Historic District Commission - Regular Meeting

Yep, you're on.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Peter Fosselman, the chair of the Historic Distribution for the City of Rockville. Thank you for joining us this evening. This is meeting number 8, 2026. It's Thursday, August 20th, 2026. I'm joined by fellow Commissioner Seth Dembo, Anita Neal-Powell, and Mercy Shengay. Commissioner Goldfinger should be joining us shortly. We're also joined this evening by our deputy or acting deputy city attorney, Nick. Thank you for joining us this evening. Nick is miss Walters tired of us. What's going on. Not at all.

Yeah, she had another another engagement.

That's okay. You don't have to explain, but thank you. Thank you for being here and taking the time. And we're also joined by Megan flick, our principal planner and Katie, our comprehensive planning manager. The agenda times and the estimate only that may take a little longer than usual, but we only have 1 item on this evening. So there should be a quick meeting. Tonight is virtual only there is no in person option and also you may view the meeting on Brockville channel 11, which is rockville md. Gov forward. Rockville 11, and you may also also watch the recordings on the same link, which is rockville md. Gov forward video on demand. Our first item on the agenda is a request for reconsideration. This is 2026, 330 EOS. The requester is Mr. Bichette. He is the owner and the address is 200 Murrow Street. Staff, do you have a report?

Yeah, so we just have a verbal report for you guys this evening. So just to remind everyone, I guess, on the context, the background of this case, they initially submitted an evaluation significance in April. Of this year, in anticipation of filing a demolition permit for the structures on the property again, at 200 and be Monroe street. So, the case was on the May agenda. The applicant requested to postpone the case at that meeting. We presumed it would be on the June agenda, but they requested an additional postponement to the July meeting. So the. officially reviewed this case in July and found that 200A did not meet designation criteria, but that the original 1906 building at 200B did meet designation criteria. So the HCC approved a motion 3-0 to designate just a portion of 200B Monroe. So since then, the applicant has submitted a request for reconsideration on the grounds that, one, the applicant wishes to better detail and explain the original exterior material that remains from the original 1906 structure. Two, the applicant wishes to present their position to the full Historic District Commission as two commissioners were absent on July 16th. And three, the applicant would like clarity on what portions of the building at 200 B. Monroe are considered historic. Um, so upon staff's review of the reconsideration, um, our recommendation is that we do believe it should be reconsidered, um, just based on inadvertence. Um, it's really not a great policy outcome to designate a portion. We don't believe it achieves the intent of the designation policy. Um, so this meeting will be solely to decide if you all wish to reconsider this case at the September meeting. So it's a yes, we will reconsider or a no, we will not. There won't be testimony at this meeting. Um, and then. I guess the grounds are that the could consider the reconsideration if it finds a mistake of factor law inadvertent surprise fraud or other good cause. So if the HTC wishes to reconsider, the motion must state the reasons for doing so. And we will have some example motions later on. We also have Acting Deputy City Attorney Nick Dumais here if he wants to offer any additional legal perspective. So that's it from me for now.

