[30:05] Chair Haynes and members of the Commission, we are now live.
[30:12] >> Welcome to the August 19th 2026 meeting of the Montgomery
[30:16] County Historic Preservation Commission meeting.
[30:18] I will ask the commissioners and staff to introduce themselves
[30:23] in alphabetical order.
[30:35] [Roll call] .
[30:56] >> First items on the agenda are the historic area work permits.
[30:59] Have they been duly advertised?
[31:03] >> Yes.
[31:03] They were advertised in the August 5th edition
[31:06] of the Washington Times.
[31:16] Jeffrey Hains: If anybody is here to testify come on let
[31:18] staff know so we know you are here for the cases.
[31:20] We will let you know the case that can be expedited
[31:23] based on staff reports.
[31:24] Is there anybody here to speak in opposition to case one
[31:29] a 3927 Washington Street Kensington?
[31:33] Case one b at 5820 Survey Street, Chevy Chase?
[31:41] Case one C at 7107 Sycamore Avenue?
[31:45] Case one D at 7300 Baltimore Avenue.
[31:50] Case one E at 15107 Birmingham Drive Burtonsville.
[31:57] Case one F at 5511 Llandaff Road, Bethesda.
[32:03] Case one G at 19821 Darnestown Road.
[32:07] Case one H at 14510 --.
[32:19] 7429 Carroll Avenue Takoma Park.
[32:21] Case one J at 7110 Sycamore Avenue Takoma Park.
[32:26] Case one K at 105 Elm Avenue Takoma Park.
[32:31] Case one L at 102 East Kirk Street Chevy Chase.
[32:36] Case one N at 17 West Suburban Street Chevy Chase.
[32:48] >> No objections.
[32:49] I move we approve the following in accordance with the staff
[32:51] reports based on the report before us in consideration
[32:54] of the recommendations of the local advisory panels
[32:58] and including the conditions recommended by staff.
[33:03] Number 116469 A at 3927 Washington Street Kensington.
[33:15] 1165704 retroactive at 25 Surrey Street Chevy Chase.
[33:23] 116578 at 7107 Sycamore Avenue Takoma Park.
[33:29] Number 1165788 at 7300 Baltimore Avenue Takoma Park.
[33:39] Number 1165825 1507 Birmingham Drive Birmingham Al.
[33:51] 1165930 at 5511 Lambeth Road Bethesda.
[34:02] 1166076 at 19821 Darnestown Road Beallsville.
[34:09] Number 1166209 retroactive at 14510 Mount Nebo Road
[34:18] Poolesville.
[34:20] Number 1147788 revision at 7429 Carroll Avenue Takoma Park.
[34:29] Number 115556 revision at 7110 Sycamore Avenue Takoma Park.
[34:40] Number 1166316 at 105 Elm Avenue Takoma Park.
[34:49] Number 1067931 revision number six at 102
[34:55] East Kirk Street Chevy Chase.
[34:59] And number 1064778 revision number six
[35:05] at 17 West Irving Street Chevy Chase.
[35:13] Jeffrey Hains: Is there a second?
[35:23] Marc Dominianni I would --
[35:34] Marc Dominianni: I would second.
[35:37] Jeffrey Hains: L roll call.
[35:40] Yay in favor and nay not in favor.
[35:44] [Members voting].
[35:49] Jeffrey Hains: This is Commissioner Haynes.
[35:51] I say.
[35:53] That has passed unanimously.
[35:57] Those cases are all approved.
[35:59] If you have any questions, you can speak with staff tomorrow
[36:02] during regular business hours and we appreciate your work
[36:06] to preserve your properties and working with staff
[36:08] to easily submit Approvable work permits.
[36:12] We are now going to Move on to preliminary case.
[36:20] The first case is tonight.
[36:26] It'll be two A at 4901 Brookville Road, Brookville.
[36:32] Do we have a staff report?
[36:39] >> Laura with the staff.
[36:40] A consultation review for construction
[36:42] of a new access road and access easement through 4901 Brookville
[36:46] Road Brookville to a landlocked parcel to the north
[36:50] at 4811 Brook Road Road.
[36:52] The work will run through the Master Plan site
[36:56] roughly 100 acre farm with a essential buildings including
[37:01] a circa 1861 dwelling and cribs and barns
[37:06] and a house and kitchen and chicken coop.
[37:08] The project is subject to review under chapter 24
[37:11] A of the Montgomery County Code and the Secretary
[37:14] of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation.
[37:17] There's a broader bird's eye view of the master plan site
[37:21] and the parcel to the north as well as
[37:26] an image of the historic dwelling
[37:27] which is located at the center of the site here.
[37:32] The central core of the buildings
[37:34] is set higher on the topography and it
[37:37] is surrounded by the gently sloping cultivated farmland.
[37:40] The core is accessed by two tree lined gravel driveways set
[37:45] approximately 1000ft apart on Brookville Road.
[37:51] The use of the buildings and driveways as well as
[37:55] any sustained farm lane.
[37:57] Here we are again.
[37:59] For this preliminary consultation review
[38:01] with the applicants who are representatives
[38:03] of the owners of the neighboring parcel to the North
[38:07] seek feedback on a proposal to construct
[38:09] a 12 foot wide paved road with periodic pull offs
[38:13] within an existing 20 foot wide shared use access easement
[38:18] through the master plan site.
[38:20] To the landlocked parcel to the north
[38:23] which is being developed from agricultural land
[38:26] into a solar farm.
[38:28] The current easement areas and for the first approximately
[38:33] 975ft or so shown in red.
[38:37] Before turning to run Northeast along an existing gravel firmly
[38:44] that runs through the site.
[38:47] The new and existing roadways will be 12ft wide with periodic
[38:51] pull offs paved with asphalt. Drainage improvement
[38:55] and sediment control and permanent stabilization
[38:57] of disturbed areas would also be included.
[39:01] Here is a detailed view of the proposed site plan
[39:05] and a detailed showing the relationship
[39:08] of the historic building to the new road.
[39:13] Here are the views of this one at the bottom from the entrance
[39:18] to the driveway.
[39:20] You can see one of the barns here
[39:25] and this image on the bottom.
[39:28] This top photograph looking Northeast
[39:31] along the existing farmland.
[39:37] We have presented several alternative access options.
[39:41] They explored and the reasons they were determined infeasible.
[39:44] Alternate one included access from Brookville Road to the East
[39:48] at 4301 Brookville Road.
[39:55] They discussed access rights with the owner
[39:57] but the owner declined to discuss or grant access.
[40:01] It was from the north from Zion Road
[40:04] and the route was determined infeasible
[40:06] going to the environmental impacts including
[40:09] tree clearing and wetlands and associated buffers.
[40:14] The route was explored also from Zion Road
[40:19] through the existing Pepco right of way.
[40:25] That prohibits construction of roadways that run parallel
[40:30] to the transmission lines and there are transmission lines
[40:35] that you can see here.
[40:38] We find the partial paving of the existing farm lane
[40:41] which is not visible from Brookville Road
[40:43] that runs along the tree line and property
[40:45] line of the Northeast section of the historic resource
[40:48] will not have a substantial impact on the historic resource.
[40:52] Primary concern is with the construction of the roadway
[40:55] through the farm fields to the southeastern section
[40:59] of the Master Plan site.
[41:01] This portion of the proposed roadway will be visible from --
[41:05] and likely from the historic core of the resource although it
[41:09] will be at a slightly lower elevation than the historic
[41:12] buildings.
[41:13] Staff finds at 12ft in width and hugging the tree line
[41:17] at the southeastern corner of the property for the first
[41:21] approximately 350ft, the proposal limits the immediate
[41:25] visual impact from the right of way and disruption
[41:28] of the spatial relationships of the resource.
[41:30] Staff finds while the proposed roadway will
[41:33] cut through existing farmland, it
[41:36] will not impact the historic order of the resource.
[41:39] Staff suggests the applicants coordinate with the owners
[41:42] of the historic resource and surrounding farmlands to discuss
[41:45] any preferred medication measures such as fencing
[41:49] or planting that might --
[41:52] they may seek to reduce the impact from the historic core.
[41:56] The absent requests from the property owner and staff
[41:59] finds the introduction unexpected vertical elements
[42:02] through the farm field might draw greater attention
[42:05] to the roadway and may further restrict use of the surrounding
[42:10] farmland.
[42:11] Staff notes the applicants indicated
[42:13] although an unpaid access road was considered common Montgomery
[42:18] County Fire and Rescue Service determined a paved roadway is
[42:22] necessary to ensure safe and reliable all weather
[42:26] access for emergency response vehicles.
