HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 - October Agenda
Lloyd Yavener, Chair Michael Lushbaugh
Justin Bedard, Vice Chair Tyler Milam
Ann Aldrich Gregory Smith
Brianna Candelaria Randal Leatherman,
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
October 1, 2025
Regular Meeting – 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 August 6, 2025, Regular Meeting *
2. Minutes of September 3, 2025, Regular Meeting *
NEW BUSINESS
1. Residential New Construction Permits (2025-03538 and 2025-04306) –
25609 Military Road (WA-IV-057, Highfield Rural Village)–
(Discussion/Approval) - 2,616 sq. ft. finished space two story single family
replacement dwelling on full unfinished welled exit basement, gas fireplace in
living room, covered front porch, uncovered rear and left stoops, frame
construction, pre-engineered roof trusses AND 624 sq. ft. detached one story two
car garage on concrete slab, pre-engineered roof trusses *
2. Residential Addition/Alteration – (2025-#TBD) - 4504 Main Street (WA-III-141
and WA-III-025, Rohrersville Rural Village) – (Discussion/Approval) –
restoration and stabilization of the structure *
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Staff Report
a. Staff Reviews *
b. Letter of support to the Board of County Commissioners for Legislative
Priorities *
c. Update on Town adoption of MOU’s for Tax Credit
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING MEETING
1. Wednesday, November 5, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
*attachments
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY August 6, 2025 The Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday,
August 6, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Complex, 100 W. Washington Street,
Room 2001, Hagerstown, Maryland
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Commission members present were: Lloyd Yavener, Chairman; Ann Aldrich, Justin Bedard, Tyler Milam,
Greg Smith and Brianna Candelaria (arrived at 6:36). 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 July 2, 2025 meeting as
presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bedard and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
HTC-25-001 – 32 E Baltimore Street, Funkstown – WA-I-639
Ms. Jenkins explained that we are waiting for the MOU to be signed by the Town of Funkstown giving the
HDC the authority to review tax credit applications within the Town. A tax credit application for property
located at 32 E. Baltimore Street in Funkstown has been submitted for review. Mr. Byron, the property
owner, is currently in the process of making improvements to the home; therefore, staff did not want to
delay the progress of the improvements so the application is being reviewed by the Commission this
evening. Ms. Jenkins noted that the County’s Tax Credit Ordinance requires approval prior to the work
being performed. In this case, Mr. Byron has already started the work but has tried to separate the work
already completed from what is being proposed within Part 2 of his application. An addition is also being
proposed on the structure and a preliminary drawing was included in the agenda packet.
The structure is located next to Town Hall in Funkstown and was used as a hospital during the Civil War.
Ms. Jenkins showed a slide presentation of the structure while explaining the proposed changes. Mr.
Byron was present at the meeting and provided additional information on the improvements currently
underway and a brief history of the structure
.
OTHER BUSINESS
Staff Report
· A written report of staff reviews for July was provided to members in the agenda packet.
· Town MOU for Historic Properties Tax Credit Update – Ms. Jenkins provided a spreadsheet to
members tracking the progress of the MOU process. She reported all Towns have been contacted
with varying success. The Town of Smithsburg intends to present the MOU to its Town Council in
September. The Town of Keedysville would like to have a formal presentation; however, they
meet at the same time as the HDC. Ms. Jenkins stated she sent all the materials to the Town of
Boonsboro again.
· Comprehensive Plan Update – The Comprehensive Plan will go before the Board of County
Commissioners on August 26th. Ms. Jenkins will provide a time to members when it has been set.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Aldrich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bedard
and so ordered by the Chairman.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________________
Lloyd Yavener, Chairman
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY September 3, 2025 The Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday,
September 3, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Complex, 100 W. Washington
Street, Room 2001, Hagerstown, Maryland
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Commission members present were: Lloyd Yavener, Chairman; Ann Aldrich, Justin Bedard, Tyler Milam,
Greg Smith, Brianna Candelaria and Ex-officio County Commissioner Randal Leatherman. Staff members
present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator
and HDC Staff member.
NEW BUSINESS
Residential Addition-Alteration (2025-03697) – 17827 Spielman Road
Ms. Jenkins presented a permit application for property located at 17827 Spielman Road (WA-II-277,
Fairplay Rural Village). The applicant is proposing to install 33 – 13.20 kW roof mounted solar panels on
the dwelling. The majority of the panels would be installed on the side of the roof that does not face the
right-of-way. The panels facing the right-of-way would be on a portion of the dwelling that was added to
the original structure. Staff recommends approval of the application.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to approve the permit application as presented. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously approved.
