|
NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS
By
AMY J. STANSBERRY
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE INT ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2006
Copyright 2006
by
Amy J. Stansberry
To my husband, Mills, for all his support and encouragement
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank my chair, Professor Peter Prugh, cochair, Professor Emeritus Herschel Shepard,
and member, Professor Roy Eugene Graham for their advice and guidance. I thank Jodi Rubin,
the Historic Preservation Officer for the City of Orlando for her mentoring and patience. I thank
Amy E. Alvarez, Nantucket Historic District Commission Staff, for her assistance with
information for the case studies. I thank my parents, Roy and Judy Johnson, for their love,
support, and all they continue to do for me each and every day.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....
LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............8.....
AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 12...
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............14.......... ......
Obj ective to Accomplish ................. ...............14.......... ....
Path of Exploration ................. ...............14........... ....
Importance of Investigation ................. .. .......... ...............16......
Limitations and Parameters of the Investigation ................. ...............17...............
2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ................ .............. ......... .....19
D efinition................. ...................1
Consequences of Listing............... ...............1
National Register Criteria .................. .......... ...............21......
Listing a Resource on the National Register ................. ...............22........... ..
National Historic Landmark Districts ................. ...............24................
Local Historic Districts ................. ...............27........... ....
Historic District Ordinances .............. ...............29....
3 LANDMARK DISTRICT .............. ...............35....
Case Studies: Old Historic District............... ...............35
10 Vestal Street............... ...............35.
125 M ain Street .............. ...............39....
18 Mill Street............... ...............49.
3 Coffin Street .............. ...............55....
20 Milk Street ................. ... ......... .............. .... .... .... .......5
Analysis of the Case Studies: Consequences of not Including Non-contributing
Properties in the Old Historic District............... ...............62
Consequence of Re-use ................. ...............62................
Consequence of Non-prevalence ................. ...............64........... ....
Consequence of Overlooked Significance............... ..............7
Consequence of Inconsistent Management .................. .......... .. .. ........ ... .........._..72
Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contributing Properties in a Landmark District........... 83
Revise the Building Classifications ................. .... ........ ...............83. ....
Qualifications for Historic District Commission Members............... ...............86
Restrict and Focus the Purview of the Existing Commission ................. .. ................ ..87
Establish an Overlay Ordinance and Include Secretary of Interior' s Standards .............88
Create Standards for Alterations, Additions and New Construction................ .............8
Establish Standards for Demolition ................. ...............95................
Establish Standards for Relocation ................. ...............99................
Establish a Universal Purpose .............. ...............102....
Establish Maj or and Minor Review Processes ................ ...............103........... ..
Improvements to the Design Advisory Council .............. ...............104....
Required Considerations for Appeals ................. ...............105........... ...
Summary: Case Studies and Related Issues .............. ...............105....
Application and Consequences of Proposed Criteria ................. .............................1 10
4 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT............... ...............15
Case Study: Lake Eola Heights Historic District .............. ...............152....
223 East Concord Street ............... ... ............ ... ......... .......... ..........5
Case Study Analysis: Consequences of not Including Non-contributing Properties
in the Lake Eola Heights Historic District ................. ...............174........... .
Consequence of Perception ................. ........... ...............174 .....
Consequence of Historic Period of Significance ................. .............................175
Consequence of Reproductions ........._._ ....... ...............176........
Consequence of Plans for Future Utilization. ........._..... .... __.. ..... ..._._..........18
Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contributing Properties in a Local District ................181
Applications for the Revised Building Classifications............... ............18
Improvements to the Design Review Committee .....__................. ................. .184
Revise and Tier Standards for Demolition ................. ...............184..............
Establish Standards for Relocation.............._.... ......._.. .. ........_.._ ........ 18
Required Review for All Buildings in the District ................. ........_ ................1 86
Obj ectives and Standards for Appropriate Alterations ................. ................ ...._.186
Obj ectives and Standards for Appropriate Additions ................. .....__ ..............187
Obj ectives and Standards for New Construction ................. ....___ ................ .189
H eight ................ ............... 19.... _ 1....
Scale and massing .............. ...............191....
S etb ack .............. ... ..... _ ............... 19 1..
Rhythm of solids & voids............... ...............192.
Styles .................. ........... ........... . . ... ...........19
Fenestration patterns, orientation, materials and textures, and roof shapes...........1 92
Required Considerations for Appeals ................. ...............193........... ...
Summary of Case Study and Related Issues............... ................194
Applications and Consequences of the Proposed Criteria ................ ................. ........198
5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............. ...............202....
APPENDIX
A BASIC RECOMMENDATION S ................. ...............210...............
Recommendations for Ordinances....................................21
General Recommendations for All Historic Districts ................. .............................211
B STANDARDS: LANDMARK DISTRICT, THE OLD HISTORIC DISTRICT,
NANTUCKET, MASS ACHU SETT S............... .............21
Building Classifications................ ... ... .. .... .... ..... .......21
Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures in the Old Historic District. ................... ...214
Standards for Additions to Existing Structures in the Old Historic District. ................... .....220
Standards for New Construction in the Old Historic District............... ...............22
Standards for Demolition ................. ................ ...............230 .....
Step 1: Determination of Historic Viability ................. ...............231........... ..
Step 2: Future Utilization .............. ...............232....
Standards for Relocation............... ..............23
C REVISED STANDARDS: LOCAL DISTRICT, LAKE EOLA HEIGHTS HISTORIC
DISTRICT, ORLANDO, FLORIDA ................... ...............23
Building Classifications................ ... ..........23
Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures .............. ...............235....
Standards for Additions to Existing Structures .............. ...............236....
Standards for New Construction................ ............23
Standards for Demolition ................. ................ ...............239 .....
Step 1: Determination of Historic Viability .............. ...............240....
Step 2: Future Utilization .............. ...............241....
Standards for Relocation............... ..............24
D LANDMARK DISTRICT: FIGURES AND MOCK REPORTS .............. ....................24
Staff Report for 10 Vestal Street ............... ...............244...
Staff Report for 125 Main Street: Demolition............... ..............24
Staff Report for 125 Main Street: Relocation ................. ...............251........... ..
E LOCAL DISTRICT: FIGURES AND MOCK REPORT .............. ..... ............... 25
Staff Report for 223 E. Concord Street .............. ...............318............ ...
LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............327................
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............329....
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
3-1 10 Vestal Street. Front elevation. ........._._ ...... .__ ...............112.
3-2 Vestal Street. Street elevation. ........._._ ...... .__ ...............112..
3-4 10 Vestal Street. Existing footprint. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC. ............. ..............114
3-5 10 Vestal Street. Proposed footprint. Courtesy of Nantucket HDC. ............. ..............11 5
3-6 125 Main Street. District Data Sheet from the "Nantucket Island Architectural and
Cultural Resources Survey"Courtesy of Nantucket HDC ............ .. ......_..........1 16
3-7 125 Main Street. Photographs depicting the side elevation. Courtesy of the Nantucket
HDC. ............ ...... __ ...............117..
3-8 125 Main Street. Proposed garage apartment and large front yard. Courtesy of
Nantucket HDC. ............ ...... ...............118..
3-9 127 Main Street. Front elevation located 10'-0" or less from the street. ......................119
3-10 125 Main Street. Hedge and fence replaced the Folk-Victorian house. 123 Main
Street in foreground. ............ ...... __ ...............119.
3-11 123 Main Street. Located 10'-0" or less from the sidewalk. ............. ......................2
3-12 Main Street. View of Main Street depicting the established site utilization. ................121
3-13 129 Main Street. House with a large front yard. ......___ ..... ... __ ......_ ......2
3-14 7 Okorwaw Way. New site for the Folk-Victorian style house ................. ................. .123
3-17 7 Okorwaw Way. Folk Victorian style house in new location. ................... ...............12
3-18 7 Okorwaw Way. Front door. .............. ...............126....
3-19 18 Mill Street. Located less than 5'-0" from the street ................. ........................127
3-20 18 Mill Street. Massing and volume are overly large. ....._____ .......___ ...............127
3-21 1 Norquarta Drive. Contributing bungalow style house that was originally located at
18 M ill Street. ............. ...............128....
3 -22 18 Mill Street. Relationship to adj acent one-story house. ................ ............ .........129
3-23 Mill Street. Sloping site condition. ............. ...............130....
3 -24 House across the street from 18 Mill Street with facade oriented to the side yard..........131
3-25 Four-bay side gable house facing the side yard. .............. ...............132....
3-26 18 Mill Street. Photograph of crisp new foundation ................. ......... ................1 33
3-27 18 Mill Street. Photograph showing the energy efficient windows. .............. .... ..........._134
3-28 1 Norquarta Drive. General setting is rural with no similarity to Mill Street. .................1 34
3-29 Norquarta Drive. General setting is rural with no similarity to Mill Street. ................... .135
3-30 Norquarta Drive. Closest structures with no similarity to the structures in the Old
Hi stori c Di stri ct ................. ...............135..............
3-3 1 3 Coffin Street. Detail of trim and color inconsistent with approved plans. ................... 136
3-32 3 Coffin Street. Photograph of front door, which lacks the light fixtures approved in
the elevations. ............. ...............137....
3-33 3 Coffin Street. Approved front elevation. ............. ...............138....
3-34 3 Coffin Street. Photograph of air-conditioning unit at second floor window. ...............139
3-35 3 Coffin Street. Footprint of new construction. ................ .............. ...._._.......140
3-36 Bartlett Farm. Rural surroundings and the poor condition of the relocated cottage........141
3-37 Bartlett Farm. Rural surroundings and the poor condition of the relocated cottage........141
3-38 Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings ................. ................ ...._.142
3-39 Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings ................. ................ ...._.142
3-40 Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings ................. ................ ...._.143
3-41 Bartlett Farm. Relocated cottage in rural surroundings ................. ................ ...._.143
3 -42 Bartlett Farm. Location of cottage. ........................... ........144
3-43 20 Milk Street. Bungalow style house. ............. ...............145....
3 -44 125 Main Street. Proposed site plan with a large front yard and rear garage
apartment ................. ...............146................
3-45 Milk Street. Houses adj acent to 20 Milk Street depict a regular and consistent street
edge. .............. ...............147....
3-46 Milk Street. Streetscape depicts a regular and consistent street edge. ................... ..........147
3-47 20 Milk Street. Proposed new location for the Bungalow style house. ...........................148
3-48 Norquarta Drive. Lot 13 proposed location for the 20 Milk Street bungalow. ................149
3-49 18 Mill Street. Adj acent one-story house with front yard. ................ ......................149
3-50 41 Liberty Street. Front elevation of the contributing building with no additions
visible. ..........._.._ ...... ...............150......
3-51 41 Liberty Street. Side elevation of contributing building with two additions visible....151
4-1 223 E. Concord Street. Non-contributing resource sheet with statement of
significance pages 1-2............... ...............200..
D-1 Article from Inquirer and Mirror with details concerning 20 Milk Street case. ..............243
D-2 10 Vestal Street. Property location in relation to outlying area. (Town of Nantucket.
(2006) Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ............. ...............253....
D-3 10 Vestal Street. Aerial photograph that depicts the massing along Vestal Street
(Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based GIS: ...254................
D-4 10 Vestal Street. Building footprints displaying massing (Town of Nantucket. (2006)
Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ............. ...............255....
D-5 8 Vestal Street. Estimate of square footage (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based
GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ........... ..... ._ ...............256.
D-6 14 Vestal Street. Estimate of square footage (Town of Nantucket. (2006) Web-Based
GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ........... ..... ._ ...............257.
D-7 10 Vestal Street. Estimate for impervious surface ratio (Town of Nantucket. (2006)
Web-Based GIS: Maps and Parcel Data. ............. ...............258....
E-1 Historic Preservation Board staff report, pages 1-3 ......___ ... .... ._ ...............259
E-2 Criteria for Demolition from the City of Orlando Land Development Code. ................262
E-3 Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance pages 1-9............... ...................6
E-4 Historic Preservation Board meeting minutes dated December 2000 pages 1-12..........272
E-5 Proposed site plan for two duplexes with garage apartments at 223 E. Concord
Street.. .........._ ..... ._ ...............284...
E-6 Addendum: Historic Preservation Board staff report March 2001 .............. ..............285
E-7 Historic Preservation Board staff report dated March 7, 2001 pages 1-7. Courtesy of...286
E-8 Proposed elevations and perspectives for two duplexes at 223 E. Concord Street..........293
E-9 Historic Preservation Board meeting minutes dated March 2001 pages 1-11 ................ .294
E-10 D efi niti on of' "Structure-Non-c ontributi ng"' from C ity of Orlando Land
Development Code............... ...............305.
E-11 Documentation of National Register of Historic Places listing ................. ................. 306
E-12 Excerpt from Lake Eola Heights Survey dated 1983. Courtesy of Orlando HPB. .........307
E-13 Excerpt from National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form dated 1980. ........308
E-14 Recommended Order for the Applicant' s Appeal pages 1-9. ................ .............. .... 309
E-15 223 E. Concord Street. .............. ...............323....
E-16 213 E. Concord Street. .............. ...............324....
E-17 229 E. Concord Street. .............. ...............325....
E-18 Arial view of 213, 223, 229 E. Concord Street............... ...............326
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies
NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS
By
Amy J. Stansberry
December 2006
Chair: Peter Prugh
Cochair: Herschel Shepard
Maj or Department: Architecture
A historic district is a geographic area comprised of a significant concentration of sites,
buildings, structures, or obj ects linked by past historical events, an aesthetic plan or the physical
development of the area. From an inventory of the proposed district, buildings are classified as
contributing, meaning they add to the district' s historic character, or non-contributing, meaning
they do not add to the district' s historic character. Two factors determine the classification: the
age of the building at the time the district is designated and the hi storic period of significance for
the proposed district. Buildings less than fifty years old when the district is designated and
buildings constructed after this period are generally considered non-contributing, and may be
removed from the district, either by demolition or relocation. In some districts, even buildings
classified as contributing are rendered insignificant and treated as non-contributing. With only
two possible classifications, these judgments are too absolute. Many non-contributing buildings
are significant, but presently there is no way to define how they contribute to the district.
The solution may be to eliminate the term non-contributing, use the historic period of
significance to define contributing buildings, and introduce new classifications that represent the
primary ways in which these buildings contribute. The value of non-contributing buildings, if
any exists, could be determined by examining the impact on districts where non-contributing
buildings have been removed. These buildings should be defined more accurately because non-
contributing buildings are usually replaced with new construction, sometimes heavily inspired by
the district's prevalent architectural style. The resulting environment misrepresents the past and
misleads the public with regard to the district' s authenticity. Because this practice is unrelated to
the actual mission of preservation, it must be prevented.
Therefore to examine these problems in detail, I have selected two existing historic
districts for discussion. Both were selected because of my familiarity with the districts and the
fact that they represent different levels of importance. The first district is the Old Historic
District, an important portion of the National Historic Landmark, Nantucket Island,
Massachusetts, which is important to the entire country. The second is the Lake Eola Heights
Historic District, Orlando, Florida, which is important at the local level but honored by being
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. By using two opposing districts, there is an
opportunity to set priorities based on the importance of each district.
Both districts had similar issues surrounding non-contributing buildings. In the Landmark
district, I questioned why contributing buildings of recognizable architectural style, considered
significant in other districts would be approved for removal from the Old Historic District. In the
local district, I questioned why a non-contributing building requested for demolition was not
classified as contributing. Fortunately it was determined to be architecturally significant. By
tracing these buildings through the individual review processes, it is possible to identify
modifications required to manage non-contributing buildings and related issues more effectively.
These modifications are applicable not only to these specific examples, but also to all local and
landmark historic districts throughout the nation.
CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION
Objective to Accomplish
This study investigates the term "non-contributing,"' buildings that were less than fifty
years old when the district was designated and were not built during the historic district's
designated period of significance. Currently non-contributing buildings are perceived as
insignificant to the district, which is not always true. In reality the category is composed of many
types of buildings that enrich the district in various ways. Some are an architectural style that
was unrecognized when the district was designated. Others were recently constructed and it is
too soon to fully appreciate their value. Also, some non-contributing buildings may describe the
district' s development after the historic period of significance, possess certain intrinsic values, or
support the district by their existence. Therefore, the current classifications, contributing and
non-contributing, Eixed by the designated period of significance are too rigid. I wish to determine
if the building classifications should be revised to eliminate the term non-contributing. Perhaps
new building classifications could be adopted that aptly describe how these buildings enrich the
historic district and the community. By doing so, the built environment of the historic district
would correlate to the history of the area, which is a continuum.
Path of Exploration
Due to Nantucket Island's appearance, National Historic Landmark status and the
published design guidelines, Bulikling~ \ ithl Nantucket in M~ind, I thought that the practice of
preservation would be stringent. However, when attending Historic District Commission
Meetings as a student at the University of Florida' s Preservation Institute: Nantucket, I witnessed
unmethodical decisions by the commission and a staggering volume of cases. I wondered why a
house of a recognizable architectural style, but not of the prevalent styles in the district, would be
moved out of the district. Then I questioned if similar decisions in the past had created the
pristine appearance of the district. To investigate these questions, I conducted Hyve case studies of
buildings in a portion of a National Historic Landmark, the Old Historic District, Nantucket,
Massachusetts.
While one case study investigates a non-contributing building, the other four investigate
contributing buildings. This may seem unrelated to the topic of non-contributing buildings, but
these buildings were rendered non-contributing by the way they were treated. From review of the
meeting minutes and design guidelines, I hope to understand how and why these buildings were
removed from the National Historic Landmark District. Also, I hope to determine if the new
locations were reviewed for appropriateness, review the buildings in their new location, and
determine the impact on the district where contributing buildings were replaced with new
construction. These Eindings will indicate if any deciding factors should be altered.
Due to the fact that the historic districts in Orlando, Florida lack National Historic
Landmark designation and separate published design guidelines, I thought that the practice of
preservation would be less strict than that of Nantucket Island. But after working as the Historic
Preservation Officer for the City of Orlando, I became convinced the opposite was true. The
Historic Preservation Board in Orlando, Florida was effective and thorough. When a non-
contributing building was requested for demolition, I questioned why it was not considered
contributing to the district. The house was a recognizable architectural style, celebrated in many
districts, however, it was not of the prevalent styles in this district. After extensive review and
controversy, the non-contributing building was declared architecturally significant and retained.
To investigate this question and board decision, I conducted a case study of this non-contributing
building in the Lake Eola Heights Historic District, Orlando, Florida.
I hope to understand how and why the demolition was denied and identify the factors that
formed the decision, "the non-contributing building is significant albeit outside the contributing
definition." These findings will indicate if alterations could be made to judge non-contributing
buildings by their attributes, for the benefit of all historic districts. Some of the deciding factors
consist of the following: the Overlay Ordinance for Lake Eola Heights Historic District, the Land
Development Code's Design and Demolition Standards, the requirements for preservation
commission members, a professional staff, written reports for requests, monthly meetings and a
manageable caseload.
From the case study analysis, proposed criteria can be suggested to include buildings now
classified as non-contributing and to manage all resources more effectively in most residential
historic districts. Furthermore, specific recommendations can be made for the Lake Eola Heights
Historic District in Orlando, Florida and the Old Historic District, Nantucket, Massachusetts.
Importance of Investigation
This investigation is important for two reasons. The first deals with the philosophy of
preservation, and the second deals with the actual management of historic districts. Both can be
viewed from the perspective of the district' s level of importance. For example, local Ordinances
and Design and Demolition Standards should embody the preservation philosophy and
management required for the district and should not be disregarded. However, Ordinances,
Standards and Design Guidelines at the Landmark level should be written and enforced to attain
a higher standard in the realm of preservation philosophy and management.
The mission of preservation should be authenticity both in the small realm, such as
materials, and in the large realm, such as the built environment. With this in mind the goal of the
built environment within a district' s boundary should be authentic preservation instead of a
quaint fabrication. We should be wary when we encounter the removal of an original building
with authentic material for a reproduction of a prevalent style in the district with new material.
When contributing buildings and some non-contributing buildings are moved or demolished to
improve the style in the district, this is exactly what is occurring. We must question, examine and
determine if this is appropriate preservation practice. If it is, we must define when it is
appropriate, because in most situations this practice is more related to an arbitrary form of
contemporary urban planning, far removed from preservation.
All buildings in historic districts, regardless of the district' s importance, are affected by
how they are managed. For the districts in the case studies, the amount of effective management
does not correlate to the importance of the district. Currently, while one district may strictly
adhere to management standards, another may be remiss to the point of negligence. For example
the preservation management in the landmark district is composed of: staff comments, which do
not sufficiently analyze the request; design guidelines, which do not provide direct standards; a
commission composed of non-professionals, who do not heed the advice of the professional
staff; and an overwhelming caseload. In comparison, the local district is composed of required
written reports, clear and concise standards, a board composed of professionals, and a
manageable caseload. Perhaps districts important to the entire country, National Historic
Landmark Districts, should operate at a higher standard than a district important at the local
level. Requiring this would elevate building protection at the landmark level, and the ruling body
would be held accountable. A standard procedure for preservation management should be
required for all residential historic districts, whether landmark or local.
Limitations and Parameters of the Investigation
As a former Preservation Officer I wanted to explore the main components that form
decisions on individual property requests of each historic district. Some of the components
include: enabling legislation or ordinances, design guidelines or standards for changes to
buildings, the review process, the commission or board composition, and the schedule of
meetings. By examining how and why the decisions were made, alterations can be suggested to
serve individual buildings more effectively. To fully understand the issues that surround non-
contributing buildings, I needed to use two locations that I was familiar with. However, because
it was time consuming to delve into the level of detail needed to gain this understanding, case
studies in other districts were not conducted.
CHAPTER 2
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Definition
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the most important historic preservation
legislation ever passed by Congress, established the National Register of Historic Places. Until
this time, the historic preservation movement was centered on incredibly significant individual
landmarks. Preservation became proactive due to the National Historic Preservation Act, which
requires agencies to locate, inventory and nominate properties to the National Register of
Historic Places. This instills a responsible attitude toward the preservation of historic buildings.
The National Historic Preservation Act advocates the expansion of the register and maintenance
of the resources. After this act was passed, the Secretary of the Interior decentralized the
responsibilities of preservation (Murtagh, 1997). So in each state, there is now an appointee, a
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that manages the directives at the state and local
level. The National Historic Preservation Act requires the documentation of significant historic
properties through grants from the State Historic Preservation Officer to local preservation
organizations (Tyler, 2000).
Consequences of Listing
Listing on the National Register of Historic Places provides a procedural protection against
federally funded, licensed, or sponsored proj ects. Under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must review and comment on
federal proj ects that may have an affect on National Register properties, both listed and eligible
for listing. However, this does not pertain to state, local, or privately funded projects that may
affect historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is an independent
Federal agency under the Executive branch that advises the President and Congress on historic
preservation policy. Currently the Council has twenty members including the secretaries of the
interior, transportation, housing, and urban development, and agriculture.
When a review is commenced, the federal agency that is involved in the proj ect must
identify the historic properties that may be affected, consults the State Historic Preservation
Officer or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to determine which properties are listed or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Advisory Council determines whether
the proposed proj ect will have no effect, no adverse effect, or an adverse affect. If an adverse
affect is anticipated, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation consults with the State
Historic Preservation Officer and others to determine how to minimize the negative affect. This
results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines the mitigating measures to be
taken. If the Memorandum of Agreement is executed, the agency can proceed with the proj ect
under its terms (Tyler, 2000). So, this review process cannot halt federal proj ects, but there is
consideration for properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
There are misconceptions about listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Listing
on the National Register does not restrict what private citizens can do with their property and
their own funds (Murtagh, 1997). Property owners are free to maintain, manage, or dispose of
the listed property as they choose. If they wish, they can even prevent their property being listed
on the National Register of Historic Places by formally obj ecting (Ditchfield and Wood, 1995).
In this case, the property categorized as eligible for listing, rather than listed. However, this does
not prevent historic property laws from applying.
National Register properties enj oy many tax benefits. For properties listed on the register,
rehabilitation is encouraged for income producing historic properties that meet preservation
standards through tax incentives (Tyler, 2000). Property owners in a National Register Historic
District are eligible for a 20% rehabilitation tax credit on historic and non-historic buildings used
in trade, business, or production of income. This does not pertain to residential historic properties
used for a primary residence. The proposed rehabilitation's must adhere to the Secretary
Standards for Historic Preservation and be substantial. Substantial means the taxpayer' s
expenditures must be greater of the "adjusted basis" of the building, or $5,000 during any 24-
month period. The "adjusted basis" is the purchase price plus the amount of previous capital
improvements. This figure is then reduced by the depreciation deductions taken already. The
basis does not include the land value (Boyle, 1996). Furthermore, there are actually federal
income tax disincentives for the demolition of income producing property listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (Tyler, 2000).
Because of the concern that historic designation would give the federal government new
powers over individual property owners, the designation provisions in the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 did not allow for any direct federal regulatory power over private
properties. In fact, since the 1980 amendment to the Act, such listing can only be done after
notice to the owner is and provided the owner does not obj ect. If an owner obj ects, a historically
significant property would be listed as "Register Eligible"(Tyler, 2000).
Properties can lose their historic designation. Reasons for dedesignation range from an
unsympathetic renovation, neglect or an act of nature, but the result is the property's loss of
character defining features. The procedure for removal depends upon the ordinance for
designation. However, preservation law recommends there be a recession procedure.
National Register Criteria
In order to define a National Register Historic District (NRHD), one must understand the
National Register of Historic Places and historic districts. The National Register of Historic
Places is a list of historic and cultural resources with national, state, or local significance. The
specific criteria for listing on the National Register is defined as follows:
The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
obj ects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage
of the United States in history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture and that
possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and:
1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are
identified with, or that outstandingly represent, the broad national patterns of United States
history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be gained;
2. That are associated importantly with the lives of persons nationally significant in the
history of the United States; or
3. That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or
4. That embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen
exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction, or that
represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
5. That are composed of integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by
reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but
collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or
outstandingly commemorate or illustrate a way of life or culture; or
6. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information of maj or scientific importance
by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas
of the United States. Such sites are those which have yielded, or which may reasonably be
expected to yield, data affecting theories, concepts and ideas to a maj or degree. (National
Park Service. (2002). National Register Bulletin 15: Criteria for Evaluation, Retrieved on
July 2006 from http://www.cr. np s.gov/nr/publi cati ons/bulletins/nrbl5 /nrbl15_9.htm)
Listing a Resource on the National Register
Before a district, site, building, structure or obj ect is listed, the resource is carefully
documented using a Registration Form, which can be obtained from the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO). Citizens or organizations interested in the preservation of the
resource may initiate the process and prepare the forms, but the State Historic Preservation
Officer actually nominates the resource to the National Register of Historic Places. Each state
has a professional board that reviews nominations. They make a recommendation of eligibility to
the Keeper of the National Register, who conducts a review. Pending this approval, the resource
is listed (Boyle, 1996).
The purpose of collecting information on the resource is to determine the historic
significance. The historic significance of a resource must be based on one of four categories.
These are association with historic events or activities, association with important persons,
distinctive design or physical characteristics, or potential to provide important information about
prehistory or history. Obviously, the historic resource must meet at least one of these categories.
The general rule is that a resource is not considered historic until it is at least fifty years old.
Every Registration Form requires a resource to be placed within a historic context. Context
is the period, place, and the cultural events that created or influenced the resource. The historic
context links the resource to the big picture, the community, state or nation. In describing historic
context, association and period of significance are important factors. Association is how the
property relates to the chosen historic significance category, listed above. The association should
be direct. For example, if the property is significant for the association with significant people,
the person must have lived there, worked there, or been there when he/she achieved the
significant accomplishment. Period of significance is the time span during which the significant
events or activities occurred (National Park Service, National Register Bulletin, 1997).
Most importantly, all resources must possess integrity, the authenticity of physical
characteristics directly related to the property's significance. When a resource retains its
character-defining features, there is a clear relationship to the significant event, person, or
design. However, if the structure has been drastically altered or most of the historic material has
been removed, it may not be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Historic integrity is based on seven factors: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association. The Register Form records the property as it is at the time of listing and
justifies how the property qualifies for the National Register of Historic Places. Additional
general information is required like the location, size, and boundaries of the property. Also, after
all resources have been evaluated the number of contributing resources is represented in a
percentage verse the total number of properties. The property's historic use and current use,
architectural and material classification are also recorded.
National Historic Landmark Districts
A resource listed on the National Register can be placed in a special category at the
National level and known as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). These properties are of
exceptional value to the nation as a whole, but this listing is honorific. However, National
Historic Landmark designation may provide a higher degree of protection from federal actions
(Tyler, 2000). This protection is procedural and would take action at the National level. National
Historic Landmarks are defined as buildings, sites, districts, structures, and objects that have
been determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be nationally significant in American history
and culture. This is the highest form of designation (Tyler, 2000). The specific criteria for listing
on the National Register as a National Historic Landmark is defined as follows:
The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings, structures and
obj ects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage
of the United States in history, architecture, archeology, technology and culture; and that
possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and:
(1) That is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are
identified with, or that outstandingly represents, the broad national patterns of United
States history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be
gained; or
(2) That are associated importantly with the lives of persons nationally significant in the
history of the United States; or
(3) That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or
(4) That embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen
exceptionally valuable for the study of a period, style or method of construction, or that
represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
(5) That are composed of integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by
reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but
collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or
outstandingly commemorate or illustrate a way of life or culture; or
(6) That have yielded or may be likely to yield information of maj or scientific importance
by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas
of the United States. Such sites are those which have yielded, or which may reasonably be
expected to yield, data affecting theories, concepts and ideas to a maj or degree.
Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by
religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from
their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings and properties that have achieved
significance within the past 50 years are not eligible for designation. Such properties,
however, will quality if they fall within the following categories:
(1) A religious property deriving its primary national significance from architectural or
artistic distinction or historical importance; or
(2) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is nationally
significant primarily for its architectural merit, or for association with persons or events of
transcendent importance in the Nation's history and the consequential association; or
(3) A site of a building or structure no longer standing but the person or event associated
with it is of transcendent importance in the Nation's history and the consequential
association; or
(4) A birthplace, grave, or burial if it is of a historical figure of transcendent national
significance and no other appropriate site, building or structure directly associated with the
productive life of that person exists; or
(5) A cemetery that derives its primary national significance from graves of persons of
transcendent importance, or from an exceptionally distinctive design or from an
exceptionally significant event; or
(6) A reconstructed building or ensemble of buildings of extraordinary national
significance when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other buildings or
structures with the same association have survived; or
(7) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic
value has invested it with its own national historical significance; or
(8) A property achieving national significance within the past 50 years if it is of
extraordinary national importance. (National Park Service. (2006). National Historic
Landmarks Program: Questions and Answers, Retrieved on March 2006 from
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/QA.htm#1)
About 2,200 sites, which are about 3% of the properties on the National Register are
National Historic Landmarks (Tyler, 2000, p. 106). As an example Central High School, in Little
Rock, Arkansas, is nationally significant because it was the site of the first maj or confrontation
over implementation of the Supreme Court's 1954 decision outlawing racial segregation in public
schools. The city's resistance led to President Eisenhower's decision to send Federal troops to
enforce desegregation at this school in 1957 (National Park Service. (2006). National Historic
Landmarks Program: Questions and Answers, Retrieved on March 2006 from
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/QA.htm#1).
The National Park Service identifies these National Historic Landmarks through theme
studies, which analyze properties associated with a specific area of American history. The
National Park Service evaluates the historic importance of potential Landmarks through a
National Park System Advisory Board public meeting twice a year. The Advisory Board consists
of citizens who are national and community leaders in the conservation of natural, historic, and
cultural areas. Recommendations by the Advisory Board are made to the Secretary of the Interior
on potential National Historic Landmarks. Final decisions regarding National Historic Landmark
designation are made by the Secretary of the Interior. Designation may be delayed if the
Advisory Board or the Secretary of the Interior raises questions regarding the significance,
physical condition, or boundaries of a potential Landmark. The process for Landmark
designation is similar to listing a property in the National Register (National Park Service.
(2006). National Historic Landmarks Program: Questions and Answers, Retrieved on March
2006 from http://www.cr. np s.gov/nhl/QA.htm# 1).
Local Historic Districts
The maj ority of properties listed on the National Register are primarily of state and local
significance. The impact of this listing is restricted to a regional or smaller geographic area. For
example, many historic schools are listed on the National Register because of the historically
important role they played in educating individuals in the community or state in which they are
located. In layman' s terms a historic district is a neighborhood. The National Register of Historic
Places defines a historic district as,"A geographically definable area urban or rural, large or
small possessing a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures,
and or obj ects united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development" (Murtagh,
1997, p. 103). Prior to the establishment of a historic district, an inventory is taken of the
structures within the district, meaning each structure is photographed and researched. From this
information, a structure is classified as contributing, meaning it adds to the historic character of
the district, or non-contributing, meaning it does not add to the historic character of the district.
The creation of a district is justified when a grouping of buildings has at least one unifying factor
that links all or most of the buildings within the boundaries. The factor the group of buildings
represents could be an architectural period, style, or an important era in the community's history.
In some cases a noncontiguous district may be supported if the unifying factor is early
settlement. However, the boundaries are substantially contorted, which does not capture the
sense of place (Tyler, 2000).
The boundaries of a district are important. Natural features and edges are probably the
most common forms of setting up boundaries. Early settlement patterns are a logical solution for
defining boundaries. If these patterns are not obvious today, early maps and descriptions can be
examined. Sometimes boundaries are simply reactionary, drawn to protect a historic area from
adj acent development (Tyler, 2000). Some boundaries are considered inclusive; meaning the
study committee has included more area, rather than less. The committee does this to include
every single historic property. Unfortunately this weakens the historic properties within the
boundaries, because the boundaries should have as much integrity as possible. They should have
some basis in logic. It is usually better to be more selective and restrict boundaries to the smallest
area that retains the strongest elements of the district' s goals. The State Historic Preservation
Officer considers approval for proposed districts by examining the ratio of historic properties to
non-historic properties. The higher the proportion of historic structures, the more likely the
historic district will be supported. The State Historic Preservation Officer does not recommend
gerrymandering the boundaries of a district to achieve the highest ratio possible (Tyler, 2000).
However, some ordinances cover a large portion of a city to give the commission as much
latitude for review as possible. In the Ypsilanti Historic District Ordinance, the district included
many non-significant structures because they were seen as part of the context to the surrounding
historic structures (Tyler, 2000). When submitting documentation for a proposed historic district,
the National Register of Historic Places requires certain information. First, a written statement of
the historic significance of the area is required. Second a map that shows the proposed district
boundaries and justification for the placement of the boundaries. Third, the percentage of
structures that contribute to the character of the proposed district versus the number of non-
contributing buildings must be calculated and a map locating the buildings in each category. The
percentage of contributing structures from that total number of structures determines whether the
proposed district qualifies as a historic district. Fourth, detailed descriptions of the individual
buildings in the area need to be recorded. Lastly, photographs of significant historic structures
and typical streetscapes (Tyler, 2000).
There are many reasons historic districts are created. In Norman Tyler's book, Historic
Preservation, he identifies motivation such as: to protect against a specific threat of
development, to encourage development in an older area, a tool of maintaining property values,
to improve the image of a community at large. At the heart of historic districts, there should be
history and we may have lost sight of this idea. While there are other valid reasons for creating a
district, preservationists should concentrate districts that are created simply for the history they
represent.
In some situations, a district may comprise noncontiguous sites or structures if they have a
common theme. Perhaps the structures representing early settlement, for example, are
scattered across a city. In this case, trying to collect the significant buildings within one
physical district would mean a substantial contortion of the boundary lines. A thematic
district made of noncontiguous elements may be the most appropriate approach, but this is
relatively rare, since it does not capture the sense of place, an important factor. (Tyler,
2000, p. 68)
One must question why a current sense of place is such an important factor if there is a
physical record of significant history.
Historic District Ordinances
A local ordinance may establish a Historic District Commission, who defines what
activities within the historic district are subj ect to review. The activities usually include exterior
alterations, additions, new construction, and demolition. The extent of control is a decision made
by the local community through its legislative body (Tyler, 2000). Owners of structures within
the historic district must obtain a Certifieate of Appropriateness for the work they plan to do
before a building permit can be issued. The historic commission' s approval or denial of the
request is based on criteria established in the ordinance. Historic District ordinances are often
overlay ordinances, which build on existing zoning ordinance.
