BA 26-008C – ESC Triadelphia Road, LLC Conditional Use Hearing

The Howard County Hearing Examiner continued the hearing for BA 26-008C, a petition by ESC Triadelphia Road, LLC for a conditional use to construct 26 age-restricted adult housing (ARAH) units at 12668 Triadelphia Road, Ellicott City. The meeting on July 14, 2026, focused on opposition testimony and public comment. The hearing will resume on July 16, 2026, at 5:30 PM.

Motion to Deny

• Susan Eitenmeyer, representing her husband and opposing the petition, moved to deny the petition, arguing the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof under Section 131 of the County Code. She claimed the petitioner presented no evidence that a shared well system is feasible or that the project is in harmony with the Howard County General Plan (HOCO by Design), specifically policies DN9 and DN10 and implementing action #3 requiring feasibility of shared water systems. The motion was denied by Hearing Examiner Joyce Nichols.

Opponent Witnesses

• Thomas Hilton (Lakeway Drive resident, 40+ years water/wastewater experience, WSSC planning division manager): Testified that the Piedmont bedrock geology makes well yields unpredictable. He cited public well records showing adjacent properties have low-yielding wells (e.g., 1-2.75 gpm) and depths up to 800 feet. He expressed concern that 26 homes on shared wells could lower the aquifer and impact nearby wells, noting the developer has not provided a hydrogeological study or pump test results. He stated that without such data, the feasibility of the community well system is unproven.
• Jillian Rhines (Blackberry Lane, environmental scientist, professional wetland scientist): Testified that no wetlands delineation has been performed, no forest stand delineation was provided, and specimen tree identification is incomplete. She noted that the developerʻs renderings show trees at 5-10 years of maturity, not the decades needed to restore canopy. She expressed concern about removal of specimen trees and the adequacy of the proposed landscape buffer.
• Nirmal Kadia (12607 Golden Oak Drive, neighbor): After filing a Public Information Act request, he obtained an older well permit application showing 27 wells at 400 feet. He reported that a Howard County Health Department staff member told him that of six wells drilled, total yield was about 17 gpm, but 54 gpm is needed for 26 homes plus clubhouse. He testified that adjacent neighbors have had well failures, and his own property has two wells each yielding only 1.5 gpm.
• James Hagen (12646 Golden Oak Drive, 37-year resident): Presented aerial maps showing the proposed density (26 homes on ~4 acres) is incompatible with the surrounding low-density rural character. He argued the topography prevents adequate screening and that the shared septic system pose a failure risk to the stream and nearby wells. He cited an example of a failed septic system at Western Regional Park.
• Brian Brzeznicki (3299 Rosemary Lane, directly behind Twig property): Testified that he drilled two dry wells before getting a working well (flow rate unclear, possibly 2.0 or 20 gpm). He expressed deep concern that the development could cause his well to fail, rendering his home uninhabitable and destroying his equity. He also cited safety concerns on Rosemary Lane, a narrow road with blind curves, and objected to a walking path proposed adjacent to his driveway, which he said would invade his privacy.
• Dennis Failing (12665 Triadelphia Road, directly across from Twig property, 40-year resident): Testified that on June 16, 2026, a HydroTERRA geologist (Lindsey Schell) visited him and confirmed that some test wells on the Twig property were dry, that drilling reached 900 feet, and that hydrofracking was being used. She offered to monitor his well, but he declined due to concerns about objectivity. He stated the proposed development would be out of character with the rural area and that the well and septic plans should be approved by MDE before zoning approval.
• Christopher Eitenmeyer (3501 Garrett Court): An engineer, he analyzed the traffic study report. He stated that if actual speed on Triadelphia Road exceeds the 34 mph 85th percentile used in the study, sight distance for vehicles exiting the proposed development would be insufficient. He argued the sample size (93 vehicles) was too small and that the study did not account for vehicles slowing to turn onto Lakeway.

Public Comments

• Love Gandhi (12685 Golden Oak Drive, 37-year resident): Stressed the hydrogeological limitations of the fractured bedrock (Loch Raven Formation) and stated that the aquifer cannot support the proposed density. He cited his own well at 1.6 gpm and 425 ft deep. He urged denial unless a comprehensive hydrogeological study and independent well monitoring are performed.
• Wendy Figgy (13151 Triadelphia Road, 56-year resident, veterinarian): Noted she supports a lower-density development (8-11 homes) and expressed concern that 26 homes would strain the aquifer. She stated that a neighbor on Rosemary Lane has three dry wells on her property. She questioned the appropriateness of ARAH in a rural area without public water/sewer.
• Anne Kadia (12607 Golden Oak Drive, 30+ years): Described personal experiences with neighbors losing wells, requiring weeks of water hauling and multiple drilling attempts (e.g., a neighbor drilled four wells before getting water at 800 ft, 1 gpm). She urged denial until a full hydrogeological study is completed and baseline pump testing is done.
• Jennifer Hutnick (3537 Garrett Court, 18-year resident): Raised concerns about aquifer drawdown, specimen tree removal, and the projectʻs impact on the countyʻs Green Infrastructure Network. She argued the developer should post security to cover well failure risks and conduct a transparent traffic study. She stated she has not been contacted for well monitoring.
• Diane Miller (3509 Lakeway Drive): Opposed the project as incompatible with the rural character, noting existing homes are on large lots and that a larger senior community with more amenities exists nearby in Clarksville. She argued 5-7 homes under standard zoning would be more appropriate.

Discussion Items

• The hearing examiner denied the oppositionʻs motion to deny the petition, allowing the opposition to present its case.
• Cross-examination by petitionerʻs counsel (Mr. Erskine) focused on whether opponents would allow their wells to be monitored by the developerʻs consultant (HydroTERRA). Most expressed reluctance, citing concerns about independence and objecting to the project. Some stated they would consider monitoring by an independent third party.
• The hearing examiner ruled on several evidentiary objections, including sustaining objections to testimony about traffic on Rosemary Lane as speculative and excluding photos of Western Regional Park as irrelevant.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Deny: Denied.
• Evidentiary Rulings: Opposition exhibits 1-6 were marked into the record (well application, aerials, site plan overlay). Petitionerʻs exhibit 3 (well completion report for Brzeznicki property) was admitted.
• Procedural: The hearing will continue on July 16, 2026, at 5:30 PM to hear remaining opposition witnesses and the petitionerʻs rebuttal. A hard stop at 10:30 PM was noted.