HTC-25-002 – 817 The Terrace, WA-HAG-146 (Oak Hill Historic District)
Ms. Jenkins presented a tax credit application for several proposed projects on property located at 817
The Terrace. Ms. Jenkins presented pictures of the property as well as a description of each proposed
project with a cost estimation. The first project is the colonnade (work already in progress). Phase 2
includes the replacement of windows, storm windows, scraping, painting, etc. at an approximate cost of
$60,000. Phase 3 will include the dismantling of existing stairs and walkway, pouring of concrete,
replacement of flagstone, etc. at an estimated cost of $85,000. No formal action is required at this time.
OLD BUSINESS
HTC-25-001 – 32 E Baltimore Street, Funkstown – WA-I-639
Ms. Jenkins reminded members that this property was reviewed during the August meeting. Staff visited
the site on August 21, 2025 to discuss details of the project at the request of the owner. The property
owner would like the Commission’s advice on replacing the basement glass windows with a vertical wood
grille backed by a solid backing and making the opening slightly smaller to bring the sill above-grade. He
also would like the Commission to comment on the stoop he is proposing at the back of the attached
kitchen. The proposed stoop would be similar in construction to the one on Chance Regained as found in
the “Washington County Historic Treasures” book but adjusted for the scale of the building. This includes
a shed-style roof, no guttering, with simple wood columns. There was a discussion that the door opening
on the kitchen was likely added later and the previously attached shed sheltered the opening. Adding the
shed roof stoop would protect the opening. Members noted these changes would improve the longevity
of both the windows in the basement and the door on the kitchen. They had no additional comments on
the updates to the project.
OTHER BUSINESS
Correspondence
· Section 106 Consultation: I-70 Bridge Nos. 2111503 and 2111504 over MD 632 – A letter was
received from MDOT regarding the replacement of these dual bridges over MD 632. MDOT has
determined that no historic properties will be affected by the project. No formal action is
required.
· HTC-24-002 – Williamson Status Update to Withdrawn – Ms. Jenkins reminded members that Mr.
Williamson proposed a gutter project for his home and was proposing to apply for State and
County tax credits. Mr. Williamson has withdrawn his application due to issues with the
contractor.
· Rohrersville Cell Tower – Ms. Jenkins stated that a letter was received asking if the HDC would like
to be a consulting party in the review process. She stated that a 199-foot monopole is proposed
on MD 67 next to the Boonsboro Ambulance facility. In preliminary research, it appears the
proposed tower would be visible from the Appalachian Trail and Crampton’s Gap which are both
on the National Register of Historic Places. There are several other National Register eligible
resources that would be affected by the placement of this cell tower. Ms. Jenkins responded that
the HDC would like to be a consulting party for this proposed project.
Staff Report
· A written report was provided to members in the agenda packet.
· Legislative Priorities Update – Last year the HDC set three priorities: update the tax credits, begin
a grant program (County Attorney believes language in State Law is required to enact such a
program) and begin a yearly credit program similar to the ag district program. The grant program
and yearly credit program are potential candidates for this year’s legislative session. Priorities are
determined by the Board of County Commissioners.
· City of Hagerstown Outreach, Tax Credits – Ms. Jenkins reported that she received a phone call
from someone who wanted to apply for a tax credit; however, the project was already fully
completed. Unfortunately, the City did not instruct the property owner to apply for the tax credit
prior to work beginning. Ms. Jenkins has reached out to City staff to make sure they inform people
if they are interested in the tax credits they must apply prior to work starting. She also sent them
copies of the tax credit brochure.
· Comprehensive Plan Status – Ms. Jenkins announced that the Comprehensive Plan Update has
been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. A few revisions are required and then the
document will be available on our website.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Bedard made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 pm. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Candelaria and so ordered by the Chairman.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________________
Lloyd Yavener, Chairman
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff
Date: September 22, 2025
Subj: Residential New Construction Permit/Stick Built Home, 2025-03538 &
Residential New Construction Permit/Garage-Carport, 2025-04306
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner: BREWBAKER NICHOLAS ALISTAIR,
Applicant: Nicholas Brewbaker
Location: 25609 MILITARY Road
Tax Account ID: 14008896
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 14/22/409/
Legal Description: PAR A 105X195 .46AC 25609 MILITARY ROAD
Zoning: Rural Village
Rural Village: Highfield (MHT-C) Historic Rural Village
Project Description: 2,616 sq. ft. finished space two-story single-family
replacement dwelling on full unfinished welled exit
basement, gas fireplace in living room, covered front
porch, uncovered rear and left stoops, frame
construction, pre-engineered roof trusses AND
624 sq. ft. detached one story two car garage on
concrete slab, pre-engineered roof trusses
John Lee Chapman, Parcel A
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:
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
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.
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 which may be applicable to this project review include:
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
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
would be unimpaired.
Washington County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures which may be applicable to this project
review include:
Guidelines for New Construction and Accessory Buildings (Page 71)
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.
Staff Report:
The subject property is located in the Highfield/Cascade Rural Village in the northeastern portion of
Washington County. The rural village is situated primarily along Military Road (MD 550) and is
comprised of approximately 70 acres and 60 dwellings constructed between the late 19th century to
early 20th century. The architectural styles of the village vary and include examples of Queen Anne,
Colonial Revival, Craftsman style and more. The community developed as a resort community with
vacation homes and transitioned in the 1940’s to the rural residential community it is today. The typical
construction materials include wood frame on stone foundations. There are varied roof types including
gabled or hipped roofs as well as gambrel. Many structures have broad porches covering several
elevations. The setbacks in the district vary depending on lot size and topography but many lots include
lawns and mature trees.
In January of 2024 the previous structure on this property was significantly damaged by a building fire.
The structure was demolished, and the lot is currently vacant ahead of the proposed construction. The
previous structure was contributing to the district and described as “8. two-story vernacular building of
wood construction with multiple-pitched roof; windows are flat-topped exterior shutters; single-story
bay window (c. 1900)” – Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) WA-IV-057. There is an
accompanying photo on page 107 of the MIHP documentation which is included in the attachments of
this report for reference. The previous structure was setback from Military Rd. approximately 100 feet.
The projects associated with this review propose a 2,616 sq. ft., two-story single-family dwelling on full
unfinished basement with a covered front porch, an uncovered rear stoop and left stoop using frame
construction (2025-03538). There is an accompanying 624 sq. ft. detached one story two car garage on
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
concrete slab also proposed (2025-04306). The proposed structures are set back approximately 75 feet
from Military Road with the garage proposed to the east or left side of the main house and slightly
setback from the main house while its depth puts the structures in line at the rear elevations. The
materials to be used for the structures include fiberglass/asphalt shingles, with vinyl siding and wood
porches/stoops for the house and the garage proposes a concrete exterior.
Staff Analysis:
The proposed structures exterior appearance does not conflict with the existing structures in the rural
village in terms of the materials, styles, mass and other factors as listed in Section 5D.5 Architectural
Review of the Zoning Ordinance. The buildings size and orientation within the property are consistent
with the existing structures in the village as well. The structures will be slightly closer to the road than
the neighboring contributing structure but only by about 25 feet. The setbacks proposed by the project
do not conflict with the varying setbacks that are present in the rural village. The accessory garage is
setback from the main house with construction that does not conflict with other existing structures.
The construction proposed does not conflict with the County Design Guidelines or the Secretary of
Interior Guidelines which are applicable to this construction type. The characteristics detailed in this
application have been reviewed against the characteristics listed in Section 5D.5 Architectural Review
of the Zoning Ordinance and do not appear to detract from the rural village.
Staff Recommendation:
Recommend approval of the new construction permits 2025-03538 and 2025-04306, in the
Highfield/Cascade Historic Rural Village, due to the proposed constructions consistency with the
County’s Design Guidelines for Historic Structures, Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation
and Section 5D.5 Architectural Review as listed in the County’s Zoning Ordinance based on the details
provided in the Staff Analysis of the project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP
Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
· Photos provided by Staff
· Permit Submission Packet
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Previous Structure – Image Credit: MIHP WA-IV-057
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Existing Conditions (Sept 2024) Image Credit: Google Street View
“
”
“
”
“
”
“
”
“
”
“
”
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff
Date: September 23, 2025
Subj: Residential Addition-Alteration Permit/Barkman Summer Kitchen, 2025-04514
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner:
YAVENER LLOYD D,
Applicant: Lloyd David Yavener
Location: 4505 MAIN Street
Tax Account ID: 08005753
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 81/10/191/
Legal Description: .5 ACRE 50X1504504 MAIN ST
Zoning: Rural Village
Rural Village: Rohrersville (MHT-C) Historic Rural Village
MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): WA-III-141(Individual) and WA-III-025 (Rural Village)
Project Description: 384 sq. renovations to restore 19th century accessory
structure to include stabilization and shoring upper level
of building, reconstruction of foundation walls using
salvaged stone, installing wooden plates at top of
foundation walls as needed, masonry reconstruction of
center section of upper story brick wall, rebuild small
chimney on the south side of structure, restore or
replace rafters, facia, metal roof, wood windows and
doors, installing lintels above doorways as needed
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."
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
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.
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 which may be applicable to this project review include:
1. 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.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be
preserved.
6. 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.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be
used.
Washington County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures which may be applicable to this project
review include:
Guidelines for Existing Accessory Buildings (Pg.55)
1. Accessory buildings that significantly contribute to the principal structure or are significant
should be retained, well-maintained, and preserved, including their siting, orientation, design,
scale, materials of construction, and detailing. Adaptive reuse of these structures to enable
continued utility of the structure is encouraged when necessary.
2. Deteriorated accessory buildings, and their distinctive features and details, should be repaired if
necessary, using the same materials or ones that are similar in scale, form, texture, and color.
Ordinary maintenance is encouraged.
3. Those that are deteriorated beyond repair may be replaced with new ones that should resemble
the original in siting, scale, proportion, fenestration, materials, and color as closely as possible.
4. Fading, painted, historic mural signs – “ghost signs” – on the exterior of the structure should be
left as found.
5. See also Key Themes. (p.48)
Guidelines for Masonry Exteriors (Pg.58)
1. If a masonry wall has historically been painted, it should continue to be painted, ideally in
colors that are sympathetic to its historic color scheme. Remove paint from historically
painted walls only in preparation for repainting. Avoid painting historically unpainted
masonry walls.
2. If cleaning a masonry wall is appropriate, it should be undertaken with the gentlest means
possible. Typically, this means using water, detergent, and brushes. Power washing, chemical
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
cleaning, or more aggressive methods should be used only if the gentlest means does not
work.
3. Re-pointed mortar joints should match the original in size, depth, profile, color, composition,
and finishing detail. The type of mortar joint used contributes to the character of a masonry
wall. Examples of mortar joints include struck, concave, weathered, raked, flush, vee, or
extruded. Avoid the use of incompatible mortar and retain material and composition when
possible. “Mortars for repointing should be softer or more permeable than the masonry units
and no harder or more impermeable than the historic mortar to prevent damage to the
masonry units.” (Preservation Brief #2: Re-pointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry
Buildings)
4. Applying waterproof coatings to masonry walls can cause moisture to be trapped inside a
masonry cavity. Waterproof coatings should be applied only after careful consideration and
professional consultation.
5. See also Key Themes. (p.57)
Guidelines for Entrances (Pg.62)
1. It is not recommended that secondary façades have entrance changes in size, shape or
location if such changes detract or confuse the primary entrance of the structure.
2. If a new opening is required, it should be on a secondary façade and not visible from the
public right-of-way.
3. Weatherstripping and caulking to improve energy efficiency are acceptable.
4. Screen doors are usually appropriate on residential and sometimes appropriate on
commercial buildings. On primary façades, screen doors should be constructed of wood or a
material that is appropriate for the building and should not detract or fully cover the entry
door. Secondary façades may have metal screen/storm doors, but use of careful installation
should ensure minimized damage to the opening.
5. See also Key Themes. (p.57)
Guidelines for Windows (Pg. 64)
1. Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
2. Openings should not be resized or enclosed on primary façades.
3. Wood windows on primary façades should not be replaced with windows constructed of
alternative materials such as metal or vinyl. When replacing windows on a secondary façade,
the HDC should be consulted to determine the appropriate design and material of the
replacements.
4. Inappropriately designed, non-original windows should be replaced with appropriately
designed ones based on documentary or photographic evidence. If no such evidence exists,
the design of the replacement should be compatible with the character of the façade in which
it is located.
5. Shutters and their hardware should not be replaced with new materials. Whether operational
or not, they should be sized to appear to cover the window if closed.
6. Existing or replacement storm windows and screens should match as closely as possible the
historic windows in size, profiles of sash and frame, color, and other character-defining
features. In cases where exterior storm windows were not used historically, interior storm
windows may be considered. Clear glass should be used for glazing all storm windows.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
7. See also Key Themes. (p.57)
Guidelines For Roofs (Pg. 67)
1. Avoid altering the roof pitch and shape.
2. Exposed roof rafters and soffits should not be cut back.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Existing dormers should not be resized or have architectural features diminished.
