Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050406WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION A County Administrative Annex 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-6003 Telephone: 240-313-2430 FAX: 240-313-2431 Deaf and Hard of Hearing call 7-1-1 for Maryland Relay AGENDA HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND CONFERENCE ROOM 1A & B WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX 80 WEST BALTIMORE STREET April 6, 2005 7:00PM M A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Minutes — March 2, 2005 D. Communications & Bills E. Unfinished Business 1. 15910 Cheney's Neck Road * 2. Barnes Road Bridge correspondence 3. TC-05-001, 112 Broadway (follow up) F. Budget G. New Business 1. Demolition Permit #2005-02780,21101 Twin Springs Drive * -'2. PG05-011, Artz property * '3. DP -05-001, Black Rock PUD Final Development Plan *(plan provided during meeting) H. Other Business I. Executive Session J. Adjournment * = written material enclosed \HDC\AAPR'05.DOC NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MAY MEET IN CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.508, STATE GOVERNMENT ARTICLE, ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND. INDIVIDUALS REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CONTACT PERMITS DEPARTMENT AT (301) 791-3065 VOICEQDD TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, Ihi RECYCLEDPA MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY MARCH 2, 2005 A and B. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by Stephen T. Goodrich on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 at 7:05 p.m. in Conference Room 1 of the Washington County Administrative Annex. Members present included: Jane Hershey, Sandra Izer, Merry Stinson, Carla Viar and David Wiles. Also present was County Commissioner Dori Nipps and staff member Debra Eckard. Absent members: Michael Gehr, Chairman, and Eleanor Lakin. C. MINUTES The minutes from the February 2, 2005 meeting were presented. A motion was made by Sandra Izer to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Merry Stinson. Unanimously approved. D. COMMUNICATIONS & BILLS 1) S.H.A. Maintenance Facility — Parkhead Mr. Goodrich presented a letter and maps from the State Highway Administration proposing the construction of a new salt barn at their maintenance facility at Parkhead, near Pecktonville. The State Highway Administration has determined that the construction of this facility would have no effect on historic resources in that area. After some discussion, Merry Stinson made a motion to have Mr. Goodrich prepare a letter to be sent to the State Highway Administration expressing the HDC's concern for construction on previously undisturbed areas and to recommend that if any archaeological resources are encountered during construction that they be recovered and curated. Copies of this letter should also be sent to the Maryland Historical Trust and the Hagerstown Historical Trust. Seconded by Carla Viar. Unanimously approved. 2) Training Resources Mr. Goodrich presented a copy of the "Historic Preservation the Process and the Profit" seminar brochure for the Commission's information. He also presented a copy of the Maryland Association Historic District newsletter detailing the Annual State Conference to be held in May. Both of these seminars would provide the required training for HDC members. If there are any members interested in attending the State Conference, there are funds available in the Commission's budget. G. NEW BUSINESS 1) Permit #2005.01655, 4621 Harper's Ferry Road Mr. Goodrich presented Permit #2005-01655 for construction of a garage at 4621 Harpers Ferry Road, Sharpsburg, Maryland to the Commission. This property is located in the Antietam Overlay District as described in the Washington County Zoning Ordinance under Article 20A and is subject to the regulations of Article 20, Historic Preservation District, Section 20.6. Mr. Albert L. Hetzel, Jr., the applicant and owner of the property was present. Mr. Hetzel presented photographs of the existing house constructed in 1999. He stated that the garage will be constructed using the same color and type of siding and shingles to match the house. Mr. Hetzel presented the proposed product specifications from 84 Lumber showing the windows (30 x 30", manufactured by MW Windows), , garage doors (manufactured by GADCO), siding (manufactured by CertainTeed), and roof samples (rustic Virginia slate). The Commission received the plan and all four elevation drawings with the Agenda. Carla Viar made a motion to approve the permit application based on consistency with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the recommendations for new additions and that the construction will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district and its environment. Seconded by Jane Hershey. Unanimously approved. 2) PC -05-003, Mt, Aetna Farms PUD (revised concept plan) Mr. Goodrich presented information for the proposed Mt. Aetna Farms PUD located north of Robinwood Drive and Yale Drive. This concept plan is proposing 1,431 dwelling units on 220 acres. This application was previously reviewed by the Commission in June 2003; however, the concept plan has been revised and several changes have been made to the plan. There is an existing historic structure (WA -I-439) located on this site. In 2003, the HDC recommended that the concept plan be adjusted to provide an appropriately sized lot on which to retain, rehabilitate and re -use the existing buildings and that they be secured from the weather and vandalism to be protected until such time as the structure can be re -used. Commissioner Nipps stated that sewer service for this development is a serious issue. Sewer service would need to be approved by the City of Hagerstown which is currently under a consent order from the MDE. The developer has requested that this site be annexed into the City of Hagerstown; however, this development is not contiguous with the City and therefore cannot be annexed at this time. School capacity issues are another major concern for this development. Jane Hershey made a motion that the Commission reiterate its position from the June 2003 comments. Seconded by David Wiles. Unanimously approved. I! 1) Barnes Road Bridge Mr. Goodrich provided Gary Rohrer's response to Merry Stinson's request for information on the next oldest concrete arch bridge (after Barnes Road Bridge) in the County. Mr. Rohrer's response stated that the County's inventory of structures does not include an accumulative list of dates, but he referenced the book "Historic Bridges of Maryland" which lists the 1907 concrete arch structure over the Conococheague River. 2) Bowman Property Mr. Goodrich has contacted the Maryland Historical Trust regarding the Bowman property. A written formal request must be made in order to receive copies of any information submitted to the Trust for tax credits but he was informed that there have been applications on Maryland tax credits. Mr. Goodrich has also sent a letter to the Bowman's regarding the non-compliance with HDC standards and specifications for rehabilitation of an historic structure within an HP zone. Discussion: Commissioner Nipps suggested implementing fines for non-compliance of the Zoning Ordinance regulations for the construction/rehabilitation of properties designated within an HP zone. 3) 112 Broadway Tax Credit Application Ms. Izer expressed concern regarding the approval of some items listed on the tax credit application presented for the property located at 112 Broadway in February. Ms. Izer stated that she has contacted the Maryland Historical Trust regarding the replacement of the front wooden columns with fiberglass columns. The applicant stated on the application sent to the Maryland Historical Trust that the columns were replaced with "in -kind" columns. The Maryland Historical Trust is investigating the application at this time. Mr. Goodrich stated that Staff will review the minutes and tapes from the February meeting. J. ADJOURNMENT Jane Hershey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Seconded by Carla Viar. Unanimously approved. Respectfully submitted, Stephen T. Goodrich Chief Senior Planner STG/dse February 15, 2005 Todd and Tracey Bowman 15910 Cheney's Neck Road Sharpsburg, MD 21782 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bowman Again, the Washington County Historic District Commission (HDC) discussed the matter of the unapproved designs for the two porches added to the rear of your house at 15910 Cheney's Neck Road (Permit #'s 2002-09083 and 09084) during its February 2, 2005 meeting. In July 2003 the Commission had disapproved designs based on photographs of the porches which were already constructed without HDC approval. Since then the Commission has requested several times that you provide revised design drawings so that the HDC's design review and approval process could be concluded. Those drawings have not been provided. In December of 2004, prompted by the Commissions inquiry as to the status of the matter, the porches were again photographed by Washington County Permits and Inspections staff. The Commission reviewed those photographs, which revealed a revised baluster design, during its discussion at the February 2, 2005 meeting Based on the design represented in those photographs the HDC voted unanimously to again disapprove the porch design and the permit application because it is not consistent with the Commissions adopted guidelines, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. There was no evidence provided that the new construction was a duplication of a historic feature that previously existed on the house or that the new construction was designed to be clearly distinguished as new construction from other existing or rehabilitated architectural features (Rehabilitation standards # 6 and 9 on the attached). The Historic District Commission is eager to conclude this application by completing the design review process. It is open to receiving revised design drawings or additional information and explanation from you to support the choice of the existing design. I will be happy to schedule the matter on the next available agenda when you provide the information requested. Please contact me if there are questions or if you feel there is a need to discuss the matter further. Sincerely, Stephen T. Goodrich, Chief Planner For the Washington County Historic District Commission Attachment STG/me WASHINGTON COUNTY DIVISION OF PUBLIC WO: County Administration Building 100 West Washington Street, Room 23! Hagerstown, Maryland 217404124 Telephone: S1 A8P 240-313-22 FAX: SQJ� t8t240-313-2251 Deaf and Hard of Hearing call 7-1-1 for Marcl Dr. John F. Krowka, Acting Chair Washington County Historical Trust, Inc. P.O. Box 222 Keedysville, MD 21756 Subject: Barnes Road Bridge DPW Routing Slip Please... j (9ict/no � C7l4ead To: SteAk f 10 ❑ Handle (l Approve Aral...rc2r (__] Forward 1__( Return [F Keep or Toss [ ] Review with Me From: Date: 3- i-o5 Dear Dr. Krowka: We are responding to your cover letter of November 5, 2004 that included a September 18, 2004 letter from Dr. Abba Lichtenstein, P.E., as an attachment. We regret not having responded before .now but our staff, including myself, has been heavily involved in significant growth issues. Since the timeline for this project was such that we were able to briefly set it aside, I elected to do so until we could formulate a detailed written response. Nevertheless, both our staff and our consultant have combed your letter as well as that of Dr. Lichtenstein's and discussed the contents. What follows is a response based on communications with our Chief Engineer and our consultant together with my personal knowledge of the project. As you probably know, I was asked by the Washington County Historic District Commission to make a brief presentation and did so in early February. This response is based on the extensive experience of our consultant and that of our Chief Engineer and me with a wide variety aged structures. We have numbered this, response to coincide with the comments in your cover letter and Dr. Lichtenstein's correspondence. Cover Letter The rating discussed here conflicts with the conventional approach used by engineering experts for these'types of structures. Specifically, It has been our experience that structural engineers typically approach these structures with a more conservative approach In determining the acceptable rating capacity due to their age and unknown details. In this case, Dr. Lichtenstein presents a more aggressive recommendation that may very well shorten the remaining life of the bridge and we fail to see the logic in this approach. 2. We do not understand the origin of the argument for "significantly increased future traffic" mentioned in this paragraph. To our knowledge, we have never Dr. John F. Krowka, Acting Chair Page 2 of 7 March 4, 2005 made such a statement. We have collected current traffic data and have projections that include increased traffic as we share below. In addition, we find the inclusion of the Old Roxbury Road Bridge in no way germane to the conditions at Barnes Road. Consider the following key points in this section: a. Old Roxbury Road Bridge was rehabilitated employing techniques with which we have gained great confidence over the past 20 years. The project strengthened the bridge (to eliminate posting for weight restrictions) and should extend its useful life to the end of this century with minimal maintenance. This coupled with the County's long standing policy to preserve the stone arches made this a very cost effective strategy. We do not have the same confidence in any known repair techniques for Barnes Road Bridge that begin to compare with those employed at Old Roxbury Road. b. We find it typical of most County local roads that traffic will increase over time, regardless of the zoning classification and anticipate the same to happen within the Immediate vicinity of this bridge. Since this is a through road, development activity well removed from the road itself will impact traffic volumes. Please note the proximity of the prison.complex is a significant origin and destination of traffic on this road. Although the proposed zoning is still unresolved, the majority of the property fronting Barnes Road is .agricultural, which has a 5:1 development ratio, the most liberal of the areas outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA), c. Old Roxbury Road Bridge has a clear width of 15'-9", as compared to Barnes Road bridge's. 10'-8". We fail to see the reasoning that saving a bridge almost 16 feet wide justifies saving one that is less than 11 feet wide with the argument that they are both single lane. We find that especially within an agricultural area, the size of farm machinery drives the need for • wider bridges to better accommodate the types of vehicles associated with agricultural operations. The physical features of this 11 -foot wide bridge are not conducive for such use. Even a small combine is nearly 12' wide and can • weigh over 13 tons. Also note that the inside of the parapet walls on the Barnes Road Bridge are heavily scrapped attesting to its inadequate width: The Old Roxbury Road Bridge does not have such scars. 3. The statements made in this paragraph are unfounded and without the benefit of any supporting detail or any cost data. It is critical to note that Dr. Lichtenstein states "my observation should not be considered an in depth inspection as prescribed by AASHTO and Maryland DOT." By contrast, we have invested a substantial amount of time and money to employ experts that Dr. John F. Krowka, Acting Chair Page 3 of 7 March 4, 2005 have carefully evaluated this structure, looking for every reasonable alternative. In addition, and with all due respect, you are completely in error on your understanding of the use of Federal Aid bridge funds and associated restrictions. Observations 1. The May 12, 2003 PowerPoint presentation was orchestrated by me in an effort to present general information in laymen's terms to the Historic Advisory Commission. It included basic graphics for a simplistic explanation of our concerns. 8. As previously mentioned, Dr. Lichtenstein states. in this paragraph that his observations should not be considered an in-depth inspection. Even the information provided by a member of his firm in The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) course on The Analysis and Preservation of Historic Bridges (attended by our staff) states "A hands-on inspection is still of paramount importance and must be accomplished in the early stages of the rehabilitation process." This statement is made in a discussion involving the importance in combining the diagnostic testing with in-depth field inspections in order to evaluate rehabilitation possibilities. The only firm to have done this to date is our consultant. 12. Although we may not agree with the specific justification, we have never disputed eligibility for the National Register. We began this project with the full understanding, that the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) and the Maryland Historic Trust (MHT) Interagency Committee already determined the bridge eligible several years ago. Accordingly, we directed our consultant to evaluate the structure and provide all required documentation to MHT. A complete Section 106 Report has been completed and should be submitted shortly to MHT for their review and comment. 13. Our consultant has performed and documented an in-depth inspection of the bridge complete with detailed description and photographs of the extent of deterioration. The description provided in item 13 of the observation understates the actual extent of our consultant's efforts. 