HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - November 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
November 5, 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 October 1, 2025, Regular Meeting *
NEW BUSINESS
1. Residential Demolition Permit (2025-04486) – Wolfsville Road, Smithsburg
(WA-IV-078) - (Discussion/Support) – Demolition of old stone mill, will involve
tearing down an already collapsed stone mill, comprised of a single story, no
windows or framing *
2. Residential Demolition Permit (2025-04522) – 11416 Hanging Rock Road,
Clear Spring (WA-V-176, Forsythe Rural Village) - (Discussion/Support) –
Demolition of existing 1, 182 sq. ft. two story, metal clad log home structure and
accessory sheds, no existing foundation *
3. Residential Demolition Permit (2025-04487) – 14219 Maugansville Road,
Hagerstown (WA-I-697 and WA-I-248) - (Discussion/Support) – Demolition of
old stone mill, will involve tearing down an already collapsed stone mill,
comprised of a single story, no windows or framing *
4. HTC-25-003, 102 West Irvin Avenue, Hagerstown (WA-HAG-148 and WA-
HAG-146) – (Discussion/Comments) – Part 1 and Part 2 application for tax credits
at the Bikle House for chimney repair *
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Correspondence
a. Request for Comment- Telecommunications Project- Sharpsburg, MD
(Trileaf#775393) *
2. Staff Report
a. Staff Reviews *
b. Legislative Priorities Update
c. Update on Town adoption of MOU’s for Tax Credit
i. Keedysville Approved by BOCC
ii. Smithsburg Council Presentation Complete
iii. Sharpsburg Council discussing in November
iv. Boonsboro Council Workshop Presentation October 27th
d. Preservation Maryland CLG Workshop Series
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING MEETING
1. Wednesday, December 3, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
a. Note that December meeting will be election of chair and vice chair so
members should be prepared to discuss. Both existing chair and vice chair
are eligible to remain in their position based on attendance.
*attachments
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY October 1, 2025 The Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday,
October 1, 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, 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 and Debra Eckard, Office Manager.
Also in attendance were Katie Greis, Smoky Greis, Cheryl Greis, and Nancy Hall.
MINUTES
Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 6, 2025 regular
meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously approved.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 3, 2025 regular
meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Aldrich and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
Residential New Construction Permits (2025-03538 and 2025-04306) – 25609 Military Road
Ms. Jenkins presented two permit applications for property located at 25609 Military Road (WA-IV-057,
Highfield/Cascade Rural Village). The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,616 sq. ft. two-story single-
family dwelling on a full unfinished welled exit basement and a 624 sq. ft. detached one-story two car
garage. The proposed structure will be of frame construction with siding. The structure’s exterior
appearance does not conflict with existing structures in the Rural Village including materials, style,
arrangement of doors and windows, mass, height, roof style, and pitch proportion. The size and
orientation are consistent with other structures in the Rural Village. The proposed setbacks do not conflict
with other setbacks in the neighborhood. The accessory garage will be set back from the house slightly.
The proposed construction does not conflict with the County’s Design Guidelines and the characteristic
details described in the application have been reviewed against the architectural review standards in the
Zoning Ordinance; It does not appear that these structures would detract from the Rural Village.
Staff recommends approval of the new construction permits due to the proposed construction’s
consistency with the County’s Design Guidelines for Historic Structures, Secretary of the Interior Standards
for Rehabilitation and Section 5D.5 Architectural Review as listed in the County’s Zoning Ordinance based
on details provided.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Candelaria made a motion to recommend approval of the permits as presented
and in agreement with Staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously
approved.
Residential Addition/Alteration (2025-04514) – 4504 Main Street
Ms. Jenkins presented an application for property located at 4504 Main Street (WA-III-141 and WA-III-
025) (Barkman Summer Kitchen) in the Rohrersville Rural Village. The applicant is proposing to repair,
wherever feasible, and replace, when necessary, with in-kind materials, which are key themes of the
County’s Design Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards. The goal of this project is the
stabilization of the structure with minimal changes to its appearance through the reuse of existing
materials or matching in-kind. This 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 numbers of stories or roof style.
Staff recommends approval of the permit application as presented due to the 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.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to recommend approval of the permit application as
presented and in agreement with Staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Milam and
unanimously approved with Mr. Yavener abstaining from the vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Citizen Question and Advice
Ms. Nancy Hall from Cavetown was present at the meeting and asked members and staff for some advice
regarding a historic carriage house located on the property of a water treatment facility on Crystal Falls
Drive owned by the City of Hagerstown. The historic structure is deteriorating and Ms. Hall and some of
her neighbors would like to preserve it. Ms. Aldrich suggested approaching the City of Hagerstown to
develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with plans to restore/rehabilitate the structure. She
believes that there would need to be a 501(3)c organized in order to receive grants to help offset the
costs. Ms. Jenkins suggested contacting the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area as a technical resource.
Staff Report
· A written report was provided to members in the agenda packet.
· Legislative Priorities Update – A draft letter was provided to members in the agenda packet.
Members had no comments. Mr. Yavener signed the letter to be forwarded to the County
Commissioners.
· Update of Town adoption of MOUs for Tax Credits
o Signed MOU has been received from the Town of Keedysville
o Smithsburg will present the MOU to its Town Council on October 7th at 7:00 p.m.
o Williamsport anticipates presenting this at its October meeting
o Boonsboro will present this at its October meeting
o There have been no responses from the Towns of Hancock, Clear Spring, Sharpsburg or
Funkstown. Ms. Candelaria will discuss this at the Sharpsburg Planning Commission’s
October meeting.
· A Section 106 notification for a cell tower at Smithsburg High School was received. Ms. Jenkins
stated that the proposed cell tower is in the middle of a forest planting that was done by the
County. She has informed the applicant of this fact and acknowledged that the HDC would like to
be involved in further review of the proposed project.
· The HCWHA’s mini grant will close at the end of October. Ms. Jenkins also noted that they have
released their geo-tour which has been very popular.
· The Comprehensive Plan has been adopted and Ms. Jenkins showed members where it is located
on the County’s webpage.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Aldrich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:40 pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith,
unanimously approved 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: October 9, 2025
Subj: Residential Demolition Permit/Wolfsville Rd, 2025-04486
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner: SHORTEN DAVID,
Applicant: David Shorten
Location: Smithsburg/Wolfsville Road
Tax Account ID: 07010834
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 40/19/222/
Legal Description: 2 ACRESSMITHSBURG/WOLFSVILLE RD
Zoning: Residential, Transition
MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): IV078
Project Description: Demolition of old stone mill, will involve tearing
down an already collapsed stone mill, comprised
of a single story and no windows or framing
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.
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 DISTRICT COMMISSION
Historic Buildings and subsequent revisions are to be used as guidance only and are not to be
considered mandatory.
2. In reviewing the plans for any such construction or change, the HDC shall give consideration to and
not disapprove an application except with respect to the factors specified below.
A. The historic or architectural value and significance of the site or structure and its relationship
to the historic or architectural value and significance of the surrounding area.
