Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Planning board recommends against proposed R‑1 zoning amendment that would lower lot‑size minimums and allow 3‑family by special permit

November 19, 2025 | Chelsea City, Suffolk County, Massachusetts



Black Friday Offer

Get Lifetime Access to Full Government Meeting Transcripts

Lifetime access to full videos, transcriptions, searches, and alerts at a county, city, state, and federal level.

$99/year $199 LIFETIME
Founder Member One-Time Payment

Full Video Access

Watch full, unedited government meeting videos

Unlimited Transcripts

Access and analyze unlimited searchable transcripts

Real-Time Alerts

Get real-time alerts on policies & leaders you track

AI-Generated Summaries

Read AI-generated summaries of meeting discussions

Unlimited Searches

Perform unlimited searches with no monthly limits

Claim Your Spot Now

Limited Spots Available • 30-day money-back guarantee

This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Planning board recommends against proposed R‑1 zoning amendment that would lower lot‑size minimums and allow 3‑family by special permit
The Chelsea Planning Board voted to recommend against a proposed zoning amendment that would lower minimum lot sizes in the R‑1 district from 7,500 to 5,000 square feet, reduce minimum lot area per unit, and allow three‑family dwellings by special permit.

Planning staff presented parcel‑level data showing 1,908 parcels in the R‑1 district and noted that roughly 1,006 of them fall below 5,000 sq ft, leaving 519 in the 5,000–7,500 range and 383 at or above 7,500. Staff said open space and lot coverage requirements would remain unchanged under the proposal.

The board and members of the public questioned the proposal’s interaction with parking, open space and other dimensional regulations. A public commenter said the measure appeared to have been proposed 'in bad faith' by a councilor and urged the board to recommend against it; board members raised concerns that passing the amendment as drafted would create conflicts with other zoning rules and invite a wave of special permits and variances.

A motion to recommend rejection of the amendment as written was moved, seconded and carried by voice vote. Several board members suggested splitting the proposal or reworking the language and recommended that a more comprehensive approach be considered as part of the ongoing master planning process.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Massachusetts articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI