Neighbors urge removal of large stone wall at 42 Chuck Hollow; HDC orders site visit after citing owner

The Nantucket Historic District Commission on Tuesday agreed to conduct a site visit after neighbors and abutters said a newly installed stone wall and household gate at 42 Chuck Hollow was constructed without HDC approval and is highly visible from the road and neighboring properties. Neighbors urged the commission to require removal and to enforce a prior cease-and-desist order.

Neighbors told the commission the 7-foot-plus stone wall, capped with bluestone and topped with ornate timber and latticework in some sections, is not a modest retaining wall but a fully visible decorative wall that “dominates” the street view. Mike Levitt, speaking for abutters across the road, said the structure “significantly exceeds 4 feet” and that the owner continued construction after a cease-and-desist order was issued. Howard Matts and other neighbors said they can see the new wall from Chuck Hollow Road and that the planting proposed to hide it will not remain dense year-round.

The commission heard testimony from the property owner, Daryl Ferguson, who told the body he had been working with landscapers and had planted rows of rhododendron and viburnum to screen the stonework and said additional plantings were possible. He said he would coordinate with town staff on any administrative steps needed to return to the agenda. Preservation planner staff confirmed a citation had been issued and paid, and told commissioners the matter should be examined on site so the panel could see actual visibility, remaining vegetation and the current built work.

Why it matters: neighbors told the commission that the wall is visible year-round from public and private vantage points and that its scale and decorative treatment is out of character for that section of Madaket. Several abutters said the structure was installed without prior HDC review and urged the commission to enforce its orders.

What the HDC did: Commissioners voted to hold the item for a site visit and to take the matter up again at the start of the next Tuesday meeting following the view. Staff confirmed a citation had been issued and paid. The chair asked the property owner to coordinate with staff (Kathy Flynn) so the case will return on the agenda after the site visit. Commissioners also reminded the owner not to undertake further work until the commission acted.

Context and next steps: Several abutters said they want full removal of the added height and decorative elements; the commission did not direct removal at the hearing but required the view so commissioners could see the recent work and evaluate compliance and mitigation options. The conservation commission (ConCom) and other town boards were noted by some speakers as potential additional reviewers for vegetation and shoreline considerations. The owner was asked to contact staff about any permits or paperwork he must file before returning to the HDC. The commission will resume the matter after members have inspected the property in person.

Ending: The commission’s action means no final determination will be made until commissioners have viewed the wall in place. Abutters were told the matter will return on the agenda for further consideration after the site inspection.