►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
My
name
is
john
holman,
chair
of
the
commission,
and
I
will
be
running
tonight's
meeting,
we're
your
volunteer
representatives
appointed
by
our
county
council
person
or
county
executive
and
entrusted
to
monitor,
renovations
and
additions
to
our
baltimore
county,
historic
resources.
We
review
and
approve
nominations
to
the
baltimore
county.
Preliminary
landmarks
list
and
comment
on
national
register
nominations.
A
Additionally,
we
are
charged
with
evaluating
submissions
to
the
baltimore
county,
historic
tax
credit
program
that
encourages
the
appropriate
maintenance
and
renovation
of
designated
historic
properties
with
the
commissioners.
Please
introduce
themselves
by
name
and
county
council
district
of
representation.
E
G
I
Oh
okay,
I
thought
he
was
on
wendy
macgyver
district
3.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
The
landmarks
preservation
commission
operates
under
the
authority
standards
and
requirements
of
title
vii,
article
32
of
the
baltimore
county
code.
We
refer
to
the
united
states,
secretary
of
the
interior
standards
for
rehabilitation
as
administered
by
the
national
park
service.
This
is
the
accepted
national
standard
for
historic
preservation
projects,
our
own
baltimore
county,
historic
preservation,
design
guidelines
directly
reference
incorporates
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standards
for
rehabilitation.
A
We
have
important
preservation
issues
to
discuss
and
debate
at
each
meeting.
If
you
would
like
to
make
comments,
please
limit
your
comments
to
the
specific
application
or
proposal
submission
being
reviewed.
We
ask
for
your
assistance
and
understanding
so
that
discussions
do
not
digress
as
an
additional
comment.
We
can
all
agree
that
historic
preservation
is
an
important
aspect
of
the
quality
of
life
and
place
that
makes
baltimore
county
unique.
As
a
commission,
we
seek
to
recommend
significant
buildings
and
places
for
landmark
consideration
to
the
county
council
for
their
final
vote.
A
As
commissioners,
we
serve
on
the
commission
due
to
our
expertise,
interest
and
passion
for
historic
buildings
and
places
and
review
submissions
based
solely
on
their
merit.
While
we
may
disagree
in
discussion
and
voting,
we
continue
to
be
a
collegial
body
that
respects
each
other
personally
and
professionally.
A
Thank
you
and
before
we
actually
get
into
today's
agenda,
I'd
like
to
introduce
jessica
branic
who
is
joining
us
as
our
new
assistant
and
we're
so
pleased
to
have
you
with
us
jessica.
Thank
you
for
being
part
of
the
team,
and
we
may
be
saying
a
fun
goodbye
to
taylor,
who
has
done
this
for
so
many
years
as
she
moves
on
to
her
next
adventure.
A
K
Just
a
just
a
few
more
reminders
before
we
get
into
that
on
offering
comments
during
the
agenda
item,
if
you're
the
applicant
property
owner
or
member
of
the
public
that
would
like
to
offer
comments,
you
can
either
select
the
hand
raise
icon,
which
is
next
to
your
name
or
you
can
send
a
chat
to
the
host
to
select
host
and
let
them
know
that
you
would
like
to
speak
when
your
item
comes
up,
and
we
will
make
a
note
of
that.
K
Another
reminder
is
that
the
lpc
commissioners
receive
meeting
materials
one
week
prior
to
the
meeting
for
review
and
preparation,
and
the
packet
includes
all
of
the
applications
plans,
photos
and
other
things
that
were
submitted,
and
they
should
have
this
commission.
This
information
with
them
during
the
meeting
and
the
information
that's
presented
on
on
the
screen
tonight
is
just
an
overview
and
summary
of
the
cases,
be
it
reviewed.
So
it
doesn't
include
everything
that
was
submitted.
It's
purely
a
visual
aid
to
help
to
keep
the
meeting
moving
in
an
organized
manner.
A
Thank
you
caitlin.
Thank
you.
Any
proposed
changes
to
the
minutes,
commission
members
and,
if
not,
may
I
have
a
motion
to
approve.
I
I
A
L
Good
evening,
so
we
have
four
agenda
items
this
month,
beginning
with
number
four:
the
taylor
property
at
703
woodland
drive
in
relay
county
council
district
number
one.
This
is
a
vacant
lot
in
the
relay
county,
historic
district
and
the
homeowners
are
proposing
an
amendment
to
infill
construction
plans
that
were
approved
in
november
2021
and
include
changes
to
the
dwelling
location,
dwelling
orientation
and
driveway
configuration.
L
L
The
next
item
is
agenda.
Item
number
six:
this
is
the
plano
property
at
320
morris
avenue
in
lutherville,
county
council.
District
number
three
is
a
non-contributing
structure
in
the
lutherville
county,
historic
district
and
the
homeowners
would
like
to
install
a
new
fence
in
the
rear
inside
yard
to
match
the
existing
staff
recommends
to
vote
issue
of
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
cites
baltimore
county
historic
design,
guidelines,
fences
and
landscapes,
page
four
county
code,
section
327
405..
L
L
And
lastly,
we
have
agenda
item
number
11,
the
savage
property
at
9
11
at
donna
road
in
sudbury
park.
