Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Howard County Hearing Examiner Continues BA 26-008C – ESC Triadelphia Road LLC Conditional Use Petition – July 16, 2026

County Council & Boards — Thursday, July 16, 2026

BodyHoward County, Maryland

SessionCounty Council & Boards

DateThursday, July 16, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 4:01:38

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

Is being recorded and summarized.

0:03

All right, good evening, everybody.

0:04

Welcome back.

0:05

It is the 16th of July.

0:08

We are here for a continuation of the case in BA26-08 C, an application by ESC Tridelphia Road for 26 age-restricted adult housing units.

0:24

We are in the middle of the opposition testimony.

0:28

And anybody in the room tonight who has not yet testified in this case and wants the opportunity to do so now would be the time.

0:38

So if you just want to raise your hand, um uh the gentleman in blue, you were first.

0:44

Come on down.

1:03

You just swear you in, sir.

1:05

Thank you.

1:05

I solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the responses given and statements made should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

1:14

I do.

1:15

Thank you.

1:15

Please state your name and address for the record.

1:18

Uh Donald Hibbard, 3525 Lakeway Drive, Ellicott City 21042.

1:23

And I'm sorry, I didn't hear your last name.

1:25

H I B B A R D.

1:27

Thank you.

1:29

And what would you like to say tonight?

1:33

Uh I have some prepared remarks.

1:35

They're not verbatim.

1:37

Uh I'm going to try to respect your time by moving through some of the things that have been discussed ad nauseum.

1:44

So uh I'll start out with uh we live we live about the middle of the block, about halfway down Lakeway Drive, which is about half a mile, I think, from the property that we're talking about here.

1:56

Um been there since 2019.

2:00

Um we have a well and a septic.

2:03

We have a very low yield well now, um, which we have to manage around similarly to some of the other people that have spoken.

2:11

Uh and we're very concerned about what might happen with a prospect such as they've proposed.

2:17

Um, well is 300 feet deep.

2:20

Um others around us, this has already been described, have had issues with their well and septic.

2:28

One of the things I'm confused about uh with the proposal is to my knowledge, nothing has been proposed regarding water.

2:39

And we've maneuvered around these things for the past couple of days, and uh I've really been waiting and anxious to see what they're actually going to move forward on in the system they propose, and all the information that's been put out has been by the opposition.

2:56

And to me, that's very telling.

2:59

Um of the other things I don't think that's been brought up that um what I have understood from other people I know in the business, that this system potentially could include a holding tank, which would significantly which would increase the with the uh volume that they would be pulling out of the ground because they're maintaining probably hundred, two hundred gallons of water in a holding tank.

3:24

I don't know that factually, but that's generally what I think, and I don't know if that's kind of been thrown into the consideration, but I wanted to do that.

3:36

I wanted to talk a little bit about the roads which have been discussed, but I'm talking about more the condition now.

3:43

Uh I can't speculate what will happen with the condition then, but there's already plenty of issues.

3:48

Um I come out.

3:50

I've almost had collisions multiple times.

3:52

In fact, I've had to train myself to look both ways twice, because by the time you look one way and look the other, with the speed people are traveling, sort of, excuse me, and sort of how it's obscured, you might get into a wreck.

4:05

And it it's a it's a problem.

4:07

And I trained my son to drive, and we had a lot of problems with that there.

4:11

And I'm not sure with the data that was produced here, but I haven't experienced anything remotely close to that.

4:17

And if you're going 34 miles an hour, people are beeping at you and and riding your bumper and everything else, and I would probably say it's at least 10 miles an hour over that, which cause again causes the increased problem from the different directions when you're driving of having people come on coming traffic that you can't gauge without a lot of diligence.

4:40

There are also a lot of bikers and walkers and runners on on the road, and there's zero shoulder now.

4:46

In fact, I was a biker for a while, and I just stopped just because it gets so wild with how people drive on the road.

4:52

It's too dangerous.

4:54

Um there's just not enough room for everybody now.

5:00

And I can't see that this proposition would do anything to have that subside.

5:04

In fact, in all likelihood it would increase the volume and which would increase the danger for the people trying to walk and run and bike.

5:21

And I haven't measured them, so I'm not going to say are they how they line up in other places, but I say they're not that wide for all the the types of things people like to also do that I've already described in a rural area.

5:36

And the the ingress and egresses I I have found are very helpful, and I'm not sure if that's that's on the on the still on the schedule or not.

5:44

I was a little confused about what a couple different people said.

5:53

I think we've talked about you know some of the other proposals that might be feasible and people would be willing to consider that make more sense.

6:01

And I will just throw in with them to say, you know, if they had six or seven single family houses, you know, that might be something that people would be more open to instead of scrambling to kind of prevent the impact that a proposal like these are this would have.

