Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.change.org/p/no-to-drug-alcohol-rehabilitation-next-to-greenwood-elementary-school?recruiter=312171557&recruited_by_id=8b36d320-0c93-11e5-b7de-33e95d9b89f9&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylinkrmr

A Florida-based for-profit company purchased 2 houses that border Greenwood Elementary’s playground and they intend to operate a Level 3.5 residential treatment program for 16+ people with addiction and/or mental health issues.

The properties are on a residential cul-de-sac between SFHs on small plots and the property shares a chain link fence with the playground.

You can google what a Level 3.5 facility means, but the big takeaway is that it’s for people who lack impulse control.

While I’m sure most can agree that treatment facilities are needed, the key issue here is the location.

This shouldn’t be allowed to be placed against the school playground. And it shouldn’t be allowed on a neighborhood street.

We have been told that these business ventures are popping up in our county. Your school or neighborhood could be next. Please sign the petition, contact the superintendent, and voice your concerns to the county council.

No corporation purchased homes.

4 guys, one who went to QOHS bought homes.

Right.

They were gaming the system.

They purchased the properties for the company they work for.

They lied about their intentions precisely to keep it under wraps so they could get permits before the neighborhood could complain.

And the county doesn’t care.

No company is on the deed. They did it to remove liability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.change.org/p/no-to-drug-alcohol-rehabilitation-next-to-greenwood-elementary-school?recruiter=312171557&recruited_by_id=8b36d320-0c93-11e5-b7de-33e95d9b89f9&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylinkrmr

A Florida-based for-profit company purchased 2 houses that border Greenwood Elementary’s playground and they intend to operate a Level 3.5 residential treatment program for 16+ people with addiction and/or mental health issues.

The properties are on a residential cul-de-sac between SFHs on small plots and the property shares a chain link fence with the playground.

You can google what a Level 3.5 facility means, but the big takeaway is that it’s for people who lack impulse control.

While I’m sure most can agree that treatment facilities are needed, the key issue here is the location.

This shouldn’t be allowed to be placed against the school playground. And it shouldn’t be allowed on a neighborhood street.

We have been told that these business ventures are popping up in our county. Your school or neighborhood could be next. Please sign the petition, contact the superintendent, and voice your concerns to the county council.

No corporation purchased homes.

4 guys, one who went to QOHS bought homes.

This is the first I heard of that!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.change.org/p/no-to-drug-alcohol-rehabilitation-next-to-greenwood-elementary-school?recruiter=312171557&recruited_by_id=8b36d320-0c93-11e5-b7de-33e95d9b89f9&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylinkrmr

A Florida-based for-profit company purchased 2 houses that border Greenwood Elementary’s playground and they intend to operate a Level 3.5 residential treatment program for 16+ people with addiction and/or mental health issues.

The properties are on a residential cul-de-sac between SFHs on small plots and the property shares a chain link fence with the playground.

You can google what a Level 3.5 facility means, but the big takeaway is that it’s for people who lack impulse control.

While I’m sure most can agree that treatment facilities are needed, the key issue here is the location.

This shouldn’t be allowed to be placed against the school playground. And it shouldn’t be allowed on a neighborhood street.

We have been told that these business ventures are popping up in our county. Your school or neighborhood could be next. Please sign the petition, contact the superintendent, and voice your concerns to the county council.

No corporation purchased homes.

4 guys, one who went to QOHS bought homes.

Right.

They were gaming the system.

They purchased the properties for the company they work for.

They lied about their intentions precisely to keep it under wraps so they could get permits before the neighborhood could complain.

And the county doesn’t care.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.change.org/p/no-to-drug-alcohol-rehabilitation-next-to-greenwood-elementary-school?recruiter=312171557&recruited_by_id=8b36d320-0c93-11e5-b7de-33e95d9b89f9&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylinkrmr

A Florida-based for-profit company purchased 2 houses that border Greenwood Elementary’s playground and they intend to operate a Level 3.5 residential treatment program for 16+ people with addiction and/or mental health issues.

The properties are on a residential cul-de-sac between SFHs on small plots and the property shares a chain link fence with the playground.

You can google what a Level 3.5 facility means, but the big takeaway is that it’s for people who lack impulse control.

While I’m sure most can agree that treatment facilities are needed, the key issue here is the location.

This shouldn’t be allowed to be placed against the school playground. And it shouldn’t be allowed on a neighborhood street.