Characteristics of Effective Ordinances. An effective ordinance will stand up to legal
challenges if it includes six factors. First the ordinance should adhere to the provisions of the
state enabling legislation and provide for local concerns. Second the ordinance should be
predictable in its application by the review agency. This allows property owners to be reasonably
certain of approval if provided clear and direct standards. If the approval by the commission is
unpredictable, the ordinance is either weak in composition or interpretation. Third an ordinance
should not be too vague. If so, approvals are based on the discretion of the commission or
sometimes the dynamics of the commission. Fourth ordinances must reference the standards and
guidelines by the Secretary of Interior. This helps to insure that the local commission does not
misinterpret the ordinance. The Secretary of Interiors Standards are nationally recognized for
determining appropriate alterations and additions. Commissions should work together to
formulate an understanding of what is appropriate design (Tyler, 2000). Fifth ordinances should
not attempt to define property maintenance provisions, which allows for a commission to take
action against an owner that fails to maintain a property. And finally the body that is responsible
for the enforcement should do so consistently. The code enforcement department is usually
granted this power. It is imperative for preservation staff to forge a good working relationship
with the inspector assigned to overseeing historic districts. If the inspector is selective in
enforcement, an owner may claim he has been singled out. "The argument may be awkward for
the commission or the city to counter, but the courts generally defer to commissions as expert
bodies, and failure to enforce in one case is not a legal defense in another" (Tyler, 2000, p. 75).
A historic district ordinance is a legal document and must follow requirements of the state
and local government. It should be evaluated according to three basic provisions. First, its
purpose should promote public welfare, written to benefit the community rather than a select
group of property owners. Second the ordinance should be rational, and third the ordinance
should be fair, applying to everyone equally within a specified group (Tyler, 2000).
Example of an Effective Ordinance. The Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance
describes the area, as one of Orlando' s oldest and most architecturally significant. Originally a
citrus grove, residential development took place after the freeze of 1894. The ordinance does not
use the terms non-contributing and/or contributing. Rather than restrict itself to buildings that
were fifty years or older when the district was designated, the ordinance discusses what is
architecturally significant. The prevalent architectural styles built in the district and their
corresponding dates are identified, but the styles are not limited to this list, "ranging in
significant styles but not limited to..." (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p.
1). The purpose of the ordinance is, "to protect and preserve the elements which contribute to the
architectural and historic significance of the neighborhood..." (Lake Eola Heights Historic
District Ordinance, 1989, p. 1). The preservation philosophy for the district is proclaimed, "the
historic and architectural significance of the Lake Eola Heights neighborhood has been achieved
over time and the growth and development of this neighborhood is part of the history of Orlando
which is worthy of protection..." (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 2).
The concepts of significance achieved over time and growth and development worthy of
protection are the essence of preservation. This statement continues,
this ordinance seeks to maintain and preserve what is unique to the neighborhood by
preventing future growth that is incompatible with surrounding structures and
neighborhood and assure changes within the neighborhood will be compatible with the
historic character of the structures and the environment of the Lake Eola Heights
neighborhood. (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 2)
A Certificate of Appropriateness must be acquired before a building permit is issued for
exterior alteration, construction, or demolition, "according to Chapter 58 of the Orlando City
Code" (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 3). When an ordinance builds off
the existing zoning, it is called an Overlay Ordinance. Because the District Ordinances take
precedence over requirements in the Land Development Code, exceptions specific to the district
are listed. For example walkways and patios not subj ect to view, landscaping, emergency repair
without change to exterior design, and paint color are not reviewed in this district. For the same
reason there are certain items specific to the district that are allowed like chain link fences in the
rear yard and the permission for Historic Preservation Board to "adopt additional legally valid
guidelines and criteria as it deems appropriate" (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance,
1989, p. 7). Therefore the Ordinance can be updated or changed as needed if approved by City
Council.
Evolving from the district' s stated purpose, the Historic Preservation Board is reminded to,
" seek compatibility of structures in the district in terms of size, texture, scale and site plan" and
to consider the Secretary of Interior' s "Standards for Rehabilitation" when considering requests
for Certifieates of Appropriateness (Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, 1989, p. 4).
The authors recognized that the Land Development Code would allow construction inappropriate
to the character of the neighborhood. The ordinance' s demolition criteria correspond to the
Criteria for Demolition in the Design and Demolition Standards defining fiye criteria most
important to the Lake Eola Heights Historic District and omitting the category of existing
conditions or maintenance and economic hardship. Considering future utilization the ordinance
requires a "substantial plan" for the site, but exactly what drawings should be submitted and
what level of detail is required is not indicated. Finally the Lake Eola Heights Historic District
Ordinance was accepted May 22, 1989, which is the date of designation for the district.
Oppositions to Ordinances. Opposition to the establishment of a historic district comes
from several sources. Existing departments within local government may fear losing power or
not want the extra work. The City or County may not be willing to allocate additional funds for a
new department. If institutions have a stake in the property, they may not be in favor of a historic
district (Tyler, 2000). However, most opposition comes from homeowners in the proposed
district, who have two concerns.
First homeowners obj ect to design guidelines and standards that control alterations to the
exterior of their house. They believe obj ective standards for beauty or appearance is impossible,
because "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Therefore they see the legislation of aesthetics
subjective and arbitrary. Homeowners accept land use zoning, such as building codes, because
they know it protects their general welfare, health and safety. This is also accepted because it
does not impose restrictions on landowners regarding the aesthetic appearance of the built
environment. The courts have agreed that the preservation of historic districts meets the zoning
criteria of protecting the public welfare, health and safety. Although some homeowners of
proposed districts have no problem with guidelines and standards that preserve what currently
exists. They take issue with the guidelines and standards for additions and new construction,
basically the changes to the existing built environment. Property owners view these changes as
arbitrary. Admittedly some alterations to districts are far from the intent of preservation, and are
really closer to a contemporary form of urban planning.
Second homeowners oppose the creation of a historic district and feel it is a "taking," the
government is restricting the their rights to use or develop the property without compensation for
the loss in value. The opposition from the property owners is usually representative of the degree
of control being proposed. Obviously the key is to educate and persuade property owners that the
positive aspects of historic districts outweigh the negatives.
If the designation of an historic district were successful, the ideal board or commission
would be composed of an impartial panel of individuals who are knowledgeable of local history,
architectural history, and preservation. They should make judgements on requests for change
within the district (Tyler, 2000). Because members of a historic commission or board are
sometimes not required to be knowledgeable or not interested in becoming so, design guidelines
are helpful for visual instruction. Design Guidelines are defined as, "Criteria, locally developed,
which identify local design concerns, drawn up in an effort to assist property owners to respect
and maintain the character of the designated district..." (Murtagh, 1997, p. 216). Although in
some districts knowledgeable staff can serve this purpose by a personal consultation with the
applicants regarding their design request.
Historic Preservation is most effective at the local level because this is where ordinances
are created and proposals for changes to historic structures are reviewed. Property owners deal
directly with the historic preservation officer or planner and then with the Historic Preservation
Commission or Board. This is where the real protective power is found. The idea that the
community should determine for itself what is historically significant, and what steps should be
taken to provide protection encourages a comfortable and uncontroversial environment (Tyler,
2000). The concept here is understandable, the residents take ownership of the district and its
history. However, this is a conflict of interest for citizens to make decisions about what is
historically significant. Besides the fact that they may lack knowledge of the area' s history or
general preservation practices, their own property is at stake. Surely limitations that could be
placed on their property will effect their decisions. While this approach may be Eine for local
historic districts, the government should step in and make judgement calls for National
Landmark Districts.
CHAPTER 3
LANDMARK DISTRICT
Case Studies: Old Historic District
The citizens of Nantucket Island created the Nantucket Historic District in 1955. In 1966
the National Park Service designated the town of Nantucket a National Historic Landmark and
listed it on the National Register of Historic Places (Lang and Stout, 1995). Because of
incompatible new construction, the Nantucket Historic District Commission was formed to
review and approve all construction on the island with design guidelines, Bulikling~ \ ithl
Nantucket in M~ind (Lang and Stout, 1995). Originally the area under the Commission's purview
was restricted to two main districts of Nantucket and Siasconset, but in 1975 this was extended
to include the entire island of Nantucket (Lang and Stout, 1995). In 2000, the National Trust for
Historic Preservation placed Nantucket on its list of "America' s 11 Most Endangered Places"
due to, "the trend to renovate historic structures out of existence" (National Park Service. (2006).
National Landmarks Program: Search for a NHL, Retrieved on September 2006 from
http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?Resouc ld-8&ResourceType=District). These case studies
investigate properties located in the town of Nantucket, the Old Historic District.
10 Vestal Street
The dwelling at 10 Vestal Street was surveyed in August of 1989 by AGS. Per the
Inventory Form, the ownership history of the dwelling is unknown. This is a one-story weathered
shingle dwelling was built circa 1930. It has a concrete foundation, composition shingle side
gable roof, and a center unpainted brick chimney. Other architectural features include a central
flush frame entry, plain corner boards and six-over-six windows. The structure is noted as being
located in a densely built residential area of the Old Historic District. The significance of the
house to the National Register Historic District is non-contributing.
Request for relocation. Application #3 8,05 1: May 4, 2001: Request to Demolish or
Move Building. The existing building is recorded as being 26' in length and 29' in width with a
total square footage of 648 SF. The application differs from the inventory form, listing the date
of construction as 1956 (one-room house) with an addition in 1966. Also the applicant lists the
original builder as his grandmother. There are no staff comments attached to this application.
However, a plan of the existing site was submitted with the application, which depicts the
dwelling about 12'-0" from the sidewalk, 17'-0" from the left side property line, and 12'-0" from
the right side property line.
The Historic District Commission approved this application and issued the Certificate of
Appropriateness #3 8,05 1 on May 22, 2001.
Personal critique. The HDC review of the non-contributing property and the new
location was not critiqued, because the available paperwork did not note a proposed location.
Request for new construction. Application #3 8,050: May 4, 2001: Description of work
to be performed: Request to construct a two-story dwelling in the Old Historic District. The
structure is proposed to be 48'-0" in length and the 46'-0" in width. The proposed square footage
of the first floor is 173 1 SF and 1300 SF on the second floor with a 15' by 24' deck. The
proposed ridge height is 26'-0" above the finished grade in each direction.
The applicants propose an 8" poured concrete foundation to be painted gray and a
chimney constructed of"used red" brick. The proposed roofing material is gray asphalt
architectural shingles with wood gutters and 4" by 4" leaders. The proposed exterior treatment is
white cedar shingles and trim painted white. Other proposed architectural details are 1" by 6"
corner boards, double hung windows with true divided lights and sashes painted gray. The front
door is proposed to be six panel with sidelights and the rear door will be a french door, both
painted gray. The applicants propose a wood-applied overhead garage door and a gravel
driveway. The Historic District Commission approved the application and Certificate #38,050
issued May 22, 2001.
HDC review of the proposed new construction. This Certificate of Appropriateness
was not discussed at the HDC meeting. There were no staff comments or meeting minutes in
case folder.
Personal critique of the proposed new construction. The guidelines define a non-
contributing structure as, "a building which is not an intrusion but does not add to a historic
districts sense of time, place and historic development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 21). Therefore,
10 Vestal Street meets the criteria for demolition under the second standard listed, "the structure
is a protected structure by virtue of its presence in the historic district but is non-contributing to
the district" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 21).
In spite of its classification as non-contributing, 10 Vestal Street is a small cottage
(Figure 3-1). It is wedged between a gable one-story dwelling and a two-story Federal style
house (Figure 3-2). This cottage provides a stop in the rhythm of the street. One could argue the
structure adds to the sense of place, you are not in the midst of town but on the edge of the Old
Historic District about to enter the outlying area. Even with some two-story dwellings sprinkled
intermittently this idea is evident. The decision to replace the cottage with a Federal-like two-
story house affects the perception of the town' s historic density. Stylistically, the proposed
building is a 2-1/2-story house with three bays as seen in the proposed front elevation (Figure 3-
3). The front door is off-center with sidelights and the chimney located at the side of the main
mass. The exterior sheathing is clapboard with 6/6 windows. These are subtle characteristics of
the early Federal style, commonly seen in town. A small cottage like 10 Vestal Street in this
location provides a distinct sense of place.
Since the mass and location of the 70 year-old cottage is not a consideration in planning
for new construction, the guidelines for Building in the Historic Town of Nantucket consider site
planning, bulk, proportion and scale, and massing. The size of the proposed new construction
may detract from Old Historic District' s actual sense of time, place and historic development.
There will be a definite impact on the context of Vestal Street by replacing a 1930 one-story
dwelling of 648 SF (Figure 3-4) with a two-story dwelling of 3,030 SF (Figure 3-5). The
proposed square footage is more than 4.5 times that of the existing building. Interestingly, the
guidelines do not address this issue directly. However, if more strictly applied, the
recommendation concerning scale would make a difference. "Any new construction in the town
should be on a scale compatible with that of adj acent buildings. Also the scale of spaces between
buildings should be carefully considered" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 67). If applied to what
existed previously, the latter statement here, "scale of spaces between buildings" could prove
useful in the preserving the Old Historic Districts sense of place.
The increase in the overall size of the building will be further impacted because the
building's setback is less. While the 1930-era house was located about 12' from the sidewalk
(Figure 3-4), the new construction will be about 7' from the sidewalk (Figure 3-5). From the
guidelines, "on a street of generally aligned facades, it is recommended that any new
construction conform to the predominant height of the facades of the existing buildings on the
street. In any case, no new construction should be more than 10% taller in either its facade or
overall height than the tallest building on the block on which it is to be built" (Lang and Stout,
1995). While the proposal may actually meet these criteria, one should require the height and
mass of the proposed construction be more visually compatible with adj acent dwellings to help
preserve the sense of place.
Additional guidelines could consider the qualities of a non-contributing structure. The
mere presence of the structure could be preserving aspects important to the district' s sense of
time, place and historic development. For example, if the footprint of a building were preserved,
it would help maintain massing important to the sense of place and the area' s density. Non-
contributing structures can function as a bookmark and hold a place in the built fabric. Non-
contributing buildings are usually visually obvious, as non-originals, but new construction in the
form of a reproduction cannot be easily read as a new addition.
125 Main Street
The dwelling at 125 Main Street was surveyed in August of 1989 by AGS. Per the
Inventory Form, the ownership of the building is private. The one-and-three-quarter tall wood
frame dwelling is clad with horizontal weathered siding and has a brick foundation. The gable
roof is characterized by extended eaves and exposed rafter tails. The roof is sheathed with
composition shingles. There are two unpainted, corbeled chimneys located off-center. The
dwelling has a one-story side porch oriented toward the facade. Other architectural features
include an off-center front door, plain corner boards and two-over-two windows. It is noted that
a side rear shed extension was added at some point in time.
The last page of the Inventory Form is missing from the Historic District Commission
files. This page records the significance of the structure to the National Register Historic District.
However, a separate document entitled, "Nantucket Island Architectural and Cultural Resources
Survey, District Data Sheet," lists all the properties in the district by address, and classifies 125
Main Street as contributing to the National Register Historic District. It also indicates this
structure existed by 1887 (Figure 3-6).
Request for relocation. Application #30,010: February 6, 1997: Request to Demolish
"or give away- 1895 to 1900 non-contributing building." The applicant noted the portion in
quotes. A site plan of the property was submitted with the application. The site is located on the
corner of Main Street and Quarter Mill Hill. It depicts an 8'-0" setback from the sidewalk.
This application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was presented to the HDC for four
times before being issued. This is the sequence of comments from the HDC meeting minutes.
February 11, 1997: Application for demolition presented to Historic District Commission.
The following staff comments were read, "Request advertising for potential move.
Housing Authority does not have use for it. Hold for consideration with proposed new
structure. Request for black and white photos." The following comment was made, "Mr.
Avery observed that this house is very typical of Victorian infill architecture. He said he
did not understand why it would not be contributing." Next a motion was made and
seconded to hold the application for viewing.
February 18, 1997: Application reintroduced. Ms. Butler states that "the purchaser of the
property, Wayne Dupont, is offering $3,000 to help someone move the house." Ms. Deeley
stated that she had a problem with the house being demolished and thought it was
"somewhat contributing". At this point Mr. Avery said that he did think the house would
be reused. Ms. Deeley then added, "Let' s see what [Mr. Dupont] is going to put in its
place". Motion and second to hold both applications until '/" drawings of the new scheme
are submitted.
March 4, 1997: Lack of quorum.
On March 11, 1997 the HDC approved and issued Certificate of Appropriateness #30,010
with a sixty-day hold on demolition allowing someone to move the structure for reuse.
According to the Historic District Commission meeting minutes, the approval of the demolition
was based on the "lack of historical or architectural significance."
Personal critique of the HDC review of non-contributing property and new location.
From HDC meeting minutes on February 18, 1997 in response to the question of the structure
being considered historic, Mr. Avery says he thinks the house will be reused. The issue of reuse
is separate from the issue of historic significance in a historic district the issue of reuse should
only be considered if the building is deemed to be insignificant.
Also, the next statement,"Let' s see what [Mr. Dupont] is going to put in its [the house' s]
place" leads one to think, if presented with an appropriate design, the house may not be that
historic. The obj ective to create an appropriately designed Nantucket-like dwelling in order that
the Victorian style house is not missed is faulty. When the discussion approaches this point, the
question of historic viability must be answered first. By making a determination on the historic
si gni fi chance of the structure, y ou prevent pitti ng the HD C agai nst the archite ct/owner/appli cant
in a contest for design appropriateness. This scenario affects both non-contributing and
contributing buildings. When dealing with the latter they are not usually of the style favored in
the district. In this case we have a Folk Victorian style structure in a district where the Typical
Nantucket style, Federal style and Greek Revival style houses are favored.
From the HDC meeting minutes on March 11, 1997, the "lack of historical or
architectural significance" is a failure of the HDC to fulfill its purpose. If the HDC cannot
research a historic property, the applicant who wishes to remove the structure will not. The HDC
should research the property and examine the guidelines for determining the future of this
structure. Each decision impacting a singular structure also impacts the district. The guidelines
provide an overview the HDC should follow in case by case decisions. "While there is no single
appropriate style for the island, as indicated by the diversity of its buildings, understanding the
continuity of development and relatedness of the styles described will exemplify the legacy
shared by all Nantucket buildings"(Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). For example, the Victorian
style has an exact context in Nantucket' s history. "In the end, the economic collapse of the
isolated island in the 1850s, when whaling succumbed to the discoveries of oil and gold, was
responsible for the unique preservation and integrity of the town today. Only in the late 1800s,
when well-to-do people sought out unspoiled Nantucket as a summer resort, were numbers of
new houses built again" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 35-36). In addition, "As the community turned
to the summer resort trade, a few of these Victorian houses were built in town" (Lang and Stout,
1995, p. 44). One-twenty-five Main Street is physical evidence of the, "continuity of
development" within this historical context. Without examples like 125 Main Street there is no
"relatedness of the style" to witness. The guidelines feature 73 Main Street, another example of
the Victorian style in the same vicinity. From this we can conclude the dwelling at 125 Main
Street is not an anomaly.
The property at 125 Main Street is an example of the Folk Victorian style (Figure 3-7).
