Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, Rockville. Today is Wednesday, 04/22/2026. This is meeting number seven Dash26 of the City of Rockville Planning Commission. I am Meng Sun, Chair of the Planning Commission, and I'm joined in chamber by Commissioners Jeff Zines, Cheyenne Swahadin, Soodan Pittman, Eric Futon and Commissioner Jamie Espinosa. Tonight's meeting is being conducted in person and virtually by Webex. Tonight's agenda includes one review and action item and followed by our regular scheduled commission items. Before we proceed, any commissioners have any comments or thoughts? Hearing none. Okay. Let's proceed with our first agenda.

Second agenda, review and action mandatory referral application twenty twenty six dash two sixty three dash STP to establish a new bus trend bus rapid transit service along segments of Rockville Pike and Vierce Mill Road within Rockville city limits. Montgomery County, Maryland is applicant. So mister Wasleck, is there a a presentation from staff?

Yes, madam chair. There is. Before I turn it over to mister Ortiz, I just wanted to remind the commission that this is an application kind of colloquially known as a mandatory referral, but it is what how the state requires that public projects be reviewed by the local governments. And, I know you've seen some of these before. This is probably the largest one, that you've seen, in terms of the scope of the project.

But just a reminder that, your role here tonight is to, review it based on the comprehensive plan. And there's the elements of the plan, the location of the project, the character of the project, the extent of the project. That's what state code provides for, in this review. It's a little bit, I won't say lesser, but it's it's not as detailed as a review, as a typical site plan that you might see. So I just wanted to make that clear, upfront. And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Ortiz.

Thank you.

Good evening, madam chair, members of the commission. Nelson Ortiz with Community Planning and Development Services. This is the Veres Mill Road BRT mandatory referral. Application twenty twenty six two sixty three, STP. The applicant, Montgomery County Department of Transportation, proposes a new 7.6 mile high frequency flash BRT service that will operate in a combination of mixed traffic and dedicated lanes.

The service will run from Montgomery College Rockville campus to the Wheaton Metro Station. There are a total of 12 BRT stations proposed. Five of those are located within the city of Rockville limits. Those five are the ones that are subject to this mandatory referral application. The five stations are located on the right of the screen.

The first one, Montgomery College BRT station, that one is proposed off of will operate from an existing ride on bus stop. The ride on bus stop is located along South Campus Drive. The Rockville Metro Station is proposed along the pike. There are BRT stations proposed northbound and southbound. And then there are three There are three stations proposed along Veres Mill Road.

The first one, Edmundston Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, and Twinbrook Parkway. All of those three stations propose platforms eastbound and westbound. I do want to mention that the westbound platform for Twinbrook Parkway is located within city limits. The eastbound platform is located in Montgomery County. In addition to the BRT stations, there are also queue jump lanes, transit signal priority, and upgraded pedestrian and bicycle improvements proposed as part of the project.

So the renderings that you see there are typical BRT stations. Each station is customized based on its unique location. Generally, the platforms will measure 56 feet in length by 12 approximately 12 feet wide. The platforms access will be either from the side and or the rear of the platform. Some of the station elements include markers, custom canopies, and windscreens, benches, media displays, and ticket kiosks.

Surrounding the platforms are bike racks, sidewalk extensions, ADA ramps that lead up to the platforms, and landscaping are all proposed as well. The source image was provided by the applicant. This is an existing BRT station that's part of The US 29 flash BRT service. So that's an example of what these BRT stations will look like. The project also includes queue jump lanes and transit signal priorities.

There are two queue jump lanes proposed on this for this mandatory referral application. The first one is the eastbound Edmundston BRT, and the second one is the westbound Twinbrook Parkway BRT Station. Cue jump lanes are essentially lanes for BRT buses to bypass traffic queues at specified intersection approaches. There are also 10 intersections with transit signal priority. Those are modified traffic signal timing, so transit vehicles encounter a green light or reduced wait times at intersections with traffic lights and signals.

Those two queue jump lanes and transit signal priority are often paired together. As part of the project, the applicant intends to acquire both permanent and temporary construction easements. The permanent easements will allow BRT facilities such as sidewalks, in certain instances, queue jump lanes, utility facilities, and private property. And the temporary construction easements will allow the county to use the property during construction. There should be a clause in in the documents stating that the construction easements would terminate automatically after the construction concludes.

The easement acquisition has started and is expected to run through 2026. Utility construction and relocation has also started, and the BRT service is expected to open towards the end of twenty twenty eight. So as Mr. Waselek mentioned at the top of the the meeting, this application was submitted as a mandatory referral application. Mandatory referrals are state law governing the construction of public projects.

Again, the planning commission's review is to determine whether the location, character, and extent of the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The planning commission must act within sixty days of the application being filed. Otherwise, the application is deemed approved. And Montgomery County Council may overrule the Planning Commission's decision by a twothree vote. In reviewing the project, staff find that the project's location, character, and extent are consistent with the plan as the plan envisions implementation of BRT along the Veres Mill Road corridor.

The plan supports the selected BRT stations. The plan also encourages pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure throughout the city and especially along this corridor. Both the project and the plan promotes access and safety of all transit users, and the plan recommends land use policy that creates community nodes along the corridor with transit stations as key components to encourage walking and biking. So with that, staff does recommend approval with conditions of the mandatory referral application as the project is consistent with the plan in terms of its location, character, and extent. BRT service will allow high frequency transit, support more mixed use, higher density land uses, and bring pedestrian and bike improvements to the corridor.

And that concludes my presentation, myself. There's also staff available online. And of course, the applicant is here to answer any questions the commission might have.

Thank you, Mr. For the presentation. Commissioners, at this point, does anyone have any questions to staff? Not yet? Okay. And then do we have presentation here?

The applicant does not have a presentation, but they're here to answer questions if you have any for them.

Okay. And so, mister Weslak, do we have anyone that register to speak?

No one has madam chair, no one has signed up in advance to speak or signed up in the back of the room.

So okay. Someone is register. Okay.

Can I ask a question to the applicant?

Yes, please.

Please, do you have any objection to any of the conditions proposed by staff?

Thank you for your question. My name is Jamie Hinson. I am the county's BRT implementation manager, so I'm in charge of implementing our program of BRT projects. After working with the city going over the conditions, we have no concerns with addressing their, their comments.

So you were okay with everything that they're recommending even though it might go beyond the character of the project?

I don't I don't recall anything going beyond the character of the project, but, they seem to be consistent. The vast majority were dealing with, excuse me, relatively minor adjustments to the design. There was a crosswalk that was requested with it. We feel like we're able to accommodate.

About three crosswalks at least that are in the comments from that they sent you. And you were okay with those?

I recall one. I'll refer to mister Roberts.

Good evening. Dave Roberts with the design team for the project. So we did receive the comments that you're referring to. I think there were three crosswalk requests locations in there. So we are gonna be coordinating with the city staff on those locations to determine which of those are feasible. The one that was its own condition was the one at Atlantic Avenue. That one will be added to the project. The other three, we're gonna be coordinating with the city staff to determine which is feasible.

And and from a transportation standpoint, you are okay with stations both out of Atlantic Avenue and Twinbrook? Pretty close.

Yes. I I think going back to the history of the project, the the original layout had one at Twinbrook and then the planning process, specifically with the city, there was a desire to have one at Atlantic. So I think as the project transitioned from planning into final design, that station was added at Atlantic Avenue, to serve the shopping center there. So, yes, we are comfortable with that.

Thank you. Thank

you. So, mister Wessex, now we can proceed to the public testimony.

Yes. Madam chair, we do have a speaker that signed up, which is Richard Gottfried.

Sir, please come forward. And so before we start, I'd like to remind folks the time limits. So each individual will be allowed three minutes to provide comments on the application. However, one presentation of an organization such as HOA or community group will be allowed up to five minutes for a presentation. There is a clock in front of you, and mister Domains will start the timer when you begin. And any time clarification questions may be asked by the commissioner. And please adhere thank you. Please adhere to the time limits. They will be informed enforced by me. And, sir, please state your name and address for the record. Thank you.

Oops. Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Richard Godfried, and I live at 309 Twinburg Parkway. And, additionally, I own the property located at 201 Twinburg Parkway, which is subject to a potential change of zoning. My property located at 201 Twinbrook Parkway Parkway is subject to the proposed zoning change from r 60 to single family residential.

That makes sense. I'm here to testify tonight and have five comments regarding the city's proposed zoning orange change from r 60 at Alex NC. Number one, and I gave you guys copies of these pages of the zoning ordinance. So page 82 of the City Of Rockville zoning ordinance table 6.2 two-one, the use table, section twenty five point six point two point two under the section MXNC for residential use dwelling single unit detached. It's coded as a conditional use.

