HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090506$tT Dry COG
WASHINGTON COUNTY
ae a HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Washington 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 6, 2009
7:00PM
M
A. Call to Order & Roll Call
B. Minutes — April 1, 2009
C. Communications & Bills
1. MD SHA — MD 63 over CSX railroad *.
MD 63 at Pilot Travel Center*
2. MAHDC newsletter
3. The Abell Report. --
D, Unfinished Business
1. Meeting re: Brumbaugh-Kendle-Grove farmhouse MOA
E. Budget
F. New Business
1. Permit #2009-01575, 14720 Claude Lane new dwelling in the Pen Mar Village
2. SHA comments MD 65 at MD 63 (sight distance improvements and right turn lane)*
3. Membership issues
G. Other Business
H. Executive Session
I. Adjournment
* = written material enclosed
\HDC\atnay09.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 VOICEITDD TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS PRIOR
TO THE MEETING.
www.washco-md.net RECYCLED PAPER
Martin O'Malley, Governor (\y+�} QQW"a
John D. Porcari, Secretary
Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor S ministrV I Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator
Administre}
Maryland Department of Transportation
April 2, 2009
Re: Project No. WA327A21
MD 63 over CSX Transportation
SHA Bridge No, 2105700
Washington County, MD
USGS Williwnsport 7.5Quadrangle
Mr. J. Rodney Little
State Historic Preservation Officer
Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Crownsville MD 21032-2023
Dear Mr. Little:
Introduction and Project Description
This letter serves to inform the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) of the Maryland
State Highway Administration's (SHA) finding that there will be no historic properties
affected by the proposed Project No. WA327A21. The project involves deck replacement
to SHA Bridge No. 2105700.
A project location map is included as Attachment 1.
Funding
Federal funds are anticipated for this project.
Area of Potential Effects
In determining the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project, SHA
considered possible physical, visual, atmospheric, and audible impacts to potential
historic properties. The repair of the bridge will not be visually intrusive to adjacent tax
parcels nor impact the level of noise or atmospheric conditions. Therefore, the APE for
this project is limited to the area of direct construction impacts to SHA Bridge No.
2105700 as indicated on the attached SHA quadrangle map for Williamsport (Attachment
2). For archeology, the survey area is defined as the limits of proposed construction,
where ground disturbance would occur and is thus coterminous with the APE.
pentury,o1"08
A^o
r
C,My telephone number/toll-free number is Maryland Relay Servicefor Impaired Hearing or Speech: 1.800.735.2258 Statewide Toll Free
SireetAddress: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202 • Phone: 410.545.0300 • www.marylandroads.com
Mr. J. Rodney Little
MD 63 over CSX Transportation
SHA Bridge No. 2105700
Page Two
Identification Methods and Results
Potentially significant architectural and archeological resources were both
researched as part of the historic investigation instigated by the proposed bridge remedial
project.
Architecture: SHA Architectural Historian Fred Shoken consulted the SHA-GIS Cultural
Resources Database, SHA Historic Highway Bridge Inventory, video footage and aerial
photographs. A field visit was not conducted due to the scope of the project.
The APE for this project is restricted to the area of direct construction impacts to
SHA Bridge No. 2105700. This three span steel beam bridge supported by round concrete
columns was built in 1959. This type of bridge design is commonplace in Maryland and
widely used throughout the Maryland road system. The bridge is not associated with events
that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, nor is it associated
with the lives of persons significant in our past, and it lacks architectural or engineering
significance. SHA recommends that the bridge is not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (Attachment 3, Short Form for Ineligible Properties). Since no
historic structures exist within the APE, this project will have no impact on historic
properties.
Archeology: SHA Archeologist Carol A. Ebright assessed the archeological
potential of the APE through consultation of the SHA-GIS Cultural Resources Database,
aerial photographs, and historic and environmental maps. No field visit was made based
on the minor scope of construction.
The project area contains no recorded archeological sites, nor has it been
previously surveyed. Although in close proximity to Semple Run, the proposed work will
occur in previously disturbed right-of-way, and is unlikely to impact any intact,
significant archeological resources. No further archeological work is warranted.
Review Request
Please examine the attached maps, short DOE form and Eligibility and Effects
Table (Attachment #3). We request your concurrence by May 1, 2009 that there would be
no historic properties affected by the deck replacement for SHA Bridge No. 2105700 MD
63 over CSX Transportation. By carbon copy, we invite the Washington County Historic
District Commission to provide comments and participate in the Section 106 process.
Pursuant to the requirements of the implementing regulations found at 36 CFR Part 800,
SHA seeks their assistance in identifying historic preservation issues as they relate to this
Mr. J. Rodney Little
MD 63 over CSX Transportation
SHA Bridge No. 2105700
Page Three
specific project (see 36 CFR §800.2(c)(3) and (5), and §800.3(f) for information
regarding the identification and participation of consulting parties, and §800.4, and
§800.5 regarding the identification of historic properties and assessment of effects). For
additional information regarding the Section 106 regulations, see the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's website, www.aehp.gov, or contact the Maryland State
Highway Administration or the Maryland Historical Trust. If no response is received by
May 1, 2009 we will assume that this office decline to participate. Please call Fred
Shoken at 410-545-5793 (or via email at fshoken@sha.state.md.us) with questions
regarding standing structures for this project. Carol A. Ebright maybe reached at 410-
545-2879 (or via email at cebright@sha.state.md.us) with concerns regarding archeology.
Very truly yours,
Julie M. Schablitsky
Assistant Division Chief
Environmental Planning Division
Attachments: I) Project Location Map
2) APE MAP
3) Short DOE Form
4) Eligibility and Effects Table
cc: Ms. Chrissy Louloudis, SHA- EPLD
Mr. Jason Pollock, SHA-OBD
Ms. Carol A. Ebright, SHA-EPLD (w/Attachments)
Mr. Fred Shoken, SHA-EPLD
Dr.jjilie M. Schablitsky, SHA-EPLD
)itf Steven Goodrick, Washington Co. Historic District Commission,
(w/Attachments)
Ms. Anne E. Bruder, SHA-EPLD
Concurrence with the MD State Highway Administration's
Determination(s) of Eligibility and/or Effects
Project Number: WA327A21 MHT Log No.
Project Name: MD 63 over CSX Transportation - SHA Bridge No. 2105700
County: Washington
Letter Date: April 2, 2009
The Maryland Historical Trust has reviewed the documentation attached to the referenced
letter and concurs with the MD State Highway Administration's determinations as follows:
Eligibility (as noted in the Eligibility Table [Attachment 4]):
[ ] Concur
[ ] Do Not Concur
Effect (as noted in the Effects Table [Attachment 4]):
[] No Properties Affected
[I No Adverse Effect
[ ] Conditioned upon the following action(s) (see comments below)
[ ] Adverse Effect
Agreement with FHWA's Section 4(f) criteria of temporary use (as detailed in the
referenced letter, if applicable):
II Agree
Comments:
By:
MD State Historic Preservation Office/ Date
Maryland Historical Trust
Return by U.S. Mail or Facsimile to:
Dr. Julie M. Schablitsky, Assistant Division Chief, Environmental Planning Division,
MD State Highway Administration, P.O. Box 717, Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Telephone: 410-545-8870 and Facsimile: 410-209-5046
Project Location Map
MD 63 over CSX Transportation
Washington County
0.7 0 0.7 1.4 Miles
Williamsport Quad
USGS Topo Quad Index
0 County
1:24,000
N
S
itl
E
A E
aN W
cv Ul n
O — c CI]
d'C 10
a H2�
y co v! 0
= c A v% C
(U0
2 Vim a
O p2� 173M9dOH
Q. o Oy
■� O Y
O M
Z SHAWNZEE
Ca L•
a
W o w mio
3l1SVON33iJJ a
331
0 5 z d
Q d J 3fi f b
tJ
O
L ••— MILS u 0a a��sb
L ® KEMPS > ONE
M '<s��. 01313A3N0 Qv
� 0791
0 e.
to
W > d y t �T oa
a
n
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST
SHORT FORM FOR INELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
Property Name: SHA Bridge No. 2105700 - MD 63 over CSX
Address: MD 63 over CSX Transportation
City: Williamsport Zip Code: 21795 County: Washington
USGS Quadrangle(s): Williamsport
Tax Map Parcel Number(s): Tax Map Number:
Project: WA327A21 Agency: State Highway Administration
Agency Prepared By: MD SHA
Preparer's Name: Fred Shoken Date Prepared: 04/02/2009
Preparer's Eligibility Recommendation: X Eligibility not recommended
Complete if the properly is a non-contributing resource to a NR district/property:
Name of the District/Property:
Inventory Number: Eligible: yes Listed: yes
Description of Property and Justification: (Please attach map and photo)
SHA Bridge No. 2105700 is a three span steel beam bridge located just north of Williamsport in Washington County. The bridge
carries MD 63 running north -south over the CSX tracks traveling east -west between Hagerstown and Cumberland. At the time of
its construction the tracks were used by the Western Maryland Railway.
Built in 1959, the bridge's road bed is supported by steel beams over concrete piers and round concrete columns, A low concrete
parapet is capped by a metal pipe rail. This type of bridge design is commonplace in Maryland and widely used throughout the
MD State road system and is often seen along Interstate Highways.
SHA Bridge No. 2105700 is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The bridge is not
associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (Criterion A). The bridge is
not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (Criterion B). The bridge is not eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion C due to a lack of architectural or engineering significance. SHA Bridge No. 1205700 is not likely to yield information
important in prehistory or history (Criterion D).
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended
MHT Comments:
Eligibility not recommended
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services
Date
Reviewer, National Register Program
Date
X i
TY 443_R t5 6 5
't r-
St
Po
d r
Martin O'Malley, Governor
Anthony G. Brown, D. Governor
Mr. J. Rodney Little
State Historic Preservation Officer
Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Crownsville MD 21032-2023
SMA
State Highway
Administration
John D. Porcari, Sec, Ia,y
Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator
Maryland Department of Transportation
Appendix 2
April 22, 2009
Documentation of No Effect Determination
(under the Programmatic Agreement for Minor Projects)
Project: MD 063 at Pilot Travel Center North Entrance
Funding Source: Federal Project Number:
Description of work
The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is proposing traffic signal design and construction
at the north access serving the Pilot Travel Center. Approximately 15 cubic yards of ground disturbance is
anticipated. All work will occur within the SHA right-of-way.
2 fl 2009
AT839B27
County: Washington 7.5' Topographic Map Name: Mason -Dixon
Project Type: 12
Actions Taken:
SHA Architectural Historian Fred Shoken consulted the SHA-GIS Cultural Resources Database,
video footage and aerial photographs The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is confined to the limits
of construction disturbance for constructing a traffic signal within the existing SHA right-of-way
along MD 63 (Greencastle Pike) at the north entrance of the Pilot Travel Center, near Williamsport
in Washington County. There are no standing historic structures within the APE. Directly across
from the entrance is the Brick Four Bay House (MIHP No. WA -I-500). On April 10, 2003, the
Maryland Historical Trust concurred that this property was not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Considering the immediate surroundings include a truck stop,
parking lot and trash collecting facility, the proposed work will not be visually intrusive, impact
the level of noise, nor alter atmospheric conditions to adjacent properties. No additional
architectural investigations are recommended.
(410) 545-8540
0enturyorgr
N �
My telephone number/toll-free number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech: 1.800.735.2258 Statewide Toll Free iyaB toot
StreetAddress: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202 • Phone: 410.545.0300 • www.marylandroads.com
Mr. J. Rodney Little
MD 063 at Pilot Travel Center North Entrance
Page 2
SHA Archeologist Carol A. Ebright assessed the archeological potential of the project area through
consultation of the SHA-GIS Cultural Resources Database, aerial photographs, and Visidata video.
The project area contains no recorded archeological sites. The property adjoining the east side of
MD 63 was previously surveyed (Fehr et al 1997). Visidata video indicates that the right-of-way
has been previously disturbed by the construction of drainage features, including the area in front of
MIHP Property WA -I-500. The proposed work will occur in previously disturbed right-of-way,
and is unlikely to impact any significant archeological resources. No further archeological is
warranted.
Very truly yours,
Julie M. Schablitsky
Assistant Division Chief
Environmental Planning Division
by:
Attachments
cc: Ms. Chrissy Louloudis
Mr. Fred Shoken (w/ Attachments)
Ms. Carol Ebright (w/ Attachments)
Mr. Steven Goodrich, Washington County Historic District Commission (w/ Attachments)
Dr. John F. Krowka, Washington County Historical Trust, Inc. (w/ Attachments)
Project Location Map
MD 63 Pilot Travel Center North Access
Washington County
0.8 0 0.8 1.6 Miles
Mason Dixon Quad 1:24,000
N
USGS Topo Quad Index W E
0 County
S
Cultural Resources Map
MD 63 Pilot Travel Center North Access
Washington County
° / vy y HIGHLAND 'b')
MANOR
°�� Log House and Barn
�� Fehr et al 1997 WAt32 .
Stone Farmstead (Black Walnut
^' ''•'
IlN i
' ' ' ' Earl 19th Century Stone Farmhouse
� � 5 W��J.
.: LI :.:.:.. �1...:.. 1
$
..............................................................................................................................................
L. Miller House..::,I�'�:.'•.;';!:':''':';';';':';':'''':'':';'
::.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
CLA REN
.:a.,i::kQ.:.::.. i.:. i:
E F`o • E • • i : %:
::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.j...:...i.:.i.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:..:.:....:.i...�.:.�.:.i.:.i.:.i.:.i.:.l.:
�.: :1.:.:.!.:.:.i.:.i.: .:.i.:.i.:.i.:. i.:..: i.:. i.:.i.:. i.:.i.:.i.: i.:.i.:.i.:. i.: .:.i.:..:..:
a 0k F
24
.
.. .;.i...
... ...i... ...i... ...i .'.:........ .i.:. ......�................: . .'.;. .;. .: '.:. ...?.;.
�$
.:...:...........:...:...................:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:.:.:.:.:
:..:.
SR
�ryyDh
/EVERT
,'
IY Ro
.i
II
,..
\N/
/
0.4
0
0.4 0.8 Miles
Mason Dixon Quad
1:12,000
Maryland Inventory of Historic Places
National Register of Historic Places
:f:' Archaeological Surveys
Maryland Historical Trust Easements
USGS Topo Quad Index
Q County
0
w
am
C
C)
0
M
Co
0
4)
C)
C
O
a
Co
a
C
Co
to
O
2
an
CO L
a
a)
E
CO
L
a)
C
O
CO
I
o
U
a A E
C o N
c u u
(00.-.
w
•x n 2 axi
x
Z0�—�
O `w Cu
G. n. c y O =
n E C Nx y O N
MM -D - 'O O 0--a
C O CO C N I- .Z'
cvLn Z`•,�� Z' C7O o
COCOZOO
co
Co
LL
a)
C
O
(0
W;
a�o0
004
o�
O
U-
0
z y�
0
LL
�3
Pu
Si
71
O i
X
O,
0
M
O
O
M
O
March 2009
The Abell Report
Volume 22, Number 1
What we think about, and what we'd like you to think about
Published as a community service by The Abell Foundation
ABELL SALUTES:
"Project Light Bulb"
and the 300 "Mrs.
Copelands" who
are saving money
by saving energy.
1924 E. 32nd St., in the Cold Stream
section of Baltimore City near Lake
Montebello, looks pretty much like all
of the other houses on the block: a row -
house with a porch front, a postage -
stamp size front lawn, five steps leading
up to the porch and the front door. But
1924 is not like any of the other houses
on the block; men and women from
Project Light Bulb have been here; they
have made 9924 different.
Mrs. Bobbie Copeland lives here,
and she explains this difference: "The
people from Project Light Bulb
approached me with an offer to make
certain changes in my home at no cost
that would save energy, and at the same
time, save me money on my Gas and
Electric bill. They turned out to be right.
It's true. By saving energy I find I am
saving money."
And what changes that have the
technicians from Project Light Bulb
made? To answer, Mrs. Copeland
escorts a visitor on a tour, starting in the
living room. She lights a table lamp and
points out that the bulb is of the 'com-
pact fluorescent kind.' Most all of the
bulbs in the house are these compact
fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). They
provide much brighter light than the
conventional bulbs. And they do not
take as much energy to keep them lit."
continued on page 9
Heritage Tax Credits: Maryland's Own
Stimulus to Renovate Buildings for Pro-
ductive Use and Create Jobs, an $8.53
Return on Every State Dollar Invested
by Joseph Cronyn and Evans Paull
Baltimore's historic center of com-
mercial activity at Howard and Lexing-
ton streets is now at the center of the
city's economic and green resurgence.
The Hecht's and Stewart's department
store shoppers have long since departed,
now replaced by the residents of the
Atrium Apartments and the office work-
ers of Catholic Relief Services' world
headquarters.
The transformation of that intersec-
tion and its vibrant West Side mixed -use
community is due in great part to one of
the most successful economic develop-
ment programs ever designed by Mary-
land state government, the Maryland
Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax
Credit Program. But the intersection
can also be considered "climate change
central," exemplifying the types of
changes needed to set Maryland on a
sustainable path for future growth.
Most Atrium residents and Catholic
Relief Services office workers are prob-
ably unaware that their choice of a place
to live and work is about as close to "cli-
mate neutral" as you can get on a devel-
oped piece of real estate in the state of
Maryland. The occupants of these
buildings drive at least 40 percent less
than regional norms, since residents can
walk or take transit to everything from
baseball games to movies. Both build-
ings have been renovated to LEED or
LEED-equivalent standards, saving
about 30 percent of energy use within
the building. In addition, the area is also
served by Baltimore's district heating
system, so the energy that is required is
delivered with low -carbon efficiency.
The Maryland Historic Tax Credit
Program is well established as a com-
munity revitalization engine, a key ele-
ment in the renewal of downtowns and
older established communities across
the state: Berlin, Cumberland, Easton,
Frederick, Hagerstown, and more. Less
recognized, but defined and quantified
here for the first time, is the role of the
tax credit in reinforcing smart growth,
lowering greenhouse gases, improving
water quality, saving greenfields, lower-
ing demand for landfill space, and mak-
ing better use of existing infrastructure.
In short, the historic preservation tax
credit program is an environmental -eco-
nomic development win -win.
Background
The Maryland Heritage Structure
Rehabilitation Tax Credit (MHRTC)
Program is intended to encourage the
redevelopment of historic properties in
the state by offering developers tax
incentives equal to up to 20 percent of
eligible rehabilitation costs. Though
both commercial (i.e., income -produc-
ing) and owner -occupied residential his-
toric properties can be eligible for the
program, the bulk of rehabilitation activ-
ity and state expenditures have involved
continued on page 2
confined from page I
commercial structures. Combined with
federal historic preservation tax incen-
tives in a similar amount, the state pro-
gram has provided a powerful incentive
for recycling older, underutilized and
economically obsolete buildings into
new uses: abandoned warehouse and
manufacturing structures have become
exciting office space for entrepreneurial
new companies; economically and func-
tionally obsolete office buildings have
become upscale apartments bringing
new residents to formerly struggling
downtown areas.
In the 1996-2002 period, the Mary-
land program was a leader nationally in
the number and scale of commercial
projects which it enabled. The success
of the program, however, led to legiti-
mate concerns about the unpredictability
of annual tax credit outlays and, then,
legislative restrictions which curtailed
its productivity. Over the 2002-2004
period, the commercial program was
progressively cut back: capping total
program expenditures and expenditures
per property, apportioning awards geo-
graphically, instituting competitive
ranking for scarce credits —all of which
limited its desirability for developers.
The number of completed projects
has dropped precipitously: from 75
projects and $303.9 million total reha-
bilitation cost among 2001 applicants to
only 20 projects and $32.8 million total
rehabilitation cost among 2005 appli-
cants. The state's expenditure for tax
credits also dropped proportionately
from $74.8 million to $6.6 million for
those years, yielding a program cost
which some would consider more fis-
cally responsible, but others would
characterize as short-sighted in light of
the long-term benefits created by the
rehabilitation activity.
Economic & Fiscal Impact of
Historic Preservation
As an important gauge of the bene-
fits which historic preservation can
bring to Maryland, we analyze the
impact of tax credit -facilitated projects
on the state's economy and public
budgets over the lifespan of the pro-
gram since 1996. The distinct impacts
of the commercial and residential com-
ponents of the inventory are studied
separately, using ratios contained in the
IMPLAN economic input-output model
for Maryland.
Commercial Properties
The Maryland Heritage Structure
Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program has
facilitated the redevelopment of 407 his-
toric commercial structures over its 12 -
year life. Those projects involved over
$923.0 million in total rehabilitation
spending ($1.02 billion in 2009 dollars)
by developers, assisted by an investment
of $213.9 million in state tax credits.
The commercial portfolio has the fol-
lowing characteristics:
• Economic Development
Over 12 years, completed commer-
cial projects have generated a total
economic impact on the Maryland
economy of more than $1.74 billion
($2009) in total economic activity,
employing an estimated 15,120 per-
sons earning $673.1 million ($2009).
Construction labor on the job -sites
totaled an estimated 9,248 workers
earning $443.4 million ($2009) —
over three -fifths of the total econom-
ic impact.
Although not usually thought of as a
jobs program, historic renovation is a
labor-intensive process which cre-
ates jobs —especially valuable in an
economic downturn such as we are
now experiencing, Economic mod-
els confirm experience that rehabili-
tation activity creates 20 percent
more jobs than new construction.
Over the past 12 years, the state's tax
credit investment has generated
1,850 more jobs than would have
been created had the same funds
been used for new construction.
• Fiscal Impact
During their construction periods
alone, the 407 projects generated an
estimated $83.7 million ($2009) in
state and local taxes —effectively
paying down more than one-third of
the state's total $213.9 million tax
credit investment. The greatest
return on the state's investment,
however, comes from the long-term
increase in employment and property
taxes at the historic properties and
their neighbors.
Scale of Rehabilitation
Though projects have ranged in their
scale of total rehabilitation expendi-
tures from $6,000 to $70.9 million,
more than three -fifths (60.9%) of
projects have involved spending of
less than $500,000. Only 48 struc-
tures have required a rehabilitation
scope exceeding $5.0 million, but
those properties generated over
$691.0 million in rehabilitation
spending —three-quarters of total
rehabilitation expenditures and tax
credits awarded by the state.
• Geographic Distribution
The projects have been concentrated
in Baltimore City, which captured
more than three -fifths (63.6%) of all
awards, representing 85.9 percent of
all rehabilitation expenditures and
87.1 percent of all tax credits.
Nonetheless, projects were located in
all but three Maryland jurisdictions —
Charles, Garrett and Somerset coun-
The Abell Report is published bi-monthly by The Abell Foundation
111 S. Calvert Street, 23rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-6174 • (410) 547-1300 • Fax (410) 539-6579
The Abell Reports on the Web: www.abell.org
2
continued from page 2
ties. Frederick (20), Anne Arundel
(18) and Baltimore (18) counties had
the next most numerous inventories
of commercial tax credit awards.
• Non -Profit Developers
Non-profit developers accounted for
about one -tenth of commercial reha-
bilitation projects: 36 projects
involving $98.2 million in expendi-
tures. Since the non -profits could
not themselves take advantage of the
tax credits, they received refunds of
the full amount of the tax credits.
• Federal Tax Credits
The Maryland Historical Trust esti-
mates that $172.2 million in Federal
Historic Preservation Tax Incentives
Program tax credits have been lever-
aged by the Maryland tax credits —
almost a one-to-one match. Owing to
their challenging nature, most com-
mercial projects would not be
attempted without the equity provid-
ed by the combination of state and
federal incentive programs.
Residential Properties
Since 1997, the Maryland tax credit
program has assisted in the rehabilita-
tion of 2,351 historic residential struc-
tures. Those projects involved over
$201.4 million in total rehabilitation
spending ($217.1 million in 2009 dol-
lars) by owner -occupants and their
developers, assisted by an investment of
$41.6 million in state tax credits. The
residential portfolio has the following
characteristics:
Economic Development
Over 12 years, completed residential
projects have generated a total eco-
nomic impact on the Maryland econ-
omy of more than $354.9 million
($2009) in total economicactivity,
employing an estimated 3,343 per-
sons earning $88.5 million ($2009).
Construction labor on the job -sites
totaled an estimated 1,606 workers
earning $38.9 million ($2009) —
almost half of the total economic
impact.
Fiscal Impact
During their construction periods
alone, the 2,351 projects generated
an estimated $23.5 million ($2009)
in state and local taxes —effectively
paying down more than one-third of
the state's total $41.6 million tax
credit investment. The greatest
return on the state's investment,
however, comes from the long-term
increase in property taxes for the his-
toric properties and their neighbors
in perpetuity.
• Scale of Rehabilitation
Though projects have ranged in their
scale of total rehabilitation expendi-
lures from $5,000 to $3.3 million,
three-quarters (74.6%) of projects
have been small —involving total
rehabilitation spending of less than
$100,000. Only 13 homes required a
rehabilitation scope exceeding $1.0
million —in total about one -tenth of
all rehabilitation expenditures and of
state residential tax credits.
• Geographic Distribution
Residential rehabilitation projects
were awarded tax credits in all coun-
ties in Maryland, though almost
three -fifths of projects and spending
were located in Baltimore City.
There have been 1,352 homes reha-
bilitated in the city, involving eligi-
ble expenditures of $118.0 million.
Montgomery (241) and Baltimore
(229) counties had the next greatest
numbers of residential tax credit
awards.
Tax Credit Effectiveness
Over three -fifths (62.4%) of residen-
tial applicants have stated that they
would not have attempted rehabilita-
tion of their historic properties
unless the Maryland tax credits were
available.
Tax Credit Leverage
The economic impact of historic
preservation tax credits is magnified by
the fact that, for every $1.00 invested by
the State of Maryland, there must be a
total expenditure of at least $5.00 in
rehabilitation expenses by the property
owner. Using the IMPLAN economic
and fiscal impact statistical model, we
estimate the leverage gained by state in
the rehabilitation of commercial projects
as follows:
Leverage of Maryland Tax Credits
Impact of 20% Commercial Credit
Per $1.00
of Credit
Total Economic Output
$8.53
Employee Compensation
$3.30
State & Local Tax Receipts
$0.41
Construction Wages (On -Site)
$2.18
Per $1.0 Million
in Credits
Total Employment (Jobs)
72.5
Construction Jobs (On -Site)
45.5
During the construction period
alone, each $1.00 of tax credits invested
yields the state $8.53 in total economic
output including $3.30 of wages —two-
thirds of which are received directly by
construction workers on -site. Job cre-
ation is also significant, with 72.5 jobs
(45.5 on -site) being created during the
construction period throughout Mary-
land for each $1.0 million investment by
the state.
Inventory of Historic Structures
Maryland's historically significant
properties are a unique resource preserv-
ing a built record of the development of
American society from colonial days to
the present. Given Maryland's place in
U.S. history, it is perhaps not surprising
that Maryland boasts a greater number
of structures listed in National Register
and local historic districts than any other
state in the Union.
There is no comprehensive list of all
designated historic structures in the
3
continued from page 3
state, since each county and municipali-
ty has the authority to create local his-
toric districts. A reasonable estimate of
the number of contributing structures
can be made, however, based on calcu-
lations from a 2003 Lipman Frizzell &
Mitchell study commissioned by the
Maryland Historical Trust, since updat-
ed to 2008 by the state agency. The
agency estimates the number of con-
tributing structures in National Register
historic districts to be 89,523 as of
December 31, 2008. Adding to that fig-
ure an estimated 8,087 structures in
local historic districts which are not
counted above, we calculate the number
of eligible structures throughout the
state to be approximately 97,610. (It
should be noted that 60,835 or 62.3 per-
cent of those properties are located in
Baltimore City —leading to its dispro-
portionate representation in tax credit
expenditures and economic/fiscal bene-
fits analyzed above. Prince George's,
Frederick and Washington counties
have the next largest inventories of his-
toric properties.)
• Tax Credit "Capture"
The average number of preservation
projects (the vast majority being
owner -occupied residential) receiv-
ing tax credit awards over 12 years
has been 230 per year, though the
total reached as high as 491 for cases
initiated in 2004. Even assuming
that the number of tax credit applica-
tions in a given year might total 500,
we calculate that only 0.5 percent of
all eligible structures are being
addressed in any one year. (We also
note that the proportion of applica-
tions which do not ultimately result
in the completion of approved reha-
bilitation and an award of tax credits
seems to be about 10 percent. The
total volume of applications to be
processed annually, however, is
tremendous —and the Maryland His-
torical Trust needs to be staffed
appropriately to handle the volume.)
• Large Historic Structures
In 2003, Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell
estimated the number of potentially
eligible high rehabilitation cost prop-
erties (requiring more than $15 mil-
lion in rehabilitation) at approxi-
mately 300 properties statewide.
That universe was comprised of
properties of at least 150,000 sq. ft.
which were constructed no later than
1950. That estimate was based on
available but incomplete data from
the Maryland Department of Assess-
ments & Taxation on all private, pub-
lic, utility, institutional and non-prof-
it properties. In the event that the
cap were lifted regarding maximum
project size eligible for tax credits, it
seems that there would be a finite
universe of properties which could
trigger the payment of very high
(e.g., greater than $3.0 million) tax
credits in any given year.
In a review of the 12 -year experience
of the Maryland tax credit program, it is
apparent that cutbacks in the funding of
the program combined with additional
program restrictions (especially per -
project funding cap, rating/ranking pro-
cedures, jurisdictional allocations) have
reduced program production —as
intended. The experience of other states
with similar programs (e.g., Virginia,
North Carolina, Missouri) but without
the added caps and restrictions is not
exactly comparable to Maryland's due to
differences in overall program guide-
lines and local conditions. It is clear,
however, that those states enjoyed a rel-
atively consistent level of production in
the years following 2002 —falling since
2007 due to the current economic reces-
sion. Were Maryland to have retained its
pre -2002 guidelines for the tax credit
program, it is likely that demand for the
tax credits would have been sustained
and that the job creation and environ-
mental benefits of the program would
have continued.
Community Revitalization
Case studies conducted in the past by
Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell' and others
have documented additional community
revitalization benefits of the tax credit
program. These included:
• CBIZ/BGS&G Building
(Cumberland)
The building was regarded as a key
linking element between the Cum-
berland Mall and Canal Place and
was credited with stimulating eco-
nomic activity in both directions,
thereby contributing to the heritage
tourism that was one of the comer -
stones of the city's economic plans;
• Cannon Hill (Frederick)
The redevelopment was credited
with stimulating significant re-
investment activity in both residen-
tial and commercial corridors adja-
cent to the site.
• American Can Complex
(Baltimore City)
Analysis revealed that building per-
mit activity tripled and neighborhood
property values rose 17.6 percent in
the four-year period following com-
pletion of the project. This compared
to citywide property values rising 4A
percent.
Tide Point (Baltimore City)
Certainly not typical of all tax credit
projects in its scale, Tide Point is
regarded by many as a linchpin proj-
ect, sparking revitalization of the
city's Locust Point neighborhood.
The $17.7 million tax credit was the
key financing source for this redevel-
opment of the former Procter and
Gamble soap plant. Tide Point con-
sists of 400,000 square feet of mod-
ernized office and technology space,
accommodating 1,600 jobs and rep-
resenting $72 million investment.
The project, completed in 2000,
paved the way for at least three sub-
sequent conversions of underutilized
industrial land to new residential,
mixed -use, and commercial redevel-
opment projects, totaling several
4
cant nued from page 4
multiples of the Tide Point invest-
ment (Silo Point, Foundry on Fort,
and McHenry Row). A recent mas-
ter's thesis'- focuses on indicators of
neighborhood revival:
— Average commercial and residen-
tial property sales prices rose
approximately fivefold from
1995 (pre -Tide Point, $58,800) to
2007 ($276,600);
— Construction permits grew dra-
matically, about fivefold from
1995 to 2007. When the construc-
tion permits are compared to city-
wide permits, which also grew,
the Locust Point growth rate still
exceeds the citywide rate by a
factor of 3,52.
Environmental Impact of
Historic Preservation
We document and quantify the bene-
fits associated with historic preservation
as a primary tool in encouraging respon-
sible growth within existing communi-
ties including impacts on air quality,
greenhouse gases, water quality, travel.
congestion, public health, and preserva-
tion of farmland. Our analysis demon-
strates that each $1.0 million investment
in historic tax credits results in signifi-
cant environmental benefits, as illustrat-
ed in the following table (and explained
in the narrative below).
The benefits of growth within exist-
ing communities are contrasted with the
negatives associated with sprawling
development patterns. In each case
below, therefore, preservation / redevel-
opment of an historic structure is consid-
ered to save the environment from the
construction of a new structure of similar
scale on a suburban "greenfields" site.
Climate Change, VMTk and
Walkable Communities
Experts agree that reducing vehicle
miles traveled (VMTs) is a critical ele-
ment of climate change strategies. There
is solid evidence from multiple studies
that "compact development" saves in the
range of 20 to 40 percent VMTs relative
to sprawl' Some highly urbanized and
walkable communities have been docu-
mented to reduce VMTs by up to 75 per-
cent.4 The factor that has proven to be
most highly correlated with VMT reduc-
tion is density. Several studies found that
doubling density corresponds to a 25 to
30 percent reduction in VMTs' The
urban form characteristics that are corre-
lated with VMT reduction are, in rank
order: density, mixing uses, proximity to
transit, proximity to city center or job
centers, and connectivity of the streets
and the pedestrian friendliness of the
public thoroughfare (grid streets).
Historic structures are typically
found in communities meeting all these
criteria, Both residential and job densi-
ties surrounding all tax credit commer-
cial properties were evaluated for this
study and found to be at least triple those
in developed suburban areas. Further,
86 percent of all tax credits have been
awarded to Baltimore City projects and,
according to the Baltimore Metropolitan
Council, city residents on average drive
at half the rate of suburbanites: 14.2
VMT per person per day contrasted with
28.1 VMT for suburbanites.`
A community's "walkability" rank-
ing is both a quality of life factor and a
good correlate and predictor of VMT
reduction. Researchers for this study
rated each MHRTC project on a walka-
bility index (www.walkscore.com) and
found that the median walkscore was 91
out of 100 (90 to 100 is the highest rank-
ing, characterized as a "walker's para-
dise"). This ranking means that the vast
majority of MHRTC projects are located
in mixed -use communities where walk-
ing is a viable alternative to car travel.
Based on our analysis, we conclude
that historic preservation projects reduce
VMTs 30 to 40 percent as compared to
new suburban development (higher
reduction is generally attributed to com-
pact development — see Appendix for an
Environmental Impact of Historic Preservation:
Benefits of $1.0 Million Investment in Historic Tax Credits*
Benefit
Quantification
Renovated space
50,000 sq ft
Environmental Impacts:
• Lower VMTs (20%-40% saving compared to sprawl)
198,000 - 264,000 VMTs
• Lower travel -related C02 compared to sprawl
92 —123 metric tons C02
• If the rehabilitation is also LEED equivalent for energy
efficiency, the C02 "saved" relative to conventional
construction in suburban location
—This is equivalent in gallons of gasoline
164 —195 metric tons C02
18,700-22,000 gal. of gas
—This is equivalent taking vehicles off the road
30 to 35 vehicles
• Retained "embodied" energy
55,000 MBTUs
• Greenfield land preserved
5.2 acres
• Lowered run -o0 per sq It or DU, relative to low density
sprawl — percentage reduction
70%
• Less demolition debris in landfills, relative to demolition
and new construction
2,500 tons
• Value of natural resources conserved, relative to
new construction
$100,000
Infrastructure investments "saved"
$500,000 - $800,000
Calculations assume 20% credit and rehabilitation cost of $100 per sq. ft.
5
continued from page 5
explanation of the methodology). The
VMT reduction can be quantified as car-
bon dioxide reduction over the 12 -year
experience of the tax credit program as
follows:
Households and employees have
reduced their travel by 34.3 - 45.8
million miles
• CO2 emissions have been reduced
by 13,700 .21,200 21,200 metric tons
• These VMT and CO2 reductions
represent:
—1.7- 2.3 million gallons of
gasoline: or,
—2,500-3,800 cars removed
from the road for a year.
The Dual Energy Benefit of
Energy -Efficient Buildings in
Energy -Efficient Locations
Historic preservation projects tend to
be both energy -efficient within the
building envelope and located in areas
that encourage non -automotive means of
access and egress —yielding dual energy
conservation benefit. Policymakers
should consider ways to adjust the tax
credit to add a benefit for green, energy
efficient buildings in order to maximize
the sustainable energy -saving aspects of
preservation projects. Every 50,000 -
square -foot building that reduces VMTs
by 40 percent and also lowers building
energy use by 30 percent (typical LEED
savings) reduces CO2 production by 195
metric tons —the equivalent of taking 35
automobiles off the road. (See Appen-
dix for examples of preservation proj-
ects that offer both transportation and in -
building energy savings)
There is a common misperception
that older buildings are less energy effi-
cient than buildings built in more recent
times. Data from the US Energy Infor-
mation Administration indicates that
buildings built before 1920 are approxi-
mately equivalent to buildings built
from 2000 to 2003, and the worst energy
offenders are actually those built in the
1970's and 1980's.
The reasons that historic structures
are relatively energy -efficient have to do
with the use of materials that are superi-
or insulators, use of natural ventilation,
as well as siting/orientation for efficient
heating and cooling in the pre -air condi-
tioning era.
Embodied Energy
Embodied energy is defined as the
amount of energy associated with
extracting, processing, manufacturing,
transporting and assembling the building
materials — essentially the energy
already expended to build a building.'
Preservationists argue that embodied
energy, even though it is backward -look-
ing, is legitimate to count when weigh-
ing the energy impacts of alternative
plans, because it accurately brings into
consideration a longer -term, life cycle -
oriented approach, which is entirely
appropriate given that greenhouse gases
dissipate over very long time periods.
Embodied energy is calculated at
about 1.1 MBTU (million BTUs) per
square foot for a generic commercial
building. Every tax credit project can be
viewed as retaining (not wasting) the
embodied energy of the renovated build-
ing. Estimating that the historic preser-
vation tax credit program has facilitated
the renovation of 10.2 million sq ft of
commercial space and, then, multiplying
that amount of space times 1.1 MBTU
per square foot results in a calculation
that 11.2 million MBTU of embodied
energy has been "retained." For per-
spective, 11.2 million MBTU is equiva-
lent to 67 million gallons of gasoline or
595,000 metric tons of CO2.'
Saving Greenfields
Tax credit projects by their nature
involve the redevelopment of land that
has already been used. Historic preser-
vation represents an alternative way to
accommodate growth and avoid the out-
ward pressure to develop greenfields,
farms and virgin land. An EPA -funded
study for brownfields sites estimated
that one acre of brownfields redeveloped
corresponds to conserving 4.5 acres of
greenfields.' The density data reflected
in the VMT section and the appendices
support this 1:4.5 acre ratio as a conser-
vative estimate.
Using this ratio (1 acre redeveloped
to 4.5 acres greenfields saved), we con-
servatively estimate that the program
has already saved at least 1,053 acres of
greenfields land by virtue of accommo-
dating growth in existing communities.
Infrastructure Savings
Historic preservation projects are
reusing land which is served by existing
infrastructure: roads, storm and sanitary
sewers, utility lines, etc. A review of
national literature, combined with dis-
cussions with local developers and pub-
lic officials led to the conclusion that
preservation projects save 50 to 80 per-
cent in infrastructure costs compared to
new suburban development." _
We calculate, therefore, that infra -
Commercial Bldgs
- Average Energy Use
per Square Foot by Time Period
120,000
90,234
90,976
94,968 100,077
100,7100
88,834
00,127
80,198
79,703
80,000
60,000
40,000ilillili
20,000
0
•
'
before 1920 1920-45
1945-59 1960-69
1970-79 1080-89 1990-99 2000-03
continued from page 6
structure investment "savings" over the
past 12 years have amounted to between
$102 and $163 million, which can be
interpreted as an indirect fiscal benefit
returning over one -quarter of the state's
tax credit investment. (National
research also indicates that there are
operating cost savings attributable to
more dense development such as the his-
toric structures, but the magnitude is not
well established.)
Lowering Runoff and Improving
Water Quality
Tax credit projects, because of their
density, can be credited with reducing
stormwater runoff and improving water
quality. EPA estimates that higher den-
sity (e.g., 8 Dwelling Units per acre)
development reduces runoff by 74 per-
cent as compared to a low density (1 DU
per acre) development."
Less Waste in Landfills
Demolition debris comprises rough-
ly 24 percent of the municipal solid
waste stream, estimated to be 325 mil-
lion tons nationally in 2003, for exam-
ple " The EPA estimates that residential
demolition generates • 115 pounds of
waste per square foot and the demolition
of non-residential buildings produces
approximately 155 pounds of waste per
square foot"
Assuming each tax credit preserva-
tion project to be an alternative to dem-
olition, we estimate that the state's
investment in historic commercial prop-
erties has "saved" 387,000 tons of mate-
rial from landfills over the past 12 years.
This amount of landfill material is the
equivalent of filling a football stadium
to a depth of 50-60 feet."
There are also energy savings due to
NOT demolishing and landfilling this
amount of material. The authors estimat-
ed that 5,000 metric tons of CO2 have
been conserved due to MHRTC pro-
gram. This amount of CO2 is the equiv-
alent of 900 automobiles being taken off
the road.
Health Benefits of Historic,
Walkable Communities
With a median walkscore of 91 out
of 100, tax credit projects have been
objectively ranked as being located
almost universally in highly walkable
communities. National research corre-
lates walkable communities with higher
levels of compliance with exercise
guidelines" " and lower levels of obesi-
ty, high "body mass index," high blood
pressure, arthritis, headaches, and
breathing difficulties."
Conclusions
The research conducted by Lipman
Frizzell & Mitchell and Northeast -Mid-
west Institute is clear in demonstrating
the short- and long-term yield which the
State of Maryland has received on its
investment in historic preservation
through the Maryland Heritage Structure
Rehabilitation Tax Credit program. His-
toric preservation is also economic
development and environmental preser-
vation —creating jobs and saving green -
fields. As urban areas are revitalized
and sprawl reduced, the Maryland econ-
omy will grow along a more sustainable
trajectory and its citizens' quality of life
will be enhanced.
If the Maryland Heritage Structure
Rehabilitation Tax Credit is to be maxi-
mally effective in delivering its environ-
mental, economic and fiscal benefits in
the future, we recommend that to the
extent feasible the following objectives
be realized:
Smart Growth Program
The program's greatest benefits are
long-term: more sustainable commu-
nities, reduced infrastructure costs,
increased property tax base, and oth-
ers. Historic tax credit investments
must be evaluated from a long-term
investment perspective similar to
public finance bond investments.
• Remove/increase program
and project caps
The tax credit program is effective at
capturing growth in the right places
and creating jobs. The larger projects
create more employment and also
tend to catalyze broader revitalization
in their immediate neighborhoods.
The greater the availability of tax
credits, the greater the program's job -
creating potential —particularly in the
midst of a recessionary economy.
• Increase Predictability
The greater the predictability the
program can have for developers and
investors, the more likely they will
be to attempt historic rehabilitation.
Removal of rating and ranking sys-
tems (along with their associated
time delays) will encourage the use
of the program.
• Encourage energy -efficient
rehabilitation
Starting from a base of relatively
more energy -efficient buildings,
encouraging greater energy savings
in historic structures through green
building standards will enhance the
program's total impact.
The Authors
In this analysis, the authors review
recent research into the benefits of the
rehabilitation of historic structures
regarding their impact on the environ-
ment, on the Maryland economy and on
the budgets of state and local govern-
ments in Maryland. Benefits are quanti-
fied insofar as current research will per-
mit. The principal author, Joseph
Cronyn of Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell
LLC, is a nationally -recognized authori-
ty on the economic and fiscal impacts of
historic preservation. His co-author,
Evans Paull of the Northeast -Midwest
Institute, has done extensive research
into brownfields, sustainable develop-
ment, and environmental issues for the
development of national policy.
An appendix containing additional
documentation of the methodology and
assumptions is available from The Abell
Foundation upon, request by contacting
abell@abell.org
7
continued from page 7
Endnotes
Lipman-Frizzell, "Maryland Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credits, an Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis," 2002.
2 Gregory William Lewis, 'The Role of Brownfields in the Rejuvenation of an Older Industrial City, A Case Study of two Projects in Baltimore, Mary-
land." Spring, 2008.
a Urban Land Institute, Smart Growth America, the Center for Clean Air Policy, and the National Center for Smart Growth, "Growing Cooler: Evidence
on Urban Development and Climate Change," Washington, D.C. January 2008 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/gcindex.htmi. Other studies include:
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, "Towards a Climate -Friendly Built Environment," Pew Report; Kris Wemstedt, "Overview of Existing Studies
on Community Impacts of Land Reuse," National Center for Environmental Economics, 2004; The Fenders Network and the Environmental and Energy
Study Institute, "Energy and Smart Growth — It's About Flow and Where We Build."
4 John Holtzclaw,* Robert Clear, Hank Dittmar, David Goldstein and Peter Haas, "Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteris-
tics Determine Auto Ownership and Use," Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25(1), pp 1-27, March 2002.
s John Holtzclaw,* Robert Clear, Hank Dittmar, David Goldstein and Peter Hans, "Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteris-
tics Determine Auto Ownership and Use;' Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25(1), pp 1-27, March 2002.
6 Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Factors Affecting Travel Behavior, for the Transportation 2030 Project.
9 The 1.1 MBTU per sq ft factor represents a clarification from Patrice Frey, National Trust for Historic Preservation. The embodied energy data is based
on 1970's data that is being revised. According to Ms. Frey, the revisions will likely result in lower numbers.
a CO2 calculated from the EPA CO2 equivalency calculation tool: htip://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html
George Washington University, "Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the Redevelopment of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors,
Relative Weights and Areal Differentials," 2001, http://www.gwu.edu/—eemBrownfields/
"'See Appendix for methodology. Three primary sources were used: Scott Bernstein, "Using The Hidden Assets of America's Communities and Regions
to Ensure Sustainable Communities." Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2003, http://www.cnt.org/hidden-assets/ptlf.html; James Frank, "The Costs
of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of Literature." Washington, DC. Urban Land Institute. 1989; Troy D Mix, "Exploring the Benefits of
Compact Development;" for Delaware's Office of State Planning Coordination, 2003
Lynn Richards, "Water and the Density Debate;' Planning Magazine, June 2006, APA http://www.epa.gov/smirtgrowth/water_density.htm
Construction Materials Recycling Association: http://www.edrecycling.org/
Patrice Frey, "Making the Case: Historic Preservation as Sustainable Development," A draft white paper, October 2007.
14 See: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/CaseStudies/DGSDiversion.pdf
ie L.D. Frank, et at, "Linking Objectively Measured Physical Activity with Objectively Measured Urban Form: Findings from SMARTRAQ," Annerican
Journal oJ'Preventative Medicine 2005;28(2S2):117-125, cited in Reid Ewing, "Understanding the Relationship Between Public Health and the Environ-
ment," A Report to the LEED-ND Core Committee, US Green Buildings Council, May 2006.
16 J.F. Sollis, et at, "Active Transportation and Physical Activity, Opportunities for Collaboration on Community Health;' Transportation and Research Part
A 38, 2004, cited in Reid Ewing, "Understanding the Relationship Between Public Health and the Environment," A Report to the LEED-ND Core Com-
mittee, US Green Buildings Council, May, 2006.
R. Ewing, el at, "Relationship between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity and Morbidity," American Journal of Health Piv,notion, Vol. 18,
No, 1, 2003; and Lawrence Frank, Martin Andresen, Tom Schmid,, "Obesity Relationships With Community Design, Physical Activity, and Time Spent
in Cars," American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 27, No 2,2004; BOTH cited in Reid Ewing, "Understanding the Relationship Between Public
Health and the Environment;' A Report to the LEED-ND Core Committee, US Green Buildings Council, May 2006.
ABELL SALUTES
Continued from page 1
The next stop is the kitchen, actually
the kitchen sink. Ms. Copeland points to
a lever on a device fixed to a spigot.
"Water comes out in a shower, in sepa-
rate little streams, so there is less water
coming out to do the same job" She
presses a tiny lever near the faucet han-
dle. "This stops the water at the tempera-
ture you had it, so when you restart it the
water comes out at that same tempera-
ture. There is no loss of water, or of the
energy to heat the water, when you leave
the kitchen for any reason or pick up the
phone to interrupt what you were doing."
Mrs. Copeland leads the visitor
down steps off the kitchen and into the
basement, which has been rebuilt into a
club room. She points to the hot water
heater. "It's wrapped in three and a half
inches of insulation. It keeps the heat in
and the savings in energy up."
Back on the first floor she points to
the thermostat on the wall near the stair-
well. She says, "You can preset the con-
trol to get differing temperatures at the
times when you want it, so that you need
not waste energy keeping the house
warm when you are not here or when
you are asleep and might want it cooler.
"I not only can take credit for saving
energy, I got credit on my monthly budg-
et bill from Baltimore Gas and Electric. I
am delighted with the program."
Mrs. Copeland's house at 1924 E.
32nd St. is one of 300 houses where
Civic Works has installed the energy
saving, money saving Project Light
Bulb program.
The program traces its origins in Bal-
timore to The Abell Foundation's interest
in energy conservation. Aware of Civic
Works' strong track record of neighbor-
hood stabilization, community service
and skills development, the Foundation
approached the organization about fund-
ing for a new energy -efficiency program.
Civic Works researched a program in
Colorado, implemented by the Mile High
Youth Conservation Corp with funding
from the Governor's Office of Energy
Management and Conservation. With a
start-up grant of $67,375 from the Abell
Foundation, the Colorado model was
modified into a pilot program for Balti-
more. Project Light Bulb was born.
The project is designed to be easy to
implement, immediately addressing the
five things in the house that can quickly
and most cost-effectively reduce energy
consumption and lower household ener-
gy costs —with a high priority on light
bulb replacement, with removal of up to
15 incandescent bulbs within the house
and replacement with CFL light bulbs.
The Maryland Energy Administration
provided 1,600 CFL bulbs for the pilot
and Baltimore Gas and Electric provided
1,000 CFL bulbs. In addition, Civic
Works tests thermostat settings for the
furnace and air conditioner and tests
temperatures of hot water heaters and
refrigerators. They replace one kitchen
and one bathroom faucet with aerators
and replace the showerhead with a low -
flow version to reduce consumption of
hot water. As a safety measure, Civic
Works provides a carbon monoxide
detector and makes referrals to the Fire
Department for smoke detectors in hous-
es where there are none. Importantly,
they provide education on conservation
by giving the resident tips on additional
energy -saving measures such as wash-
ing clothes in cold water and cleaning
dust off refrigerator coils. They provide
printed information with each resident
on the energy conservation items
installed and tips for additional savings.
Project Light Bulb began as a pilot
program in two neighborhoods, Belair
Edison and Coldstream -Homestead -
Montebello, in November, 2007. Each
of the neighborhoods was chosen for its
demographics of low and moderate
income households most likely to be
affected by energy prices, the predomi-
nant housing type of the two-story row
house with some built-in energy effi-
ciency advantages and for the strong
neighborhood organizations with mar-
keting capability.
Civic Works trains AmeriCorps
workers and deploys them in teams of
two to visit each home, By the end of
February, 2008, Civic Works had visited
330 homes, installing 4,060 CFLs, 287
kitchen aerators, 258 bathroom aerators,
219 low -flow shower heads and 330 car-
bon monoxide detectors and provided
164 names and addresses to the Fire
Department of smoke detector referrals.
They found that in the majority of
homes, residents had very limited
knowledge of energy conservation and
most did not have thermostats, freezers
and water heaters set at the recommend-
ed temperatures. Civic Works conserva-
tively estimated that in the first year the
300 participating households will save
$27,000 in combined electricity costs
and 3.2 million gallons of water, not
including any reductions from adjusted
thermostat settings or hot water usage.
Using data provided through BGE
under agreement with each participant,
Civic Works compared actual electricity
usage from February and March, 2008
to February and March, 2007. They
determined that the average monthly
savings for participating households is
53 kilowatt hours per month or $8,
which represents approximately a 10
percent savings in monthly electricity
costs. Although the homeowner does
not pay the $205 cost of the installation
of energy -saving devices at current elec-
tricity rates, the homeowner savings
cover the cost of the program in a little
over two years. Based on the results of
the pilot program, The Abell Foundation
awarded a subsequent $213,000 grant to
Civic Works to continue the program for
one year to address an additional 1,000
households.
The Abell Foundation Salutes Proj-
ect Light Bulb: Dana Stein, Executive
Director; Earl Milieu, Director of Com-
munity Development of Civic Works;
and the Civic Works AmeriCorps
trainees who implement the program,
and all 300 of the Mrs. Copelands who
are saving money by saving energy.
9
Sec/Martin Brown, D. Governor State lmay I John J.
edersen Administrator
Anthony G. Brown, D. Governor G �'0J� Neil Pedersen,
Administration
Maryland Department of Transportation
April 20, 2009
Re: Project No. WA342A21
MD 65 at MD 63
Washington County
USGS Funkstown 7.5' Quadrangle
Mr. J. Rodney Little
State Historic Preservation Officer
Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Crownsville MD 21032-2023
Dear Mr. Little:
Introduction and Project Description
This letter serves to inform the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) of the Maryland
State Highway Administration's (SHA) finding that proposed Project No. WA342A21
will have no adverse effect on historic properties. The project involves lowering the crest
of the vertical curve along MD 65 immediately north of the MD 63 intersection to
improve sight distance and constructing a right turn lane from MD 65 to MD 63.
A project location map is included as Attachment 1.
Funding
Federal funds are anticipated for this project.
Area of Potential Effects
In determining the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for cultural resources
for this project, SHA considered possible physical, visual, atmospheric, and audible
impacts to historic properties. The APE has been defined as the limits of construction
disturbance within the SHA right-of-way and adjacent properties, as indicated on the
attached SHA quadrangle map for Funkstown (Attachment 2). The archeological survey
area is defined as the limits of proposed construction where ground disturbance would
occur.
Identification Methods and Results
Potentially significant architectural and archeological resources were both
researched as part of the historic investigation instigated by the proposed intersection
Gantur ;..�
improvement project. . ro A^o
r ,m
My telephone number/toll-free number is
Maryland Relay Service, for Impaired Hearing or Speech: 1,800,735.2258 Statewide Toll Free ryas zp0
StreetAddress: 707 North Calvert Street ' Baltimore, Maryland 21202 • Phone: 410.545.0300 • www.marylandroads.com
Mr. J. Rodney Little
MD 65 at MD 63
Page Two
Architecture: SHA Architectural Historian Fred Shoken consulted the SHA-GIS Cultural
Resources Database, Maryland Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP), aerial photographs,
and video footage. Site visits were conducted on April 6 and 12, 2009. The Area of
Potential Effects (APE) for this project is limited to the area of construction impacts for
intersection improvements to MD 65 at MD 63 (Spielman Road) within the SHA right-
of-way and along adjacent properties.
This project partially falls within the Tilghmanton Historic District (MIHP No. WA -
II -152). SHA has prepared a Determination of Eligibility (DOE) form for this district and
has determined that the Tilghmanton Historic District is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C — a property that embodies the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent
the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction — on the
local level. Tilghmanton is representative of a small-scale rural hamlet of the nineteenth
to early twentieth century containing vernacular domestic architecture characteristic of
early settlement communities of Western Maryland (Attachment 3).
Three properties on the northeast quadrant of the intersection will be minimally
impacted by lowering the vertical crest of MD 65. Two of these properties a 1998
residential building and a 1960 post office building do not contribute to the character of
the district. The third property, 8225 Sharpsburg Pike, a c. 1900 house, contributes to the
character of the district. A temporary easement is required south of the driveway at the
property to slightly cut back the slope. The construction of MD 65 at MD 63 would
temporarily impact approximately 216 square feet (0.005acres) of 8225 Sharpsburg Pike.
Given that these improvements would occur by temporary occupancy only, the
requirements of Section 4(f) would not apply in this instance based on your agreement
with the following criteria as the officials with jurisdiction.
• The duration of the impact will be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for
construction of the project;
• There will be no change in the ownership of the land;
• The scope of the work will be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the
changes to the Section 4(f) resource are minimal;
• There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts; and
• The land being used will be fully restored, i.e., the resource will be returned to a
condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project.
Mr. J. Rodney Little
MD 65 at MD 63
Page Three
Two houses which contribute to the character of the NRHP eligible district, 18310
Manor Church Road, dating from 1857, and 8117 Sharpsburg Pike, dating from c. 1930,
on the southeast quadrant of the intersection will also be impacted by drainage
improvements. Perpetual easements of 1868 square feet (0.024 acres) along 18310
Manor Church Road and 304 square feet (0.007 acres) along 8117 Sharpsburg Pike is
needed for a drainage pipe that will be buried within this easement area. Once
constructed, the pipe will not be visible. Considering the minimal nature of the drainage
improvements, this project does not have an adverse impact on these two contributing
properties to an NRHP eligible district.
There are no historic properties in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
MD 65 and MD 63 where the right turn lane will be constructed. The property at
southwest quadrant of MD 65 and MD 63, 8168 Sharpsburg Pike (a contributing property
to the NRHP eligible district) is outside of the APE and limits of construction disturbance
for this project. The project has does not impact this historic property.
This project to lower the crest of the vertical curve along MD 65 immediately
north of the MD 63 intersection and construct a right turn lane from MD 65 to MD 63
will have no adverse impacts to standing historic properties.
Archeology: SHA Archeologist April Fehr assessed the potential of the archeology
survey area based on review of the SHA-GIS Cultural Resources Database, historic maps,
aerial photography, video footage, and site file data. The survey area is defined as the
limits of construction impact. No archeological investigation has included the survey
area and no sites are recorded there. The proposed road and drainage improvements are
directly adjacent to the road and the area has been disturbed by prior drainage and road
construction. The structures adjacent to the survey area are set back from the road and
archeological resources associated with these properties are unlikely to extend into the
survey area. No additional archeological investigation is recommended.
Review Request
Please examine the attached maps, DOE forms, and Eligibility and Effects
Table (Attachment 4). We request your concurrence by May 8, 2009 that there would be
no adverse effect to historic properties by the intersection improvements at MD 65 and
MD 63. Based on your concurrence with our determination of no adverse effect and
consideration of the views of any consulting parties participating in the Section 106
consultation, SHA intends to request that the Federal Highway Administration make a de
minimis impact finding for the minor Section 4(f) use of the Tilglnnanton Historic
District (MIHP No. WA -II -152).
Mr. J. Rodney Little
MD65atMD63
Page Four
By carbon copy, we invite the Washington County Historic District Commission
and the Washington County Historical Trust, Inc. to provide comments and participate in
the Section 106 process. Pursuant to the requirements of the implementing regulations
found at 36 CFR Part 800, SHA seeks their assistance in identifying historic preservation
issues as they relate to this specific project (see 36 CFR §800.2 (c) (3) and (5), and
§800.3(f) for information regarding the identification and participation of consulting
parties, and §800.4, and §800.5 regarding the identification of historic properties and
assessment of effects). For additional information regarding the Section 106 regulations,
see the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's website, www.achp.gov, or contact
the Maryland State Highway Administration or the Maryland Historical Trust. If no
response is received by May 8, 2009 we will assume that these offices decline to
participate. Please call Fred Shoken at 410-545-5793 (or via email at
fshoken@sha.state.md.us) with questions regarding standing structures for this project.
April Fehr may be reached at 410-545-8848 (or via email at afehr@sha.state.md.us) with
concerns regarding archeology.
W
urs,d1yZ
Assistant Division Chief
Environmental Planning Division
Attachments: 1) Project Location Map
2) APE Map
3) DOE forms
4) Eligibility and Effects Table
cc: Ms. Lauren Bowman, SHA- EPLD
Mr. Jason Harris, SHA-OHD
Ms. April Fehr, SHA-EPLD (w/Attachments)
Mr. Fred Shoken, SHA-EPLD
Dr. Julie M. Schablitsky, SHA-EPLD
Mr. Steven Goodrich, Washington Cour$y Historic District Commission (w/
Attachments)
Dr. John F. Krowka, Washington County Historical Trust, Inc. (w/ Attachments)
Concurrence with the MD State Highway Administration's
Determination(s) of Eligibility and/or Effects
Project Number: WA342A21 MHT Log N
Project Name: MD 65 at MD 63 (Spielman Road)
County: Washington
Letter Date: April 20, 2009
The Maryland Historical Trust has reviewed the documentation attached to the referenced
letter and concurs with the MD State Highway Administration's determinations as follows:
Eligibility (as noted in the Eligibility Table [Attachment 4]):
[ ] Concur
[ ] Do Not Concur
Effect (as noted in the Effects Table [Attachment 4]):
[J No Properties Affected
[ ] No Adverse Effect
[ ] Conditioned upon the following action(s) (see comments below)
[ ] Adverse Effect
Agreement with FHWA's Section 4(f) criteria of temporary use (as detailed in the
referenced letter, if applicable):
[] Agree
Agreement with FHWA's de minimis impact finding (as detailed in the referenced
letter, if applicable):
[] Agree
Comments:
!3A
MD State Historic Preservation Office/ Date
Maryland Historical Trust
Return by U.S. Mail or Facsimile to:
Dr. Julie M. Schablitsky, Assistant Division Chief, Environmental Planning Division,
MD State Highway Administration, P.O, Box 717, Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Telephone: 410-545-8870 and Facsimile: 410-209-5046
§
)
§
°
±
:2
/\
I\
>°
_to
\\
to
O
00
k
E)
}\
/uA
\
z<
z
\
§o
)
\/§
/§
\�
§\\
g
as
I2
]#_
/ 0
a
e;o
0
}
o
}
\
3\g
a
)
\/\
0
§\}
\
0
\\±
0
am
})
))§}(
<tg2
n7»7
\{{{
\/})(\
O) 'oPo
\)A
o (p)
xy;
um
Location Map
MD 65 at MD 63
Geometric Improvement
Washington County
6A o,, f
N.
set
3. `.
LAPPANS
ESTATESNH
p
Hp
B
pi
BREATHEDS
I 9 �
RO AN pR
A \LLE
ROAD
'r
FAIRPLAY
RUwra,
PM
63
SPIELMAN
ANTIETAM 65
°"`""" MANOR
VILE
/
Proect Location
1\
Rpb
TILGHMANT0N
j' CA g was u,
9
4
riwRe -
SURTNER
1: 24,000
0.6 0 0.6 1.2 Miles
USGS Topo Quad Index
DOQQ Index
0 County
N
Funkstown Quad
E
'I
rr
.. a �..;..
1lRO '
M
0
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM
Property Name: Tilghmanton Historic District
Address: 7700 - 8200 Sharpsburg Pike; 18000 odd side Tilghmanton Road,
18103 Manor Church Road
City: Boonsboro
USGS Quadrangle(s):
Funkstown
Zip Code: 21713
Inventory Number:
t+th', a'Grt, 3
NR Eligible: yes
no
WA -II -152
Historic district: X yes no
County: Washington
Property Owner: Multiple Property Owners Tax Account ID Number:
Tax Map Parcel Number(s):
Project: MD 65 at MD 63 WA342A21
Agency Prepared By: MD SHA
Preparer's Name: Fred Shoken
Documentation is presented in:
MIHP Form No. WA -II -152
Tax Map Number:
Agency: SHA
Date Prepared: 04/14/2009
Preparer's Eligibility Recommendation: X Eligibility recommended — Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: _A _B X C D Considerations: A —B —C —D —E w F —G
Complete if the property is a contributing or non-contributing resource to a NR district/property:
Name of the District/Property:
Inventory Number:
Eligible: yes Listed: yes
Site visit by MHT Staff yes X no Name: Date
Description of Property and Justification: (Please attach map and photo)
The Tilghmanton Historic District is located along the Sharpsburg Pike (MD 65) in the vicinity of MD 63 and Tilghmanton Road
between Hagerstown and Sharpsburg in Washington County. This predominately residential rural crossroads community includes
some sixty-five houses, a 1913 public school building, a former general store and approximately forty outbuildings.
While most of the contributing buildings are vernacular' nineteenth century two story high frame houses, other contributing housing
types include two early log cabins (7729-7727 Sharpsburg Pike), a few vernacular stone houses (7821 and 7928 Sharpsburg Pike),
a brick vernacular house (8019 Sharpsburg Pike), "Rosemont" (8105 Sharpsburg Pike) a large Federal -style brick residence, some
early twentieth century Dutch Colonial houses (8002 and 8117 Sharpsburg Pike), and an early twentieth century Foursquare House
(8168 Sharpsburg Pike), Later non-contributing housing are generally brick or frame ranch houses from the mid to late twentieth
century, with an occasional mobile home. Outbuildings range from farm related barns, animal pens and smoke houses to later
automobile oriented garages.
Many of the older houses are closely clustered together in the vicinity of Sharpsburg Pike and Tilghmanton Road, with older
houses on larger lots located generally at the north and south edges of the district. The later non-contributing houses are
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B C D Considerations: --A _B C JD _E F G
MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services . Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date
NR -ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
WA -II -152
Tilghmanton Historic District
Page 2
interspersed between contributing buildings throughout the district.
Some distinctive features of contributing houses include standing seam gable metal roofs, front and side porches and galleries, two
over two wood windows and wood shutters. Typical alterations to contributing buildings include the application of synthetic
siding and window replacement. Fewer than five of the older structures suffer from incompatible alterations to such a degree that
they no longer contribute to the character of the district.
Most of the houses front on Sharpsburg Pike. They are either slightly set back from the road with a small front lawn or positioned
near the edge of the road. A few houses are built on large tracts of land set back more than one hundred feet from the road. Six
buildings front on Tilghmanton Road which bisects the western half of the district. A few small lanes -- Herr Lane and Davis
Lane cross the west side of Sharpsburg Pike on angles. Yards are generally open, but a few properties have fences, low stone walls
or hedges at the perimeter of properties.
The character of the district does not appear to have substantially changed since the 1999 MIHP form prepared by Taylor and
Taylor Associates, Inc. A single non-contributing modern brick cottage, 7713 Sharpsburg Pike, no longer appears to be extant. At
least one property, 7910 appears to have been altered to a degree that it is no longer considered to be contributing, but generally
the alterations have merely included the installation of vinyl siding or replacement windows.
The Tilghmanton Historic District is architecturally significant, as it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a mid -nineteenth
century rural Western Maryland village (National Register Criterion C). The district retains excellent examples of vernacular
residential building types of the era, reflecting the traditions and design preferences of working class settlers along the Sharpsburg-
Hagerstown Turnpike. The domestic architecture retains significant examples of housing types from c. 1830 to the first decades of
the twentieth century including brick Federal style houses, early log houses, vernacular stone houses, and early twentieth century
Dutch Colonial and Foursquare designs. The inclusion of a 1913 school house and a former general store are indicative of a
community that was not just residential/agricultural in scope but provided educational services and shopping opportunities to
residents.
The architecture of the district is reflective of vernacular design of anonymous house builders and/or original owners. The
simplicity and lack of pretentiousness is indicative of rural settlement architecture in Western Maryland. A few formal designs,
such as 8105 Sharpsburg Pike ("Rosemont"), and 8225 Sharpsburg Pike stand in contrast to the modest houses that make up the
predominant character of the district.
Despite some alterations, most of the older buildings retain their historic architectural character and are considered to be
contributing to the character of the district. Newer non-contributing structures are generally one story high ranch houses and are
lower than the original two story vernacular houses. Although there are more than twenty-five of these non-contributing buildings
interspersed within the district, they are easily distinguished from the historic character of the district and recede into the
background due to their smaller scale.
The Tilghmanton Historic District is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C -- a property that embodies the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction — on the
local level. It is representative of a small-scale rural hamlet of the nineteenth to early twentieth century containing vernacular
domestic architecture characteristic of early settlement communities of Western Maryland.
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B C D Considerations: A B
MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services
C D E F
Date
G
Reviewer, National Register Program
Date
Tilghmanton Historic District
MIHP No. WA
I 1 k .` •
8168 SHARPSBURG PIKE •
Z�
I I a
'I
mo +' I • . J
J
®!® Je •191 1 /
P.42�- 0l <-°ri,. -- r ANTI TAt�4;'
17
II
LM .o 3 R I'•
ii;
8002 SHARPSBURG PIKE
ii
ate^ ,
!}
I
®' \ •8 "
•rJ i �
i
i <, 9'T 'I`.. COMMUNITY
X80 �/ 2! `.. VOLUNTEER
FIRE CO.
747/290
18019 TILGHMANTON ROAD
7902 SHARPSBURG PIS\
4
7ml
-11-152
'WI _,\
8225 SHARPSBURG PIKE 2
LCW16
PIKE
3 PIKE
F2
[' 3 7708 SHARPSBURG PIKE dr �®3a • �•
®3�
[ • :4 \ p•z FUNKSTOWN QUAD
0.4 0 0.4 0.8 Miles
!1I
f L1 • O �\
V ' L0
° •5 �\
• ° • rtsvi
4L_
air y
•' 1°
• r
• t I.
Tit ant
O :!
u JA
• o
•5/0 0•
° O o • °
• • O•• °' Kano /
s9 C
a. • •` 1'11 No
• • • a�SIbR1t► DIn IC.
° X504
iT N
ARTICLE 20 "HP" HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT134
Section 20.0 Purpose
The purpose of the Historic Preservation District is to provide a mechanism for the
protection, enhancement and perpetuation of those significant historic structures, sites and
districts as defined in Section 20.7 in Washington County, which have historical,
architectural, archeological and cultural merit. The "HP" district is an overlay zone meant to
enhance, not substitute, for the existing zoning designation, that regulates land use.
Districts established to reflect elements of cultural, social, economic, political or
architectural history are intended to:
(a) Safeguard the heritage of Washington County as embodied and reflected in
such structures, sites and districts;
(b) Stabilize and improve property values of such structures, sites and districts
and in Washington County generally;
(c) Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past;
(d) Strengthen the economy of the County; and
(e) Promote the preservation and appreciation of historic structures, sites and
districts for the education, and welfare of the residents of Washington
County.
Section 20.1 Historic District Commission Created
Pursuant to the authority granted to Washington County in Article 66B, Section 801
et. seq. of the Annotated Code of Maryland, there is hereby created the "Historic District
Commission of Washington County, Maryland." For the purposes of this article only, it shall
be referred to as "the Commission."
(a) Number of Members: The Commission shall consist of seven (7) members
appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Each member must be a
resident of Washington County.
(b) Professional Members: The Commission shall have at least two (2)
members who possess professional or academic training in architecture,
history, architectural history or archeology in accordance with 36CFR61. A
good -faith effort to locate and appoint such professionals, to the extent that
they are available in the community, will be made, and documentation as to
how this effort was accomplished shall be kept among the Commission's
records.
134 Revision 14, Article 20 replaced in its entirety 7/26/05 (RZ-03-005)
133
(c) Qualifications of members: All commission members must possess a
demonstrated special interest, specific knowledge or professional or
academic training in such fields as architecture, history, architectural history,
planning, cultural anthropology, prehistoric and historic archeology, folklore,
curation, conservation, landscape architecture, historic preservation, urban
design or related disciplines.
(d) Diversity: All Commission members shall be selected to represent the
geographical, social, economic and cultural concerns of the residents of
Washington County.
(e) Term: Members of the Commission shall serve for three-year terms, which
terms shall be staggered. Members shall be eligible for reappointment for a
second full term.
(f) Vacancy: Any vacancy in the membership of the Commission shall be filled
within sixty days in the same manner as provided in (b) and (c) above.
(g) Removal: A member may be removed by the Board of County
Commissioners in the best interest of the citizens of Washington County for
inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
Section 20.2 Regulations
The Commission shall adopt such rules, regulations and by-laws as necessary for
the proper transaction of the business of the Commission.
(a) Meetings: The Commission shall hold such regular meetings, which, in its
discretion, are necessary to discharge its duties. The meetings shall be open
to the public. Any interested person or representative is entitled to appear
and be heard by the Commission before it reaches a decision on any matter.
The Commission shall maintain an open record of its resolutions,
proceedings, and actions, which shall be kept available for public inspection
during reasonable business hours.
(b) Staff: There may be appointed and assigned to the Commission such
employees, and the Board of County Commissioners shall make available to
the Commission, such services and facilities of the County, as are necessary
or appropriate for the proper performances of its duties.
Section 20.3 Historic District Commission Duties & Powers
(a) The Commission shall act upon all applications as required by Section 20.6,
Historic Preservation district, Section 5D.4, Rural Village District and Article
20A, Antietam Overlay District of this Ordinance.
(b) The Commission shall review any legislation, applications for zoning text or
map amendment, special exception, variance, site plan or subdivision
applications and other proposals affecting historic preservation, including
134
K..
ITT „Y .A•✓^' .
: n+ .
3 �. r ,� rte,, s
-•s
" z y
m '•;3-" '�';#�„ :a r ," �"....'?,
•
;�• ,� :• -tea,,,`'
44
x rte, ~ ",'��-re��•a�,. �, �' �, ,�'�'��
ti
x
7w sfniIa
Li L
LL
ia' 6RAW, spar..
� y«
A '-9g-o1
3LVCC c-
����
m N . p3 q
\33t cots
(R Ftl Ef1G T5/ P?rrcFi We
Act'
�'� e�3GEf
N0
r
2.co✓Z -
fr-
r
/a7
s
.
�
(
\t
|!
�
.
.� c
/UQ& SAS
FR o«1'
Q&
. Equate .'
�a4 Vl%
_
Amy D Ji
a
L94Z-£L£-04Z :xed 094Z-ELE-04Z :auogd 04L1•Z a i 'uMolsJe6eH ';aai;g OJowllle8ISOM 08
•Aep!ad g6noag; AepuoW
'•w•d 0£:y g6noagl •w•e 0£:L 40 sanog aq; ueeM;eq 09n-£L£-OVZ;e;uewliedep ino;ae;uoo aseold
'suo!;senb Aue OAeg noA p!nogs •saoueu!pao pue sepoo a;e;s pue !eool olgeo!ldde !le s;aaw pue
suo!;oadsul' s;!waad;o;uawpedea A;uno0 uo;6uigseM eq; Aq p0M0!AOJ ueoq seq;!waad s!ql
9
9
93
93
Id 0S 00003
ld OS 00003
paa!nnaa wnw!u!W
£ :swoaPeg l0 0N
3 :swowg;e910 ON
Olis
V/N
V/N
V/N
V/N
A
ONIOIS IANIA
09
9
9
931.
93
S32JUV OZ'
S31I0V OZ'
POSOUOJd
glP!M 401
�laeglaS ap!S 1q6!
�Iaeq;e ep!S 1191
)faeglaS pieA react{
Nloeq;as pJeA1uoJd
Al!wed Jed e9JV 101
eOJV 1°J1 101
sHoegles
3000 1HIiN301S38 11NI 9003 :peoJoJu3 apo0
0000009$ :uollenleA uol;onJlsuoO
:edAj uol;onilsuoO
:pa;slx3 aw!I
............II9M
:palslx3 aw!I
:............ol;das
:6u!uo!11puo0 MV
:gslwd JOIJa1X3
A
:.......ouloal3
N
:............SeO
A
:--.Je eM o!Ignd
A
:...JaMe5 opgnd
IV3H
:1eeR Jo adll
LZ X 6£ :azls uoi;epunod
1. 1.101 IOl 'DOOM IN 1SZVH
SONIONVI IV38J 0NV
iNONd ld-9 X Id-8'ONIOIS IANIA'dOO2! 031ONIHS'NOIIVONnOd
)10018 S38Sn2J10111V 032!33NION3-32Jd '30VdS IMV2J0
NOIIOnUISNOO 3WV2!d ON!113M0 A11WVd 31ONIS AHOIS OMI 90b1
:uol;dliosea
0V93 -8H :ON 011 J0108JIU00
Z64£ -b38 -1.0C
:iagwnN auogd
ON I ON 110V2JIN00 r '8 3
:ao;oea;uo3
ONI S?J01OVH1N00 1'8 3
:aauMO
Z00L-i 96-1.00
:JegwnN auogd
£8LLZ
OW 'Oiil8SH11WS
3AIHC] NOO0 182J3AV38 31.61.3
011 ONIl1nSNOO 0W2J
:;ue011ddV
0
:uleldpoold
3OV111A1VUn2J
:ls!0 6uluoZ
LL000-L800-61.-b10
:0N lamed
3NV1 30nV10 OZLML 2J01
:uoge0o1
VU 3NV1 3011V10 OZLbI
:sseippV qo!•
91'1. L LOPI :oN 100Vfa!4S!0
38
:eaiV ioloedsul
ONION9d :snlels
M9N-S32J
:edAll!wiad
:peAoiddy
9V£0-600Zd
:oN;0afad
6002/Z3/b0 :pe!lddV
SLSI.O-600Z
:ON AI!ABoVRIAI
11W21Jd JNINOZ'9 ONIalIf18
1UNf1Oa NOIDNIHSVM
tLSVe —'ntis'
d �n//,n I' -°d AVW "�
$L .iO boo2 9 {!wand
?V7/ 1pYIY4d QCu)I
dew w�)�
o,��►s�,uhnM �
abCW�i
3O L3flHS NOILVOO7
1I aZO1 C'7AOA*".Iro r*3 :3vnvNnot
,o
i
VITIL-008-008
C88L1Z UN'Iuouimgy
anuany ieldod I0Z
UI 'suzaTsAs IP1ftPW