B. The relationship of the exterior architectural features of the structure to the remainder of the
structure and to the surrounding area.
C. The general compatibility of exterior design, scale, proportion, arrangement, texture, and
materials proposed to be used.
D. Any other factors, including aesthetic factors, that the Commission deems to be pertinent.
3. The HDC shall be strict in its judgment of plans for those structures, sites, or districts deemed to be
valuable according to studies performed for districts of historic or architectural value. The HDC
shall be lenient in its judgment of plans involving new construction, unless such plans would
seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures.
Demolition Section – Design Guidelines (pg. 14)
Demolition Alternatives
• Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structures or its setting;
• Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project;
• Converting the structures into another use (adaptive reuse);
• Relocating the structure on the property;
• Relocating the structure to another property.
Demolition Mitigation
• Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs,
drawings, and/or text. This documentation should follow the Standards and Guidelines for
Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland and be completed by a professional as
listed in those Standards;
• Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building materials.
Full Demolition Guidance – Design Guidelines for Historic Structures in Washington County, MD
Staff Report:
This structure is on the Washington County Historic Sites Survey (MIHP# WA-IV-078, Diffendal Mill) with
survey documentation completed in 1978. The mill is noted as a grist mill operation in the 1800’s until
approximately 1930. The inventory includes a brief description of an associated log structure and
millrace. Both of these structures appear to be on separate property from the mill building at this point in
time. There was an addendum regarding the mill building in 1982 which included additional information
on the products at that site. At the time of the inventory there was still an intact roof but noted
deterioration of the mill. The current owner acquired the property in 2022. The structure had partially
collapsed prior to their ownership. The owner is considering building within the property but not directly
at this site and wants to remove the unstable structure. They have also provided a brief written
description addressing demolition alternatives and mitigation. The owner has provided plans to recycle
any steel roofing and may reuse the stone for landscaping as practicable.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Staff Analysis:
This structure has continued to deteriorate since its original survey nearly 50 years ago to an even more
unstable state. The owner has evaluated the demolition alternatives and provided justification for the
decision to reuse the materials on site or recycle where possible. The feasibility of converting,
reconstructing or moving the building was determined by the current property owner to not be possible
for them. Staff contacted the engineering office to determine the mill’s susceptibility to flood risks as
there is mention of flooding in the 1982 addendum. The engineering staff indicated there was a potential
for this site to flood which would make it difficult to be rebuilt or rehabilitate in its current location given
its current deteriorated status.
Staff Recommendation:
Recommend support for demolition permit 2025-04486 for the reasons stated in the staff analysis.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP
Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
· Photos provided by Applicant
· Demo Alternative/Mitigation Statement from owner
· Permit Submission Packet
· MHIP Record
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 1
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 2
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 3
Demolition of Structure Diffandall Mill site
-Recycle steel roof panels
-Reuse field stone from foundation and walls as fence line or stone landscape walls as practical.
A) Relocation of structure
-Structure is deteriorated hand laid stone with significant structural failure and collapsed with
no possibility of relocation.
B) Converting the Structure
-Converting the structure is not practical as the structure is not sound.
WA-IV-078
Diffendall Mill, site
Architectural Survey File
This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse-
chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National
Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation
such as photographs and maps.
Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site
architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at
the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft
versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a
thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research
project; look at the MHT web site (mht.maryland.gov) for details about how to make an appointment.
All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust.
Last Updated: 03-12-2004
-MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST
WA-IV-078
District 7
Map 52
Parcel 72
MAGI # 2211685914
INVENTORY FORM FOR STATE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY
UN AME
HISTORIC Dif f endall Mill
AND/OR COMMON
Grist Mill Site
l)LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER
Maryland Route 77
CITY. IOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
.X... v1c1N1TY oF Smiths burg 6
STATE
Maryland
DcLAsSIFICATION
CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS
_DISTRICT _PUBLIC x_OCCUPIED
_BUILDING(S) ...}{>RIVA TE _UNOCCUPIED
_STRUCTURE _BOTH _WORK IN PROGRESS
X--SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE
_OBJECT _IN PROCESS _YES: RESTRICTED
_BEING CONSIDERED _YES UNRESTRICTED
XNo
DOWNER OF PROPERTY
NAME
Barret Clark
STREET & NUMBER
C/0 Molly C. Day
CITY. TOWN
Smithsburg _ VICINITY OF
COUNTY
Washin~ton
PRESENT USE
_AGRICULTURE _MUSEUM
_COMMERCIAL __ PARK
_EDUCATIONAL X_PRIVATE RESIDENCE
_ENTERTAINMENT _RELIGIOUS
_GOVERNMENT
_INDUSTRIAL
_MILITARY
Telephone #:
STATE ,
Maryland
_SCIENTIFIC
_TRANSPORTATION
_OTHER
zip code
21783
IJLOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Liber #:523
Folio #:026
Washington County Court House
COURTHOUSE.
REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC.
STREET & NUMBER
West Washington Street
CITY. TOWN STATE
Hagerstown Maryland 21740
II REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS
TITLE
DATE
DEPOSITORY FOR
SURVEY RECORDS
CITY. TOWN
_FEDERAL -5TATE _COUNTY _LOCAL
STATE
w~-n-012
IJMAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
CONTINUE ON SE~ARATE SHEET I~ NECESSARY
II!JGEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY ---=2=8--=a=c=r'-"e=s~
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES
STATE COUNTY
STATE COUNTY
mFORM PREPARED BY
NAME/ TITLE
Paula Stoner, Architectural Historian
ORGANIZATION DATE
STREET & NUMBER ELEPHONE
Inl:X 1 978 Presenzation Associates
109 West Main Street, Box 202 301-432-5466
CITY OR TOWN STATE
Sharpsburg Maryland 21782
The Maryland Historic Sites Inventory was officially created
by an Act of the Maryland Legislature, to be found in the
Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 41, Section 181 KA,
1974 Supplement.
The Survey and Inventory are being prepared for information
and record purposes only and do not constitute any infringe-
ment of individual property rights.
RETURN TO: Maryland Historical Trust
The Shaw House, 21 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(301) 267-1438
PS-t 108
lu~-!I-o 78
f.
Dr t4.7~
Grist Mill Site
Md. Rt. 77
Smithsburg Vic.
Cu4-ri. 078
b
-:CCc. ll 76
Grist Mill Site
Md. Rt. 77 Smithsburg Vic.
PAUl
.NSU T 'I
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff
Date: October 9, 2025
Subj: Residential Demolition Permit/CO. 2382 14219 Maugansville Rd, 2025-04487
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner: WASH CO COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF, REAL PROPERTY
ADMINISTRATOR
Applicant: Ashley Shirley
Location: 14219 MAUGANSVILLE Road
Tax Account ID: 13010323
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 241/0/1563/
Legal Description: LOT 0.588 ACRES14219 MAUGANSVILLE ROAD
Zoning: Residential, Suburban
Zoning Overlay: Airport Overlay; Hazardous Wildlife Attractant
Management District
Rural Village: Maugansville (MHT) Historic Rural Village
MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): I248, Maugansville; I697, Structure
Project Description: Demolition of dwelling and (3) detached accessory
structures
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.
