Anonymous wrote:There is a similar facility in a SFH in my neighborhood that is directly adjacent to the Argyle Middle School field. Has been brought up in HOA meetings and have been told there's nothing we can do about it because these facilities are protected under county law.

under federal law

There is a similar facility in a SFH in my neighborhood that is directly adjacent to the Argyle Middle School field. Has been brought up in HOA meetings and have been told there's nothing we can do about it because these facilities are protected under county law.

The county cannot violate the Fair Housing Act. Period.

That's also the reason you see hundreds of "Brookeville Houses" popping up. Especially in the Olney/Brookeville area of the county. Soon you will be surrounded by assisted living and treatment houses. There is no real stopping it. These places have high powered disability attorneys on hand to file lawsuits and demand letters at a moments notice. The county is not going to spend the money to fight multiple lawsuits that they have no chance of winning.

The following is an email from Dawn Luedtke:

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 councilmember.luedtke@montgomerycountymd.gov 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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the netting 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.

This is a really impressive overview of what transpired. Unfortunately, I feel like MCPS will do nothing to increase security and is relying on the company and the PTA to broker an arrangement.

At best, the company will erect a privacy fence and plant some trees.

I think all county residents should be very concerned. This can happen in any SFH: a level 3.5 treatment facility can be your new neighbor…and it can be right next to a school.

But don’t worry, folks. There will be an overnight nurse (just 1) to make sure the residents (with impulse control issues to the point they aren’t safe to be left alone, hence this level 3.5 facility) don’t get out of hand.

The business says it’s against their policy for patients to leave the property. Lolz. It’s not a jail. What can they possibly do to prevent anyone from leaving? Nothing. But don’t worry, in the company’s written response they assured everyone that if someone becomes a threat or presents an issue, they will transport them off property to a safe location…whatever the heck that means…and as if that’s even possible. If someone is spiraling out, far chance the lone nurse can handle it.

Ask me how I know.

Here ya go: I know a nurse who was assaulted during an overnight shift at an area hospital ER because she was left alone (which she should not have been) with a male patient with mental health issues who was on something.

Anonymous wrote:If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the netting 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.

This is a really impressive overview of what transpired. Unfortunately, I feel like MCPS will do nothing to increase security and is relying on the company and the PTA to broker an arrangement.

If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the netting 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 wrote:Typical NIMBY folks. Just move it to that other area just don't build it here.

I hope someday you don't need services and the neighbors decide they are more important than your recovery.

Easier said than done. Hope you get a nice business or two sandwiching you in some day. (I do not live in this neighborhood, but feel for those who do).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At one point in the meeting, a community member brought up the point that the county won’t talk to the community. They will only discuss certain aspects with Dawn Ludke and to ask her. But when the community asked her, she angrily replied that she would not break privileged information to answer our questions!

Nobody’s asking her to break privilege or to break the law, but only asking for answers.

She made it clear she wasn't interested in being re-elected, or serving her community. She should just resign if she hates the job so much.

She won’t resign, and she likely has higher political aspirations.

Her husband worked for Governor Wes Moore and held an elected position at the state level himself.

If she doesn’t fix this, then voters will need to be reminded of her failure as well as her attitude.

Ditto for Craig Zucker who lives in the neighborhood impacted by this (a stone’s throw from the school). He could do something to help at the state level, and he could voice something at the local level.

These two elected “leaders” have been silent publicly. And Councilmember Luedtke opted to insult her constituents at the meeting last night rather than take a stand and attempt to lead.

There must be better options for leaders.

Local politicians don't care. Voters in this county vote for the same types of politicians over and over. It's clear MoCo local politicians are more concerned with their own political aspirations than with actually serving the population.

Bingo. Especially, when "local" means serving a county of 1M+. Who exactly is being served here? Not the taxpayers who live there and send their kids to school there.

I grew up in a wonderful suburb in PA. Local govt. meant local to your town--not some county elected officials living elsewhere determining the zoning for your neighborhood. School location aside, you now have 16+ members added to your cul-de-sac who essentially live in a business. People need treatment. We have more than enough commercially adjacent property in this huge county to care for them appropriately, and leave the SFH streets, exactly as they were intended--as Single Family Homes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dawn Luedtke's behavior at the community meeting was unexplainable. She showed such clear contempt for the community. it's odd, considering she lives in Ashton. I guess since she has a large, 2 acre property she doesn't concern herself with the needs of people in neighborhoods who live within a few feet of one another. The idea of a 3 treatment homes on side by side properties in a regular, residential neighborhood just makes no sense. And sharing a fence line with a school? Ridiculous. This is most definitely an abuse of our zoning. I can't figure out why Luedtke is acting on behalf of this private company; she seems more concerned with protecting their rights as business owners rather than the community.

The recording of the meeting is available- everyone in Montgomery County should watch it if you want to learn how our representatives feel about us constituents.


I agree with the sentiment that everyone should file complaint after complaint with permitting, zoning and our elected representatives (despite their apparent apathy). I hope that this regulation is amended so other schools and neighborhoods don't find themselves in this situation.

Luedtke’s connection

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail_Pol.aspx?Item_ID=30090

Is this why she lectured the entire room at the beginning about how you never know which of your neighbors needs treatments?

This helps explain why she was so hostile and combative right from the beginning. It doesn’t excuse it. It just explains it.

The meeting was also on Zoom and it was recorded. Since it is an official government meeting, will the recording be made public does anybody know?

