PEABODY — The City Council Industrial and Community Development Committee voted to withdraw Attorney John Keilty’s request to amend a zoning ordinance at its meeting Thursday.
Keilty said he was at the meeting to represent Lynnfield Street Holdings LLC, which owns the property at 143 Lynnfield St. in Ward 1.
The property is in a general-business (GB) zone, but on behalf of Lynnfield Street Holdings LLC, Keilty requested the zoning ordinance be amended to allow his client to “pursue a mixed-use development” at the site.
He said his client hopes to build a retail facility on the first floor of the property.
The zoning change also included adding a special multi-family permit to the GB district, which Keilty said his client would use to build residential units.
Director of Planning and Community Development Curt Bellavance said he and Keilty had met multiple times to discuss the plans for the amended zoning ordinance.
Bellavance said his office assesses the “bigger picture” and how a zoning change would impact the entire city.
Amending the zoning for just one lot, which Bellavance said is called spot zoning, is illegal. As a result, the zoning change would have to apply to all general-business lots in the city.
“I would love nothing more than to have that lot cleaned up,” Ward 1 Councilor Craig Welton said in reference to the Lynnfield Street property.
He acknowledged that the “struggle” with this request was the high number of GB-zoned lots in Ward 2 and Ward 3.
Ward 2 Councilor Peter McGinn said he opposed the proposal because of how it would affect the GB-zoned lots in Ward 2, but added he would be open to evaluating other proposals for the property.
Ward 3 Councilor Stephanie Peach said that although Ward 3 would be affected by the change, Ward 2 has more lots that would be impacted.
“I agree with the concept. I am supportive of mixed-use development. I think that is the correct way of the city to move forward with adding additional needed units,” Peach said.
She said the proposal needed to be “vetted more thoroughly” to assess how the amendment would impact the city.
Councilor-at-Large Jon Turco said he enjoys working with the property’s owner.
“I’d like to see it done,” he said. “I just don’t believe this is the avenue to do it… I’m pretty sure we can come up with something, though, to move forward with this.”
After the councilors and two residents commented on the proposal, Keilty withdrew the request from the subcommittee and the council.
The motion to withdraw the request passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