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,
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
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
Demolition Section – Design Guidelines (pg. 14)
Demolition Alternatives
• Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structures or its setting;
• Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project;
• Converting the structures into another use (adaptive reuse);
• Relocating the structure on the property;
• Relocating the structure to another property.
Demolition Mitigation
• Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs,
drawings, and/or text. This documentation should follow the Standards and Guidelines for
Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland and be completed by a professional as
listed in those Standards;
• Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building
materials.
Full Demolition Guidance – Design Guidelines for Historic Structures in Washington County, MD
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Staff Report:
This structure is located on the east side of Maugansville Road at the northern end of the Urban Rural
Village of Maugansville. Maugansville is northwest of the City of Hagerstown. The structure is included
in the Washington County Historic Sites survey for Maugansville as contributing to the Rural Village
(2004) with the DOE indicating the overall RV is eligible for the National Register. The structure has an
individual DOE (2001) which indicates it is not eligible for the National Register individually. The
structure was purchased by the County in 2006 with a Federal Aviation Administration grant which did
allow for the acquisition and eventual demolition of the structure. The County did lease the property
for residential use through May 2025 after acquisition but it is currently vacant with the tenants leaving
personal property throughout the property.
The construction of the structure is described as “a frame, two story, three-bay dwelling. The resource
faces west and has a stone foundation. Its side-gabled roof is covered with asphalt shingles. An exterior
brick flue is located on the north elevation. Window openings are rectangular and contain six-over-six
replacement sash. Aluminum shutters flank the window openings. An open porch extends full-width
across the front facade and rests upon chamfered wood posts. The porch rests upon stone piers. A
large, two-story modem brick addition is attached to the south facade” (MIHP, WA-I-697). Beneath the
vinyl siding there is evidence of wood siding remaining on the northern portion of the structure. There
is a stone retaining wall running along Maugansville Rd. The brick addition is set back from the original
portion of the house and forms and L-Shape. The consistency of the vinyl shutters and windows
indicate that when the addition was done, there was likely a replacement of all windows and shutters
added to match. There is a frame outbuilding with similar wood siding style to the covered siding on
the main house. It is situated to the rear of the house (northeast corner of the property). There is a
large mature sycamore tree to the rear of the dwelling.
This demolition permit is for the dwelling and all outbuildings as well as the stone wall along
Maugansville Road. The stated purpose of the demolition is to improve the airport’s ability to maintain
the property and its visual appearance while ensuring the airport approach is clear of structures. A
separate narrative addressing the demolition alternatives and mitigation have been included in this
report. There is also a visual of the airport FAA surfaces with the structure highlighted showing its
relationship to airport approaches.
Staff Analysis:
The dwelling has integrity of location and setting at the edge of the rural village. While some exterior
elements such as windows and siding have been updated, original elements do remain especially in the
porch construction, the configuration of the bays in the original side of the structure and the stone
retaining wall. There are indications that the original siding is intact under the vinyl siding. The 2001
documentation states the structure does not have enough individual integrity with these changes,
however, there are still enough similar architectural elements that this structure remains contributing
to the larger Maugansville survey area (2004).
With these details under consideration, the Airport has provided information that the redesign or
incorporation of this structure into airport operations does not align with the regulation of imaginary
surfaces in and around the airport as determined by their respective FAA definitions. The conversion of
the structure or continued lease/use of the property is not feasible considering the airports fund type
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
and amount. There have been documented issues in the past with the rental of the property. The
airport does handle commercial leasing of other structures but the zoning would preclude this structure
from a non-residential use. The structures integrity of location within Maugansville provides the
strongest support for its eligibility and relocation of the structure would remove that integrity. The cost
of relocating a structure of this type of eligibility is also prohibitive. The demolition contactor has
provided a narrative for the salvage of certain materials. This structure is part of one individual
documentation and one district evaluation. It is not likely that further documentation will uncover
details changing the eligibility of this structure.
Staff Recommendation:
Recommend support of the demolition permit, 2025-04487, in consideration of the demolition
documentation provided by the airport staff and detailed in the staff analysis with the following
comments:
1. There are other structures which the airport leases in the vicinity of this structure. Staff
recommends that there be a thorough assessment of the Airport’s buildings which have
been/will be acquired to ensure that they are properly secured at all times and utilize the
mothballing methods detailed by the National Park Service Preservation Brief #31 –
Mothballing of Historical Buildings. This is especially the case for buildings older than 50 years.
2. The airport should pursue rezonings of property they acquire to ensure that adaptive reuse is
feasible by zoning or that residential uses can continue as non-conforming if there is an intent
to phase out residential leasing.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP
Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
· Photos provided by Staff
· Permit Submission Packet
· Property Owner Demolition Narrative
· Airport Approach/Clear Zone Map provided by
airport staff
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 1: Front Façade, Facing East
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 2: Front Façade Addition, Facing East
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 3: South facing façade, facing north
Photo 4: Rear façade, facing west
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 5: North façade, facing southeast
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 6: Front Steps; retaining wall detail; facing east
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 7: retaining wall detail running south along Maugansville road; facing south
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 8: Front porch column detail
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 9: Outbuilding to rear of dwelling, northeast property corner; facing east
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 10: Outbuilding, north façade, facing southeast
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 11: Interior detail of outbuilding
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Photo 12: Main dwelling, wood siding detail, photo taken at rear of dwelling
14219 MAUGANSVILLE Road, Maryland
Residential Demolition Permit
4. Applicant’s plan for the recycling of waste generated
<< to be completed by Allegany Wrecking & Salvage, LLC >>
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;
Not feasible due to the proximity of the structure to the airport’s primary runway approach
zone, an area that needs to be protected for the arrival of aircraft. Since we are seeking the
demolition of the house, this was not evaluated by airport staff.
(b) Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project;
Not feasible again due to the proximity of the structure to the airport’s primary runway
approach zone, an area that needs to be protected for the arrival of aircraft. Since we are
seeking the demolition of the house, this was not evaluated by airport staff.
(c) Converting the structure into another use (adaptive reuse);
Airport staff have re-evaluated the adaptive reuse of the property and have determined that it is
no longer feasible due to the proximity of the structure to the airport’s primary runway
approach zone, an area that needs to be protected for the arrival of aircraft.
An attempt was made when the airport first acquired the property to try to have an adaptive
reuse of the building as a rental house, but the renting of the property is a money loser for the
airport, outside of our core competence, and ultimately a distraction.
In addition, the airport is being taxed on this property by the state. We are an enterprise fund
and receive no outside taxpayer assistance, most years.
Finally, past tenants have been abusive to the property, leaving it in a squalid condition. We lack
the money to perform upgrades and renovations to a structure we don’t ultimately need. The
attempt to try to have an adaptive reuse of the property ultimately ended up being a drain on
airport resources, hence the move to final demolition of the property.
