Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210901 Thomas ClemensVernell Doyle Edith WallaceAnn Aldrich Gregory SmithMichael Lushbaugh Jeff re y A. Cline, BOCC Rep HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND AGENDA September 1, 2021, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL MINUTES 1.Minutes of the July 7, 2021 meeting * NEW BUSINESS (none) OTHER BUSINESS 1.Update on Demolition Policy Changes – Dr. Thomas Clemens* 2.Staff Report a.Staff Reviews* 3.Design Guidelines Discussion ELECTION OF OFFICERS ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING MEETING 1.Wednesday, October 6, 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. Street,26|HagerstowTDD:7-1-1 WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY July 7, 2021 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, July 7, 2021 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, Michael Lushbaugh, and Greg Smith. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2021 meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lushbaugh and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS Permit #2021-02166 – Lehman’s Mill Road Ms. Jenkins presented for review a demolition permit application for the proposed demolition of a 535 sq. ft. wash house/outbuilding. Discussion/Comments: Mr. Lushbaugh asked the applicant, Mr. Myron Hege, why he wanted to demolish the structure, which appears to be solid and in good shape. Mr. Hege (Myron’s father) stated that he has served on the Mennonite Safety Board for the past 10 years. He stated that this particular building obstructs the view from the house to the barn which he believes poses a threat to the safety and well- being of the children living on the farm. Mr. Hege also noted that there is a cistern containing water inside the building which is also a safety concern. Ms. Doyle expressed her opinion that the wash house is part of the historic farmstead, it is in good condition and could be re-purposed and re-used for many different reasons. Ms. Aldrich noted that the Maryland Historic Trust Inventory defines the house and wash building on this property key to defining and representing the Germanic heritage and history of the County. Mr. Myron Hege stated that the wash house is only 15 feet from the front of the house and half the length of the house, which obstructs the view from the surrounding area. He noted that he would be willing to donate the building if someone would like to remove it from the property. Ms. Aldrich asked if the building could be moved elsewhere on the property. Mr. Myron Hege believes it would be too costly to have the building moved because it is brick. Motion and Vote: Mr. Lushbaugh made a motion to recommend denial of the demolition permit application. The motion was seconded by Ms. Doyle and unanimously approved. 4425 Main Street, Rohrersville – Building Addition Ms. Jenkins presented a proposed 416 sq. ft. bathroom addition to the rear/side of the house located at 4425 Main Street in Rohrersville. Mr. Lloyd Yavener, the property owner, believes the proposed addition would enhance the livability of the house. He noted that the landing window presents a challenge due to its location which falls below the roof. Mr. Yavener explained that over the years, the windowsill as well as the brick and mortar have been replaced several times in order to prevent the intrusion of water and to maintain the structural integrity of the house. He is planning to keep the top half of the original window to allow natural light. Mr. Clemens expressed his opinion that the plans are well thought out and are sensitive to the historic nature of the structure. He asked if the proposed addition would be visible from Maryland Route 67. Mr. Yavener stated it would not be visible. Members agreed with Mr. Clemens comments and are not opposed to the treatment of the window. Motion and Vote: Mr. Lushbaugh made a motion to approve the proposed addition as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Staff Report Staff attended a Preliminary Consultation for the Dickinson property located at 16830 National Pike (Inventory #I-004). The developer is proposing 1.6 million square feet of warehouse space. Staff has encouraged the developer to explore demolition alternatives or to re-arrange the site in order to save the structures; however, the developer is currently planning to document the site and proceed with demolition of the structure. A zoning certification for the Battle of Falling Waters parking area has been issued. The project is for a small parking lot to be located on property at 14906 Falling Waters Road. Staff provided a brief update for the property located at 55 West Oak Ridge Drive. Two permit applications have been submitted for the demolition of the main buildings previously used by the Review & Herald. Staff received two demolition permits for structures with the towns; however, the HDC has no review authority in the towns. Fort Ritchie is now under private ownership. The Maryland Historic Trust has review authority for both interior and exterior areas. HDC will also have review authority in this area. Staff reviewed a permit for property located at 13727 National Pike (Shady Bower). This structure was not considered as being constructed in a time of significance; staff had no comment. The owners of the property known as the Maples property (Inventory #I-38) on Mapleville Road reached out to staff regarding some future projects. Ms. Aldrich has had contact with the owners and she was impressed with the proposed plans which she believes will save the integrity of the historic property. Staff provided a summary of the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area update. UPCOMING MEETING Our next meeting is scheduled for August 4, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. This will be an