Town of Otis
Board of Appeals
Town of Otis, Massachusetts
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – Meeting Minutes May 6, 2024
Meeting held via Zoom 7:00 pm – 8:04pm
ZBA Members (Present):
- Travis Ward, Chairperson
- Wayne Woczyna, Member
- Jim Kauffman, Member
- Terry Gould, Member
- Roseanne DuRupo, Member
- Gordon Middleton, Alternate
Lisa Crozier, ZBA Clerk
Larry Gould, Town of Otis Building Inspector
Public Attendees:
Marc Bergeron, Contractor for Amy Humphrey
Douglas O’Neil, Esquire, 24 Upper Hamden Road, Munson, MA, representing Gregory and Patricia O’Neil
Greg Hurley, 13 Pine Grove Ridge, Otis
Dominique Torino, 35 Pine Grove Ridge, Otis
Kim Burns, 90 East Shore Road, East Otis
Agenda item #1 – Travis Ward, Chairperson opened the meeting at 7:00pm. He welcomed the Humphrey and Ryon families. Introduction of the Board Members was made. Lisa took Roll Call, there was a quorum; there were five voting members and one alternate present tonight. Travis gave an overview of how the meeting will be conducted.
Agenda item #2 –
- Chairperson Ward read the Public Notice into the record: To hear and act upon the application of Amy Humphrey, for a Zoning By-Law Special Permit under Sec. 3.3 of the Otis Zoning by-laws to demo the home, to the existing foundation and adding a 13’ by 14’ addition while constructing a new 2 story dwelling to the plans submitted. The lot is listed in the Otis Assessor’s records as Lot 92 on Map 19 D, located at 19 Pine Grove Road in Otis, MA.
Amy Humphrey and Marc Bergeron were in attendance. Amy explained her plans in detail with the goal to maintain the existing footprint and should not increase any non-conformity. She also mentioned replacing the existing deck. No comments by Marc Bergeron at this time.
The Chair opened to the Board for discussion:
Wayne – he understands what she is doing, street side is not increasing the non-conformity, so he is okay with that unless there are issues with the abutters. He didn’t look at the deck which will increase the non-conformity if they go the full length of the house. Wayne suggested waiting to see if the abutters have concerns.
Travis – Point of Order, the application was strictly for the house. So even though the applicant has mentioned the porch, it is not on the application so it will not be considered this evening.
Travis – asked if other Board members had comments and there were none. He had two comments:
- The application is not complete in several areas – the book and page numbers are not listed but most importantly, the current setbacks are listed as 8’3” and looking at the plans, on the right side of the house, facing the back, it grows to 13’7” but looking towards the water on the left side of the house, shows 12’ on the current and blank on the proposed. In measuring, Travis finds it’s somewhere in the 6’ to 6’3” range and sees it listed on the plan, but not on the paperwork. He asked if the Board could work with that? Travis also sees the proposed setback is not clearly defined and in measuring it, he finds it in the vicinity of 6’ and more importantly, going to pages 3 & 4 of the proposed addition plan – page 4 shows existing and proposed in the porch and that is 12’ on the plan so it not clearly showing the existing porch which is less than 8’.
- Humphrey’s testimony today is that she isn’t changing the footprint. Marc Bergeron explained the main house is 24’x 30’ and a 6’ 3” existing appendage that comes off the house and she just wants to fill in. Travis questioned them about the 2 pins in the ground but there isn’t 12’. Travis has concerns about approving incorrect plans since the testimony is that the footprint wouldn’t be changed, even though it will be.
Terry – The Board really needs to have the existing and proposed setback to make an informed decision. The application is confusing but if the addition is going to be larger toward the road, then the Board needs the setback from the private driveway – Travis said it was a right of way – Terry continued, that they need the setback from there because if it’s increasing in non-conformity there, the Board will have a consideration. There should be 15’ and 15’ on either side, which we really don’t know what we have.
Travis – stated that even by the measurements, the existing footprint, the last back corner is roughly 6’3” on the plan, if taken at face value and then come out another 4-5” then it would be under 6’. One of the concerns about working in a space that narrow, how do you work without automatically touching the abutters property?
Marc Bergeron – stated that the intention is not to increase the size of the house. When Marc field measured the house, it came to 36’ overall and he understands that the Chairperson’s measurements were different so Marc will go out and measure it again.
Travis – asked Mrs. Humphrey and Mr. Bergeron to explain what the two rebars are with the pink tape on them. Mrs. Humphrey said she and her significant other are the ones who put those in when thinking about expanding, to use as guidelines when speaking with other builders.
Terry – explained that when you extend the length across the house on the first floor, you are increasing your footprint.
