Historic Funeral Home Needs Additional Parking

Pumphrey’s Funeral Home has filed a Zoning Text Amendment to install a parking lot on the land they own next to the funeral parlor on West Montgomery Avenue. The Mayor and Council are holding a Public Hearing about the issue on Monday, October 25, 2010, at 7:00 PM in their Chamber at Rockville City Hall.

On their website, the Pumphrey family details the family’s long history in Rockville. Six generations have been involved with the business. In the 1830′s William Ellican Pumphrey, a Rockville cabinetmaker, began making coffins. Then in 1854, he entered the undertaking business on Main Street in Rockville. During the 1920′s, funeral services were held in chapels and viewing rooms but the Pumphrey family believed they should be held in a “comfortable, homelike atmosphere”, so in 1928 Pumphrey purchased the large home at the corner of Williams Street and West Montgomery Avenue where Pumphrey’s still operates.

Then four years later in August of 1932, Rockville changed the zoning code and made the Funeral Home a Nonconforming Use. Although the business has been permitted to continue operating, if it should cease operation for more than three months, it would lose the ability to operate a funeral home on the site.

Currently Pumphrey’s has 17 parking spaces with access off Willams Street and they would like to have 47 surface spaces in addition to the two inside their garage. They admit that under current zoning requirements they should have 52 spots but to a great extent, this would alleviate the problem.

On Wednesday, September 29, 2010, the Planning Commission considered the Zoning Text Amendment to allow the expanded parking. Through their attorney, the next door neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Bowen, sent a letter of opposition to the text amendment. The City Staff recommended the denial of the text amendment because it would perpetuate a nonconforming use in a residential zone. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial with Commissioners Callistein and Pakulniewicz opposed and Commissioner Trahan absent.

In the memo from the Community Planning and Development Services Department to the Planning Commission, they do acknowledge:

There have been periodic complaints from the neighborhood about overflow parking on the local streets in the vicinity of the funeral home. The text amendment is intended, in part, to address this issue.

People visiting the funeral home do park on Potomac and Wall Streets and even across on Forest Avenue.

The West End Citizen’s Association will be discussing this issue at their monthly meeting tonight at 7 PM at Rockville Presbyterian Church.

Persons wishing to testify at the Public Hearing before the Mayor and Council are asked to call 240-314-8280 by 4:00 PM on Monday to place their names on the speakers’ list.

Contributor's Opinion By Ken Sandin: Welcome, Victory Court

>We moved to Montgomery County 44 years ago for the high-quality schools, which prepared our children well for their college and subsequent careers. We are still here because of the high quality of life, attributable in large part to good, progressive governance. So, when I heard that the County had leased, at no cost, an unused parcel of public land to Victory Housing, Inc. to build Victory Court (an independent living facility for seniors, age 62+, with incomes less than $40,000 per year, including assets), I thought, “That’s one of the things I treasure about this place; we help one another.”

Then it came to my attention that residents of a moderately-upscale town house development adjacent to the Victory Court site are circulating a petition opposing the project in its current form, expressing concern regarding the size, density, and loss of green space. OK, we have a case of good vs. good, which can be resolved through negotiation and mediation.

But further reading showed that this group of residents was piling objection upon objection: that Victory Court would [negatively] impact the character of their neighborhood; reduce the uses, visibility, and property value of historic houses; and [add to] a high concentration of lower-than-market-rate housing currently existing in the West End neighborhood. This last objection is curious-neither the Victory Court site nor the petitioners’ neighborhood is located in the West End neighborhood. Taken together, these objections suggest that the petitioners are opposing the project in its entirety. For further evidence of their determination to block the project, see Alice Liu’s July 14 posting on this site.

So, it’s not a case of good vs. good, and I must take issue with the petitioners’ position. I do, however, thank them for their generous payments of taxes that contribute to all the good things our county and city governments do.

For details on the project, a good place to start is: www.rockvillemd.gov/government/commissions/hdc/2008/HDC2009-00452.pdf

Ken Sandin
New Mark Commons

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Contributor Opinion By Noreen Bryan and Alice Liu: More On Victory Senior Housing

>The article that was posted about Victory Senior Housing summarized the information presented by the developer at the Area Meeting. But this is only part of the story. Significant facts were missing from the presentation; others were incorrectly reported. Here is additional information that has been gleaned from reading the developer’s site plan and pre-application forms, researching with city staff and attending previous meetings with the developer.

The proposed building will have a huge presence from the Courthouse Walk townhouses, from South Washington St. and from the corner of Maryland Ave and Fleet St. The proposed building would be 19 to 26 feet taller than the Courthouse Walk townhouses (avg ht 38.5 ft). This is 2 to 2 ½ stories higher. Residents of Courthouse Walk and South Washington St. would see the proposed building towering over the townhouses. At the corner of Maryland and Fleet the proposed building would be a story higher than the historic house on Maryland. Max height for the proposed building is 61.5 ft which is just 1.5ft lower than the Town Center block between N. Washington St. and Gibbs St.

The developer’s attempt to imply that only the portions of the building nearest the townhouses would impact the neighborhood is disingenuous. The entire building would be in full view of the townhomes and the residences on S. Washington St. In the winter it would be a large visible presence from Argyle St.

The information presented in a video was misleading. It showed how the proposed building would look with new plantings. Trees were shown as tall mature plants, 20 to 50 years into the future, when in reality the developer plans to plant 8 to 10 ft trees that would provide no visual buffer of the proposed building. Only 22 of the trees will be evergreens.

Regarding parking, the developer currently has allotted 41 spaces on their site. Rockville zoning requires 30 spaces for 90 units of senior housing. The developer said that they need more parking and proposes to take over the parking lot in the historic district to gain twelve additional parking spaces. The developer says that is no problem for the historic houses on Fleet St. If they need additional parking they can use the garage across the street. This is unfair and puts the viability of the historic houses at risk. Instead of designing a building that can meet its parking needs on its own site the developer wants to spill into the historic district causing the users of the historic district to spill into the street or public parking.

Lastly, while it is true that the building is a horseshoe shape with the ends of the horseshoe towards the townhouses, it is again inaccurate to imply that the rest of the mass of the building will have little impact on the neighborhood. Visually it would be similar to looking at the Town Center building on N. Washington St. from across the street. The parking courtyard cut into the Town Center Building does not conceal or reduce the building’s mass.

The previous article indicated that the developer has made changes to the proposed plan based on conversations with residents. That is not true. The developer has NOT made any changes to their proposed plan in response to concerns raised by Courthouse Walk residents. Instead the building has grown in physical size and number of units (80 to 90). The parking lot has grown and now nearly abuts the property line of Courthouse Walk. Further the developer has not included other neighbors abutting or near the property in previous meetings.

Additional information that was not reported in the earlier article includes the following:

• No one spoke in favor of the development.
• There were many specific questions that were asked by audience members that were not answered by the developer. For example, what are the dimensions of the building? Will public funding be used? Is community support required to get public funding? What are the sizes of the trees that would be planted by the developer?

In summary, while the information in the previous article accurately portrays what the developer presented at the Area Meeting, it does not accurately portray the reality of the proposed development. It is not surprising since all developers want to portray a proposed project in the most favorable light. But that is precisely why a disinterested party (city staff?) is needed to lead the Area Meeting to assure that a more comprehensive view is presented to citizens and that citizen concerns are addressed. Our understanding is that the purpose of the Area Meeting is to include citizens at the beginning of the approval process and allow their concerns to be heard. It is a problem that the current process gives the developer control of the meeting. The developer sets the agenda and writes the meeting minutes. A neutral party should be doing this, not the developer. The zoning ordinance is new. This is an opportunity to fine tune and improve it.

Noreen Bryan, South Washington St. and Alice Liu, Courthouse Walk

This contributor opinion is by Noreen Bryan and Alice Liu.

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

City Passes New Zoning Law

>In all the hubbub of yesterday’s news, we failed to mention the other important thing that took place at Monday’s meeting of the Mayor and Council. Our Fair City’s governing body capped a multi-year, multi-task-force effort to redraft Rockville’s zoning ordinance, the first time since 1976 it has been revisited comprehensively.