I'm
excuse
me.
Yes
in
supper
park,
cowling
council
district
number
two:
this
is
a
contributing
structure
in
the
subbrook
park,
county,
historic
district
and
the
owners
are
proposing
a
wood
fence.
Installation
staff
recommendation
is
to
vote
to
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
citing
baltimore,
county,
historic
design,
guidelines,
fences
and
landscapes,
page
4,
county
code,
section
327405.
C
A
A
And
is
there
a
second
second?
Second,
thank
you
wendy.
I
think
we
have
to
do
a
roll
call,
vote,
jessica
or
taylor.
L
All
right,
let's
begin
john.
A
B
L
B
L
No
wendy,
you
said
yes,
yes,.
I
L
G
G
A
And
you
you
all
will
advise
me
if
we
have
anybody
on
the
line
that
we
need
to
invite
in
as
we
come
to
each
each
one.
L
L
The
garage
edition
was
originally
conditionally
approved
june
2016,
but
was
never
constructed
in
september
2020
the
homeowner
saw
approval
to
downsize
to
the
garage,
but
the
commission
had
concerns
on
the
location,
roofs
and
porch
and
garage
overlap
and
denied
the
application.
The
homeowners
then
received
approval
for
the
garage
edition
construction
in
november
2020.
They
are
now
ready
to
apply
for
a
permit
but
made
minor
adjustments
to
the
plans.
The
first
change
is
a
change
to
the
pitch
of
the
garage
edition
roof
in
order
to
accommodate
a
storage
area
above
the
garage.
L
L
L
The
change
in
the
roof
height
makes
the
garage
height
taller
than
the
mudroom
hyphen,
the
two-story
front
porch,
and
the
historic
addition
on
the
west
side
of
the
house.
Our
design
guideline
states
that
addition
should
be
visually
subordinate
to
the
historic
structure
and
that
the
height
should
be
lower
than
the
historic
parts
of
the
structure,
since
the
garage
can
be
set
back
from
the
main
facade
due
to
the
site
constraints.
Since
the
garage
extends
in
front
of
the
primary
facade,
special
consideration
needs
to
be
kept
in
the
design
to
ensure
that
it
doesn't
overpower.
L
The
historic
structure
staff
asked
that
the
commission
discussed
the
height
change
and
its
potential
visual
effects
on
the
entire
structure.
The
proposed
window
looks
very
large
for
the
space
and
staff
recommends
that
the
project
be
constructed
to
match
the
plans
originally
approved
in
november
2020
or
suggests
lowering
the
height
of
the
garage
roof
to
match
the
height
of
the
mud
room
and
find
a
window
that
matches
or
is
similar
to
the
six
pane
window.
L
On
the
second
floor
of
the
west
block
of
the
historic
house
with
no
shutters,
so
our
recommendation
is
to
vote
to
not
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
or
a
notice
to
proceed
for
the
garage
roof.
Height
changes
vote
to
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
with
the
condition
that
the
roof
height
matches,
the
height
of
the
mud,
room
and
a
smaller
window
be
used
that
matches
a
six
light
window
on
the
west
block
of
the
historic
house,
and
this
is
citing
baltimore
county
historic
guidelines,
additions
and
infill
page
pages,
one
through
seven
county
code.
327405.
L
E
C
C
Higher
and
it's
not
higher
than
I
mean
it
says,
not
don't
be
higher
than
the
house.
The
house
itself
is
a
number
of
different
things.
I
mean
it's
got
the
hyphen
on
the
addition
on
the
left
side.
Looking
at
the
partial
l
up
front,
elevation
is
taller
than
the
little
one.
That's
on
the
right
side
of
the
main
house.
The
main
house
itself
is
much
larger
than
this
and
I
think
it's
still
feels
subordinate
and
not
don't
think
it
overpowers
anything.
J
H
I
just
wanted
to
question
that
there
was
a
a
question
about
the
the
window
on
the
second
floor
of
the
garage
that
that
seems
a
little
out
of
big
too
much
for
the
second
floor.
H
I
guess
one
of
my
questions
is:
is
there
a
consideration
to
maybe
do
like
an
awning
window
that
matches
the
other
hyphen,
so
it's
kind
of
subsidiary
to
the
main
volume
of
the
house,
or
is
there
a
concern
for
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
concern
for
egress
in
that
case
and
they
need
to
have
such
a
large
window.
A
Lilly
we
we
could
add
that
as
a
condition
that
that
window
be
adjusted
in
size
and
then
allow
staff
to
review
that
for
approval.
If
you
want
to
amend
a
motion
or
make
a
motion
with
that
as
part
of
it.
B
Can
I
ask,
or
are
they
saying
that
they
are,
are
not
going
to
put
shutters
on
the
garage.
G
H
Currently
they're
shown
as
different
shutters.
So
that's
another
question
I
mean
I
don't
know
it's
hard
to
tell
from
the
pictures,
but
it
looks
like
from
the
drawings.
There
are
different
kinds
of
shutters
from
the
front
first
floor
main
level,
I
mean
first
floor
main
house
second
floor
and
then
the
garage,
so
that
would
be
my
question
too,
is:
why
is
that.
C
Is
someone
here
from
the
from
the
owner
representing
the
owner.
A
So
we
would
have
two
options:
we
we
can
send
it
back
and
and
ask
for
them
to
provide
more
details
on
the
shutters
and
ask
for
them
to
do
a
smaller
window
and
show
in
the
drawing
or
we
could
approve
it.
With
the
caveat
that
the
sh
the
window
and
the
shutters
have
to
come
back
through
our
our
staff
and
we
can
designate
them
to
approve
it
if
they
think
it's
appropriate.
A
Okay
is,
as
somebody
could,
somebody
make
that
motion,
and
so
in
the
motion
it
would
probably
be
a
help,
for
example,
lily.
If
you
were
more
specific
than
I
was
about
the
window
and
and
the
shutters
I'm
I'm.
H
So
I
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
submitted
drawings
with
the
with
the
revised
roof
ridge
elevation
and
pitch,
but
request
that
the
second
floor
garage
window
and
all
the
garage
shutters
and
hyphen
shutters
come
back
to
lpc
for
staff
review
and
approval.
A
Thank
you,
and
so
how
this
would
play
out.
If
we
vote
to
approve
it,
it
would
come
back
to
the
lbc
staff
and
then
they
could
call
you
lily
and
chris
for
a
second
look
and
see
what
you
think
of
it
so
be
prepared
for
that
that
that
might
circulate,
and.
K
So
I
I
just
want
to
chime
in
so
for
lily's
motion
for
the
week.
We
can't
do
you
guys
can't
chime
in
if
we
like
email
you
any
of
the
changes,
because
that
would
be
against
the
opening
meetings
act.
K
So
you
can
approve
the
plans
as
submitted
with
the
conditions
that
the
homeowners
provide
more
information
about
the
shutters
or
that
they
match
the
or
we
can
say
that
they
need
to
match
the
shutters
on
the
on
the
historic
house
and
that
they
get
a
smaller
window
that
matches
the
one
on
the
western.
A
Side,
caitlyn,
I'm
sorry,
I
wasn't
suggesting
that
you
send
it
to
everybody.
I
was
suggesting
that
for
technical
advice
you
would
be
free
to
call
one
or
two
members
which
should
not
file
at
the
open
meeting.
Okay
is
what
I'm
trying
to
suggest.
So
I
apologize
for
that
confusion.
So
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second.
We
need
to
do
a
roll
call.
Please
jessica.
G
Right
chris.
J
C
L
B
L
Is
located
at
504
sudbrook
lane
sudbury
park
county
council
district
number
two,
it
is
a
construct
contributing
structure
in
the
sudbury
park,
county,
historic
district
and
the
property
owners
are
proposing
the
removal
of
a
front
walkway
to
replace
with
loose
stone
path
and
the
installation
of
raised
beds.
The
owner
came
before
the
commission
in
february
2022
and
was
issued
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
the
installation
of
a
wood
and
wire
deer
fence
on
the
side
and
rear
yard.
The
owner
is
now
proposing
two
hardscaping
slash
landscaping
projects
in
the
front
and
side
yard.
L
The
work
was
brought
to
our
attention
by
a
neighbor
and
the
hardscaping
projects
are
under.
Excuse
me,
the
hardscaping
projects
are
under
the
lpc's
purview
and
plantings,
mulching,
etc,
are
not
for
the
first
work
item.
The
owner
has
already
removed
the
front
concrete
walkway
that
leads
from
the
street
to
the
front
steps
the
walkway
on
the
front
right
side
and
the
rear
walkway.
That
leads
from
the
house
to
the
detached
garage
the
owner
is
currently
in
the
process
of
installing
a
new
pathway
system
using
loose
barn
stone.
L
The
pathways
will
be
three
feet
wide,
with
three
quarters
inch
barnstone
spread
to
a
depth
of
four
inches,
topped
with
a
one
inch
of
3
8
barnstone,
and
the
design
layout
of
the
new
pathways
consists
of
the
circular
design
in
the
front,
with
plantings
in
the
middle
and
a
pathway
on
the
left
side
that
curves
toward
the
rear
to
provide
access
to
the
backyard
and
leads
to
an
existing
rear
patio
and
on
the
right
side,
two
paths
will
curve
toward
the
driveway.
Another
pathway
leads
to
the
rear
yard
and
branches
from
the
driveway
pathway.
L
For
the
second
work
item,
the
owner
is
proposing
to
install
a
series
of
simple
raised
beds
within
the
existing
deer
fence
area
on
the
side
yard
between
the
house
and
the
detached
garage.
The
layout
will
roughly
measure
30
by
40
feet
beds
laid
out
in
a
two
by
five
configuration
that
consists
of
6,
regularly
spaced
4x8
beds,
with
2
and
a
half
by
19
beds
in
between
each
pair
of
4x8
beds.
L
The
beds
will
consist
of
a
brick
border
stacked
two
to
four
bricks:
high
atop
compact
soil,
the
property
owner
provided
a
photo
example
of
the
raised
bed
design
and
it
was
included
in
your
meeting
materials.
The
beds
will
be
surrounded
by
the
same
three
foot:
wide
barnstone
pathway
to
match
the
front
yard
hardscaping.
L
Overall
staff
is
accepting
of
the
work
as
proposed
and
recommends
to
vote
to
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
work
items
one
and
two,
as
proposed,
citing
baltimore
county
historic
design,
guidelines,
fences
and
landscape,
page
3,
county
code,
section
327,
405.,.
A
I
B
A
Thank
you,
roll
call,
please
jessica.
C
B
A
G
Right,
thank
you.
So,
as
john.
L
Mentioned
the
tuglio
property
is
located
on
219
west
seminary
avenue,
lutherville
county
council
district
number
three
is
a
non-contributing
in-field
structure
in
the
lutherville
county,
historic
district.
The
owners
are
proposing
to
enclose
an
existing
garage
space
construct,
a
one-story
25
by
42-foot,
detached
garage
and
connect
spaces
with
a
new
covered
walkway
and
vestibule.
The
property
is
an
infill
construction
that
was
built
in
2011
to
2012..
Plans
were
approved
by
the
commission
in
march
2011
and
the
property
owners
are
proposing
several
exterior
alterations
to
the
east
side
of
the
home.
L
They
consist
of
converting
the
existing
garage
into
a
living
space,
construction
of
a
detached
garage
and
the
construction
of
a
covered,
walkway
and
vessel
work
item.
One
includes
the
owners
wish
to
enclose
an
existing
two
gar
two-car
garage
space
on
the
east
elevation
of
the
house
to
convert
into
a
living
space.
The
exterior
garage
door
will
be
removed
and
replaced
with
two
sets
of
white
25
inch
by
45
inch.
Six
over
one
double
hung:
simulated,
divided,
light,
wrapped
wood
windows.
L
In
the
anderson
200
series
to
match
the
east
facade,
the
exterior
will
be
covered
in
hardy,
plank
lap
sidings
to
match
existing
siding
size
and
color
of
the
house
work
item
2.
The
owners
wish
to
construct
a
one
story:
25
foot
by
42
foot
detached
garage
that
will
face
towards
west
seminary
avenue
from
the
side
yard.
A
portion
of
an
existing
wood,
picket
fence
will
be
removed
from
the
east
side
yard
to
accommodate
the
new
garage
space.
The
remaining
fence
will
join
the
southeast
corner
of
the
new
garage
and
enclose
the
rear
yard.
L
The
home
and
new
garage
will
be
connected
by
a
covered
walkway
and
vegetable.
This
is
work
item
three
and
the
garage
will
have
a
black
tin
standing
seam
roof
with
concealed
fasteners,
two
eight
foot
by
seven
foot
metal
garage
doors
with
the
appearance
of
wood
on
the
front
and
a
set
of
white
25
inch
by
45
inch.
Six
over
one
double
hung:
simulated,
divided,
light,
rockwood
windows,
again,
anderson
200
series,
centered
over
the
front
doors
opening
from
the
garage
attic.
L
Please
note
that
the
proposed
location
of
the
garage
is
along
the
property
line
which
borders
the
shared
driveway.
The
location
is
outside
of
the
20-foot
zoning
setbacks.
The
commission
does
not
have
purviewers
only
only
design
and
its
appropriateness
and
compatibility
to
the
main
house
and
the
historic
district.
All
projects
approved
by
the
lpc
must
still
meet
zoning
requirements,
and
this
project
will
need
a
variance
or
special
exception
to
be
constructed
in
the
proposed
location.
L
If
the
variance
is
denied
the
property
owner
will
need
to
return
to
the
lpc,
with
any
changes
in
the
location
and
designed
to
satisfy
setbacks
and,
finally,
work
item
3.
The
owners
wish
to
connect
the
main
house
to
the
new
garage
by
covered
walkway
and
vegetable
located
on
the
southeast
corner
of
the
main
house.
The
entry
vessel
will
be
a
seven
to
one
by
seven
to
one
addition
on
the
southeast
corner.
L
It
will
have
a
sloped
black
asphalt,
shingle
roof,
covering
a
walkway,
extending
11
to
5
feet
south
to
the
new
garage
and
measure
8
feet
to
6
and
a
quarter
inches
high.
A
continuous
edge
will
join
the
southeast
corner
of
the
walkway
roof
to
the
northwest
corner
of
the
new
garage
roof.
The
roof
configuration
and
connection
on
the
vestibule
and
walkway
is
not
clear
from
plans.
The
roof
appears
to
extend
past
the
east
facade
and
is
visible
from
the
front
facing
the
rear
yard.
Overall
staff
is
accepting
of
the
proposal.
L
The
visual
aspects
of
the
detached
garage
as
seen
from
the
road
are
consistent
with
other
detached
garages
found
in
lutherville,
like
at
1421,
frankie,
209,
west
seminary,
202,
west
seminary,
1509,
bologna
and
309
morris
up
to
name
a
few.
In
addition,
the
design
is
compatible
with
the
main
house,
which
is
an
infill
construction
and
staff,
urges
the
owners
to
contact
zoning
to
resolve
any
setback
issues.
L
So
staff
recommendations
are
to
vote
a
certificate
of
appropriate
for
work
item.
