Cape Lookout National Seashore

O’B OYLE- BRYANT HOUSE

HISTORIC STRUCTURE 

REPORT

Historical Architecture, Cultural Resources Division

Southeast 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 

O’Boyle- Bryant House

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE

Cape Lookout Village

LCS#: 271581

Cover page, O’Boyle- Bryant House, 1976 

(CALO Coll.)

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.
O’Boyle-Bryant House

Historic Structure Report

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

v

Project Team

Project Manager Danny Scheidt, Historical Architect

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA

Research,

Building Investigation,

& Author

Tommy H. Jones, Architectural Historian

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA

Program Reviews Bob Blythe, History

Allen Bohnert, Curatorial & Museum

Services

Jon Buono, Historical Architecture

Tracy Stakely, Cultural Landscapes

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA
SERO

National Park Service

vi
Contents

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

vii

Foreword xiii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Executive Summary 1

Historical Summary 1

Architectural Summary 2

Recommendations 2

Administrative Data 7

Locational Data: 7

Related Studies 8

Cultural Resource Data 8

PART I DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

Historical Background & Context 11

Diamond City 13

Cape Lookout Village 17

O’Boyle-Bryant House 23

Chronology of Development & Use 27

Original Construction 28

First Expansion 31

Second Expansion 33

Modern Alterations 33

Physical Description 37

Associated Site Features 38

Foundation 38

Structural System 39

Exterior Finishes 40

Doors and Windows 41

Front Porch (100) 43

Main Room (101) 43

Front Bedroom (102) 46

Back Bedroom (103) 46
SERO

National Park Service

viii

Back Hall (104) 47

Bathroom (105) 47

Utilities 48

PART II TREATMENT & USE

Introduction 53

Ultimate Treatment & Use 55

Requirements for Treatment & Use 59

Alternatives for Treatment & Use 63

Recommendation for Treatment & Use 67

Site 67

Foundation 68

Structure 68

Roofing 70

Exterior Finishes 70

Doors 71

Windows 71

Interior 71

Additional Research 72

REFERENCE

Sources of Information 75
HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House ix

List of Figures

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

Dwelling is at right. (CALO Coll. D-01) 12

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

Carolina Historical Review, Vol. LXX, #1, p. 5) 13

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) 14

4 Map of Cape Lookout, c. 1890. (Coast Guard Collection) 15

5 View of Shackleford Banks after 1899 hurricane. Note the partiallysubmerged structures at upper right. (CALO Coll., F-184 16

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. 17

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) 18

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

just north-northeast of the Ogilvie House shown here. (U. S. Coast 

Guard Collection) 20

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

by the house at center. (CALO Coll., Royer #4) 21

10 View to northeast from near Coast Guard Station, April 1941, showing Earl 

O’Boyle and his daughter Phyllis. (CALO Coll., O’Boyle #21) 22

11 Navy radio station crew, March 1941. Earl O’Boyle is at right. (CALO Coll, 

O’Boyle #6) 23

12 Odell Guthrie’s house at Cape Lookout, rented by the O’Boyles in the fall 
SERO

National Park Service

x

and winter of 1938-1939. (CALO Coll., O’Boyle #6) 24

13 View to north of O’Boyle-Bryant House, shortly after its construction. 

(CALO Coll., O’Boyle Coll.) 25

14 View of O’Boyle House, November 1939. (CALO Coll., O’Boyle #l0) 28

15 View of O’Boyle House, 1941. (CALO Coll., O’Boyle #7) 28

16 Reconstructed plan of original O’Boyle house. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 

2002) 29

17 View of O’Boyle House, c. 1941. (CALO Coll. O’Boyle #8) 29

18 View at rear of O’Boyle House, 1941, showing bath at the end of the 

back porch. (CALO Coll., #30) 29

19 Reconstructed floor plan of Bryant House as it was first expanded 

around World War II. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 30

20 Side elevation of house illustrating alterations in roof line. Original 

structure and porches are shaded solid; c. WWII alterations are 

hatched; outline of modern porch expansion is at right. (T. Jones, 

NPS-SER0-CR, 2002) 30

21 Reconstructed floor plan of O’Boyle House after kitchen remodeling 

and bathroom addition around 1950. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR-2002) 32

22 View of O’Boyle-Bryant House, 1976. (CALO Coll.) 33

23 View of O’Boyle-Bryant House, c. 1980. 34

24 View to north of O’Boyle-Bryant House. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002) 38

25 View to south of O’Boyle-Bryant House, showing elevated water tank. 

(NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002) 38

26 View of house from northeast showing bathroom addition. (NPS-SEROCRS, 2002) 39

27 View of front sill of original house. Original siding extends below the 

bottom of the sill to left of center in this image. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 

2002) 39

28 View of south corner of house showing original siding at center, 

asbestos siding at left, and modern plywood at right. (NPS-SERO- 
HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House xi

CRS, 2002) 40

29 View of original (1939) asphalt roll roofing in attic. (NPS-SERO-CR, 

2003) 40

30 Five-panel door at Room 103. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 41

31 View of Windows 8 and 9 on northeast side of house. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 

2002) 42

32 View of front porch. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 43

33 View to northwest in main room. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002) 44

34 View southeast of Room 101. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 45

35 View to southwest of front bedroom (102). (NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002) 46

36 View of back bedroom, Room 102. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 47

37 View of back hall. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 48

38 View of bathroom. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 48

39 Plan of existing house. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002) 50

40 The goal of the proposed plan is a return of the house to its general 

appearance in this image, c. 1970, minus the asbestos siding. (CALO 

Coll., Phelps#6) 69

41 Plan of proposed alterations to O’Boyle-Bryant House. (T. Jones, NPSSERO-CR, 2003) 74
SERO

National Park Service

xii
HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House xiii

Foreword

We are pleased to make availabe 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 Region. Many individuals and institutions contributed to the successful 

completion of this work. We would particularly like to thank the staff at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, especially the park’s Facility Manager Mike McGee and Superintendent Bob Vogel. We 

hope that this study will prove valuable to park management and others in understanding and interpreting the historical significance of the O- Boyle- Bryant House at Cape Lookout Village.

Chief

Cultural Resource Division

Southeast Regional Office

December 2004
SERO

National Park Service

xiv
HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

1

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Executive Summary

The goal for treatment of the historically- private dwellings in 

Cape Lookout Village, including the O’Boyle- Bryant House, is 

restoration of the exteriors to their appearance around 1950 and 

rehabilitation of the interiors for continued residential use, if that 

can be done without compromising their historic character. This 

would include removal of the front porch addition, restoration of 

missing or altered windows, and restoration of the back door. On 

the interior, treatment would include complete rehabilitation of 

the kitchen and bathroom, replacement of electrical and plumbing systems, and limited structural improvements to improve the 

building’s capacity to withstand wind and flood.

Historical Summary

The O’Boyle- Bryant House is one of the primary structures that 

contribute to the Cape Lookout Village Historic District. Built in 
Executive Summary

SERO

National Park Service

2

the spring of 1939 by Earl O’Boyle, who was 

stationed at Cape Lookout from 1938 to 1942 as 

one of the personnel manning the Navy’s direction finding or radio compass station at the 

Coast Guard Station. Built for less than $500, 

which included furnishings from Sears & Roebuck, the house was occupied by O’Boyle and 

his family until the fall of 1942 when he was 

transferred to a new duty station.

Occupied by military personnel for the remainder of World War II, the house was sold to 

Ralph Bryant, a professor forestry at North 

Carolina State University, in the late 1940s. In 

1961, the Bryants sold the house to Hilma and 

Cecil Phelps, who continued to use the house 

as a vacation home until their deaths. Their 

daughter and her husband continued to lease 

the house after the property was incorporated 

into the Cape Lookout National Seashore in 

1976.

Architectural Summary

Located about 250 yards northeast of the old 

Coast Guard Station and facing in a southeasterly direction, the Bryant House is a one- story, 

wood- framed, end- gabled structure that includes three main rooms; a large, screened 

porch in front; and a small bathroom extension 

at the rear of the northeast side. The main footprint of the building is about 40'- 5" by 18'- 4" 

plus the bathroom extension, which measures 

about 6'- 1" by 9'- 4", giving a total interior floor 

area of about 465 square feet.

Vernacular design and construction broadly 

define the character of the Bryant House. Like 

most of the other buildings at Cape Lookout, 

the house is a simple, utilitarian structure that 

was built in response to specific needs and circumstances, with little consideration of architectural style or refinement of detail. Built by 

local carpenters, it is likely that O’Boyle purchased materials locally, probably in Morehead 

City.

The engaged front porch described in the National Register nomination as a typical feature 

of the “Banker house” was not present originally on the O’Boyle House but is the result of 

remodeling in the 1940s or 1950s. Since a similar evolution occurred at the nearby GaskillGuthrie House, the formal description of the 

type used in the National Register may need 

some revision. Finally, a very clear distinction 

should be made between the temporary shelters put up by fishermen, none of which have 

survived, and the houses like the Bryant and 

Gaskill- Guthrie Houses, that were constructed 

as more or less permanent, if sometimes portable, residences.

Recommendations

Site

• repair and maintain garage;

• repair or reconstruct elevated water 

tank at rear of house;

• remove modern structure in front yard;
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

3

• raise grade beneath house to insure 

good drainage;

• follow recommendations of Cultural 

Landscape Report in determining 

additional treatment of the surrounding landscape.

Foundation

• raise house and replace all wood piles, 

replicating the size and placement of 

existing piles;

• strengthen connection of the house’s 

sills to the foundation piles.