Marc Bergeron – said they need to confirm the measurements and are not looking to change the existing depth.
Travis – felt that this should be tabled to allow the applicant to present a proper set of plans and to remove the rebar which insinuates that you are wanting to extend the footprint. Travis also asked that the application be completed.
Meeting was opened to the Public:
Immediate Abutters –
Doug O’Neil, attorney for his parents Gregory and Patricia O’Neil. He liked Mrs. Humphrey’s proposed plan for changing the entrance way, however, he has concerns about the drawings. He also noted that there was nothing in the proposal about replacing or enhancing the foundation. As for the off set, there is a total of 12 ½’ – 15’ between the two dwellings so they cannot come to the East, towards the O’Neil property at all. Their biggest concern is the foundation and if that house falls, 12’ is not a long fall. If the Board does choose to approve, Mr. O’Neil asks that a bond be put in place and/or an engineer’s report be sought. Doug noted that they are happy that the house is going to be updated and used, they just have concerns about safety during the construction. He asked if drawings were architectural or builder schematics since there is no stamp. Mrs. Humphrey agreed it was a builder’s schematic.
Travis – thanked everyone for their comments. The foundation concerns will be handled through the Building Inspector. The ZBA’s task is to address the variance in terms of a footprint increase or an increase in an existing non-conformity issue. In terms of construction method or code, that would be up to the Building Inspector. Mr. O’Neil stated that if it doesn’t extend to the East then there is no issue at all.
Greg Hurley – had the same concerns about the drawings – 8’ vs 12’. He feels if extended to 12’, they couldn’t get around the house on that side. His other concern was rainwater, as currently their downspout is dumping their rainwater into his yard. The house prior to being sold, put in a raised septic system on the lakeside so when it rains, the Hurley’s and O’Neil’s get most of their rainwater. Would like to know if there’s a plan for this?
Travis – addressed the 12’ addition which is actually 7’ 8” and said that the plans will be modified and resubmitted. Travis asked Larry Gould, the Building Inspector, to speak to Mr. Hurley’s concerns on the rainwater. Larry said that he had met with the O’Neil’s previously on water from the septic system and he thought it was resolved. If it isn’t, it needs to be. Larry asked Mr. Hurley to reach out to him directly as Ms. Humphrey has been willing to do what needs to be done to resolve this situation. Mr. Hurley also mentioned a stone wall and two large pine trees near the proposed construction area, that he doesn’t want damaged.
There were no 300’ Abutters in attendance.
Travis asked The Board if they shared his feeling of tabling the meeting and allowing the Humphrey’s to get their drawings revised and completing their application, then they will consider continuing the meeting next month. If he closed the public hearing tonight and tabled the meeting, the public would no longer be able to address any further issues.
Roseanne – in favor of tabling the meeting. She feels a clearer application is necessary to have facts set for the public.
Terry – asked if the motion is to continue to the meeting to allow them the time to get measurements in order?
Travis – replied that it would be a motion to table the hearing and continue the public portion and not close the public portion of the hearing. We are continuing it while allowing public input at the next meeting.
Motion to Continue – Terry Gould
Seconded – Jim Kauffman
Voice Vote: All voted Aye
Travis asked Ms. Humphrey to come back with updated plans and a completed application and it will be continued June 3, 2024. Marc Bergeron asked Travis how they could get the application back. Travis asked Lisa to send the application back to Ms. Humphrey. Larry asked Marc for an updated, electronic copy in addition to bringing the original to the Town Clerk.
Dominique Torino wanted to ask a question. However, due to the Point of Order, there could be no more public input at this point concerning the Amy Humphrey application because the public portion has been tabled. Travis directed her to contact Lyn O’Brien, Town Clerk who would then reach out to the ZBA Clerk.
2) Chairperson Ward read the Public Notice into the record: To hear and act upon the application of Frederick Ryon for a Zoning By-Law Special Permit under Sec. 3.3 of the Otis Zoning by-laws to add an addition 6’ by 17’ for a hot water heater, expansion tank, washer/dryer and a closet. The lot is listed in the Otis Assessor’s records at Lot 36, Map 16, located at 104 East Shore Road, East Otis, MA.
Fred Ryon, applicant, was in attendance. Full disclosure at this time, The Chair and his wife Nicole are acquaintances of Fred and Ellen Ryon. The Chair believes that there is nothing that would interfere with his ability to be impartial. No one had any objections.
Fred Ryon – stated that the main structure is 25’ x 25’ with a bump-out which currently houses a bathroom. The bump-out space is 6’x12’ and houses a hot water tank and laundry. Now that they are living in the house full time, they would like to create a space with utility and coat closet.
