Town of Otis, Massachusetts
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS – Meeting Minutes June 3, 2024
Meeting held via Zoom 7:00 pm – 7:49pm
ZBA Members (Present):
• Travis Ward, Chairperson
• Wayne Woczyna, Member
• Jim Kauffman, Member
• Terry Gould, Member
• RoseAnn DeRupo, 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
Brian Crawford, Immediate Abutter to Fred Ryon
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 –
1) Chairperson Ward read the Public Notice into the record: This is a continuation of Public Hearing of May 6, 2024, 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 an addition while constructing a new 2 story dwelling to the revised 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. On May 15, 2024, Ms. Humphrey submitted a revised application and Travis noted that pages 16-21 were old information, which will need to be discussed during this meeting. Travis also noted that the original application was accidentally submitted to the Board Members rather than the revised application. The correct version was submitted to the Board at 4:41p on June 3, 2024. Travis and Larry are prepared to screen share during the Zoom meeting so that everyone in attendance can view the revised floor plan with the proper dimensions on it.
Ms. Humphrey explained her revised application in detail; she would like to tear down a part of the current structure. There is an appendage that runs a portion of the length of the house. She is proposing to stay on one side within the current setback which is 6’9”, plus or minus, which is where the appendage stands today, so there would be no changes on that side other than going up. On the opposite side, she is proposing that the structure run the length of the house which would change that setback from 12’0” to 13’7” and then up. There was a question at the May 6, 2024, meeting regarding the front and the rear setbacks because they were not included in the original application. Ms. Humphrey engaged SK Designs, who had already staked out the property to add the setbacks. The front setback was 53’ and the new front setback would be 50’ and the rear setback would have no change. A separate application for the deck will be submitted later and include rear setback changes.
Travis – asked Larry Gould to share his computer screen to show this revised floor plan. Due to technical difficulties, this wasn’t possible so Terry suggested telling the Board the page numbers so they can follow along. Ultimately, Gordon Middleton was able to share a screen shot of the plan so that the Public could see it too.
The Chair opened to the Board for discussion:
Terry – no questions but commented that when she was reviewing the new application the deck was listed, which we will not be discussing, so it should be deleted from the revised application that was submitted. Also, the setbacks were in question at the May 6, 2024, meeting in establishing the fact that it would be going outside of the existing footprint – 12’ to 13’ on one side and maintaining the 6’9” on the other side.
Amy – the initial diagrams included old measurements that extended out beyond what she was intending to do so the explanation was correct, but the drawing was wrong. The revised application shows the correct setbacks and revises the drawing to reflect that shorter setback. This is the only change made to the drawings.
RoseAnn – inquired about the height. Mr. Bergeron was asked by Ms. Humphrey if he knew that. Looking at plans, Ms. Humphrey said 27’ 7”.
Terry – commented that 34’ from one side and 27’ from the other. Ms. Humphrey said that the 34’ is for the proposed ridgeline. The structure itself would go to 27’ 7”.
Travis – commented that it was under the maximum. He also mentioned that through the chat function of Zoom, the floor plans were shared by Gordon Middleton, for the Public to be able to view as well.
Travis – asked if other Board members had comments and there were none.
Meeting was opened to the Public:
Immediate Abutters –
Greg Hurley – had a question on page 1 of the drawing. It shows the proposed height of the appendage as 27’ 7” which is the existing height, but the drawing doesn’t show the 34’ ridgeline. Terry directed Mr. Hurley to page 2. No other questions – it looks fine to him.
Doug O’Neil, attorney for his parents Gregory and Patricia O’Neil. If the additional setbacks are on the revised application, he approves. He feels that if the Board is satisfied with those, then he is too.
Travis – asked if there were any other comments from the Public and there were none. He asked for a Motion to close the public portion of the meeting.
Motion to Close Public Portion of the Meeting – Terry Gould
Seconded – Jim Kauffman
Voice Vote: All voted Aye
Travis asked if there were any comments from the Board in respect to the application. Hearing none, he noted that on page 4 of the application schematics from SK Designs it indicated they would oversee and verify the measurements so that what the Board approves will be true. This should be added to any approval motion. Terry also asked that the deck be stricken from this application as it will be a future application.
Motion to approve the application of Amy Humphrey at 19 Pine Grove Ridge Road noting that any verbiage about the decking will be struck from the application and that all side lines and setbacks measurements will be confirmed by SK Designs Group, Pittsfield, MA. – Terry Gould
Seconded – RoseAnn DeRupo
Roll Call Vote – All voted Aye
Travis thanked Ms. Humphrey for submitting a revised application and requested a copy of the cleaned-up application that excludes the old information on pages 16-21. Ms. Humphrey indicated that she would send it this evening.
Travis – This permit will sit in obeyance for 20 days with the Town Clerk. The applicant can pick up the Notice of Decision and Notice for Filing on the 21st day. The applicant needs to file the permit with the Registry of Deeds in Pittsfield. Thereafter, bring proof of filing to the Building Inspector who will then issue the Building Permit. Failure to file or act upon the permit within two years will render the Special Permit null and void.
2) Chairperson Ward read the Public Notice into the record: This is a continuation of Public Hearing of May 6, 2024, 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 for a hot water heater, expansion tank, washer/dryer and a closet to the revised plans submitted. The lot is listed in the Otis Assessor’s records at Lot 36, Map 16, located at 104 East Shore Road, East Otis, MA.
Travis – Mr. Ryon submitted a 1-page plan to supplement his application and to clarify the addition dimensions.
Fred Ryon, applicant, was in attendance. He stated that per the Board’s request at the May 6, 2024 meeting, the addition was “bumped in” to not get any closer to the property line than the existing structure.
Travis – asked if the Board had a chance to review and if there were any questions.
Terry – stated that the Board was waiting for an updated application as they need to know what the current setbacks and proposed setbacks are for this change in the drawing. The application was incomplete, and the Board did ask for a revised one at the May 6, 2024, meeting.
Mr. Ryon – he apologized as he thought they were listed on the original application. It is currently at 6’9” from the property line but because the property line is a bit skewed, the 6’ bump out would come down to 6’4” so the proposed addition was brought in 5” so that his building would remain within 6’9” from the property line.
Terry – asked if it would continue with the regular non-conformity that he currently has without changing the non-conformity on both sides?
Mr. Ryon – that’s correct.
Travis – has a concern, to Terry’s point, that the Board did ask for a revised application. The application that is currently in Mr. Ryon’s file shows a proposed setback of 6’4”.
Mr. Ryon – stated he misunderstood that, and he will update the cover page and email to the Clerk.
Terry – stated that she brings it up because his property line is so very close to the neighbors next door. She wants to be sure everything is covered correctly.
The Chair opened to the Board for discussion but there were no questions.
Meeting was opened to the Public:
Immediate Abutters –
Brian Crawford –the nearest abutter, stated that if the structure isn’t any closer to the property line as shown on the plan, then he doesn’t have a problem with it.
Travis – stated that the revised proposal was that it would not encroach more than the 6’9” that it currently does so it meets Mr. Crawford’s concern.
There were no other questions.
Motion to Close the Public Hearing – Roseanne DuRup
Seconded – Jim Kauffman
Voice Vote: All voted Aye
Travis asked for Board discussion on the new revised plan and there were none. He asked that any approvals or motions include the request of a new revised application page that lists the correct setbacks to match the plan that he provided. Application approved.
Motion: Jim Kauffman
Seconded: Terry Gould
Roll Call Vote – All voted Aye
Travis – This special permit will sit in obeyance for 20 days with the Town Clerk. The applicant can pick up the Notice of Decision and Notice for Filing on the 21st day. The applicant needs to file the permit with the Registry of Deeds in Pittsfield. Thereafter, bring proof of filing to the Building Inspector who will issue the Building Permit. Failure to file or act upon the permit within two years will render the Special Permit null and void.
Agenda item #3: Approve minutes from prior meeting from May 6, 2024.
Terry requested that the Clerk number the pages.
Motion to Approve: RoseAnn DeRupo
Seconded: Wayne Woczyna
Voice Vote: All voted Aye
Agenda item #4: Old Business and New Business, Items unanticipated by the Chair.
A) Application submission deadline discussion
Larry and Travis have been discussing the current system for application submission which is based upon a monthly deadline. In the past, applicants either A) submit in a rush order or B) submit right before submission date which forces Larry to go through application the best he can, with what little time he had to get them submitted to the Board. This led to applications with incomplete information.
The goal is to not put pressure on the Building Inspector to submit an application that he may not have total confidence in; to have a better product to make things easier and clearer for the Board to review. They are working on a new process where a deadline date will be established, once all the information is received by the Building Inspector and it’s reviewed and deemed complete and accurate. Only then will he provide it to the ZBA to be listed on the agenda.
If the review process is done and there isn’t enough time to advertise then it will simply be added to the agenda after the proposal has been qualified. They’ll work on the new process within the next two weeks and submit it to the Board for review and then add it to next agenda for discussion.
Travis asked for discussion from the Board –
RoseAnn – asked if there would be an internal schedule so that the Board would know if there’s a meeting.
Terry – brought up that the only deadline the ZBA has is for advertising dates. There would still be enough time to notify the Board once advertising has been set up.
Travis – stated that if Larry felt an application was complete, forwarded to the Board and then there wasn’t enough time to advertise, it would simply go to the next meeting date. The Board would then be notified that there was no meeting as there is nothing to discuss.
Agenda item #5: Update from the Building Inspector.
There is one pending item, but an application has not been submitted yet. They have a week and if not received, it will go to the following month.
The issue for any applicant is that they see the deadline, drop their documents off to the Town Clerk on the deadline date which Larry doesn’t receive until that evening and they’re expecting to be on the next agenda. He works with the applicants, and some provide the extra documentation in a timely manner, but some do not. This new process would give him the opportunity to say “no” and that it will be moved to the next month. Larry thanked Travis for his assistance with this matter.
The next meeting will be July 1, 2024
Adjournment:
Motion to Adjourn: Terry Gould
Seconded: RoseAnn DeRupo
Meeting adjourned: 7:49pm