Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer asks Millis Board of Health to allow single septic system for 22-unit senior village; board tables rule change
Summary
A developer asked the Millis Board of Health to consider permitting a single septic system for a condominium‑style senior village at 325 Village St., arguing multiple systems would raise construction and long‑term maintenance costs; the board agreed to research variances and Title 5 implications and tabled regulatory changes.
A developer seeking to build a condominium‑style senior village on 325 Village Street asked the Millis Board of Health on Feb. 9 to consider allowing a single septic system to serve multiple units, saying the town’s current regulations would force many separate systems and make the project more expensive to build and maintain.
Dan, the presenter for the project, told the board the site is 11 acres and could accommodate up to 22 senior units. He said the board’s regulations, as he read them, require a separate septic system for each residential building and limit any single septic system to the equivalent of 10 bedrooms, which would force the developer to install roughly 11 separate systems for his proposed layout. “To do something like this … you would need to have a septic system for every building on this drawing … which does not make a lot of sense,” Dan said, adding the extra pump stations and chambers increase construction and long‑term replacement costs.
Why it matters: Board members said the choice between multiple small systems and a single shared system affects upfront development costs, long‑term maintenance burdens and potential nitrate impacts on groundwater. Participants noted Title 5 treats condominium ownership as a single facility and can allow one shared system; local Millis wording differs. Board member Tom Roach referenced Acorn Place, a prior over‑55 development, and a participant said the board granted a variance in May 2004 allowing a single system there.
Board discussion centered on whether to change the standing regulation or continue to grant site‑specific variances. One board member urged caution and suggested researching why the regulation was written as it is — noting older local rules are sometimes rooted in growth‑control concerns — while others said variances can address unique sites.
The board also discussed technical details cited by staff and consultants: when Title 5 requires pressure distribution or multi‑compartment tanks, how design flow rates for senior units differ (a two‑bedroom senior unit is often designed at 150 gallons per day), and how soil percolation rates and nitrogen‑sensitive zones affect required system types. Participants emphasized that soil type and Title 5 classification (for example, “zone 2” nitrogen‑sensitive areas) matter for whether enhanced nitrogen‑removal systems are required and how expensive compliance can be.
Outcome and next steps: The board did not change the regulation. Chair announced the septic regulation review is tabled to allow staff and board members to locate the 2004 variance documentation, consult former board members and review Title 5 precedents. Dan said he would follow up with additional material and is available to answer questions by email.
The board’s next step is to compile the 2004 variance record, check Title 5 interpretations for condominium facilities, and report back to the board before any rulemaking is proposed.
