Historic District Commission 9-4-24 by Washington County MD, Government

Gregory Smith, Chair Vernell Doyle

Lloyd Yavener, Vice Chair

Ann Aldrich

Brianna Candelaria

Michael Lushbaugh

Justin Bedard

Wayne K. Keefer, BOCC Rep

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND

AGENDA

September 4, 2024

Regular Meeting at 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 workshop August 7, 2024 *

2. Minutes of the regular meeting August 7, 2024

NEW BUSINESS

1. Residential Demolition Permit – 2024-03813 – 13325 Emerald Pointe (Discussion/Support) Demolition of original 2-story farmhouse, foundation will not remain Shank Farm, WA-I-242 *

2. Residential New Construction Permit – 2024-03014 – 20013 Toms Road (Discussion/Support) Demolition of 1,860 sq. ft. single family dwelling and replace with a 3,200 sq. ft. finished space one story single family dwelling on concrete slab in new location, gas fire place in dining room, attached two car garage, covered front porch, covered rear porch, frame construction, pre-engineered roof trusses NOTE: Only the Demolition portion is for review for support Sided Log House, WA-II-198 *

3. Residential Addition-Alteration Permit – 2024-03642 – 16523 Spielman Road (Discussion/Support) Interior renovations to include add 84 sq. ft. full bathroom on second floor, drywall replacement throughout, new flooring, fixtures, cabinets, and counters, upgrades to electric and plumbing, shingle roof replacement, vinyl siding replacement, upgrades to well and septic. Downsville Rural Village – WA-II-273 *

OLD BUSINESS

1. Historic Chapter Revision – Comprehensive Plan - (Discussion/Comment) Staff has revised the comprehensive plan chapter to address agency and stakeholder comments, review for comment on content changes. *

2. Stone Arch Bridges – (Discussion/Comment) – Discuss workshop and provide any comments regarding stone arch bridges including Price’s Bridge to Director of Public Works and Director of Engineering *

OTHER BUSINESS

1. Correspondence

a. Milestone Towers – Reed/Trileaf Project #745580 – 20026 Lehman Mill Road (Discussion/Comment/Consensus) – construction of a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Cool Brook Farm, WA-I-207 *

b. Trileaf, Milestone Towers, 21536 Leitersburg Smithsburg Road, Leitersburg –Staff Received update 8-16-24 – Requested Revisions concurring with MHT comment

2. Staff Report

a. Staff Reviews *

b. 250th updates

c. Tax Credit Application

ADJOURNMENT

UPCOMING MEETING

1. Wednesday, October 2, 2024, 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.

MINUTES OF THE

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY

August 7, 2024

WORKSHOP

The Washington County Historic District Commission held a workshop meeting on Wednesday, August 7, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. in the Washington County Administration Complex, 100 W Washington Street, Room 2001, Hagerstown, MD.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Commission members present were: Greg Smith, Chairman, Vernell Doyle, Ann Aldrich, Lloyd Yavener, Michael Lushbaugh and Brianna Candelaria. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator and HDC Staff member; Washington County Division of Public Works: Andrew Eshelman, Director; and Washington County Division of Engineering: Scott Hobbs, Director.

WORKSHOP – Stone Arch Bridges in Washington County

Mr. Hobbs began the presentation stating there are 13 major stone arch bridges (defined by the State as a bridge with more than a 20 foot span), 1 hybrid bridge, and 12 minor stone arch bridges (a bridge with a 6 to 20 foot span), for a total of 26 stone arch bridges owned and maintained by Washington County. NBIS (National Bridge Inspection Standards) requires major structures to be inspected every 2 years. The County relies on consultants for these inspections, who record and report any deficiencies; Washington County inspects its minor bridges every 4 years. The County receives a little more than $1 million each year from the Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) to cover the cost of the inspection program, construction and design for major bridges Local funding provides approximately $150,000 for the 4-year cycle inspection program Mr. Hobbs briefly reviewed data which is used and recorded on the bridge inspection reports and how the structure is inventoried and appraised.

Mr. Hobbs explained the repair categories, repair recommendations, and costs involved. A bridge is considered structurally deficient if the deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert is rated a “4” or less. Some of the County’s stone arch bridges are functionally obsolete which means the bridge is not designed to current standards; not necessarily an indication of the structural condition of the bridge. He discussed bridge sufficiency rates (BSR) and funding for maintenance, repairs, rehabilitation, etc.

Mr. Hobbs noted that since 2000, 11 stone arch bridges, which all carry vehicles and were eligible for Federal aid funding, have been rehabilitated in the County. He explained how the bridges are ranked for rehabilitation and restoration priorities. He also described techniques the County has used to strengthen the bridges without altering the visual appearance. Photos were shared showing damage of several bridges, various repairs that have been undertaken, and how they were accomplished.

Mr. Eshelman gave a brief history of Price’s Mill Bridge, a five arch bridge built in 1832 at a cost of $5,500. The Bridge was damaged by Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and was closed in 1979 when a bypass bridge was completed When the Bridge was closed, no plans were made for its removal or rehabilitation. He noted that stone arch bridges are more susceptible to debris blockages, weathering and storm damage than bridges with piers that clear span the waterway. Debris has accumulated around Price’s Mill Bridge, blocking the stream flow and impacting waterway recreation and surrounding property owners.

Mr. Eshelman explained that in 2022, the County retained a consultant to complete an updated Determination of Eligibility Review for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The

consultant indicated that the bridge retains integrity of location but not materials and workmanship, which have deteriorated and been modified over the years. Therefore, the consultant recommended that the bridge does not meet the criteria to remain eligible for listing on NRHP. The Maryland Historic Trust (MHT) agreed that the structure’s character defining elements are in fair to poor condition, however, the bridge retains sufficient integrity to remain eligible for the NRHP.

Mr. Eshelman described several challenges for restoration or rehabilitation of Price’s Bridge including limited access on either side of the bridge for debris removal, overhead power and utility lines on the upstream side of the bridge, and unsafe conditions on the bridge for heavy equipment and access to the debris. He then discussed costs associated with removal of the debris including dump fees and permitting fees for a total cost of approximately $500,000. Rehabilitation of the bridge could be $5 million or more with a majority of the costs being locally funded because the bridge is no longer in service.

Discussions focused on challenges, options, and solutions regarding the disposition of the bridge. One option discussed was partial demolition of the bridge saving one or two arches along the western bank This would open the main channel for flow and allow easier access for equipment to make repairs and maintain the bridge

One citizen expressed concern regarding safety of the public using the Conococheague Creek. He also questioned the County’s responsibility if the bridge falls into the Creek, the costs associated with the clean-up, etc. Another citizen expressed her concern that private citizens are now taking it upon themselves to clear the debris from around the bridge and the liability to the County.

Mr. Hobbs noted that a lot of the bridges were built in the late 1800s or early 1900s with a life span of 75 to 100 years. There are several bridges that will need to be repaired or replaced in the next 5 to 10 years. Money has been allocated in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for Price’s Mill bridge and the County is actively working with MHT to find a solution that will be acceptable to everyone involved.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Smith adjourned the workshop at 7:20 p.m.

Gregory Smith, Chairman

MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY

August 7, 2024

The Washington County Historic District Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, August 7, 2024 at 7:00 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 7:25 p.m.

Commission members present were: Greg Smith, Chairman, Vernell Doyle, Ann Aldrich, Lloyd Yavener, Michael Lushbaugh and Brianna Candelaria Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator and HDC Staff member and Debra Eckard, Office Manager Also present were Tom Zoppi and Dr. Irene Zoppi and Laura Lane-Unsworth and Jeff Unsworth.

MINUTES

Motion and Vote: Mr. Yavener made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 3, 2024 meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lushbaugh and unanimously approved.

NEW BUSINESS

Permit 2024-02591 – 24807 Linden Avenue, Cascade

Ms. Jenkins presented a permit application for a 560 sq. ft. one-story single-family dwelling on a crawl space located at 24807 Linden Avenue in the Pen Mar Rural Village. She noted this site does not contain existing historic resources and based on findings from historic aerial imagery and survey documentation, this site is unlikely to yield any archaeological resources related to the history of the rural village. The building’s orientation and placement on the Liden Avenue frontage will be consistent with adjacent properties. Details on the exact exterior trim elements are not known; however, it is proposed to have asphalt shingles and log siding both of which will not detract from the rural village. The plans show flat arches for windows with minimal trim which are noted as common in the MIHP for this village The variation in roof pitch proposed, while not found on a singular structure in the rural village, are found separately throughout the village. Many of the nearby structures are between 1,000 and 1,500 sq. ft. in size making this structure smaller in mass; however, the 40 ft. front width of the proposed structure is consistent with those nearby and will maintain a similar appearance from the street.

Motion and Vote: Mr. Yavener made a motion to recommend approval of the permit based upon the details provided in the Staff Analysis and that the proposed construction is consistent with the County Design Guidelines for Historic Structures, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Section 5D.5 Architectural Review as listed in the County’s Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Ms. Candelaria and unanimously approved.

GP-24-008 – 13215 Smithsburg Pike

Ms. Jenkins presented a grading plan for property located at 13215 Smithsburg Pike. She explained that concrete along the house has separated from the pond wall thus allowing water into the basement. The applicants are planning to construct a 4 foot wide limestone wall where the house walls meet the pond; however, in the interim the existing concrete wall will be removed to abate the current issue and replace

it with limestone mortar and lime creek curb. Staff is requesting approval authority of any permits that will be needed for the structural portion of the repairs for this particular project

Consensus: It was the consensus of the members to grant staff approval authority of permits associated with the construction of the concrete wall contingent upon meeting the scope of the project described on the grading plan.

OLD BUSINESS

Tax Credit Application Updates

In the agenda packets, a copy of the original application for county tax credits was included as well as MHT’s 3-part application. Staff has revised the County’s application, which is now a 3-part application similar to MHT’s. Ms. Jenkins began a brief review of the proposed application revisions. The purpose of Part I of the application will be to determine if the subject resource is located in a qualifying area and if it is eligible for tax credits. If the structure is located in the AO1 AO2, or RV zoning designation, it must be listed as a contributing structure. If the structure is in a MHT easement, the applicant must provide the easement document. If located in a municipality, the district must be specified. Part 2 of the application will provide a description of the proposed work including photographs and accompanying documentation of the project. Part 3 will include total costs, eligible expenses and photographs of the completed project

Meghan will prepare a draft of directions for the next meeting to be included with the application Members were in favor of the 3-part application.

Grant Program DRAFT

Members were asked to review a draft of the proposed grant program. Because this will be a County grant, it will be limited to the unincorporated areas but will include properties in the following areas: HP overlay zones, AO1 and AO2 zoning districts, Rural Village zoning district, MHT permanent easements, or on the National Register of Historic Places. Grants will range from a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of $50,000. The draft will be forwarded to the County Attorney’s office for review.

Discussion and Comments: Members asked if septic systems could be included as an eligible expense for the grant program. Ms. Jenkins will further investigate this issue.

Consensus: Members agreed to have staff forward the draft grant program to the County Attorney’s office.

OTHER BUSINESS

Correspondence – Smithsburg Reservoir House

Ms. Nancy Hall has contacted staff trying to get direction on how to potentially get the Smithsburg Reservoir House, currently owned by the City of Hagerstown, into the hands of a non-profit organization and have the structure rehabilitated to prevent further deterioration. Members recommended the following: establishment of a citizens group to save the structure to be used as a community facility or discuss the future of the structure with the City’s HDC

Correspondence – CLG Training Funds Available

There are additional CLG training funds available Staff is exploring the possibility of an additional training for members this year if funds are still available. Members must complete at least one training each year

in order to maintain our CLG funding; however, if there is a training that is of interest to a member, they should reach out to staff for funding of the additional training.

Staff Report

• A written report of staff reviews for the past month was provided to members in the agenda packets.

• Each member received a copy of the new Tax Credit brochure that was printed at the Hagerstown Community College. Several members took some of the brochures to distribute at various locations throughout the County.

• Member re-appointments have been completed by the BOCC and a new member has been appointed to fill Ms. Doyle’s upcoming vacancy.

• The Comprehensive Plan update is moving forward with the Historic element being revised per MHT’s comments. Staff anticipates the new draft to be available sometime in September.

• The 250th Celebration website for the County is now live. The historic subcommittee continues to work on dates to add to the timeline for social media posts.

• Ms. Doyle was presented a Certificate of Appreciation for her service on the HDC.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Yavener made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 pm. The motion was seconded by Ms Aldrich 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: August 27, 2024

Subj: Residential Demolition Permit/2024-03813

Staff Report and Analysis

Property Owner: EMERALD POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Applicant: Adam Merbaugh

Location: 13325 EMERALD POINTE Drive

Tax Account ID: 18018535

Map/Grid/Parcel/Lot: 0025/0019/0840/B

Legal Description: OUTLOT B 3.00 ACRE13325 EMERALD POINTE DR13335

EMERALD POINTE DR

Zoning: Residential, Transition

Zoning Overlay: Planned Unit Development

MD Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP): I242, Shank Farm

Project Description: Demolition of original two story farm house, foundation will not remain

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.

Staff Report:

This structure is listed on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties as the Shank Farm, WA-I-242, with survey documentation completed in 1976. The documentation indicates a farm complex with a main house and a large frame bank barn. The bank barn was previously demolished. The main house structure is currently located along Emerald Pointe Drive within the Emerald Pointe Age Restricted community off of Marsh Pike/Longmeadow Road in Hagerstown. The structure was discussed during the planning phases of the Emerald Pointe subdivision and retained by developer at the request of the Historic District Commission at the time. However, no plans for the structure to be integrated into the community were completed and no documentation was done prior to the start of construction in Emerald Pointe and alteration of the house occurred. The house had additions removed, it was secured with new windows and doors, interior fixtures and features were removed, and the structure has not been in use by the developer. The stone portion that remains, is directly adjacent to the new community center. The developer has begun to turn over existing assets such as open spaces, community centers etc. to the Community’s Homeowners Association (HOA). This building has recently been transferred to the HOA. The HOA reached out to HDC staff to determine what options were available for the structure. The HOA’s retention of the structure is not financially viable through the due based system the HOA is reliant upon. Community support was also taken into consideration via an HOA initiated resident vote with a majority of respondents not in favor of retaining the structure. The HOA plans to use the space as open space adjacent to the community center.

Staff Analysis:

The structure no longer retains the farm complex context and has very little integrity to its surrounding

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

location due to development other than it has not been moved. There are very few architectural details remaining that are original to the structure other than the stone exterior and some interior features such as fire surrounds. The structure is unlikely to qualify for the National Register or local designation due to this lack of integrity, context and architectural detail. The HOA has indicated they will follow through with salvage where possible.

Staff Recommendation:

Recommend support of demolition permit 2024-03813 for the reasons stated in staff analysis.

Respectfully Submitted,

Meghan Jenkins, GISP

Historic District Commission Staff

Attachments:

• Photos provided by Applicant

• HDC Supporting Documentation provided by Applicant

• Permit Submission Packet

BUILDING & ZONING PERMIT

IVR/Record No: 2024-03813

Project No:

Record Type: Residential Demolition Permit

Inspector Area: B2

Job Address: 13325 EMERALD POINTE Drive

Location: 13325 Emerald Point Drive

Tax Acct ID: 18018535

Zoning District: RT

Floodplain: Yes

Owner: EMERALD POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIAT

Applicant: Adam Merbaugh 19106 Black Maple Way Hagerstown MD 21742

Phone No: (301)399-8811

Contractor:

Phone No:

Applied: 8/8/2024

Approved:

Status: Review

Email Address: adamsdemolition.net@gmail.com

Description: Demolition of original two story farm house, foundation will not remain

Foundation Size:

Type of Heat:

Public Sewer:

Public Water: Gas: Electric: Yes Yes

Construction Type:

Exterior Finish: Air Conditioning: Septic: Time Existed: Well: Time Existed:

Valuation: No. of Bathrooms:

Code Enforced: No. of Half Bathrooms: No. of New Bedrooms: No. of Exist. Bedrooms:

Lot Tract Area

Front Yard Setback

Rear Yard Setback

Left Side Setback

Right Side Setback

Lot Width

* All final State Fire Marshal inspections (850), if required, must be scheduled directly through the State Fire Marshal's office at 301766-3888.

This permit has been reviewed by the Washington County Permitting Department and meets all applicable local and state codes and ordinances. Should you have any questions, please contact our department at 240-313-2460 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

HISTORIC Element

Introduction and Purpose

Washington County’s history and heritage is rich and diverse. Being the first County named in honor of the first President of the United States, George Washington, the area has deep ties to early colonization and its related conflicts. The County continues to embrace this history through preservation of resources such as structures, buildings, sites, districts and objects of importance that are used to interpret the culture and way of life experienced by past citizens.

This element will seek to build on existing efforts to identify, preserve and protect significant pieces of Washington County’s history for the benefit of future generations. Whether attempting to rehabilitate a historic resource to maintain its functionality or restore a property to a specific time period, it is important to remember that the value of historic resources is often found first and foremost at an individual level. Resources must be identified, maintained and valued at an individual level or the goals and policies of historic resource protection will not succeed.

The Evolution of Washington County

Early Settlement

Prior to the 1700s, Washington County was hunting groundsome to Native Americansindigenous people of the Piscataway ConoyDelaware and Catawba tribes Their stewardship utilization of the land prior to colonization left the County largely open and full of resources. Other tribes appear in documents on the State of Maryland Mayis collection by mention in correspondence or mapping. Mostly these mentions document individuals or parties passing through the area. As settlers moved into the County, the native population was pushed to the West into unsettled territory.Artifacts, such as stone tools from various periods, have been found. There is also evidence of fishing weirs in County waterways. The County was not home to any large indigenous cities from the time of first contact with European settlers. Some geographic names in the County such as Potomac, Conococheague, and Quirack Most historic resources related to the native population of the County are archaeological in nature.are derived from indigenous names.

Conflict occurred between various domestic and foreign powers vying for control of the territory previously occupied by these native tribes. The French and Indian War erupted in 1754 and pitted the existing British colonies against the forces of New France to the north. These clashes led to the

Fort Frederick Aerial Image - Maryland Department of Natural Resources

establishment of frontier forts to protect existing colonists. One such fort still exists in Washington County today: Fort Frederick, originally erected in 1756 and later restored in the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps, stands as a reminder of the early colonization of Washington County.

Early Settlement Continued...

Colonization and immigration continued through the late 18th Century, including people of Germanic, Irish, and Scotch Irish ethnicities. These settlers arrived via routes from the Eastern Shore, Winchester, Virginia and from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. leading to theThey established establishment of formal settlements and the beginnings of our current municipalities. The County seat of Hagerstown (first known as Elizabeth Town) was officially founded in 1762 by Jonathan Hager. Several other small towns were being settled at the same time including Sharpsburg, Funkstown, and Keedysville. Settlements continued to be founded through the early 1800s. Washington County was officially designated as a Maryland County in 1776. The land was taken out of the existing Frederick County and extended to the far western region of the State to what is now known as Garrett County.

Agricultural Development and Other Early Economies

As colonization continued through the early to mid-1700s, land patents, or land grants by colonial proprietors or governors, divided the land of the County. The grantees were people who transported themselves or others to Maryland or were given the rights of others who could not afford the further cost of survey and recordation. Land was also granted as reward for military service. were used to explore and develop the western frontiers. While the large tracts of fertile land were ideal for livestock and grains, the expansive wilderness and limited transportation to more settled areas of the State drove the need for local service industries. Grist mills were the predominant form of industry in the early 18th Century. Operated by local farmers and built along local waterways, these industries became an anchor for rural settlements nearby. Many of the grain and grist mills of this time still exist in varying degrees of repair.

By the late 1800’s, a typical farmstead consisted of vernacular stone or log farmhouses surrounded by service buildings such as spring houses, smokehouses, and animal pens. As agriculture began to diversify from crop production to animal husbandry activities, barns and other support buildings such as milk houses began to become part of the typical farmstead. Examples of these historic resources still exist in Washington County today.

As agriculture and trade industries began to evolve and grow, and connection to larger markets continued to improve, other merchant-based industries began to form. However, in Washington County, a different type of industry was beginning to formthe iron industry. Rich deposits of pig iron ore in the southern portion of the County provided a resource and opportunity for this new industry. Iron forges and furnaces began emerging and produced cannons and ammunition for the Revolutionary War through the late 1700s. While true capitalism had not fully materialized in the newly discovered North America, these industries provided the basis for future settlement and industrialization.

Farm land near Smithsburg, MD

The Civil War

As the country continued to grow through the early and mid-1800s, there became a deep divide over the fundamental ideals and economic principles guiding the direction of the Ccountry. These differences escalated to the outbreak of a national Civil War between Northern and Southern States. The war began in the South in 1861 with Confederate armies attacking union defenses and pushed north into the Union territory during General Robert E. Lee’s Maryland Campaign. Several battles raged in the mid-Atlantic region of southern Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Northern Virginia between September 1862 and July 1863. It led to the bloodiest days of the war with battles at Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg.

Washington County bore much of the devastation of this campaign during the Battle of Antietam, the single bloodiest day of fighting in the history of the country. Numerous other battles and skirmishes occurred within Washington County including, but not limited to, the Battle of Williamsport, Battle of Funkstown, Battle of Hancock, and the Battle of South Mountain. There are numerous historic resources in the County that preserve this solemn time.

Industrialization and Manufacturing

After the Civil War, industry began to resume its dominance in the area. Hagerstown and Williamsport quickly became hubs for industry in the early 20th century because of their access to transportation and trade routes. Early industries included silk and garment factories. Hagerstown housed numerous other industries including Moller Organ Works, Foltz Manufacturing and Supply Company, Antietam Paper Company, and the Pangborn Corporation just to name a few. Williamsport housed the LeFevre Broom Company, Cushwa Brick Company, and a tannery. Many of these early industrial buildings still exist but are largely vacant. The City of Hagerstown has targeted some of these buildings in the Downtown core for redevelopment and revitalization efforts.

Another important industry was developing in the early 20th century, aviation design and manufacturing. Kreider-Reisner began as a sub-contractor to the Maryland Press Steel Company during its contract period for military equipment during World War I. After the closure of the Maryland Press Steel Company, Kreider-Reisner continued to manufacture and mass produce airplanes.

Antietam National Battlefield, Luminary Ceremony

Industrialization and Manufacturing Continued...

Eventually Kreider-Reisner was absorbed by Fairchild in the late 1920s. Fairchild continued to flourish through the early to mid20th century eventually becoming the largest employer for the County. Fairchild became such an economic power that they began to build residential neighborhoods throughout Hagerstown to increase the local workforce.

Transportation Networks

Few things have impacted the settlement of Washington County like that of transportation networks. The movement of goods and people through various forms of transportation have influenced the location and economics of our local communities.

One of the first major routes impacting Washington County was the National Road. It was the first federally funded interstate highway authorized by Congress in 1806. The road was to start in Cumberland, Maryland and stretch to the Ohio River. Inspired by the Federal government investment in this new road, the Maryland General Assembly created a turnpike to connect Baltimore and Cumberland. It was designated as the Baltimore National Pike and was financed by local banks thus gaining the nickname of “The Bank Road”.1 Installation of the road gave rise to thriving Main Streets and ultimately led to clusters of richly historic building resources and many of the County’s National Register Districts. Other historical products of this new road included mile markers and stone arch bridges. The Wilson Bridge, which spans the Conococheague Creek near the rural village of Wilson, was the first stone arch bridge built in Washington County. It was built as part of the original Bank Road.

As the country continued to grow and the Industrial Revolution continued to develop new technologies and expand economies, the need for movement of commodities into new markets became increasingly important. Railroads became the answer to these needs since they could traverse longer distances and carry more cargo than horse drawn wagons. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, one of the oldest railroads in the United States, began construction in Baltimore in 1828 and reached the southern tip of Washington County by 1834. While the B&O Railroad was the first company to establish lines in Washington County, many other companies followed suit. The City of Hagerstown became a prime location for several railroad companies, and thereby earned the nickname of the “hHub cCity”. Some historic resources related to this mode of transportation, such as roundhouses, have been lost but some bridges remain. The railways are vital today as some are still active while others have been transformed into public parks.

Historic American Engineering Record, C. (1968) National Road, Wilson Bridge, Spanning Conococheague Creek at Route 40 Old, Hagerstown, Washington County, MD. Maryland Washington County Hagerstown, 1968.

Kreider-Reisner C-4C Challenger

1 History of the Maryland National Road; www.marylandnationalroad.org

Transportation Networks

Continued...

These railways served to provide for the movement of people around the County, however the commerce railways provided helped to shape the County’s history to an even greater degree.

Around the same time period that railroad companies had begun to develop, another mode of transportation gained popularity. Construction of The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal started in 1828. The Canal was not completed until 1850, years after railways had reached similar markets. Initially intended to span from Georgetown, Maryland to the Ohio River, construction of the Canal became too costly and could not compete with the railroad companies in the movement of goods and services. While not reaching its destination, the canal still served as yet another link to commerce centers supporting growth specifically in the towns of Hancock and Williamsport along its route. The 184-milelong canal ceased operation in 1924 but was revitalized in 1971 when it was designated as a National Historic Park. This designation has helped to preserve an abundance of historic resources along its corridor and provide context for historic resources outside of the park.

One final notable contribution of transportation to County historic resources came with the automobile. This caused a resurgence in the popularity of the National Road as well as eventually leading to the construction of the three (3) interstates that cross the County. Interstates 68, 70 and 81 all impacted the history of the County starting in the mid 1960’s. As main arteries for commerce and travel, their effect was like railways. They changed the landscape of the County as well by bisecting rural tracts and heralding the beginning of larger residential subdivisions. The growth in automotive travel and expanded road capacity made it possible to live distant to one’s place of employment. The result was a greater freedom of movement for individuals, but also a growing threat to the preservation of Washington County’s historic resources as result of urban sprawl.

In summary, each of the themes in history discussed led to the creation of Washington County and its historic resources as we know them today. The County is an excellent example of resources which display an evolving culture across many periods of time. Since many of the historic resources are intact it is important to plan for their preservation into the future.

Conococheague Aqueduct, National Park Service

What Makes A Resource Historic?

Many times, the definition of long (years, decades, centuries, etc). Therefore, the definition of historic

are factors such as significance and integritytobeconsidered.These

Defining Preservation

The word preservation is often associated with the act of “saving” something; however, that only describes the result. It does not explain what action has been taken to ensure the conservation of a historic resourcen object. In the case of historic structures or objects, preservation is often thought of in terms of saving the structure or object from some form of demolition or alteration. However, citizens should be educated that preservation is more than just saving an old objectold structure; it is about saving the contextual history of the object structure. Typically, this means making improvements to the structure or object to restore the historical context. Examples of these methods include:

• ADAPTIVE REUSE. This is the process of reusing a site or building for something other than for what it was designed. While it may not preserve the historic context and all of the unique characteristics, it is still a goodwise use of historic resources to encourage good environmental stewardship. AnForstewardship. For example, of this might be an historic farmhouse turnedconverted into offices or a restaurant, where it has lost some of its historic characteristics to make way for the new use.

• REHABILITATION. This is probably what people think of when they consider resource protection. It is the repair, alteration, and addition in preparation for a new use while retaining features which convey historical, cultural or architectural significance. There are many examples of this throughout the County as this is typically the most common practice when updating a historic property.

• RESTORATION. This method aims to return a building to a specific period, acknowledging the need to remove changesalterations since that time and recreate previous aspects that have been removed. An example of this might be the National Trust for Historic PreservationHistoric Trust properties like Montpelier, located in Virginia.

Valentina, MIHP:WA-I-231, National Register of Historic Places, listed 1974

• PRESERVATION. This is the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials or preserving of the structure in its current form with little or no replacement or new addition. Another form of this is stabilization where a property is given the minimum treatment to prevent further deterioration. Adding a roof to a barn to either keep it in working order or to prevent further collapse is an example of this type of treatment.

Historic Resource Inventories

To begin the preservation of resources, identification and location of potential resources is foremost. There are four four main inventories that cover resources found in Washington County:

* National Register of Historic Places; and

* Maryland Register of Historic Properties;

* National Historic Landmarks;

* Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties

* Washington County Historic Sites Inventory

Each of these inventories represents a different evaluation level of historical significance.

It is the goal of both the County and State to document resources to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, the definition of a historic resource used by both is derived from the National Register guidelines. A Historic Resource is “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object, included in, or eligible for, inclusion on the National Register, including artifacts, records and material remains related to such a property or resource.” The County has its own definition within the Zoning Ordinance stating a historic resource is “a district, landmark, site, building, structure, space or object, including its appurtenances and environmental setting, which can be linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and/or association, and which is significant in national, state or local history, architecture, archaeology or culture.” Regardless of the entity maintaining the historic resource inventory, they are generally evaluated based on criteria used for the National Register.1

A broader classification under which a historic resource can fall or participate in is a Cultural Resource. The National Park Service (NPS) highlights these main categories of cultural resources as follows:

• ARCHAEOLOGICAL: Archaeological resources are the remains of past human activity and records documenting the scientific analysis of these remains to explain human behavior. Archeological features are typically buried but may extend above ground; they are commonly associated with prehistoric peoples but may be products of more contemporary society.

• CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: Cultural

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Character scale: 100%, Not Expanded by / Condensed by

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 2.65", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: Exactly 14.5 pt, Tab stops: 2.65", Left

Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, Indent: Left: 2.65"

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 2.65", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: Exactly 14.5 pt, Tab stops: 2.65", Left

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

landscapes Archaeology at the Saylor House, Hagerstown

are settings we have created in the natural world. They reveal fundamental ties between people and the land–ties based on our need to grow food, give form to our settlements, meet requirements for recreation, and find suitable places to bury our dead. Examples: Historic rural village communities or rural landscapes.

• STRUCTURES: Structures are material assemblies that extend the limits of human capability. Examples: Stone arch bridges, historic houses, National Road Monuments.

1 United Stated Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Federal Historic Preservation Laws, Government Printing Office, 2002, P.78

• MUSEUM OBJECTS: Museum objects are manifestations and records of behavior and ideas that span the breadth of human experience and depth of natural history. They are evidence of technical development and scientific observation, of personal expression and curiosity about the past, of common enterprise and daily habits.

• ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES: Ethnographic resources are basic expressions of human culture and the basis for continuity of cultural systems. A cultural system encompasses both the tangible and the intangible. It includes traditional arts and native languages, religious beliefs and subsistence activities.

Antietam National Battlefield, MIHP WA-II-477, WA-II-503, WA-III-117, WA-III-118, National Register of Historic Places Listed 1966, Photo Credit: Flickr, Doug Kerr, 2011

National Register of Historic Places

As mentioned, the goal of the County and State is to eventually document all properties to determine their eligibility for the National Register. Inclusion on the National Register is voluntary and provides opportunities for grant funding to restore and or rehabilitate a resource. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service. Properties listed or determined eligible for the National Register are typically treated the same way by Federal and State regulatory reviews and financial incentive programs. It also provides an opportunity for additional review of Section 106 review (a reference to the section of the National Preservation Act of 1966) occurs when any federal or state funding or permitting is involved in a project that affects a National Register resource or a resource eligible for the National Register. It opens a consultation with Federal, State and local government as well as the public about views and concerns for the project. The review usually results in agreements and plans to mitigate the impacts on delineated resources.impacts on a resource if Federal or State money is being utilized to fund the project. Resources can have local, State or national significance. Typically, there is a period of significance which can be anywhere from a thousand years to a few days depending on the events the resource may be associated with.

Significance is the importance of a property to the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture of a community. To be included on the National Register a property must display some form of significance which is achieved by association with one or many criteria:

Washington Monument, Boonsboro, MD, MIHP WAII-501, National Register of Historic Places, Listed in 1972

CRITERIA A That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

CRITERIA B That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or

CRITERIA C That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

CRITERIA D That have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or pre-history.

Another important factor in eligibility for the National Register is integrity. Integrity relates to the ability of the resource to convey its historical associations or attributes. Integrity is measured by how intact the following characteristics remain for the resource.

LOCATION

SETTING

Location is the place where historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

Setting is the physical environment of an historic property. It refers to the historic character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its historical relationship to surrounding features and open space.

DESIGN

MATERIALS

WORKMANSHIP

FEELING

ASSOCIATION

Design is the combination of elements that create the historic form, plan, space, structure and style of a property. This includes such elements as: organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials.

Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form an historic property.

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and an historic property.

It is important to note that these criteria and associated integrity are also very important when considering the value of resources to citizens and the treatments undertaken to preserve a resource. Nationwide, the National register Register has more than 90,000 properties housing 1.4 million individual resources. Washington County has approximately 120 historic resources and districts that are included on the National Historic RegistryRegister. Boonsboro, Funkstown, Hagerstown, Keedysville, Sharpsburg and Williamsport are all municipalities within the County that have at least one, if not more, National Register districts containing multiple individual resources.

Table 5-1: National Register of Historic Places in Washington County

Maryland Register of Historic Properties

A property listed on the National Register of Historic Places or determined eligible by the Director of the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), is included in the Maryland Register of Historic Properties (MRHP). The MRHP is a list of properties recognized by the State of Maryland for their significance in American history or culture. These properties are afforded certain regulatory protections and are eligible for MHT grants or loans

National Historic PropertiesLandmarks

As a smaller subset, the National Historic Landmarks illustrate the heritage of the United States and their localities. The list is maintained by the National Park Service. These are considered outstanding representations of American history and culture. There are no regulatory differences in treatment for National Historic Landmarks compared to National Register properties, however, some financial incentives may weight National Historic Landmark higher. Washington County is fortunate to have three of these landmarks: Fort Frederick State Park and John Brown’s Headquarters (Kennedy Farm), listed in 1973 and Tolson’s Chapel and School, listed in 2021.

Wilson, Rufus Complex MIHP WA-V-074, National Register of Historic Places, Listed in 1996

Tolson’s Chapel, Sharpsburg, MD, MIHP WA-II-702, National Register of Historic Places 2008, National Historic Landmark 2021

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties

The primary repository for resource identification and documentation in the State is the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP). The InventoryThe MIHP was created by the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) shortly after its creation in 1961 and is still maintained by MHT. The inventory MIHP includes the nationally listed resources mentioned previously as well as those added by State and local efforts. Inclusion on the MIHP is simply for informational and planning purposes and has no bearing on regulation or financial incentives.With grant assistance from MHT, the County inventory has continued to expand since initial efforts in the early 1970s and now includes approximately 1,300 sites. The County currently does not maintain its own inventory of historic or cultural resources.

Washington County Historic Sites Inventory

The County originally prepared a historic sites survey between 1973 and 1978 which included more than 1300 sites. The adopted County’s Historic Sites Inventory, as outlined in previous adopted Comprehensive Plans in 1981 and 2002, is comprised of the additions made to the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties after these surveys were completed. This County Inventory includes individual sites, contributing resources to Historic Rural Villages, and properties which have had the Historic Preservation zoning overlay applied.

Commented [MJ1]: @Baker, John B. a map of the historic points.

Surveys for the resources include details such as the period of significance, narratives, location information, and photographs. Generally speaking, historic resources must be at least 50 years old to be inventoried and to coincide with the eligibility requirements for the National Register. The main themes of the County’s historic resources include industry, transportation, vernacular architecture, and social history. The properties fall into the categories of Buildings, Districts, Objects, Sites or Structures as highlighted next.

OBJECTS

The County’s northern border is known as the MasonDixon line. As part of the effort to survey this historic border between the Confederate and Union states, milestone markers were placed that are now included in the MIHP under this category. The Old National Pike, a historic travel corridor in the County, also has milestones included in this category which are on the National Register. Because of the frequency of the milestones, this category contains over 70 resources in the County.

Old National Pike Milestone, WA-II-725-30

DISTRICTS

The County has additional historic districts not included on the National

Register which cover towns, rural villages and landscapes previously surveyed through joint efforts with the State. Including the National Register districts, the County has more than 50 districts.