Structure

• repair sills as necessary;

• improve connections of framing members to reduce the possibility of significant damage from high winds;

• augment floor framing with added support beams;

• preserve historic framing members in 

situ throughout the structure;

• remove addition to front porch and 

restore historic porch enclosure.

Roofing

• investigate existing layers of roofing on 

the house to determine appropriate 

replacement roof covering;

• i no earlier layers can be found, use 

white asphalt shingles.

Exterior Finishes

• repair and preserve asbestos siding;

• repair underlying wood siding as necessary;

• repair window sills, casing, and trim to 

match those at W- 1 and W- 2, but repair and 

preserve aprons at W- 8 and W- 9;

• repaint siding, eaves, and other exposed 

woodwork white, except for window and 

door sills, casing, sash, and trim and the 

front porch ceiling, all of which should be 

painted dark green.

Doors

• preserve and maintain front door;

• replace existing knobs at front door 

with white porcelain;

• reopen back door and install modern 

flush door if the historic door has been 

lost.

Windows

• repair existing wooden sash. If that is 

not possible, replacement sash should 

match the existing sash in that opening;

• reopen window at W- 10, installing sash 

that match existing sash at W- 3 and W9;

• replace metal storm windows at W- 4 

and W- 5 with wooden sash that match 

surviving sash at W- 1 and W- 2.
Executive Summary

SERO

National Park Service

4

Interior

• rehabilitate interior for continued residential use;

• repair and maintain historic paneling 

on walls and ceilings as well as wood 

flooring and trim;

• repair and rehabilitate existing base 

and wall cabinets, peninsula counter, 

and shelving around windows;

• replace toilet, lavatory, and shower;

• install new electrical system; consider 

continued use of keyless fixtures; 

include wiring to support use of space 

heaters;

• install new plumbing supply and waste 

lines to bathroom and kitchen.

Additional Research

• locate and interview O’Boyle and Bryant family members regarding house’s 

history;

• conduct paint analysis of interior 

should it ever be opened for public 

interpretation;

• complete Cultural Landscape Report 

and implement recommendations for 

site treatment.
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

5

north

1' 4' 8'

102 103

101

104

105

Note 1

Note 3

Note 7

Note 5

Note 6

Note 4

Notes

Repair and maintain existing historic interior and exterior woodwork, including windows and doors. Repair and 

preserve asbestos siding. Install new asphalt roof covering.

1. Remove porch addition (hatched area).

2. Preserve existing ceiling; replace porch posts; reconstruct knee wall and shutters.

3. Replace existing aluminum windows with wood sash and trim to match windows on front of house.

4. Repair and retain existing cabinetry and pump, replacing sink and counters if necessary.

5. Rehabilitate bathroom, replacing lavatory, shower and toilet.

6. Restore door, screen door, door step at existing opening.7. Retain or replace existing aprons at these windows; reinstate aprons at other windows.

8. Replace missing sash and trim, matching those in adjacent window.

Note 8

Note 2

Note 9
Executive Summary

SERO

National Park Service

6
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

7

Administrative 

Data 

Locational Data: 

Building Name: O’Boyle- Bryant House

Location: Cape Lookout Village

LCS#: CALO 271581

Cape Lookout Village
Administrative Data 

SERO

National Park Service

8

Related Studies

Ehrenhard, John E. "Cape Lookout National 

Seashore: Assessment of Archeological and Historical Resources." SEAC, 

NPS, 1976.

Holland, F. Ross. A Survey History of Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. Department of History, Office of Archeology 

and Historic Preservation, NPS, 1968.

National Park Service. General Management 

Plan/Development Concept Plan, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. Denver 

Service Center, December 1982.

National Park Service. Cape Lookout National 

Seashore: Amendment to General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Southeast Regional Office, 

2001.

Van Beck, Sara L. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Archives and Records Management Review. NPS, 2000.

Cultural Resource Data

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

District, listed June 2000

Period of Significance: 1939- c. 1950

Proposed Treatment: Structural stabilization, 

exterior restoration, interior rehabilitation
PART 1

 

DEVELOPMENTAL 

HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

11

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

12

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

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

13

smaller enlargement of the reef near Cape 

Lookout (where, about the lighthouse, there 

are a few inhabitants).”2

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.3

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

2. 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.

3. 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

14

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.4 Before 1916, the station keeper was

4. 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

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

15

Figure 4 Map of Cape 

Lookout, c. 1890. (Coast Guard 

Collection)
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

16

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.5

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.6

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

5. 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.

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

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

17

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.7

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

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

Lookout8, 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 gasoline- powered 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.9

7. Cape Lookout Journal, December 22, 

1896.

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

Friend and Masonic Journal (Oxford, 

NC, October 14, 1921).

9. 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

18

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.10

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 

10.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

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

19

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 .11 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.”12

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.

11.Cape Lookout Journal, June 30, 1905.

12.Olds, “Cape Lookout, Lonesome 

Place.”
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

20

Figure 8 Map of Cape 

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

just north-northeast of the 

Ogilvie House shown here. (U. 

S. Coast Guard Collection)
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

21

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.13 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 declare establishment of the Cape Lookout National Seashore.

13.Rex Quinn, The Gun Mounts at Cape 

Lookout, Historic Resource Study 

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

SERO

National Park Service

22

Figure 10 View to northeast 

from near Coast Guard Station, 

April 1941, showing Earl 

O’Boyle and his daughter 

Phyllis. (CALO Coll., O’Boyle 

#21)

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.”14

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.”15 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.

14.National Park Service, Cape Lookout 

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

Center, December 1982), p. 30.

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

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

23

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.

Figure 11 Navy radio station 

crew, March 1941. Earl O’Boyle 

is at right. (CALO Coll, O’Boyle 

#6)

O’Boyle-Bryant House

The National Register nomination states that 

the house was built as a permanent residence 

around 1928 by one of the Coast Guardsmen 

for his family but does not identify the Coast 

Guardsman. However, the park has recently 

received what appears to be reliable documentation that the house was constructed in the 

spring of 1939 by Earl F. O’Boyle, who was stationed at the Navy’s radio signal station at Cape 

Lookout in the late 1930s.16

Earl Francis O’Boyle was born on July 6, 1913, in 

Schenectady, New York, the son of James 

Henry O’Boyle (1893- 1966) and his wife Martha Rachel Antler (1894- 1976). His parents 

were divorced prior to 1930 when sixteen16.O’Boyle’s daughter, Phyllis O’Boyle 

Gentry, was interviewed by park staff 

and provided historic photographs 

and other documentation in December 2002.
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

24

Figure 12 Odell Guthrie’s 

house at Cape Lookout, rented 

by the O’Boyles in the fall and 

winter of 1938-1939. (CALO 

Coll., O’Boyle #6)

year- old Earl was listed in the Federal census 

living with his father, an automobile dealer in 

Monrovia, California, in the San Gabriel Valley 

fifteen miles northeast of Los Angeles. He 

joined the Navy in the early 1930s, and in May 

1938, he was ordered to Cape Lookout to serve 

as one of a five- member crew stationed at the 

Navy’s direction finding station. Not long after 

arriving at the cape, while on shore leave, Earl 

met Agatha Frances Adams of Morehead City. 

Born April 14, 1912, at Salter Path on Bogue 

Bank, she was the daughter of Macajah Adams 

and Bettie Gillikan Adams. Agatha and Earl 

were married at Morehead City on November 

3, 1938, and immediately took the mail boat 

back to Cape Lookout, where Earl had rented 

Odell Guthrie’s small cottage a short distance 

from the Coast Guard Station.

Within a short time, the couple decided to 

build their own house, which was completed in 

April 1939 at a cost of $500, which covered materials and two carpenters, as well as furnishings purchased from Sears- Roebuck. The 

O’Boyle’s only child, Phyllis, was born on 

March 17, 1940, at the hospital in Morehead 

City, and by early April, the entire family was 

back at Cape Lookout.17

In May 1941, Earl was re- assigned from Cape 

Lookout as the Navy was preparing to close all 

of its direction finding stations, including the 

one at Cape Lookout. His daughter believes 

that they sold the house at that time, but since 

they did not own the land on which it sat, no 

deed was recorded at the county courthouse. 

After O’Boyle retired from the Navy in 1954, 

they returned to Morehead City. He died in 

Spain in May 1989.18

The O’Boyles apparently did not own the land 

on which they built their house, and it is not 

clear if the house was relocated after they 

moved away. When they returned for a visit to 

the Cape in 1968, there had been so many 

changes to the landscape and to their house 

that they were unable to locate their former residence. Only during the course of the present 

study has it been positively identified through 

comparison of the family’s collection of photographs from 1939- 1941 with the existing structure known until recently simply as the Bryant 

House.19

17.“The Good Life at Cape Lookout,” 

published by the History Place in 

Morehead City in The Researcher

(1997), contains Phyllis O’Boyle Gentry’s reminiscence of her parents’ stay 

at Cape Lookout.

18.Ibid and telephone interview with 

Phyllis O’Boyle Gentry, 7 March 2003.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

25

Figure 13 View to north of 

O’Boyle-Bryant House, shortly 

after its construction. (CALO 

Coll., O’Boyle Coll.)

According to the National Register district 

nomination, the house was occupied by Army 

personnel during World War II and, in the late 

1940s, was acquired by Dr. Ralph C. Bryant, 

Jr.20

Bryant earned his bachelors and masters degrees at Yale and a Ph. D. from Duke University 

and was on the faculty at Colorado State University for several years. Between 1953 and 

1978, he was a professor of forestry at North 

Carolina State University, where he played a 

major role in shaping the undergraduate curriculum. He retired to Marshallberg, N. C., in 

1978, and two years later, he and his wife established the Ralph C. Bryant Scholarship Fund.

