Select Board upholds HDC demolition approval for 10 New Wales Street after extended appeal and public testimony

The Select Board on Monday denied an appeal by the Nantucket Preservation Trust (NPT) and upheld the Historic District Commission's approval to demolish the brick structure at 10 New Wales Street.

The appeal alleged procedural errors and that the HDC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to follow the demolition review steps described in the HDC guidebook Building with Nantucket in Mind and by not adequately determining whether the structure was "protected," "contributing," or "individually significant." NPT Executive Director Mary Bergman urged the board to vacate the HDC decision and remand the matter for a full public hearing that would specifically apply the demolition policies in the guidebook.

HDC Chair Steven Welch, HDC staff and several commissioners defended the HDC process, saying two in‑person structural-engineer assessments and testimony — including a Structures North report commissioned for the applicant and a second engineer retained from Preservation Massachusetts' list at the commission's request — supported the finding that the building's materials, particularly the brick and mortar, were compromised and that restoration was impractical. HDC members said the commission reviewed documentary evidence, engineering reports and testimony over multiple meetings before their vote.

Attorney Arthur Reed and National Grid in‑house counsel Marissa Pizzi, representing the applicant, told the board that expert inspections showed deterioration that would require near‑complete reconstruction rather than repair of historic fabric; National Grid said it commissioned a detailed interior and exterior historic scan prior to demolition so documentation remains available for future review.

Several speakers — including preservation contractors and members of NPT and the public — argued the HDC hearing process excluded meaningful expert review and that additional conservation study could identify salvageable material and less‑destructive repair options. Others, including firefighters and some HDC commissioners, cited safety concerns and testimony that the building presented an immediate structural risk.

After extended deliberation the Select Board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the HDC decision. The board's legal standard was whether the HDC acted arbitrarily, capriciously or contrary to law; a majority found there was adequate evidence in the record to support the HDC's determination. The motion to deny the appeal passed with a majority and one member opposed.

Provenance: Continued public hearing on appeal of HDC Certificate of Appropriateness HDC2025-01-11863 (tc 01:27:16–02:20:20).