Commission denies proposed front‑elevation fixes for landmarked Price/Freeze House; applicants told to revise

The Baltimore County Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously denied an application to approve front‑elevation repairs and replacements at the Price/Freeze House, landmark No. 105 at 501 Bond Avenue, and directed the applicants to revise their proposal.

Commissioners said the cumulative effect of unpermitted interior alterations and exterior modifications has removed or obscured key historic features. Commissioner John Holman moved the denial, urging the applicants to return after incorporating the evening’s feedback. “We feel like you still haven't met the criteria that need to be met for the change to the front of this house,” Holman said during the motion to deny.

The staff presentation described six work items the applicants proposed to address code‑enforcement corrections on the front elevation: selectively replacing certain attic, first‑ and second‑story windows with wood units to simulate earlier arched openings; adding wood louvered shutters to suggest a removed central window; installing a period‑appropriate wood front door and sidelights; restoring trim and sill details to approximate earlier openings; installing a planter below a first‑floor window; and replacing the porch skirting and railing with historically sympathetic wood members. Staff cited the Baltimore County Historic Design Guidelines and county code Section 32‑7‑405 in making its recommendations.

Architectural historian Peter Pava, who identified himself as principal of Peter Pava Partners, told the commission his team reviewed historic photos, surveyed nearby period houses for precedent and coordinated with staff. He said interior changes — notably a custom kitchen — had driven some window relocations and that the team sought design treatments that would read as historically appropriate given those constraints. “We were brought into this situation knowing that the owner had a $200,000 lien for the violations on this property,” Pava said, and added that he and his colleague Barton Ross would return to the drawings to address the commission’s concerns.

Commissioners pressed the applicants on window alignment and symmetry at the left gable, recommended showing original opening sizes with blank or false panels where interior conditions (for example, a sink) prevent full restoration, and asked for clearer trim around any infilled openings. Several commissioners also flagged missing porch detailing and the loss of a decorative gable sunburst as important character‑defining elements.

Ed Hord, vice chair and acting chair for the meeting, told the applicant that one primary facade should be brought back to match what was there before. “This side should really be brought back to match what was there before,” Hord said, adding that if the front facade could not be restored, the commission might require review of the entire building.

The commission’s roll‑call vote on the motion to deny was unanimous. Commissioners recorded “yes” for John Holman, Ted McKaden, Wendy MacGyver, Chris Weston, Jamie Ferguson, Raquel Minesis, Lily Mundruff, Chris Harts, Dan (surname not specified on the record) and Ed Hord.

The applicant team said it would return with revised drawings after further work and coordination with staff; the commission noted applicants should consult the meeting minutes and staff notes when preparing the resubmission.