If you think Diane Daniels and I respect each other, you are correct. I hope her wish comes true and we can, as a town, respect the history of Chestertown specifically and all small, historic towns in general.
I am concerned that the Planning Commission, however, does not respect the history of the development of towns generally or Chestertown in particular and that raises questions. Historically, towns were built with the expectation that if you worked in town, you lived in town. Conversely, if you lived in town you worked there, too.
You might live above your shop. Or you might live next door to your business. The density of stores would cluster around one or two corners. As you moved even a half block from that center, businesses and shops would be built next to each other and finally, folks would find themselves in residential spaces.
In the 1800 and early 1900’s, folks worked from home in a way that has only recently come back to fashion with home offices. So you often see the layout that is present on the west side of High Street above Lulu’s. In almost all towns with historic districts in the state of Maryland this pattern is respectfully recognized in a zoning designation that is called a “central zone”, a “hybrid zone” or a “mixed use” zone. Mixed use does not refer to the use of a single building. It refers to a zone or cluster of buildings.
Understand that zoning became an issue in Chestertown around the 1980s, about the time the Tidewater Inn in Easton was thinking of expanding to our town. For what ever reason that expansion did not occur. But the zoning created for it has remained to the detriment of some property owners. Also understand that the purpose of zoning is to prevent harm to the citizens by making sure that the use of property does not present a health, safety or other threat.
Here are a few important questions: As a town, do we want to honor the history of the development of Chestertown by having a hybrid/ central/ mixed use zone? Do we believe in the right of people to use their private property to their own benefit? Do we want to preserve the heritage of this town?
So, we can designate the current “commercial” district or some part of it to recognize the growth of town. We can understand that the top of High Street, Cannon Street and Park Row and other areas were built with a mix of businesses and homes. Or we can require the space to choose between being residential or commercial. Our Planning Commission has disregarded town history by choosing the second option.
The second choice condemns the owners of property that does not fit the new designation to lose income and limit activities to those chosen for them by the town government. The cost of changing a shop into a home or an apartment into a shop is too expensive to be workable. The choice between the two designations means that half the area will not make enough profit to be able to do regular maintenance let alone restoration. This degrades the appearance of the transition parts of town. It also means that as the property value goes down, the property tax revenue also goes down. Everyone in town suffers.
My question for the Planning Commission is, “Why would you do this?” You are rewriting the zoning schemes right now. Why not do it properly and respectfully? Why deliberately restrict people from the use of their property in the most profitable way? No one is asking to put in anything that is harmful, unhealthy or of high nuisance problem on these transitional spaces. You have required Mr. Kirby to put just such a transitional zone into his plan for Stepney Manor. Yet a block of citizens has petitioned the town to include this transitional zone on their street and you have said it is impossible. There are quite a number of questions here. Maybe you can answer them before the zoning plan goes to the town for approval.
Kevin Shertz says
Ms. Geddes is entitled to form her own opinion, but she isn’t entitled to form her own facts.
Fact: Chestertown already possesses mixed-use zoning, and has for many years. This is why you see residential over commercial spaces, professional office zoning that allows residential or professional office use, and so forth. That is what mixed-use zoning is. Any individual is welcome to disagree with the mix of uses permitted within a particular zone, but saying it’s not mixed use zoning is not only a false claim, it’s a ridiculous claim.
Fact: The motivations of the Planning Commission are very easy to find out – all meetings of the Chestertown Planning Commission are open to the public. You can also read the minutes of each meeting on the Chestertown government web site. Meetings are held the third Wednesday of each month in the Chestertown Town Hall. Our workshop session starts at 7pm, and our meeting begins at 7:30. Both are fully open to the public.
Fact: The Planning Commission conducted discussion on the “Park Row” concept at their December 16, 2009, March 17, 2010, and April 28, 2010 meetings. The Planning Commission requested additional information — specifically a zoning ordinance example of what the “Park Row” group were trying to emulate with their application request — in the March 17 meeting. This is in the public record. The Planning Commission never received a response from the Park Row applicants to this March 17 request.
I believe every members of the Chestertown Planning Commission (myself included) are reasonable, thoughtful people who have a legal obligation to evaluate any and all facts that come before us. It’s one thing to hold an opinion… it’s another thing to be able to offer an opinion and be able to back it up with empirical, independent evidence. Passionately-held opinions and rhetoric are no substitute for hard data.
