CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE

Cape Lookout Village

FISHING COTTAGE #2

HISTORIC STRUCTURE 

REPORT

Historical Architecture, Cultural Resources Division

Southeastern Regional Office

National Park Service

2004
Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

National Park Service

100 Alabama St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 562-3117

2004

Historic Structure Report 

Fishing Cottage #2

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Cape Lookout Village

LCS#: 091833

The historic structure report presented 

here exists in two formats. A traditional, 

printed version is available for study at the 

park, the Southeastern Regional Office of the 

NPS (SERO), and at a variety of other repositories. For more widespread access, the historic 

structure report also exists in a web- based format through ParkNet, the website of the National Park Service. Please visit www.nps.gov 

for more information.


Contents

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu

v

Foreword xi

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Executive Summary 1

Research Summary 1

Architectural Summary 2

Recommendations 2

Administrative Data 5

Locational Data 5

Related Studies 6

Cultural Resource Data 6

Historical Background & Context 7

Diamond City 9

Cape Lookout Village 13

Fishing Cottage #2 19

Chronology of Development & Use 21

Physical Description 23

Associated Site Features 24

 Foundation 24

Structural System 24

Roof 25

Exterior Finishes 25

Interior 26

Porch 27

Treatment and Use 31

Ultimate Treatment and Use 32

Requirements for Treatment and Use 33

Alternatives for Treatment and Use 34

Recommendation for Treatment & Use 35
SERO

National Park Service

vi

Site 35

Foundation 36

Structure 36

Roof 36

Porches 36

Windows and Doors 37

Exterior Finishes 37

Interior 37

Utilities 37

REFERENCE

Sources of Information 41
HSR

Fishing Cottage #2 vii

List of Figures

1 View to east of Cape Lookout Lighthouse, May 1899. First Keeper’s Dwelling is 

at right. (CALO Coll. D-01) 8

2 Two of the mullet camps on Shackleford Banks, c. 1908. (reprinted in North 

Carolina Historical Review, Vol. LXX, #1, p. 5) 9

3 View north of the life-saving station, c. 1893, with the lighthouse barely visible 

on the horizon at extreme right. (CALO Coll. G-09) 10

4 Map of Cape Lookout, c. 1890. (Coast Guard Collection) 11

5 View of Shackleford Banks after 1899 hurricane. Note the partially-submerged 

structures at upper right. (CALO Coll., F-184 12

6 Plat of proposed development of Cape Lookout in 1915. Arrows have been 

added to indicate Coast Guard Station, at left, and Lighthouse at right. 13

7 View of Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station, 1917. In the background, are some 

of the small houses of “Cape Lookout Village.” (CALO Coll. D-52) 14

8 Map of Cape Lookout, August 1934. O’Boyle-Bryant House would be built a 

short distance north-northeast of the Ogilvie House shown here. (U. S. 

Coast Guard Collection) 16

9 View of Cape Lookout Village, 1942. The O’Boyle-Bryant House is hidden by 

the house at center. (CALO Coll., Royer #4) 17

10 View to northeast from near Coast Guard Station, April 1941. (CALO Coll., 

O’Boyle #21) 18

11 View west of house in 1976. (CALO Land files) 22

12 View west. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002) 24

13 View northwest. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 25

14 View east showing typical exterior finishes. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 26

15 View to southwest in Room 100. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 27
SERO

National Park Service

viii

16 View to northeast in Room 100. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 27

17 View to north in Room 101. Room 102 is finished in a similar fashion. (NPSSERO-CR, 2002) 28

18 View to southeast on porch. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 28

19 View to northwest on porch, showing enclosure for bath room at center rear. 

(NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 28

20 Plan of existing house. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002) 29

21 Proposed plan for treatment and use. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 2003) 39
HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu

ix

Project Team

Project Manager Danny Scheidt, Historical Architect

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA

Primary Research

& Building Investigation

Tommy H. Jones, Architectural Historian

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA

Program Reviews Bob Blythe, History

Allen Bohnert, Curatorial & Museum

Services

Danny Scheidt, Historical Architecture

Tracy Stakely, Historical Landscape Architecture

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA
SERO

National Park Service

x
HSR

Lewis-Davis House xi

Foreword

We are pleased to make available this historic structure report, part of our ongoing effort to provide 

comprehensive documentation for the historic structures and landscapes of National Park Service 

units in the Southeast Field Area. Many individuals and institutions contributed to the successful 

completion of this work. We would particularly like to thank Superintendent Bob Vogel and the 

staff at Cape Lookout National Seashore for their assistance with this project. Especially helpful 

have been Mike McGee, Facility Manager; Michael Rikard, Resource Management Specialist; and 

Karen Duggan, Park Ranger (Interpretation). We hope that this study will prove valuable to park 

management in their treatment of the building and to everyone in understanding and interpreting 

the building.

Chief

Cultural Resources Stewardship

Southeast Regional Office

December 2004
SERO

National Park Service

xii
HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/e_summary.htm

1

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Executive Summary

Built around 1950, reportedly by one of the employees at the Cape 

Lookout Coast Guard Station, Fishing Cottage #2 is a small, threeroom cottage sitting near the center of the historic district. Littlealtered since its construction, it is also in remarkably good condtion. 

Research Summary

Historical documentation for Fishing Cottage #2 is non- existent 

beyond the extremely limited information in the National Register 

nomination which identifies the cottage as one of the structures 

that contribute to the significance of the historic district of Cape 

Lookout Village. At a minimum, a complete chain of title should 

be developed for the property and additional research in local 

sources and in Coast Guard records should be conducted in order 

to identify the original owner and builder of Fishing Cottage #2.
Executive Summary

SERO

National Park Service

2

Architectural Summary

The cottage is in better physical condition than 

any of the district’s other historic buildings. Except for the modern roof- covering, some alterations to the back porch, and deteriorating 

foundation piers, the original structure is almost completely intact. A partial bathroom, 

which was not present when the house was 

originally constructed, has been installed on 

the back porch, but it, the kitchen, and the 

building’s electrical systems should be completely rehabilitated.

Recommendations

In keeping with the parameters established for 

the park’s other historic buildings by the park’s 

1982 GMP, the historic (and present) residential 

use of Fishing Cottage #2 and the other structures that were historically private residences 

should be continued, if that can be accomplished without compromising the buildings’ 

historic character.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties should guide 

treatment of the site.

Site

• Clear vegetation from rear of house to 

restore access to porch

• Follow recommendations of Cultural 

Landscape Report in determining 

treatment of the surrounding landscape

• Improve site drainage and eliminate 

standing water beneath house.

