Rockville Planning Commission approves Montgomery County diversion center pending MOU on buffer, access and operations

The Rockville Planning Commission on Sept. 10 approved a mandatory referral from Montgomery County to convert an existing maintenance office at 13077 7 Locks Road into a Montgomery County Diversion Center, subject to a memorandum of understanding between the county and the city addressing site buffer, patient access and egress, signage, noise and landscaping.

The commission's action was unanimous. Commissioner motion language directed that the MOU must be in place prior to issuance of an occupancy permit and must address the facility's compliance with the city's comprehensive plan regarding an adequate buffer between the residential area and the facility, patient access/release/egress, signage, noise, and visual buffering with emphasis on native plantings.

The diversion center proposal would renovate a two‑story, 16,490‑square‑foot portion of a property in the MXT (Mixed Use Transition) zone on a parcel the staff report described as roughly 26.23 acres; the project’s limits of disturbance are approximately 4.75 acres. Staff reported the renovated facility would provide voluntary, short‑term stabilization services for people experiencing a mental‑health or substance‑use crisis, operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and would accept clients only by referral and transport from hospitals and county agencies — it would not be open for walk‑ins.

Nelson Ortiz, principal planner with the Community Planning and Development Services Department, told the commission the county’s application states "The diversion center is a 24/7, 365 facility that provides voluntary short term stabilization services to individuals experiencing a mental health or substance use crisis." Ortiz said staff finds the proposal consistent with the city comprehensive plan in location, character and extent and recommended approval with conditions in the staff report.

County construction staff described site design and operational components. A county division chief identified in the record as Hamidovidwa, division chief of Building Design and Construction in Montgomery County's Department of General Services, said the county plans to alter the building façade so it "looks like townhomes" and to limit public visibility into operations. He described the interior function as a controlled intake—clients would be admitted through a sally port and transported out at discharge by county arrangements rather than released directly onto 7 Locks Road.

The project would include site work such as about 50 parking spaces, some EV charging or EV‑ready spaces, stormwater and utility work, tree planting and an extension of the shared‑use path along 7 Locks Road. Staff said the project meets the dimensional standards of the MXT zone and the city's stormwater requirements.

Public testimony at the hearing focused on operational details that are not finalized in the county submittal. Laurie Brody, who identified herself as a registered nurse with experience at local crisis services, voiced concerns about medical oversight, potential for emergency medical calls and the characterization of the site as "voluntary": "If it's a voluntary facility, any person can walk out at any time of the day or night, period," Brody said, arguing that some people brought there may need clinical monitoring. Other nearby residents and community representatives, including a Falls Ridge Homeowners Association spokesman and members of the 7 Locks Alliance, asked that an agreement be put in writing to prevent releases onto 7 Locks Road, to define transportation and discharge procedures, and to secure a durable visual buffer between homes and the facility.

City staff answered procedural questions about the mandatory referral process. The commission's review under state law is limited to whether the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan in location, character and extent; it does not substitute for a full site‑plan technical review. City staff and the city attorney advised the commission that the commission may condition approval and that the county, as the public applicant, retains certain authorities and could appeal or seek action by the Montgomery County Council.

Commissioners expressed that while they regarded the diversion center concept as worthwhile, important operational and site details — particularly the discharge/transportation plan and the visual and planting buffer — were incomplete in the submission. Rather than deny the referral, the commission approved the mandatory referral with the added condition requiring an MOU between the county and the city that addresses the outstanding operational and site concerns prior to occupancy.

Votes at the meeting were recorded as "motion passes unanimously." The commission did not include a separate roll‑call tally of individual votes in the transcript; the motion was passed with no recorded dissent.

The county representatives said they would continue to work with the city and the community on the details, and that the county expects to have a memorandum of understanding and additional plans in place before the facility opens.

The commission's approval covers only the mandatory referral stage; subsequent approvals and technical site plan reviews will follow as required by city procedures and county processes.