I’ll say it again: Ms. Geddes is entitled to form her own opinion, but she isn’t entitled to form her own facts.
rachel carter goss says
i have lived in several apartments above businesses in downtown – thank you for clearing any misunderstandings.
Holly Geddes says
Kevin Shertz is correct that the facts must be stated clearly. Here are a few to clarify the discussion.
Fact: In zoning codes, the lower the number is, the bigger the space. “C” is for commercial; “R” is for residential. So, R1 usually indicates large houses with lots of land. R 2 or R3 are moderate size homes and by the time you get to R6 or R7 you are in an apartment of some size.
On the other hand, C1 indicates large commercial spaces like shopping centers. C2, like we have in town, is strictly commercial on the first floor but permits living on the upper floors. Someone could define “Mixed use” as multiple uses in a single building. But most towns do not consider a building to be a zone. The more usual understanding of the term is that buildings within a cluster or zone of buildings are mixed in their use (CRB). Some buildings are clearly designed as residential space from the first to the top floor. If one building is commercial (with or without residential on upper floors), and the next two are residential and the next is commercial, then you have mixed zoning.
Some towns avoid the confusion by having alternate terms like “Hybrid Zoning” or “Central Zone”. That is an option. The fact is that a building is not a zone. A zone needs multiple buildings.
Fact: With the exception of one month when I threw out my back, I believe I have been to every planning board meeting since the first of the year and a few last year
Fact: The Park Row Association is a group of citizens who own property on that street and they petitioned you with a request to help them during these hard economic times to make a profit on their properties. They each want to use their private property the way it was designed (some as residential spaces and some as commercial spaces) to the mutual benefit of themselves and the town. The thought is that any improvement in the value would also bring additional tax revenue to the town and give the owners the needed revenue to do maintenance.
Fact: To fulfill the request you had for additional information I sent you, the planning commission, the list of references that are at the bottom of this letter on April 18th.(4:15 p.m.) At the March meeting the zoning of Annapolis was mentioned. The section of their code that defines this is 21.44.030 (MX Mixed Use district.)
So the fact is, Rachel, that Kevin clarified nothing. If you want clarification you might want to check out the following references. I have opinions. But I also try very hard to back them with more expert information.
******
The relationship between zoning and preserving historic district architecture
https://www.nps.gov/history/HPS/pad/partnership/Zoning699.pdf
https://www.preservationnation.org/issues/housing/Rebuilding_Community.pdf
https://www.preservationnation.org/issues/smart-growth/additional-resources/toolkit_planning.pdf
Background information about preservation & smart growth
https://www.preservationnation.org/issues/smart-growth/
Examples of preservation other than Annapolis https://www.preservationnation.org/issues/transportation/additional-resources/returning-city-2.pdf
https://alexandriava.gov/Preservation
Kevin Shertz says
Three simple points to make:
1. I stand by every single word in my previous message.
2. Ms. Geddes is not a Park Row applicant, and is not authorized to amend an application on their behalf. That is the law. Period.
3. Hyperlinks that Ms. Geddes – not the Park Row applicants – sent to the Commission in April did not address the request that was made to the Park Row applicants, namely, the sample ordinance text that the Park Row group wished to emulate since they believed no current zone could apply to them. It is all an interesting collection of material… but not what was requested of the applicants in form or scope.
As a Planning Commission member, I am legally required to not discuss a case beyond what has already transpired and is in the public record. All of my discussion of a case must occur within the setting of a Planning Commission meeting.
There is nothing further that I can add that people can’t read for themselves in the meeting minutes on the Chestertown web site… so I will leave no further messages on this thread.
Individuals who are interested in the minutes for the previously-mentioned Chestertown Planning Commission meetings can find them at these hyperlinks… they are an interesting read:
December 16, 2009
https://www.chestertown.com/gov/planning_minutes.php?ID=103
March 17, 2010
https://www.chestertown.com/gov/planning_minutes.php?ID=106
April 28, 2010
https://www.chestertown.com/gov/planning_minutes.php?ID=108
Stunned says
Saw this printed in the paper yesterday too. Is it any wonder the Main Street program is such a joke!
Holly Geddes says
What has this to do with MainStreet? I am no longer on that board. This is not a Main Street issue at all. So I guess you are Stunned into a sarcastic tone because you are unable to argue the facts. (Also, unwilling to state your true name.) Name calling is a stunningly ineffective response lacking in substance.
Holly Geddes says
I want to thank Kevin for these additional thoughts and references.
This goes without saying. We each stand by what we say.
I am not a member of the Park Row Associates. However, when they made their presentation in March I was in the audience. You all asked for information in an open meeting and I offered to get it. No one at that time said the information had to come from a PRA (Park Row Associates) member. In April, I asked you all if you had looked at the information I sent and you had not. But you did not stipulate that the information had to be channeled through the PRA. I will send it to them and they can send it to you if that is what is required for you to answer them favorably.
This procedural point does not change the substance of the information that you received. If you are having trouble finding the citation in the Annapolis code, I will quote it. The code in our town’s scheme of letters would probably be “CRB”. The first paragraph in the Annapolis code is:
21.44.030 MX Mixed Use district. A. Purpose. The Mixed Use district is designed to encourage a mixture of residential, office and retail uses within the inner West Street corridor compatible with each other and with surrounding areas. https://library.municode.com/HTML/16754/level3/T21_DIII_C21.44.html
Some of the uses include: Antique stores, Appliance stores including electrical and household appliances, and radio and television sales and repair, Arts and crafts studios, Arts and crafts stores, Banks and financial institutions, Bake shops,
…. Dwellings, multi-family, Dwellings, multi-family, containing 12 or fewer units, Dwellings, single-family attached, Dwellings, single-family detached, Dwellings, two-family, Dwellings above the ground floor of nonresidential uses…..For the complete set of uses: https://library.municode.com/HTML/16754/level3/T21_DIII_C21.48.html
That should take care of form and scope. But if that is not enough, page 10 of the Gaithersburg Master Plan shows their entire Olde Towne Historic District has the land use designation of Mixed Use.
The tone of your remarks returns me to my original question and statement. How much respect do you all have for the citizens of this town or the history of its growth? It took me about 2 hours to collect all the research that I have presented to you all and this on-line community. You all have the additional resource of the expertise represented on the Historic District Commission. When you all were researching and preparing to revamp the current code, it seems to me it would have been more respectful to have done this research for yourselves. I am sure you all have more talent than to restrict yourselves to the minutes of your own meetings.
As a citizen of this town, my legal and moral imperative is to discuss the possibility of making the small improvements to this town that benefit not just my interests but that if my neighbors. The change in the code that will enable the members of the Park Row to use their private property in a constructive and profitable manner is a small thing. It also not only costs no money, it provides the town with the possibility of additional property tax revenue.
The respectful thing to do is to vote “Yes” to the request of the PRA neighborhood.
P.S. In addition,I request that you round the corner and include the green monster on Spring Street which suffers from the same affliction. Or you could simplify your scheme and leave the entire central zone a pink color on the map by declaring the entire central zone to be CRB.
George Lehmer says
My wife and I own 308 Park Row. Over the last few months we were informed both by verbal and by visual presentations, that our building was in unsatisfactory condition and it, as well as the general “street scape” contributed to a “slummy” business district that could only be improved by doing a major face lift to the pedestrian area and making major changes to the traffic and parking pattern on Park Row.
We were told that the first step in this necessary reconstruction was to appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a change in the zoning from its present designation to a Mixed Use zone.
I am not in favor of any of the changes proposed in the street scape as they have been presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and because of my vocal opposition, I am considered by some to be the Park Row Curmudgeon.
However, I definitely support the attempt to have Park Row and other areas of the town declared Mixed Use Districts.
To that end, I signed the petition which was presented to the Commission. That, apparently, made me a member of the Park Row Association, and therefore eligible to enter this discussion.
Park Row has five structures on it, and at one of the meetings a member of the Commission stated that what Park Row owners wanted was “no zoning whatsoever” which was incorrect. So all of this fuss, at least according to Kevin Shertz, is about five buildings, and if you exclude the buildings at the ends of the street, one of which is for sale and the other owner is not involved in the controversy, there are three structures whose owners are impacted long term.
However, it is not the number of buildings impacted by the current zoning restrictions, but the apparent reluctance of the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the more flexible approach to zoning decisions that concerns me. Other communities, including Annapolis, are using the guidelines as set forth under Mixed Use Zoning. The change would cost nothing to implement and I can not, from a citizen’s point of view, understand why making this change would either lessen the authority of the commission or increase its workload.
Therefore, if Holly Geddes needs an “official member” of the Park Row Association to resubmit the zoning information for the Commission’s consideration, I would be happy to do so.
George Lehmer
The Park Row Curmudgeon