We have been told that these business ventures are popping up in our county. Your school or neighborhood could be next. Please sign the petition, contact the superintendent, and voice your concerns to the county council.

No corporation purchased homes.

4 guys, one who went to QOHS bought homes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, people in active treatment are not protected by federal law when it comes to such things. And medical treatment facilities don’t enjoy such protections either.

The county’s current interpretation of the county law is the issue.

And their decision to not amend the law to prevent this from happening again is baffling.

Addiction is considered a disability, active treatment or not. It's not the county's interpretation, there is case law around this issue. The county will not change zoning so that it violates a federal law. You really need to consult an attorney specializing in zoning and the Fair Housing Act.

The county can ban all group homes and treatment facilities from being a certain size in SFHs (hint: 8 is too many) AND prevent them from being located next to schools.

When the law applies to everyone/all group homes then it isn’t discriminatory.

Plus, there is a difference when it comes to this facility. It’s not housing; it’s a medical treatment facility akin to a hospital. While FHA applies to sober living group homes, this facility is not a residence or housing.

Regardless, there is an easy way to fix this going forward: amend the zoning law and have it apply across the board.

It has to apply to everyone period. If you aren't permitting more then 8 people to live in an house (no matter the lot or home size), even if they are related, then perhaps it would apply. But you'll still get group homes from non-related people of 5-6 individuals.

Again you really need an attorney. This is going nowhere for Greenwood, and likely nowhere for future development and purchases of existing residences

You can make it so NO group home can be located within a certain range of a school. That’s not discriminatory. But the county doesn’t want to change the law. Ask yourself why.

You can make it so you can’t have more than 4 unrelated people living in a SFH.

You can make it so all residential treatment facilities cannot be located in a residential neighborhood.

None of this would be discriminatory.

Where'd you get your law degree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There are group homes all around the county for people with disabilities as well as for people who are aging and unable to live alone. Most of us probably have them in our neighborhood and don’t know it.

The issue of finding a location for these type of facilities is a real problem. We can’t really think it’s possible to send everyone who needs group homes type related care and services to another county or state.

Group homes are different from residential treatment facilities requiring 24/7 medical personnel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, people in active treatment are not protected by federal law when it comes to such things. And medical treatment facilities don’t enjoy such protections either.

The county’s current interpretation of the county law is the issue.

And their decision to not amend the law to prevent this from happening again is baffling.

Addiction is considered a disability, active treatment or not. It's not the county's interpretation, there is case law around this issue. The county will not change zoning so that it violates a federal law. You really need to consult an attorney specializing in zoning and the Fair Housing Act.

The county can ban all group homes and treatment facilities from being a certain size in SFHs (hint: 8 is too many) AND prevent them from being located next to schools.

When the law applies to everyone/all group homes then it isn’t discriminatory.

Plus, there is a difference when it comes to this facility. It’s not housing; it’s a medical treatment facility akin to a hospital. While FHA applies to sober living group homes, this facility is not a residence or housing.

Regardless, there is an easy way to fix this going forward: amend the zoning law and have it apply across the board.

It has to apply to everyone period. If you aren't permitting more then 8 people to live in an house (no matter the lot or home size), even if they are related, then perhaps it would apply. But you'll still get group homes from non-related people of 5-6 individuals.

Again you really need an attorney. This is going nowhere for Greenwood, and likely nowhere for future development and purchases of existing residences

You can make it so NO group home can be located within a certain range of a school. That’s not discriminatory. But the county doesn’t want to change the law. Ask yourself why.

You can make it so you can’t have more than 4 unrelated people living in a SFH.

You can make it so all residential treatment facilities cannot be located in a residential neighborhood.

None of this would be discriminatory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, people in active treatment are not protected by federal law when it comes to such things. And medical treatment facilities don’t enjoy such protections either.

The county’s current interpretation of the county law is the issue.

And their decision to not amend the law to prevent this from happening again is baffling.

Addiction is considered a disability, active treatment or not. It's not the county's interpretation, there is case law around this issue. The county will not change zoning so that it violates a federal law. You really need to consult an attorney specializing in zoning and the Fair Housing Act.

The county can ban all group homes and treatment facilities from being a certain size in SFHs (hint: 8 is too many) AND prevent them from being located next to schools.

When the law applies to everyone/all group homes then it isn’t discriminatory.

