Historic District Commission Agenda 04052023

Gregory Smith, Chair Lloyd Yavener, Vice Chair Ann Aldrich Brianna Candelaria

Vernell Doyle Michael Lushbaugh Kourtney Lowery Wayne K. Keefer, BOCC Rep

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND AGENDA April 5, 2023, 7:00 p.m.

Washington County Administration Complex, 100 West Washington Street, Room 2001, Hagerstown, MD 21740

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL MINUTES 1. Minutes of the March 1, 2023 meeting * NEW BUSINESS 1. Demo Permit 2023-01360, Building 160, 14336 Banfill Avenue - (Discussion/Support) Demolish 5800 sq. ft. stick built portion of building (Fort Ritchie, Cascade) * 2. Demo Permit 2023-01460, 22416 Goose Street - (Discussion/Support) Interior and exterior demolition of single family dwelling to include partition walls, joists, flooring, stairs, and bathroom in first and second floor, demolish 300 sq. ft. of rear portion of dwelling, and 35 sq. ft. rear porch (Cavetown Historic Rural Village, WA-IV-014) * 3. Building Permit 2023-01763, 22416 Goose Street - (Discussion/Action) Remodeling of existing house 513 sq/ft and new construction of 969 sq/ft rear addition (Cavetown Historic Rural Village, WA-IV-014) * OTHER BUSINESS 1. National Preservation Month (May) - (Discussion/Planning)* 2. Staff Report a. Staff Reviews * b. 12440 Burkholder Lane – PC-23-001 ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING MEETING 1. Wednesday, May 3, 2023, 7:00 p.m. *attachments

The Historic District Commission reserves the right to vary the order in which the cases are called. Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Washington County Planning Department at 240313-2430 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.

747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1

WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET

MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY March 1, 2023

The Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administration Complex, 100 W Washington Street, Room 1301, Hagerstown, MD. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Commission members present were: Greg Smith, Chairman, Lloyd Yavener, Vernell Doyle, Michael Lushbaugh, and Ann Aldrich. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator and HDC Staff member.

MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Lushbaugh made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2023 meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Aldrich and unanimously approved.

OTHER BUSINESS National Preservation Month (May) Ms. Jenkins began with a review of the outreach used last year for National Preservation Month. She discussed the resources that worked best on social media. Members discussed ideas and ways to promote preservation this year, such as: focusing on the Design Guidelines that were recently adopted; promote the efforts of other historic preservation groups’ activities; display pictures of various architectural styles and features; promote historic preservation in the County’s municipalities by highlighting a specific historical structure; focus on the three categories of the John Frye award (Advocacy, Preservation, Adaptive Re-use); discuss the designated Rural Villages in the County; and the use of production tools such as slideshows or interactive prompts. Ms. Jenkins stated she will prepare a rough draft of some of the posts she will be using and will reach out to Public Relations for their assistance. Staff will also contact the Commissioners’ office to prepare a proclamation for National Preservation Month as we did last year.

Staff Report •

Historic Properties Incentive Ordinance

Ms. Jenkins reported that Staff met with the County Administrator who was very supportive of the idea. The draft document has been sent to other County departments (County Attorney, Budget & Finance and Grants Management) for their review. A kick-off meeting is scheduled for April 21st with these departments. There was a brief discussion regarding the grant program funding and where those monies will come from. Staff is hopeful that Budget & Finance will have several ideas.

•

Staff Reviews

Ms. Jenkins provided a written summary but also noted that the State Highway Administration performed a Section 106 review of the I-81 Phase 2 project which runs from North of MD 63/MD

68 to North of Halfway Boulevard. Staff reviewed the project and found no additional impacts to any historic structures in the area.

•

Professional Organization Outreach (Realtors/Builders)

Ms. Jenkins announced that a mass e-mail containing the Design Guidelines was sent to approximately 100 organizations/businesses around the County. The Pen Mar Association of Realtors responded and have asked Ms. Jenkins to present a workshop.

•

Grant Ideas Sheet

Ms. Jenkins reported that she included a copy of the Grant Ideas Sheet in the agenda packet as well as provided members with an on-line link. Members are encouraged to share their ideas using this format.

ADJOURNMENT Ms. Aldrich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lushbaugh and so ordered by the Chairman.

______________________________________ Gregory Smith, Chairman

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To:

Washington County Historic District Commission

From:

Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff

Date:

March 23, 2023

Subj:

Non-Residential Demolition Permit/Building 160 Partial Demolition, 2023-01360

Staff Report and Analysis Property Owner: Cascade Properties LLC, John Krumpotich Applicant: Landon Grove Location: 14336 BANFILL Avenue Tax Account ID: 14065204 Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 28/1/162/ Legal Description: 345.08 REM PHASES 25036 PEN MAR ROAD P/O FT RITCHIE MILITARY Zoning: Special Economic District Rural Village: Fort Ritchie (MHT) Historic Rural Village MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): IV262 Project Description: Demolish 5800 sq. ft. stick built portion of building 160 Fort Ritchie for Pen mar Development Corporation, Boundary Survey Plat 170-171

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 review criteria for demolition permit is the same as the evaluation criteria in the Washington County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures.

1. The application shall be approved by the HDC if it is consistent with the following criteria: A. The proposal does not substantially alter the exterior features of the structure.

B. The proposal is compatible in character and nature with the historical, cultural, architectural, or archeological features of the site, structure, or district and would not be detrimental to achievement of the purposes of Article 20 of the County Zoning Ordinance.

C. The proposal would enhance or aid in the protection, preservation and public or private

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION utilization of the site or structure, in a manner compatible with its historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural value.

D. The proposal is necessary so that unsafe conditions or health hazards are remedied.

E. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and subsequent revisions are to be used as guidance only and are not to be considered mandatory.

2. In reviewing the plans for any such construction or change, the HDC shall give consideration to and not disapprove an application except with respect to the factors specified below.

A. The historic or architectural value and significance of the site or structure and its relationship to the historic or architectural value and significance of the surrounding area.

B. The relationship of the exterior architectural features of the structure to the remainder of the structure and to the surrounding area.

C. The general compatibility of exterior design, scale, proportion, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used.

D. Any other factors, including aesthetic factors, that the Commission deems to be pertinent.

3. The HDC shall be strict in its judgment of plans for those structures, sites, or districts deemed to be valuable according to studies performed for districts of historic or architectural value. The HDC shall be lenient in its judgment of plans involving new construction, unless such plans would seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures.

Demolition Section – Design Guidelines Demolition Alternatives • Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structures or its setting; • Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project; • Converting the structures into another use (adaptive reuse); • Relocating the structure on the property; • Relocating the structure to another property.

Demolition Mitigation • Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs, drawings, and/or text. This documentation should follow the Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland and be completed by a professional as listed in those Standards; • Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building materials.

Full Demolition Guidance – Design Guidelines for Historic Structures in Washington County, MD

Staff Report:

This building is located on the Historic Fort Ritchie Military Base and is identified as building 160. The building is accessed by turning left from the main gate (Barrick Avenue) onto Banfill Avenue. It sits at the Southeastern corner of the overall base property and can be seen from both Banfill Avenue on base and Ritchie Road. The main portion of the structure is typical green granite stone with the demolition application portion being a later stick-built addition with white siding. Building 160 is described as

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION “castellated style…buttressed walls with bays” in the associated MIHP. The stick-built portion is not specifically described in the MIHP. Building 160 is included in the Fort Ritchie district survey boundary for the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties but is NOT included in the Maryland Historical Trust easement in place on a large portion of buildings at the base’s core. The exterior of the stone portion of the building has some significant overgrowth of vines, however, it appears in good shape from the ground level. The addition portion, while appearing intact from the exterior, has significant infiltration of water due to complete roof failure and collapse. A large brick stack attached to the addition is proposed to remain at this time.

Staff Analysis: There are significant safety and health hazards caused by water infiltration and roof collapse which this demolition permit application would remedy. The portion of the structure being retained will be renovated for reuse allowing continued utilization of the historic building. The main portion of the building will still retain its architectural features mentioned specifically in the MIHP. The side of the building involved in the demolition is not visible from the area included in the MHT easement and its removal would not impact the overall context of the site.

Staff Recommendation: Recommend support of this demolition permit (2023-01360) for a portion of Building 160, 14336 Banfill Avenue for the reasons stated in the Staff Analysis.

Respectfully Submitted,

Meghan Jenkins, GISP Historic District Commission Staff

Attachments: • Photos provided by Staff • •

Permit Submission Packet Customer Provided Supporting Materials

1. Written description and history of the building or structure to be demolished.

Building 160 was built in 1942 by the United States Army to serve as a Mess Hall. Its construction is green granite as are most of Ritchie’s field stone buildings. This portion is approximately 15,000 square feet.

Shortly thereafter, the stick-built portion of the building was added as a kitchen for the mess hall. Later the building was the site of DISA-Westhem: The Defense Information Systems Agency for the Western Hemisphere. Since the closure of Fort Ritchie, the stick-built portion has literally imploded upon itself and its roof has caved into the floor. The requested demolition preserves the stone structure, and simply removes the stick-built portion.

2. Detail drawings, such as construction or trim details.

Highlighted portion, only piece to be removed.

3. Floor plan for each floor level, drawn to approximate scale or fully dimensioned.

4. Applicant’s plan for the recycling of waste generated Maryland Excavation, LLC of Emmittsburg MD is removing the portion of the structure and all associated debris. It will be at the discretion of this company on how they dispose of the water generated.

5. A report 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; The stone built portion will remain intact and retain the same vernacular look as when built in 1942. (b) Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project; This not feasible for this portion of the building.

(c) Converting the structure into another use (adaptive reuse); The building roof has imploded upon itself, the stick built portion is beyond the point of return. (d) Relocating the structure on the property; Would be unfeasible and undesirable to move the 80-year-old stone structure. (e) Relocating the structure to another property; Not feasible. (f) Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building materials; Stick built portion was not built during the MHT period of significance (1926-1945) and is not stone as was the original portion of the building. (g) Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs, drawings, and/or text This has already been accomplished through photos, blueprints, and maps.

6. A site plan illustrating any proposed development or introduction of plantings following demolition (if applicable) Attached.

Attached to applicants’ email.

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To:

Washington County Historic District Commission

From:

Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff

Date:

March 23, 2023

Subj:

Residential Demolition Permit/, 2023-01460

Staff Report and Analysis Property Owner: LLANOS MISAEL JAVIER, Applicant: Misael Javier Location: 22416 GOOSE Street Tax Account ID: 07013132 Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 39/23/259/ Legal Description: LOT 66X165 .25 A22416 GOOSE ST Zoning: Residential, Transition Rural Village: Cavetown (MHT-C) Historic Rural Village (IV014) Project Description: Interior and exterior demolition of single family dwelling to include partition walls, joists, flooring, stairs, and bathroom in first and second floor, demolish 300 sq. ft. of rear portion of dwelling, and 35 sq. ft. rear porch

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

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION utilization of the site or structure, in a manner compatible with its historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural value.

D. The proposal is necessary so that unsafe conditions or health hazards are remedied.

E. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and subsequent revisions are to be used as guidance only and are not to be considered mandatory.

2. In reviewing the plans for any such construction or change, the HDC shall give consideration to and not disapprove an application except with respect to the factors specified below.

A. The historic or architectural value and significance of the site or structure and its relationship to the historic or architectural value and significance of the surrounding area.

B. The relationship of the exterior architectural features of the structure to the remainder of the structure and to the surrounding area.

C. The general compatibility of exterior design, scale, proportion, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used.

D. Any other factors, including aesthetic factors, that the Commission deems to be pertinent.

3. The HDC shall be strict in its judgment of plans for those structures, sites, or districts deemed to be valuable according to studies performed for districts of historic or architectural value. The HDC shall be lenient in its judgment of plans involving new construction, unless such plans would seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures.

For Rural Villages, additional review criteria for applications are listed in Section 5D.5 Architectural Review of the Zoning Ordinance and include: 1. The exterior appearance of existing structures in the Rural Village, including materials, style, arrangement of doors and windows, mass, height and number of stories, roof style and pitch, proportion.

2. Building Size and Orientation 3. Landscaping 4. Signage 5. Lighting 6. Setbacks 7. Accessory structures Demolition Section – Design Guidelines Demolition Alternatives • Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structures or its setting; • Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project; • Converting the structures into another use (adaptive reuse); • Relocating the structure on the property; • Relocating the structure to another property.

Demolition Mitigation • Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs, drawings, and/or text. This documentation should follow the Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland and be completed by a professional as listed in those Standards;

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building materials.

Full Demolition Guidance – Design Guidelines for Historic Structures in Washington County, MD •

Staff Report:

This property fronts on North side of Goose Street in the Rural Village of Cavetown. The lot is 66 feet by 165 feet according to Tax Assessment records. The house sits approximately 15 feet back from the road and is situated in the southwestern corner of the property within 10 feet of the property lines. The house is listed as contributing to the historic rural village of Cavetown. The MIHP contains the following description: two-story vernacular brick residence with laterally-oriented gable roof; windows flattopped 2/2 with jack-arched lintels; four-bay facade (c. 1840). The main brick portion of the house is to remain with the demolition permit subject to HDC review being for the rear addition and covered porch area. The front porch is also to be removed/updated. The painted brick portion of the house has American Bond brick with irregular spacing of header/stretcher rows with the average being 8 stretcher rows between each header row. The condition of the brick varies. The rear addition has a mixture of vinyl siding, drop siding and corrugated metal again with condition varying. The foundation of both portions of the building is a rubble stone foundation with noticeable failure of mortar in some locations. Specifically on the west side of the building there are several trees which may be causing water deterioration due to roots. The majority of the roof is covered in black asphalt shingles for both portions of the structure. The front porch has corrugated metal roofing. That porch also does not appear original but does have some architectural interest in the overhanging eaves. There are trim pieces on some of the columns at each end of the porch. Columns are wood encased beams and straight with no flair. There is some decorative crosshatch trellis between the left most columns of the porch. There is a mixture of window types on the brick and addition portion of the house with varying levels of repair. Most windows appear to be replacements. The rear addition may have been a kitchen as it has its own brick chimney at the north/back portion. The main house has a single chimney on the west gable end. There is definite deterioration of the small porch encased in corrugated metal. The remainder of the addition has some visible water damage and deterioration as well on the exterior.

Staff Analysis: The elements proposed for removal are in varying degrees of disrepair and deterioration. The removal of these elements, which are not specifically mentioned in the MIHP description, will not negatively affect the integrity of the property or the rural village context further. Removal will remedy the unsafe condition of these elements. The main portion of the structure will continue in residential use once these elements are removed.

Staff Recommendation: Recommend support of this demolition permit (2023-01460) for the portions specified at 22416 GOOSE Street for the reasons stated in the Staff Analysis.

