The Nantucket Historic District Commission unanimously approved a demolition/move‑off application for a small structure on Academy Lane and later approved a replacement one‑story cottage, after extended public comment about the building’s age and whether it should be retained.

The commission ratified the demolition/move‑off application for the structure (an approval tied to a previous 2016 demolition consent) with four members voting in favor and one abstention. Commissioners later voted 4–1 to approve the proposed new one‑story cottage on the same lot; one commissioner opposed the replacement as presented.

Supporters of demolition — represented at the meeting by the applicant’s representative, Luke — said the existing building is in disrepair, cannot practically be moved from the narrow site, and that the owners are proposing a modest one‑story replacement designed for first‑floor accessibility. Luke said the project aims to create a “very modest one‑story, accessible tiny home” with a small porch and first‑floor bedroom to meet a stated medical/accessibility need.

Neighbors and historic advisers urged preservation. Alex Borloff, an abutter, said his family’s next‑door house and the wider Academy Lane streetscape would be harmed by wholesale replacement and argued that more work could be done to retain or adapt the existing structure. Mickey Rowland, representing the Historic Structures Advisory Group, said archival documentation and Holly’s staff notes produced a mixed picture of the building’s date and recommended the commission seek clarification of the building’s historic fabric before approval.

Commission debate centered on three issues: (1) uncertainty about the building’s historic date and how closely the present structure matches maps and photographs cited in staff files; (2) whether physical constraints on Academy Lane make moving the structure impractical; and (3) the scale and design of the replacement. Several commissioners said they would prefer retention if feasible; others noted the 2016 approval and the constrained site and favored the lower‑profile, one‑story replacement. Commissioner Abby asked that the applicant add additional historic documentation to the file.

On the replacement cottage, advisory comments focused on simplifying a small west‑facing gable and the porch railing so the new cottage reads as a small garden structure rather than an overly ornate tiny house. The applicant agreed to minor clarifications and the commission approved the cottage as submitted by a 4–1 vote.

The commission recorded both approvals as formal actions and directed staff to add submitted historic notes to the application file for record‑keeping. The applicant may return with minor modifications as allowed under HDC procedures.

Votes at a glance: The demolition/move‑off approval carried 4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain. The new cottage approval carried 4 yes, 1 no.

The commission moved on to remaining agenda items after the Academy Lane discussion.