[42:29] For this review staff request the Hpc's feedback
[42:32] on the following questions.
[42:34] Has the applicant sufficiently explored alternative options
[42:38] to renting the proposed road through the master plan site?
[42:42] Will it have substantial impact on the historic resource
[42:44] and if so, are there suggestions and mitigation measures
[42:48] to reduce the visual impact on the historic resource
[42:51] and any other comments you might have.
[42:54] Staff recommends the applicants make any revisions
[42:57] based upon the Hpc's comments and return
[43:01] for a preliminary consultation.
[43:04] If the HPC is amenable to the proposed road construction,
[43:10] the applicant submit full civil engineering plan
[43:14] showing proposed grading and drainage and erosion
[43:17] in full detail.
[43:19] I'm happy to answer any questions
[43:21] you might have for the staff.
[43:24] Jeffrey Hains: Do you have any questions for the staff?
[43:28] Commissioner Galloway?
[43:31] J. Michael Galway: I have one question.
[43:34] Thank you for that summary.
[43:35] It is really well done.
[43:36] I am assuming that the 20 foot easement was
[43:39] granted at some point to provide access
[43:42] to this landlocked property.
[43:44] Is that true?
[43:45] Do you know would you know?
[43:49] >> That is my understanding, yes.
[43:51] The easement, the Canada it currently through the farmland
[43:56] is my understanding.
[43:58] They would have to drive over the farmland.
[44:10] J. Michael Galway: Thank you.
[44:12] Jeffrey Hains: I have a question.
[44:14] At the point where it goes from southeast to Northeast,
[44:19] do we know approximately how far to the core
[44:25] of the historic resource, do we know that distance?
[44:32] Jeffrey Hains: The distance up --
[44:38] >> The distance up here between the thread?
[44:40] I don't know.
[44:41] I don't know for sure but I could try to measure the.
[44:47] Jeffrey Hains: Also if I may ask,
[44:50] the photograph on this slide, the bottom
[44:56] is from Brookville Road, correct?
[45:05] >> Yes, there's that sort of driveway entrance.
[45:09] Jeffrey Hains: During the summer months before they leaves drop,
[45:12] the historic core is pretty much hidden by the tree
[45:15] line on the upper left Corner.
[45:19] Is that accurate?
[45:24] The core of the resource would not have a direct open view
[45:30] to the century?
[45:42] >> That is correct.
[45:43] You typically want to review the plans with absent foliage.
[45:55] Jeffrey Hains: Are there any questions for staff?
[46:10] Rebecca: It is about 660 to 670ft.
[46:13] It is about 0.13 Jeffrey Hains: Thank you.
[46:21] Good, thank you.
[46:21] Are there any questions for staff?
[46:30] I will ask the applicant to turn on his mic and audio.
[46:44] I believe you will have seven minutes to make a presentation.
[46:56] >> I don't know if I'll be able to supply a whole lot more
[46:58] information than the incredible detailed report that Laura just
[47:02] gave us.
[47:02] But I will give it a shot.
[47:04] I will have something prepared.
[47:06] Jeffrey Hains: The other option is we can ask you questions.
[47:12] >> I certainly really don't have much more to add.
[47:15] Laura was really thorough and I was
[47:16] going to touch every single base that she covered.
[47:24] I am happy to field as many questions
[47:27] as you would like to fire away.
[47:30] Jeffrey Hains: Okay.
[47:31] For the applicant.
[47:36] >> I can't believe I did not remember to turn my mic on.
[47:39] Are there any pullouts proposed ?
[47:48] Have you gotten that far.
[47:50] >> I have not gotten down far the planning yet.
[47:52] There could be one pull off in the new existing farm road.
[47:56] But it'll likely be along the existing farm lane paramedic
[48:03] >> Okay.
[48:03] This is a private road?
[48:05] Not a public road?
[48:09] >> That is correct.
[48:10] To go back to answer a question previously raised to the staff,
[48:14] the access that you are seeing on the screen
[48:16] was granted via a consent order.
[48:19] I believe this was in 2025 to grant the access
[48:22] to the property to the north.
[48:27] >> I was wondering.
[48:28] If it was a private road, would there also be a gate or signage?
[48:34] >> We would not have the gate until it would get all the way
[48:37] north above the transmission corridor to the entrance
[48:39] to the solar facility.
[48:41] At the end of the day, the landowner
[48:45] has intentions of building a residence
[48:47] and he owns the parcel to the north of us
[48:50] and has intentions of building residents in the future.
[48:55] >> There would not be a gate or a signage?
[48:58] >> No signage and that is correct.
[49:01] >> Okay, thanks.
[49:13] >> Commissioner Haynes, I have a few.
[49:14] How much traffic would you be expected to see on the road day
[49:19] to day and week to week?
[49:23] >> Great question.
[49:24] I will answer that in two parts.
[49:27] The first part being construction.
[49:30] During the construction of the project,
[49:32] we would experience the typical construction equipment
[49:36] and it would likely last anywhere from 9 to 12 months.
[49:42] The number of cars come I don't have the answer to that.
[49:48] Once this project becomes operational,
[49:51] I would expect maybe one visit a quarter from a technician
[49:56] and once or twice per year for landscaping per knowing.
[50:06] Jeffrey Hains: The projects will build very little traffic?
[50:09] >> Very minimal.
[50:10] You may see less than ten trips a year on the road.
[50:13] Jeffrey Hains: Other than solar panels,
[50:16] are there any structures on the property?
[50:26] >> There is currently nothing on the property.
[50:28] We will develop the solar panels in necessary equipment
[50:31] to interconnect the project to the utility.
[50:36] No other buildings or structures at this point are planned.
[50:42] We are coming to you in a very unique scenario .
[50:48] We have been in very early conversations
[50:50] with the planning and Zoning Department
[50:53] and they wanted us to come to you to sort of get
[50:58] your, lack of a better term, blessing to move forward and get
[51:02] toward the full development and get down
[51:04] the road for full engineering and construction level drawings
[51:08] we would come back ultimately with the applicable application.
[51:20] Jeffrey Hains: My understanding is
[51:22] that you have spoken to the fire Marshal about the road.
[51:28] >> That is correct.
[51:34] Jeffrey Hains: They prefer asphalt?
[51:38] J. Michael Galway: A point to make.
[51:39] On many Montgomery County schools,
[51:42] they use permeable vapors around the building
[51:46] for fire truck access.
[51:47] There are many heavy duty paver systems out there .
[51:57] Is this not an acceptable solution ?
[52:03] Or perhaps, the southeast portion of the road that
[52:09] could transition to asphalt?
[52:19] >> That's a valid question and I would love for you to join
[52:21] the conversation.
[52:23] We would love to do a gravel road
[52:26] but we would have to provide an all weather access.
[52:30] And very bluntly, we were told not to come back
[52:34] without a paved road.
[52:38] >> Very good, thank you for your response.
[52:41] Michael and commissioner Galloway?
[52:49] J. Michael Galway: Willoughby from overhead out
[52:52] to the street or underground?
[52:53] What do you envision from that?
[52:59] >> There are two options.
[53:00] We can interconnect along the Pepco transmission line
[53:02] or we can potentially do underground utilities
[53:05] down the access road down to Brookville.
[53:07] If we do the second option it will be underground.
[53:21] Rebecca: Not a question.
[53:22] I want to add some more information to the question
[53:25] you had posed to the applicant because I
[53:28] have been on a number of these pre-application meetings
[53:32] with the fire department and their planners
[53:35] and a number of other cases with them involving solar facilities.
[53:41] Even the Planning Board and this is a little bit of context,
[53:46] there was a case for the facility that
[53:48] came to the planning board for comments for conditional use
[53:51] that had to go to the hearing examiner.
[53:54] The planning board in that case requested a gravel road
[53:58] and permeable paver.
[53:59] When it came down to the final building permit,
[54:02] it had to be changed to a paved road.
[54:05] The position of the fire chief and the planners
[54:08] is because with the solar facilities and the transmission
[54:11] lines come it's because there is a risk of fire with them
[54:14] you would not have another public facilities
[54:17] like a hospital or a school or pretty much anything else.
[54:20] The need for the fire department to have
[54:23] a paved road of a certain width to be
[54:26] able to get to the site and all kinds of weather.
[54:29] The safety considerations have outweighed every other type
[54:35] of concern other regulatory bodies have brought up.
[54:41] It doesn't mean the HPC couldn't also
[54:44] bring that concern up and request that
[54:47] but that's been my background with more of these projects.