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Respectfully Submitted,

Meghan Jenkins, GISP Historic District Commission Staff

Attachments: • Photos provided by Staff • Permit Submission Packet

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To:

Washington County Historic District Commission

From:

Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff

Date:

March 31, 2023

Subj:

Residential Addition-Alteration Permit/Addition-Alteration, 2023-01763

Staff Report and Analysis Property Owner: LLANOS MISAEL JAVIER, Applicant: Misael Javier Location: 22416 GOOSE Street Tax Account ID: 07013132 Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 0039/0023/0259/ Legal Description: LOT 66X165 .25 A22416 GOOSE ST Zoning: Residential, Transition Rural Village: Cavetown (MHT-C) Historic Rural Village (IV014) Project Description: Remodeling interior house and addition to back of house

Applicable Law and Review Criteria: The HDC is enabled through Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, MD. Specifically Section 20.3.a states: "The Commission shall act upon all applications as required by Section 20.6, Historic Preservation district, Section 5D.4, Rural Village District and Article 20A, Antietam Overlay District of this Ordinance."

The HDC shall consider only exterior features of a structure that would affect the historic, archeological, or architectural significance of the site or structure, any portion of which is visible or intended to be visible from a public way. It does not consider any interior arrangements, although interior changes may still be subject to building permit procedures.

1. The application shall be approved by the HDC if it is consistent with the following criteria: A. The proposal does not substantially alter the exterior features of the structure.

B. The proposal is compatible in character and nature with the historical, cultural, architectural, or archeological features of the site, structure, or district and would not be detrimental to achievement of the purposes of Article 20 of the County Zoning Ordinance.

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION C. The proposal would enhance or aid in the protection, preservation and public or private utilization of the site or structure, in a manner compatible with its historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural value.

D. The proposal is necessary so that unsafe conditions or health hazards are remedied.

E. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and subsequent revisions are to be used as guidance only and are not to be considered mandatory.

2. In reviewing the plans for any such construction or change, the HDC shall give consideration to and not disapprove an application except with respect to the factors specified below.

A. The historic or architectural value and significance of the site or structure and its relationship to the historic or architectural value and significance of the surrounding area.

B. The relationship of the exterior architectural features of the structure to the remainder of the structure and to the surrounding area.

C. The general compatibility of exterior design, scale, proportion, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used.

D. Any other factors, including aesthetic factors, that the Commission deems to be pertinent.

3. The HDC shall be strict in its judgment of plans for those structures, sites, or districts deemed to be valuable according to studies performed for districts of historic or architectural value. The HDC shall be lenient in its judgment of plans involving new construction, unless such plans would seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures.

For Rural Villages, additional review criteria for applications are listed in Section 5D.5 Architectural Review of the Zoning Ordinance and include: 1. The exterior appearance of existing structures in the Rural Village, including materials, style, arrangement of doors and windows, mass, height and number of stories, roof style and pitch, proportion.

2. Building Size and Orientation 3. Landscaping 4. Signage 5. Lighting 6. Setbacks 7. Accessory structures Secretary of Interior Standards which may be applicable to this project review include: 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Washington County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures which may be applicable to this project review include: Guidelines For Porches (Page 68) 1. Porch support structures should be inspected regularly to ensure they are not sagging, crumbling or separating from the structure or the rest of the porch. If necessary, stabilization and repair should be undertaken to ensure that the rest of the structure remains intact.

2. Carpet can trap water on wood porches causing decay of painted surfaces or rot of wood, and carpet should not be installed 3. Avoid enclosing a porch. If the porch is not visible from a public right-of-way, it may be enclosed if the change does not significantly alter the original character of the porch.

4. See also Wood Exteriors (p.60) for more guidelines and the Key Themes (p.57) Guidelines for Additions (Page 70) 1. Damage to the original structure and/or obstruction of its character-defining features by an addition should be minimized.

2. Additions should be designed in a way that new construction is differentiated from the existing historic building but should respect the design and character-defining features of the existing historic structure. Additions should also be sited to avoid demolition of contributing structures.

3. New additions should be located on a non-primary façade with minimal visibility from the public right-of-way and should be subordinate to the historic structure.

4. The roof shape of an addition should be compatible with that of the historic building to which it is attached.

5. Existing setbacks, landscaping, or site grading should be preserved when siting an addition if those characteristics contribute to the historic building or its landscape.

6. Rooftop additions should generally be avoided on buildings less than three stories and should be minimally visible from the streetscape by being setback from the primary elevation. Rooftop additions of more than one story should be avoided where feasible.

7. The addition of dormers to historic structures should occur only on secondary façades and not be visible from the public right-of-way when feasible. The dormer addition should be subordinate to the existing roof form.

8. See also Archaeological Resources—Setting and Site (p.50) and Key Themes. (p.57)

Staff Report: This project is in the Cavetown Rural Village which is located primarily at the intersection of Mapleville Road and Cavetown Church Road directly west of the Town of Smithsburg. The rural village district

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION contains a survey of 59 contributing resources and 10 non-contributing for a total of 69 items surveyed.

Most of the contributing resources are buildings with the district’s period of significance ranging from 1820 to 1950. The primary criteria for significance for the National Register according to the MIHP nomination would be “Criteria C” though this district has not been placed on the National Register at this time. Most of that architecture is vernacular and typically 2 stories in height. This property fronts on North side of Goose Street. The lot is 66 feet by 165 feet according to Tax Assessment records. The existing house sits approximately 15 feet back from the road and is situated in the southwestern corner of the property within 10 feet of the property lines. The existing house is listed as contributing to the historic rural village of Cavetown. The MIHP contains the following description: two-story vernacular brick residence with laterally-oriented gable roof; windows flat-topped 2/2 with jack-arched lintels; four-bay facade (c. 1840).

