Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFFY 2004 CLG Annual ReportWASHINGTON COUNTY, MD CLG ANNUAL REPORT JULY 2003 - JUNE 2004 CLG ANNUAL REPORT DATA SHEET PART I: SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES Category A: Enforcement of State and Local Legislation 1. Number of cases reviewed: Approved, Denied, Appealed a. Alteration 1 b. Demolition 2 3 C. New construction 2 2. Has the commission amended its historic area zoning ordinance since the last reporting period? The Historic Preservation zone has been amended once since the last CLG report, to adjust the time and response requirements for approval of permit applications. (Current text of HP) 3. Has the commission amended its design guidelines since the last reporting period? The Commission has not amended its design guidelines since the last report. Staff has created a draft of new design guidelines to compliment the currently used Secretary of the Interiors guidelines but other priorities have prevented their completion and adoption. 4. Has the commission amended its rules of procedure since the last reporting period? No, the HDC bylaws have not been amended. 5. Has the commission amended its criteria for the designation of sites, structures and districts? No the designation criteria have not been amended. The criteria for designation are included in the text of the HP zone included to address #2 above 6. Can archaeological sites be designated under the Commission's ordinance? It is possible but has not occurred to date. 7. Number of new designations: No new HP zones have been designated. 8. Number of cases given automatic approval through expiration of time limit for review: No cases were given automatic approval due to expiration. 9. Number of projects reviewed for compliance with the local governments historic preservation laws 3 cases were reviewed and approved under the Historic Preservation zoning district. 1 was denied and still a compliance issue.(see #1 above) Category B: Qualified Preservation Review Commission 1. List of current commission members with their term expiration dates (Please identify the members on the commission that meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, noting what discipline they represent, and attach resumes for any new commissioners appointed during the reporting period.) 2. Has the Commission publicly adopted criteria for qualifying as a Commission member? Membership requirements are included in the text of the Historic Preservation zone in the zoning ordinance. They were amended in the 1990's to comply with requirements in Article 66B 3. Number of vacancies and the duration of each: There are currently no vacancies. When appointments expire the member remains until a replacement is appointed in order to prevent a vacancy of any duration. 4. Number of meetings held: 7 meetings held during this reporting period. See attached listing 5. Number of meetings attended by member: Each members' attendance is documented in minutes of each meeting. 6. Educational training attended by member: Hershey, Viar and Stinson attended annual MD Preservation conference in May '04 Category C: Survey and Inventory of Historic Properties 1. Number of survey forms produced: No additional survey forms were produced during this period. 2. Usability of survey: a. Where is it housed? Washington County's Inventory of historic properties is housed in the County Planning Department where staff to the HDC is located. Records of properties with the Historic Preservation overlay zoning district and coordination of plan review are also kept in the Planning Department. A copy of the inventory is also available in the Western Maryland Room of the Washington County Free Library. b. Is it accessible to the public? Yes, it is available to the public upon request. c. How and when is it updated? The inventory is updated when funds are available jointly from County Commissioners budget and matching CLG funding. Inventory can also be updated through property owner initiative. Historic Preservation zoning overlays are initiated by property owners and approved by the County Comnssioners through the formal rezoning process 3. Exchange and update of data: a. Does the SHPO have a duplicate of the CLG survey? Yes b. Does the CLG have a duplicate of the SHPO survey forms? Yes c. Is the SHPO informed of changes to forms or copied on updated photos? Yes Category D: Public Participation 1. How are regular meetings advertised: The HDC regular meeting date (1st wednesday of every month) is included in the adopted bylaws which are on record among the Acts, Ordinances and Resolutions in the land records of Washington County. The regular meeting date is also posted on the County's website. Parties with business before the Commission are notified of meetings by letter. a. By what media? N/A b. How many times?N/A c. How far in advance of the meeting? N/A 2. How are special meetings advertised? The HDC does not hold special meetings 3. Minutes: a. How are minutes recorded? A recording secretary attends each HDC meeting, takes notes and operates a tape recorder. Summary minutes are prepared and provided at the following meeting for adoption by the HDC. b. Are transcribed drafts circulated for corrections? There is no transcription of the taped meeting. Minutes are presented to the HDC for revision and approval. C. Who reviews and approves the minutes? Staff prepares the minutes, The HDC can revise and approve. d. Where are the corrected minutes housed? On file with other commission documents in the Planning Department. e. Are minutes available to the public? Yes 4. Notification of Commission hearing to Applicants: HDC hold public meetings not hearings. a. When are notification letters mailed? Letters are mailed as soon as practical for items that the Commission will take formal action on during a meeting (building permits in lip and RV zones, demolitions, tax credits, NR nominations) b. Where are notification letters filed? With other Commission records in the Planning Department. 5. Notification of commission decision to Applicants: a. When are notification letters mailed? As soon as practical after the action by HDC b. Where are notification letters filed? With other Commission records in the Planning Department. 6. How are the commission's rules and procedures made available to the public? They are always available upon request. Applicants for HDC approvals are provided guidelines upon application and also frequently counseled by staff. 7. Design Guidelines: a. What design guidelines does the commission use? The Secretary of the Interiors' Guidelines, Local design guidelines are under development. b. How are the guidelines made available to the public? Upon request, upon application or referral to the NPS website. Category E: Financial Assistance 1.Does the local government have a tax incentive program? YES a. What is the nature of the incentive (e.g. property tax abatement/freeze, property tax credit?) Property tax credits equal to 10% of the expenditure for restoration or preservation b. How many projects were assisted through the program? 1 tax credit application was approved during the reporting period c. What was the total investment generated by these incentives? The approved credit was based on $13,600 worth of restoration and preservation on two dwelling in the Hagerstown historic district 2. Does the local government have a local historic preservation grant or loan program? NO a. How many projects were assisted through a preservation grant? N/A b. What was the total amount of grant assistance? N/A c. How many projects were assisted through a preservation loan? N/A d. What was the total amount of loan assistance? N/A Category F: Historic Property Acquisition 1. How many historic properties were acquired in whole or in part by the local government through purchase, donation or other means? None 2. How many properties were acquired through easements? None 3. How many properties were acquired in whole? None Category G: National Register Recommendations 1. Number of nominations received: 1 nomination was received for review(Ridenour Farm) 2. Total number evaluated, rejected, approved: The 1 application was recommended for approval. 3. Number of meetings held: The NR application required review during 1 meeting. 4. Outside support solicited to meet Review Board standards, if necessary: N/A PART II: FINANCIAL SUMMARY A. Commission Funding 1. How is the commission funded? Routine Commission activities funded through small appropriation from County general fund (Staff, meeting space, office supplies, travel expenses, memberships, training) There is also a separate line item in the HDC budget for the local matching funds for the yearly CLG project 2. Does the commission have its own budget and appropriation? Yes 3. What is the commission's current budget? The 03-04 budget amount was $11,260.00 B. Audit Report Entire County budget is audited at end of each fiscal year and includes HDC budget. A separate audit of HDC budget is not performed 1. Letter indicating approximate date SHPO may anticipate receipt of audit. N/A 2. Letter verifying auditor's awareness ofAttachment P requirements. PART III: APPENDIX OF REQUIRED SOURCE DOCUMENTS Category A: 1. Copy of new ordinance, if applicable. Enclosed 2. Copy of new design guidelines, if applicable. N/A 3. Copy of new rules of procedure, if applicable. N/A 4. Copy of new designation criteria, if applicable. In ordinance 5. Maps of newly designated sites, structures, or districts, if applicable. Category B : 1.Resumes of any new commission members appointed during the year. Category D: 1. Copy of advertisement of regular meeting. N/A 2. Copies of minutes from four consecutive meetings during the reporting period. Minutes of all meetings held during reporting period included. 