Lloyd Yavener, Chair
Justin Bedard, Vice Chair
Ann Aldrich
Brianna Candelaria
Michael Lushbaugh
Tyler Milam
Gregory Smith
Wayne K. Keefer, BOCC Rep
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
AGENDA
April 2, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Washington County Administration Complex, 100 West Washington Street, Room 2001, Hagerstown, MD 21740
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
MINUTES
1. Minutes of the March 5, 2025, meeting *
NEW BUSINESS
1. Residential Addition-Alteration (2025-00632) - 13215 Smithsburg Pike (WA-IV-029) – (Discussion/Approval) - 4,216 sq. ft. interior renovation of entire dwelling and attached cottage to include finish attic to create a bedroom and full bathroom, add two full bathrooms in cottage, (1) in cottage attic, and (1) on cottage first floor, repair and replace plaster walls and ceilings, new dormers, windows, and metal roof, rebuild chimneys and cottage steps, cosmetic and fixture upgrades throughout, electric, plumbing, and mechanical upgrades, new metal roof, rebuild existing front stoop, increase of bedrooms by (1) for a total of 5 bedrooms *
2. Residential New Construction (2025-00909) - 22420 Old Georgetown Road (Cavetown WA-IV-014) – (Discussion/Recommendation) - 2,094 sq. ft. finished space twostory single-family dwelling on crawl space, covered front porch, rear open attached deck, frame construction, pre-engineered roof trusses, concrete foundation *
3. Residential Demolition (2025-01080) – 1230 Mount Aetna Road (WA-I-437)(Discussion/Support) - Demolition of 2,500 sq. ft. abandoned dwelling, there is another existing dwelling and garages/sheds that will remain *
4. Draft of Town MOU for Historic Structures Review – (Discussion/Consensus) – Review the existing language and discuss any updates to comply with the Historic Structures Tax Credit Ordinance and outline a plan for introducing to the Towns. *
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Preservation Month 2025
a. Preservation Maryland Presentation same night as May regular meeting (Discussion/Consensus)
2. Correspondence
3. Staff Report
a. Staff Reviews *
b. Reminder – Financial Disclosures Due April 20, 2025
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING MEETING
1. Wednesday, May 7, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
*attachments
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY
March 5, 2025
The Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, March 5, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Complex, 100 W Washington Street, Room 2001, Hagerstown, MD.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Commission members present were: Greg Smith, Chairman; Lloyd Yavener, Vice-Chair; Ann Aldrich; Michael Lushbaugh, Brianna Candalaria and Tyler Milam. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator and HDC Staff member.
MINUTES
Motion and Vote: Ms. Aldrich made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2024 meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Yavener and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
RZ-25-001 – 6821 Sharpsburg Pike
Ms. Jenkins presented a rezoning application for property located at 6821 Sharpsburg Pike. The owners are requesting the application of the Rural Business (RB) floating zone over 1.68 acres of land in the Preservation zoning district with the Antietam 2 overlay Ms. Jenkins noted there is currently a MET (Maryland Environmental Trust) easement on the property which was not referenced in the current deed. To date, there have been no comments from MET regarding this application. She stated that a new building was constructed on the property as an ag building; however, the owners have been running a business out of said building without permits which is not allowed without the proper zoning on the property.
Discussion and Comments: Members discussed vegetative screening of the building from the road so it does not detract from the viewshed. They also discussed the outdoor storage of equipment and any signage that may be used. Ms. Jenkins stated that if/when the owners apply for a sign permit, the permit application would be reviewed by the HDC because the property is located within the Antietam 2 overlay zone. She will recommend in her comments to the Planning Commission, that the owners should follow the Design Guidelines for signage. Members believe the deed should be updated to include the MET easement. Members discussed the RB overlay being extinguished on properties within the AO1 and AO2 zoning districts when the property is sold. This issue would need to be discussed with the Zoning Administrator and would require a text amendment to the County’s adopted Zoning Ordinance.
Consensus: Ms. Jenkins will provide a letter to the Planning Commission with the following recommendations:
· Owners should provide substantial vegetative screening to minimize visibility of the business building from the roadway
· The RB overlay should not applied any closer to the roadway than depicted on the application.
· If/when signage is erected, the property owners should adhere to the County’s adopted Design Guidelines.
· To the extent feasible, all business-related storage should be kept to the rear of the building
· In response to #4 of the application, the MET easement and scenic value should be mentioned.
· The owners should consider updating the property deed to include the MET easement.
· The nearby RB overlay was in existence and is more appropriately buffered from the viewshed.
OTHER BUSINESS
HTC-24-002 – Williamson – 1004 The Terrace
Ms. Jenkins stated that Mr. Williamson provided equivalent documentation from the State of Maryland MHT Tax Credit application for additional tax credits on his property located at 1004 The Terrace. The project included the installation of gutter guards over the existing gutters that are minimally visible from the ground.
Certified Local Government Annual Report
Ms. Jenkins announced that the Annual Report has been submitted with updated information that was provided by the members.
AP2024-053 – 21406 Mount Lena Road
Ms. Jenkins stated that a letter was sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the Commission’s comments regarding the special exception for a contractor storage yard at the above location. Members reviewed this request via e-mail and a consensus to comment was received from Mr. Bedard, Mr. Milam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Aldrich and Ms. Candalaria.
Preservation Month 2025
Members discussed several ideas for Preservation Month including the following:
· continue the Love Historic theme – challenge citizens to take photos of their favorite historic structures around the County and submit them on Facebook/Instagram to be posted to the County’s website
· have HDC members take a photo of themselves at their favorite historic structure
· have an updated group photo of members at a historic structure
· coordinate with the HAC project
· have a Preservation Maryland presentation
· have a photo scavenger hunt of historic structures
· cross promote a geo-cash trail
· host a Museum Trail in 2026
Grimes – 7661 Dam Number 4 Road
Ms. Jenkins explained that the Grimes family purchased Woburn Manor late last year. The insurance company was concerned by the HP overlay and the implications of what would be required if a catastrophic event took place and the historic structure was lost. Would the structure have to be rebuilt exactly as it was? Ms. Jenkins provided a letter explaining review authority of the HDC, the use of modern materials, and that the HP overlay could be removed, if necessary.
Staff Report
· A written report of staff reviews for the past month was provided to members in the agenda packets.
· 250th Update: The historic subcommittee continues to meet and review historic dates of events. The County will be holding a July 4th celebration at the County’s Ag Center. There will be a drone
show, live music and vendors The Historic Subcommittee is also working on a publication with the help of the municipalities to obtain facts about historic places, people and events.
· September 6th there will be a celebration for the County’s anniversary. Members suggested that the HDC should have a booth at this event.
· Historic Structures Grant Update: The County Attorney ‘s Office has determined that State legislation will be required. This will be on hold until October 2025 when new priorities for legislation will be set.
· The first draft of the MOU for Town permit reviews was sent to members. No Towns have been approached about the MOU. This will be on the agenda again for the April meeting.
· Price’s Bridge is listed in the County’s CIP; however, it is listed for complete demolition.
· Comprehensive Plan Update: The Planning Commission has recommended keeping the Preservation Policy Areas on the Land Use Map. They also recommended that the Environmental Conservation Policy Area should be 100’ from the centerline of the stream. The Planning Commission voted to forward the draft document with the most recent changes as listed above to the Board of County Commissioners.
· A letter has been submitted to the CLG Training Program signed by the County Commissioner President John Barr to have a successful application by Preservation Maryland to hold some workshops with the Campaign for Historic Trade Staff or other historic trades people in Washington County.
· Financial Disclosures are due on April 30, 2025. Please submit them electronically or by mail to our offices.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Ms. Aldrich nominated Mr. Yavener as Chairman. Ms. Candalaria seconded the nomination. Mr. Yavener accepted the nomination and was unanimously voted to the position of Chairman.
