MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST NR Eligible: yes DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM no~
pertyName: West Laurel Acres Subdivision Inventory Number: PG:60-43
Bond Mill at Sandy Spring Road Historic district: yes X no City: Laurel Zip Code: 20707 County: Prince George's
USGS Quadrangle(s): Beltsville
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Property Owner: Multiple Tax Account ID Number: Multiple
Tax Map Parcel Number(s): Multiple Tax Map Number: Multiple ~~~~~~~~~- ~~~~~~~~-
Project: MD 28-1 98 Agency: MD SHA
Agency Prepared By: URS Group, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Preparer's Name: Brian Cleven Date Prepared: 2/20/2015
Documentation is presented in: NIA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Preparer's Eligibility Recommendation: Eligibility recommended x Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G Complele if !he prop erly is a contributing or non-conlributing resource to a NR district/property: Name of the District/Property: Inventory Number: Eligible: yes Listed: yes
• visit by MHT Staff yes X no Name: Date:
Description of Property and Justification: (Please allach map and photo) West Laurel Acres Subdivision is 3 miles west of downtown Laurel, Prince George's County, Maryland (Figure 1-1). Located between two major metropolitan centers, Baltimore, MD and Washington, D.C. , West Laurel Acres is just north of Sandy Spring Road (MD-198), I mile west oflnterstate 95, and 1.25 miles east of U.S. 29 (Columbia Pike). The subdivision is bound by Bond Mills Road and a power line corridor on the southeast and east, Sandy Spring Road on the southwest, and it includes Parkway Road on the west and north (Figure 1-2). The boundary of the 80.5-acre inventoried property is shown on Figure 1-2. The subdivision does not have any curbs or sidewalks, except in Section 4, and landscaping is limited to lawns, accent trees in the front or side yards, and foundation plantings. It is situated in a lightly wooded area, with woods being located predominately between roads and residential developments. The subdivision is strictly residential.
The average lot size is 100 feet wide and 200 feet deep, although lots from the 1960s average only 80 feet wide and 125 feet deep. The long axes of the houses are parallel to the road with driveways approaching either side of each house. The subdivision as surveyed comprises 5 plats (Figures 1-3 thru 1-7):
West Laurel Acres, March 1, 1954;
MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST REVIEW
Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended ~
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments: NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Page2
Section 2, March I , 1955; Section 3, January 15, 1957; Section Four, June 1967; and Section 5, September 28, 1959.
The plats for Sections 3 and 5 included building restrictions with a defined 25-foot setback (Photos I and 2). Eight additional sections for West Laurel Acres Subdivision, platted in 1994 and containing modem houses from the 1990s, were not included in the study area.
The West Laurel Acres Subdivision was formerly part ofa 300-acre farm, which Alexander J. Wedderburn inherited from his father. In 1954, he subdivided the first parcel and provided a builder a few of the lots. Not satisfied with the results, Wedderburn built a house as an experiment. It sold very quickly and convinced him to resign from his job as Curator of Photography at the Smithsonian Institution and become a developer. In 1964, the development was connected to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission sewerage system. At the time, he was also developing the 20-lot Stirling Forest subdivision along Sherwood A venue, just north along Bond Mill Road (The News Leader 1964).
The West Laurel Acres Subdivision contains 157 dwellings of various architectural styles, including 4 Minimal Traditional, 2 Contemporary, 122 Ranch, 11 Split-level, and 17 Split-foyer that were constructed between 1950 and 1975 (Attachments 4 and 5). One modem house, 15500 Bond Mill Road, dates to 1992 (SDAT 2014). The ranch houses include 3 Transitional Ranch houses, 5 Ranch houses, and 114 Raised Ranch houses.
The earliest dwellings constructed by other builders show the greatest variety. These include the four Minimal Traditional-style houses, the two Contemporary-style houses, four of the five Ranch houses, and the three Transitional Ranch houses (Photos 3-6). Wedderburn built raised Ranch houses, Split-level, and Split-foyer houses.
The four Minimal Traditional style houses represent only 2.5% of the dwellings within the West Laurel Acres Subdivision. Two were built in 1953 and two more in 1954 (SDAT 2014). These are typically one-story, three-bay-wide by two-bay-deep brick houses with central front entrance that opens onto a covered stoop (Photo 3). Except for a large front picture window on the fa~ade , the windows are one-over-one-light, double-hung units with brick sills. These houses have side gable roofs with asphalt shingles and a brick chimney.
Four of the five Ranch houses started as Minimal Traditional style houses in 1953 (SDAT 2014). Based on a October 31 , 1954 advertisement in the Washington Post, these houses started as a one-story, three-bay-wide by two-bay-deep wood-frame houses with an off center front entrance that opened onto a recessed covered stoop (Photo 3; Washington Post l 954:R8). Except for a large front window on the fa~ade in what was the center bay, the windows are one-over-one-light, double-hung units. These houses have side gable roofs with asphalt shingles. In all cases, the porch has been enclosed with a new front entrance and the houses extended with at least one additional bay and the exteriors have new siding (Photo 5). The walls are clad with wood or aluminum siding. The fifth Ranch house was built in 1962 (SDAT 2014).
Out of 157 houses, only 2 Contemporary style houses were built in the subdivision, one in 1953 and the other in 1954 (SDAT 2014). These are one-story, five-bay-wide by three-bay-deep wood-frame houses with shallow front gable roofs with wide overhanging eaves (Photo 4). They have recessed, central front entrances with wood doors and single-light fixed sidelight and transom windows. The houses have a combination of fixed and awning wood-frame windows. The walls are clad with wood clapboard siding.
MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subilivision Page 3
ere are three Transitional Ranch houses built in 1953 comprising only 1.9% of the housing stock (SDAT 2014). These one- ory, four-bay-wide by two-bay-deep wood-frame dwellings have hipped roofs with louvered gablets and wide eaves (Photo 6). The front entrances open onto covered stoops with hipped roofs. Besides a large bay window with a fixed central light flanked by one-over-one-light, double-hung windows, the remaining windows are single or paired one-over-one-light, double-hung windows. The walls are clad with wood or aluminum siding.
The most prevalent house type in West Laurel Acres Subilivision is the Raised Ranch with 114 units comprising 72.6% of the houses. They were built between 1950 and 1964 except for one built in 1971 (SDAT 2014). The Raised Ranch houses are wood frame walls clad with wood clapboard, aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl siding and brick chimneys (Photos 7 to 10). The facades are clad in brick veneer. The Raised Ranch house type has a side gable roof with wide eaves, and exterior chimney on a side elevation, a central front entrance opening onto a raised stoop, and a large front flat or bow multi-paned window on one side and two windows (double or single) to the other side. There were 54 Raised Ranch houses with the single windows; 9 of these had a low pitch front gable roof over the single windows on the fai;ade (Photos 7 and 8). There were 45 Raised Ranch houses with the double windows; 38 of these had a low-pitch front gable roofover the main entry and the large window on the faiyade (Photos 9 and IO) .
