their bogus religion tax exempt.” See Admin. Record, p. 00505 (emphasis added). “{I am] concerned about Scientology getting a foothold in Frederick County with the Trout Run property.” See Admin. Record, p. 00510. In fact, in light of the numerous discriminatory and immaterial “evidence” presented, the County Attomey advised the Council that “the issue of the connection, i any, between the Church of Scientology and the applicant is an absolute non-issue before you,” and wamed the Council that “RLUPA . . . says you cannot discriminate against any recognized group of . .. an organized belief group. So you have to treat this applicant, any applicant, whether it’s the Little Sisters of Mercy [sie] or the American [SJatanist [SJociety, equally.” See Admin. Record, p. 00086 (April 21 Public Hearing Tr. 61:4-16). The County Attorney further advised the Council that your role in the process is to decide whether the Historic Preservation Commission was correct in determining that the property was eligible for listing on the Frederick County Register of Historic Places, and if so, to designate the site on the County Register of Historic Places. See Admin. Record, p. 00090 (April 21 Public Hearing Tr. 65:7-12) (emphasis added). ‘Additionally, the County Attorney advised the Council that in reviewing the Petitioner's application, “this is a very limited role of yours . . . this is a small role.” See Admin. Record, 1.00090 (April 21 Public Hearing Tr. 65:13-15). In fact, Council Member Billy Shreve acknowledged that “this application, has been clouded because the record does reflect that there was testimony based on Narconon and Scientology . . . 50 | think that has clouded our decision afew times..." See Admin, Record, p. 00014 (June 2 Meeting Tr. 14:5-9) (emphasis added). Obviously, all such comments are not probative or relevant to the only germane issues that were before the Council; (1) the characteristics of Trout Run; and (2) whether it meets 28historic site designation criteria, They should have been disregarded by the Council as not relevant to their consideration of the germane issues. But, given the Couneil’s bizarre ruling in the face of the Record that demonstrates that Trout Run meets historic designation criteria, these irrelevant and discriminatory views appear to have swayed the result. The Council’s denial of Petitioner's Application was not based on any probative evidence, let alone substantial e1 and should be reversed. 3. The Petitioner presented two expert witnesses, who were each accepted by the Council as authorities in their field, and such expert testimony should have been afforded greater weight than the lay testimony presented in opposition to Petitioner’s Application. ‘There was expert testimony from multiple sources in support of the Petitioner's Applica- tion; whereas, the opposition presented no expert testimony to contradict or rebut the Subject Property’s eligibility for designation on the County's Register. When asked by the Council what ‘weight to afford expert testimony, the County Attorney stated “the testimony of the experts is to be given greater weight,” and acknowledged that both Katherine Kuranda and Michael Proffitt were accepted as expert witnesses. See Admin. Record, p. 00085 (April 21 Public Hearing Tr. 60:8-14), Additionally, the County Attorney advised that the “Historic Preservation Commission is... 12 people, all of whom are selected for their particular knowledge, experience, skill, or expertise with historic structures ....” See Admin, Record, p. 00090 (April 21 Public Hearing Tr. 65:16-21). In fact, the HPC consists of fa preservation architect, a professional engineer, a landscape architect specializing in historic preservation, the former Maryland State Archeologist, leadership of historic preservation advocacy groups, and members with demonstrated special interest in the field, 29See Admin. Record, p. 00291. Nonetheless, despite these experts all recommending that the Subject Property should be designated on the County’s Register, the Council instead arbitrarily and capriciously accepted lay testimony that was irrelevant to the criteria for designation on the County's Register. In Potomac Elec. Power Co., the Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision to reverse the County Council's denial of a special exception application where the applicant had presented extensive unrebutted expert testimony in support of the application. 263 Md. 159, 282 A.2d 113 (1971). The applicant, Pepco, requested that the Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, sitting as the District Council, grant “a special exception for the purpose of erecting and maintaining an electric substation on a 29.275 acre tract of land in College Park ” Id, at 160, 282 A.2d at 113. Pepco presented evidence from various quali- fied expert witnesses clearly demonstrating that the noise generated would be below the ambient level. Id. at 172-74, 282 A.2d at 119-20, The College Park Woods Citizens Association opposed the special exception and attempted to rebut the expert witness testimony provided by Pepco through the testimony of Dr. Birch, who admitted that he had absolutely no experience as “an electrical engineer in the designing of substations or transformer sites such as the one proposed.” Id. at 174, 292 A.2d at 120. Despite the fact that Pepeo presented unrebutted testimony that clearly showed its appli ion satisfied the requisite standard, two of the County ‘Commissioners “were of the opinion that Pepco had failed to prove that . . . noise would not adversely affect the nearby residential properties.” Jd. at 175, 282 A.2¢ at 120. ‘The Court of Appeals found that “there is no probative evidence to support the position of the two Commissioners who voted against the granting of the application for a special excep- tion” because “there is no credible evidence that the noise will adversely affect the surrounding 30properties.” Jd, As a result, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision to re- verse the County Council on the basis that “the great need for the additional facility was estab- lished and the testimony and exhibits in the entire record are overwhelming that Site D satisfies the statutory criteria...” Id (emphasis added) ‘The Potomac Elec. Power Co. case is analogous and applicable to the Record and the Council's decision in this appeal. Significantly, the Petitioner presented unrebutted testimony from two qualified experts that the Subject Property met the criteria for designation on the County's Register. See