Good evening.

This is Historic District Commission meeting number 5-2026.

It's Thursday, May 20th, 2026.

I'm Peter Fosselman.

I'm chair of the Historic District Commission.

I'm joined this evening by fellow commissioner Seth Denbow, Michael Goldberg as virtual, and Anini Neil Powell.

Our fellow commissioner Mercy Schenge is not able to attend this evening.

She's at her son's graduation.

We're also joined this evening by our uh Cynthia Waters, Walters, who is our acting city attorney, our fellow planners Megan Flick and Andrew Reichelbach.

Okay, got it there.

Is that all right, Randall?

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Um the Historic District Commission meets in person at the Marin Council Chambers.

Um, and this evening you may view the meeting on Rockville MD.gov forward slash Rockville 11, and then each of the meetings are recorded, and you can see it later on RockvilleMD.gov forward slash video on demand.

So this evening we have committee reports.

Uh 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 Fosselman 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 uh opening ceremony for our exhibit celebrating 250 years of history here in Rockville and also in Montgomery County and our nation.

Um it's a pictorial exhibit called Rockville 250, our American story.

We had an opening reception from four to six yesterday, and the exhibit is now open Wednesday through Friday from 10 to 4 at the Redbrook Courthouse.

And we will have select Saturday openings as well.

Uh 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 14th, so one week ago, to Glenview Mansion to join us to celebrate uh 100th anniversary of the major renovation of Glenview into the estate property that we know it today.

We had over a hundred people that joined us for a tour of the property.

Um we did an architectural tour on the exterior and all through the building.

Um it was very well received, and I think that there's a program that the city's gonna put on in September.

Um 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 Neil 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 30th from 11 to 2 p.m.

in Rockville.

This conference will focus on stories that forage new ideas for museums, creative expression, unique presentation, and diverse ways black history can be woven into American history.

Here 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 and local communities, finds and grants available to preserve African American culture and heritage, say 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 Lincoln Park H I S T at AOL.com.

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.

So 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.

Um 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 Rose Ward Committee, so I've got a little experience around the planning department.

And I want to 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 um 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 going to exist.

And people that buy these properties really have no warning that the citizens might consider them historic.

And that the 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 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 expressing them.

Anyone else?

Anyone online, Megan?

No?

Okay.

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

No, we don't see anyone.

Okay, thank you.

Uh last on the item under um committee organizational reports is the HDC and staff comments.

Any of the commissioners have a comment this evening?

I have no comments.

Okay.

Staff.

Nothing.

Okay.

Okay.

Next on the item uh or agenda is our consent is the consent agenda.

We have the approval of the minutes from last month on the 16th.

Um that's it, actually.

So if may I have a motion, please.

Uh move to approve the minutes of the uh HDC4-2026 meeting.

Second.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Second.

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Is Michael able to vote?

Megan?

No, 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.

Um, before we move on to uh evaluation of significance, or sorry, uh certificate of approval.

I want to jump down on the agenda under evaluation of significance for item 2026-331-EOS evaluation of significance.

This is for 24 Martins Lane.

I just want to read a quick uh legal statement out that once an agenda item is placed on the published agenda, it may only be 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.

Uh so what we're going to do this evening, and the commission needs to vote on this, is we are going to um postpone the discussion of 24 Martins this evening.

Um 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 making a motion.

One of the commissioners needs I cannot make the motion.

And we can discuss after.

Um I move to postpone discussion of what is the number, sorry.

Sure.

Um postpone the discussion of um item 4B 2026-331-EOS until a later uh um historic district commission meeting.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay.

Any discussion?

Um Commissioner.

Yeah, I have some comments.

Um I I have no problem with postponing this.

Um, I understand that there are some information that came in late that means 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.

Um I do have some concerns currently, as we're um as as I understand it, part of the um 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 uh 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 I think that's a good thing, and I have argued for this, but but as part of the rezoning ordinance rewrite, some of these will be dealt with administratively, ones that are obviously not historic.

And I just want to reiterate that you know that that something like this really does a building like this particular one, given its age, given its importance to the community and the city, and and given its importance in our history, um, needs to come back to the the commission, regardless of whether or not um you know it's savable, you know, and we can get into that discussion when we when we review this in the future.

But I just want to 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.

Um 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 um house.

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?

Um can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, because I keep getting muted and then I'm not sure.

Yeah, um, I I was concerned when I read the brief book about that.

Um, I I agree with Commissioner Neil Cowell.

So we need more information on there to make a form Michael.

