For-profit Level 3.5 addiction/MH ctr next to mcps school

[Anonymous]

Well, I wouldn’t want a 16-bed B&B next door, either.

[Anonymous]

I actually think the Level 3.5 facility where there will be 24 hour on-site monitor is a positive thing. I am wary of the group homes for people in recovery where nobody is required to be on-site and it's a roommate situation in a home owned by a non-profit.

[Anonymous]

Has the community hired a lawyer yet? Because you need one.

The elected officials aren’t going to do anything. They made that clear at the meeting last night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has the community hired a lawyer yet? Because you need one.

The elected officials aren’t going to do anything. They made that clear at the meeting last night.

Not only did they make it clear they’re not going to help, but they Dawn was hostile to the community.

It almost felt as if Dawn was advocating on behalf of the rehab business. She did not say a single thing that was pro-community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has the community hired a lawyer yet? Because you need one.

The elected officials aren’t going to do anything. They made that clear at the meeting last night.

Not only did they make it clear they’re not going to help, but they Dawn was hostile to the community.

It almost felt as if Dawn was advocating on behalf of the rehab business. She did not say a single thing that was pro-community.

You need to hire a lawyer asap. No one is coming to save you, so you need to save yourself. If she was acting like that then there is no hope that she will advocate on behalf of the community. Dawn being hostile to the community means she is not interested in helping you and there is zero chance she will do anything useful.

[Anonymous]

Years ago, a group home for adult males with autism bought the house next door to me in a townhouse community. Some of the residents vocalized loudly (shrieks) and banged on the walls for hours each day. Staff response was to play loud music to "mask" the noise.

Staff completely disregarded the community's parking rules and would take neighbor's parking spots. I told one I was calling a tow truck after I had to park two blocks away when he took my reserved spot and he threatened to "make me sorry." Staff and residents littered on their daily walks around the neighborhood.

One patient was very large and would scream at neighbors. Another urinated in public occasionally and would visibly grab at his genitals all the time.

My family moved out a year or so later after failing to make any progress with the nonprofit that owned the home (we asked for them to respect parking rules and install soundproofing) and the housing value of that row of townhouses stagnated.

These kinds of facilities need to exist and that there is value in community-based residential treatment but the owners of these companies/boards of these nonprofits don't give a damn about the neighbors whose quality of life is impacted.

[Anonymous]

If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the meeting out a few weeks in order to equip the speakers with talking points meant to allay concerns and push back on community concerns.

The council member led off with comments that demonstrated where she stands. She also stated that there’s no need to change the zoning laws since that won’t fix the current situation. She neglected to explain why the county doesn’t want to fix the problem so it doesn’t happen moving forward.

Then she read a list of questions that were given to the business/treatment center (who didn’t show up), and the questions were obviously meant to prompt answers painting the facility in a favorable light. She read their answers after explaining they actually purchased 3 lots (that only have 2 houses…for now), so they can have 24 residents eventually.

The law enforcement Rep clearly was handed talking points to butter up the crowd with compliments about how close knit the community is and how it makes his job easy to handle any issues that come up. Then he reminded everyone that the community is very safe and they have effective models to prevent issues. (That last point made people laugh out loud.) The police officer also said that some of his colleagues have substance abuse issues and people shouldn’t judge them.

Then the council member went bananas. She scolded people for making assumptions about people, drawing a false equivalence by intimating we don’t know if other people are already in the school with substance use issues (presumably teachers). This isn’t helpful because the facility is a level 3.5 for people will severe issues such that they cannot function and require supervised treatment 24/7. Clearly those patients have far different needs than anyone working in the school.

When someone pointed out inaccuracies in the county’s legal analysis of fair housing (noting it protects people who have recovered, not those in treatment) and followed up by pointing out how the dubious exceptions don’t apply—and then flagged that the developer likely lied to get permitting, etc.—and summed up by pointing out the rapid growth of facilities in a neighborhood, citing issues about how the operators aren’t helpful—the Councilmember said she wasn’t aware of any permitting approvals needed at this point.

A gentleman in the audience who is a retired lawyer summed it up by saying there’s a lobby pushing all these facilities through in neighborhoods across the county.

Why next to an elementary school? Good question. The councilmember’s response was that the business is allowed to do this by right/per zoning law.

Next: seems like emails to the Office of the County Attorney to ask them to reevaluate their analysis given the business purchased 3 properties individually…to pull a fast one. 1. They shouldn’t be allowed to operate a single facility with so many people by tallying up the max allowable per single unit. 2. Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to people in treatment. 3. They likely lied about a variety things to get their permits.

Re: how patients will be transported - county couldn’t answer.

When asked why the zoning amendment wouldn’t work, the Councilmember couldn’t answer. She claimed it wouldn’t work retroactively at the top of the meeting. When pressed, Victor Salazar, division chief for zoning, said their interpretation is that they are allowed by right to have up to 8 patients in each residence. They are treating each house separately, permitted by right.

They originally applied for commercial permits which were denied. Salazar said that was likely in error. They can be treated as individual residences and benefit from the zoning laws now. He kept saying they are permitted by right. Then he said anyone in the room could do the same thing in their own house so long as they get the appropriate permits.

Next question: they asked how they will enforce 8 person occupancy per residence. The response was complaints to DPS trigger inspection.

Next: someone asked about analytics from the Fredrick facility where the business owns another treatment facility. Of course, they had not. Instead, they double downed on how law enforcement will quickly respond to any issues.

