Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Review Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board assigns members to review DRO updates on stormwater, lighting, tree protection and fences
Summary
Board members agreed April 28 to pursue amendments to the development review ordinance (DRO) addressing stormwater management, lighting standards, tree‑protection enforcement and fence heights for commercial properties adjacent to residences; a March minute revision was approved to reflect municipal and Board of Education projects.
Get email alerts on the Development Review Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Summit Planning Board on April 28 continued its work on revising the development review ordinance (DRO), assigning members to research stormwater and drainage mitigation, lighting standards, tree‑protection enforcement and potential fence‑height distinctions for commercial parcels abutting residences.
Board member Jennifer (first name only in the public record) told the board that member Mister LaJoy would look into stormwater management and potential restrictions on clear‑cutting sites, while Mister Formicelli would conduct a “deep dive” into lighting standards. Jennifer also said she would consult the zoning officer for operational observations that could inform DRO edits.
Planner Joe Burgess and staff suggested technical starting points. Members noted Summit’s existing tree‑protection ordinance (referred to in the meeting as “chapter 29, protection of trees ordinance”) and said it may provide an enforcement baseline if the board elects to strengthen protections against large‑scale site clearing.
The board also discussed whether fence‑height rules should treat commercial lots that border residential properties differently from purely residential lots; staff said the issue had been raised to the planning office and is a candidate for further review.
Procedural item: the board approved the March 24, 2025 meeting minutes with one revision to clarify that the DRO discussion was intended to apply to municipal projects and to reference Board of Education projects in the minutes language. The minutes approval was taken by voice vote and recorded as approved.
Next steps: board members will gather model language, county/state engineering input and zoning‑officer observations, then compile recommendations for transmission to the governing body. The board intends to maintain the cadence of review established last year and to package recommendations for city review and potential adoption.

