[{"_1":2,"_106":-5,"_107":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86,96],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6179050,"mediaKeyId","5134200-d7406fe47b62aae114800e3494de1aad","parentId",5134200,"title","BMZA approves Bright Star Wellness clinic with conditions after contentious Pig Town hearing","audioSeconds",4669,"startMs",176000,"endMs",4845000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5134200-d7406fe47b62aae114800e3494de1aad&start=176&end=4845","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5134200-d7406fe47b62aae114800e3494de1aad/thumbnail_176000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6179050/Baltimore-City/Baltimore-County/Maryland/BMZA-approves-Bright-Star-Wellness-clinic-with-conditions-after-contentious-Pig-Town-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179050-1538fdc751bba9aeef6003426b1ba8c1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770430309&Signature=DDk131IzFfeqn~z90uy2OOY~gQPw6RhMcyFgRnLOTe6UIPlGefPaOz0YvDEbQ9wkEQdKGkJ9ycTjT6vMEup6dV-PQS20A6nUT6teU-fk3XFeXUhguevndMNjGyluWeJWgZqegXtxVrnJnQC2PqbnnxIr0yYBcnwsbY0xUVwVlAyT~lPFCGwEravXdf89aOrbOC2Qgv7vXftARxcGiYVY63BXluWazfLUY1npIqwOyX48PqterLLkktYhSrbHXF56I5cZZ5d8Gwqw8~feVri~h4GaViRRiJPN6hwoEq4kkD55B60nhTqbJE9pX~jmcT2wLVlRHnp~9jMNQ7eJo~-49Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Baltimore, MD","date","2025-07-03T16:56:18Z","article","A Baltimore zoning board approved a conditional-use appeal on July 1 allowing Bright Star Wellness to operate an outpatient behavioral health clinic at 772 Washington Boulevard in the Washington Village/Pig Town area, with conditions on hours, security and onsite operations.

The decision follows several hours of testimony from the applicant, licensing and accreditation experts, city planners and more than a dozen neighbors and business owners who said the block has already absorbed many behavioral-health providers and that more services could worsen public-safety and quality-of-life problems.

Christopher DeCarlo, the applicant’s attorney, told the board the clinic would be “low intensity” and operate 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., serving about \"25 to 30 people a day.\" He said Bright Star is CARF-accredited for outpatient mental-health and some substance-use programming and has agreed to conditions including no on-site dispensing of medication, perimeter security cameras and limited hours. Justin Walker of the Department of Planning said the department had “no objection to the appeal” if the agreed conditions are enforced.

Supporters and the applicant emphasized licensing and accreditation steps they have completed or are pursuing. Tanya Bryce, a CARF accreditation consultant for the applicant, described the state licensing sequence and oversight: “We do not administer nor do we, hold medication,” she told the board, adding that preliminary accreditation and a one-year state license process are standard before full licensure. Bryce also described a “good neighbors” policy that requires clients to review rules and that violations can lead to administrative discharge.

Opponents — including nearby residents, small-business owners, and Pig Town Main Street representatives — said the corridor already houses multiple treatment providers and pleaded that another clinic would strain street-level safety and business recovery efforts. Several speakers cited visible drug use, discarded syringes, loitering and theft in the neighborhood and asked the board to deny the appeal or require a firmer plan for community engagement and follow-up.

The board’s discussion centered on whether the clinic would create adverse impacts “above and beyond” those normally associated with a health-clinic conditional use in a C-1 commercial district. Several members noted the site is within the Washington Village urban renewal plan and that the proposed use is a permitted conditional use in a C-1 zone. Members who supported approval cited the applicant’s limits on hours and client volume, the CARF accreditation and letters of support from the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office and the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, which were entered into the record.

Board members who voted for approval said conditions suggested by the planning department and the applicant — including restricted hours (9 a.m.–6 p.m.), no on-site dispensing of controlled substances, perimeter cameras and a required community-feedback mechanism — would reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the level expected for the use in that zoning district. Several board members urged sustained, active engagement between the operator and neighborhood organizations after the meeting.

The board did not adopt a motion to require a specific enforcement mechanism beyond the normal administrative and licensing checks; staff and community speakers noted state oversight (Behavioral Health Administration and CARF reviews) and local reporting channels would remain available. The board’s approval is subject to the usual written resolution to be drafted following the hearing.

The applicant and supporters said they will continue community outreach and that CARF and the state licensing process provide recurring compliance checks; opponents said they will monitor whether the clinic’s presence changes street-level conditions.

The board’s written resolution — which will list final conditions and any follow-up responsibilities — is required by statute and will be issued in the coming weeks and posted to the city’s appeals portal.

Bright Star Wellness and its consultant said they would proceed to complete state licensing steps after local authorization and continue community engagement.

Ending: The written resolution required to finalize the board’s approval will be drafted and issued in the weeks after the hearing; the applicant must complete state licensing and accreditation steps before offering the full scope of care described in testimony.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Municipal & Zoning Appeals; July 1, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A Baltimore zoning board approved a conditional-use appeal on July 1 allowing Bright Star Wellness to operate an outpatient behavioral health clinic at 772 Washington Boulevard in the Washington Village/Pig Town area, with conditions on hours, security and onsite operations.","taxTitle","Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Maryland","taxId",4816,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6179035,"BMZA denies corner-yard fence variance at Parkmont Avenue; owner told to choose by-right options",0,14861000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5134200-d7406fe47b62aae114800e3494de1aad&start=14861&end=14861","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5134200-d7406fe47b62aae114800e3494de1aad/thumbnail_14861000.jpg","/articles/6179035/Baltimore-City/Baltimore-County/Maryland/BMZA-denies-corner-yard-fence-variance-at-Parkmont-Avenue-owner-told-to-choose-by-right-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179035-3d1d8a14d05c1f55c4aebcced4316e88/orig.mp4?Expires=1770430309&Signature=lU4ieVxaQvPGIXEB6Zm2XnQee4rOULr4-Kc5W6gxX9jqtJXWwqtts356m2gG9EQ7FZyVWrDs3b3i7JL3Szmu7a1WIVexNmUnDHUVBebhwfMgj0EVX4s4ZnczUlyMv707kdcIxDVDtbHxfDf50u0SsUZvyR3n3XDt5vRN95og~oNx1NyZQr9Q4xmfKiPrvgyCdFJ8YzdfdQTSUOE0TONZp6DaSlnLIjVBPaeOFKxv4b5XzokEAsa40wTSCqnbMNuccUbh~raZaIeaGfecAwJ8RJEJjwWlkT~VYQQqpkn8rLgx8pjmc1BsJLCrr8T2ONlCz9wC1wPl5N781FofB-Jj5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Baltimore’s zoning appeals board denied a variance on July 1 that would have allowed a six-foot fence to be placed along the corner side yard of a Parkmont Avenue property, ruling the homeowner had not demonstrated the legal standard of peculiarity and practical difficulty.

The applicant asked for relief from a provision that limits fence height in corner side yards; planning staff explained the code permits taller fences for interior side and rear yards but restricts corner-side heights to maintain visibility and a consistent streetscape. The homeowner and contractor said the existing fence was in disrepair and that foot traffic cut through the yard, creating a security issue.

Board members reviewed the site photographs and lot geometry. The panel concluded the lot shape and topography were not materially different from other corner lots in the block and that a six-foot fence on the lot line would remove a large portion of usable backyard space but could be achieved, in significant part, by moving the fence inward along the house line without needing a variance. The board emphasized that variances are meant to be rare and that, under the code, a four-foot fence at the lot line or a six-foot fence set back along the house line would be permitted.

The board voted to deny the variance and told the homeowner the written denial would be issued, along with advice about next steps, including building a by-right fence set back inside the required yard or seeking a legislative change through the city council.

