Historic District Commission, 2020, Town Agendas & Minutes|



Chair Jeffrey Coomer called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Commission members Barbara Brown, Ed Minch, Kurt Smith and Victoria Smith, Kees de Mooy (Zoning Administrator), and guests.

Mr. Coomer 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. Coomer asked if there were additions or corrections to the minutes of the Historic District Commission Meeting of August 5, 2020. Mr. Minch moved to approve the minutes of the August 5, 2020 meeting as submitted, was seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously.

The first item on the agenda was the consent agenda item of BP2020-88 from Mid-Shore Pro Bono for a sign at 203/205 S. Cross Street. Ms. Brown moved to approve BP2020-88 as submitted, was seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2020-92 from Margaret Chaillou at 200 S. Mill Street for exterior renovations. Ms. Margaret Chaillou (owner) and Mr. John Hutchison (architect) were present for the application. Mr. Hutchison stated that the existing structure is a garage on the first floor with a living area on the second floor. The new owner is planning to renovate the entire structure to include living space above. The garage doors facing Cannon Street will become the main entrance, which is proposed to have a metal roof wrap-around porch along the Mill Street and Cannon Street elevations. He showed proposed floor plans showing a kitchen addition, master bedroom suite and porch addition. Walls to separate rooms will be added on the second floor and renovations will take place to the bathroom.

Mr. Coomer asked what siding is proposed for the structure. Mr. Hutchison stated that the siding will be Louisiana Pacific Smart Siding in a board and batten pattern. The gable sides and dormers will be the same Smart Siding material in a shingle design. Trim would be composite material and the roofing will be metal. A composite decking system will also be used, and it was uncertain as to whether there will be a railing on the porch. Mr. Coomer stated that railings would have to be wood if they decided to use them.

Mr. Coomer asked where mechanicals would be placed. Mr. Hutchison stated that mechanicals would be located on the back side of the house (facing the rail-trail). Ms. Brown asked if there would be screening around the mechanical equipment. Mr. Hutchison stated that they could easily place wooden fencing to hide the mechanicals if it was necessary. Ms. Chaillou stated that she was thinking of a wooden fence to lessen noise and shield the mechanical equipment from the neighboring house.

Mr. Hutchison stated that most of the existing vinyl windows will remain in place and any new windows will be made by Viwinco and match the existing windows in style.

Mr. Coomer stated that board and batten siding is not seen on many residences in Chestertown but given the fact that this was a newer building it may not be a deciding factor. Mr. Minch stated that he did not have an issue with board and batten on this building. Mr. Hutchison stated that he understood reservations on certain buildings, but this building was not a historic structure and was directly across the street from the shop buildings owned by the Town and fit with the street and what was on that block currently. Mr. Smith stated that this building began as a garage and thought the board and batten fit perfectly.

Mr. Minch stated that 2/2 windows would fit better than the proposed windows and asked if the muntins could be changed. Mr. Hutchison stated that the existing muntins were not snap-ins. The consensus of the Commission was that windows could be changed to 2/2 if the homeowner wished to make that revision to the plans.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the renovations as submitted for BP2020-92 for 200 S. Mill Street as submitted, was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was BP2020-87 from Les Moorhouse at 604 Cannon Street for a garage addition at the rear of the property. Mr. Moorhouse stated that he was looking to add a 2-car garage addition with a master suite on the second floor. The existing house has aluminum siding, which could not be replicated. The proposal called for Hardie Plank siding with wood trim and architectural Craftsman style garage doors with windows. The roof would be the same architectural shingle as the main house and have the same ridge height as the existing house. A macadam driveway will be added entering from Cannon Street.

Mr. Minch stated that this was a Craftsman building and there should not be shutters on the garage or the 6/6 windows as they were inappropriate to the house style. He asked if the new windows could reflect the Arts and Crafts style and if he would remove the shutters from the application. Mr. Moorhouse stated that the windows on the front of the house were original and were 6/1. He was planning to use 6/6 Andersen Wood Wright windows on the garage to differentiate between the old and new portion of the buildings.

