HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 12-21-2022_revGregory Smith, Chair Vernell Doyle
Lloyd Yavener, Vice Chair Michael Lushbaugh
Ann Aldrich Kourtney Lowery
Brianna Candelaria Jeffrey A. Cline, BOCC Rep HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OFWASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1
AGENDA
January 4, 2023, 7:00 p.m.
Washington County Administration Complex, 100 West Washington Street, Room 1301, Hagerstown, MD 21740
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
MINUTES
1.Minutes of the November 2, 2022 meeting *
NEW BUSINESS
1. 2022-06007, Antietam Vineyards - 4835 Branch Avenue * (Discussion/Action) - 16 sq. ft.
non-illuminated free-standing sign to read “Antietam Creek Vineyards” and “Hours,
Wed, Thurs, Fri: 12:00 – 6:00, Sat, Sun: 9:00 – 6:00” Antietam Creek Vineyards (Antietam
Overlay 1)
2. 2022-06097, Demolition Permit – 18209 Showalter Road * (Discussion/Support) -
Demolition of 1,798 sq. ft. two story single family dwelling including foundation and two
storage sheds (WA-I-865)
3.MD 56 over Green Spring Run Remedial Repair to Small Structure No.21187X0 *
(Discussion/Consensus)
OLD BUSINESS
1.Historic Property Incentives Ordinance (DRAFT) – (Discussion/Consensus) - For review
and comment on the concepts and programs presented. Resuming discussions at
Section 5 – Historic Property Grant Program
OTHER BUSINESS
1.Staff Report
a.Staff Reviews *
b.Professional Organization Outreach (Realtors/Builders)
2.Non-Capital Grant Opportunities through MHT – (Discussion) - Virtual Roadshow
review (https://mht.maryland.gov/roadshow.shtml)
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING MEETING
1.Wednesday, February 1, 2023, 7:00 p.m.
*attachments
The Historic District Commission reserves the right to vary the order in which the cases are called. Individuals
requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Washington County Planning Department at 240-
313-2430 to make arrangements no later than ten (10) days prior to the meeting. Notice is given that the agenda
may be amended at any time up to and including the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY November 2, 2022
The Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday,
November 2, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administration Complex, 100 W Washington
Street, Room 2001, Hagerstown, MD.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commission members present were: Greg Smith, Chairman, Lloyd Yavener, Vernell Doyle, Michael
Lushbaugh, Kourtney Lowery, Ann Aldrich and Brianna Candelaria (arrived at 7:10 pm). Staff members
present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator
and HDC Staff member.
MINUTES
Motion: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 5, 2022 meeting as presented.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Yavener and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Permit 2022-05384
Ms. Jenkins presented a construction permit application for a 1,848 sq. ft. finished one-story modular
dwelling on a full unfinished basement with a covered front porch and an open rear porch. The property
is located at the corner of Maryland Avenue and Chestnut Avenue in the Pen Mar Rural Village and was
part of the original Crout’s Hotel. The site was the subject of a zoning appeal in January 2022 (AP2022-
002) for the proposed use of a Bed and Breakfast within a single-family dwelling. The zoning appeal was
granted. Ms. Jenkins presented drawings showing the color and trim proposed for the dwelling. She noted
that the site does not contain any existing historic resources. Architectural styles in the Rural Village vary
as do the setbacks; the proposed construction is consistent with styles and setbacks nearby.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to recommend support of the approval of Permit 2022-
05384 based on the proposed construction’s consistency with the County’s Design Guidelines for Historic
Structures, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and Section 5D.5 Architectural
Review as listed in the County’s Zoning Ordinance based on details provided in the Staff Analysis of the
project. Her motion also included granting staff the authority to approve any future permit for the rear
deck contingent upon the proposed deck being comparable in size as displayed on the current plan and
the railing and trim are consistent with the side porch as shown on the current plan. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Doyle and unanimously approved.
