City right to protect Ward 5 quality of life by fighting billboard location out in court

19 Feb

By Bob Croce, EOP Publisher

Billboard pole must be moved

Billboard pole must be moved

File this one under:  All resident quality of life issues are worth fighting out in court.

Rather than move its monstrous 92-foot tall billboard pole and put  it where the Peabody City Council voted it could go, Total Outdoor Corp. is taking the city back to court.

City Solicitor Michael Smerczynski told the Peabody Patch that the company’s response to the cease and desist order from the city last month was that there was a mix-up in the version of plans filed in court and the company is unwilling to spend the $200,000-$250,000 necessary to relocate the pole behind the building at 532 Lowell St.

The city, meanwhile,  contends that the plans submitted in court — when a judge ruled in the company’s favor — showed the pole located in the rear of the property,  and out of sight of Lowell Street and neighbors who live in the vicinity.

Those same plans were then included with the permit approved by the council in the fall.  This is a big quality of life issues for the residents of Ward 5.  This one is worth fighting out in court.

6 Responses to “City right to protect Ward 5 quality of life by fighting billboard location out in court”

  1. Anonymous February 20, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

    I’ll get us back on track. Is it just me or do you get the feeling that we’re going to need to get used to that monstrosity of a billboard?

    Something just isn’t adding up for me with this story. Are we to believe that Total Outdoor Corp (TOC) submitted the wrong plans to the judge and CC for approval and then did a bait & switch at the last minute? I find that hard to believe. This is their business and developing that as a reputation would only hurt them in the long run. Not worth it for a single billboard.

    I think somewhere along the approval process, something was missed and I think TOC put this thing exactly where they said they were going to.

    Maybe I’m wrong on this (and I hope I am), I just don’t have a good feeling about it.

    • Anonymous February 20, 2013 at 1:03 pm #

      I agree with you Anon. I don’t feel good about the court ruling against the billboard company. By the way what exactly is the court ruling on? Don’t forget this one failed to get council approval, so exactly which plans was that original judge looking at?

    • Anonymous February 20, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

      The reality is that once this was overturned the current city inspector should have requested a copy of the original submission to the CC to confirm that the plans had not been amended. So should Pavlo take the fall if the city looses the appeal?

  2. Anonymous February 21, 2013 at 6:00 am #

    What I don’t understand is why wasn’t it ever inspected by the city inspector when it was in the process of being built. When I built an addition several years ago, the inspector had to inspect the excavation and then the footing that was poured to make sure it was “up to code” . Wasn’t this required for this project?

  3. the Outfront Guy* February 21, 2013 at 7:30 am #

    OG says…good question Anon !!

  4. Anonymous February 21, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

    So with all these questions being raised, why are our elected officials so confident that it will get moved? Or do they realize someone screwed up and they are just positioning themselves to be able to point the finger at someone?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: