Applicant Dave Prohaska, left, and Jude House Executive Director Mary Lynn Logsdon, right, appear before the Charles County Board of Appeals March 8 in La Plata.
La Plata, MD – A contentious effort to establish a halfway house for female residents of the Jude House in a Bel Alton neighborhood came to an abrupt end Tuesday, March 8 as the Charles County Board of Appeals voted 4-1 in favor of the proposal.
“You just destroyed our neighborhood by putting this in our backyard,” a man yelled from the back of the Charles County Commissioners’ Meeting Room.
His outburst was followed by a chorus of “thank you” from Jude House supporters.
Charles County Planner Kirby Blass told the board 77 letters and exhibits were submitted after the previous public hearing had to end because the county government building needed to be secured.
A neighbor who lived adjacent to the property submitted photographs and a letter after the deadline for submissions passed, and her complaint was not allowed to be entered into testimony.
Board Member James Martin told Jude House Executive Director Mary Lynn Logdson he had a question to ask her.
“The answer to the question is going to weigh a lot on me,” he said.
“First of all, I want to commend you,” Martin added. “It’s a great program. Everyone deserves a second chance. People need the ability to become productive members of the community again. On the other hand, you have a lot of citizens living in a close, closed community who value their way of life. The people who testified do not want you in there. If I vote to approve this special exception, I am basically forcing you into a community that doesn’t want you. Knowing what you do, do you still think this is the best place for Jude House and why would that supersede the concerns of the neighborhood?”
“I understand people’s fear,” Logdson replied. “We’re going to be good neighbors. We’re not more of a threat to anyone by being there. Once we’re there, I think the neighbors will come to accept us. I still feel we can move forward and be great neighbors.
“They have every right to feel the way they do,” she added. “I plan on spending a lot of time there initially. Our goal is not to be disruptive.”
“This is a case that has caused me and my colleagues a lot of angst,” Board of Appeals Chairman Brendon Moon said. “We’ve heard from a lot of people. It was moving testimony from both sides of the issue. I don’t think it is right for this board to second guess the county commissioners, who have determined a halfway house is okay for a neighborhood.”
“I have a concern with that once all the people have said that it would reduce the enjoyment of their neighborhood,” Martin countered. “I feel like we’re forcing this on them if we approve it and I don’t think that is fair to the citizens of Charles County,” a statement which brought applause from opponents of the special exception.
“Those are good points and I appreciate everyone who came out and testified,” Board Member Sean Johnston said.
His remarks which followed turned the issue around.
“Fear is a powerful thing,” he said. “I understand everyone’s concerns. Here’s the problem. Our zoning law says a halfway house can be in a neighborhood. Every neighborhood has children. We have to function within our power. The commissioners have already green-lighted this. As a residential program, as one of the top organizations in our county, we’re upending the commissioners’ decision. I am loath to do something like that.
“I understand the fear, but if we turn these people away, where are they supposed to go?” Johnston asked. “There’s an aggregate effect if we let fear dominate our decisions.”
He said the board could revisit the special exception bi-annually to make sure conditions of the use were being met, but he felt he had to vote in favor of the halfway house.
“I cannot turn these people away,” he stressed.
In fact, there were several conditions placed on the Jude House as part of the approval.
The approval was only for a period of two years and subject to renewal, “which is something we don’t normally do,” Moon said. Other conditions allow no more than five women living there; a video monitoring system; and abide by all state and county regulations.
Johnston added that he would like to establish a formal procedure by which neighbors could file complaints to the board in the event that those conditions are not being met.
Martin, who was the lone nay vote, said his concerns were too many.
“Why can’t they put them in a commercial area away from a neighborhood?” he asked. “I’m not turning Jude House away. I’m just saying you need to go in a different direction.”
“I think we have to be careful about allowing unfounded fear to rule the day,” Johnston said.
Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com