Nantucket commissions discuss demolition-by-neglect, agree to create at-risk property list

Rita Carr, chair of the Nantucket Historical Commission, opened a joint Certified Local Government meeting on June 27, 2024, to discuss ways the two commissions could respond to “demolition by neglect” and prevent historically significant buildings from falling into irreversible disrepair.

The discussion centered on whether the Historical Commission (NHC) could help the Historic District Commission (HDC) identify at‑risk properties early and on what enforcement tools and incentives the town could use. Carr said the topic “came out of discussion…with everything surrounding 10 New Whale Street and how could potentially the NHC and HCC work together to try and prevent building from reaching such an advanced state of disrepair.”

The nut of the meeting was a repeated call for more proactive identification and earlier intervention. Commissioners described recent survey work that already flagged vulnerable properties and proposed formalizing a referral process so survey results and a new “properties of concern” list would be shared routinely with the HDC.

“Would the NHC perhaps create some sort of, properties of concern list?…As we're going through these surveying projects, are we identifying properties that we think are at risk of demolition by neglect? Can we make those referrals to the HDC?” asked a commissioner during the discussion. Several commissioners supported that approach as a way to move from reaction to prevention.

Commissioners and staff also discussed enforcement tools. Val Oliver asked directly, “Is there a way to impose some sort of fine when this starts to happen?” Members noted that the HDC does have authority to levy fines, but Holly, the CLG coordinator, cautioned the process can be “a little bit cumbersome.” Several commissioners said fines must be meaningful to change owner behavior: “I know the only way to get people to really pay attention is to hit them where it counts and that's with money,” a commissioner said.

Participants discussed non‑punitive supports as well, including a small repair fund or micro‑loan program for owners who lack resources to make timely repairs. Holly acknowledged the idea was on the commissions’ radar: “We wanted to create some sort of fund for homeowners who probably couldn't necessarily afford to do these kind of upgrades,” she said, and called it a priority to explore funding mechanisms.

Panelists clarified limits of local authority: the HDC’s purview is typically exterior work visible from public ways, and interior access or structural inspections can be legally constrained absent preservation restrictions or other legal holdings. Commissioners said survey work and a watchlist could help the town focus limited enforcement and outreach resources earlier in a building’s decline.

Discussion_decision

Discussion points: Commissioners described properties (including 10 Whale/Whale Lane) in advanced disrepair; noted existing but cumbersome enforcement procedures; suggested a survey‑based watchlist; raised fines and small‑grant/micro‑loan options; clarified legal limits on interior access.

Directions: The NHC agreed to begin producing a properties‑at‑risk list drawn from recent and ongoing survey work and to share that list with the HDC. Staff and commissioners also agreed to explore a funding mechanism for small preservation repairs.

Decisions: No regulatory changes were adopted at the meeting; both commissions supported moving forward with a collaborative watchlist and follow‑up work.

Ending

Commissioners asked staff to start with properties already identified in recent surveys and to return with a proposed list and outreach plan. Multiple members asked that the NHC and HDC develop a formalized referral protocol and a timeline for presenting the watchlist to the HDC.

Quotes in this article are taken verbatim from meeting remarks and attributed to the speakers listed below.