The City has issued a helpful press release, which we lazily reproduce below:

The Mayor and Council adopted on Dec. 15 a revised zoning ordinance and a comprehensive rezoning to implement the new zones. The new ordinance and map are effective Monday, March 16. The adoption concludes more than three years of work by citizens, City staff, the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Council to comprehensively review and revise Rockville’s zoning policies.

The three months before the ordinance effective date allows the City to revise its application form and procedures, as well as portions of the City Code that reference the zoning ordinance. It also allows time to publish the revised zoning maps and meet other administrative requirements.

The development moratorium that has been in effect since September 2007 will remain in place until the new ordinance and map go into effect. This moratorium limits the types of development applications that may be accepted for processing under the current zoning requirements. Those applications that are allowed to move forward will be processed under the current zoning ordinance provisions.

The new zoning ordinance includes a number of significant changes from the current code. Among these are the following:

• Mixed-use zones will replace most of the current nonresidential (commercial and industrial) zones.
• A new Park Zone will be applied to most City-owned parks.
• In the single-family residential zones, home height is limited to a maximum of 40 feet to the roof peak.
• Properties that become nonconforming under the new ordinance are generally allowed to remain, even if damaged through an event outside the control of the owner.
• Planned Developments that have been approved are placed in Planned Development zones so they will continue to be administered as originally approved.
• Off-street parking standards in commercial areas set maximum limits on the number of spaces.
• New procedures for reviewing development proposals have been established.

Additional information, including a full copy the zoning ordinance and map and a description of the revision process, is available here.

My Opinion: Our New Zoning Ordinance Must Be Followed

>Wearing a suit to teach in our working-class New Jersey grammar school, my civics teacher stood out. His matter-of-fact discussions about how each one of us was important enough to participate in government resonated with me and he quickly became my favorite teacher. When he decided to run for mayor of a nearby township, I volunteered to work on his campaign with another student named Jose. We went door-to-door after school, handing out pamphlets whenever possible. At his victory party, I fell in love with politics. I believed in his candidacy and our democracy. But in the long run, my civics teacher would test my confidence in both.

After our teacher was sworn in, he brought Jose and I to see his office. Town Hall was perched above the mouth of Lincoln Tunnel. His seat of power had a breathtaking view of Manhattan across the Hudson River. With big plans for the town, he could barely contain his pride and excitement. He wanted his students to share this enthusiasm for government.

Not too long after taking office, he came to school in a bad mood. He stared at his shoes and barely spoke. The class shared quizzical looks and shrugs. At the tail-end of the day, he sat at his desk and quietly told us that he thought he had made the right decision for the people of his township — but that he had gone about it inappropriately. He had done something wrong.

All I could think about was how strange it was that he was telling a bunch of 14-year-olds.

Publicly there was no indication that he had made a mistake. At my father’s invitation, he even stopped by my sixteenth birthday party a couple of years later to wish me well. I was thrilled that he would make that effort and show how much he cared. It was the last time I would ever see him.

He was soon brought up on charges for attempting to extort $600,000. The indictment involved a chicken factory and a senior center. Later, when I was in college, my grandmother sent me the newspaper article describing his trial and sentencing.

For some people, politicians taking bribes might be a rare occurrence. Where I come from, it was standard. The entire mayor and council of my hometown were arrested a couple of times. They would walk them down a steep city hall staircase in handcuffs. One council member, a Boy Scout treasurer, was elected then arrested too. We were able to speak with him before he went to jail. He insisted that we would never be able to believe the pressure politicians in town were under to accept kickbacks.

In order to function as a citizen, I’ve convinced myself that it was just a bad time and place.

Living here in Rockville, I cringed every time our city council suddenly imposed six-month development moratoriums on properties so that the zoning could be changed because it set a bad precedent. Let me emphasize that I don’t think anyone has done anything illegal in Rockville. However, if we allow the process to be manipulated, we could be inviting dishonesty. I don’t want to ever see that occur. I’m thankful that we live in a City far from corruption and the shocking headlines of today.

