►
From YouTube: City Council Sub Committee of 6-21-21
Description
City of Chelsea, Discuss proposed Zoning Amendments
A
A
A
Discuss
proposed
zoning
amendments
residential
one
district
change,
the
minimum
lot
size
per
dwelling
unit
to
three
thousand
one
hundred
square
feet
change
the
minimum
lot
size
to
six
thousand
square
feet.
Allow
three
family
dwellings
by
special
permit
proposed
zoning
amendments
for
the
r2
district
change.
The
minimum
lot
size
dwelling
unit
for
one
to
six
units
to
3500
square
feet
for
the
first
unit,
1000
square
feet
for
each
additional
unit,
but
not
less
than
five
thousand
total
square
feet
lot.
A
A
Zoning
amendment
number
five
change:
zoning
designations
of
parcels
located
at
115
park
street
105
park
street
12,
essex
street
one
ellsworth
street
and
37
congress
avenue
from
an
r2
district
to
a
business
retail
district
officials
invited
to
attend.
The
subcommittee
meeting
are
city
manager,
tom
memberzino,
honorable
members
of
the
chelsea
city
council,
land
use,
plane,
director,
john,
the
priests,
all
members
of
the
public.
At
this
time
the
clerk
will
call
the
roll.
D
D
D
So,
as
counselor
almanader
indicated,
the
first
amendment
is
relative
to
r1
density.
That's
changing
on
the
left
on
here.
You'll
see
the
existing
requirements
on
the
right,
you'll
see
the
proposed
and
blue.
D
Currently
the
minimum
lot
here
is
3
500,
but
not
less
than
7
500
square
feet,
total
3
500
per
unit
and
then
7
500
total.
It
is
proposed
to
change
the
minimums
from
3
100
per
unit
to
6
000,
I'm
sorry
3
100
per
unit
and
6
000.
Overall,
this
was
presented
to
the
planning
board
the
planning
board
recommended
to
the
council
that
they
seek
more
public
input
on
this
amendment.
D
The
next
one
is
the
r2
amendments,
the
first
amendment
is
they
actually?
Actually,
this
amendment
actually
changes
the
breakdown
of
the
number
of
units,
as
shown
in
the
zone
and
currently
you'll
see
on
the
left
that
it's
broken
down
by
one
to
three
units
and
then
anything
over
three
units
across
apartments,
we're
going
to
break
it
down
to
one
to
six
units
and
then
seven
units
and
above
for
the
one
to
six
units.
D
The
minimum
density
would
be
thirty,
five
hundred
for
the
first
unit
and
one
thousand
for
each
additional
unit
and
for
the
seven
units
above
it'll,
be
thirty
five
hundred
for
our
first
unit
and
nine
hundred
fifty
for
each
additional
unit.
In
addition
to
that,
it
changes
the
minimum
usable
open
space
from
300
for
one
to
three
units
and
150
for
apartment
to
100.
D
D
D
Amendment
next
amendment
is
the
changing
of
the
r2
zone
districts
on
park
street.
These
are
the
puzzles
on
and
around
the
polo
campari
restaurant.
D
The
next
amendment
is
to
provide
for
a
mixed-use
overlay
district
in
the
area
bound
by
everett
ave,
the
railroad
tracks,
the
mbta
commuter
rail
and
the
everett
border.
D
The
purpose
of
this
is
to
provide
for
a
district
where
our
residential
and
commercial
are
permitted,
and
this
butts
up
directly
to
the
proposed
development
that
is
going
on
in
everett
at
stop
and
shop
site,
a
portion
of
which
is
in
chelsea.
There
are
several
different
sections
to
this
and
go
through
each
section
individually.
D
D
D
The
mixed
use
overlay
is
written
in
such
a
way
that
it
provides
an
incentive
to
develop
that
overlay
district
as
opposed
to
the
light
industrial
two
districts
and,
as
I
go
through
you'll
see
some
of
those.
What
those
incentives
are
in
any
district
there's
always
in
any
new
amendment.
Any
new
zoning
district
is
always
a
scope
and
purpose.
You
always
have
to
say.
Why
are
you
doing
and
what
is
the
purpose
behind
it
and
then
there's
always
sending
the
boundaries
of
the
district
and
obviously
that's
everett,
ave,
communal
rail
and
the
everett
border.
D
D
These
sections,
in
order
to
develop
under
the
mixed
use,
you
would
need
a
minimum
acreage
of
at
least
one
acre
so
that
you
get
a
a
a
substantial
development
out
of
it
and
there's
actually
the
minimum
a
lot
in
the
light
industrial
district.
Anyway,
a
lot
all
the
underlying
uses
will
be
allowed.
In
addition,
mixed
uses
with
housing
above
commercial
or
retail
and
a
maximum
density
of
50
units,
an
acre
will
be
allowed.
D
This
mixed
juice
district
was
submitted
to
the
council
late
last
year
and
did
not
get
approved.
However,
the
planning
board
at
that
time
had
reviewed
it
and
had
recommended
some
changes.
All
those
changes
have
been
incorporated
into
this
into
this
district,
and
one
of
these
building
heights
said
a
maximum
of
four
stories,
but
not
taller
than
a
hundred
feet
and
the
parking
minimum
previously
was
0.5.
It's
now
been
raised
to
0.1
up
to
1.0
as
a
recommendation
of
the
planning
board.
D
Open
space
must
be
set
at
a
minimum
of
20
percent,
however,
can
be
reduced
for
each
square
foot
of
open
space
open
to
the
public,
and
then
design
review
is
mandatory.
D
Last
one
is
electric
vehicle
preparation
repair.
This
I'm
sorry
on
the
previous
mixed
use,
the
the
zoning
board.
The
planning
board
recommended
that
the
council
approve,
as
it
did
with
the
br,
the
change
from
the
r2
to
br2
to
br.
D
The
electrical
vehicle
preparation
repair
we,
the
city,
got
a
inquiry
from
a
potential
electric
vehicle
repair
facility
at
on
garish
ave
and
currently
the
city
zoning
is
not
written
to
allow
for
electric
vehicle
repair.
It's
written
primarily
for
current
older
technology,
meaning
gasoline
power,
it
has
not
been
written
to
keep
up
with
the
new
technology
is
coming
along.
D
D
So
the
first
amendment
here
we
must
provide
for
a
definition
for
the
use,
so
we
set
a
definition
since
us
donating
doesn't
have
one
and
and
then
the
second
section
we
have
to
change
the
table
of
use
to
put
the
use
in
there
and
where
it's
allowed
in
this
case,
it'll
be
allowed
by
special
permit
only
in
the
industrial
district.
D
The
plenty
funny
board
did
support
this
as
well
voted
to
recommend
unanimously
that
the
council
voter
approve,
as
written.
D
Any
questions
john
I'm.
A
A
little
bit
confused,
can
you
go
over
the
amendments
to
the
r1?
The
planning
board
recommended
or
did
not
recommend
it,
but
they
did
recommend
the
three
fam.
Is
that
a
split
is
that
what
you're
they're
saying.
A
D
I'm
saying
I'm
sorry,
I'm
sorry
r1.
No,
they
did
recommend
the
pro
that
all
amendments
in
the
r1
for
the
proposed
i1
that
the
council
seek
additional
public
input
on
it.
A
A
One
of
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
by
constituents,
but
also
by
myself
and
seeing
the
density
there
we're
seeing
all
these
large
apartment
complexes,
but
there
is
nothing
in
that
whole
area
that
is
owned
by
the
city,
nor
any
open
space
prepared
by
the
city.
So
I
have
to
ask
with
the
number
of
units
there.
What
is
the
open
space
plan
here
with
the
overlay
district
you're
saying
set
at
20
can
be
reduced
by
one
square
foot
for
each
square
foot
of
open
space.
Can
you
explain
that
sure.
D
As
written,
it
requires
at
least
20
of
the
site
be
set
aside
for
open
space,
but
open
space
on
private
land
does
not
have
to
be
open
to
the
public.
It
just
has
to
be
open
as
far
as
not
developed,
green
landscaped
or
or
even
hardscape,
but
in
this
case
we've
tried
to
provide
an
incentive
to
open
up
some
of
that
open
space
to
the
public,
either
with
you
know,
sitting
areas
or
or
parks
or
like
and
for
every
square
foot
that
they
provide
actually
accessible
to
the
public.
D
D
D
A
D
E
Couple
of
specific
questions
for
you
on
your
paper
here
on
r1
density
amendment,
one
and
two
here,
they're
recommending
not
to
do
it
here.
You
say
you
want
the
changes
that
it's
happening
here.
Is
you
got
from
7
500
square
feet
to
6
000
square
feet
from
3500
3100
and
you're
only
allowing
one
to
two
family
with
a
special
permit
for
tree
now,
that's
6
000
square
feet.
That's
a
huge
piece
of
land
and
the
recommendation
I
seen
from
what
the
other
and
that
paper
says
they
don't
do
it.
E
I
don't
understand
why
they
don't
do
that
in
the
beginning.
Here's
another
one,
an
r2
which
they're
proposing.
How
does
this
come
into
effect,
five
thousand
square
feet?
You
can
build
one
to
six
units
on
five
thousand
square
feet
over
there
over
here
on
six
thousand
they're
saying
that's,
no
good
and
you're
only
allowing
one
to
two
with
a
special
permit
for
a
tree,
so
make
me
understand
what
I
can't
seem
to
phantom.
E
Look
at
the
change!
You're
gonna
allow
a
six
family
to
be
built
on
five
thousand
with
an
additional
units
of
a
thousand
square
feet.
You
have
so
you
can
build
an
additional
house
with
a
thousand
square
feet
on
the
other
one
on
this
one.
Here
you
cannot
build
an
additional
house.
You
need
three
thousand
hundred
square
feet
for
change:
minimum
lot,
size
of
six
thousand
square
feet
on
r2,
right,
you're,
saying
one
to
six
unit
on
three
thousand
square:
three
thousand
five
square
foot
first
unit
and
a
thousand
square
feet
for
each
additional
unit.
E
So
each
additional
unit
you
want
to
build.
After
that
you
only
have
to
have
1
000
square
feet
on
the
other
side,
it's
triple
the
size.
Now,
let
me
ask
you
a
question
when
you
run
out
of
room
on
this
side,
where
are
you
going
to
go
when
you
run
out
of
room?
R2
is
already
congested
as
it
is.
You
can't
move
you're
proposing
to
bury
it
10
times
over,
there's
no
place
to
park.
There's
nothing
now
or
not.
E
E
Is
it
going
to
be
any
different
when
you
run
out
of
room
here?
So
why
do
you
want
to
bury
this
side
with
what
you're
proposing
and
not
that
side?
Why
is
that?
Because
I
can't
understand
in
the
city
of
cambridge
they
allow
they
allow
for
affordable
housing,
all
section
of
the
city
to
be
equal
to
be
built
for
affordable
housing,
so
they
get
away.
E
But
here
you
turn
around
and
say
I
don't
want
you
to
go
to
r1
and
you're
only
changing
a
thousand
feet
because
you
already
have
seven
thousand
five
hundred
and
you
own
a
six
thousand
or
on
the
other
side
on
r2.
You
want
to
bury
it.
You
want
to
kill
it
according
to
your
plans.
Here,
that's
what
you're
doing
here.
You
say,
I'm
repeating
it
all
over
again
and
then
I
would
like
for
you
to
explain
to
me
what
is
the
difference
between
there
and
here
why?
E
A
Allow
the
answer
to
the
question
so
I'll.
Let
the
city
manager
ask
the
question
the
the
the
question
by
my
colleague
is
such
there
is
a
larger
discrepancy
between
the
r1
and
r2.
Yes,
in
r2,
you
allow
a
greater
density
than
the
r1
and,
and
the
opinion
is
that
one
side
has
to
deal
with
the
density
issues
and
all
that
that
comes
with
it
and
the
r1
does
not.
So
what
is
the
thinking
behind
it
and
going
forward?
How
do
we?
D
D
Right
now
originally,
but
it
was
read
yes
but
re-submitted
by
the
commission
and
there's
some
errors
in
your
calculations
and
the
r1,
I'm
sorry
r2
on
5000.
You
would
not
be
able
to
do
six
units.
You'd
only
be
able
to
do
two
units
on
five
thousand
square
feet,
because
the
first
unit
requires
3,
500
and
then
1
000
for
each
there.
So
it's
4
500
would
not
be
enough
to
do
more
than
that.
D
G
D
No,
I
I
can't
say
it
was
50
years
ago.
I
don't
know
how
long
he
was,
but
it
was
before
I
started
working
here
or
for
this
working
as
a
consultant
to
the
city
in
the
80s.
D
The
vision
at
that
time
was
that
it
would
promote
more
dense
development
around
the
downtown,
where
there
are
numerous
bus
lines
where
at
the
time
there
were
better
access
through
the
roads
and
more
infrastructure,
more
appropriate
infrastructure
and
lesser
as
you
went
out,
plus
the
traffic
was
hilly,
so
it's
not
as
flat
as
the
rest
of
the
area,
so
the
lots
are
a
little
bit
more
difficult
to
build
on,
because
of
that,
so
you
had
to
provide
for
the
larger
lot
size.
That's
that's
the
thinking
behind
the
zoning.
E
So
let
me
I
can
understand
what
you're
saying
right,
but
now
let
me
let
the
people
understand
what
you're
saying
it's
a
simple
thing.
So
your
reasoning
behind
it,
because
here
there's
more
infrastructure
and
there
there's
less
infrastructure.
Okay.
That
is
the
reasoning
that
you're
saying
from
what
I
understand
what
you
said.
E
It's
typically
done
because
here
you're
closer
to
the
infrastructure
and
there
you're
not,
but
you
forget
to
mention
one
thing:
the
most
important
thing
of
it
all
infrastructure's
there
just
like
here,
we're
all
one
city
and
for
another
here,
you're
ten
times
crowded
more
than
you
are
up
there.
So
in
other
words
to
you,
your
proposal
from
what
I
gather
is:
okay,
we're
gonna
bury
you
here,
because
you
have
all
the
infrastructure,
because
all
the
people
live
there.
E
So
we're
going
to
make
you
a
sardine
can
well
over
there
because
there's
no
infrastructure
we're
not
going
to
make
your
saudi
camp,
so
in
other
words,
what
you're
saying
is
we're
going
to
reward
you,
because
you
have
no
infrastructure
and
we're
going
to
give
it
to
you,
because
you
got
the
infrastructure.
That's
your
words,
not
mine.
E
E
As
opposed
to,
but
when
you
say
the
reasoning
behind
it
is
because
there's
more
infrastructure
here
and
less
there,
that's
what
you're,
saying
and
not
directly
but
indirectly,
you're
saying
we're
going
to
bury
you,
because
you
got
the
infrastructure
we're
going
to
penalize
you.
They
don't
have
any
infrastructure,
so
we're
not
going
to
penalize
them,
but
eventually
at
your
own
words,
when
you
run
out
of
room
here,
I'm
saying
it
again
where
you're
going
to
go.
D
If
this
is
if
this
is
implemented,
you'll
be
allowed
for
zoning
in
the
r2
at
the
density
as
proposed,
and
then
the
r1
is
the
density
as
it's
proposed.
It
will
allow
for
more
density
in
the
downtown.
If
it
is
adopted,
if
it
isn't,
the
zoning
board
would
not
be
would
it
would
require
much
more
relief
and
more
difficult
to
get
through
past.
A
The
zone,
no,
no
council,
I'm
going
to
let
other
councils,
because
we
only
have
a
half
hour,
but
before
I
allow
councillor
garcia
to
to
speak
historically.
A
H
H
I
Thank
you
tom,
for
clarifying
and
thank
you,
john
for
your
presentation.
I
want
to
go
back
to
what
we're
just
covering
now,
which
is
the
public
input
in
your
presentation.
You
made
it
clear
that
the
planning
board
voted
against
it,
recommending
public
input
more
public
input.
So
today,
at
7
pm
we
have
these
motions
in
front
of
us
and
I
guess
my
question
is
a
procedural
question.
A
I
think
I
could
answer
that.
The
I
had
an
earlier
conversation
with
the
city
manager
because
I
was
watching
the
planning
board
tape.
I
didn't
attend
it,
so
I
needed
to
watch,
and
I
saw
that
the
administration
at
that
point
recommended
that
we
have
greater
public
input,
has
also
been
hearing
the
same
from
our
former
colleague
roseanne,
bon
giovanni
and
green
roots
and
other
stakeholders.
So
the
idea
was
that
I
don't
know
he
can
maybe
explain
what
the
public
process
would
be,
but
the
easiest
way
to
allow
that
is
just
tonight.
A
H
You
know
honestly,
this
is.
It
was
not
my
intent
to
pursue
this
path
this
summer
it
was
really
my
intent
to
wait
to
the
fall,
because
I'm
trying
to
launch
a
whole
different
public
engagement
process
this
summer
on
oppa
funds,
which
really
have
a
much
higher
priority.
I
think
for
the
city
than
these
zoning
changes.
So
honestly,
if
you're
asking
what
process
would
I
recommend
it
would
probably
be
for
the
city
to
not
accept
these
changes
and
we'll
revisit
this
at
a
later
date?.
H
I
want
the
r1
and
the
r2
changes.
I
would
suggest
that
you
not
approve
them
and-
and
then
I
think
we
could
revisit
this
in
the
fall
after
we
engage
the
general
public
in
some
discussion
about
density
in
both
the
r1
and
the
r2
district.
As
I
said,
I
personally
feel
there's
room
for
some
compromise
here
that
there
is
room
to
increase
density
which
I've
I've
been
up
here.
Many
times
saying
this
is
important
to
the
city
to
create
some
additional
density.
H
I
think
there's
room
to
do
it,
but
I
do
think
it
needs
some
public
process.
It's
not
something
that
I
would
recommend
we
engage
in
over
the
course
of
this
particular
summer,
but
rather
something
that
we
do
in
the
fall.
I
notwithstanding
my
belief
that
density
is
important
and
we
ought
to
be
looking
at
this
there's
not
time
pressure
on
us
to
do
this.
There's
no
imminent
emergency
facing
us
at
the
moment
in
either
one
of
these
districts.
H
D
A
G
So
it
seems
to
me,
too
that
there
should
be
some
more
time
for
residents
to
weigh
in
on
this,
and
not
just
you
know,
the
heads
of
non-profits
to
you
know
have
a
little
pow-wow
with
the
powers-to-be
to
come
up
with
something
I
mean,
the
the
the
residents
should
be
able
to
really
weigh
in
and
go
to
community
meetings
in
all
the
proposed
districts.
So
we
so
we
have
really
what
the
sense
of
the
the
neighborhoods
are
if
they,
if
they
want
this
change
or
not,
regardless
of
what
non-profits
want
or
don't
want.
H
G
H
G
H
G
In
some
of
these,
in
some
of
these
proposals
it
would
I
mean
I
understand
we
have
a
dilemma.
We
need
more
housing,
but
you
know
people
don't
want
more
density,
but
you
can't
have
more
housing
without
more
density,
and
so
you
know
you
got
to
choose
what's
more
important
here.
Compromise,
like
you
said,
I
think,
is
probably
the
answer,
but
but
but
in
a
way
that
you
know,
may
not
fundamentally
change
some
of
these
neighborhoods
and
that's
the
thing.
G
So
if
you,
if
you
you
know
people
that
in
live
in
my
district,
like
their
single
family
homes
and
and
you
know,
wouldn't
want
to
be
made
into
another
part
of
the
city,
because
somebody
else
wants
to
make
my
district
like
theirs
and
so
and
so
to
me
you
know
that
that
that
that's
that's
you
know.
That's
that's
a
lot
to
ask.
H
I
think
you're
raising
a
fair
point
and
we
could
have
a
process
where
there's
public
input
and
hopefully
come
to
some
compromise,
where
we
could
make
some
modest
changes
to
some
of
these
districts
that
would
both
increase
density,
but
still
retain
the
general
existing
character
of
the
neighborhoods.
I
feel
that's
possible,
I
guess
we'll
have
to
wait
and
see
and
it
does
require
some
public
process
which
I
would
say,
let's
engage
in
in
the
fall.
F
H
H
We're
trying
to
avoid
that
if
we
want
to
come
back
and
reengage
on
this
either
next
fall
or
even
early
next
spring.
So
I
it
may
be
that
instead
of
voting,
no
shutting
these
down
and
then
starting
again
in
the
fall,
we
may
need
to
keep
the
public
hearing
open
through
the
summer.
But
that
is
something
I'm
asking
the
city
so
sort
of
look
at
hopefully
have
a
response
to
you
before
seven.