Permit 2022-0679 – 18840 Sandyhook Road
Ms. Jenkins presented a permit application for the construction of a 725 sq. ft. wrap-around deck addition
to a newly constructed 1,120 sq. ft. single-family dwelling at 18840 Sandyhook Road. The property is
located in the Sandy Hook Rural Village.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Yavener made a motion to recommend support of approval of the addition
alteration/porch-deck-slab permit 2022-05464, due to the proposed construction’s consistency with the
County’s Design Guidelines for Historic Structures, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation,
and Section 5D.5 Architectural Review as listed in the County’s Zoning Ordinance based on details
provided in the Staff Analysis of this project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lushbaugh and
unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Historic Property Incentives Ordinance Draft
Members began a review of the draft of the Historic Property Incentives Ordinance. This draft has been
sent to the County Treasurer’s Office for review and comment. After the Commission completes its
review, the Draft will be sent to other County agencies such as the County Attorney’s Office. Review began
with the Recitals section. There was discussion regarding the language in this section. Ms. Aldrich
expressed her opinion that the language should be changed in order to include all historic properties
recognized in the County, not just those in designated zones. Ms. Jenkins noted that being on the MIHP is
not enough because this is not regulatory. The structures need to be in areas where the HDC has review
authority, such as a Rural Village, Historic Preservation zone, or the future overlay area. There is also a
large gap in the MIHP inventory through the years and some of the structures are not documented in
enough detail. Members suggested removing the word “specified” from the title of the document if it is
not legally required.
In reviewing the Purpose Section, Ms. Aldrich suggested identifying the MIHP in the Purpose statement
for clarity to include a broader number of structures. Again, remove the word “specified”. Expand the
definition of “ordinary maintenance”.
The review moved on to the Historic Preservation Areas. Ms. Jenkins noted the Establishment of a Historic
Preservation Area. This is a new program which would be modeled after the County’s Ag Preservation
program. This would be a voluntary program for owners to receive tax credits and would not apply in
municipalities because the HDC does not have review authority in those areas. Review authority in the
municipalities could be changed in the future. Ms. Jenkins gave a brief overview of the differences
between the Historic Preservation Areas and the Historic Preservation overlay zone.
Upon reviewing Section 3.02 Procedures for Historic Preservation Areas, it was suggested that language
be added to include a public hearing process in Section 3.02c if the Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Section 3.04 - Should the term building permit be included in the Definitions? Possibly change to just say
“permit”. Section 3.04(g) the word “shall” should be changed to “may”. Mr. Yavener suggested this change
in case there would be some egregious issues encountered.
Section 3.05 – Outbuildings should be included in the list of structures for review.
Section 3.08c – second line replace the word “will” with “shall” and add reimburse the County for all the
property taxes….. (Change 308d to reflect the same change)
Section 3.09 – Ms. Jenkins explained there are levels of agreement to include no demolition of structures
or alterations of the exterior of structures. Members suggested a specified percentage for each section
3.09a and 3.09b. There will be a tax credit limit of $3,000 per year.
Section 3.10 – Ms. Jenkins has asked the County Attorney’s Office regarding multiple tax credits on a
property.
Additional comments and changes were noted by Ms. Jenkins using track changes in the document.
Members should send their corrections and other comments to Ms. Jenkins via e-mail. We will continue
with the review at the December meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Staff Report
Ms. Jenkins provided a written report of staff reviews for the previous month.
Ms. Jenkins is proposing another HDC training to utilize the CLG funds that we still have available. She will
be sending out a poll to members for availability.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Lushbaugh made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Candalaria and so ordered by the Chairman.
UPCOMING MEETING
The next meeting is scheduled for December 7, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________
Jill L. Baker, AICP, Director
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff
Date: December 22, 2022
Subj: Non-Residential Signs Permit/Free Standing, 2022-06007
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner: ANTIETAM CREEK VINEYARDS LLC,
Applicant: George Warmenhoven
Location: 4835 BRANCH Avenue
Tax Account ID: 01011189
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 0080/0003/0001/REM
Legal Description: 55.47 ACRES REM4835 BRANCH AVEN/S MILLERS
SAWMILL ROAD
Zoning: Preservation
Zoning Overlay: Antietam Overlay 1
Project Description: 16 sq. ft. non-illuminated free-standing sign to read
“Antietam Creek Vineyards” and “Hours, Wed, Thurs, Fri:
12:00 – 6:00, Sat, Sun: 9:00 – 6:00”
Antietam Creek Vineyards
Applicable Law and Review Criteria:
The HDC is enabled through Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, MD.
Specifically Section 20.3.a states: "The Commission shall act upon all applications as required by Section 20.6, Historic Preservation district, Section 5D.4, Rural Village District and Article 20A,
Antietam Overlay District of this Ordinance."
The HDC shall consider only exterior features of a structure that would affect the historic, archeological,
or architectural significance of the site or structure, any portion of which is visible or intended to be
visible from a public way. It does not consider any interior arrangements, although interior changes
may still be subject to building permit procedures.
1. The application shall be approved by the HDC if it is consistent with the following criteria:
A. The proposal does not substantially alter the exterior features of the structure.
B. The proposal is compatible in character and nature with the historical, cultural, architectural,
or archeological features of the site, structure, or district and would not be detrimental to
achievement of the purposes of Article 20 of the County Zoning Ordinance.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
C. The proposal would enhance or aid in the protection, preservation and public or private
utilization of the site or structure, in a manner compatible with its historical, archeological,
architectural, or cultural value.
D. The proposal is necessary so that unsafe conditions or health hazards are remedied.
E. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings and subsequent revisions are to be used as guidance only and are not to
be considered mandatory.
2. In reviewing the plans for any such construction or change, the HDC shall give consideration to
and not disapprove an application except with respect to the factors specified below.
A. The historic or architectural value and significance of the site or structure and its relationship
to the historic or architectural value and significance of the surrounding area.
B. The relationship of the exterior architectural features of the structure to the remainder of
the structure and to the surrounding area.
C. The general compatibility of exterior design, scale, proportion, arrangement, texture, and
materials proposed to be used.
D. Any other factors, including aesthetic factors, that the Commission deems to be pertinent.
3. The HDC shall be strict in its judgment of plans for those structures, sites, or districts deemed to
be valuable according to studies performed for districts of historic or architectural value. The
HDC shall be lenient in its judgment of plans involving new construction, unless such plans
would seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures.
Guidelines for Signs:
1. Signs should be sited on or around a historic building so as not to obscure or damage architectural
features or detract from the historic landscape.
2. Signage on or around a historic building should be subordinate to the building’s architecture and not
overpower the building.
3. Signs should coordinate in size, location, and placement within the building, with adjacent buildings
or the surrounding historic landscape’s examples.
4. Historic buildings should limit primary and iconic signage to one per business where feasible with
secondary signage used to convey additional information in order to minimize visual clutter.
5. Primary storefront signs should be mounted flush on the signboard where feasible and appropriate.
6. Projecting blade signs should be mounted perpendicular to the façade with ample clearance for
pedestrians and should not be used in conjunction with iconic-shaped projecting signage.
7. Illumination of signs should be external. Internally lit signs are not appropriate for most historic areas
under Commission review including the Antietam Overlay, Historic Preservation Overlay, and the
Historic Rural Villages.
8. Secondary signage including window signs should be subordinate to primary signage and should take
up 20 percent or less of each windows area.
9. Awning signage should have lettering limited to the awning face when feasible; that lettering should
be incidental in appearance.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
10. The colors used on a sign should be complementary to the building and historic landscape and
appropriate to the historic context.
11. Limit the number of colors used for painting signage to the smallest number possible.
12. Lettering of signs should be appropriate to the size of the sign. The lettering style should attempt
to be correct to the period of the building or the business type.
13. Signs should not appear out of scale with the building to which they are attached or are positioned
near. They should not overpower adjacent structures or monopolize the streetscape.
