Print this page

HPC Special Meeting Minutes

October 23, 2013

The Historic Preservation Commission and the Long Wharf Advisory Committee conducted a special Meeting on Wednesday, October 23rd. 19th, 2013 at the City Council Chambers, 305 Gay Street. Brian Roche chaired the meeting and called the meeting to order at approximately 6:45PM. He began the meeting by taking roll call.

Commissioners Attending: Brian Roche, Chair, Farrell McCoy, Katie Clendaniel
Commissioners Absence: Will Dennehy, Dormaim Bromwell Green.

Other Representatives or Staff Attending: Dan Brandewie, City Planner II; Odie Wheeler, Director of Public Works; Anne Roane, City Planner; Commissioners Jackie Vickers and Gage Thomas.

Brian Roche presented the opening statement and asked if there any changes to the agenda. Mr. Brandewie stated that there was a minor procedural change in the agenda. Mr. Roche noted that the only item on the agenda is for HPC Case # 9-14, Long Wharf Park, American Legion-Eastern Shore Post 88, Raymond Simmons, Jr. (applicant): request to install WWI marker behind the fountain location.

Mr. Roche reviewed the previous COA language as adopted from the Aug. 15th HPC meeting as follow:

To approve the placement of a marble monument with dimensions and height as specified in the application and at the location as indicated, with final approval contingent upon endorsement by the Long Wharf Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission. If there are changes to the design of the monument and its proposed location, the application shall be brought back for further review by the HPC.


Oath Administered-Persons Wishing to Testify: Mr. Roche reviewed protocol for the meeting and administered the oath to all persons wishing to testify.

Mr. Wheeler provided background and reasons for the joint meeting with the Long Wharf Advisory Committee. The meeting was called at the request of the City Council. The City Council postponed their vote on the monument as the prior COA issued by the HPC was no longer valid. The Long Wharf committee had recommended changes to the monument and its proposed location which was a specific requirement outlined in the original COA. The purpose of the meeting was an attempt to clarify and/or reconcile any differences between the applicant and the LWAC and then have the HPC review the new application as presented, taking into consideration all additional testimony and details to determine if the monument adhered to the HPC Guidelines and qualified for a COA.

Mr. Roche cited the basis for the HPC decision making authority in the guidelines that states that the HPC shall be strict in their judgment as this is one of the most significant locations in the city.

Mr. Simmons requested an opportunity to make a brief opening statement.

Mr. Ray Simmons: P.O. Box 753 Cambridge: I represent and am part of the applicants of this process for Post #88 of the 29th Division. First of all, I would like to make a request that the testimony at the previous meeting of this board be incorporated into the entirety of this record, since we were on the record before I think that it would be appropriate that whatever comments were made at that time be incorporated into the entirety of this time and I request that your board do that.

Mr. Simmons: I would like to give you some brief background as why there may be a little bit of a disconnect between these processes. We, our Board, met with the Long Wharf Committee a couple of times. We gave them an initial briefing back early in the spring saying what we were trying to do and then we went back on September 5, 2013 and had a lengthy meeting as Mr. Hyman had indicated, at that time and you have the minutes of that meeting. That Board had approved unanimously our project with a couple of modifications. There were four. Number one, they requested us to move our project back from 44 feet to an equal distance to the fountain which was 27.6 feet, which we did. And that quite frankly is the only change to the submission of paper work to this board. The Monument is still five feet high, eight feet wide and the only difference in the location is that we backed it up. The second point that they requested was that we hire a landscaping engineer and we did that. We have engaged Lane Engineering and provided a copy of the plan. Because the Rotary Club was doing landscaping as well, this all has to be done in conjunction to the Rotary Club; we can't do a landscaping plan and have you believe that we have failed in the process. We were asked to retain a landscape architect, which we did. The third point that they asked us to do was to consider putting benches on the property. We have done that, we gave that back to Mr. Hyman in terms of foreground to benches similar to the benches that the monument will be made of. So we have complied with the request number three. Request number four, was not in his minutes, but a request that we want the situations of bravery or whatever was the action that warranted this award, to somehow be displayed. We originally discussed putting it on the back of the benches. But the benches, because they should be simple in accordance with your instruction, do not have any backs. So we will put that on the back of the monument. I am reading from the Ordinance 814 or 844 saying that the benches are simple. I am not going to argue that point with you. The fifth thing that they suggested was that we round the monument. We could not do a round monument because of the cost. It is cost prohibitive, about 40 to 60 percent more money; when you curve a short portion which is the top of this, the designer said that they would not guarantee that because it is too small to be curved. You could not put inscriptions on the back.

After we have made attempts to do all of these things, I sent an email to Mr. Hyman on September 30th; I am going to read this into the record if you do not mind:

"Pursuant to the meeting of September 5th, our committee went back to the monument designer and our first idea was to curve the monument; to use five-two foot wide stones and set them vertically to obtain a curve, we could not do that because of the inscription problems, it would not look right. So we looked at curving the stones, which would be layered similar to layers of a wedding cake, they would have to be hand cut and our desire to cant the tables at a 45 degree, to read these names would not be possible, and it would add 40 percent to the cost. We have decided to proceed with the original (design) except the wording for the heroism will be on the back of the monument. The DSC award will be on both sides; the monument will be moved inward 27.6 feet with is the same distance from the fountain. Finally an engineer has drafted a plan to include four benches, to be constructed of the same materials as the monument and be spaced around the monument. A concrete pavement will circle the monument and with the pavement around the fountain, hopefully, this will satisfy your committee. This is our plan that we will present to Planning & Zoning tomorrow evening. Please feel free to call if you questions or comments, our group will appreciate all of your cooperation"

That was sent to Lou from me. I heard nothing from Lou. The Planning & Zoning meeting was held, not one letter was sent and not one person opposed this entire process. We went to Planning & Zoning believing that we had done everything, because we have heard nothing different. In fact we went to the City Council last week, thinking we had an approval only to find out that the Long Wharf folks had sent a letter late in the afternoon of the meeting, saying by the way we have rejected it, because we had a meeting on October 4th or around that date. We were never invited to such a meeting. We were never called and told that there was a meeting. That is outrageous conduct for any folks in this city to have to put up with. We were not treated fairly and because they would like to design it differently; and to say that we haven't complied is outrageous. One other thing that I would urge your body to consider; their recommendations are merely recommendations. I think that you should not tie your decision to their recommendations, because their recommendations are ultimately decided by the City Council. I think that your decisions should stand alone from that, because if you do, you find yourselves in a strange position of having the City Council say we would like to have it, and then we would have to fight about this again.

Discussion followed about the purview of the HPC responsibilities.

Brian Roche: At this point I need a motion to recess.

Discussion followed about how to proceed with the hearing.

Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Collision has advised that the HPC hold an official meeting in order to take official action. The HPC would start their meeting, get it underway, take a recess; the dialog of general discussion can take place. The goal is to reach an agreement on what is proposed; then have the HPC reconvene and make a decision. The HPC decision will be forwarded to Council by Monday evening.

Discussion followed about procedures. Mr. Roche confirmed that the LWAC would first meet with the applicant, after which the HPC meeting would reconvene. He indicated at that point the applicant will present their case again and normal HPC procedures for deciding on the COA will be followed.

Members of the Long Wharf Advisory Committee requested permission to ask some additional questions of Mr. Simmons. Mr. Thomas asked about the nature of the materials and past action of the HPC regarding their actions on the Harriet Tubman Monument, the Light House and the new building for bathrooms.

Mr. Roche confirmed that the HPC acted on these items. Mr. Thomas raised further objections based on obstructing the view, noting past precedent.

Discussion followed about the HPC's authority on the matter.

An unknown speaker noted that the City is trying to take an active role to address the Long Wharf area, the need to comprehensively look at this area, and the importance of tourism to the area.

Mr. Roche discussed the importance of the Design Guidelines in the decision. He noted the importance of the Long Wharf Advisory Committee recommendations, and that citizen input was important because of the significance of the proposal and the potential impact of the applicant's proposal to Long Wharf Park. He restated that the application was to be reheard because the conditions of the previous COA were not met.

Mr. Roche: The Long Wharf Advisory Committee is tasked with meeting with the applicant and then the applicant will make his final presentation to the HPC.

Mr. Roche requested a motion for the planned recess to allow the meeting between the LWAC and applicant.

Farrell McCoy made the motion to recess. Katie Clendaniel seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

After the conclusion of the Long Wharf Advisory Committee meeting, the HPC Chair asked for a motion to reconvene the HPC meeting. A motion was made by Farrell McCoy to reconvene the meeting, second by Katie Clendaniel. Motion carried.

Mr. Roche requested that the applicant summarize the meeting between the LWAC and applicant for the minutes. He restated to the audience that the applicant was now to re-present their case to the HPC and normal HPC meeting protocol would be followed.

Mr. Ray Simmons: P.O. Box, 753 Cambridge, MD. I represent, and am a part of and the spokesman for the applicant, Post 88, 29th Division Association. We thank you for allowing us to before you tonight on our request to be able to construct a monument to five gentlemen whose home of record in WWI was Dorchester County who were awarded the nation's 2nd highest honor for bravery, the Distinguished Service Cross. Approximately 2 years ago I gave a class to some folks at Maces Lane High School. The concept of heroes, it was about Veteran's Day, I couldn't get across to them. Our children need to understand that heroes are not just what are seen on TV. Heroes are common people like Harford Smith, who was a house painter; like Carl Horton, who was a barber; or Ed Miller, or Lt. Henry Barber who was a professional soldier. They don't know who these people are; they have no clue that they actually lived in Dorchester County. In talking with Post 88, 29th Division, we have about 200 members and are affiliated with other chapters around the country; (they) believe that this is a worthy and worthwhile project. The timing of the project is coincidental. The Great War began in 1914 and 2014 will be the 100 anniversary. It is sort of coincidental, but the idea of trying to do this in the commemorative year is important to us. Interestingly enough, to respond to some of the discussion tonight, Memorial Day used to be called Decoration Day. When you do the research on this particular day, when the 29th Division came back from its duty on the Mexican Border, in 1916, the Governor of the State of Maryland held a banquet for them on Decoration Day, which was May of 1916 and gave out awards and commendations. The Governor at that time (the banquet was held in Baltimore) was Emerson Harrington from Cambridge. The local flavor is here. I have in my position a brochure from 1916 as well, when the folks came back to Dorchester County. And the City of Cambridge held a banquet for these folks, what is now (inaudible). We have a brochure of the dinner. The Mayor of the town at that time gave a speech and it was a very patriotic thing. We lost that. We need to get it back at least for heroes.

The purpose of Long Wharf in doing this project, before I get into it, is very simple; that monument was there and dedicated to folks who died in the war, the First World War, dedicated in 1938. When you talk about the Historic Preservation charter and ordinance, Ord. 814, when it was incorporated, the first thing it talks about is to establish and protect the continuity of the streetscape from inappropriate change. That is the preamble to Ordinance 814: to protect the continuity of the streetscape from inappropriate change. We strongly, my 29th division, my Post 88th, we believe it is not inappropriate in any but it is most appropriate to place a monument, recognizing heroes at the same place where we also recognizing those who passed in war. The continuity of those, it is hard not to understand the continuity is so strong. Surely everyone who dies is in some way a hero but not to the extent of these folks who were decorated. One of the awardees, Harford Smith, not only received a Distinguished Cross, he received a commendation from the King of Italy. The articles in these newspapers, I am not going to bore you with the details, the city's biggest heroes, these folks need to be placed in a prominent place. The prominent place is right by the fountain where their brothers died...that's the prominent place so the school children walk up the grass and a sidewalk could have been more appropriate and read their names and go on the back and read what these folks did, it reads like a Audey Murphy or Sergeant York; these are heroes. You have them all in one place. You go to the front you see the Distinguished Service Cross. You go to the back and read what they did...that's what's important. We didn't believe that a disjointed presentation of these things in the form of putting their names on the bench and letting someone read around the bench, then you have all kinds of problems. First of all being that the monument guy said that when you start cutting into the top of the bench you have environmental concerns, the freezing and thawing of the rain- immediately you have destruction of the (inaudible). We firmly believe the 5 by 8 monument that we have proposed is the appropriate size; again I have explained. It is masked by the fountain. It is not seen from High Street. There is plenty of room when you come around the side, from a tourist standpoint, I dare say when they the start the tours, they will go to this place because it will draw people to this place as all things, hopefully, in the Long Wharf Area.

When we started this project we went to the Cambridge Rotary Club. They have taken a huge lead in doing things that the city has never been able to afford for many years. They have done a commendable job. I would like to present (inaudible) a letter from (inaudible) Todd the president of the Rotary Club who strongly supports the project. They have been briefed on this project (inaudible). We have a liaison with him, Mr. Cartwheel, who keeps them advised and is strongly in support of the project, as is Dorchester Post 91 of the American Legion, as is obviously our association. Honestly, truthfully, I am telling you today, there has been no one who does not approve of this monument. The only comment that I had was from Mr. Wayne Warner who said it is too damn high and after I talked to him briefly after the last meeting, Mr. Warmer, spoke and quite frankly, spoke in favor of building the monument. That is what I heard. Interestingly enough no one has appeared...this group previously voted unanimously, those folks voted unanimously subject to some concerns; Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously. So we are here again asking this committee to approve the application that we have. Before, the application we had was to build a granite monument. I am going to show you again for your recollection. This is the monument material; the monument expert that we contacted with said that marble is not appropriate. This is a product that is mostly closely related and aligned to the stones at the Long Wharf Fountain. It is not stark black, it is not stark grey; we do not intend this to look like a grave site. I have never seen a grave site such as this. This is the type of material that is recommended. In our application that you have in front of you, we asked that this monument be placed, I think it was 44.7, but in line with the previously approved recommendation from the Long Wharf Committee. We have asked that this monument be placed an equal distant location between the fountain and the monument at 26.7 feet. The only way we would be modifying our application that you have in your files tonight would be to change the distance to 27.6 feet. Other than that we are asking you to approve the monument that you see and that you have diagrams of tonight with the change we have agreed to make with regard to the reverse sides of this monument indicating the divisions that are actually represented on the front side. Again for the record, we certainly stand ready to listen to whoever would help us better design, somebody who wants to do something within the financial constraints. Here is the problem, people can design and say you need to do this and you need to do that be we don't have unlimited funds. They don't even have enough funds to do a Comprehensive Plan and I doubt very seriously it will be any time soon before they ever do. We do have the ability to build this monument. We would like to dedicate it on May 26th. We do have commitments to have marching units to be in a parade to basically dedicate this monument. I dare say that the dedication will be something this town has not seen for quite some time. We can do this. This is what we are able to do. And financially we were able to do the plan that you see in front of you which is putting the benches, the four benches, made of the same material with the designated Distinguished Service Cross upon the front, in a circular motion because they wanted it to circle around. We thought the circle would be circle to circle; it seems continuity to us; obviously continuity is in the eyes of the beholder I presume, I don't know. We are strongly asking you approve this. We do believe that, as you know Mr. Roche, benches should be simple in design and compatible in size and scale. We believe that the package that you have has those benches compatible in design, simple and in style and scale. This is not an inappropriate change to Long Wharf. We believe that this new structure should be of a compatible scale. We believe that 5 by 8 behind the monument is compatible in size and scale. We believe it meets the challenges that you face regarding the ordinance to establish and protect the continuity of streetscape, inappropriate changes and, of course, as you are well aware, the streetscape that you monitor has all kinds of shapes and all kinds of sizes as your ordinance clearly (inaudible). We would ask that you approve the entirety of the package to include the placement of the benches, to include the circles, to include the diagrams and descriptions that you have been given, and specifically the location of 27.6 feet and the monument design that you see before you here tonight. Thank you. I would be happy to answer to any questions you have.


Female Unknown: We have heard a lot of information; let us move forward with this particular presentation to the HPC.

Mr. Simmons: We would like a favorable recommendation on the entire plan. Lacking that recommendation, at a minimum we are requesting that you allow us to locate at the same spot that was previously approved by the Long Wharf Advisory Committee at 27.6 feet and to allow this design to be so we can construct it, if in fact you said that you could instruct the monument but not decide on the location, if we can't build it where we believe that is appropriate, where we think that we want to build it anywhere. I am asking for the approval of the entire concept, minimum approval of the location and design.

Katie Clendaniel asked for clarification from the applicant on his reference to Ordinance 814 and continuity of streetscape. She stated that the HPC members had specific qualifications to serve on the commission and would refer to their guidelines in reaching a decision. She expressed appreciation that the applicant had quoted Ordinance 814 but indicated that he may have interpreted it incorrectly. She expressed encouragement for the project and an appreciation for the difficulty in raising money for such a project. She stated that the job of the HPC is to protect the continuity of the site. She stated that the main feature of the site is the fountain and it was intentional that nothing else was placed around it as it would detract from it - the fountain is the prominent feature both at night and during the day. She noted that the fountain is operable again for first time in a very long time and that the fountain is itself historic. She then mentioned that the proposed memorial is designed to be a prominent historic element and her main concern was that it would detract from the simplistic design and significance of the fountain on the site. Her other concern was the actual design of the monument and she suggested the applicant should consider alternate materials, shapes, and more options for the HPC to consider. She expressed a willingness to provide feedback on other proposals as that is part of the role of the HPC.

Mr. Simmons: In consultation with our monument designer, who has been in business for over twenty years; he showed us a book of different things. This is rather a large monument in the monument field. When we first designed the monument, the first consideration was the material. We can't go marble. We needed something that would be low maintenance that would hopefully not require any long term maintenance other than scrubbing it. We wanted to portray the distinguished service cross, what it is and to whom it was awarded. We wanted the entire monument to be an entire package. There are many different ways you might consider doing this. Again, we looked at roundness. You've heard previous testimony. We said that if you stay within the eight foot you do vertical columns, you bend the vertical columns, but then you can't read the inscriptions on the back. I don't want you to think that we come to you with a design that we would like to make. That is not the design that came about, saying we'll take design number two. We did go through these things. You weren't part of it, but we did do these things. We could not curve and get the material to make it presentable. I disagree with you with regards to the stand-alone fountain. I think it just happens to be there as stand-alone. Continuity talks about inappropriate change. The only thing I can say is this, you have to decide whether that's inappropriate. Now, that is to me the issue. And I honestly believe when you take the fountain as a monument to folks who have given their lives for this country in World War I, and you have it coupled with not a stand-alone, but five gentlemen from this county who will never likely ever get an opportunity to be recognized, it hasn't happened in a hundred years, so it's not likely that it will ever happen again. That seems to be the appropriate place. I don't think that you can assume that just because that fountain was standalone, I don't think you're telling me to foreclose any development within that circle, or why you are constrained by the road. I think you look at each project that comes before you, as you should, to determine if this seems to show continuity. And there is no place better on Long wharf to do that.

Katie Clendaniel stated that change disrupts continuity and that she did not see the change as appropriate. She mentioned that placing something on the same site as the fountain was inappropriate and expressed concern that the monument would be a permanent, unalterable change to the site. She recommended to the applicant that they consult a landscape architect with experience designing similar types of public monuments, spaces, and parks.

Farrell McCoy commented that properly designed, the monument could amplify the message of the fountain but that she wasn't sure the proposed design was the best way to accomplish it.

Discussion followed about the names in bricks and putting them on the ground.

Mr Simmons: I understand what you're saying. No because it's not the kind of monument that would be appropriate for what we are trying to do. (If designed that way), we're looking down on heroes, ma'am, we try to look up to heroes. We try to look up to this cross on the top that's only given to so few people. So few, you can't even imagine that Dorchester County, as small as it is, to have five folks to win this. You want people looking up to heroes, you don't want them looking down on the ground to heroes. And when you do that, then you really have maintenance problems. Snows come. The water lies in the engravings. What I'm saying, there's heating and cooling, there's freezing and thawing. You end up having maintenance problems and then, a pristine design that you have is now looking like crap, and people are calling us up and saying you need to fix that. It's hard to maintain that. But more importantly you must understand, I believe, when people look at heroes they want to look up, they don't want to look down. Just like we don't want to sit down on a bench with the name of Harford Smith and have someone changing a kid's diapers on it. Or go off cutting bait on the bench. This monument as it's portrayed to you, and again, the critical stages are the location and the construction. We will, if you want, have a landscape designer to put benches in different locations. If you get a committee of five people, and five more people, they're all going to have different ideas and you'll never get a consensus. Building consensus is difficult, but we believe that the bench thing, fine, you want a place for people to gather; now this disregards the fact that the majority of Long Wharf is open space. From the end of the property line at the yacht club all the way up, it's mostly open space so to say that we need a place for people to gather, you got places to gather. Now if in fact these benches were there for people to come you could name this Distinguished Service Cross Plaza. But you don't want to look down on heroes, ma'am, with due respect.

Discussion followed about the height of the monument and the issue of having additional professional services.

Mr. Simmons: If we can get approval of location and the monument, we will go and hire whomever they believe.... We think those four benches seem appropriate. That's our consensus of our folks. We will certainly do that. But if we cannot get approval to do this monument, as it stands here tonight, we can't do anything else. We're sort of locked in the river. We would ask that you approve the entire project, obviously you have concerns. I daresay if you have six more people sit here, you'd have six more people who have something to say about it. But I can tell you this, it's a good project. The citizens of Dorchester County deserve a first class project, and it is first class. Now, again, if you can minimally approve location and size we have time to do the other things. We have time to do that.

Discussion followed about materials and the timeline.

Mr. Simmons: I spoke to Ms. Koontz, who is with the Maryland Monuments Commission. We've done a lot of research before we ever got here. When you affix bronze to stone, you have bleeding, you have deterioration, and you have maintenance problems. The strongest thing she told me, please do not plan to put bronze affixed to stone because you will have ongoing maintenance problems. Marble is softer and it will deteriorate. The World War II monument shows some deterioration right now. We don't want to have that deterioration. Whatever we have has to be polished in such a way that you can read the inscriptions. Because I think that you would agree, without the inscriptions and without an explanation of what these folks did, this is half a monument. This is like a dog with two legs. So in answer to your question, monument folks deal in the materials that they know. They know ivory, they know granite, they know marble. And this gentleman says this is what you want, that you will have low maintenance; you would have high visibility; you would have clear and legible reading. You will never match the fountain, because the fountain was dredged out of Choptank River stones. You can't do anything with that.

Mr. Roche indicated that there are alternate materials available and referenced the Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington DC as a good example of a monument that used a concrete like material and is beautiful, interesting and enhances the site. He used an analogy of getting shoe advice from a shoe salesman to demonstrate that it might not be the best idea to get design advice from the person selling the monument material and that alternative materials might allow for something other than the November 1 timeline of the granite supplier and that another designer might propose a monument that would do just as good a job of acknowledging, respecting, and memorializing the veterans while still guaranteeing the longevity of the monument.

Mr. Simmons: I can tell you sir that this is traditional. This is what monument companies build. We don't have the ability, obviously, to hire Frank Lloyd Wright to design a monument. We're limited in money, and at least we have the money to build the project that we have. But we don't have the money to do, so far... legitimately, when they said they wanted benches we said fine, what kind of benches? Then they were talking about the benches at the Rotary Club. But quite frankly, if we want to put a bench down there, we want it to be pretty. We want it to be in keeping with what we have. So we said fine, we'll bite the bullet and we'll raise enough money to buy these granite benches that will complement the monument. That's an additional, approximately, $7,000 dollars. We've already spent nearly $1,000 dollars to get the engineer to place this in accordance to the spot we thought we had approval on. We're not interested in a project... and I hate to say this about the city, we want to see something positive that moves forward rather than saying do you want to defer this decision today? Would you like to come back for another decision at another time? We are not permanent, as you are not permanent landscape monument architects. We have another life. We think the project is worthy. I can only tell you that the citizens of this county, none of them have told me that they don't like it, except the Long Wharf Committee. Now truthfully, maybe they don't want to come up and tell me that, but I'll tell you this, they have told me that they approve, not only with the words that they give, like the Rotary Club, but they have approved by taking out their checkbooks and writing a check. Now what more approval do you need from Dorchester County than for people to say I like what you're doing, I want to help? And I think that's important for you to understand.

Discussion followed about the nature of the design at Judiciary Square in Washington.

Mr Roche asked if it would be preferable to the applicant if he had the ability to invest in a design that satisfied more of the requirements to minimize the impact to the site, gave him more flexibility in his timeline, and allowed him to put more money in the design of the monument instead of the material. Mr Roche stated that it looked to him like most of the money was going towards the acquisition of the material instead of the design of the monument.

Mr Simmons: I agree with you that inappropriate change is a subjective outcome. And here, not having a plan for Long Wharf Park, we need to protect it from inappropriate change. That being subjective, it's arguable that we have a design that minimizes the potential impact to the site now and in the future.

Mr Simmons: The concern that I have is this, we were before you and we basically presented the same plan a month ago. And the only difference was that we were twenty feet out, and unanimously this board approved that plan. That's what they did two weeks ago. All I can say to you is this; we think it certainly is appropriate. We agree that it is an appropriate, enhancement of the First World War monument. It's an enhancement to that. Nobody's slapped this together to present this. This book is full of stuff on this thing. We don't have time (indecipherable). And I will tell you one other thing, someone made a comment we don't have any guidelines to build monuments in Cambridge. And I thought to myself how boring it would be if all the monuments had to be exactly alike. It's just like, take yourself to Washington, DC. Some of them are polished granite, some are cuts in the stone, some of them people didn't like. They didn't like Mya Angelo's design. Other people thought it was the most brilliant thing they'd ever seen. The World War II monument is rounded with columns of marble. How sterile would this county be if everything you put in here fit in a cookie cutter. All I can say to you is this, Long Wharf is not hallowed ground. It is important, yes. It is not hallowed ground. We strongly believe, and most of the people we have been in contact with strongly believe, that a monument such as this belongs. Now, we don't have time, we don't have finances to design glorious and grand things. But I think it is your job, and I'm not telling you what to do, I know what you're supposed to do. I know what they're supposed to do. You have to evaluate projects as they are brought to you and say does this meet our criteria? And if it does, you handle them individually. You don't massively approve a comprehensive plan... let me give you an example. They are waiting for a comprehensive plan, and so basically, once that plan is in place, that's what you go by. My background in military and in law says your plan is only as good as the day you sign it because the next day you're going to be doing something that seems to make more sense, or someone will come with a better idea. And so while you thought this was great to put kayaks in the water at the dock, they forget the fact that kayaks could be put in the water at the duck blind and someone filled it in. I'm just telling you, plans are only as good as they are good the day they are written, and they change. I think it's a good project. I hope that you will favorable consider minimally, and let the City Council make the decision, because I believe we are within the criteria of your guidelines.

Farrell McCoy said that the applicant should take a look at the Law Enforcement Memorial and that he may like the design; as it's in a park, recognizes heroes, is readable, and round in shape.

Mr. Simmons: We're really like this. I've been to many, many monument places around the world. I've seen monuments of all kinds. To say that the Law Enforcement Monument is going to make me (change my mind), I don't know because I see pictures of all these monuments. But I'm telling you that this is the best that we can do. The small group that we have with limited finances, we are asking you to at least pass this forward to your city council because we believe we've met your criteria. So I'm just asking you to minimally approve what we have. You have my, on the record, agreement that we will go back and attempt to landscape and design this within the realm of financial feasibility. We do not have an unlimited purse. Nobody has an unlimited purse. We can do this monument. We can do this, and we can do a first class job of it. But we can't, I would say the word dither, but we don't want to dither. We are not ditherers.

Discussion followed about landscaping and the cost of landscaping.

Mr. Simmons: That was the other beautiful part; we're not asking the city for one thing. We are asking the city for eight feet wide and two feet deep. We're asking the city for sixteen square feet of property. That's what we are asking for. Sixteen square feet.

Discussion followed about material again and the location of the monument.

Brian Roche said that it was difficult for the HPC to guarantee the monument wouldn't negatively impact the site and to evaluate the impact without a plan and that a significant difference with this proposal is that once placed, no one's going to move it or change it. He expressed concern that future proposals for monuments will adversely affect the park without looking at that site comprehensively. He suggested that a professional plan would accommodate the need for and expedite plans for future proposed memorials.

Mr. Simmons: What is the acreage of Long Wharf? It goes all the way from past the yacht club all the way down to the Wharf. You want us to develop a plan... They (the City) can't develop a plan, but you want us to do it so we can generate and build a monument, but that's unreasonable. You've got to understand that plans mean plans. Plans mean this is what you work from. This, I'm not going to repeat my testimony. I ask that you consider favorably, minimally, the location, which they don't have any problems with now, and the stone.

Mr. Roche: I think they said they approved the monument, but not the location, if I'm correct.

Mr. Simmons: I have to tell you this finally, and it's my last word, there's never a time when you can't do another plan, get another consultant, get another opinion, take another photograph, do another soil sample, check another level of winds. At some point in time you stop and say I've got a reasonably good plan here. It seems to work. We've got to fish or cut bait. You can either fish or continue fishing, or you can cut bait and watch, put a really pretty monument down Long Wharf, in our humble opinion.

Bob Evans, 100 Choptank Avenue: I came this evening having no opinion at all about this, never having any intention of speaking at all. I was just curious because I do live in the neighbor. I can see Long Wharf from out my window. I love the lighthouse that was put down there; it is a tremendous thing that I look at every evening. So I was just really interested in the monument, I think that I read about in the newspaper and didn't intend to speak at all.

Ms. McCoy: Does this mean you haven't been sworn in?

Bob Evans: I have sworn myself in. Discussion. He took the oath. I am now, so help me god.

Bob Evans: I think what I would like to say is that in giving all sides of the issue, in view of what's been proposed, I think these folks have proposed a tremendous project for Long Wharf. It is modest and in keeping with the monument that's there already. I was born and raised in Dorchester County. Grew up in the house I live in now. Moved away from Dorchester County when I went to college. Did not live here for forty years. And returned here about seven and half years ago. My family has lived in this house for more than 60 years. I am a neighbor of Long Wharf. So obviously I would not want anything down there that would not be appropriate. I sit down there every morning. I read my newspaper and drink my coffee. I enjoy the overall facility of Long Wharf. They have come up with a tremendous project in my judgment. It's modest. It honors the folks of WWI. It goes along with the monument that it is already there which is a WWI monument. As a humble citizen of Dorchester County, my overall feeling is that it just should not be this difficult for a community group who is spending their own money to do a good project and get something done. It just shouldn't be this difficult. And I have noticed this since I have been back in Cambridge. Everything just seems to be too difficult. And consequently a lot of things don't get done and people after a while just throw up their hands and just say it ain't worth it; it's just too difficult. These folks have come up with a good project and who are going to pay for it. And it's not going to detract from Long Wharf; it's going to add to the overall ambience to Long Wharf. As a neighbor down there I would just strongly support what they are trying to do urge to at least to forward this to the City Council for their decision as to whether they would approve or not approve it. I think that the City Council is the legitimate organization to make the ultimate decision on these kinds of things with your input, obviously. Please, don't make things so difficult for a good project. They come up with a good project.

Mr. Roche asked if there were any other public comments for or against the application.

Bob Wroten: 3 Belvedere Avenue: Cambridge: I ride by Long Wharf every day going home to Belvedere Ave. Some times when I ride by and go around the circle, some days it's pretty; other days you have trucks and all kinds of things going on. We have the Farmers Market which is great, and then we have people hauling up oysters. There is activity there. I firmly believe, like Bob Evans, that this is a super project; it's going to be done right. I just hope you can find it in your heart to go along with this. There is nothing ugly about it, there is nothing out of proportion about it, it flows and you can pay someone $100,000 and do a little, whatever, ....they probably can come up with the same concept (inaudible) the original to start with. That's it.

Mr. Roche said that the recommendation of the Long Wharf Advisory Committee was to consult someone that was professionally trained to site a monument, not just build a monument, not just recommend materials for a monument, but actually look at that site from a historical standpoint, from a site plan standpoint, from a longevity standpoint, and how it fits into the bigger picture. He mentioned that every monument in Washington DC was looked at as part of that larger perspective.

Mr. McCoy: It may make (inaudible) design review.

Mr. Roche reaffirmed to the applicant that everyone seemed to understand the need to place a monument that would memorialize the veterans in the time frame necessary, but that he wished the applicant would at least get one more opinion from someone other than the monument supplier who is trained in siting a monument and looking at the project more holistically.

Mr. Simmons: Well I can tell you this. I have been a lawyer for forty years. I have hired more experts than anybody in this room. If you want me to hire an expert and spend three thousand dollars I will give you a report that says the landscape designer that I had, will agree with me. And you know that I can do that and we don't have the money to do that. I am merely telling you that the people that looked at this, the (inaudible) we looked at this from aerial views, we looked at the Google view...where does it belong....we thought it actually belonged turned around, equidistance. But they said (inaudible) bring it in, so we bring it back (inaudible)...clearly if you're going to look at this monument you can only put it four ways. You can put it facing four different directions or angles thereof. It seems to me in a line with High Street. And I am not an expert but I'm a common sense person, it doesn't belong in the northwest corner where somebody rides by and looks at and it makes this design out of balance. This is a balanced design. We have done all that we could do to satisfy you. We thought we satisfied you a month ago and apparently we did, so I (inaudible) believe we less satisfied you tonight, although I am not exactly sure why. We ask that you at a minimum consider what we have.

Ms. McCoy: I have a question for Anne Roane. You have design training in landscape. Did your office review this plan?

Anne Roane: I do have training with a degree in Landscape Architecture.

Ms. McCoy: This is the kind of training that I am talking about, people that are trained in design.

Anne Roane: This is a city project. And cities...these projects are exempt from that kind of review.

Ms. McCoy: By your office?

Anne Roane: Yes

Ms. McCoy: How ironic?

Anne Roane: I can show you in the code.

Unknown Speaker: Is it appropriate for the City Council to request an opinion from a city employee on a professional level?

Ms. McCoy: I don't know.

Anne Roane: I don't have an answer for that.

Unknown Speaker: Well, everyone else has an opinion; can't you give your opinion, ma'am, on what you have seen so far?

Anne Roane: I don't really think as a city employee that I have an opinion.

Unknown Speaker: As a city tax payer, I feel you that you should obligate yourself to voice your opinion if have that professional background.

Anne Roane: I didn't write that.

Katie Clendaniel: We don't need to put her on the spot. That's not fair to her. Your questions were satisfied. Was there any more public comment?

