[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6672364,"mediaKeyId","2126613-7be11798d7aae7e179c1cfaf30df29c2","parentId",2126613,"title","Staff reports: several part‑2 approvals, emergency reviews and tax‑credit update","audioSeconds",130,"startMs",5702000,"endMs",5832000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2126613-7be11798d7aae7e179c1cfaf30df29c2&start=5702&end=5832","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2126613-7be11798d7aae7e179c1cfaf30df29c2/thumbnail_5702000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6672364/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Staff-reports-several-part2-approvals-emergency-reviews-and-taxcredit-update","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672364-0a2ac565db5041f2ddfcb0609fab0b0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200332&Signature=LT8OZPkDLCABWi7uUGzDSsGTIc9J7Vo0bIO4YlEjvNEkFnlEpmC4MgOUZKLch0tv7vr~4gfT3XLd1BWx9OAmXW7wZqzvCLdh2Kj2uMiL0fKxxg6aoflR68RyCajjvsAl7KTKk2JVo8oFzia14Wqfr9CtHJUAhunovQAEVywwkLipD4VXc2~8H59d8So0CUZ94nW4xHXDFjRMNLuPB9~pepaMjc1f6znsmnchtOShcmYZtbVm7TFtcguLpSrlWLdwbt7LzbSzWx-Tp9ymTdpjUuvsZHJnmk8TQBl38G9OUbweGalqh4GNPcJ9knbM8AAjbNNruyZBV0EiC959zHoB0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Baltimore County","date","2025-01-17T16:29:32.34Z","article","Preservation staff told the Commission they had processed a series of administrative actions and part‑2 approvals that were presented for the record. The items included emergency and part‑2 approvals for in‑kind roof replacements, mechanical replacements, and rehabilitation work; a commercial tax‑credit application was also noted.

Staff listed the following actions for the record:

- Wellman property, 5112 South Rolling Road (Halethorpe): emergency review approved for in‑kind asphalt roof replacement.
- 27 Frederick bridal, LLC (Ellicott City): commercial tax credit application for mixed‑use apartments, retail, office and restaurant space (staff noted the application in the record).
- 1201 Western Run Road: part‑2 amendment approved for replacement of two water heaters.
- O’Laru property, 6315 Blackburn Court (Towson): part‑2 approval for in‑kind slate roof replacement for garage and main house, furnace replacement, HVAC installation, water‑heater replacement, rear door repairs and clawfoot tub repair.
- Palmer property, 606 Overbrook Road (Towson): part‑2 amendment for rear deck replacement approved.
- Clemens property, 222 Central Avenue (Glenwood): emergency part‑2 approval for boiler replacement.
- Jones property, 705 Kenley Road (Towson): part‑2 approval for exterior painting, slate roof work, shutters, trim and wood shingle siding repairs.

Staff presented these items as administrative approvals or part‑2 actions that met guidelines or emergency criteria; the Commission did not take separate motions on the listed items beyond acknowledging staff’s actions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission Meeting, January 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff reported a set of administrative and part‑2 approvals (emergency roof repairs, HVAC and water heater replacements, tax‑credit project updates) that the Commission reviewed as informational items.","taxTitle","Baltimore County, Maryland","taxId",3882,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6672369,"Commission declines to accept 6-foot vinyl fence at Sudbrook Park expansion; owner told to resubmit in wood or modified design",1774,3744000,5518000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2126613-7be11798d7aae7e179c1cfaf30df29c2&start=3744&end=5518","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2126613-7be11798d7aae7e179c1cfaf30df29c2/thumbnail_3744000.jpg","/articles/6672369/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Commission-declines-to-accept-6-foot-vinyl-fence-at-Sudbrook-Park-expansion-owner-told-to-resubmit-in-wood-or-modified-design","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672369-11d6679df4896f327dcad8b72f0d8462/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200332&Signature=RA3nNWBk4EvmjrbvlQfrhQmWiXcQaZ3KOGm49e7Q83XihEs5-3PuFI6J3KWfy~LzfZc1Z~-3i3o~EOQu7A1tVR4lq4E6HbShyq~IPoxidEIK4glgGWwRQ2Y8xBnYqZ7~k3S2ET5Gd7Tv0Xt2Odoh4N71gLnLelZNMj~KL2XtfnH06LiCSOD8R1M8zFtR~TjoXkhg2Dn6qQKchT4IZZBZODr3ifuqJU1LAVfEEitOyDJBBL33Dk1HJgIYeaLuRUGKE4K0otnn4LVFTb3mULZg9846LOZ9--WGWePunTKhi7mdo8mYlYv9FK63ww1Z5Fq~TnHvKFD7BU2~g6DnqimiNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Baltimore County Local Historic Preservation Commission declined to accept a 6‑foot white vinyl privacy fence installed without prior approval at 614 Milford Mill Road (part of the Sudbrook Park Expansion historic district) and asked the property owner to return with a revised proposal that meets the county’s historic‑design guidance.