Thank you, Rachel. Sure, Mr. Chair, if you'd like, I can kind of provide a little bit more information. Please, thank you. So Ms. Flick did a great job, and the staff report is short but comprehensive. But I just wanted to give the commission a little bit more information about the scope of tonight's meeting, what the consequences of reconsideration would ultimately be. Just for your background, I've been the attorney for the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals for about seven and a half years, but I know I've only met with you all, I think, once or twice in that time. And so I did want to start by saying, you know, reconsideration is rare, not only with the HDC, but also with the other land use boards and commissions. But your rules of procedure do allow it, as Ms. Flick noted. And the scope of tonight's meeting is really it's not to reevaluate at this point whether the property should be. designated as historic or placed in the historic district overlay zone or um you know if if you wanted to provide more specificity about the portion of the property that you want it designated you know that that's for another meeting tonight is really just to determine whether the commission feels that there are adequate grounds to reconsider um the decision it made at its last meeting to file the sectional map amendment to designate the property so as miss flick noted there are several grounds that are provided in your Rules of Procedure for reconsidering a decision. Those are common throughout Maryland. Those are just normal grounds for reconsidering an administrative decision. But because you have other good cause as a rationale that would allow for reconsideration, you do have fairly wide latitude in what grounds you ultimately determine are sufficient for reconsideration. Just to point out a few of them, You know, you have the applicant suggesting they have additional information that they think would be relevant to this decision. You also have the applicant noting some lack of clarity, at least on their part, as to what portion of the property would be designated. And then, of course, you have staff recommendation as well regarding the kind of the policy outcomes of ultimately designating only a portion of the property. And we can get into more information or more detail on that point because that ultimately does go to the the appropriateness of reconsidering the decision. So if you do reconsider as Ms. Flick noted, we would need a motion, a second and a vote, just like all of your decisions. And the motion would need to establish the grounds for reconsideration. And it doesn't need to be a super long motion, but you do need to provide staff ultimately the detail it needs to understand why the reconsideration is moving forward. If you choose not to reconsider under your rules of procedure, you do need to make a motion and take a vote on denying the reconsideration, which is kind of somewhat unique to your rules. And then the last point is sort of what happens if you do reconsider. So at that point, as your rules note, it would void your original decision. At your next meeting, I believe you would hold a new hearing and deliberate again on on really the entire application or the entire evaluation of significance. And in particular, under your rules, you have to focus on the grounds that led to your reconsideration. But in this case, that would really involve reevaluating the entire application. And with that, I just wanted to note, of course, as Ms. Flick said, I'll be on for the whole meeting. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have, but I think that's the broad overview of what you're here for tonight.

Thank you, Mr. DeMay. Just to note that Commissioner Goldfinger has joined us, so thank you for getting on, Michael.

Yeah, it took me a while. WebEx doesn't like me for some reason.

Okay. So I'm going to start with Commissioner since... We're not taking any testimony this evening unless the commissioners have a question of staff or an applicant, or some need to talk to someone outside of us. So I'm going to start in the order of my screen. Commissioner Dumbo. Did you have anything to add?

Not much, really. I think this is pretty... From my point of view, I don't see any reason not to reconsider this. The reasons we can use for reconsidering it, other good cause seems to give us a lot of leeway, as Mr. Dumais said. I don't really have a huge amount to add. I don't think this is, from my point of view, a difficult decision. I I don't. I mean, the applicant's argument that they only presented it to three commissioners doesn't really persuade me much because three commissioners is a quorum. It's better when we're all here, and we usually are. Just circumstances meant that we weren't. But the complexity of trying to figure out whether or not we can designate a portion of the property and how we go about doing that seems to give us good cause for reconsidering um yeah and one other thing that comes to mind as I'm talking is that um despite the excellent work that that Megan and and um her other colleagues did when this was first submitted to us we didn't have the kind of staff support that we normally have you know Sheila had just left I think um Katie was on on maternity leave so there really just wasn't you know there were there wasn't the opportunity to really get a full picture of this. So I'm more than happy to reconsider. I'll stop talking now.

I know those are good comments. Thank you very much. Again, go ahead and order my screen. Commissioner Senga, did you have anything to add?

Yes. So Mr. Dumais mentioned that the applicant has additional information. So is it possible for us to know what this information is?

I think unless Mr. says, otherwise. If you would like to hear from the applicant, that's up to the commissioners. Otherwise we'd hear that in September, but that's that's your call. I'm happy to. I'm sorry someone's at the front. I'm happy to hear from that's up to the commissioners.

Okay, the request that was submitted to staff was included in your brief book in the entirety. So it was simply that letter that mentioned additional information staff have not been provided with any additional information today.

Okay, so we can reconsider in September, you know. And look at those additional details during the meeting.

