Laytonsville Historic District Commission

Meeting Minutes-December 19, 2005

The regular meeting of the Laytonsville Historic District Commission (HDC) was called to order by the Chair, Sheree Wenger at 7:30 p.m. Commission members Howes, Ruspi, Sterling and Techter were present.

Commission member Techter made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 21, 2005, meeting. Second by Commission member Howes. The minutes were approved as presented.

Ms. Wenger read the preliminary statement to review the purpose and intent of the HDC.

· The Chair opened the hearing for HDWP 06-05, submitted by Tom and Christine Wilkinson, for property located at 7000 Brink Rd., and known as the Layton House.

· There were no conflicts or disclosures.

· The Chair called on the Secretary to present the facts of the application. The application calls for the construction of a two car garage with a second story storage area.

· The Secretary entered into evidence the following exhibits: hearing notice, notice to contiguous property owners, photos of property, signed affidavit for sign posting, plat, drawings, and materials of siding, brick, and roofing.

Comments of Applicant

Mr. Wilkinson explained purpose of the application is to construct a detached garage, of salt box design simulating a coach house. The second story will provide storage space. The east side of the new construction is designed with a second story balcony that mimics the existing second floor balcony of the Layton House. Mr. Wilkinson stated he believes the project will improve the looks of the property and provide garage and storage space.

Ms. Wenger stated she had done some research and learned coach houses did not generally exist in Montgomery County before mid 1800’s. The property owner was not aware of a previous carriage house on the property. Ms. Wenger also asked for clarification of the location of the building and its distance from a log cabin on the property.

Public Comment

Charles Hendricks 7011 Brink Rd. Mr. Hendricks stated he had looked at the plans and feels the building is too tall and too large. He stated it does not look like a garage but rather a house. He is concerned that the garage could be converted to other uses and because the property is situated on 6/10 acre objects to the design. He stated because the Layton House on this property is listed on the National Register of Historic Homes the HDC should look with particular scrutiny at this proposal. He noted the south elevation has 4 different styles of doors, east elevation doesn’t look like a garage, proposal almost as high and large as the Layton House. He stated his belief that the proposal distracts and competes with the Layton House inappropriately.

Rebuttal by Applicant

Mr. Wilkinson Stated he feels the scope and scale is appropriate. His goal was to have the structure look like a coach house. Due to advice given by historic preservationists the goal was to avoid replicating an historic structure. Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson do not feel the garage would be the focal point of the property. Later plantings of trees and shrubs would help screen the new construction.

Commission Members

Ms. Wenger Stated that new construction should not mimic the historic property. The concerns of the HDC must be the scope and scale of the project and whether the construction blends with the Layton House and its property. East elevation design elements of the Layton House should not be repeated on the new construction.

Ms. Ruspi Concerned about the functional value of the design element on the east elevation. She stated there seemed to be a disconnect between styles in the different elevations. Commented that windows and shutters should be consistent throughout. She stated her belief that the Layton House is grand because the design is simple and perhaps design of the garage could be more simple in its details.

Ms. Sterling Stated that while the design of the garage is stunning concerned it will detract from the Layton House, which should be the focal point.

Mr. Techter Stated it seemed a major consistent consideration of the project is its size.

Applicant

Ms. Wilkinson stated she would like the house to have some design and not be too simple in its design elements. The applicants agreed to review their plan and consider possible modifications based on testimony. They agreed to also consider a consultation with the HDC prior to re-scheduling a hearing.

There being no other discussion the Ms. Sterling made a motion to defer any action until the applicant completes changes and alterations to the proposal in consideration of the testimony given. Second by Mr. Techter. Motion unanimously approved.

The Chair thanked the applicants and the hearing for HDWP 06-05 was closed

· The Chair opened the hearing on HDWP 05-05, submitted by NV Homes for property located at 7215 Brink Rd. David Ambrose represented NV Homes.

· There were no conflicts or disclosures.

· The Chair called the Secretary to present the facts of the application. The application calls for the construction of 13 new homes in the proposed subdivision and the function of the HDC will be to determine the style of home for each lot.

· The Secretary entered into evidence the following exhibits: hearing notice, notice to contiguous property owners, photos, plans , plat, signed affidavit for sign posting, materials including siding and shutters.

Comments of Applicant

Mr. Ambrose Expressed his gratitude for being able to work with the Town and the HDC and looks forward to moving ahead with the project. He believes the homes will blend in with the Historic District. He presented two architectural styles with several different elevations for consideration.

No Public Comment

Commission Members

Ms. Wenger stated the HDC will review the design submissions for each lot and determine the best elements for the Historic District. Purchasers of new homes in the Historic District will not be able to deviate in the design elements of the homes approved. Photos of different elevations were studied and discussed. Discussion included dimensions and material.

After much discussion the Chair closed the hearing. The Chair called for a motion and Ms. Ruspi made a motion to approve the design submissions presented as follows:

Lot 13 Dartmouth Model Alternate 1

Lot 3 Dartmouth Model Alternate 3

Lot 2 Dartmouth Model Alternate 2

Lot 1 Gibraltar Alternate 1

Lot 4 Gibraltar w/Siding and no Paladian windows

Lot 5 Dartmouth Elevation A w/all brick exterior

Action on remaining lots to be deferred until January meeting.

Second by Mr. Techter. Motion unanimously approved.

Ms. Wenger thanked those attending and stated a certificate of approval would be provided.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Phyllis Sterling