Buyers and commission discuss repair path for septic-failed house at 21 Old Orchard

Prospective buyers and conservation commission members spent extended time at the meeting discussing options to restore a house at 21 Old Orchard after a septic failure recorded in 02/2001.

A meeting attendee explained the couple that owned the house are in a nursing home, the property is on the market, and the septic failed in February 2001. The prospective buyers identified themselves in the meeting; the buyer’s prospective purchaser of record was identified as Gail, and a man named Eric spoke about coordinating inspections and contractor visits.

Commission members and attendees discussed a proposed septic plan shown on a site drawing from 2002 and described its relation to nearby wetlands and an existing septic tank. The buyers and contractors discussed possibly moving the septic system toward the rear of the lot, which could require a variance from minimum setback requirements; transcript comments referenced a 76–78 foot setback in earlier files. Participants said a relocation might also require moving the well and that such steps would need Board of Health review and possible variance approval.

Several contractors and reviewers were named in the discussion. Attendees said they had talked with Billy Skinner (septic contractor) and a wetlands reviewer named Steve (identified as available to do soil/wetland checks within about a week) and that Bob Hunter could review wetlands as well. The meeting record shows attendees agreed to notify the commission office once Steve had scheduled a site visit so commission members or contractors could meet him on site.

Participants discussed Title 5 sizing requirements and said a 1,500-gallon system is standard for a three-bedroom home under current code; attendees said the buyers would pursue a 1,500-gallon design if the system were replaced. They also discussed the house’s financing timetable: the buyers said they were under contract and hoped to close on a date the transcript records as the “20 sixth,” and they were holding off on work until ownership was finalized.

The commission advised updating the request for determination after any new soils and wetlands delineation and asked that applicants resubmit plans with updated wetland boundaries. Staff recommended that the applicants provide current plans and a wetlands delineation so the commission could have concrete materials to review at a future meeting.

No formal commission vote or condition was recorded on the transcript for this parcel; the discussion centered on next steps, site visits, engineering, and permit requirements.