Earlier this month, the Chestertown Historic District Commission agreed to the demolition of the Chestertown Armory Building, which is listed on National Registry of Historic Places. I was dismayed to hear that the Chestertown Town Council confirmed this decision at their most recent meeting. These decisions were at the request of the owner, Washington College, who stated that there are significant environmental issues affecting the building that cannot be corrected.
I have read the report that Washington College presented to the Town and based on my professional experience (20 years of managing federal office buildings) all of the issues in the report are normal issues that you find in most older buildings and can be easily fixed. The report outlines that the building “suffers” from three issues: lead-based paint, asbestos, and mold.
Almost all buildings older than 1978 (i.e., most of Chestertown), probably have lead-based paint in them. That was the year that household paint with lead was banned. The easiest fix to eliminate this hazard is to just paint over it and just leave it alone (known as encapsulation). In some cases, if you do have to remove it, wearing protective equipment and disposing of the waste appropriately is required – a standard process.
The asbestos discussed in the report was predominantly in the floor tiles that are throughout the building. There are numerous buildings of this era that have the same floor tiles, including a major federal office building that I once managed. That federal building had thousands of square feet of asbestos-containing tiles that were walked on by thousands of people per day. There was no risk because the asbestos was not being released the air or otherwise known as “friable” asbestos. Nowhere in the Washington College environmental report could I find the word “friable,” so the risk from these floor tiles is minimal. These asbestos floor tiles can either be left alone or encapsulated with another layer of flooring (e.g, carpet or tile).
Finally, they report that there is mold in the building. Mold growth in that building is due to not properly maintaining humidity levels in the building while it was unoccupied. The environmental report did not attempt to identify the type of mold, which makes a big difference when it comes to determining the impact on human health (remember that harmless, but tasty, veins in blue cheese is mold!). Regardless, mold remediation is easy to undertake especially when you are going to be tearing out walls and ceilings to convert the property to a hotel or conference center.
Other towns on the Eastern Shore have converted their armory buildings to useful purposes. For example, Centreville has a school in theirs and Easton uses theirs for community events.
When I moved to the historic district of Chestertown in 2016, I understood that it was my civic responsibility to maintain the historic property that I purchased just like generations before me had done. Having a vibrant historic district requires hard work on all our parts and is what makes Chestertown so special. The Armory building is as much a part of Chestertown’s heritage as, for example, the Customs House and Widehall are. Renovating the Armory in its current form would make a distinctive and welcome landmark property, adding to the Town’s ambiance.
It is not too late to undo this mistake. I would urge those who agree with me in preserving the historic legacy to contact the Mayor and Town Council or to attend their next meeting to let them know that tearing down the Chestertown Amory is a wrong decision.
Save the Chestertown Armory!
Steven R. Mitchell
Chestertown
Barbara Jorgenson says
Mr. Mitchell has provided a thoughtful analysis of the somewhat flimsy report submitted by Washington College in support of its request to tear down the historic Armory. The report offers no estimate of remediation costs whatsoever, stating “The estimated costs…should be determined by remediation and abatement contractors qualified to perform this work.” The report’s primary recommendation is that the necessary remediation “must be addressed by a qualified and insured remediation contractor….” Washington College chose instead to focus on a standard statement found in most expert reports, namely that the report’s author “will not guarantee issues will not return.” Of course not, the contractor is not doing the remediation; someone else is. Based on my 13 years at the National Academy of Sciences reading and writing about scientific studies and my 37 years as a litigator who many, many times reviewed and crossed examined expert reports, I have seen such statements scores of times. They are included for the benefit of the expert author to protect itself from possible later liability. Mr. Mitchell’s analysis of this report, coupled with the significant procedural irregularities in the Historic District Commission’s action, call for a reconsideration of both the HDC’s and the Town Council’s votes to demolish the landmark Armory.
Brian Schatzinger says
Brian Schatzinger
With all due respect to those that are more expert than I, what would anyone do with this building as it is? Tourist attraction? Historical site? It’s my understanding that a group of investors would like to develop the property and build a small hotel or conference center. Is there a legitimate reason to preserve it while it continues to decay? I looked at the plans and there’s no intelligent repurposing of this building which is why it has fallen into decay. Please rally around a cause that matters, folks. This is not one of them. Tear it down. It’s been an eyesore for the 20 years I’ve lived here. It will remain as such until it is gone….
Winder McG. Heller says
To the Editor:
Steve Mitchell’s Letter to the Editor is well-put and I totally agree with his wanting to “save” the character of Chestertown. I encourage the town council to take another look at saving the armory rather than tearing it down.
Winder M. Heller
Richard Keaveney says
As a resident and former board member of Main Street Chestertown, I played a role in fulfilling the number one goal (of many) to promote economic vitality for our beloved town … a boutique waterfront hotel in walking distance of downtown. More than four years ago, a core group of willing, able, experienced individuals (most who live full-time or part-time in the community) believed from the start that most of the Armory should and could be preserved and integrated into the design of a hotel. Over the past several months it became clear that this desire would not be feasible. It is true that environmental issues can be mitigated at a cost of millions of dollars. However, it is also true that 100% remediation can’t be guaranteed for this particular building. Without such a guarantee, no hotel operator or building owner could obtain all of the necessary insurance coverages required with respect to health and environmental claims. President Sosulski made very clear during his well-documented presentations that it brings him “no joy” and shared the painful decision making process. All parties involved are genuinely committed to honoring and memorializing the Armory and most importantly its former personnel. The community will certainly have the opportunity to contribute to such planning of details. No one disagrees that history needs to be respected, remembered and honored. But as one citizen who wants a future for Chestertown I also believe HISTORY MUST BE CREATED, as well.
Marsha Fritz says
Both Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Jorgenson are correct in their analysis.
I restored many historic buildings in Chestertown and the Eastern Shore during my 30 career. The three conditions cited as reasons to demolish this National Register building are all extremely common in historic buildings. I dealt with them in virtually every building l worked on, including my own houses and two buildings l worked on for Washington College.
Since moving from Chestertown, I have served on the equivalent of the Historic District Commission in Chestertown. Over and over we had applicants claim that buildings couldn’t be saved. That’s rarely the case. What is actually true is that the applicant doesn’t want to spend what it will cost to make repairs or that they want the site for another use. Or that they neglected the structure so that they could claim it was beyond repair.
Laws to protect our heritage were designed to push back against these common arguments. Washington College has benefited from Chestertown’s history and its dedication to historic preservation as an important economic development strategy.
This is a building that must be saved. Chestertown and the College need to step up.
Rick Balaban says
Mr Mitchell’s letter makes sense, and raises other questions about the process that has been followed here. Ms Jorgenson’s note adds weight. Let’s find out how this decision was made, and whether Mr Mitchell’s points about fixes hold water. Given his expertise and experience, I suspect they do.
Earl Lewin says
I agree with Steve Mitchell. I own my house because it was protected from a major renovation by a person who wanted to drastically modify the building. The historic society prevented the sale. It is the strick adherance to historic preservation that has made Chetertown the exceptional place to live and visit that it has become. Once there is a break in the rules it opens the way for a total breakdown in the system. Look for ways to use the Aromal. If it cost s a litlle more it is worth the investment.
Maggie Monk says
I cannot agree more! Can you circulate a petition? I would gladly sign and I’m sure many others would. This story is the first time I’ve heard about this…. seems like a rush deal to satisfy WC???
Sheila Walker says
How dare you stop the college from putting in a waterfront hotel for rich kid’s parents!
Brian Schatzinger says
Marsha,
Of all those who have commented, I respect your opinion most of all. As you well know, I have been a steward of one of the oldest homes in Chestertown for 20 years. The Buck Bacchus House is one of a few that is overseen by the Maryland Historic Trust, along with others you have helped restore as an architect and member of the community. So is the Armory building. Please explain to me why Washington College and/or any state or federal agency would want to spend money to “rehabilitate” this building. I’ll have to admit that I’ve never been in it but doubt that any of the other folks who have such strong feelings about the preservation of this building have either.
