Board approves multiple septic variances, requires three years of well testing after elevated nitrates and constrained lots

Westport’s Board of Health on June 22 approved a series of septic‑system variances and local upgrade requests for constrained lots, and required multi‑year well monitoring to track water‑quality impacts.

At a public hearing James Shores of Plymouth Bay Associates presented a plan for 11 Harrison Court, describing a failed Title 5 system and site constraints adjacent to South Watuppa Pond. Shores said the proposed replacement uses a Geomat (an approved alternative treatment) and that a well test returned a nitrate level of "6.76 milligrams per liter," above the board’s preferred local threshold of 5 mg/L but below the federal 10 mg/L drinking‑water standard.

Staff and board members reviewed cost estimates for alternative systems and emphasized water‑quality conditions as the decisive factor for granting a maximum‑feasible‑compliance (MFC) waiver. One board member said a neighboring cesspool (described as a likely contributing source) underscores the need to require testing of nearby wells.

The board voted to approve the 4‑bedroom repair at 11 Harrison Court (plan dated 5/27/26) subject to ConCom approval, a four‑bedroom deed restriction, the enumerated local upgrades (setback reductions), a one deep‑hole observation, a three‑year well‑testing plan for affected wells, and a hold‑harmless agreement.

Glenn Potter of Whisper Environmental Design presented a separate request for 100 D Drive to reduce the separation to high groundwater from 4 ft to 3 ft; the board approved the local upgrade with conditions including a hold‑harmless agreement, a three‑bedroom deed restriction and ConCom review.

William Gotwald of DMG Associates described a compact two‑bedroom repair at 11 South Berryman Street that requires multiple variances and advanced treatment (a Dite system). Nearby resident Randy Tri told the board his well tested positive for bacterial contamination and nitrates and said he is concerned about drinking and showering water. Staff explained Title 5 distance standards, advised possible well‑cleaning or shock‑chlorination options for bacterial contamination, and reiterated the board’s requirement that all affected wells be tested for three years to monitor the success of upgrades.

Motion votes on the three projects were unanimous. Conditions across approvals included deed restrictions as required, hold‑harmless agreements, ConCom review where applicable, and a three‑year well‑testing protocol for abutters and affected wells.

Next steps: projects proceed to permitting and ConCom review as applicable; staff will implement the three‑year well‑testing program and notify abutters of required monitoring.