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.