So you're okay with waiting until September.

Yeah, I'm okay.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Neal-Powell.

Based on information provided by staff and the attorney, I'm okay with the reconsideration of this application and also to hear from others who have an interest in hearing and providing testimony. Thank you very much. Do you want a yes or no? when we provide you with our comments as to whether we would reconsider or just comments, and then you take a vote.

I think comments is what I'm looking for. And then we could call for a motion, somewhat like we normally would do, unless you have another idea.

I don't have another idea. I just wanted to make sure that we were giving you our opinion at this point in addition to our comments. That's all.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. and Commissioner Goldfinger.

Yeah, you can hear me. I know you can't see me because my camera is busted on the computer. But yeah, I will go along with a reconsideration. It seems from some of the material that went out in the brief book that I think we just didn't get the full picture that the motion just included the footprint of the building with no regard to surrounding which leaves the question of uh apparently um street frontage which i guess we need to clarify so that would be i'm assuming that would be one of the major talking points at our september meeting when we reconsider just it's i think it's um the motion that we passed last month um in that regard is incomplete and so i think we need to to just add whatever needs to be added to complete the picture. So that's, and I missed the, I apologize. Well, it's not my fault. WebEx just doesn't like me. And it took me a while to get in. Thank you, Katie, for your help. Anyway, that's my take on this.

Thank you, Commissioner. Well, I too agree with my fellow commissioners. To be honest, when I first heard this request was being put forward, my initial response to myself was absolutely not. But then after talking to staff and learning more facts, I think it's something that we owe the applicant at least to hear and give them a second chance. That doesn't mean we're going to change our minds, but if there's more things added, I'm certainly open to hearing them. So, if there are no other comments from the staff. Or commissioners see no hands. Okay. Um, I'll call for a motion if someone would like to move and stuff. If you have an example. Oh, thank you. Look at you all. Thank you very much. Even online. You got for quick.

We try our best. That was all Katie though.

So there are several possible motions here. The first motion is not to grant the request. It seems like that is not the desire of this body. So we'll skip by that. But we have three potential motions to approve the request. As Mr. Dumais mentioned, it's very important in a case like this where we're doing a reconsideration to be specific in why we are reconsidering. So I will go through the three motions. Kind of sample motions, and then you as a body can discuss what you may be interested in. Um, so this 1st, sample motion is granting the applicants request. So, citing what the applicant had cited in their reconsideration letter. Um, which is being made aware of additional information that the property owner believe should be considered by the commission. The next potential motion that we have is staff's request and staff's recommendation. So this would be citing inadvertence and good cause talking about how we're not sure how the past motion. The previous motion is really consistent with the intent that we had here with this designation. And then the final possible motion is kind of a choose your own adventure style. So if the commission did not want either of the two motions that were previously put forward, and you wanted to create your own, this is how you could do it. The one thing that I will note here is we have the five permissible rationale for reconsideration. So in this motion, you would need to state which of those reasons it would be, and then give any specifics and details there. Um, so with that, I will turn it over to you all and I'm happy to flip through slides as you direct me to.

Thank you, Kate. It's very helpful. Um, 1 question could we. Is it possible to combine the 1st, 2 that you share. Into 1 version, if we can't have more than 1 reason.

I'll defer to Mr. on that.

Absolutely. That's totally possible. And actually, I did want to also mention, it doesn't need to be part of the motion. It could happen after the vote occurs. But your rules also do require that you actually set the date of the new hearing, of the reconsidered hearing. And that can simply be by kind of a voice vote or just a concurrence of the body. But I wanted to make sure you all knew that after the vote, you should do that if you decide to reconsider it.

And just thank you is that need to be separate from our normal September meeting or could it be at the September meeting? It could be at the September meeting. Yeah.

And that would be staff's recommendation to host it at the September meeting as well.

Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have any further comments before we call for a motion? I don't see any hands or any discussion. No. Okay. Then I'm just going to call for a motion if one of the commissioners would like to move.

Excuse me. May I ask the question first before we take the motion? Of course. Staff, can you go back to, I think it's, you had five reasons, please. A reason to reconsider. Okay. I'm good. I just want to make sure the other good cause. Okay. Thank you so much.

Okay. I'm calling for motion still on the floor.

Um, um, Can you, Katie, can you flip back to the first one? I just want to look over the first two again, because I feel like Peter, I was thinking before Peter made that comment about combining the two, I was thinking that makes a lot of sense too. Although I do like I do prefer to make this about this, you know, the, what this, um, staff has said in terms of, um, I just think that's, that's a tidier way of doing it, but I'm fine with, with combining them as well. Um, and now the second one, sorry. Um, Actually, I'm fine with the second one. I think that does what it needs to do in terms of giving good reason why we are going to review this. If others are okay with that, I'm happy to move the second one, having read it more carefully.

I agree with Seth, if that makes a difference.

Thank you. Go ahead, Dumbo, if you want to read it and for the record.

Okay. I moved to reconsider the HTC's July 16 decision to file a sectional map amendment to list a portion of the property at 200 Monroe Street in the historic district overlay zone for inadvertence and good cause. Specifically, the commission has been made aware of the lack of clarity in how much of the property to designate and concern related to the effect of only listing a portion of the property.

May I have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you, Commissioner. All in favor, if you could raise your hands. And Nicole, if you could just say yay or nay.

Yay.

Yay. Any opposed? It looks like it's unanimous. we need to confirm the September meeting for this hearing. Is everyone okay for the September meeting? It's on my calendar, staff, but I can't remember the exact date. 17. Thank you. Oh, the day after my birthday. Okay. So September 17th is the scheduled commission meeting. Is that okay with the commissioners?

Yes.

Any opposition? Okay, perfect. All right. Well, if there's nothing else, then I appreciate the commission and also the staff for coming out. We were not supposed to meet in August, and so I appreciate your time and taking a few minutes in your evening, and we will talk to everyone soon. Have a nice evening.

Can I just add one question? Sure, of course. Yeah. For the September meeting, I know the motion we just passed, again said unspecified um you know surrounding land area will that be will there be something from staff or somehow to specifically uh delineate the area of ground around the original structure for the motion of you know for our discussion in september can you say that once more michael i want to make sure i'm following the question yeah i kind of muddled up in my mind um but um the motion we just passed talked about you know specifically about the land area around the original footprint that we approved in july right um but it didn't specify exactly what it is now it seems to me um And this is probably maybe more legal question, but it seems to me that when, if we go ahead, we'll review it. And if we're going to vote on something, it should have, it should specify, you know, from the original house to the sidewalk and from on either side, I don't know, pick a number, 10 feet on either side and 10 feet behind the building will be incorporated into the overlay zone. Something very specific like that is that we'll, Will that be part of the information that we receive prior to the September meeting?

Sure. Staff will pull together in your staff report kind of your menu of options there of what you can choose to do. Now, we haven't drafted that staff report yet, certainly, since we're here tonight. It might consist of some like fill in the blanks. So it's kind of some sample language where we can get to specifics. But ultimately, you as a body would be who's responsible for determining what those specifics are. So I anticipate your menu of options is going to be we designate the whole property, we designate none of the property, or we designate a portion. And if we do that portion, that's where we're going to have to be awfully specific here.

Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to get clarity in my mind for that. So, yeah, that's perfect. Thank you.

There's nothing else. Everyone have a nice evening. Thank you.

One moment chair. We need a motion to adjourn. You're so excited to leave here early that we forget to end.

I move to adjourn the meeting.

May I have a motion to adjourn, please?

I move to adjourn the meeting.

Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay.

Thank you, everyone. Have a good night. See you next month.

See you next month.

Will the renovations be done?