After 30 years, we are about to fully revise Rockville’s zoning ordinance. The final draft has been posted and the final approval is expected at the Mayor and Council meeting on December 15, 2008. The ordinance will regulate development on all properties in Rockville. It’s our game plan. It will determine “building height, setbacks and accessory structures on residential property, permitted land uses, and the size and scale of new development.” The City’s vision is to enhance livability.

My hope is that we will all abide by this ordinance. It’s not fair to say you personally don’t want a development when it is permissible under the ordinance. There may need to be some small tweaking for improvement to site plans, but on the whole, this is the way we’ve agreed things should be in accordance with the City’s Master Plan and individual neighborhood plans. If all the standards and requirements are followed, I expect the process to result in approval for a development. Anything else is just not evenhanded.

Final New Zoning Maps Available

>This from Our Fair City:

The final Draft Rockville Zoning Ordinance and Maps were posted on the City’s Web site Monday, Dec. 1. A full copy of the final draft ordinance is available online at www.rockvillemd.gov/zoning or in person at the City Clerk’s Office, 111 Maryland Avenue.

The current Mayor and Council meeting schedule calls for introduction of the ordinance on Dec. 8, with final action to take place on Dec. 15.

Rockville’s zoning ordinance regulates development on all properties in Rockville, including building height, setbacks and accessory structures on residential property, permitted land uses, and the size and scale of new development. Rockville’s zoning ordinance has not been fully revised since 1975.

Additional information, including a full copy the draft ordinance, is available at www.rockvillemd.gov/zoning.

Comment Period Closes Today On New Zoning Ordinance

This is just a reminder to all those who have been following Our Fair City’s efforts to reforge our decades-old >zoning ordinance.

The deadline for public comments to get into the official record, which has been extended a few times, is set to close at the close of business today.

See the City’s press release for more info on how to comment.

The Mayor and Council are set to meet to discuss the new ordinance on Monday, November 17, with a target adoption date of December 15.

Mayor And Council: More Time For Zoning, Extend Moratorium

For >Rockville Central readers who are curious how Council Member Piotr Gajewski’s proposal to “indefinitely suspend” Our Fair City’s effort to redraft the zoning ordinance fared, our friends at the Gazette have provided an update that covers the important points.

At Monday’s Mayor and Council meeting, according to their article:

By a vote of 4 to 1, the council extended the halt on new construction in the city through Dec. 31 or until the zoning ordinance goes into effect, whichever comes first. This is the fourth time the moratorium has been extended since it was first approved in November 2006.

The council also voted to extend time for a decision on the zoning ordinance until Nov. 27. The law requires the council to come to a decision within 90 days of the public hearing. The last public hearing was on June 30. Not extending the time would have allowed the application to expire and the process would have to start all over again.

The sole no vote was that of Council Member Gajewski, who said in an email last Sunday that he would prefer to use text amendments to accomplish needed zoning changes.

Gajewski Proposes Suspension of Zoning Revisions

This evening’s >meeting of the Mayor and Council may be even more interesting than one would have previously thought.

Sunday evening, Council Member Piotr Gajewski proposed via email to his colleagues on the Mayor and Council that they “step back and indefinitely suspend our work on the Zoning Ordinance.”

As many residents of Our Fair City know, Rockville is nearing the end of a lengthy review process where the overall law that governs all zoning throughout the City is being redrafted. This began with a committee called RORZOR, which included a number of citizens, who then drafted a proposal that was passed along to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission revised that proposal and passed it on the the Mayor and Council, who have final authority and responsibility for adopting it.

Tonight was slated to be a worksession on the final draft of the proposed ordinance.

Council Member Gajewski wrote, in part:

Many agree that the process to try to comprehensively revise Rockville’s zoning ordinance has been flawed from the outset.

A committee of well meaning lay-people created a first draft document that was much criticized and contained major problems.

Off to a bad start, the problems only compounded when the Planning Commission entered the arena and, after taking public input, tried to make lemonade out of the lemon it got.

