Historic District Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is Historic District Commission meeting number 5Dash2026. It's Thursday, 05/20/2026. I'm Peter Fossilman. I'm chair of the Historic District Commission. I'm joined this evening by fellow commissioner Seth Denbow. Michael Goldberg is virtual and Nini Nio Powell. Our fellow commissioner Mercy Shengay is not able to attend this evening. She's at son's graduation. We're also joined this evening by our Cynthia Walters, who is our acting city attorney, our fellow planners Megan Flick and Andrew Reichelbach.

Is that alright, Randall? Got it. Okay. Thank you. So the Historic District Commission meets in person at the Marin Council Chambers. In this evening, you may view the meeting on rockvillemd.gov/rockville11 and then each of the meetings are recorded and you can see it later on rockvillemd.gov video on demand. So this evening we have committee reports. The first one is Peerless Rockville. I know Nancy's in the audience. Thank you for being here and your continued support.

Thank you very much. Good evening Chair Fossilman and fellow commissioners. Thank you for always inviting me here on behalf of Peerless Rockville. Just two quick updates on some programming that we've been doing. Yesterday, we had, opening ceremony for our exhibit celebrating two hundred and fifty years of history here in Rockville and also in Montgomery County and our nation.

It's a pictorial exhibit called Rockville two fifty, Our American Story. We had an opening reception from four to six yesterday, and the exhibit is now open Wednesday through Friday from ten to four at the Red Brook Courthouse, and we will have select Saturday openings as well. Let's see. We anticipate being open at least through September, likely further into the fall as well, and I hope that you will all stop by. In addition to that, I want to just thank all of the wonderful people that came out on Thursday, May 14, so one week ago, to Glenview Mansion to join us to celebrate, one hundredth anniversary of the major renovation of Glenview into the estate property that we know it today.

We had over a 100 people that joined us for a tour of the property. We did an architectural tour on the exterior and all through the building. It was very well received and I think that there's a program that the city is gonna put on in September. So if anyone missed the opportunity to do it, they can join again with the city in September. So that's all I have for now. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next on the agenda is the Lincoln Park Historical Foundation. Commissioner Powell.

Good evening. My name is Anita Neal Powell, president of the Lincoln Park Historical Foundation. The foundation and partners will be hosting a preservation conference on preserving black history in museums and historic places conference, connecting communities and heritage, Saturday, May 30 from eleven to 2PM in Rockville. This conference will focus on stories that forge new ideas for museums, creative expression, unique presentation, and diverse ways black history can be woven into American history. Hear from experts, historians, preservationists, educational educators, professionals, advocates, and community leaders who will share stories and lessons learned from building, managing, operating, and securing museums with unique beginnings, including types of museums that interpret the historic significance of African American stories in local communities, funds and grants available to preserve African American culture and heritage, save buildings and historic sites, and promote public places, ways to strengthen museum presence by safeguarding collections, preserving artifacts, and building historical archival systems.

For more information, send an email to lincolnparkhistaol dot com. And that concludes my report.

Thank you, Commissioner Powell. Next on our agenda is item C, which is public comment, open forum. This is an opportunity for anyone here this evening, whether you're in the audience or you're online, to make a comment about an item that's not on the agenda this evening. If there's anyone here, if you could raise your hand and just come forward, please. Yes, sir. And please identify yourself.

I'm David Hill. I live at 733 Beale Avenue. I've been a former land use commissioner for the city for an extensive amount of time and co chaired Charter Review Commission and was on the Rorsor Committee. So I've got a little experience around the planning department. And I wanna express my concern with the aging of the historical resources documents of the city. My understanding is they're almost 40 years old, and things don't come become historic overnight. But that's often the way the citizens experience them. Right? And we've got a couple recommendations related to demolition permits tonight. And it is unfortunate when we get to the point where it's an absolute decision that you have to make.

It's going to exist or it isn't gonna exist. And people that buy these properties really have no warning that citizens might consider them historic. And that vehicle for that really should be the historic resources inventory. And I, you know, I think there's been a resistance to the city being very proactive about historic properties because there is some perceived negative aspects to that to the public. But I think not doing it is a bigger problem in the end, maybe a little longer term than short term. But I encourage the city to really consider about doing that work and getting the historic resources inventory updated. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We appreciate you coming up here and and expressing them. Anyone else? Anyone online, Megan? No? Okay.

If anyone online does wish to speak, just go ahead and raise your hand.

Thank you. Last on the item under committee organizational reports is the HTC and staff comments. Any of the commissioners have a comment this evening?

I have no comments.

Okay. Staff? Nothing? Okay. K. Next on the item or agenda is our consent is the consent agenda. We have the approval of the minutes from last month on the sixteenth, and that's it, actually. So may I have a motion, please?

Move to approve the minutes of the, HTC four dash twenty twenty six meeting.

I second. Oh, I'm sorry. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Is Michael able to vote, Megan? Thank you.

Can you hear me? Yes.

Yes. We can hear you.

You can hear

me? Yes. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Put me down as I

Thank you, commissioner.

Sure.

Okay. Before we move on to evaluation of significance or sorry, certificate of approval, I want to jump down on the agenda under evaluation of significance for item twenty twenty six dash 331 dash EOS evaluation of significance. This is for 24 Martins Lane. I just want to read a quick legal statement out that once an agenda item is placed on the published agenda, it may only postponed at the request of two or more commissioners or by the vote of the commissioner at which meeting is scheduled. Staff, do you have any comments?

Okay. So what we're gonna do this evening and the commission needs to vote on this is we are going to postpone the discussion of 24 Martins this evening. And this is for some late information that we have received, and we've discussed this with legal. And so that is the motion.

He's One making a

of the commissioners needs I cannot make the motion. Yeah. And we can discuss after.

I move to postpone discussion of what is the number? Sorry. It's hard to scroll through this. Sure. Postpone the discussion of item four b twenty twenty six dash three three one dash EOS until a later historic district commission meeting.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. Any discussion? Commissioner?

Yeah. I have some comments. I I have no problem with postponing this. I understand that there are some information that came in late that mean that that requires some further research on the part of staff and giving the staff the time they need to do this right is always very important. I do have some concerns currently as we're, as as I understand it, part of the zoning ordinance rewrite related to evaluations of significance will mean that not all demolitions come before this commission.

So and then so a decision will be made by staff as to whether something is significant. I mean, we for those in the room that don't know, part of the zoning ordinance means that this body, even though we are about historic properties, reviews every single building that is being demolished within the city of Rockville. So if it was built last year and somebody decided to tear it down, we would look at it. That's not because it it might be historic. It gives us the opportunity to see everything.

And there is a chance that up that, you know, that it catches something that that shouldn't have been demolished. So so I think that's a good thing, and I have argued for this. But but as part of the zoning ordinance rewrite, some of these will be dealt with administratively, ones that are obviously not historic. And I just wanna reiterate that, you know, that that something like this really building like this particular one, given its age, given its importance to the community and the city, and given its importance in our history, needs to come back to the commission regardless of whether or not it's savable. And we can get into that discussion when we review this in the future.

But I just wanna make sure that we are not allowing the opportunity for this not to come back to this body. That's what I that's the point I wanted to make. And it's a larger point about about that change as well. But so that's my only comment.

Thank you, commissioner.

Okay. My comment is I need to have more information about this house. One, what I have right now, and I think there's more information that can be gathered. We don't have all of it at this point.

Staff, can you see if commissioner Goldfinger has any comments, please? Michael, do you have anything to add?

Okay. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

Okay. Because I keep getting muted now if I'm not sure. Yes. I I was concerned when I read the brief book about that. So I I agree with commissioner of New Yorktown. So more information on not enough there to make a form.

Michael, could you for the record, could you repeat the very last sentence? We heard everything else.

Yeah. No. I just that I agree with the commissioner that we don't have make that informed decision point.

Staff, can you make out what commissioner Goldfinger is saying?

No. Michael, can you speak up if possible?

Yeah. I got my mouse right in front of phone. Can't get my louder. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. What I I said was that I I do your power that we don't have enough for making the storm at this point.

Not enough information to make the decision.

Yeah. I think he's saying he agrees with, miss Powell that there's not enough information. And Right.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Correct.

He says yes. Correct.

Thank you, commissioner. We appreciate you being here this evening, especially in considering where you are. So thank you. Any further comments from the staff?

