Somerset council approves 4905 Cumberland amendment after months‑long dispute over removed trees; firming condition added

The Somerset Town Council narrowly approved an amended site plan for 4905 Cumberland Avenue on Feb. 24 after a lengthy public hearing that revisited months of prior debate over tree removals and stormwater controls.

The applicants (recorded in the application materials as Guido and Charmaine Recciale) sought to add a detached garage, retaining wall and amend an earlier stormwater plan. Town staff and the town’s consulting engineers concluded the revised designs conform to Somerset code for accessory‑building setbacks and that the stormwater plan (a landscape infiltration facility plus a structural dry well) meets the town and Montgomery County requirements for a one‑year storm event.

Neighbors, through counsel Michelle Rosenfeld, told the council that four trees on the property had been removed in April without town authorization, including a 10‑inch oak near the front of the lot. "Because of those removals, this council and the community were deprived of their opportunity to debate whether or not those trees should have been removed," Rosenfeld told the council, and she urged denial or stricter mitigation. The neighbors submitted photographic exhibits and argued that the applicants were seeking to benefit from the earlier removals.

Applicants’ counsel Matthew Gordon acknowledged the removals and said the applicants had been fined and required to carry out a reforestation/abatement plan as imposed previously. He argued that the revised amendment now complies with code requirements and county approvals and asked the council to approve the amendment.

Technical testimony from the applicants’ engineer, Eric Tid, showed the revised stormwater design provides storage above the town minimum (engineer characterized the excess as roughly 20–30 cubic feet) and explained why a dry well was used in the front yard due to space and utility constraints in the rear yard. The town arborist updated his report and noted replacement plantings along Cumberland Avenue.

The council briefly went into closed session for legal advice. After re‑opening, the town attorney advised the council that it could take administrative notice of a Jan. 24, 2024 ordinance (No. 11‑23‑1) governing the classification and setbacks of certain bioretention devices; that administrative notice clarified why prior plans with attached bioretention features had been subject to different setback interpretations.

Council discussion balanced two strands: neighbors argued the amendment would let applicants benefit from unauthorized prior removals and change the neighborhood’s character, while other council members said the amended plan meets the town code and county technical requirements. To address runoff concerns, councilmember language was added that the central portion of the driveway (the longer, flatter segment) be constructed with permeable pavers "to the maximum extent possible" subject to Montgomery County Department of Permitting Services approval.

The amended motion passed on a 3–2 recorded vote; the transcript records the outcome as carried (motion as amended approved). The approval imposes conditions: the applicant must coordinate with Montgomery County DPS on where permeable pavers can lawfully be located relative to foundations, submit the county‑approved paver layout to the town engineer, and record the stormwater maintenance agreement in land records before a permit issues.

The council’s action resolves the immediate amendment but preserves administrative follow‑up: the town engineer will confirm any county constraints on permeable pavers and the applicant must deliver a final plan and record the maintenance agreement before construction begins.