There are 13 examples of more linear Raised Ranch houses with interior chimneys between the living area and bedrooms (Photo 11 ). There are two Raised Ranch houses with a projecting gable wing and a side gable rear appendage that contains the front stoop and entry. This type of Raised Ranch has a more compact footprint, which is uncommon for house type associated with horizontal massing. Although not described in detail, "The Ranch House in Georgia" historic context defines this as a Transverse Linear Ranch (Sullivan, Reed and Fedor 2010).
The 11 Split-level houses in the neighborhood comprise 7% of the housing stock (Photos 13 and 14). From the front, IO of the houses are Raised Ranch Houses with a center entrance that opens onto a stoop and three one-over-one-light, double-hung windows and a large window on the other side. The large front windows are either flat or bow windows. Flat windows are nine light fixed windows (Photo 14) or a center fixed windows flanked by one-over-one-light, double-hung windows (Photos 13). The bow windows were 15-light fixed windows. The rest of the windows are single or paired one-over-one-light, double-hung · dows. One of these houses has three front dormers with single windows (Photo 14). These houses differ from the Raised Ranch use in that the front of the house is one level, but the rear of the house splits into two levels. Consequently, they have saltbox roofs. Nine of these houses were built in 1957 and the last other was built in 1958. The last Split-level House is a more traditional type with a two-story front gable wing that is split by a one-story side-gable wing. It was built in 1956.
The last houses consist of 17 Split-foyer houses comprising I 0.8% of the housing stock are inilicative of the growing demand for larger houses in the 1960s and 1970s. These houses were built between 1963 and 1975. These two-story houses are four-bays-wide and two-bays-deep with a central front entrance with sidelights. The fa'Yade had a paired one-over-one-light double-hung wood sash windows to one side of the entrance and single and paired windows to the other side. The front windows have wood shutters. The other elevations had single one-over-one-light, double-hung windows with no shutters. The side gable roofs have asphalt shingles. A wide, exterior, brick chimney is located on a gable end. The Split-foyer house type evidences three stylistic influences: Colonial Revival, Greek Revival, and Georgian Revival. The six Colonial Revival houses have a pedimented front entrance flanked by sidelights with three-lights and one panel (Photo 15). The six Greek Revival houses have a broken pediment central entrance with single-light side lights and two-story, three-bay front porch with Tuscan columns (Photo 16). The five Georgian Revival houses have a two-story, four-bay, full fa'Yade, shed roofed porch with square posts and central entrance with five-light sidelights.
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Page4
Historic Context
The history of suburban development in Maryland's Montgomery and Prince George's counties is the story of transportation development and Federal government expansion. Early suburbs within this area attracted the wealthier individuals, who desired to live in areas far from noxious and physically unpleasant manufacturing operations, and the urban working poor. Washington D.C. did not have a strong industrial or manufacturing base such as those located in other eastern or upper Midwest cities that developed in the late 19th century. Washington D.C. was, however, crowded and had a very low elevation. During and after the Civil War, many former slaves were attracted to the city, along with soldiers and "camp followers" (e.g., 4,000 women who followed General Hooker's army). Small suburbs began to develop in the northwest area of the District located at higher and more healthful elevations, such as Meridian Hill and LeDroit Park, both within walking distance of the city center (KCI 1999:B-25). These streetcar suburbs reflected the Olmstead Brothers' community design ideals. The contours of the land drained sewage and storm water into swampy areas, brooks and streams.
The Civil Service Act of 1883 removed the patronage system from Federal government civil service job opportunities and replaced it with a merit system overseen by the United States Civil Service Commission. As the Federal government grew, so did the city of Washington D.C. To provide for inexpensive housing to support the growing middle class, streetcar suburbs were developed in the areas of Maryland that surrounded the District. By the 1880s, many northerners who came to the area to work as government clerks became real estate developers and created suburbs along the Metropolitan Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (KCI 1999:B-30). A stable middle class developed and real estate developers built suburbs along the railroad line in Prince George's County, and northeast to Takoma Park and northwest toward Chevy Chase in Montgomery County (KCI l 999:B-26).
Growth of Streetcar Networks, the Automobile, and Suburbanization
Construction of electric trolley lines in the 1890s through the 1920s continued the growth and development of suburban areas around the District and into surrounding counties. Streetcar lines that extended into Montgomery and Prince George's counties enabled commuters to travel 10 miles to the central city within 30 minutes. Washington D.C. became a metropolitan area: a high density urban region surrounded by lower density suburbs whose residents commuted to the urban center. By encouraging growth away from the cities, the electric streetcar lines encouraged suburban growth and guaranteed having the large number of riders needed to keep their fares low (KCI 1999:B-4). Architectural pattern books or catalogs arrived in the mail and provided inexpensive house plans that fit within narrow urban lots. Developers divided and sold land, but they did not plan communities or build houses (KCI 1999:B-31). Most of these communities were laid out in grid patterns, regardless of the topography or how they would physically connect to other developments. Because few had commercial centers, shopping required a trip into the city. These developments were intended to attract the middle class of government clerks who worked in the city. An exception to this was Chevy Chase, a country club community intended for the upper middle class, which boasted amenities such as running water, bathrooms, gaslights and telephones.
Although 15 percent of African Americans in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area lived in suburbs, most had restrictive covenants on properties, prohibiting sale or lease to racial and ethnic minorities. A number of Washington's earliest suburbs were exclusively African American. With help from the Freedman's Bureau, areas such as Hillsdale and Uniontown across the Anacostia were established. With the extension of streetcar lines, additional African American neighborhoods developed in the metropolitan area such as Fairmount Heights and North Brentwood. These suburbs were typically on steep or flood prone land thal did not attract attention from developers outside the African American community. The development of these neighborhoods enabled African Americans to aspire to the American dream of homeownership (KCI 1999:B-38).
With the turn of the century came Henry Ford's Model-T car. This mass-produced, affordable automobile provided access to the MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Page 5
eas between the rail lines, opening new areas for suburban development. Early auto-suburbs were first simple appendages to the eetcar suburbs, but soon these developments had lower density housing and roads for pleasure driving, resulting in parkways that banned buses and trucks (KCI l 999L:B-9 as cited in Mueller 1981 :41 ).
House catalogues began to include designs for detached garages as the suburban residents became increasingly dependent on the automobile. Innovative planning theories and models, such as the "Radburn idea" influenced auto suburbs with the development of superb locks, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and park areas anchoring residential developments (Tishler 1989: 179).
Local and Regional Planning and Zoning and Suburbanization
During the 1920s, regulation of suburban development in the greater Washington D.C. metropolitan area began with the advent of planning and zoning. The Maryland General Assembly created the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission in 1916 to study the coordination of planning and providing water and sewage djsposal in the belt around Washington D.C. (Brugger 1990:442).
In 1926, Congress created the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) as an advisory body. This commjssion had far-reaching impact on future land use, development, and related regulations in Montgomery and Prince George's counties (Hiebert and MacMaster 1976:285). In 1928, the M-NCPPC adopted a zoning ordinance and appointed the first Board of Zoning Appeals and the first bujlding inspector. The development and widespread use of zoning protected property values by preventing adjacent incompatible uses. During a time of rapid economic and social change, creating zones for specific land use classifications provided some protection from less than desirable aspects of economic progress (Levy 2003 :37).
In "Maryland & American: 1940 to 1980," George Calicott describes the four cultures of Maryland: Baltimore City; the Eastern Shore and Southern Maryland; Western Maryland; and Suburbs. Calicott notes that until the 1920s, Montgomery County was part of Western Maryland and Prince George's County was part of Southern Maryland (Calicott 1985:19). Prior to the automobile, the electric trolley car lines did not result in suburban development and populatjon growth substantial enough to alter the character of Montgomery and Prince George's counties. During the 1920s, the two counties grew 19 percent, which exceeded the state's owth rate for the first time (Calicott 1985:20).
ederal Housing Programs and Suburbanization
As a component of the National Housing Act of 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) offered Federal mortgage insurance to builders and developers and low-interest, long-term loans to potential homeowners. FHA financing was only available for houses in suburbs that met FHA standards. Subdivision designs had to follow the area's topography and contain a hierarchical system of residential and collector streets. The standards were actually suggestions and included regulations for the width of streets and intersections, regular placement of trees, and proscribed size of blocks and lots. Preferred designs included thoroughfares that facilitate automobile traffic passing through the commuillty and provided residences on cul-de-sacs and lots with deep setbacks for privacy. Despite the early implementation of the FHA guidelines by the end of the 1930s, suburbs typically represented a dispersed and scattered settlement fabric "increasingly dependent on near-total automobility" (KCI l 999:B-8 as cited in Mueller 1981 :40- 41 ). By 1941 , 32 states had designated local planning commissions that generally adopted the FHA standards and enforced them through local zoning.
World War II brought new government workers to the nation's capital from all over the country. Following World War II, the provision of adequate housing was the area's most pressing need. Few houses were built during the sixteen years of economic depression and war. In the five years from 1947 to 1952, more new houses were erected in the four suburban counties around Washington D.C. than had been built there in all the preceding centuries. Prior to the 1940s, the public perceived suburbs as
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Page6
residential areas for rich commuters, executives and managers who lived on the city outskirts and enjoyed their weekends playing golf and gardening. Between 1945 and 1965, suburbanites were typically middle-class bureaucrats that were apolitical (Calicott 1985:20). Between 1940 and 1980, Maryland workers employed by government agencies increased from 5.9 to 24.5 percent of all employed state residents (Calicott 1985:224).
Families formed and grew rapidly after the war. In 1943, the birthrate reached its highest level in two decades. Relocated workers, returning servicemen, and new families all needed housing that was not available. The Federal government-sponsored mortgage insurance programs enabled a suburban housing boom unequaled in previous American experience. The national landscape was transformed by the post-1945 suburb. Material possessions, not inherited status, determined a new social class structure in America (KCI I 999:B- l 0).
Maryland Highway Expansion and Suburbanization
By the late 1940s, Maryland needed to improve the inefficient transportation system throughout the state as a result of rapidly growing traffic volumes, new suburban development, and the growth of military installations in the state and region. Proposing limited access expressways in the Baltimore and Washington regions, Maryland Governor William Preston Lane, Jr. introduced "The Five Year Program" to the Maryland General Assembly in 1947, which proposed :financing of necessary bridges and highways (Bruder 2010:23). The Maryland General Assembly agreed with Lane's proposal and passed the "Expressway Highways Act" that same year (Baltimore Metropolitan Council 2005:2). The 1947 Expressway Act provided funding and authorized the Maryland State Roads Commission (SRC) with the construction and reconstruction of757 miles of highway and major bridge projects, such as the Baltimore-Washington Expressway (later MD 295), Harrisburg Expressway (US 111/Later I-83), Washington National Pike (later 1-270), and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (Bruder 2010:24).
By 1953, funds were either spent or committed for the Five Year Program, initiating the SRC to develop a new report entitled Proposed 12-Year Program for Road Construction and Reconstruction, 1954-1965 (Baltimore Metropolitan Council 2005 :2). The proposal noted that although its highway system was expansive, it consisted of an old system with many rehabilitated roads that were in need of standardization to match newly-constructed roadways. The Twelve Year Program identified which roads would be built or improved, and prioritized these projects to ensure their completion over the twelve year period. The project was divided into three four-year intervals: 1954-1957, 1958-1961, and 1962-1965 (Bruder 2010:29). The Maryland General Assembly approved the Twelve Year Program and appropriated funds for the project through new sales and gas taxes, increased registration fees, and the issuance of new bonds. The new or improved highways from this program transformed Maryland's landscape and connected neighboring areas within the state with ease and speed. Between 1952 and 1975, Maryland constructed 15 major highways, all but two serving the suburbs. These included the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway (1957) and I-95 between Baltimore and Washington (1971) (KCI 1999:B-41).
Federal Highway Expansion and Suburbanization
The 1956 Interstate Highway Act, also known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, established the interstate highway network throughout the country. During Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of I 938 authorized a feasibility study of a national six-route toll network (National Interstate and Defense Highways Act 1956). World War II disrupted this initiative. In the summer of 1940, the Maryland State Roads Commission received a proposal from the U.S. War Department to evaluate existing road systems and to propose new construction priorities for national defense systems surrounding the nation's capital (MD State Roads Commission Report 1939-1940:5). Following World War II, the Federal Highways Act of 1944 was authorized.
MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Page 7
resident Dwight D. Eisenhower believed in the importance of a national highway system for defense purposes. He was impressed the access Germany's Autobahn provided during the war and believed a national highway network was critical to protect the country. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 expanded the completed 6,500-mile highway system to 41 ,000 miles. The highway network included an appropriation of$25 million and was authorized from 1957 to 1969. The landscape and development of America radically changed because of this legislation. This was apparent by the late 1950s, when retailers discovered selling in suburban shopping centers was lucrative and more convenient for many shoppers, who now lived in the suburbs (KCI l 999:B-l 2). Retail development moved to the suburbs and strip malls soon began to be seen along major thoroughfares, such as Rockville Pike.
The "Maryland State Roads Commission Report ( 1955-1956)" references the development of a segment of the interstate system that has become synonymous with the greater Washington D.C. metropolitan area, the Capital Beltway. The development of the Capital Beltway (I-495) is recognized today as one of the most important public improvement projects that transformed the Washington, D.C. region. Referenced as the "Washington Circumferential Highway" in the District No.3 1955-56 report, this circle of highway was to connect the hub of Washington D.C. with spoke-like arterial roads, such as Columbia Pike, New Hampshire Avenue and the Annapolis-Washington Expressway (now S.R.50) (State Roads Commission of Maryland 1956: 150). When the commission report was published, the section of the beltway between Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenue was under construction (State Roads Commission of Maryland 1956: 150). As a result, Montgomery and Prince George's counties underwent rapid and significant annual growth (KCI 1999:B-41).