in-person meeting at the County Administrative Complex at 100 W. Washington Street, Hagerstown. MEMBER APPOINTMENTS/RE-APPOINTMENTS Ms. Jenkins announced that Mr. Rohrer has submitted his formal resignation to the Commission. Mr. Clemens is also planning to resign his position in August. Ms. Wallace’s appointment expired on June 30, 2020; however, she has agreed to serve a third term if she is re-appointed. Ms. Alrich and Ms. Doyle’s first-term appointments expire on August 31, 2021; therefore, both of these ladies are eligible to be re- appointed for a second term. Members reviewed four recent applications submitted to the County Clerk’s office. They made their choices for three applicants, in order of preference as follows: Kourtney Lowery, Lloyd Yavener, and Kim Pruitt. Motion and Vote: Mr. Smith made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the three applicants, in order of preference, as discussed. He also recommended that Ms. Alrich and Ms. Doyle be re-appointed for a second term and Ms. Wallace be appointed for a third term to the HDC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clemens and unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Aldrich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 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 REVISED REVIEW PROCEDURES - DEMOLITION PERMITS Deleted: January 3, 1989 Adopted by Board of CountyCommissioners- Deleted: Amended -July 17, 1990 Revisions adopted –November 19, 2019 Formatted: Centered At the regular meeting on, the Board of County Commissioners adopted revisions to the policy Deleted: January 3 that provides that applications for a demolition permit for any structure which is identified in the Deleted: a Washington County Historical Sites Inventory be transmitted to the Historic District Commission Deleted: to and the Planning Commission for review and comment. It is the Commissioners' intention that both the Planning Commission and the Historic District Deleted: (via transmittal from Planning) Commission would have the opportunity to review these applications and provide any comments within a maximum of 60 days from the date of application except if either body would recommend that the demolition permit not be issued there would be an additional 90-day waiting period. During the 90-day waiting period the HDC would utilize the additional time to consult with and advise the applicant of alternatives to demolition . This policy does not provide for approval or disapproval of the demolition permit by either the Planning Commission or the Historic District Commission. Demolition permits will still be issued solely on the basis of meeting the technical requirements of applicable codes. The Board does feel, however, that proposed demolition of a structure with historical significance should be brought to the attention of all affected or interested parties so that appropriate measures through other existing programs or actions may be taken as necessary. ItistheBoard'sdesirethatthereviewbecompletedpromptlyand,aspreviouslystated,withinno more than a 60-day period unless thereisopposition by the HistoricDistrict Commission that would initiate the 90-day waiting period. The demolition permit is not to be issued until the Planning Commission review is complete within the prescribed time frame. AMENDMENT - July 17, 1990 It is not the intent of this policy to negate or in any way change the existing authority granted to the Historic District Commission by Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding review, approval or disapproval of demolition permits in the Historic Preservation (HP) Zone. Deleted: ¶ DEMOPOLICY¶ Demolition Support Document for Historic District Commission and Historic Advisory Committee Part of the duties of the Historic District Commission outlined in the Zoning Ordinance include: 1. Review applications (Section 20.6-Historic Preservation, Section 5D.4-Rural Village and Section 20A- Antietam Overlay 2. Review and make recommendations regarding legislation, applications for zoning text or map amendments, special exceptions, variances, site plans, subdivisions or other proposals affecting historic preservation. 3. Recommend programs and legislation to the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission to encourage historic preservation 4. Serve as a clearing house for information, provide educational materials and info to the public and undertake activities that advance the goals of historic preservation 5. Development of additional duties and standards. For example criteria to be used in the review of building permit applications 6. Prepare, adopt, publish and amend any additional guidelines to provide adequate review materials for applications including HP and building permits 7. Oversee the maintenance and updating of the inventory of Washington County Historic Sites Reference: Section 20.3 Historic District Commission Duties and Powers (Zoning Ordinance) Some key points or thoughts to expand upon: 1. Washington County should continue to pursue development and retention of historic resources. We are not one or the other. We need both to be a place where people want to live. 2. Washington County’s unique history drives tourism and the historic resources that support the many narratives of the County should be protected within reason. 3. Not all old structures are historic. Not all historic structures can be retained. Some initiatives being pursued outside of this discussion: 1. Promotion of the County Tax Credit program as it is 2. Exploring the expansion of the County Tax Credit program 3. Education initiatives regarding topics such as tax credits with special interest groups such as realtors, builders and historic homeowners. 