Historic District Commission Minutes – November 3, 2021

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 3, 2021

Mr. Kurt Smith, Chair, called the Historic District Commission meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.   In attendance were Barbara Brown, Rebecca Murphy, Alice Ritchie and Vicki Smith, Kees de Mooy (Zoning Administrator), Jennifer Mulligan (Town Clerk) 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 asked if there were additions or corrections to the minutes of the Historic District Commission meeting of October 6, 2021.  Ms. Ritchie moved to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2021 meeting as presented, was seconded by Ms. Brown and carried unanimously.

The Consent Calendar contained the following items:

1. BP2021-155 – Edge Construction/Knight, 106 Spring Avenue – Roof;
2. BP2021-158 – Imperial Hotel Management, 208 High Street – Maintenance Work (ratify approval);
3. BP2021-161 – Washington College, 226 Washington Avenue – Roof;
4. BP2021-162 – Van Name, 108 Spring Street – Fence;

Mr. de Mooy stated that the work at the Imperial Hotel is maintenance, but the repair became larger than anticipated, therefore requiring a permit.

Ms. Ritchie asked if the fence on Mill Street would be painted, stained, or remain untreated.  Ms. Van Name stated that the wood was treated and would remain natural.  Ms. Ritchie stated that the guidelines call for fencing to be painted or stained.  Ms. Van Name stated that she did not object to the wood being stained.  Ms. Brown stated that the wrought iron gate was beautiful and asked if they would maintain it.  Ms. Van Name state that the existing gate was new, and she hoped someone else would be able to enjoy it.

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

1. BP2021-155 – Edge Construction/Knight, 106 Spring Avenue – Roof;
2. BP2021-158 – Imperial Hotel Management, 208 High Street – Maintenance Work (ratify approval);
3. BP2021-161 – Washington College, 226 Washington Avenue – Roof;
4. BP2021-162 – Van Name, 108 Spring Street – Fence (to be painted or stained);

The motion was seconded by Ms. Murphy and carried unanimously. 

The next item on the agenda was BP2021-150 from Elizabeth Speer for a side addition at 207 Washington Avenue.  Ms. Murphy moved to remove the item from tabled, was seconded by Ms. Ritchie and carried unanimously.  Joe Phillips, John Charles and Eric Wilbers (architects) and David Holman (contractor) were present for the application.  Mr. Phillips stated that he thought the revised drawing was a good solution to the issues raised by the Commission at the November meeting.  He said that the size of the enclosure on the porch was reduced, and the wall was moved back providing equal porch exposure on the north and west side, retaining the window and shutters at the stair.  A small enclosure would include a powder room and washer/dryer.  Access to the powder room will be from under the stair on the interior after relocating a water heater and electrical panel.  Ms. Murphy stated that she appreciated the revisions made to make this project work.  Ms. Brown moved to approve the application as amended, was seconded by Ms. Murphy and carried unanimously.      

The next item on the agenda was BP2021-157 from Washington College at 210 W. Campus Avenue.  Mr. Larry Blake of Washington College and Mr. David Holman (contractor) were present for the application.  Mr. Holman stated that there were rotten windows that they were looking to replace with Andersen 400 series windows and the T-111 siding will be removed and replaced with vinyl siding to match the vinyl siding that exists on the property.  A door in the rear of the property will be replaced.  Ms. Ritchie moved to approve the application as submitted, was seconded by Ms. Murphy and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2021-159 from M&J Ventures for exterior renovations at 312 Park Row.  Mr. Jay Silcox (owner) was present for the application.  Mr. Silcox stated that the existing siding was aluminum with original wood lath siding underneath.  He said that there was exposed wood on one side of the building, and they were anticipating that wood would be under the mansard roof area.  He said that the approach was to restore the exterior to a historic photograph of the original building with scalloped shingles, wood siding and the front porch.  Mr. Silcox stated that there was a second and third floor deck proposed for the back of the property for egress purposes.  Mr. Silcox stated that he would use pressure treated wood for the decks, but he was looking at using aluminum stairs.  He said that there is a fence and large tree that faces the parking lot so the deck will be hidden from view.  Mr. Silcox stated that the railing on the front entrance would be like existing.  Ms. Murphy moved to approve the application as submitted, was seconded by Ms. Ritchie and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2021-160 from Washington College at 300 Washington Avenue for exterior renovations to East, Middle and West Halls.  Mr. Larry Blake of Washington College was present for the application.  Mr. Blake stated that the intent was to replace the existing wood elements on the building.  He said that the solid panels would be replaced with Koma PVC composite materials with similar profiles to maintain the historic appearance of the structures.  Mr. Blake stated that the windows were closed at some point in time for a reason he was unaware, and he was trying to extend the life of the construction.