I researched the history of the building, which is meaningful, looked at the floorplans which have little prospect for any meaningful repurpose and wonder WHY this building needs to be “saved”. Certainly, not for its architectural value and I can’t see any reason that it would be revered by anyone other than those who might have served in the National Guard and were stationed there. I understand the significance to those people.
What is its purpose in the future? What does it add to this historic community? To Richard Keaveney’s point, when do we look towards some future positive development? Our current town management can’t maintain our current downtown area. Would this be a Chestertown Township property? Apparently, there is a group that would be willing to buy it and develop it into something meaningful. What would you foresee with “saving” this building? Help me understand this, please.
I see no purpose in opposing development or the “process” for determining how that happens. Our town is struggling. We should all recognize that and work towards acceptable compromises.
We need new investors and new ideas. I remember when there were a few of my neighbors that worked to save our waterfront. Most don’t know them but should appreciate what they did. There were lots of naysayers then as there will be now.
Pete Buxtun says
A lot of folks on here hand-wringing about this decision and not one suggestion about what to do with the property other than that the owner should shell out millions of dollars to (maybe) address the problem. Meanwhile, the original use for the building is obsolete, it’s been mothballed for decades with no specific future use proposed, the town turned down ownership, and no one commenting on this page has stepped up to make an offer. If you want to “save the armory”, I suggest you take a stroll through the bottom floor and see if the splitting headache you’ll get and the inches of mold growing on the walls and floors make you change your tune. Mold is neither harmless or easy to remediate; mold remediation can cost almost 30 dollars per square foot. It’s got a half basement while being built within a literal stones throw of tidal waters for goodness sake. Who would have ever thought that was a good idea except for the cookie cutter designers of all the other hundreds or thousands of armories around the country.
Tear it down; it’s not unique, it’s not useful, and it’s an eyesore.
Gerry levin says
Why would anyone listen to Washington College’s opinion? They’ve had so many problems over the last years that they are in no position to give an accurate assessment of the state of the armory.
David A Turner says
I wish our College President had said a little more about the economics of the new hotel that the College wants. Will, for example, the hotel pay taxes as a business to the town and County, or will it be utilized as a part of the College and get a “educational” tax exemption? Will the hotel serve the community or the college and its constituencies? Mr. Mitchell’s arguments sound solid enough to have a continuing discussion about undoing the Historic District’s/town’s rapid decisions.
Matthew Tobriner says
Letter to the Editor re Armory Demolition
There are legitimate concerns about the Chestertown’s Historic District Commission’s recent decision to grant Washington College a permit to demolish the Chestertown Armory. These concerns focus on the process, the quality of the rationale provided, and a strong desire to keep historic preservation values alive.
Over the ten years the Armory has been owned by the College there have been numerous efforts to find productive uses for the building that make economic sense—either as a college facility or as one owned by a third party. At the time of the acquisition there was a genuine expectation that the building would take on a new life.
However, the hard reality is that over the interim period the building has deteriorated and has developed various documented environmental issues—i.e., lead, asbestos, and mold. In theory the lead and asbestos problems can be remediated, but the mold cannot. The College’s independent environmental analysis showed the mold has been there so long that it has infiltrated the concrete block and brick in the structure, and will never be fully guaranteed to have been removed. That makes the building “unsafe for further development or habitation”, and therefore impossible for the college to repurpose or rational developers to make an investment.
The College’s position is evident. It cannot and will not spend money on the Armory and, as a private owner, cannot be forced to spend money uselessly. In its present and deteriorating condition, the Armory serves no historic purpose. The College has stated: “If demolition is not approved, past history gives no hope of rescue; the building is likely to continue to deteriorate unless the college invests in stabilization for a structure with no future, a building that appraisers currently view as a liability, rather than an asset.”
Bottom line: The costs to repair, maintain, and operate the building cannot be justified by the College, particularly given the current situation in which enrollment is down 35%, 85% of the student body receives some amount of financial aid or scholarship support, and the costs of construction labor, material, and environmental remediation are currently undergoing inflationary increases.