14. Primary signage should be shaped simply with rectangular signage being appropriate for most
applications. Secondary and iconic signage may vary more in shape and composition.
15. Signs should be crafted using high-quality materials and finishes that complement the durable
materials found on historic buildings.
16. Maintain existing historic signs where feasible or integrate them into the adaptive reuse design.
17. Preserve historic painted wall signs by leaving them exposed and unrestored unless severely
deteriorated to avoid confusion over the age of the building or sign.
18. Use ground-mounted signs for rural businesses that fall within review areas. Signs should follow Site
and Building Lighting guidelines as well as other listed Sign guidelines and should be scaled
dependent to the structure size and adjacent historic landscape.
19. See also Key Themes. (p. 57)
SOI Standards and Guidelines:
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will 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.
Staff Report:
The property is directly adjacent to the Antietam National Battlefield and located within the Antietam
Overlay 1 zoning designation. The property also has a 54.28 acre federal scenic easement. A 2 story
white house and outbuildings are visible from Branch Avenue and partially visible from Harper’s Ferry
Road. The proposed sign is to be set back from Harpers Ferry Road approximately 25.5 feet from the
16.5 (from centerline) right of way for the roadway. This setback is standard to meet zoning
requirements without a special exception. The base elevation of the roadway is approximately 492 feet
and at the location of the sign (25ft from the road) the elevation is approximately 484 feet. This is a
relatively steep decline from the road and the property then continues to slope down toward the
buildings at a gentler slope. Some grading has been completed to add the secondary entrance at
Harpers Ferry Road but there is still a downward slope at the entrance of the property. The proposed
sign location is not adjacent to any known historic resources but is between 2 existing non-contributing
houses adjacent to the subject property.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
The sign is proposed to be at an overall height of 15 feet. It is to contain one main panel with blue
background and white lettering following the branding of the commercial use on the property. The
main panel is proposed to be 4 feet wide by 30 inches tall. A secondary sign will be removable, listing
hours, and will be approximately 4 feet wide by 18 inches tall in size. Sign materials proposed in the
application are vinyl panels with vinyl coated posts, however, the applicant will be using pressure
treated wood posts, in concrete, after discussions with the building code staff post-application.
The Antietam National Battlefield was consulted in the design and placement of the signs by the
applicant.
Staff Analysis:
The proposed sign has a scale and height which are out of scale with nearby buildings and landscapes,
however, this scale is necessary to accommodate the readability of the sign at the required setback and
slope at that setback. The proposed materials of the sign are low maintenance vinyl however they do
not complement the durable wood-based materials found on site. The maintenance of the sign at its
proposed height may be difficult without a combination of materials. The contrasting blue background
and white text are in accordance with the Design Guidelines and the text appears to be scaled for
readability in both the font choice and sizing.
Staff Recommendation:
Recommend approval of the sign permit (2022-06007) at the size, shape and scale depicted in the
permit application as well as the typeface and color combination. However, the materials used should
be wood supports and surrounds, left bare or painted/stained white. The use of vinyl materials should
be limited to the panels themselves only if solid painted wood is not viable to achieve the design detail
proposed or if wood poses a building code compliance issue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP
Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
• Photos provided by Staff (from previous site visit)
• Permit Submission Packet
• Rendering of Sign at site
BEFORE- South Facing
Antietam Creek Vineyards - Sign Exhibit
AFTER- South Facing
Antietam Creek Vineyards - Sign Exhibit
BEFORE- North Facing
Antietam Creek Vineyards - Sign Exhibit
AFTER- North Facing
Antietam Creek Vineyards - Sign Exhibit
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff
Date: December 22, 2022
Subj: Residential Demolition Permit/, 2022-06097
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner: SHOWALTER FARM LLC,
Applicant: Bowman Development Corp
Location: 18209 SHOWALTER Road
Tax Account ID: 13018154
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 0024/0009/0544/
Legal Description: .40 ACRE18209 SHOWALTER ROAD
Zoning: Highway Interchange
Zoning Overlay:
MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): I865
Project Description: Demolition of 1,798 sq. ft. two story single
family dwelling including foundation and two
storage sheds
Applicable Law and Review Criteria:
The HDC is enabled through Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, MD.