We request that you change the letter c to a letter p and make it a permitted use. The original use for r 60 zone already has existing single family homes built in this community. We respectfully request that you do not take away our rights that I already have of owning single family homes. Number two, on Page ninety and ninety one in the City Of Rockville zoning ordinance, section twenty five six point three point four, c five b conditional use standards. It states that we're proving authority.

Who authority? You, the planning commission, or Jim, the director of planning? Is the planning commission or the director of financial planning to determine? How do you guys determine the use is compatible with adjoining and confronting uses by means of landscaping, screening or other measures. This sounds like the decision is based on a whim.

Can you clarify this section with a little more detail and guidance? Number three. Per Page one sixty three, one sixty four table, 7.3.4-one, Section 25, 7.3.4, does this mean that per footnote in one, that the side and rear setbacks are zero and can be built up to the property line? Number four, allow cottage houses to be built same as in the RMD infill zone as a permitted use. Number five, per page one forty six, table 7.15 dash one, section 25, for MXNC, there are no standards for density max nor any bonus density max limits.

What are they? And, also, did you know that the county is making slope adjustments to people's property and changing their properties without getting in the easement? What is the planning commission in the city of Rockville gonna do to, ensure that Montgomery County abides by the laws by SHA? Thank you very much for listening to my comments and questions. I look forward to your answers and your deliberations. My name is Richard Godfrey, and I'm a resident in the city of Rockville and a homeowner in the great neighborhood of Twinbrook.

Thank you, mister Godfrey.

You're welcome.

So mister Westlake, so this testimony is not associated with the subject item. So I suggest we can discuss this later.

Yeah. I'd be happy to sit down with mister Godfried and and go over the zoning issues, but that is not, on your agenda this evening. Your your review is for the actual bus rapid transit system that will be in in the right of way and not the zoning adjacent to it.

Okay. So mister Galfield, thanks for your testimony, and Mr. Westlake is willing to sit with you to go through. And also, I noticed your citing is based on the current zoning ordinance. So I wonder how much has been addressed in the draft zoning ordinance rewrite So that may maybe mister Wassler can clarify for you. Yeah. And so is this gonna be included in the record for the mayor and council's meeting?

I guess that's a question for mister Godfrey. We can certainly add it to the testimony for the for the draft zoning ordinance and map if you'd

like. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the testimony. Okay. So so there are no other speakers registered?

None have signed up. If you wanna just ask if anyone else would like to speak.

Yeah. Anyone else would you like to speak or just listen? No speak. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Hearing none, let's open the questions among the commissioners to the applicants. So let's start with commissioner Espinosa.

I have no questions for the applicant.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Futur.

Thank you. A couple quick questions. First, I'll say I think that BRT in general will be a big value add for the county. I have been on the new county ride on Route 40, and it is heavily trafficked and heavily used. And I think this the one in front of us will certainly alleviate that. My question is actually about this is the Veres Mill Road 586. It does include part of 355. Yes. Is there another one or two BRT projects in the works? Yes. And one is one of them going up and down 355? Correct. Okay. How will that one interplay with the portion of 355 that we're looking at tonight?

So they they will interline from Montgomery College to Downtown Rockville, and so they will share the same alignment, along that stretch. The 355 project is the full extent. We're in the process at the county of pursuing what's called a new starts grant with the federal transit administration through their capital improvement crotch grants project, for a grant from Downtown Rockville to, North in the county at Milestone in Germantown.

And and that project will come in front of this board as well.

Yes. Ultimately, it will also have it it will actually have three different mandatory referrals because it travels through Rockville, Gaithersburg, and and unincorporated counties, so we'll end up having three.

So at this point, I know we're talking about this project in front of us, but everything is connected.

Indeed. Is. Planning commission.

At this point in time, across the multiple BRT projects, what we're looking at on 355 from where it hits Veres Mill to Montgomery College is consistent across all of the other BRT designs.

Correct. That's right.

So more specifically, there are no intentions to build anything in the parking lot of the Carver Complex?

Not as part of this project. There are Can you elaborate? Sure. So there have been there's a a separate need for additional space for a transit center as part of the, is actually a separate effort. And so we're planning and designing both the Veres Mill project as well as the 355 project, without needing a new transit center, but there's a lot of bus activity there.

There is a demonstrated need for a new transit facility to combine those into a larger facility and preferably be closer to 355 with better access. One of the concerns with our projects is going on and off 355. Now that's a separate issue, and we'll gladly talk to you about that probably, hopefully, in a year or so. But that's one of the bigger picture issues that we're trying to work through, and that over time, we would like to keep, our BRT going much more straight and make much fewer turns. Now that's a bigger picture issue. Our that's not what we're here to discuss tonight.