4. Improvements to the information available to property owners regarding historic properties in Washington County 5. Targeted mailings to historic property owners who may qualify or wish to become qualified for historic tax credits 6. Updates to, and expansion of, the inventory including status of structures Priority 1 – Documentation Who: The Historic District Commission would request that documentation be provided by the permit applicant. In some cases documentation may require the support of alicensedprofessional such as an architect, historian, engineer or surveyor.This is consistent with all other applications for plan review in Washington County. What:Documentation would at minimum include the same information already requested for reviewof building permits or site plansin the HP or AO zoning overlays and historic Rural Villages including scale drawings, documentation of historic data/significance and property history. Additional documentation may include photographs of the interior/exterior of the property and documentation of explored alternatives to demolition and any documentation required to support the application details provided by the permit applicant. When: Documentation would be completed PRIOR to permit application and would be provided at the time of demolition permit application.Documentation would not be required in cases where demolition permit request is a result of events such as fire. Where: Documentationwould be required for all properties requesting demolition that involves a property on the County’s inventory of historic resources or is more than 50 years old in the Antietam Overlay (AO) or Rural Village (RV) Zoning Designations in Washington County Maryland. Why: Documentation prior to permit application achieves the following goals: 1. Ensures a timely and equitable review of the demolition permit. Documentation guidelines can be applied consistently to application review by staff before the application is scheduled for the HDC agenda and all applications will have the same level of documentation for decision making. 2. Provides an update to existing documentation for members to see any changes since the last time the property was documented. 3. Ensures that the HDC can request additional documentation, if needed, to support the applicant’s requested permit. 4. If the property is to be demolished, documentation prior to application will ensure that the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties and Washington County records can be updated accordingly 5. We do not have the qualified County staff to provide documentation services There are 4132 resources in Washington County listed by Maryland Historic Trust. There are approximately 69,000 addresses in Washington County. That’s less than 6% of structures in the County. Demolition Permits Issued by Calendar Year*: Calendar YearDemolition Permits Demolition Permits Percent of Demo Issued Reviewed by Permits Reviewed by HDC/Staff HDC/Staff 2019 70 34% 2018 35 720% 2017 43 921% 2016 43 614% 2015 45 818% *Source: Accela Automation – Reports – Permits – Reports: Permit Issuance – Demo & Comprehensive Planning – Historic – Review Activities Priority 2 – 90 Day Feasibility of Alternatives Who: Washington County Historic District Commission and the permit applicant would enter into this 90 day feasibility of alternatives. What: As part of increased documentation, demolition permits would be accompanied by a narrative/supporting documents outlining why demolition alternatives are not feasibleto the permit applicant. The Commission would have ninety (90) days, from the time it concludes that no economically feasible plan can be formulated, to negotiate with the owner and other parties to find a means of preserving the site or structure. This 90-day period may include posting of the property. Washington County Historic District Commission currently encourages demolition alternatives as listed in order of priority below: 1. Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structure or its setting; 2. Incorporating the structure into the overall design of the project; 3. Converting the structure into another use (adaptive reuse); 4. Relocating the structure on the property; 5. Relocating the structure to another property; 6. Salvaging from the structure, historically significant architectural features and building materials; 7. Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs, drawings and/or text. When: This 90-day period would begin after the Historic District Commission issues a decision against demolition and could run coincidently with additional County board reviews such as the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Where: This 90 day period would potentially apply to any permit before the Historic District Commission to review for demolition which includes: any property on the County’s inventory of historic resources or is more than 50 years old in the Antietam Overlay (AO) or Rural Village (RV) Zoning Designations. Why: This 90-day period after completion of permit review achieves the following goals: 1. This is a conversation starter. The current 45-day review period does not provide enough time to have conversations with all partners in historic preservation to find any additional alternatives to save the structure or site. The feasibility of demolition alternatives is often revised once more parties are aware of the structures situation thereby increasing the chances that one of the demolition alternatives can be utilized. 2. As a Maryland Certified Local Government (CLG), this 90-day period would be consistent with current ordinance language established after Washington County became certified. Priority 3 – Deterrents to Premature Demolition What we have now-$100/dayCivil Citation if demolition occurs without a permit 1.The Historic District Commission has no way to deter demolition without a permitor premature demolition. Premature demolition occurs when an owner/applicant applies for a demolition permit but proceeds with the demolition before the permit is issued. This has happened twice in the last 12-month period with permits under review by the Historic District Commission. 