The permit application is described as: remodeling of the existing house, frame and brick to remain, trim and paint as necessary, new addition to rear matching existing roofing height. The existing house is 513 square feet excluding the area proposed for demolition by permit 2023-01460. The rear addition proposed is approximately 969 square feet and is 2 stories.

The painted brick portion of the existing house has American Bond brick with irregular spacing of header/stretcher rows with the average being 8 stretcher rows between each header row. The condition of the brick varies. The foundation is a rubble stone foundation. The roof is covered in black asphalt shingles. The front porch has corrugated metal roofing. That porch also does not appear original but does have some architectural interest in the overhanging eaves. There are trim pieces on some of the columns at each end of the porch. Columns are wood encased beams and straight with no flair. There is some decorative crosshatch trellis between the left most columns of the porch. There is a mixture of window types in varying levels of repair. Most windows appear to be replacements. The main house has a single chimney on the west gable end.

The addition to the rear is proposed to have an approximately 13 foot x 13 foot passthrough between the existing house and the main portion of the addition. The passthrough will be located near the addition proposed for demolition by 2023-01460. The main portion of the new addition is to be approximately 20 feet by 40 feet. This addition will extend to the east of the existing house with approximately 25 feet of new construction visible from Goose Street. All new construction is proposed to be sided with vinyl with asphalt shingles for the roofing. There is a proposed brick veneer along the foundation approximately 3ft from ground level. The majority of the proposed window openings on the addition are larger than those on the existing house with double hung sashes. Some windows on the addition have fixed pane windows of rectangular shape.

Staff Analysis: This project does intend to keep the existing brick house intact. The replacement of windows and doors will have no additional impact on this property’s integrity as the existing windows are already modern replacements and no change in size of the window openings is proposed. The new addition will not disturb the existing historic materials specifically mentioned in the MIHP which describe the brick portion only. The new work will be differentiated from the existing with a tie in of brick around the

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION foundation walls. This addition is tying into the existing structure at a similar point to the previous addition so removal of it is possible in the future. This location preserves the integrity of the historic portion. This proposed addition does attach to a non-primary façade as preferred by the Design Guidelines; however, it will be visible and not subordinate in massing to the historic structure. In viewing nearby structures there is not a consistent mass, height, or proportion to structures in this rural village. Therefore, the visibility and orientation of this project is not unusual for the village. The roof style of the addition is complimentary to the existing historic structure. Again, setbacks in this rural village are minimal from the road, the existing historic house will remain, and the setback of the addition may enable it to appear subordinate even though it is much larger in size. The 2 stories of the addition are consistent with the heights existing in the rural village. The updates proposed to the porch will not change the existing scale or mass. Many of the porches in this rural village have been updated or altered with modern trims. The remodeling and addition to this structure will enable its continued use as a residence in the rural village.

Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of the Residential Addition-Alteration Permit/Addition-Alteration, 2023-01763, located in Cavetown Historic Rural Village based on the information provided in the Staff Analysis.

Respectfully Submitted,

Meghan Jenkins, GISP Historic District Commission Staff

Attachments: • Photos provided by Staff (see photos 2023-01460) • Permit Submission Packet

Week

Posting Text

Supporting Links

Pictures

0 Intro/Proclamation

The Washington County Commissioners presented a proclamation to the Washington County Historic District Commission to recognize May as Preservation Month. Each week in May historic preservation themed content will highlight the diverse and unique heritage of our County.

Visit the Historic District Commission website: https://www.washcomd.net/planning-zoning/historic-district-commission/

(Proclamation Picture)

1 Design Guidelines for Washington County, MD 2 Design Guidelines: What are they, what information is in them?

Adopted by the HDC in June 2022, Design Guidelines for Historic Structures in Washington County, MD contains resources for customers that may interact with the HDC or have questions about best practices for historic resources in the County.

PR product?

PR product?

(Webpage Auto)

3 Rural Village Highlight - Sandy Hook

Did you know that Sandy Hook is a Historic Rural Village? The HDC has reviewed permits in its survey boundaries this year. Learn more about this rural village through the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties. We'll talk more about the Historic Rural Villages next week and each higlight one each Friday in the month of May. Fill out our Survey to assist the HDC in updates to policies and programs: LINK WA-III-032.pdf (maryland.gov)

MIHP Photo, Maybe a newer one from review

What's a Historic Rural Village?

15 of the County's Rural Villages have had architectural surveys completed and adopted. Therefore have some form of permit review for exteriors by the HDC. Learn more about Historic Rural Villages in the Design Guidelines!

Rural Village Map slideshow

Alternative or Mitigation?

4 - The number of demolitions which qualified for HDC Review 2022; 37 - The total number of demolition permits issued in 2022 1 - There is only 1 review area (HP Overlays) where the HDC can deny a demolition permit application. All other demo permit review by the HDC to explore alternatives and mitigation only.

