Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission holds 36 Tennessee review after neighbors and Madaket advisory group raise preservation and site concerns
Summary
The HDC continued review of a proposal for a new dwelling at 36 Tennessee and the related relocation of a 1938 house section after Madaket community members and commissioners asked for corrected, coordinated site and architectural plans and for wetlands/ConCom permitting to be finalized.
The Nantucket Historic District Commission continued consideration Jan. 28 of a project tied to 36 Tennessee that would relocate a circa-1938 center section of an existing structure and demolish or move two attached wings. Neighbors and the former Madaket advisory group urged the Commission to defer final HDC action until the Conservation Commission process and corrected, coordinated site and architectural drawings are provided.
Madaket community representatives told the HDC the structure at 36 Tennessee is listed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission and appears on the town inventory as nationally- and locally-significant; they asked the HDC to ensure the town has complete, corrected plans that reflect the site, wetlands, and the intended relocation before approving architectural work. Preservation planner Holly and group representative Bruce said the HDC should see the ConCom variance/permit outcomes and a revised coordinated plan because wetland setbacks in several places constrain siting and could change the layout and massing under review.
Commissioners echoed those concerns. They asked the applicant to submit coordinated architectural and site plans that match on setbacks and show the final intended placement of the relocated section, with clear labels for landscaping, driveway and parking. The HDC held the application for revisions so staff, commissioners, and the public can review corrected drawings and so ConCom work can proceed in parallel. The motion to continue passed unanimously.
The continued review does not represent a denial; rather, the Commission asked the applicant to provide the corrected site/architectural set and, when available, the Conservation Commission outcome or documentation so the HDC can assess whether any wetland-related revisions alter visibility or design. The HDC also asked for a landscape plan that documents screening along Tennessee and any planting proposed to mitigate changes if the relocated or removed sections expose more mass to public view.
