Commission conditionally approves reduced garage for Corbett Village property; requires relocation and landscaping

The Baltimore County Local Historic Preservation Commission approved a revised plan for an ex post facto accessory structure in Corbett Village after months of hearings, public comment and multiple design revisions, but commissioners required conditions intended to reduce the building’s visual impact.

Staff told the Commission the applicants had initially constructed a partially built two‑story, 26-by-48-foot accessory building without LPC review or a building permit; a stop-work order was issued Dec. 1, 2023. The Commission previously denied earlier designs, recommended reductions in height and footprint, and asked for a simpler design and additional fenestration on the most visible elevation. The latest submission reduced the building to about 26 by 30 feet with a 1½‑story gable roof and maximum height of 19 feet 7 inches; staff said the structure would be subordinate in massing to the main house and use vertical hardie board siding and standing‑seam metal roofing.

Several neighbors urged the Commission to deny the revised plan during public testimony, calling the structure still too tall, too wide and too close to the street. Registered speakers included Andrew Clemens, who said the plan “is still too tall, and it is still too large,” and Barbara McFarland, who told commissioners the proposal “violates [the] scale and historic nature of the village” and urged relocation farther from Corbett Village Lane. Multiple neighbors suggested moving the garage farther to the rear of the foundation to reduce its visibility.

Applicants Nate and Gina Costa told the Commission they were willing to adopt recommendations, reduce height and move the structure if that would secure approval. The owner said he had prepared alternative drawings, including an illustration of a 15-foot option, and told commissioners, “If this committee decides that they look like the 15 foot roof, you tell me that’s what it needs to do, and then that’s what I would … do.”

Commissioners discussed multiple options, including keeping the reduced 19‑foot‑7‑inch height with improved roof pitch, moving the structure to the north end of the existing foundation, and requiring landscaping to screen the building. One commissioner proposed approval with conditions to shift the building to the north end of the foundation and require a tree buffer; commissioners amended the condition to require the tree buffer be a specific, documented element of the plans. The motion to approve the staff recommendation with the added conditions — shifting the approved building location to the north end of the foundation, requiring a tree buffer, and submitting updated plans to staff for verification before permits — passed on roll call with nine affirmative votes and one dissenting vote.

Staff will require the applicants to submit revised plans showing the building location and proposed buffer planting so staff can confirm the final plans match the Commission’s conditional approval before permit issuance. The Commission cited the Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines (New Construction, Additions and Non‑Contributing Structures) and County Code Section 32-7-405 in its review.