Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sewer Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks sewer allocation for 1280 Main Street; board agrees to review application at special meeting
Summary
A developer seeking to build a 96-unit mixed housing project at 1280 Main Street told the Select Board sewer capacity is essential; town staff and engineers agreed to accept a formal sewer-extension application for review at a special Select Board meeting on July 9.
Get email alerts on the Sewer Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A developer seeking to redevelop a long-dormant industrial parcel at 1280 Main Street told the Millis Select Board on June 30 that the project's viability depends on access to municipal sewer capacity.
Andrew Zappo, representing SSC Corporation, and engineer Dan Merrickin of Legacy Engineering described plans for a 96-unit development that would include flats, condominiums, single-family houses and an affordable-housing component (the applicant said the plan would include 25% affordable units). The applicant's team said it investigated onsite treatment options and concluded a packaged treatment plant would be expensive, reduce buildable area and delay the project; they said a municipal sewer connection is the practical route for the site to move forward.
Town engineering consultant Dan Merrickin reviewed the town's sewer allocation history and available capacity. The board heard that the town's wastewater treatment allocation is 628,000 gallons per day; prior inventory work using Title 5 flow estimates found a modest amount of reserved capacity (the town's 2024 update reported roughly 36,752 gallons per day available under those assumptions). Merrickin said Title 5 flow estimates typically overstate actual long-term average flows and that under measured average-day flow assumptions the town would have substantially more remaining capacity than the Title 5 number suggests.
Select Board members and members of the town's finance and enterprise committees debated the town's method for reserving capacity for previously permitted projects, whether pending projects should continue to hold a reservation, and whether the town should tighten or formalize time limits on reserved allocations. Enterprise committee member Jim Duffy summarized recent flow history and recommended staff assemble an updated, itemized capacity spreadsheet for the board to review.
Because the applicant is in a due-diligence period and needs a timely answer, staff said they would provide the sewer-extension application and review materials; the board directed staff to accept a completed application, review technical materials and consider formal action at a special Select Board meeting scheduled for July 9 (Zoom-only). The board did not grant an immediate allocation at the June 30 meeting; it agreed to consider a completed application under the town's normal sewer-extension procedure and to forward materials to the Charles River Pollution Control District and other regulators as required.
Board members noted that several previously approved projects remain in varying stages of completion and that, over time, the town may need to re-evaluate reserved allocations for projects that have not progressed. Staff said state permit extensions granted during COVID created complexity in the permit list and that the town will audit reserved projects and bring recommendations back to the board.
The Select Board did not take a final allocation vote on June 30. The applicant was asked to submit the formal sewer-extension permit application and supporting materials for review; staff scheduled the matter for further consideration at the July 9 special meeting.

