Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Forum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on deer fencing, zoning height limits and nonprofit space during community forum
Summary
At the community forum, residents from Hungerford, Newmark Commons and Markwood urged the council to allow deer‑protection fencing without a 10‑foot setback, to retain a 40‑foot height cap for nearby rezoning instead of a proposed 55 feet, and to help nonprofit groups facing displacement from shared church property.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, more than a dozen residents raised neighborhood‑level concerns about land use, displacement of nonprofit services and public‑safety issues.
Ken Liu, a Hungerford resident, said the deer population is ‘overrun’ in parts of the city and urged the council not to adopt rules that would require a 10‑foot setback or restrict deer‑mesh fencing to backyards only. “A setback rule effectively bans fencing for the people who need it the most,” Liu said, describing repeated garden and tree damage that neighborhood volunteers cannot protect without perimeter mesh.
Two nonprofit stakeholders described recent displacement from space at Rockville Presbyterian Church. Leah Larson Rabin, a board member of the nursery school RPCNS, said economic pressure has forced the nursery and the nearby women’s shelter to move out of the church property and that community members have launched a fundraiser and a joint initiative called Yes in Our Backyard to find new space.
Several residents from Newmark Commons and Markwood urged the council to hold to a 40‑foot height cap in the proposed RMD‑15 designation for a contested parcel (SOAR/Parcel ZOR 17), saying a 55‑foot limit would tower over adjacent single‑family homes and increase noise, pollution and loss of tree canopy. Julia Binder and Pat Reber both pressed the council to require a 40‑foot height cap and asked staff for comparison charts showing impacts at the lower height.
Councilmembers acknowledged the concerns and reminded residents that the zoning ordinance rewrite and comprehensive map amendment contain provisions for bonus height and other site‑specific provisions; they asked staff to provide further materials, revise charts on the requested height scenarios, and consider linking any height exceptions to additional affordable housing or other public benefits.
The council did not take any immediate land‑use votes during the forum; those items remain pending as part of the zoning rewrite process and future adoption materials.