[54:53] Jeffrey Hains: Thank you.
[54:55] That was quite helpful information
[54:57] and understanding their position.
[55:01] Commissioner?
[55:09] Marc Dominianni: Following that same line of inquiry,
[55:11] I've been seeing around the county
[55:13] the favor of installing Swales and new forms of Greenwich
[55:16] along large paved areas.
[55:19] I am wondering how the grading for the project how something
[55:23] would be built in when it comes to like the roadside ditch
[55:27] or something else.
[55:28] I have a better sense --
[55:31] I have been on many of the gravel farm roads
[55:33] around the county.
[55:35] I'm curious how that would all affect the project.
[55:47] >> We are asking how we manage or plan on managing stormwater?
[55:52] Marc Dominianni: Ditches and wells and other stuff,
[55:56] would be useful to know.
[55:59] >> We are in our preliminary stages of design.
[56:02] We have been working with Montgomery County Stormwater
[56:05] planners and we discussed using as many environmental features
[56:10] such as Swales that we can.
[56:14] The final design is still TBD.
[56:22] This is a very conceptual and high level design
[56:26] that we are looking at here at.
[56:42] Jeffrey Hains: One more question.
[56:43] Alternate to.
[56:44] Can we pull that alternate up?
[56:51] Consideration to work with with Our Lady of Perpetual help.
[57:04] It seems like two thirds of the road
[57:06] is built if you can work a deal with them.
[57:16] >> The biggest constraint we have on the option is
[57:18] the environmental features.
[57:21] Montgomery County will not allow us
[57:23] to do any tree clearing then any buffer areas of wetlands.
[57:29] We wouldn't be able to build the access road coming
[57:34] across where you see all the green highlighted
[57:36] and shaded areas.
[57:37] Those are all wetlands.
[57:53] Jeffrey Hains: Plans to expand the wetlands?
[57:55] >> It is a protected water source.
[57:59] Jeffrey Hains: Okay.
[58:02] >> I would love to.
[58:09] Jeffrey Hains: Okay very good.
[58:11] If there are no more questions for the applicants,
[58:13] I will open it up for general discussion
[58:16] between the commissioners.
[58:27] Commissioner Galloway?
[58:32] J. Michael Galway: Thanks.
[58:34] I will address the questions that staff had
[58:38] to sort of give you my $0.02.
[58:42] Has the applicant's explored alternative options?
[58:47] It seems like based on what I heard tonight,
[58:49] the answer to that is yes.
[58:51] You had basically three substantive suggestions
[58:56] and recommendations and it sounds like you
[58:59] have explored them all.
[59:00] I think that a --
[59:07] I think that is satisfactory.
[59:10] The fire departments require at least the first section
[59:13] of the road to be paved.
[59:15] The rest of it I would not be too concerned
[59:17] once we got out of sort of a view it can turn and change.
[59:21] The fire department is saying it has to be a paved road
[59:24] and I don't see anything around that.
[59:26] The good news is, the topography is helping us out a little bit.
[59:33] Gets a little bit lower.
[59:35] I would certainly say stay away from trying
[59:40] to augment the road with any sort of tree line or fencing
[59:46] or anything.
[59:47] The simpler the better.
[59:49] As long as it stays flat and stays
[59:51] low to the ground as it comes across,
[59:57] it isn't going to be particularly,
[1:00:00] it's not going to be visual.
[1:00:03] The impact to the historic resource
[1:00:05] is going to be pretty small.
[1:00:07] In terms of other mitigation measures, I looked at,
[1:00:11] would it make sense to go around the swale or will you
[1:00:16] have a culvert of some sort?
[1:00:18] Could you go with a bridge structure over it?
[1:00:22] I'm not sure about the time you get back,
[1:00:24] it'll make a difference one way or the other.
[1:00:31] The road is what it is and it's minimal impact.
[1:00:37] I don't know that I have any other further comments.
[1:00:45] Jeffrey Hains:
[1:00:51] Marc Dominianni: Everything Commissioner Galloway said and I
[1:00:54] tend to come I guess, feel like 660ft by the math is adequately
[1:01:06] -- there could be a gate or signage or anything else down
[1:01:09] the road.
[1:01:11] The installation down there will detract
[1:01:14] from the historic character.
[1:01:16] It is still very far away from that.
[1:01:22] The mitigation required considering the topography.
[1:01:26] They have sufficiently explored other ways to do this.
[1:01:30] Thank you.
[1:01:33] Jeffrey Hains: Thank you.
[1:01:35] Commissioner Saundra Prather .
[1:01:42] Saundra Prather : I want to applaud the applicant
[1:01:44] for sufficiently exploring other options.
[1:01:52] It sounds like you've been thorough to reach out
[1:01:54] the proper officials and to weigh in on your plan
[1:01:58] and to really be proactive in getting some answers as well
[1:02:03] as some solutions put forward.
[1:02:06] I want to go to bullet two in terms of,
[1:02:09] will the proposed road have substantial impact
[1:02:11] on the historic resource?
[1:02:14] I believe that the evidence shows that it would not have
[1:02:18] a substantial impact on the historic resource .
[1:02:28] As a measure of putting it forward,
[1:02:30] I would recommend that we put no signage or anything
[1:02:36] to really disrupt or detract from the historic resource.
[1:02:40] Thank you for your thoughtfulness.
[1:02:43] I did a drive by and I did agree with the contents of the staff
[1:02:50] report.
[1:02:53] Commissioner Kaplan?
[1:03:03] >> The feedback in every way has minimal impact on the portion
[1:03:05] of the road.
[1:03:06] That'll be on the property.
[1:03:11] If it's possible to have turnouts not on the property
[1:03:15] it'll be great if we really need to have one.
[1:03:23] Perhaps the turnout can be some other surface material.
[1:03:34] Adding fences or trees might increase the impact
[1:03:39] so we wouldn't want to do that.
[1:03:42] We can regrade and do better to.
[1:03:45] So.
[1:03:47] Jeffrey Hains: Thank you Commissioner Kaplan.
[1:03:50] Would you like to chime in?
[1:04:00] Jeffrey Hains: I have nothing further to add
[1:04:03] and I agree with my fellow commissioners on their comments.
[1:04:17] The road will have minimum impact on the historic resource.
[1:04:22] So with that come I think you are hearing a positive support
[1:04:27] for the project.
[1:04:28] You can go on to the next step.
[1:04:32] One question I have for Rebecca.
[1:04:36] Will we be seeing or reviewing the Civil engineering
[1:04:44] development on this?
[1:04:45] Or does it go to the permit folks?
[1:04:52] Rebecca: You can certainly request it if you wanted to.
[1:04:56] The applicant as you alluded to is here now in front of you
[1:04:59] guys to more or less get the HPC support
[1:05:03] before he has to go to his mandatory referral
[1:05:08] at the Planning Board.
[1:05:10] That is the next board level step.
[1:05:14] If the HPC is largely supportive of the project which
[1:05:18] it sounds like you are, you can proceed
[1:05:21] to his mandatory referral of the Planning Board
[1:05:25] and then develop the civil engineering
[1:05:27] drawings including all the stormwater
[1:05:29] management he needs to do.
[1:05:31] They would have to be part of the Hop anyways.
[1:05:37] And then come back when he has all his civil drawings
[1:05:40] and stormwater including the stormwater management
[1:05:43] and anything else.
[1:05:47] It can be part of the final hop at a later time.
[1:05:52] In fact, I would not recommend that he does just
[1:05:55] in case the Planning Board has additional comments that they
[1:05:59] want to see incorporated into the design.
[1:06:03] You can see the additional package
[1:06:06] if that is something you would like as part of the hop.
[1:06:11] Jeffrey Hains: I would myself perfectly say no.
[1:06:13] We can review it at the hop level of.
[1:06:15] But I want to hear what my fellow commissioners have
[1:06:17] to say with regards to that.
[1:06:20] So, Commissioner Bond , do you have any feelings one way
[1:06:26] or another?
[1:06:34] Carly Bond: We can review at the hub level.
[1:06:40] [Members voting].
[1:06:44] Jeffrey Hains: Very good.
[1:06:46] Then we will review the civil at the hub level.
[1:06:55] You may proceed to the next step.
[1:06:59] >> Excellent.
[1:06:59] Thank you so much.
[1:07:00] I would like to share my gratitude to both Laura
[1:07:03] and Rebecca.
[1:07:04] They were both so incredibly thorough and easy to work
[1:07:08] with throughout the whole process.
[1:07:09] Thank you for getting us here tonight.
[1:07:12] Thank you all for your time and I appreciate the Jeffrey Hains:
[1:07:20] Thank you.
