However, the appellant misstates the Hearings Official's findings. The Hearings <br />Official found that it was irrelevant whether Oakleigh Lane is classified as an <br />access lane or low volume residential because a sufficient amount of land was <br />dedicated in the application to meet the right-of-way requirements for both: <br />"Staff have properly applied E 9.8320(5)(a) by considering and requiring <br />dedication if land to meet the right-of-way requirements for either an <br />access lane or a low volume residential street - along the frontage of the <br />subject property. Whether or not Staff have miscategorized Oakleigh <br />Lane as a low volume residential street and the Hearings Official does not <br />agree that a mistake was made, is of no consequence because Table 9.6870 <br />shows right-of-ways in the range of 40' to 55' for both access lanes and <br />low volume residential streets." HO Decision, p. 25. <br />The appellant does not challenge this finding, or argue that there is any <br />meaningful consequence to describing the street as either an "access lane" or <br />"low volume residential street.i' Accordingly, this argument provides no basis <br />for reversal or remand. <br />C. Traffic Counts <br />The appellant appears to allege under subsection 10C, that the Hearings <br />Official erroneously relied on traffic counts indicating that there would be 164 <br />average daily trips instead of 169 average daily trips. However, the Hearings <br />Official's determination was based on the ITE Trip Generation rate, which <br />specified approximately 164 average daily trips from the proposed development. <br />HO Decision, p. 23. The appellant urges that the ADT should actually be 5 trips <br />higher at 169 ADT, but provides no basis for challenging the evidence in the <br />record, and provides no explanation of why the addition of 5 trips would make <br />any material difference. Accordingly, this subsection provides no basis for <br />overturning the Hearings Official's decision. <br />D. Alleged New and Nonresponsive Evidence <br />The appellant urges under subsection 10D that the Hearings Official erred <br />by accepting "new and nonresponsive evidence" submitted by OMC on October <br />16, 2013. However, the appellant fails to identify the alleged new or non- <br />responsive evidence at issue, or demonstrate any prejudice arising out of the <br />same in the decision. <br />Moreover, the appellant fails to acknowledge the fact that any testimony <br />or evidence submitted on October 16, 2013, was pursuant to the open-record <br />8 In fact, the Arterial and Collector Street Plan does not provide criteria for <br />classifying local streets. Instead, it provides a table that summarizes the "typical <br />widths for local street elements such as right-of-way, pavement, sidewalks and <br />plant strip areas, and traffic volume thresholds." ADT is a factor in determining <br />the type of the street under this summary table, but so are right of way, paving <br />widths, sidewalks, parking and planting strips. <br />13 <br />247 <br />