Just addressing Seth's comment about the Zor. The slated approval or estimated approval for that is June 29. So assuming if we did postpone to the June meeting, we would be able to discuss this case before that.

So that's within the required two hundred and ten days?

We're well within the two hundred and ten days we received the application mid April. But if if for the Zohr target date is June 29, which would be after our June HCC meeting.

Okay.

When you speak of June 29, you talked about the mayor and council meeting?

The mayor and council, possible approval of the zoning ordinance rewrite.

At this time, it's not been approved.

It has not been approved yet.

No. Okay.

We have a hand up, but we have a motion on the floor. If the commissioner would like to hear from anyone in the audience, we need to pull the motion.

I'm trying to pull the motion and allow.

Okay. If you could come up to the podium, please, and for the record, just reidentify yourself.

Yes. It'll be quick. It's David Hill at 733 Beale Avenue. I was expecting to testify on this point. It's rather abrupt to pull it from the agenda. I would like to know if the commission would commit to, perhaps on a calendar date for when this information might be disclosed to the concerned parties, at least, you know, a d minus whatever date, and a commitment that the posting for this would be done de novo if it's being pulled now.

So I agree. It is very last minute, but it's because we received the information at the last minute and consulted with legal. And we also I had suggested this afternoon if we could possibly notify folks so that people like you didn't show up attending, but the obvious reasons are there that if the motion did not pass, then it would remain on the agenda and those that care to talk about it would be left out of the process. It's I'm not it's questioning that part.

Oh, sure. Doing fine with that. I'm just what's going forward? I wanna make sure the public gets an opportunity to see this information in a timely manner and there's a commitment to the period of time of notice that is adequate for people.

Well, it it if there's nothing in the way, should be on the very next meeting of the HCC.

Okay. But it'll it'll be renoticed in the period of time for the disclosures would apply as if it is a new case?

Correct.

That's what I'm asking for. Okay.

Thank you. Okay.

I to postpone discussion of sorry, twenty twenty six-three thirty one EOS to a later HTC meeting.

Second. I second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Michael? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Michael.

So in other words, anyone that's here this evening, I apologize that you showed up but as you can see, we didn't have a choice. So if you're here for that item on the agenda, you're certainly welcome to stay, but there's no need to be here otherwise. So appreciate you coming. We appreciate the enthusiasm and your interest in the city. Okay.

Getting us back on track with the agenda, we're gonna jump to Yeah. That's what I was trying to do. Oh, yeah. Give them a minute. Uh-uh.

There we go. Oh, wow.

Hey, Michael. We're getting a little background noise from you. That's why we keep muting, but we will unmute you, every time there's a chance for discussion or vote. Thank you so much.

Okay. Well, that cleared out the house. Okay. So we're gonna move back to the agenda and put us back in order under certificate of approval. It's twenty twenty six dash three four three dash c o a. The property is located at 8 Thomas Street, and the owner is with us this evening? No. Okay. So it's a sit excuse me. Certificate of approval to replace the front steps and install handrails. Staff, do you have anything to report?

Good evening. Evening, commissioners. Can you all hear me?

Yes.

You. Great.

Thank you.

Yes.

The staff report was entered. Okay. So this is an application for a certificate of approval at 8 Thomas Street. There is an aerial view of the property on the left showing the location of this parcel at 8 Thomas Street. It is near the intersection with West Montgomery Avenue.

And the image on the right shows the zoning map for this property. It is r 90 detached restricted residential, and it is in the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District. So this certificate of approval, the applicant and property owner is asking to replace the front steps of his house and to install railings on the new steps to make it a safer entryway onto the porch and into his house. The image on the left shows the front facade of the house at Atomis Street where this replacement porch steps and railing would go, and then the image on the right is a closer view of the steps that are proposed to be replaced, as well as where the railings would go. This image shows the porch step construction details, showing how the railings would be placed in line with existing porch railings and porch support posts, as well as the new steps.

The new steps would be approximately 10 feet wide, which is two feet wider than the current steps, which are eight feet wide. And wide these wider steps are in place to make sure that there is sufficient room to attach the railings that are proposed to be installed on the porch here. And overall, the new porch steps would be about 40 square feet. So the staff recommendation relates to rehabilitation standard number nine of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. This is new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.

