Cape Lookout National Seashore

LEWIS- DAVIS 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 

Lewis- Davis House

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Cape Lookout Village

LCS#: 091828

Cover page, Lewis- Davis House, c. 1945 

(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.
Lewis-Davis House

Historic Structure Report

Contents

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

v

List of Figures vii

Foreword xiii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Executive Summary 1

Historical Summary 1

Architectural Summary 2

Recommendations 2

Administrative Data 5

Location Data 5

Related Studies 6

Cultural Resource Data: 6

PART I DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

Historical Background & Context 7

Diamond City 9

Cape Lookout Village 13

Lewis-Davis House 19

Chronology of Development & Use 23

Original Construction 23

Historic Changes 25

Modern Changes 26

Physical Description 29

Associated Site Features 30

Foundation 31

Structural System 31

Roofing 32

Exterior Finishes 33

Doors and Windows 33
SERO

National Park Service

vi

Front Porch 35

Room 100 35

Room 101 36

Room 102 37

Room 103 38

Room 104 39

Room 105 

PART II TREATMENT AND USE

Treatment and Use 43

Ultimate Treatment and Use 44

Requirements for Treatment and Use 46

Alternatives for Treatment and Use 48

Recommendations for Treatment & Use 53

Site 53

Foundation 54

Structure 54

Exterior Finishes 55

Doors 56

Windows 56

Interior 57

Additional Research 58

REFERENCE

Sources of Information 61
HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

vii

List of Figures

1 Proposed plan for treatment and use. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 2003) 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 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) 16

10 View of Cape Lookout Village, 1942. The Lewis-Davis House is out of view at 

left. (CALO Coll., Royer #4) 17

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

O’Boyle #21) 18

12 View of porch of Carrie Davis’ store, October 1942. The dance hall is at left 

rear and her shingled house at center rear. (CALO Coll., Royer 

photographs) 20

13 View of Lewis-Davis House during World War II. (CALO Coll., Royer 

photographs) 21
SERO

National Park Service

viii

14 Reconstructed floor plan of house as it was constructed in the 1920s. (T. Jones, 

NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 24

15 “Bull” Hunter’s store “near the Coast Guard Station” at Cape Lookout, 

c. 1925. 24

16 View of Lewis-Davis House in 1942. (CALO Coll., Royer photographs) 25

17 Side elevation of Lewis-Davis House illustrating changes to roof line after 

WWII. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 26

18 View to east of Lewis-Davis House in August 1958. (CALO Coll.) 27

19 View to northwest of Lewis-Davis house from lookout at Coast Guard Station 

(NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 27

20 View to north of Carrie Davis House. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 30

21 View to northwest, showing metal storage building in rear yard. (NPS-SEROCR, 2002) 30

22 View of water tanks at rear of house. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 30

23 View of crawl space and piers. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 31

24 View of typical joist sill connection. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 31

25 View of collapsing floor under Room 104. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 31

26 View of junction of roofs of two original structures; note severe termite 

damage in rafters and decking at left. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 32

27 View of wood shingle roof on original structure encompassing Rooms 100 

and 101 . (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 32

28 View of heavily-damaged roof and ceiling structure over Room 104. (NPSSERO-CR, 2002) 32

29 View of window W-2 on southeast (front) side of house, with exterior siding 

and trim typical of the original building. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 33

30 View of front door D-1. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 34

31 View to north on front porch. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 34

32 View to northeast in Room 100. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 35

33 View to northwest in Room 100. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 35
HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

ix

34 View to west in Room 101. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 36

35 View to southeast in Room 101. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 36

36 View to south in Room 102. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 37

37 View to northeast in Room 102. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 37

38 View to northwest in Room 103. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 38

39 View to southeast in Room 103. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 38

40 View to west in Room 104. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 39

41 View to east of ceiling in Room 104. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 39

42 View northwest in Room 105. Arrow marks header at outside of historic 

porch. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 40

43 View to southeast in Room 105. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 40

44 Floor plan of existing building. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 2002) 41

45 Proposed plan for treatment and use. (T. Jones, NPS-SERO-CR, 2003) 59
SERO

National Park Service

x
HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

xi

Project Team

Project Manager Danny Scheidt, Historical Architect

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA

Building Investigation, Research,

Report Author

Tommy H. Jones, Architectural Historian

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA

Program Reviews Danny Scheidt, Historical Architecture

Bob Blythe, History

Allen Bohnert, Curatorial & Museum

Services

Jon Buono, Historical Architect

Tracy Stakely, Cultural Landscapes

National Park Service

Southeast Regional Office

Atlanta, GA
SERO

National Park Service

xii
HSR

Lewis-Davis House xiii

Foreword

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen Duggan, Park Ranger (Interpretation). In addition, Clark Davis, caretaker for the building’s 

owner, was generous in providing access to the house and discussing its history.

Chief

Cultural Resources Stewardship

Southeast Regional Office

December 2004
SERO

National Park Service

xiv
HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

1

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Executive 

Summary

Historical Summary

According to the National Register nomination, the house was 

built by Carrie Davis around 1930. However, research and building 

investigation during the course of this report indicates that the 

house was actually built perhaps ten years earlier by James C. 

Lewis, a long- time employee of the Coast Guard at Cape Lookout. 

Lewis retired from the Coast Guard in 1931 and, around that time, 

sold the house to Carrie Arrendel Davis. It is not clear if Davis actually lived in the house, since by about 1935, she had built a larger 

house next to the store and dance hall that she owned on the 

shore of the bight. Located just south of the old Coast Guard 

dock, the store and dance hall were focal points for life at the Cape 

in the 1930s and 1940s. The commanding officer at the army base 

at Cape Lookout occupied the house during World War II. After 

Davis’ death in 1955, her daughter inherited the house and maintained a lease on the property until it expired in 2002.
Executive Summary

SERO

National Park Service

2

Architectural Summary

Architecturally, the Lewis- Davis House is of 

considerable significance in interpretation of 

the Cape Lookout Historic District. Created by 

relocation and combination of two earlier 

“fishing shacks” around 1920, the house contains some of the earliest examples of the cape’s 

historic architecture and illustrates one of many 

ways in which the cape’s residents have always 

adapted and re- used their buildings.

However, the house is in very poor condition, 

with major damage from termites and rot, 

much of it due to a leaking roof. Like the other 

private residences in the district, it has also undergone significant alterations that include major expansion of the porches.

Recommendations

A comprehensive planning process resulting in 

an amendment to the park’s GMP will be necessary to insure that the park’s and the public’s 

needs are addressed and that the historic buildings are used appropriately.

In essence, the goal for treatment of the historically- private dwellings in Cape Lookout Village, including the Lewis- Davis 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 without compromising their historic character. This would include removal of 

the additions to the front and side porches, 

complete rehabilitation of the kitchen, design 

and installation of a new bathroom, replacement of electrical and plumbing systems, and 

limited structural improvements to improve the 

building’s capacity to withstand wind and 

flood.

However, the Lewis- Davis House is in poor 

condition structurally, which complicates its 

overall treatment and may make preservation 

of the entire structure impractical at the 

present time. This is especially so if continued 

residential use is necessary, since bringing the 

building up to code compliance for residential 

use would necessarily require considerable alterations to the historic building, even if the 

code’s allowances for historic buildings are applied. However, the two front rooms at the 

front of the house comprise all of one of the 

two houses brought together to form the 

present structure. Its end- gabled, wood- shingled roof remains intact under the modern 

roof, and the entire structure is in somewhat 

better condition than the rear half of the house. 

This small structure is one of the earliest, intact, 

private houses remaining on the cape, and because of its small scale, it should be possible to 

repair and preserve it as an aid to interpretation 

even if it cannot be completely rehabilitated. 

Site

• Clear site of rubbish and debris.

• Remove storage building.

• Follow recommendations of Cultural 

Landscape Report in determining 

treatment of the surrounding landscape.

• Improve site drainage and eliminate 

standing water beneath house.
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

3

Foundation

• Raise house and replace all wood piles, 

replicating the existing size and placement of piles.

• Design and install storm- resistant 

mechanism to tie the house’s wood 

frame to the foundation piles.

Structure

• Stabilize structure before repairs proceed.

• Remove 1950s roof structure and 

restore original roofs.

• Repair floor, wall, and ceiling framing 

as necessary and make improvements 

in connections of framing members to 

reduce the possibility of significant 

damage from high winds.

• Remove porch additions and restore 

porches to their appearance in the 

1940s photographs.

• If entire house cannot be salvaged, 

repair and preserve original structure 

encompassing Rooms 100 and 101.

Exterior Finishes

• Remove cement- asbestos siding.

• Repair underlying boards and install 

new battens to match the original.

• Repair and preserve historic boardand- batten siding and trim on front 

and side porches.

• Repair and preserve other exterior 

woodwork.

• Paint siding dark green, matching surviving paint on side porch, and trim in 

white as seen in 1940s photographs.

Doors

• Repair and preserve existing historic 

doors.

• Install new doors at Room 104 and at 

new bathroom.

Windows

• Preserve historic sash (W- 1, W- 2, W4).

• Restore altered opening (W- 3) in 

Room 100.

• Replace missing sash (W- 8) at rear 

porch.

• Repair or replace remaining sash as 

necessary.

Interior

• Rehabilitate interior for continued residential use.

• Repair and maintain historic paneling 

on walls and ceilings, flooring, and 

trim; preserve samples of historic floor 

coverings.

• Remove existing bathroom and install 

new bathroom in Room 103.

• Construct new kitchen at northeast 

end of Room 102.

• Install new plumbing supply and waste 

lines to bathroom and kitchen.
Executive Summary

SERO

National Park Service

4

• Rewire building, restoring historic light 

fixtures in Rooms 100 and 101.

Additional Research

• Locate and interview Lewis and Davis 

family members regarding house’s history.

• Conduct paint analysis of interior 

should it ever be opened for public 

interpretation.
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

5

Figure 1 Proposed plan for 

treatment and use. (T. Jones, NPSSERO-CR, 2003)

1' 4' 8'

north

Notes

Remove 1950s roof structure and restore original roofs. Remove cement-asbestos siding, restore underlying board-and-batten siding. Repair and maintain existing historic interior and exterior woodwork.

1. Remove porch additions (hatched areas).

2. Restore front porch, reconstructing partial screened enclosure.3. Remove existing bathroom installation on side porch, restore screened porch.

4. Install new wood sash, 6/6, to match historic windows.

5. Close opening at this location.

6. Construct new wall to partition this space; remodel for bathroom and utility storage.

7. Install new kitchen sink, counter and cabinets in this area.

8. Repair major water and termite damage to sills, floor and ceiling joists, and rafters in this area.

9. Repair major damage to floor framing in this area.

10.Repair major water damage to structure in this area.

Note 2

Note 6

water

heater refrigerator

range shelves

Note 1

Note 7

Note 5

Note 4

Note 1

Note 3

Note 8

Note 9

Note 10
Executive Summary

SERO

National Park Service

6
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

5

Administrative 

Data 

Location Data

Building Name: Lewis- Davis House

Building Address: Cape Lookout Village

LCS#: 091828

Cape Lookout Village
Administrative Data 

SERO

National Park Service

6

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.

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 2000

Period of Significance: 1870- 1950

Proposed Treatment: Structural stabilization, 

exterior restoration, interior rehabilitation
HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

7

PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

Historical 

Background & 

Context

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

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

of Core Banks, which stretch in a southwesterly direction from 

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

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

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Accessible only by boat, the 

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

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

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

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

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

It is predominantly a sand environment whose native vegetation is 

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

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

1960s.

Cape Lookout Bight began to attract some shipping activities in 

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

SERO

National Park Service

8

Figure 2 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 I DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

9

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 3 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

10

Figure 4 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 I DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

11

Figure 5 Map of Cape 

Lookout, c. 1890. (Coast Guard 

Collection)
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

12

Figure 6 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 in 

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 I DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

13

Figure 7 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 

destruction 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 gasolinepowered boats after about 1905 made travel to 

Harkers Island, Beaufort, and elsewhere far 

more convenient, and it was soon apparent that 

the post office was not worth maintaining. It 

was discontinued in June 1911, barely fourteen 

months after its inception.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

14

Figure 8 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 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 I DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

15

boats, which lessened the crew’s isolation, 

combined to greatly reduce the rapid turnover 

in personnel that had plagued the station since 

the 1890s.

The use of gasoline- powered boats around 

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

mode of transportation rapidly transformed life 

at the cape .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

16

Figure 9 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 I DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

17

Figure 10 View of Cape 

Lookout Village, 1942. The 

Lewis-Davis House is out of view 

at left. (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 

13.Rex Quinn, The Gun Mounts at Cape 

Lookout, Historic Resource Study 

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

SERO

National Park Service

18

Figure 11 View to northeast from 

near Coast Guard Station, April 

1941. (CALO Coll., O’Boyle #21)

September 1976, enough land had been assembled for the Secretary of the Interior to formally 

declare establishment of the Cape Lookout 

National Seashore.

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

Station at Cape Lookout, which included the 

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

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

for inclusion in the national seashore. Rights of 

occupancy under twenty- five year leases or life 

estates were granted to those “who on January 

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

was developed and used for noncommercial 

residential purposes.”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 

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 I DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

19

listed on the National Register, followed by the 

Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station in 1989.

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.

Lewis-Davis House

According to the National Register nomination, 

the house was built by Carrie Davis around 

1930. However, Clark Davis, the current tenant, 

stated unequivocally that it was, in fact, built in 

the 1920s by his uncle James L. “Jimmy” Lewis, 

who sold the property to Carrie Davis when he 

retired from the Coast Guard in 1931.16 There is 

no recorded deed for the sale, although there is 

a recorded deed for her purchase of what 

would be her commercial property on the 

shore of the Bight in 1932.

James C. Lewis was born around 1892 in North 

Carolina and probably grew up in Carteret 

County. He enlisted at the Cape Lookout Coast 

Guard station in late 1917 or early 1918 and, the 

following year married “Maggie C.,” whose last 

name has not been documented. When the 

Federal census was taken in January 1920, 

Jimmy and Maggie Davis were listed in the enumeration of Harkers Island, where their permanent residence was apparently located. Sharing 

the household with them was Odell Guthrie, 

who also worked at the Coast Guard Station at 

Cape Lookout and bought his own house at 

Cape Lookout in 1923.

The Lewis’ first child, Guy, was born later in 

1920, and it appears that Maggie and the baby 

spent at least part of the time at the Cape while 

James was on duty. On September 16, 1921, the 

officer in charge of the Coast Guard Station

16.Interview at the house with Clark Davis by 

the present author, October 23, 2002. In 

an interview on October 22, 2002, David 

Yeomans also stated that Davis bought the 

house from “somebody else,” but he could 

not identify the seller.
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

20

Figure 12 View of porch of Carrie 

Davis’ store, October 1942. The 

dance hall is at left rear and her 

shingled house at center rear. 

(CALO Coll., Royer photographs)

recorded the Lewis’ harrowing experience the 

previous day as James was “on his way home” 

with Maggie and the baby. The boat was traveling at a high rate of speed when Maggie, 

holding the baby in her arms, was pitched 

overboard. Unable to swim, she had begun to 

sink by the time her husband got back to her, 

but he was able to grab her hair and pull her 

back on board, still clutching the baby. His 

life- saving skills, including resuscitation, saved 

the day, and mother and son were both revived 

unhurt.17 The Lewis’ second child, a daughter 

named Ira, was born in 1923, and by 1925 they 

had moved to Marshallberg, across the sound 

from Harker’s Island.18 There, their son James, 

Jr., was born in the fall of 1928, around the time 

that their oldest son was starting school. In the 

fall of 1931, J. C. Lewis resigned his service with 

the Coast Guard.19 It is not clear exactly when 

Lewis sold the house at Cape Lookout to Carrie Davis, but it probably occurred in 1932.

Carrie Davis was born Carrie F. Arrendale on 

October 6, 1875, the daughter of Thomas Arrendale and Martha Oglesby, in Newport, N. 

17.Cape Lookout Life-Saving Station Journal, 

September 16, 1921. The original journals 

are in Record Group 26 at the National 

Archives and Records Administration, East 

Point, Georgia.

