Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04 - April Agenda
Lloyd Yavener, Chair Michael Lushbaugh Justin Bedard, Vice Chair Tyler Milam Ann Aldrich Gregory Smith Brianna Candelaria Wayne K. Keefer, BOCC Rep HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON 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 April 2, 2025, 6:00 p.m. Washington County Administration Complex, 100 West Washington Street, Room 2001, Hagerstown, MD 21740 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL MINUTES 1. Minutes of the March 5, 2025, meeting * NEW BUSINESS 1. Residential Addition-Alteration (2025-00632) - 13215 Smithsburg Pike (WA-IV-029) – (Discussion/Approval) - 4,216 sq. ft. interior renovation of entire dwelling and attached cottage to include finish attic to create a bedroom and full bathroom, add two full bathrooms in cottage, (1) in cottage attic, and (1) on cottage first floor, repair and replace plaster walls and ceilings, new dormers, windows, and metal roof, rebuild chimneys and cottage steps, cosmetic and fixture upgrades throughout, electric, plumbing, and mechanical upgrades, new metal roof, rebuild existing front stoop, increase of bedrooms by (1) for a total of 5 bedrooms * 2. Residential New Construction (2025-00909) - 22420 Old Georgetown Road (Cavetown WA-IV-014) – (Discussion/Recommendation) - 2,094 sq. ft. finished space two- story single-family dwelling on crawl space, covered front porch, rear open attached deck, frame construction, pre-engineered roof trusses, concrete foundation * 3. Residential Demolition (2025-01080) – 1230 Mount Aetna Road (WA-I-437)- (Discussion/Support) - Demolition of 2,500 sq. ft. abandoned dwelling, there is another existing dwelling and garages/sheds that will remain * 4. Draft of Town MOU for Historic Structures Review – (Discussion/Consensus) – Review the existing language and discuss any updates to comply with the Historic Structures Tax Credit Ordinance and outline a plan for introducing to the Towns. * OTHER BUSINESS 1. Preservation Month 2025 a. Preservation Maryland Presentation same night as May regular meeting (Discussion/Consensus) 2. Correspondence 3. Staff Report a. Staff Reviews * b. Reminder – Financial Disclosures Due April 20, 2025 ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING MEETING 1. Wednesday, May 7, 2025, 6:00 p.m. *attachments MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY March 5, 2025 The Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, March 5, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Complex, 100 W Washington Street, Room 2001, Hagerstown, MD. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commission members present were: Greg Smith, Chairman; Lloyd Yavener, Vice-Chair; Ann Aldrich; Michael Lushbaugh, Brianna Candalaria and Tyler Milam. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator and HDC Staff member. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2024 meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Yavener and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS RZ-25-001 – 6821 Sharpsburg Pike Ms. Jenkins presented a rezoning application for property located at 6821 Sharpsburg Pike. The owners are requesting the application of the Rural Business (RB) floating zone over 1.68 acres of land in the Preservation zoning district with the Antietam 2 overlay. Ms. Jenkins noted there is currently a MET (Maryland Environmental Trust) easement on the property which was not referenced in the current deed. To date, there have been no comments from MET regarding this application. She stated that a new building was constructed on the property as an ag building; however, the owners have been running a business out of said building without permits which is not allowed without the proper zoning on the property. Discussion and Comments: Members discussed vegetative screening of the building from the road so it does not detract from the viewshed. They also discussed the outdoor storage of equipment and any signage that may be used. Ms. Jenkins stated that if/when the owners apply for a sign permit, the permit application would be reviewed by the HDC because the property is located within the Antietam 2 overlay zone. She will recommend in her comments to the Planning Commission, that the owners should follow the Design Guidelines for signage. Members believe the deed should be updated to include the MET easement. Members discussed the RB overlay being extinguished on properties within the AO1 and AO2 zoning districts when the property is sold. This issue would need to be discussed with the Zoning Administrator and would require a text amendment to the County’s adopted Zoning Ordinance. Consensus: Ms. Jenkins will provide a letter to the Planning Commission with the following recommendations: · Owners should provide substantial vegetative screening to minimize visibility of the business building from the roadway. · The RB overlay should not applied any closer to the roadway than depicted on the application. · If/when signage is erected, the property owners should adhere to the County’s adopted Design Guidelines. · To the extent feasible, all business-related storage should be kept to the rear of the building. · In response to #4 of the application, the MET easement and scenic value should be mentioned. · The owners should consider updating the property deed to include the MET easement. · The nearby RB overlay was in existence and is more appropriately buffered from the viewshed. OTHER BUSINESS HTC-24-002 – Williamson – 1004 The Terrace Ms. Jenkins stated that Mr. Williamson provided equivalent documentation from the State of Maryland MHT Tax Credit application for additional tax credits on his property located at 1004 The Terrace. The project included the installation of gutter guards over the existing gutters that are minimally visible from the ground. Certified Local Government Annual Report Ms. Jenkins announced that the Annual Report has been submitted with updated information that was provided by the members. AP2024-053 – 21406 Mount Lena Road Ms. Jenkins stated that a letter was sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the Commission’s comments regarding the special exception for a contractor storage yard at the above location. Members reviewed this request via e-mail and a consensus to comment was received from Mr. Bedard, Mr. Milam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Aldrich and Ms. Candalaria. Preservation Month 2025 Members discussed several ideas for Preservation Month including the following: · continue the Love Historic theme – challenge citizens to take photos of their favorite historic structures around the County and submit them on Facebook/Instagram to be posted to the County’s website · have HDC members take a photo of themselves at their favorite historic structure · have an updated group photo of members at a historic structure · coordinate with the HAC project · have a Preservation Maryland presentation · have a photo scavenger hunt of historic structures · cross promote a geo-cash trail · host a Museum Trail in 2026 Grimes – 7661 Dam Number 4 Road Ms. Jenkins explained that the Grimes family purchased Woburn Manor late last year. The insurance company was concerned by the HP overlay and the implications of what would be required if a catastrophic event took place and the historic structure was lost. Would the structure have to be