LETTER:
Hotel Owner Gammino: My Investment Was Based on Personal Passion for Cape Charles
December 5, 2012
DEAR EDITOR:
I would like to offer a more detailed explanation to your readers as it regards the Hotel Cape Charles recent request to appeal the decision of the Town of Cape Charles Historic Review Board (HRB).
We will seek the approval of Town Council of the modified design submission, denied on November 20, 2012, by the HRB. I respect the varied opinions offered in response to this process, and hope that additional information will clarify our reasoning and address some of the concerns we are aware of.
It is regretful, and I accept sole responsibility for the fact that the Hotel has become the focus of the community in this unfortunate manner.
While I do not agree with the conclusion of the HRB that the current design is not appropriate within the District, I respect their authority in reaching this decision. I also appreciate their efforts in considering the modified design submission.
However, given our very strong belief that the Hotel represents a beautiful example of modern architecture complementary of its surroundings, we are proceeding to the next level of review and hope for a different interpretation.
There are a number of comments which criticize the decision to seek Town Council approval, and reference the application process and a lack of related approval. I understand and accept this valid criticism.
We did not complete the project as originally submitted. The reason for this relates to a very compressed construction schedule with challenging travel-related logistics.
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE
Thus, our original design was still in the design development stage when we made a decision to submit an elevation for approval. I made a judgment at that point which prioritized the receipt of approval such that we could expeditiously commence construction under a valid permit.
In retrospect, we obviously erred in submitting before we had fully detailed the facade. Once we arrived upon a final design, we were substantially into construction with a hard-completion date.
I did not believe that it was possible to go through another review period and also timely complete the project.
Upon completion, we recognized the need to modify the original submission and seek approval for the final design from the HRB. This is the process we have just completed, and now seek to appeal.
As some have noted, it is true that I have completed numerous historic projects. I am very familiar with restrictions associated with historic districts. Typically, my projects are historic tax credit-based and dictated by historic standards, not historic guidelines.
Historic standards dictate rehabilitation design, materials and process. Historic guidelines are suggestive and open to interpretation.
Ostensibly, it is the subjective analysis of appropriateness within a district, which lends itself to a more creative, diverse and flexible approach to urban, historic in-fill.
By virtue of several previous renovations, 235 Mason Avenue had no historic elements other than the brick pilasters we preserved and highlighted.
We sought and utilized the most complementary high-quality materials (hardwoods, powder-coated aluminum, glass) to create a striking example of modern, in-fill rehabilitation which is utterly compatible and appropriate within the fabric of Mason Avenue’s varied architectural styles.
If anything, we believe it pulls together many of the disparate elements which currently exist on Mason Avenue.
We are pursuing the appeal process because we seek a different opinion of our hotel’s appropriateness within the District. We believe that the discussion should revolve around this one basic issue.
It is not our desire or intent for residents to interpret our appeal of the design decision as seeking condonation of our poor decisions.
My family has called Cape Charles its second home since 2002, and this hotel is the culmination of our aspirations.
The decision to invest to this level was based upon our personal passion for Cape Charles and clearly not economically driven, or even prudent.
However, our first season exceeded our expectations on so many different levels. I have always developed properties with the inclusion, cooperation, and hopefully to the benefit of the community. I recognize that I have fallen short in that regard with the design of the Hotel, and I regret that fact immensely.
DAVID GAMMINO
Letters to the Editor are welcome on any subject relevant to Cape Charles, and a diversity of opinions is encouraged. Letters should be original and never submitted elsewhere. Email submissions to [email protected].
Mr. Gammino, I think you have done a wonderful job with the Hotel. I have signed the petition to the Town Council and it is my sincerest hope that the issue is resolved. Best wishes to you and thank you for creating an absolutely wonderful Hotel in the heart of Cape Charles.
For what it’s worth, David, 165 folks and counting who have signed your petition to-date are behind you.
I ony hope that the HRB and the Town lets common sense guide them in their decisioning.
Also, a couple of noteworthy quotes from an interesting Getty Conservation Institute article on the subject of how modern architecture fits within historic districts, “Contemporary Architecture in Historic Urban Environments”:
“It is the quality of the relationship between old and new that is critical, not the architectural language per se.”
And…
“Successful designers recognize that working within the historic context is not a constraint but an opportunity -— where the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts, and where a contemporary building can add a rich new layer and play a role in creating the heritage of the future.”
From: http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/26_2/contemporary.html
After reading Mr. Gammino’s heart felt Mea Culpa, and another of Greg Zuidema’s brilliant and insightful commentaries, and thinking of the 165 people who signed the petition (I think I saw them in the Palace Theater during J.D. McCormack’s dog and pony show) which exposed an uncanny human ability to just not get it, well, I choked up and shed tears of pain, love and joy right into my 4th Martini.
