Howard County hearing draws opposition to proposed Woodbine fueling station at 15920 Old Frederick Road

Woodbine — Petitioner Woodbine Bank asked a Howard County hearing examiner in April for conditional-use approval to build a motor-vehicle fueling facility and convenience store at 15920 Old Frederick Road in Woodbine, but residents and experts at the hearing raised detailed objections about traffic, stormwater runoff, lighting, hours of operation and potential health risks.

The application, introduced by attorney Eric Gunderson on behalf of the petitioner, proposes a fueling facility with 8 pump units (16 fueling positions) and an approximately 4,000-square-foot convenience store. The petition and a technical staff report from the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) were entered into the record; DPZ recommended approval. The hearing examiner said she would close the record and issue a decision later.

Why the proposal matters

The site lies in Howard County’s rural western planning district and is adjacent to an existing convenience fueling site in the Lisbon Center. Opponents and several expert witnesses said the combination of the proposed size, likely hours and the site’s location on two‑lane Old Frederick Road could generate impacts greater than typical for fueling stations elsewhere in the same zoning district.

What proponents said

- Joe Rudder, a planning consultant who testified for the petitioner, said the proposal complies with county zoning standards for conditional use and is consistent with the county’s designation for a suburban commercial node in this area. “I agree with all of the assessments and conclusions in the staff report,” Rudder said.

- Jim Whitmer, the project civil engineer, testified the site plan includes on-site micro‑bioretention and stormwater measures designed to meet Howard County and Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) requirements and that a more detailed traffic study and review would be performed at the site-development-plan stage. “Absolutely. … [A] traffic study will be completed in compliance with the Department of Planning and Zoning’s processes at the site development,” Whitmer said.

What opponents and experts said

- Traffic: Grove/Slade traffic engineer William Zaid testified that his preliminary assessment projected hundreds of new peak-hour trips attributable to the proposed convenience market and fueling pumps — he cited ~430 morning peak-hour trips — and concluded one approach to the nearby roundabout would move past acceptable capacity thresholds. “One of the approaches at the roundabout would exceed capacity … reaching up above 1,” Zaid testified, referring to a volume‑to‑capacity ratio used to evaluate roundabout performance. He said queues could extend hundreds of feet and that the Old Woodbine Road/Old Frederick Road approach could operate at a markedly worse level of service under the “total future” condition that included the proposed use. Zaid recommended that mitigation would likely be required and that feasible mitigations are not shown in the application.

- Site geometry and circulation: Civil engineer Wayne Newton, who reviewed the conditional-use plan, said the proposed northern driveway sits adjacent to the Lisbon Center access and that truck maneuvers would consume multiple lanes when they occur. He also overlaid a concept showing how widening the roundabout and right-of-way to mitigate operations would affect the park‑and‑ride and existing roadside trees. He said shifting the site to preserve landscaping would conflict with septic disposal areas shown on the plan and that the plan’s frontage landscaping could be lost if right‑of‑way improvements are required.

- Stormwater and environmental risk: Residents and the petitioner’s engineer agreed the plan proposes micro‑bioretention facilities, but several neighbors said they worry about the downstream discharge and local wells. One resident, Dottie Siders, said her well is within 500 feet of the proposed tanks and asked how contaminants would be prevented from reaching livestock and children. The petitioner’s engineer described temporary detention, filtration and state-standard ESD (environmental site design) devices but said permitting and technical detail would be completed at later permitting stages.

- Hours, lighting and public-safety concerns: The application states proposed hours of operation as 24 hours; witnesses pointed out that a 24‑hour convenience store plus lighting and traffic would change nighttime character for nearby homes. The conditional-use plan shows canopy lighting and pole‑mounted fixtures; multiple participants said the proposed lighting levels would be higher than the neighboring station’s canopy‑only layout. “This is a much higher lit site than the Highs next door,” Wayne Newton testified.

- Lack of an identified operator: Several witnesses and residents emphasized the application does not identify a final operator, making details such as tank sizes, pump type and signage uncertain. The petitioner’s team confirmed some specifics — for example, the conditional-use plan shows two tanks — but said exact tank capacity and some operational details depend on a future operator and would be developed with the site‑development plan.

Community participation and concerns

More than a dozen residents spoke either in person or virtually. Concerns included potential benzene and other hydrocarbon exposure from fueling operations, additional overnight truck parking and staging, increased vehicle queuing into residential streets, the potential for increased crime at 24‑hour convenience operations, and the visual and noise impacts of a larger, well‑lit facility across from homes and pastureland.

What the staff report and procedural next steps say

DPZ’s technical staff report concluded the proposed conditional use is in harmony with applicable county plans and zoning standards and recommended approval. The petitioner’s planning witness relied on that analysis in his testimony. Opponents’ expert witnesses disputed that conclusion, citing specific standards in the Howard County zoning criteria for conditional uses (for example, standards that ask whether the use will have greater adverse effects — noise, fumes, lighting, traffic — at this location than elsewhere and whether the use will adversely affect the welfare and character of the neighborhood).

The hearing examiner closed the evidentiary record and said a written decision would be issued later. No vote or final approval was taken at the hearing.

What remains unresolved

Key unresolved technical items cited at the hearing include: whether required road improvements or roundabout widening would be triggered by the development and, if so, what right‑of‑way or stormwater impacts would follow; detailed tank and pump specifications (including whether high‑volume diesel pumps would be installed); the final hours and lighting levels; and the outcome of required state and county permits for fuel handling and stormwater. Multiple witnesses said those details are typically refined during the site‑development planning stage, while opponents argued the conditional‑use determination should not precede answers to those questions.

The hearing examiner said the record is closed and a decision will be issued in order.

Sources and attribution

Reporting here relies on testimony at the Howard County conditional-use hearing and documents entered into the record. Direct quotes in this article are attributed to the witnesses who spoke at the hearing: Planning consultant Joseph (Joe) Rudder; civil engineer Jim Whitmer; traffic engineer William Zaid of Grove/Slade; and civil engineer Wayne Newton. Resident comments quoted are from public testimony by Dottie Siders and other area residents whose names and addresses were placed on the record.