Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Frostburg commission approves detached brick-faced garage at 69 South Broadway

Frostburg Historic District Commission · August 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Frostburg Historic District Commission voted to approve a detached garage for 69 South Broadway after the homeowner presented historical context and a design aiming to match the house—s existing brick and porch arches. Commissioners cited compatibility with neighborhood materials and scale; vote was by voice with no recorded opposition.

Philip Van Newkirk, the homeowner at 69 South Broadway, presented plans Aug. 11 to build a detached garage behind his 1853 house and received approval from the Frostburg Historic District Commission.

The commission—s chair opened the hearing on the application and Van Newkirk described the property—s history — built in 1853 by Messech Frost, briefly rented in 1858 by Lord Napier, and later used during World War I as a local Red Cross headquarters under Laura Engle. He told commissioners he intends the garage to "echo the look of the house," using a brick fascia to match the existing veneer, a four-square hip roof with a 5/12 slope, and arched carriage-style garage doors that mirror the front porch arches.

Commissioners asked for siting and materials details: Van Newkirk said the garage would be placed at the rear of the lot, reached via an approximately 80-foot driveway from Broadway, and that Cumberland Concrete supplies a close brick match. He confirmed the garage would be detached and that a locust tree at the pad site would be removed.

A commissioner speaking as Speaker 4 summarized findings of compatibility in exterior design, scale, proportion and materials and moved to approve the proposal, citing the commission—s standards (the motion references "section 4.10.80.1 point c" as the relevant packet language). Speaker 2 seconded the motion. The chair called for a voice vote; multiple commissioners voiced "aye," and the motion passed by voice vote with no opposed votes recorded in the transcript.

The commission—s approval is limited to the certificate-of-appropriateness decision recorded at the meeting; specific building permits, utility clearances and any tree-removal permits are separate administrative processes and were not decided at the hearing. Van Newkirk said he plans to begin work in early fall and has an estimate from a contractor named Jim Horton.

The commission also noted the application had been presented to the body previously and approved several years ago, but the project had not been built until the current resubmission. The applicant and commissioners exchanged informal remarks about the property—s place in local history before the meeting moved to other business.

Next steps: the applicant will proceed with permitting and contractor scheduling; the commission did not attach additional conditions in the recorded motion. The commission's decision was announced on the record at the meeting.