Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout200108 - Minutes, Planning CommissionMINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY January 8, 2020 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Historic District Commission held a meeting on Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2001 of the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present included: Tom Clemens, Ann Aldrich, Edie Wallace, Gary Rohrer and Vernell Doyle. Also present was Staff member Jill Baker, Director and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant, Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning. Ms. Baker informed Commission members that there would be two changes to the meeting agenda. First, the informal review of the former Review and Herald Publishing site has been changed to a formal review since the applicant has filed for a demolition permit for the property located at 55 West Oak Ridge Drive. Second, is an addition under OTHER BUSINESS to discuss proposed changes to the Demolition Permit Process following a review by the Board of County Commissioners. NEW BUSINESS Demolition Permit — Doris Rankin [2019-049301 Ms. Baker presented for review and recommendation a demolition permit to remove an existing log structure located at 14535 Marsh Pike. Current pictures of the structure as well as the historic inventory sheets were provided in the agenda packets. Mrs. Rankin has informed staff that the house has fallen into a state of disrepair and has become a target for vandalism and an attractant for people as a party house. She has contacted someone in Reading, PA that would be willing to dismantle and repurpose the logs for other projects as well as the hardwood floors. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Rohrer expressed his opinion that the logs are deteriorating almost to a point they will not be salvageable if the structure is not dismantled soon. Ms. Aldrich suggested additional documentation should be obtained as a record of the structure. Ms. Doyle suggested a floor plan should be obtained as part of the record. Ms. Wallace expressed her opinion that if a structure is going to be demolished, information should be provided, such as floor plans, photos, etc. to document the structure's history within the County. Mr. Rohrer suggested that verification of the repurposing of the logs be provided as well. Motion and Vote: Ms. Wallace made a motion not to oppose the demolition, with a request that additional information providing more details of the structure (i.e. floor plan, photographs, deed records, etc.) be provided prior to demolition and verification that the logs have been salvaged and repurposed for another use be submitted to the HDC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rohrer and unanimously approved. Demotion Permit — Review & Herald Publishing [2019-049491 A demolition permit was presented for review and recommendation for property located at 55 West Oak Ridge Drive. Present at the meeting was Mr. Anthony Bergevin, representing the developer, and Mr. Taylor Davis of Morgan -Keller, Inc., the general contractor. Mr. Davis distributed recent photographs of the structures (a house and a barn) located on the property. He noted that the developer has safety concerns with regards to the barn (citing structural issues) and employees (500+) that will have access to the site on a daily basis. Mr. Bergevin stated there are also concerns regarding liability issues due to mold, toxins, asbestos and injury from these structures. The former Review & Herald building will be repurposed for a light industrial use. The property is approximately 75 acres in size with an additional 20 acres that is currently a baseball field. 1 Discussion and Comments: Mr. Rohrer asked if there are plans to re -use either of these structures. Mr. Bergevin stated there are no plans for re -use because of the deterioration of the structures and safety concerns. He noted the developer would be willing to make concessions for re -use and repurposing of any salvageable materials upon demolition of the structures. The developer would be willing to document the structures. Ms. Aldrich asked if any restoration specialists have visited the property and given estimates for rehabilitation. She also asked if the developer has checked into any grants or tax credits to have this work completed. Mr. Bergevin noted that restoration specialists have looked at the structures but the cost associated with restoration is more than the developer is able to manage at this time. The developer has not explored grants or tax credits available because the area where these structures are located is needed for development of the site. There was a brief discussion about subdividing the house and barn along with a small amount of acreage off of the parcel and rehabilitating them for re -use or selling it to someone interested in restoring these structures. Mr. Bergevin explained that operationally that would not fit in with the developer's plan. The developer would have no use for either structure. Subdividing the parcel would also create security and safety issues for the light industrial use that is proposed. Mr. Rohrer expressed his opinion that the structures could be rehabilitated but the developer feels they are simply in the way. Ms. Aldrich explained part of the history of the site and her belief that this is an integral part of the County's history. She expressed her concern that the County relies heavily on historic tourism and as historic structures are torn down, the County's economic structure is impacted. She asked for the number of historic inventoried properties in the County and how many of the properties have been lost since the 1970s when the last inventory was completed. Ms. Baker stated that the Department of Planning & Zoning has this information and she would provide it at the next meeting. Mr. Bergevin stated that the developer will be providing more than 500 jobs to the County and the revenue from that employment will be significant. He explained that operationally, these structures do not fit into the developer's plan because other requirements that must be met such as reforestation and storm water management. Because the site offers a few unique