The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. And staff's recommendation is that this proposal to replace the front porch steps and to install new safety railings on the steps does meet this standard of the Secretary of the Interior, and staff does recommend approval. And this slide shows the two motions that are available either to approve the certificate of approval application or to not approve the COA application.

Thank you for the very thorough report. Commissioners, comments? Is anyone here this evening in the audience or online that would like to comment on the item?

If anyone is online and would like to speak, please just use the raise hand function.

Yeah. Oh, that's right. We have Michael muted, so I don't know if he's saying anything or not.

There was someone in the phone.

Can can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Oh, okay. This is this is Alex Daskalakis. I'm the homeowner at 8 Thomas Street. So I I tried to jump in when you first announced this and, was not able to. So Apologies. But you sorry?

I said apologies.

Oh, okay. But, yeah, I I think it was it was, it was rendered in the explanation exactly what we're after, just a railing for safety purposes. We've got elderly, parents, and it's very difficult for them to enter the property at at its current state now without any handrailings. So all we're asking is for some handrailings for safety purposes to enter and exit the property.

Thank you very much. Can We just commissioner Goldfinger, do you have anything to comment on? Can we unmute him, please?

Can you hear me? I I

Yes. We can.

Yes. Okay. I'll I'll try to speak as soon as possible. Just a mild concern because the standards, differentiate from distance. And, you know, there's a very strong element in the railing around the porch as those uniformly placed spindles and rally.

And I would really not like to see something that is so different that it just jumps out. I know what the standard say, but, you know, I'm afraid that if something goes wrong, much different, we're going to look at it's place. I feel like the answer is perhaps we

He's noting a difference in the existing versus what's proposed.

And look into into kind of Am

I still off mute?

No, sir. We can hear you.

Oh, okay. The intent is to to match it as as closely as possible. The the same types of, stringers up and down, and the same type of railing that's currently there. The the intent is to match it exactly.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, commissioner Goldfinger.

Thank you.

Anyone else have any comments on the item on we're speaking of? No one else online? I don't see any hands. Okay. Any further comments from the commission?

May I have a motion?

I move the commission approve certificate of approval application 2026Dash343DashCOA at 8 Thomas Street. The work meets the secretary of the interior standard for rehabilitation number 9.

A second.

Any further discussion? Aye. All in favor? Aye. Michael?

Aye.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Next on our agenda, we're under evaluation of significance. It's 226Dash302DashEOS. This is 508 Bell Avenue and evaluation of significance demolition proposed. Staff, if you have a report?

Yes. There is.

Thank you.

K. So this is case 2026302, evaluation of significance at 508 Beale Avenue. Here we have a satellite image showing the house fronting Beale Avenue on the south side of the street. And this photo is taken a little far away, but this is the front facade of the home. So you can see the lawn, not much landscaping, and a gravel driveway.

And it is like a ranch style one story home, and it was built in 1946. So these are the side and rear views. The left and right photos are the sides of the home, and the middle photo is showing the rear of the home. And as you can see, it's pretty standard construction for this time period. And there wasn't any significant history of this property specifically.

So the staff recommendation is finding that the building proposed for demolition at 508 Beale Avenue does not meet any of the historic district commission's adopted criteria for historic significance or architectural design and landscape significance staff recommends against historic designation. And here are your motions whenever you're ready.

Thank you for the report. Before I ask for comments, commissioners have any comments?

I have a question. So there's no history of this property available? There's no deeds? There's no ownership history?

There is history. There's just nothing significant to report.

Okay.

Okay. Is anyone here this evening in the audience or online that would like to make a comment? And actually, you know what? I just failed. As usual, I'm failing as the new chair. I I forgot to ask if the owner was here this evening.

Yes. Yes. Hi. I'm Thomas Kehoe. I'm the owner at 508 Beale Avenue.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, guys. So just a little brief synopsis. I've I've lived there. I've owned the property for five years, and I've lived there for the last four and a half. I moved out to, start this whole demolition process, and I plan on, building a house to move back to. It's not for business or anything. We're we're, intending to move our our new family back back over there in, hopefully hopefully, 2027 sometime.

Thank you. I've we've actually met meet while I'm walking my dogs, but you probably wouldn't remember that. But, anyway, thank you for being here this evening. Is anyone online or in the audience have anything to comment? I don't see anything. Staff? No one? Okay. Commissioners?

