The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHRABAgenda2026February201.Introductions - New Members 2.HRAB Business - Election of Chair and Vice Chair 2.A.Bylaws 3.Winchester Gateway - Conditional Use Permit 3.A.This application seeks to develop a data center campus (+/- 805,000 square feet) on +/-71.85-acres of land zoned M1 (Light Industrial; REZ #06-23). The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of Middle Road and Apple Valley Road, and east of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. 4.Historic Restoration Grant Review 4.A.Review of Application for Heater House Restoration 4.B.Review of Application for St. Thomas Chapel Restoration AGENDA HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2026 10:00 AM FIRST-FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA HRAB02-20-26Bylaws.pdf HRAB02-20-26CUP_WinchesterGateway_Redacted.pdf HRAB02-20-26HeaterHouseRestorationApplication_Redacted.pdf HRAB02-20-26StThomasChapelRestorationApplication_Redacted.pdf 1 Historic Resources Advisory Board Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: February 20, 2026 Agenda Section: HRAB Business - Election of Chair and Vice Chair Title: Bylaws Attachments: HRAB02-20-26Bylaws.pdf 2 BYLAWS FREDERICK COUNTY HISTORIC RESOURCE ADVISORY BOARD (HRAB) I. Purpose of the HRAB 1.1 Mission Statement - Provide guidance to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on issues concerning the County’s historic resources. 1.2 The HRAB was created in 1987 by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to consider the impact of a rezoning or development on historically and architecturally significant sites and structures. 1.3 The HRAB will make recommendations of applications, either approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The recommendation will be based upon the proposed treatment of historic resources as well as the degree of their significance. If conditions are placed on the application, they shall be based on attached document “Formulating Good Recommendations”. II. Membership 2.1 The HRAB consists of nine voting members, one member from each magisterial district and three members at large. In addition to a Planning Commission Liaison, a staff member from the Planning Department, as well as a historic preservation consultant that advises the Board, also attend the meetings. 2.2 Members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. 2.3 The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be elected by the HRAB for a term of one year. 2.4 The HRAB may have an annual training or orientation session. 2.5 HRAB members will be encouraged to attend outside training sessions and conferences. 2.6 If a HRAB member has a conflict of interest with an application, it is expected that they refrain from making recommendations. III. Meetings 3.1 Meetings are held the third Friday of the month at 10:00 AM and shall be open to the public. Start time may be amended as deemed necessary by the Chairman. 3.2 Special meetings may be called for by the Chairman and the Planning Staff. 3.3 The staff member for the HRAB may make site inspections for applications. The HRAB members are also encouraged to make site visits. 3.4 Since the HRAB is an advisory Board and only makes recommendations, public hearing and public notices are not required. 3.5 A majority of the members present is required for an approval or denial recommendation; however, all recommendations will be recorded. 3.6 The HRAB will be courteous and respectful to each other and all applicants. 3.7 Regular attendance is expected of all members of the HRAB. If a member is unable to attend, it is expected that he/she notify the staff. Once a member has missed three (3) unexcused HRAB meetings, he/she shall be referred for replacement. 3 IV. Powers & Duties 4.1 The role of the HRAB is to make recommendations for properties that are or may be considered historic or potentially significant when land development applications are submitted to the County. 4.2 Fulfill responsibilities as designated by the HA Historic Overlay Zone Ordinance (Article XVI HA Historic Area Overlay Zone – Frederick County Zoning Ordinance). 4.3 Make recommendations utilizing the “Formulating Good Recommendations” handout. (See attachment) 4.4 Encourage historic preservation in Frederick County by recognizing significant historic resources. V. Application Review Process 5.1 Complete applications (see HRAB submission requirements) must be received by the 1st of the month to be added to that month’s agenda. HRAB members will receive the agenda one (1) week prior to a meeting. Once an application is received, the staff member shall research the project and prepare an agenda for the HRAB Members. At the HRAB meeting, the applicant is expected to be present to answer any questions that the board may have. 5.2 The HRAB shall provide a recommendation to the applicant during the meeting unless the applicant requests to bring the application back to the board at a later time. 5.3 Staff is responsible for notifying the applicant in writing of the HRAB’s action on the application. The notification letter should include all reasons for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. VI. Bylaw Amendment Process 6.1 If a member of the HRAB desires to amend the bylaws, that member would need to bring up the recommendation under the other portion of the meeting. A vote would then be held with the members, and if a majority vote is given a discussion will be held as to how to amend the bylaws. Once the changes have been discussed and agreed upon, staff will provide the HRAB members with a copy of the amended bylaws to adopt at the next scheduled meeting. Adopted: March 15, 2005 Amended: January 17, 2006 Amended: May 15, 2012 Amended: May 17, 2024 4 Historic Resources Advisory Board Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: February 20, 2026 Agenda Section: Winchester Gateway - Conditional Use Permit Title: This application seeks to develop a data center campus (+/- 805,000 square feet) on +/-71.85-acres of land zoned M1 (Light Industrial; REZ #06-23). The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of Middle Road and Apple Valley Road, and east of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Attachments: HRAB02-20-26CUP_WinchesterGateway_Redacted.pdf 5 6 7 8 9 10 Winchester Gateway LLC (Applicant) – Data Center Site Assessment for Conditional Use Permit Application Parcel 63-A-801 Introduction and Overview Winchester Gateway LLC respectfully requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to authorize the development of a data center campus on Parcel 63-A-801. Granting Applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit on its Property to allow for a data center will have a positive impact on the community by generating economic diversity through the creation of high-paying employment opportunities and contributing to the commercial tax base within the County. The proposed development, situated in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, aligns with Frederick County’s goals of fostering economic diversity and fiscal sustainability. In addition, the non-residential development proposed for the Property will decrease demands and impacts on County and community facilities such as schools, parks and libraries as residential development will not occur on the Property. The proposed development is not anticipated to negatively impact the County’s public safety facilities, and the Applicant has worked closely with County stakeholders to ensure that potential impacts are addressed as part of this Application. Fiscal and Economic Impact The proposed data center will serve as a substantial economic driver for Frederick County, characterized by a high revenue-to-expense ratio that will benefit the local tax base without burdening public services. According to the Economic Impact Analysis prepared by MuniCap, Inc., the project is projected to generate approximately $19 million annually in gross tax revenue for Frederick County upon full buildout and stabilization. This revenue stream is comprised primarily of Business Personal Property Tax, estimated at $16.48 million annually, and Real Property Tax, estimated at $2.35 million annually. Over a thirty-year period, the cumulative general fund revenue contribution to the County is projected to exceed $635 million. In addition to direct fiscal contributions, the proposed development will serve as a catalyst for employment. The construction phase is expected to support approximately 4,678 direct full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs, generating over $441 million in labor income. Once operational, the 11 facility will support 155 direct permanent jobs with an average annual income of $86,000, which is consistent with the County’s goals for attracting high-wage employment. Unlike residential developments, data centers do not generate new students for the school system or require significant county services, allowing the surplus tax revenue to directly fund County priorities such as education, public safety, and infrastructure. Transportation and Traffic Impact A primary advantage of the proposed data center over the previously approved industrial use is a dramatic reduction in traffic generation. A Transportation Overview indicates that the data center use will generate significantly less traffic than the industrial park, allowed by-right for the site. Specifically, the data center proposal results in a reduction of 1,925 daily vehicle trips compared to the approved industrial use. This reduction is particularly beneficial during critical commuter windows, with projections showing 172 fewer trips during the AM peak hour (a 63% reduction) and 240 fewer trips during the PM peak hour (an 87% reduction). Despite this reduction in traffic volume, the Applicant remains committed to the roadway improvements proffered during the prior zoning action to ensure maximum safety and efficiency. These commitments include widening Apple Valley Road to consistent cross-sections and installing a left-turn lane at the site driveway. With the significantly reduced traffic load inherent to data center operations, these improvements will provide Apple Valley Road with greater reserve capacity than originally anticipated. Noise Impact and Mitigation The Applicant has prioritized acoustical engineering to ensure the Winchester Gateway Data Center not only complies with, but is projected to operate at or below, Frederick County’s maximum allowable noise limits. An Environmental Noise Study prepared by Salas O’Brien (November 21, 2025) utilized SoundPLAN modeling software to evaluate noise emissions under normal operating conditions and during generator testing scenarios. Field measurements confirm that the existing acoustic environment in the area is heavily influenced by roadway traffic. Daytime ambient noise levels along Apple Valley Road average approximately 63–64 dB(A), while Route 37 produces levels in the range of 67–68 dB(A). The 12 proposed facility is designed to blend into these daytime background conditions and to minimize potential intrusion during quieter nighttime periods. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires that data centers not exceed 65 dB(A) during daytime hours and 60 dB(A) during nighttime hours at the property line. The Salas O’Brien modeling indicates the Project will maintain meaningful safety margins at all boundaries. Along the northern property line adjacent to Apple Valley Road, the facility is projected to reach approximately 55 dB(A) during normal operations and 56 dB(A) during generator testing. Noise levels along the remaining property lines are projected to be lower, ranging from approximately 47 dB(A) at the northwest boundary to 54 dB(A) at the southwest boundary during normal operations. It is also important to note that the Property is zoned M1 (Light Industrial), and under County Code, certain by-right industrial uses may generate noise levels up to 70 dB(A) at the property line. By comparison, the proposed data center’s modeled noise levels—generally in the mid-to- high 40s through mid-50s dB(A), with higher levels during testing still below applicable thresholds—represent a substantially quieter land use than what could otherwise be developed on the site. To achieve this performance, the Applicant will incorporate specific noise mitigation measures into the Project’s design and equipment selection. These measures include rooftop parapet walls to block line-of-sight to rooftop equipment and reduce sound propagation, the use of low-sound fan options, acoustic wraps for compressors, and high-performance mufflers on exhaust stacks, and the placement of emergency generators within sound-rated enclosures designed to minimize noise during operation. Operational protocols will further reduce potential impacts by restricting generator testing and maintenance cycling to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., consistent with County requirements. The Applicant also commits to the post-construction monitoring provisions of § 165-204.41, which require a certified noise study 12 months after the first certificate of occupancy and every five years thereafter to verify continued compliance. 13 Impacts on Surrounding Uses and Historic Sites The project layout has been designed to maximize compatibility with adjacent properties, including the nearby Kernstown Battlefield and residential uses along Apple Valley Road. To minimize visual impacts, the layout provides a substantial 200-foot setback from Apple Valley Road and adjacent residential zoning districts (RA, RP, and R4). Within this setback, the Applicant commits to installing a Category C full-screen buffer utilizing berms and dense plantings to visually screen the facility from neighbors. Architectural treatments and building scale have also been tailored to the site's context. Building heights will be capped at 60 feet, consistent with M1 zoning standards, ensuring the scale of the structures remains compatible with the surrounding viewshed. The use of high-quality materials was part of the existing M1 proffers and will further ensure the development enhances the existing industrial character of the immediate area. Power and Utilities The project is already served by significant utilities to include public water and sewer, natural gas and electricity. On the site there are significant 138kv power lines that connect to an existing substation immediately across Rt. 37 from the Winchester Gateway site. The Applicant anticipates a maximum transmission voltage requirement of 160 MW to support operation of the proposed data center. As such, the Applicant is in the process of working with local electric cooperatives and First Energy to confirm available power to the site and also the scope of needed enhancements for the delivery of additional power to the site. Because of the existing and installed infrastructure, the delivery of additional power to the site as the proposed data center develops and expands will be of no impact to adjoining properties. The additional power is already being planned to be delivered to the site and substation, and the Winchester Gateway development is a planned participant to use the power. There will be the need to build an additional substation on the Winchester Gateway site as part of the proposed data center use. That substation, which will be built at the sole cost of Winchester Gateway, will be installed in a manner so that it is behind the already proffered screening which was part of the approved rezoning. 14 With respect to water usage, the facility will utilize a closed-loop or air-cooled mechanical system. This technology restricts water usage to a maximum average of 35,000 gallons per day, thereby minimizing the impact on public water resources compared to traditional water-cooled facilities. Impact on Public Parks The Winchester Gateway site is not proximate to any existing or planned public parks. Development of a data center on the site will therefore have no impact on any such public facilities. Impact on Agricultural Resources The Winchester Gateway site is located within an area of Frederick County designated for Industrial land use by the Comprehensive Plan, meaning neither the site nor immediately contiguous land are envisioned to contain or otherwise support agricultural activities. Consistent with this expectation, the site neither contains nor adjoins any active agricultural resources. As such, the development of a data center on the Winchester Gateway site will not impact Frederick County’s agricultural base. Impact on Forestland Neither the Winchester Gateway site nor immediately contiguous land contains forestland resources. Development of a data center on the site will therefore have no impact on forestland resources. Conclusion The Winchester Gateway Data Center represents a high-value, low-impact land use that is consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. By granting the Conditional Use Permit, the County secures nearly $19 million in annual tax revenue and significant job growth while simultaneously reducing traffic congestion compared to the previously approved industrial plans. Through advanced acoustical engineering, extensive site buffering, and architectural design, the Applicant has ensured the project will remain compatible and beneficial to the community. 15 Map Data Source: Frederick County, VA. GIS Department, 2025 Data.LOCATION EXHIBITWINCHESTER GATEWAY PHASE 1 - CUPFREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIADATE: 06-13-2025 PROJECT ID: 0036KDESIGNED BY: DJCSCALE:WINCHESTER GATEWAY PHASE 1 - CUPLOCATION EXHIBITBACK CREEK DISTRICT1"=600'63 A 80I MIDDL E R D APPLEVAL L EYRDJONES RDSTUAR T DR RT37 SRT37 N¯ Legend Subject Parcel Parcels 81 11 37 628 622 INSET MAP 1"=5000' CITY OF WINCHESTER SITE 16 Map Data Source: Frederick County, VA. GIS Department, 2025 Data.AERIAL EXHIBITWINCHESTER GATEWAY PHASE 1 - CUPFREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIADATE: 06-13-2025 PROJECT ID: 0036KDESIGNED BY: DJCSCALE:WINCHESTER GATEWAY PHASE 1 - CIUPAERIAL EXHIBITBACK CREEK DISTRICT1"=600'63 A 80IJONESRDMIDDLERD APPLEVAL L EYR DSTUAR T DR RT37SRT37 N¯Legend Subject Parcel Parcels City Boundary 17 Map Data Source: Frederick County, VA. GIS Department, 2025 Data.HISTORICAL EXHIBITWINCHESTER GATEWAY PHASE 1 - CUPFREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIADATE: 06-13-2025 PROJECT ID: 0036KDESIGNED BY: DJCSCALE:WINCHESTER GATEWAY PHASE 1 -CUPHISTORICAL EXHIBITBACK CREEK DISTRICT1"=600'¯ Legend [e [e [e [e [e [e 34-27 Stoney Lonesome Farm 34-3 Brightside 34-7 Kernstown Battlefield 34-9 Opequon Presbyterian Church 34-971 Hoge's Ordinary 34-487 Tenant House at Brightside First Kernstown Second Kernstown63 A 80I VALLEY PIKEJONES RD BATTLE PARK DR M IDDLE RD APPLE VAL L EYRD SHAD Y E L M R D STUAR T DR RT37 SRT37NLegend Subject Parcel Parcels City Boundary[e Landmark Civil War Battlefields Battle Name First Kernstown Second Kernstown ¯ 18 Map Data Source: Frederick County, VA. GIS Department, 2025 Data.NATURAL FEATURES EXHIBITWINCHESTER GATEWAY PHASE 1 - CUPFREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIADATE: 06-13-2025 PROJECT ID: 0036KDESIGNED BY: DJCSCALE:WINCHESTER GATEWAY PHASE 1 - CUPNATURAL FEATURES EXHIBITBACK CREEK DISTRICT1"=600'63 A 80I VALLEYPIKEJONES RD MID DLE RD APPL EVAL L E YRDBATTLE PARK DR STUAR T DR RT37 SRT37 N855835825820815810875865845805 790 880870860850825 820 81581080584584083581080579578582 5 815 800 790775765760755785780870 855 755750745740800795795790 780775 885 880 820815810920910885880 825820825820800795790785785780775770910905 795790785780 765760750745905900895 890 885840830 800795865860850830 80 0 830770 850785835830820790785785870850 805800790915880865 865860 845 835835810810810805 8058058058 0 0 795 790 790790785775775 775770 760750¯ Legend Subject Parcel Parcels City Boundary Floodplain Ponds Stream Centerline 5' Contours 19 X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXNO 2 NO 4NO 6NO 1NO 3NO 5NO 2 NO 4 NO 6 NO 1 NO 3 NO 5 H1H2H3X0X3X2X1 NO 2 NO 4NO 6NO 1NO 3NO 5NO 2 NO 4NO 6NO 1NO 3NO 5NO 2 NO 4 NO 6 NO 1 NO 3 NO 5 H1H2H3X0X3X2X1 NO 2 NO 4NO 6NO 1NO 3NO 5H1H2H3X0X3X2X1H1H2H3X0X3X2X1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X 30'30'30'30'30'40' 40' 30' 30' 30' 30'30'40'40'40'520.8'219.1'685.7'219.1'219.1'590.8' 225.3' 18 8 . 6 9 ' 614.96'474.29'225.74'1232.4'PROPOSEDSUBSTATIONLIMITS OFDISTURBANCE(APPROX.)10' SECURITY FENCELIMITS OFDISTURBANCE(APPROX.)LIMITS OFDISTURBANCE(APPROX.)LIMITS OFDISTURBANCE(APPROX.)10' SECURITY FENCE10' SECURITY FENCE10' SECURITY FENCEEX. Zoning Boundary(M1 & RA)Property LineWetland "A"Delineated Wetland "DE"Wetland "FG"Off-Site Wetland"BC"Delineated Wetland "BC"Delineated Wetland "DE"Delineated Wetland "BC"Off-Site Wetland"BC"Delineated Wetland "BC"Delineated Wetland "HI"SpringEx. 10" D.I.P. W/LEx. 10" D.I.P. W/LEx. 8" D.I.P. W/LEx. Fire Hydrant (F-182)Static Pressure = 68 PSIStatic Pressure = 1,233 GPMResidual Pressure = 54 PSITest Date: 04/24/2007Ex. Fire Hydrant (F-183)Static Pressure = 62 PSIStatic Pressure = 1,198 GPMResidual Pressure = 51 PSITest Date: 08/13/2012Ex. Fire Hydrant (F-184)Static Pressure = 50 PSIStatic Pressure = 1,140 GPMResidual Pressure = 46 PSITest Date: 02/15/2005Ex. 10" D.I.P. W/LFW 20"WL - ARVDATE:C.I.