7. See also Key Themes. (p.57)
Staff Report:
Rohrersville is located in southern Washington County. The majority of the rural village’s 68 contributing structures are located along Main Street which is just west of Maryland 67. There are a few resources also along Rohrersville School Road. The subject property is contributing to the rural village and has an individual number on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP). The log house (demolished in 1999) and the summer kitchen (subject of this permit) are related to David Barkman and the mill complex which was located across Main Street (WA-III-139) from these buildings. The details of the survey indicate the structures date from the early 19th century and that “the summer kitchen windows are original with six over six sash beneath wide wooden lintels, a window type associated with the mid 19th century. One window is protected by a pair of paneled shutters.” The current property owner has provided a brief additional history in the attachments. The project proposes to reconstruct and repair the stone foundation, reconstruct and repair the brick walls on the north side of the structure. The west side (front) will also have the stone foundation reconstructed and repaired. The brick in this portion will have some replacement sourced by the contractor to match and repairs will be made to the remainder. The east side of the structure will involve repair and repointing of the brick and stone. The south side of the structure will undergo some replacement of brick in the walls, repair and reconstruction of the foundation. The project notes indicate the rafters, fascia, metal roof, wood windows and doors and again any lintels will be repaired where feasible and replaced in kind. A full description from the applicant is included in the attachments along with corresponding photos and engineered drawings.
Staff Analysis:
The project proposes to repair wherever feasible and replace when necessary with in kind materials which are key themes of the County Design Guidelines for all applicable sections noted in this report as well as the Secretary of Interior Standards. The project goal is the stabilization of the structure with minimal changes to its appearance through the reuse of existing materials or matching in kind. The proposal does not conflict with the review criteria in Section 5D.5 Architectural Review of the Zoning Ordinance as there are no changes to the building affecting its materials, style, arrangement of doors and windows, mass, height and number of stories, or roof style.
Staff Recommendation:
Recommend approval of the Residential Addition-Alteration Permit/Barkman Summer Kitchen, 2025-
04514, in the Rohrersville Historic Rural Village, due to the proposed work’s consistency with the
County’s Design Guidelines for Historic Structures, Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and
Section 5D.5 Architectural Review as listed in the County’s Zoning Ordinance based on the details
provided in the Staff Analysis for this project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP
Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
• Photos and description of work provided by Applicant
• Permit Submission Packet
Permit Application Supplement
David Barkman Stone and Brick Kitchen
MIHP Reference WA-III-141
4504 Main Street, Rohrersville, MD 21779
Map 0081 Parcel 0191 Account ID 005753
July 2025
This permit application covers
the stabilization and restoration
of the stone foundation and
brick walls of a structure located
at 4504 Main Street in
Rohrersville. The structure is
believed to be a summer kitchen
associated with the adjacent log
home built in the early to mid-19th
century that was consumed by
fire in the 1990s. David Barkman
and later his son GG Barkman
lived in the log home and
operated the grist mill known then as Barkman’s Mill. Prior to Barkman’s ownership,
the mill was part of Samual Rohrer’s adjacent farm and known as Rohrer’s Mill.
After the fire, the property was
abandoned as the owners at the
time moved away and never
rebuilt the home. Over the years,
the property was completely
overgrown and used frequently
as a dump site for trash and
discarded items. The property
was acquired in 2022 to clean up
and beautify the area and
restore the summer kitchen for
use as an outbuilding.
Description of Work
Shoring -- Stabilize and shore upper
level of building using
1. Through-wall needle beams
2. Rachet straps around the
perimeter
3. Temporary interior walls in
basement and principal floor
North Side
Side Wall -- Stone Foundation
1. Dismantle foundation stone
wall, stopping approximately
two feet from the NW corner.
Leave corner intact. Salvage
stone for use in reconstruction.
2. Reconstruct foundation wall using stone salvaged during dismantling, and
repoint to the corner. Use NHL 5.0 lime with a joint profile and in a color to
match original.
3. Install lintel above doorway and wooden plate at top of foundation wall as
needed.
Side Wall -- Brick Wall
1. Dismantle center section of upper story brick wall. This area would extend
approximately five feet from bottom course of bricks and to within two feet
of each corner. Leave corners intact. Salvage any suitable brick for use in
reconstruction, though most of the existing brick are too soft and would be
inappropriate for the repair.
2. Reconstruct center section of the upper story brick wall. Use any
appropriate original brick salvaged during dismantling and 19th century
brick from Gruber-Latimer's inventory for repair. Use NHL 3.5 lime with a joint
profile and in a color to match original.
West Side - Front
Front Wall -- Stone Foundation
1. Excavate trench in front of
building with bottom at the
floor level of the basement.
Excavate soil approximately
5' away from foundation on
the top half of the trench.
Leave 2' shelf halfway down
so that the lower half of the
trench is 3' from the
foundation.
2. Dismantle foundation stone
wall, stopping approximately
two feet from each corner.
