SWAMPSCOTT — A dispute over storage containers, an unregistered vehicle, and enforcement fines came before the Zoning Board of Appeals this week, with board members ultimately declining to revisit the town’s initial findings and sending fines back to the building commissioner for possible relief.  

Charles Wilkinson II appeared before the board to appeal a determination issued by Building Commissioner Richard Baldacci concerning conditions on his Little’s Point Road property. 

In a September 2025 notification, Baldacci reported observing an unregistered vehicle and two storage structures during an inspection of the property. Baldacci’s letter stated that those conditions violated the town’s zoning bylaw, which allows one temporary storage container to be used for up to 90 days in a given year and prohibits unregistered vehicles from remaining outdoors for more than six months. 

In that letter, Baldacci wrote that one of the two storage structures could remain for 90 days, and that the unregistered vehicle needed to be sold, garaged, or brought into compliance within six months. The matter resurfaced in April, when Baldacci issued a follow-up enforcement letter citing continued noncompliance and assessing fines of up to $300 per violation — totaling $900 per day. 

During the hearing, Wilkinson argued that the structures cited by the town are not temporary units, but rather permanent sheds or accessory buildings.

“The storage containers on my property are anchored to the ground by local ground anchors and rest on compacted gravel or earth foundations, respectively,” he said. “They are storage sheds and tool sheds, not temporary storage containers.”

Wilkinson said he had asked the town for clarification following the September determination, but never received a response. 

“I did seek clarifications previously and received no feedback, which is not the first time,” he said. “I also have requested clarification and feedback on how to approach this process, and I did not receive a reply.” 

Zoning Board of Appeals member Marc Kornitsky said the board’s authority was time-constrained, and that the appeal period for the initial determination of the storage structures had already expired.  

“In terms of some of the classifications and determinations that the building inspector made … I think you’re time-barred to appeal those,” Kornitsky said. “I don’t think it is a timely appeal.” 

Board members agreed, finding that any challenge to the classification of the structures should have been filed shortly after the September 2025 determination. The board concluded that it had jurisdiction only over issues concerning the April enforcement letter, including the fines and unregistered vehicle violation. 

Wilkinson said his appeal was partially focused on how those April violations were documented and whether the town had provided sufficient information about the enforcement process. He acknowledged that the vehicle had been officially registered earlier that day, said he had not been present for or aware of the April follow-up inspection, and wondered how the town had documented that he was not in compliance. 

“It may have been unregistered at the time of his inspection, but I am not asking for that,” Wilkinson said. “I am asking for the factual basis by which it was determined that it was unregistered.” 

During the discussion of fines, Wilkinson indicated that he was also willing to take steps toward resolving the storage-container issue. While maintaining that the structures should be considered storage sheds rather than temporary storage containers, he said he would explore alternatives and work toward bringing the property into compliance if necessary.

“I would seek alternative options, and I would be happy to do that research and consider whether I needed to make further inquiries into getting them compliant or finding a compliant alternative,” Wilkinson said.

Board members noted that Wilkinson’s registration of the vehicle and any future efforts to address the storage-container issue could be considered by Baldacci when reviewing the fines. They did not opine on the fines themselves, but instead voted to remand them back to Baldacci for further consideration. 

“The goal of the fine is compliance,” Chair Heather Roman said. “The goal of the fine is not punitive. It’s not to punish people. It’s to encourage compliance.” 

Under the board’s motion, Baldacci will determine whether the fines should remain in place, be reduced, or be waived.