HDC Denies Demolition Of Garage On Union Street For Second Time

On a 3-2 vote, the Historic District Commission has once again denied the demolition of a small garage at 43a Union Street, teeing up a likely appeal to a court that already struck down the denial once before.

“I'm here to preserve historic buildings, and this is one of them,” HDC member Abby Camp said. “For many reasons, it should be repaired and not demolished. It looks like a simple building, but on our land it's an important building because it is simple. It represents the neighborhood.”

The town has been fighting to preserve the garage for nearly two years after the HDC voted against a demolition request in 2024. The denial was appealed to the Select Board, which sided with the HDC, and then appealed again to Superior Court, where a judge found that the HDC’s decision was “facially deficient” and that the HDC failed to give “any reasoning or factual support” for why the demolition would be detrimental to Nantucket’s historic character.

On remand, the HDC has to draft a rationale for the denial that will appease the judge, a task that fell to vice chair Angus MacLeod, who blamed the current owners for the structure’s poor condition.

“The Commission's responsibility is to evaluate the historic contribution of the structure itself, not simply its present physical condition,” MacLeod said. “The record reflects that significant deterioration has occurred during the current ownership. The town's minimum maintenance requirements exist to ensure that historic structures are protected from avoidable deterioration and remain structurally sound.”

The HDC had previously approved a house on the lot, the construction of which would have required demolishing the garage, three separate times. HDC alternate Joe Paul, who sat on the remand hearing and voted against denying the demolition, said this made it difficult for him to justify preserving the structure.

“We approved the removal of the garage and the replacement with a house,” he said. “I can't help but think of this in the context of our previous decisions, and it's hard for me to find a justification to keep the structure there.”

Ultimately, Paul and chair Ray Pohl voted against denying the application, but they were outnumbered by MacLeod, Camp, and Connie Patten.

“The question before the Commission is not whether the proposed replacement residence is appropriate, but whether the existing structure possesses sufficient architectural or historic significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest,” MacLeod said. “Although the earlier approvals contemplated construction that may have incorporated or replaced the garage, they did not make explicit findings…regarding whether demolition of this particular structure satisfied the statutory standard.”

It is expected that applicants Steven Russo and Whitney Matthews will appeal the case back to Superior Court, where Judge Daniel O’Shea strongly suggested that he would be inclined to side with them again, given the HDC’s decision to allow similar demolitions in the area.

“The court is troubled by the fact that the Commission has approved the destruction of older structures for similar projects,” O’Shea wrote. “The court has serious concerns that the Commission's current denial may not be ‘warranted by the evidence,’ but until such time as the Commission establishes a record of its reasoning for judicial and appellate review, the court deems it appropriate to annul the decision and remand the matter to the Commission.”

O’Shea also wrote that the HDC reversed course on its characterization of the garage, initially calling it nondescript and noncontributing, and then later determining that it was, in fact, significant and contributing.

“The Commission's unexplained reversal does not even attempt to explain how the formerly characterized ‘tiny, nondescript garage’ (which now has modern doors and hinges, a partially collapsed roof and back wall, and decaying asphalt roof shingles and mildewed sidewall shingles) has a ‘uniqueness’ about it that has for nearly 80 years ‘helped define the character and setting’ of historic Union Street,” O’Shea wrote in his ruling. “Moreover, the Commission has explained nothing about its recent flip, from previously calling the garage ‘noncontributing’ to now defining it as a ‘contributing’ structure worthy of invoking the Commission's powers of preservation.”

The HDC denied the initial demolition application on the grounds that the garage was a contributing structure to the island’s historic character.

“The uniqueness of this small, mid-century structure (in this area) has helped define the character and setting of one of Nantucket's oldest historic streetscapes (Union Street) for nearly 80 years; as such, the structure is deemed by the sitting commission to be a contributing structure,” the HDC wrote in its decision. “The proposed demolition move is therefore denied.”

The denial and the upcoming second appeal could have broader implications for demolition requests brought before the HDC, a fact that multiple members noted during Tuesday’s discussion.

MacLeod worried that bowing to pressure from the Superior Court could send a signal to applicants that if they appeal and find a favorable judge, the HDC will back down, while Pohl expressed concern that denying the application a second time could lead to a high-profile rejection of the HDC that would empower future plaintiffs to seek Superior Court intervention if their demolition proposals are denied.

At least one more HDC case is currently pending before the Superior Court after applicants appealed the Commission’s decision to reject an already-built deer fence and grates on their Nonantum Avenue property.