15. As suggested here, our staff collected "new" traffic counts in the summer of 2004 as part of our countywide effort in preparation for the pavement management program. They placed traffic counters just north of the MD 68 intersection and determined an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 328 with 13.6% trucks. There are no road intersections or major traffic generators between the counter location and the bridge. Note that generally summer counts are less than those taken Dr. John F. Krowka, Acting Chair Page 4 of 7 March 4, 2005 while schools are in session. Therefore, the ADT of 336 would be reasonable as confirmed by our July 2004 count. As discussed later, while current counts are important, AASHTO recommends that the volumes at the study year, typically 20 years out, be used to determine appropriate standards. This is a sound, fiscal approach to transportation planning. 16. We disagree with the comment that a speed posting is not required. The vertical hump is pronounced and numerous pavement gouges exist on both sides of the bridge indicating unsafe vehicle operations. 17. Neither our consultant nor do we agree with the statement in this paragraph that this is not a non -redundant structure and our position is supported by the literature on the matter. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Bridge Inspector's ,. Reference Manual (BIRM) includes significant discussion on redundancy at several locations throughout the document. Within those discussions is a definition for redundancy that reads "redundancy in bridge design is a configuration in which a bridge or bridge member has three or more independent load paths so that failure of one member or member element would not result in total failure." The BIRM also includes the statement "In the interest of conservatism, AASHTO chooses to neglect structural redundancy and classify all two girder bridges as non -redundant." To our knowledge, the level of stress in a given member or at a given location does not have any bearing on meeting or not meeting the definition of redundant structure. Obviously, having the non -redundant element over. designed helps improve the factor of safety, but it does not eliminate the structure from being considered non -redundant. This is a non -redundant structure. 18. Our consultant has provided a separate response and much of it deals with the rating analysis performed in the observation, items 17, 18; 19 and 20. We will not repeat their comments but have included ,a copy with this correspondence. For all we know about this structure, there is much unknown. Our concern is that normally for older structures with unknown details we typically err on the side of conservatism in determining rating capacities, primarily for public safety reasons. Your expert does not employ a conservative approach. We are further perplexed by this lack of conservatism with comments in item 18 that we do not know what the top reinforcing is and cannot get to it for verification, but a "more modern investigative technique may become available," ... whatever that means. Given that this unknown top reinforcing does influence the rating and we do not have a way to determine it, using a very aggressive approach in rating the structure that may ultimately accelerate its deterioration simply does not make sense. Dr. John F. Krowka, Acting Chair Page 5 of 7 March 4, 2005 21 We do not agree with the observation that application Guidelines Geometric Design Very Low -volume Local Road (Guide) for the forsubject project. a. The Guide states that projected ADT should be used as the basis for design and is usually projected about 20 years from the date of completion. Although current volumes can be used and are meaningful in some types of design, the life expectancy of bridges, whether new or rehabilitated, would suggest a 20 year projected volume as most appropriate. Even with only a modest 1% annual growth rate or 7 to 10 single family dwelling (8 — 10 new trips per day per house), the current ADT will exceed 400 vehicles. As stated in the Guide, if the projected ADT exceeds 400 vehicles, apply the Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (the "Green Book"). We cannot dismiss the current zoning issues, the vast undeveloped acreage in this area and the proximity to the prison complex. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that traffic will exceed the ADT threshold of 400 within a relatively short period of time, let alone 20 years. Application of this Guide to the Barnes Road Bridge project is, at best, suspect. Whichever "code" is used, Guide or ,Green Book, the width is well below all preferred requirements. b. Neglecting "21 a" above and assuming the Guide applies,. it contains a discussion regarding rural agricultural access roads and includes the statement "consideration of the unique vehicle types that use agricultural access roads is important in their design." This is certainly contrary to the suggestion in the observation to leave a 10,-8" wide structure with a weight posting in place. c. Again, assuming the Guide applies, item 22 in the observation quotes a section pertaining to safety and then item 23 goes on to deduce that a safety problem does not exist. In doing so, the observation fails to recognize the extensive scrapes on the inside of the parapets and gouge marks in the pavement. It is our professional opinion that these gouges and marks are certainly evidence of site -specific safety problemsthat in accordance with the Guide would lead one towards replacement. 26. This item states that we can use the federal money towards rehabilitation, and together with comments made elsewhere, indicates that we can then apply the savings to other bridges. This is not accurate. This bridge is not automatically eligible for federal aid to perform the suggested rehabilitation since at the completion of the effort it will still be deficient in both geometry and load Dr. John F. Krowka, Acting Chair Page 6 of 7 March 4, 2005 capacity. This requires a design exception from both SHA and FHWA and neither are guaranteed. Furthermore, a concern completely overlooked in the observation is the crash worthiness of the parapet, which likely does not meet current standards. Generally, a bridge rehabilitation project must include the following: a. Place an approved device in front of the existing parapet which is not possible for this structure due to its clear width opening; b. Replace the existing parapet with an approved device, which would destroy one of the historical features of the bridge; or c. County officials accept the liability of allowing a substandard device to remain, • which we do not support and may not be acceptable to SHA and/or FHWA. General Comments We have outlined above our specific concerns with comments in your November 5, 2004 cover letter and Dr. Lichtenstein's observations. When reviewed in total, our Chief Engineer best summarized his thoughts as follows. The observations provide very little in the way of specifics to. support its position. Especially noticeable is the lack of any details pertaining to repair methods, costs and increased life expectancy. Dr. Lichtenstein is well respected and we think he would agree that regardless of the author, any report presented lacking the detail discussed above should be viewed with caution. The observations approach to this structure is very aggressive, as opposed to conservative in nature and that is contrary to the normal standard in the industry. "My experience as a designer, inspector and Chief Engineer leads me to believe that effective concrete repair on bridge structures, especially concrete containing chlorides from deicing efforts, is difficult to achieve. It is my opinion that the report underestimates the cost (although no details are given) and overstates the effectiveness." ,f would add that both of us have extensive experience in this area and I would agree with his statement. The observations ignore the bridge users instead focusing on those only interestec considered and we have attempted to do in the community both current and future, • in the historical aspects. Both. must be so. Dr. John F. Krowka, Acting Chair Page 7 of 7 March 4, 2005 • In the state of Maryland, the MHT is the final authority on this issue and our staff has already had preliminary discussions with them. We will comply fully with the Section 106 requirements and based upon our detailed work done to date, we believe bridge replacement is the best option when accounting for all aspects of the project using a comprehensive approach. In closing, please understand that we are in no way questioning Dr. Lichtenstein's expertise. We are, however, quite surprised with his approach which we view as most contrary to acceptable procedures. His observations did not include the details necessary to perform a life -cycle analysis and although we have not performed one ourselves, preliminary estimates suggest that rehabilitating this structure in accordance with the your recommendations