Growth of the Transportation Network and Military Preparedness
In the greater Washington D.C. area, two post World War Il factors contributed to the growth of suburbs and accelerated interurban road construction: the perceived need to provide quick access in and out of cities in case of a military attack on the capital, and to increase accessibility to shifting industrial and business areas (KCI 1999:B-12). The development of the atomic bomb led to the realization that a single weapon could destroy an entire city. To address this issue, the Federal government began to decentralize and agencies were re-located outside the District. Maryland benefited from this de-centralization.
e National Institutes of Health was located in Bethesda, along with the Bethesda Naval Hospital, and both institutions continued grow throughout the 1950s. The Atomic Energy Commission was located in Germantown in 1956 and the Bureau of Standards ocated in Gaithersburg in 1959. The burgeoning space program also brought large corporations to the area, including International Business Machines (IBM) in Rockville (KCI 1999:B-l 7 as cited in Hiebert and MacMaster 1976:351-355). The populations of the Montgomery County communities of Bethesda and Wheaton soared during this period. New suburbs began to in-fill areas that had previously seen little growth, including the area east and southeast of the District boundaries in Prince George's County.
During World War II, Prince George's County was home to the Camp Springs Airfield. The airfield became home to a permanent force in April 19, 1943, followed by and the formal designation of Andrews Field in 1945. In 1947 the airfield was re-designated Andrews Air Force Base and is now called Joint Base Andrews (United States Air Force 2012). Growth of the base paralleled increased suburban development in Prince George's County.
Patterns of Suburbanization
The Circumferential Highway or Beltway changed the pattern of commercial development and the landscape of highways. Strip development altered the formerly rural open landscape of the highway to landscapes of"closed urban sections through heavily populated areas" (Maryland State Roads Commission Report 1956: 150). The 1957-1958 SRC report stated that the new Washington Circumferential was being constructed as modem dual highways as they are on the Interstate system (Maryland State Roads Commission Report 1956:150). MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Page 8
In "The Crabgrass Frontier," author Kenneth Jackson notes that a distinguishing element of suburban development from this period is an increase in the number, importance, and size of large residential construction companies. Unlike the mass assembly line production of Ford's Model-Ts, a highly fragmented group of workers and tradesmen typically constructed residential units. Poorly organized house builders subcontracted much of the work to specialists because they did not have a sufficient volume of business. Before 1945, a typical housing contractor built five houses per year. By 1949, 10 percent of construction firms built 70 percent of alJ new homes. By 1955, three-quarters of all new housing construction in metropolitan areas occurred in suburbs (KCI 1999:B-10 as cited in Jackson 1985:233).
The firm Levitt and Sons started mass production of houses on Long Island and continued in Pennsylvania. Construction focused on speed, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Six standard house models - the Levittowner, the Rancher, the Jubilee, the Country Clubber, the Pennsylvanian, and the Colonial - were made of pre-cut wall panels and standardized mechanical systems, which significantly lowered the costs and price to the consumer (Ames and McClelland 2002:66). These small "starter houses" reflected new ideas about privacy and housing for the nuclear family, rather than the extended multi-generational family.
Design of freeway suburbs emphasized privacy, as reflected in more cul-de-sacs and fewer interconnected streets (KCI l 999:C-l l as cited in Southworth and Ben-Joseph 1997:82-84). Lots were more wide than deep, and the longest house elevation was the fa~ade or street orientation elevation. Sidewalks, although recommended by the Urban Land Institute, became increasingly rare in freeway suburbs, as residents generally drove rather than walked to other locations (National Cooperative Highway Research Program 2012:76). Some neighborhoods had sidewalks along only one side of the street, or none at all. Development of common areas and private yards increasingly included contemporary landscape design. A new western-inspired integration of indoor and outdoor living was reflected in house design that emphasized the relationship of the rear elevation to the back yard. Transparent windows and sliding patio doors provided lines of vision to yards with patios, intimate garden spaces, vistas and recreation zones (Ames and McClelland 2002:69). Garages become the norm by the late 1950s, and were integrated into overall house design. The importance of the garage and primary role of the automobile in suburban living produced some houses that appeared more garage than house, the garage projected out from exterior wall plane that contained the main entryway.
New subdivisions from the post-war era until the 1970s shared five common characteristics. These freeway suburbs were generaJly located further from the central city and residents were less dependent on the city center for services and employment. New suburbs had less density, with more land surrounding each house. Architectural similarity was another common factor. The number of available house plans per development rarely exceeded six. Although there were some regional stylistic differences, most houses were Cape Cods, Ranches or Split-levels. Part of the Modem Period of Suburbanization in Maryland, these architectural styles reflected people's desire for the convenience of technology, preferences for traditional forms, and informal spaces that focused on the family-oriented lifestyle, which came to characterize suburban living (KCI l 999:C-23). Home ownership had become the norm, not the exception, but suburbs tended to be racially, economically and generationaJly homogenous (KCI l 999:B-l l as cited in Jackson 1985:238-241). This was due, in large part, to zoning laws and the FHA and Veterans Administration (VA) mortgage insurers, who did not consider minority homeownership a good investment, which was one of the guidelines for FHA and VA mortgage insurance (KCI l 999:B-l l as cited in Ford 1994: 165). The continued expansion of the regional transportation system further spurred construction of new subdivisions in areas farther and farther away from urban areas, speeding what has become known as "suburban sprawl."
After meeting the initial need for post-war housing the demand for larger houses grew, spurred on by an economic boom and urban flight. Overcrowding in the country's urban centers, the Supreme Court's 1954 decision to desegregate public schools (Brown vs. the Board of Education), wholesale demolition of inner city neighborhoods in the name of urban redevelopment, and other factors caused a white middle-class flight from the cities to the suburbs. MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Page 9
The development of the post-World War II suburb was a national phenomenon. Legislation such as the 1956 Federal Interstate Highways Act, FHA and VA mortgage insurance programs, and adoption of locally legislated zoning codes based on FHA guidelines created the financial and regulatory infrastructure that made suburban development practical and desirable. A public eager to put the Depression and World War II behind them pursued the American dream of home ownership, and made suburbs an extremely attractive and readily achievable housing option.
Within Montgomery and Prince George's counties, some forces unique to this area contributed to the advancement of suburban development. Driven by the realization that an atom bomb could wipe out the nation's capital city, the Federal government de centralized government operations, resulting in the placement and construction oflarge Federal agencies and military facilities in Montgomery and Prince George's counties. Expansion of the Federal government in the post-World War II years created thousands of jobs. People who had previously been re-located because of the war and new residents pursuing Federal government jobs greatly increased the population, creating the need for more housing in the metropolitan Washington D.C. area. Mandated school desegregation and white middle class urban flight continued the ongoing suburban development in fonnerly ex-urban agricultural areas during the I 960s and I 970s throughout the country, and in the Maryland counties that comprise the Washington D.C. metropolitan area.
