All right, good evening everybody. It is the ninth day of April. We are here for BA 24-033C, which is a request for a conditional use for a motor vehicle fueling facility. The petitioner is Woodbine Bank and the subject property is at 15, 9, 20, old Frederick Road Woodbine. Can I cancel your case? Thank you. Eric Gunnerson will be at the... Sorry. Good evening. Eric Gunnerson will be at the petitioner with me also at the table. It's great, but war on another turn in my office. Yes, we're here on a conditional use petition to approve the construction and use of a motor vehicle fueling facility and convenience store of woodbine. You will hear from two witnesses on our behalf. People first hear from Joe Rudder. He is a planning and zoning consultant who was hired to consult on this development project and he will go through the criteria for the proposed conditional use. You will also hear briefly from Jim Whitmer from JNM Engineering who was a professional civil engineer who prepared the conditional use plan that was submitted with the petition. He will address briefly an issue we anticipate maybe raised in opposition regarding traffic and he'll also be available to answer any questions you may have regarding the conditional use plan that was submitted to the extent Mr. Rudder does not address that in his testimony. As a matter of – to start, am I correct that the petition itself and the supplement we submitted as well as the technical staff reports are already part of the record? I don't need to – Yes, they're on the record, yes. I do have one question before you get yourself going. Yes. On the petition itself, the petitioner is listed as Woodbine Bank W-I-L-L-C and Woodbine Bank W-P-L-L-C and then a series of X's. Are those both correct? I don't believe the X's are part of the corporate name. So I don't know how those- That's why I'm asking. Yes. So it's W-I-L-L-C and W-P-L-L-C. Correct. Okay, thank you so much for clarifying. Yes. With that, I'm prepared to call my witness. Sure. We'll call Mr. Joe Rudder, please. Thank you, sir. Do you sell me swear or firm under the penalties of perjury that the response is given in statements made. She'll be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please state your name and business address for the record. Joseph Rudder, 3435, Jennings Chapel Road, Woodbine, 21797. Thank you. Mr. Rudder, how are you currently employed? I'm one person, LLC, JWRLC, as a planning consultant. And can you briefly describe what experience you've had regarding land use development and assessing properties for compliance with Howard County's rules and zoning rules and laws regarding conditional use? So I'm gonna ask you to keep your voice up and your math closer to the mic rightines to everybody in the room can area. I'll do that. Thank you. I, uh, after 36 years in Howard County, after growing up in Howard County, 36 years working in Howard County, planning of zoning last 12 years as director before that deputy director and numerous other planning positions are retired and immediately went to work at a Rundle County as their planning and zoning officer for four years and then in 2006 retired again and Do this to stay active? And what is your connection to the site being developed? That's the subject of this conditional use petition that we're here to see. I've been retained to provide testimony and assistant review of the site development plan that would follow the conditional use approval. And have you been working in conjunction with an engineer on the project as well? Yes. And who's that? Jim Wood. What are the uses proposed for this site? It's a motor vehicle fueling facility and then a convenient, which is a conditional use and a convenience store which is permitted to be to. I'm going to go through some of the specific criteria, criteria for conditional use that's set forth in the code. In general, will the proposed conditional use be in harmony with the land, uses, and policy? use that's set forth in the code. In general, will the proposed conditional use be in harmony with the land, uses, and policies in the Howard County General Plan? Yes. General Plan 2040 designates three suburban commercial areas in the entire western part of the county. And this is the largest and one of those three suburban commercial areas so it's and the gas station is fueling facility is consistent with suburban commercial uses and will this use adversely impact the area or have a bleeding influence as a result of a proliferation of motor vehicle fueling facilities in this area. No, there's one other station joining this, a high, with its in the Luzman Center, the larger B2 area north of Old Frederick and Woodbine Road. It contains this parcel and then there's a new Duncan Donuts Veterinarian and then St. John Properties has done a lot of redevelopment of the Lisbon Center. So it's consistent with the future laid use area and it's one of the suburban commercial uses. Is the overall intensity and scale of the use appropriate for the site given its size and location with respect to the streets that give access to it? Yes, and even as noted in the staff report, the conditional use plan actually accommodates the fueling station and the convenience store. It provides room for some vehicle charging stations which don't really exist in the Lisbon area. We've improved the access to the site from what exists today for the old bank by eliminating one of the access points on Old Frederick Road and bringing the other two access points up to standard. And so does the conditional use plan create any adverse impacts that are greater than those that would be created elsewhere in this zoning district. No, I think it's the opposite because it has good access to I-70 and previously there have been requests to locate stations along Main Street in Frederick, which that section of Frederick Road is an historic road. So, and while the strip that's in Lisbon contains some B2 property, this facility is not in character with that historic road. And there's no noise or fumes associated with motor vehicle fueling fuel cooling facility that would be. I will. Should I go continue? Yes. If you can't keep your comments to yourself, I'm going to have to ask you to move. It looks like a jury reading anyway. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Rudder. Also this location wouldn't have any adverse impact associated with motor vehicle fueling facilities than it would in another location in rural area which is a standard it's not greater than any other location. And how about the parking spaces in the plan is Is that appropriate for the site? Yes, we've met all the setbacks. The bulk criteria we've provided the required parking for the convenience store and the fueling facility. The plan adds additional spaces, not counted as part of the regular parking spaces for the EV charging and the vehicle site. Circulation addresses any concerns expressed by the community at the overnight that there would be overnight parking. It was one of the things that came up at the community meetings that we made sure that the way that the turning movements are that It doesn't leave an isolated space where somebody could pull a truck in and park overnight. Then I guess the other point is the three access points have been reduced to two, as I mentioned before, and by consolidating them. And we're also slightly reconfiguring old Frederick Road as it comes off of Frederick Road. skewed right now and we're also slightly reconfiguring old Frederick road as it comes off a Frederick road. It's skewed right now and we're pulling the one corner in, taking the road a little further away from the telephone pole with the corner. So we're actually improving the configuration of that intersection. Are there any environmental areas on the property? No, there's no wetlands or flood plains or not even any wooded area. Does the... Conditional use plan include any plans detailing how any proposed structures and landscaping and lighting will be addressed. Yes. There is a lighting plan that's been reviewed by the staff report. It shows that there would be many excess light overflow. All the canopies are screened with side walls and so forth to direct the light down and the landscaping is shown on the plan. That's really evaluated in detail at the site development plan stage, but we've shown landscaping. There's a lot of environmentally designed ring gardens and so forth as part of the stormwater management. They will all be planted as well. You referenced the technical staff report. Have you reviewed that? Prior to today. To the extent that technical staff report assesses any other factors regarding the proposed conditional use that you have not so far addressed, do you agree with their assessments and conclusions? I agree with all of the assessments and conclusions in the staff report. That's all I have for this witness. All right, Mr. Deos. Before you proceed with cross, I need to address everybody in the room. Everybody in the room are you either on the side of the applicant or are you Mr. Dale's clients? Is there anybody here who does not fall into one of those two categories? Is there any gentleman in the rear can't hear me? Is there anybody here who is either not in favor of the project or one of Mr. Dale's clients? Okay. No, no, different question. That's a different question. If you are opposed to the application, are you here tonight represented by Mr. Dales? Is there anybody here opposed to the project who is not represented by Mr. Dales? A lot of people. Okay. So Mr. Dales, who do you represent? You're on our, I'm here tonight on behalf of St. John Properties. Thank you. Ms. Nichols, I'm here tonight on behalf of Lisbon Plaza LLC and St. John Properties. We have four professional expert witnesses with us as well. Okay, I just need to know you represent. Lisbon Plaza LLC and who was the other one? St. John Properties. All right. All right, Mr. John properties. St. John properties. All right. All right. Mr. Dales, your witness. Your Honor, I'm not going to cross examine the witness. I'm just going to contradict his testimony through our expert witness's testimony. Okay. All right. All of, no, Mr. Ritter, you stay. Thank you. All of you who are here tonight who are in opposition and apparently those of you, the citizens that are here are not represented by Mr. Dales, you do have the right to cross examine witnesses on your own behalf. So at this point in time, if anybody has a question of Mr. Rudder with regards to his testimony, now is the time to ask it. But this is not the time for you to testify. So the only reason for you to come up is to ask Mr. Rudder a question about his test dramatic. Is there anybody here that wishes to ask Mr. Rudder a question about his test dramatic? Okay, the gentleman in the rear here. Thank you. We need to put a mic. Yes, please. Okay. in, but I need you to put your mic on. Is it on? Yes. So I need you to just state your name for the record. My name is Ronald Anderson. Okay. And what questions might you have of Mr. Rudder? Whoa. My name is Ronald Anderson. And what questions might you have of Mr. Rudder? Well, one question is, when you're discussing excess fumes or additional fumes, I get it. You're talking about a specific plot could be there or somewhere else. But what's the data? The standard for the conditional use is that this use, at this location, isn't going to create greater fumes than would normally be associated with a motor vehicle fuel and facility. But that's not data, that's just a statement. That's my statement. Well, then he's not answering the question. So he's asking you, what do you base that opinion on? A modern fuel facility has all the fume recovery that is associated with the modern dispensing dispensers. So he's asking you the data, the empirical data upon which you premise your opinion. I premise my opinion on the fact that the fueling facilities are regulated by other agencies on how they're operated. I'm not the expert on fumes from puelling facilities. What I'm saying is it will comply with federal and state laws regarding emissions control. But why will it? Why will it? It wouldn't be licensed if it didn't. Well, that's kind of a circular argument. So Mr. Antren is saying, how can you opine that it meets all of the air quality or any of the other admissions if you don't have any data to back it up. And your answer is, well, the federals or the states or the locals all have licensing procedures. And at the time that they finally get a license for this project, they will have met all of the effluent requirements. Is that what you're saying? That's part of what I'm saying. The criteria that's in the zoning regulation, which is this topic of this hearing, is will this use at this location have a greater adverse impact than it would if it was at some other location? And I'm saying it's gonna have exactly the same impact if it's located here, which it's located in Main Street in Lisbon, or it's located in Glenville, or it's located in Ellicott City. And Mr. Anderson is saying, give me the data. Why can you assume that this project is different from every other motor vehicle fueling facility? I'm saying it's the same as every other fueling. And how can you opine that? Because there are all license and the manufacturer the same. So far this one's not licensed. In order to operate, they will have to be licensed. So if this gets approved, and then if they get licensed, then you would say because they're being licensed, you're assuming that they're going to be in accordance with law. Mr. Anderson is saying we haven't got to the licensing part. We're still in the presub middle range, and why do you think that this project is going to meet the licensing criteria when it gets there? It wouldn't be approved to operate if it didn't have a license. But again, if there's – it's not a matter of whether or not there's a mission, it's a matter of whether or not it's greater at this particular location than it would normally be. That's all I'm saying is no greater here than it is next door. Mr. Anderson is saying give me the facts that show that it is the same as the one next door or no greater than the one next door or no greater than any other ones in the region. And your answer is you don't have any data but you're assuming that by the time we get far enough down the road everybody will have had eyes on the project and it will be an accordions without federal, local and state regulations. And the body to present that information to would be the state licensing agency, not the hearing exam. Okay. Mr. Anderson, still your witness. Okay. You mentioned lighting. And dark skies is important to my wife and myself. And you mentioned, and I've seen in the report, your down lighting type of thing thing but what you don't mention is signage. Will there be any signage associated with this project and if it is, are you downloading that? It would be the same signage as the typical gas station signing, just like the hyzids there today. So then you're telling me the lighting for the signage may not be downlit. That's what the lighting is, the criteria that we're talking about in the zoning regulations. I've got two more things. One is, and I get it, you're not testifying to the additional fumes and noise and so forth. But indeed globally for that area, you're adding to fumes and noise and traffic by adding this fueling facility at that location, are you not? Yes, and now again, the standard for zoning that looks at that is does this create a proliferation? And if you look at, you'll see testimony tonight from the opposition that the, there are clusters of gas stations like along Route 40 and so forth, where you have five or six stations in the media vicinity. There are four facilities within two miles, five or six facilities within five miles. That's not a proliferation. Well, again, I'd come back, but I don't want to get into this endless loop, but I would say where's the data? You know, sampling air quality and that type of thing. But I'd like to move on instead of dwelling on that. I also looked at your map and your proposal or changing ingress and egress on to old Frederick Road. I'm not an expert, but it kind of headscratched me the way it was described, seemed to me that as you're approaching this location from the east side, in other words, proceeding westbound on Old Frederick Road, I would ask for more information online of site. I know the county has rules and regs and that would have to go through traffic because it didn't seem to me made any sense you're improving line of sight. And I know the county has rules and regs, and that would have to go through traffic, because it didn't seem to me made any sense that you're improving line of sight by how you were shifting that. Secondarily to that kind of comment, which, sorry if I'm not supposed to do that, but the ingress and egress shift that seems to be labeled onto old woodbine road. If I'm not mistaken, that ingress and egress in essence is going into a driveway that then is kind of open to the parking ride, which is one of the main accesses into the existing gas station. Am I correct? No. Old Woodbine Road is when Route 94 was relocated in 1974. The road that is south of here goes down in just dead ends. That was Woodbine Road. It came to this intersection and it curved around which the state then turned over to the county. The state and terminated its state highway at the roundabout at Old Frederick Road and 94 north of that it becomes a county road and from the intersection of Frederick Road that portion of Old Woodbine Road that was then terminated into a cul-de-sac was turned over to the county and then the Park and Ride that's owned by the state is off to the left and then Lisbon centers to the north and The bank that was there when it turned over. This is to the east. So if my understanding is correct, the ingress and egress, or at least one of them into the existing gas station, is that road, if we wanna stay with that terminology, and to one side is where the old PNC bank was and to the other side is that parking right and that is the major ingress and egress to the existing gas station correct correct thank you Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that has questions of Mr. Rudder? Sir. I'm sorry ma'am. Would you just state your name for the opportunity? for the opportunity. My name is Kay Campbell. Thank you. Would you just state your names for the opportunity? Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Kay Campbell Anderson. I live on an old woodbine road. And I wanted to know if the proposed station is completely planned and developed, planned and the excavations and the water rights and the water all that's been taken care of. No, this is the first step. We've prepared a pretty much, you get to where you have a site development plan in order to propose a conditional use. We've done the perk testing to make sure that that all is sufficient. There's a plan with the application that will turn into a site development plan that will have a little bit more detail to it. So how many fuel storage tanks are proposed? I didn't testify to that. Is anybody know? I think it's two, but I didn't testify to that. How many gallons? I don't know. Mr. Gunderson, is somebody going to be able to answer that question? We were planning on addressing that in our testimony. But I would like to know. We were not. You were not. So there's no one available to answer that question. I mean, Mr. Whitmer will be testifying the engineer, but I'd like to know how many. It's possible she could ask him questions. How many gallons of D. Short cutted by asking the question yourself, right? I could, yes. It's not in turn, it's our case, but I could just early ask a question. Well, I think it might be because I want to know how many gallons of regular gasoline and how many of diesel are proposed. Mr. Whitmer, could you be sure to answer that? Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Sir, come on down. You could just state your name, please, sir. Yes. Charles Shark. I am a resident for 46 years on Old Woodbyne Road before the existing shop center was built. Okay, I'm sorry. I didn't catch the last name, Sharp. Sharp. Thank you very much. Charles Sharp. Thank you. And my one question that I have is the environmental impact as to where the runoff from this project will be going. going, forin, Cattail. Both of those are native trout streams here in the state of Maryland. We have an issue now with water coming down over the vineyard. How is that addressed in this plan proposal? That's a great question. The engineer can give a lot more of the details, but right now, as you know, since you've been there, as long as I have, the Woodbine Bank, when it was constructed, PNC Bank, and its latest iteration, has an install on water management. So what is flowing across the bank parking lot, coming down all woodbind road, being caught paped underneath of Frederick Road and then sheet flowing down behind the lights that are on all woodbind road. Not behind the lights through the lights. Through the lights. Yeah, towards the back of the lights, but yes, through the lights. Directly. That's front of people's homes. Yeah. It's a good question because it's an existing condition that's not great. The engineer can talk into the detail of it, but the site development plan at that stage, we have to retain one site and treat and infiltrate the storm water that comes to the site for the two in the 10-year storm. It doesn't say that for hurricane comes and the water is going to go off the site. But the normal rain that you would see today, that I see today running off the wood-bind site, will all be captured and the plan that's with the condition we use shows the rain gardens and the bioreattention facilities that are planned for the site. One additional question along with that lighting that's going to be there, is the lights from the V heckles entering in exiting. So the exit will be on to over Frederick Road. The entrance will be off of the portion adjacent to Parking Ride. Both access points will be full movement so you can go in and come out on each one, but we're taking the two entrances that are on all board by and road and consolidating them at the one location. My house says 558 feet from the property line. Lights coming out of the bank which normally doesn't operate and didn't operate after the dark. It was very limited lights shining in through my windows. Is there any screening or any proposed to be able to manage the lighting from the vehicles entering in accident? They're not sure how you would manage when a vehicle is exiting the site and facing south across Old Frederick Road. There isn't a place there that we could screen that to have an access. It's kind of the same as where the Duncan-Donuts and the veterinary clinic is, or where would my road is that you just don't do it right across the street It's understand this is going to be a gasoline any diesel filling stations slimmer to the one in the shopping center correct Many of us on all wood mine road have experienced the challenge of getting out of our road when a tractor trailer drops its trailer on the side of the road so they can take the tractor park in the existing station and fill up with fuel. was going to prevent an increase in that traffic and seeing the same, they're dropping them in the circle into the parking right now, because they physically cannot get in and out. How is this station designed to be able to accommodate those large vehicles? This station is designed to accommodate those large vehicles due to the very case. And again, I'm just as familiar as you are, when the landscape vehicles come in in the morning, the school buses come in, it just creates congestion at the existing facility. And this site has turning movements that can accommodate the trucks on site so that they don't have to be dropping trailers or dropping landscaping equipment and trying to get into the station or this afternoon, one was backing out with the trailer, holoplaying, escaping equipment, right into the main road that goes down toward the back. And that is, you say there be no traffic impact because of this additional, I don't think that's going to be the case. What I'm saying is there's a full bus stop at the end of Old Woodbine Road and Old Frederick Road. The washwood goes on there now as buses are trying to pick up children. It's very dangerous as it is now. This is only going to increase the danger for those residents and the children that have to walk up and catch the bus on the corner there. I appreciate this, but in response to your question, what I'm saying is this site will be better able to accommodate the vehicles with trailers and so forth that are trying to maneuver. You can't maneuver in the existing highs. I agree. You've got to back up, even the fueling trucks have to back up into the intersection. This site is designed where all those movements will be accommodated. Is this a 24 hour operation? I don't, we don't, we're in the very first step so I can't answer what the hours of operation or the operator. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that has any questions, Mr. Rudder? No, Seeing none, is there a visit? Ma'am, yes. It's our online person. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'miders. And I live, I'm sorry, Donnie Dottie Dorothy. Snighter. Siders like apple cider. Thank you very much. SID. Thank you. Spelling is important. Okay, for me. Thank you very much. What questions would you have of Mr. Butter? Um, so I don't really have, I mean, okay. I want to know if tonight the developer himself is here, the owner of the property. Mr. Rutter, does anybody know? I don't know if he's here or not. Okay. Second, Mr. Gunderson is your client here tonight? Yes, he is. Okay. Which one is he? There's two on earth. Two on earth. One is one. Mr. Norris is the other. Okay. No, I didn't. I'm sorry. I didn't even see the thing. Okay, well I want to ask somebody and since you asked me to ask him, Mr. Reuter, I'll ask what is the need to have two gas stations side by side? Like almost physically touching each other. Excuse me. The owners have done their analysis. And if you're familiar with the existing facility, it is very congested, especially in peak times. And it's their belief that two facilities can survive together. It's not uncommon to have two fueling facilities when next to each other or category or on an intersection. Yeah, that's true. But why does our exit need to service that need? I mean, why can't people just keep on going to Mount Airee? Well, the, as I testified earlier, there are three designated suburban commercial centers in all of Buster and Howard County, and this is one of those three, and it's the largest. The second one is over where the Puelling Facility is, one 97, and the other one's further south, but in this area along I-70, it's designated as the location for it to be. to be. So is this going to be a future hub of development? I think it's an existing hub of development. Right, but is it going to get? Is it? Well, there's only two. In a long range plan, is it like on paper saying we will expand this location? Yes, the general plan for the designation of the suburban commercial area includes this site, the old WF Wilson, where right now there's a Dunkin' Donuts in a veteran area and there's more land there, and then to the north of Lisbon Center there's another six or seven acres to the north, that is own commercial as part of the suburban commercial center. Okay, thank you. And this gas station will accommodate 18 wheelers. And I looked at the plan, I mean, is that right? Well, yeah, it has to be, and the reason for that is, it's the 18 wheeler, it's the fueling facility. Now fueling truck is an 18 wheeler. Okay. So we haven't be able to get it in a row. At least, but then it'll attract 18 wheeler traffic off of 70, not just for fuel trucks. The over the road trucks don't tend to go to this kind of a fueling facility. Just buying 80 gallons of fuel I'm going to go to one of the truck stops. Okay. Did your assessment include the possible crime in the area? No, that's not that it would attract. Tracked crime. I don't know that there's been the evidence that it would track more at this location than any other suburban commercial location. Did you take into account the family environment of the location and kind of like the little sleepy charm and attraction of the occasion. I mean, the location. I absolutely agree. I mean, I know that's, yeah, excuse me. I know that's like subjective. I mean, been in this area for 30, 40 years is rural neighborhoods. It's not a commercial center, but this is the area that was designated as a commercial center. If we were coming in saying let's go down off a 97 that had Wurfield Road, I would be here on the other side sitting where you are. I don't think that's stripping commercial down 94 is a good idea. But this location that's been here since the 60s is reaffirmed in the current general plan as the place for this commercial development. Okay, and finally I think how high will the signs be? The lights and the signs? Well, they are gradations of gas stations. Like here's, you know, size A, size B, size C, like that. How high will the signs be? Because we don't have the conditional use. We can't have a confirmed user. But the existing highs has the ground mounted sign. The concern is we're going to try and put some monopole up there that you can see from my 70 now. That's not that's not the intent. Okay. I mean I hope you well It's all subjective what I'm kind of thinking of but taking into account the life of the families in the neighborhood But thank you. I guess that's enough for me. Thank you All right. Thank you, Mrs. Cider. Is there anybody else that has come on down, sir? Give me your name, please. Yeah, my name is Dale Maxson, M-A-X-S-O-N, and just a couple comments that Joe has made, or Mr. Rotter has made that I just want to, he just, assuming he's here as some expert witness, and he's just made the statement that 18 willers, he knows this, evidently, because he's an expert, won't be coming off 70 to fuel up there. And I just like to know his, where that source of data has come from. I'm just looking at the other gas stations that are along I-70, they don't attract 18 wheelers to come in or any regular basis. I can't say there'd be somebody that's all monitor that. Sure, I live right near there, have for 40 years. So, okay. It'd be nice to know the count that you've got for the different locations off 70 since you've monitored those. And second is that the lighting issue or the the fuel issue I assume you if this lot you know I just looking at the size of the live and there's only 16 proposed, could it handle 40 or 50 or is there some limitation on that few regulation? Is there a volume of that they would allow on this size of a lot? I don't know that there's a restriction, but what we're proposing is 16 fueling stations, it would be eight pumps, they're double-sided, so it's... Yeah, I just didn't know if the fume calculation or your statement that the fumes wouldn't acceptable, does that matter if it's 16 or 40? All I can say is what we're proposing is 16. But I said before their license, they have to meet. I was just wondering if you knew that fact or not. Because you've attested that the fumes would be okay. You do not okay. That's all because there are Additional you know in the in the area just didn't know if that was a factor in your calculations Thank you. Thank you, sir Anybody else have questions mr. Rutter? No, all right your witness Any redirect? No. All right, thank you, Mr. Rudder. Oh, I'm so sorry, sorry, sorry. We have a caller. We have a caller. And this more. Just have one. Okay. Do you have to open the mics for them? But they can hear me. Okay, okay, persons who are here virtually. I need to ask whether any of you have questions, Mr. Gleaves already has his hand up. Any of you have questions of Mr. Rudder? Could you please raise your hand? All right. Anybody else have questions of Mr. Rudder? Anybody else? All right, let's open the mic to Don Macy Boyette. All right, Ms. Boyette, can you hear me? All right, Ms. Boyette, can you hear me? Yes, I have been listening the whole time. And my concern, one of my many concerns, but the only one I'm going to mention right now, is they were talking about the runoff. Okay. And so you're going to ask a question, right? This is my question. I am. Okay. But he But I'm just restating what he said. The runoff has always been a problem. My thing is, you're gonna have, like triple the game, a lot more gas runoff, a lot more diesel runoff, and you've got livestock on old wood buying road, right across from where they're gonna build it. How are they going to protect you? So we're going to do this, we're going to do this, I don't think that's going to work. How are they going to make sure that there's gas and the fuel and anything else does not run off into those fields for that livestock? If you want me to answer the best I can say is that any contaminants that come from existing cars, you're correct. They run right out onto the street. The design of the new fueling facility will contain biotension facility and so forth. They catch all of the rain water. So if there's fuel or anything in that rain water, it would be captured one site and not just run across the fields. And if it is not, are the people who are developing this ready to pay the damages, should their fields be poisoned or their animals be poisoned? That's a civil case and I'm not going to opine one. Okay. That was all. Thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am. We had a Megan that she disappeared. So let's go to Mr. William Gleeves. All right. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Oh, thank you. William Gleeves. I live at 975. Old Woodbine Road, which is. I think probably one of the roads most impacted the neighbor. I'm only four houses away. And I'm next door neighbor to Mr. Charlie Sharp who already testified. I lived here for 15 years. We've seen the use of the bank that is now closed. That's on that same corner that's going to be replaced or proposed to be replaced. And I'd like to amplify things that he's saying about vehicle lighting, which is kind of part and parcel with timing and hours of the use of facility. And I'd like the county to consider. No, sure. This is an opportunity. So the question is, because we've asked this question before at the last meeting and didn't get really a very good answer in my opinion, is what would the 24-hour use or what would be the limited hours if that was proposed for this facility? To my knowledge, there is no proposed limit when the hours of operation. I would point out if it was any other, it was a convenience store without gas. It could operate 24 hours. So. I understand. One more question, please. Man I ask another question. Yes sir. All right so I heard the condition I heard the statements of my neighbors talking about concerns about semi trucks and I agree with Mr. Mr. Rudder saying that obviously delivery would include semi-truck. So that's not what I'm asking about. What I'm asking about is for it to be kind of comport with the community, a rural community, you wouldn't want to allow large numbers of over-the-road trucks. Going to a question, you wouldn't want a large number of over-the-road trucks refueling in that facility because that would not align with the kind of rural nature of the Red Directly Cross Street. And so would high volume diesel pumps be installed or proposed to be installed as part of the diesel part of the facility? I didn't testify to anything about where the location of the pumps are. I did not location the style over the road trucks and over the road trucking facilities have much higher volume diesel pumps than would be normal for a residential type diesel pump. I'm aware of that and I did not testify to the type of pump that it would be, but I agree with you that when you pump an 80-gallon, you'd be sitting there way too long to That's why they go to the truck stops that have the high volume pumps, but I'm not the operator. I didn't testify as to what the pump would be. My assumption is it would be the same as the one that's in the existing highs. What type of pumps are going to be used? Multi-pump dispensers or? The multi-pump dispensers are correct. But I think with this, this is, in general with question is when you go to the truck stops, they have very high volume. It's a much higher volume of fuel can go into the tanks than what happens at regular gas station. May I ask one more question? Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there an ombudsman for the county to help the residents with questions like this for example, how do we find out about or how would we possibly ask for conditions on the conditional use so that timing and hours. Restrictions on high volume diesel pumps night operations and things like that. Is there an ombudsman we can ask questions too. That was not within the scope of Mr. Ritter's testimony and I cannot provide advice. All right thank you. Thank you sir. All right is there anybody else that is virtual that has questions raise your hand and there are none. All right so So Mr. Rutter, you are now excused. Thank you very much. Hi, Mr. Gunderson, your next witness. Thank you, called Jim Whitmer. Hi, Mr. Whitmer the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to Mount Erie Maryland 21771. Thank you. Since Mr. Gunderson doesn't want to ask you these questions, I'm going to ask you some questions up front. Sure. And that is the one question the gentleman asked is the runoff. How is the runoff being controlled and where is it going? Okay, so right now the runoff it's it slopes from I guess it'll be the Northwest portion from where we're developing is Northwest more towards the Southwest, or Northeast to Southwest. So at the corner of Old Woodbine Road and Old Frager Road, that's where all the runoff goes to currently. So our design proposes the use of microbiota tensions. What they're designed to do is to capture and treat the runoff a specific volume required through Howard County and MDE to make sure that the minimum storm or management requirements are met. Okay, thank you. And let's see. Ms. Anderson had questions about the tanks numbers and size. Yes, so currently we show two tanks, I believe, on the conditional use plan. The size of the tank, I think that's going to depend on the end user. I don't know how these fuel systems are designed. That's more of a different engineering than what I do. So I'm not sure about the size. Like I said, I think that's dependent on the end user and whoever the eventually would use the site. All right, thank you for your patience, Ms. Berwittner. Mr. Gunderson, your witness. Thank you. Just for the record, so what professional licenses licenses or how are you currently employed? I'm self-employed I own JNM engineering and what professional licenses do you hold? I'm a registered professional engineer in Maryland and also a licensed professional survey And was your firm retained to assist with the development of a fueling facility that is the subject of this conditional use petition. Yes, the design of site plan. Yes, you know that. The hearing examiner may hear testimony in opposition to our petition about the impact of traffic on the surrounding roads and intersections from the proposed development. In connection with your work on this development so far, was it preliminary traffic study conducted for this site? Yes, we had a consultant do a preliminary study for us. And did those results support the proposed use for a fueling facility at this site at least at this stage of the planning? Yes, I did. Can I interject? Yes. Is a copy of that in the record? Because I don't remember saying it. It is not. Can I have a copy of it, please? If you're spacing your testimony on it? Yes, we can. Do you want one now? Yes. I don't have a copy. You don't have to physically have it. Do you have it digitally? I do not. I'd have to get it from my office. Well, mostly I wasn't... Since the... This was my... This was what I was thinking. the The traffic's gonna be analyzed and in detail with the site development plan I Didn't know that that would be that would be covered in great detail tonight I mean overall maybe like the big picture type thing But typically we don't get into the nuts and bolts of these studies until the site development plans come in. All right. And I understand that, Mr. Woodmer. Mr. Gunderson, I'm going to be asking that the preliminary traffic study be placed into the record. So if you could make arrangements after the hearing to send them to my office, I'm going to put it in the record. Sure. Thank you. Yes, and I will do that. Thank you. Mr. Wimmer, you sort of answer my next question, but just to clarify, will a more detailed traffic study and analysis be completed in compliance with the Department of Planning and Zoning's processes at the site development? Absolutely. Yeah, and Howard County with traffic studies for site development, playing commercial development, they come in with the site development, playing submittal. So not only will this be reviewed by the county, but also the state, because there's state controlled intersection as well. And so was the impact of traffic even relevant to the criteria with respect to the conditional use petition that we're here for this evening? No, I mean I think we had a preliminary analysis done just to see the circulation and just the general aspects of traffic. But obviously when the site development plan comes in, that if there's any required mitigation based on real traffic data in terms of counts that are made in the field, a more detailed study, then if there is mitigation required, then we would have to address that with the county and state at the time of the SDP. Okay. Did the preliminary traffic study deal with a line of sight? No, a sight distance analysis? No, it did not. Okay, thank you. And lastly, you heard Mr. Rudder ask, be asked some questions about lighting. How is the lighting being addressed as far as you're concerned with the conditional use plan? Yes, so a lot of Joe covered. I think a lot of the lighting is being shielded, you know, downward facing and work towards a site to eliminate the excess light truss pass that will go into the adjoining properties. And with respect to signage of the station, when will that be addressed in the process? And if it has already? Yeah, I think that would be something more detailed with the site development plan. I know there's a sign shown on the conditional used plan, but depending on the end you know what specific lighting might be used for that or the height of it or the style that would have to be determined with the site development plan when we know who's going to be using it. Okay. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Should I re-ask the question? I'm as nickels or just to repeat the question. Mr. Whitner, you testify that there is no end user yet. Not that I know of now. Okay, thank you. And I asked that first because the standard for this application in 131 OB3A specifically was the standard that I believe Mr. Rudder was speaking to, which requires that the proposed use that the proposed location will not have adverse effects on vicinity properties above and beyond those ordinarily associated with such uses and valuing the proposed use under the standard, the hearing authority shall consider whether or not the impact of adverse effects such as but not limited to noise, dust, fumes, odors, intensity of lighting, vibrations, hazards or other physical conditions will be greater at the pros site than it would be generally, generally be elsewhere in the same zoning district or other similar zone districts. So without knowing the specifics of the lighting, which the public has asked about, or knowing the specifics of the traffic, which will certainly generate some of those impacts. the noise for sure. How do you, how do you, can you say that the application will meet that standard without having the detailed analysis you're saying is being postponed to later? Well, when we put these plans together, we, we try to put together a plan that's reasonable in terms of to be able to provide given evaluation or try to put together a determination of you know how what's the effect on for instance storm more management. The you know the storm I guess I'll go back to the example of storm more management that's always always a big issue. So, when we develop these sites, there's a general idea of what the perv is area is going to be for the site. What type of slopes you're going to have on the site, what type of runoff conditions you're going to have. And that allows us to give a pretty... Pretty... type of slopes you're going to have on the site, what type of runoff conditions you're going to have. And that allows us to give a pretty sufficient design in terms of sizing of pipes, sizing of stormwater management facilities. And the same thing goes with the traffic consultants. I did see, and there's a generated, anticipated, generated traffic based on the proposed use of the site. So given that the property is going to be developed for a fueling station, if there's going to be 16 pumps, we know the area that's going to be required for circulation, which amounts to the amount in pervice area that's going to be in there that has to be treated. That allows us to evaluate the circulation for traffic, what's coming in and coming out of the site. Also lighting requirements, septic requirements, and all those other aspects. So, you know, based on that, based on our design, our preliminary design, it allows us to say we have a reasonable design to where when the site development comes and the end user is identified that we can work within those constraints in terms of, you know, the traffic, the storm management and all the aspects you mentioned. Well, okay. But I would ask again, with regard to BF, without knowing the level of traffic that'll be generated or the impact on the nearby intersections, we're knowing what the signage might be because you don't know the operator's gonna be. How are you able to sufficiently answer whether or not this proposed use will, and this is the standard in F, will not have a greater potential for diminishing the character and significance of historic sites in the vicinity than elsewhere. These criteria, and then finally in the specific criteria for 131.0.2, Part A asks that the use will not adversely affect the general welfare or logical development of the neighborhood or area in which the vehicle fueling facility is proposed and will not have a bleeding influence as a result of a proliferation of motor vehicle fueling facilities within a particular area. That first part of A is different than the standard in B3 or B3F, I'm sorry, B3A or B3F, and that it's not comparative. It doesn't say will the impact in this location be worse than in other places? It just asks, will it affect the welfare? So without knowing these details of traffic, noise, lighting, how are we able to judge that standard? Well that's like I said I'll go back to what I mentioned before is once we get to when we know an end user and we have a site development plan that we can develop there's all the county requirements we have to meet the state requirements we. We have to meet all the standards that we would have to meet regardless of how the site would be developed. So I don't, maybe I'm not following your question, but it's all right. Being a landage attorney, I understand that it's preferable to try to get to those details later after you have a general approval. But I think with a fueling station, the question I'm asking is you have a lot of the uses associated with vehicular circulation, vehicular users. So to answer these questions about the impacts from dust, fumes, odors, intensity of lighting, those things that are associated with vehicles that seems like, unfortunately, you need more specific answers. So I think I've had your answer, though, so I'll leave it there. Let's all the questions I had, Ms. Nichols. All right, thank you. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Whitmer? Come on, Dan again is Ronald Anderson. I've got a few questions. One, people have been talking about customers, types of customers. Can you guarantee, or has there been a business plan done, that forecasts the type of customers that would be coming into this facility, i.e. cars, autos, tractor trailer trucks, and the like. Are you, I'm sorry, you were referring to the type of customer or the type of vehicle? Well, one and the same. So I guess you can break it down to what type of customer is inside what type of vehicle, but I guess my question would be more specific, what type of vehicle? Well, I believe Joe had talked about this before. I believe the assumption would be that these would be this fueling station would be comparable to what the high services in here. Well, I'm'm asking for data. You're asking for specific data that- Yes, sir. Well, if you're doing a business like this, you've got to be doing a business plan. And you've got to be thinking about this for return on investments and that type of thing. So somewhere, somebody's got to have done this. Well, as the engineer, I wouldn't, that wouldn't have been in my, my purview to do it. Okay. I'd like to move along. Let me get to something more specific to engineering. With a full parking lot as the plan stands. Okay. What would be the maximum turning radius within that facility? And what is the maximum turning radius and the minimum turning radius of a standard tractor, trailer truck? I'm trying to think, I believe we sized it for the WB50 truck to flow in and out of the site. So coming in from the old woodbine road and looping around and also the opposite direction. So we sized based on that we used our turning templates. I can't tell you what without looking, I can't tell you what the exact radius is, but basically what we have is I use turning templates that we overlay onto the site plans that show the wheels and the overhangs for different size vehicles and trucks and stuff like that. Going back to the stormwater drainage. What kind of evaluation have you done, including linear regression evaluation, considering the changes of weather pattern and storms and amount of water, or for that matter, I don't know what the data is, but the amount of water falling per inch per year here may be going down. I don't know, but have you looked at that and what data do you have on that? So we use all state standards and Howard County standards. Well, Howard County uses state standards through MDE for rainfall and density water quality that has to be captured and managed depending on the different storm events and it does vary based on your location in the state. Howard County is in the 2.6 inch range so that's usually the target rainfall event for every site that's evaluated so that I would refer you to the state standards for that. Okay, so you don't know whether it's going up or going down and how that impacts what you're planning for for mitigation of Ronald? Well, MDE makes those determinations for us to follow when we do those calculations. Okay. I'm going to ask this question, but I realize you're probably not going to be answering this, but or be able to answer this. But has there been, to your knowledge, any analysis done of how many vehicles of all types would be pulled in or attracted to this type of station per hour per day and just curious about if there's any evaluation or understanding of how that would add to or subtract from the existing gas station that's there. I can't speak in detail about that. I know the and I know it's not in the record but and I believe the traffic study that was done in opposition as well, they mentioned pass-by trips. Up to 75% is anticipated to be bypass trips, meaning traffic that's already through the area would be coming through the area would be utilizing this. In terms of the types of vehicle you reference the type of vehicles I don't know what the type of vehicles might be whether they're smaller cars bigger trucks I don't know. In terms I wouldn't anticipate there would be tractor trailers I just don't think a gas station of this size would be conducive to allow a full-size tractor trailer to pull in, actually get to a pump where they could pump their gas and then get back out. I just don't think, I think what Joe was saying earlier, I think there would be other areas that they'd be looking to go to. Well, to leave it on a lighter note in this day and age, who the heck knows what somebody's going to do or pull in with what? We've all seen crazy things. So thank you. All right, thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Whitmer? Yes, sir. Come on down. those of you who are virtual again if you could raise your hands we'll prepare for you to ask questions as well. All right sir. Hello my name is Earl Creehan just a couple questions you mentioned a preliminary traffic study Mr. Creehan can you spell your last name please? CREHAN. Thank you. Will your study make recommendations to the county if any improvements are needed on Route 94 or Old Frederick Road prior to installing this gas station? Yeah, well first off let me state that it wasn't my study, so I don't actually do the traffic studies. I'm not a traffic consultant. But the study we did receive, yeah. So, and to answer your second part is, yeah, when we submit a site development plan, we have to submit to the county and also the state. They'll evaluate all the intersections in the vicinity. And then we will have to do any mitigation that's required based on if there's a failing intersection we would have to do mitigation to address that. When I moved out there years ago there was prior to the circles being put in circles for the only thing that were put in there. I would imagine with the increased traffic you're going to probably be putting in traffic lights. They're assuming that there will be traffic lights put in there. I wouldn't be able to tell you. I don't know. That would be a determination that would be made by the state and the county at the time. Okay. Just the comment on about Route 94 and Old Frederick Road. Those road roads are a patchwork and I just can't see putting any additional traffic on that road without having to make any major improvements to the road. Thank you. All right. Is there anybody else in the audience that has questions of Mr. Whitmer? All right. We'll go to the virtual and that would be, is there, I'm so sorry,'am come on down would just state your name for the record. Okay. My name is Dottie Ciders. So I hope these are technical questions that fall in your realm, But I'm not sure. So what's the difference between a fueling station and a gas station? I believe that the same thing. Because I keep hearing those two terms. I think they're just using the same term for the for the same meeting. Okay. And is there a gas station within about a 10 mile radius that will look similar to what this will be? That you can any of the stations in Ellicott City or? I don't, I mean, I think for the most part, I'm trying to answer your question. I think for the most part, a lot of these gas stations look somewhat similar, in terms of layout, setup, canapies, stuff like that. So I believe it would look similar to other surrounding, you say a mile radius, but I mean it would be a gas station, it would be a fueling station, so I mean it would be comparable to other ones around the area. Right. There's one on 97, almost across from the community center. You know, I'm wondering if it'll look like that. And then there's also a new one in Ellicott City on St. John's Lane that looks like it would go with an airport or something. It's so huge. So I mean, I feel like this situation is saying just pass the bill and then we'll read it to see what's in it. And so that's why I'm curious what size that you could give us. Well, I mean, it would be compare, I mean, eight pump 16 fueling station with a convenient store. it would be compare, I mean, eight pumps, 16 fueling station with a convenience store. It would be your standard size, you know, like comparable what the highs is there. I don't know how many pumps the highs has there. That's right next door. I'm not real sure how many that has, but I mean, I imagine it would be comparable, visually, comparable to something like that. What's the square footage of the convenience store? It's 4,000 I think it's 4,000 in some monthly 4,000 some square feet. Okay so if the you know if it's like a rush hour kind of thing and all the pumps are really full, is there a plan for extra vehicles? Will they be double parked on Old Frederick Road or on Woodbine Road? Where will the overflow go? Do you mean the kind of well I know there's an issue with it now with the highs we talked about that early Joe talked about that earlier I believe but you know I you there's going to be enough pumps I would believe where you have 16 people pumping at a time and there's there's additional parking You know the one site so in terms of the how long it takes somebody to fill up their gas tank and then move on you know That's hard to say but you know I I wouldn't anticipate just with any other fueling station You typically wouldn't see vehicles lined out back on to a road. So I wouldn't anticipate something like that here as well. And is there any plan to increase the shoulder? Because right now I don't think there's any shoulder at that edge, you know. Yes, so yeah, we would be widening the road on the side there and also be providing sidewalk as well. And how far back would that go into the corn fields and stuff? Well the sidewalk would basically go from where the Dunkin' Donuts is now. And then continue around into the St. John's property. Just the frontage of our property would be the road front frontage will be side-floor. Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got. All right. Thank you very much, Miss Cider. All right. Anybody else in the room with questions? Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Come on down. Hi, dear. Would you just state your name for the record,? Yes, my name is Christina Nolan. Thank you. So I have a question regarding rainwater treatment and retention. So you say they have plans in place for collecting and treating runoff, rainwater, gas bills, diesel spills. What is the effectiveness of the plan? OK, well let me go back first. The microbiota retention is designed based on state standards. So we have state standards. We had to follow in terms of our target rainfall event for most properties is 2.6 inches. And that's the two put and then you go through some calculations and determine based on your impervious area of the site, how much runoff you're going to have based on that. So and based on that you determine what the runoff depth is and inches over the entire site that you have to capture. capture that, it it's treated, it's temporarily stored and then we use ESD devices, it's a state standard now for filtering the stormwater and then basically it's a temporary detention not retention so we don't keep the water on the site so it site. So it's basically slowly released off the site to where the idea of it through MDE and Howard County is that you're not going to have that surge when you have like that summer storm. It's not going to be that surge of runoff or one time. It basically it's going to collect, it's going to temper on a pond, it's going to filter, and that's going to be slowly released. I have a follow up for that. So we had concerns about the toxicity of the runoff. I am the owner of the property on the corner that has horses and little kids. So I'm worried about the runoff being toxic for my animals and my children. My well is less than 500 feet from the proposed build site. I want to know the metrics. How much pollution is actually going to come down the road? Because you're not retaining all of this. You're just sort of treating it, sort of stop in the rush, but then it gets really down the road and onto my property. So how are you going to keep us healthy and safe? Well, I think Joe would spoke about this a little bit. Especially when you develop a gas station, there's state and federal standards that you have to follow in terms of how you handle any type of spills, how you handle what it. I don't know all the details in terms of that. That's something that would be handled, I guess if any gas stations developed or any fueling stations developed, they'd have to meet state and federal standards based on that. I don't know what those are. I basically designed a site to meet your standard requirements in terms of just how we're counting MDE specifications. So how would you ascertain that the toxic runoff, possibly, based on state standards, nothing is perfect? How would you ensure us that that would not be a blighting influence on our community? Yeah, I would have to go back and, like I said before, that's kind of outside the realm of my expertise. That would be something when you go through the process and you're getting your state and federal permits. I would imagine you did both of them. I would imagine there's specific and I would imagine they'd be pretty stringent standards in terms of. I'm guessing that you would have to follow in terms of precautions you have to take. So is there any guarantee that you can give us that this will not impact our community in terms of in terms of toxic runoff? Like I said that that wouldn't be handled by me I wouldn't be the expert to talk to you about that. Okay. Thank you I think that's it. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Anybody else in the room with questions? No. All right. Let's move on to Ms. Macy Boyette. Hi there. I don't know whether I should have asked this earlier or whether he can address these. One thing is he just mentioned the runoff going into like a pool where it's held and they treated et cetera. Where would this pool be located? Where would this runoff little pool be located? Right now what we show, do I answer now? Okay, yeah, I don't see her, I'm sorry. So right now we show the on the on the plan we have the micro buyer retention facilities that are located on the south western side of the site, kind of downhill. So we put it at the low point of the site so it can, you know, capture the runoff as it's coming off the rooftop, the parking lot, and any impervious areas of the site. So is that on the old Woodbine roadside or is that on the highest side of the road? That's on kind of like right at the corner of the old Woodbine road and old Frederick road. And like where the bus stop is. Where they converge. I'm not sure where the bus stop is. It's right there on that corner. Okay. Yeah. My second question and it's right near where Mrs. Nolan's horse farm is, which means it's all going to get steeped in. Okay. My second question is, is this the only location that you have or the planners, developers have looked at? You mentioned, somebody had mentioned there's six or seven acres on the other side of the Lisbon Shopping Center that would make a much better open area for a station like this if they chose to. It would not just rub everybody on a woodbine road. It would not be toxic for the people on a woodbine road. Has anybody ever looked into that for that purpose? That wouldn't be a question for me actually. I was just, you know, my task was to design the site. I should ask that the first time around. Thank you. That's all. All right. Thank you. Are there any other call in that have any questions? Mr. Whitmer. All right. Seeing none. Any redirect. Oh, no, thank you. All right, thank you Mr. Williams. Your next witness? I have no more witnesses. Okay, you're going to rest your case? Yes. Okay, Mr. Dale. Thank you, Ms. Nichols. So the application before you tonight proposes a gas station that will share an access drive with an existing gas station. And that existing gas station already sufficiently serves the local community. It's the wrong use, the wrong part of the county, and specifically the wrong site. My client once proposed something very similar in a similar location. But since that application, which was not approved, my client learned a lot about this area and now realizes how important it is to have relocated that high-ascast station up into the Lisbon Plaza shopping center as opposed to on old Frederick Road where it was initially proposed. That importantly reduces all these impacts we're talking about tonight and hearing about from the community. The fueling station is going to have on this residential area. And importantly, those impacts of this proposal occasion are beyond those ordinarily associated with gas stations because of where this is being proposed. You're going to hear from five professionals we have as witnesses tonight whose testimony will show the proposed use here adds too much traffic for the existing road network, or would require changes to that road network which themselves would be detrimental to community. And we'll show that the proposed use is contrary to the principles in the Howard by Designed Comprehensive Plan, and that the site's geographic features and geometry pose functionality problems, which make the proposed use even more odds with those policies and more detrimental to both the residents and the nearby businesses. Worst, the fact that this application is being proposed on spec or speculatively, it exacerbates these problems with the application. It leaves too many unknowns about the operations of the facility that are essential to the evaluating of the application based on the required code criteria. The information is just incomplete. It's not there in the application and the record to answer the necessary questions. So we'll also show that all of these strains and problems are unnecessary since the gas station simply isn't needed by the local community. What's more important is that for all these reasons, the proposed application just doesn't meet all the required criteria in the code that are necessary for the approval of a conditional use generally or this specific conditional use. So with that, Ms. Hering-Xamner, I would call my first witness, Mr. Will Zide. Do you have some hard copies of documents? I do, should I bring those to you? Exactly, exactly. And it's three copies, then. Yeah, you need it, right? Yeah. copies that you'll need, right? And as Nichols, all of those were submitted 24 hours ago or more than 24 hours ago. Right. That's just. OK. Yes. You know, I do have one other exhibit, say a summary from our second witness that I'd ask to enter into evidence, and I can provide a copy to the applicant as well. Yeah, let's take care of the house, Keaton. Thank you. Thank you. All right, sir. Let me swear you in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that your response was given and statements made will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Please state your name and business address for the record. William Zied, last name is ZED, business address is 4550 Montgomery Avenue, suite 400, Bethesda, Maryland, 20814. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Zied. Could you just for the record state the your professional credentials Credentials that have applied to this application, your testimony tonight, and the nature of your firm's business? MR. MS. MR. MR. MR., Maryland, Virginia, and points beyond since 2011. Thank you. And could you confirm that you're familiar with the application that's before the hearing examiner tonight? Yes, I am. Okay. And you understand the rules that govern this application. We've reviewed the criteria for conditional use generally and this conditional use. Yes, I have reviewed them all. Okay. And you're familiar with the site and the surrounding road network. Yes, I am. Okay. And why don't you take us briefly through the report that we've just filed and if we're going to give those names I would ask that to be called. Well, I actually I'd ask this to be exhibit A. This is the report from Grove Slade prepared by Mr. Zide. Mr. Nichols, if I could object relevance, this is not the termination of what impact traffic will have from this site is not relevant to your determination with respect to the conditional use petition, particularly going into a detailed analysis of the numbers of cars pass it by and what impact that will have and so on and so forth. So we would object to the introduction or the submission of exhibit A, and also to any line of questioning going into his witness his opinions on that effect. Mr. Neville, I would point to 131-0-B1 and 2, and also 131, I'm sorry, B 1 and 2 and 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 A, which speaks to the general welfare of the community. And B 1 and 2 or 3 A and B all speak to the impact, which from this use will certainly involve its traffic and the impact of that traffic on this community and its roads. So I think it is very relevant and we'd ask you to rule the objection. Okay, I'm going to overrule the objection and I'm presuming your movie in exhibit one. Yes. So accept. Thank you, Snickers. Okay, Mr. Zad, go ahead and give us a general summary and just take us through your report, please. Sure. So our report, we prepare a preliminary traffic assessment for this, for the conditional use as we read it through the application. This included going out and collecting traffic counts on a typical weekday during the morning and evening commuter peak periods, consistent with Howard County guidelines. We collected those accounts at the roundabout, Woodbine Road and Old Frederick Road, as well as Old Woodbine Road and Old Frederick Road at the corner of the conditionally used site. We use those traffic accounts to establish the baseline condition. We completed analyses of those conditions, which I can go through the types of analyses here in just a minute. I'm just going to establish the conditions that we looked at. We then looked at a what we call a background future condition, which is a future condition that has the existing traffic, any approved development, growth rates along the roads, but not the use that's being proposed at hand. So what's the traffic going to look like before you build this site? It's important to note the bank that's out there today was not open or operational when these counts were collected. Our third condition is then layering on the trips from the conditional use to see sort of what is that condition and then be able to compare that to the condition without that use. For those three conditions, we performed intersection capacity analyses to look at delays and levels of service as well as cues extending on each approach at the intersections. We also reviewed truck maneuvering at the Old Woodbine Road, Old Frederick Road intersection, leading from Old Frederick Road into the driveway that's going to come off of that roadway, and then also look at the truck turns coming directly off of Old Frederick Road into the Eastern side driveway. Thank you, Mr. Zad. And to get a little more specific, is your conclusion in that report that the traffic impact of this proposed additional use would be too great for that existing road infrastructures, that right? That is correct. The analysis indicated that with the addition of traffic from the use, as best we can analyze it based on how it was described in the submission, that the roundabout would exceed capacity based on state and Howard County guidelines, and there are additional things I can go into the analysis in detail. Sure, just a little more detail, but. Okay, sure. So I'll start with a roundabout, because that's, it's a key factor in this. The roundabout that we projected under sort of what we call the background conditions again without the conditional use was had a degree of saturation or what we call a volume to capacity ratio of just under 0.85. So 0.85 is generally agreed upon as the level threshold that HWA has published standards on this. So if you're above 8.0.85, you're above what is desired for a roundabout. So under that background condition, it's just below that. Under the, when we layer on the conditional use trips, which for the record are 430 morning peak hour trips, We estimated for the convenience market with gas pumps and 374 PM trips. And that compares for the bank from industry guidelines, published guidelines, rates and equations of 30 morning and 62 afternoon. So essentially we're looking at a net increase in the 400 additional trips in the morning and Around 310 additional trips in the evening. However, as I said it was not open when we collected counts So we add all of the trips into that future condition to see what that would be So the results of our that are is that one of the approaches at the roundabout would exceed capacity well beyond the 0.85 Volume to fasty ratio reaching up above 1.0 which is into the level of service F territory we call it. The important thing with roundabouts is if you have one approach failing the whole roundabout is failing. Because that circulating quadrant of the roundabout is a failing condition that therefore backs up the rest of the circle. It's not so similar to a regular intersection where one approach can fail and only impact that approach. Roundabout is much more critical if any approaches fail the roundabout fails. So moving from that aspect, the cues that we estimated on the, we'll call it the westbound approach or the East leg of the roundabout. So the section that's going to go back towards Old Woodbine Road on Old Frederick Road, we projected a queue of approximately 181 feet under background conditions, which isn't great. And that probably fills up a big chunk of that space that's available. However, with that failing condition in total future, that queue approach is almost 700 feet. So that queue would extend based on these analyses from the roundabout back to the east, past old woodbine road, past the eastern driveway to the gas station to some point that's around 700 feet from where you enter the roundabout. So on top of that, we looked at the old woodbine Road, old Frederick Road intersection, which is a more standard analysis since it's just an unsignalized intersection. We looked at the highway capacity manual methodology for unsignalized delay and it's built off ashtoe concepts. Yes, but it's the highway capacity manual. Yeah, which is ashtoe? Yeah, so yeah, we're just using colleague at HCM. So the HCM unsignalized delight and what that does is it looks at an isolated view of that intersection. It does not take into account necessarily any upstream or downstream conditions It's just gonna say that if I have this intersection sitting in the middle of a field This this is what's going to operate at. And what we saw was in the total future condition, it's essentially approaching failing conditions for that southbound approach. It goes from level of service B on the southbound approach of old woodbine under background conditions to level of service D under those future conditions with the conditional use. However, that does not account for the 700-foot-q that would likely block anyone from exiting that driveway at that time. So we would expect that if we were to run traffic simulations or some of that effect, those results may be significantly exacerbated to well beyond what the county's thresholds would be for them. The queuing analyses on Old Woodbine Road approach, and again, ignoring the downstream effects that may block the intersection just looking at it isolated. Increase from around 50 feet to around 175 feet during one of the peak periods. The eastbound left turns on old Frederick going on to old woodbine Road, increase from around 120 eastbound left without to 228 during the morning, and this is a 60-minute one-hour period, and in the evening from around 169 without to 260 without. Sorry. And the increase in queues on eastbound approach, where I believe around an additional five vehicles in cues, again, isolated view of that intersection, that would be sitting on old Frederick Road waiting to turn on the old Woodbine Road. And I don't have the exact distance with me right now. But there is limited distance between old Woodbine Road and that roundabout to effectuate turn storage lanes and the other type of improvement. So we expect that improvements would be required, some improvements to mitigate those conditions. And with a roundabout, that could include an additional circulating lane, unclear on whether or not right away would be available to do that. At the old woodbind, old Frederick Road, there's not a lot you can do with an unsignalized intersection other than adding turn lanes on the main line to sort of reduce turn to lay. For the side street approach, you could add maybe wide and old roadbind road to get a separate left and right, but I would suspect that the ultimate real requirement would be something in lines of a traffic signal. However, my experience of traffic signal located back close to a roundabout would not be an acceptable condition. So it's unclear how that could be mitigated and no proposed mitigations were in the application. Thank you, Mr. Zaden. That's exactly the point. The burden is the applicants to show how in negative impacts the application could be avoided. But I appreciate you've illustrated some of the possible changes that could, would be necessary to avoid the failing conditions in the road network. So with any of those possible improvements that would be needed, those would be fairly significant changes to the road network in your opinion, right? And that you said the number of trips on those new improved road features would be significant. So is it your opinion that the members of the public and the surrounding communities would have a significantly different experience of the area in the road network if those changes were made? Yeah, well I just described it would significantly change the corridor along that front. Okay, thank you. And have any traffic impacts studies been conducted to assess increased volume that result from drawing customers to gas station in all of I-70? Yeah, so it was mentioned earlier. So we're talking about 430 trips for a convenience market with gas pumps of this size. So that factors in both the building size and the number of pumps, they both go into the equation. About 74 to 76% of those trips are expected to be pass-by trips. So if you have a site somewhere in this. I'm a searcher, a pass-by trip. Yeah, a pass-by trip. So those are, as was stated, a trip that's already on the road. So that's not somebody that left their house to come. That's somebody that was on the road. They wanted to go to the gas station or they wanted to get convenience. They went there. Now if you're along Maryland, Virginia, five or you know literally on it, you're one of those you know median you know travel clauses, those trips are all going to come from that adjacent root, right? You've got tons of volume there, that's where they're all going to come from. Old front of road volumes are very low. We would not expect that those pass-by trips are going to be drawn directly from old front of road. They're likely to be drawn from woodbine road and or I-70, as really what becomes what we call a diverted link trip more than a pass-by trip. But yeah, you have to have the passing volume really to say that all of those trips are going to come from the adjacent road. To further that point though, even if all of the trips did come from old Frederick Road, pass-by trips still have their same impact at your site driveways. There's no reduction really in the right. You don't get credit off of that. You get credit further away, a mile down the road, or a quarter mile down the road, but not at your site driveways. They will still have to handle all 430 of those trips. So I'm going to ask you two questions about trucks, because it's been discussed in the applicant's testimony, and it was clearly of interest to the members of the public who are here tonight. And your research of this corridor in this area, do you agree with the assessment that trucks won't use this gas station and there are other more attractive gas stations in 1970? I did a curse research for gas stations in the area. I didn't see any 24-hour gas stations nearby and I did not see any flying J. Pilot type truck plazas plazas that would be the area. I didn't see any 24 hour gas stations nearby and I did not see any flying J pilot type truck plazas. That would be the primary option for those. I'm not saying this is that, but there are none of those that I could find in the area that would really draw the truck traffic there specifically. So there's no reason to think they would, the trucks would forego this station in favor of others that are more traditional stations, is that right? Correct And I want to go ahead and clear something up now. You reviewed the application and the application does state that the repost hours of operation in 24 hours does not. It does. Right. Okay. Thank you. And the other question about trucks is about this site's ability to accommodate truck turning radius. Yes. You want to speak to that, please? Yes. So in our assessment, we did do some preliminary truck turns. We took the conditional use plan that was submitted. We overlaid that out a few lines on the roadway, so we can find out where to turn from. We assessed both driveways. Turning an 18 wheeler or WB-Fepley-Weeze, a WB-50, that may have been larger, but either way, turning from old Frederick Road onto old Woodbine Road in either direction, turning from old Frederick road onto old woodbind road in either direction, generally you can do it physically. You have to go from curved to curved more or less to then get to the driveway that is off of old woodbind road. You essentially have to do like kind of like an S if you will, you've got to come in and then you've got to swing out, come back to get in. You're going to use all lanes to do that. So those trucks need to occupy the outbound lanes. That truck... that have come in and then you've got to swing out, come back to get in. And you're going to use all lanes to do that. So those trucks need to occupy the outbound lanes. That traffic leaving both the gas station, leaving the Lisbon center, leaving the Park and Ride need to use to get to Old Frederick Road. So those lanes have to all be completely clear for a truck to do that turning maneuver around the corner to get on to Old Woodbind. I think what I'm hearing there is that if any trucks are coming to the station, those trucks and those turning motions are described and be very disruptive to the road network. To old woodbind if they make that turn, yes. Understood. Okay. So, here's another question about site distances which have come up a few times. Given the limited site distance at old Frederick and old woodbind, how will safety be affected for these turning vehicles, especially with all the increased traffic you just described? So the standing cues that we discussed previously would most likely block those site distances, I think that we've all experienced if you're at an unsignalized driveway. You don't have a traffic signal. If you've got a queue from the upstream intersection, you know, you generally end up with a line of cars blocking you. Maybe there'll be a gap. Maybe somebody's nice and they'll leave you a space to get through. Then you've got to kind of poke through to then see if you can make the next turn. That is not a desirable condition. You generally want traffic moving so that so you can have a we call gaps to make an appropriate maneuver. Thank you. And you made an observation. Do you see what a site distance analysis? I did not, that's not under, I'm not sure if the civil engineer did, but we did not as part of it. It's just not something that the traffic is usually done. And you made the observation that if these road improvements were made and if this feeling station were approved, the capacity they created would then presumably be used up. And what impact would that have on the existing businesses in the shopping center that's there now? Yes. So as we mentioned, when we look at that as an isolated condition, it takes it right up to the threshold. So they're essentially using all the capacity that's there, although there are existing conditions that go. But any capacity that is there is more or less being used by the additional trips. So to say that an existing development nearby wanted to do more or change something, there may not be capacity left over. I think you're, you're statement about it. And correct me if this is wrong. I think you said that this new conditional use would essentially kneecap the existing uses that are already there, is that right? From a traffic perspective. Yes, and certainly what is as far as access goes, I'm going to the woodblock road. Okay, thank you very much. So just two questions to wrap up. As you reviewed the criteria for conditional uses, generally and for this one specifically, which of those criteria did you find most relevant to the testimony you used just given here? So the criteria on the intensity is the intensity of the use, is the compatible, whatever the wording is on it is. And as I said, the 430 trips to the vehicle of trip generation intensity of this site, which that we typically view and look at intensity for development, is not supported by the existing road infrastructure and work just unclear on whether or not that infrastructure could be modified to accommodate it. So I think you're referring to B2 and B3, B2 just for the record and for the public to hear, is that the nature and intensity of the use, size of the site in relation to the use and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to the site are such that the overall intensity and scale of the use are appropriate for the site. And your testimony would contradict that. And then I've mentioned earlier part O2A, which is with regard to the general welfare or logical development of the name-br rotor area. And you've spoken about those criteria, not in you, thank you. And one additional that I've got to believe, there's a criterion about acceleration and deceleration lanes and no acceleration or deceleration, deceleration lanes. Excuse me, to our knowledge of been proposed, at least not as shown on the conditional use plan along the old Frederick road That's correct Okay, thank you very much. What's your side? Mr. Anderson. All right, Mr. Gunderson. I have just a couple questions. Mr. Zied, good evening. In your study, did you look at traffic generated by redevelopment of this site of a permitted use as opposed to a conditional use? We did not. We looked at the one scenario for future to assess the plan as it was submitted. And do you agree that assuming a conditional use is granted that a traffic study would be required by the developer at the development planning stage? I agree that the plan laid out would require a traffic study at SDP. Yes. That's all I have. All right, thank you. All right. Citizens, do you have any questions of Mr. Sid? Sorry, sorry. No? All right. Our colon. If anybody has any. There is. I can't see. Ma'am. She's thinking. Missider. Do you have a question? All right. All right. All right. All missiders coming down. Are colon. If you have any questions, could you raise your hand? Are Colin, if you have any questions, could just state your name? My name is Dottie Ciders. And okay, I'm wondering how the Long Range County Plan for this hub, knowing that it's there, are you making this location fit into the projected plan of how big it will be? I'm going to try answer that. I'm not sure I fully clear on what you're asking. Okay. I'm not sure how to say it correctly either, but we've got a long range plan apparently, which I've never looked into. And I've lived there 30 years plus. Okay, so we've got this long-range plan, which I think planners have to come back to now and say, how would it fit in the future? And is that part of your expertise? No, I don't believe so. Okay, okay. But I think somebody that knows what they're doing will have to look at both ends and figure out how this is going to be part of that. But that's not your problem. I'll call for that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Miss Cider. Anybody else in the room with questions? No. No. Okay. Any calling with questions? Raise your hand. And I don't see any hands raised. So is there any recross? Just a question for clarity. Ms. Nichols. So Mr. Zide, I believe the criteria you're referring to was 1-3-1-B-3-D, which states I'll just read it for you so you can confirm. The ingress and egress drives will provide safe access with adequate site distance based on actual conditions and will adequate and with adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes where appropriate. For proposed conditional uses which have driveway access that is shared with other residential properties, proposed conditional use will not adversely affect or impact the convenience or safety of shared use of the driveway. I believe that was what you were referring to when you mentioned that it was likely that diesel lanes would be required and they're not shown in this application. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Anything further? Mr. Gunderson? No, nothing further. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. This nickel is my next witness is essentially bed well design collective. Her resume is in one of the exhibits that I'd ask be exhibit two. All right, I have her CV. I have her bio. I have her summary of the general plan. And... This should also be a map. And I have her analysis. So, did you gonderson, do you have any objections? I don't know yet what any of this is, so I guess after she begins to testify, I'll likely had an objection. Okay. I am going to mark these as in this order. CV is going to be 2A. The bio is going to be 2B. The testimony summary is going to be 2c. And the planning analysis with the attached map is going to be 2d. All right. So Ms. Bedwell, I need to swear you in I'm sorry. I would Stand objection that this is the first time we're receiving these they hadn't been submitted Correct previously the planning analysis was was submitted but the testimony Summary for the CV and the bio or not. I would object to their admission on that basis. Okay. I'm going to overrule that because as you know in Howard County we don't swear in expert witnesses so really her CV and her bio is just information to provide her background. The testimony summary will be a resume,, a summary of what the testimony she's giving tonight. And the, what was marked as 2D, the planning analysis was submitted earlier. So you're going to submit them? I'll accept them. Thank you, Ms. Secretary. Ms. Bidwell, we'll go back to swearing you in. Thank you. I solemnly swear to refer him under the panel to the surgery that their sponsor's given in statements made in the matter not pending. Should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing with truth. I do. Yes. Thank you. Please state your name and business address for the record. Cessely Bedwell, 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. Thank you Ms. Bedwell. Could you please just give a description of your professional credentials and experience and the work of your firm design collective? Sure. I'm a certified planner and lead professional with a specialty in building design and construction. Principal at Design Collective and lead the Urban Design Studio. I've been there about 28 years and have about 30 years professional experience. Completed master plans for mixed use development for all sorts of redevelopment projects, and some here in Howard County itself, including Mabelon and downtown Columbia, and have testified on behalf of those development projects. Thank you. And you're familiar with this application before the hearing exam right tonight. Yes. And you're also familiar with howard by design and the prior comprehensive plans for howard counties are correct. Yes. And you're also familiar with the code criteria which govern conditional uses and the specific fueling station conditional use. Yes, I am. Okay. Thank you. Now, as I asked Mr. Zaid, would you please just give us a summary of the analysis that you've conducted, including reference to the maps and the findings in your summer report? Sure. I was asked to evaluate this application based on the general plan and its criteria, the intent of the requirements of the conditional use. And also additionally, I took a look at the past application and we'll speak to that. Okay. Now can we focus on some of the specific elements of your analysis and just tell us, start out with the purpose of the counties of the growth tiers as you understand them and how they relate to the concepts in the plan. Sure. So, tiers were established through the county by state requirements and established essentially four different tiers, three of which are used in Howard County. Tier four in which Lisbon is located and in this site in particular is located is Tier 4 and it states not planned for sewer service and dominated by agricultural and forest land plan for resource protection. So that is where we are located. I did submit a map and you can see the can see the site as indicated in tier 4, shown in the light blue color, or light green color. And furthermore, this area is referred to as the Role West. There are 18 or more mentions of preserving the character of the Role West in the Howard County by design on general plan. And there are also land uses, organized land uses, and they fall into four categories. And they're high level categories that talk about areas to preserve, areas to strengthen, areas to enhance, and areas to transform. So it essentially looks at where there should be less change, more change, lower intensity growth to higher intensity growth. As can be seen in the map, prepared, this is in the lowest of those categories. So less intense and lower intensity. And it would follow that a fueling facility as a conditional use in these areas, areas to preserve should be under an elevated level of scrutiny compared