Questions and Answers about Aston Pointe Compiled

On January 31, 2006 a public hearing was conducted on the Aston Pointe Amendment to Master W&S Plan. Below is a  compilation of questions and answers drawn from verbal testimony at the January 31 public hearing and subsequent written questions. 

1. What is Cecil County's responsibility for providing water and sewer service from its existing resources to these newly mapped areas if MDE does not allocate sufficient ground water to meet the projected demand for the area?

Cecil County is not obligated to provide water resources from its existing groundwater wells and the interconnect with United Water Delaware to this newly mapped area. Indeed, Matt Carter's 17 December 2004 letter to Aston Development Group establishes clear limitations and intent for the County and would be a compelling argument against any attempt to force the County's hands to the contrary.

2. What is Cecil County's responsibility to provide water services to the golf course?

The golf course club house and maintenance facility would be served as a customer by the Meadowview Utilities if the Aston Point well, treatment and storage system was eventually accepted into the system. However, Cecil County has no responsibilities for the golf course irrigation. Again, foundation for this can be found in Matt Carter's 17 December 2004 letter to Aston Development Group.

3. What if the plan to use treated wastewater treatment plant effluent the golf course is not approved or that plan fails to be effective?

The designers and managers of the golf course could more aptly address this issue, but a number of options seemingly would be available to them (e.g., develop/expand separate MDE groundwater allocation, construct water storage facilities, develop more aggressive water conservation measures, redesign the course to minimize irrigation needs, etc.). Regardless, Cecil County is not obligated to solve their irrigation concern. Again, Matt Carter's 17 December 2004 letter to Aston Development Group establishes that the County does not intend to provide irrigation water to the golf course.

4. What would be the effect upon neighboring wells of sustained withdraw from the proposed well system, with discharge to the Meadowview WWTP instead of localized discharge in septic systems, and who will be held responsible if there are failures?

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has sole jurisdiction for allocation of groundwater resources and their process examines, among other things, three essential criteria: sustainability of the groundwater source; demonstrated need for the withdraw; and potential for adverse impact to other users of the resource. MDE has great technical expertise in this area and we anticipate a rigorous scientific analysis by them, when Geo-Technical Associates (GTA) submits their comprehensive engineering report.

5. Why didn't the Board of County Commissioners disapprove the amendment based on the drop in adjacent wells during testing of the Aston Pointe wells?

MDE has the technical expertise and regulatory jurisdiction to evaluate whether the Aston Pointe wells pose a threat to adjoining wells, and the map amendment in no way changes the burden MDE will place upon the allocation request to evaluate those concerns and propose mitigation if, indeed, those groundwater supplies are threatened.

6. Won't Aston Pointe pose an undue burden upon the firefighting community?

Aston Pointe will be required to construct water storage tanks sufficient to supply firefighting flow in the community and the distribution system with the development will include fire hydrants. This would not be available in a community based on wells and septics. The connection with the Meadowview Utilities system will also improve firefighting capacity within the Highlands.

7. How would sewerage, water supply, and treated effluent irrigation pipelines be aligned to Meadowview and who will pay to maintain or replace them, along with the storage ponds, tanks, pumping stations, storage tanks, and other appurtenances when they are dedicated to Cecil County?

The water main between the Meadowview area and the Highlands already exists and the Aston Pointe water components (wells, treatment facilities, elevated storage) would be connected to the Locharron Drive water main in the Highlands. Alignment for the sanitary sewer to Meadowview WWTP and the return force main to supply treated WWTP effluent to the golf course has not been finalized, but we expect that these two lines would likely coexist along the same alignment and Aston Development Group would be required to secure at their sole cost any easements not already in their possession. The sanitary sewer main, the wells, the water treatment system(s), the storage tank(s), sewage pumping stations, and water and sewer lines internal to the residential development would, as is normal practice, be dedicated to Cecil County for perpetual ownership and maintenance. As no formal proposal has yet been made regarding the use of treated effluent for irrigation at the golf course, it is not decided whether that force main and appurtenances would be owned/maintained by Cecil County or the golf course.

8. Will taxpayer or water and sewer ratepayer funds pay for the water and sewer infrastructure proposed by Aston Pointe?

All wells, water treatment plants, storage tanks, water lines, sewer lines, pumping stations, and other appurtenances must be constructed at the sole cost of the developer, including the costs of design and permitting. In addition, the developer must pay all connection fees and benefit assessments applicable to every new or expanded connection to the County's water and sewer systems; these fees ensure that the beneficiaries retire the debt for capital facilities (such as the Meadowview WWTP).

9. How would taking the Highlands wastewater treatment plant offline (by connecting its flow to Meadowview WWTP via the proposed sewer from Aston Pointe) help Cecil County with wastewater treatment capacity?

Won't replacing new Meadowview WWTP capacity with existing Highlands WWTP flow work against our economic development interests and further reduce area wastewater capacity? It is not certain that Cecil County will take Highlands WWTP out of service if Aston Pointe's proposed sewer is installed; replacement of the plant remains an option, albeit a less favorable one if it proves feasible to connect with Meadowview WWTP. Certainly, the economics of redirecting the Highland's approximately 50,000 gallon per day flow to Meadowview versus the replacement costs of the Highlands plant (together with operational costs of running two plants instead of one) will be an important consideration when the time comes to decide. However, when that decision is made, an updated analysis of existing and projected long term demand in the Meadowview service district will be a compelling factor also.

10. Doesn't the amendment of the Master Water and Sewer Plan to include Aston Pointe compel the Board of County Commissioners to approve future proposals for map amendments anywhere in the County?

Each proposal for amendment of the Master Water and Sewer Plan must be weighed on its individual merits and in view of its consistency with Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, the County's strategic goals for water and sewer development, and good infrastructure planning. While the Comprehensive Plan's call for public water and sewer to be provided in the Development, Town and Suburban Districts (to reduce development pressure in the Rural Conservation and Resource Protection Districts) is one compelling factor, the Board of County Commissioners will continue to examine each proposed amendment on the basis of its unique circumstances and whether, on balance, it is in the best interest of Cecil County and its infrastructure. Landowners who imagine that one map amendment automatically assures another, that does not serve the County's long term interests, are mistaken.

11. Questions remain regarding the MDE allocation of groundwater; is the amendment not premature?

On balance, the Board of County Commissioners felt that sufficient information was available to decide on the issue of map amendment. Outstanding questions regarding the sustained capacity of the wells, recharge issues, and impacts to other groundwater users will be addressed by MDE, now that the plan amendment has been approved.

12. Has the amendment been submitted for review by WILMAPCO, SRBC, or DRBC? Will it be submitted?

WILMAPCO is a regional transportation planning organization and doesn't deal with water or sewer issues. SRBC and DRBC do not have jurisdiction in this area; MDE represents DRBC's interests in its review. No separate submittals to these agencies are necessary.

13. Won't Aston Pointe consume capacity at Meadowview WWTP that is needed for industrial and commercial users?

A brief analysis is attached to address that issue. In brief, it illustrates that non-residential properties in the service district are using far less, overall, than the 1000 gpd/acre that was used to project the size of the treatment plant in October 2001. As a result, the capacity currently reserved for industrial and commercial uses should be more than sufficient. In addition, the plant was constructed for an ultimate flow 250,000 gpd more than the October 2001 projection, so the combined contribution from Aston Pointe (120,000 gpd) and, perhaps, the Highlands WWTP (50,000 gpd) would still not interfere with the original design basis, even if commercial and industrial demand does increase substantially.