Diamond Dev. Corp. v. Cmty. Rescue Serv.

DIAMOND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al. v. COMMUNITY RESCUE SERVICE, et al.

No. 924

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

December 29, 2020

Circuit Court for Washington County

Case No. C-21-CV-18-000641

UNREPORTED

Berger, Friedman, Wright, Alexander, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Wright, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Washington County affirming a decision of the Washington County Board of Appeals ("Board") to approve a site plan for the development of property. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the decision of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

The Appellee, Community Rescue Service ("CRS"), is an ambulance service that, since 1982, has operated one ambulance from the Maugansville Goodwill Fire Station, which is located to the west of Interstate Highway 81 ("I-81"). At some point, the fire station developed a need for the space occupied by the ambulance, and CRS purchased a parcel of land ("subject property"), located half a mile from the fire station, on which to build a "standalone" ambulance station. The new ambulance station would cover the same geographic area and would be on the same side of I-81 as the fire station. CRS would continue to operate one ambulance from the new station initially, but, in anticipation of possible future growth in the area, the property was being developed to house two ambulances.

The subject property, which has an address of 13727 Oliver Drive, Hagerstown, is located in the "Highway Interchange" zoning district. The subject property lies immediately west of I-81. It is bordered on the east by the southbound lanes of Interstate 81, and on the northwest by Microtel Hotel and Suites.

Oliver Drive intersects with Maugans Avenue 1125 feet from the intersection of Maugans Avenue and the exit ramp from southbound I-81 onto Maugans Avenue. Both intersections are controlled by traffic signals that are equipped with "Opticom" technology,which allows the normal operation of traffic lights to be preempted to give emergency vehicles a green light, while changing all other signals at the intersection to red.

Diamond Development Corporation ("DDC"), appellant, owns Microtel Hotel and Suites. Rajendra Patel and Rantan Patel reside permanently in the hotel and join DDC in this appeal.¹ We shall refer to DDC and the Patels collectively as "appellants."

At the outset of the hearing before the Board, which was held on July 25, 2018, counsel for CRS explained the procedural history of the case. CRS first submitted a site plan for the construction of a two-bay ambulance station on the subject property in August 2013. The Commission approved the site plan in June 2014. Appellants filed an administrative appeal, and the Board upheld the Commission's decision. Appellants then filed a petition for judicial review in the circuit court. The circuit court reversed the Board's decision to grant site plan approval because the site plan did not include a 75-foot buffer from adjacent properties.

In June 2015, CRS submitted a new site plan that incorporated the 75-foot buffer. Before receiving final approval, however, CRS withdrew the request for site plan approval after amendments to the zoning ordinance were adopted which clarified that the 75-foot buffer requirement did not apply to the subject property.

In May 2017, CRS submitted the site plan that is the subject of this appeal. The Commission approved the site plan in October 2017, and appellants filed an administrativeappeal. As grounds for the appeal, appellants asserted, as they had in the prior administrative appeal, in 2014, that emergency vehicles associated with the proposed use would cause an unsafe traffic condition on the exit ramps serving I-81.

Appellants' concern about an unsafe traffic condition arose during review of the earlier site plans submitted by CRS. Specifically, appellants pointed to written comments from Sheriff Doug Mullendore to Cody Shaw, the chief of Plan Review for Washington County Division of Engineering & Construction Management. With respect to the site plans submitted in 2013 and 2015, Sheriff Mullendore commented that, during peak traffic hours, traffic exiting I-81 at Maugans Avenue tended to back up on the ramps. He theorized that, if the traffic signal sequence were to be interrupted by an ambulance utilizing the Opticom system, traffic could back up onto I-81, and he suggested that a study of the issue was necessary.²

In 2015, CRS commissioned a traffic study from Neil Parrott, a professional engineer who had worked for the Maryland State Highway Administration ("SHA") for 13 years. A copy of his report was admitted into evidence. Mr. Parrott concluded from his study that relocation of ambulance operations from the fire station to the subject property would not interfere with traffic moving to or from I-81.