This style is characterized by Victorian details applied to a simple house form. The structure is
one of the principal sub-types of Folk Victorian, a gable front and wing form, creating an
asymmetrical facade. Located at the front wing is a one-story front porch. Typical of Folk
Victorian, the porch is set within the L. The porch is usually the primary area for the application
of Victorian detailing, however the railing detail is minimal with an "x" motif. Other
characteristics of the style are simple pediments above the window and door surrounds and two-
over-two double hung windows.
Request for new construction. Application #unknown: January 22, 1998: Request for
new dwelling. The basic volume of the two-story dwelling is proposed to be 32' in length and
28' in width. The proposed square footage of the first floor is 896 SF and 780 SF for the second
floor. This is a total of 1676 SF. The proposed height of the roof ridge is 24' in all directions.
The applicants propose a 6"-8" deep parged block foundation. The proposed exterior
treatment is natural cedar shingles with white trim. The main roof and dormer roof is proposed to
be charcoal gray asphalt shingles at a pitch of 8 over 12 with wood gutters and downspouts. The
applicants propose double hung windows with true divided lights. The proposed front door and
garage door will be a wood. The proposed driveway material is shell.
Certificate #32,087: At the same meeting the approval to move the existing building from
125 Main Street was issued. However, the NHA' s application to move the same building to 7
Okorwaw Avenue was held for a viewing. The commission has approved the building relocation
without a specific location.
HDC review of new construction. These are pertinent excerpts from meetings.
From the HDC meeting minutes: January 27, 1998, Staff comments: "Recommend referral
to DAC (Design Advisory Council). The massing is not appropriate, particularly at the
front. The structure being set back from the street is atypical of Main Street houses."
January 27, 1998: HDC meeting minutes: Application introduced. "Twig Perkins attended
and stated that this design is intended to compliment the Rhodes House at 127 Main Street.
He explained the property was acquired by the Rhodes so their house could have a large
yard." The above staff comments were read. Then, Ms. Hall states, "If the proposed
structure is an outbuilding, it should match the main house." Mr. Avery then adds,
"Although the front dwelling is inappropriate for a second dwelling facing Main Street-
there are bigger issues at stake here than just the design," referring to the pattern of siting
on the street. At this point a motion was made and seconded for referral to the DAC.
February 3, 1998, Design Advisory Council Meeting Memorandum: The HDC members
present where D.Neil Parent and Duncan Fog. Their comments on the design where to
create a "carriage house" character with simple forms. They recommend a shed dormer on
the front elevation with a smaller shed roof over the entry. They state the massing is not
inappropriate, if "a more rural form is developed". In conclusion, they advise to see the
open lot and for it to be landscaped appropriately.
March 31, 1998, Staff Comments: Staff critiques the current proposed plans both as a main
residence and a garage apartment. For a main residence Staff recommends, Gable
dormers are the preferred type on the front [elevation], recommend gable type set back one
foot from the wall plane as recommended by the guidelines." For a garage apartment Staff
recommends, "Triple mulled 12/12 double hung windows are not appropriate to a simple
carriage house structure." Then staff continues by questioning the entire situation,
Staff is concerned with the precedent this case represents. The existing structure was
approved for demolition with the understanding that the new structure would closely
resemble a house that had been on this site previously. If the application is approved with a
different house in a different location, it not only erodes the traditional street edge, but also
it erodes the historical context of this neighborhood. Furthermore, it completely
undermines the HDC's policy of requesting development scenarios as a condition of
reviewing demolitions. Along this line, staff questions the validity of the demolition if the
premise upon which it was based is removed. Staff requests the opportunity to consult with
Town Counsel regarding this issue before the HDC acts.
March 31, 1998, HDC Meeting Minutes: The previous Staff Comments where read. The
outcome of this meeting is unknown.
April 7, 1998, Staff Comments: The Staff reiterates the statement from above, "If this
application is approved...the historical context of the neighborhood."
April 7, 1998, HDC meeting minutes: The concept of replacing a primary dwelling on
Main Street with a large yard and garage apartment is still a troubling concept. The only
redeeming thing about the situation is that the Housing Authority wants the existing
building. But after airing concerns the HDC instructs the applicant to, "bring in a
landscape plan showing how he proposes to make this lot more contiguous in nature with
127 Main Street. Mr. Perkins then pointed out that the yards get larger as you go up Main
Street." Motion and second was made to hold the application.
On April 27, 1998 a site plan was stamped received by the HDC office. This plan shows
the residence at 127 Main Street and a garage apartment at 125 Main Street with a large
landscape area in the front. The only feature addressing the street at 125 Main Street is a
fence. The garage apartment is in the same location at the rear of the property.
May 5, 1998, Staff Comments: The staff remains steadfast in their evaluation of the
situation.
Recommend a primary dwelling on the street due to the history and context of this lot. The
proposed landscaping may be beautiful but is not appropriate... The pattern of Main Street
is houses on the street. Recommend the HDC be consistent on this issue. If the HDC
deems this use of the property to be appropriate, recommend all dormers conform to the 1'
setback from the eave and the front transom be removed.
May 5, 1998, HDC Meeting Minutes: Basically the same delimma is restated in the
dialogue between HDC members. Ms. Voorhees states, "I think it is too bad that there is
not a house on the street." Mr. Perkins said he would feel differently about it if there were
not similarly large yards with houses set back a little farther up Main Street. Ms. Hall asks
if there is a reason the garden has to be in the front since keeping the street edge is very
important. Ms. Voorhees then states that she would not like to see this particular house o
the street edge. A motion was made and seconded to hold for revisions to the carriage
house.
At this point the paper trail of this case is incomplete. The last staff comment on record is
from May 12, 1998 where the staff states the requested revisions to the structure are appropriate.
I assume because of existing photos of the building this refers to the dormer offset and the panels
under the windows being removed.
Personal critique of the HDC review of the new construction. On March 11, 1997, the
HDC has allowed for the removal of a contributing building at 125 Main Street without a new
location determined. The new construction is not approved until May 12, 1998. What is the hurry
to remove a contributing building? Unfortunately, in the end, the new construction is not what
the HDC had originally bargained for. One of the HDC members voices this view, "I think it is
too bad that there is not a house on the street." The original house was 8' off the sidewalk, and
the proposed dwelling is 60' off the front property line and 8' off the rear property line (Figure 3-
8). To avoid this situation in the future, the HDC should hold issuing a COA for a building move
or demolition until they have approved the new development plans for that same site. This way
they can guarantee that these plans are not just proposals by the applicant, but the applicants' real
intentions.
On January 27, 1998, I must question what has happened here. In this meeting the HDC
clearly states that they are waiting for '/" drawings of the development plans. At this meeting, it
is obvious to the HDC that they have approved the removal of a contributing structure, so the
applicants can have a large yard and detached garage. When this is revealed, the discussion
centers on the pattern of buildings along the street. Obviously, the applicant' s intentions do not
follow the historical pattern of the street. With this issue in mind, the HDC refers the applicants
to meet with the DAC.
At the DAC meeting, the streetscape and pattern of houses along the street is not
addressed. Perhaps if the HDC member who brought up this important point had attended the
DAC meeting, this idea could have been the focus of the meeting. If the HDC members at the
DAC meeting had consulted meeting minutes, this would have been an evident issue to discuss.
After all the DAC would not want the applicants to go to the next HDC meeting and still have
issues that the maj ority of HDC members obj ect to. In situations like this staff can be helpful to
steer the DAC to serve the concerns of the HDC.
The HDC members that attended the DAC meeting were Parent and Fog, who apparently
had no issue with the historic pattern of buildings on the street. They instructed the applicants in
how to appropriately create a garage apartment on the rear of the lot and to appropriately
landscape the enormous front yard. However, this advice is not consistent with the comments of
HDC members or staff, nor is it representative of the guidelines. Under site planning, "new
construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already established adj acent
to it" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). One-twenty-seven Main Street (Figure 3-9) and 123 Main
Street (Figures 3-10 and 3-11) are 10'-0" or less from the sidewalk. The pattern is evident
(Figure 3-12) in the front yard setbacks of the houses at 1 19-123 Main Street. The guidelines
specifically state, "consideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street".
Also, "Where buildings are predominately aligned along the street creating a unified edge or wall
along the street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general facade
line of its neighbors" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). With all these recommendations directly
from the guidelines, Parent and Fog do not rely on them to advise the applicants.
At the HDC meeting on March 31, 1998, the staff comments read at the meeting critiques
the most current plans, even though they maintain their original opposition of the proposal. The
concept of replacing a primary dwelling on Main Street with a large yard and garage apartment is
a troubling concept especially for anyone involved in preservation. At this point, the HDC
advises the applicant to bring in a landscape plan and model the vacant lot on larger parcels
farther up Main Street. They seem to tire of the basic differences between what the applicants
want and what staff wants. The larger parcel they refer to could be 129 Main Street (Figure 3-
13).
On May 5, 1998, "Mr. Perkins said he would feel differently about it if there were not
similarly large yards with houses set back a little farther up Main Street." I think Mr. Perkins is
over simplifying the issue. The fact that there was once a contributing building in this location is
forgotten. While there are large yards farther up the street, they were not once occupied by a
contributing building that addressed the street. And if that was the case at one point in history, it
is not why this decision was made. The house at 129 Main Street has a large front yard, but was
constructed at a later era. This site follows a modern pattern of buildings along the street with
front yards (Figure 3-13) as the guidelines explain. "After the whaling era, houses diverged from
the customary single-plane facade and consistent street side building placement, thereby
fragmenting the unified street edge. New houses then began to have front yards, large lots, a lack
of consistency in setbacks from the property line, and orientations to the water or view rather
than the street"(Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). For this reason, a pattern of a large front yard or
side yard is not prevalent on Main Street nor is the likelihood of a Nantucket style house having
a large side yard. "Voorhees then states that she would not like to see this particular house
[referring to the "carriage-style" garage] on the street edge." This is a response to what the
applicant has designed not what could be designed. After they repeatedly disagree with a general
concept of the development plan, staff provides a backup comment, which is true in this case.
These design suggestions are implemented and the plan is granted a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
As a preservationist who has worked in a similar capacity, there are opportunities to learn
and improve this review process. Someone, staff or Mr. Rivers, should be required to write a
detailed report to analyze the issues in total. For example, there is not a traditional Nantucket
style house like the one at 127 Main Street that has a large side yard on Main Street. The house
at 129 Main Street sits further back from the street but does not have a garage apartment to the
side. The person that writes the analysis should be present at the HDC meeting and available to
speak, especially when you are dealing with an elected board. This would provide some
continuity for important design and preservation issues. Some HDC members do not come from
a design or preservation background and would benefit from detailed guidance on controversial
cases, if not all. The property in question should and could be evaluated from a staff or Mr.
Rivers experience and credentials. One must question why the historical significance of the
property is unknown. It is there, ready to be investigated.
The plan submitted for new construction in the Old Town of Nantucket on this lot should
meet the goals for new construction. I believe this plan fails on the following points,
To preserve as unchanged as possible the old structures built before the middle of the 19th
century in their original settings and conditions; also to maintain the fundamental harmony
of the historic community by approving new structures and changes in old ones only when
they blend harmoniously with the era before 1846. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9)
The fact that 127 Main Street has a large side yard and a rear garage apartment is not in
accordance with what would have existed before 1846. "To preserve the historic character of the
old town of Nantucket as a whole, including its pedestrian scale as well as its close and
complementary pattern" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). The Victorian style plays a part in the
historic character of the town and it was not preserved in this case. "To preserve the integrity of
the historic buildings that physically express the history of the island" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.
9). As mentioned before, 125 Main Street was the physical evidence of a certain portion of
Nantucket' s long history. "To make certain all new buildings are compatible with the buildings
adj acent to them and contribute to the overall harmony of the street" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.
9). As stated before and shown by the photos, the garage apartment is not compatible to the
buildings at 127 Main Street or 123 Main Street.
Personal critique of the contributing property in the new location. The new location
for the folk Victorian style house is near the Nantucket Memorial Airport at 7 Okorwaw Way
(Figure 3-14). The house is barely visible from the street (Figures 3-15 and 3-16). The
streetscape is very unlike the original site for the house. There are other dwellings in this area on
the same dirt road however there is no rhythm created or streetscape represented. The property is
in good condition (Figures 3-17 and 3-18). From this photo of the front facade one can clearly
observe the folk Victorian details, as mentioned earlier. While it is useful as low-income
housing, it is regrettable that the property has been relocated, especially without careful attention
to location.
18 Mill Street
The dwelling at 18 Mill Street was recorded by the HDC. The date is unknown. Per the
Inventory Form, Jerry E. O'Keffe owns the dwelling. According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance
Maps for the area, the dwelling was built after 1923 but before 1949. The dwelling is visible
from a public road.
This is a one-story three-bay Bungalow with a concrete foundation. The main roof is a
gable and the one-story front porch is a shed roof, both are composition shingles. There are two
unpainted brick chimneys, one located off-center the second on the end wall. Other architectural
features include an off-center flush frame front door, front stair with balustrade at the porch,
plain corner boards and six-over-one flush frame windows. The Structure is noted as having the
"Cape Revival" influence to the style of architecture. It is located 10 feet or less from the street
with the residential surroundings densely built up. Features related to the structure are the
gardens and parking. The structure is noted as being in good condition. The structure is classified
as contributing to the Old Historic District.
Request for relocation.
Application #32,826: August 31, 1998: Request to Move Building and for Demolition. The
applicant requests to demolish the rear section then move the house and front porch. The
square footage listed on the application is 1064 SF with a dwelling length of 38'-0" and a
width of 28'-0". There is a 10'-0" x 28'-0" deck.
Staff comments, September 8, 1998: "Structure is listed as contributing, the question is if
the house is a significant according to guidelines on page 162. If significant, the proposal is
inappropriate. Hold for black and white photos and an elevation of the proposed rear."
HDC Meeting Minutes, September 8, 1998: The staff comments above were read. Mr.
DaSilva made a motion for approval. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and it was so voted. Mr.
McLaughlin and Ms. Hall opposed.
Certificate #32,726 was issued. Immediately following this approval, Application #32,827
was heard. The applicant NHA Properties requested to move a building [dwelling located
at 18 Mill Street] to One Norquarta Drive. "Mr. Rivers read the following staff comments:
"Hold for the move off approval and elevation with new front entry door." Mr. DaSilva
made a motion to approve with driveway. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and it was so voted.
Mr. McLaughlin and Ms. Hall opposed.
Certificate #32,827 was issued.
Personal critique of the HDC review of the contributing property in the new location.
In the staff comments on September 8, 1998, they state that the building is classified as
contributing and the guidelines dealing with the structure' s significance on page 162, under the
Demolition Policy. If significant, the advice to the HDC is to deem the proposal inappropriate.
Since the structure is already defined as a contributing structure, "a structure which adds to the
District' s sense of time, place and historic development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162), this is
confusing. The definitions continue and the significance of a building is described as,
Any structure within the Historic District of Nantucket Island which is in whole or in part
fifty years or more old and which has been designated by the Commission to be a
significant structure after a finding by the Commission that the building is either: (a)
importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad
architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the Island or the
Commonwealth; or (b) historically or architecturally significant (in terms of period, style,
method of building construction, or association with a famous architect or builder) either
by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162)
18 Mill Street is a bungalow style house. It is characterized by,
low-pitched roofs, exaggerated roof overhangs, and porches, often within massive, square
supports...traditionally one-to 1-1/2 story dwellings, modest in design, with a horizontal
emphasis, gently pitched roofs and incorporated front porches. .coziness of its porch,
which both integrates interior and exterior space and at the same time hints to the passer-by
the charming intimacy that lies within. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 49)
Request for New Construction. Application #32,944, August 17, 1998: Description of
Work to be Performed: Request to construct a two-story building in the Old Historic District.
The structure is proposed to be 74'-10" in length and 38'-10" in width. The proposed square
footage on the first floor is 2010 SF and the 1800 SF on the second floor with a 3,810 SF total.
The applicants also propose a 500 SF deck. The proposed height of the roof ridge is 29' 9-1/2"
from the finished grade.
The proposed dwelling will have an 8" brick foundation with exterior white cedar
shingles and wood trim painted white. The proposed roof pitch of the main mass will be 8/12 and
of the porch will be 4/12 covered with white cedar shingles. The applicants propose wood gutters
and leaders. The applicants propose wood windows and doors with true divided lights. The
proposed windows are 6/6 double hung windows with sashes painted white. The applicants
proposed a French door painted white for the rear facade. Other proposed architectural details are
white shutters and cornerboards.
HDC review of the new construction.
Staff Comment, August 25, 1998: Recommend a viewing. Proposal is overly formal and
out of scale with the immediate context. Guidelines recommend chimneys on larger houses
be interior, particularly in town. Guidelines discourage bay windows and hexagonal
masses in the OHD. 14" columns are atypical of Nantucket and the OHD. If this formal
five bay design is deemed appropriate, recommend the front second floor windows be
more traditional in their size. Note a move off demolition application will be required for
the existing building. May want to hold for approval of either.
HDC Meeting Minutes, August 25, 1998: The above staff comments were read. "Ms.
Voorhees was concerned with the size of the house. Ms. Voorhees made a motion to hold
for viewing and revisions per staff comments and would like to see application for the
existing 1923 house."
Staff Comment, September 8, 1998: Door change and chimneys moved interior is
appropriate revisions. Reduction of porch posts also appropriate. Otherwise general
concerns with overall appropriateness of the design in this context remain. Note new
context photos have been submitted.
HDC Meeting Minutes, September 18, 1998: The staff comment from September 8, 1998
was read. Mr. McLaughlin states the house is overpowering for the area it is in and there is
visibility, also east elevation windows are out of proportion. Ms. Hall stated that the house
is too large. Mr. DaSilva motioned to hold for revision. Ms. Hall seconded, and so it was
voted.
Staff Comment, September 22, 1998: Change to a less formal four bay is a tremendous
improvement. Use of mulled windows throughout is not in keeping with the historic
context. Detail of gable-end shutters should be provided. Scale and massing of east
elevation may be a concern in this context, as much of it will be exposed.
HDC Meeting Minutes, September 22, 1998: The staff comments from September 22,
1998 were read. Glenn Winn and Michael McClung attended on behalf of the applicant.
Ms. Voorhees stated that mulled windows are inappropriate. Ms. Voorhees agrees with
staff comments. Mr. McLaughlin stated east elevation is overpowering height, not
appropriate height compared to other houses in this area. Ms. Hall is concerned with the
overall sizing and agrees with staff comments. Mr. Winn stated that we could put more of
a jog in the building. Shortened 8-10' or lowered. Mr. DaSilva made a motion to hold for
revisions. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and so it was voted.
