Property Owner Sets Record Straight on Dealings with St. Mary's and Phantom FDR Blvd.

To the Editor:

We are writing in response to a recent Enterprise article concerning our company, FDR Holdings LLC and our property along FDR Boulevard.

Due to the omission of many facts in their article and some misstatements we felt our company was cast in an unfavorable light.

We would like to set the record straight for those readers that believe their article to be truth, and feel your publication will quote/publish this our statements correctly. We would like to begin by saying that we are a small , privately-owned company in St. Mary’s County, a place we have called home for the last 35 years. We have been very fortunate to have lived in this county for so long, and to have met and befriended so many wonderful people and clients.

We purchased the subject property from a business acquaintance, and very generous man, Michael Hewitt. Planning Commission Chairman Reeves, in our most recent Planning Commission meeting, asked if we were related to Mr. Hewitt, and opined suspicion as to why the purchase price was but a fraction of the value of the property.

Likewise, our research of the planned future of FDR Boulevard, the planned budget through FY2012 showed no mention of FDR funding, engineering, or construction. The County Commissioners and the Department of Public Works and Transportation would have the members of this community believe that the "FDR right-of-way" is clear, concise, and very well mapped. If this is the case, then why is it that the very documents they reference in their denials to our concept plan deny the official mapping of the FDR planned route. Furthermore, additional research has revealed that the county has been denying building permit requests on this parcel as far back as 1992 on the basis of the "proposed" FDR, and again in 1997 from the previous landowner. During this time, the taxes have continued to increase, and have continued to be paid by the landowners, and their rights refused.

Following our purchase of the property, we pursued permits for improvements on the property in the same area that the county declares that FDR Boulevard is to be constructed and the county issued two building permits to allow us to construct a 2700 square foot residential dwelling and accessory apartment! Given the contradictory actions of the county regarding permitting construction on our property and the uncertain future of a proposed commercial concept plan, we consulted legal counsel.

That counsel then contacted the county concerning their intentions, specifically whether or not it had intentions to purchase our property. Having substantial roots in the county, we thought it in everyone’s best interest (taxpayers, ours, and the county’s) that this property be purchased in it’s relatively undeveloped state. This was met with a re-sounding "NO, we have no interest" by the county.

Based on this information, we proceeded with the submission of our concept plan for review by Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). This application was denied based on the "proposed FDR right-of-way". We then determined that we would need someone with significantly more experience at this than we had, and hired Mr. John Norris III as our attorney.

We had no relationship with John prior to contacting him to represent us. The county’s implications concerning his integrity are both ludicrous and unfounded.

During the TEC review, we were told by county staff that fiscal year 2007 had monies allocated to buy properties for the construction of FDR (yet again, the FY2006 budget had no such funding through FY2012). We decided to patiently wait until the new budget was released and allocated. More than a month after the budget was released, we contacted the county’s land acquisitions office and they knew nothing of any effort to acquire our property. During the same time frame, one of our County Commissioners publicly made a statement that the "proposed FDR Boulevard was not delaying the development of any property in that area". We contacted the Commissioner, and educated him as to our development delays, and he responded by inviting us to the "FDR Groundbreaking". At this "meeting", we were told that "we would work something out". Again, after months of calls and waiting, nothing materialized.

It was at this stage that we determined that the county neither had intentions to buy the property or let us develop it. Financially, we had no choice but to try to exercise our rights through the court system. Our case was dismissed because, in the judges’ opinion, this first denial (TEC) was not a complete denial and we had to "invest" more money to give the county more opportunity to assert its position on our property with either denials or approvals from Planning Commission. Yet again, following two hearings with the Planning Commission, the county still can not clearly assess the future of our proposal with either an approval or denial and has scheduled this proposal for a third hearing.

There has been considerable discussion on the mapping of the future FDR Boulevard, and county documentation has revealed that there has been uncertainty and contradiction about the road’s location. Yet after months of hearing that our project is impacted by FDR Blvd and that we can’t build it, Jon Groeger (DPW&T) declared at the most recent Planning Commission hearing that "I got the survey last week" for FDR Boulevard.

We do have the utmost respect for the Planning Commission and the staff at Land Use and Growth Management, and the service they provide.

Their jobs are oftentimes thankless but valuable to the citizens of this county. Even though we do not agree with Commissioner Guazzo’s statement that FDR had been officially mapped, she had the foresight to understand that the task was not to determine the illegal "taking" of our property, but to approve or deny the concept plan based on the zoning ordinance and their opinion of FDR.

To close, we pose this question: What happens in three years when the next panel of County Commissioners chooses to remove funding/planning/commitment to FDR such as was done in 2000 and through 2006. Are we then allowed to build on our property? Or do we wait another 26 years? (1981 was the first mention of an FDR Boulevard in the county documents). It is remiss that in this day and age a tax-paying citizen would be subjected to a lengthy (almost two-year) and expensive process to try to build on his property that according to the county zoning ordinances is allowed and to which he has the right to build! To our esteemed County Commissioners, we would reiterate, we are still available for discussion concerning this project, and our number is still 301-373-2109.

Rick and Tom Benefield