BUILDINGS

More than 90% of the County’s MIHP inventoried historic resources are buildings. The majority of the inventoried structures were built in the 19th century. Frame and brick are the most common exterior materials for structures on the structuresinventory. The majority of residential buildings are vernacular, meaning they are not planned by an architect but based upon regional traditions, materials at hand and functionality. Washington County has more than 3400 buildings documented. on

the inventory

Williamsport Streetscape, WA-WIL-025, WA-WIL-026 & WA-WIL-027

Plumb Grove Mansion, WA-V-015

SITES

Many of the historic sites in the County are cemeteries, either church related or small family cemeteries. There are also a limited number of State and local parks included in this category. Some sites related to prominent industries, including mining furnace complexes and mills, also fall into this category. Washington County has less than 70 sites included in the MIHP

STRUCTURES

One of the most recognized historic resources to fall under this category of the MIHP are the County’s more than 20 stone arch bridges. Not surprisingly, stone culverts and walls are also prominent in this category. This category also includes other bridge construction types. Bridges are, by far, the dominant resource in this category. The category has more than 140 resources included in the MIHP

In 1983, the Getty Survey (named for Mr. Joe Getty who performed the research) included an additional 82 properties in the inventory County’s Historic Sites Inventory that were primarily early 20th century resources. Several years later in 1989, the County and Towns began working together to evaluate resources within Town limits. This resulted in documentation of potential historic districts, their contributing resources and a contextual history of each of the Towns describing factors that lead to Town development. A summary of these surveys is below in Table 5-2. The City of Hagerstown, which completed its own inventory, has 1,653 contributing resources located within six National Register Districts.

Newcomer Lime Kiln

Stone Fence along Dam #4 Road, WA-II-275

Table 5-2: Summary of Town Historic Resource Surveys

Between 1991 and 2002, further surveys were completed in smaller, unincorporated communities including Maugansville (101 resources), Rohrersville (42 resources), Pen Mar (53 resources), Fairplay (23 resources) and Tilghmanton (72 resources) which again were added to the County’s Historic Sites Inventory and subsequently the MIHP. Since the 2002 Comprehensive Plan, additional work has been completed resulting in updates to existing surveys and new documentation of resources. These new surveys have led to the designation of historic Rural Villages that require additional development review by the Historic District Commission. A list of the surveys conducted are included in Table 5-3. In addition to the surveys, the County has made progress in making the inventory more accessible to the public. A web application has been developed to assist the public in searching the inventory. The web application provides easy access to information related to historic buildings, districts, objects, sites and structures in Washington County. The app also provides direct links to the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties through a hyperlink associated with each resource..

5-3: Historic Resource Surveys Completed Since 2002 Comprehensive Plan

*Also including Fox’s

According to Heritage2031, the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties currently has more than 4,000 historic resources for Washington County, however, when examining structures more than 50 years of age, a key National Register qualifier, there may be over 22,000 that have not been evaluated. The original large survey efforts in the County completed in the 1970’s did not consider resources after the 1920’s so there is a significant lack of 20th century structures on the MIHP and therefore the County’s Historic Sites Inventory. The 20th century resources need to be researched, adopted locally and included on the MIHP when and where appropriate.

The County also has not explored the area of thematic inventory updates. Examples of thematic updates include resources which are associated with specific populations, industries or events. Many of the resources currently on the County’s Inventory of Historic Sites are associated with architecture themes rather than thematic categories. It is important that inventory updates consider thematic surveys because these focused surveys are opportunities to engage citizens

Table

while improving documentation for resources.

The current status of resource documentation for properties in Washington County’s Historic Sites Survey (and subsequently the MIHP) is variable. Some resources have no pictures or descriptions and do not meet the current MHT Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland because of changes in these guidelines since the bulk of survey in the 1970’s. The variation in documentation often inhibits the review by both citizens and County staff when changes to resources are proposed. It should be a priority to update the existing documentation to include photographs, descriptions and documentation to the current standards whenever possible.

Prioritizing County resources by updates to the local inventory may lead to easier implementation of local land use regulations protecting historic resources. It would also enable outreach regarding resources to be targeted more effectively. The ability to provide updated and complete documentation would also be a benefit of a County based inventory. This inventory prioritization would potentially start with the properties already identified through the Historic Preservation Zoning Overlay, National Register of Historic Places or State historic preservation easements processes and expand to other properties as they participate in local incentive programs such as historic tax credits.

If surveys are completed by the County they should continue to be to MHT’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland and forwarded for inclusion or update to the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties.

Williamsport, MD C&O Canal and Cushwa’s Building

Policies, Programs and Regulations

FEDERAL

The Federal Government plays a large supporting role to sState and local governments in historic resource preservation and planning. The Antiquities Act of 1906 was the first time the government inserted itself into the protection of historic resources. While it allows the President to create National Monuments from public lands, it also protects resources within public lands from what could be considered looting.

Created in 1949, The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a nonprofit organization charged with protecting acquired historic resources. These resources are significant to society and are used to inspire support in public participation of historic preservation. An example of a property held by the National Trust is James Madison’s Montpelier in the town of Orange, Virginia. Washington County does not have any sites that are under the supervision of the National Trust.

The most significant law passed regarding historic resource protection in the United States is the National Preservation Act of 1966. This one act is responsible for creating the majority ofmost historic resource protections many people automatically associate with preservation. The main components of the act include the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), National Register of Historic Places and Section 106 Review.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

The ACHP was specifically established as part of the National Preservation Act of 1966 as an independent federal agency. The mission statement of the Council is to “…promote the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation’s diverse historic resources…”. The Council has an advisory role to the President and Congress on historic resources preservation matters and they administer the public review and consultation process for Federal undertakings established by Section 106. They also work to improve any Federal policies or programs that impact historic resources to ensure that federal agencies act as responsible stewards of our nation’s historic resources.

State Historic Preservation Officers

The purpose of SHPOs is to carry out the national historic preservation program as delegates of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. In Maryland, the SHPO is the Maryland Historical Trust. Their duties include:

• Locating and recording historic properties;

• Nominating significant historic properties to the National Register;

• Fostering historic preservation programs at the local government level and the creation of preservation ordinances;

• Providing matching funds for preservation projects;

• Commenting upon preservation projects under consideration for the federal rehabilitation tax credit;

• Reviewing all federal projects for impact on historic properties under Section 106 of NHPA and

the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and

• Provide technical assistance on restoration and other preservation activities to Federal agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector.

National Register of Historic Places and Section 106 Review

The National Register, as mentioned previously, is a tool that is used to document historic resources and provide a process for additional review for impact when federal or State funding is involved in a project. These properties also qualify for federal tax credits which incentivize rehabilitation projects.

Section 106 review (a reference to the section of the National Preservation Act of 1966) occurs when any federal or state funding or permitting is involved in a project that affects a National Register resource or a resource eligible for the National Register. It opens a consultation with Federal, State and local government as well as the public about views and concerns for the project. The review usually results in agreements and plans to mitigate the impacts on delineated resources.

The National Park Service and specifically the Department of the Interior, are named in legislation as the agencies responsible for implementation of plans that affect historic resources. The federal level programs, policies and laws are all administered by the Secretary of the Interior, or they have an advisor or advisee role. Federal programs set the basis for many of the local and state programs but are usually broad in their approach to historic resource protection.

STATE

Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)

The State of Maryland has several mechanisms in place to aid in the protection of historic resources. Established in 1966, the Maryland Historic Trust (MHT) acts as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the State of Maryland pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The main goals of the TrustMHT are to research, conserve and educate, as well as assist the citizens of Maryland in preserving and interpreting the State’s history. As mentioned previously, they both assist the County with historic resource inventory updates as well as serving as a repository for documentation. They are also involved in providing guidance to the County and citizens regarding historic resources. As the SHPO, they are responsible for reviewing projects using State or federal funding to determine if there are impacts to historic resources. The following are key programs administered by the MHT:

• The Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP): One of the main tasks of MHT is to be the primary repository for resource identification and documentation. It is important to note that the properties listed on the survey may not necessarily be historically significant nor are they subject to any restrictions or regulations.

• The Maryland Register of Historic Places: The Register is a listing of properties that have been extensively evaluated and found to be historically significant at a local, State or National level.

Maryland Heritage Areas ProgramsAuthority (MHAA):

• The Maryland Heritage Areas Program, currently encompassing 13 certified Heritage Areas located in every County in the State as well as the City of Baltimore, helps assist and promote

Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.46", Right: 0.41", Space Before: 9.4 pt, Line spacing: Multiple 1.04 li

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.46", Right: 0", Line spacing: single, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.83"

heritage tourism throughout the State. MHAA is an entity distinct from MHT but administered by MHT staff.

Washington County is one of three counties included in the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area (HCWHA) which was created in July of 2006. The extent of the HCWHA in the County can be seen in map 5-1.

The mission of the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area is:

“To promote the stewardship of [the] historic, cultural, and natural Civil War resources; encourage superior visitor experiences; and stimulate tourism, economic prosperity, and educational development, thereby improving the quality of life in [the] community for the benefit of both residents and visitors.”

Map 5-1: Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area in Washington County

The Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area Management Plan was adopted and made a part of the comprehensive plans of Carroll, Frederick and Washington Counties in 2007. This update of the Comprehensive Plan, when adopted by the County, incorporates, by reference, all portions of the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area Management Plan , except those portions solely relating to other jurisdictions within the Heritage Area, as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Civil War Heritage Area Management Plan provides an overview of resources and opportunities in the heritage area, as well as goals and priorities to advance the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area mission.

Heritage tourism is defined as “traveling to experience the places, artifacts and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present” and “heritage tourism can include cultural, historic and natural resources.1”

Tourism associated with the many National Park Service Sites in Washington County provide a large economic opportunity. According to the Maryland Heritage Area Program Impact Report 2020, the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area (HCWHA), across 3 counties, had nearly 4 million tourists in 2019. The Heritage area supported and sustained more than 6,000 jobs and had a $450.2 million impact. The HCWHA generated $60.3 million in tax revenues.2

1 Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2020. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/upload/report- 2020-annual.pdf

2 The Abell Report, Heritage Tax Credits: Maryland’s own stimulus to renovate buildings for productive use and create jobs, an $8.53 return on every state dollar invested. P.3 Vol 22 No 1March 2009.

In addition to the Maryland Historic Trust, there are several other State agencies that assist with programs designed to protect and revitalize historic and culturally significant properties. The State of Maryland offers many programs which correlate with national and local policies to enable the preservation of historic resources and maintain historic context. All of these require the public as partners and as active participants in preserving.

Main Street Maryland

The Main Street Maryland Program was created in 1998 and is administered by the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). The program coincides with the Main Street Project at the national level which was launched in 1977 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. There is a 5-point approach to keep the downtown thriving that includes: Organization, Promotion, Design, Business Relations and “Clean, Safe, & Green” (Maryland Specific Point). Washington County has two Main Street communities: Williamsport and Hagerstown. The City’s involvement allows access to tools and partnerships as well as funding opportunities for the downtown.

Maryland Scenic Byways Program

The Maryland Scenic Byways Program, part of a national network of scenic byways, offers 18 planned routes for citizens to follow the history and culture of Maryland. Maryland’s Scenic Byways Program is a partnership of six agencies including the Maryland Heritage Areas, National Park Service, Office of Tourism Development, Department of Planning, Department of Natural Resources, and Maryland Main Street Program. Six state designated Scenic Byways are also recognized as National Scenic Byways. Four of these six pass through Washington County including the Historic National Road, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Antietam Campaign, and the Catoctin Mountain byways. The State utilizes funding to help protect, promote, and complete enhancements along routes each year.

The broader goals of the program include: maintaining and promoting the statewide system, sustaining the corridors over time through corridor management, facilitating a visitor experience, working to further associate the economic benefits of the routes, increasing the connection of the byways and improving livability in communities.

Maryland Resident Curatorship Program

While not a well-known program, the Maryland Resident Curatorship Program is an incentivebased program used to maintain historic resources on State lands. The program, established in 1982, provides the curator of the property with a lifetime tenancy to restore, maintain in good condition and periodically share the property with the public. There are nearly 50 curatorship’s across the State. This program requires the investment of your own money and time into the restoration process.

Other State Programs

The Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ Rural Legacy Program (RL) are other programs that can have a historical component in the easements. The Rural Legacy boundary encompasses much of the southern portion of the County with about half of the properties having a historically or culturally significant resources listed on the MIHP. These programs are detailed further in the Agriculture and Forestry Chapter of the Plan.

COUNTY

The County does encounter many challenges to the retention of resources, there have been many successful collaborative efforts and mechanisms employed to support, educate and enable the stewardship of historic and cultural resources.

Certified Local Government

The State of Maryland has a total of 24 counties. 11 of these Counties have been designated as Certified Local Governments (CLG) which denotes that they have made a special commitment to historic preservation. Washington County is one of the few western jurisdictions designated as a CLG. The County obtained the designation in August of 1991. The Historic District Commission (HDC) acts as the required qualified historic preservation commission for the program. Benefits of becoming a CLG include:

• Eligibility to compete for funds to conduct projects that promote preservation, CLG subgrant funds, ability to participate in the CLG Educations Set Aside Program

• Formal participation in the National Register nomination process

• Annual performance evaluations

• Priority technical assistance.

Being designated as a CLG means that the County is recognized by the National Park Service as being able to participate in the national policy of preservation.

Formatted: Left, Right: 0", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: single

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.46", Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.46"

Formatted: Left, Right: 0", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: single

Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.46", Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.46", Right: 0", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.9"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.46", Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.46", No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.9"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.46", Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.46", No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.9"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.46", Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.46", No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.9"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.46", Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Left, Right: 0", Line spacing: single

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.46", Space Before: 0 pt

Historic Advisory Committee

Historic District Commission

The Historic District Commission (HDC) was created in 1986 and its duties and powers are largely housed in the Zoning Ordinance for Washington County. The HDC does have regulatory and review authority locally. They are is responsible for reviewing applications within adoptedwhich are affected by select and pending historic Rural Villages in the County, as shown in Map 5-2, the Antietam Overlay 1 or Antietam Overlay 2 (AO) zoning districts, and the Historic Preservation (HP) zoning overlay. In addition, applications affecting properties on the Washington County Historic Sites Inventoryon the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) a are also reviewed. The HDC makes recommendations regarding legislation, applications for zoning text or map amendments, special exceptions, variances, site plans, subdivisions or other proposals affecting historic preservation or historic resources. One of the important roles of the HDC is also to work closely with the MHT to promote State preservation efforts.

Other duties of the HDC include:

• Recommend programs and legislation to the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission to encourage historic preservation

• Serve as a clearing house for information, provide educational materials and information to the public and undertake activities that advance the goals of historic preservation

• Development of additional duties and standards. For example, criteria to be used in the review of building permit applications

• Prepare, adopt, publish and amend additional guidelines to provide adequate review materials for applications including HP and building permits

• Oversee maintenance and updating of the inventory of Washington County Historic Sites

Certified Local Government

• Eligibility to compete for funds to conduct projects that promote preservation

• Eligibility to receive funds annually for commission training and education.

• Formal participation in the National Register nomination process

• Annual performance evaluations

• Priority technical assistance

Being designated as a CLG means that the County is recognized by the National Park Service as being able to participate in the national policy of preservation.

Design Guidelines

In June of 2022, the Historic District Commission (HDC) adopted “Design Guidelines for Historic Structures –Washington County, Maryland”. These Guidelines are a set of guiding principles that establish a basis for the HDC’s recommendations, approval, or denial of applications. The HDC uses the Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to determine if proposed work is appropriate for properties that fall under its review. The Guidelines are made available to assist owners of historic buildings in understanding how historic preservation policies affect their plans to maintain, preserve, or enhance their properties. The information provided is intended to assist with planning and implementing projects in a way that is mindful of the historic nature of both the property being reviewed and its surroundings.

Building Codes

Stakeholder meetings held prior to the development of this Plan identified building code flexibility with historic properties as one challenge in the preservation of historic structures. The County has adopted Chapter 12: Historic Buildings of the 2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) To apply this section of the code, the building must have historic value. It must be accredited as being of historic significance by a State

Formatted: Heading 5

or local authority. Structures in the County’s Historic Preservation Overlay, contributing to Historic Rural Villages or contributing to Antietam Overlay 1 or 2 areas will qualify as well as National Register of Historic Places properties. Inclusion in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties does not automatically allow application of this section. This section of the IEBC allows for accommodations in the Flood Hazard Areas, repairs or replacements using like materials, accommodations for fire safety that still ensure safety of occupants, and provides direction for code officials regarding other facets of building code enforcement that protect the historic features. For properties falling outside of this portion of the Code, the only current option is to work with Code Officials at the County on an individual project basis.

Demolition

Washington County strongly encourages the retention and preservation of historic buildings, structures, sites and objects.

In 2020 the HDC adopted the Design Guidelines which outline demolition alternatives and demolition mitigation. Demolition alternatives from preferred to less preferred include: Redesign to avoid impacts to the historic structure or its setting, incorporating the structure into the overall site design, converting the structure to another use (adaptive reuse), relocating the structure on site or relocating the structure off site. Demolition mitigation involves documenting the structure and updating the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties before attempting salvage of any reusable materials.

Staff Photo of Historic Property Demolition in Washington County, MD

Formatted: Character scale: 105%

On average, between 2000 and 2022, Washington County issued sixty-five (65) demolition permits per year. Since not all demolitions involve historic structures, there were an average of only 3 demolition permits reviewed by the Historic District Commission each year during that same period.1 Permit review is enabled by the 1990 historic structures demolition policy which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The Policy encourages collaboration between property owners, the Historic District Commission (HDC) and Planning Commission(PC) ensuring demolition alternatives and mitigation have been explored. Any demolition permits in Washington County that involve a property on the County’s Historic Property Inventory, that is more than 50 years old, or that is in the Antietam Overlay (AO) or Rural Village (RV) zoning districts will require HDC review for support of the permit. Properties in the Historic Preservation Zoning Overlay are the only demolition permits reviewed for approval while the others are reviewed for support by the HDC and PC regarding alternatives and mitigation. The Policy does not have any penalty for demolition without a permit, nor does it include definitions or accommodations for economic hardship or demolition by neglect. There is little mitigation that can be done once demolition without a permit occurs on historic structures. Therefore, the County should continue to incentivize retention through programs including tax credits and grants as well as exploring policies such as waived or lowered fees, improved Subdivision Ordinance inclusion and incentives, fully incorporating salvage in the permitting process and promotion of Building Code alternatives for historic structures. Additional penalties other than a standard double permit fee in cases of demolition without a permit, such as freezing future permits or subdivision on the property for a set period of time, may be a viable deterrent but should not be a sole solution. A clear policy regarding economic hardship and demolition by neglect should be well defined and policies for each should be incorporated into any demolition policy updates as well.