Ms. Murphy stated that she was not keen on using vinyl on these buildings.  Mr. de Mooy stated that a composite material accepts paint and should be used.  Mr. Blake stated that the Koma material is paintable.  Mr. de Mooy stated that the smooth side should face out and could be milled to imitate the exact profiles that exist.  Ms. Brown asked if the applicant could provide a sample that the Commission could come in to review and table the matter for the December meeting.  Mr. de Mooy stated that assurance that this could be cut and milled would also be helpful.

Ms. Ritchie moved to table BP2021-160 for further information, was seconded by Ms. Brown and carried unanimously.

The last item on the agenda BP2021-164 from KRM Development for new construction at 102 Hilda Hopkins Way (Lot 7).  Mr. John Hutchison, architect, was present for the application.  Ms. Murphy recused herself from the application.  Mr. Hutchison stated that this project was in the back of the development adjacent from the rail trail.  He said that Lot 6 just completed construction and the house was more suburban in nature.  He said that Lot 7 would face garages if fronted on the alley, which did not feel appropriate to him.  He said that he oriented the house so that the front facade faced the rail-trail, and the back of the house faced the alley.  He showed a satellite view to provide context of the site.  This house would have a garage with a workshop facing Radcliffe Drive with a driveway entrance and walkway hugging the easement line to a front porch.

Mr. Hutchison stated that the buyers of the lot were under contract, but a design had to be approved by both the Commission and the owners while working within a budget to allow the buyers to go into a building contract.  He said that they do not know the cost of the building to date, and he had two (2) designs to present today; one with a master suite on the first floor and one without.  He showed both renderings to the Commission.

Mr. Hutchison stated that Hardiplank smooth face cementitious lap siding (used both horizontally and vertically) and cedar shingle siding were proposed for the dwelling.  The lean-to addition, kitchen and chimney would be covered with the cementitious shingle siding.  There would be carriage style doors on the garage.  Solar panels were proposed for the west/southwest upper roof and on the master suite roof (if built).  Skylights were proposed on one section of the building to give light to the stairwell.  A screen porch was also included, along with a patio.

Mr. Hutchison stated that a stained wood fence like that on lot five was proposed along the Radcliffe Street side, alley way and the side of the house with the master suite.  In the front, a 3’ fence would be installed.  A detail of the fence area was shown on the site plan.

Ms. Ritchie stated that the applicant has not purchased the lot to date, the purchase hinges on approval of the plan.  Mr. Hutchison stated that the buyers are in contract with KRM Development, but the contract stipulates that a design with HDC approval was developed to the point that KRM Construction can estimate the construction and an agreement can be reached on price before going to settlement.  Ms. Ritchie asked if it was correct hat KRM Construction is building out all the lots.  Mr. Hutchison stated that was correct, adding that KRM Development owns the lots.

Ms. Ritchie stated that she thought fencing would be all along Hilda Hopkins Way at one point or another.  Mr. Hutchison stated that all the lots facing Cannon Street will be traditional Chestertown homes, but the homes facing the alley are unique as the community of Radcliffe Drive is not in the Historic District and those homes are more suburban in nature with larger lots.  He said that the houses will share components of both areas with historic character and more suburban site plans as the lots were larger.

