A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Planning board clarifies corner-lot fence options, limits solid fencing to 30%

May 14, 2026 | Somerville, Somerset County, New Jersey


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Planning board clarifies corner-lot fence options, limits solid fencing to 30%
The Somerville Planning Board on May 13 clarified how the borough’s recently adopted fence ordinance applies to corner lots and the treatment of picket versus solid fencing.

The board was asked by zoning staff whether options listed as items b through h in the ordinance could be combined on a single corner lot and whether a 5-foot picket fence could extend the entire length of a frontage when the ordinance also limits solid fencing to 30% of frontage. Planner Mike, who presented the zoning package and attachments, laid out the two questions and where the ordinance language appears in the board’s packet.

Board members responded that the options may be combined but recommended a practical limit to prevent excessive patchwork of materials. “My recommendation would be a combination of two — no more than two — unless someone seeks a variance for something artistic,” a board member said, explaining that mixing two styles (for example, a more solid rear segment and a picket front) preserves view corridors while allowing privacy where appropriate.

On the 30% solid-fence restriction, the board clarified that the percentage applies specifically to solid fence segments; a 5-foot picket fence may be used for the entire length of a frontage where plans show that configuration. The board asked staff to send a written clarification to the zoning officer so applicants under review receive consistent direction.

A member of the public who said she has an open conditional-use fence application for a corner lot told the board she appreciated the discussion and sought guidance on next steps; the chair said the board could not discuss details of an open application but confirmed the clarifications would help zoning staff advise applicants.

The board did not amend the ordinance during the meeting but directed staff to document the interpretation in writing and to apply a two-option practical limit when advising applicants.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee