McKay Skunked

St. Mary’s Board Votes to Limit Development District
With his displeasure showing on his face, St. Mary's Commissioner Tommy McKay (R. Hollywood) gives a strained look at Commissioner Dan Raley who pushed through a 4-1 vote against expanding the development district of Lexington Park. 
 ST. MARY'S TODAY photo

By Sean Rice

ST. MARY’S TODAY

LEONARDTOWN – In a 4-1 vote, St. Mary’s Board of Commissioners showed its president Tommy McKay (R. Hollywood) a firm hand against uncontrolled expansion of the Lexington Park Development District (LPDD).

Now, developers and property owners who have been trying to put more Rural Preservation District land into the LPDD will have to individually seek amendments to the plan to be included in the district.

“We need to jump start this process,” said Commissioner Dan Raley (D. Great Mills), of getting the LPDD enacted. “It’s time to make a decision.”

Raley skirted a list of discussion items presented by McKay and made a motion to keep the Lexington Park Development District boundary line intact, virtually boxing-out developers who have been pulling on McKay’s shirt sleeves to be included in the plan.

“This wasn’t being contemplated at this point, but we’ll take it up,” a visually perturbed McKay responded to the motion. When a motion is made, and seconded, by members of a government body it must be voted on, unless retracted.

The properties currently in the Rural Preservation District (RPD) that were waiting to be included in the development district included the Patuxent Naval Air Base, 358 acres of the Wildwood development land, a parcel billed as a “school site” north of Indian Bridge Road, and two other properties named the Tifford property and the Beavan property.

“If you say the Lexington Park district is working then you’re saying development in the RPD is acceptable,” McKay quipped, then issued a veiled threat. “We will continue to see growth in the RPD because of a lack of vision.”

Ironically, moments before McKay said, making “visionary plans” are “what the people put us here to do.”

Without mentioning the line of developers wanting land added to the district, McKay argued parcels with environmental issues should be removed, specifically naming Myrtle Point.

Raley reminded the board the motion was only to not change the boundary, who is allowed to build in the RPD is another issue.

“Will developments increase in the RPD? Raley asked hypothetically. “I don’t think I can embrace (McKay’s) concept.”

Raley went on the say Myrtle Point is county-owned land with a park master plan well in progress, there’s no chance development will slip in.

Commissioner Larry Jarboe (R-Golden Beach) said county leaders “should be held accountable for each one” seeking inclusion into the district. “I would prefer to see a downsizing of the development district.”

Jarboe continued: “There is a time to just say no.” even to other proposed developments in the RPD.

Commissioner Tom Mattingly (D. Leonardtown) also disagreed with McKay’s logic.

“I don’t think expanding the development district is going to have any effect at all on the RPD,” he said.

Even Commissioner Kenny Dement (R. Piney Point) chimed in with comments, also agreeing that controlling developments in the RPD are a separate issue from the development district.

“How can you make an exception for one,” Dement said.