=OFSHEETFND 1971 ENGI NEER I NG PROUDLY SERVING VIRGINIA & WEST VIRGINIA OFFICES IN: ASHBURN, VA, WINCHESTER, VA, & MARTINSBURG, WV 45145 RESEARCH PLACE ASHBURN, VIRGINIA 20147 TELEPHONE: (703) 328-0788 FAX: (540) 722-9528 WWW.GREENWAYENG.COMSCALE:CUP SKETCH PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIAN/A2025-11-06111"=100'WINCHESTER GATEWAY PHASE 1 20 APPLE VALLEY ROAD ~ VA SEC RTE #652 MIDDLE ROAD ~ VA SEC RTE #628VA RTE # 3 7 S VA RTE # 3 7 N DATA CENTER 1 MAX BLDG HT:60' SUBSTATION DATA CENTER 2 MAX BLDG HT:60' DATA CENTER 3 MAX BLDG HT:60' SWM/BMP TYPICAL BUFFER DETAIL SCALE 1:20 SEE DETAIL BELOW 2025-12-16 2’ PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BUFFER 21 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 1 of 12 Property Information Property Names Name Explanation Name Current Name Kernstown Battlefield Historic District Historic Brightside Historic Grim Farm Historic Pritchard-Grim House Property Addresses Former - Valley Avenue Route 11 Current - 610 Battle Park Drive Alternate - 3075-3077 Middle Road Route 628 County/Independent City(s):Frederick (County), Winchester Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s):No Data Zip Code(s):22601, 22602 Magisterial District(s):No Data Tax Parcel(s):No Data USGS Quad(s):WINCHESTER Property Evaluation Status DHR Board: Eligible This Property is associated with the Kernstown Battlefield. Additional Property Information Architecture Setting:Rural Acreage:352.5 Site Description: 1958: Brightside is located in Kernstown, three miles south of Winchester in Frederick County, Virginia. 1968: Brightside is located 0.2 mile east of Hoge Run, 0.4 mile west of Route 11, 1.1 mile south of the intersection of Routes 11 and 628, in the vicinity of Winchester in Frederick County. 1989: The Pritchard-Grim House is located off of Route 11 outside of Kernstown. Brightside has some interesting outbuildings. There is a fine stone meathouse just west of the house. There is also a log slave's quarters(?) southwest of the main house. The slave's quarters has its own board and batten meathouse, along with a chicken coop and an outhouse. There are other outbuildings at Brightside including several modern machine sheds, a corn crib, several outhouses and several frame sheds. The surrounding land is used for farming including apple orchards. The area around the house was the site of the Battle of Kernstown on March 23, 1862. The battlefields are in pristine condition. 1989 tenant house survey: Located on the Grim Farm property just west of Kernstown and Route 11, as well as west of the main property (034-0003). The tenant house and its outbuildings are located west of the main house. These outbuildings include: a frame shed and a summer kitchen just behind the house, as well as a large bank barn with a silo and a frame corn crib. The newest outbuilding is a concrete block pump house. 1996: The Grim Farm property, located in Frederick County and in the city of Winchester, is a 342-acre rural agricultural landscape which features historic residences, barns, and other outbuildings; extensive apple orchards, pastureland and woodlands; a running stream; varied topography; and views to the surrounding countryside. While much of the Winchester area has changed to accommodate increasing numbers of residents, industry, and commerce, Grim Farm has maintained much of the same character as it had during the first two American centuries. It is a cultural landscape with a rich history that is highly sensitive to change and development. 2023 HD PIF: The Main Campus (a/k/a The Pritchard-Grim Farm) consists of a single parcel totaling approximately 315 acres on the boundary line between Winchester, VA and Frederick County, VA. The property is accessible to the east via Battle Park Drive just north of Kernstown, VA, and is visible from the east from commercial and residential properties adjacent to U.S. Route 11 (Valley Pike) and from VA Route 37 and Middle Road to the west. The Sandy Ridge Tract is undeveloped and mostly forested land bordered on the east by VA Route 37 and privately held residential or wooded parcels to the south and east with the Rose Hill Park (owned by the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley) to the north and west. Apart from the Main Campus’s proximity to the development along Route 11 and location within Winchester, both parcels would be considered primarily rural in nature. The KBA owns both properties and maintains them primarily for historical preservation and interpretation. As stated earlier, the Main Campus features three historical walking trails which interpret the Kernstown-related battles and the general history of the property. Besides historical preservation and interpretation, the Main Campus property is also utilized in part for agricultural purposes through a lease arrangement with a local farmer who raises cattle and cultivates hay. The KBA also has an arrangement with the Virginia Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program supporting conservation landscaping on a portion of the property using native plants. The KBA has cleared additional portions of the Sandy Ridge property to create a new pedestrian trail which interprets the action that took place there during the Battle of First Kernstown, Battle of Second Kernstown and Second Battle of Winchester. Access to this property is currently limited to special events via a KBA- controlled gated gravel roadway. Future plans include finalizing an 10722 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 2 of 12 arrangement to allow pedestrian access to Sandy Ridge by connecting the property to the existing trail located in the adjacent Rose Hill Park. Main Campus The “Main Campus,” a/k/a the Pritchard-Grim Farm, consists of a single parcel totaling approximately 315 acres which straddles the boundary line between Winchester, Virginia (VA) and Frederick County, VA. The property appears largely as it did during the Civil War era, dominated by open fields/meadows (with some forested areas primarily located to the south) and is still actively farmed. Its topography is defined by a dominating elevation, Pritchard’s Hill, with south, west and east slopes. Hoge Run, a stream named after the first owners of the Farm, runs through the southern part of the property in a southeasterly direction and empties into Opequon Creek. The owner of this property, the non-profit Kernstown Battlefield Association (KBA), is also set to acquire an additional 35-acre parcel adjacent to the southwest border of the Main Campus, which would increase the area of this portion of the property to approximately 350 acres. The Main Campus features the Pritchard house constructed in 1854, the Pritchard cabin originally constructed circa 1790, as well as a visitor’s center, conference center, artillery exhibition building, and various outbuildings. Despite its location immediately adjacent to suburban Kernstown, the character and quality of the property and surrounding area contribute to the landscape’s historic battlefield integrity. Sandy Ridge Tract (034-0007- 0001) The Sandy Ridge Tract consists of a single parcel totaling 37.5 ± acres. The property is located on Ramseur Lane to the northwest of Kernstown, VA, bordered to the east by VA Route 37 and privately held residential or wooded parcels in other directions. Today, the property includes mostly forested areas with dense undergrowth and approximately six acres of cleared open-space field/meadow that the KBA is expanding to better reflect the historical, mostly cleared nature of this ridgeline. Its topography is defined by a narrow north-south ridge, Sandy Ridge, with east and west facing slopes. The field/meadow portions of the property roughly correspond to the crest of Sandy Ridge and disused paths or roads that cut through wooded areas. The rural character and quality of the Sandy Ridge Tract and surrounding area contribute to the landscape’s historic battlefield integrity. Surveyor Assessment: 1958: Originally owned by the Prichard family and currently owned by Mr. C. Hardy Graham. 1989: The house and the environs are much in the same condition they were in after the Civil War. This property has been kept in its original condition thus far and efforts should be made to make sure it remains protected. It is truly an important historical and architectural resource of Frederick County. Quarles states that the house was built by either Stephen Pritchard, Jr. or his son, Samuel Rees Pritchard. Quarles also claims that there was an earlier log house on this property just west of the present brick structure, that was built by William Hoge. Hoge had a patent on this land by 1735. Nothing remains of the original log house. According to Quarles, this is the chain of title: 1. William Hoge 1735 2. Hoge to Rees Pritchard 1756 3. Pritchard to John M. Miller 1876 4. John M. Miller to James H. Burton 1879 5. James H. Burton to Charles Henry Grim 1890 The First Battle of Kernstown occurred in this area on March 23, 1862. 1989 tenant house survey: Built by a member of the Pritchard family. This property should be investigated for its register potential as part of Brightside (034-0003). The first battle of Kernstown occurred in this area (March 23, 1862). 2023 HD PIF: Documented residency on the Pritchard-Grim Farm property dates to the time of early European settlement of the Shenandoah Valley in the 1730s. Four families called this property home from the mid-18th to the mid-20th century: the Hoges, the Pritchards, the Burtons, and the Grims. Each of the families has its own particular history, but it is the Pritchard family whose name is most strongly associated with the farmstead. From at least 1756 until 1879 when the farmstead was sold to James Burton, five Pritchard generations lived, and mostly prospered, on this property. It was during Samuel Reese Pritchard's ownership that parts of three major Civil War battles took place on this property. Battlefield History: The KBA properties lie within the core areas of the First Kernstown Battlefield and the Second Kernstown Battlefield and within the study area of the Second Winchester Battlefield. The First Kernstown Battlefield was assigned a Preservation Priority Rating (PPR) of I.3 Class B by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (“CWSAC”) in 1993. Sites with a PPR rating of I are those with a critical need for action to ensure their protection, and those rated Class B had a direct and decisive influence on their campaigns, in this case the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1862. The Second Winchester Battlefield was given a PPR of IV.1 Class B. Sites with a PPR of IV are those that are fragmented by development and other land use, and the Class B rating denotes its direct and decisive influence on the Gettysburg Campaign of June-August 1863. The Second Kernstown Battlefield was also assigned a PPR of IV.1 Class B and had a direct and decisive influence on the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864. The Battle of First Kernstown occurred on March 23, 1862. Relying on faulty intelligence reporting the Union garrison at Winchester numbering only about 3,000 soldiers, Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson marched north from the Upper Shenandoah Valley with his 3,400-man division. The 8,500 Federals, commanded by Col. Nathan Kimball, stopped Jackson on the Pritchard property, and then counterattacked turning Jackson’s left flank along Sandy Ridge and forcing him to retreat. Fierce artillery exchanges and infantry maneuvers occurred on the property, initially on Pritchard’s Hill and other parts of the Main Campus, with the main infantry battle occurring later in the day on Sandy Ridge. Despite this Union tactical victory, President Lincoln was disturbed by Jackson’s threat to Washington, D.C. and redirected substantial reinforcements to the Shenandoah Valley, depriving Union Gen. George McClellan’s army of these troops. McClellan claimed the added troops would have enabled him to take Richmond during his Peninsula campaign. The Battle of Second Winchester took place between June 13-15, 1863 and was part of the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863. To facilitate the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia’s advance northward, Gen. Richard Ewell and his Second Corps were sent to clear the Shenandoah Valley of opposition. On June 12th, the Second Corps entered the Shenandoah Valley at Front Royal where it was split, two divisions being dispatched to Winchester and the third to Berryville. On the morning of June 13th, Ewell’s forces approached Winchester from the south, engaging the Union forces of Gen. Robert Milroy at Pritchard’s Hill and Sandy Ridge, both sites of the Battle of First Kernstown. By the end of the first day, Confederate forces controlled the roads to the south of Winchester and on June 10823 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 3 of 12 14th they had encircled the city, at which point Milroy abandoned the city under cover of darkness. As the Union forces retreated northward, they were intercepted by Confederate troops at Stephenson’s Depot in the early morning hours of June 15th. Fighting ensued for over two hours, resulting in a rout of Union forces. This Union defeat led to mobilization of additional Union troops and provided critical supplies for the Confederate Army on its march to Gettysburg. The Battle of Second Kernstown occurred on July 24, 1864, when Confederate forces under the command of Gen. Jubal Early attacked the Union position at Kernstown commanded by Gen. George Crook, following withdrawal of a majority of Federal forces that had previously been sent to the area to protect Washington, D.C. The Confederate troops approached Kernstown from the south along the Valley Turnpike and Middle Road. Several hours of fighting took place just north of the village of Kernstown on both sides of the Valley Pike. Ultimately, the Confederates overwhelmed the Union forces, including Col. James Mulligan’s division whose final stand took place in the front yard of the Pritchard house. In very short order, the Union line collapsed, ultimately resulting in their retreat northeast to the Potomac River. The Confederate victory at Kernstown would enable Jubal Early’s cavalry raid on Chambersburg, PA on July 30th. This in turn led to major Union reinforcements being sent to the Valley under the command of Gen. Phillip Sheridan. The Second Battle of Kernstown was the final major Confederate victory in the Shenandoah Valley In an important final note, the entirety of the KBA property is located within the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, an eight-county region in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia designated by Congress in the 1996 “Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act” (P.L. 104-333). The purpose of the district is to preserve, conserve, and interpret the region’s significant Civil War battlefields and related historic sites. See PIF for much additional information. Surveyor Recommendation:Recommended Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Public - Local No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category:Defense Resource Type:Battle Site NR Resource Type:Site Historic District Status:Contributing Date of Construction:Ca 1862 Date Source:Written Data Historic Time Period:Civil War (1861 - 1865) Historic Context(s):Architecture/Landscape, Military/Defense Other ID Number:No Data Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Number of Stories:No Data Condition:Excellent Threats to Resource:Development Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1989: The area around the house was the site of the Battle of Kernstown on March 23, 1862. The battlefields are in pristine condition. 2023 HD PIF: The proposed Kernstown Battlefield Historic District is located partially in Kernstown (an unincorporated community within the independent city of Winchester, VA) and partially in Frederick County, VA. Kernstown is centered along the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11). The Main Campus, comprising a large portion of the Kernstown Battlefields, was acquired by the KBA in 2000. It has been a working farm known as the Pritchard-Grim Farm) for over 250 years. Consistent with that primary use and the relative prosperity of the Pritchard Family prior to the Civil War, the property features a relatively large and well-constructed antebellum home known as the Pritchard House, an 1854 replacement of an earlier large wood-frame/log house located nearby (exact location still to be determined). The existing Pritchard House is a three-story high Greek Revival-style brick structure. On the principal, southeast facade is a two-story entrance porch which was replaced in 2018. At the southwest elevation facing the farmyard, a two-story ell addition along with its covered porch and staircase was removed from the building in the mid-20th century. On its interior, the Pritchard house has original, wood double-hung windows and original woodwork. Sometime in the early 20th century, a coal burning boiler with radiator heating was installed in the basement and a bathroom was installed upstairs. In 2005, the house underwent limited stabilization and protection work to prevent this significant building from being lost. More recently, an exhibit was added in the former boiler room to interpret use of the house as a field hospital during and after the Battles of First and Second Kernstown. Per the results of a 2023 professional study, the existing fire-damaged, circa 1790 Pritchard Cabin was built by Stephen Pritchard Sr., most 10924 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 4 of 12 likely as a cook house, later modified by his son as quarters for his enslaved house servants and/or the one free black living on the property just prior to the Civil War. As originally built, it was an exposed hand-hewed log building consisting of a full walk-out basement, main floor with very low doors, loft, and cedar shake shingled roof. The cabin was modernized/expanded about the same time the still-standing brick house was built to include a kitchen, replacement brick chimney, porch, clapboard exterior and metal roof. This small five-room house subsequently served as a rental home until the mid-20th century. Unfortunately, this historically significant structure was set on fire by vandals in Oct. 2000, destroying the front porch, kitchen addition and roof. The remains of these structure elements were removed, and the remaining charred log crib was encased in plywood for preservation purposes. Restoration efforts began in 2021 with stabilizing and repointing the foundation. The KBA plans to use the 2023 cabin study to guide in the development of a restoration and expanded historical interpretation plan, including identifying possible grant sources to fund these efforts which would greatly exceed the KBA’s existing financial capacity). Charles Hardy Grim II was the last owner of the property prior to the KBA, actively farming it and constructing several farm buildings on the site. His building investment legacy has greatly benefited the KBA, with farm buildings converted to a visitor’s center, a conference room and an artillery exhibition building, and other structures currently used for storage and other purposes. Mr. Grim also had a very large, Amish barn built in the 1950s, currently used for equipment storage and as an occasional event venue. Additionally, a local farmer leases a portion of the property for cultivation of hay and raising livestock. The Sandy Ridge Tract, acquired by the KBA in Dec. 2022, consists of a single undeveloped parcel totaling approximately 37.5 acres. It is bordered by VA Route 37 and privately held residential or wooded parcels. On the north and west, the adjacent Rose Hill Park is a 1.3-mile loop trail used primarily for hiking, walking, and nature trips. Both the Rose Hill trail (which traverses the northern portion of Sandy Ridge) and the KBA Sandy Ridge trail (traversing the southern portion of Sandy Ridge) include interpretive markers focusing mostly on the Battle of First Kernstown. On a related note, the KBA Main Campus now has three separate color-coded historical walking trails, each with multiple historical interpretive markers: 1)the Blue Trail focusing on the Battle of First Kernstown; 2)the Red Trail that covers the Battle of Second Kernstown; and 3)the Green Trail focusing on family history (including information on enslaved African-Americans) and the history of agriculture in the lower Shenandoah Valley. The KBA has received approval from a private foundation for a grant to improve and expand the two Main Campus battlefield trails, which should be completed by mid-2024. July 1989 Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Smoke/Meat House Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Architecture/Landscape, Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No Data Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1989: The slave' quarters has its own board and batten meathouse. July 1989 Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #2 Resource Category:Domestic Resource Type:Single Dwelling Date of Construction:1840Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860) 11025 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 5 of 12 Historic Context(s):Architecture/Landscape, Domestic, Military/Defense, Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:Greek Revival Form:No Data Condition:Fair Threats to Resource:Neglect Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1958: 3 story brick home, built circa 1840-1850 and in fair condition at this time. Typical plan - two rooms and center hall. Exterior brick cornice, modest interiors but original. 