Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HDC pauses decision on New Whale demolition at 10 Newell, orders independent preservation‑masonry report
Summary
After engineers and preservationists described advanced brick deterioration at the New Whale (10 Newell), the commission voted unanimously to hold the demolition application and to request a preservation‑masonry/structural report from a preservation engineer listed by Preservation Mass before taking final action.
The Nantucket Historic District Commission on March 18 voted to defer a decision on an application to demolish the New Whale building at 10 Newell Street and ordered a preservation‑masonry/structural analysis from a qualified preservation engineer before considering demolition.
Project attorney Arthur summarized the building’s history and use; structural engineer Peter Reynolds presented a detailed photographic and laser‑scan based analysis showing extensive brick deterioration and mortar loss. Reynolds testified the brick is “turning to powder,” with mortar failing, bricks loose or falling out, and a southeast corner that had rotated approximately 1½ to 2 inches. The fire department deputy chief said the building posed public‑safety and firefighter access risks if a fire occurred.
Preservation advocates, including Linda Williams and representatives of the Nantucket preservation community, urged repair and stabilization, saying brick buildings are rare and historically significant in the Harbor area. Commissioners heard testimony from David Fredericks, who described past site remediation and earlier decisions permitting selective demolition of other waterfront structures decades ago.
After extended discussion, Commissioner Angus moved that the commission hold the application and request a forensically focused preservation‑masonry/structural report from an engineer experienced in historic masonry repair; the commission agreed the consultant should be drawn from an appropriate preservation list (for example Preservation Mass’s list of preservation professionals) and that the report would be paid for by the applicant/owner or a negotiated arrangement. The motion carried unanimously.
The commission emphasized the immediate fence and safety measures already in place but said the report was necessary before any final determination about demolition or reconstruction could be made. Commissioners also discussed that, if demolition is eventually approved, the commission would expect documented measures to preserve archival records (scans and drawings) and to consider rebuilding a masonry structure of similar character as part of any redevelopment plan.
Speakers included structural engineer Peter Reynolds, preservation advocate Linda Williams, fire department representative (Deputy Chief), project counsel Arthur, site representative Dave Fredericks and preservation planner Holly. The commission recorded the building as a contributing 1927 industrial‑era building and asked staff to prepare a request for proposals constrained to preservation masonry/structural specialists.
