Loading...
HRAB 02-10-93 Meeting AgendaFILZ COPY &Ltyz� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-565; FAX 703/667-0370 MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board FROM: Ron Lilley, Planner II RE: Meeting Date and Agenda DATE: February 1, 1993 There will be a meeting of the Historic Resources Advisory Board on Wednesday, February 10th, at 1:00 pm in the Conference Room of the County Planning Department (Old Leggett's Building, 2nd Floor). We're also planning to continue this meeting at 1:00 on Thursday, Feb. 11th at the same location. Please let me know if you are unable to attend. AGENDA 1. Preparation for February 22nd Joint Work Session with Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. 2. ' Review of properties in Rural Landmarks Survey. 3. Other, as necessary. Enclosures follow. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Enclosures The following items related to the agenda for the meeting, and as follow up to our January meeting, are enclosed. Please review these in preparation for our upcoming meeting: 1. A summary of the January meeting. 2. Draft agenda for February 22nd worksession. 3. Copies of the two articles that were seen as useful for the joint work session agenda: - the article from the Fall '92 issue of VDHR's "Notes on Virginia" relating to property values and historic designations. - the "Economics and the Property Rights Argument" article from the Fall '92 issue of the Preservation Alliance of Virginia newsletter. 4. A copy of the Rural Landmarks Survey Report. 5. Updated copy of membership address list. Summary of 1/19/93 Meeting Attendance Members: Ray Ewing Mary Jane Light Judith Swiger Lee Taylor John Venskoske Staff. Ron Lilley Others: Maral Kalbian, Arch. Hist. Todd Shenk, Ping Cmsn Liaison Agenda items: 1. Preparation for the Joint Work Session Staff reminded the members that the Work Session originally scheduled for January 25th had to be rescheduled to February 22nd. Members discussed what should be presented and the order of presentation for the Work Session. In general, it was agreed that Ray Ewing would open the presentation with introductions of HRAB members and a summary of the purpose of this Joint Work Session. The purpose would include: 1) bringing everyone up to date on what the HRAB is about, and 2) getting input from Supervisors on how the HRAB proposes to pursue their work. An incomplete outline was developed as follows: I. Introductions (Ray Ewing) II. Review of Agenda (Ray Ewing) III. Presentation/Discussion (Ray Ewing) A. Update on work of HRAB 1. Recapitulation of the HRAB responsibilities as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan 2. Brief summary of what the HRAB has worked on thus far - Historic Area Overlay ordinance - Plaque Program ordinance - Caleb Heights development review - ongoing review B. Discussion/Presentation items 1. Inventory and Education efforts - Rural Landmarks Survey presentation (approx 45 mins) - 'Thoughts on the need for education and how to use the presentation for education 2. Preservation Philosophy 3. Preservation Proposals - informational meeting on National Register - using the Landmarks Survey for development review - comprehensive approach Todd Shenk pointed out that it should be made clear that the Rural Landmarks Survey and its conclusions are based on certain established criteria and that those criteria should be highlighted. Members agreed that staff and Ray Ewing could complete the outline before the next HRAB meeting and present it at that meeting. 2. Group review of Significant Properties Members agreed to meet during the afternoon on both February 10th and 11th, with the afternnon of the 12th as an overflow time, if necessary, in order to review the 360 or so most significant properties shown in the Rural Landmarks Survey. Staff was asked to provide copies of the report to members before that meeting in order to have a chance to become somewhat familiar with it beforehand. JOINT WORK SESSION Historic Resource Issues February 22, 1993 Agenda 6Vr-AF:T-) I. Introductions (Ray Ewing) (7:00) II. Review of Agenda (Ray Ewing) (7:05) III. Presentation/Discussion (Ray Ewing) (7:10) A. Update on work of HRAB 1. Recapitulation of the HRAB responsibilities as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan 2. Brief summary of what the HRAB has worked on thus far - Historic Area Overlay ordinance (adopted 11/91) - Plaque Program ordinance (adopted 9/92) - Caleb Heights development review (1990) - ongoing review B. Discussion/Presentation items 1. Inventory and Education efforts - Rural Landmarks Survey presentation (approx 45 mins) - Review of Survey document (10 mins) - Thoughts on the need for education and how to use the presentation for education 2. Preservation Philosophy - Are development regulations to preserve historic resources desirable? [see articles on "effects on land values" and "property owner and community rights"] 3. Preservation Proposals - informational meeting on National Register - using the Landmarks Survey for development review - other possibilities - bonus provisions - tax incentives - tourism development coordination (including "linking" of sites) - coordination with Civil War Battlefields Bill IV. Adjourn (9:00) e State depen- chair- nd as a tcil on Execu- tive lation, man of ustees ounda- ousing .on, in- ctures. .ounty 11 Soci- iociety Chase ;dation en ap- irman. tivi.:es lent of a�ze�vs ,ounty, itorical Cross- b�, rhe -am. Fairfax y Heri- ;ounty, 1 Asso- tennco Vliddle nsored by the ;ounty, )ard of a re - James ibman ,are- ounty, to Uni- �r Notes from the Director reservation pays. But does it really? Over the past year, many have con- tended thathistoric preservation impedes growth and development and hence, economic well-being. Many have stated that property values plummet when a resource is tagged "historic." But, is that -argument valid? Let's look at the hard facts and figures — aside from the aesthetic and societal benefits that accrue from preserving the historic re- sources of a community. The Government Fi- nance Officers Association, in a ground -break- ing study of the economic benefits thatflow from designation of urban historic districts, chose Fredericksburg, Virginia, as one of its two study areas. The figures for Fredericksburg are star- tling. In the period 1971-1990, residential prop- erty values within the Fredericksburg Historic District rose an average of 674 percent com- pared to an increase of only 410 percent for properties outside of the district. Commercial property values shot up 480 percent compared with 280 percent for improved lots outside the district's boundaries. One needs to look as well at the concrete measurable benefits that go far beyond real estate values. The Finance Officers' study has isolated figures that derive solely from heritage tourism in the area. Keep in mind that heritage development can flourish only when there are bona -fide authentic historic resources to pro- mote. The American traveller is becoming in- creasingly sophisticated and is often unwilling to spend money to visit less authentic historic sites. In 1989 alone, tourists to the Fredericksburg area purchased $11.7 million worth of items from businesses in the historic district; the $17.4 million spent by tourists out- side utside the district were mostly for motel, restau- rant and gasoline sales along Interstate 95. According to William M. Beck, president of the Fredericksburg Downtown Retail Market- ing, arketing, Inc., "...the historic designation of our down- town was the first step in revitalizing the region's major business district." In 1971, many people would not have recognized the potential of the buildings described in the historic district desig- nation. Today those facts are self-evident Examination of the Virginia Main Streetpro- gram reveals other remarkable figures to sub- stantiate the dollars and cents of preservation. In the seven years of Virginia's participation in the National Main Street program, there has been a net gain of 629 businesses in the 14 Main Street communities; 1,234 new jobs have been created; over $35 million in private sector invest- ment nvestment has been recorded. One of the most dramatic figures is for Bedford, where a historic district was formally listed on the Virginia and National registers in 1984;179 building improve- 3 Governor L Douglas Wilder unveils historic marker commemo- rating the first African Americans at Jamestown. The Harriet Tubman Historical Society sponsored the marker as part of its effort to gain recognition for Africans Americans in American history. ment projects have occurred in a community of only 6,000 since 1985. All but three of the 14 Main Street communities have historic districts listed on the Virginia and National registers. Those districts have served as critical elements in their revitalization efforts by using familiar buildings and features to identify the past vi- brancy of main street. This summer, five new jurisdictions have been named "Main Street" communities — Berryville, Bristol, Elkton, Or- ange and Clifton Forge — all of which already have designated historic districts or have poten- tially eligible districts. Aparticularly controversial area of landmark designation has been that of Civil War battle- fields. Some people have held that simply desig- nating a Civil War battlefield — a non -regulatory action — substantially erodes the marketability of the affected land. Figures from a study of the economic benefit of establishing a system for protecting Civil War areas in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, conducted by Virginia Poly- technic Institute and State University, are very revealing. To quote from the study, these fig- ures reflect the direct benefit of establishing Civil Warbattlefield parks and do not accountfor secondary and tertiary effects. The figures mea- sure the benefit of increased visitation — what tourists spend and the local services that develop to accommodate those visitors — even if the National Park Service's involvement is minimal. For example, for the area of the Third Battle of Winchester, with continued private ownership of the battlefield and minimum improvements, visitation would generate $1.4 million to the local Winchester/Frederick County economy. With maximum visitation, the benefit to the local economy would amount to $2 million annually. We need to find ways that farmers and other land owners can harvest history and scenery in the Valley as a sustainable crop. The Department has embarked on an inno- vative program with the Virginia Division of Tourism to promote visitation to Virginia's his- toric districts in towns, villages and neighbor- hoods. Forthe first time, NationalTou ism Week and National Historic Preservation Week will be linked in 1993 in a celebration known as Virginia HeritageTourismWeeks. Communities thathave succeeded in preserving their historic landscape and architectural fabric both the big -name landmark attractions and the engaging historic districts — have the potential to derive real measurable economic benefits from presenting those resources. Visitation by tourists and pa- tronage atronage by residents increase the economic and social vitality of communities. And, formal recognition by listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register is, as Mr. Beck said, the first step. Knowledge of a community's resources can lead to appreciation and, with imagination and vision, to seeing a community's shared heritage as a marketable asset. Virginia's priceless collection of historic places — from fishing villages on the Eastern Shore to indus- trial towns of the far Southwest — is arguably one of its greatest gifts. The Department is focusing its work on education and definition so that all of Virginia's historic communities can profit from that knowledge. In 1989 alone, tourists to the Fredericksburg area purchased $11.7 million worth of items from businesses in the historic district. Notes on Virginia is funded in part by a grant from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior_ UnderTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U. S. Dept of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin or handicap in its federally assisted programs. Ifyou believe you have been discriminated against in any program or activity or facility described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Of ice for Equal Opportunity, U. S. Dept of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. The contents and opinions of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention oftrade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Dept of the Interior. The Department of Historic Resources, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, will make this publication available in braille, large print or audio tape, upon request Please allow 2-4 weeks for delivery. 4 sono ics and the Property Rights Argument By Donovan D. Rypkema Editor's Note: This article summary of a presentation mad Mr. Rypkema, principal for the Estate Services Group, a real e and economic development co ing firm headquartered in Washn ton, D.C., in May of 1992. The burgeoning "private property rights" movement is frequently using and abusing an economic argument in its attack on land use regulation. In simplified terms the argument is as follows: "This land use regulation (or his- toric preservation regulation) diminishes the economic value of my asset. I am entitled to use (develop) my asset to its `highest and best use'. It is wrong for the government to deprive me of that opportunity." It is time to set the record straight. The Unique Characteristics of Land as an Economic Asset Land is an asset like no other. Every parcel is unique, it is fixed in place, it is finite in quantity, and it will last longer than any of its possessors. In part because of its peculiar attributes, real estate has always been treated differently than any other asset in law, taxation, lending, politi- cal perspective, and philosophy. But real estate has been treated differently for two fundamental economic reasons as well: • the impact of land use on surrounding prop- erty values, and • the primary source of value of real estate being largely external to the property bound- aries. The investment decisions of two next door neighbors have absolutely no measurable effect on the assets of the otherparty when considering such items as stocks or gold coins. However, when the asset is real estate every decision one owner makes has an immediate impact on the economic value of the asset of the other. Historically, the initial purpose of land use regulation was public health and safety. Though it is conveniently forgotten by the pro- ponents of "property rights," the mid is a gation of adverse economic impacts is e by also at the core of land use limitations. Real The common sense approach for state real estate investment protection has result- been land use regulations instituted by g- the public to protect the composite economic value. Those who loudly proclaim, "Its my ® land and you can't tell me what to do with it," are quick to appear before City Council when a homeless shelter is moving in next door or a hazardous waste disposal site is proposed next to their summer cottage. And their argu- ment won't be, "I'm against the homeless" or "Hazardous waste shouldn't be disposed of," but rather "That action will have an adverse effect on my property value and you, City Cour.- cil members, need to prevent that" Land Use Regulations Protect Property Values Where does real estate value originate? Some land owners would have you believe that the value of their asset somehow emerges from 4 within the boundaries of their site and there- fore they are entitled to the highest return available. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider two five -acre parcels of desert land—one in the middle of the Sahara and the other in the middle of Las Vegas. Within the lot lines, both have the same physical charac- teristics. Do they have the same economic value? Obviously not. But the differences be- tween the two lie entirely outside the bound- aries of the property. It is not the land, but the activity around the land, that gives considerable value to one parcel and next to none to the other. Forces of Value Forces which push the economic value of a single parcel of real estate up or down are: social, economic, physical, and political. Land use regulations reflect the political and, to a lesser extent, the social forces of value. Does the enactment of a land use regulation affect value? Absolutely. In both directions! The rezoning of a parcel of land from General Agriculture to Light Industrial will change the economic value of the property. That land use decision increased the value of the site. Note that the land itself did not change. The permit- ted land use changed and, therefore, the eco- nomic value of the property changed. When was the last time you heard a property owner say, "Because of rezoning, my land went from being worth $10,000 to being worth $100,000. But since it was the action of the Planning Commission and not some invest- ment I made that increased the value, I'm writing a check to the City for $90,000."? No landowner has ever said that nor should he/she have. The political force of value is one of the risks inherent in the ownership of real estate and it has it upside opportunity as well as downside potential. To suggest that a decline in value resulting from the enactment of a public land use limi- tation entitles a property owner to "just com- pensation" is to ask fora floor under the risk of real estate ownership. Where then is the offset- ting ceiling limiting the enhanced value gener- ated from the same source? No property rights pamphlet has advocated that equitable ex- change. Governmental Decisions and Property Values Does the enactment of a historic preserva- tion statute or a wetlands protection law ever reduce the value of an individual piece of real estate? Certainly. But every day hundreds of governmental decisions affect individual in- vestments of all kinds, and often adversely. What happens to the value of Lockheed Cor- poration bonds when McDonnell Douglas is .. on Land use controls are a capitalist plot to optimize property values of the majority of real estate owners. The economics of preservation will be studied at the Alliance's Virginia Preservation Conference, scheduled for April 15-17, 1993 in Danville. This home is part of the city's famous ' MillionairesRow. "For conference information, call theAlliance office at (703) 8864362. chosen instead to build a new bomber? It goes down! What happens to the value of the local Ford dealer's franchise when the City decides to buy Chevrolets? It goes down! What happens to the value of the utility company stock when the state utilities commission refuses to grant a rate increase? It goes down! In every instance a political decision by a public body acting in what it deemed "the public interest" had an effect on somebody's assets. Real estate owners have no inherent right not to be adversely affected by political decisions. This does not mean that it is not possible to have a land use decision that is fundamentally unfair. Of course that can happen, and when it does it is incumbent on the property owner to demonstrate to the decision making body that what he/she loses as aresult of those restrictions is much greater than what the public has to gain. But to object solely because of a claim of potential loss of value demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the nature of real estate. Property Owners vs. the Government Usually in the heat of land use arguments the "property rights" advocates frame the debate in terms of property owners versus the "govem- ment". Defining the dispute in that context con- jures up visions of faceless bureaucrats in Wash- ington dictating how far a garage has to be set back from Elm Street and deciding what color one's house can be painted But the leaders of the property rights movement know full well that it is a bogus argument. Virtually all land use controls are enacted and implemented at the local level. It is JMnot Washington (or Richmond) bureaucrats, but citizens from the town or the county who Even the National Register of Historic Places, one of the few pieces of federal legislation affecting properties atall, places absolutely no restriction whatsoever on what a property owner may do with hislher property. The owner, in fact, is even com- pletely free to demolish the historic struc- ture. This argument is a blatantmisrepresenta- tion in another sense: it is not for the sake of the local government that land use restric- tions are put into place, but rather to protect the value of the investment of one property ownerfrom the adverse economic impact of the actions of another. Fairness and Equity The "property rights" debate is about fairness, about equity. It is about the fair- ness of allowing a single property owner to adversely affect the values of a multitude of owners. It is about the fairness of the public getting a return on their investment which created much "of the individual value to begin with. It is about the fairness of one owner's windfall against a group of own- ers' maintenance of value. It is about the fairness of a single indi- vidual destroying the "product differentia- tion" of a community, built up overgenera- tions, m order to create a xerox copy locally of somewhere else. It is about the fairness of the owner of real estate demanding com- pensation if his/her asset declines in value because of a public policy decision when the holder of the Lockheed bond, the Ford dealer, and the owner of utility company stock have no such protection. . In fact, land use con- trols are a capitalistplot to optimize property - "- values of the majority of real estate owners, not a communist conspiracy to deprive individuals of some imaginary "prop- erty rights." Adam Smith, the fa- ther of laissezfaire eco- nomics, perceptively observed that, "As soon as the land of any coup - try has all become pri- vate property, the land- lords, and=lords, like all othermen, love to reap where they never sowed." That doesn'tmean we arede- priving them of rights when we tell them no. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (AS OF 01/93) The Historic Resources Advisory Board is composed of seven members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Board provides information on historic resources to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission, along with recommendations on general historic resource policy in Frederick County. This Board meets on the third Tuesday of each month at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Todd D. Shenk (H) 888-4396 P/C Liaison 1734 North Sleepy Creek Road Term: 1/15/93 - Whitacre, Virginia 22625 1/15/94 Mr. Ray E. Ewing (Chairman) (H) 869-1326 Opequon District 5141 Highview Avenue Term: 4/12/91 - Stephens City, Virginia 22655 4/12/93 (2 yr.term) Mr. James Goodrich. Sr. (H) 662-0150 Back Creek District 1984 Cedar Creek Grade (W) 465-3741 Term: 7/12/91 - Winchester, Virginia 22602 7/12/94 (3 yr.term) Ms. Lori Molden (H) 662-5551 Member -at -Large 340 Windsor Road (W) 667-7850 Term: 1/ 13/93 - Winchester, Virginia 22602 9/13/96 (4 yr. Term) Ms. Mary Jane Light (H) 662-4035 Stonewall District (V. Chairman) Term: 3/11/92 - 2973 Woodside Road 3/11/95 ( 3 yr.term) Clearbrook, Virginia 22624 Ms. Judith A. Swiger (H) 667-2596 Member -At -Large 205 Quaker Lane Term: 5/22/91 - Winchester, Virginia 22603 5/22/94 (3 yr.term) Mr. R. Lee Taylor (H) 662-4915 Member -At -Large 801 Amherst Street Term: 5/10/91 - Winchester, Virginia 226015/10/94 (3 yr.term) Mr. Gary VanMeter (H) 662-0468 Shawnee District 1544 Airport Road Term: 5/10/91 - Winchester, Virginia 22602 5/10/94 (3 yr.term) Mr. John E. Venskoske (H) 888-3349 Gainesboro District 193 Myers Lane Term: 04/11/92 - Winchester, Virginia 22603 04/11/93'(1 yr.term) Maral Kalbian (H) 837-2081 Arch. Hist. Route 1, Box 86 (W) 662-6550 (Contract Basis) Boyce, Virginia 22620 COMMONWEALTH ®f `yIRQINIA Hugh C- Miller, Director Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street February 11, 1993 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mr. and Mrs. William A. Chapin 975 Hollow Road P. O. Box 70 Gore, VA 22637 RE: Sunrise, Frederick County (DHR File N4 34486) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chapin: rp 1 8 P93 TDD: (804) 786-1934 Telephone (804) 786-3143 FAX (804) 225-4261 The National Register Evaluation Team at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has recently evaluated the Preliminary Information Form submitted for Sunrise. The Preliminary Information Form will be presented to the State Review Board at its April meeting with the staff recommendation that this property meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. It is the opinion of the Evaluation Team that this property is eligible at the local level for significance in the area of architecture. We will notify you in March of the date and location of the April meeting. Following the meeting, we will notify you of the board's decision regarding the eligibility of this property. Should you have any questions regarding the staff's review or the registration process, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ames Christian Hill National Register Assistant Sunrise, Frederick County (DHR File Ns 34-486) February 11, 1993 Page 2 cc: Richard G. Dick, Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission //Robert W. Watkins, Director Frederick County Planning Thomas J. Christoffel, Executive Director Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission James Longerbeam, Supervisor Back Creek Magisterial District Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society CHECKLIST FOR STATE AND NATIONAL REGISTER PROCESS IN VIRGINIA (® denotes completed step in the process) Evaluation of Eligihiiity ® Preliminary Information Form received and ® Owner(s) and officials notified of receipt of reviewed, additional information requested if Preliminary Information Form. Department of necessary Historic Resources archives checked for property file and any additional information ® Preliminary Information Form reviewed and rated by Register Evaluation Team at semi-monthly meeting ❑ Information on properties potentially affected by federal undertakings reviewed and rated by Register Evaluation Team at semi-monthly meeting ❑ Preliminary Information Form mailed to members of State Review Board for review two weeks prior to meeting. Board makes recommendation of eligibility at bi-monthly meeting. Section 106 evaluations are not taken before the board. Listing on the Registe" If applicant elects to pursue registration, applicant consults with Department staff regarding criteria, areas of significance, period of significance and boundaries. ❑ Department staff reviews nomination drafts upon request and provides technical assistance ❑ Department staff reviews completed nomination ❑ Cozies of nomination sent to members of both Boartwo weeks prior to meeting ❑ Owner(s), officials, and consultant notified of Boards' decisions ❑ Property is logged in at National Register office ❑ Owner, consultant and local officials notified of Keeper's decision ❑ Owner(s) and officials informed of team recommendation, notified ofnding consideration by State Review Board. Additional information requested if necessary. In the case of historic districts, public informational meetings may be held at the request of the applicant or the locality ❑ Officials notified of review team recommendations regarding Section 106 projects ❑ Owner(s) and officials notified of Board's decision ❑ COMPLETE nomination due to Department of Historic Resources by first day of the month prior to the month of the State Review Board and Virginia Board of Historic Resources meetings at which the nomination is to be considered ❑ Owner(s), adjacent property owners, consultant and local officials notified by letter no less than 30 days prior to State Review Board meeting to initiate 30 -day comment period ❑ In the case of a historic district, Department of Historic Resources holds a public hearing within the locality not less than thirty days prior to the Board meetings and publishes legal notice in the local paver to initiate 30 -day comment period ❑ Nomination presented at State Review Board meeting. If approved, State Review Board recommends that nomination be forwarded to Keeper of the National Register; nominations presented to Virginia Board of Historic Resources if approved without owner objection will be listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register on day of presentation ❑ Nomination is forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register in Washington, D.C. ❑ Following 45 day review period, Department is notified of decision. If approved without owner objection, property is listed on National Register. If owners object, Keeper declares property eligible. Subsequest owners may rescind objection. (� Hugh C. Miller. Director ,Department of Historic Resources TDD i80-1 786-1934 221 Go%ernor Street TeIepnone 8041786-3143 Richmond, Virginia 2,219 FAX i804t 225-4261 January 25, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. William A. Chapin 975 Hollow Road P. O. Box 70 Gore, VA 22r,37 RE: Sunrise, Frederick County (DHR File N2 34-486) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chapin: I have received the Preliminary Information Form submitted for Sunrise and have passed it on to the National Register Evaluation Team for consideration. The National Register Evaluation Team, a group of staff representing a variety of disciplines and agency programs, will review this information at its meeting later this month. The team will apply the criteria for historic significance established by the National Park Service and make a recommendation as to the property's eligibility for the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. You can expect to hear from me regarding the staff's decision in two to three weeks when the team has reported its recommendation. I appreciate your interest in recognizing and preserving the state's historic resources. Sincerely, Jai'nrlhristian Hill National Register Assistant Sunrise, Frederick County (DHR File N4 34-486) January 25, 1993 Page 2 cc: Richard G. Dick, Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Robert W. Watkins, Director Frederick County Planning Thomas J. Christoffel, Executive Director Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission James Longerbeam, Supervisor Back Creek Magisterial District Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society Virginia'reservation Update February 1, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ALERT! LEGISLATION AFFECTING PRESERVATION INTRODUCED IN 1993 GENERAL ASSEMBLY Proposed legislation that would affect Virginia's preservation pro- gram has been introduced during the 1993 session of the Virginia General Assembly. A summary follows: Senate Bill 1043 Senator Frank Nolen introduced S.B. 1043 to amend 10.1-2206.2 of the Code to prohibit the Di- rector of the Department of His- toric Resources from nominating properties to the National Regis- ter of Historic Places or for de- signation as a National Historic Landmark if the owners, or in the case of historic districts, the majority of owners, objected. Furthermore, the Director would be prohibited from nominating such properties until the objec- tions were withdrawn. What the Law Does: If passed, the law would be con- trary to Federal law and the Code of Federal Regulations. Federal regulations say that if the owner of a private property or the ma- jority of such owners for a district or a single property with multiple owners have objected to the nom- ination prior to the submittal of a nomination, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall submit nominations to the Keeper [of the National Register of Historic Places] only for a determination of eligibility ... (36 C.F.R. Part 60.6(n). Effects of the Law: • As a result, Virginia could be disqualified from participating in the federal preservation pro- gram and lose over $600,000 in federal money, "If at any time the Secretary of the Interior deter- mines that a State program does not comply with such require- ments, he shall disapprove such program, and suspend in whole, or in part, assistance to such State..." (National Historic Pres- ervation Act, as amended) • If the Virginia program were decertified for failing to comply with federal