would not be cost effective. What we cannot ignore is that by following your request, we would be very likely to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and at the end of the day, we would still have a functionally obsolete bridge that would require another major County expenditure within the not to distant future to extend its useful life. A functionally obsolete structure is simply not acceptable. Thank you for your exceptional patience in awaiting this response. Very truly yours, �aa( cLur GaryW. Rohrer, P.E. Director ENCLOSURE c: Board of County Commissioners, w/ENCLOSURE Rodney M. Shoop, w/ENCLOSURE Terrence P. McGee, P.E., w/o ENCLOSURE (via email) Frederick F. Braerman, P.E., w/o ENCLOSURE Over 3Years BrlghterlYroze November 22, 2004 Mr. Terrence P. McGee, P.E. Chief Engineer Washington County Engineering Dept. 80 W. Baltimore Street Hagerstown, MD 21740-6003 Attn: Scott Hobbs of Engineering Excellence Offices in: Baltimore, Maryland Sparks, Maryland Newark, Delaware Lake Mary, Florida Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania York, Pennsylvania Chantilly, Virginia • Richmond, Virginia Charleston, West Virginia • l NOV 23 2004 r!1(Ifi. rghrrrr:' RE: Barnes Road over Beaver Creek JMT Job No. 302392-01 Gentlemen: As requested, JMT has reviewed the Feasibility Report for the above referenced project dated September 28, 2004, prepared byDr. Abba Lichtenstein. JMT has the following comments and questions to this report: - Contrary to Dr. Lichtenstein's report, there are visible signs of safety problems which include scrape marks on the asphalt roadway which are the result of vehicles bottoming out due to the launching ramp effect at the crown of the bridge. A variable depth asphalt overlay has been added over the years to minimize this effect, at the expense of sacrificing load capacity, but it remains a safety issue. JMT does not agree that the excess capacity at the crown "excludes" this structure from being considered non -redundant. Regardless of load capacity, failure of either of the two main arch ribs individually will immediately cause complete collapse of the entire superstructure. The main arch ribs should therefore receive special consideration in the interest of public safety. The concrete strength used in.JMT's rating, analysis is 3000 psi. The value Dr. Lichtenstein referred to as 2100 psi in his report already included the 0.7 phi factor applied for a compression member. The existing concrete has extremely large sized aggregate unlike concrete mix designs of today. There is reason to believe that the tested compressive strengths are higher than expected because of, this and that the tensile strength is likely lower than expected. The presence of the large aggregate will make rehabilitation difficult for methods requiring drilling and grouting of bars into the existing concrete. 72 Loveion Circle Sparks, Maryland 21152-0949 Telephone (410) 329-3100 Fax (41)472.220O www.imt-englnearing.com ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Barnes Road over Beaver Creek November 22, 2004 • If rehabilitation is pursued, the removal of loose and spalled areas will have the tendency to propagate to a much greater extent than visually apparent. JMT's inspection revealed concrete loose enough to be removed by hand. Once removed, it will be very difficult to successfully scab onto the existing concrete especially on the underside of the arch ribs. This will lead to a continual maintenance problem for the County. • Dr. Lichtenstein utilized the same parameters for computing a rating analysis that JMT used yet computed a rating factor (at the controlling location) 33% higher. His rating factors were computed by a computer program "BCOLRT" and we question the method of analysis utilized in this program. JMT's rating factor was computed through a verified hand calculation considering the combined effect of the axial compression and bending moment at the section under consideration. It is JMT's opinion that the capacity computed by Dr. Lichtenstein is overstated. • The feasibility report does not address one of the main issues with this structure which is the life cycle costs for rehabilitation. There is no mention of the cost for rehabilitation, including maintenance costs annualized over the life of the - structure. There is no. argument that it is "feasible" for the bridge to remain since it is carrying traffic today. The question is for what time period can the bridge remain and what is the annual cost for continued rehabilitation for the bridge to remain in service for the next 100 years? - If you should have any questions pertaining to these comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, JOHNSON, MIRMWAN AND THOMPSON Frederick F. BfaermanP.E. Vice President cc: Mike Blair Gary Miller BUILDING PERMIT Activity/IVR No: 2005-02780 Applied: Project No: Approved: Permit Type: DEMO Status: Inspector Area: B4 Job Address: 21101 TWIN SPRINGS DRIVE CW Location: LOR 21101 TWIN SPRINGS DRIVE Parcel No: 051-01-0012-00000 Zoning Dist: RR Floodplain: C Applicant: SANDY SPRING INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 112 CHEWSVILLE, MD 21721 Phone Number: Owner: KREIGH JOYCE P ET AL Phone Number: Contractor: Phone Number: Contractor Lic. No: Description: DEMOLITION OF A 990 SQ FT RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX. Code Enforced: ?? Valuation: $1.00 Construction Type: RES Pkt'nnir Po 'ii 1-}15 kl,'i C ��eGa 03/24/2005 PENDING The signature below by the reviewer is an indication that the applicant has signed the permit application signature sheet and thereby agrees to perform the work in accordance with the conditions of this permit. REVIEWED BY: L..j;r •1• T1 nTr., , 62 21 2,/!01 tJ,/V WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION County Administrative Annex 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-6003 Telephone: 240-313-2430 FAX: 240-313-2431 Deaf and Hard of Hearing call 7-1-1 for Maryland Relay March 30, 2005 Sandy Spring Investments, LLC PO Box 112 Chewsville, MD 21721 RE: Demolition permit #2005-02780,21101 Twin Springs Drive To whom it may concern: You have applied for a permit to demolish the dwelling located at 21101 Twin Springs Drive that is identified in the Washington County Historic Sites Survey as site # WA -I-095 (a copy of the information is enclosed for your use). In accordance with Washington County policies, the Historic District Commission (HDC) must have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed demolition prior to the permit issuance. The Planning Commission may also be provided the opportunity to comment if the HDC is opposed to the demolition. This letter is to inform you that the application has been scheduled on the Historic District Commission's April 6, 2005 agenda. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm in Conference Room "A" in the Washington County Administrative Annex Building located at 80 West Baltimore Street in Hagerstown. You and/or the owner are encouraged to attend, The Commission is likely to have questions regarding the need for demolition. If you are not able to attend you may provide written material that would explain and support the need for demolition or send a representative. If the Historic District Commission is opposed to the demolition it will be necessary for the Planning Commission to review the application also. The Planning Commission's next available meeting is scheduled for May 2, 2005 at 7:00 pm in the same location. Please feel free to call me at 240-313-2430 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. if you have questions. Stephen T. Goodrich Chief Planner enclosure STG/me Cc: Joyce Kreigh, property owner \hdc\200502780.DMO.doc RECYCLEDPAPER www wahes-md not Copy 1 WA -1-095 MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST WORKSHEET DistrJet 18 NOMINATION FORM for the NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE w Z 0 U H z W UJ in ♦.: '^x''F' 3 - zi 3n ₹: M C as � s�tY)C�'.i -'a �,>". FQ.a ;� -.e. ar��y .YS. in' i Vc � {�s�... �:, a ^s COMMON: The Palmer House AND/OR HISTORIC: _ - y»� ^�. k:x S'�, Sx1 $ �Lr�Q: SSi�'� �d[3R ^� .-ti. �. ,f,� •.�xin¢E''b��l£ eZ .Y�i. �. �b'l y:.Say.�4 STREET AND NUMBER: - ' . Corner of old Cavetown Pike and White Hall Road --. CITY OR TOWN: - - Chewsville STATE - - COUNTY: Maryland .Washington f. "Yl'in' [ �j,' `Vi„AF'ai. m -•].h N���' � � >�\ vm ] � ' CATEGORY OWNERSHIP - STATUS ACCESSIBLE (Check One) - - TO THE PUBLIC ❑ District W' Building O Public.- Public Acquisition: Occupied ❑ Site ❑ Structure l Private ❑ In Process. ❑ Unoccupied - O Restricted O Object - O Both ❑ Being Considered ❑ Preservation work ❑ Unrestricted In progress .: 0 'No - PRESENT USE (Check One or More cc Appropriate) ❑ Agricultural - ❑ Government O Park ❑ Transportation O Comments_ ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial Private Residence ❑ Other (Speclf) ❑ Educational ❑ Mllitary O Religious ❑ Entertainment O Museum - ❑ Scientific !E„s i%il3y MK�4Fgc�g.