The Chair opened to the Board for discussion:
Wayne – commented that there seems to be two drawings; the one Fred mentioned and 1a) is an additional option where it’s set in 30” on each side. Fred says this an option rather than going straight across, depending on how it would affect the abutters.
Terry – commented that the difference between 6’9” to 6’4” is much less non-conformity.
Travis – stated that with a recess of 5”, they would encroach no more than 6’9” and that they could do that without even going through the ZBA.
Terry – holds up the maps to explain further. The existing bump-out will remain and a second one will be added.
Travis – asked Fred if looking at the rear facing the water, would the addition be able to be made all the way to the left so that you stop at the 6’9”? Fred agreed. Travis asked Fred if he’d like to revise drawings to maximize the space. Fred agreed.
No other Board members made a comment.
Meeting was opened to the Public:
Immediate Abutters –
Kim Burns – wanted to clarify, they’re not going with the 17’ x 6’ coming out from the edge of the house?
Travis – stated The Board is leaning towards having them set the corner of the proposed addition back to a width where the goal is not to have them encroach further than what they have now.
Kim – said that sounded good. She does have a concern about a water line from a shared well to the left of the Ryon’s property. There are two pipes which cross their yard, one goes to the Ryon’s house and the other goes to the Burn’s house. With the construction, there was concern about damage being done to the water pipes.
Travis – asked if the Building Inspector would like to speak to that. Larry said that any damage created by the construction would need to be repaired and made right. Before any digging starts, Dig Safe would have to come out and they might be able to catch the water line as well. This should be marked by the Burn’s in any case so it’s clear as can be. It was suggested that the Ryon and Burns families worked together marking these water lines.
No other direct abutters comments.
There were no 300’ Abutters in attendance.
The Chair said we have the same scenario where this may not get resolved tonight due to incomplete drawings. If we do not complete the agenda item tonight, then we may want to continue the public portion of the hearing as well.
Jim – said that’s the way to go.
Terry – encouraged that we’ve seen two applications that are lacking information, and it would be in the best interest of everyone to consult with the Building Inspector before bringing an application to the ZBA. She feels we should probably table and continue this one until the next meeting as well, to give them the time to put together exactly what is happening.
Motion to Continue – Terry Gould
Seconded – Roseanne DeRupo
Voice Vote: All voted Aye
Travis asked if The Clerk knew the application deadline. Terry commented that since they are continuances, they do not have to be published again. As a courtesy, a reminder email can be sent out. We are continuing the meeting but will put it on the website as part of the agenda.
Agenda item #3: Approve minutes from prior meeting from February 5th. No discussions.
Motion to Approve: Wayne Woczyna
Seconded: Jim Kauffman
Voice Vote: All voted Aye
Minutes of April 1, 2024. No discussions. However, Jim mentioned that his last name was misspelled – Kauffman not Kaufman.
Motion to approve as amended: Jim Kauffman
Seconded: Gordon Middleton
Voice Vote: All voted Aye
Agenda item #4: Old Business and New Business, Items unanticipated by the Chair.
The Chair has none that he is aware of. He mentioned that Lisa is working very hard to get up to speed, working very closely with Travis, Lyn and Brandi trying to put a process in place so that The Chair’s duties and the Clerk’s duties supersede any one person and that the position processes are laid out for anyone to be able to handle.
Agenda item #5: Update from the Building Inspector.
Nothing on the horizon yet. We have the two continuances. Travis inquired as to the process of who touches applications first so that we know they are complete. Larry appreciated the constructive criticism that the applicants received today. The current applications were submitted right on the deadline, so Larry accepted them, knowing that they were not up to the standard he feels is necessary. He thanked Travis and The Board, so he feels comfortable pushing back now that a standard has been set. Travis thanked The Board for standing firm where there wasn’t enough clarity, and we were able to deliver that message to the applicants so we can make an informed decision.
There is nothing currently new on the agenda for Monday, June 3, 2024. The next meeting with be a continuation of the two applications we just heard. Nothing for Lisa to publish other than agenda items getting put on the website so that the public is aware.
Roseanne asked the deadline for accepting new applications for the June meeting and it was determined to be May 9, 2024. She also noted that a deadline date was not given to the two continuing applicants. Larry said that 7-10 days would be fair. Travis said he would work with Lisa to create an email Travis “please submit as soon as possible, but no later than…”.
Gordon asked if he could join any member for onsite visits to be able to continue to learn more and to know what types of questions to ask. Travis volunteered and was pleased with Gordon’s request.
The next meeting will be June 3, 2024
Adjournment:
Motion to Adjourn: Travis Ward
Seconded: Terry Gould
Meeting adjourned: 8:04pm