rebuilt exactly as it was? Ms. Jenkins provided a letter explaining review authority of the HDC, the use of modern materials, and that the HP overlay could be removed, if necessary. Staff Report · A written report of staff reviews for the past month was provided to members in the agenda packets. · 250th Update: The historic subcommittee continues to meet and review historic dates of events. The County will be holding a July 4th celebration at the County’s Ag Center. There will be a drone show, live music and vendors. The Historic Subcommittee is also working on a publication with the help of the municipalities to obtain facts about historic places, people and events. · September 6th there will be a celebration for the County’s anniversary. Members suggested that the HDC should have a booth at this event. · Historic Structures Grant Update: The County Attorney ‘s Office has determined that State legislation will be required. This will be on hold until October 2025 when new priorities for legislation will be set. · The first draft of the MOU for Town permit reviews was sent to members. No Towns have been approached about the MOU. This will be on the agenda again for the April meeting. · Price’s Bridge is listed in the County’s CIP; however, it is listed for complete demolition. · Comprehensive Plan Update: The Planning Commission has recommended keeping the Preservation Policy Areas on the Land Use Map. They also recommended that the Environmental Conservation Policy Area should be 100’ from the centerline of the stream. The Planning Commission voted to forward the draft document with the most recent changes as listed above to the Board of County Commissioners. · A letter has been submitted to the CLG Training Program signed by the County Commissioner President John Barr to have a successful application by Preservation Maryland to hold some workshops with the Campaign for Historic Trade Staff or other historic trades people in Washington County. · Financial Disclosures are due on April 30, 2025. Please submit them electronically or by mail to our offices. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ms. Aldrich nominated Mr. Yavener as Chairman. Ms. Candalaria seconded the nomination. Mr. Yavener accepted the nomination and was unanimously voted to the position of Chairman. Ms. Smith nominated Mr. Bedard as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Yavener seconded the nomination. Mr. Bedard was asked prior to the meeting, that if nominated, would he accept the nomination and he stated that he would accept; therefore, the nomination was accepted and Mr. Bedard was unanimously voted to the position of Vice-Chairman. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Aldrich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lushbaugh and so ordered by the Chairman. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________________ Greg Smith, Chairman HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Washington County Historic District Commission From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff Date: March 21, 2025 Subj: Residential Addition-Alteration Permit/Addition-Alteration, 2025-00632 Staff Report and Analysis Property Owner: UNSWORTH JEFFREY PAUL, UNSWORTH LAURA LANE Applicant: Paul Wade Location: 13215 SMITHSBURG Pike Tax Account ID: 07006748 Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 40/1/203/ Legal Description: 25.50 ACRES13215 SMITHSBURG PIKE Zoning: Agricultural, Rural Zoning Overlay: Historic Preservation Overlay MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): IV029 Project Description: 4,216 sq. ft. interior renovation of entire dwelling and attached cottage to include finish attic to create a bedroom and full bathroom, add two full bathrooms in cottage, (1) in cottage attic, and (1) on cottage first floor, repair and replace plaster walls and ceilings, new dormers, windows, and metal roof, rebuild chimneys and cottage steps, cosmetic and fixture upgrades throughout, electric, plumbing, and mechanical upgrades, new metal roof, rebuild existing front stoop, increase of bedrooms by (1) for a total of 5 bedrooms 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 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 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. 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. Applicable Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation: • A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. • The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. • Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. • Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of 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. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Washington County Design Guidelines for Roofs (P.66) • Avoid altering the roof pitch and shape. • Exposed roof rafters and soffits should not be cut back. • The size, color, reflectivity, reveal, and material of roofing and flashing should be maintained through repair. If replacement is necessary, roofing materials should have similar characteristics. • Missing or severely damaged towers, dormers, finials, cresting, chimneys and other character- defining roof elements should be replaced based on documentary or photographic evidence. If no evidence of the appearance of the element exists, a new element should be designed to be compatible with the overall character of the building. • New skylights, mechanical and service-related equipment or pipes, chimneys or other projections, including solar panels should be located so that they are not visible from a public right-of-way. If able, roof mounting of mechanical equipment and solar panels should be avoided. If ground mounted these systems should still not be visible from the public right-of- way. • Existing dormers should not be resized or have architectural features diminished. Preservation Brief #4 – Roofing for Historic Buildings Note: Staff did not include the Design Guidelines for Windows (P.63) or Porches (P.68) but these may be referenced by members as well in their discussions. Staff Report: This parcel is located approximately .4 miles south of the intersection of Rowe Road and Smithsburg Pike (State Route 64) on the East side of Smithsburg Pike. The permit is associated with all portions of the house which is a multi-part stone dwelling. The dwelling’s main portion is 2-story stone construction with a date stone of 1810 in the west end wall. Extending to the north of the main portion, is a 1 ½-story three bay stone cabin built over a large spring. This spring emerges into a large stone walled pond behind the house. According to the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) documentation, it is estimated this northern portion was built in the late 18th century and was traditionally known or associated with “Peter Mong’s Cabin”. There is also a stone portion extending east of the main portion that is 1 ½-story five bay wing that was built in 2 stages (the cottage). The portion of work for this permit that is reviewable by the HDC includes the return/addition of a dormer to the cottage section on both of its roof faces. The proposed construction of the dormers will be the same roofing materials as proposed for the overall new roof and the siding will be German wood lap. The structure previously had at least one dormer in the documentation photos from the 1970’s in the