Staff Comment, September 29, 1998: Revisions are appropriate. Recommend approval.
HDC Meeting Minutes, September 29, 1998: Gary Winn attended on behalf of the
applicant. Mr. Avery abstained. The staff comments from September 29, 1998 were read.
Mr. DaSaliva made a motion to approve with dormers on the east elevation raised up and
shutters on the gable ends removed. Mr. Axt seconded, and so it was voted. Mr.
McLaughlin opposed. Ms. And Mrs. Osdell, abutters, arrived later in the meeting and
voiced their opposition to the proposal.
Certificate #32,944 was issued.
Personal critique of the HDC review of the new construction. Even though the staff has
recommended denial of the current design, they provide back-up advice in their comments dated
August 25, 1998, "If this formal five bay design is deemed appropriate..." because the HDC
does not always heed their advice. This is unfortunate, especially in a National Historic Register
District. The HDC is an elected body and benefit from staff guidance. In the guidelines, section 3
of Appendix A, "There is hereby established in the town of Nantucket an Historic District
Commission consisting of five (5) unpaid members who shall be resident taxpayers of the Town
of Nantucket, to be appointed by the Selectmen" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 155). Therefore, the
commission has no requirements for members to be design or preservation professionals.
The house at 18 Mill Street was classified as a contributing structure to the Old Historic
District. During the course of this review and approval, the contributing classification has been
stripped. Clearly, the guidelines created to protect this structure are not followed.
Also, the new dwelling is not consistent with a number of guidelines. The setback is less
than five feet from the street. This creates quite a formal feel for Mill Street (Figure 3-19). The
massing and volume of the house seem overly large (Figure 3-20). This is true when comparing
the new construction with the original contributing structure (Figure 3-21). The property records
indicate the square footage of the 2-1/2 story new dwelling is 3,185, while the one-story original
property was 1,064 SF. The new construction is almost 3 times the size of the original. Also
important is the relationship to the adj acent one story house (Figure 3-22). The site conditions do
not benefit the massiveness of the new construction. While the adj acent house is one story and
sits on the low side of the hill, the new two-story sits on the high side (Figure 3-23). This portion
of N. Mill Street is nearing the edge of the Old Historic District, as you can see on the map of the
Old Historic District. The street is less densely populated than the center of town; there are some
large vacant lots and more space is between houses. The house across the street is similar in
design to the new construction (Figures 3-24 and 3-25). However, due to the fact the front four-
bay side gable facade is facing the side yard, the overall result is much less formal. Before the
relocation of the contributing building and the new construction, the character of the area and
context of the street were representative of the edge of the district. With the formality of the new
construction, this quality will eventually be lost.
There are details about the construction, which reveal that it is recent. They had to be
pointed out to me, but I will relay them. The foundation has a crisp new appearance that original
foundations do not (Figure 3-26). Another detail is the energy efficient windows (Figure 3-27).
The plan submitted for new construction in the Old Town of Nantucket on this lot should
meet the goals for new construction. I believe this plan fails on the following points,
To preserve as unchanged as possible the old structures built before the middle of the 19th
century in their original settings and conditions; also to maintain the fundamental harmony
of the historic community by approving new structures and changes in old ones only when
they blend harmoniously with the era before 1846. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9)
The contributing structure at 18 Mill Street has not been preserved in its original setting. The
mass and the style of the new construction do not blend harmoniously. "To preserve the historic
character of the old town of Nantucket as a whole, including its pedestrian scale as well as its
close and complementary pattern" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). "To preserve the integrity of the
historic buildings that physically express the history of the island" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9).
The contributing bungalow style house plays a part in the historic character of the town Built
between 1923 and 1949, this structure is a product of Nantucket' s survival as a district. During
the time it was built, tourism was reborn on the island and became the town's livelihood. "To
make certain all new buildings are compatible with the buildings adj acent to them and contribute
to the overall harmony of the street" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 9). As stated before and shown by
the photos, the new construction is massive, close to the street, and stylistically confusing to
understanding the difference of the town verse the outlying areas.
Personal critique of the contributing property in the new location. Another unfortunate
aspect I see from a preservation standpoint is that the lack of concern for the placement of an
original structure. The HDC did not review the new site at 1 Norquarta Drive for the placement
of the contributing property. The general setting is rural, which is not consistent with the original
setting. The street itself has no similarity with Mill Street (Figure 3-21, 3-28 through 3-30). The
closest structures are not similar to the structures in the Old Historic District (Figures 3-29 and 3-
30).
3 Coffin Street
The Historic District Commission surveyed the dwelling at 3 Coffin Street, but the year
was not recorded. Per the Inventory form the ownership of the building was private. The one-
story three-bay structure has a weathered shingle exterior with a concrete foundation. The side-
gable roof is composition shingle with a metal chimney located off-center. The dwelling has a
covered front entry porch with trellis-walls on either side. Other architectural features include the
central flush-frame entry, plain corner boards and six over six windows. The building is
classified as contributing to the district. Additional information included on the form is the
building size of 1300 SF and setback noted as 10 feet or less from the street. The property is
noted as having a shed and fence, while the context is noted as densely built up.
Request for relocation. Application #37,092, November 21, 2000: Request to move the
building. The building is 38'-7"in length and 22'-3" in width. The applicant has noted the
structure as 644 SF, which differs from that noted on the inventory form.
Application #37,093, November 21, 2000: Request to move the building at 3 Coffin
Street to 33 Bartlett Farm Road. A site plan depicts the proposed location in the northwest corner
of the Bartlett Farm Property, roughly 120 feet from the side property line and 60 feet from the
rear property line.
Personal critique. The HDC review of contributing property in the new location was not
critiqued, because the meeting minutes were unavailable.
Request for new construction. Application #3 7,179, November 24, 2000: Request to
build a two-story dwelling at 3 Coffin Street. The proposed size of the new building is 3 8'-10 in
length and 22'-4" in width. The applicants propose 701 SF on the first and second floors. This is
a total of 1402 SF overall. They propose a one-story front entry porch, 6'-6" wide by 3'-6" deep.
The proposed height of the ridge above finish grade is 26'-6".
The applicants propose an 8"-16" concrete foundation and exterior sheathing of natural
white cedar shingles. The proposed roof pitch is a 7: 12 on the main and secondary roof, which
will be clad with gray asphalt shingles. The applicants propose a white aluminum skylight;
double hung windows and six panel wood doors. They propose the trim, window sashes and
doors be painted white. The proposed walkway will be constructed of slate. The existing fence
proposed to be painted gray.
HDC review of the new construction. The front, rear, and side elevations are stamped
approved June 13, 2000. There are no meeting minutes available for this case.
Personal critique of the new construction. My photos of the new structure at 3 Coffin
Street depict a two-story building that differs from the approved application details and
drawings. The trim is gray, not white as planned (Figure 3-31). The columns at the front entry
are unpainted (Figure 3-32). The approved elevation (Figure 3-33) depicts exterior lights
flanking the entry door, but they do not exist on the building (Figure 3-32). There is a window
air-conditioning unit at the second story of the left wing (Figure 3-34). Therefore, it seems the
building lacks exterior architectural details commonly found on most buildings in the Old
Historic District.
However, the footprint of the new construction is exactly the same as the contributing
one story cottage (Figure 3-35). Perhaps due to the small size of the site, only .11 acres, and the
only option for gaining additional square footage was to go up adding a second story. This
presents an interesting idea; new structures could conform to the footprint of the original to
preserve the rhythm and open space along the street. It was also prevent proposed structures from
being too massive.
Personal critique of the contributing property in the new location. The previous
contributing structure's new location on Bartlett Farm possesses no similarity to the original
context. The original context, as mentioned on the historic inventory was "densely built up,"
while the existing surroundings are rural (Figures 3-36 through 3-41). There is no relationship to
a primary or secondary type street (Figure 3-42). The original house is poor condition; the
building has been stripped of the character-defining front entry porch with trellis walls. The lack
of consideration for the building in its new surroundings and the lack of maintenance for the
building have rendered it non-contributing and non-significant.
20 Milk Street
The dwelling at 20 Milk Street was recorded by AGS on August 12, 1989. Per the
Inventory Form, the owners were Arthur & Mary Desrocher. The ownership history is unknown.
According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and an aerial photo, the dwelling was built circa
1930. The dwelling is visible from a public road.
This is a 1-1/2 story Bungalow with a concrete foundation and a wood frame structural
system. The main roof is a hip with a one story shed porch that extends the length of the
dwelling. Both the main and porch roofs are covered with composition shingles. There is one
unpainted corbeled chimney located off-center. There is a hip dormer on the front facade. Other
architectural features include an off-center, flush frame front door, front stair with balustrade,
plain corner boards and six-over-one flush frame windows. The Structure is located 10 feet or
less from the street with the residential surroundings densely built up. Features related to the
structure are the garage and deck. The structure is noted as being in good condition. The
structure is classified as contributing to the Old Historic District.
Request for relocation. No application # at time that information was gathered.
Application submitted May 17, 2002: Request to Move Building. The historic name of the
property and the original builder are unknown. Also included in the application is a site plan of
the proposed location, Lot 13 on Norquarta Drive.
Personal critique. The HDC review of the contributing property in the new location was
not critiqued. When the information on 20 Milk Street was gathered, the house had not been
relocated and remained in the original location.
Request for new construction. No application # at time that information was gathered.
Application submitted May 15, 2002: Request to construct a new dwelling. The basic volume of
the new two-story dwelling is proposed to be 50'-10" in length and 27'-0" in width. The first
floor is planned to be 1170 SF and the second floor is planned to be 735 SF. This is a total of
1905 SF. The proposed height of the roof ridge is 25'-0" from the east and west, 26'-0" from the
south and 24'-6 from the north.
The proposed dwelling will have an 8" poured concrete foundation with exterior natural
cedar shingles and wood trim painted Nantucket Gray. The roof pitch of the main and secondary
mass will be 8/12. The pitch of the dormer will be 8/12 as well. The roof will be covered with
red cedar shingles. The gutters and leaders will be constructed of wood. The windows will be
double hung with true divided lights and a six over six light pattern with Nantucket Gray sashes.
The front door will be a six panel wood door. The side and rear door have four lights. All will be
painted Nantucket Gray.
HDC review of the proposed new construction. The remainder of my information was
attained from an article printed in the Inquirer and2~irror, Nantucket' s newspaper, Figure D-1.
The following was revealed about the case. The owners of 20 Milk Street are Ben and Adlumia
Garnnett. They own the property next door and purchased 20 Milk Street from the previous
owners, the Desrocher' s in May. Of interest is that Mr. Desrocher is a former selectman and state
legislator. The purpose of attaining this adj acent property was to increase the size of their yard or
build a garage. Also the owners wish to move the existing building to Norquarta Drive and
donate the building for affordable housing. Public comment on the issue was "Neighbors in the
Milk Street area supported the house move because they said the house did not fit into the
character of the neighborhood" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A).
The HDC denied the owner's request to move the contributing structure from its original
site sometime on or around May 28, 2002. As quoted in the article, HDC member Dirk
Roggeveen defended the HDC's vote stating, "the 20 Milk Street home represented an
architecture style popular in the first half of the century. Roggeveen added that because a
building did not fit into the character of other buildings on the street, it did not mean the building
did not have historical significance" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). He also pointed out the HDC's purpose
is not to "recreate a New England village" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). The owner filed an appeal to the
Selectmen, who overturned the HDC's decision. Attorneys representing the owners sited a
previous case where the HDC allowed a bungalow style building to be moved from 18 Mill
Street to 1 Norquarta Drive in 1999. Matt Fee, the sole Selectman to vote against overturning the
HDC's decision stated, "he did not want to see the "Disney-ification' of Nantucket." Chairman
of the Selectman Committee, Frank Spriggs expressed his approval in the article, "he did like
that the housing proposed to replace the bungalow style house would go along with a similar
footprint of a building built in the 1840s" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A).
Commission administrator, Mark Voight, said "the commission was not against creating
affordable housing, but the bungalow style home represented one of the 14 different styles of
architecture found on Nantucket" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A).
Personal critique of the proposed new construction. This case raises the same issues as
125 Main Street. 20 Milk Street is defined as a contributing, "a structure which adds to the
District' s sense of time, place and historic development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162).
Significance of a building is described as,
Any structure within the Historic District of Nantucket Island which is in whole or in part
fifty years or more old and which has been designated by the Commission to be a
significant structure after a finding by the Commission that the building is either: (a)
importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad
architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the Island or the
Commonwealth; or (b) historically or architecturally significant (in terms of period, style,
method of building construction, or association with a famous architect or builder) either
by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162)
20 Milk Street is a bungalow style house (Figure 3-43). It is characterized by,
low-pitched roofs, exaggerated roof overhangs, and porches, often within massive, square
supports .. traditionally one-to 1-1/2 story dwellings, modest in design, with a horizontal
emphasis, gently pitched roofs and incorporated front porches .. coziness of its porch,
which both integrates interior and exterior space and at the same time hints to the passer-by
the charming intimacy that lies within. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 49)
Beyond the fact that it is a bungalow with architectural characteristics, it speaks of a time on
Nantucket where the economy was no longer dependant on whaling. Under the Styles of
Architecture, Craftsman, and Bungalow Style (1900-1948), the Guidelines state, "Low,
unpretentious and ideally suited to the concept of the vacation get-away cottage, a handful of
craftsmen style cottages sprang up across the town .. and at 20 Milk Street . ." (Lang and
Stout, 1995, p. 50). This structure is specifically mentioned and the HDC made a sound decision
in denying the proposal.
Selectmen or anyone should not be able to base approvals on poor decisions made in the
past. Does this mean that the approved plan is acceptable? Or that it is just okay to move the
bungalow? "The argument may be awkward for the commission or the city to counter, but the
courts generally defer to commissions as expert bodies, and failure to enforce it in one case is not
a legal defense in another" (Tyler, 2000, p. 75).
The proposed new construction with a large front yard and structure at the rear of the lot
(Figure 3-44) is inconsistent with the site planning guidelines. Under site planning, "new
construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already established adj acent
to it" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The houses on either side of 20 Milk Street establish a
regular and consistent street edge (Figures 3-45 and 3-46). The guidelines specifically state,
"consideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street." Also, "Where
buildings are predominately aligned along the street creating a unified edge or wall along the
street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general facade line of its
neighbors" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). Because these recommendations come directly from
the guidelines, it is understandable why the Historic District Commission denied the request.
Personal critique of the contributing property in the proposed new location. The
area surrounding Norquarta Drive is rural. The street itself is becoming denser with a relocated
bungalow from 18 Mill Street (Figure 3-21) and new multifamily dwellings (Figures 3-29 and 3-
30). The proposed location for 20 Milk Street Bungalow is Lot 13 located to the left of the 18
Mill Street bungalow (Figures 3-47 and 3-48). Norquarta Drive is becoming a depository for the
islands unwanted bungalows. Affordable housing is a worthy cause. However, the absence of
this house in the Old Historic District is unfortunate.
Analysis of the Case Studies: Consequences of not Including Non-contributing Properties
in the Old Historic District
When noncontributing buildings are unrecognized, they suffer many consequences.
Unfortunately the effects are a detriment to the where they are located. This is evident in the case
studies of the Landmark Historic District, the Old Historic District, Nantucket, Massachusetts.
Consequence of Re-use
When considering a "move-off' request for a contributing building, approval is easily
attained if the building is being reused in another location on the island.
The case study of 125 Main Street is the most obvious example of this. When questioned if
the structure is historic, Mr. Avery says he thinks the house will be reused (Historic District
Commission Meeting Minutes, February 18, 1997). The issue of reuse is separate from the issue
of historic significance. Reuse should only be considered if the building is deemed to be
insignificant. The case study of 18 Mill Street case presents a similar situation. When
considering the building' s value, the staff comments, "Structure is listed as contributing, the
question is if the house is significant according to the guidelines on page 162. If significant the
proposal is inappropriate." The Historic District Commission approved the building's relocation
without discussion. The Historic District Commission may be open to "move-off' requests due
to the long tradition of building reuse on the island. Buikling nI ithr Nantucket in M~ind states,
There was no natural source of building materials on the island, so materials had to be
shipped in at considerable cost. .. A Nantucket house, moreover, was seldom destroyed;
it was moved or its parts reused as long as they endured. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 34)
However, this does not give the Commission permission to move contributing buildings today.
Eighteen Mill Street was relocated to 1 Norquarta Drive, a rural location becoming denser with
relocated bungalows and newly constructed multifamily dwellings (Figures 3-29 and 3-30).
These surroundings are not consistent with the context of Mill Street, where buildings were 10
feet or less from the street and the surroundings were described as "densely built up" (Figures 3-
21, 3-28 through 3-30). The closest structures are unlike the structures in the Old Historic
District (Figures 3-29 and 3-30). Another example is the case study of 20 Milk Street, where the
proposed new location is Lot 13 on Norquarta Drive adj acent to 18 Mill Street (Figures 3-48 and
3-49). Lastly, the case study of 3 Coffin Street fared the worst in relocation. This is a quaint
cottage with a covered front entry porch flanked by trellis-walls. It was classified as contributing
to the district. The new location is rural, located in the northwest corner of the Bartlett Farm
property, roughly 120 feet from the side property line and 60 feet from the rear property line
(Figure 3-42). This location possesses no similarity to the original context described as "densely
built up," and 10' or less from the street (Figures 3-36 through 3-41). Also, there is no
relationship to a primary or secondary type street (Figure 3-42). The building has been stripped
of character-defining features and is in poor condition.
The lack of consideration for the buildings' new locations causes them to be non-
contributing and non-significant. This is problematic for the Secretary of the Interior states,
"Properties listed in the National Register should be moved only when there is no feasible
alternative for preservation. When a property is moved, every effort should be made to re-
establish its historic orientation, immediate setting, and general environment" (National Park
Service. (2004). National Register of Historic Places: Program Regulations, Retrieved on April
2006 from http://www. cr. nps. gov/nr/regulations .htm#6014). If these buildings are to remain
contributing to the district, the new locations should be analyzed with the referenced criteria.
If it is proposed that a property listed in the National Register be moved and the State
Historic Preservation Offieer...wishes the property to remain in the National Register
during and after the move, the State Historic Preservation Officer...shall submit
documentation to the NPS prior to the move . .. (National Park Service. (2004). National
Register of Historic Places: Program Regulations, Retrieved on April 2006 from
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm#614)
Due to the fact that the proper documentation was not submitted to approve the move,
these buildings can no longer be counted as contributing. The ratio of contributing to non-
contributing buildings must be altered, which may threaten the Landmark status of the historic
district.
