Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rogers Price House topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects Rogers/Price House proposal and asks applicant to revise and resubmit
Summary
The Landmarks Preservation Commission rejected the current Rogers/Price House application for front-door, window and porch work (code enforcement CB1600086), asking the applicant and architect to coordinate with staff on revisions and return with more-detailed plans and site measurements.
The Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to reject the Rogers/Price House application (501 Bond Avenue) as submitted and requested that the applicant consult with the project architect and staff, revise the submission to address specific front-elevation issues, and resubmit for review.
Staff presented the application and a history of the case: the property (final landmark #105) has an open violation for unapproved work on the front façade dating to 2022, and the commission had previously denied proposals that failed to restore key elements such as window alignments, the sunburst attic detail, porch steps location, brackets and shutters. The current submission proposes a period-appropriate front door (referencing 505 Bond Avenue as an example), added half-moon transoms above some gable windows, shutter treatments to simulate original openings, and new porch posts and railing to better match historic visual qualities. The record also references an administrative law judge final order (December 2023) and code enforcement case CB1600086.
The applicant (Miss Minshew, calling in) said many of the missing features — including porch gingerbread, sunbursts and shutters — were removed years before the owners associated with the present violation purchased the house. She explained interior constraints (kitchen cabinetry) and a garage sited in front of a historic gable that make some restorations impractical without extensive interior rework. Commissioners pressed for clearer elevations, manufacturer spec sheets for proposed doors and windows, and recommended an architect site visit to gather the details necessary to craft a more-complete proposal.
After discussion, Commissioner Ed moved to reject the application as submitted and ask the applicant to revise with staff and the architect; the motion passed on roll-call. Staff will work with the applicant to arrange site visits and to identify specific items (wood 2-over-2 windows, alignment, porch details, and trim) that should be included in a resubmission.
The commission noted that some revisions already made improve the condition relative to earlier submissions, but that additional work is needed to meet standards for returning the façade to a compatible, period-appropriate appearance. The rejection is procedural; it asks the applicant to come back with clarified drawings, specifications and measurements rather than immediately ordering restorative construction.
