REVISED Agenda and NEW Time (6:30pm) for WECA Meeting on Thursday, Sept 19, 2013
Many rapidly unfolding events have made it necessary to change the agenda and the starting time for the WECA Executive Board meeting to 6:30pm on Thursday, Sept 19th, 2013:
· Councilmen Moore and Hall have proposed a major change to the Adequate Public Facilities Standards (APFS)
· The Historic District Commission (HDC) is scheduled to hold a special review of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) Application for 628 Great Falls Road concurrent with our WECA Board meeting. This is the last item on their agenda and it is scheduled for 9:15pm.
Because both of these issues are important to many in the West End, we have moved our meeting earlier to give us time to consider the proposed changes to the APFS before those who are working on the JW project must leave to attend the HDC meeting. Further, Kettler, developer for the “pink” bank site, will not be able to attend the WECA meeting because historic designation of the “pink” bank will be addressed by the HDC concurrent with the WECA meeting.
In addition to the revised agenda, we have included some background information on the changes proposed to the APFS to help you get up to speed on the issue before the meeting. Background on the HDC special review is included below as well.
Revised Agenda for WECA Executive Board Meeting - 19 Sep 2013
MEETING TIME: 6:30 PM
LOCATION: Church Sanctuary - Renovations are in progress in normal meeting hall (Rockville Presbyterian Church, 215 W. Montgomery Ave)
- Welcome and Organizational/Business Items 6:30pm
o Approval of Minutes from May 2013
o Treasurer’s Report for May and Annual Report
o Info on Candidates’ Forum- Schedule and background
- Changes to Adequate Public Facilities Standards (APFS) 6:35pm
- Update on Historic Designation of 628 Great Falls Road 7:15pm
- WECA position on demolition of “pink” bank at 255 North Washington St. 7:30pm
- Info on Daycare Center at 731 W. Montgomery Ave. 7:45pm
- Update on Duball’s plans for building 2 8:00pm
Waiver Proposed to Adequate Public Facilities Standards (APFS)
Councilmen Moore and Hall have proposed a significant change to the APFS which would allow development without regard to its impact on schools and traffic in certain areas. Here are the details: By supermajority vote, the governmental body considering a development application (e.g. the Mayor and Council, the Planning Commission, or the Board of Appeals) could grant a waiver from the APFO school and traffic standards for any new development in Town Center or within 2000 feet of any Metro station. These areas are where almost all of the large developments are expected to be built in Rockville, and the 2000-foot provision reaches well into what are single-family neighborhoods today. The criteria for the waiver are vague, basically that the project is somehow good for the City, with the merits of the development largely left to the subjective tastes of the deciding body. The details of the proposed waiver and numerous other proposed changes are available as an attachment to the Mayor &Council agenda for 9 September 2013 - http://www.rockvillemd.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09092013-742 (item #13)
Special HDC Review of Jehovah’s Witnesses Application
On July 29th the Mayor and Council agreed to defer the hearing on historic designation of 628 Great Falls Road until a special HDC review of the Jehovah’s Witnesses application could be held. On August 14th a letter was sent to the city asking the city to cancel the special review because we believe that it is illegal and prejudicial to citizens. So far, the City has not responded to our letter. But the Historic District Commission has decided to review our concerns in an executive session at 6:45pm, before the start time of their meeting at 7pm. It is our understanding that the applicant is seeking advice from the HDC on their proposed addition prior to the decision on historic designation. Effectively, if the HDC does this, then they will be providing guidance on the suitability of the application and subsequently ruling thereon. This is a conflict of interest and not in keeping with the process for historic designation established in the Zoning Ordinance. The HDC has already participated in this process and recommended historic designation.
