Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landmarks commission denies Glendon dental-office addition and asks for redesign focusing on setbacks and elevator placement
Summary
The commission denied a proposed rear addition for a dental office at 4817 Butler Road, citing concerns about minimal setbacks from the existing building and the placement of an accessibility lift. The applicant was instructed to return with revised plans at the July meeting.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission denied a rear addition plan for 4817 Butler Road, the Glendon Bank/Romay property, and asked the applicant to return with revised drawings at the July meeting.
Caitlin, a preservation staff presenter, outlined the proposal: a one-story L-shaped rear addition with a raised foundation, standing-seam on the shed roof at the side entry and flat (rubber) roofing on the addition, wood-clad 1-over-1 windows, and Hardie-style siding. The addition’s offset from the existing rear wall was small — roughly one foot on one side and as little as 6–8 inches near a handicap elevator — which raised concerns about differentiation of new work from the existing building.
Property owner Dr. Leah Romay said the project’s goal was more clinical space and that she had chosen a designer “because he does work with a lot of historic buildings.” She added the back rooms must accommodate dental chairs and equipment, which constrains plan changes.
Commissioners focused on two recurring concerns: the minimal setback between new and old construction and the placement of the accessibility elevator/lift, which in the proposed plan would open toward the driveway. Commissioner Tom (surname not specified) said opening the elevator into the driveway “is a really, really bad idea”; other commissioners urged shifting the elevator or reconfiguring the vestibule so patients do not exit into vehicle circulation.
After extended discussion where design alternatives were suggested, Commissioner John (surname not specified) moved to deny the application as submitted and asked the applicant to return with revisions incorporating the commission’s suggestions. The motion called for a return at the July meeting; commissioners confirmed that staff would follow up with specific expectations. The roll-call vote to deny carried unanimously.

