One focus of the meeting was the proposal to establish a local historic district in the lower green area, which has been under development for three years. Vice Chair Joy Misho noted that the Massachusetts Historic Commission had accepted their detailed report without requiring changes. The initiative aims to preserve Newbury’s historical significance without incurring costs to the town. The proposed district would not hinder future development but ensures protection of its historical character. Community support was emphasized, with backing from organizations like the trustees of reservations and the Sons and Daughters of the First Settlers. A public hearing is required before the town meeting scheduled for May 5, and the board invited feedback within the next month. The importance of preserving historical areas while maintaining community activities was underlined, highlighting the district’s connection to historical figures such as George Washington.

Another major topic was the ongoing review of proposed zoning amendments, which is set to influence the future development of commercial and residential areas in Newbury. Discussions centered on recodification efforts to resolve existing inconsistencies and redundancies, aligning bylaws with local and state regulations. Technical recodification, revision of district boundaries, and new articles for clean energy facilities and inclusionary zoning were discussed. Notably, adjustments to the Plum Island Overlay District and Commercial Highway A district were proposed to streamline zoning maps and clarify parcel boundaries. The board emphasized the need for careful consideration of potential tax implications and the impact on existing businesses, such as the marina. Members discussed whether proposed changes could be considered spot zoning and agreed to consult town council for legal clarity.

The board delved into the buffer and setback regulations, recognizing the need for clarity on what infrastructure could be permitted within a 60-foot setback zone. The possibility of granting waivers for setback regulations was proposed, pending town council input. Additionally, the authority for granting special permits for bed and breakfast establishments may shift from the select board to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Updates to regulations for large wind energy systems and solar photovoltaic systems were noted, aligning with state laws, while marijuana regulations remained unchanged.

The meeting also addressed the draft inclusionary zoning bylaw. Questions about the legality and practicality of mandating affordable units were raised, with concerns about the draft’s generic nature and need for refinement to reflect Newbury’s specific needs. The board highlighted the importance of an incentivized approach to affordable housing, encouraging developers to include affordable units voluntarily. Ongoing dialogue with town council is anticipated to ensure legal compliance and community alignment.

Discussions on converting single-family dwellings into multifamily units revealed concerns about the draft bylaw’s lack of specificity and its potential disconnect with local conditions, such as septic system limitations. The need for a comprehensive approach, similar to that used in Open Space Residential Developments, was emphasized. Members debated the potential for housing conversions to address affordable housing needs without altering neighborhood aesthetics, underscoring the necessity of a clear, contextually appropriate bylaw.

Finally, the board received an update on the status of the 34 Central multifamily development, pending select board approval for offsite improvements. Proposed enhancements include realigning Central Court and upgrading public safety measures, with the planning board expressing support through a formal memo to the select board.