Washington County hearing spotlights limits of local control over group homes, halfway houses

Washington County planning staff told the Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 23 that new state law preempts much of the county’s zoning authority over group homes and halfway houses, requiring counties to permit certain facilities where single‑family homes are allowed and larger facilities in multifamily districts. The board opened a public hearing on proposed zoning text amendment RZ2052 and closed it after public testimony, directing staff to research legal responsibility and other implementation questions.

The amendment, introduced by Kyla Shingleton, comprehensive planner in the Department of Planning and Zoning, would revise county code to match General Assembly language adopted in prior sessions and clarify what the county must allow. “The purpose of this amendment is to match the language adopted by the General Assembly which preempts local zoning authority,” Shingleton said in her presentation.

Planning staff said the state defines small halfway houses as facilities that serve up to eight people and small group homes as up to nine; both have larger “large” categories capped at 16 residents that the state requires be permitted in multifamily zones. The county’s current ordinance contains separate language for “transitional or sheltered care homes” that would be removed to reflect the state definitions. The planning commission recommended approval and suggested permitting large facilities in some rural districts as well.

Why it matters: the change removes a layer of local siting control for certain residential treatment and group‑living facilities, raising questions among residents and commissioners about neighborhood impacts, enforcement and who bears legal responsibility if residents of such facilities commit crimes or otherwise affect neighbors.

During the hearing board members pressed staff for clarifications. Commissioner Derek Harvey asked whether the county could limit the number of such facilities within a defined geography; staff answered that state law requires treating these uses as residential and therefore prohibits special local conditions beyond what applies to single‑family homes. Staff said parking standards remain residential (a minimum of two spaces) and that behavioral supervision and licensing are regulated by the Maryland Department of Health and the Behavioral Health Administration, not by zoning.

Several members of the public spoke. Curtis Ray and other residents described neighborhood incidents and urged permitting or licensing changes that would allow local oversight or permit revocation when facilities fail to provide needed supervision. Other commenters urged protection of property rights and warned against expanding regulation. Public remarks included sharp rhetorical language and strong disagreement about the balance between residents’ safety concerns and state preemption.

The board did not vote on the amendment. After the public comment period, the commissioners said they had outstanding legal and operational questions and asked staff to return with additional research, including clarifications about civil liability, enforcement mechanisms, and whether the county’s health department could play a role in mitigation. The public hearing was formally concluded with staff tasked to report back.

The meeting transcript shows staff introduced the amendment and described the state preemption and size limits; public testimony followed and commissioners asked follow‑up questions about parking, homeowner association covenants, and liabilities. Commissioners emphasized that HOA covenants remain private contracts and that enforcement of care or supervision falls to state licensing authorities.

The commission’s next steps are limited to research and follow‑up; no binding regulatory changes were adopted at this session.

Ending: Commissioners closed the hearing and directed planning staff to provide further information and legal analysis at a future meeting before any final action on RZ2052.