A little bungalow in Ruxton is creating some big problems.
Residents, seeking to preserve the character of their old, upper-crust neighborhood, are using the county's landmarks preservation process to try to stop a developer from knocking down the bungalow and building four houses in its place - an increasingly common practice as lots become scarce and established communities more desirable.
But the developer, Melvin Benhoff, argues that the house is not historic and that the case illustrates the haphazard way Baltimore County has conducted its preservation business for years. He said the county has denied him due process, has failed to follow its own laws and might rob him of the value of his property without compensation.
The house is an Arts and Crafts-style bungalow built between 1900 and 1915. It has a gently sloping slate roof with wide dormers and six-pane windows.
What is particularly unusual about it, preservation backers say, is its shape and orientation. It is almost a perfect cube and is set on the diagonal so it faces the corner of Berwick Road and Locust Avenue. It mirrors a companion house nearby on LaBelle Avenue, whose owners are also seeking landmark status.
Biff Hearn, president of the Ruxton, Riderwood, Lake Roland Area Improvement Association, said the community had expected for some time that two new houses would be built on the lot, with the bungalow preserved. He called the demolition plans a "distressing surprise."
"This old house and property had existed and been used in the same way for 90 years," Hearn said. "Instead of the defining presence of one of the original houses in the neighborhood with two new infill houses, there would now be four new homes covering an entire half-block, destroying the contextual fabric of the neighborhood."
What is not particularly significant about the house, Benhoff's attorneys and architect say, is that its original wooden siding has been replaced with aluminum. It lacks ornamentation characteristic of Arts and Crafts homes, such as exposed rafter tails and joists. Its original windows have been replaced. Its front door and porch have been altered, and sliding glass doors have been added in back.
"Really, it's a middling type of house that was put up in 1900," said David H. Gleason, an architect hired to examine the property for Benhoff. "There are other examples of that style of architecture that are more significant and certainly more spectacular" in the area.
If the landmarks commission recommends the house be put on the county's landmarks list, the decision rests with the County Council. The house is in the district of Council Chairman Kevin Kamenetz, a Pikesville-Ruxton Democrat, so he would have the most influence on whether the house is protected. He said he's waiting to hear what the commission says before making a decision.
Benhoff, the owner of Benhoff Builders Inc. in Cockeysville, bought the house and its 1.12-acre lot, assessed at $456,166, for $1 million last August. He applied for a demolition permit that was approved by various officials, including the county historian. The house didn't appear on any national, state or local historical inventories or preservation lists.
That, according to critics of county landmarks practices, is where things started to go awry.
Neighbors, upset at Benhoff's plan, applied to the Maryland Historical Trust and got the house listed on its inventory, which, under county practices, forces a hearing with the zoning commissioner before razing.
Unintended impact
But the Maryland Historical Trust never intended its inventory to have any regulatory impact, said J. Rodney Little, the trust's director. Properties on the inventory do not go through a rigorous examination, and property owners are not given due process or opportunity to challenge listings because those listings, by definition, have no effect on property rights.
"Baltimore County has taken that list, that at the state level has no legal consequences, and has turned it into something at the local level that does have legal consequences," Little said. "That's something our office does not favor."
County spokeswoman Elise Armacost said the legal basis for the hearing comes from the county code, which specifically refers to the Maryland Historic Trust inventory. Although the hearing does present some burden to property owners, she said, it has proven effective in preventing community outcry over demolition or changes to historic structures.
Once the county learned of the historical trust designation for the bungalow, it put the building permit on hold pending the zoning commissioner's hearing. And the neighborhood association nominated the house for consideration by the landmarks preservation commission, which can be done against the property owner's will.
"This is one of the earliest houses in the Ruxton Heights development and a key neighborhood landmark," Hearn said.
Legal questions
The commission scheduled a hearing for Dec. 12, and Benhoff started raising questions about the landmarks commission's compliance with county law.
The code requires the commission to compile a list of properties in the county that might warrant landmark status, but county officials say it has not done so in memory, if ever.
Such a list would have been helpful to Benhoff before he paid $1 million for the Berwick Road property, said his attorney, G. Scott Barhight.
For at least the past 10 years, said Tim Dugan, Baltimore County chief of planning services, the county has used the Maryland Historical Trust inventory as a de facto list but never formally adopted it as such.
Even if it had, Little said, doing so would be a mistake - no other county in the state uses the trust's list for this purpose.
Benhoff also said the commission has not formally adopted rules of procedure for its hearings, which are required by county code. Without them, Barhight said, his client has no guidance on whether he can call witnesses, cross-examine or issue subpoenas.
In early December, Barhight spoke with the county's Office of Law and threatened to seek an injunction against the landmarks commission on those grounds. The law office agreed to stop the public hearing scheduled for Dec. 12 and put the process on hold for at least 30 days, if Benhoff would not proceed with demolition in that time.
In the meantime, the commission has taken steps to alleviate Benhoff's procedural concerns, said David Goldsmith, the vice chairman of the commission. It formally adopted the Maryland Historical Trust inventory, with a few hundred other properties that consultants for the commission identified, as the county's list of potentially historical sites.
The commission has also scheduled a public hearing to formally adopt rules of procedure, Goldsmith said.
"In order to abide by the code, we were using what we felt were adequate standards, so this merely cleans it up and makes it more formal, which is fine," Goldsmith said. "I think when this is over, we will be in better shape, but we have never had any intention of violating the code or misleading anyone."
None too pleased
A new public hearing on the house is scheduled for Feb. 13, but neither Benhoff nor the community is happy.
"There is no question in Mr. Benhoff's mind that the Landmarks Preservation Commission has failed to comply with the statute requirements and that his due-process rights have been violated," Barhight said. "There's no question in his mind that his property is not historic and that the statute is being misused solely for the purpose of an anti-development stance."
Hearn acknowledged that neighbors weren't happy about any new houses being built on the lot, but he said they didn't object when they thought Benhoff intended to leave the original house and build two more behind it. One house is under construction.
"What really got them upset was knocking down this 90-year-old house," he said.