Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town Meeting adds Servant’s Heart property to town sewer district after debate over need and capacity
Summary
After testimony from the church and sewer director, Town Meeting voted to include the Servant’s Heart property in the town sewer district; supporters cited septic failures and program needs while sewer staff noted capacity and needs‑area criteria.
Town Meeting voted to add a parcel used by Servant’s Heart International Ministries to the town sewer district after hearing testimony from the congregation and town sewer staff. The motion (Article 77) proposed adding Map 67 parcels 336, 336.9, 336.8 and 336.7 to the Town Sewer District; the moderator reported the vote as yes 236, no 97 (two‑thirds threshold was 222, so the motion carried).
Proponents — including Pastor Julian Blois and congregation members — described a modest nonprofit ministry using the site for community programming, food distribution and planned after‑school activities. They said the property had experienced septic failures and is adjacent to a well‑protection zone; proponents argued sewer connection would reduce groundwater risk and support community services. "Anytime you can stop sewage water from being drained into the earth and go into a sewer system is a very good idea," said Lawrence Bogan, a deacon and neighbor.
Sewer Director David Gray told Town Meeting the parcel did not meet the town's listed 'needs area' criteria and that flows from the area were not accounted for in the wastewater treatment facility capacities. He cautioned that any sewer connection would require infrastructure work and is at the property owner's expense. Gray said the parcel scored 3 of the typical 9 criteria used for sewer‑district inclusion and that capacity constraints and downstream infrastructure would need review.
Supporters argued the nonprofit's public uses and prior septic problems justified inclusion and noted public benefits including space for school practice fields and potential affordable housing linkages discussed by some proponents. The select board had earlier voted not to include the parcel as sewer commissioners; because the select board had opposed inclusion, Town Meeting's affirmative two‑thirds vote was required. The meeting recorded the two‑thirds majority and approved the article.
After the vote, the sewer director and town staff will coordinate design, easements and financing of any sewer extension; the transcript notes that property‑level sewer connections, if required, will be at the property owner's expense.
