While we are excited to learn about the preliminary plans of Urgo Hotels and Resorts for a much-needed new riverfront restaurant at 98 Cannon Street, we have questions and reservations about a concept proposal that includes a 42-room hotel in that small, environmentally sensitive and historic location adjacent to the Chestertown Marina.

We believe there are many issues that need to be identified early in the project review process and raised with the Chestertown officials and commissions that will be called upon to make important decisions.  These issues include previous legal and financial commitments, zoning, traffic and parking, and environmental restrictions that were imposed when the town acquired and upgraded the Marina. Following are our major questions and recommendations. We urge the town bodies with the relevant jurisdictions and expertise to address these matters in a timely and appropriate manner.

• Are there any financial or other obligations that Chestertown must observe with respect to the Marina bond and other funding agencies and sources that would be impacted by the proposed hotel plan?

Five Maryland and Federal government agencies and multiple private entities provided grants and loans for the purchase and improvement of the Marina property.  These funds totaled approximately $6 million and were intended to provide public access, use, and enjoyment of the Marina and waterfront facilities.  

Private funding of the Marina by individuals was provided to preserve the ambiance, utility, and historic purposes of the Port of Chestertown for maritime and related activity.  This understanding imposes important moral commitments on the town.  

We recommend a legal review of the funding, lending, and shared parking easement and covenant documents to determine if the proposed hotel plan in effect transfers exclusive use of the town’s land to the new owner, or in any other way interferes with the intended public access to the Marina and waterfront. 

2)  Does the Commercial Marine (CM) zoning designation disallow the hotel plan, and if so, is a variance required?

The zoning regulations embodied in paragraph 170-44 of the Zoning Ordinance dated February 13, 2012 state the following for the Commercial Marine District in which this property is located. 

“The purpose of the Commercial Marine District is to preserve waterfront land for traditional maritime activities, public access, boating and the inherent economic, cultural and historic contributions of these waterfront activities. . . . A significant objective of the district is to provide a mixed-use but primarily maritime environment that is harmonious in massing, height, and scale with the Historic District, and sympathetic to adjacent uses. In general, the district is intended for less intensive commercial marine activities related to tourism, vacationers, commercial or sport fishing, pleasure boating, and other maritime-oriented uses. Development in the Commercial Marine District is further constrained by the regulations governing the Historic District, laws pertaining to the hundred-year flood plain and Critical Areas, and stormwater requirements.”

The zoning ordinance lists eleven permitted uses for the CM district. Restaurants are listed as a permitted use, but hotels and inns are not. It appears, then, that a zoning variance would have to be granted before any plans for developing a 42-unit hotel could proceed.

We recommend a review of the uses of the waterfront that the funders of the Marina understood would remain in place.

We also recommend a review of the Commercial Marine zoning ordinance and its intentions and a determination of whether a zoning variance is required.

• Are there negative impacts on operations or access to the Marina, or on local residents, caused by the hotel plan?

Eliminating one of the entries off of Cannon Street, as has been suggested, would have a major negative impact on Marina operations since it would require using only the entry off of Front Street. Boat trailers, fuel trucks, and other large delivery vehicles would be forced to make several tight turns on a narrow street to gain access to the Marina and its ramp and to the fuel tank.  

The additional traffic flow and parking pressure on Front Street homes will be another significant problem. Only 45 parking places are shown in the hotel plan. This number appears to be insufficient to meet statutory parking requirements of approximately 76 for the combined hotel and restaurant patrons and staff. Even the 45 parking slots shown in the plan will essentially cede to the hotel/restaurant the use of all the town-owned parking plus the shared parking easement that was intended to serve both the Marina and the existing restaurant.  

It has been suggested that the narrow Front Street could be made one-way to relieve potential congestion. All Marina traffic would then have to use Queen Street to either enter or exit the Marina, putting additional stress on that street. Major events at the Marina and/or at Wilmer Park will exacerbate the parking and traffic problems. 

The owners of homes along Front Street will possibly be affected financially. A three-and-a half-story structure will dominate views of the waterfront area.  This change, combined with the parking situation, may diminish property values. 

We recommend a thorough analysis of the traffic management and parking issues to determine if they are manageable.  Impacts on pedestrian and bike access to the waterfront trail, Wilmer Park, and the connectivity of Washington College facilities to downtown should be included in this analysis.

