There have been questions over the decision to remove the current Chestertown Armory, and those questions seem to be based on a misunderstanding of some of the issues at play regarding the site. Let me provide some background and state that it has never been our preference to pursue this course. In 2005 the 155th infantry regiment, which called the Armory home, was merged with the 105th leaving the facility without a tenant. This occurred during a time of consolidation in the military and as is the process, the Federal government offered the Armory building and property to Kent County and Chestertown. The building had sustained considerable damage during Hurricane Isabel in 2003, so taking on the property came with considerable costs and both the county, and the town passed on the opportunity.
Washington College obtained the property in 2012 as part of a pass-through agreement with the town of Chestertown that saw ownership transfer first to the town and then to the College. After using a portion of the land to build Semans-Griswold Environmental Hall—which houses the Center for the Environment and Society—and the new Hodson Boathouse, the College began to consider options for the Armory. The idea of a small hotel and conference center for Chestertown has been considered for quite some time, but as a non-profit institution, Washington College cannot operate a for-profit hotel and would therefore need to find investors willing to build and operate the hotel with the College leasing the property to that group. For various reasons, the project didn’t gain traction until the past few years. At that time, prospective investors provided positive feedback about a hotel in Chestertown and the potential of the historic Armory as a location and provided funding to explore the feasibility of the project.
After commissioning reports to explore the condition of the Armory and the associated work to make the structure viable, it was realized that the condition of the facility made renovation prohibitive. In response to this news, community members have noted that the lead and asbestos in the building can be addressed, and they are right—the lead and asbestos would be costly, but not impossible to remediate. Others have indicated that mold can also be remediated, and if what we were dealing with were ordinary mold that simply sat on surfaces that would surely be true.
However, the environmental report indicates three main areas of concern: the mold is not just on surfaces within the building, but it has penetrated the fabric of the building; in a renovation, much of the concrete block and brick would be left in place and represent an ongoing threat; as a result, full and permanent remediation cannot be guaranteed. The issues around the extent of the mold present major barriers for potential investors who see no upside to attempting to repurpose a building that will present ongoing health risks. As a result, removing the building and replacing it with new construction that will commemorate both the historic building and the contributions of the 155th regiment present the best-case scenario to make use of the property and to provide much needed hotel space for to the benefit of the College, town, and county.
Washington College takes its responsibility as a member of the Chestertown and Kent County communities seriously. Since taking ownership of the property in 2012, the college has pursued a number of plans to adaptively reuse or renovate the historic structure with the hope of preserving the Armory. Unfortunately, none of those plans turned out to be feasible. It should also be recognized that an independent group, not associated with the College, has spent the last 5 years trying to save the Armory with their own money. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring architects, engineers, consultants, lawyers, and builders to try and incorporate the Armory building into a useful structure. Their efforts too, were not successful. I understand the inclination to react negatively to the news about the plans for the Armory. It’s never a happy day when we must decide to demolish a historic building, but these decisions are never arrived at lightly and without fully examining every available option.
Mike Sosulski is president of Washington College
Richard Keaveney says
Thank you President Sosulski for your candid, thorough summary of the nearly 20-years recent past of The Armory. I am very confident that my fellow townspeople will ultimately embrace this project as the plans move forward and everyone experiences the community spirit and motivation of those individuals willing and able to establish boutique waterfront hotel. This investment is more than just providing a needed hospitality destination. It will impact the revitalization of our hospital and medical system, small business district schools and non-profit organizations. Imagine, my fellow taxpayers, the fact our government leaders will have new robust revenue sources that could just possibly take the pressure off of us property owners. In the spirit of Downrigging Weekend … LET’S SAIL THIS SHIP.
t smith says
Well, ok then. Not sure if all of the article is correct. I figured they would use the building or land to build something else for Chestertown. Ya know, like the building at the marina????
Steven R. Mitchell says
When I was a student at George Washington University in Washington, DC in the late 1970s, the Willard Hotel was abandoned and was very creepy to walk around inside building (which we weren’t supposed to do, but we did it anyway because we were college students). It was filled with pigeons and their waste and I am sure other detritus. Down Pennsylvania Avenue was the Old Post Office building. Both were slated for destruction until preservationist stepped in. Today, they are both high end hotels with lots of business and are assets to the history of Washington, DC.