No. It's not. But I may have just heard you say, or maybe I didn't, that that the route of the buses going up and down three fifty five may at some point go in and out of that Carver lot because you wanna be close to 355. But if that were to happen, you would have to come back through three men

Presumably, we would have to come back to you if we're able to do that. That's not funded. So there's there is at this point, there is no project.

Right. But there have been plans. Thank you. I for indulging me on that. And then I guess it's just a question for staff, and, again, it's kinda beating the same question. We've had a couple projects come in front of this body. I'm thinking specifically of 255 Rockville Pike and the multifamily, maybe 45153 Rockville Pike, that have said that they are planning space for BRT, but it doesn't look like that's accounted for in any of this. Is is the assumption then that these stops are final and those projects will move forward without accommodating BRT? I'm sorry. I didn't prep you for that. I literally just thought of that one.

So I'm ask, mister, Farmers Maktari, who is, on our transportation staff, to respond.

Yes. Yes. In a way, FM, it does. Thank you very much. But regardless, we'll see you back here sometime in the future to look at 03:55.

We'll see us back here.

Alright. Thank you. That's all my questions.

Can you repeat? We didn't hear the statement, please. The the remote participant from I'm sorry? We didn't pick up his voice. Can you repeat his answer, please?

I can go louder. Okay. That's All the development projects in Rockville has to make sure that approval of those such projects does not prohibit construction of what is recommended in 2040 plan, which does include both Wirzmer BRT as well as the three fifty five BRT. So approval of any project along these corridors are not prohibiting or creating difficulty going forward with these projects as indicated in 2040 plan.

Can you hear the speaker this time?

Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And I have a follow-up question regarding the BRT line. So it's mentioned the whole line of this project has 12 stations.

Correct.

So what is these five station within Rockville in relationship to the overall alignment?

So how much of the alignment's in Rockville? Is that true?

Yeah. Where is the rest? Where are the rest of the alignment?

Right. The rest of the alignment moves to the Southeast toward Wheaton, and so the remaining stations are beyond the city limits down Veres Mill Road spaced every half to three quarters of a mile with the terminal point at the Wheaton Metro Station in the bus loop there.

Okay. So so in this project, the Montgomery College is the terminal.

That's correct.

Okay. And that will connect with future BRT Correct. Around March.

Correct. That's right.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. And so commissioner Fu, repeat that?

In a couple of places, there are things referred to Rockville Town Center and also on Randolph Road that development and redevelopment will be done by others. Can you do you have partners who are doing that, or are the municipalities responsible for that? It's on one of the maps.

Would you mind telling me which map that's on?

Yeah. Sure. It's a let me find it again. I'm sorry. I flipped to a different map. Rockville Town Center to be to be constructed by others and then Randolph Road sidewalk redevelopment and development by others.

Is this a like a design plan sheet that you're looking at?

Or is it one of packet that we received.

Okay. I think I know what you're talking about. Just wanted to clarify. So as part of our design, when we know that there are other ongoing projects in the area, we coordinate with those developers so that we know what they're building, they know what we're building to ensure there's no conflict. So I think in both of those instances, we were just showing designs from other private developers who we've coordinated with just to show the kind of future condition and how it works with both projects.

It's not just a pad that never goes anywhere, like bridge to nowhere kind of a situation.

Well, yeah, mean both projects are operating independently. Sure. But we kind of show that information as we understand it to happen either, you know, most of the time before our project would be constructed.

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Salhadi?

I have no questions.

Alright. Commissioner Zines?

Okay. Full disclosure, I used to drive Veres Mill Road to Rockville Pike for nine months in rush hours, and, I'm aware of the congestion levels there. The first thing is, are you are you doing anything going southbound Rockville Pike to eastbound Viers Mill Road in terms of signal priority there or queue jumping?

There are signal priority proposed in that stretch. There are no queue jumps proposed as part of the Viers Mill Road project, but there's transit signal priority proposed that, I believe, 10 signals within the city limits.

And we'll relied on DPS to or DOT to work out the timing thereafter for everybody else because that's what happens down there. The the other thing is is the that left on Edmonton on Veres Mill Road is really pretty heavy at at night. You can still accommodate BRTs without changing the the two intersections there into one intersection as staff recommended?