Demolition by neglect is described as a situation in which a property owner intentionally allows a historic property to suffer severe deterioration, potentially beyond the point of repair. Property owners may use this kind of long-term neglect to circumvent historic preservation regulations. The Historic District Commission sends targeted mailings regarding incentive programs to properties threatened by demolition by neglect. The building code has also been amended locally for demolition by neglect situations to ensure it is clear that the building inspector may pursue actions to stabilize the building resulting in a lien on the property.

In addition to positive economic impacts, there are also positive environmental and land use impacts that occur by encouraging renovation of existing structures rather than demolition or new development. From an environmental perspective, renovation of a historic structure rather than demolition causes a reduction in waste thereby saving landfill space. Rehabilitation in Maryland generates up to 2,500 tons less debris relative to total demolition and new construction for every $1 million invested in historic tax credit programs.3

Retaining historic structures can also provide a return on investment through energy efficiency. Often, historic structures are incorrectly described as energy inefficient simply because of their age. In fact, many historic homes have been sited and renovated through passive measures such as window replacements or added insulation to make them more efficient than some modern homes.

1 NationalTrust for Historic Preservation.{Preservation Glossary} Todays Word: Heritage Tourism. https://savlngplaces.org/storles/ preservatlon-glossary-todays-word- herltage-tourlsm#.V-viUSgrLRY. 28 Sept 2016.

2 Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area Makes an Impact, December 2020 https://www.heartofthecivilwar.org/media/media/download/3309

3 The Abell Report, Heritage Tax Credits: Maryland’s own stimulus to renovate buildings for productive use and create jobs, an $8.53 return on every state dollar invested. P.3 Vol 22 No 1March 2009

Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.46", Right: 0.41", Space Before: 7.6 pt, Line spacing: Multiple 1.03 li

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: First line: 0", Right: 0.5", Space Before: 0.05 pt, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: -0.04" + Indent at: 0.46", Tab stops: 0.96", Left

According to the National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, “Generally, buildings constructed before the 1920s included energy-conserving features in the original design. These features often still exist in historic buildings but may have been altered over time. Energy Conserving Features Inherent in Older Homes1 helps identify historic features that have the potential to conserve energy use once again”2 Renovation of existing structures also promotes more sustainable growth and land use patterns. Reuse of buildings help protect greenfields and limit sprawl. It also provides an opportunity for savings related to infrastructure costs.

In order to confront the issues of demolition and demolition by neglect, the County should avoid assigning future land uses which conflict with the continued use of a historic resource. The protection of historic landscapes to retain resource context should continue to be a priority. Education regarding ordinary maintenance, adaptive reuse and improved incentive mechanisms available to individuals will also continue to be priorities for the County to combat these issues.

Formatted:

Historic Rural Villages (Historic Communities)

Many of the updates to the MIHP Washington County Historic Sites Inventory, which the County and State have worked on collaboratively, involved surveys within the County’s unincorporated Rural Villages. They are often strongly related to industry, transportation or migration. The County has a Rural Village zoning classification, but it is important to note that Historic Rural Villages survey areas do not always coincide with this zoning designation.

Once a Historic Rural Village is surveyed by MHT or the County and adopted, the individual resources identified would thenthen have tomust undergo review by the HDC for approval to exterior changes requiring a building permit or applications for local tax credit purposesif any exterior changes are to be made Those surveyed but not yet adopted are reviewed for comment only. In addition, properties which are not contributing to the historic rural village survey, but individually documented individually listed on the Washington County Historic Sites Inventory MIHP or any new construction within a designated surveyed Historic Rural Village would be reviewed by the HDC review to ensure compatibility as defined in the Washington County Zoning Ordinance Section 5D.5. A map of rural villages surveyed is displayed in Map 5-2 above and a list is also below. Additional survey areas such as Park Hall are not rural villages but are significant clusters of identified resources through survey. The County needs to continue to seek funding and research the remaining rural villages. Incorporation into the Washington County Historic Sites Inventory of the resulting surveys will enable the Historic District Commission to continue review of changes to identified contributing resources and new construction which may adversely affect those resources.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.09"

Map 5-2: Historic Rural Villages and Antietam Overlays

Main Street Rohrersville looking North

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font color: Background 1

Formatted: Font: Arial, Font color: Background 1

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font color: Background 1

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Ringgold Adopted | Design Review

Rohrersville Adopted | Design Review III025

Sandy Hook Adopted | Design Review III032

Tilghmanton Adopted | Design Review II152

Turner's Gap/Fox's Gap* Proposed II1174 2010

Weverton/Garret's Mill* Proposed

Williamsport Station Proposed

Wilson/Conocochea gue

Rural Villages Remaining for Survey

| 1993 | 2004

| 1999 | 2009

Bagtown Charlton Huyett** Mount Briar

Beaver Creek Chewsville Indian Springs Pecktonville

Big Pool Dargan Jugtown Pinesburg

Big Spring Eakles Mill Kemps** Pondsville

Bostetter** Edgemont Kemps Mill Reid

Breathedsville Ernstville Lappans St. James (Lydia)

Bridgeport** Fairview Mapleville Trego/Rohrersville Station

Cascade Fiddlersburg/Security** Mercersville Yarrowsburg

Cearfoss Garretts Mill Middleburg**

Cedar Lawn** Greensburg Mount Aetna

*Not Rural Village zoning, however, individual contributing resources to a survey area are included and those resources are now incorporated into the Washington County Historic Sites Inventory by this plan

**Urban Rural Villages of which their contributing resources only are reviewed for Design Review or demolition, not new construction

Antietam Overlay

The protection of scenic vistas, especially those associated with small towns and villages, is

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold, Font color: Background 1

Formatted: Font: Arial, 16 pt, Bold

Formatted: Centered, Space Before: 12 pt

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Arial

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.48", First line: 0.02"

integral to historic resource protection. Vistas dramatically altered from their historic context reduce the goal of visitor immersion in the resource that heritage tourism strives to achieve. Washington County has numerous examples of historic and cultural landscapes that offer scenic vistas, particularly within or approaching its Rural Villages.

The Antietam Overlay zoning districts (AO) are a primary tool by which the County protects scenic vistas. The AO protects viewsheds around the Antietam National Battlefield and its approaches through additional levels of regulatory review.

As shown on the Map 5-2 above, there are three distinct subareas that are defined in the Antietam Overlay zoning district.

• AO-1 encompasses the Battlefield proper and a buffer surrounding the Federally owned land. In this area, any exterior changes to existing structures are required to have additional review provided by the HDC.

• AO-2 consists of the approach areas to the Battlefield along major transportation corridors. This area also requires additional review of changes to the exterior of any existing structures by the HDC.

• AO-3, pertains to the Red Hill middle ground viewshed from the Battlefield. This area was designated with assistance from the National Park Service via a technical study entitled “Analysis of the Visible Landscape: Antietam” published in April 1988. Regulations in this area limit the amount of tree cutting allowed on specific areas of Red Hill.

• As mentioned, there are many other areas in the County that have clusters of valuable resources which could benefit from similar overlay protections. These include areas along historic roadways, Historic Rural Village approaches, and properties on the National Register of Historic Places. Studies to determine areas and roadways where historic context would benefit from expanded land use protections, such as screening, setbacks and other design standards should be completed. These could be combined with environmental resource protections to serve multiple purposes.

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Not Expanded by / Condensed by

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.79", No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Font: Lucida Sans, 12 pt

Photo of View from Antietam National Battlefield Observation Tower

Historic Preservation Overlay

The purpose of the Historic Preservation district is to provide a mechanism for the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic and cultural resources. It is established as an overlay zone which adds additional land use controls to the base zoning district. The presence of the overlay on a property indicates there is a historic or cultural resource that has significance to the heritage of Washington County.

An HP Overlay must be in place on a property to be eligible for County tax credits. Once in place, the HP Overlay provides continued opportunities for County tax credits as well as providing review authority for new construction or modification of existing structures’ exteriors on the property. There are currently more than 40 HP Overlay areas within the County as seen in Map 5-3 below. The intention of the Overlay as listed in the Zoning Ordinance is as follows:

• Safeguard the heritage of Washington County as embodied and reflected in such structures, sites and districts;

• Stabilize and improve property values of such structures, sites, and districts and in Washington County generally;

• Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past;

• Strengthen the economy of the County; and

• Promote the preservation and appreciation of historic structures, sites and districts for the education and welfare of the residents of Washington County.

Farmstead, Wheeler Road, MIHP WA-II-286, Washington County Tax Credit and HP Overlay - Williamson

Local Ordinance Review Areas Summary

As discussed, historic resource regulations within the County are found in the Zoning Ordinance. The inclusion of the Historic Preservation Overlay and enabling language for the Historic District Commission in that ordinance were a requirement of the Certified Local Government application in the 1990’s. At the time, the Zoning Ordinance was an appropriate mechanism, however, historic resource protection has evolved at the State and County level. Multiple ordinances, policies and programs with varying language and terminology must be referenced to determine impacts on resources on a specific property. Confusion also occurs between naming conventions such as the Rural Village zoning designation and the Historic Rural Villages, which require Historic District Commission review.

Modernization of historic preservation efforts through a dedicated ordinance would enable the County to tailor land use policies such as, historic context and scenic vistas, as well as update language and terms for consistency. A dedicated ordinance would also allow for a more proactive and elaborative approach to issues affecting historic resources which can be hindered by the structure of the Zoning Ordinance. Other stand-alone ordinances such as the Subdivision Ordinance, which have specific provisions for historic resources should be examined to ensure that they provide adequate tools for resource protection. It is also important for citizens to understand the policies, programs, and regulations in place and their role within them to make sure there is less confusion on the federal, State, county and individual property owner’s authority.

Tax Credits & Other Local Incentive Opportunities

One of Washington County’s main tools used to promote historic preservation is offering tax credits for the restoration and rehabilitation of exteriors on historic structures. Applicants apply for these credits prior to work starting to determine if the property is in the HP Overlay, surveyed Historic Rural Villages or Antietam Overlay 1 or 2 zoning areas. If the property is not in an existing area, the HP Overlay must be applied prior to application for the tax credit. This overlay is added through the rezoning process at no charge to the applicant. Once the property is in an eligible area, credits of up to 2510% of the total amount spent on preservation are available from the County if the owner follows the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If the owner completes a compatible addition attached to the historic structure, that new construction is also eligible for a credit of 5%. The County recently updated its percentage for credit and qualifying areas to increase participation in this program.

The HDC reviews applications for tax credits against eligible items in the Zoning Ordinance Section 20.6 or improvements as described by the US Internal Revenue Service. The owner can also apply for State and Federal income tax credits up to 20% each through the Maryland Historical Trust, which is a separate application process. These local, State and Federal programs are designed to work together to enable projects to stack the credits to maximize their project benefit.The County is exploring ways to gain greater participation in this program.

Formatted: Heading 1

Indent:

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" Commented [JM2]: Update for unsworth addition

Map 5-3: Historic Preservation Overlay Locations

Design Guidelines

Building Codes

Stakeholder meetings held prior to the development of this Plan identified building code flexibility with historic properties as one challenge in the preservation of historic structures. To help address some of the issues related to historic building rehabilitation, the County has adopted a specific chapter in the building code that relates solely to historic structures. In order for a contractor to use this portion of the building code, the structure must be listed with the State or local body as historic. If the building is listed as a historic structure, then they may submit for approval to use alternative materials, methods, and equipment to complete their renovations in accordance with Section 105.2 of the International Building Code. For properties falling outside of this portion of the Code, the only current option is to work with Code oOfficials at the County on an individual project basis.

Local Preservation Organizations

Tax credits and other financial incentives are used as a tool by each level of government to promote historic resource protection. Tax credits provide a positive impact on the economy at the State and local level and should be considered an investment rather than a burden. They are an important tool specifically for revitalization of blighted properties and maintenance for ongoing resource preservation efforts. In 2020, the estimated qualified rehabilitation expenditures for Federal Tax credits in Maryland totaled over 200 million dollars in private investment. To date, the federal program has had over 100 billion in estimated rehabilitation investment nationwide1. The use of tax credits also spurs other positive economic benefits such as:

Balustrade, Sharpsburg

• Raising local and state tax assessment. Property owner investments generate more revenue for the future. For every dollar of commercial tax credits, it is estimated that there this is an $8.53 return on that investment.

• Increase improvement feasibility. An estimated 3/5 of residential property owners stated that they would not have attempted renovations without the credits.

• They generate jobs. For every $1 million spent on renovations, there is an estimated 72.5 jobs created during the construction period.2

Other Incentive Opportunities

The tax credit program requires an owner to have the funds to complete the project, which is often a hurdle to using appropriate treatments in rehabilitation due to a higher cost of materials and craftsmanship. To assist with the upfront costs of the rehabilitation of historic resources, the County should also examine adjacent jurisdictions programs, such as Frederick County, MD’s Rural Preservation Grant. A grant would enable owners to have funding up front for costs associated with the rehabilitation. Funding for this program should be through a budgeted item rather than a temporary or one time funding source to ensure the program has consistent funding. Property owners of historic resources also have higher burdens on insurance replacement costs and while all houses require maintenance, the qualified professionals needed for historic resource repairs can sometimes be more costly and limited in availability. The County should also consider mimicking other successful programs such as the yearly tax credit afforded to agricultural properties through the Agricultural District Program. This may help to offset some of these factors that serve as deterrents in historic resource ownership. Whatever methods are pursued by the County, there should be a continued emphasis on the ability to create an individualized combination of incentives that allow for projects to be successful.

Local Preservation Organizations

While not regulatory, private preservation organizations serve an important role in protecting historic resources. Washington County is fortunate to have an abundance of active organizations that not only serve as local repositories for historic resources but are also stewards of many of the important resources in the County. These organizations serve to provide guidance for individual property owners as well. It is important for Washington County to continue to foster established relationships and encourage new connections with these organizations to continue to save historic resources. Some of these resources are included on Table 5-5.

Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.46"

Washington County Historical Society

Washington County Historical Trust

Hancock Historical Society

Sharpsburg Historical Society

Clear Spring Historical Association

Smithsburg Historical Society

Keedysville Historical Society

Save Historic Antietam Foundation

Civil War Trust

Boonsboro Historical Society

Washington County Historic Advisory Committee

Washington County Association of Museums and Historic Sites

Historic Advisory Committee

This Committee was originally tasked with generating the report about historic resources in the County during the late 1960’s. This report fueled historic resources additions to the County’s Historic Sites Inventory and the MIHP in the following years as well as highlighting potential policies which might promote the preservation and protection of resources. The HAC is still active today and focuses on identifying potential impacts to historic resources and answering questions by the Board of County Commissioners regarding resources. The Committee also recommends properties, places and people for the annual John Frye Historic Preservation Award, which is presented on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners at an annual banquet. The HAC does not have any regulatory or review authority locally but acts as another entity promoting historic resources. They do participate in the Section 106 process as an interested party.

Washington County Historical Society

Table 5-5: Local Preservation Organizations

Formatted: Font color: Custom Color(RGB(35,31,32)), Condensed by 0.1 pt

Commented [JM3]: Moved into this table, and moved paragraph to this section

Founded in 1911, the Washington County Historical Society (WCHS) is an organization dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the County’s history and culture. The WCHS is housed in the historic Miller House on West Washington Street in downtown Hagerstown. Tours are given of the property throughout the year, which also houses exhibits and special collections focusing on County history and offers resources for genealogical research. WCHS also leads walking tours to historic sites around downtown Hagerstown on a periodic basis, and provides other special programs throughout the year. The Historical Society has been involved in the preservation of many historically significant properties around the County over time, including Fort Frederick, the Washington Monument, Burnside Bridge at Antietam Battlefield as well as many others.

Washington County Historical Trust

The Washington County Historical Trust, Inc. (WCHT), is headquartered in Hagerstown and has an eight-member volunteer board. Its mission is to preserve historic structures and cultural resources through education and public awareness. The Trust monitors the county for historic properties threatened or endangered by demolition or neglect, then works with property owners to present alternative preservation and restoration solutions.

The Trust produces educational materials related to historic preservation, offers historic building skills workshops and sometimes assists in restoring properties. Currently, the Trust has partnered with the City of Hagerstown to restore the 1800s stone Saylor House in Kiwanis Park, with a goal to serve the area as a 3season educational and event center with a focus on Washington County Building history; historic building trades; environmental education and outdoor recreation on the banks of Antietam Creek.

The Washington County Historical Trust (WCHT) works to preserve County historic structures and cultural resources through education and public awareness. An eight-member Board of Directors governs the Trust, which is headquartered in Hagerstown. WCHT targets specific properties that it considers “endangered,” due to development or neglect, and works with stakeholders to move in the direction of preserving and restoring the property. The Trust produces educational materials related to historic preservation and, in some cases, assists in the restoration of properties. WCHT is currently working with the City of Hagerstown and the Antietam-Conococheague Watershed Alliance to restore the Saylor House in Kiwanis Park, which will then become the joint headquarters for these two organizations.

Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.46"

Formatted: Heading 1, Left, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: single

Museums

Often related to local preservation organizations are museums used for public outreach and research. Washington County has nearly 25 museums ranging from the Rural Heritage museum to the Museum of Fine Arts. Many of the Towns have their own museums and historical societies which also host collections for the public to enjoy. Washington County will continue to collaborate with these entities.

The Role of the Individual in Historic Preservation

Up to this point, this element has discussed federal, State, local and even private entities and their impact on historic resources in Washington County. However, it is important to point out that most historic resources in the County are under private ownership. This means that to preserve and maintain the County’s historic resources for the future, efforts must start at the individual level.

By choosing to preserve historic resources, property owners are providing a service to the community. Environmental sustainability is positively impacted as the continued use of a property greatly reduces the consumption of new materials, thereby reducing landfill waste. Above all, present and future generations are able to connect to a shared heritage through a collective immersion in historic resources that still exist for people to enjoy today.

