Havre de Grace Board tables gas‑station conditional use after residents press for site, traffic and well studies

The Havre de Grace Board of Appeals on Nov. 6 moved to table the Green family’s conditional‑use request for a gas station at the intersection of Maryland Route 155 and Bulle Rock Parkway (Case 556), after months of preparation by the applicant, lengthy expert testimony and extensive public comment asking for more specific site, traffic and environmental information.

Attorney Eric McLaughlin, representing the Green family, asked the board to approve a gas‑station use within the RB (residential‑business) zone. McLaughlin incorporated the city staff report and annexation documents into the record and called Mitch Enser of Baystate Land Services as an expert in land planning and the local code. Enser described Parcel 210 (approximately 34.7 acres in total) and said a 23‑acre red‑hatched portion of that parcel was identified in the single concept plan accompanying Annexation Resolution No. 277 as the business portion of the property. Enser testified the comprehensive plan labels the corner as a developing “gateway” area suitable for appropriately sited commercial and limited highway‑serving uses, and that the location is adjacent to MD 155 and I‑95 with existing traffic counts that could support traveler‑oriented services.

Enser and counsel emphasized that, if approved as a conditional use, the actual station would still require full site‑plan review by city staff and the Planning Commission to settle details such as setbacks, parking, lighting, landscaping, traffic mitigation and stormwater management. Enser said state and federal environmental regulations (including Maryland Department of the Environment/COMAR provisions) apply to gasoline facilities and that there is no known endangered‑species habitat on the parcel; the parcel contains forested buffers, streams and non‑tidal wetlands that have been delineated and that Enser said would be protected in development.

Residents and nearby property owners disputed the applicant’s description of surrounding uses and urged the board to delay action. Speakers asked how many pumps and truck spaces would be proposed, whether the site would function as a truck stop or travel plaza, whether intersection improvements (turn lanes or widening) would be required, and how construction and operations could affect private wells and groundwater. A signed petition from the Susquehanna Hills neighborhood was submitted expressing opposition and listing alleged conflicts with the code criteria for conditional uses.

Jamie Kendrick, a planning professional who identified credentials as AICP, pressed the record on a number of points: no site‑specific traffic impact study has been entered for the parcel for this proposed use; no massing plan or access layout has been submitted; and the application does not specify hours of operation, number of employees or other operational details the city’s code asks applicants to address for conditional uses. Kendrick told the board it was difficult to reach many of the enumerated findings of fact called for in the code without a conceptual site plan or supplemental technical studies. Other public speakers made similar points about compatibility and cumulative impacts given other pending applications for nearby parcels.

After discussion the board unanimously agreed it lacked sufficient detail to make the fuller findings of fact required by the city code on traffic/parking, effects on peaceful enjoyment and property values, and odor/noise/lighting impacts (the items specifically identified by the board as needing supplemental materials). The board voted to table Case 556 and requested the applicant provide conceptual materials: a site concept showing approximate building/drive/parking/pump area(s), a traffic/turning/parking concept (or explanation of how the applicant proposes to satisfy an eventual traffic‑study requirement), and documentation addressing groundwater/well impacts and visual buffering. The board directed staff to circulate its requested list of items and re‑notice the continued hearing date.

The applicant and expert stated they would remain available to respond as the record is reopened. No formal site plan or tenant has been presented; the conditional‑use request was for the use itself, not for final site layout, number of pumps or a specific fuel operator.

A copy of the staff report, the single concept plan tied to Annexation Resolution No. 277, and the applicant’s exhibits will be part of the record for the continued hearing.

Members of the board who voted to table did not attach a final vote on the use itself; the case was carried to a later date pending the additional materials and public notice.