Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Baltimore County panel approves revised rear addition at Corbett Village over neighbors' objections
Summary
The Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission approved a revised two-story rear addition at 16223 Corbett Village Lane, after residents argued the proposal would remove and destroy a mid-20th-century addition they consider historic. The commission voted 7–4 to approve the revised design with lowered roof and expanded setback.
The Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 7–4 to approve a revised rear addition at 16223 Corbett Village Lane in the Corbett Village Historic District.
The commission’s chair, Phoebe Evans Latosha, opened the item. Staff told commissioners the revised plan set the new addition back 2 feet from the main house (instead of 1 foot) and lowered the addition’s roof intersection 2 feet below the main roof. Staff said siding will be smooth-finish Hardie board at 5-inch exposure and windows will be fiberglass-exterior, wood-interior, double-hung simulated divided-light units in a 2-over-2 style to match the main house.
Residents objected during public comment. Andrew Clemens, who said his parents bought the house in 1954, told the commission the rear addition “is historic by both Maryland Historical Trust standards and National Register standards” and said elements were removed without LPC approval. Christina Altman urged the commission to retain later alterations, noting that “most properties change over time. Those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.” Barbara McFarland said she supported the applicants’ changes to set the addition behind the house but worried about materials, saying “appending a shingle roof to the existing metal roof is aesthetically jarring.”
The applicant, identified in the record as Mr. Costa, responded: “Just, not much to add, honestly. Just the last meeting, all the feedback that we received, feel like we went back and lowered the roof, made the footprint smaller by making the indent 2 feet… and really appreciate all the help and feedback that we got to get to this point.”
Commissioners debated whether the rear addition had acquired historic significance and whether alterations had been made before the district’s period of significance (the staff noted the Corbett Village period ends roughly around 1918). Several commissioners said the 1954 photograph and other evidence suggested the rear volume postdated the district’s period of significance and therefore carried less weight in design review.
After discussion, a motion to approve the applicant’s revised design carried on a roll-call vote: John Holman, Ed (surname not specified), Raquel Menezes, Chris Parts, Tom (surname not specified), Chris Weston and Phoebe Evans Latosha voted yes; Wendy MacGyver, Ted McAdam, Lily (surname not specified) and Dan (surname not specified) voted no. The commission’s approval was limited to the revised plans presented at the meeting.
Because the public raised concerns about unpermitted window replacements in earlier work, staff noted that window alterations were not part of this application and would need separate review if raised.