The original grant from the FAA gave us the money to acquire and, ultimately, remove the
structure. The time for this demolition is now.
(d) Relocating the structure on the property;
Not feasible due to the proximity of the structure to the airport’s primary runway approach
zone, an area that needs to be protected for the arrival of aircraft. Since the building has been
deemed as “not historical” in previous survey, the cost of relocating the building would be a
waste of limited County funds. We are an enterprise fund and receive no outside taxpayer
assistance most years.
(e) Relocating the structure to another property;
Not feasible due to the proximity of the structure to the airport’s primary runway approach
zone, an area that needs to be protected for the arrival of aircraft. Since the building has been
deemed as “not historical” in previous survey, the cost of relocating the building would be a
waste of limited County funds. We are an enterprise fund and receive no outside taxpayer
assistance most years.
(f) Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building materials;
Evaluation previously has indicated that the structure has undergone extensive renovations, so
any architectural features or building materials would not fall into the “historical significant”
category. Anything of historical value has been lost to time, due to modifications made to the
structure, over time.
(g) Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs,
drawings, and/or text:
A previous report from URS, completed in September 2001, has indicated the following:
14219 Maugansville Road is a frame, two story, three-bay dwelling. The resource faces
west and has a stone foundation. Its side-gabled roof is covered with asphalt shingles. An
exterior brick flue is located on the north elevation. Window openings are rectangular
and contain six-over-six replacement sash. Aluminum shutters flank the window
openings. An open porch extends full-width across the front facade and rests upon
chamfered wood posts. The porch rests upon stone piers. A large, two-story modem brick
addition is attached to the south facade.
Source: https://apps.mht.maryland.gov/Medusa/PDF/Washington/WA-I-697.pdf
Since this report was completed, the Airport was leasing this property for tenant occupation,
and over time various tenants made modifications to the interior of the house. Additionally,
airport staff have also documented abuse of the property.
6. A site plan illustrating any proposed development or introduction of plantings following
demolition (if applicable):
The airport intends, when the house is demolished, to return the property to grass. This will
help our staff to better care for and maintain the lawn. This will also remove the unattractive
and blighted appearance of the property. This will also allow for the protection of a critical
runway safety area and preserve the feel of the surrounding Maugansville Area.
14219 Maugansville Road, Maryland
Residential Demolition Permit Questionnaire
4. Applicant’s plan for the recycling of waste generated.
➢ Allegany Wrecking & Salvage, LLC intends to salvage what materials are possible. Most
of the house’s material is newer material and has no value.
➢ Brick work and foundation stone have been examined by a potential buyer who
determined he has no use for them. So now the stone and brick will be used as hardfill
in the building’s foundation void.
➢ Any hewed beams located in the building will be inspected and salvaged and sold and
turned into flooring.
➢ Any materials that cannot be salvaged or sold will otherwise be taken to the Washington
County Landfill.
Meghan,
Please see the map below:
The house we are looking to demolish is circled in red.
It is currently touching the RPZ edge, and is within the E-TERPS “X” Approach slope area
Sincerely,
Travel Elevated
Eugene Bolanowski, C.M., A.C.E.
Operations / Security Manager
18434 Showalter Road
Hagerstown, MD 21742
ebolanowski@washco-md.net | e.bolanowski@flyHGR.com
P: (240) 313-2769 | C: (386) 846-9118
www.flyHGR.com | Facebook
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.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff
Date: October 9, 2025
Subj: Residential Demolition Permit/Smith Demolition, 2025-04522
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner: SMITH ROBERT A,
Applicant: Charles Dunn
Location: 11416 HANGING ROCK Road
Tax Account ID: 15005246
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 20/23/19/
Legal Description: 2.31 ACRES 11416 HANGING ROCK RD
Zoning: Environmental Conservation
Rural Village: Forsythe (MHT) Historic Rural Village, WA-V-176
Project Description: Demolition of existing 1,182 sq, ft, two story metal clad
log home structure and accessory shed, no existing
foundation
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.
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 DISTRICT COMMISSION
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
Demolition Section – Design Guidelines (pg. 14)
Demolition Alternatives
• Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structures or its setting;
• Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project;
• Converting the structures into another use (adaptive reuse);
• Relocating the structure on the property;
• Relocating the structure to another property.
Demolition Mitigation
• Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs,
drawings, and/or text. This documentation should follow the Standards and Guidelines for
Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland and be completed by a professional as
listed in those Standards;
• Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building
materials.
Full Demolition Guidance – Design Guidelines for Historic Structures in Washington County, MD
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Staff Report:
This demolition permit is related to structures situated at the southwestern edge of Forsythe rural
village. The documentation for this rural village is very minimal. These structures are not specifically
mentioned in photo documentation, however, they were constructed at least 50 years ago based on
Tax Assessment information and site visit by staff. The topography of the property includes a steep hill
to the rear/west on the property with the dwelling on a mostly flat cleared area of the property. The
applicant has indicated that flooding of the dwelling is a concern. There appears to be a french drain
attempting to move water around the structure as it comes down the hill. Lanes Run is also nearby but
there is no adopted floodplain in this area at this time.
The dwelling is situated facing Hanging Rock Road and sits back from the road approximately seventy
five feet. The dwelling is a 3 bay 2 story dwelling. There is an enclosed porch running the length of the
front façade with at a small 1 story addition on the north gable end. The entire structure has been clad
in vertically aligned metal siding. Windows are vinyl/aluminum replacements. The roof is also metal
sheeting. The structure is a combination of frame and log construction. The permit states that there is
no foundation/basement and due to the metal siding there is no foundation visible upon site visit. The
condition of the log portion of the dwelling is unknown as it has been covered in modern materials and
altered multiple times. Interior photos and layout have been provided by the applicant for the main
dwelling.
There is a small shed/barn approximately 10x15 that is frame construction with vertical wood siding
that is also included for demolition. It is located to the north of the dwelling. There is also a small
concrete block outbuilding to the rear of the dwelling that is built into the hill. Its purpose is unknown
from documentation provided. There is a modern shed on the property directly southwest of the
dwelling that will be relocated and is not subject to this permit.
A brief examination of deeds related to the property reveals that this property was owned by members
of the Forsythe family. The deed description relays that the property is part of “Defiance” and mentions
a spring near the dwelling formerly owned by Abraham Forsythe. Defiance is a land patent for Lancelot
Jacques associated with Green Spring Furnace. There is a nearby Forsythe family property WA-V-174
which may relate to this location and has some more information on the Forsythe family included.
Example Deeds:
January 1947 (L239 F375) Henry Elmer Forsythe (grantor) to William L. Everly and wf.