Foundation

• Inspect piers and replace as necessary

• Install termite shields at each pier

Structure

• Repair structure as needed where termite or rot have compromised the 

structure.

Roof

• When roofing is replaced, use blue 

asphalt shingles.

Porches

• Reconstruct missing portions of southeast porch wall

• Remove plywood shutter at southeast 

end and replicate board- and- batten 

shutters to match original shutters elsewhere on the building

Windows and Doors

• Repair and preserve existing windows, 

doors, and shutters.

Exterior Finishes

• Maintain painted finishes.
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/e_summary.htm

3

Interior

• Clean and recoat walls, ceilings, and 

floors.

Utilities

• Install new electrical system.

• Install fire and smoke detection system.

• Do not install central heating or airconditioning; install electric space 

heaters if necessary.

• Rehabilitate existing bathroom.

• Rehabilitate existing kitchen.
Executive Summary

SERO

National Park Service

4

100

102 101

103

north

1' 4' 8'

Notes: Install blue 

asphalt-shingled roof. 

Repair and preserve existing 

exterior woodwork, 

including porch shutters.

1. Remove ramp and 

restore southeast end of porch.

2. Reconstruct back steps 

and repair door.

3. Construct framed wall 

with door; install new 

bathroom.

4. Repair sink, counter, 

shelves, and cabinet.

Note 3

Note 1

Note 2

Note 4
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/ad.htm

5

Administrative 

Data 

Locational Data

Building Name: Fishing Cottage #2

Location: Cape Lookout Village

LCS#: CALO 091829

Cape Lookout Village
Administrative Data 

SERO

National Park Service

6

Related Studies

Erenhard, John E. Cape Lookout National Seashore: Assessment of Archaeological and 

Historical Resources. NPS: Southeast 

Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, FL, 

1976.

Holland, Francis Ross, Jr. Bodie Island Light 

Station, North Carolina. NPS, Division 

of History, 1967.

Holland, F. Ross. A Survey History of Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. NPS: Division of History, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, January 

30, 1968.

Loonam, John. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. Bertie, NC: Self- published, 2000. <http://

www.itpi.dpi.state.nc.us/caroclips/

CapeLookoutstory.htm> ( 13 January 

2003).

Cultural Resource Data

National Register of Historic Places: Contributing structure in Cape Lookout Village Historic 

District, listed June 2000.

Period of Significance: c. 1950

Proposed Treatment: Minor repairs and rehabilitation of plumbing and electrical systems.
HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/hbc.htm

7

PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

Historical 

Background & 

Context

Marked by a lighthouse since 1812, Cape Lookout is one of three 

capes on North Carolina’s Outer Banks. Lying at the southern tip 

of Core Banks, which stretch in a southwesterly direction from 

near Cedar Island to about four miles south of Harker’s Island in 

eastern Carteret County, North Carolina, the area is part of the 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Accessible only by boat, the 

cape is in constant flux from the harsh action of wind and ocean 

currents. As a result, since the late nineteenth century, the entire 

cape has migrated as much as a quarter mile to the west, and partly 

due to construction of a breakwater in the early twentieth century, 

the land area in the vicinity of the cape has nearly doubled in size. 

It is predominantly a sand environment whose native vegetation is 

limited to low stands of myrtle, live oak, cedar, and marsh grasses, 

along with non- native stands of slash pine that were planted in the 

1960s.

Cape Lookout Bight began to attract some shipping activities in 

the mid- eighteenth century; but the low, sparsely vegetated land
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

8

Figure 1 View to east of Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse, May 1899. 

First Keeper’s Dwelling is at 

right. (CALO Coll. D-01)

of Core and Shackleford Banks did not attract 

any permanent settlement until the late eighteenth century. Even then, settlement was apparently limited to temporary camps erected by 

fishermen and whalers, who had begun operations along the Cape by 1755. Sighting the 

whales from the “Cape Hills,” a series of sand 

dunes up to sixty feet high that were located 

east and south of the present light house, the 

whalers operated in small open boats, dragging 

their catch back to the beach where they rendered the whale blubber into oil.1

Cape Lookout Lighthouse was authorized by 

Congress in 1804 but was not completed until 

1812. Too low to be effective, it was replaced by 

the present structure in 1857- 1859. With a firstorder Fresnel lens, the new lighthouse was "the 

prototype of all the lighthouses to be erected 

subsequently on the Outer Banks."

The harsh conditions around the cape discouraged permanent settlement, and when Edmund 

Ruffin visited the area shortly before the Civil 

War, he described it as uninhabited except for 

Portsmouth near Ocracoke and a similar but 

1. David Stick, The Outer Banks of 

North Carolina (University of North 

Carolina Press, 1958) p. 308.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/hbc.htm

9

smaller enlargement of the reef near Cape 

Lookout (where, about the lighthouse, there 

are a few inhabitants).”1

After the Civil War, the full economic potential 

of fishing at Cape Lookout began to be exploited; and by the late 1880s, Carteret County 

was the center of commercial mullet fishing in 

the United States. From May to November, 

when the mullet were running, scores of fisherman set up camps along the shore, especially on 

the sound side of the banks. Documented as 

early as the 1880s and featured in National Geographic in 1908, these mullet camps were apparently quite similar, featuring distinctive, 

circular, thatched huts with conical or hemispherical roofs (see Figure 2). Although some 

of these beach camps lasted several years, and 

one is even said to have survived the terrible 

hurricane of 1899, they were crudely- constructed, temporary structures, and none of 

them survives today.2

The shoals at Cape Lookout, which stretch 

nearly twenty miles into the Atlantic, remained 

a major threat to shipping until the development of better navigational aids in the early

Figure 2 Two of the mullet 

camps on Shackleford Banks, c. 

1908. (reprinted in North 

Carolina Historical Review, 

Vol. LXX, #1, p. 5)

twentieth century. As a result, the first life- saving station on Core Banks opened at Cape 

Lookout in January 1888 a mile and a half 

southwest of the lighthouse. Under the direction of William Howard Gaskill, who served as 

station keeper for over twenty years, a crew of 

“surf men” served at the Cape Lookout station, 

patrolling the beaches and manning the lookout tower at the station throughout the day and 

night during the active season which, by 1900, 

extended from August through May.

Diamond City

By the 1880s, as the fishing industry became 

more lucrative, settlements developed on the

1. Edmund Ruffin, Agricultural, Geological, and Descriptive Sketches of 

Lower North Carolina, and the Similar Adjacent Lands (Raleigh, NC: 

Institution for the Deaf & Dumb & 

The Blind, 1861), p. 123.

2. David S. Cecelski, “The Hidden World 

of Mullet Camps: African-American 

Architecture on the North Carolina 

Coast,” The North Carolina Historical 

Review, Vol. LXX, #1, January 1993, 

pp. 1-13.
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

10

Figure 3 View north of the 

life-saving station, c. 1893, with 

the lighthouse barely visible on 

the horizon at extreme right. 

(CALO Coll. G-09)

protected sound side of Shackleford Banks 

west of the lighthouse. Diamond City, named 

for the distinctive diamond pattern painted on 

the lighthouse in 1873, was the most important 

of these. Lying in the lee of a forty- foot- high 

dune about a mile and a half northwest of the 

lighthouse, Diamond City and two smaller settlements further west were home to as many as 

five hundred people in the 1890s, according to 

the National Register nomination, giving 

Shackleford Banks a larger population than 

Harkers Island.

There are a number of references to “the village” in the journals of the Cape Lookout LifeSaving Station in the 1890s, but these references 

should not be confused with the National Register district of Cape Lookout Village, which 

developed in the early twentieth- century. 

While the life- saving station journals do not 

name “the village,” on more than one occasion, 

they do note the three- mile distance from the 

life- saving station, which confirms that “the village” at that time was Diamond City on Shackleford Banks.

Prior to World War I, the life- saving service 

crew was made up almost exclusively of men 

whose families had lived in Carteret County for 

generations. The surfmen lived at the station 

while on duty, but during the inactive season 

returned to their permanent homes in Morehead City, Harker’s Island, Marshallberg, and 

elsewhere.1

 Before 1916, the station keeper was

1. Each station log begins with a list of 

the crew, their spouses or next-of-kin, 

and their home address.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/hbc.htm

11

Figure 4 Map of Cape 

Lookout, c. 1890. (Coast Guard 

Collection)
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

12

Figure 5 View of Shackleford 

Banks after 1899 hurricane. 

Note the partially-submerged 

structures at upper right. (CALO 

Coll., F-184

the only one of the crew who lived year- round 

at the Cape. He had separate quarters in the 

life- saving station, but since his family could 

not be accommodated, he appears to have had 

a house near the station by 1893. It appears not 

to have been a full- time residence, however, 

and in the early twentieth century as motor 

boats began to make Cape Lookout more accessible, few if any chose to live there yearround.1

By the 1890s, some fishermen began constructing more- permanent “fish houses,” as they are 

referred to locally, or “shanties,” as they were 

designated on the Life- Saving Service’s earliest 

known map of the cape (see Figure 5). Seven 

of these structures appear to be indicated on 

that map, with five in the protective “hook” of 

Wreck Point and two others across the Bight 

near where the 1907 Keeper’s Dwelling or 

Barden House is now located. Almost certainly, all of these were occupied seasonally and 

not year- round.

Even with something more than thatched huts 

for shelter, the cape fishermen often sought 

shelter in the life- saving station when their 

camps and fish houses were threatened by high 

winds and tides. On more than one occasion, 

as many as fifty fishermen somehow crammed 

their way into the life- saving station to ride out 

a storm. The fact that there are only two references in the journals to women or children taking shelter in the station in the 1890s, suggests 

that the men did not usually expose their families to the harsh living conditions associated 

with fishing the waters around Cape Lookout.2

Cape Lookout has always suffered from storm 

damage, but the hurricane that struck on August 18- 19, 1899, was one of the deadliest ever 

recorded on the Outer Banks. Believed to be a 

Category 4 storm, the so- called San Ciriaco or 

“Great Hurricane” decimated the Outer Banks. 

Winds at Hatteras reached 140 m.p.h. before 

the anemometer blew away, and the Outer 

Banks were submerged under as much as ten 

feet of water. The surge swept completely

1. Cape Lookout Life-Saving Station, 

Journal, December 6, 1890; December 

6 & 26, 1891; January 25, 1892; January 22, 1895. The original journals are 

in Record Group 26 at the National 

Archives and Records Administration, 

East Point, Georgia.

2. Cape Lookout Journal, June 16, October 13, 1893; October 9, 1894.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/hbc.htm

13

Figure 6 Plat of proposed 

development of Cape Lookout 

in 1915. Arrows have been 

added to indicate Coast Guard 

Station, at left, and Lighthouse 

at right.

across Shackleford Bank, heavily damaging Diamond City and the other communities to the 

west of the Cape. Another hurricane at Halloween, though not as strong as the first, produced a greater storm surge and completed the 

destruc- tion of the Shackleford Bank communities. So great were the damage and accompanying changes to the landscape that over the 

next year or two, the entire population abandoned Shackleford Bank, with most of them 

moving to Harker’s Island and the mainland.

Cape Lookout Village

After the hurricane, a few residents relocated to 

Core Banks in the vicinity of the Cape Hills, but 

even before 1899 these sheltering hills were fast 

disappearing.1

 Nevertheless, there were, according to one writer who visited the cape in 

the early 1900s, as many as 80 residents at Cape 

Lookout2

, enough to warrant establishment of 

one- room school house. A post office was also 

established in April 1910, with Amy Clifton, wife 

of the lighthouse keeper, as post master. Post 

office records locate the post office “two miles 

north of the cape, near the light house landing,” 

most likely in the 1907 Keeper’s Dwelling. 

However, the widespread use of gasolinepowered boats after about 1905 made travel to 

Harkers Island, Beaufort, and elsewhere far 

more convenient, and it was soon apparent that 

the post office was not worth maintaining. It 

was discontinued in June 1911, barely fourteen 

months after its inception.3

1. Cape Lookout Journal, December 22, 

1896.

2. Fred A. Olds, “Cape Lookout, Lonesome Place,” XLVI, #26, The Orphan’s 

Friend and Masonic Journal (Oxford, 

NC, October 14, 1921).

3. U. S. Post Office Record of Appointments of Postmasters, 1832-Sept. 30, 

1971; Records of Site Locations, 1837-

1950.
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

14

Figure 7 View of Cape 

Lookout Coast Guard Station, 

1917. In the background, are 

some of the small houses of 

“Cape Lookout Village.” (CALO 

Coll. D-52)

Cape Lookout was, according to one visitor “a 

bustling place” in the early 1900s, especially after the Army Corps of Engineers announced in 

1912 that a coaling station and “harbor of refuge” would be established at Cape Lookout 

Bight. Sand fences were installed in 1913 and 

1914 to stabilize some of the dunes, and in 1915, 

work began on a rubble- stone breakwater to 

enlarge and protect the Bight.

The project’s most- ardent supporter was local 

Congressman John H. Small, who envisioned a 

railroad from the mainland that would help 

make Cape Lookout a significant port. Intending to capitalize on those plans, private developers organized the Cape Lookout Development Company in 1913 and laid out hundred 

of residential building lots and planned a hotel 

and club house to serve what they were sure 

would be a successful resort community. Unfortunately for all of those plans, there was less 

demand for a harbor of refuge than supporters 

had anticipated, and funding for the breakwater was suspended before it was complete. 