Plus, there is a difference when it comes to this facility. It’s not housing; it’s a medical treatment facility akin to a hospital. While FHA applies to sober living group homes, this facility is not a residence or housing.

Regardless, there is an easy way to fix this going forward: amend the zoning law and have it apply across the board.

It has to apply to everyone period. If you aren't permitting more then 8 people to live in an house (no matter the lot or home size), even if they are related, then perhaps it would apply. But you'll still get group homes from non-related people of 5-6 individuals.

Again you really need an attorney. This is going nowhere for Greenwood, and likely nowhere for future development and purchases of existing residences

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, people in active treatment are not protected by federal law when it comes to such things. And medical treatment facilities don’t enjoy such protections either.

The county’s current interpretation of the county law is the issue.

And their decision to not amend the law to prevent this from happening again is baffling.

Addiction is considered a disability, active treatment or not. It's not the county's interpretation, there is case law around this issue. The county will not change zoning so that it violates a federal law. You really need to consult an attorney specializing in zoning and the Fair Housing Act.

If the individuals are going to be in treatment 24/7 (this is a level 3.5 facility,) there's no explicit need for low-crime, single-family neighborhood. They aren't going to be out and about in the neighborhood and have no requirement for an environment that would help them avoid their impulses. That's why FHA doesn't apply here. They need housing, they don't need access to specific neighborhoods in this case.

Anonymous wrote:

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

There are group homes all around the county for people with disabilities as well as for people who are aging and unable to live alone. Most of us probably have them in our neighborhood and don’t know it.

The issue of finding a location for these type of facilities is a real problem. We can’t really think it’s possible to send everyone who needs group homes type related care and services to another county or state.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, people in active treatment are not protected by federal law when it comes to such things. And medical treatment facilities don’t enjoy such protections either.

The county’s current interpretation of the county law is the issue.

And their decision to not amend the law to prevent this from happening again is baffling.

Addiction is considered a disability, active treatment or not. It's not the county's interpretation, there is case law around this issue. The county will not change zoning so that it violates a federal law. You really need to consult an attorney specializing in zoning and the Fair Housing Act.

The county can ban all group homes and treatment facilities from being a certain size in SFHs (hint: 8 is too many) AND prevent them from being located next to schools.

When the law applies to everyone/all group homes then it isn’t discriminatory.

Plus, there is a difference when it comes to this facility. It’s not housing; it’s a medical treatment facility akin to a hospital. While FHA applies to sober living group homes, this facility is not a residence or housing.

Regardless, there is an easy way to fix this going forward: amend the zoning law and have it apply across the board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, people in active treatment are not protected by federal law when it comes to such things. And medical treatment facilities don’t enjoy such protections either.

The county’s current interpretation of the county law is the issue.

And their decision to not amend the law to prevent this from happening again is baffling.

Addiction is considered a disability, active treatment or not. It's not the county's interpretation, there is case law around this issue. The county will not change zoning so that it violates a federal law. You really need to consult an attorney specializing in zoning and the Fair Housing Act.

Has the neighborhood hired a lawyer yet?

If not, what are you waiting for?

Anonymous wrote: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 way you stop it is by changing the law.

While it doesn’t help stop this current project, it WILL stop other similar projects moving forward.

Everyone should email the county exec and all council members to say this:

Subject: Fix the zoning law so we aren’t inundated with overly large treatment facilities in residential areas —or next to schools

Dear X:

As a concerned voter and homeowner, I am shocked to hear about the level 3.5 treatment facility for 16+ people that will open soon next door to a school.

While I realize amending the zoning law will not fix the problem impacting Brookeville and Greenwood, taking action to change the law moving forward will prevent the proliferation of overly large treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods—as well as prevent them from being located adjacent to schools.

This is common sense.

Just because the zoning laws have been in place for decades doesn’t make it right.

Take action to fix the problem moving forward or publicly share why you won’t. And please spare us with the rhetoric attempting to shame us into silence. We realize people need access to residential treatment; we just don’t want large facilities to be located in SFHs in residential areas—and we certainly don’t want high level facilities located next to a school.

If our elected leaders disagree and refuse to fix the problem moving forward, our assumption is that you are beholden to the for-profit businesses currently gaming the MoCo zoning and permitting system.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, people in active treatment are not protected by federal law when it comes to such things. And medical treatment facilities don’t enjoy such protections either.

The county’s current interpretation of the county law is the issue.

And their decision to not amend the law to prevent this from happening again is baffling.