<::,,,..:.,1?;a•........................ - (Check One) Good ❑ .Fair ❑ Deteriorated ❑ Ruins ❑ •Unexposed ❑ Exeal (Cheek One) CONDITION (Check One) - ,� Original Sli . �J Aft d ❑ U Ir. d - -... ❑ Mowd__ 'sc R16E THE Pft ESENT jD. ORIGIN A�. (i(imown) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE This house is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of.theold-Cavetown Pike and White Hall Road in the village of Chewsville, Washington County, Maryland. It is situated near the center of the community and faces north. The main or west portion of the structure "is, a one -and -a -half story, four -bay log dwelling with black and white trim. Attached on an axis with it is a three -bay, two-story section which is appar- ently an addition. The walls are set on foundations of local rubble fieldstone. Buff shingle siding sheaths. the -walls at all elevations, concealing leg' construction, .; The windows are placed rather at random in the walls. . Several first story windows 7tin the west section contain nine-over-sixcpane sashes, While'Other have two -over -two light Victorian period sashes with the upper :.sashes tshowing .arch topped panes. Three shed -roof dormer protrude :from:the north slope of -the roof. Three entrances are located in the front" elevation:.. The main open- ing is located in the.second bay from the west end of the house. The entranceway is framed simply with .a transom present over the door. The other two entrances. are in the east portion of the house. They are plain in'appeaxance,and are without transoms The roof is covered with sheet metal and extends for several inches • beyond the,. end walls of the house. There is no decorative work associated with' the eaves boxing or barge area. Small brick chimneys rise from inside.each..gable end. A third flue is centrally placed. The house. is in good condition and is located on a 137' X 183' lot V. m m z 0 F H z W W VI p EFid D -'(Cheek `Oneor More ae Approprlete) ❑ Pre•Columblan ❑ 16th Century ❑ 18th Century ❑ 20th Century ❑ 15th Century ❑ 17th Century ® 19th Century SPECIFIC DATE(S) (If App(lceh(e and Known) AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Check One or More as, Appropriate) Aboriginal ❑ Education ❑ Politi eel D Urban Planning ❑ Prehistoric ❑ Engineering ❑ Religion/Phi- O Other (specify) ❑ Historic ❑ Industry tosophy ❑ Agriculture.... ❑ Invention ❑ Science Architecture O Landscape ❑ Sculpture ❑ Art Architecture ❑ Social/Human- ❑ Commerce , ❑ Literature - Itarian - ❑ Ccninunlcations ❑ Military - ❑ Theater - ❑ C.onservatian; .I ❑.Mus ic . - - ❑2-Trasorttion -- STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The area of significance'of -this house is its architecture. Constructed of log, it represents a major.-bu₹lding'tradition for: Washington County and the* Cumberland Valley. Log was. used a$ a building material in the area from the earliest days of settle- ment to late in the 19th century. Many buildings of log are in existence today, encased with various forms of siding or, bricks. This house is said by local historians to be the oldest building in Chewsville. If this statement is true, the structure could date from the late 18th -or early 19th century. The majority. of houses in Chewsville appear to have been built during the mid to late 19th century. For further information on.this and other properties in the Chewsville election district, contact Howard -L. Spessard, 911 View Street, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 1t x1,�L itu .i � ) .faQ'aQ' f t �q't��q•'��"�S�S� .... SI I LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES 0 DEFININO.THE CENTER POINT OF -A PROPERTY DEFINING A RECTANGLE LOCATING THE PROPERTY OF LESS THAN TEN ACRES CORNER .. --LATITUDE LONGITUDE LATITUDE LONGI'TUDE Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds- -Degrees - Minutes'. Seconds NW ° . o e G I o NE ° -.° - .. ._ SE ° ° _ _ .. _. g• _. ° .1..- 1 t APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMINATED 'PROP E R T Y: .13J X 1H3 Acreage Justification: m 2 to it.IST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY"BOUN'DARI EA STATE: COUNTY . n cou iTYt - STATE: COUNTY: STATE: Z s TATEI COUNTY: tf NAME AND TITLE: Paula Stoner Dickey, Consultant ORGANIZATION Washington County Historic Sites Survey STREET AND NUMBER: . Court House Annex CITY OR TOWN: STATE Hagerstown Maryland State Liaison Officer Review: (Office Use Significance of this property is: National ❑ State ❑ L,ocal ❑ September, 19741 1. Signature 1e° ea :?-'yS�. ID mfy�pe,,�9y: 7. -�''i �`� j fir 4 i1 3•:' Q ^ aV a own - _ n3: 3" pq 7iS s I Cat. or PURCHASER/ N PER HERS, INC PARD` 1418/A GATEWAY, 4,1021046 ' 100 872-9105 - 872-9141 SITE ioperd®tollbrothersinc.com SOUTH JO % -' '/ VICINI7 SCALE' 1" = 2000' c / TAX MAP 57 PARCEL 91, 598, rk 611 1 i ` COPYR/OHT ADO THE MAP PEOPLE PERMIT USE MUMMER 20403134 I,. -S'IAC (JNO 17 r4i t^7 l 7�j% . 4 RTZ i rmLA .Aa ,N a:i sLiA .J FOX & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS•PLANNERS 981 MT. AETNA ROAD HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740 PHONE: (301) 733.8503 OR 416.7250 FAX: (301) 733-1853 March 11, 2005 Washington County Department of Planning & Community Development 80 W. Baltimore St. Hagerstown, MD 21740 Attention: Mr. Mike Thompson RE: Request for Preliminary Consultation Concept Plan for Artz Property Washington County, MD Dear Mr. Thompson At the request of our client, Toll Brothers, Inc., I am asking for a preliminary consultation in regards to the above mentioned project. Since time is of the essence, please schedule as soon as possible. The site consists of three (3) parcels. Our client is proposing some lots smaller in area and some lots with widths and setbacks smaller than the existing zoning designations allow. Therefore, we are requesting Planning Commission authority to use smaller lots and setbacks under the provisions of Article 22 — Division VIII— Cluster Subdivision of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance. With the unlotted community open space proposed, the total number of lots or dwelling units will not exceed the number that would be permitted if the area were developed in conformance with the normal minimum lot size requirement in the zoning district where they are located. All lots will be served by public water and sewer. Curbed, closed section sheets with sidewalks and streetiights.are proposed throughout. The FSD has been submitted to your office and is under review. Should you have, any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, FOX& ASSOCIATES, INC. Willis E. Weikert Executive Vice President WEW/js Enclosures: As noted cc: Mr, Greg Shapard, Toll Brothers, Inc. 1:\Fox Project Documentation\CORRES\2004\50375TollArtz\WCPDRegPrelArtzWE W.doc Copy I MARYLAND HISTORICAL "TRUST INVENTORY FORM FOR STATE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY NAME HISTORIC AND/OR COMMON - 19th Century Log Structure ]LOCATION STREET& NUMBER - Ranch Road CONGRESSIONAID Southwest of Funkstown _ VICINITY OF COUNTY STATE Washington Maryland CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP .DISTRICT -PUBLIC XBUILDING(S) X._PRIVATE -STRUCTURE _BOTH .SITE PUBLIC ACLU ISITI ON _OBJECT -IN PROCESS -BEING CONSIDERED STATUS _OCCUPIED xU NOCCU PIED _WORK IN PROGRESS ACCESSIBLE -YES: RESTRICTED _YES: UNRESTRICTED ?iNO W'4 -I-263 District 10 Map 57 Parcel 98 PRESENT USE x AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM .COMMERCIAL --PARK _EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCI _ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS _GOVERNMENT _SCIENTIFIC _INDUSTRIAL TA li !OTHER: bb�Otiij _MILITARY OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME ' Telephone # : - Howard M. Artz STREET& NUMBER Route # 9, Box 154 CITY, TOWN STATE zip code Hagerstown _ VICINITY OF Maryland 21740 LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Libex #: 295 COURTHOUSE. Folio #: 536 REGISTRY OF DEEDS; ETC. Washington County Court House West Washington Street town REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE _FEDERAL _STATE -COUNTY -LOCAL SURVEY RECORDS I STATE CITY, TOWN DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE _EXCELLENT _DETERIORATED _UNALTERED X ORIGINAL SITE -G00D i RUINS ALTERED c', 507 _MOVED DATE -FAIR -UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The ruins of this log and stone building which was presumably a dwelling are located nort of Rench Road just east of the Norfolk and Western Railroad, Southwest of Funkstown in Washington County, Maryland, It is situated on an area of level ground and faces south. The building is a two story, three bay log structure sheathed with German siding, The we, gable end to the height of one story is constructed of coursed local fieldstone; This st section which had an exterior chimney has for the most part fallen away, Missing areas o: siding reveal that an interior log wall