I have a question. So if the if we approve the historic significance so once we approve the that well, against the historic designation, so will it automatically be does the owner have to come back to the commission for a demolition permit? Oh, does it automatically have

I believe this is one of the requirements for the demolition permit. If we get this approval today, that will suffice a demolition permit requirement, and we should not have to be seen again by historical district commission.

That's correct. They'll submit.

Who's answering the question? I didn't see the one.

The owner was answering. But I

was asking the staff.

They will they will have to file their demolition permit after if the commission approves demolition tonight.

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you. Any

other comments? Nothing for me. Okay.

If I I do have a I can read the little snippet of history for you, commissioner Dembo. My You read the brief book? Okay. Yeah. It was just the standard

Yeah.

Yeah. Of the houses that were built during that time, but it is on the 1949 Saint Bourne map. There are a lot of houses on the street in similar situations that have been demolished and rebuilt. If you saw in that first photo, both houses on either side or or the one on the left there is a new home.

Yeah. Yeah.

That's all I've got. I'm sorry.

Yeah. There's a lot. There's a big event agenda. There's a lot of

K. May I have a motion? Oh, we keep forgetting commissioner Goldfinger, and he's muted again.

Thank you. Didn't even get to the but, technically, we're not approving that. 'm sorry.

Michael, we're having a little trouble hearing you. Could you speak up, please?

Yeah. Technically, we are not approving demolition

Correct.

Denying oh, you know, it's been asked to deny historic significance.

Right. Yeah. So this is an evaluation of significance for demolition. So the commission is determining if the property is significant, but the motion would, yeah, determine that. And then because it's a evaluation, and if it's for a demolition is why I mentioned demolition. But

Yeah. Okay. I just wanna make sure Yep. The records.

Thank you. Thank you, commissioner.

Sure.

Any last minute calls for comments? Okay. May I have a motion?

Finding that the building proposed for demolition at 508 Bell Avenue does not meet any of the historic district commissions adopted criteria for historic significance or architectural design and landscape significance. I move that the HTC recommend against historic designation.

May I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any abstentions? Opposition? Staff, did you note that? Commissioner Powell?

Opposes. Opposes.

Thank you very much. Okay. Next on the agenda is 2026Dash33ODashEOS. This is address. It's two two separate structures. It's 200 A And 200 B Monroe Street. Do you have a report?

We do. And I believe the applicant is present as well. He wishes to speak before.

Okay.

Good evening, members of the board. My name is Patrick Bloomfield, PT Bloom's Development. I was a resident of Rockville for ten years. I've since moved over to Silver Spring, but this is my first time in front of this hearing. We are asking for a deferral. There are some things in the report that we feel were not addressed, and we'd like to engage a historic consultant, and then revisit on on another hearing.

Okay. Could you staff, could you silence silence? Thank you very much. There we go. Thank you. So just to clarify, you're asking that we postpone this? Correct. Okay. Staff, do you have anything to comment on that request? No? Okay. Commissioner?

I mean, the only thing I would say is that we submitted the staff report and we have a presentation. We're prepared to go forward if the commission chooses to do so. Legal

question is depending on what the commission decides. If we were to remove this or postpone it, we still need to vote as we did earlier. Correct?

I believe so. And Cindy Walters is online. Have For future purposes.

Yeah. That is correct. That is correct. Commissioner, Fossilman, we would or chair Fossilman. I'm sorry. We would need you all would need to vote because this has already been on a published agenda.

Okay. Thank you very much, miss Walters. Yes, sir.

The reason I I'm asking for this and, procedurally, you may have to do what you have to do, so I wanted to make sure this didn't influence that decision. We specifically asked for certain parts of of of the additions that have zero historic significance and were built in the late eighties. If we could demolish them, the report staff report does not address them at all. Oh. So I I would like to say that the in that that the report right now, believe, we is not addressing what we requested it to be addressed. Well,

I'll just note for the record, you're the applicant. Correct?

Sure.

Okay.

I I'm gonna give my opinion. I think at the moment, we should at least hear from the staff, get the report on the record, and then the commission can make their decision. I don't know how the other commissioners feel.

I agree. I agree.

That's fine with me. Okay.