We also recommend a cost/benefit analysis of the hotel project’s overall economic benefit to the Town, to include the Town’s added capital infrastructure and maintenance costs and the negative effects of this potential property devaluation.  

4) Are there any environmental implications of the hotel plan, and would DNR, MDE, or Critical Area regulations be imposed?

The land where the hotel will be sited is not stable. Without structural improvements, the added mass of the new three-story hotel immediately adjacent to the river could accelerate the sinking that is already occurring (an estimated 6-12 inches since 2019).  Stabilizing the new restaurant and hotel will very likely be an expensive operation requiring numerous 100-foot screw pilings.

The increased footprint of the hotel building may add to the area of impervious ground cover on the site and may impact stormwater management. 

Significant flooding on the Marina site has occurred as a result of natural tidal and wind phenomena, and the flooding is projected to occur more frequently in the future.  On-grade parking closer to the river could increase oil pollution to the river due to storm-water and flood-water run-off.  

We recommend an environmental regulatory review to determine whether an environmental impact assessment will be required and whether Maryland State agencies can be satisfied.

Wendy Culp
Aubrey Sarvis
Chris Havemeyer
Matthew Tobriner
Lucy Maddox                                                 

A lawsuit was recently filed in Federal court by the Delmarva Fisheries Association (DFA) and the Maryland Charter Boat Association (MCBA). The suit challenges a mandate for new Striped Bass fishing regulations in Maryland. The mandate is from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Since the lawsuit was filed there has been an outpouring of support from those who understand this mandate has already had and will have a devastating impact far beyond watermen and charter boat captains.

Others impacted negatively include Eastern Shore hotels, motels, restaurants, businesses, and merchants who depend upon wild fishery harvests and charter boat tourism.

The Rural Counties Coalition of the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) has expressed the following concerns. “These regulations will affect local small business models that operate in the charter boat and commercial fishing industries as well. Rural counties along Maryland’s shoreline depend on these industries and oppose these changes, as they will dramatically affect economic development and the livelihood of small business owners. Many of Maryland’s waterfront businesses will undoubtedly bear financial losses due to the restrictions. For many years, these industries have operated with restrictions in harvesting and strict regulatory compliance yet have remained in operation. The proposed restrictions will be a point that may force good businesses to close and may prohibit other businesses from locating within Maryland’s coastal counties. “In addition to the MACo support letter, the Boards of Commissioners in Dorchester County, Queen Anne’s County, and Kent County have submitted comparable letters. More are expected.

Support for the DFA and MCBA lawsuit goes well beyond Maryland.

The East Coast Fishing Coalition (ECFC) represents over eight hundred for-hire charter and party boats across Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. The president of ECFC has written “We share in your concerns, as these actions threaten not only the present viability of our businesses but also the long-term sustainability of the for-hire sector of the fishing industry. If these decisions are not rectified, we anticipate a significant decline in business that will persist well into the future. The ramifications also extend beyond our industry, impacting businesses such as hotels, restaurants, tackle shops, and other merchants that rely on our operations to sustain their own livelihoods.”
DFA and MCBA are represented by the McCloud Law Group in Chestertown and Meeks Butera & Israel, Washington, D.C.

Captain Rob Newberry
Chair Delmarva Fisheries Association.

I write this history of my family’s escape from the horror of life under the Russians during the early 1940s because I feel deeply that Ukraine under the Russians would be tragic. My story begins when I was a little girl in Latvia.

It must have been a traumatic experience in 1944 for my parents, Janis (John) Zeltins, 38, and Alma Asaris Zeltins, 36, to pack what they could carry and with four children, Zigrida Emilija, 12, Rita Olga, 9, Eriks, 5, and Benita Lidija, 1, in tow, to start a journey with destination unknown from their native country, Latvia.  It is truly said that the fear of the unknown is really great, but in this case, the fear of the known was greater than the fear of the unknown. To fully understand what might seem like a “foolhardy” decision, some background is in order.

At that time, Latvia suffered under communist dictator Stalin’s ruthless domination. Our father, being a Baptist minister, was scrutinized for his activities and reported to the Russian government during their occupation. Many people during this time mysteriously vanished, especially people with influence, such as teachers, clergy, and other community leaders. Some were killed outright but many were deported to Siberia for hard labor. Families were sometimes separated; children were taken from their parents for indoctrination into the Russian dogma. Our family had been on the list to be deported but fortunately we were able to escape this fate.  As a matter of fact, knowing what occupation under the Russian regime was like, one million (half of Latvia’s inhabitants) left the country.  To this day, you can find Latvians in every part of the world as a result of WW II and the Russian occupation.

My family was very fortunate to be able to board a train heading toward Germany. Since we were not Jews, Germany was relatively safe for us, although trains were a risky form of transportation during a war. They were used to transport supplies and troops to the fighting armies, so we were in danger of being bombed by both the Russian and American air forces. When airplanes were detected, the train was stopped, all got off and laid in ditches or fields, in case the train was bombed. If we happened to be near or in a potato field, we’d be assured of dinner. So we continued until we reached Germany. Germany was inundated with refugees from every country bordering Russia. It was a mass exodus. 

We traveled, by whatever means possible, further and further west. At one point, we were put up at a large well-to-do farm that needed farm hands since all the able bodied German men were serving in their army. Now our father had steady work and ample food for the family. Our mother was able to work in the garden as well. We had a small apartment on top of the animal barn. The heat generated by the animals and feather down blankets kept us warm. 

The end of the war came suddenly. One day, the American army arrived at the edge of the village, and before entering, they discharged some tank artillery down the street to see if anyone would shoot back. None did! The American troops peacefully occupied the village by slowly passing through the street in their tanks. People cautiously came out of their houses and greeted the Americans. We were happy and finally felt safe.

The hope was that we’d be able to go back home soon. That hope was short-lived. It seemed that Germany was to be divided among the Allies and whatever else was occupied by Russians would become status quo! That meant that Latvia would remain under Russian domination and the area where we were in Germany would become part of the Russian zone. Our journey, once again, had to continue toward the unknown, as far away from the Russians as possible.

This turned into a trek by foot on the German autobahn, dragging our belongings in a small farm wagon, with Benita and Eriks perched atop our “riches”. While our parents pulled the wagon, Rita and Zigrida trailed behind. We shared the autobahn with the American troops as they moved west toward what was to be the American zone of Germany. So, if we were going in the same direction as the Americans, we should end up in the same place. When the American troops saw the sight of us walking, some of them generously threw some oranges and chocolate bars to us. I remember that sometimes we also got rides in American army trucks or jeeps. So we continued until we arrived in Hanau, a city near Frankfurt, which was definitely in the American zone of Germany. So we sighed a sigh of relief that we had arrived at a safe place. 

Housing for displaced people in Germany was the next step in our lives, and from there my family was fortunate to be welcomed into a small town in Pennsylvania where my parents found work and eventually were able to send my sisters, brother and me to college.  How different our lives were in America than had we lived under communist rule.

As I think about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I am reminded of the reason my parents chose to endure a very risky journey to the unknown in order to escape Communism.  Should Ukraine fall to the Russians will Latvia again in the future suffer its cruel repression?  What about Poland and other neighboring countries?  The Ukrainians are fighting valiantly to remain free of the evil Russian control.  The United States must fund its effort.

Rita Zeltins Heacock
Easton

As even the best golfers know, some holes are played better than others, largely because of the various challenges they present in real-time.

There is a perspective that life is the same . . . that is, some days are better than others, but God willing, there will be another day after the night, and that it will be good or not so as it comes.

A bad golf hole might include a tree between one’s ball and the green, a dreaded plop and splash, or “in the trap.”

It is those realities of the game, with its 18-hole months, that give rise to challenges for each hole.

So here is the thing as the spring golf season approaches . . . we, linksters or not, should be reminded that each day is a new hole to be played, with hope for a good one, but acceptance of the challenges that may arise. And there is always tomorrow.

Fore!

Phil Hoon
Chestertown

Please share with your readers that the Colonel Tench Tilghman Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution will meet on Saturday, March 2, 2024, at 11:00 AM at the Chester River Yacht & Country Club in Chestertown, Maryland. Anyone interested in joining should email Warren Tewes at [email protected] by February 28, 2024.

We’ll also talk about the Children of the American Revolution’s 2024 project, “Play It Loud,” which uses music therapy to help veterans.