Sure, they did a great job and the building is beautiful. But what if it wasn’t? Remember, they built the entire thing behind a wall of plywood, so you couldn’t see what was going on. Now suppose, when they pulled the wood back, instead of the gorgeous tempered glass, you instead found some old nasty 1970’s red and yellow McDonald’s motif? And then the developer says, “Ohhhhhhhhhhh, I’m sorry. I messed up, but for business sakes, please, please, please baby–baby, baby please, let it be!”
What would you say then? You’d tell him to go pack sand. The end does not always justify the means.
I don’t entirely blame the developer. Why did the Town let Mr. Gammino go all the way through to completion, and then come back after the fact, and tell him to rip it out? With administrative costs of $600k+, you’d think someone from the Town could have taken a quick peak behind the plywood and said, “Uh, you know, that’s not what’s in the plans, sir. We should probably stop right now and see what we can do about this.” Where was Planning? Code Enforcement? The Town Manager? Assistant Town Manager? Give me a break. In a town like Cape Charles, that claims to be historic, and is kind of historic, but not that historic, you have to be engaged, or you wind up with just this kind of situation.
At this point, the idea of damaging the Hotel churns my stomach. We probably have to let it be; if the Town wanted the iron railings instead of glass, they should have been much more proactive. Still, I get the sick feeling that we are just a bunch of suckers, falling for the oldest ruse in the books. It seems to be a trend, going back to the Echelon deal, where instead of hiding what they were doing behind plywood, the developer and Town staff instead hid behind executive session, and then poof, “Hey y’all, guess what? Let’s have a party at the Old School, and you, the citizens are paying!” And they’re thinking the train’s gone so far down the tracks, you can’t turn it around and there’s only one way to go—forward!
So what does the Town of Cape Charles do from here? By letting the developer do what he did, we are indeed setting a precedent. How do we deal with next developer, or a rogue home owner in the Historic District? They can do whatever they want, and just point back at the Hotel Cape Charles in defense. Maybe we should go to Aqua for lunch and celebrate. Good times. Good times indeed.
You hit the nail on the head Wayne!
Gammino could do a mitzvah and donate $40,000 to the library, with the Town’s approval. This could be a good deterrent to future deviant construction, setting the bar reasonably high. There will be a tax write-off for Gammino and no $60,000 plus labor down the drain in addition to the new expenses.
There are more “historic” buildings falling apart as one enters the Town than completed ones.
This is ridiculous. Yes, Wayne we should go to Aqua but they are closing because of the absolutely anti-business attitude of the town. IF, as you create out of whole cloth, the wood was removed and a 1970s McDonald’s type of building was revealed it would match — as per the HRB’s GUIDELINES — the old kayaking building up the street; that loud blue one. Or how about it was a square brick building — just like the one across the street? In regards to precedent, and the straw man you create it would run like this:
“Well, Mr. Developer, there is NO PRECEDENT since the unelected HRB did their thing and WE THE TOWN HARRASSED THE HOTEL INTO BANKRUPTCY demanding the changes and not issuing a Occupancy/Continued business operation permit so the procedure was followed.”
Honestly, Mr. Gammino, close your doors — I am sure that there is a quaint town on the coast somewhere that would value your contribution.
Yiddish a kupf?, Dana Lascu. A shonda it would be, not a mitzvah. Frankly I am amazed that the suggestion of BRIBERY isn’t strongly excoriated here. How about Government simply SERVE the people, not FORCE its will on it? I gotta say, a lot of these suggestions make me wonder if Thomas Jefferson et al didn’t actually live in Maryland — are you all sure that this is the same Virginia that gave us the concept of limited government that serves at the will of the people?
Wow, I could hear the sarcasm just dripping from Mr. Creed’s comments, but at least he spelled my last name right (though I guess I will go by a different first name) . But that is OK, I am not insulted. I would have to value someone’s opinions before that could happen. I realize that personal attacks happen when someone has simpy run out of points or facts to debate in a reasonable manner.
Somebody will certainly pay for this one way or another, so I am contemplating solutions – and hoping the hotel would not change. If it does, that would be a shonda from many perspectives, not least as a huge loss to the developer. I do agree, $40,000 is not just Chanukah gelt, but it is not the six figures alternative. And it would go for a good cause ( library) that even Thomas Jefferson might approve.
Wayne — In response to your comment “…which exposed an uncanny human ability to just not get it…”, I think those 200+ (and counting) people do indeed get it.
The “it” being that these 200+ people are looking at the bigger picture here and not just precedents. What good is a precedent if it is discordant with what the majority of the people say is the right thing to do? I don’t know if 200+ is the majority or not, but I’ll assume it’s the majority until proven otherwise.
Also, while I am as concerned about the Town’s handling of the old school as you are, that is an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with how the HRB adjudicated on this property.
A lot of folks have come to the defense of the developer in this case because we understand that guidelines are just that. There is leeway built in to them on purpose for these specific reasons. I’ve read the guidelines. As Mr. Campbell previously noted, they are not law. They are guidelines. But, they should be considered as part of the whole, not exclusively, when applied to situations such as this.
No one here is saying that the developer did not err. He admitted as much. But, it’s now time for the town to determine a win-win solution so the developer can re-open this coming spring and we can collectively move on.
Signed,
A “Rogue Home Owner”
@Craig Zuidema, you are absolutely correct sir, dripping sarcasm is a nice way to put it, as I can no longer walk around this town with a straight face. However, in my stupidity, general ignorance, and normal state of confusion, I do believe I confused your posting with somebody who types in all caps. My apologies to you sir.
@Mr. Creed. Thank you for the clarification. I do not think I have ever typed in all caps, I certainly udnerstand the proper etiquette of these forums. I understand these issues can be contentious and I am disappointed that anyone would feel that they cannot walk around Cape Charles with their head held high. Best wishes to you.
Wayne — I know the OSCC stuff, among other Town issues, has you down. But, that stuff aside, CC is very much a vibrant town and you’re a big part of that. There’s so much good going on in town that we shouldn’t let what’s going on on Plum Street tie us in knots. I’m not blind to what’s going on there. I’m just choosing to compartmentalize that stuff and enjoy all the other good things going on in Town, my neighbors, and friends. I hope you can do the same. We may not agree on certain issues, but that’s perfectly okay with me. You’re a good man and a vital part of our town’s fabric.
Looking at the data in the petition, of the 235+ and growing, only about 70 were actually from Cape Charles. Of those names, I only recognized 15 or so from the Historic District. However, there is even somebody from Iceland that apparently signed it (even some from CA, MI and CT). Iceland? Really? To be fair I’m sure the guy from Iceland gets ‘it’, (but still brother, if you don’t live here full time, your kids don’t go to our schools, and you don’t even register your vehicles here, I’m not convinced you have a dog in this fight.).
However, it must be said, that this petition appears to have many of the same traits as the original application that was turned into the Historic Review Board. Just sayin’.
Wayne, I can give you almost 2,700 reasons why I DO have a dog in this fight. Here’s an equation: goes to your point regarding “kids in our schools”:
Hotel “A” operates, and sheds $20,000.00 a year in taxes.
Hotel “B” is refused an operating license and lays fallow, driving the owners into bankruptcy and they leave. You stood on principles, and now CC gets $0.00 in taxes from that business.
Which is more beneficial to the school system?
I believe the person in Iceland was a guest at the Hotel this summer. A guest who paid a good price for his/her/their room. They ate in town, most likely. They paid meal taxes. They likely shopped at one or more of the local shops. They spent a lot of money here. I don’t remember the stats, but the estimate that an average ampount of money a guest spends in our town is not insignificant.
My point being that without that guy from Iceland — and everyone else who comes to this town and spends money here — there is no fight to which to bring a dog. It’s that insular view of the world that is restricting our growth and contributing to the un-business friendly approach many have in this town. The if-you-ain’t-from-here-you-don’t-matter belief. I’m tired of it. Everyone has a say. Everyone.
This is the last post, I swear. If I try and post again, someone come over here and slap me!
But you’re right Brucie, the OSCC has taught me to be like a dog with a bone, and I just can’t let it go. I just wanted to bring up that the petition is kind of bogus, and to try and use it as leverage, as if there was some sort of majority buried in the data did not prove to be true. Besides, I even saw Karl Marx’s name (ok, maybe it’s the guy’s real name?). Trying to use this kind of thing to influence policy, especially policy that affects the authority of our boards (remember Bruce, you and I serve on a board too, so we have to watch our brothers’ backs), should be fought to the end. Besides, I don’t see how the opinion of some tourist from CA or Iceland should carry any weight in local policy.
Mike, 12,700 bad reasons will never replace one good for me, but let’s talk about what we do agree on: As much as it rubs me wrong, I believe the Hotel is a beautiful asset to our downtown, and should be left alone, given a certificate to operate, and just let them start getting ready for the next season. The horse is out of the barn, the train has left the station. Just sign the paper and move on.
But like I said, I’ve learned to be a dog with a bone and I just won’t let it go completely. We have to be very, very clear that this is not a precedent, and this thing will never happen like this again. That we have faith in our HRB, and we will support their decisions (so when Wayne Creed decides to paint that mural on the side of his house depicting scenes from the 1970s classic Debbie Does Dallas, the HRB will have the authority to shut him down).
One thing we’ve learned in the OSCC fight is that the Historic Tax Credit terrain is very treacherous, and it would behoove us to do as much as we can to empower, not emasculate our HRB. Ultimately our businesses, tax base, and property values will depend on it.
I’m done! No more! Make me stop!
After that whole sordid affair with Michael Vick that occurred not too far over the big bridge from Cape Charles, dog fighting aphorisms leave me a bit cold. In the future could we classify ourselves as whether or not we have “skin in the game?”