Leave corners intact.
Salvage stone for use in
reconstruction.
3. Reconstruct foundation wall using stone salvaged during dismantling, and
repoint to corner. Use NHL 5.0 lime with a joint profile and in a color to
match original.
4. Install wooden plate at top of foundation wall as needed.
Front Wall -- Brick Front
1. Dismantle entire upper story brick wall. Leave corners intact if possible.
Salvage any suitable brick for use in reconstruction, though most of the
existing brick are too soft and would be inappropriate for the repair.
2. Reconstruct center section of the upper story brick wall, recreating the
openings for the door and two windows. Reuse lintels if possible; otherwise,
replace. Use any appropriate original brick salvaged during dismantling
and 19th century brick from Gruber-Latimer's inventory for repair. Use NHL
3.5 lime with a joint profile and in a color to match original.
East Side - Back
Back Wall -- Stone Foundation
1. Repair/dismantle foundation
stonework above and below
the window. Salvage the
stone for use in
reconstruction.
2. Reconstruct any dismantled
foundation stonework using
stone salvaged during
dismantling. Use NHL 5.0 lime
with a joint profile and in a
color to match original.
3. Repoint exterior of east
foundation wall using NHL 5.0
lime mortar with a joint profile
and color that matches
existing.
Back Wall -- Brick Wall
1. Repair/dismantle brickwork below the window.
2. Reconstruct any dismantled brickwork using 19th century brick from Gruber-
Latimer's inventory
3. Use NHL 3.5 lime with a joint profile and in a color to match original.
South Side
Side Wall -- Stone Foundation
1. Repair/dismantle foundation
stonework at the SW corner.
Salvage the stone for use in
reconstruction.
2. Reconstruct any dismantled
foundation stonework using
stone salvaged during
dismantling. Use NHL 5.0 lime
with a joint profile and in a
color to match original.
3. Repoint exterior of south
foundation wall using NHL 5.0
lime mortar with a joint profile
and color that matches
existing.
Side Wall -- Brick Wall
1. Repair/dismantle brickwork in these areas:
a. Lower SW corner
b. Under window
c. Above window
d. Gable
2. Gable window
3. Use NHL 3.5 lime with a joint profile and in a color to match original.
Miscellaneous
1. Reconstruct any dismantled brickwork using 19th century brick from Gruber-
Latimer's inventory.
2. Replacement Bricks -- Cut and out replace up to 200 brick. Use brick from
Gruber-Latimer's inventory for repair and NHL 3.5 lime with a joint profile and
in a color to match original.
3. Lintels -- Replace seven window/door lintels. If, upon inspection, Gruber-
Latimer determines that a lintel(s) does not need to be replaced, we will
subtract that incremental amount from the invoice.
S1
3
0
4
-
8
7
6
-
1
6
6
1
A
l
i
c
i
a
F
M
c
C
o
r
m
i
c
k
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Sh
e
p
h
e
r
d
s
t
o
w
n
,
W
V
2
5
4
4
3
Su
i
t
e
2
0
8
A.
F
.
M
c
C
o
r
m
i
c
k
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
12
9
E
a
s
t
G
e
r
m
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
PO
B
o
x
3
6
0
4
Jo
b
N
o
.
2
5
-
0
6
2
of 3
3
0
4
-
8
7
6
-
1
6
6
1
A
l
i
c
i
a
F
M
c
C
o
r
m
i
c
k
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Sh
e
p
h
e
r
d
s
t
o
w
n
,
W
V
2
5
4
4
3
Su
i
t
e
2
0
8
A.
F
.
M
c
C
o
r
m
i
c
k
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
12
9
E
a
s
t
G
e
r
m
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
PO
B
o
x
3
6
0
4
S2
Jo
b
N
o
.
2
5
-
0
3
8
of 3
3
0
4
-
8
7
6
-
1
6
6
1
A
l
i
c
i
a
F
M
c
C
o
r
m
i
c
k
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Sh
e
p
h
e
r
d
s
t
o
w
n
,
W
V
2
5
4
4
3
Su
i
t
e
2
0
8
A.
F
.
M
c
C
o
r
m
i
c
k
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
12
9
E
a
s
t
G
e
r
m
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
PO
B
o
x
3
6
0
4
S3
Jo
b
N
o
.