Wes Hagood, Publicity Director
Colonel Tench Tilghman Chapter of the SAR

I have been a resident of the historic district of Chestertown for almost fifteen years, the past three years full-time.  Chestertown is my only home. It was place that brought me to the Chester River and this historic district in our small town. I vote here, and I answer the summons for jury duty when it arrives in my mail box. I have been a grunt soldier, a clerk, a Congressional staffer, worked in corporate America, and led a nonprofit legal services organization representing LGBTQ service members in our armed forces. I served on corporate and nonprofit boards. I have no credentials or expertise in historic preservation and design, but I can navigate commission and board guidelines and zoning regulations fairly well with eyes wide open.

What little I know about design and architecture I learned from the renowned architect Hugh Newell Jacobsen.  Mr. Jacobsen and I once shared a common brick wall in Washington — his imposing Federal abutting my modest English style cottage. He guided me in adding 300 square feet to my home and small garden.

Hugh Jacobsen began his projects with enthusiasm and high hopes, but invariably his starting point was place, asking if what the client wanted to erect was suitable to the site.  Hugh Jacobsen not only walked the grounds where he was building, he sometimes visited there for days or longer, sitting on the site grounds and fields, and he talked with neighbors nearby.  And he did all this before he began drawing. There are hundreds of his marvelous houses.  And every Hugh Jacobsen building fits where he placed it — a farm house in Maine, homes on our Maryland Eastern Shore –Easton, Oxford, and Trappe — Maryland University library, an addition to the U.S. Capitol, or a new structure on the nation’s mall.

Place, context, and simplicity. Now take a look at the website of Hammond Wilson in Annapolis, the firm engaged by the 206 applicants. On their website you see the firm’s best work, the quality houses they showcase around Annapolis. An even closer examination and you may notice that the very drawings this firm initially submitted for 206 Cannon bear an uncanny resemblance to one of the houses on the Hammond Wilson website. It’s a rather large house placed in a snug and comfortable planned community with other equally large houses, and those well-built fine houses in all their pleasant sameness strike me as perfectly suited for the place.

But can Hammond Wilson and the 206 applicants possibly think they can just modify a house from a nice very upscale development and expect that house will somehow fit in the Chestertown historic district? Unfortunately, the applicants and their architects still think they can pretty much build whatever they would like at 206. And they continue to demonstrate how they approach 206. Site is not important.

Yes, the owners have a right to build a new residential home there, but it is not an ABSOLUTE right. The new owners knew they were buying land in the historic district, and they should have known they would need to gain approval before building. Surely their architects understood that was the case. The fact that the 206 application is still pending before the HDC further underscores that there is no absolute right here.

It is unfortunate this application process got off on the wrong footing from the get go with the HDC, with the best of intentions no doubt, attempting to tweak and retweak the drawings to turn the proposed house into one both parties could accept. What is now needed is a time out with the HDC making clear to the architect that their development application is unacceptable and unsuitable for the 206 site.

It’s time to pivot. Ask the applicant to come back in 180 days with a new set of plans that acknowledges and respects the place where they would like to build and live. It’s time to say plainly a house of that scale, designed for a private and lovely community development, is not suitable for the Chestertown historic district. It doesn’t fit.

We in Chestertown, as caretakers, have an obligation to preserve the evidence of our past — the historic, the beautiful, the good and sometimes the ugly.  Our town leaders and the HDC play a huge role in meeting that responsibility.

I appreciate the applicants are in a hurry for a resolution. They have already spent considerable time and money. The HDC, however, should not rush.  We continue to learn more about this important site, and much more critical research is clearly in order; and research work about to get underway by the Maryland Historic Trust may reveal more.. If the applicants will not agree to a carryover and insist upon a vote, the HDC need only look to their guidelines, rules, and discretion.  Clearly, the HDC has the authority to deny the pending application.
I am not opposed to new residential construction at 206 Cannon. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with the applicants and learn more about their vision for living on this vacant lot. Some of the neighbors living less than forty yards from 206 have expressed an interest in doing the very same.

The Annapolis firm knows Chestertown. They have done several commercial renovations in and on existing structures in the historic district, nearly all of which I appreciate and patronize.         But this is not another renovation project in an existing building with expansion in the rear. This is new construction on a special site that needs care, more deliberation, and a very different mindset with respect to site.

