Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-2-05MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY FEBRUARY 2, 2005 A and B. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by Chairman Michael Gehr on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 7:05 p.m. in Conference Room 1 of the Washington County Administrative Annex Building. Members present included: Jane Hershey, Eleanor Lakin, Merry Stinson, Carla Viar, David Wiles and Sandra Izer. Also present was Commissioner Dori Nipps and staff members Steve Goodrich and Debra Eckard. C. MINUTES The minutes from the December 8, 2004 meeting were presented. A motion was made by Eleanor Lakin to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Jane Hershey and unanimously approved. D. COMMUNICATIONS AND BILLS STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION - MARYLAND 66 AT CSX RAILROAD CROSSING Steve Goodrich presented a letter, for the Commission's information, from the State Highway Administration addressing the proposed improvements on Maryland Route 66 at the CSX Railroad crossing. It is the determination of the SHA that the implementation of this project will have no impact to standing historic structures since there are none within the Area of Potential Effect or APE. No action was necessary. - E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BARNES ROAD BRIDGE At the December 8, 2004 meeting, Steve Goodrich presented a letter to the Commission (for informational purposes only) from the Washington County Historical Trust regarding the Barnes Road Bridge project. This letter expressed the opinion of Dr. Lichtenstein, an engineer hired by the WCHT, that the bridge could and should be rehabilitated and preserved on Barnes Road. A discussion developed and many questions were unanswered due to information that the HDC did not have concerning the project. Mr. Gary Rohrer, Director of the Department of Public Works, was present at this meeting to give the Commission more information and answer questions regarding the Barnes Road Bridge project. Mr. Rohrer began by explaining that the County does give serious consideration to retaining historic structures whenever possible. He discussed the process for determining which historic structures can be rehabilitated and which structures need to be replaced. A detailed analysis based on the uniqueness of each structure as well as the financial aspects of each project is examined very closely. If a structure is rehabilitated, determinations are made as to how long the structure will last, future maintenance costs and will the repairs solve the problem. Many other agencies are also involved in this decision such as the State Highway Administration, Federal Highway Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. At this point, Mr. Rohrer presented materials (attached) in the form of a power point on paper as well as photographs of the bridge. For this particular bridge, a critical factor in the analysis was the inability of the bridge to carry the load that is expected of it and to handle the increased traffic projected over the next several years. Projections concerning the amount of increased traffic use are in dispute. Other concerns and differences of opinion between the County and Dr. Lichtenstein include the pronounced vertical hump in the bridge deck, the substandard geometric approaches, inadequate clearances, crash worthiness of the parapet walls to sustain the impact of a vehicle and the ability to attach barriers to the bridge. Mr. Rohrer believed that many of these factors could not be adequately addressed to maintain public safety with retention of the existing bridge. Extensive evaluations have been done and there are no known cures that will provide a cost effective extension of usefulness and provide the needed level of public safety. After Mr. Rohrer's presentation, some discussion and questions developed. Commission members• asked about core testing, other concrete arch bridges in the County , the deterioration of the concrete Mr. Gehr ended the discussion by stating that no comments and/or recommendations have been requested from the Commission at this time. No action was needed or taken. The discussion began with Steve Goodrich giving a brief history of this case. In 2002, the Bowmans submitted permit applications for construction of two porches on the rear of the house which is located in the Historic Preservation zone and therefore needed Historic District Commission approval for the building permit applications. After the first review of these applications in January 2003, the Commission requested more detailed and accurate information from the Bowmans. This information was not provided. In July 2003, the Commission was advised that the porches had been constructed without the Commission's approval and without building permits. Photographs were provided of the porches. The Commission used those photographs as substitutes for the detailed drawings it had previously requested and disapproved the designs because they were not an appropriate for this building. The owner was advised of the disapproval and the need for additional submittals for design review and approval. In November 2004, Merry Stinson questioned the status of these porches. An inspector from the Permits and Inspections Department visited the property and photographed the porches that are now existing on the building. The porches that were constructed without approval and subsequently photographed and disapproved had been reconstructed with revised balusters and hand rails. The Commission has never given their approval to this construction; however, the permits have been closed