Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210106 Tom Clemens Vernell Doyle Edith Wallace Ann Aldrich Gary Rohrer Jeffrey A. Cline, BOCC Rep HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON COU NTY, MARYLAND WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 | Hagerstown, MD 21740 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING January 6, 2021, 7:00 p.m. VIRTUAL MEETING ONLY CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL MINUTES 1. Minutes of the December 2, 2020 meeting * OTHER BUSINESS 1. 11676 Hopewell Road – Section 106 Filing Notice – Proposed construction of a 195 foot monopole extended to 199 feet on property located at the approximate vicinity of 11676 Hopewell Road * 2. Certified Local Government Response Draft – For review and comment * 3. Staff Report ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING MEETING 1. Wednesday, February 3, 2021, 7:00 p.m. *attachments The Historic District Commission reserves the right to vary the order in which the cases are called. Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Washington County Planning Department at 240- 313-2430 to make arrangements no later than ten (10) days prior to the meeting. Notice is given that the agenda may be amended at any time up to and including the meeting. MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY December 2, 2020 Due to current social meeting restrictions put in place by the Governor of Maryland because of the COVID- 19 pandemic, the Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. virtually using Zoom software. No physical meeting took place. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commission members present were: Tom Clemens, Ann Aldrich, Vernell Doyle, Edie Wallace, Michael Lushbaugh, Greg Smith, and Gary Rohrer. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Jill Baker, Director; Jennifer Kinzer, Deputy Director; Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant. Also present at the meeting Lloyd Yavener. MINUTES Ms. Doyle made a correction to the October 5, 2020 minutes. Ms. Aldrich made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 5, 2020 meeting as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wallace and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS Permit #2020-04285 – 4425 Main Street, Rohrersville Ms. Jenkins presented for review a permit for a porch addition to the house located at 4425 Main Street in Rohrersville. Discussion and Comments: Ms. Doyle asked if the property is located in a flood plain. Ms. Jenkins stated it is not located in a flood plain. Ms. Wallace noted that the porch will be constructed of pressure treated lumber and asked if the porch would be painted. Mr. Yavener, property owner, stated the pressure treated lumber will be used only for the porch decking. The rails will be made from pine or mahogany and painted white to match the trim on the house. The owners have not decided if they will paint the decking. Ms. Doyle noted that the proposed porch does not match the shadow depicted on photographs of the house. Mr. Yavener stated that the old porch was constructed with a cinder block foundation and was not original to the house. Ms. Doyle asked if the railings would be behind the columns. Mr. Yavener stated that the railings would attach to the sides of the columns. Mr. Rohrer asked what the pilasters would be constructed of. Mr. Yavener stated the pilasters will have a concrete core faced with brick on all sides and painted to match the house. Ms. Jenkins noted that the porch was not referenced in the historic inventory as an architectural feature of the house. Mr. Yavener believes the porch was probably constructed in the 1940s or 1950s. Ms. Wallace expressed her opinion that originally the house likely had just a “landing” rather than a porch due to architectural detailing present. Motion and Vote: Mr. Rohrer made a motion to approve the permit as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Doyle and unanimously approved with Mr. Clemens abstaining from the vote. OTHER BUSINESS Staff Report • Ms. Jenkins noted that staff reviewed the following applications in November: 1 ag certificate in the Antietam Overlay zone. • Ms. Jenkins reported that she attended the MAHDC annual meeting. New trainings will be offered soon. • Ms. Jenkins attended the first Battle of Falling Waters listening session hosted by Preservation Maryland. They are currently exploring the obstacles that are preventing the Battlefield from being recognized. A lot of good discussion between property owners and interested parties was held. • The MAHDC training for members was held on November 20th. The power point presentation will be made available and distributed to members soon. • Ms. Baker attended the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area meeting. This was a video presenta- tion which is available on YouTube. There was a financial study regarding tourism completed that included the entire Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area and all other Heritage Areas across the State of Maryland. This data will be extremely useful in the future for preservation in the County. • Proposed changes to the Demolition Permit Policy is scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, December 8th. Ms. Linda Irvin-Craig and Mr. Ralph Young of the HAC, and Mr. Clemens will be presenting this information to the Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Aldrich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lushbaugh and so ordered by the Chairman. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________________ Jill L. Baker, Director Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning −1− B EFORE THE B OARD OF A PPEALS FOR W ASHINGTON C OUNTY , M ARYLAND * D IAMOND C OMMUNICATIONS , LLC * A ppeal No.: AP2020 -029 Appellant * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * O PINION Diamond Communications, LLC (hereinafter “Appellant”) requests a special exception to construct a 199 foot monopole commercial communication tower with equipment shelter, a variance to reduce the minimum setback from 199 feet to 57 feet, 9 inches from the northeast property line, 121 feet, 9 inches from the northwest property line, and a variance to reduce the setback from overhead transmission lines from 398 feet to 64 feet, 1 inch at the subject property. The subject property is located at 11676 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, Maryland; is owned by Potomac Edison Co.; and is zoned Highway Interchange, HI. The Board held a public hearing on the matter on October 14, 2020.1 Appellant was represented by Sean P. Hughes, Esq., Law Offices of Miller, Miller & Canby. All witnesses provided testimony, under oath and on the record. 1 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person access and contact for public hearings has been limited, especially in County buildings. The members of the Board of Appeals, counsel, staff, and the Appellant were the only persons physically in attendance for the hearing. All other witnesses and the public at large were permitted to participate by telephone/video. All notices for the hearing provided the information necessary to call in and/or participate remotely and those who wished to participate were encouraged to make written submissions as well. −2− Findings of Fact Based upon the testimony given, all information and evidence presented, and upon a study of the specific property involved and the neighborhood in which it is located, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. Potomac Edison Co. owns the subject property located at 11676 Hopewell Road, Hagerstown, Maryland. The property is zoned Highway Interchange, HI. 2. Appellant is the anticipated lessee of the subject property. 3. The subject property consists of a Potomac Edison Co. substation and overhead transmission lines for electrical power. 4. Appellant proposes to construct a 195-foot monopole tower, with a 4-foot lightning rod, for a total of 199 feet. The site would contain an equipment shelter and 50- foot by 50-foot fenced area to secure access. 5. The proposed communications tower will provide coverage for service gaps and for FirstNet to operate emergency communication services. The anchor tenant will be AT&T, but capacity will be reserved for other communications providers and for Washington County Emergency Response. It will be designed to deliver 5G service. 6. The site would be serviced approximately one (1) time every other month, or about six (6) times per year. 7. Appellant has elected not to utilize the existing overhead transmission poles because they are only 120 feet tall. Communications service requires more height to be effective. 8. There was no opposition presented to this appeal. Rationale Special Exception −3− The Board has authority to grant a special exception pursuant to Section 25.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, Maryland. A special exception is defined as “a grant of a specific use that would not be appropriate generally or without restriction; and shall be based upon a finding that the use conforms to the plan and is compatible with the existing neighborhood.” Article 28A. In the instant case, the subject property is ideal for the proposed project. It is located in an industrial area, isolated and already outfitted for the type of use proposed. There will be no gas, odor or light emissions, and no dust, noise, or significant traffic to and from the property. The Board finds that the proposed use at the subject property will have no greater “adverse effects above and beyond those inherently associated with such a special exception use irrespective of its location within the zone.” Schultz v. Pritts, 291 Md. 1, 15 (1981). For all these reasons, we conclude that this appeal meets the criteria for a special exception and secures public safety and welfare and upholds the spirit of the Ordinance. Accordingly, the request for a special exception to establish a 199-foot monopole commercial communication tower with equipment shelter at the subject property is hereby GRANTED, by a vote of 5–0. Variances The Board has authority to grant a variance upon a showing of practical difficulty or undue hardship. §§ 25.2(c) and 25.56.2 “Practical Difficulty” may be found by the Board when: (1) strict compliance would unreasonably prevent the use of the property for a permitted purpose or render conformance unnecessarily burdensome; and (2) denying 2 “When the terms unnecessary hardship (or one of its synonyms) and practical difficulties are framed in the disjunctive (“or”), Maryland courts generally have applied the more restrictive hardship standard to use