Admin, Record, pp. 000S7-72 (April 21 Publie Hearing Tr. 32:1-47:22), pp. 00174-175 (April 7 Public Hearing Tr. 57:8-58:12) (Testimony and expert opinions prepared by Katherine Kuranda and Michael Proffitt). Additionally, the HPC made a determination that the Subject Property satisfied the same criteria for designation as a listed site on the County’s Register. See Admin. Record, pp. 00233, 00237-239 (HPC’s Determinations and Recommend- ations to the Council). In contrast, there were no expert witnesses that presented any testimony or evidence in opposition to the Subject Property’s eligibility for listing on the County’s Register. In fact, the majority of the statements made in opposition to the Petitioner’s Application were devoid of any material or probative value on the criteria for designation of an historic site on the County’s Register. For instance, one public comment received was “I don’t think this is a good use for the designation of historic building.” See Admin, Record, pp. 00157-158 (April 7 Public Hearing Tr. 40:12-15) (Testimony of Leslie Summers-Stay). Similarly, the Council received lay testimony that “any history of this place, for different reasons, has been rumored, embellished . .. I was on the West Wing [sic] when they were behind the scenes with that . .. and a lot of the story lines ‘were exaggerated for the show ....” See Admin. Record, p. 00163 (April 7 Public Hearing Tr. 3146:4-5, 15-19) (Testimony of Charles Farmer). None of these comments have any basis in fact and were purely based on opinion and personal aneedotes. In addition to the lack of testimony relevant to the Subject Property's designation on the County's Register, the Council reviewed and considered many discriminatory statements related to the Chureh of Scientology and Narconon, ‘The Council received public comments that cluded “T really don’t think that’s what the group in California . . . the scientologists that own it care about,” and “I know there are many people . . . concerned about this group itself. They've had a lot of lawsuits against them . .. they’re not actually a very good group... they’re not very honest.” See Admin, Record, pp. 0017-158 (April 7 Public Hearing Tr. 40:18-41:6) (Testimony of Leslie Summers-Stay) (emphasis added). Similarly, the Council received public comment that ‘it’s Scientology . .. 1 don’t know what you all know about that, but that is a cult.” See Admin. Record, p. 00156 (April 7 Public Hearing Tr. 39:13-14) (Testimony of Ann Landahl) (emphasis added). Furthermore, there were written comments submitted to the Council stating that “Scientology runs this front group called Narconon, a fake rehab, as one of their ways to keep their bogus religion tax exempt.” See Admin. Record, p. 000505 (April 13, 2015 E-mail from Rosanna Leahy) (emphasis added). The Council also reviewed comments from an individual “concerned about Scientology getting a foothold in Frederick County with the Trout Run property.” See Admin. Record, p. 00510 (Transcribed telephone call from Russell Moser dated ‘April 7, 2015) (emphasis added), All of these comments are discriminatory in nature and were improperly considered by the Council. There is nothing within Section 1-23-6(B) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance that allows for consideration of the intended use or ultimate user of a property in determining iff property should be designated on the County’s Register. 32In light of the substantial, unrebutted expert testimony submitted in support of designating the Subject Property on the County’s Register, and lack of probative evidence in support of the position of the Council Members that voted against designation of the Subject Property, this Honorable Court should reverse the Couneil’s dec’ nas arbitrary and capricious. B. The Council improperly considered evidence that was not made part of the administrative record, which constitutes a denial of due process. ‘The Court of Special Appeals has held that “the rights required by due process before an administrative agency typically include the right to .. . (3) rebut adverse evidence, through cross- examination and other appropriate means . . . (5) have the decision based only upon evidence introduced into the record of the hearing ” Boehm vy. Anne Arundel County, 54 Md. App. 497, 512, 459 A.2d 590, 599 (1983). Additionally, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the decision of the Board of County Commissioners for Charles County where the Board of County Commissioners conducted a site visit and failed to inform “the parties . . . of the evidence gathered from the site visit that led the Board to credit the applicant’s testimony .. . .” Bowie v. Board of County Com’rs of Charles County, 203 ‘Md. App. 153, 170, 36 A.3d 1038, 1048 (2012). In Bowie, the Court of Special Appeals provided that “to the extent that the Board obtains information . . . and such information is not already a matter of record in the pending case... the Board needs to mindful of the right of opposing parties to be apprised of that additional evi- dence, and given an opportunity to respond.” /d. at 166, 36 A.3d at 1045-46 (internal citations omitted). In analyzing the impact of the Board’s consideration of evidence outside of the record, the Court of Special Appeals held that the Board of County Commissioners’ “failure to disclose this information and to allow the appellants to challenge this evidence through cross-examination or other means constituted a denial of due-process.” Jd. at 170-171, 36 A.3d at 1048, 33‘During the April 7 Public Hearing, Council Member Kirby Delauter stated that “I haven't heard any evidence that we have not met that criteria... Ihave heard evidence from staff, from yourself that we have [met the criteria for designation}.”. See Admin. Record, p. 00185 (April 7 Public Hearing Tr. 68:6-9), At the April 21 Public Hearing, Council Member Kirby Delauter reiterated his prior position and stated “I agree with Councilman Chmelik .. . I've seen enough to know that the designation of . . . historic designation exists . . . [and] it is pretty clear.” See Admin, Record, p. 00084 (April 21 Public Hearing Tr. 59:9-14). On that same date, the Council approved a motion by a 4-3 vote, to “clase the record on the [Subject Property’s] request for historic designation and continue the issue to a council meeting more than 30 days from today to allow the Council Members to review” the Record. See Admin. Record, pp. 00223-224 (April 21 Public Hearing Meeting Minutes) (emphasis added). The Council was aware that it was pre~ cluded from considering any material or statements that were not included in administrative record, The County Attorney, John Mathias advised the Council “if there’s additional informa tion that you obtain ... it would need to be included in the record if it’s going to be the basis for a decision.” See Admin. Record, p. 00195 (April 7 Public Hearing Tr. 78:6-9). Nonetheless, after the Record was closed on April 21, 2015, Council Member Kirby Delauter voted against designating the Subject Property as a historic site at the June 2 Meeting. See Admin. Record, p. 00222 (Minutes from June 2 Meeting). During the June 2 Meeting, Council Member Kirby Delauter expressly acknowledged that he considered communications from his constituents, stating that the Subject Property is “very close to . . . many constituents [who] have contacted me about it,” and “when you talk about persuasion, J haven’t met one constituent that’s been persuaded. So if I'm going to represent my district, I've got some reser- vations about it.” See Admin. Record, pp. 00011 (June 2 Meeting Tr. 11:16-17, 18-21) (empha- 34sis added), Similarly, during the June 2 Meeting, Council Member Jerry Donald stated “if you walk within 2 miles of my house, you're going to bump into private camps .. . if | can find three of these within two miles of my house... It's not rare... .” See Admin, Record, p. 00010 (June 2 Meeting 10:18-21) (emphasis added). It is clear from these Council Members’ state- ments that these Council Members relied on information that was received after the Record was. closed and/or was never made part of the Record, The Council Members’ reliance upon information received after the Record was closed and/or was never made part of the Record, deprived Petitioner of an opportunity to cross- examine or rebut any of this information, As a result, the Council denied the Petitioner its due process rights under the United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution, ‘The denial of the Petitioner's due process rights only further evidences the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the Council reached its decision denying the Petitioner’s Application. The Council obviously decided the Petitioner's Application based on who the Petitioner is, and not what Trout Run is as a property. Such governmental behavior violates Petitioner's rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Constitution of Maryland. C, Remand is inappropriate because the Council could reach no other decision other than to approve the Petitioner’s Application, and the Council acted in a discriminatory manner. Although the Council failed to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law to ‘support its denial of the Petitioner’s Application for designation of the Subject Property on the County's Register, this Court is authorized to review the administrative record and issue a decision reversing the Council's denial of the Petitioner's Application. 35In Potomac Elec. Power Co., “four commissioners who voted gave statements concemn- ing their respective votes,” but the District Council failed to issue written findings of fact or conclusions of law, 263 Md, at 162, 282 A.2d at 114, Asa result, the special exception failed for want of a majority vote. Instead of remanding the case back to the District Couneil for written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Circuit Court found that “Pepeo had ‘established the need for the electric substation; that the criteria for the requested special excep- tion had been clearly established . . . and that, in effect, there was no competent, material or substantial evidence to support a contention to the contrary.” Id. (emphasis added). Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeals found that the Circuit Court properly directed the District Council to grant the special exception application, 1d. Here, the Petitioner provided overwhelming evidence in support of the Subject Property's satisfaction of the criteria for designation as a listed site on the County’s Register. First, the HPC affirmatively and unanimously voted twice to recommend the Subject Property to the Council “for listing on the Frederick County Register of Historic Places” based on three separate acceptable criteria. See Admin. Record, p. 00237. Second, testimony and written reports from multiple experts were submited in the Record that demonstrated that the Subject Property satisfied the same three separate criteria identified by the HPC. See Admin, Record, pp. 000S7- 72 (April 21 Public Hearing Tr.), pp. 00174-175 (April 7 Public Hearing Tr. 57:8-58:12), pp. 00248-266. Third, the Department of Planning forwarded its staff report to the Couneil that also recommended that the Subject Property be designated on the County's Register as it satisfied the relevant criteria under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. See Admin. Record, p. 00233. 36Furthermore, there is no competent or material evidence in the Record rebutting the substantial evidence supporting the Petitioner's Application, Rather, the only “evidence” submitted in opposition to the Petitioner's Application is immaterial to determining whether the Subject Property satisfies one of the ten criteria for designation on the County's Register. As discussed infra, the only “evidence” opposing the Petitioner's Application was discriminatory because of the Petitioner’s relationship with the Church of Scientology. Additionally, the “evidence” was purely based on personal opinions and anecdotes and not substantiated facts ‘“[Wy]hen there is no sufficient probative evidence, so that issues are not fairly debatable, the action of the District Council is arbitrary and capricious and hence a denial of due process of law.” Potomac Elec, Power Co., 263 Md. at 162, 282 A.2d at 114. This Honorable Court should find that the Record here clearly supports the granting of P joner’s Application for designation of the Subject Property on the County's Register, that there was no competent, material or substantial evidence to support a contrary finding, and direct the Council to grant Petitioner's Application thereby listing the Subject Property on the County’s Register. Remanding the matter for further consideration to a Council that has already demonstrated its bias is inappropriate. Colao v. County Council of Prince George's County, 109 Md. App. 431, 468, 675 A.2d 148, 166-67 (1996). VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's appeal should be granted and the Couneil’s June 2 decision should be reversed. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court (i) find that the Couneil’s decision was arbitrary and capricious; (ii) the Council's decision improperly discriminates against the Petitioner for its religious affiliations; (iii) remand this matter back to 37the Council with instructions that the Petitioner’s Application be granted and the Subject Property be designated on the County’s Register; and (jv) grant any and other such relief as the Court's deems proper and just. [SIGNATURES ON THE NEXT PAGE] 38.Respectfully Submitted, LINOWES AND BLOCHER LLP 7 {fer L. Kneeland, Esquire 30H) 961-5205 (phone) jkneeland@linowes-law.com Mr By: ‘Matthew M. Gordon, Esquire (301) 961-5233 (phone) mgordon@linowes-law.com 7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (301) 654-2801 (fax) 39ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2) day of October, 2015 1 caused a copy of the foregoing Memorandum of Law to be served via first class United States mail, postage pre-paid, on the following: ‘ya 5290170¥6/12451. 0002 John S. Mathias, Esq. County Attomey Winchester Hall 12 E, Church Street Frederick, Maryland 21701 Attorney for Frederick County Council and Frederick County, Maryland Katherine McBride 114 Wabash Street Hancock, MD 21750 Mark R. Long PO Box 495 ‘Thurmont, MD 21788 Kimberly Mellon 14522 Water Company Road Cascade, MD 21719 Louise Barry 5219 Wigville Road Frederick, MD 21788 Charles Farmer PO Box 1404 Frederick, MD 21702 \ Ie ee L. Kneeland 40EXHIBIT “A”Frederick County, Maryland Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 1-23: HISTORIC PRESERVATION tection 1-2-1 Authority 123.2 Purpose 1-233 Definitions 123-4 Historie Preservation Commission 1-235 Powers and duties 1-23-6 Designation 123-7 Application for certificate of appropriateness and Commission review 1-23-8 Demolition by neglect 1-23-9 Maryland Historizal Trust 1-23-10 Appeals 1-23-11 Violtions 1-23-12 Changes and emendments 1-23-13. Severability 1-23-14 Applicability ross references: Buildings, see Chapter 1-6; Planning and development, see Chapter 1-13, 1.23-1, AUTHORITY. “The county derives authority for this chapter by vistue ofits conformance with provisions ofthe State of Maryland Enabling Act for {istorie Area Zoning (Md. Code Ann., Land Use Aricl, Title 8, as amended). Ord, 9716-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 14-23-678, 11-13-2014) }1.23.2. PURPOSE. (A) The preservation of sites, structures, and districts of hstoricl archeological, or architectural significance, together with their pppurtenances and environmental stings s 1 public purpose inthe county. (B) It's the further purpose of this article to: (1). Safeguard the heritage ofthe county by preserving sites, structures, or districts which reflect elements of the county's lukural, social, economic, potical, architectural, or archaeological history; (Q) Stabiize and improve property values of such sites, structures, or districts; (3) Foster civie beauty;(4) Strengthen the economy of the county; (5) Preserve and enhance quality of fies (6) Promote the preservation and appreciation of the ste, structures, and districts forthe education and welfare of the residents Fike county; (1D _ Develop an awareness among property owners of the value of preserving, protecting, and restoring areas of historical, rchacological, or architectural significance; and (8) Enable the county to identify and officially designate ses, stroctures, and dstriets of historical, archaeological, or architectural ‘nportance tothe county in order to make such sites structures, and districts eligible for specific benef that may be availble from ‘arious local, state, or federal programs. Ord, 97-16-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 14-23-678, 11-13-2014) 1.23-3, DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Histore Preservation Ordinance, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively scribed to them, ALTERATION. Any exterior change that would affect the historic, archeological, or architectural significance of a designated site ‘structure, any portion of which is visble or intended to be vse from a public way, incuding, but not limited to, construction, construction, moving, or demolition, APPURTENANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS. Al that space of grounds and structures thereon which surrounds “designated site, preservation district, or structure and to which relates physically or visually, and is within the designated boundary ‘fhe site, preservation district, or structure, APPURTENANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS shal include, but not be mnited to, walkways and driveways (whether paved or not), tees, landscaping, pastures, croplands, waterways, open space, setbacks, rks, public spaces, and rocks, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, A cerlifcate issued by the Historie Preservation Commission indicating ts approval plans for construction, aeration, reconstruction, moving, or demolition of an individually designated landmark, site, or structure or of site or structure within a designated preservation district. DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. Any will neglect in the maintenance and repair of an individually designated landmark, site, or tructure, ora site or structure within a designated preservation district, that does not resul from an owner's financial inability to taintan and repair such landmark, site, or structure and which results in any ofthe folowing consitons: (1) The deterioration of the foundations, exterior walls, roofs, chimneys, doors, or windows so as to ereate or permit a hazardous «unsafe condition to exist, as determined by the current builing code of Frederick County; or (2) The deterioration of the foundations, exterior walls, roofs, chimneys, doors, or windows, the lack of adequate waterproofing, ‘the deterioration of interior features which will or could result in permanent damage, injury, or loss of or lss to foundation, exterior valls, oof, chimneys, doors, or windows. EXTERIOR FEATURES. The erchtectural style, design, and general arrangement of the exterior of an historic structure, inching ne nature and texture of building material, and the type and style ofall windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, or similar items found on or elated to the exterior of an historic structure. LANDMARK. Any designated site or structure outside the boundaries ofa preservation district that is of exceptional historic, rheological, or architectural significance. PRESERVATION DISTRICT ot HISTORIC DISTRICT. A significant concentration, inkage, or continuity of sites, structures, or _bjects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A PRESERVATION DISTRICT or HISTORIC DISTRICT shall inchude al property within its boundaries as defined and designated by the county, RECONSTRUCTION. The process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail ofa vanished structure, or part hereof, asi appeared ata specific period of time. REHABILITATION. The process of making possible a compatible wse for a property through repair, alterations, and aditionshile preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. RENOVATION, See REHABILITATION. RESOURCE, Any buiking structure, ste, or object that is part of or constitutes an histori property. RESTORATION. The process of acourstely recovering the form and details of property as it appeared at a specific period of ime by means of removal of later work and the replacement of work missing from that period SITE. The location of an event of historic significance or a structure, whether standing or ruined, which possesses historic, uuchitectural, archeological, or cultural significance. STRUCTURE. A combination of material to form a construction that is stable, including but not imited fo buikings, stadiums, eviewing stands, platforms, stagings, observation towers, radio towers, Water tanks and towers, testes, bridges, piers, paving, sulkheads, wharves, sheds, coal bins, sheers, fences, and display signs visible or intended tobe visible from a puble way. The term STRUCTURE shall be construed as if folowed by the words "or part thereof." (Ord. 9716-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 10-19-S54, 7-13-2010; Ord. 1423-678, 11-13-2014) } 1-23-44, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. (A) Historic Preservation Commission. The county hereby creates a Commission to be called the Frederick County Historie >reservation Commission. (B) Membership. (1) The Historic Preservation Commission shall consist of 1 fil members appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by he County Council Two alternate members shall also be appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by the County Council, The akernate members shal vote on matters before the Historic Preservation Commission inthe absence of any full members in recordance with the Commission's rues of procedure, All members ofthe Commission shall be residents andlor property owners of he County of Frederick All members shall possess a demonstrated special interest, specific knowledge, or professional or academic raining in such fields as history, architecture, architectural history, planning archeology, anthropology, curation, conservation, andscape architecture, histris preservation, urban desiga, or related disciplines. (2) At ast 2 members of the Comission shall possess professional or academic training in 1 or more of the above-listed fields accordance with the minimum professional requirements of the United States Department of the Interior for certifying lca overnments under 36 C-F-R. Part 61. A good: faith effort to locte and appoint such professionals will be made and documentation as, ‘o how this effort was accomplished shall be retained by the county. 3) Not more than 5 of the Commission members shall be selected from nominations submitted by the County Chamber of omnmerce, the County Buiklers' Association, the County Bar Associaton the County Board of Reaktor, the Farm Bureau and the Somona Grange #11. These organizations shall have the right not to submit nominations in which case the County Executive shall select members as nacessary fo meet the other requirements in this section. The County Executive may consui other private societies St agencies to request the names of possible members on the Commission, Geographic diversity within the county shall be goal (©) Commission membership qualification criteria. The requirement for Commission memiership under the category of Jemonstrated special interest may be satisfied by formal traning in 1 or more of the felis Usted in paragraph (B). The requirement for rnembership under the category of specific knowledge may be satisfied by formal past secondary education, employment or practical txperience in 1 or more ofthe above-Isted fields. The requirement for Commission membership under the category of professional or teademis training may be satisfied by, at a minimum, 2 years experience as a professional or a bachelor’s degree in one or more ofthe above-listed fies (D) Terms, Commission members and alterates shal be appointed for terms of 3 years, except thatthe terms ofthe initia] appointments shall be staggered so that 4 members shall serve terms of 3 years, 4 members shall serve terms of 2 years, and 3 “embers shall serve terms of I year, and | alternate shall serve for 3 years and the second akemate shall serve for2 years, so that tot more than 5 appointments shall expire in a given year. Commission members may be reappointed. (E) Commission officers. The Commission shall elect, from its membership, a Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson. The ‘Shairpefson and Vice-Chairperson shal serve for | year terms and shal be eligible for reelection, (©) Vacancy. Any vacancy inthe membership ofthe Commission caused by the expiration ofa term, resignation, death, incapacityco discharge dutes, removal for cause, or any other reason, shal be fled for a new term, or forthe remainder of the term for which here isa vacancy, as the case may be in the same manner as provided herein forthe appointment ofthe inal members of the ommission. Any vacancy on the Commission shall be filed by the appointing authorty within 60 days. In the case of expiration of term, a member may continue to serve until the member's successor is appointed. Unexcused absence at 3 consecutive meetings shall ‘onstiute resignation by the member and shall create a vacancy. (© Removal for cause. A member may be removed by the County Executive fiom the Commission for cause, upon writen sharges, and after a publc hearing, by the County Executive or designee. (Compensation. Commission members shall serve with the compensation thatthe county governing body deems appropriate, as he county governing body provides inthe annual budget. (Meetings. The Commission shall hold such regular meetings and hearings as necessary to discharge its duties. (0) Staff. Consistent with the county's policies and procedures, employees may be assigned to the Comission, and