Nantucket Historic District Commission defers several major designs, approves colors and fence adjustments

The Nantucket Historic District Commission met Dec. 2 and split its docket: commissioners approved several cosmetic and fencing requests but deferred multiple larger design proposals for revisions, citing concerns about visibility from public ways, building scale and site engineering.

The most contested item was a renovation at 5 Orange Street. Applicant Luke described plans to formalize a sunroom, replace and add skylights and to add a modest second‑floor deck set back within the roofline. ‘‘The site plan shows the expansion of the existing historic upper … hedge along the eastern and southern property lines,’’ Luke said as he described the buffer he proposed. But members of the Historic Structures Advisory Group, represented by Mickey Roland, objected: ‘‘We feel that the 2nd Floor deck is not appropriate,’’ Roland said, arguing the deck will be visible from Orange Street and that arborvitae screening may not quickly be effective. After discussion the commission voted to hold the application for revisions, requesting revised drawings and visual simulations showing views from Orange Street and fewer skylights.

The board approved several less‑contentious items. At 10 Candle House Lane, Melissa Drueley presented color swatches and the commission approved Quaker gray clapboard with white trim and a white door. The motion to approve carried on a voice vote. At 1826 Sparks (a mixed commercial/residential building complex), commissioners chose platinum gray trim with bronze sashes and bronze doors for Building B after discussing sample chips; Building A remains the previously approved cobblestone finish.

On neighborhood character and site planning, the board rejected or demanded changes to proposals that would add visible massing near public ways. At 33 Cliff Road, commissioners accepted interior stone posts but directed removal of the stone posts adjacent to Cliff Road and confirmed a cobblestone apron where previously approved. Multiple applicants proposing pickleball courts were told to relocate courts away from front yards or increase screening; one lower, sunken court at Drew Lane received conditional approval with added vegetation and an exhibit of screening locations.

Several larger projects were held for revision. Commissioners asked applicants for cross‑section drawings, greater setback or lower eaves on new two‑story elements, and more robust grading/engineering details where substantial retaining walls are proposed. Notable holds included: the garage/cottage at 4 Westmore Lane, the larger addition package at 6 Lily Street (an Underhill cottage context), and revisions at 28 Pine Street (dormer and bay treatment).

Votes at a glance: the commission recorded the following outcomes in public voice votes or motions during the meeting — items summarized where formal motions were made: the board voted to hold 5 Orange Street for revisions; approved the 10 Candle House Lane color (Quaker gray/white) with the motion carried; approved 33 Cliff Road subject to removal of cliff‑facing stone posts; approved screening/exhibit A for the Honeysuckle/Ironwood fence plan with an inset at the Beachgrass/Ironwood corner; approved Building B sash color at 1826 Sparks (platinum gray trim with bronze sashes and bronze doors); and held for revisions multiple larger design submissions (4 Westmore Lane, 6 Lily Street, 28 Pine Street) while requesting cross sections, sight‑line studies and revised site/engineering details. Several other routine items and consents were approved earlier in the evening.

Why this matters: commissioners repeatedly emphasized the HDC’s role in judging how changes read from public ways and in maintaining the island’s historic neighborhood character. For applicants, that means visual simulations, tighter limits on rooftop penetrations like skylights, clearly shown screening that will be effective within a realistic timeframe, and engineering sections for steep sites are now likely required for re‑submittal. Several applicants were encouraged to return with measured cross sections and amended massing rather than face outright denials.

Next steps: applicants whose projects were held were asked to return with the requested revisions (exhibits, cross sections, sight lines and documented screening plans). The board also noted administrative follow‑ups: add 3‑D renderings/walkthroughs to the file and track the Dec. 16 old‑business schedule for items resubmitted from tonight.