Feature Article

A Philistine in the Shingle Museum

By Sasha Issenberg

Page 3 of 6


In spring 2006, people began phoning in tips to the HDC: Pieces of 105 Main, they said, were disappearing. When commission staffers went to take a look, they found the house had been raised on I-beams as laborers burrowed out its foundation (work for which DeSeta had a permit). The walls were also being stripped away.

The last paperwork DeSeta had submitted to the HDC concerned a request to replace the windows, but nothing suggesting such major changes to the walls. Aaron Marcavitch, a commission staffer at the time, walked across the hall from his desk at the HDC to the town’s building department, where he found a clear description of DeSeta’s project. The file indicated DeSeta had received permits from the building department to reframe the floors, walls, and roof; add insulation and “new interior finishes”; and (in language both unpunctuated and vague) to “remove existing masonry mass rebuild with new conforming stair.” DeSeta had submitted different floor plans to the building department and the HDC: the first showing the dismantling of interior walls, the second showing none at all.

DeSeta was under no obligation to volunteer information to the HDC about renovations. But commission members felt misled. “I think they already had a plan and wanted to keep us out of the loop as much as possible,” complains commission administrator Mark Voigt. “They could have given the floor plans to us and we wouldn’t have been able to say, ‘You can’t gut the interiors,’ but it would have told us how far they were planning on going.” To Voigt, it felt like a “bait-and-switch.”

The commission started paying closer attention to the project. Voigt met with architect Rex Ingram, who had taken over from BPC Architecture. (Thomas Walsh, the contractor, also cut ties with the DeSetas shortly thereafter; he cites “philosophical differences.” Walsh’s foreman, Scott Andersen, left Walsh’s employ and took on the work himself.) On May 30, the commission drafted a letter asking DeSeta to stop work on the project while he applied for approvals to complete the foundation and the new framing that appeared to the commission to raise the height of the whole house.

A week later, DeSeta—this time, with a full retinue of architect, attorney, contractor, and engineer—came again before the commission. Andersen filed an affidavit with the HDC attesting to the fact that the house’s level had not been raised; rather, he claimed at the meeting, the grade had not been properly measured before construction. Hunter, DeSeta’s lawyer, asked to move on to a review of the window request, but the commission declared it would wait another week, so that in the meantime the members could examine the house in person. Roggeveen came to that June 13 meeting with pictures he had taken on his camera phone. The images did not show an indisputable change in elevation, but even the other commissioners felt that “height was added somewhere in the process,” as the minutes of the meeting record. Without more-conclusive evidence, the commission decided it couldn’t act on the disputed foundation for yet another week.


 

Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next


Change text size
Print

Email

Write a comment
 
 

User comments

A Philistine in the Shingle Museum
Posted by Elizabeth | Oct. 15, 2007 at 7:17 AM
COMMENT:
In making their home on the island, the DeSetas spent a lot of money to restore an old Nantucket house which was ready to fall into ruin. The good people of Nantucket ought to appreciate the fact that the exterior of the house is attractive and historically appropriate (with the minute exception of the lighted doorbel), though it has not been so for quite a few years. I was alarmed to read the quote by Mr. Roggeveen: "We don't know what is going on inside the house". I am sympathetic to Nantucket residents, who strive to maintain the island's quaint beauty, but not with their wish to control what goes on inside anyone's home. It is simply none of their business. No one should have to put up with rotten boards or crumbling masonry because of some neighbor's fond memories of an earlier time in the house. I wonder if, when my circa 1970 ranch-style house is 300 years old (assuming it survives), the preservationists will insist upon re-installing the wall-to-wall gold shag carpet...[shu
Common ground
Posted by Rex | Nov. 12, 2007 at 7:40 PM
COMMENT:
I feel particularly privileged to have been involved in this project. The overriding lesson here for me was one of compromise. There were always two distinctly opposing voices which dominated the social dialogue, voices which, in order for the project to proceed, would need to find common ground. One voice was saying, ‘we have a constitutional right to protect and preserve our privately owned property,’ while the other was saying, ‘by altering this building you are destroying the fabric of Nantucket.’ One thing was clear and certain; the house was in desperate need of service which I attested to during our review meetings. There was great effort, and great expense, taken to preserve much of the original frame and materials. Where new materials were provided, original details were copied (again at great expense). This effort was balanced with providing a safe and lasting structure and rectifying inherent life safety issues. Rex Ingram Architect
Common ground
Posted by rex | Nov. 12, 2007 at 8:49 PM
COMMENT:
As our renovation is nearly completed, it could be said that 105 Main has many of its original ‘bones’ intact, attesting to its unique architectural heritage on Nantucket. But, it is not the same house of c.1680. How can it be? Rex Ingram, Architect
WOW!
Posted by John | Nov. 29, 2007 at 9:43 AM
COMMENT:
Are people so unhappy with their lives today that the must constantly romanticize the past. It seems to me that the Hysterical Societies of the United States would rather see a vacant lot with a plaque announcing the building of the past than see someone renovate and save it.

Post a comment

(* = required field.)
  • Please check to make sure that your referer is not blocked.


Subject line of your comment*
Your comments (200 words max)*
Email*
First name*
Last Name*
Enter the code shown below.
Visual CAPTCHA
This helps prevent automated form submissions.