David Tomey, 100 High St. As a citizen and not on the committee here, I appreciate the concerns of the three of you. I don't want to say it's ironic, but it makes the four of us feel a little better; so out of 28,000 people, it's now seven people that have apprehensions about what we are doing at Long Wharf. I really do, I appreciate your comment about the historical significance of the inner circle and that's exactly what you said was my concern later. And yet I think there is sanctity of that inner circle. I don't really care what you do anywhere else in the park, except for that inner circle. Don't ask me why that's so sacred. I thought it was because of me growing up and me babysitting the fountain and the fact that I was a part of the County rejuvenating the fountain (inaudible) ....30 years, since quite a few years since it ran....It is something that is very sacred to me as a citizen to anything else. As far as materials go, I too have concerns, we saw the sample of the granite it doesn't match...there might be a couple of dark stones on the fountain but the many, many days spent out there last summer working on the fountain, I don't see any stones out there that as quite as dark as that. I am also very much concerned about the fact that it is granite and when I see granite, to me, emotionally it brings on death, it brings on a cemetery approach. I also have thought about how nice it would be if we could have field stone, which the history of the fountain is they were local stones. Jeff can give you the when history when the fountain was created, they brought the stones from all over Dorchester County, it's a local thing. To me, it would be wonderful to have the stone some way incorporated into the design so that would bring continuity to where the fountain is. I also thought, what more durable materials we have out there than 402 stainless steel that would never rust and be there a thousand years. We have got people right here locally that could laser cut every word that he has on there right into a piece of ½" thick stainless steel and maybe have stainless steel on one side of the stone wall, and on the back side have the exposed stone or have another piece of stainless steel with the back side of it on it. But here again as a citizen on the committee we're not tasked with having to design the memorial. Hence, it goes back to what we said on Sept. 5th, the direction was go hire a professional. And you guys are basically saying the same thing. So, fifty five days later we're going to be standing here come November 1st and we are still going to be the same place, go hire a professional, but we are not getting the professional that everybody wants. So my suggestion with the two City Commissioners sitting here somewhere along the line, they don't want to pay a professional, we don't want to pay for a professional, you guys aren't going to get together and chip into your pockets. Maybe the City can come up with the grant money somewhere to at least if we can't ask the person that has been hired on the tax roll as a professional land planner. If we can't ask her, if you guys can't go in the back room in executive session to answer the questions maybe we can get money so they can hire somebody to just give a general opinion of the plan as it stands now, whether it is a thousand dollars or whatever, just get something to say this is approved.

Brian Roche: We will take one more public comment in the interest of closing it at some point.

Ms. McCoy: I wanted to say that he made a very good point, that it's been in the back of my head that I haven't been able to express it. But that fountain is very rustic. It is kind of like a folk thing. This is a completely different feel. This is discordant with the fountain.

Unknown Speaker: My comment...who is to say whether you all are going to agree with a person who has umpteen degrees in the design of monuments, the whole nine yards. Who is here to say that you are going to agree with what they say. If they come in with a plan, there is no guarantee you are going to approve it just because somebody has six or seven degrees; do you understand where I am coming from. There is no guarantee that whoever is hired for five, ten thousand dollars, to submit a plan that you all are going to agree with.

Mr. Roche: I stated, Mr. Simmons, that inappropriate change is what we are trying to guard against. That being subjective, it would be nice to see that we consider at least a couple of other alternatives and materials and actually see them presented so that we could make, what would be, in my opinion, a better decision for the site and the future of the site.

Mr. Simmons: You were here and asked the very same questions one and half (inaudible) and that (inaudible) question. You had no problems with this entire project and have you just (inaudible) or what. I don't understand. We really are trying to work with the city. We are going to multitude (inaudible) sixth public meeting now. We would just ask that you minimally approve. As I have said to you we will get a site designer to plan; I mean it sounds like Mr. Tomey doesn't want anything in there at one point, and at the same time he wants to put stainless steel which I never found in your regulations yet. I haven't seen stainless steel; it might be down by the (inaudible). He wants to leave as plain (inaudible), talking about planting trees. Nobody knows what they want. All we know is what we want. And it's not just us; it's the citizens who have spoken to me, other than again the folks in this room who have (inaudible). I didn't know this gentleman from Adam who was here before. He comes and said this is a great project. He is a citizen. He is not after (inaudible) and all these designs. If perhaps, this committee had said these to us, a month and a half ago, well these are the concerns we have but you did not have any problems. You did not have any problems.

Mr. Roche confirmed that the original COA that was issued was to defer to the Long Wharf Advisory Committee on their design recommendations and that they were appointed by the City Council to make recommendations. Mr Roche stated that the Long Wharf Advisory Committee wanted to see this project part of a bigger plan and specifically recommended that the applicant come up with some other alternatives. He further stated that the applicant had failed to come up with any other alternatives.

Mr. Simmons: Do you understand that the COA giving them the authority is inappropriate in and of itself because they don't have the authority. The City Council, they can make recommendations; that is all I am going to say. I am worn out. We have done the best that we can do for you. If you don't want it, I can't help you.

Mr Roche asked if there were any further comments before closing the public hearing.

Mr. Tony Thomas: I have been here 16 years and had a slip there here 15 years. I am at the marina constantly. So is (inaudible)...I also served in the Navy, at the Bay of Pigs. The whole thing is, I really like this project, but when I go down there I want to be happy. I don't want all of these memories of this or that. The courthouse could be another place. It seems like Ray is dead set on that circle. The circle is warming to me, it is happy to me. The stone there is (inaudible). I don't think it should be interfered with period. And that's just my personal opinion. And you have a lot of boat slips down there. That's originally why I got on the Committee. And for almost a year and half between this and that, and the bathroom, we have yet to discuss how this place is going to start making money and January is coming fast. I mean there is a lot of time spent on this and there is a lot of different ways, but Ray is not going to settle unless it's going exactly where he wants it. I think the monument should be... it could be at the courthouse. It could be at Spring Valley. It could be anywhere. This is a marina. This is where people fish. Since being in business here for 15 year, I fought for parking signs just to point public parking. Do you know when the signs were put up? Six months ago. There are now public parking signs on Race Street. To come into here and try to force this way and to bully it in there is wrong.

Mr. Simmons: I need to respond to this (inaudible). You can't say you can put this monument anywhere. How in the world do you think we can get a permit to put something at the courthouse? Knowing all the national historic...you are not going to live there long enough to put a monument there.

Farrell McCoy: I think your idea of putting it there is wonderful. As I said it I think it amplifies the message. But it probably needs to go (inaudible) so it enhances and doesn't fight with the fountain.

Mr. Roche asked if there was any opportunity to delay a week or so the full Commission could be present. Discussion followed.