That's correct. Yes. So the BRT will be on the right side of the road, so the left turn lanes will remain as is. We do know that that was a part of the the city's planning was to look at a single intersection there. Of course, now it's a split intersection. The magnitude of property impacts and displacements that would be required to do that were outside of the scope of this project. So we are just proposing the two station platforms on the right side of you know, each side of the the roadways, the eastbound and westbound.

Thank you. The the one question I have procedurally, do do we write a separate letter to the applicant to for the approval?

Can you start How

does that work?

Yeah. We would issue a letter of approval based on your action. Okay.

Yeah. I just so we can we can note at least that we have seen that April 28 comments that staff referred to in the first set of conditions.

The approval letter will reference all of the conditions that the Planning Commission approves the application with. So it will state that particular condition.

All right. The problem for the record is is that we, as the board, did not get you those comments, yet they were stated as a condition in the findings. So that you did send them in in a email to me on Monday. Mhmm. So now that it's in the record, we could say we've seen these comments. Sure. Whereas before, we could not.

Yeah. Thank you for the question, and thank you for mister Atise to send us before the meeting. So we saw it. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? No. No? Sorry, I have yeah, I have maybe two. So maybe one is for staff. So in the page 13, staff recommended the tree replacement is one to one. So I know that, you know, those are mature trees. And in what capacity we just only recommend one to one? Is this ratio too low?

Yeah. Sean Ryan, the forestry reviewer is online, so he can go ahead and answer that question.

Yeah. Thank you, Nelson. Sean Ryan here with CPDS. So typically, trees that are removed from within the public right of way are replaced at a one to one ratio because there is only a limited amount of space within the right of way. So that's typically how that is handled.

So one to one, so how long does that take for a tree to grow into the the the mature size?

Well, certainly, I think it would depend on the species of tree as well as, you know, what you would consider to be a mature mature size. But we find that planting trees roughly 2.5 inch caliber is the appropriate size to plant them at because it does give them time to establish and then increases the likelihood of them thriving into maturity. But I definitely do understand the concern. But it really comes down to trees removed within the right of way. There is only a certain amount of space to plant back in the right of way. So oftentimes, accommodating a greater quantity than the number removed isn't practical.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. And so just one question for the applicant. So are those so I hear that they are desk designated lanes for the BRT. Are are those lanes along all the sections or some section?

Just some sections. Ideally, from a transit perspective, we'd like to have dedicated lanes everywhere, but there are constraints space constraints along the corridor. So in areas where the impacts would be too great, the bus would travel in mixed traffic.

To to approximately, how how many how much percentage are designated lane?

That's a good question. Do you have the number?

Yeah. It's about a third. It's about a third of the lane miles would be dedicated. Dedicated.

Okay. And the rest will be the the signals priority thing.

Okay. There's a couple of queue jumps in there thrown in, but but it's about a third of the lane miles. So seven seven and a half miles total. So 15 and about Okay. Give or take.

Alright. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. So hearing no more questions yet. Thank you. And so are there any more discussions or thoughts on this? Okay. Hearing none, do do we have a motion?

Madam chair, I'd like to make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission approve mandatory referral application 2026Dash263DashSTP to establish a new bus rapid transit service along segments of Rockville Pike, Maryland 355, and Veres Mill Road, Maryland Five Eighty Six within the corporate limits of Rockville, Montgomery County, Maryland is the applicant.

I'll second that.

Thank you.

All Subject to the terms and conditions within the staff report.

I'll second that part too.

Okay. So all those in favor, say aye or raise your hand.

Aye.

Aye. Okay. The motion passes enormously. Thank you. Okay.

So now let's go to our regular agenda. So mister Waslak, do we have a staff liaison report?

Yes, madam chair. Your next meeting would be May 13, three weeks from this evening. Currently, we do not have any items lining up for that meeting. I would ask that you not cancel that meeting just yet just in case some things come up that you could have a meeting for.

Okay. Understood.

The next meeting after that is May 27. And, we have another mandatory referral, is a city project coming forward for the changes to the Rockville Senior Center, access points. So that one will be on that agenda. And looking at possibly having a draft of your annual report for 2025, for you that evening as well. We'll be presenting to the mayor and council after that. So I want to make sure that the commission had an opportunity to to review and take action on it.

Okay. Thank you.

And I wanted to report, on the mayor and council's, action at their work session on April 13 on the Zohr and CMA. As you know, they also had public hearing, and there were nine speakers, that addressed the mayor and council on the map amendment and four speakers on the Zorro ZTA. So a couple of those were the same. So what happened was that work session went through all of your recommend the mayor and council went through all of your recommendations, and, they actually accepted most of them, but not all of them. Some require additional information, which we'll be providing in subsequent work sessions.

