Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan

300 Pages·2011·2.87 MB·English

Approved
Historic Sites
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND
and Districts
Plan
June 2010
The Maryland-National Capital
Park and Planning Commission
www.mncppc.org/pgco
Approved
HHiissttoorriicc SSiitteess
aanndd DDiissttrriiccttss
PPllaann
June 2010
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Prince George’s County Planning Department
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD
www.mncppc.org/pgco
A b s t r a c t
TITLE: Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan
AUTHOR: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Prince George’s County Planning Department
SUBJECT: Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan for Prince George’s County
DATE: June 2010
SOURCE
OF COPIES: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
SERIES NUMBER: 9570952405
NUMBER OF PAGES: 306
ABSTRACT: This document is the Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan for Prince George’s County. Policy guidance
for this plan came from the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. The approved plan updates the 1992
Historic Sites and Districts Plan by including additions to historic sites and resources and a set of goals, policies, and
strategies to guide future preservation planning efforts. The plan also contains an initial set of implementation
priorities and a proposal for a strategic plan of implementation. Appendices provide updated county and community
histories; a summary of historic themes; and lists of cemeteries, organizations, and sources of additional information.
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Royce Hanson, Chairman
Samuel J. Parker, Jr., Vice Chairman
Offi cers
Patricia Colihan Barney, Executive Director
Al Warfi eld, Acting Secretary-Treasurer
Adrian R. Gardner, Esq., General Counsel
Th e Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is a bicounty agency, created by the General
Assembly of Maryland in 1927. Th e Commission’s geographic authority extends to the great majority of
Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties: the Maryland-Washington Regional District (M-NCPPC planning
jurisdiction) comprises 1,001 square miles, while the Metropolitan District (parks) comprises 919 square miles, in
the two counties.
Th e Commission has three major functions:
• Th e preparation, adoption, and, from time to time, amendment or extension of the General Plan for the physical
development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District;
• Th e acquisition, development, operation, and maintenance of a public park system; and
• In Prince George’s County only, the operation of the entire county public recreation program.
Th e Commission operates in each county through a Planning Board appointed by and responsible to the county
government. All local plans, recommendations on zoning amendments, administration of subdivision regulations,
and general administration of parks are responsibilities of the Planning Boards.
Th e Prince George’s County Department of Planning (M-NCPPC):
• Our mission is to help preserve, protect and manage the county’s resources by providing the highest quality
planning services and growth management guidance and by facilitating eff ective intergovernmental and citizen
involvement through education and technical assistance.
• Our vision is to be a model planning department of responsive and respected staff who provide superior
planning and technical services and work cooperatively with decision makers, citizens and other agencies to
continuously improve development quality and the environment and act as a catalyst for positive change.
Prince George’s County Planning Board Montgomery County Planning Board
Samuel J. Parker, Jr., Chairman Royce Hanson, Chairman
Sylvester J. Vaughns, Vice Chairman Marye Wells-Harley, Vice Chairman
Sarah A. Cavitt Joseph Alfandre
Jesse Clark Norman Dreyfuss
John H. Squire Amy Presley
ii Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan
Prince George’s County
Jack B. Johnson, County Executive
County Council
Th e County Council has three main responsibilities in the planning process: (1) setting policy, (2) plan approval, and
(3) plan implementation. Applicable policies are incorporated into area plans, functional plans, and the general plan.
Th e Council, after holding a hearing on the plan adopted by the Planning Board, may approve the plan as adopted,
approve the plan with amendments based on the public record, or disapprove the plan and return it to the Planning
Board for revision. Implementation is primarily through adoption of the annual Capital Improvement Program, the
annual Budget, the water and sewer plan, and adoption of zoning map amendments.