Specifically Section 20.3.a states: "The Commission shall act upon all applications as required by
Section 20.6, Historic Preservation district, Section 5D.4, Rural Village District and Article 20A,
Antietam Overlay District of this Ordinance."
The HDC shall consider only exterior features of a structure that would affect the historic, archeological,
or architectural significance of the site or structure, any portion of which is visible or intended to be
visible from a public way. It does not consider any interior arrangements, although interior changes
may still be subject to building permit procedures.
1. The application shall be approved by the HDC if it is consistent with the following criteria:
A. The proposal does not substantially alter the exterior features of the structure.
B. The proposal is compatible in character and nature with the historical, cultural, architectural,
or archeological features of the site, structure, or district and would not be detrimental to
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
achievement of the purposes of Article 20 of the County Zoning Ordinance.
C. The proposal would enhance or aid in the protection, preservation and public or private
utilization of the site or structure, in a manner compatible with its historical, archeological,
architectural, or cultural value.
D. The proposal is necessary so that unsafe conditions or health hazards are remedied.
E. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings and subsequent revisions are to be used as guidance only and are not to
be considered mandatory.
2. In reviewing the plans for any such construction or change, the HDC shall give consideration to
and not disapprove an application except with respect to the factors specified below.
A. The historic or architectural value and significance of the site or structure and its relationship
to the historic or architectural value and significance of the surrounding area.
B. The relationship of the exterior architectural features of the structure to the remainder of
the structure and to the surrounding area.
C. The general compatibility of exterior design, scale, proportion, arrangement, texture, and
materials proposed to be used.
D. Any other factors, including aesthetic factors, that the Commission deems to be pertinent.
3. The HDC shall be strict in its judgment of plans for those structures, sites, or districts deemed to
be valuable according to studies performed for districts of historic or architectural value. The
HDC shall be lenient in its judgment of plans involving new construction, unless such plans
would seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures. Demolition Section – Design Guidelines
Staff Report:
This property is located immediate adjacent to the I81 Northbound off ramp for Showalter Road and
faces Showalter Road. The property is accessed by a short gravel lane from Showalter Road. The
property itself is partially wooded and screened from the off ramp and adjacent properties, however,
extensive development is currently underway to the rear (South) of the property. The property was
surveyed by State Highways staff in the Summer of 2001 as part of compliance for project work. The
determination at the time of the most recent survey, was that this property was not eligible under any
criteria for the National Register. The structure is estimated to be built in 1926 according to tax records
and is described in the survey as: typical early 20th century Colonial Revival style single family house
has 6/1 window configuration and an asphalt shingle roof. There is a brick garage with pyramidal
roof in rear of property.
Since the survey, the property remains largely in the same condition. A large wrap around deck was
added and a window on the western face was enlarged for a doorway exiting onto the deck. Vinyl
shutters were added to many of the windows. It appears many of the original wood windows with
storm attachments remain though missing trim pieces and lack of maintenance have exposed the
casings to the weather. Most of the brickwork appears to be in good condition. One corner, visible at
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
the western side of the deck, did have missing bricks and mortar damage. The interior/exterior appear
to have many of the original trim/features remaining including doors, trim and windows in fair
condition.
The outbuildings have signs of deterioration in the windows/doors but the roofs appear intact. Some
original elements, such as the pyramidal outbuildings access doors, remain but they are in disrepair. All
structures on the site were open to the elements by either windows or doors not being secured.
The applicant has provided supplemental information to the demolition application at the request of
staff:
1. Written description and history of the building or structure to be demolished: See attached
Architectural Survey file WA-1-865
2. Detail drawings, such as construction or trim details: Not Available
3. Floor plan for each floor level, drawn to approximate scale or fully dimensioned: Not Available
4. Applicant’s plan for the recycling of waste generated: Brick, block, and concrete suitable as
structural fill will be utilized to infill the basement and foundation voids. All other materials will
be hauled off and disposed of legally at an approved landfill.