2. A $100/day Civil Citation is a reaction to the demolition already occurring and is rarely enforced. It is mostly in place for instances of building violations during construction. It is not effective for demolition because the citation will not cover the costs to replace or document the structure and its already lost. Proposed Deterrents to Premature Demolition 1. Exploring a mechanism for the HDC to issue fines for demolition without a permit as opposed to civil citations. 2. Establishing a fine of up to $5000. 3. New Construction moratorium for a minimum of 1 year where demolition without a permit or demolition by neglect has occurred. 4. Use of any generated fines for historic preservation initiatives such as documentation or grant matching funds Why do we need to explore deterrents? Our current available option of $100/day civil citation is not a viable mechanism to deter premature demolition. Its important to remember some key facts about historic buildings: 1. Old buildings have intrinsic value. 2. When you tear down an old building, you never know what’s being destroyed. 3. New businesses prefer old buildings. 4. Old buildings attract people. 5. Old buildings are a reminder of a city’s culture and complexity. 6. Regret goes only one way. -National Trust, Six Practical Reasons to Save Old Buildings CommentsCommentsCommentsCommentsCommentsCommentsComments Workflow Info Structure appears to be an early rancher probably built sometime in the 20th century which is outside the period of significance for the Ernstville - Big Pool Survey District and therefore the HDC does not need to review this change.This property is not in a review area for the HDC but it does have a historic structure on the MIHP. Sending no review contact letter. Passed on the review for HDC.Property is not in a review area for the HDC. Staff did look at the plans and it is noted this garage addition is the rear of the historic structure which is preferred during normal HDC review. Sending no review contact letter.Mobile home is replacing an existing single wide close to the road and is being placed in the same vicinity. Historic resource is more than 600 ft away and this replacement will have no impact on the farm complex listed under the MIHP. Sending no review contact letter.The HDC does not review within the Town of Williamsport.The HDC does not have the ability to comment on Town Permits for historic resources. No review required.Per Meghan Jenkins HDC Review not required, attached email in documents. Task NameTask NameTask NameTask NameTask NameTask NameTask Name Historical ReviewHistorical ReviewHistorical ReviewHistorical ReviewHistorical ReviewHistorical ReviewHistorical Review 9634401 04-Aug-2117-Aug-2116-Aug-2116-Aug-2116-Aug-2117-Aug-2119-Aug-21 Status DateStatus DateStatus DateStatus DateStatus DateStatus DateStatus Date Passed - InfoPassed - InfoPassed - InfoPassed - InfoPassed - InfoPassed - InfoPassed - Info Folder StatusFolder StatusFolder StatusFolder StatusFolder StatusFolder StatusFolder Status Days in Review:Days in Review:Days in Review:Days in Review:Days in Review:Days in Review:Days in Review: Description 32117 Total ADD SECURITY BARS TO WINDOWS ON FIRST FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR, AND BASEMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGESTATE OF ROGER D. TEDRICK, PARCEL A1500 SQ. FT. POLE BUILDING TO LEFT OF DWELLING, PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES, POLE CONSTRUCTION3,748 SQ. FT. UNFINISHED TWO STORY THREE CAR GARAGE ADDITION ON CONCRETE SLAB TO EXITING DETACHED GARAGE TO INCLUDE SECOND FLOOR STORAGE AND ROUGH IN FOR FUTURE BATH AND ATTIC SPACE FOR STORAGE, FRAME CONSTRUCTION, PRE-ENGINEERED 1,976 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE DOUBLE WIDE REPLACEMENT MOBILE HOME, NO DECKS OR PORCHES, FRONT AND REAR STOOPS AS REQUIRED PER CODE, 2022 MODEL HD-80J955-LTD408 SQ. FT. DETACHED SHED ON CONCRETE SLAB TO BE UTILIZED AS A SMOKING LOUNGE FOR CUSTOMERS, FRAME CONSTRUCTION, PRE-ENGINEERED TRUSSES C&O GRILL & PUB LLC2558 SQ. FT. INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO INCLUDE ALL NEW DRYWALL AND INSULATION THOUGHT OUT DWELLING, COSMETIC UPGRADES THROUGHOUT, DEMOLISH EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND REPLACE WITH NEW 2,730 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE TWO STORY MODULAR DWELLING ON FULL UNFINISHED BASEMENT WITH EGRESS WINDOW AND ROUGH IN FOR FUTURE BATH, ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE, COVERED FRONT PORCH 32117 Location Passed - Info S-97-101 11404 TEDRICK DRIVELOR 19224 PARADISE MANOR ROADLOR 10702 HOPEWELL ROADLOR 20534 MILLERS CHURCH ROADLOR 111 N. CONOCOCHEAGUE STREETLOR 50 SAINT PAUL STREETSI-84-32 11643 DAM NUMBER 5 ROAD TotalTotalTotalTotal 26-Jul-21 11-Aug-2113-Aug-2112-Aug-2112-Aug-2117-Aug-2118-Aug-21 Date Assigned Application Number 26-Jul-21 10-Aug-2110-Aug-2112-Aug-2112-Aug-2117-Aug-2118-Aug-21 Open Date Status ReviewReviewReviewReviewReviewReview Record Approved 7 07/07/2021 thru 08/19/2021 Type Permit Permit Residential New Residential New Alteration PermitAlteration PermitAlteration Permit Residential Building Town of Boonsboro Construction PermitConstruction Permit Residential Addition-Residential Addition-Residential Addition- Town of Williamsport Non-Residential Building Record # 2021-031772021-034082021-034152021-034452021-03532 WI2021-0012BO2021-0023 Activity Count: Historic Review Activity Review Activities SummaryApplication Type Residential Addition-Alteration PermitResidential New Construction PermitTown of Boonsboro Residential Building PermitTown of Williamsport Non-Residential Building PermitTotal