Mr. Moorhouse stated that the shutters on the house were added as a decorative feature by a previous owner, adding that he liked and wanted to keep them. Mr. de Mooy stated that the application called for 6/6 windows with shutters and they had to rule on what was being proposed for the garage. Mr. de Mooy added that he did not have a problem with the 6/6 windows on this application.

Ms. Brown asked what style of Hardiplank siding was proposed for the project adding that she would like to see what the garage doors would look like as well. Mr. Moorhouse stated that the Hardiplank siding will have a 4” smooth exposure. The garage doors will roll overhead with lateral sections with window lights in a craftsman style. There were 2 sections of windows with 6 square panes on each door for a total of 12 lights.

Mr. Smith moved to approve BP2020-87 as submitted, was seconded by Mr. Minch and carried unanimously.

The last item on the agenda was BP2020-93 from Maiden Lot Farm/KRM for a new single family residence at 422 Cannon Street. Mr. Chris Holmes of KRM and Mr. John Hutchison (architect) were present for the application. Mr. Coomer reminded the applicant that the Commission was able to waive the two-hearing requirement, but the plan did lack a landscape plan.

Mr. Hutchison stated that there were slight changes to the plan he submitted, noting a slightly smaller porch and change from board and batten to clapboard siding.

Mr. Hutchison stated that this house will be situated on lot 4, located in the middle of the block. The dwelling met all necessary setback requirements, noting a zero setback at the front elevation. The lot was 46’ wide and the house would be approximately 26’ wide, 71’4” long, which includes the garage and 6’4” porch.

Mr. Hutchison stated that the original submittal had a porch that was 2’ wider with columns and wrap-around steps. That was changed by reducing the width to make for a narrower porch roof with 3 columns and steps leading to the front door. There was no change to the depth of the porch.

Mr. Hutchison showed a streetscape rendering of the building which showed the porch more in keeping with other buildings on the block. He said that the Hardiplank clapboard siding with shingle siding on the dormers and metal roofing on the porch would be used. The dormers were set back from the first floor walls to keep in scale with the house. Casement windows were proposed for the dormers to allow for egress, otherwise the dormers would have to be made much larger.

Mr. Hutchison stated that this was an open floor first floor with a master suite.

Mr. Minch moved to approve the location and massing of the house as was required in the first hearing, was seconded by Ms. Brown and carried unanimously.

Mr. Hutchison stated that the windows on the front and driveway side of the structure would be 4/4 and larger than the windows called for on the other side of the house which would be 2/2 and less visible when lot 3 is built upon.

Mr. Hutchison stated that the garage was subservient to the house and would have carriage style doors by Wayne Dalton. There was attic storage space above the garage accessed via a drop-down stair from the garage and there was a window for aesthetic purposes on the second story of the garage. There was a skylight tucked behind the larger dormer on the east side.

Mr. Hutchison stated that this was a spec house and not being built for a specific buyer. First floor square footage was 1,170 and the second floor was 846. The entire structure, including the garage and porch was 2,624 sq. ft. Mr. Minch asked the ceiling height of the garage. Mr. Hutchison stated that it was approximately 10’ high. Mr. Minch asked if the height of the garage could be reduced by 1’ bringing the entire roofline down from the original house reducing the overall visual impact of the garage. Ms. Brown asked if the second floor of the attic could be converted to living space. Mr. Hutchison stated that would not be able to be done without a large renovation. Mr. Hutchison stated that he did not have a problem reducing the overall roof height bringing the windows more in line with the existing structure. Mr. Hutchison stated that K-style gutters were proposed.

Mr. Minch moved to approve the submission for the dwelling as submitted, reducing the garage ceiling, roof and gutters by 1’ and the submission of a landscaping plan, was seconded by Ms. Brown and carried unanimously.

There being no further business, Mr. Minch moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:28 p.m., was seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously.

Submitted by:                                                             Approved by:

Jennifer Mulligan                                                       Jeffrey Coomer

Town Clerk                                                                 Chair


Close Search Window