In the event that a property is moved, deletion form the National Register will be automatic
unless the above procedures are followed prior to the move. If the property has already
been moved, it is the responsibility of the State, Federal agency or person or local
government which nominated the property to notify the National Park Service. (National
Park Service. (2004). National Register of Historic Places: Program Regulations, Retrieved
on April 2006 from http://www.cr.nps .gov/nr/regulations. htm#6014)
While moving a building within a registered historic district is not as grave as moving a building
individually listed on the National Register, the concept is the same.
The Historic District Commission should review a move-off request thoroughly. They
must verify that it is the only alternative for rehabilitation, not that they would rather have a
building with a more prevalent style built in this location. When buildings are moved, the new
site should be reviewed for consistency with the existing surroundings. Moving contributing
historic buildings within a landmark district should be prohibited unless it is an absolute last
resort, such as coastal erosion or a natural disaster. Moving a building to improve the
concentration of a certain style with a new structure is an arbitrary form of urban planning and
not related to preservation. It is inconceivable that the landmark status of the district can survive
this action.
Consequence of Non-prevalence
When most of the contributing buildings in a district exhibit certain prevalent styles,
contributing buildings of other styles are often moved or demolished. Many times they are
replaced with new construction, reproductions of the favored styles in the district. The island of
Nantucket is celebrated for many things, but people are drawn to the Old Historic District for the
quaint town atmosphere. In Bulikling~ \ ithl Nantucket in M~ind, many architectural styles are
discussed, but the prevalent styles in the district that create this quaint environment are the
Typical Nantucket style, Federal style and Greek Revival style. The buildings in the case studies
were not prevalent styles: Folk Victorian, Bungalows, and small cottages. All were relocated and
replaced with new construction.
Within the case studies of contributing buildings the consequence of non-prevalence is
demonstrated. For example, 125 Main Street case is a Folk Victorian built before 1887 (Figure 3-
7). The building possesses Victorian details applied to a simple house form: horizontal siding, a
brick foundation, a gable roof with extended eaves, and exposed rafter tails. There is a one-story
front porch set within the L of the building form, typical of the Victorian style. Other
characteristics are simple pediments above the window and door surrounds, as well as, the two-
over-two double hung windows (McAlester, 1984). The house is contributing to the National
Register Historic District, as documented in the "Nantucket Island Architectural and Cultural
Resources Survey, District Data Sheet" (Figure 3-6). The applicant requests to demolish or give
away the building. The Historic District Commission board member, Mr. Avery comments "this
house is very typical of Victorian infill architecture," and he did not understand why it would not
be contributing. Ms. Deeley felt the house was "somewhat contributing" and that it should not be
demolished but also adds, "Let' s see what [Mr. Dupont] is going to put in its [the house' s]
place". On March 11, 1997 the Historic District Commission approved the demolition or "move-
off" based on the lack of historical or architectural significance. The Folk Victorian house is not
of the prevalent styles in the district, which seems to make the contributing status negotiable.
Nine months later the applicants request a two-story dwelling clad with natural cedar shingles.
At the same meeting the Historic District Commission issues a Certificate of Appropriateness to
move the existing building from 125 Main Street. Later the applicants (the owners of the
adj acent house) present a site plan showing a rear location for the proposed dwelling, obviously a
garage apartment, and a large yard in place of the Folk Victorian building. The proposed
placement is atypical of Main Street; therefore staff recommends referral to the Design Advisory
Council.
The Design Advisory Council advises the applicants to create a "carriage house" character
with simple forms. They state that the massing (referring to the site) is appropriate if "a more
rural form is developed". For five months from January to May the Historic District Commission
struggles with the idea of losing a contributing structure to a lawn and a garage apartment. On
May 12, 1998, the staff states the revisions to the garage apartment are appropriate. Today the
view from Main Street is a white fence and a tall hedge; the roof is the only visible portion of the
new construction. This is a corner lot, and the structure can be viewed from Quarter Mile Hill
Way. From this location the garage apartment looks like it has always been there, because it
closely matches the main house, a contributing structure.
The premise from this case is that the historic viability of the existing property has to be
determined before new construction is considered. If not, this leads one to think if the committee
is presented with an appropriate design, the house may not be that historic. The obj ective to
create an appropriately designed Nantucket-like dwelling in order that the Victorian style house
is not missed is faulty. By making a determination on the historic significance of the structure,
the Historic District Commission and the architect/owner/applicant are not placed in a contest for
design appropriateness. In this case the outcome was not what the Historic District Commission
hoped for, and the final comments from staff and certain commission members reflect
disappointment. Staff states, "Recommend a primary dwelling on the street due to the history and
context of this lot, and the pattern of Main Street is houses on the street. Recommend the HDC
be consistent on this issue." At the meeting Ms. Voorhees states, "I think it is too bad that there
is not a house on the street."
The case study of 18 Mill Street is a one-story three-bay Bungalow built between 1923 and
1949. The architectural details of the building are typical of the bungalow style: a gable roof,
one-story front porch with a shed roof, porch balustrade, six-over-one flush frame windows and
plain corner boards. The structure is classified as contributing to the Old Historic District, but
was easily approved for relocation with no discussion noted in the HDC meeting minutes. The
Bungalow style is not one of the prevalent styles in the district, which seems to make the
contributing status negotiable. The proposed new construction shows influence of both the
Typical Nantucket and the Federal styles. Characteristics of the Typical Nantucket style are the
four bay facade, an off-center door with a transom above, first floor 12 over 12 double hung
windows; aligned with second floor smaller 6/6 windows, a roof with an 8 inch pitch, and small
plain cornice (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 39). Characteristic of the Federal style is shown in the
use of the twin chimneys rather than a central chimney (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 41). There are
details about the construction, which reveal that it is recent. The foundation has a crisp new
appearance that original foundations do not (Figure 3-26). Another detail is the energy efficient
windows (Figure 3-27). Because these details are not obvious to an untrained eye, it is
questionable if the new construction serves the true purpose of the Secretary of Interior' s
Standard. "All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time.
Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be
avoided when possible."
The case study of 3 Coffin Street is a modest cottage, classified as contributing to the
district. The Historic District Commission approved the relocation. The style of the cottage is not
inspired by the prevalent styles in the district, which seems to make the contributing status
negotiable. The proposed new construction is a two-story dwelling with a minimum of
architectural detail, reminiscent of the Quaker influence with a shingled exterior, 6/6 windows,
trim, corner boards, and a small cornice. However the built product does not reflect the approved
elevations. In addition, the quality of construction is not of the high level seen in the district. In
this case, more than the existence of the contributing building is lost.
The case study of 20 Milk Street is a bungalow with a hip roof, one-story front porch with
a shed roof built in 1930. Other facade details are a central hip dormer, plain corner boards and
6/1 flush frame windows. The applicants propose to build a two-story shingled house with true
divided lights in a 6/6 light pattern, a side gable roof and two gable dormers. Characteristics of
the Typical Nantucket style are shown in the design details: an off-center front door with a
transom above, a roof with an 8-inch pitch and a plain cornice. However, because the new
construction sits at the rear of the lot, the contributing house is actually being replaced with a
large lawn (Figure 3-44). This is uncharacteristic of the other structures on Milk Street and
inconsistent with the site planning guidelines, "new construction should follow a pattern of site
utilization similar to that already established adjacent to it" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The
houses on either side of 20 Milk Street establish a regular and consistent street edge (Figures 3-
45 and 3-46). The guidelines specifically state, "consideration should be given to the setback of
the buildings from the street" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). Also, "Where buildings are
predominately aligned along the street creating a unified edge or wall along the street space, the
front of a new building should be aligned within the general facade line of its neighbors" (Lang
and Stout, 1995, p. 61). With all these recommendations directly from the guidelines, it is
understandable why the request was denied.
The applicants reside in the adj acent contributing house and their obj ective is to gain a
garage apartment and large lawn. The Historic District Commission smartly denied the
applicant' s request, probably to avoid a scenario like 125 Main Street. In the defense of their
decision, a Commission member stated, "the 20 Milk Street home represents an architectural
style popular in the first half of the century" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Also, he added "that because a
building did not fit into the character of the other buildings on the street, it did not mean the
building did not have historical significance" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Most importantly he pointed
out that the Historic District Commission' s purpose was not to "recreate a New England village"
(Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). So unfortunately while the Historic District Commission made their
decision based on information stated in the design guidelines, Bulikling~ \ ithl Nantucket in M~ind,
the Selectmen overturned it based on a previous case, 18 Mill Street.
If this is the product we desire, we are not preserving but creating. We have left the realm
of historic preservation and entered the realm of theme districts for economic development. All
the existing buildings discussed above were contributing, which is alarming. The entire island of
Nantucket is on the National Register of Historic Places and the town of Nantucket is a National
Historic Landmark (Lang and Stout, 1995). Preservation at the Landmark district level should
exhibit the highest integrity. The Old Historic District is not just important to the region or
community, but to the entire country. One should be able to trust that the architectural fabric is
authentic and not construed to be Nantucket-like. Moving a building to improve the
concentration of a certain style with a new structure is an arbitrary form of urban planning and
not related to preservation. It is inconceivable that the landmark status of the district can survive
this action.
Consequence of Overlooked Significance
Even if a non-contributing building is not of a distinguishable style, it can add value to the
district. The size and scale of the property and/or the building may be a visual asset. The
presence of a non-contributing structure can geographically or historically describe the
development of a district. The case study of 10 Vestal Street is that of a small cottage built circa
1930 (Figure 3-1). It is wedged between a gable one-story dwelling and a two-story Federal style
house (Figure 3-2). This cottage provides a stop in the rhythm of the street; it is not in the midst
of town but on the edge of the Old Historic District about to enter the outlying area. Even with
some two-story dwellings sprinkled intermittently this idea is evident. The decision to replace the
cottage with a Federal-like two-story house impacts the rhythm of the street and affects the
perception of the town' s historic density. Stylistically, the proposed 2-1/2-story building reflects
subtle characteristics of the early Federal style commonly seen in town. This is seen in the
proposed front elevation (Figure 3-3). The front door is off-center with sidelights, and the
chimney located at the side of the main mass. The exterior sheathing is clapboards with 6/6
windows. A small cottage like 10 Vestal Street in this location provided a distinct sense of place.
The other four case studies document decisions made by the Historic District Commission,
which have stripped these contributing buildings of their status; therefore, they can be included
in this discussion. The presence of a building can historically describe the development of a
district. For example the Folk Victorian dwelling at 125 Main Street respected the street edge,
followed the established historic pattern, as well as, added to the "diversity of it' s [the island' s]
buildings and the "continuity of development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). "While there is
no single appropriate style for the island, as indicated by the diversity of its buildings,
understanding the continuity of development and relatedness of the styles described will
exemplify the legacy shared by all Nantucket buildings" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). The
Victorian style has an exact context in Nantucket' s history. "In the end, the economic collapse of
the isolated island in the 1850s, when whaling succumbed to the discoveries of oil and gold, was
responsible for the unique preservation and integrity of the town today. Only in the late 1800s,
when well-to-do people sought out unspoiled Nantucket as a summer resort, were numbers of
new houses built again" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 35-36). "As the community turned to the
summer resort trade, a few of these Victorian houses were built in town" (Lang and Stout, 1995,
p. 44). One-twenty-five Main Street is physical evidence of the, "continuity of development"
within this historical context. Without examples like 125 Main Street there is no "relatedness of
the style" to witness.
The presence of a non-contributing structure can geographically and historically describe
the development of a district. For example, 18 Mill Street is a bungalow built between 1923 and
1949, and like 10 Vestal Street, it provides a sense of place. This portion of N. Mill Street is
nearing the edge of the Old Historic District. The street is less densely populated than the center
of town with large open lots and more space between houses. Before the relocation of the
contributing building and the new construction, the character of the area and context of the street
were representative of the edge of the district. With the formality of the new construction, this
quality is diminished and will eventually be lost.
The bungalow at 20 Milk Street is representative of a time on Nantucket where the
economy was no longer dependant on whaling. In fact this particular property is mentioned in the
design guidelines, under the Bungalow Style (1900-1948), "Low, unpretentious and ideally
suited to the concept of the vacation get-away cottage, a handful of craftsmen style cottages
sprang up across the town, .. and at 20 Milk Street. ." (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 50).
A new classification of "potentially significant" is required to protect buildings that cannot
be classified as "contributing", "architecturally significant" or "ancillary" when the district is
designated. These buildings could be re-evaluated when they are 50-years old, which would
provide flexibility for the district. While the 50-year time period may be arbitrary, it is probably
long enough to divulge significance. The primary purpose would be to protect structures until
enough time passes to make an informed judgment on the building's significance. If significance
is recognized before the fifty years, the structure can be re-categorized as "architecturally
significant", which recognizes a significant building that enriches the district even though it did
not exist during the designated historic period of significance.
Consequence of Inconsistent Management
There are nine management issues that impact buildings within the Old Historic District.
The first deals with the makeup of the Commission. The Historic District Commission is an
appointed body with no requirements for the appointees to be design or preservation
professionals, "established in the town of Nantucket an Historic District Commission consisting
of five (5) unpaid members who shall be resident taxpayers of the Town of Nantucket, to be
appointed by the Selectmen" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 155). The problem is the board lacks
professional knowledge and often disregards recommendations made by staff, which is
unfortunate in a National Register Landmark District. They could definitely benefit from the
staff' s professional knowledge. For example, in the case study of 125 Main Street, the staff is
presented with a proposal to replace a contributing house, which is located 8' from the front
property line with a garage apartment to be sited 60' from the front property line. Needless to
say, the staff remains steadfast in their evaluation that the applicant' s proposal is inappropriate.
"Recommend a primary dwelling on the street due to the history and context of this lot... The
pattern of Main Street is houses on the street. Recommend the HDC be consistent on this issue."
However, they supply alternate advice knowing that the Historic District Commission does not
always follow their recommendation. "If the HDC deems this use of the property to be
appropriate, recommend all dormers conform to the 1' setback from the eave and the front
transom be removed." Another example of the same disregard for the staff s professional advice
is the case study at 18 Mill Street. The Staff has recommended a "viewing" and pointed out
several basic design issues dealing with the formality and scale. Again knowing that the board
often does not heed their advice they make an alternative suggestion, "If this formal five bay
design is deemed appropriate, recommend the front second floor windows be more traditional in
their size" (HDC Meeting Minutes, August 25, 1998).
Often the Historic District Commission does not even discuss the staff comments, which
come directly from the design guidelines. For example in the same case, the initial staff
comments were as follows. "Structure is listed as contributing, the question is if the house is a
significant according to guidelines on page 162. If significant, the proposal is inappropriate. Hold
for black and white photos and an elevation of the proposed rear" (Staff Comments, September
8, 1998). The Historic District Commission meeting minutes note the following, "The staff
comments were read. Mr. DaSilva made a motion for approval. Ms. Voorhees seconded, and it
was so voted. Mr. McLaughlin and Ms. Hall opposed" (HDC Meeting Minutes, September 8,
1998). The purpose of the Historic District Commission is to uphold the design guidelines and
their review should directly involve requirements and suggestions from that document.
The second management issue is that the design of new construction cannot be handled
with staff comments. The staff comments are often written the day of the Historic District
Commission meeting. Staff does not have time to review the application and examine the site.
This system of making comments piece-meal only hits with the highlights, the most pressing
design issues. For example, the new construction at 18 Mill Street is inconsistent with a number
of guidelines. The setback of the structure is less than five feet from the street, creating a formal
feel for Mill Street (Figure 3-19). The siting of the new construction does not meet the
requirement in the guidelines, "Any new construction should follow a pattern of site utilization
similar to that already established adjacent to it" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). The adjacent one
story house is set at least 10' from the street and has a small front yard (Figure 3-49). In addition,
the massing and volume of the house seem overly large (Figure 3-20). This is evident when
comparing the facade of the new construction with the original contributing bungalow (Figure 3-
21). The design guidelines state, "The proportions of the facade of a new building along a street
should be compatible with the proportions of the existing buildings" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.
66). This requirement is not met; the adj acent building is dwarfed by the new construction
(Figure 3-22). Even though the acts and amendments enabling the historic district state that,
The Historic District Commission shall not consider relative size of buildings in plan,
interior arrangement or building features not subj ect to public view. The Commission shall
not make any recommendations or requirements except for the purpose of preventing
developments incongruous to the historic aspects of the surroundings and the Historic
Nantucket District. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 158)
Not considering relative size in plan would be understandable if that was the only factor
examined. However, the relative size of the proposed building to adj acent buildings can be
informative, especially if other factors indicate that the building is too massive. For example, the
property records indicate the square footage of the new construction is 3,185, while the one-story
bungalow was 1,064 SF, similar in size to the adj acent one story house. The new construction is
almost 3 times the size of the bungalow that once sat here. Therefore the new construction
shows no relation to the adj acent one story house (Figure 3-22). Again this is in violation of the
design guidelines; "Any new construction in the town should be of a scale compatible with
adjacent buildings" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 67). In addition the large mass of the new
construction is exaggerated by the site conditions. While the adj acent house is one story and sits
on the lower side of the hill, the new two-story sits on the higher side of the hill (Figure 3-23).
Obviously, staff comments are not sufficient.
The third management issue is the lack of a written report to analyze the aspects of the
applicant' s proposal with a staff recommendation. Without a report of this type, fundamentals
fall through the cracks. For example, the request to move 125 Main Street is approved noting the
"lack of historical or architectural significance" (HDC meeting minutes, March 11, 1997). This is
a failure of the Historic District Commission to fulfill its purpose. If they cannot research a
historic property, the applicant who wishes to remove the structure will not. According to the
design guidelines, the Historic District Commission is allowed to request additional information,
documentation, or evidence as is necessary to make a decision, and is required to make its
decision based on all the evidence at the public hearing (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). In this
case they could have requested staff research the property. Another effect of the lack of a written
report is that it causes misunderstandings. For example in the same case, 125 Main Street, Mr.