November 1884 (L86 F428) David Forsythe and Charlott (wf) To Anna Forsythe (Blair)
Staff Analysis:
Examining the condition of this property, it has been heavily altered over time and has unknown
conditions of the structure under the metal siding. The structure has an outdated electrical and
plumbing system and additional building code issued outlined by the applicant. The applicant has
indicated that the reuse of the structure would require significant accommodations to the building
codes including ceiling height, egress issues with the stairs etc. The applicant also indicated that it is not
economically feasible to convert or relocate the structure. The applicant indicates in their justification
that they are amenable to keeping the original log structure of the dwelling in place. Selective
demolition would still be necessary to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The applicant has also
noted that there is an issue with water on the property which is likely a combination of the steep slope
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
to the western side of the property and the nearby run/spring head. In combination with the building
code issues, these water issues further exacerbate the cost of rehabilitating the dwelling. The
outbuildings also have condition issues with missing siding; although the roofs are intact. They do not
appear to be great workmanship examples of their construction type. The property is likely associated
with the Forsythe family which settled in this area of the County, however, there is a nearby example of
log construction that is intact and retains more resources such as the Forsythe family cemetery. There
may be some archaeological resources associated with the dwelling, however, the new construction
proposed is not near the demolition.
Staff Recommendation:
Recommend support for the demolition permit, 2025-04522, in consideration of the details provided in
the staff analysis with the following comments:
1. The applicant is encouraged to perform a selective demolition of the main dwelling and to
utilize the mothballing methods detailed by the National Park Service Preservation Brief #31 –
Mothballing of Historical Buildings.
2. The property owner should be cautious in demolition as they may find resources in and around
the dwelling.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP
Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
· Photos provided by Staff
· Permit Submission Packet
· Applicant provided
demolition narrative
· Applicant provided photos
· Applicant provided floor
plans/elevation details
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Front of house, facing west
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Right side of house, facing south
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Rear of house, facing south
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Left side of house, facing north
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Barn, facing north
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Barn, facing southwest
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Barn, facing east
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Barn, facing northeast
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Outbuilding, facing north
NO
R
T
H
690
700
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
1 c.
1
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
6
0
'
0
"
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
10
7
2
0
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
P
I
K
E
IN
D
I
A
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
,
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
2
1
7
1
1
PH
O
N
E
:
2
4
0
.
5
2
0
.
2
9
3
1
E:
D
U
N
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
B
U
I
L
D
@
O
U
T
L
O
O
K
.
C
O
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
C.
1U
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
N
E
W
H
O
M
E
F
O
R
:
RO
B
S
M
I
T
H
11
4
1
6
H
A
N
G
I
N
G
R
O
C
K
R
O
A
D
CL
E
A
R
S
P
R
I
N
G
,
M
D
2
1
7
1
1
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
:
R
E
V
2
SC
A
L
E
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
DA
T
E
:
CR
D
U
N
N
AS
N
O
T
E
D
05
2
5
09
1
5
2
5
Historic District Commission
Date: October 21th, 2025
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
Subject: Residential Demolition Permit (2025-04522) for 11416 Hanging Rock Road
At the request of the Washington County Historic District Commission, the following
information is provided.
1. The State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) indicates the primary
structure was built in 1910. This structure consisted of 784 square feet of above
grade living area. The structure consisted of log exterior walls and a timber framed
roof structure, additions consist of 2x4 wood framed material. Metal panels have
been added to the exterior facade as well as multiple porch and shed additions. All
original doors and windows have been replaced with new vinyl and metal materials
at some point in time. Interior flnishes consist of either particleboard paneling,
plaster, or drywall. All interior trims and moldings have been updated at some point
in time and consist of 1x material. Portions of the interior fioors may be original.
Interior and Exterior pictures (See Attachment 1)
2. Detail drawings have been attached. (See Attachment 2)
3. Floor Plans for each fioor level have been attached (See Attachment 3)
4. All waste removed from the structure, dependent upon condition, will be recycled
and reused by the homeowner, contractor or donated to Habitat for Humanity
Restore.
5. The homeowner wishes to retain and repurpose the original log & timber structure,
minus additions for a proposed Workshop. Remove all additions to include Porch /
Bathroom / Entry / Storage not constructed of log. Remove vertical metal siding
panels on all facades to expose original log structure. Assess log structure and
chinking. Seal / Waterproof as required to provide a watertight structure
a) Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structure or its setting.
Redesigning the existing structure for use as a residential home to meet
today’s codes and standards would not be feasible. Examples; Section R305
Ceiling Heights, for habitable spaces cannot be met, Section R310
Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings cannot be met, Section R311
Means of Egress – R311.4 Vertical Egress cannot be met, R311.6 Hallways
cannot be met, R311.7 Stairways cannot be met, R311.7.2 Headroom cannot
be met.
b) Incorporating the structure into the overall design of the project. The existing
structure in a low-lying area and prone to fiooding. The new home is being
proposed outside of this area.
c) Converting the structure into another use (adaptive use). This is what the
homeowner is proposing.
d) Relocating the structure on the property. Not economically feasible for use
as a single-family residence.
e) Relocating the structure to another property. Not economically feasible.
f) Salvaging from the structure historically signiflcant architectural features and
building materials. The original log structure will remain and all historically
signiflcant architectural features will remain in place.
g) Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural
features in photographs, drawings and/or text. The building in its current state
has been photographed and documented. The structure will appear truer to
its original architectural signiflcance as funding becomes available and
project is completed.
6. N/A
Thank you for your time,
Charles R. Dunn
Charles R. Dunn | President
Dunn Design + Build, LLC.
Attachment 1 - Exterior
Attachment 1 – Interior / 1st Floor
Attachment 1 – Interior / 2nd Floor
Attachment 1 – Interior / Attic
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' 0"
1
A1.0 688 SQ. FT.
kitchen living
dining
porch
storage
55 SQ. FT. (Storage)
bath
entry
second FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' 0"
2
A1.0 392 SQ. FT.
bedroom
bedroom
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1' 0"
1
A2.0SCALE: 3/16" = 1' 0"
RIGHT ELEVATION3
A2.0
REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1' 0"
2
A2.0
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1' 0"
4
A2.0
Page 2 | Part I – Evaluation of Significance
PROPERTY DETAIL INFORMATION
Date(s) of building(s) including source of date(s)
Construction materials (brick, wood frame, etc.)
Date(s) of exterior alteration(s)
Description of the physical appearance (size, number of stories, style, construction materials)
Statement of significance
Historic home built in 1933.
House is stuccoed masonry with a stone foundation.
no alterations of exterior
This is a 1.5 story structure, masonry construction with stucco. The roof has steeply
gables, metal casement windows and a recessed entrance with thick fluted columnssupporting a segmental arched pediment. The roof has asphalt shingles which are rolledat the edges creating a thatched roof effect. There is a one story garage projecting fromthe west side of the house.
The structure has distinctive characteristics which tie it to the professional class
residential neighborhood of Oak Hill of which it is a contributing structure (WA-HAG-146)
The neighborhood is significant in that many of the city's commercial, industrial, social
and cultural leaders resided in the neighborhood. The structure has a uniqueconstruction type in its variety of architectural features from the metal casement windowsto the rolled asphalt shingles.
See attached WA-HAG-148 and WA-HAG-146.
