Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
Editorial
The jail addition
Next Wednesday, Washington’s Town Council will consider the county’s appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s decision to deny approval of its addition to the county jail.
The denial, on a split vote of the ARB’s three members, was based on concerns that the building’s “historically significant” chimneys would be obscured and perhaps damaged by the addition. ARB Chairman Carol Miller also cited reservations about the county’s plan to remove the building’s summer kitchen, which is now attached to the west side of the building, where the addition will be added.
The county has since agreed to move the summer kitchen to the vacant lawn between the jail and the clerk’s office, where it will serve the double purpose of a storage building which also screens the jail’s exercise yard.
The major objection, apparently, remains the possible impact on the jail’s twin chimneys. We feel that, although the chimneys would be affected, they are already partially obscured by the summer kitchen. In any case, they would be repeated with a pair of identical chimneys on the end of the addition, which would emphasize their importance to the building.
In general, we think that the planned addition appears to be a sensitive attempt to balance the needs of an expanding county government with the real and valid concerns of the Town of Washington for perserving its acrhitectural heritage; which contributes greatly to the appealing atmosphere of the town.
Perhaps the most salient observation on the matter was made by Council member William Wickens at its May meeting. Mr. Wickens was the author of the original Historic District Ordinance, which was passed after the town became a Historic District. “We have one of the least restrictive (Historic District) ordinances . . . ,” Mr. Wickens said. “The intent of the ordinance was to keep people from putting up something garish — from turning the town into something nightmarish.”
The county’s plan is hardly that. We hope that, after hearing the presentations of both those who support the addition and those who feel that the building should be preserved as it is, that the council will find the county’s plan to be reasonable and grant its application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
96.7%