Anonymous wrote:Dawn Luedtke's behavior at the community meeting was unexplainable. She showed such clear contempt for the community. it's odd, considering she lives in Ashton. I guess since she has a large, 2 acre property she doesn't concern herself with the needs of people in neighborhoods who live within a few feet of one another. The idea of a 3 treatment homes on side by side properties in a regular, residential neighborhood just makes no sense. And sharing a fence line with a school? Ridiculous. This is most definitely an abuse of our zoning. I can't figure out why Luedtke is acting on behalf of this private company; she seems more concerned with protecting their rights as business owners rather than the community.

The recording of the meeting is available- everyone in Montgomery County should watch it if you want to learn how our representatives feel about us constituents.


I agree with the sentiment that everyone should file complaint after complaint with permitting, zoning and our elected representatives (despite their apparent apathy). I hope that this regulation is amended so other schools and neighborhoods don't find themselves in this situation.

Luedtke’s connection

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail_Pol.aspx?Item_ID=30090

Anonymous wrote:Dawn Luedtke's behavior at the community meeting was unexplainable. She showed such clear contempt for the community. it's odd, considering she lives in Ashton. I guess since she has a large, 2 acre property she doesn't concern herself with the needs of people in neighborhoods who live within a few feet of one another. The idea of a 3 treatment homes on side by side properties in a regular, residential neighborhood just makes no sense. And sharing a fence line with a school? Ridiculous. This is most definitely an abuse of our zoning. I can't figure out why Luedtke is acting on behalf of this private company; she seems more concerned with protecting their rights as business owners rather than the community.

The recording of the meeting is available- everyone in Montgomery County should watch it if you want to learn how our representatives feel about us constituents.


I agree with the sentiment that everyone should file complaint after complaint with permitting, zoning and our elected representatives (despite their apparent apathy). I hope that this regulation is amended so other schools and neighborhoods don't find themselves in this situation.

Where is the recording? Drop the link here so we can see it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At one point in the meeting, a community member brought up the point that the county won’t talk to the community. They will only discuss certain aspects with Dawn Ludke and to ask her. But when the community asked her, she angrily replied that she would not break privileged information to answer our questions!

Nobody’s asking her to break privilege or to break the law, but only asking for answers.

She made it clear she wasn't interested in being re-elected, or serving her community. She should just resign if she hates the job so much.

Surprised to hear Luedtke show up like that. She usually is staunchly in favor of public safety and security.

Her talking points and attitude made clear that she thinks having 16+ severely mentally ill/addicted patients living next to a school while they are in the throes of their illness such that they require 24/7 residential treatment just isn’t a risk or a big deal at all. Moreover, she made clear that she thinks voters with concerns—including those currently living near a similar facility who can point to actual incidents/issues that have happened—are just cruel or clueless NIMBYs.

She made a comment that parents should be more concerned with school violence than this facility. That’s when everyone realized she was trying to divert attention (at best) and perhaps shame/scold voters who aren’t supportive.

She’s a politician…married to a former politician who was an advisor to Gov. Wes Moore. Of course she’s pro-business. This Florida based big business has likely thrown money her way for her next campaign.

Write to the CE and all council members. Tell them the county needs to find a way to handle this. They can incentivize the business to move elsewhere. Tell our elected leaders that we need common sense leadership now. Several of these folks will be running for County Executive soon enough. Make clear that we won’t forget this ridiculous lapse in leadership. They also must fix this zoning law moving forward. Eight patients/people with significant issues should not be permitted in a SFH—particularly when run by a for-profit business with multiple staff. It’s just too many. Four people in a 4 bedroom house with a 24/7 staff presence seems like a sensible upper limit for a nonprofit operating in a SFH in a residential neighborhood…and even that scenario doesn’t belong next to a school.

Anything bigger shouldn’t be in a neighborhood.

Another common sense solution should be even if you allow such a facility next within a neighborhood, there definitely should be a restriction on such a facility BORDERING a school.

No one in Montgomery County takes the safety and wellbeing of children seriously. It's disgusting.

Dawn Luedtke's behavior at the community meeting was unexplainable. She showed such clear contempt for the community. it's odd, considering she lives in Ashton. I guess since she has a large, 2 acre property she doesn't concern herself with the needs of people in neighborhoods who live within a few feet of one another. The idea of a 3 treatment homes on side by side properties in a regular, residential neighborhood just makes no sense. And sharing a fence line with a school? Ridiculous. This is most definitely an abuse of our zoning. I can't figure out why Luedtke is acting on behalf of this private company; she seems more concerned with protecting their rights as business owners rather than the community.

The recording of the meeting is available- everyone in Montgomery County should watch it if you want to learn how our representatives feel about us constituents.


I agree with the sentiment that everyone should file complaint after complaint with permitting, zoning and our elected representatives (despite their apparent apathy). I hope that this regulation is amended so other schools and neighborhoods don't find themselves in this situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I am more concerned with physical violence between students at the schools” -Dawn Ludke

Unbelievable.

She couldn’t care less about the students or the voters who live Nextdoor.

This county council lacks commonsense and prioritizes developers/businesses (like this Florida-based business) over residents and kids.

An addiction facility prioritizes the community. You don't think we have addicts right here? They are much more likely to hurt people while actively using. Give them a chance to heal in a skilled facility.

And yeah, I agree with Dawn. The violence against kids in schools is a much bigger issue than a 16 bed facility. But I guess that doesn't (yet?) affect your home values the way you think this facility will.

Greenwood is a sweet little school in a small neighborhood. There’s no violence happening among the students.

The Florida-based business isn’t entitled to turn a profit by running a large scale facility next to a school. They can put it somewhere else…like two minutes up the road on farmland.

All of health care makes a profit in this county.

And how many large residential healthcare facilities are in SFHs in residential neighborhoods?

At least a few, I'm sure there are others that are more private and not widely advertised.

https://thevalleydmv.com/
mountainmanor.org
Lawrence Rehab Center: 1 Lawrence Ct. Rockville