extended across the house at the point where the stone section begins,. The rest of the house rests on low fieldstone foundations, No sass remain in the windows, The window frames are narrow although some retain plain wide archi traves, One window remaining in the north wall of the stone section has a moderately with frame, No evidence remains of the windows having had shutters, The building has two entrances which are located in the east and west ends of the front el tion, Both are framed similarly to the windows, each having a vertical plank door, The roof is sheathed with slates and extends beyond the end walls of the house, The chimr which stood against the west end wall has either been removed or has fallen away, The interior of the building appears to have been simply finished, Exposed lath is matt. made, The house is in a ruinous state but was standing at the time these photographs were made i 1975, It is located on a large farm on which the complexes described in forms WA -I-404 an IJA-I-405 are discussed, CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 1 SIGNIFICANCE PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW _PREHISTORIC -ARCHEOLUUY- PREH ISTOR IC -COMMUNITY PLANNING _LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE _RELIGION 1400-1499 -ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC _CONSERVATION _LAW -SCIENCE 1500-1599 "_AGRICULTURE _ECONOMICS -LITERATURE -SCULPTURE _1600 -1699 -ARCHITECTURE -EDUCATION _MILITARY _SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN 1700.1799 - ART _ENGINEERING -MUSIC -THEATER X 1800-1899 -COMMERCE -EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT _PHILOSOPHY _TRANSPORTATION 1900- -COMMUNICATIONS -INDUSTRY _POLITICS/GOVERNMENT _OTHER (SPECIFY) _INVENTION - SPECIFIC DATES BUILDER/ARCHITECT '� STATEMENT OFSIGNIFICANCE ne es This three bay, two story log structure with a gable wall partially of fieldstone constr tion may have been a dwelling. However, the arrangement of doors and windows at its fro elevation with entrances at each end of its front wall does tend to support a suggestion a local historian that the building may have been used as a church during the 19th centu: Indeed, a larger brick church built during the mid 19th century and now converted to a eva- dwelling stands a short distance southeast of this structure. However, there is no refe: to a church in the deeds to the property, ;j Architecturally this building provides an example of an important folk construction type the area. Log was a prominent building material in Washington County during the 18th and 19th centuries. A superficial examination of this structure revealed no evidence of 18t1 century construction. The property on which this structure stands is part of a large tract which was patented 1 the name of 'Marsh Head" to Jacob Funk. Through the first three quarters of the 19th cei d tury the farm was owned by the Fiery family (L/642, 76/222). From 1879 until 1943, it wt owned by the Murdock family (78/7, 112/353, 223/548). CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY MMIATl I OOLMIG AP} ICAL REFERENCES Washington County Land Records, CONTINUE ON SE2ARATE SHEET •lk' NECESSARY 1 GEOGRAPHICAL DATA ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY 156.17 acres VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES STATE " COUNTY STATE - VUUIN IT FORM PREPARED RY . NAME/TITLE - _ Paula Stoner Dickey. Consultant ORGANIZATION DATE ... trasMngton County Historical Sites Survey March 1977 STREET& NUMBER TELEPHONE Washington Street 791-3065 CITY OR TOWN STATE Hagerstown Maryland 21740 The Maryland Historic Sites Inventory was officially created by an Act of the Maryland Legislature, to be found in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 41, Section 181 KA, 1974 supplement. The Survey and Inventory are being prepared for information and record purposes only and do not constitute any infringe- ment of individual property rights. RETURN TO: Maryland Historical Trust The Shaw House, 21 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301) 267-1438 P5- 110 COPY I WA -I-406 District 10 MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST Map 57 Parcel 98.' MAGI # 2206135508 INVENTORY FORM FOR STATE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY NAME HISTORIC AND/OR COMMON _ .. _ Former Brethren Church LOCATION STREET&NUMBEfi .... - .. `Reach Road CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - _ _r VICINITY OF BagerstOpn 6 COUNTY CLASSTFI�ATIQN.. `. _ . CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS _DISTRICT _PUBLIC X OCCUPIED ;;XBUILDING(S) .. '(:X PRIVATE -.._. LUNOCCUPIED - -STRUCTURE _BOTH -WORKINPROGRESS-� _SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE _OBJECT- _IN PROCESS', ... _YES: RESTRICTED ' -. - _BEING CONSIDERED. .. -'_YES: UNRESTRICTED- "..., iLNO PRESENT.USE -AGRICULTURE -MUSEUM -COMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL.' .PRIVATE RESIDENC _ENTERTAINMENT _RELIGIOUS ..._GOVERNMENT " _SCIENTIFIC _ -fNDUSTRIAL _TRANSPORTATION _MILITARY . - _OTHER: -OWNER OFPROPERTY NAM Howard M. Arta Telephone #: STREET & NUMBER Route # 9, Box 154 CITY.TOWN STATE , zip code Hagerstown _ VICINITY OF Maryland 21740 13L0CATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Liber #; 295 COURTHOUSE, Folio #: 536 REGISTRY OF DEEDS;ETC, Washington County Court House STREET& NUMBER West Washington Street CITY. TOWN STATE Hagerstown Maryland 21740 fl REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE DATE '- _FEDERAL _STATE _COUNTY -LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS CITY, TOWN STATE DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE _EXCELLENT -DETERIORATED UNALTERED ORIGINAL SITE &G000 -RUINS X_ALTEREDD 50% -MOVED DATE _FAIR -UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE I This building is located on the north side of Rench Road at a sharp bend_insthe,road east the Norfolk and Western Railroad tracks, south of Hagerstown in Washington County. It is situated on level limestone ground and faces south. The structure is a one story three bay brick building resting on. low stone foundations. It has a hipped roof and would appear to be nearly square, being also three bays wide, It is said to have been built as a Brethren Church, although no reference to it was found in the deeds. Bricks forming the walls are laid in common bond at all elevations. Flat arches are preset above the windows. The windows have narrow frames finished with a bead and hold modern sir gle pane sashes. A hipped roof dormer with double six over six windows extends from the sc slope of the roof. Entrances in the south and east walls are similar each having six light transoms and side lights. Modern porches have been added. The roof is sheathed with modern asphalt shingles and is finished at the eaves with brick' dentiling. A brick chimney with corbeling at its top extends from the interior of the bu: ding near its center. Now used as a private residence, the former church is on the edge of a large farm with burl dings described in survey form WA -I-405, CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 0 SIGNIFICANCE AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE --CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW PERIOD X _PREHISTORIC -ARCHEOLOGY- PREHISTORIC -COMMUNITY PLANNING _LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE RELIGION _1400-1499 _-ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC -CONSERVATION -LAW -SCIENCE _150O1599 -AGRICULTURE -ECONOMICS _LITERATURE -SCULPTURE _1600-1699 ARCHITECTURE _EDUCATION -MILITARY -SOCIAUHUMANITARIAI 1700-1799 BART -ENGINEERING _MUSIC _THEATER }L-,1800-1899 -COMMERCE -EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT _PHILOSOPHY -TRANSPORTATION _1900- _COMMUNICATIONS _INDUSTRY -POLITICS/GOVERNMENT _OTHER (SPECIFY) of _INVENTION SPECIFIC DATES BUILDER/ARCHITECT t STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE at n- outh 1 - This house a hip roofed square brick building was presumably originally a Brethren Church The style of brickwork and the door treatment suggest a construction date during the thir quarter of the 19th century. it now serves as a dwelling. CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY I GEOGRAPHICAL DATA ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY 157.20 acres --- VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION - LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES.OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY STATE FORM PREPARED BY NAME/TITLE - ' Paula Stoner Dickey, Consultant ORGANIZATION DATE Washington County Historical Sites Survey December 1977 STREET& NUMBER - TELEPHONE County Office Building, 33 West Washington Street 791-3065 CITY OR TOWN STATE Hagerstown Maryland 21740 The Maryland Historic Sites Inventory was officially created by an Act of the Maryland Legislature, to be found in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 