Ms. Smith nominated Mr. Bedard as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Yavener seconded the nomination. Mr. Bedard was asked prior to the meeting, that if nominated, would he accept the nomination and he stated that he would accept; therefore, the nomination was accepted and Mr. Bedard was unanimously voted to the position of Vice-Chairman.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Aldrich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lushbaugh and so ordered by the Chairman.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Smith, Chairman
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff
Date: March 21, 2025
Subj: Residential Addition-Alteration Permit/Addition-Alteration, 2025-00632
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner: UNSWORTH JEFFREY PAUL, UNSWORTH LAURA LANE
Applicant: Paul Wade
Location: 13215 SMITHSBURG Pike
Tax Account ID: 07006748
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 40/1/203/
Legal Description: 25.50 ACRES13215 SMITHSBURG PIKE
Zoning: Agricultural, Rural
Zoning Overlay: Historic Preservation Overlay
MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): IV029
Project Description: 4,216 sq. ft. interior renovation of entire dwelling and attached cottage to include finish attic to create a bedroom and full bathroom, add two full bathrooms in cottage, (1) in cottage attic, and (1) on cottage first floor, repair and replace plaster walls and ceilings, new dormers, windows, and metal roof, rebuild chimneys and cottage steps, cosmetic and fixture upgrades throughout, electric, plumbing, and mechanical upgrades, new metal roof, rebuild existing front stoop, increase of bedrooms by (1) for a total of 5 bedrooms
Applicable Law and Review Criteria:
The HDC is enabled through Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, MD. Specifically Section 20.3.a states: "The Commission shall act upon all applications as required by Section 20.6, Historic Preservation district, Section 5D.4, Rural Village District and Article 20A, Antietam Overlay District of this Ordinance."
The HDC shall consider only exterior features of a structure that would affect the historic, archeological, or architectural significance of the site or structure, any portion of which is visible or intended to be visible from a public way. It does not consider any interior arrangements, although interior changes may still be
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
subject to building permit procedures.
1. The application shall be approved by the HDC if it is consistent with the following criteria:
A. The proposal does not substantially alter the exterior features of the structure.
B. The proposal is compatible in character and nature with the historical, cultural, architectural, or archeological features of the site, structure, or district and would not be detrimental to achievement of the purposes of Article 20 of the County Zoning Ordinance
C. The proposal would enhance or aid in the protection, preservation and public or private utilization of the site or structure, in a manner compatible with its historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural value.
D. The proposal is necessary so that unsafe conditions or health hazards are remedied.
E. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and subsequent revisions are to be used as guidance only and are not to be considered mandatory.
2. In reviewing the plans for any such construction or change, the HDC shall give consideration to and not disapprove an application except with respect to the factors specified below.
A. The historic or architectural value and significance of the site or structure and its relationship to the historic or architectural value and significance of the surrounding area.
B. The relationship of the exterior architectural features of the structure to the remainder of the structure and to the surrounding area.
C. The general compatibility of exterior design, scale, proportion, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used.
D. Any other factors, including aesthetic factors, that the Commission deems to be pertinent.
3. The HDC shall be strict in its judgment of plans for those structures, sites, or districts deemed to be valuable according to studies performed for districts of historic or architectural value. The HDC shall be lenient in its judgment of plans involving new construction, unless such plans would seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures.
Applicable Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation:
• A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
• The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
• Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
• Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
• Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
• Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Washington County Design Guidelines for Roofs (P.66)
• Avoid altering the roof pitch and shape.
• Exposed roof rafters and soffits should not be cut back.
• The size, color, reflectivity, reveal, and material of roofing and flashing should be maintained through repair. If replacement is necessary, roofing materials should have similar characteristics.
• Missing or severely damaged towers, dormers, finials, cresting, chimneys and other characterdefining roof elements should be replaced based on documentary or photographic evidence. If no evidence of the appearance of the element exists, a new element should be designed to be compatible with the overall character of the building.