Read more about the alternatives to demolition and if necessary, mitigation in the Design Guidelines

Design Guidelines - Demo and Demo Policy Link

Make Graphic for the numbers/Demo Permit Review Photos from this year

Did you know that Pen Mar is a Historic Rural Village? The HDC has reviewed permits in its survey boundaries this year. Learn more about this rural village through the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties. Fill out our Survey to assist the HDC in updates to policies and programs: LINK

WA-IV-019.pdf (maryland.gov)

MIHP Photo, Maybe a newer one from review

Design Guidelines (HDC Reviews Page - Antietam Overlay)

Antietam Battlefield Picture from Tower

2 Review Areas for the HDC - Historic Preservation Overlay

It safeguards, it stabilizes, it fosters civic pride…these are the intentions (and we can agree they're good ones) of the Historic Preservation Overlay. Learn more about what the overlay offers, where they are located, and how to request it for your historic property.

Design Guidelines (HP Overlay)

Rose Hill Picture

3

3 Review Areas for the HDC - Historic Rural Villages Highlight (Rohrersville)

Did you know that Rohrersville is a Historic Rural Village? The HDC has reviewed permits in its survey boundaries this year. Learn more about this rural village through the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties. Fill out our Survey to assist the HDC in updates to policies and programs: LINK

WA-III-025.pdf (maryland.gov)

(MIHP extract and current photo) and Lloyds photos

Friday, May 19, 2023

4

1 Architectural Styles - Intro

Is it Georgian, Federal or Italianate? It's all Greek (Revivial) to me. You can learn about architectural styles in Washington County by viewing the Design Guidelines.

Design Guidelines for Historic Structures (Start at Vernacular Page)

Woburn, Williamsport Streetscape and Plumb Grove

Monday, March 20, 2023

2 What do you call that?

Is it a fence or is it a wall? Is there really any difference? What's the historical use of that outbuilding you drive by each day? Check out the Accessory Structures section of the Design Guidelines to learn more about the tiny structures having a big impact on the historic landscapes of the County.

Design Guidelines for Historic Structures (specific to Accessory Structures)

Fence and Wall picture (side by side)

3 Rural Village Highlight - Antietam

Did you know that Antietam is a Historic Rural Village and its also on the National Register? The HDC has reviewed permits in its survey boundaries this year. Learn more about this rural village through the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties. Fill out our Survey to assist the HDC in updates to policies and programs: LINK

WA-II-031.pdf (maryland.gov)

(MIHP extract and current photo)

Last chance to fill out the survey for this year's Preservation Month. Tax Credits, Grants, Policy updates…What would you like the HDC to advocate and work toward? Take our brief survey.

Proposed Survey Question:1) What updates to Historic Preservation Policies and Programs would you like to see in Washington County? 2) Additional Programs, What relevant workshops would you like to see (same categories as last year)

Post

Week 1

0

1 1

Week 2

Week 3

1

2

3

3

Week 4

4

Week 5 - Wrap Up

4

5

Theme

3 Rural Village Highlight - Pen Mar

1 Review Areas for the HDC - Antietam Overlay

1 Last Chance/What's Next?

What a view? Did you know the Antietam National Battlefield has viewshed protections that require HDC review. Visit the Design Guidelines to learn more

Date

Notes

Tuesday, April 25, 2023

Monday, May 1, 2023 Wednesday, May 3, 2023

Friday, May 5, 2023

Monday, May 8, 2023

Wednesday, May 10, 2023 John Frye Award Tie - In

Friday, May 12, 2023

Monday, May 15, 2023

Wednesday, May 17, 2023

Wednesday, March 22, 2023

Friday, May 26, 2023

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

ÿÁ} |

P/;6`]ÿ]E/G0<hij 8/040/G+329f

QG0k/l Gm 20n DmlopC0 42O7ÿ qrst vst.9: qw:+ÿxc9/y+x30z P7+:<g0 C+3+ ]03327O4

{|}ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ } } ÿ |P11 }ÿM } ÿ+ 123ÿ |}ÿ P>>0 /+ÿ7;0 Q>32974 12 ÿ3 }2 1 45 6}7 89 ÿ ÿ }ÿ } } ÿ | 0

ÿ ÿÿ | }89 ÿ 6 ÿ } ÿ |] 2 7O:0ÿ40:0;3ÿO/21 C/9>19D7 *A0ÿB2 439/ 2; ÿÿ C2 43/2;3 ÿ.9HH2 44297 ¡¤ ÿdBC.e ÿ¤ ¤§ £¡¨ÿ¦¡©£¥£ ÿ ^¨ 2F ÿ 0/3¦ ÿ4¤ ;¡ª¤ +:0 « ÿ¬¡ © ÿ­¡ L+ÿ 327O

ÿ

¡ÿ ¢£ £ ¥ ÿ ¦ +;F79D: 0 1O0 4 ÿ 3 A 0 ÿ 2 H>9/ 3 + 7 ; 0 ÿ I 9/ ÿ 3 A 0 ÿ 9D7 0 / 4 ÿ 9I ÿ ¡ÿ/; 0 4ÿ3ÿ9ÿ £̈ÿ £̈ª ÿ̄¡ A2439/©2£ ;®ÿ/ 0ÿ 4 9E A +G0ÿHE :32>:0ÿ¡¨ 399: 4ÿ39ÿ;¨ 97 ­ 32° 7E0ÿ L+7F27O {

± ÿ

}

² ÿ ³

² ÿ́

µ ÿ ¶

}

· 430D+/14A2>J

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ !ÿ " ÿ ! ÿ # $ ÿ% " ÿ& ÿ" ' ÿ ÿ ÿ !ÿ !# !ÿ( ! &) *+,ÿ./012345ÿ6/+7345ÿ89:2;<ÿ=>1+304?

