Unpermitted Demolition Of 1938 Madaket Cottage Disputed Before HDC

After a historic cottage in Madaket was allegedly demolished without a permit late last year to the dismay of the Historic District Commission (HDC), the contractors responsible for the work initially argued it wasn’t a demolition. Now, they’re saying it was a demolition and the HDC had actually approved it.

“The approved design...clearly documents the scope of modifications and alterations, including the demo plan reviewed and accepted by the commission,” said Jason Olbres, the owner of the firm Shelter 7, which oversaw the work. “Demolition as required to implement the approved design was clearly depicted in the drawings and inherently contemplated and approved as part of the overall renovation, alteration, modifications, and the addition. As far as preservation, at no point during the review process did the commission indicate the project would be required to follow a strict preservation approach or that the historic fabric would remain materially unaltered.”

Olbres’ comments came during a recent HDC meeting as he presented on the proposal for the new structure slated for installation on the lot, and stood in contrast to earlier claims he made that “it was never our intent to demolish the structure” and that the building “wasn’t demolished.”

The cottage was built in 1938 and was considered a contributing structure to Nantucket’s National Historic Landmark.

“It's hard to suss out exactly what was presented,” HDC member Val Oliver said.

The change of approach may reflect a sense that the HDC was unconvinced that the work, which involved leveling the existing structure and setting aside some wood to be reused in the new building planned for the lot, didn’t qualify as a demolition.

The town has levied a $1,500 fine against the property owners, Balaji and Allison Gandhi, which is the maximum they are currently empowered to assess. That’s a little under two-tenths of one percent of what the Gandhis paid for the property when they purchased it for $835,000 in 2019.

The incident has prompted some reflection from the HDC, with the commission considering increasing fees for demolitions to the extent they are permitted to do so and seeking formal guidance on how to define a demolition.

“If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck, and this was a demolition,” HDC chair Stephen Welch said.

Any regulation changes will still have to deal with the reality that the enforcement of historic district regulations on Nantucket is largely complaint-based, and that by the time a house has been knocked down, the damage has already been done. HDC regulations often prove quite difficult to enforce.

Regardless, at least some HDC members seemed unconvinced by Olbres’ latest argument Tuesday.

“On the agenda, each time there was a meeting, it was listed as a renovation and restoration,” Welch said. “The requirement is on the applicant's agent to show and list the work that's going to occur…this was not listed as a demo in the app[lication].”

Olbres contends that, while the application was not listed as a demolition, it was implied by what the HDC approved.

“Demolition, it was inherent to the design approach, but it wasn't asked for specifically to demolish the house,” he said.

Olbres said that, as the application shifted and the designers took HDC feedback into account, it slowly reached a place where the only option to achieve the desired end result was demolition. He claimed that the drawings reviewed and approved by the HDC make this clear.

HDC member Joe Paul took the case as an example of how applications can shift while before the commission.

“I think this is going to be a precedent-setting application. I think it's going to guide the information that we request for historic renovations and additions,” he said. “It really does put a spotlight on these subtle shifts in a drawing that can actually mean major changes in the field. A subtle shift in a ridgeline maybe originally goes up a foot, but it means the roof is coming off.”

Welch asked HDC staff to assemble a collection of documents and files showing how the application progressed before the commission in an effort to clear up confusion around the nature of what was proposed and approved.

“I kind of think it's all unfortunate, to be honest,” HDC member Connie Patten said.