5. A report analyzing the demolition alternatives as to the feasibility: None of the alternatives
listed are economical, practical, or possible considering planned development in the HI zoned
district
6. A site plan illustrating any proposed development or introduction of plantings following
demolition: Demolition site will be temporarily stabilized until ultimate development is
completed. Please see attached site concept for planned development of this site.
Staff Analysis:
The subject buildings of the demolition permit, while largely intact, are not significant under any of the
criteria for evaluation for the National Register. The integrity of the location, setting, and feeling of the
property is poor with it being largely unbuffered from nearby development and infrastructure. The
integrity of the design and materials for this property is moderate/high and therefore the exploration
of salvage for materials such as windows, doors (interior and exterior), trim (interior and exterior),
gutters, and brick should be more thoroughly explored and executed by the applicant since site
development is not immediately pending. The analysis of demolition alternatives/mitigation was not
fully explored by the applicant. In this case the lack of integrity and significance of the site as well as its
location outside of known historic districts diminishes the need but does not excuse a deliberate look at
alternatives for this and any additional sites owned by the applicant.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Staff Recommendation:
To not recommend support of this permit (2022-06097) without updated plan for salvage, for the
purpose of reuse, of materials mentioned in the staff analysis from the applicant.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP
Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
• Photos provided by Staff
• Permit Submission Packet
• Email and supplements provided by applicant
From:Jeff Tedrick
To:Jenkins, Meghan
Cc:rferree@dmbowman.com; Thomas Britner; Dan Hockman; Dean Rasco; Justin Anderson
Subject:RE: 2022-06097, 18209 Showalter Road Demolition Permit
Date:Thursday, December 22, 2022 1:53:43 PM
Attachments:image001.pngSKM_C550i22122213380.pdfSKM_C550i22122213381.pdf
You don't often get email from jtedrick@dmbowman.com. Learn why this is important
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Meghan,
In response to your letter of 12/21/22, Bowman Development presents the following per your
request:
1. See attached Architectural Survey file WA-1-865
2. Not Available
3. Not Available
4. Brick, block, and concrete suitable as structural fill will be utilized to infill the basement and
foundation voids. All other materials will be hauled off and disposed of legally at an approved
landfill.
5. None of the alternatives listed are economical, practical, or possible considering planned
development in the HI zoned district
6. Demolition site will be temporarily stabilized until ultimate development is completed. Please
see attached site concept for planned development of this site.
As noted in the architectural survey file WA-1-865, it has been determined that “the property is not
known to be associated with events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local, state, or national history criteria. The property is not known to be associated with the lives of
persons significant in the local, state, or national past. The property does not embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The property does not represent the
work of a master or possess high artistic values. Finally the property is not likely to yield information
important in local, state, or national prehistory or history.”
Thank you,
JEFF TEDRICK
President of Construction Operations
Bowman Development Corp
10228 Governor Lane Blvd - Suite 3002 Williamsport, MD 21795
Phone: 301/582-1555
Fax: 301/582-0049
Cell: 240/675-6507e-mail: Jtedrick@dmbowman.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message including any attachments is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Anyunauthorized review; use; disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the originalmessage
Record #Type MIHP#Record
Status
Folder Status Status Date Task Name Comments
Passed - Info 20-Dec-22 Historical Review Property is not in a reviewable area for Solar arrays. Customer sent no review contact letter.
Days in Review:4
Folder Status Status Date Task Name Comments
Passed - Info 16-Dec-22 Historical Review HDC Review of new construction is not required in the Park Hall review area.
Days in Review:1
Folder Status Status Date Task Name Comments
Note 20-Dec-22 Historical Review Will do a site visit 12/21 to determine status and if HDC will review at Jan meeting.
