Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rockville planners tell homeowner to attach detached cabin or seek interior‑ADU approval after rental complaint
Summary
At a conceptual review on April 14, the Rockville Planning Commission told the owner of 115 East Main that renting a detached, preexisting ranger cabin likely violates the town's one‑dwelling‑per‑lot rule and outlined two paths: provide historical burden‑of‑proof to be grandfathered, or attach the cabin to the main house and apply for an interior accessory dwelling unit permit; staff will put the compliance notice in writing and allow 30 days to respond.
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a conceptual review April 14, the Rockville Planning Commission told the owner of 115 East Main that renting a detached 384‑square‑foot ranger cabin likely violates the town’s one‑dwelling‑per‑lot rule and described two paths to resolve the complaint.
The property owner, Sofia, told commissioners she has Washington County aerial imagery showing the cabin was on the lot as early as 1974, that the structure sits on a concrete slab with plumbing tied to town sewer and that utilities were never disconnected. "I am committed to resolving this cooperatively and following the town code," Sofia said, adding she had made only minor repairs and did not increase square footage or add plumbing.
The chair of the commission (Chair) said the commission’s concern is the current use: two separate residences on a single parcel. "The buildings are fine; the issue is the use — renting the front house while the owner occupies the detached cabin," the Chair said. Commissioners noted town code treats the continued use of an outbuilding as a separate residence unless claimants meet the burden of proof for grandfathering.
Commission discussion focused on two practical remedies. First, Sofia may document continuous residential use dating to before the town’s relevant ordinances (the commission cited the approach used when a prior case involving a property owner named Robin was grandfathered). If Sofia can assemble the same burden‑of‑proof — historical records or other evidence the cabin was used as a residence — the commission indicated it could consider recognizing the unit as preexisting and allow rental under the limited grandfathering standard.
Second, commissioners and staff said the owner may attach the cabin to the primary dwelling so the combined structure qualifies as an interior accessory dwelling unit (IADU) under chapter 8.26 of the town code; to qualify under that route the addition must meet the town’s definition of an attached or continuous structure (examples discussed were a continuous wall, foundation or roofline). Several commissioners cautioned that attaching an existing preexisting nonconforming structure may raise technical questions about expansion of a nonconforming use and that a formal building permit and review would be required.
Sofia said attaching the cabin would be financially infeasible for her. Commissioners acknowledged that cost and said the town could work with a homeowner attempting in good faith to obtain a permit. Staff (Shelley) said the commission would put any compliance deadline or agreement in writing. The commission discussed withholding fines while a legitimate permit application or good‑faith effort to resolve the violation was underway.
Town staff explained the underlying complaint was that the parcel has two residences, which the town considers a violation. Staff also noted administrative errors in the original notice (an incorrect code citation) and clarified the correct basis for the citation is the existence of two dwellings on one lot and related accessory‑use rules. The commission said Sofia would be given written notice and 30 days from that written notice to respond or begin a documented remedy; the commission warned that unresolved violations could lead to enforcement actions and fines described in the code.
Commissioners also advised Sofia to review the prior hearing record for the similar Robin case and to collect whatever county or historical documentation she can (aerial photos, utility records, plumbing scopes) to substantiate a claim of continuous residential use. The Chair said: "If you can provide the same burden of proof Robin provided, we would be happy to consider it."
The commission emphasized this was a conceptual review, not a final decision or permit hearing. Next steps: staff will issue a written notice with the timeline and options; the owner may apply for an IADU permit if she pursues attachment, or submit documentary proof for grandfathering consideration.