The school principal was present along with someone from mcps. Mcps rep tossed a word salad that was unresponsive to the question.

Next: someone asked if they could add additional structures on the 3 properties or add outpatient services. The county said they don’t believe they can do outpatient. And they said the next level up from 3.5 is a level 4–which is hospital level…so it’s unlikely they can increase their treatment level. (PS - Yikes! 3.5 is super high!) And the Planning Dept guy said they would need to post a sign before they could increase # of beds beyond 16.

Another question for Salazar/Planning: with the 3 properties owned and managed by 1 company, why aren’t we making them go through the permitting process since it will be such a large, disruptive facility impacting the neighborhood? She flagged that this will impact our county—why would anyone buy a home in MoCo when the county lets businesses operate such facilities in SFHs?

The county responded by saying they will continue to view the 3 properties/currently with 2 houses separately.

Next question was about security—would it be increased. The county punted to the school’s being required to have safety/emergency plans.

Clarified that it’s limited to 8 people spending the night. The overnight nurse counts towards the 8.

Jawando was on zoom but said nothing.

State delegate Zucker was on zoom but said nothing.

Last question: pointed out that determining use and permitting matters, noting it’s currently vague and they are gaming the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the meeting out a few weeks in order to equip the speakers with talking points meant to allay concerns and push back on community concerns.

The council member led off with comments that demonstrated where she stands. She also stated that there’s no need to change the zoning laws since that won’t fix the current situation. She neglected to explain why the county doesn’t want to fix the problem so it doesn’t happen moving forward.

Then she read a list of questions that were given to the business/treatment center (who didn’t show up), and the questions were obviously meant to prompt answers painting the facility in a favorable light. She read their answers after explaining they actually purchased 3 lots (that only have 2 houses…for now), so they can have 24 residents eventually.

The law enforcement Rep clearly was handed talking points to butter up the crowd with compliments about how close knit the community is and how it makes his job easy to handle any issues that come up. Then he reminded everyone that the community is very safe and they have effective models to prevent issues. (That last point made people laugh out loud.) The police officer also said that some of his colleagues have substance abuse issues and people shouldn’t judge them.

Then the council member went bananas. She scolded people for making assumptions about people, drawing a false equivalence by intimating we don’t know if other people are already in the school with substance use issues (presumably teachers). This isn’t helpful because the facility is a level 3.5 for people will severe issues such that they cannot function and require supervised treatment 24/7. Clearly those patients have far different needs than anyone working in the school.

When someone pointed out inaccuracies in the county’s legal analysis of fair housing (noting it protects people who have recovered, not those in treatment) and followed up by pointing out how the dubious exceptions don’t apply—and then flagged that the developer likely lied to get permitting, etc.—and summed up by pointing out the rapid growth of facilities in a neighborhood, citing issues about how the operators aren’t helpful—the Councilmember said she wasn’t aware of any permitting approvals needed at this point.

A gentleman in the audience who is a retired lawyer summed it up by saying there’s a lobby pushing all these facilities through in neighborhoods across the county.

Why next to an elementary school? Good question. The councilmember’s response was that the business is allowed to do this by right/per zoning law.

Next: seems like emails to the Office of the County Attorney to ask them to reevaluate their analysis given the business purchased 3 properties individually…to pull a fast one. 1. They shouldn’t be allowed to operate a single facility with so many people by tallying up the max allowable per single unit. 2. Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to people in treatment. 3. They likely lied about a variety things to get their permits.

Re: how patients will be transported - county couldn’t answer.

When asked why the zoning amendment wouldn’t work, the Councilmember couldn’t answer. She claimed it wouldn’t work retroactively at the top of the meeting. When pressed, Victor Salazar, division chief for zoning, said their interpretation is that they are allowed by right to have up to 8 patients in each residence. They are treating each house separately, permitted by right.

They originally applied for commercial permits which were denied. Salazar said that was likely in error. They can be treated as individual residences and benefit from the zoning laws now. He kept saying they are permitted by right. Then he said anyone in the room could do the same thing in their own house so long as they get the appropriate permits.

Next question: they asked how they will enforce 8 person occupancy per residence. The response was complaints to DPS trigger inspection.

Next: someone asked about analytics from the Fredrick facility where the business owns another treatment facility. Of course, they had not. Instead, they double downed on how law enforcement will quickly respond to any issues.

The school principal was present along with someone from mcps. Mcps rep tossed a word salad that was unresponsive to the question.

Next: someone asked if they could add additional structures on the 3 properties or add outpatient services. The county said they don’t believe they can do outpatient. And they said the next level up from 3.5 is a level 4–which is hospital level…so it’s unlikely they can increase their treatment level. (PS - Yikes! 3.5 is super high!) And the Planning Dept guy said they would need to post a sign before they could increase # of beds beyond 16.

Another question for Salazar/Planning: with the 3 properties owned and managed by 1 company, why aren’t we making them go through the permitting process since it will be such a large, disruptive facility impacting the neighborhood? She flagged that this will impact our county—why would anyone buy a home in MoCo when the county lets businesses operate such facilities in SFHs?

The county responded by saying they will continue to view the 3 properties/currently with 2 houses separately.

Next question was about security—would it be increased. The county punted to the school’s being required to have safety/emergency plans.

Clarified that it’s limited to 8 people spending the night. The overnight nurse counts towards the 8.

