This space wrote about this back in November, and now here’s a real example of what this might actually look like. For now, I thought I’d throw a photo out there and let you weigh in on what you think about the first of our gigantic billboards.
The first one, for which the city of Peabody collects a 5-figure permitting fee, is up on Lowell Street near Route 1, and it’s been causing quite a stir so far with a debate on Facebook. There are dozens of comments, all of them negative.
City Councior Anne Manning-Martin even posted the following photo. No, that’s not a giant ape at the top swatting at airplanes. Let me know what you think in the comments section as to whether you think this in an infringement on quality of life:
The new billboard on Lowell Street near Route 1
This is disgraceful, no one wants this leviathan on Lowell St. Take it down! Thank you Councillor Manning-Martin for bringing this to our attention!
This thing is ugly but once again Annie Manning trying to grandstand and make it seem like she is a man of the people. What a phony. Are you running for mayor Annie poo? Good luck.
Does it block the GIANT Bonkers sign across the street from being seen off Rte.1?
They were there first!
As I said to Anne Manning-Martin, the bill board, if you want to call it that, makes Bonkers sign look like a postage stamp!
In reply to “Anonymous”, I tip my hat to any individual who participates in the political process, whether I agree with them or not…If you are going to crticize them, have the courage to place your name with your comment!
OG says….it’s all about the money isn’t it? you reference a ‘5 figure permitting fee’ obtained by the city. Often times we must choose between financial opportunity and community common sense….so it seems clear which path we have chosen on this specific issue….
I suppose if it will keep our taxes lower, the sign can stay, but it is a horrible eye sore and I hate it!!!!
Where is the outrage from Ms. Manning on the ugly, distracting sign that blinks like a Las Vegas billboard in front of a foot doctor’s office on Rte 114? It is very distracting to motorists and I have called SEVERAL councilors about it and got nowhere! This all stems from giving them an inch and now they are taking a foot….the Peabody City Council opened up this can of worms!
Mzzzzz Manning voted for the special permit for he foot sign I do believe. Right? Hypocrite!!!!!!!!
Actually, you’re wrong. She didn’t.
Bob, how would have you handled this if you were on the council? Maybe this would be a great opportunity to hear from you and your competition as to what you would have done. I do not like Anne Manning but I do have to say she is dead on with this and all the councilors that voted for it should be ashamed. Granted we had not ground to not approve it, they should have allowed it to go to the courts…
The answer is simple for me. Although I feel we always should look at ways to expand our commercial tax base in an effort to stabilize property taxes on residents, we should NEVER allow the lure of some extra tax revenue to negatively affect the quality of life of any residents.
Let’s be business friendly. It’s good for Peabody. But resident quality of life comes first before everything else.
In the case of this specific billboard, I agree that it’s an eye sore that’s out of scale with the neighborhood.
If I were currently on the City Council, I’d be requesting that we immediately review the terms of that permit to see if they’re in violation of anything. But if I were on the council at that time it was voted on, and knew that it would be of this scale, I would have voted against it. The vote was 6-5 in favor of allowing it, but since it was a special permit, you needed at least 8 votes for approval. The billboard advertising company then got a court order to overturn the council and get the permit approved.
Good answer councillor!
OG says..I wonder who the 6 councilors were who voted in favor of it ? did Gamache vote in favor of it?
Gravel, Mello, Garabedian, Sinewitz, Osborne, and Gamahce voted yes.
Manning, Gould, Athas, Liacos and Driscoll voted no.
Your right on Bob. The city council denied it and the court overturned it and gave us this mess. I’d like to know where the judge lives and put it in his town.
OG says…but why did the court overturn it ? and did some Councilors vote YES because they knew it would end up being overturned anyway? Garabedian, Sinewitz and Gamache all live up towards that end of town so they should have a good feel for what this Eiffel Tower might look like in its present location
I read this news article in the salem… check out the last line… sounds like shes against to me!
http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1690075094/Peabody-No-new-b-lights-on-114/print?mobRedir=false
OG says…thanks Ralph…but how does a sign discussion from 2009 tie into this approved sign tower next to Subway? frankly, I don’t see Ms Manning as an advocate for a sign of this magnitude.
I can’t believe how bad this looks. This does not belong on Lowell st. How could any person in their right mind approve this monstrosity? It’s not a digital board that lights up at night is it?
The point is Anne is getting blamed for this bunion sign when in real life she was against this before she was on The council…
Just read the Salem News article. The mayor issued a cease and desist claiming the pole was put in the wrong place.
If the company put the billboard way behind the building like it was supposed to there wouldn’t be a problem. Stop blaming Anne and the rest of the city council. It’s just another business in this city running amok and doing whatever it pleases. Just like the developer on Winona street.
