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 third 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. The second was conducted on January 28, 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 on both documents.
DISCUSSION:
Language
One of the goals of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite is to ensure that the ordinance is clearly written, well-organized, accessible, and easy to use. During the project’s drafting phase, staff drafted new provisions and revised many old provisions with this goal in mind. During the Planning Commission review, two Commissioners have provided comments related to the language used in the ordinance. These comments can be summarized as follows:
• Plain language. One Commissioner expressed a desire to see greater use of plain language in the draft. Plain language drafting emphasizes the use of familiar, straightforward wording that can be readily understood by a general audience.
• Subjectivity. Two Commissioners have expressed concerns regarding the use of subjective language in the Staff Draft, including terms such as “high-quality” and “happiness.”
In response to these comments, staff is conducting an additional, comprehensive review of the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance’s language. The main objectives of this review are to improve clarity specificity, and accuracy. To respond to plain language concerns, Staff is applying a critical lens to ensure that provisions are both understandable and precise. To address concerns about subjectivity, staff is working to replace subjective language that may result in ambiguity, particularly where such terms appear in regulations or standards. This ongoing language review is intended to result in improved understanding of the provisions in the Staff Draft, without altering the policies it establishes.
Purpose Statements
General Purpose Statement
Both the current Zoning Ordinance and the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance contain a general purpose statement Article 1 (specifically, draft Sec. 25.1.1.2). The purpose statement connects the zoning regulations to legitimate public interests while clarifying the broad policy goals of the ordinance. During the ZOR project’s drafting phase, the purpose statement was reviewed and updated by the Comprehensive Planning team to reflect the city’s current policy objectives.
Throughout the ZOR project, staff prioritized clarity and objectivity in the drafting of regulatory standards and is further addressing this priority through additional review as outlined in the Language section of this staff report (above). In contrast to the clear and objective regulatory requirements, the Zoning Ordinance’s purpose statement is intended to articulate overarching values and policy direction. It therefore includes broader, aspirational language, such as references to aesthetics, high-quality development, and residents’ happiness. This approach is typical of purpose statements and is intended to guide understanding and interpretation of the regulations rather than establish measurable standards.
In response to Planning Commissioner questions, CPDS staff reviewed the draft purpose statement with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure it passes legal scrutiny. Staff recommend retaining the draft general purpose statement as written.
Article 8 Purpose Statements
Four Divisions within Article 8 also contain purpose statements, as follows:
• Parking and Loading (Division 8.2)
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Division 8.3)
• Amenity Space (Division 8.4)
• Landscaping and Screening (Division 8.7)
The aspirational framework for these divisions is established by the Article 1 general purpose statement. Separate purpose statements are not necessary unless they serve a specific regulatory function. In Divisions 8.4 (Amenity Space) and 8.7 (Landscaping and Screening), the Division purpose is referenced in connection with waiver provisions and provides meaningful guidance for decision-making. In Divisions 8.2 (Parking and Loading) and 8.3 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities), the purpose statements do not perform a comparable function and are not referenced elsewhere in the regulations.
Accordingly, staff recommends removing the purpose statements from Divisions 8.2 and 8.3, while retaining them in Divisions 8.4 and 8.7.
Development Review Processes
Notice Requirements
The ZOR contains the following requirements for notification.
• General notification requirements for Project Plans, Level 1 and 2 Site Plans, plats, Special Exceptions, variances, and others.
o Written (mail) notice is required for area meetings and Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings, and public hearings before approving authorities such as Planning Commission and Mayor and Council. These must be sent to owners, residents, and civic/homeowners’ associations within a certain distance of the project.
o
Table 1. Notification distances by application type
|
Application |
Notification Distance |
|
Project Plan |
1,500 feet |
|
Level 2 Site Plan |
1,250 feet |
|
Level 1 Site Plan |
750 feet |
|
Minor or major subdivision |
750 feet |
|
Special Exceptions |
|
|
0-6 points |
750 feet |
|
7-15 points |
1,250 feet |
|
16+ points |
1,500 feet |
|
Administrative adjustments |
Adjoining and confronting |
|
All other applications |
500 feet |
All mailings must include the name of the applicant and application number, a description of the property and project, how to submit comments, and dates and times of upcoming meetings. The Development Review Manual specifies additional information that must be included in the initial notice, including the “Citizen’s Guide to Development Review in Rockville,” project timeline, location map, and site plan.
o Application signs are prepared by the city and include must be posted on subject property and remain until final action by the approving authority. These contain similar information as the mailed notice.
o Notice of decision - notice of an approving authority’s decision must be sent to the applicant as well as parties of record, which is any person who registers an appearance at a public hearing or proceeding, either through direct testimony or written submission, or who provides written notice of intent to participate in a public hearing or proceeding.
