HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
Alexa Silver, Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Commission members Ted Gallo, Nancy McGuire, 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 meetings of August 2, 2017. Ms. Ritchie moved to approve the minutes of August 2, 2017 as submitted, was seconded by Mr. Gallo and carried unanimously.
The Consent Calendar read as follows:
- BP2017-90 – River Arts, 200 High Street – Sign;
- BP2017-91 – River Arts Clay Studio, 204 High Street – Sign;
- BP2017-95 – Taylor/Bogdon, 219 Calvert Street – Fence;
- BP2017-99 – Nancy Lee, 281 S. Water Street – Screen Enclosure on Existing Front Porch;
- BP2017-101 – Robson/DiPasquale, 206 N. Queen Street – Gutters and Rear Roof;
- BP2017-102 – Clark/Weiner, 204 N. Mill Street – Fence at Side Entrance of Property.
Ms. McGuire asked to remove BP2017-99 from the Consent Calendar. The Commission agreed.
Ms. Ritchie stated that she wanted to acknowledge that she was on the Board at River Arts but had no prior knowledge that they were submitting permits for signs and that she did not see a conflict of interest in this case.
Ms. Ritchie moved to approve the consent calendar as follows as they met the criteria in the Historic District Guidelines, as follows:
- BP2017-90 for a sign at River Arts located at 200 High Street in accordance with III.13 Signs;
- BP2017-91 for a sign at River Arts Clay Studio located 204 High Street in accordance with III.13 Signs;
- BP2017-95 from Taylor/Bogdon at 219 Calvert Street for a fence in accordance with V.5 Walls and Fences;
- BP2017-101 from Robson/DiPasquale at 206 N. Queen Street for gutters and a rear roof replacement in accordance with III.3.2 Repair or Replacement and III.7 roofs;
- BP2017-102 from Clark/Weiner at 204 N. Mill Street for a fence at the side entrance of the property in accordance with V.5 Walls and Fences.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Gallo and carried unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was BP2017-99 from Nancy Lee at 218 S. Water Street for screening in of an existing front porch. Ms. Silver read the application into the record. Ms. Nancy Lee was present for the application. Ms. McGuire stated that screens on a rear or side porch were typically approved, but not on the front façade of a building. She said that this would add an element that was not the norm for front facades in Chestertown and she was concerned about setting a precedent.
Ms. Lee stated that this was mainly for protection from mosquitos and said that the screening would be attached to 3 of the bays on the porch. The first bay leading to the front door would remain unscreened. She said that she also wanted to maintain the look of the house and the panels would be hidden behind the posts so only the screening would show and the screens were removable. Ms. Lee added that she already has removable shades on the front of the property and nobody complained, but adding a porch on the side or rear of the house was a much larger investment than she wanted to make.
Ms. Silver stated that the addition of the screen door and screening itself would change the integrity of the front porch. Mr. Taylor Loughry, contractor, was in the audience and asked if retractable screens would be permitted. Ms. Mulligan stated that although the applicant did not propose retractable screens, she did indicate that they were removable. Ms. McGuire stated that removable things never get removed.
Ms. McGuire stated that she was quite concerned that if screening was allowed on a front porch it would be precedent setting. She said that she did not like the idea of allowing front porches to be enclosed in any way.
After discussion, Ms. Lee withdrew the application.
The next item on the agenda was BP2017-94 from JLC Property Resources for replacement of windows and a new door on the rear addition located at 229 North Kent Street. Mr. Jimmy Jones of JLC Property Resources was present for the application.
Ms. Silver read the application into the record.
Mr. Jones stated that the rear section of this property was built in the 1970s. The original section of the house will not have any exterior work done to it. The windows were likely from the time of the addition and were cracked and inoperable. He said that the client was requesting 1-over-1 Viwinco vinyl windows as replacements.
Mr. Jones stated that his client was also requesting a Therma-Tru fiberglass door with a wood grain and 9-lites. Ms. McGuire stated that a smooth door with a single glass panel would be more in keeping with the design.
