The decades long saga of the Chestertown Armory is not over.
A Petition for Judicial Review of the Historic District Commission’s May 1, 2024, decision to approve Washington College’s application to demolish part of the Armory was filed on May 31, 2024, in the Circuit Court for Kent County.
Barbara Jorgenson, Steven Mitchel, and Thomas Kocubinski filed the petition in the case of the Armory, 509 Cross Street, Chestertown. The petitioners’ attorneys are G Macy Nelson and Alex Votaw.
The petition may be read on the Chestertown town website, here.
Dickson young says
This petition for review is another waste of valuable time of the courts, community, tax dollars etc. How do these petitioners have the legal standing to upset the will of elected officials and the majority of the community who elected them. Yet another example of a minority thwarting the will of a duly elected and constituted majority. I hope there is a downside to this continued frivolous litigation and that the cost of same can be assessed against the appellants rather than taxed to the community
Richard Keaveney says
Days after the May 1st HDC decision, I spoke with LAWYER Barbara Jorgenson about coming together for the common good after such a contentious process. She said “there will be no appeal and I am ready to move on and make lemonade out of lemons”. I pledged to help her and the Historic Society, which she current leads, to play an active role in memorializing the history of the armory within the planned hotel. The performance of these petitioners throughout the entire process did not reflect the civility nor the respectful tolerance that defines our community. So many citizens have commented on their shameful behavior and have questioned their motives. But they can be anyway and believe anything they want. However, the DECEIT is unforgivable. The membership of the Historic Society of Kent County should reconsider who they have elected to preside, their character and tenuous standing in the community. HSKC deserves better!
Steven Mitchell says
Normally, I don’t respond to responses to letters to the editor because I don’t want to get into a publicized debate over an issue, but I have to respond to Mr. Keaveney’s unwarranted attack on Ms. Jorgenson.
In reality, Ms. Jorgenson was reluctant to file an appeal after the HDC’s decision on May 1. It was I who convinced her to join us in hiring an attorney to appeal the HDC’s decision. Our only motivation is to ensure that the process was fair and followed the HDC guidelines and the Town’s ordinance. We believe that it was not. We are not gaining financially by contesting the HDC’s decision – quite the opposite is true. We believe that this historic structure can and should be saved and have always stated that we support the repurposing of the Armory for a boutique hotel, but not at the expense of tearing down this historic structure.
The HDC ordinance provides individuals an opportunity to appeal their decision to the Circuit Court of Kent County. We are exercising that right just like Donald Trump has the right to appeal his felony conviction as much as that might irk many.
For Mr. Keaveny to attack Ms. Jorgenson the way that he did and disparage the Kent County Historic Society is unconscionable. Mr. Keaveny – just because you don’t agree with our actions doesn’t allow you to debase Ms. Jorgenson in public. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Richard Wasserbly says
I attended the May 1 hearing. These appellants were afforded more than ample opportunity to question the College’s case for a provisional permit to partially demolish the Armory. They were further given the opportunity to present their own case in opposition. President Sosulski was called as a witness by the appellants and despite being bullied and badgered made a convincing argument for the permit. The potential developer testified and further solidified the need for the partial and provisional permit. In opposition to the permit, the appellant’s presented “expert” testimony, most of which so lacking that it would not have been admissible in a court of law. The HDC then rendered a unanimous decision to grant the provisional permit which included keeping the facade and creating a memorial to the soldiers who trained there. I understand that the college has a time limit under which it must present its plans for the design and construction of the hotel/conference center which plans must then be approved by the HDC before any demolition and construction can begin.
This building was declared surplus by Maryland in 2005 and sat vacant since then. No viable and realistic proposals for the building have emerged since 2005 until now. And by viable and realistic, I mean backed by actual money and not “pie in the sky” proposals without any indication let alone plan as to who would provide financing. If the developer decides to back out because of the continuous obstructions by the appellants, or in the unlikely event they win their ill advised appeal, the building will remain a vacant eyesore for at least another 20 years. And there is no question or argument that the hotel would provide monetary and cultural benefits to our town and community. This ill advised appeal can only hurt the town and our community.