Baltimore County LPC approves revised rear addition at Corbett Village property despite neighborhood objections

The Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission on June 12 approved a revised rear addition and driveway reconfiguration at 16223 Corbett Village Lane in the Corbett Historic District, voting 7–4 after public comment that criticized demolition of an earlier rear addition and unauthorized window replacements.

The property owner, identified in the meeting record as Mr. Costa, returned with plans that reduced the ridge height by 2 feet and set the hyphen back 2 feet to differentiate the new work from the main 1890 vernacular folk‑Victorian house. Preservation staff described the house as a two‑story gable‑roof frame dwelling dating to about 1890 and said the revised design keeps the addition behind the main house and uses materials compatible with the principal structure.

Multiple Corbett residents and historic‑district advocates spoke against the proposal. Andrew Clemens, a Corbett resident and longtime local observer, told the commission that the rear addition is at least 71 years old and “is historic by both Maryland Historical Trust standards and National Register standards,” and he criticized the owner for previously replacing original windows without LPC guidance. Christina Altman and Barbara McFarland, who provided historical context and photographs, urged the commission to preserve the early‑to‑mid‑20th‑century rear additions. McFarland said she supported the applicant’s recent changes but raised two concerns: the roofing material (the main house and garage have standing‑seam metal roofs while the proposed addition originally included asphalt shingles) and the demolition of a 1918 addition that speakers said still retained historic significance.

Commission discussion addressed whether the 20th‑century rear volume contributes to the historic district, and staff noted the district’s period of significance ends circa World War I. Commissioners divided on whether an addition from the 1920s–1950s merited preservation. Several commissioners favored the revised design as sufficiently differentiated and subordinate to the main house; others said the record was incomplete and that the earlier addition’s historic fabric should be retained or more thoroughly documented.

A motion to approve the revised design carried 7–4. The roll-call vote recorded seven affirmative votes and four negative votes; staff will prepare the certificate of appropriateness and follow normal permitting procedures. The approved package requires the addition remain set back from the main roof ridge and use the exterior materials and window types described in staff materials.