same location as the one proposed. The owners have not decided on final window placement in the dormers but they have indicated a wood window similar to the construction of those existing in the remainder of the house may be used and possibly located on the end of the dormer. The project also proposes the rebuild of the front stoop. The owners uncovered the foundation of the original stoop in their stabilization project. The stone portion has already been rebuilt for the base of the stoop during the stabilization project. The remainder of construction will be mahogany of the same construction as the previous porch rebuild (2024-00996). The stoops roof pitch will be reconstructed using the outline still visible on the stone HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION façade and will be similar in ornamentation for posts, rails and pickets to that of the Newcomer House porch upon completion. Existing wood windows of the house are being repaired rather than replaced as project timing and resources allow. No replacement of existing windows is proposed. The roof is to be a standing seam aluminum metal roof. The chimneys are also to be rebuilt as needed during roofing work. Staff Analysis: The work proposed by this phase of the project (roofing, stoop and dormers), favors the themes of the SOI Standards of Rehabilitation which include repair when feasible and replacement with in-kind materials when necessary, using evidence of the past such as photos, in the case of the dormer, or the outline of the porch in the case of the stoop. The application seeks to improve the usable space of the structure by providing the needed headroom in the cottage area. The proposed work follows the County’s Design Guidelines for Roofs to ensure cohesive, sound, similar roofing material, repair of damaged chimneys and trim materials rather than replacement and replacing a prior dormer to improve the livable space. Materials consistent with those appropriate the construction of the house will also be used for any necessary replacements. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of residential addition-alteration permit 2025-00632, which includes the rebuild of the front stoop, replacement of the existing metal roofing with an aluminum standing seam roof, the reconstruction of previous dormers on the cottage and other related work as stated in the permit description for the reasons stated in the Staff Analysis. Respectfully Submitted, Meghan Jenkins, GISP Historic District Commission Staff Attachments: • Photos provided by Staff • Permit Submission Packet HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Sept. 2023, Front entrance HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Sept. 2023, Cottage Roof HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Sept. 2023, metal roof status HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION March 2025, Front Stoop rebuild HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION March 2025, Stabilization of cottage; uncovered entrance to spring/basement and roof prep for repair HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Washington County Historic District Commission From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff Date: March 25, 2025 Subj: Residential New Construction Permit/Stick Built Home, 2025-00909 Staff Report and Analysis Property Owner: M & J MARTZ PROPERTIES LLC, Applicant: W. Fouke Location: 22420 OLD GEORGETOWN Road Tax Account ID: 07003765 Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 51/5/370/ Legal Description: LOT 105X300 0.57 AC 22420 Old Georgetown Road Zoning: Residential, Transition Rural Village: Cavetown (MHT-C) Historic Rural Village Project Description: 2,094 sq. ft. finished space two story single family dwelling on crawl space, covered front porch, rear open attached deck, frame construction, pre-engineered roof trusses, concrete foundation M&J Martz, Proposed Lot 1 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. For Rural Villages, additional review criteria for applications are listed in Section 5D.5 Architectural Review of the Zoning Ordinance and include: 1. The exterior appearance of existing structures in the Rural Village, including materials, style, arrangement of doors and windows, mass, height and number of stories, roof style and pitch, proportion. 2. Building Size and Orientation 3. Landscaping 4. Signage 5. Lighting 6. Setbacks 7. Accessory structures Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 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. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Guidelines for New Construction and Accessory Buildings 1. New construction should be sited to avoid demolition of contributing structures. 2. The design of new construction or new accessory buildings should be compatible with the form, height, scale, proportions, materials and details of the adjacent contributing structures or landscapes. 3. Consideration of the ratio of built versus open space of the site or the adjacent landscape should be given. 4. Existing setbacks, landscaping or site grading of adjacent historic resources should be preserved when siting new construction if those characteristics contribute to the historic site or its landscape. This includes circulation routes, fences, walls, and yards, etc. 5. Locate new construction and new accessory buildings so that the existing significant visual and special characteristics of the property are maintained. 6. Locate new construction and new accessory buildings so that significant viewsheds are maintained or enhanced. 7. See also Key Themes. (p. 57) Staff Report: This project is in the Cavetown Rural Village which is located primarily at the intersection of Mapleville Road and Cavetown Church Road directly west of the Town of Smithsburg. The rural village survey district contains 59 contributing resources and 10 non-contributing for a total of 69 items surveyed. Most of the contributing resources are buildings within the district’s period of significance ranging from 1820 to 1950. The primary criteria for significance for the National Register according to the MIHP nomination would be “Criteria C” though this district has not been placed on the National Register at this time. Most of that architecture is vernacular and typically 2 stories in height. This project is located to the west of the intersection of Old Georgetown Road and Mapleville Road. The site was previously improved with a mobile home which was removed and listed in the survey documentation as outside the period of significance. The existing block garage is to be retained. The property was recently subdivided (S-24-033, MSA#11853) to divide 22429 Goose Street (a contributing structure) and this property onto their own respective lots as historically used. The plot plan for this project proposes construction set back approximately 50 feet from Old Georgetown Road to place the building in line with the southern façade of the existing garage. Most structures that do contribute to Cavetown’s survey are located between 15 and 30 feet from the edge of the roadway. However, this structures proposed set back meets current zoning requirements and is closer to the previous mobile home’s set back. The orientation of the building is consistent with the surrounding structures, having its front entrance facing Old Georgetown Road. The structures size of approximately 30 feet wide and 40 feet deep is consistent with other structures within the Rural Village. The proposed 2-story form is also prevalent in Cavetown. The proposed structures materials include vinyl siding and asphalt shingles, both of which can be found in this rural village. The roof pitch, as well as the door and window arrangement are not inconsistent with the adjacent contributing structures. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Staff Analysis: This project is consistent with the applicable SOI Standards for Rehabilitation in that the new work is compatible and does not destroy any historic materials or spatial relationships. The environment would also be unimpaired by its removal in the future. The project is consistent with the County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures for New Construction and Section 5D.5 Architectural Review of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance in that it does not impact existing contributing historic structures, the design is compatible in form, scale, proportion, and materials. The setbacks are consistent with the previous structure on the property and current zoning regulations as well as distinguishing this structure from the contributing structures in the district. Staff Recommendation: Recommend Approval of the Residential New Construction Permit/Stick Built Home, 2025-00909, located in Cavetown Historic Rural Village based on the information provided in the Staff Report and the Staff Analysis. Respectfully Submitted, Meghan Jenkins, GISP Historic District Commission Staff Attachments: • Photos provided by Staff • Permit Submission Packet HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Looking N/W on the site HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Looking South on the property toward Old Georgetown Road HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Looking West at adjacent structure HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Looking east at adjacent structure HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Old Georgetown Road facing east (property is to the left, behind the shrubs) HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Old Georgetown Road facing west HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Washington County Historic District Commission From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff Date: March 25, 2025 Subj: Residential Demolition Permit/, 2025-01080 Staff Report and Analysis Property Owner: WIELAND BERYL, Applicant: Adam's Demolition Location: 1230 MOUNT AETNA Road Tax Account ID: 10022878 Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 0050/0014/1320/ Legal Description: 12.85 ACRES1230 MT AETNA ROAD Zoning: Residential, Suburban MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): WA-I-437, Large Frame House Project Description: Demolition of 2,500 sq. ft. abandoned dwelling, there is another existing dwelling and garages/sheds that will remain Jone Elizabeth Thurmond Applicable Law and Review Criteria: The Historic District Commission shall review demolition permits using the Review Procedures adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as amended on July 17, 1990. “The policy does not provide for approval or disapproval of the demolition permit. These permits are issued solely on the basis of meeting technical requirements of applicable code.” The review criteria for demolition permit are the same as the evaluation criteria in the Washington County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures. 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. 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. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 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. 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. County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures Demolition Permit Application Requirements 1. Written description and history of the building or structure to be demolished. 2. Detail drawings, such as construction or trim details. 3. Floor plan for each floor level, drawn to approximate scale or fully dimensioned. 4. Applicant’s plan for the recycling of waste generated 5. A report or narrative analyzing the following alternatives (listed in descending order of preference) as to the feasibility. The report shall consist of thorough, deliberative analyses of each of the alternatives, explaining why each alternative is or is not feasible and additional photographs should be provided in support of the analysis. In cases where a permit may involve multiple structures, each structure must have its alternatives documented. (a) Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structure or its setting; (b) Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project; (c) Converting the structure into another use (adaptive reuse); (d) Relocating the structure on the property; (e) Relocating the structure to another property; (f) Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building materials; (g) Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs, drawings, and/or text 6. A site plan illustrating any proposed development or introduction of plantings following demolition (if applicable) HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Staff Report: This structure is on the Washington County Historic Sites Inventory/MIHP as a large frame house, WA- I437, with survey documentation completed in 1978. The documentation for the property includes only the T-shaped main house. The property also consists of several outbuildings and a secondary dwelling. These additional structures are not proposed for demolition with this permit. This structure is located at the end of a long gravel driveway and is secluded behind tree rows which flank the property on all but the eastern most side which slopes down toward Colonial Park East subdivision. The structure faces west and includes a deep overhanging two-story porch supported by massive columns. The inventory information has very little regarding the history of the property and the construction time period is not fully known. There is a conflict in the owner’s statement at the time of last documentation that the property was “Pre-Civil War”, but the appearance is of an early 20th century structure. Several of the outbuildings and the additional dwelling appear to be early 20th century as well. The roof is slate and in decent condition, however, there does appear to be significant deferred maintenance and changes to the exterior since documentation. These include the enclosure of the front door, the enclosure of the south facing two story porch and various exterior moldings and trims which are failing including portions of the front porch columns. Staff sent a standard letter to the demolition contractor who has indicated they will pursue salvage where possible, however, at the time of email on 3/25/2025 no interested parties have come forward requesting materials. No contact with the owner has been made for this permit. There is a Preliminary Consultation (PC-24-005) which occurred for the property on July 9, 2023, for proposed new construction of 52 semi-detached dwelling units on the 12.85 acres. The minutes for that meeting which staff attended, are attached for reference. Staff resent the initial contact letter requesting details for the structure as certified mail on March 26, 2025. Staff Analysis: This permit application has insufficient information for review by the Historic District Commission. The owner/contractor has not supplied any information to determine the historic value of the property ahead of demolition. Demolition alternatives have not been examined by the owner and supplied to staff. The requests made by staff at the time of Preliminary Consultation have not been followed or addressed via this demolition permit. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Staff Recommendation: Recommend review of demolition permit 2025-01080 be tabled until the property owner can supply adequate information related to the demolition permit review criteria outlined in the Design Guidelines for Historic Structures with strong encouragement to delay demolition until an approved plan exists for the property. Respectfully Submitted, Meghan Jenkins, GISP Historic District Commission Staff Attachments: • Photos provided by Staff • Permit Submission Packet • Minutes of PC-24-005 • Plan for PC-24-005 • Demolition Contractor Response HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION N/S of connecting lean to for cinderblock garage (garage stays) HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION N/S of structure, detail of chimney and siding conditions HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION N/S of structure (middle chimney) HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION N/S of Structure HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION n/s of structure, front (west) porch HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION w/s of structure/front entrance HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Close up of column with condition issues, front porch tiling and porch roofing HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION s/s of the structure, enclosure of porch with plastic HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Facing west, e/s of enclosed porch and siding condition HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION e/s chimney and its base base HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION s/s roof dormer condition above enclosed porch HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Front porch column condition (northern most column) HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION w/s Dormer condition and note storm windows on mjoarity covering wood (original?) windows BUILDING & ZONING PERMIT IVR/Record No:2025-01080 Applied:3/13/2025 Project No:Approved: Record Type:Residential Demolition Permit Status:Review Inspector Area: B5 Job Address:1230 MOUNT AETNA Road Location:SI-99-024 1230 Mount Aetna Road Tax Acct ID:10022878 Zoning District:RS Floodplain:No Owner:WIELAND BERYL Applicant:Adam's Demolition 19106 Black Maple Way Hagerstown MD 21742 Phone No:(301)399-8811 Email Address:adamsdemolition.net@gmail.com Contractor: Phone No: Description:Demolition of 2,500 sq. ft. abandoned dwelling, there is another existing dwelling and garages/sheds that will remain Jone Elizabeth Thurmond Foundation Size:Construction Type: Type of Heat: Public Sewer: Public Water: Gas: Electric: Yes Yes Exterior Finish: Air Conditioning: Septic: Time Existed: Well: Time Existed: Valuation:No. of Bathrooms: Code Enforced:No. of Half Bathrooms: No. of New Bedrooms: No. of Exist. Bedrooms: Setbacks Proposed Minimum Required Lot Tract Area Front Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Left Side Setback Right Side Setback Lot Width * All final State Fire Marshal inspections (850), if required, must be scheduled directly through the State Fire Marshal's office at 301- 766-3888. This permit has been reviewed by the Washington County Permitting Department and meets all applicable local and state codes and ordinances. Should you have any questions, please contact our department at 240-313-2460 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION PC-24-005 – Beryl Wieland Age Restricted Residential Concept A preliminary consultation was held on July 9, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. at the Washington County Administrative Annex, 747 Northern Avenue, Conference Room 124, Hagerstown, MD. A concept plan was presented for the proposed new construction of 52 semi-detached dwelling units on 12.85 acres. The property is located at 1230 Mt. Aetna Road and is currently zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The following were in attendance: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Misty Wagner- Grillo, Planner; Adam Tressler, GIS Technician; Travis Allen, Senior Planner; Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator and staff to the Historic District Commission; and Debra Eckard, Office Manager; Washington County Division of Engineering: Rebecca Calimer, Chief of Plan Review and Heather Williams, Senior Plan Reviewer and Flood Plain Manager; State Highway Administration: Chris Reed, District 6, Access Permits; Fred Fredericks, Frederick, Seibert & Associates, engineer/consultant; and Doug Karn, Berkshire Hathaway Realty. Department of Planning & Zoning Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that a HOA will be required for maintenance of the open spaces. She asked what type of open spaces are planned. Mr. Karn stated the open spaces will be kept simple and would probably include walking trails. Ms. Wagner-Grillo noted that sidewalks and screening are recommended. She asked if any signage is proposed. Mr. Frederick believes there will be a small sign at the entrance. Forest Conservation Mr. Allen noted there are no plans at this time for forest easements. For high-density residential projects such as this one, a portion of the forest conservation requirements should be accomplished on-site if at all possible. Street trees offer one option of accomplishing mitigation on-site if there isn’t room for a larger forest easement. Mr. Frederick stated there is no existing forest on the site; however, a portion of the on- site forest conservation would be accomplished using street trees and in a 35-foot screening buffer around the perimeter. The remaining mitigation would be met using the payment-in-lieu of planting option. Mr. Allen stated that the landscaping for the buffering must be on a separate parcel and not on the back of individual lots. Washington County Historic District Commission Ms. Jenkins explained there is a historic structure on the property that is listed on the Washington County Inventory as well as the Maryland Inventory of Historic Places. Documentation suggests this structure is pre-Civil War or of the Civil War era. The HDC would recommend that alternatives to demolition of the structure should be explored, including site integration. Alternatives are listed in the Design Guidelines found on the County’s website. If the site design cannot accommodate retention of the structure, the HDC recommends updated documentation because of the structure’s age. It is also recommended that a Phase I archaeological study be completed. Justification for non-retention of the structure will be required if it is to be demolished. The HDC prefers that the project goes through the site plan process prior to applying for a demolition permit. Division of Engineering Ms. Calimer stated that the stub off of North Colonial Drive does not show up as part of the County’s road network; however, the Real Property Administrator is researching the