Jawando was on zoom but said nothing.

State delegate Zucker was on zoom but said nothing.

Last question: pointed out that determining use and permitting matters, noting it’s currently vague and they are gaming the system.

Can you provide a citation or case law that is directly applicable? Because my understanding is the federal Fair Housing Act certainly applies to people in treatment. They are considered to have a disability and therefore cannot be discriminated against.

[Anonymous]

Here is a the email follow up regarding the meeting:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Luedtke's Office, Councilmember
Date: Wed, Mar 26, 4:34 PM (17 hours ago)
To: [names not shown]

All,

Thank you for contacting my office or attending the March 24 community meeting about The Freedom Center - the privately owned and operated addiction treatment group homes proposed for Gold Mine Place.

I understand the concerns from many of you about the presence of this use in your neighborhood and next to Greenwood Elementary School. The safety and security of our communities and of our students and educators in and around school buildings is of paramount importance. This is my priority on the County Council, and I look forward to working with you on the many aspects of improving public safety necessary to prevent dangerous and criminal behavior, better support victims, and build stronger and healthier communities.

I will continue to ensure the private entity pursuing an addiction treatment facility on Gold Mine Place follows all laws and regulations. I will continue to advocate to The Freedom Center that it puts in place safety and security measures to prevent dangerous situations and that it also acts as a good neighbor whose residents and staff respect you and your fellow community members. Many ideas for safety and security have come directly from community members - and at the March 24 community meeting we heard additional questions, concerns, and ideas that we are following up on with The Freedom Center, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), and the Montgomery County Department of Permitting Services (DPS).

It is also important to reiterate a belief that I know we share: Individuals facing substance abuse are our family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers and they deserve dignity, respect, and support as they seek treatment to better their lives. We can and must protect this value and protect our communities. I do not believe these two priorities are mutually exclusive.

Understanding that we have many follow-up questions to pursue, I am providing below The Freedom Center’s responses to a number of frequently asked questions (the same responses I shared at the March 24 community meeting). I also am providing below information on questions about the County’s role and authority in regulating this use.

Please do not hesitate to reach out to me and my office at [e-mail] with additional questions.

The Freedom Center’s responses to frequently asked community questions

Question: Are residents of The Freedom Center allowed to leave the property?

Freedom Center Response: Residents are not permitted to leave the property as part of their treatment plan. In rare cases where a resident leaves against medical advice, staff will transport them to a safe location to prevent them from walking into the Tanterra neighborhood.

Question: Who is responsible for monitoring residents and are they monitored 24/7?

Freedom Center Response: Yes, residents are monitored 24/7. Additional staffing includes:

● Two Registered Nurses (one per house) on a 24/7 schedule.

● Three licensed clinical staff on-site from 8 AM – 6 PM.

● Each shift has a Program Manager/Lead Behavioral Health Technician overseeing four Behavioral Health Technicians trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), a standard used in nationally recognized hospitals.

Question: What physical security improvements is The Freedom Center making to the properties to ensure the safety of its residents, neighbors, and students at the adjacent school?

Freedom Center Response: Installation of a high-end video and audio surveillance system providing 360-degree property coverage, including indoor monitoring. Planting 10’ Arborvitae trees to enhance privacy. Extending the existing 6’ chain-link fence bordering Greenwood E.S., pending feedback from the school administration and PTA. Additional privacy trees will also be planted along this section.

Question: What is the protocol for if a resident violates The Freedom Center's rules?

Freedom Center Response: If a resident's conduct warrants discharge, they will be referred to an equal or higher level of care. If they refuse referrals (which is rare), staff will transport them to a safe location outside the community.

Question: The existing chain link fence is insufficient to protect the privacy of students at the school or residents at the properties. Will The Freedom Center install another fence to protect privacy?

Freedom Center Response: Yes, we are open to extending the existing fence and planting additional privacy trees. We welcome input from the school administration and PTA to ensure an effective solution.

Question: What types of services will The Freedom Center provide?

Freedom Center Response: ASAM Level 3.5 Residential Substance Use Disorder treatment.

Question: Are background checks performed for potential residents and what would result in a resident not being allowed to live at the facility?

Freedom Center Response: At our facility, we are committed to ensuring the safety, well-being, and overall quality of life for all our residents. As part of our comprehensive admission process, we conduct full medical and clinical assessments on all potential residents. These evaluations allow us to determine whether our facility is the appropriate environment to meet the individual's healthcare needs while maintaining a safe and supportive community for all. While we strive to accommodate a wide range of individuals, certain factors may result in an applicant being deemed ineligible for residency. Disqualifying criteria include, but are not limited to:

A history of violent criminal offenses
Sexual criminal offenses
High-acuity mental health diagnoses that may require specialized care beyond our facility’s capabilities

Major health concerns that necessitate advanced medical interventions not provided at our facility. Our goal is to foster a secure, nurturing, and compassionate environment where all residents can thrive. We carefully assess each applicant to ensure they receive the most suitable care and support, whether at our facility or through a referral to a more appropriate care setting. We welcome any questions regarding our admission criteria and are happy to guide families through the process with transparency and understanding.

Question: What other facilities does The Freedom Center operate and are any in close proximity to a school? If so, what protections or protocols has The Freedom Center put in place at these facilities?