One solution for those who want to preserve the armory is to buy it from the College and rehab it to some historic purpose. Another more viable option is to sell the property to a commercial entity that has experience in creating small destination hotels and conference centers. There is no guarantee that a deal can be struck, but having a wasting asset with difficult environmental problems is a real deterrent, if not a deal breaker.
I believe that the sale of this unproductive property to a profit-making entity, assuming the demolition permit can be transferred to the buyer, serves the public good as follows:
1) The College will receive the purchase price and eliminate the ongoing cost of upkeep and demolition;
2) The Town’s real estate tax base will increase;
3) The presence of a new hotel/conference center will increase revenue to Chestertown’s other business enterprises, while providing a useful amenity for local organizations, citizens, and visitors;
4) Finally, the new owner could make a market-based decision with regard to demolition or rehabilitation, but could demolish if that is the best solution.
Historic District guidelines permit demolition in the case of economic hardship such as this, and when the public good is served. This seems to be a slam dunk on both counts.
Matthew W. Tobriner
October 27, 2022
Brian Schatzinger says
Matt,
Thanks for your comments. As expected, your analysis is hard to challenge. The voice of experience.
Brian Schatzinger
Matthew W. Tobriner says
Letter to the Editor re Armory Demolition
There are legitimate concerns about the Chestertown’s Historic District Commission’s recent decision to grant Washington College a permit to demolish the Chestertown Armory. These concerns focus on the process, the quality of the rationale provided, and a strong desire to keep historic preservation values alive.
Over the ten years the Armory has been owned by the College there have been numerous efforts to find productive uses for the building that make economic sense—either as a college facility or as one owned by a third party. At the time of the acquisition there was a genuine expectation that the building would take on a new life.
However, the hard reality is that over the interim period the building has deteriorated and has developed various documented environmental issues—i.e., lead, asbestos, and mold. In theory the lead and asbestos problems can be remediated, but the mold cannot. The College’s independent environmental analysis showed the mold has been there so long that it has infiltrated the concrete block and brick in the structure, and will never be fully guaranteed to have been removed. That makes the building “unsafe for further development or habitation”, and therefore impossible for the college to repurpose or rational developers to make an investment.
The College’s position is evident. It cannot and will not spend money on the Armory and, as a private owner, cannot be forced to spend money uselessly. In its present and deteriorating condition, the Armory serves no historic purpose. The College has stated: “If demolition is not approved, past history gives no hope of rescue; the building is likely to continue to deteriorate unless the college invests in stabilization for a structure with no future, a building that appraisers currently view as a liability, rather than an asset.”
Bottom line: The costs to repair, maintain, and operate the building cannot be justified by the College, particularly given the current situation in which enrollment is down 35%, 85% of the student body receives some amount of financial aid or scholarship support, and the costs of construction labor, material, and environmental remediation are currently undergoing inflationary increases.
One solution for those who want to preserve the armory is to buy it from the College and rehab it to some historic purpose. Another more viable option is to sell the property to a commercial entity that has experience in creating small destination hotels and conference centers. There is no guarantee that a deal can be struck, but having a wasting asset with difficult environmental problems is a real deterrent, if not a deal breaker.
I believe that the sale of this unproductive property to a profit-making entity, assuming the demolition permit can be transferred to the buyer, serves the public good as follows:
1) The College will receive the purchase price and eliminate the ongoing cost of upkeep and demolition;
2) The Town’s real estate tax base will increase;
3) The presence of a new hotel/conference center will increase revenue to Chestertown’s other business enterprises, while providing a useful amenity for local organizations, citizens, and visitors;
4) Finally, the new owner could make a market-based decision with regard to demolition or rehabilitation, but could demolish if that is the best solution.
Historic District guidelines permit demolition in the case of economic hardship such as this, and when the public good is served. This seems to be a slam dunk on both counts.
Matthew W. Tobriner
October 27, 2022