For this inventory and evaluation project, three existing historic contexts were reviewed and used to shape the summary context statement shown above. These include the Maryland State Highway Administration's (MD SHA) "Suburbanization Historic Context and Survey Methodology," the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 723 "A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing," and the National Park Service's "Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places." Because of the sheer multitude of built resources during this period that still exist in Maryland and across the United States, historic identification and evaluation efforts must function within detailed frameworks such as these to effectively evaluate and determine the significance of e built resources that are surveyed. Use of these contexts illustrates MD SRA's consistent and predictable approach for the tification and evaluation of postwar residential resources, thereby reducing costs and ensuring timely project delivery. This contextual infonnation will enable MD SHA to effectively and efficiently comply with its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, as the MD 28/198 from MD 97 to 1- 97 project moves into more detailed project planning.
National Register of Historic Places Evaluation
The West Laurel Acres Subdivision is a planned suburban development built on a 300-acre farm Alexander J. Wedderburn inherited from his father (KCI l 999:D- I 1) . The first section platted has the highest diversity of housing styles since Wedderburn initially let another builder construct a limited number of houses. Not satisfied, he built an experimental home before developing the subdivision himself This first section also has the greatest integrity issues due to large additions impacting the design and workmanship and introduction of modern materials. Sections 2, 3, and 5 have a high concentration of Raised Ranch houses constructed between 1950 and 1965 while section 4 was developed with Split-foyer houses between 1970 and J 975. Alterations to the houses in these sections include changes in materials and workmanship with new doors, windows, and siding. Houses with the largest additions and greatest renovations are located in Section 3.
West Laurel Acres Subdivision is not eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Although the development does utilize some cul-de-sacs and T-intersections, the property did not fully develop a curvilinear street pattern system. This property is MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Page 10
not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A because it is not associated with significant historic events or patterns of events such as introducing significant designs that contributed to the development of suburban landscapes. (KCI 1999:D-12). Alexander J. Wedderburn remained a small-scale developer and the development does not possess a large number of prominent or influential merchants, professionals, civic leaders or politicians (KCI l 999:D-l 4 ). Archival research does not indicate the property is associated with person(s) of historic significance and thus is not eligible under NRHP Criterion B. The property does not retain integrity of design, setting, and materials and the individual residences do not maintain an excellent level of integrity to convey the original design concept of the development (KCI I 999:D-12). Therefore, the West Laurel Acres Subdivision is not eligible under Criterion C for NRHP listing because it lacks architecturally significant building types, periods, or methods of construction, or as a district that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D was not investigated as part of this study.
Bibliography
Ames, David L., University of Delaware and McClelland, Linda Flint, National Park Service.2002. Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places. Washington D.C., National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior.
Baltimore Metropolitan Council. 2005. Major Transportation Milestones in the Baltimore Region Since 1940. Available at www.baltometro.org/reports/MajorTransMilestones.pdf. Accessed February 3, 20 I 5.
Bruder, Anne E., Maryland State Highway Administration. 2010. Tommorrow's Roads Today: Expressway Construction in Maryland, 1948-1965. Baltimore, Office of Planning & Preliminary Engineering, Environmental Planning Division.
Brugger, Robert J. 1990. Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634-I 980. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Calicott, George H. 1985. Maryland & America: 1940 to 1980. Baltimore, Maryland, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ford, Larry R. I 994. Cities and Buildings: Skyscrapers, Skid Rows, and Suburbs. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hiebert, Ray Eldon and Richard K. MacMaster. 1976. A Grateful Remembrance: The Story of Montgomery County, Maryland. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Government and the Montgomery County Historical Society.
Jackson, Kenneth T. I 985. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford Press, Inc.
KCI Technologies, Inc. 1999. Suburbanization Historic Context and Survey Methodology: 1-495/ 1-95 Capital Beltway Corridor Transportation Study, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland, Volume I. Prepared for the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration.
Levy, John M . 1994. Contemporary Urban Planning. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT). 2014. Real Property Data Search. MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM
PG:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Page 11
ttp://sdat.resiusa.org/RealProperty/Pages/default.aspx
Mueller, Peter. 1981. Contemporary Suburban America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (1956). Available at www.ourdocuments.gov. Accessed November 12, 2014.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2012. Report 723 : A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Southworth, Michael and Eran, Ben-Joseph. 1997. Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
State Roads Commission of Maryland, Report on the State Roads Commission of Maryland Fiscal Years 1953-1954. 1954. State Roads Commission of Maryland. Baltimore.
State Roads Commission of Maryland, Report on the State Roads Commission of Maryland Fiscal Years 1955-1956. 1956. State Roads Commission of Maryland. Baltimore.
State Roads Commission of Maryland, Report on the State Roads Commission of Maryland Fiscal Years 1957-1958. 1958. State Roads Commission of Maryland. Baltimore.
Sullivan, Patrick, Mary Beth Reed and Tracey Fedor. 2010. The Ranch House in Georgia: Guidelines for Evaluation. Prepared by New South Associates for Georgia Transmission Corporation. Http://georgiashpo.org/sites/uploads/hpd/pdf7Ranch_House_Evaluation_revSept2010.pdf
e News Leader. 1964. "Happy Day for Builder." The News Leader. Laurel, Maryland July 2, 1964.
ishler, William H., ed. 1989. American Landscape Architecture: Designers and Places. Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press.
United States Air Force. 2012. Joint Base Andrews History. Available at http://www.andrews.afmil/library/factsheets/. Accessed December 2, 2014.