such services rd facilities shall be made available as the county deems necessary or appropriate forthe proper performance of is duties. Ord. 97-16-194, 12-2-1997; Ord. 14-23-678, 1-13-2014) |1-23-5, POWERS AND DUTIES. (A) As pert ofits powers and des, the Historie Presertion Commision: (1) Shall adop rus forthe organization and conduct of meetings; ©) Shat act upon all applications for cerifets of appropriateness; (9) Shall maintain and update the Maryland Inventory of Historie Properties for Prederck County, (4) Shall revew all petions for designation tothe Frederick County Register of Historic Places and submit recommendations te county governing body (5) Forareas which are located within a designated historic st, structure, or dtc, or which have preservation easements, the ‘ominission shall review any application for a zoning text or map amendment conditional use, variance, sit plan or subdivision ‘oroval, and any legislation or ether proposals, including preperation end amendment of master plans, and may make commendations thereon tothe appropiate authorities; (6) Shallhave the right to accept and use gits and services forthe exercise offs funetions which are given to the county pecifically for use by the Historie Preservation Commission; (7) Shall adopt rehabilitation and new construction design guidelines and criteria for contruction, alteration, reconstruction rept, oving and demolition of property in designated districts or individually designated sites or landmarks which are consistent with the {ecretary ofthe Interin’s Standards for Treament of Historic Properties. Guidelines may include design characteristics intended to neet the needs of particular types of sites, structures, and districts, and may identify categories of changes that do not require review 'y the Commission because they are minimal in nature and do not affect histori, archaeological or architectural significance. These lesign guidelines shall be used in the Historie Preservation Commissions review of eppliations for certificates of appropriateness; (8) May, atthe request of an owner or applicant, offer consutation with respect to changes to interior features; and (9). Shall review and recommend for action by the county governing body the acquisition of historic preservation easements on Jesignated landmarks, structures, or ses and, when deemed appropriate by the Commission, sites or structures located in, or adjacent 0, designated district, consistent with the county's ordinances, resolutions, local publc law, pobcies and procedures. (B) In addition, the Historic Preservation Commission shall have all the powers and authority enumerated in Md. Code Ann., Land Jse Article, Tle 8, as presently covtied and as may be amended from time to time. (Ord, 97-16-19, 12-2-1997; Ord, 14-23-678, 11-13-2014) j1-23-6, DESIGNATION. (A) Designation. The county governing body may designate boundaries for landmarks, sites, structures, or districts of historic,rcheological or architectural significance aftr a public hearing thereon, consistent with adopted criteria for such designation (B) Criteria for designation, In consideing any property for designation to the Frederick County Register of Historic Places, the viewing agencies, boards, or commissions shall consider the following criteria. (1) Histor, archaeological, and cultural significance: (a) The property has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritsge, or eutural characteristics of be county, state, or nation; (©) The property ithe ste of an histori event (©) The property identified with a person or group of persons who uence sos or (© The property exemplifies the cuba, econo, soca posal or hstrichertage ofthe county and ts commits (2) Architectural and design significance: (e) The property embodies te distinctive characterises of type, pei, or method of consiustn or architecture (6) "The property represents the work ofa master craftsman, architec, or builder, (©) The property possesses significant aris vals (6) The property represents a significant and distinguishable entty whose components may lk intvdual dissing (©). The property represents an estabished and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or county, due tis ingular physical characteristics, lmdscape, or historical event; or () The property sa rae example of a particule period, style, mater or construction technique. (© Procedure for petitioning for designation. (1) Petitions for designation or expansion shall be fled with, and on forms provided by, the Frederick County Department of >lanning and Development Review. Q) The Deparment of Planning and Development Review shall refer the petition to the Historic Preservation Commission to letermine ifthe property contained in the petition meets the requirements for historic designation. The Department of Planning and development Review shall aso notify ether appropriate agencies for comment {@)_A petition for a proposed individual ste shall be filed by, or withthe writen consent of, the egal owner of such site, (4) A petition for a proposed historic dstrct shall be fled by a legal owner or owners of property within the district. (5) (@) ‘The Historic Preservation Commission, ina public meeting, shall determine ifthe property contained in the ption meets he requirements for historic designation asset forth inthis section, Ifthe requirements are so met, the Historic Preservation Sommission shal recommend historic designation tothe county governing body. Legel property owners within a proposed historic istrict shall be notified ofthe nomination by certified mailing. (8) The recommendation for an historic district shall proceed tothe county governing boy if within 60 days of the Historie >reservation Commission finding, concurrence is obtained from both: 1. Owners of atleast 5196 of the assessed valuation ofthe real property located within the proposed histoic district and 2, Atleast 51% of the owners of the real property located within the proposed historic district, (©) In determining the owner(s) of teal property for purposes ofthis section: |. Multiple owners of single parcel are treated as 1 owner; and 2. A single owner of mukiple parcels is treated as 1 owner (6) Ifa property or district within Frederick County shal be deemed by the Historic Preservation Commission to possess unusual and special histori value tothe citizens of Frederick County, the Historic Preservation Commission may iat a petition for histori: Jesiznation, In this instance, the petition stall fist be sent