Could you for the record, could you repeat the very last sentence?

We heard everything else.

Um yeah, no, I just um I agree with Commissioner now.

Yeah, we don't have to make them form.

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

No.

Michael, can you speak up if possible?

Yeah, I've got my mouse right in front of the phone.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Um what I said with you that I agree with now that we don't have enough form movement at this point.

Not enough information to make the decision.

Yeah, I think he's saying he agrees with uh Ms.

Powell that there's not enough information and he says yes, correct.

Thank you, Commissioner.

We appreciate you being here uh this evening, uh especially in uh considering where you are.

So thank you.

Um any further comments from the staff.

Um just addressing Seth's comment about the ZOR, the slated approval or estimated approval for that is June 29th.

Um 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 210 days.

We're well within the 2001 days we received the application mid-April.

Um, but if if for the ZOR target date is June 29th, which would be after our June HTC meeting.

Okay.

When you speak of June 29th, you talk about the mayor and council meeting.

The mayor and council um possible approval of the zone ordinance rewrite.

This time it's not in approved.

It has not been approved yet, no.

Okay.

Um 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 going to pull a motion and okay.

Um if you could come up to the podium, please, and for the record, just re-identify yourself.

Yes, it'll be very quick.

It's David Hill at 733 Beal 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 D minus whatever date and a commitment of 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 um we also I had suggested this afternoon if we could possibly notify folks so that people like you didn't show up intending.

But um 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.

So it's questioning that part.

Oh, sure.

You're doing fine with that.

I'm just what's going forward.

I want to 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, it should be on the very next meeting of the HDC.

Okay, but it'll be renotished 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.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I'm gonna move this again.

Please.

Um I move to postpone discussion of 2026-331-EOS to a later HDC meeting.

Second.

All in favor?

Uh Michael.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Michael.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, in other words, anyone that's here this evening, I apologize that you showed up, but uh 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 um yeah.

Give them a minute.

Um not sure.

Uh-oh.

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 um every time there's a chance for discussion or vote.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Well, that cleared out the house.

Um we're gonna move back to the agenda and put us back in order under certificate of approval.

It's 2026-343-COA.

The property's located 8 Thomas Street.

Uh, 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.

Good evening, commissioners.

Can you all hear me?

Yes, thank you.

Great, thank you.

So, yes, the staff report was entered.

Okay.

Um, so this is an application for a certificate of approval at 8 Thomas Street.

Um, there is an aerial view of the property on the left showing um 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 R90 detached restricted residential, and it is in the West Montgomery Avenue Historic District.

So this certificate of approval, um, 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 um a safer entryway onto the porch and into his house.

The image on the left shows the front facade of um the house at A.

Thomas Street where this replacement porch steps and railing would go.

And then the image on the right is a closer up view of the steps that are proposed to be replaced, as well as where the um porches, uh the porch railings would go.

This image shows the porch step construction details showing um how the uh railings would be placed in line with the 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 this um wide these wider steps are in place to make sure that there's sufficient room to attach the railings that are proposed to be um installed on the porch here.

And overall, the new porch steps would be about 40 square feet.

So the staff recommendation um 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 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 um standard of the secretary of the interior and staff does recommend approval.

And this slide shows the two motions that are available either to um approve the certificate of approval application or to not approve the COA application.

Okay, thank you for the very thorough report.

Uh 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, let us know.

Oh, that's right.

We have Michael um muted, so I don't know if he's saying anything or not.

There was someone can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Is it 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 um uh was not able to.

So apologies.

Um but you sorry, I said apologies.

Oh, okay.

Um, but yeah, I I think it was it was uh it was rendered in the explanation exactly what we're after, just a uh uh a railing for safety purposes.

We've got elderly uh parents, and it's very difficult for them to enter the property uh at its current state now without any hand railings.

So all we're asking is for some hand railings um for safety purposes uh to enter and exit the property.

Thank you very much.

Uh have we just commissioner goldfinger?

Do you have anything to comment on?

Can we unmute him, please?

Can you hear me?

I I think yeah, okay.

I'm trying to speak about um just a um uh mild concern because the standards they differentiate from distance and um you know there's a very strong element the the railing around the porch has those uniformly bindles and railing, and um I would really not like to see uh something that's so different that'll just jump down.

No, but um I'm afraid that if something goes wrong, uh that's much different going to look at waiting with the answer.

He's not a difference in the existing versus what's proposed.

And look into kind of um I still off mute.

Uh no, sir, we can hear you.