I have two objections to this “process.” One is that the process has been fast-tracked, which is quite unlike the way things happen here in Chestertown. Washington College proposed to the Historic District Commission on September 28 for their October 5 meeting (which is a violation of the HDC’s policy) and then the HDC punted the decision to the Town Council to their October 17 meeting. In both cases the topic of discussion was obviously disguised on the respective agendas to limit debate.
My second objection is the limited data being presented by the college to justify this action. The decision to tear down the Armory is based on a 10-page environmental report that contains a lot of pictures and boilerplate (i.e., not much substance) and does not contain any economic data as to how much it would cost to remediate and renovate the current structure versus tearing it down and building up a new building. If the college could provide a compelling argument that the cost to renovate the building would be way more expensive than tearing it down and building something new, I would reluctantly agree that the Armory should go. Until that time, I must support the preservation of this historic structure just like others did to preserve the Willard Hotel and Old Post Office building many years ago for future generations.
This limited, independent environmental analysis claims that the mold has been there so long that it has supposedly infiltrated the concrete block and brick in the structure, and will never be fully guaranteed to have been removed. The references in the document I saw only stated that there was “surface” mold. In my 20 years of environmental/safety and facilities management, I have never heard of mold penetrating any surface more than a few millimeters. Once you control the humidity (the cause of the mold), you can spray down the surface with a 10 percent solution of bleach and it will kill the mold. The only time that I have heard of mold penetrating a substance is in blue cheese; however, the mold is helped by the cheese maker poking holes in the cheese. Mold does not penetrate beyond where the moisture is.
The report also did not indicate the type of mold that is present in the Armory. This is a very important omission. In the case of blue cheese, some mold is edible. If the report had sampled for the type of mold in the building and had stated that it was “stachybotrys” (also known as “black mold”), there would be some concern. There was no attempt to identify the type of mold in the building – a major omission.
We all agree that the Armory site would be a lovely place for a hotel/conference center and the Armory, in its current state, is an eyesore. So was the Willard Hotel in the 1970s. Like Charlie Brown’s Christmas tree, it just needs a little love.
Richard Keaveney says
The Willard rescue from demolition was awesome but there is no comparison to investing in a project that is two blocks from The White House with the potential for 300 plus guest rooms, 250 parking spaces, and considerable ancillary space. The added investment by the DC groups was supported by very strong potential for a “return on investment”. The Chestertown hotel project, if we are fortunate to see it through, must exercise due diligence that recognizes ROI on perhaps 60 rooms, limited meeting space, and food with beverage. Plus we have no White House nor are we the nation’s capital.
Lolli Sherry says
A bit of a stretch to compare this banal building of fairly recent vintage to the 1899 Romanesque Old Post Office and the 1901 Beaux-Arts Willard Hotel.
John L. Seidel says
I want to address some misconceptions here that are important. I’m doing so as a Chestertown resident who has dealt with too much mold in both my personal and professional lives – I’m not speaking on behalf of Washington College.
I have to disagree with the notion that mold doesn’t penetrate surfaces and is easily remediated. In fact, mold’s ability to move from one place to another is astonishing, moving on air currents in much the same way as smoke. This is why the entire interior of the Armory is infested, along with all of its contents. Furthermore, long term mold contamination can physically change the properties of building materials in such a way that the mold can continue to spread and infiltrate beyond the interior space and wall surfaces.
In concrete, for example, the most common origin point for the interior moisture is ground water. That water infiltrates the concrete, and mold can establish itself on the surface. As it grows, mold produces (among other things, like mycotoxins and mVOCs) acids that can degrade the concrete, weakening it and reducing its strength. This also allows easier water intrusion (as in the blue cheese analogy), and moisture, algae, bacteria, salts, dust, pollen, dirt, dead skin, and other particles trapped in the concrete can fuel mold growth inside the building materials. So yes, mold can certainly penetrate materials far deeper than “a few millimeters.” That includes wood, composite building materials, and concrete.