Freedom Center response: Our locations include:

● 3521 Buckeystown Pike, Buckeystown, MD 21811 (16 bed level 3.5 Substance Use Disorder)

● 202 Perry Parkway Suite 5 Gaithersburg, MD 20877 (Outpatient Care)

The County’s role and authority in regulating this use

Basics and Background

The Montgomery County Department of Permitting Services (DPS) interprets and enforces the County’s Zoning Ordinance. According to the most up-to-date information we’ve received from DPS, The Freedom Center locations are Residential Care Facilities and each home is allowed to have up to 8 residents. A Residential Care Facility is defined by Section 3.3.2. Group Living of the Zoning Ordinance as:

Residential Care Facility means a group care or similar arrangement for the care of persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living, or for the protection of the individual, in which:

a. the facility must meet all applicable Federal, State, and County certificate, licensure, and regulatory requirements;

b. resident staff necessary for operation of the facility are allowed to live on-site; and

c. the number of residents includes members of the staff who reside at the facility, but does not include infants younger than 2 months old.

Residential Care Facility includes a nursing home, an assisted living facility, a Continuing Care Retirement Community, a hospice, a group home, and a Senior Care Community. Residential Care Facility does not include a Hospital (see Section 3.4.6, Hospital) or Independent Living Facility for Seniors or Persons with Disabilities (see Section 3.3.2.C, Independent Living Facility for Seniors or Persons with Disabilities).

Per the Use Standards in the Zoning Code (Section 59.3.3.2.E and the Zoning Use Table at Section 59.3.1.6) this use with up to 8 residents is permitted by right in the R-200 zone and the other detached residential zones.

What permits and licenses are required and what is the status of each?

● 19019 Gold Mine Place has a Building Permit issued by DPS on 2/21/25 for alteration of 4 bathrooms; an Electrical Permit (lighting/switches) issued on 3/1/25 and passed an inspection on 3/11/25; an Electrical Permit (low voltage for cameras) issued 3/15/25 and passed an inspection on 3/21/25; and a Fire Code Compliance Permit issued 1/6/25 and passed an inspection on 2/4/25.

● 19025 Gold Mine Place has a Fire Code Compliance Permit issued 1/16/25 and passed an inspection on 2/3/25.

● Because the houses permit 8 persons “by right,” the base use remains residential and not commercial, which is why DPS voided the original requests for Commercial Use & Occupancy Permits.

● We continue to pursue information on what State licensing requirements must be met for such a facility.

Can the Council amend the Zoning Code to prohibit this use?

Under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), a locality cannot apply its zoning laws in a way that discriminates against group homes (i.e., homes for individuals with disabilities, including those with substance abuse disorders). As explained by a joint DOJ/HUD statement:

Local zoning and land use laws that treat groups of unrelated persons with disabilities less favorably than similar groups of unrelated persons without disabilities violate the Fair Housing Act. For example, suppose a city's zoning ordinance defines a "family" to include up to six unrelated persons living together as a household unit, and gives such a group of unrelated persons the right to live in any zoning district without special permission. If that ordinance also disallows a group home for six or fewer people with disabilities in a certain district or requires this home to seek a use permit, such requirements would conflict with the Fair Housing Act. The ordinance treats persons with disabilities worse than persons without disabilities.

Retrospective vs. Prospective zoning law changes

To protect property rights, changes to zoning laws are prospective. Under zoning law, uses existing before a zoning change become “nonconforming uses” that can continue after the zoning change. Assuming any change to the zoning of residential care homes did not violate the FHA, that change would be prospective; existing uses would be grandfathered in as nonconforming uses.

Thank you again for your engagement on this issue and please let me know what additional questions you have. We will work with all relevant County departments and agencies, as well as our State partners, to pursue this information.

Very truly yours,

Dawn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the meeting out a few weeks in order to equip the speakers with talking points meant to allay concerns and push back on community concerns.

The council member led off with comments that demonstrated where she stands. She also stated that there’s no need to change the zoning laws since that won’t fix the current situation. She neglected to explain why the county doesn’t want to fix the problem so it doesn’t happen moving forward.

Then she read a list of questions that were given to the business/treatment center (who didn’t show up), and the questions were obviously meant to prompt answers painting the facility in a favorable light. She read their answers after explaining they actually purchased 3 lots (that only have 2 houses…for now), so they can have 24 residents eventually.

The law enforcement Rep clearly was handed talking points to butter up the crowd with compliments about how close knit the community is and how it makes his job easy to handle any issues that come up. Then he reminded everyone that the community is very safe and they have effective models to prevent issues. (That last point made people laugh out loud.) The police officer also said that some of his colleagues have substance abuse issues and people shouldn’t judge them.

Then the council member went bananas. She scolded people for making assumptions about people, drawing a false equivalence by intimating we don’t know if other people are already in the school with substance use issues (presumably teachers). This isn’t helpful because the facility is a level 3.5 for people will severe issues such that they cannot function and require supervised treatment 24/7. Clearly those patients have far different needs than anyone working in the school.

When someone pointed out inaccuracies in the county’s legal analysis of fair housing (noting it protects people who have recovered, not those in treatment) and followed up by pointing out how the dubious exceptions don’t apply—and then flagged that the developer likely lied to get permitting, etc.—and summed up by pointing out the rapid growth of facilities in a neighborhood, citing issues about how the operators aren’t helpful—the Councilmember said she wasn’t aware of any permitting approvals needed at this point.