R8S56789 _+>

P11/044

2T75ÿ59TÿU7V23 H̀+O0 a2:0ÿE>:9+1 ¾ £ £¡¨ ©ÿ¦¤¡ª¤ « {|}ÿ ÿ ÿ }ÿ ÿ }ÿ } ÿ } } ÿ | ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ| ÿ } }ÿ PE129 ]2O7+3E/0 } |

@ ! "ÿ¸ ÿ # ¹ ± $ } ÿº}

*A0ÿBC.ÿD9E:1ÿ:2F0ÿ39ÿ>/9G210ÿ;E439H0/4ÿ/0:0G+73ÿ D9/F4A9>4ÿ97ÿ39>2;4ÿI9/ÿA2439/2;ÿ/049E/;0ÿ 430D+/14A2>J´ } ÿº}

W73XV5Yÿ59Tÿ361ZS6Z12 b930

8+O0

6/9E>

K991ÿK2719Dÿ8/040/G+3297 { ±ÿ } »³ ÿ́ ÿ́ } ÿ ÿ¼ [ Z

142Yÿ2V2\296 8:+430/ÿL0439/+3297 ]E/G0<ÿA0+10/ ¸ ÿ̧ ÿ́ } } ]E/G0<ÿ104;/2>3297 K991ÿM,30/29/ÿL0>+2/4 ]E/G0<ÿI9930/ ½ |} .P8*.BP *+,ÿ./0123N6/+73ÿ8/9O/+Hÿ8/9;044ÿ+71ÿ P>>:2;+3297 8/0G20D ¿ À ]+G01

8Ec:24A

Historic Review Activity 02/17/2023 thru 03/24/2023 Record #

2023-00479

2023-00617

2023-00671

2023-00682

Type

MIHP#

Residential AdditionAlteration Permit

Non-Residential Addition-Alteration Permit

Record Status

Approved

II0092

Non-Residential Addition-Alteration Permit

Approved

Approved

Residential AdditionAlteration Permit

Approved

Open Date

26-Jan-23

04-Feb-23

07-Feb-23

08-Feb-23

Date Assigned

24-Feb-23

27-Feb-23

Location

Description

S-88-96 13827 NATIONAL PIKE

196 SQ. FT. INTERIOR RENOVATIONS DUE TO FIRE DAMAGE TO INCLUDE REPLACING DRYWALL AND INSULATION IN LAUNDRY ROOM AND BATHROOM ON FIRST FLOOR, REPLACE WINDOW IN BATHROOM SAME SIZE AND LOCATION, EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO REPAIR STICK BUILT TRUSSES ON EXISTING REAR

20025 MT. AETNA ROAD

SP-22-011 14319 BARRICK AVENUE

17-Mar-23

S-94-108 4831 HANNAH LANE, LOT 1

09-Feb-23

Workflow Info

INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO INCLUDE CARPETING, DROP CEILING, HVAC SYSTEMS, LIGHTING, INSULATION ON ROOF DECK, PROSHOP GLASS DIVIDER PANELS, STANDING SEAM ROOFING AND NEW 12' X 24' PORCH. CHANGE IN USE FROM FORMER MILITARY USE BUILDING TO FORT RITCHIE MUSEUM, 3,525 SQ. FT. TENANT FIT OUT TO INCLUDE REMOVING EXTERIOR CONCRETE STEPS, SINK, REMOVE AND INFILL DOOR, CREATE NEW RESTROOM, ADD NEW PARTITION WALLS ON FIRST FLOOR, BASEMENT AND SECOND FLOOR INSTALLATION OF (11) WALL ANCHORS AND 66 LNFT BASEMENT GUTTER ALONG THE PERIMETER, BASEMENT GUTTER WILL CHANNEL WATER TO ONE SUMP PUMP JOSEPH HANNAH, LOT 1

Folder Status

Status Date

Task Name

Passed - Info

24-Feb-23

Historical Review

Per Meghan, not required

Historical Review

Updated by Script from EPR.