Can we ask Michael what he's Michael, are you okay with the staff giving the report this evening?

Yep. Okay.

Okay. Well, then we'll move forward staff with the report. Thank you, sir.

Which

that does not mean that we necessarily won't defer it. Am I

correct? Correct.

We can still vote to defer it.

I think it's important to get staff's information on the record.

Okay.

Chair chair Fossilman, I believe if you all start the hearing at that point instead of postponing it, you would be continuing it.

Okay. So we could go ahead. Thank you, miss Walters. We could go ahead and hear the staff report and then vote to to continue it at another meeting.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Staff?

Okay. So this is case 202633O for an evaluation of significance of 200 A And 200 B Monroe Street. So here we have the satellite imagery showing the property, and we will have oh, let me we're gonna split this up and start with 200 A Monroe and then go into 200 B so that we can do our best to cover all of the structures on the property. So this is 200 A Monroe Street. And as you can see, this is more of a modern structure.

We have the front elevation on the left, which faces Monroe Street. We have the north view from the parking lot on the upper right. We have the west view from the rear lot on the lower left and the streetscape from Jefferson Street on the lower right. So, essentially, the staff recommendation we'll we'll get to that later. It will be split.

But the determination for 200 A Monroe is that it is not historic or it doesn't have historic significance. It was built much later. So we're gonna again, we're gonna split these, and we're gonna now go into 200 B Monroe. And so this is the diagram showing the way the property currently stands. So you can see the front the house, The building at the front is a historic residential home, or it was built as a residential home in nineteen o six.

So that's the most historic structure on this property is that house that's facing Monroe. The additions, behind the building were added in 1983, and you can see the arrow pointing to those additions in this diagram. And again, this is 200 B Monroe. So the photo on the left is the historic home that was built in nineteen o six. This is the front elevation facing Monroe, and then we have the elevation from Fleet Street on the right, and those are showing the newer additions behind the building, behind the original 1906 structure.

So, again, 200 B. On the upper left, we have the garage view from Fleet Street. On the upper right, we have the garage west elevation. On the lower left, we have the south elevation. And the lower right, we have the rear elevation.

So, again, those bottom two photos are showing the additions on the building that were done in 1983. So we are going to split this up for our staff recommendation. So for 200 A Monroe Sheet, the staff recommendation is finding that the building proposed for demolition at 200 A Monroe does not meet any of the historic district commission's adopted criteria for historic significance or architectural design and landscape significance, SAF recommends against historic designation. For 200b, our recommendation is split. And I think here, I can provide a little bit more history of the actual original structure, but our recommendation is to designate just the historic 1906 Home and not the rest of the additions behind it or any other part of 200 B.

So let me go into sharing a little history, a little context for 200 B Monroe, the original structure that was built in nineteen o six. So it was originally built as a detached residential house. It was known as the Hague House. And it was purchased in 1952 and remodeled into commercial offices. So it's been offices ever since then.

And, obviously, over the years, it's undergone renovations for the interior, for offices, and the additions, the rear, and the parking structure. And then as far as the people who initially built this house and lived here, Samuel Hig, again, called the Hig House, he was a Rockville council member from 1896 to 1898. And he spent his career working for the b B and O Railroad, died in 1929, and it's believed that his daughter, Daisy, continued living in that home after his death. So additional residents were Fritz and Nina Spiedel in the nineteen forties. This was an electrician who ran an electronic and appliance repair shop out of the Broseus Building downtown.

And then they passed the property to the Millers in 'fifty two, which is when it was renovated into commercial offices. And then the additions later came in '83 and the parking structure. So that's the historic context of, again, the original home let go back. On the left here that was built in nineteen o six, the Samuel Heek house, that is the part of 200 B that staff would recommend to designate for historic significance. So it's kind of confusing, but the recommendation would be finding that the historic 1906 residential building proposed for demolition at 200 B Monroe Street meets the historic district commission's adopted criteria for historic significance a and architectural design and landscape significance historic designation.

Second part of that being finding that the 1983 building additions and parking structure proposed for demolition at 200 B Monroe do not meet any of the historic district commissions adopted criteria for historic significance or architectural design and landscape significance, staff recommends against historic designation for that portion of the property. So 200 A Monroe, we're recommending don't designate as nonhistoric. For 200 B Monroe, recommending to designate that historic 1906 home and not the rest of the structures on 200 B. Does that make sense? Do you guys have any questions? Yes.

