Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission met June 14.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
Mr. Rob Brennan, Chair, opened the regular monthly meeting of the Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) at 6:00 p.m. The following Commission members were:
Attending County staff, Teri Rising (Preservation Services staff), Kaylee Justice (staff), Jenifer Nugent (Chief of Development Review and Strategic Planning), and Jeff Mayhew (Deputy Director)
1. Review of the Agenda
Ms. Rising reported there was one change to the Preliminary Agenda published on June 7, 2018.
2. Approval of the Minutes
Mr. Brennan asked if anyone proposed changes to the May 10, 2018 Minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Brennan called for a motion to approve the Minutes as drafted.
Mr. Diggs moved to approve the Minutes as drafted. Mr. Myer seconded the motion, which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Faith Nevins Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. Horst, Ms. McIver, and Mr. Myer. Mr. Thaler abstained from the vote. There were no dissenting votes.
3. Consent Agenda
Ms. Rising read the Action Recommendation for Consent Agenda Items # 6, 8, & 9.
Mr. Brennan called for a motion. Mr. Hord moved to approve the Consent Agenda items as presented. Ms. McIver seconded the motion, which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Faith Nevins Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. Horst, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler There were no dissenting votes.
Items for Discussion and Vote
4. “Glen Arm Railroad Station” & setting, 5205 Glen Arm Road, Glen Arm; Public Hearing
for Nomination to the Preliminary Landmarks List[County Council District # 3]
Ms. Rising provided information included in the survey that was distributed for review and noted that the nomination was submitted by a third party. She described significant features of the station and the additions that had taken place over time. She presented an aerial photograph showing the relationship of the building to the railroad bed that once existed on the site as well as the proposed Historic Environmental Setting. She shared the photographs that were taken during the site visit with the Technical Committee.
Mr. Brennan called upon the Technical Committee to discuss their report. Ms. Hawks shared that it was very evident that the building was a train station and there were still a lot of elements of historical significance on the existing building. She indicated that there was concern with the existing condition and detailed areas of concern observed at the site visit. She questioned the position of the Commission and if the condition of the structure should be taken into consideration.
Ms. Rising shared that the Commission would have to be satisfied with the structure in its current state and find that it retains what they feel meets the criteria to recommend the nomination to the Council.
Mr. Boswell shared that he had visited the site and concurred with Ms. Hawk’s representation of the property. He indicated that the most glaring issue on the site was the condition of the current roof but felt that the large overhangs protected other areas of the structure from fast moving deterioration. He shared that if the landowner were not to take care of the property and it led to continued deterioration, this could be revisited for mothballing.
Mr. Hord shared that he felt the decision for the Commission was to determine whether or not the property was worthy of being landmarked. Ms. Rising reiterated that the Commission would need to feel comfortable with the current condition of the structure to recommend landmarking, in order to avoid imposing a code enforcement issue on the property owner.
Mr. Thaler requested to hear from those who had signed up to speak.
Mr. Boswell added that given the type of materials the structure is built from, the building will tolerate continued water penetration.
Mr. Brennan called upon the property owner to speak. The property owner was not present. Mr. Thaler asked if staff had spoken with the owner and if they had a positon. Ms. Rising shared that the owners did not voice a position and staff had not received anything in writing or unofficially from the owners. She indicated that it was understood that the property was owned by an Estate and had been up for County tax sale. She expressed that after consulting with the County Law Office, the role as a Commission is to determine whether or not the property meets the criteria for nominating and that the public notification requirements had been fulfilled.
Ms. Benton questioned whether or not staff knew what the owner intended to do with the property. Ms. Rising indicated that the property has been vacant. Mr. Hord added that if an owner were active and interested in the building they would have responded to the posting. Ms. Rising reiterated that staff had met the public notification requirements. Mr. Thaler shared concern with designating the property without an active owner.
Mr. Richard Anderson, Representative of the Ma and Pa Railroad Historical Society, spoke in support of the nomination. He shared that the members of the Ma and Pa Railroad Historical Society request consideration of the historical value of the site. He gave an overview of the history of the site and the function of the station over time.
Mr. Rudy Fisher, Archivist and Historian for the Ma and Pa Railroad Historical Society, spoke in support of the nomination. He presented historical photographs of the station and gave an overview of the history of the site. He stressed the importance of the station to the community.
Mr. Tom Germroth, railroad enthusiast, spoke in support of the nomination. He shared that when considering the age of the station, he felt that it was in was in remarkable condition. He stressed the importance the station had on agriculture in the County.