In July 1961, the Bryants sold their house at 

Cape Lookout to Hilma and Cecil Phelps of 

Marshallberg for an unspecified sum. The 

property was described as “one 4- room cabin 

with bath, one garage building,” plus “all furniture and fixtures [and] one Willys Jeep, motor # 

15013.”21 After their deaths, their daughter Carolyn Willis inherited the lease and continued to 

use the house as a vacation retreat.

19.The character of the Bryant House’s 

front door, remaining original window trim, and evidence of the original front porch confirm that it is the 

same house built by the O’Boyles in 

1939.

20.The Bryants’ purchase of the property 

was apparently not recorded in Carteret Co.

21.Carteret County Deeds and Mortgages, Book 220, p. 253.
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

26
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

27

Chronology of 

Development & 

Use

The O’Boyle- Bryant House is reported by the National Register to 

have been built around 1928. However, the park was recently contacted by Phyllis O’Boyle Gentry, a resident of Morehead City, 

who provided documentation for her father’s construction of the 

house in the spring of 1939. The O’Boyle family (Ms. Gentry was 

born as the house was being completed) occupied the house until 

the spring of 1941, and among Ms. Gentry’s collection are photographs of the house and Cape Lookout from that period. It must 

be noted that, in telephone interview during the course of the 

present study, Ms. Gentry was unaware that the house that her father built at Cape Lookout was still standing. Furthermore, even 

her parents, both of whom are now deceased, could not identify 

the house when they returned to the cape for a visit in 1968.

Comparison of the existing structure and Ms. Gentry’s historic 

photographs, however, confirm that it is the same house that her 

father built in 1939. Building investigation documents a number of 
Chronology of Development & Use

SERO

National Park Service

28

Figure 14 View of O’Boyle 

House, November 1939. (CALO 

Coll., O’Boyle #l0)

Figure 15 View of O’Boyle 

House, 1941. (CALO Coll., 

O’Boyle #7)

similarities, including the overall form, siding, 

trim, four- over- four windows, front door, and 

other features that are all still clearly evident in 

the existing structure.

Three other features of the house in the historic 

photographs are especially distinctive and confirm identification of the present house at Cape 

Lookout as the O’Boyles’ house. First and most 

obvious is the front porch, which did not extend the full width of the house but, rather 

oddly, ended midway of the front windows. 

The termination of this original porch’s end 

headers is ghosted in the paint of the existing 

header casing at the front windows. In addition, the windows in the historic photographs 

include typical casing and trim but also, and 

most unusually, they were trimmed with a wide 

apron, a feature usually found only on the interior. Although most of these aprons were lost 

when the building was later resided, two of 

them remain at windows on the northeast side 

of the building. Finally, the house in the photographs was roofed with roll- type asphalt roofing, one of the first documented instances in 

which new construction at Cape Lookout used 

asphalt roofing and not wood shingles. The 

original roof covering on the present house was 

also roll roofing, some of which survives in the 

attic. All of the other historic buildings remaining at Cape Lookout were originally roofed 

with wood shingles.

Original Construction

The original structure was wood- framed with 

end gables and shed- roofed porches front and 

rear. There appear to have been four main 

rooms, with a small bathroom enclosed at the 

north end of the back porch.22 Although both 

porches were later entirely replaced, the location of the ridge of the original main roof is 

clearly visible on the exterior, and inside the attic of the present structure, much of the original 

roof framing and decking and some of the red,

22.Telephone interview with Phyllis 

O’Boyle Gentry, March 2003.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

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

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House 29

Figure 16 Reconstructed plan 

of original O’Boyle house. (T. 

Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

asphalt- composition, roll roofing remains intact.

The house was originally finished on the exterior with 6”- wide, tongue- and- groove boards 

installed vertically. This siding remains mostly 

intact, especially around the front of the house, 

and it appears to have also been re- used when 

the rear of the house was expanded after 

World War II.

The roof of the original house was constructed 

with a continuous wood decking, much of 

which remains in place beneath the present 

roof along with some of the original roll- type 

asphalt roof covering. There is no evidence 

that this house was ever shingled with wood.

The house was constructed with two sizes of 

window openings, but neither of the small, 

squarish openings visible in the early photographs have survived. The 1’- 7” by 3’- 8” openFigure 17 View of O’Boyle 

House, c. 1941. (CALO Coll. 

O’Boyle #8)

Figure 18 View at rear of 

O’Boyle House, 1941, showing 

bath at the end of the back 

porch. (CALO Coll., #30)

NOTES

1. Dimensions of front porch are 

approximate.

2. Dimensions of back porch and of Room 

105 are approximate.

3. In historic photographs an opening at this 

location is visible through the front door but it 

is unclear if it was a door or a window.

4. Placement and size of this opening is 

conjectural.

1' 4' 8'

102 104

Note 3

105

north

Note 1

101 103

Note 2

Note 4
Chronology of Development & Use

SERO

National Park Service

30

Figure 19 Reconstructed floor 

plan of Bryant House as it was 

first expanded around World 

War II. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 

2002)

Figure 20 Side elevation of 

house illustrating alterations in 

roof line. Original structure and 

porches are shaded solid; c. 

WWII alterations are hatched; 

outline of modern porch 

expansion is at right. (T. Jones, 

NPS-SER0-CR, 2002)

ings with four- over- four sash are typical of the 

original. Most of the historic casing and sills remain at these windows, although all but two of 

the unusual exterior aprons have been lost.

The existing five- panel front door is the original door, although its swing has been reversed 

from inside to outside. Some of the original interior doors also remain in place.

The interior was originally finished with double- V- joint, tongue- and- groove boards, 3- 1/4” 

wide. Flooring was plain, tongue- and- groove 

boards, 3- 1/2” wide. Except at the rear of the 

house, most of this material remains intact.

Circumstantial evidence suggests original use 

of the rooms. In addition to a living room 

(Room 102) and a bedroom (Room 101), Room 

103 probably served as a kitchen. No chimney 

or stove flue is visible in historic photographs 

because, according to Ms. Gentry, her mother 

cooked on a small kerosene- fired stove that 

even included an oven. Room 104 probably 

served as a dining room or, perhaps, another 

bedroom, while Room 105 contained a toilet 

and perhaps a lavatory. There was no running 

water, and according to Ms. Gentry, clothes 

were washed in a wash tub in the back yard and 

“the toilet was flushed by filling a bucket with 

water from the hand pump in the back yard.” 

Like the other cape residences, the house was 

Notes:

1. It is not clear when this

window was closed.

2. There was almost certainly at 

least one window and a back 

door, but their placement here 

is based on circumstantial 

evidence.

1' 4' 8'

102

Note 2

104

north

101 103

Note 1
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

31

not wired for electricity, and lighting was provided by wall- hung kerosene lamps with reflectors.23

The exterior of the house was originally 

painted white, including the trim. By the time 

the O’Boyles moved out in the fall of 1941, the 

body of the house was still white, but the trim 

was painted dark green.

First Expansion

There is also evidence in the present building 

for historic additions, although no historical 

documentation for them has been located. The 

earliest of these additions apparently dates to 

World War II and another to the late 1940s or 

early 1950s. There were other modifications in 

the 1960s and 1970s, with a significant addition 

to the front porch constructed after 1976.

The precise date at which the house was first 

expanded has not been documented, but considering the sequence and likely dates of later 

changes, this first expansion most likely occurred during World War II when the house 

was used for Army housing. At that time, the 

house was extended about eight feet to the rear 

(northwest) by removing the original back 

porch, the bathroom, and the back wall of the 

house and constructing a new addition that 

nearly doubled the size of the two original 

rooms at the rear of the house.

This extension is most clearly evident in differences in the building’s framing and interior finishes. The original structure used nominal 2” 

by 4” ceiling joists; the addition used nominal 

2” by 6” ceiling joists. Original floor joists, also 

2” by 6”, were continuous from front sill to rear 

sill. The original rear sill, which was a solid 4” 

by 6” sill, was relocated to the rear of the new 

extension and the side sills extended using 

doubled 2” by 6” lumber, a type of sill that came 

into common use after the Depression. Added 

floor joists are slightly smaller than the original.

On the interior, the extension of the house is 

evident in the use of 3- 1/2” wide V- joint paneling versus the 3- 1/4” wide, double- V- joint paneling that was used originally. The transition 

between these two materials in the walls and 

ceilings of Rooms 101 and 103 approximates the 

location of the rear wall of the original house. 

The exterior of the addition appears to have 

been sided with 6”- wide tongue- and- groove 

boards similar to that used originally, but instead of the original four- over- four windows, 

slightly larger, two- over- two window sash were 

used in the new openings.

In order to avoid a low- pitched roof over these 

additions, the builder opted to install a second 

roof above the original, tying the new rafters 

into the old roof just below the original roof 

ridge. It also made good sense to rebuild the 

front roof at the same time, creating a fully- engaged front porch that would be better able to 

resist storm damage than the original shedroofed porch.

23.Gentry, “The Good Life at Cape Lookout,” p. 8.
Chronology of Development & Use

SERO

National Park Service

32

Figure 21 Reconstructed floor 

plan of O’Boyle House after 

kitchen remodeling and 

bathroom addition around 

1950. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR2002) north 1' 4' 8' 3. Physical evidence suggests a door at this location. the rear wall of Room 104. 2. This window appears to be an original window, probably relocated from when knee walls and shutters were installed. 1. The porch was probably screened during this period, but it is unclear Notes:

Note 1

101

104

103

102

105

Note 2

Note 3
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

33

Figure 22 View of O’BoyleBryant House, 1976. (CALO 

Coll.)