regulations, all pro- fessional decisions and recom- mendations now made by the De- partment Director would be made exclusively by federal employees in Washington or Philadelphia. Enactment of this bill would af- fect all Certified Local Govem- ment programs, all tax act pro- jects for historic building rehabili- tations, and all private sector sponsors of federally -funded or permitted projects seeking assis- tance in complying with Section 106 of the Preservation Act. • Federal regulations state that "the failure of a State Historic Preservation Officer to respond to a [federal] Agency Official's re- quest for consultation (under Sec- tion 106) ... shall not prohibit the Agency Official from proceeding PRESERVATION ALL o CE O F V I R G I N I A Vol. 6, No. 2 with the review process." In other words, the environmental review and Section 106 process for historic properties would con- tinue. Senator Nolen's bill has been re- ferred to the Agriculture, Conser- vation, and Natural Resources Committee of the Senate. The members of that committee are: Cross (chairman); Waddell; Marye; Nolen; Holland, R.J.; Howell; Reasor; Maxwell; Chi- chester; Russell; Hawkins; Woods; Stolle; Norment; and Potts. Alliance members are en- couraged to contact these senators about the effects of the bill on their programs. HJR 411 and SJR 235 HJR 411, introduced by Delegate Vince Callahan and the compan- ion SJR 235 by Senator Janet Howell, calls for a legislative stu- dy of Virginia's Scenic Byways and Scenic Rivers program. The Alliance supports this study, as it coincides with a federal emphasis on Scenic Byways through the ISTEA transportation legislation. OTHER BILLS OF NOTE Several other bills are of interest to Virginia's preservationists, in- cluding a number of budget amendments to support preserva- tion -related projects. The Al- liance is also supporting HB 2081 (Delegate Bloxom) related to archaeology, SB 1019 (Senator Colgan) related to access to pri- vate cemeteries, and Delegate Post Office Box 1407 Staunton, Virginia 24402-1407 (703) 886-4362 FAX: (703) 886-4543 Van Landingham's bill to estab- lish an arts and historic preserva- tion fund. Carryover Bills Two bills "carried over" from last session dealt with preservation: HB 1157 to merge VDHR with the State Library and HB 850 to change the state landmarks desig- nation process. Both bills were defeated in committee and will not be considered this session. VIRGINIA PRESERVATION RECEPTION TO FEATURE FIRST ANNUAL AWARDS sur annual V!Fgiiiiitt t'aeser vattors Reception, scheduled for Wednes- day evening, February 3rd, at the headquarters of the Virginia His- torical Society, will include the presentation of the first Katherine Glaize Rockwood Distinguished Preservationist Award. The re- cipient for this award is noted Leesburg preservationist B. Powell Harrison. Tickets for the reception are $25 per person and last minute reservations can be made by calling the Alliance of- fice at (703) 886-4362. Members who will be attending are encour- aged to contact their local Dele- gates and Senators and urge them to "meet them at the Alliance re- ception." SPRING CONFERENCE A MUST FOR VIRGINIA PRESERVATIONISTS The eighth annual Virginia Pres- ervation Conference sponsored by the Preservation Alliance will be held on April 15-17, 1993 in Danville, Virginia. "Our En- dangered Historic Properties: A Call to Action" is the theme for the conference that will bring to- gether architects, preservationists, downtown developers, community planners, archaeologists, and his- torians. Co-sponsors for the Conference include the Virginia Department of Uistoric Resources, the Vir- ginia Society of the American In- stitute of Architects, the Virginia Main Street Program, the Dan- ville Historical Society, the Dan- ville Area Chamber of Commerce, the Commission on Architectural Review, the Danville Bicentennial Commission, the Danville Mus- eum of Fine Arts and History, and the Prestwould Foundation. The first day of the conference will focus on endangered rural resources and will include a bus tour of nationally important sites in rural North Carolina and south - side Virginia. Day Two will focus on technical restoration is- sues, downtown development, and public education. The final day will examine ways to broaden the constituency for preservation. Brochures for the conference will be mailed around March 1st. Ho- tel reservations can be made by calling the Danville Howard Johnson's at (804) 793-2000. QUICK FACTS ABOUT VIRGINIA PRESERVATION The Virginia Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects is hosting its 1993 an- nual conference on The Linear Landscape on March 26-28 in Williamsburg. The Alliance is a co-sponsor of a special session on the Kouie J Corridur wiul na- tionally known planner Randall Arendt. Call (804) 623-6621 for information .... A Battlefield Pres- ervation Conference will be held in Fredericksburg on March 27- 28. Call the Rappahannock Val- ley Civil War Roundtable at (703) 373-1672 for information. The following individuals, businesses, and founda- tions have provided underwriting support of the Preservation Anion a over the past year: Anony- mous (1); the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities; Mrs. A.D. Barksdale; Mr. and Mrs. S. AQen Chambers, Jr.; Mrs. Leslie Cheek, Jr.; the Eugene Ho@ Foundation; Mr. and Mrs. Addison B. Thompson. Member organizations of the Alliance are encouraged to make copies of Virginia Preservation Update for distribution to staff and board members. PRESERVATION W,ALLIANCE F V I R G I N I A P.O. Box 1407 Staunton, VA 24401 ------------------------------------------- 4 HIST RES ADVISORY BOARD KRIS C TIERNEY AICP PO BOX 60122601 WINCHESTER VA FF° - 3 IOTNOTE -FT'Orginia Department of Historic Resources S_ No. 1'i YEAR END REA PORT - 1992 The programs of the Department of Historic Resources encourage 7irginians to consider and care for their cultural heritage. The Department helps private citizens, local governments and private groups to make well-informed decisions about issues which will affect their communities for decades to coare. The decisions focus on how to achieve a meaningful balance of the old and new and how to proceed with development while retaining a community's unique ser -se of place. The Department's services assist in this decision-making process by providing information, management tools and guidance about the value qt historic resources and their contribution to a community s quality of life. The Department's services encourage l3fe-enhancing, long-term solutions to Challenges involving economic revitalization, land use, urban housing, heritage rotalsm and environmental responsibility. The following report outlines how the Departme,-t's programs met these goals in 1992. Four significant initiatives marked the past year for the Department of Historic Resources. The Department initiated a new method for conducting historic resource surveys and planning studies by entering into cost-sharing agreements with local govern-ments and regional planning commissions. Projects are underway in the cities of Lynchburg and Virginia Beach, the counties of Richmond, Fluvanna, Louisa and Shenandoah and the Town of Front Royal. The surveys will result in the addition of 3,486 buildings and structures to the statewide inventory of historic places and the examination of 612,662 additional acres of land for resource identification. * At the request of the Virginia General Assembly, the Department completed three major policy studies on issues of substantial public interest: a study on whether compensation to private property owners is warranted for state landmark designation; a report on local and state policies affecting the Route 5 Scenic Byway Corridor between Richmond and Williamsburg; and a report on private -public partnerships that encourage sound archaeological resource management and historic preservation by the private sector. The Department, along with the University of Virginia, the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts and the Virginia Historical Society, co-sponsored a symposium, Perspectives on Virginia Architecture in Charlottesville and Richmond. The symposium was presented Irl en"111"e icin with 0whilnir,� a, 'ha vir Alma Miucaiµm amfl tna `v'irainim %ii�tnrin-1 �nninti J--nction i 9_.