Rockville planners tell property owner to attach historic ranger cabin or prove continuous residential use to rent it

Sofia, the owner of 115 East Main, told the Rockville Planning Commission on April 14 that a small ranger cabin behind her house predates the town and is connected to water and sewer. "I have Washington County aerial imagery from 1974 that clearly shows that the cabin was already on the property," Sofia told commissioners, and said a plumber’s camera showed the cabin’s drain lines run to town sewer.

The commission emphasized that the town’s code protects preexisting structures but restricts uses that conflict with plan rules. "You have two people living in separate buildings on the same property, which is ... not allowed," the chair said, explaining that the enforcement issue is the current use — two separate residences on one parcel — not merely that the building exists.

Commissioners reviewed options with Sofia. They said one common compliance path is to attach the outbuilding to the primary house so the combined structure can be reviewed as an interior accessory dwelling unit under Chapter 8 IADU provisions. Several members noted that attaching requires meeting the code’s attachment definitions (for example, shared foundation, roof line or wall) and could increase the combined footprint; Sofia said a construction solution would be cost-prohibitive for her.

The commission also described the alternative used in a prior case: a property owner presented sufficient historical evidence documenting continuous residential use of the smaller structure and was grandfathered. Commissioners suggested Sofia review the record of that case (referred to in the meeting as the Robin hearing), gather similar proof if possible, and resubmit documentation to the planning office if she can show continuous residential occupancy from the time the code took effect.

Staff and commissioners acknowledged some confusion in an initial citation letter Sofia received (they said the letter may have cited an incorrect section), but agreed the remedy options are the same: attachment and permitting or a successful grandfathering showing. Staff said the town will provide Sofia written notice of options and a compliance timeline. A staff member explained the town’s enforcement practice and told Sofia that if she undertakes a legitimate permit process the commission can consider withholding fines while the owner is actively trying to comply.

The commission did not take a formal vote on Sofia’s case at the conceptual meeting. It advised Sofia to either pursue a permitting path that would attach the cabin into the primary dwelling and then apply for an interior ADU permit, or assemble documentary proof (photos, records or other evidence) comparable to the prior case that had been accepted as a burden-of-proof showing continuous residential use.