• Project Plans and Site Plans only
o Electronic notice (email) must be sent to all homeowners’ associations and civic associations within the city, the Planning Commission, and the Mayor and Council.
In addition to these required items, staff performs the following additional items to ensure public notification.
• Development Watch webpage and map - site plans and project plans are listed with information such as a project description, case number, and links to plans and documents. The project page also includes information on area meetings and hearings of approving authorities such as Planning Commission and Mayor and Council.
• The Development Watch newsletter is emailed monthly, listing new applications as well as area meetings and hearings scheduled for the upcoming month.
• City website - meeting agendas for approving authorities such as Planning Commission and Mayor and Council are posted, and area meetings are included on the city calendar. As part of the FAST 2 project, staff is developing a centralized location on the city website for all upcoming development meetings. Work on this began shortly after the launch of the new city website and will be concluded this spring.
• Rockville Reports - twice a year, major projects such as Project Plans and Site Plans are included in the print and digital versions of Rockville Reports. This edition includes a map of all projects and a brief overview of each.
• Social media - the city posts information about area meetings on Nextdoor for nearby neighborhoods.
• Posting of decisions of Level 1 Site Plans (proposed). In addition to all of the above notice, staff proposes to begin posting decisions on Level 1 Site Plans (administrative) on the city website to ensure transparency in these decisions.
Approval Findings
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. As discussed during the October 6, 2025, Mayor and Council work session and the October 8, 2025, Planning Commission work session, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance reworks and simplifies 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 ensures 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 Staff Draft ordinance, 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 2. 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 be in 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. |
|
12 |
The application will not be incompatible with the surrounding uses or properties. |
• Level 1 & 2 Site Plans |
|
|
|
6 |
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 |
|
|
|
7 |
The application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the subdivision or neighborhood; |
• Preliminary Plan |
|
|
|
8 |
The application will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. |
• Level 1 & 2 Site Plans |
|
|
|
9 |
The application will not adversely affect the natural resources or environment of the City or surrounding areas. |
• Project Plan • Level 1 & 2 Site Plans |
|
|
|
10 |
The application will not unreasonably disturb existing topography, in order to minimize stormwater runoff and to conserve the vegetation cover and soil. |
• Preliminary Plan |
|
|
|
11 |
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 |
|
|
Appeals Timelines
Where the Chief of Zoning is empowered to make an administrative decision, such as the approval of a level one site plan or a record plat, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance includes a requirement that individuals wishing for a public hearing on the decision request the hearing within 15 days of the decision. Such a request would void the Chief of Zoning’s decision and elevate the matter to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and a new decision. This process, which was inserted early in the drafting of the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance, conflicted with the general 30-day appeal period for Chief of Zoning decisions reflected in Section 25.3.4.1(b) of the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends deleting all references to a 15-day period for requesting a public hearing on Chief of Zoning decisions and replacing them with reference to the 30-day appeal period established in Section 25.3.4.1(b).
Development Review Manual
The Development Review Manual provides guidance for the submission and review of development applications under the Zoning Ordinance, giving residents, developers, staff, and other stakeholders a clear overview of application requirements and development review processes and supporting accurate, complete, and timely review. Examples of items addressed in the Manual include required application contents, logistical information on preparing notices and conducting area meetings, additional guidance and clarification on regulatory requirements, and the city’s Development Review Committee procedures.
City staff maintain and update the Manual. Currently, as part of the ongoing FAST 2 project, staff is updating the Manual in two phases. The first phase, which is nearly complete, includes new city branding, updates to reflect the new online application process launched last year, updates to staff titles and other minor editorial edits, and updates to notice procedures to specify that initial notices must contain a packet of information while subsequent notices may be limited to basic project and upcoming meeting information.
The second phase of the Development Review Manual update is timed to coincide with the update to the city’s Zoning Ordinance and will incorporate any changes necessary due to changes in the Zoning Ordinance. For example, while most submittal requirements are currently located in the Development Review Manual, the submittal requirements for nonconforming alterations and landscape plans are currently contained in the Zoning Ordinance and Landscaping, Screening, and Lighting Manual, respectively. As proposed, these requirements, which address items such as submitting plans to scale, will be in Development Review Manual, and the Zoning Ordinance will reference the Manual requirements. The current Zoning Ordinance also requires submittal of record plats on “electronic media, such as high-density 3.5-inch diskettes, CD-ROM disks, or such other electronic media as may be developed, from time to time, and commonly used” (Sec. 25.21.10.e). For ease of updating with advancements in technology, equivalent information is not contained in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance but instead it is proposed to be moved to the Development Review Manual.
