Homeowner says Cambridge Quarters lot built below required elevation; board discusses fixes and town hall

Resident (Mister Long) told the Howard County Drainage Board that his house in the Cambridge Quarters subdivision flooded in mid-June after the lot was built below the elevation shown on an engineer’s overview plat recorded in 1996 and without required drainage features.

Why it matters: Long said the house flooded with about 14 inches of water on June 14 and estimated $125,000–$150,000 in damage; he said the subdivision’s approved overview by engineer Mister Bassett called for 24 inches of backfill, a detention pond behind his property and a curb/gutter transition at 500 West that were not built. County staff and the highway engineer discussed several possible fixes including cleaning or upsizing culverts, tying into an off‑site 15‑inch tile, and holding a town hall to seek landowner agreement for a larger off‑site repair.

Long began by referencing a Bassett plan he said was recorded Jan. 12, 1996, and read requirements from that overview: “They are to be backfilled by 24 inches,” he said. He told the board, “I had 14 inches of water in my home on June 14. Had this been backfilled to 2 feet, my home probably would not have flooded.” He said a planned retention pond behind his lot was not built and that the current culvert under the road appears to be 12 inches, not the 15 inches he was told at a prior meeting. Long proposed using or cleaning the existing tile rather than digging 276 feet of new tile, and asked the county to fix the problem so he can sell or keep his home.

County staff responded that the Bassett document Long provided appears to be an overview of multiple sections, not the formally approved, recorded plat for section 1 (the portion currently platted and buildable). A county staff member said, “Section 3 and section 4 … have never been approved” and suggested the requirements Long cited may not have been part of the recorded plat that enabled current building permits. The staff member also acknowledged an earlier misstatement about the culvert size and said, “I misspoke on the culvert size. There’s a 12 inch culvert under the road. It is a 15 inch drain in your off‑site subdivision drainage easement.”

Amber, the county engineer, described the road culvert and capacity constraints: “It is a 12 inch pipe underneath that the roadway… We can increase that size to as much as an 18 inch,” she said, but added that even an 18‑inch pipe would not provide the county’s desired two feet of cover at current roadway elevations and that upsizing the pipe “is not really going to increase the capacity all that much.” She said the 15‑inch off‑site tile appears to be at capacity during the June storm and that tying into that tile could accelerate flow to the east side of the road; she also said she could partner with property owners on a cut through the roadway but could not unilaterally pay for private drainage improvements.

Board discussion focused on two tracks: short‑term road work and a longer off‑site repair that would require cooperation from multiple landowners. A county official said the highway department would consider cutting and upgrading the road culvert and could possibly schedule that work for next spring or summer; Amber said a written request would help the county prioritize the work. Board staff offered to hold a town hall to canvass landowners; one county staffer said he typically looks for 50% of affected landowners’ acreage in favor before moving to a regulated‑drain process. The staff member said, “I’ll schedule the town hall. I don’t have any problems sending out the letters and scheduling it.”

The board did not adopt a final remedy at the meeting. Members and staff repeatedly distinguished between (1) work the county can do on the road and public right‑of‑way, (2) private off‑site easement repairs that are the landowners’ responsibility, and (3) a regulated‑drain process that would be a larger, more formal change requiring more notice and landowner agreement. Amber warned that upsizing only the road culvert without addressing the off‑site tile could “cause you more flooding problems.”

Clarifying details from the meeting included: the Bassett overview plan was recorded Jan. 12, 1996 (per Long’s copy); the overview calls for 24 inches (2 feet) of backfill on certain lots; Long reported 14 inches of interior flooding on June 14; Long estimated $125,000–$150,000 to rebuild; Long said county staff told him a culvert was 15 inches but his measurement showed a 12‑inch road culvert with ~1.5 inches of sediment; staff said sections 1 and 2 of the subdivision are platted and buildable while sections 3 and 4 were shown only on the overview and never formally recorded.

Next steps noted at the meeting: staff said they will schedule a town hall and mail notices to affected landowners; the highway department could consider upsizing or replacing the road culvert (possibly next spring/summer) but emphasized that off‑site easement work to increase tile capacity would require private owner participation or a regulated‑drain process. No formal vote or binding commitment to pay for private off‑site work was taken.

Ending note: The board left open a mix of county work on the road and a proposed town hall to determine whether landowners will agree to pursue a larger off‑site repair. Long said he hopes the county will act so his property does not flood again.