Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Neighbors urge lower‑density alternatives and better notice for Tower Oaks rezoning
Loading...
Summary
Residents urged the Rockville Planning Commission to reconsider RMD‑25 for the 9.75‑acre Tower Oaks parcel, citing incompatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, traffic and emergency‑response concerns on Potomac Valley Road, unmarked graves on the site, and late notice to surrounding residents. They asked the commission to evaluate RMD‑10 or RMD infill options and to improve public notification.
Alex Spoletta, speaking for roughly 700 residents of Newmark Commons and Markwood, told the Planning Commission the commission and staff have not seriously considered lower‑density designations for the 9.75‑acre Tower Oaks parcel and urged review of RMD‑10 or an RMD infill option instead of RMD‑25. “Why haven't you considered options to RMD‑25 for the 9.75 acre Tower Oaks parcel next to Newmark,” Spoletta asked, saying neighbors learned of the proposed upzoning only last year and urging earlier notification for meaningful engagement.
Anastred Molina, who identified herself as a Marquardt Neighborhood resident, told commissioners the staff recommendation for Parcel Sort ID 17 reflected owner and developer input while excluding neighbors who lack a homeowners association. Molina described frequent fire‑truck activity on Potomac Valley Road and said adding “200 plus private vehicles” through residential streets would be “a traffic, it's not just a traffic inconvenient. It's a public safety hazard.” She also said the parcel contains unmarked graves and argued the sensitive site calls for a low‑impact, lower‑density approach rather than a 75‑foot (roughly seven‑story) tower.
Commissioners and staff responded with clarifications. Staff explained that an RMD‑10 designation—if used and if access were through Newmark Commons Boulevard—would result in townhouse‑scale development rather than high‑rise apartments. Commissioners asked staff to include compatibility analysis in forthcoming materials and to make clear how the draft ordinance treats access and emergency vehicle circulation in neighborhoods around Tower Oaks.
The commission did not take a formal, recorded action on Tower Oaks at the Feb. 11 meeting. Several commissioners urged staff to reflect neighborhood concerns in the recommendation memo and for the Mayor and Council to consider alternative zoning outcomes where appropriate. Staff said the planning timeline is constrained by Mayor & Council direction but agreed to include neighborhood testimony and to better document how the proposed zones would affect access, emergency response and compatibility.
Next procedural step: staff will include the public comments and the commission’s direction in the Planning Commission recommendation memo that will be circulated ahead of the Mayor & Council briefing and noted that an annotated crosswalk or redline comparison was requested by civic groups to facilitate review.