When plans for a railroad from Morehead City 

also failed to materialize, the resort development scheme was abandoned as well.1

In 1915, the Life- Saving Service and the Revenue Cutter Service were combined into the U. 

S. Coast Guard, and in 1916 construction began 

on a new Coast Guard Station to replace the 

old 1887 life- saving station. At the same time, 

pay scales were improved and a more- rigorous 

system of testing and training was instituted in 

an effort to produce a more professional staff. 

These measures and the availability of power 

1. National Register Nomination. Also 

see plat for Cape Lookout Development Company, Carteret County 

Superior Court Records, Map Book 8, 

p. 13.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/hbc.htm

15

boats, which lessened the crew’s isolation, 

combined to greatly reduce the rapid turnover 

in personnel that had plagued the station since 

the 1890s.

The use of gasoline- powered boats around 

Cape Lookout was first recorded by the lifesaving station keeper in 1905, and this new 

mode of transportation rapidly transformed life 

at the cape .1

 So many “power boats” were in 

use by 1911 that the station keeper began recording their appearance in the waters around the 

cape, with as many as thirty- five of them recorded in a single day. Even before the life- saving service got its first power boat in 1912, many 

if not most of the crew had their own boats and 

were using them to commute from homes in 

Morehead City, Beaufort, Marshallberg, and 

elsewhere. The convenience of motor boats no 

doubt contributed to what the National Register calls “a general exodus” of year- round residents from the Cape in 1919 and 1920. The oneroom school closed at the end of the 1919 

school year, and some thirty or forty houses are 

reported to have been moved from the Cape to 

Harkers Island around the same time.

Fred A. Olds had visited Cape Lookout in the 

early 1900s and was even instrumental in getting a schoolhouse built on the island. When 

he returned for a visit in 1921, however, he 

found Cape Lookout to be “one of the ‘lonesomest’ places in the country.” Only two or 

three families were living there by that time, he 

wrote, and “most of the houses are mere 

shacks, innocent of paint.” He also found the 

landscape littered with “thousands of rusted tin 

cans” and “grass or any green thing . . . conspicuous by its rarity.” The lighthouse and the 

Coast Guard station were, he thought, “the 

only two real places in it all.”2

Most of the houses left at the Cape were used 

as “fishing shacks,” according to the National 

Register, and after World War I Cape Lookout 

became “an isolated haven for seasonal fishermen and hardy vacationers, most of them connected to the place by deep family roots.” In 

addition, a few of the Coast Guardsmen with 

long- standing family ties to Cape Lookout 

maintained private residences that their own 

families occupied for at least part of the year. 

The Lewis- Davis House, the Gaskill- Guthrie 

House, and the Guthrie- Ogilvie House were all 

built as private residences by Coast Guardsmen 

in the 1910s and 1920s.

The Coast Guard’s life- saving stations on Core 

Banks (one was located half- way up the Banks 

and another at Portsmouth) remained in service after World War I, but power boats and 

new navigational aids like the radio compass 

(or direction finding) station that the Navy began operating at the Cape Lookout Coast 

Guard Station in 1919 were rapidly rendering 

the life- saving service obsolete as a separate entity. The Portsmouth Life- Saving Station 

closed in 1937, and the Core Banks Station in 

1940. The Coast Guard Station at Cape Lookout remained active until it was decommissioned in 1982.

1. Cape Lookout Journal, June 30, 1905.

2. Olds, “Cape Lookout, Lonesome 

Place.”
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

16

Figure 8 Map of Cape 

Lookout, August 1934. O’BoyleBryant House would be built a 

short distance north-northeast 

of the Ogilvie House shown 

here. (U. S. Coast Guard 

Collection)
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/hbc.htm

17

Figure 9 View of Cape 

Lookout Village, 1942. The 

O’Boyle-Bryant House is hidden 

by the house at center. (CALO 

Coll., Royer #4)

During World War II, the government expanded its military presence at Cape Lookout 

significantly. In April 1942, Cape Lookout Bight 

became an anchorage for convoys traveling between Charleston and the Chesapeake Bay. 

The 193rd Field Artillery was sent to the Cape 

to provide protection for the Bight, replaced 

that summer by heavier guns that remained in 

place throughout the war.1

 Some, if not all, of 

the residences near the Coast Guard Station 

were occupied by Army personnel during the 

war years.

After World War II, the Army base was conveyed to the Coast Guard, which retained only 

ninety- five of the original 400+ acres that made 

up the base. Land speculation also increased, 

and several of the old residences were acquired 

by people without family ties to the cape.

The State of North Carolina began efforts to establish a state park on Core Banks in the 1950s, 

but by the early 1960s, it was apparent that the 

undertaking was beyond the capacity of the 

state alone, and efforts were begun to establish 

a national seashore, similar to the one that had 

been established at Cape Hatteras in 1953. In 

1966, Congressional legislation was passed that 

authorized establishment of a national seashore 

at Cape Lookout that would include a fiftyfour- mile stretch of the Outer Banks from Ocracoke Inlet at Portsmouth to Beaufort Inlet at 

the western end of Shackleford Bank. In September 1976, enough land had been assembled 

for the Secretary of the Interior to formally

1. Rex Quinn, The Gun Mounts at Cape 

Lookout, Historic Resource Study 

(National Park Service, 1986).
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

18

Figure 10 View to northeast 

from near Coast Guard Station, 

April 1941. (CALO Coll., O’Boyle 

#21)

declare establishment of the Cape Lookout 

National Seashore.

In the enabling legislation for the national seashore, “all the lands or interests in lands” between the lighthouse and the Coast Guard 

Station at Cape Lookout, which included the 

houses in what is now the Cape Lookout Village historic district, were specifically excluded 

from the new park. In 1978, however, the Federal government was able to acquire these lands 

for inclusion in the national seashore. Rights of 

occupancy under twenty- five year leases or life 

estates were granted to those “who on January 

1, 1966, owned property which on July 1, 1963, 

was developed and used for noncommercial 

residential purposes.”1

Cape Lookout National Seashore was authorized “to preserve for public use and enjoyment 

an area in the State of North Carolina possessing outstanding natural and recreation values.”2

 

That same year, however, Congress also passed 

the National Historic Preservation Act, and by 

the time the park was actually established in 

1976, the area’s historical significance was being 

recognized. In 1972 the Cape Lookout Light 

Station was listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places, the first formal recognition of 

the value of the park’s cultural resources. In 

1978 Portsmouth Village was also listed on the 

National Register, followed by the Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station in 1989.