Just looking at my notes, I think one of the things that they did not accept was the I think it was

The setbacks for shooting gained ranges.

Yes. That is one. They would like to have setbacks for shooting galleries, added back in. They actually did not support the compatibility. You had recommended that a compatibility finding be added. They did not support that. And these are again, are just directions, that the council gave us, at the meeting, and we are proceeding with that, but certainly not final action by any stretch. They want some more information on, the gross floor area restrictions, for both residential uses and nonresidential uses. So we will be bringing that back, to the council. And establish setback.

They had some discussions about that. They are interested in providing some more flexibility, particularly in neighborhoods that perhaps have, existing structures that do not meet current zoning setbacks. And perhaps a new structure could be closer to the street than than the usual setback in those instances. So we're working on a way to provide for that flexibility. Had discussion about Deere mesh.

And they they had some concerns, so we're gonna bring bringing back some more information on that as well. There seem to be some agreement that maybe the six and a half foot height in the front yard that that Montgomery County has for general fences might be acceptable. They seem to be struggling with, you know, how to protect front yards for residents. The the four foot limitation would not do that. So they also would like us to bring back some more ways to regulate electronic message centers, generally supporting the concept, but looking at ways to regulate those so that they could be added to the code, particularly with regard to brightness and size and things like that for for those types of signs.

With historic preservation, there was a concern that for designations that the, applicant does not support and that the draft required a a unanimous vote of both the HDC and the mayor council. Council was concerned that the HDC could essentially overrule the mayor council and ultimately it's the mayor and council's decision on those types of applications. So we're working on some language that would allow those to go forward to the mayor and council even though the HTC might have unanimously or non unanimously recommended. Oh, and, your recommendation about the historic districts and allowing for perhaps multifamily use within, single family homes that are designated historic received support. And so we will, provide, some language, for the council on that.

For the, I guess, the rezoning the two major rezoning is the RHD zone. They supported the the commission's recommendation on that. And for Tower Oaks, had a lot of discussion about that. Did not make a final recommendation on those. They still have some concerns about access and, looking at other zones that would allow for the type of development that they're looking at or would like to be able to permit there.

And there's they would like more information on the the poor farm, that previously existed, in that area and what might be, on that site. So so we're providing more information on that. I don't know if mister DeMae has any anything else to add, but it was it was a long discussion. Thank you, commissioner Zions for, attending most of it. And, you know, it was a, I believe, a a fruitful discussion, and we look forward to three at least three more work sessions, with the council as we move through the through the code.

If it were baseball, they would have called the meeting for a curfew. It went well beyond 12:00. I don't know when it ended.

Wow. Thanks for the detailed report. 12:30. Wow. So they still have three more.

Yes. There's a work session. One thing, they added another public hearing. So there'll be a total of three public hearings in front of the council. So there's public hearings on May 4 and May 11. Also, work sessions on those nights for May 4 is, articles one through five, and then, May 11 is article six through I forget the cutoff point there. And then the rest of the articles will be on May 18.

Okay. So any thoughts, comments?

They also support, an electronic zoning map as the official map?

They did not get into that discussion.

They did not. I thought we just said that they you told me they did.

I apologize, commissioner Zions. I thought you meant the electronic message centers.

Oh, no.

Yeah. It was my my misunderstanding.

Okay. Okay.

That's allowed to digest. And I think we have received the red lined version.

Yes. The new revised staff draft has been published on Engage Rockville.

Finally. Thank you.

And there's a second document that kinda outlines the changes between the initial staff draft and that staff draft. And, this staff draft really, incorporates all of your recommendations and, some of the plain language to mister Dumay's and, Holly Simmons' credit. They went through the code and, made all those plain language changes that they felt were appropriate, and I think it's, been a great boon, for the for the zoning ordinance. So if you look at the red line, there are a lot of changes. But, I think if you read the the clean version, you'll see that it's a it's a much better document.

Thank you everyone's work. All those efforts worth it to make it cleaner, user friendly. Okay. So with that, do we have any old business or new business? Okay. So we have one minute to approve. Right? October 8?

Yes. That's correct.

Yeah. So any comments for that? No comments? Okay. So do we have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve the minutes from Wednesday, 10/08/2025.

Second.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. The Obstained. Obstained, one. Okay. Commissioner Zainz abstained, and the motion is passes. And do we have a motion to adjourn?

I'll move to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. The meeting is adjourned. Good night, Rockville. Thank you.