[1:07:21] We will move on to preliminary to be at ten 701
[1:07:26] Keswick Street Tariq Park.
[1:07:30] Do we have a staff report?
[1:07:47] >> This is our fourth preliminary consultation
[1:07:49] at the subject property.
[1:07:55] The master plan site and the revival house
[1:08:00] constructed circa 1894 to be reviewed under 24 a
[1:08:04] and the Secretary of Interior Standards.
[1:08:06] It's in Garrett Park and it's not part of the Garrett Park
[1:08:10] Historic District.
[1:08:15] They proposed a single family house
[1:08:17] in the environmental setting and expand the existing curb cut
[1:08:21] and hardscaping and regrade the lot.
[1:08:29] The proposal includes an accessory structure
[1:08:31] and it was supported and details of that
[1:08:33] were not included in the preliminary consultation.
[1:08:36] Taking a step back.
[1:08:38] Back in April of 2025, the HPC recommended an approval
[1:08:42] of the administrative subdivision creating the subject
[1:08:45] lot with the intent of constructing a single family
[1:08:47] house on it.
[1:08:48] Beginning in December 2025, they held
[1:08:52] a series of preliminary consultations evaluating
[1:08:55] the design of the house and most of the objections related
[1:09:00] to the proposed massing of the House finding
[1:09:03] that it was too massive and would compete
[1:09:06] with the historic house.
[1:09:09] We held the third preliminary consultation and this was
[1:09:13] a radical revision of the design and HPC was
[1:09:15] supportive of the direction.
[1:09:17] And provided prescriptive recommendations
[1:09:19] on how to emphasize the horizontality of the design
[1:09:24] to better blend in with the landscape for compatibility.
[1:09:45] The environmental settings designed
[1:09:49] to avoid capturing the existing outbuilding
[1:09:51] and will include a new expanded driveway along with the house.
[1:09:59] The structure is behind.
[1:10:06] We have substantially wider eaves.
[1:10:13] They've been expanded to four feet.
[1:10:16] The porch heights have been lowered
[1:10:20] and the columns have been redesigned
[1:10:22] to emphasize with a closer connection
[1:10:27] with the ground the brick portion in the projection
[1:10:37] has been eliminated.
[1:10:39] The second story windows were raised
[1:10:44] and the staff finds all the changes helped
[1:10:46] to emphasize the horizontality of the building which
[1:10:50] is in direct contrast with the politically oriented house.
[1:10:54] On the right side, we see that the siding
[1:10:59] continues wrapping around the first floor
[1:11:01] and decorative banding.
[1:11:03] The windows have been raised on the second floor.
[1:11:07] On the left side, much lower for the wraparound porch.
[1:11:23] The second floor and the fibrous siding.
[1:11:31] It hasn't changed at all from the previous submission.
[1:11:38] The house is separated to some 80ft.
[1:11:41] It's 20ft height is approximately two thirds
[1:11:46] of the height of the true house.
[1:11:50] The applicant provided details on identified them as fiberglass
[1:11:55] with a prairie board or.
[1:11:58] They note that there is a range of quality
[1:12:01] and what fiberglass is.
[1:12:03] The detailed specifications and perhaps window
[1:12:07] sample depending on the staff and the Hbc's familiarity
[1:12:10] with that.
[1:12:14] And he applied grilles need to be simulated divided
[1:12:19] with the permanent exterior and interior grills
[1:12:23] and the girls within the glass would not
[1:12:25] be appropriate for infill construction.
[1:12:35] The note also indicates there be a side path
[1:12:39] created in the side entrance which
[1:12:41] is not shown on the site plan.
[1:12:45] Staff finds the contemporary interpretation of the Prairie
[1:12:48] style which stresses the horizontality is
[1:12:51] inappropriate contrast of the tall historic house that
[1:12:55] blends in with the mid-century modern houses in the surrounding
[1:12:58] neighborhood even though that's not
[1:13:00] a criteria for the evaluation.
[1:13:03] The overall dimensions have not changed
[1:13:05] from the last preliminary consultation which the HPC found
[1:13:08] were generally compatible.
[1:13:10] We find the applicant responded to the comments
[1:13:14] from the last preliminary consultation including
[1:13:16] the wider eaves and the decorative banding
[1:13:19] and the change in siting.
[1:13:23] The findings the House would not visually
[1:13:26] compete with the historic house and they are appropriately
[1:13:32] sized for the house.
[1:13:33] The revisions to the front porch perfectly
[1:13:35] emphasizes the horizontality of the house
[1:13:38] as directed by the HPC and the foundation changes
[1:13:42] help to anchor the design in the ground
[1:13:44] and are consistent with the feedback provided
[1:13:47] by the commissioners.
[1:13:49] Regrading the site as appropriate
[1:13:53] and it is quite frankly necessary to access it.
[1:13:56] With the hop, we need to see detailed landscape drawings that
[1:14:01] show existing proposed dimensions
[1:14:03] and specifications our requirement
[1:14:07] of a complete application.
[1:14:10] We are concerned about the total amount of impervious surface
[1:14:14] shown in the concept.
[1:14:27] In general, the paving surfaces be minimized.
[1:14:34] And as these plans get further developed,
[1:14:37] the applicant should work with the civil engineer
[1:14:40] to minimize and eliminate the sidewalls as appropriate.
[1:14:47] The tree is identified for removal were discussed earlier.
[1:14:52] They were planted by the current owners of the house.
[1:14:56] They are no more than 45 years old and are not historic.
[1:15:01] They are necessary to accommodate
[1:15:04] the construction of the house and the staff
[1:15:06] supports their removal.
[1:15:07] Tonight's, before the applicant submits a hop, staff request
[1:15:13] feedback from the HPC regarding the appropriateness
[1:15:16] of the revised massing of the roof and eaves and porch.
[1:15:21] The material changes and appropriateness
[1:15:23] of the window material and the proposed hardscaping
[1:15:25] and any additional comments.
[1:15:27] Noted in the staff report the final hop
[1:15:31] must include detailed material specifications
[1:15:35] including siding materials and windows and porch materials etc.
[1:15:40] Including specifications for her skipping materials
[1:15:43] and detailed drawings of specified elements
[1:15:48] like windows and columns.
[1:15:49] There was a diagram of columns included in the submission.
[1:15:53] Any other materials that are identified in tonight's hearing.
[1:15:58] And building plans and materials and specifications
[1:16:00] for the accessory structure are required
[1:16:02] for complete application.
[1:16:03] The staff notes that that could be
[1:16:07] a separate hop at a later date.
[1:16:10] As the applicant is ready.
[1:16:13] I will answer any questions that you have and at any time
[1:16:18] we can refer back to the prompt and I'm
[1:16:21] happy to refer back to any images in the staff report.
[1:16:27] Jeffrey Hains: Do commissioners have questions for staff?
[1:16:35] In that case, we would bite the applicant up paramedic Mr. Dan
[1:16:42] Andrews I believe?
[1:16:49] >> That is correct.
[1:16:50] Jeffrey Hains: You can make a presentation or answer
[1:16:53] questions.
[1:16:54] If you wish to make a presentation
[1:16:57] you will have seven minutes to do so.
[1:17:01] >> Okay come on thank you.
[1:17:02] I don't have a full presentation.
[1:17:04] We have come a long way since my initial first proposal.
[1:17:09] I understand the staff report and I'm
[1:17:11] grateful for the staff's support.
[1:17:12] After the July meeting, the designed
[1:17:16] to address the feedback and Dan covered that.
[1:17:19] I look forward to hearing the commissioners comments.
[1:17:30] Jeffrey Hains: Do commissioners have
[1:17:32] questions for the applicant?
[1:17:44] Any questions for the applicant?
[1:17:47] We will begin our dialog amongst ourselves and give you feedback.
[1:18:04] J. Michael Galway: This is Commissioner Galloway.
[1:18:06] I am happy to say that I don't want to see this other than it
[1:18:11] being a hop.
[1:18:13] I think you hit the nail on the head that it has come a long way
[1:18:18] and I think at this point we are getting
[1:18:20] into refining the details.
[1:18:22] I think from my perspective, following
[1:18:26] the staff's recommendations for sure,
[1:18:29] I think they are all good recommendations
[1:18:32] to include that information in the hub and submitted that way.
[1:18:36] I am perfectly happy and I don't want
[1:18:39] to go through the whole thing, I think your material changes
[1:18:42] are spot on.
[1:18:44] I don't have a comment one way or the other.
