A public hearing before the Chelsea City Council considered a proposed zoning amendment to Section 34-78 that would prohibit enclosed seafood processing, packing, loading and distribution within 300 feet of residential uses.

Nicholas Gregoretti, 65 Breakwater Drive, told the council he supported a 300-foot buffer and listed four misconceptions circulating about the change: that special permits alone safeguard neighborhoods; that the amendment would harm existing businesses; that buffers are new to Chelsea; and that the change would discourage industrial activity. "A buffer zone, by contrast, is predictable. It's proactive. It's self enforcing, and it's equitable," Gregoretti said.

Other residents also urged adoption. Marcheza of Commandant's Way said a 300-foot buffer "is not a radical idea" and framed it as protection for working-class families and children. Eddie Gaffney, of Komendant's Way, shared mapping that, he said, shows thousands of linear feet of new seafood adjacencies touching residential zones under recent zoning changes and argued the buffer is a standard planning tool already used elsewhere in the city.

City staff and the clerk clarified procedural limits. The clerk said the amendment remains pending before a subcommittee and that no subcommittee meeting had been scheduled; the city’s legal department advised the council it is beyond the 65-day window to act on this particular filing tonight, making a vote moot. The clerk noted the council may reintroduce the proposal next year.

Supporters framed the amendment as prospective regulation that would not force existing, lawfully established businesses to move. "Legally established, existing uses are fully protected," Gregoretti said, adding the amendment would apply to future decisions and preserve industrial activity while ensuring higher-impact uses are sited away from homes.

The hearing provided residents a forum to register support and to ask the council to coordinate zoning changes with other planning documents. The council did not vote on the amendment at this meeting because of the subcommittee/process timing; council members and staff said the item can be reintroduced and scheduled for further review and a formal vote in a subsequent calendar year.