Historic District Commission Meeting – March 6, 2019

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

MARCH 6, 2019

Chairwoman, Alexa Silver called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Commission members Owen Bailey, Jeffrey Coomer, Ted Gallo, Barbara Jorgenson, Ed Minch and Alice Ritchie, Jennifer Mulligan (Town Clerk) and guests.

Ms. Silver stated that the Chestertown Historic District Commission takes its authority from Chapter 93 of the Code of the Town of Chestertown and operates under the Historic District Design Guidelines that were adopted by the Mayor and Council of Chestertown on October 7, 2002 and revised March 7, 2012.

Ms. Silver asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the meeting of February 6, 2019. Mr. Coomer moved to approve the minutes of February 6, 2019 as submitted, was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

The Consent Calendar for February was as follows:

  • BP2019-15 – Edge Construction/Hoatson, 320 Cannon Street – Roof
  • BP2019-19 – Jones, 204 S. Water (Front) St. – Storm Windows
  • BP2019-21 – Ake, 112 S. Cross Street – Replace Siding on Rear Gable
  • BP2019-23 – Godack, 113 High Street – Fence

Ms. Jorgenson asked what windows were in the house for BP2019-19 at 204 S. Water Street. Ms. Silver stated that the original windows were restored about 15 years ago. The applicant was now looking to install storm windows to match the other storm windows already on some of the windows. Mr. de Mooy stated that the metal storm windows will be custom made and will match the meeting rail once installed. Ms. Jorgenson questioned having metal storm windows on an 1880s structure. Mr. Minch stated that is how storm windows are made and it was specifically allowed in the guidelines.

Mr. Bailey moved to approve the consent calendar as follows:

  • BP2019-15 – Edge Construction/Hoatson, 320 Cannon Street – Roof;
  • BP2019-19 – Jones, 204 S. Water (Front) St. – Storm Windows;
  • BP2019-21 – Ake, 112 S. Cross Street – Replace Siding on Rear Gable;
  • BP2019-23 – Godack, 113 High Street – Fence.

 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2019-20 from KIT Team at 337,337 ½, 339, 341 High Street for exterior renovations to the 341 High Street portion of the building. Mr. Jay Yerkes of Yerkes Construction were present for the application.

Mr. Yerkes stated that this was a continuation of last month’s discussion; this portion being the back side of the building that is technically 341 High Street. He said that there is an addition from the 1980s with doors on the second floor to apartments, where are only accessed by way of the roof. There was a stairwell to the roof beside the addition but no railings. He said that the Maryland Historic Trust has already agreed to the demolition of the addition.   The doors above the roof are the only access to the apartments. The proposal was for a new addition similar in style to what exists, including new stairs, deck, railing and doors.

Ms. Jorgenson asked if the Maryland Historic Trust was involved due to easements on the property. Mr. Yerkes stated that there were no easements on the property. The owner was consulting with the Maryland Historic Trust because he would like to take advantage of tax credits.

Mr. Yerkes stated that the rear elevation will consist of a reconstructed addition, safe passage to the apartments with two staircases, one on each side of the addition, and a true deck over the roof addition with railings. The side façade will remain similar in style to what exists with the underside of the stairs covered.

Mr. Yerkes stated that what he was requesting today was the approval for the work to the back, but more importantly to be able to use newer materials as there was nothing left on the back that is original. He said that this location receives a great deal of sun and he wanted to use materials with the best UV protection. He said that the owner is proposing an aluminum powder-coated railing due to sun exposure, noting that they were undecided on decking material at this time but were researching materials with the best UV protection. Painted Hardiplank was proposed for siding as this would be considered new construction. He said that if wood had to be used it would likely have to be pressure treated marine grade wood which would be highly durable.

Mr. Yerkes stated that this building is at least 70’ from the parking area on Cannon Street. Mr. Yerkes stated that the addition to the back of the building was built in the 1980s. He said that there once was a porch which was converted to finished space, but nothing that he was discussing this evening is part of the historic portion of the building. He said that they would also like to remove the chimney as it was not original.

Ms. Jorgenson asked if Mr. Yerkes was seeking approval for construction at this meeting. Mr. Yerkes stated that he would like approval for the construction of the addition and the deck. He was seeking guidance on the material selections he proposed.

Mr. Bailey moved to approve the demolition of the 1980s section of the building located at 341 High Street as submitted, was seconded by Mr. Gallo and carried unanimously.

Ms. Jorgenson moved to approve the construction design for the rear of 341 High Street as submitted, including the basement, was seconded by Mr. Coomer and carried unanimously.

Mr. Yerkes questioned whether composite materials would be permitted. Ms. Silver stated that this portion of the building was new construction. Mr. Gallo stated that the Design Guidelines on “New Additions” reads, “does not result in a radical change to the form or character of the historic building”, and this proposal did not. He said that it made sense to use the newer materials, especially due to the sun exposure on that side of the building. Ms. Jorgenson stated that she was not opposed to using composite materials, but she wanted to know exactly what was going to be used before any approvals. She said that once a decision is made, it becomes precedent. Mr. Yerkes thanked the Commission and said that he was researching the best materials to be presented at a future meeting.

Ms. Jorgenson asked that it was important to emphasize that this is the back of the building and adjacent to a parking lot. She said that the materials proposed would not be appropriate for the front façade. The building was also set back quite a distance from Cannon Street.

The last item on the agenda was BP2019-26 from Joe Elliott/98 Cannon Street for windows to be installed on the south side of the new 98 Cannon Street Restaurant. Mr. Joe Elliott was present for the application. Mr. Elliott stated that he is leasing the restaurant, which will be called 98 Cannon (former Fish Whistle). He said that there were small windows on the south side of the building from its construction in 2005, when the Marina store blocked views from that side. He said that the since the renovations have taken place, the southern exposure was one of the best views. He proposed to remove the smaller windows and replace them with the bank of windows currently installed on the river side (east) of the building.

Mr. Elliott stated that the concept for the river side was to fill the void left by the windows on the river side with a glass and aluminum door. He showed a sample of the door that he would like to use which was a made by Lux and measured 16’ x 8’. The door would fully open and was similar to the garage style door installed at the Food Lab on Cannon and Cross Streets.

Ms. Jorgenson moved to approve the removal of the existing small windows on the south side of the building with the relocation the bank of wood windows currently on the river side, and installation of a Lux garage door (16’ x 8’) in glass and aluminum on the river side of the building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bailey and carried unanimously

Mr. Minch asked what recourse the Commission had if an applicant renovating an already altered building installed materials poorly or a material was installed that had not been approved. He suggested that the Commission may want to request a materials list with all applications. Ms. Jorgenson agreed.

Mr. de Mooy stated that typically a design is complete enough where enough details were explained at the meeting but if a material was not provided by the applicant it was incumbent upon the Commission to request it.

Ms. Silver stated that when it is a historic and contributing building, it was easy to demand that original materials be used on any renovation. However, structures that have already been significantly altered were sometimes permitted to use newer materials.

Ms. Jorgenson stated that a complete materials list would be helpful. Mr. de Mooy stated that when the front façade of a building was proposed for renovation the materials should be what would have been used during the period of the building. Ms. Silver stated that the Commission had to remember to be more specific. Ms. Jorgenson stated that everything the Commission did set precedent and they had to do better.

There being no further business, Mr. Bailey moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:43 p.m., was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

Submitted by:                                                 Approved by:

Jennifer Mulligan                                          Alexa Silver

Town Clerk                                                     Chair

 

Share
true