2
5
-
0
3
8
of 3
Record #Type MIHP#Record
Status
Task Name Comments
Historic District
Commission Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historic District
Commission Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historic District
Commission Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Historical Review
Not a fully documented district, there is an indiv listing on the property but there is no clear evidence
they are the same structure, this has zero visibility from the RoW and is being used to stabilize the porch,
not changing the profile of the porch on the structure which is more modern already. No HDC review
required for this one for these reasons.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Put on the October 1 HDC meeting for new construction design review.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Historical Review Customer previously demo'd historic structure without permits. No exterior design review is required in
this area and therefore no HDC review.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Historical Review Reviewed by the HDC at their 9/3 meeting and approved. Staff report and approval letter attached in the
docs.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Not in an HDC review area for new construction.
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Added to October 1 agenda, taking with related new construction house.
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Historical Review Added to October 1 agenda, taking with related new construction house.
Task Name Comments
2,552 SQ. FT. ONE STORY DETACHED BUILDING
ON CONCRETE SLAB TO BE USED AS A PRIVATE
Folder Status Status Date
08-Sep-25 LOR 25609 MILITARY ROAD,
PARCEL A
624 SQ. FT. DETACHED ONE STORY TWO CAR
GARAGE ON CONCRETE SLAB, PRE-ENGINEERED
ROOF TRUSSES
JOHN LEE CHAPMAN, PARCEL A
Folder Status Status Date
Note 10-Sep-25
No Comments
Received 16-Sep-25
Note 16-Sep-25
Days in Review:8
2025-04306 Residential New
Construction Permit Review 08-Sep-25
02-Sep-25 LOR 14902 NATIONAL PIKE
304 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO LEFT OF DWELLING
ON CRAWL SPACE TO BE USED AS AN OFFICE,
PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES
Folder Status Status Date
Note 03-Sep-25
Approved 03-Sep-25
Days in Review:1
2025-04132 Residential Addition-
Alteration Permit Approved 28-Aug-25
05-Aug-25 LOR 17827 SPIELMAN ROAD INSTALLATION OF (33) 13.20 KW ROOF
MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS ON DWELLING
Folder Status Status Date
Approved 05-Sep-25
Note 05-Sep-25
Days in Review:31
2025-03697 Residential Addition-
Alteration Permit Approved 05-Aug-25
21-Aug-25 LOR 12968 ROWE ROAD
3,509 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE TWO STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON 2,088 SQ. FT.
UNFINISHED WALK OUT BASEMENT WITH
ROUGH IN FOR FUTURE BATH AND 263 SQ. FT.
CONDITIONED CRAWL SPACE, ATTACHED TWO
CAR GARAGE, COVERED FRONT PORCH, FRAME
CONSTRUCTION, PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF
Folder Status Status Date
Passed - Info 18-Sep-25
Note 18-Sep-25
Days in Review:28
2025-03673 Residential New
Construction Permit IV072 Review 01-Aug-25
10-Sep-25 LOR 8025 SHARPSBURG PIKE
INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO INCLUDE ADDING
WINDOWS TO KITCHEN/DINNING AREA, NEW
SIDING, CABINETS, AND COUNTERS, WILL NOT
BE MOVING SINK, ADD 98 SQ. FT. HALF
BATHROOM TO FIRST FLOOR
Folder Status Status Date
Passed - Info 10-Sep-25
Days in Review:0
2025-03599 Residential Addition-
Alteration Permit Review 30-Jul-25
29-Aug-25 LOR 25609 MILITARY ROAD,
PARCEL A
2,616 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE TWO STORY
SINGLE FAMILY REPLACEMENT DWELLING ON
FULL UNFINISHED WELLED EXIT BASEMENT,
GAS FIREPLACE IN LIVING ROOM, COVERED
FRONT PORCH, UNCOVERED REAR AND LEFT
Folder Status Status Date
Note 05-Sep-25
Days in Review:7
2025-03538 Residential New
Construction Permit Review 26-Jul-25
27-Aug-25 S-22-024 6720 REMSBURG
ROAD, LOT 1
REMOVAL OF STAIRS FROM REAR SECOND
LEVEL EXISTING BALCONY, REINFORCING
BALCONY WITH IRON BEAM (23 SQ. FT.)