Second Expansion

The presence of siding on the gable extension 

on the northeast side of the house where the 

present bathroom joins the house (the siding is 

visible in the attic) indicates that the bathroom 

was constructed after the house was extended 

to the rear. The bathroom was part of a second 

set of significant alterations to the house, work 

that was probably completed by the Bryants 

around 1950. Besides construction of the small 

(6’- 2” by 9’- 5”) bathroom addition off the 

northeast corner of the house, this work also 

included covering the original board siding 

with white, cement- asbestos shingles, one of 

the most popular replacement siding materials 

before the widespread use of metal sidings in 

the 1960s.

Other changes at this time may have included 

installation of the base cabinets and sink at the 

northwest end of Room 101. While there had 

always been some sort of kitchen in the house, 

it probably consisted of no more than a wallhung sink and a cook stove.

Modern Alterations

When the house was sold to the Phelps in 1961, 

the deed described the property as “the fishing 

camp of Ralph C. Bryant with one 4- room
Chronology of Development & Use

SERO

National Park Service

34

Figure 23 View of O’BoyleBryant House, c. 1980.

cabin with bath, one garage building.” The sale 

included “all furniture and fixtures” as well as a 

a Willys Jeep.24

Since that time, the most significant changes 

have been removal of the wall that originally divided Room 100 into two separate spaces and a 

more- recent expansion of the porch that almost doubled its size. In addition, after 1976, 

the asbestos siding has been painted green, 

then yellow and finally pink. New linoleum 

“rugs” were rolled out over older floor coverings, culminating with a vinyl floor covering installed at the northwest end of Room 101 in 

recent years. Maintenance has often been deferred and repairs that have been made have 

been generally unsympathetic to the building’s 

historic character. Three of the historic windows have been removed; two of those have 

been replaced by aluminum storm windows 

and the other simply boarded over. The remainder of the windows are missing pieces of 

trim and are in very poor condition.

The most significant alteration has been the recent addition to the front porch, which has 

doubled it in size. The extended porch seriously compromises the historic appearance of 

the building, particularly its roof line.

24.Carteret County Superior Court 

Records of Deeds and Mortgages, 

Book 220, p. 253.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

35

The present garage, which is covered with fiberboard panels, appears to be the same garage 

that was present when the Bryants sold the 

house in 1961. The well structure off the east 

corner of the house is modern, but it is not 

known if it marks the site of an historic well.
Chronology of Development & Use

SERO

National Park Service

36

Time Line for Bryant House

1857- 59 Cape Lookout Light House constructed

1887 Cape Lookout Lifesaving Station constructed

1899 San Ciriaco or “Great” Hurricane decimates Shackleford Banks

1910- 1911 Cape Lookout Post Office in operation

1913 Cape Lookout Land Company begins land acquisition at Cape Lookout

Earl Francis O’Boyle born July 6 in Schenectady, NY

1914 Construction commences on breakwater to create “harbor of refuge” at Cape 

Lookout

Cape Lookout Development Company lays out hundreds of lots and dozens of 

streets at Cape Lookout

1915 Life- Saving Service becomes part of new U.S. Coast Guard

1916- 1917 New Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station constructed

1919 New Navy Radio Finding Station opens at Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station

c. 1932 Earl O’Boyle joins the Navy

1938 O’Boyle transferred to Cape Lookout in May

O’Boyle marries Agatha Adams at Morehead City on November 8

1939 O’Boyles finish construction of their new house in April

O’Boyles’ only child born March 17

1941 Earl O’Boyle transferred to new duty station

1942- 1945? House expanded and occupied by army personnel

c. 1948 House bought by Ralph and Evelyn Bryant

c. 1950 Bryants add bathroom to house

1953 Dr. Ralph C. Bryant, Jr. begins 25- year tenure in Forestry Department at NC 

State University

1961 Bryants sell house to Hilma and Cecil Phelps

1966 Cape Lookout National Seashore established

after 1976 Front porch doubled in size; house painted pink

1989 Earl O’Boyle dies in Spain

2000 Cape Lookout Village Historic District established
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

37

Physical 

Description

Located about 250 yards northeast of the old Coast Guard Station 

and facing in a southeasterly direction, the O’Boyle- Bryant House 

is a one- story, wood- framed, end- gabled structure that includes 

three main rooms; a large, screened porch in front; and a small 

bathroom extension at the rear of the northeast side. The main 

footprint of the building is about 40'- 5" by 18'- 4" plus the bathroom extension, which measures about 6'- 1" by 9'- 4", giving a total floor area of about 817 square feet.

Vernacular design and construction broadly define the character 

of the O’Boyle Bryant House. Like most of the other buildings at 

Cape Lookout, the house is a simple, utilitarian structure that was 

built in response to specific needs and circumstances, with little 

consideration of architectural style or refinement of detail. Built 

by local carpenters, it may have used some material salvaged from 

wrecks of lumber- laden ships, as suggested by the National Register, but no such tradition has been attached to this house, and it is

Note: A floor plan of the existing structure may be 

found at the end of this section.
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

38

Figure 24 View to north of 

O’Boyle-Bryant House. (NPSSERO-CRS, 2002)

more likely that O’Boyle purchased materials 

locally, probably in Morehead City.

The engaged front porch described in the National Register nomination as a typical feature 

of the “Banker house” was not present originally on the O’Boyle House but is the result of 

remodeling in the 1940s or 1950s.

Associated Site Features

When the property was sold in 1961, the land 

was described as 149’ by 178’ by 164’ by 189’, but 

it is not clear if that parcel is the same parcel on 

which the house was constructed in 1939. Several non- historic features are clearly associated 

with the site. The most prominent is a garage 

located off the western rear corner of the 

house. Mentioned in the 1961 deed, the structure has a wood frame set on a concrete block 

foundation, finished with panels of fiberboard, 

and measuring about 14’ by 18’. Off the eastern

Figure 25 View to south of 

O’Boyle-Bryant House, showing 

elevated water tank. (NPSSERO-CRS, 2002)

front corner of the house is a small modern 

structure on which a well pump is mounted. 

This well is not the original well, which was located in the rear of the house.

Against the northern end of the rear wall of the 

house is a wooden structure on which a small 

elevated metal water tank is mounted. Too high 

to function as a cistern, this tank is used to provide water for an outdoor shower and for flushing the broken toilet inside the house.

Foundation

The wood frame of the main body of the house 

is set on a series of eighteen wooden piers, 8"-

12" in diameter, sunk to some indeterminate 

depth into the ground. Most are in comparatively good condition although all of them are 

deteriorating in some way.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

39

Figure 26 View of house from 

northeast showing bathroom 

addition. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002)

The wood frame of the front porch rests on 

modern, hollow, concrete block. The house is 

elevated 10" to 12" above grade, except for the 

extension to the front porch which is within 6" 

of grade.

Structural System

The house is a simple wood- framed building, 

constructed using wire nails and circular- sawn 

lumber in dimensions that are typical of the 

second quarter of the twentieth century. The 

sills for the original house are 4- 1/2" by 4- 1/2", 

lapped and nailed at the corners. Original floor 

joists are generally 2" by 6" (actual dimension) 

on 24” centers, continuous from front to rear of 

the original house, and lapped over a 4" by 4" 

sill set on wooden piers at mid- span. When the 

house was extended to the rear, the original 

rear sill was relocated to the new rear wall of 

the house and replaced by another 4" by 4" sill 

set on wood piers. Sills for the later extensions 

consist of doubled 2" by 6". The relocated sill 

Figure 27 View of front sill of 

original house. Original siding 

extends below the bottom of 

the sill to left of center in this 

image. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002)

at the rear of the house has been severely damaged by termite infestation. Floor joists for this 

historic addition are around 1- 3/4" by 5- 5/8" as 

are those in the post- WWII bathroom extension. 

All floor joists throughout the structure are 

generally set on 24" centers and are lapped and 

nailed to the sills. Most of the wall framing 

could not be examined, but it appears to be 

composed of standard 2" by 4" studs set on 

about 24" centers. Original ceiling joists are 

generally 2" by 4" (actual dimensions), also set 

on 24" centers. Added ceiling joists at the rear 

are similar to the added floor joists and are 

around 1- 3/4" by 5- 5/8" on 24" centers.

The original front porch floor system has been 

entirely replaced, probably in conjunction with 

the extension of the porch since 1976. Modern 

joists for the front porch are 1- 1/2" by 3- 1/2". 
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

40

Figure 28 View of south 

corner of house showing 

original siding at center, 

asbestos siding at left, and 

modern plywood at right. (NPSSERO-CRS, 2002)

Figure 29 View of original 

(1939) asphalt roll roofing in 

attic. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2003)

Roof

The present roof, which dates to the 1940s or 

1950s, is framed with a ridge board and 1- 3/4" 

by 3- 3/4" rafters set on approximately 24" centers. It has a solid wooden deck made up of 1" 

by 4" boards and has apparently always been 

roofed with asphalt roofing. The roof is presently covered with two types of white asphalt 

shingles, although there may be other layers below. Those on the rear shed of the roof and on 

the front porch are modern, three- tab shingles. Those on the front shed of the main roof 

appear to be somewhat older, "hurricane" 

shingles with an interlocking design that made 

them less susceptible to wind damage. Probably when the three- tab shingles were installed, 

an aluminum turbine vent for the attic was installed on the roof above the kitchen.

Exterior Finishes

The building was originally finished with vertical siding, 3/4" thick and 6" wide, tongue and 

groove, without battens. Much of this material 

remains in place beneath the present cementasbestos siding that was installed in the 1940s or 

1950s. The asbestos siding, originally white but 

now painted pink, is installed over tar paper 

nailed to the original vertical board siding. 

Most of the asbestos siding is in good condition, except for broken shingles in the vicinity 

of modern repairs, particularly around the windows to Room 103.

When the front porch was extended in recent 

years, the wood sheathing and asbestos siding 

that formed a low wall around the otherwise 
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

41

screened porch was removed and replaced by 

the present painted plywood.

Doors and Windows

Two types of doors appear to have been used in 

the original house. Doors with five flat panels 

remain at the front door and at Room 103, but 

for unknown reasons, the door to Room 101, 

which appears to be original, is a board- andbatten door constructed with the same doublev- joint material used on walls and ceiling.

The opening to the front bedroom (102) is 2’- 1” 

by 6’- 4” and is probably the only original door 

remaining in the house. It is constructed of the 

same double- V- joint material originally used 

on walls and ceilings and has a plain metal rimlock with metal knobs. The opening to the rear 

bedroom (103) is 2’- 8” by 6’- 3” and is hung with 

a five- panel door like the front door. It also ha

The house was constructed with two sizes of 

window openings, but neither of the small, 

squarish openings visible on the sides of the 

house in the early photographs have survived. 

The 1’- 7” by 3’- 8” openings with four- over- four 

sash are original. Slightly larger openings, 2’- 3” 

by 4’- 4”, with two- over- two sash were installed 

when the house was remodeled in the 1940s. 

Since 1976, modern, aluminum- framed storm 

windows have replaced two of these larger 

sash.

Exterior casing is typically 4- 1/2” wide with sills 

1- 1/2” thick. Metal flashing was used instead of 

a drip cap at headers. An unusual feature of the 

original window trim was the use of aprons

Figure 30 Five-panel door at 

Room 103. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

under the exterior window sills. Most of these 

were removed when the cementious siding was 

installed around 1950, but remain intact at W- 8 

and W- 9. All of the windows appear to have 

been fitted with half- window screens in the 

1940s or 1950s, but only two of these remain intact.

See plan at end of this section for locations of 

windows and doors.

D- 1: Five panel, wooden, 2’- 8” by 6’- 2” by 1- 1/

8”, historic; currently the only entrance into the
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

42

Figure 31 View of Windows 8 

and 9 on northeast side of 

house. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 2002)

house, leading from front porch (100) to main 

room (101). Before the porch was enclosed, the 

door swung to the outside. When the swing 

was reversed, the metal rimlock was left on the 

outside of the door. Metal knobs have replaced 

the original white porcelain knobs.

D- 2: Opening is closed with plywood but appears to have historically been used as a door; 

opening previously recorded as 2’- 6” by 7’- 3”. 

Type of door used is unknown.

W- 1: Double- hung, two- over- two, wooden 

sash, 2’- 3” by 4’- 3”. Typical exterior casing; 

wood- framed half screen over lower sash; one 

of best- preserved of the historic windows.

W- 2: Double- hung, two- over- two, wooden 

sash, 2’- 3” by 4’- 3”. Typical exterior casing; 

wood- framed half screen over lower sash; one 

of best- preserved of the historic windows.

W- 3: Typical original window, double- hung, 

four- over- four, wooden sash, 1’- 7” by 3’- 8”. 

Typical exterior casing. Installation of modern 

flashing at header resulted in breaking of a 

number of cementious shingles in that area. 

Plywood has been nailed to the casing to cover 

three- fourths of the opening.

W- 4: Original opening 2’- 3” by 4’- 3” but original window frame, sash, and trim have been removed, opening shortened to 3’- 10”, and 

modern aluminum storm window installed in 

opening; opening very haphazardly finished 

and significant damage to adjacent siding appears to be related to alterations.

W- 5: Original opening here is 2’- 3” by 4’- 3” but 

the original window frame, sash, and trim have 

been removed, the opening shortened to 3’- 10”, 

and a modern aluminum storm window installed in the opening. The opening is very 

haphazardly finished and covered by a tophinged plywood panel that functions as a storm 

shutter and, when raised, as an awning.

W- 6: This is a double set of windows, each 

opening 2’- 3” by 2’- 8” with two- over- two sash 

dating to the 1940s or 1950s. Trim is present but 

parts of the casing are badly rotted as are parts 

of the structural framing for the opening. 

Screen has been stapled to the lower part of the 

opening.

W- 7: Double- hung, four- over- four, wooden 

sash, 1’- 7” by 3’- 8”. Sash, frame, and trim for 

this opening are typical of the original windows 

in the house. This window was probably located where the double kitchen windows (W6) are now located and was relocated when the
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

43

Figure 32 View of front porch. 

(NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

bathroom was constructed around 1950. The 

exterior sill and casing are badly rotted.

W- 8: Double- hung, two- over- two, wooden 

sash, 2’- 3” by 4’- 3”. Typical exterior casing; 

modern material attached across header; one 

of two original exterior window aprons remains at this opening.

W- 9: Typical original window, double- hung, 

four- over- four, wooden sash, 1’- 7” by 3’- 8”. 

Like W- 8, the drip cap has been lost, replaced 

by temporary material attached across header; 

one of two original exterior window aprons remains at this opening.

W- 10: Like W- 9, this is an original opening, but 

now covered on the interior and exterior by 

plywood; sash and parts of frame and trim appear to be missing.

Front Porch (100)

The house’s original front porch was mostly replaced when the roof line was changed during 

World War II. The present porch is the result of 

a recent expansion that doubled the porch’s

size. The only historic material remaining besides the front wall of the house is the ceiling 

and header from the historic porch.

Floor: The entire floor framing system was replaced when the porch was expanded. Plywood flooring is now covered with a modern 

vinyl floor covering.

Ceiling: The historic porch ceiling is finished 

with 3- 1/2”, V- joint, tongue- and groove boards, 

painted green and in excellent condition. This 

ceiling dates to the first expansion of the house 

in the early 1940s.

Walls: The outside walls of the porch are 

screened above a low plywood- covered wall 

rising to about two feet. Top- hinged, hardboard shutters, approximately 4’ by 5’, are 

mounted on the exterior and serve as storm 

shutters and, when raised, as awnings. Nothing 

remains of the historic wall and shutters that 

were used when the space was enclosed in the 

1940s or 1950s.

Door: An aluminum storm door, 2’- 6” by 6’- 8”, 

with sliding glass panel provides the main entrance to the house.

Main Room (101)

The largest room in the house, this room encompasses what were two of the original rooms
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

44

Figure 33 View to northwest 

in main room. (NPS-SERO-CRS, 

2002)

in the house. When the present space was created by removal of the original wall that separated the two rooms is not known, but it may 

have occurred as early as the 1950s. The original front room was nearly square, about 9’- 6” 

in each direction. The original back room measured about 6’- 6” by 9’- 6”. The present room 

is about 23’- 5” long by about 9’- 6” wide.

Floor: The floor is finished with typical tongueand- groove flooring, 3- 1/2” wide, painted grey. 

It is covered with two or three layers of linoleum and, at the rear, with a modern vinyl floor 

covering.

Ceiling: The ceiling is set at 6’- 9’. The original 

portion of the ceiling is finished with double Vjoint, tongue- and- groove boards, 3- 1/4: wide, 

typical of the material used on all walls and ceilings in the original house. The portion of the 

ceiling added with the first expansion of the 

house in the 1940s is finished with single- Vjoint, tongue- and- groove boards, 3- 1/2” wide. 

On the ceiling are painted points of the compass of unknown origin. 
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

45

Figure 34 View southeast of 

Room 101. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Walls: Like the ceiling, the walls of this room 

are finished with two types of tongue- andgroove boards, the earliest being the double- Vjoint material and that associated with the first 

expansion of the house being single- V- joint.

Doors: In addition to the front door, doors 

open from this room into the other rooms in 

the house. The opening to the bathroom hall 

(104) is a simple cased opening, 2’- 0” by 6’- 4”.

The opening to the front bedroom (102) is 2’- 1” 

by 6’- 4” and is probably the only original door 

remaining in the house. It is constructed of the 

same double- V- joint material originally used 

on walls and ceilings and has a plain metal rimlock with metal knobs. The opening to the rear 

bedroom (103) is 2’- 8” by 6’- 3” and is hung with 

a five- panel door like the front door. It also has 

a metal rimlock and metal knobs.

Trim: A 3/4” by 4- 3/4” baseboard with 3/4” 

quarter- round shoe molding is typical. Threequarter- inch quarter- round is used to finish the 

joint between walls and ceiling.

Window and door casing is typically 3- 1/2” to 3-

7/8” wide, with header slightly wider than side 

casing. Window stools are around 4- 1/2” deep; 

aprons are around 3- 1/2” wide. Header and
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

46

Figure 35 View to southwest 

of front bedroom (102). (NPSSERO- CRS, 2002).

stool are missing from W- 10, where the sash 

also appear to have been removed.

Miscellaneous Features: A base cabinet extends 

the width of the northwest wall of the room and 

dates to the 1940s or 1950s. This cabinet is constructed of V- joint, tongue- and- groove boards, 

3- 1/2” wide, and contains an enameled steel 

sink set in an metal- trimmed, formica counter 

top. A well pump is mounted to the right of the 

sink.

Separating the kitchen area from the remainder 

of the room is a bar, 1’- 8” by 4’- 10”, rounded at 

the end, and finished with metal- trimmed formica. Wall cabinets on the southwest wall may 

be of more recent vintage.

A screened vent is located in the north corner 

of the room and may mark the location of a 

wood cooking stove. Above but not directly in 

line with it is the aluminum roof turbine noted 

above.

Front Bedroom (102)

This tiny bedroom room, 9’- 7” by 7’- 8”, is the 

best- preserved of all of the rooms in the house. 

Virtually all of its historic features remain intact 

and in good condition.