• New skylights, mechanical and service-related equipment or pipes, chimneys or other projections, including solar panels should be located so that they are not visible from a public right-of-way. If able, roof mounting of mechanical equipment and solar panels should be avoided. If ground mounted these systems should still not be visible from the public right-ofway.
• Existing dormers should not be resized or have architectural features diminished. Preservation Brief #4 – Roofing for Historic Buildings
Note: Staff did not include the Design Guidelines for Windows (P.63) or Porches (P.68) but these may be referenced by members as well in their discussions.
Staff Report:
This parcel is located approximately .4 miles south of the intersection of Rowe Road and Smithsburg Pike (State Route 64) on the East side of Smithsburg Pike. The permit is associated with all portions of the house which is a multi-part stone dwelling. The dwelling’s main portion is 2-story stone construction with a date stone of 1810 in the west end wall. Extending to the north of the main portion, is a 1 ½-story three bay stone cabin built over a large spring. This spring emerges into a large stone walled pond behind the house. According to the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) documentation, it is estimated this northern portion was built in the late 18th century and was traditionally known or associated with “Peter Mong’s Cabin”. There is also a stone portion extending east of the main portion that is 1 ½-story five bay wing that was built in 2 stages (the cottage).
The portion of work for this permit that is reviewable by the HDC includes the return/addition of a dormer to the cottage section on both of its roof faces. The proposed construction of the dormers will be the same roofing materials as proposed for the overall new roof and the siding will be German wood lap. The structure previously had at least one dormer in the documentation photos from the 1970’s in the same location as the one proposed. The owners have not decided on final window placement in the dormers but they have indicated a wood window similar to the construction of those existing in the remainder of the house may be used and possibly located on the end of the dormer The project also proposes the rebuild of the front stoop. The owners uncovered the foundation of the original stoop in their stabilization project. The stone portion has already been rebuilt for the base of the stoop during the stabilization project. The remainder of construction will be mahogany of the same construction as the previous porch rebuild (2024-00996). The stoops roof pitch will be reconstructed using the outline still visible on the stone
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
façade and will be similar in ornamentation for posts, rails and pickets to that of the Newcomer House porch upon completion. Existing wood windows of the house are being repaired rather than replaced as project timing and resources allow. No replacement of existing windows is proposed. The roof is to be a standing seam aluminum metal roof. The chimneys are also to be rebuilt as needed during roofing work.
Staff Analysis:
The work proposed by this phase of the project (roofing, stoop and dormers), favors the themes of the SOI Standards of Rehabilitation which include repair when feasible and replacement with in-kind materials when necessary, using evidence of the past such as photos, in the case of the dormer, or the outline of the porch in the case of the stoop. The application seeks to improve the usable space of the structure by providing the needed headroom in the cottage area. The proposed work follows the County’s Design Guidelines for Roofs to ensure cohesive, sound, similar roofing material, repair of damaged chimneys and trim materials rather than replacement and replacing a prior dormer to improve the livable space. Materials consistent with those appropriate the construction of the house will also be used for any necessary replacements.
Staff Recommendation:
Recommend approval of residential addition-alteration permit 2025-00632, which includes the rebuild of the front stoop, replacement of the existing metal roofing with an aluminum standing seam roof, the reconstruction of previous dormers on the cottage and other related work as stated in the permit description for the reasons stated in the Staff Analysis.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP
Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
• Photos provided by Staff
• Permit Submission Packet
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
March 2025, Stabilization of cottage; uncovered entrance to spring/basement and roof prep for repair
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff
Date: March 25, 2025
Subj: Residential New Construction Permit/Stick Built Home, 2025-00909
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner: M & J MARTZ PROPERTIES LLC,
Applicant: W. Fouke
Location: 22420 OLD GEORGETOWN Road
Tax Account ID: 07003765
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 51/5/370/
Legal Description: LOT 105X300 0.57 AC 22420 Old Georgetown Road
Zoning: Residential, Transition
Rural Village: Cavetown (MHT-C) Historic Rural Village
Project Description: 2,094 sq. ft. finished space two story single family dwelling on crawl space, covered front porch, rear open attached deck, frame construction, pre-engineered roof trusses, concrete foundation
M&J Martz, Proposed Lot 1
Applicable Law and Review Criteria:
The HDC is enabled through Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County, MD. Specifically Section 20.3.a states: "The Commission shall act upon all applications as required by Section 20.6, Historic Preservation district, Section 5D.4, Rural Village District and Article 20A, Antietam Overlay District of this Ordinance."