One item that staff is recommending, but which is not included in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance, as it was identified following its publication, relates to the process for formalizing updates to the Development Review Manual. As noted above in this staff report, the Manual is maintained and updated administratively; however, the existing Zoning Ordinance is silent on how those updates are authorized and published. For increased transparency and clarity for applicants, staff, and decision-makers, Staff recommend adding a provision to the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance specifying that the Development Review Manual is published by the City Manager. This provision would formalize the City’s existing practice.
Follow-up: January 14 Planning Commission Work Session
During the January 14 Planning Commission work session, Planning Commission requested additional information on four topics. These topics are addressed below.
Planning Area 10 (Montrose & North Farm) Rezoning
As part of the Staff Draft Comprehensive Map Amendment, staff proposes rezoning a portion of Planning Area 10 (Montrose and North Farm), including the Rollins Park Apartments and Congressional Towers, consistent with the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan. At the January 14 work session, staff presented both the original recommendation and an alternative proposal for zoning in this area. The alternative proposal was developed in response to testimony from the property owners expressing concerns that the originally recommended RHD (Residential High Density) zone would not support redevelopment consistent with the Plan’s objectives and reflects subsequent coordination with the property owner and consideration of community input.
At the January 14 work session, the Planning Commission received testimony from a representative of the Montrose Civic Association and the property owners expressing support for staff’s alternative proposal. The property owner requested a modification to the alternative proposal that would shift the southern boundary of the RHD Zone from 400 feet north of Rollins Avenue to 200 feet, with an additional height limitation of 75 feet for development located between 200 and 400 feet north of Rollins Avenue. This request would provide additional development flexibility and modestly increase overall residential capacity on the overall site. Staff’s original recommendation, the staff alternative (recommended) proposal, and the property owner’s requested modification are detailed in Attachment 1 - Planning Area 10 Rezoning. Written testimony submitted on behalf of the applicant is included in Attachment 2 - Rollins Park Testimony from Pat Harris.
Staff and the property owners have not come to agreement on the owners’ requested additional modification, and staff intends to gain additional input from community members prior to the February 4 meeting. While the modification could be accommodated through zoning provisions, it would result in a zone with less transparent development standards and introduce a transition approach that is inconsistent with the framework established in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance. The Staff Draft applies transitions consistently and only between zones that are considered incompatible; under the proposed framework, the RMD-25 and RHD zones are considered compatible. Staff’s alternative proposal represents a substantial increase in development capacity compared to the original recommendation and balances Comprehensive Plan goals, community context, and redevelopment feasibility.
Planning Area 12 (Tower Oaks) Rezoning
The Rockville 2040 Plan recommended rezoning of the 9.75-acre parcel adjacent to Don Mills Court from R-90 (Single Unit Detached Restricted Residential) to RMD-25 (Residential Medium Density), which allows for a variety of dwelling types at a density up to 25 units per acre and 75 feet in height. Testimony from a large portion of the adjacent New Mark Commons and Markwood communities have identified a number of concerns, including height, density and traffic that would have negative impacts on the community, with many recommending that the rezoning not occur.
At the January 14 work session, the Commission discussed the proposed rezoning and generally supported the concept of retaining the RMD-25 recommendation for rezoning but also adding a limitation to address some of the neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Zyontz suggested that RMD-25 be implemented but that density be limited to ten dwelling units per acre if access to a proposed development is proposed from an existing residential street. If a property is not accessed via an existing residential street, residential density of up to 25 dwellings per acre would be permitted in a proposed development. The Commission agreed that this approach had merit, and asked staff to bring back proposed text for consideration.
Staff offers the following as a potential insertion into the Draft Zoning Ordinance as a footnote to the RMD-25 Zone:
If the sole vehicular access to a property is provided from a secondary residential street that only abuts single-unit detached dwellings existing on [effective date], then the maximum development density is limited to ten (10) units per acre.
Staff reviewed existing properties already zoned RMD-25 to see if there might be unintended consequences to implementing the suggested text and finds that there should not be a negative impact on other RMD-25 properties such that those properties would become nonconforming.
Amenity Space: Affordable Housing Exception
As discussed during the January 14 Planning Commission work session, the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance does not require on-site amenity space for residential developments consisting of 100 percent affordable units when they are located within ¼ mile of a public park or publicly accessible amenity space. Staff tailored this exemption to balance the city’s ambitious housing goals with its commitment to ensuring access to recreational opportunities. The policy also addresses equity concerns associated with the equivalent policy in the current Zoning Ordinance, which exempts all affordable housing projects from public use space requirements regardless of location.