F
H
H
E
This
question
has
been
lingering
on
for
about
six
months
now
you
had
public
hearing
twice
because
this
was
proposed
twice:
okay,
here's
my
question,
a
simple
question:
r1
ain't
changing
you're
only
changing
a
thousand
feet,
the
one
that's
really
needs
public
changing
is
r2
where
you
want
to
bury
them.
So
why
can't
we
go
on
with
r1,
because
I
want
ain't
changing?
What
are
you
changing
a
thousand
feet?
You
go
to
your
scale
here
and
then
my
fellow
counselor
says
some
counselors
want
to
change
my
neighborhood.
Are
we
all
the
same
neighborhoods?
E
What
is
this
my
neighborhood,
your
neighborhood?
Are
we
one
city?
What
what
are
we
playing
here,
your
neighborhood's
better
than
my
neighborhood?
Oh,
that's!
Not
what
we're
supposed
to
play
and
r1.
What
are
we
changing
when
you
really
think
about
it?
You
ain't
changing
nothing
you're,
only
changing
a
thousand
from
seven
thousand
five
hundred
to
six
thousand
to
allow
a
two
family.
E
E
H
Because
if
you
read
the
provision
it
says
in
the
r2
district,
the
minimum
wage
size
is
5
000
square
feet,
then
you
need
for
each
unit.
The
first
unit
requires
3
500
square
feet
and
an
additional
thousand
okay.
So
when
you
get
to
5
000
square
feet,
you
don't
have
enough
room
for
that
third
unit.
You
only
have
enough
room
for
two
units.
E
H
E
H
E
H
E
H
E
H
E
That's
all
you're
doing
you're,
not
changing
you're,
not
strategic
you're,
not
killing
the
area
and
from
what
I
said
and-
and
I
kind
of
don't
agree
with
somebody
from
is
trying
to
my
neighborhood,
we're
all
the
same
neighborhoods
we're
all
the
same
thing
in
this
city
we
shouldn't
be.
Your
area
is
better
than
my
area,
because
that's
not
what
it
is.
All
the
people.
A
In
there,
so
if
you're
gonna,
if
you're
gonna,
not
ask
the
question
I'll,
take
the
mic
away
from
you
at
this
time,
tom
just
from
fair
recognition,
I
believe
the
5000.
Originally
the
city
had
a
5
000
square
foot
lot
minimum
overall,
it
was
changed
in
about
2002
to
the
current
75,
but
up
until
2002
minimum
a
lot
sizes
in
the
city
in
chelsea,
including
the
r1,
was
5000
square
feet.
A
For
whatever
reason
I
don't
know
when
they
changed
it,
but
even
three
families
and
multi-families
were
allowed
in
the
r1s
and
if
you
go
around
chelsea,
particularly
the
r1
district
stay
along
garfield
ave,
sagamore
jones
street.
There
are
plenty
examples
of
multi-families
and
it
just
seemed
that
maybe
in
the
70s
they
went
backwards
for
whatever
reason,
but
a
lot
of
those
three
families
that
are
built
along
route
16
and
on
nickels
and
all
those
they
were
definitely
built
before
the
1970s.
A
A
So
are
there
any
other
questions?
No
counselor
cheryl
thank
the
city
solicitor.
Cheryl.
You
want
to
apply
to.
J
The
evening
counselors
to
the
chair
as
to
the
r1
amendment,
that's
before
you
I'm
recommending
that
you
continue
the
public
hearing
in
september.
J
J
A
A
B
A
Right,
but
on
voting,
the
the
vote
on
the
actual
amendment
will
be
to
continue
a
motion
to
continue
the
public
hearing.
A
J
So
tonight,
you're
holding
a
public
hearing
on
each
separate
amendment,
correct
and
people
can
speak
at
each
particular
separate
amendment,
I'm
saying
as
to
the
r1
amendment.
I
would
move
to
continue
the
matter
to
continue
the
public
hearing
and
not
have
a
vote
on
it.
So
that's
what
you're
doing
when
you
motion
to
continue
the
public
hearing.
Just
as
to
that
amendment.
F
A
A
A
J
I
would
just
think,
as
to
our
one
district,
I
believe
you
could
continue.
The
you're
gonna
have
a
lot
of
people,
maybe
speaking
on
different
issues.