The document improved some, but even by its own admission, the Planning Commission punted on many major issues.

Throughout the process, staff has had the difficult task to keep up with ever-changing new ideas and demands, so that the technical execution of the document has struggled. The document continues with major technical flaws that renders it unusable in present form.

The reality that has emerged is that Rockville is better off with the current zoning protocol than it would be with what is being proposed.

He goes on to suggest that, where changes are felt to be needed, they can be dealt with on a targeted basis, by making text amendments to the existing zoning ordinance. “Individual text amendments that focus on specific elements will allow us to delve into the necessary details more easily, allow everyone to better understand what we really intend, and ensure that we avoid unintended consequences,” Gajewski writes.

Tonight’s meeting is, as always, at 7:00 pm at City Hall. It begins with Citizen’s Forum, where any citizen can address the Mayor and Council (to do so, it is best to call the City Clerk 240-314-8280 by 4:00 p.m. to get on the list). The full meeting is televised on The Rockville Channel and will also be available through the City’s new video on demand system within a day or two.

My Opinion: Woodley Gardens Shopping Center Was Not In Need Of Rescue

>Monday morning, I got an email from a friend asking about whether the City was planning to rezone the Woodley Gardens shopping center — the one on Nelson Street with local landmarks Carmen’s and the Hard Times Cafe, among other neighborhood businesses. They’d heard that this would be discussed at Monday’s Mayor and Council meeting. I checked the agenda and found nothing on that subject.

But plans were in the offing. If you read the Gazette, you know that a number of residents came to Citizens Forum that night and spoke up about the idea of rezoning that shopping center from its current “C-1″ zone (which means it is commercial) to a possible mixed-use zone that will be called “MXNC”:

Residents of Woodley Gardens attended Monday night’s council meeting in droves to oppose what they thought was a decision to rezone their neighborhood shopping center on Nelson Street. . . . However, council members responded that while they had not yet voted on the issue, they support designating the shopping center as mixed-use commercial (MXC), which would allow for the same height and density that now exists, but with differing setbacks. . . .”That to me is a dead issue,” Councilman John B. Britton said Monday. “MXNC was already decided among my colleagues that that was not going to work.”

This gathering was evidently driven by an item that had appeared in the draft new zoning ordinance that the RORZOR committee developed.

Watching the video of the proceedings, the pleas from local residents as well as business owners were heartfelt, well-reasoned, and persuasive. The only problem is that the Mayor and Council had already heard about the issue and were definitely inclined to go along with the residents on this one. Their Civic Association president, Jim Reschovksy, had already testified to the Mayor and Council on the subject and won their hearts (and minds).

The Mayor and Council are charged with reviewing, amending, and finally adopting the new zoning ordinance. It is their responsibility, as the ones who are politically accountable, and they are going through the massive document line by line. This is taking time. In the meantime, they have made no decisions. (They are meeting in a worksession tonight to discuss the draft, and will devote the September 22 meeting to further discussion. They hope to adopt the ordinance on October 6. Furthermore, they may choose to reopen the public record on the ordinance — stay tuned.)

The group who testified appeared to have been organized and requested to attend — a flyer had been circulated and many speakers said they had just heard about the issue a couple of weeks earlier. Their talking points were all very similar. The whole thing appeared designed to convey a groundswell of support — which there was. But, sadly, the energy of this group appeared to have been activated without reason.

Says the Gazette: “‘Mr. Reschovsky represented your view well,’ [Mayor Susan] Hoffmann told the audience. ‘When [he] did, it certainly sealed the deal for me and I’m not surprised that the community prefers to keep the character of the shopping center.’”

My fear is that the citizens who took the time to come to City Hall and testify may now feel as if they were brought under false pretenses. The organizers, presumably, could have checked on the status of Woodley Gardens Shopping Center with a quick phone call and would have found that perhaps other important issues were more worthy of their time. This one already had been handled.

I hope that, next time there is an issue that demands community input and about which residents’ good energies are needed, that they are still willing to step forward as they did Monday night.

What do you think?

Contributor Opinion by Ruth Hanessian: Of Mixed Use And Mice

>The following contributor opinion is by Rockville Central friend Ruth Hanessian:

The proposal that is being pushed by the new zoning ordinance currently being reviewed by the council seems a backward step to me. Mixed use, as it is called, takes me back to my days as a child in the Bronx when one of my friends lived over the candy store. It looked like a great idea until I visited and realized that I had a much cleaner apartment in a Met life development. Sure there were lots of apartments, but very little commercial and consequently, no mice and other visitors that were drawn to the store trash.

Rockville’s new downtown seems to not be filling the apartments very fast. That may be price but I am already hearing of folks moving out because of late night entertainment below them that interferes with their sleep. There is also concern about the restaurant dumpsters odors and what they attract. I was pleased to see rat bait boxes in the garage adjacent to CVS but what self respecting rat would not head for the gourmet food adjacent.

Urban living does have it’s plus side, but I for one am glad that I live in an area that benefits from the old wedges and corridors concept. Mixed use is a nice name but it does not reflect the reality of the outcome.I only hope that those property owners blessed with this new designation will think twice about their civic responsibility and not just the bottom line.

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Article continues. Click to expand and read more…

Update On RORZOR

As >Rockville Central readers know, the Mayor and Council are hard at work reviewing, amending, and preparing to pass a new zoning ordinance. Rockville Central friend Mark Pierzchala, who has been following the process, sent along an update on where things stand:

Apparently they stayed until 12:30am on Monday, and last night finished about 11:20pm. As a result of this concerted effort, they got through the text part of the ordinance and started on the map part. Their plan is to finish the map review on Monday, August 4. I would guess that the provisional meeting for Wednesday, August 6 will not be needed.

Last chances for citizen input are as follows: (1) the record is open until Monday August 4 (probably close of business, meaning the meeting time would be too late), (2) citizen’s forum will be held Monday, and (3) there is the Mayor and Council drop-in before that.

Then they’ll pass it after their summer recess.

Zoning Hearings Set — Be Heard!

The City has announced two public hearings where the Mayor and Council will hear public comments on the draft revision of Our Fair City’s >zoning law. This is what used to be referred to as “RORZOR.” That committee drafted a new set of rules, which the Planning Commission has now reviewed and submitted to the Mayor and Council. It is now up to the Mayor and Council to consider the new zoning rules, make amendments, and, finally, adopt them.

These rules will govern development in Rockville for the next few decades. The hearings are slated for June 16 and June 30.

According to the City’s press release:

The draft ordinance was a culmination of the City’s evaluation and rewriting of its 30-year-old Zoning Ordinance, which began in 2005. Beginning in early 2006, the RORZOR (Representatives of Rockville Zoning Ordinance Review) committee, working with City staff, developed a draft Zoning Ordinance. The Mayor and Council authorized public review of the RORZOR draft on October 8, 2007 by referring it to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Since that time there has been extensive public comment and review, including two public hearings and multiple worksessions before the Planning Commission. The resulting draft, finalized on May 21, reflects the Planning Commission’s desire for high quality development and improved procedures.

Here’s the schedule:

• June 16: First Public Hearing
• June 30: Second Public Hearing
• July 7: Joint Meeting of the Mayor and Council and Planning Commission
• July 9, 14, 16: Worksessions to review public comment and provide direction on changes to be made
• July 11: Public Comment period closed
• August 4: Proposed adoption of revised Zoning Ordinance

The hearings on the 16th and the 30th will be at 7:00 pm in the Mayor and Council’s chambers in City Hall.

Understanding "Mansions" In Rockville

This from the >Credit Where Due Department:

In today’s Gazette, Warren Parrish has written an excellent and balanced article discussing some of the tensions facing Our Fair City as we struggle with how to grow, how to accommodate individual property rights, and how to balance one person’s homey abode with another person’s eyesore. There aren’t easy answers to these questions and our city planners have been working hard to devise a fair and workable solution.