18.Each volume of the LSS journals begins 

with a list of the station crew, their 

spouses or next of kin, and their place of 

residence.

19.The precise date of his discharge has not 

been documented.
PART I DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

21

Figure 13 View of Lewis-Davis 

House during World War II. (CALO 

Coll., Royer photograph)

C.20 Very little of her early life has been documented beyond her marriage to Henry G. 

Pierce on May 17, 1893.21 How long they remained married has not been documented, nor 

is it known if any children were born of that 

marriage. By 1915, Pierce was either dead or 

they had divorced, and she had remarried. Her 

new husband, who had also been previously 

married, was Frederick S. Davis, a native New 

Yorker born about 1863. Their only child, a 

daughter named Edith, was born about 1915, 

and although the family has not been located in 

the 1920 census, they are shown in the 1930 

census living on Arrendale Street, perhaps in 

her parents’ old house, in Morehead City.

In December 1932, Sterling Davis sold Carrie 

Davis (no family relationship has been documented) a 50’ by 100’ lot “fronting the shore” of 

Cape Lookout Bight.22 It is not clear if the 

three buildings photographed on the site during World War II were there when Carrie Davis 

bought the property in 1932 or if she had them 

built. In one of the buildings, Davis operated a 

small general store, and next door to it was a 

large, hipped- roof, screened pavilion that was 

a popular dance hall. In addition, by World 

War II, Davis had apparently built a house for 

herself next to the store and dance hall and 

rented the smaller Lewis- Davis House near the 

Coast Guard Station that she had bought from 

20.Carteret Co. Death Certificate, 38-29.

21.Carteret Co. Marriage Records.

22.Carteret Co. Deeds and Mortgages, Book 

74, p. 1.
Historical Background & Context

SERO

National Park Service

22

Jimmy Lewis. Her husband had apparently 

died between 1930 and 1932 and she may have 

moved to Cape Lookout for financial reasons.

Recent research has shown that the cook at the 

Coast Guard Station lived in the Lewis- Davis 

house through most of World War II. According to family members, the cook, Willard “Bill” 

Royer, was posted to Cape Lookout in October 

1941, and in February 1942, his wife and two 

daughters moved from Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, to join him. Until the war’s end and his reassignment to another duty station, Royer and 

his family lived in Carrie Davis’ small house 

near the Coast Guard Station.23

The Army base closed at the end of World War 

II, and the Cape quickly returned to the somnolent place it had been before the war. Carrie 

Davis turned 70 in October 1945, and advancing years more than anything else may have 

caused her to sell her house, store, and dance 

hall on the Bight to James B. and Gladys Harper 

in 1947. All three buildings were eventually 

burned or demolished, and nothing remains on 

the site today. Although she sold the property 

on the Bight, Davis retained title to her house 

near the Coast Guard Station. When she died 

at Newport, N. C., on March 15, 1955,24 her 

daughter Edith Davis Darnell inherited the 

house. Ms. Darnell retained a lease on her 

mother’s old house when it was incorporated 

into the National Seashore in 1978. 23.The Royers’ daughter has written a brief 

memoir of the family’s time at the Cape 

and given copies of numerous photographs from the period to the park. 24.Carteret Co. Death Certificate, 38-29.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

23

Chronology of 

Development & 

Use

The present Lewis- Davis House was created by the joining of two 

older “fish houses,” with current occupant Clark Davis reporting 

that James Lewis relocated them from elsewhere on the island, 

“and put them together.”25 Although no historical documentation 

for that scenario has been found, two structures are clearly evident in the present house, and materials and construction techniques suggest that both houses date to the first quarter of the 

twentieth century. The National Register suggests a date of c. 1930 

for the house, but it was actually created earlier, probably around 

1920, the c. 1930 date being the date around which Carrie Davis 

acquired the property.

Original Construction

The front half of the present house (Rooms 100 and 101) was a 

wood- framed, two- room structure, measuring about 16’ by 20’ 

with the roof gabled on the short sides. It appears to have been 

quite similar to “Bull Hunter’s store,” a photograph of which is in 

the CALO collection of photographs (see Figure 14).

25.Interview with Clark Davis by the author, 23 October 2002.
Chronology of Development & Use

SERO

National Park Service

24

Figure 14 Reconstructed floor 

plan of house as it was constructed 

in the 1920s. (T. Jones, NPS-SEROCR, 2002)

Figure 15 “Bull” Hunter’s store 

“near the Coast Guard Station” at 

Cape Lookout, c. 1925. 

The rear half of the present house (Rooms 102, 

103, and 104) was also wood- framed, 16’ by 20’, 

but with the roof gabled on the long

side. The original floor plan of this portion of 

the house is unclear, since this section of the 

house appears to have undergone significant alterations when the present house was created, 

including removal of the entire outside wall 

where it joined the rear of the other house.

The unframed nature of the northwest and 

southeast walls in Room 103 and the presence 

of a window opening between Room 103 and 

104 suggest the possibility that the structure 

making up this portion of the present building 

was originally divided into two rooms (Rooms 

102 and 104) and a porch (Room 103) rather 

than the three that are at first apparent.

Both houses were originally finished with 

board- and- batten siding and wood- shingled 

roofs. When the houses were moved and combined, the earlier board- and- batten siding was 

maintained, and the roofs were shingled in

1' 4' 8'

100

102

103

101

104

north
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

25

Figure 16 View of Lewis-Davis 

House in 1942. (CALO Coll., Royer 

photographs)

wood. The shed- roofed porch on the side of 

the house was added when the houses were 

combined and, in the late twentieth century, 

was greatly expanded and enclosed to become 

Room 105.

Until after World War II, most, if not all, of the 

private residences at the cape had rudimentary 

indoor plumbing, if any at all. The same is apparently true of the Lewis- Davis House, although a kitchen sink was probably installed 

when the house was built. There is no physical 

evidence for an historic bathroom in the house 

until the present make- shift bath was installed 

in the last quarter of the twentieth century. 

However, in one of the 1940s photographs (see 

Figure 12) there appears to be a plumbing vent 

stack above where the bathroom is now located 

in Room 105. This probably served a toilet that 

was flushed like the historic toilet at the 

O’Boyle- Bryant House, by pouring buckets of 

well water to flush the unit. Wood- or coalburning stoves provided heat for the house. 

The location of the cook stove has not been determined, but the T- shaped, terra- cotta flue for 

what was apparently a free- standing stove in 

Room 100 is visible in one of the 1940s photograph (see Figure 9).

Historic Changes

Historic changes to the house in the 1920s and 

1930s are not readily apparent, but if there were 

any, they probably occurred in the late 1930s. 

These might have included the enclosure of 

part of the front porch with a knee wall and 

screening of both porches.
Chronology of Development & Use

SERO

National Park Service

26

Figure 17 Side elevation of LewisDavis House illustrating changes to 

roof line after WWII. (T. Jones, NPSSERO-CR, 2002)

Like most of the houses at Cape Lookout, the 

Lewis- Davis House originally had no electrical 

service. However, the character of the light fixtures in Rooms 100 and 101 suggests that the 

house was wired for lighting as early as World 

War II, which must have run off batteries or a 

generator, unless power was being taken from 

the Coast Guard Station’s generator, which was 

only a few hundred feet away from the house. 

Modern Changes

The valley at the junction of the two gabled 

roofs on the house must have been an ongoing 

maintenance problem, and after World War II 

the present roof line was created. The rear 

shed of the roof was removed entirely and a 

new roof structure was built over both roofs, 

eliminating the valley between the two sections 

of the house. At the same time, the front shed 

of the roof was extended to fully engage the 

roof of the front porch. Given the time period 

in which this occurred, it is likely that the covering for the new roof was asphalt shingles, 

which seemed to have generally replaced wood 

shingles on most, if not all, of the structures at 

the Cape.

Probably at the same time the roof line was being changed, the exterior of the building was 

covered with cement- asbestos shingles, similar 

to those used at several other houses in the vicinity. This necessitated removal of all of the 

battens from the board- and- batten exterior 

siding.

Excepting the marked neglect and resulting deterioration that has characterized the building 

in recent years, the most significant change to 

the historic structure occurred in the late twentieth century when both porches were enlarged, with the rear porch also being 

completely enclosed. These changes, particularly the rear addition, produced a significant 

change in the building’s form and historic character.

In addition, the window (W- 3) at the northeast 

end of Room 100 has been shortened, and 

modern, two- over- two sash used to replace the 

historic six- over- six sash. The sash have also 

been entirely removed from the window (W- 8) 

on the rear porch, and the sash have been replaced at four other openings (W- 4, 5, 6, & 9)
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

27

Figure 18 View to east of LewisDavis House in August 1958. (CALO 

Coll.)

using modern six- over- six sash with aluminum 

sash channels.

As elsewhere at Cape Lookout, there have been 

dramatic changes to the landscape in the last 

quarter of the twentieth century, particularly in 

the stands of trees and shrubs that now surround the site. A road that historically allowed 

pedestrian and vehicular traffic to bypass the 

Coast Guard Station runs on the south side of 

the house but is now little more than a footpath.

Figure 19 View to northwest of 

Lewis-Davis house from lookout at 

Coast Guard Station (NPS-SERO-CR, 

2002)
Chronology of Development & Use

SERO

National Park Service

28

Time Line for Lewis-Davis House

1857- 59 Second Cape Lookout Light House constructed

Oct 6, 1875 Carrie Arrendel born in Newport, NC

1887 Cape Lookout Lifesaving Station constructed

c. 1892 James L. Lewis born in Carteret County, NC

May 17, 1893 Carrie Arrendel marries Henry G. Pierce in Carteret Co.

c. 1914 Carrie Arrendel Pierce marries Frederick S. Davis of NY

1915 Carrie Arrendel Davis’ only child, Edith, born

1899 San Ciriaco or “Great Hurricane” decimates Shackleford Banks

Apr 6, 1910 Cape Lookout Post Office opens

Jun 10, 1911 Cape Lookout Post Office discontinued

1913 Cape Lookout Land Company begins land acquisition at the Cape

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

Lookout

Cape Lookout Development Company lays out lots and streets at cape

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

1916- 1917 New Coast Guard Station constructed at site of old Life- Saving Station

c. 1918 Jimmy Lewis joins Coast Guard

Fall 1931 Jimmy Lewis retires from Coast Guard

Dec 1932 Carrie Davis buys property on the Bight and probably Lewis’ house, too

Oct 1941 Willard “Bill” Royer posted to Cape Lookout

Feb 1942 Royer’s family joins him from Wisconsin; rent Carrie Davis’ house until end of 

war

c. 1947 Carrie Davis sells dance hall and store to James and Gladys Harper

Mar 1955 Carrie Arrendel Davis dies at Newport, NC

1966 Cape Lookout National Seashore established

June 1976 Property conveyed to Federal government subject to twenty- five year lease

after 1976 Porches doubled in size

Jun 3, 2000 Cape Lookout Village Historic District established
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

29

Physical 

Description

Located about a hundred yards north of the old Coast Guard Station at Cape Lookout, and facing in a southeasterly direction, the 

Lewis- Davis House is a one- story, wood- framed, end- gabled 

structure that includes six main rooms, plus a large, screened, 

front porch. The main footprint of the building, including the 

porch, is about 37' by 20’ plus a modern addition, approximately 

4’ by 21’, along the southwest side of the house. There are about 

800 square feet of interior floor space plus about 220 square feet 

of space on the porch.

Vernacular design and construction broadly define the character 

of the Carrie Davis House. Like most of the other buildings in the 

village, 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. The house is 

distinctive, however, for the fact that it was created by the combination of two, smaller, older structures in the 1920s. As a result, it

A plan of the existing 

building can be found 

at the end of this section
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

30

Figure 20 View to north of Carrie 

Davis House. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 21 View to northwest, 

showing metal storage building in 

rear yard. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 22 View of water tanks at 

rear of house. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

might be considered one of the oldest private 

residences at Cape Lookout.

The structure has suffered major damage from 

termites and a leaking roof. Floors are collapsing in Rooms 101, 104 and 105, and there appears 

to have been major damage to the sills throughout the house. The roof, too, is in extremely 

poor condition, with large areas of rotten and 

termite- ridden rafters and decking. Although 

most of the historic finishes remain in place, 

the house as a whole is in very poor condition.

Associated Site Features

Like the Gaskill- Guthrie House, the house was 

built on a lot 50’ by 220’ that combined two of 

the original lots laid out by the Cape Lookout 

Development Company in 1915. In the rear 

yard is a modern metal storage building, 12’- 3” 

by 15’- 3”. Partially- burned piles of refuse litter 

the grounds.

At the rear of the house is a wooden frame rising about ten feet that holds three, metal, 55-

gallon drums. Water is pumped into these 
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

31

tanks from a well, with gravity creating the necessary pressure for kitchen and bath fixtures.

Foundation

The wood frame of the main body of the house 

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

the ground. Piers are so low that the house’s 

frame is only a few inches above grade. Most 

are, at best, in fair condition, and concrete 

block have been inserted at some locations to 

provide additional support. Water is standing 

under large areas of the house, contributing to 

its ongoing deterioration.

Structural System

Both parts of the house were simple, woodframed buildings, constructed using circularsawn lumber and wire- nailed connections 

throughout. Building finishes and the house’s 

close proximity to the ground prohibited investigation of much of the building’s structure, but 

it is evident that the two structures that comprise the present building were constructed 

with the minimal wood frame necessary for a 

board- and- batten wall.

Floor: Floor joists appear to be a mix of 2” by 

4” and 2" by 6” (actual dimensions could not be 

ascertained), set on 30”- 36” centers. Deterioration is widespread. Sills appear to be mostly 

single 2” by 8”. Along the northwest side of 

Room 104, floor joists and sill have collapsed 

and there is major structural damage in Room

Figure 23 View of crawl space and 

piers. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 24 View of typical joist sill 

connection. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 25 View of collapsing floor 

under Room 104. (NPS-SERO-CR, 

2002)
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

32

Figure 26 View of junction of 

roofs of two original structures; 

note severe termite damage in 

rafters and decking at left. (NPSSERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 27 View of wood shingle 

roof on original structure 

encompassing Rooms 100 and 101 . 

(NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 28 View of heavilydamaged roof and ceiling structure 

over Room 104. (NPS-SERO-CR, 

2002)

105, along the wall between Rooms 100 and 102, 

and all along the southwest side of Room 101.

Walls: Wall framing could not be examined but 

studs are minimal and widely spaced, constructed as a bare framework for vertically- installed board- and- batten siding on the exterior.

Ceilings: Like the walls, the ceilings appear to 

be very loosely framed, using widely- spaced 2” 

by 4” joists or, in some cases, 2” by 6” laid flat. 

The ceiling above Room 104 has been heavily 

damaged by water penetration and termites.

Rafters: There are three main rafter systems in 

the present structure: one over Rooms 100 and 

101, which could not be examined, and another 

separate system over the rear rooms. When the 

two halves of the house were joined, a new roof 

structure was built to cover both of the earlier 

roofs (see Figure 10). Rafters of this third roof 

are around 1- 3/4” by 3- 3/4”, on 30” centers, and 

woefully undersized for their span and pitch. 

Rafters at the rear of the house have been severely damaged by termites.

Roofing

The roofs of the original houses had solid decks 

of random- width boards, covered with “tar paper,” and shingled with sawn wooden shingles. The use of solid roof decking and tar 

paper under a wood- shingle roof is an unusual 

feature, since wood shingles were typically laid 

over open lath that helped prolong the life of 

the shingle by allowing them to dry more 

quickly. In the stormy coastal environment of 

Cape Lookout, however, shingles nailed to a 
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

33

solid deck helped reduce the possibility of 

wind damage, and wood shingles are routinely 

installed in that manner.

The present roof also has a solid deck, mostly 1” 

by 6”, except on the modern additions where 

plywood is used. The present roof covering is 

modern, asphalt, “hurricane” shingles that have 

been heavily patched with tar or other coatings. 

The roof covering is leaking badly, especially at 

the rear of Room 104 and near the center of the 

house.