Oh, okay.

Um the intent is to match it as as closely as possible.

The the same types of uh stringers up and down um and the same type of railing that's currently there, but 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?

We have a motion.

I move the commission approved certificate of approval.

Application 2026-343-COA at A Thomas Street.

The work meets the Secretary of the Interior Standard for Rehabilitation Number Nine.

A second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Hi.

Michael?

Hi.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, next on our agenda.

Uh we're under evaluation of significance.

It's 226-302-EOS.

This is 508 Bill Avenue and evaluation of significance.

Demolition proposed.

Staff, do you have a report?

Yes, there is.

Thank you.

Okay, so this is case 2026 302 valuation of significance at 508 Beal 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 size 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 uh history of this property specifically.

Uh 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.

Um before I ask for comments, commissioners have any comments.

Um so there's no history of this property available, there's no deeds, there's no no ownership history.

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

Okay.

Okay.

Is anyone here this evening uh 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, uh hi, I'm Thomas Kehoe.

I'm the owner at 508 Beal Avenue.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, thank you guys.

Um so just a little brief synopsis.

I've I've lived there, I've owned the property for five years now.

I've lived there for the last four and a half.

I moved out to uh start this whole demolition process, and I plan on uh building house to move back to it's not for business or anything.

We're we're uh intending to move our our new family back over there and hopefully hopefully uh 2027 sometime.

Thank you.

I've we've actually met me while I'm walking my dogs, but you probably wouldn't remember that.

But anyway, um thank you for being here this evening.

Uh 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 um historic significance, so once we approve the then 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 a 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 the 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 um file their demolition permit after um if the commission approves demolition tonight.

Okay, yeah, 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 Dunbo.

I read it when we're you read the brief book, okay.

Yeah, it was just the standard of the houses that were built during that time, but it is on the 1949 saying born map.

I didn't see the point the owner was answering, but they will they will have to um file their demolition permit after um if the commission approves demolition tonight okay yeah 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 Dunbo I I read it when we were you read the brief book okay yeah it was just the standard of the houses that were built during that time but it is on the 1949 saying born map um there are a lot of houses on this street in similar situations that have been demolished and rebuilt um if you saw in that first photo both houses on either side or or the one on the left there is a new home um 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 it okay may I have a motion does Michael have anything to say oh um we keep forgetting Commissioner Goldfinger and he's muted again else wanting to speak to the speaking yeah yeah I'm easy to get to that but uh technically we're not approving demolition um Michael we're having a little trouble hearing you could you speak up please yeah um technically we are not approving demolition correct as a statement uh denying you know with being 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 um but the motion would yeah determine that and then because it's a evaluation if it's for a demolition is why I mentioned demolition but yeah okay I just want to make sure yeah thank you thank you commissioner any last minute calls for comments okay uh may have a motion finding that the building proposed for demolition at 508 Bell Avenue does not meet any of the historic district commission's adopted criteria for historic significance architectural design and landscape significance I move that the HTC recommend histor against historic designation may I have a second second second thank you any further discussion all in favor aye aye any abstentions opposition staff did you note that commissioner Powell okay opposes opposes okay thank you very much okay next on the agenda is 2026 dash 330 dash EOS this is uh address it's two set two separate structures it's 200A and 200 B Monroe Street staff do you have a report we do and I believe the applicant is present as well who wishes to speak before okay good evening members of the board uh my name's Patrick Bloomfield PT Blooms development um I was a resident of Rockville for 10 years I've since moved over to Silver Spring um but this is my first time in front of this hearing um we are asking for a deferral um there are some things in the report that we feel were not addressed and we'd like to engage a historic consultant uh and then revisit on on another hearing okay um could you staff could you silent silence commissioner thank you very much there we go thank you um 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 SAT report and we have a presentation we're prepared to go forward if the commission chooses to do so um 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 if she was future purposes okay yeah that is correct that is correct um commissioner um then we would or Chair Fosselman I'm sorry uh we would need you all would need to vote because this has already been on a published agenda okay thank you very much Ms.

Walters yes sir um I the reason I I'm asking for this in procedural 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 80s if we could demolish them the report staff report does not address them at all so I I would like to say that the in that that the report right now we believe is not addressing what we requested it to be addressed.

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.

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

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um well then we'll move forward staff of the report.

Thank you, sir.

Which um that does not mean that we necessarily won't defer it.

Am I correct?

We can still vote to defer to get the staff's information on the record.

Okay.

Um, 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, Ms.

