Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs fix to downtown historic rules, leaves two other zoning changes open
Summary
The Planning Board recommended adoption of a clarification to the downtown overlay district (docket 220) that would treat buildings marked 'minor contributing' on the 1984 district data sheets as subject to historic commission review; ordinances that add aesthetics findings (218) and impose FAR-based limits (221) remained under study and were continued to April 28.
At a joint April 15 hearing, the Planning Board voted to close its review of and recommend Ordinance 220, which would clarify the downtown overlay district definition so that buildings listed as contributory or marked in the 1984 district data sheets receive Historic Commission review prior to demolition or major alteration.
Supporters in the meeting’s public-comment period and members of the Historic Commission said the change would plug an unintended gap caused by an administrative interpretation that had treated some 'minor contributing' (MC) marks as non-contributory. "This ordinance change will add the much-needed clarity required for the decisions and determinations of the Newburyport Historic Commission," said Chris Sottile, who identified himself as vice chair of the Newburyport Historic Commission.
Separately, Ordinance 218—intended to add findings on neighborhood character and aesthetics to guide discretionary zoning reviews and to extend some aesthetic considerations to multi-family structures—received substantive discussion but no final recommendation. Sponsors said the language clarifies what planning and ZBA boards may consider when granting special permits and cites the Bjorklund decision as precedent for considering "mansionization" and scale in some reviews. Several commenters questioned whether the ordinance’s language duplicated existing definitions or conflicted with state law and urged clearer drafting and definition of terms like "aesthetics." Planning staff and the sponsors said final language would be reviewed by the city solicitor before any council vote.
The Planning Board’s favorable recommendation on Ordinance 220 will be forwarded to the City Council as the board’s advisory opinion. The Planning Board and the council subcommittee continued the public hearings on Ordinance 218 and Ordinance 221 to April 28 to allow time for staff to post revised language and for sponsors to produce parcel-sample analyses.
What happens next: The Planning Office will post the revised drafts and sample analyses on the city website in advance of the April 28 continuation; the Council may receive the Planning Board’s recommendation on Ordinance 220 in its next packet.