Exterior Finishes

The front half of the house was originally finished with board- and- batten siding, the originals of which remain exposed on the front 

porch and on the southeast (front) wall of 

Room 102. The boards vary from 8” to 12” wide 

and have battens 4- 1/2” to 5- 1/2” wide. The rear 

half of the house appears to have been finished 

in a mixture of board- and- batten siding, some 

of which remains exposed on the northeast 

wall of Room 105, and 6”- wide, vertical, 

tongue- and- groove boards, which are exposed 

on the exterior of part of the northwest (rear) 

wall of Room 105. Shiplap siding appears as a 

finish material on the upper part of the front 

wall of the house where it was raised to meet 

the new roof line when the two original structures were joined. Shiplap siding is also present 

in the exposed decking of the original front 

porch.

After World War II, the exterior walls were covered with cement- asbestos shingles, except on 

the porches, where the original board- andFigure 29 View of window W-2 on 

southeast (front) side of house, with 

exterior siding and trim typical of 

the original building. (NPS-SEROCR, 2002)

batten siding was left exposed. There are numerous broken shingles, and all of the siding, 

which is now painted pink, is stained and mildewed.

Doors and Windows

Window openings are typically 2’- 4” by 3’- 9” 

with six- over- six sash, but half of the sash have 

been replaced with modern windows. Exterior 

casing is typically plain 1” by 6” with 2” by 6” 

sills and no drip cap. (For locations of doors 

and windows, see plan at end of this section.)

D- 1: Wooden, five- panel door with molded 

stiles and rails, 2’- 6” by 6’- 5”, 1- 3/8” thick, plain 

metal mortise lock, knob, and escutcheon. 

Door is historic if not original.
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

34

D- 2: Modern, aluminum, storm door, opening 

2’- 6” by 6’- 8”.

W- 1: Wooden frame and sash; opening 2’- 4” 

by 3’- 9”; six- over- six, single- hung sash, in

Figure 30 View of front door D-1. 

(NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 31 View to north on front 

porch. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

good condition.

W- 2: Wooden frame and sash; opening 2’- 4” 

by 3’- 9”; six- over- six, single- hung sash, in 

good condition.W- 3: Wooden frame and sash; 

original opening was 2’- 4” by 3’- 9” like W- 1; 

shortened to 3’- 1” and six- over- six sash replaced with modern two- over- two sash. The 

frame and sash are in poor condition.

W- 4: Wooden frame and sash; opening 2’- 4” by 

3’- 10”; six- over- six, single- hung sash, in poor 

condition.

W- 5: Wooden frame and sash; opening 2’- 4” by 

3’- 9”; modern, six- over- six, double- hung sash, 

aluminum tracks; in poor condition; sillmounted air- conditioning unit installed in 

opening.

W- 6: Wooden frame and sash; opening 2’- 4” by 

3’- 10”; modern, six- over- six, double- hung sash, 

aluminum tracks; in fair condition.

W- 7: Wooden frame and sash; opening 2’- 4” by 

3’- 9”; modern, six- over- six, single- hung sash, 

aluminum tracks; in fair condition.

w- 8: Wooden frame, opening 2’- 4” by 3’- 9”, 

sash missing.

w- 9: Wooden frame and sash; opening 2’- 4” by 

3’- 9”; modern, six- over- six, single- hung sash, 

aluminum tracks; in fair condition. 

W- 10: This opening is now around 2’- 4” by 3’-

9”, there is no sash and joints in the paneling 

below suggest that the existing opening may be 
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

35

part of a door that predated the joining of the 

two original houses.

Front Porch

The extent of the house’s original front porch, 

which was about six feet deep and ran the full 

width of the house, is readily apparent in the 

ceiling of the front porch. When the porch was 

extended after 1976, the posts were removed 

and the existing angled braces installed. The 

porch is surrounded by a plywood- covered 

knee wall about two feet high.

Floor: The entire floor framing system appears 

to have been rebuilt when the porch was expanded. Flooring is plywood.

Ceiling: The original portion of the porch ceiling is the exposed underside of the roof deck, 

which is 6”- wide shiplap siding. Exposed 

rafters and plywood decking form the ceiling of 

the modern extension of the porch.

Walls: The outside walls of the porch date to 

the porch’s expansion after 1976 and are 

framed with 2” by 4” studs covered with plywood to about 2’ and screened above.

Door: The screen door is modern, wood, 2’- 9” 

by 6’- 8”.

Room 100

The front door opens into this room, which is 

about 11’ by 15’- 3”. Most of its historic features 

remain intact and in good condition.

Figure 32 View to northeast in 

Room 100. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 33 View to northwest in 

Room 100. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Floor: Flooring is typical 3- 1/4” tongue- andgroove. The flooring was historically painted, 

but now is covered with a modern vinyl floor 

covering.

Ceiling: Ceiling is set at about 7’ and is finished 

with typical, double- V- joint boards, 3- 1/4” 

wide.
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

36

Figure 34 View to west in Room 

101. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 35 View to southeast in 

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

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

Door: In addition to the front door (see above), 

the door to Room 102 opens into this room. It 

is a simple cross- braced door 2’- 2” by 6’, made 

up with 5- 1/4”- wide boards. The door has no 

hardware besides the hinges.

Trim: One- inch quarter- round molding is used 

as a shoe mold. A 2” bed mold finishes the joint 

between walls and ceiling.

Doors are cased with plain boards, 3/4” thick 

and 4- 3/4” wide. The front window (W- 2) is 

cased with similar material and has a plain 4”-

wide stool and 5- 1/4” apron. All trim has been 

removed from the other window (W- 3).

Room 101

This bedroom measures about 7’- 10” by 15’- 3”. 

In the north corner of the room, there is a small 

closet about 2’ by 5’. It has the house’s only 

closet, which appears to have been the only significant alteration to the original structure 

when the present house was created in the 

1920s.

The floor is in dangerous condition and appears to be collapsing due to major deterioration of floor joists and/or piers under this part 

of the house.

Floor: Flooring is typical 3- 1/4” tongue- andgroove. The flooring was historically painted, 

but now is covered with a modern carpet. 

There are major issues with the floor, which is 

collapsing on the north side.

Ceiling: Ceiling is set at about 7’ and is finished 

with typical, double- V- joint boards, 3- 1/4” 

wide.

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

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

37

Doors: The door opening from Room 100 is 2’-

6” by 6’- 5”. The door itself has four vertical 

panels and is 1- 3/8” thick, but about 3” of the 

bottom rail have been cut off so that it will clear 

the collapsing floor. This door appears to 

never have had a lock, knobs, or other hardware besides the 3” hinges with which it is 

hung. The door opening to the closet is 1’- 8” by 

6’- 0”. There is no evidence that a door was 

ever installed at this opening.

Trim: The windows are cased with plain 

boards, 4- 3/4” wide, a 3- 3/4” stool, and a 5” 

apron. A 2” bed molding is used at the ceiling, 

with about 6’ on the south wall finished with a 

molding with a slightly different profile from 

the remainder.

Room 102

This room measures 8’- 2” by about 15’. All of 

the rooms in the house except Room 101 open 

to this room. Major damage is ongoing where 

the roof is leaking along the wall adjoining 

Room 100.

Floor: Flooring appears to be tongue- andgroove but is completely covered by two layers 

of modern carpeting over an indeterminate 

number of layers of linoleum.

Ceiling: The ceiling is set at about 7’ and covered by sheets of wafer board. Original 

tongue- and- groove boards, 3- 1/2” wide, 

probably V- joint, remain in place beneath the 

wafer board, but many are probably damaged 

or deteriorating due to water penetration. The 

ceiling has been braced along the middle of the

Figure 36 View to south in Room 

102. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 37 View to northeast in 

Room 102. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

the east wall because water- damaged joists are 

collapsing in that area.

Walls: The southeast (front) wall of this room 

was originally the exterior wall of the structure 

that comprises the front half of the house. The 

wall is finished with 8” boards and 2- 3/4” battens. The northwest (rear wall) is also boardand- batten, but the boards there are 12” wide
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

38

Figure 38 View to northwest in 

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

Figure 39 View to southeast in 

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

with 2- 3/4” battens. The wall between this 

room and Room 104 is framed; the wall between this room and Room 103 is unframed.

