Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals rejects Coles’ plan to replace building at 256 Newbury St.
Summary
The Board of Appeals rejected a plan to replace an existing structure at 256 Newbury Street with a two‑story auto sales and service building after members expressed concern about the large setback variances sought; supporters argued the project would improve the Route 1 site.
The Peabody Board of Appeals on Dec. 15 did not approve a request by Glenn and Susan Cole to demolish and replace the building at 256 Newbury Street with a two‑story auto sales and service building after several members described the magnitude of the requested setback variances as excessive.
Attorney Jason Fano, representing the applicants, said the existing building is obsolete, the 100‑foot‑deep lot constrains any conforming redevelopment, and the proposed configuration would provide 4–5 service bays and a clearer parking layout to allow the business to continue operating and serve the community. "You wouldn't be able to build anything on that property at all under the current zoning requirements," Fano told the board.
Board members pushed back on the scale of relief sought. The chair said the request for side and rear yard relief was "the sun, the moon, and the stars," highlighting that the applicants sought side setbacks of roughly 4 feet where 40 feet is required and a rear yard of roughly 4.5 feet where 50 feet is required. Supporters, including a resident of the adjacent mobile home park and City Councilor Dave Gamache, urged the board to keep the family business and approved uses on Route 1.
The board closed the public hearing, then moved to approve the request; the motion did not pass, and the chair announced the application "did not pass." The transcript records at least one board member voting "no" and another voting "yes," but the motion failed overall.
Because the board did not approve the variances, the applicants will need to revise their proposal or seek other remedies. The meeting record notes that the Coles have operated the property in some form since the 1970s and that the proposal included requests for landscaping waivers and dimensional relief to improve circulation on the site.