Okay. That makes sense.

Commissioner Goldfinger, do you have any questions so far?

I do not. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. Does that conclude your report?

That concludes my report. And I think, yeah, that's Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So unless Ms. Walters jumps in to correct me, we have a decision to make. We may either continue this at a later meeting or we may move forward. And I need the commissioners to weigh in, please.

I would suggest that we continue the application till a later date.

I'm I'm completely fine with that if that's what the owner is still requesting. If that's if that's what they would prefer that, then, you know, let's do this to make everybody happy as happy as possible. Absolutely. Yeah. That's

fine. Okay. Me. Okay.

Michael?

Yes. Michael's he's Mike is actually unmuted. Michael, what is your opinion, please?

I mean, either way, happy to to go tonight or we can continue to a later date.

Okay. So continue. Okay. I'm sorry.

I want a motion.

Yes. But I was just gonna add Steph, do you have anything else to add?

No. I I don't think so.

Okay. This is great. Miss Walters didn't interrupt me.

Oh, yeah. Actually, I would like to clarify, miss Walters, if that is okay.

Okay. Clarify. I I don't have anything to add. I think that's correct. You would make a motion to continue. And, I mean, I would suggest that you are specific and say that you would continue it to the, next regularly scheduled meeting.

Okay. Thank you for your advice. We always appreciate it. May I have a motion?

I move that we continue discussion of, the design the evaluation of significance for, 200 AMB Monroe Street to our next, scheduled regularly scheduled HDC meeting.

May I have a second?

Second. I'll second if no one.

Commissioner Goldfinger seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Michael? Aye. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, staff.

She hears something to say.

Okay. Miss Picard, Nancy, can you come up to the microphone? Yeah. Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Since this is gonna be continued anyway, and they might well, they're gone, but I just have a point of order kinda question that as I listen to this, I'm a little bit unsure how it works. Is the property actually deeded as two separate properties, a and b, or is it one property? Because when you do the map amendment for historic district, it's usually an overlay. So, you know, I'm not really sure how that would work on this. And so if it's coming back anyway, maybe that's something that maybe the staff could elaborate on, because usually the map amendment, of course, is gonna be either it's historic or it's not.

I'm not saying that that means you would need to not demolish half of it, but that would probably have to be addressed in some way and maybe that's something that you could discuss.

It's a valid question. I don't know if staff's prepared to discuss that tonight but,

Are we allowed to discuss that?

I'm not sure. Yeah. We're kind of done but maybe for the next meeting.

Okay.

Okay.

And actually, have a a similar kind of question not to do with the the division between a and b, but with b, if we're I is is it it's my understanding, and I could be wrong that so if you designate a property, you designate that property. Right? And then if they wanna demolish part of it, if they wanna tear down the the property, the the nineteen eighties additions, then they would come back for a certificate of approval. That is that wrong? I don't that's how I understand that this might work. Anyway, if the we could get clarification on both of those things before our discussion next time, that would be great. Commissioner McCall.

Sorry. Will do.

Well, I would, recommend that we not put the two properties together because that's sort of I guess that's I I would recommend that we not do that, that we look at each application separately.

Yeah. The application came in for both properties. I believe they might be on the same lot.

Yes. I believe the two structures are both on the same parcel, so that is why it came in as one application together.

So I think what the commission's look go ahead, commissioner Powell. I was gonna say, I think what the commission's looking for is a, they're both on the same property. And if they are on the same property, what's the process when you're gonna tear half the building down versus keep one of the buildings?

I think there are examples of designating partial properties.

I believe the Carver School actually is probably one of the most well known examples of a structure that only part of it is actually designated as historic site. So we'll have to look further into that, into how that property was handled and see if a similar process would be worked for this property as well.

So in our report in our report for the next meeting then? Okay.

And that would be very helpful.

And I think yeah. And we can when we do the case next time, we can split up the recommendation and the motions in the same way, but because they came in together as one application. That's why.

Okay. Yep.

I'm just thinking about the process and just remembering that we don't actually all we're doing is recommending if we decide to say that we want two two hundred b to be, designated, what we're doing is recommending to mayor and council that they what we're doing is asking staff to create a report and then making a recommendation to Merit Council.