Staff reported that the property owner or contractor installed 167 linear feet of 6‑foot vinyl fencing along the rear and side yards, replacing a prior 72‑foot run of chain‑link fence. Staff said no building permit or Commission approval had been obtained before installation; the contractor subsequently applied for a permit after staff was alerted. Staff noted that while the fence height and location conform to fence guidance for rear yards, the vinyl material is not the preferred material under the Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines and may be considered only on a case‑by‑case basis.

Owner Mr. Schulman told the Commission the installation occurred because the fencing contractor mistakenly scheduled the job and did not pull the permit; he immediately contacted staff and the contractor applied for the permit the same day. He said the choice of material was influenced by nearby fences, including a white vinyl fence he believed to be outside the historic district and additional fencing visible in neighborhood photographs.

Commissioners heard argument both for and against making a case‑by‑case exception. Some commissioners noted limited visibility from Milford Mill Road and suggested a narrowly tailored exception where visibility is minimal; others said approving vinyl in the middle of the district would set an undesirable precedent and preferred to require a wood fence that complies with guidelines. One commissioner suggested a compromise — replacing visible sections (for example the piece facing the connecting street or driveway) with wood and allowing vinyl in the least visible stretches — and asked the owner to consult staff on a mixed‑material option.

A motion to accept the existing vinyl fence failed on roll call. Commissioners then asked the owner to work with staff and resubmit a new application describing either a fully wood fence or a design that replaces the most visible portions with wood while providing the owner the required 6‑foot privacy height where appropriate. The Commission did not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness or a notice to proceed; staff advised the owner that updated plans should be submitted for consideration at a future meeting.","The Commission declined to approve an ex post facto installation of a 6-foot white vinyl privacy fence at 614 Milford Mill Road and asked the owner to return with a revised design that conforms to the Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines (preferably wood or a mixed-material solution for visible sections).",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6672374,"Commission conditionally approves reduced garage for Corbett Village property; requires relocation and landscaping",1818,1796000,3614000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2126613-7be11798d7aae7e179c1cfaf30df29c2&start=1796&end=3614","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2126613-7be11798d7aae7e179c1cfaf30df29c2/thumbnail_1796000.jpg","/articles/6672374/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Commission-conditionally-approves-reduced-garage-for-Corbett-Village-property-requires-relocation-and-landscaping","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672374-980b431b3da9fea1e3bfb0bad267e347/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200332&Signature=f1~3JZcAWqShFeA54EoRzDQRVAw706H0plhrOo0xwC8Koa5TRPdtWXNKKbAAu9F3W8aRY~6szVOA~c6Xm8KbNfl2nAKHAhmMkjXNqR2NM72Rg3S1M~pN3HuZXYCoGTKNvebl16IDYIvYLJd7ndfyOob4KFtzWS8ufZpImjQJr6~Tx4q3Rr-miQ61kNHpa2W3YjBZH8i6nrJnledLaIjOa1xkAr8kWbnRuQIMH5yN92qF1c1qM227lu4tTi3VopGpB2sWoz5eFU1xhoD9p451o6aLwa3NHINwu7fJC4R-QTs8SmxTwmreV9oSFrULWCNuZC63KnSfRQ3sy3S8LhXcaA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Baltimore County Local Historic Preservation Commission approved a revised plan for an ex post facto accessory structure in Corbett Village after months of hearings, public comment and multiple design revisions, but commissioners required conditions intended to reduce the building’s visual impact.

Staff told the Commission the applicants had initially constructed a partially built two‑story, 26-by-48-foot accessory building without LPC review or a building permit; a stop-work order was issued Dec. 1, 2023. The Commission previously denied earlier designs, recommended reductions in height and footprint, and asked for a simpler design and additional fenestration on the most visible elevation. The latest submission reduced the building to about 26 by 30 feet with a 1½‑story gable roof and maximum height of 19 feet 7 inches; staff said the structure would be subordinate in massing to the main house and use vertical hardie board siding and standing‑seam metal roofing.

Several neighbors urged the Commission to deny the revised plan during public testimony, calling the structure still too tall, too wide and too close to the street. Registered speakers included Andrew Clemens, who said the plan “is still too tall, and it is still too large,” and Barbara McFarland, who told commissioners the proposal “violates [the] scale and historic nature of the village” and urged relocation farther from Corbett Village Lane. Multiple neighbors suggested moving the garage farther to the rear of the foundation to reduce its visibility.

Applicants Nate and Gina Costa told the Commission they were willing to adopt recommendations, reduce height and move the structure if that would secure approval. The owner said he had prepared alternative drawings, including an illustration of a 15-foot option, and told commissioners, “If this committee decides that they look like the 15 foot roof, you tell me that’s what it needs to do, and then that’s what I would … do.”

