Baltimore County planning board sets July public hearing on three Cycle 43 water and sewer petitions

The Baltimore County Planning Board on June 17 voted to set an in‑person public hearing July 17, 2025, at 5 p.m. on three Cycle 43 water supply and sewer master plan amendment petitions submitted to the Department of Public Works and Transportation and the Department of Planning.

Andrew Brown, a civil engineer and project manager with the Department of Public Works and Transportation, introduced the three petitions and the annual amendment process. “I’m here to introduce the annual water supply and sewage plan amendments for cycle 43,” Brown said, and walked the board through the April 11, 1990, executive‑order process that governs petitions, public notice and review.

The petitions include: a request for 3117 Rice’s Lane (an Islamic center in Windsor Mill) to change its water designation to W‑6 (area of future consideration) and sewer to S‑1 (existing service area); a request for 3499 Sweet Air Road (a commercial shopping center in Jacksonville) to change water to W‑3 (capital facilities area) to authorize public water access after repeated well failures and trucked water use; and a request for 8400 Park Heights Avenue (a private boys’ school in Pikesville) to change water to W‑1 (existing service area) and sewer to either S‑1 or S‑3, which could require pumping to connect to nearby mains.

Brown said the petitions and staff report include the water/sewer map definitions and noted that the properties have varied relationships to the Metropolitan District and the urban/rural demarcation line. He also said recommendations from the Department of Public Works and Transportation, the Department of Planning and the Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability are included in the staff report and that the petitioners received the required public notice.

Board member Mark Heidel asked about county cost if the board later recommends approval. “How do we have any idea of what the cost is to the county if we were to decide to approve or recommend that these extensions of water and sewer be made?” Heidel asked. Brown replied that cost estimates are usually outside the staff evaluation and depend on whether petitioners request only permission to connect (with private development covering improvements) or a larger public solution that could involve county funds. “Sometimes petitioners will include some kind of cost estimate in their case for the change, but that’s not always a de facto piece of the puzzle,” Brown said.

After questions from board members about proximity to existing mains and the feasibility of connections, the board moved, seconded and approved the motion to set the July 17, 2025, public hearing. No final determinations on any petition were made at the June 17 meeting; the hearing will be the public forum for testimony and for the board’s later deliberation.

The Planning Board’s July 17 recommendation will be transmitted to the county executive and county council as part of the sequence that can ultimately lead to review by the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Maryland Department of Planning and issuance of a final action letter to petitioners.