1. National Park Service, Cape Lookout 

General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan, hereinafter designated “GMP,” (Denver Service 

Center, December 1982), p. 30.

2. GMP, p. 3.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/hbc.htm

19

Most recently, in June 2000, the Cape Lookout 

Village Historic District was listed on the National Register. According to the National 

Register report, Cape Lookout is one of the last 

historic settlements on the Outer Banks to survive relatively intact and has statewide significance in social history, maritime history, and 

architecture. The district's period of significance encompasses all phases of historic development from 1857, when construction of the 

present lighthouse commenced, until around 

1950 when the lighthouse was automated and 

the State of North Carolina began acquiring 

land for a proposed state park.

The Cape Lookout Village Historic District 

contains twenty- one historic resources, including the lighthouse (completed in 1859), two 

keeper’s quarters (1873 and 1907), the old LifeSaving Station (1887), the old Life- Saving Station’s boathouse (c. 1894), the Coast Guard 

Station (1917), and several private residences (c. 

1910- c. 1950). Five of the ten historic private 

dwellings were built by fishermen or Coast 

Guard employees for their families from about 

1910 to around 1950. Two houses were built 

about 1915 for Army Corps of Engineers workers, and two others were built as vacation cottages in the two decades before World War II. 

The National Park Service owns all of the 

property in the district except for the Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse, which is owned, operated, and maintained by the U. S. Coast Guard.

Fishing Cottage #2

According to the National Register nomination, 

this building “may have been built by a Coast 

Guardsman as quarters for his family” around 

1950. The character of the building and its materials is consistent with that construction date, 

but no historical documentation for the structure has yet been located.
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

20
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/xxxx/cdu.htm

21

Chronology of 

Development & 

Use

This building has undergone very few alterations since it was originally constructed, and nearly all of these appear to have occurred 

in the last twenty- five years. At some point, perhaps because of 

the growth of trees and shrubs on that side of the house in recent 

years, the steps to the porch were removed and the porch now 

functions as a utilitarian back porch to the house. At the southeast 

end of the porch, the wall has been altered and a ramp constructed 

so that all- terrain vehicles and other equipment can be stored on 

the porch. The house may have originally been painted red, its 

color in 1976, but has been painted white in recent years. The asphalt- composition roof covering has also been changed from 

bright blue shingles, which may have been original, to the present 

white roll- type roofing.

On the interior, changes have likewise been minimal. The most 

significant alteration was installation of a toilet and shower at the 

northwest end of the back porch. This did not include complete
Chronology of Development & Use

SERO

National Park Service

22

Figure 11 View west of house 

in 1976. (CALO Land files)

partitioning of the space, however, but only 

construction of a short wall to shield the toilet 

from view. There is also no door, but only a 

curtain to close the area from the remainder of 

the porch.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

23

Physical 

Description

Built about 1950, Fishing Cottage #2 is a small, wood- framed, endgabled structure located a few hundred yards northeast of the 

Coast Guard Station. The house is wood- framed with an end- gabled roof and a shed- roofed porch, continuing a vernacular tradition embodied in the Gaskill- Guthrie House, the Bryant House, 

and others of the older “fish houses” in the village. The porch 

door is now closed and inaccessible, and the main entrance to the 

house is at the small, sheltered stoop on the opposite side of the 

house. The footprint of the building, including the porch, measures about 22’- 4” by 26’- 2” and contains about 380 square feet of 

interior floor space plus about 165 square feet on the porch. Unlike most of the other private residences in the village, this house, 

though simple and utilitarian, is a sturdy, well- constructed building. Materials are generally uniform and of standard dimensions 

typical of the mid- twentieth century. In general, it is in very good 

condition, although threatened by termite activity and a failing 

roof covering.

A floor plan of the 

existing structure may 

be found at the end of 

this section.
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

24

Figure 12 View west. (NPSSERO-CRS, 2002)

Associated Site Features

The house sits on a quarter- acre lot [Parcel 105-

31] on the west side of the Cape’s main road. 

Also located on the property is another residence, designated by the park as Fishing Cottage #1, that was in existence prior to 1969.

The heavy growth of myrtle and other shrubs 

that surrounds the property prevents entry to 

the original door on the southwest side of the 

porch and, as elsewhere throughout the village, 

obscures views in all directions. The southeast 

end of the porch has been altered to create an 

opening and a ramp from the yard that will facilitate storage of small vehicles and other 

items. There are no significant above- ground 

site features associated with the immediate environs of the house.

Foundation

The wood frame of the main body of the house 

is set on a series of wooden piers, 8"- 12" in diameter, sunk to some indeterminate depth into 

the ground, and elevating the structure 15” to 

25” above grade. Piers appear to be untreated 

cedar or juniper. Typical of many older coastal 

structures, there are no corner piers. None of 

the piers have termite shields, and there is evidence of termite activity.

Structural System

The house is a simple wood- framed building, 

constructed using wire- nailed connections
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

25

Figure 13 View northwest. 

(NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

throughout. Dimensions of framing members 

are standard and typical of the mid- twentieth 

century. Floor and ceiling joists are 1- 5/8” by 5-

5/8”, set on 24” centers. Floor joists are set on 

top of perimeter sills that are 4” by 6”. Studs 

and rafters are typically 1- 5/8” by 3- 5/8”, also set 

on 24” centers.

Roof

The rafters have a solid deck composed of 3/4” 

by 5- 1/2”, tongue- and- groove boards. The existing roof covering is a white, asphalt- composition, roll roofing material. Remnants of older 

asphalt roofing on the ground at the rear of the 

house suggest that the house was earlier roofed 

with bright- blue, asphalt- composition shingles, which were probably original.

Exterior Finishes

Siding: The walls of the house are unsheathed 

and finished with a 3/4” by 6” siding with a 

shiplap joint. Each run of siding is coved at the 

top in a pattern sometimes referred to as German siding and designated #105 in the 1951 edition of Architectural Graphic Standards.

Doors: The present front door is 2’- 6” by 6’- 3” 

and has two flush panels like the bedroom 

doors. The door from the porch into the house 

is 2’- 6” by 6’- 2” and has four, vertical, raised 

panels. It may not be the original door at that 

opening.
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

26

Figure 14 View east showing 

typical exterior finishes. (NPSSERO-CR, 2002)

Windows: The window above the kitchen sink 

in Room 100 is an opening 2- 8” wide and 1’- 8” 

high with a six- light wooden sash that slides up 

into a pocket in the wall. The remaining five 

windows openings are 2’- 4” by 3’- 6”, double 

hung with two- over- two wooden sash. All of 

the windows are fitted with top- hinged shutters 

constructed with 1” by 6” tongue- and- groove 

boards, like those used for decking the roof. 

Around the back porch, the openings are protected by top- hinged shutters as well, but they 

are constructed out of tongue- and- groove 

boards, 2- 1/2” wide, like the flooring on the interior of the house.

Trim: Door and window openings are trimmed 

with 3”- wide casing. Window sills are 1- 1/2” 

thick with 1” by 2” trim where the bottom of the 

sills meet the siding. Quarter round trims the 

top of the walls. The narrow eaves, typical of 

the mid- twentieth century, are unboxed.

Interior

The house has one large room (10’- 4” by 17- 4”) 

running the length of the southeast side of the 

house and serving as a combination living 

room, dining room, and kitchen. Two small 

bedrooms, identical in size (8’- 5” by 10’- 7”), 
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

27

span the northwest side of the house. All three 

rooms are finished in a similar manner.

Flooring: Floors are finished with pine flooring, tongue- and- groove, 2- 1/2” wide.

Walls and Ceilings: Ceilings are set at 8’- 3”. 

Walls and ceilings are finished with V- joint, 

tongue- and- groove, pine paneling in alternating widths of 3- 14/” and 5- 1/4”.

Doors: Doors are typically 2’- 6” with heights of 

6’- 2” at the back door, 6’- 3” at the front door, 

and 6’- 7” at the bedroom doors. The front and 

bedroom doors are pine and have two flush 

panels in each door. The back door is pine and 

has four vertical raised panels.

Trim: Doors and windows are trimmed with 

pine casing, 3- 1/2” wide, and a molded backband.

Baseboards are pine, 7’- 1/2” wide, plus a 1- 3/4” 

base cap that is very deeply molded. A plain 

shoe mold is used and there is a 2” bed molding 

at the joint between walls and ceilings.

Utilities; The house is wired for electricity with 

ceiling- mounted, keyless, porcelain fixtures in 

each room.

At the northeast end of the main room is a pine 

counter 6’- 11” long and 25” deep with a porcelain- enameled sink. Although the formica 

counter top is modern, the base cabinet, which 

is constructed of the same tongue- and- groove 

boards used on the walls and ceilings, appears 

to be original.

Figure 15 View to southwest 

in Room 100. (NPS-SERO-CR, 

2002)

Figure 16 View to northeast 

in Room 100. (NPS-SERO-CR, 

2002)

Porch

Although the National Register nomination indicates that the porch is an addition to the 

house, that does not appear to be the case. 

When the house was originally constructed, the 

porch was probably the main entrance into the
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

28

Figure 17 View to north in 

Room 101. Room 102 is finished 

in a similar fashion. (NPS-SEROCR, 2002)

Figure 18 View to southeast 

on porch. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 19 View to northwest 

on porch, showing enclosure for 

bath room at center rear. (NPSSERO-CR, 2002)

house, but the steps on the southwest side of 

the house have now been removed.

The same flooring used on the interior of the 

house is also used on the porch floor. Walls, 

which are framed with 2” by 4” studs on 18” 

centers, are sided on the exterior to a height of 

28” from the floor using the same shiplap siding 

used elsewhere on the exterior. Above that, 

openings 3’- 5” high are screened. Siding continues in an 18”- wide band from the tops of 

these openings to the eave.

The northwest end of the porch has been partially enclosed in recent years to allow installation of a shower and toilet. At the southeast 

end, the knee wall has been cut and hinged to 

swing open and part of the wall above the 

screening has been removed to increase vertical 

clearance. These alterations are associated 

with the ramp that allows small vehicles to be 

stored on the porch.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

29

Figure 20 Plan of existing 

house. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002)

100

102 101

103

north

1' 4' 8'

curtain

ramp
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

30
HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

31

PART 2 TREATMENT & USE

Treatment and Use

Built around 1950, Fishing Cottage #2 is the most- recently constructed of the historic structures in the district but, ironically, is 

also the least- well- documented of those structures. Nevertheless, it is clear that the house has undergone very few changes 

since it was constructed

This section of the historic structure report is intended to show 

how a plan for treatment of Fishing Cottage #2 can be implemented with minimal adverse affect to the historic building while 

still addressing the few problems that exist with the building. The 

following narrative outlines issues surrounding use of the building 

as well as legal requirements and other mandates that circumscribe its treatment. These are followed by an evaluation of the 

various alternatives for treatment—preservation, rehabilitation, 

and restoration—before describing in more detail the ultimate 

treatment recommendations.
SERO

National Park Service

32

Ultimate Treatment and Use

Because the Cape Lookout Village Historic 

District is a relatively new addition to the National Register, the park has not set a program 

of use for the private residences in the village, 

including the Fishing Cottage #2. The authorizing legislation (Public Law 89- 366) for Cape 

Lookout National Seashore mandated the 

park’s establishment for the purpose of preserving “for public use and enjoyment an area 

in the State of North Carolina possessing outstanding natural and recreational values.”

By the time the seashore was actually established in 1976, the historical significance of the 

cultural resources at Portsmouth and at the 

Cape Lookout Light Station were also recognized. The general management plan (GMP) 

developed for the park by the NPS Denver Service Center in 1982 states that one of the park’s 

management objectives is “[t]o preserve intact, 

as feasible, the historic resources of the national 

seashore and to recognized that dynamic natural forces have influenced them throughout 

their existence and will continue to influence 

them.”1

 The GMP envisioned interpretation of 

the park’s cultural resources that would “emphasize man and his relation to the sea” with 

maritime history a focus at the lighthouse and 

the cultural and economic life of the Outer 

Bankers at Portsmouth Village.”2

 Since that 

time, additional cultural resources besides the 

lighthouse station and Portsmouth have been 

recognized through National Register listing. 

In 1989, the Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station, with four intact historic structures, was 

listed on the National Register; and in June 

2000, the Cape Lookout Village Historic District, with fourteen historic residential buildings, was listed as well.

An amendment to the 1982 GMP was completed in January 2001, but it only addressed 

improvements in overnight accommodations 

and transportation services for visitors to Core 

Banks and not the additional cultural resources 

that had been recognized since 1982. Nevertheless, these additional listings, which like the 

earlier listings are of statewide significance, do 

not appear to require any marked departure 

from the management approach established in 

1982 for Portsmouth and the Cape Lookout 

Light Station.

Three points from the 1982 GMP are particularly relevant to treatment decisions on the 

buildings in the Cape Lookout Village and in 

the Coast Guard complex as well.