Note 21-Dec-22 Historical Review Scheduled for January 4, 2023 HDC Meeting
Days in Review:4
Folder Status Status Date Task Name Comments
Passed - Info 20-Dec-22 Historical Review Property is not in a reviewable area for HDC for new construction. Sent no review contact letter.
Days in Review:1
Folder Status Status Date Task Name Comments
Passed - Info 20-Dec-22 Historical Review I004 was previously demo'd with permit and no review by HDC is required.
Days in Review:1
Folder Status Status Date Task Name Comments
Passed - Info 20-Dec-22 Historical Review I004 was demo'd with permits previously. No HDC review required.
Days in Review:1
Folder Status Status Date Task Name Comments
Passed - Info 21-Dec-22 Historical Review Property is not in a review area for the HDC.
Days in Review:1
Activity Count:7
Passed - Info Total
2 2
1 1
0 1
2 2
1 1
6 7Total1
Revision Total 0
Residential New Construction Permit Total 0
Residential Demolition Permit Total 1
Residential Addition-Alteration Permit Total 0
Non-Residential Addition-Alteration Permit Total 0
Review Activities Summary
Application Type Application Number Note
20-Dec-22 LOR 13202 RESH ROAD
REVISION TO MAKE DECK FREESTANDING, NO
LONGER USING A LEDGER BOARD, AND ADDING
FOOTINGS
REMAINING LANDS
2022-
05626.R01 Revision Review 20-Dec-22
19-Dec-22 SP-22-016 16730 NATIONAL
PIKE, BUILDING 1
INSTALLATION OF STORAGE RACKING SYSTEM
FOR STANLEY BLACK AND DECKER
NATIONAL PIKE LOGISTICS CENTER, BUILDING 1
2022-06130
Non-Residential
Addition-Alteration
Permit
I004 Review 19-Dec-22 19-Dec-22 SP-22-016 16730 NATIONAL
PIKE, BUILDING 1
INSTALLATION OF CONVEYER SYSTEM TO
INCLUDE (12) INDUCTION LINES, A SORTER,(1)
PARCEL DOWN LINE AND (41) DIVERTS WITH
GRAVITY CONVEYOR, ALL CONVEYORS ARE
FLOOR MOUNTED, FOR STANLEY BLACK AND
2022-06111
Non-Residential
Addition-Alteration
Permit
I004 Review 19-Dec-22
17-Dec-22 LOR 18209 SHOWALTER
ROAD
DEMOLITION OF 1,798 SQ. FT. TWO STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING
FOUNDATION AND TWO STORAGE SHEDS
2022-06131 Residential New
Construction Permit III006 Review 19-Dec-22 19-Dec-22 S-16-027 20156 MILLBROOK
ROAD, LOT 4
3,200 SQ. FT. DETACHED POLE BUILDING ON
CONCRETE SLAB WITH HALF BATH AND 800 SQ.
FT. COVERED PORCH, TO BE USED FOR
STORAGE OF PERSONAL SMALL CRAFT WORK
AREA, POLE CONSTRUCTION, ROOF TRUSSES,
2022-06097 Residential Demolition
Permit I865 Review 17-Dec-22
16-Dec-22 S-21-057 16937 TAYLORS
LANDING ROAD, LOT 3
INSTALLATION OF A ROOF MOUNTED SOLAR
ARRAY ON DWELLING CONSITING OF (12)
4.8KW PANELS ON SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
GREGOR AND LAUREN EAPENKOTTER, LOT 3
2022-05959 Residential New
Construction Permit Review 22-Nov-22 15-Dec-22 LOR RASPBERRY ROAD
2,400 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE TWO STORY
MODULAR DWELLING ON FULL UNFINISHED
WALKOUT BASEMENT WITH ROUGH IN FOR
FUTURE BATH, WOODSTOVE IN LIVING ROOM,
ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE, COVERED FRONT
2022-05864 Residential Addition-
Alteration Permit II0403 Review 16-Nov-22
Historic Review Activity 11/22/2022 thru 12/21/2022
Open Date Date Assigned Location Description Workflow Info