Washington Post and Times Herald. 1954. "$8950 Including Land - on Y2 Acre." Display Ad 73. The Washington Post and Times Herald ( 1954-1959). Oct 31 , 1954, p. R8. http://search.proquest.com/docview/l 48533662/53E3D5FDFA 7F4F3BPQ/ 1?accountid=2739
MARYLAND IDSTORICAL TRUST REVIEW Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended
Criteria: A B c D Considerations: A B c D E F G MHT Comments:
Reviewer, Office of Preservation Services Date
Reviewer, National Register Program Date Cultural Resources Map
West Laurel Acres Subdivision (PG: 60-43) January 7, 2016 Sandy Spring Road at Bond Mill Drive 1:24,000 Prince George's County 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet USGS Beltsville Topo Quad Cultural Resources Map
West Laurel Acres Subdivision (PG: 60-43) January 7, 2016 Sandy Spring Road at Bond Mill Drive 1:24,000 Prince George's County 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet Tax Map 5, Multiple Parcels I I ).J- 'f'f
>648
IZ II JO / / ... ..; MAPLE. AVENVE d
8LOCJ< - A· I~ JJ JJ JZ JI JO Col~
. J
Coll.;
· -= 0LO LOVISE. ME.lt$0W w., ___,.l.,...... , ...... h , , _ __,...,._.. , ~:.f:~~f;;!a:.7!-.?a:-7 d~'f;'6 ..~--~P..J/.T'{,· • ~...lt::::l.--1.~= '::':!*;.:.:t:;.:t ..-1..':')J..~i.JZ'::.t:-~' !:;.3'3:~ ;-.:::;;~,-,.:._ .. .:! ..~:: ~=~-=:..~=.l:;;:/ii~1~2;f 14-Jw.,..,~ .j · ~~!:: f;";i;;r~-:~,., 'Joq ,- • /__:_ CV.J
[1\".:.~ -:,·~ J ,<,()- :>, .,,,_
-0 CLIENT TITLE CJ' West Laurel Acres Subdivision (PG: 60-43) Plat Map . PROJ MD 28/198 from MD 97 to 1-95 G" REVISION NO DR BY PAR 12/17/14 Bond Mill Road at Sandy Spring Road PROJ NO 15804327 0
SCALE as shown I CHK BY JW 01/05/15 Laurel, Prince George's County FIGURE ..c. \}l O'\Pl'qecls\ENV\CRMiMD SHA'ICRM Open-End eor..a 2001· 1-3 2012\BCS201002AT"*-5\T021M021-191\E.Oata\E.5 I PM ME 01/16/15 I USGS Beltsville Topo Quad )6- I'/
.%7'1'1r'c. l312u· • " 4 ~ ~~ lllJ aLoclC ID· W1NOH,,,. .S'W'f%"C. "Ol'D Ta.10"''
,,
7't.IO' .....1 i::· " ·! // ...-··· •" Y'tc11rt..,V1u ·L;t:/.:4'1t4 ./.. i1 !4bc:1< c _/· 1• I /
I... i _1 .. I ...... ,. I - ( -../ /./
p~" i."•'"\•• e .•j,. "'~' r // 'I' ~"" '\
M, lt1.Q-.l.--A.~-__,,, , ..,4 'L.~lE.f::r.if:f.!.!ilW::t':!Sr~r.,· '-""-"'" ~- (rtUU#) o_.,.,.,,,...,,._.,,..,,~- "IAt~l"tH-11••"""-T•••A-.,~·- · l-U~.... ~~~~..t;-a:..~Kt:.t:. L•..,..,-n...w.. ,_....__,,.,.~.,-L_,,.11,,, . -.~ ...... ,..,.,.,._,..~~ .....- . ,. . ~~1:1!:-Sl!:.'::1?/!::£1:3r. r 11111•1t-"'9.J.ur10,111:r-,J. •"''"'•',.••NT...,.r11 0• 1'.IM!'P111,111T"l' l#u.-•MT#a"-°'""'--'"- ••c-•llM•11•••,._., r- T•P' 3CCTION 2 ,..,.;;ROVl!'.'ol , Wcs1L11uA>a ftcR£S """ ..... :. .:. -~~ a.JJJL ~ · · -· - Hf:.a,.\_TM t\~"'1'MOft. •., ~~~:~~~.:-:·· JO•o,,r. PIHNc~ CcONc:J Cou111rr, Mo. .___l:.,_N# f'~' ~"~~\·. :....: . ~ .::--?. :x.~ ... !lotic1f-IOO' MJ1tM:N 1, 19.SS · ~ ·-G' •· --·,.,·.nolJ~ ~'41.·2.S·SS";,,----- ::;c -1'1 . CLIENT TITLE ~.. West Laurel Acres Subdivision (PG: 60-43) Plat Map, Section 2 PROJ MD 28/198 from MD 97 to 1-95 ~ 0 DR BY PAR 11 2/17/14 \ REVISION NO Bond Mill Road at Sandy Spring Road IPROJ No 15804327 I ..c SCALE as shown I CHK BY JW 101/05/15 Laurel, Prince George's County FIGURE <.,>) O'\ProJed5\ENV\CRM'IMD SHA\CRM Op9n-Enrl Corhc:l 2007· 1-4 2012\8Cs2010 OZA Tuks\TO Z7 MD zt-198\E Dat.l\E.5 I PM ME 101/16115 \ USGS Beltsville Tooo Ouad oJY-'iU J•JIJll'IWL ...... &., ~ ...... J 1••1 r::_1._ ';.._,.. I I I ..... -ii' _.w...,.-~ "'"".11-.•lJ'OD'\.'ltS«Tt. !l0of"09' Cllrl. Jll'J.0=.00't...... to IO..M' """' adL 0 J.1.Mj' 11 > ...·c» .oo't. l.&100 tilL >M'\J• oo"'L f'>LO~j,_ •t_• .n...._• U.U 11 »'"' -oo"L ,,,.. ,,,.. lOIJ"OO'·Olf&. lolU MW".16'00'1... ,. ,. IO I 1 I 6 ,...... ""'~ ..,..,_. h.n NM" ($.IO'I...... JO&o' n'\4 ,,..,...,-IO'L, 11 100' ~M ' P41llC.....,AT OuvL ... ,.! ta' OG'L ••too' "' ...... '"''°' -"· ~~ldod'L l."-~ - --·---1- --·--- ,_u-an.,. ~· ,. LO LI u L> • . ,...... ,..OO'I., 4.1.00' .. ... ,,.. .. , ,oirt. J6QI' " -1 ChlOC.I(. l'l.U.~L<(.Oll"I.. . ~ D · ...."'--'t l ,,,,,. '? ~u·- •1'-00'L.. ""°'.... , ... l y" ' ,_- , ~-~ ?--\ ~ - -..-- 1 ~ -- 1 ..,.,. .r'41lK;A -~: I ""'' I ~oo · I --· I ..,,, I -- I ,...._ l I ...... - \...,n-l, r~ ),.' ILL • ~•u ~- E<.. :_ Vr:.-... r ~ .~ .J W'l!"a... A ...... ~"J ~ ) .,j _J ~ r "'t.U.aTC,«.ll"llJT "l ...fT IU,Ulolt+t_,. Ul.Jlt;.°"" Wt., Wl.'l '--U.. ~. 1 ..C. , I>. .... ,.....,~0 .:...-..--rf. :::;:~-[' ~ l!I COllU.C.l , fl.1•T If I) /4 JoU•01¥1:.1°"' Of> ""lt1 Of Tl.IL COll-..,'TtOH , . T ~ll,.LllJltDl.CJ WLOO!l.t~,J ... L \ lA A ~ 7. l.A"'O alNVl.Yl.0 rYf -ll"'I' e. Wl.001.