0:03One of the topics discussed was the installation of EV charging stations. The board received communication from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Division of Fire Safety. This lack of state direction prompted a discussion among board members. One member expressed surprise at the absence of guidance and suggested the board may need to establish its own policies. Another member proposed reaching out to the American Planning Association’s New Jersey chapter for insights. The board leaned towards drafting their own ordinances to regulate the installation of EV chargers, acknowledging the need to address this emerging infrastructure requirement proactively.

The meeting also covered the proposal for subdividing the property on Katherine Street into two fully conforming lots. The attorney representing the proposal, John Sullivan, clarified that the only variance involved was an existing front yard setback, with no new variances being created by the subdivision. The site, a large 100-foot by 165-foot lot, currently hosts a single-family house alongside a vacant parcel. The plan involves constructing a new home on the newly created lot, adhering to zoning requirements except for the existing home’s front yard setback.

Richard Nuser, an experienced engineer who testified at the meeting, detailed the subdivision and highlighted the property’s existing conditions, including a challenging southward slope affecting stormwater management. The board discussed potential solutions, such as installing an infiltration pit to manage stormwater runoff without impacting neighboring properties. Concerns about the removal of an unsafe shed and the practicality of transitioning overhead utilities underground were also raised. The board emphasized the importance of obtaining a waiver from the state agency if underground utilities were deemed necessary.

21:24The architectural plans for the new dwelling were presented, featuring a two-story, four-bedroom house with a design intended to match the neighborhood’s architectural style. The discussion included the availability of architectural drawings for board review, the design elements such as a foyer, dining room, and family room, and compliance with local noise ordinances for the air conditioning unit. Additionally, the existing home on the property underwent renovations, including a master bedroom suite addition, layout reconfiguration, and exterior updates like new siding and roofing.

42:10Community input was a part of the meeting, with a neighbor, Robert Gski, expressing concerns about the new development. He highlighted issues related to tree removal along the property line, potential gas line damage, and drainage challenges. Gski specifically mentioned the proposed dry well and its adequacy during heavy rains. The board assured collaboration with the engineering team to address these concerns and emphasized the importance of setting clear property corners to prevent future disputes.

Further discussion focused on the preservation of trees on the development lot, particularly those towards the back, to maintain the neighborhood’s aesthetic. The board considered suggestions to add windows to the garage area to soften its appearance and discussed the placement of HVAC units to minimize impact on neighboring properties. The board acknowledged the commonality of pre-existing non-conforming structures in Somerville and deemed the variance request reasonable in this context.

The meeting also touched on procedural aspects, such as the timeline for public review of planning board applications. A 21-day review period was proposed to ensure adequate public engagement. The board aimed to improve communication with the council by creating comprehensive packets that include detailed summaries, pros and cons, and visual aids to enhance understanding of issues.

1:06:47Lastly, the board discussed modifications to the Improvement Coverage Ordinance, particularly regarding deck setbacks and the distinction between temporary and permanent structures. The board’s goal is to facilitate home improvements without imposing excessive financial burdens on residents. They plan to make recommendations to the council, including examples to clarify the ordinance for residents.