41, Section 181 KA, 1974 Supplement. The Survey and Inventory are being prepared for information and record purposes only and do not constitute any infringe- ment of individual property rights. RETURN TO: Maryland Historical Trust The Shaw House, 21 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301) 267-1438 PS. 1101 L LAI,FfA ;•.,r�i �l� r' tFr1k �'6�'��i t�7�i•%� � ri.,� — -- tyGTGN o WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Washington County Administrative Annex ( 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-6003 Telephone: 240-313-2430 ft FAX: 240-313-2431 Deaf and Hard of Hearing call: 7-1-1 for Maryland Relay �9RYL0 PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TRANSMITTAL FORM VERSION : 501 DATE: 03-15-2005 /� II TO : [t�.L. J D FROM PLANNER : TIM LUNG ATTACHED HEREWITH: DP -05-001 NAME : BLACK ROCK PUD DESCRIPTION : PUD FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF MT AETNA ROAD DISTRICT: 18 LAND USE: MIXEDRESIDENTIAL ZONING PARCEL : 05023032100000 ACRES :0.77 LOTS : 416 OWNER : SHAOOL MANSOOR E SURVEYOR: FOX & ASSOCIATES INC SUBMITTED BY THIS OFFICE FOR YOUR: APPROVAL REVIEW AND COMMENT INFORMATION ATTACHMENT(S) CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS _ ROAD ADEQUACY WORKSHEETS FOREST CONSERVATION PLAN _OTHER TAL RECYCLED PAPEF �ct�esm#w cco SURFACE DRAIN DITCH CUT -SOIL STABILIZATION MATTING (1' DEPTH) SE YRFACE COURSE 455 COURSE 'URSE (2-3" COURSES) Y ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE 'r7TE BASE COURSE P.5" COURSES) SEC7XANs A-1, St F IF SCALE: 1" = 2000' TAX MAP 50 PARCEL 309 & 321 COPYRIGHT A0C me MAP PEOPLE PERMIT USE NUMBER 20301161 0ER/DEVELOPER MANSOOR E. SHAOOL 72 WEST WASH/NGTON STREET HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740 PHONE: (301) 797-7434 Lf�K ?OCK Tho C&1/6(O �&P OWNER/DEVELOPERS CERTIFICATION / CERTIFY THAT / WILL ABIDE BY THE TERMS AND COND177ONS OF THIS FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. WA -I-068 Copy 1 District 18 MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST WORKSHEET NOMINATION FORM for the NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE w W sA C • COMMON: The Snavely 'Farm AND/OR HISTORIC: The Warvel Farm '5 - °4.>."A' iw: 4 s., Y>� IITz kbs� £ 4 -: .s4.,. 3C YR\a�.. e'z:z.::> �S£ �,, ' I ✓!x'a� s -v. v 3 s h : ,£..'�.'4 .e STREET AND NUMBER, about 1/2 mile south of.Keiffer-Funk Road CITY OR TOWN, -' near Chewsville STATE -_ ' - COUNTY: Maryland - - Washington. OWNERSHIP STATUS - ACCESSIBLE ___ CATEGORY (Check One) - . "' TO THE PUBLIC ❑ District � Building O Public Public Acquisition: 9 ® Occupied 'Yee:' ❑ Site - [] Structure 10 Private - ❑ In Process ❑ Unoccupied O Restilebd ❑ Object - - ❑- Both O Being Considered ❑ Preservation work O Unrestricted - in progress ® No - PRESENT USE (Check One or More as 4Duroprlete) Agricultural ❑ •Government ❑ Park . ❑ Transportation O Comments O Commercial O Industrial ® Private Residence ❑ Other' (Specify) . ❑ Educational - O Military, ❑ Religious • O Entertainment O Museum ❑ Scientific OWNER'S NAME: Dr. Robert Snavely and Catherine R. Snavely STREET AND NUMBER, Mt. Aetna Road CITY OR TOWN: STATE: Maryland Hagerstown COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS. ETC: Washington County Court House STREET AND NUMBER: West Washington Street CITY OR TOWN, STATE Hagerstown Maryland itle Reference Curr B _374/759 n1Ltv TITLE OFSURVEY, DATE'OF.SURVEY, ❑ Federal O Stab O County O Local DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS, ! R T AND NUMBER, CITY OR TOWN, STATEt ..� � Y'ir +ky. a�3.�.-3 �S S..3" >�;�''i ,...En ..awt ≥ � &` •a £. ,. �'�c� 0 ,.i: (Check One) ❑ Excellent ® Good 0 .Fair ❑ -Deteriorated 0 Ruin. 0 •Unexpoeed CONDITION (Check One) (Cheek One) Altered - ❑ Unaltored' ❑ Moved - ® Original Site DESCRIBE THE PRESENT 14D ORIGINAL (II known) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Snavely Farm is located on the west side -of a private lane about 1/2 mile south of Keiffer-Funk Road in'the-Chewsville vicinity of Washington County, Maryland. It is situated on an area of level ground and faces east. The structure is a two-story, four -bay stone dwelling with a one- story, two -bay extension attached to its south gable end. The exterior. woodwork is'painted dark green:. The walls are constructed of roughly coursed local -fieldstone which shows evidence of modern repointing. There is no decorative masonry associated with the exterior -of the'building. • Windows appear to have been. spaced evenly in the front elevation. '.They show narrow framing`esceptifor wide wooden sills. Some first story `windows are flanked by three -panel shutters. --. The mainentrance is located in the second bay from the north end of. '^ the front elevation. The doorway is simple in appearance with framing m similar to the windows. A narrow transom is present over the ,door., A m similar door is located in the east elevation of the one-story section. A one-story entrance porch with a' low hipped roof extends along the front elevation of the main section. Another, porch is included under Z ,the main roof span of the one-story section. t^ -The roof is covered with sheet metal and is finished at the gables with -i a plain barge:board.. The eaves are finished with unadorned boxing. z &rick chimneys are located inside each gable end of the main section and inside the south end of the one-story structure. C The house is in good condition and is locatedon a tract containing n 54.25 acres. Southwest'of the house is a barn and other outbuildings -I related to agricultural use.. — O z 1 PERIOD "(Check One or More se Appropriate)' ❑ Pre-Columbian O 16th Century O lath Century ❑ 20th Century ❑ 15th Century O 17th Century ® 19th Century SPECIFIC DATEISI (If Applicable and Known) AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Check One or More as Appropriate) O Urban Planning Aboriginal O Education ❑ Political O Prehistoric ❑ Engineering O Religion/Phi. ❑ Other (Specify) ❑ Historic O Industry losophy !o-Agricultyre ❑ Invention ❑ Science Architecture O Landscape ❑ Sculpture Q: Aft , p LI Architecture O Social/Human- ❑ Commerce O Literature Itarian O Cemmunicatlons O Military ❑ Theater ❑,CopaarvpHoq_-_: '.. ••.❑ M. iS':: .:' -i: ! -,'❑ Transportation STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE . The area of significance of this house is its architecture. Constructed of stone in the four-bay, front door plan, " it is representative of a major architectural ,off-center group in Washington County. Houses with thip,.door -and window arrangement seem to be z prevalent in areas where there was a high concentration_ of German O settlers. _ This property has included 54.25 acres since it was purchased by Jacob Warvel from Henry Rinehart in 1844. It remained in the Warvel family until 1929. u w w LA s :> '.ii {(A 44� y.;.,..TM'K�:cit; �.F\✓A ASP;., xary .v ,a$v .�`.�-7,.'+°... .. .- `S„i? - &_. `... .� .s. a:. LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES LATITUDE ANp LONGITUDE COORDINATES jrc DEFINING A RECTANGLE LOCATING THE PROPERTY 0 DEFINING THE CENTER POINT.OF A PROPERTY - R OF LESS THAN TEN.ACRES CORNER LATITUDE LONGITUDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Second.. Degrees Minutes Seconds NW ° _ . p D ^ ' NE o o • SE o . SW I C o .. .. .. • APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMINATED' PROPERTY: • 54.25 acres .- Acreage Justification: Ij ' LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY"BOUNDARIES. STATE: COUNTY STATE: COUNTY: STATE: COUNTY: STATE: COUNTY: 2\' - W Y:�%! M - i�E Y'`' 'uav� s: i LS'r qL S�k� H?GCrv9 °v: ✓ `av . >. NAME AND TITLE: • Paula Stoner Dickey, Consultant ORGANIZATION DATE Washington County Historical Sites Survey September, 1974 STREET AND NUMBER: Court House Annex CITY OR TOWN: STATE Maryland Hagerstown State Liaison Officer Review: (Office Use Only) Significance of this property is: National U State ❑ Local ❑ Signature v!: M. m ell ��� L`'l;�ltl ln�; • n y t� ��� �1 'n 1 , �'eyn24A �F • �. : 1 ' i is � 'ic i____-_- \ e P li I. ll!, - I�p!I �i ,f!J s fA !. 111 ippj� •G�iA II Vii^ atr3 t y .., j..l agplgl�1 .. rte -1 Y,.i 111-11.}'•.y . , copy.l . WA -t -O75. - MARYLAND HISTORICAL. TRUST WORKSHEET District118 - NOMINATION FORM. for the NATIONAL: REGISTEROF. HISTORIC. PLACES, NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE .t, '' a n.,> sz:.t - x �"p .,. ."emu •?kr-.aa~a ZJ edr"£x s. T i '. COMMON: . . The Snavely Farm, -Hamilton Michael.Farm - AND/OR HISTORIC: _ STREET AND NUMBER: - Off Keiffer-Funk Road, 1/2 mile east of White HallRoad CITY OR TOWN: - - Smithsburg STATE _ COUNTY: Maryland J j Washington- f. vSat$aiuSi..ate,.rt4pSJfl OWNERSHIP'' ... STATUS ACCESSIBLE CATEGORY (Check One) TO THE PUBLIC ❑ District Building ❑ Public Public Acquisition: .STATUS ' Yes: ❑ Site b Structure K Private 0 In Process. . 0 Unoccupied . ❑ Restricted 0. Object . 0 Both ❑ Bing Considered ❑ Preservation work ❑_ Unrestricted .