to similar uses in areas to strengthen, enhance, or transform. And this area is also surrounding this area, our areas of rural conservation and preservation easement overlays both for environmental and agricultural. So there is a heightened level of scrutiny on these areas developed conditionally, conditional uses within these areas when they're surrounded by areas that are to be protected and preserved. Just to the south, there's an area indicated as rural crossroads and it is an area to strengthen. That's just south of US 40 and 70. I think it was referred to as the rural crossroads. And it does say that there are only three of these in the rural west known as rural crossroads. And these are small nodes of mixed-use areas with a focus on commercial activity. And so it would follow again that there are better suited locations within the county, within this, even this tier that are better suited for this use. Just also to note, there's a strong focus as there has been historically, I think since 1971 in the past general plans and certainly in this one, to focus on the role west and not just in a renewed effort is stated in this current plan to improve the ecological health of agricultural land and this includes agricultural land and agricultural adjacent land that share the same ecosystems. Furthermore there are no story for into the general plan. It also talks about significant transportation investments. There is nothing west of Mariettsville, so there's nothing that will help to diminish the impacts of additional growth because it isn't here for in the county, isn't looking to allow for more growth in this area. So it's meant to be an area that's very low impact. And there are areas of single-family detached, and there's descriptions about how the county, especially in the rural west, wants to ensure that development is appropriate next to those single-family detached neighborhoods, which surround the PNC bank parcel, or at least on several sides. So it's clear that Howard County has described a vision for their role west as preserve for agricultural and open space with an intentional shift away from automobiles and suburban shopping centers. And while the zoning may allow these fueling facilities as a conditional use, it's not clear that this decision, such a decision would align with the policies that are described within that general plan. Thank you, Ms. Bedwell. Could you, I've noticed on the map you prepared that says, Lisbon, PNC, Bank, Expert, Test Money, Exhibit, Growth Tears, you've located other gas stations on that map. Could you explain what that's intended to illustrate? Sure. So it is taking a look at some radii out from the site. So the first the inner circle is a two mile radius and you can see that within that two mile radius there are three gas stations are present within that area. Now we're not saying that there are no commercial uses appropriate for this site or for this location, correct? I mean, some of the permitted by right uses would be less in conflict with the policies you've just mentioned in your opinions, all right? That is correct, right. It is a suburban center, suburban commercial, and so you would expect some redevelopment of that site if it's no longer viable as a bank, but there would be maybe some other uses such as professional offices, you know, neighborhood serving retail that might be less impactful when we look at the criteria. But this proposed use would have significantly greater impact than many of those other uses, is that right? Yes. Yes, in terms of noise, light, and not just, you know, light trespass, which isn't the criteria. We're looking at, you know, the impact of light on the surrounding area and the residential nearby as well as other people have spoken to the traffic impacts and other impacts. Thank you. And looking at the conditional use of approval criteria, which are those that you've found most relevant to the policy analysis and howard by design analysis that you've just described? Right. So we're looking at, I mean, I think the most relevant to my testimony, others can speak to, others are the 3A, which is the adverse impacts or effects of noise, dust, fumes, odors. I would say the noise intensity of lighting and other physical conditions, such as the that the amount of volume of traffic and exacerbating that impact on other neighboring sites as well as the traffic overall. And then, you know, E says the proposed use will not have a greater potential for adversely impacting environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity. Then elsewhere, I would argue that this area is surrounded by areas to preserve agricultural intense operations, not to mention the residential nearby. So I think this site would have more of an impact than other areas that are similarly zoned or zoned the same. And then finally, the F3F talks about the greater potential for diminishing the character and significance of the historic sites and in this vicinity. So while this is in, you know, there are no historic sites nearby. I think the character of the area, the rural nature of it, as expressed in the general plan, is a criteria that needs to be looked at in terms of the rural nature of the roadway, the rural character of the surrounding uses. I apologize if I missed this in the testimony you just gave, but the standard 131-0B1 says that the proposed conditional use plan will be in harmony with the land uses and policies in the Howard County General Plan, which can be related to the proposed use, correct? Correct. Would you agree that that's all the testimony you just gave would suggest that the application doesn't meet that standard? Correct. Thank you. All right. So it was our understanding, and I think the applicant's confirmed tonight that this application's being submitted speculatively, which means there's no committed operator at this point that they've stated on the record. That being the case, are the concerns that you've outlined with regard to the policies heightened? Will the specific nature of the operation, which we don't really know without an operator, potentially heightened all those concerns you've just raised? Absolutely, and in particular the 24 hour operation, significantly changes the character of what is surrounding currently. Okay, thank you, Nutt. I want to ask another question for the hearings, M&RM and the public's benefit. But I want to preface this by saying that we're in no way suggesting that prior application denials or approvals are presidential or need to be the basis of our argument here. But we do want to reference a past application for context to provide some additional framework for the analysis of this application and that's why why we believe this relevant. So, as well, you're aware of a similar application proposed by our client for a fueling station, an old Frederick road. And would you talk a little about the denial of that previous application that related to the policies you're talking about? Yes. Nick Olsai would object to this line of questioning of decision regarding decision regarding a prior application is no relevance here. I could rephrase. Particularly because DPC in that case did not recommend approval, which is different from this case. DPC does recommend approval of conditional use in this case. So they're not the same. I can rephrase, Miss Stichels. Is that well, could you talk about the kinds of policies that might be applied to a denial for the reasons that are policy and plan related that you've just discussed? Sure, yes. So there are several, we'll just, there are several here that I'll talk about. The 24-hour operation, you know, does suggest that this is serving a larger area or a different audience than just the local need. That would suggest that it's pulling from a larger area, drawing them to the site, which certainly would have a different impact than the other uses adjacent to it, which do not. The also the light levels that were noted, I'm just not just about getting to a zero light trespass on the edges, but it's actually, that's not the standard. It's the standard is that you don't have a larger impact of the light, and certainly having vehicles with their lights coming in and out of the driveways has an impact on the residential uses. It also would have an impact just from the glowing light of this station, which I would say is higher than many. I think it was up to 51 or 52 lumens, which is a pretty high intensity light that is suggested on the plan application. And then, you know, there are a few other things. There is, I think we'll talk about it, but I think there is a limited amount of landscaping at the front. And that is one of the criteria. Did you address some of these impacts by using appropriate screening? And I would say that there are a few plants along the front of the site, along Old Frederick. But it's not to the point of being able to screen that light impact. And as we already heard tonight, there is no way to screen an impact of a driveway. That's an access point and those lights will shine regardless of whether there are trees left or right of those entry points. And that's directly at the residential across the street. It's also unclear to me, as I at it that some of these, some of the selections that were shown on the plan, how they accommodate the overhead lines that are on site, and then furthermore, if there is any D cell acceleration lanes that have to be added, that whole site plan would need to shift back and would impede the ability to even plant the plant material that's suggested on that. So I think there are a number of issues with what is proposed on this plan, not even relating it to the past case, but showing that there is not a way to screen or take care of some of these impacts that were mentioned. Thank you. And for this area of rural character, would you say that those concerns you just described, those issues and the policies that are in place to address them have are even more important today than they have been in the past and should be taken into a high degree of consideration in considering its application. Right. I think that's a shift from the previous plans. Talking about that there's even a greater need to address the impacts and the environmentally sensitive agricultural lands surrounding this particular parcel. has know, the past general plans. There's been a heightened emphasis on that in the general plan. And so I also think that by the standards, a fueling station has to address at a higher level these impacts. And that's part of the requirements that are subject, not choose to other conditionally uses, but specific to fueling operations. And one of those is in J4, which is talking about when it's adjacent to a residential district, it's hours of operation and a detailed landscaping and screening plan and a lighting plan shall be approved by the hearing authority. So to know that there's that heightened requirement would suggest that is again a higher level of scrutiny and I don't think if we know that the hours of operation are 24 in the application that certainly heightens the impacts. Thank you Ms. Beloria. And just in case of anything I left out and just to give you a chance to summarize. Would you just, just in your own words, give a brief conclusion of your analysis with the application of a professional planning perspective. Right, so I think, you know, looking at this from the lens of the general plan, looking at this from a suitability on a two-lane rural road in a rural agricultural area. The site plan suggests a 16-pump gas station with about a 40, 47, 100 square foot convenience store that does not seem suitable. It's not properly screened or placed Relative to that role road or is adjacent neighbors Thank you very much miss bedwell, and those are all my questions. Thank you mr. Gundersen. Yes. Thank you Just Nicholas good evening. Did you review the. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank in there that I do agree with. I don't have a copy of it in front of me, but I would say that the facts of the case are denoted in there, not disagree with that. I think the findings of the appropriateness to the general plan is something that I've testified. I do not agree with that. I don't agree the fact that it won't have a larger impact on this area than it would elsewhere. Okay. So you recognize though that let's go through the factors that you testified to. A1 regarding whether the proposed conditional use plan is in harmony with the general plan. You've testified that it's not, you agree that DP is correct. Am I correct that DP is disagrees with you? They have concluded that the proposed conditional use plan is in harmony with the general plan. Is that correct? I believe so, but I haven't spoken with them directly and understood why they came to that conclusion when looking through the general plan. There are many instances which I would think would refute that. Well, in the technical staff report, there's a lengthy analysis that went through each criteria, correct? I wouldn't say analysis. It meets this criteria, but I'm not sure what lens they were looking at when it certainly has a larger impact on the visceral uses. So, do you recall then, and I can show you a copy where they discuss each criteria, they provide a narrative response as to what they relied on and what they assessed in terms of that criteria, correct? Correct. Okay. So they didn't just check a box or say, yes, it means that criteria. They included an analysis of their own. Again, they included a statement of how they, yes, I didn't see the background analysis of what led them to that conclusion. I would say that's a conclusion. Okay. You testified that with respect to criteria A3A, that the impact of adverse effects, such as noise, dust, fumes, will be greater at the proposed site, but DPC disagree with you, correct? Yes, yeah. You testified with respect to criteria A3E that the proposed use will have a greater potential for adverse the impacting environmentally sensitive areas. DPZ disagree with you though correct that and they concluded that there were no environmentally sensitive areas that would be impacted by this site. Is that correct? Yes. I'm not sure again I'm not sure how they reach that conclusion when the areas surrounding it are areas that are in agricultural and other easements. And lastly, you testified to criteria A13F and concluded that the proposed use will not have...'ll have a greater potential for diminishing the character and significance of historic sites. But you agree that DPC disagree with you on that. Right, and as I said, there aren't historic sites, but it also, I was also in that point, making that this is an area that it has a rural character and that would be impacted. That's not that criteria correct. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Is there anybody in the room that has any questions of this but well? All right, seeing none All right, attendees please raise your hand if you have any questions that miss Bedwell All right. Seeing no hands raised. Mr. Dale. Can you redirect? Thank you. Ms. Bedwell, in that staff report, as to the criteria you were asked about and across, The staff report sets forth, as you say, a statement that for one reason, one factor or possibly two, arguably two, to be generous, they found the application consistent with the plan and found that it would, for similarly, for one or at best, two reasons in part B, their analysis states that the use won't have any particular harmful effect as compared to other locations. Would you say that your approach considered more than one or two factors and was a broader approach to the analysis of those criteria? Yes, yeah. I'm looking at the full general plan in its entirety and looking at all of the statements within that plan and concluding that it does have a greater impact and this area does recommend a higher level of scrutiny because it is in the role west, it isn't an area to preserve. It is on a two-lane road that is role in character as well. And I don't need you to restate your full testimony, but you listed in your report and in your testimony numerous specific aspects of the development that you feel will have a heightened impact because of this site's location. Is that right? Correct. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Mr. Dales, your next witness? Next witness is Mr. Wayne Newton. I'm here a CV for Mr. Newton and I have the engineering analysis. Is there any objections? I'm sorry, I'm not aware of the engineering analysis. I have the CV. The engineering analysis was presented. It's a site plan. Earlier today sorry, just prepared. Is this the analysis? It's a plan. Okay, thank you. Yeah. I'm just reading what they put on the cover. Oh. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Newton, I'm going to swear you in, sir, please. I solemnly swear I affirm under the panels of Persia that the response is a given in statements made to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please state your name and business address for the record. Sure. I'm Wayne Newton, seven old Solomon's Island Road, an applesman island, 2141. Thank you. Your witness. First of all, do you want to move in 3A and 3B? Yes, Ms. Nichols, please. Resume and... Any objection? What's your vendor's name? I don't know yet what 3B is, so I'll reserve my objections for. Okay, at the moment I'm going to accept them. Okay. Ms. Nichols, for clarity, 3a is the resume and 3b, which was submitted 24 hours ago, is the site plan analysis, correct? It's called an engineering analysis, right? That's what we're calling 3b. Right here. Okay, thank you. Okay, Mr. Newton, can you tell us about your professional experience and background and the business of your firm? Sure. I mean, professional licensed civil engineer, been licensed and performing civil engineering services in state of Maryland for over 38 years. A lot of that work has been for convenience stores and fuel stations. License in, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, worked across the entire state. Thank you, and specifically have you had a lot of experience in preparing site plans for gas stations, fuel stations and sea stores. I have. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Sure. Highs of Baltimore and Carolina Pentep Fuels is one of my primary clients. We've probably prepared over 60 sites for them. I'll also work for other of the big three coming in stores. And would you say that makes you familiar with the important aspects of design of these sites and with the operations of those sites within your designs? Yes. In fact, I was part of both prior applications in the State Road. Thank you very much. Okay, and could you start to walk us through this site plan analysis sheet and just kind of give us your summary of your findings? Sure. So the site plan that you have it before you is a product that my office prepared to show the impacts of the use, the proposed use and the proposed site plan. We took the petition's proposed plan, it related to one plan, which we had previously prepared for the two prior hearings. The two prior hearings I'm talking about are, on the right hand side of this page, you will see existing Dunkin' Donuts building. That was a prior application we had in, which you heard was denied for highs of building there. We later was part of the application which actually put the highs in the Liban, the Lisbon Center, which you will see at the top of the page. It says existing highs can be in store and existing fuel canopy. So we overlay the applicants plan on our prior base, updated for today's conditions. And then in red we've labeled labeled some things that we think are important to the hearing, important to our analysis. And also on the roundabout area, which you heard Mr. Zied speak of at the intersection of 94 and Oldfordard Road, we've ever labeled what a expanded right about what it looked like to address the concern which his report created. Specifically, on the applicant's plan, on the bottom of the page, you'll see where we label proposed right-of-way widening. You'll notice that on the adjacent property where the Duncan-Dunneus was built, the applicant widened the right-of-way to the right-of-way's ultimate widening. We put a big red line there which shows what that looks like. And it, in out all the landscaping and the proposal on this site plan, which is between the parking and old Frederick Road. You can see that the... You take a breath, just take a two. Sure. Okay, so... The proposed right away widening. Yes. I see it across the subject property. And your point is that the landscaping being proposed is within the right of way and if the right of way is widened or if there are acceleration or deceleration lanes, that landscaping would get lost. That's correct. Okay, thank you. Got that one? Yeah. Furthermore, you will see that we offset the new right-of-way line, which is the bottom red line, to the upper red line, which shows the proposed landscape setback, which now impacts, cuts through the middle of those parking spaces. Furthermore, we looked at what we do to solve the problem. We showed that the entire site back by 10 feet and you'll see at the top of that page we labeled a line which says impact to SDA which stands for septic disposal area. And you'll see that the parking lot would move up and it would actually impact the proposed septic trenches that are on the plan. Sceptic disposal what area? Thank you. Repeat what you said about why that was important. They would be required to reduce their septic disposal area. The paved line would actually cover portions of the proposed septic trenches where it says initial system 87 feet or 67 feet Those are the proposed septic trenches so they need to be relocated north as well If the site plan or shifted north that's correct Okay, and it would be shifted north under your scenario in order to recapture the parking spaces and or the landscaping that might be lost on the frontage. That's correct. Thank you. Mr. Newton, do you want to speak to any of the markings on the near the traffic circle offsite or do we just continue to describe it on the analysis here? As we move to the left side of this exhibit, you will see red lines where we have overlaid and expanded roundabout on the existing roundabout. In order to address Mr. Zide's concerns, which his report found that the roundabout didn't have enough capacity, the solution would be to expand the roundabout. Today, this is a single laying roundabout. One laying of traffic goes through. In order to accommodate the additional, I think he said, 430 trips. We would anticipate expanding that roundabout to two lanes in the inner circular condition. The red lines that are on here show you the paving expansion, the lane changes and the shoulder changes that will be required to install that expanded roundabout. And as you'll see on the upper right corner or north east corner of this drawing where the existing park and ride is labeled. It actually impacts the parking ride. It takes up at least four parking spaces there. You'll also see areas on here where we have shown labeled at SWM that's proposed stone water management for the proposed widening. You'll also see the impacts on the bottom left corner, we'll call it Southwest corner, impacts existing forested areas for that widening and for the stormwater management. I'm sorry, the stormwater management, would you say before that? It will impact the existing forested area adjacent to the roadway for the widening and the soil water management. Likewise, it