6:17

Um and it's well documented already that all the issues that have already been in the area.

6:24

And I just I can't see a situation where this would improve anything.

6:30

One of the things, and I I've been here for about 90, 95 percent of the time, but I may have missed this, so I apologize if it's repeated.

6:36

But the whole fire issue, and I don't know how much they went upon that.

6:40

I believe there's a there's a connection about a half mile from them, but that's also used a lot by you know, water water tank trucks.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Water And Wastewater Management██████████████████████████████████████38%

Environmental Protection█████████████████17%

Procedural███████████11%

Engineering And Infrastructure███████████11%

Public Safety█████5%

Community Engagement█████5%

Affordable Housing████4%

Historic Preservation████4%

Transportation Safety███3%

Summary of Proceedings

Howard County Hearing Examiner Continues BA 26-008C – ESC Triadelphia Road LLC Conditional Use Petition – July 16, 2026

The Howard County Hearing Examiner, Joyce Nichols, reconvened on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at approximately 5:30 PM in a hybrid meeting (Banneker Room and WebEx) to continue the conditional use petition (BA 26-008C) from ESC Triadelphia Road, LLC. The petition seeks approval to construct 26 age-restricted adult housing (ARAH) units at 12668 Triadelphia Road, Ellicott City, MD 21042. This session was a continuation from June 24, 2026, and July 14, 2026, and focused on opposition testimony, motions, and closing arguments.

Public Comments & Testimony

Donald Hibbard (3525 Lakeway Drive) testified in opposition, citing concerns about low-yield well water (2–5 gallons per minute), near-accidents at the intersection of Triadelphia Road and Lakeway Drive, fire safety (lack of hydrants, narrow roads), and tree removal. Under cross-examination by petitioner's counsel, he acknowledged his well produces 2–5 gpm (twice the minimum) but still runs out; he had no accidents.
Bob Marcagiano (3533 Lakeway Drive) opposed the development, expressing concern that 26 homes drawing water could affect his well (measured 3.2 gpm) and that traffic on Triadelphia Road is dangerous. He requested an independent traffic study and a traffic calming circle. Cross-examination revealed his well is recorded by the health department at 10 gpm, he has never run out of water, and no accidents have occurred in 53 years.
Jennifer Sonenlighter (3681 Blackberry Lane) opposed, arguing the 0.27-acre per home density (gross) is out of character with the surrounding 0.9-acre lots, that the proposed water testing is inadequate, and that the character of the rural west would be harmed. Under cross-examination, she acknowledged the minimum density requirement is 1 dwelling per net acre and that the proposal meets that.
Becky Merrill (3518 Lakeway Drive) testified at length against the plan, raising concerns about well water depletion (citing calculations showing ARAH may use more water than single-family homes), surface water runoff, loss of mature trees, fire safety, and the 2,800-square-foot “downsizing” condos. She requested independent third-party well testing, a 10-year security for well failures, and a full environmental concept plan. Under cross-examination, she could not identify any direct evidence that the development would harm her well and had no personal knowledge of neighbors' wells going dry.
Kathleen Bersickey (3299 Rosemary Lane) opposed, noting she built her home on an undeveloped wooded parcel and that the proposed walking path 120 feet from her front door would destroy her privacy and wildlife habitat. She also feared property value loss. Cross-examination confirmed her well yields 20 gpm.
Charles Green (3731 Blackberry Lane) opposed, presenting maps to compare density (Lakeway Drive has 28 homes on 47–51 acres, half the proposed density). He cited concerns about older driver safety, shared septic failures (citing Cattail Creek litigation), noise from Route 32, and lack of data from the site. He was reluctant to allow well monitoring due to risk of contamination.
Alexandra Chrysostomo (12704 Triadelphia Road) opposed, stating the development “crams 26 homes onto 4 acres” (700% increase over zoning), threatens wells and septic, and creates road safety hazards. She noted well records show 30 gpm for her property. Under cross-examination, she acknowledged the DAP reviewed the design and changes were made.
Pamela Failing (12665 Triadelphia Road) opposed, citing low well yield (3 gpm), objection to the view of closely spaced units, traffic speed (40 mph), loss of trees, and lack of transparency about drilling results. She uses 300 gallons of water per week via navy showers. She emphatically refused to allow well monitoring by the petitioner’s hydrologist.
Duncan Woodbury (3553 Lakeway Drive) opposed, arguing the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof, especially regarding water. He stated the petitioner drilled over a dozen wells, fracked, and only obtained 17 gpm total, yet provided no engineering diagrams. He reported that after drilling, his well water developed a hydrogen sulfide odor (uncontaminated before). Under cross-examination, he agreed to allow well monitoring by an independent third party with a contract. He also argued that the project is incompatible with the rural character and emergency services.

