Historic District Commission Minutes – January 5, 2022

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

JANUARY 5, 2022

Mr. Kurt Smith, Chair, called the Historic District Commission meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.   In attendance were Barbara Brown, Rob Busler, Rebecca Murphy, Alice Ritchie and Vicky Smith, Kees de Mooy (Zoning Administrator) and guests.

Mr. Smith 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.

Mr. Smith stated that he would like to move new business item BP2021-193 for a roof replacement to the consent agenda.  Mr. Busler moved that application BP2021-193 be added to the consent calendar, was seconded by Ms. Murphy and carried unanimously.

Mr. Smith asked if there were additions or corrections to the minutes of the Historic District Commission meeting of December 1, 2021.  Ms. Murphy moved to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2021, meeting as presented, was seconded by Ms. Smith and carried unanimously.

The Consent Calendar contained the following items:

1. BP2018-82 – Flora, 218 Mt. Vernon Avenue – Revisions to approved plans;
2. BP2021-146 – Tully, 201 N. Queen Street – Exterior Renovations (modifications to approved plan)
3. BP2021-191 – Phat Daddy’s BBQ, 205 Spring Avenue – Sign;
4. BP2021-195 – McLean, 202 N. Water Street – Wood stove enclosure.
5. BP2021-193 – Dowling, 109 High Street – Roof replacement

Ms. Murphy moved to approve the consent agenda as follows:

1. BP2018-82 – Flora, 218 Mt. Vernon Avenue – Revisions to approved plans;
2. BP2021-146 – Tully, 201 N. Queen Street – Exterior Renovations (modifications to approved plan)
3. BP2021-191 – Phat Daddy’s BBQ, 205 Spring Avenue – Sign;
4. BP2021-195 – McLean, 202 N. Water Street – Wood stove enclosure;
5. BP2021-193 – Dowling, 109 High Street – Roof replacement;

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

The next item on the agenda was BP2021-174 from Schmidt & Kanto at 321 High Street for changes to the flat roof from the back of the building to the front façade.  Mr. Busler moved to approve BP2021-174 as submitted, was seconded by Ms. Murphy and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2021-176 from Valley View Services at 403 N. Kent Street for window replacements.  Mr. Matthew Wilson was present for the application and stated that he was going to leave the original wood siding in place, replacing with hardiboard or wood where necessary.  He said that he would like to replace all windows with 1/1 wood windows.  Ms. Brown stated that there were three different estimates provided in the file and asked which one he decided to use.  Mr. Wilson stated that he was going with the windows that were painted on the interior and 1/1 in design.  Mr. de Mooy stated that he visited the site and recommended retaining the siding and that the 2/2 original windows are in place and could be retained they just needed repair.  Mr. Wilson disagreed stating that some of the windows were painted shut and there were cracks in the glass.  Mr. Smith stated that the owner should repair what exists and repair if possible.  Mr. Wilson stated that in this situation he thought that the windows should be replaced, adding that the proposed windows would look much nicer than an original window that needed storm windows.

Mr. de Mooy stated that the existing 2/2 windows should be retained, adding storm windows for insulation.  Ms. Murphy stated that a storm window was a temporary condition, but his proposal for replacement windows would change the appearance of the original house.  Mr. Wilson stated that every house on the block has been allowed replacement windows and he thought it unfair that he would have to retain the windows.  He said that he agreed to retain the original siding already, as a compromise.

Ms. Brown asked if new windows were approved could he use 2/2 wooden windows.  Mr. Wilson stated that he would be amenable to that change.  Ms. Ritchie stated that the opportunity to save original windows is rare and this was an opportunity to do so.  Mr. de Mooy stated that these windows could be and should be repaired and showed photos of existing conditions.  He said that the existing storm windows have protected the original windows.

Ms. Murphy stated that she sympathized with the applicant but part of buying a house in the Historic District is a commitment to ensure its historical integrity.  She said that if the windows can be restored, that is the preference.  Mr. Wilson stated that anything can be restored but he had a budget to work with and thought this would be a hardship.  Mr. de Mooy stated that rehabbing the windows would cost less than getting new windows.  Mr. Wilson stated that his time had to be considered.

Ms. Brown stated that she would like the applicant to give the Commission an idea of the cost of restoration versus replacement.  Ms. Murphy agreed stating that she did not think the windows proposed could be approved without knowing the other costs involved to restore them instead.  Ms. Brown stated that she also wanted to see the costs of 2/2 windows.

Mr. Smith stated that the applicant was welcome to return to the Commission in February and a decision can be made at that time.  Mr. de Mooy stated that a painter with expertise in historic homes could fix the windows.  Ms. Murphy stated that additional information will give them a better idea of how to move forward with the project.  Ms. Ritchie stated that the Commission’s decision making should not be based on cost.  Mr. Wilson asked if safety was a factor.  Ms. Murphy stated that the applicant should return with the information for discussion.  Mr. Smith suggested the applicant receive further advice and return with a plan for restoration along with an estimate for 2/2 windows.  He said that the applicant may still have to retain the windows.

Mr. de Mooy stated that the removal of the vinyl siding can take place but any wood siding that had to be replaced had to be done with wood to match what is there.

The next item on the agenda was BP2021-186 from KRM at 428 Cannon Street (Lot 1).  Mr. John Hutchison, architect, stated that this was the second hearing for new construction, and the owner, Ms. Claire Johnson, joined him today.  Ms. Murphy recused herself from the application citing a conflict of interest.