1968: Brick, 3 stories, flat roof with parapet ends; central two-level portico. Mid 19th century; altered. 1989: Brightside is a three story brick house laid in 5-course American bond. It is of the Vernacular Greek Revival style. It has a flat roof with parapets on the sides. There are five symmetrical bays on the front. The main entrance to the house is on the second floor, although there is an entrance on the ground floor. Built circa 1840-1860 ( 1854?), the house has been vacant for several years. It is fairly good condition considering this fact, but remains endangered by neglect. See extensive details on survey form. 2023 HD PIF: July 1989 Interior Plan:Other Number of Stories:3 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Parapet Metal Standing Seam Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 6/6 Chimneys Interior End Brick Other Structural System and Exterior Treatment Masonry Brick Other Foundation Solid/Continuous Brick Other Porch Other Wood No Data Porch 2-story, 1-bay Wood Other Secondary Resource #3 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Shed,Machine Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Architecture/Landscape, Domestic, Military/Defense, Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No Discernable Style Form:No Data Condition:N/A Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: Several modern machine sheds. July 1989 Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #4 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Corncrib Date of Construction:1900Ca 11126 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 6 of 12 Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Architecture/Landscape, Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No Discernable Style Form:No Data Condition:N/A Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: Frame corncrib. July 1989 Secondary Resource #5 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Chicken House/Poultry House Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Architecture/Landscape, Domestic, Military/Defense, Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No Discernable Style Form:No Data Condition:N/A Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: July 1989 Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #6 Resource Category:Domestic Resource Type:Privy Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Architecture/Landscape, Domestic, Military/Defense, Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No Discernable Style Form:No Data Condition:N/A Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: Several outhouses; one associated solely with slave quarters. July 1989 Number of Stories:1 11227 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 7 of 12 Secondary Resource #7 Resource Category:DSS Legacy Resource Type:Shed Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No Discernable Style Form:No Data Condition:N/A Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: Several frame sheds. July 1989 Number of Stories:1 Secondary Resource #8 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Smoke/Meat House Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Architecture/Landscape, Domestic, Military/Defense, Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No Discernable Style Form:No Data Condition:Poor Threats to Resource:No Data Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1989: There is a fine stone meathouse just west of the house. July 1989 Number of Stories:1 Secondary Resource #9 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Orchard Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Landscape, Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Good Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: 11328 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 8 of 12 No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1989: The surrounding land is used for farming including apple orchards. July 1989 Secondary Resource #10 Resource Category:Domestic Resource Type:Slave/Servant Quarters Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Architecture/Landscape, Domestic, Ethnic/Immigration Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Good Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:African American Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1989: There is also a log slave's quarters (?) southwest of the main house. It is 1½ stories and sits on a stone split-level basement. It has a frame wing addition. July 1989 Number of Stories:1.5 Secondary Resource #11 Resource Category:Domestic Resource Type:Secondary/Tenant Date of Construction:1840Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860) Historic Context(s):No Data Architectural Style:Greek Revival Form:No Data Condition:Poor Threats to Resource:Neglect, Vacant Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1989: The tenant house at Brightside is a 2-story 5-bay structure of frame construction cladded with stucco. It is five bays wide and is symmetrical. It has 2 interior end brick chimneys, and 6/6 windows. It is a gable roof type of standing-seam metal. There is a 2 light transom above and 5-light side lights around the front door, which has an oblong octagonal panel in the center. There are vent windows with wooden bars in the raised stone basement. There are 2 large square attic windows in the gable end. There are brackets in the cornice of the front of the house. There is a 2 story rear ell with a central chimney at the back of the house. It appears that the rear ell was added to later. The front and the rear el1 date from ca. 1840-60 and the addition to the rear ell from c. 1880- 1910. The front portion has a folk Victorian porch 3 bays wide and one story high. It has turned spindle supports and decorative brackets. It probably dates from the time of the addition. The rear ell has a full length 7- bay porch on the north side and a 2 story, 2 level porch on the south side. The house is vacant and appears to have been for several years; the environs are overgrown. 1990: Photographs indicate that efforts have been made in the previous year to remove encroaching vegetation around the house. July 1989 Interior Plan:Corridor, Single/Double Loaded Number of Stories:2 11429 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 9 of 12 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Exterior Treatment Wood Frame Wood Stuccoed Roof Side Gable Metal No Data Windows Double-hung Wood No Data Porch 1-Story Partial Width Wood Turned Chimneys Interior End Brick No Data Secondary Resource #12 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Bank Barn Date of Construction:1900Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Good Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: 1989 Architecture Summary: Large (20th century) bank barn July 1989 Secondary Resource #13 Resource Category:Domestic Resource Type:Kitchen Date of Construction:1900Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Domestic Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Poor Threats to Resource:Neglect Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1989: Frame/stucco summer kitchen July 1989 Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #14 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Silo Date of Construction:1900Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style 11530 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 10 of 12 Form:No Data Condition:Fair Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: 1989: 20th century silo is adjacent to the bank barn. July 1989 Secondary Resource #15 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Pump House Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No Data Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1989: The newest building is the concrete block pump house. July 1989 Historic District Information Historic District Name:Kernstown Battlefield Local Historic District Name:No Data Historic District Significance:In the spring of 1862, Confederate Maj. Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson maneuvered his 3,800-man division in the lower Shenandoah Valley, tying up a larger Union force sent there to contain him. When some of the Union troops were sent east in early March, Jackson went on the offensive. Defending Winchester were 8,500 Federals under Brig. Gen. James Shields. They skirmished there with Confederate cavalry under Col. Turner Ashby on March 22 where Shields was wounded, and command fell upon Col. Nathan Kimball. The next day, Kimball established a defensive position at Kernstown on the outskirts of Winchester. Jackson sent Ashby forward on his right, and attacked Kimball from his left with two infantry brigades, including his namesake Stonewall Brigade. Kimball counterattacked, but Jackson's men fought hard. Late in the day, the Confederates, low on ammunition, pulled back without Jackson's orders. Jackson tried in vain to rally his outnumbered and outgunned troops. Despite the Union victory in the first battle of Jackson's 1862 Valley Campaign, President Abraham Lincoln was disturbed by Jackson’s threat to Washington and returned Union reinforcements to the Valley. CRM Events Event Type: DHR ID Number Change DHR ID:034-0003 Staff Name:Quatro Hubbard, DHR Archives Event Date:8/2/2023 Staff Comment The tenant house on the Brightside property was originally recorded separately, as DHR ID number 034-0487. The file has been removed from the DHR's inventory and its contents added to the record and the file for 034-0003. 11631 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 11 of 12 Event Type: PIF Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:R. Gary Sheppard Organization/Company:Individual Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:7/12/2023 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: PIF submitted by R. Gary Sheppard for the Kernstown Battlefield Historic District. Period Of Significance:ca 1820 - 1900 Level Of Significance:Local Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History, C - Distinctive Characteristics of Architecture/Construction Phase II Intensive Survey Integrity Recommendations: Association, Design, Feeling, Location, Materials, Workmanship Event Type: DHR Board: Eligible DHR ID:034- 0003 Staff Name:State Review Board Event Date:10/19/1993 Staff Comment No Data Event Type: DHR Evaluation Committee: Eligible DHR ID:034- 0003 Staff Name:DHR Evaluation Committee Event Date:8/16/1993 Staff Comment Brightside, Frederick County (DHR #34- 03), was rated at the regional level for significance in the area of architecture and military history. It was found to be eligible with a score of 42. Event Type: Survey:Phase II/Intensive Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Maral S. Kalbian Organization/Company:Maral S. Kalbian, LLC Photographic Media:Film Survey Date:7/1/1989 Dhr Library Report Number:FK-022 Project Staff/Notes: Aug 2023 DHR Archives note: Intensive level survey for Brightside, 034-0003 (no interior photographs, but interior access was granted), 7/1989 - negative #9793 (included photographs of outbuildings in addition to exterior views and details of the main house). Reconnaissance level survey for the "Tenant House at Brightside" (recorded at that time as 034-0487). This included additional views of outbuildings. 7/1989 - Negative #9793 Updated photographs of the exterior of the tenant house were taken by Maral Kalbian during a windshield survey, 9/1990 (negative #10570), without additional written documentation. Project Bibliographic Information: No Data Period Of Significance:ca 1820 - 1900 Level Of Significance:Local Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History, C - Distinctive Characteristics of Architecture/Construction Phase II Intensive Survey Integrity Recommendations: Association, Design, Feeling, Location, Materials, Workmanship 11732 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0003 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 034-0007 August 25, 2023 Page: 12 of 12 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Tucker Hill Organization/Company:VA Dept. of Historic Resources Photographic Media:Film Survey Date:4/1/1968 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: Spring 1968 update of HABSI survey of Brightside Negative #076 Period Of Significance:ca 1820 - 1900 Level Of Significance:Local Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History, C - Distinctive Characteristics of Architecture/Construction Phase II Intensive Survey Integrity Recommendations: Association, Design, Feeling, Location, Materials, Workmanship Event Type: Survey:HABS Inventory Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:H.C. Johnson, Jr. Organization/Company:UVA Photographic Media:Film Survey Date:8/26/1958 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Period Of Significance:ca 1820 - 1900 Level Of Significance:Local Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History, C - Distinctive Characteristics of Architecture/Construction Phase II Intensive Survey Integrity Recommendations: Association, Design, Feeling, Location, Materials, Workmanship Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Name: ESC, LLC. DHR CRM Report Number: 2007- 0271 Record Type: Report Bibliographic Notes: FK-090: Phase II NRHP Evaluation of a Portion of Site 44FK0622 at the Proposed Corron Center on the Lord Fairfax Community College Tract, Frederick County, Virginia October 5, 2007 Name: OCOLUS DHR CRM Report Number: FK-073 Record Type: Report Bibliographic Notes: Kernstown Battlefield Resource Management Plan: Grim Farm Property, Frederick County and City of Winchester, Virginia - September, 1996 Property Notes: No Data 11833 Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources Legend Architecture Resources Architecture Labels Individual Historic District Properties DHR Easements County Boundaries Title: Architecture Labels Date: 8/25/2023 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representation depicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located at DHR’s Richmond office. Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources.11934 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0007 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 076-5168 August 25, 2023 Page: 1 of 5 Property Information Property Names Name Explanation Name Historic Kernstown Battlefield and Opequon Presbyterian Church Historic Kernstown Battlefield and Pritchard House Historic Kernstown Battlefield and Rose Hill Farm Historic Kernstown II Battlefield Historic/Current Kernstown Battlefield Property Addresses Alternate - Middle Road Route 628 Current - Main Street US Route 11 Alternate - Apple Valley Road Route 652 Alternate - Shady Elm Road Route 651 County/Independent City(s):Frederick (County), Winchester Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s):Stephens City Zip Code(s):22601, 22602, 22655 Magisterial District(s):No Data Tax Parcel(s):No Data USGS Quad(s):STEPHENS CITY, WINCHESTER Property Evaluation Status DHR Staff: Eligible Additional Property Information Architecture Setting:Town Acreage:No Data Site Description: October 2017: The majority of the battlefield is located to the north and northwest of Stephens City; however, a section of Stephens City is included in the recommended boundary extension along Main Street. January 2020: This section of the battlefield surveyed remains relatively intact with little modern commercial or residential development, with the exception of several late nineteenth to early twentieth century farms. Some commercial development is located immediately to the northeast and a cellular tower has been constructed on a parcel on the northwest side of Shady Elm Road at the edge of the battlefield resource’s boundary. Surveyor Assessment: Site of the 1st and 2nd Battle of Kernstown during the Civil War. October 2017: A portion of the Kernstown I/ Kernstown II Battlefield (DHR # 034-0007) extends into the town of Stephens City and a portion of the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District. In 1990, the majority of this battlefield was determined eligible by DHR. It is also associated with the The Civil War In Virginia, 1861-1865, Historic & Archaeological Resources multiple property documentation MPD), listed in the NRHP in 2004. In 2007 this battlefield was recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP by the ABPP. Given that current conditions are similar to those identified during the ABPP study, CRA agrees that a portion of the Kernstown I/Kernstown II Battlefield (DHR # 034-0007) extends into the APE of this proposed project. The archaeological study completed by CRA as a part of this project provides additional historic context for DHR # 034-0007 (Lutton et al. 2017). Surveyor Recommendation:Recommended Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category:Defense Resource Type:Battle Site NR Resource Type:Site Historic District Status:No Data Date of Construction:1862 Date Source:Site Visit 12035 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0007 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 076-5168 August 25, 2023 Page: 2 of 5 Historic Time Period:Civil War (1861 - 1865) Historic Context(s):Military/Defense Other ID Number:No Data Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Number of Stories:No Data Condition:Good Threats to Resource:Development Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, January 2007: This land includes the Federal command post and artillery position on Pritchard's Hill and the famous stonewall where the heaviest fighting occurred during the first Battle of Kernstown on March 23, 1862. October 2017: A portion of the Kernstown II Battlefield, (DHR # 034-0007), extends into the Newtown-Stephensburg Historic District (DHR # 304-0001). The majority of the battlefield is located to the north and northwest of Stephens City; however, a section of Stephens City is included in the recommended boundary extension along Main Street. January 2020: The portion of the battlefield surveyed consists of a section along Shady Elm Road (Route 651) and encompasses both ABPP Study and PotNR areas which constitute an area of troop movement southwest of the core area of the battlefield. Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name:No Data Local Historic District Name:No Data Historic District Significance:No Data CRM Events Event Type: DHR Staff: Eligible DHR ID:034-0007 Staff Name:Marc Holma Event Date:2/20/2020 Staff Comment 2020- 0068 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:2020- 0068 Investigator:Sandra DeChard Organization/Company:Stantec 2034 Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:1/2/2020 Dhr Library Report Number:FK-158 Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Bibliographic Information: Donald Sadler, Mike Makin, Sandra DeChard, Brynn Stewart A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 13 Acres Associated with the Renaissance Drive – Phase II – LAP Project, Frederick 12136 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0007 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 076-5168 August 25, 2023 Page: 3 of 5 County, Virginia Stantec Consulting Services Inc. January 22, 2020 DHR Report No. FK-158 DHR Project No. 2020-0068 VDOT Project No. 0873-034- 919, B629, C501, P101, R201 Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: DHR Staff: Eligible DHR ID:034-0007 Staff Name:M.Holma Event Date:9/19/2017 Staff Comment DHR Project No: 2017-0400 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:2015- 0333 Investigator:Hallie Hearnes Organization/Company:Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:8/17/2015 Dhr Library Report Number:FK-139 Project Staff/Notes: Surveyors: Steven Higgins, Holly Higgins, Hallie Hearnes, Jesse Harris Hallie Hearnes Management Summary for Architectural Survey of VDOT Project No.: 0081-034- 720, P101; UPC: 88659, Interstate 81, Exit 307 Improvement/Relocation Study, Town of Stephens City, Virginia Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. October 24, 2017 Report No. FK-139 Project No. 2015-0333 Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: Other Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:ABPP Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media:No Data Survey Date:1/24/2007 Dhr Library Report Number:FK-78 Project Staff/Notes: Preliminary survey data from American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) indicates that this historic Civil War battlefield is likely eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and likely deserving of future preservation efforts. This survey information should be reassessed during future Section 106/NEPA compliance reviews. Project Bibliographic Information: Donald Sadler, Mike Makin, Sandra DeChard, Brynn Stewart A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 13 Acres Associated with the Renaissance Drive – Phase II – LAP Project, Frederick County, Virginia Stantec Consulting Services Inc. January 22, 2020 DHR Report No. FK-158 DHR Project No. 2020-0068 VDOT Project No. 0873-034- 919, B629, C501, P101, R201 Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: Other Project Review File Number:No Data 12237 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0007 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 076-5168 August 25, 2023 Page: 4 of 5 Investigator:Gossett, Tanya Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media:No Data Survey Date:9/13/2005 Dhr Library Report Number:FK-78 Project Staff/Notes: The American Battlefield Protection Program and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources agree that where a joint undertaking is to be located within or near a Civil War battlefield surveyed by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (1991- 1993), the ABPP and the VDHR will recommend that the Federal agency (or its designee or the designee's consultant) take into account lands within the Study Areas of those battlefields when identifying the historic property and assessing effects to the historic property in Section 106 reviews. Both the ABPP and the VDHR will recommend systematic metal detector surveys and other field methods appropriate to battlefields for Phase I work where a proposed undertaking may have a direct effect on the historic property/battlefield. Please see also the CWSAC data within the file for the battlefield. The VDHR GIS includes the full boundaries of the CWSAC study areas for battlefields recorded within the VDHR architectural inventory, unless VDHR has refined the boundary by evaluation of integrity and eligibility, or unless the battlefield is listed in the National Register. The ABPP asks that the full study area be evaluated, even in cases where a National Register boundary exists. Many National Register boundaries were drawn to exclude eligible areas for political reasons or owner objections, and therefore do not represent the entire eligible battlefield. In cases where VDHR has refined the boundaries of a battlefield to lands eligible for the National Register, the study area is presumed by both the VDHR and the ABPP to be obsolete. Project Bibliographic Information: Donald Sadler, Mike Makin, Sandra DeChard, Brynn Stewart A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 13 Acres Associated with the Renaissance Drive – Phase II – LAP Project, Frederick County, Virginia Stantec Consulting Services Inc. January 22, 2020 DHR Report No. FK-158 DHR Project No. 2020-0068 VDOT Project No. 0873- 034- 919, B629, C501, P101, R201 Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: DHR Staff: Eligible DHR ID:034-0007 Staff Name:DHR Evaluation Committee Event Date:9/25/1990 Staff Comment Criterion A - please see map of CWSAC-VA101. Score 45. Event Type: PIF Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Beck, Brandon, H. Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media:No Data Survey Date:6/30/1990 Dhr Library Report Number:FK-78 Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Bibliographic Information: Donald Sadler, Mike Makin, Sandra DeChard, Brynn Stewart A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 13 Acres Associated with the Renaissance Drive – Phase II – LAP Project, Frederick County, Virginia Stantec Consulting Services Inc. January 22, 2020 DHR Report No. FK-158 DHR Project No. 2020-0068 VDOT Project No. 0873-034- 919, B629, C501, P101, R201 Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 13 Acres Associated with the Proposed Renaissance Drive Extension, Frederick County, 12338 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0007 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: 076-5168 August 25, 2023 Page: 5 of 5 Virginia. Property Notes: No Data 12439 Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources Legend Architecture Resources Individual Historic District Properties DHR Easements County Boundaries Title: Architecture Labels Date: 8/25/2023 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representation depicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located at DHR’s Richmond office. Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources.12540 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1060 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 1 of 4 Property Information Property Names Name Explanation Name Current Wilson-Marquis Outbuildings Property Addresses Current - Route 628 County/Independent City(s):Frederick (County) Incorporated Town(s):No Data Zip Code(s):No Data Magisterial District(s):No Data Tax Parcel(s):No Data USGS Quad(s):WINCHESTER Property Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Additional Property Information Architecture Setting:No Data Acreage:No Data Site Description: No Data Surveyor Assessment: The house was once here was demolished. Some of the farm-related and domestic outbuidings remain. Surveyor Recommendation:No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Barn NR Resource Type:Building Historic District Status:No Data Date of Construction:Ca 1900 Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Domestic Other ID Number:No Data Architectural Style:Other Form:No Data Number of Stories:1.0 Condition:Fair Threats to Resource:Neglect Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: large bank barn, Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Gable Metal Corrugated Structural System and Exterior Treatment Frame Wood Weatherboard 12641 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1060 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 2 of 4 Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Smoke/Meat House Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Domestic Architectural Style:No Data Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: 5-course amer. bond meathouse Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #2 Resource Category:DSS Legacy Resource Type:Shed Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Domestic Architectural Style:No Data Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: frame Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #3 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Corncrib Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Domestic Architectural Style:No Data Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data 12742 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1060 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 3 of 4 Architectural Description: No Data Secondary Resource #4 Resource Category:Domestic Resource Type:Garage Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Domestic Architectural Style:No Data Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: two bay frame Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #5 Resource Category:DSS Legacy Resource Type:Shed Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Domestic Architectural Style:No Data Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: frame Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #6 Resource Category:Domestic Resource Type:Single Dwelling Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data Historic Context(s):Domestic Architectural Style:No Data Form:No Data Condition:Ruinous Threats to Resource:No Data Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data 12843 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1060 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 4 of 4 Architectural Description: Architecture Summary: ruins of a demolished house. Number of Stories:No Data Historic District Information Historic District Name:No Data Local Historic District Name:No Data Historic District Significance:No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Kalbian, M. Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media:No Data Survey Date:3/1/1991 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data 12944 Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources Legend Architecture Resources Architecture Labels Individual Historic District Properties DHR Easements County Boundaries Title: Architecture Labels Date: 8/25/2023 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representation depicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located at DHR’s Richmond office. Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources.13045 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0027 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 30, 2023 Page: 1 of 6 Property Information Property Names Name Explanation Name Function/Location Farm, 3735 Middle Road (Route 628) Historic Wilson-Magill-Madagan House Current Stoney Lonesome Farm Property Addresses Current - 3735 Middle Road Route 628 County/Independent City(s):Frederick (County) Incorporated Town(s):No Data Zip Code(s):22602 Magisterial District(s):No Data Tax Parcel(s):62-A-81 USGS Quad(s):WINCHESTER Property Evaluation Status DHR Evaluation Committee: Eligible Additional Property Information Architecture Setting:Rural Acreage:70.93 Site Description: 1973: Located on 72 acres, Wilson-Magill-Madagan House is on the south side of Route 628, .05 mile north of its intersection with Route 650 in the vicinity of Winchester. The site plan notes stone walls alongside the building complex, which includes a shed, barn and bank barn. 1991: Stoney Lonesome Farm is located off Route 628 on 72 acres and sits back off of the road, with stone fences lining the original road that went east and joined Route 651. Outbuildings include a meathouse, chicken coop, corn crib, bank barn, workshop, several frame sheds. All of the outbuildings appear to date from the early 20th century. 2019 PIF: Stoney Lonesome Farm sits on 70.938 acre tract off of Route 628 (Middle Rd) in the Back Creek District of Frederick County, Virginia. The contributing buildings located on the site include the one-half story notched log house constructed c. 1740; and the attached, two-story coursed random rubble stone house constructed c. 1820. The property is also improved with a bank barn c. 1900 and a stone fence lining the property on the southern border. Surveyor Assessment: 1973: The Wilson family acquired several grants from Yost Hite in this area, around 1740. John Wilson probably receiving the tract of land on which this house now stands. John Wilson, around 1740 built a house on this land, which is now incorporated into the present building. At his death in 1762, John Wilson left the land to his dead wife's brothers - James and William Marquis. In 1820, the heirs of William Marquis sold 200 acres, including the house, to Charles Magill. Charles Magill had fought in the Revolutionary War, attaining the rank of Colonel, and becoming a close friend of George Washington. The estate remained basically the property of the Magill family until 1877, 7 years after the death of Charles T. Magill, so of Charles. Since then, the land has changed hands many times, until in 1927, it became the property of John W. Madagan, and his wife Maggie. At the present time it is the property of Maggie Madagan (Mrs. John W. Madagn), who lives in the house with her daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Lupton. 1991: This land was granted to John Wilson around 1740. Although Warren Hofstra says it was owned by John Harrow- whose house site may have been (034-1045). The present owners are Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Lupton. House, both log and stone sections, are in very original condition. 2019 PIF: The Wilson family acquired several grants from Yost Hite in this area, around 1740. John Wilson built a house on this land around the same time, which is now incorporated into the present building. At his death in 1762, John Wilson left the land to his wife’s brothers – James and William Marquis. In 1820, the heirs of William Marquis sold 200 acres, including the house to Charles Magill. Charles Magill had fought in the Revolutionary War, attaining the rank of Colonel, and becoming a close friend of George Washington. The property remained in the Magill family until 1877, after the death of Charles Magill’s son. It has been mentioned that the “Soldier’s Lane” with the stone fence was used by infantry during the Civil War. The property changed hands many times until John W. Madagan and his wife, Maggie, purchased it in 1927. Maggie Madagan’s last will and testament dictated that her daughter and son-in-law (Frances and Eugene Lupton) could live on the property until their death, at which time, it must be sold. Mr. Lupton passed away in 2005 and Mrs. Lupton passed away in June, 2015, having lived in the log cabin/stone house on the property until her death. The heirs sold the property to U.S.A. Logistics, Inc. on November, 28, 2018. The Stoney Lonesome property has been a working farm for many years. Neighbors and other farmers have rented the land for hay production and grazing cattle. Currently, there is a home-site, consisting of a log cabin and stone house, as well as a bank barn and stone fence. Surveyor Recommendation:No Data Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data 13146 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0027 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 30, 2023 Page: 2 of 6 Primary Resource Information Resource Category:Domestic Resource Type:Single Dwelling NR Resource Type:Building Historic District Status:No Data Date of Construction:Ca 1740 Date Source:Written Data Historic Time Period:Contact Period (1607 - 1750) Historic Context(s):Architecture/Community Planning, Domestic Other ID Number:No Data Architectural Style:Vernacular Form:No Data Number of Stories:2.0 Condition:Good Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1973: A house was probably on this farm by 1740. Embedded in the present structure is a log cabin, probably the original building. The stone part on the west side probably dates around 1800 or the 1820's - possibly built by Charles Magill. It is coursed random rubble, with a simple box cornice and interior wall chimneys. Windows have wood sills and lintels 6/6, light 10" by 12". The brick tops to the chimneys are all stretchers, no headers. The present portico, on the west front, was added circa 1930. 1991: Vernacular ca 1740-1760 log house with ca 1820-1850 stone additions; 2 stories over a low basement and 3 asymmetrical bays. Metal standing seam gable roof; Greek Revival style 1 story, 1 bay wood porch with paired Tuscan columns, pediment, dentils in cornice. Rear log section is original. 1 room, 1.5 stories, 2-bay, ca 1740-1760 with exterior end stone/brick chimney and no siding on enclosed porch. Front stone section added ca. 1820-1840 has wooden lintels, 6/6 windows, interior end brick chimney, 2 square 6-light attic windows in south gable end, corner quoins, bulkhead basement entrance on east side. Major additions/alterations: Enclosed porch on log section; rear 1 story frame kitchen wing. 2019 PIF: The log cabin is c. 1740 with a vernacular architecture. The stone house addition is c. 1820-1850 consisting of a two-story living area over a low cellar. The stone house is made of coursed random rubble, with a simple box cornice and interior wall chimneys. There is a metal standing seam gable roof and a Greek revival one story, one bay wood porch with paired Tuscan columns, pediment with dentils in the cornice, c. 1930. Major additions include an enclosed porch off the log cabin front door and a rear, one story farm kitchen wing. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Gable Metal Standing Seam Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 2/2 Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 6/6 Porch 1-story, 1-bay Wood No Data Porch Other Wood No Data Foundation Solid/Continuous Stone Rubble, Coursed Structural System and Exterior Treatment Masonry Stone Rubble, Coursed Structural System and Exterior Treatment Log Wood Weatherboard Chimneys Exterior End Brick No Data Chimneys Interior End Stone Coursed Rubble Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Corncrib Date of Construction:1900Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) 13247 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0027 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 30, 2023 Page: 3 of 6 Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: 1991: Corn crib. Outbuildings appear to be early 20th century. Secondary Resource #2 Resource Category:DSS Legacy Resource Type:Shed Date of Construction:1900Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, 1991: Several frame sheds. Outbuildings appear to be early 20th century. Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #3 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Chicken House/Poultry House Date of Construction:1900Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: 1991: Chicken coop. Outbuildings appear to be early 20th century. Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #4 Resource Category:Landscape Resource Type:Fence Date of Construction:Ca Date Source:No Data Historic Time Period:No Data 13348 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0027 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 30, 2023 Page: 4 of 6 Historic Context(s):Landscape Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Good Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: 1973: There is a wide, stone wall lined extension of the present road to the east. Architecture Summary, 1991: Stone fence lining original road that went east and joined Route 651. 2019 PIF: There is a dry-stack stone fence lining a lane on the southern edge of the property. The lane extends from Route 628 (Middle Rd) to the back of the property limits. At one time, the lane connected to Route 651 to the east but has since been closed off by other properties. Secondary Resource #5 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Smoke/Meat House Date of Construction:1900Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: 1991: Meathouse. Outbuildings appear to be early 20th century. Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #6 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Workshop Date of Construction:1900Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:No Data Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: 1991: Workshop. Outbuildings appear to be early 20th century. Number of Stories:No Data Secondary Resource #7 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence 13449 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0027 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 30, 2023 Page: 5 of 6 Resource Type:Bank Barn Date of Construction:1900Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Good Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: 1973: The old bank barn, to the northeast, has at least the original foundation. 1991: Bank Barn. Outbuildings appear to be early 20th century. 2019 PIF: Currently, there is a bank barn on the property, c. 1900. It has the original foundation and in is fair condition. Historic District Information Historic District Name:No Data Local Historic District Name:No Data Historic District Significance:No Data CRM Events Event Type: DHR Evaluation Committee: Eligible DHR ID:034-0027 Staff Name:DHR Evaluation Committee Event Date:4/25/2019 Staff Comment Register A. Von Lindern presenting: Stoney Lonesome Farm, Frederick County, DHR File No. 034-0027 Stoney Lonesome Farm sits on 70.9-acre tract off of Route 628 (Middle Rd) in the Back Creek District of Frederick County, Virginia. The contributing buildings located on the site include the 1.5-story, notched log house constructed c. 1740 and the attached two-story, coursed random rubble stone house constructed c. 1820. The log cabin is vernacular in construction methods and materials. The stone house addition consists of a two-story living area over a low cellar; it is built of coursed random rubble with a simple box cornice and interior wall chimneys. There is a standing seam metal-clad gable roof and a one-story, one-bay Greek Revival wood porch with paired Tuscan columns and a pediment with dentils in the cornice, built c. 1930. Major additions include an enclosed porch off the front elevation of the log cabin and a rear, one-story farm kitchen wing. Stoney Lonesome Farm was evaluated at the local level of significance under Criterion C (Architecture) with a period of significance of 1760- 1930, beginning with the date of construction for the log house and ending with the date of construction for the bank barn, the latest contributing resource on the site. The committee recommended the property proceed to listing with a score of 32 points, with one point awarded for archaeological potential. This property has been recorded as an individual resource in VCRIS. Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Maral Kalbian Organization/Company:Maral S. Kalbian, LLC Photographic Media:Film Survey Date:3/1/1991 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: 13550 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-0027 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 30, 2023 Page: 6 of 6 No Data Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Michael C. Quinn Organization/Company:VA Dept. of Historic Resources Photographic Media:Film Survey Date:6/15/1973 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: I could not gain access to this house, Mrs. Lupton's mother, Mrs. J.W. Madagan, is very old and ill, and "would not take to a stranger." Bibliographic Information Bibliography: 1973: Quarles, Garland R. -- Some Old Homes in Frederick County, Virginia (1971) page 310 interview with Mrs. Lupton Property Notes: No Data 13651 Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources Legend Architecture Resources Architecture Labels Individual Historic District Properties DHR Easements County Boundaries Title: Architecture Labels Date: 8/30/2023 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representation depicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located at DHR’s Richmond office. Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources.13752 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-5023 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 1 of 6 Property Information Property Names Name Explanation Name Descriptive Apple Pie Ridge/West Fort Parcel Historic Second Winchester Battlefield Property Addresses Current - U.S. Route 522 County/Independent City(s):Frederick (County), Winchester Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s):Stephens City Zip Code(s):22601, 22602, 22603, 22624, 22655, 22656 Magisterial District(s):No Data Tax Parcel(s):No Data USGS Quad(s):STEPHENS CITY, STEPHENSON, WINCHESTER Property Evaluation Status DHR Staff: Eligible Additional Property Information Architecture Setting:Rural Acreage:18,133 Site Description: January 2007: This battlefield land remains much as it was over 100 years ago. State Route 37 divides this parcel but it is visually well preserved, and maintained as pasture and apple orchards. The city of Winchester is located to the south of the battlefield. There are four dwellings on the parcel west of Route 37; the Harmon House, a masonry house and a small stone cottage built in the early 1930s, and a ranch house built in the 1950s. FOR MORE DETAILS ON THE LOCATION OF THESE STRUCTURES IN RELATION TO THE BATTLEFIELD PLEASE SEE FILE. May 2014: This battlefield's site and setting has not greatly altered since the previous surveys. March 2018: The site and setting of the northern portion of this battlefield have not been greatly altered since it was previously surveyed. May 2019: The portion of the battlefield within the vicinity of the project area has been impacted by the construction of modern residential developments on the south side of Berryville Pike and modern commercial buildings as well as the Millbrook High School and Redbud Run Elementary School, as well as modern residential development on the north side of Berryville Pike. May 2021:The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC), which was created by Congress in 1991, identified the Second Winchester Battlefield as a historically significant Civil War site. The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 instructed the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) of the National Park Service to update the findings of the CWSAC. The Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) is a Civil War-era battlefield located in and around the city of Winchester in Fredrick County, Virginia. According to the ABPP, the district covers approximately 18,133 acres incorporating the routes of Confederate approach and flanking movements and the Union retreat route and surrender site involved with the battle (ABPP 2009:319- 21; VDHR, VCRIS 034-5023). The Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District is located along the center of the APE incorporating the western edge of the project footprint along Woods Mill Road. The Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District runs north-south from the northern boundary of the APE along Jordan Springs Road, and then turns southwest along Woods Mill Road to the southern edge of the APE and extending further west along Redbud Road to the western boundary of the APE. The APE does not extend into the core areas of the district according to the ABPP boundaries (ABPP 2009:321; VDHR, VCRIS 034-5023). Surveyor Assessment: Start Year: 1863 Date Source: Site Visit Type: Historical Event Notes: Louisiana brigade under the command of Gen. Hays attacked West Fort. Battle lasted for 45 minutes. Union soldiers retreated north, and stage was set for the Battle of Gettysburg. January 2007: This land is the site of Phase Five and Phase Six of the Second Battle of Winchester. The latter part of Phase Five occurred in mid-afternoon on the 14th of June, 1863. The Confederate forces were commanded by Gen. Richard S. Ewell. The two divisions of the Second Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia involved in this campaign were led by Edward Johnson and Jubal Early. The surprise attack on the Union forces at West Fort began around six p.m. and lasted approximately 45 minutes. The Union forces were forced to retreat, ultimately setting the stage for the battle of Gettysburg. 13853 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-5023 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 2 of 6 May 2014: The Second Winchester Battlefield was listed on the NRHP and determined eligible under Criterion A. The aspects of this resource that made it eligible for the NRHP have not been significantly altered since it was listed. As such, Dovtail recommends that it should remain eligible for and listed on the NRHP. March 2018: Only the northern portion of the Battlefield Study Area was surveyed at this time. There have been no changes to this battlefield that would alter the previous determination of eligible for listing on the NRHP. May 2019: Overall the integrity of the Second Battle of Winchester within the current study area has been severely compromised by the modern construction and the widening of Berryville Pike during the mid-twentieth century. As a result, limited undisturbed areas of the battlefield resource are present in the vicinity of the project area. Areas beyond the survey area were not evaluated. May 2021: Fought from June 13th to 15th, 1863, the Second Battle of Winchester was a part of the Gettysburg Campaign commanded by Confederate General Robert E. Lee (National Park Service 2020). On June 7th, 1863, General Lee gathered 70,000 confederate forces in central Virginia, with the intent to invade the Potomac, take Washington D.C. and Philadelphia. On June 10th, General Lee ordered Confederate Lieutenant General Richard S. Ewell to march north towards the Shenandoah Valley to invade the Blue Ridge Mountains and capture Winchester, Virginia (NPS 2020a; VDHR, VCRIS 034-5023). At the time, Union Major General Robert H. Malroy, held 8,000 Union forces in the Confederate sympathizing City of Winchester. Although General Malroy received numerous reports of General Ewell’s intention to invade, Malroy did very little to prepare for the possible invasion or to even evacuate. It was not until General Ewell attacked the southern town of Middletown, Virginia that General Malroy decided send out infantry to defend Winchester. Early on the morning of June 13th, General Ewell commanded 14,000 troops to attack Winchester and the surrounding villages, cutting off any possible escape by the Union troops. The Battle raged on for two more days before Confederate forces captured the City of Winchester (NPS 2020a; VDHR, VCRIS 034-5023). The district was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) by the Virginia State Review Board in 1999. Within the APE, much of the landscape within the Second Battlefield of Winchester has been altered, including the construction of many modern dwellings and paved roads. More modern developments and widening of the Berryville Pike have impacted the district along the southern edge of the APE. While an evaluation of the historic district in its entirety is beyond the scope of the current survey, 33 properties within the APE are within the district boundaries. However, only two 034-0110 and 034-1157) were present at the time of the battle, which is the period of significance for the district. As a result, the remaining 31 resources are not considered contributing to the district. Although the portion of the Second Battlefield of Winchester that is within the APE may retain some of its historic landscape features, the majority of the essential features of the Battlefield are located outside of the APE. Areas of the district beyond the APE were not evaluated. Surveyor Recommendation:Recommended Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Associate Property Associate Name Property Associate Role Yonley, Alma Owner Yonley, Lizzie Owner Early, Jubal Other Ewell, Richard S.Other Hays, Harry T.Other Johnson, Edward Other Milroy, R.H.Other Primary Resource Information Resource Category:Defense Resource Type:Battle Site NR Resource Type:Site Historic District Status:No Data Date of Construction:1863 Date Source:Written Data Historic Time Period:Civil War (1861 - 1865) Historic Context(s):Military/Defense Other ID Number:No Data Architectural Style:Other Form:No Data Number of Stories:No Data Condition:Fair Threats to Resource:Development, Public Utility Expansion, Transportation Expansion Cultural Affiliations:Other Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data 13954 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-5023 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 3 of 6 Architectural Description: January 2007: This land, owned by Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc., is the site of Phase Five and Phase Six of the Second Battle of Winchester. The latter part of Phase Five occurred in mid-afternoon on the 14th of June, 1863. Union troops had withdrawn into three forts, West Fort being one of them. The fort was stormed by Gen. Hays' Louisiana brigade, and the ridge where West Fort was located became known as "Louisiana Ridge." The Harmon House was in the midst of the fire, and was used as a hospital for the Louisiana brigade. With the withdrawal of Union troops to the north, this battle set the stage for the Battle of Gettysburg. May 2014: The Second Winchester Battlefield has not been significantly altered since the previous survey. March 2018: The site and setting of the northern portion of this battlefield have not been greatly altered since it was previously surveyed. May 2019: Overall the integrity of the Second Battle of Winchester within the current study area has been severely compromised by the modern construction and the widening of Berryville Pike during the mid-twentieth century. As a result, limited undisturbed areas of the battlefield resource are present in the vicinity of the project area. Areas beyond the survey area were not evaluated. May 2019 May 2021: The Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District is located along the center of the APE incorporating the western edge of the project footprint along Woods Mill Road. The Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District runs north-south from the northern boundary of the APE along Jordan Springs Road, and then turns southwest along Woods Mill Road to the southern edge of the APE and extending further west along Redbud Road to the western boundary of the APE. The APE does not extend into the core areas of the district according to the ABPP boundaries (ABPP 2009:321; VDHR, VCRIS 034-5023). Within the APE, much of the landscape within the Second Battlefield of Winchester has been altered, including the construction of many modern dwellings and paved roads. More modern developments and widening of the Berryville Pike have impacted the district along the southern edge of the APE. While an evaluation of the historic district in its entirety is beyond the scope of the current survey, 33 properties within the APE are within the district boundaries. However, only two (034-0110 and 034-1157) were present at the time of the battle, which is the period of significance for the district. As a result, the remaining 31 resources are not considered contributing to the district. Although the portion of the Second Battlefield of Winchester that is within the APE may retain some of its historic landscape features, the majority of the essential features of the Battlefield are located outside of the APE. Areas of the district beyond the APE were not evaluated. Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name:No Data Local Historic District Name:No Data Historic District Significance:No Data CRM Events Event Type: DHR Staff: Eligible DHR ID:034-5023 Staff Name:Adrienne Birge-Wilson Event Date:1/31/2022 Staff Comment Review File No.: 2021-0163 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:2021- 0163 Investigator:Lily Hutzell Organization/Company:Cardno Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:5/17/2021 Dhr Library Report Number:FK-170 Project Staff/Notes: 14055 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-5023 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 4 of 6 Kimberly Hinder and Lillian Hutzell, Architectural Historians, Phase I Cultural Resource Survey: Redbud Run Solar Project, Fredrick County, Virginia, August 2021, James Ambrosino, Valerie Nobles. Project Bibliographic Information: Valerie Nobles, Lillian Hutzell, Kimberly Hinder, James N. Ambrosino Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Frederick County, Virginia (Dec 2021) Prepared for Origen, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Prepared by Cardno, Inc., Wake Forest, North Carolina. Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:2020- 0122 Investigator:Sandra DeChard Organization/Company:Stantec 2034 Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:5/29/2019 Dhr Library Report Number:FK-160 Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Bibliographic Information: Valerie Nobles, Lillian Hutzell, Kimberly Hinder, James N. Ambrosino Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Frederick County, Virginia (Dec 2021) Prepared for Origen, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Prepared by Cardno, Inc., Wake Forest, North Carolina. Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:2017- 4024 Investigator:Sarah Traum Organization/Company:Commonwealth Heritage Group, Alexandria Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:3/12/2018 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: Reconnaissance level architectural resources survey prior to proposed Opequon Water Supply Plan, in Frederick County for ARCADIS US. Sarah Traum conducted the field survey in March 2018. Sarah Traum completed the VCRIS documentation. Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:2014- 0348 Investigator:Heather Dollins Organization/Company:Dovetail CRG Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:5/5/2014 Dhr Library Report Number:FK-120 Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Bibliographic Information: Valerie Nobles, Lillian Hutzell, Kimberly Hinder, James N. Ambrosino Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Frederick County, Virginia (Dec 2021) Prepared for Origen, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Prepared by Cardno, Inc., Wake Forest, North Carolina. Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: Other Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:ABPP Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) 14156 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-5023 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 5 of 6 Photographic Media:No Data Survey Date:1/24/2007 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: Preliminary survey data from the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) indicates that this historic Civil War battlefield is likely eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and likely deserving of future preservation efforts. This survey information should be reassessed during future Section 106/NEPA compliance reviews. Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: Other Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Gossett, Tanya Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media:No Data Survey Date:9/13/2005 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: The American Battlefield Protection Program and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources agree that where a joint undertaking is to be located within or near a Civil War battlefield surveyed by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (1991- 1993), the ABPP and the VDHR will recommend that the Federal agency (or its designee or the designee's consultant) take into account lands within the Study Areas of those battlefields when identifying the historic property and assessing effects to the historic property in Section 106 reviews. Both the ABPP and the VDHR will recommend systematic metal detector surveys and other field methods appropriate to battlefields for Phase I work where a proposed undertaking may have a direct effect on the historic property/battlefield. Please see also the CWSAC data within the file for the battlefield. The VDHR GIS includes the full boundaries of the CWSAC study areas for battlefields recorded within the VDHR architectural inventory, unless VDHR has refined the boundary by evaluation of integrity and eligibility, or unless the battlefield is listed in the National Register. The ABPP asks that the full study area be evaluated, even in cases where a National Register boundary exists. Many National Register boundaries were drawn to exclude eligible areas for political reasons or owner objections, and therefore do not represent the entire eligible battlefield. In cases where VDHR has refined the boundaries of a battlefield to lands eligible for the National Register, the study area is presumed by both the VDHR and the ABPP to be obsolete. Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:No Data Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media:No Data Survey Date:1/18/2000 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History Event Type: DHR Board: Eligible DHR ID:034- 5023 Staff Name:State Review Board Event Date:3/1/1999 Staff Comment No Data Event Type: DHR Staff: Eligible DHR ID:034-5023 Staff Name:DHR Event Date:11/24/1998 Staff Comment ALso called CWSAC-VA107. Second Battle of Winchester, Frederick Co., VDHR Number 34-5023. 14257 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-5023 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data August 25, 2023 Page: 6 of 6 The resource, considered for its national significance under Criterion A (Military History), was found eligible with a score of 42 points. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: May 2021: American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) 2009Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields: Commonwealth of Virginia. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/abpp/cwsii/CWSACReportVirginiaUpdate.pdf.Accessed March 2018. 2012Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. Draft v. 6, for public review. Electronic document, https://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/ 09/12/ document_gw_03.pdf. Accessed March 2018. Property Notes: Name: C. Robert Solenberger Company 1: Fruit Hill Orchards, Inc. Address 1: P.O. Box 2368 City: Winchester State: Virginia ZIP: 22604 May 2021: This survey was conducted largely from the public right-of-way. 14358 Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources Legend Architecture Points County Boundaries Title: Architecture Labels Date: 8/25/2023 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representation depicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located at DHR’s Richmond office. Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources.14459 Property Photographs from VCRIS & Pictometry DHR #034-0003: Pritchard-Grim House / Brightside 1968 14560 2010 March 2023 (Pictometry) 14661 DHR ID # 034-1060: Wilson-Marquis Outbuildings 1991 14762 March 2023 (Pictometry) 14863 DHR ID # 034-0027: Stoney Lonesome Farm 2019 March 2023 (Pictometry) 14964 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 September 26, 2023 Marisa Whitacre Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Winchester Gateway Rezoning Application Property Identification Number (PIN): 63-A-80I Magisterial District: Back Creek Dear Ms. Whitacre: The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning application during their September 19, 2023 meeting. The rezoning application is for +/- 34.26 acres of a +/- 71.85 acre parcel (Property Identification Number 63-A-80I) from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District with proffers. The property is located near the intersection of Apple Valley Road (Route 652) and Middle Road (Route 628) in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Following their review of this application, the HRAB recommended approval of the application and recommended the applicants proffer a height restriction for new buildings not to exceed the height of existing structures on adjoining M1 (Light Industrial) zoned parcels. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Kayla Peloquin, Planner Planning & Development cc: Gary Crawford, HRAB Chairman 65 Page 1 Winchester Gateway – Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Economic Impact Analysis Executive Summary This report provides economic impact estimates to Frederick County (the “County”) resulting from the Winchester Gateway – Phase I data center development (the “Development”). These include estimates of the recurring additional tax revenues that the County may receive as a result of the Development and estimates of the one-time economic impacts from construction. Detailed calculations related to the economic impacts are included in the appended schedules. Winchester Gateway LLC (the “Developer”) plans to engage in future phases of substantial additional development on adjacent parcels. References to the Development in this analysis refer only to this first phase of development. This report begins with information regarding the economic benefits of data centers more generally. Economic Benefits of Data Centers In addition to the economic benefits described in subsequent sections that the County may receive from the prospective Development, information from public sources suggests various possible economic benefits of a data center to the County. These benefits can be seen by examining both the expected growth of the industry overall and its direct effects on tax revenues. Data centers will likely be a major growth industry in the near future and may exceed growth in other areas of commercial real estate. Data centers are the only major type of commercial real estate expected to see more construction completions in 2026 than in any of the previous five years individually throughout North America, Europe, and Asia.1 Companies worldwide are expected to make $6.7 trillion in data center capital expenditures by 2030 to meet a near tripling of demand for data center capacity.2 In the United States, the data center market is expected to grow 10.1% annually between 2024 and 2030.3 Additionally, data center employment in the United States grew by more than 60% between 2016 and 2023.4 This suggests that the impact of data center growth will be seen not just in temporary construction and technology production but in permanent employment and permanent service provision by utilities and other industries. Northern Virginia, widely acknowledged as the data center capital of the world, provides nearby evidence of these larger trends. In Loudoun County, data centers have an average assessed value of 1 JLL, Global Real Estate Outlook: Six Forces Reshaping Commercial Real Estate in 2026. https://www.jll.com/en- us/insights/market-outlook/global-real-estate, accessed December 8, 2025. 2 McKinsey & Company, The cost of compute: A $7 trillion race to scale data centers, April 28 2025. 3 Summer Street Advisors, Data Centers and CRE: What You Need to Know. June 6, 2025. 4 United States Census Bureau, Data Centers Growing Fast and Reshaping Local Economies, January 2025. 66 Page 2 $609 per square foot, which is around triple the value of other commercial uses.5 In Prince William County, which has fewer data centers than Loudoun County, data centers were still responsible for 83% of business tangible (personal property) tax revenue.6 In the state of Virginia as a whole in 2022, data centers paid $640 million in state taxes and $1 billion in local government taxes.7 Additionally, while this report does not directly estimate additional County expenses on services that would be provided to this prospective Development, the estimated local government revenue to expense ratios for data centers are 13-to-1 in Prince William County and 26-to-1 in Loudoun County, as compared to a ratio of 4-to-1 for manufacturing plants.7 Moreover, since 2008, Loudoun County has decreased its real property tax rate from $1.285 to $0.805, and, in the most recent fiscal year, Loudoun County decreased its vehicle tax rate by $0.67. Both of these are largely due to the additional property tax revenues generated by data centers.5 Development According to the Developer, the Development is expected to include approximately 900,000 square feet of data center space divided over three buildings and a single power substation. TABLE A shows the estimated assessed values of real and business personal property resulting from the completed Development. TABLE A SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ASSESSED VALUE Estimated Total Property Assessed Value Estimated Property Type GSF (a) Per GSF (b) Assessed Value Data center - real property 900,000 $544 $489,901,147 Data center - business personal property 900,000 $377 $339,095,482 Total 900,000 $921 $828,996,629 (a)Represents approximate amount based on current project plan provided by Developer. The exact size and layout of the Development is subject to change throughout the site plan approval process. (b)Estimated real property assessed value is based on MuniCap's research of data centers with similar ownership structure to the Development. Estimated business personal property assessed value is based on information provided by Loudoun County and Prince William County and an assumed depreciation rate provided by Frederick County. See Appendix D. Projected assessed values are as of full buildout, excluding appreciation. See EXHIBIT A on the following page for a current map of the planned Development. The exact size and layout of the Development is subject to change throughout the site plan approval process. 5 Loudoun County Data Center FAQs. https://www.loudoun.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=1799, accessed December 2025. 6 Prince William County, 2024 Data Center Industry Tax Revenue Report. 7 Northern Virginia Technology Council, The Impact of Data Centers on Virginia’s State and Local Economies 5th Biennial Report, April 2024. 67 Page 3 EXHIBIT A: DEVELOPMENT PLAN – SITE PLAN MAP 68 Page 4 Projection of Impacts In estimating future economic impacts in the County, MuniCap employed a combination of accepted approaches for such forecasts. To calculate permanent and temporary employment and economic impacts at the Development, MuniCap used IMPLAN Cloud software developed by IMPLAN Group, LLC. IMPLAN Cloud is an industry-accepted economic impact assessment software system. For the inputs used in developing the models, MuniCap relied on a variety of sources, which are noted in the appended schedules to this narrative. For the calculation of economic benefits, primarily those in the form of increased tax revenue, MuniCap applied the actual taxing methodology by multiplying the applicable tax rate by the estimated taxable item in question whenever possible. For instance, MuniCap estimated real property taxes by multiplying projected assessed value by the current applicable real property tax rate. Other revenues calculated in this manner include business personal property taxes and utility taxes. MuniCap estimated local sales and use tax and meals and lodging tax revenues on a per capita basis using service population (county residents plus employees that reside outside the county.) MuniCap assumed a uniform annual increase of 2.0% in most revenue categories. For real property taxes, this was expressed as an approximately 4.0% increase biennially, as real property in the County is reassessed biennially. The appended schedules provide specific calculations of impacts, along with the sources of the underlying assumptions. Employment Impacts – Employment, Income, and Output TABLE B summarizes the projected permanent employment impacts after completion of the Development. Direct impact jobs and income represent full-time equivalent (“FTE”) positions at the Development, converting both full-time and part-time employees to the equivalent number of full- time employees. Indirect and induced impact jobs and income include full-time and part-time employees across all industries. Specifically, indirect impact jobs and income are based on the effects of purchases within the supply chain that stem from the direct industry input. Induced impact jobs and income are based on household spending of labor income of employees within the supply chain. Income includes wages, benefits, payroll taxes, and proprietor’s income. TABLE B PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS Permanent Employment Impacts: Jobs (a) Income (b) Data Center: Direct impacts (FTEs) 155 $13,295,877 Indirect and induced impacts 66 $3,258,782 Total 221 $16,554,659 (a)Direct impact jobs represent FTE data center jobs. Indirect and induced impact jobs represent full-time and part-time employees across all industries. See Appendix E-1. (b)Employee income includes wages, benefits, payroll taxes, and proprietor's income. Indirect and induced impact income represents employee income across all industries. See Appendix E-1. 69 Page 5 TABLE C summarizes the projected one-time employment impacts and economic impacts resulting from the construction of the Development. Impacts assume a one-year duration. Direct and indirect and induced impacts are shown in the same manner as in Table B. TABLE C CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS Construction (One-Time) Impacts(a) Jobs (b) Income (c) Jobs and Income Direct impacts (FTEs) 4,678 $441,944,133 Indirect and induced impacts 1,617 $102,498,206 Total 6,295 $544,442,339 Economic Output(d) Direct impacts (construction cost) $1,080,000,000 Indirect and induced impacts $372,304,130 Total $1,452,304,130 (a)Impacts assume a one-year duration. See Appendix E-2. (b)Direct impact jobs represent FTE construction employees. Indirect and induced impact jobs represent full-time and part-time employees across all industries. (c)Direct impact income represents total employee income for all construction jobs. Employee income includes wages, benefits, payroll taxes, and proprietor's income. Indirect and induced impact income represents employee income across all industries. (d)Direct impact economic output represents construction hard costs as provided by the Developer. Indirect and induced economic output represents additional economic output across all industries. Economic Impacts - Revenues TABLE D summarizes the projected general fund revenues to the County for thirty fiscal years, including the current year and ending June 30, 2055, based on the projected Development. Annual revenues are shown at full buildout in current dollars. Thirty-year cumulative revenues reflect projected construction completion and appreciation and inflation. TABLE D PROJECTED REVENUES – ANNUAL AND CUMULATIVE THROUGH FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2055 Annual Cumulative through Frederick County Gross (Current Dollars at Fiscal Year Ending Tax Revenues - Full Buildout Full Buildout)(a) 6/30/2055(b) Real property tax revenues $2,351,526 $79,731,233 Business personal property tax revenues $16,480,040 $551,622,858 Utility tax revenues $133,185 $3,196,442 Additional tax revenues $30,970 $1,039,994 Total $18,995,721 $635,590,527 (a)Represents annual impacts following project stabilization, excluding appreciation and inflation. (b)Represents cumulative impacts over the period shown, including appreciation and inflation. 70 Page 6 TABLE E shows the estimated general fund revenue increase from the Development as a percentage of the County general fund budget. TABLE E PROJECTED ANNUAL INCREASE TO COUNTY REVENUES Comparison of Projected Revenues Revenues Frederick County current revenues(a) $267,811,364 Proposed Development projected revenues $18,995,721 Overall increase in projected revenues 7.09% (a)Source: Frederick County, Virginia FY 2025-2026 Adopted Budget. Limitations Projecting economic and employment impacts is inherently imprecise, particularly when results are extrapolated over several years. Furthermore, there are different methods of projecting economic impacts, and different analysts will arrive at different conclusions. The conclusions in this study are not intended to be precise results; they are intended to represent reasonable estimates of the potential economic impacts to Frederick County from the Development. 71 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Economic Impact Analysis Prepared By: December 30, 2025 72 Schedule S-1: Summary of Economic Impacts to Frederick County S-1 I.Summary of Proposed Development 1 II.Projected Construction Completion 2 III.Projected Real Property Tax Revenues A. Projected Assessed Value 3 B. Projected Tax Revenues 4 IV.Projected Business Personal Property Tax Revenues 5 V.Projected Utility Tax Revenues A. Annual 6 B. 30 Years 7 VI.Projected Additional Revenues to Frederick County A. Annual 8 B. 30 Years 9 VII.Total Projected General Fund Revenues to Frederick County 10 Appendix A: Frederick County Allocation Factors A-1 Appendix B: Projected Employees B-1 Appendix C: Projected Service Population C-1 Appendix D: Valuation 1. Comparison of Valuation Methods D-1 2. Projected Assessed Value of Comparable Properties D-2 3. Projected Assessed Value of Business Personal Property D-3 Appendix E: Jobs and Indirect/Induced Impacts 1. Data Center E-1 3. Temporary Construction E-2 Economic Impact Analysis Appendices Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Table of Contents Development Summary 73 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule S-1: Summary of Economic Impacts to Frederick County Table 1: Summary of Economic Impacts - Annual and Cumulative Cumulative Annual Impacts - General Fund Revenues to Frederick County Impacts1 Thirty Years2 Schedule Real property tax revenues $2,351,526 $79,731,233 Schedule III-B Business personal property tax revenues $16,480,040 $551,622,858 Schedule IV Utility tax revenues $133,185 $3,196,442 Schedule V-B Additional tax revenues $30,970 $1,039,994 Schedule VI-B Total revenues to Frederick County $18,995,721 $635,590,527 Table 2: Summary of Economic Impacts - Permanent Jobs and Income from New Development Permanent Annual Income per Permanent Employment Impacts3 Jobs Income4 Employee Data center: Direct impacts (full-time equivalents)155 $13,295,877 $86,004 Indirect and induced impacts 66 $3,258,782 $49,066 Table 3: Summary of Economic Impacts - Temporary Jobs and Income from Construction5 Temporary Annual Income per Temporary Employment Impacts6 Jobs Income7 Employee Direct impacts (full-time equivalents)4,678 $441,944,133 $94,476 Indirect and induced impacts 1,617 $102,498,206 $63,375 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1Represents annual impacts following project stabilization, excluding appreciation and inflation. 2Represents cumulative impacts over the period shown, including appreciation and inflation. 4Income includes wages, salary, benefits, payroll taxes, and proprietor's income. See Appendix E-1. 5Impacts assume a one-year duration. See Appendix E-2. 7Income includes wages, salary, benefits, payroll taxes, and proprietor's income. See Appendix E-2. 6Direct impact jobs and income represent full-time equivalent construction employees. Indirect and induced impact jobs and income represent full-time and part-time employees across all industries. See Appendix E-2. 3Direct impact jobs and income represent full-time equivalent employees. Indirect and induced impact jobs and income represent full-time and part-time employees across all industries. See Appendix E-1. S-1 74 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Development Summary 75 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule I: Summary of Proposed Development Estimated Property Type Completion1 GSF1 Per GSF2 Total Data center 2031 900,000 $544 $489,901,147 Total development 900,000 $489,901,147 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 2See Appendix D-1. Assessed Value 1Represents approximate amount based on current project plan provided by the Developer. The exact size and layout of the development is subject to change throughout the site plan approval process. Represents only Phase I development and does not include possible future development on other parcels. Page 1 76 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule II: Projected Construction Completion Development Assessed Year Ending As Of1 GSF Cumulative 31-Dec-24 1-Jan-25 0 0 31-Dec-25 1-Jan-26 0 0 31-Dec-26 1-Jan-27 0 0 31-Dec-27 1-Jan-28 0 0 31-Dec-28 1-Jan-29 0 0 31-Dec-29 1-Jan-30 300,000 300,000 31-Dec-30 1-Jan-31 300,000 600,000 31-Dec-31 1-Jan-32 300,000 900,000 31-Dec-32 1-Jan-33 0 900,000 31-Dec-33 1-Jan-34 0 900,000 31-Dec-34 1-Jan-35 0 900,000 31-Dec-35 1-Jan-36 0 900,000 31-Dec-36 1-Jan-37 0 900,000 31-Dec-37 1-Jan-38 0 900,000 31-Dec-38 1-Jan-39 0 900,000 31-Dec-39 1-Jan-40 0 900,000 31-Dec-40 1-Jan-41 0 900,000 31-Dec-41 1-Jan-42 0 900,000 31-Dec-42 1-Jan-43 0 900,000 31-Dec-43 1-Jan-44 0 900,000 31-Dec-44 1-Jan-45 0 900,000 31-Dec-45 1-Jan-46 0 900,000 31-Dec-46 1-Jan-47 0 900,000 31-Dec-47 1-Jan-48 0 900,000 31-Dec-48 1-Jan-49 0 900,000 31-Dec-49 1-Jan-50 0 900,000 31-Dec-50 1-Jan-51 0 900,000 31-Dec-51 1-Jan-52 0 900,000 31-Dec-52 1-Jan-53 0 900,000 31-Dec-53 1-Jan-54 0 900,000 Total 900,000 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 Data Center2 2Provided by the Developer except where otherwise noted. 1Real property is assessed for taxation as of January 1. Source: Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue. Page 2 77 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Economic Impact Analysis 78 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule III-A: Projected Real Property Tax Revenues - Projected Assessed Value Development Assessed Final Tax Fiscal Year Appreciation Value Total Year Ending As Of1 Due Date2 Ending2 Factor3 SF4 Per SF5 Assessed Value 31-Dec-24 1-Jan-25 5-Dec-25 30-Jun-26 100.0%0 $544 $0 31-Dec-25 1-Jan-26 5-Dec-26 30-Jun-27 100.0%0 $544 $0 31-Dec-26 1-Jan-27 5-Dec-27 30-Jun-28 104.0%0 $566 $0 31-Dec-27 1-Jan-28 5-Dec-28 30-Jun-29 104.0%0 $566 $0 31-Dec-28 1-Jan-29 5-Dec-29 30-Jun-30 108.2%0 $589 $0 31-Dec-29 1-Jan-30 5-Dec-30 30-Jun-31 108.2%300,000 $589 $176,761,585 31-Dec-30 1-Jan-31 5-Dec-31 30-Jun-32 112.6%600,000 $613 $367,805,507 31-Dec-31 1-Jan-32 5-Dec-32 30-Jun-33 112.6%900,000 $613 $551,708,261 31-Dec-32 1-Jan-33 5-Dec-33 30-Jun-34 117.2%900,000 $638 $573,997,274 31-Dec-33 1-Jan-34 5-Dec-34 30-Jun-35 117.2%900,000 $638 $573,997,274 31-Dec-34 1-Jan-35 5-Dec-35 30-Jun-36 121.9%900,000 $664 $597,186,764 31-Dec-35 1-Jan-36 5-Dec-36 30-Jun-37 121.9%900,000 $664 $597,186,764 31-Dec-36 1-Jan-37 5-Dec-37 30-Jun-38 126.8%900,000 $690 $621,313,109 31-Dec-37 1-Jan-38 5-Dec-38 30-Jun-39 126.8%900,000 $690 $621,313,109 31-Dec-38 1-Jan-39 5-Dec-39 30-Jun-40 131.9%900,000 $718 $646,414,159 31-Dec-39 1-Jan-40 5-Dec-40 30-Jun-41 131.9%900,000 $718 $646,414,159 31-Dec-40 1-Jan-41 5-Dec-41 30-Jun-42 137.3%900,000 $747 $672,529,291 31-Dec-41 1-Jan-42 5-Dec-42 30-Jun-43 137.3%900,000 $747 $672,529,291 31-Dec-42 1-Jan-43 5-Dec-43 30-Jun-44 142.8%900,000 $777 $699,699,474 31-Dec-43 1-Jan-44 5-Dec-44 30-Jun-45 142.8%900,000 $777 $699,699,474 31-Dec-44 1-Jan-45 5-Dec-45 30-Jun-46 148.6%900,000 $809 $727,967,333 31-Dec-45 1-Jan-46 5-Dec-46 30-Jun-47 148.6%900,000 $809 $727,967,333 31-Dec-46 1-Jan-47 5-Dec-47 30-Jun-48 154.6%900,000 $842 $757,377,214 31-Dec-47 1-Jan-48 5-Dec-48 30-Jun-49 154.6%900,000 $842 $757,377,214 31-Dec-48 1-Jan-49 5-Dec-49 30-Jun-50 160.8%900,000 $876 $787,975,253 31-Dec-49 1-Jan-50 5-Dec-50 30-Jun-51 160.8%900,000 $876 $787,975,253 31-Dec-50 1-Jan-51 5-Dec-51 30-Jun-52 167.3%900,000 $911 $819,809,453 31-Dec-51 1-Jan-52 5-Dec-52 30-Jun-53 167.3%900,000 $911 $819,809,453 31-Dec-52 1-Jan-53 5-Dec-53 30-Jun-54 174.1%900,000 $948 $852,929,755 31-Dec-53 1-Jan-54 5-Dec-54 30-Jun-55 174.1%900,000 $948 $852,929,755 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1Real property is assessed for taxation as of January 1. Source: Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue. 4See Schedule II. 5See Appendix D-1. Data Center 3Assumes an annual appreciation of 2%. Property in Frederick County is reassessed every two years; as a result, the appreciation factor is set to adjust in years of the revaluation. The next reassessment values will become effective as of January 1, 2027. Source: Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue. 2Property assessed as of January 1, 2025 will pay its final property tax payment of the year on December 5, 2025, which corresponds with fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. Page 3 79 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule III-B: Projected Real Property Tax Revenues - Projected Tax Revenues Total County Projected Development Assessed Final Tax Fiscal Year Assessed Tax Rate Real Property Year Ending As Of1 Due Date2 Ending2 Value3 Per $100 A.V4 Tax Revenues 31-Dec-24 1-Jan-25 5-Dec-25 30-Jun-26 $0 $0.48 $0 31-Dec-25 1-Jan-26 5-Dec-26 30-Jun-27 $0 $0.48 $0 31-Dec-26 1-Jan-27 5-Dec-27 30-Jun-28 $0 $0.48 $0 31-Dec-27 1-Jan-28 5-Dec-28 30-Jun-29 $0 $0.48 $0 31-Dec-28 1-Jan-29 5-Dec-29 30-Jun-30 $0 $0.48 $0 31-Dec-29 1-Jan-30 5-Dec-30 30-Jun-31 $176,761,585 $0.48 $848,456 31-Dec-30 1-Jan-31 5-Dec-31 30-Jun-32 $367,805,507 $0.48 $1,765,466 31-Dec-31 1-Jan-32 5-Dec-32 30-Jun-33 $551,708,261 $0.48 $2,648,200 31-Dec-32 1-Jan-33 5-Dec-33 30-Jun-34 $573,997,274 $0.48 $2,755,187 31-Dec-33 1-Jan-34 5-Dec-34 30-Jun-35 $573,997,274 $0.48 $2,755,187 31-Dec-34 1-Jan-35 5-Dec-35 30-Jun-36 $597,186,764 $0.48 $2,866,496 31-Dec-35 1-Jan-36 5-Dec-36 30-Jun-37 $597,186,764 $0.48 $2,866,496 31-Dec-36 1-Jan-37 5-Dec-37 30-Jun-38 $621,313,109 $0.48 $2,982,303 31-Dec-37 1-Jan-38 5-Dec-38 30-Jun-39 $621,313,109 $0.48 $2,982,303 31-Dec-38 1-Jan-39 5-Dec-39 30-Jun-40 $646,414,159 $0.48 $3,102,788 31-Dec-39 1-Jan-40 5-Dec-40 30-Jun-41 $646,414,159 $0.48 $3,102,788 31-Dec-40 1-Jan-41 5-Dec-41 30-Jun-42 $672,529,291 $0.48 $3,228,141 31-Dec-41 1-Jan-42 5-Dec-42 30-Jun-43 $672,529,291 $0.48 $3,228,141 31-Dec-42 1-Jan-43 5-Dec-43 30-Jun-44 $699,699,474 $0.48 $3,358,557 31-Dec-43 1-Jan-44 5-Dec-44 30-Jun-45 $699,699,474 $0.48 $3,358,557 31-Dec-44 1-Jan-45 5-Dec-45 30-Jun-46 $727,967,333 $0.48 $3,494,243 31-Dec-45 1-Jan-46 5-Dec-46 30-Jun-47 $727,967,333 $0.48 $3,494,243 31-Dec-46 1-Jan-47 5-Dec-47 30-Jun-48 $757,377,214 $0.48 $3,635,411 31-Dec-47 1-Jan-48 5-Dec-48 30-Jun-49 $757,377,214 $0.48 $3,635,411 31-Dec-48 1-Jan-49 5-Dec-49 30-Jun-50 $787,975,253 $0.48 $3,782,281 31-Dec-49 1-Jan-50 5-Dec-50 30-Jun-51 $787,975,253 $0.48 $3,782,281 31-Dec-50 1-Jan-51 5-Dec-51 30-Jun-52 $819,809,453 $0.48 $3,935,085 31-Dec-51 1-Jan-52 5-Dec-52 30-Jun-53 $819,809,453 $0.48 $3,935,085 31-Dec-52 1-Jan-53 5-Dec-53 30-Jun-54 $852,929,755 $0.48 $4,094,063 31-Dec-53 1-Jan-54 5-Dec-54 30-Jun-55 $852,929,755 $0.48 $4,094,063 Total $79,731,233 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 3See Appendix III-A. 4Represents the fiscal year 2026 rate. Source: Frederick County, Virginia FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget. 2Property assessed as of January 1, 2025 will pay its final property tax payment of the year on December 5, 2025, which corresponds with fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. 