Neighbors decry planned demolition of Chestnut Street home
Camden — On Aug. 21 residents of lower Chestnut Street received a courtesy letter from Robert Hammer and Susan Crowe. Hammer and Crowe sent the letter to inform their new neighbors of plans to demolish the 1892 house they recently purchased at 58 Chestnut St.
Enclosed with the letter was a rendering of a shingle-style cottage that Crowe and Hammer intend to build on the site. The letter states work on the site will "begin soon and progress through the remainder of fall and winter [2012]" with plans for "substantial completion sometime in late spring 2013."
Former owners of 58 Chestnut St. Denyse Robinson and Michael Lowe were "shocked" to hear of the plan for the home, which used to be a residence and operate as the town's livery stable, according to Robinson.
Documents filed with the town of Camden show an application for a demolition permit was received and approved by Code Enforcement Officer Steve Wilson on Aug. 27.
The permit allows for the "removal of all existing structures from the location," according to the original application. Hammer said they plan to remove all structures and the existing foundation, a decision he and Crowe reached after consulting with building company Maine Coast Construction and architect John Silverio. Hammer said they drew the collective conclusion that building new — rather than attempting to salvage the existing building — would be in their "best interest."
Hammer said they're in the process of donating some of the architectural elements of the home and invited Midcoast Habitat for Humanity to take what they could use, a course of action that echoed statements made in the Aug. 21 letter sent to neighbors.
"We're hoping to help reuse the property in a very green fashion," Hammer said.
The Camden Herald received more than a half-dozen letters about the project as of Sept. 10. Most expressed — in addition to dismay regarding the fate of 58 Chestnut St. — a resounding sentiment about the lack of historic preservation in one of Camden's most original districts.
Wilson explained that Camden's preservation ordinance is applicable only to town-owned properties. He said in 2011 the Historic Resources Commission as well as the Planning Board attempted to propose a preservation ordinance for the Great Fire District, but the amendment to the ordinance did not even make it past the select board.
"There was a public outcry," he said of opponents to the 2011 proposal to change the zoning ordinance.
According to Wilson, Camden has three districts that have been labeled as worthy of inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places — the Chestnut Street District, the High Street District and the Great Fire District. Although they are deemed historic they are not explicitly protected by the town zoning ordinance, he said.
Wilson said neighbors have 60 days to appeal the demolition permit (or any permit) if they have a vested interest as abutting property owners and feel the permit was erroneously issued.
"They have to prove that the permit is in violation of the ordinance," Wilson said.
Monday, Sept. 10, Wilson confirmed that Hammer and Crowe have not applied for a building permit, but since they are having their new home designed by a local architect he anticipates the submissions will be reasonable and within zoning allowances. Wilson said he has heard concerns from some neighbors about the planned demolition of the home.
"My decision has to be based on the ordinance," he said.
Geoff Pittman and Lisa Millimet live at 57 Chestnut St. — directly across the street from 58 Chestnut St. Pittman's great-great-grandfather Fred Frye built 58 Chestnut St. and operated the livery stable there, he said. Pittman said demolition of 58 Chestnut St. is a proverbial canary in the coal mine for historic Chestnut Street.
"If we can't save this one what are our chances of getting some kind of control process?" Pittman said. "It's too bad that this house has to come as a catalyst."
He said he believes three new homes on lower Chestnut Street — constructed after 2005 on the site of the former YMCA — serve as an end point for the historic Chestnut St. homes and a segue into more contemporary structures.
"Now everything starts at Frye Street," Pittman noted, referring to the appearance of historic architecture. He said he knows visitors routinely "cruise" Chestnut Street to enjoy a vantage point of historic Camden, and he contends that some Chestnut Street homeowners have spent a great deal of money renovating to upgrade while preserving the historic integrity of their homes. Still, Pittman acknowledged Hammer and Crowe's rights as private homeowners.
"Legally they are completely within their rights to do what they want to do," he said.
Courier Publications reporter Jenna Lookner can be reached at 236-8511 or by email at jlookner@courierpublicationsllc.com.
If people want a new house, why don't they find an empty lot?
the owners have the right to do what they wish with "their" property as long as it is within the code. Get tired of some folks in Camden who want no change unless it meets w their personal approval
That really doesn't surprise me. A little history will tell you that 4 other buildings (3 homes from that era and the YMCA building from the early 1900's) were also torn down in the last 35 years. There was a house on the corner, directly across from (Mrs. Babcock's house, 48 Chestnut St.) that we rented from the YMCA from 1973 until 1979 We were asked to vacate 3 weeks before Christmas because the house would be torn down. When we approached a member of the Board of the YMCA, to allow us to stay until Spring, since we just had a new baby, we were met with an emphatic "no". The house was not torn down until that spring of 1980. There was a duplex directly across from the YMCA building (where Francine's Bistro is today) with two families living in it, that was torn down. There was also a duplex in the back of the parking lot behind Francine's where a local woman, Mrs. Thomas, born , raised and lived in Camden all her life was was given 30 days notice to vacate. That building was torn down also. With her small Social Security income she found a place that, the late,Charlie Lowe owned and with his generosity lived another 30 years. The YMCA building was supposed to remain in tact , in fitting with the neighborhood, as promised by MBNA. When MBNA left town, that too was torn down. Three townhouses stand there now. Anyone living in the neighborhood at that time, and I know a few people still do, can verify these changes. It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot see the importance of preservation even in a historic district. Is it time for us to re-evaluate our values and priorities?
That is very upsetting. It may be legal, but would be wrong to destroy part of this town's history. I hope the new owners change their minds. Their new house would be lovely in a different location.
When my son was very young he memorized the dates of all the oldest houses in Camden, and we would go for walks admiring them and wondering about all the history these houses had weathered... Hope 58 Chestnut can weather this one.