Floor: Flooring is typical 3- 1/2” tongue- andgroove. The flooring was initially painted and 

later covered with linoleum, which itself is now 

covered with wall- to- wall carpet.

Ceiling: Ceiling is finished with typical doubleV- joint boards, 3- 1/4” wide.

Walls: Walls are finished with typical doubleV- joint boards, 3- 1/4” wide.

Trim: Quarter- round molding finishes the joint 

between walls and ceiling and there is a plain 

6”- wide baseboard. Casing, header, sill and 

apron on the front window (W- 2) are 4- 1/2” 

wide. On the southwest window (W- 3), the sill 

is 4- 1/2” wide and casing, header, and apron 3- 1/

2” wide.

Miscellaneous Features: A wooden shelf, constructed of double- V- joint tongue- and- groove 

boards and probably original, runs the width of 

the rear or northwest wall of the room. Small 

wooden shelves are also mounted in the corners of the room.

Back Bedroom (103)

This bedroom, originally only about 7’- 8” by 

6’- 6”, was more than doubled in size during the 

house’s first expansion. It now measures 7’- 8”
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

47

Figure 36 View of back 

bedroom, Room 102. (NPSSERO-CR, 2002)

by 13’- 9”. The location of the original square 

window on the northwest wall is evident in the 

paneling on that wall near the front of the 

room.

Floor: Flooring is typical tongue- and- groove, 

3- 1/2” wide, painted and now covered with 

wall- to- wall carpeting.

Ceiling: As in Room 101, the original portion of 

the ceiling is finished with double- V- joint 

boards; the added portion is finished with single- V- joint boards 

Walls: As in Room 101, the original portions of 

the walls are finished with double- V- joint 

boards; the added portions are finished with 

single- V- joint boards. Original material appears to have been reused on the relocated rear 

wall.

Trim: The room features a plain 6” baseboard 

and 3/4” quarter- round at the ceiling. Removal 

of the original windows and alterations to the 

openings have destroyed the original trim material. The altered windows are haphazardly 

trimmed.

Back Hall (104)

This space was constructed along with the 

bathroom and appears to have served as a passage to a back door which is now closed.

Flooring: Flooring is typical tongue- andgroove, 3- 1/2” wide. It is now covered with a vinyl floor covering.

Ceiling: The ceiling is finished with plain 

tongue- and- groove boards like the flooring.

Walls: The outside (southeast and northeast) 

walls are open to the framing, closed only by 

the exterior sheathing (3/4” by 5- 1/2”) and asbestos siding. The wall separating the hall from 

the bathroom is made up of a mixture of plain, 

V- joint, and double- V- joint tongue- andgroove material, installed vertically without a 

frame.

Bathroom (105)

Part of the last historic addition to the house, 

this bath must have replaced an outside privy 

and was probably installed by the Bryants in the 

1950s.

Flooring: Flooring is typical tongue- andgroove, 3- 1/2” wide. It is now covered with a vinyl floor covering.
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

48

Figure 37 View of back hall. 

(NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 38 View of bathroom. 

(NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Ceiling: The ceiling is finished with plain 

tongue- and- groove boards like the flooring.

Walls: The outside (northwest and northeast) 

walls are open to the framing, closed only by 

the exterior sheathing and asbestos siding. The 

wall separating the hall from the bathroom is 

made up of a mixture of plain, V- joint, and 

double- V- joint tongue- and- groove material, 

installed vertically without a frame, and possibly recycled from the wall that originally partitioned Room 101.

Door: The door opening to the bathroom is 1’-

10” by 6’- 4”. The door itself has four vertical 

panels, unlike any other in the house, and may 

have been reused from another building.

Fixtures: In the north corner of the room is a 

metal shower enclosure, 32” by 32”, apparently 

installed when the room was constructed. The 

toilet, which also appears to date to the room’s 

original construction, is missing its tank and 

appears to be flushed using water from the 

metal water tank mounted on the wooden 

frame just outside the window. The original 

sink (if there was one) has been replaced by the 

present wooden cabinet with a modern, imitation marble sink.

Utilities

In the west corner of the bathroom a 30 amp 

fuse box is mounted, probably installed when 

the house was first wired for electricity after 

World War II. Most of the circuit wiring 

throughout the house appears to have been rewired with modern Romex wiring. Light fix-
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

49

tures are plain porcelain lamp holders. Historically, kerosene lamps provided the only 

artificial illumination. The house appears to 

have no source of artificial heat nor is any stove 

present.
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

50

Figure 39 Plan of existing 

house. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CRS, 

2002)

north 1' 4' 8'

100

W-1

102 103

101

104

105

W-2

D-1

W-5

W-6

W-6

W-7

W-4 W-3

W-10 W-9 W-8

D-2
PART II

TREATMENT & USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

53

PART 2 TREATMENT & USE

Introduction

This section of the Historic Structure Report is intended to show 

how a plan for treatment of the O’Boyle- Bryant House can be implemented with minimal adverse affect to the historic building 

while still addressing the problems with the present structure. 

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, which would encompass 

structural repairs and exterior restoration together with rehabilitation of the interior for continued residential use under the park’s 

leasing program for historic buildings, if that can be accomplished 

with minimal alteration to the building’s historic character.

Since 1976, the O’Boyle- Bryant House and several other residences in the park have been leased under the terms of a special 

use permit, and the owners have made a number of modifications 
Introduction

SERO

National Park Service

54

to the houses during that period. With the recent expiration and temporary renewal of these 

leases, the park’s approach to treatment and 

use of these structures has to be reconsidered 

in light of their recent historical designation as 

part of the Cape Lookout Village Historic District. For that reason, the park has ordered development of historic structure reports on 

many of the historic structures in the district. 

In addition to the O’Boyle- Bryant House, reports are being developed on the Lewis- Davis 

House, the Gaskill- Guthrie House, the Guthrie- Ogilvie House, Fishing Cottage #2, the Seifert- Davis House, the old Life- Saving Station 

and its Boat House, and the 1907 Lighthouse 

Keeper’s Dwelling. As a result, all of the studies 

have benefitted from a comparative analysis in 

terms of both historical and architectural data 

that might not otherwise have been possible.

However, historical research on the O’BoyleBryant House has not been exhaustive, and 

continued research, including oral interviews 

with present and former occupants of the 

house, should be encouraged. In addition, architectural investigation was non- destructive, 

and given the building’s proximity to the 

ground and the presence of modern finish materials both inside and outside the building, the 

condition of concealed elements could not be 

determined.

Development of a Cultural Landscape Report 

for the district has not been funded and the 

update of the park’s historic resource study remains incomplete. Since none of the residential structures would probably be eligible for 

individual listing in the National Register, 

treatment options depend as much on the goals 

for the entire village as on the particulars of a 

single building. Final definition of the treatment approach to the historic district as a 

whole will await completion of the larger contextual studies now underway. In the meantime, an approach to treatment of the 

individual structures can certainly be recommended to insure their continued preservation 

while making it possible for the park to pursue 

a range of interpretive opportunities for the 

site.
PART 2 TREATMENT & USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

55

Ultimate Treatment 

& 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 

O’Boyle- Bryant House. 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 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 recognize 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 

1. Cape Lookout GMP, p. 4.
Ultimate Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

56

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 identified 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 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. Contemporary 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."5

Use: In keeping with these parameters, the historic (and present) residential use of the 

O’Boyle- Bryant House and the other structures 

that were historically private residences should 

be continued, if that can be accomplished with 

minimal alteration to the buildings’ historic 

character.

Treatment: Of more immediate concern is the 

present condition of the building, where termites, poorly- maintained windows and exterior finishes, as well as a variety of haphazard 

repairs threaten the building’s continued preservation. In addition, the modifications to the 

building in the last twenty- five years have significantly compromised the house’s historic integrity. Removal of the front porch addition, 

restoration of the original roof line, and replacement of the missing back door and windows would restore that integrity and, with 

relatively simple, straightforward repairs of the 

building’s other historic features, would help 

insure the building’s continued preservation.

2. Ibid.

3. GMP, p. iii.

4. Ibid., p. 4.

5. Ibid., p. 35.
PART 2 TREATMENT & USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

57

One of the primary changes to the village’s 

houses in the last fifty years was the addition of 

bathrooms, and the Bryants were among the 

first to make that change. The Bryants were 

unusual, too, in avoiding the sort of ad- hoc, 

back- porch bathroom that is typical of later 

installations. Since a bathroom will be necessary to continue residential use, the existing 

bath room should be preserved rather than alter one of the other intact rooms in the house. 

And since the asbestos siding, which was also a 

typical alteration in the last fifty years, was 

contemporaneous with the bath room addition, 

it, too, should be repaired and preserved. In 

doing so, the Bryant House can help show the 

full range of the village’s historical evolution, 

from fishing shacks, to military residences, to 

part- time vacation homes with more- or- less 

modern conveniences.

In addition to repairs to preserve the building, 

continued residential use requires rehabilitation of the interior, primarily through minor 

repairs and repainting. Replacement of the 

building’s electrical and plumbing systems will 

also be necessary.
Ultimate Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

58
PART 2 TREATMENT & USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

59

Requirements for 

Treatment & Use

The historic character of the O’Boyle- Bryant House 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 the 

O’Boyle- Bryant House. The NPS' Cultural Resources Management Guideline (DO- 28) requires planning for the protection of 

cultural resources "whether or not they relate to the specific au-
Requirements for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

60

thorizing 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. Standards are included for each of the four separate 

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.