A gentleman in the audience who is a retired lawyer summed it up by saying there’s a lobby pushing all these facilities through in neighborhoods across the county.

Why next to an elementary school? Good question. The councilmember’s response was that the business is allowed to do this by right/per zoning law.

Next: seems like emails to the Office of the County Attorney to ask them to reevaluate their analysis given the business purchased 3 properties individually…to pull a fast one. 1. They shouldn’t be allowed to operate a single facility with so many people by tallying up the max allowable per single unit. 2. Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to people in treatment. 3. They likely lied about a variety things to get their permits.

Re: how patients will be transported - county couldn’t answer.

When asked why the zoning amendment wouldn’t work, the Councilmember couldn’t answer. She claimed it wouldn’t work retroactively at the top of the meeting. When pressed, Victor Salazar, division chief for zoning, said their interpretation is that they are allowed by right to have up to 8 patients in each residence. They are treating each house separately, permitted by right.

They originally applied for commercial permits which were denied. Salazar said that was likely in error. They can be treated as individual residences and benefit from the zoning laws now. He kept saying they are permitted by right. Then he said anyone in the room could do the same thing in their own house so long as they get the appropriate permits.

Next question: they asked how they will enforce 8 person occupancy per residence. The response was complaints to DPS trigger inspection.

Next: someone asked about analytics from the Fredrick facility where the business owns another treatment facility. Of course, they had not. Instead, they double downed on how law enforcement will quickly respond to any issues.

The school principal was present along with someone from mcps. Mcps rep tossed a word salad that was unresponsive to the question.

Next: someone asked if they could add additional structures on the 3 properties or add outpatient services. The county said they don’t believe they can do outpatient. And they said the next level up from 3.5 is a level 4–which is hospital level…so it’s unlikely they can increase their treatment level. (PS - Yikes! 3.5 is super high!) And the Planning Dept guy said they would need to post a sign before they could increase # of beds beyond 16.

Another question for Salazar/Planning: with the 3 properties owned and managed by 1 company, why aren’t we making them go through the permitting process since it will be such a large, disruptive facility impacting the neighborhood? She flagged that this will impact our county—why would anyone buy a home in MoCo when the county lets businesses operate such facilities in SFHs?

The county responded by saying they will continue to view the 3 properties/currently with 2 houses separately.

Next question was about security—would it be increased. The county punted to the school’s being required to have safety/emergency plans.

Clarified that it’s limited to 8 people spending the night. The overnight nurse counts towards the 8.

Jawando was on zoom but said nothing.

State delegate Zucker was on zoom but said nothing.

Last question: pointed out that determining use and permitting matters, noting it’s currently vague and they are gaming the system.

Can you provide a citation or case law that is directly applicable? Because my understanding is the federal Fair Housing Act certainly applies to people in treatment. They are considered to have a disability and therefore cannot be discriminated against.

Correct the county cannot violate federal law. I don't see what the community wants to happen that is within federal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the meeting out a few weeks in order to equip the speakers with talking points meant to allay concerns and push back on community concerns.

The council member led off with comments that demonstrated where she stands. She also stated that there’s no need to change the zoning laws since that won’t fix the current situation. She neglected to explain why the county doesn’t want to fix the problem so it doesn’t happen moving forward.

Then she read a list of questions that were given to the business/treatment center (who didn’t show up), and the questions were obviously meant to prompt answers painting the facility in a favorable light. She read their answers after explaining they actually purchased 3 lots (that only have 2 houses…for now), so they can have 24 residents eventually.

The law enforcement Rep clearly was handed talking points to butter up the crowd with compliments about how close knit the community is and how it makes his job easy to handle any issues that come up. Then he reminded everyone that the community is very safe and they have effective models to prevent issues. (That last point made people laugh out loud.) The police officer also said that some of his colleagues have substance abuse issues and people shouldn’t judge them.

Then the council member went bananas. She scolded people for making assumptions about people, drawing a false equivalence by intimating we don’t know if other people are already in the school with substance use issues (presumably teachers). This isn’t helpful because the facility is a level 3.5 for people will severe issues such that they cannot function and require supervised treatment 24/7. Clearly those patients have far different needs than anyone working in the school.

When someone pointed out inaccuracies in the county’s legal analysis of fair housing (noting it protects people who have recovered, not those in treatment) and followed up by pointing out how the dubious exceptions don’t apply—and then flagged that the developer likely lied to get permitting, etc.—and summed up by pointing out the rapid growth of facilities in a neighborhood, citing issues about how the operators aren’t helpful—the Councilmember said she wasn’t aware of any permitting approvals needed at this point.

A gentleman in the audience who is a retired lawyer summed it up by saying there’s a lobby pushing all these facilities through in neighborhoods across the county.

Why next to an elementary school? Good question. The councilmember’s response was that the business is allowed to do this by right/per zoning law.

Next: seems like emails to the Office of the County Attorney to ask them to reevaluate their analysis given the business purchased 3 properties individually…to pull a fast one. 1. They shouldn’t be allowed to operate a single facility with so many people by tallying up the max allowable per single unit. 2. Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to people in treatment. 3. They likely lied about a variety things to get their permits.

Re: how patients will be transported - county couldn’t answer.

When asked why the zoning amendment wouldn’t work, the Councilmember couldn’t answer. She claimed it wouldn’t work retroactively at the top of the meeting. When pressed, Victor Salazar, division chief for zoning, said their interpretation is that they are allowed by right to have up to 8 patients in each residence. They are treating each house separately, permitted by right.