One
vote
to
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
work
item;
two,
with
the
condition
that
the
new
garage
setbacks
satisfy
zoning
requirements
and
vote
to
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
work
item
three:
this
cites
baltimore
county,
historic
design,
guidelines,
windows
and
doors
pages;
five
and
eight
roofs;
page
six
and
ten
facade
materials
pages;
two:
three:
six
additions
and
infills
pages;
two:
three:
five
fences
and
landscape
pages,
4,
5
and
finally,
county
code,
section
32745.
A
Thank
you,
jessica.
Thank
you.
I
understand
we
have
the
owner
and
also
some
other
guests
online
and
before
we
call
upon
them
for
their
comments,
I
want
to
remind
them.
The
comments
should
be
held
under
three
minutes.
There
will
be
a
timer
on
the
screen
for
you
to
remind
you
of
the
time,
it's
important
for
you
to
tell
us
your
name
and
your
relationship
to
the
property,
whether
you're,
the
owner,
a
neighbor
whatever
that
may
be,
and
please
limit
your
comments
to
new
information.
A
So
we
have
some
information
to
us.
We
have
several
speakers.
If
one
speaker
has
already
said
what
you
hope
to
say,
then
you
may
not
need
to
repeat
it
and
also
an
important
cautionary
word.
We
have
no
control
over
zoning.
The
the
your
comment
should
be
reserved.
If
you
have
zoning
comments,
reserve
them
for
the
zoning
board.
We
are
here
to
explore
the
appropriateness
of
the
addition
and
other
factors
that
all
being
said,
do
we
have
the
property
owner
to
start
with.
E
Hello,
everyone
thank
you
for
taking
the
time,
I'm
here
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
moving
forward.
A
Good,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
We
may
come
back
to
you
and
then
we
have
other
folks
who
wanted
to
have
a
comment.
Taylor.
F
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
I
represent
the
loser
bills
advisory
committee
in
lutherville.
We
have
great
concerns
with
the
size
of
this
garage.
It
is
a
very
large
size
garage
for
this
piece
of
property.
It's
larger
than
any
garage
we
have
in
the
district.
It
is
not
in
keeping
with
the
size
of
garages
most
of
the
garages
here,
were
carriage
houses
and
or
have
been
used
for
garages
and
or
storage.
We
do
not
have
attached
garages
front-facing
from
seminary
avenue.
F
We
do
have
ones,
you
can
see
what
they
were
carriage
houses
set
in
the
back.
As
you
all
know,
we
just
went
through
this
for
the
past
several
months,
so
it's
just
a
very
large
garage
and
it
also
impinges
the
view
from
the
neighbors
below,
because
this
is
a
very
large
panhandle
lot,
and
that
is
a
concern
for
the
space
as
well
as
views
from
the
east
and
west
sides,
because
we
were
made
with
open
space
trees
opened
in
the
back,
and
I
sent
some
pictures
along
as
well.
F
To
okay,
so
you
know
so
the
one
on
the
left,
and
actually
it's
interesting,
because
I
was
going
through
the
guidelines
today
and
the
209
west
seminary
avenue
is
actually
in
the
guidelines
as
an
appropriate
structure
that
that
blends
in
as
all
of
these
structures
were
in
fill,
and
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
making
sure
that
they
did
fit
in
the
ortega's
property
does
fit
in.
I
just
think
the
garage,
the
commission
or
excuse
me.
Our
committee
feels
that
it's
just
much
too
large
for
the
site
and
for
our
community.
A
F
No,
I
I
think
you
know
I
I
wrote
in
it
in
the
letter
I
sent
pictures.
The
pictures
on
the
left
shows
what
the
view
is
down
the
driveway
and
that
panhandle
lot
that
driveway
is
owned
by
the
owner
of
215
in
the
back
as
well
as
the
right
picture
shows
their
view.
They
will
be
looking
at.
You
know
a
large
structure
and
the
structure
also
does
not
have
any
windows
showing
on
the
east
side
of
that.
A
F
A
D
Yes,
next
up,
we
have
miss
stacy
forrester
and
if
anyone
else
from
the
public
would
like
to
testify,
please
either
use
the
raise
hand
button
to.
Let
staff
know
that
you
would
like
to
speak
or
please
send
a
message
in
the
chat
to
the
host
so
that
we
can
get
you
unmuted
next
stacey,
you
are
unmuted.
N
N
Here
as
well,
the
biggest
concern
I
probably
have
is
the
just
the
the
viewpoint
you
know
from
the
back
and
pictures
that
you
see
it
does
completely
take
out
a
large
section.
You
know
of
the
view
from
the
rear.
I
have
some
major
concerns
about
the
safety
you
know
of
the
driveway
itself.
At
this
point,
it's
a
shared
driveway
with
vehicles
coming
to
and
from
the
back,
and
as
you
noticed
in
my
you
know,
attachment
this
is
a
pretty
busy
walking
area
for
all
of
us.
N
You
know,
as
we
traverse
through
you
know.
I
think
it
just
creates
not
only
for
us
in
the
back
visually.
N
It
cuts
a
lot
of
our
visual
sight
off,
but
again
being
that
it's
right
on
the
proper
line
shared
driveway.
I
just
think
from
outside
of
the
view
the
safe
dive
safety
concerns,
emergency
vehicle
concerns,
everything
being
that
close
to
the
property
line
and,
like
I
said
it,
it's
right.
In
our
view,
it
takes
a
big
portion
of
our
view
out.
A
Thank
you,
mr
forrester.
Anybody
else
taylor
if
they
come
on
and
indicate
an
interest.
D
Nope,
no
one
else
has
sent
a
message
and
no
one
else
is
raising
their
hand.
C
K
K
Item
variants
in
order
to
be
constructed
constructed,
which
will
also
have
a
public
process,
so
the
neighbors
will
also
be
able
to
address
their
concerns
on
any.
You
know.
Zoning
issues
in
that
forum,
so
they'll
be
able
to
do
it
twice
so.
A
K
Correct,
yes,
if
they,
if
zoning
doesn't
approve
the
variance
or
if
they
asked
for
it
to
be
moved
to
you
know
a
compromise
or
whatever,
whatever
changes
they'll
be
made
in
its
location
or
any
changes
in
design,
because
it's
being
has
to
be
moved,
they
would
have
to
come
back
to
the
lpc
to
review
those
changes.
H
I'm
sorry
go
ahead.
I
think
the
lutherville
review
committee
has
not
approved
this
project
and
I
was
wondering
if
they
should
be
reviewing
it
first
and
he
should
get
their
blessing
before
before
even
applying
for
a
for
a
variance
and
before
we
issue
an
approval
on
it.
A
That
that's
an
important
thought.
This
is
we.
We
are
assuming
that
they're
going
to
be
some
zoning
issues
and
it
may
be
a
problem,
but
we
perhaps
should
disregard
that
and
react
to
it
as
if
there
were
no
zoning
issues
on
whether
we
thought
it
was
an
appropriate
addition
and
an
appropriate
design,
and
so
I
asked
the
panel
to
kind
of
try
and
seal
off
the
zoning
idea.
While
they
may
expect
they
may
have
a
critical
view
of
it.
A
C
Have
a
have
a
concern,
I'm
a
little
concerned.
I
mean
I'm
not
terribly
concerned
with
the
doors
facing
forward
because
it's
way
it's
back
behind
the
house,
I'm
not
terribly
concerned
with
the
size,
but
I
am
concerned
with
putting
the
building
right
on
the
property
line,
particularly
when
it's
a
very
narrow,
driveway
access,
driveway
back
and
it's
right
on
the
property
line.
I'm
just
worried
that
it's
it's
so
close
for
cars.
It
just
seems
it
seems
like
it's.
You
know
a
car
slips
in
the
ice.
Anything
happens.
It
hits
the
car
the
building.
C
K
It's
a
it's
a
zoning,
I
think
fire.
I.
C
I
don't
know
what
rating
you
need
if
you're
putting
a
building
on
a
property
line.
It's
I
think
there
there's
a
lot
of
questions
that
I
have
there.
I'm
not
sure
it's
a
good
idea.
So
so
chris,
do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
that
or
lily.
H
I
don't
think
it
preserves
the
view
sheds
of
the
I
mean,
I'm
sure
when
the
well,
I'm
not
sure
I
don't
know,
but
if,
if
the
part
of
the
designation
for
how
these
houses
were
infill
was
to
preserve
view
sheds,
then
this
is
clearly
going
to
block
that.
So
that's
a
big
concern
for
for
the
lots
in
the
rear
and
but.
C
Pretty
far
back-
and
I
you
know-
I
I'm
not
sure
I
have
a
big
concern
about
that.
I
mean
I
respect
the
property
owner
and
the
backs
concerned,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
I
would.
I
have
that
concern.
A
So
what
I'm
hearing
is
some
hesitancy
on
on
the
board
and
it
sounds
like
we're
leaning
toward
a
motion
to
not
approve
it
in
its
current
iteration.
J
J
J
H
C
C
K
A
C
Okay,
I
move
that
we
table
this
item
until
such
time
as
we
have
it's
either
passed
or
been
modified
due
to
zoning
issues.
K
C
A
G
Thank
you,
chris.
J
G
A
A
C
B
D
G
D
G
Please
yes,
I
came,
I
answered
yes,
I
came
in
late,
but
what
I
was
able
to
read
and.
C
A
So
thank
you,
guest
and
owner
and
mr
artiglio
for
busy
visiting
with
us
and
we'll
look
forward
to
hearing
from
you
again.
L
Thank
you
item.
10
is
the
last
on
the
agenda,
this
club
hill
house,
the
kulik
property
located
on
9301
old,
hartford,
road
and
parkville
county
council
district
number.
Three
is
the
final
landmark
number
67
mip
number
ba281
and
the
owner
is
proposing
the
expansion
of
an
existing
side
edition.
L
So
this
portion
of
the
existing
one
storyboard
in
baton,
1970's
kitchen
edition
proposed
expansion,
is
located
on
the
east
elevation.
The
proposal
is
extending
the
footprint
of
the
existing
edition
and
adding
a
second
story.
