or the established setback, whichever is greater (up to 50 ft. max.) |
|
RMD-Infill |
20 ft. or the established setback, whichever is less |
|
RMD-10 |
20 ft. or the established setback, whichever is less |
|
RMD-15 |
15 ft. or the established setback, whichever is less |
Maryland Housing Certainty Act
The Moore administration is also proposing the Maryland Housing Certainty Act. This Act would, among other things, require local governments to approve housing development project applications using the laws and regulations in effect at the time of submission of a substantially complete application, rather than the laws and regulations in effect when the application comes before an approving authority like the Planning Commission. The Act also provides that after a housing development project has received all necessary approvals, the developer would have a “vested right” to build the project as approved for at least five years. Under current State law, a developer must make substantial, visible efforts to begin construction for building rights to vest. These changes would insulate housing development project applications from revisions to local land use and development laws and would provide developers with greater regulatory certainty. Staff is in the process of analyzing the Act to identify impacts on the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. The full text of the bill is found in Attachment 2 - Maryland Housing Certainty Act.
Next Steps
The Planning Commission will hold work sessions on Wednesday, February 4 and February 11. Follow-up to prior work sessions will be included in these sessions as needed.