[1:18:48] The thought of hardscaping is something
[1:18:50] you have to really look at and that can make or break
[1:18:54] your drive up to the front of the house paramedic
[1:18:57] we can definitely focus on that to make sure you have something
[1:19:01] you are satisfied with and something
[1:19:03] that will compliment the house.
[1:19:05] Other than that I don't know that I have.
[1:19:09] The changes you made from the last preliminary are certainly,
[1:19:15] they are improvements.
[1:19:16] But I do think we're getting to the point
[1:19:19] where it is just the final details
[1:19:21] and I think that can be covered as part
[1:19:23] of the submission of the hop.
[1:19:25] Thank you for all your efforts.
[1:19:35] >> I agree with commissioners comments.
[1:19:36] The provisions are particularly successful
[1:19:39] and I also like the changes to the materials of the base
[1:19:43] and the build of the house.
[1:19:44] I think that is also a very successful change.
[1:19:47] So thank you.
[1:19:50] Jeffrey Hains: Commissioner Marc Dominianni.
[1:19:54] Marc Dominianni: To pylon gratitude
[1:19:57] for him coming back home it's been an exercise in dialog
[1:20:00] for a few months.
[1:20:01] You've been patient and responsive.
[1:20:02] For that, I want to say thank you
[1:20:05] and I wish all of our applicants can be so responsive as you.
[1:20:09] I appreciate it and it shows you submitted specific topics
[1:20:14] in responses.
[1:20:14] It is excellent how you summarize that.
[1:20:17] The material changes and everything works very well
[1:20:21] in the horizontality incorporating
[1:20:23] these similar principles I think works.
[1:20:26] For me personally, I recommend and I
[1:20:30] think another commissioner mentioned this.
[1:20:32] Dialing permeable surfaces and where you are what
[1:20:35] you'll be doing.
[1:20:37] I know there's a bit of a hill to manage.
[1:20:40] Other than that, I think I would love to see this as a hop.
[1:20:45] Thanks again and we are looking forward to it.
[1:20:52] Jeffrey Hains: Other commissioners?
[1:20:59] Commissioner Kaplan?
[1:21:03] Jonathan Kaplan : I don't have a lot of details.
[1:21:07] But I think it's been a long road and I think it looks great.
[1:21:11] That's my comment.
[1:21:13] Thank you.
[1:21:19] Commissioner Saundra Prather, what do you care to say?
[1:21:25] Saundra Prather: The one thing with
[1:21:27] this significant improvement of alterations and the process,
[1:21:30] what it did for me is it had me dig deeply
[1:21:32] into some of the porch design and consideration.
[1:21:36] So thank you.
[1:21:38] As a lifelong learner, I try to again, assess the massing
[1:21:44] and the roofing and the porch.
[1:21:47] I was digging into the latest porch
[1:21:50] considerations and recommendations and things
[1:21:54] like that.
[1:21:55] I agree with all the other commissioners
[1:21:58] and I thank you for giving me a little bit of a stretch on some
[1:22:03] of the material changes.
[1:22:05] And the window material and some of that.
[1:22:08] So, thank you.
[1:22:11] Jeffrey Hains: I will wrap it up here mechanisms Commissioner
[1:22:15] Haynes.
[1:22:16] I concur with my fellow commissioners.
[1:22:18] You have been very patient.
[1:22:20] You have responded to our comments.
[1:22:21] The project has come a long way.
[1:22:25] And it's for the better.
[1:22:28] I agree that the massing and the increase
[1:22:33] in the overhanging eaves gives it a proper proportion
[1:22:37] that we were looking for.
[1:22:40] Particularly, I enjoy the rendering
[1:22:43] that you provided from come I guess
[1:22:49] that would be this porch side.
[1:22:52] It has a really nice feel to it.
[1:22:55] And I believe it will fit comfortably
[1:23:00] alongside the home as well as the other adjacent mid-century
[1:23:07] modern home.
[1:23:08] You are hearing positive support for the project
[1:23:11] and I believe you are now headed in the direction of a Hop
[1:23:17] application and we look forward to seeing that come forward.
[1:23:23] >> Yes.
[1:23:24] Thank you very much.
[1:23:26] Jeffrey Hains: You're very welcome.
[1:23:29] >> If I can jump in.
[1:23:31] Before you leave, do you have any questions?
[1:23:33] It sounds like this is the last time
[1:23:35] you will have to speak with them before it's submitted.
[1:23:40] >> Everything is noted about the windows.
[1:23:42] If I decide to use them.
[1:23:45] The stormwater management and the appropriate services
[1:23:49] have always been top of mind.
[1:23:51] The big driver in the front was also a fire Marshal thing
[1:23:57] or the EMT turnaround.
[1:23:59] I'm working with them and the civil engineer
[1:24:01] to see if we can do pavers or something else so that way
[1:24:05] we won't have to do asphalt. That'll all be calculated
[1:24:08] and that will be with the final application.
[1:24:15] Jeffrey Hains:
[1:24:16] >> Very good.
[1:24:17] Have a good evening.
[1:24:19] >> You to.
[1:24:21] Jeffrey Hains: We will be moving on to our third preliminary.
[1:24:25] This is to see at 5629 Lambeth road Bethesda.
[1:24:32] Do we have a staff report?
[1:24:39] >> This is preliminary consultation for 5629 Lambeth
[1:24:41] Road in Bethesda.
[1:24:43] This revival house from 1941 and it's
[1:24:47] a contributing resource to the historic district
[1:24:50] and it needs to be reviewed under the district design
[1:24:55] guidelines.
[1:24:56] Chapter 24 a.
[1:24:57] And the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation.
[1:25:04] To demolish a large portion of the rear and the existing house
[1:25:08] to construct a two story rear addition and new side
[1:25:12] entrance to the property.
[1:25:16] Renovation of the house on Lambeth Road
[1:25:20] and head of the historic District and you
[1:25:22] see it in the center of this photograph
[1:25:24] and you can see from the right side,
[1:25:28] there's an addition that will be visible from the public right
[1:25:31] of way.
[1:25:31] This is the left side.
[1:25:35] The addition on this side will only
[1:25:36] be one story so it'll be less visible from the public right
[1:25:39] of way.
[1:25:40] The first floor window partially obscured by --
[1:25:45] and it is proposed to be turned into a new entrance with
[1:25:49] the roof covering.
[1:25:52] This is the rear elevation currently
[1:25:54] and as you can see from a hierarchy of design
[1:25:58] it is the much less embellished elevation.
[1:26:03] You have the first and second floor post floor plans.
[1:26:09] And we will go through the elevations real quickly.
[1:26:17] I have a detail of the junction between the historic house
[1:26:21] and the proposed addition and the inset there.
[1:26:24] But as you can see the addition sits below the bridge
[1:26:29] of the historic house.
[1:26:34] Despite being a relatively large footprint.
[1:26:38] The one proportion here on the right
[1:26:42] will be largely obscured by the existing bright projection
[1:26:48] of the historic house.
[1:26:51] And then you see the new entrance on the left side
[1:26:54] with a new roof structure designed to match
[1:26:57] the details of the front porch.
[1:27:00] The primary reason we are holding preliminary consultation
[1:27:04] for the project is the inset.
[1:27:09] The design guidelines stress the need
[1:27:12] to retain the outline of the historic building
[1:27:21] as part of accommodating additions.
[1:27:23] The question for the HPC tonight is whether or not
[1:27:28] this one foot four inch inset and one foot four by 241
[1:27:36] is sufficient under those details
[1:27:38] or whether additional embellishment needs to come up
[1:27:46] with a larger inset in any dimension
[1:27:49] to satisfy the requirements of the design guidelines.
[1:27:52] Staff's findings are relatively straightforward
[1:27:55] and we find demolishing a large portion of the rear elevation
[1:27:58] is necessary to accommodate any additions.
[1:28:01] Those changes won't be visible from the right of way.
[1:28:04] The addition will be partially visible
[1:28:07] but that is not one of the criteria from the forest design
[1:28:12] guidelines.
[1:28:12] The size of the proposed addition
[1:28:14] is compatible with the character of the house
[1:28:17] and appears to satisfy the requirements of the forest
[1:28:20] design guidelines for both size and materials.
[1:28:23] And we find that the addition draws
[1:28:25] from a traditional architecture vocabulary
[1:28:27] and it is compatible with the character of the house.
[1:28:31] We find the addition remain subservient to the historic
[1:28:34] house and will not overwhelm it and that the house in addition
[1:28:38] satisfies the lot coverage limit in the design guideline
[1:28:41] which is less than what the zoning maximum allows.