•-'I (Uool~ltltO) .... U loc,,.t'T1 L~L""l.Oot.l.llllilUol,.M.41.l.1.t.CT , -Nl.l.• "ID AU--.• .)OM"' w .. DDl.tMH!N, J• .. . ,. DI.LO OI f"ML f'~T'1' .-Wiii .. ND ot.K&IMD,.._.Ulolt, ' ' -' CW..UD -'f ~rt • 1 , ~D l.LCOCOl.D•• L let..al"Cl1.,», lo6Ut..rf' ·~ 'TWI, J'L.A.N OP'~OIYISION,~Aik.JSIC e>Lo<'il , " TIU N l .. INUM efJILDOllCio •U1aJCl~ L.tNU, "-e.· fla.10 •"4, Ooott,. Of T ~ I. '-"'"'° Q.<.0«.CU Ot' "fibNC.L ...,,.0 ~ ~~ COVNf'Y 1 ..U.S'l'l.ANO, Ot.0-UJ&. 114t. .)1-.U..T.> TO NklC.. 1,1.M. , L -( Tiu.1 nu. u_.u Of 3410 ~Uf.,.. oo NOT 11olt.tl. AANCJ,.),UIT.)Of,\C.110Jif,LI.~, '.: ,,,...~"' ... .,,. ,.,,." JirJ&ONI>'°" '4Lttt u-... -c:... o.Jt.OIS , Oll. T ..VS'TS DA '!loll. "90Pt.&TT l"""UIDl.D IM .r' ~r- .S. f. ...: 'L°"!. iu \.a. J '" - ' ""'0 llLCOROl.D •-C. ,.IO Vt-ND lll.CGIUI.> TM!!\ ..V... Of' ~•llMON nu."!' ""L TO'f""- •ILlA ll ...... t.laJll I~u ,.,.» .uu 1M~____ ...:._.,,:,"' ...... _,, ....,"O~ • Ili a& _., .... ___ , "6»tf ~0'11 6'&J11'1 "'""' '· &.f.)l.QI ...... 0 4Ul. tl I JJ.otC.) .... 'I1 J1'1.a.'I& UA,.n -·-"·-°'"""OVEO·-- • "'"".... 4C.00.4t. u OZ• ~LC.TIO"'~ .,M ... Ut• ~-;:, , ~ """°'"",,_ .. ulu w•t..w. i .-.oc.".. .. " u ·w1~T L.-.uau. A'u~" ~,,o ~1 1 '-" ""'°" 4046K 04 __ ,f,•lrT- " / J1•1•1 / aM"'U n c.J>&"' >flo't.1• 10T D1~-r1uc.T , Pzuri1ic.t. C:a.oR.c.t:.':. CouMTY, Mo. I) "°"'I• .)l&.'f>,l. IA "JU.O&. U._YC..> ,...... , .. ~D ,.. 5C:.A.L.L • 1·-100· jAtr.o!VAllY 1!> , 11~1 0 •111. J l'U·DO' "1'1.'01'-0C7'l U"1 llff - L•H •Llf>i'.ar 12 .. C,, 5N'(l>t.ll · ~ llll''»·- ...... ,. .. Jl'U' -oo" Nl4" CT·OO"L .U"1' 11.0,• 41."JO'-OV ...... ,.,. 2tC.13ltRr.o :>uRVt.YOll. ·~ ~""' .. ""JoVt ;./."' ..... 1&A" >1'-DO' ...... U'-40"'t,. ... w .... (JLLN 1t., FIU~ C' ....a-. ... M. ... M ' JO• ..,_ ~T "'~r'I' 5uu.. Mo. {!f... · - ' " ~ ..." .. APPROVl!'.O .... """ ..... · ~IA'-M/' >44".:00"w ...... I· . .. • .... /-/,-fl'-P..JM:, ···••-otr 111 " ' Ol' trw YlU au· ,,.. ,.... .>., ...... _. ... ~ ",,. ,..,..TM Oc.P'~M&HT, ""' ...... ,., ...,. ,.- c...... --.C.I. l;M)&&E.'S co. ':: ::~·:~~ · TITLE -0 CLIENT Maryland State HiQhway Administration n:;e::u\ENV\CRMIMO SHA\CRM Open.End Connel 2007· 1-5 V) 2012\BCS201002A Tasks\TO 27 MO 21- 198\E Dala\E.5 PM ME 01/16/15 \ USGS Beltsville Topo Quad IJ(JW OU. 1"0"° .... CSll..Y E uC'.EIJe. l:. 'T1-u::. e-; .. r.;,-:;1L~ . OWNER.~' D!:CIC... "TION t:'>IT/1,c-, ~ flC~IC:.Uf' - • "'LU-~ .. J . W•DO.-ci•u- . .Ill ,a..W) ...... crv WC.DOl-AMJQN , M!to .., ... 1 OW ! "'t.0" n ' oo"• '*-- --.- - 10 _:s 8 8 . ~~ ·"") :; I0,000/ ~ •0 ,000 •0,000 t0.nn<> 11,,n 1 I ~I I ~ I ~I! I lJ • .n' M.'no'w !'> 4 3 2 - • eNGINe&R'~ CERTIFIC•"TE '$ ~I·~·: •M>'tt'OO"W- t.Q"I•' \ • ·- t M ...... ,.. C£-Q'TU"Y 'TM ...T 'TM• PL- .,_MOWN 1<19'Q.a.. ' . ,, I \ 001ilA•C'T) TM... ,. n 1• .... •u•O•Vl•lO"I °" ,. .... QT Of'- P,..RG•L OI Oi I •50• aoo·T°'!· .c.oo .n.on i (~\ COM"'eYll-0 er HUMRT ...... """'._D, vw ~.i..RAl ~D,"Ta ... Ll.1'AMDeQ .L Wl:.~tll..N ... ,J,;:·. ~ . - I .Lh I __ :J \ <._,,,.· ~OLl=-_.~~~W~~~~1: ~~~~~ \.. =-=~:~: :,_&.c~~= OCT. 1D,l ~ tJ. ":::: •• ~=~:~~.c::~~~E::~I...... ~~~ ; ....~~"~:::~.~~M PIP•• ~ ... AIU!n ·· ..... ;!..l. ·~·x:;:'~o..:~.. ~ ;~ ~!: =;tO, t.•r<-..,.1 R ...;~·: .. 'TOT"\.. " A£>" 1...cwoao 1i.. nus. "'-•M at< ...,&Ot..,,tSIOi.. 16 • ·T7"0 At.CAI!-.,_ . • 0.0.'TW • ,JUWI&. • 1!"7 (Q,../)(ft). ,SM_ ~ SE:CTION F-OUR 1sa.no 1 ..-ao ·ao· -I .., _,,1 [ !ol .w. . Y1.&l't ~...,. ,.. •• w ~00 ~.... CICl'IO" IM'lo\ 1'9111' 1 1W.TT r.(A"; ... ,•.• ~ 1tc1no wc:ac:i•to· ~!Iii • • • " n•• JN"'5'"n- ·1•·E WE:ST LAUREL ACRES .;_ ~Mi.on M'OO¥J" i 1-3"!; n.n"l rM .T7 """'"·••-.:_w I() "TM ELl!:C,,ON 01-STRICT * PRINCE: c;eo~~e·s COUNTY -MA.RVt..AND- '!.GALE: • l" • !oO' .JUJr<.J E- ~7 l'OA PO~ 56W&Q t WA'Tl!oQ ~Y'5TIOM• ('l~LV T1->• ...... ,_#JtO 0/ ...,.\0 ... A&,. C..P\"lA\. P ... <\ ... t .... ._...... , _ CCIM!"\-°" -·-· ··~ ·· · COUW"T"r ""-~- 90-0 .F.! ~. ~P~ . , CA.r:u.. W. GOHR JlJ,\11"7 'tl"r. t L4 MO 1'90"7 aa0o • •I W "'lf(oMU1!: ee,"wv... 1-1E1t;r..~ ,. • , MQ ~j w...... ~='=~...... 