Traffic experts clash over safety of proposed kennel at 6270 Davis Road

The Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals heard sharply different traffic analyses on June 16 as it considered a conditional‑use application for a commercial dog kennel at 6270 Davis Road. The hearing produced two competing expert views on how the project would affect nearby roads and pedestrian safety.

Nick Driban, vice president of Lenhart Traffic Consulting and the applicant’s traffic witness, told the board his traffic impact analysis found the two study intersections — Gillis Falls Road at Davis Road and the Davis Road site access — would continue to operate within county standards. Driban said his study used peak‑hour turning‑movement counts, a three‑condition methodology (existing, background and total), and conservative growth assumptions. He testified the study’s conservative 100% occupancy scenario produces about 20 inbound and 20 outbound vehicle trips during each peak hour (40 trips total); a more likely 75% occupancy yields 28 peak‑hour trips. Driban also cited Maryland State Police crash data showing zero police‑reported crashes on Davis Road or Gillis Falls Road in the site’s vicinity between 2019 and 2026.

Opposing counsel and several residents pressed Driban on data sources and assumptions. He acknowledged the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual contains no specific land‑use category for “kennel” and that the study relied on the operator’s empirical reservation and check‑in data, supplemented by industry assumptions where necessary. Driban said Carroll County typically requires a formal traffic‑impact study for 50 or more peak‑hour trips and that a site‑development scoping meeting with county transportation staff would occur if the project advances.

The opposition called a separate traffic expert who reached a different conclusion. “If this project is approved, the traffic volume is going to increase by roughly fourfold on Davis Road,” the expert testified after applying a daycare‑type ITE comparator and conservative scaling. He estimated a potential weekday total in the hundreds of vehicle trips (he cited an illustrative figure of about 531 daily trips using a daycare proxy) and said that even if the applicant’s peak‑hour counts were accepted, the site’s internal driveway geometry — a single travel lane for a few hundred feet where inbound and outbound vehicles must share the same width — would create frequent conflicts and queuing.

The opposition’s engineer flagged other operational concerns: narrow segments of Davis Road (he measured a minimum of about 16 feet including gravel shoulders), lack of sidewalks, a school‑bus stop near the Davis/Gillis Falls intersection and limited sight distance looking left from Davis Road onto Gillis Falls Road. He said those features together increased the risk that unfamiliar drivers using GPS could encounter unexpected conditions, heightening danger for pedestrians and schoolchildren. He told the board that widening the Davis Road approach, creating two full‑width lanes into the site driveway and improving sight lines (and adding sidewalks) would be the mitigation steps needed to address his safety concerns.

Board members questioned both experts about assumptions the county will scrutinize later in a formal review — including trip distribution (which routes drivers would use to reach the site), whether off‑site improvements are legally required as mitigation and the limits of drawing crash‑history conclusions from a low baseline of existing traffic. No vote was taken; the board recessed and continued the hearing to July 28 for rebuttal and additional evidence.

The testimony leaves the board with two core unresolved choices: accept the applicant’s operator‑based trip model and the county’s capacity metrics, or treat the opposition’s operational and safety concerns about the one‑lane site access, pedestrian exposure and sight distance as dispositive unless specific mitigation is required.