Baltimore County panel denies dismissal, grants 4-bed assisted living use permit for Melissa McKenzie

A three-member Baltimore County hearing panel denied a motion to dismiss and granted a use permit allowing an existing one-story brick single-family dwelling owned by Melissa McKenzie to be used as an Assisted Living Facility-1 with up to four beds, the panel announced during deliberations on Sept. 25, 2024.

The panel said the petitioner met the conditions under Section 432A.1 and satisfied the county’s compatibility-review standards, including the criteria in the county’s compatibility-study provision (section 324-402). "Based on the testimony presented by the petitioner and the witnesses, I would find that the petitioner has satisfied the Section 432A.1," said Bridal Pennington, a member of the hearing panel.

Why this matters: Neighbors filed an appeal after the director of Permits, Approvals, and Inspections issued the use permit in March 2024. Protestants argued the lot density and other zoning provisions precluded conversion to an assisted living use; the panel considered whether the appeal and standing were proper and whether the permit met the statutory standards for issuance.

Panel findings and legal points

Panel members agreed the permit had been issued by the director of Permits, Approvals, and Inspections and was therefore appealable. The panel also rejected the protestants’ density argument that relied on a zoning provision the panel described as inapplicable to an Assisted Living Facility-1. "If a resident lives in a room or apartment providing complete kitchen facilities ... the unit shall not be considered an assisted living facility," Pennington said, quoting the section the panel discussed; the panel concluded the McKenzie property did not meet that exception and therefore was regulated as an assisted living facility under the applicable rules.

The panel noted several application elements that it found satisfied: parking, absence of signage, the compatibility study requirements and the county checklist for small assisted-living facilities. One member summarized the standing question, saying that "anyone who feels aggrieved ... the neighbors here definitely do feel aggrieved," and concluded the protestants had standing to appeal the director’s decision.

Motion and permit outcome

The hearing record shows a motion to dismiss was filed and argued; the panel voted to deny that motion. The panel then granted the use permit, and members agreed to include an explicit limit in the panel’s order that the facility be limited to no more than four beds. No roll-call vote or individual vote tallies were recorded in the deliberation transcript excerpt; the panel indicated an opinion and written order would be issued following the deliberations.

What was not decided

Panel members emphasized their review was limited to the narrow legal question of whether the use permit met the standards for issuance; several broader objections raised by the protestants in hearing briefs and public testimony were not treated as grounds to deny the permit under the panel’s legal authority.

Next steps

Panel members said they would go off the record to issue a written opinion that will memorialize the denial of the motion to dismiss and the grant of the use permit with the four-bed limit. The original use permit had been issued in March 2024; the case number in the record is UP-23-005-AL.