12/12/2024
Hi all,
Sorry for the late update. Please see our Community Statement 3 which has been entered into the record before tonight’s meeting:
Community Statement 3: Demolition Case HPC24-702, 127 E. 6th Street (Wi******er Site)
Requesting that the HPC Exercise Its Authority Under the Land Management Code [Article 2, Section 204 (b) & (c)] and Insist on a Full and Evidence-containing Staff Report Regarding the Demolition Application
Dear City of Frederick Historic Preservation Commissioners and Historic Planners, We, the undersigned Citizens of Frederick (one from Frederick County) request that this
Community Statement be entered into the official record and given full consideration in your deliberations on this case. (Companion Statements, opposing the developers’ replacement planfor this property, [Case Number HPC24-714, Level I/ New Construction] are to be submitted at a
later time)As indicated in both of our previous Community Statements (September 11 and October 23,
2024, respectively) we strongly disagree with the designation of either of the two structures on the site as “non-contributing,
”and we oppose, in no uncertain terms, their demolition. We also
oppose any clearing/grading in the intervening green (former garden) spaces on the property.
The 3 core elements of this site– the house, the stable and the green/garden spaces–have been in historical association since at least 1897, the date of the first Sanborn Map to include the B.F.
Wi******er property. As we have stated in the previous two Community Statements, demolition or disturbance of any of the 3 core elements would destroy the site’s historical integrity. This
site is a unique, historic and treasured community resource that, in its entirety, is of considerable historical value in the Historic District. To our knowledge, there is nothing like it
remaining in the Historic District, and as such it is the Commission’s responsibility to preserve it.
This Community Statement continues the focus of our 2nd Community Statement (CS2), centering mainly on the stable/garage, and examining the merits of statements in the
preliminary and final (apparently) Staff Report on this application (dated September 4 and (originally) September 20, 2024, respectively). Here, we highlight each statement or
passage relevant to the stable/garage from those Reports, and briefly comment on them, relying heavily on the work in our previous Community Statements. (see pages 2 & 3,
below). We then give a summary (page 3), as we did in our CS2 analysis (page 😎, requesting the
explanations from the Historic Planning Staff to support these statements (because we do not find the explanations in the Staff Reports). We further conclude (page 3) that if the
Staff Reports are the basis for the Commission making an informed decision regarding the contributing or non-contributing status of the stable/garage (as one would suppose),
then the Commission, according to the Land Management Code, should pause its decision on the contributing status of the stable/garage, request the necessary information from Staff, and then resume your deliberations. Alternatively, or
concurrently, the Commission could use the detailed information provided in our Community Statements (especially CS2) to inform your decision. Our examination of the stable/garage-related points from the Reports follows as Items A-F ,
below. We then offer a short summary of that examination.
Item A. (From page 2, bottom, Preliminary Staff Report, 9/4/24).
“The B.F. Wi******er
residence originally sat on a larger property, comprised of multiple lots, with various secondary
resources supporting its use, which is consistent with the period of development in the northern part of the downtown district.
“The 1897 Sanborn Map provides the earliest detailed
documentation on the layout of the property, which includes the dwelling, garden space, and numerous dependencies. The secondary resources associate [sic] with Wi******er’s ownership
have been lost over time.”
COMMUNITY’S RESPONSE. Not all of the secondary resources have been lost over time. The description above does not mention the stable, SW of the dwelling. It is, however,
mentioned by the applicant in the historical research presented in the application, and was evidently present as a two- story building in 1897. A stable/garage, in this same location, is
present on every Sanborn map we have seen of the site. A dwelling, open green spaces and a stable/garage (although all have undergone modification over time) survive to this day, and have been a 3-element constant on the site since at least 1897.
Item B. (From page 3, middle of the page, Preliminary Staff Report, 9/4/24). “Near the southwest corner of the property is a wood frame garage. Historic mapping and photographs
suggest multiple eras of construction and alterations, but staff is unable to definitively provide construction dates or explain its evolution.”
COMMUNITY’S RESPONSE. Please see our entire CS2. We thoroughly researched the stable/garage, and have been able to explain its evolution. And we showed photos of its
interior, its footer, and its old, vertical plank siding. Except possibly for the western wing of the structure, we have presented compelling evidence that the major part of the stable/garage dates from 1930, or earlier, which is well within the Historic District’s Period of Significance. And we
found no evidence showing that any part of it is younger than 50 years old.
Item C. (From page 3, middle of the page, Preliminary Staff Report, 9/4/24 [immediately follows the above sentences]).
“Staff would be interested in viewing the structural conditions of this resource at the planned site visit on September 12th. Early garages often lack adequate
foundational and structural supports that make long-term preservation challenging.”