Walters.

We could go ahead and hear the staff report and then vote to continue it at another meeting.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Staff.

Okay, so this is case 2026 330 for an evaluation of significance of 200A and 200B Monroe Street.

So here we have the satellite imagery showing the property.

Um, and we will have oh, let me split this up and start with 200A Monroe and then go into 200B so that we can do our best to cover all the structures on the property.

Um, so this is 200A Monroe Street.

Um, and as you can see, this is more of a modern structure.

We have the front elevation on the left, um, 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.

Um, but the determination for 200A Monroe is that it is not historic or it doesn't have historic significance.

Um, it was built much later.

So we're gonna again we're gonna split these um and we're gonna now go into 200B Monroe.

And so this is the diagram showing uh the way the property currently stands.

So you can see the front uh the house, the building at the front is a historic residential home or was built as a res residential home in 1906.

So that's the most historic structure on this property is that house that's facing Monroe.

The additions um behind the building were added in 1983, and you can see um the arrow pointing to those additions uh in this diagram.

And again, this is 200B Monroe.

So the photo on the left is the historic home that was built in 1906.

Uh, this is the front elevation facing Monroe, and then we have the elevation um from Fleet Street on the right, and those are showing the newer additions behind the building, behind the original 1906 structure.

So uh again, 200B 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 uh on the building that were done in 1983.

So we are going to split this up for our staff recommendation.

So for 200A Monroe sheet, the staff recommendation is finding that the building proposed for demolition at 200A Monroe 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.

Uh 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.

Um and not the rest of the additions behind it or any other part of 200B.

Um so let me go into sharing a little history, a little context for 200B Monroe, the original structure that was built in 1906.

Um so it was originally built as a detached residential house.

It was known as the HEAG house.

Um, 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 Heague, again called the Heag House.

He was a Rockville council member from 1896 to 1898.

And he spent his career working for the BNO BNO 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 Spiedle in the 1940s.

So that's the historic context of again the original home.

We'll go back.

On the left here that was built in 1906, the Samuel Heag house, that is the part of 200B 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 200B Monroe Street meets the historic district commission's adopted criteria for historic significance A and architectural design and landscape significance E, staff recommends historic designation.

Second part of that being finding that the 1983 building additions and parking structure proposed for demolition at 200B Monroe do 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 for that portion of the property.

So 200A Monroe, we're recommending don't designate it's not historic for 200B Monroe, recommending to designate that historic 1906 home and not the rest of the structures on 200B.

Does that make sense?

Do you guys have any questions?

Yes.

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 um, yeah, that's it.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um so unless Miss Walters jumps in um to correct me.

Um we have a decision to make.

We may either continue this sort of later meeting or we may move forward.

And um I need the commissioners to weigh in, please.

I would suggest that we continue the application to 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 yeah, let's do this to make everybody happy as happy as possible.

Um, that's fine.

Okay.

Okay.

Michael.

Yeah, Michael's my mic is actually unmuted.

Michael, um, what is your opinion, please?

Um either way, um happy to vote tonight.

Well, we can continue to related date.

Okay, so continue.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

On a motion.

Yes, but I was just gonna clear up stuff.

Do you have anything else to add?

No, I think I don't think so.

Okay.

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

Um, yeah, actually, I would like to clarify, Ms.

Walters if that is okay.

Okay, um clarify.

I don't I don't have anything to add.

I think that's correct.

Um, you would make a motion to continue.

And I mean, I would suggest that you um are specific and say that you would continue it to the um next regularly scheduled meeting.

Okay, okay.

Thank you for your advice.

We always appreciate it.

May I have a motion?

Um I move that we continue discussion of um the uh design um the evaluation of significance for uh 200 A and B Monroe Street to our next uh schedule regularly scheduled HDC meeting.

May I have a second second?

I'll second if no one commissioner goldfinger seconded.

Okay, any further discussion?

All in favor?

Hi.

Michael.

Great, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, staff.

She has something to say.

Okay.

Um Ms.

Picard, Nancy.

Can you come up to the microphone?

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, I'm not gonna be on.

I'm sorry, since this is going to be continued anyway, and they might well they're gone, but I just have a point of order kind of question that as I listen to this, I'm a little bit unsure how it works.

Um 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.

Um, 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 demo it 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.

Um I don't know if staff's prepared to discuss that tonight, but um are we allowed to discuss that?

I'm not so sure.

Yeah, we're kind of done, but maybe for the next meeting.

Okay.

Okay.

