Westside Restaurant Updated

It seems to me like the Peabody Weekly News is becoming a better source of good reporting than any other newspaper around. Here is an update from them regarding the Westside Restaurant special permit and the ensuing controversies

The Peabody & Lynnfield Weekly News:
Council postpones vote on alcohol license for Westside
Note: PLWN articles are only available for approximately one week

I sincerely appreciate Councilor Bettencourt informing the public as to the nature of the emergency that led to the recess of the City Council meeting that evening. I am especially glad to hear that everyone is now fine and that his family is safe.

I stand by my previous comments that the meeting should not have been stopped. The fact that one councilor was not able to be present for the meeting (even though he did attend part of it) is irrelevant.

A quorum is the minimum number of meeting members that need to be present in order for official business to take place. For the City Council that number is 6.

Now a special permit needs to have a super majority (in this case 8 votes) in order to be approved. Thus, with Councilor Manning choosing to vote no the die was cast for the special permit to fail.

This is why I called into question the shenanigans that went on with Councilor Bettencourt's emergency call. It was not that he was responding to a family emergency - of course any good parent would have left to take care of his family - it was the closing of the meeting to prevent the special permit from failing.

Aside: I have reviewed all my comments made concerning this matter. I find that I have consistently sought WHY the meeting was postponed instead of continuing and I questioned the legitimacy of such actions. I also stated that IF the entire emergency was a concoction used to postpone the proceedings, that such actions would have been reprehensible. And because of the actions by the Council AFTER the departure of Councilor Bettencout, I felt it was important that it be reported what actually happened.

And while this apparently angered a few readers, it seems Councilor Bettencourt also felt the need to share the reasons for his departure with the press.

UPDATED: Westside Restaurant zoning controversy

** UPDATED IN NEW POST **

I don't really have an opinion either way about beer and wine at the Westside. I've never eaten there and I don't know anything about the restaurant's relationship with the neighborhood.

But I wonder where Councilor Athas got his law degree?? He fails to account for the entire section 1.5 Nonconformance of the Peabody Zoning Ordinance.

The Salem News: Westside seeks alcohol license
The Salem News Our View: Councilor didn;t want to hear it
The Salem News Letters to the Editor: Alcohol has no place in residential neighborhoods

Note: This post is written by Peabody Roundtable member Needham's Corner and may differ from the views of the Peabody Insider

A little background: when the Mass. Legislature adopted the Zoning Enabling Act (the "modern" act mostly dates from 1975, but there was a provision for nonconformance in the 1920 Act as well), they wanted a way to make sure that then-existing uses and structures would not be made illegal by subsequent local zoning ordinances and thus be considered a "taking" under the state and federal constitutions.

Our Peabody ordinance has a similar provision. It reads in part as follows:

"Any existing nonconforming use of a structure…may be changed or extended…provided that the special permit granting authority [that's the City Council, folks] determines, after a public hearing, by the grant of a special permit that such change, extension or alteration:
has adequate provision for offstreet parking; [and]
is similar in character, intensity of use, effect on adjacent property [and] effect on public hearing, morals, or safety as to be not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, than the existing nonconforming use…

Conditions may be placed on the special permit.

Westside is an existing nonconforming use, because it is in a residential district, and restaurants aren't allowed in that residential district.

But hold the phone: what this section of the ordinance means to this non-attorney observer is that the City Council COULD allow the restaurant use to be "changed or extended" to allow beer and wine IF (and only if) the Council found, after a public hearing, that there was enough parking, and that the restaurant with beer/wine was similar enough to a restaurant WITHOUT beer and wine so as not to be "substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood" (get out your dictionaries, folks).

Court opinions rely on dictionary definitions all the time. I'm no legal scholar but I've read a number that do. I guess Councilor Sinewitz hasn't read those. But maybe before he blasts City Solicitor Christopher (who IS an attorney) perhaps he and Councilor Athas would like to read the WHOLE zoning ordinance, not just randomly opine that because the restaurant is in a residential district they can't have beer and wine. Whine, indeed.

My bottom line: Westside is entitled to have a hearing. The Council should consider how detrimental beer and wine are to the neighborhood, and decide accordingly.