Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic commission approves demolition of garage/connector and addition at 221 Church Street after discussion over design
Summary
Agent Paul Muldoon (SV Design) described plans to remove a failing 1950s connector and garage, put the main Cape house on a new foundation, and build a setback gambrel addition; commissioners debated scale and compatibility but approved the certificate of appropriateness (case HH2026‑20) with findings that the project would not diminish the building's historic significance.
Paul Muldoon of SV Design presented plans for property owners Peter and Kathy McLennan at 221 Church Street in East Harwich, describing the existing 18‑century Cape and a failing mid‑century connector and garage that the applicants propose to remove and replace with a two‑car garage and a sizable setback gambrel addition.
"We have a really unique property here, sitting on Church Street in East Harwich," Muldoon said, describing a plan to lift the house, install a new concrete foundation with a brick‑veneer visual, replace the asphalt roof with red cedar, and set the new garage and addition back 65 feet so the original Cape remains visually prominent. He told the commission the team studied alternatives including full replacement and relocating the historic structure but chose a stewardship approach to preserve the primary historic fabric.
Commissioners pressed the applicant on scale and architectural compatibility. One commissioner said the gambrel "looks like two separate houses" and questioned whether a design more consistent with the Cape would be preferable; others responded that the addition would be largely obscured from Church Street and that contrasting new work can clarify the historic building's original form.
A public commenter supported the choice to make the addition clearly distinct so the original structure reads as historic. After closing the public hearing, the commission found the proposed demolition and addition would not destroy or diminish the building's historic significance, imposed conditions as presented in the submitted plans and recorded no demolition delay period.
Case and procedural details: Case HH2026‑20; filing date 06/18/2026; hearing date 07/15/2026. The approval motion carried (recorded tally 4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention by a commissioner who had to leave the meeting). Staff will complete certificate paperwork in accordance with plan conditions.