3. Sample of notification to applicant of commission meeting. 4. Sample of notification to applicant of commission decision. Category G: 1. Copy of one owner notification letter, if applicable. 2. Copy of one general notice, if applicable. 3. Copy of all CLG/NR Recommendation forms, if applicable. Ma yland CLG Procedures Manual (Approved September 2004) 31 Appendiv III: MHT CLG Certflcation Agreement HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS COMMISSIO&APPoINTMENT MEMBER EXPIRATION DATE Michael GehrOct. 31, 2008 Jane HersheJan. 21, 2006 Sandra Izer Dec. 21, 2004 Dec. 31, 2007 Eleanor Lakin Oct. 19, 2004 Oct. 31, 2007 Merry Stinson Oct. 19, 2004 Oct. 31, 2007 Carla Viar Oct. 19, 2004 Oct. 31, 2007 David Wiles Oct. 19, 2004 Oct. 31, 2006 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE ✓ July 2003 to June 2004 MEETING DATE MEETING HELD July 2, 2003 Yes August 6, 2003 Yes September 3, 2003 Yes October 15, 2003 Yes November 5, 2003 No December 3, 2003 No January 14, 2004 Yes February 4, 2004 No March 3, 2004 No April 7, 2004 No May 5, 2004 Yes June 2, 2004 Yes July 2004 to June 2005 July 7, 2004 No August 4, 2004 No September 1, 2004 Yes October 6, 2004 No November 3, 2004 Yes December 8, 2004 Yes January 5, 2005 No February 2, 2005 Yes March 2, 2005 - Yes April 6, 2005 Yes May 4, 2005 No June 1, 2005 Yes MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY JULY 2, 2003 A & B CALL TO ORDER AN ROLL CALL The regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by staff member Steve Goodrich at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room "A" of the Washington County Administrative Annex Building in Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present included Frank Artz, Don Corbett, Jane Hershey, and Merry Stinson. County Commissioner Dori Nipps was also present. Carla Vair, Chairman Michael Gehr, and Eleanor Lakin were absent. C. MINUTES- June 4, 2003 Steve Goodrich stated that he was unable to determine who made the final motion to adjourn. Jane Hershey stated that she made the motion to adjourn. Frank made a motion to approve the April minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Don Corbett and was unanimously approved. D. COMMUNICATIONS & BILLS- None E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Permits #2002-09083 & 09084 (Todd and Tracey Bowman, 7202 Dam # 4 Road) Steve stated that the Bowman family was contacted and unable to attend the meeting. The permits have not been issued. The Permits Department went out to the site and took pictures. The structures were built without permits, so the owner was notified that the permits were not issued and did not have the commissions approval and review. The Bowman's received notification from Paul Prodonivich that they would need Historic District Commissions review. Merry stated that the pictures of the porches look more modern than the existing home. Merry made a motion to disapprove the design according to the photographs for both decks; the design is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the build that they are attached to and is also inconsistent with Secretary Standards and Design Guidelines 6 and 9. This motion was seconded by Don Corbett and unanimously approved. F. BUDGET- None G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Demolition Permits, Westfields Steve Goodrich stated that there are twenty-one separate permit applications provided in the agenda. One complex is on the Historic Inventory and the other is not. During a previous meeting this Preliminary Consultation for Westfields (previously known as St. James Park) was discussed. The commission had made a recommendation to the developer to retain all structures at a previous meeting. Jeremy Holder was present to represent Ausherman Homes. Steve Goodrich showed the development plan. Also pictures were shown of the structures to be demolished. Two building complexes were shown one on the East Side of the property and the other on the West Side of the property. The Planning Commission brought some concerns to the developer, such as saving the three cupolas on the barn at the front complex. Jeremy Holder stated that the developer plans to incorporate these into the community center as part of the architecture, if unable to do this for any reason the developer plans to use either 2 of the 3 or 1 of the 3. The cupolas that will not be used will be donated to the agriculture museum. Mr. Holder stated that this complex has a remaining cemetery, which was documented and located years ago. The headstones are missing, so the developer agreed to fence this area and place a plague at the site. With help from George Anikus (Member of The Planning Commission) the developer plans to try to find out the names of the person(s) buried there. Mr. Holder stated that according to the Code of Maryland access to the cemetery is required; this access has been incorporated into the plans. Mr. Holder explained that the western complex is an old dairy farm with two Houses, both houses are in pretty bad shape. Mr. Holder stated that the County asked them if they would be willing to donate an elementary school site. The county needs something in the 15-17 acre range, this site exceeds that. Mr. Holder stated that this land could be used for athletic fields. This would in turn require the demolition of these buildings. If this is not a school site its HOA open space. As a developer they need to be very cognizant of the burden that they give to the Home Owner's Association. If the houses are handed to them they have to carry insurance on them, even if the homes are restored they have to maintain them. Dori stated that the reason that the County is asking for a school site is that the St. James Village area, schools is becoming over populated. School system needs another site for a school, Jane stated that there are many developments that have the old existing farmhouse right in the middle of them. Now that there's larger builders coming in, they want to tear down historical homes. Jane believes that the home in the rear complex is worth saving. Mr. Holder stated that homes are most of the time restored and saved. He does not believe that this home is unique in any way. Discussion took place if the home was recently habitable. Mr. Holder stated that according to the farmer no one has occupied the home in the past seven years. Mr. Holder stated that it's very difficult to find someone to want to restore and refurbish a home in the middle of a development of new homes. Mr. Holder stated that a demolition crew would be hired and any material savable would be saved and reused. Merry questioned the developer if they had considered reusing the barn for there recreational facilities. Mr. Holder said that is was considered, but was dismissed, due to the expensive in getting the barn up to codes that Maryland requires for public use. The road that runs parallel to route 65 has a 16' waterline and an 8' sewer line. Mr. Holder stated that there is not much flexibility in the front of the property where the lots can be placed. Frank Artz made a motion that the commission has no opposition of the demolition of the front complex as long as the stone, cupolas and the lumber is saved and reused. Seconded by Don Corbett. Merry Stinson and Jane Hershey were opposed. Merry made a recommendation to retain the front barn for future use in the development plan. Seconded by Jane Hershey. Don Corbett and Frank Artz were opposed. Jane Hershey made a recommendation to save home numbers 13 & 14 in the Rear complex, seconded by Merry Stinson. This motion was unanimously approved with a 3-1 vote with Frank Artz obstaining. 