Approved

27-Feb-23

Days in Review:

3

Folder Status

Status Date

Task Name

Approved

27-Feb-23

Historical Review

No Comments Received

28-Feb-23

Historical Review Historical Review

Approved

13-Mar-23

Days in Review:

14

Folder Status

Status Date

Task Name

Passed - Info

17-Mar-23

Historical Review

17-Mar-23

Historical Review

No Comments Received Days in Review:

2023-00980

2023-01092

2023-01123

KV2023-0005

KV2023-0006

2023-01360

Residential New Construction Permit

Approved

Residential AdditionAlteration Permit

Residential AdditionAlteration Permit

Town of Keedysville Residential Building Permit Town of Keedysville Residential Building Permit Non-Residential Demolition Permit

2023-01460

Residential Demolition Permit

Activity Count:

11

Approved

II0171

II1018

II1069

IV262

Approved

Review

Review

Review

Review

21-Feb-23

25-Feb-23

27-Feb-23

06-Mar-23

06-Mar-23

09-Mar-23

14-Mar-23

LOR 20029 MILLBROOK ROAD

27-Feb-23

27-Feb-23

LOR 14403 NATIONAL PIKE

LOR 20148 COOL HOLLOW ROAD

08-Mar-23

20-Mar-23

35 N MAIN STREET

23-Mar-23

LOR 54 S MAIN STREET

16-Mar-23

14336 BANFILL AVENUE

22-Mar-23

LOR 22416 GOOSE STREET

2,048 SQ. FT. POLE BUILDING ON GRAVEL BASE TO BE USED FOR STORAGE, (2) 12' OVERHEAD DOORS, PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF TRUSSES, POLE CONSTRUCTION WITH METAL ROOF AND SIDES

128 SQ. FT. ONE STORY ADDITION TO RIGHT OF DWELLING ON EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB TO BE USED AS A FULL BATHROOM AND HALF BATHROOM WITH LAUNDRY AREA 269 SQ. FT. INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF EXISTING HALF BATH AND CREATE A FULL BATH AND LAUNDRY ROOM ON FIRST FLOOR, CREATE A DOORWAY OFF OFFICE INTO FIRST FLOOR BATHROOM, WIDENING OF STAIRCASE, CONSTRUCTING WALLS ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO CREATE A 152 SQ. FT. INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO RECONFIGURE SECOND FLOOR BATHROOMS AND ADD A CLOSET TO THE MASTER BEDROOM, EXPAND HALL BATHROOM BY 15 SQ. FT. REMOVE EXISTING 482 SQ. FT. DECK IN THE REAR OF THE HOME TO ALLOW FOR SUBSTRUCTURE AND SUPPORTS TO BE REBUILT. CONCRETE FOOTERS WILL BE DUG OUT AND REPOURED TO ALLOW PROPER SUPPORT. THE DEMOLISH 5800 SQ. FT. STICK BUILT PORTION OF BUILDING 160 FORT RITCHIE FOR PENMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BOUNDARY SURVEY PLAT 170-171 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DEMOLITION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO INCLUDE PARTITION WALLS, JOISTS, FLOORING, STAIRS, AND BATHROOM IN FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR, DEMOLISH 300 SQ. FT. OF REAR PORTION OF

Status Date

Task Name

Passed - Info

14-Mar-23

Historical Review

Days in Review:

33

Folder Status

Status Date

Non-Residential Addition-Alteration Permit Non-Residential Demolition Permit Residential Addition-Alteration Permit Residential Demolition Permit Residential New Construction Permit Town of Keedysville Residential Building Permit Total

Application Number

Approved

Total Total Total Total Total Total

1 0 2 0 0 0 3

No Comments Received 2 0 0 0 1 0 3

Updated by Script from EPR.

Comments

Updated by Script from EPR. Comments Updated by Script from EPR.

Task Name

Comments

28-Feb-23

Historical Review

Property is in the Millbrook individual district with RV zoning for Rohrersville. New construction isn't reviewable here so passing on permit. Will talk to the property owner to let them know exteriors may be reviewed for recommendation if they do anything down the line.

No Comments Received No Comments Received No Comments Received

28-Feb-23

Historical Review

Updated by Script from EPR.

10-Mar-23

Historical Review

Updated by Script from EPR.

17-Mar-23

Historical Review

Updated by Script from EPR.

Historical Review

Passed - Info

17-Mar-23

Days in Review:

18

Folder Status

Status Date

Task Name

Passed - Info

03-Mar-23

Historical Review

Approved

07-Mar-23

Historical Review

Days in Review:

8

Folder Status

Status Date

Task Name

Note

14-Mar-23

Historical Review Historical Review

Passed - Info

14-Mar-23

Days in Review:

6

Folder Status

Status Date

Task Name

Passed - Info

22-Mar-23

Historical Review

Days in Review:

1

Folder Status

Status Date

Task Name

Passed - Info

24-Mar-23

Historical Review

Days in Review:

0

Folder Status

Status Date

Task Name

Note

22-Mar-23

Historical Review

Days in Review:

6

Folder Status

Status Date

Task Name

Note

23-Mar-23

Historical Review

Days in Review:

1

Review Activities Summary Application Type

Comments

0

Folder Status

Note

Comments

Note

Passed - Info

Total

0 1 1 1 1 0 4

1 0 4 0 1 2 8

2 1 4 1 1 2 11

Comments

Updated by Script from EPR. Comments Property is on the MIHP but is not in an review area for the HDC. Sent the customer a letter to let them know they are on the MIHP. Updated by Script from EPR. Comments Updated by Script from EPR. Comments Updated by Script from EPR. Comments Added to HDC Agenda for April 5th meeting.

Comments Added to April HDC Agenda