[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6207173,"mediaKeyId","3759445-6c3656b2f71311abdb6e46f3d7136ca8","parentId",3759445,"title","Historic Commercial Wharf building’s demolition request put on hold after split HDC session","audioSeconds",1720,"startMs",2670000,"endMs",4390000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3759445-6c3656b2f71311abdb6e46f3d7136ca8&start=2670&end=4390","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3759445-6c3656b2f71311abdb6e46f3d7136ca8/thumbnail_2670000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6207173/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Historic-Commercial-Wharf-buildings-demolition-request-put-on-hold-after-split-HDC-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6207173-d835c5279d5ebc80de1c38f428c3327b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773610490&Signature=Bk58ti2acuzfmpdb1TfKrwcE1lPP2gUzbfy8FNkXlo7ei4uWfVUTc5yFs90654Ig31uoxBWTsy0sOWgtITO9~Z4fSfmlCgxWzhCNK7QS-W5Ngz~QIHtCXWqMYr6t4hJ7cC1o0yj6mRvc0ty79dXfeK8sxRpU2TEXRjxcXE-AEDdpBJX7b3N8f-uaSuGrOvPWvaB6AEOVICSCiV63LCT4L10zGauk22WTU3C4NQ19koKic3eSlrOUoYgzGcn16Z6fof0MUCEn2~QOwPsyFnxkdwiKtqpdeNJrl6RV-P5N0ISR95YWVZogGtqOg0gx-5sxArgmZaWCswKOYX9jQLjYrw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town-County of Nantucket, MA","date","2025-06-11T08:07:05.69Z","article","A proposal by the property owner to demolish a deteriorated brick structure at Commercial Wharf drew extended testimony from structural engineers, preservation specialists and municipal staff at the Nantucket Historic District Commission’s June 10 meeting. Commissioners asked for legal clarification and additional information before taking a final vote.

The meeting featured two independent assessments. A structural report retained by the property owner concluded the building’s brick fabric and interior supports had deteriorated to a degree that full rehabilitation would require replacing large sections of the walls and roofs. John Watney of Structures North, a structural professional on the Preservation Massachusetts recommended list, summarized his firm’s review and told commissioners extensive full-thickness wall replacement, new roof sheathing and replacement of interior finishes would be required. He concluded that so much original material would be replaced that the result would be largely a new building rather than a conservation of the original fabric.

Preservation staff and other witnesses, however, urged the commission to weigh rehabilitation more carefully. The town’s preservation planner pointed to sections of the structure that could be repaired and asked the commission to treat the structure as a candidate for preservation, citing the building’s historic associations and its role in the historic district.

Commission discussion turned on two points: the condition and extent of historic fabric remaining, and the legal procedures that apply when a building is alleged to be beyond repair. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized the difference between an economic argument and the preservation question of whether significant historic fabric would remain after rehabilitation.

Faced with these competing technical opinions, commissioners first voted on a motion to deny the demolition application. That motion was made on the floor (motion text: \"Deny the demolition of the structure\") and was seconded, but the roll-call produced an unclear outcome and procedural disagreement about how to treat abstentions and ties under governing rules. After short legal and procedural discussion the board did not finalize a demolition denial. Instead commissioners voted to hold the item and request additional information from town legal staff and preservation advisers before the matter returns to the commission.

What the commission requested and why it matters
- A peer or clarifying report and any follow-up documentation from the engineers and preservation specialists whose evidence was offered at the hearing. Commissioners specifically asked for clarification about which wall areas would require full-thickness replacement and which could be repaired in place.
- Legal clarification about the consequences of a tie or an abstention under the commission’s rules and whether a tied vote constitutes denial or requires re-submission to the board or referral to town counsel.
- Documentation of hazardous materials concerns raised by town staff (noting the building’s past use) and any recommended abatement or remediation steps.

Next steps
The commission voted to hold the demolition application and to seek the clarifications listed above. The item was continued to the commission’s next meeting pending those materials.

Why this matters to Nantucket
The Commercial Wharf structure is a visible reminder of earlier island industry; commissioners and preservationists agreed it has special character that merits careful consideration. At the same time, town fire and engineering staff described safety risks that must be addressed before any public or private reuse can be approved. The commission’s request for additional engineering detail and legal guidance seeks to balance public-safety concerns with the island’s preservation priorities.