The HDC shall consider only exterior features of a structure that would affect the historic, archeological, or architectural significance of the site or structure, any portion of which is visible or intended to be visible from a public way. It does not consider any interior arrangements, although interior changes may still be subject to building permit procedures.
1. The application shall be approved by the HDC if it is consistent with the following criteria:
A. The proposal does not substantially alter the exterior features of the structure.
B. The proposal is compatible in character and nature with the historical, cultural, architectural, or archeological features of the site, structure, or district and would not be detrimental to achievement of the purposes of Article 20 of the County Zoning Ordinance.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
C. The proposal would enhance or aid in the protection, preservation and public or private utilization of the site or structure, in a manner compatible with its historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural value.
D. The proposal is necessary so that unsafe conditions or health hazards are remedied.
E. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and subsequent revisions are to be used as guidance only and are not to be considered mandatory.
2. In reviewing the plans for any such construction or change, the HDC shall give consideration to and not disapprove an application except with respect to the factors specified below.
A. The historic or architectural value and significance of the site or structure and its relationship to the historic or architectural value and significance of the surrounding area.
B. The relationship of the exterior architectural features of the structure to the remainder of the structure and to the surrounding area.
C. The general compatibility of exterior design, scale, proportion, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used.
D. Any other factors, including aesthetic factors, that the Commission deems to be pertinent.
3. The HDC shall be strict in its judgment of plans for those structures, sites, or districts deemed to be valuable according to studies performed for districts of historic or architectural value. The HDC shall be lenient in its judgment of plans involving new construction, unless such plans would seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures.
For Rural Villages, additional review criteria for applications are listed in Section 5D.5 Architectural Review of the Zoning Ordinance and include:
1. The exterior appearance of existing structures in the Rural Village, including materials, style, arrangement of doors and windows, mass, height and number of stories, roof style and pitch, proportion.
2. Building Size and Orientation
3. Landscaping
4. Signage
5. Lighting
6. Setbacks
7. Accessory structures
Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Guidelines for New Construction and Accessory Buildings
1. New construction should be sited to avoid demolition of contributing structures.
2. The design of new construction or new accessory buildings should be compatible with the form, height, scale, proportions, materials and details of the adjacent contributing structures or landscapes.
3. Consideration of the ratio of built versus open space of the site or the adjacent landscape should be given.
4. Existing setbacks, landscaping or site grading of adjacent historic resources should be preserved when siting new construction if those characteristics contribute to the historic site or its landscape. This includes circulation routes, fences, walls, and yards, etc.
5. Locate new construction and new accessory buildings so that the existing significant visual and special characteristics of the property are maintained.
6. Locate new construction and new accessory buildings so that significant viewsheds are maintained or enhanced.
7. See also Key Themes. (p. 57)
Staff Report:
This project is in the Cavetown Rural Village which is located primarily at the intersection of Mapleville Road and Cavetown Church Road directly west of the Town of Smithsburg. The rural village survey district contains 59 contributing resources and 10 non-contributing for a total of 69 items surveyed. Most of the contributing resources are buildings within the district’s period of significance ranging from 1820 to 1950. The primary criteria for significance for the National Register according to the MIHP nomination would be “Criteria C” though this district has not been placed on the National Register at this time. Most of that architecture is vernacular and typically 2 stories in height. This project is located to the west of the intersection of Old Georgetown Road and Mapleville Road The site was previously improved with a mobile home which was removed and listed in the survey documentation as outside the period of significance. The existing block garage is to be retained. The property was recently subdivided (S-24-033, MSA#11853) to divide 22429 Goose Street (a contributing structure) and this property onto their own respective lots as historically used.
The plot plan for this project proposes construction set back approximately 50 feet from Old Georgetown Road to place the building in line with the southern façade of the existing garage. Most structures that do contribute to Cavetown’s survey are located between 15 and 30 feet from the edge of the roadway. However, this structures proposed set back meets current zoning requirements and is closer to the previous mobile home’s set back. The orientation of the building is consistent with the surrounding structures, having its front entrance facing Old Georgetown Road. The structures size of approximately 30 feet wide and 40 feet deep is consistent with other structures within the Rural Village. The proposed 2-story form is also prevalent in Cavetown. The proposed structures materials include vinyl siding and asphalt shingles, both of which can be found in this rural village. The roof pitch, as well as the door and window arrangement are not inconsistent with the adjacent contributing structures.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Staff Analysis:
This project is consistent with the applicable SOI Standards for Rehabilitation in that the new work is compatible and does not destroy any historic materials or spatial relationships. The environment would also be unimpaired by its removal in the future. The project is consistent with the County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures for New Construction and Section 5D.5 Architectural Review of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance in that it does not impact existing contributing historic structures, the design is compatible in form, scale, proportion, and materials. The setbacks are consistent with the previous structure on the property and current zoning regulations as well as distinguishing this structure from the contributing structures in the district.
Staff Recommendation:
Recommend Approval of the Residential New Construction Permit/Stick Built Home, 2025-00909, located in Cavetown Historic Rural Village based on the information provided in the Staff Report and the Staff Analysis.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP
Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
• Photos provided by Staff
• Permit Submission Packet
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Looking N/W on the site
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
To: Washington County Historic District Commission
From: Meghan Jenkins, GISP, GIS Coordinator - Historic District Commission Staff
Date: March 25, 2025
Subj: Residential Demolition Permit/, 2025-01080
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner: WIELAND BERYL,
Applicant: Adam's Demolition
Location: 1230 MOUNT AETNA Road
Tax Account ID: 10022878
Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 0050/0014/1320/
Legal Description: 12.85 ACRES1230 MT AETNA ROAD
Zoning: Residential, Suburban
MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): WA-I-437, Large Frame House
Project Description: Demolition of 2,500 sq. ft. abandoned dwelling, there is another existing dwelling and garages/sheds that will remain
Jone Elizabeth Thurmond
Applicable Law and Review Criteria:
The Historic District Commission shall review demolition permits using the Review Procedures adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as amended on July 17, 1990. “The policy does not provide for approval or disapproval of the demolition permit. These permits are issued solely on the basis of meeting technical requirements of applicable code.”
The review criteria for demolition permit are the same as the evaluation criteria in the Washington County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures.
1) The application shall be approved by the HDC if it is consistent with the following criteria:
a) The proposal does not substantially alter the exterior features of the structure.
b) The proposal is compatible in character and nature with the historical, cultural, architectural, or archeological features of the site, structure, or district and would not be detrimental to achievement of the purposes of Article 20 of the County Zoning Ordinance.
c) The proposal would enhance or aid in the protection, preservation and public or private utilization of the site or structure, in a manner compatible with its historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural value.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
d) The proposal is necessary so that unsafe conditions or health hazards are remedied.
e) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and subsequent revisions are to be used as guidance only and are not to be considered mandatory.
2) In reviewing the plans for any such construction or change, the HDC shall give consideration to and not disapprove an application except with respect to the factors specified below.
a) The historic or architectural value and significance of the site or structure and its relationship to the historic or architectural value and significance of the surrounding area.
b) The relationship of the exterior architectural features of the structure to the remainder of the structure and to the surrounding area.
c) The general compatibility of exterior design, scale, proportion, arrangement, texture, and materials proposed to be used.
d) Any other factors, including aesthetic factors, that the Commission deems to be pertinent. The HDC shall be strict in its judgment of plans for those structures, sites, or districts deemed to be valuable according to studies performed for districts of historic or architectural value. The HDC shall be lenient in its judgment of plans involving new construction, unless such plans would seriously impair the historic or architectural value of surrounding structures.