[1:28:44] Staff finds more needs to be done
[1:28:47] to increase the visual separation
[1:28:48] between the historic house and the new construction
[1:28:50] and to retain the outline of the original house.
[1:28:54] Moving on to the side entrance com staff
[1:28:58] finds enlarging the existing side
[1:29:03] windows is compatible with the house
[1:29:06] and the requisite guidance.
[1:29:07] It is appropriate under the design guidelines.
[1:29:10] Additional recommendation is slates
[1:29:12] be salvaged from the rear roof slope
[1:29:15] and that way some of the material
[1:29:17] will perfectly blend in with the historic front porch roof.
[1:29:21] The staff's request this evening is for feedback
[1:29:25] from the HPC regarding the appropriateness
[1:29:28] and the sufficiency of the separation
[1:29:29] between the historic house and proposed
[1:29:32] additions under guideline D4 and standard ten.
[1:29:36] If the HPC finds the proposal is not sufficient,
[1:29:39] with specific revisions are recommended?
[1:29:43] Whether it is dimensional or material or otherwise.
[1:29:47] I would like to get feedback to the HPC
[1:29:50] on the appropriateness of the additions and masking and design
[1:29:54] and the appropriateness ofthe left entrance.
[1:29:59] And just staff notes the final hub must include
[1:30:04] material specifications including the foundation
[1:30:07] and window well and trims indoors.
[1:30:10] And information regarding any new hardscaping
[1:30:13] proposed for the subject property
[1:30:15] and a tree survey of the site.
[1:30:17] Staff notes it is particularly important in this district
[1:30:22] as the Greenwich Forest design guideline for the removal
[1:30:25] is very prescriptive when it comes to calming replanting.
[1:30:29] We want to make sure that is satisfied
[1:30:32] and I will answer any questions the commissioners have
[1:30:35] at this point.
[1:30:44] Jeffrey Hains: Questions for staff?
[1:30:46] J. Michael Galway: For the record, the addition I believe
[1:31:07] >> It doesn't indicate whether or not the foundation will be
[1:31:09] painted.
[1:31:10] Not the whole addition will be sited in the brick.
[1:31:14] And that is a question that can come I think,
[1:31:17] the applicants can answer for J. Michael Galway: Fair enough.
[1:31:24] Thank you.
[1:31:36] Jeffrey Hains: We will ask the applicant architect.
[1:31:39] I don't know if they are with us tonight.
[1:31:44] But they too can come on line.
[1:31:55] >> I don't think they're going to be here though.
[1:32:10] I am a resident that lives about four houses away
[1:32:14] from this house.
[1:32:15] He is an architect.
[1:32:17] Participated in the writing of our regulations
[1:32:20] for Greenwich Forest.
[1:32:22] I know them very well and I try to be
[1:32:25] very sympathetic to the original house.
[1:32:28] We minimized the addition in the back
[1:32:31] by only having a portion of it being two stories.
[1:32:34] We left one area to be one story because I
[1:32:37] was concerned about seeing the additional
[1:32:41] from that side of the house.
[1:32:44] We Try to use materials which would
[1:32:47] be sympathetic to the original house.
[1:32:49] The answer to that question related to the brick
[1:32:52] is the brick will be painted in the original house brick
[1:32:55] was painted.
[1:32:56] We are going to continue in that trend we
[1:33:04] will try to be sympathetic to all the materials that
[1:33:08] were on the original house.
[1:33:11] We will submit all those samples in Hardscaping and a tree
[1:33:17] survey.
[1:33:18] We are not going to affect any trees.
[1:33:21] The area in the backyard of the house where
[1:33:25] we are building the addition is poured concrete on the ground.
[1:33:32] Are there any questions?
[1:33:43] Jeffrey Hains: Questions for the applicant?
[1:33:57] Jeffrey Hains: With the window that's
[1:34:00] the door on the side is it maintaining the same width
[1:34:04] as the existing window?
[1:34:10] >> We're not going to change the header.
[1:34:19] >> If anything, we may have to raise it a brick
[1:34:21] or so but it'll be in the same area and it is the same with.
[1:34:30] >> You're not creating a bigger width or opening to create
[1:34:33] the door?
[1:34:33] Okay.
[1:34:34] Thanks.
[1:34:59] >> Were painting the base in the back.
[1:35:01] What do you envision for the lab siting on the back in terms
[1:35:08] of the finish or the color?
[1:35:11] Do you think you'll be matching the color of the painted
[1:35:15] brick on the front of the original home
[1:35:17] or will you use a different color?
[1:35:20] What are your thoughts there?
[1:35:24] >> The client wants to paint the new siding to match the front
[1:35:27] elevation of the house.
[1:35:29] It is like a dark bluish gray.
[1:35:32] And it'll be exactly the same color.
[1:35:34] It's the smooth plank that we will be using.
[1:35:44] >> Alright thank you.
[1:35:59] >> I understand you were involved in Greenwich for a long
[1:36:01] time.
[1:36:02] How do you view the depth of these insects.
[1:36:05] I'm looking at the floor plan and seeing
[1:36:07] there's room to accommodate deeper insects.
[1:36:24] >> I am actually 42 years.
[1:36:25] I am well involved.
[1:36:29] The inset, because it is dissimilar,
[1:36:33] I was trying to put it enough because of the shadow lines.
[1:36:37] We went back a little bit more 12in and two feet
[1:36:40] in the dimension going to the back of the house.
[1:36:42] There will be enough of a shadow line and also a trim detail that
[1:36:47] would separate the two materials.
[1:36:50] We tried to accommodate that into the floor plan
[1:36:53] and we will change the kitchen to have shallower cabinets
[1:36:58] in that area.
[1:37:07] We think we created a good shadow line back there
[1:37:18] It showed one foot four inches.
[1:37:22] Are you open to deeper?
[1:37:25] Perhaps even greater in width?
[1:37:29] We saw some other additions to historic properties
[1:37:33] in our neighborhoods to.
[1:37:37] >> We were trying to maintain some good usage of space inside
[1:37:41] the room.
[1:37:42] That didn't hurt anything inside the space.
[1:37:46] It was really a compromise between the exterior
[1:37:49] and the interior.
[1:37:56] >> Thank you for the comment.
[1:38:04] Jeffrey Hains: Questions for the applicant s.
[1:38:06] This is Commissioner Haynes.
[1:38:11] This is one of those challenging projects where the house is
[1:38:17] relatively small and the clients want to bring it up
[1:38:20] to contemporary living standards .
[1:38:25] You have to double the size of the house
[1:38:27] to really do that in this day and age.
[1:38:31] I can appreciate the challenge architects and designers have
[1:38:37] in doing that and trying to do so in a way that complements
[1:38:42] the original resource.
[1:38:46] The guidelines particularly differ
[1:38:50] regarding additions states the style of addition
[1:38:54] must be compatible and in keeping with the prevailing
[1:38:58] style of that house and the style of the addition
[1:39:02] must be compatible with the style of the original house
[1:39:07] unless they wish to change the entire original house.
[1:39:14] I would like your thoughts on how you would see your additions
[1:39:19] and how do you see it as compatible
[1:39:21] with the historic resource?
[1:39:27] >> Good question.
[1:39:28] At the front elevation of the house
[1:39:29] there was a very dominant cable and kind of detail.
[1:39:34] Rather than build and I do see this on other projects
[1:39:39] come one large addition.
[1:39:41] I separated it into three different parts.
[1:39:45] One was where the master bedroom would be.
[1:39:48] It's another cable.
[1:39:51] I tried to be diminutive with it so it did not overwhelm
[1:39:54] the backyard visually.
[1:39:56] Then in between that, you had another sloping roof
[1:40:01] which was in between that and a lower gable.
[1:40:04] I separated that into three separate volumes
[1:40:08] to try to create one large addition at the back end
[1:40:12] of a house which would have saved money
[1:40:14] but I was trying to be more sympathetic to the way the house
[1:40:18] was already structured.
[1:40:32] Jeffrey Hains: Questions for the applicant?
[1:40:35] We will share our thoughts and response to your application.
[1:40:46] Does anyone care to share?
[1:40:57] I will kick off the discussion.
[1:41:02] I mentioned the word compatibility.
[1:41:11] We define it as the parts working well together.
[1:41:16] They don't necessarily need to mimic one another.
[1:41:21] They should identify well with each other.
[1:41:26] When they are combined together, they somehow
[1:41:38] moved from function as well as architectural integrity.
[1:41:45] I think from that perspective, I don't feel the addition
[1:41:52] and understand the challenge of creating a large addition
[1:41:56] on a relatively small house but I
[1:41:59] don't think they are quite relating well together.
