To the Editor:

 

I must say that your article "Row over Restaurant Row", or the site plan proposal for PF Summers' Park Place development on the corner of Shady Mile DR and RT 235 north is sadly lacking.

 

Your description of Woodlawn DR in Town Creek Manor fails to mention that the road is quite hilly, with some blind spots, and is not adequately wide enough for increased traffic which will compete with school buses and those who walk, jog, and ride bikes. Let's give Planning Commissioner Guazzo credit for at least driving the road in order to assess residents' concerns.

 

The current RMX zoning of the Park Place property and additional abutting properties was retained based on an overwhelming response from the residents of Town Creek, North Town Creek, Shady Mile DR, Cal Acres, and Woodlawn Acres. I must correct you when you allude to only a minimal amount of people being affected by this proposed development. Every resident in these surrounding neighborhoods will be affected one way or another. Property values, traffic, noise and light pollution, water resources, and environmental issues are all real concerns for our neighborhoods.

 

And do we really need five more restaurants along this RT 235 stretch? A bank such as Bank of America would be handy or a dry cleaner; or how about miniature golf as a recreational option. Your article did not accurately describe the possible 60 foot high (includes 5 stories, a flat roof, and mechanical equipment on top) twin office buildings, an 89 room hotel, and sea of asphalt that will border our neighborhoods. I had to shake my head at your mention of the additional jobs this project will provide, a statement often bandied about by developers when they want their projects approved. Are these restaurants going to provide health insurance and livable wages? Where is the workforce housing for these employees?

 

And as far as the residential zoning of this property goes, do we really need 30 more single dwelling homes and 8 townhouses squeezed in a small wooded greenway consisting of a pond whose final outflow is the Patuxent River? I don't think so.

 

The California area needs entertainment and cultural venues not more restaurants and clothing stores. If you are familiar with the Lexington Park District Development plan you will note that these venues as well as a park and green space are recommended. I dare say if the wonderful, late Kay Daugherty was alive today she would highly recommend a library on the Shady Mile corner, especially as the California area has been designated as a future library site. By the way, I do not know of any Town Creek residents who have attempted to block more competition or choices for shopping when located on the appropriate property.

 

I recommend that you take a walking tour of the aforementioned neighborhoods and interview residents about their concerns with the proposed Park Place development. It is a shame that our county government has not yet insisted that developers employ smart growth standards. As our county continues to grow and impacts our resources, our environment; citizens should insist that they have a much greater say in development approval. A new mantra for St. Mary's County should be "development based on need not greed!"

 

Sincerely,

 

Diane Fadeley

Town Creek Manor

(Editor's Note: This newspaper can hardly be called the ‘Developer’s Friend’.  On the other hand, distortion of the facts by either public officials, readers, opponents of growth, developers or others will be challenged by this newspaper for the benefit of our readers.  Woodlawn Drive is adequate size for passage of two school buses, and like most other county roads, it has no shoulders or bike lanes or sidewalks.  There are no parallel county roads to Rt. 235, due mostly to incompetence of the planning and political process in St. Mary’s County and to cut this road in half, turn it into two dead end cul-de-sacs, would be idiotic.  You say that the road is hilly as if that should be a reason not to use it. That's just silly.  The people most likely to use Woodlawn to get to Restaurant Row would be residents of the Town Creek Drive area.  Your point of asking do we need 38 more residential dwellings would best be answered by asking if anyone asked the same question prior to the approval of your home. Likely, no one wanted you and your neighbors to come here and impact the quality of life, but your home was built and here you are trying to protect the quality of life.  Good for you.  Ponds do not flow to the Patuxent River, they are ponds, and otherwise we would call them creeks. They just sit there and collect water and get stagnant, breed mosquitoes and need to be sprayed to keep from spreading West Nile Virus. You get a strike on this point of understanding basic geography.  Kay Daugherty had the opportunity to donate a new library site and she didn’t. She left a bountiful legacy for the county on her own and doesn’t’ need you to provide hypothetical donations. Her husband, the late Jack Daugherty, would clearly have favored this commercial project.  You lose on this point also. The Town Creek residents blocked the appropriate and fair designation of the properties on the north side of Rt. 235 with the same commercial zoning as the south side. The politicians promised the property owners fair treatment on their zoning and then caved under pressure.  They went back on their word to the property owners and this newspaper, while not advocating for the developer, has no reason to jump on him to appease his neighbors. As for Smart Growth, this property is exactly where Smart Growth would direct new commercial development.  The right turn only lane was designed for right turn in and out access, that is why it is there, not to be a zoom lane for those who want to get across the bridge.  Smart Growth directs growth to development districts with sewer and water, close to schools and on good highways.  You could have used the fact that all the intersections along this road are either failing or close to it, but you didn’t.  We need commuter rail to get traffic off of Rt. 235 but you would probably oppose that move. You lose on Smart Growth as a reason not to approve this project as it appears to be more a phrase to bandy about rather than a planning policy you understand.  As for your new found attention to living wages and health care, it’s a good bet that you mainly care about what kind of discount you can get on a meal, what the special is and do they take coupons when you go out to eat. There may be some of your neighbors who want jobs, full or part time, why not ask them.  When is the last time you went to a store and asked to pay more for goods so the help could make more money or have health care?  Let us know if you plan to do so, we’ll want to get a picture as it would be a genuine news story.  As for California needing culture and entertainment, please present a marketing study supporting your view, get a big bag of money and go buy the land from the developer and build your own Palace of Culture, this is America and that’s the way its done, figure out your dream, find a way to fund it and work hard to make it successful.  Mr. Summers may not be pleasing you and others who are NIMBY’s (Not in my back yard) but he is proceeding in a lawful manner.  I will pass on your offer of a walking tour as I have witnessed enough of your neighbors and the result of their driving talents in covering crashes in this area and there is no chance I would ride a bike or walk anywhere near these people, they are dangerous at any speed.   Development should not be based on need or greed, but based on fair application of the law.  It is not up to the county to assure economic success for developers or to prohibit fair use of properties that conform to the code.)