WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — One of the Summer Street residents who has objected publicly to a proposed subdivision on the street has appealed the Conservation Commission's decision to allow the project to go forward.

 

Jeffrey Parkman of 33 Summer St. filed an appeal to the state Department of Environmental Protection of a June 13 Con Comm vote to order conditions for the construction of a 260-foot road and, eventually, four single-family homes on a 1.75-acre lot purchased by the town's Affordable Housing Trust in 2015.

 

The Affordable Housing Trust has partnered with Northern Berkshire Habitat for Humanity on a plan to use the site for four homes that will be affordable to owners earning up to 60 percent of the area median income.

 

Parkman, whose submission to Mass DEP says he is filing "on behalf of abutters," is asking the state agency to order independent soil analyses and hydrology studies of the site, "to confirm that all elements of the site development are using the correct soil type and [provide an accurate understanding] of ground water and springs on site for for each part of the proposed project."

 

Parkman's submission finds fault in the analysis of Williamstown civil engineering firm Guntlow and Associates, claiming that it modeled based on the wrong soil type for the site and incorrectly calculated the ability of a planned rain garden to mitigate potential flooding.

 

"The rain garden system design to mitigate these outcomes may be overwhelmed by unknown dynamic water and soil factors leading to diverging and draining ground water from the site that may also cause flooding at 11 Summer St., 33 Summer St., and downstream at Bridges Pond," the appeal reads.

 

Parkman's four-page narrative in his submission also raises the issue of maintaining the rain garden, a question that was raised by abutters at last month's Con Comm public hearing.

 

NBHFH officials have said that in a more typical commercially marketed subdivision, home buyers might join a homeowners association until infrastructure (like roads and stormwater management systems) is accepted by a municipality. In the case of the nonprofit, Habitat has no interest in making homeowners join an HOA and, instead, the nonprofit is pushing for an expedited process of public acceptance.

 

Abutters will point to a May memo from the town's director of public works to the Planning Board in which he advised against accepting including the rain garden as part of the public right of way.

 

"How and when and by whom will it be determined that the rain garden is exhausted and needs replacing?" Parkman's submission to Mass DEP reads. "If the rain garden goes unmaintained, it will not filter and protect the ground water supply in the form of prevention of pollution from the road way nor will the rain garden function to recharge the ground water resulting in a greater amount of water leaving the site through the underdrain with implications for flooding downstream."

 

The Conservation Commission did not address the question of who would maintain the rain garden in the post-development phase of the subdivision, but it did stipulate that, "The operation and maintenance plan for the proposed rain garden shall be a continuing condition."

 

The acting deputy regional director of the Mass DEP's Western Regional Office said that when the decision of a local body, like Williamstown's Con Comm, is appealed, that Springfield office reviews the decision and often schedules site visits.

 

"[It] then issues a Superseding Order of Conditions," Sean Gonsalves wrote in an email replying to a request for information. "The SOC can affirm the local decision, affirm it with additional concerns or overturn the local decision."

 

If either the town or Parkman wants to contest the regional office's decision, an appeal would go to the Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution in Boston, which "basically starts the whole process over again," Gonsalves wrote.

 

Ultimately, an aggrieved party could appeal the Boston office's decision in Superior Court.

 

Each step of the appeals process can take months even before it gets to Superior Court.

 

"Upon receipt of a request for the Department action, the Department has 70 days within which to issue its superseding Order of Conditions," Gonsavles wrote. "However, the Department has the authority to request additional information necessary to make its determination. The timeline is stayed until the necessary information is provided. Upon receipt of the necessary information, the timeline resumes. The Department makes every effort to meet the timelines."