The first time the Chestertown Spy reported on the future of the vacant John H. Newnam Armory was three months after the community newspaper began operating in June 2009. The essence of that article was that Chestertown’s then-mayor, Margo Bailey, was making it clear to the state of Maryland that the Town would not pay a dollar more than $500,000 for the property after state officials had calculated its market value as $2.4 million. Chestertown eventually took over the property and later transferred it to Washington College for under $400,000.
Since that news, the Spy has published approximately 150 articles, commentaries, or letters to the editor about the Armory’s future. They are articles and opinions about town/gown relations, aspirations about the Chester River waterfront, and visions of a town that finally has a flagship hotel it has so richly deserved and needed for more than 50 years.
But rarely do those those articles note the grim reality that any significant improvement to a blighted site such as the Armory, requires lots of money. Without capital investors, no town or college can achieve its goals without the cash to complete the project.
And so, while the community has dreamed big about the Armory’s future for the past ten years, only some have understood the pure complexity of fundraising for these extremely expensive projects. More importantly, many have underestimated the role of luck in such undertakings.
Nonetheless, it might be an accurate to note that this critically important ingredient called serendipity has finally seemed to arrive after so much wishful thinking. A serious hotel developer with an impeccable track record, a history of doing challenging projects, and a proven capacity to fundraise for them, fell in love with Chestertown and Washington College.
With the arrival of Jay Shah and his professional team and vast network, the concept for the property has turned very real for Chestertown over the last year. Shah and his company, Hersha Hospitality Trust, want to move forward with a plan for a moderately-sized hotel and conference center at the Armory site.
With the endorsement of Washington College and numerous community leaders, Shah and his team have been successful so far on the various approval processes required to begin fundraising. But the one remaining threshold issue has come down to seeking approval from the town’s Historic District Commission to tear down most of the existing Armory building.
After evaluating the opinion of experts in this kind of restoration, the Shah group has concluded that water damage and mold infestation have made the building unrecoverable. Any attempt to rescue the structure would result in a failed campaign to attract investors to the project.
In simple terms, if the Historic District Commission does not permit the demolition of the building, Jay Shah’s team would need to walk away from the project. And for many in the community, that would be really bad luck.
But for some in Chestertown, the passion to save the historical site overrides Shah’s plans to use the facade of the building as a way to honor its history. Over the last few months, advocates to save the Armory have provided testimony to the commission that the structure can be saved and argued for the Town to seek an independent opinion for a structural analysis.
So the stakes are very high.
To help our readers better understand the developer’s background, their proposed Armory plan, and the major issues related to the environmental hazards of the building, we invited Washington College president Mike Sosulski, Jay Shah, and his team colleague Keith Coe to participate in a Zoom interview on the Armory project.
Given the history and complexity of the project, it was the Spy’s choice to present our coverage in three parts. The first reviews the project’s history with President Sosulski and Jay Shah’s background with Chestertown, the second is on the anticipated financial impact including Keith Coe’s perspective; and, lastly, a specific discussion on the building’s environmental damage and associated risk.
Background and History
Financial Impact
Environmental Concerns
These video interviews range in length from 5 – 10 minute each.
Richard Keaveney says
What an assembly of smart, sincere and special professionals willing and able to launch what is undoubtedly the most significant economic development project Chestertown and Kent County will experience for decades. And there is no doubt in my mind that the hotel will honor and memorialize its history …. soldiers, athletes, entertainers and more as thoughtfully highlighted by Save the Armory supporters. And, if approved, it will be both an environmentally pure building and properly protected from the threat of future rising tides. The year 2026 is our town’s 250th Anniversary …. how amazing would it be!
Ginette L Corney says
Couldn’t agree with you more. These 3 videos are worth watching to get a full appreciation of the situation. The choice is obvious.
Steven Mitchell says
To the Chestertown Historic District Commission: It sounds like your job is done based on these videos. Solsulski and his associates are giving you an ultimatum. Either you approve the tearing down the Chestertown Armory to make way for their boutique hotel, or they will walk away from the project. There is no need to do a mold remediation survey – they are just going to ignore it anyway, because they can’t get investors if there is any mold within 50 miles of the site.
All sarcasm aside, if I were a member of the HDC, I would be appalled at the threats that are made in these videos. These are like the threats that were made at the October 4 HDC meeting by one of the hotel developers.
Just to reiterate what long-time resident and local attorney Phil Hoon stated in his recent letter to the editor here in the Spy, “Those [historic district] regulations “…repudiate economic interests as a reason for the demolition of structures which have been determined to be contributing to the Chestertown Historic District (which you [the HDC] have already unanimously determined for the Armory).” Mr. Hoon also went on to say that “…your [the HDC’s] decision is one which is fundamentally a matter of the rule of law, and not of popular opinion or institutional convenience.” Wise words from a well-respected resident of Chestertown.
While I agree that a boutique hotel would be economically beneficial to Chestertown, Kent County and the greater Eastern Shore, I don’t believe that the mold situation in the Armory is so bad that it can’t be remediated. Once remediated, if the Armory is well maintained (unlike the past ten years under the college’s administration), the Armory can be repurposed for a boutique hotel or other use. There are several examples found on the Facebook page “Repurpose the Chestertown Armory” or http://www.savethearmory.org showing the reuse of these armories – many of them are in our own state. Some of these repurposed armories overcame their own mold issues and attracted investors – that is a fact.