Commissioners discussed multiple options, including keeping the reduced 19‑foot‑7‑inch height with improved roof pitch, moving the structure to the north end of the existing foundation, and requiring landscaping to screen the building. One commissioner proposed approval with conditions to shift the building to the north end of the foundation and require a tree buffer; commissioners amended the condition to require the tree buffer be a specific, documented element of the plans. The motion to approve the staff recommendation with the added conditions — shifting the approved building location to the north end of the foundation, requiring a tree buffer, and submitting updated plans to staff for verification before permits — passed on roll call with nine affirmative votes and one dissenting vote.

Staff will require the applicants to submit revised plans showing the building location and proposed buffer planting so staff can confirm the final plans match the Commission’s conditional approval before permit issuance. The Commission cited the Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines (New Construction, Additions and Non‑Contributing Structures) and County Code Section 32-7-405 in its review.","After months of public testimony and repeated design revisions, the Commission approved a revised plan for an ex post facto accessory structure in Corbett Village with conditions including shifting the building to the north end of the existing foundation, adding a tree buffer and submitting updated plans to staff.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6672379,"Baltimore County preservation panel approves repairs, chicken coop and fences at Langenfelder Farm with conditions",1097,632000,1729000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2126613-7be11798d7aae7e179c1cfaf30df29c2&start=632&end=1729","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2126613-7be11798d7aae7e179c1cfaf30df29c2/thumbnail_632000.jpg","/articles/6672379/Baltimore-County/Maryland/Baltimore-County-preservation-panel-approves-repairs-chicken-coop-and-fences-at-Langenfelder-Farm-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6672379-a60c61c74d6b7afa7e5802f2c0b2b54f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200332&Signature=Clt07QC6PN80S~9C1Tgj-0N~NdaYxiTSR8T85uMUgQFIHYCJFnZFuNujtiWjmBAedejwpM~36eys2mlPSTeGRMydKWBT0lN6mq3VY-e0PvX7dNG9TuuLpL49tlHZ4EZjR6bHM~CEQv1edrR5h90aqnUY8oLAjQlgS9zKWM23dwL2haxLx7OQBmxUcXkCR2rym8r2Juc72ldHot4v8rca96DTGXlRsIV5opnb23awV9M7dyVDiNfTzLOqZZzA8JBA7GGocxPxqceyPnTLDf3tgs7XNJ2k-J7F8La7-ULoyKR6F5RPGkcskKAf5A4BnrMvrC8Zf51EMybidNukyfioVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Baltimore County Local Historic Preservation Commission approved a package of repairs, two new fences and a small chicken coop for the Langenfelder Farm property at 7405 Longfield Drive after staff recommended conditional approval and commissioners asked the owner to supply additional material specifications.

Commission staff described the property as the Langenfelder Farm (final landmark number 240) and said the work would include two new fence areas (an 8-foot agricultural deer-proof fence and a 48-inch four-rail ranch fence), a 12-by-12 chicken coop with a 12-by-22-foot run, porch and roof repairs to the main house, and repairs to a detached garage. Staff recommended approval for most items but added conditions requiring specification of siding and roofing materials for the coop and submission of details for window and column repairs prior to beginning work.

The conditions reflect the Commission’s review against the Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines and County Code Section 32-7-405. Staff told the Commission that the property sits on just over five acres, that most proposed work is at the west side and rear of the house, and that the proposed materials and simple designs are generally consistent with guidance for historic properties when done in kind.

Owner Craig Howard told the Commission he had studied the recommended materials and plans to “use board and battens for the chicken coop” and to “repair [columns] in place … and replace them with identically built columns that are wood” only if structural integrity requires replacement. He said his long-term aim was to restore the property “back to as much of its original façade as possible.”

Commission discussion focused on the detached garage’s glass‑block windows. Commissioner Ed Ward argued the glass blocks were compatible with the garage’s mid‑20th century alterations and favored retaining them; Howard said historical photos suggest the glass blocks were later additions and proposed replacing them with a solid glass window or a window that better matches the carriage house. Commissioners asked the owner to submit window product specifications so staff can confirm compatibility.

The Commission made a motion to approve staff recommendations with the additional conditions that the applicant submit to staff: (1) window specifications for any replacements, (2) specifications for any column replacement or repair, and (3) siding and roofing material details for the proposed chicken coop. The motion carried on roll call; staff recorded the approval and will confirm submitted specifications before work begins.

The Commission cited Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines — chapters on roofs, exterior walls and porch repair — and County Code Section 32-7-405 in its action. Staff noted remaining open questions in the application (for example, specific slate dimensions and some window product information) and told the property owner to provide those details to staff prior to permits or the start of work.","The Baltimore County Local Historic Preservation Commission approved proposed repairs and new outbuildings at the Langenfelder Farm (7405 Longfield Drive) but required the owner to submit material and specification details for windows, columns and the chicken coop prior to work starting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Staff reports: several part‑2 approvals, emergency reviews and tax‑credit update

Commission declines to accept 6-foot vinyl fence at Sudbrook Park expansion; owner told to resubmit in wood or modified design

Commission conditionally approves reduced garage for Corbett Village property; requires relocation and landscaping

Baltimore County preservation panel approves repairs, chicken coop and fences at Langenfelder Farm with conditions