/* The Divi child theme test */ Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes May 2002 | Town of Washington Grove
301-926-2256 washgrove@comcast.net

30 May 2002 | Approved:

Present: David Neumann, Bob Booher, Clare Cavicchi, and Chris Kirtz

The meeting began at 7:40 p.m. on Thurs. May 30. The Chair, David Neumann, took minutes.

The original meeting had been scheduled for May 15, but due to other obligations of the members a quorum was not attained and the meeting was postponed to May 30.

The meeting was devoted to reviewing two building permit applications. One was from Paris C. Pacchione to build an exterior staircase to his studio above his garage at 128 Chestnut Ave. The other was to construct a residence and garage on one of the WSSC lots on Ridge Road at 217 Ridge Road.

With respect to the review of the Pacchione application the HPC felt that additional elevations would have aided the review process. The members felt that a digital camera would have avoided the problem of requesting the additional elevations. The members further decided that they would recommend that the balusters on the stairs be compatible with those on the existing deck and that in general the details on the stairs have some similar or compatible relation with existing elements of the house.

The members discussed a proposed "Building Permit Checklist" designed by John McClelland and Kathy Lehman. In addition they discussed the details of the permit application process. There were several observations and ideas:

  1. Copies of the permit application should be provided to each member of the HPC to speed up the review process.
  2. The directions to applicants need to be modified regarding (a) what material the applicant should submit and (b) how long the application process can take. It was felt that the applicants need to be told that the ordinances allow for up to thirty days for the review process by the HPC. It was not clear how long the Planning Commission permitting process takes, but that the current advise to applicants is too short. Some preface in the application should state that the Town is a government manned by volunteers and that some delay is inevitable.
  3. The members felt that for some classes of structures there could be an expedited review. The HPC should decide on a list of construction projects that might be expedited. Fences, minor features, e.g. door hoods, exterior stairs, patios, decks, etc. might be part of such a list. The members decided that a start be made by circulating among the members by e-mail a list of application types that could be expedited. Minor changes on contributing structures could be expedited. Changes to non-contributing structures could also be expedited. The question of which structures were contributing was not discussed, but had been discussed in the prior meeting.
  4. The members of the HPC decided that after a review was discussed at a meeting the members would empower one member to write the review and send it on to the Planning Commission. The individual would follow the decisions and suggestions of the other members and would send a copy of the final review to the other members. This policy was to be followed in the case of the review for the application submitted by Paris Pacchione.
  5. The form of the Checklist was discussed. Members felt that one line should be added shown in italics below:
    — Application submitted to the HPC
    — Application reviewed by HPC, review sent to Planning Commission.

It was noted for the record that the application submitted by Mr. Bush for 415 Center had been withdrawn. David Neumann suggested that we ask the Planning Commission for a letter (or look at the minutes of the PC) to get an explanation of the status of the permit submitted for the house and garage at 217 Ridge Road. Bob Booher suggested that instead we review the plan submitted as an example and as a practice. It was felt that no second notice was needed to the applicant in this case. David Neumann accepted the task of writing up the review after the HPC discussion of that application.

Clare Cavicchi and Bob Booher felt that the York review needed to be modified to reflect their comments. David Neumann said he would look into it.

No decision was made setting a date for the June meeting. We agreed to discuss the date by e-mail.

Scroll Up