Education

If preservation of historic resources is to succeed, adults and children must be educated about the stewardship of historic and cultural resources and their importance to Washington County. In addition to individual property owners, groups such as realtor's and developers also need to be educated in the advantages and opportunities in preserving existing structures. Therefore, although the historic preservation groups and organizations previously mentioned have a role in educating the public, it is ultimately up to the individual to learn about the history and benefits available to them regarding their specific resource.

Formatted: Justified, Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt

Washington County Museum of Fine Arts - City Park, Hagerstown

Ordinary Maintenance

Planning for future repairs and maintenance is vital in budgeting to take full advantage of programs in place. Maintenance costs on historic structures are often perceived to be much higher than a new structure. This can act as a deterrent to owning, retaining, or purchasing an historic structure. Regardless of building age, maintenance is both a necessity and a guarantee. Many times, ordinary maintenance can prevent system failures which could lead to the loss an historic resource or its usefulness. Ordinary maintenance is discussed in the County’s Design Guidelines for Historic Properties which can be referenced by any homeowner.

Economic Impacts of Historic Resources

Tax Credits

As previously discussed in the policy section of this element, tax credits and other financial incentives are used as a tool by each level of government to promote historic resource protection. Tax credits provide a positive impact on the economy at the State and local level and should be considered an investment rather than a burden. They are an important tool specifically for revitalization of blighted properties and maintenance for ongoing resource preservation efforts. In 2020, the estimated qualified rehabilitation expenditures for Federal Tax credits in Maryland totaled over 200 million dollars in private investment. To date, the federal program has had over 100 billion in estimated rehabilitation investment nationwide1. The use of tax credits also spurs other positive economic benefits such as:

• Increase improvement feasibility. An estimated 3/5 of residential property owners stated that they would not have attempted renovations without the credits.

• They generate jobs. For every $1 million spent on renovations, there is an estimated 72.5 jobs created during the construction period.2

Locally, tax credits are administered in the same manner as State and federal tax credits; however, County credits are only available up to 10% versus the 20% provided at the State and federal level. While local tax credits can provide the same economic impacts, the program is typically underutilized. Most projects that have used this program include repair of roofs, chimneys, porches, and windows.

Heritage Tourism

One of the economic benefits of a community with plentiful historic resources intact is Heritage Tourism. Protection efforts have been expanded over time to not just merely preserve resources but to also give them context and provide utility to citizens. Using and displaying resources in a way that is interactive provides a more meaningful experience and can lead to more interest in preservation of other resources. For example, rather than just saving a building or structure for people to view from a distance, the building could be opened for citizens to walk through and view the resource on a more intimate level, thus creating a contextual basis for people to connect to the resource.

1 Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2020. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/upload/report- 2020-annual.pdf

Listed as a key component of Western Maryland Historic resource planning by Preserve Maryland II, heritage tourism is defined as “traveling to experience the places, artifacts and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present” and “heritage tourism can include cultural, historic and natural resources.1”

Promoting this form of tourism has benefits for both the residents of the County as well as visitors. The programs, which encourage and promote the importance of historic resources, enhance the quality of life for residents and provide unique experiences for tourists. The Plan also encourages the protection of scenic vistas and gateways to small towns. The County currently has policies in place such as the Antietam Overlay to address these types of issues.

Environmental and Land Use Impacts of Historic Resources

2 Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area Makes an Impact, December 2020 https://www.heartofthecivilwar.org/media/media/download/3309

3 The Abell Report, Heritage Tax Credits: Maryland’s own stimulus to renovate buildings for productive use and create jobs, an $8.53 return on every state dollar invested. P.3 Vol 22 No 1March 2009.

Rural Heritage Museum and Village, Washington County, MD

Challenges to Historic Resource Protection Survey

The County has more than 50 identified rural villages, however, only 12 have completed surveys. Additional survey areas such as Park Hall are not rural villages but are significant clusters of identified resources through survey. The County needs to continue to seek funding and research the remaining rural villages. Adoption of the resulting surveys will enable the Historic District Commission to continue review of changes to identified contributing resources and new construction which may adversely affect those resources. At the time of adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, the Historic District Commission will have approval/denial authority of permits affecting contributing resources and new construction in all of the survey areas listed in Table 3 as well as those previously in place in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan listed in Table 4. New construction, properties listed individually, but within a Rural Village zoning designation, and demolitions will be reviewed for recommendations by the HDC unless new policies are adopted.

According to Preserve Maryland II, the inventory currently has more than 4,000 historic resources, however, when examining structures more than 50 years of age, a key National Register qualifier, there may be over 22,000 that have not been evaluated. The original large survey efforts in the County completed in the 1970’s did not consider resources after the 1920’s so there is a significant lack of 20th century structures on the inventory. The 20th century resources need to be researched and included on the inventory when and where appropriate.

The County also has not explored the area of thematic inventory updates. Examples of thematic updates include resources which are associated with specific populations, industries or events. Many of the resources currently on the inventory are associated with architecture themes rather than thematic categories. It is important that inventory updates consider thematic surveys because these focused surveys are opportunities to engage citizens while improving documentation for resources.

The current status of resource documentation for properties in Washington County included on the MIHP is highly variable. Some resources have no pictures or descriptions and do not meet the current MHT Guidelines and Standards. The variation in documentation often inhibits the review by both citizens and County staff when changes to resources are proposed. It should be a priority to update the existing documentation to include photographs, descriptions and documentation to the current standards whenever possible.

1 Energy Conserving Features Inherent in Older Homes is a document created by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development along with the US Department of the Interior to provide guidance to property owners with historic structures on the value of using existing energy conservation systems typically inherent to building techniques used in the past. Energy Conserving Features Inherent In Older Homes, John A. Burns, AIA; US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Division of Building Technology, 1982.

2 www.nps.gov/tps/sustainability/energy-efficiency.htm; National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services.

The Historic District Commission has also expressed interest in creating a local historic property inventory rather than relying on the MIHP. The MIHP is meant to catalog what exists that is older 50 years and examine it for National Register qualification. A property with little integrity, architectural value, or historic value may be on the inventory merely as a result of the processes surrounding historic review at the federal, State or local level. Prioritizing County resources by having a local inventory may lead to easier implementation of local land use regulations protecting historic resources. It would also enable outreach regarding resources to be targeted and more effectively. The ability to provide updated and complete documentation would also be a benefit of a County based inventory. This inventory would potentially start with the properties already identified through the Historic Preservation Zoning Overlay, National Register of Historic Places or State historic preservation easements processes and expand to other properties as they participate in local incentive programs such as historic tax credits.

The County also acknowledges that the MIHP is a mechanism for review at the federal and State level so any creation of a County inventory should be consistent and concurrent with updates to the MIHP to ensure continued protection of resources at all levels. If surveys are completed by the County they should continue to be to the Standards and Guidelines adopted by the Maryland Historical Trust. The MIHP should continue to be a tool for resource identification in County policies but it should not be the sole source for County historic resources.

Demolition Washington County strongly encourages the retention and preservation of historic buildings, structures, sites and objects. In 1990, a demolition policy was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, which enables collaboration between property owners, and the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission ensuring demolition alternatives and mitigation have been explored. Any demolition permit in Washington County that involves a property on the MIHP or is more than 50 years old in the Antietam Overlay (AO) or Rural Village (RV) zoning districts will require HDC review for support of the permit. The HDC reviews, for approval, demolition within the Historic Preservation Zoning Overlay. As part of the Design Guidelines used by the HDC, demolition is reviewed against preferred alternatives to demolition such as incorporating the structure into future plans, to the less preferred demolition mitigation which may be documentation and salvage based.

Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.46", Right: 0.41", Space Before: 5.25 pt, Line spacing: Multiple 1.04 li

Formatted: Right: 0.41", Space Before: 5.25 pt

Staff Photo of Historic Property Demolition in Washington County, MD

On average, between 2000 and 2022, Washington County issued sixty-five (65) demolition permits per year. BecauseSince not all demolitions involve historic structures, there were an average of only 3 demolition permits reviewed by the Historic District Commission each year during that same period.1 The primary reasons for demolition permit review by the HDC are to ensure all demolition alternatives have been explored and any mitigations have been evaluated and executed. Again, the policy, eExcept in the case of the Historic Preservation Zoning Overlay, the policy does not allow for the HDC to deny the issuance of a demolition permit. The existing demolition policy from 1990 also does not have any penalty for demolition without a permit or demolition by neglect. The lack of approval authority, demolition without a permit, and demolition by neglect have been topics for updates to the existing demolition policy, several times since the adoption of the previous Comprehensive Plan, however, the 1990 policy remains in effect.

Demolition By Neglect

Described as a situation in which a property owner intentionally allows a historic property to suffer severe deterioration, potentially beyond the point of repair. Property owners may use this kind of long-term neglect to circumvent historic preservation regulations. The Historic District Commission sends targeted mailings regarding incentive programs to properties threatened by demolition by neglect.

Historic Context and Scenic Corridors

The protection of scenic corridors, especially those associated with small towns and villages, is important to historic resource protection. Preserve Maryland II encourages the protection of scenic vistas and gateways to small towns. Deteriorated corridors can detract from the context of nearby historic resources and also reduces the goal of immersion that heritage tourism strives to achieve. As discussed previously, the County

Rural landscape near Smithsburg, facing east

Rural Heritage Museum and Village, Washington County, MD

protects the approaches, viewshed and Antietam National Battlefield proper with Antietam Zoning Overlays. To a lesser degree, there are Historic Rural Villages which have adopted surveys that also have review standards aimed at protecting the context of the contributing resources.

The Historic Preservation Overlays aim to protect context by including not only the historic resources themselves, but an area surrounding the resources large enough to retain the resource’s context. There are many other areas in the County that have clusters of valuable resources which could benefit from similar overlay protections. These include areas along historic roadways, Rural Villages not yet surveyed, Historic Rural Village approaches, and properties on the National Register of Historic Places. Studies to determine areas and roadways where historic context would benefit from expanded land use protections, such as screening, setbacks and other design standards should be completed.

1 Accela Automation, CompPlan, Historic Review Workflow Report

Historic Policies, Programs and Regulations

The majority of historic resource regulations within the County are found in the Zoning Ordinance. The inclusion of the Historic Preservation Overlay and enabling language for the Historic District Commission in that ordinance were a requirement of the Certified Local Government application in the 1990’s. At the time, the Zoning Ordinance was an appropriate mechanism, however, historic resource protection has evolved at the State and county level. Multiple ordinances, policies and programs with varying language and terminology must be referenced to determine impacts on resources on a specific property. Confusion also occurs between naming conventions such as the Rural Village zoning designation and the Historic Rural Villages, which require Historic District Commission review.

Incentives

As previously discussed, the County has an Ordinance to Provide Property Tax Credits for Improvements to Specified Historic Structures which was adopted in 1990. The Ordinance has not been updated to take full advantage of the maximum percentages allowed by State law. The local tax credit program is also extremely underutilized. The program has only seen 38 issued credits over the span of its existence with the majority being in the City of Hagerstown. For a homeowner, the 10% credit on applicable construction is often not enough to justify the documentation required. The tax credit program also requires the owners to have the money to complete the projects, which is often not feasible for large expenses.

Another hurdle for property owners is the narrow definition of qualified areas. In the County, a rezoning is often required to even qualify. While the rezoning cost is deferred by the Department of Planning and Zoning, this adds additional time to project timelines which might deter applicants. The County should continue to expand qualifying areas for tax credits, streamline documentation requirements, and maximize the credits allowed by State legislation. The County should also examine adjacent jurisdictions programs and other existing County programs which could be leveraged or modified for additional historic resource protection and incentives such as grants.

Formatted: Heading 5

HISTORIC RECOMMENDATIONS

* Expand and update the Washington County hHistoric rResourceSites iInventory by continuing to support updates to the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties and evaluating existing inventory documentation for updates. The County may also pursue prioritization of the local inventory.a local resource inventory.

* Improve the framework for historic resource preservation by ensuring that existing incentive mechanisms are robust and new alternatives are explored.

* Minimize factors which negatively impact historic and cultural resources by balancing growth and providing education opportunities which promote historic resource appreciation.

* Identify and protect additional scenic corridors or areas with a high integrity of historic context through land use policies

* Modernize and create a separate Historic Preservation Ordinance that consolidates terminology for review areas to reduce confusion and also addresses topics specific to Historic Preservation such as demolition and demolition by neglect of historic resources.

* Collaborate with historic resource interest groups and connect with new audiences by promoting historic resources and improving cooperative relationships with historic resource interested parties.

* Pursue updates to the existing demolition policy while pursuing an incentive-based program for historic resources.

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Stone Arch Bridges August 7, 2024

Managing Washington County’s

Hitt Bridge

Keedysville Road

• Introduction

• Washington County Bridges

• Bridge Inspection Program

• Funding

• Decision Making

• Design

• Bridge Rehabilitation and Repairs

• Price's Mill Bridge

• Closing

• Questions

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

Mill Race Bridge Poffenberger Road

Claggett’s

Washington County, Maryland

Washington County goes to great efforts to preserve and maintain its infrastructure, including our stone arch bridges.

• To ensure the maximum useful life of our structures

• To provide acceptable service to the public

Hess’ Mill Bridge Coffman Farms Road

County Bridges

93 Major Structures 20 ft +

• 13 Stone Arch Bridges (+1 hybrid) maintained by Washington County

201Minor Structures 6 ft – 20 ft

• 12 Stone Arch Bridges maintained by Washington County

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

Felfoot Bridge Dogstreet Road

County Bridges

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges County Bridges

STONE ARCH BRIDGES

1Wilson Bridge 1819 Pedestrian

2Kline's Mill Bridge 1820s Old National Pike (Alt 40)

3Price's Bridge 1822 Abandoned

4Funkstown Turnpike Bridge 1823 Frederick Street (Alt Route 40)

5Roxbury Mill Bridge 1824 Roxbury Road

6Devil's Backbone Bridge 1824 Lappans Road (MD 68)

7Broadfording Bridge 1829 Broadfording Road

8Concococheague Bridge 1829 Conococheague Street (MD 68)

9Hitt Bridge 1830 Keedysville Road

Antietam Iron Works Bridge 1832 Harpers Ferry Road

Hess' Mill Bridge 1832 Coffman Farms Road

County Bridges

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

Bridge Inspection Program

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968 and Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978.

• National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)

Primary purpose is to locate and evaluate existing bridge deficiencies to ensure the safety of the traveling public.

• Stone Arch Bridges were not built to carry the vehicles of today

• Provide a thorough bridge inspection. Document and monitor the deficiencies until appropriate repairs can be made.

• In turn, we can adequately preserve and maintain our historic structures.

Washington County, Maryland

Bridge Inspection Program

NBIS require major structures to be inspected at least every 2 years.

• Sets national standards for proper safety inspection and evaluation of bridges

• Bridge Inspection Reports

Local jurisdictions determine the inspection cycle for minor structures. Washington County does every 4 years.

Wilson Bridge

Major Structures

• Inspection Reports/ Computer database program (Structural Asset Manager – InspectTech) assists in managing inventory

• More detailed reports includes

• Bridge drawings

• Repair recommendations

• Bridge data summary

• Photographs

• Stream Bottom Soundings

• Load Rating Calculations

Minor Structures

• Report includes

• Field Inspection Worksheet

• Repair Recommendations

• Photographs

Washington County, Maryland

Major Structures

• Washington County spends approximately $900k/ 2 year cycle on inspection program.

• 93 bridges (Washington County)

• 12 bridges (City of Hagerstown)

• 2 bridges (Town of Clear Spring)

• 2 bridges (Town of Hancock)

• 100% covered by Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

Minor Structures

• Washington County spends approximately $150k/ 4 year cycle on inspection program

• 100% local funds

County, Maryland

From Inspection Reports Evaluate

• Structural Inventory & Appraisal (SI&A) Ratings

• Bridge Sufficiency Ratings (BSR)

• Element Level Ratings

• Repair Category and Recommendation

Based on the numbers, many of our stone arch bridges that have not been recently rehabilitated are at the top of the priority list.

Washington County, Maryland

Structural Inventory and Appraisal

• Each component of a bridge gets a rating value from 0 to 9.

Bridge Sufficiency Rating

• Scale 0-100 (100 excellent)

Washington County, Maryland

Each bridge has a bridge sufficiency rating (BSR)

• Computed based on SI&A ratings

FHWA tracks each major bridge in the U.S. to provide overall infrastructure score card

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges

Repair Category

• I – Structure needs major rehabilitation or replacement

• II – Structure needs minor rehabilitation or major repairs

• III – Structure needs minor repairs by maintenance forces

Repair Recommendations

• Assigns a priority code and cost

Bridge Inspection Data and Reports

• Stored in Structural Asset Manager and hard copy in County records

County, Maryland

A Bridge is considered Structurally Deficient IF:

• Deck, Superstructure, Substructure or Culvert are rated a “4” or less (Poor or worse condition).

Some of our stone arch bridges needing repairs are structurally deficient

• All are “functionally obsolete” due to the bridge width (1 lane in each direction)

• Functionally obsolete means that bridge not designed to current standards; not necessarily indication of bridge structural condition

Funding

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges

Pry’s Mill Bridge Keedysville Road

Washington County, Maryland

Funding

is limited

Washington County spends approximately $1.5 million - $2.5 million per year on maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, replacing bridges and culverts

Funding

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges

Claggett’s Mill Bridge

Poffenberger Road

Decision Making

Washington County, Maryland

Due to the aging infrastructure and limited funding, Washington County typically follows a “Worst-First” evaluation

“Worst-First” – Structures with the lowest ratings are grouped together for review

• If a structure is eligible for federal bridge funding, it goes to the top of the list for rehabilitation or replacement.