� u Wang, . a�,,...0 ii.u.1vx.C.. L..Oatj and the publication of the exhibit catalogue, The Makin of f Virginia Architecture. * The Department produced and published a book about Virginia Indians, entitled: First People: The Early Indians of Virginia® A collaborative effort of Virginia Native An7teric5int riblies a rdl archaeologists first Pen-ple prnvinas an engaging and accurate ..�.., w, waxu accurate portrayal of Virginia Indians. The book is being given to public elementary and middle school libraries and sold through bookstores around the state. The Depa.rnme,nt ivor�s Yri l local governme,"s, p ivate organization and indii4duals to protect Virginia's historically significant places, buildings, sites, districts, objects and larsdscapes. Survey: Identifying Virginia's historic resources is the first step in this effort. Knowledge of historic buildings and sites is necessary for a community to make informed decisions about their preservation. The body of information collected through surveying efforts provides an important data base of Virginia's history and prehistory. The Department completed county -wide or urban architectural surveys in cooperation with the counties of Caroline, Powhatan, Warren, Hanover, Frederick and Roanoke, and the cities of Virginia Beach, Richmond and Williamsburg. Department staff completed fieldwork on an architectural survey of New Kent County. The Department funded archaeological reconnaissance surveys in the counties of Frederick and Arlington. ® The Department's survey efforts have added 6,636 historic buildings and structures and 1,303 archaeological sites to the statewide inventory of historic places since October of 1991. These surveys examined over 613,000 additional acres of land for the purpose of locating and describing historic resources and 18,176 acres for identifying archaeological sites. * The Department assisted the National Park Service in identifying and mapping Major Civil War Armed Conflict Sites in Virginia. Staff also recorded threatened significant early agricultural buildings in Buckingham, Gloucester, Middlesex, Northumberland, Caroline, ni uvanna and Mathews counties. The Department completed an archaeological assessment of the Richmond Basin 18th -century coal fields. The Virginia. and National Registers: The designation process recognizes the most significant historic properties in a community by formally listing them on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Both registers provide information to localities and institutions seeking to make decisions about their cultural resources. The Department presented 64 nominations to the Board of Historic Resources and State Review Board in 1992 and submitted 55 nominations to the Keeper of the National Register, including 35 buildings, 17 districts, 2 sites and 1 structure. The total number of entries to date is 1,595, representing 34,262 contributing properties. ♦ The Department's staff prepared nominations for historic districts in Pulaski and Accomack counties and individual properties in Albemarle and Northumberland counties and in Lynchburg and Suffolk. 2 ® The Department and its Board of Historic Resources developed emergency regulations for historic designation procedures that were adopted pending the promulgation of permanent regulations. * Certified Local Governments submitted Virginia and National register nominations for properties in Clarke County and the cities of Petersburg, Suffolk and Fairfax. Certified Local Governments: This program supports local governments in becoming active partners in the state and federal preservation program. * Assisted by $54,0W in matching funds, Certified Local Governments in Clarke County, the towns of Pulaski and Herndon and the cities of Petersburg, Fairfax, Lynchburg and Suffolk completed seven preservation projects; ranging from surveys and register nominations to rehabilitation and public education activities. The Department awarded five grants in 1992, for preservation projects now underway, to: Clarke and Prince William counties; and to the cities of Fairfax and Lynchburg. 0 The Department provided archaeological planning assistance to Petersburg and Clarke County local governments. 4, The Department conducted a state-wide CLG training workshop in April in Richmond for representatives of five CLGs (Herndon, Lynchburg, Fairfax City, Petersburg and Prince Tp'illiam) and four prospective CLGs (Richmond, Alexandria, Blacksburg and Arlington). The Department provided Lynchburg, Petersburg and Herndon with technical assistance on compliance with the new Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Project review: Timely review of government projects ensures that all feasible efforts are made to preserve historic buildings and sites while the projects are in the planning stage. This .program results in the Department's working closely with 36 federal and state agencies ranging from the Virginia Department of Transportation to the U. S. Department of Mousing and Urban Development. ♦ The Department reviewed 2,400 new state and federal projects. Total agency responses on old and new case reviews for the year: 4,730. Ninety percent of all cases were handled within the 15- or 30 -day review period. The Department's design review team examined an average of 132 additional cases each quarter growing out of federal and state sponsored projects, tax act certification, easement and general technical assistance requests. 0 Using the findings of its comprehensive survey of state-owned buildings, the Department worked closely with James Madison University, Virginia Commonwealth University, 'Vuginia Polytechnic and State University and the University o-f'aJirgirsa to assist them in addressing historic resources in their planning for the future. ♦ The Department proposed Programmatic Agreements with Roanoke, Lynchburg and Pebwsbwg to expedite review of DUD -funded Community Block Development Grant projects. The agreements are currently under review by those communities. The Department implemented a national Programmatic Agreement with the National Park Service on agency review of NPS undertakings in Virginia's national parks. Project Review staff made three presentations on the review process for federal housing grant recipients in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Dousing and Community Development and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. + The Department issued five permits for archaeological investigations on state lands and eight permits for the archaeological excavation of human remains. 3 Rehabilitation Tax Credits: The Department guides owners who wish to rehabilitate historic properties through this federal program that provides substantial income tax credits for their work. ♦ 24 properties were certified for the rehabilitation tax credit program. Federal action is pending on five more properties. * The Department and the National Park Service approved 23 proposed rehabilitation projects, representing private investment of $4.6 :pillion. Federal action is pending on 11 projects recommended by the Department, representing additional private investment of $1.9 million. * 25 rehabilitation projects were successfully concluded, representing private investment of $21.6 million and federal tax credits of $4.3 million. The projects are found in Richmond (11), Norfolk (2), Roanoke (2), Staunton (2), Alexandria and Lynchburg and Amherst, Culpeper, Louisa, Northampton and Rockbridge counties. ® Completed preservation projects using the investment tax credits have accounted for more than $199 million of private investment in Virginia's historic buildings since 1977. Easements: Owners of historic properties can donate a preservation easement to the Commonwealth, thereby ensuring the perpetual preservation of the resource. The Department provides technical assistance and guidance to owners of properties under easement to assure appropriate treatments and protection. All easement properties