Inspection Becomes Issue In Orleans Zoning Violation Hearing

CHATHAM – What was supposed to be the simple continuation of a recent zoning board of appeals hearing turned contentious over whether the property owner and his attorney should have been notified when board members did an onsite property inspection.

Donald Cameron of Perseverance Coast LLC was appealing Building Commissioner Davis Walters’ issuance of zoning violation for activity at 260 Cranberry Highway. Cameron’s attorney, James Norcross of Chatham, requested that the hearing be continued, but it quickly devolved into a sometimes acrimonious discussion of an inspection of the property made by board members.

Chair Gerald Mulligan said while board members usually visit the sites subject to hearings on their own, in this case four members conducted a joint visit, the only time he can remember that happening.

“All four just happened to be available,” he said.

While the visit was posted on the town’s website — although that is not legally required, Town Counsel Michael Ford said — neither Cameron nor Norcross were notified of the visit.

It would have been helpful for Cameron to be there to answer questions or point out details, Norcross said.

“I’m not saying there was anything intentional or nefarious,” Norcross said, “but it’s important for the applicant to have full disclosure. We were not afforded that opportunity.”

He added, “If it was important enough for you to go there as a group, it was important enough for us to be there.”

Ford said there is no requirement to notify the applicant of an onsite inspection, and even if he or his attorney were present, they could not speak or engage in a dialog with board members.

Mulligan said board members wanted to get a general idea of the property and the issues involved in the appeal and would not have engaged either the owner or his attorney. But Norcross countered that not knowing what was discussed or viewed during the inspection “put us on our backfoot already.” Not being at the inspection could be “potentially prejudicial,” he added.

Ford suggested the hearing could be continued and another inspection held with Cameron and Norcross present, but Mulligan rejected that.

“I don’t see what can possibly be gained by another site visit,” he said. “It’s form over substance.”

Walters issued a stop work order on the property due to alleged zoning violations of the building and zoning codes. More than 20 storage containers were on the property, a use not allowed in the general business district, and containers were allegedly placed within the wetlands buffer zone in violation of conservation regulations. The commission was set to hold a hearing on the situation on July 16.

“There is a lot going on in this case,” Ford said.

Ben Zehnder, attorney for the Community Development Partnership, one of the building’s tenants, said they believed the interior of the building was being reconfigured for internal storage in violation of the building commissioner’s order.

“It’s not just about the storage units outside,” he said. “It’s about the use of the property.”

Davis said to his knowledge, the interior was not being actively used for storage. His order focuses on the outside storage containers. No change of use request has been received for the interior, he added.

At one point Mulligan appeared ready to reject the request to postpone the hearing. However, if other boards are involved, it is the zoning board’s procedure to defer its hearing and wait until the conservation commission has reviewed the situation.

Enough issues are in contention that he did not want the board’s behavior to become another one, Mulligan said. The board agreed to continue the hearing until July 17 (after The Chronicle’s deadline) and to hold another onsite inspection in the meantime.

“I don’t want anything that we do to add complexity to this case and grievances, or possible grievances, for the petitioners,” he said.