[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6177591,"mediaKeyId","5335601-10a4fa9509ae84a44d88965a46b50f3f","parentId",5335601,"title","HDC asks for reduced dormer and dormer‑options on 11 Pleasant Street addition and garage","audioSeconds",360,"startMs",7170000,"endMs",7530000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5335601-10a4fa9509ae84a44d88965a46b50f3f&start=7170&end=7530","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5335601-10a4fa9509ae84a44d88965a46b50f3f/thumbnail_7170000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6177591/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/HDC-asks-for-reduced-dormer-and-dormeroptions-on-11-Pleasant-Street-addition-and-garage","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177591-88a74f45266c45de4bd693cd1fdde760/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159067&Signature=MmLSRjwklkzaie5dlTHOufLoUECUiYFWKkD5808G0zlTht0ntRE3FJGfDq2hkkDmBxDoqQkl9RJBP7v1xtEeF7zg9EJ~o-Q1sCIG5~ZP~HecXH3mCrjViDqSmSqgYzo0pSbmDdbXU34y9LTDFHpsrYBz7EJSG2FTYR9aY5jMh~9jzfXpjJHZvpfiFhZp-He6lTm7~4AFJwhUzlii09ya-Efa4wipyVk259wy6R6bIgNL7WGFunFER9o0xrMkwHg62FMVh44dykNr6yn-Eyloyo03US1P7DpizI9qS6BJ6muEehAjmRz3velgglyvG4y5wR9SvanNm0fnmLdw3C-WQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town-County of Nantucket, MA","date","2025-07-09T00:30:31Z","article","The Nantucket Historic District Commission on June 17 asked the project team for 11 Pleasant Street to return with revised dormer and elevation options after split views among commissioners over a proposed side bay and a carriage‑style garage.

Applicant James Craft (Studio Park) presented an updated proposal that retained a historic bay but placed it on a shed element and substantially reduced the garage massing. Some commissioners and advisory members said the bay appended to the shed and the wide dormers were incongruous with the main historic elevation and asked for alternatives that preserve the bay on the historic massing or reduce the dormer proportions.

Mickey Rowland of the Historic Structures Advisory Group said the bay attached to the shed did “not work” for the group and recalled that prior votes had been skeptical of similar arrangements. Several commissioners asked for the dormers to be narrower, with window patterns matching the historic six‑light muntin proportions. Commissioner Abby suggested the bay remain in place rather than be used as a shed appendage. Commissioner Angus and others asked for a larger revision showing a flush dormer option and reduced shingle space above doors to reduce the perceived bulk.

The commission split on the addition at the meeting; a motion to approve the side‑bay appendage failed, and the body voted to hold the application for revisions. Commissioners requested an alternate exhibit showing the bay retained on the main block (not on the shed), narrower dormer options, and a lowered top plate or slightly steeper roof pitch so the eave line drops and reduces visible shingle area.

Why this matters: The property faces a well‑traveled portion of Pleasant Street and sits near other historically significant storefronts; commissioners said they were sensitive to preserving façade proportions that read correctly at the public way.

