Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Mbta Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chelsea council reaffirms MBTA Communities overlay, corrects density typo to 40 units per acre
Summary
The Chelsea City Council voted to correct a scrivener’s error in its transit community overlay ordinance so subsection 34‑188(d)(1) matches the 40‑units‑per‑acre density in the ordinance table, a change city officials said is required for state grant eligibility.
Council President De Jesus and the city manager secured council approval on Sept. 3 to correct a scrivener’s error in the city’s transit community overlay ordinance, formally affirming the council’s earlier decision to set the maximum density at 40 units per acre.
City Manager said the ordinance’s table already specified a maximum of 40 units per acre but a subsection of the ordinance text mistakenly read 30. “The ordinance has a maximum number of units per acre at 40,” the City Manager told the council, urging a vote to correct the inconsistency so Chelsea remains eligible for state MBTA Communities grants.
Councilors asked for clarification about the earlier vote and the materials submitted to the state. Councilor Brown noted the council previously received a letter confirming 40 units and asked that the reaffirmation proceed. Some newer councilors said they wanted time to review the record from the prior council before voting; the City Manager apologized for the late notice and explained the state may withhold large grants if the city is out of compliance.
On a late-communication order read into the record, the council voted to affirm its Dec. 21, 2023 vote and to correct subsection 34‑188(d)(1) so it reads 40 units per acre. The final recorded tally was 10 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 absent.
The correction does not change the council’s prior policy choice, council members said: it aligns the published language with what the council had already approved and avoids jeopardizing grant eligibility under the MBTA Communities process. The council set no additional changes to zoning in this action; it limited the order to correcting the clerical inconsistency and reaffirming the prior vote.