variances, while applying the less restrictive practical difficulties standard to area variances because use variances are viewed as more drastic departures from zoning requirements.” Belvoir Farms Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. North, 355 Md. 259, 276 n.10 (1999) (citations omitted). −4− the variance would do substantial injustice to the applicant and a lesser relaxation than that applied for would not give substantial relief; and (3) granting the variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and secure public safety and welfare. § 25.56(A). Practical difficulty and undue hardship are the result of a property being unique. “’Uniqueness’ of a property for zoning purposes requires that the subject property have an inherent characteristic not shared by other properties in the area, i.e., its sha pe, topography, subsurface condition, environmental factors, historical significance, access or non-access to navigable waters, practical restrictions imposed by abutting properties (such as obstructions) or other similar restrictions.” North v. St. Mary's Cnty., 99 Md. App. 502, 514 (1994).) Appellant explained that the setback requirements for overhead transmission lines were likely intended to ensure that if a structure fell, it would clear said lines. In the instant case, Appellant testified that the monopole is designed to crumple rather than fall over. While there have been some instances of this happening in very extreme weather, the tower will be constructed at the subject property to withstand the typical elements encountered locally. There is little concern for the tower falling on the overhead transmission lines adjacent to the site. Moreover, the entity which should be most concerned with such a request is Potomac Edison Co., and they are in support of the requests made herein. Consequently, the imposition of the setback unreasonably prevents an otherwise reasonable used of the property and should be reduced. Pursuant to the Ordinance requirements, the proposed tower must have a setback equal to its height, in this case, 199 feet. This is specifically intended to give clearance from nearby improvements should the structure fall. As has been stated, the risk of this is very minimal based both on construction and design of the monopole tower. Imposing this setback requirement without some relaxation would unreasonably prevent this −5− reasonable use of the property. Appellant further testified, and the Board recognizes that the world of cellular phone and wireless data usage is growing exponentially. Appellant provided statistics that about sixty percent (60%) of all 911 emergency calls originate from a cellular phone. To meet the needs of this growing market and to ensure consistent coverage and capacity for users, Appellant is establishing towers like the one proposed in identified gap areas. The proposed project meets a need of the community and enhances communication services for the public; thus it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Accordingly, the request for a variances to reduce the minimum setback from 199 feet to 57 feet, 9 inches from the northeast property line, 121 feet, 9 inches from the northwest property line, and a variance to reduce the setback from overhead transmission lines from 398 feet to 64 feet, 1 inch at the subject property are hereby GRANTED, by a vote of 5-0. The application is granted upon the condition that the proposed use be consistent with the testimony and evidence presented herein. B OARD OF A PPEALS By: Paul Fulk, Chair Date Issued: November 12, 2020 Notice of Appeal Rights Any party aggrieved by a final order of the Authority in a contested case, whether such decision is affirmative or negative in form, is entitled to file a petition for judicial review of that order to the Circuit Court for Washington County within thirty (30) days of the date of the order. Per the National Park Service, the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) must monitor and evaluate Certified Local Government (CLG) performance. This Annual Report -- a requirement for participation in the CLG program -- provides useful data to help develop training and support for CLGs, while charting the success of the program. In addition to the Annual Report, MHT will conduct in-depth evaluations of each CLG every four years. For this Annual Report, please report only on activities for the 2020 federal fiscal year (October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020). The FFY 2020 Annual Report is due on February 28, 2021. Questions? Contact Nell Ziehl, Chief of MHT’s Office of Planning, Education and Outreach at nell.ziehl@maryland.gov. Introduction Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report * 1. Certified Local Government Name: * 2. Contact First Name: * 3. Contact Last Name: * 4. Contact Telephone: * 5. Contact Email: 1 Part 1: Program Changes Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report * 6. Has the Commission changed its designation criteria or adopted new criteria for designation? Yes No 7. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the change(s) here. You may cut and paste language directly from the ordinance. * 8. Has the Commission limited or expanded its ability to review archeological sites, cultural landscapes or other non-architectural features? Yes No 9. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the change(s) here. You may cut and paste language directly from the ordinance. * 10. Has the Commission adopted or made substantial revisions to its design guidelines? Yes No 11. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the change(s) here and include a link to your design guidelines. 2 * 12. Has the Commission created or made substantial changes to its local tax credit program? Yes No 13. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the tax credit program change(s) here and include a link to your program information. * 14. Has the Commission changed its member make-up or qualifications? Yes No 15. If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please describe the change(s) to the commission requirements here. 16. Has the Commission made any other changes to its ordinance, program or procedures? Please describe. 3 Part 2: Summary of Activities/Design and Development Review Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report 17. How many staff does your Commission have? Alteration Demolition New Construction 18. Please enter the number of cases approved by your Commission. (Please do not include approvals given due to expiration of time.) Alteration Demolition New Construction 19. Please enter the number of cases denied by your Commission. Alteration Demolition New Construction 20. Please enter the number of Commission decisions appealed. Approved Phase 1 Required Phase 2 Required 21. If you conduct reviews for archaeological resources, please list the number of cases completed. 22. How many alterations, demolitions or new construction projects were approved at the staff level? 4 23. How many cases were automatically approved through expiration of time limit for review? 5 Part 2: Summary of Activities/Survey and Designation Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report 24. How many National Register nominations did your Commission review? 25. How many new or revised Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) forms did your Commission submit to MHT? 26. Were all the MIHP forms submitted by your Commission approved by MHT? Yes No N/A 27. How many new or revised Maryland Archaeological Site Survey (MASS) forms did your Commission submit to MHT? 28. Were all the MASS forms submitted by your Commission approved by MHT? Yes No N/A 29. Please list any new local designations made during this fiscal year. In your answer, please include the name of each designated site, property or district; the relevant MIHP or MASS number; and the number of resources included in each designation. 6 30. Have you conducted survey or inventory work that did not result in MIHP or MASS forms? If so, please describe. 31. What are your top three priorities for survey and/or designation in the coming year? 7 Part 2: Summary of Activities/Special Programs Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report * 32. How many historic properties were assisted through the local tax credit program? (If you do not have a local tax credit, write “N/A.”) * 33. How many projects involving historic properties were reviewed as a result of local government undertakings (i.e., a “local Section 106” review)? (If you are not required to review local government undertakings, write “N/A.”) * 34. How many historic properties were assisted through local grant or loan programs? (If you do not have local grant or loan programs, write “N/A.”) * 35. How many historic properties were acquired, in whole or in part, by the local government? 8 Part 3: Commission Qualifications and Procedures Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report * 36. Please describe your Commission by listing each member (Last Name, First Name) and documented area of interest. If applicable, please also indicate if a member meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards by noting, for example, "SOI-Historic Architecture" or "SOI-Architectural History." 37. If you have vacancies, please list the type of vacancy (qualified or not) and the duration. * 38. Please list the trainings and/or educational sessions attended by each member (Last Name, First Name) in this fiscal year. * 39. Number of meetings held: * 40. How are regular meetings advertised? * 41. How are special meetings advertised? 9 * 42. How are meeting minutes made available to the public? * 43. How are the Commission's rules and procedures made available to the public? 10 Part 4: General Feedback Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report 44. Please describe any great projects you completed or successes you achieved during this federal fiscal year. 45. Please describe any major new projects or plans anticipated for the coming year. 46. Do you have any training or educational needs that are not met by existing offerings from the Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions or the Maryland Historical Trust? 47. Please share any concerns, issues or additional comments you may have about the Certified Local Government program or preservation in your jurisdiction. 11 Thank you for completing your Annual Report! Please do not forget to email nell.ziehl@maryland.gov with: • Maps showing newly designated properties • Resumes of new Commission members • Any other material you wish to share! Thank You! Certified Local Government FFY 2020 Annual Report 12