08/21/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

I Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 RDA 67 Whippoorwill Circle, David Carr. Proposed septic system upgrade to Title IV I/A system. (Representative: Engineering Works, Inc.) (cont. 08.07) (legacy Reg 25) Mr. McEntee explained that the property owners are selling their home and must address the failed system. He described efforts to minimize environmental and physical disturbance on the lot, noting that nine trees mostly small, with one I 0-inch holly—would need removal. He stated that two variances had been granted under local upgrade approval to reduce site impact: one allowing a one-foot reduction in the required separation between the leaching field and groundwater, and another related to minimizing excavation. He emphasized that the system, which includes a"sludge hammer"nitrogen-reducing chamber, performs well and exceeds state requirements. The town's Board of Health mandates innovative technology within 1,000 feet of wetlands, which, he argued, helps protect groundwater. Vice Chair Thornbrugh expressed discomfort with granting approval under an RDA given the variance request and the proximity to groundwater. She suggested that the project should instead require a Notice of Intent (NOI) to allow the Commission to impose conditions ensuring groundwater protection. She asked whether alternatives, such as composting toilets or graywater systems, had been explored. Mr. McEntee replied that such alternatives were not considered, as the homeowners preferred a conventional system integrated with standard septic functions. Ms. Thornbrugh reiterated her concern about long-term groundwater protection and said that although she understood the homeowners' urgency to sell, the Commission's duty was to safeguard resources for the future. Mr. McEntee assured the Commission that an as-built plan would certify correct installation elevations and compliance. Mr. Colombo added that the activity described, extends into a wetland resource area, not merely a buffer zone, and therefore does not qualify as a minor activity appropriate for an RDA under 310 CMR(state wetlands regulations). He also raised concerns about the four-foot variance from groundwater separation despite the inclusion of IA technology, stating that the project's scope exceeded what an RDA is intended to cover. There was an ongoing discussion about whether the septic upgrade should remain under an RDA or be elevated to an NOI for proper review, with commissioners emphasizing the need for heightened oversight given the site's environmental sensitivity. Mr. Colombo reiterated his concern that the work could not properly be considered under a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) since the activity occurred within a resource area and thus exceeded the "minor activity" definition under 310 CMR 10.00. He emphasized that the Commission should not alter its interpretation mid-process but that the matter raised a larger procedural question for future projects. Other commissioners acknowledged his point but noted that previous practice had been to process such septic upgrades through RDAs rather than Notices of Intent (NOls). One member suggested adding a discussion item to the upcoming quarterly meeting agenda to establish a consistent, forward-looking policy so that future applicants would know when an NOI would be required rather than changing expectations partway through. Mr. Larsson observed that in this case the applicants had followed the existing procedure and should not be penalized. He also inquired about the existing system's failure. Mr. McEntee explained that it was failing due to inadequate separation from groundwater and that the new design would improve compliance and water quality. He stressed that only minor tree removal was required and that the innovative technology included in the design would further reduce nitrogen loading. 4