Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission met Sept. 13.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
Call to order; introduction of Commission members; pledge of allegiance to the Flag;
statement of purpose and operating procedures
Mr. Rob Brennan, Chair, opened the regular monthly meeting of the Baltimore County
Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) at 6:00 p.m.
1. Review of the Agenda
Ms. Rising reported there was one change to the Preliminary Agenda published on September 6, 2018.
2. Approval of the Minutes
Mr. Brennan asked if anyone proposed changes to the July 12, 2018 Minutes. Hearing none, Mr. Brennan called for a motion to approve the Minutes as drafted.
Mr. Myer moved to approve the Minutes as drafted. Mr. Diggs seconded the motion, which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Allen, Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell,
Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler. There were no dissenting votes.
3. Consent Agenda
Ms. Rising read the Action Recommendation for Consent Agenda Items # 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 &13.
Mr. Hord questioned the reasoning for the group of Historic Environmental Setting requests. Ms. Rising shared that the Historic Tax Credits are requested more frequently as properties change hands and the real estate market picks up. She added that the delineation of the setting is required to be considered for the Tax Credit program.
Mr. Brennan called for a motion. Mr. Thaler moved to approve the Consent Agenda items as presented. Ms. Benton seconded the motion, which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Allen, Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler. There were no dissenting votes.
Items for Discussion and Vote
4. “Sherwood House”, 2002 Cromwell Bridge Road, Cromwell Valley Park, Final Landmarks List # 282, MIHP # BA-2628; Exterior alterations to include windows, doors, shutters, and roofing. [County Council District # 3]
Ms. Rising gave an overview of the request. She shared that Property Management staff was not able to attend but that LPC staff would represent the request. She indicated that the Cromwell Valley Park Council submitted a letter of support for the proposed work.
Mr. Thaler asked if staff knew the original material of the roof. Ms. Rising shared that, from what Property Management has relayed to her, it dates to the 1990’s era and it would seem reasonable that the original roof was also cedar shake.
Mr. Boswell questioned if the window sills would be replaced with salvaged or modern wood. Ms. Rising shared that she believed the sills are to be replaced with modern wood. Mr. Boswell added that he felt the modern pine would not last as long as salvaged wood. Mr. Thaler questioned what type of wood would be best. Mr. Hord answered that salvaged wood would last much longer than the modern wood. Mr. Boswell asked to add to the motion, as an advisory, that it would make sense to invest in salvaged wood. Mr. Myer suggested that Douglas fir would also be a good alternative to modern wood.
Mr. Thaler moved to vote to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Commission offered the advisory opinion of using salvaged wood or Douglas fir for the sills. Mr. Hord seconded the motion which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Allen, Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler. There were no dissenting votes.
Citing County Code, Sec 32-7-403; Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines: Windows & Doors, p. 3, p. 6; Roofs, p. 8.
5. “Richardson House”, 5120 S. Rolling Road, Contributing Structure in the Relay County Historic District, MIHP # BA-2507; Plan for Mothballing (Code Enforcement Correction # CB1700320) [County Council District #1]
Ms. Rising gave an overview of the request, describing the history of the Code Enforcement issue. She shared that a Technical Committee visited the property and met with the homeowner to discuss the matter.
Mr. Hord expressed concern with continuing to grant extensions for the property. He shared that he believed the item should be referred directly to Code Enforcement. Mr. Myer added that it was a question of the owner’s resources and at this time the Technical Committee identified items that could easily be corrected in order to ensure the security of the dwelling in a way that was more affordable for the homeowner.
Ms. Hawks questioned whether or not the property would be reassessed if a deadline for mothballing were to be established. Ms. Rising shared that the Commission’s decision would be communicated to Code Enforcement and when the recommended completion days come up, an inspector would visit the property for re-evaluation.
Mr. Boswell questioned dates for completion that were established by the Technical Committee. Ms. Rising clarified that a date of re-evaluation would be to prepare for winter weather assuming the October deadline for mothballing had been met.
Mr. Diggs asked if any of the previous recommendations listed for rehabilitation had been met or if the Technical Committee’s recommendations were new. Mr. Brennan added that some of the previous items had been included in the recommendation for mothballing and that the owner had already made some effort to rectify those items.
Mr. Bernard White, homeowner, shared that he has a contractor lined up to address the items of work. Mr. White requested a copy of the Technical Committee’s list of items for mothballing. Ms. Rising shared that staff would send him a letter outlining the Commission’s decision.