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 1 of 12
Front Elevation, Facing North
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 2 of 12
2nd Story casement window detail, Front Elevation, Facing North
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 3 of 12
Front Door, Facing northeast
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 4 of 12
Front porch column detail, facing northeast
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 5 of 12
Front Door and casement window detail, facing northeast
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 6 of 12
Left Elevation, facing northeast
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 7 of 12
Left elevation, casement window detail, facing southeast
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 8 of 12
Rear elevation, facing south
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 9 of 12
Rear Elevation including 2nd story casement window, facing south
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 10 of 12
Rear elevation at east porch, facing west
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 11 of 12
Right elevation/east porch detail facing west
Bikle Tax Credit – Part I Photographs of Exterior
Page 12 of 12
Right elevation/east porch as seen from front elevation, facing north
HTC Number:_______________
Page 2 | Part II – Description of Rehabilitation
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION WORK
Use this page to describe all exterior work and new construction.
Number Feature
Describe existing feature and its condition
Describe work and impact on feature
Photo Numbers Drawing Numbers
Number Feature
Describe existing feature and its condition
Describe work and impact on feature
Photo Numbers Drawing Numbers
1 Chimney
The existing chimney has holes in the crown and the mortar is deteriorated. There aremissing mortar joins and water intrusion is occuring.
A concrete crown will be placed to ensure water is shed away. There will be a drip edgeinstalled.
1-1 through 1-4 n/a
2 Chimney flue
The chimney was inspected prior to boiler installation and it was determined by installerthat a liner was needed in order for safe operation.
Boiler flue will be relined with insulated stainless steel liner system and components and
the damaged flue tiles will be removed. The terracotta thimble will be replaced.
2-1 through 2-3
HTC Number:_______________
Page 3 | Part II – Description of Rehabilitation
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION WORK
Use this page to describe all exterior work and new construction.
Number Feature
Describe existing feature and its condition
Describe work and impact on feature
Photo Numbers Drawing Numbers
Number Feature
Describe existing feature and its condition
Describe work and impact on feature
Photo Numbers Drawing Numbers
HTC Number:_______________
Page 4 | Part II – Description of Rehabilitation
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION WORK
Use this page to describe all exterior work and new construction.
Number Feature
Describe existing feature and its condition
Describe work and impact on feature
Photo Numbers Drawing Numbers
Number Feature
Describe existing feature and its condition
Describe work and impact on feature
Photo Numbers Drawing Numbers
HTC Number:_______________
Page 5 | Part II – Description of Rehabilitation
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION WORK
Use this page to describe all exterior work and new construction.
Number Feature
Describe existing feature and its condition
Describe work and impact on feature
Photo Numbers Drawing Numbers
Number Feature
Describe existing feature and its condition
Describe work and impact on feature
Photo Numbers Drawing Numbers
Bikle Tax Credit - Part II Application-Description of Work Photos
Page 1 of 3
1-1, Cracker Mortar at chimney crown
1-2, chimney showing condition of mortar and crown
1-3, chimney crown showing terracotta thimble closer
Bikle Tax Credit - Part II Application-Description of Work Photos
Page 2 of 3
1-4, Chimney thimble condition showing cracks
2-1, Chimney flue condition
2-2, Chimney tile condition at 12.9ft
Bikle Tax Credit - Part II Application-Description of Work Photos
Page 3 of 3
2-3, Chimney tile condition at 30 feet
From:Chimney Sweeps of Sherwood Forest
To:Jenkins, Meghan
Subject:Re: 102 West Irvin Avenue, #88420 and #88373
Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 5:29:21 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image.png
image.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.
Hi Meghan,
It was for longevity and durability. I am going to include some pictures that show how the
present design is allowing water to come into the house. If it is a requirement to use the
Classic Chimney Pots, we will inform the Bikle family. The chimney crown is a piece of
concrete we pour to help shed water away from the tiles. The drip edge helps the water not
run back to the chimney and drop off to the roof. I am including a picture of a typical
concrete crown we have used to repair a chimney that allowed water into the home. In the
picture, you will notice in the background a chimney that has not been repaired.
We can install the Classic Chimney Pots to finish off the top of the chimney. The crown
would overlap the brick to help shed water away from the structure.
I hope my explanation makes sense. Please let me know if you have any questions, and ifyou would like we could schedule a phone call.
Take Care,
Javier Rosas
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 12:24 PM Jenkins, Meghan <mjenkins@washco-md.net> wrote:
Hello Javier,
Ms. Bikle is working with my office to obtain a tax credit related to the chimney work you provided an estimate
for on her structure at 102 W Irvin Avenue, Hagerstown. Typically, with our tax credits we provide them for
replacement of materials “in kind” but I noticed you were proposing a cast concrete crown with drip edge
whereas there is a terracotta crown there now. Would you be able to provide a brief justification/reasoning on
why you are using cast concrete? Is it a material availability, a longevity of material, is there a higher cost for
repair/replacement of the terracotta there now? Will the concrete have a similar color and shape to the
existing terracotta?
I just want to be able to provide this information to my commission that reviews the tax credit applications to
ensure they are familiar with the reasoning for the material. If you have a photo example of a crown similar to
the one you are proposing that would also be extremely helpful. Your assistance with this information is very
much appreciated.
303 International Circle, Suite 150, Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030 - 410.853.7128 - www.trileaf.com
October 13, 2025 Washington County Historic District Commission
747 Northern Ave Hagerstown, MD 21742 Phone: 240-313-2430 Email: askplanning@washco-md.net RE: Milestone Towers – Bakersville / Trileaf Project # 775393 7116 Houser Road, Sharpsburg, MD 21782 Washington County, Williamsport Quadrangle (USGS) Latitude: 39° 30’ 32.47” N, Longitude: 77° 46’ 18.14” W To whom it may concern:
Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the referenced property. Our client proposes to construct a 146-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 147 feet, including attachments.
Associated equipment will be located within a 77-foot by 30-foot (2,310 square feet) fenced compound. The project includes a 10-foot wide gravel access drive, parking and turn around extending west away from the compound approximately 157 feet to Houser Road. The proposed location is vegetated land. The antennas will
be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that is listed, or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places or located in or on an Indian Religious Site.
Trileaf is requesting information regarding this tower’s potential effect on Historic Properties. All information received will be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as part of the NEPA review process.
