Chelsea council sends 300‑foot seafood‑processing buffer proposal to planning board after residents complain about Boston Provisions site

The Chelsea City Council voted unanimously to refer a proposed zoning amendment to the planning board that would bar enclosed seafood processing, packing, loading and distribution within 300 feet of any residential use in the city.

The measure, introduced by Councilor Hitesh as an amendment to section 34‑78 of the city zoning code, was referred to the planning board for its public hearing and recommendation after extensive public testimony focused on a proposed Boston Provisions facility at 100 Justin Drive.

The proposal matters to residents because several speakers said the site is adjacent to dense housing and to assisted‑living residents. “Chelsea Onward or Chelsea illusion? … We are a small city of just 2 square miles of land,” said Svetlana Border of 325 Commandants Way, arguing that Chelsea already dedicates an unusually large share of land to industry. “Here, we do industry.”

Other speakers gave specific operational and legal concerns tied to the Boston Provisions application. Suzanne Perry, who identified her address in Chelsea, said the company had stated it would operate 24/7 with “at least 44 trucks coming into and leaving the facility regularly” and that the facility’s loading bays are near Access Apartments. “The parking lot is 48 feet from Access Apartments, which has 150 units of housing,” Perry said. She also cited Massachusetts notification requirements, saying she checked public records and found no mailed notice to abutters as required under M.G.L. c. 40A §§ 5 and 11.

Several speakers asked the council to adopt a 300‑foot buffer. Roy Avellaneda, who lives adjacent to the proposed site, urged support for the buffer as “a perfect compromise” to address noise, traffic and safety concerns raised by neighbors.

Councilors debated legal effects and timing at the dais. The city solicitor advised that a zoning amendment proposed by council now would not affect pending special‑permit applications before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and council members cited that advice in explaining that the referral would not block the ZBA’s meeting scheduled the next day. Councilor Tesh, who introduced the amendment, told the council the goal was “to amend a mistake that the council committed when it first passed the special permit,” and to “close the door” to similar proposals after the ZBA completes its review.

After discussion, the council took a roll‑call vote to move the matter to a planning board public hearing and return with a recommendation. The vote was 11 in favor, 0 opposed.

What happens next: the planning board will hold a public hearing on the proposed text amendment under M.G.L. c. 40A and return its recommendation to the council. The city solicitor told the council that any zoning amendment adopted later would not retroactively invalidate a special permit already granted by the ZBA while that permit remains pending.

Residents and speakers at the meeting urged additional procedural changes and transparency, including better notice to renters and abutters. State Representative Judith Garcia told the council she had received letters from constituents and urged the council to consider remedies where process or notice was incomplete. Several speakers described Chelsea as an environmental justice community and urged the council to prioritize residents’ health and quality of life in future siting decisions.

The council’s referral does not itself change the zoning code; it only begins the planning‑board review required by state law. The Zoning Board of Appeals’ separate special‑permit process for Boston Provisions will proceed independently of that referral.