Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board delays lot‑line ANR after applicant fails to appear
Summary
At its March 19, 2026 meeting in Peabody City, the Planning Board unanimously continued consideration of an ANR/land‑court lot‑line plan for a property described in meeting materials as 117 Lfield Street after the applicant did not appear to answer board questions.
The Peabody City Planning Board voted unanimously on March 19, 2026, to continue consideration of an ANR (approval-not-required)/land‑court plan for a property described in the meeting materials as 117 Lfield Street after the applicant failed to appear.
According to staff, the applicant listed on the agenda was ETSs Linfield Street LLC and the plan provided with the packet was dated Dec. 8, 2025. The proposal would move a lot line by roughly 3,179 square feet to combine that area with an adjacent parcel owned by Thomas and Emily Coen; the materials say an existing lot one (identified in the packet as approximately 52,362 square feet) would be demolished. Staff noted the site is in an R1B zoning district and directed anyone seeking the plan documents to contact Andrew Lavine at the email and phone number listed in the meeting materials.
Board members discussed whether the board could act without the applicant or the applicant’s representative present. Several members said the presenter must be available to answer questions and cautioned that approving an application in absentia could set an undesirable precedent. After waiting the posted ten‑minute allowance for the presenter to arrive, a board member moved to continue the ANR to the board’s next meeting on April 2; another member seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. The transcript records the vote as "unanimous" and does not list individual votes.
The board then moved through the remainder of the agenda — reporting no site building permits, appointments, subdivision board actions, regional notices or city council correspondence — and adjourned.
The board packet identifies the applicant and the plan date; the transcript contains inconsistent spellings for the street name as read aloud. The continuation was recorded as a procedural action only; no substantive changes to the proposed plan were made or discussed in detail because the applicant was not present.
