Developer Seeks OK for 26‑unit age‑restricted community on Twig property; neighbors press water and septic concerns

ESC Tridelphia LLC presented its case June 24 before the Howard County hearing examiner for BA26Dash008C, a conditional‑use petition to develop the 26.52 net‑acre Twig property as a for‑sale condominium regime of 26 age‑restricted (55+) single‑family detached dwellings.

William Erskine, counsel for ESC Tridelphia, opened the petitioner’s case by describing a clustered layout with a 24‑foot private access road off Triadelphia Road, a 550‑square‑foot community building, sidewalks, pathways and shared utilities. “The petition proposes a community center, 550 square foot community center,” Erskine said in his opening remarks, and the plan limits density to one unit per net acre, the lowest density category allowed for this conditional use.

Jason Van Kirk, a regional partner with Elm Street Development (ESC Tridelphia’s owner/contract purchaser), testified that the plan preserves 72.5% of the site as open space — about 19.36 acres — and that the dwellings and community building are designed to meet Howard County universal‑design guidelines. “The percentage is 72.5%, which equates to 19.36 acres of the site,” Van Kirk said. He described clustered development as a way to protect environmental features and maintain rural character while creating age‑appropriate, low‑maintenance housing options for older residents.

On utilities, the petitioner said the project sits outside the county planned service area and would rely on a shared water system (the team expects roughly four shared wells) and a multi‑use sewage facility; both require separate design review and permitting by the Maryland Department of the Environment and the county health department. Van Kirk and civil engineer David Thompson said those designs are under development but not yet approved.

Opponents, represented on the record by an attorney who identified herself in the hearing, raised foundational objections and repeatedly pressed the petitioners on the timing and completeness of technical analyses. Counsel argued the developer “has to demonstrate that this design is actually safe for the community around it” with respect to groundwater and neighborhood well impacts, saying regulators should not be the only forum to resolve whether the wells and septic approach will harm nearby properties. The record shows the opposing side challenged the adequacy of off‑site impact analysis, the absence of completed MDE approvals, and the lack of a finalized wetland/pond plan.

Traffic consultant testimony addressed access safety and trip generation. Traffic Concepts’ Mark Keeley presented a spot speed study (conducted 07/22/2025, 10:30 a.m.–noon) that found 85th‑percentile speeds of about 34–35 mph on the Triadelphia Road corridor (posted 30 mph). Using ITE trip‑generation rates for detached senior housing, Keeley estimated roughly 15 AM and 15 PM peak‑hour trips for the 26‑unit project and reported that the intersections analyzed would remain at Level‑of‑Service A when site trips and background growth are included. He concluded auxiliary acceleration/deceleration lanes were not required based on the measured speeds, low trip generation and available sight distance.

On stormwater, the civil engineer described a design that would use a submerged gravel wetland to manage water quality and quantity in the back portion of the site; that feature would require ongoing inspection and maintenance by the homeowners’ association or designee. The petitioner’s team also said one of the two existing farm ponds will likely be abandoned or upgraded per Soil Conservation District guidance; the other pond may be retained if it meets embankment criteria. The engineers estimated about 4 acres of forest clearing and anticipated a forest conservation planting obligation of about 1 acre on‑site.

Petitioner witnesses repeatedly told the examiner that technical approvals for shared water and multi‑use sewage are part of later permitting (MDE, health department and site‑development plan) and that final unit counts or layouts could change if those agencies limit capacity. David Thompson said if a later agency limited development capacity (for example to 20 units), the project would be built to the lesser number; the zoning cap remains one unit per net acre (26 units for this site).

No vote or final decision was taken. The hearing examiner recessed the session and continued the matter to July 14 at 4:00 p.m. “The hearing in this matter will deem to have been temporarily concluded. It will be continued on July 14 at 4PM at this location,” the examiner said.

Why it matters: The petition would add a form of age‑restricted ownership housing to the rural West of Howard County while preserving a substantial portion of the site as common open space. Neighbors’ concerns about groundwater, shared‑well and shared‑septic design, specimen‑tree loss, and the timing of technical approvals illustrate the tradeoffs that hearing examiners weigh between local housing goals and environmental/utility risks. The county’s subsequent reviews by MDE, the health department and county planning/public‑works staff will determine whether the conceptual systems described can meet safety and performance standards.

Next steps: The hearing record will reopen on July 14 at 4:00 p.m. for continuation of evidentiary presentations and cross‑examination; final administrative findings and a written decision will follow the completion of the record.