County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures
Demolition Permit Application Requirements
1. Written description and history of the building or structure to be demolished.
2. Detail drawings, such as construction or trim details.
3. Floor plan for each floor level, drawn to approximate scale or fully dimensioned.
4. Applicant’s plan for the recycling of waste generated
5. A report or narrative analyzing the following alternatives (listed in descending order of preference) as to the feasibility. The report shall consist of thorough, deliberative analyses of each of the alternatives, explaining why each alternative is or is not feasible and additional photographs should be provided in support of the analysis. In cases where a permit may involve multiple structures, each structure must have its alternatives documented.
(a) Redesigning the project to avoid any impact to the structure or its setting;
(b) Incorporating the structures into the overall design of the project;
(c) Converting the structure into another use (adaptive reuse);
(d) Relocating the structure on the property;
(e) Relocating the structure to another property;
(f) Salvaging from the structure historically significant architectural features and building materials;
(g) Documenting the structure as a whole and its individual architectural features in photographs, drawings, and/or text
6. A site plan illustrating any proposed development or introduction of plantings following demolition (if applicable)
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Staff Report:
This structure is on the Washington County Historic Sites Inventory/MIHP as a large frame house, WAI437, with survey documentation completed in 1978. The documentation for the property includes only the T-shaped main house. The property also consists of several outbuildings and a secondary dwelling. These additional structures are not proposed for demolition with this permit. This structure is located at the end of a long gravel driveway and is secluded behind tree rows which flank the property on all but the eastern most side which slopes down toward Colonial Park East subdivision. The structure faces west and includes a deep overhanging two-story porch supported by massive columns. The inventory information has very little regarding the history of the property and the construction time period is not fully known. There is a conflict in the owner’s statement at the time of last documentation that the property was “Pre-Civil War”, but the appearance is of an early 20th century structure. Several of the outbuildings and the additional dwelling appear to be early 20th century as well. The roof is slate and in decent condition, however, there does appear to be significant deferred maintenance and changes to the exterior since documentation. These include the enclosure of the front door, the enclosure of the south facing two story porch and various exterior moldings and trims which are failing including portions of the front porch columns. Staff sent a standard letter to the demolition contractor who has indicated they will pursue salvage where possible, however, at the time of email on 3/25/2025 no interested parties have come forward requesting materials. No contact with the owner has been made for this permit. There is a Preliminary Consultation (PC-24-005) which occurred for the property on July 9, 2023, for proposed new construction of 52 semi-detached dwelling units on the 12.85 acres. The minutes for that meeting which staff attended, are attached for reference. Staff resent the initial contact letter requesting details for the structure as certified mail on March 26, 2025.
Staff Analysis:
This permit application has insufficient information for review by the Historic District Commission. The owner/contractor has not supplied any information to determine the historic value of the property ahead of demolition. Demolition alternatives have not been examined by the owner and supplied to staff. The requests made by staff at the time of Preliminary Consultation have not been followed or addressed via this demolition permit.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Staff Recommendation:
Recommend review of demolition permit 2025-01080 be tabled until the property owner can supply adequate information related to the demolition permit review criteria outlined in the Design Guidelines for Historic Structures with strong encouragement to delay demolition until an approved plan exists for the property.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meghan Jenkins, GISP Historic District Commission Staff
Attachments:
• Photos provided by Staff
• Permit Submission Packet
• Minutes of PC-24-005
• Plan for PC-24-005
• Demolition Contractor Response
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
N/S of connecting lean to for cinderblock garage (garage stays)
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
N/S of structure, detail of chimney and siding conditions
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
N/S of Structure
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
w/s of structure/front entrance
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
s/s of the structure, enclosure of porch with plastic
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
e/s chimney and its base base
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
w/s Dormer condition and note storm windows on mjoarity covering wood (original?) windows