Mr. Hutchison stated that he was looking for approval for both plans presented to allow options for the owners when construction pricing becomes available.

Mr. Smith stated that this house seems much larger than anything around it.  Mr. Hutchison stated that the proposed house was not taller than the houses on lots 6 and 5.  He said that the second floor spaces have shorter walls than are typical and they are sloped.  He said that he tried to keep the scale down as the footprint sprawled a bit, adding that this was the largest of the eight lots.  Ms. Brown stated that she thought that the house fit the lot nicely.

Mr. Hutchison stated that he had the materials list prepared at this meeting, but it was up to the Commission if materials would be approved.  Ms. Ritchie stated that solar panels are supposed to be the same color as the roof.  Ms. Brown stated that she had concerns over the different types of siding proposed for the house.  Mr. Hutchison stated that vertical and horizontal siding was used because the building was lengthy and different siding would break up the mass to the eye as it reduced the scale.  He said that the shingles were straight and looked like painted cedar shingles.

Mr. Hutchison asked if it was possible to get approvals and he would return at a future meeting to discuss materials.  He said that it was important to have the design of the house approved.  Mr. Smith stated that the applicant would also have to return with a landscaping plan materials could be discussed at that time.

Ms. Brown stated that the horizontal and vertical siding looked nice, but her opinion was that the cedar shake siding was too much.  She said that she would like additional information on the solar panels.  Ms. Smith stated that she thought the shingles on the back of the house looked out of place.  Mr. Hutchison stated that it was designed to look as though it was a different part of the house, like an older home with an addition.

Ms. Ritchie moved to approve the first phase designs for new construction as presented with the understanding that the applicant return with materials and landscaping, was seconded by Ms. Smith and carried with four (4) in favor, Ms. Murphy recused.

Mr. Smith stated that there was a letter received from Dr. Seidel regarding archaeological monitoring on areas of new construction.  Mr. de Mooy stated that this is something that was in the guidelines and should be followed to be consistent.  Ms. Murphy stated that archaeological monitoring has not been discussed since she was on the Commission and asked if this was something that the Commission called for or Town staff.  She said that the Commission could be more forthcoming with advising the applicant that this should be done.  Mr. de Mooy stated that Mr. Seidel was an archaeologist and stressed the need for monitoring when he was on the Commission.  Mr. de Mooy suggested that it be added to the permit application.

There being no further business, Ms. Ritchie moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:31 p.m., was seconded by Ms. Brown and carried unanimously. 

Submitted by:                                                                                Approved by:

Jennifer Mulligan                                                                           Kurt Smith

Town Clerk                                                                                         Chair

AGENDA

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 3, 2021

4:00 p.m.

1. Minutes of previous meeting of October 6, 2021
2. Consent Calendar
   1. BP2021-155 – Edge Construction/Knight, 106 Spring Avenue – Roof;
   2. BP2021-158 – Imperial Hotel Management, 208 High Street – Maintenance Work (ratify approval);
   3. BP2021-161 – Washington College, 226 Washington Avenue – Roof;
   4. BP2021-162 – Van Name, 108 Spring Street – Fence;
3. Old Business
   1. BP2021-150 – Phillips & Donovan Architects/Speer – 207 Washington Avenue – Side addition;
4. New Business
   1. BP2021-157 – Holman/Washington College, 210 W. Campus Avenue – Exterior Renovations;
   2. BP2021-159 – M&J Ventures/Holman – 312 Park Row – Exterior Renovations;
   3. BP2021-160 – Washington College, 300 Washington Avenue (East, Middle and West Halls) – Exterior Renovations;
   4. BP2021-164 – Hutchison/KRM, 102 Hilda Hopkins Way (Lot 7) – New Construction
5. Adjourn