Ending
The commission expects to receive the requested technical clarifications and a written procedural opinion from town counsel before the application is scheduled again. The hold preserves the commission’s options while giving staff time to assemble the technical and legal materials members said they need to make a final determination.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Nantucket Historic District Commission - June 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A demolition application for a deteriorated brick building at Commercial Wharf drew competing structural and preservation expert opinions at the Nantucket Historic District Commission’s June 10 meeting, prompting members to hold the matter and seek legal and technical clarification before a final vote.","taxTitle","Nantucket County, Massachusetts","taxId",61456,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6207161,"HDC pushes applicants to revise deer-fence and cattle-grate plans, asks for planting and gate alternatives",69,11996000,12065000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3759445-6c3656b2f71311abdb6e46f3d7136ca8&start=11996&end=12065","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3759445-6c3656b2f71311abdb6e46f3d7136ca8/thumbnail_11996000.jpg","/articles/6207161/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/HDC-pushes-applicants-to-revise-deer-fence-and-cattle-grate-plans-asks-for-planting-and-gate-alternatives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6207161-f319d9f2277606f42c048b0d5e15e2d0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773610490&Signature=LOolBVIpOMZUiwClDw8YNdCJ1e96yCJYeCq~nM4GnGHKw6cjlOR~gNz3TQJttEsK0aWtfZJZl2EhQmY7qGo5MPDeayXss~fX-hzeP6IWzR7Kes3bc33Z0fENL99HJKJSc1Y-zV1-eQrN0BClDBgRzkonwDgzRt8URLpiwzj00WDjzR1H7Fkqk8FZPyo5ew7R3AU-iRghjm0cRCRW4e2ZumCJ3M7iY-WGJE~GsDurd5MdImIBw~lwadHyzQvtzhT65YTlszN2xcjK8jULOkkXZtcif3Vpzs-6ENJyJQarrfRguz1isIZsk6uzLZ3k9fRPFC4ylTFGIF73AeS~QcBhBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A recurring topic at the June 10 Nantucket Historic District Commission meeting was the appropriateness of tall deer fencing and cattle gratings at driveways. Several public commenters and commissioners described the proliferation of visible deer control measures as a changing look for roads that were previously “open” and vegetated.

In the hearing on Gladlands (and related permit requests), the applicant (Patrick Cassidy) sought to install a perimeter deer fence of mixed heights including an 8-foot section where it abuts a parking lot and narrower sections near the private way. Neighbors and commissioners spoke at length: some property owners immediately adjacent to the proposed fence supported the higher barrier for privacy, while several commissioners and other residents urged the applicant to reduce the roadside visibility and to add planting so the fence would not read as a tall, abrupt line when viewed from public ways.

Key points made at the hearing
- Cattle grates are not an island tradition: commissioners and staff noted that deer, unlike cattle, can jump many spans; members said cattle grates are an imperfect workaround and stressed they are not a by-right landscape element that must be accepted.
- Visual preference and precedent: commissioners repeatedly said that on narrow island lanes such as Gladlands, a heavy, high fence at the road edge is visually intrusive. They encouraged moving any high fence farther into the yard so the roadside remains open and vegetated.
- Practical alternatives: the board suggested the applicant consider low-profile Belgian block aprons only where necessary, pair-of-gates solutions (set back from the road), or planting strips of mixed shrubs and understory trees that will mature to provide screening without an industrial look.

Commission action and conditions
The HDC voted to hold the application for revisions. Staff was asked to return the application with:
- A revised planting plan showing species, spacing and the proposed “binding” plantings in front of fence sections that would be visible from public ways, and an indication of where climbing plantings will grow up the structure where appropriate.
- Removal of the cattle grate from the road-facing apron and elimination of any new Belgian-block bookending on the street side unless the board explicitly approves them in a revised submission.
- A gate concept (typical approved model is a pair of timber gates with a diagonal brace and a low wire rail above), set back from the roadway so it does not create a hard vertical presence at the road.

Why this matters
The item illustrates an emerging townwide conversation about how to balance property owners’ desire for deer protection and privacy with landscape character in roadscapes and the historic district. Commissioners signaled they want clearer, repeatable guidance so applicants and neighbors can avoid repeated revisions and enforcement issues.

Ending
The applicant agreed to revise the plans. The commission will revisit the application once staff receives the updated planting and gate details; the board asked that the revisions emphasize native or historically compatible plantings and show how the high fence would terminate into vegetation rather than the public right-of-way.

","The commission debated a growing trend of high deer fences and cattle grates during the meeting. Commissioners and neighbors urged alternatives, stronger planting plans, and removal of roadside cattle grates; the board voted to hold the application for revision and to develop clearer design guidance.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6207168,"Nantucket Historic District Commission: votes and key outcomes from the June 10 meeting",460,482000,942000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3759445-6c3656b2f71311abdb6e46f3d7136ca8&start=482&end=942","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3759445-6c3656b2f71311abdb6e46f3d7136ca8/thumbnail_482000.jpg","/articles/6207168/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Nantucket-Historic-District-Commission-votes-and-key-outcomes-from-the-June-10-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6207168-27d3039f8f601341c1273dbb772184a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1773610490&Signature=VNglwF1gySHz99XWWmt0cqEgtyLM99cjd2H9a6xcqiQhBC4-i03hZA9klQF47Z3NboSWC2wUDkF~Vt13DjEWtRn8646MN00qYmeSy26WH6nXirXmlFROikVFDscuPbwo4iUa1m1esmgnwhVWN77aB8VV5jNPfMrwy4hYHXJq89T61YZ9sfD~ACw3klKkuqeRip7DkWqlFJPX7Y4mnq~pQ6ImDhQ3ulg9jUg4XAR0klPldsMFVEdG996oSQ9cszItlH8xwXYB7CLojlTw8~CvwZQZxxRbVuoScUyCGCIxNU8y0xwpWKtCnphkPmoDCqccAmv7h-PR11JRcTicrFO7SA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nantucket Historic District Commission handled a number of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) items at its June 10 meeting. The following is a concise “votes at a glance” summary of formal actions the commission recorded that evening, followed by brief context for each action.

Votes at a glance
- 2A & 2B (Forest Avenue; garage/garage-apartment revisions): Approved with condition that the specimen/planting shown on the site plan be planted as a condition of the COA. (Motion carried unanimously.)
- 6 Dairymore Road (garage addition, roof/eave adjustments): Approved with a motion to revise the garage roof above the doors and add an expressed beam; outcome reported as approved, tally recorded as 3 in favor, 1 opposed (Angus opposed). (Motion: raise gable above garage doors and add a beam; carried.)
- 9 Kelly Road (solar arrays and screening): Approved; the applicant agreed to remove visible panels on the most prominent front-facing roof and to install screening plantings. One condition added: when the roof is replaced in the future it should be replaced in black (condition recorded by the board). (Motion carried.)
- 25 Hussey Street (guest cottage and related garage/demo): The guest cottage design was approved after the board asked that the south elevation fenestration revert to the previous submission; the motion carried unanimously. A related partial garage demolition/reconstruction application was held for additional documentation (photos, structural details) before being scheduled again.
- 89 Easton (hardscape and driveway revisions): Approved with minor revisions requested by the commission related to wall height and plant screening; applicant to return with refined planting/retaining details. (Motion to approve with minor revisions carried unanimously.)
- 10 Commercial Wharf (historic brick structure demolition): The commission heard extensive testimony and got conflicting engineering opinions. A motion to deny demolition was moved during the meeting but the recorded vote left procedural uncertainty; the board then voted to hold the application and request a procedural opinion from town counsel plus additional engineering clarification before taking final action.

Context and notable points
- Conditions and documentation: The commission frequently attached conditions to approvals that require work to be recorded on the COA (for example planting plans or color conditions). Commissioners repeatedly asked applicants to document planting species, show critical site sections where grade is a concern and return with explicit materials or view stakes when the visibility from public ways was in question.
- Close calls and roll-call ambiguities: The demolition agenda item produced a contested motion and confusion over the effect of tied votes and abstentions. The board chose to pause that application and require a legal clarity before a final outcome is entered on the record.
- Common themes across approvals: The board repeatedly requested smaller refinements — reductions of vertical proportions, rebates for dormers so they read properly from public ways, and a tendency to prefer simpler, shingled forms over highly articulated trim in the historic district setting.

What's next
Most items with conditions will return to staff or be reflected in the COA. The demolition request for 10 Commercial Wharf will be scheduled again once the commission has a written procedural opinion from town counsel and the requested technical clarifications.

Ending
The HDC’s June 10 session moved multiple projects forward while flagging larger procedural and preservation questions for follow-up; the commission meets again on June 17 and members expect to receive supplemental materials on the demolition application before that session.

","The HDC recorded a mix of approvals, holds and conditions at its June 10 meeting. Several design approvals and modifications were granted with conditions; a high-profile demolition request was held for more information after divided testimony and procedural questions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Historic Commercial Wharf building’s demolition request put on hold after split HDC session

HDC pushes applicants to revise deer-fence and cattle-grate plans, asks for planting and gate alternatives

Nantucket Historic District Commission: votes and key outcomes from the June 10 meeting