Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic commission continues advisory on 9 Center Street after dispute over DOD exemption
Summary
Facing conflicting interpretations about whether a 'minor contributing' listing exempts a building from Downtown Overlay review, the commission continued the advisory review of a proposed demolition/rebuild at 9 Center Street to its March 12 meeting after public opposition from the Preservation Trust and lengthy legal/procedural debate.
The Newburyport Historic Commission on Feb. 25 continued its advisory review of a demolition and replacement proposal at 9 Center Street after commissioners, staff and the public disputed whether the property is exempt from Downtown Overlay (DOD/DRD) demolition requirements because it is described as a "minor contributing" structure in the district data.
Applicant attorney Douglas Dushane presented research and maps showing the assessor date (c.1850) and MACRIS listing; architect Scott Brown described the proposed replacement — a three‑story, federal‑style building sited to the rear of the lot with modular construction — and argued it would be compatible in scale and materials. Commissioners raised concerns about massing, height and stylistic choices, with several calling the rendering "imitative" or cautioning against "false historicism" that could cause viewers to mistake a new building for original nineteenth‑century fabric.
A representative of a local preservation trust urged the commission to oppose demolition and to report on the building's significance and the compatibility of the replacement with the DOD criteria. The central legal question at the meeting was procedural: a zoning determination on file required an advisory DRD review (a special‑permit pathway), but some participants argued that the ordinance's language about "minor contributing" structures could instead make the property exempt from DOD review and therefore subject to the city's demolition‑delay provisions.
Commissioners said they lacked sufficient clarity on the zoning administrator's interpretation and whether demo‑delay provisions or DOD special‑permit review should govern this case. Douglas Dushane moved to continue the matter so staff could consult the zoning administrator and supply the commission with a definitive interpretation; the motion was seconded and passed. The commission set the continuation for its March 12 meeting.
The continuation preserves commission and public oversight while deferring a substantive advisory recommendation to the planning board until legal and procedural questions are resolved.