OG says…hold on…OG was defending Ms Manning on this issue….but I am hard pressed to see how the business owner here can just stick the pole whereever they felt like putting it….just don’s see how that can happen….any one help me out with this?
“Hard pressed to see how a business owner here can just stick the pole where ever they felt like putting it?”
That’s what she said!!!!
OG,
You surprise me. Are you testing us? It,as I am sure you know, is all in the zoning (or re-zoning)!
All the city councillors except for Gould are experts in zoning. They just re-wrote the zoning book! With the expert council of Community Development Department how could they miss that one?
Maybe they just didn’t think about it. With that GIANT Bonkers sign right across the street I fail to see the problem.
OG says…no, I am not testing you and I am simply confused with how a giant pole ends up in a spot where we don’t expect it to be….when the permit is issued doesn’t it specifically state WHERE the pole is going to be on the property? yes or no?…
SEE MY LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL ET AL OF PEABODY RE THIS TRAVESTY PERPERTRATED BY BONKERS.
AT THE MEETING THE AD AGENCY “WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION”….LEDGEWOOD AND PEABODY “WON THE BATTLE”,
BUT SOME CORRUPT JUDGE FOR FREE SUBS FOR LIFE OPENED WARFARE ON THE CITIZENS OF PEABODY.LETTER ATTACHED.
angelo a. nargi
2 ledgewood way, apt 25 peabody, ma 01960 tel:/fax: (978) 535-2450
cell phone; 1-(978) 853- 6835
e-mail: chezangelo@aol.com
DRAFT- SPEAKING NOTES TO ZBA (ZoningBoardofAppeals,Peabody,MA),
meeting December 19, 2011.
I thank the Board for hearing my comments to the Proposal of Bonkers to SELL THEIR
PROPERTY RIGHTS TO A BILLBOARD ADVERTISING COMPANY, ERGO, Dictating
to the City of Peabody, their RIGHT to do so, and thumbing their nose to the citizenry of
Peabody, AGAIN….How dare them.
A question to the board!
Is there a Federal highway “Right of Way“ and what are the parameters?
How can Bonkers “INFRINGE“ on that and Claim said property as their own?
They already barricaded their “FIFEDOM“ with a several hundred foot long chain link
“Great Wall Of China“ which ENCOMPASSES the length of the Retaining Wall Property.
ROUTE 95 IS A FEDERAL HIGHWAY.
That Includes:
MA128 Which Was Committed To Be An EXTENTION, At The Dedham Line,
And Become Route 93 Towards Braintree And Boston.
And Become ROUTE 95 TO GLOUCESTER.
“NO THANKS TO THE POLITICIANS SQUEEZING THE FEDS TO ALLOW THIS DEBACLE“
Ergo………..FEDERAL RULES APPLY.
Even so, 95 from Rhode Island up to 128 is PRISTINE, NO VISUAL POLLUTION,
93 from Dedham to Peabody is PRISTINE, NO VISUAL POLLUTION,
95 from Dedham to Peabody is PRISTINE, NO VISUAL POLLUTION,
95 from Peabody to the CANADIAN BORDER is PRISTINE, NO VISUAL POLLUTION
BONKERS wants to put a 78 FOOT HIGH ( 7 STORIES HIGH ) MONSTROSITY
Adjacent To The Retaining Wall of Route 95 North at Lowell Street..
Who Dictates Right Of Way“?
If This Is Not VISUAL POLLUTION“ Then What Is?
From Day One BONKERS Has Proven To Be ’’NOT A GOOD NEIGHBOR“
I refer to The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Peabody, Mass. SPECIFICALLY—
Para: 1.2 PURPOSE:
—-to protect the integrity of neighborhoods……—
—-the prevention of blight and pollution of the environment—
—-and to preserve and increase amenities in the City of Peabody.
Para: 1.4 APPLICABILITY
All buildings and structures herinafter erected, ———-in the City of Peabody
Shall be in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance.———–
Para: 1.5 NONCONFORMANCE
(1.5.1) in toto:
Para: 1.7 PROHIBITED USES
In toto:
Para: 11.6 BILLBOARDS
11.6.4 Criteria
11.6.4. (5.) demonstrate that the Billboard is in harmony with or suitable for the surrounding area and would NOT do significant damage to the visual environment.—-
—–the scenic beauty of the area, the phy-sical,environmental,cultural,historical or
architectural characteristics of the location and area, the structures, height, size of the sign, the number of signs on the premise and in the area where the Billboard is to be
located.
Board Members, City Council, DO YOUR DUTY.
SERVE HONORABLY YOUR CONSTITUENTS.
Respectfully, ANGELO NARGI………………..