Tenants and ZBA clash over Pine Grove mobile-home variances; board declines permits

6493039 · October 21, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After hours of testimony from tenants and park managers, Peabody's Zoning Board of Appeals declined variance requests to place two new mobile homes at Pine Grove Mobile Home Park, citing unresolved health and safety concerns raised by residents and the Board of Health.

PEABODY, Mass. — On Oct. 20, 2025, the Peabody Zoning Board of Appeals declined a request to grant variances that would have allowed two replacement mobile homes at Pine Grove Mobile Home Park, 261 Newbury St., after tenants and a board member described ongoing sanitary and safety problems at the park.

The vote came after residents, represented at the meeting by the tenant association, urged the board to deny the requests while criminal sanitary-violation proceedings and outstanding Board of Health orders remain unresolved. Deborah Bingle, a Pine Grove resident and tenant association trustee, read the association’s written objections and told the board the group “ask that the zoning appeals board deny the zoning of variance appeals before you this evening” and said the community is seeking enforcement of existing violation orders rather than approval of new placements.

The tenant association’s statement, read aloud at the hearing, said in part: “Paglia and Dakotas do not have a valid license to operate our community currently. We are currently requesting that building inspectors along with any departments involved in such projects will be denied permits to the landowners for any new mobile homes placed on the land during the ongoing legal proceedings until all violations have been satisfied.” Bingle told the board the association would present Board of Health violation orders dated Jan. 7 and reinspection orders dated May 20, 2025.

Park manager Mark Pelletier, who said he has managed Pine Grove for more than 30 years, told the board he was seeking to replace two units that had been removed “over a period of years.” Pelletier said the larger unit proposed was a standard size and that the smaller unit (about 24 by 32 feet on the submitted plan) was the minimum the owner could place without further reducing rear-yard setbacks.

Multiple residents told the board they are concerned about utilities, including a reported need to replace hookups for “more than 40 homes,” the close spacing of units, and four propane tanks located near the lots in question. Rosemary Lavoie, who said she has lived in the park for 15 years, told the board maintenance and responsiveness from the landowner are unreliable: “Getting a hold of Dakotas is like pulling an elephant’s tooth,” she said.

Several board members signaled unease with approving the variances. A board member summarized the space concern more colloquially: “At 5 feet apart, you can pass coffee from one window to the other.” Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals (name not specified in the record) said the testimony and written materials gave him pause and added, “I’m not going to push this forward. I’m only one vote.”

After the public hearing was closed, a motion to approve the variances was made; the board then took a roll-call-style vote and the motion failed. The board chair stated on the record that the variances did not pass.

What the board heard and what it did - Tenant association: asked denial until sanitary and licensing issues are resolved; presented Board of Health orders and said criminal sanitary charges are pending against the owner. - Park manager: requested replacement of two units removed years earlier and said one proposed unit was constrained by existing lot geometry. - Board: expressed safety and sanitation concerns; cited proximity of units and unresolved violations. - Outcome: motion to approve variances failed; board did not grant the requested relief.

Next steps and context The tenant association asked the board to withhold permits while the city’s enforcement actions proceed. The applicant’s attorney, John R. Kelty, represented the property owner in the hearing. The board did not set a new hearing date for this application during the Oct. 20 meeting.

The matter involves the Zoning Ordinance (2020, as amended) setback and lot-area requirements for the MH zoning district; the tenant association referenced Board of Health violation orders (Jan. 7 and reinspection orders dated May 20, 2025).