Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner urges residents to comment on proposed Charlotte Hall mental health facility, says he opposes site
Summary
A St. Mary's County commissioner told a public forum that a proposed state-backed mental health facility in Charlotte Hall is a private landowner initiative and urged residents to submit comments; the commissioner said he does not support the Charlotte Hall location and pointed to an alternative site on Route 5 in Shaw Hall.
Get email alerts on the Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A St. Mary's County commissioner urged residents at a public forum to weigh in on a proposed mental health facility in Charlotte Hall and said he opposes the location. "This commissioner is a big believer in property rights," he said, adding that private landowners are advancing the proposal and that public comment can influence where such facilities are sited.
The commissioner said there will be three opportunities for public comment on the Charlotte Hall proposal and encouraged residents to "show up and tell us" or email the county. He described the project as a "state initiative" driven by private property owners and said the county's planning processes and appeals bodies — not the commissioners alone — will play a role in siting decisions.
Addressing alternatives, the commissioner said a veterans affairs facility on Route 5 in Shaw Hall "would have been a far better location," though he acknowledged the ultimate decision could rest with the board of appeals, the planning commission or, if appealed, the state court system. He also said the county supports expanding mental health capacity while urging that new facilities be placed in appropriate locations.
The forum remarks made clear the difference between discussion and decision: the commissioner expressed his personal opposition to the Charlotte Hall site and urged public participation, but he said the planning commission and board of appeals would handle formal land-use reviews and that the courts could resolve legal disputes. No formal county action or vote on the proposal was taken during the forum.

