Nicholas Gregoretti, a private citizen, urged the Chelsea City Council to adopt a 300-foot buffer to bar enclosed seafood processing, packing, loading and distribution within 300 feet of residential uses, saying the rule would create a predictable, equitable safeguard for neighborhoods that can’t always participate in discretionary special-permit hearings. “A buffer zone, by contrast, is predictable. It’s proactive. It’s self-enforcing,” Gregoretti said.

Gregoretti told the council he had heard four misconceptions about the amendment — that special permits already protect neighborhoods, that the amendment would harm existing businesses, that buffer zones are unusual in Chelsea, and that the change would chill industrial activity — and he addressed each point by saying existing uses are typically protected, Chelsea already uses buffer rules for other uses, and the proposal targets a single high-impact use rather than halting industrial development.

Eddie Gaffney, who said he had emailed maps to the council, cited linear-feet calculations he said show significantly more residential adjacencies under recent zoning changes and described the 300-foot buffer as modest in scale. “That’s almost 3 miles of length of potential issues now with residential zones touching industrial zones,” Gaffney said.

Speakers also pointed to the Chelsea Creek Harbor master plan as precedent for identifying high-impact uses that should be separated from sensitive areas. Supporters framed the proposal as consistent with public-health and planning objectives: limiting noise, truck traffic and other neighborhood impacts while preserving lawful existing businesses.

Clerk staff told the council that the amendment remains pending before a subcommittee; because no subcommittee meeting had been scheduled and the 65-day window under the zoning statute after sending the proposal to the planning board has passed, the legal department advised that a council vote tonight would likely be moot. Council members acknowledged that procedural timeline and indicated the amendment could be reintroduced for consideration at a later date and routed properly through subcommittee.

The council closed the public hearing and thanked residents for testifying. No council vote on the zoning amendment occurred at the meeting; the Clerk said the proposal could be reintroduced next year and would then follow the standard subcommittee and planning-board process.