tothe Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer for his or her Soneurrence that said property has unusual and special historic value. Ifthe Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer does concur‘vith the Historie Preservation Commission, then the pettion shall proceed to the county governing body. A petition for designation of tn area of special meri shall require a favorable vote of the County Council and the concurrence of the property owner(s) inthe oroposed area of special merit to receive historic designation. (D) Limitations on filing of petitions, Ifthe county declines to designate a property proposed for designation, the identical petition ‘or designation may not be refled within | year ofthe final decision by the county. If the county declines to expand the boundary of a sreviously designated historic propery, a petition for expansion which i identical to the rejected petikion may not be refled within 1 ‘ear of the final decision by the county. ‘Ord. 97-16-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 14-23-678, 1113-2014) j1-23-7. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND COMMISSION REVIEW. (A) Application for certificate of appropriateness, Before the construction, alteration, reconstruction, moving, or demolition i andertaken ofa designated landmark, site, or structure, or sie or structure within a designated district, ian exterior change is involved which would affect te historic, archeological, or architectural significance of a designated landmark, si, or structure, or structure within a designated district, the person, individual, fim, or corporation proposing to make the construction or change shall ile an ‘pplication for a certificate of appropriateness wit the Commision for permission to construct, ater, reconstruct, move, or demolish be landmark, ste or structure. Every appBcation shall be referred to and considered by the Commission and accepted or rejected by be Commission. An application which i Mentical to a rejected application may not be resubmitted within a period of 1 year after the “ejection, No certificate of appropriateness shallbe granted unfl the Commission has acted thereon as hereinafter provided. (@) Application review. Q) Inreviewing applications, the Commission shall give consideration to the historic, archeological, architectural signifieance of the landmark, ste, oF structure and its relationship tothe histrie, archeological, or architectural significance of the surrounding ares; te relationship ofthe exterior architectural features of a landmark or structure to the remainder ofthe landmark or structure and 9 he surrounding area; the general compatibilty of proposed exterior design, scale, proportion arrangement, texture, and materials tothe ‘andmark, sie or structure and to the surrounding area; and any other factors, including aesthetic factors which the Commission Jeems to be pertinent. (2) The Commission shall consider only exterior features of a landmark or ofa structure within a preservation distri, and is appurtenances end environmental setting and shall not consider any interior arrangements (3) The Commission shall not disapprove an application except with respect to the several factors specified in paragraph (1) tbove. (4). The Commission shall be stit in ts judgment of plans for sites or structures determined by research to be of histori, trcheologica, or architectural significance, The Commission shall be lenient in ts judgment of plans for sites or structures of litle tstoric, archeological, or architectural significance, or of plans involving new construction unless inthe Commission's judgment such Slans would seriously impair the historic, archeolpgical, or architectural significance of surrounding sites or structures. The Commission {not requzed to limit construction, reconstruction, or alteration tothe architectural stye of any 1 period (5) (@) Ian application is submitted for construction, reconstruction or alteration affecting a site or the exterior ofa structure or ‘or the moving or demoltion ofa structure, the preservation of which the Commission considers to be of unusual importance to 2rederick County or of unusual importance tothe state or the nation, the Commission shall attempt to formulate an economically ‘easible pln with the owner(s) ofthe site or structure forthe preservation of the site or structure. Unless the Commission satisfied tat the proposed construction, aeration, or reconstruction will not materially impair the historic, archeological, or architectural ‘ignficance of the site or structure, the Commission shall reject the appication, ting a copy of is rejection with the Department of >ermis and Inspections, where required. (&) 1. fan application is submited for construction, reconstruction or alteration, or forthe moving or demolition of a site or structure thatthe Commission considers to be of unusual importance and no economically feasible plan can be formulated, the “Sommission shall have 90 days, from the time ft conchides that no economically feasible plan can be formulated, to negotiate with the Swner and other partis in an effort to find a means of preserving the site or structure. 2. Inthe case of site or structure considered to be valuable for its historic, archeological or architectural significance, the mmission shall approve the proposed construction, reconstruction, aration, moving, or demolition despite the provisions of ‘ubsection (BXS) of this section ifThe ste or structure is a deterrent to a major improvement program which wil be of substantial benefit tothe county b,. Retention of the site or structure would cause undue financial hardship to the owner; oF ce. Retention of the site or structure would not be in the bes interests of a majority of persons inthe county. (C) Conmission decision. The Commission shall ile with the Department of Perms and Inspections a certificate documenting its pprovel, modification, or rejection of each application and plans submitted to the Commission for review. Work shall not be ‘ommenced and no building permit shall be sued on any project until notification of approval ofa certificate of appropriateness hs ‘een received by the Department of Permits and Inspections from the Commission. The fature of the Commission to act upon a ‘ompleted application within 45 days from the date the completed application was filed shall be deemed to constitute automatic ipproval of the proposed changes unless an extension of this 45 day period is agreed upon mutually by the applicant and the ommission or the application has been