Stone Arch Bridges

Decision Making

Staff/Structural Engineer

• Maintains Inventory, develops priority list and cost estimates for review

Chief of Design and Director of Engineering

• Recommends projects for funding

• Evaluate and prioritizes against other project needs (Buildings, Road, Parks)

CIP Budget Committee Review

• Evaluate to ensure recommendations align with funding and long-term planning needs

Washington County Commissioners

• Approve budget; continue to support investment in stone arch bridges

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges

Design

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges

Our 19th Century Stone Arch Bridges are classified as historic

• Eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places

Must Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

• Afforded a degree of protection under historic preservation laws

Must adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

• To provide an acceptable rehabilitation or repair

Old Forge Bridge

Design

Washington County, Maryland

Major rehabilitation projects are designed by a consultant hired by the County through SHA’s open-ended consultant process

• ~$500,000 design cost per bridge

• Using Federal Highway Bridge Program Funding and SHA Review Process

• Funding is 80/20 cost share – County pay 20%

• Design and load rating based currently based on STAAD® structural analysis modeling

• Previous methods have included finite element analysis software, Ring® masonry arch bridge analysis, and hand calculations for an arch

Repair plans are prepared in-house by County staff

County, Maryland

Repairs to the bridges in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s provided a concrete cap over the arches and drainage pipes within the existing soil-gravel fill

• Not replacing the soil gravel infill with lightweight concrete has proven to be an issue with the development of bulging spandrel walls and severe deterioration of mortar joints

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges

The concrete cap over the arch has proven to be effective in protecting the arch and has assisted in ensuring the arches remain in tact during construction.

Design

County, Maryland

We use an effective technique for rehabilitation that strengthens the bridge and does not alter its visual appearance

• Replacing the soil-gravel fill with reinforced lightweight concrete and reconstructing the stone masonry spandrel and parapet walls.

• The fill of the bridge is not considered a character defining element

County, Maryland

This type of design is considered to have “no adverse effect” by the Maryland Historical Trust

• Reconstruction of stone spandrel and parapet walls use existing salvaged stone or new stone that matches the existing stone as closely as possible

• The mortar used for repointing and reconstruction matches MHT’s recommendations.

Washington County, Maryland

This type of design follow the Secretary of Interior Standards

• 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

Most stone arch bridges need to be fully rehabilitated by a Contractor with sufficient resources

5-8 months per project

Bridge Span Rehab. Cost

Two Arch $1,500,000

Three Arch $2,000,000

Four Arch $3,000,000

Washington County, Maryland

Strite’s Mill Bridge Leiters Mill Road

Rehabilitation

County, Maryland

General work items associated with most bridge rehabilitation projects:

• Remove soil/gravel fill and replace with a lightweight concrete

• Reconstruct spandrel and parapet walls

• Replace concrete parapet cap

• Construct concrete collars around the pier/abutment

• Provide proper traffic barrier attachments to bridge

• Asphalt paving and line striping

• Install traffic signs to mitigate conflicts with one travel lane on bridge

Rehabilitation

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges

Bridge Rehabilitation Process

Rehabilitation

Types of Mortar Used in Construction

• Lime Mortar (Lime, sand, and water)

• Used in the early 1800’s

• No longer used because of durability and strength issues

Mason’s Hydrated Lime (cement mortar, lime, sand and water)

• Still used in some applications

• Better durability and strength

Masonry Cement Mortar (Portland cement, hydrated lime, plasticizers, air entraining agents, sand, and water)

• Types: M, S, N, O

• Durability, strength, and workability are improved

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

Rehabilitation

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

WashingtonCounty’s Preferred Mortar Mix

• Masonry cement color C224 (Brixment®pecan)

• Light Yellow Sand (conform to ASTM C144)

Joint Styles

• Shallow inverted (convex) smooth “V” joint even with face stones for all exposed surfaces

• Flat joints underneath the arch barrels even with face stones

Vehicle Damage to Bridge

• Stones were recovered from stream

• Project bid to local contractors

County, Maryland

Vehicle Damage to Bridge Parapet Wall

County, Maryland

• Stones from the damaged wall were taken to our Highway Department for storage until the bridge was rehabilitated in 2010. A temporary wall was constructed in its place

Flooding Damaged Pier Nose

County, Maryland

• Stones were recovered from the stream were taken to our Highway Department for storage and used in 2008 bridge rehabilitation. A temporary pier nose was constructed in its place

Funkstown Bridge No. 2

East Oak Ridge Drive

Washington County, Maryland

Stone Arch Bridges Repairs

Debris Removal

• Following heavy storms, debris often collects on the piers and blocks the openings. A crane and clamshell bucket is used to remove the debris. The larger logs are cut, loaded and hauled off site for disposal

Price's Mill

History

• Five arch structure constructed in 1832 by Charles Wilson at a cost of $5,500

• Established on well traveled route with access to Price's Sawmill.

• Flooding caused by Hurricane Agnes damaged the bridge in 1972. Temporary repairs were made for it to remain in service until a bypass bridge was completed in 1979.

• Closed since 1979.

Washington County, Maryland

Price's Mill

Situation

• While the bridge was abandoned in 1979 no plans for its removal or rehabilitation similar to the Wilson Bridge occurred.

• The County never conveyed ownership or relinquished interest in the bridge, however, there is limited public access on either side.

• Stone arch bridges are more susceptible to debris blockages, weathering and storm damage than bridges with piers that clear span the waterway.

• Debris has accumulated blocking the stream flow, impacting waterway recreation and surrounding property owners affected by flooding.

Washington County, Maryland

Price's Mill

Situation – Historic Eligibility

Washington County, Maryland

• Structures considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) have greater protection by State and Federal Agencies.

• In 2022, the County through a consultant completed an updated Determination of Eligibility Review of the Bridge documenting the deterioration and changes to the structure since the last review in 1994. The consultant's findings indicated the bridge retains integrity of location but not the materials and workmanship which have deteriorated and been modified, and therefore, recommended that the bridge does not meet the criteria to remain eligible.

• The Maryland Historic Trust agreed that the structure's "character defining elements are in fair to poor condition...however, the bridge retains sufficient integrity...to remain eligible for the NRHP."

Price's Mill

Challenges

• There is limited access on either side of the bridge for debris removal.

• Further complicated by the overhead power and utilities lines on the upstream side of the bridge.

• Bridge is unsafe to setup on

Washington County, Maryland

Price's Mill

Challenges

• Debris removal labor quote is $100,000 for one arch closest to the streambank and an estimated $75,000 for each additional arch.

• Dump fees are estimated to be another $50,000.

• Permitting and pad in stream for crane $50,000

• Total cost close to $500,000 for debris removal.

• Debris removal represents an ongoing labor and financial investment.

• Broadfording Road – May 2024 $60k for crane and dump fees; 2 County crews for 1.5 weeks

Washington County, Maryland

Price's Mill

Options and Challenges

• Rehabilitation ~$5 million

• Bridge is not in service – need to be majority locally funded. Difficult to achieve priority status for funding

• Significant deterioration and challenges with recreating original structure

• Ongoing challenges and cost to maintain a bridge with limited access

Washington County, Maryland

Price's Mill

Options and Challenges

• Debris Removal

• A major cost investment that does not address the cause of the blockage which is the presence of the structure.

• County cleans out Broadfording and Wilson Bridges almost annually.

• Demolition

• Removes a structure that Maryland Historic Trust considers eligible for the NRHP.

• Demolition combined with the debris removal operation offers a permanent solution and economies of scale.

• Need to be locally funded

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

What is the legacy of Price's Mill Bridge to the past, present and future?

Is there a realistic solution for a future legacy?

What collaboration and compromises are willing to be considered?

Price's Mill

Options and Challenges

• Stalemate

• Stakeholders need to recognize the situation and realities. It is highly unlikely that efforts will occur to rehabilitate the entire bridge when it will continue to present flooding and waterway obstruction obligations and problems.

• Do not recommend kicking the can down the road, removing debris and performing temporary bridge repairs in hopes of raising future funds for a rehabilitation (past tactic)

• Legacy

• No public access – out of sight and out of mind.

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

Price's Mill

Options and Solutions

• Public Access

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

• Conococheague Water Trail. Similar to efforts on the Antietam Creek, create public access points along the creek for waterway recreation (boating, tubing, fishing).

• Contingent upon working with willing property owners to establish access

• Improved the relevancy of the bridge.

• No longer overlooked but an amenity

Price's Mill

Options

Risk

Washington County, Maryland Stone Arch Bridges

and Solutions – Reducing Cost and

• Funding

• Park and Historic Preservation funding is limited compared to bridge and highway.

• Is it enough to save part of the bridge?

• Partial demolition and public access?

• Save 1-2 spans along the western bank?

• Location on Conococheague Water Trail?

• Opens main channel to flow, allows easier equipment access from the stream bank

• Avignon, France example

• Historic masonry bridge damaged multiple times by floods

• Retained several arches as promenade

• Main channel now unobstructed.

Washington County, Maryland

To effectively manage and preserve our infrastructure, we need to know how to

• Assess our inventory

• Identify and address our needs

• Consider funding solutions

• Develop a short-term and long-term plan

Price's Mill Bridge

• At the "Addressing our needs and consider funding solutions" stage

• Build consensus on a Plan of Action

• Action = budget request for funding to implement

• Action = design and permitting

• Action = change from status quo

Stone Arch Bridges

8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 301, Towson, Maryland 21286 - 410.853.7128 - www.trileaf.com

August 15, 2024

Washington County Historic District Commission

100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, MD 21740

Phone: 240-313-2776

RE: Milestone Towers – Reed / Trileaf Project # 745580

20026 Lehman Mill Road, Hagerstown, MD 21742

Washington County, Hagerstown Quadrangle (USGS)

Latitude: 39° 42’ 32.77” N, Longitude: 77° 40’ 14.47” W

To whom it may concern:

Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA Review at the referenced property. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound. The project includes a 12-foot wide gravel access drive extending southeast, then northeast away from the lease area approximately 220 feet toward Lehmans Mill Road. The proposed location is currently an agricultural field. The antenna will be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that is listed, or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places or located in or on an Indian Religious Site.

Trileaf is requesting information regarding this tower’s potential effect on Historic Properties. All information received will be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as part of the NEPA review process. Additionally, this invitation to comment is separate from any local planning/zoning process that may apply to this project

If you wish to comment or be considered a consulting party, please respond within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. If a response is not received within thirty (30) days, it will be assumed that you have no objections to this undertaking. A site topography map and aerial photograph are enclosed for your reference.

Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email m.grasham@trileaf.com if you need additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard.

Sincerely,

McKayla Grasham Project Scientist II

Site Location & Surrounding Properties

Aerial Photographs (2023)

Easement

Hagerstown Quadrangle, Maryland (2023)

Contour Interval = 20 Feet

Site Vicinity Map

Milestone Towers – Reed 20026 Lehman Mill Road

Hagerstown, MD 21742

Site Location

8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 301, Towson, Maryland 21286 - 410.853.7128 - www.trileaf.com

July 14, 2024

MHT Project Review and Compliance

Attn: Ms. Beth Cole

100 Community Place, 3rd Floor Crownsville, MD 21032-2023

Email: beth.cole@maryland.gov

Phone: 410-697-9541

RE: Milestone Towers – Reed / Trileaf Project # 745580

20026 Lehman Mill Road, Hagerstown, MD 21742

Washington County, Hagerstown Quadrangle (USGS)

Latitude: 39° 42’ 32.77” N, Longitude: 77° 40’ 14.47” W

To Whom It May Concern:

Trileaf Corporation is in the process of completing a NEPA review at the referenced property. Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. Associated equipment will be located within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square feet) fenced compound. The project includes a 12-foot wide gravel access drive extending southeast, then northeast away from the lease area approximately 220 feet toward Lehman Mill Road. The proposed location is currently an agricultural field. The antenna will be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In accordance with the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission, dated September 2004, a cultural resource investigation has been conducted. Our investigation includes determining if the site is contained in, on, or within the viewshed of a building, site, district, structure or object, significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that is listed, or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or located in or on an Indian Religious Site.

Summary reports of this investigation, maps, photographs and other information are provided in the attached Form 620.As noted in Attachment 5, there are No Effect to Historic Resources within the APE for Direct Effects and No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties within the APE for Visual Effects. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed undertaking proceed without further archaeological review.

We appreciate your cooperation in this regard and anticipate your concurrence with these findings. Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email m.grasham@trileaf.com if you need any additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

McKayla Grasham Project Scientist II

33) Does the Principal Investigator satisfy the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards?

34) Areas of Professional Qualification:

( ) Archaeologist

( ) Architectural Historian

( ) Historian

( ) Architect

( ) Other (Specify) __________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Staff

35) Are there other staff involved who meet the Professional Qualification Standards of the Secretary of the Interior?

If “YES,” complete the following:

36) First Name:

40) Title:

41) Areas of Professional Qualification:

( ) Archaeologist

( ) Architectural Historian

( ) Historian

( ) Architect

( ) Other (Specify) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Hope Hawkins X Historic Resources Director

1) TCNS Notification Number:

Site Information

2) Positive Train Control Filing Subject to Expedited Treatment Under Program Comment: ( ) Yes ( ) No

3) Site Name:

4) Site Address:

5) Detailed Description of Project:

Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. The proposed location is currently an agricultural field.

6) City: 7) State: 8) Zip Code:

9) County/Borough/Parish:

10) Nearest Crossroads:

Lehman Mill Road and Marsh Pike

11) NAD 83 Latitude (DD-MM-SS.S): ( ) N or ( ) S

12) NAD 83 Longitude (DD-MM-SS.S): ( ) E or ( ) W Tower Information

13) Tower height above ground level (include top-mounted attachments such as lightning rods): ___________________ ( ) Feet ( ) Meters

14) Tower Type (Select One):

( ) Guyed lattice tower

( ) Self-supporting lattice

( ) Monopole

( ) Other (Describe):

Project Status

15) Current Project Status (Select One):

( ) Construction has not yet commenced

( ) Construction has commenced, but is not completed

( ) Construction has been completed

commenced on: __________

14) Direct Effects (Select One):

( ) No Historic Properties in Area of Potential Effects (APE)

( ) No Effect on Historic Properties in APE

( ) No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties in APE

( ) Adverse Effect on one or more Historic Properties in APE

15) Visual Effects (Select One):

( ) No Historic Properties in Area of Potential Effects (APE)

( ) No Effect on Historic Properties in APE

( ) No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties in APE

( ) Adverse Effect on one or more Historic Properties in APE

Tribal/NHO Involvement

1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visual effects? ( ) Yes ( ) No

2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________

2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________

Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS

3) Tribe/NHO FRN:

4) Tribe/NHO Name:

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians

Contact Name

5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:

9) Title:

Dates & Response

10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________

( ) No Reply

06/12/2024 X Lawrence Plucinski THPO

( ) Replied/No Interest

( ) Replied/Have Interest

( ) Replied/Other

Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS

3) Tribe/NHO FRN:

4) Tribe/NHO Name:

Delaware Nation

Contact Name

5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:

9) Title:

Dates & Response

10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________

( ) No Reply

06/12/2024 X Tiffany Martinez TCNS Coordinator

( ) Replied/No Interest

( ) Replied/Have Interest

( ) Replied/Other

Tribal/NHO Involvement

2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________

2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________

Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS

3) Tribe/NHO FRN:

4) Tribe/NHO Name:

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

Contact Name

5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:

9) Title:

Kelly Nelson Cell Tower Coordinator

Dates & Response

06/13/2024

07/03/2024

10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________

( ) No Reply

( ) Replied/No Interest

( ) Replied/Have Interest

( ) Replied/Other

Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS

3) Tribe/NHO FRN:

4) Tribe/NHO Name:

Seneca-Cayuga Nation

Contact Name

5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:

9) Title:

William Tarrant THPO

Dates & Response

06/13/2024

10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________

( ) No Reply

( ) Replied/No Interest

( ) Replied/Have Interest

( ) Replied/Other

Tribal/NHO Involvement

2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________

2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________

Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS

3) Tribe/NHO FRN:

4) Tribe/NHO Name:

Contact Name

Tribe

5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:

9) Title:

Tipton THPO

Dates & Response

10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________

( ) No Reply

06/12/2024 X

( ) Replied/No Interest

( ) Replied/Have Interest

( ) Replied/Other

Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS

3) Tribe/NHO FRN:

4) Tribe/NHO Name:

Contact Name

Nation

5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:

9) Title:

Dates & Response

10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________

( ) No Reply

06/12/2024 X Bryan Printup TCNS Rep

( ) Replied/No Interest

( ) Replied/Have Interest

( ) Replied/Other

Shawnee

Tonya

Tuscarora

Tribal/NHO Involvement

2a) Tribes/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number: ___________________ Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________

2b) Tribes/NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tribes/NHOs: _________________

Tribe/NHO Contacted Through TCNS

3) Tribe/NHO FRN:

4) Tribe/NHO Name:

Contact Name

5) First Name: 6) MI: 7) Last Name: 8) Suffix:

9) Title:

Dates & Response

10) Date Contacted ______________ 11) Date Replied _______________

( ) No Reply

( ) Replied/No Interest

( ) Replied/Have Interest

( ) Replied/Other Wyandotte Nation 06/12/2024 X

Tribe/NHO Information

1) FCC Registration Number (FRN):

2) Name:

Contact Name

3) First Name: 4) MI: 5) Last Name: 6) Suffix:

7) Title:

Contact Information

8) P.O. Box: And /Or 9) Street Address:

10) City:

13) Telephone Number:

15) E-mail Address:

16) Preferred means of communication:

( ) E-mail

( ) Letter

( ) Both

Dates & Response

Fax Number:

17) Date Contacted _______________ 18) Date Replied _______________

( ) No Reply

( ) Replied/No Interest

( ) Replied/Have Interest

( ) Replied/Other

Historic Properties Properties Identified

1) Have any historic properties been identified within the APEs for direct and visual effect?

2) Has the identification process located archaeological materials that would be directly affected, or sites that are of cultural or religious significance to Tribes/NHOs?

3) Are there more than 10 historic properties within the APEs for direct and visual effect? If “Yes”, you are required to attach a Cultural Resources Report in lieu of adding the Historic Property below.

4) Property Name: 5) SHPO Site Number:

Address 6) Street Address: 7) City:

County/Borough/Parish:

& Eligibility

11) Is this property listed on the National Register?

12) Is this property eligible for listing on the National Register?

