By Adam Swift
The city council unanimously approved a new inclusionary zoning ordinance on Monday night, but getting there was more difficult than the 11-0 vote would indicate.
In March, City Manager Fidel Maltez introduced an amendment to Chelsea’s existing inclusionary zoning ordinance as a way to help spur development and economic growth.
Since that initial proposal, there have been a number of amendments and revisions to the proposed ordinance as it has worked its way from the city council, the planning board, a working group composed of housing advocates and community leaders, and back to the city council again.
The issues most at play were the number of units per development that would require affordable housing units under inclusionary zoning, the affordability levels of those units, the payment in lieu for developers looking to be exempted from the affordability numbers, and the exemption of the proposed West Chelsea Overlay District in the Market Basket area from those affordability numbers in the final revised ordinance.
The original proposal from Maltez sought to exempt all residential development of under 100 units from inclusionary zoning. After getting feedback from the council and other community members, that number was dropped to 50. Councilor-at-Large Leo Robinson introduced a successful amendment at the time to keep the West Chelsea district at the 100 unit level.
By the time the proposal got to the planning board, a new table had been established that included some affordable units for smaller developments as well as a revised affordability index. The planning board recommended approval of that version of the inclusionary zoning ordinance.
However, one final revision of the ordinance, once again adjusting the numbers and affordability levels that was agreed upon by the working group was introduced as an amendment by District 2 Councilor Deron Hines at Monday night’s meeting.
Hines amendment passed with a 6-5 vote, with Councilors Todd Taylor, Manuel Teshe, Norieliz DeJesus, Calvin T. Brown, and Robinson voting against the amendment.
Under the ultimately successful vote from the council, the revised inclusionary zoning ordinance calls for:
0-9 units, no affordable units
10-14 units, 1 unit at 80% AMI (area median income)
15-24 units, 2 units – 1 at 80% AMI and 1 at 50% AMI
25-34 units, 2 units at 80% AMI and 2 at 50% AMI
35-44 units, 2 units at 80% AMI, and 2 units at 50% AMI or one unit at 30% AMI
45-49 units, 3 units at 80% AMI, and 2 units at 50% AMI or 1 unit at 30% AMI
50 units-plus, 10% of units with rotating 50% AMI and 80% AMI (or 5% of units at 30% AMI)
In addition, the Payment in Lieu would be $275,000 per unit.
Both procedurally and content-wise, the amendment garnered the most discussion of the night.
A number of councilors, along with several residents who spoke during the public hearing on the zoning amendment, criticized the process of how the amendment wound its way to a final vote.
“I mentioned last week that I was not a fan of the process,” said Hines. “Despite that, we put the train back on the tracks and we got this policy in a pretty fine-tuned position to go forward and it still creates something that will actually get the development we are looking to get accomplished. We are all in agreement that this policy has to change.
“This policy does not have the capacity to solve all of Chelsea, all of the region’s issues, but it does have the capability to bridge a gap between our lower income community and those who are making on the upper end … I think this is the middle ground we are looking for.”
Taylor was the most vocal of councilors criticizing the process that got the inclusionary zoning ordinance to a final vote.
“I agree with many of the people who spoke tonight about this process being a complete and utter embarrassment,” said Taylor. “First of all, this city council had a subcommittee; we voted to send a compromise proposal to the planning board, but guess what, that proposal never got to the planning board. Instead, the city manager took it upon himself – which was outside the scope of his powers – and all of a sudden, presented something else to the planning board. Then, the planning board, god bless them, they vote a recommendation based on what they heard.
“But guess what?” Taylor continued. “Now that is being amended; now the quote, unquote working group is now who we are negotiating with. I would like to know who put them in charge, why are we negotiating with them?”
Taylor said the whole process lacked transparency and looked like a backroom deal.
District 4 Councilor Tanairi Garcia said she disagreed that it was a backroom deal to craft a new version of the ordinance.
“When we talk backrooms, backrooms with residents and listening to the residents who live in Chelsea, it’s not backrooms, it’s informative, it’s hearing them out and making sure that we hear everyone and I appreciate everyone who has put groups together to inform us of what they think about it,” Garcia said. “I also think that the last change was 2019 and it needs to be amended. I also want to let the community know that there are no rules that limit how often we can amend (inclusionary zoning); if the numbers don’t add up, we could make changes to it.”
District 5 Councilor Lisa Santagate thanked the working group for the effort they put into the effort.
“That was a lot of work, a lot of strife, so thank you,” she said. “It was comprised of a lot of heavy hitters in our city; I think that it was well balanced and although the timetable may have been a little bit rushed, I still think that you did excellent work.”
Robinson reiterated that the chief reasoning behind the change to inclusionary zoning was to spur development and bring income into Chelsea.
“If we don’t build, we don’t have any revenue,” said Robinson. “It is important that we take a hard look at doing development, looking out for everybody like we always do, and doing the best that we can by the people who live here and by the people who are paying the bills – the taxpayers.”