What’s more, successful remediation is not simply a matter of spraying the surface with a 10% solution of bleach. Although bleach will kill mold it touches, it cannot penetrate deeply enough into porous materials to do the job. This is why so many people see mold return time and time again after they wipe a surface with bleach, and its one of the reasons no experienced remediator would rely on it. In addition, bleach cannot adequately remove microbial debris, and dealing with that debris is every bit as important as killing the active mold. According to the EPA (which in my opinion understates both the problems and hazards), “dead mold is still allergenic, and some dead molds are potentially toxic. The use of a biocide, such as chlorine bleach, is not recommended as a routine practice during mold remediation, although there may be instances where professional judgment may indicate its use (for example, when immune-compromised individuals are present).” EPA also addresses the issue of mold species, noting that “all molds have the potential to cause health effects.”
When I say that the EPA understate the health hazards, I’m referring in part to the kind of common, off-hand reference to “allergies” that is so wide-spread in ill-informed discussions of mold impacts. Those impacts go far, far beyond allergic reactions and respiratory distress, to include severe neurological problems and even fatalities. There is an extensive literature on this, but a quick overview that comes to mind is a summary by Harriet M. Ammann, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., Senior Toxicologist with the Washington State Department of Health (https://www.mold-survivor.com/harrietammann.html)
“The following summary of toxins and their targets is adapted from Smith and Moss (1985), with a few additions from the more recent literature. While this compilation of effects does not describe the effects from multiple exposures, which could include synergistic effects, it does give a better idea of possible results of mycotoxin exposure to multiple molds indoors.
* Vascular system (increased vascular fragility, hemorrhage into body tissues, or from lung, e.g., aflatoxin, satratoxin, roridins).
* Digestive system (diarrhea, vomiting, intestinal hemorrhage, liver effects, i.e., necrosis, fibrosis: aflatoxin; caustic effects on mucous membranes: T-2 toxin; anorexia: vomitoxin.
* Respiratory system: respiratory distress, bleeding from lungs e.g., trichothecenes.
* Nervous system, tremors, incoordination, depression, headache, e.g., tremorgens, trichothecenes.
* Cutaneous system : rash, burning sensation sloughing of skin, photosensitization, e.g., trichothecenes.
* Urinary system, nephrotoxicity, e.g. ochratoxin, citrinin.
* Reproductive system; infertility, changes in reproductive cycles, e.g. T-2 toxin, zearalenone.
* Immune system: changes or suppression: changes or suppression: many mycotoxins.”
On top of this is fact that some people – approximately 24-25% of our population, or 83 million people in the US – are genetically more vulnerable to mold than the rest of the population. For this group, mold is not merely an allergin, but a toxin. This at-risk population carries the HLA-DR (human leukocyte antigen) gene, which makes them more susceptible to chronic health issues involving systemic inflammation, whether the cause is mold, Lyme disease and other tick borne illnesses, gluten, or myriad other catalysts. It makes them helpless against biotoxin sickness, and detoxifying is extraordinarily difficult for them.
This is why mold has to be taken seriously and why the threat of recurrence in the event of a failed remediation is a barrier to investment. And that is the crux of the matter, and why comparisons of the cost to remediate vs the cost to demo and rebuild are utterly irrelevant. No rational investor will pay for remediation, rehab, and associated new construction if there is even the remotest possibility that the mold will return. It’s simply too a great a threat to their investment – and to human health.
Robert J Jackson says
Well stated Steven. Agreed. Nice input.
Cl Ra says
Thank you for the informative & elucidating response to the community’s concerns.
Dan Pyle says
The building is on the National Registry of Historic Buildings, could complicate matters. Also, it was the 115th Infantry Regiment that consolidated with the 175th Infantry Regiment. Another point, the State offered the building, not the federal government.
Doug Brown says
It’s an ugly building that was ugly the day it was built and has no historical significance. I have no idea why it was ever designated a historic structure but it should be torn down and put out of its misery
Barbara Jorgenson says
I find Mr. Sosulski’s and Mr. Seidel’s letters to raise additional factual, procedural, and scientific questions. I am currently out of town for a family birthday (granddaughter turning seven), but I will be back early next week and will reply in detail then. This matter cannot adequately be settled by either of their letters. A full public hearing is needed on all the factual, procedural, and scientific issues and a reconsideration of both the HDC and the Council approvals. What’s the rush, Washington College?