►
From YouTube: City Council Sub Committee of 3-1-21
Description
City of Chelsea, via WebEx, Chelsea Cable TV
A
A
B
A
A
B
B
That
was
sent
to
us
in
regards
to
what
we
had
sent
back
in
november
october
of
last
year,
dear
counselor
visionaire,
at
the
regular
meeting,
the
city
planning
board
held
a
meeting
on
tuesday
december
15th,
at
which
a
quorum
was
present
and
the
public
hearing
was
held.
The
planning
board
voted
on
the
following
amendments
on
its
agenda.
B
B
They
voted
to
approve,
recommend
city
council
approval
of
the
zoning
change.
I'm
sorry.
The
zoning
change
in
downtown
parking
was
voted
unanimously
to
be
amended
or
redrafted.
They
had
concerns
relative
to
the
hours
of
the
parking.
The
members
felt
that
the
12
am
to
5
am
time.
Period
has
delineated
the
cover
and
the
cover
letter
was
not
convenient
for
residents.
B
Also.
They
had
concerns
relative
to
the
current
downtown
districts
residents
who
hold
a
sticker
in
the
current
program.
They
specifically
asked
who
would
qualify
for
the
new
program
that
was
not
specified,
and
they
also
spoke
about
putting
a
limit
on
the
number
of
passes
available
for
each
residential
unit.
There
was
no
limits
on
the
mixed.
You
overlay
district
for
the
area
adjacent
to
the
new
commuter
rail,
that
is
the
area
off
of
vale
street.
Behind
the
former
chelsea
clark,
they
voted
unanimously
for
the
council
to
approve
it.
B
B
B
Also
a
vote
to
amend
a
zoning
ordinance
to
allow
any
of
the
following
by
special
permit
multi-family
housing
or
mixed-use
development
in
the
eligible
location
of
zones,
an
increase
in
the
permissible
density
or
population
of
intensity
of
a
particular
loose
use
in
proposed
multi-family
or
mis.
Mixed
use.
B
A
reduction
in
the
amount
of
parking
required
for
residential
or
mixed
use:
development
pert
pursuant
to
mgl
40a,
section
a
a
vote
to
amend
zoning
ordinances
that
provides
transfer
of
development
rights,
zoning
or
natural
resource
reproduction
zoning,
as
long
as
it
does
not
reduce
the
maximum
number
of
housing
units
and
a
zoning.
Any
amendment
to
zoning
ordinance
that
modifies
the
dimensional
requirements,
such
as
bulk
and
height
of
structures,
yard
sizes,
lots
areas,
setbacks,
open
space
parking
and
building
coverage
requirements
to
allow
for
additional
housing
units
beyond
what
would
otherwise
be
permitted
under
existing
ordinances.
B
At
this
time,
I'm
going
to
ask
if
the
john,
the
priest
would
please
step
up
and
just
give
us
a
refresher
of
those
zoning
amendments
that
were
recommended
by
the
zoning
by
rather
the
planning
board,
and
just
I
guess,
we'll
ask
carl
on
the
waterfront.
But
you
can
just
stick
to
the
non-waterfront
issues
that
we
had
discussed.
B
D
So
the
first
three
amendments
are
relative
to
the
change
in
density
in
the
r2
district.
Amendment
number
one
would
just
change
the
designation
of
the
units,
one
to
six
or
seven
plus
amendment
two
would
actually
change
for
one
to
six
units.
It
would
change
the
the
lot
size
from
3500
square
feet
for
the
first
unit.
A
thousand
for
each
additional
unit
and
for
the
seven
plus
units
would
be
3
500
for
the
first
unit
and
950
for
each
additional
unit.
D
D
D
D
E
B
A
D
D
Units
would
not
get
permission
to
park
on
street.
Basically,
they
felt
that
was
a
violation
of
that
council
order,
and
then
they
had
a
concern
about
who
would
be
eligible
to
participate,
and
they
also
had
a
concern
relative
to
what
would
happen
to
those
residents
in
downtown
kawarthi
haverson's
sticker
parking.
Would
they
be
able
to
maintain
those
stickers,
or
would
they
be
required
to
get
the
new
sticker
program.
D
God
continue
so
amendment
number
seven
creates
the
mixed
use
overlay
district
up
in
the
evernote
north
areas.
Basically,
in
that
parcel
apostles
bounded
by
everett
ave,
the
everett
border
and
the
railroad
tracks,
we
create
a
mixed
mixed-use
overlay
district
to
promote
residential
development
in
that
area.
F
Sure,
if
I
just
could
all
of
these,
this
particular
package
of
zoning
proposals,
with
the
exception
of
the
downtown
parking
one,
that
the
planning
board
did
not
recommend
all
the
others,
all
of
which
the
planning
board
did
recommend
they're
all
really
aimed
at
creating
some
greater
density.
So
in
the
r1
district,
which
is
the
most
restrictive
of
our
zoning
districts,
it
allows
only
one
and
two
family
homes.
This
would
simply
reduce
the
lot
size
from
seventy
five
hundred
to
six
thousand
square
feet
and
allow
some
additional
watts
to
be
built
upon
in
the
r2.
F
It's
to
try
to
create
some
density.
More
consistent
with
the
r3
district,
which,
right
now
by
special
permit,
is
about
45
units,
an
acre,
we're
trying
to
create
something
similar,
a
little
less
in
the
r2
district.
That
looks
quite
the
same
as
the
r3
district
in
the
park
square
area.
One
side
of
that
street
is
downtown
retail
business.
There's
no
reason
the
other
side
of
that
square
shouldn't
be
the
same,
and
we
think
it
will
help
to
spur
the
redevelopment
of
that
polo
compareo
site
and
the
overlay
district,
which
is
in
that
triangular
area.
F
That
includes
all
of
that
junkyard
area
in
behind
where
fairfield
is
building
and
includes
the
piece
of
the
stop
and
shop
site.
That's
in
chelsea.
This
will
allow
residential
development
right
now.
Residential
development
is
completely
prohibited
in
that
triangular
area.
So
it's
all
an
effort
to
create
some
opportunity
for
housing,
development.
B
G
F
No
that
whole
block
is
getting.
The
proposal
is
to
rezone
that
whole
polo
comparal
block
that
encompasses
that
whole
block
around
paul
camparo
ellsworth
street
down
congress,
there's
about
five
parcels,
there's
actually
there's
five
parcels
that
would
be
rezoned.
It's
that
whole
block,
that
sort
of
fronts
on
the
pole,
comparo
site.
F
F
What
we're
proposing
is
to
treat
that
area
just
like
the
area
across
the
street,
where
the
hardware
store
is
where
commercial
shops
are.
That's
all
retail
business.
That's
all
zoned,
downtown
retail
business,
we're
proposing
the
other
side
of
the
street
should
be
zoned
the
same
downtown
retail
business.
B
One
one
other
question:
tom
and
john:
the
planning
board
had
voted
to
increase
the
parking
requirement
in
the
overlay
district
from
0.5
to
one
correct,
but
in
front
of
us
right
now
is
still
the
original
0.5.
Is
that
correct,
or
do
we
have
to
ch
in
order
to
go
with
the
recommendation
by
the
planning
board?
That
also
would
have
to
be
amended
tonight
correct.
B
F
F
You
already
can
build
where
kershawn
is
they're
already
zoned
retail
business.
What
I'm
suggesting
is
the
other
side
of
the
street
should
be
treated
the
same.
They
should
both
be
zoned
they're
on
both
sides
of
this
commercial
square,
one
is
zoned
commercial,
retail
business,
the
kershawn
side,
the
other
side.
Isn't
it's
zoned
residential.
H
So
and
when,
if
that
doesn't
when
this
goes
through,
how
is
the
parking
situation
going
to
be
affected?
Are
you
going
to
follow
the
same
rules
as
you
do
in
the
downtown,
where
you're
going
to
give
you're
going
to
build
all
these
apartment
builders,
let's
say
right
and
then
you're
gonna
the
people
here
they
have
did
not
require
one
spot.
They
say
they
require
one
spot,
but
then
never
do
whatever
it
is,
and
then
they're
gonna
be
allowed
to
go
into
the
the
same
way
as
people
that
lived
here
to
get
a
residence
sticker.
F
F
B
D
D
A
hundred
feet
is
that
and
modern
construction
is
actually
closer
to
seven
to
eight
stories.
The
old
construction
each
story
was
about
10
feet,
but,
however,
under
new
construction,
they
usually
go
12
to
14
feet
because
they're,
adding
all
the
utilities
on
the
ceilings
like
air
conditioning
ducks,
eating
ducks
and
stuff
like
that.
B
B
H
Over
here
you
have
r1
and
r2
right
over
here
and
now
one
you
can
one
to
two
units
for
dwelling
right
of
three
thousand
five
hundred
square
feet:
six
thousand
square
feet:
total
and
r2.
You
have
one
to
six
units,
three
thousand
five
hundred
square
feet,
one
unit
for
every
thousand
additional
units,
and
then
up
here
you
got
only
five
thousand
square
feet.
Why
is
the
big
discrepancy
between
r1
and
r2
r1?
You
can
build
two
units
and
you
have
six
thousand
square
feet.
H
Then
you
need
an
additional
three
thousand
and
one
hundred
square
feet
to
build
an
additional
unit.
Correct
and
my
district,
more
or
less
or
anybody's
district.
That's
part
of
it.
They
can
build
one
to
six
units.
Then
every
three
thousand
five
additional
feet:
they
can
build
each
one
for
another
thousand
feet.
So
now
what
you're
saying
is
here,
you're
dense
to
the
gills
and
we're
gonna
dent
you
some
more
over
there.
You're
not
dense
and
you're
gonna
bet
and
you're,
not
gonna
bury
them.
At
least.
H
If
you
were
gonna
do
I
would
have
meant
to
put
one
to
three
units,
not
one
to
two
here
and
that's
only
going
half
or
what
you're
proposing
to
do
on
my
side
on
anybody's
side.
That's
an
r2,
that's
not
even
half.
Now
I
can
understand
you
wanted
it
to
make
it
fairly
right,
whatever
it
is,
but
the
answer
will
probably
be
because
I
spoke
to
mr
dupries
before
and
he
told
me
the
answer
is
predominantly
this
side
can
handle
it
and
that
side
can't.
H
So
how
does
it
make
a
difference
that
this
side
can
handle,
which
is
already
buried?
You
can't
even
move
as
it
is,
and
that
side
can't.
So
I
can.
I
can
agree
with
what
you're
proposing
I
got
no
issue
with
it.
The
only
proposal
I
want
to
see
difference
is
why
one
to
two:
why
don't
you
make
it
one
to
three?
That's
halfway.
F
So
I
would
say
that
we
weren't
trying
the
reason
we
did,
that
is
we
weren't
proposing
to
change
any
of
the
existing
residential
uses
in
either
of
those
districts.
So
right
now
the
residential
uses
that
are
allowed
on
the
r2
district
are
apartment
buildings.
You
can
build
as
many
units
as
you
wish.
It's.
The
only
limitation
is
the
size
of
your
lot
in
the
r1
district
right
now
and
historically,
you
did
not
have
that
right.
You
can
only
build
a
one
family,
ra2
family,
that's
all
you
can
build.
F
You
can
build
much
more
in
the
r2
right
now,
except
you're
you're
limited
by
the
size
of
your
lot,
but
there's
no
prohibition
against
building
a
three
four
five
or
six
family
unit
in
r2.
There
currently
is
in
the
r1,
and
we
did
not
propose
to
change
that.
The
council
certainly
could
if
they
wished,
but
that
district
is
predominantly
single
and
two
family
homes
and
historically,
that
use
has
been
limited
to
that
amount
in
that
district,
and
we
did
not
propose
to
change
it,
but.
H
F
A
H
B
A
B
B
The
reply
was
we
have
minimized
or
they're
proposing
to
minimize
the
lot
sizes
in
the
r1,
but
the
use
is
consistent,
just
as
it
remains
consistent
in
the
r2,
which
is
right
now
in
our
ones,
whether
it
be
soldiers,
home
mill,
hill
or
prattville.
R1
is
simply
ones
and
two
families.
We
are
decreasing
the
lot
sizes
in
those
areas,
so
you
consistent,
we
haven't
changed
anything
and
we're
not
about
to.
H
H
They're
not
allowed
to
get
it,
but
this
side,
which
is
predominantly
three
and
four
five:
six,
whatever
it
is,
and
there's
no
room
to
park
at
all,
you're
relaxing
the
lot
size
and
you're
relaxing
the
amount
of
units
you
can
build
on
that
lot,
but
that
side
you're
not
a
lot
you're,
not
relaxing
nothing,
you're,
relaxing
one
and
two,
which
is
predominantly
one
and
two
all
the
time.
So
the
only
thing
you're
not
changing
anything
on
that
side
at
all.
H
B
A
H
B
F
So
could
I
I
just
do
want
to
add
one
point.
My
my
intention
here
is
not
to
bury
the
r2
district.
Honestly,
this
proposal
had
came
in
response
to
a
series
of
complaints
I
received
from
chelsea
homeowners
owners
occupied
people
in
the
r2
district,
who
were
complaining
to
me
that
their
ability
to
add
units
was
being
constrained
far
beyond
what
people
right
across
the
street
or
a
few
streets
over
in
the
r3
district
could
do,
and
they
said
that
district
looks
just
like
ours.
H
I
commend
you
for
trying
to
do
that
tom.
I
get
your
point
I
get,
but
the
I
get
what
you're
trying
to
do,
but
it's
really
not
fair.
If
you're
gonna
build
on
a
lot
size
on
r2-
and
I
can
understand
your
point
and
I
one
at
least
make
it
halfway-
don't
do
it
80
to
20,
make
it
fair,
instead
of
one
to
two
allowed
to
build
trees.
H
Where
I
am
you
all,
I
want
to
build
six
or
more,
according
because
here
you
say
here
you
have,
but
your
figures
are
here
one
area
you
got
6
000
and
you
can
build
one
to
two.
Whenever
you
got
five
thousand,
you
can
build
one
to
six
plus
each
additional
unit.
You
need
one
thousand
in
the
other
area.
You
need
three
thousand
five
hundred.
So
how
does
it
fear
it's?
It's
really.
H
F
A
fair
point-
I
guess
I
would
say,
unlike
in
this
situation,
where
I've
heard
from
homeowners
in
the
r2
district
about
this
concern,
they
asked
me
to
try
to
address
it.
I've
never
heard
any
in
the
time
I've
been
here.
It's
only
been
five
and
a
half
years,
so
it's
not
forever,
but
I
have
never
yet
had
an
r1
owner
come
to
me
and
say,
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
change
the
zoning
to
build
a
three
family
home.
It's
just
it's
not
a.
F
H
Okay,
tom,
I
see
what
you're
saying,
but
here's
I'll
make
you
an
example.
Okay,
they
built
the
house
on
suffolk
street
on
3
000
square
feet
every
day.
The
poor
people
complain
to
me
every
day.
They
got
no
way
to
park.
They're
allowed
to
build
that
on
three
thousand
square
feet
right
and
what's
that
a
four
family,
three
four
family.
Whatever
it
is,
it's
it's
a
big
big
thing
in
a
small
little
spot.
I
got
no
issue
with
you
trying
to
build
right.
I
have
no
problem
with
this.
H
The
only
problem
I
have
is
try
to
be
at
least
half
fair.
You
don't
have
to
be
all
fear.
What
I'm
saying
is
if
you
can
build
one
to
six
on
five
thousand,
why
can't
you
build
one
two,
three
on
six
thousand
and
that's
not
even
half?
Why
can't
you
do
that?
Is
that
such
a
bad
thing
you're
telling
me?
Well,
we
can't
do
it
there,
because,
oh
that's,
never
been
that
way.
I'm.
H
B
F
B
D
B
D
Right
so
delivery,
only
establishment
has
a
number
of
amendments
themselves.
The
first
one
would
allow
the
office
use
only
as
an
accessory
use
in
any
residential
district
and
there's
some
guidelines.
There's
no
storage
of
marijuana
products,
no
change
in
residential
character,
operated
by
the
resident
of
the
building,
no
more
one
employee,
no
more
than
one
employee
and
several
others
to
keep
it
still
a
residential
character.
To
it.
D
Amendment
two
would
extend
the
district
in
which
maryland
retailer
is
allowed
to
include
the
br
and
the
br2
districts.
Amendment
number
three
would
permit
delivery.
Only
marijuana
establishments
in
the
br
br2
s
bhsc,
I
l,
I
l,
I
two
and
nhc
districts
by
right
and
permits
marijuana
transporter
in
the
bhscni
district
is
high
districts
by
special
permit.
D
B
A
D
B
B
B
C
K
B
B
B
B
B
F
F
F
B
B
B
B
F
We're
just
trying
to
allow
for
the
possibility
of
these
uses.
There
I
mean
they're.
All
most
of
these
are
by
special
permits,
so
we
would
have
a
say
as
to
whether
we
want
them
or
not.
Creating
all
all
knows
just
constrains
the
potential
uses
there.
I
think
we're
trying
to
see.
Can
we
attract
uses
to
that
side
of
marginal
street.
B
What
I'm
saying
is
it's
been
50
years
and
none
of
those
uses
have
ever
come
forth
with
it
are
being
allowed.
So,
given
the
environment
that
we're
in
what
even
provides,
if
anything
would
give
a
hiccup
to
what
is
actually
occurring
all
and
around
greater
boston,
I
don't
see
any
of
that
development
at
all,
and
let
me
just
follow
that
up
as
I
participated
and
I
watched
keenly,
the
waterfront
planning
meeting
of
the
east
boston
right
on
the
other
side
and
there's
not
one
marine
use.
B
Zoned
allowed
use
on
the
same
chelsea
creek
on
the
non-water
side
of
east
boston,
nothing
at
all.
It
is
completely
mixed
use,
residential
and
yet
somehow,
without
one
one,
not
one
interest
ever
displayed
in
our
waterfront.
For
that
I
don't
understand
why
we're
holding
on
to
that.
For
the
you
know,
something
that's
been
not
there
for
the
last
50
years.
F
Honestly,
I
don't
see
the
harm
in
allowing
uses
by
special
permit
and
if
the
demand
is
for
the
kind
of
residential
development
that
you're
talking
about
it's
allowed
in
here
by
right
on
this
side,
so
that,
if
that's
the
use
that
the
market's
going
to
demand,
that's
likely
the
use.
That's
going
to
occur.
F
K
H
F
F
H
B
H
B
B
B
F
Most
of
this
most
of
these
commercial
uses
would
require
a
special
permit,
so
there'd
be
plenty
of
ability
for
neighbors
to
understand
the
proposal
for
the
boards
to
weigh
in
on
the
one
thing
that's
allowed
by
right,
however,
is
residential
uses
the
same
as
is
allowed
by
right
right
now,
which
is
35
units
in
acre.
We
have
not
changed
that.
E
So
much
of
a
question:
maybe
it's
just
a
statement
I
like
to
just
piggyback
on
what
you've
been
saying.
I
think
we
should
encourage
the
residents
to
know
before
we
adopt
when
it
is
here,
especially
in
this
area.
Here.
What
are
some
of
the
potential
proposals
if
there
are-
and
you
know,
try
to
get
some
feedback
to
see
exactly
what
residents
would
like
to
have
here,
because
there
are
already
existence,
places,
dwellings
there
and
obviously
folks
have
already
invested
so
much
in
that
area
and
much
more
to
be
invested.
E
But
we
do.
We
should
do
our
ideology
to
try
to
allow
people
to
have
a
state
of
some
of
the
potential
things
that
they'll
like
to
go
there
or
just
be
aware
of
it.
I
mean
and
in
light
of
what
we're
still
dealing
with
right
now,
people
are
still
locked
in
people
are
still
worrying
about
other
things,
and
this
is
going
on
and
we're
moving
ahead.
I
just
think
we
should.
E
We
only
went
to
the
folks
to
let
them
know
that
these
are
some
serious
proposals
before
us
and
if
no
one
willing
to
come
and
give
testimony,
then
you
know
we
have
we've
done
what
we
can,
but
I
think
we
need
to
go
far
and
beyond
and
giving
the
residents
the
opportunity
to
be
aware
of
these
really
drastic
changes.
We're
about
to
make
for
our
support.
B
Okay,
I
wanted
to
mention
tonight
that,
in
addition
to
these
amendments,
we
do
have
on
the
agenda
the
amendment
to
increase
the
number
of
marijuana
licenses
would
also
be
voted
on.
I
know
that
we
have
a
lot
of
zoning
marijuana.
Zoning
related
amendments
that
night.
The
amendments
that
is
proposed
by
myself
is
to
increase
the
number
of
licenses
from
four
total
to
six
total,
not
an
additional
six,
as
some
may
have
misinterpreted
earlier,
but
it
is
to
increase
the
total
number
of
six.
B
So
if
there's
anyone
who
has
any
questions
regarding
that
particular
issue,
I
think
that
we
had
a
subcommittee
on
this
issue.
A
meeting
there
seemed
to
be
a
general
support
of
this
city.
Manager
was
in
support
of
this,
and
so
I
put
it
forth
I'll.
Allow
anyone
to
have
any
questions
regarding
this
at
this
moment
either
to
the
city,
manager
or
anyone
else.
B
E
A
E
E
E
F
B
Actually,
I
think,
I
think
counselor
brown,
sorry
if
we
do
amend
or
rather
approve
the
amendment
for
the
broad
way
business
zone
to
approve.
Then
one
of
the
proposals,
which
is
the
central
latino
who
already
has
had
a
community
meeting,
would
then
qualify
as
a
zone,
an
area
that
would
be
now
allowed,
even
though
they
have
already
had
a
community
meeting
the
site
that
they
have
been
talking
about
both
here
and
into
the
public.
B
G
B
E
That
wasn't
my
question,
though.
Okay,
my
question
was:
do
we
have
under
the
proposed
amendments
that
we're
about
to
vote
on
whether
it's
the
next
meeting
do
any
the
additional,
not
the
four
that
we're
already
aware
of
the
two?
Will
they
be
allowed
to
fit
into
any
of
those?
Because
we
have
to
know
where
these
potential
places
are
going
prior
to
voting.
E
Okay,
so
that's
that's,
that's
a
fair
answer,
so
we
move
forward.
Next,
we
move
forward.
We
vote
on
these
proposals.
They
come
back,
we
allowed
to
marijuana
existed
now.
We
have
four
four
plus
two
is
six,
and
now
we
may
have
to
entertain
a
special
permit
to
have
it
a
marijuana,
establishment
somewhere
else
correct.
F
There,
yes,
it's
all
by
special
permit,
you
cannot
get
a
in
any
district,
it's
not
as
a
matter
of
right.
So
all
of
these
districts
require
that
someone
seeking
a
marijuana
retail
store
must
seek
a
special
permit,
and
that
would
be
true.
That
would
be
true
in
the
retail
in
the
broadway
retail
business
district,
just
as
it
is
true
in
the
other
three
districts.
B
I
just
want
to
make
comments.
I
understand
that
at
the
last
when
this
subject
matter
came
up
or
these
amendments
came
up,
there
were
two
amendments
that
were
proposed
one
by
myself
and
one
by
council
robinson.
You
already
know
my
proposal
and
then
I've
discussed
it
tonight.
That
is,
I
plan
on
proposing
an
amendment
to
withdraw
the
maritime
uses
in
the
portland
upland,
so
that
is
covered.
If
anyone
has
any
questions,
let
me
know,
but
that
amendment
has
been
talked
about.
B
There
was
a
second
amendment
proposed
and
that
was
by
council
robinson
on
parking
to
address
the
fact
that
I
had
I
had
proposed
to
strike
the
section
6
of
the
downtown
parking,
because
the
planning
board
had
rejected
it.
Council
robinson
had
his
own
amendment
and
if
he
wants
to
talk
about
it
at
this
moment,
I'll
give
him
the
floor.
So
he
can
explain
what
his
amendment
will
do.
J
That's
built
on
top
of
any
of
the
commercial
space,
so
I
had
been
in
some
conversations
with
the
traffic
people
about
looking
at
creating
a
retail
parking
district
that
would
accommodate
any
new
development
that
would
be
built
downtown
on
broadway
and
that
would
include
only
one
residential
sticker
per
unit
and
to
be
allowed
in
any
any
of
those
developments.
So
if
there
was
four
units
being
built,
there
could
only
be
four
residential
tickets
parking
stickers
for
that
area.
B
H
If
they
build
all
down
and
out
on
broadway
right,
can
we
force
these
developers
to
create
parking
underneath?
If
we
okay,
can
we
make
them
because
it
seems
to
be
a
big
issue?
Is
the
parking
issue,
and
now
that
you
put
the
line
in
the
middle,
it's
even
going
to
be
even
worse
with
the
the
the
bus
lanes.
Right
because
can
we
make
them
say
you're
going
to
build,
but
we
want
you
to
build
underneath.
F
F
Possibly
you
know
that's
a
market
decision,
I
would
say
probably
yes,
but
I
don't
know
for
certain.
Most
developers
have
said
developing
the
kind
of
underground
parking
that
you
need
to
get
to
1.5
spaces
per
unit
in
the
downtown
is
cost
prohibitive.
That's
a
1.5
spaces
is
a
high
parking
ratio
and
that's
what
the
ratio
is
in
the
downtown.
H
G
Thank
you.
Mr
president,
I
have
a
couple
of
things
with
respect
to
what
councilor
robinson
just
said:
wouldn't
that
undermine
our
existing
ordinance
for
residential
parking
when
you
are
granted
zoning
relief,
or
are
we
looking
to
put
an
amendment
simply
in
the
broadway
area?
I
just
want
some
clarity
around
this
because
we
can't
say
we
can't
all
pass
an
ordinance
and
then
try
to
pass
something
that
counters
that
and
I'm
a
bit
confused.
F
F
In
essence,
that
pretty
much
means
that
these
people
can't
park
overnight
because
most
of
our
there
are
some
areas
where
we
have
24
7
enforcement,
but
in
most
areas
of
the
city
parking
enforcement
is
overnight
between
12
and
5
a.m.
You
cannot
park
your
car
on
the
street
without
a
residential
sticker
and
your
pro
your
ordinance
basically
says
if
you
built
a
development
and
got
parking
relief,
your
tenants
cannot
take
part
in
that
program.
F
What
I
was
trying
to
do
was
carve
out
a
very
small
narrow
exception
to
that
citywide
council
ordinance
that
basically
said
for
downtown
development,
and
we
would
identify
what
the
downtown
was
for
purposes
of
this
I'd
say
it
could
be
the
retail
business
district.
We
would
create
an
area
for
people
to
park
overnight.
F
So
presumably
we
could
say
the
two
new
lots
that
the
city
is
getting
under.
The
tobin
bridge
at
night
will
be
set
aside
for
people
for
not
just
every
resident
because
they
will
be
set
aside
for
all
residents,
but
residents
can
have
both
a
residential
sticker
or
this
special
sticker
for
downtown
residents,
who
otherwise
don't
qualify
for
the
residential
sticker,
and
those
people
would
have
at
least
a
hundred
spaces
where
they
could
park.
G
G
Framing
is
everything
mr
ambrosino.
Okay.
The
other
thing
I
want
to
say
is
that
parking
lot
under
the
bridge
that
dlt
or
the
mbta
gave
us.
You
have
offered
those
parking
spots
to
everyone
and
their
mother
and
every
single
conversation
we
have
you're
like
hey.
We
have
a
parking
lot
here.
We
have
a
parking
lot
there
and
at
some
point,
mr
ambrosino,
we
have
to
be
real
that
that
space
is,
there
is
a
capacity
okay,
counselor
aveda
neda.
G
Mr
president,
I
have
a
question
that
is
probably
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
for
you
or
if
it's
for
the
city
manager,
with
respect
to
the
maritime
amendment
that
you're
proposing,
I
know
the
city
manager
said,
look,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
in
case
you
know,
somebody
needs
to
fix
a
boat
on
this
side
of
the
land
that
we're
covered
right.
So
but
mike
my
question
is:
is
there
a
requirement
by
law
in
order
for
us
to
have
this
a
maritime
use
on
the
side
of
the
land?
That's
not
water.
B
B
F
B
G
Then
zoning
out-
that's
all.
I
just
want
to
make
a
quick
comment
and
well
two
quick
comments.
The
third
one
is
with
respect
to
the
marijuana
licenses.
I
just
want
to
remind
the
city
council
that
the
city
council
also
passed
an
ordinance
a
couple
of
years
back
that
required
50
of
our
marijuana
licenses
to
go
to
either
social
equity
or
economic
empowerment,
which
would
mean
that
instead
of
two
of
the
four
and
I
would
be
three
of
the
six.
G
I
think
that
we've
had
we've
done
our
due
diligence
in
making
sure
that
we're
holding
these
meetings.
I
am
grateful
we're
having
them
again,
but
you
know
at
some
point
I
just
you
know
we
need
to
be
held
accountable
to
ourselves,
because
we've
had
all
this
information
for
weeks.
That's
all
I
wanted
to
say.
Thank
you,
mr
president.
I
E
E
If
not,
I
believe
a
lot
of
these
proposals
that
potentially
is
going
to
follow
under
these
new
zoning
tax
changes,
I'm
quite
sure
90.
If
not
more
percentage
of
them
will
be
rental
units,
and
I
just
want
to
be
able
to
try
to
keep
some
of
our
residents
here,
and
I
think
we
should
have
some
of
that
language
in
this
proposal
somewhere,
and
I
just
don't
hear
them
or
I
don't
see
it.
F
So
there
is
nothing
in
any
of
the
zoning
amendments
before
you
that
mandates
that,
with
residential
development,
any
particular
percentage
must
be
owner
home
ownership
versus
rental.
Honestly,
I
would
I'm
not
sure
such
an
ordinance
could
pass
illegal
muster.
But
I
guess
that's
a
question
for
the
city
solicitor.
I
would
be
skeptical
whether
a
city
has
the
authority
to
put
requirements
in
that
certain
housing
units
be
ownership,
ones
versus
rental
ones.
But
that's
a
question.
I
guess,
for
the
city,
solicitor.
E
F
E
F
A
F
You
know
I
will
say
that
when
people
come
for
a
special
permit,
we
do
encourage
them
that
it
would
make.
You
know
the
board
is
likely
to
look
more
favorably
on
a
proposal
if
it
has
some
homeownership
element
to
it,
and
that
was
certainly
the
case
on
sixth
street,
where
some
and
that
affordable
unit
development
there's
some
home
ownership.
It
was
the
case
at
forbes
whether
that's
ever
getting
built-
I
don't
know,
but
it
there.
A
large
percentage
of
those
units
that
were
approved
are
required
by
the
agreed
upon
special
permit
to
be
home
ownership.
F
E
We
didn't
have
any
kind
of
conversation
about
it
and
I
think,
what's
going
to
happen,
especially
on
video
speed,
you're
going
to
have
the
same
thing,
that's
happened
and
if
you
ever
get
something
down
on
the
waterfront
you're
going
to
have
the
same
thing
and
we're
going
to
be
watching
other
residents
and
workers
in
the
city,
because
we
can't
afford
the
rent
and
they
can't
afford
to
back
and
we're
not
doing
anything.
At
this
point
about.
B
B
B
I
want
to
make
sure
that
something
is
not
lost
here
tonight,
folks
and-
and
I
think
that
deserves
credit
from
both
the
city
manager
and
the
staff
for
working
this
in,
and
that
is
and
also
talk
about
the
potential
numbers
here,
because
again,
when
we
talk
about
how
much
rental
we're
building
versus
ownership,
it
is
a
valid
question
and
some
arguments
being
made.
That
is
not
being
done
enough,
but
in
amendment
number
seven
in
the
overlay
district.
B
B
There
is
a
bonus
density
there,
and
that
means
if
the
developer
chooses
to
be
denser
than
what
is
already
allowed,
they
are
going
to
have
to
provide
more
affordable
units
than
the
zone
that
our
amendments
already
have
in
place.
So
I
want
the
city
manager
one
to
just
emphasize
this
one
part
one
more
time
and
second,
can
you
give
us
an
idea
of
the
comprehensive
number
that
we
are
looking
at?
If
you
talk
about
the
potential
of
the
development
of
stop
and
shop,
what
this
area
would
cover
what
wood
waste
would
cover
that
area.
F
B
F
F
We
were
trying
to
encourage
some
development
on
that
side,
and
so
this
zoning
change
is
necessary
to
do
that
because,
right
now,
as
I
said,
as
you
know,
there
is
no
residential
use
allowed
on
that
chelsea
portion
of
that
site,
and
so,
but
they
have
been
talking
at
most
of
about
a
hundred
units.
There.
B
F
No
one
has
come
forward
yet
and
looking
to
develop
we've
had
we
had
some
developers
in
before
we
proposed
this
a
year
or
so
ago,
not
even
longer,
maybe
two
years
ago
that
were,
I
know,
talking
to
some
of
the
owners.
They
were
talking
to
the
owner,
the
tomato
company,
but
nothing
ever
materialized.
So
I
just
don't
know
but.
B
F
I
don't
know
the
density
we've
proposed
is
equivalent
it's.
That
was
what
we
were
looking
at,
one
north
as
the
equivalent,
and
so
that's
the
density.
We've
proposed
it's
less
than
it's
less
than
the
fairfield
development,
which
is
at
80
units
an
acre.
What
we're
proposing
is
50
outside
of
the
bonus
density,
and
so
it's
more,
it
is
along
the
density
of
one
knot.
That's
precisely
the
the.
B
F
The
there's
a
requirement
here
that
you
have
at
least
an
acre.
You
can't
build
on
less
than
an
acre
in
this
overlay
under
this
overlay,
so
it's
50
units,
an
acre,
so
you'd
have
to
have
the
acreage
to
build
at
least
50
units.
Okay,
yeah
we're
not
allowing
small
we're
asking
people
in
a
lot
of
these
situations.
F
B
I
That
I
think
that
that
you
all
need
to
think
long
and
hard
about
this
density
question.
I
actually
think
that
this
is
a
big
mistake
that
the
council
is
about
to
embark
on.
If
you
vote
in
favor,
increasing
the
density
and
reducing
the
lot
size,
I
would
like
you
to
think
long
and
hard
about
learning
from
our
mistakes
of
the
past.
I
Chelsea
is
the
second
most
densely
populated
city
in
the
entire
state,
and
if
you
look
at
how
our
city
is,
zoned
residents
are
only
37
percent
of
our
entire
city,
so
essentially
we're
jamming
all
of
our
residents
in
37
of
1.8
square
miles.
We
are
one
of
the
most
densely
populated
cities
in
the
entire
state.
I
want
you
to
think
back
to
this
time.
Last
year,
when
we
were
just
about
to
go
into
lockdown,
where
did
residents
go?
They
were
trapped
in
apartments
with
no
side
yards,
no
backyards,
some
didn't
even
have
porches.
I
I
There
there's
research
that
shows
if
kids
are
seeing
green
space,
their
mental
health
improves
their
academic
academic
attainment,
improves
quality
of
life
improves
you
all
we're
investing
money
on
heat
on
heat
island
mitigation,
work
right,
we're
investing
in
climate,
we're
investing
in
preventing
displacement
of
our
residents,
but
yet
we
are
opening
the
gates
for
the
developers
who
are
we
reducing
these
lot
sizes?
For
I
disagree
with
the
city
manager.
It
is
not
for
the
residents
of
this
city,
it's
for
developers
who
want
to
come
in
and
make
quick
cash
and
get
the
hell
out.
I
Let's
learn
as
counselor
of
agent.
Others
said:
let's
learn
what
they're
doing
in
east
boston
in
east
boston,
they're,
buying
up
three
family
homes.
I
see
it
every
single
day
my
colleague
lives
in
east
boston.
He
said
on
his
neighborhood,
their
civic
association,
the
other
night.
There
were
12
developments
in
his
neighborhood
every
single
month.
There
are
12
developments,
they
take
three
family
old
homes
and
they
max
them
out
and
put
seven
and
eight
units,
no
side
yards,
no
front
yards
no
trees.
Is
that
what
we
want
they're
going
in?
I
I
I
think,
like
council,
president
of
agent,
a
that
if
there
are
places
along
the
waterfront
like
forbes
and
other
places
where
you
could
have
some
some
residential
uses
put
them
there,
but
balance
it
with
open
space.
Why
why
I
ask
you?
Are
we
blitzing
out
our
neighborhoods
just
for
investors
and
not
for
the
people
of
this
city?
If
you
are
truly
going
to
move
forward
with
increasing
density?
I
We
need
to
learn
from
the
mistakes
of
the
last
year
and
if
we
just
go
about
business
as
usual,
we're
going
to
look
back
on
this
period
and
say:
we've
made
a
big
mistake
and
we
will
have
said
goodbye
to
all
of
our
neighbors
and
friends
that
we've
worked
so
hard
for.
So
I
I
ask
you
to
think
about
these
questions
that
are
in
front
of
you
and
that
will
be
in
front
of
you
on
monday
evening.
Thank
you.
D
B
E
E
Yeah,
I
am
I
I
personally
agree
with
the
past
speaker.
I
think
we
should
just
take
out
time
with
this.
I
see
a
lot
of
potential,
but
I
just
don't
see
a
lot
of
benefit
from
the
residents
of
chelsea.
I'm
you
know
I.
I
really
sat
there
and
I
listened
to
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
and
we
were
all
upset
and
we
were
upon.
You
know
parched
on
you
know,
folks
having
to
move
out
the
city.
E
But
again
you
know
these
are
some
major
major,
drastic
changes
that
we
will
make
and
they
will
have
an
impact
for
years
to
come
and
I
just
think
we
should
have
more
residence
input
and
I
you
know,
agree.
I
have
no
disrespect
for
my
colleagues
who
said
that
we
should
move
forward,
but
I
think
in
times
like
these,
we
need
to
really
take
that
time.
With
this
year
I
mean
you
know,
developers
are
are
lining
up
and
you
know
one
of
the
things
you
said
about
the
potential
fossil.
E
If
it's
not
as
big
as
one
more,
how
can
we
imagine
it
to
be
that
side
because
we've
reduced
all
the
requirements
we've
taken
away?
A
lot
to
make
them
have
more,
but
again
we
just
don't
still
have
stability
where
we
can
have
home
ownership
there
at
one
point,
neighborhood
developers
they
was
coming
in,
they
were
doing
some
home
development
home
ownership.
E
Now
it's
more
over
the
last
year,
it's
more
rentals
than
those
vendors,
and
if
we
have
some
spots
we
should
we
should
try
to
get
some.
You
know,
maybe
even
if
it's
a
percentage,
we
should
try
to
get
some,
and
I
just
think
it's
really.
You
know,
I
know
the
city
above
us.
The
the
department
has
been
the
executive
board
they're
trying
to
create
this
city
for
what
it
could
be,
but
look
at
east
boston
and
again,
look
at
everett.
E
Everett
doesn't
have
anything
to
state
that
they
have
to
have
a
certain
affordability.
None
of
those
departments
will
be
affordable,
which
people
are
going
to
try
to
come
chelsea
and
you're
not
going
to
be
having
them
to
live.
So
I
think
you
know
we
have
a
big
task
before
us.
I
mean
we
have
a
big
man
to
be
carried
and
that's
a
big
stick.
E
You
know,
I
think
we
should
really
give
it.
Some
more
I
I
wish
we
had
more
residents
to
hear
from
and
I'm
sure
there
are
board
residents
out
there,
but
there's
a
lot
going
on
people
play.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
going
on.
You
know
we're
fortunate
that
we
can
have
have
this
time
to
discuss
these
things,
but
I
mean
there's
a
lot
going
on.
Some
communities
are
not
even
needed
as
much
as
we
are
never
mind
making
votes.
That's
gonna
change
the
dynamics
of
their
city
for
years
to
come.
E
B
You
seeing
no
further
questions
or
statements.
I
wanted
to
appreciate
john
and
carl.
I
know
you're
out
there
attending
family
business.
I
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
out
there
and
city
manager
and
obviously
our
staff
are
preparing
all
the
notes
and
everything.
So
thank
you
and
we'll
be
seeing
all
you
on
monday,
the
8th.