Additionally, this invitation to comment is separate from any local planning/zoning process that may apply to this project. If you wish to comment or be considered a consulting party, please respond within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. If a response is not received within thirty (30) days, it will be assumed that you have no objections to
this undertaking. A site topography map and aerial photograph are enclosed for your reference. Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email m.grasham@trileaf.com if you need additional information or have
any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely,
McKayla Ordak Senior Project Scientist
Site Location & Surrounding Properties
Site Location
Aerial Photographs (2025)
Milestone Towers – Bakersville 7116 Houser Road Sharpsburg, MD 21782
Easement
Williamsport Quadrangle, Maryland (2023) Contour Interval = 20 Feet
Scale 1 Inch = ~1,500 Feet Latitude: 39° 30’ 32.47” N, Longitude: 77° 46’ 18.14” W
North
Site Vicinity Map
Milestone Towers – Bakersville
7116 Houser Road
Sharpsburg, MD 21782
Site Location
SITE
T-1
6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PHONE: (202) 408-0960
SUITE 430
SITE
6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PHONE: (202) 408-0960
SUITE 430
LEGEND
LINE TYPES
Z-1
SITE INFORMATION & NOTES
CLOSEST HOUSE
SIDE YARD (SOUTH)
SIDE YARD (NORTH)
REAR YARD (EAST)
MONOPOLE SETBACKS
PROPOSEDREQUIRED
800.6'
1,534.6'
881.5'
458.4' (WEST)
FRONT YARD R.O.W. (WEST)145.0'145.0'
CLOSEST HOUSE
COMPOUND SETBACKS
PROPOSEDREQUIRED
793.1'
1,510.2'
874.0'
398.6' WEST
50.0'73.9'
50.0'
50.0'
50.0'
50.0'
SIDE YARD (SOUTH)
SIDE YARD (NORTH)
REAR YARD (EAST)
FRONT YARD R.O.W. (WEST)
1
2
3
4
5678
9
145.0'
145.0'
145.0'
290.0'
Z-2
SUBJECT PARCEL
1
ADJOINERS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PHONE: (202) 408-0960
SUITE 430
6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PHONE: (202) 408-0960
SUITE 430
Z-3
Z-4
6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PHONE: (202) 408-0960
SUITE 430
Z-5
6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PHONE: (202) 408-0960
SUITE 430
Z-6
6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PHONE: (202) 408-0960
SUITE 430
PROPOSED NEW GENERATORCONCRETE PAD
WHITE BACKGROUND W/BLACK LETTERING
2
BLUE BACKGROUND W/BLACK LETTERING
0 0
DANGER
SITE X X X X X X X X
DIESEL FUELNO SMOKINGNO OPEN FLAMES WHITE BACKGROUND W/BLACK LETTERING
RED BACKGROUND W/BLACK LETTERING
YELLOW BACKGROUNDW/ BLACK LETTERING IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
CALL: XXX
(NON-SPILL RELATED)
2" HIGH BLACK LETTERS ONWHITE BACKGROUND(STICKERS)
DIESEL FUEL
240 GALLONS
GREEN W/ WHITELETTERING
EMERGENCY
XXX
CALL 24-HOUR HOTLINE
SPILL RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
WHITE BACKGROUND W/BLACK LETTERING
TOP
BOTTOM
TOP
BOTTOM
TOP
BOTTOM
TOP
BOTTOM
Z-7
6100 EXECUTIVE BLVD.
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PHONE: (202) 408-0960
SUITE 430
From:Jenkins, Meghan
To:"m.grasham@trileaf.com"
Subject:RE: Request for Comment- Telecommunications Project- Sharpsburg, MD (Trileaf#775393)
Date:Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:17:00 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
Hello McKayla,
The Historic District Commission does wish to participate in this process. Staff has noted that this proposed tower
is outside of our local Antietam zoning overlay area however it is within 2 miles of the Antietam National
Battlefield property, and it is important to ensure that its visibility from the battlefield is minimal to none. Please
consider both the battlefields property ownership extent as well as the observation tower on the battlefield for
whether this tower (77°44'10"W 39°28'10"N ) will be visible from either. The C&O Canal is also nearby and
should be evaluated for viewshed impacts.
The below is a list of existing NR properties we are aware of. We area also aware of several properties on the
MIHP within a visible distance of this site and would encourage their inclusion in any analysis.
WA-II-0502 Y 18 BUILDING HOGMIRE-BERRYMAN FARM HOGMIRE-BERRYMAN FARM
WA-II-0446 Y 18 BUILDING WILLIAM HAGERMAN FARMSTEAD WILLIAM HAGERMAN FARMSTEAD
WA-II-0130 Y 19 BUILDING MARSH MILL SPEILMAN MILL COMPLEX
WA-II-0350 Y 19 BUILDING <Null> MUMMA FARM
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
You don't often get email from m.grasham@trileaf.com. Learn why this is important
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
From: Jenkins, Meghan <mjenkins@washco-md.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 7:37 AM
To: Jenkins, Meghan <mjenkins@washco-md.net>
Subject: FW: Request for Comment- Telecommunications Project- Sharpsburg, MD (Trileaf#775393)
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
From: McKayla Grasham <m.grasham@trileaf.com>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 2:16 PM
To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>
Subject: Request for Comment- Telecommunications Project- Sharpsburg, MD (Trileaf#775393)
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to
this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Hello,
Please see the attached documents pertaining to the proposed telecommunications project in
Sharpsburg, MD. As part of our property consultation, we invite a local government association to
comment, if desired, on the potential effects the project may have on historic properties.
Let me know if you have any questions.
McKayla Ordak
Assistant Project Manager
303 International Circle, Suite 150
Hunt Valley, MD 21030
Office: (410) 853-7128, ext. 909
Mobile: (410) 303-4058
Record #Type MIHP#Record
Status
Task Name Comments
Historic District
Commission Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review
Historical Review No HDC Review required for fit outs
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Permit was reviewed at 10/1 meeting and approval recommended by HDC, staff report is attached in
documents for reference.
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 Permit was reviewed at 10/1 meeting and approval recommended by HDC, staff report is attached in
documents for reference.
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Not a rural village with new construction review.
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Will need to go on the November 5 HDC agenda.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Scheduled for November 5 HDC Meeting01-Oct-25 LOR 14219 MAUGANSVILLE
ROAD
DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND (3)
DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Folder Status Status Date
Note 08-Oct-25
Days in Review: 7
2025-04487 Residential Demolition
Permit I697 Review 17-Sep-25
19-Sep-25 SMITHSBURG/WOLFSVILLE
ROAD
DEMOLITION OF OLD STONE MILL, WILL
INVOLVE TEARING DOWN AN ALREADY
COLLAPSED STONE MILL, COMPRISED OF A
SINGLE STORY AND NO WINDOWS OR
FRAMING
Folder Status Status Date
Note 22-Sep-25
Days in Review: 3
2025-04486 Residential Demolition
Permit IV078 Review 17-Sep-25
03-Oct-25 SI-09-009 16603 FAIRVIEW
CHURCH ROAD
728 SQ. FT. ONE STORY ADDITION TO REAR OF
DWELLING TO BE USED AS A MASTER
BEDROOM, BATHROOM, AND LAUNDRY ON
FULL UNFINISHED BASEMENT WITH BILCO
DOORS
MOUNT TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN
CHURCH PARCELS C-E
Folder Status Status Date
Note 07-Oct-25
Passed - Info 07-Oct-25
Days in Review: 4
2025-04354 Residential Addition-
Alteration Permit Review 10-Sep-25
16-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 02-Oct-25
Approved 02-Oct-25
Days in Review: 16
2025-04306 Residential New
Construction Permit Review 08-Sep-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
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
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
STOOPS, FRAME CONSTRUCTION, PRE-
ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES
Folder Status Status Date
Note 02-Oct-25
Approved 02-Oct-25
Days in Review: 34
2025-03538 Residential New
Construction Permit Review 26-Jul-25
09-Oct-25
SP-07-052.R03 14150
RESERVOIR ROAD,
BUILDING 521
2,655 SQ. FT. TENANT FIT OUT TO UPGRADE
FINISHES AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, NO
STRUCTURAL CHANGES, EXISTING ROOMS TO
BE USED AS (2) OFFICES, (4) ACTIVITY AREAS,
KITCHEN, LOBBY, VESTIBULE, WOMAN'S
RESTROOM, MEN'S REST ROOM, COAT
CLOSET, (5) STORAGE ROOMS, AND
MECHANICAL ROOM, ZONING CERTIFICATION
FOR FORT RITCHIE "NATURE CENTER"HOURS
Folder Status Status Date
In Progress 09-Oct-25
Note 09-Oct-25
Passed - Info 09-Oct-25
Days in Review: 0
2025-03083
Non-Residential
Addition-Alteration
Permit
IV262 Approved 03-Jul-25
22-Sep-25
19986 BEAVER CREEK
ROAD
HAGERSTOWN, MD 21740
CREATE (1) 2.48 ACRE LOT WITHOUT ROAD
FRONTAGE WITH 115.47 ACRES IN THE
REMAINING LANDS. SEE OM-25-001.