• The 1982 plan “perpetuates the present 

level of use and development of Core 

Banks/Portsmouth Island. . . .”3

• Pointing out the resources’ state level of 

significance, the 1982 plan intended “to 

preserve intact, as feasible, the historic 

resources of the national seashore and to 

recognize that dynamic natural forces have 

influenced them through their existence 

and will continue to influence them.”4

• “As appropriate, some structures may be 

perpetuated through adaptive use. Con1. Cape Lookout GMP, p. 4.

2. Ibid.

3. GMP, p. iii.

4. Ibid., p. 4.
PART II TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

33

temporary public and/or administrative 

rights will be allowed with necessary modifications. The qualities that qualified these 

resources for listing on the National Register of Historic Places will be perpetuated to 

the extent practicable."1

Use: In keeping with these parameters, the 

historic (and present) residential use of Fishing 

Cottage #2 and the other structures that were 

historically private residences should be continued, if rehabilitation can be accomplished 

with minimal alteration to the buildings’ historic character.

Treatment: Unlike the other private residences at Cape Lookout, Fishing Cottage #2 

has undergone very few alteration since its 

original construction and remains in remarkably good condition. Preservation of the basic 

structure along with restoration of the porch, 

rehabilitation of the plumbing and electrical 

systems, and installation of a new bathroom 

would insure the building’s continued usefulness as a residence.

Requirements for Treatment and Use

The historic character of Fishing Cottage #2 is 

embodied not just in the vernacular form of the 

building but also in its structure and its component materials, including wood siding, flooring, 

paneling, windows, doors, nails, and hardware. The more these aspects of the building 

are compromised, especially through replacement or removal of the historic material or feature, the less useful the building becomes as an 

historical artifact.

The key to the success of any historic preservation project is good judgement in determining 

where replacement of a deteriorated building 

element is necessary. While total replacement 

of a damaged element is often recommended, 

especially in rehabilitation projects, the success 

of most preservation projects can be judged by 

the amount of historic material that remains. 

Even "replacement in kind" does not typically 

address natural processes that give the historic 

materials an aged appearance that cannot be 

duplicated except by the passage of time.

Because it is a contributing building in a National Register district, legal mandates and policy directives circumscribe treatment of Fishing 

Cottage #2. The NPS' Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline (DO- 28) requires 

planning for the protection of cultural resources "whether or not they relate to the specific authorizing legislation or interpretive 

programs of the parks in which they lie." 

Therefore, the house should be understood in 

its own cultural context and managed in light of 

its own values so that it may be preserved unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and future generations.

To help guide compliance with legal mandates 

and regulations while still maintaining the 

building’s historic integrity, the Secretary of the 

Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties have been issued along with 

guidelines for applying those standards. Stan1. dards are included for each of the four separate Ibid., p. 35.
SERO

National Park Service

34

but interrelated approaches to the treatment of 

historic buildings: preservation, rehabilitation, 

restoration, and reconstruction. These approaches define a hierarchy that implies an increasing amount of intervention into the 

historic building. Rehabilitation, in particular, 

allows for a variety of alterations and even additions to accommodate modern use of the 

structure. Regardless of approach, a key principle embodied in the Standards is that changes 

be reversible, i.e., that alterations, additions, or 

other modifications be designed and constructed in such a way that they can be removed 

or reversed in the future without the loss of existing historic materials, features or characters.

Treatment of the building should be guided by 

the International Building Code, including that 

code’s statement regarding historic buildings:

3406.1 Historic Buildings. The provisions of 

this code related to the construction, repair, 

alteration, addition, restoration and movement of 

structures, and change of occupancy shall not be 

mandatory for historic buildings where such 

buildings are judged by the building official to 

not constitute a distinct life safety hazard

[emphasis added].

Threats to public health and safety will be 

eliminated, but because this is an historic 

building, alternatives to full code compliance 

are recommended where compliance would 

needlessly compromise the integrity of the historic building.

Alternatives for Treatment and Use

The highest and best use for most historic 

buildings is the use for which the structure was 

originally designed. For Fishing Cottage #2 this 

use is residential, and given its small size and 

location, it is difficult to conceive of another 

use for the structure. The building is also exceptionally well- preserved, and any treatment 

that diminished its existing integrity should not 

be considered.
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

35

Recommendations 

for Treatment & 

Use

In keeping with the parameters established for the park’s other 

historic buildings by the park’s 1982 GMP, the historic (and 

present) residential use of Fishing Cottage #2 and the other structures that were historically private residences should be continued, if that can be accomplished with minimal alterations to the 

buildings’ historic character.

Treatment of Fishing Cottage #2 (and the other historic properties 

in the district) must, at a minimum, adhere to the Secretary’s 

Standards if the historic character of the individual buildings is to 

be maintained.

Site

There are no apparent historic features in the landscape surrounding the house, but the historic character of the landscape 

changed dramatically in the last quarter of the twentieth century. 

The unchecked growth of myrtle and other trees and shrubs have 

rendered the porch entrance to the house unusable. Treatment of 

the landscape around the house will be defined through a Cultural 

Landscape Report; but at a minimum, vegetation should be removed to allow restoration of the porch entrance.
Recommendations for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

36

Site drainage is poor, and water routinely ponds 

around and beneath the house. This condition 

should be eliminated to prevent deterioration 

from rot and termites.

Improvements to the water and septic systems 

at the site are being planned, but these should 

have little, if any, effect on the visual character 

of the site.

In summary:

• Clear vegetation from rear of house to 

restore access to porch

• Follow recommendations of Cultural 

Landscape Report in determining 

treatment of the surrounding landscape

• Improve site drainage and eliminate 

standing water beneath house.

Foundation

The wooden piles that form the building’s 

foundation are in fair condition, but a number 

of them should be replaced. An evaluation of 

each pier should be conducted and piers replaced as needed, replicating the existing 

placement of piers. The absence of corner 

piers is intentional and meant to reduce the 

likelihood that water- borne debris would dislodge the house from its foundation. Installation of termite shields is recommended as an 

aid in preventing damage to the structure.

In summary:

• Inspect piers and replace as necessary

• Install termite shields at each pier

Structure

The wood frame of the building appears to be 

in very good condition. It is likely that some 

isolated areas of termite damage are present, 

but damage may be so limited that repairs will 

not be necessary.

In summary:

• Repair structure as needed where termite or rot have compromised the 

structure.

Roof

The existing roll- type asphalt roofing is in fair 

condition, but will require replacement within 

five years. When it is replaced, modern, threetab, asphalt shingles would be appropriate, 

preferably in blue to match the historic roof 

covering.

• When roofing is replaced, use blue 

asphalt shingles.

