Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Right Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds Planning Commission denial for FDR Holdings concept plan over FDR Boulevard alignment
Summary
The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals on Nov. 29, 2007 voted 4–1 to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of a concept site plan submitted by FDR Holdings LLC for a proposed office building in Lexington Park, a decision the appellants tied to the proposed alignment of FDR Boulevard.
Get email alerts on the Transportation Right Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The St. Mary’s County Board of Appeals on Nov. 29, 2007 voted 4–1 to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a concept site plan submitted by FDR Holdings LLC for a proposed office building in Lexington Park, a decision the appellants tied to the proposed alignment of FDR Boulevard.
John Norris, attorney for FDR Holdings, told the board the case turns on FDR Boulevard and argued the county has not completed the legal steps — spelled out in Article 66B, §6.01 — needed to reserve a formal right-of-way that would support setback requirements. “The county hasn't followed the steps to protect FDR Boulevard,” Norris said, and urged the board to overturn the Planning Commission and approve the concept plan.
The Planning Commission had denied the concept plan on July 9, 2007, finding it failed to meet section 60.50.3 of the county zoning ordinance requiring concept plans to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable functional plans; staff also cited section 61.70.3 on official right-of-way lines and setbacks. County staff and the Director of Public Works (Mister Erickson) testified that the FDR Boulevard alignment used in the county’s 2006 transportation plan derives from a 1999 survey and is being used for design work in the county’s capital improvement program, though staff acknowledged the alignment has not been “officially mapped” in the manner described in Article 66B.
Erickson described the 1999 survey work (deed mosaic, datum NAD 83/NGVD 29, environmental delineations and stationing) and said the alignment was used to design sections of FDR Boulevard. He and other staff also said the alignment had been accepted as the basis for design work in several public hearings and incorporated into capital budgeting at times, although an adopted county resolution and recorded plat specifically reserving the right-of-way, as described in Article 66B, had not been completed.
Board members debated whether the Planning Commission erred in applying the zoning ordinance standard (section 60.50.3) given the transportation plan and associated surveys. Counsel advised the Board its role was limited to determining whether the Planning Commission erred in its findings. After discussion, the Board voted to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial. The Board directed staff to prepare an order reflecting the decision; the chair said the order will be prepared and signed within 60 days and noted a 30-day appeal period to the Circuit Court would follow the signing.
The decision leaves in place the Planning Commission determination that the concept plan was not consistent with the comprehensive and transportation plans as applied, and that setback requirements tied to the proposed FDR Boulevard alignment supported denial. Norris said the property owner may pursue remedies available outside the administrative appeal process.
Votes at a glance: The Board of Appeals upheld the Planning Commission’s denial by a 4–1 vote. The Board did not record a roll-call vote in the audio transcript; the chair’s announcement recorded the tally as 4 in favor of upholding the denial and 1 opposed.
Background: The site at issue is a 0.75-acre parcel zoned BMX in Lexington Park (water/sewer category W1/S1). The Planning Commission denied concept site plan approval on July 9, 2007, citing inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and functional plans because of setbacks measured from the proposed FDR Boulevard alignment. Appellants contend the county has not satisfied the nine-step Article 66B procedure for formally reserving a right-of-way and that without formal mapping the setbacks cannot be required.
Next steps: Staff will prepare the Board’s signed order within 60 days. Parties have 30 days after the signed order to seek judicial review in the Circuit Court if they choose.