will do the same thing on the southern legs. On the left and right, you'll see SWM, which is in the existing tree area. So, this gives you a depiction of what the expanded around about Woodland. Thank you, Mr. Newton. Now, before we go on with the analysis, will you give us some little bit broader than site-level context, but a localized context for the surrounding area and neighborhood? What's around this site? Of course, to the north of it is Lisbon Center. To the south is a residential community, relatively rural and character. And as you'll notice, on the petitioner's exhibit, there's an existing house directly across the street from it, which that house is only a few feet off the pathway way. To the west, again, as rural. That house is at Ms. Dolan's house? I don't know. I didn't catch where she lived. She's not here anymore. OK, sorry. Thank you. The address is 15915. Old Frederick Road have been helped you. Thank you. To the west, there's also rural character to the west of the other roundabout. To the east, Old Frederick Road and to the east of it is generally a smaller one lane road that runs to the east. As I said just to the east of the site is a new Duncan-Dernuts and I think I heard of a vet clinic as well which was the site of the prior proposed highs. Which was the night? Mr. Newton, before we start getting to the specific problems with the site, I just want to say feel free to reference the staff report as you go through and answer these questions, specifically anywhere where you disagree with the findings in the staff report or what's a supplement them. So let's start with the impact of vehicle circulation related and all the problems related to that for the site itself and the immediate surrounding area. So one of my biggest concerns with vehicle circulation in this plan is if you'll notice the driveway that exits on the old wood barn road is directly adjacent to the entrance-slash exit of the Lisbon center. There's no separation at all. My opinion that creates a traffic safety concern. Repeat, repeat what you what you just said. On the site plan which I provided, you'll see the gray shaded driveway that comes off the new site is labeled just underneath of it, underneath the label that says Lisbon Center Entrance. They literally touch. There's no separation at all. That, in my opinion, creates a traffic safety issue. If someone's coming out of Lisbon's center, and someone's coming out of rural farms, or wherever this convenience store is, there's a significant potential there for conflict. I think that's a traffic safety issue. Beyond that, I heard testimony about, Dr.'t use this site. I, a tractor trailer has to get into it to fuel it, to fill the fuel tanks, and I understand that. I understand that maybe this isn't the most attractive place for a tractor trailer to go, but as I also heard testimony, there is no truck stops in this area. And if I'm driving at 18, we are not running out of fuel I'm stopping Specifically with the fact that you have a parking ride an old woodbine road Colisex across the street which allows a large area from them in the park I think this could be a very attractive place for for that In the back of the store This new just to clarify you're talking about the parking park and ride being so close to the fueling station being an attractive attraction to 18 village. We're large truck, correct. The site is designed in the back of the store. There's a 35 foot wide driveway. That's easily a place for a tractor to park on stage and wait. So I would say a tractor could get through this site. I've heard testimony that W-50 was looked at. It can get through here. It may be tight. But... work and stage and wait. So I would say a tractor could get through this site. I've heard testimony that WB50 was looked at. It can get through here. It may be tight. But I also tell you that on a lot of the fueling stations that we build, we place high speed diesel fuel pumps on the end of the islands right now, in that driveway on the north end of this site. So I wouldn't say it's impossible. Is it the most convenient site? No. But if I'm coming out reach 70 and I'm running out of fuel, I'm probably stopping here. The highs, however, next door is designed specifically on an existing center, which truck traffic can't get through. You'd have to use the existing narrower drive aisles. And 35-foot drive-offs that are shown in this driveway would allow tractor-trot traffic. And again, I asked this of Mr. Zide, but you've read the application and it does state 24-hour use, 24-hours of operation, right? It does say that, yes. Okay, so now with what you said about this surrounding area and the residential character, the rural character, can you relate the vehicular circulation concerns you just described in detail to this area? Why are they a particular problem for this residential area? Well, in all the prior cases, that was the biggest concern. Was the rural character of the neighborhood? And I understand that we now have a co-bite is on. It's different than it was when we had the prior hearings. But you hear the residents in the community saying the exact same thing. They've never changed their opinion. And in fact, the highs were specifically put in the Lisbon Center behind a large row of pine trees. And I'm sure you'll drive that journey and take a look at it, specifically to hide it and make it fit more in character with the neighborhood. It's a six pump station, not a 16 pump station, behind a evergreen screen in a shopping center. In fact, we took part of the shopping center down to build the highs to make it fit. I also heard testimony about signage. You'll notice that I and I heard that someone say, and it's correct, the highs has a low ground, low ground mounted monument sign. That was intentional to make this site fit more in character with the neighborhood. I would tell you this proposed convenience toward flies directly in the face of all the prior cases I've been involved in, that the goal of the development in this area was to make it as minimal as possible and at least intrusive as possible for the neighbors. I also tell you that the neighbors came out and supported the highs because we went through such great lengths. So I think this is exactly in conflict with what we previously did. And those concerns are all exacerbated by the 24-hour use of the lighting concerns, the noise of the trucks of any vehicles coming in and out 24 hours a day. Any of the smells and fumes just from vehicles, if not from the pumps. Those are all made worse for a residential area by the 24-hour proposal. They are. And I'm glad you asked about lights because if you look at the site plan, you can see where the lights are. On the highs, all the highs are only under canopy lit. What does that mean? Under the fuel canopy, there's lights. That's the only lights they have. Under the fuel canopy and under the canopy of the store. For front entrance. On this proposed plan, you can see those same lights under the canopy that's the squares that are labeled CL. Or you can also see pole-minute lights around the parking lot. There's much higher light levels on this proposal than we typically ever do when a highs, however, certainly in this community. And how about? OK, can we just pause for a moment? OK, show me where the lights are. So if you look where it says, proposed fuel sales island. See that? The gray shaded rectangle in the middle of the page. Yes, so huh? There are squares on in that box that say CL. OK. That's a light. OK. If you look to the left of that, you'll see where the labels, there's three EVs. To the left of that, you'll see a circle and a rectangle. They're connected by line. Do you see that? In between two shrubs. Yes. Just above where it says 34.73? Yes. That's a light standard. That's a pole. And that same light pole standard goes throughout this site. If you look around, you'll see them. one on the north end where it says MB1. OK, I got you now. There's one to the right of that at the end of the fuel island. There's one on the south end next to the fuel island. So that's a significant difference. This is a much higher lit site than the high's next door. And again, that was intentional with our design. we tried to fit fit in being character with neighborhood. I don't think this is a character with neighborhood. Is there any sign-in shown on here I don't see sign-in? I don't see sign-in. It may be, it's actually do see a sign-in sign. So on the front of the site where my big red line says proposed right away widening. To the left of that area you'll see a rectangle that says proposed sign. That's a sign. But there's no information about what it is. There's not. Is it also your experience that the features of the site, desired features of the site may change depending on who the actual operator is once they know an operator. Yes. Every single one of these users has a different footprint, a different fuel canopy, a different building, a different layout. So it's really difficult to know even what the impact of light and noise and fumes would be for any of these features until we have an actual operator. That's correct. Well, prime example. Hives is always a lower intensity user. This be it, or real forms of a wall wire sheets or wherever it's going to be, is a higher intensity user. Thank you. And so I asked about noises. Obviously the vehicles will create noise. What about noise light and any other impacts might be affected by the specific location of this site including its elevation? Well, Miss Bigwell said it well. You can screen this all you want, but the entrance is coming on an old footer road shining in the residential backyards can't be screened. I think the traffic that was going to come through here for an extra, I think, Mr. Zide said 430 trips is significant. The fact that it requires a widening and expansion of the roundabout is an impact to the community. I think this is a bigger impact in this location. The fact that you have an existing fueling station directly next door and they share a driveway is a significant difference, which I've never seen in my 30 years. I think there is more impact on this site than it would be in any other site in this area. And it's in this area. And then thinking about the more general standard that's in part, the specific criteria for fueling stations that's part O2A, the useful not adversely affected general welfare or lots of development of the neighborhood, you're testifying that this is going to be a significant impact on the character of this community and on the experience of being in this community, is that right? That's correct. Could you tell us a little bit about the impact of the proposed development on stormwater? That's come up a few times already. Sure. Well, you've heard testimony about the stormwater and generally be some type of a state approved device. And I agree with that. And I think from a own site perspective, you can certainly meet the code, if you will, for stormwater management. And I don't question that at all. The bigger issue here for me is the fact that we're expanding this roundabout, which requires significantly more a significant amount of more impervious coverage. And I showed stormwater management. We have obviously haven't designed it. This is a concept. But that's additional impervious in its neighborhood. It's additional stormwater in its neighborhood. It has to go somewhere. It has to be managed. I think there's a much higher potential with this site, maybe not because of the on-site pollutants, but certainly because of the impact of the neighborhood and the expansion of the roadway systems required for this use. I think there's a significant more impact here. All right. Thank you. And which of the criteria for the conditional use do you think that we just talked about, too, of those criteria? But which of those criteria do you think are particularly challenged by all the problems you described? No. If I can just, as you said, go through the Stanford Port and cut that short, please. Outline because I made a lot of comments on the staff's report. So on the staff report, item two, this is 131.0B2, the nature and intensity of the use. I'll stop there and just say it says the nature and intensity of the use. It says other things but at the end it says are appropriate for the site. All right. So the nature intensity of the use comma are appropriate for the site. It says the nature intensity of the use the size of the site in relation to the use in the location of the site with respect to the streets giving access to the site, are such that the overall intensity and scale of the use are appropriate for the site. My opinion, the access, sharing a driveway with an existing shopping center and a existing gas station, the fact that this is a much higher intensity use than what was previously approved next door, which was intentionally approved to be in character with neighborhood with no separation from traffic from a traffic perspective and a potential traffic conflict. I don't think that criteria is met. I understand that what I have read, what the DPC reviewer wrote. I don't agree with it. Item three. The use at the proposed location will not adversely affect the visual, the signal properties. As you've heard discussion, there's a residential community across the street. I understand that the code and others would say that, but it's directly adjacent to a roadway old Frederick Road, correct? Yes. But having a residential community across the street, which came out and fought for their community on two prior occasions and actually supported something that fit the character of their road, I don't think this use meets that criteria. Beyond that, having to expand the roundabout, it creates an issue with character in neighborhood. I think this use will change the character in neighborhood. 131-0-B-3-B. the end of the comment, the reviewer wrote, and this is in reference to, here's the criteria. The location, nature and height of structures, walls, or fences, and the nature and extent of existing and proposed landscaping on the site are such that the use will not hinder or discourage the development and or use of adjacent lands. The fact that this plan doesn't take into account, there's a right-of-way widening coming and there's a landscape set back coming that it doesn't show, which is going to impact the septic disposal area, which by the way to my knowledge what I've seen in record, I haven't seen a record of an approval of the septic of the perks certification plan. I understand they also require a waiver for MDE, which may be able to be gained, but I think there's a lot of ifs and questions when it comes to that. Under that same criteria, item C, it talks about the number of parking spaces will be appropriate to serve a particular use. Parking areas, loading areas, driveways, and refuse areas will be appropriately located and buffered and screened from the public roads. That's kind of the same criteria I just testified to. When you add the right-of-way widening in there, it changes your site plan significantly. I don't think the current site plan when you add the right-of-way in there meets that criteria. Item D of the same criteria. The ingristened egress rise will provide safe access. It goes on to say more, but I'll stop there. Item D of the same criteria. The ingress and egress drives will provide safe access. It goes on to say more, but I'll stop there. You heard me talk about the fact that having two driveways directly adjacent to each other in my opinion is a hazard. Item E of that same criteria, the proposed use will not have a greater potential for adversely impacting environmental sensitive areas in the vicinity than elsewhere. Remember we're not just talking about a gas station here, we're talking about around about, or some type of road widening, some type of road improvement that was impacted the character in the neighborhood. 131-002A. The use will not adversely affect the general welfare. And Mr. Dales was right to specify that. That's not a comparison. It will not adversely affect the general welfare. It goes on to say, or logistic or logical development of the neighborhood, or area in which the motor vehicle fueling facility is proposed and will not have a bleeding influence as a result of a proliferation of motor vehicle fueling facilities within a particular area. You heard testimony. There's three existing stations in this area. You heard Ms. Bedwell say that the Haukova design would direct you to put a new station if you're going to put one here at the rural crossroads at south of here. You heard her say that this is a rural preservation area. It's in a rural west. I think there's a more appropriate place to put this. And the fact that you have a proposed 16 pump station next to a six pump station sharing the same driveway definitely has a potential effect for a bleeding influence in the neighborhood. What that means is there's not up to man for both. One will close. Now we're just on this issue of multiple gas stations in blight. In addition to the possibility of blight from one of them having to close, is it also – you mentioned that the past station was – the impacts were mitigated as best they could be. But it is also necessarily true that the cumulative impact of just multiple gas stations, no matter how much you've mitigated the first one, is going to reach a point at some level where those impacts are negative and adverse to the community's well-being. Yes, absolutely. And that's another part of the blight issue, is it not? That's correct. Thank you. That's correct, in fact, in DPCs response to that comment, they said the proposed use will be the only standalone motor vehicle fueling facility on this portion of Old Frederick Road. I suspect they'd look past the one directly next door that's at the end of the inline center. They also said there is only one existing motor vehicle fueling facility within a half mile. That may be true, but just about a mile south of here there's two others. I'm air thought on the Carol. So I think there's I don't I'm on needs needs analysis, but you currently have reserving this area. I think having one 16 pumps facility next to a sixump facility certainly doesn't meet that criteria. This nickel is I would move to strike that test in prior test-winter regarding any whether a gas station is going to close another gas station or he just agree that he's not a knees analysis expert. This nickel is Mr. Newton testified his experience in designing and helping to operate and helping with the operations of many gas stations for many, many years. I think he's got the experience to make that state that opinion. I'll accept it. I'll consider the wage. Under item G under the same criteria, solid walls such as masonry or wood or masonry may be required by the hearing authority when the site borders a residential district. This site is directly adjacent to Oldford Road but it is also adjacent to a residential district. When solid walls are required, landscape planting is required on the outside of the wall. DPC's response is the property is adjacent to B2's own properties to the north, sorry. And it says to the south it's bordered by Old Frederick Road and the house across the street in the residential district is what they didn't add. Item I, a proposed site plan, shall show the efficient traffic flow and queuing at the pump islands to be accommodated. I would say that that criteria has been met. However, it says access to highways and on site paved areas shall be designed and located to ensure safe and efficient movement. As I've said, I think an access directly adjacent and sharing curb lines with the adjacent shopping center entrance is a safety issue. So I think that's my summary of the stair for Port Mr. Dales and why I think this doesn't be the criteria. Thank you very much, Mr. Newton. Is there anything else that you wanted to touch on that I haven't asked you about? Let me look at my notes as I was. No, I think that's it Mr. Dough. All right, thank you very much. Sure. All right, Mr. Gunderson. Thank you. This proposed plan that I think it's 3B that you prepared, best as I understand your testimony, it's your opinion that a right of way would need to be whining and the roundabout would need to be area would need to be redeveloped and perhaps enlarged based on Mr. Zaheeds concerns regarding the impact of traffic from this site. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And but whether there is going to be a need to increase the right of way or change the roundabout is something that will be addressed at the site development plan stage after a full, after the developer also does and provides its own traffic studies and analysis regarding the impact from this site. Correct? That is correct. I think it also goes to the criteria we're here looking at today. Okay, so it's possible, though, that based on the future traffic studies that are done, that there will be no need to do increase the right of way or change the roundabout at all, correct? I'm not a traffic engineer. I was given the traffic data that the roundabout needs to be expanded. I should what it, I should the minimum actually what it would look like. And that's what my test might be based on. So you agree though that it's possible if a traffic study did say we don't need an increased roundabout, we don't need to increase the right of way that it wouldn't be needed correct. If a traffic study came back and said there was no additional expansion required you were correct. We don't have that information before us what we have before us is a study done by Mr. Zide that says it does bring it is required. Right. You mentioned in passing a possibility that an operator could put a high volume diesel pump here that might attract 18 wheeler trucks, correct? Correct. But there's nothing on this plan that reflects an intent to put in a high volume diesel pump, correct? No, there's not. Okay. And are you aware of the complete streets design manual that changes the right of way, dedication areas for a plan? I am. And so you agree that this plan that's been provided, sorry, not this plan. The plan that was provided with the petition conforms with the complete streets manual in that regard. I don't agree with that. Okay. You talked about lighting. agree all of the lighting that's on the plan submitted with the petition is downward lighting, correct? I would assume so, yes. And to the extent that it's adding lighting to the area, the Lisbon Shopping Center has a lot of lighting already, correct? They do. Yes. But it's, you know, north of here behind I ever green screen. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Does anybody in the room have any questions? Yes, come on down, sir. Thank you. Charles Sharp, SACRPE. Thank you. The site plan, you talked a little bit about what would happen if the roundabout had to be wide. Does the current site plan show where the discharge of that or the controlled discharge of the bio retention pond will actually run? Well, currently there are no underground culverts or pipes from that site to the lower elevations on the south side of old Frederick Road. It does show that. It shows a storm drain system which drains the proposed buyer retention devices under old Frederick Road and it crosses under old Frederick Road and discharges on the south side of the intersection of old woodbine road and old Vetter Road. Because it doesn't exist now. No, it's proposed. Okay. That was my question. Thank you. Any further questions in the room of Mr. Newton? Any of the virtual participants? Do you have a question of Mr. Newton raise your hand? No. All right., you testified that many of the key elements of the site plan with direct importance to the criteria are speculative because there's no known operators. That's correct. That's correct. And so it's difficult in your opinion, if not impossible, to know whether the conditional use that they're actually asking for will in fact comply with the criteria to not harm the welfare of the community in your opinion, is that right? It's not possible. Thank you. And on the contrary, the plan you prepared which is speculative in a technical sense and that it speculates that there will need to be road widening and other impacts off site. As necessary, that's not, that speculative analysis is based on actual data that we received from Groveslate, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, that's all questions. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Newton. Thank you for participating. You're welcome. And you are next witness, Mr. Davis. My next witness is Mr. Bill Holtsman. All right, sir, thank you. I solemnly swear, refer him under the penalties of perury in the matter now pending that it responses given in statements made should be the truth the whole truth and nothing but truth. I do. Thank you. Please state your name and business address. William Holzman 2560 Lord Baltimore Drive Baltimore Maryland 21244. Thank you, Mr. Holzman. Can you give the hearing examiner your professional credentials and experience and roll at St. John Properties? Sure. Vice President of retail leasing at St. John Properties in an addition to working on the retail leasing at Lisbon Center, also work on about a million and a half square feet across our 24 million square foot portfolio, primarily retail properties which involve several pad sites where we've done gas stations and convenient stores. Can you be with me just one moment? I'm looking for the needs analysis. I didn't enter it into. Oh, I don't have it. I don't have it. Yeah, that's okay. Yeah, there's an issue. Okay. I just wanted to explain that. Could you spell your last name in the case? Sure. Holesman, H-O-L-Z-M-A-N. Thank you. And you were the VP at St. John's. St. John property is correct. And it's for leasing. Okay, I'm with you now. Okay, and you familiarize yourself, Mr. Holtzman, with the application before us tonight, or before the hearing examiner tonight, and the criterion rules that govern its review? Yes, generally familiar. Thank you. And can you tell us about the existing service station at the nearby property that St. John owns and how that operates? Sure. We have a high fuel station and convenience store. The convenience store is approximately 3,600 square feet. And our fuel station is 6 MPDs. And that was a expanded several years back. They've been in the center since the late 90s when wanted to grow back in 2014, 2015, worked on going off-site, which did not make sense at the time as we went through the process here. And the question was proposed to expand them within the center which seemed to satisfy the community which we were able to do and put them in the current position that they're in today. Is it your view that that service station is not overly burdened by excess demand? That is correct. Thank you. So in your view view then an additional service station is not needed in this area to serve the local community. Correct. Thank you. So which of the conditional use approvals do you see as relevant to this testimony and most challenged by those observations? Snick not an objective testimony regarding application of criteria and his opinion regarding whether conditional use comports with it. He's not an expert qualified to provide that opinion. Mr. Nichols, his testimony is about his expertise from the leasing perspective and market demand. And so the need of the community for this use is something that he can testify to and identify the criteria that that's relevant to. Unfortunately, Mr. Gunderson, this county does not swear or accept expert testimony per say and it does allow opinion testimony by those who have something to add to the conversation. I do understand your point in other jurisdictions. Howard County does not operate that way, however. I hope, based on councils, I understand, thank you. But based on councils' representation, I also have an objection now that whether there's a need for the gas station is not relevant to any of the criteria. I hope, based on councils, I understand, thank you. But based on councils' representation, I also have an objection now that whether there's a need for the gas station is not relevant to any of the criteria. Isn't it a vote of object on the basis of relevancy? We stayed in our opening that the many criteria that we don't feel can be complied with are also unnecessary harms to that extent. Mr. Holstmann's testimony is relevant that these harms that they're being caused by the community, we are providing testimony for the record that those are avoidable and unnecessary harms. Okay, Mr. Gunderson's objecting based on other jurisdictions that describe a need study as a requirement. So you're both using the word needs in different manners. So I'm going to allow it, but understand that he's not testifying as to need, as a need study would show. I recognize that. I'm sorry, but as I understand it, his testimony, though, is... His testimony, I don't know what it is, it's my kind of bay, but his testimony is just to describe its experience, I think, as a leasing agent for the St. John's property. Correct. We recognize that there is not a criterion stating that there must be a need shown. But what we're saying is that all of these criteria that are not met, including the harm to the community's welfare, are avoidable and not necessary. Yeah. I understand that. Right. that's not relevant to, he's creating a criteria that doesn't exist as I understand it. I do not such... I understand that. Right, but that's not relevant to... He's creating a criteria that doesn't exist as I understand it. I'm doing no such thing. The criteria we've cited, I'll speak to the welfare of the community and whether this use in this location has particular harm. We've said they do, and we are adding to that testimony that those harms are not necessary for the community to undergo. Okay. As long as, sorry, Mr. Holsman, keeps his conversation within the lines of the general criteria and the specific criteria for the motor vehicles. I'm going to allow it. I can also maybe help this situation by rephrasing the question. I'll withdraw the question about identifying criteria and just say to Mr. Holesman, could you please tell us how and why you believe that these harms that we've said will be done to the community are unnecessary? Well, basically, the market. And I would point to the, actually the specific criteria here in, that's O2A, where use will not adversely affect the general welfare, that something I've heard over and over tonight, that general welfare of the neighborhood, neighborhood is raised concerns and there hasn't been specific things to dress. But my other comment would really be on the next part of this, which is a logical development of the neighborhood or area in which the motor fueling facility is proposed. I have not seen where a fuel station is built and developed directly adjacent to and sharing the same access road to another in my experience. I've seen them on opposite sides of main roads separated by public roads, you know, within proximity to each other, but I have not seen any in my 28 years of experience doing this directly adjacent to each other and sharing an access road. Mr. Olesman, Council for the applicant objected to Mr. Newton stating that there wasn't a need for a fueling station in this area, but based on your expertise which are directly relevant to that question, can you state that whether you believe there to be a need for a second station and would you find it to be a harm itself to have an unnecessary station there that could cause harm to the adjacent development and community? I do, I, again, I don't see where the need is or where the need's been established or where the question's been answered about that. But in that, I guess in that line of thought, that could lead to where we have an existing station. If the success of that station was put at risk and that station would close, then we would run the risk of abandonment of a facility. And if something is abandoned and over a certain period of time remains abandoned, then lose the existing conditional use that is there. And that is a concern. And would you be concerned about the development of blight because of that losing of that conditional use? Yes. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Olsman. All right. Mr. Gunderson. Does St. John's properties lease the current high station? We lease to the current high, yes. Yes. And so really you're concerned about competition. Another gas station being built next to your existing highs correct? On the basis of what effect it will have on the surrounding area in the center. So you're concerned about the competition of an existing gas station. Of another gas station being added. And the effect it will have on the shopping center in the surrounding area. Okay. And you're testifying today that you've never seen two gas stations next to each other sharing a road. I have not in my experience. I can't think of one. That's all the questions. Thank you, sir. Does anybody in the room have a question of Mr. Holsman? I'll go to our virtual attendees. Anybody has any questions of Mr. Holesman? Please raise your hand. And I see none. So sorry, Miss Cedar, Cider, please come on down. Okay. I haven't seen any heard anything addressed to the rest of the shopping center. And so we're just talking about the two gas stations. But how about the rest of the shopping center for incoming traffic? I think the driveways will often be blocked for local traffic to try to even get into the shopping center. I'm not a traffic expert, but I think the discussion was had earlier with some of our experts that the increase in the traffic could have an effect like that. Correct? Okay. Yeah, I mean I was remembering somebody talking about, if an 18-wheelers trying to turn left into the gas station, it'll go from curb to curb, it'll block all the lanes. And meanwhile, very probably you're going to have traffic back there that are way they want to go the grocery store, etc. But there's that kind of a backup. It's just a point I'm making that seems pretty probable. So, okay, that's all. Thank you. You're at my side. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Mr. Dales. Mr. Olsmech, want to clarify your response to the applicants council's question. You were stating that your testimony is not about concern for your tenants, financial or business success, but rather the impact of an unnecessary station on the operations of the existing station and shopping center and the potential negative impact to the community if that station were to have to close. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Holzen. With your nails. My final witness is Mr. Thomas P. Lennon, 2560 Lord Baltimore Drive Windsor-Rail Maryland, 21244. Could you spell your last name please? P is impeter, I-L-O. I'm sorry, I can't even spell my last name. P-I-L-O-N as in Nancy, yes. P-I-L-O-N. Sorry. N. Thank you very much. Sure. I didn't know it was going to get a trick question like that. Mr. Pielan, would you just describe your role at St. John in your professional expertise and qualifications? Sure. I'm a civil engineer by training, although I don't practice this such. I am executive vice president of development for St. John properties. A little bit of a misnomer. What my department is responsible for is taking projects from due diligence to permit. So we interact with the various agencies that regulate things like land use, zoning, subdivision, things like that. And you familiarized yourself with this application and the criteria that govern it correct? Yes. Okay. Now, earlier, Mr. Newton and Ms. Bedwell spoke about some of the policies and reasons why fueling stations may not be able to meet the criteria that are relevant here. You've had some experience developing gas stations, I understand it, if you could please confirm that. And then tell us a little bit about your, through your experience, what were those policies and factors that may lead to, may make it difficult for a fueling station to be approved in this area of the county. So yes, we've had other projects approved for fueling stations and various jurisdictions. As far as the types of challenges that you tend to face would be one of them principally is you know the community itself Are they supportive of the application? What would be the impact is it relates to traffic? Other things that we've heard people talk about this evening like stormwater light and things of that nature and sometimes the um architecture of the building itself So yes, and your experience with this particular community in is part of the county and trying to have, trying to develop things here. What specific issues have been of greatest concern to the community and to you and your team in trying to get a development project approved? Generally speaking, they're concerned about, what can they see from their homes? Is it gonna be compatible with the community? What are the impacts going to be on? Sorry, sir. Are you speaking with reference to highs or just generally? I thought the question was generally. The question about development experience with the whole shopping center in this part of the county. What's been the, what are the sensitive issues you should support the county? The shopping center, not this shopping center per se. The list has been shopping center. What is this part of the county being concerned with from a development perspective? It may be as to just clarify, I've been with St. John properties since 1997. When I started with St. John properties, the shopping center was served by a traditional septic system. And we did not have the food line. There's also another building to the north. And actually when I started the building that hies is currently and didn't exist, there was also a bank that exists there now that wasn't there before. So I think the question relates to the idea of kind of what we've experienced as we've developed out the site. Thank you. And how about traffic? Has that been a concern that the community has expressed and light noise pollution? What other issues have you run into? Yes, we've experienced comments related to traffic as we've made various applications and light in particular. Okay, and what about the application that you've reviewed here tonight? Do you see as inconsistent with those, with mitigating those challenges? Hey, would you mind we stay with you? What are the aspects of this application that you've reviewed that you view as contrary. As what aspects of this application do you view as contrary to the policies and concerns expressed by the community? Ms. Nichols, I believe we're getting cumulative at this point. He's already had a witness test five who had planning experience. Ms. Nichols, I can answer that pretty briefly. I'd echo the concerns that Mr. Holstman stated. Thank you, Mr. Pielan. You're welcome. Now, ordinarily, you're on the other side of the table asking for an application to be approved. And, you know, usually got your way to oppose something. But in your own words, would you tell us why you feel it felt important to oppose this application and feel free to reference tests many provided by the other witnesses tonight? Sure. I think the biggest thing is, St. John properties were long-term, excuse me, were long-term investors. So when we invest in a property regardless where it's located we try to get involved in the community itself. I'll become a member of the community so to speak. And we've had this shopping center for a long time. We've heard concerns of the community over time. We make our shopping center available for events and things like that. So we are sensitive to the concerns and the needs of the community in prior applications because we've heard those kinds of concerns as it related to traffic and light and other things. We've felt that this is inconsistent with what we've been trying to do out there over time, kind of encounter with the community. So. So you're saying that the, these, your concerns are that the application is contrary to the welfare of the community that you are now part of. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Peele. All right. Mr. Gunterson. Thank you. Just very briefly. When, when, see, am I correct that St. John's proposed a new station where the Duncan is? Yeah. Objection. I'm not, or, Ms. Nichols, I'm not sure how that's relevant. I don't know either, but I'm going to let her on with it. In your opinion, was that compatible with the area and the community? Apparently not. Again, that's an objective. Object on relevance again. I'll take it into consideration. Go ahead, you can answer. I'll withdraw. I'll withdraw. I'll withdraw. Okay. Anything further? No, no, thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pilon. Thank you. So, Mr. Dales, do you have many further witnesses or is this your case? No, Mr. Nichols, that's all of our witnesses. I would offer a brief closing statement. I don't know the procedure is here. Not your turn yet, but thank you. But you're resting your case in chief. Yes. Okay. All right. Everybody who's still here, it's your opportunity to come up and tell me everything you wanna tell me about this project, how you feel about it, whatever comments you want to make. So if you could just come one by one and you'll take a seat right there in the center what witnesses have been testifying. I'll swear you in. And then you can tell me what it is. You have been waiting all night to tell me. OK? Who's first? Go ahead. You can. Thank you, please state your name and address for the record. My name is Ronald Anderson. My address is 14640 Old Frederick Road, Woodbine, Maryland 21797. Okay. I'm going to try and be brief. I'm a businessman. And I'm going to direct this commentary to the statements about adverse effects on the community visceral properties and so forth and so on. As I've listened, it does not appear to me that serious research has been done on the reason on why this should be approved, why we need this, and the potential downstream effects on the community and visceral properties. On data driven, in case you didn't figure that out, okay? And there was a serious lack of data when requested about things that are germane to the county's concerns, to the applicant's presentations. And with that evidence, with that appearance, my concern as a community member is if the fourth what hasn't been put in now, what's downstream? And the fact, in one instance, in the application, it talks about a 24 hour operation, and yet it was stated here that it wouldn't be. There's questions about how the lighting would be positioned. There's questions about the traffic impact. I'm not an expert, so I won't offer up what I think, but I think this is a bad idea. And with that, I'll leave you with that. All right, thank you very much, sir. Let's see, Mr. Gunderson, do you have any questions of Mr. Anderson? Sorry, sorry. No, I do not. Okay, Mr. Dales, do you have any questions? No, I don't. Okay, thank you very much, All right. Next. All right. Sir, I need to swear you in. Thank you. Do you sell me swear or firm under the penalties? The purgeary, the responses given in statements made. It will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. Charles Sharp, 9.79, O'Buddh de Maire, O'Buddh de Maire, O'Buddh de Maire, O'Buddh de Maire, I've been there 46 years, which was there before St. John's property was there. Saw all the growth and development of what took place in that shop. was there before St. John's property was there. Saw the growth and development of what took place in that shopping. business. I've been there 46 years, which was there before St. John's property was there, saw the growth and development of what took place in that shopping center and we have had questions and concerns and we've taken that to them and they have addressed them. We didn't always get everything we wanted but for the most part the community has been very satisfied with the response that we've gotten from St. John's properties. The road that I live on right there, Old Woodbine Road, used to be the main road. I traveled that before the circle and the other road was put in. There have been no improvements made to that road since I've been there. When I say improvements, they no longer cut shoulders, so the shoulders were drainage used to be or now filled with silk. Water runs down the roadway. There's additional water that's been diverting from the development just west of this site off of Old Frederick Road that now runs through residential properties. One of the proposals is that it will be a control release of water from these bio retention ponds which will then keep areas wet longer than they normally would be. Some of these areas are pastures, some of these areas are front lawns for homes. So the really even besides just the traffic studies, there's other infrastructure that needs to be addressed, it hasn't been addressed in the 46 years than I am there. The impact of diverting these additional waters, the lighting, the noise, I've sat at the intersection of my road, doing some of those peak traffic times, and like I said, when they drop a tractor trailer on the side of the road, they're the shoulder, because they can't get into the existing filling station with that. I see the potential for far more of that, especially if it's gonna be a 24 hour operation. You know, occasionally we'll hear the noise in the summertime when windows are open, the dumpsters being empty or things like that, but it's not so bad that it's intrusive on the community. But this is going to add another level of that, especially 24 hours a day. That's just how I want to sum this up that we really don't need another gas station, the additional traffic, the additional environmental concerns of another filling station that's going to have lights coming out, shining radiance at back of my house. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gunders, any questions? No questions. Mr. Jails. No questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. There's no one I missed you. I had a question and I couldn't find you. So first of all I'm going to swear you in. Do you solemnly swear a firm under the penalties of perjury the responses given in statements made will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, please state your name and address for the record. Yes, my name is Christina Nolan and I live at 1030 Old Woodbine Road, Woodbine, Maryland, 21797. All right. Can somebody please help me by handing Ms. stolen what we've marked as exhibit 3B. And it's Nolan, it's N-O-L-A-N. So you have that right? Did I call you Dolan? Yes, I'm so sorry. It's all good. I think it's just a long day. Just my list. I knew it was Nolan. So the question I had earlier was, if you can see in sort of the bottom right-hand side of the plan, old, tragic road. Yes. Okay. And then there are houses across there, at least one house. Is that your house? No. So if you see where old wood mine-roan is at the bottom of the paper and to the left of it and red it says proposal for widening. Yes. That is where my property is. All right then I'm going to ask you one other question while you have this in your hand. So above property right away whitening, you see a alternating black, white, it's a pipe that goes under, or a larger bridge. You see that? Yes. Okay. And that is the discharge from the bioreattention systems on the proposed property. All right. And that's going to discharge in your pasture or for your yard. Yes. All right. Do you want to talk about that? Other than saying I don't find that acceptable. that's all I like to say about that. Because it's not acceptable because it's not acceptable for many reasons. The first of which I believe was just mentioned that it would introduce a much more moist environment. It would keep my pastures and my backyard and my front yard's soggy. We would also get any toxic runoff into my pastures, my front yard, my backyard, where my animals are and my children are. Okay. All right. Thank you. Not to mention mosquitoes. That'd be close to. Not to mention what? Mosquitoes. Mosquitoes. Okay. Thank you for letting me hijack your testimony now please go ahead and tell me what you want to speak to tonight. Okay, I have a bit. Please bear with me. Yep. Sure time. So I live directly across the street from the property in question and I can attest that there is a lack of need for a gas station and convenience store. There are already three gas stations within one mile of the exits from Route 70 to Route 94, all of which provide regular gasoline, diesel, and a convenience store. There are multiple convenience stores, restaurants, and areas to park and rest. Then on both 70 East and 70 West, there are gas stations, convenience stores, and restaurants at the exits at both Route 97 and Route 27. None of these gas stations get so busy, nor are there a lack of food or convenience options that would require another gas station to support an overwhelming need. There are alternatively reasons why the county should not allow gas station at this proposed site. Number one, gasoline fumes. On old Woodbine Road, we can already small gasoline fumes and exhaust from the highest gas station, introducing more unrecoverable toxic fumes and fuel spills that would require environmental mitigation so close to residences is not something we welcome. It is also not something that can be avoided by planting trees or other landscaping or retention areas due to the inherently noxious nature of a refueling station. Gasoline emits many compounds injurious to human health. These include benzene, talluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. Together, these are called B-tex. Measures to reliably resolve these adverse health risks are not employed at new gas stations. Additionally, there is no safe level for benzene. In a 2015 paper from NIH, it contains a summary regarding the health implications of living near a gas station. I'll quote, particularly affected are residents nearby gas stations who spend significant amounts of time at home. Of particular concern are children who, for example, live nearby, plain nearby, or attend nearby schools, because children are more vulnerable to hydrocarbon exposure. Another study from NIH in 2021 documented that adverse health impacts are increased when a neighborhood is near multiple gas stations, which would be the case here. According to CEDS.org, Benzene is not reliably addressed at new gas stations. Exposure to Benzene, which is found to affect residences, schools, and other businesses within than 1, feet of a gas station, can lead to nausea, cancer, anemia, and increased susceptibility to infections among other agri- health effects. Now that's just the fumes. Gas stations can also affect nearby wells. Petroleum products can contaminate well water from leaks or spills from storage tanks underground pipes and above ground spills. These products can introduce harmful chemicals into the water supply, posing serious health risks if ingested. Would you want to take this risk? My well is less than 500 feet from the proposed site of gasoline storage tanks. I have small children and livestock. I can tell you that I do not want to risk the health of my family just so this property owner can get a conditionally used waiver approved and put profits over my family's health no matter how pretty they insist the site will be. This proposed gas station is adjacent to a neighborhood. This neighborhood contains people of all walks of life who contribute to our community in many ways. From firefighting, to staffing diners, to owning small businesses, and public service for the federal and state governments, including me. We have family members and children that deserve to live in an area not affected by toxic compounds from a gas station in our backyard. Number two, crime. It is notable that convenience stores accounted for about 3% of all violent crimes in 2020. Gas stations and convenience stores often become targets for robberies, shoplifting, and other violent incidents. There aren't neighborhoods with young children directly adjacent to this proposed site. So no, this is not something the residents of these neighborhood support. Number three, traffic and safety. Directly across the street, there's a residential road with families with small children. There's a trend here. But they would like to protect from an influx of vehicles. Currently those vehicles turn into the park and ride entrance and access the highs for gas and other needs, so they are removed from residential areas. Adding more vehicle traffic closer to these homes would increase the risk of adverse events from awayward vehicle. We already have cars dodging the school buses in the morning and afternoon, and these buses carry my children. Gas stations with convenience stores add hundreds of more cars to area roads than a bank, convenience store, or other business would. The risks and adverse effects greatly outweigh any benefits of adding an unnecessary gas station and convenience store, especially since there is already one right next door to this proposed build site. Number four, noise. The noise from increased traffic will be detrimental to those families who live adjacent to this proposed build site. We are families with children, pets and livestock who would be negatively affected by the increased noise brought by additional traffic in an area that is used to lighter, more rural traffic patterns. It would be harder for us to host gatherings and enjoy the rural area if the noise interferes with the adjacent residences One thing, I don't think we got an answer from, is we would like to know if the hearing authority has studied this proposal. We can bookmark that. Number five, litter. Already the family is an old woodbine road and nearby must deal with litter from the customers of restaurants and convenience stores in the area. Having a gas station and convenience store directly adjacent would introduce even more waste and trash that will be blown onto or dropped by our properties. Number six, light pollution. Currently the highest gas station utilizes trees to help block lights so it doesn't affect the residences in the area, and we appreciate this. From my house, though, those LED lights still shine bright enough that it shines into our windows. If this project were to go through, the residents adjacent to this site would not only have an influx of vehicles, crime, toxic fumes, noise, and a litter, but also light pollution, which affects our ability to host outdoors or sleep without intrusive light. Taking all of these things into account, I am up here to tell all of you that this proposed gas station and convenience store would have a blighting influence as a result of proliferation of gasoline service stations within this particular area. This would affect the general welfare of logical development of the neighborhood, south and east of this site. This would introduce BTEX chemicals into the environment of the adjacent residences, which is proven to cause adverse health effects, especially in children. Nobody wants to live directly across the street from a gas station. We are already not thrilled to have a high gas station within 500 to 1,000 feet of our homes, allowing another one even closer to our homes just adds insult to injury. Property values will decrease as will the relative safety of residents in the area. On behalf of my community, I demand that you do not approve this conditional use proposal. Mr. Gunderson? No questions. No questions. All right. May I keep this map? Sure. Thank you. All right. Next. Come on up. Thank you, sir. My solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the responses given in statements made will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Please state your name and address to the record. James A. Masassy 2019. So I'm having a little trouble hearing you. Okay. James A. Massy 2019 DeVol road would buy in Maryland 21797. Thank you so much. What would you like to say to night? So I'll just go the common sense approach. Testimony earlier was about surrounding properties to the St. John's property that are zone B2 as well. Why don't we put on all way around, put two or three more gas stations in there and we'll see how the petitioner thinks about having that in there. I mean, you know, we've got two gas stations and Lisbon already plus the high station. You know, why don't we give them some competition too? I don't think that's needed. I think the community impact is significant. And I think the property owner could probably find a better use. Put in a mission bar because you were something that the community would like. All right, thank you, sir. Mr. Gunderson? No questions. Mr. Dott. No questions. Thales. Mr. Dales. Sorry. Thank you, sir. All right. Next. All right, miss Cider. I solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the responses given in statements made should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you. Would you state your name and address for the record? Dottie Ciders, 14601, Red, Lion, Drive, Woodbying, 2797. Thank you, ma'am. You have been patient. What would you like to say tonight? Well, I want to start out by thanking everybody for coming. This isn't directly applicable to your neighborhood probably. And so it might seem pretty boring to, to supply us with all the details. But I appreciate it and I just want to thank you and for me It's been downright enjoying enjoyable to participate in a civil in a civil event like this and For you. Thank you for well, thank you for participating us. Thank you for participating. Amen. So life has pushed me to the phase of being a grandma. And I just adore it. And I raised my kids out here. And everybody's got their story know, it's not really exceptional, but it's been a pleasure to give my kids a rural experience. And so my comments are long range, I'm thinking long range. In the area of the gas station, probably within two miles, there's an relatively new housing development full of little kids. And, you know, not just in the developments, but other people are in single family homes moving to the area. And it would be a pleasure for them to raise their families in the same way, even though we appreciate that there's a nice little shopping center down the street. And that's understandable that that would want to be developed. And you know, I'm just appealing to the people that own the land to consider that when they develop it. At a previous meeting on this subject, a policeman showed up and he was retired and he said that from his experience he witnessed a similar gas station design come into the Laurel area and he cited that there was a lot of crime that came with it. I know that's like, here's safe for you guys for us to repeat it, but I thought that was a really good point that he made. And so, yeah, I just, all I can see is little kids playing. All I can see is versus the scenario of crime coming into that area. And so you get the picture and I don't need to develop it, but to me that's very concerning. But also I want to appeal to the owner that our area is very charming. And I would appeal to him to develop that strength, not take away the need for development and the options, but don't take away the, I don't even have the right words, I don't even have the right words. Don't take away the possibility to continue the charm. And that is something that the Ellicott City area no longer offers on the edges that take people down 70. You really have to go into Ellicott City to find the charm. And then the expanse going up to Frederick, going to Mount Erie, you have to dig around for the charm there too, because the first thing you see is modern convenience. And so why not develop the strength of the woodbine area as you're on Route 94. If you go down that way, you go to Larry Landon. And then you go around the corner in their sunflower fields. So why not spend a little bit of time researching how that could just be an adorable destination and a really family oriented adventure. So I guess I'm done for the... I guess I'm done for, I guess I'm done but I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Gundersen any questions? No questions. No. Mr. Dales any questions? No questions. Thank you. Thank you very much, ma'am, for participating. All right, next. I'm going to swear you in. Thank you, ma'am. I solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the response is given in statements made should be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, ma'am. Please state your name and address for the record. Cynthia Brennan-McCauliffe, 601, Sabrina Farms Court, Woodbound, Maryland, 21797. C-Y-N? Pardon me? Cynthia spelled C-Y-N-T-H-I. And I'm sorry your last name Brennan McCollough BRE and an an an MCAU ally FFE God thank you very much. Okay. Yes, ma'am. What can I? I'd like to say tonight. I've been a resident of Western Howard County for 35 years now and I have have any time I've had an issue or a concern or a question I've felt very comfortable reaching out to anyone from St. John property. Always get a response, always get an answer. They're very concerned with the community when we say what's going to go in here. Well, we're thinking about this, what we're thinking about that. What do you guys think? They're very into the community. And I think Mr. Ruhrer, who also lives out in our general area, so this affects him as well, not nearly as much as it does me, or a lot of the people that have spoken this evening. If he would look at the community and say, What? Okay, you don't want this gas station, I get it. It's going to be a mess. I understand that. What do you want? We're not saying to him, we don't want anything that you develop. There are so many better things and better choices that he could make. Ed St. John has just spent millions of dollars on renovating the shopping center. We have a cute little park at the end with benches. They're doing a grand reopening and doing things for the kids. We don't see Mr. Ruhr doing that for our community and a community that he also lives in. And we'd like to see that. Be a part of our community so you can recognize what it is we need and what it is we want. That's all. All right, thank you, ma'am. Mr. Gunderson? No questions. Mr. Duh. No questions. Thank you very much. All right. Is there anybody else that wishes to testify? It's in the audience tonight. Okay. I see no one going to the virtual and for our virtual attendees, anybody wants to testify if you could raise your hand? All right, I only have one and that is Megan. Let's give her the mic. And Hello. Megan, do you have a video ability? I don't. Unfortunately. All right. I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand. Yes. Okay. I do. Please state your name and address for the record. Yeah. My name is Megan Pace. P-A-C-E. Thank you. I'm at 159-61, old Frederick Road. I live Kitty Corner to the highs. Okay. What would you like to say today? Just quickly. So I recently purchased this property in September of 2024. I echo all of the concerns, environmental and safety in the testimonies given by residents and the expert testimonies as well. I have a child that rides the bus that waits on the Frederick road and I would not appreciate the increased traffic to the area. Most importantly, the noise I do here at my residence is at the top end of what I was willing to accept when I purchased the home. I specifically bought this property because of the small town ambiance and had I known that a large gas station was proposed I would have reconsidered my purchase. there are some trucks that will park on the exit ramp. And I would be concerned that if there was a larger gas station for them to come to that it would mean that they do. And so we're going to get more truck noise along the road that I would not want. It's already quite loud. And I would find that frustrating. So. That's it. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Gunderson. Mr. Dales. No questions. All right. Ms. Pays, thank you so much for participating. Is there anybody? Thank you. Is there anybody else that's participating virtually that wishes to testify tonight? All right. Seeing none? Mr. Gunderson, do you have any rebuttal witnesses? We do not. Okay. Mr. Dales, do you have any rebuttal witnesses? We do not. Okay. Then it's closing arguments if you'd like to make them. Thank you. It's been a long evening. I'll be brief, but this is an important issue. So, we would submit that based on the information and documents submitted with the petition, the supplement to the petition as well as the DPCs analysis and conclusions as reflected in the technical staff report that all of the criteria for conditional use are met with respect to this proposed use and we ask that the petition be granted, specifically what point out that proposed use and we asked that the petition be granted. Specifically, I point out that the Department of Planning is owning as agreed that the proposed conditional use plan will be in harmony with the land uses and policies of the Howard County general plan. It also concluded that the impact of any adverse effects such as noise, dust, fumes, and so on will not be greater at this proposed site as elsewhere in the same zoning district, which is what the standard is applicable to our petition. You also heard from Mr. Rudder, former director of the Department of Planning and Zoning here in Howard County, who's obviously very familiar with the general plan itself, as well as the specific zoning regulations and laws who agreed that the criteria have been met in this case, as far as this stage of the process is concerned. Issues that were raised regarding traffic and whether it will impact the need to change right of way or change the road or our premature at this stage. John's witness engineer agreed that what he's proposing with respect to this right of way and the increased area of the turnbout is really premature. It's possible that at this site, development planning stage that traffic studies reflect that those aren't needed. And if the traffic studies do show that some redevelopment or some adjustments or mitigation measures are needed, those will be addressed at that stage. With respect to environmental issues, the site will be developed in compliance with the Maryland and federal regulations with respect to, you know, run off and so forth. And so, again, if there's any need to mitigate that or address that, that can be addressed at the site development planning stage as well. For all, for those reasons as well as the testimony that you've heard, we again asked that the petition for conditional use be granted. All right, thank you. Mr. Dale? Thank you, Ms. Nichols. I would say that while you've got some concl conclusory statements as to compliance in the staff report and the evidence submitted in support of the application, the overwhelming weight the evidence you've heard tonight in – from competent testimony, from professionals has shown that multiple of the criteria aren't met and can't be met by this application. This use we've shown through our testimony and evidence will be harmful because of light, traffic, noise, fumes, and the creation of blight through the unnecessary addition of a fueling station that certainly isn't needed to serve local needs. So in that sense, generally harmful and contrary to the community's welfare. The community clearly agrees. And the people came out late tonight or went home from work and got onto the hearing virtually. And it's also, this uses also harmful specifically in the look because of the location where it's being proposed. It would be less harmful at other locations where it's not entangled with an existing gas station and shopping center from a vehicle circulation perspective, where it's not immediately adjacent to a residential area that's absolutely be impacted by the headlights of whatever vehicles use this fueling station, but likely some very large ones coming off the 70. We also have shown and documented the many ways in which this application is inconsistent with the general plan and incompatible with the rural character of the community where it's being proposed. throughout the review of these criteria as we spoke to them tonight. The application the community where it's being proposed. And throughout the review of these criteria, as we spoke to them tonight, the application is simply incomplete on some key issues that need to be understood to know if the application will comply with the criteria. And that's largely because there's no operator identified. And so we can't really know how this is going to be operated. But also because the applicant is asking on many issues to say, well, let's approve us now, and let's find out later if we'll later will show compliance with these criteria through a more detailed traffic study, through compliance with vagalusions to the federal and state requirements for environmental, uh, create environmental approvals. The applicant basically wants to say, you know, get approval of our application and later will show compliance with the criteria that govern this application. But the law requires that they make that showing now. So it may be the case that typically a conditional use can be reviewed and understood to comply without providing a certain level of detail. But for this use and for this location, we've shown that that information is needed now to know whether they can and will comply. So in that sense, none of these arguments are premature. It's premature as I was asking for an approval before you can show that these issues we've given specific reason to be concerned about will be addressed. I think that needs to be shown before this application can be considered to comply with multiple of the criteria that you need to review it with. And for all those reasons, we would ask that you deny this application in the interest of the community. All right. Mr. Gunderson, I had indicated that I wanted to keep the record open for the preliminary traffic study, but I don't need it. So I'm going to close the record today. Thank you very much, though, for offering. So I'm going to close the record and a decision in order will be forthcoming. And I want to thank everybody for participating here tonight. It was a long evening for everybody. And participation is what makes this process work. So thank you all very much. Thank you for everybody and participation is what makes this process work. So thank you all very much. Thank you for everybody being prepared. And that being said, hearing is concluded. Thank you all. Good night. Thank you.