COMMUNITY’S RESPONSE: We viewed the structure on 9/12/24 during the site visit, and a photograph of the interior is included in CS2. And please see the item B response, above.
Although the non-property facing sides of the structure need paint, the structure has a footer and appears structurally sound, especially for its apparent age. We also provided evidence in
CS2 that the longtime owners, the Van Pelts, maintained the structure. From Tanzi Crayton’s draft minutes of the 9/12/24 site visit, there is some additional comment regarding the structure,
but no further information is presented. “Commissioners viewed the secondary resource. There were no questions from the commission regarding the structure. Staff noted that the structure had been altered over time, and there could be some structural inadequacies- which is not
unusual for secondary resources.”
Item D. (From page 3,
~¾ of the way down, Preliminary Staff Report, 9/4/24).
“127 E. 6th Street is listed as a contributing resource in the 2021 National Register Nomination. A separate
designation was not provided for the garage.”
COMMUNITY’S RESPONSE. As stated in our CS1, be also acknowledge this, and point out that lack of designation does not mean that the structure was found to be non-contributing. Our
understanding is that usually only one designation per property is made on the National Register Nomination maps, and that that is usually the primary resource on the property, which
is usually the dwelling (house).
Item E. (From page 3, near the top, September 20, 2024 Staff Report). “Much of the garage’s
current appearance is likely contributed [sic] to alterations that took place over the past fifty”
years.
COMMUNITY’S RESPONSE. Again, please see our CS2. And again, we respectfully ask for the Staff’s evidence supporting this assertion. As stated above (Item B.) and in CS2, we only
found evidence for routine maintenance and superficial aesthetic alterations being made to the structure over the last 50 years.
Item F. (From page 4, bottom, September 20, 2024 Staff Report).
“Staff recommends that the Commission find the garage at 127 E. 6th Street to be non-contributing to the Historic District.
The building is characterized by significant alterations made over the past 50 years and does not add historical or architectural value to the Historic District.”
COMMUNITY’S RESPONSE. Again, please see our CS2. We again disagree with this conclusion, and we strongly disagree with the non-contributing recommendation. We again respectfully ask for the Staff’s evidence supporting the assertion that the structure has been significantly altered over the past 50 years. As stated above, we have evidence that only routine maintenance and superficial aesthetic alterations have been made to the structure over the past 50 years.
In summary, having gone over all of the demolition application Staff Report comments we could find regarding the stable/garage, we find no evidence presented that indicates the age of the structure, and no evidence presented that supports the assertion that much of thestable/garage’s current appearance can be explained by alterations taking place over the past 50 years. The Staff statements given in Items E and F, moreover, would seem to contradict the Item B Staff statement that Staff is unable to make a determination regarding construction dates. As also indicated above, our CS2 is able to follow the evolution of the stable/garage.
If the Staff Reports are the basis for the Commission making an informed decision regarding the contributing or non-contributing status of the stable/garage, we ask, how can you-all do it
without evidence? The answer would seem to be–you can’t. We therefore respectfully ask the Commission to either base your decision on the evidence from our detailed research and
physical examination of the structure (presented and explained in CS2), or to request the necessary information from Staff, pausing your decision on the contributing/non-contributing
question until receiving the information directly from Staff. A third possibility would seem to be that you could wait for the Staff evidence, and also use our Community-supplied information as
well, to make your determination. As we’re sure you-all are aware, under Article 2, “Administrative Agencies,
”Section 204 (b) and (c) of the City of Frederick Land Management Code, the role and powers vested in your
Commission are significant. But your role and power is conditioned in the Code on “making full
and proper study. ”In short, we are respectfully asking you to follow that directive. In closing, we provide below a link to the City of Frederick Webpage for public meetings, where
an audio file of an instructive case regarding an old garage can be found. This is from the August 14, 2008 HPC meeting. We found it interesting, and hope you will too. It provides a
very interesting precedent for a garage determined to be contributing. This is case number HPC08-339, for demolition at 358 W. Patrick Street. This was a wood frame garage building,
dating from 1930-1947. Lisa Mrosczyk Murphy, Historic Planner, gives her recommendation that the Commission find the structure to be contributing, for the reason that the garage
“signifies the rise of automobile ownership in the early twentieth century. ”We found at least
some shades of the Wi******er stable/garage situation in this example."
The audio link can be found through the following link. At the link, scroll down to the Historic
Preservation Committee “box” near the bottom of the page, click on that, then select 2008 at the
top of the next page, and then click on the agenda for the August 14, 2008 meeting. Clicking on
case number HPC08-339, the 2nd case in the list, brings up the audio file for the discussion
during the meeting. The discussion is approximately 10-15 minutes long.
This page houses information about Channel 99 and city online meetings.
