Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tells council to narrow proposed stormwater changes, citing redevelopment and small‑project burden
Summary
After an extensive debate, the Somerville Planning Board recommended May 27 that council not adopt two proposed stormwater draft changes (expanded water‑quality requirement and a rule treating prior impervious surface as non‑basis for pre‑construction condition), citing concerns the changes would impede small downtown redevelopment.
The Somerville Planning Board on Wednesday voted to recommend that borough council narrow proposed stormwater ordinance changes submitted by the environmental commission, saying several draft provisions would create undue burdens on small redevelopment projects in the borough’s regional‑center areas.
Borough staff summarized the environmental commission’s draft as expanding the definition of a “major development” to capture projects over 5,000 square feet (including rooftop area), requiring annual stormwater maintenance reports to the borough engineer (the draft had removed a proposed annual fee) and, in some cases, treating prior impervious surfaces as if they were pervious for the purpose of calculating required on‑site capture. The environmental commission’s intent, staff said, is to capture more runoff and increase on‑site stormwater treatment.
Board members voiced varied concerns. Several members said the draft could force small downtown property owners and reinvestment projects to install large on‑site detention or treatment systems that are impractical for constrained urban parcels, potentially discouraging redevelopment the borough seeks as a regional center. The borough planner gave a numeric example showing a 10,000‑square‑foot lot could see a large increase in required on‑site volume if treated as grass instead of existing hardscape.
Chairperson Warner urged caution about adding requirements that would exceed existing state standards for many infill projects and said the board should preserve incentives and emphasize education for green infrastructure. Others suggested retaining the 5,000 square‑foot threshold and existing recorded maintenance requirements but not moving forward with the two provisions that would change the pre‑construction baseline or add broad water‑quality obligations for rooftops.
The board adopted a motion to send the draft back to council with a recommendation to omit the water‑quality requirement and the language treating prior impervious surfaces as the pre‑construction baseline; members said they supported refining the proposal and pursuing incentives and clearer guidance rather than broad new obligations. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote with one abstention (Larry Cleveland).
The planning board asked staff to provide the flood‑hazard ordinance text and an overlay map with block/lot detail so members can align flood‑hazard schedule edits with the zoning schedules, and to work with the environmental commission on a more targeted approach that considers Somerville’s redevelopment context.