Mr. Boswell moved to vote to adopt the Technical Committee’s recommendations for mothballing to be completed no later than October 5, 2018 with a reassessment of the structure in 3 months, no later than December 13, 2018, to evaluate the structure’s condition and recommend long term mothballing measures in anticipation of winter weather; Should measures not be taken to mothball the structure as recommended, the matter should be referred to Code Enforcement for action. Ms. McIver seconded the motion which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Allen, Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Hawks, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler. Mr. Hord voted nay.
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. Mimer Property, 913 Adana Road, Contributing Structure in the Sudbrook County Historic District (Expansion 2); Reconsideration of conversion of garage to living space and installation of rear addition. [County Council District # 2]
Ms. Rising gave an overview of the request. She shared that the Sudbrook Park Advisory Committee had provided a letter of support for the request for the rear addition. She added that a Technical Committee visited the site and a report was provided to the Commission.
Mr. Brennan asked if a representative of the property was present. No representative identified themselves.
Mr. Diggs shared that he visited the site separately from the Technical Committee.
Ms. McIver questioned the use of asphalt shingles. Ms. Rising shared that the Sudbrook Park Advisory Committee was supportive of the use of asphalt as there is already an existing addition clad in asphalt shingles. Ms. Rising added that the use of asphalt is consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines.
Mr. Boswell added that the plans submitted were not adequate and he had concern that the setbacks of the addition were not spelled out clearly. Mr. Hord agreed that the plans were not sufficient for the Commission to review or make a decision. Mr. Myer shared that the Technical Committee report indicated that the plans lacked the details necessary to make a decision.
Mr. Thaler suggested that the Commission indicate that although the plans were insufficient, the concept of the addition was supported by the Commission. Mr. Hord indicated that if the applicant were to return for approval, specifications such as the size of the windows, dimensions, relation to the existing house, and elevations of all sides should be clearly demonstrated.
The Commission found that the decision made at the June 14, 2018 LPC meeting to decline the issuance a Certificate of Appropriateness or Notice to Proceed for the removal of the garage doors stands.
Mr. Hord moved to vote to not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness or Notice to Proceed for the rear addition. The Commission offered the opinion that the concept of the rear addition was supported by the Commission. Mr. Thaler seconded the motion which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Allen, Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler.
Citing County Code, Sec 32-7-403; Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines: Windows & Doors, p. 7; Additions & Infill, pp. 2-4; National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Preservation Tech Notes, Doors # 1 – Historic Garage and Carriage Doors: Rehabilitation Solutions.
**7. “Tor House”, 16207 Corbett Village Lane, Contributing Structure in the Corbett County Historic District, MIHP # BA-2253; Request for removal of existing shed, repointing of foundation, and repair/replacement of storm windows. [County Council District # 3]
Approved via the Consent Agenda to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Citing County Code, Sec 32-7-403; Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines: Windows & Doors, p. 4; Façade Materials, p.8.
8. “Reese House”, 305 Morris Avenue, Contributing Structure in the Lutherville County Historic District, MIHP # BA-320; Installation of 88’ x 12’ macadam driveway in front yard. [County Council District # 5]
Ms. Rising gave an overview of the request. She shared that the Lutherville Advisory Committee provided a letter opposing the request.
Ms. Suzi Landis, Landscape Designer, was present to represent the request. She shared that Morris Avenue has a tremendous amount of traffic and in addition to the poor condition of the road, has become hazardous. She added that there is a need for off-street parking and that landscaping was proposed.
Ms. Benton questioned the decision to place the driveway through the front of the yard in lieu of the side of the property. Mr. Thaler asked what the opposition was to the front yard. Ms. Rising shared that this would be contrary to the Historic Design Guidelines and the Lutherville Community Plan.
Mr. Thaler asked if the existing parking pad could be extended. Ms. Hawks asked what the need for the driveway was. Ms. Landis shared that it was for visitors and to turn cars around. Ms. Landis added that several road signs and utilities had been installed creating a difficulty to add a driveway on the opposite side of the property.
Mr. Boswell shared that the idea of adding another driveway in general defeats the purpose of having a lawn. He added that he would prefer to see the existing driveway modified to accommodate the applicant’s needs in lieu adding a new driveway.
Ms. Landis added that she is proposing a lot of plush and thick landscape in the front to screen the proposed driveway. She shared that widening the existing parking pad would be tight and the circular drive will add more elegance, encouraging the use of the front door.
Mr. Hord asked Mr. Thaler if there was a limit to the amount of curb cuts allowed. Mr. Thaler shared that he did not think so and agreed it is not a good idea to park the cars in the front of the house with the driveway location proposed.
Ms. Landis shared that the yard is 6 inches below the center grade of Morris Avenue and there had been attempts made to have the County fix the issue. She added that the proposed drive would only be for visitors and there would not be cars parked on the proposed driveway on a regular basis. Mr. Brennan shared that there may be another, more creative way of getting better off-street parking.
Mr. Hord moved to vote to not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness or Notice to Proceed. The Commission offered the opinion that the owner may come back to request alternatives for relocating the driveway elsewhere, or expanding the current driveway. Mr. Boswell seconded the motion which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Allen, Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler.
Citing County Code, Sec 32-7-403; Interpreting the Standards # 39: Site and Setting: Changes to a Historic Site; Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines: Fences & Landscape, p. 3; Community Conservation Plan for Lutherville, adopted by the Baltimore County Council on February 20, 1996.
**9. 7 Waugh Avenue, Non-contributing Structure in the Glyndon County Historic District; Installation of 4’ wood paddock fence with black vinyl wiring in rear yard. [County Council District # 2]
Approved via the Consent Agenda to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Citing County Code, Sec 32-7-403; Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines: Fences & Landscape, p. 5.
**10. 1015 Windsor Road, Contributing Structure in the Sudbrook County Historic District; In- kind replacement of deteriorated siding, fascia board, gutters and downspouts, and roofing. [County Council District # 2]
Approved via the Consent Agenda to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Citing County Code, Sec 32-7-403; Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines: Façade Materials, pp. 11-12; Roofs, p. 5 & p. 8.
**11. Riggs- Shull House, 1302 Edmondson Avenue, Catonsville, Final Landmark # 234; Delineation of Historic Environmental Setting [HES]. [County Council District # 1]
Approved via the Consent Agenda to delineate the entire tax parcel,.68 acres (Map 100, Parcel 190) as the Historic Environmental Setting.
Citing County Bill No. 93-05; County Code Section 32-7-101; Resolution Adopting Interim Procedures for Delineating Historic Environmental Settings (adopted 4/25/2006).
**12. “Windcrest” (Benson House), 5560 Gayland Road, Arbutus, Final Landmark # 157, MIHP # BA-259; Delineation of Historic Environmental Setting [HES]. [County Council District # 1]
Approved via the Consent Agenda to delineate the entire tax parcel,.72 acres (Map 108, Parcel 635) as the Historic Environmental Setting.
Citing County Bill No. 93-05; County Code Section 32-7-101; Resolution Adopting Interim Procedures for Delineating Historic Environmental Settings (adopted 4/25/2006).
**13. “Scott’s Tavern House, Stone Building and Log Outbuilding11806 Greenspring Avenue, Owings Mills, Final Landmark # 324, MIHP # BA-2311; Part II approval for replacement of non-historic asphalt shingle roof with standing seam metal roof; Delineation of Historic Environmental Setting [HES]. [County Council District # 2]
Approved via the Consent Agenda to (a) delineate the entire tax parcel, 1.5 acres (Map 50, Parcel 398) as the Historic Environmental Setting (b) to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the roof replacement specified above.
Citing County Bill No. 93-05; County Code Section 32-7-101; Resolution Adopting Interim Procedures for Delineating Historic Environmental Settings (adopted 4/25/2006); Baltimore County Historic Guidelines: Roofs, p. 8.
Other Business
Mr. Thaler questioned whether local advisory groups had the authority to adopt names and letterhead that implied a formal advisory role to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Mr. Boswell suggested that the Commission should ask the Law Office for an opinion on the matter. Ms. Rising clarified that seeking Advisory Committee opinions are completely elective by applicants and that she will follow up with the Law Office as requested by the Commission.
Ms. Rising shared that the Tentative 2019 Meeting schedule had been distributed to the Commission in their binders and meetings will continue to be on the second Thursday of each month.
Mr. Hord questioned Commission member terms and if they can expect to be continuing on. Ms. Rising shared that the Commission allows for longevity and the Commission members to serve until replaced. She advised the Commission members to pursue these questions with the Administration as they manage appointments.
Ms. Allen shared that Baltimore Heritage is having a tour of Sheppard Pratt on September the 26th and that Doors Open in Baltimore City starts the first weekend of October.
Mr. Thaler moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Hord seconded the motion which passed with affirmative votes being cast by Ms. Allen, Ms. Benton, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Diggs, Ms. Hawks, Mr. Hord, Ms. McIver, Mr. Myer, and Mr. Thaler. There were no dissenting votes.
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/Planning/lpcminutes/2018/09132018Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up