constraints, these requirements will take away valuable space needed for the development. There was a brief discussion regarding the afforestation requirements for the site. Off -site retention as well as several other options would be an additional cost to the developer. At this time, the developer is proposing to retain existing forest on site to meet afforestation requirements. Ms. Aldrich asked if the 20 acres where the baseball field is located is included in the plan. Mr. Bergevin stated that the 20 acres are included in the plan; however, the developer is not sure if the field will be removed. Ms. Doyle asked if the manmade pond would be retained. Mr. Bergevin stated that the pond currently has a leak and will be graded over for parking. Ms. Aldrich asked if the developer has considered a parking structure. The developer stated that the cost of parking structures is significantly higher than a parking lot and is not feasible at this time. Ms. Doyle asked if off -site parking has been considered. Mr. Bergevin stated that it has been considered and several sites were examined, but the options have not come to fruition. Ms. Baker explained that due to the nature of the proposed industrial use, storm water management requirements are more significant than most other plans. She stated that several of the Commission's concerns were previously discussed with the developer; however, there are time constraints to be met. Motion and Vote: Mr. Rohrer made a motion to recommend against the demolition of these two structures. The motion was seconded by Ms. Aldrich and unanimously approved. Ms. Baker stated that the Commission's opposition will be duly noted and presented to the Planning Commission for their recommendation in February. Addition/Renovation Permit (Informal Review) Ms. Baker introduced Mr. Muse from Muse Architects who is representing Laura Apelbaum, the property owner. Mr. Muse is seeking comments and recommendations from the Commission with regards to plans 2 to renovate and expand an existing house at 24812 Linden Avenue located within the Pen Mar Historic Rural Village. Mr. Muse presented several renderings of the proposed renovations to the house which was built around 1900. He gave a brief history of the structure, which has been in Ms. Apelbaum's family for three generations. An addition is proposed for a bedroom on the first floor, all original windows will be kept with storm windows added and hardy plank will be used on the exterior. Comments: Commission members commended Mr. Muse for the complete and thorough information he presented. Members were also impressed with the architect's efforts to maintain the character of the structure. Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to grant staff the authority to approve the permit contingent upon the plans being the same as presented this evening. The motion was seconded by Ms. Doyle and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS MDOT Review of Historic Impact The Maryland Department of Transportation submitted a letter outlining a proposed project for the replacement of an existing small structure [21004X0] at MD 56 over Toms Run with a single span prestressed concrete slab bridge 23 feet, 6 inches in length, and a clear roadway width of 32 feet 8 inches. The project includes resurfacing of the approach roadway immediately to the east and west, installation of a traffic barrier and construction of a grass swale. A temporary farm access road and bridge across the creek on the south side of MD 56 will be installed during construction to enable the property owner to reach crops on both sides of the creek. A detour will be required during construction and additional right-of-way will be needed. MDOT has determined that no historic properties will be affected by this project. Consensus: By consensus, the Commission supports the project as presented because there does not appear to be any negative impact on any historic structures. Discussion of Demolition Application Process Ms. Baker reported that she made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners at their January 5th meeting to discuss proposed changes to the demolition application process. Issues discussed were the 90 -day waiting period following the Planning Commission's recommendation, harsher fines for demolition without a permit, and the delay in receiving a permit in lieu of premature or illegal demolition. Ms. Baker noted that the majority of the Commissioners believe that the 90 -day waiting period is too long. Mr. Clemens clarified that the HDC was proposing a 90 -day waiting period after its recommendation, which would be a 60 -day waiting period after the Planning Commission's recommendation. There was a brief discussion regarding ways to encourage re -use and rehabilitation of historic structures and how these could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Baker noted there is an Historic Element within the Comp Plan that staff is trying to tie to economic development, land preservation and tourism within the County. There was a brief discussion about the delay in the issuance of a new permit if an historic structure is demolished. Commission members believe that there should be a delay in the issuance of a permit if a historic structure is demolished and to put a new structure in its place. This should not apply to renovations on a second structure on the same property after the historic structure is removed. There was also a brief discussion regarding the posting of signs on the property of a structure that is proposed for demolition. This would alert the public that the structure is being proposed for demolition. Ms. Baker stated she would talk to the County Attorney about this issue. 3 Ms. Aldrich asked about advertising the HDC meetings. Ms. Baker stated these meetings are posted on the County's website but she will discuss other ways to publicize the meetings with the County's Public Relations office. Commission members expressed their frustrations and beliefs that their recommendations are not being taken seriously by the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners, Ms. Baker stated she will share these concerns with both groups. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jill L. ;faker, Director 4