Paul Wimmer, member of Ma and Pa Railroad Historical Society, spoke in support of the nomination. He shared that the station also has historical significance to his family and provided background information.
Mr. Richard Weatherbee, Architect, spoke in support of the nomination. He shared that he has documented every station along the Ma and Pa and gave an overview of the history of the station. He provided renderings of the station in 3D CAD to the Commission.
John Keene, railroad enthusiast, spoke in support of the nomination. He shared that this station was one of three and is the only surviving station. He added that the Ma and Pa Station in Harford County has undergone exterior restoration and is being used for commercial purposes.
Mr. Brennan requested that all attendees in support of the nomination would raise their hands. He requested that all attendees who were not in support of the nomination raise their hands. Seeing no evidence of opposition, he moved to the Commission for discussion.
Mr. Thaler shared that he felt there was no question that the station should be added to the Preliminary Landmarks List. He added that he felt it was a meaningless exercise without the restoration of the station. He encouraged interested parties to purchase and restore the station.
Mr. Diggs expressed concern with the lack of participation from the landowner and the consequences that will have on the condition and maintenance of the station.
Mr. Hord indicated that the Commission’s duty was to determine if the structure was worthy of nomination and if it was found to be worthy, it should be protected. He added that he felt a leaky roof was not a reason to deny a nomination. Ms. Rising added that the Commission is providing their technical expertise to the Council.
Ms. Benton shared that she felt the building was worthy of being landmarked. Mr. Thaler agreed.
Ms. Hawks expressed concern of demolition by neglect in the future due the lack of participation from the landowner. Mr. Boswell added that ownership should not be considered when determining if a structure was worthy of designation. Mr. Brennan added that once nominated, it is protected from demolition.
Ms. Hawks asked staff why the HES encompassed the non-contributing structures on the site.
Ms. Rising shared that those modern structures were excluded in the staff recommendation.
Mr. Boswell moved to vote to (a) place “Glen Arm Railroad Station” & setting (excluding post 1981 additions & sheds), on the Preliminary Landmarks List under criteria (1) – for its association with the transportation history of Baltimore County and for the supporting role it played in the development and expansion of the agricultural and manufacturing industry that thrived in the Long Green Valley and Glen Arm in the 19th and early 20th centuries; for its association with the Maryland & Pennsylvania Railroad Company as the sole surviving station that retains any integrity in architecture or setting (2) – As a representative and unique example of railroad architecture associated with the Maryland & Pennsylvania Railroad Company that has maintained its overall historic appearance through the retention of physical materials, design features and aspects of construction. (b) to delineate the entire parcel,.47 acres total, (Tax Map 53, Parcel # 391,
Tax ID # 111600000033), as its historic environmental setting. Mr. Diggs seconded the motion which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Faith Nevins Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. Horst, Ms. McIver, and Mr. Myer. Mr. Thaler abstained from the vote. There were no dissenting votes.
Citing County Code, Sec 32-7-302.
5. “Price House”, (Miller property), 501 Bond Avenue, Final Landmarks List # 105, MIHP
# BA-0762; Status update on previously granted extension for time allowed to address condition issues (Code Enforcement Correction Notice # CB1600086). [County Council District #2]
Ms. Rising gave an overview of the request. She explained that several extensions had been granted in the past for the property and that the owner has indicated she is physically unable to continue working on the house and is not inclined to seek professional assistance to complete the project. She shared that the landowner provided a letter communicating the intent to offer the house for sale in its current condition and has provided a list of work she is willing and able to complete on the house.
The landowner was not present.
Mr. Brennan questioned if the Commission had any comments on the staff recommendation of mothballing. Ms. Rising indicated that the recommendation was to reconvene the Technical Committee to assess the current condition and identify specific quantifiable items to incorporate into the citation.
Mr. Boswell shared that in her letter, the landowner committed to five items. He indicated that if the owner was willing to do these things, it would be important that these things are incorporated into the motion. Ms. Rising shared that it was important to consider all the work that is still outstanding that may also need to be integrated into the final recommendation for purposes of code enforcement.
Mr. Diggs shared that he recalled the landowner being very enthusiastic about completing the work and questioned what had caused the landowner to decide to sell the property. Ms. Rising shared that previously the Commission voted not to support the use of vinyl which may have contributed to the decision in addition to outstanding health issues.
Ms. Benton questioned how long of an extension the landowner requested. Ms. Rising indicated that an extension was not requested as the landowner is not interested in completing the work and her intention is to sell the property. Ms. Rising added that because the house was not homeowner occupied, it was not eligible for Tax Credits.
