The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05 - May 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 The Historic District Commission reserves the right to vary the order in which the cases are called. Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Washington County Planning Department at 240- 313-2430 to make arrangements no later than ten (10) days prior to the meeting. Notice is given that the agenda may be amended at any time up to and including the meeting. WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 AGENDA May 6, 2026, 6:00 p.m. Washington County Administration Complex, 100 West Washington Street, Room 2001, Hagerstown, MD 21740 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL MINUTES 1. Minutes of the April 1, 2026, meeting * NEW BUSINESS 1. Residential Demolition Permit (2026-01127) – 13034 Little Antietam Road (WA- I-163) – (Discussion/Support) - Demolition of 2,500 sq. ft. single family dwelling including foundation * 2. HTC-26-002, 205 E Main Street, Sharpsburg (WA-II-723(district)/WA-II-682 (house)) – (Discussion/Comment) – Part 1 and Part 2 documentation for tax credits at 205 E Main Street, Sharpsburg * OTHER BUSINESS 1. Correspondence a. MAHDC Newsletter * b. Request for Comment AP2026-010, 10944 White Hall Road Telecommunications Tower * i. Note: Staff submitted comments; BZA hearing was 4/15/26, staff amended comments via email regarding existing telecommunications infrastructure 4/15/26, BZA granted approval, pending formal opinion c. Request for Comment – Proposed Telecommunications Tower – 10944 White Hall Road, Smithsburg, MD – Trileaf #770617 * i. Note: Staff submitted standard request of HDC on 12/22/2025, on 4/1/26 staff reached back out to Trileaf for status of request because local BZA application was made, on 4/2/26 a cultural resources report was submitted; 4/6/26 MHT submitted concurrence with no adverse effects; 4/6/26 staff requested GIS viewshed from Trileaf again, 4/14/26 looped in MHT to ongoing request from Trileaf d. Update to Request for Comment – Proposed Telecommunications Tower – 3417/3413 Rohrersville Rd., Rohrersville, MD - Trileaf #771285 i. Note: Staff submitted comments provided by HDC at 12/4/2025 meeting; SP-25-029, related local site plan, in progress, AP2025- 004, Granted; AP2026-004, appeal for updated setbacks, appeal granted, Section 106 Appalachian Trail consulting parties meeting 4/23/26; ongoing 2. Staff Report a. Staff Reviews * b. Rural Village Letter Draft * c. Survey funding updates d. Preservation Month 2026 Updates i. May 5th @TBD Preservation Proclamation with BOCC ii. May 14th @6:00 p.m. Architecture: Maryland Style by Christiana Limniatis with Preservation Maryland at 100 S. Potomac Street (Hagerstown Library) iii. May 21st @5:30 p.m. John Frye Preservation Awards at Hub City Vinyl at 28 E. Baltimore Street, Hagerstown iv. May 30th Campaign for Historic Trades Window Workshop at Saylor House - https://historictrades.org/campaign-events/ (waitlist available) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING MEETING 1. Wednesday, June 3, 2026, 6:00 p.m. *attachments MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY April 1, 2026 The Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, April 1, 2026 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; Justin Bedard, Ann Aldrich, Tyler Milam, Greg Smith, Brianna Candelaria (arrived at 6:15 pm) and Ex-officio County Commissioner Randy Leatherman. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator and HDC Staff member; Jennifer Kinzer, Deputy Director; and Debra Eckard, Office Manager. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 4, 2026 regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS HTC-25-003 – 102 West Irvin Avenue Ms. Jenkins presented a tax credit application for chimney repair on the Bikle House located at 102 W. Irvin Avenue in Hagerstown. The applicant submitted photographs and the invoice for expenses. The total expenses were $30,757. Ms. Jenkins reviewed the expenditures and did not find any discrepancies between the invoiced work and previous work descriptions. All the expenses appear to be qualified rehabilitation expenses. Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion approve the tax credit application and to accept the total expenses as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Milam and unanimously approved. HTC-26-001 – 403 North Prospect Street Ms. Jenkins presented a tax credit application (Parts 1 and 2) for the conversion of the former Moller Organ Works building to apartments. This project is pursuing both Federal and State tax credits as well. A Part 3 application will be presented when work is complete. Discussion and Comments: Members had no comments on the presented materials. RZ-26-001 – Danielle Durning – Text Amendment Ms. Jenkins reminded members that a draft letter was sent to them via email in response to the proposed text amendment regarding “small box variety stores”. Receiving no comments from members, Ms. Jenkins submitted the letter to staff to be made part of the official record. Ms. Jenkins noted that MHT received a copy of the text amendment and had no comments either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. She stated she could find no other instance of a buffer around a historic resource that hasn’t had public hearing for that purpose. Ms. Jenkins explained that Cascade has been inventoried on several occasions; however, the applicant believes that the inventory needs to be updated because the area of significance in Cascade does not include the property of concern. Ms. Jenkins explained the applicant intends the text amendment to apply specifically to the Rural Village zoning designation, however, as written it would apply to all rural zoning categories. Ms. Jenkins noted that Fort Ritchie has an MHT easement and is the closest historic resource to the proposed development site. Staff have concerns regarding the proposed 1000-foot buffer. Staff believe that buffering of a property based on its historic aspect is an inappropriate solution to limit specific land uses. Typically, the conflict of land uses with historic resources is handled through design review and guidelines found in the Zoning Ordinance. Discussion and Comments: There was a brief discussion regarding the HDC’s review of properties within the Rural Village core areas versus those properties outside the core/inventoried areas. Mr. Bedard expressed his opinion that if the text amendment is approved, it could set a precedent which could have unintended consequences. OLD BUSINESS Historic Properties Grant Ms. Jenkins announced that the draft Historic Properties Grant program documentation has been sent to the County Attorney’s office for review for legal sufficiency. It has been updated with language for the enabling portion of the program. Discussion and Comments: Ms. Aldrich asked if historic churches would be included in the Program. Ms. Jenkins believes that historic churches in the County, not within any municipality, would be included. We may include municipalities in the future. Consensus: HDC members wish to move the proposed program forward to the County Commissioners. Design Guidelines for Historic Structures Update or Separate Guidance for Ruins Ms. Jenkins reminded members that Ms. Aldrich requested that staff review other jurisdiction’s guidance for citizens regarding ruins and their potential reuse on properties. No design guidelines have been found regarding ruins; however, this could be completed as a local guidance document. Ms. Jenkins stated that the current Design Guidelines were adopted in 2022 and should be updated soon. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Yavener expressed his opinion that a guidance document is a good idea. Ms. Jenkins noted that the current design guidelines do not address building code regulations; staff will discuss this with the County’s building inspectors. Ms. Aldrich suggested a workshop with local contractors and structural engineers. There was a brief discussion regarding tax credits or other monetary incentives for the retention of historic ruins. OTHER BUSINESS Correspondence · Programmatic Agreement Update – SHA – Staff has no concerns with the agreement; it appears that the changes are minimal. No comments received from members. · CLG Legislative Items from MHT – Ms. Jenkins noted there is a growing need statewide for housing which includes non-traditional dwelling sizes. The County has adopted a text amendment for Accessory Dwelling Units which can be found in the County’s Zoning Ordinance. · Request for Comment – AP2026-009, 17423 DaWrong Lane – Staff submitted comments for this request stating there were no historic resources that would be affected. · Request for Comment – 7116 House Road Telecommunications Tower – Photo simulations have been provided and were reviewed by members. The simulated tower was not visible in any of the photos that were submitted. No further comments or information was requested unless the developer changes its plans. · Invitation to Comment – 5404 Mondell Road, Sharpsburg – This project has been formally withdrawn from Section 106 review. · Request for Comment – 3417/3413 Rohrersville Road Telecommunications Tower – This project is being heard by the Board of Appeals this evening for updated setback information. Following the Board of Appeals decision, if approved, the Section 106 review will still continue. · Consultation Request – 16220 Wright Road – Proposed ICE Baltimore Processing Facility – MHT requested additional information from DHS to determine if a larger APE was needed for this proposed project. An updated packet was submitted with an APE of one mile. Other information included in the packet is as follows: ground disturbance associated with sewer improvements that will be required including trenching and replacement in kind; ground disturbance depth is consistent with previous grading, however, a higher fence is proposed which will require a deeper hole (4-feet) for the posts; no archaeological resources will be impacted; noise and traffic will not increase. Ms. Jenkins noted there was public concern regarding the relocation of Wright Road at its intersection with Hopewell Road. She explained the proposed plans for this relocation project which will include a Section 106 review if necessary. Ms. Jenkins reviewed the steps of the Section 106 process as listed by the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. In this particular case, DHS is following all steps that are necessary and complying with these regulations. Ms. Jenkins noted that by increasing the APE, the Bowman property was considered. This property was deemed ineligible for listing on the National Register by MHT in 2019. Also discussed in the latest documentation from DHS was the Virginia Path, which nobody knows exactly where it is located. Ms. Jenkins noted this area is one of the most heavily modified industrial areas in the County. Staff do not believe that the new information warrants any changes from the HDC’s original comments. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Bedard stated that the structure is already existing and, in his opinion, the proposed changes will not substantially alter or impact the area. He expressed his opinion that the area has been extensively graded, the grading has been deep, and the area heavily modified so if there was an archaeological site there that was eligible for the National Register prior to all this work, it would have been so heavily impacted that it would not have retained sufficient integrity to be eligible now. Ms. Jenkins can forward the HDC’s consensus of no adverse effects unless project description changes. Staff Report · White Hall Road – Cell Tower – This project was reviewed in December 2025. A letter was sent to the consultant requesting additional information, which has not been received. This project is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Appeals on April 15th. · Staff Reviews - A written report was provided to members in the agenda packet. Ms. Candelaria announced that Antietam Farm has been accepted on the National Register of Historic Places. · HP Yearly Letter Draft – A letter was prepared to send to citizens in the HP overlay zones updating them on the tax credits as well as other helpful information. A draft was sent to members; no comments were received. · CLG Report – The report was submitted on February 17th with updated member trainings listed. · Survey Funding Updates – A list of consultants was obtained from MHT. There are two individual sites interested in obtaining a MIHP inventory. Ms. Jenkins will contact the consultants to see if an MIHP inventory could be completed within the two month timeframe and at a cost that is within the restricted budget. · National Alliance of Preservation Commission Membership – The membership has been renewed and members should continue to receive emails for available trainings and workshops. Ms. Jenkins will schedule one or two workshops later this year for everyone. · Preservation Month 2026 Updates – o May 14th at 6 pm – Presentation by Preservation Maryland; Topic: Architecture; this will be held at the Hagerstown Library, 100 South Potomac Street o May 21st at 5:30 pm – John Frye Preservation Awards at Hub City Vinyl at 28 East Baltimore Street o Photos and blurbs for #Washcolovehistoric are due April 24th o CLG funded Window Workshop on May 30th at the Saylor House. This workshop is already full with a waitlist. · Ms. Jenkins announced that as of July 1, 2026, the HAC will be merged with the HDC through a Bylaw change for the HDC. This decision was recently made by the County Commissioners. She explained there will be two openings (voting members) on the HDC at the end of June because Mr. Smith’s and Mr. Lushbaugh’s terms will expire and three openings for non-voting members. Applications and resumes can be completed on the County’s website. The Frye awards will be budgeted as a line item under the Department of Planning & Zoning. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Aldrich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith, unanimously approved and so ordered by the Chairman. UPCOMING MEETING The next meeting of the Historic District Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, May 6, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________________ Lloyd Yavener, Chairman HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 MEMORANDUM To: Washington County Historic District Commission From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff Date: April 21, 2026 Subj: Residential Demolition Permit/, 2026-01127 Staff Report and Analysis Property Owner: SHANNON JOCELYN MEAGHAN, SHANNON JEREMY EDWARD Applicant: Jeremy & Jacelyn Shannon Location: 13034 LITTLE ANTIETAM Road Tax Account ID: 09000208 Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 0039/0001/0003/ Legal Description: 50 ACRES13034 LITTLE ANTIETAM RDW/S MD ROUTE 62 Zoning: Agricultural, Rural MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): I163 Project Description: Demolition of 2,500 sq. ft. single family dwelling including 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. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 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. County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures Demolition Permit Application Requirements 1. Written description and history of the building or structure to be demolished. 2. Detail drawings, such as construction or trim details. 3. Floor plan for each floor level, drawn to approximate scale or fully dimensioned. 4. Applicant’s plan for the recycling of waste generated 5. A report or narrative analyzing the following alternatives (listed in descending order of preference) as to the feasibility. The report shall consist of thorough, deliberative analyses of each of the alternatives, explaining why each alternative is or is not feasible and additional photographs should be provided in support of the analysis. In cases where a permit may involve multiple structures, each structure must have its alternatives documented. (a) Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structure or its setting; (b) Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project; (c) Converting the structure into another use (adaptive reuse); (d) Relocating the structure on the property; (e) Relocating the structure to another property; (f) Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building materials; (g) Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs, drawings, and/or text 6. A site plan illustrating any proposed development or introduction of plantings following demolition (if applicable) HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Staff Report: This structure is on the Washington County Historic Sites Inventory/MIHP as a frame house (WA-I-163). The house is located back a farm lane extending from the west side of Little Antietam Road and is not visible from the right-of-way. The property is approximately 50 acres. The structure is a two-story frame construction on a stone rubble foundation. There are two doors on the front façade with four windows unevenly spaced. The window trim is intact with some ornamentation however all of the windows are broken on the structure. The roof is corrugated metal on the front façade and asphalt shingle on the rear façade. There are two gable end chimneys for the main structure. The original wood siding, visible from the failing paper and shingle siding, has been severely damaged by nails when it was covered by the tar paper siding. The doors into the structure while visible were warped and unable to open. There is a concrete stoop running the length of the front façade. The attached summer kitchen is one story structure with a large brick fireplace to the left side. The structure’s foundation is similar rubble stone. There is a small porch at the entry running the length of the structure. The roof of this structure is asphalt shingles. The siding is also wood but has been previously painted. There is a single 2 pane window on its front façade and a single door. The 2 structures were connected with a concrete block lean-to at the summer kitchen porch and rear doorway to the main house that was not present in the original documentation for the property in 1975. There is a house to the north of the structure on the property that is a more modern and smaller construction. To the south of the subject house is a bank barn. Neither of these structures are included in the demolition permit and the owner is exploring options for their continued use. This property was previously owned by the Bachtell family from 1930 until the current owner purchased it. Prior to that it was in the Keyser family (L185- F316), Durbin family until 1920 (L157-F80), Ridenour 1907 (L125-F676), Wishard? 1904-1872 (L119, F563). Staff Analysis: The current owner purchased the property in January of 2026. They were present at the site visit and provided the requested HDC demolition permit documentation. To their knowledge this structure has not been used for at least 40 years. They did not recommend entry due to the instability of the floor nor were the doors in operation at the time of the site visit due to warping or being shuttered. It is the intent of the property owner to construct a new home in the same location for their family to reside. The owner believes that due to the structure’s condition rehabilitation is not financially feasible. Conversion of the structure with its state of disrepair would also not be financially feasible for them. Staff did not see any salvageable materials from the exterior other than a few sections of siding and the current owner indicated that they are unaware of any interior features in good condition either when asked. Many of the windows are broken, leading to water infiltration. This structure does not appear to have historical, cultural, architectural or design significance as detailed in Section 20.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County. Staff saw several hazards including nails, broken glass, and HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 abandoned infrastructure visible during the site visit which along with the condition of the structure make this proposed demolition necessary so that unsafe conditions or health hazards are remedied. Staff Recommendation: Recommend support of Residential Demolition Permit 2026-01127, located south of 13034 Little Antietam Road for the reasons stated in the staff analysis. Respectfully Submitted, Meghan Jenkins, GISP Historic District Commission Staff Attachments: · Photos provided by Staff · Property Owner Demolition Alternative Narrative · Property Owner sketch of first floor dimensions (exterior only due to stability concerns) · WA-I-163 Inventory Form · Permit Submission Packet HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 1: Front façade, facing west HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 2: Left side, facing north HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 3: Summer Kitchen front, facing northwest HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 4: Summer Kitchen chimney, facing north HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 5: Rear of Summer Kitchen and Main House showing concrete block lean-to, facing east HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 6: Right side of main house, facing south HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 7: Siding Condition, typical HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 8: Window trim detail and additional siding condition photo; infrastructure condition HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 9: Summer Kitchen siding and Window HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET 747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1 Photo 10: Summer Kitchen Door and trim WA-I-163 Frame House 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 - :z: 0 t- u ~ ..:: t- :z: w w Copy II MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST WORKSHEET NOMINATION FORM for the '2..2-0 IS.35 Z:,~ fJ- NA-I-163 District 9 Map 39 Parcel 3 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE COMMON: Frame H ANOIOR HISTORIC: STREET ANo NUMBER1 (Leitersburg Chewsville Road) West of Md. Route 6 One mile South of Leitersbur Cl TY OR TOWN: Leitersbur Vicinit STATE COUNTY: CATEGORY OWNERSHIP ST A TUS (Checlr One) 0 District J]I: Building 0 Public Public Acquisition: raJ Occupied ACC ESSI BL E TO THE PUBLIC Yea: 0 Site 0 Structure !XJ 0 Object 0 Private O In Process Both O Being Considered 0 Unoccupied 0 0 PreHrvotion work 0 Restricted UnrHtricted in progress Ii(] No PRESENT USE (Checlr One or MMe •• Jlppraprfate) ~ Agricultural 0 GovernftMlnt 0 Pork 0 Trans portoti on 0 Comments 0 Commercial 0 Industrial ~ Private Residence 0 Other (Specify) 0 Educational 0 Military 0 Religious 0 Entertainment 0 Museum 0 Scientific WNER S NAME: George B. Bachtell STREET ANO NUMBER: Route # 5 Cl TY OR TOWN: STATE: Hagerstown Maryland ;c$;) gQ¢~;(JQf1 PF t;;~GJ,):; D~$C:)f:IP'JJ()H COURTHOUSE, RECOISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC: Washington County Court House STREET ANO NUMBER: West Washington Street Cl TY OR TOWN: Hagerstown TITLE OF SURVEY: DATE OF SURVEY: 0 Federal 0 State 0 County 0 Local DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS: S'fR T ANO NUMBER: CITY OR TOWN: STATE: PS -709 Good 0 Exc•ll•nl 0 Fair CONDITION (Check One) B Altered < 5~ Uncltered (Check One) 0 D•t•riorot•d DESCRIBE THE PRESENT# •o ORIGINAL (It known) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE 0 Ruins 0 ·UnexpoHd (Ch•clr On•) 0 Mov•d ~ Originol Site This house is located at the end of a dirt land leading west from Maryland route 62, about one mile south of Leitersburg, in Washing- ton County, Maryland. It is situated on gently sloping ground and faces east. The structure is a two story, four bay frame structure covered with tar paper siding. According to the owner, the original structure consisted of the first story of the north half of the dwelling with the south half and the second story of the north section being additions. Randomly spaced windows hold single pane double hung sashes held within frames trimmed with turn of the style mouldings. Entrances are situated at the two center bays of the front elevation. They are similar in appearance with trim matching that of the windows. The roof extends beyond the end walls and is covered with corrigated sheet metal. The eaves are finished with plain boxing under which is a strip of simple moulding. Small brick chimneys are located inside each gable end. South of the house is a small one story, two bay wash house or summer kitchen of frame construction. The house is in good condition and is located on a tract containing · 50.32 acres. m m z -t ::a c: n -t 0 z z 0 ..... u ::::> :t: ..... z w w - 4-D .. .· :. PERIOD (Checlr One or lllore a• Appropriate) O Pre-Columbion 0 16th Century 0 15th Century 0 17th Century SPECIFIC OATEISI (II AppllcaP>le and Known.) AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Checlr One or More ae Appropriate) Abor iginol 0 Eclucotion 0 Prehistoric 0 Engineering 0 Historic 0 Industry 0 Agriculture 0 lnv•ntion 6CJ Architecture 0 Lonclscope 0 Att Architecture 0 Commarce 0 Literature 0 Comm uni cations 0 Military 0 Conservation 0 Music STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18th Century 6'J 19th Century Political Religion/Phi. losophy Science Sculpture Socio I/Human· itarian Theoter Transportation 0 20th Century 0 Urban Planning 0 Other (Speclfr) The area of significance of this house is its architecture. It is representative of a significant number of houses dating from the late nineteenth century in Washington County, employing frame construction. . ... : .. • PS-7011 LATITUDE AND L.ONGITUDE COORDINATES DEFINING A RECTANGLE L.OCATING THE PROPERTY ...... -:".~~:c-=--:-:--=-~-:-,,.....-..---~-"'""-'--'-'""--'--'-'-C......-...· • LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES 0 DEFINING THE CENTER POINT OF A PROPERTY --.~~~~~~~~~----.~~~~~~~~~-l Rr--~~~~~~o_F~L_E_s_s_T_H----.A_N_T_E~N~A~C.::.:..:R~E~s~--~~~--+ CORNER LATITUDE LONGITUDE Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds NW 0 0 NE 0 0 SE 0 0 9 0 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY: Acreage Justification: ill> FORM PREP.UEO SY NAME ANO TITLE: Paula Stoner Dickey, Consultant ORGANIZATION LATITUDE Degrees Minutes Seconds 0 Washington County Historical Sites Surve STREET AND NUMBER: Court House Annex CITY OR TOWN: STATE Hagerstown u. ·>'State Liaison Officer Review: (Off ice Use Onl ) Significance of this property is: National O State 0 Local O Signature LONGITUDE Degrees Minutes SecDAds 0 DATE m m :z 0 % 2711 40' ~ /, I MILE Heavy-duty / I PAULA ~TONER DICKEY CONSULTANT. WllSHINGTON CO W' .. ORIC:.L S'IES <"Jll.Vf.Y v.07/26/2024 Page 1 | Part I – Evaluation of Significance Application for Historic Properties Tax Credit ORDINANCE 2024-23 Part I – Evaluation of Significance HTC Number (HDC office use only): Instructions: Fill out this form for determination of whether the historic structure is located within a qualifying area. Owners of properties that have the Historic Preservation Zoning Overlay do NOT need to complete this form. For structures under MHT Easement, a copy of the easement document must be included. PROPERTY INFORMATION Property Name Street Address City Zip Check all designations that apply: Historic Structure in the Antietam Overlay 1 or 2 Historic Structure contributing to a Historic Rural Village Historic Structure under MHT Easement Historic Structure in an eligible municipality (list below) Municipality____________________________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION Name Street Address City State Zip Telephone Email Address PROJECT CONTACT (if different from applicant) Name Company Street Address City State Zip Telephone Email Address 1/2 LOT 87 51.5X206 (Western half) 205 E Main St Sharpsburg 21782 4 Sharpsburg Kourtney Lowery 205 E Main St, PO BOX 387 Sharpsburg Maryland 21782 Christopher Adams Broad Run Construction 6400 Burkittsville Rd. Middletown 21769 (301) 416-7735 admin@broadrunconstruction.com Maryland 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 1870- State of Maryland, Dept. of Taxation and Assessment database and National Register of Historic Places, WA II 723, Section 7 p.25. (attached) Brick, now covered in siding, some wood framing in interior covered in plaster. Front porch updated/repaired in late 1990's /early 2000's. Current version of roof put on around 1970's. possible back addition added in early 20th century, no record Victorian vernacular style with bay window and wooden, colonial balastrade front porch. 2 story 5 bay frame house with projecting bay window, 2/2 windows, side gable standing seam metal roof, irregular fenestration may suggest that the house was built in two parts; early 20" c. garage w/hipped roof; stone &frame bank bam; frame outhouse w/German siding, shed-roofed shed As stated in National Register of Historic Places, WA II 723, Section 7 p.25 Pitched roof covered with painted metal seam roof 2,058 SF above grade living area; there is also an unfinished basement and attic. Construction consists of some wooden framing with brick overlay; now has white aluminum siding. Lies near the bottom of Cemetery Hill on the Main Street of historic District of Sharpsburg which is on the Maryland Registry of Historic Places (WA II 723) and the district included is also on the National Register of Historic Places; The Main Street is cited as in the district. (Reference #100009521, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm#table and WA II 723, Section 7 p.25.) House contributes to the historic district for the vernacular architecture and historic time period of 1870. Description from National Register of Historic Places, WA II 723, Section 7 p.25. stated above. Contributing resource to the historic town and district. 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 Standing seam metal pitched Roof on housing structure. Roof has small holes in several places due to rust. Current roof has been on the house for at least 40 years. The pitched roof will be replaced with new standing seam metal and the underlagment needed with accessories that will match the current roof and previous color before it was faded/rusted. This will have minimal impact on the roof and will provide a necessary repair/replacement for the house's overall structure and prevent other issues with the house. The picture provides an example of the back of the house and the condition of the roof from that vantage point including areas of fading, rust, and loss of accessories such as snow angels. 1 HTC Number:_______________ Page 6 | Part II – Description of Rehabilitation APPLICATION CHECKLIST Application Form – I have filled in all applicable fields. Signature – I signed and dated the Part 2 application Description of Rehabilitation Work – I have described ALL proposed work planned for the exterior of my property. I understand that all work must be consistent with the Washington County Design Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and be reviewed and approved by the Historic District Commission Supplementary Materials – If applicable to my project, I have attached site plans, demolition plans, architectural plans, HVAC plans, replacement window/door drawings and/or product specifications. Photographs – I have attached photographs to support the description of work. Equivalent Documentation – I am attaching an equivalent documentation packet for review. I attest that I have read and understand the Historic Properties Tax Credit Application and that the information provided in this application is true, completed and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. Signature of Applicant Printed Name of Applicant Date Signature of Applicant Printed Name of Applicant Date Historic District Commission Use Only The Historic District Commission has reviewed the Application for Historic Properties Tax Credit – Part II for the above- named property and has determined that the proposed rehabilitation described herein: Is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Washington County Historic Guidelines. Final certification can be issued only after the rehabilitation work is completed as herein described and a Part 3 application is submitted and approved Is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation if the attached conditions are met. A final certification can be issued only after the rehabilitation work is completed as herein described and a Part 3 Application is submitted and approved. Is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, eligibility requirements, and/or does not comply with program requirements and therefore certification is denied. Is not adequately documented in the application and therefore cannot be reviewed Date of HDC Review 4 4 4 4 Kourtney Lowery Changes to the pitched roof only WA-II-682 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 - -· s;TE NUMBER: WA-II-682 ADDRESS: 205 East Main Street, Sharpsburg, MD OUNER/LOT NUMBER/ACCESS: Clyde W. Grove, 261-566, private BUILDING DATE: mid-late 19th century 205 East Main Street is a south-facing, horizontally massed, symmetrical, five-bay, two-and-a-half-story, frame, freestanding, residential structure on a stone foundation. Set directly at the public-right-of-way, the building is sheathed in manufactured s~ding. The standing-seam metal, side-gable roof has an interior endwall brick chimney, and open and overhanging eaves. A simple, raised, eastlake, flat-roof porch extends across all but one bay of the front facade. It shields a one-story hexagonal bay window in the western two bays, the center-bay entrance, and the window immediately to the east of the entrance. The entrance is wide, holding a glazed and paneled door that is flanked by sidelights and topped by a transom. The frame is an elaborate Queen Anne one with heavy molding. Fenestration is composed of single, rectangular, wooden sash, double-hung, two-over-two windows with shutters. Any detail that existed in the frames has been obscured (removed?) by the addition of the manufactured siding. Windows in the bay are one-over-one. The rear ell is two stories in height. There is a garage immediately to the east of the house at the right-of-way. Based on the remaining decorative detailing of the house, it (or at least its previous remodeling) appears to date from the late l~th century. A building of the same configuration is noted on the 1877 map of the town as being owned by J. Schneider. The extant house and the garage are noted on the 1922 Sanborn as 503 East Main. The property also included a large outhouse and a two-story barn/shed. The building is within the Western Maryland Geographic Organization, the Development Period of Industrial/Urban Dominance, and falls within the Historic Period Theme of Architecture, Lnndscape Architecture and Community Planning. Prepared by Julie Mueller, June 1991 N'll!.~0.0Y C......_N,.,..1£.L.'0 744{7&'7 \ \ )RIAN E. AmlAN E. GRIM GRIM 2/330 "4/571 a:: II') f:l ifi ~ a:: IX :t 0 .,. 3: ~ O'> ...: . .,. z I{) c:i:-...... 0 tr >-(Jl I-' a: CD z ~ c a:: CJ:) l.? Q w a: ~ l.? I ~' ~~J a: ~ . dl ~' a: -~r->-: WCI) \fl t\I ::> . N CLVDE W. m., ":1~8 i;'i c ~ .. (rQCVE CH. '"'-SW. PARS. (J: ~ '"' >-(\I :l ,-........ I ~ -u crw -__ +-CT> ~ J1MlU• 01 .HURCM :x: ; .J ~'2' .. -. ..... 03 .. 205 la 207 200 10~· ..... s· -Go. RllC'<,jl'. Wl\.L\S c. 4,,f./55~ ~l>-V...'Ell ' _J ...... I _Jin l<l l&.1(1) a:Xw <l (/) I~ < m I I . ... 209 ---l ' ' ' ILL~YD I G;:;1i:fiTH ' j603/52~1 Ni ! (/) I LIJ Cl) J~ .... c. WILLIAM G. COMBS STOVER ~C.3/ 531: 856/46 lz_ ~Cl) liO. ll.L£Al14lMMI I :x: ...... I c> ~ ~ Cl) ~ ...... 1a• 211 1&b-S55 LU"fMER.AM C..HU'2GH ._URIAL GROUND 10 .. • 219 DANIELS/ ___ , WHITE .... 810/185 WILLIAM G. ~ GARRISON ... 795/447 ;::; .:: ~-,;. RICKY E. WILLiAMS 794/1047 i RICH,.A....\C!D N\ IY\C~I.. 732./iz.o 103' '. j "117. • 223 ST. ·ue.s· I f JOSEPH P. GREELEY ~I ~ I 828 /140 ;; t.09 A. .\ -----r·-·--- .iJ ( Volume 19 Number 1 SPRING 2026 Maryland’s A Publication of The Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions MAHDC | 26 Pickburn Court • Cockeysville, Maryland 21030 | www.mahdc.org Since the start of 2026, we have been reflecting on the past year and the work we have accomplished together. At our fall retreat, the MAHDC Board of Directors reviewed not only our programs, but also the unanticipated challenges facing historic preservation across the United States. These challenges stem from unexpected shifts in the application of preservation guidelines and long-established practices, as well as changes in the level of support for long-standing heritage programs. In Maryland, we are fortunate to benefit from a strong preservation ethos supported by clear policies and guidelines. Our statewide framework includes dedicated institutions such as the Maryland Department of Planning, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), along with its affiliates—Jefferson Patterson Park, the Maryland Commission on African American History and Culture (MCAAHC), the Banneker-Douglass-Tubman Museum, the network of National Heritage Areas Programs, and our well-developed system of Certified Local Governments and Historic Preservation/District Commissions. To guide the protection and conservation of Maryland’s cultural and natural heritage, MHT released its long-term strategic plan, Heritage 2031, in 2024. MAHDC was pleased to contribute to its development and is now updating its own long-term plan to align with and support Heritage (Continued on page 2) LETTER FROMTHE BOARD PRESIDENT Greetings! Inside this Issue: n Relections on Main Street Conferences............................................................Pages 1-2 n Downtown Sykesville Connection..........................................................................Page 3 n Contractor Profile: Bell Architects.........................................................................Page 4 n Historical Call Boxes...............................................................................................Page 5 n MAHDC News: Retiring MAHDC Directors............................................................Page 6 Attending the 2025 Main Street Now Conference in Philadelphia was a chance to learn, connect, and recharge with like-minded leaders from across the country committed to revitalizing their communities. What began as the National Main Street Center has grown into Main Street America, and these conferences have become essential for those leading preservation-based economic development efforts nationwide. For me, it was also a moment of reflection. My career began in Kansas, leading a Small Cities Demonstration Program—an early pilot of the National Trust designed for towns under 5,000. I attended my first Main Street Conference, then called the National Town Meeting, in 1989 in Austin, Texas. Since then, the evolution has been striking, both in the diversity of participants and the depth of the programming. Originally, Main Street conferences focused heavily on educational basics, educating communities about the "Four Points" of the Main Street Approach. Over time, these points have evolved and become more sophisticated and data- driven. For example: Economic Vitality has expanded beyond simple business recruitment to supporting a resilient, diverse economy. Design now considers not just making individual buildings pretty, but the overall experience and function of the district.(Continued on page 2) Cumberland Main Street 2025 attendees. Photographer: Ruth Davis-Rogers REFLECTIONS ON MAIN STREET CONFERENCES Then and Now By Ruth Davis-Rogers, Cumberland CLG Staff MAHDC BOARD OF DIRECTORS FREDERICK C. STACHURA, JDPresidentPrince George’s County CHRISTOPHER J. BERGERMontgomery CountyAt-large JANICE OLSHESKYAt-large FRANKLIN A. ROBINSON, JR.Charles CountyAt–large KATHLEEN SEAY At-large MALIK E. WILSON, IIIAt-large Leslie Larsen Gottert Executive Director director@mahdc.org Page 2 • Maryland’s Historic Districts, A publication of MAHDC ABOUT THE MARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSIONS Since 1979, the mission of the Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions (MAHDC) has been to provide advocacy, training and program support for historic district/preservation commissions and local governments across the state. MAHDC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and sponsorships are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law (Please contact your tax professional about this). For additional information, please contact: Leslie L. Gottert, Executive Director director@mahdc.org Thank you for your support! 2031 wherever possible. Central to this effort is our mission to provide training, guidance, and support to members of Historic Preservation and Historic District Commissions across Maryland. We look forward to collaborating with our preservation partners in the coming year and welcome your thoughts on how MAHDC can best serve you and your community as you continue your efforts to steward Maryland’s built and natural heritage resources. Thank you for your continued support! Frederick C. Stachura, J.D. MAHDC Board President (Continued from page 1)Letter from the Board President Promotion has grown from simple advertising techniques into integrated branding strategies that foster a unified downtown identity. Organization has become more adaptive, evolving from strict committee structures to more flexible, results-focused models. After four decades of work, the results speak for themselves. Many communities and commercial corridors are still relevant because of the Main Street program. I’ve personally observed this program helping countless communities find their new identity, breathe new life into historic buildings, and weather economic cycles. It’s not easy and it takes commitment from communities, but it does produce results. This conference was a powerful reminder of that enduring impact and why this program continues to matter. (Continued from page 1)Reflections: Then and Now Do you know the National Trust’s Main Street America Program? Here is a link to a recent article about the program by Erin Barnes, about what she has learned during her first two years as Main Street President and CEO: https://rb.gy/njcldz Erin Barnes has spent her first two years at Main Street America traveling to communities across the network. Photo courtesy of Erin Barnes Each year, a national jury of industry professionals and local leaders review the applications of standout Main Street programs seeking the Great American Main Street Award (GAMSA), Main Street America’s award for excellence in fostering preservation-based revitalization efforts through the Main Street Approach™. Receiving the Great American Main Street Award is a significant achievement in the Main Street Movement. Since the award’s establishment in 1995, only 115 of over 2000 Main Street programs have been acknowledged as GAMSA- winning communities. Many Main Street programs create multi-year plans to develop a strong application based on outcomes that have made meaningful impacts in their local communities. Organizations are familiar with the selection criteria — strength of the Main Street program in spurring community transformation, commitment to historic preservation, innovative programming, implementation of cross-sector partnerships, community outreach and stakeholder engagement, and ensuring their downtown districts are for everyone — and build towards this opportunity to be recognized. After careful consideration and deliberation, eight organizations have been selected as semifinalists for this prestigious award, and we are one of them! A LINK TO THE FULL POST FROM THE DOWNTOWN SYKESVILLE CONNECTIONCAN BE FOUND HERE: https://www.downtownsykesville.com/2025/10/04/22264/ the-downtown-sykesville-connection-announced-as-2026- great-american-main-street-award-semifinalist/ A publication of MAHDC, Maryland’s Historic Districts • Page 3 The Downtown Sykesville Connection Announced as 2026 GREAT AMERICAN MAIN STREET AWARD SEMIFINALIST By Kevin Rubenstein, Town Planner of Sykesville Photo courtesy of Downtown Sykesville Connection Photo courtesy of Downtown Sykesville Connection Sykesville has been recognized as one ofthe top three 2026 Great American Main Streets! https://tinyurl.com/2ear5dwv BREAKING NEWS!!BREAKING NEWS!!BREAKING NEWS!!BREAKING NEWS!! BE L L A R C H I T E C T S Since its founding in 1999, Washington, D.C.-based BELL Architects has tackled a number of challenging historic preservation projects in the region. In recent years, the firm served as lead architect for the replacement of the copper roof on the United States Naval Academy Chapel. The reinforced concrete dome on the Annapolis landmark had leaked since it was constructed in 1908, and the Navy’s piecemeal repairs over the years always failed. “We took a more scientific approach and said, ‘Let’s analyze it and figure out what the real cause is and address that before we go too far,’ ” said T. David Bell, the firm’s founder and principal. BELL’s team included surveyors who rappelled the dome to document the infiltration troublespots and conservators who tested deteriorated materials in laboratories. Laser scans and thermal images also were completed to collect data and inform the design solution. The new roof on the dome closely matches the building’s original ornamental copper with the addition of a few minor elements such as copper-clad skylights. “We thought it was important to have natural light in the main sanctuary, but we didn’t think it was appropriate to have water coming into it so we came up with some very detailed copper solutions to get that to be watertight and fit with the character of the dome,” he said. The firm received the 2023 Award for Religious Architecture: Restoration from the Partners for Sacred Places, among other recognitions, for its efforts. In one of its most unique projects, BELL Architects redesigned the interpretation of the ice well at Gadsby’s Tavern in Alexandria, Virginia. The 18th-century well is a rare surviving example of its kind in an urban setting. It initially had been exposed for public view in the 1970s and was overdue for a refresh to address safety and stormwater management issues. “We opened it up and introduced passive ventilation so when you stand at the glass you can actually feel the coolness–especially in summer,” Bell said. “And we created a stone amphitheater to give the folks the idea of an eroded stone due to water over time.” Stone inscriptions tastefully and sufficiently explain the history of the site above where visitors can peer into the subterranean space. BELL Architect’s preservation ethos extends to its designs for new construction. “We don’t want to create a building that everyone hates and is hard to tear down,” Bell said. “The idea is that even before 50 years old people want to consider it worthy of preservation and designation.” Naval Academy Dome. Photographer: Anice Hoachlander/Courtesy of BELL Architects CONTRACTOR PROFILE: T. David Bell, FAIA, LEED AP, of BELL Architects By Chris Berger Gadsby’s Tavern Ice Well. Photographer: Anice Hoachlander/ Courtesy of BELL Architects For more information on visit their website athttps://www.bellarchitects.com Closeup of Gadsby’s Tavern Ice Well. Photographer: Anice Hoachlander/Courtesy of BELL Architects Page 4 • Maryland’s Historic Districts, A publication of MAHDC A publication of MAHDC, Maryland’s Historic Districts • Page 5 The restored Call Boxes seen throughout Washington, D.C. today are not only remnants of the reliable networks of fire and police services set up across the District in the mid-1800s, but also beautiful additions to the streetscape. Since the 1860s, hundreds of these call boxes were an integral part of civic safety. Connected by long underground cables, the cables formed a telegraph network that alerted firemen and policemen. But by the 1970s, new technologies had made the police and fire boxes obsolete. The boxes were abandoned and fell into disrepair. Today, efforts to rehabilitate these boxes can be seen all over Washington, DC. Maryland- based Chevy Chase Exteriors, a leader in restoration-focused preservation, was contracted to lead the Sheridan-Kalorama Call Box Restoration Project. The project, organized by Betty Kotcher and Holly Sukenik, successfully restored 16 historic call boxes in the Kalorama neighborhood to their original design. Each call box was sandblasted to its bare metal, treated with a cold galvanizing compound, and covered by two coats of industrial epoxy. Once dried, the boxes were hand-finished with 23 karat gold leaf and sealed to protect them from the elements. Now restored, one gets a sense not only of the utility of the call boxes but also of their beauty. The pride of urban connection, the infrastructure of safety, and the pleasant functionality of the call box system are seen in their original glory. Maryland-based Company Leads Restoration of DISTRICT’S HISTORICAL CALL BOXES By Malik E. Wilson, III 22nd Street & Decatur Street NW BEFORE RESTORATION Photographer: Mark Rudden 22nd Street & Decatur Street NW AFTER RESTORATION Photographer: Mark Rudden 22nd Street & Decatur Street NW AFTER RESTORATION Photographer: Mark Rudden 22nd Street & Decatur Street NW BEFORE RESTORATION Photographer: Mark Rudden OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE! MAHDC is expanding its Executive Board and seeking several dynamic new Directors to carry forward its mission in 2026 and beyond. If you are interested in serving in this capacity, please contact Leslie Gottert, Executive Director at director@mahdc.org for information about the board member responsibilities. Thank you!Thank you! MAHDC depends on the support of our members, dedicated commissioners and individuals who understand that preservation, at its most vibrant and compelling, takes place locally. MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS INCLUDE: Access to MAHDC training programs at the discounted membership rates. Subscription to MAHDC’s new semi- annual e-newsletter. Participation in a professional network of historic preservation commissioners, preservation professionals and grassroots activists. PLEASE JOIN US! For information about MAHDC membership, please contact Leslie Gottert, Executive Director, at director@mahdc.org. ▪ ▪ ▪ Page 6 • Maryland’s Historic Districts, A publication of MAHDC MAHDC NEWS THANKS TO RETIRING MAHDC DIRECTORS We thank them for their years of service to MAHDC and wish them well in their future efforts in the preservation field. GAVER NICHOLS a practicing architect, who contributed his talents in the area of fundraising during his tenure as a director. SHEILA BASHIRI past Vice-president, who recently retired as Preservation Planner with the City of Rockville and plans to move out-of-state. TABITHA GOLD past Graduate Student Member and then director, who has increased responsibilities with the National Park Service. The MAHDC Board of Directors would like to express its gratitude to the following directors who retired in 2025 for their dedicated service: 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 DATE: April 14, 2026 TO: Board of Zoning Appeals c/o Katie Rathvon 747 Northern Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21742 FROM: Meghan Jenkins, HDC Staff SUBJ: AP2026-010, 10944 White Hall Road Tower The proposed cellular tower located at 10944 White Hall Road is proposed at 189 feet of total height. The subject property does include resources documented on the Washington County Historic Sites Inventory/Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (WA-I-033). There are two additional resources on the inventories within a half mile of the site (WA- II-137 and WA-I-084). There are no National Register of Historic Places properties within a mile of this proposed location. There are no Historic Preservation Zoning Overlays within a mile of this proposed tower, nor are there any Antietam Overlays or Rural Villages within a mile. The effects of the proposed tower on the noted historic resources are being examined through the Section 106 process which is ongoing. Finally, HDC staff also looked at the colocation documentation provided and would like to note that there is existing cellular equipment collocated to the rear of the Black Rock Subdivision at the end of Sasha Blvd. using existing powerline structures that were not part of the analysis provided by the tower company. The HDC would request the consultant analyze these structures and provide comment on viability for their potential use. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Sincerely, Meghan Jenkins Att. Map of Area with historic resources and existing cellular infrastructure with buffers Whitehall Trileaf Project #770617 Client #Whitehall 10944 White Hall Road Smithsburg, MD 21783 Prepared For: Arcola Towers 112 W Washington St #210 Middleburg, VA 20117 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY PREPARED AND WRITTEN BY: Trileaf Corporation 303 International Circle Suite 150 Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030 Scott Emory, M.A., RPA Sr. Project Archaeologist IV 410-853-7128 s.emory@trileaf.com Michael Hart, M.A. Assistant Project Manager/Architectural Historian and Kaitlen Hitt Field Archaeologist Trileaf Project # 770617 Lead Agency Federal Communications Commission (FCC) March 2026 Cultural Resources Survey of the Whitehall Telecommunication Project, Smithsburg, Washington County, MD Trileaf Project #770617 i ABSTRACT AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY In September and December 2025, and January and March 2026, Trileaf Corporation (Trileaf) performed a cultural resource inventory survey for a proposed monopole telecommunications tower located in Smithsburg, Washington County, MD. The proposed project is located within a wooded area, open pasture, and maintained lawn. Arcola Towers proposes to construct a 187-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 189 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound in an overall 75-foot by 75-foot (5,625 square feet) lease area. The project includes a 30-foot-wide access and utility easement extending southwest, then east away from the lease area approximately 0.16 miles toward White Hall Road. The proposed location is currently an agricultural field. Total acreage of the new construction area is approximately 0.72 acre (0.29 hectare). Scott Emory, under the direction of Trileaf, performed this survey in response to the planned use of the above-described parcel and the potential impacts that such use might present to archaeological and architectural cultural resources. The Phase I cultural resource survey was designed to discover all precontact and historical period cultural resources that might be present within the project area. The field survey of the project area, which included a visual inspection and shovel testing, identified the Farm Dump Site (18WA640) within the Direct APE for the current project. Site 18WA640 consists of an approximately 215-foot-long by 100-foot-wide concentration of individual brick, brick bats, concrete rubble, architectural stone and random metal items, such as orchard post fragments, chicken wire, barbed wire fencing, a livestock or poultry water trough, and other metal debris deposited in and adjacent to the project APE-DE as fill from the adjacent Part of Carr's Quesy (WA-I-033). Site 18WA640 is considered not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP given its lack of integrity and ubiquitous artifact types. In addition, one (1) NRHP-listed historic property and one (1) potentially NRHP-eligible historic property was identified within the proposed project’s Visual APE (0.5-mile radius). Based on these findings, Trileaf recommends No Historic Properties in the APE-DE and No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties in the APE-VE. It is therefore recommended that project clearance be granted with no further investigation or evaluation of the project area relative to those resources. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................................... iii TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................................... iii SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Area of Potential Effects (APE) .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Plans and Photographs .................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT SETTING ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Soils ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Elevations ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................................. 6 2.4 Cultural Setting ............................................................................................................................................. 6 SECTION 3.0 – RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Background Research ................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Research Design ........................................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Site Probability ............................................................................................................................................ 15 SECTION 4.0 – FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................ 17 4.1 Archaeology.................................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Above Ground Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 20 SECTION 5.0 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 20 5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 20 5.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 24 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................................................ 25 APPENDIX A: PROJECT LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................................. 29 APPENDIX B: RESUMES ....................................................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX C: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM ............................................................................................ 52 APPENDIX D: PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE ................................................................................................ 62 iii FIGURES Figure 1: General Location of Proposed Cell Tower Installation. ................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Detailed View of Proposed Cell Tower Location and Installation (Arcola Towers 2025)............................. 4 Figure 3: Detailed View of Proposed Cell Tower Profile and Installation (Arcola Towers 2025). ............................... 4 Figure 4: Location of Proposed Cell Tower Location on Modern Soil Map (USDA NRCS 2025). ............................. 5 Figure 5: Project Location ca.1877 (Lake, Griffing and Stevenson 1877). ................................................................. 11 Figure 6: Project Location ca. 1912 (United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1912). ............................................. 12 Figure 7: Project Location ca. 1912 (USGS 1944). ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8: Project Location ca. 1986 (USGS 1953 [rev 1986]). ................................................................................... 14 Figure 9: Architectural Resources within the ½-mile APE-VE. ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 10: Shovel Test Pit Location and Project Boundary Map. .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 11: Supplemental Photo Locations (Google Earth 2026). ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. TABLES Table 1: Archaeological Surveys within 1-mile of the Project Location. .................................................................... 15 Table 2: Shovel Test Pit Descriptions.......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3: Photograph Locations. ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4: Description of the Subject Property. .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5: Description of Historic Resources within the ½-mile APE-VE for the Project Location.Error! Bookmark not defined. 1 SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION The FCC requires licensees and their representatives to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Federal Communications Commission 1996). The NHPA (54 U.S.C. § 300308) defines a historic property as any “prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource.” Applicants are required to assess and report all potential effects to Historic Properties as part of the Section 106 process prior to construction. Trileaf Senior Project Archaeologist IV, Scott Emory, M.A., RPA, performed the present cultural resources survey to identify and evaluate the potential impacts that the above-described Project might present to Historic Properties within both the Direct and Visual Areas of Potential Effects. As such, the present survey was designed to discover all NRHP-eligible or listed archaeological and above ground cultural resources present within the Project area. Archival research prior to field investigations was conducted by Senior Project Archaeologist IV Scott Emory (B.A. Anthropology, University of Delaware and M.A. Maritime History/Underwater Archaeology, East Carolina University) and Assistant Project Manager/Architectural Historian Michael Hart (B.A. History/Anthropology and M.S. Social Science Education, Florida State University). Fieldwork was conducted by Senior Project Archaeologist IV Scott Emory. Photography and final report production was conducted by Senior Project Archaeologist IV Scott Emory. Mr. Emory meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and is currently certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists. Mr. Hart has been certified as meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural Historian. Maps and graphics were produced by Trileaf Field Archaeologist Kaitlen Hitt (B.S. Anthropology, Kennesaw State University). All work on the current project was completed between September 5 to 19, December 12 to 31, 2025, and January 13 to March 25, 2026. 1.1 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (APE) Under the NPA for FCC Projects, the Direct APE (APE-DE) “is defined as the area of potential ground disturbance and any property, or any portion thereof that will be physically altered or destroyed by the undertaking” (FCC 2004). On November 24, 2008, the FCC further clarified that the APE-DE is limited to the tower or non-tower structure on which the collocation will be mounted as well as the lease area including the access route and utility corridor. The APE-DE for this project consists of the 75-foot by 75-foot (5,625 square feet) lease area, 30-foot-wide access/utility easement extending approximately 795 feet southwest then southeast towards White Hall Road, and the 30-foot-wide by 70-foot-long utility easement connecting to an existing ground-based transformer along the gravel driveway. Per the NPA, the Visual APE (APE-VE) is the “geographic area in which the project has the potential to introduce visual elements that diminish or alter the setting, including the landscape, where the setting is a character-defining feature of a historic property that makes it eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)” (FCC 2004). The presumed APE-VE for construction of new facilities is the area from where the tower will be visible: a. Within a ½ mile from the tower location if the proposed tower is 200 feet or less in height; b. Within ¾ of a mile from the tower location if the proposed tower is more than 200 but no more than 400 feet in overall height; or c. Within 1½ miles from the tower location if the proposed tower is more than 400 feet in overall height. Taking into consideration the maximum height of the proposed undertaking (189 feet) and the scale of the installation, Trileaf determined that the current project’s APE for visual effects will encompass a ½-mile radius from the subject property (Figure 1). 2 Figure 1: General Location of Proposed Cell Tower Installation. 3 1.2 PROJECT PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS Please reference Figures 2 and 3 to review the construction drawing provided by Arcola Towers. Also, please reference Appendix A to review photographs of the project area, which were taken by Scott Emory on September 9 and 18, 2025, and January 13, 2026, unless otherwise noted. SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT SETTING 2.1 SOILS According to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Washington County, Maryland, the vast majority of the tower lease area and extreme northern extent of the access/utility easement is underlain by Duffield silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (DsB). Duffield soils occur on nearly level to steep uplands as loamy residuum weathered from shaly limestone, are well drained, with moderately high to high permeability. They do not flood or pond and consist of a silt loam Ap-horizon from 0 to 12 inches, followed by a silty clay loam Bt-horizon from 12 to 60 inches, subsurface. extremely gravelly silt loam from 21 to 34 inches, followed by gravelly clay from 34 to 80 inches, subsurface. The very southeastern edge of the lease area, northern and central quarters of the access/utility easement, as well as the smaller segment of utility easement, is underlain by Ryder-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes (RyC). Ryder soils occur on upland slopes as loamy residuum weathered from shaly limestone, are well drained, with moderately low to high permeability. They do not flood or pond and consist of a channery silt loam Ap-horizon from 0 to 8 inches, followed by a silt loam EB-horizon from 8 to 13 inches, a silty clay loam Bt-horizon from 13 to 28 inches, a very channery silty clay loam C-horizon from 28 to 39 inches, and bedrock from 39 to 49 inches, subsurface. A small area of Ryder-Duffield channery silt loams, 3 to 8 percent slopes (RmB) is mapped in the access/utility easement between the sections of Ryder-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes soils. These soil series follow the same descriptions as noted above. The southeastern quarter of the proposed access/utility easement is mapped as Lindside silt loam (Ln) and Swanpond silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (SpA). Lindside occur on toe and base slope positions of hills as loamy alluvium derived from limestone-sandstone-shale, are moderately well drained, with moderately high to high permeability. They do not pond but frequently flood. The typical profile consists of a silt loam Ap-horizon from 0 to 13 inches, followed by silt loam Bw1- and Bw2-horizons from 13 to 40 inches, silt loam Bg1- and Bg2-horizons from 40 to 66 inches, and a gravelly sandy clay loam Bg3-horizon from 66 to 73 inches, subsurface. Swanpond soils are found on toe and base slope positions of hills as clayey residuum weathered from limestone, are moderately well drained, with moderately low to moderately high permeability. They do not flood or pond and consist of a channery silt loam Ap-horizon from 0 to 12 inches, followed by a clay Bt-horizon from 12 to 70 inches, a silty clay BC-horizon from 70 to 73 inches, subsurface (Figure 4; USDA, NRCS 2025). 2.2 ELEVATIONS Elevations range between 550-690 feet (167.6–210.3 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) in the surrounding area, with the project area elevation at approximately 603 feet (183.8 meters) AMSL. Located in the Antietam Creek watershed, the project setting generally drains to the southeast into a tributary of Landis Spring Branch which flows to the southwest roughly 3.8 miles (mi) (6.1 kilometers [km]) before emptying into Antietam Creek below Funkstown. 4 Figure 2: Detailed View of Proposed Cell Tower Location and Installation (Arcola Towers 2025). Figure 3: Detailed View of Proposed Cell Tower Profile and Installation (Arcola Towers 2025). 5 Figure 4: Location of Proposed Cell Tower Location on Modern Soil Map (USDA NRCS 2025). 6 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located within the Northern Appalachian Ridges and Valleys section of the Northern Atlantic Slope Diversified Farming Region. This physiography in this section exhibits folded and faulted strongly sloping to extremely steep parallel sandstone and shale ridges separated by narrow to moderately broad limestone and shale valleys. The valley bottoms of the larger rivers, such as the Susquehanna and Allegheny, frequently exhibit deposits of unconsolidated sand, silt and gravel. Surface hydrology tends to follow a dendritic pattern along the low areas between resistant ridges. The total average annual precipitation is 31 to 45 inches (in) (785 to 1,145 millimeters [mm]) evenly occurring throughout the year. The average annual temperature is 44 to 57 degrees F (7 to 14 degrees C). Forest vegetation is composed largely of hardwood trees such as oak, black cherry, yellow poplar, and maple, with areas of pine, red spruce, birch, and hemlock found on the higher elevations. Combined with areas of grasslands and field crops, this setting provides a wide range of resources for animal and human exploitation, including food (e.g., nuts, berries, fruit, and roots), shelter, and fuel (USDA, NRCS 2006). 2.4 CULTURAL SETTING The prehistoric traditions of the Middle Atlantic region have been briefly summarized below. These traditions apply, in varying degrees, throughout the State. They are considered the cultural context in which the interpretation of cultural information is assessed, specifically in terms of NRHP eligibility. These dates should be accepted as broad, chronological reference points for Maryland’s archaeological record that set the background for regional variations. The Paleoindian period (ca. 13,000-8,000 B.C.) characterizes the beginning of human habitation in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Paleoindian finds in West Virginia and Maryland are poorly represented, with a few intact sites, including the Higgins Site, and over a hundred isolated stone tools found (Dent 1995; Ebright 1992). Archeological investigations of Paleoindian sites in the Mid-Atlantic Region, such as the Shawnee-Minisink Site along the Delaware River (McNett 1985) and the Thunderbird Site in the Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1974), have offered new evidence toward our understanding of Paleoindian subsistence, technology, and settlement in Maryland. Traditional theories suggest that Paleoindians hunted late Pleistocene megafauna, such as mastodon and elk, based on the finds of large fluted stone points at megafaunal kill sites (Willey 1966). Evidence from archeological excavations of Mid-Atlantic Region Paleoindian sites, however, indicates that aboriginal diets may have included game like deer, hare, turkey and fish, and plant foods such as wild grape, black walnut and blackberry (Dent 1985, 1995; Ebright 1992; Gardner 1980:19-20; McNett 1985). Paleoindian tool kits reflected hunting activities as the major focus of the diet, including diagnostic Clovis, Mid-Paleo, and Dalton point styles, as well as scrapers, burins, gravers, utilized flakes, knives, and hammerstones (Gardner 1980; Custer 1984; Funk 1972). Paleoindian sites can be divided into several types based on artifact assemblage and stone tool/debitage distribution. Based on the Flint Run complex sites in the Shenandoah Valley, the Paleoindian settlement systems during the Pleistocene were based on the distribution of cryptocrystalline lithic material sources and a delimited territory which was located within approximately 20 miles of a central base camp. A model of five functionally related site types was developed by Gardner (1977): 1) Quarries, procurement of lithic materials for inclusion in tool kits consisting of bifacial knives, scrapers, wedges, cores, and flake tools (Stewart 1980); 2) Quarry reduction areas, where lithic materials would be worked down into more easily transported forms (Wall 1976); 3) Quarry related base camps, macro band settlements where intra-band social and economic activities were carried out (Gardner 1979); 7 4) Base camp maintenance stations, micro band units at resource procurement/exploitation areas such as floodplain swamps were additional lithic maintenance activities would be carried out (Gardner 1977). An example of a base camp is the Thunderbird site in Virginia; 5) Outlying hunting sites, short-term hunting camps either within the core settlement area or beyond. The model was based on a selective mobility within a territory based on access to cryptocrystalline materials as opposed to models depicting highly mobile populations constantly in search of game. Smaller, specialized sites, such as quarries and reduction sites, were utilized for brief periods by smaller groups than those at base camps (Dent 1995). The Higgins Site Paleoindian occupation represents a small, short-term campsite occupied by a highly mobile small band (Ebright 1992). The documentation of Paleoindian sites is rare in northeastern West Virginia and western Maryland and so far is typically confined to isolated projectile points. The paucity of Paleoindian sites in the region may be partially explained or related to both a lack of research and the lack of known available cryptocrystalline lithic sources in the region. The Archaic Period (8,000 – 1,000 B.C.) is often divided into early, middle, and late periods, and is noted for drastic environmental changes that effect settlement patterns and substance practices. However, the subsistent settlement patterns that existed during the Paleoindian period did not change drastically during the Early Archaic period (8000 B.C. – 6500 B.C.). This is evident by the continued re-occupation of the same locales previously utilized during the Paleoindian period indicating the continuation of a quarry-based subsistence pattern (Gardner 1974). One of the few changes was the projectile point form which evolved from fluted and non-fluted triangle forms to notched points possibly reflecting a change from hand-held spears to the use of a atlatl (Gardner 1976). Toolkits of the Early Archaic included ground stone tools and chipped-stone axes in addition to what would have been found in Paleoindian toolkits (Geier 1990:70; Dent 1995:170; Gardner 1989). Early Archaic people began to exploit a greater variety of habitats as well as a wider variety of lithic resources (Gardner 1976). By the end of the Early Archaic period sites are found in habitats far removed from the traditional Paleo-environments and are exploiting a wider range of food and lithic resources (Wall 1981). The settlement patterns that developed during the latter part of the Early Archaic carried over into the Middle Archaic period (6500 B.C. – 3000 B.C.) as adaptations to a deciduous forest environment. The populations became more sedentary with the stability and availability of various resources, fostering a sense of territoriality based on the given resources located within a physiographic province or drainage basin (Custer 1986). The Middle Archaic subsistent pattern evolved from the specialized hunting pattern of the previous two periods to a generalized foraging adaptation influenced by seasonally available resources (Wall 1981). The tool kit of the Middle Archaic reflected this adaption, with multipurpose tools made from an assortment of lithic materials, drills, stone axes and ground stone tools (Gardner 1980). Grinding tools, such as mortars and pestles, indicate the increased reliance on plants in the diet. The Higgins Site produced fragments of mortars and pestles within its Middle Archaic component (Ebright 1992). Drills and other wood-working tools, such as adzes and celts, were also found in a Middle Archaic tool kit (Dent 1995: 176). Diagnostic tool forms include LeCroy, Kanawha, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Guilford, Halifax, other bifurcate/ notched-base, contracting-stem, and side notched point types. The Late/Terminal Archaic Period (3000 B.C. – 1200 B.C.) settlement pattern continued with a generalized foraging adaptation, fusion-fission patterns, and an increase of a sedentary lifestyle. Settlement patterns tended to focus more along interior drainages of first order streams, with larger social groupings and increased sedentary lifestyles (Mouer 1991; Wall 1981; Kavanagh 1982). The tool kit of the Late Archaic people grew to include soapstone bowls, net-sinkers, bi-pitted mullers and ground and polished axes, reflecting technology designed for maximum exploitation in a broader spectrum of the environment (Stewart 1980), such as riverine base camps and smaller transient camps into the uplands and mountain zones. Evidence of territory development occurred within the region during the Late Archaic period through the development of stylistic and territorial zones of diagnostic lithic artifacts. Diagnostic artifacts found in the Late Archaic period include Broadspear variants, such as Savannah River and the Holmes projectile points, Notched Broadspear, Perkiomen, Dry Brook, and Dry Brook Orient projectile points. 8 The Woodland Period (1200 B.C. – A.D. 1600) was marked by increased sedentism and a gradual shift to the exploitation of domesticated cultigens. The Early Woodland Period (1200 B.C. – 500 B.C.) represents an increased sedentary lifestyle for aboriginal peoples, with larger, long-term sites being serviced by outlying extraction sites (Mouer 1991). Climate evolved into a more stable, moister condition, which allowed for more stable living conditions. Domesticated cultigens, such as corn, beans, and squash, were gradually incorporated into the daily diet. Wild grasses, such as amaranth, and wild plants like polygonum, mustard, and grape, provided additional sources of sustenance (McLearen 1991). Settlement patterning during this period in Western Maryland may have continued to rely on seasonal procurement strategies as horticulture was likely limited within the region (Wall 1981). Regional trade networks that began during the Late Archaic more fully developed during the Early Woodland period. The advent of ceramics and elaborate burial ceremonialism characterize the Early Woodland period in eastern West Virginia and western Maryland. While located on the periphery of cultural development in the Ohio Valley to the west and the eastern coastal region, the region appeared to remain somewhat isolated from these influences due to the natural barriers of the Appalachian Plateau and Ridge and Valley physiographic region (Wall 1981). Nonetheless, manifestations of trade can be seen in the archeological record and are traceable to the Adena culture in the Ohio Valley. Among the items traded included exotic chert projectile points and cache blades, copper items, polished celts, gorgets, and tubular pipes. Additional trade items such as marine shell allude to possible eastern coastal trade networks (Wall 1981). The Middle Woodland period (500 B.C. – A.D. 1000) is marked by a continuation of sedentism and long-distance trade, with movement from large aggregate base camps to smaller seasonal encampments. Throughout eastern Maryland and much of the east coast a shell tempered ware (Mockley) became a clear signature of a Middle Woodland occupation. Wall (1981) noted that in western Maryland the Middle Woodland period is less clearly understood due to the paucity of identified components and a lack of definitive ceramic and projectile point information, but that clarification of the point and ceramic types associated with the Middle Woodland may potentially lead to more sites being recognized and a better understanding formulated. To the west in the Ohio Valley the Hopewell proceeded to further elaborate upon their predecessors the Adena, building larger earthen works, increasing domesticate crops, and intensifying trading networks. The Late Woodland period (1000 A.D. – 1600 A.D.) is characterized by sedentism and the rise of semi-permanent villages. Village sites would typically be situated near a fresh water source with access to arable land to produce crops. The cultivation of domesticated plants was wide-spread by this period but exploitation of game and wild plants were still supplemented with forages of locally available resources. Hunting and foraging sites were found in far fewer environments and in lower numbers during this period demonstrating a possible greater reliance on horticulture (Wall 1981). Floodplain locations represented favorable locales for village sites, likely based on the availability of fertile bottomland soils for agricultural practices and the ease of clearing the land in these areas. Stockade fortifications have been found at some Late Woodland Period village sites, possibly indicating defensive measures used to protect from attacking parties (Griffin 1967). Evidence of stockade settlements began around 1300 A.D. to 1400 A.D. In western Maryland and northeastern West Virginia, several village sites dating to the Late Woodland period have been identified primarily along or near the Potomac River. Most likely due to the physical topography of the region and the limited availability of broad floodplain settings, many of the sites also contained evidence of occupations that pre-date the Late Woodland settlements. A major cultural manifestation documented within the region is the Monongahela Woodland complex which flourished from A.D. 1000 – A.D. 1635. The ringed villages and hamlets are typically located in two environmental settings; high bottomlands and hilltops/saddles overlooking rivers (Womsley 1974). The core of Monongahela settlement is located within southwestern Pennsylvania near the Monongahela and Youghiogheny River confluence, although sites have been documented in western Maryland in both Garrett and Allegany Counties, primarily along the Potomac River (Wall 1981). 9 SECTION 3.0 – RESEARCH 3.1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH Background research, including a review of archival sources, was conducted for the current project location prior to the initiation of field investigations. The aim of this research was to determine the likelihood of encountering sensitive historic properties within the current project area. To assess the potential for encountering prehistoric archaeological resources within the project area, a review of previously recorded archaeological sites and surveys was conducted using the site files and holdings of the MD SHPO. To assess the potential for historic period archaeological and architectural resources within the project area, various documents were reviewed, including historic maps and the databases of both the MD SHPO and NRHP. The vast forests and mountainous terrain of the Washington County region proved to be a formidable challenge to Europeans during the initial exploration and settlement of Maryland’s western frontier in the mid-eighteenth century. The first settlers into the region included Scots-Irish and German settlers migrating from Pennsylvania. Glowing reports of the land’s fertility and abundance of natural resources brought back by the early explorers prompted an intense interest in land speculation and fur trade. Daniel Dulany, an agent for Lord Baltimore, purchased large tracts of land within the Frederick area in the early 1730s and had his agent, Thomas Cresap, onsite to sell the surveyed tracts to Pennsylvania Germans migrating into the area (Stegmaier et al 1976:13). Cresap, at the bequest of Dulany, surveyed additional tracts of land further west at the confluence of the North and South Branches of the Potomac, eventually establishing a combined home and trading post at the confluence in 1742, eventually designated as Oldtown (Stegmaier et al 1976:15). Unlike Dulany, the Ohio Company of Virginia, organized in 1747 by a number of prominent Virginians, saw western Maryland as a vantage point to access the Indian fur trade in the Ohio Valley. In 1749, Christopher Gist, an agent for the Ohio Company, arrived at the south side of the Potomac River directly across from Wills Creek, a few miles west of Cresap’s Oldtown, and set about constructing a trading post (Stegmaier et al 1976:15; Feldstein 2006:9). Cresap and a local Native American, Nemacolin, were hired by the Company to survey a potential route from the trading post to the confluence of the Monongahela and Allegany Rivers, roughly 138 kilometers (86 mi) to the northwest (Stegmaier et al 1976:20). While the Coastal and Piedmont areas of Maryland witnessed the growth of agriculture, the mountainous western Maryland region was not so fortunate. In response to the French threat, Fort Mount Pleasant was constructed in 1754-55 on the west bank of Wills Creek to protect the settlers. The fortification was enlarged in 1755 and renamed Fort Cumberland by General Edward Braddock after the Duke of Cumberland (Feldstein 2006:9). Braddock’s desire to return to Fort Cumberland and prepare the assault on Fort Duquesne was hampered by the shortage of wagons, munitions, and troop supplies, but eventually he obtained the necessary provisions and returned to the fort on May 10, 1755. On June 10, the main body of the army, consisting of 1,300 soldiers in the 44th and 48th Regiments, 260 men in independent companies, 350 Virginians, 60 Marylanders, and 80 North Carolinians, 10 Pennsylvania Indian scouts, started out for Fort Duquesne. Part of Braddock’s troops followed the earlier path surveyed by Cresap and Nemacolin across the steep passes to the south, which became known as Braddock’s Road, while a second group of soldiers traveled through the Narrows, a natural cut through the Wills and Haystack Mountains to the north (Feldstein 2006:72). By July 8 Braddock’s army was a few miles from Fort Duquesne, having suffered numerous attacks from Indian scouting parties and small parties of French soldiers in the last 20 miles of the journey (Stegmaier et al 1976:42). With the defeat of Braddock’s troops at the Monongahela, western Maryland was left open to attacks from the French and Indian forces, and the Ohio Company with few options to sustain its financial interests in the fur trade. The conclusion of the American Revolution witnessed an increase in population within Washington County. Originally part of Frederick County, Washington County, named after George Washington, was established on September 6, 1776 (Maryland State Archives 2025). Elizabethtown, laid out in 1762 by early immigrant and pioneer Jonathan Hagar, was selected as the site of the new county courthouse. Elizabethtown was eventually renamed Hagerstown after the founder and formally incorporated in 1813 (Maryland State 10 Archives 2025). Population growth in nearby Cumberland and the outlying villages precipitated a sense of separation from Washington County, and in 1789 Allegany County was separated from the western part of Washington County (Lowdermilk 1971:267). The county's 1790 population of 15,800 increased to 18,659 by 1800 (Salvatore 1997). Transportation improvements within Washington County opened the region to expanded commerce and development. In 1806, the Cumberland (National) Road was authorized by Congress to connect the populated region of the eastern seaboard to the Ohio River. Construction of the road from Cumberland to the Ohio River in Wheeling, West Virginia, commenced in 1811 and was completed by 1818 (Stegmaier et al 1976:102). Locally, the Bank Road segment of the turnpike, constructed from the Conococheague to Cumberland, was completed by 1822, providing a continuous paved road from Hagerstown to the Ohio river (Williams 1906:151). The effort was monumental, requiring grubbing, clearing and grading of the alignment, removal of stone from the alignment, transport of stone by wagon to the site, and grading and sorting of stone into various sizes, all by hand. Fueled by the financial opportunities, a variety of road improvement projects were promoted by various charter companies, such as the Hagerstown and Boonsborough Turnpike Company (1819) and the Baltimore, Liberty and Hagerstown Turnpike Company (1815), and often financed by local banks (Williams 1906:152). The nineteenth century witnessed an increase in transportation projects within county, as well as a focus on the mineral resources buried beneath the terrain. The potential significance of the mineral wealth in the upper region of the Potomac River was noted as early as the 1736 survey of Lord Fairfax’s holdings, where a “Coal mine” was recorded near George’s Creek (Stegmaier et al 1976:17). In addition, the discovery of marble north of Rohrersville in the Pleasant Valley region provided a source of raw material for buildings and headstones and employment for the local residents (Salvatore 1997). Coal, timber and other goods exported from the upper reaches of the Potomac River were generally transported by flat boats to the markets at Harpers Ferry and Georgetown during spring freshets. To address the deficiencies in waterway transportation, an artificial waterway system was proposed to be constructed along the Potomac River. In May 1828, Congress appropriated $1,000,000 of the projected $4,500,000 cost to construct the Chesapeake and Ohio canal from Georgetown to Cumberland (Stegmaier et al 1976:122). Concurrent with the construction of the canal, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad sought to establish its foothold in the region. By 1831 the rail line reached Frederick, and on November 1, 1842, the first locomotive on the line arrived in Cumberland (Stegmaier et al 1976:130). The growth of overland transportation routes facilitated the expansion of agricultural production and development of rural communities. The village of Chewsville, established by 1830 by the Fitzhugh and Hughes families along the improved road between Hagerstown and Frederick, grew rapidly during the mid- to late 19th century as a center for commerce and public interaction with the surrounding farms. By the 1840s, Chewsville included two general stores, a blacksmith shop, and a postal facility (Young 2007). The opening of the Western Maryland Railroad through the project area in 1872, connecting the community to Baltimore and Hagerstown and on to the C&O Canal at Williamsport, further encouraged commercial and population growth in the region. While grain crops provided the primary cash crops for early farmers, the late 19th century witnessed a transition from grains to fruit crops, mainly peaches and apples. The 1877 atlas shows the project site located near a dwelling associated with D. Swope and surrounded by undeveloped land, with a robust community of businesses, residences, churches and other buildings were centered on Chewsville to the north (Figure 5). Despite the population growth in the larger cities such as Hagerstown, much of Washington County remained rural and agricultural into the 20th century. The 1912 topographic map of the project area shows the tower lease area in an open setting on the west side of White Hall Road adjacent to a small tributary of Landis Spring Branch, with no evidence of the earlier Swope dwelling shown (Figure 6). Topographic maps and aerial photographs from the mid- and late 20th century show minimal development in the project area, limited largely to additional outbuildings added to existing farms, with the project site unchanged (Figures 7 and 8). The setting remained unchanged from the conditions depicted on the 1986 topographic map until ca. 2005 when a small manufactured home was built to the southwest of the project site and a long gravel driveway constructed from the home southeast to White Hall Road (Google Earth 2025). In addition, buried electric 11 Figure 5: Project Location ca.1877 (Lake, Griffing and Stevenson 1877). 12 Figure 6: Project Location ca. 1912 (United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1912). 13 Figure 7: Project Location ca. 1912 (USGS 1944). 14 Figure 8: Project Location ca. 1986 (USGS 1953 [rev 1986]). 15 appears to have been installed along the driveway leading to the dwelling, with a ground-based transformer installed along the driveway southwest of the project site. There are no archaeological sites or surveys within the Direct APE. However, one (1) survey was previously recorded within 1-mile of the project area (Table 1). A summary of this archaeological survey follows. Survey Number Year Title Author WA-19 1983 A Report of an Archeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed East Hagerstown Loop 138 KV Transmission Line, Washington County, Maryland Verrey, Robert A. and Edward C. Otter Table 1: Archaeological Surveys within 1-mile of the Project Location. A review of the Maryland Historical Trust’s (MHT) online database, MEDUSA, and the National Register Information System website (http://www.nr.nps.gov/) was conducted for the project area on September 5, 2025, by Scott Emory, Trileaf Senior Project Archaeologist IV. Based on this review, no NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible or potentially eligible historic properties were recorded within the APE for Direct Effects. In addition, no NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic properties were identified within the project’s ½-mile APE for Visual Effects. However, based on a February 18, 2026, response from the MHT, the agency did not concur with a finding of no historic properties present in the APE-VE. According to MHT, the Henry McCauley Farm (WA-II-092/ NRHP 76001016) is located in the project’s ½-mile APE-VE. In addition, the farmstead on the parent property, Part of Carr's Quesy (WA-I-033), has not been evaluated and should be treated as potentially NR-eligible (Figure 9; Appendix D). In consultation with the MHT, these two historic properties were included in the assessment of project effects. The National Park Service Historic Trails Interactive GIS map was also reviewed. A National Historic Trail is recognized by the National Park Service as carrying the same significance as being listed in the NRHP and is therefore considered a Historic Property. No known portion of a National Historic Trail intersects with the project or is located within a ½-mile of the project location. 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN Trileaf designed the Phase I archaeological survey to locate and identify all archaeological and above ground cultural resources within the Direct APE, defined as the 75-foot by 75-foot lease area plus a 25-foot buffer, and new access and utility easement, and to evaluate the potential significance of any newly identified archaeological sites. A cultural resource is gauged to be significant if it meets at least one of four criteria for eligibility for listing in the NRHP: A. Associated with significant events in the broad patterns of national history, B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, C. Representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of a master, D. Capable of yielding important information about the past. Criterion D typically applies to archaeological sites. In order to be capable of yielding important information about the past, generally a site must possess artifacts, soil strata, structural remains, or other cultural features that make it possible to test historical hypotheses, corroborate and amplify currently available information, or reconstruct the sequence of the local archaeological record. To be considered significant, archaeological sites must demonstrate sufficient integrity to answer important research questions. These questions are developed in association with temporally, regionally, and thematically defined historic contexts or study units (U.S. Department of the Interior 1997). 3.3 SITE PROBABILITY In general, most predictive site location models include distance to a permanent water source as a major factor in determining the existence and probable density of archaeological sites. There is a higher probability of encountering precontact archaeological sites closer to a source of fresh water, although distance will vary 16 Figure 9: Architectural Resources within the ½-mile APE-VE. 17 from location to location depending on an area’s topography and accessibility. There is a greater likelihood of encountering precontact sites on and around landforms located near rivers, streams, and natural freshwater lakes. In contrast, historic period sites can be found more equally distributed across the uplands and valleys due to the ability to access water by excavating wells. Based on the topography of the project area, historic aerial photographs, distance to a permanent water source, and taking into consideration current land use, historic and recent commercial and residential development in the region, we believe there is a moderate probability for encountering undisturbed archaeological artifacts or features within the proposed project’s APE for direct effects. SECTION 4.0 – FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS 4.1 ARCHAEOLOGY The field investigation at this location was conducted by Scott Emory on September 9 and 18, 2025, and January 13, 2026. Standard archaeological field equipment included shovels, trowels, and a quarter-inch wire mesh sifting screen. Based on the Maryland Historical Trust’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland, the field survey techniques in the lease area and proposed access/utility easement encompassing the open pasture utilized a combination visual inspection of the project setting and shovel-testing at 49.2 ft (15-m) intervals, with a standard shovel test unit consisting of a hand-excavated hole, approximately 17.7 in (45 cm) in diameter and/or deep enough to reach culturally sterile subsoils. Due to evidence of cut and fill activity associated with construction of the extant driveway, field survey in that portion of the proposed access/utility easement utilized visual inspection of the project setting and shovel-testing at 100-ft (30-m) intervals, with a 260-foot long section of the easement encompassing a corn field subjected to pedestrian survey only at 5 ft (1.5 m) survey lanes (Figure 10). As shown in Table 2, the tower lease area consisted of a deflated subsoil capped with a thin A-horizon. STP 1 depicts the typical soil profile consisting of a 4.3-inch-thick (in) (11 centimeter [cm]) yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silt loam A-horizon overlying a strong brown (10YR 5/6) silty clay Bt-horizon (Table 2; Figure 10; Appendix A, Photograph 22). Evidence of exposed bedrock outcrops, stone rubble, dirt piles, and tree stump/branch debris was noted within the lease area (Appendix A, Photographs 14 to 17). While the stone rubble appeared to be general field-clearing debris deposited in the lease area, a large pile of brick bats, individual bricks, and concrete rubble were noted in the southeast corner of the lease area (Appendix A, Photograph 18). The overwhelming majority of the bricks exhibited the name CALVERT impressed on their faces (Appendix A, Photograph 19). CALVERT bricks are generally attributed to the Cushwa Brick Company, founded in 1872 from the Conococheague Brick and Earthenware Company in Williamsport, Maryland (Masonry Magazine 2024). No other artifacts were observed in conjunction with the bricks in the lease area; however, inspection of the remainder of the proposed lease area noted a diffuse assortment of random metal items, such as orchard post fragments, chicken wire, barbed wire fencing, a poultry water trough, and other metal debris scattered around the setting. The soil profile in the access/utility easement exhibited a plowed setting within the open pasture and disturbance from driveway construction along the driveway. In particular, STPs 12 and 13 evidenced 11.8 to 14.6 in (30 to 37 cm) of silt loam to clay loam fill overlying a truncated Bt-horizon, correlating with a large drain pipe diversion feature under the driveway capped with as much as 3 ft (2.7 m) gravelly fill (Table 2; Figure 10; Appendix A, Photograph 21). No artifacts or cultural features were recorded in the test pits and ground surface survey within the access/utility easement portion of the APE-DE. Total archaeological field time: 1 person, 4 hours. Given the volume of brick rubble recorded within the APE-DE, the late 19th century period manufacture for CALVERT branded bricks with the local Cushwa Brick Company, and the agricultural-related metal debris in the lease area portion of the APE-DE, these architectural and metal classes of artifacts were originally attributed to the occupation of the D. Swope dwelling as shown on the 1877 atlas. However, 18 STP No. STP Location Depth (cm below surface) Soil Description Artifacts Recovered Latitude/ Longitude 1 North corner A: 0-11 10YR5/4 SiClLo; very compact N/A 39°36'51.99"N / 77°38'45.78"W Bt: 11-23 7.5YR5/6 SiCl N/A 2 East corner Fill: 0-122 10YR5/4 SiClLo; 90% boulders, cobbles, gravels N/A 39°36'51.72"N / 77°38'45.26"W Bt: 122-128 7/5YR5/6 SiCl; 40% gravels N/A 3 Tower center A: 0-5 10YR5/4 SiClLo; very compact N/A 39°36'51.64"N / 77°38'45.70"W Bt/C: 5+ 7.5YR5/6 SiCl; very gravely bedrock N/A 4 West corner A: 0-20 10YR5/4 SiClLo; loose; 30% limestone/chert nodules N/A 39°36'51.60"N / 77°38'46.17"W Bt: 20-37 7.5YR5/6 SiCl; some limonite N/A 5 South corner Fill: 0-70 10YR4/3-5/4 SiClLo; 90% boulders, cobbles, gravels N/A 39°36'51.33"N / 77°38'45.63"W A/Ap: 70-92 10YR4/4 SiClLo; 30% gravels N/A Bt: 92-110 10YR5/6 SiCl; 30% channers N/A 6 Access/utility easement Fill: 0-100 10YR4/3-5/4 SiClLo; 90% boulders, cobbles, gravels N/A 39°36'50.93"N / 77°38'46.02"W A/Ap: 100-110 10YR4/4 SiClLo; 30% gravels N/A Bt: 110-120 10YR5/6 SiCl; 30% channers N/A 7 Access/utility easement Fill: 0-55 10YR4/3 SaSiLo; 30% gravels, asphalt N/A 39°36'50.53"N / 77°38'46.40"W Ap: 55-70 10YR3/3 SiClLo; 20% gravels N/A Bt: 70-100 10YR5/6 SiCl; 10% channers N/A 8 Access/utility easement Ap: 0-23 10YR5/4 SiLo; compact N/A 39°36'50.13"N / 77°38'46.78"W Bt: 23-37 7.5YR5/6 SiCl; 30% channers/limestone N/A 9 Access/utility easement Ap: 0-21 10YR5/4 SiLo; compact N/A 39°36'49.74"N / 77°38'47.16"W Bt: 21-34 7.5YR5/6 SiCl; 30% some natural quartz N/A 10 Access/utility easement Ap: 0-25 10YR5/4 SiLo; compact N/A 39°36'49.41"N / 77°38'46.99"W Bt: 25-38 7.5YR5/6 SiCl; 30% some natural quartz N/A 11 Access/utility easement Fill: 0-20 10YR5/4 SiLo N/A 39°36'48.85"N / 77°38'45.91"W Ap: 20-38 10YR4/4 SiLo N/A Bt: 38-50 7.5YR5/6 SiCl N/A 12 Access/utility easement Fill: 0-25 10YR5/4 SiLo N/A 39°36'48.32"N / 77°38'44.88"W Fill: 25-37 10YR5/6-5/8 ClLo; chunky, large cobbles N/A Bt: 37-48 7.5YR5/6 SiCl N/A 13 Access/utility easement Fill: 0-23 10YR5/4 SiLo N/A 39°36'46.47"N / 77°38'41.40"W Fill: 23-30 10YR5/6-5/8 ClLo; chunky, large cobbles N/A Bt: 30-44 7.5YR5/6 SiCl N/A Table 2: Shovel Test Pit Descriptions. 19 Figure 10: Shovel Test Pit Location and Project Boundary Map. 20 according to James Miller, owner of the subject property, including the adjacent Part of Carr's Quesy (WA-I-033), the brick chimney on the south side of the farmhouse was struck by lightning back in the 80's. In addition, there also was an old washhouse behind the farmhouse with a large brick fireplace and chimney that was demolished in the 80's as well. The brick and building rubble from the demolished washhouse, as well as the brick from the main house chimney, were deposited in the project site as fill (Miller 2026). The soil profiles in the APE-DE revealed no evidence of foundations or other intact features associated with the Swope dwelling, further supporting that the brick and other debris is general late 20th century disposal of demolition debris and other farm-related refuse from the nearby farmstead. Given the context of the debris, the brick rubble and associated artifacts were designed as the Farm Dump Site (18WA640). The Farm Dump Site is considered not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP given its lack of integrity and ubiquitous artifact types. No additional subsurface testing is warranted for the Farm Dump Site (18WA640) or the current undertaking. 4.2 ABOVE GROUND CULTURAL RESOURCES As noted above, a review of the MD SHPO database of National Register Sites and Districts, Certified Local Districts and Architectural Surveys and the National Register Information System website (http://www.nr.nps.gov/) was conducted on September 5, 2025 by Scott Emory, Senior Project Archaeologist IV at Trileaf. Based upon this review, there are no NRHP-eligible or listed resources located within the APE for Direct effects. One (1) NRHP-listed historic property and one (1) potentially NRHP-eligible historic property were identified in the project’s ½-mile APE-VE. A revisit of the project location was conducted on March 13, 2026. Photographs were taken from two locations adjacent to the Henry McCauley Farm, one near the dwelling and one at the northeast corner of the resource boundary, and three locations within Part of Carr's Quesy (Table 3; Figure 11). The viewshed towards the tower lease area from the Henry McCauley Farm was not visible or heavily obscured by existing trees and modern dwellings. The tower lease area from the main dwelling in Part of Carr's Quesy was visible but the viewshed altered by several late 20th century frame outbuildings, silos, and farm equipment. However, the proposed tower was not visible from the two photo locations in the southern part of the yard. Trileaf Assistant Project Manager/ Architectural Historian, Michael Hart, meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History and has reassessed those resources identified within the APE for the current project in Tables 4 and 5, below. SECTION 5.0 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 CONCLUSIONS The field survey of the project area, which included a visual inspection and shovel testing, yielded no evidence for the presence of NRHP-eligible archaeological properties within the current project area or 25-foot (8.3 meter) boundary of the APE-DE. The Farm Dump Site (18WA640), a mix of late 19th to mid-20th century brick and stone architectural debris and metal agricultural refuse, was recorded in the APE-DE. Site 18WA640 is considered not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP given its lack of integrity and ubiquitous artifact types. No additional subsurface testing is warranted for Site 18WA640 or the current undertaking. There has been one (1) previous archaeological survey conducted within a mile of the current project area, but no previously recorded archaeological sites. No NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible properties have been previously recorded within the project area’s APE-DE. Additionally, one (1) NRHP-listed property and one (1) potentially NRHP-eligible property have been previously recorded within the project area’s APE-VE. The National Park Service Historic Trails Interactive GIS map was also reviewed. A National Historic Trail is recognized by the National Park Service as carrying the same significance as being listed in the NRHP 21 Map Key Description/Address Direction of Photo Towards Tower Photo to Proposed Tower View/Effect 1 2 Henry McCauley Farm Mount Aetna Road E (39°36'53.58"N, 77°39'42.80"W) NE (39°36'47.13"N, 77°39'21.28"W) No view to proposed telecommunication tower No view to proposed telecommunication tower 3 4 5 Part of Carr's Quesy 10944 Whitehall Road SW (39°37'2.32"N, 77°38'37.40"W) SW (39°37'0.87"N, 77°38'38.91"W) S-SW (39°37'1.92"N, 77°38'38.62"W) Visible to proposed telecommunications tower; viewshed obscured by late 20th century outbuildings, silos, and other agricultural infrastructure No view to proposed telecommunication tower No view to proposed telecommunication tower Table 3: Photograph Locations. 22 Figure 11: Supplemental Photo Locations (Google Earth 2026). 23 Project # and Status of Subject Property (monopole) Project Name/ Address of Subject Property Photograph of Subject Property Description of Subject Property Summary of Effects on Subject Property 770617 Not Eligible or Contributing Whitehall 10944 White Hall Road, Smithsburg, MD 21783 39.614357222222225, -77.64604666666668 The Subject Property structure is not an individually listed historic structure. Further is not a designated National Historic Landmark nor is it a property listed in, or eligible for listing on the NRHP. No Historic Properties/ No Effect The proposed design is minor and necessary for the community. This will have no effect on the Subject Property. Table 4: Description of the Subject Property. Listed or Formally Eligible Historic Resource Name and/or Address of Historic Resource in Smithsburg, MD 21783 Photograph of Historic Resource Summary of Criteria and/or Description of Historic Resource Summary of Effects on Historic Resource WA-II-092/ NRHP 76001016 Henry McCauley Farm Mount Aetna Road This resource was listed on the NRHP in 1976 under Criterion C (Design/Architecture). This house was constructed in the early- to mid-19th century and exemplifies regional use of stone and brick in building construction. The period of significance is 1830-1850 (NRHP 2026). No Adverse Effect The proposed project is the construction of a 187-foot-tall monopole telecommunications tower and associated equipment. The project will have an overall height of 189 feet. Due to distance, vegetation (including tree coverage around the parent parcel) and other modern intrusions in the form of utility lines, the proposed project will have no adverse effect on any character-defining features. WA-I-033 Potentially eligible Part of Carr's Quesy 10944 Whitehall Road Mid-19th century dwelling (MEDUSA 2026). No Adverse Effect The proposed project is the construction of a 187-foot-tall monopole telecommunications tower and associated equipment compound. The project will have an overall height of 189 feet. Due to distance, vegetation, and other modern intrusions, including several late 20th-early 21st century outbuildings, sheds and silos, the proposed project will have no adverse effect on any character-defining features. Table 5: Description of Historic Resources within the ½-mile APE-VE for the Project Location. 24 and is therefore considered a Historic Property. No known portion of a National Historic Trail intersects with the project or is located within a ½-mile of the project location. 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on these findings, Trileaf has revised its recommendation to No Historic Properties in the APE-DE and No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties in the APE-VE. It is therefore recommended that project clearance be granted with no further investigation or evaluation of the project area relative to those resources. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered through the course of construction, work is to immediately cease, and proper area authorities notified. 25 REFERENCES CITED Custer, Jay F. 1984 Delaware Prehistory Archeology: An Ecological Approach. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware. 1986 Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware. Dent, Richard J. 1985 Amerind Society and the Environment: Evidence from the Upper Delaware valley. In Shawnee Minisink, Charles McNett, editor. Academic Press, New York, New York. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archeology series. Plenum Press, New York, New York. Ebright, Carol 1992 Early Native American Prehistory on the Maryland Western Shore: Archaeological Investigation at the Higgins Site. Report prepared for the Maryland State Railroad Administration. Maryland State Highway Administration Project Planning Division, Environmental Evaluation Section, Archaeological Report Number 1. Federal Communications Commission 2004 Appendix B – Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission. Feldstein, Albert L. 2006 Allegany County. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. Funk, Robert G. 1972 Early Man in the Northeast and the Late Glacial Environment. Man in the Northeast 4:7-39. Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. Occasional Publication No. 1. Archeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 1976 Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic: Continuity and Change in Eastern North America during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Paper presented at the Ninth International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. 1977 Flint Run Paleoindian Complex and Its Implications for Eastern North American Prehistory. In Amerinds and their Paleoenvironmetns in Northeastern North America. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 257-263 1979 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Site Distribution in the Middle Atlantic. Paper presented to the Anthropological Society of Washington. Washington, D.C. 26 1980 Settlement-Subsistence Strategies in the Middle and South Atlantic Portions of the Eastern United States during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association Meetings, Washington, D.C. 1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (circa 9200 to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, J. Mark Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, editors, pp. 5-51. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 19. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Geier, Clarence R. 1990 The Early and Middle Archaic Periods: Material Culture and Technology. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, editors, pp. 81-98. Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 22. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Google Earth 2025 Aerial photograph, 66 North Main Street, Smithsburg, MD. Griffin, James B. 1967 Eastern North American Archeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191. Kavanagh, Maureen 1982 Archeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region, Frederick and Carroll Counties, Maryland. Submitted to the Maryland Historical Trust, Frederick County Planning Commission, Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission. Lake, Griffing & Stevenson 1877 An Illustrated Atlas of Washington County, Maryland. Philadelphia: Lake, Griffing & Stevenson. Lowdermilk, Will H. 1971 History of Cumberland. Reprint of the 1878 edition. Regional Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust - MEDUSA 2025 Archives Search for 66 North Main Street, Smithsburg, MD. Webpage, https://mht.maryland.gov/secure/medusa/, accessed June 25, 2025. Maryland State Archives 2025 Washington County, Maryland – Historical Chronology. Webpage, https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/36loc/wa/chron/html/wachron.html, accessed September 25, 2025. Masonry Magazine 2024 Building with Molded Brick: Rich History, Modern Look. Webpage, https://masonrymagazine.com/Default?pageID=2304, accessed December 22, 2025. McNett, Charles W., ed. 1985 Shawnee-Minisink. Academic Press, New York, New York. Miller, James 2026 Property owner. Personal communication with Ryan Foltz of Arcola Towers. January 2, 2026. 27 Mouer, Daniel 1991 The Formative Transition in Virginia. In PaleoIndian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T.R. Reinhardt and M.E. Hodges, pp. 1-88. Council of Virginia Archeologists, Richmond, Virginia. Mueller, Julianne 1991 Smithsburg Historic District, Maryland Inventory of Historic Places form. One file at the Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, MD. National Park Service 2025 National Register of Historic Places Website. www.nps.gov/nr/, accessed September 2025. Salvatore, Susan 1997 Rohrersville Historic District, Maryland Inventory of Historic Places form. One file at the Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, MD. Stegmaier, Harry I., Jr., David M. Dean, Gordon E. Kershaw, and John B. Wiseman 1976 Allegany County: A History. McClain Printing Company, Parsons, West Virginia. Stewart, Michael 1980 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns and the Testing of Prehistoric Site Location Models in the Great Valley of Maryland. Doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Taggert, Thomas 1859 A Map of Washington County. Hagerstown, MD: F.M. Kee and C.G. Robertson. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS) 2006 Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. 2025 United States Department of Agriculture Website. www.nrcs.usda.gov/, accessed June 25, 2025. U.S. Department of the Interior 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf, accessed September 2025. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1912 Hagerstown, MD 15-minuite quadrangle map. Washington, D.C. 1953 Smithsburg, MD 7.5-minute quadrangle map. Revised 1972. Washington, D.C. 2023 Smithsburg, MD 7.5-minute quadrangle map. Washington, D.C. Young, Emma 2007 Maryland Historical Trust Determination of Eligibility Form, Chewsville Survey District. Wall, Robert D. 1976 The Lockhart Site: Functional Analysis in a Paleo-Indian Complex. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 28 1984 An Archaeological Study of the Proposed Crellin Sewage Treatment Facility, Garrett County, Maryland. On file at the Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland. Willey, Gordon R. 1966 An Introduction to American Archeology Vol. I: North and Middle America. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Williams, Thomas J. C. 1906 A History of Washington County, Maryland. Chambersburg, Pa.: J.M. Runk & L.R. Titsworth. Womsley, William D. 1974 The Monongahela Culture: A Study of Marginality. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College. 