Following a Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling last month that invalidated Lynn’s restrictions on sex offender residency, the Chelsea City Council narrowly voted Monday night to eliminate its own comparable ordinance, seeking to shield the municipality from potential litigation tied to the SJC decision.
The six-year-old statute was repealed on a 5-4 vote, opening Chelsea to sex offenders under state law’s less restrictive parameters. Chelsea’s former rule—matching Lynn’s approach—had attempted to exceed state limitations by barring Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from residing within 750 feet of schools, playgrounds, day care facilities or elderly residences. The struck-down Lynn ordinance had imposed a 1,000-foot buffer instead.
Leo Robinson, Paul Murphy, Giovanni Recupero, Brian Hatleberg and Dan Cortell voted for repeal. Voting to preserve the ordinance were Chris Cataldo, Clifford Cunningham, Matt Frank and Calvin Brown.
City Solicitor Cheryl Watson Fisher brought an urgent request before the Council Monday evening, alerting them to the SJC decision and cautioning that Chelsea faced lawsuit exposure.
We don’t want property owners to deny the right to sex offenders to live in a property based on an ordinance that has been deemed unconstitutional,” Watson explained. “Basically, I’m asking you to repeal the ordinance as it is today because it is unconstitutional. Therefore, the private property owners that desire to rent to them can do so even if they are 750 feet from a playground, elderly complex or a school. By repealing it, you are allowing landlords to rent to them anywhere.” She noted that any resulting lawsuit would likely target the property owner, who could then implicate the City through the ordinance itself.
Watson observed that the 750-foot restriction rendered sex offender residence virtually impossible in Chelsea, given the presence of eight schools, 30 parks and multiple elderly complexes compressed into just 1.8 square miles.
Several council members expressed reservations and questioned the timing.
“It seems like we’re jumping the gun here because I don’t know the reason why we’re doing this now other than the case against the City of Lynn,” Councillor Brown stated. “I’m going to have to vote ‘no.’…I think we need a little more time to work with this. If we’re repealing something, we’re taking it off the books. I’d like to look into what alternatives we have.”
Councillor Matt Frank shared similar concerns, acknowledging Watson’s standing but declining to support elimination. “I respect the City Solicitor’s position here, but I’m a little concerned,” he explained. “I see the sensitivities on both sides…I think we need to look into finding another number (for the distance) that isn’t 750 and isn’t 1,000.”
Councillor Brian Hatleberg expressed optimism about discovering an alternative approach. “I hope we can look into alternatives, but I’m going to trust the expertise of the city solicitor that it’s important to repeal this first before looking for alternatives,” he said.
Agreeing with this perspective, Councillor Dan Cortell suggested that while 750 feet likely exceeds constitutional bounds, a different distance might succeed. He emphasized state-imposed sex offender restrictions, which include police registration and maintaining prescribed distances from schools and playgrounds. “I think we should keep an eye out for a distance that is acceptable,” he stated. “We know the distance that is too far. When we see what the acceptable distance is, we will do what we need to bring this back onto the books.”