And actually, I have a similar kind of question, not to do with the the division between A and B, but with B, if we're I 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 want to demolish part of it, if they want to tear down the the property, the the 1980s 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 that we could get clarification on both of those things before our discussion next time, that would be great.

Commissioner Powell.

Okay, well, do well.

I would uh recommend that we not put the two properties together.

Because that's sort of I guess that's yeah, 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 um application together.

So I think with 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 um well-known examples of a structure that only part of it is actually designated as um a historic site.

So we'll have to look further into that into how that property was handled um in see if a similar uh process would be um work for this property as well.

So we're in a 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.

Um, but because they came in together as one application, that's why.

Okay, yeah.

Um I'm just thinking about the process and just uh remembering that we don't actually all we're doing is recommending if we decide to say that we want two 200B to be um designated, what we're doing is recommending to Mayor and Council that they you know what we're doing is asking staff to create a report.

Correct and then a recommend making a recommendation to mayor and council.

Yes, and they would ultimately determine the beginning of a long process.

Correct.

If we remember correctly, if we remember from the MNT bank last year.

So just a reminder that's what we're doing.

Yeah, thank you for clarifying.

Yeah, mayor and council would ultimately um be the decision maker on designating uh that property or part of it.

Okay.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Um you can hear me?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Um yeah, I'm just wondering um if it might be, you know, I think it's sort of clear given the staff report how uh how the might uh vote on it when it comes up for termination.

Um yeah, I'm just wondering um if might be, you know, I think it's sort of clear given the staff report how uh how the might uh vote on comes up for termination and um I don't know what's involved, but um would the owner want to just go ahead and maybe split it into two parcel going to whatever going whatever and then find two separate item uh just to unmuddy the waters, and then there's probably more legal questions, so um probably look to you to comment that that seems to me to be 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, and we'll let staff get a confirmation from the owner as to how they want to proceed.

Okay, thank you.

Um okay, next on the agenda.

Um under discussion items our old business.

I brought a copy of well, first of all, let me back up.

At our last meeting, we discussed um the historic preservation month, which is May.

Um, and we had talked about the commission submitting a letter to the public about the importance of historic preservation in the city of Rockville.

Um, 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 um public information and for the commission to kind of bless the letter uh with either comments or just going forward, and then we can discuss how we would present that.

But I want to know if the commission has any further comments or staff.

Okay, I don't have any comments.

Okay.

No, I think it's a great letter.

Well done, Peter.

Thank you for doing it.

Um but yeah, no, I think we should get this out soon.

Well, actually, you were helpful too.

I kind of stole some of your uh ideas from before.

So yeah, thank you.

Happy to have um okay, so let's talk for a minute.

Um, and staff might be able to help us.

The best ways to communicate this, um, keeping in mind that it is now um the 21st of May, and that we're more than halfway through historic preservation month.

Um I'm thinking maybe the letter needs to be in the past tense when it's presented.

Right, we could put it out in Rockville reports, it would probably be for June.

I think we have to check on these deadlines.

We've okay.

Um, 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, but right, but there are the relatively frequent sort of announcement emails from the city that yeah, we can be great to get it in one of those.

Okay.

Um something I suggested at the last meeting was um because there's limited space in the hard copy of the newsletter.

What we could do, and I can craft that very quickly, is do a s 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 yeah, we could even post.

I think we could post um to the HTC web page as well.

Um we could provide that link as to view the full letter.

I'm not sure where else um we could put it, but we can think on that.

Okay, Commissioner Powell.

I would concur with sending a letter to your HTC mass listing that you have.

I would recommend we do all three.

Okay.

Okay.

We can do that.

Is there any further discussion on the proposed letter?

Okay.

Okay.

Um so uh I will do a summary for this, and then um I will email that to the staff.

Okay.

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

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any other old business.

Okay.

Uh remind me not to wear red, because I'm looking now looking at myself in the camera.

Um so next on the agenda is new business.

Anyone have any new business?

Staff we will miss Sheila.

That's our new business.

So yeah.

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

Yeah, we think so.

But I she's well already wanted to formally honor her here.

I think she's uh solidifying where she's going to be living.

Um and uh as I noted to staff, we do have something for Ms.

Bashiri, and we'll be making sure that she gets that uh when she's back.

Um any other new business.

Okay.

Um then may I have a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Michael?

Aye.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michael.

Appreciate you joining us.

Thank you, Michael.

Sorry for the technical difficulties.

Go well soon.

Yeah.

Um, I'm not sure.