The proposed policy recognizes and responds to the financial realities of delivering projects with high levels of affordability. As noted during the January 14 work session, these developments face significant feasibility challenges, and on-site amenity requirements add cost and reduce developable area. Limiting the exemption to projects within an easy walking distance of existing public parks or amenity spaces helps direct limited resources toward housing units themselves, improving feasibility without materially reducing resident access to amenities. The policy also encourages the placement of affordable housing in walkable, amenity-rich locations, aligning housing policy with broader goals related to walkability and public health.
Historic Preservation Draft Language
The Planning Commission discussed the staff draft of Article 11, Historic Preservation, during their meeting on January 14, 2026. The paragraphs below summarize the discussion and direction provided by the Planning Commission during their meeting.
The Planning Commission had no comments on the draft language proposing changes to the Certificate of Approval process or changes to the Evaluation of Significance process. There was some discussion by the Commission about the language in the demolition by neglect section of the article, primarily that there may be some misalignment between staff’s draft and a clause in the Maryland Land Use Article regarding financial inability of the owner to address neglect of an historic structure. Per the guidance of the city’s legal counsel, minor modifications will be made to this section in the next draft of the Zoning Ordinance to address this and bring the staff draft better into alignment with the language used in Land Use Article.
There was some discussion about the provision in the staff draft regarding owner consent during the historic designation process. In the staff draft authorized by the Mayor and Council on December 1, the threshold required of Historic District Commissioners and Mayor and Council to recommend designation of a structure differed depending on owner consent. In the staff draft, if the owner consents or is silent on the matter, a simple majority of the body voting in the affirmative would be required. In cases where the owner opposed designation, a unanimous vote would be required. The Planning Commission was split on this proposal. Half of the commission liked the language as drafted; the other half proposed that if an owner was silent on the designation of their property, a unanimous vote should be required.
Most of the Planning Commission’s discussion was focused on the proposed addition of a delisting protocol for designated historic properties that have lost the physical characteristics that justified their designation. All commissioners agreed that a delisting protocol of some sort should exist within the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission did, however, ask for continued discussion on two components of the draft language: better defined language for the term “other good cause” and additional language about properties that have been through self-inflicted harm from being able to be delisted.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance allows a property to be removed from the Historic District Overlay Zone for the following reasons: (1) the site or structure on the site has lost the physical characteristics that justified placement of the site in the Historic District Overlay Zone; or (2) other good cause. Staff included “other good cause” as grounds for delisting a property to ensure that the Mayor and Council would have flexibility to remove a property from the zone for reasons that may be currently unanticipated.
After evaluating the Planning Commission’s concerns about the clause “other good cause” being too vague, as well as suggestions by some Commissioners that delisting a property should require a unanimous vote of the Mayor and Council, staff offers the following proposal to revise Sec. 25.11.1.3(a):
The Mayor and Council may remove a property from the Historic District Overlay Zone if a majority finds that the site or structure has lost the characteristics for which it was originally placed in the zone, but only by unanimous vote for “other good cause.” This retains the flexibility of the body to remove a property from the zone for unanticipated reasons but raises the bar for such a removal.
The other discussion on the topic of delisting questioned what happens if a property owner does harm to their own building in order to make a case for delisting. After looking into this further, staff believe that the existing language within the staff draft Zoning Ordinance, as well as other provisions of the City Code, are sufficient to penalize and discourage intentional harm done to a building in order to evade historic preservation regulations. If a structure has been demolished, even by the owner itself, but site still has historic value, staff would not recommend delisting. As a result, staff recommend retaining the language in Section 25.11.2.2 as currently drafted.
During the February 4 meeting, staff will be seeking concurrence from the Planning Commission on these two delisting related items.
Tax Credits for Conversion of Historic Homes into Multifamily Housing
In addition to the discussion on the staff draft of Article 11, one Commissioner expressed their desire to incentivize historic property owners to convert their structures into small multifamily housing projects. One example of this could be the conversion of a large, single-family home into a duplex or triplex. The Commissioner expressed the desire to see a tax credit or other incentive provided to historic property owners for making these alterations to provide additional housing units in Rockville. This would be above and beyond the existing tax credit for maintenance expenses available to all historic property owners in Montgomery County.
Before an incentive could be developed, the broader policy decision on if the city would like to see the adaptive reuse of historic structures turned into multifamily housing would need to be addressed. Since this recommendation does not exist within the Rockville 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the most appropriate avenue to explore this potential would be through the next update of the Comprehensive Plan and/or relevant neighborhood master plan(s).
Tax credits and other incentives are not codified in the Zoning Ordinance, and as such, staff do not recommend the inclusion of any language around this proposed program in the Staff Draft Zoning Ordinance. The creation of any tax credit or other incentive program would be handled through the development of the city’s annual operating budget.