Key quote:

The issue of so-called mansionization, which for years has taken the spotlight in older communities in the county, such as Bethesda and Aspen Hill, is being considered by the Rockville Planning Commission as it ponders changes to the citywide zoning code put forth by the Representatives of Rockville Zoning Ordinance Revision (RORZOR) committee. The City Council has the final say.

Residents are split. While many say they want to halt excessively large homes that are disconnected to the character of the neighborhoods in which they’ve popped up, there are others who fear tougher zoning could prevent existing homeowners from improving their properties.

Warren’s article uses as its pivot point two neighbors of mine, but that’s not the only reason I like it! It doesn’t pretend to hit every tension and recap every argument — but it hits the chief ones.

I highly recommend the piece.

Update On Home Based Businesses And RORZOR

>Rockville Central friend Rich Gottfried, founder of the community group that, I think, has one of the best names around, passed this information along. His group is the Home Based Business Action Team, or HBBAT — silent “h” so it’s pronounced “Bee-Bat.” I love that.

Anyway, this group’s chief purpose is to ensure that the needs of small, home-based businesses in Rockville remain at the forefront throughout the process (called “RORZOR”) that is slowly resulting in a new zoning law.

Rich reports:

On Wednesday, March 5, 2008, the new Draft Zoning Ordinance (DZO) Article 9 Section 7 on Home Based Businesses was discussed during the City of Rockville Planning Commission work session at City Hall from 9:15pm until 11:00pm.

After testimony from the HBBAT as well from the general public, the Planning Commission endorsed a significant number of the HBBAT’s recommendations to change the Draft Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission directed City Staff to re-write the language of the ordinance with regard to home based businesses.

HIGHLIGHTS:

1. A NO IMPACT home based business enterprise category was added, with up to 10 visits per week, no registration and no fees to City of Rockville.

2. The requirement for all home based businesses to log visits was ELIMINATED from the regulation.

3. A variance for a home based business may be granted by filing a special exception with the Planning Commission and gaining the approval of the Board of Appeals

4. The section on inspections of home based businesses will be rewritten. Although a homeowner may voluntarily allow a City inspector to enter a home if the City decides to conduct a home inspection, the homeowner also has the right to deny access. If the homeowner denies access to the inspectors, the City would have to obtain a warrant to enter the home. The Planning Commission found that the section as written did not follow good practice in law. [Comment from Commissioner Johnson “We still have to follow the Constitution of the United States.”]

Other areas in the regulation that still need to be addressed:

1. A definition of what constitutes a complaint and on whom the burden of proof rests is still under discussion.

2. Area Limitation is still under discussion. No decision has been made. Current limitation maxes out at 300sf.

3. Signage is still under discussion. No decision has been made. Staff is resisting changes to the sign ordinance, which is a different part of the DZO.

4. Use of Accessory Buildings is still under discussion. No decision has been made.

5. Other topics:

a. Staff was instructed by the Planning Commission to come back with suggestions in the areas of parking, grandfathering, and nonconformities

b. Number of home based businesses in one home will not be limited to only 2, but the total number of visits will be the limiting factor.

c. There will be no exemptions for “upper class” businesses such as doctors, dentists and lawyers, which require a degree and a license to practice. Categorization for all businesses will be based on the number of visits.

WHAT WE LEARNED:

The City CAN charge a registration fee. The Mayor and Council have the authority to set the fee amounts. The Planning Commission will recommend a nominal fee – let’s see what the Mayor and Council actually do.

The City probably CAN’T charge an INCOME TAX on HBBs without negotiating that authority in Annapolis. The City probably CAN charge an IMPACT TAX – again this authority rests with the Mayor and Council.

The RORZOR members on the Planning Commission denied that it was RORZOR’s intent to infringe on HIPAA regulations with the log of visits.

The section as written on home inspections did not follow current good practice in law for defining the authority to inspect – this will be changed by the Planning Commission.

Repeats of the broadcast can be seen on cable channel TRC 11 (check the City’s website for times).

The City Staff presented a power point slide of the questions they had for the planning commission as well as their recommendations to the planning commission in paper format (see link to staff’s recommendations).