Next steps: Applicant to return with a limited set of alternatives: (1) retain the historic bay on the main block (no shed appendage), (2) a flush dormer option with smaller glazed openings to match existing window proportions, and (3) a roof‑pitch/top‑plate alternative that lowers eave height and reduces shingle massing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Nantucket Historic District Commission - July 8, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners held the 11 Pleasant Street addition and garage for revisions after divided feedback: some members accepted the applicant’s revised design; others said the appended bay and wide dormers overwhelmed the existing structure and required alternatives.","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},6177596,"HDC asks for clearer plan, exhibit after repeated debates over 20 Main Street pool fencing",36,4372000,4408000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5335601-10a4fa9509ae84a44d88965a46b50f3f&start=4372&end=4408","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5335601-10a4fa9509ae84a44d88965a46b50f3f/thumbnail_4372000.jpg","/articles/6177596/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/HDC-asks-for-clearer-plan-exhibit-after-repeated-debates-over-20-Main-Street-pool-fencing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177596-9853160c788b7653a168ed52be879279/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159067&Signature=dKt~Gjvz7lvHd9kDmj5DJILrc5OGPnTaRdhdAsHJkId8AQ03xgf5qSROu-7oYeeBKkmPh0rLHpIfx-z2fHFypDlOZompFMmjTG8Bq7lo~MiL9uroEPRtnG-cwD911lbPW1x3VujiEWbU8K-usVa2ujfOabwFPFq~Ct~v3jMDahj4tttrlqOnKP3v~l0XH5oeZhWZrGmh6I5m-N8NPX96cXDNeY2xQCIIb2jzh93GSUmRAtoNj6JnLoi8m08g0cC1ti375svsaVeBR0rPh2Re8xMEtu2BH7hRwl3OXa~K8c0A5lFQixvxepEioRTfwgQT23cG6gwL-NwKQMLuXHckBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic District Commission on June 17 asked the owners of 20 Main Street to return with a clearer drawing and a formal exhibit after months of debate over a proposed pool and surrounding fencing.

Staff recommended a type‑2 white picket fence with plantings on both sides, noting that most yards along the nearby streets already rely on hedges for screening. The Wisconsin Old Historic District advisory group had filed repeated objections to a pool in this location and wrote that the amenity was “unnecessary, unneighborly, and certainly not historic.” Commissioners said their review focuses on visibility and context; several said they saw little public visibility from the main way but asked for a precise exhibit showing the fence, gate, and planting configuration.

Commissioner Val noted the property’s substantial hedges and suggested the fence could be natural to weather if heavy planting flanked both sides. Commissioner Angus recommended replacing the board fence notation with a type‑2 picket on the site plan and asked staff to clarify the location of the fence relative to a neighbor’s existing wire fence. Several commissioners asked the applicant to show a detailed section of any fence, possible minor retainage at the base, and gate locations so the HDC could be certain the vegetative buffer remained intact along McKinley and would not create blank vertical faces visible from the public way.

After discussion, the HDC voted to hold the application for revisions and asked the applicant to provide an “Exhibit A” that shows the gate location, fence detail (type and finish), and the planting plan for both sides of the fence. The motion to hold passed with an instruction that staff review the clarified plan prior to issuing a COA.

Why this matters: The 20 Main Street plan has been reviewed multiple times because it sits in an individually significant property in the Wisconsin Old Historic District and because nearby neighbors and an advisory group consider swimming pools and tall opaque fencing to be out of character.

Next steps: Applicant to submit a clarified hardscape exhibit (Exhibit A) showing fence type, exact placement, gate details, and planting plans; HDC will re‑review the revised exhibit and consider conditions for approval.","After repeated reviews and objections from the Wisconsin Old Historic District advisory group, the HDC asked the applicant for 20 Main Street to submit a clarified exhibit showing a picket fence and planting plan, and held the application for revisions.",{"_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},6177601,"Neighbors, HDC split over retaining walls and fencing for 12 Angola and 8 North Mill",1768,2483000,4251000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5335601-10a4fa9509ae84a44d88965a46b50f3f&start=2483&end=4251","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5335601-10a4fa9509ae84a44d88965a46b50f3f/thumbnail_2483000.jpg","/articles/6177601/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Neighbors-HDC-split-over-retaining-walls-and-fencing-for-12-Angola-and-8-North-Mill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177601-f9ef8a57bb42d75ea2a959860d32592c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159067&Signature=OWzd9AxeTB4QvENdyvPTHAHv5CEkHf~Vc05gn5CevirXOf-UrpkeX8bHfRJ5h7KWA5XnDhHar-R-Aim4SbHxk1YZhiPhMwfqajifGhYtp5nas7IWcOm3Hc9Fp5rD5h4qqtbxCNuPKlwsN4F3HurE0HvlsUkPsl4AsED0rWHs-TIjDqeEzbcTcx04sKov9u6Xc2d5TtMwLueU-r3vn0buWSpVaCTwzYWEw-tjIJo2fl5ubegD5jRQPvSqcc4bALnizb37h5toBmSqStfOREp4~SZ8gbWL0cprRQwZwtCvB-TidIwzMJgUH8c0dLtr9rNGbdlmP094BCmZIQTLx2-pNQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nantucket Historic District Commission on June 17 told applicants for 12 Angola and 8 North Mill to revise hardscape plans that proposed multiple stone retaining walls and a six‑foot board fence, directing them to submit options that reduce visible retainage and substitute a picket or Garden‑of‑the‑Sea‑style fence near the street.

