Appeals Board Gets Three More Open Meeting Law Complaints

HARWICH – Three more Open Meeting Law complaints have been filed against the board of appeals, citing the public’s inability to follow audio and visual presentations in two public hearings on the comprehensive permit application filed by Pine Oaks Village Homes to build 242 affordable and workforce units of housing in North Harwich.

Complaints were filed this week by Dan Baker, Mary Jones and Jennifer Garland citing audio and visual deficiencies during presentations made in the appeals board’s meetings on Oct. 14 and Oct. 15. A complaint was also filed against the board on Oct. 17 by Paula Myles charging that the sound system was inadequate and graphics and charts presented in the hearings were too faded and small to see.

The complaints filed on Oct. 22 and Oct. 24 addressed similar issues relating to audio and visual access to presentations.  

 “The zoning board of appeals meeting held on Oct. 14, 2025 at the 204 Cultural Arts Municipal Building Auditorium was advertised to accommodate both in person and remote access attendees. During meeting discussion, multiple audio interruptions and visual anomalies were experienced by in-person and online attendees,” reads Mary Jones’ complaint.

 Jones wrote that she observed minimal support with technology operations during the meeting. She also noted that technical and connectivity difficulties are common at the 204 Cultural Arts Municipal Building, questioning the decision to hold the meetings in that venue.

 “Both online and in-person audiences experienced difficulty with microphone amplification. Both audiences periodically interrupted meeting discussion expressing inability to hear dialogue,” she wrote. “The known 204 Municipal Building technical issues coupled with the slow response to technical difficulties presents a violation to which the message of the online presentation was compromised.”

 In the section of the complaint form on how the allegations can be addressed, Jones wrote, “It is within the scope of the Open Meeting Law that people must be able to access information as it happens. The desired response to ongoing technical difficulties would have been to reschedule the online presentation at a time and venue that better supports remote technologies. Actions to accommodate this resolution are requested as well as the refrain from meeting events at The 204 until enhanced audio visual capabilities and technical support can be employed.”

 “I would first like to say that I appreciate all the efforts that the ZBA members put into helping the town with these complex matters,” wrote Baker in his complaint. “I do understand that they are hampered by technological issues that are likely out of their control, but as an attendee I must provide the following comments regarding issues with the ZBA meetings on Oct. 14 and 15.”

 Baker said in his complaint that when local planning committee chair Joyce Mcintyre made her presentation, attendees did not have the benefit of following her visual presentation along with her audio presentation, although the ZBA members seemed to be able to follow along on their screen, which the attendees could not see.

In the Oct. 15 session the appeals board discussed conditions for the project. Baker said the details of the conditions were not provided to the attendees, therefore they could not follow along with the reading of the conditions.

 As for Baker’s response to the action the public body should take, he wrote that there should be another meeting or meetings where the attendees can be fully informed of the information that was either missed or visually impaired.

 Garland’s complaint covered similar territory, adding that she would like to figure out how to fix the problems and perhaps revisit some of the topics covered in additional meetings.

The appeals board must review the complaints within a 14 days period and file a response to the complainant and with the Attorney General’s Office’s Division of Open Government. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they can seek review by the Division of Open Government after 30 days