The
addition
will
consist
of
a
mud,
room
and
staircase
on
the
first
floor
and
storage
on
the
second,
it
will
be
clad
with
three
fourths
in
pt
plywood
and
one
sorry.
We
have
a
measurement
missing
strips
to
create
a
board
and
batten
pattern
to
match.
L
What's
existing,
the
roofline
is
proposed
to
match
that
of
the
historic
stone
portion
of
the
house
and
will
have
a
standing
seam
metal
roof
to
match
what
exists.
The
homeowner
wishes
to
add
a
salvage
school
house
bell
that
was
salvaged
from
an
antique
shop.
Our
design
guidelines
state
that
an
appropriately
designed
addition
should
be
visually
subordinate
to
the
primary
building
and
that
the
height
should
be
lower
than
the
historic
structure.
The
proposed
roof
of
the
addition
aligns
with
the
roof
line
of
the
adjacent
historic
stone
structure.
Staff
recommends
that
the
roofline
be
dropped.
L
Remove
the
south
elevation,
the
rear
will
be
set
back
from
the
adjacent
building
line.
The
existing
rear,
exterior
door
will
be
reused
on
this
elevation
and
four
six
over
six
windows.
Pella
black
aluminum,
clad,
divided
lights
over
pros
on
the
first
and
second
stories
of
the
elevations,
the
window
style
will
match
the
others
on
this
edition
and
the
window
dimensions
were
not
provided
on
the
plans,
provided.
The
proposed
windows
appear
to
be
larger
than
those
on
the
adjacent
historic
stone
portion
of
the
house
and
do
not
align
on
the
north
elevation
of
the
addition.
L
The
single
window
proposed
on
the
second
story,
looks
out
of
place
with
the
rest
of
the
elevation
and
house
staff
recommends
moving
the
window
to
the
first
floor
and
centering
it
on
the
wall
and
having
it
align
with
the
other
windows
on
the
east
elevation.
Four
windows
are
proposed,
the
number
and
window
size
appear
too
much
for
a
small
area.
Staff's
recommendation
is
to
have
a
single
window
on
each
floor
centrally
aligned
instead
of
two
for
total.
L
In
addition,
the
still
and
header
heights
appear
to
be
too
high
and
should
be
lowered
to
be
in
more
alignment
with
the
others
on
the
addition
staff
is
accepting
of
the
general
location
of
the
edition,
as
it
is
an
expansion
of
an
existing
edition.
However,
there
are
a
few
aspects
of
the
design
that
should
be
reworked
to
create
a
more
compatible
addition.
Steph
encourages
the
commission
to
discuss
the
recommendations
presented
and
review
the
proposal
for
its
adherence
to
our
design
guidelines.
D
We
have
a
call-in
user,
it's
a
410-241
phone
number,
I'm
gonna
unmute!
You
can
you
just.
Let
us
know
if
you're
with
this
project.
O
A
You're
this
john
holman,
the
commission
chair,
would
you
like
to
add
any
comments
to
our
reading
about
the
proposed
edition.
O
Sure
I
I
got
bits
and
pieces
of
it.
I
have
obviously
a
very
old
tablet
and
it
wasn't
working.
So
I
had
to
call
this
in.
I
heard
parts
that
some
of
the
windows
don't
align
or
what
have
you
I
I
mean
we
can
make
any
adjustments
that
the
commission
feels
is
necessary.
You
know
we're
putting
the
same
windows
in
that
are
already
existing
in
the
wraparound
edition
that
you
see.
That's
there,
I'm
not
making
anything
different.
I
can
move
the
windows
down.
O
I
can
get
rid
of
that
one
window
in
the
back,
we're
in
the
front
of
the
house
that
does
look
a
bit
perhaps
out
of
place.
That's
fine,
I'm
very
open
to
anything
that
you
guys
suggest
again.
I
had
my
architect,
you
know,
fill
this
out
and
and
do
all
this
I
didn't
you
know,
and
he
knows
he
says
he
knows
a
lot
of
what
the
historical
commission
requires
and
wants
to
see.
O
But
again
I'm
hoping
I
was
delayed.
I
don't
know
if
you
know
the
background
of
this.
I
was
delayed
so
many
times
on
this
project.
I've
had,
I
guess,
pork,
architects
that
I
hired
before
and
they
left
and
didn't
really
submit
stuff
correctly,
and
then
I
had
to
figure
out
on
my
own
what
we
needed
to
do
so
then
I
hired
mr
jason
and
he
seemed
to
be
a
little
bit
more
knowledgeable.
O
But
again
anything
you
guys
need
me
to
do.
I
I'm
very
open
to
I'm
just
hoping
we
can
at
least
proceed
and
break
ground
and
I
can
pour
the
foundation
and
then
I
can
always,
while
I'm
working
on
a
foundation
I'll
get
with
mr
jason
and
we
can
reassess
or
redraw
whatever
you
guys
need
to
make
this
compatible
and
to
your
satisfaction.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Just
the
clarification
on
how
it
would
work,
we
either
will
approve
it
or
not,
approve
it,
and
we
may
not
approve
it
with
recommendations
to
you,
but
do
not
start
work
until
we
have
approved
it.