The southwest wall is finished with 4- 1/2”- wide, 

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

with the eastern half covered with fiber board. 

The north wall is finished with a mixture of 3”, 

3- 1/2”, and 4- 1/2” double- beaded, tongue- andgroove boards and 4- 1/2” double- V- joint 

tongue- and- groove boards.

Doors: The door opening to the kitchen (Room 

103) is 2- 2” by 6’- 2”, but there is no evidence 

that a door was ever installed at this opening. 

The door opening to Room 104 is 2’- 3” by 6’- 1” 

with a makeshift door constructed of 3/8”- thick 

plywood.

The door opening to Room 105 2’- 6” by 6’- 2”. 

The door in the opening is constructed of 10”-

wide boards with ledgers and cross brace. The 

door has a mortise lock with a white porcelain 

knob.

Miscellaneous: On the southeast (front) wall behind Room 101 is evidence of a small window 

opening about 21” high. This opening was apparently closed when the two original structures were combined and the closet built in 

Room 101.

Room 103

This room measures about 6’- 7” by 11’- 10”. The 

light framing of the outside walls suggest that 

this could have been a porch when this part of 

the house was originally constructed.

Floor: The nature of the flooring in this space 

was not determined due to multiple layers of linoleum and vinyl floor coverings.

Ceiling: Ceiling is set at about 7’ and, like the 

ceiling in Room 102, is finished with modern 
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

39

wafer or chip board. What underlies this material has not been determined.

Walls: The northwest and southwest walls are 

finished with panels of fiber board, 3/8” thick 

and 9” wide, laid over 3- 1/2” tongue- andgroove boards. The southeast wall is composed 

of tongue- and- groove boards 5- 1/2” wide, while 

the east wall is composed of 12”- wide boards 

without battens.

Miscellaneous: On the southwest wall is a modern porcelain sink and drain board resting on a 

wooden frame. In the northeast corner of the 

room are built- in wooden shelves and a 

wooden counter. A variety of other modern 

cabinets and a stove line the remainder of the 

walls.

Room 104

Measuring 8’- 4” by 11’- 6”, this room is in extremely poor condition.

Floors: The floor is carpeted over plywood, although there appears to be an underlying layer 

of historic tongue- and- groove material. Water 

penetration and termites have destroyed the 

connection between the joists and the rear sill, 

allowing the entire floor to collapse at that end 

of the room.

Ceiling: The ceiling, like the floor, is on the 

verge of total collapse due to severe termite and 

water damage. It was originally finished with 

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

3- 1/2” wide.

Figure 40 View to west in Room 

104. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Figure 41 View to east of ceiling 

in Room 104. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Walls: The northeast wall between this room 

and Room 103 is unframed and composed of 

vertically- installed tongue- and- groove boards, 

5- 1/2” wide. The remainder of the walls are 

finished with typical double- V- joint boards, 

3- 1/2” wide.

Room 105

This space was created in recent years by expanding and enclosing an historic back porch,
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

40

Figure 42 View northwest in 

Room 105. Arrow marks header at 

outside of historic porch. (NPSSERO-CR, 2002)

the outline of which is still evident in the existing space. Probably at the same time, a rudimentary bathroom was installed at the 

northwest (rear) end of the space. In addition, 

when the porch was enlarged and enclosed, the 

original shed roof was removed, exposing the 

roof structure of the main house as well as the 

roofs of the two earlier buildings.

Figure 43 View to southeast in 

Room 105. (NPS-SERO-CR, 2002)

Floor: The floor is modern plywood and is suffering from severe water damage near the entrance to the bathroom area.

Ceiling: The ceiling is formed by the exposed 

framing and roof decking.

Walls: The northeast wall and part of the 

southeast wall are composed of the boardand- batten siding of the original structures. 

The remainder of the walls are formed by 

modern plywood.
PART 1 DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

41

Figure 44 Floor plan of existing 

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

2002)

1' 4' 8'

100

102

103

101

104

105

north

W-1

W-2

D-1

W-3 W-4 W-5

W-6

W-7

D-2

W-8

W-9

W-10
Physical Description

SERO

National Park Service

42
HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

43

Treatment and Use

Architecturally, the Lewis- Davis House is of considerable significance in interpretation of the Cape Lookout Historic District. 

Created by relocation and combination of two earlier “fishing 

shacks” around 1920, the house contains some of the earliest examples of the cape’s historic architecture and illustrates one of 

many ways in which the cape’s residents have always adapted and 

re- used their buildings. In addition, it is especially significant for 

its associations with Carrie Arrendel Davis, whose store and 

dance hall on the Bight were focal points for life at the Cape in the 

1930s and 1940s.

This section of the historic structure report is intended to show 

how a plan for treatment of the Lewis- Davis House can be implemented with minimal adverse affect to the historic building while 

still addressing the problems that exist with the existing 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 
SERO

National Park Service

44

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.

Since 1976, the Lewis- Davis House and several 

other of the residences in the park have been 

leased under the terms of a special use permit, 

and there have been a number of modifications 

to the houses during that period. With the 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 the historic 

structures in the district. In addition to the 

Lewis- Davis House, reports are also being developed on the Nelson- Bryant 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 LewisDavis House has not been exhaustive, 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, a number 

of questions regarding the building’s historical 

evolution and its present condition remain unanswered. 

In addition, 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 these 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; but in the 

meantime, an approach to treatment of the individual structures in order to insure their continued preservation can certainly be 

recommended.

Ultimate Treatment and Use

Because the Cape Lookout Village Historic 

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

of use for the private residences in the village, 

including the Davis- Lewis House. A comprehensive planning process resulting in an 

amendment to the park’s GMP will be necessary to insure that the park’s and the public’s 

needs are addressed and that the historic 

buildings are used appropriately.

The authorizing legislation (Public Law 89-

366) for Cape Lookout National Seashore 

mandated the park’s establishment for the pur-
PART II Treatment and Use

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

45

pose 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 recognized that dynamic natural forces have influenced them throughout 

their existence and will continue to influence 

them.”26 The GMP envisioned interpretation 

of the park’s cultural resources that would 

“emphasize man and his relation to the sea” 

with maritime history a focus at the lighthouse 

and the cultural and economic life of the Outer 

Bankers at Portsmouth Village.”27 Since that 

time, additional cultural resources besides the 

lighthouse station and Portsmouth have been 

recognized through National Register listing. 

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

listed on the National Register; and in June 

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

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

improvements in overnight accommodations 

and transportation services for visitors to Core 

Banks and not the additional cultural resources 

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

earlier listings are of statewide significance, do 

not appear to require any marked departure 

from the management approach established in 

1982 for Portsmouth and the Cape Lookout 

Light Station.

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

buildings in the Cape Lookout Village and in 

the Coast Guard complex as well.

The 1982 plan “perpetuates the present level of 

use and development of Core Banks/Portsmouth Island. . . .”28

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.”29

“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."30

26.Cape Lookout GMP, p. 4.

27.Ibid.

28.GMP, p. iii.

29.Ibid., p. 4.
SERO

National Park Service

46

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

Lewis- Davis House and the other structures 

that were historically private residences should 

be continued, if rehabilitation can be accomplished with minimal alterations to the building’s historic character.

Treatment: Termites, poorly- maintained 

windows and exterior finishes, a leaking roof, 

as well as a variety of haphazard repairs 

threaten the building’s continued preservation. Major structural repairs are necessary, 

but damage is so extensive in some areas that 

parts of the structure will probably need to be 

dismantled and reconstructed.

In addition, the modifications to the building in 

the last twenty- five years have significantly 

compromised its historic integrity. Clearly, 

treatment of the Lewis- Davis House (and the 

other historic properties in the district) must, at 

a minimum, adhere to the Secretary’s Standards if the historic character of the individual 

buildings is not to be diminished any further.

Removal of the porch additions would restore 

some of the building’s historic integrity and, 

with relatively simple, straightforward repairs 

of the building’s other historic features, would 

help insure the building’s continued preservation.