Ms. McGuire moved to approve BP2017-94 at 229 North Kent Street for improvements to the recent rear addition at 229 N. Kent Street to include Viwinco 1-over-1 vinyl windows and a smooth fiberglass door with a single pane of glass as it was in keeping with III.6.1 Doors and Windows, was seconded by Mr. Gallo and carried unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was BP2017-97 from TL Rentals at 314 Park Row for a roof, gutters and storm windows. Mr. Justin Taylor and Mr. Taylor Loughry were present for the application. Ms. Silver read the application into the record.
Mr. Loughry stated that the seams have come apart on the metal roof shingles and they were unrepairable. He feared the ceiling would fall in and said that you can see through the roof when inside. He would like to replace the second floor roof, dormer roofing, and a lower roof with architectural asphalt shingles.
Ms. Ritchie asked if the bow window would remain. Mr. Loughry said that the bow window will remain but the roof on the bow window will be replaced to match the newer asphalt shingle roof. The only roof that would remain unchanged is the flat roof on the rear of the building.
Mr. Loughry stated that the current asphalt shingle siding on the dormers would be replaced with wood grain shiplap Hardiplank siding.
Mr. Loughry stated that gutters would be replaced with ½ round aluminum gutters with round downspouts in a galvanized metal to match the existing rear gutter system.
Mr. Loughry stated that he would like to add Larson triple-track storm windows to the second floor and on the first floor on the windows in which apartments were located. The storm windows will have one crossbar that will line up with the existing double hung windows. Colors will match or compliment window color.
Ms. McGuire asked if there was any way to save the metal roofing as the Town was losing so many of them on historic buildings in Town. She said a metal roof will last for 100 years if it is kept painted. Mr. Loughry agreed, but said that these shingles have become separated and there was no way to put them together without base strips nailed with a rubber gasket or using silicone, none of which would look appealing. He said that this metal roof was not in sections; rather they were individual metal shingles. Mr. Taylor stated that even if was painted with a thick rubber paint it would not be ideal and all of the definition on the metal would be lost.
Mr. de Mooy stated that he was at the site and thought that the roof was beyond repair, noting that the eaves were frayed and when in the attic you could see outside.
Ms. McGuire stated that her concern was that the architecture of the building was changing with triple track storm and screen windows, asphalt shingles and Hardiplank. Mr. Taylor stated that the building had asbestos shingles on it now. Ms. Ritchie stated that the architecture was already marred by the installation of the bow window.
Mr. Gallo moved to approve BP2017-97 for exterior work at 314 Park Row as it was in keeping with Design Guidelines III.6.6 Storm Windows, III.7 Roofs, III.5 Siding and III.4.2 Repair or Replacement with the understanding that the Hardiplank siding on the dormers will be smooth with no texture, was seconded by Ms. Ritchie and carried unanimously.
The last item on the agenda was the Chestertown Marina Interpretive Center. Mr. de Mooy stated that this was coming back to the Historic District Commission because once the approved design was bid the cost came in double the anticipated amount. Therefore, after meeting with the architect, it was decided to go from a 2-story building to a 1-story building, eliminating the need for the elevator and stairwells.
Mr. de Mooy stated that the building was originally designed at 37’9” and is now proposed to 29’11”, reduced by 7’8”. He said that he thought the reduction in size fit better with the scale of the street. Ms. McGuire stated that she agreed, noting that she thought the original design was going to compete with the Creager house next door.
Mr. de Mooy stated that the top row of windows in the rear of the building would be eliminated because of the roof truss system. He said that the rear portion of the building will house the Interpretive Center which will double as a marina office and store. The center portion will have men’s and women’s bathrooms and showers with an expanded laundry area. The Water Street side of the building will house a retail space. The Interpretive Center will have a reception desk with a rolling door so that the area could be secured and used for functions. The deck has been raised and the center panels of the windows will be doors rather than windows.
Ms. McGuire moved to approve the design changes of the Chestertown Marina Interpretive Center plans submitted on August 21, 2017 as they were in keeping with the Historic District Design Guidelines, was seconded by Mr. Gallo and carried unanimously.
There being no further business, Mr. Minch moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:50 p.m., was seconded by Ms. Ritchie and carried unanimously.
Submitted by: Approved by:
Jennifer Mulligan Alexa Silver
Town Clerk Chair