By Adam Swift
The city council is moving along efforts to revise Chelsea’s Inclusionary Zoning bylaw, although there is still room and time for more discussion from the council, city officials, residents, and other community stakeholders.
At a special meeting of the council’s subcommittee on conference last week, the subcommittee voted to recommend approval of the inclusionary zoning bylaw changes and move it to the next meeting of the full council on Monday, April 27.
Several councilors noted that they are still undecided on how they will actually vote on the new inclusionary zoning bylaw, but by moving the bylaw to the full council, it allows the council to then pass it on to the planning board for a public hearing and recommendation. Following that planning board recommendation, the bylaw would then come back before the city council where it would hold a public hearing and a potential vote on adoption. In addition to the bylaw presented by City Manager Fidel Maltez, the bylaw includes an amendment from Councilor-at-Large Leo Robinson that would allow greater opportunities for development on the Market Basket parcel.
Earlier this year, Maltez presented a proposed inclusionary zoning bylaw aimed at increasing development in the city as a way to come to grips with oncoming financial hardships. Data presented by Maltez has shown that the city’s current inclusionary zoning bylaw has created almost no new affordable housing units in the city.
“Chelsea currently holds the third highest level of affordable housing in Massachusetts—a record that must be protected,” Maltez has said. “But the current policy has made it difficult for Chelsea to raise new growth revenue because it creates too many barriers for new housing development projects. Growing the tax base through new development is the most sustainable path forward. Without policy changes, projects that could generate housing and revenue are stalled and the city risks being forced into cuts to schools, public safety, and infrastructure.”
After feedback from the city council and others, Maltez revised the inclusionary zoning policy he presented to the council.
The current proposal calls for:
A Change the policy to apply to projects with 50 units or more. The current policy applies to projects of 10 units or more. Maltez initially proposed raising this threshold to 100 units or more, and he said the Council desires a more gradual change that will be evaluated more often. Maltez said he believes that this change will unlock a tremendous amount of projects, particularly in the downtown area.
Change the required number of affordable units and connect it with the level of affordability. The administration proposes having two options: 10% of Units at 80% AMI or 7% of Units at 60% AMI. This matches the inclusionary zoning in Everett.
Change the Fees-in-Lieu to Affordable Housing Units to $200,000. This changes the current policy that allows developers to pay the City $400,000 in place of complying with inclusionary zoning. The current policy requires that the City Council approval through a vote of acceptance of this payment. In nine years, Maltez said Chelsea has not received any funds. He said these payments could be used for anti-displacement work, such as rental assistance for existing residents, first time home buyer programs, or contributing to 100% affordable housing projects.
Review the policy every two years. Maltez committed to hiring a third party firm, like MassHousing Partnership or the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, to review the data from the effects of this policy change. If new growth explodes in Chelsea, he said the Council may choose to modify the policy, and opposite if the economic situation worsens, the Council may choose to act accordingly.
“On the policy itself, I remain a bit unconvinced that inclusionary zoning is the problem,” said Council President Roberto Jimenez-Rivera. “I am still having and I am open to conversations on that, and I could see where for smaller developments in particular, it could be, and that is why I am grateful that this proposal literally cannot be voted on until at least early June, if not later.”
The council president said he hopes that between now and when the policy comes back from the planning board, the city council and the city can have conversations about not only inclusionary zoning, but also about the housing and revenue crises.
“We need to focus on ways to build incentives into this policy that encourage development that makes sense instead of loosening regulations and hoping for the best,” said Jimenez-Rivera.
Maltez said the conversation will be difficult and he wants to make sure that everyone has a seat at the table.
District 1 Councilor Todd Taylor said he agreed that the issues need a lot of public discourse, but said he hopes it involves more than just the same groups that come out for all the same conversations in the city.
“That only tells us something that we already know, that those organizations are for or against something,” said Taylor. “I would encourage everyday, regular folks who aren’t affiliated with any organizations to come out and be heard on this, whether you’re a renter or whether you’re a homeowner … this is an important conversation that needs to be had.”
Taylor said he believes residents will see distinct differences between councilors on why they are going to vote for or against the policy. He said he hopes people can put aside their own ideologies and focus on what works for the city.
District 5 Councilor Lisa Santagate said she would possibly like to see a more tiered approach to inclusionary zoning in Chelsea.
“I just think that we can do better and create something that is not a one-size fits all; based on things like geographic area and density and things like desirability,” said Santagate. “We have some incredible neighborhoods here and so we should not sell them short, but at the same time, we should give our people a chance to live in them, as many people as possible.”