Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies most alterations at 1790s Toll House; approves roof work and requires resubmission with documentation
Summary
The commission declined most of the applicant’s ex‑post‑facto alterations at the Toll House (13822 York Road), approved recoating/replacement of the standing‑seam roof and gutters, and ordered detailed drawings and mortar specs; the applicant must return by September or face enforcement action.
The Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission on June 12 reviewed ex‑post‑facto exterior work at the Toll House (13822 York Road), a listed county landmark, and took a mixed set of actions: staff recommended and the commission approved roof recoating or in‑kind replacement and approved a foundation repointing approach only with conditions, but denied multiple window and door replacements and requested detailed documentation and drawings for the remainder of the work.
Staff reported that the circa‑1791 Toll House had its German siding removed on the front elevation and new Dutch‑lap siding installed without prior approval, and that multiple window openings and door replacements were completed or altered without adequate photographic evidence or specifications to show the replacements were in‑kind. Staff recommended approving roof recoating or replacement in‑kind and approving foundation stabilization contingent on mortar composition specs and adherence to National Park Service guidance (Preservation Brief 2 on repointing). Staff recommended denial of windows on the stone section and on the concrete‑block 1950s rear addition pending documentation. Staff also recommended denial of the door replacements where no documentation established the previous condition.
At the meeting commissioners added a requirement that the front porch/railing treatment be returned to documented historic conditions where documented evidence exists; they underscored that the applicant had been repeatedly advised to stop work pending review and that enforcement involvement could follow if the applicant proceeds without approval. The commission’s motion implemented staff recommendations with additional direction to remove a fence‑style railing that staff said was inconsistent with the historic porch and to require photographic and measured documentation, window specs (sizes and muntin patterns), and mortar analysis.
The motion approved the roof and required the applicant to submit comprehensive plans and documentation by September; staff indicated the matter could be referred to code enforcement if the applicant did not comply or continued unapproved work.