[1:42:02] Part of it is in the massing.
[1:42:05] Part of it is in the detail.
[1:42:09] Part of it is the forms chosen in particular.
[1:42:18] If we look at the rear elevation,
[1:42:22] the widths of the three parts and the house.
[1:42:32] They don't relate well to the house.
[1:42:34] I know they re not really wings.
[1:42:39] But the kitchen and the family room.
[1:42:43] The widths of the masses, they are too small width wise.
[1:42:54] There is not a complementary mass to the original house.
[1:43:00] The form in the middle which I understand it to be a shed roof.
[1:43:07] A single slope.
[1:43:09] When you look at the left elevation ,
[1:43:17] that has no relationship to the original house.
[1:43:20] It's kind of a strange form for the house.
[1:43:26] In it diminishes the complementary nature
[1:43:30] that we are looking for.
[1:43:32] The compatible nature we are looking for.
[1:43:36] The original house has no eaves and there's no overhangs.
[1:43:42] You are proposing overhangs at the gable.
[1:43:50] It is not, in my view, complementary or compatible
[1:43:55] to the historic resource.
[1:44:06] The boxed eaves that we see, we see it on every stylistic house.
[1:44:12] Certainly from the 1920s into 2026.
[1:44:19] There is nothing distinctive that
[1:44:25] speaks to the original architecture of the resource.
[1:44:31] The siding on the historic Resources minor corridors.
[1:44:37] You're proposing trim boards.
[1:44:41] The architecture you're proposing
[1:44:45] is a different language.
[1:44:50] The severity, if you will come of the language
[1:44:55] I feel does not work or doesn't speak to or complement or hold
[1:45:01] hands with the original historic resource
[1:45:04] and it is in addition that could be
[1:45:07] put on the back of many different types
[1:45:11] of residential buildings.
[1:45:13] It does not speak to this particular house in my opinion.
[1:45:20] There is some work to be done to make it work harmoniously
[1:45:30] with the historic resource.
[1:45:34] I find the materials in general are fine
[1:45:36] and I think it is the way you execute
[1:45:39] the materials and particularly the details that
[1:45:42] are going to make this a successful addition.
[1:45:46] When the people don't look at it and say
[1:45:50] there's the original house and there's the addition.
[1:45:57] We sometimes are confusing because we
[1:45:59] want it to be differentiated from the historic resource.
[1:46:04] The guidelines strictly say the addition must be compatible.
[1:46:09] Once definition of compatibility can vary.
[1:46:15] I feel like it's off enlarged and if there's
[1:46:20] any way to reduce the footprint wise you can reduce it.
[1:46:24] I think you do need a bigger move on the back.
[1:46:28] The two smaller masses , you're trying to make a nice scale
[1:46:36] in the rear but it doesn't work with the house itself.
[1:46:39] It looks like a foreign addition put on the historic.
[1:46:44] Or the contemporary additions .
[1:46:51] Both pieces are nice.
[1:46:54] When they come together, I don't think they work well.
[1:47:01] Those are my thoughts.
[1:47:25] >> I keep muting myself instead of unmuting myself.
[1:47:27] That's going to be a tough one to follow.
[1:47:29] I look at it a little bit different
[1:47:31] and not get diving into the architectural detailing.
[1:47:46] I think a lot of what we are talking about
[1:47:49] would be in the rear.
[1:47:53] I would argue one way or the other
[1:47:56] what it means to be compatible.
[1:48:01] I am looking at it and I am saying
[1:48:04] that you have the house on the front with its white brick
[1:48:09] basically and the sides with the front table being this gray.
[1:48:13] Then as you go back and even with the hyphens or the notches,
[1:48:20] you're going to see effectively a continuation of the color.
[1:48:24] I'm looking at it more in terms of what
[1:48:27] I would see color wise with less emphasis on the materials.
[1:48:36] It might be tough for the average Joe who
[1:48:40] is driving by even with the notch
[1:48:43] creating that shadow you talked about.
[1:48:45] It might be tough to differentiate
[1:48:49] the old from the new.
[1:48:52] The original home from the new edition.
[1:48:56] Not because of the detailing.
[1:48:58] I think the detailing will be hard to see.
[1:49:05] Have you done enough in terms of trying to differentiate
[1:49:09] in this case, the color and not the material
[1:49:13] where it switches at the notch from the old to the new.
[1:49:20] I am perplexed by that.
[1:49:24] Is there something we can do?
[1:49:28] He feels it could be more compatible
[1:49:32] and I'm looking at it more from a color standpoint
[1:49:35] saying I'm not sure it's going to be easy to differentiate
[1:49:38] from the street what is old and what is new unless you walk back
[1:49:43] the property and you go toward the back and you look closely.
[1:49:48] I understand that it doesn't make your life easier
[1:49:51] but you can hopefully appreciate where we are both coming from.
[1:49:57] In terms of the masking itself, not
[1:50:01] necessarily the compatibility.
[1:50:03] I think I find that appropriate.
[1:50:06] You've done a nice job of hiding the addition
[1:50:09] at least all the complexity going on in the back.
[1:50:16] You're not going to see it from the public right of way.
[1:50:22] I think you've done a nice job on that.
[1:50:24] We've seen it many times where the eave wants
[1:50:27] to try to match the existing and we always push back on it
[1:50:30] and we say no.
[1:50:31] You should always have a roof line that is lower
[1:50:33] and you've done that successfully.
[1:50:35] It is obvious you understand the guidelines
[1:50:39] and you are working to do the right thing.
[1:50:46] I guess that's my comments.
[1:50:51] Thanks.
[1:51:06] >> I agree with the commissioner's comments
[1:51:08] on the nature of the addition.
[1:51:10] I am not so concerned with the pink color being the same
[1:51:16] because I feel like just because it is a different material,
[1:51:20] it's going to look pretty different from the street.
[1:51:23] That'll differentiate it and I don't
[1:51:25] know if you're planning on having the same dimensions
[1:51:28] for the siding.
[1:51:29] If they were different, that would also differentiate it.
[1:51:35] I like how it is differentiated from the original house.
[1:51:40] Most of it is brick.
[1:51:43] There's a call to that little bit of siding
[1:51:47] on the gable in front and I feel like it works nicely for me.
[1:51:52] Commissioner Haynes comments about compatibility
[1:51:56] is not something I noticed but I'm not an architect.
[1:52:01] I think he's working on a different level than I am there.
[1:52:06] I'm less concerned with what's in the back
[1:52:09] and what you can see in the streets.
[1:52:15] That's stuck out once I brought my attention.
[1:52:18] I'm a little bit less concerned.
[1:52:26] It's a significant change in the visible location.
[1:52:32] In nicely, I don't see a lot of side doors
[1:52:37] on similar houses of significance.
[1:52:40] I'd want to minimize the impact of the door.
[1:52:45] I like you're not widening the opening
[1:52:49] and that's you're playing use.
[1:52:52] I like the fenestration.
[1:52:57] Looking from the street, it's hard to tell whether it's
[1:53:01] a window or a door anyway.
[1:53:03] These things that you are doing will continue.
[1:53:07] Where I have troubles with the decorative feature above it.
[1:53:12] Because it calls attention to the door and the fact
[1:53:15] that it's a door are it's trying to look
[1:53:19] like some of the other original decorative elements
[1:53:24] and it gives a kind of false sense of history.
[1:53:31] For me, that was removed, you have the door
[1:53:35] and you would get in and out and you would still
[1:53:38] maintain the appearance of a window from the street.
[1:53:42] Those are my comments.
[1:53:46] In terms of the- there could be more, that would be great.
[1:53:53] Otherwise, I don't think there's a lot you can do.
[1:53:57] Otherwise these are what the conditions look like.
[1:54:00] It is shorter and it's not extending
[1:54:03] past the original elevations.
[1:54:09] That's my inputs.
[1:54:19] Jeffrey Hains: Commissioner bond?
[1:54:23] Carly Bond: Thank you.
[1:54:25] It's fully aligned with the historic house.
[1:54:27] The gas fireplace in the family room extends past the.
[1:54:31] I don't think there's an official separation
[1:54:34] between the historic house and proposed additions.
[1:54:37] Either the addition needs to come in overall
[1:54:41] or the review needs to get deeper and possibly wider.
[1:54:47] May be wider rather than deeper.
[1:54:50] We need to do something to work on that visual separation.
[1:55:17] >> I wanted to talk about something that I think is
[1:55:20] working which is to hype up the roof line on the two story mass
[1:55:23] of the rear addition.