As a basis for his study, Mr. Parrott calculated that operating two ambulances from the subject property would generate four trips during the morning peak traffic period andsix peak-hour trips in the evening. Mr. Parrott determined the projected trip count by taking the total number of vehicles (including fire apparatus) that were dispatched from the fire station during a site visit in September 2015, then adjusting those figures to arrive at a "conservative analysis" for the proposed two-ambulance facility.³

Mr. Parrott characterized the projected peak-hour trip counts of four and six as "very low," explaining that Washington County does not require a traffic effect study unless the peak-hour trip count is at least 16, and that SHA does not require a traffic effect studyunless the peak-hour trip count is at least 50. Mr. Parrott noted in his report that, because CRS already was operating one ambulance from the fire station, half of the projected peak-hour trips, or five, were already "part of the roadway network."

The data used in the study was not inconsistent with records from the Department of Emergency Services which showed that, in the 2017 fiscal year, CRS dispatched an ambulance a total of 1848 times, or an average of 5.06 times a day.⁴ Notably, although the traffic study assumed a "worst case scenario," in which all projected trips would travel through the I-81 interchange at Maugans Avenue, the records from 2017 demonstrated that only 973 of the dispatches, or approximately 53%, would have been routed through the I-81 interchange. In addition, Randy Brumbelow, a witness for CRS, explained that not all calls would necessarily be dispatched from the subject property, as ambulances are sometimes dispatched from the field after being cleared from a prior call.

Mr. Parrott performed two different types of analysis: "critical lane volume analysis," which is utilized by SHA, and "highway capacity manual software" analysis, which is required by Washington County. Based on both methodologies, Mr. Parrott concluded that the intersections of Maugans Avenue and the access ramps to and from I-81 were currently adequate to handle traffic from the proposed ambulance station and met acceptable "levels of service."

Specifically, Mr. Parrott stated, in his written report, that, with one exception, all queues for the turn lanes at the intersection, including the turn lanes from the exit rampfrom southbound I-81 onto Maugans Avenue, were "below their storage lengths."⁵ His analysis included a six-year traffic volume projection, and he concluded that there would be no change from existing conditions. He explained that, because the intersections were already equipped with an Opticom system, the proposed ambulance facility would have no effect on the operation of the interchange.

The record extract contains a Site Plan Transmittal Form indicating that the 2017 site plan that is the subject of this appeal was routed to SHA for observation and comment and was returned with the handwritten notation, "No Comments!", below which appears the signature of Mark P. McKenzie. Appellants concede that SHA submitted no comment "relating to the design and function of the southbound approach."

Mr. Parrott stated that SHA was "very comfortable" with the current interchange operations, as evidenced by the fact that SHA had recently approved a "much larger" project for an urgent care facility on the other side of I-81 that was expected to generate between 124 and 162 trips during peak hours.⁶

Michael Shiffler, a civil engineer, also testified on behalf of CRS. Mr. Shiffler stated that, in his opinion, traffic from the proposed project would not interfere with traffic moving to or from I-81.⁷

Douglas Kennedy testified in appellants' case as an expert witness in the field of transportation engineering, planning, and analysis. Mr. Kennedy explained that the length and design of the exit ramp from southbound I-81 onto Maugans Avenue did not meet current federal standards.⁸ Mr. Kennedy performed a "back of queue" analysis of the traffic signal timing and 2014 traffic count data provided by the State Highway Administration ("SHA).⁹ His analysis led him to conclude that, during morning and evening peak traffic periods, the entire length of the southbound exit ramp would be occupied by vehicles waiting to move through the traffic signal at the end of the southbound exit ramp and onto Maugans Avenue. Mr. Kennedy opined that, if an ambulance passing through the intersection utilized the Opticom system during a peak period to disrupt the timing of the traffic signal, it would "exacerbate the stacking" of vehicles exiting I-81 ontoMaugans Avenue, and that the queue of vehicles "would increase and extend into the main line of I-81," creating an unsafe traffic condition.¹⁰

A member of the Board questioned how the traffic pattern would...