2. National Register Nominations (Distributed in Agenda to be heard at the August meeting) a. Leitersburg Historic District b. Rockledge Mr. & Mrs. Huntsburger were present concerning their property in which is proposed to be in the National Register Nominations for Historic Places. No action was taken or needed at this time. c. Donnelly House d. Kefauver Place 3. Proposed Rural Village Zoning District Steve stated that letters were being mailed to everyone in the Leitersburg Rural Zoning District. Steve stated that there is nine total Rural Villages that has already been surveyed and has a distinct rural core. Changes will also be made to the Historic Preservation Zone; these are going to be divided up into the Growth Area and the Non - Growth Area.. H. OTHER BUSINESS I. EXECUTIVE SESSION J. ADJORNMENT On a motion made by Jane Hershey, seconded by Don Corbett and approved unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY AUGUST 6, 2003 A & B CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by Chairman Michael Gehr at 7:00 p.m. on August 6, 2003 in Conference Room "A" of the Washington County Administrative Annex Building in Hagerstown, Maryland. Members presented include Frank Artz, Don Corbett, Jane Hershey, Eleanor Lakin, Merry Stenson, Carla Viar, and County Commissioner Doris Nipps. Staff member(s) Steve Goodrich and Kristin DeBold were also present. C. MINUTES Where not available for commission's review, to be distributed with next months agenda. D. COMMUNICATIONS AND BILLS -These items were for Commissions information to action was taken or needed, 1. From MHT (x6) 2. From SIIA (xl) 3. Preservation Maryland Annual Report E. UNIFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Permits #2002-09083 & 09084 (Todd and Tracey Bowman, 7202 Dam #4 Road) Steve Goodrich stated that this is a follow up to last months meeting. At the last meeting the Commission denied the drawings submitted of the rails and the balisters. The Bowman's made an offer to remove the railings. Todd Bowman is going to submit new drawings, which should be available at the next meeting. 2. Preliminary Consultation summaries (Glen Erin #2 and Mt Aetna Farms) This item was for the Commission's information no action was taken or needed. 3. Black Rock PUB- Preliminary Development Plan Steve Goodrich stated that Manny Shaool took the Commission's recommendation and incorporated the home into his plan. 4. Draft Rural Village zoning designation Steve Goodrich stated that this is a draft of Rural Business zoning designation, this would identify the Rural Villages and help to preserve and protect Rural Villages. The proposed zoning would allow smaller lot sizes. The area surrounding these rural villages are being proposed for new zoning designations such as agricultural zoning would allow 1 home per 5 acres, Environmental conservation would allow I dwelling unit per 20 acres and Preservation would allow 1 dwelling per 30 acres. The proposal is to significantly reduce the permitted density in the rural areas. In the Rural Village there will be a minimum lot size of 1 dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet, which is just under an acre, when there is no public water or sewer. When public water and sewer is available in the area it allow the lot to be as small as a'h acre. There can be multiple uses on the property such as residential and non-residential or limited commercial or what is called Rural Businesses. There will be a requirement for building permits in the rural area which will be reviewed though the Historic District Commission. The planning staff has already conducted four workshops for the public explaining the zoning changes. The planning commission is going to review all comments from the public and then a recommendation will be made to the County Commissioners. Following the recommendation a public hearing will be held which at this time any and all affected property owners will be able to make comment. The Board of County Commissioners would then either adopt or not adopt this proposal. Pat Schooley from the audience stated that the Rural Village Plan the way she read it was that the developer had to option of using the cluster. She believes that the Planning Commission should have the right to make this decision. Steve stated the Planning Commission could not allow small lot sizes due to the water and sewer issues. The clustering is not going to be available within the boundary of the Rural Village it's only available in those districts on the outside of the Agricultural zone or the Conservation Zone. Pat also believes that 1000 feet is not much of a buffer she believes that there should be a wider buffer. The Commission is to submit any written comments to Steve by the September meeting. Merry Stinson made a motion to hold a workshop meeting for the month of September at 6:00 p.m. Seconded by Carla Viar and unanimously approved. 5. National Register Nominations (Distributed during July meeting) a. Leitersburg Historic District Steve Goodrich stated that these applications are made through the Maryland Historical Trust and they in turn send them to the Historic District Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for recommendations as representatives of the local government. Commission received all four applications with last month's agenda. The Commission is to review and make a recommendation as to whether they are in favor or not in favor of these listing being placed in the National Register of Historic Places. After this decision is made, the Nominations would then go to the BOCC to get their concurrence or non - concurrence. This information would then be sent to the Maryland Historical Trust. A guidebook was available How to Apply to National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Summaries of the four criteria's was shown, Criteria "A" being, Association with an important event, Criteria "B" being, Association with Lives of Someone Important in the past, either a group of people or an individual, Criteria "C" Design construction, Criteria "D" potential criteria important to history or pre- history. All of the properties in the Leitersburg Village were sent a letter stating that if they did not wish for their properties to be included that they could send a letter to the Trust stating so. Also all landowners where told that they were welcome to attend the Commission meeting to make any comments that they may have. Leitersburg district contains multiple properties, there was a list of the contributing properties, there are 156 contributing resources, and 148 of these are buildings. This application proposes inclusion in the National Register based on meeting Criteria's A & C. Section 8-2 the summary of the statement of significance explains why this village is placed under these two Criteria's. Merry Stenson completed the application and was available for any questions from the Commission or the audience. Carla Viar questioned Steve as to whether if this is to be approved would these properties in the Leitersburg District be eligible for tax credits. Steve stated that this would make these properties eligible for state and federal tax credits. Sylvia Huntzberger from 13535 Foxfire Lane was present in the audience, she stated that she is not a current resident of Leitersburg but has some interest in the town. She presented a map dating approximately 1850's on the town of Leitersburg. The map is not dated or signed. One letter was received from Doris Hundell a resident of Leitersburg. The letter stated that She was strongly against this proposal and felt that her home did not meet Criteria's A or C. Merry Stenson stated that this property is a non-contributing property in the district. Mr. Hundell, Doris Hundell's son was present to comment on this matter. Mr. Hundell stated that the letter did not specifically say that it was in regard to the whole District of Leitersburg. Mr. Hundell expressed that this property has no historical value and did not wish for it to be included. He also stated that he was in favor of the other homes that are of some historical significance. Mr. Hundell questioned if this property is included in the district or not included in the district. Steve explained that the property is located within the boundary of the Historic District, but only the Historical Structures that are contributing are included. In turn there would be no negative effect on the non-contributing home sites or buildings. Jane Hershey made a motion to approve the Leitersburg Historic District under Criteria's "A & C". This motion was seconded by Don Corbett and unanimously approved. Michael Gehr made a request that all properties that are within the boundary lines, but are Non-contributing be notified by letter so that there will be no further confusion. Also County Commissioner Doris Nipps stated that all contributing property owners should be notified that approval has been granted by the Historic District Commission and would be heard at a later date by the Board of County Commissioners, which would be open for comment. Mr. Brinzer a resident from 21412 Leiter Street was also present. He stated that he was very supportive of the District. Made Comment to Mr. Hundell that in the beginning of the process of nominating the district there was a community meeting held at the fire hall explaining what the National Register Status means. He also stated that in the National Register changes normally does not take place, only on local Registers does any changes usually take place. Steve Goodrich stated that he would make all changes to the letter and notify the contributing and non-contributing property owners. b. Rockledge Steve Goodrich passed around pictures of this property. The statement of significance was also included in the agenda material. This property is suggesting and submitted under Criteria "C". Mrs. Huntzberger the property owner was present for any comments or questions. Eleanor Lakin made a recommendation to accept Rockledge to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria "C". Seconded by Jane Hershey and unanimously approved. c. Donnelly House Steve Goodrich passed around pictures of this property, the statement of significance was included in the agenda material. This property was submitted by the property owner for recommendation under Criteria's "A&C". Paula Reed prepared the application and was for any questions. Frank Artz made.a recommendation to nominate the Donnelly House under Criteria's "A & C". Seconded by Don Corbett and unanimously approved. d. Kefauver Place The property owner completed the application. This property is proposed for listing under Criteria(s) "A & C". Mr. Itnyre was present to answer any questions. Pictures of this property were passed around for review. Jane Hershey made a motion to accept the Kefauver Place as a listing in the National Register under Criteria(s) "A & C". Seconded by Merry Stinson and unanimously approved. F. BUDGET G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Permit #2003-06833, 20702 Old Forge Road, David and Patricia Schooley Steve Goodrich stated that a portion of this property is located in the Historic Preservation Zoning Overlay, which requires the Historic District Commissions Review. In the past the Commission reviewed an addition to this dwelling. The permit that is being proposed is for a garage. In the agenda material there was a vicinity map and a plan showing the elevations, floor plan, and crawl section. Mr. & Mrs. Schooley were present to answer any questions. Patricia Schooley stated that they are going to be using old elements. Pictures were shown of the sashes that are going to be used. Mrs. Schooley also showed pictures of where the garage would be located on the property. Merry questioned what kind of door will be used. Mrs. Schooley stated that the doors would be fiberglass with a raise panel look. In each door there will be four panels. Jane Hershey made a motion to approve the building permit as presented. Seconded by Don Corbett and unanimously approved. 2. TC-03-002 131 South Prospect Street, Ana and Christopher Yambor Steve stated that the property owners were unable to make it to the meeting. This application for property tax credits is located in the South Prospect Street historic district in Hagerstown. Before an after pictures of the roof replacement were passed around for Commission's comment and review. The home had asphalt shingles on it before and was replaced with slate luring to attempt to resemble slate. Also included in the application was repairs done to the chimney. This home was not reviewed by the City's Historic District Commission due to permits were not required for these repairs. This tax credit would be 10% of what the owner spent. The total cost of these repairs was $13,600, the credit would equal $1,360 off of the County Tax Bill. Merry made a motion to approve this tax credit based on it's in keeping with the building and was no historical changes. Seconded by Jane Hershey and unanimously approved. 3. SP -03-032, Cell Tower @ 14127 Breezy Acres Road A vicinity map was provided along with pictures showing the height and width of all three towers. All three required review of the Maryland Historical Trust, the conclusion was also provided in the communications and bills. The Trust made comment on all three cell towers that there was no negative effect on Inventoried Properties. A discussion to place explaining to Mr. Brinzer in the audience the process of reviewing cell towers. Merry made a recommendation against approval of the cell tower located at Breezy Acres Road. Seconded by Don Corbett and unanimously approved. 4. SP -03-042, Cell Tower @ Business Parkway Jane Hershey made a motion to approve the cell tower at Business Parkway. Seconded by Carla Viar and unanimously approved. S. SP -03-043, Cell Tower @ Resley Road The Historic District Commission made no comment on the Cell Tower at Resley Road. 6. RZ-03-004,11212 Mapleville Road, John and Hikka Brucksch This application is for the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone on their property. Jane Hershey made a motion to approve the Re -zoning for 11212 Mapleville Road. Seconded by Merry Stinson and unanimously approved. H. OTHER BUSINESS LEXECUTIVESESSION J. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Frank Artz, seconded by Jane Hershey and approved unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 A & B CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by Chairman Michael Gehr at 7:00 p.m. on September 3, 2003 in Conference Room "A" of the Washington County Administrative Annex Building. Members present included Frank Artz, Don Corbett, Jane Hershey, Merry Stinson, Carla Viar, and County Commissioner Doris Nipps. Steve member(s) Steve Goodrich and Kristin DeBold were also present. C. MINUTES Frank Ariz made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 2003 meeting with the amendment of Jane Hershey seconding Rockledge. This motion was seconded by Don Corbett and unanimously approved. July's minutes to be available at the next scheduled meeting. D. COMMUNICATIONS & BILLS E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Draft -Rural Village Zoning Designation Steve Goodrich stated that the Board of County Commissioners adopted the new Comprehensive Plan in August of 2002. The way of implementing those recommendations from the Comp Plan is to make far ranging changes to the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Department is currently working on changes to the Zoning Ordinance to Implement the Comp Plan. The Rural areas are the first to be reviewed. The Planning Commission is going to hold a workshop and will be proposing four new zoning districts; the Rural Villages Zoning is one of these Districts. This Rural Village Zone is designed to protect and preserve Rural Villages. Rural Villages were identified in the Comp Plan as small clusters of existing development such as Broadfording, Rhorersville, Cearfoss, Mt. Lena and everything in between. They were all already listed in the Comp Plan and a zoning category was developed to go with them designed to protect them and preserve where they exist and preserve their character and also allow for some infill development. A listing of the permitted uses was shown, in a the table of land use. In the Rural Village residential development is permitted, one and two family dwellings, and limited Rural Businesses. Some businesses allowed in Rural Villages would be Day Care, Schools, and lower intensity types of businesses. If a business is existing it will be allowed to remain there even if they are not shown on the table of permitted uses. Rural Village Designation gives the Commission more responsibility and review authority. Maps were shown of the Rural Villages with a Historic Core. Villages with the Historic Core are Villages that have been evaluated in detail by Rural Community Surveys. Exterior appearance of new construction that requires a building permits unless 100 sq. ft or less shall be subject to approval or disapproval from the Historic District Commission. When design guidelines are adopted they will be used for review. Things that can be done without a permit will still not require a building permit in a Rural Village. Jane questioned what kind of trees are to be used as a screening buffer. Mike Gehr stated that the property owner would be the one to choose the types of shrubbery. Steve stated that they are required to have an opaque screen, and this is what the Commission will be looking for. The type offence was a question also, which is also the owner's choice. Steve stated that this plan is developed to protect Rural Villages but to also please property owners. Chairman Michael Gehr stated that he at this time as no recommended changes to this document. Carla made a motion to approval the Rural Village Zoning Designation as submitted. This motion was seconded by Don Corbett and unanimously approved. F. BUDGET G. NEW BUSINESS H. OTHER BUSINESS Merry Stinson made comment on the demolition permit process for Anne Arundel County. The current demolition permit process is now based on a policy that the BOCC adopted in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan recommended that the policy be strengthened, it did not state specifically how it would be done. Steve stated that the inventory is incomplete, and the descriptions are not all completed. There are going to be changes in the text of the preservation zone they will be incorporated into the review. of Rural Village's. Merry stated that Anne Arundel County's demolition permits are reviewed under the building code. No further action was taken or needed at this time. I.EXECUTIVE SESSSION J. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Jane Hershey, seconded by Don Corbett and approved unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted Stephen T. Goodrich Chief Senior Planner MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY OCTOBER 15, 2003 A & B CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. The regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by Chairman Michael Gehr at 7:00 p.m. on October 15, 2003 in Conference Room "A" of the Washington County Administrative Annex Building. Members present included Frank Artz, Jane Hershey, Eleanor Lakin, Merry Stinson, and County Commissioner Doris Nipps. Staff members Steve Goodrich and Kristin DeBold were also present. C. MINUTES Frank Artz made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 2003 meeting with the inclusion of Merry abstaining on the Draft -Rural Village Zoning Designation, and with the change of spelling of Rhorersville. This motion was seconded by Merry Stinson and unanimously approved. D. COMMUNICATIONS & BILLS 1. CLG Evaluation Included in the agenda material was a letter from the State of Maryland on Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development letterhead. Every year Steve has to submit an annual report on the Commissions activities. Every couple years the state evaluates the Commission's performance based on those Annual Reports, this correspondence is the evaluation for the past year. There was one item that stated when making motions during Commission meetings it is important that the Commissioners specifically site the County's design guidelines or Staff Report to demonstrate that their decision is based on publicly adopted criteria. Steve states that this is just a reminder, overall the evaluation sheet is good. Merry Stinson questioned if a training session was needed. Steve stated that there is one training session per year required. In the Annual Report it is documented what members have attended these sessions and who has not. The Commission questioned if they could get together with one of the other HDC's. Michael Gehr stated that the Commission has not had much experience in dealing with houses being dismantled and relocated on another site. Merry asked for Steve to contact Scott Whipple about getting together with Frederick County to see what would qualify as training. 2. FORUM NEWS- For Commissions Information no action was taken or needed. 3. Preservation magazine- For Commissions Information no action was taken or needed. 4. SHA-I81 improvements Letter from the SHA was included in the agenda material. A list of sites, structures as well as Archeological sites and the status of each property were shown. Majority is determined by the SHA as being not eligible for the Register. For Commission's information no action was taken or needed at this time. ` E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Permits #2002-09083 & 09084 (Todd and Tracey Bowman, 7202 Dam #4 Road) A letter to the Bowman's was included in the agenda material. This letter basically states that this is their last chance to provide the Commission with drawings before it turned over to the States Attorney's Office as a violation. No action was taken at this time. F. Budget -none G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Demolition Permit #2003.08404, 22128 Jugtown Road Steve stated that the applicants are planning to build a new home, it is not their desire to expand it where it is now. The current building violates the set backs, it was an existing building when the lot was created. A permit has already been an applied for, for a new home. The home is currently being occupied. Merry made comment that there is not reason that the home should be removed if it is in livable condition. Merry made a recommendation against the demolition of the existing structure; Jane Hershey seconded this motion. With Eleanor Lakin and Frank Artz obstaining. Michael Gehr made comment that he would like to see the home be further documented with recent pictures. 2. Demolition Permit #2003-08744, 3325 Kaetzel Road A copy of the building permit, pictures of the home, and a site map was included in the agenda material. Steve stated that Mr. & Mrs. Beeler are the property owners and Mr. & Mrs. Thompson are the applicants for the demolition permit. The Thompson's were present to answer any questions from the Commission. Eleanor questioned why the owners want to remove the home. Mr. Thompson stated that it is a liability and an obtrusive structure that blocks the Beeler's view, the home is in disrepair and the Beeler's do not wish to repair it. What the Thompson's are proposing is that they dismantle the home and move it to a different location and put it back up. The Thompson's are located in Wayneboro, and they plan to move the home and use it as an Antique shop. Merry stated that she rather see the home remain on the site due to the existing farmstead and the outbuildings. Merry also stated that the home as been for sale recently. Mr. Thompson stated that the Beeler's to do not wish to sell the home she wants to see it be removed. Mr. Thompson stated that he does have experience in dismantling homes, using the number system. Mr. Thompson plans to prefabricate the home with log and reclaimed tin roof. Eleanor Lakin recommended approval of the home being dismantled and reconstructed on another site, this motion was seconded by Frank Artz. Jane Hershey and Merry Stinson said no. Chairman Michael Gehr stated for the record having the house in it's original location would be justified and preferred, having the house dismantled and reconstructed in a different location is more exeptable, rather than having the owner board up the house, Michael Gehr voted in favor of the motion. 3-2 vote 3. DRAFT Land Preservation and Recreation Plan Steve stated that this plan is updated every five years, which is a requirement by the state. There's a public hearing and eventually the County Commissioners adoption. The County has a goal to provide 15 acres of parkland per thousand of people in the County. The goal is currently being met. Jane Hershey pointed out that on Page 75 Mr. Doub's last name was misspelled. So that the Commission can further review the plan comment will be taken at the next meeting. H. OTHER BUSINESS Further discussion took place on the Draft -Rural Village Zoning Designation. Jane Hershey questioned the development around the villages. Steve stated that the zone has a prevision that allows clustering of development around the Rural Villages. The Rural Village zone gives the Planning Commission the authority to say where those clustered lots can be located on that Parcel, The proposal was to try to keep the small lots and the dense development together. Steve stated that the Comment period is open until October 22, Steve also told the Commission if they are not in favor of this proposal they could send in one Comment sheet, or if individuals are not in favor separate Comment sheets could be sent in. Merry Stinson stated that none of the Historic Uses for which the village was created are allowed anymore. Such as Bed and Breakfasts and Carpentry shops the village would become only a residential community. Steve stated that it is not only a residential community. There's always the option to apply for the Rural Business zone in the Rural Village, which would allow some of these uses. Commissioner Nipps stated that if the Commission would like the County Commissioners and the Planning Commission to look at these uses it could be put in as comment. In this comment they could include what would normally be found in Rural Villages such as Carpentry shops and Bed and Breakfast. By request of Jane Hershey, George Anikis, Planning Commission member was present. Mr. Anikis stated his concern is not with the Rural Businesses but with the Rural Village concept. The concept was not set up to protect Rural Villages. The Rural village concept was set up to identify those areas without water and sewer that were primarily early 19'' Century homes. Mr. Anikis stated that in Tilghmanton for example there is currently a 37 -acre and 10 -acre lot for sale, so according to the definition you could put 47 more homes in the Village of Tilghmanton. This will be able to occur because the county has said that they are going to allow 1 acre lots in Rural Villages. Mr. Anikis concern is that you can only build so many homes until you run out of water, many of these homes are on shallow wells already. Mr. Anikis stated that at least one neighbor has had to put in a new well already. Merry made a recommendation that a letter be sent to the Planning Commission and the BOCC to further review the Land Use table, including Bed and Breakfasts and Carpentry shops in a Rural Business designation. Seconded by Eleanor Lakin and unanimously approved. EXECUTIVE SESSION J. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Jane Hershey, seconded by Merry Stinson and approved unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY JANUARY 14, 2004 A and B: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by Interim Planning Director Stephen Goodrich on January 14, 2004 in Conference Room #2 of the Washington County Administrative Annex Building. Members present included Merry Stinson, Jane Hershey, Don Corbett, and Carla Viar. Also present was County Commissioner Dori Nipps. Members not in attendance were Michael Gehr, Eleanor Lakin and Frank Artz. C. MINUTES There were no minutes available from the November meeting. D. COMMUNICATIONS AND BILLS 1. MD SEA MD 68 over.Conococheague Creek The State Highway Administration has sent notification to the Maryland Historical Trust that they believe the bridge project over Maryland 68 over the Conococheague Creek will have no adverse effect on historic properties. SHA will be repairing the entire length of the longitudinal joint on the spandral side of the bridge. They will be embedding anchors into the deck and repointing the stone masonry along the span of the walls. There will be no negative effects on the bridge. The SHA will have the burden of preserving the historic resource. The work is required to preserve and extend the useful life of the structure and will be done in accordance with the Secretary of the Interiors' Standards. A motion was made by Carla Viar to concur to the SHA's notification. The motion was seconded by Jahe Hershey and unanimously passed. E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None F. BUDGET —None G. NEW BUSINESS FFY 2004 CLG Project: The deadline for filing an application is January 31, 2004. A recommendation from Stephen Goodrich for the FFY 2004 project is to continue the work on the Rural Communities Survey which was started several years ago. This survey develops a history of a particular village, surveys the village and identifies all of the historical contributing factors in the village. This would be a good way to keep the survey going and eventually complete a survey for all communities in Washington County. In the past, the cost for this project was approximately $28,500. The Maryland Historical Trust contributed $15,000; the County contributed $10,000 and the remainder of the funds came from in -kind contributions. Mr. Goodrich. proposed to keep the amount of monies needed for the project the samein the UDC budget. A motion was made by Merry Stinson to submit an application for the CLG project to include the communities of Brownsville, Downsville, Bakersvile, Mt. Lena, Gapland and Garretts Mill. This motion was seconded by Jane Hershey and unanimously passed. 2. PC -03-012 Powers/Smithsburg Development Corporation After reviewing the concept plan for the Powers/Smithsburg Development Corporation, there are no historic inventory structures on the property. There are no structures at all on the property with the exception of a small shed. This property is proposed for single-family development with 118 lots with public water and sewer on the edge of the growth area. The growth area was extended to include the site. After discussion, there were no objections and/or recommendations. H. OTHER BUSINESS — None I. EXECUTIVE SESSION J. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Merry Stinson, seconded by Jane Hershey and approved unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Res ctfully bmittedd,, (J Stephen T. Goodrich Interim Planning Director MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY MAY 5, 2004 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 May 5, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room #IA of the Washington County Administrative Annex Building. Members present included Frank Artz, Jane Hershey, Don Corbett, and Merry Stinson, County Commissioner Dori Nipps was also present. Also in attendance were staff members Steve Goodrich and Debra Eckard. Members not present were Eleanor Lakin and Carla Viar. C. MINUTES The minutes from the January 14, 2004 meeting were presented. A motion was made by Frank Artz to approve the minutes as presented and seconded by Don Corbett. The minutes were unanimously approved without any further discussion or corrections. No minutes from the November 3, 2003 meeting were available at this time. D. COMMUNICATIONS AND BILLS 1. SHA - Statewide Reforestation: All members received a copy of the Statewide Reforestation project which explains the State's efforts to reforest areas along the interstates. The State finds that there will be no negative effect to any historic properties. Within the documentation, there is a page available for members of the Commission to present their comments. There was no concensus or vote to return comments to the S.H.A. 2. Lamb's Knoll— The materials presented were a revision to a previous determination and are for informational purposes only. E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There is rib unfinished business at this time. F. BUDGET There are no budget items to discuss at this time. G. NEW BUSINESS Demolition Permit #2004-02583, 6633 Old National Pike, Todd Easterday: Mr. Todd Easterday has applied for a demolition permit for the property located at 6633 Old National Pike, Boonsboro, which is located close to the intersection of Maryland Route 67 and Maryland Route 40 (copies of the permit application, location map and pictures from the inventory form were presented by Steve Goodrich). Steve reported that the house looks very similar as that pictured; however, some of the white lap siding has fallen off one side of the house and a layer of asphalt siding that looks like brick is underneath. Mr. Easterday, his attorney Mr. Nairn, and Mr. Johnnie Pryor were present and provided testimony as to the condition of the house in question. Mr. Nairn submitted photographs that were taken earlier in the evening prior to the meeting. Mr. Nairn asked Mr. Easterday to describe the overall condition of the property. Mr. Easterday stated that the house is in serious disrepair, the house has shifted on the foundation, the foundation has crumbled severely, the basement has standing water inside due to the house being built within a floodplain area, the floor joists have been weakened due to insect infestation, the rafters are cracked and leaking, the roof is completely off the back of the house and is covered by a tarp to keep the water out. Mr. Easterday also stated he has hired Triad Engineering to submit a structural evaluation of the house. Triad Engineering hired a consultant, Kurt Cushwa, for the study; however, Mr. Easterday did not have a copy of the findings from Triad Engineering or a representative present at the meeting. He also presented a letter from Nationwide Insurance denying insurance coverage of the house due to its present condition. Merry Stinson questioned Mr. Easterday as to any title search work that has been performed on the property. Mr. Easterday stated that he has traced the title to the property through wills and estates back to the early 1800's. He believes the house was built around 1900 and was documented in the register of wills as an asset of the Lepold estate in 1902. Merry Stinson expressed concern that the Historic District Commission was asked to offer an opinion in the significance of the structure proposed for demolition without sufficient information to determine its importance. It was her opinion as an architectural historian that the structure could be older than Mr. Easterday stated which could give it greater significance. She said she couldn't tell from the information provided if the structure was log or frame, either having significance. She believed the building would date to the early 1800's and is located in an important position along the National Road. Michael Gehr asked Steve Goodrich if the house was fixed, could a use and occupancy permit be obtained for the house since it does sit within a floodplain? Steve stated that there is a limit as to how much you can improve a building that is located in the floodplain unless it is considered historic. Historic buildings are exempt as long as the improvements do not make it unhistoric. In compliance with the Floodplain Management Ordinance, the County does not encourage people to rehab buildings in the floodplain because of flood waters. Michael Gehr stated that if the house is demolished, the Historic Commission would like Mr. Easterday to thoroughly document the house, including photographic documentation. Merry Stinson made the motion to oppose the demolition of the structure based on its important location along the National Road, the lack of documentation of its construction date or material, and the potential for the structure to be significant due to its early construction date. The motion was seconded by Jane Hershey. Merry Stinson, Jane Hershey, and Don Corbett voted in favor of the motion, Frank Artz abstained, and there was no opposition to the motion. Steve Goodrich will now take this demolition permit before the Planning Commission on June 2o° 2. Permit #2004-02223 — Sharpsburg Elementary School: Steve Goodrich presented information concerning the construction of a sign at the Sharpsburg Elementary School entrance (copies of the application, location map and a drawing showing the proposed sign were distributed to each member). The sign would be 60" wide and 50" high, wooden painted posts, painted sign and a changeable copy box. Zoning for this property is RR — Rural Residential and setbacks are 25'. A motion was made by Jane Hershey to approve the sign. The motion was seconded by Merry Stinson. Motion was passed by unanimous vote. H. OTHER BUSINESS Steve Goodrich presented a proposed design for the guidelines being prepared with funding from the CLG program for this year. The project will not be on the same time schedule as proposed before; however, it will be completed by the end of the fiscal year. Steve will be completing most of the project himself; however, he will need to have a consultant to help with the county architectural history to be included in the project. He does feel that he will be able to have this item completed below the budgeted amount. Steve submitted an outline for the main subjects to be covered under the guidelines, a sample of a glossary for the Commission to review and ask for the Commission members' input on information from other ordinances concerning ordinary maintenance and replacement issues. I. EXECUTIVE SESSION There were no items to discuss at this time. J. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Jane Hershey, seconded by Don Corbett and approved unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully s ttedr� Stephen T. Goodrich Interim Planning Director STG/dse MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY JUNE 2, 2004 A and B: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Due to the absence of Chairman Michael Gehr, the regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by staff member Steve Goodrich on Wednesday, June 2, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room 1A of the Washington County Administrative Annex Building. Members present included Frank Artz, Don Corbett, Jane Hershey, Eleanor Lakin, Merry Stinson and Carla Viar. Also present was Dori Nipps, County Commissioner and staff member Debra Eckard. C. MINUTES The minutes from the May 5, 2004 meeting were presented. A motion was made by Frank Artz to approve the minutes as presented and seconded by Jane Hershey. The minutes were unanimously approved without any corrections. D. COMMUNICATION AND BILLS —None E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinary Maintenance and Definitions Steve Goodrich asked for comments and suggestions for the Ordinary Maintenance and Definitions articles that will be incorporated into the Washington County Historic District Guidelines. An outline and glossary was distributed at the May 5th meeting. No comments or suggestions were forthcoming at this time. This item will be discussed again at the July 7t° meeting. F. BUDGET There are no budget items to discuss at this time. G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Proposed Telecommunication Tower (Hagerstown Fairgrounds) Steve Goodrich presented a letter, photographs and maps from BL Companies for a proposed telecommunications tower to be constructed at the City of Hagerstown Fairgrounds Park which is located within the Hagerstown City limits. BL Companies asked for comments regarding the project's potential adverse effects on this and surrounding historic properties. After review and a discussion of the documentation, Eleanor Lakin made a motion to recommend that the Historic District Commission's comment is that this is an inappropriate site for a cell tower due to its location in the middle of an historic community park and within the viewshed of three historic districts. The motion was seconded by Merry Stinson. Motion was passed by unanimous vote.. County Commissioner Dori Nipps suggested that copies of the recommendation be sent to the Hagerstown City Council and the Hagerstown Historic District Commission. 2. Demolition Permit #2004-04595 Steve Goodrich presented a demolition permit for property located at 17042 Castle Hill Road, A map showing the location of the property, a house location survey and an Inventory Form for State Historic Sites Survey from the Maryland Historical Trust were also presented. Owners of the property, Mr. Brian Hamilton and Ms. Christi Geisbert were present at the meeting and presented photographs of the structure (a 40'x 80' barn) proposed for demolition. Mr. Hamilton stated that he has several years of experience in the construction field and has worked on many historical preservation projects in the City of Frederick. The owners purchased the property in February with the intent of restoring the barn, which is dated 1904, to use for their horses. After further inspection of the barn, Mr. Hamilton found that the 10' x 10' beams that hold up the peaks of the roof are completely broken in half and the main supports to hold the rafters in place are completely rotted. The owners are concerned with safety issues since the barn is located in close proximity to the road and also because they have six children. The owners are planning to keep the 40' x 40' wagon shed portion of the barn and intend to use lumber from the existing barn in their restoration efforts to save some of the integrity and historical value of the remaining barn. Carla Viar made the motion not to oppose the demolition since neglect and damage to the structure is beyond a reasonable effort to restore and because of the owner's attempts to document the historical value of the structure and to reuse lumber to restore the remaining portion. The motion was seconded by Jane Hershey. Those in favor of the motion were Frank Artz, Don Corbett, and Eleanor Lakin. Merry Stinson was opposed to the motion. Motion carried. Steve Goodrich will forward the recommendation to the Washington County Permits Department. H. OTHER BUSINESS — None I. EXECUTIVE SESSION There were no items to discuss at this time. J. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Jane Hershey, seconded by Carla Viar and approved unanimously, the meeting was adj oumed at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully s 'tted, Steph T. Goodrich Chief Senior Planner STG/dse June 18, 2003 RE: LEITERSBURG HISTORIC DISTRICT National Register Nomination Dear Leitersburg Property Owner : The Washington County Historic District Commission will consider the above referenced property for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places on August 6, 2003. The National Register is the Federal Government=s official list of properties considered worthy of recognition for their significance in American history and culture. Listing in the National Register confers certain benefits which are outlined on the attached list. The meeting will be held at 7:00 pm in Conference Room 1A in the Washington County Administration Annex located at 80 West Baltimore Street in Hagerstown. You are invited and welcome to attend and comment. Should you wish to submit written comments at this time, please address your comments to Michael Gehr, Chairman, Washington County Historic District Commission, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740. Washington County is certified by the Maryland Historical Trust and the National Park Service to participate in the National Register nomination process. In its role as a Certified Local Government, Washington County is charged with evaluating the National Register eligibility of the resource. The Historic District Commission and the County Commissioners will make recommendations to the Maryland Historical Trust which administers the National Register program as the State Historic Preservation Officer for Maryland. If both the Historic District Commission and the County Commissioners oppose the nomination, the process will stop unless an appeal is filed with the keeper of the National Register, National Park Service. If either of these recommends nomination, the nomination process will continue. A copy of the effects of listing and the criteria used for evaluation are enclosed. If you have questions or want a copy of the nomination documentation, please contact me at 240-313-2430. For further information on the National Register, the nomination process, effects of listing, and the owner=s right to comment or object, please contact the National Register Administrator at the Maryland Historical Trust, 100 Community Place, Crownsville, MD 21032, 410- 514-7649. Sincerely, Stephen T. Goodrich Chief Senior Planner Enclosures STG/me cc: Peter Kurtze Merry Stinson July 9, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Todd A Bowman 15910 Cheney's Neck Lane Sharpsburg, MD 21782 RE: Permits # 2002-09083 for a 3' x 5' open deck # 2002-09084 for a 4' x 4' open deck Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bowman: The Historic District Coimission completed its review of the above referenced permits during its meeting on July 2, 2003. I regret to inform you that the applications were disapproved. The Historic District Commission concluded after reviewing photographs of the completed construction that the design of the decks and stairs, with specific mention of the handrail design and baluster design and placement, is inconsistent and inappropriate for the existing historic structure that they are attached to. The authority for this action is contained in Section 20.6(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. The HDC cited its adopted design guidelines, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as the basis for the denial and noted Standards # 6 and 9 specifically. Standard #6 states: "Deteriorated historic features. will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of the deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence." There was no information provided for the Commission to be able to determine if any of the design, color, texture or materials matched the original. Standard #9 states: "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment." Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Todd A. Bowman July 9, 2003 Page 2 As noted in Paul Prodonovich's June 9 letter to you , you have the right to appeal this decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals within 30 days of the date of this letter. Please contact the Department of Permits and Inspections for guidelines on filing an appeal. As an alternative to an appeal, Section 20.6(d)3 of the Historic Preservation zone in the Zoning Ordinance states that "Nothing shall prevent the applicant from modifying the permit application to address suggestions made by the Commission to meet the purpose of ..." Article 20. If you would care to meet with the Commission to discuss suggestions for revision to the application please let me know so that I can scheduled it on the agenda. Sincerely, Stephen T. Goodrich Chief Planner Attachment HDC/stg/me CC: Robert Arch MEMORANDUM TO Department of Permits and Inspections FROM Historic District Commission (HDC) DATE July 8, 2003 SUBJECT Permits # 2002-09083 for a 3' x 5' open deck # 2002-09084 for a 4' x 4' open deck The Historic District Commission completed its review of the above referenced permits during its meeting on July 2, 2003. The applications were disapproved. The applicant did not provide the additional design drawings that the HDC requested during the January 2003 meeting. The applicant was aware of but not in attendance at the July 2 meeting. The Historic District Commission concluded after reviewing photographs of the completed construction provided by your department that the design of the decks and stairs, with specific mention of the handrail design and baluster design and placement, is inconsistent and inappropriate for the architectural features of the existing historic structure that they are attached to.The authority for this action is contained in Section 20.6(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. The HDC cited its adopted design guidelines, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as the basis for the denial and noted Standards # 6 and 9 specifically. Standard #6 states: " Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of the deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence." There was no information provided for the Commission to be able to determine if any of the design, color, texture or materials matched the original. Standard #9 states: "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new. work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment." Please contact Steve Goodrich in the Planning Department if there are questions regarding this action. HDC/stg/me Cc: Robert Arch, Director, Planning and Community Development Todd and Tracey Bowman CERTIFIED MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST LOCAL GOVERNMENT/NATIONAL REGISTER RECOMMENDATION FORM Property Name Leitersburg Historic District Location Leitersburg, Maryland County Washington County, Maryland CLG Name Washington County Historic District Commission HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION xxx Nomination recommended - Nomination not recommended Please check the applicable National Register criteria and/or considerations (exceptions) used in decision: criteria: ✓ A B ✓ CD considerations: ABCDEFG Justification of decision: (use continuation sheet if necessary) The Leitersburg Historic District is recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The village contributes to the broad patterns of local history by playing a significant role in the settlement and commercial and agricultural development of Washington County. Located at the intersection of two regional transportation arteries since 1807, the, town developed and prospered serving travelers through the region and was a central location for the exchange of goods from the various rural production activities. This qualifies it for listing under Criteria A. The district also qualifies for listing under Criteria C for its variety of building types and styles. There are small and large examples of log, stone, brick and frame construction in Federal, Victorian and Foursquare styles. Michael Gehr, Chairman Washington County Historic District Commission name of commission CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION xx I concur with the opinion of the historic preservation review commission. I do not concur with the opinion of the historic preservation review commission. 0.4 (Please` Justify disagreement on a separate sheet.) Gregory I. Snook, President 11. 2003 Board of County Commissioners for Washington County title MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT/NATIONAL REGISTER RECOMMENDATION FORM Property Name The Kefauver Place Location 20515 Park Hall Road Rbhrersville, Maryland 21779 County Washington County, Maryland CLG Name Washington County Historic District Commission HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION xxX Nomination recommended Nomination not recommended Please check the applicable National Register criteria and/or considerations (exceptions) used in decision: criteria:��A_B ✓C_D considerations: ABCDEFG Justification of decision: (use continuation sheet if necessary) The Kefauver Place is a modest farmstead of the of the Appalachian region and represents the changes over time in the development of a typical subsistence farm. It contains a variety of construction including log, frame, brick and stone structures. Through its reflection of lifestyle and the actual physical structures the site and buildings qualify the Kefauver Place for the National Register under Criteria A and C. Michael Gehr, Chairman. August 11, 2 Washington County Historic District Commission name of commission • CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION XX I concur with the opinion of the historic preservation review commission. I do not concur with the opinion of the historic preservation review commission. (Please justify disagreement o9,a separate sheet.) I. Snook, President Board of County Commissioners for Washington County title MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT/NATIONAL REGISTER RECOMMENDATION FORM Property Name Rockledge. Location 13535 Foxfire Lane Hagerstown, Maryland 21742 County Washington County, Maryland CLG Name Washington County Historic District Commission HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION xxx Nomination recommended Nomination not recommended Please check the applicable National Register criteria and/or considerations (exceptions) used In decision: criteria: A B ✓C _D considerations:A BCDEF_G Justification of decision: (use continuation sheet If necessary) Rockledge is recommended for National Register listing as an intact and representative example of the stone building tradition in Washington County and vernacular style of the early 19°h century. It qualifies under Criteria C because of those distinctive characteristics and retains the integrity of its rural setting. Michael Gehr, Chairman. August 11, 2003 Washington County Historic District Commission name of commission CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION xx I concur with the opinionof•the historic preservation review commission. I do not concur with the opinion of the historic preservation review commission, (Please Justify disagreement on a separate sheet.) i1 n A Gregory I. Snook, President Board of County Commissioners for Washington County title MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT/NATIONAL REGISTER RECOMMENDATION FORM Property Name Daniel Donnelly• House Location 14906 Falling Waters Road, Williamsport, Maryland 21795 County Washington County, Maryland CLG Name Washington County Historic District Commission HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION xxx Nomination recommended Nomination not recommended Please check the applicable National Register criteria and/or considerations (exceptions) used In decision: criteria: ✓ A B ✓C_D considerations: _A_B_C_D_E_F G Justification of decision: (use continuation sheet if necessary) The Daniel Donnelly house is recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, qualifying under Criteria A and C. The house and surrounding land were at the center of the Civil War's Falling Waters battle occurring along Lee's retreat from Gettysburg on July 13 and 14, 1863. The War's effect on local and national history is undeniable. The house also qualifies under Criteria C for it remaining distinctive construction features, original hardware and woodwork and its interpretation of a 19th century farmhouse with Greek and Federal stylistic influences, Michael Gehr, Chairman. A gust 11, 2003 Washington County Historic District Commission name of commission CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION xx I concur with the opinion of the historic preservation review commission. I do not concur with the opinion of the historic preservation review commission. 51 (Please`justlfy disagreement on a separate sheet.) Gregory I. Snook, President Rnard of County Commissioners for Washington County title