[1:55:30] I am noting on the rear protrusion
[1:55:35] that there is a roof overhang on the right which
[1:55:39] would protrude outside of the historical Playings
[1:55:42] in the right of the house.
[1:55:43] That could perhaps be a bit of a problem.
[1:55:45] I understand the architect's comments
[1:55:48] about creating a shadow line with a bit
[1:55:50] of an inset between the historic house and the addition.
[1:55:55] It could maybe be a little bit wider.
[1:56:02] A lot of times with a large addition, that
[1:56:06] replicated the footprint of the house and they
[1:56:09] could bring on the large family rooms and master suites
[1:56:12] upstairs.
[1:56:17] The cuter and smaller houses of a smaller scale
[1:56:21] from a different time and we see it a different bit we're
[1:56:24] separating is really important.
[1:56:27] I think you're on the right track.
[1:56:32] The instinct to break up the mass instead of having
[1:56:35] a gigantic protrusion.
[1:56:37] As he's beginning to tease, whether they are the right
[1:56:42] shape.
[1:56:43] I appreciate his instinct to minimize in everything.
[1:56:48] Looking at the house from the street,
[1:56:51] I been through the street and looking out just
[1:56:55] to get on Google.
[1:56:57] The pattern of administration on the left or right side
[1:57:00] isn't doing favors in terms of compatibility with the House.
[1:57:04] They read as different windows where the pattern is
[1:57:07] different shapes were the windows
[1:57:09] tend to be not as narrow or as square
[1:57:12] as the historic windows not something to work on.
[1:57:16] The devil ends up being in the details.
[1:57:18] Despite the size of the addition,
[1:57:22] the roofline is lower and relatively absorbent.
[1:57:25] The other architects on the commission
[1:57:29] are providing more valuable feedback than I am.
[1:57:33] I want to express gratitude for coming in and going
[1:57:36] through this process.
[1:57:37] I know this can take a little bit of energy
[1:57:40] to draw this and do it one way and do it again.
[1:57:42] My gratitude for you.
[1:57:44] This is a beautiful house and this
[1:57:46] is a beautiful neighborhood.
[1:57:47] Hopefully with this feedback it will turn out
[1:57:50] and do an excellent job.
[1:57:53] Thank you.
[1:58:01] Jeffrey Hains: Do you have any additional comments to make?
[1:58:03] >> I do not have additional comments to make.
[1:58:05] Thank you.
[1:58:08] Jeffrey Hains: Thank you.
[1:58:09] Do you have any questions for the Commission?
[1:58:12] >> I appreciate everything.
[1:58:14] These are all good comments and I will go back
[1:58:16] and we will make some modifications.
[1:58:18] I guess I will send it over to Dan.
[1:58:20] I guess I'm going to get a staff report
[1:58:24] and I can go through each of the comments.
[1:58:27] I think a lot of it can be addressed.
[1:58:30] Our whole aim is to be very sympathetic to the House
[1:58:34] because it is a neighbor of mine also.
[1:58:37] I wanted it to look beautiful.
[1:58:42] I'm
[1:58:47] Jeffrey Hains: Thank you for taking an our comments.
[1:58:50] I think it would be best served to come back
[1:58:53] for another preliminary.
[1:58:55] A preliminary review.
[1:58:57] You have heard, to summarize the comments
[1:59:01] of the massing, differentiation of old and new
[1:59:06] from a color perspective.
[1:59:12] What is visible from the public street and concerns
[1:59:14] and you've heard comments about the side entry and the roof
[1:59:26] there have been discussion about the height and the size
[1:59:31] and the proportion of the height itself.
[1:59:34] Staff has a record of all of this
[1:59:37] and can provide you with a report
[1:59:39] and you can work with them to refine your design.
[1:59:44] I appreciate you coming in tonight.
[1:59:47] >> Great, thanks a lot.
[1:59:50] >> Thank you and have a good evening.
[1:59:54] Jeffrey Hains: We will be moving on to the next item
[1:59:57] on our agenda which are the tax credit groups.
[2:00:00] Number six I believe?
[2:00:02] I believe Dan (indistinct).
[2:00:14] Laura: We have group six of the calendar year 2025 tax
[2:00:19] preservation tax credits.
[2:00:20] There are 12 applications in group six consisting
[2:00:23] of $221,008.96 in eligible expenditures for owners
[2:00:29] of properties designated on the Master Plan for Historic
[2:00:32] Preservation.
[2:00:33] A report including a brief overview
[2:00:36] of the work entailed for each of those applications
[2:00:38] was provided to the HPC ahead of the meeting.
[2:00:42] Staff recommends the HPC recommend approval of Group six
[2:00:46] of the calendar year 2025 tax credit applications detailed
[2:00:50] in the reports and recommend staff transmit the applications
[2:00:53] to the Department of Finance for final review.
[2:01:08] Jeffrey Hains: Does anybody care to make a motion?
[2:01:15] You're muted.
[2:01:26] J. Michael Galway: I would like to make a motion that we approve
[2:01:29] the group six historic Preservation tax credit
[2:01:33] application for the calendar year 2025
[2:01:35] and that we recommend that staff submit the tax
[2:01:41] credits to the Department of Finance for the final review
[2:01:45] and approval.
[2:01:51] Jeffrey Hains: Do I have a second?
[2:01:58] >> I second the motion.
[2:02:00] Jeffrey Hains: Let's do a roll call.
[2:02:05] [Roll call].
[2:02:07] [Members voting].
[2:02:15] Jeffrey Hains: Commissioner Haynes.
[2:02:17] This motion passes unanimously we will transmit the tax credits
[2:02:23] accordingly.
[2:02:26] The item on the agenda is minutes from July 29th 2026.
[2:02:33] Has anybody read the minutes of July 29th?
[2:02:43] Marc Dominianni: I read them.
[2:02:45] They look good to my eye and we approve those minutes from July
[2:02:48] 29th 2026 meeting.
[2:02:54] Jeffrey Hains: Second.
[2:03:01] We will do a roll call once again.
[2:03:08] [Members voting].
[2:03:09] [Roll call].
[2:03:19] It is unanimously approved.
[2:03:24] And I look forward to the next round of minutes.
[2:03:28] Other business.
[2:03:29] Are there any commission items?
[2:03:34] Any staff items?
[2:03:40] Rebecca: Rebecca for the record.
[2:03:42] As I mentioned during our work session we are starting a bit
[2:03:48] early on September 9th convening our work session at 6:00.
[2:03:54] We will have dinner available for everybody in the auditorium.
[2:03:58] I made the decision during the meeting.
[2:04:00] We will have the food ready by 530 folks want to come by 530.
[2:04:05] If you can't get there until six,
[2:04:07] no problem and you're welcome to eat during the work session.
[2:04:11] If you can't attend, I will schedule a separate time
[2:04:14] to go over that information with you again.
[2:04:16] The work session is about running
[2:04:19] efficient meetings and Robert's Rules of Order
[2:04:21] and the role of each of the officers at the Commission.
[2:04:24] Coming up in early September, we have the public hearings
[2:04:31] for the Friendship Heights Sector Plan.
[2:04:35] Chair Haynes will be signing up to speak for that and staff is
[2:04:40] working on the letter for you to review to send to the Planning
[2:04:45] Board as part of the public testimony in advance.
[2:04:49] The staff John and I were on the tour for the Planning Board
[2:04:54] this past week.
[2:04:57] We went down to all the sites of interest
[2:05:00] that are scheduled for rezoning and we took the Planning Board
[2:05:03] members by the Reynolds House on the site that
[2:05:07] has been recommended for designation
[2:05:09] so everybody got to see that and John
[2:05:11] got to give a brief history of that grandma those
[2:05:16] are the only items we have coming up in early September.
[2:05:20] I don't have an update yet about our new appointments to the HPC.
[2:05:29] This is the first time in many years
[2:05:31] the appointments did not get done by the council prior
[2:05:36] to the August recess.
[2:05:38] I am back in touch with the County Executive staff
[2:05:41] and hopefully our new commissioners
[2:05:43] will be appointed in September but I don't have a date
[2:05:46] but I will let everybody know when we can expect them.
[2:05:50] These are all of the staff items.
[2:05:56] Jeffrey Hains: Let's hope the new appointees will be joining
[2:06:00] us and welcome their input.
[2:06:04] If there are no other items, I think I can officially
[2:06:11] adjourn the meeting.
[2:06:12] Thank you all.
[2:06:16] >> Goodbye everyone.
[2:06:18] >> Thank you.
[2:06:19] >> Goodbye.