Mr. Roche called for a motion to close the public hearing. Farrell McCoy so moved, second by Katie Clendaniel. Motion carried.

The Commission entered into deliberations at this point.

Mr. Roche stated that the Long Wharf Committee made a recommendation to City Council to approve the monument but not the location. He stated that the HPC could also approve the monument but not the location or defer the decision and have the applicant come back with an alternative to prove that other materials aren't appropriate and the timeline can or can't be met.

Ms. Clendaniel stated that the HPC could delay the vote on the application so the applicant would have time to review the recommendations or the HPC could vote on the application as presented.

Ms. McCoy noted that the Council meets Monday and asked if the City Council could consider the application at a future meeting?

Mr. Wheeler noted that the HPC decision and Long Wharf Committee's recommendation are separate decisions and he assumed that both recommendations would be presented to Council on the 28th. He mentioned that the City Council decision is also a separate decision.

Mr. Roche asked Mr. Simmons if there was any flexibility in the timeline or postponing for further review. He asked if there was any possibility of considering alternative materials or having some additional comprehensive, design consultation or whether the applicant would prefer for the HPC to simply vote up or down with no compromise.

Mr. Simmons responded by saying that the dialogue and discussion shows that they have attempted to compromise. We cannot proceed forward without having a favorable decision from you. We cannot commission the stone any later than the (inaudible) of November or the entire project, the whole deal...military....will not happen. He discussed the shift in the location within the circle, which was amended and approved by them. You can understand the frustration we have. He asked for approval of the monument design as you got it (dimensions cited) and to approve a location site within the circle. If you can't do that, we are dead in the water. We have nowhere to go....We believe we have made a case to your board that this project is consistent in a continuity of the WWI monument... I am not trying to bully or badger anybody. We don't have the time and finances to do all things you want us to do. We think we are offering what the City and the County needs and that is recognition of its heroes. We can continue to quibble over small things....you are involving yourself in the design business...we are out of time.

Mr. Roche asked members in making a motion to review the guidelines with respect to several items related to: materials, composition, the way the monument sits on the site; whether it jeopardizes the integrity of the site, the massing, the scale, or whether it minimizes cultural, archaeological or architectural significance. Discussion followed. Ms. Clendaniel stated that the HPC needed to move forward with what the applicant had submitted.

Ms. McCoy stated that it was unfortunate that he did not want to compromise and suggested that if he had consulted with a landscape architect he could probably have done something more quickly. Discussion followed about providing assistance and the request by the applicant. Ms. McCoy suggested laying out the motion with respect to several factors including: placement, materials, feasibility of the idea or whole concept of having it there, suitability of design and materials, suitability of the circle.

Mr. Roche asked the commission if they felt the materials were appropriate to the site and in keeping with what exists on the site, and whether it was within the historical (bounds) of the site, the fountain, the sidewalk, and the plaque.

Ms. McCoy stated that the existing material on the fountain is kind of a rustic, a natural stone and the proposed design material was at odds with what existed.

Mr. Roche asked if she was suggesting that the materials proposed are incompatible with other materials on the site.

Ms. McCoy replied that it needed to be something that would amplify the message of the fountain and that the materials did not amplify that message.

Ms. Clendaniel interrupted her and said the motion had to be on what was submitted; and prescribed how she believed a motion should be crafted. Discussion followed and then returned to the topic of materials. Discussion followed with a desire to go back to a list of things that needed to be in the motion.

Katie Clendaniel made a motion to close the discussion, but it failed for lack of a second as Ms. McCoy stated that she wanted to discuss further.

Ms. McCoy asked for the items from the guidelines that needed to be considered along with materials, height, and mass. Mr. Roche replied: scale and also asked if the project would enhance the historical significance of the commercial area, was compatible with the architectural detailing of the building or the sites.

Katie Clendaniel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Hearing no second, Mr. Roche stated that the motion failed for lack of second.

Katie Clendaniel then moved that the application be denied as submitted. Ms. McCoy seconded the motion. Mr. Roche called for a vote. Ms. McCoy-aye; Mr. Roche-aye: Ms. Clendaniel-aye. No one was opposed.

Ms. Clendaniel recited sections of the guidelines as the rational for the dismissal and that it would have been the commission's preference to work on a compromise with the applicant. She mentioned streetscape, building height, massing and scale. She stated that the location of the monument within the circle seemed inappropriate; the material of the monument also seemed inappropriate because it didn't match the other materials of specific importance on the site.

Ms. McCoy said that the monument was appropriate to this particular place but that she wanted to see some professional design about the placement of the monument.

Ms. Clendaniel: we certainly had further feedback I think the applicant heard during the hearing, and (inaudible) work with the applicant in terms of what we could assist in; in taking those recommendations back....(inaudible).....something that was amendable to the applicant.

Ms. McCoy clarified that the applicant didn't want to meet again which meant that the HPC couldn't discuss for another year. Mr. Roche clarified that the applicant can apply if the application is substantially different from the existing one.

Mr Roche stated that the reason for his vote was that he felt strongly that the HPC needed to see a few more alternatives and that there was conceivably a material that could meet the desire to memorialize the veterans while at the same time guaranteeing the longevity of the monument. He expressed concern about the way the proposed monument would affect the entire park since it was such a permanent structure. He reiterated that the applicant could come back with a different design that could be reviewed and still meet the timeline for the celebration.

Katie Clendaniel stated that she didn't think anyone on the Commission felt that the design decision was a show of non-support for the project.

Mr. Brandewie asked to clarify the vote taken. Commission members confirmed that it was a unanimous decision. Mr. Roche stated that even though the commission was required to state specific reasons only if the vote was not unanimous, he thought it helped to state the reasons for the vote for the record. Ms. McCoy commented that it was great project but needed further thought.

Ms. Clendaniel made a motion to adjourn. Second by Farrell McCoy. Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Brandewie, City Planner II


Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _______________________
Chairmen

These minutes were approved at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting conducted on December 19th, 2013.