out since all building codes have been complied with. Merry Stinson requested contact with the Maryland Historical Trust to see if the Bowmans have applied for a state tax credit. Carla Viar made a motion that the Commission again disapprove the permit applications #2002-09083 and 2002-09084 for the porches at 15910 Chaney's Neck Road because the new construction is not consistent with the HDC's adopted guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. As new construction there was no evidence provided that they are an accurate duplication of an historic features that did or would have existed on the building. The new construction is also not clearly distinguished as a contemporary addition. The motion to disapprove is also based on the lackpc6mpliance from the owners with the permitting procedures and HDC approvals as evidenced by the photographs of the existing porches. The motion was seconded by David Wiles and unanimously approved. LAKESIDE DEMOLITION Steve Goodrich reported that the Planning Commission also recommended denial of the proposed demolition. F. BUDGET Steve Goodrich presented a copy of the proposed budget for FY '06. The budget shows a decrease of $9,590. Mr. Goodrich has taken out the $10,000 for the French Lane rehabilitation because it will not be needed in FY '06. Mr. Goodrich increased the item for dues and subscriptions to $400.00 from $290.00; travel expenses increased from $100.00 to $200.00 to help defer the costs of travel to training workshops; and an increase in the tuition assistance from $400.00 to $600.00. Total budget request for this year is $11,260. Jane Hershey made a motion to approve the budget as presented, seconded by Carla Viar, and unanimously approved. G. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Goodrich began by providing the Commission with a copy of the Tax Credit Ordinance for Washington County. The County provides a credit on property taxes based on the amount of money spent on the restoration or preservation or improvements to historic properties. The criteria for reviewing tax credits are: 1) location in an historic district (Historic Preservation zoning in the County or a town designated district), 2) determination that the expenses are for improvements, restoration, or preservation rather than maintenance and 3) completion according to the Secretary of the Interior's standards. TC-05-001: 102 WEST IRVIN AVENUE, HAGERSTOWN - PHILIP BIKLE Mr. Goodrich presented before and after photographs of the property. Mr. Bikle informed the Commission that they have restored the roof to its original form after contacting 11 contractors. The cost of this item was $18,017. They have received a tax credit from the Maryland Historical Trust. A copy of this approval was requested by the Commission for their records. Merry Stinson made the motion to approve the request for a tax credit indicating that is qualified as restoration and was done according to the guidelines as the applicants has replaced the roof with like materials and design.. The motion was seconded by Jane Hershey and unanimously approved. TC-05-002: 112 BROADWAY. HAGERSTOWN — JUDITH AND MARK MCLEAN Mr. Goodrich reviewed materials presented to the Commission at the beginning of•the meeting for their use in reviewing the tax credit application. The first document is from IRS Publication Form 530 describing the definition for improvements, a copy of the Secretary's Standards describing the treatment for preservation, restoration, reconstruction and rehabilitation with detailed definitions, and the three pages from the applicant's Maryland Historical Trust "Certification of the Completed Rehabilitation", The State has approved tax credits for this property, their file numbers 2000-202; 2002-520 and 2003-604. All 13 items need to be examined individually for approval. Photographs were also provided. 1) Retaining wall restoration - approved 2) Replacement of chain link fence to a wooden fence - approved 3) Screen Door replacement - approved 4) Painting of trim - approved 5) Garage door replacement - approved 6) Installation of flood lights — approved (determined to be needed for safety) 7) Replacement of floor on rear porch and columns - approved 8) Replacement of front columns — approved (from wood to fiberglass) 9) Replacement of roof - approved 10) Rehab of front porch floor - approved 11) Painting on garage and shed - approved 12) Faucets - approved 13) Installation of electrical outlet on front porch — approved Sandra Izer made the motion to approve all 13 items on the tax credit application. These items have been determined to be improvements and restoration and completed according to the adopted guidelines, Secretary's Standards. The motion seconded by Carla Viar and unanimously approved. FFY '05 CLG PROJECT - PHASE IV RURAL COMMUNITY SURVEY The application for CLG funding was due on December 31, 2004, Steve Goodrich re -submitted last year's application for Phase IV — Rural Community Survey. The funding scheme is the same as the previous submittal, $15,000 from the Trust and a commitment of $10,000 locally in cash, and $3,500 in in -kind money which is for monitoring the project consultant and for the Purchasing Department for the bidding process. Total Project cost is $28,500. Jane Hershey made a motion to approve the CLG budget and project as presented, seconded by Sandra Izer, and approved unanimously. H. OTHER BUSINESS - None I. EXECUTIVE SESSION — None ADJOURNMENT Jane Hershey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 PM, seconded by Carla Viar and unanimously approved. Respectf lly su �sutted, Stephen T. Goodrich Chief Senior Planner STG/dse Attachments: As noted