Don't
lay
a
foundation,
don't
don't
start
down
that
path
in
the
event
that
some
revisions
are
necessary
and
I
think
for
you
to
waste
your
time
and
money.
Commission
members
any
thoughts
or
comments.
D
Sorry
one
second,
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
the
architect
is
also
online.
If
you
guys
have
any
questions
for
him
or
would
like
to
hear
from
him
before
discussion.
A
Oh,
thank
you
taylor.
Why
don't
we
open
it
to
questions
and
then
maybe
the
architect
can
respond
to
them
as
the
commissioners
have
them,
commissioners,
any
thoughts
questions
I.
C
B
I
have
a
similar.
I
was
just
looking
on
the
google
earth.
It
appears
that
the
house
is
sort
of
set
at
an
angle
to
the
road
and
that
this
addition
is
sort
of
sort
of
back
in
the
corner.
So
when
I
try
to
look
at
it
on
from
a
street
view,
I
really
couldn't
see
it
because
it's
angled
back
away
from
sort
of
at
a
40,
the
house
sort
of
goes
at
a
45
degree
angle
to
the
road,
and
this
is
on
the
back
side
of
that.
A
M
C
H
C
C
That
doesn't
seem
to
look
right
based
on
the.
If
I
look
at
the
elevations
of
them.
H
O
C
Edition
looks
almost
flush
with
what
I
think
is
the
front.
Maybe
that's
the
back
it's
hard
to
tell
I
don't
I
don't
have
an
I
don't.
The
plans
are
very
hard
for
me
to
understand
and
I'm
an
architect.
I
should
be
able
to
understand
it.
I
just
I
don't
have
a
good
building
floor
plan.
I
don't
have
a
site
plan,
so
I
don't
really
understand
how
this
is
working
and
how
it
relates
to
the
street.
How
you'll
see
it.
K
And
floor
plans
were
included
in
the
all
the
media
materials
that
you
all
received
again
remember.
This
is
just
a
summary
you
put
them.
H
They
are
partial
floor
plans,
so
it's
really
hard
to
see
the
new
work
in
relationship
to
the
existing
main
structure.
No,
it's
it's
impossible
and
then
the
photographs
are
the
same
way.
It's
really
hard
to
understand
this
piece
in
relationship
to
the
whole,
so
the
floor
plans
have
to
include
existing
and
new,
not
just
a
little
side
of
the
of
the
house.
H
A
C
A
So
really
all
we
need
to
do
at
this
point
is
to
say
we
vote
yes
to
agree
with
the
staff
recommendation
and
then
they
can
comment
to
the
owner
and
the
architect
about
what
was
lacking.
We
don't
need
to
go
into
that
detail,
so
the
motion
should
one
of
you
like
to
make.
It
would
be
just
to
vote
to
not
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
C
I'll
make
that
motion,
but
I
move
to
not
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
or
notice
to
proceed
and
have
the
owner
return
with
better
plans
that
are
more
and
that
are
more
compatible
with
guidelines
aligning
just
some
suggestions
align
the
windows.
There's
some
strange.
If
you
look
at
this
proposed
elevation
right
here,
I
don't
understand
I'm
trying
to
draw
something
here,
but
I'm
not
sure
I
can
there's
a
on
the
proposed
elevation
proposed
east
elevation
on
the
new
on.
C
A
H
A
J
B
I
L
A
A
Thank
you,
thank
you,
so,
owner
and
architect,
thank
you
for
joining
us.
You
heard
the
discussion
and
staff
will
get
back
to
you
on
how
to
proceed
from
from
here,
but
thank
you
for
joining
us
tonight
and
then
and
now
we
move
on
to
some
tax
credit
applications
correct.
K
It's
sorry
I
can.
I
have
it
I'll,
do
it?
Okay,
thank
you.
So
the
following
historic
property
tax
credits
are
approved
by
staff
as
an
emergency
pair
or
due
to
receiving
a
part
two
approval
from
mhd.
K
So
we
have
the
oakwood
bungalow,
the
creme
millmeyer
property
at
1301,
edmondson
avenue
in
kittensville.
They
had
mht
approval
for
an
in-kind
rebuild
of
original
chimney
and
the
martin
property
at
2103
winchester
avenue
in
catonsville.
They
also
had
an
mht
approval
for
water,
pipe
replacements,
electrical
wiring
upgrades
and
plaster
repairs.
A
H
H
K
Sleeping
in
the
department
of
planning
yeah,
you
know
I
told
her
she
can
come
back.
We
ever
needed
help
for
a
meeting
so
like.
If
I
decide
to
take
a
vacation
during
an
lpc
week,
maybe
she'll
come
help.
I
would.
D
Just
just
as
a
note,
I'm
sorry,
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
all.
I
it's
been
such
a
joy
serving
as
the
secretary
to
the
commission
and
I've
loved
working
with
each
and
every
one
of
you,
as
well
as
people
that
aren't
here
today
and
all
the
commissioners
that
have
retired
or
left
since
I
joined
them.
Thank
you
so
much
for
welcoming
me
with
open
arms
and
for
teaching
me
so
much
over
the
past
few
years.
I'm
so
grateful
for
all
of
you.
So
thank
you.