Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water And Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Great Neck Road sewer plan amendment draws residentsconcern over future hookups and development
Summary
A public hearing on a requested water and sewer service amendment for two Great Neck Road properties focused on fixing documented failing septic systems, but neighbors pressed county officials about whether the new main would allow additional hookups or enable future subdivision.
A public hearing before the Queen Anne's County Commissioners on Aug. 26 centered on a request to change two properties at 233 and 235 Great Neck Road from S-6 (no plan service) to S-2 (service on demand) with an "L" (limited development) suffix to allow connection to a sewer main to address documented failing septic systems.
The applicants, represented by Mark Gabler of the law firm Hyatt & Weber, told commissioners the amendment is intended to allow the owners to "address the failing septics on their property" and to connect to a low-pressure sewer main in the Great Neck Road right of way. Gabler said the applicants are prepared to bear the construction expense and that the amendment would limit allocated flows to existing uses, not enable development beyond current dwellings.
The hearing drew several nearby residents who said their properties also rely on aging septic systems and pressed county staff on whether they would be able to tie in if their systems failed. Holly Mann, whose property abuts Great Neck, said her home was built in 1975 and that she would welcome a connection if it were available when her septic fails. Gail Humphrey said her system dates to 1974 and "it is going to fail" at some point; she asked that affected homeowners be afforded the opportunity to connect if the pipeline crosses their property.
County staff and the applicants explained the amendment under consideration applies only to the two parcels owned by the applicants. Staff said a broader, coordinated hookup by multiple neighbors would require a separate process: neighbors could jointly file for service and share costs, but that consolidated application was not what is before the commission. Commissioners and staff emphasized that any subdivision or intensification would require further review and likely a consistency determination with the comprehensive plan.
Commissioners and staff discussed technical points raised by residents: parcels sizes (one parcel described as about 5 acres, the other about 35 acres, the larger including significant marshland), the presence of documented failing on-site sewage disposal systems, and county health department findings that soils on the parcels are unsuitable for replacement systems. The applicants' presentation estimated average flows from the properties at about 500 gallons per day.
No final vote on the amendment occurred at the Aug. 26 meeting. The commissioners left the hearing open for further public comment and additional information, with staff noting the record would remain available and the hearing would be kept open for at least two more weeks to allow additional comment and follow-up questions.
The record on the proposal includes the applicants, representatives from McCrone Engineering and written correspondence from the health department documenting the failing systems. County staff said any future, broader hookup by multiple adjoining property owners would require a separate application and shared-cost arrangements.
The commission did not adopt or reject the requested amendment on Aug. 26 and kept the public hearing open; no administrative or legislative action was taken that evening beyond collecting testimony and clarifying technical and procedural questions.
