At its Thursday night meeting, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission denied the request by Susannah and Brian Bristol to demolish their West Chop 1133 Main St. house.
The request for permission to demolish the four-story, seven-bedroom, 8,500-square-foot dwelling — believed to have been built around 1890 — and replace it with a 7,178-square-foot, three-story structure was turned down by commissioners in a 7-3 vote with one abstention.
The existing house is not listed on Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS), but directly abuts the West Chop Historic District.
Among the concerns raised by the commission regarding the proposed replacement was the attempt to mirror the West Chop character, without thoughtful consideration of what makes the area authentic.
With majority agreement that the new house’s character and identity would be a detriment to the neighborhood, Commissioner Fred Hancock called the replacement structure a “well-mannered 2022 version of what the shingle style was … I don’t believe the replacement structure is as appropriate as [the applicants] think it is,” he said.
The construction of the proposed modern “simulation” of the existing house would be “a disservice to history,” said Commissioner Ben Robinson, noting the loss of accurate representation of historic architecture in the proposed construction.
Commissioners took issue with the homeowners’ argument that demolition was the only avenue to be taken in order to create a comfortable, year-round living situation.
“What [the applicants are] saying is that they can’t possibly insulate this house, make it a year-round house, and heat it without tearing it down,” Hancock said. “I don’t at all agree with that estimation.”
Commissioners Jay Grossman and Robinson agreed.
Commissioner Linda Sibley referenced the commission’s legislation regarding Island character of structures, and expressed concern about what seems like an increasing trend of demolishing historic buildings.
“It’s a slippery slope,” Sibley said, “a house that looks kind of like an 1890s house is replacing an 1890s house … is the marketplace such that people are buying these old houses that need a lot of repair [with intention] to tear them down?”
Robinson relayed what the Bristols cited in their application, that in the West Chop area, “the majority of major projects have been major renovations.” Therefore, he said, “the ability to renovate these old homes is possible.”
Commissioner Michael Kim said the Bristols have shown their ability to “art[fully] renovate” the existing structure by “the level of investment that [the applicants] are proposing for their new house.”
Kim said renovating the existing house “would result in a much richer house experience,” and it “would be making a big mistake if they went ahead with this [demolition].”
At the MVC’s July 21 meeting, the Bristols told the commission that any alternatives to demolition is “financially infeasible,” which had then triggered some further financial inquiry by commissioners, but was met with reluctance from the applicant to go into specifics.
Numerous letters of support for the demo from West Chop residents were outweighed by the correspondence from the Tisbury historical commission, which emphatically cited the significance of the structure, noting if it were to be demolished, “it would tear a page from the history of West Chop.”
Among other concerns about the project raised at Thursday’s meeting was the impact the demolition and reconstruction would have on the environment.
“They’re starting with a very large house, and taking it down, and building back another very large house,” emphasized Robibson. In citing a handful of architect institutes worldwide, Robinson said, “everybody in the architecture world is moving away from the idea that we should be demolishing buildings because of the embodied carbon, and amount of materials required to build new [replacements].”
In disagreement, commissioner Brian Smith said “he can’t come to terms” with the idea that saving an “inefficient, oil-burning building” is better for the environment than a “smaller, energy-efficient building.”
In response, Hancock said that nobody on the commission is forcing the homeowners to keep its oil heat source.
Robinson clarified that the building is only marginally smaller, making little difference sizewise. The house can be renovated to be more efficient, he said; “we’re not precluding the improvement of this building by denying a demolition.”
The vote to deny the request was made without prejudice, allowing the Bristols to resubmit new plans to the commission without the two-year waiting period.
