0:00The board underscored the importance of maintaining proper escrow levels, as these funds are essential for covering the costs of professional services such as planners, attorneys, and court reporters. Inadequate escrow accounts can lead to significant delays or even the nullification of approvals, which constitutes a breach of contract. The board’s attorney highlighted that this issue is not unique to Somerville and is a common challenge across municipalities.

26:43To prevent financial liabilities for the borough, the board has adopted a policy not to pursue applicants for insufficient funds, thereby avoiding acting as a bank. Procedural changes have been introduced, including a revised checklist with language requiring applicants to replenish their escrow accounts and a fee schedule that automatically triggers a 25% fee upon non-compliance. The responsibility for monitoring these accounts was assigned to a specific individual, with plans to enable broader access to distribute the workload and avoid reliance on a single person.

The issue of escrow accounts was coupled with discussions on performance bonds, which ensure developers complete required site improvements. Recent changes in municipal law have limited performance guarantees to public improvements like sidewalks and landscaping, excluding onsite improvements from being bonded. This distinction was clarified during the meeting to prevent any misconceptions among applicants and residents.

The meeting also saw discussions about broader public education on the board’s role and processes. Some residents seemed to believe that applications would be automatically approved upon submission, prompting suggestions for public presentations to clarify the zoning process. This initiative aims to enhance transparency and communication.

Another notable topic was the proposal for a modification at the Bank of America location, where the drive-through canopy had been damaged by larger vehicles. The board considered a proposal to widen the bypass lane around the canopy to enhance safety. While there was consensus on the change, the board debated the necessity and effectiveness of adjustments to the driveway apron. The dimensions of the proposed modifications were uncertain, yet the board appeared favorable to the request, provided stormwater management considerations were not compromised.

45:44Additionally, the board discussed the scheduling of a special meeting set for the first Wednesday in February. This meeting was proposed to continue the hearing of an application related to the GR building, which has been pending for over a year. The board acknowledged the need to verify if any revisions had been made to the plans since the last hearing before proceeding with the special meeting.

The meeting also addressed the completeness of applications, specifically mentioning the old grammar school building on Mountain Avenue, where pending applications were incomplete due to fee issues. The board proposed site visits for its members to enhance their understanding of the properties under consideration. It was agreed that such visits could be conducted individually or as a group, with the condition that no specific discussions about the applications occur during these visits to prevent any perception of bias.

Public comments were invited, with residents expressing concerns about compliance with application requirements. Kate Patridge raised questions about the apparent decline in adherence to paperwork and escrow obligations. Another resident, Chris Cutler, voiced concerns about potential zoning changes in his neighborhood, specifically regarding the conversion of a single-family home into a group home. The board reassured him that official notices would be sent to residents within 200 feet of any property under consideration for zoning changes.