Ending: The board will issue a written denial; zoning staff suggested the owner can pursue a permitted fence that meets the corner-yard height limit at the lot line or install a full six-foot fence moved inside the required yard depth to comply without a variance.","A BMZA request to install a six-foot fence on a corner lot at 12 Parkmont Avenue was denied after the board found the lot was not sufficiently unique to justify a variance; the owner was advised to move a taller fence inside the yard line or install a four-foot permitted fence at the lot line.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":78,"_43":89,"_45":89,"_47":90,"_49":91,"_51":92,"_53":93,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":94,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":95,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6179040,"Board OKs expansion of home daycare at Hamilton Avenue to 12 children; neighbors raised traffic concerns",13570000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5134200-d7406fe47b62aae114800e3494de1aad&start=13570&end=13570","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5134200-d7406fe47b62aae114800e3494de1aad/thumbnail_13570000.jpg","/articles/6179040/Baltimore-City/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Board-OKs-expansion-of-home-daycare-at-Hamilton-Avenue-to-12-children-neighbors-raised-traffic-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179040-41a3def31c7565caa072ad2db95a019d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770430309&Signature=oxmQJCz-RnbaCixu3ZEBr7fcpsiOX6bCF7VmhY43QSl7aJ-Rt-3itSSCsujX0FnJk0dXLKKAAjRS0aAHmb~RQIICkprUXJxXbucUhv4YejVrMhy0mXG-mtAX6vrNuCiqKDtMRIchpVohBk8BBUlfNK8hGXdHsvAlLKuRNlBTKFJBFq8PgCPSGv7wADFUMppI34ePTpVQLWaGAMhBbxR1mCtrupT6XMW5hw4OkiA~llCFRkzjFuv4z7bTnIfk4ZYwyFBrksBzyjhQN~qq5AZVMgiNGk~RScr98Jbe6pPSPi5Pj2-hLdgKFH9q~yzW4wUck7AbUKMkOObZDYr5Z9oNiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Baltimore’s zoning appeals board on July 1 approved a conditional-use appeal authorizing a home-based daycare at a Hamilton Avenue property to increase licensed capacity from eight to 12 children, after the applicant described on-site parking, a fenced outdoor play area and staggered drop-off and pick-up.

The applicant, who operates the program and lives in the house, told the board the facility is open 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., has a gated yard that meets state recreational-area rules and can park five vehicles on site for staff and parent pick-up. She said siblings accounted for most enrollments and that many families rely on public transit; those facts limited the number of cars on site at any one time. Planning staff confirmed the lot has enough space for required employee parking and recommended approval.

A nearby resident told the board she first learned the house had converted to a daycare when she saw signage and said she was concerned about existing parking and traffic issues on the alley and Hamilton Avenue. She cited other nearby conversions and said she would have appreciated earlier notice. The applicant said she had been open for three weeks and that arrival times are staggered, producing short load/unload intervals and little queuing.

Board members asked about hours, on-site security and the fenced yard; they were told the operator uses a security system and had submitted an on-site plan showing five parking spaces and a fenced play area. During deliberations members focused on whether approving the incremental increase to 12 children would create adverse impacts beyond those normally associated with a home day-care use in an R-3 zone. Several board members said the site’s size, the fenced yard and on-site parking made the proposal acceptable and consistent with the Schultz v. Pritz standard for conditional uses.

The board voted to approve the conditional use, with the usual requirement that a written resolution be drafted and posted. The resolution will include any specific operational conditions imposed by the board or planning staff. The applicant will continue required state licensing and must comply with the city’s land-use conditions and any state child-care regulations.

Ending: The board’s written resolution will state the final conditions and enforcement expectations; neighbors and the applicant were advised to maintain communication about drop-off operations to limit street-level impacts.","The BMZA approved a conditional-use appeal allowing a home-based daycare at Hamilton Avenue to increase from eight to 12 children, subject to existing onsite parking and the operator’s conditions. Neighbors expressed concerns about drop-off and pickup and the cumulative conversion of residences to nonresidential uses.",{"_33":97,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":98,"_41":78,"_43":99,"_45":99,"_47":100,"_49":101,"_51":102,"_53":103,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":104,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":105,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6179045,"BMZA denies variance for glazed sunroom at 3723 Rexmere after board finds no unique hardship",12420000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5134200-d7406fe47b62aae114800e3494de1aad&start=12420&end=12420","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5134200-d7406fe47b62aae114800e3494de1aad/thumbnail_12420000.jpg","/articles/6179045/Baltimore-City/Baltimore-County/Maryland/BMZA-denies-variance-for-glazed-sunroom-at-3723-Rexmere-after-board-finds-no-unique-hardship","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6179045-1c6aa79c2f69bbe3c9db3616264a3799/orig.mp4?Expires=1770430309&Signature=okMFOyE-7yKt8Kxs70xcuMM~R3c8nFE~NBi1M1aENmBucLRS-Q5BFJN3YfEfbVblCSt4T1bLa6cIxffyP91eQYpsbNRL2~gDI-UG~RZvXN~OdEo8fKAob5HDPHfrfQbg4sMWk3AInaMMXr3yfXK8wB-Pglh7rWb1BvMMMvg2WopevOkATJ6YRwdBiO3F~26G1clHI3Q0zJ1r6rGqQHYeeRVY8k1c2DSFkeweiXlVnZ7p0yELVd-V0QKpliCxTWFgAyuhs1FAnIWXNx4dmRI8f2r~s4mJoN94d4gt9h5Ldnaka2ZuwiM2En5hWTal467MDU3HSeUztgA9Z88jULKTxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Baltimore Municipal Zoning Appeals board denied a variance on July 1 for a second-floor enclosure/sunroom at 3723 Rexmere Avenue, concluding the applicant had not shown the property is sufficiently unique to justify relief from rear-yard setback rules.

The homeowners sought permission to enclose an existing deck (with glass panels that can be opened) that would convert a permitted unenclosed porch into an enclosed structure; planning staff explained that an enclosed porch must meet minimum yard requirements and therefore requires a variance. The applicant described the requested work as a high-quality patio enclosure with removable glass panels intended to allow year-round outdoor use and to accommodate an owner’s medical sensitivity to insect stings.

Board members focused on the statutory variance standard: the applicant must show a peculiarity in the property that creates a practical difficulty if the code is applied. Panelists noted that the block’s lot lines and rear-yard geometry were typical for the area and that many surrounding homes already have decks and porches with similar footprints. The board declined to find the necessary uniqueness.

Several members and planning staff clarified that a screened, unenclosed porch (no more than the permitted encroachment) can be built by right, and that the feature that triggered the appeal was the proposed glazing (windows/solid panels) that would make the porch an enclosed structure. The board discussed whether removable storm-style panels constitute a permanent enclosure; zoning staff pointed to the code definition that treats porches enclosed by “screens or other material on two or more sides” as enclosed porches that must meet yard standards.

Because the applicant could achieve a functional outdoor enclosure by building a permitted unenclosed porch or by moving any enclosed walls inward so they meet the setback, the board found the case did not meet the high legal threshold for a variance and voted to deny the request. The board advised the applicant they could either proceed with a by-right screened porch, reduce the enclosure footprint so it meets the required rear-yard setback, pursue a temporary/seasonal enclosure option, or pursue a legislative change through the city council.

Ending: The board’s written denial will follow; planning and zoning staff suggested options for a by-right screened porch or a smaller enclosed footprint that would not require a variance.","The Baltimore zoning board denied an application to allow a glazed sunroom that would enclose an existing deck at 3723 Rexmere Avenue, finding the request did not meet the legal standard for a variance and that the applicant could achieve a permitted screened porch by-right or adjust the footprint to comply with yard rules.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

BMZA approves Bright Star Wellness clinic with conditions after contentious Pig Town hearing

BMZA denies corner-yard fence variance at Parkmont Avenue; owner told to choose by-right options

Board OKs expansion of home daycare at Hamilton Avenue to 12 children; neighbors raised traffic concerns

BMZA denies variance for glazed sunroom at 3723 Rexmere after board finds no unique hardship