Somerset council denies permit amendment after neighbors warn raised driveway will alter stormwater flow

At a Sept. 2 Somerset Town Council hearing, the council denied an amendment to the stormwater plan for 4905 Cumberland after neighbors raised concerns that the built driveway would change drainage and increase flood risk to adjacent properties.

The amendment, filed by property owners Guido and Charmaine Braccioli, would have placed the driveway’s upper trench drain 12 inches higher than a preexisting boundary inlet. Town staff and a county stormwater inspector described site work and inspections; staff estimated upstream contributory runoff and described the installed 8-inch outlet piping. The permanent administrator told the council that, if the system works and remains unobstructed, ‘‘there should be no issues’’ with the installed outlet piping, and provided an engineering-based estimate of runoff volume in a one-year storm.

Neighbors, represented by attorney Michelle Rosenfeld, urged the council to require restoration to the originally approved elevations. Rosenfeld said the preexisting boundary inlet ‘‘remained at elevation 273.7’’ and that the proposed amendment ‘‘deletes that requirement’’ so that, as built, the trench drain ‘‘is now 12 inches higher than the preexisting inlet’’ and ‘‘can no longer flow downhill’’ as the original plan intended.

The applicants and Montgomery County stormwater staff said the county inspected the work and closed the county permit after a stress test and documentation; the applicant said Montgomery County confirmed the installation and that the county had ‘‘closed’’ related permits. Town staff, however, noted that Somerset’s stormwater standard is more stringent than the county’s and that the town retains authority to judge compliance with the town’s code.

Council members debated two paths: require the property be regraded to match the approved plans or obtain an independent engineering assessment of whether the changed grading nevertheless meets the town’s one-year-event infiltration requirements. After extended questioning about photos, videos, the makeshift stonework observed at the boundary inlet, and the reliability of on-site demonstrations without measured rainfall data, a council member moved to deny the amendment. Another council member seconded the motion.

The vote ended in a tie; the mayor cast the deciding vote in favor of denial, and the council therefore refused the requested amendment. The council’s action keeps the original stormwater plan and elevations as the standing permit requirements unless the applicants pursue a further, properly documented application or corrective work.

What’s next: with the council’s denial, the town record remains closed for this hearing. The decision means the applicants must either comply with the original permitted elevations or return with additional engineering and documentation. The council discussed the possibility of requesting independent engineering analysis if the applicants seek to reapply.