Harford County review flags septic, stormwater and driveway requirements for Claire's Meadow re‑subdivision

Claire's Meadow — a proposal to split Lot 9 into two new residential parcels off Baldwin Mill Road (MD 165) — was reviewed Feb. 4 by the Harford County Development Advisory Committee, which identified several technical and regulatory items the applicant must address before preliminary approval.

Bob Wilson of Wilson Deegan and Associates told the committee the project proposes to re‑subdivide approximately 15.83 acres to create Lots 10 and 11. ‘‘The proposal is to re‑subdivide Lot 9, which is approximately 16 acres, to create two additional lots,’’ Wilson said.

Health Department staff said the property’s existing well and on‑site sewage disposal system serving the dwelling on Lot 9 do not meet regulatory requirements and offered two compliance options: relocate and drill a well that meets the 100‑foot setback requirements, or abandon and replace the septic components to meet setbacks. Cari Biscoe (Harford County Health Department) also noted soil tests from Nov. 9, 1999 and April 10, 2010, and reminded the applicant that Health Department approval of this review is valid for 18 months, subject to change if regulations are updated.

‘‘The existing on‑site sewage disposal system and well for the dwelling on Lot 9 do not meet the regulatory requirements,’’ Biscoe said, and she asked the applicant to depict proposed well sites and any new septic reserve areas on the revised plans.

Engineering staff from the Department of Public Works said the project must secure a Sediment Control Plan, Grading Permit and Stormwater Management approvals. Gabriel Patino said the stormwater design must follow the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and Harford County Code, require a suitable outfall and a 20‑foot access easement for maintenance, and that lot owners are responsible for on‑lot practice maintenance. He also asked the applicant to show limits of disturbance and additional topography for outfall review and to investigate whether an NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permit is necessary.

‘‘A 20‑foot‑wide access easement is required to the stormwater management facility for maintenance purposes,’’ Patino said, and he told the applicant to clarify discharge pipe locations and demonstrate that runoff would not adversely affect neighboring properties.

County planning staff said the site must use previously approved transferred development rights (the site was rezoned from Agricultural to RR in 2008 and the necessary TDRs were approved in 2011), and that the plan is subject to Harford County Forest Conservation requirements. Staff said the FSD and FCP for the site have been approved and that 7.3 acres of forest will be retained and labeled as a "Forest Retention Area" on the final plat with associated covenants and non‑disturbance protections.

Planning staff also identified environmental constraints that must be shown on the revised plan: a tributary along the site’s northeast edge (requiring a 150‑foot buffer), smaller streams and wetlands (75‑foot buffers), steep slopes that may be mapped as NRD where contiguous offsite, and areas that behave like the 100‑year floodplain even if not shown on FIRM maps. Staff requested hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to support floodplain mapping.

The department raised a separate access issue: County code limits common panhandle driveway service to four or fewer lots; the submitted plan appeared to show five panhandle lots served by a common drive. Patino said the applicant must clarify whether they will (a) convert the access into a residential access road with a cul‑de‑sac (requiring public‑road plans, storm drain design and a Public Work Agreement before building permits), or (b) improve the existing common driveway to current standards if it will remain a shared private drive serving six lots or fewer.

Neighbor Tim Franczkowski, who lives on an adjacent lot, asked whether driveway improvements would be required. ‘‘I currently live on Lot 6 … I wanted to get clarification on the driveway. If there's going to be any improvements needed or required?’’ Franczkowski said. DPW staff replied that the answer depends on the number of lots served and whether the applicant elects to build a public residential access road or upgrade the private common drive.

The committee closed the review after staff requested a revised Preliminary Plan that addresses all agency comments. Health Department staff reminded the applicant to show compliant well and septic locations or to complete required upgrades, and DPW and planning staff said stormwater, buffers, forest retention, and a compliant access arrangement must be demonstrated before final approvals.

The DAC adjourned at 9:16 a.m.; the applicant must submit a revised Preliminary Plan and supporting analyses (stormwater concept, H&H analyses, updated plat showing buffers, septic/well locations and any required common drive agreement) for further review.