Porches

Wooden steps with open stringers should be 

constructed to the screened door at the back 

porch. The ramp at the southeast end of the 

porch was constructed to allow storage of ATVs 

and lawn mowers on the back porch. While the 

ramp is somewhat obtrusive, it does not necessarily have to be removed. However, along with 

the ramp, alterations were made to the end wall 
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

37

of the porches to allow access and to increase 

vertical clearance. While the alterations to the 

knee wall are not significant, the missing framing and siding at the upper part of the wall 

should be restored.

In addition, the modern plywood shutter that 

was installed to close the ramped entrance 

should also be removed and new shutters fabricated to match the original board- and- batten 

shutters that survive around the other sides of 

the porch. Alterations to the bathroom located 

at the northwest end of the porch are recommended below, but these should not interfere 

with continued preservation of the exterior appearance of the porch’s shutters and knee walls.

In summary:

• Reconstruct missing portions of 

southeast porch wall

• Remove plywood shutter at southeast 

end and replicate board- and- batten 

shutters to match original shutters 

elsewhere on the building

Windows and Doors

Existing windows and doors are in reasonably 

good condition and need only minor repairs. 

Wooden board- and- batten shutters remain 

intact and should also be repaired, if necessary, 

and preserved. The original shutters at the 

southeast end of the porch are missing and, as 

noted above, should be replaced.

• Repair and preserve existing windows, 

doors, and shutters.

Exterior Finishes

Exterior siding, window and door casing, and 

trim are intact and in good condition. Except 

for the porch, where more- extensive repairs 

may be needed, maintenance of painted finishes is all that is necessary.

In summary:

• Maintain painted finishes.

Interior

As with the exterior finishes, interior finishes 

are mostly intact and in good condition. Hidden damage may be discovered if the house is 

emptied of its contents, but it would probably 

be of very limited extent. Walls, ceilings, and 

floors were originally finished with a clear coat 

that is probably varnish. The coating is dirty 

and dull but could be simply cleaned and recoated without stripping the finish.

In summary:

• Clean and recoat walls, ceilings, and 

floors.

Utilities

Wiring: The building’s existing electrical system should be completely rewired, adding additional convenience receptacles as necessary. 

Smoke and fire detectors should be installed to 

protect the entire building.

Heating: Installation of a central heating and/or 

air- conditioning system is discouraged, since 
Recommendations for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

38

the necessary equipment would be highly visible. Historically, the houses have remained 

mostly unheated, but electric baseboard heaters could be installed if necessary.

Plumbing: The entire plumbing system should 

be rehabilitated. The existing bath area, which 

does not include a lavatory, should be replaced 

by a conventional bathroom in the same location. A framed wall, with a door opening, 

should be constructed approximately six feet 

from the northwest end of the back porch to 

create the space. The exposed back wall of the 

house and the outside knee walls and screening 

that form the other walls of the space can be 

repaired and preserved. The top- hinged exterior shutters are currently raised for light and 

air in the bath area, and they can continue to be 

used in the new bathroom without installing 

permanent windows.

The existing kitchen arrangement should be 

rehabilitated. Cabinet, sink, and pump can be 

preserved, but the formica counter top, which 

is a modern replacement of the original can be 

replaced. The wall- mounted shelves and cabinet should be preserved.

In Summary:

• Install new electrical system.

• Install fire and smoke detection system.

• Do not install central heating or airconditioning; install electric space 

heaters if necessary.

• Rehabilitate existing bathroom.Rehabilitate existing kitchen.
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

39

Figure 21 Proposed plan for 

treatment and use. (T. Jones, 

NPS-SERO-CR, 2003)

100

102 101

103

north

1' 4' 8'

Notes: Install blue 

asphalt-shingled roof. 

Repair and preserve existing 

exterior woodwork, 

including porch shutters.

1. Remove ramp and 

restore southeast end of porch.

2. Reconstruct back steps 

and repair door.

3. Construct framed wall 

with door; install new 

bathroom.

4. Repair sink, counter, 

shelves, and cabinet.

Note 3

Note 1

Note 2

Note 4
Recommendations for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

40
HSR

Fishing Cottage #2

http://crs.sero.nps.gov/historic/hsr/malu/e_summary.htm

41

REFERENCE

Sources of 

Information

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Photographic Collection.

Carteret County Superior Court Record of Deeds and Mortgages, 

New Bern, North Carolina.

Carteret County Death and Marriage Records, New Bern, North 

Carolina.

Cecelski, David S. “The Hidden World of Mullet Camps: 

African- American Architecture on the North Carolina 

Coast,” The North Carolina Historical Review. Vol. LXX, 

#1, 1993.

Dunbar, Gary S. Historical Geography of the North Carolina Outer 

Banks. Louisiana State University Press, 1958.

Erenhard, John E. Cape Lookout National Seashore: Assessment of 

Archaeological and Historical Resources. NPS: Southeast 

Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, FL, 1976.
National Park Service

SERO

National Park Service

42

Holland, F. Ross. A Survey History of Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. NPS: 

Division of History, Office of 

Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation, January 30, 1968.

National Park Service. Cape Lookout General 

Management Plan/Development 

Concept Plan. Denver Service Center: 

December 1982.

National Park Service. Cape Lookout National 

Seashore: Amendment to General 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment. Southeast Regional Office: 

January 2001.

National Register of Historic Places Report, 

Cape Lookout Village Historic District.

Olds, Fred A. “Cape Lookout Lonesome Place, 

Vol. XLVI, #26. The Orphan’s Friend. 

Oxford, NC: The Grand Lodge of 

Masons of North Carolina.

Rex Quinn. The Gun Mounts at Cape Lookout, 

Historic Resource Study. National Park 

Service, March 1986.

Ruffin, Edmund. Agricultural, Geological, and 

Descriptive Sketches of Lower North 

Carolina, and the Similar Adjacent 

lands. Raleigh, NC: Institution for the 

Deaf & Dumb & The Blind, 1861. 

<http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/ruffin/

ruffin.html> (November 2002).

Stick, David. The Outer Banks of North 

Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of 

North Carolina Press, 1958).

United States Coast Guard. “Cape Lookout 

Life- Saving Station, Journals.” January 

1887- 1920. Record Group 26, National 

Archives and Records Administration, 

East Point, Georgia.

United States Federal Census, Carteret County, 

1880- 1930.

United States Post Office. “Records of 

Appointments, Records of Post Office 

Locations.” Microfilm, National 

Archives and Records Administration, 

East Point, GA.
As the nation’s principal conservation 

agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned 

public lands and natural resources. This includes 

fostering sound use of our land and water 

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and 

biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our 

national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through 

outdoor recreation. The department assesses our 

energy and mineral resources and works to 

ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging 

stewardship and citizen participation in their 

care. The department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation 

communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D- 433 January 1997