Loading...
ZBA Reconsiders Special Permit For Route 6A Property
The owner of property at 260 Route 6A is seeking a special permit from the zoning board of appeals to repurpose the building for use as a commercial storage operation. FILE PHOTO
ORLEANS – A special permit could be within reach for a planned commercial storage building on Route 6A, but the owner first needs approval from the site plan review committee.
The zoning board of appeals last week held a hearing for the special permit request from Donald Cameron, who owns the building at 260 Route 6A. Cameron, doing business as Preservation Coast LLC, is seeking the permit to allow storage operations in the building, which has historically been used as office space. That includes 21 storage containers that are currently outside the building.
Building Commissioner Davis Walters last year denied a special permit for the project, and the zoning board in August voted to uphold Walters’ denial on appeal. But a Massachusetts Land Court judge in December remanded the project back to the local board for reconsideration.
“Any considerations or conversations that we had previously will be forgotten,” Zoning Board Chair Gerald Mulligan said. “We start as a clean slate.”
In April 2024, Walters received a complaint from one of the tenants in the office building about work being performed on the above floor. Walters told the zoning board April 3 that during a visit to the building, he saw that partitions had been taken down and that workers were stripping wiring in the building, all without the proper permits.
After Walters issued a stop work order, Cameron, who also owns and operates a storage facility on Giddiah Hill Road, retroactively applied for a building permit to carry out the work. Walters denied the permit because the use of storage containers is prohibited within the town’s general business district. Cameron appealed the denial, but the board denied the appeal in August during a hearing in which Cameron failed to appear.
Cameron then appealed the denial in Land Court. In November, Judge Gordon Piper expressed concern that Cameron was not given a proper opportunity to make his case for the special permit to the board beyond submitting a permit application. An order remanding the case back to the zoning board was issued in December.
The order also gave the board a deadline of June 14 in which to take action on the special permit request. On April 3, the majority of the board indicated that it would support a special permit if the applicant first got approval from the site plan review committee, which typically reviews projects before they go before zoning.
The board first reconsidered Walters’ initial stop work order from last year. The order listed five violations, including use of the building for storage, lack of site plan review, the removal of parking spaces that in turn violated parking requirements for the site, setback and screening violations created by containers, and a lack of architectural review. The board upheld three of the four findings, while leaving the matter of architectural review alone.
Regarding the special permit, Cameron’s attorney, Jonathan Silverstein, argued that using the building for storage would only further a “preexisting nonconforming use” of the property. The building predates local zoning, he said, and its use as an office building itself is non-conforming, he said.
Silverstein said that any further non-conforming use is allowable with a special permit.
“I think clearly the board could find easily that this proposed use would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood,” he said. He added that storage is allowed as a function of other businesses operating in areas zoned for “light industrial use,” such as contractor yards.
While the location of the 21 outdoor containers was cited as being against local zoning, the conservation commission approved, with conditions, the use of the containers, which are situated near a flood zone.
Still, some board members raised concerns with the precedent that could be set by allowing a permit for the storage containers.
“Next thing you know we’ve got storage trailers going by people who don’t know what else to do with their property,” said board member Martin Szeber.
But four of the board’s five members indicated unofficially that they would support a special permit for the project. Absent a special permit, Cameron could still apply for a variance from the board, which Town Counsel Michael Ford said is harder for an applicant to secure.
Austin Higgins of the zoning board said that in visiting the property recently, he observed a clean site with better screening of the containers.
“From a precedential standpoint, I don’t think there’s much concern there because you’d need a special permit,” Higgins said in response to Szeber’s concerns about setting a precedent around the use of storage containers.
The board continued the hearing to May 21 to allow time for Cameron to go through site plan review.
Email Ryan Bray at ryan@capecodchronicle.com
The zoning board of appeals last week held a hearing for the special permit request from Donald Cameron, who owns the building at 260 Route 6A. Cameron, doing business as Preservation Coast LLC, is seeking the permit to allow storage operations in the building, which has historically been used as office space. That includes 21 storage containers that are currently outside the building.
Building Commissioner Davis Walters last year denied a special permit for the project, and the zoning board in August voted to uphold Walters’ denial on appeal. But a Massachusetts Land Court judge in December remanded the project back to the local board for reconsideration.
“Any considerations or conversations that we had previously will be forgotten,” Zoning Board Chair Gerald Mulligan said. “We start as a clean slate.”
In April 2024, Walters received a complaint from one of the tenants in the office building about work being performed on the above floor. Walters told the zoning board April 3 that during a visit to the building, he saw that partitions had been taken down and that workers were stripping wiring in the building, all without the proper permits.
After Walters issued a stop work order, Cameron, who also owns and operates a storage facility on Giddiah Hill Road, retroactively applied for a building permit to carry out the work. Walters denied the permit because the use of storage containers is prohibited within the town’s general business district. Cameron appealed the denial, but the board denied the appeal in August during a hearing in which Cameron failed to appear.
Cameron then appealed the denial in Land Court. In November, Judge Gordon Piper expressed concern that Cameron was not given a proper opportunity to make his case for the special permit to the board beyond submitting a permit application. An order remanding the case back to the zoning board was issued in December.
The order also gave the board a deadline of June 14 in which to take action on the special permit request. On April 3, the majority of the board indicated that it would support a special permit if the applicant first got approval from the site plan review committee, which typically reviews projects before they go before zoning.
The board first reconsidered Walters’ initial stop work order from last year. The order listed five violations, including use of the building for storage, lack of site plan review, the removal of parking spaces that in turn violated parking requirements for the site, setback and screening violations created by containers, and a lack of architectural review. The board upheld three of the four findings, while leaving the matter of architectural review alone.
Regarding the special permit, Cameron’s attorney, Jonathan Silverstein, argued that using the building for storage would only further a “preexisting nonconforming use” of the property. The building predates local zoning, he said, and its use as an office building itself is non-conforming, he said.
Silverstein said that any further non-conforming use is allowable with a special permit.
“I think clearly the board could find easily that this proposed use would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood,” he said. He added that storage is allowed as a function of other businesses operating in areas zoned for “light industrial use,” such as contractor yards.
While the location of the 21 outdoor containers was cited as being against local zoning, the conservation commission approved, with conditions, the use of the containers, which are situated near a flood zone.
Still, some board members raised concerns with the precedent that could be set by allowing a permit for the storage containers.
“Next thing you know we’ve got storage trailers going by people who don’t know what else to do with their property,” said board member Martin Szeber.
But four of the board’s five members indicated unofficially that they would support a special permit for the project. Absent a special permit, Cameron could still apply for a variance from the board, which Town Counsel Michael Ford said is harder for an applicant to secure.
Austin Higgins of the zoning board said that in visiting the property recently, he observed a clean site with better screening of the containers.
“From a precedential standpoint, I don’t think there’s much concern there because you’d need a special permit,” Higgins said in response to Szeber’s concerns about setting a precedent around the use of storage containers.
The board continued the hearing to May 21 to allow time for Cameron to go through site plan review.
Email Ryan Bray at ryan@capecodchronicle.com
A healthy Barnstable County requires great community news.
Please support The Cape Cod Chronicle by subscribing today!
Please support The Cape Cod Chronicle by subscribing today!
You may also like:
