HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100407�/ 1776
WASHINGTON COUNTY
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
April 7, 2010
7:00PM
M
A. Call to Order & Roll Call
B. Minutes — January 6, 2010
C. Communications & Bills
1. MAHDC Newsletter *
2. The NAPC Guide to Parlimnentary Procedure (distribute during meeting)
D. Unfinished Business
1. South Mountain Battlefields National Register nomination status
E. Budget
F. New Business
1. Permit #2010-00797, 17820 Spielman Road, roof reconfiguration in Fairplay Rural Village
2. AP2010-008 Cell Tower at 3907 Trego Mt. Road
3. Potential cell tower, 14145 Breezy Acres Road
4. SHA Historic Bridge inventory re-evaluation
G. Other Business
H. Executive Session
I. Adjournment
* = written material enclosed
\HDC\aaprl0.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 TIIE 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-ntd.net RECYCLED PAPER
I-��sfdrlc
WASHINGTON COUNTY
BUILDING & ZONING PERMIT
IVR/Activity No:
2010-00797
Project No:
P2010-0163
Permit Type:
RES-ADD
Inspector Area:
B5
Job Address:
17820 SPIELMAN ROAD FR
Location:
LOR 17820 SPIELMAN ROAD
Parcel No:
067-02-0011-00000
Zoning Dist:
RURAL VILLAGE
Floodplain:
C
Applicant:
Phone Number:
Owner:
Contractor:
Phone Number:
Contractor Lic. No:
HUNTZBERRY ROBERT L
17820 SPIELMAN RD
FAIRPLAY, MD
21733
301-582-1725
HUNTZBERRY ROBERT L
Applied: 03/09/2010
Approved:
Status: PENDING
District/Acct No: 12003498
Description:
REPLACING 16 -FT X 16 -FT METAL ROOF WITH SHINGLED ROOF TO
INCLUDE RAISING THE ROOF ON ONE END AND EXTENDING THE WALL
1 -FT, ROOF RAFTERS
RECER/ED
MAR 1 1 2010
G;p' CE i!'l PLAEHUjC DEPT.
Foundation Size:
16 X 16
Exterior Finish:
VINYL SIDING
Air Conditioning:
Y
Type of Heat...:
OIL
Septic............:
EXISTING
Public Sewer...:
N
Time Existed:
Public Water...:
N
Well............:
EXISTING
Gas .............N
N
Time Existed:
Electric.......:
Y
Construction Type:
A/R
Construction Valuation:
$1,700.00
No. Of Bathrooms:
Code Enforced:
2006 INT'L RESIDENTIAL CODE
No. of Bedrooms: 0
Setbacks
Lot Tract Area
Lot Area Per Family
Front Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Left Side Setback
Right Side Setback
Lot Width
Proposed
.50 ACRES
.50 ACRES
0
77
0
121
0
Minimum Required
40000 SQ FT
40000 SQ FT
25
25
8
8
0
This permit has been reviewed by the Washington County Department of Permits & Inspections
and meets all applicable local and state codes and ordinances. Should you have any questions,
please contact our department at 240-313-2460 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
90 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phone: 240-313-2460 Fax: 240.313-2461
i
Saint
s// I
�
s
2170 a r� �
Sam James
fBretren
reagr ROXe°nv U
%8
rV5
Box URY
CORREC IONAL
INSTITUTION
a�Uii c. F:3Cdi
e 73
Bible
cr
l I I I -... 0 I I // I '' \\
Joins Map 30 G H i A G p
n°n 'oo' 590.000 Fl ✓n
Page 1 of I
Huntzberry
.t. ,.. ,r r•�.ii.-s
)JJf �• !j t I,.
t `'k`•"' ,
:•.•r.. . r,., fS
^
Select Layer
n. ` '•.` ;I
Tmc Maps
IV
r yir µ5• fir l* ...om ':•%.••.� "'. �.. 1r I.
�o
o
fl
-_
a
'f
r ,
,1'" em++-f� ". -'1 ' + , sag4'a%
Newt LaGels
/ C�
(HRA Vlltage
: ., ♦ Si' ''Rd LI.
}L.i_.rn ,
r
��d�
�iz�.� u"'. ,_'�h.Y>5�.'�G.w''.k `r. • • r
t �,f'�*..
� t
5 S :• �{ „n
I G
r� t '
�ta�i n:e .r �'4t: .. i.r t ^, r'N•% `'
`i ��� ,
���+ tr
ft.
�: w �' fit• % I
'.vJ�t yvIYJF��V5 Z� �
1... , rat: r• 5 3 . .C. Jr..
1 ' Ti•r I t�7£+1 �A. � rtw•
C' •E•, .RB.C'.`
-..
cNJ. rw.rl,, cror>'xs,a a e a oati,i,
Refer to the Accela GIS Administrators Guide for instructions on how to set the disclaimer text displayed in this area.
NPS Forth to -900
rev. 10-90) .
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
p". fional Register of Historic Places
K.. jistration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking '5C in the appropriate bo,
or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For
functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place
additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete
all items.
1. Name of Property
historic name Fairplay Historic District
other names/site number
2. Location
street & number Spielman
Road, Fairplav
Road, & Tilghmanton Road
not for publication N/A
city or town Fairolay
(Post Office in Tilghmanton)
vicinity N/A
state Maryland code MD county Washington code 043 zip code 21719
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
)
ie designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this _ nomination_ request for determination
of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional
I. requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property_, meets _ does not meet the National Register Criteria, I recommend that this property be
considered significant_ nationally_ statewide_ locally. (_ See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying officiaVTille Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria. (_ See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
entered in the National Register
_ See continuation sheet
determined eligible for the National Register -- — See continuation sheet.
-_ determined not eligible for the National Register
removed from the National Register
other (e>plain):
Faj p1ay Historic District
Washington County, MWJ
County and State
Name of Property
5. Classification
Ownership of Property
Category of Property
Number of Resources within Property
(Check as many boxes as apply)
(Check only one box)
(Do not include previously -listed resources in the count)
2 private
building(s)
Contributing Noncontributing
public -local
X district
22 4 building:
sites
public -State
_ site
that
_
public -Federal
_ structure
e
objects
— object
�� 4 Total
Name of related multiple property listing
(Enter "WA" if property is not part of a multiple property listing)
or
(Enter categories from instructions)
DOMESTIC/single dwelling
DOMESTIC/secondary structure
RELIGION/religious facility
COMMERCE/TRADE/specialty store
from instructions)
MID -19TH CENTURY/Greek Revival
MID -19TH CENTURY/Gothic Revival
NO STYLE
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets)
Refer to continuation sheets
Number of contributing resources previously
listed in the National Register
current tunctlons
(Enter categories from instructions)
DOMESTIC/single dwelling
DOMESTIC/secondary structure
COMMERCE/TRADE/specialty store
(Enter categories from instructions)
foundation STONE/sandstone
walls WOOD/weatherboard• BRICK
roof SYNTHETICS/asphalt STONE/slate; METAI
other STONE; BRICK
Fairplay Historic District
Name of Property
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark 'x•' in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property
for!' 'tional Register listing)
A Property is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.
B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.
_ D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations
Mark "X' In all the boxes that apply.)
Property is:
_ A owned by a religious institution or used for
religious purposes.
B removed from its original location.
C a birthplace or a grave.
D a cemetery.
E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
F a commemorative property.
_G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance
within the past 50 years
Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)
9. Major Bibliographical References
Washington County MQ
County and State
(Enter categories from instructions)
ARCHITECTURE
Period of Significance
c. 1830-1900
Significant Dates
N/A
Significant Person
(Complete if Criterion B is marked above)
Cultural Affiliation
Architect/Builder
unknown
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.)
Previous documentation on file (NPS):
preliminary determination of individual listing (36
CFR 67) has been requested.
previously listed in the National Register
previously determined eligible by the National Register
designated a National Historic Landmark
recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
recorded by Historic American Engineering
Record #
Primary location of additional data:
State Historic Preservation Office
Other state agency
Federal agency
Local government
University
Other
Name of repository:
E@jxpin Historic District
Name of Property
10.
Data
Acreage of Property 15 acres
is :'References
(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet)
4VashinPton County, MD
County and State
Zone
Easting
Northing
Zone
Easting
Northing
18
263660
4379800 3
18
263760
4379480
18
264000
4379780 4
18
263660
4379540
N/A See continuation sheet.
Verbal Boundary Description
(Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.)
Boundary Justification
(Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.)
11. Form Prepared By
namettitle David L. Taylor, Principal
organization Taylor & Taylor Associates Inc. date July, 1999
street & number 9 Walnut Street telephone 814-849-4900
city or town Brookville state PA zip code 15825
Continuation Sheets
Maps
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources
Photographs
Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items
(Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
Property Owner
(Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.)
street & number
city or
telephone
state zip code
'aoervvork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or
pineefigibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefitin accordance with the National Historic
.xvationAct, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
'timated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering
end maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate orany aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services
)ivision, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project (1024-O018),
Vasbington, DC 20503.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(0-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
N1 Jonal Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section Number Page
7. Description, Page One
OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
Fairplay Historic District
Washington County, MD
The Fairplay (also spelled "Fair Play" in some sources) Historic District is a physically small,
rural, and nearly exclusively residential historic district of fifteen acres, containing the entirety of the
unincorporated village of Fairplay, Maryland, which is located in Washington County, between the
county seat of Hagerstown and Sharpsburg. The district lies in the Tilghmanton Election District
(District 12), at the intersection of Spielman Road, Fairplay Road, and Tilghmanton Road, and
consists of residential properties their related dependencies, and one former church which has been
converted to commercial use. The Fairplay Historic District retains architectural integrity; among its
total of twenty-six buildings, twenty-two (84%) contribute to the character of the district and four
(16%) are non-contributing. Contributing buildings date from within the district's Period of Signifi-
cance (c. 1830-1900) and possess an integrity of design which, within the context of the district as
a whole, has not been irreversibly compromised by insensitive alteration. Non-contributing buildings
date from outside the Period of Significance and/or possess architectural character which has been
seriously impaired by insensitive alteration or the removal of character -defining features. Typical
bng the alterations to buildings within the district are the application of synthetic siding material,
the replacement of historic window sash, etc.
The buildings within the Fairplay Historic District are constructed both of wood and brick,
with wood predominating. Some buildings are of log construction with exterior cladding of weat:hcr-
board. The district's buildings are modest in scale and are generally two stories in height. The
majority of the buildings are gable -roofed, with roofing material varying among slate, asphalt shingle,
and standing -seam metal. Punctuating the rooflines of many buildings are chimneys of brick, some
built withm t e w s and others set on the outside. Some properties exhibit new exterior chimneys
of concrete oc , a e in connection wr t e installation of modem heating systems. Scattered
throughout the district is a series of detached dependencies, including smoke houses, animal pens,
utility sheds, automobile garages, and other similar small-scale buildings of indeterminate age and
function. In most cases these outbuildings are treated as landscape features and are not included
within the district's Resource Inventory.
The Fairplay District is irregularly divided into random -sized building lots, with varying side
and rear yard setbacks. Most buildings are oriented in close proximity to the three public roadways
which traverse the district. Fairplay Road enters the district from the south and exits toward the
northeast. Spielman Road enters the district from the west and ends at its intersection with Fairplay
Road, and Tilghmanton Road leads southeasterly from Fairplay Road to the Sharpsburg Pike at the
village of Tilghmanton, a distance of approximately one-half mile. Within the district, all three
}dways are paved with macadam. There are no alleys or sidewalks in the district and no coordi-
nated landscape plan for the public rights -of -way.
Most of the buildings within the Fairplay Historic District are vernacular in character, without
OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
tPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
rv,_Jonal Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section Number Pa9e
7. pcscflptlonL Page Two
Fairplay Historic District
Washington County, MD
design reference to any formal architectural style. Some buildings follow traditional folk architectural
tenets such as log construction. Only a small number of the buildings suggest formal stylistic
derivation. Among these are a three bay brick Federal style hall -and -parlor residence at 7852
Fairplay Road (No. 2), the Gothic Revival style board -and -batten building at 7853 Fairplay Road (No.
16, now interconnected with the house immediately to the north and counted as a single resource),
and the Italianate residences at 7872 Fairplay Road (No. 10) and 17903 Speilman Road (No. 24). The
J. J. Middlekauff House (17838 Spielman Road, No. 23) is constructed of brick and features an
Italianate-style wood portico incorporating chamfered posts, brackets, and pendants. The district's
sole institutional buildin 7 the 1874 Union Chapel (17842 Spielman Road, No. 23), is of a vernacular
Greek Revival design, with a temple -form facade and paired solid -paneled entry doors; it was
previously verted for use as a fire hall and presently serves a commercial use.
The overall character of the Fairplay Historic District is that of a rurarly-to-mid nineteenth
century worldn -chamlet located at the intersection of three secondary roadways, with most
buildings vernacular in character and of both a pt scale and a corresponding level of architec-
tural pretension.
NPs Form 10900-a
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
t__Jonal Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section Number Page
8. Significance, Page One
OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
Fairplay Historic District
Washington County, MD
The Fairplay Historic District is significant under National Register Criterion C, for architecture,
as a small, rural, western Maryland hamlet containing a locally -significant collection of generally
residential architecture built between c. 1830 and 1900. The buildings within the district represent
a variety of traditional and formal design styles. Some are of log construction, which is itself a
significant design characteristic, while others represent mid- to late -nineteenth-century vernacular
residential design; a small number of buildings in the district reflect formal architectural anteced-
ents. This document supplants the Maryland Historical Trust's inventory form WA -II -277, which
contained little substantive narrative description or historical analysis.
The settlement of Fairplay is located within Washington County Election District 12, at the
junction of three rural roadways, and it developed due to the its location at this intersection.
Spellman Road, which enters the district from the west and leads eastward out of the district to
i-*ersect with the Sharpsburg Pike at the Tilghmanton settlement, about two miles distant. This road
:rs the name of Jonas Speilman, a native Washington Countian who settled in the Tilghmanton
District in 1835 and by the 1870s had become a prosperous farmer with 732 acres under cultivation
west of the village.'
The origin of the name of the community is not known. Following initial settlement early in the
nineteenth century, Fairplay grew slowly and was never more than a rural cross-roads hamlet. It
appears to have reached its permanent size by the time Thomas Taggert's 1859 county map (Figure
1) was published,2 depicting the settlement with approximately the same number of properties which
it contains at the time of writing in 1999. With the publication of the 1877 county atlas, twenty
buildings were shown within the village (Figure 2). Included among these were a majority of residen-
tial properties, the Union Chapel, the wagon shop/blacksmith of J. Miller, D. Welty's cabinet shop,
the post office (located on the property of Joseph Santman), and an unspecified shop of one Mrs.
Weaver.3
Census records dating from the early years of the village suggest that the majority of the
population of the hamlet was working class. The 1870 Census lists many with occupations as "farm
laborer" or "day laborer." Women are exclusively listed as "keeping house." Within the district are
the homes of merchant John Avey, (7872 Fairplay Road; Resource No. 10), of postmaster Joseph
Santman (7871 Fairplay Road; Resource No. 12), of master builder John Petre (7852 Fairplay Road;
Resource No. 2), of cabinetmaker D. Welty (17903 Spielman Road; Resource No. 25), and of farmer
)An Illustrated Atlas of Washington County, Maryland (Philadelphia:: Lake, Grilling, & Stephenson, 1877).
2Taggert, Thomas, Map of Washington County, Maryland (Philadelphia: Charles DeSilver, 1859).
3Lake, Grilling, & Stephenson, op. cit.
0MB Approval No, 1024-0018
NVS From 10900-a
(8 86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
L_:ional Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section Number Page
8. Significance, Page Two
J. J. Middlekauff (17838 Speilman Road; Resource No. 23).
Fairplay Historic District
Washington County, MD
As noted above, the majority of the architecture within the district is vernacular in character.
As is true with many rural areas, a small number of formally -derived properties are scattered within
the district. These properties may be the work of master builders who had access to nineteenth-
century builders' guides and pattern books. Among the few academically -derived properties in
Fairplay are the Federal -style John Petre House at 7852 Fairplay Road (Resource No. 2), the Gothic
Revival -style building now interconnected with 7853 Fairplay Road (No. 16), the Italianate homes of
John Avey at 7872 Fairplay Road and D. Welty at 17903 Spielman Road (Nos. 10 and 24, respec-
tively), and the Greek Revival -style Union Chapel at 17842 Spielman Road (No. 23).
The Fairplay Historic District is significant as a largely-uncompromised, locally -distinctive,
r*al settlement whose overall appearance and architectural character changed little throughout its
enty-year Period of Significance, and has only been minimally altered in the years following the
close of the Period of Significance.
D
i `�
�D;: �
'� ��ar
S
o
� ,
u
ti
�0
^�
�;
f -1S?ric
BOARD OF APPEALS
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
Location of Property: 3907 TREGO MT. ROAD KE
LOR 3907 TREGO MT ROAD
Description of Appeal:
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ERECT A 124 FT MONOPOLE
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER
Property Owner:
ROBERTS ROLAND C
Phone Number:
Appellant:
A T & T MOBILITY
Phone Number:
& BETTY J
PO BOX 445
KEEDYSVILLE, MD 21076
7150 STANDARD DRIVE
HANOVER MD 21076
Appeal No:
Parcel No:
Zoning:
Filed:
Hearing:
AP2010-008
08120005100000
PRESERVATION
03/18/2010
,04-J-etnttr
-Z/-7£) IC)
NIASHIr1C,TON COUNTY
PLAN J!N iJi P/3jili'c:NT
Appellant's present legal interest in above property:
Owner: Lessee: Y Contract to Rent/Lease:
Contract to Purchase: Other:
Previous Petition/Appeal Docket No(s): NONE
Applicable Ordinance Sections: SECTION 3.3(1)R
Reason for Hardship:
If Appeal of Ruling, Date of Ruling:
Ruling Official/Agency.....................
Existing Use:
Proposed Use: TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER
Previous Use Ceased For At Least 6 Months? Date Ceased:
Area Devoted to Non -Conforming Use - Existing:
Proposed:
I hereby affirm that all of the hemerits and information contained in or filed with this
al a a true a d cc. .r
Signa ure of Appellant or Authorized Agent
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ____
day of VVI __
My Commission Expires: Vyta.y I L,.Olo.-
Notary Public
Justification Statement Supporting
Mr. Roland C. Roberts, Mrs. Betty J. Roberts, and AT&T's
Request for a Special Exception to
Construct a 124' Monopole (including a 4' lightning rod)
and associated Equipment
at
3907 Trego Mountain Road
Keedysville, Maryland 21756
This document and the attached exhibits provide a justification for the proposal of the
applicants: Mr. Roland C. Roberts, Mrs. Betty J. Roberts, and New Cingular Wireless
PCS, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Mobility (together, the "Applicant" or "AT&T"). This
Justification Statement also provides a brief explanation as to how and why this proposal
conforms with the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, Maryland (the
"Ordinance"). This information, as well as additional and clarifying evidence to be
presented at an upcoming public hearing, provide the foundation for approving the
Applicant's Request for a Special Exception. The following Exhibits are attached to this
Justification Statement:
Exhibit I RF Justification for Rohersville Station
Exhibit 2 Existing Coverage RF MAP
Exhibit 3 RF Propagation Map showing coverage with 120' antennas
Exhibit 4 RF Propagation Maps showing coverage with 100' and 140'
antennas
Exhibit 5 Visual Impact Survey
Exhibit 6 Affidavit re: co -location and County space reservation
Exhibit 7 TOWAIR Determination Results re: lack of lighting required
Exhibit 8 Map showing the location of existing and proposed towers within
Washington County and within one mile of the County boundary
I. AT&T's Goals and Lack of Existing Coverage
AT&T is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to provide
wireless telecommunications services in Washington County. AT&T needs additional
antennas in order to provide and improve the delivery of wireless services to residents in
the Keedysville area and commuters along Chestnut Grove Road, Highway 67, Trego
Mountain Road, Trego Road, New Burnside Bridge Road, and other local roads. (See RF
Justification for Rohersville Station attached as Exhibit 1)
By way of background, as an FCC licensee, AT&T seeks to create a state-of-the-art all -
digital wireless network that will provide seamless wireless services to its customers.
This goal requires a network of antennas and equipment facilities that broadcast and
receive radio signals within a strictly limited radio frequency range to each wireless user
in the vicinity of that facility. Each facility must pass a user's signal to an adjacent
facility as the user travels out of the coverage area and into an adjacent coverage area.
This is referred to as "handoff' coverage. Each facility covers a limited area that is
generally determined by the height of the antennas, the local topography and terrain, and
1054229.2 3/I a/10
obstructions such as buildings and other structures. AT&T's radio frequency ("RF")
engineers use a specialized software program, analyze dropped -call data, and review
customer complaints to identify coverage gaps. AT&T identified a coverage gap in and
around the proposed site. The RF engineer created a propagation map that illustrates
AT&T's existing coverage (and lack thereof) in the area. (See Existing Coverage RF
Map attached as Exhibit 2).
AT&T's proposed telecommunications facility will resolve the need for adequate
coverage in the area around the proposed site and also ensure adequate overlapping
coverage between and among existing sites including AT&T's Flickersville site and its
Sharpsburg site. Ultimately, the proposed site will allow residents and commuters to
experience better quality and diminished dropped calls.
II. AT&T's Proposed Facility
The Applicant seeks a Special Exception in order to construct, install, and operate a new
unmanned, wireless telecommunication facility on 3907 Trego Mountain Road
Keedysville, Maryland 21756 (the "Property"). The Property is owned by Mr. Roland C.
Roberts and Mrs. Betty J. Roberts and is an 8.88 acres, wooded lot that is zoned P or
Preservation. The ground elevation of the Property is 871'. The proposed facility will
consist of panel antennas installed on a 124' tall monopole that includes a 4' lightning
rod. The antennas will each measure no more than 75"H x 6"W x 6"D. Their centerline
will be approximately 120' above ground level. The proposed equipment cabinets will be
placed inside a 10'H x 11'-6'W x 20'D equipment shelter near the base of the proposed
monopole inside a 50' x 50' board -on -board 8' high fenced compound. The facility is
unmanned and vehicle trips to and from this facility are approximately one
service/maintenance call per month in a normal -size vehicle. These and other details are
included in the Site Plans. There are 9 copies of the Site Plans attached to this
package.
III. Selection of the Subject Property
Before AT&T proposes to build a new tower, it first seeks to co -locate antennas on an
existing structure. The only known existing tall structure within the area is a Washington
County -owned 25' tall water tank located on Trego Mountain Road. This 25' water tank
is located 150 yards northwest of the proposed tower location. The ground elevation of
the water tank is 32' less than the ground elevation of the proposed tower site. Also, the
trees surrounding the water tank are an average of 60' in height. Due to the 25' height of
the water tank, the ground elevation of the water tank and the height of the surrounding
trees, this location will not provide sufficient coverage to the area or help in the handoff
between the existing sites. There are no other existing structures within the area of the
Property that provide a co -location opportunity for AT&T. Once it was determined that a
new tower was required, AT&T evaluated a series of sites and eventually landed on the
Property. The Property comprises all of the factors necessary for a successful new site —
approval of technical and geographical information related to the site; a permitted use
(even if by Special Exception) under the Ordinance; and a land owner willing to lease
space to AT&T.
054229.2 3/I B/10 2
As previously discussed, to achieve the desired coverage within the intended
geographical coverage area, each antenna facility must be strategically located to ensure
maximum coverage and minimum overlap with another facility. In sum, these facilities
must be located within a certain proximity to each other in order to avoid a "dead spot"
or a place in the system where the telephone signal "drops" and becomes interrupted with
interference. The Property is strategically located in relation to other existing AT&T
facilities and will provide the widest and most efficient coverage of the arterial roadways
in the area while minimizing its visual impact on the area.
The Property was evaluated by AT&T's RF engineers and it was determined that
antennas placed at 120' would allow AT&T to meet its minimum coverage objectives. A
propagation map illustrating the proposed coverage with antennas at 120' is attached as
Exhibit 3. Propagation Maps illustrating coverage with antennas at 100' — 20' lower
than the proposed facility, and 140' — 20' higher than the proposed facility are attached as
Exhibit 4. In addition to the proposed site satisfying AT&T's coverage objectives, the
Property's topography, size, and existing trees and vegetation will help to reduce the
pole's visibility to surrounding areas. The Property is also situated in proximity to other
existing sites, which will allow AT&T to effectively and efficiently provide its service to
people who live, work or travel through this portion of Washington County. Without a
facility at or near this location, AT&T will be unable to provide adequate coverage in the
surrounding area.
IV. . Visual Impact
AT&T conducted a visual impact survey by raising an orange weather balloon to 124' —
the height of the proposed monopole. The architectural and engineering firm, along with
others, drove the area and a photographer then took pictures from various locations in the
areas around the Property. If the balloon was visible from a location, the architectural
and engineering firm created a photosimulation, which includes a scaled 124' monopole
digitally superimposed onto the photograph in place of the balloon and rope. A map
showing the locations of the photographs and the corresponding photographs and
photosimulations are attached as Exhibit 5.
1054229.23/18/10 3
V. Statement of Compliance
The information in this package and attached to this package provide support to show that
AT&T's proposal meets the applicable performance standards and design criteria
described in Sections 4.12, 4.22 and 25.6 of the Ordinance, as set forth below.
A. Section 4.12 Performance Standards
The following performance standards shall be considered in all districts where
Business, Industrial, and Institutional uses are permitted.
(a) Control of smoke, dust and dirt, fumes, vapors, gases and odors.
The Maryland Air Pollution Control Standards shall be used to
control the emission of smoke, dust, dirt, fly ash, fumes, vapors, gases or
odors.
AT&T'S Response: The new facility will have no impact on air quality.
The antennas emit no smoke, dust or dirt, fumes, vapors, gases or odors.
(b) Control of heat and glare
No use shall carry on an operation that will produce heat or constant glare
that will adversely affect the uses of an adjacent property.
AT&T'S Response: The new facility will not create heat or glare, and, as
such, will not adversely affect the uses of any adjacent property.
(c) Vibration Control
Machines or operations which cause vibration shall be permitted but in no
case shall any such vibration adversely affect the uses of an adjacent
property.
AT&T'S Response: The new facility will not create vibrations.
(d) Radiation of Electrical Emissions, Radioactivity or Electrical
Disturbance Activities which may emit dangerous radioactivity beyond
closed areas shall comply with State and Federal Codes. No electrical
disturbances (except from domestic household appliances) shall be
permitted to affect adversely, at any point, any equipment other than that
of the creator of such disturbance,
AT&T'S Response: AT&T is licensed by the FCC and operates its
equipment in fill compliance with FCC rules and regulations. The new
facility will not emit dangerous radioactivity and will not cause electrical
disturbances.
1054229.2 3/18/10
(e) Electric, Diesel, Gas or Other Power
Every use requiring power shall be so operated that any service
lines, substation, etc., shall conform to the highest applicable safety
requirements. They shall be constructed, installed, etc., so that they will be
an integral part of the architectural features of the building or, if visible
from abutting residential properties, shall be concealed by evergreen
planting.
A T& T'S Response: N/A
(f) Sewage and Waste Treatment
All methods of sewage and industrial waste treatment and disposal shall
be approved by the district receiving the effluent and shall be in
accordance with all applicable regulations.
AT&T'S Response: N/A because the new facility does not create sewage
or waste.
(g) Storage of Materials
No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a lot in such
form or manner that they may be transferred off the lot by natural
causes or forces, nor shall any substance which can contaminate a
stream or watercourse or otherwise render such a stream or
watercourse undesirable as a source of water supply or recreation,
or which will destroy aquatic life, be allowed to enter any stream
or watercourse.
AT& T'S Response: N/A because the new facility will not be used to store
materials.
2. All materials or wastes which may cause fumes or dust or which
may be edible or otherwise attractive to rodents or insects shall
be stored only if enclosed in containers which are adequate to
eliminate such hazards.
AT&T'S Response: N/A because the new facility will not be used to store
materials.
(h) The Board of County Commissioners may require a performance bond
from the applicant for any proposed use where the resulting vehicular
traffic from the business may result in damage to County roads, The
determination for this requirement shall be made in accordance with a
review of the following:
AT& T'S Response: The proposed use will generate approximately 1 visit
per month by a technician in a regular sized vehicle and so there will not
054229.2 3/18/10 5
be any damage to County roads from vehicular traffic.
The proposed routes for the vehicular traffic entering and leaving
the site on public roads to the first intersection with a highway
classification of major collector or above in the Washington
County Highway Plan. Proposed routes, once approved as a
part of the site plan, may not be changed without approval of
the Planning Commission subject to the same standards
applied to the original review.
AT&T'S Response: N/A because the new facility will have no impact on
traffic congestion or circulation. The facility will receive approximately
one service/maintenance call per month in a normal -size vehicle, so it will
have no discernable traffic impact whatsoever.
2. An estimate of the average daily vehicular traffic from the site
plus the average gross weight of each vehicle.
AT&T'S Response: N/A because the new facility will have no impact on
traffic congestion or circulation. The facility will receive approximately
one service/maintenance call per month in a normal -size vehicle, so it will
have no discernable traffic impact whatsoever.
3. The physical condition of the public road at the time of application
including pavement thickness, roadway width, and vertical and
horizontal alignment. This determination shall be made in
accordance with accepted engineering practices and standards.
AT&T'S Response: N/A because the new facility will have no impact on
traffic congestion or circulation, The facility will receive approximately
one service/maintenance call per month in a normal -size vehicle, so it will
have no discernable traffic impact whatsoever.
B. Section 4.22 Commercial Communication Towers
No permit to construct a tower may be issued unless the applicant demonstrates to
the Planning Commission, or where applicable, to the Board of Zoning Appeals, need for
the tower and that the applicant has exhausted all alternatives to constructing a
tower. Applicants are required to prove need by:
a. demonstrating via statement or other evidence that, in terms of location and
construction, there are no existing towers, buildings, elevated tanks or other
structures able to provide the antenna platform required.
AT&T'S Response: The only existing structure within the area is a
Washington County -owned 25' tall water tank located on Trego Mountain
Road. This 25' water tank is located 150 yards northwest of the proposed
tower location. A maximum 20' tall pole mount antenna co -location was
105922923/18110 6
evaluated and definitively ruled out for the following reasons. The 25' tall
water tank is surrounded by trees that are 60' tall placing a maximum 45'
RAD center for antennas well below the tree line. In addition, the ground
elevation tinder the water tank is 32' less than the ground elevation of the
proposed tower site. The combination offactors led AT&T's RF engineer
to conclude that a co -location will not provide sufficient coverage to the
area or help in the handoff between the existing sites. No other co -
location opportunities are available in order to serve AT&T's coverage
objectives.
b. providing evidence, including coverage diagrams and technical reports,
demonstrating that co -location on existing sites is not technically possible
in order to serve the desired need.
AT&T'S Response: As stated above, an RF engineer determined that co -
location on existing sites is not technically possible to serve AT&T's
coverage objectives. This information, combined with additional evidence
to be submitted at the upcoming public hearing highlight AT&T's
compliance with this provision.
Design requirements
In addition to the applicable requirements for a site plan as specified in Section
4.11, the applicant shall provide the following information as part of the site plan
submittal. These provisions shall apply to towers in all districts where permitted as a
principal permitted or special exception use:
1. Subject to a minimum setback of a distance equaling the total height of
the tower and equipment, The setback shall be measured from the base of
the tower to the boundary line of the property owned, leased, or controlled by
easement by the applicant.
AT&T'S Response: The proposed facility will be located within the
interior of the Property. The proposed tower will meet the Ordinance's
required setback. It is 124' tall, including a 4' lightning rod, and will
have a northern setback of 322', an eastern setback of 244', a southern
setback of 382', and a western setback of 179'. This setback area is
completely controlled by the applicants. This information, as well as
evidence to be submitted at the upcoming public hearing, highlights
AT&T's compliance with this provision.
2. Subject to a minimum distance requirement of a distance equaling the height
of the tower and equipment plus 200 feet from the RR, RS, RU, RM and
RV districts or the nearest part of any existing dwelling, school,
church, or institution for human care, in any other district,
AT&T'SResponse: There are no RR, RS, RU, RMandRVdistricts within
1054229.23/18/10 7
324' of the proposed monopole. Further, there are no residential
dwellings within 324' feet of the proposed monopole other than the
property owner's existing residence (232).
3. Subject to a minimum setback from all overhead transmission lines of
a distance equaling two times the height of the tower and equipment.
A T& T'S Response: There are no overhead transmission lines within 248'
of the proposed monopole.
4. Subject to a height not to exceed 200 feet. Measurement of tower height
shall include the tower structure itself, the base pad, and any other
equipment attached thereto which extends more than twenty (20) feet over
the top of the tower structure itself. The tower height shall be measured from
grade.
A T& T'S Response: The tower will measure 124', including a 4' lightning
rod.
5. Proposed towers shall meet the following minimum separation
requirements from existing towers or towers which have been issued a permit
but are not yet constructed.
(a) Monopole towers shall be separated from all other towers, whether
monopole, self-supporting lattice, or guyed, by a minimum of
seven hundred and fifty (750) feet.
(b) Self-supporting lattice or guyed towers shall be separated from all other
self-supporting or guyed towers by a minimum of fifteen hundred
(1,500) feet.
(c) Self-supporting lattice or guyed towers shall be separated from
all monopole towers by a minimum of seven hundred and fifty (750) feet.
AT&T'S Response: There are no monopoles within 750' of the proposed
monopole.
6. All towers shall be designed for co -location, which shall mean the ability of
the structure to allow for the placement of comparable equipment for other
carriers. An application for a tower shall be accompanied by an affidavit
from the applicant stating that one ten (10) foot space on the proposed
tower will be specifically reserved for use by the County, and that other
spaces will be made available to other future users, when possible.
AT& T'S Response: The proposed monopole is designed to accommodate
three wireless carriers in addition to AT&T. In addition, a ten foot space
will be reserved for the County. An affidavit setting forth that a ten foot
1054229.2 3/18/10 8
space will be reserved for the County, and that other spaces will be made
available to other future users is attached as Exhibit 6.
7. Fencing shall be provided around the base of the tower and any associated
equipment buildings.
AT&T'S Response: The tower and all associated equipment buildings
will be surrounded by a 50' x 50' x 8' high board -on -board fencing. See
Site Plans.
8. All sites shall be identified by means of a sign no larger than two square feet
affixed to the fence identifying the entity using the site and shall provide the
telephone number of a contact person in the event of an emergency.
AT& T'S Response: A sign no larger than two square feet will be affixed
to the fence surrounding the compound identifying the entity using the site
and will provide the telephone number of a contact person in the event of
an emergency.
9. Towers not requiring FAA painting or marking shall have an exterior
finish which enhances compatibility with adjacent land uses, as approved
by the Planning Commission or Board of Zoning Appeals. Towers shall not
be lighted unless specifically required by the FAA.
AT&T'S Response: The tower will have a galvanized finish and will not
require lighting. An FAA related "TOWAIR Determination Results"
confirming the lack of required lighting on the proposed 124' (or 37.8
meters) monopole is attached as Exhibit 7.
10. In order to protect the natural skyline, towers should be sited within areas
of mature vegetation and should be located down slope from ridge lines,
and toward the interior of the parcel whenever possible. Placement should
only be considered elsewhere on the property when valid technical data
supplied by the applicant indicates that there is no other suitable location.
AT&T'S Response: The proposed monopole will be situated within the
interior of the Property. As described above and seen in the attached Site
Plans, the proposed monopole will be situated within a wooded area. The
proposed monopole is in -line with a ridge but on the lower portion of the
downward slope between two ridges.
11. Towers proposed to be located within the Appalachian Trail corridor special
planning area as identified in the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the County,
any "AO" Antietam Overlay zoning district or "HP" Historic Preservation
zoning district shall utilize stealth technology as defined in Article 28A to
minimize visual impact.
1054229.23/18/10
AT& T'S Response: The proposed monopole will not be located within
the Appalachian Trail corridor, the AO zoning district or the HP zoning
district.
12. (a) A Commercial Communication Tower that is out of service for a
continuous six (6) month period will be deemed to have been
abandoned. The Zoning Administrator may issue a Notice of
Abandonment to the Owner of the Tower that is deemed to be
abandoned. The Owner shall have the right to respond in writing
to the Notice of Abandonment setting forth the reasons for
operation difficulty and providing a reasonable timeframe for
correction action, within thirty (30) days from the date of the
Notice. The Administrator shall withdraw the Notice of
Abandonment and notify the Owner that the Notice has been
withdrawn if the Owner provides information that demonstrates
the Tower has not been abandoned.
(b) If the Tower is determined to be abandoned, the Owner of the
Tower shall remove the Tower and all related equipment at the
Owner's sole expensed within three (3) months of the Date of
Notice of Abandonment. If the Owner fails to remove the Tower
and related equipment, the Administrator may pursue legal action
to have the Tower removed at the Owner's expense.
A T& T'S Response: AT&T will comply with these requirements.
Additional Provisions for Towers Permitted by Special Exception
In addition to the limitations, guides and standards enumerated in Section 25.6, the
Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider the following provisions when considering a
request for a special exception for a commercial communications tower.
1. In those cases where a proposed tower is part of a grid or network, the
applicant shall provide a map indicating the location of any existing or
proposed towers in the grid or network within Washington County and within
one (1) mile of the County boundary.
AT&T'S Response: A map indicating the location of existing or proposed
towers in the network within Washington County and within I mile of the
County boundary is attached as Exhibit 8.
2, The tower shall be compatible with and shall not adversely impact the
character and integrity of surrounding properties. Consideration shall be given
to the view shed associated with scenic and historic areas and to the use
of stealth technology to minimize the visibility of the proposed tower.
AT& T'S Response: The proposed site is not visible from any known
1054229.2 3119110 1 0
County scenic and historic areas. The proposed site is located within the
interior of a wooded property. As shown on the visual impact survey
attached as Exhibit 5, the proposed facility will not adversely impact the
character and integrity of the surrounding properties.
3. The applicant shall submit a visual analysis which may include,
photo simulation, field mock-up, elevations or other visual or graphic
illustrations to determine visual impact. Consideration shall be given to
views from public areas as well as from private residences. The
analysis shall assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed facility and
other existing and foreseeable towers in the area, and shall identify and
include all feasible mitigation measures.
A T& T'S Response: A visual impact survey including photosimulations is
attached as Exhibit 5.
4. The Board may include conditions on the site where the tower is to be
located if such conditions are necessary to preserve the character and
integrity of the area affected by the proposed tower and mitigate any adverse
impacts which arise in connection with approval of the special exception.
AT& T'S Response: A visual impact survey including photosimulations is
attached as Exhibit 5.
C. Compliance with Section 25.6 Limitations, Guides and Standards
As the Board of Appeals considers the factors set forth in Section 25.6 of the
Ordinance, AT&T is confident that facts and circumstances of its proposal show that
the particular use proposed at the particular location proposed would not have any
adverse effects above and beyond those inherently associated with such a special
exception use irrespective of its location within the zoning district. The proposed
monopole will not adversely affect the public health, safety, security, morals or general
welfare, nor will it result in dangerous traffic conditions, nor jeopardize the lives or
property of people living in the neighborhood. As previously stated, AT&T is licensed
by the FCC and operates its equipment in full compliance with FCC rules and
regulations. Additionally, the new facility will have no impact on air quality, water
quality, radiation exposure, light pollution, noise pollution, or traffic congestion or
circulation. The antennas emit no noise, light or odors. Further, the facility does not
create sewage or waste, nor will it be used to store materials. The facility will receive
approximately one service/maintenance call per month in a normal -size vehicle, so it will
have no discernable traffic impact whatsoever. Moreover, the proposed monopole will
not adversely affect property values, nor will it jeopardize the lives of the people
surrounding the property. In fact, the proposed monopole will add to the safety of the
citizens in the surrounding area by providing more reliable service in the event of an
emergency. AT&T will provide additional evidence supporting this response at the
upcoming public hearing.
1054229.2 3/16/10 1 1
VI. Conclusion
The Applicant respectfully requests that Washington County grant the requested special
exception relief. If you need further information, please contact our zoning attorney
Gregory Rapisarda at 410-332-8963.
05422923/18110 12
RV/
1 ■
Site Number:111040
RV
ember :111062
Site Number :11104
jSitember :111006
/ / \ Site Number x11143
Site Number:111144
pSite Number x11147
Site Number :1111
:Slte Ni
Site Number:111054
RV �..... nR
/ ALVA CT P
"tower
1/2 mile radius
Site Number :111064
Site Number:111007
6✓RJL
N'lLLOWRD
"" Lv RD
:111057
U Site Number :111039
RV�
�\ 11
/ Site Number :11102II
Mt Briar' i
r �`�Att Bnai3 7¢,
S - -7ar Ry preserve Q.d ,
,y 7a _ Rd N
0"
#$ Rohr rsville 67 �c ove Ez
sviIle a
tation �q�
(A I
C
p.
at&t
Rohrersville Roberts Property
10136208_4080
3907 Trego Mtn. Rd., Keedysville, VA 21756
124ft. Monopole
Simulation
Photograph Locations
L. Tower Location
124ft. Monopole is Visible
Qj 124ft. Monopole is Not Visible
WOJECT INFORMATION
SCOPE OF WORK: TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 124'
MONOPOLE INCLUDING A 4' LIGHTNING ROO WITHIN A 50x50WOODEN FENCED
COMPOUND ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY
SITE ADDRESS: 3907 TREGO MOUNTAIN ROAD
KEEOYSNUE, MD 21756
PARCEL SIZE: 8.88 ACRES
LATITUDE: N 39' 25' 12.90'
LONGITUDE: W 77 41' 03.64'
GROUND ELEVATION: 871.0'
JURISDICTION: WASHINGTON COUNTY
ZONING: P
TAX ID. NO:
TAX MAP 81, PARCEL 51
DEED REF:
LIBER 467, FOLIO 218
PROPOSED USE:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON PORTION OF PROPERTY
PROPERTY OWNER:
ROLAND C. ROBERTS
SITE NAME:
ROHRERSVLLE_ROBERTS PROPERTY
SITE T:
10136208_4080
NAME OF APPUCAIT:
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LED
GATE COMBINATION:
N/A
UTILITY INFORMATION
POWER:
TELCO:
BG&E
VERIZON
(800) 265-6177
(800) 483-5000
DRAWING INDEX
REV
10136208-T-1
TITLE SHEET
0
1 OF 3
SURVEY
2 OF 3
SURVEY
2 OF 3
SURVEY
10136208-A-0
SITE PLAN
0
10136208 -A -OA
LAND USE PLAN
0
10136208-A-1
COMPOUND PLAN & ELEVATION
0
10136208-A-2
FENCE DETAILS
0
MAGNETIC DECLINATION - 10' 26' W CHANGING BY 0' 0' W/YEAR AS OF 12/10/09
$
S
SAIL COLUM6Ik GUNS 101
p
+-- --- t-�
FAILS [NU (CH. YA-001-2666
IIA 1
LEL (703) 6111-6000
a r c h i t e c t s
FAX: (703) 671-6300
2e
ng i n e e r s
ROHRERSVILLE_ROBERTS PROPERTY
10136208_4080
VICINITY MAP APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES AND STANDARDS
DIRECTION:
FROM 1-70 [DWIGHT D EISENHOWER HWY] (SOUTH)TAKE EXIT 42. TURN RIGHT ONTO RAMP 0.2 MI. TAKE RAMP (RIGHT) ONTO SR -17
[MYERSVTLLE RD] 0.2 MI. TURN RIGHT (WEST) ONTO MILT SUMMERS RD 0.9 MI. TURN LEFT (SOUTH) ONTO MT TABOR RD 1.9 MI.
TURN RIGHT (NORTH-WEST) ONTO US -40 ALT [OLD NATIONAL PIKE] 3.8 MI. TURN LEFT (SOUTH) ONTO SR -67 [ROHRERSVTLLE RD]
5.7 MI. TURN RIGHT (WEST) ONTO TREGO RD 1.1 MI. TURN LEFT (WEST) ONTO TREGO MOUNTAIN RD 0.9 MI, TURN LEFT
(SOUTH-EAST) ONTO LOCAL ROAD(S) 87 YDS. ARRIVE AT SITE
SCALE: 1"=2000'
SUBCONTRACTOR'S WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH All APPLICABLE NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION (AM) FOR THE LOCATION. THE EDITION OF THE MU ADOPTED CODES AND STANDARDS IN EFFECT
ON THE DATE OF CONTRACT AWARD SHALL GOVERN THE DESIGN.
BUILDING CODE:
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC 2006)
ELECTRICAL CODE:
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NEC 2005)
SUBCONTRACTOR'S WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS.
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTTME (ACI) 318, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION (AISC). MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, ASD. NINTH EOTION
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (104) 222-F, STRUCTURAL STANDARDS FOR STEEL ANTENNA TOWER AND ANTENNA
SUPPORTING STRUCTURES:
TN 607. COMMERCIAL BUILDING GROUNDING AND BONDING REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INSTITUTE FOR ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS (IEEE) 81, GUIDE FOR MEASURING EARTH RESISTIVITY, GROUND IMPEDANCE,
AND EARTH SURFACE POTENTIALS OF A GROUND SYSTEM
IEEE 1100 (1999) RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR POWERING AND GROUNDING OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
IEEE C62.41, RECOMMENDED PRACTICES ON SURGE VOLTAGES IN LOW VOLTAGE AC POWER CIRCUITS (FOR LOCATION CATEGORY
'C3' AND 'HIGH SYSTEM EXPOSURE')
TELCORDIA GR-1275, GENERAL INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS
TELCORDIA GR-1503, COAXIAL CABLE CONNECTIONS
ANSI TI.311, FOR TELECOM - DC POWER SYSTEMS - TELECOM, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FOR ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN SECTIONS OF LISTED CODES AND STANDARDS REGARDING MATERIAL, METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, OR
OTHER REQUIREMENTS, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENT SHAD. GOVERN. WHERE THERE IS CONFUCT BETWEEN A GENERAL
REQUIREMENT AND A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT, THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT SHALL GOVERN.
AT&T CONSTRUCTION:
AT&T COMPLIANCE:
AT&T RF:
REAL ESTATE:
ROHRERSVILLE_ROBERTS 3 T 1� BC ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
2 PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION. I HEREBY CERTIFY ? FALLS CHURCH, VA
PROPERTY THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR * 2
101 F 2c p p 0 Da -12-10 FINAL ZONING DRAWINGS GMW CDM 6MO APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT I AM A DULY -0 TITLE SHEET
TREGO M U_� DUO LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE 2j• (TO • (C�
A 11-05-09 PRELIMNA.RY ZONING DRAWINGS GMW CON DOD LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND. LICENSE
3907 MOUNTAIN ROAD 7150 AMIDND DR - NUMBER 24552 EXPIRATION DATE 17 17 11 C� �� DRAWING NUMBER REv
RWwER MO 21076 NO. DATE RPOSIDN5 ELY CHK APP'D �L' S G
KEEDYSVILLE, MD 21756 SCALE: AS SHOWN IDFSIflUFfl a O1111313 IflPAWJ C,.w n
o
On
W6cc
Dl
or _....ice
'��.� a3 -F 3,': ,d! •�
ti
et1!
�i`
re W'., Q W 4 m 4D
+�D,'•o
C
a.: -ro,.
. as
-
� 3' m
C
m y
y G7 tr
Ill
mn. 3: o _�°....
§..
ue, W
, T
00 rn
CflUO
-n
ID cu
cI
CD
n',
4
J
7;ca
m
CD tfl
m r W
0.
co V m (710' JP W N _. Y
C _ I -n
w rv.f.
C @ vi..',(U D
W yT .m 'TD to a. n..2 3 m ogaZtn a
iiff H
!!a Y
ffi ,90ort mm d r?' f to
ryryfl
:t m7.a -m W 1p S o'W >C A' 'V
111 ]7t 91 W D ,.UI rJ
7T to' AJ 4,,� rt.O IID,
LLi N W
a 57 a �_ `� 2 ma,�-,-� M'-�" :.ate
Q..
W
Dom. b: I
q -: kkgtpflVs
L .x
F n W N g0N
W r3 : COLD hi o� � o a
- '-r ,T -i CDLII
r sao o oum F'$ vz
iF Vin
a`g g 12 W - o T y 'IISD O °-
#f. 3� WcN
- 'C, t5 ` : O _. b .,�,pr tr ray 'IIS d. Cl: o.
D`.3.
r .dam c..rjW ,S'�m� 3d
Q/ an.3 H!
3 u li �W W ni.
W •3 -c` r„ a m
' Q -77 rt' ttr DID ' W b ' E'rrt YD'p- m ay, its . W .4 r -r 'a fl m' iiuvrt 8 n:
n W rx U ( Q `3 a '* . �-'DTI N r'3r sY N- iTa rn rk()R
I o-.. m C flri
7--
Q.
rr
i�.
• Bk
ntun
11W
V 41 VI �{ Z Z' S/1 N C _ P o .°c c�' m: '"+ t� o. voi No.T
4tqtjfrcx--, w m.�m z Fcs �,00>a-, _ _ q- o ' °�'-.,-e
��5' r :� ,:..,,. - m _t'
•
o �K .' ns 3" i]. p•". m v�>N 9i .�K _a
0' .: { o f ] - . � 'o o o
u�t' 's) N.. o ��-/ .ti'- y ;'V n"� m '*':rt ,J _ C ;M�' ' 000-. „ •
[Ir( 11t
' 'aCn v ¢tn!2 JT�y WbnoflaO ys
V vo' a �,�3sr'n xsmto t"stD.x 'iD.mm�m
`
Q.. �- ' fin•rt��.°r fro: u...m .Y.
Xw Q w 3a `a -o n
01
1�=L
I'�o \ `y t`1', n ? n v`0,' m'jaA o o a a 4
>�f?-p -
n,. v y Q'na:.m o;.<�-ms,-r+
:tno ifll s .. s
- o c -
.ffi?mhf+.lJ nT iL.KfTF fiP: �'G �- Cn N n' C -�
-//
.�.
IJ-. vt Cpk.
,� fires °msa
< Ili g t
R 7�'
vr. lilt
yr : o U 41y1 �a
m. —smsyrci' .-. ,2
m. ry
I-' '3 .- 'm' �' SSmd'CiM-T)t. - r• _� mod ` _ ,� 1, -�_—
-_—
A aD, z Ij 1 F £
� ��'v �:
flu 1 U� 1
ot CL
ta
•
n
-a
nr:
A
m=
-b
(V
to
Q
3
rntDfl
a
n"mZ
nrn�.
JOKY <�' =a
y_[!)
C5 Nd, -�i{x
SiY
.�M.tn
'9
mom. Cn.0 ww _ n 0- -r.,
rt 7
a-"
I.aoR8�&
q t A' n o 0-:3A
P a-isM
�n
A'ni n O ``
a <7
±to 0-lmnn R R •00
RbDwaooaa n'
001
cc m m
m
m •VI 3 I'J
o � q a 0,
N
n•o o5) C 'D0 man 0=
mow
m tD
tnrt
n' R'
Z 'b iv
n .-« > ..C �w 0 o
v cni -
moo.mom 3 '4s" o -if'
-
3m3Ni ��aa�m�.��
krUl�`
60 �'
ul . Q
u 0-
bn� �, o'� w <m nmK.
in- OD,
.,
S� Q'=�.w'roi-�.�
>21
Oft Ca N hYDRC
R
3 f,
ID
t1(D ID03 r -�
.,,-U ` LT' m
,o.am-moom.m�R.�
fail ?,
an
cmya,N2obm''
- N' �'.C Cyn.intn
Q (/5 CD o N D n : `n ; w
mO.
-n C) iII1i
j r'
it 'I a'a.m o�n., cn'.
_ :3 n_ Q n nr o 1? ._
K O.ID dam S'-:
LEGEND
NEW RN'
EXIST. FENCE
-::< X
SETBACK
- -
EASEMENT
.
LEASE PROPERTY UNE
- -
EXUT. CONTOUR
NEW CONTOUR
TYP. SUN.DRMG
TYP. ROAD
SITE PLAN NOTES:
1. THIS SITE IS OUTSIDE OF THE GROWTH AREA BOUNDARIES
2. THE LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY PER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS
"PRESERVATION*.
3. THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN A MAJOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY
FUNDING AREA
4. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED - 'PRESERVATION'.
5. THE SITE IS NOT IN AN OVERLAY ZONE
6. THE SITE IS NOT IN A PARK LAID.
7. THE SITE IS NOT IN A PROTECTED LAND.
8. NO SIGNAGE WILL BE INSTALLED OTHER 11 -MN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY
LAW.
9. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4.22, A 8 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND, A SIGN NO LARGER THAN TWO
SQUARE FEET WILL BE AFFIXED TO THE FENCE SURROUNDING THE
COMPOUND IDENTIFYING THE ENTITY USING THE SITE AND WILL
PROVIDE THE TELEPHONE NUMBER OF A CONTACT PERSON IN THE
EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY.'
10. THE DISTURBED AREA FOR THIS PROJECT IS 6.070 SF.
11. THE PROPOSED SITE IS IN-UNE WITH A RIDGE BUT ON THE LOWER
PORTION OF THE DOWNWARD SLOPE BETWEEN TWO RIDGES
12. EXISTING ACCESS ROAD WILL BE COVERED WITH WHITE ROCK.
13. THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL DWEWNGS WITHIN 324' OF THE
PROPOSED MONOPOLE OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXISTING
RESIDENCE
14. MAINTENANCE FOR THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY IS
APPROXIMATELY MONTHLY AND PERFORMED BY A TECHNICWN WITH A
NORMAL -SIZE VEHICLE THERE ARE NO OTHER DEANERY OR
TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS.
15. THE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WILL NOT EMIT GLARE,
HEAT. ODORS, AIR POLLUTANTS, NOISE OR VIBRATIONS.
16. THE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WILL HAVE NO SOLID
WASTE.
17. SUBJECT PARCEL = 8.88 AC
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA = 11,343 SF (0.26 AC) = 2.9% OF
SUBJECT PARCEL
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 3,567 SF (0.08 AC) = 0.9% OF
SUBJECT PARCEL
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA = 14,910 SF (0.34 AC) = 3.8% OF
SUBJECT PARCEL
z
0
0
C
o y a
NI a r c h i t e c t s
I je n g, n e e r sn g, n e e r s
TAX MAP 81 PARCEL 136
MCEOWEN DANIEL C
r --- & CLAIRE R GARRETSON
LIBER 3191 FOLD 45
1 �`\ ZONED: P
TAX MAP 81 PARCEL 27\
BRAN MONROE
WASHINGTON COUNTY & JERI LYN ROBERTS
WATER TANK LOT UBER 1159 FOLIO 839
UBER 1670 LOCO 4 ZONED: P
ZONED: P
IXLSTING
TAX MAP 81 PARCEL 136 1 HOUSE
MCEOWEN DANIEL C ` 1
& CLAIRE R GARRETSON \
USER 3191 FOLIO 45
ZONED: P
TAX MAP 81 PARCEL 132 ' I R`p
•
DEBRA A. RENEHAN ' Q 1.
UBER 1447 FOUO 264 fl=11 /•° _ i 0
ZONED: P
EXISTING ' i
0
HOUSE
// OWNER'S A-
I 1
1 DISTURBED AREA
(6,070 SF) —
\\' � PROPOSED 124'
\ TOWER SETBACK -
TAX MAP BI PARCEL 478
ARTHUR N. DU14WORTH
UBER 2482 FOLIO 20
ZONED: P
1
L
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
'OLD MOUNTAIN ROAD'
RIGHT OF WAY FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS
UBER 1318 FOLIO 512
0
0
I TAX MAP 81 PARCEL 259
1 WESLEY H. ROBERTS
UBER 722 FOLIO 1023
EXISTING TREEUNE
ZONED: P
1
(TYP) - AREAS
WITHIN TREELINE ARE
' -- ---__
MATURE WOODLAND
rEXISTING
HOUSE - -'- -
TAX MAP 81 PARCEL 401
CURTIS F. LEATHERMAN
& DAWN L KING
UBER 1420 FOLIO 73
ZONED: P
t ' " EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ENTRANCE
1 TO BE WIDENED AND CONFIGURED
AS DETERMINED BY MD SHA
1 EXISTING UTILITY POLE
I \' (PPI H19925)
1
EXISTING OVERHEAD
UTILITY
--\_
1 EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD
I TO BE IMPROVED AS
REQUIRED
STONE WAIL
j I I
"-PROPOSED GRAVEL ROAD
1
(1,067 SF)
PROPOSED AT&T 50'x50' (2500
ry
SF) FENCED COMPOUND &
'v
TAX MAP 81 PARCEL 51 /
LEASE AREA
'�
ROLAND C. ROBERTS /
FIBER 467 FOOD 215 /
PROPOSED 120' MONOPOLE
B.BB ACRES
ZONED: P
------
`\ I
O
TAX MAP 81 PARCEL 478
ARTHUR N. DUNWORTH
UBER 2482 TOXIC 20
ZONED: P
SCALE IN FEET SITE PLAN 1
SCALE: 1=150' A -D
0 75 150 300 450
ROHRERSVILLE_ROBERTS
66SD COLUMBIA PIKE, 9111E 101 PROPERTY
F!iLS CNU(70 VA 12W1-1969 10136208_4080 at&t
1EL (703) 611-I0L0
EAO (703) 671-6O0
3907 TREGO MOUNTAIN ROAD 71W6uwno ors
KEEDYSYLLE, MD 21756 1Ma'.av,111 21076
WASHINGTON COUNTY - ZONING ORDINANCE
SECTION 4.12 PERE(,,..,IANCE STANDARDS
THE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN ALL
DISTRICTS WHERE BUSINESS, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL USES ARE PERMITTED.
a)CONTROL OF SMOKE, DUST AND DIRT, FUMES, VAPORS, CASES AND ODORS,
THE MARYLAND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS SHALL BE USED TO
CONTROL THE EMISSION OF SMOKE, DUST, DIRT. FLY ASH, FUMES,
VAPORS, GASES OR ODORS.
b)CONTROL OF HEAT AND GLARE
NO USE SHALL CARRY ON AN OPERATION THAT WILL PRODUCE HEAT OR
CONSTANT GLARE THAT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE USES OF AN
ADJACENT PROPERTY.
c)VIBRATION CONTROL
MACHINES OR OPERATIONS WHICH CAUSE VIBRATION SHALL BE PERMITTED
BUT IN NO CASE SHALL ANY SUCH VIBRATION ADVERSELY AFFECT THE
USES OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY.
d)RADIATION OF ELECTRICAL EMISSIONS, RADIOACTIVITY OR ELECTRICAL
DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY EMIT DANGEROUS RADIOACTIVITY BEYOND
CLOSED AREAS SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL CODES. NO
ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCES (EXCEPT FROM DOMESTIC HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES)
SHALL BE PERMITTED TO AFFECT ADVERSELY, AT ANY POINT, ANY EQUIPMENT
OTHER THAN THAT OF THE CREATOR OF SUCH DISTURBANCE.
O)ELECTRIC, DIESEL, GAS OR OTHER POWER
EVERY USE REQUIRING POWER SHALL BE SO OPERATED THAT ANY SERVICE
LINES. SUBSTATION, ETC., SHALL CONFORM TO THE HIGHEST APPLICABLE
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. THEY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED, INSTALLED, ETC.,
SO THAT THEY WILL BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURES OF THE BUILDING OR, IF VISIBLE FROM ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES, SHALL BE CONCEALED BY EVERGREEN PLANTING.
1) SEWAGE AND WASTE TREATMENT
ALL METHODS OF SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT RECEMNG THE EFFLUENT
AND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
g)STORAGE OF MATERIALS
1. NO MATERIALS OR WASTES SHALL BE DEPOSITED UPON A LOT IN SUCH
FORM OR MANNER THAT THEY MAY BE TRANSFERRED OFF THE LOT BY
NATURAL CAUSES OR FORCES, NOR SHALL ANY SUBSTANCE WHICH CAN
CONTAMINATE A STREAM OR WATERCOURSE OR OTHERWISE RENDER SUCH
A STREAM OR WATERCOURSE UNDESIRABLE AS A SOURCE OF WATER
SUPPLY OR RECREATION, OR WHICH WILL DESTROY AQUATIC LIFE, BE
ALLOWED TO ENTER ANY STREAM OR WATERCOURSE.
2.ALL MATERIALS OR WASTES WHICH MAY CAUSE FUMES OR DUST OR WHICH
MAY BE EDIBLE OR OTHERWISE ATTRACTIVE TO RODENTS OR INSECTS
SHALL BE STORED ONLY IF ENCLOSED IN CONTAINERS WHICH ARE
ADEQUATE TO ELIMINATE SUCH HAZARDS.
h)THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY REQUIRE A PERFORMANCE BOND
FROM THE APPLICANT FOR ANY PROPOSED USE WHERE THE RESULTING
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FROM THE BUSINESS MAY RESULT IN DAMAGE TO COUNTY
ROADS. THE DETERMINATION FOR THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THE PROPOSED ROUTES FOR THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ENTERING AND
LEAVING THE SITE ON PUBLIC ROADS TO THE FIRST INTERSECTION WITH A
HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION OF MAJOR COLLECTOR OR ABOVE IN THE
WASHINGTON COUNTY HIGHWAY PLAN. PROPOSED ROUTES, ONCE APPROVED
AS A PART OF THE SITE PLAN, MAY NOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT APPROVAL
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TO THE SAME STANDARDS
APPLIED TO THE ORIGINAL REVIEW.
2.AN ESTIMATE OF THE AVERAGE DAILY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FROM THE SITE
PLUS THE AVERAGE GROSS WEIGHT OF EACH VEHICLE.
3.THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PUBLIC ROAD AT THE TIME OF
APPLICATION INCLUDING PAVEMENT THICKNESS, ROADWAY WIDTH, AND
VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL AUGNMENT, THIS DETERMINATION SHALL BE
MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED ENGINEERING PRACTICES AND
STANDARDS.
AT&T IS LICENSED BY THE FCC AND OPERATES ITS EQUIPMENT IN FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH FCC RULES AND REGULATIONS, ADDITIONALLY, THE NEW
FACILITY WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY. RADIATION
EXPOSURE, LIGHT POLLUTION, NOISE POLLUTION, OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR
CIRCULATION. THE ANTENNAS EMIT NO NOISE, LIGHT OR ODORS, FURTHER, THE
TAX MAP 81 PARCEL 66
FACILITY DOES NOT CREATE SEWAGE OR WASTE. NOR WILL IT BE USED TO STORE
DUANE J. & SALLY. A VENTMIGLIA
MATERIALS. THE FACILITY WILL RECEIVE APPROXIMATELY ONE
USER 1280 FOUO 1013
SERVICE/MAINTENANCE CALL PER MONTH, SO IT WILL HAVE NO DISCERNABLE
ZONED: P
TRAFFIC IMPACT WHATSOEVER, AS SUCH, THE PROPOSED FACILITY SATISFIES THE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PROVIDED IN SECTION 4.12 OF THE ORDINANCE
TRUE NORTH
F M
0
03-12-10
FINAL ZONING DRAWINGS
GMW
CDM
BMQ
A
1/ -OS -D9
PRELJMNA�O�WINGS""GMW
CDM
BMQ
N0.
DATE
BY
CHK
APP'D
SCALE AS SHOWN
DRAWN GMW
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION. I HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR
APPROVED BY ME, AND TIHAT I AFJ A DULY
-O
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
1
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, LICENSE
NUMBER 24552 EXPIRATION DATE 11/17/11.
BC ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
FALLS CHURCH, VA
D 9/ti SITE PLAN
DRAWING NUMBER
...,, IMRdn0n— A_n
Ill
25'-0"
ss
�?pP
PROPOSED AT&T
ry EQUIPMENT SHELTER
50'-0"
fE OF TOWER
GRUB & REMOVE
-- — ALL TREES AND
25'-0" VEGETATION WITHIN
FENCED AREA
ROVIDE 1001
CEOTEXTILE FABRIC
& ,157 STONE
WITHIN FENCE AREA
PROPOSED 4'
PROPOSED AT&T I
LIGHTNING RD
50'x50' LEASE AREA
(2500 SF)
7
5V'G51
"-'--'---PROPOSED AT&T
50'xSO'xB' BD
BOARD WOOD OARftO
PROPOSED AT&T 1'-0'
STONE APRON
AROUND FENCED AREA
PROPOSED AT&T
120' MONOPOLE
O
v,
o v,
EXISTING TREE TO
-
BE REMOVED
o
w
U.G. CONDUITS:
jT1-4' SON. 40 PVC POWER)
SIGN TO BE INSTALLED
�. 1-4" SCH. 40 PVC (TELCO)
/y3
ON OUTSIDE OF FENCE
O
WITH FACILITY OWNER'S
j
CONTACT INFORMATION
PROPOSED AT&T 4 -GANG
UTILITY H -FRAME W/
TELCO DEMARK BOX -
PROPOSED POWER & TELCO
STUB -UPS, COORDINATE WITH
UTILITY COMPANIES --
PROPOSED 12' GRAVEL
ACCESS ROAD- .
PROPOSED AT&T
20' WIDE ACCESS
EASEMENT
ol
4
o> V
w�
NOTE:
10' OF VERTICAL
SPACE ON THE
TOWER SHALL BE
RESERVED FOR USE
BY THE COUNTY
PROPOSED AT&T ANTENNAS
MOUNTED ON PLATFORM W/
UPPER RAIL
FUTURE CARRIER
(TYP. OF 3)
PROPOSED AT&T 120'
MONOPOLE W/ 4' LIGHTNING
ROD AND GALVANIZED FINISH
(TOTAL HT=124')
PROPOSED AT&T
ICEBRIDGE
II '-O.1 R ACCESS AT&TGTE PROPOSED I I I I VIII /EQUIPMENT SHELTER i/2 H
PROPOSED TTURNAROUND/PARKING
CS7
0 5
SCALE IN FEET
10 20
30 COMPOUND PLAN
SCALE:1•=1O'
T
A-1 TRUE NORTH
,.
a r c h i t e C t s
e n g i n e e r s
549 ODUWDA PIKE SUITE 101
N aDRD,. "22Of1-'
lEL (203) 6)i_D000
Pte' PIT) 671-
ROHRERSVILLE_ROBERTS
PROPERTY
10136208_4080
3907 TREGO MOUNTAIN ROAD
KEEDYSVILLE, MD 21756
-
]150 SIANDMD DR
IRVPJER. HD 21076
_
*SHDWN
ING DRAWINGS
RY ZONING DRAWINGS
REVISIONS
DESIGNED B. GUINN
PROPOSED AT&T
50'x50'xB' BOARD ON
BOARD WOOD FENCE
SCALE IN FEET
ELEVATION z
SCALE: 1"-20' p-7
0 10 20 40 MqR
BC ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION. I HEREBY CERTIFY A FALLS CHURCH, VA
THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR
AV COM BMD APPROVED BY ME, LICENSED PROFESSIONENGINEER UNDER THE
AND THAT I AM A DULY v COMPOUND PLAN & ELEVATION
AL
AW CDM BUD LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND. LICENSE / 7T& AP
CHP'D NUMBER24552,EXPIRATION DATE 11112111. (s 245 G\ Bl•- DRAWING NUMBER Itte
inncAnOn A
1'x4VERTICAL
MEMBER (TYP.)
0'-0'
10'-0' EYE.
SIMPSON A35 FRAMING
ANCHOR (TYP.) A
2'x4' HORIZONTAL = _ MEMBER (TYP.)
4'x4' W00D POST _ _ _ Zr - Zr Zr - _ _ Zr - -
(TW.) (USE 6x6 0
FENCE CORNERS
& GATE POSTS)
( " FINISHED A
a GRADE
I 6.g CONCRETE
FOUNDATION
SECTION A -A
FENCE SECTION DETAIL 1
SCALE: N.T.S. A_2
NOTES:
1. ALL LUMBER SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED.
2. ALL NAILS SHALL BE g8 PENNYWEIGHT COMMON WIRE NMS.
3. NAIL Ix4 VERTICAL MEMBERS AT EACH GIRL
O'
WIDE
DOUBLE
GATE
rn
� SEE A-i FOR GATE SIZE
N
L I
I i
a I
0
I
LATCH
AND LOCK I�
� USE AMERISTPR IL�f
T-HINCE OR
APPROVED EQUAL (TYP.)
ri
GATE ELEVATION z
≥ SCALE: N.T.S. p_p
OF M
3 n ROHRERSVILLE_ROBERTS •
3 F
PROPERTY 2 4` �A BC ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION. I HEREBY CERTIFY FALLS CHURCH, VA r F CAuueu VA2 SDI- 101 1 THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED OR * u z
'r•���--• �`"-u•--.�=`` FAH EL (703 VA 22041-4068 10136208_4080 0 03-12-10 FINAL ZONING DRAWINGS APPROVED BY ME, AND THAT i AM A DULY '�
m. PDT) sn-haw cuw COM auo FENCE DETAILS A 11-05-09 PRELIMNARY ZONING DRAWINGS GMW CDM BMQ UCE OF THE STATE OF M GAIGINEER NCENSE E �• I!)
0 3907 TREGO MOUNTAIN ROAD nso sru+DnxD US
2 Il 1 ❑ E f r 5 H GAR. MD 21076 NO. DATE REVISIONS BY OUR APP'D NUMBER 24552. EXPIRATION DATE 1 11. �S G\\ D/-"; DRAWING NUMBER REV
o g KEEDYSVILLE, MD 21756- LJ l�
S EJ SCALE: AS SHOWN DESIGNED 9. Ollluu nAewu ruw �nAl Al
�4'cmx
March 8th, 2010
Washington County Historic District Commission
Washington County Administrative Annex
80 West Baltimore Street
Hagerstown, MD 21740-6003
RE: Leitersburg - # MD110
Proposed 199' Lattice Tower
14145 Breezy Acres Road
Hagerstown, MD 21742
Washington County
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of Liberty Towers (Liberty) the following information is provided regarding the proposed
construction of a 199' lattice telecommunications facility. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
regulations require Liberty to consider the effects of the proposed lattice tower on historic properties.
Liberty is complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), by requestingthat
CMX compile a Section 106 Report and render an opinion regardingthe potential effects of the proposed
telecommunications facility. The Section 106 Report will be submitted to the Maryland State Historical
Preservation Office (SHPO) for review.
Liberty proposes to construct, within a 100' x 100' lease area, a 70' x 80' fenced compound to
contain the proposed 199' lattice tower and associated equipment. Liberty plans to access the site via a
proposed gravel covered access road leading northeast from Breezy Acres Road.
A historic properties search was conducted for all sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), as
per the 2004 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement. Review of the historical and archeological files at the
Maryland Historical Trust library identified no National Registered or determined eligible historic sites
within the 1/2 mile APE. In addition to this review, CMX identified two (2) sites which had no determination
of eligibility (DOE) and two (2) sites which were determined not eligible. Details regarding these sites are
presented below:
Name.
Q -Ref o
ta.. d as
Ite
p
h
WA -I-160
14127 Breezy Acres Rd
Approx.
1
Brick House
Not Eligible
Hagerstown, MD 21742
0.15 mile
NA*
WA -1-877
21748 Leitersburg Pike
Approx.
2
21748 Leitersburg Pike
Not Eligible
Hagerstown, MD 21742
0.30 mile
NA*
WA -1-151
Ringgold Pike
Approx.
3
Log House
No DOE
Hagerstown, MD 21742
0.40 mile
Partially Visible
4
Brick Encased Log House
WA -1-158
Ringgold Pike
Approx.
Partially Visible
No DOE
Hagerstown, MD 21742
0.45 mile
*NA - denotes that the property was determined not eligible and therefore was not evaluated
WORKING TOGETHER FOR A BETTER TOMORROW''
910 CENTURY DRIVE I MECHANICSBURG, PA 170SS
TEL' 17.458.0eO0I FAX 717.458.0801 1 WWW.CMXENGINEERING.COM
Washington County HDC
March 8th, 2010
Page 2 of 2
No other historical resources were identified through any comments received by Indian Tribes,
Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), local governments, or members of the public.
The proposed 199' lattice tower will be partially visible from the "no DOE" sites. However, given
the distance from the site, limited visibility, and nature of the activity the proposed tower will not
adversely detract from the characteristics that make these properties listed on the National Register.
Therefore, there will be No Effect to these historical resources. No other historical resources were
identified through any comments received by Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), local
governments, or members of the public.
Attached is a topographic map depicting the site and 1/2 mile APE along with the detailed site plan
and photographs for the above referenced project. Please review the enclosed information and submit
any comments to CMX within thirty (30) days.
Sincerely,
CMX
Adam Bower
Senior Environmental Specialist
LEITERSBURG #MD110 SITE PHOTOS
Photo 1: Proposed access road looking north.
Photo Date: 3.2.10 Focal Length: 35mm
Photo 2: Proposed area for compound looking outh.
Photo Date: 3.2.10 Focal Length: 35mm
LEITERSBURG #MD110 SITE PHOTOS
Photo 3: Looking north from the site.
Photo Date: 3.2.10 Focal Length: 35mm
Photo 4: Looking south from the site.
Photo Date: 3.2.10 Focal Length: 35mm
LEITERSBURG #MD110 SITE PHOTOS
Photo 5: Looking east from the site.
Photo Date: 3,2.10 Focal Length: 35mm
Photo 6: Looking west from the site.
Photo Date: 3.2.10 Focal Length: 35mm
LEITERSBURG #MD110 SITE PHOTOS
Photo 7: Log House (Map ID #3) looking southwest.
Photo Date: 3.2.10 Focal Length: 35mm
Photo 8: From Log House (Map ID #3) looking toward the site. Proposed tower
will be potentially visible.
Photo Date: 3.2.10 Focal Length: 35mm
ii
j/jdO k e � I ` !IHIII
I II Vd
,, � ��IiIIIJI � jk Q@e9 i 4@ �� �
W
f
oo
O0
L�
N
ti
ar
�
N
�
o
a�m/�T
aQ
_
i Z
_
ppa
Q
G
..
LL
2 §
_ I-
J
m
W
`mod
�
a
* :47
u
@
5
�7
6
F
�aC
rc
s
o
ggigq�qa
4�SCp
gilll,g
\l_
� �•
jgfY&.
�tl Ii
�
-4 "cr1'-44'
a 1
f r'
gill
1 11.E
C13y@k3 l$
E&4 c
W
II
°Ii
| • . |f
§ II | ,d | ' |�!
�1\ , 1 U,.§
f b § , E §� k |
Via$II \ §.Q ! . liii
........ . !..vu
b
dh g !&'{ 9
gIi
I ii
b�c €v! a .. i F
Ii 'H I iIdI
a g g d
� itw flog Ill 9N pi
E
�aY h
YK
.o -R ,o-pl
� � � G
-
s
I �
¢ 3
I pM
�
pg
II
jag
9 pg
roll no
| +]
/ Q | P ` � � � . � �
/ | . ! ) L
N |n g , " b H ,_________________
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST - NR Eligible:. yes _
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM no _
Property Name: Brick House, Battletown Road Inventory Number: WA -I- 160
Address: 14127 Breezy Acres Road City: Hagerstown Zip Code: 21742
County: Washington USGS Topographic Map: Washington County — Smithsburg Quad
Owner: Clarance W. & C. E. Cook Is the property being evaluated a district? NO
Tax Parcel Number: 8 Tax Map Number: 26 Tax Account ID Number: 001662
Project: Cook
Site visit by MHT Staff: x no yes Name:
Is the property located within a historic district? _yes x no
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Date:
If the property is within a district District Inventory Number:
NR -listed district _yes Eligible district _yes District Name:
Preparer's Recommendation: Contributing resource yes _no Non-contributing but eligible in another context
If the property is not within a district (or the property is a district)
Preparer's Recommendation: Eligible _yes x no
Criteria: _A_B_C,D Considerations: A_ B_ C_DE_FG_None
Documentation on the property/district is presented in: Maryland Historical Tmst Worksheet Nomination Form for the National
Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, dated September,
1975.
Description of Property and Eligibility Determination: (Use continuation sheet iinecessary and attach map and photo)
The property was most recently observed and photographed on February 5, 2003. The
condition of the property appeared virtually unchanged since the preparation of the
Maryland Historical Trust Worksheet, Nomination Form for the National Register Of
Historic Places, National Parks Service, in the library of the Maryland Historical
Trust. -
The property is described in the Maryland Historical Trust Worksheet, Nomination Form
for the National Register Of Historic Places, National Parks Service, prepared by
Paula Stoner Dickey, Consultant, of Washington County Historic Sites Survey, in
September, 1975. Following is a brief summary of that property description, as
modified by site observations made February 5, 2003.
illl 11101 V1l1tf11v 1fl UJ J_ 1\E,♦SE' fl
recommended Eligibility not recommended _v.
_A_B C_D Considerations: A. -B_C_D_EF
G None
Date
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST
NR-ELIBILITY REVIEW FORM
Continuation Sheet No. 1 uJ 1/ eO
The house is described as
"a two story brick dwelling consisting of a main block four bays in length... The
double porch which appears to have been constructed into a recess in the front
elevation has since been enclosed...A frame lean to with a massive stucco covered
stone chimney is attached to the east gable end, while a shed roofed frame
addition extends along part of the rear or north elevation...A single story porch
supported by round doric-type pillars, extends along the front elevation of the
main block. (it was observed that this property appears unchanged from the
description in the attached form. Of note is the fact that the exposed brick
facade has now been painted white. It was observed that the house is in good
condition.]
Note: The owner of the property would only permit a photgraph to be made from the
road in front of the house.
The property is not directly associated with historical events meeting the
requirements of Criterion A, nor is it associated with any historic personage that
would qualify it for registration under Criterion B. The house is similar to many
others still existing in the area, without distinguishing features that would qualify
it for registration under the terms of Criterion C. There is, finally, no apparent
archaeological information to be obtained at the site, and so it does not meet the
requirements of Criterion D for registration. The property is not considered
eligible for the National Register.
*Observations made during the site visit of February 5, 2003 have been inserted into
the 1975 description [in brackets and italics].
William C. Riggs, R.A.
Prepared by: Historic Architect Date Prepared: 02.19.03
00TA\Vrr 1,.)Vd Li) WA -I-153
22 oiSoS4-a4-
Copy II WA -I-160
District 9
Man 26
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST WORKSHEET Parcel 8
NOMINATION FORM
for the
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE
z
O
H
z
W
W
In
PS - 709
wA-s-16o
(Check One)
❑ EQc111eot ® Good 0 Fair 0 Deteriorated 0 RBlne 0 •Une.po.ed
CONDITION
(Check Ong (Check One)
Altered c50% 0 Unaltered ❑ Moved ® Original Sift
SCRIBE THE PRESENT PD ORIGINAL (it known) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
This house is located on the east side of Battletown Road, just north of
the Leitersburg-Ringgold Road, about one mile northeast of Leitersburg in
Washington County, Maryland. It stands on gently sloping ground and
faces south.
The structure is a two story brick dwelling consisting of a main block
four bays in length. The eastern portion of the front elevation is
faced with weatherboarding. The double porch which appears to have been
constructed into a recess in the front elevation has since been enclosed,
thus making it impossible to view from the exterior the construction of
the east end of the front of the structure. A frame lean to with a
massive stucco covered stone chimney is attached to the east gable end,
while a shed roofed frame addition extends along part of the rear or
north elevation.
The walls rest on roughly coursed local fieldstone. At all elevations,
the bricks are laid in common bond with five or six courses of stretchers
between header rows. There is no decorative work associated with the
masonry.
Openings appear to be spaced evenly in the front and west elevations of
the dwelling. Six over six pane double hung sashes are held within
narrow frames under wide wooden lintels.
A pair of entrances are located in the center bays of the main block of
the house. They appear to have received equal treatment, with four panel
doors, matching paneled jambs and overhead transoms. A single story
porch supported by round doric-type pillars, extends along the front
elevation of the main block.
The roof is covered with slate and extends beyond the end walls at each
gable end. A course of simple molding finishes the eaves and the barge
board. Brick chimneys rise from inside each gable end and from the point
where the main and east sections join.
The house is in good condition and is located on a tract containing
140.02 acres. East of the house is a modern dairy barn, as well as
other structures related to agricultural use.
N
rn
rn
z
N
1
z
C
n
-I
0
z
N
I.
3—D
04 j -i/o
PERIOD (Chock On. arMors as Appropdeh)
❑ Pro-Calumbion O 16th Century
❑ 15th Century ❑ 17th Century
SPECIFIC DATE(S) (If Applicable andAno.rn)
❑ 18th Century O 20th Century
$] 19th Century (mid)
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(Check On. arMara ae Approprige)
Abs, iginol
O Education
O Politicdl O Urban Planning
❑ Prehistoric
O Engineering
O Religion/Phi- O Other (SpaclfF)
❑ Historic
O Industry
losaphy
❑ Agriculture
❑ Invention
O Science
WJ Architecture
O Landscape
O Sculpture
❑ Aft
Architecture
O Social/Human-
❑ Commerce
O Libroture
trade.
❑ Communications
O Military
O Theater
❑ Conservation
❑ Music
❑ Transportation
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The area of significance of this house is its architecture.
Constructed of brick with a recessed double porch at part of its
in main elevation, this house is representative of a significant type
z of mid -19th century domestic architecture in Washington County,
0 Western Maryland and the Cumberland Valley. Most examples of this
sort of structure are from five to seven bays in length. Toward
one end of the structure, the front elevation is indented forming
a cavity enclosed on three sides by the house walls. The recess
U houses a double porch. It is not uncommon for the porches to have
been enclosed at a later date such as is the case with this example.
Evidence suggests that with most of these structures the entire
building was constructed at one time. Dated examples in Washington
County were built between 1840 and 1860.
N
Z This house stands on a tract which includes parts of the following
grants: "Hunt for Timber," "All That's Left" and "Cumberland."
Lu
W
N
pS-709
Bell, Herbert C., History of Leitersburg District, Leitersburg, Md:
the author. 1908
�EI�IiAPHICAI� DA7A _
LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES 0
DEFINING A RECTANGLE LOCATING THE PROPERTY
_—_ R
CORNER LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds
NW o e o
NE o e 0
SE o o
SW 0 p 9 0
•
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTYI 14(
•Acreage Justification:
LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES
DEFINING THE CENTER POINT OF A PROPERTY
OF LESS THAN TEN ACRES
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds
0 0
'" =1:1- fORlA:-PREPfiRE� l31'
NAME AND TITLE:
Paula Stoner Hickey, Consultant
ORGANIZATION
Washington County Histroical Sites Survey
STREET AND NUMBER:
Court House Annex
CITY OR TOWN: STATE
Of
Significance of this property is:
National 0 State 0 Local 0
DATE
September 1975
N
m
m
z
N
C
n
O
Z
N
Signature
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY/DISTRICT
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST
INTERNAL NR -ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
Property/District Name:
21748 Leitersburg
Pike
Survey
Number: WA -11 7'7
Project: Rehab 21748
Leitersburg Pike, Hagerstown
MD
Agency:
MHRP/WA County
Site visit by MHT Staff: X no _ yes Name Date
Eligibility recommended _ Eligibility not recommended X
Criteria: _A _B X C _D Considerations: _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _None
Justification for decision: (Use continuation sheet if necessary and attach map)
Based on the available information, the house at 21748 Leitersburg Pike is not eligible for
the Maryland Register of Historic Properties. The house, which may date to the late 19th or
first decades of the 20th century has lost historic character through alterations and does
not appear to have sufficient architectural significance to merit inclusion in the Register
under criterion C. The house is not known to have been associated with any significant event
or people. The house is located outside Leitersburg Survey District in an area that would
not constitute an historic district.
Documentation on the property/district is presented in: Proiect File
Prepareliy:
Elizabeth Hannold June 23, 1994
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
NR program concurrenc % b( yes _ no _ not applicable p/ Q
Reviewer, NR program Date
4 .h .d �_.. .....
W
W
N
Copt 11 WA -I-151 Z2-P14-15`4C�Y
District 9
Map 26
Parcel 26
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST WORKSHEET
NOMINATION FORM
for the
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE
C orwoN:
Log House, Leitersburg Vicinity
ANO/OR HISTORIC,
iif
tidCAli'!QN S Y 3. 3 [ # f. xu vA �
STREET ANDNUMBER,
Leitersburg-Ringgold Road (MD 418)
CITY OR TOWN:
Leitersburg Vicinity
STATE COUNTY:
Maryland Washi ton
OWNERSHIP
CATEGORY
STATUS
ACCESSIBLE
(Check One)
TO THE PUBLIC
❑ District CJ Building
O Public
Public Acquisition:
Occupied
Yes:
❑ Site ❑ Structure
G& Privots
❑ In Process
Unoccupied
❑ Restricted
❑ Obl.ct
❑ Both
❑ B.In9 ConsIdered
roo Preservotion work
❑ Unrestricted
In progress
1 No
PRESENT USE (Check On. or Mo. a. Appropriate)
❑ Agricultural ❑ Government O Park O Transportallon ❑Comments
❑ Commercial - O Industrial ) Private Resid.nce O Other (Spec/A)
❑ Educational O Military O Rell9ious
❑ Entertainment ❑ Museum [] Scientific
OWNERS NAME:
Hubert
STREET ANO NUMBER:
CITY OR TOWN: - STATE:
URTHOUlE. REOIlTRY OFF DEEDEEDS.S. ETETC:
I'TREET
Washinton Count ourt use
AND NUMBER,
West
CITY OR TOWN:
Ragerstown
STATE
Maryland
21740
itle Reference C r B P9 U: 177/4j
&
:..
9j (,�y[[(( cc�pjj y,.5 ... a ¢¢�'R( �y1
ln.C �.�F)eSY'r.Hli l.:Rr'3Ain S f: S'
I E or V'YE.l
TITLE OF SURVEY,
OATE OF SURVEY, ❑ Federal ❑ Stab ❑ County ❑ Local
DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS,
STREET ANO NUMBER,
CITY
OR TOWN:
STATE,
P5 -]o0
to k :t Ii
(Ch.ck On.)
Excrllrnt ❑ Good 0 Fair ❑ D.wItINIbd 0 Ruin. ❑ •U..xpawd
CONDITION '-- (Cn.ck on.) (Ch.ck on.)
AIt.r.d< O Uncltrr.d ❑ Mond 0 Original Sit.
DESCRIBE THE PRESENT I iD ORIGINAL (If known) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
This house is located on the south side of the Leitersburg-
Ringgold Road, Maryland Route 418, about one and a half miles
northeast of Leitersburg in Washington County, Maryland. It
is situated on sloping ground and faces north.
The structure is a three bay, two and one half story log
dwelling sheathed with aluminum siding. Rubble fieldstone
foundations one story in height at the front elevation support
the walls.
Windows at the main and upper stories display wide modern
framing with two over two light double hung sashes. Ground
story windows at the front elevation of the foundation have
narrow framing holding six over six pane sashes.
The main entrance is located in the east bay of the front or
north elevation. It is quite simple in appearance with
framing similar to that of the windows. A raised porch
extends along the front elevation. It is supported by square
posts trimmed with Victorian period carving. A second porch
supported by turned posts extends across the rear elevation.
The roof is covered with sheet metal and extends beyond the
end walls. An inside end chimney of brick is located at the
east gable, while a much smaller flue, also of brick extends
from inside the west gable end.
Southeast of the house is a small frame barn and other out-
buildings. The house is in good to excellent condition and
stands on a tract containing 14.13 acres.
N
m
m
WA -a -15I
PERIOD (Check On. o, Mor. as Appropd.Ia)
❑ P,.•Cotunhien
0 16th Century
❑ 18th Century ❑ 20th Century
❑ 15th Century
❑ 17th Century
® 19th Century
SPECIFIC DATEtS) (II Applicable .ndKnown)
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Check One w Mara Appropdeis)
Aboriginal
❑ Education
0 Political _ ❑ Urban Planning
❑ Prehistoric
0 Enginaring
❑ R.ligiot✓Phl- ❑ Other (Specify)
❑ Historic
0 Industry
losaphy
❑ Agriculture
❑ Invention
0 Sclanw
Architectur.
❑ Landscup.
❑ Sculpture
❑ Alt
Architecture
❑ Social/Human-
0 Commerce
❑ Literature
itorian
❑ Communiaatlons
❑ Military
❑ Theoter
0 ConservatIon
❑ Music
❑ Transportation
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
N
z
0
W
W
N
This house is significant for its architecture. Constructed
of logs, it represents a major architectural group in
Washington County. Log was used extensively as a building
material in Western Maryland and the Cumberland Valley from
the earliest days of settlement to late in the nineteenth
century. Many of these structures remain in use today,
covered with various forms of siding or bricks. This
example would appear to date from the mid -nineteenth century.
PS—Ynp
LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES
DEFINING A RECTANGLE LOCATING THE PROPERTY 0 DEFINING THE CENTER POINT OF A PROPERTY
R OF LESS THAN TEN ACRES
CORNEA LATITUDE LONGITUDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE
D.pr.s Minutes Seconds D....es MinUNs S.conds Depr.s Minutes Seconds Depress Minutes Seconds
NW o0 o o o
NE o 0 0
SE o o .
e S
�tp.J
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY: 14.13 scree
-Acreage Justification:
NAME AND TITL
Patti, R
ORGANIZATION
CITY
ATE
to Liaison Officer Review: (Offi
Significance of this property is:
National 0 State ❑ Local ❑
Signature
DATE
H
Tn.
m
z
1
C
n
-i
0
z
to
e
I
1
VV
`•
:.s
`Ake
'.:���:�
a✓a
V.V
fx
,
...:...: ::.. .:...
f
bc=
�3.
VJV
-o-.
gF
d_
f[
VV
1 T
VVV
Copy II WA -I-158
District 9
Map 26
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST WORKSHEET Parcel 105
NOMINATION FORM
for the
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE
U,
z
O
H
U
F
N
z
W
W
N
PS- 700
Wa T -15S
(Check One)
Ef E...11.nt ❑ Good ❑ Felr ❑ D.t.,I. obd ❑ Ruins O •Uneapond
CONDITION (Check One) I (Chock Ono)
[� Altered C 507; O Unclt.rsd j ❑ Moved ® Original Sit.
SCRIBE THE PRESENT 14D ORIGINAL (If Magri) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
This house is located on the south side of the Leitersburg-Ringgold
Road, Maryland Route 418, in Washington County. It.is situated on
a gentle rise of ground above the road and faces north.
The structure is a two story, six bay log dwelling cased with brick.
Its walls, surfaced with bricks laid in all stretcher bond, rest on
low foundations of coursed fieldstone. A modern two story addition
extends from the rear or south. An interior log wall bisects the
house between the second and third bays from its west end suggesting
that the main structure was built in sections. All the exterior
openings are grouped on either side of this division. All windows
and doors are topped with flat arches of brick.
Modern six over six pane sashes or single pane double hung sashes
are held within narrow frames finished with a bead at the inner edge.
Most main story windows are flanked with shutters having louvered
upper and paneled lower sections, while the second story windows
have fully louvered shutters.
Entrances are located in the second and fourth bays from the west end
of the front elevation. There is no decorative trim associated with
the entrances which appear to be framed similarly to the windows.
Replaced bricks in the second bay from the east end of the north
elevation suggest that an entrance there has been enclosed.
A modern one story three bay porch has been erected at the front
elevation.
The roof which extends beyond the end walls is covered with modern
shingles. It terminates with elaborately carved barge work which
extends along the eaves at the front elevation. A brick chimney with
several courses of corbeling at its top is located inside the west end
wall.
The house is in excellent condition and is located on a landscaped
area of a tract containing 15.5 acres. West of the dwelling is a
frame bank barn with decorative metal ventilators.
N
z
0
W
W
N
41)
j!$tFLtANC
.
PERIOD (Check On. ar Mor. a Appropelet.)
❑ Pr. -Columbian 0 16th Century ❑ 18th Century 0 20th Century
❑ 15th Century 0 17th Century ® 19th Century
SPECIFIC DATEISI (}tAppllc.bte endKnown)
AREAS OFSIGNIFICANCE (Chick One at Mar. ee Appeopehb)
Abnriglnal 0 Education ❑ Politicdl 0 Urban Planning
❑ Prehistoric ❑ Engineering ❑ Religion/Phi- 0 Other (Specify)
❑ Historic ❑ Industry la.aphy
❑ Agriculture ❑ Invention 0 Science
® Atchitectur. 0 Landscape 0 Sculpture
❑ Att Archit.ctme 0 Social/Human-
❑ Comlmere. 0 Literature Harlan
❑ CommunicatIons ❑ Military 0 Theater
0 Cunurymion ❑ Music 0 Transportation
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The area of significance of this house is its architecture.
Constructed of log, it is representative of a major architec-
tural group in Western Maryland, Southern Pennsylvania and the
Shenandoah Valley. Log was used extensively as a building
material in Washington County from the earliest days of settle-
ment to well into the nineteenth century. Many of these
structures remain in use today, covered by various forms of
siding or bricks.
No construction date has been determined for this log dwelling.
Its exterior appearance suggests, however, that the brick casing
may have been applied during the mid -nineteenth century. The
Victorian period carved trim which is worthy of note as a good
example of such work, may have been applied at a later date.
A dwelling is designated on the property on an 1859 map of
Washington County. At that time the property was owned by
Benjamin Hartman. In 1867 the tract was acquired by Leonard
Senger (Liber LBN2, Folio 333). It was owned by members of the
Senger family until 1919.
PS . 109
WA -z • 159
JQI!°b1$L1fjCrRARHfCAf: ttiE PRI1ENCE3 `' �� r� s ,;z ' a, '; Is} �s,;', �a o
n
,.. .,..�'.. •. . , ,.N .
Bell, Herbert C., History of Leitersburg District, Leitersburg Md:
The Author, 1908.
Taggert, Thomas, Map Of Washington County, Md, Hagerstown, Md:
L. Mckee and C. G. Roberts, 1839.
10.
°GEGGRAPHtcAL DATA p ,<
LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES
0
LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES
DEFINING THE CENTER POINT OF A PROPERTY
DEFINING A RECTANGLE LOCATING THE PROPERTY
OF LESS THAN TEN ACRES
R
CORNER
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
D.yree. Minute. Seconds
Degrees Minutes Seconds
Degrees Minutes Seconds
Degrees Minute. Seconds
NW
o
c .
O .
0
NE
c
o .
SE
aC
0
SW
0 p
0
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY: 15.5 acres.
Acreage Justification:
flee
FORM PREPAkE0 6Y; '
NAME AND TITLE:
Paula Stoner Dickey, Consultant
ORGANIZATION
DATE
Washington County Historical Sites Survey
STREET AND NUMBER:
Court House Annex
CITY OR TOWN:
STATE
Ha er town
12,
"'State Liaison Officer Review: (Office Use Only)
Significance of this property is:
National ❑ State O Local O
Signature
N
m
m
z
C
n
1
0
z
to
idanin t7'i\lalle\, Gnrornur
r*.whom G. BnfVl, L:. Grn eruor
Mr. .1. Rodney Little
State Historic Preservation Officer
Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Crownsville MD 21032-2023
Y1
illy i xx,,Ya,,
it
Dear Mr. Little:
Beverluv 1:. Swaim- Slalel'..Scrrraur
Nail .I. I'cdetscr.: hiurirri.mranr
February 18. 2010
Re: Project No. SP310C42
I-Iistoric Bridge Inventory (Statewide)
RECEVED
WASHINGTON OOUN aY
PLANN!"ar. DEPARTMENT
Introduction
This letter serves to inform the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) that the
Maryland State highway Administration (SHA).through its consultant, KCI
Technologies, Inc. (KCI), has undertaken a review of 78 concrete beam, concrete slab,
and metal girder bridges that were first inventoried and evaluated between 1995 and 1997
as part of SHA's 1809-1947 Historic Highway Bridge Inventory. SHA and MHT
concurred on eligibility in July 2001. SHA has consulted with MHT staff about the
possibility of reevaluating these structures since their condition may have changed and
our understanding of bridge eligibility and management has increased over the last fifteen
years. MHT staff agreed to this reevaluation provided that SHA consider the resources
collectively.
In 2009, KCI evaluated the bridges, recommending 69 as not eligible and 9 as
eligible. SHA worked closely with its consultant and has agreed with KCI's
recommendations. As a result, SI-IA has determined that 69 bridges are not eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) while 9 remain NRHP-
eligible. Attachment I contains the Eligibility Table outlining SI-IA's determinations,
while Attachment 2 contains the DOE forms and photographs for each of the bridges
under consideration.
In order to prepare the new DOE forms for each structure, both SI-IA and KCI
reviewed the MIHP form, and used information from SHA's bridge inspection reports,
repair history files, bridge plans, and the Structure Inspection and Remedial Engineering
(SIRE) worklist. SHA also directed KCI to incorporate the findings of our context,
Historic Highway Bridges in Mary/and: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report (PAC Spero
& Company and Louis Berger and Associates, October 1995) [SHA Context] as well as A
Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, NC'HRP Project 25-25, Task 15 (Parsons
Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage, October 2005) prepared for the
My telephone number/toll-lice number is
A/rurdnnr/Rek, S'cu m ,/nr Impaired Hearing or Speech: 1 .800.735.^_258 Statewide Toll Free.
Street !¢ldreer: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Mm'yland 21202 • Phone: 410-545-0300 . wa w.ml131 tiidrouds.cnm
Mr. J. Rodney Little
Historic Bridge Inventory (Statewide)
Page Two
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Council and
National Research Council (available from the TRB website at
http://l 44.171.11.40/crosfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1289). Although
the last context has not been officially adopted by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) it is regarded by FHWA and the state Departments of Transportation as a well
written and carefully considered document that has helped to clarify the significance of
many bridge types across the nation, including Maryland.
Justification for Reevaluation
SHA Architectural Historians, as well as several county Historic Preservation
Commissions, have noted frequent discrepancies between eligible bridges' MIHP forms
and the determinations of eligibility written by MHT in 2001. Many of the MIHP forms
and all of the DOE forms contain ambiguous justifications of eligibility resulting in poor
preservation management decisions when the bridges require repairs or replacement.
During our review of the MIHP forms, SHA also noted that 5 forms were
completed by three former SHA consultant staff who did not meet the Secretary of
Interior's Professional Qualifications Standard as either historian or architectural
historian. Each was employed as a Conservation Associate, which requires a four-year
college degree, but not a professional degree or experience. It does not appear that either
the Interagency Committee, nor SHA or MHT considered this when making the
eligibility determinations. While the MIHP forms are technically correct, there is at least
one egregious error which has not been corrected since the Interagency Committee first
began its reviews. In 1995, the author of the MIHP form for SHA Bridge No. 2112400,
US 522 over MD 144 and Tonoloway Creek identified it as a metal plate girder example.
The bridge does contain plate girder spans, but its more significant engineering quality is
that is has Wichert deck truss spans, which is a rare and unusual type of bridge. There
are only two others in Maryland, both in Washington County: SHA Bridge No. 21010,
US 40 over Licking Creek, and SHA Bridge No. 21043, US 522 over Potomac River,
CSX and the C&O Canal. The bridge's rarity increases its importance in Maryland's
transportation and engineering history, and it is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A and C. SHA requested that KCI correct the
identification of the bridge from metal plate girder to Wichert deck truss for future
reference.
At the heart of the matter is the question of significance of these bridges in
Maryland's transportation history. SHA acknowledges that the bridges are representative
of the Maryland State Roads Commission's (SRC) work between 1910 and 1947. As is
typical of an engineering organization, the SRC sought to reduce costs and make
effective use of employees' time by developing standardized plans for bridges.
Mr. J. Rodney Little
Historic Bridge inventory (Statewide)
Page Three
SHA consulted the National Register Bulletin No. 15, Ilow to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation for clarification of what would make an historic standing
structure eligible under National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criteria A (events)
and/or C (engineering). Under NRHP Criterion A, the Bulletin states that "mere
association with historic events or trends is not enough, in of itself to qualify under
Criterion A: the property's specific association must be considered important as well
(Bulletin, p. 12).
The 1995-1997 MIHP forms frequently state that bridges are examples of the
SRC's road building efforts during the first half of the twentieth century, demonstrating
association with historic transportation events. However, none of the forms discuss how
the individual bridge demonstrates the significance of the larger road building events.
What is cited instead is the number of other examples of the same bridge type in
Maryland, which emphasizes the ubiquity of these resources. During the reevaluation,
SHA sought to identify specific events that would confirm the bridges' significance.
Unfortunately, there was no information about most of the structures in the SRC's
Biannual Reports.
Road and bridge building in Maryland has been an important activity since the
colonial period, as the SHA Context demonstrates. While the twentieth century endeavors
were more systematic, the overall importance of these construction efforts was the
Maryland State Government's response to citizens' desire for improvements to support
growing automobile ownership, bicycling, as well as sending produce and animals from
farms to markets. In 1912, the SRC developed its first set of standard plans for concrete
slab and girder bridges. Through the 1920s and 1930s, the standard plans were
developed for metal girder bridges and the earlier plans were revised to strengthen and
widen the bridges as traffic increased on all the state's highways. The periodic standard
plan changes for slab, beam and girder bridges can be tied directly to the growth of
vehicle ownership during the first half of the twentieth century.
For example, in 1920, 103,000 vehicles were registered in the state, and by 1929,
there were 320,000 registered vehicles. After 1938, the number of registered vehicle
continued to double every two years through the 1960s. During this period, the SRC
regularly widened roads, as well as bridges using standard plans, because of steadily
increasing traffic. The SHA Context notes that standardization was the most important
development for the state DOTs in the twentieth century. However, its implementation
resulted in redundancy in bridge design and construction across the United States,
including Maryland. As a result, SHA has determined that 73 bridges are not eligible
under NRP Criterion A. However, SHA has also determined that 5 bridges are eligible
under NRHP Criterion A because these structures demonstrate specific associations with
important road building efforts in the early twentieth century.
Mr. J. Rodney Little
Historic Bridge Inventory (Statewide)
Page Four
Under NRHP Criterion C, the Bulletin states that "[a] structure is eligible as a
specimen of its type or period of construction if it is an important example (within its
context) of building practices of a particular time in history (Bulletin, p. 18)." As noted
above, the SHA Context discusses standardization but it was not confined solely to bridge
designs. Lane width, paving materials, guardrail, stop signs and overhead lighting are
some of the many examples of highway components that required the same type of
standardization to make any road building effort as cost effective and efficient as
possible. Like other state DOTs, the SRC's goal was to provide safe highways for
Maryland's citizens through standardization.
From its inception, the SRC was charged with the responsibility to build
highways and appurtenances in every county in the state. In order to complete the task,
the SRC began by creating a design standard that met federal and American Association
of State Highway Organizations (AASfIO) guidance. The design standard allowed the
SRC to provide a consistent product at an effective cost. When the engineers needed to
design such a bridge, they turned to the Standard Plans that had been developed for the
concrete slab, concrete beam and metal girder bridges between 1912 and 1933. These
bridge designs were created for areas where the water crossing did not require a special
or unique solution because of the foundation or aesthetic requirements. With a few
calculations, the bridge plans could be drawn and the project implemented. The SRC
used the Standard Plans on a regular basis for the usual and typical design problem, while
providing the citizens of Maryland with a.safe and efficient highway system. Where
unique or aesthetic requirements did dictate a bridge design, the SRC could provide any
number of solutions such as movable bridges where a deep channel and active harbor
required, or a concrete arch bridge where aesthetics was a consideration, such as US 40
over Conococheague Creek. If a rapid solution was required, the SRC would turn to the
metal truss bridges which could be built more quickly than the concrete bridges.
It was the non-standard bridges that reflected the truly distinctive characteristics
and work of master engineers that make those bridges eligible under NRHP Criterion C
because they are important in Maryland's engineering context. The standard plan bridges
have not been determined to be the most important examples of their time by SHA. As a
result, SHA has determined that these 71 bridges are not eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion C. However, SHA has also determined that 7 bridges are eligible under NRHP
Criterion C because these structures have been shown to be important examples in
Maryland's Historic Highway Bridge Context.
Review Request
Please examine the attached DOE forms, maps, photographs and Eligibility Table.
We request your determination by March 19, 2010 that the bridges identified in
Attachment 2 are eligible or not eligible. If MHT disagrees with SHA's
recommendations, we request that you provide us with a thorough explanation and return
the completed DOE form for each resource to SH_A. By carbon copy, we invite the
Mr. J. Rodney Little
Historic Bridge Inventors- (Statewide)
Page Five
County Historic Preservation Commissions, the Certified Heritage Areas and the Scenic
Byways Committees to provide continents and participate in the consultation process.
Copies of the DOE forms and photographs are available for review on SHA's webpage,
wwwnw.ntarylandroads.com. Scroll to the bottom of the page to "About SHA" and then
scroll down to SI-IA Cultural Resources. The historic bridge forms will be available by
count}' and are password protected to ensure a secure review of each document. SHA
regrets that we are not able to provide hard copies for each consulting party, but believes
the online forms are an effective way to provide copies. The consulting parties should
enter the words guest/guest for the user name and password when requested. The forms
are in folders marked by the County name. Please remember to look at neighboring
counties for all bridges that connect to your county. Pursuant to the Maryland Historical
Trust Act of 1985, as amended, State Finance and Procurement Article §§ 5A-325 and
5A-326 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, SHA seeks their assistance in identifying
historic preservation issues as they relate to this specific project. For additional
information regarding historic preservation consultation for State funded projects see the
Maryland Historical Trust's website, www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net, or contact the
Maryland State Highway Administration or the Maryland Historical Trust. If no
response is received by March 19, 2010, we will assume that these offices decline to
participate. Please call Ms. Anne E. Bruder at 410-545-8559 (or via email at
abruder@sha.state.md.us) with questions regarding standing structures for this project.
Very truly yours,
c 7/
Julie Iv[7Scha$Iitsky
Assistant'Division Chief
Environmental Planning Division
Attachments: 1) Eligibility Table
2) DOE forms, photographs, and CDs
cc: All Maryland County Historic Preservation Commissions (w/Attachment 1)
All Maryland Certified Heritage Areas (w/Attachment 1)
All Maryland Scenic Byways Committees (w/Attachment 1)
Ms. Danelle Bernard, SHA-OOS (w/Attachment 2)
Mr. Nick Blendy, Acting Team Leader, FHWA DelMar Division Environmental
Programs (w/Attachment 1)
Ms. Anne E. Bruder, SHA-EPLD (w/Attachment 1)
Mr. Greg Roby, SHA-OOS (w/Attachment 1)
Dr. Julie M. Schablitsly, SHA-EPLD
Mr. Donald H Sparklin, SHA-EPLD (w/Attachment 1)
lvir. Matt Zulkowslci, SHA-OOS (w/Attachment 1)
)
»
2»
Z
LULU
0
00
O
00
@ 2
\ \ \
LU
O0LU Co0,00
II
\�
\\\
0000\\\
---/
o.
p,
0
0
00
00
�
0
00
\\\\�\
\
\
\
\
\\0000
3/
«
6/\/
CC
(}0022
{
42j:
_—
_
\
0000
0000\\\
\
\
\
\\
0000\
Co
§2
S§\/\\\
\
\\
/
//\\
2
2
2
2
2
2222
LU
V CI
: ,
0100 4hI<1
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST NR Eligible: yes
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM nt,
-., Property Name: SIM Bridge No. 2112400, US 522/NID 144&Tonoloway Inventory Number: WA-HAN-349
Address: 1Vai tordsburg Road (US 522) Historic district: yeti X no
City: Hancock Zip Code: 21750 County: Washington
USGS Quadrangle(s): Hancock
Property Owner: State Highway Administration Tax Account ID Number: -
Tax Map Parcel Number(s): Tax Map Number:
Project: Reevaluation of Highway Bridges Statewide MD Agency: FHWA/MD SHA
Agency Prepared By: KCI Technologies, Inc.
Preparer's Name: ...._clan Walls Date Prepared: 10/16/2009
Documentation is presented in: Protect Review and Compliance Files
Preparer's Eligibility Recommendation: X Eligibility recommended -.. -_- Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B xC I) Considerations: A B C D B F C
Complete ?f the properly is a conhibuaing or non-contributing resource is a A'R di.t?rrcl/pnoperfy
Name of the District/Property: Inventory Number: Eligible: yes Listed: yes
Site visit by MPfI' Staff yes X no Name: Date:
Description of Property and Justification: (Please attach snap anal photo)
Description of Bridge
SHA Bridge No. 2112400 (MI-' No. WA-IIAN-349) is located within the town of 1-Ianover and carries US 522 over MD 144,
Tonoloway Creek, and SHA Bridge No, 2112410 in Washington County. The bridge is situated within the Canal Place Certified
Heritage Area.
Built in 1937, the 586 fool, four -span, is a plate deck girder with Wichert deck trusses supporting a concrete deck. A concrete
parapet is located on the south side and a steel rail harrier on the north side; a sidewalk is also located along the north side of the
deck, US 522 runs north -south and is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial -Other roadway. The current AD"I' is 11.242 while
the projected 2026 ADT is 12,962; according to the 2008 SIleA report, BSR is 53.9.
Background
The Interagency Ilistoric Highway Bridge Inventory Committee (HIIBIC) considered the MEW form in 1997 and subsequently
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria; A 13 C D Considerations: A B C D E P G
17HT Convnents:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program -.--. --._. Date -_. _-
NR-ELIGII31I.ffY REVIEW FORM
WA-HAN-349 SIIA Bridge No. 2.112400O IJS 522/MD 144&T tLowtay C:k
Page 2
determined Bridge No. 2104700 to be eligible for listing in the NRIIP under Criterion C. The Maryland Historical Trust (MFIT)
concurred with the determination in 2001.
SHA Bridge No. 2112400 was re-evaluated for NRIIP cligibilii_yas part of the 2009 statewide re-evaluation of the eligible bridges
in SIEA's Historic Highway Bridge Inventory. SHA requested that KCI. conduct research to gather information and provide
additional analysis of each integrity and significance to supplement the original NRIIP evaluation. As part of the re-evaluation of
Bridge No. 2112400 in 2009, KCI conducted additional research at SHA's Office of Structures (OOS) to gather information on
alterations or repairs made to the bridge prior to 1998. The following files at OOS were reviewed by the architectural historians:
inspection files, repair history files, bridge plans, Bridge Inspection and Remedial Engineering (BIRE) worklist, and Structure
Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) reports. The Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report, as
well as A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, NCIIRP Project 25-25, Task 15, were both consulted in evaluating the
bridge's historic significance. KU also referenced each bridge's original Maryland Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP) form for
information previously gathered on the bridge and as a measure of how the bridge's integrity has changed since 2001. KCI
architectural historians visited the bridge to examine and document current conditions with field notes, digital photography, and
black and white photography.
Evaluation and Justification
In the 1995 MIHP form for this bridge, it was noted that the structure underwent major rehabilitation of the deck and floor system
in 1980; the deck was removed and replaced. However, the form considered these elements secondary and tertiary CDEs and that
the primary CDEs had not been compromised during the rehabilitation. 'fhe MU -IF form stated that the bridge could be considere'
a significant example of its type and should be compared among other bridges of its types; however, the MUIP form did not
specifically indicate that the bridge may have had NRIIP significance.
In 1995, the inspection report rated the superstructure 6. The stringers and floor beams had light rust; however, the tioorbeans
under the joints over the piers had severe rust for the entire length. The exterior girder had similar rust issues, Several bolts and
rivets had broken offer were missing. The cover plates over the piers had small holes. Steel fatigue included cracks over the
spacer plates over and cracks in Stringers I and 5,
According to the BIRE Engineer's Worklist, in 1996 the support angles of each Stringer 2 ofFhxxbeam 7 were replaced. The net
angles that were used were matched to the existing materials.
Currently, the rust on the stringer and floorbeams is still extant; however, peeling paint was noted. The girders face issues of
rusting, section loss, small holes, and peeling paint.
in 1995, the inspection report rated the substructure with a?, The abutments had several areas of spalling with rust anti exposed
rehar. Transverse cracks were noted with rust stains in the cracking. Other deterioration observed in the abutments included
delamination and line vertical cracks. The abutment backwalls had some vertical and irregular cracking with efflorescence and
some small rust spots. file wingwalls were in fair condition with vertical cracks tilled with efflorescence.
During the 2009 field survey, it was observed that the north abutment has water stains, cracks, spalling, anti exposed rebar;
delamination was noted at the top. The south abutment has water stains, spalling, exposed rebar, delamination, anti efflorescence.
The piers have scaling and fine cracks.
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended _ Eligibility not recommended
.........
Criteria: A 13 C 1) Considerations:
MII'I' Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services
A 13 C D F F G
Date
Reviewer, National Register Program
_. _. Date. _..... .....
NR -ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
WA -PLAN -349 SHA B_r,itige No, 2l 12400 US 522/MD 144&TonolowayCk
Page 3
T'he deck was rated 7 in 1995. The sotiit had spalling and rusted rebar. Transverse crack and irregular cracks were noted on the
outside of the fascia girders. Rusted rebar was noted at the floor beam ends. The concrete bi idge railing had fine vet tie ii cracks
with light eftlorexcence and small areas of spallhhg at the gutter line and the floor beam. Tho metal bridge railing had small areas
of rust on the bolts. The upon joint at the north end of the deck was damming 2". Several, short transverse cracks were noted on
the south end of the deck.
During the 2009 lieldview, the concrete deck had several spalls and cracks; spalliug was noted in a few areas. The metal railing
has small areas of light rust noted on the bolts. The concrete railing has vertical cracking, spatting, and exposed rebar at the
northwest corner. Cracking and delantinn lion was noted on the exterior of the north railing. 'the 2009 field visit also observed th
the plaques that were noted in the M1FIP form were no longer on the bridge. Furthermore, a broken expansion joint was located o
the northwest corner of the railing.
Two other Wichert Truss bridges are located in Washington County. One of these, SHA Bridge No. 2101000 (US 40 over Lickin£
Creek), was determined a priority l'or preservation bridge in SIIA's Historic tlridge Inventory and retains a higher degree of
integrity. Although work was completed in 2006 on SHA Bridge No. 2101000, -the work was sympathetic to the historic fabric of
the bridge and included metal railing and Art Deco endposts.
Nonetheless, SHA Bridge No. 2104300 (US 522 over Potomac River, CSX, and C&O Canal) is an eligible bridge that has had
similar repairs as SHA Bridge No. 21 12400, including the deck replacement in 1980, as well similar replacement of the parapets
and repair work to the superstructure. The integrity of SHA Bridge No. 2112400 is practically identical to that of SHA Bridge No
2104300, The primary CDFs, the trusses are in good condition and retain a high degree of integrity of materials, workmanship, at
design giving the feeling and association of an early twentieth century truss bridge. Therefore, SHA Bridge No. 2112400 is
recommended eligible for listing in the National Register off listoric Places under Criterion C as an example ofa Wieltert'l'russ
bridge.
Additional research indicates that the bridge is not associated with any known event of local, regional, or national significance
(Criterion A), or any known person of local, regional, or national significance (Criterion B). Criterion D was not evaluated as par
of the historic standing structures studies for this project.
Bibliography
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation Research Council, National
Research Council. Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff and Engineering and Industrial
Heritage. A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types. NCHRP Project 25-25, Task
15. 2005.
Spero, P.A.C. and Company and Louis Berger & Associates. I-tistorie Highway Bridges in
Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report. Prepared for Maryland State Highway
Administration. July 1995. Revised October 1995.
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST' REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility nut recommended
Criteria: A 13 C D Considerations:
�•IIIT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services
A 13 C' D E F Ci
_. _.. Date .. ...
Reviewer, National Register t'rogram
Date
MIHP No. WA-HAN-349
SHA Bridge No. 2112400
US 522 over MD 144 and Tonoloway Creek
Washington County, Maryland
Photograph Log
Image File Name
Description of View
WA HAN_349
WAHAN-349_2009-02
2009-02 23
23_02.tif
01tif
East elevation facing west
East elevation, fac ng northeast
WA-HAN-349
2009-02-23
03.tif
Underside of bridge showing girder/trusses
WA-HAN-349
2009-02-23 04.tif
Bridge pier, facing south
WA-HAN-349
2009-02-23
05,tif
Bridge deck, facing south '
A349
WA-HN-
2009-02-2306.tif
North approach, facing south
WA-HAN-349 2009-02-23
07.tif
Abutment on south side of bride, facisouth
WA-HAN-349_2009-02.23
08.tif
SHA BridgeNo. 212410, facing north
Printed on Epson Premium Photo Paper Glossy with Epson UltraChrome Black Ink
Saved on Verbatim UltraLife Archival Grade DVD-R, AZO recording dye
11 p t xN9,rti A'3a R, '
% &a
ski u • �.. �l.<� _ � r r„rx
s� �• stn' '! i e, y ' -^e:.Ay+,�,'2' .a '.'SYT>;X 4 Y4 �3 �, ` qa.
a „F i 3p #` = r F7 .,r x ,:.IC �tsj`t••• {Vix �rs+�y1RY ° r"s'�'s,:y'Y_ 4o c
'F•� � µms' ;� .) :' 3� + � a b i� �A �.: � :wee
t ' t 4 �1k Z Y1N4�. -.
4
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST NR Eligible: yes
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM no ._
Property Name: SFIA Bridge No. 2102600, MD 621LittleAntietam Crk Inventory Number: WA -1.735
Address: little Antietam Road (MD 62) I-listoric dish'ict: yes X no
City: f citershurg Zip Code: 21783 County: Washington
USGS Quadrangle(s): Smithshurg
Property Owner: State Highway Administration Tax Account ID Number:
Tax Map Parcel Number(s): _...--- _-- Tax Map Number:
Project: Reevaluation of Hi ghway Bridges Statewide MD Agency: FHWA/MD SHA
Agency Prepared By: KCI Technologies, Inc.
Preparer's Name: Gail Walls Date Prepared: 10/16/2009
Documentation is presented in: Project Review and Compliance Files
Preparer's Eligibility Recommendation: Eligibility recommended X Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B C D Considerations: A B C D E F G
Complete if' the property is it contributing or non-contributing resource to a NR district/property —
Name of the District/Property:
inventory Number: Elieible ves I iced• vex
Site visit byMIIT Staff yes X no Name: Date:
Description of Property and Justification: (Please attach map and photo)
Description of Bridge
SFIA Bridge No. 2102600 (MIHP No. WA -I-735) is located immediately south of Leitersburg and carries MD 62 over Little
Antietam Creek in Washington County; the bridge is situated within a rural area with a fann located upstream. The bridge upper
to be situated in the Canal Place Certified Heritage Area.
The three -span, concrete slab bridge built in 1931, carries one lane of traffic in each direction. The length of the bridge is 76 feet -
7.5 inches. The superstructure is comprised of 5 concrete T -slabs supporting a concrete deck and open parapets with six spans, an
articulated concrete coping stone, and end block. The superstructure is supported by concrete abutments and flared winguadls. Th
piers and wingwalls have chamfering made to look like stone. MD 62 runs north -south and is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial
roadway. The current ADT is 2,060 while the projected 2026 AIDE is 2,375. The BSR is 73.5.
MARYLAND IIISTORICAL'I'RUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B C D Considerations: A B C D E. F G
MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register program -.._ -...... Date
NR -ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
WA -1-735 SF, , IA Bridge No. 2102600,MD 62/Little Antietatn Crk
Page 2
Background
The Interagency Historic Highway Bridge Inventory Committee (IBTBTC) considered the MIFIP form in 1997 and subsequently
determined Bridge No. 2102600 to be eligible i'ar listing in the NRIIP under Criterion C as a significant example ofa standard
concrete slab bridge with a high level of integrity possessing its Character Defining Elements (CDEs) such as the concrete slab,
open parapets, wingwalis, and abutments. The Maryland Historical Trust (MFIT) concurred with the determination in 2001.
SH.A Bridge No. 2102600 was re-evaluated for NRIIP eligibility n.s part of the 2009 statewide re-evaluation of the eligible bridges
in SHA's Historic Highway Bridge Inventory. SHA requested that KCl conduct research to gather information to provide
additional analysis of each bridge's integrity and significance to supplement the original NRHP evaluation. As part of the re-
evaluation of Bridge No, 2102600 ht 2009, KCi conducted additional research at SEA's Office of Structures (OOS) to gather
information on alterations or repairs made to the bridge prior to 1998. The following files at OOS were reviewed by the
architectural historians: inspection files, repair history files, bridge plans, Bridge Inspection and Remedial Engineering (EIRE)
worklist, and Structure Inventory and Appraisal (Sl&A) reports. The Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960: Histori
Context Report, as well as A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, NCIIRP Project 25-25, Task 15, were both consulted in
evaluating the bridge's historic significance. KCI also referenced each bridge's original Maryland inventory ofI-Iistorie places
(MIHP) form for information previously gathered on the bridge and as a measure of how the bridge's integrity has changed since
2001. As part of the re-evaluation of Bridge No. 2102600 in 2009, KCI architectural historians visited the bridge to examine and
document current conditions with field notes, digital photography, and black and white photography.
Evaluation and Justification
In the 1997 Mll I'P form for this bridge, it was noted that the structure retains the majority of its CDEs; however, these elements
have been compromised through loss of material and unsympathetic alterations or repairs. The MIHP form stated that inspection
reports between 1982 and 1994 had been reviewed mud that it appeared that no major alterations or repairs had been undertaken of
the bridge.
The MH-fP form referenced the 1994 inspection report. The parapets were noted to have several spalls with expoxcd rebar and
scaling on the balustrade caps. During the 2009 field view, patching was observed. Some of this patching is beginning to crack
and expose the aggregate. The parapet walls have moderate erosion and pitting. Several of the balustrades have open cracks
with exposed rebar. The northeast end block has heavy scaling and appears that this cap has been replaced from the original.
The MIl-TP form referenced the 1994 inspection report, which stated that the bridge was in satisfactory condition. The form noted
spalling and exposed rebar in two of' the spans as well as efflorescence and cracking. The abutments had pop -outs with exposed
rebar. Both piers had efflorescence, stains, and vertical cracks; one pier had efflorescence and scaling.
According to the 2009 field visit, both abutments have staining, irregular cracks, and surface erosion. The south abutment had
several areas of exposed aggregate. The north abutment had fine cracks in the mortar joints in the center rubble section. "the
wingwalls were also stained and had cracking at various locations, The caps had some surface erosion. There were diagonal
cracks with efflorescence at the top of the southeast and southwest wings near the abutment. The piers had cracking and erosion
along with rust staining. At the east end of pier 1, sonic of the concrete is crumbling. The rubble section of pier I has some tight
cracking in the mortar joints. Pier t has heavy scaling at the cast end and heavy eliloreseence on both the north and south frees.
The field visit noted that the piers on the east faces had been reinlbrced with metal. The footer top and the vertical face on Pier I
are exposed for approximately 10 feet at the east end. The top of the footer of pier 2 is exposed for approximately S lbet,
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
..............
Criteria: A B C D Considerations:
MELT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services
Reviewer, National Register Prograin
A B C I) I; P
Date -.... _._..
-.._. Date. ...
(i
NR -ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
WA -I-735 SFfA Bridge 69,_2102500,. Alttl fit/Little Antietam Crk
Page 3
The deck has recently been repaved; however, the 2009 field visit noted that there were several cracks in the deck and that it was
wearing and cracking on the west side over the north pier.
Although the original MIT IF form noted that the bridge may be significant under Criterion C as "a potentially significant example
ofa multiple -span concrete slab bridge." the bridge has lost integrity because ofa continuous loss of materials, design, and
workmanship. The setting, location, and association of the bridge have not changed and remain good. The overall feeling of the
bridge is poor due to she deteriorated condition of the structure.
Standard plans for concrete slab bridges were first developed in Maryland in 1912. In 1919 the plans were redesigned to allow
for widening of the roadways and reinforcement of the bridges. In 1924, and again, in 1930 the standard plans were re -designed t
allow for changes in transportation needs (Spero 159-160).
According to A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, pre -1955 concrete slabs are typically not significant unless they were
constructed from a standardized plan before 1925, even more so during the first decade of the twentieth century (NCITRP Project
25-25, Task 15, p. 3-85). Bridge No. 2102600 was constructed in 1931 well into the period of standardized bridges; it is not an
early example of a concrete slab bridge that was constructed from a standardized plan (Criterion C), However, this bridge is a
cmnmon example of a standardized bridge. Based on this evaluation, Bridge No. 2102600 is recommended not eligible for
inclusion in the NR under Criterion C.
Research indicates that the bridge is not associated with any known event of local, regional, or national significance (Criterion A).
Furthermore, the bridge is not associated with any known person of local, regional, or national significance (Criterion B).
Criterion D was not evaluated as part of tire historic standing structures studies for this project.
Bibliography
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation Research Council. National
Research Council, Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff and Engineering and Industrial
Heritage. A Context for Conunon Historic Bridge Types. NCHRP Project 25-25, Task
I5. 2005.
Spero, P.A.C. and Company and Louis Berger & Associates. Historic Highway Bridges in
-1 Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report. Prepared for Maryland State Highway
'Administration. July 1995. Revised October 1995,
MARYLAND HIS'T'ORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A 13 CD Considerations:
91TT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services
A 13 C D Ii P G
Date
Revicrvet, National Register Program
_..... Date __..._....
MIHP No, WA -1-735
SHA Bridge No. 2102600
MD 62 over Little Antietam Creek
Washington County, Maryland
Photograph Log
Image File Name
Description of View
WA 1-735
WA -1-735
2009-01-26
2009-01-26
01.tif
02.tif
East elevat on facing west
Piers on east side, facing west
WA -I-735
2009-01-Q
L_,,
Interior of west parapet, facing west
WA -1-735
2009-01_26,
04.tif
South ap�raach, facingnorth __
WA -I-735
WA -I-735
2009-01_-26�05_tif
2009-01-26
__
06.tif
Southwest wingwall,
Pier on west side facing southeast __
Printed on Epson Premium Photo Paper Glossy with Epson UltraChrome Black Ink
Saved on Verbatim UltraLife Archival Grade DVD-R, AZO recording dye
,vx
.:.
...:•
44
H2
�� �� �� �
� �� .• �t � � was � ��
�,f
. �•`F`2 Q0., _.�,'
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST NR Eligible: yes
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM no
Property Name: SHA T
Address: National Pike
No, 2101700, US 40/Little Beaver Creek
City: Wagners Crossroads Zip Code:
USGS Quadrangle(s): Funkstown
Property Owner: State Highway Administration
Inventory Number: WA -11-1115
Historic district: yes X no
County: Washington
Tax Account ID Number:
Tax Map Parcel Number(s): Tax Map Number:
Project: Reevaluation of Highway Bridges Statewide MD Agency: FHWA/MD SHA
Agency Prepared By: KCI Technologics, Inc.
Preparer's Name: Gail Walls Date Prepared:10/16/2009
Documentation is presented in: Project Review and Compliance Files
Preparer's Eligibility Recommendation: liligibility recommended X Eligibility not recd mucndcd
Criteria: A B C D Considerations: A B C D 1: F Cl
Complete if die property is a conlriba/mg or non-can/i thuitng resowve to a NR dis0'ict/property
Name of the District/Property: ,_..
InventoryNumber: Eligible: _ _yes Listed: yes
visit byMH'T Stall yes X no Name: Date: -
Description of Property and Justification: (Please attach map and pholo)
SPA Bridge No. 2101700 (MIHP No. WA -H-1115) is located near Wagners Crossroads, Washington County and carries US 40
over Little Beaver Creek; the bridge is located within a rural area with approximately 5 homes located in its vicinity. The bridge i
situated along the Old National Road Scenic Byway. The bridge appears to be situated within the Canal Place Certified Heritage
Area.
Built in 1936, the twenty-nine foot, one -span, concrete girder bridge carries one lane of traffic in each direction. The length of tin
bridge is 29 feet with a width or40 feet. The bridge was constructed according to the 1933 standard plans; however, additional
girders were added in 1949. The superstructure is supported by concrete abutments and flared wingwails. The parapets were
removed and replaced with steel W -beam guardrails before 1988. US 40 runs east -west and is characterized as a Rural Major
Collector. The current AI)T is 6,392 while the projected 2026 ADT is 7,370. The BSR is 86.4.
Background
The Interagency Historic llighway Bridge Inventory Committee (HHI3IC) considered the'MIEIP form in 1997 and subsequently
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A 13 C 1) Considerations: A 13 C D I? F(1
G
I A11IT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services
Date
Reviewer, Notional Register Program
Date
NR-ELiGIBILIVY REVIEW FORM
WA-JI-1115 SIIA Bridge No. 2101700, US 4Q 1. tic_13cyer Crock
Page 2
determined Bridge No, 2101700 to be eligible for listing in the NRI-f1' under Criterion C, 'the Maryland Historical Crust (Nil IT)
concurred with the determination in 2001.
SIIA Bridge No. 2101700 was re-evaluated for NRI-IP eligibility as part of the 2009 statewide re-evaluation oldie eligible bridges
in SHA's Historic Highway Bridge inventory. SHA requested that KCI conduct research to gather information and provide
additional analysis of each bridge's integrity and significance to supplement the original NRHP evaluation. As part of the re-
evaluation of Bridge No. 2101700 in 2009, KCI conducted additional research at Si -IA's Office of Structures (OOS) to gather
information on alterations or repairs made to the bridge prior to 1998. The following files at OOS were reviewed by the
architectural historians: inspection files repair history files, bridge plans, Bridge Inspection and Remedial Engineering (B1kB)
worklist, and Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) reports. The Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960: blistori
Context Report, as well as A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, NCiIRP Project 25-25, Task 15, were both consulted in
evaluating the bridge's historic significance. KCI also referenced to each bridge's original Maryland inventory of Historic Places
(Ml HP) Form for what information previously gathered on the bridge and as a measure of how the bridge's integrity has changed
since 2001. As part of the re-evaluation of Bridge No. 2101700 in 2009, KCl architectural historians visited the bridge to examin
and document current conditions with field notes, digital photography, and black and white photography,
Evaluation and Justification
in the 1996 MII-lP form for this bridge, it was noted that the structure did not retain the majority of its CDEs because of the
widening of the bridge in 1949 and the removal of the parapets during the late -1980s. The NHHP Firm rct'ercnced the inspection
reports, which indicated that the bridge required scour protection at the abutments and wingwalls.
According to the 1995 inspection, the superstructure was rated a 6. The girders had cracking with heavy efflorescence and rust
stains. Irregular cracking was also noted. The interior girders had some spalling with exposed rebar. The steel W -beam
guardrail was in good repair. The 2009 field survey observed that, the girders have long cracks with heavy efflorescence, staining
and stalactites.
According to the 1995 inspection, the substructure was rated a 6. 'rhe west abutment had a few full height vertical cracks and son
irregular cracking at the weep holes. Heavy scaling was a problem at the bottom of the abutment and the footers. The east
abutment had similar cracks along with light efflorescence. Severe scaling was noted at the exposed footer, The back walls had
vertical and irregular cracks with some eflloroseence and some rust stans. The concrete wingwalls had fine irregular and mappin
cracks with some el'iloreseeuce. Sealing was located at the water line. Scour was noted as a problem at both abutments was the
footer was exposed up to 3 feel for the entire length of the bridge. The south end was undermined approximately 2 feat,
According to the HIRE Engineer's Worklisi, (he Following work was completed in 1996: 1) underpinning the abutments with
grout, and 2) lining the entire invert with grout bags.
Based on the 2009 field survey, the cracking on the abutments is more severe with settle cracks reaching full height. Grout bags
have been placed along boil[ abutments, The backwalls has light to median scaling with some vertical and horizontal cracking.
The west abutment backwall has heavy efflorescence. The wingwalls have some irregtilnr cracking with scaling and shallow
spalling at the top. heavy scaling was noted at the top oft he southeast wingwall. The field visit noted crumbling concrete.
Vegetation was growing on the northeast wingwall at the tinne of the 2009 field visit.
According to the 1995 inspection report, the sleek was rated a 6. The (leek had some longitudinal cracks that had been sealed, Th
shoulder areas were hollow sounding. Both ends had full, width transverse cracks. From the 2009 field visit, it was observed that
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A
1NHT Comments:
_._.B -C -. _ D Cnnslrlerations:
Reviewer, Office of 1'r eservation Services
.............
A B C D E F G
Data _.
Reviewer, National Register Program
Date
• NR-ELIGIBI1.1TY REVIEW FORM
}VA _11-_I 115
Page 3
SH:113ric_ige No. 2101 lQ0,_l1S Lie1tidle 13eavcr Crcck
the curb is in poor repair with portions crumbing on the north side at the east end and crumbling concrete and exposed rebar on th
south side.
According to the MHHP form, SHA Bridge No. 2101700 "formed part of the modern US 40 built in response to increased
automobile use on state roads and the growing inadequacy of the original road system improved by the State Road Commission
(SRC) to handle larger traffic volumes." Although the original MU -IF form noted that the bridge may be significant under Criterio
A for its relationship to broad transportation trends or road improvement projects, the bridge has lost integrity because ofa
continuous loss of materials, design, and workmanship. In addition, the original MUHP form noted that this bridge is not a
significant example of its type and is not a significant example of the State Roads Commission's bridge building in the 1930s.
Standard plans for concrete girder bridges were first developed in Maryland in 1912. In 1919 the plans, were re -designed to allow
for widening of the roadways and reinforcement of the bridges. In 1924, and again, in 1930 the standard plans were re -designed t
allow for changes in transportation needs (Spero 159.160).
A close examination reveals that the bridge has lost integrity because ofa continuous loss of materials, design, and workmanship.
The setting, location, and association of the bridge have not changed and remain good, The overall feeling of the bridge is poor
due to the deteriorated condition of the structure, The structure is not an important example of a concrete beam bridge of its time
period. According to the Context f'or Common Historic Bridge Types. significant girders constructed from standard plans should
be constructed prior to 1925, preferably during the first decade of the twentieth century when standard plans were first introduced.
Later, significant girders were introduced after World War 11 as a precast beast or structural component girder bridge during
interstate construction (NCHRP Report 25-25, Task 15, p. 3-94).
Furthermore, although the bridge was constructed according to early standardized plans, the alterations prevent it front redly
demonstrating its original design, materials, and workmanship. Research conducted as part of this study did not identify
associations with any important architect or engineer nor does it possess high artistic value. However, the bridge is not a pure
example of an early example built front a standardized plan (e.g. the 1949 widening and the 1980s removal of the parapets).
Based on this evaluation, Bridge No. 2101700 is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHl' under Criterion C.
Additional research indicates that the bridge is not associated with known events of local, regional, or national significance
(Criterion A), or known persons of local, regional, or national significance (Criterion B). Criterion 1) was not evaluated as part of
the historic standing structures studios fix this project.
Bibliography
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation Research Council. National
Research Council. Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhofi'and Engineering and Industrial
Heritage. A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types. NCI-IRP Project 25-25, Task
15. 2005.
Spero, P.A.C. and Company and Louis Berger & Associates. Historic Iligitway Bridges in
Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report. Prepared for Maryland State Highway
t'Adtninistration. July 1995. Revised October 1995.
MARYLAND h ISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended . m Eligibility not recommended
.............
Criteria: A Il C 1) Considerations:
MILL' Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services
A B C 1) 1F F ti
Date
Reviewer, National Register l'rograin Date
MIHP No. WA -II -1115
SHA Bridge No. 2101700
US 40 over Little Beaver Creek
Washington County, Maryland
Photograph Log
Image File Name
Description of View
WA -U -11152009-01_j)1
hi
South side of bridge gpiderail/parapet facing south
WA;II_1115 2009-01-26
02.tif
West elevation, facing east
WA -II -1115 2009-01-26
03.tif
_ ___
East elevation, facing west
WA -11-1115 2009-01-26
04.tif
West a roach, facing east
WA-lI-1115 2009-01-26
05.tif
Southeast abutment, facing south
Printed on Epson Premium Photo Paper Glossy with Epson UltraChrome Black Ink
Saved on Verbatim UltraLife Archival Grade DVD-R, AZO recording dye
�� ko.
u
S
ae i+
'.. �d aye
•..
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM
Property Name: SHA Bridge No.2104700, MD858/Little Antietam Crk
Address: Main Street (MD 858)
City: Rohrer sville Zip Code: 21779
USGS Quadrangle(s): Keedysvilie
Property Owner: State Highway Administration
Inventory Number:
NR Eligible: yes
110
WA -111-121
Historic district: yes X no
County: Washington
Tax Account ID Number:
1'ax Map Parcel Number(s): Tax Map Number:
Project: Reevaluation of Highway Bridges Statewide MD Agency: PHWA/MDSHA
----------._..----
Agency Prepared By: KCI Technologies. Inc.
Preparer's Name: Gad Walls Date Prepared: 10116%2009
Documentation is presented in: ]'reject Review and Compliance Files
Preparer's Eligibility Recommendation: - Eligibility recommended X Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B C 13 Considerations: A B C D E F a
Complete if the property is a contributing or mat -contributing resource to a NR district/pit perty J `
Name of the District/Property: Rohrersvil le Historic District
Inventory Number: WA -1I1-025 Eligible: X yes Listed: yes
Site visit by MI -IT Sluff yes X no Name: Date:
Description of Property and Justification: (Please at ach reap and photo}
SHA Bridge No. 2104700 (MIHP No. WA -III -121) is located within the town of Rohrersville and carries MD 858 over Little
Antietam Creek. The bridge is located within the Rohrersville Historic District (MII1P No. WA -111-025); however, according to
the MIFIP form, the bridge was constructed alter the period of significance. The bridge is situated within the Civil War Heritage
Area.
Built in 1922 and widened in the 1930s, the twenty-one foot, one -span, concrete slah/T-beam bridge carries one lane of traffic in
each direction. The superstructure with paneled parapets is supported by concrete abutments and flared wingwalic. The cast
parapet curves along the roadway. MD 86 runs north -south and is classified as a Rural Local roadway. The current ADT is 499
while the projected 2026 ADT is 588, According to the 2008 SI&A report, the BSR is 72.9.
Background
The Interagency Historic Highway Bridge Inventory Committee (IIHBIC) considered the Mil-iP form in 1997 and subsequently
determined Bridge No. 2104700 to be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C. The Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended E'llgibility not recommended
Criteria: A B C D Considerations: A B C D F 'P G
MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program I) ate
NR-E'.I GlB1LITY REVlh\V FORM
WA -Ill- 12 I
Page 2
concurred with the determination in 2001.
SIIA Bridge No.'2104700, MI S581Litle Antietam Crk
SHA Bridge No, 2104700 was re-evaluated for NRHP eligibility as part of the 2009 statewide re-evaluation of the eligible bridges
in SHA's Historic Highway Bridge Inventory. SHA requested that KCI conduct research to gather information and provide
additional analysis of each integrity and significance to supplement the original NRHP evaluation. As part of the re-evaluation of
Bridge No. 2104700 in 2009, KCI conducted additional research at SI IA's Office of Structures (OOS) to gather information on
alterations or repairs made to the bridge prior to 1,998. The following files at COS were reviewed by the architectural historians:
inspection files, repair history tiles, bridge plans, Bridge Inspection and Remedial Engineering (HIRE) worklist, and Structure
Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) reports. The historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report, as
well as A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15, were both consulted in evaluating the
bridge's historic significance. KC1 also referenced each bridge's original Maryland Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP) font for
information previously gathered on the bridge and as a measure of how the bridge's integrity has changed since 2001. As part of
the re-evaluation of Bridge No. 2104700 in 2009, KCI architectural historians visited the bridge to examine and document current
conditions with field notes, digital photography, and black and white photography.
For this 2009 study, both the inspection file and the repair file could not be located during research. However, the latest SI&A
report front August 2008 and the 131RE Engineers Worklist were located.
The MU ff' form recorded information from the 1995 inspection report, which stated that there wore pop -oats with exposed rebar
oil the slab along with light cracking with e8lorescence. The girders had moderate cracking with hollow sounding areas,
efilorescence and stalactites.
The 2009 field visit noted algae staining and vines growing on the parapets. The parapet has a small section crumbling on the
northwest side. Efflorescence on the northeast parapet was also observed during the field visit.
The MIHP fm -in referenced 1995 inspection report, which noted honeycombing on the south abutment and heavy scaling at and
below the water line on the north abutment. The north wingwall was deteriorated; all wimgwalls had scaling. In 1995 SHA
approved scour protection for the stricture. According to the BIRE Engineer's Worklist, this work was completed in 1990.
According to the 2009 field view, both abutments had medium erosion; the abutment faces had fine cracking with minor scaling
and staining. The north abutment has a full height irregular vertical crack with poor patching, etlioroscent, and rust staining. A
full height vertical crack was also located near the cast wing. Patching is also poor on both abutments on the slab sections. All
four wingwalls have surface erosion and small cracking. Erosion is visible at and below the waterline. The northwest wingwall
has concrete scaling on the face with loose aggregate. This wingwall also has an open horizontal crack approximately 2 reel in
length. The southwest wingwall is spalling at the top. The 2009 field visit noted grout bags for scour protection on both sides.
According to the MIHP form, Si -IA Bridge No. 2104700 was constructed "as part of post World War I improvements to secondary
roads." In the 1995 MIHP form for this bridge, it was noted that the structure did not retain its integrity of original design because
of the widening; however, "the addition of a concrete T -beam portion in the 1930s occurred in the historic period; the character
defining elements from each construction phases are intact."
A close examination reveals that the bridge has lost integrity because ofa continuous loss of materials, design, and workmanship.
The setting, location, and association of the bridge have not changed and remain good. The overall feeling of the bridge is poor
due to the deteriorated condition of the structure.
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW'
Eligibility recommended
-
Criteria: A B C
MH'l' Comments:
Eligibility not recommended
D Consideralons: A B
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services
C D 1; F G
Dale
Reviewer, National Register Program Dale
NR-ELIGIBILH Y REVIEW FORM
WA_111-121 SIIA Bridge No. 2104700. t ID858(I-ittle Antieaam Crk
Page 3
According to the original MU I? form: the first portion of"Bridge No. 21047 was constructed in I922, apparently using SIIA
Standard Detail Sheets. Without original or as built plans, however, this supposition can not [sic) be confu'nied. For reasons
unknown the bridge was later altered to include a concrete T -beam, The'F-beam portion of the bridge was constructed at a time
when more refined methods of reinforcement had become available.
However, it can be conjectured that because of the bridge's date of construction, that the bridge was constructed from it standard
plan.
Standard plans for concrete slab and girder bridges were first developed in Maryland in 1912. In 1919 the plans were re -designer
to allow for widening ol'tie roadways and reinforcement of the bridges. ht 1924, and again, in 1930 the standard plans were re-
designed to allow for changes in transportation needs (Spero 159-160).
According to A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, pre -1955 concrete slabs are typically not significant unless they were
constructed from a standardized plan before 1925, even more so during the first decade of the twentieth century (NCHRP Project
25-25, Task 15, p. 3-85). Furthermore, the concrete T -beam is not of great importance as a whole except if it is an early example
constructed under a standardized plan and is longer than the average span of 30 feet with decorative features (NCHRP Project 25-
25, Task 15, p. 3-88; 3-89).
Although the bridge was constructed according to standardized plans, the alterations prevent it from fully demonstrating its origin
design, materials, and workmanship. Bridge No. 2104700 lacks integrity as a result of the fact the bridge is a hybrid bridge. The
bridge is an altered example of a concrete slab bridge built from an early standardized plan, which was later widened to include a
T -beam section. Research conducted as part of this study did not identity associations with any important architect or engineer
nor does it possess high artistic value. Based on this evaluation, Bridge No. 2104700 is recommended not eligible for inclusion
in the NRIIP under Criterion C.
Although SIIA Bridge No. 2104701) is located within the Rohrersville Historic District (MIHP No. WA-tlI-025), according to the
MIHP form, the bridge was constructed after the period of significance and therefore does not contribute to the historic district,
Additional research indicates that the bridge is not associated with any known event of local, regional, or national significance
(Criterion A), or any known person of local, regional, or national significance (Criterion 1)). Criterion D was not evaluated as par
of the historic standing structures studies for this project.
Bibliography
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation Research Council. National
Research Council. Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff and Engineering and Industrial
Heritage. A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types. NCITRP Project 25-25, Task
15, 2005.
Spero, P.A.C. and Company and Louis Berger & Associates. Historic Highway Bridges in
"Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report. Prepared for Maryland State Highway
t3 Administration- July 1995, Revised October 1995.
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B C D Considerations: A 13 C I) F F O
MIIT Comments:
Revienter
, Officec of t rt.sm•vatimt Services
Bate
Reviewer, National Register Program Date
MIHP No. WA -III -121
SHA Bridge No. 2104700
MD 858 over Little Antietam Creek
Washington County, Maryland
Photograph Log
Image File Name
Description of View
WA-IIII-121
2009-01-26
01.tif
East elevation, facing west
WA-IIII-121
2009-01-26
02.tif
West elevation, facing east
WA-IIII-121
2009-01-26
03.tif
South approach, facing north
WA-IIII-121
2009-01-26_04.tif
North abutment, facing north
WA-IIII-121
2009-01-26
05.tif
Southwest wingwall, facing northwest
Printed on Epson Premium Photo Paper Glossy with Epson UltraChrome Black Ink
Saved on Verbatim UltraLife Archival Grade DVD-R, AZO recording dye
Cvj�t�
N
3
W ; 1