Modern building codes and accessibility issues 

are a major factor in designing repairs to historic structures and often necessitate significant changes to the building. Assuming 

continuation of leasing of the Bryant House for 

residential use, public access will be restricted, 

and therefore, full compliance with accessibility codes may not be necessary. In any event, 

the close proximity of the house to the ground 

facilitates handicapped entrance, although the 

width of doors and configuration of interior 

spaces limits full accessibility without significant alterations to the building.

However, the O’Boyle- Bryant House as well as 

most of the other structures in the district have 

major deficiencies in terms of compliance with 

building and life safety codes. Electrical and 

plumbing systems, for instance, are thoroughly 

inadequate and must be replaced entirely if the 

building is to remain occupied.

More difficult to address are the house’s foundation and framing, which, as with most of the 

other historic houses in the district, do not 

meet all of the requirements of modern building codes, particularly those related to coastal 

storms and flooding. While it is worth noting 

that, in spite of what appears to be relatively 

weak framing, the houses in the district have 

survived hurricane and flooding for over seventy years, improvements in the structure 

could and should be made. Floors should be 

strengthened and stabilized by the addition of 

support sills at mid- span beneath the present 

joists, and the building’s wood frame should be 

tied to the piles that form the building’s foundation. A number of structural issues would still 

remain, but the very nature of the vernacular 

design and construction of the house makes full 

code compliance impossible without dismantling and reconstructing the building, which 

would have a significant negative impact on the 

historic character of the building. However, the 

park has faced similar issues with many of the 

buildings at Portsmouth and has generally been 
PART 2 TREATMENT & USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

61

able to make necessary repairs without totally 

compromising the buildings’ historic character. In any case, the small scale of the house will 

naturally restrict occupancy, and mandatory 

evacuation of the house during hurricanes 

should preclude the need for extensive structural alterations.

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.
Requirements for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

62
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

63

Alternatives for 

Treatment & Use

There are three main approaches to treatment that could be considered for the O’Boyle- Bryant House: preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration. Each implies more aggressive levels of 

intervention into the existing building, with a corresponding diminishment in the authenticity of the historic building. Yet quite 

often simple preservation does not satisfy requirements for modern use, while rehabilitation may not facilitate and in fact might diminish the opportunity for historical interpretation. On the other 

hand, many buildings are of insufficient historic significance to 

warrant full- scale restoration. An examination of each of these 

approaches in terms of the O’Boyle- Bryant House is useful in determining the most efficacious approach to its treatment and use.

Preservation: This approach would attempt to maintain the features and fabric that exist today by simply making repairs, including replacement of antiquated wiring, sewer, and water supply 

systems. Structural repairs would be made as necessary to replace 

deteriorated members but not to restructure the building’s framing. Closure of the missing door and window on the northeast 

side would be improved but the door and window themselves 

would not be replaced. Deteriorated windows would be repaired 

but the existing metal storm windows at some openings would be 

maintained. The roof covering would be replaced in kind as 
Alternatives for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

64

would missing or broken cementious shingles. 

Interior repairs would be quite limited, with no 

repainting, except of window sash which are 

subject to further damage from water penetration if left unpainted.

While this approach would not diminish the 

historic resource, it would also not allow for 

the improvements that would be necessary to 

bring the building to modern standards for 

continued residential occupancy. Nor would 

this approach improve the park’s ability to interpret the historic building which has undergone major modern alterations, especially in 

the last twenty- five years. Preservation as an 

overall approach then would only be appropriate if the park intends to mothball the buildings, which is unlikely, given its current agenda 

as well as the President’s recent directive regarding the economic potential of historic 

buildings.

Rehabilitation: One of the more common approaches to treatment of historic buildings, rehabilitation, would go a step further than 

preservation. Under this approach, more modifications to the existing building might be considered, including alterations to bring the 

structure into better compliance with modern 

building codes. Wood sash could be reinstated 

where missing and the closed window and 

door openings reinstated. The asbestos siding, 

which is badly damaged in many locations, 

could be removed and the underlying wood 

siding repaired. The kitchen and bath might be 

completely replaced as well and modern lighting and central heat or air- conditioning installed. All work, of course, would be designed 

to be reversible and would not diminish the 

historic building fabric or the house’s historic 

character beyond the changes that have already 

been made.

Under this scenario, the main goal would be, at 

a minimum, to eliminate hazards in order that 

residential use be continued. In addition, the 

park would probably want to install a modicum 

of creature comforts that would make the 

building attractive to a wider range of prospective tenants.

Restoration: Instead of simply preserving the 

building or rehabilitating it for continued residential use, there are a number of opportunities for restoration that could benefit 

interpretation of the historic district and its architecture. The O’Boyle- Bryant House as well 

as the other houses in the district are mainly 

significant for being part of an ensemble of vernacular buildings, many of which are quite 

similar in appearance and in historical evolution. Therefore, treatment of any one house 

should not be considered outside that context, 

and a consistent approach to treatment of all 

the houses must be established.

Restoration of the O’Boyle- Bryant House and 

the other houses in the district to their appearance prior to the 1960s would be relatively simple, but immediately raises a number of 

contextual issues surrounding presentation 

and interpretation of the historic district as a 

whole. Over the last twenty- five or thirty years, 

the character of the landscape in the village has 

changed so dramatically that, today, views from 

most of the residences are restricted to a few 
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

65

hundred feet due to the myrtle and other plants 

that have grown up thickly throughout the historic district. It is no longer possible to see virtually all of the buildings on the cape from a 

single vantage point, as it was historically, and it 

is often difficult for a visitor to perceive a “village” at all. To present the district as it appeared during the historic period prior to 1950, 

three major projects or groups of projects 

would need to be undertaken in addition to 

building restoration:

• return to their historic locations of the government- constructed buildings that were 

moved in 1958- - - the lighthouse keeper’s 

quarters, the old life- saving station, and the 

boat house; 

• removal of modern houses and structures 

from the district; and

• restoration of the historic landscape, 

including widespread removal of vegetation.

Relocation of historic government buildings, 

removal of non- contributing structures, and 

restoration of the historic landscape are technically possible, but would undoubtedly generate 

rather significant operational, financial, and 

political issues. Resolution of these issues is far 

beyond the scope of the present study, but it 

makes little sense to undertake restoration of 

the private residences (it is unlikely that any of 

them would be eligible for individual listing in 

the National Register) without at least some 

restoration of the context in which they exist. 

Completing a Cultural Landscape Report and, 

perhaps, revisiting the park’s General Management Plan would be necessary to appropriate 

decision- making on these complex issues.

In addition, restoration would, in most cases, 

eliminate many modern conveniences, since 

only two of the residences seem to have had 

historic bathrooms in place, and those were installed at the very end of the historic period. 

Restoration to their appearance before World 

War II would also significantly reduce floor 

space in most of the structures, making them 

much less attractive for leasing. Unless interpretation of cultural resources becomes the 

prime focus at Cape Lookout, which does not 

seem likely, there is little justification for this 

level of intervention in the historic buildings.

However, a case can be made for restoration of 

a typical “Banker house” for interpretive purposes. Restored to its original appearance, such 

a house could help visitors envision the harsh, 

almost primitive living conditions at the cape 

and, along with historic photographs, convey 

some sense of the village’s appearance between 

the World Wars.

However, the O’Boyle- Bryant House would 

not be the best choice for restoration to its early 

twentieth- century appearance, primarily because the scale and condition of the house if restored to its appearance late in the historic 

period lends itself well to leasing and other 

modern uses. In essence, restoration of the 

O’Boyle- Bryant House to any but its appearance late in the historic period cannot be justified under the present circumstances.
Alternatives for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

66
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

67

Recommendation 

for Treatment & 

Use

The goal for treatment of the historically- private dwellings in 

Cape Lookout Village, including the O’Boyle- Bryant House, is 

restoration of the exteriors to their appearance around 1950 and 

rehabilitation of the interiors for continued residential use, if that 

can be accomplished with minimal alteration to the building’s historic character. This would include removal of the front porch 

addition, restoration of missing or altered windows, and restoration of the back door. On the interior, treatment would include 

complete rehabilitation of the kitchen and bathroom, replacement 

of electrical and plumbing systems, and limited structural improvements to improve the building’s capacity to withstand wind 

and flood.

Site

Treatment of the landscape around the house should be defined 

through a Cultural Landscape Report. In the meantime, the garage on the west side of the house, which was constructed prior to 

1961, could be repaired and remain useful, especially since none of 

the historic outbuildings remain in the district. Its presence illustrates the long history of automobile and truck use at the cape, use 

that can be documented at least to the early 1920s.
Recommendation for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

68

The raised water tank at the rear of the house is 

not historic, although it is likely that a similar 

arrangement was present at least as long as the 

bathroom was present. The existing tank stand 

could be repaired or rebuilt, and, if appropriate, incorporated into a new system of water 

supply.

There is no evidence that the small lattice structure at the northeast corner of the house is historic and its removal is recommended.

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.

Finally, in replacing foundation piles, it will be 

necessary to lift the building temporarily. In 

conjunction with the foundation replacement, 

the grade level under the building’s footprint 

should be raised to insure that water does not 

continue to pond beneath the structure. In 

summary:

• repair and maintain garage;

• repair or reconstruct elevated water 

tank at rear of house;

• remove modern structure in front yard;

• raise grade beneath house to insure 

good drainage;

• follow recommendations of Cultural 

Landscape Report in determining 

additional treatment of the surrounding landscape.

Foundation

The building’s foundation is constructed of 

wooden piles, some or most of which date to 

1939. Although most of these are still functional, it is appropriate to replace then now, 

since the building will have to be lifted in order 

to complete inspection and repair of the sills 

and floor framing. This would also provide the 

opportunity to secure the connection between 

the wood frame of the house and the piles on 

which it sits. The size and spacing of the existing piles appears to be adequate and new piles 

should replicate the existing arrangement. In 

summary:

• raise house and replace all wood piles, 

replicating the size and placement of 

existing piles;

• strengthen connection of the house’s 

sills to the foundation piles.