4"7.ill • "T&A' "' WLA l · A ~ ()' TITLE .. CLIENT Maryland State Hiqhway Administration PROJ MD 28/198 from MD 97 to 1-95 West Laural Acres Subdivision (PG: 60-43) Plat Map Section 4 ~ I PAR 12117/14 REVISION NO 1 DRBY Bond Mill Road at Sandy Spring Road IPRoJ No 15004321 I .L ()l SCALE as shown CHKBY JW 01/05/15 Laurel, Prince George's County FIGURE Q:\Projecls\ENV\CRM\MD SHA\CRM Open·End Cornet 2007- 1-6 2012\8CS2010 OZA TaSlts\TO 27 MD 28-1911\E. D11ta\E.S PM ME 01116/15 / USGS Beltsville Tooo Ouad .3' ..:e-9r a1'. .. ~ !! " " p " ·..,J "' f '"lllllJa'I' c1n1N 1'•AT ' '" ,-...... -. lllHOJf 1• co111111 cr; nu.r 1T 11,.. .. ., .Dl..,"••M or '"'•rorTMI: ~ AIOO ( Ofol!llT [O 8'f ...... IOOt••u•N (U...NAilll.ll"P} TO iu.r ...... t•lol• WI.DOii! •u•w, J• I '" 01•0 04"1D "'"" .,~,, ..., .., ... o •tCOUU0\111 Llatl l"0.1Ja, f'OL •• .. ,., °"' O'TPll L Afll D 111<0••• or1111 ..c1 COIO•G1·• C:DU .. TY , ...... ,L .. 1'10. ,._., TOi i. Ll... U or J.• •O ~·•"11101o1 o.... , CO .. ~tc.T Wllll ""'I" 5UODl't1Jol•,. HlltlTONIC "'""" A"O U l .J }! () 141 \\ W TIU· ...... , ... UM lll,lllOlllO .,U,CtCTIO" ~ ..... ~. OIOIC,a,1& Titl Jofll&T• TIO l"UI LIC. UJI A...O Toll ~Wt!.lt AIU ~...... , g...,, ...... 11 r ... ,.,..,., ,.. 1n .s ...., •• ,•• u..a. .,-,,,... A•J Koo .>o.!1r"» 0,. A•,.l'•H•,l.f'll•••• \.1r,.a OA .,... r..... ,..., o,. T .... ,_.,,,,,.,., 1-•"•11• "" l'\t 1 ~ ,. • .., .. O• ttu•D1v..-1"'"'· HOH: : 10-1:t - •1 0 &..•••- "1 1•t • cT""" L-r, Z!i ~ · e-... 4L. • 6 ~-414P:..-,fl...... _~ l • f c...... , ::0P .. lfr l ...... r . .\.... ISG""°""•• l• .. "• MMl•CD _.,,. .. P.fl'll ./,.,_,;,,, "f ) •!ti~ Co••D•l'f ... tr• C.i..i•"c~ .....T' l'f011 .. l.t,.tT r;;i•11N£1'/J" SiJJl.Jlllitl ~ IAit'f cclill!li.«t .. 'MOIO ~ .... ,.,, &O )Ofl,+f ,...... J1.n 10-00-00 ,..,.;.40·.so·r .Sf...... :;.:'.,:.·iCVC.D ·T.N -'( "'° \ HZS.11 ,_ :I ••• t.•:> I "'"IHU•·" UU.tf •·6 ., .. 10 •1.l - tD N.J.,~06· t t"W "tLH ..... ' -. .~ · ~ • w"""-- ' " "' .:!'t.• I ...... u" •n1.1J' 14•t'f' Jf•N · i.G Jll.4T°· J,.· et1ENT Marvland State Hiahway Administration TITLE West Laurel Acres Subdivision (PG: 60-43) Plat Map, Section 5 ~.. PROJ MD 28/198 from MD 97 to 1-95 DRBV PAR 12/17/14 REVISION NO Bond Mill Road at Sandy Spring Road PRo; No 15804327 I I ~I SCALE as shown I CHK BY JW 01/05/15 Laurel, Prince George's County FIGURE -' 7 1-7 \)) ~~~\~~= ~l'd~ zoo • I PM I ME 01/16/15 I USGS Beltsville Tooo Quad CLIENT Maryland State Highway Administration TITLE West Laurel Acres Subdivision (PG: 60-43) Photo Key PROJ MD 28/198 from MD 97 to 1-95 REVISION NO 0 DRBV PAR 12117/14 PROJ NO 15804327 SCALE nla CHK BV JW 01/05/15 FIGURE 2-1 Q:\Projocls\ENV\CRMIMD SHA'CRM Open·End Connet 2007· 2012\BCS2Q10 02A Tasks\TO 27 MD 28·1911\E . Deta\E.5 Cini PM ME 01/16/15 Photo Log M:60-43 West Laurel Acres Subdivision Prince Georges County, MD Brian Cleven 11/05/2014 1. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Streetscape, Plat Section 2, Windham Road, Looking West. 2. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Streetscape, Plat Section 4, Parkway Drive, Looking Southwest. 3. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Minimal Traditional, Plat Section 1, 15713 Ashland Terrace, Looking North. 4. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Contemporary, Plat Section 1, 15705 Ashland Drive, Looking Northeast. 5. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Ranch, Plat Section 1, 5910 Maple Terrace, Looking Northwest. 6. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Transitional Ranch, Plat Section 1, 6009 Maple Terrace, Looking Southeast. 7. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Raised Ranch, Plat Section 2, 6003 Windham Road, Looking South. 8. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Raised Ranch, Plat Section 2, 6002 Windham Road, Looking Northeast. 9. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Raised Ranch, Plat Section 3, 5904 Parkway Drive, Looking Northwest. 10. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Raised Ranch, Plat Section 4, 5802 Maple Terrance, Looking West. 11. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Raised Ranch, Plat Section 4, 5809 Maple Terrace, Looking Southeast. 12. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Raised Ranch, Plat Section 3, 5818 Parkway Drive, Looking West. 13. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Split-Level, Plat Section 2, 6105 Windham Road, Looking Southeast. 14. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Split-Level, Plat Section 2, 6000 Windham Road, Looking Northwest. 15. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Split-Foyer, Plat Section 5, 15408 Clayburn Drive, Looking West. 16. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Split-Foyer, Plat Section 5, 5812 Parkway Drive, Looking West. 17. West Laurel Acres Subdivision, Split-Foyer, Plat Section 5, 5810 Parkway Drive, Looking West.