A pivot here might also begin with all of us being more civil and respectful to each other.  We need not be small or mean-spirited or disagreeable simply because we disagree on what the law and guidelines require. I would welcome a compromise and resolution that recognizes and protects our historic district and enables the applicants to become a part of our community.  Compromise can help make our town and Historic District Commission stronger, and it can signal that we welcome those who want to be a part of this historic and special place.

Aubrey Sarvis
Chestertown

Before I begin, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Mayor Foster and the members of the Town Council for reappointing me to the Chestertown Historic District Commission earlier this week, and for their support throughout this process.

I have been reluctant to engage in the public and online conversation concerning the Chestertown Historic District Commission, of which I am a member, having been unanimously reappointed by the Mayor and Town Council at their meeting on January 16, 2024. However, specious and hypocritical attacks leveled against me at the meeting regarding my qualifications for appointment have compelled me to respond.

For the past six months, since discussion began about the fate of the Chestertown Armory, a very vocal group of community members have repeatedly expressed their “concern” not only for the fate of the Armory, but also for the overall state of the Historic District, as well as the expertise and knowledge of the members of the Historic District Commission. These concerns have been expressed in social media, via email, letter, and in public presentations and meetings. To be clear, I have NO objection to the expression of one’s opinion, and I believe that productive discourse and constructive debate is a valuable part of living in a free society.

Not only as a Commission member, but also as a resident of the Historic District, I would assert that Chestertown is a vital, thriving community with a strong sense of place and a commitment to historic preservation. The Historic District has never been more vibrant, and it continues to contribute significantly to our Town’s tax base through renovations and new construction.

Several weeks ago, members of this group decided that they were going to challenge my reappointment to the HDC. One member in particular emailed the group that it was their intention to challenge my appointment “with facts,” as part of their effort to replace me with someone the group considered more qualified and likely to be more supportive of their agenda.

The fact that this group believes that their success requires maligning and disrespecting another talented professional lacks integrity.

There have been, and will certainly be again, ample opportunities for the alternative individual to serve if they so desire.

At Tuesday’s meeting, much was made of the inferiority of my credentials and what was described as a “troubling pattern of recusals,” as the basis for my removal. While credentials can be important, so too are professional experience and diversity of perspective. Most people would agree that both are necessary and valuable.

With respect to recusals; it is standard practice for members of Boards and Commissions to disclose any relationships that they may have, positions they hold, or Boards on which they serve, that could be considered conflicts of interest. It is also generally accepted practice for members to recuse themselves from voting on any proposals related to their disclosures.

The reason for my repeated recusals is really quite simple and completely innocuous; my husband, John Hutchison, is an architect who does a great deal of work in the Town’s Historic District. This work necessitates frequent appearances before the Commission and the aforementioned recusals. To characterize actions that are appropriate to my service, without the context necessary for individuals who are unfamiliar with board service, as troubling, can only be an attempt to cast aspersions on my character and my integrity, nothing more.

Several speakers cited the need for the Commission to be composed of members who meet the criteria of the Council of Local Governments, and at least one member pointed out that there is not a “single current member of the Commission” who meets this criteria. Why then, if this is such a matter of importance, has this issue never been raised at ANY of the 6 prior re/appointments in the last three years, including the most recent ones last summer?

Additionally, It is entirely false to assert that there is no other consideration or duty more important than to that of the buildings and their architecture – more than ever, historic preservation in a community is a complex issue with considerations beyond the architecture and preservation of buildings, chief among these economic development, a point of view strongly supported by both the National Park Service, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, among many authorities. My diverse expertise is an asset to the Commission rather than a liability.

I would strongly suggest that those who opposed my nomination did so for reasons having everything to do with their desire to have a Commission that is lacking in diverse points of view and experience, and representative of a specific agenda. Their actions are a detriment of our community, and are not, I believe, representative of the views, or will, of the majority.

There is much work to be done, and I believe that together we can achieve remarkable results. Considering the context and economic development impact of preservation, along with the buildings and architecture, are a critical part of honoring and preserving our community’s remarkable and beautiful history for generations to come.

Rebecca Murphy
Chestertown