issue. Mr. Frederick believes the road is shown on a plat with an offer of dedication, but he is not sure if the road was accepted by the County. It appears that the existing apartment building has an easement/right-of-way per Liber 6794, Folio 254 where residents are currently parking. Mr. Frederick asked what would happen if the development were approved. Ms. Calimer stated if the County owns the roadway, this issue will need to be resolved appropriately. Ms. Calimer explained that the proposed number of lots will exceed the Highway Adequacy policy exemption; therefore, a traffic study will be required. The traffic engineer may submit the scope of work to the County; the County will coordinate with the State Highway Administration. Ms. Calimer noted that storm water management areas are being reserved; however, a separate ESD storm water concept plan must be submitted and approved prior to submission of a preliminary plat. Sidewalks must follow ADA and accessibility requirements and will be owned and maintained by the HOA; a note will be required on the plat. Ms. Calimer expressed concern with the bulbed cul-de-sac on the turn at proposed Lots 13 thru 18 and recommends a different design, such as a mini roundabout. Mr. Frederick asked if a T-intersection would be acceptable and Ms. Calimer stated it would be. Mr. Frederick stated there is only one access to the development; however, the developer owns a narrow strip of land that goes to Mt. Aetna Road. This will be used as an emergency access only. State Highway Administration Mr. Reed agreed that a traffic study will be required. Addressing Mr. Tresler noted addresses will be assigned during the site plan phase. Birch Knoll Road will be extended into the development. The two cul-de-sacs will need to be named. Mr. Tresler asked if the emergency access from Mt. Aetna Road will be gated. Mr. Frederick stated that a gate could be installed and a knock box provided for emergency services. Mr. Tresler explained if the access is gated and not for public use, the road will not need to be named. There is a prohibitive names list and a roads name list that should be followed when choosing road names. A total of six road names will be required. Washington County Health Department A representative was not present at the meeting; however, the following written comment was submitted. • Water and sewer allocation forms will be required. Washington County Soil Conservation District A representative was not present at the meeting; however, the following written comment was submitted. • A copy of the soils map, from the hard copy and/or digitized version of the Soil Survey, with boundaries clearly delineated must be provided (the Web Soil Survey does not have an accurate stream layer). Evaluate any streams and/or drainage ways, sinkholes, steep slopes, etc. and provide any and all required documentation. If buffers are required, please incorporate them into your design and include it with your next submission. Please ensure any required buffers are shown on the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, particularly if affected by the proposed project and/or are within close proximity to the project area. Washington County Department of Water Quality A representative was not present at the meeting and no written comments have been received. City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department A representative was not present at the meeting; however, the following written comments were submitted. • City water is available and may be extended from the existing mains in Colonial Drive and Birch Knoll Road. A pre-annexation agreement will be required for water service. • Water and wastewater allocation may not be available until issues with the Health Department regarding allocation outside city boundaries have been resolved. • Gravity sewer service can be extended from the existing stub in Birch Knoll Road assuming grades permit. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Frederick asked what the priority designation for water and sewer is for the property. Ms. Jenkins stated the property is currently in priority designation W-1/S-1. Mr. Frederick asked if the development is in the sewer service area of the County or the City. Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated it is in the City. Closing Comments All reviewing agencies will receive a copy of the written summary. If there are any discrepancies in the written summary, the Department of Planning & Zoning should be notified immediately. The summary will also be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and comment. Planning Commission comments will be made a part of the record and should be addressed by the developer as the plan moves through the approval process. Respectfully submitted, Misty Wagner-Grillo Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning MAWG/dse PROPOSED EMERGENCY DRIVE TO ACCESS MT. AETNA ROAD TO THE SOUTH LANDSCAPE SCREENING OPPORTUNITIES LANDSCAPE SCREENING OPPORTUNITIES N. C O L O N I A L D R I V E 50’ ROW PROPOSED STRE E T 50 ’ R O W PR O P O S E D S T R E E T 50 ’ R O W PR O P O S E D S T R E E T EXISTING 60’ ROW PER L. 6794 F. 254 1 2 3 4 5 76 8 9 24 23 26 25 28 27 30 29 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 45 48 47 32 3134333635 38 3750495251 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 21 20 SWM POND SWM POND SWM POND OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE ZONING DATA ZONING RS (WASHINGTON COUNTY) SETBACKS FRONT 20’ SIDE 12’ REAR 40’ MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 75’ MINIMUM LOT AREA 12,500 SF MINIMUM LOT AREA PER D/U 6,250 SF CONCEPT DATA PROJECT AREA 12.85 ACRES ± PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL- DUPLEX UNITS ASSUMED BUILDING FOOTPRINT 25’ X 65’ OR 30’ X 55’ PROPOSED DUPLEX UNITS 52 UNITS CONCEPT NOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. 2. NO FIELD SURVEYING HAS BEEN COMPLETED FOR THIS CONCEPT PLAN. ALL BASE INFORMATION IS COMPRISED OF GIS INFORMATION, TAX MAPS AND AERIAL MAPPING. 3. THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENTS WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION IF WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY CAN SERVE THIS SITE. 4. NO GRADING OR ENGINEERING HAS BEEN COMPLETED AS PART OF THIS SCOPE. 5. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS CONCEPTUAL IN SIZE AND LOCATION. 6. ALL PROPOSED ACCESS POINTS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE REVIEWING AGENCIES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE Age Restricted Residential Concept Plan- Option ABeryl Wieland Washington County, Maryland June 2024 / Job# 7772.1 0’ 40’ 80’ 120’N 52 5 52 0 51 5 51 5 51 5 54 0 5 4 0 5 3 5 5 3 0 54 0 5 3 5 530 52 0 52 5 530 53 5 540 545 545 545 545 P: \ S H A R E D F O L D E R S \ P R O J E C T S \ 7 7 7 2 \ 7 7 7 2 . 1 \ D W G \ C O N C E P T S \ 7 7 7 2 . 1 C O N C E P T A . D W G 2 0 2 4 - 0 6 - 0 3 N O T A P P R O V E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SCALE PROJECT MANAGER: DATEDWN BY SHEET TITLE DE S C R I P T I O N : DA T E : PROJECT NO. MA R K : © 12 8 S O U T H P O T O M A C S T R E E T CI V I L E N G I N E E R S S U R V E Y O R S L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T S L A N D P L A N N E R S F • HA G E R S T O W N , M D 2 1 7 4 0 30 1 . 7 9 1 . 3 6 5 0 20 W E S T B A L T I M O R E S T R E E T GR E E N C A S T L E , P A 1 7 2 2 5 71 7 . 