Mr. Boswell added that going through the exercise of mothballing the house does not make sense when it’s going up for sale. He expressed that he agrees with the staff recommendation to give her an extension to complete the work she has agreed to do.
Mr. Hord shared that he felt the issue should be referred to Code Enforcement as the landowner has expressed little to no intention of completing the work on the house. Mr. Rising shared that it would be helpful to establish a benchmark for the Code Enforcement inspector and Administrative Law Judge to reference.
Mr. Brennan moved to vote to grant approval for an extension to complete the items as outlined on the applicant’s letter dated May 30, 2018 by August 31st. Failure to complete these items will refer the matter directly to Code Enforcement. Mr. Hord seconded the motion which passed with affirmative votes being cast Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Faith Nevins Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. Horst, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler There were no dissenting votes.
Citing Resolution Establishing Procedures & a Timeframe wherein violations to Section 32-7- 403 of the Baltimore County Code must be corrected (adopted 10/15/08).
**6. 713 Pleasant Hill Road, Contributing structure in the Oella National Register Historic District; Request for Part II approval for exterior trim and siding repair and painting. [County Council District # 1]
Approved via the Consent Agenda to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Citing County Code, Sec 11-2-201; Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines: Façade Materials, pp. 11-12.
7. Mimer Property, 913 Adana Road, Contributing structure in the Sudbrook Park County Historic District; Request for conversion of garage to living space. [County Council District #2]
Ms. Rising gave an overview of the request. She indicated that the Sudbrook Park Advisory Committee supported the request provided that the window was wood with true divided lights and was not vinyl as proposed. Ms. Rising added that on a previous request, the Commission used the approach of constructing an interior wall and remounting the historic doors as either as sliding or swinging outside the exterior wall, following Baltimore County Historic Guidelines and the National Park Service Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Mr. Thaler requested information on Adana Road. Ms. Rising shared that it was the second expansion from the original Sudbrook Park County Historic district meant to encompass automobile era homes that incorporated the basic Olmstead plan. Mr. Thaler asked if there was a single builder for the stretch of the road. Ms. Rising indicated that that was correct.
Mr. Dan Mimer, owner, shared that most of the neighborhood had been converted from garages to windows. He indicated that his current garage doors are rotting and the garage is prone to flooding. He added that their family is expanding and the need to convert for more space let to the request.
Mr. Brennan shared that the Commission members are familiar with Adana road. He added that this was the first garage door change proposal since the expansion of the District.
Mr. Boswell asked if the owner had looked into constructing a wall behind the garage doors. Mr. Mimer added that that had been considered but that the doors needed to be completely redone. Mr. Mimer expressed concern with building a wall due to water build-up. Mr. Hord noted that the owner could build an outside wall behind the door. Mr. Boswell added that the garage doors could remained fixed.
Ms. Rising provided photographs of a previous request reviewed by the Commission and shared an additional photograph of a similar example. She added that the rehabilitation of the doors could potentially be tax credit eligible, where the conversion of the door to a window would not.
Mr. Mimer shared that he would be amenable to keeping the doors provided he could convert the interior into living space. Ms. Horst added that the current garage doors were very charming in comparison to a window.
Mr. Hord moved to vote to not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Notice to Proceed. Mr. Myer seconded the motion which passed with affirmative votes being cast Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Faith Nevins Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. Horst, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler There were no dissenting votes.
Citing County Code, County Code, Sec 32-7-403; Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines: Windows & Doors, p. 7; National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Preservation Tech Notes, Doors # 1 - Historic Garage and Carriage Doors: Rehabilitation Solutions.
**8. McGovern Property, 153 Dumbarton Road, Contributing structure in the Rogers Forge
National Register Historic District; Request for Part II approval for replacement of HVAC system. [County Council District #5]
Approved via the Consent Agenda to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Citing County Code, Sec 11-2-201; National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Preservation Brief # 24 - Heating, Ventilating, and Cooling Historic Buildings—Problems and Recommended Approaches.
**9. Monde Property, 1554 S. Rolling Road, Contributing structure in the Relay County
Historic District, MIHP # BA-2531; Request for the Part II approval for replacement of gutters and downspouts. [County Council District #1]
Approved via the Consent Agenda to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. County Code, Sec 32-7-403; 11-2-201; Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines: Roofs, p. 10.
Other Business Ms. Rising shared that staff would be attending the Preservation Maryland Old Line Summit held on June 15, 2018.
Mr. Diggs moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. McIver seconded the motion which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Faith Nevins Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. Horst, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler There were no dissenting votes.
The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/Planning/lpcminutes/2018/06142018Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up