are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register. ♦ The Department completed new easements on 10 properties this year: 215 Jefferson Street in Alexandria; Hope Dawn in Bedford County; Berry Hill in Halifax County; Grove Mount in Richmond County; 117 and 512 South Laurel Street, 612 Spring Street and 716 Holly Street in the Oregon Hill Historic District in Richmond; the Schooley House in Waterford, Loudoun County; and the Alexander Baker House in Winchester. The total number of properties under state historic easement protection is 164. Staff also entered into negotiations on 35 prospective easement donations. ♦ As part of its expanding commitment to archaeological resources, the Department conducted archaeological assessments and surveys on nine properties within existing or proposed easements. ♦ The Department provided technical assistance to 60 easement property owners on issues such as amendments, maintenance, renovations and architectural changes. Staff conducted inspections at 27 properties during the year. ♦ The Department joined the Northern Neck Branch APVA, Historic Richmond Foundation, Clarke County, Historic Winchester Foundation, the Valley Conservation Council and the American Civil War Sites Study Commission in eight public presentations to property owners and preservation groups on the Virginia's preservation easement program. Roanoke Regional Preservation Office: The Department's Regional Preservation Office provided a wide range of services to a 10 -county region of western Virginia. Envisioned as the first of an eventual network of regional offices throughout the state, the Roanoke office brings together a staff from the disciplines of history, architecture and archaeology. In addition to conducting surveys and preparing register nominations, the regional office staff provides technical assistance to local governments, develops local education programs and workshops and responds promptly to citizen requests for help. Heritage Education and Teacher Training: RRPO co -hosted an archaeological heritage in-service teacher training workshop that drew 85 participants. The Roanoke office prepared a 25 -minute video entitled "The Architectural History of the Western Virginia," funded by the Roanoke Committee of the National Society of Colonial Dames and the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. Produced by Blue Ridge Public Television, the video is targeted for 11th -grade students. fl Survey: The regional office completed an archaeological survey that identified 29 sites in the Back Creek area, Roanoke County. Architectural surveys of the North Fork of Goose Creek covered 12,000 acres and recorded 55 structures; City of Salem, 32 buildings; and Rocky Mount, Franklin County, 59 buildings. 4 Technicai Assistance: RRPO organized a workshop on Design Review Guidelines and Historic Districts in Roanoke that attracted 100 participants, including 15 planners, 30 Architectural Review Board members and staff, 15 architects, 15 architectural historians and various interested property owners. The RRPO catalogued and curated Graham White Site artifacts for consultant analysis; assisted Radford University in analysis of sediments at City of Salem site. State mould Nato : K��: es: The Regional Office prepared nominations for the Dublin Historic District in Pulaski County and an expanded New Castle Historic District in Craig County, both with the strong endorsement of property owners and local officials. ® Preservation Planning: The Regional Office hosted the first Preservation Partners meeting for a cross- sectian of regional preservation advocacy groups and planners. The staff worked closely with the City of Roanoke and private groups on preservation issues such as the future of the Hotel Roanoke, the Tinker Creek Development Plan's effect on Bellmont and review of development alternatives in the Gainesboro neighborhood. ® Heritage Tourism: The Regional Office provided Franklin County with recommendations on development of newly acquired Waid Recreation Park and participated in regional meetings addressing heritage tourism issues along the Appalachian Railroad Heritage Corridor and the 1-81 Corridor. Biblic Outreach: The Regional Office staff gave 75 public presentations on historic preservation during the year; issued two newsletters to regional constituents and held regular meetings with its citizens advisory committee to hear comment on the Department's regional programs. RRPO marked Black History Month with a lecture on Black History in Southwest Virginia at the Booker T. Washington National Monument. Preservation Planning: The Department is responsible for developing a framework for coordinating preservation planning efforts across the Commonwealth while ensuring that the preservation of historic resources is given consideration at every level of planning and decision-making. ♦ The Department launched a Site Stewardship Program to help private landowners voluntarily take care of the archaeological sites they own, while following their own economic interests. The first significant Site Stewardship project, conducted for the Rice's Hotel/Hughlett's Tavern Foundation, Northumberland County, engaged volunteers to identify features on the 18th -century tavern property and provided a long- range site management plan for the owners. As part of the Commonwealth's Forest Stewardship Program, the Department provided instruction for five workshops for Forestry staff and completed plans for archaeological and historic resources on four properties. The program is a cooperative effort among private landowners and state and federal agencies to protect cultural resources. ♦ The Department helped Petersburg, Nelson County and Stafford County to develop stronger preservation components in local comprehensive land -use plans. ♦ The Department issued new guidelines for survey reports prepared in compliance with section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The department also prepared a new planning guidance paper, "How to Use Historic Contexts in Virginia." Both documents were presented at a special workshop for state and federal agencies and historic preservation consultants. Department staff assisted in development of proposed preservation ordinances for Yorktown, Richmond, Culpeper and the Town of Washington and participated in public meetings on local district issues in Culpeper, Hanover and Dayton. E Virginia Main Street Program: Direct technical and marketing assistance is provided to towns and small cities in Virginia that are willing to commit local resources toward the revitalization of their downtown commercial districts. The Department, in cooperation with the Department of Housing and Community Dei clopanent, provides funds for architectural design assistance to local businesses who choose to improve the facades of their buildings and to recycle historic buildings, using innovative marketing techniques. # Nineteen communities have participated in the Virginia Main Street Program since 1985 - Bedford, Franklin, Petersburg, WirwIvsker, CulpeW, hilaski, Manassas, Ladngton, Suffolk, Emporia, Galax, Hendon, Radford and Warrenton. Twelve of these communities already have historic districts that incorporate the commercial areas recognized by the Virginia and National registers. 