They originally applied for commercial permits which were denied. Salazar said that was likely in error. They can be treated as individual residences and benefit from the zoning laws now. He kept saying they are permitted by right. Then he said anyone in the room could do the same thing in their own house so long as they get the appropriate permits.

Next question: they asked how they will enforce 8 person occupancy per residence. The response was complaints to DPS trigger inspection.

Next: someone asked about analytics from the Fredrick facility where the business owns another treatment facility. Of course, they had not. Instead, they double downed on how law enforcement will quickly respond to any issues.

The school principal was present along with someone from mcps. Mcps rep tossed a word salad that was unresponsive to the question.

Next: someone asked if they could add additional structures on the 3 properties or add outpatient services. The county said they don’t believe they can do outpatient. And they said the next level up from 3.5 is a level 4–which is hospital level…so it’s unlikely they can increase their treatment level. (PS - Yikes! 3.5 is super high!) And the Planning Dept guy said they would need to post a sign before they could increase # of beds beyond 16.

Another question for Salazar/Planning: with the 3 properties owned and managed by 1 company, why aren’t we making them go through the permitting process since it will be such a large, disruptive facility impacting the neighborhood? She flagged that this will impact our county—why would anyone buy a home in MoCo when the county lets businesses operate such facilities in SFHs?

The county responded by saying they will continue to view the 3 properties/currently with 2 houses separately.

Next question was about security—would it be increased. The county punted to the school’s being required to have safety/emergency plans.

Clarified that it’s limited to 8 people spending the night. The overnight nurse counts towards the 8.

Jawando was on zoom but said nothing.

State delegate Zucker was on zoom but said nothing.

Last question: pointed out that determining use and permitting matters, noting it’s currently vague and they are gaming the system.

Can you provide a citation or case law that is directly applicable? Because my understanding is the federal Fair Housing Act certainly applies to people in treatment. They are considered to have a disability and therefore cannot be discriminated against.

Correct the county cannot violate federal law. I don't see what the community wants to happen that is within federal law.

The primary issue is the size of the facility: 8 per property. The company bought 3 properties and 2 currently have houses on them (the third is vacant lot).

The county could choose to treat the 1 company that intends to operate 1 massive business as a single unit, meaning they would be capped at 8 overnight residents.

But the county is choosing to count them as separate (meaning they could ultimately have 3 buildings with 24 people).

Next: allowing any sort of high-needs treatment facility next to a school is just plain reckless. This admittedly gets into gray areas, but the county could change the zoning laws to say NO group home of any kind could be located within a certain distance of a school. It’s not a FHA violation if the ban applies to all group homes—or all businesses.

The county can’t easily fix this retroactively. But they can take action to fix the problem moving forward.

They are choosing not to.

And that’s interesting.

It speaks volumes about their priorities: business developers over common sense.

Email the county council and ask them why they aren’t open to fixing the problem moving forward.

PS - Jawando was at the meeting with Luedtke. So was state delegate Zucker. They don’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the meeting out a few weeks in order to equip the speakers with talking points meant to allay concerns and push back on community concerns.

The council member led off with comments that demonstrated where she stands. She also stated that there’s no need to change the zoning laws since that won’t fix the current situation. She neglected to explain why the county doesn’t want to fix the problem so it doesn’t happen moving forward.

Then she read a list of questions that were given to the business/treatment center (who didn’t show up), and the questions were obviously meant to prompt answers painting the facility in a favorable light. She read their answers after explaining they actually purchased 3 lots (that only have 2 houses…for now), so they can have 24 residents eventually.

The law enforcement Rep clearly was handed talking points to butter up the crowd with compliments about how close knit the community is and how it makes his job easy to handle any issues that come up. Then he reminded everyone that the community is very safe and they have effective models to prevent issues. (That last point made people laugh out loud.) The police officer also said that some of his colleagues have substance abuse issues and people shouldn’t judge them.

Then the council member went bananas. She scolded people for making assumptions about people, drawing a false equivalence by intimating we don’t know if other people are already in the school with substance use issues (presumably teachers). This isn’t helpful because the facility is a level 3.5 for people will severe issues such that they cannot function and require supervised treatment 24/7. Clearly those patients have far different needs than anyone working in the school.

When someone pointed out inaccuracies in the county’s legal analysis of fair housing (noting it protects people who have recovered, not those in treatment) and followed up by pointing out how the dubious exceptions don’t apply—and then flagged that the developer likely lied to get permitting, etc.—and summed up by pointing out the rapid growth of facilities in a neighborhood, citing issues about how the operators aren’t helpful—the Councilmember said she wasn’t aware of any permitting approvals needed at this point.

A gentleman in the audience who is a retired lawyer summed it up by saying there’s a lobby pushing all these facilities through in neighborhoods across the county.

Why next to an elementary school? Good question. The councilmember’s response was that the business is allowed to do this by right/per zoning law.

Next: seems like emails to the Office of the County Attorney to ask them to reevaluate their analysis given the business purchased 3 properties individually…to pull a fast one. 1. They shouldn’t be allowed to operate a single facility with so many people by tallying up the max allowable per single unit. 2. Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to people in treatment. 3. They likely lied about a variety things to get their permits.

Re: how patients will be transported - county couldn’t answer.