14) Direct Effects (Select One):

( ) No Effect on this Historic Property in APE

( ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE

( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE

15) Visual Effects (Select One):

( ) No Effect on this Historic Property in APE

( ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE

( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE

State: 9) Zip Code:

Name 3) First Name:

Information 8) P.O. Box: And /Or 9) Street Address:

City:

Telephone Number:

E-mail Address:

16) Preferred means of communication: ( ) E-mail

( ) Letter ( ) Both

Dates & Response

17) Date Contacted _______________

( ) No Reply

( ) Replied/No Interest

( ) Replied/Have Interest

( ) Replied/Other Additional Information 19) Information on local government’s role or interest (optional): City of Hagerstown- Historic District Commission To Whom It May Concern

Fax Number:

( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other

Designation of SHPO/THPO

1) Designate the Lead State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) based on the location of the tower.

SHPO/THPO

Maryland Historical Trust

Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2) You may also designate up to three additional SHPOs/THPOs if the APEs include multiple states. If the APEs include other countries, enter the name of the National Historic Preservation Agency and any state and provincial Historic Preservation Agency.

SHPO/THPO Name: ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Certification

I certify that all representations on this FCC Form 620 Submission Packet and the accompanying attachments are true, correct, and complete.

Party Authorized to Sign

First Name: MI: Last Name: Suffix:

Mckayla Grasham

07/14/2024

Signature: Date: _______________

FAILURE TO SIGN THIS APPLICATION MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION AND FORFEITURE OF ANY FEES PAID.

WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM OR ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001) AND/OR REVOCATION OF ANY STATION LICENSE OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 312(a)(1)), AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 503).

Attachments :

Type Description

Date Entered

Other Cover Letter 07/14/2024

Resumes/Vitae Resumes 07/14/2024

Photographs Photographs 07/14/2024

Map Documents Maps 07/14/2024

Other CDs 07/14/2024

Area of Potential Effects APE 07/14/2024

Tribal/NHO Involvement Tribes 07/14/2024

Historic Properties for Direct Effects Direct APE 07/14/2024

Historic Properties for Visual Effects Visual APE 07/14/2024

Local Government Involvement Local Government 07/14/2024

Public Involvement Public Involvement 07/14/2024

State-Specific Forms State-Specific 07/14/2024

FCC Form 620

Applicant’s Name

Milestone Towers

Project Name Reed

Trileaf Project Number: 745580

Acheulean Project Number: CR-2024-042

Address 20026 Lehman Mill Road, Hagerstown, MD 21742

Coordinates 39.709103°, -77.670687° 39°42'32.771"N, 77°40'14.474"W

Project Type Construction of a new 150’ monopole within lease parcel

Tower Height/ Type 150’ monopole/ 152’ overall

Trileaf PM Brooks Thacker

Acheulean PI Jason C. Flay, MA RPA

ATTACHMENT 1. CONSULTANT INFORMATION

Provide a current copy of the resume or curriculum vitae for the Principal Investigator and any researcher or other person who contributed to, reviewed, or provided signiﬁcant input into the research, analysis, writing or conclusions presented in this ﬁling.

A current copy of the resume for the Principal Investigator and any researcher or other person who contributed to, reviewed, or provided signiﬁcant input into the research, analysis, writing, or conclusions presented in this ﬁling.

Hope Hawkins, MA Historic Resources Director

Professional Resume

M C K AYLA G RASHAM

PROJECT SCIENTIST II

Education

Biological Sciences, B. S.

University of Virginia’s College at Wise / Wise, VA

Areas of Expertise

Ms. Grasham has experience performing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for wireless telecommunications projects.

Environmental service expertise includes:

National Wetland Inventory Maps

Flood Insurance Rate Maps

Critical Habitat Maps

Soil Characterization

Archaeological and Architectural Impacts

Field Reconnaissance

Form 620/621 Submittals

Asbestos Inspections

Lead-Based Paint Surveys

Section 106 Compliance

NEPA Environmental Assessments

Migratory Bird Evaluations

Historical Topographic Maps and Aerial Imagery

Native American Consultation

Local Government Consultation

Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

Indoor Air Quality Assessments

Certifications/Affiliations

Certified Asbestos Inspector – MD (Cert #Al10132021-3)

Certified Lead Inspector- MD (Cert #100797)

Certified Asbestos Inspector - VA (License #3303004905)

Certified Lead Inspector - VA (License #3355001100)

Certified Asbestos Inspector- PA (License #063862)

Certified Lead Inspector- VT (License #IT683643)

Certified Asbestos Inspector- VT (License #MP-000003)

First Aid Pediatric/Adult CPR Certified

ATTACHMENT 2. SITE INFORMATION – PHOTOGRAPHS

You are required to provide photographs and maps as part of this ﬁling. Additional site information can be provided in an optional attachment.

Photograph Requirements:

Except in cases where no Historic Properties were identified within the Areas of Potential Effects, submit photographs as described below. Photographs should be in color, marked so as to identify the project, keyed to the relevant map or text, and dated; the focal length of the lens and the height of the camera should be noted. The source of any photograph included but not taken by the Applicant or its consultant (including copies of historic images) should be identified on the photograph.

a. Photographs taken from the site should show views from the proposed location in all directions. The direction (e.g., north, south, etc.) should be indicated on each photograph, and, as a group, the photographs should present a complete (360 degree) view of the area around the proposed site.

Please reference the following directional photographs of the project area, which were taken by Jason C. Flay on June 12, 2024, unless otherwise noted.

b. Photographs of all listed in and eligible properties within the Areas of Potential Eﬀects

N/A

c. If any listed or eligible properties are visible from the proposed site, photographs looking at the site from each historic property. The approximate distance in feet (meters) between the site and the historic property should be included. If any listed or eligible properties are within the APE, photos looking at each historic property should be included.

N/A

Aerial photographs of the site were obtained via Esri, imagery is dated to 2022.

Fig. 2.1 – P1, view southwe st along access road

Fig. 2.2 – P2, View north from center point

Fig. 2.3 – P3, View east from center point

Fig. 2.4 – P4, View south from center point

Fig. 2.5 – P5, View west from center point

Site Location & Surrounding Properties

Aerial Photographs (2023)

Easement

ATTACHMENT 3. SITE INFORMATION – MAP REQUIREMENTS

Include one or more 7.5-minute quad USGS topographical maps that:

a. Identify the Areas of Potential Eﬀects for both Direct and Visual Eﬀects. If a map is copied from the original, include a key with the name of quad and date.

b. Show the location of the proposed site and any access roads or other easements including excavations.

c. Show the locations of each property listed.

d. Include keys for any symbols, colors, or other identiﬁers.

e. Submit color maps whenever possible.

The following maps have been attached to this report:

• 7.5-min Topographic Quad Map with Project Location, 2024

• Aerial Imagery with Shovel Test Pit Locations and Project Boundary

• Modern Soil Map with Project Location

• Map of historic resources within a 0.5-mile Buﬀer of APE

Hagerstown Quadrangle, Maryland (2023)

Contour Interval = 20 Feet

Site Vicinity Map

Milestone Towers – Reed 20026 Lehman Mill Road

Hagerstown, MD 21742

Site Location

Fig. 3.1 – 7.5-min Topographic Quad Map with Project Location, 2024

Fig. 3.2 – Aerial Imagery with Shovel Test Pit Locations and Project Boundary

Fig. 3.3 – •Modern Soil Map with Project Location

Fig. 3.4– Map of historic resources within a .5-mi Buﬀer of APE

ATTACHMENT 4. SITE INFORMATION – ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION

Describe any additional structures, access roads, utility lines, fences, easements, or other construction planned for the site.

The proposed project is for the construction of a new 150-foot telecommunications monopole (with a 2-foot antenna) in a 50’ x 50’ fenced lease area and an approximately 395’ long by 12’ wide access road. The utilities will utilize the access road. The proposed access road will use an existing farm road. The project exits from the road and travels up a hill along a fence line. The access road cuts through the fence to the west to a turnaround north of the lease area. The lease area is on a ridge in an undeveloped agricultural ﬁeld. Total acreage of the new construction area is approximately 0.21 acres (0.089 hectare).

The construction drawings provided by Milestone Towers are included in this attachment.

SUBJECT PARCEL

ATTACHMENT 5. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

You are required to provide two attachments regarding the Determination of Effect: Areas of Potential Effect and Mitigation of Effect (if applicable).

AREAS OF POTENTIAL EFFECT GUIDELINES:

a. Describe the APE for direct eﬀects and explain how this APE was determined.

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.

b. Describe the APE for visual eﬀects and explain how this APE was determined.

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 site if the proposed tower is 200 feet or less in height; b. Within ¾ of a mile from the tower site 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 site if the proposed tower is more than 400 feet in overall height.

Taking into consideration the maximum height of the proposed undertaking (152 feet) and the minimal scale of the installation, Acheulean determined that the current project’s APE for visual eﬀects will encompass a 1�2 mile radius from the subject property.

ATTACHMENT 5. CONTINUED

MITIGATION OF EFFECT GUIDELINES:

In the case of where an Adverse Visual Eﬀect or Adverse Direct Eﬀect has been determined you must provide the following:

a. Copies of any correspondence and summaries of any oral communication with the SHPO/THPO and any consulting parties.

N/A

b. Describe any alternatives that have been considered that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse eﬀects. Explain the Applicant’s conclusion regarding the feasibility of each alternative.

N/A

For each property identiﬁed as a Historic Property in the online e-106 form:

a. Indicate whether the Applicant believes the proposed undertaking would have a) no effect; b) no adverse effect; or, c) an adverse effect. Explain how each such assessment was made. Provide supporting documentation where necessary.

Jason C. Flay, MA, RPA performed this survey in response to the planned use of the abovedescribed parcel and the potential impacts that such use might present to any archaeological and architectural cultural resources within the project area. Mr. Flay meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualiﬁcations Standards for Archaeology.

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 precontact archaeological resources within the project area, a review of previously recorded archaeological sites and surveys was conducted using the Maryland Master Site Files (Medusa). 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 the NRHP. The review revealed there are no archaeological surveys in the footprint of the APE-DE, and no recorded archaeological sites were recorded within 1 mile of the project area.

ATTACHMENT 5. CONTINUED

Additionally, based on a review of the Maryland Medusa Site Files databases, and through the National Register Information System website (http://www.nr.nps.gov/) was conducted on June 21, 2024, by Jason C. Flay, MA, RPA, Principal Investigator at Acheulean.

There are One NRHP-eligible or -listed Above-Ground resources identified within the APE for Direct or Visual effects., although due to the vegetation and topography it is believed that there will be No Adverse Effects

There were Two Below-Ground resources identiﬁed in the 1-mile buﬀer, 0 are NRHP eligible or listed.

It is therefore recommended that project clearance be granted with no further investigation or evaluation of the project area.

Please see the attached Cultural Resources Survey Report for additional information.

ATTACHMENT 6. TRIBAL AND NHO INVOLVEMENT

At an early stage in the planning process, the Nationwide Agreement requires the Applicant to gather information from appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (“NHOs”) to assist in the identification of Historic Properties of religious and cultural significance to them. Describe measures taken to identify Indian tribes and NHOs that may attach religious and cultural significance to Historic Properties that may be affected by the construction within the Areas of Potential Effects (“APE”) for direct and visual effects. If such Indian tribes or NHOs were identified, list them and provide a summary of contacts by either the FCC, the Applicant, or the Applicant’s representative. Provide copies of relevant documents, including correspondence. If no such Indian tribes or NHOs were identified, please explain.

Trileaf Corporation completed the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) on June 10, 2024, and received the notification of interested tribes on June 14, 2024. The attached FCC Notification email lists the Tribes identified through the TCNS process. A second notice will be sent to all interested tribes/organizations, after a period of 30 days and the consultation process will continue per the FCC’s guidelines. Any relevant comments from Tribes received by Trileaf will be forwarded to your office.

From: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov

Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 2:03 AM

To: Tribal

Cc: tcnsweekly@fcc.gov

Subject: NOTICE OF ORGANIZATION(S) WHICH WERE SENT PROPOSED TOWER CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION INFORMATION - Email ID #8885222

Categories:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Applicant:

Thank you for using the Federal Communica ons Commission's (FCC) Tower Construc on No fica on System (TCNS). The purpose of this electronic mail message is to in form you that the following authorized persons were sent the no fica on that you provided through TCNS, which relates to your proposed antenna structure. The informa on was forwarded by the FCC to authorized TCNS users by electronic mail and/or regular mail (le er). We note that the review period for all par es begins upon receipt of the Submission Packet pursuant to Sec on VII.A of the NPA and no fica ons that do not provide this serve as informa on only.

Persons who have received the no fica on that you provided include leaders or their designees of federallyrecognized American Indian Tribes, including Alaska Na ve Villages (collec vely "Tribal Na ons"), Na ve Hawaiian Organiza ons (NHOs), and State Historic Preserva on Officers (SHPOs). For your convenience in iden fying the referenced Tribal Na ons and NHOs and in making further contacts, the City and State of the Seat of Government for each Tribal Na on and NHO, as well as the designated contact person, is included in the lis ng below. We note that Tribal Na ons may have Sec on 106 cultural interests in ancestral homelands or other loca ons that are far removed from their current Seat of Government. Pursuant to the Commission's rules as set forth in the Na onwide Programma c Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Proper es for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communica ons Commission (NPA), all Tribal Na ons and NHOs listed below must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to this no fica on, consistent with the procedures set forth below, unless the proposed construc on falls within an exclusion designated by the Tribal Na on or NHO. (NPA, Sec on IV.F.4).

The no fica on that you provided was forwarded to the following Tribal Na ons and NHOs. A Tribal Na on or NHO may not respond un l a full Submission Packet is provided. If, upon receipt, the Tribal Na on or NHO does not respond within a reasonable me, you should make a reasonable effort at follow-up contact, unless the Tribal Na on or NHO has agreed to different procedures (NPA, Sec on IV.F.5). In the event a Tribal Na on or NHO does not respond to a follow-up inquiry, or if a substan ve or procedural disagreement arises between you and a Tribal Na on or NHO, you must seek guidance from the Commission (NPA, Sec on IV.G). These procedures are further set forth in the FCC's Second Report and Order released on March 30, 2018 (FCC 18-30).

1.TCNS Coordinator Tiﬀany Mar nez - Delaware Na on - 31064 State Highway 281 (PO Box: 825) Anadarko, OKtmar nez@delawarena on-nsn.gov - 405-247-2448 (ext: 1403) - electronic mail

Exclusions: The Delaware Na on of Oklahoma Historic Preserva on Oﬃce has developed the following consulta on procedures for all TCNS projects iden ﬁed as undertakings by the Federal Communica ons Commission. In the email subject line, please specify whetherthe project is for a tower, small cell, or colloca on. Our response can be given faster with this informa on.

2. TCNS Rep Bryan Printup - Tuscarora Na on - 5226 Walmore Rd Via: Lewiston, NY - bprintup@he .org - 716-2646011 (ext: 103) - electronic mail

If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Tuscarora Na on within 30 days a er no ﬁca on through TCNS, the Tuscarora Na on has no interest in par cipa ng in pre-construc on review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately no fy the Tuscarora Na on in the event archaeological proper es or human remains are discovered during construc on, consistent with Sec on IX of the Na onwide Programma c Agreement and applicable law.

3. THPO Lawrence Plucinski - Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians - (PO Box: 39) Odanah, WIthpo@badriver-nsn.gov; deputyTHPO@badriver-nsn.gov - 715-682-7123 - electronic mail

If the applicant/tower builder receives no response from the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians within 30 days a er no ﬁca on through TCNS, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians has no interest in par cipa ng in pre-construc on review for the proposed site. The Applicant/tower builder, however, must immediately no fy the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians in the event archaeological proper es or human remains are discovered during construc on, consistent with Sec on IX of the Na onwide Programma c Agreement and applicable law.

4. THPO William Tarrant - Seneca-Cayuga Na on - 23701 S 655 Road (PO Box: 453220) Grove, OKwtarrant@sctribe.com - 918-787-5452 (ext: 344) - regular mail

Exclusions: Please refrain from sending review informa on via email. We request all informa on to be sent via mail to PO Box 453220, Grove, OK 74345.

5. Cell Tower Coordinator Kelly Nelson - Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma - 70500 East 128 Road Wyando e, OKcelltower@estoo.net - 918-238-5151 (ext: 1861) - regular mail

Exclusions: DO NOT EMAIL DOCUMENTATION; it will be deleted without being opened. Submit one printed color copy by US postal mail or other parcel carrier of all documenta on to:

Eastern Shawnee Tribe

A n: CellTower Program 70500 E. 128 Rd.

Provide a 1-page cover le er with the following informa on:

a. TCNS Number

b. Company Name

c. Project Name, City, County, State

d. Project type

e. Project coordinates

f. Contact informa on

The Eastern Shawnee Procedures document is available and highly recommended for guidance; send an email to celltower@estoo.net reques ng our most current copy.

6. THPO Sherri Clemons - Wyando e Na on - 8 Turtle Drive Wyando e, OK - sclemons@wyando e-na on.org - 918678-6344 - electronic mail

Exclusions: Please refrain from sending informa on via mail. We ONLY accept informa on via email to: sclemons@wyando e-na on.org. We will advise if we require addi onal informa on.

7. THPO Tonya Tipton - Shawnee Tribe - 29 South 69A Highway Miami, OK - tcns@shawnee-tribe.com - 918-5422441 (ext: 103) - electronic mail

Exclusions: In the case of projects with NO ground disturbance such as antennae on the sides of buildings or exis ng poles, the Shawnee Tribe concurs that no known historic proper es will be nega vely impacted by the project. The Shawnee Tribe DOES NOT wish to consult on those projects with NO ground disturbance.

If the project DOES involve ground disturbance at all, the Shawnee Tribe would like to ACCEPT your invita on for consulta on and will provide a review.

If you have any ques ons, you may contac he Shawnee Tribe via email at TCNS@shawnee-tribe.com

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The no fica on that you provided was also forwarded to the following SHPOs in the State in which you propose to construct and neighboring States. The informa on was provided to these SHPOs as a courtesy for their informa on and planning. You need make no effort at this me to follow up with any SHPO that does not respond to this no fica on. Prior to construc on, you must provide the SHPO of the State in which you propose to construct (or the Tribal Historic Preserva on Officer, if the project will be located on certain Tribal lands), with a Submission Packet pursuant to Sec on VII.A of the NPA unless the project is excluded from SHPO review under Sec on III D or E of the NPA.