Perkins responds to the comment that there is no house on the street. He said, "he would feel
differently about it if there were not similarly large yards with houses set back a little farther up
Main Street." This is simplifying the issue. It seems that the fact a contributing building once
stood here is forgotten. While there are large yards farther up the street, they were not once
occupied by a contributing building that addressed the street. If they did, this is not the reason the
Historic District Commission made this decision. A well-written report could make distinctions
and improve the commission's decisions. The Historic District Commission is reminded to
consider,
the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the building or structure in
question, the location of the lot and the relation of such factors to similar features of
buildings and structures in the position of such building or structure in relation to the street
or public way and to other buildings or structures. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 157)
With this in mind, the staff report could consider the house at 129 Main Street, which has a large
front yard and was constructed at a later era. This site follows a modern pattern, buildings along
the street with front yards (Figure 3-13). The design guidelines explain,
After the whaling era, houses diverged from the customary single-plane facade and
consistent street side building placement, thereby fragmenting the unified street edge. New
houses then began to have front yards, large lots, a lack of consistency in setbacks from the
property line, and orientations to the water or view rather than the street. (Lang and Stout,
1995, p. 61)
A pattern of a large front yard or side yard is not common on Main Street. Another important
topic for investigation would be how common it is to have a Nantucket style house with a large
side yard on Main Street. The staff should be required to write a detailed report to analyze the
issues in total and make it available for the Historic District Commission members to review
before the meeting. The author of the report should be present at the Historic District
Commission meeting, available to speak. This would provide some continuity for design and
preservation issues. The property in question should be evaluated from a professional
perspective, and it is of the utmost importance in a historic district important at the landmark
level .
The fourth problematic management issue is that buildings are not protected until a plan
for new construction is approved. The Historic District Commission and staff must not issue a
Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or relocation until the Certificate of
Appropriateness for new construction is issued. Currently, the Historic District Commission has
a policy described by staff as, "requesting development scenarios as a condition of reviewing
demolitions" (HDC Meeting Minutes, March 31, 1998). However, they have experienced first
hand that this is not adequate. For example, considering the case study of 125 Main Street, the
Historic District Commission issued a Certifieate of Appropriateness for relocation on March 1 1,
1997 based on the "lack of historical or architectural significance." This Certifieate of
Appropriateness may have expired, because on January 22, 1998 another Certifieate of
Appropriateness was for relocation. At this meeting, the initial proposal for new construction
was presented. However, at the next Historic District Commission meeting, January 27, 1998,
the applicants reveal their true intentions. "Twig Perkins attended and stated that this design is
intended to compliment the Rhodes House at 127 Main Street. He explained the property was
acquired by the Rhodes so their house could have a large yard." From this point forward, there is
an inherent discord where the applicant' s intentions do not conform to the historical pattern of
the street. At this point in time, the Historic District Commission could have cited the applicants
for changing their development scenario after receiving approval for relocation based on this
scenario. This could have been considered a violation, "for any person to knowingly submit
false, fraudulent or misleading information to the Commission in connection with any
application" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 158).
In the future, the Historic District Commission could specify that a Certifieate of
Appropriateness for relocation is contingent on the Certifieate of Appropriateness for new
construction. In this case, the new construction for the site is not approved until May 5, 1998 and
unfortunately it is not what the Historic District Commission had originally bargained for. To
avoid this situation in the future, it is imperative that the Historic District Commission adopt a
strict practice that insures submittals are the applicants' real intentions.
The fifth management issue deals with the Design Advisory Council (DAC). The Acts and
Amendments for the Nantucket Historic District require the following for denied requests. "In
case of a disapproval, the Commission shall state its reasons therefore in writing, and it may
make recommendations to the applicant with respect to appropriateness of design, arrangement,
texture, material, color and the like of the building or structure involved" (Lang and Stout, 1995,
p. 158). Therefore, the DAC meets with applicants to discuss appropriate design solutions. In the
future, staff must attend the meetings and direct Council members to the reason for the meeting.
For example, the first staff comments pertaining to 125 Main Street, "Recommend referral to the
DAC. The massing is not appropriate, particularly at the front. The structure being set back from
the street is atypical" (Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes, January 27, 1998). At the
Historic District Commission meeting, it is obvious they have allowed the relocation of a
contributing structure for the applicants to obtain a large yard and detached garage apartment.
Historic District Commission board member, Ms. Hall states, "If the proposed structure is an
outbuilding, it should match the main house" (HDC meeting minutes, January 27, 1998).
Historic District Commission board member Mr. Avery responds, "Although the front dwelling
is inappropriate for a second dwelling facing Main Street, there are bigger issues [the historic
pattern of buildings on the street] at stake here than just the design," (HDC meeting minutes,
January 27, 1998). With this in mind, the Historic District Commission refers the applicants to
the DAC.
The Historic District Commission members that attended the DAC meeting had no issue
with the historic pattern of buildings on the street, because they advised the applicants to design
the garage apartment to match the main house. Also, they suggested how to landscape the front
yard appropriately. This advice was not consistent with comments from Commission members or
staff, and does not conform to the guidelines. Under site planning, "new construction should
follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already established adj acent to it" (Lang and
Stout, 1995, p. 61). The adjacent building at 127 Main Street (Figure 3-9), and 123 Main Street
(Figures 3-10 and 3-11) are 10'-0" or less from the sidewalk. The buildings at 119-123 Main
Street display the regular pattern of front yard setbacks (Figure 3-12), which is taken from a
point closer to town looking toward the 125 Main Street. The guidelines specifically state,
"consideration should be given to the setback of the buildings from the street". Also, "Where
buildings are predominately aligned along the street creating a unified edge or wall along the
street space, the front of a new building should be aligned within the general facade line of its
neighbors" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61). Nevertheless the DAC does not rely on these
recommendations to advise the applicants. If the Commission member who brought attention to
the design issue was present at the DAC meeting, perhaps the outcome would have been
different. In any event, the attendees should be given copies of the Historic District Commission
Meeting Minutes. Preservation staff should steer the DAC to serve the main concerns of the
Historic District Commission.
The sixth management issue is that the Historic District Commission's responsibility does
not cease when the Certificate of Appropriateness is issued. The commission must make sure
that the built product is representative of the approved plans on file. When they fail to do so, the
results are unfortunate. For example, the built facade at 3 Coffin Street differs from the approved
plans. The trim is gray, not white as planned (Figure 3-31). The front entry columns are
unpainted (Figure 3-32). The approved elevation depicts exterior lights flanking the entry door
(Figure 3-33), which were not installed (Figure 3-32). There is a window air-conditioning unit at
the second story of the left wing (Figure 3-34). These architectural details do not exhibit the high
level of construction usually found in the Old Historic District. The design guidelines give the
Historic District Commission a defense.
No occupancy permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector with respect to any building
or structure in Nantucket Historic District unless and until the Building Inspector receives
a written certification from the Historic District Commission that the building has been
constructed or altered in compliance with the terms of the certificate of appropriateness
issued therefore. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 156)
However, to clear up discrepancies between the built product and the approved plans, they must
take advantage of this leverage.
The seventh management issue is the resulting negative cumulative effect. An example is
the case study of the bungalow at 20 Milk Street. The owners of the adj acent property purchased
the contributing bungalow for relocation, so they could increase the size of their yard and build a
garage apartment. Public opinion on the issue was, "Neighbors in the Milk Street area supported
the house move because they said the house did not fit into the character of the neighborhood"
(Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Clearly the public has a stilted view of "preservation" formed by previous
Historic District Commission decisions. The Historic District Commission denied the owner' s
request to move the contributing structure from its original site on or around May 28, 2002.
Historic District Commission member Dirk Roggeveen defended the Historic District
Commission's decision, "the 20 Milk Street home represented an architecture style popular in the
first half of the century" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). In addition to the fact that the bungalow has
architectural significance, it speaks of a time on Nantucket where the economy was no longer
dependant on whaling. This structure is specifically mentioned in the design guidelines, and the
Historic District Commission made a sound decision in denying the proposal. Then Roggeveen
added, "because a building did not fit into the character of other buildings on the street, it did not
mean the building did not have historical significance," and that the purpose of the HDC is not to
"recreate a New England village" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). Historic District Commission
administrator, Mark Voight, said "the commission was not against creating affordable housing,
but the bungalow style home represented one of the 14 different styles of architecture found on
Nantucket" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). This decision is pivotal, the Commission seems poised to
uphold the uphold the premise in the design guidelines."While there is no single appropriate
style for the island, as indicated by the diversity of its buildings, understanding the continuity of
development and relatedness of the styles described will exemplify the legacy shared by all
Nantucket buildings" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 37). The Historic District Commission members
realized that without examples like 20 Milk Street, there is no "relatedness of the style" to
witness.
The eighth issue deals with appeals to the Historic District Commission's decisions and is
demonstrated in the appeal of the 20 Milk Street case study. When the owner appealed to the
Selectmen, the Commission's decision was overturned. The owners' attorneys sited a previous
case, 18 Mill Street, a bungalow that was moved to 1 Norquarta Drive in 1999. The Selectmen
should not be able to blindly base approvals on past decisions made by the Historic District
Commission without considering the premise behind the Historic District Commission's altered
decision in the current case. "The argument may be awkward for the commission or the city to
counter, but the courts generally defer to commissions as expert bodies, and failure to enforce it
in one case is not a legal defense in another" (Tyler, 2000, p. 75). Matt Fee, the sole Selectman to
vote against overturning the Historic District Commission's decision stated, "he did not want to
see the "Disney-ification' of Nantucket" (Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). The authenticity of the district is
brought to the forefront rather than a Nantucket-ish creation. Chairman of the Selectman
Committee, Frank Spriggs defended action, "he did like that the housing proposed to replace the
bungalow style house would go along with a similar footprint of a building built in the 1840s"
(Fiegl, 2002, p. 7A). This would be a logical argument for a vacant lot, but it is not a good
defense for the loss of a contributing bungalow style house.
The ninth management issue is that the area under Historic District Commission
management is too large. In 1966 the town was placed on the National Register of Historic
Places and designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service and the U.S.
Department of the Interior (Lang and Stout, 1995). In spite of all these protections, Nantucket
has been threatened by overbuilding for years. Nineteen seventy-two marked the peak of the
building boom after the restoration of the waterfront (Lang and Stout, 1995). Heavy
incompatible development caused the island to extend the jurisdiction of the Historic District
Commission to include the entire town of Nantucket (Lang and Stout, 1995). The Commission
was formed to review and approve all construction on the island and published Bulikling~ \ ithl
Nantucket in M~ind to provide a guide to appropriate design (Lang and Stout, 1995). Since July
1975 all of Nantucket has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Lang and
Stout, 1995). So, there is one commission to review and approve construction on the entire
island. There are too many responsibilities for one organization. There is not time for the staff to
consult the design guidelines, to write staff reports, to visit sites or research requests made by the
applicants. The lack of time for analysis compromises all properties on the island. The
geographic area under Historic District Commission review must be reduced to insure the
di stri ct' s integrity.
The Historic District Commission has nine management issues: a commission comprised
of non-professionals; inadequate time for staff to review maj or requests for Certificates of
Appropriateness; no requirements for written staff reports; no protections for existing buildings
while proposed plans for new construction are reviewed; an inconsistent relationship between the
Historic District Commission; staff and Design Review Committee; no verification that the
actual construction reflects the Historic District Commission's approved plans; arbitrary
decisions by the commission that create precedent leading to the Selectmen overturning their
decisions; and a management area that is too large.
Proposed Criteria for Including Non-contributing Properties in a Landmark District
The following recommendations would recognize the value of non-contributing buildings
and benefit the management of most residential historic districts. In addition, specific changes to
the governance and guidelines for the Old Historic District are suggested for the same reasons.
Revise the Building Classifications
Many residential historic districts would benefit by adopting new classifications that
accurately reflect the value of the district' s buildings. Buildings in proposed districts should be
surveyed, and non-contributing buildings in existing districts should be re-surveyed, using the
following terms: "potentially significant," 'architecturally significant," "contributing," and
"ancillary."
* The term "potentially significant" refers to a building that is less than fifty years old when the
district was (is) designated. These buildings will be evaluated when they turn fifty years old,
and categorized as "architecturally significant" or "ancillary." They are not eligible to be
"contributing" because they were not built during the designated period of significance. If
significance is recognized before the fifty years, the structure can be re-categorized as
"architecturally significant." This classification protects buildings that were recently built for
the reason that it might be too soon to fully appreciate their value. This term provides
flexibility for the district. There is no other reason for the set 50-year time period except that
it is probably long enough to divulge significance. This revision is necessary because non-
contributing buildings can be architecturally significant. Currently, for a non-contributing
building to be approved for demolition, it must be deemed architecturally insignificant.
Interestingly, architectural significance is not defined as fifty years or older at the time the
district is designated.
* The term "architecturally significant" refers to a building that was not built during the
designated historic period of significance but enriches the district, in spite of this fact. These
buildings would be preserved without question.
* The term "contributing" refers to a building that was (is) at least fifty years old when the
district was (is) designated, existed during the designated historical period of significance
and enriches the district.
* The term "ancillary" refers to a building that supports or aids the district, at least by its
existence, but does not possess architectural significance of its own. Includes buildings that
were built during the designated period of significance but have lost their architectural
integrity, or buildings that were not built during the designated period of significance and are
not architecturally significant.
While the district' s designated period of significance is upheld, the possibility of additional
architectural significance is recognized. If a maj ority of potentially significant buildings are re-
evaluated as "architecturally significant," the designated historic period of significance should be
reviewed for either an amendment to the original period of significance, or to add another period
of significance. In this situation, the architecturally significant buildings that correlate to this
change in the period would be classified as "contributing." If the governing body wishes to
change a building's classification after the re-survey, evidence would be required to show that
the building's status has changed.
The Historic District Commission staff should re-survey the buildings in the Old Historic
District with these revised classifications. When changes are proposed to buildings in the district,
they should be reviewed and evaluated regardless of classification. These buildings have an
effect on the contributing buildings as part of the district and many significantly enrich the
district. Therefore the New Standards would state, "Alterations and additions to potentially
significant, architecturally significant and ancillary structures in Old Historic District shall be
reviewed for their appropriateness in respect to the design, massing, and scale of the existing
structure." The concept of modernizing a non-contributing structure would be omitted, because
the term would be eliminated. The New Standards would continue, "No structure shall be
redesigned to create a false historical appearance" (Derived from Non-contributing Structures,
City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-1 14).
If these building classifications are not adopted, the Historic District Commission must
redefine their existing building classifications to reflect the universally accepted definitions.
Currently, the Nantucket Historic District Commission has great leeway to re-classify buildings
in the Old Historic District. The definitions in the Demolition Policy empower the Commission
to change the district drastically. In the realm of real protection from demolition or relocation, no
building is truly protected by classification alone. For example, the Demolition Policy's opening
statement is, "no Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued for the demolition of any
protected structure (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). Protected structures are defined as, "Any
significant structure which the Commission determines is in the public interest to preserve or
rehabilitate rather than demolish" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). However, a "protected
structure" can be granted the Standards for Approval for demolition if the Commission finds that
either the structure is insignificant or that the structure is only considered protected because of its
presence in the district and is non-contributing to the district. So a significant structure in the
public interest to preserve is then judged non-contributing. The definition of a contributing
property is "A structure which adds to the District' s sense of time, place and historic
development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). The universal definition of contributing buildings
is that they enrich the district, and indicates the structure was present during the historic period
of significance and preservation is required. However, the Historic District Commission defines
the term significant structures to mean,
Any structure within the Historic District of Nantucket Island which is in whole or in part
fifty years or more old and which is or has been designated by the Commission to be a
significant structure after a finding by the Commission that the building is either: (a)
importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events or with the broad
architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the Island or
Commonwealth; or (b) historically or architecturally significant (in terms of period, style,
method of building construction, or association with a famous architect or builder) either
by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162)
Therefore significant structures are similar to contributing structures elsewhere.
No classification is completely dedicated to preservation. The high degree of flexibility is
not acceptable for a landmark district. Likewise the non-contributing is defined in the guidelines
as, "A structure which is not an intrusion but does not add to a historic district' s sense of time,
place and historic development" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162). Usually non-contributing is
defined as a structure that was not built during the designated period of significance and was less
than fifty years old when the district was designated. Alterations to a National Historic
Landmark should not be subject to the whim of the Historic District Commission. The
Commission members are not required to possess knowledge of preservation and do not seem to
heed the advice of the historic preservation staff. The following should be adhered to: "the
Commission shall state their reasons for denial of a request in writing" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p.
158). This should include the ability of the Commission members to re-classify buildings in the
district.
Qualifications for Historic District Commission Members
Members of the commission or board that reviews and approves proposed alterations in the
historic district, must be qualified. The commission should be composed of one or more of the
following organizations: a preservation professional, a local historian and/or architectural or art
historian, a business, commercial finance or investment counselor, an architect, a city planner, a
landscape architect, a lawyer, an engineer or building contractor, a realtor or property appraiser,
residents of the city's historic districts (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code,
1999, p. CD 65-21).
This would be a vast improvement for the Historic District Commission. Currently, the
only requirement for Commission members is that they are resident taxpayers of the Town of
Nantucket. This is insufficient for any historic district and especially for a National Historic
Landmark. The preservation staff should identify current members of the community that meet
these criteria and nominate them to the Selectmen.
Restrict and Focus the Purview of the Existing Commission
In historic districts the governing body should have a manageable workload and ample
staff. Otherwise the integrity of the buildings in the district and the status of the district may be
compromised. Currently, the purview of the Historic District Commission is defined as the
Nantucket Historic District, "the land and waters comprising the Town of Nantucket" (Lang and
Stout, 1995, p. 156). This is too massive for one Commission. In addition, to require the
Landmark Historic District guidelines be followed outside the Old Historic District is demeaning
to the original construction of the town of Nantucket. Therefore, to manage the district more
effectively the responsibility must be delegated.
Two review commissions with ample staff support should be created. First, an appearance
and environmental review board, the Outlying Area Commission would manage proposals for
alterations in the open space and moors. Standards for review should be developed from Chapter
V, pages 101-148 of the current guidelines, Bulikling~ \ ithl Nantucket in M~ind. Second, another
historic review commission would manage individual historic districts in other towns on the
island like Siasconset, Quidnet, Wauwinet, Surfside and Madaket. Standards for review should
be developed for these districts from Chapter IV, pages 89-100 of the current guidelines,
Buitling n ithr Nantucket in M~ind. Both commissions would follow the same management
procedures as the Old Historic District, such as, monthly meetings and written reports for Maj or
Reviews to analyze requests with the Standards.
With the new boards established, the Historic District Commission can restrict their review
to the Old Historic District. This would allow preservation staff the ability to concentrate on the
design guidelines, write staff reports, visit sites of current cases, and conduct research for
applicants requests for one Historic District Commission meeting per month.
