Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission holds 11 Pleasant Street addition and garage for revisions after debate over bay window and proximity
Summary
The commission held an application for an addition and garage at 11 Pleasant Street for revisions after commissioners and staff disagreed about whether to retain an existing bay window or replace it with a shed‑roof addition; concerns included historic character, visibility from a private way, and stair/garage proximity.
The Nantucket Historic District Commission on Tuesday held for revisions an application for an addition and a garage at 11 Pleasant Street after debate over whether to retain a historic bay window and the proposed garage’s proximity to the house.
James (applicant/architect) presented a revised plan that removes an exterior balcony, shortens the proposed addition, eliminates a bay window treatment in one iteration, and reduces dormer and door sizes. Holly (preservation planner) reminded the commission the bay window is shown on Sanborn maps and has been a character‑defining feature since the early 20th century, and recommended retaining the bay where possible.
Mickey Rowland (Historic Structures Advisory Group) and staff urged the commission to consider the bay’s historic mapping and condition before approving its removal; Rowland noted the bay’s historic presence on Sanborn maps between 1909 and 1923. Commissioners were split: some members favored keeping the bay in some form because it appears on historic documentation, while others favored the simplified shed‑roof option to reduce visual clutter and massing on the private way (Starbucks Court).
Commissioners also flagged the proximity of a proposed exterior stair to the garage and recommended moving the stair inboard on the deck to create more separation between the new garage and the house massing. After discussion, a motion to approve the shed‑roof iteration without the bay failed in a split vote; a second motion to approve the shed‑roof as submitted with the stair moved inboard was adopted in a subsequent vote. On further review, commissioners requested additional study drawings and asked the applicant to return with clearer elevation exhibits and the revised deck‑stair location. The commission then voted to hold the application for revisions to address those items.
Next steps: the applicant will revise the plans to move the deck stair inboard or otherwise increase separation from the garage, provide clearer elevations and study options indicating the bay variation and the shed variation, and submit the materials for the commission’s next review.
