NEWBURYPORT — The Newburyport City Council voted during its meeting on Monday, May 11, 2026, to advance an amended demolition-delay ordinance that would extend the city’s delay period to 18 months for qualifying historic structures.
The ordinance (i.e., Ordinance 217) passed on first reading by a 9-2 vote after councilors first approved an amendment creating a straight 18-month delay. The amendment applies to primary structures 75 years or older and accessory structures 100 years or older, when those structures have been determined by the Newburyport Historical Commission to be preferably preserved.
Public comment on the ordinance centered largely on whether the city’s existing 12-month demolition delay gives preservation advocates enough time to prevent historic homes from being demolished.
Robin Ziegler, of 151 Merrimac Street, said she and her husband moved to Newburyport in 2023 in large part because of the city’s character and historic architecture. Since then, she said, they have noticed older houses being gutted or taken down for larger, more modern housing.
“The current 12 month demolition delay has not been able to save some of Newburyport’s historic houses,” Ziegler said. “And we support the amendment to extend that delay in order to allow more time to find the means for restoration rather than demolition.”
Thomas Kolterjahn, of 64 Federal Street, said extending the demolition delay was “long overdue” and argued that a 24-month delay would offer stronger protection. He said Amesbury has an 18-month delay while Newburyport’s existing delay is 12 months.
“Last year, we lost four historic and what most people would call small starter or affordable homes to total demolition,” Kolterjahn said. “Once it’s gone, it’s gone.”
Chris Sawtelle, vice chair of the Newburyport Historical Commission, also argued that a 24-month delay would better protect historic structures. Sawtelle said Newburyport’s process is more streamlined than Amesbury’s because Newburyport’s Historical Commission usually imposes a demolition delay at the applicant’s initial hearing and meets twice a month. He said an 18-month delay would work if Newburyport wanted its Historical Commission review process to take up to six months (like it does in Amesbury), but said a 24-month delay would better protect historic structures “from going into a dumpster.”
Jared Eigerman, speaking on behalf of the Newburyport Preservation Trust, said the city adopted its demolition-delay ordinance in 2005 to protect significant historic buildings from unnecessary demolition.
“Not all 75-year-old buildings are protected. Seventy-five years is used for screening,” Eigerman said. “Then the historical commission has to hold a public hearing, take evidence and vote that the specific building is important and intact enough to preserve.”
Eigerman said the current 12-month delay “doesn’t do anything,” citing recent houses on Spofford Street that, he said, “just went right into a landfill” after the delay expired. He also urged councilors to keep the 75-year threshold rather than using a 1924 cutoff that had been discussed in committee.
Rita Mihalek, of 53 Warren Street, also supported a 24-month delay, saying 12 months or even 18 months can be short enough for developers to “wait out.” She said a 24-month delay would create time for preservation buyers to emerge, financing to be assembled and the community to try to preserve historic structures before demolition becomes irreversible.
“Demolition is permanent and 24-month demo delay is not,” Mihalek told the council. “We’re not asking you to stop development. We’re asking you to give our historic preservation community enough time to make its case before that case becomes impossible to make.”
When the ordinance came before the council, Councilor At-Large Ben Harman said the ordinance had been discussed during regular meetings on March 10, April 7 and May 5, with focus on the Newburyport Historical Commission’s process, the effectiveness of the existing demolition delay and comparisons with other Essex County communities. Harman said the proposal had originally called for a 36-month delay and an expansion of the definition of historic structures to include buildings 50 years and older, but the age expansion was removed and the proposed delay was later reduced.
Ward 2 Councilor Stephanie Niketic then offered an amendment to remove the tiered structure discussed in committee and create one 18-month delay period for buildings 75 years or older that are determined to be preferably preserved by the Historical Commission. Niketic said she and Councilor At-Large Sarah Hall sponsored the ordinance to improve protection for historic buildings and said the Historical Commission had told them a 12-month delay is not effective in cases where applicants are reluctant or refuse to follow the commission’s guidance.
Councilor Hall asked whether the 18-month delay would apply to both primary and accessory structures. The response was that it would apply to both, with Newburyport’s existing thresholds remaining in place: 75 years or older for primary structures and 100 years or older for accessory structures.
Ward 1 Councilor Sharif Zeid said he believed context was missing from the debate, particularly because Newburyport already has protections in place through the demolition control overlay district and the downtown overlay district. Zeid said Ward 1 already has a high bar for demolition because of the demolition control overlay district, and said the broader question appeared to involve the outer wards and areas outside the city’s most concentrated historic districts.
“For example, in Ward 1, to demolish a structure takes a considerable bar,” Zeid said. “We have to essentially prove it has no economic value left. I mean, it’s virtually, purposefully a very high bar in order to meet.”
The amendment creating the straight 18-month delay passed 8-3.
After the amendment passed, the entire ordinance as amended passed on first reading by a 9-2 vote, with Councilor Zeid and Ward 6 Councilor Mary DeLai voting in opposition.
