Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Summary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nantucket Historic District Commission approves most consent items, holds several applications for revisions
Summary
The Historic District Commission approved a large consent agenda (81 items) with two items pulled for separate review, approved one demolition with a condition on replacement design, and sent several significant applications back to applicants for revised plans or an on‑site view.
The Nantucket Historic District Commission met on Nov. 19 and approved most of a large consent agenda while pulling two items for separate review.
The board voted to approve the consent agenda with the exceptions of item 71 (14 Silver Street) and item 74 (24 Pine Street). Chair Steven led the roll call and a motion to approve the consent slate minus those two items passed with recorded ayes from commissioners Connie Johnson, Abby Camp and Joe Paul and the chair.
On item 74, the commission approved the landscape application for 24 Pine Street after a motion from Commissioner Angus McCloud. Commissioners discussed several new‑business matters that followed, including multiple requests for changes to previously approved plans.
The commission approved the demolition of a mid‑century house at 81 Paco Mo after finding the structure unsafe to relocate. The motion included a condition that any replacement should, "at minimum, reference the silhouette of the existing structure," a requirement the board said was intended to preserve visual continuity in the harbor‑front neighborhood. The vote on that motion was recorded as three in favor and two opposed (Commissioners Angus McCloud and Abby Camp).
Several applications were held for revisions or for an on‑site view. Notable holds included 32 Colbert Avenue (arbor, gates, granite curbing) where the board asked the applicant to simplify the arbor design and provide revised details; 6 Coffin Street (infill building), which was held so the applicant could supply a streetscape and first‑floor elevation verifications; and 7 Maxey Road, where the board asked for a site view and revised site details after concerns about the pool house height and visibility from an adjacent dirt road.
The commission also discussed solar proposals and directed an applicant to relocate a proposed front‑roof array at 32 Main Street to a rear dormer or to a rear ground array. The board said the proposal as submitted was too visible from the traffic circle and that locating panels on a secondary mass or on the ground would be more appropriate.
What happens next: Staff will process revised drawings and Exhibit A details requested by the commission; several applicants were asked to return with additional visuals, streetscapes or to appear for site views before final approvals are stamped.