When asked why the zoning amendment wouldn’t work, the Councilmember couldn’t answer. She claimed it wouldn’t work retroactively at the top of the meeting. When pressed, Victor Salazar, division chief for zoning, said their interpretation is that they are allowed by right to have up to 8 patients in each residence. They are treating each house separately, permitted by right.

They originally applied for commercial permits which were denied. Salazar said that was likely in error. They can be treated as individual residences and benefit from the zoning laws now. He kept saying they are permitted by right. Then he said anyone in the room could do the same thing in their own house so long as they get the appropriate permits.

Next question: they asked how they will enforce 8 person occupancy per residence. The response was complaints to DPS trigger inspection.

Next: someone asked about analytics from the Fredrick facility where the business owns another treatment facility. Of course, they had not. Instead, they double downed on how law enforcement will quickly respond to any issues.

The school principal was present along with someone from mcps. Mcps rep tossed a word salad that was unresponsive to the question.

Next: someone asked if they could add additional structures on the 3 properties or add outpatient services. The county said they don’t believe they can do outpatient. And they said the next level up from 3.5 is a level 4–which is hospital level…so it’s unlikely they can increase their treatment level. (PS - Yikes! 3.5 is super high!) And the Planning Dept guy said they would need to post a sign before they could increase # of beds beyond 16.

Another question for Salazar/Planning: with the 3 properties owned and managed by 1 company, why aren’t we making them go through the permitting process since it will be such a large, disruptive facility impacting the neighborhood? She flagged that this will impact our county—why would anyone buy a home in MoCo when the county lets businesses operate such facilities in SFHs?

The county responded by saying they will continue to view the 3 properties/currently with 2 houses separately.

Next question was about security—would it be increased. The county punted to the school’s being required to have safety/emergency plans.

Clarified that it’s limited to 8 people spending the night. The overnight nurse counts towards the 8.

Jawando was on zoom but said nothing.

State delegate Zucker was on zoom but said nothing.

Last question: pointed out that determining use and permitting matters, noting it’s currently vague and they are gaming the system.

Can you provide a citation or case law that is directly applicable? Because my understanding is the federal Fair Housing Act certainly applies to people in treatment. They are considered to have a disability and therefore cannot be discriminated against.

Correct the county cannot violate federal law. I don't see what the community wants to happen that is within federal law.

The primary issue is the size of the facility: 8 per property. The company bought 3 properties and 2 currently have houses on them (the third is vacant lot).

The county could choose to treat the 1 company that intends to operate 1 massive business as a single unit, meaning they would be capped at 8 overnight residents.

But the county is choosing to count them as separate (meaning they could ultimately have 3 buildings with 24 people).

Next: allowing any sort of high-needs treatment facility next to a school is just plain reckless. This admittedly gets into gray areas, but the county could change the zoning laws to say NO group home of any kind could be located within a certain distance of a school. It’s not a FHA violation if the ban applies to all group homes—or all businesses.

The county can’t easily fix this retroactively. But they can take action to fix the problem moving forward.

They are choosing not to.

And that’s interesting.

It speaks volumes about their priorities: business developers over common sense.

Email the county council and ask them why they aren’t open to fixing the problem moving forward.

PS - Jawando was at the meeting with Luedtke. So was state delegate Zucker. They don’t care.

Doesn’t the county require a license for short-term rentals under 30 days? Many insurance companies will not agree to cover level 3.5 drug rehab stays more than 15 days at a time. My understanding is that if this facility ever accepts any stays less than a month long they would need a license for short-term occupancy. Short-term occupancy restrictions are perfectly legal and many states or localities have these restrictions. It typically does not violate Fair Housing law to have short-term occupancy restrictions as long as they apply equally to all types of short-term occupancy stays in addition rehab treatment centers. MOCO already has these zoning restrictions on the books so it’s not clear to me why they wouldn’t apply in this situation. “discrimination” is likely not a legally valid excuse why this facility would be exempt from short-term occupancy restrictions. The whole claim about “discrimination” is just an excuse to make people think that there is nothing the community can do to stop this from happening. The short-term occupancy restriction is where people should focus their attention in a lawsuit against the county and the facility with a talented land use attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the meeting out a few weeks in order to equip the speakers with talking points meant to allay concerns and push back on community concerns.

The council member led off with comments that demonstrated where she stands. She also stated that there’s no need to change the zoning laws since that won’t fix the current situation. She neglected to explain why the county doesn’t want to fix the problem so it doesn’t happen moving forward.

Then she read a list of questions that were given to the business/treatment center (who didn’t show up), and the questions were obviously meant to prompt answers painting the facility in a favorable light. She read their answers after explaining they actually purchased 3 lots (that only have 2 houses…for now), so they can have 24 residents eventually.

The law enforcement Rep clearly was handed talking points to butter up the crowd with compliments about how close knit the community is and how it makes his job easy to handle any issues that come up. Then he reminded everyone that the community is very safe and they have effective models to prevent issues. (That last point made people laugh out loud.) The police officer also said that some of his colleagues have substance abuse issues and people shouldn’t judge them.

Then the council member went bananas. She scolded people for making assumptions about people, drawing a false equivalence by intimating we don’t know if other people are already in the school with substance use issues (presumably teachers). This isn’t helpful because the facility is a level 3.5 for people will severe issues such that they cannot function and require supervised treatment 24/7. Clearly those patients have far different needs than anyone working in the school.