4 The Department provided design services for the nine current Main Street communities and assisted the Department of Housing and Community Development in selection of five new Main Street communities: Bristol, Berryville, Orangce Elk -ton and Cliffi n Forge - 4> Frazier Associates of Staunton, the design consultant for the Virginia Main Street Program, responded to 135 requests for design assistance in 1992. Nearly half of the requests since 1986 have resulted in completed projects, thus retaining and creating jobs for local economies aad strengthening the local tax base. Since 1986, the program has leveraged a minLmiuni net gain of 631 new businesses, a net gain of 1,249 new jobs and a private sector investment of over $35 million. Virginia Historic Preservation Foundation: The Foundation's mission is to acquire threatened historic properties and to sell these historic sites and buildings to sympathetic owners with a protective easement to ensure their permanent protection and preservation. ♦ The Department provided technical support to the Virginia Historic Preservation Foundation, including management of historic easements guaranteeing permanent protection of resold properties. # The Department provided assistance in the negotiations for the acquisition of new properties and transactions and marketing involving 533 Main Street in Danville, the Citizens Bank Building in Bedford, the Red Lion Tavern in Winchester. The Department is responsible dor ensuring that there is an accurate, petwment and publicly accessible record o, f 'Virginia's material culture. Collections: The Department is responsible for the guardianship and cataloguing of the artifacts entrusted to its care. Its collection of artifacts represents all areas of the state and all periods of Virginia's history, from over 11,000 years ago to the present. The collections are used continuously by researchers and institutions in the entire mid-Atlantic region. 6 The Curatorial staff of the Department provided technical assistance and guidance to 122 patrons using the collections during the year. 4 The Department upgraded the facilities of its conservation laboratory during 1992. The laboratory was opened to volunteers for two Saturdays each month to encourage public participation. m The Department provided curation and conservation services to Fort Eustis, York County, Jamestown Settlement, James City County, Ethyl Corporation for the old State Penitentiary Site in Richmond, the Francis band Museum in Virginia Bch, and the Fine Arts Museum of Southern Virginia, Mecklenburg Carty. t, One hundred boxes of fire -damaged artifacts from the Trigg Site, Radford, were sorted and cleaned. 6 ® The Department provided technical assistance and loaned artifacts for educational exhibits in Chase City, Brun #Ai& County, lia_mpton, Radford, City of Richmond and Amhwst County, and at the Virginia State Library and the Virginia Historical Society. Archives: The Department maintains an inventory, accessible to the public, of over 60,000 files and maps, representing the documentary knowledge of Virginia's heritage; the archives' staff ensures that appropriate measures are taken to maintain the information resulting from the survey of the Commonwealth's historic buildings and sites. 4 Visitation to the archives averaged 70 patrons per month during 1992 for a total of 840 visitors. Technical assistance calls to the archivist averaged 116 per month. ® To improve accessibility by local governments to resource information, the Department completed development of Integrated Preservation Software for use in architectural surveys around the state. Threatened Sites: The Department is committed to using available funds for the proper excavation of threatened archaeological sites. * The Department and Virginia Commonwealth University completed an excavation at the early 17th -century English settlement at Jordan's Point, Prince George County. + The Department responded to requests for field assessments at five prehistoric sites under threat of disturbance or destruction in Brunswkk, Halifax and Chesterfield counties. T'he Department actively works to enhance public knowledge and appreciation of the historic structures and sites in Virginia, pursuing all avenues to impart to the broadest audience of public officials and citizens the enduring value of those properties. Publications, Public Presentations and Education: The Department produces publications and public outreach efforts with information_ on Virginia's historic resources and on the programs designed for their protection. 4 The Department published one issue of Notes on Virginia and six issues of Footnotes. Both publications were mailed to 7,500 individuals and organizations around the state. E The Department presented an exhibit highlighting the Department's role in current economic/preservation issues in General Assembly building during final weeks of the 1992 session. 4 The Department promoted National Historic Preservation Week through press releases, television and radio public service announcements, and arranging public speaking engagements and conferences or workshops. The Department provided public service announcements to 20 communities around the state and submitted a feature op-ed essay to 22 newspapers. 4 The Department sponsored the third annual Virginia Archaeology Week with over 7,500 people attending 75 events in Roanoke, Virginia Beach, Southwest Virginia, Northern '+Virginia, and the Richmond metropolitan area. A teacher's resource package targeted 1,450 elementary and middle schools with an Archaeology Week poster, quiz and guide to classroom activities. Thirty-five exhibit packages were sent to public libraries around the state. ® The Department prepared and distributed 118 press releases to print and broadcast media where appropriate on all Department meetings, hearings, visits to localities, and Virginia and National register listings. The Director's Office made 48 public presentations during the year. rj e The Department staff played a leading role in presenting workshops on Heritage Education, and on Preservation Issues in State Growth Strategies at the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers in Washington, D.C. The Department also developed and displayed an exhibit of the Department's preservation and archaeology programs at NCSHPO's first annual Resource Fair.. Historical Highway Markers: The Department manages Virginia's historical marker program. Historical signs, funded entirely from non -state monies, mark sites, events and individuals that are significant in the Commonwealth's history. 4 The Board of Historic Resources approved 28 new highway historical markers and 2 replacement markers.The markers are located in 23 counties and two cities. 4 The highlight of this year's program: Governor Wilder dedicated a new marker to commemorate the First Africans in English America. The marker was sponsored by the Harriet Tubman Historical Society. Sponsors of the markers this year included private citizens, other historical societies, church congregations, the U.S. Army. and the John Rolfe Middle School in Henrico County. Covenants and Development: The Department monitors the progress of grant -assisted preservation projects to ensure that registered historic buildings are treated with the care and sensitivity through their rehabilitation and afterwards. 4 The Department visited and monitored 18 historic properties with deed covenants resulting from old federal grants in: Greene County; Charlottesville; Albemarle County; City of Richmond; Buena Vista; Lynchburg; Petersburg; Norfolk; Portsmouth; Fredericksburg; Port Royal; Staunton, and the town of Herndon. 4 The Department closed out two federal grant -assisted development projects: a preservation study of the Cape Henry Lighthouse and a rehabilitation of the Pulaski Railroad Depot by the Town of Pulaski. ♦ Staff architects provided general technical assistance to more than 50 private preservation projects. FOOTNOTES is funded in part by a grant from the National Park Service, U. S. Dept. of the interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U. S. Dept. of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin or handicap in its federally assisted programs.lf you believe you have been discriminated against in any program or activity or facility described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C.20240.The contents and opinions of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Dept. of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation. by the Dept. of the Interior. The Dept. of Historic Resources, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, will make this publication available in braille, large print or audio tape upon request. Please allow 2-4 weeks for delivery. Virfflistoric ia Department of Resources 221 Governor Street • Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-3143 • FAX 225-4261 • TDD 786-1934 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID RICHMOND, VA. PERMIT NO. 1225