Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation panel approves septic upgrade at constrained 6 Brook Lane, requires pipe removals and state variances
Summary
The Southborough Conservation Commission approved an order of conditions for a new septic system at 6 Brook Lane after hearing engineers describe a constrained lot, contaminated old systems and the need for state variances and Board of Health sign-off; the commission conditioned approval on removing old pipes that discharge to the brook.
The Southborough Conservation Commission voted Sept. 11 to issue an order of conditions allowing a new septic system at 6 Brook Lane, a tightly constrained 10,000-square-foot lot near Route 9, conditioned on removal of existing pipes that discharge into a nearby brook and on required state and Board of Health approvals. The commission recorded a DEP file number for the project during the hearing.
The decision follows a presentation by Vito of Conestone Engineering, who described multiple failing, decades-old systems on the property including a cesspool that drains directly into the brook. Vito said the property has high groundwater—about 2 feet or less—and very slow percolation rates (about 60 minutes per inch), which forced engineers to design a compact solution using a secondary treatment microFAST unit and a leach field about 50% smaller than a conventional field.
The commission’s staff highlighted a condition proposed by the agent requiring that residual pipes that run into the wetland be removed to prevent future unauthorized connections. The commission agreed and added the removal to the list of special conditions. Commissioners also discussed access and stockpiles: the applicant said excavated material will mostly be trucked off-site because the lot lacks space for long-term stockpiles, and any temporary stockpiles during tank installation will be confined to the excavation area.
Engineers told the commission they already submitted the design to the Board of Health and would need a DCR sign-off because the site is within 100 feet of a public water supply backup; the commission noted that the Board of Health and DCR variances remain prerequisites to construction. The commission further required that erosion controls be installed and inspected before work begins.
The motion to close the public hearing and issue the order of conditions, with the agent’s proposed special conditions and the added pipe‑removal requirement, carried in a recorded roll call. The commission instructed staff to include the usual filing of as‑built plans and monitoring where applicable.
The project team and regulators will need to resolve Board of Health approvals and any DCR variance before permits are issued. The commission’s conditions prioritize removal of the direct discharge to the brook and require erosion controls for the contained excavation approach the engineer described.
