Planning Board continues review of Boston Provisions proposal at 100 Justin Drive after hours-long hearing

The Chelsea City Planning Board on July 15 continued its review of a special-permit application by Boston Provisions to locate a food-distribution and limited seafood-processing facility at 100 Justin Drive, setting a new hearing for Aug. 26 and asking the applicant for additional materials before making a recommendation to the Zoning Board. The hearing followed a detailed presentation by Boston Provisions and more than two hours of public comment, much of it opposed.

Why it matters: The site sits adjacent to dense residential development, Mary O'Malley Park and a specialized care center, and the board must weigh jobs and investment against neighbors' concerns about traffic, noise, odors and public-safety access. A planning-board recommendation will be required before the zoning board acts on the special permit.

Boston Provisions representatives described the project as a modern, refrigerated food-distribution hub that will lease about 80,000 square feet inside the roughly 264,000-square-foot building at 100 Justin Drive and invest about $15,000,000 in renovations. Michael Garrity, co‑founder of Boston Provisions, said the company expects to relocate 125 jobs to Chelsea on day one and to create another 125 jobs over three years. "With our relocation to 100 Justin Drive, we intend to create another 125 quality jobs over 3 years," Garrity said during the presentation. CEO Mike Moniz (appearing in the record as Mike Monas/Moniz) said the facility would be temperature‑controlled, use enclosed trash and carbon filtration, follow SQF and HACCP food‑safety programs, and operate under USDA and FDA inspections for meat and seafood.

The company said roughly 8.5% of its leased space—about 6,830 square feet—would be used for seafood processing and that production areas would be located at the rear of the second floor. The applicant disclosed a fleet of about 30 delivery trucks that would be parked on‑site when not in use and said the primary staffing shift would be 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. with a smaller crew later in the day. Boston Provisions supplied an Epsilon odor and noise assessment and a Howard Stein Hudson traffic memorandum to city permitting staff; the company said the traffic study estimates about 17 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 37 during the evening peak hour.

Neighbors and resident associations objected on multiple grounds. Jerry Jennings, director of the Admirals Hill Owners Association, told the board that Admirals Hill residents pay for local road maintenance and that the association "completely pays for all of the maintenance road resurfacing and snow removal of that piece of road," and said the association had not been approached about reimbursement for extra maintenance. Multiple residents cited proximity to Mary O'Malley Park, two nearby schools and the Chelsea Jewish Life home for specialized care (an ALS center) and asked the board to consider public‑health and safety consequences of increased truck traffic and overnight parking. Donna De Persani summarized a widely heard concern by saying the proposal is "the right company for the wrong location."

Speakers also raised legal and procedural objections to the recent zoning amendment that permits enclosed seafood processing by special permit in the industrial district. Several residents and an attorney for neighborhood groups argued the lot is a divided parcel that extends into the Naval Hospital Commercial district, where seafood processing is still disallowed; they warned the change risks spot‑zoning and legal challenge. Nicholas Gregaretti and other speakers cited Mass. Gen. Laws and sections of Chelsea's zoning ordinance (including Section 34‑1 and provisions cited in the hearing transcript) and said the city should follow master‑planning procedures before approving a tailored zoning change.

Board action and next steps: After public comment, a board member moved to continue the hearing and specifically requested more detailed submissions, including a lighting plan, landscape plan, drainage/water‑sewer plan and signage plan. The motion was seconded and carried; the Planning Board set the continued hearing for Aug. 26 at 6 p.m. in City Council Chambers. Planning staff noted the Zoning Board of Appeals will not act until it receives the Planning Board's recommendation; the zoning board is expected to continue the matter to its September meeting.

What remains open: The Planning Board asked for specific technical documents that the applicant agreed to provide. Residents asked the city to commission independent review of odor, noise and traffic claims; several asked the board to require enforceable neighborhood monitoring and a community liaison if the project proceeds. Boston Provisions said it would work with the community and city staff and pointed to third‑party studies and its SQF/HACCP programs as evidence of enforceable controls.

The board took no vote on the special permit itself and made no recommendation to the Zoning Board at the July 15 meeting. The case will return to the Planning Board on Aug. 26.