Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board pauses appeal over 9 Center Street demolition finding, sets new date
Summary
The Newburyport Planning Board continued an appeal over whether 9 Center Street is exempt from Downtown Overlay District demolition rules, citing conflicting 1984 district data sheets and ongoing city council action; the board set the appeal for June 23 to allow ordinance work to proceed.
The Newburyport Planning Board voted to continue an appeal over a zoning administrator’s determination that 9 Center Street is exempt from the Downtown Overlay District’s (DOD) demolition rules, setting the next hearing for June 23.
Stephanie, who filed the appeal, told the board that the zoning administrator’s later interpretation — based on old district data sheets — could place “9 Center Street and 19 other downtown buildings at risk of demolition by right after only a one‑year delay,” and urged the board to revisit the determination. The DOD, enacted in 2014, generally requires historical commission review and an advisory report to the planning board for demolition in the downtown overlay; an exemption would subject only advisory review and a 12‑month demolition delay, not full DOD protection.
Several former commission members and residents urged caution. Tom Calder John, a former vice chair of the Newburyport Historic Commission, said he “strongly support[s] this appeal” and called it “absurd to put 19 or 20 buildings at risk of only a possible 12‑month delay.” Chris Sawtell urged the board not to rely solely on the 1984 district data sheets, which were compiled as a large inventory and include shorthand markings such as “MC” (minor contributing) that are not defined in later DOD language.
Board members and counsel debated legal questions about retroactivity and whether an upcoming city‑council zoning amendment could affect the appeal. Some members said an amendment could change the outcome; others warned that retroactive application raised due‑process and vesting concerns. The applicant’s attorney told the board his client had asked to continue other hearings and, importantly, “has concluded … we’re not going to try and take that building down” and intends to preserve the structure while the legal questions are resolved.
To allow the city‑council zoning process to proceed and to give staff time to evaluate the ordinance changes, the planning board approved a motion to continue the appeal to June 23. The motion passed on a recorded voice vote; four members voted in favor.
