A waterfront restaurant building in Benedict that has been closed for about eight years can keep its grandfathered right to reopen, after the Charles County Board of Appeals refused 4-1 to revisit its own ruling over the objection of the county’s lawyers.
The case, Docket 1459, involves River’s Edge at 7320 Benedict Ave., a commercial building over the water in the Village Commercial zone. In February 2023 the county zoning officer ruled that the restaurant had lost its “nonconforming use” status, the protection that lets a business that predates current zoning rules keep operating, because the use had stopped for more than a year, according to the county’s hearing notice. Owner George Holmes appealed.
After hearings from December 2025 to April 2026, the board sided with Holmes and adopted a written decision in July. On Aug. 25, it voted 4-1 to deny the county’s motion to reconsider. It adopted the written order explaining that denial on Oct. 13.
What the county argued
The county’s zoning law says a nonconforming use “shall be deemed abandoned” after 12 months without use. Potter, of the County Attorney’s Office, told the board its own order agreed the restaurant use had been abandoned for more than a year. The board then let the use continue anyway, starting the 12-month clock over from the date of the order.
That, Potter argued, was the problem. The board has the same powers as the zoning officer, and the zoning officer cannot “breathe new life” into an abandoned use. The only decision the board could lawfully make, he said, was that the use had been abandoned and could not be revived.
Holmes’s attorney countered that state and county law let the board issue any decision that “ought to be made” in a case. He said getting approvals from the county, the state and FEMA for a commercial building over the water within 12 months “is nearly impossible.”
The board attorney’s advice
Board attorney Brown told members the county’s motion was filed on time and did point to a legal mistake: the board had read an intent requirement into the abandonment rule when the ordinance contains none. He also noted the county never sent copies of its motion to the eight to 10 community members who were parties to the case, or filed the required proof of mailing. He advised the board to look past that defect.
Still, Brown recommended denying the motion on other grounds already in the July order. The strongest was what he called detrimental reliance. A county attorney had told Holmes in writing, years ago, that the use had not been abandoned because he intended to rebuild. “It would be a poor argument,” Brown said, for the county to give that advice and then return to say “the deadline passed.”
The vote
Damion Trasada moved to deny the reconsideration, seconded by Jennifer Walker. Trasada said the county appeared to have “initially encouraged the continuation” of the use. Walker said the board had made its decision and should “help this person try to restart” the restaurant. Vice Chair Benjamin Watkins said he did not “buy this mistake of law argument” and was surprised the county had not made it during the public hearings.
Timothy Treanor cast the lone no vote. “We made a terrible mistake,” he said. Ignoring the 12-month rule “out of our own sense of justice,” he said, “feels to be like theft of democracy.” Treanor said the restaurant had been “out of pocket for eight years,” blamed what he called Holmes’s “recalcitrance” in meeting county requirements, including a budget the county had sought for at least six of those years, and called him “an egregious offender.” He warned that other property owners would cite the case.
Before the vote, Chair Claude “Bud” Humbert II said for the record that he had made “a policy remark and a prejudgment” about the case at a May 12 work session, “which I should not have done.” He then voted with the majority.
Whether the county will take the case to Circuit Court did not come up at either meeting. Brown told the board that only an aggrieved party can appeal an agency decision to court, though he said the county’s reconsideration motion was a different matter.
Board business stalled
The board’s planned rewrite of its rules of procedure is on hold because the County Attorney’s Office has not assigned a lawyer to review it, the zoning administrator said Aug. 25. The office is hiring, she said.
At its Oct. 13 meeting, the board also adopted its written decision denying a boarding house in Docket 1488. The board meets next Nov. 10 at 6:30 p.m. in the Blue Room of the Charles County Government Building in La Plata, with one case scheduled.