PHILIP BAKER-SHENK, LOT 1
Folder Status Status Date
Approved 29-Aug-25
Note 29-Aug-25
Days in Review:2
2025-03105 Residential Addition-
Alteration Permit II0103 Approved 07-Jul-25
16-Sep-25 20513 BEAVER CREEK ROAD
HAGERSTOWN, MD 21740 SITE PLAN FOR A PARISH OFFICE
Folder Status Status Date
Approved 16-Sep-25
Days in Review:0
SP-25-023 Site Plan II0054 In Review 25-Jun-25
11-Sep-25
SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A COUNTY PARK ON
THE INTERSECTION OF ANTIETAM DRIVE AND
SECURITY ROAD. PARK CONSISTS OF 11 PAVED
PARKING SPACES, CONCRETE WALKWAY TO A
WOOD ELEVATED VIEW PLATFORM/DECK
Folder Status Status Date
Approved 12-Sep-25
Days in Review:1
SP-25-009 Site Plan I123 In Review 07-Apr-25
25-Aug-25 11009 SASHA BOULEV
HAGERSTOWN, MD 21742
91 SINGLE FAMILY AND 100 DUPLEX LOTS WITH
ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE
Folder Status Status Date
Approved 29-Aug-25
Days in Review:4
PP-25-001 Preliminary Plat I075; I063 In Review 07-Apr-25
Historic Review Activity 08/23/2025 thru 09/18/2025
Open Date Date Assigned Location Description Workflow Info
Record #Type MIHP#Record
Status
Historic Review Activity 08/23/2025 thru 09/18/2025
Open Date Date Assigned Location Description Workflow Info
Historical Review Not in a review area for new construction
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historic District
Commission Updated by Script from EPR.
Activity Count:12
No Comments
Received
Note Passed - Info
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 3 1
1 4 2
0 0 0
1 7 3Total6 1 12
Site Plan Total 2 0 2
Total 0 0 4Residential New Construction Permit
Total 3 0 4Residential Addition-Alteration Permit
Preliminary Plat Site Plan Total 0 1 1
Preliminary Plat Total 1 0 1
Review Activities Summary
Application Type Application Number Approved Revisions
Required
Total
11-Sep-25 18225 SHOWALTER ROAD
HAGERSTOWN, MD 21742
THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT/SITE PLAN IS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A COUNTY ROAD, GRAVEL
OVERNIGHT TRUCK PARKING LOT, AND MASS-
GRADING FOR A FUTURE CONVENIENCE STORE.
THE PROPOSED SITE DISTURBED AREA IS 21.0
Folder Status Status Date
Revisions Required 12-Sep-25
Days in Review:0
PSP-25-004 Preliminary Plat Site
Plan I471; I866 In Review 09-Sep-25
08-Sep-25 S-22-024 6720 REMSBURG
ROAD, LOT 1
ON CONCRETE SLAB TO BE USED AS A PRIVATE
WORKSHOP, WITH STORAGE ROOM, DETAIL
ROOM, LOUNGE/KITCHENETTE, FULL
BATHROOM, ARTS AND CRAFTS ROOM, AND
WORKSHOP, FRAME CONSTRUCTION, PRE-
ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES, 440 SQ. FT. WRAP
Note 09-Sep-25
Passed - Info 09-Sep-25
Days in Review:1
2025-04308 Residential New
Construction Permit II0103 Review 08-Sep-25
Lloyd Yavener, Chair Michael Lushbaugh
Justin Bedard, Vice Chair Tyler Milam
Ann Aldrich Gregory Smith
Brianna Candelaria Randal Leatherman,
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
September 22, 2025
The Honorable John C. Barr
President, Washington County Board of County Commissioners
100 W. Washington Street
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Dear Mr. Barr,
On behalf of the Washington County Historic District Commission (HDC),
please accept this letter of support for the legislative priorities provided by the
Department of Planning and Zoning related to historic resource incentive programs.
The HDC has duties outlined in the Washington County Zoning Ordinance
which include the recommendation of programs and legislation to the Board of
County Commissions (BOCC), that encourage historic preservation. The HDC has
found that our County lacks the opportunity to implement additional programs to
benefit our citizen stewards of historic resources. It is imperative that the County and
its citizens be provided with the option to implement additional programs which are
either proven successful by our neighboring jurisdictions or which show an innovative
approach to retain resources vital to our heritage.
The priorities the HDC strongly recommends include the ability to implement a
historic resources grant program similar to one in place in neighboring Frederick
County. The HDC also feels that the impacts of historic resources on our heritage
tourism economy warrant a program similar to the agriculture district program in
place within our County. That program provides a yearly county property tax credit
for agricultural properties. These programs are proposed to assist with citizen
concerns which include the rising cost of replacement insurance for historic
structures, the increased cost of skilled labor to make repairs to historic structures
and the lack of funding to complete projects on historic structures.
The HDC recommends the BOCC to forward these priorities and support their
adoption into state law. Our commission is ready to work closely with the BOCC to
adopt the corresponding local ordinances for these programs. A robust incentive
program is necessary to show the County’s continued commitment to the
stewardship of these finite resources.
Sincerely,
Lloyd Yavener
Chairperson, Washington County Historic District Commission