1Real property is assessed for taxation as of January 1. Source: Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue. Page 4 80 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule IV: Projected Business Personal Property Tax Revenues Development Final Fiscal Depreciated Business Personal Total Projected Year Assessed Tax Year Appreciation Data Center4 Depreciation Assessed Property Tax Rate Business Personal Property Ending As Of1 Due Date2 Ending2 Factor3 GSF Cumulative Per GSF5 Total Basis %6 Value (Per $100 A.V.)7 Tax Revenues 31-Dec-24 1-Jan-25 5-Dec-25 30-Jun-26 100.0%0 0 $1,570 $0 0%$0 $4.86 $0 31-Dec-25 1-Jan-26 5-Dec-26 30-Jun-27 100.0%0 0 $1,570 $0 0%$0 $4.86 $0 31-Dec-26 1-Jan-27 5-Dec-27 30-Jun-28 102.0%0 0 $1,601 $0 0%$0 $4.86 $0 31-Dec-27 1-Jan-28 5-Dec-28 30-Jun-29 104.0%0 0 $1,633 $0 0%$0 $4.86 $0 31-Dec-28 1-Jan-29 5-Dec-29 30-Jun-30 106.1%0 0 $1,666 $0 0%$0 $4.86 $0 31-Dec-29 1-Jan-30 5-Dec-30 30-Jun-31 108.2%300,000 300,000 $1,699 $509,788,688 50%$254,894,344 $4.86 $12,387,865 31-Dec-30 1-Jan-31 5-Dec-31 30-Jun-32 110.4%300,000 600,000 $1,733 $1,039,968,923 43%$441,986,792 $4.86 $21,480,558 31-Dec-31 1-Jan-32 5-Dec-32 30-Jun-33 112.6%300,000 900,000 $1,768 $1,591,152,452 35%$556,903,358 $4.86 $27,065,503 31-Dec-32 1-Jan-33 5-Dec-33 30-Jun-34 114.9%0 900,000 $1,803 $1,622,975,501 22%$351,644,692 $4.86 $17,089,932 31-Dec-33 1-Jan-34 5-Dec-34 30-Jun-35 117.2%0 900,000 $1,839 $1,655,435,011 12%$193,134,085 $4.86 $9,386,317 31-Dec-34 1-Jan-35 5-Dec-35 30-Jun-36 119.5%0 900,000 $1,876 $1,688,543,711 13%$219,510,682 $4.86 $10,668,219 31-Dec-35 1-Jan-36 5-Dec-36 30-Jun-37 121.9%0 900,000 $1,914 $1,722,314,586 18%$304,275,577 $4.86 $14,787,793 31-Dec-36 1-Jan-37 5-Dec-37 30-Jun-38 124.3%0 900,000 $1,952 $1,756,760,877 24%$421,622,611 $4.86 $20,490,859 31-Dec-37 1-Jan-38 5-Dec-38 30-Jun-39 126.8%0 900,000 $1,991 $1,791,896,095 24%$430,055,063 $4.86 $20,900,676 31-Dec-38 1-Jan-39 5-Dec-39 30-Jun-40 129.4%0 900,000 $2,031 $1,827,734,017 24%$438,656,164 $4.86 $21,318,690 31-Dec-39 1-Jan-40 5-Dec-40 30-Jun-41 131.9%0 900,000 $2,071 $1,864,288,697 24%$447,429,287 $4.86 $21,745,063 31-Dec-40 1-Jan-41 5-Dec-41 30-Jun-42 134.6%0 900,000 $2,113 $1,901,574,471 24%$456,377,873 $4.86 $22,179,965 31-Dec-41 1-Jan-42 5-Dec-42 30-Jun-43 137.3%0 900,000 $2,155 $1,939,605,960 24%$465,505,430 $4.86 $22,623,564 31-Dec-42 1-Jan-43 5-Dec-43 30-Jun-44 140.0%0 900,000 $2,198 $1,978,398,080 24%$474,815,539 $4.86 $23,076,035 31-Dec-43 1-Jan-44 5-Dec-44 30-Jun-45 142.8%0 900,000 $2,242 $2,017,966,041 24%$484,311,850 $4.86 $23,537,556 31-Dec-44 1-Jan-45 5-Dec-45 30-Jun-46 145.7%0 900,000 $2,287 $2,058,325,362 24%$493,998,087 $4.86 $24,008,307 31-Dec-45 1-Jan-46 5-Dec-46 30-Jun-47 148.6%0 900,000 $2,333 $2,099,491,869 24%$503,878,049 $4.86 $24,488,473 31-Dec-46 1-Jan-47 5-Dec-47 30-Jun-48 151.6%0 900,000 $2,379 $2,141,481,707 24%$513,955,610 $4.86 $24,978,243 31-Dec-47 1-Jan-48 5-Dec-48 30-Jun-49 154.6%0 900,000 $2,427 $2,184,311,341 24%$524,234,722 $4.86 $25,477,807 31-Dec-48 1-Jan-49 5-Dec-49 30-Jun-50 157.7%0 900,000 $2,476 $2,227,997,568 24%$534,719,416 $4.86 $25,987,364 31-Dec-49 1-Jan-50 5-Dec-50 30-Jun-51 160.8%0 900,000 $2,525 $2,272,557,519 24%$545,413,805 $4.86 $26,507,111 31-Dec-50 1-Jan-51 5-Dec-51 30-Jun-52 164.1%0 900,000 $2,576 $2,318,008,669 24%$556,322,081 $4.86 $27,037,253 31-Dec-51 1-Jan-52 5-Dec-52 30-Jun-53 167.3%0 900,000 $2,627 $2,364,368,843 24%$567,448,522 $4.86 $27,577,998 31-Dec-52 1-Jan-53 5-Dec-53 30-Jun-54 170.7%0 900,000 $2,680 $2,411,656,220 24%$578,797,493 $4.86 $28,129,558 31-Dec-53 1-Jan-54 5-Dec-54 30-Jun-55 174.1%0 900,000 $2,733 $2,459,889,344 24%$590,373,443 $4.86 $28,692,149 Total $551,622,858 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1Data Center business personal property is assessed as of January 1st. Source: Frederick County Treasurer Form 762D, 2025 - Return of Tangible Personal Property for Data Centers Only. 2Business Personal Property tax payment dates are June 5 and December 5. Source: Frederick County Treasurer. This corresponds with fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. 3Assumes 2% annual appreciation. 4See Schedule II. 5See Appendix D-1. 7Represents the fiscal year 2026 rate. Source: Frederick County, Virginia FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget. 6Based on Frederick County Treasurer Form 762D, 2025 - Return of Tangible Personal Property for Data Centers Only , business personal property is depreciated and assessed at 50% of the purchase price if purchased as of 2024, and then 35%, 20%, 10%, and 5% for each preceding year, for a total average depreciation of 24%. This analysis assumes this average depreciation rate in future years to account for replacement and ongoing depreciation. Assessed Value Before Depreciation Page 5 81 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule V-A: Projected Utility Tax Revenues - Annual Table 1: Annual Electric Utility Tax Revenue - Consumption Average Annual Total Annual Total Monthly Electric Consumption Electric Electric Property Use SF1 Per SF2 Consumption Consumption (kWh)(kWh)(kWh) Data Center 900,000 92.90 83,612,700 6,967,725 Total 900,000 83,612,700 6,967,725 Table 2: Annual Electric Utility Tax Revenue - Tax Rates3 Monthly Flat Rate Monthly Rate -Monthly Rate - Property Use Fee Per Consumer First 700 kWh Remaining kWh Data Center $0.30 $0.0024 $0.0015928 Total Table 3: Total Electric Utility Tax Revenues Monthly Monthly Monthly Annual Tax Revenue -Tax Revenue -Tax Revenue -Tax Revenue - Property Use First 700 kWh Remaining kWh Total Total4 Data Center $1.68 $11,097.08 $11,098.76 $133,185.09 Total $1.68 $11,097.08 $11,098.76 $133,185.09 MuniCap, Inc.SULTING/Virginia Projects/Winchester Gateway/EIA Projections/[Winchester Gateway EIA Projections 12.30.25.xlsx]V-A 30-Dec-25 1See Schedule I. 4Figure assumes full buildout and is expressed in current dollars. 2Data centers are estimated to consume roughly 1,000 kWh of electricity per square meter. Source: C&C Technology Group, Understanding Data Center Energy Consumption . This is converted into square feet. 3Nonresidential consumers are subject to a monthly electric utility tax of $0.30 plus a rate of $0.0024 on each of the first 700 kWh delivered monthly and $0.0015928 on the remaining kWh delivered monthly. Source: Frederick County Code of Ordinances, Ch. 155, Article VIII . Page 6 82 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Development Fiscal Total Projected Year Year Inflation Electricity Utility Ending Ending Factor1 Tax Revenues 31-Dec-24 30-Jun-26 100.0%$0 31-Dec-25 30-Jun-27 100.0%$0 31-Dec-26 30-Jun-28 100.0%$0 31-Dec-27 30-Jun-29 100.0%$0 31-Dec-28 30-Jun-30 100.0%$0 31-Dec-29 30-Jun-31 100.0%$44,395 31-Dec-30 30-Jun-32 100.0%$88,790 31-Dec-31 30-Jun-33 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-32 30-Jun-34 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-33 30-Jun-35 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-34 30-Jun-36 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-35 30-Jun-37 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-36 30-Jun-38 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-37 30-Jun-39 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-38 30-Jun-40 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-39 30-Jun-41 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-40 30-Jun-42 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-41 30-Jun-43 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-42 30-Jun-44 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-43 30-Jun-45 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-44 30-Jun-46 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-45 30-Jun-47 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-46 30-Jun-48 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-47 30-Jun-49 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-48 30-Jun-50 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-49 30-Jun-51 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-50 30-Jun-52 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-51 30-Jun-53 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-52 30-Jun-54 100.0%$133,185 31-Dec-53 30-Jun-55 100.0%$133,185 Total $3,196,442 MuniCap, Inc. ts/Winchester Gateway/EIA Projections/[Winchester Gateway EIA Projections 12.30.25.xlsx]V-B 30-Dec-25 1Assumes an annual inflation rate of 0%. Schedule V-B: Projected Utility Tax Revenues - 30 Years Page 7 83 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule VI-A: Projected Additional Revenues to Frederick County - Annual Current County Basis for Current County Projected Increase in Total Annual Revenues1 Revenues2 Projecting Revenues3 Service Factors4 Service Population Service Factor5 Additional Revenues6 Real property taxes $95,155,000 Schedule III ---- Personal property tax $81,070,816 Schedule IV ---- Local sales and use taxes $24,134,152 service population 117,477 $205.44 106 $21,714 Communications sales tax $1,000,000 not impacted ---- Utility tax - electric $2,700,000 Schedule V ---- Utility tax - gas $1,350,000 not impacted ---- Business, professional, and occupational license tax $11,240,000 not impacted ---- Motor vehicle licenses $2,700,000 not impacted ---- Bank stock taxes $700,000 not impacted ---- Recordation taxes $1,800,000 not impacted ---- Tax on wills $25,000 not impacted ---- Additional tax on deeds of conveyance $595,858 not impacted ---- Meals tax and lodging tax $10,287,383 service population 117,477 $87.57 106 $9,256 Street lights/star fort fees $32,350 not impacted ---- Permits, fees, and licenses7 $2,808,500 not impacted ---- Fines and forfeitures $262,000 not impacted ---- Revenue from use of money & property $4,377,545 not impacted ---- Charges for services $4,418,024 not impacted ---- Miscellaneous $237,800 not impacted ---- Recovered costs $2,106,026 not impacted ---- State revenue $10,522,303 not impacted ---- Shared expenses - state categorical $5,988,830 not impacted ---- Federal revenues $344,002 not impacted ---- Non-revenue $3,955,775 not impacted ---- Total budget $267,811,364 $293.01 $30,970 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1Not all sources of revenues are expected to be impacted as a result of the project. Revenues shown represent general fund revenues only. 2Source: Frederick County, Virginia FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget. 4Represents current statistics for the county. See Appendix A. 5Represents projected increase to county as a result of the proposed development. See Appendix A. 6Represents total increase in revenues as a result of the proposed development on an annual basis. Figures assume full buildout and are expressed in current dollars. 7Assumes one-time revenues from permits, fees, and licenses is offset by one-time corresponding expenditures. As a result, the line item is not impacted. Revenues by Factor3 3Method of apportioning revenues: Per service population revenues are calculated by taking current revenues and apportioning them among current service population (i.e. total permanent population and employees who do not reside in the county). Page 8 84 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule VI-B: Projected Additional Revenues to Frederick County - 30 Years Development Fiscal Year Inflation Revenues per Anticipated Total Service Year Ending Ending Factor1 Service Population2 Service Population3 Population Revenues 31-Dec-24 30-Jun-26 100.0%$293.01 0 $0 31-Dec-25 30-Jun-27 100.0%$293.01 0 $0 31-Dec-26 30-Jun-28 102.0%$298.87 0 $0 31-Dec-27 30-Jun-29 104.0%$304.84 0 $0 31-Dec-28 30-Jun-30 106.1%$310.94 0 $0 31-Dec-29 30-Jun-31 108.2%$317.16 35 $11,174 31-Dec-30 30-Jun-32 110.4%$323.50 70 $22,795 31-Dec-31 30-Jun-33 112.6%$329.97 106 $34,877 31-Dec-32 30-Jun-34 114.9%$336.57 106 $35,574 31-Dec-33 30-Jun-35 117.2%$343.30 106 $36,286 31-Dec-34 30-Jun-36 119.5%$350.17 106 $37,012 31-Dec-35 30-Jun-37 121.9%$357.17 106 $37,752 31-Dec-36 30-Jun-38 124.3%$364.32 106 $38,507 31-Dec-37 30-Jun-39 126.8%$371.60 106 $39,277 31-Dec-38 30-Jun-40 129.4%$379.04 106 $40,063 31-Dec-39 30-Jun-41 131.9%$386.62 106 $40,864 31-Dec-40 30-Jun-42 134.6%$394.35 106 $41,681 31-Dec-41 30-Jun-43 137.3%$402.24 106 $42,515 31-Dec-42 30-Jun-44 140.0%$410.28 106 $43,365 31-Dec-43 30-Jun-45 142.8%$418.49 106 $44,232 31-Dec-44 30-Jun-46 145.7%$426.86 106 $45,117 31-Dec-45 30-Jun-47 148.6%$435.39 106 $46,019 31-Dec-46 30-Jun-48 151.6%$444.10 106 $46,940 31-Dec-47 30-Jun-49 154.6%$452.98 106 $47,879 31-Dec-48 30-Jun-50 157.7%$462.04 106 $48,836 31-Dec-49 30-Jun-51 160.8%$471.28 106 $49,813 31-Dec-50 30-Jun-52 164.1%$480.71 106 $50,809 31-Dec-51 30-Jun-53 167.3%$490.32 106 $51,825 31-Dec-52 30-Jun-54 170.7%$500.13 106 $52,862 31-Dec-53 30-Jun-55 174.1%$510.13 106 $53,919 Total $1,039,994 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1Assumes an annual inflation rate of 2%. 2See Schedule VI-A. 3See Appendix C. Page 9 85 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Schedule VII: Total Projected General Fund Revenues to Frederick County Real Property Business Personal Property Utility BPOL Tax Recordation Additional Development Fiscal Year Tax Revenues Tax Revenues Tax Revenues Revenues Tax Revenues Tax Revenues Total Year Ending Ending (Schedule III-B)(Schedule IV)(Schedule V-B)(Schedule V)(Schedule VI-B)(Schedule VI-B)Tax Revenues 31-Dec-24 30-Jun-26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31-Dec-25 30-Jun-27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31-Dec-26 30-Jun-28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31-Dec-27 30-Jun-29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31-Dec-28 30-Jun-30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31-Dec-29 30-Jun-31 $848,456 $12,387,865 $44,395 $37,339 $235,682 $11,174 $13,291,890 31-Dec-30 30-Jun-32 $1,765,466 $21,480,558 $88,790 $76,171 $245,204 $22,795 $23,357,610 31-Dec-31 30-Jun-33 $2,648,200 $27,065,503 $133,185 $116,541 $245,204 $34,877 $29,881,765 31-Dec-32 30-Jun-34 $2,755,187 $17,089,932 $133,185 $118,872 $0 $35,574 $20,013,879 31-Dec-33 30-Jun-35 $2,755,187 $9,386,317 $133,185 $121,250 $0 $36,286 $12,310,974 31-Dec-34 30-Jun-36 $2,866,496 $10,668,219 $133,185 $123,675 $0 $37,012 $13,704,912 31-Dec-35 30-Jun-37 $2,866,496 $14,787,793 $133,185 $126,148 $0 $37,752 $17,825,227 31-Dec-36 30-Jun-38 $2,982,303 $20,490,859 $133,185 $128,671 $0 $38,507 $23,644,854 31-Dec-37 30-Jun-39 $2,982,303 $20,900,676 $133,185 $131,245 $0 $39,277 $24,055,441 31-Dec-38 30-Jun-40 $3,102,788 $21,318,690 $133,185 $133,869 $0 $40,063 $24,594,725 31-Dec-39 30-Jun-41 $3,102,788 $21,745,063 $133,185 $136,547 $0 $40,864 $25,021,900 31-Dec-40 30-Jun-42 $3,228,141 $22,179,965 $133,185 $139,278 $0 $41,681 $25,582,971 31-Dec-41 30-Jun-43 $3,228,141 $22,623,564 $133,185 $142,063 $0 $42,515 $26,027,404 31-Dec-42 30-Jun-44 $3,358,557 $23,076,035 $133,185 $144,905 $0 $43,365 $26,611,143 31-Dec-43 30-Jun-45 $3,358,557 $23,537,556 $133,185 $147,803 $0 $44,232 $27,073,531 31-Dec-44 30-Jun-46 $3,494,243 $24,008,307 $133,185 $150,759 $0 $45,117 $27,680,852 31-Dec-45 30-Jun-47 $3,494,243 $24,488,473 $133,185 $153,774 $0 $46,019 $28,161,921 31-Dec-46 30-Jun-48 $3,635,411 $24,978,243 $133,185 $156,849 $0 $46,940 $28,793,778 31-Dec-47 30-Jun-49 $3,635,411 $25,477,807 $133,185 $159,986 $0 $47,879 $29,294,282 31-Dec-48 30-Jun-50 $3,782,281 $25,987,364 $133,185 $163,186 $0 $48,836 $29,951,666 31-Dec-49 30-Jun-51 $3,782,281 $26,507,111 $133,185 $166,450 $0 $49,813 $30,472,390 31-Dec-50 30-Jun-52 $3,935,085 $27,037,253 $133,185 $169,779 $0 $50,809 $31,156,333 31-Dec-51 30-Jun-53 $3,935,085 $27,577,998 $133,185 $173,174 $0 $51,825 $31,698,094 31-Dec-52 30-Jun-54 $4,094,063 $28,129,558 $133,185 $176,638 $0 $52,862 $32,409,668 31-Dec-53 30-Jun-55 $4,094,063 $28,692,149 $133,185 $180,171 $0 $53,919 $32,973,316 Total $79,731,233 $551,622,858 $3,196,442 $3,475,143 $726,089 $1,039,994 $635,590,527 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 Page 10 86 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendices 87 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendix A: Frederick County Allocation Factors Frederick County permanent population1 96,359 Frederick County labor force2 30,888 Resident employees2 9,770 Non-resident employees2 21,118 Employee population equivalent 21,118 Total service population (permanent population + employee population equivalent)117,477 Service population rates: Resident3 1.00 Employee3 1.00 Service population: Projected new employees4 155 Projected new employee population equivalent 155 Projected new non-resident employees5 106 Projected new non-resident employee population equivalent 106 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 2Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD (OnTheMap application, 2022 data). 3Employees are expected to generate revenues at the same rate as residents. 1Source: Frederick County, Virginia - Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2024. 