HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Michael McClung
D ECEMBER 19, 2022
Historical Commission, Town of Barnstable
Frances Parks, Chairperson
c/o erica.brown@town.barnstable.ma.us
Town Hall - 367 Main Street
Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601
RE: 186 Windswept Way
Dear Ms. Parks and Members of the Commission,
The owner of 186 Windswept Way has engaged our architectural firm to assist with architectural
improvements to the property which include the design of a new, smaller home to replace the
existing brick Tudor structure currently on the property.
The existing home is an impressive building in its size and stature, although its architectural
features are not unique. It is a large rambling structure of approximately fourteen thousand
square feet, designed by architect Clifford Allbright and constructed in 1933. The home features
brick walls, a heavy tile roof, timber details and stucco panels typical to the Tudor style. It was
originally designed as an imitation of an existing home in England that Mr. Boyd, the client,
fancied and asked his architect to duplicate. The architectural style is unusual for a Cape Cod
waterfront home.
Before explaining the reasons that we support demolition in this case, let me first express that we
very much value historical buildings and the need to invest in maintaining these links to the past
where it makes sense to do so. Recently we designed and oversaw the historic restoration of the
1829 Captain George Lovell house at 8 East Bay Road in Osterville, which was a National Register
property. That restoration was executed beautifully, and the Captain’s House will continue to
grace Main Street and East Bay Road for many generations into the future.
186 Windswept Way is a very different situation, and we have the following considerations in
mind:
The Privacy of the Location: The home is located within the private Oyster Harbors development
and cannot be reached without passing through a security gate. Unless you are a homeowner, guest
or employee, access is denied. Once past security, the house is concealed from Windswept Way by
trees and foliage. From the golf course, the house is similarly obscured. From Cotuit Bay, only
small bits of the house are visible by boat. All of this is to say that the public does not have visual
access to the existing house in any meaningful way.
Size of the home and Renovation Cost: The size of the existing home is substantially more than
needed by the owner. The builders tell us that renovation costs would far exceed the cost of
building a new smaller home. If the building were to be saved, a gut renovation would be required
for the entire interior which appears to have been last renovated in the 70’s - the styles of that
decade are evident in the finishes throughout. All the mechanicals -- electrical wiring, plumbing,
HVAC, and insulation -- would need to be replaced. Some of the exterior is in reasonably good
condition for a house of its age. However, the tile roofing would need to be replaced at significant
cost. In any case, the owner would be required to renovate and restore significant square footage
that they do not need or want.
Suitability for the owner’s needs: Windswept Way is a narrow, private way that serves several
waterfront summer residences on the island near the private golf course. From Windswept Way,
one cannot see the water, but most homes have a water view. Anyone owning a home in this
environment would desire a light-filled home with spectacular views of the adjacent waterways.
However, typical of the Tudor style, the existing house has small window openings within heavy
masonry walls. The water side of the home has larger replacement windows, but the interior is
dark and the views are limited despite the amazing coastline. Additionally, people today need and
want indoor / outdoor spaces, especially generous covered porches which are not provided by the
existing house or Tudor architecture in general.
Moving or Donating the Home is not Feasible: Due to the size of the home and its original brick
masonry construction, donating and relocating the building is not a realistic possibility. The narrow
and tree-lined nature of Windswept way would be a primary obstacle. The road would have to be
widened and mature trees/plantings removed from not only the property, but the length of
Windswept Way, all of which is private property. It is highly unlikely that the Oyster Harbors
Club, the homeowner’s association, and the individual homeowners would support such a project.
The length of the home and the geometry of the wings would be another, especially in combination
with the home’s masonry construction. We have lifted a number of buildings from their
foundations and in some cases moved them to new locations, but we do not see that as a possibility
in this case. It is unlikely that the structure would survive such a move.
Location and Orientation: The property boundaries have changed since 1933. When it was
constructed, the existing home was surely located in the most suitable place on the property, and it
was oriented toward the best views at that time. Over time, a portion of the property was
subdivided to the south, and significant screen plantings and a tennis court obscure part of the
original view. Additionally, trees and vegetation have grown up within the protected coastal buffer
zone. The location and orientation are no longer optimal and this represents a compromised
situation as compared to the views that would be available to a new home. Interestingly, the home
does not have a garage of any kind, despite its extensive footprint. It would be desirable to have a
garage close to the kitchen areas of the house, but that location is close to the property line and the
grade drops off steeply there. A garage is possible as currently configured, but again it would be at
best a compromised situation.
In closing, we see no meaningful benefit to attempting to save the existing structure – and we see
many ways in which that would encumber the owner and compromise his goals for the property.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the commission not impose an eighteen (18) month
demolition delay. We feel that would be fundamentally unfair to the owner, causing unnecessary
delay and significant additional expense with no appreciable benefit to the public interest.
This is an exquisite waterfront parcel, and the cost to acquire it was substantial. However, that is
just the starting point of all the costs required to update the property to make it the wonderful
family home that it needs to be for the next 100 years. After all of that investment is made, the
property should rightfully reflect the owner’s vision. It should not be compromised or encumbered
by someone else’s aspirations from ninety years ago.
Thank You and Respectfully,
Michael O. McClung, AIA, leed, Principal
Shope Reno Wharton LLC
Email: m.mcclung@srwol.com