Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic And Water Well topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sandersdale subdivision hearings continued after resident concerns about wells and septic
Summary
The commission opened hearings on three Sandersdale Road lots (DEP 128‑1977/78/79), heard technical consultant testimony and resident concerns about septic safety and high water table, and continued all three to Oct. 22 while awaiting state and health‑board comments.
The Town of Charlton Conservation Commission on Sept. 30 opened and continued hearings for three proposed lots on Sandersdale Road after consultants described designs intended to avoid riverfront disturbance and a resident raised water‑quality concerns.
Mary Ann DePinto of 3 Oaks Environmental told the commission the three lots were subdivided to meet riverfront performance standards and keep riverfront area alteration under 10 percent, while restoring previously altered riverfront patches, including removal of an old foundation and encampment. "Each 1 of these lots is subdivided ... to meet the performance standards for less than 10% alteration in the riverfront area, but also restoration of portions of the riverfront area that were previously altered," DePinto said.
Staff reported the applicant submitted a septic plan approved by the Board of Health for at least some lots and that the design keeps disturbance to roadside areas rather than crossing the river, consistent with the commission's earlier direction. The commission was told boundary and wetland flags were confirmed and staff recommended continuing the hearings while awaiting any final comments from DEP or the Board of Health.
A nearby resident spoke at length with technical objections and experience he said raised concern about groundwater and septic interaction. The resident said his well overflows currently and cited a nearby waste facility as background for his concern. He asked, "What protection do we have here? What kind of protection do we have as homeowners, taxpayers?" Staff answered that septic designs follow Title 5 setbacks and soil evaluations and that the Board of Health would not approve a septic system that would contaminate a well; staff suggested residents document preconstruction water quality if they wanted evidence to support future complaints.
Commissioners and staff clarified that soil testing and certified soil evaluators, not short‑term surface water levels during drought, are used to establish seasonal high water table for Title 5 compliance. Staff also noted conservation restrictions and restoration and monitoring would be part of the proposal for areas in the riverfront being restored.
Because DEP comments and a final septic submittal were outstanding, the commission voted to continue DEP 128‑1977 (Lot 1), DEP 128‑1978 (Lot 2) and DEP 128‑1979 (Lot 3) to Oct. 22 so applicants could provide requested documentation and the commission could review Board of Health responses.
The continuances mean no permits were issued at the meeting; commissioners directed staff to follow up with DEP and the Board of Health and to return the applications for final action once the outstanding technical materials are received.
