Trust debates demolition‑delay and zoning language, weighs 24‑month delay and aesthetics language

At its April 2 meeting, the Newburyport Affordable Housing Trust discussed proposed amendments to the city's demolition‑delay ordinance and related zoning language that would insert case‑law language about aesthetics and neighborhood character into findings for special permits and nonconformities.

City staff described the amendments as a clarification to help boards apply existing Supreme Judicial Court precedent. "It's to get some case law language into the zoning ordinance under the findings section for special permits or nonconformities," a staff presenter said. Staff and sponsors said the changes are intended to mirror court decisions (cited in the meeting as Yorkland, Bjorklund and Britton) and to make the findings that boards use in decisions clearer to future board members, applicants and the public.

Trust members and participants raised objections about a sentence in the draft that they said could run counter to the zoning ordinance's nonconforming provisions and to MGL ch. 40A, which generally directs moving nonconforming uses toward conformity. One participant warned that the contested language would effectively ask the zoning board to favor keeping nonconforming two‑family and multifamily structures rather than encouraging moves toward conformity. The participant said, in part, that "you can't tell the zoning board to go counter to what the zoning ordinance requires" and recommended that if the city wants to preserve two‑family housing, it should consider allowing two‑family homes by right.

Staff and sponsors said they would bring the comment to their attorney and were already considering amended language; an alternate draft under consideration would hew more closely to the SJC language. Sponsors also said they had withdrawn certain late amendments after a contentious public meeting: two cosponsors removed proposals that would have changed the age threshold and added portability and a starter‑home definition. Sponsors said they opted to retain the 75‑year age threshold rather than switch to 50 years and to reduce an earlier 36‑month delay proposal to 24 months, which they described as a stronger but more legally defensible deterrent than the existing 12 months.

Other points in the discussion included a proposed 25% floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) for many residential zones and a 25‑foot height limit mentioned in one draft. Trust members cautioned that a citywide 25% FAR or a strict, citywide height limit could have unintended consequences for many nonconforming structures and historic neighborhoods and suggested targeted overlay districts or area‑by‑area approaches as alternatives.

Staff said the draft also simplifies procedures so public comment occurs at the start of the review and historic significance is handled earlier in the process to avoid procedural confusion; sponsors said the goal is to make the ordinance clearer and easier for boards and the public to follow. Planning board joint hearings and additional committee meetings were scheduled to continue the debate and shape final language before council consideration.

Next steps: Sponsors will consult with legal counsel, circulate the revised draft to the planning and development committee and the planning board (joint hearing scheduled for April 15), and return to the Trust with changes for additional input.