When someone pointed out inaccuracies in the county’s legal analysis of fair housing (noting it protects people who have recovered, not those in treatment) and followed up by pointing out how the dubious exceptions don’t apply—and then flagged that the developer likely lied to get permitting, etc.—and summed up by pointing out the rapid growth of facilities in a neighborhood, citing issues about how the operators aren’t helpful—the Councilmember said she wasn’t aware of any permitting approvals needed at this point.

A gentleman in the audience who is a retired lawyer summed it up by saying there’s a lobby pushing all these facilities through in neighborhoods across the county.

Why next to an elementary school? Good question. The councilmember’s response was that the business is allowed to do this by right/per zoning law.

Next: seems like emails to the Office of the County Attorney to ask them to reevaluate their analysis given the business purchased 3 properties individually…to pull a fast one. 1. They shouldn’t be allowed to operate a single facility with so many people by tallying up the max allowable per single unit. 2. Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to people in treatment. 3. They likely lied about a variety things to get their permits.

Re: how patients will be transported - county couldn’t answer.

When asked why the zoning amendment wouldn’t work, the Councilmember couldn’t answer. She claimed it wouldn’t work retroactively at the top of the meeting. When pressed, Victor Salazar, division chief for zoning, said their interpretation is that they are allowed by right to have up to 8 patients in each residence. They are treating each house separately, permitted by right.

They originally applied for commercial permits which were denied. Salazar said that was likely in error. They can be treated as individual residences and benefit from the zoning laws now. He kept saying they are permitted by right. Then he said anyone in the room could do the same thing in their own house so long as they get the appropriate permits.

Next question: they asked how they will enforce 8 person occupancy per residence. The response was complaints to DPS trigger inspection.

Next: someone asked about analytics from the Fredrick facility where the business owns another treatment facility. Of course, they had not. Instead, they double downed on how law enforcement will quickly respond to any issues.

The school principal was present along with someone from mcps. Mcps rep tossed a word salad that was unresponsive to the question.

Next: someone asked if they could add additional structures on the 3 properties or add outpatient services. The county said they don’t believe they can do outpatient. And they said the next level up from 3.5 is a level 4–which is hospital level…so it’s unlikely they can increase their treatment level. (PS - Yikes! 3.5 is super high!) And the Planning Dept guy said they would need to post a sign before they could increase # of beds beyond 16.

Another question for Salazar/Planning: with the 3 properties owned and managed by 1 company, why aren’t we making them go through the permitting process since it will be such a large, disruptive facility impacting the neighborhood? She flagged that this will impact our county—why would anyone buy a home in MoCo when the county lets businesses operate such facilities in SFHs?

The county responded by saying they will continue to view the 3 properties/currently with 2 houses separately.

Next question was about security—would it be increased. The county punted to the school’s being required to have safety/emergency plans.

Clarified that it’s limited to 8 people spending the night. The overnight nurse counts towards the 8.

Jawando was on zoom but said nothing.

State delegate Zucker was on zoom but said nothing.

Last question: pointed out that determining use and permitting matters, noting it’s currently vague and they are gaming the system.

Can you provide a citation or case law that is directly applicable? Because my understanding is the federal Fair Housing Act certainly applies to people in treatment. They are considered to have a disability and therefore cannot be discriminated against.

Correct the county cannot violate federal law. I don't see what the community wants to happen that is within federal law.

The primary issue is the size of the facility: 8 per property. The company bought 3 properties and 2 currently have houses on them (the third is vacant lot).

The county could choose to treat the 1 company that intends to operate 1 massive business as a single unit, meaning they would be capped at 8 overnight residents.

But the county is choosing to count them as separate (meaning they could ultimately have 3 buildings with 24 people).

Next: allowing any sort of high-needs treatment facility next to a school is just plain reckless. This admittedly gets into gray areas, but the county could change the zoning laws to say NO group home of any kind could be located within a certain distance of a school. It’s not a FHA violation if the ban applies to all group homes—or all businesses.

The county can’t easily fix this retroactively. But they can take action to fix the problem moving forward.

They are choosing not to.

And that’s interesting.

It speaks volumes about their priorities: business developers over common sense.

Email the county council and ask them why they aren’t open to fixing the problem moving forward.

PS - Jawando was at the meeting with Luedtke. So was state delegate Zucker. They don’t care.

Doesn’t the county require a license for short-term rentals under 30 days? Many insurance companies will not agree to cover level 3.5 drug rehab stays more than 15 days at a time. My understanding is that if this facility ever accepts any stays less than a month long they would need a license for short-term occupancy. Short-term occupancy restrictions are perfectly legal and many states or localities have these restrictions. It typically does not violate Fair Housing law to have short-term occupancy restrictions as long as they apply equally to all types of short-term occupancy stays in addition rehab treatment centers. MOCO already has these zoning restrictions on the books so it’s not clear to me why they wouldn’t apply in this situation. “discrimination” is likely not a legally valid excuse why this facility would be exempt from short-term occupancy restrictions. The whole claim about “discrimination” is just an excuse to make people think that there is nothing the community can do to stop this from happening. The short-term occupancy restriction is where people should focus their attention in a lawsuit against the county and the facility with a talented land use attorney.

It seems to apply and limit the number of adults there at any one time to 6.

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md/0-0-0-153781

Luedtke doesn’t know the law or is willfully informing it.