Newton is calling in a peer review of a drain extension project on 132 Homer St., the latest action by the city in a months-long battle between the developer and neighbors of the Newton Centre property.

The developer’s petition seeks to install a new storm line running from Chapin Road to her property at the end of Homer Street in order to resolve flooding issues that currently make the land unbuildable. A group of residents has opposed the project, commissioning their own engineering and legal reviews in fear that the development will exacerbate existing flooding problems in the neighborhood.

Wednesday’s Public Facilities meeting was the fourth time the project has appeared before the city council. This July, the Public Facilities Committee approved the drain extension in a narrow 3–2–1 vote, but it came back on the city council docket on second call this week, before the full council volleyed it back to Public Facilities to set forward a peer review before a final determination.

At Wednesday’s Public Facilities Committee meeting, the developer, Betsy Harper, explained that the peer review would evaluate the three existing engineering studies that have already been conducted on the site—one by the city engineers, one commissioned on behalf of a group of neighbors that oppose the drain extension, and one contracted by Harper. In addition, a peer reviewer will weigh in on the extent to which each study complies with existing city laws. 

Harper will finance the study, but engineers for the city will choose which firm to hire, an assurance that’s important to maintaining the objectivity of the review, according to Andrew Lee of the Newton Law Department.

“The city will make the determination of whether or not they’re the appropriate engineer to do this peer review,” Lee said. “The city needs to make that determination in a completely unbiased way. The second you let either the applicant or anyone who’s against the application itself have a say in who the peer reviewer is, it’s no longer independent.”

While giving the city’s Department of Public Works (DPW) the responsibility to oversee hiring is standard procedure for peer-reviewing engineering projects in the city, Ward 7 Councilor-at-Large Marc Laredo held that this instance is different. Because the peer reviewer will be reviewing a body of work that includes that of city engineers, he suggested that the neighbors and Harper’s representatives get a say in the choice of peer reviewers as well.

“The difference is that one of the opinions we’re looking at is of our own city engineers,” Laredo said. “I’m fine with the DPW selecting an engineer. I think it would be appropriate in this circumstance to discuss those choices with both the representatives of the neighbors and Ms. Harper’s team, to see if there’s some consensus that we can get here.”

Ward 6 Councilor Vicki Danberg, who represents the Chapin Road area, disagreed, arguing that the council shouldn’t invite more arguments between the parties and instead defer to the authority of the DPW.

“As far as bringing everyone to the table so that they can squabble over whether the company that we have chosen is going to be sufficiently friendly to their side, I think that has to be off the table, not just inappropriate, it’s got to be off the table,” Danberg said. “It should be the DPW and only the DPW that makes that choice.”

After the study is complete, the city council will make a final decision on whether the drain extension will be allowed to proceed. The council’s voting won’t be constrained by previous city approvals about the site, including a 2023 Planning Board approval of the property’s subdivision.

“The subdivision approval—the fact that that happened—does not necessarily mean that the city council has to vote in any particular way,” Lee said.

Harper agreed to pay up to $5,000 for the peer review on the condition that if it costs any more, she will review her decision to finance it. She clarified, however, that she will likely proceed even if it costs more than she expected.

“If the dollar amount is over that, I will review that and likely approve it,” Harper said. “But I don’t have any idea of what the current budget is for this peer review, and so I think that is something that is just in fairness to me, to let me know what to expect.”