Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Environmental commission urges stricter stormwater and tree rules; Planning Board opens extended review
Summary
Somerville’s Environmental Commission presented recommended enhancements to state model stormwater and tree ordinances — including a 400 sq ft 'minor development' threshold, on-site retention options, and a 4‑inch DBH street‑tree replacement standard — and the Planning Board agreed to continue technical review and public outreach.
Somerville’s Environmental Commission asked the Planning Board on Oct. 22 to consider strengthening local stormwater and tree regulations beyond the state model, citing increased rainfall intensity and local flooding risks.
Tim Deal, chair of the Environmental Commission, opened the presentation and said the commission wants Somerville to be “proactive about storm water rather than reactive.” Vice chair Jeff Kaiser summarized local trends: “we’ve experienced bigger floods, bigger storms, more rainfall,” and said Somerville’s compact, built‑out character makes borough‑level policy choices especially consequential.
The commission recommended several changes the board should consider: retaining the borough’s stricter definition of a “major development” (0.5 acre/5,000 sq ft) while also creating a new “minor development” threshold for smaller projects (they proposed 400 sq ft) that would trigger modest on‑site green infrastructure or retention; extending water‑quality treatment to a broader set of impervious surfaces rather than only roadways; and adopting a tree removal/replacement ordinance that tracks canopy loss and requires replacement or fee payment. The commission suggested a baseline replacement cost roughly consistent with current street‑tree budgets (it proposed $650 and used $800 in some calculations to account for inflation) and recommended using a 4‑inch diameter‑at‑breast‑height (DBH) standard for replacement sizing on typical borough street trees.
Planner Mike Cole and commission members emphasized municipal discretion: the state’s model ordinance sets a minimum, he said, and "the D"s 2023 revisions require projected precipitation and broaden some regulated activities; the borough may be more or less stringent as it adopts local rules. Board members pressed on practical impacts: Cole said in his experience “I haven't seen one residential application in 20 years” that met the old definition of major development but acknowledged a few multi‑family or surface‑parking projects could be newly captured under the tighter thresholds.
Public commenters urged the board to start with clear community goals and consider incentives (tax rebates or programs) alongside penalties; others worried about enforcement burdens and asked for examples of on‑site solutions. The board and commission agreed to provide more concrete design examples (permeable paving, vegetative filter strips, small infiltration basins and dry wells) and cost estimates for typical residential and redevelopment scenarios and to return to the board for further deliberation.
No ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting; the board asked staff and the commission to refine draft language and examples and to continue the public process at subsequent meetings.