5 9 7 . 1 0 0 7 50 5 S O U T H H A N O V E R S T R E E T CA R L I S L E , P A 1 7 0 1 3 71 7 . 7 0 1 . 8 1 1 1 15 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T NE W B L O O M F I E L D , P A 1 7 0 6 8 71 7 . 2 7 5 . 7 5 3 1 FR E D E R I C K , S E I B E R T & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . fs a - i n c . c o m • • SA I hereby certify that these documents were preparedor approved by me, and that I am a duly licensedprofessional under the laws of the State of: Professional Certification: __________________, License # _________________, Expiration Date __________________. SHEET OF EMAIL: BE R Y L W I E L A N D 12 3 0 M T . A E T N A R O A D HA G E R S T O W N , M D 2 1 7 4 0 WA S H I N G T O N C O U N T Y , M A R Y L A N D 7772.1 CAD June 2024 Ed Schreiber ESchreiber@fsa-inc.com PROPERTY INFORMATION 1" = 40' CONCEPT A STRIPPED 1 1 20 2 4 0 SCALE: 40 40 8020 1" = 40' From:Adam Merrbaugh To:Jenkins, Meghan Subject:Re: Demolition Permit 2025-01080 - 1230 Mt. Aetna Road Date:Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:21:49 PM Attachments:image005.png image001.png image004.png image002.png image003.png image006.png WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to thisemail. Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded. Received. Thank you. I will touch base with the owner and inform them of this. As the permit applicant I will be at the requested meeting on April 2. As always on my end I have contactedall of my Amish, Mennonite, and antique dealers about this property and as of right now none of them have any interest in any of the items currently available on the property of theresidential house being demolished. As we tear the building down we will take our time looking for unknown historic items that we think has potential value to be reused or salvagedand put them to the side as needed to save. I have submitted the permit application for demolition. I have submitted my notice of intent to demolish to the mde. I have contacted missutility and they have marked all underground utilities. The owner is disconnecting cutting and capping all the utilities. If you need anything else just let me know. Thank you ! Adam Merrbaugh Adam's Demolition19106 Black Maple Way Hagerstown Maryland 21742301-399-8811 adamsdemolition.net@gmail.comadamsdemolition.net On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 10:57 AM Jenkins, Meghan <mjenkins@washco-md.net> wrote: Hello Adam, I have not received any response from the owner or from you regarding additional information requested for this demolition permit. I have attached the memo sent via regular mail to both you and the owner. I do not have another method of contact for the owner other than mail so please feel free to forward this if needed. If this item does not have additional information provided, its review by the HDC will be delayed. Thank you. Meghan Meghan Jenkins, GISP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator | Historic District Commission (HDC) 747 Northern Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21742 P: (240) 313-2439 | F: (240) 313-2431 www.washco-md.net (Pronouns: she/her/hers) Get Connected and See Updates NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, the unauthorized disclosure or use of which is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or if you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Book time to meet with me MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX CREDIT ELIGIBILITY BETWEEN THE TOWN OF _______________ AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND This Memorandum of Understanding for Historic Preservation Tax Credit Eligibility (the “MOU”) is made this ____ day of _______________, 2025 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the Town of __________________, a Maryland municipal corporation (the “Town”), and the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, a body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Maryland (the “County”), for Historic Preservation Tax Credit Eligibility for the purpose of making certain properties within the County eligible for a historic preservation tax credit where the property qualifies as a historic structure, and where the property is located in a qualified municipality as further explained this MOU. The Town and the County may collectively be referred to as the “Parties.” RECITALS A. On April 23, 2024, the County enacted Ordinance 2024-23 (the “Ordinance” or the “Tax Credit Ordinance”), an ordinance designed to further expand a 1990 County ordinance which granted a County property tax credit to certain historic structures located in specifically defined districts within the County. B. The purpose of the Tax Credit Ordinance is to expand its eligibility to all citizens within the County who possess Historic Structures which may be eligible for a property tax credit. C. The Tax Credit Ordinance provides that a Historic Structure situated within a “Qualified Municipality” may qualify for the property tax credit granted by the Ordinance. D. A “Qualified Municipality” is defined as a municipality with exterior design requirements that are equivalent to those established by the Historic District Commission. E. A municipality may also become a “Qualified Municipality” if the municipality executes a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the municipality grants permit review authority to the Historic District Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, each of which is incorporated in and made a substantial part of this MOU, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the Parties, and intending to be legally bound, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Consistent with Section 1.04b(i) of the Tax Credit Ordinance, a municipality may become a Qualified Municipality by granting permit review authority to the County’s Historic District Commission. 2. The Town hereby agrees to grant the Historic District Commission the authority to review and apply exterior design review requirements to applicants seeking property tax credits for their Historic Structures. 3. The Historic District Commission agrees to review applications for properties located within the Town, and to use the same exterior design review standards that it uses for all Historic Structures within the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be duly executed and delivered. Record #Type MIHP#Record Status Comments Updated by Script from EPR. Comments Updated by Script from EPR. Comments Updated by Script from EPR. HDC only reviews demolitions in this area. All work also looks to be interior. Updated by Script from EPR. Comments See documents for full memo. Summary of comments below: 1. Consider correcting the title information for this property by recording a deed which properly reflects the restrictions and conditions of the property. 2. The proposed RB overlay should maintain the 130’ buffer from Sharpsburg Pike and a minimal coverage of the parcel as indicated on the application. 3. The site will be subject to the provisions of Article 20, Historic Preservation District, and Section 20.6 of the Zoning Ordinance for any future plans or permits including signage. The HDC has Design Guidelines for Historic Structures which include guidance on signage and other site development that should be followed for any future applications on this property. 