The commission voted to hold both applications for revisions after lengthy public comment from neighbors and advisory groups who said the proposed walls would conflict with the neighborhood’s open, garden‑like character. Several commissioners and staff also pressed applicants to show cross‑sections and planting plans demonstrating how the walls would appear in public views.

Neighbors argued the initial plans reversed decades of deliberate efforts to preserve the Mill Hill streetscape. “Such walls are totally out of place in this particular neighborhood,” said a neighborhood representative in public comment, noting prior requests to “respect the natural topography.” Historic advisory groups and the town’s historic‑structures advisory members also asked the commissioners to require a single modest retaining wall where possible and to minimize large terraced walls.

HDC staff and commissioners had the applicants stake the proposed wall lines so members could view the top of wall in the field; confusion about the top‑of‑wall stakes led to follow‑up photos and clarification at the meeting. Commissioner Carrie said the top‑of‑wall stake did not show the top of the finished wall and requested that applicants supply clearer sections and photos. Commissioners and staff recommended distributing plantings along the wall faces and returning with the option of a single tier where feasible.

On fencing, staff and several commissioners recommended a type‑2 picket fence rather than a solid six‑foot board fence between the main house and garage, and asked applicants to provide options: (1) a picket fence consistent with the district, (2) a Garden‑of‑the‑Sea‑style fence that would echo nearby features, and (3) a low stone knee wall option. Commissioner Steven asked for cross sections showing a fence option with minor retainage built into the base to reduce visible wall height.

The commission’s motion instructed applicants to return with the revisions and to indicate the cross‑section location on the site plan. Commissioners emphasized planting schemes to soften any walls and requested explicit dimensions showing sight lines from public ways.

Why this matters: Residents said the project as proposed would change a neighborhood valued for scenic open slopes and gardened vistas. The HDC’s conditional guidance — asking for fewer tiers and more planting — aims to balance property‑owner access and erosion control with preservation of local character.

Next steps: The HDC granted a hold for revisions and asked the applicants to submit revised drawings showing (a) one‑wall options, (b) cross sections with the proposed fence options, and (c) planting plans specifying evergreen screening and planting locations.","Commissioners instructed applicants to return with a pared‑down retaining‑wall scheme and revised fencing options after extended public comment opposing large stone walls and a six‑foot board fence, and after site staking clarified visibility.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177606,"Historic 10 New Wells Street cleared for demolition after divided HDC vote",2344,103000,2447000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5335601-10a4fa9509ae84a44d88965a46b50f3f&start=103&end=2447","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5335601-10a4fa9509ae84a44d88965a46b50f3f/thumbnail_103000.jpg","/articles/6177606/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Historic-10-New-Wells-Street-cleared-for-demolition-after-divided-HDC-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177606-9ffec2310e1459322a26bb3f0fb909fa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159067&Signature=XFX~E9DBBgmex9GNVMavb7W~6FxaIsik0iB981sO0mQWOTObI2Sn0wErhh9yl6-SOJsFgKtzQn4whI1Bl9i1YTGxMjQ69INR47VBgbsPk0wphmBX~qHLYRvh7iSPWO8Vs2yhSAP~4PcftEpqPJsc~ZJYvyCRUx6eXURp92svWdwtvycq2zeYaDz2fXBiul8IS7kCPAyRA1qBSuWOYEGXe6FsGi6jIpmEQnOSTcjvUeeiXRFs~5UTPqfHhhP~79DrlFMXJlgiPBE03a1IsiIln6Ga1RzlfY8oyJKPpx2hl0xWaOW6uHC8UpRADqo8Cd0qWeRRR7a4fBtLGAzFozXQ1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nantucket Historic District Commission voted 3–2 Tuesday to approve an application to demolish the building at 10 New Wells Street, reversing an earlier failed motion and prompting questions about preservation review standards.