Coming to conclusions without gaining the facts seems to be the modus operandi for the college and its investors. I implore the HDC to continue gaining the facts and to ignore the threats being put upon you by Washington College and its investors.
Keith Coe says
It is not my intention to stir debate nor stifle it. However, a few of Mr. Mitchell’s comments in his reply to the Spy’s multi-media article suggest clarification.
Our comments to the Spy were not intended nor voiced as threats. On the contrary, they were clear-eyed statements sharing what our long and hard-won experience tells us. The Armory was built in a flood plain and climate change has exacerbated that fact though, among other things, increased tide levels and storm intensity. The building has no ability to deal its wet reality. Even if the mold were remediated, the Armory will again experience flooding and likely suffer the reintroduction of mold. Investors and banks will be highly concerned about the risk even if they have experience redeveloping other dry armories.
Moreover, we generally agree generally with Mr. Mitchell’s quotes from local attorney Phil Hoon, especially the part about the HDC’s grant of demolition being “fundamentally a matter of the rule of law, and not of popular opinion …”. However, Mr. Mitchell suggests that repudiated economic interest is not a reason for the HDC to grant demolition. We disagree and submit that economic hardship, whether by repudiated economic interests or otherwise, is an express reason to grant demolition under code provision Chapter 93-14.
Thom Kocubinski says
Likewise, your comments deserve clarification and correction. First, the building does in fact have the ability to deal with its interment at best wet environment. Accepting that the 1970’s rear addition is removed, then only one exterior door remains as a credible threat to water intrusion which is located in the rear of the lower level. All three doors of the main floor are located above the FEMA designated BFE (base flood elevation) thus not vulnerable to water entry. The lower-level door can be fitted with a flood protective device, a common and effective solution. So can the windows in the lower level or they can be replaced with flood resistant window units, again proven solutions. I add that the lower-level walls are built from poured concrete of considerable thickness. Concrete structures are used to both hold and repel water so no issue there with water intrusion. Additionally, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) gives special consideration to the unique value of historic structures, landmarks and sites, in two ways. First, the floodplain management regulations provide significant relief – the structure does not have to meet the floodplain management requirements if they maintain their historic status. Second, the designated structure can obtain subsidized flood insurance as authorized by Congress. Refer to document FEMA P-467-2. So, not only can the building deal with floods, but accepted standards and the Dept of the Interior encourage it. Further, repurposing has been proven to combat climate change, not new construction.
Regarding the issue of economic hardship, the needed clarification is that Washington College created the hardship by allowing the building to fall into disrepair under its stewardship for a period of 12 years. Facts and details do matter.
Patti Hegland says
So they would save the historic facade and have new construction for the spaces behind it or added on. Seems like a practical compromise.
Thom Kocubinski says
Are you aware that saving more of the building has proven benefits such as reducing embodied carbon to combat climate change, saves construction costs, saves construction time and deliveries the project quicker to market to realize profits, provide jobs and tax benefits faster? The more you can save the better the picture becomes.
James T. Brown says
After reading Steve Mitchells’ reply, I re-watched the three videos. None of the men were making threats. The voices seemed measured and calm, polite … but they made clear that the hotel will not be able to attract investors or sufficient and affordable insurance coverage. The potential developers seem candid to me AND reasonable in their presentations.
The HDC documents concerning demolition also are very and clearly state that economic hardship is one of the three factors to be considered by our appointed commissioners. I am not a lawyer, but the comment attributed to Phil Hoon conflicts with written policy.
Thom Kocubinski says
What you, and many others, do not understand or want to accept is that Washington College failed in their duty to maintain a historic resource listed on the National Register of Historic Places for a period of 12 years. They in fact created the economic hardship. So, my question to you and all the others is simply, should they be rewarded for blatant neglect? Further, should they be held accountable for the remedy to correct the ills they created? If they can’t or won’t, there are other viable options to demolition.
James Brown says
I ask you: should the current college leadership and its future be punished? Perhaps an inquest be held for the past leadership. It is very clear to me and the majority of my neighbors and friends believe the town and county and our business community will be rewarded more than the college.
Brian Speer says
It is disconcerting to observe the ongoing misrepresentation of Washington College and its position on the Chestertown Armory. It only serves to confuse the matter and create division within our community. Steven Mitchell’s assertion that the College and potential Armory investors are somehow threatening the HDC is patently false. In fact, the reality of the situation shared in the video interviews should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the Armory story. Even as we saw at the October HDC meeting, independent professionals who work in engineering and hotel construction and have no connection to the College or the project came forward and affirmed that, given the current circumstances of the Armory structure, investment, financing, and insurance of such a project are simply not viable.
It is equally unfortunate to see Mr. Mitchell try to persuade HDC commissioners that the College is giving them an ultimatum while he himself lectures them on what they may or may not consider in their decision. Anyone who has attended a recent HDC meeting can readily see that the commissioners take their responsibility seriously and fully understand the codes and regulations guiding their work. Contrary to Mr. Mitchell’s false assertion that regulations “repudiate economic interests” in consideration, they certainly are a part of the process when costs for rehabilitation and renovation rise to the level that creates economic hardship and makes a project untenable.
To set the record straight, the College—and the potential investors—were originally excited to pursue a project that maintained the existing Armory structure. But facts are stubborn, and the facts have led us down a different path. Opponents like Mr. Mitchell can persist in talking about what they believe to be true; the College will continue to work with the HDC and follow the unbiased facts and assessments as even more become available.
Brian Speer
VP for Marketing and Communications
Washington College