Council Members
Th omas E. Dernoga, 1st District, Council Chairman
Will Campos, 2nd District
Eric Olson, 3rd District
Ingrid M. Turner, 4th District
Andrea Harrison, 5th District, Council Vice Chair
Samuel H. Dean, 6th District
Camille Exum, 7th District
Tony Knotts, 8th District
Marilynn M. Bland, 9th District
Clerk of the Council
Redis C. Floyd
Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan iii
Table of Contents
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS 1 CHAPTER 5 HISTORIC
Purpose 1 PRESERVATION REGULATIONS 41
Plan Highlights 1 Background 41
Inventory Additions 2 Issues 41
Other Inventory Changes 5 Goal 42
PART ONE: BACKGROUND 9 CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS 45
Background 45
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 11 Issues 46
Public Participation Process 11 Goal 46
Consistency with Other Plans 12
General Plan Context 13 CHAPTER 7 PROTECTION OF CEMETERIES 49
Existing Preservation Framework 14 Background 49
Certifi ed Local Government Program 15 Regulations 51
Highlights of Implementation of the 1992 Issues 51
Historic Sites and Districts Plan Proposals 15 Goal 52
CHAPTER 2 HERITAGE THEMES 17 CHAPTER 8 PLANNING FOR ARCHEOLOGY 55
Introduction 17 Background 55
Prehistoric and Seventeenth Century Period 17 Issues 58
Th e Eighteenth Century and the Goal 59
Antebellum Period 17
CHAPTER 9 CULTURAL
Commerce, Industry, and
LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION 63
Scientifi c Advancements 19
Background 63
Transportation 20
Issues 64
Political and Social History, Religion,
Goal 65
Recreation and Th e Arts 21
Civil Society 22 CHAPTER 10 HISTORIC
Th e Twentieth Century 23 PRESERVATION INCENTIVES 67
Ecclesiastical and Residential Architecture 24 Background 67
Current Incentives 67
PART TWO: GOALS 27
Goal 70
CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION AND DESIGNATION 29
CHAPTER 11 NEIGHBORHOOD AND
Background 29
COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION 73
Issues 31
Background 73
Goal 33
Issues 73

Planning and Implementation Tools
CHAPTER 4 PRESERVATION PLANNING 35
for Neighborhood Conservation
Background 35
and Commercial Revitalization 74
M-NCPPC-owned Historic Properties 36
Goal 76
Issues 36
Goal 37
Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan v
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 12 79 PART FOUR: APPENDICES 195
Background 79
Issues 79 APPENDIX A
Goal 80 HISTORY OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY 197
CHAPTER 13 PARTNERSHIPS 83 APPENDIX B
Background 83 DOCUMENTED HISTORIC COMMUNITIES 205
Issues 83
APPENDIX C
Goal 84
M-NCPPC-OWNED PROPERTIES 253
CHAPTER 14 HERITAGE EDUCATION 87
APPENDIX D
Background 87
INVENTORY OF HISTORIC CEMETERIES 255
Issues 87
Goal 87 APPENDIX E
PREHISTORIC CONTEXT 265
CHAPTER 15 IMPLEMENTATION 91
Introduction 91 APPENDIX F
Strategic Plan for Implementation 91 PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS 267
PART THREE: INVENTORY 95 APPENDIX G
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 281
CHAPTER 16 HISTORIC SITES 97
APPENDIX H
CHAPTER 17 COUNTY-DESIGNATED
FULL COMMISSION RESOLUTION 293
HISTORIC DISTRICTS 169
Old Town College Park Historic District (66-042) 169 APPENDIX I
Broad Creek Historic District (80-024) 169 CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION AND APPROVAL 297
CHAPTER 18 INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES 173
vi Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan
Foreword
Th e Prince George’s County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is pleased
to make available the Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan.
Policy guidance for this plan came from the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan and the 1992 Historic
Sites and Districts Plan. Th e goals, concepts, and guidelines document that outlined many of the major issues addressed
in the plan and provided structure for the planning process was presented to the Planning Board and District Council
in November 2008.
An extensive planning eff ort engaged historic property owners, citizens, residents, and other stakeholders in public
participation activities and resulted in valuable contributions to the plan. In response to a request by county nonprofi t
organizations and citizens at large, a draft of the plan prepared by staff was distributed for public comment in September
2009 in order to provide the opportunity for stakeholders to review the proposed policies and strategies.
Th e plan represents an eff ort to chart the direction of future historic preservation policy in Prince George’s County.
We are continuing this countywide eff ort through an Envision Prince George’s initiative to engage a broad cross section
of stakeholders in developing a shared vision for the county’s future direction and growth. We invite you to visit the
Envision Prince George’s web site at www.mncppc.org/Envision to learn more about how to participate in this exciting
initiative.
Th e approved plan includes changes to historic sites and resources, goals, policies, and strategies to guide future
preservation planning eff orts and an initial set of implementation priorities. Appendices provide updated county and
community histories; a summary of historic themes; and lists of cemeteries, organizations, and sources of additional
information.
On January 19, 2010, the Planning Board and the District Council held a joint public hearing on the preliminary plan.
Th e Planning Board adopted the plan with modifi cations per the Planning Board’s Resolution No. 10-42(c) on June 7,
2010. Th e District Council approved the plan with additional modifi cations per CR-51-2010 on June 8, 2010.
Th e Planning Board appreciates the contributions of the community and stakeholders throughout the plan development
phase and at the public hearing. We look forward to seeing this plan preserve, protect, and enhance the county’s historic
resources and, in doing so, improve the quality of life for Prince George’s County residents and visitors for years to come.
Sincerely,
Samuel J. Parker, Jr., AICP
Chairman
Prince George’s County Planning Board
Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan vii
Plan Highlights
Purpose in the county’s development review process. It recognizes
that M-NCPPC must lead by example in its stewardship
Th e Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan for Prince
of historic resources. It identifi es the need for a strategic
George’s County (HSDP) sets countywide preservation
plan to be implemented to select priorities, benchmarks
policy and provides citizens, nonprofi t organizations, the
of progress, and the responsibilities of plan stakeholders.
private sector, and government agencies with guidance
on historic preservation. It provides information about
Chapter 5: Historic Preservation Regulations—posits
the county’s historic resources, presents an overview
that the historic preservation ordinance (Subtitle 29 of the
of preservation tools and techniques, and serves as a
Prince George’s County Code) should be updated to refl ect
blueprint to assist in implementing eff ective historic
nationally recognized best practices. It also emphasizes
preservation policies and strategies.
the importance of working closely with the real estate
community, as well as historic property owners, to ensure
Plan Highlights
that all are aware of the preservation regulations aff ecting
private property.
Th e Plan is divided into four parts.
Chapter 6: Environmental Settings—explains the process
Part One includes the Introduction and Heritage Th emes.
of determining environmental settings and identifi es some
Th e introduction describes the plan’s public participation
of the problems in maintaining them. It outlines policies
process, the general planning framework in which the
and strategies to better protect the settings and to produce
HSDP functions, the certifi ed local government process,
more compatible new development.
and the implementation of highlights from the 1992
HSDP. Part One also addresses the themes that represent
Chapter 7: Protection of Cemeteries—describes measures
important aspects of the county’s history, culture,
to better protect historic cemeteries, including legislative
and heritage and provide an analytical framework for
initiatives, a cemetery preservation manual, workshops,
evaluating the signifi cance of properties. Th e list of
and a grant program.
themes and associated properties will expand as further
research and investigation broadens our knowledge of
Chapter 8: Planning for Archeology—explains the
Prince George’s County’s heritage.
archeological review process and identifies current
archeological issues. It suggests measures to further
Part Two contains chapters 3–15, all of the chapters that
protect archeological resources and ways to promote public
respond directly to the 12 plan goals established by the
understanding of their signifi cance.
District Council.
Chapter 9: Cultural Landscape Preservation—includes a
Chapter 3: Evaluation and Designation—explains the
discussion of the characteristics of cultural landscapes, why
processes of historic site and historic district evaluation,
they need protection, and strategies for their protection.
the listing of properties in the National Register of
Historic Places, and the survey initiatives that formed
Chapter 10: Historic Preservation Incentives—summarizes
the recommendations for historic site or historic resource
existing incentives and outlines policies and strategies to
designation. Among other policies and strategies, Chapter
promote and use existing and proposed incentives.
3 begins a discussion of the development of an honorifi c,
nonregulatory program to recognize and highlight places Chapter 11: Neighborhood and Commercial Revitalization—
of cultural signifi cance that may not meet designation outlines planning and implementation tools for
criteria or benefi t from regulatory oversight. neighborhood conservation and commercial revitalization,
and outlines policies and strategies to improve the county’s
Chapter 4: Preservation Planning—identifi es ways that
focus on this work.
preservation planning can be more eff ectively addressed
Plan Highlights
Chapter 12: Heritage Tourism—begins to describe ways Th e HSDP presents goals, policies, and strategies that will
the county can better support this eff ort to authentically be realized through the development of a strategic plan
represent the stories and people of the past and present for implementation. Potential implementation methods
while preserving and protecting resources. include legislative changes to applicable ordinances, capital
improvement program commitments, operating budget
Chapter 13: Partnerships—calls upon preservation initiatives, and the inclusion of policy guidance in master
stakeholders to form new partnerships with a broader plans and sector plans.
constituency to advance the goals of historic preservation.
Selected strategies include using emerging technologies to Th e strategic plan for implementation is intended to
improve communication and seeking partnerships with establish the priorities, identify the commitment of various
schools to promote historic preservation. stakeholders, provide a timeline, and set benchmarks.
Successful implementation will take time and require
Chapter 14: Heritage Education—focuses on policies and the eff orts of all stakeholders—government, the private
strategies to increase understanding and support for the sector, nonprofi t organizations, and historic property
protection of the county’s cultural heritage. owners. Th e plan also suggests that a biennial summit
be convened to review progress on implementation until
Chapter 15: Implementation—asserts that a strategic
the next HSDP amendment process.
plan of implementation be developed to establish the
priorities, benchmarks of progress, and commitment of
Inventory Additions
partners in carrying out the plan’s recommendations. An
initial action plan on the four principles of protection,
New Historic Sites
stewardship, incentives, and education are proposed.
Th is plan classifi es and/or adds 98 properties as historic
Part Th ree includes all the properties covered by the sites in the plan inventory.
historic preservation ordinance as part of the Inventory
62-023-17 Th omas Matthews House
of Historic Resources.
62-023-21 Queen’s Chapel Methodist Episcopal
Chapter 16: Historic Sites—provides a brief description
Church Site & Cemetery
of the 411 designated historic sites.
64-007 Holst Cabin
Chapter 17: County-Designated Historic Districts—
contains descriptions and maps of the two designated
65-010 D C Boundary Marker NE 3
Historic Districts, Broad Creek and Old Town College Park.
65-011 D C Boundary Marker NE 4
Chapter 18: Inventory of Historic Resources—is a listing
of all 411 designated sites and 136 designated historic
65-015 Rizzo House
resources in the Inventory of Historic Resources.
66-014 Lakeland Community High School
Part Four contains the Appendices—a history of the
county, a statement of prehistoric archeological context, 66-015 Buck-Singleton House
a summary of 58 documented historic communities, an
inventory of historic cemeteries, a list of preservation 66-035-06 Morrill Hall
organizations, and a glossary of important preservation
66-035-07 Calvert Hall
terms. Appendix B identifies and describes historic
communities that have been documented to date. For
67-006 Beaverdam Creek Bridge
a more detailed explanation of the historic district
documentation and designation process, see Chapter 3:
67-008 Civilian Conservation Corps Lodge
Evaluation and Designation.
67-022-01 Kleindienst-Haker House
2 Approved Historic Sites and Districts Plan