4. Require mixed forest native vegetative buffers similar to those in place nearby to minimize visibility of the commercial use. 5. All storage of equipment and supplies should be to the rear of the building as indicated by the proposed rezoning area. 6. Minimize areas where floating zones interact with overlays, perhaps with an expiration of floating zones where they overlap with overlays upon transfer of property. Comments Updated by Script from EPR. Property is within the MHT easement area for exteriors for this property. HDC does not do comments on these structures unless demolition of structure is proposed. Only demo is the exterior steps to non- primary facade and door closure. No HDC review required. Comments will require review by the HDC for the exterior changes proposed. Will touch base with applicant/contractor to get more details. Next meeting date is April 2 Comments HDC does not review new construction in Park Hall. Updated by Script from EPR.Passed - Info 03-Mar-25 Historical Review Days in Review: 4 0 2025-00861 Residential New Construction Permit Review 26-Feb-25 27-Feb-25 S-04-077 AMOS REEDER ROAD, LOT 2 2,707 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PARTIALLY FINISHED WELLED EXIT BASEMENT (1,160 SQ. FT.) TO BE USED AS RECREATION AREA WITH WET BAR, AND FULL BATHROOM, GAS Folder Status Status Date Task Name Note 03-Mar-25 Historical Review Status Date Task Name Note 24-Feb-25 Historical Review Days in Review: 2025-00487 Non-Residential Addition-Alteration Permit IV262 Revisions Required 06-Feb-25 2025-00632 Residential Addition- Alteration Permit IV029 Review 13-Feb-25 24-Feb-25 LOR 13215 SMITHSBURG PIKE 4,216 SQ. FT. INTERIOR RENOVATION OF ENTIRE DWELLING AND ATTACHED COTTAGE TO INCLUDE FINISH ATTIC TO CREATE A BEDROOM AND FULL BATHROOM, ADD TWO FULL BATHROOMS IN COTTAGE, (1) IN Folder Status Note 19-Feb-25 Historical Review 12-Feb-25 SP-22-011 14323 BARRICK AVENUE BLDG. 201 LECTURE BUILDING 1,928 SQ. FT. INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO FIRST FLOOR TO INCLUDE, DRYWALL CEILINGS AND ADA COMPLIANT RESTROOMS, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL AS REQUIRED, REMOVAL OF CONCRETE CONCRETE STAIRS FOR COMPLETION OF (2) HANDICAP RAMPS CASCADE PROPERTIES LLC MUSEUM & EVENT Folder Status Status Date Days in Review: 7 05-Feb-25 6821 SHARPSBURG PIKE SHARPSBURG, MD 21782 APPLICATION TO APPLY THE RB FLOATING ZONE ON 1.68 ACRES AT 6821 SHARPSBURG PIKE Folder Status Status Date Task Name Passed - Info 19-Feb-25 Historical Review RZ-25-001 Zoning Ordinance Amendment In Review 03-Feb-25 Historical Review Passed - Info 07-Mar-25 Historical Review Days in Review: 7 2025-00242 Non-Residential Addition-Alteration Permit IV262 Review 21-Jan-25 Task Name Comments Received 06-Mar-25 Historic District Commission Days in Review: 29 Task Name No Comments Received 28-Feb-25 Historical Review In Progress 06-Mar-25 Historical Review06-Mar-25 SP-07-052.R03 14410 ARGONNE AVENUE, BUILDING 120 CHANGE IN USE FROM MILITARY BUILDING TO RETAIL BAKERY, 1,400 SQ. FT. TENANT FIT OUT TO CREATE OFFICE, UTILITY ROOM, AND RESTROOM, ZONING CERTIFICATION FOR "SWEET THYME BREADS AND TREATS", FOR RETAIL SALE OF BAKED GOODS, NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: 1, HOURS OF OPERATION: 10:00AM-4:00PM WEDNESDAY -SUNDAY Folder Status Status Date Note 07-Mar-25 Site Plan I014 In Review 08-May-23 Task Name Approved 25-Feb-25 Historic District Commission Days in Review: 6 19-Feb-25 39 MOUNT HEBRON ROAD KEEDYSVILLE, MD 21756 6.00 ACRE PARCEL (NOT FOR DEVELOPMENT) AROUND EXISTING AG BUILDINGS IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN. NOT TO BE SOLD SEPARATELY FROM THE REMAINING FARM. Folder Status Status Date Historic Review Activity 02/19/2025 thru 03/19/2025 Open Date Date Assigned Location Description Workflow Info SI-24-028 Simplified Plat II0457 Approved 11-Dec-24 Task Name Approved 26-Feb-25 Historic District CommissionDays in Review: 0 26-Feb-25 17525 KELLETT DRIVE HAGERSTOWN, MD 21740 REVISION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN - COUNTY REFERENCE NO. SP-21-034 Folder Status Status Date SP-23-016 Record #Type MIHP#Record Status Historic Review Activity 02/19/2025 thru 03/19/2025 Open Date Date Assigned Location Description Workflow Info Comments Updated by Script from EPR. Due to the size(72sqft) and the fact that this is a conversion of existing porch which is not visible from the RoW there is no need to take this to the HDC for their review under the AO. Comments Added to April HDC for comment. Comments No sign review in this area. Updated by Script from EPR. Comments Scheduled for the April HDC Meeting. Sent letters for owner/demo contractor. Comments Square footage of shed is under the 400sqft minimum for review by the HDC. Reviewed the customer submitted photos and status of this building is beyond repair as its severely leaning and has multiple points of intrusion for water. It's not visible from the right of way and there are no sheds mentioned in the NR district description for this property. There is an outhouse mentioned but unsure if this structures design fits that description. Activity Count: 12 Comments Received In Progress No Comments Received 011 000 000 000 000 000 000 100 111 12Total286 Total 0 0 0 1Zoning Ordinance Amendment Total 1 0 0 1Site Plan Simplified Plat Total 1 0 0 1 Residential New Construction Permit Total 0 2 1 2 Residential Demolition Permit Total 0 1 1 2 Residential Addition-Alteration Permit Total 0 2 1 2 Non-Residential Signs Permit Total 0 1 1 1 Non-Residential Addition-Alteration Permit Total 0 2 2 2 Review Activities Summary Application Type Application Number Approved Note Passed - Info Total Task Name Passed - Info 14-Mar-25 Historical Review Days in Review: 0 14-Mar-25 21412 LEITER STREET DEMOLISH 50 SQ. FT. SHED AT REAR OF PROPERTY Folder Status Status Date 2025-01112 Residential Demolition Permit Approved 14-Mar-25 Task Name Note 13-Mar-25 Historical Review Days in Review: 0 13-Mar-25 SI-99-024 1230 MOUNT AETNA ROAD DEMOLITION OF 2,500 SQ. FT. ABANDONED DWELLING, THERE IS ANOTHER EXISTING DWELLING AND GARAGES/SHEDS THAT WILL REMAIN Folder Status Status Date 2025-01080 Residential Demolition Permit I437 Review 13-Mar-25 Passed - Info 11-Mar-25 Historical Review Days in Review: 0 5 2025-01004 Non-Residential Signs Permit I285 Approved 07-Mar-25 11-Mar-25 SP-19-005 18434 SHOWALTER ROAD 32 SQ. FT. FREE STANDING NON-ILLUMINATED SIGN TO READ, "SECURED PARKING AT HGR $5/DAY!, YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A TICKETED PASSENGER" HAGERSTOWN REGIONAL AIRPORT Folder Status Status Date Task Name Note 11-Mar-25 Historical Review Status Date Task Name Note 12-Mar-25 Historical Review Days in Review: 2025-00891 Residential Addition- Alteration Permit Approved 28-Feb-25 2025-00909 Residential New Construction Permit Review 03-Mar-25 07-Mar-25 S-24-033 22420 OLD GEORGETOWN ROAD, LOT 1 2,094 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON CRAWL SPACE, COVERED FRONT PORCH, REAR OPEN ATTACHED DECK, FRAME CONSTRUCTION, PRE- Folder Status Task Name Passed - Info 03-Mar-25 Antietam Overlay Zone Review Note 03-Mar-25 Antietam Overlay Zone Review 28-Feb-25 LOR 220 EAST MAIN STREET CLOSE IN EXISTING 72 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH TO BE USED AS A DEN/SITTING ROOM, FRAME CONSTRUCTION THE INN OF ANTIETAM (RESIDENTIAL PORTION) Folder Status Status Date Days in Review: 3