withdrawn. (D) Routine maintenance, Nothing ia this chapter shall be taken or construed to prevent maintenance that wil hive no material {fect on the exterior fabric or features of a designated landmark, ste, structure, or district, orto prevent customary farming operations rr landscaping that will have no material effect on te historic, archeological, or architectural significance of a designated lander, ft, structure, or district. (Ord. 97-16-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 10-19-554, 7-13-2010; Ord. 1423-678, 11-13-2014) }1-23-8, DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. (A) Inthe event of demolition by neglect, the Commission may request the Department of Permits and Inspections to notify in sting, the property owner of record as reflected on the tax ros of Frederick County and the occupant or other person responsible ‘or the maintenance of the property, ofthe deterioration, The notice shall specify the minimum tems of repair or maintenance secessary to correct the deterioration or prevent further deterioration. (B) Prior to the isuance of a written notice, the Commission may request the Department of Permits and Inspections to establish & cccord of demolition by neglect. Such a record may include dated materials such as photographs and written reports of the condition of he property 80 as to record or measure the deterioration (C) The notice shall provide that corective action shall commence within 30 days of the receipt of said notice and be completed vvthina reasonable time thereafter. The notice shall state thatthe owner of record of the property, or any person of record with any jght ttle o interest therein, may, within 10 days after the receipt of the notice, request a hearing onthe necessity of the tems and ‘ondtions contained in the notice. In the event a public hearing is requested, it shall be held by the Commission upon 30 days writen voice being mailed to al persons of record with any right, tle, or intrest in the property and o all ezens and organizations which the ommission determines may have an interest in the proceedings. (D) after the public hearing, the Commission determines tat the corrective actions remain necessary, the Commission may ‘equost Departiment of Permits and Inspections corrective action to comply with the notice within 30 days of the date of the Dommission's determination. (©) _Upon failure, neglect, or refusal ofthe property owner or other responsible person, duly notified to take the corrective action specified in the notice within the time required, the Commission may request thatthe Department of Permits and Inspections instiute any of the remedies and penaites provided by law for such violations. Ord, 97-16-194, 12-2-1997; Ord. 14-234678, 11-13-2014) j1-23-9, MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST, “The Commission may designate the Maryland Historical Trust to make an analysis of and report recommending the preservation of. site, structures, or districts of historic, archeological, architectural, or cultural sjnificance within the county. The report may include sroposed boundares of sites, structures, or districts, as well as recommendations for the identification and designation of particular ‘tes, structures, or districts to be preserved. (Ord, 9716-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 14-23-678, 11-13-2014)§ 1-23-10. APPEALS. in the event that any party is aggrieved by a decision of the Commission or the county, the party has the right of appeal to the Circuit “out in accordance with the Maryland Rules of Procedure 7-201 and following and in accordance with the provisions of Md. Code ‘snn,, Land Use Artic, (Ord, 97-16-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 14-23-678, 11-13-2014) 41-23-11, VIOLATIONS. (A) Any person, firm, or corporation, or agent of such, who violates @ provision ofthis chapter by willful performing or allowing to ve performed any construction, alteration, moving, demolition (including demolition by neglect) oF repair of any structure within a {storie district without first obtaining a certificate of appropriateness (as required), fang to comply with any final notice issued sursuant to this subtle, or disobeying or disregarding a decision ofthe Historic Preservation Commission, may be lable for a civ ronetary fine of $100, and each days violation of the provision hereof shall consti a separate offense. (B) Inaddition to other remedies and penaies, where thee is any violation of ths chapter, the Department of Permits and nspection, the Historie Preservation Commission, and the Zoning Adminstrator shall instiute appropriate action, where applicable, to srevent, enjoin, abate or remove such violations, Ord, 97-16-194, 12-2-1997; Ord. 1423-678, 11-13-2014) 1-23-12, CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS. “The Historic Preservation Commission will review this chapter every 5 years to ensure that is provisions meet the current needs of “rederick County. In addition, this chapter may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, ot repealed by the ‘ounty governing body. Any person or officer, department, board, commission or bureau ofthe county may petition for such change or tmendment; however, no such change oF amendment shall become effective until after a public hearing in relation thereto, at which sartes in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity tobe heard. At least 14 days notice ofthe tine and place of such hearing shall ve heard, At least 14 days notice of the time and place of such hearing shal be published in & newspaper of general cizeulation inthe ounty. The county governing body shal prior to any public hearing, refer al proposed changes and amendments to this chapter tothe {storie Preservation Comunision for report and recommendations. Ord, 9716-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 1423-678, 11-13-2014) j1-23-13, SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or crcummstances is held invalid for any reason, such invalidity ‘hall not affect the other provisions or any other application of this article which ean be given effect without the invalid provision or ‘pplication, and to this end, al the provisions of this chapter are hereby declared to be severable, Ord, 97-16-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 14-23-678, 11-13-2014) j1-23-44. APPLICABILITY. “The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all unincorporated lands within the terrtoral limits ofthe county. Ord, 97-16-194, 12-2-1997; Ord, 14-23-678, 11-13-2014)