29 APPENDIX A: PROJECT LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 APPENDIX B: RESUMES 49 50 51 52 APPENDIX C: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 APPENDIX D: PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE 63 64 From:Jenkins, Meghan To:"McKayla Grasham" Cc:"mht.section106@maryland.gov"; Becky Roman -MDP- Subject:RE: Request for Comment, Telecommunications Project, Smithsburg, MD (Trileaf# 770617) Date:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 10:17:00 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage009.pngimage010.pngimage011.pngimage012.pngimage013.png Hello McKayla, I’m just following up with you regarding this request for the GIS viewshed since I have not heard back and the HDC would still like to see that. I also looked at the Cultural Resource Report you supplied and I don’t see mention of the other two resources on the MIHP at II-137 (20653 Mt. Aetna Road) or I-084 (10807 White Hall Road) that are within a half mile of this proposed tower. Since these resources are potentially in view of the proposed tower, we would ask that the cultural resource report be updated to include information on whether there is visibility from those resources, the magnitude of the visibility, and does it alter any characteristics of that resource that might make those eligible for the NR. I indicated this in December 2025 with our initial request by asking that any resources on the MIHP with a potential view of the tower be addressed in the CR report. I have also reviewed the documentation submitted with the appeal in our jurisdiction which did have some photo simulations included. Again, these have led me to believe there may be visibility from I-033 which wasn’t reflected in the photos included in the CR report and there is likely visibility again from those other 2 resources I noted. If the balloon visibility from the appeal documentation is not part of your existing 106 filing, I would request that be added for reference regarding this email. I would also request that you provide a copy of the entire e106 filing - Form 620/621 and all attachments including the APE, maps, photographs, CDs, assessments of effect within the Direct and Visual APEs, and resumes of qualified staff just to make sure I’m not missing of the documents when I take this back to the HDC for their review. Our deadline for the May agenda is April 22nd if you can provide by then. Thank you. Meghan Meghan Jenkins, GISP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator | Historic District Commission (HDC) 747 Northern Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21742 P: (240) 313-2439 | F: (240) 313-2431 www.washco-md.net (Pronouns: she/her/hers) Get Connected and See Updates NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, the unauthorized disclosure or use of which is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or if you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Book time to meet with me From: Jenkins, Meghan Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 7:55 AM To: McKayla Grasham <m.grasham@trileaf.com> Subject: RE: Request for Comment, Telecommunications Project, Smithsburg, MD (Trileaf# 770617) Hello McKayla, The HDC does feel that these GIS generated viewsheds provide them a better initial idea of the proposed tower’s visibility so they can make informed decisions regarding what resources may be visually impacted. In conjunction with photo sims, it provides a more complete picture since many times photo sims are taken from a right of way vantage point and our resources are not always directly adjacent to those rights of way. They have asked me to request a GIS generated viewshed moving forward for any of the towers applied for in our jurisdiction which is why the request was made back in December. I have attached an example of what they are looking for from a previous submittal. Would you please provide that information so I can take this tower packet back to them at their May meeting. The agenda information is due April 22nd. Thank you. Meghan Meghan Jenkins, GISP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator | Historic District Commission (HDC) 747 Northern Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21742 P: (240) 313-2439 | F: (240) 313-2431 www.washco-md.net (Pronouns: she/her/hers) Get Connected and See Updates NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, the unauthorized disclosure or use of which is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or if you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Book time to meet with me From: McKayla Grasham <m.grasham@trileaf.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 8:26 AM To: Jenkins, Meghan <mjenkins@washco-md.net> Subject: RE: Request for Comment, Telecommunications Project, Smithsburg, MD (Trileaf# 770617) 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. Hi Meghan, It is something that can be done, however, it is not asked for by any other jurisdiction so it is not a standard part of a submission packet. McKayla Ordak Assistant Project Manager 303 International Circle, Suite 150 Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Direct: (410) 846 -2577 Office: (410) 853-7128 From: Jenkins, Meghan <mjenkins@washco-md.net> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 4:06 PM To: McKayla Grasham <m.grasham@trileaf.com> Subject: RE: Request for Comment, Telecommunications Project, Smithsburg, MD (Trileaf# 770617) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello McKayla, Is a GIS generated viewshed something that can be reasonably provided to determine if there is any visibility from the resources your documentation has provided? Thank you. Meghan Meghan Jenkins, GISP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator | Historic District Commission (HDC) 747 Northern Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21742 P: (240) 313-2439 | F: (240) 313-2431 www.washco-md.net (Pronouns: she/her/hers) Get Connected and See Updates NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, the unauthorized disclosure or use of which is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or if you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Book time to meet with me From: McKayla Grasham <m.grasham@trileaf.com> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 3:01 PM To: Jenkins, Meghan <mjenkins@washco-md.net> Subject: RE: Request for Comment, Telecommunications Project, Smithsburg, MD (Trileaf# 770617) WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded. Meghan- Please see the attached CR/Phase I Arch report. We do not have photo simulations to provide nor were they requested by SHPO. Would you be available next week for a call regarding general topic needs? Thanks, McKayla Ordak Assistant Project Manager 303 International Circle, Suite 150 Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Direct: (410) 846 -2577 Office: (410) 853-7128 From: Jenkins, Meghan <mjenkins@washco-md.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:33 PM To: McKayla Grasham <m.grasham@trileaf.com> Subject: RE: Request for Comment, Telecommunications Project, Smithsburg, MD (Trileaf# 770617) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello McKayla, I have no heard back from your group after submitting these requests and now see that there is a local zoning application in for this tower. Can you please provide an update on the status of gathering this information the HDC requested. Thank you! Meghan Meghan Jenkins, GISP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator | Historic District Commission (HDC) 747 Northern Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21742 P: (240) 313-2439 | F: (240) 313-2431 www.washco-md.net (Pronouns: she/her/hers) Get Connected and See Updates NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, the unauthorized disclosure or use of which is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or if you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Book time to meet with me From: Jenkins, Meghan Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 10:07 AM To: McKayla Grasham <m.grasham@trileaf.com> Subject: RE: Request for Comment, Telecommunications Project, Smithsburg, MD (Trileaf# 770617) Hello, Yes, the HDC would like to be considered for consultation. They would request the following information in order to have an informed discussion of this project: 1. A GIS viewshed analysis of the tower 2. An CR report that analyzes the impacts of the tower for any resources on the MIHP within view of the tower as identified by that viewshed analysis. a. Whether there is visibility b. The magnitude of the visibility c. Does it alter any characteristics of that resource that make it eligible for the NR 3. Photo simulations of the tower from any identified resources 4. Phase 1/Phase 2 archaeology report Thank you. Meghan Meghan Jenkins, GISP Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator | Historic District Commission (HDC) 747 Northern Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21742 P: (240) 313-2439 | F: (240) 313-2431 www.washco-md.net (Pronouns: she/her/hers) Get Connected and See Updates NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, the unauthorized disclosure or use of which is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or if you received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply You don't often get email from m.grasham@trileaf.com. Learn why this is important email and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Book time to meet with me From: Eckard, Debra S. <deckard@washco-md.net> On Behalf Of Planning Email Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 10:21 AM To: Jenkins, Meghan <mjenkins@washco-md.net> Subject: FW: Request for Comment, Telecommunications Project, Smithsburg, MD (Trileaf# 770617) Debra Eckard Office Manager 747 Northern Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21742 P: (240) 313-2437 www.washco-md.net 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. From: McKayla Grasham <m.grasham@trileaf.com> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 9:29 AM To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net> Subject: Request for Comment, Telecommunications Project, Smithsburg, MD (Trileaf# 770617) 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 Smithsburg, 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 Status Date Task Name Comments 21-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Updated by Script from EPR. 7 Status Date Task Name Comments 01-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Updated by Script from EPR. 6 Status Date Task Name Comments 01-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Updated by Script from EPR. 7 Status Date Task Name Comments 21-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Updated by Script from EPR. 8 Status Date Task Name Comments 21-Apr-26 Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR. 7 Status Date Task Name Comments 08-Apr-26 Historical Review scheduled for May 6 HDC meeting 16 Status Date Task Name Comments 08-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Historic resources are on proposed Lot 4. No permits for demo yet and not part of this lot. No note being added because of distance from the work/lot. 08-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Updated by Script from EPR. 12 Status Date Task Name Comments 21-Apr-26 Historic District Commission RV in this area is not surveyed and resources are no longer present on this property as previous owner demo'd. No notes are needed on the plan and its not in an architectural review area. 21-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Updated by Script from EPR. 8 Status Date Task Name Comments 21-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Forest Con and SWM area are still directly adjacent to Valentia property line to buffer. No note needed for any resources on this project parcel. 21-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Updated by Script from EPR. 8 Status Date Task Name Comments 21-Apr-26 Historical Review No HDC review required. Deck is being rebuilt in place. 21-Apr-26 Historical Review Updated by Script from EPR. 8 Status Date Task Name Comments 21-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Updated by Script from EPR. 7 Status Date Task Name Comments 21-Apr-26 Historic District Commission Updated by Script from EPR. 7 Activity Count:12 Note Passed - Info Revisions Required100 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 5 1 3 Historic Review Activity 03/30/2026 thru 04/23/2026 Open Date Date Assigned Location Description Workflow Info 14-Apr-26 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 Approved Days in Review: PSP-25-004 Preliminary Plat Site Plan I471; I866 In Review 09-Sep-25 26-Mar-26 21320 CHEWSVILLE ROAD SMITHSBURG, MD 21783 CONSTRUCT A CATTLE BARN WITH ASSOCIATED GRAVEL AREAS Folder Status Revisions Required Days in Review: SP-25-044 Site Plan I044 In Review 05-Nov-25 25-Mar-26 17502 BROADFORDING ROAD HAGERSTOWN, MD 21740 .21 ACRE LOT BEING CREATED FOR AN UNDERGROUND SEWER PUMP STATION. Folder Status Approved Days in Review: S-26-004 Preliminary-Final Plat I331 In Review 29-Jan-26 13-Apr-26 15229 NATIONAL PIKE HAGERSTOWN, MD 21740 CREATE ONE (3) ACRE LOT FOR AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER Folder Status Approved Days in Review: S-26-008 Preliminary-Final Plat V005 In Review 18-Feb-26 14-Apr-26 S-25-018 19984 BEAVER CREEK ROAD, LOT 1 4,458 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH 4' REAR EXTENSION AND MORNING ROOM, FULL FINISHED WALK OUT BASEMENT, INTEGRAL TWO CAR GARAGE, COVERED FRONT PORCH, Folder Status Passed - Info Days in Review: 2026-01113 Residential New Construction Permit Review 20-Mar-26 23-Mar-26 13034 LITTLE ANTIETAM ROAD DEMOLITION OF 2,500 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING FOUNDATION Folder Status Note Days in Review: 2026-01127 Residential Demolition Permit I163 Review 23-Mar-26 27-Mar-26 THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT / SITE PLAN IS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING MEADOW, AND FORESTED PARCEL INTO A GRAVEL PARKING LOT CONSISTING OF 3.95 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS AREA. THE SITE IS SITUATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREENCASTLE PIKE (MD-63) Folder Status Note Approved Days in Review: PSP-26-001 Preliminary Plat Site Plan I461 In Review 23-Mar-26 13-Apr-26 15236 FAIRVIEW ROAD CLEAR SPRING, MD 21722 SITE PLAN FOR CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD WITH 1 10,000 SF BUILDING AND PARKING AREAS. Folder Status Note Approved Days in Review: SP-26-012 Site Plan In Review 07-Apr-26 13-Apr-26 10300 MANOR HOUSE TRAIL HAGERSTOWN, MD 21740 FINAL PLAT FOR PHASE 1 CONSISTING OF 28 LOTS Folder Status Note Approved Days in Review: S-26-016 Final Plat In Review 07-Apr-26 13-Apr-26 S-87-135 13031 SPICKLER ROAD REBUILD 344 SQ. FT. REAR SECOND LEVEL DECK DUE TO FIRE, ROOF EXISTING, PRESSURE TREATED DECKING AND RAILING, NO STEPS TO GRADE RIDGE VIEW ACRES, LOT 12 Folder Status Note Approved Days in Review: 2026-01432 Residential Addition- Alteration Permit V097 Approved 09-Apr-26 SP-26-014 Site Plan In Review 09-Apr-26 13-Apr-26 25009 LAKE WASTLER DRIVE CASCADE, MD 21719 CHANGE IN USE SITE PLAN FOR A BAKERY TO A TAVERN Folder Status Revisions Required Days in Review: SP-26-013 Site Plan In Review 09-Apr-26 13-Apr-26 14366 RECKORD AVENUE CASCADE, MD 21719 CHANGE IN USE SITE PLAN FROM COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES TO A BARBER SHOP Folder Status Revisions Required Days in Review: Final Plat Total 1 1 Review Activities Summary Application Type Application Number Approved Total Preliminary Plat Site Plan Total 2 2 Residential Addition-Alteration Permit Total 1 1 Preliminary-Final Plat Total 2 2 Residential New Construction Permit Total 0 1 Residential Demolition Permit Total 0 1 Total 7 12 Site Plan Total 1 4 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 Property Owner Address 1 Address 2 City, State, Zip Dear Property Owner, Your property(PROPERTY INFORMATION) (PROPERTY INFORMATION) (PROPERTY INFORMATION) has all or a portion of the property zoned Rural Village and has previously had a survey of historic resources completed for that Rural Village. If your property contains a contributing historic resource to this survey, you may be eligible to apply for County Property Tax Credits for qualifying exterior work completed on the structures if application is made prior to the start of work. At this time, any required building permits, which affect the exterior of the structures in Rural Villages with identified historic resources, are subject to the review of the Historic District Commission (HDC) using the Architectural Review Guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance. In their review of either tax credit applications or permits, the HDC uses the Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation and the County’s Design Guidelines for Historic Structures to ensure the property’s unique features are retained. The HDC wanted to reach out to all property owners that are within these rural villages to provide information on the tax credits as well as open contact with the HDC and their online resources. The HDC’s website includes the adopted Design Guidelines for Historic Structures (June 2022) as well as the Historic Properties Tax Credit Ordinance (May 2024) for reference. Additional information can be found on the customer resource page, as well as access to HDC Agendas, Minutes and Certified Local Government Annual Reporting. Since your property may contain a historic resource or be subject to the review of the HDC during permitting, the HDC also wanted to determine if there were any additional programs or assistance that could be provided to help with the retention of the resources. Please reach out with any suggestions or considerations that the HDC should undertake. Thank you for your stewardship of property within our historic rural villages in Washington County. The HDC looks forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Meghan Jenkins Historic District Commission Staff