Big mistake if they don't let them build that parking lot. I still can't believe the Mayor would suggest that Pumphrey's just move.

I get that building a parking lot in the historic district might be seen as undesirable, but I think even more undesirable to the historic district would be the loss of Pumphrey's from that location. Adding the lot would have provided greater safety to those attending services at the funeral home and would likely have alleviated some congestion on the surrounding neighborhood streets before and after services. A paved lot probably would have required stormwater management, so we might have even had the opportunity to see some beautiful bioretention installed with native plants (plants that have HISTORICALLY grown in our region.. hmm pretty neat for the historic district). Heck, if they used pervious pavement it could be a great case study for modern stormwater management. Bummer...

Why isn't there a public hearing before consideration of this text amendment?

Amanda and Jeff.. I agree with your statements.
The property is nonconforming because codes were changed over the years. The Pumphrey Funeral Home was build long before the codes were approved. Building the parking lot will provide visitors additional space to park when attending wakes. If the land is now available why not use it for this purpose? I personally have had problems finding a space to park when I attended viewings at the Pumphrey Funeral Home.
The Planning Commission made the correct decision.

Brigitta....the Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to deny the application and the Historic District Commission voted 4 to 0 to deny the application. The City staff recommendation was to deny the application. The argument presented by the staff as to why the application should have been denied is compelling, and should be weighed heavily in any decisions going forward.

The actual argument is specious and false.

The staff argument is allowing a parking lot "will have the practical effect of perpetuating the non-conforming use for the foreseeable future, contrary to the intent of the code."

Because Pumphrey's business is not parking lots, but is a funeral home, the parking lot has no bearing on the actual business at hand. Pumphrey's has not asked to expand its business, which is the non-comforming funeral home.

Pumphrey's never said if it didn't get the parking lot it would cease to exist, or that it had to have the parking lot to maintain its existence. Or that it was giving up the funeral home to operate parking lots.

The previous city council was absolutely correct in its decision to allow the parking lot. There is absolutely no legal basis for reversal, and what the city staff cited makes no logical sense.

The previous Council voted in favor of the parking lot. Some on this council lied in order to be elected. It is a shame that Mr. Hall and Ms. Newton represent this city.

The mayor and councilmember Newton have at least been consistent in their opposition. Mr. Hall is the one who should be called out over this.

Yup, Mr. Hall pulled a fast one on the fine citizens of Rockville. Ms. Newton, while she voted the same way she had previously, she did say she would only vote to re-open the issue if there was a serious procedural error where the law wasn’t followed. Our City Attorney assured the Council that there was no serious procedural error. Yet, Ms. Newton voted to re-open the issue.

I believe integrity is an important trait. I believe integrity is necessary of our elected councilmembers. Clearly, Mr. Hall and Ms. Newton do not agree. Their lack of respect for the citizens of Rockville is both troubling and offensive.

From The Gazette, January 11:

At the Dec. 5 public meeting, Moore said he would hope the council would revisit the decision if there was a serious procedural error where the law wasn’t followed.

“If it’s simply a matter of someone did not vote for it at the time or would not have voted for it had they been on the council, I would hope that we would not revisit on that basis,” Moore said.

Newton agreed."

"Despite assurances from City Attorney Debra Yerg Daniel that the previous council did not make a legal or procedural error, the Mayor and Council voted 3-2 after midnight Tuesday to overturn the 2010 zoning change, with Mayor Phyllis Marcuccio, Councilman John Hall and Councilwoman Bridget Donnell Newton in favor and Councilmen Mark Pierzchala and Councilman Tom Moore dissenting."

Unfortunately, this issue has become a "solomon" like decision since noone will be completely happy about the final decision. The Funeral Home has operated well over the years. Unfortunately, this use at this location causes many parking and aesthetic problems for the neighborhood. Given the various challeges here, I think the Wall street and other West End homeowners impacted should be thanked for the patience and willingness to continue to live there and invest in their properties.

Given Pumphries challenges at this site, which will not abate over time, it may be time for them to decide that a different location would serve everyones needs, both their clients and the community. Given the many public/private partenrships that the City has engaged in over the years, finding and supporting Pumphries in locating another Rockville location may be in order. It could turn out to be a win-win for all involved today and into the future.

Lastly, I think that we should reduce the vitriolic statements about the Planning Commission,Historic District Commission, and our elected officials who are trying to come to an acceptable resolution to a very difficult situation. How many of us in our work and personal situations have never had to change our positions on important issues based on new information?

Jim, thanks for weighing in on this. I personally agree with you on all the points you make. I believe this Council is trying hard to be collegial and to work as a team, even when there isn't consensus. I don't always agree with positions taken or votes cast by one councilmember or another, but I respect their right to take a stance, and thank all five for caring enough about our City to run for office and put in the many hours it takes to serve on the Council.

To insinuate that any councilmember lied to get elected, or lacks integrity, is an insult not only to them, but to everyone in Rockville who went to the polls and voted for the candidates of their choice. Just as we ask our councilmembers to be civil towards one another, so to should we be towards them and each other.

Certainly I've changed positions based on new information, as most have I'm sure. Mr. Hall indicated he simply didn't like the policy. That doesn't sound like new information.

I'm not sure what new information came to light for Ms. Newton to reverse her position and vote to re- open the issue. I'm sure there is something I've missed. Perhaps this new information would also cause me to change my opinion.

I'm a voter in Rockville. And I'm insulted by the complete disregard of a previous council's decision. Who can depend on this council, or any future council, to uphold the decisions of their predecessors?

I don't think infallibility an inherent characteristic of the human race. In this case, I expect my elected officials to reconsider previous decisions when new information or new circumstances require it. I can site several times during my 10 year service on the M & C that I had to change a previous position on an important issue. I think the focus should be on the merits of the issue and not on an artificial standard of voting. If we used this artificial criteria we would still have the old Rockville Mall to enjoy.

What was the new information or new circumstances presented?