Structure

In many cases, sizing and spacing of historic 

and modern framing members do not meet 

modern code requirements, but the historic 

framing can be augmented without total replacement. In raising the building to replace 

foundation piles, additional beams can be installed to strengthen the floor system. Set on 

wooden piles, these should be run perpendicular to the joists in a manner similar to the support beam that already exists at mid- span of 

the original joists. Temporarily raising the 

building would also allow easier access for 

necessary repairs to termite or water damaged 

sills and, as noted above, to raise the grade
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

69

Figure 40 The goal of the 

proposed plan is a return of the 

house to its general appearance 

in this image, c. 1970, minus the 

asbestos siding. (CALO Coll., 

Phelps#6)

beneath the building to insure good drainage. 

It may also make possible improvements to the 

connection of the wall framing to the perimeter 

sills. Augmentation of the wall framing is not 

recommended since that would necessitate total removal of interior and/or exterior finishes, 

something which cannot be accomplished 

without significant damage to and loss of historic materials. 

It would be possible to add rafters to reduce the 

span of and load on the original rafters, but the 

lack of noticeable deflection in the existing 

rafters and ridge suggests that may not be necessary. However, the connection of the expanded roof framing to the original roof 

framing, which remains largely intact, should 

be inspected and improved as necessary. In doing this work, care should be taken not to damage or destroy historic roof framing and roof 

coverings that remain in the attic.

The addition to the front porch should be removed and the original front porch restored. 

The ceiling of the historic porch remains intact 

and posts can be replaced using marks on the 

existing header to locate positions. The floor 

will probably need to be rebuilt entirely and 

finished with plain 1” by 6” boards.

Using photographs of the house before 1978 as 

a guide, the outside walls of the porch and the 

door to the porch can be reconstructed. The 
Recommendation for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

70

wooden awnings, knee walls, and solid wooden 

porch door were added after World War II but 

are in keeping with a treatment approach that 

emphasizes the last phase of the building’s historic evolution. In summary:

• repair sills as necessary;

• improve connections of framing members to reduce the possibility of significant damage from high winds;

• augment floor framing with added support beams;

• preserve historic framing members in 

situ throughout the structure;

• remove addition to front porch and 

restore historic porch enclosure.

Roofing

The house was roofed with red roll roofing 

originally and, after the house’s expansion, 

with either roll roofing or, more likely, asphalt 

shingles. When the roofing is next replaced, 

underlying layers of roofing should be carefully 

examined and recorded and samples archived 

for future reference. If possible, new roof coverings should match the original layer on the 

bathroom addition, which should date to the 

historic period. If no earlier layers are present, 

white asphalt shingles would be appropriate 

when replacement of roofing is necessary. In 

summary:

• investigate existing layers of roofing on 

the house to determine appropriate 

replacement roof covering;

• if no earlier layers can be found, use 

white asphalt shingles.

Exterior Finishes

The existing cementious siding, which probably dates to the 1950s should be considered historic, although many shingles are broken and 

there is the likelihood of additional breakage as 

the building’s structure is repaired. The recommended removal of similar siding on other 

buildings in the district should provide plenty 

of spare shingles with which to make repairs to 

the Bryant House.

Window casing and trim is badly deteriorated 

in most locations. If it is necessary to replace 

elements, new elements should match the original. Window sills, casing, and trim should 

match W- 1 and W- 2, which are in good condition. At W- 8 and W- 9, the existing sills, casing, 

and trim, as well as the unique aprons should 

be preserved or replicated.

Limited examination of the historic exterior 

siding suggests that it was always painted white. 

Door and window sash, casing, and trim was 

originally white but prior to installation of the 

asbestos had been painted dark green, similar 

to that which remains on part of the front 

porch ceiling. In summary:

• repair and preserve cement- asbestos siding;

• repair underlying wood siding as necessary;

• repair window sills, casing, and trim to 

match those at W- 1 and W- 2, except at W- 8 

and W- 9 where the aprons should be preserved.
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

71

• repaint siding, eaves, and other exposed 

woodwork white, except for window and 

door sills, casing, sash, and trim and the 

front porch ceiling, all of which should be 

painted dark green.

Doors

Historically, there appears to have been both a 

front and back door to the house. The existing 

front door (D- 1) is historic and should be preserved and maintained as is. Existing hardware 

is mostly historic, but the metal knobs should 

be replaced with white porcelain knobs to 

match the original.

The historic back door (D- 2) has been completely closed, and it is not known if a door any 

longer exists at that location. For practical reasons, the door should be reopened. Since the 

nature of the historic door itself is unknown, a 

modern flush door could be used at that location so that it would not be confused with the 

historic doors that remain elsewhere in the 

building. In summary:

• preserve and maintain front door;

• replace existing knobs at front door 

with white porcelain;

• reopen back door and install modern 

flush door if the historic door has been 

lost.

Windows

The existing wooden window sash should be 

repaired and maintained. The window opening that has been closed on the northwest wall 

of Room 101 (W- 10) should be reopened and 

new wooden sash matching that at W- 3 and 

W- 9 installed. Modern storm windows at 

windows W- 4 and W- 5 should be removed 

and replaced with wooden sash to match those 

at W- 1 and W- 2. In summary:

• repair existing wooden sash. If that is 

not possible, replacement sash should 

match the existing sash in that opening;

• reopen window at W- 10, installing sash 

that match existing sash at W- 3 and W9;

• replace metal storm windows at W- 4 

and W- 5 with wooden sash that match 

surviving sash at W- 1 and W- 2.

Interior

The interior of the house should be rehabilitated as necessary for continued residential 

use. Although existing historic finishes should 

be preserved, some latitude may be given in 

treatment of the interior since it will not be 

open to the public or interpreted. This should 

not include removal or damage to historic finishes but could include the addition of modern 

floor coverings and other finishes.

Existing wall and ceiling paneling, all of which 

is historic, should be repaired as necessary, being careful to maintain the distinction between 

the two generations of historic paneling.

Because the floors are almost completely covered with linoleum and vinyl floor- coverings, 

the condition of the flooring could not be assessed, but some repairs will undoubtedly be 
Recommendation for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

72

necessary. When the layers of floor- coverings 

now in place are removed, they should be documented and samples archived into the park’s 

permanent architectural study collection.

Window trim will need to be replaced at W- 9, 

W- 4, and W- 5; minor repairs will be required 

elsewhere.

The existing base cabinet and peninsula in the 

kitchen, both of which appear to date to the 

1950s, should be maintained if possible. If replacement of the tops is deemed necessary, 

replication of the metal- edged counters typical 

of the period should be considered. The shelving around the kitchen windows should be 

maintained if possible, and although the wall 

cabinets may date to a later period, they could 

be maintained as well.

The kitchen sink might be re- used, but the toilet and the shower, which are historic, and the 

modern bathroom lavatory will require replacement.

After repairs, floors, walls, ceilings, and trim 

should be repainted. Interior colors could be 

chosen by the park or by prospective tenants, 

since the interior will not be visible to the public.

The house should be completely rewired, adding convenience outlets as necessary and ceiling fixtures wherever they are now located. 

Simple keyless sockets with bare bulbs presently light the interior and, given the character 

of the house, their use might be continued 

since the house has never had formal light fixtures. In summary:

• rehabilitate interior for continued residential use;

• repair and maintain historic paneling 

on walls and ceilings as well as wood 

flooring and trim;

• repair and rehabilitate existing base 

and wall cabinets, peninsula counter, 

and shelving around windows;

• replace toilet, lavatory, and shower;

• install new electrical system; consider 

continued use of keyless fixtures; 

include wiring to support use of space 

heaters;

• install new plumbing supply and waste 

lines to bathroom and kitchen.

Additional Research

The nature of the current study allowed for 

only limited research, and a number of potential sources for historical information have not 

been investigated. Most important would be 

interviews with O’Boyle and Bryant family 

members. Especially useful would be research 

to document the Army’s possible use of the site 

during World War II.

Paint analysis was not part of the research for 

this report. If public access and interpretation 

is ever considered for the interior, a paint study 

would be necessary to accurately portray the 

historic appearance of the interior.
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

73

Finally, development of a Cultural Landscape 

Report is necessary to adequately define appropriate treatment of the site. In summary:

• locate and interview O’Boyle and Bryant family members regarding house’s 

history;

• conduct paint analysis of interior 

should it ever be opened for public 

interpretation;

• complete Cultural Landscape Report 

and implement recommendations for 

site treatment.
Recommendation for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

74

Figure 41 Plan of proposed 

alterations to O’Boyle-Bryant 

House. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 

2003)

north

1' 4' 8'

102 103

101

104

105

Note 1

Note 3

Note 7

Note 5

Note 6

Note 4

Notes

Repair and maintain existing historic interior and exterior woodwork, including windows and doors. Repair and 

preserve asbestos siding. Install new asphalt roof covering.

1. Remove porch addition (hatched area).

2. Preserve existing ceiling; replace porch posts; reconstruct knee wall and shutters.

3. Replace existing aluminum windows with wood sash and trim to match windows on front of house.

4. Repair and retain existing cabinetry and pump, replacing sink and counters if necessary.

5. Rehabilitate bathroom, replacing lavatory, shower and toilet.

6. Restore door, screen door, door step at existing opening.7. Retain or replace existing aprons at these windows; reinstate aprons at other windows.

8. Replace missing sash and trim, matching those in adjacent window.

Note 8

Note 2

Note 9
HSR

O’Boyle-Bryant House

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

75

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

76

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