Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Baltimore County LPC fails to approve front-yard fence at Lutherville house after split vote
Summary
The Landmarks Preservation Commission did not approve an after-the-fact front-yard fence at 207 West Seminary Ave., Lutherville, after commissioners split over neighborhood character and safety arguments; a motion to accept staff’s recommendation failed on roll call.
The Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission declined to approve an after-the-fact front-yard fence at 207 West Seminary Avenue in Lutherville after a split roll-call vote during its meeting.
Commissioners considered an application from the property owners seeking approval to finish installing a 42-inch Gothic-style wood picket fence behind existing hedges on the Seminary Avenue frontage. Staff told the commission that the material and style meet design guidelines and that locating the fence behind the hedges would minimize visibility; staff also reported receiving three letters opposing the fence.
The debate centered on whether front-yard fencing is consistent with the Lutherville historic streetscape, which staff said often features hedgerows rather than fences. Commissioners who opposed approval said approving the fence would set a precedent that could erode the district’s historic character, noting the streetscape historically relied on hedges and that enclosing front yards is not common. Commissioners who supported approval cited the property owners’ stated safety concerns for children and dogs near Seminary Avenue traffic and pointed out that some front-yard fences do exist elsewhere in the district.
Commissioner Chris Weston, who voted to approve the staff recommendation, said hedges and fences perform similar buffering functions but acknowledged the commission regulates fencing while landscaping does not. Commissioner Wendy MacGyver and others emphasized the district’s historic character and the prevalence of hedgerows rather than front-yard fences.
A motion to accept staff’s recommendation to approve the fence failed on a roll-call vote. Votes recorded in the meeting transcript were: Lily Mandroff — No; Daniel Dean — No; Wendy MacGyver — No; Chris Weston — Yes; Ed Hoard — No; John Holman — Yes; Jamie (last name not specified in transcript) — No; Scott Halovka — Yes; Ted McCatton — No; Tom Liebel — Yes; Phoebe Evans Latosha (chair) — No. Because fewer than seven commissioners voted in the affirmative, the motion did not pass and the application was not approved. The commission did not immediately adopt an alternate motion; staff advised the applicant could reapply with revisions.
The applicant was not present to speak; staff said applicants were contacted about the county’s historic-district requirements prior to construction. The meeting record shows commissioners encouraged the property owners to consult staff and suggested alternatives such as denser evergreen landscaping or resubmission with a narrower proposal.
The commission’s decision was procedural — the vote rejected the staff recommendation and did not include conditions approving any portion of the fence installation. The record indicates opponents had submitted written testimony and commissioners referenced preservation guidelines that caution against introducing front-yard fencing where it is not historically prevalent.
Next steps: the owner may revise and resubmit an application or seek other solutions such as planting denser evergreen hedging; staff said they would follow up with the applicant.