In addition to simply preserving the building, 

continued residential use requires rehabilitation, especially replacement of the building’s 

electrical and plumbing systems. The Lighthouse Keeper’s Quarters (or Barden House), 

the Life- Saving Station, and other government 

buildings were wired for lighting shortly after 

World War I and the Lewis- Davis House appears to have been wired shortly before or during World War II. Indoor plumbing, however, 

appears not to have been an historic feature, 

and the house may not have had an indoor 

bathroom until the last quarter of the twentieth 

century. Designing and installing a more- permanent facility that will not intrude on the 

building’s historic character will be a major 

component of the building’s rehabilitation.

Requirements for Treatment and Use

The Lewis- Davis House has a fragile character 

that can be easily destroyed by insensitive 

treatment. The historic character is embodied 

not just in the vernacular form of the building 

but also in its structure and its component materials, including wood and cementious 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. Deterioration in a portion of an element should not necessitate total 

replacement of the element, since epoxy consolidants and fillers can repair the damaged 

30. area, often without even removing the damaged Ibid., p. 35.
PART II Treatment and Use

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

47

element to make the repair. 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 

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 authorizing 

legislation or interpretive programs of the parks 

in which they lie." Therefore, the house should 

be understood in its own cultural context and 

managed in light of its own values so that it may 

be preserved unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

present and future 

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. However, 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 house for residential use, public access will be restricted, and 

full compliance with accessibility codes will, 

therefore, 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 Lewis- Davis 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 corrected 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 
SERO

National Park Service

48

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, the deteriorated condition of the 

Lewis- Davis House, which is far worse than 

any other structure in the historic district, 

makes it susceptible to whole or partial collapse 

during high winds. Therefore, 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. In rebuilding 

the existing, most of which is not considered 

historic, it will also be possible to improve the 

roof structure and to properly tie it to the historic framing that survives. During the course 

of repairs to the exterior siding, many of the 

boards will no doubt need replacement, and 

during the course of that work, the walls can be 

more closely inspected and appropriate repairs 

and improvements made.

 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 

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.

Alternatives for Treatment and Use

There are three main approaches to treatment 

that might be entertained for the Lewis- Davis 

House: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Each implies more 

aggressive levels of intervention into the existing building, usually accompanied by significant increases in the project’s budget. 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 
PART II Treatment and Use

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

49

are of insufficient historic significance to warrant full- scale restoration. In addition, the 

condition of the house is such that reconstruction, an approach that usually applies to buildings or parts of buildings that no longer exist, 

must also be considered as an option. An examination of each of these approaches in terms 

of the Lewis- Davis House is useful in determining the most efficacious approach to its 

treatment and use.

Preservation: This approach attempts to 

maintain the historic features and fabric that 

exist today by making repairs, including replacement of antiquated wiring, sewer, and 

water supply lines. Structural repairs would be 

made as necessary to replace deteriorated 

members but not to restructure the building’s 

framing. Although various features of the 

house, including many of the interior finishes 

need nothing more than simple preservation, 

the building’s condition is so poor that preservation as an overall treatment approach is simply not an option.

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, but the asbestos siding (an extremely durable material) would be 

maintained. 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. However, here again the building’s 

condition is such that necessary treatment goes 

far beyond the normal rehabilitative process.

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 Lewis- Davis House as well as 

the other houses in the district are mainly significant for being part of a larger ensemble of 

vernacular buildings, most 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 Lewis- Davis 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 
SERO

National Park Service

50

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 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 all of the 

buildings on the cape in a single sweep of the 

eye, 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 lifesaving station, and the boat house; 

• removal of modern houses and structures from the district; and

• restoration of the historic landscape.

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 historic 

bathrooms in place. 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 Lewis- Davis 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 to leasing and other modern 

uses, whereas many of the other houses (e.g. 

the Gaskill- Guthrie House), if restored, could 

not be so well adapted for modern use. In essence, restoration of the Lewis- Davis House to 

any but its appearance late in the historic period cannot be justified under the present circumstances.

Reconstruction: As an approach to treatment, 

reconstruction must be considered for at least 

part of the building. Although mostly intact, 
PART II Treatment and Use

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

51

the building has severe structural problems, 

and the condition is such that at least the rear 

shed of the roof and perhaps some of the rear 

wall will almost certainly have to be taken 

down and rebuilt. Additional structural damage can also be expected elsewhere and, given 

the amount of visible damage, may be quite extensive.

None of the other houses, except perhaps the 

Gaskill- Guthrie House, show so clearly the 

character of the early “fishing shacks” that once 

dotted the cape, and every effort, including the 

extraordinary step of reconstruction, should be 

made to preserve this building. If necessary, 

the building might even be stabilized and 

mothballed until there are the resources for full 

rehabilitation.

If it is determined that treatment of the entire 

house is not feasible, consideration should at 

least be given to preserving the original building that forms the front half of the house, since 

it appears to be in much better condition than 

the rear half of the house.
SERO

National Park Service

52
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

53

Recommendations 

for Treatment & 

Use

In essence, the goal for treatment of the historically- private dwellings in Cape Lookout Village, including the Lewis- Davis House, is 

restoration of the exteriors to their appearance around 1950 and 

rehabilitation of the interiors for continued residential use, if rehabilitation can be accomplished with minimal alterations to the 

buildings’ historic character. This would include removal of the 

additions to the front and side porches, complete rehabilitation of 

the kitchen, design and installation of a new bathroom, replacement of electrical and plumbing systems, and limited structural 

improvements to improve the building’s capacity to withstand 

wind and flood.

However, unlike the other houses, the Lewis- Davis House is in 

poor condition structurally, which greatly complicates its overall 

treatment.

Site

Treatment of the landscape around the house will be defined 

through a Cultural Landscape Report, but at a minimum, the piles 

of rubbish, broken- down vehicles, and general debris should be 

removed. The small storage building, too, is not historic and 

should be removed. Although the condition of the grounds 
Recommendations for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

54

around this house is the worst, improvements 

in the tenants’ maintenance of all of the sites 

around the houses should be a high- priority 

requirement in any new lease agreements.

Site drainage is extremely poor, and water routinely ponds beneath the house. This condition 

must be eliminated to prevent continued deterioration from rot and termites. As the foundation is repaired, the grade level beneath the 

house should be raised to prevent water collecting under the structure.

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.

• Clear site of rubbish and debris.

• Remove storage building.

• Follow recommendations of Cultural 

Landscape Report in determining 

treatment of the surrounding landscape.

• Improve site drainage and eliminate 

standing water beneath house.

Foundation

The building’s foundation is constructed of 

wooden piles of unknown vintage. Many of 

these are badly deteriorated, and all of them 

should be replaced, since the building will have 

to be lifted in order to complete inspection and 

repair of the sills and floor framing anyway. 

This would also provide the opportunity to 

strengthen 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.

• Raise house and replace all wood piles, 

replicating the existing size and placement of piles.

• Design and install storm- resistant 

mechanism to tie the house’s wood 

frame to the foundation piles.

Structure

The house has incurred widespread structural 

damage due to rot and termites, especially in 

the rear half of the house. At Room 104, floor 

and ceiling framing are so heavily damaged that 

total replacement will probably be necessary. 

Floor framing is also severely damaged around 

the center of the front part of the house and in 

Room 105. The building’s close proximity to 

the ground and the non- destructive nature of 

the present investigation of the building prevented a full assessment of the building’s structural condition, but additional structural 

damage can be expected throughout the building.

Except for removal of the porch additions, the 

logistics of making other structural repairs are 

complicated by the advanced deterioration of 

parts of the structure, with the rear shed of the 

roof and some floor systems collapsing or liable 

to collapse. All of these will have to be stabilized before any other work can proceed.

The building can be lifted to replace the foundation pilings and to repair sills and joists, and 
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

55

there is easy access to the rear shed of the roof 

from the attic area. Finishes will have to be removed in areas where damage to studs and 

plates has occurred, but it should be necessary 

to remove the finishes from only one (preferably the exterior) and not both sides of the walls.

Sizing and spacing of historic and modern 

framing members do not meet modern code 

requirements. If deterioration is not too widespread, however, it should be possible to augment the historic framing without total 

replacement. Where reconstruction is necessary, there is no compelling reason to replicate 

the inadequacies of the historic framing.

The deteriorated roof that was added in the 

1950s should be removed, and the two original 

roofs repaired and restored, including reconstruction of the missing rear shed of the back 

roof. In repairing the original roofs, good flashing of the valley between the two roofs will be 

critical. The partially- engaged front porch and 

the shed- roofed porch on the side of the house 

should also be rebuilt, using the photographs of 

the house in 1943 as a guide. 

The two earlier structures that were combined 

to make the present house in the 1920s are some 

of the oldest private residential structures at the 

cape, and the house as it exists today is an important contributing resource in the historic 

district. It is possible that damage to the building’s structure is so extensive that simple repairs will not be possible, and it will be 

necessary to reconstruct parts of the house. It 

is also possible that complete rehabilitation will 

not be feasible for financial reasons. However, 

most of the damage is concentrated in the rear 

half of the house, and under any set of circumstances, it should be possible to repair and preserve the front portion of the house, which 

contains the nearly- intact, early- twentieth- century, “fishing shack” that forms that part of the 

building.

• Stabilize structure before repairs proceed.

• Remove 1950s roof structure and 

restore original roofs.

• Repair floor, wall, and ceiling framing 

as necessary and make improvements 

in connections of framing members to 

reduce the possibility of significant 

damage from high winds.

• Remove porch additions and restore 

porches to their appearance in the 

1940s photographs.

• If entire house cannot be salvaged, 

repair and preserve original structure 

encompassing Rooms 100 and 101.

Exterior Finishes

The existing cementious siding should be removed. Although the asbestos in this siding is 

not particularly friable, the shingles should be 

removed with a minimum of breakage. These 

shingles were often installed with spiral or 

ribbed nails that cannot be easily removed in a 

conventional way. Bolt cutters or other tools 

can be used to remove nail heads, allowing the 

shingle to be removed without breaking. Since 

the material is no longer manufactured and can 

now be considered an historic building mate-
Recommendations for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

56

rial, at least one complete shingle should be salvaged and archived in the park’s architectural 

study collection.

Most of the boards from the historic boardand- batten siding remain in place and many of 

these can be salvaged and re- used. The original 

siding remains in place on the front wall of the 

house and on the walls around the back porch, 

and the siding in these areas should be repaired 

and preserved in place if possible. Window 

and door trim should be maintained and preserved wherever possible. Where battens and 

trim are missing, the surviving woodwork on 

the front of the house should serve as a model 

for replacement material on that part of the 

house, and the surviving woodwork on the side 

porch should be the model for replacement 

material on the rear of the house.

The 1940s photographs show a wood- shingled 

roof covering on the house, and this probably 

remained until the present roof was constructed in the 1950s. The restored original roof 

structure should also be finished in wood shingles.

• Remove cement- asbestos siding.

• Repair underlying boards and install 

new battens to match the original.

• Repair and preserve historic boardand- batten siding and trim on front 

and side porches.

• Repair and preserve other exterior 

woodwork.

• Paint siding dark green, matching surviving paint on side porch, and trim in 

white as seen in 1940s photographs.

Doors

The existing front door (D- 1) should be repaired and preserved. The door between 

Rooms 102 and 105 is historic and again will be 

the back door to the house when the side porch 

is restored; it, too, should be repaired and preserved.

Existing doors between Rooms 100 and 101 and 

between Rooms 100 and 102 are historic and 

should be repaired and preserved. Doors were 

apparently not present originally at the openings between Rooms 102 and 103 and between 

Rooms 102 and 104, nor was there ever a closet 

door in Room 101. A new door should be installed at the opening between Rooms 102 and 

104 and into the new bathroom. Both of these 

might be modern flush doors. Doors should 

not be installed at other openings that were historically only cased openings.

• Repair and preserve existing historic 

doors.

• Install new doors at Room 104 and at 

new bathroom.

Windows

Historically, all of the windows had six- oversix, double- hung sash. However, the two windows (W- 1, W- 2) on the front porch and possibly the window (W- 4) at the northeast end of 

Room 102 appear to have the only historic sash 

remaining in the house. These should be repaired and preserved.

The window opening (W- 3) at the northeast 
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

57

end of Room 100 has been shortened by about 

8” and fitted with modern, two- over- two, double- hung sash. The sash is deteriorating and 

the opening poorly detailed. The original 

opening should be restored and new six- oversix sash installed.

The other windows are modern replacements, 

but since the replacement sash are similar to 

the historic sash, they can be repaired and preserved or replaced entirely if their condition 

warrants.

• Preserve historic sash (W- 1, W- 2, W- 4).

• Restore altered opening (W- 3) in 

Room 100.

• Replace missing sash (W- 8) at rear 

porch.

• Repair or replace remaining sash as 

necessary.

Interior

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

use. Although existing historic finishes should 

be preserved, the park should also be given 

some latitude in its treatment of the interior 

since it will not be open to the public or be interpreted. 

Existing tongue- and- groove paneling on walls 

and ceilings, all of which is historic, should be 

repaired as necessary. The ceiling in Room 102, 

which is now covered with wafer board, may be 

badly damaged and at least some of the paneling will need to be replaced.

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 

necessary. When the layers of floor- coverings 

now in place are removed, they should be documented and samples of at least the earliest linoleum should be archived.

After repairs, the interior should be repainted, 

including the floors. 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 most of the interior, and given the 

character of the house, their use might be continued. The house’s two historic light fixtures 

(c. 1940) in Rooms 100 and 101 should be rewired and restored.

The existing bathroom should be removed 

along with restoration of the side porch, and 

since the porch is too small for a full bath, a 

new bath should be constructed elsewhere. 

The house’s small scale reduces options for a 

new bathroom without eliminating a bedroom 

or significantly reducing the size of other 

rooms. In order to accommodate a modern 

bathroom and a modern kitchen within the 

present footprint of the house, a new bathroom 

should be constructed in Room 103 and a new 

kitchen at the northeast end of Room 102. In 

order to avoid installing a door in the present 
Recommendations for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

58

opening between Rooms 102 and 103 and to 

provide space for a water heater and some 

storage, a new wall should be constructed to 

partition Room 103. Bathroom fixtures, 

kitchen sink, and cabinets would be new.

• Rehabilitate interior for continued residential use.

• Repair and maintain historic paneling 

on walls and ceilings, flooring, and 

trim; preserve samples of historic floor 

coverings.

• Remove existing bathroom and install 

new bathroom in Room 103.

• Construct new kitchen at northeast 

end of Room 102.

• Install new plumbing supply and waste 

lines to bathroom and kitchen.

• Rewire building, restoring historic light 

fixtures in Rooms 100 and 101.

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 Davis and Lewis family members.

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.

• Locate and interview Lewis and Davis 

family members regarding house’s history.

• Conduct paint analysis of interior 

should it ever be opened for public 

interpretation.
PART 2 TREATMENT AND USE

HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

59

Figure 45 Proposed plan for 

treatment and use. (T. Jones, NPSSERO-CR, 2003)

1' 4' 8'

north

Notes

Remove 1950s roof structure and restore original roofs. Remove cement-asbestos siding, restore underlying board-and-batten siding. Repair and maintain existing historic interior and exterior woodwork.

1. Remove porch additions (hatched areas).

2. Restore front porch, reconstructing partial screened enclosure.3. Remove existing bathroom installation on side porch, restore screened porch.

4. Install new wood sash, 6/6, to match historic windows.

5. Close opening at this location.

6. Construct new wall to partition this space; remodel for bathroom and utility storage.

7. Install new kitchen sink, counter and cabinets in this area.

8. Repair major water and termite damage to sills, floor and ceiling joists, and rafters in this area.

9. Repair major damage to floor framing in this area.

10.Repair major water damage to structure in this area.

Note 2

Note 6

water

heater refrigerator

range shelves

Note 1

Note 7

Note 5

Note 4

Note 1

Note 3

Note 8

Note 9

Note 10
Recommendations for Treatment & Use

SERO

National Park Service

60
HSR

Lewis-Davis House

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

61

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

62

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.
The National Park Service cares for special 

places saved by the American people so that all 

may experience our heritage.