8. SHPO Elizabeth Hughes - Maryland Historical Trust - 100 Community Place Third Floor Crownsville, MDbeth.cole@maryland.gov - 410-514-7631 - electronic mail

9. Historic Preserva on Supervisor Barbara Frederick - Pennsylvania State Historic Preserva on Oﬃce - Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission 400 North St, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA - bafrederic@pa.gov - 717-772-0921electronic mail

10. Deputy SHPO Susan M Pierce - West Virginia Division of Culture & History, Historic Preserva on Oﬃce - 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV - susan.pierce@wvculture.org - 304-558-0240 - electronic mail

11. Deputy SHPO Susan Pierce - West Virginia Division of Culture & History, Historic Preserva on Oﬃce - 1901 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV - susan.pierce@wvculture.org - -- - electronic mail

TCNS automa cally forwards all no ﬁca ons to all Tribal Na ons and SHPOs that have an expressed interest in the geographic area of a proposal. However, if a proposal for PTC wayside poles falls within a designated exclusion, you need not expect any response and need not pursue any addi onal process with that Tribal Na on or SHPO. In addi on, a par cular Tribal Na on or SHPO may also set forth policies or procedures within its details box that exclude from review certain facili es (for example, a statement that it does not review colloca ons with no ground disturbance; or that indicates that no response within 30 days indicates no interest in par cipa ng in pre-construc on review).

Please be advised that the FCC cannot guarantee that the contact(s) listed above have opened and reviewed an electronic or regular mail no ﬁca on. If you learn that any of the above contact informa on is no longer valid, please contact the FCC by emailing tcnshelp@fcc.gov. The following informa on rela ng to the proposed tower was forwarded to the person(s) listed above:

No ﬁca on Received: 06/10/2024

No ﬁca on ID: 280829

Excluded from SHPO Review: No

Tower Owner Individual or En ty Name: Milestone Towers

Consultant Name: Michael Romanoski

Street Address: 1515 Des Peres Rd. Ste 200 Suite 200

City: St. Louis

State: MISSOURI

Zip Code: 63131

Phone: 314-997-6111

Email: tribal@trileaf.com

Structure Type: MTOWER - Monopole

La tude: 39 deg 42 min 32.8 sec N

Longitude: 77 deg 40 min 14.5 sec W Loca on Descrip on: 20026 Lehman Mill Road

City: Hagerstown

State: MARYLAND

County: WASHINGTON

Detailed Descrip on of Project: Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communica ons tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including a achments. The proposed loca on is currently an agricultural ﬁeld.

Ground Eleva on: 189.9 meters

Support Structure: 45.7 meters above ground level

Overall Structure: 46.3 meters above ground level

Overall Height AMSL: 236.2 meters above mean sea level

If you have any ques ons or comments regarding this no ce, please contact the FCC using the electronic Help Request form located on the FCC's website at:

h ps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=h ps-3A__www.fcc.gov_wireless_available-2Dsupport2Dservices&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOfv5A_CdpgnVﬁiMM&r=tVy9dfE6fJUkHc15_Itk39MNoGtgWe1vmeedh3_FbFk&m=wfCFJDhU-BWtv2Pe_EPDM6k9XVhWsVQ0w9IGE2SKTguu3d3J5LUG-BWDSg-Jsdo&s=fKxMX1nWlpDI59t4CZh1H0pCUVu-a6phBfCahtaok4&e=

You may also call the FCC Support Center at (877) 480-3201 (TTY 717-338-2824). Hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays). To provide quality service and ensure security, all telephone calls are recorded.

Thank you, Federal Communica ons Commission

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essen als. Visit the following link to report this email as spam: h ps://us1.proofpointessen als.com/app/report_spam.php?mod_id=11&mod_op on=logitem&report=1&type=easysp am&k=k1&payload=53616c7465645f5fc633e6a66954b8f6748bfab409af6b90685292b104df2ec5f40895383df06d57dda5 f59feaeee8a329e516141a0c55bacf8df75dbccfc86cf4c02d986c096bddb0522d9b40576c34f74ab9edfda5d4e43546b1b11 5c0d348dec49388ba239dda2ba7f62a7a605adf455b40efae1319b00493d94370313f06897ccc48f366030e9d4c59df7ba39 9c2779ﬀ6fa78745afdb37a490a58f38153

ATTACHMENT 7. HISTORIC PROPERTIES DIRECT EFFECTS

a. List all Below Ground Resources within the APE-DE.

b. Provide the name and address (including U.S. Postal Service ZIP Code) of each property in the APE for direct effects, not listed in part “a” (above), that the Applicant considers to be eligible for listing in the National Register because of the Applicant’s research. For each such property, describe how it satisfies the criteria of eligibility (36 C.F.R. Part 63). For each property that was specifically considered and determined not to be eligible, describe why it does not satisfy the criteria of eligibility.

There are no additional properties in the APE for direct eﬀects not listed in part “a.”

ATTACHMENT 7. CONTINUED

a. Describe the techniques and the methodology, including any field survey, used to identify Historic Properties within the APE for direct effects. 1 If no archeological field survey was performed, provide a report substantiating that: i) the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth (excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms) by at least 2 feet; or, ii) geomorphological evidence indicates that cultural resource-bearing soils do not occur within the project area or may occur but at depths that exceed 2 feet below the proposed construction depth.

The field investigation at this location was conducted by Jason C. Flay on June 12, 2024. 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 utilized were a combination pedestrian and visual survey at 5-meter intervals and/or shovel-testing at 15-meter intervals, with a standard shovel test unit consisting of a handexcavated hole, approximately 0.3 - 0.5 meters in diameter to a depth of 20 cm into an undisturbed soil horizon depth, unless prevented by impenetrable soil conditions. As the lease area had been previously developed to a high degree, the project area was surveyed using a strategy focused primarily on visual inspection in lieu of utilizing STP’s.

No cultural material was discovered during this archaeological survey. Total archaeological ﬁeld time: 1 person, 2 hours.

Based on the ﬁndings of this survey, Acheulean determined that there are No archaeological sites in the footprint of the APE-DE As no cultural materials were identiﬁed in the project area, and no previously recorded archaeological sites are near the project area, it is recommended that project clearance be granted with no further investigation or evaluation.

Please refer to the Cultural Resources Report provided in Attachment 5 for additional information.

1 Pursuant to Section VI.D.2.a. of the Nationwide Agreement, Applicants shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify above ground and archeological Historic Properties, including buildings, structures, and historic districts, that lie within the APE for direct effects. Such reasonable and good faith efforts may include a field survey where appropriate.

b. Shovel Test Proﬁles

10YR 3/3

Silt Loam 25 cm

10YR 3/4

Fig. 7.1 - Representative Soil Proﬁle STP 5

Fig. 7.2 - Soil Proﬁle STP 5

ATTACHMENT 8. HISTORIC PROPERTIES VISUAL EFFECTS

Historic Properties Identiﬁed for Visual Eﬀects Guidelines

a. Provide the name and address (including U.S. Postal Service ZIP Code) of each property in the APE for visual eﬀects that is listed in the National Register, has been formally determined eligible for listing by the Keeper of the National Register, or is identiﬁed as considered eligible for listing in the records of the SHPO/THPO, pursuant to Section VI.D.I.a. of the Nationwide Agreement.

A review of the Maryland Medusa database of National Register Sites and Districts, Certiﬁed Local Districts and Architectural Surveys, Archaeology Viewer, National Register Information System website (http://www.nr.nps.gov/) and interactive map was conducted on June 21, 2024, by Jason C. Flay, Archaeologist at Acheulean. Based upon this review, Acheulean recommends that there are One Historic Properties in the APE-VE, with a combined total of 16 individual resources.

Provide the name and address (including U.S. Postal Service ZIP Code) of each Historic Property in the APE for visual effects, not listed in part “a”, identified through the comments of Indian Tribes, NHOs, local governments, or members of the public. Identify each individual or group whose comments led to the inclusion of a Historic Property in this attachment. For each such property, describe how it satisfies the criteria of eligibility (36 C.F.R. Part 63).

Inventor

WA-I-523 Lehman's Mill Road Hagerstown, MD Listed Lehman's Mill Historic District (16 contributin g structures)

Project Name/ Address of Subject Property

Lehman's Mill Historic District

Photograph of Subject Property

Description of Subject Property Summary of Eﬀects on Subject Property

‘The Lehman's Mill Historic District is located along Lehman's Mill Road just west of Marsh Run, about 3. 5 miles north of Hagerstown in Washington County, Maryland. The district consists of the remaining buildings of the mill group including the brick Lehman's Mill, built in 1869, for Henry F. Lehman, the farmstead with a stuccoed stone house dated 1837 with older and newer sections, a barn, carriage house and agricultural outbuildings; another dwelling, also built by Lehman in 1877, a two story brick and frame house located immediately west of the mill; related outbuildings and a portion of the mill's head and tail race. These buildings form a cluster along both sides of Lehman's Mill Road, and together with a canopy of large old Buckeye trees retain the rural setting which conveys their use and purpose during the late 19th century. The nominated area contains approximately sixteen buildings including principal structures and secondary outbuildings. .” (abridged excerpt taken from the Medusa Site Files)

No Adverse Eﬀect.

For any properties listed in the above Historic Properties list, that the Applicant considers no longer eligible for inclusion in the National Register, explain the basis for this recommendation.

N/A

View of resource

View from resource towards project area

Attachment 9. Local Government

a. If any local government has been contacted and invited to become a consulting party pursuant to Section V.A. of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement, list the local government agencies contacted. Provide a summary of contacts and copies of any relevant documents (e.g., correspondence or notices).

On June 25, 2024, the City of Hagerstown- Historic District Commission was notified of the proposed project and has been invited to comment on the proposed project’s potential effect on Historic Properties as well as indicate whether they are interested in consulting further on the proposed project. A copy of Trileaf Corporation’s correspondence with the local government’s office is attached.

As of the date of this packet, Trileaf has not received any comments from any interested parties. Should any additional consulting parties be identiﬁed, or additional comments and/or responses be received from any interested parties regarding the proposed project’s potential eﬀect on Historic Properties, copies will be forwarded to all consulting parties as an addendum to this submission packet.

b. If a local government agency will be contacted but has not been to date, explain why and when such contact will take place.

N/A

June 25, 2024

City of Hagerstown – Historic District Commission

1 E Franklin Street

Hagerstown, MD 21740

Phone: 301-739-8577

RE: Milestone Towers – Reed / Trileaf Project # 745580

20026 Lehman Mill Road, Hagerstown, MD 21742

Washington County, Hagerstown Quadrangle (USGS)

Latitude: 39° 42’ 32.77” N, Longitude: 77° 40’ 14.47” W

To whom it may concern:

Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email m.grasham@trileaf.com if you need additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard.

Sincerely,

McKayla Grasham Project Scientist II

ATTACHMENT 10. OTHER CONSULTING PARTIES AND PUBLIC NOTICE

List additional consulting parties that were invited to participate by the Applicant, or independently requested to participate. Provide any relevant correspondence or other documents.

On June 25, 2024, the Washington County Historical Society was notiﬁed of the proposed project and has been invited to comment on the proposed project’s potential eﬀect on Historic Properties as well as indicate whether they are interested in consulting further on the proposed project. A copy of Trileaf Corporation’s correspondence with the historical society is attached.

You are required to provide a Public Notice Attachment.

Attached, please ﬁnd a copy of a legal notice regarding the proposed telecommunications tower construction that was posted in the Hagerstown Herald-Mail on June 27, 2024. As of the date of this submission packet, no comments regarding this notice have been received by Trileaf Corporation. Should a response be received, copies will be forwarded to all consulting parties as an addendum to this submission packet.

June 25, 2024

Washington County Historical Society

135 W. Washington Street

Hagerstown, MD 21740

Email: info@washcohistory.org

Phone: 301-797-8782

RE: Milestone Towers – Reed / Trileaf Project # 745580

20026 Lehman Mill Road, Hagerstown, MD 21742

Washington County, Hagerstown Quadrangle (USGS)

Latitude: 39° 42’ 32.77” N, Longitude: 77° 40’ 14.47” W

To whom it may concern:

Please call me at (410) 853-7128 or email m.grasham@trileaf.com if you need additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this regard.

Sincerely,

McKayla Grasham Project Scientist II

ATTACHMENT 11. SHPO SPECIFIC FORMS

N/A

From: towernotifyinfo@fcc.gov

To: McKayla Grasham

Subject: Section 106 Notification of SHPO/THPO Request for Information- Email ID #10067327

Date: Monday, August 12, 2024 12:16:27 PM

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.

This is to notify you that the Lead SHPO/THPO has requested additional information on the following filing:

Source: Maryland Historical Trust

Date of Action: 08/12/2024

Comment Text: Though this parent property has a Hagerstown address, it is not located within the City of Hagerstown and the wrong local government was contacted. In addition, the parent property is Cool Brook Farm (MIHP WA-I-207), which in MHT's opinion as the SHPO is eligible for listing on the NRHP (form uploaded for easy reference). As noted in Medusa, the mapping of each resource in the GIS may not be accurate. Each form must be uploaded and read to appropriately map each known resource. As such, this new tower is proposed for within the boundaries of a known historic property. Additional and corrected information is therefore needed for MHT to concur with the determination of effect for this new tower. 1) invite the Washington County Historic Preservation Commission, Washington County Planning Office, and the Washington County Historical Trust to consult on this undertaking and provide them copies of this complete submission (Form 620 and attachments) and our comments. 2) Update the Form 620 to include MIHP WA-I-207 Cool Brook Farm as within the APEs for both Direct and Visual Effects. 3) Provide an updated assessment of effect with a full analysis of how the construction of this new tower, compound, and access will alter any character defining elements of Cool Brook Farm, including the agricultural landscape. (Log 202403312) Becky Roman, Preservation Officer, MHT

File Number: 0011156595

TCNS Number: 280829

Purpose: New Tower Submission Packet

Notification Date: 7AM EST 07/16/2024

Applicant: Milestone Towers

Consultant: Acheulean Consulting on behalf of Trileaf Corporation

Positive Train Control Filing Subject to Expedited Treatment Under Program Comment: No

Site Name: Reed

Site Address: 20026 Lehman Mill Road

Detailed Description of Project: Our client proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole communications tower with an overall height of 152 feet, including attachments. The proposed location is currently an agricultural field.

Site Coordinates: 39-42-32.8 N, 77-40-14.5 W

City: Hagerstown

County: WASHINGTON

State:MD

Lead SHPO/THPO: Maryland Historical Trust

Approved 08-Jul-24 17-Jul-24 LOR 24807 LINDEN AVE, LOTS 17 & 18

560 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON CRAWL SPACE, WITH LADDER ACCESS TO 350 SQ. FT. STORAGE AREA ABOVE, FRAME CONSTRUCTION, ROOF RAFTERS

DEMOLITION OF 1,860 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY

DWELLING AND REPLACE WITH A 3,200 SQ. FT. FINISHED SPACE ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON CONCRETE SLAB IN NEW LOCATION, GAS FIRE PLACE IN DINNING ROOM, ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE, COVERED FRONT PORCH, COVERED REAR PORCH, FRAME 2024-02591

Review Demolition portion added to HDC September Agenda.

GP-24-008

09-Jul-24 10-Jul-24

13215 SMITHSBURG PIKE SMITHSBURG, MD 21783

576 SQ. FT. DETACHED PREFABRICATED ONE STORY GARAGE ON CONCRETE SLAB, METAL ROOF AND SIDES ANTIETAM HEIGHTS, LOT 21

WALL RESTORATION PROJECT FOR POND CONNECTED TO SPRING HOUSE. WALL RESTORATION INCLUDES REPAIRING VARIOUS LOCATIONS OF DRY STACK STONE, AS WELL AS SOME HOLES ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE WALL TO RESTORE ITS FOUNDATION. IN ADDITION TO THE WALL RESTORATION, SOME PARTS OF THE POND FLOOR WILL BE DREDGED TO REMOVE 2024-03245

2024-03602

Residential AdditionAlteration Permit Approved 26-Jul-24 31-Jul-24 LOR 1021 JEFFERSON BLVD, LOT 21

2024-03642

2024-03745

reviewed the GP at their 8/7 meeting and had no comments regarding the project or its scope. There was a consensus for staff to review and process any additional permits or activities in the scope of the GP.

2024-03789

Residential AdditionAlteration Permit V026; V025 Review 02-Aug-24 16-Aug-24 LOR 17339 SHEPHERDSTOWN PIKE

96 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING OPEN DECK TO FRONT OF DWELLING, COMPOSITE DECKING, VINYL RAILING, STEPS TO GRADE, REMOVE EXISTING REAR DECK AND REPLACE WITH 308 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING OPEN DECK, COMPOSITE DECKING, VINYL RAILING, STEPS TO GRADE WITH 16 SQ. FT. LANDING

Residential AdditionAlteration Permit Review 30-Jul-24 06-Aug-24 LOR 16523 SPIELMAN ROAD

INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO INCLUDE ADD 84 SQ. FT. FULL BATHROOM ON SECOND FLOOR, DRYWALL REPLACEMENT THROUGHOUT, NEW FLOORING, FIXTURES, CABINETS, AND COUNTERS, UPGRADES TO ELECTRIC AND

SQ. FT. INTERIOR RENOVATION TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION OF KITCHEN, REMOVAL AND RELOCATION OF STAIRWAYS, RELOCATION OF HALF BATH, NEW DOORWAYS AND WINDOWS, RELOCATION OF LAUNDRY FROM BASEMENT TO CREATE NEW LAUNDRY ROOMS ON 1ST AND 2ND FLOORS,

AdditionAlteration Permit I370 Review 07-Aug-24 07-Aug-24 LOR 11151 LAKESIDE DRIVE, LOT 160 264 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH WITH STEPS TO GRADE, PRESSURE TREATED DECKING, METAL ROOF, ROOF RAFTERS

Review Exterior changes for HDC September 4 agenda