Establish an Overlay Ordinance and Include Secretary of Interior's Standards
Historic Districts should use an overlay ordinance, because it is directly linked to the
Standards for Alterations, Additions, New Construction, Demolition and Relocation in the Land
Development Code. For example, the Lake Eola Heights Historic District is a Historic
Preservation Overlay District with an Overlay Ordinance, which builds off the Land
Development Code. As referred to in the Ordinance, "A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be
required when a building permit is required for the exterior alteration, construction, or
demolition of a structure in a historic district according to Chapter 58 of the Orlando City Code"
(Lake Eola Heights Historic District Ordinance, May 22, 1989, p. 3). Also the Secretary of
Interiors Standards for Historic Preservation should be included in the Ordinance and the Town
Building Code. For example, the City of Orlando lists the Secretary of Interior' s "Standards for
Rehabilitation" as General Standards in Section 62.201 of the City of Orlando, Land
Development Code. They provide a philosophy for the district and can be used for review when
a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness does not correlate to the Standards for Alterations,
Additions, New Construction, Demolition or Relocation. The Old Historic District would benefit
from an Overlay Ordinance and the incorporation of the Secretary of Interior' s Standards for
Historic Preservation.
Create Standards for Alterations, Additions and New Construction
Historic districts should provide clear and concise standards for three areas of work:
Standards for Alterations to Existing Structures, Additions to Existing Structures, and New
Construction. They should be written to retain existing material and to recognize all contributing
buildings in the district.
In the Old Historic District the following steps were taken to create Standards for review
from the existing design guidelines. The requirements in the guidelines were separated from the
explanations and divided into the appropriate area of work. Then direct and concise criteria were
incorporated into the requirements to fill in where gaps existed. Lastly the criteria were revised
to recognize all contributing buildings.
After the requirements were separated from the architectural, historical, and cultural
explanations, they were sorted into three areas of work, Alterations, Additions and New
Construction. Currently requirements, recommendations, and considerations are embedded in
one lengthy document, "Guidelines for Building in the Historic Town of Nantucket" under nine
headings. While the explanations are interesting and insightful, the guidelines provide too much
information. Applicants probably have difficulty sifting through the information to determine
what is allowed. Described as, "criteria by which the Commission will determine the
appropriateness of this new construction" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 59), they are directly
referenced in the staff comments but usually the Commission members do not reference them.
Straightforward standards would insure that the committee's decisions are based on the
guidelines and not a whim. For example consider the following regarding the "Siting of a
Building" as currently written,
Any new construction should follow a pattern of site utilization similar to that already
established adj acent to it. In particular, consideration should be given to the setback of the
buildings from the street, the width of their facades and the spaces between them,
especially because these factors contribute to the rhythm and continuity of the buildings as
seen together. Where buildings are predominantly aligned along the street creating a
unified edge or wall along the street space, the front of a new building should be aligned
within the general facade line of its neighbors. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 61)
Keep in mind this only reflects the italicized portion in the guidelines, more information exists in
the text. Therefore the regulations for the "Siting of the Building" must be simplified. Compare
the site-planning standard as written above to the following with the explanations and
background omitted. "The front yard setback of new construction must follow a pattern of site
utilization similar to the adj acent buildings. The front facade of the new building should be
aligned within the general facade line of the adjacent buildings" (Derived from Lang and Stout,
1995, p. 61). When the criteria stands on its own, it is hard for the applicant, the staff or the
Commission, to vary from it.
Next, other design standards must be incorporated to fill voids in the current guidelines.
For example, the concept of the rhythm of solids and voids is introduced to complete the Siting
the Building" requirement. "New construction must be designed and positioned on the site in
such a way that it reflects the regular pattern of buildings and open space along the block face"
(City of Orlando, Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD-62-119). This concept comes from the
Design Standards from City of Orlando Land Development Code, which were used to fill in
where there were omissions in the requirements. These were selected because they deal with
materials, concepts and elements in a direct and thorough manner.
Another benefit of using the Design Standards from City of Orlando is that they place an
emphasis on material. The existing requirements in the design guidelines seem to overlook
material. The Commission permits regular maintenance, repair or replacement of exterior
architectural features that does not change the design, material, color, or "the outward
appearance thereof" without a Certificate of Appropriateness. This creates a permissive attitude
of the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the existing fabric. Compare this to Historic
District Commission' s definition of "subj ect to view":
wherever such exterior features are subj ect to view from a beach, public way, public park,
public body of water, traveled way, a street or way shown on a land court plan, or shown
on a plan recorded in the registry of deeds, a proprietors road or a street or way shown on a
plan approved and endorsed in accordance with the Subdivision Control Law. (Lang and
Stout, 1995, p. 157)
Adopting an all-encompassing philosophy to material review would establish the fabric of the
building as a priority.
In a National Landmark Historic District these small but important material replacement
requests should require Historic District Commission review to obtain a Certifieate of
Appropriateness. Specifically the Standards for Alterations will address materials and elements:
wood, masonry, roof and roof features, windows, shutters, door and door details, garage doors,
porch and porch features, site issues, entrances, color and other items, with the following basic
philosophy. If the existing material is in good condition, it shall be retained. If the existing
material is repairable, it shall be repaired. If the existing material is deteriorated it shall be
replaced to match the existing material in size, shape, and texture. The Standards for Alterations
would also include the concept of proper treatment of materials and replacement of items that are
inappropriate to the style and period of the building. Perhaps the emphasis on material will
translate into a renewed sensitivity to "gut rehab" and curtail this practice of removing a
building's original interior fabric for new material. By preserving material, the authenticity of
individual buildings and the entire district is maintained.
Lastly the Standards must be revised to recognize all contributing buildings in the district,
which helps to develop concise and straightforward Standards. For example the current
guidelines for roofs on additions designate the appropriate pitch for each traditional roof shape.
Compare this to, "Roofing on additions to existing buildings should be appropriate to the period
and style of the original structure" (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 71). In this case to achieve a concise
Standard for roof additions, the design variables that must be appropriate are specified. "The roof
on an addition should have similar shape, detailing, pitch and materials as the existing building"
(City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-117). Because all contributing
buildings are valued, the standard can be simplified.
Other revisions have been made to the Standards when needed. For example, emphasis on
material in National Historic Landmarks is important, but buildings should be allowed to develop
naturally. Therefore when considering windows on additions, the Standards should incorporate
the philosophy from the Secretary of Interior' s "Standards for Rehabilitation." "All buildings,
structures, or sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no
historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged" (City of
Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-6). When the fenestration of an addition is
closely matched to the original, an earlier appearance may be created. However, small variations
from the original would not be detrimental if controlled. Therefore, the Standard would read,
Requirements for windows on additions vary depending on the elevation. On the street
elevation, windows shall match the original windows in materials, frame type, orientation
and configuration. These windows should be of a similar size to the original windows and
possess a ratio of glass to wall surface similar to that of to the existing building. On other
elevations, windows should match the existing windows in material and frame type, may
be similar to the existing windows in orientation and configuration, but may differ in size.
The arrangement of the windows within each facade should be ordered and balanced in
keeping with the style and period of the building. (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p.
77)
When considering the Standards for Additions, a strict material standard may create the
illusion of an earlier appearance. Therefore the revised standard would permit a small variation
in the design of the addition. "The wall surface material should be appropriate to the style and
period of the existing building. While the wall surface must match the material and color of the
existing building, the size, orientation, and texture of the material can be similar to the existing
building. There should be one material per single wall plane. Foundations of additions should be
similar to the existing building." While more detailed than the current rules and regulations, the
new standards will insure a truthful depiction of the building' s progression.
The quality of a building's progression must not be lost or the environment becomes too
staid. The Nantucket Federal Style house located at 41 Liberty Street is a 2-1/2 story with some
Greek Revival detailing. From the primary street facade there are no additions visible, and the
12/12 windows and clapboard wall surface are consistent (Figure 3-50). The side of the building
tells a different story. At least two additions are visible. The first addition exhibits 2/2 windows,
typical of the Victorian era and the same clapboard wall surface. The second addition has three
windows and the wall surface is wood shingles instead of clapboard (Figure 3-51). With many
inconsistencies this elevation does not even meet the revised Standards for windows on
additions. However due to the similarity in window material, size, and orientation, the overall
effect is successful. The inconsistencies do not detract, but add to the authenticity of the building.
Other changes to the Standards deal with porch and roof walk additions. Currently,
"Porches additions should be kept to the rear where they can be unobtrusive" (Lang and Stout,
1995, p. 82). However, in certain situations porches could be added as part of an addition and
uphold a historical precedent. For example, there are many Nantucket-style houses with side ell
additions and recessed first floor porches. Therefore the revised standard would read, "A porch
may not be added to the primary facade of an existing building. A porch may be added to a
secondary facade, behind the primary facade plane, if it is part of an addition and is appropriate
to the style and period of the building" (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 82). The only
situation where a porch may be added to the primary facade is if convincing evidence is
presented that a porch originally existed as part of the facade and that porches are appropriate to
the style and period of the building. Situations like this would not be spelled out in the Standards,
but would be open to the discretion of preservation staff. "Any other request requiring a building
permit determined by the Planning Official or his designee to have an impact on an exterior
structure in the Old Historic District shall be reviewed by the Historic District Commission using
the most closely analogous standards" (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code,
1999, p. CD 62-118). To create Standards for specific types of work, some revisions are
necessary to cover a topic that is not addressed in the design guidelines. For example, the
appropriateness of a roof walk as a portion of an addition is not specifically discussed in the
existing guidelines. However, the guidelines do state that they are a historical feature of many
Nantucket buildings found on visually dominant masses. Since additions should not be visually
dominant, "Roof walks are not appropriate for additions."
Finally, the revisions made to the Standards for New Construction serve to uphold the
integrity of the district. The design expectations for new construction in historic districts range
from conforming to a prevalent style in the district to simply sharing design variables with
contributing buildings in the district. In historic districts that function as living museums, there is
merit in creating a seamless district, one frozen in the designated period of historic significance.
However, for buildings in residential historic districts, this does not meet the philosophy of the
Secretary of Interior' s Standard, which states, "All buildings, structures, or sites shall be
recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which
seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged" (City of Orlando Land Development
Code, 1999, p. CD 62-6). Alterations that seek to create an earlier appearance should be avoided
in a National Register Historic District, where the built surroundings should be authentic. The
current philosophy for new construction in the Old Historic District is, "A building can fit into its
context if it embodies relatedness to surrounding structures. Relatedness means, simply, a
similarity of a number of different architectural aspects among neighboring buildings" (Lang and
Stout, 1995, p. 59). Therefore, hypothetically the guidelines permit design that would be
recognized as a product of the current day. If Standards that promote similarity to the built
surroundings are maintained, the design inspiration for new construction could widen, while
avoiding the extremes, contemporary design or reproductions. Presently, the guidelines do not
address the sensitive issue of style. However, it must be confronted: "New Construction may be
influenced by, but not duplicate historic styles. If a historic style influences new construction,
that style must already exist or have existed in the Old Historic District" (Derived from the City
of Orlando, Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-119). The design of new construction may
not distract from contributing buildings" (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 59). Designs
for new construction should differ from the existing established structures. Also, the design
should strive for compatibility in size, scale, color, material, and character of the neighborhood
or immediate environment.
National Historic Landmarks deserve all the protections available. The recommendations
in the current design guidelines, Buikling8 n ithr Nantucket in M~ind, would be updated to reflect
the new Standards, and both could work together to benefit the Old Historic District. The
preservation staff could provide applicants with the appropriate Standards for the requested
proposed work, explain the ideas behind them, and if needed refer to the guidelines for further
explanation. When the applicants bring in preliminary drawings, the staff could work with
applicants on the design of the proposal. These changes will help Nantucket operate in a more
organized fashion, as a landmark district should.
Establish Standards for Demolition
When considering a demolition proposal, the building in question should be reviewed with
the Standards for Demolition. These Standards would provide clear criteria to examine the
building in a larger realm specifically the building's architectural, historical, and cultural
significance. All buildings in the district that are requested for demolition, regardless of
classification must be reviewed with these criteria. These Standards will provide the framework
for the staff report and commission review.
Key elements of the Standards for Demolition respond directly to current problems with
non-contributing buildings in landmark districts. First, the demolition request should be tiered as
a two-step process with the determination of historic viability as the first step. In fact only basic
information on the future utilization may be provided: the type of structure, the inspiration
stylistically, and an estimated size of the building. Additional information is distracting to the
commission and may cloud their decision on the building's historic viability. Only after the
building is determined as significant or insignificant will the future utilization, the second step,
be considered. The reason for this tiered process is to insure that the built fabric of the landmark
district remains authentic. The second key element is the concept of mitigation for buildings that
are determined insignificant, which entails reviewing the building with the Standards for New
Construction. The purpose of this is to determine if there are any aspects of the building that
indirectly add to the district. If some exist, these values will be incorporated into the
requirements for the future utilization. For example, if the footprint of the original structure
added to the rhythm and open space along the street, the footprint of the new building would be
required to conform to the footprint of the original to preserve the rhythm and open space along
the street.
The Standards for Demolition follow. The commission will consider a Certificate of
Appropriateness if a building is defined as an imminent hazard, "the determination by the
building official and the historic preservation officer that the repairs would be impractical"
(Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). As part of this
determination Criteria (g) and (h) would be considered for the purpose of to discouraging
intentional harm to buildings. Therefore, if any measures have been taken to prevent the structure
from deteriorating, such as normal maintenance, repairs, provision of normal tenant
improvements, the historic preservation staff will recommend approval to the commission
(Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). However, if the
structure was willfully or negligently allowed to deteriorate the recommendation to the
commission will be for further investigation. If so, any measures taken to save the structure from
further deterioration will be taken into consideration, such as collapse, arson, vandalism or
neglect (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120). If the
structure is beyond saving or if certain measures are recommended and action is not taken,
violations will be issued.
Otherwise, to obtain a Certifieate of Appropriateness for Demolition, the building would
be reviewed with the Standards for Demolition, which is a tiered two-step process. The first step
would be to concentrate on the buildings historic viability, specifically architectural significance,
as defined in Criteria (a)-(c), and remaining examples, as defined in (d) and (e). Also, the
following criteria will be considered:
* The qualities of the building which enrich the district, including the general design of the
building in question, as well as, the relation to the street and to other buildings.
* The possibility that the presence of the building provides information about later architectural
movements within the district.
* The information the building provides to the sense of place, the historical development or
geographic development of the district (Derived from Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 157).
The applicant may provide basic information for the future utilization of the site: the type of
structure, the inspiration stylistically, and an estimated size of the building. Historic preservation
staff will help the applicant gauge an appropriately sized proposal for new construction by
providing the square footage of the existing building and the adj acent buildings, as well as, the
existing Impervious Surface Ratio for the lot and the adj acent lots. While these values are not
requirements, the square footage of the building provides an easily understood comparison. If the
proposed new construction is significantly greater the design may be denied. Applicants will be
informed that the analysis of the new construction will examine the relative mass, size, and
location to existing buildings in the district.
If the subj ect property is determined to be insignificant, mitigation must be considered. If
the building indirectly enriched the district in some way, the future utilization must incorporate
these values into the design proposal. The second step would concentrate on the future
utilization. The applicant will be required to provide drawings for staff evaluation. This Standard
will be revised, "The floor plans, elevations, and a perspective of the future utilization of the site
and the effect those plans will have on the architectural, historical, archeological, social,
aesthetic or environmental character of the district" (Derived from City of Orlando Land
Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-120).
If the applicant feels two submittals and reviews by the commission is an imposition, he or
she will be reminded that it is not easy to get a building demolished in a Landmark district.
Because new construction must be approved before a permit for demolition can be issued, the
Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition and the New Construction will be issued at the
same time. This will be stated in terms of the Certificate of Appropriateness to provide a direct
correlation to the Historic Preservation review process. "The applicant must present a Certificate
of Appropriateness for demolition and new construction based on the standards set forth in this
Chapter, prior to receiving a building permit for either" (Derived from City of Orlando Land
Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-122). If it is determined that the building enriches the
district and the applicant claims an economic hardship, this will be reviewed by the commission,
as defined in criteria (j). The commission will follow the criteria and investigate the factors
listed in this section (Derived from City of Orlando Land Development Code, 1999, p. CD 62-
120).
The Old Historic District would benefit by adopting Standards for Demolition. Currently,
the Demolition Policy in Appendix C of the guidelines states the intent, building definitions and
Standards for Approval. However, there are no clear criteria to examine the significance of a
building. The intent of the Historic District Commission' s Demolition Policy is,
to avoid the unnecessary demolition of architecturally, historically or culturally significant
structures by providing a suitable time period during which the owner or agent and
interested persons may explore reasonable alternatives to demolition and make appropriate
arrangements for the preservation of such structures; and by providing a process whereby
determinations can be made between the rights of the public to continue to enj oy the
structure and those of the owner to enjoy the property. (Lang and Stout, 1995, p. 162)
Basically if the style of the structure is not prevalent on Nantucket, demolition is almost a given.
A designated time period to suggest alternatives to demolition is provided, but this is insufficient.
Also the second portion of the intent gives the property owner too much power. When
considering demolition in a landmark district, the focus should be the architectural, historical, or
cultural value of the building. If the building is significant, alternatives for preservation are not
an issue, and demolishing or moving the building should be prohibited. If the building is
insignificant, it may be a candidate for relocation or demolition. However, it would be incorrect
to assume that an ancillary building is automatically a candidate for relocation or demolition.
These buildings can support the district in a significant ways, which can only be defined through
the review process.
Establish Standards for Relocation
When considering a proposal for a move-off or relocation, the building in question should
be reviewed with the Standards for Relocation. These Standards would examine the proposed
location compared to the existing location in respect to the historic orientation, immediate
setting, and general environment. All buildings in the historic district regardless of classification
must be reviewed with these criteria. However, because universally a contributing building is
one that enriches the district, moving this type of building will be prohibited and only permitted
in rare occasions, such as, a natural disaster. If the commission permits relocation, the new
location must be reviewed.
Key elements of the Standards for Relocation directly respond to the problems encountered
with non-contributing buildings in the landmark historic district. The first key element is to tier
the Standards for Relocation, making it a two-step process. The first step is to determine the
historic viability of the building with only basic information concerning the future utilization.
Any additional information is distracting to the commission and may cloud their decision on the
building' s historic viability. If the building is determined to be insignificant, mitigation will be
provided and the aspects of the building that indirectly add to the district will become
requirements for the future utilization. The second step considers the future utilization of the
property. The reason for the tiered process is to insure that the built fabric of the landmark
district remains authentic. Overall these Standards would provide the framework for the staff
report and the maj or topics for review in the commission meeting.
The National Landmark or National Register Staff should caution governing bodies that if
the new location is not reviewed for appropriateness to the original location or if the new
location is not appropriate and the building is moved anyway, the classification of the building
will be changed to ancillary. In turn, the ratio for contributing to the total number of buildings in
the district will be adjusted. If too many contributing buildings are moved, the district may be in
danger of losing its National Register and/or National Landmark status. If requests for relocation
|
RSS