The commission’s approval followed renewed discussion after an architectural conservator, Glenn Vornasian, submitted a written opinion the day before the meeting saying the structure could be stabilized and restored. Commissioners and members of the public debated the credibility and timeliness of that new material before the commission voted to permit demolition.

The commission’s decision came after the body first voted at a prior meeting to deny the demolition application, a result that lacked a majority and led to a motion to reconsider. The motion to reconsider passed unanimously at the June 17 meeting, and the commission then debated whether the hearing should be continued to allow more review of Vornasian’s letter or whether the application should be decided.

Applicant’s agent Arthur (identified in the record as the applicant’s representative) urged the commission to act, saying the building posed a public hazard and that the project team had documented the structure’s condition for the record. “I think we need to get this over with, frankly,” Arthur told the commission.

Preservation advocates and an outside conservator said newly available expertise suggested the building could be restored. Architectural conservator Glenn Vornasian, who said he had no financial interest in the project, told the commission he reviewed the publicly posted reports and drafted his opinion because the application was coming up for a hearing. “I have no relationship with anyone that would bring me any project or or, money as a result of writing that letter or, being here with you today,” Vornasian said. Several public speakers, including Amy Cohan of 76 Union Street, urged the commission to deny demolition and to treat the structure as a contributing element of the Nantucket National Historic Landmark District.

Applicant counsel and representatives challenged the timing and standing of the new opinion. Marissa Pizzdi, identified in the record as in‑house counsel for National Grid appearing for the applicant, said the opinion was submitted after the deadline for new materials and questioned whether the conservator met the board’s previously stated qualification list. “I frankly think that it should not be received as a valid expert opinion,” Pizzdi told the commission and asked that the new letter not be added to the record.

Commissioners split over whether the conservator’s note required postponement. Several commissioners said they were persuaded the letter opened a legitimate preservation option and wanted more discussion. Commissioner Val said the letter had “opened [her] mind to potentially a different conclusion” and asked for a healthy discussion. Others maintained the board previously accepted a second opinion from a preservation‑oriented professional and that late submissions should not routinely reopen deliberations.

After extended debate the commission moved to a final motion to approve demolition. For the record the meeting transcript notes that “Angus and Abby are opposed,” and the motion carried 3 in favor, 2 opposed. The commission did not adopt additional conditions on the demolition in the motion recorded at the meeting.

Why this matters: Commission decisions determining whether to demolish a historic or potentially historic building are permanent — once a structure is taken down it cannot be restored. The case exposed tension between late expert input, procedural rules about submission deadlines, and the statutory toolset for addressing demolition by neglect in the town code.

What the commission discussed next: Members clarified the town’s demolition‑by‑neglect procedures and the limited remedies available through the town code, including enforcement that can require repairs or involve court proceedings. The commission’s staff and the applicant also noted the site record submitted for potential future replication of architectural details if redevelopment occurs.

No immediate follow‑up date for this specific property was scheduled at the meeting; the commission moved on to other agenda items.","The Nantucket Historic District Commission voted 3–2 on June 17 to approve an application to demolish a deteriorated industrial building at 10 New Wells Street after heated debate over whether a newly offered preservation opinion warranted further delay.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

HDC asks for reduced dormer and dormer‑options on 11 Pleasant Street addition and garage

HDC asks for clearer plan, exhibit after repeated debates over 20 Main Street pool fencing

Neighbors, HDC split over retaining walls and fencing for 12 Angola and 8 North Mill

Historic 10 New Wells Street cleared for demolition after divided HDC vote