• ... - in progress' 2 No PRESENT USE (Check One or More as .SpPraptiate) - - Agricultural'' 0 Government 'Q Park ❑ Transportation - 0 Comments ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ,. ® Private Residence -- ❑ Other -(Specify) . ❑ Educational : 0 Military - -: 0 Religious: - ❑ Entertainment 0 Museum Q Scientific :i TFA w PR SNAME: — ... - .. .. - -— Dr. RobertSnavely ' STREET AND NUMBER: - - . .. Mt. Aetna Road CITY OR TOWN:----_ _ "STATE: Hagerstown Maryland: - w'.. COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS. ETC: _ .. .. Washington County Court House STREET AND NUMBER: . West Washington Street CITY OR TOWNI STATE Hagerstown Maryland itle Reference Cur(Book TITLE OF SURVEY: DATE OF SURVEY: Q Federal 0 State 0 County ❑ Local bEPOS:TORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS, - STR AND NUMBER, CITY OR TOWN: STATE: ....._.u,.._ .............. . - (Check One) CONDITION ❑ Excellent Good ❑.Fair ❑Deteriorated 0 Rulne ❑•Unexposed (Check One) (Check One) Altered 0 Unaltered- - ..❑ Maved ':" ® Or191nal. Site. SCRIBE THE PRESENT P40 ORIGINAL (If known) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE A This house is located about one-half mile south of..Keiffer-Funk Road and about one-half mile east of White Hall Road in Washington County, Maryland... It is situated:on an area of level.ground._and faces east. The structure is. a two-story, three -bay brick cased dwelling with white trim._ A two -story, -:two -bay el extends to the rear or west., The walls are set on low fieldstone foundations and are apparently of log which has been cased with brick. The bricks are set in all stretcher bond and show no decorative arrangement ..except for flat brick arches. over most openings.. Windows are placed at random and show narrow framing with mitered corners. They contain six -over -six pane double -hung • sashes. The main entrance is located in the.,Center,bay of the front. elevation. The, doorway is very simplein appearance and is framed it .similarly to -the windows.- Other entrances are located in.. the west Itand south elevations of the el. A one-story, three -'bay shed roof porch extends along the front — elevation. A second ode -story porch is present at the south wall = of theel. v, "The - roof is covered with sheet metal and extends for several inches beyond': the end_. walls: of the house. The: eaves boxing is embellished M with a simple:band'of molding.. Brick chimneys rise;from inside each gable end and a.small open hipped roof belfry is set on a ridgeof the c. el. -The interior of the 'house ,.is dividedinto three rooms .at the first story. The main room'which_Includes thenorth half of the house. has an enclosed stair in its northeast corner that leads to the second story, o The el consists of one room at the first story and -has a large fire-'-" place at the north wall. "I'Near the house is a metal wiadmill,r, Some distance to the southeast is a large stone end -bank barn. The house'. isin fair to good condition and. stands on':a -tract con- taining `103:25 acres. - - niGb (Check One orMore as Appropriatd) ❑ Pre-Columbian 0 16th Century ® 18th Century 0 20th Century ❑ 15th Century 0 17th Century 19th Century SPECIFIC DATEIS) (IfAppllcable and Known) AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Check One or Marcia Appropriate) Aboriginal ❑ Education 0 Political 0 Urban Planning ❑ Prehistoric ❑ Engineering ❑ Religion/Phi. ❑ Other (Specify) ❑ Historic ❑ Industry losophy ❑ Agriculture ❑ Invention ❑ Science - ® Architecture 0 Landscape 0 Sculpture - - ❑ Aft - Architecture 0 Social/Human- ❑'Commerce ;❑.,Literature itarion Communications ❑ ❑ Military 0 Theater O Conservation p Music- ....OTransportation STATEMEN,T O,F SIGNIFICANCE. - - The area of significance of this '.house is its architecture.. in Constructed of log it:- represents one of.the.major ea"rly..building 2 traditions of Washington County and..the Valley. Many G log structures remain in use today but -are sheathed; with various types of siding or bricks. -- The present appearance of the house is also worthy of note as a Victorian adaptation and alteration of. an earlier structure. U For additional historical information on this and other properties in the Chewaville election district, contact Howard • L. Spessard, 911 View Street, Hagerstown, Md. f., fA - .. gJ... ...... in gg Cri2APH L iQ2°l k� E[4^ 9.., tr, ,uu .. YT LATITUDE ANp LONGI TILDE COOR OFN'A TES LATITUDE O LANO LONGITUDE COO ADIN AT ES O DEFINING THE CENTER POINT OF A PROPERTY OF LESS THAN TEN ACRES . DEFINING A SECTANE LOCATING THE PROPERTY. R - LON 6ITUDE - .. . . LATITUDE - _ .-. CON GITV DE -- "' .LATITUDE CORNER - De - Degrees Minutes s.�'Se Degrees Minutes Seconds Broes Minutes SecondsO u Seconds De roes Minutes Seconds O NE ° SE ° APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMIN ATED 'P ROPERTY: Acreage Justification: �L 19T ALL ST ATE9 AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVER STATE: STATE: STATE: STATE. acres LAPPING STATE OR COUNTY'DOUNDARIE, COUNTY COUNTY+ • NAME AND TITLE: Consultant • Paula Stoner Dickey, ORGANIZATION •Washington County Historical Sites Survey STREET AND NUMBER: • Court House Annex STATE CITY OR TOWN: Maryland Hagerstown State Liaison Officer Review: (Office Us significance of this propertyis; National ❑ state ❑ L.ocal❑ , 1974s Signature n� •s� I! �r .f♦ g� rim"9W s II CYi #.c' I :. ` r a. "'. r _ `pit ,i - £ �``►�i ' a mss:' ✓ ��„ 1± g j j .f P inn I 1 y_ .,..,� y WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION County Administrative Annex 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-6003 Telephone: 240-313-2430 FAX: 240-313-2431 Deaf and Hard of Hearing call 7-1-1 for Maryland Relay AGENDA HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND CONFERENCE ROOM 1A & B WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX 80 WEST BALTIMORE STREET May 4, 2005 7:00PM M A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Minutes — April 6, 2005 D. Communications & Bills E. Unfinished Business 1. Demolition Permit # 2005-02780, 21101 Twin Springs Drive (follow-up)* F. Budget G. New Business 1. Demolition Permit #2005-03008, 13722 Village Mill Drive * 2. National Register nomination — Ridenour Farm (for distribution only) H. Other Business I. Executive Session J. Adjournment * = written material enclosed \BDC\AMAY'05.DOC NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MAY MEET IN CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.508, STATE GOVERNMENT ARTICLE, ANNOTATED CODE OP MARYLAND. INDIVIDUALS REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. CONTACT PERMITS DEPARTMENT AT (301) 791-3065 VOICE/TDD TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. RECYCLED\'- __-- www.washco-md.net MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY April 6, 2005 A and B. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by Chairman Michael Gehr on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 at 7:05 p.m. in Conference Room 1 of the Washington County Administrative Annex. Members present included: Jane Hershey, Sandra Izer, Merry Stinson, Carla Viar and David Wiles. Also present was County Commissioner Dori Nipps and staff members, Stephen T. Goodrich and Debra Eckard. Member Eleanor Lakin was absent. C. MINUTES The minutes from the March 2, 2005 meeting were presented. A motion was made by Ms. Izer to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiles. Unanimously approved. D. COMMUNICATIONS AND BILLS None E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chenev's Neck Road Mr. Goodrich presented a copy of the letter that was sent to Todd and Tracey Bowman in February 2005. Mr. Goodrich also stated that he has had several discussions with Mr. Dan DiVito, Director of Permits and Inspections and Ms. Angela Smith, Deputy Director of Permits & Inspections regarding the course of actions that can be taken to resolve this issue. They have stated that court proceedings would be the next step to resolve this matter; however, due to the lack of significant documented evidence and the length of time that has passed, this course of action is not recommended. Mr. Gehr recommended sending a certified letter to the Bowman's stating that the correspondence of February 15'" is the Commission's final decision unless new plans are submitted before the next HDC meeting on May 4, 2005. Copies of the correspondence should be sent to the Board of County Commissioners and the Maryland Historical Trust. Ms. Viar made a motion to recommend that the Bowman's property records be "flagged" so if historic district property tax credits are applied for in the future this issue will arise again. Seconded by Ms. Izer. Unanimously approved. Barnes Road Bridee Correspondence Mr. Goodrich presented a copy (for informational purposes only) of the letter written by Mr. Gary Rohrer responding to the Washington County Historical Trust's letter of November 5, 2004. This correspondence is for informational purposes only.