Mr. Hutchison stated that the lighting on the building were simple sconces on the front and side with overhead sconces on the garage.  He showed photos of the proposed lighting.  Mr. Hutchison stated that the building will be sided with 7” smooth face Hardiplank.  Porch roofs would be 1” standing seam metal, as approved on lot 4, and the rest of the roofs were architectural asphalt shingles.  He said that he was considering both Andersen and Viwinco S series windows (solid vinyl).  He said that the Viwinco windows were also approved on lot 4 but at this point the owner had not decided on which window she preferred.  The doors would be Thermatru brand and painted.  There would be a brick pier foundation on the front and parged foundations will be on areas hidden by fencing.  The decks would be Fiberon composite.  The rear elevation will have two garage doors and a screened porch.  A skylight was proposed but will not be visible from Cannon Street when the adjacent lot is built.  Mr. Hutchison stated that a sidewalk will be installed in the front and sides of the property.

Mr. Hutchison showed 3d images of the house adding that a low fence will be across the front of the property with a 6’ standard fence along the sides and rear.  He said that once the house is further along he would return with a formal landscaping plan.  He showed photos of the fencing proposed for the lot adding that the fencing will be stained.  The driveway will be asphalt.

Mr. Busler asked about the electrical box and cross-bracing on the corner of the lot, saying that he was surprised there has not been a change to the layout despite the new development.  He said that KRM should raise the issue with the owner of the box and electrical pole.  Mr. Hutchison stated that many of the utilities are already in place.  Mr. Busler stated that the utilities could be changed making this into a more gracious looking corner.

Mr. Busler stated that the skylight should be large enough to allow the most light possible.  Mr. Hutchison stated that there was also a skylight approved on another house in the development which was much larger than the one in their design.

Mr. Busler moved to approve the application as submitted, was seconded by Ms. Ritchie and carried with four in favor, Ms. Murphy recused.

The next item on the agenda was BP2021-190 for a ramp to be built in the rear of 238 Cannon Street.  There was nobody present for the application.  Ms. Ritchie stated that any handicap access was welcome in Town and that the design was very fitting.  Ms. Smith moved to approve the application as submitted, was seconded by Ms. Murphy and carried unanimously.

The last item on the agenda was BP2021-85 from KIT Team, LLC at 341 High Street for changes to concept plan submitted in July 2021.  Mr. Christopher Frank, architect at Hammond Wilson was present for the application and said that changes to the concept he presented in July were made to allow for ADA access.  He said that the first concept only had ADA access from the rear, and it included a long ramp with a lift.  He said that a better job had to be done to allow access to the lower level lounge from High Street.  The access from High Street is 29” below ground level and they were now proposing to raise the height of the building.  He said that demolition of all but the front façade had already been approved at a previous meeting.  This new concept carved out a similar opening as exists with a new door and would raise the existing basement floor by 14” which would also make for two additional risers on the front stairs of the building.  He said that this change will not impede the High Street sidewalk.  He said that the extra height of the building does not negatively affect the streetscape, and this provides the needed ADA access.

Mr. Frank stated that changes to the rear of the building extended the deck over the lift and reorganized the stairs and lift where the deck will now provide shelter to the lift landing.  Mr. Frank stated that he thought the changes to the rear were an improvement over the first concept.  He said that he would return with materials at a future meeting.

Ms. Ritchie asked if the interior passages between the adjacent buildings will still connect.  Mr. Frank stated that it was configured to go from the bottle shop to the lower lounge, but the use of the space has not been determined.

Ms. Murphy stated that the massing in the back was an improvement over the original concept.  She said that the only thing that gives her pause is how far the stairs project into the street relative to the other buildings on the block.  Mr. Frank stated that if this was not an infill lot he would never have suggested this many stairs but without that change, the ramp will not work.

The Commission gave its approval to move forward with the concept.

There being no further business, Ms. Ritchie moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 p.m., was seconded by Mr. Busler and carried unanimously. 

Submitted by:                                                             Approved by:

Jennifer Mulligan                                                       Kurt Smith

Town Clerk                                                                 Chair

*********************************************************************************

AGENDA

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

JANUARY 5, 2021

4:00 p.m.

1. Minutes of previous meeting of December 1, 2021
2. Consent Calendar
   1. BP2018-82 – Flora, 218 Mt. Vernon Avenue – Revisions to approved plans;
   2. BP2021-146 – Tully, 201 N. Queen Street – Exterior Renovations (modifications to approved plan)
   3. BP2021-191 – Phat Daddy’s BBQ, 205 Spring Avenue – Sign;
   4. BP2021-195 – McLean, 202 N. Water Street – Wood stove enclosure
3. Old Business
   1. BP2021-174 – Schmidt & Kanto, 321 High Street – Exterior Renovations (modifications to approved plan)
   2. BP2021-176 – Wilson, 403 N. Kent Street – Window replacements;
   3. BP2021-186 – KRM, 428 Cannon Street (Lot 1) – Part II – New Construction
4. New Business
   1. BP2021-190 – 238 Cannon Street Partners, 238 Cannon Street – Ramp;
   2. BP2021-193 – Dowling, 109 High Street – Roof Replacement;
   3. BP2021-85 – KIT Team, LLC, 341 High Street – Changes to concept plan submitted in July 2021 (Concept)
5. Adjourn