Discussion Items

Motion to Dismiss: After opposition testimony, the Hearing Examiner took a short break. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Erskine, made a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the developer failed to meet its burden of proof regarding adverse effects on vicinal properties (especially well water). He argued that the developer’s own expert (hydrologist) was not called, that drilling results (only 17 gpm from multiple wells) were not disclosed, and that the developer did not present evidence that the development “will not have adverse effects.” The opposition attorney (Ms. Eaten Hauer) supported the motion, emphasizing the code requires affirmative proof.
Rebuttal: The developer’s counsel argued that water issues are not a specific criterion for conditional use at this stage, that MDE will handle final approval, and that conditions could be imposed. He highlighted that the county council intended ARAH in the rural west, that the design meets all zoning bulk requirements, and that the DAP approved the plan.
Closing Arguments: Both sides presented closings. The petitioner summarized how all explicit criteria are met (density, open space, traffic, design, etc.). The opposition reiterated that the developer failed to prove no adverse effects, especially on water supply, and that the burden was not shifted.
Proposed Conditions: Both counsel submitted written conditions to the Hearing Examiner. The opposition’s conditions included independent well testing, a full traffic study, environmental concept plan, and security for well failures. The developer proposed conditions such as no grading permit until MDE and health department approval of water/sewer systems.

Key Outcomes

The Hearing Examiner took the motion to dismiss under advisement and stated it would be addressed in the final decision and order.
The hearing was declared concluded at approximately 9:00 PM.
A written decision and order will be issued at a later date.

Meeting Transcript

Is being recorded and summarized. All right, good evening, everybody. Welcome back. It is the 16th of July. We are here for a continuation of the case in BA26-08 C, an application by ESC Tridelphia Road for 26 age-restricted adult housing units. We are in the middle of the opposition testimony. And anybody in the room tonight who has not yet testified in this case and wants the opportunity to do so now would be the time. So if you just want to raise your hand, um uh the gentleman in blue, you were first. Come on down. You just swear you in, sir. Thank you. I solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the responses given and statements made should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. Uh Donald Hibbard, 3525 Lakeway Drive, Ellicott City 21042. And I'm sorry, I didn't hear your last name. H I B B A R D. Thank you. And what would you like to say tonight? Uh I have some prepared remarks. They're not verbatim. Uh I'm going to try to respect your time by moving through some of the things that have been discussed ad nauseum. So uh I'll start out with uh we live we live about the middle of the block, about halfway down Lakeway Drive, which is about half a mile, I think, from the property that we're talking about here. Um been there since 2019. Um we have a well and a septic. We have a very low yield well now, um, which we have to manage around similarly to some of the other people that have spoken. Uh and we're very concerned about what might happen with a prospect such as they've proposed. Um, well is 300 feet deep. Um others around us, this has already been described, have had issues with their well and septic. One of the things I'm confused about uh with the proposal is to my knowledge, nothing has been proposed regarding water. And we've maneuvered around these things for the past couple of days, and uh I've really been waiting and anxious to see what they're actually going to move forward on in the system they propose, and all the information that's been put out has been by the opposition. And to me, that's very telling. Um of the other things I don't think that's been brought up that um what I have understood from other people I know in the business, that this system potentially could include a holding tank, which would significantly which would increase the with the uh volume that they would be pulling out of the ground because they're maintaining probably hundred, two hundred gallons of water in a holding tank. I don't know that factually, but that's generally what I think, and I don't know if that's kind of been thrown into the consideration, but I wanted to do that. I wanted to talk a little bit about the roads which have been discussed, but I'm talking about more the condition now. Uh I can't speculate what will happen with the condition then, but there's already plenty of issues. Um I come out. I've almost had collisions multiple times. In fact, I've had to train myself to look both ways twice, because by the time you look one way and look the other, with the speed people are traveling, sort of, excuse me, and sort of how it's obscured, you might get into a wreck. And it it's a it's a problem. And I trained my son to drive, and we had a lot of problems with that there. And I'm not sure with the data that was produced here, but I haven't experienced anything remotely close to that. And if you're going 34 miles an hour, people are beeping at you and and riding your bumper and everything else, and I would probably say it's at least 10 miles an hour over that, which cause again causes the increased problem from the different directions when you're driving of having people come on coming traffic that you can't gauge without a lot of diligence. There are also a lot of bikers and walkers and runners on on the road, and there's zero shoulder now. In fact, I was a biker for a while, and I just stopped just because it gets so wild with how people drive on the road. It's too dangerous. Um there's just not enough room for everybody now. And I can't see that this proposition would do anything to have that subside. In fact, in all likelihood it would increase the volume and which would increase the danger for the people trying to walk and run and bike.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com