Yes. And they would ultimately determine beginning of a long process Correct.

If we remember correctly, if we remember from the M and T Bank last year. So just just a reminder, that's what we're doing.

Yeah. Thank you for clarifying. Yeah. Mayor and council would ultimately be the decision maker on designating that property or part of

it. Okay. Alright. There's no further discussion. We will move on. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, sir.

Can you can you hear

me? Yes.

Oh, okay. Yeah. I'm just wondering if I can you know, I think it's sort of clear given the staff report how how it might vote when it comes up for termination. And I don't know what's involved, but would would the owner want to just go ahead and maybe split it into two parcels going through whatever it is going, whatever, and then find two separate items just to unmuddy the waters. And that is probably more a legal question.

So more of this will probably look to you to comment. That that seems to me to be that to make it a little clearer next time around.

Oh, thank you, commissioner. I think that's in sync with what we have been discussing. We'll let staff get a confirmation from the owner as to how they wanna proceed.

K.

Thank you. Okay. Next on the agenda under discussion items are old business. I brought a copy of well, first of all, let me back up. At our last meeting, we discussed the historic preservation month, which is May, and we had talked about the commission submitting a letter to the public about the importance of historic preservation in the city of Rockville.

I drafted something. I shared it through email one on one with the commissioners. I had some feedback. I incorporated that into the second draft, and I'm bringing it tonight just for public information and for the commission to kind of bless the letter with either comments or just going forward, and then we can discuss how we would present that. But I wanna know if the commission has any further comments or staff.

I don't have any comments.

Okay. No. I think it's a great letter. Well done, Peter. Thank you for doing it. But, yeah, no, I think we should get this out soon.

Well, actually, you were helpful too. I kind of stole some of your ideas from before. So, yeah, thank you.

Happy to help. Yeah.

Okay. So let's talk for a minute, and staff might be able to help us, the best ways to communicate this, keeping in mind that it is now the May 21 and that we're more than halfway through historic preservation month. I'm thinking maybe the letter needs to be in the past tense when it's presented.

Right. We could put it out

in Yeah.

Rockville reports. It would probably be for June. I think we have to check on these deadlines. Deadlines. We've

Okay.

But oh, yeah. Or whatever wherever you all want it posted or if you want a mass email sent out or anything like that, we can do whatever.

Yeah. I was wondering about getting it in one of the regular emails that goes out. The the sort of because there's a there's I know there's Rockville reports, but there's often limited space in Rockville reports.

Right.

There are fairly relatively frequent sort of announcement emails from the city that

Yeah.

We can do to get it in one of those.

Okay.

Something I suggested at the last meeting was because there is limited space in the hard copy of the newsletter, what we could do, and I can craft that very quickly, is do a quick summary of what's in the letter and then do one of those if you'd like some more information. Sure. Here's the link or contact staff for a hard copy of

the letter. We could even post I think we could post to the HTC webpage as well. We could provide that link as to view the full letter. I'm not sure where else we could put it, but we can think on that.

Okay. Commissioner Powell.

I would concur with sending a letter to your HTC mask list that you have. I I would recommend we do all three.

Okay.

Okay. We can do that.

Yeah. Okay.

Is there any further discussion on the proposed letter? Okay. I think it's long.

Okay. So

I will do a summary for this, and then I will email that to the staff. Okay.

That works. And then I can provide the link to the full letter.

Okay. Mhmm. Thank you. Commissioners, any other old business? Remind me not to wear red because I am now looking at myself in the camera. So next on the agenda is new business. Anyone have any new business? Business? Staff? No.

Will miss Sheila. That's our new business.

Here here.

Yeah. But Sheila will be back for a week or two in June, is my understanding?

Yeah. We think so. But I

She's home already?

Wanted to formally honor

her here.

Yeah. I think she's solidifying where she's going to be living. And as I noted, the staff, we do have something for miss Bashirian. We'll be making sure that she gets that when she's back. Any other new business?

Okay.

Then may I have a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Michael?

Aye.

Thank you very much. Thank you. You, Michael. Appreciate you joining us.

Thank you, Michael. Sorry for the technical Get

well soon.

Yeah.