Neighbors and experts press hearing examiner to deny 26‑unit Triadelphia plan over water, septic and environmental risks

Opponents of a proposed 26‑unit age‑restricted community at 12668 Triadelphia Road urged the Howard County hearing examiner on July 14 to deny the conditional‑use petition, saying the developer has not established the shared‑well and shared‑septic system would be feasible or safe for neighbors.

Susan Eiteneyer, who represented several nearby homeowners, opened the opposition’s case by arguing the petitioner has not met the burden of proof required by Section 131 of the zoning code. "There is zero evidence in the record that this proposed development on a shared community well is feasible," Eiteneyer told the hearing. She said the developer skipped required testing and omitted data that would show the plan is in harmony with HOCO by Design policies DN9 and DN10.

The opposition called multiple witnesses to make technical and lived‑experience claims about ground water, drainage and neighborhood character. Tom Hilton, a planning‑division manager with WSSC Water and a licensed professional engineer, testified that the site sits in Piedmont bedrock where groundwater is stored in fractures rather than continuous sandy aquifers. He described nearby wells drilled to depths of several hundred feet and pump tests that showed very low yields in multiple locations. "Until you do the aquifer yield tests ... you do not know what that impact will be," Hilton said. He told the hearing he found no well‑yield or interference testing for the Twig property in the record.

Environmental consultant Jillian Rines told the examiner she had reviewed publicly available GIS desktop data and the concept plan and found a stream and two ponds on the parcel. She said she had not seen a wetlands delineation or a complete forest‑stand delineation. "The desktop data does show the stream and two ponds on‑site," Rines said, and noted that many of the large canopy trees shown in developer renderings could not be replaced within decades if removed.

Residents who live immediately adjacent to the property described several recent or historical well problems in the neighborhood and said they fear drawdown or contamination. Nirmal Kedia proffered documents he obtained from the Howard County Health Department, saying the file referenced multiple drilled wells, several dry holes and a set of reported yields that, in his summary, totaled roughly 17 gallons per minute for a subset of wells. Dennis Failing and other neighbors testified that company representatives had approached them offering to monitor private wells while testing at the site; several residents said they would consider monitoring only if the monitoring were done by an independent third party and if the developer agreed in advance to remedy any damage.

Opposing speakers also raised traffic and safety concerns. Neighbors told the examiner that Triadelphia Road is often driven above the posted 30 mph limit and argued that the developer’s traffic sampling (an engineer’s 85th‑percentile speed and a sample of 93 vehicles) was insufficient to establish safe sight distances for multiple new access points. "If traffic is faster than the proffered 34 mph, the sight distance would have to be farther out," civil‑engineering‑trained resident Chris Eitenier told the hearing.

Petitioner's counsel, Mister Erskine, argued the proposal is consistent with the county plan and noted that Maryland Department of the Environment and the health department review permits and technical design for wells and septic. The hearing examiner denied the opposition’s preliminary motion to dismiss and allowed the opposition’s witnesses to continue presenting evidence.

Opponents asked the hearing examiner to require a set of conditions before any approval: an independent hydrogeological feasibility study and well interference analysis; baseline testing of nearby wells; a complete forest stand and specimen‑tree inventory; a transparent traffic study that includes local cut‑through routes; and binding developer guarantees to repair or replace neighboring private wells if adverse impacts occur. Several neighbors said they would accept monitoring only if the developer posted guarantees (for replacement wells or compensation) and if an independent expert performed the monitoring.

The hearing remains open. The examiner indicated the session will reconvene on the scheduled continuation date to receive additional witnesses and documentary evidence.