Washington College court win confirms partial demolition of armory will proceed

CHESTERTOWN — The decision the Chestertown Historic District Commission reached May 1, to grant an application to Washington College to partially demolish the John H. Newnam Armory, will most likely stand, following a judge's ruling Wednesday.

Over the summer, there was a speed bump in the college’s process to build their boutique hotel/conference center on the property that once headquartered the National Guard. Following the District's decision, there was a citizen’s appeal made to the circuit court by historic district residents, Barbara Jorgenson, Tom Kocubinski and Steve Mitchell.

They were opposed to the college’s plan, favoring restoration over partial demolition.

But on Wednesday, in circuit court, with local Judge Harris Murphy recusing himself, visiting Judge Sidney Campen sided with the college over the petitioners.

Campen's decision came on the grounds the petitioners didn’t have legal standing to make their appeal.

The judge first denied the petitioners attorney, G. Macy Nelson’s right to strike the defendant's response.

Campen saw no legal reason to strike the response, saying the college filed their reply on Aug. 13, giving the petitioners 15 days to respond.

Next was the motion by the college to dismiss the petitioner's claim on the grounds they don’t have legal standing to appeal.

In his opening argument, attorney representing the college, Collin Wojciechowski brought up a case, he said, that was similar to this one.

Ray vs. Mayor and Maryland City Council of Baltimore, he said, has "striking parallels in this matter.”

In that case, citizens lived within 1,000 feet of the property but the city still moved to dismiss, to which the Maryland Supreme Court agreed.

Unlike that case, the petitioners, the attorney claimed, can’t argue by proximity since none of them live within 1000 feet of the applicant property.

He said other than proximity, the burden of proof for the petitioners is to prove their “personal or property rights are adversely affected in a way different than the rest of the public.”

He stated that’s a special category, not yet reached throughout the state.

“Petitioners can’t show that here. None of the history of the individuals is unique from their neighbors. That uniqueness is needed and Maryland courts have never found it to exist.”

Nelson rebutted, saying this case was indeed unique.

“There’s no appellate authority that addresses the question of standing in the historic district.”

Furthermore, he said the case the defendant referenced, Nelson actually worked, arguing it in every stage of litigation.

That issue, he said, was a zoning decision, over a 200,000 sq. ft. Walmart, not an historic district decision of a building constructed in 1931 in a town of roughly 5,000.

He said he’d rather not deal with hypothetical situations but what is presented in Chestertown.

He firmly disagreed with Wojciechowski. Residents within the Chestertown historical district are exactly that, the special exception, he said.

That's because demolishing and rebuilding will affect the petitioners’ taxes, property values and insurance, he said.

Then pointing to the HDC guidelines, he read, "If an owner within the historic district allows a building to fall in disrepair, that adversely affects the character of the district.”

And again in the guidelines, “The loss of any contributing historic building diminishes the district and can never be replaced.”

Diminishing the entire district, Nelson noted, and not a specific area within the district. Going by the HDC guidelines, then all of the district is adversely affected, meaning those residents within that district, also meaning, his clients would be adversely affected.

And everyone else within that district too, Nelson added, because it affects them differently from the general public.

Nelson said in this situation, the college allowed the building to go into disrepair. Additionally the HDC then violated their guidelines by not issuing a written statement summarizing their decision on May 1, he added.

Combined with the written testimonies from the petitioners, it proves they should have standing, he stated.

Wojciechowski countered, stating this is straight forward case, and the arguments about the HDC are merit questions.

Not about standing.

He said if the judge allowed this, it would set a precedent, a slippery slope where everyone could appeal HDC decisions.

After both sides presented their arguments, the judge agreed with Wojciechowski, dismissing the petitioner’s claim.

He said Nelson did not present enough evidence or case law to show the petitioners would be adversely affected differently than any other resident in the district.

What affects one affects all.

“Will the removal of the armory impact anybody in this district differently than the three petitioners?”, the judge asked.

His answer was no. And so as a result the HDC’s decision stands to allow for partial demolition of the historic armory stands.

The hearing lasted approximately an hour with less than a dozen in attendance.

Campen said, “That’s my decision. I know that this is a contentious matter in this county.”

Look for this story to be updated with responses from the college and petitioners.