Folder Status Status Date
Approved 22-Sep-25
Days in Review: 0
S-25-018 Preliminary-Final Plat II0146
Approval
Letter Issued 06-Jun-25
Historic Review Activity 09/18/2025 thru 10/23/2025
Open Date Date Assigned Location Description Workflow Info
Record #Type MIHP#Record
Status
Historic Review Activity 09/18/2025 thru 10/23/2025
Open Date Date Assigned Location Description Workflow Info
Task Name Comments
Historical Review reviewed at the 10/1 HDC meeting and approved, staff report is attached for reference.
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Very basic survey done of Forsythe which details a few buildings and has minimal photos. This
structure isn't photographed. SDAT listing is 1910 for building date. Adding to November 5 agenda.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review only demolition permit associated is reviewable by the HDC, no review for this rural village for new
construction.
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Not in a review area for new construction
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historic District
Commission Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historical Review
HDC has reviewed this tower previously as part of the 106 process. Corresponding site plan had
minimal changes from that review process. No HDC review for the permit as review is completed
through other process.
Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR.
Task Name Comments
Historic District
Commission Updated by Script from EPR.
Activity Count: 16
In Progress Note Passed - Info
111
011
000
000
021
030
053
000
1126Total5216
Total 2 0 5
Site Plan Total 0 1 1
3
Residential New Construction Permit
Residential Demolition Permit Total 0 0
Residential Addition-Alteration Permit Total 1 0 2
Preliminary-Final Plat Total 1 1 2
Preliminary Consultation Total 0 0 0
Non-Residential New Construction Permit Total 1 0 2
Non-Residential Addition-Alteration Permit Total 0 0 1
Review Activities Summary
Application Type Application Approved Revisions Total
23-Oct-25
13850 CRAYTON BOULEV,
SUITE# A
HAGERSTOWN, MD 21742
THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION WITH
AUTO AND DIESEL FUELING ISLANDS. THE
PROPOSED SITE DISTURBED AREA IS 9.8
ACRES, AND THE PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS
Folder Status Status Date
Revisions Required 23-Oct-25
Days in Review: 0
SP-25-043 Site Plan I471; I866 In Review 22-Oct-25
21-Oct-25
SP-24-032 21546
LEITERSBURG SMITHSBURG
ROAD
155 FT. IN HEIGHT MONOPOLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, (1) 33 SQ.
FT. CONCRETE PAD FOR EQUIPMENT CABINET,
(1) 28 SQ. FT. CONCRETE PAD FOR
GENERATOR, RELATED GROUND EQUIPMENT,
9 FT. HIGH SECURITY FENCE FOR MILESTONE
TOWERS, ZONING CERTIFICATION FOR
"VERIZON WIRELESS"TO CO-LOCATE
Folder Status Status Date
Note 23-Oct-25
Approved 23-Oct-25
Days in Review: 2
2025-04936 Non-Residential New
Construction Permit Review 15-Oct-25
15-Oct-25
11805 PLEASANT VALLEY
ROAD
SMITHSBURG, MD 21783
SUBDIVIDE 24.56 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS AND
REMAINING LANDS. MERGE 2.41 ACRE
PARCEL A INTO OTHER LANDS OF HOCH.
ASSOCIATED FCE
Folder Status Status Date
Revisions Required 17-Oct-25
Days in Review: 1
S-25-032 Preliminary-Final Plat IV075 In Review 14-Oct-25
14-Oct-25 SP-25-007 9250 TACTICAL
WAY
INSTALL (1) RETAINING WALL FOR FUTURE
COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT, 11 FT. AT THE
HIGHEST POINT, 200 LINEAR FEET TOTAL, 8 FT.
CHAIN-LINK FENCE, 3,000 SQ. FT. CONCRETE
SLAB FOR NATURAL GAS PROPS PAD, 700 SQ.
Folder Status Status Date
Passed - Info 17-Oct-25
Days in Review: 2
2025-04902 Non-Residential New
Construction Permit I456 Review 13-Oct-25
29-Sep-25 LOR 11131 WHITE HALL
ROAD
864 SQ. FT. POLE BUILDING ON CONCRETE
SLAB TO BE USED AS A GARAGE, 9' (3)
OVERHEAD DOORS, METAL ROOF, METAL
SIDES, PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES
Folder Status Status Date
Note 01-Oct-25
Passed - Info 01-Oct-25
Days in Review: 2
2025-04666 Residential New
Construction Permit I907 Approved 29-Sep-25
30-Sep-25 LOR 11416 HANGING ROCK
ROAD
1,102 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING WITH TWO CAR GARAGE AT
BASEMENT LEVEL WITH EGRESS WINDOW, 150
SQ. FT. FINISHED BASEMENT TO BE USED AS
UTILITY SPACE AND A CLOSET, GAS FIREPLACE
IN LIVING ROOM, OPEN FRONT DECK, FRAME
CONSTRUCTION PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF
Folder Status Status Date
Note 01-Oct-25
Passed - Info 01-Oct-25
Days in Review: 1
2025-04520 Residential New
Construction Permit Review 19-Sep-25
19-Sep-25 LOR 11416 HANGING ROCK
ROAD
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,182 SQ, FT, TWO
STORY METAL CLAD LOG HOME STRUCTURE
AND ACCESSORY SHED, NO EXISITNG
FOUNDATION
Folder Status Status Date
Note 22-Sep-25
Days in Review: 3
2025-04522 Residential Demolition
Permit Review 19-Sep-25
24-Sep-25 4504 MAIN STREET
384 SQ. FT. RENOVATIONS TO RESTORE AN
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
Folder Status Status Date
Note 02-Oct-25
Approved 02-Oct-25
Days in Review: 8
2025-04514 Residential Addition-
Alteration Permit III141 Review 18-Sep-25