Editor:

My connection to political protests began when I volunteered for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s Mississippi Summer Project in 1964.

Dissident movements since—free speech, civil rights, anti-war, anti-apartheid, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, women’s reproductive rights, Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ—have been resisted by various authorities, but ultimately acknowledged as legitimate.

Aiming to halt Israel’s disproportionate assault on Gaza, campus demonstrators today are as radically correct as we were 60 years ago.

Grenville B. Whitman

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                                                 

Chestertown Historic District Commission

Reference: Application BP230185

Chestertown Armory

Dear Chairperson Smith and Commissioners,

I have been asked numerous times if I would endorse a proposal that maintains the Armory’s headhouse with demolition of the drill hall. I have given the question fair consideration and would like to share my answer with you, the decision makers. The process began 17 months ago when I made a site visit in December 2022.  As a result, I became curious, and a comprehensive data bank of varied information grew along the way that also fueled many editorials. My measured answer is, no, I would not endorse such a proposal. Although there was much information considered, it can be condensed into what I refer to as the Top 10 reasons that shaped my conclusion.

TOP 10 REASONS WHY…

SEVERING THE 1931 ARMORY IS A FLAWED PROPOSAL

• Entire Building was Listed on the National Register of Historic Places
• Entire Building is Structurally Sound and Mold can be Remediated
• Entire Building can Remain in a Flood Zone and can be Flood Proofed
• Entire Building is Suitable for Adaptive Reuse
• Drill Hall was Dedicated in Honor of a Local WWII Hero
• Drill Hall was a Community Social Hub for over 50 Years
• Drill Hall is Part of the Local African American Story
• Grants are Available for the Drill Hall Restoration by the African American

Heritage Preservation Program

• Grants are Available for Renovations and Flood Proofing from MHT & FEMA
• Building Designed by an Eminent Maryland Architect recognized by the AIA

Summation…TAKE AWAY THE DRILL HALL, TAKE AWAY HISTORY AND FUNDING.

I request careful review of the entire record of information that interested citizens have made available to you along with all applicable items of the Historic Guidelines.

Being faced with a decision to demolish a historic building is a tremendous responsibility, for once it is gone, it is gone forever. The stakes are even higher with this building being listed on the National Register of Historic Places and home to one of the most recognized and highly decorated infantry divisions of WWII. This is after all a military story which morphed into a rich community story with ties to the era of segregation and the famous ‘Chitlin Circuit’ of the 1960’s. Irreplaceable is the entire history and the entire 1931 building. Be guided accordingly for, in my opinion, demolition is an end and not a beginning in the matter of the John H. Newnam Chestertown Armory.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas W. Kocubinski

After reading local opinions on this topic relating to the Chestertown Armory, it became apparent that serious misconceptions are shaping the narrative and opinions. As a trained and experienced resilient architect in both flood and wind events, it also became apparent for the need to espouse the truth of the matter based on facts.

Let’s begin with the Department of the Interior, specifically the National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services. In 2019, the hallmark industry standard, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation was supplemented by adoption of the Guidelines On Flood Adaptation For Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. This action opened the door for needed legislation and design standards to protect our valuable historic resources from the ravages of flooding.

This new publication was prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. It acknowledged the importance of revising design standards to address the threats of climate change to historic structures. Notable historic buildings and sites throughout the country are located in flood-prone areas, and a thoughtful methodology for balancing their historic value against potential damage or loss was required. It constitutes an important acknowledgment that historic buildings can be located in flood zones. They are not doomed to the wrecking ball by virtue of their location in harm’s way. Anyone who suggests otherwise is ill-informed.

The Guidelines contain numerous strategies for protection and allow the use of non-historic materials and protective assemblies where needed to facilitate the required degree of protection. To this end, an entire floodproofing industry has flourished, offering clever and effective products which can be either permanently incorporated or temporarily deployed in advance of perilous weather events. It is not the intent of this paper to review all flood mitigation methodologies and devices for historic buildings, but to raise awareness that they exist and are approved for use under the National Historic Preservation Act.

Evaluation for flood protection begins with reference to the FEMA Flood Zone Maps.

The following basic terms first need to be understood.

Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is the calculated level that flood waters will rise to during a Base Flood event as determined by FEMA.

Freeboard is elevating a building’s lowest floor or dry floodproofing above and beyond BFE. This is a built-in safety factor as well as a requirement in many communities.

Design Flood Elevation (DFE) is the elevation of the highest flood (generally the BFE including freeboard). Also referred to as Flood Protection Elevation.

Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA)

– A Zones have low impact from waves.

-Coastal A Zones are expected to receive 1.5 feet of breaking waves.

– V Zones have high impact from waves.

Both A and V Zones subject to experiencing a 1% annual chance flood event. This translates to a 26% chance of flooding over a 30-year timeframe.

Some communities regulate X Zones to A Zone standards.

The Armory is located in a FEMA AE Flood Zone along with the entire town waterfront. Specifically, the building is in a FEMA Flood Zone AE 6. The DFE is 6’ plus 1’ of freeboard or 7′ total. Referencing the College’s building survey, the lowest floor level is elevation 3.73′. Therefore, subtracting 3.73′ from 7′ you get 3.27′ – the height of flood water anticipated at the building perimeter. Knowing this, an approved type of flood protection can be selected.  For non-elevated structures, the strategies for protection can be established along with selection of flood mitigation devices to keep water from entering building openings. Using the DFE, the suitability of exterior walls to resist anticipated water pressure can be determined.

It is important to stress that being located within the AE Zone is not a requirement or justification for demolition. FEMA entered the game by issuing Technical Bulletin 3 or TB-3 that specifically allows Historic Buildings to remain if protected by DRY FLOODPROOFING. Per FEMA, “dry floodproofing” means a combination of measures that make a building and attendant utilities and equipment watertight and substantially impermeable to floodwater, with structural components having the capacity to resist flood loads. As previously noted, the adopted Flood Guidelines established approved mitigation options and techniques including dry flood proofing. Now enter the National Flood Insurance Program or NFIP. In tandem with FEMA and the Historic Guidelines, the NFIP created a program that offered subsidized insurance as an incentive to keep and protect historic buildings in flood zones. The end result was a well thought out and integrated program targeted to address the needs of promoting preservation within flood areas. The Chestertown Armory is a perfect project for application of the program.

In the case of the Armory, specific strategies from the Flood Guidelines can be employed to assuredly protect the structure from a flood event. However, no attempts have been made to do so and inaction to operate the buildings sump pumps serves to exacerbate the impacts from flooding when it occurs. It is recommended that a flood protection plan be formulated and implemented prior to the upcoming hurricane season. As the Chestertown Armory is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it is eligible for grants that could fund a flood protection program.

Strategy 1 – Opening Protectives: As the name suggests these are protective assemblies inserted into the existing door and window locations within the design flood elevation (DFE). The assemblies can be either permanent or temporary. The growing industry preference is the use of fail-safe permanent devices which are not reliant upon human involvement. If conditions or budget dictate the use of temporary devices, then the speed of deployment with simplicity of installation are important considerations in the selection process.

Doors and Frames: The Armory’s lower-level doors are within the DFE. They are hollow metal units, rusted and leaky. They are unsuitable for use in a flood zone. No attempts have been made to address the problems, thus allowing water intrusion.  The  ideal solution is replacement with stainless steel flood doors and frames engineered to hold back flood water using clamps to tighten gaskets thus sealing out water. A temporary option is the use of  infill expandable barriers with gaskets that are pumped to achieve a tight seal with the door frame. Another option is stackable flood logs placed in channels with gaskets set tight by flood water pressure. All of these flood protective measures are standard devices readily available and can be affordable.

Windows: The existing windows are original steel frame sash with single pane glass. All lower level windows fall within the DFE by about 12″, thus requiring replacement. The windows can be replaced with engineered floodproof assemblies to achieve complete protection from both water and impact by floating debris. These proven flood windows are tested to hold back water up to 10′ high. Constructed of metal with laminated glass to resist breaking and leaking, they can also be designed to complement the historic style and window configurations, a breakthrough solution for historic buildings to remain in flood zones.

Strategy 2 – Perimeter Protection:  The entire building perimeter can be protected from rising water with a line of engineered flood barriers designed to hold back and divert flood water. A perimeter system can be deployed when needed and capable of completely encircling the building to create a ‘dry island’ in which the building sits. These barriers are portable allowing for rapid deployment to protect against rising floodwaters. They can be connected for extended runs and some models are stackable for higher protection. Used in tandem with floodproof doors and windows, a dual system of protection can be achieved for ultimate flood protection.

In conclusion, historic buildings that are located within flood zones are afforded a pathway with attractive incentives to remain as valuable historic resources. An entire industry has emerged in lockstep with enabling legislation to afford protection of irreplaceable historic resources throughout the country. The list of saved structures is significant and growing. The Chestertown Armory is ideally suited to take full advantage of these developments. Any attempt to use its location within a flood zone to justify demolition cannot be sustained based on the foregoing. The absence of any form of flood protection at the building is irresponsible at least.

Thomas Kocubinski, AIA

Dear Editor,

Most of us in Kent County take for granted that storm water runs off properly, that water is safe to drink, that roads, sidewalks, and emergency vehicles are maintained. But local revenues to sustain public projects have not kept pace with the needs. Enter President Biden’s American Rescue Plan that has delivered no-strings-attached grant funds to every town in our County. Big money. Not widely hailed, our communities have received an unprecedented amount of help.

Both the Towns and the County were given latitude to determine how these funds would be utilized, and all of them have allocated this money for critical needs including waste water and water system management improvements, IT system and security upgrades, essential worker pay, community center improvements, and support for economic development. The amounts received and examples of uses are:

Betterton – $311,342, includes water system upgrades

Chestertown – $4,400,000, includes new police and fire vehicles

Galena – $572,000, includes new utility equipment

Millington – $633,418, includes town office renovations

Rock Hall – $1,255,220, includes water and wastewater upgrades

Kent County – $3,766,777, includes wastewater management improvements

Come November, let’s give credit where credit is due.

Muriel Cole

Member, Kent County Democratic Central Committee