4See Appendix B. 5Represents total employees multiplied by the percentage of employees estimated to live outside Frederick County. This percentage is equivalent to non-resident employees divided by Frederick County labor force. A-1 88 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendix B: Projected Employees Data Center Development Employees Total Year Ending GSF1 Per 1,000 GSF2 Employees 31-Dec-24 0 0.17 0 31-Dec-25 0 0.17 0 31-Dec-26 0 0.17 0 31-Dec-27 0 0.17 0 31-Dec-28 0 0.17 0 31-Dec-29 300,000 0.17 52 31-Dec-30 600,000 0.17 103 31-Dec-31 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-32 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-33 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-34 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-35 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-36 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-37 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-38 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-39 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-40 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-41 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-42 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-43 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-44 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-45 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-46 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-47 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-48 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-49 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-50 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-51 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-52 900,000 0.17 155 31-Dec-53 900,000 0.17 155 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1See Schedule II. 2See Appendix E-1. B-1 89 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendix C: Projected Service Population Development Total Projected Projected Employees Residing Outside County Total Service Year Ending Employees1 Percentage2 Employees Population Increase 31-Dec-24 0 68.4%0 0 31-Dec-25 0 68.4%0 0 31-Dec-26 0 68.4%0 0 31-Dec-27 0 68.4%0 0 31-Dec-28 0 68.4%0 0 31-Dec-29 52 68.4%35 35 31-Dec-30 103 68.4%70 70 31-Dec-31 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-32 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-33 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-34 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-35 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-36 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-37 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-38 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-39 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-40 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-41 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-42 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-43 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-44 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-45 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-46 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-47 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-48 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-49 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-50 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-51 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-52 155 68.4%106 106 31-Dec-53 155 68.4%106 106 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1See Appendix B. 2Represents the percentage of employees projected to reside outside of the county, as employees who are also county residents do not represent an additional impact to county service population. See Appendix A. C-1 90 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendix D-1: Valuation - Comparison of Valuation Methods1 Table 1: Real Property Comparable Development Properties2 Developer Marshall & Swift3 Data center Per GSF $544 $1,200 $685 Table 2: Business Personal Property4 Business Development Personal Property Data center Per GSF $1,570 Average assessment ratio5 24% Personal business property assessed value per GSF $377 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1Valuation approach chosen for the proposed development is underlined and shown in bold and italics. 2See Appendix D-2. 3See Appendix D-3. 4See Appendix D-4. 5See Schedule IV. Cost Approach D-1 91 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendix D-2: Valuation - Projected Assessed Value of Comparable Properties Land Property Name Parcel ID1 Address County Neighborhood Code2 Year Built3 SF Per sf Land Building Total Per SF Middletown Data Center 90 A 58C 8209 Valley Pike Frederick -1971 / 2009 69,021 $7.14 $492,900 $37,964,600 $38,457,500 $557 Ashburn Data Center Campus - Building 1 041108666000 21195 Atlantic Blvd Loudoun 462NE-Net lease 2022 258,716 $70.00 $18,110,100 $54,917,670 $73,027,770 $282 Amazon AWS IAD 043482656000 21641 Charles View Drive Loudoun 462NE-Net lease 2020 685,682 $70.00 $47,997,700 $145,549,770 $193,547,470 $282 Digital Realty Trust IAD55 Data Center 045299249000 22574 Pacific Blvd Loudoun 462NE-Net lease 2023 258,252 $70.00 $18,077,600 $54,819,200 $72,896,800 $282 Amazon AWS IAD - 22900 Platform 034385918000 22900 Platform Plz Loudoun 462NE-Net lease 2021, 2022, 2023 976,046 $141.71 $138,311,700 $157,604,100 $295,915,800 $303 Ashburn-Shellhorn Data Centers DS2 062159785000 44351 Import Plz Loudoun 462NE-Net lease 2021, 2023 531,592 $73.26 $38,945,700 $133,660,800 $172,606,500 $325 9905 Godwin - IAD53 35463 9905 Godwin Dr Manassas City -2024 187,752 $168.64 $31,662,000 $70,370,000 $102,032,000 $543 GCDC Campus Building 1 7497-46-2858 13780 University Blvd Prince William -2024 482,223 $104.97 $50,617,100 $807,433,900 $858,051,000 $1,779 Average $88.21 $544 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1Parcel ID and other information provided by property search pages for the respective jurisdictions as of October and November 2025 except where noted. 3Multiple years refer to multiple buildings on parcel or renovation. Assessed Value 2Net lease is assumed to represent identical ownership structure to the Development (powered shell building with single tenant that provides its own computing equipment and fixtures.) Other data centers in list are assumed to be of same type because of tenant and occupant information provided by the relevant jurisdiction or CoStar real estate database. D-2 92 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendix D-3: Valuation - Projected Assessed Value- Construction Cost1 Occupancy Class Height Stories Rank Data Center Fireproof Structural Steel Frame 32'2 5 Structure cost Base cost per square foot $501.51 Exterior walls per square foot $56.58 Heating & cooling per square foot $38.98 Estimated improved value per gross square foot based on cost $597.07 Land value Estimated land value per gross square foot2 $88.21 Total estimated assessed value per gross square foot $685.28 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1All cost estimates by MuniCap, Inc., using Marshall & Swift "Commercial Estimator 7" software. 2Based on assessed land values for comparable properties as researched by MuniCap. D-3 93 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendix D-4: Valuation - Projected Assessed Value of Business Personal Property Business personal property value Loudoun Center data center business personal property tax revenues1 $560,853,000 Business personal property tax rate per $100 AV1 $4.15 Data center business personal property assessed value $13,514,530,120 Average depreciation2 30.0% Business personal property assessed value with average depreciation $45,048,433,735 Square feet of data centers3 37,175,638 Average business personal property value per square foot of data centers $1,211.77 Loudoun Prince William County County4 Average5 Average business personal property value per square foot of data center $1,212 $1,928 $1,570 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1Source: Loudoun County Fiscal Year 2024 Budget. 3Source: Loudoun County 2024 Fiscal Impact Committee Guidelines. 4Represents average book value of data center equipment in county as of 2024. Source: Prince William County, 2024 Data Center Industry Tax Revenue Report. 5Average is used for a reasonable conservative estimate. Table 1: Business Personal Property Value Per Square Foot - Loudoun County Table 2: Business Personal Property Value Per Square Foot - Average 2Loudoun County data center computer equipment is depreciated to 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% over five years. Source: Loudoun County Commissioner of the Revenue. D-4 94 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendix E-1: Jobs and Indirect/Induced Impacts - Data Center Total Data center square feet1 900,000 Average square feet per data center worker2 5,600 Total direct data center jobs3 160.71 Full-time equivalent ("FTE") factor4 0.9619 Total FTE jobs 155 Total FTE jobs per 1,000 square feet 0.17 Multiplier for data center jobs3 1.4133 Total jobs 227 Indirect and induced jobs 66 Total direct labor income5 $13,295,877 Labor income to wage factor5 1.1260 Sub-total employee wages $11,807,604 Average data center income per FTE -- annual $86,004 Average data center wage per FTE -- annual $76,377 Multiplier for data center income3 1.2451 Total labor income $16,554,659 Indirect and induced income $3,258,782 Multiplier for data center output3 1.3644 Total economic output $39,220,481 Direct output $28,745,962 Indirect and induced output $10,474,518 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 5Total labor income includes wages and salary, benefits, payroll taxes, and proprietor's income. The employee compensation-to-wage factor, provided by IMPLAN Group, LLC converts total labor income into direct wages and salary. 1See Schedule I. 2Source: Loudoun County Virginia, 2024 Fiscal Impact Committee Guidelines. 3Data Center income, jobs, and output are calculated using IMPLAN software by IMPLAN Group, LLC. The software calculates labor income and the number of jobs based on industry multipliers derived from National Income and Product Accounts data published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. This data is then indexed to local industry data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. For ease of interpretation, multipliers are shown to illustrate the effects of the Development in Frederick County. The multiplier for data center jobs is 1.4133, meaning that for each job at the Development, 1.4133 jobs will be created in Frederick County, including the one job at the Development. Similarly, the multiplier for data center income is 1.2451, meaning that for every $1.00 paid in income to employees at the Development, $1.2451 will be paid in Frederick County, including the $1.00 at the Development. The multiplier for data center output is 1.3644, meaning that for each dollar of data center economic activity at the Development, the economic output in Frederick County will be $1.3644, including the $1.00 at the Development. 4Total jobs include all full-year employees, including part-time and full-time employees. The full-time equivalent factor, provided by IMPLAN Group, LLC converts total jobs into total FTE. E-1 95 Winchester Gateway - Phase I Frederick County, Virginia Appendix E-2: Jobs and Indirect/Induced Impacts - Temporary Construction Total Commercial construction cost1 $1,080,000,000 Total direct construction jobs2 4,816 Construction full-time equivalent ("FTE") factor3 0.9713 Total construction FTE jobs 4,678 Multiplier for construction jobs2 1.3358 Total jobs 6,433 Indirect and induced jobs 1,617 Total direct labor income4 $441,944,133 Labor income to wage factor4 1.1722 Sub-total employee wages $377,011,382 Average construction income per FTE -- annual $94,476 Average construction wage per FTE -- annual $80,595 Multiplier for construction income2 1.2319 Total income $544,442,339 Indirect and induced income $102,498,206 Multiplier for construction output2 1.3447 Total economic output $1,452,304,130 Direct output $1,080,000,000 Indirect and induced output $372,304,130 MuniCap, Inc.30-Dec-25 1Provided by Developer. 2Construction income,jobs, and output were calculated using IMPLAN software by IMPLAN Group,LLC.Multipliers are estimated and applied in the same manner as Appendix E-1. 3Total jobs include all full-year employees, including part-time and full-time employees. This factor, provided by IMPLAN Group LLC, converts total jobs into total FTE. 4Total labor income includes wages and salary, benefits, payroll taxes, and proprietor's income. The employee compensation-to-wage factor, provided by IMPLAN Group LLC, converts total labor income into direct wages and salary. E-2 96 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.24.2025 salasobrien.com 1 Environmental Noise Study Winchester Gateway Data Center- 2565-00642 INTRODUCTION This report contains design information on environmental noise for the proposed Winchester Gateway Data Center in Frederick County, VA. This information is intended to assist Winchester Gateway LLC in meeting noise level requirements for the proposed construction set forth by Frederick County. This report does not address changes to construction that may be acoustically necessary to reduce excessive noise due to building mechanical or electrical services. Executive Summary Noise measurements were conducted at multiple locations surrounding the project site to document and characterize existing ambient sound levels. Results indicate a clear distinction between daytime and nighttime acoustic conditions. Daytime noise along Apple Valley Road averaged 63–64 dB(A), dropping to about 47 dB(A) during the quietest nighttime period. Route 37 showed higher daytime levels of 67–68 dB(A), with the east side ranging 63–67 dB(A) due to nearby construction. Overall, Route 37 is 5–10 dB(A) louder than Apple Valley Road. The frequency spectra exhibited elevated sound levels in the mid-frequency bands (500 Hz–2.5 kHz) and lower levels in the low-frequency range (50 Hz–500 Hz). Low-frequency noise presents greater mitigation challenges because attenuation at these frequencies typically requires materials with significant mass. Overall, ambient sound levels remain steady throughout the day due to consistent traffic activity but drop during the late-night hours when traffic diminishes. With appropriate mitigation, the proposed data center operations may be minimally impactful, and possibly assist in masking disturbing short and impulsive noises caused by large trucks and sirens. A representative model of the proposed data centers was created using SoundPlan environmental modeling software and assuming both the county specified protections (low sound fan options, mufflers, generator enclosures, etc.) and a parapet that is at least 9’ 6” above the roof level to fully block line of sight to the roof top equipment. Normal operations are expected to produce noise levels of less than 65 dB(A) during daytime hours and 60 dB(A) during nighttime hours. While these nighttime levels exceed the ambient noise levels during the quietest hours, because they are steady state they will serve to mask disturbing impulsive and short spikes in noise levels caused by large trucks and emergency vehicles. 97 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 2 MEASUREMENTS Location Site is located on the southeast corner of Apple Valley Rd and Middle Rd in Winchester, VA 22602 Spot measurements were taken at the following times and locations: 10/22 Afternoon 11:47 a.m. – 2:33 p.m.: Full perimeter 10/23 Late-night (early morning) 3:46 a.m. – 4:26 a.m.: Along Apple Valley Rd 10/23 Morning 7:44 a.m.- 8:47 a.m.: Full perimeter 10/23 Evening 5:11 p.m. – 5:34 p.m.: Along Apple Valley Rd 10/23 Night 8:59 p.m. – 9:26 p.m.: Along Apple Valley Rd A graphic showing the approximate spot check locations is included in Appendix C. Due to safety concerns after dark, nighttime spot checks around the full perimeter were not conducted but were limited to Apple Valley Road. Apple Valley Road was prioritized because of its proximity to residential areas. 98 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 3 Observations Traffic along Apple Valley Road was steady and consistent from early morning through the evening hours, contributing to stable daytime noise levels. During the late-night/early-morning periods, traffic activity decreased, resulting in lower ambient sound levels. Active construction activity was observed on the east side of the site, characterized by frequent and pronounced hammering sounds that contributed intermittently to elevated noise levels in that area. The surrounding land use consists primarily of single-family residences along the north side of Apple Valley Road, adjacent to the project property line. Beyond these residential areas, the surrounding environment is predominantly agricultural and industrial. Results Noise levels during daytime hours remained steady, decreasing between approximately 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Several isolated spikes were observed during the late-night period, though these were not directly witnessed in the field. Such events may have resulted from emergency vehicle activity, passing heavy trucks operating overnight, or nearby wildlife. Overall, sound levels along Route 37 were 5–10 dB(A) higher than those measured along Apple Valley Road. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 11:00 AM1:00 PM3:00 PM5:00 PM7:00 PM9:00 PM11:00 PM1:00 AM3:00 AM5:00 AM7:00 AM9:00 AM11:00 AM1:00 PM3:00 PM5:00 PM7:00 PM9:00 PM11:00 PM1:00 AM3:00 AM5:00 AM7:00 AMdBA (re: 20 µPa)15-Minute LAeq over Time Apple Valley Rd Rte 37 10/22/2025 10/23/2025 10/24/2025 99 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 4 While the average sound level decreased noticeably between the hours of 11pm and 4am on both nights, periodic noises from ambulances, motorcycles and other vehicles along Route 37 did not change. This results in short-term noise events which rise over the noise floor by 40-60 dB(A). The full set of Logged 1 second Leq data is included in Appendix D for reference. 97 78.1 99.8 78 78.3 110.9 89.2 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Sound Pressure Levels (dBA re: 20 µPa)1-Second Leq from 11 pm on 10/22 to 4 am on 10/23 Apple Valley Rd Route 37 Apple Valley Rd Average Route 37 Average 100 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 5 Noise Levels along Apple Valley Rd. Five short-term measurements were taken along the length of plot bordering Apple Valley Road and averaged for each time frame. Daytime noise levels were consistent, ranging from 62 to 64 dB(A), while nighttime levels were approximately 15 dB(A) lower. 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Late-night 03:45- 04:30 Morning 07:45-08:05 Afternoon 11:45-12:30 Night 17:10-17:35 Evening 21:00-21:30dBA (re: 20µPa)Apple Valley Rd Spot Checks Avg. LAeq 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 dBA (re: 20 µPa)LAeq Apple Valley Rd Morning Avg. A weighted Frequency Curve 101 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 6 The frequency spectra were also consistent across the spot measurements. Only the afternoon measurement exhibited a noticeably different spectral profile, likely due to construction activity on the east side that was active during that period. It is noteworthy that low-frequency components (50 Hz– 500 Hz) were lower in level than the mid-frequency range (500 Hz–2.5 kHz). Noise Levels along Route 37 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 dBA (re: 20 µPa)LAeq Apple Valley Rd Afternoon Avg. A weighted Frequency Curve 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Morning 07:45-08:05 Afternoon 11:45-12:30dBA (re: 20µPa)Rte 37 Morning vs Afternoon Average LAeq 102 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 7 The frequency spectra along Route 37 were consistent across the morning and afternoon spot measurements. While low-frequency levels were also lower along this corridor, the difference was less pronounced than on Apple Valley Road. This is likely due to the higher volume of heavy-trailer traffic on the highway, which contributes additional low-frequency energy. 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 dBA (re: 20µPa)LAeq Rte 37 Morning Avg. A weighted Frequency Curve 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 dBA (re: 20µPa)LAeq Rte 37 Afternoon Avg. A weighted Frequency Curve 103 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 8 Noise Levels along East Side The differences in levels between the morning and afternoon spot checks is more pronounced. It was observed in other measurements as well that the increased construction noise coming from the east side added to the low frequency content of the afternoon measurements. The morning measurements are more likely to be indicative of the normal sound levels in the area. 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Morning 07:45-08:05 Afternoon 11:45-12:30dBA (re: 20µPa)East Side Morning vs Afternoon Avg LAeq 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 dBA (re: 20µPa)LAeq East Side Morning Avg. A weighted Frequency Curve 104 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 9 ANALYSIS SoundPLAN Model Salas O’Brien constructed an environmental noise model to assist in predicting the noise impact to the surrounding areas. We used both rooftop and generator equipment typical of a data center of the proposed size. Equipment and dB values: The sound power levels that were used in the model for each piece of equipment is listed in the table below. All data in the table is shown in dB re: 10-12 W. 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1kHz 2kHz 4kHz 8kHz Greenheck Exhaust Fan 78 77 84 74 67 66 62 59 Cook 36 LXUL 89 91 89 84 80 75 70 66 RTU-A Inlet 83 81 84 81 75 73 71 65 RTU-A Outlet 83 81 84 81 75 73 71 65 CRAC Condenser 84 94 95 93 88 85 82 78 Cook 48 LXUL 94 96 92 88 84 79 75 70 AHU Condensing Unit 62 74 83 88 88 85 81 75 House Generator 81 83 90 82 81 77 70 70 Generator KD3000 92 115 115 117 118 117 113 108 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 dBA (re: 20µPa)LAeq East Side Afternoon Avg. A weighted Frequency Curve 105 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 10 Simulations 3 simulations were ran in total, with results shown both in dB(A) (dB(A) is a frequency weighting standard that approximates human hearing at normal listening levels) as described below: 1. Normal Operating conditions. All rooftop equipment running. 2. Test conditions. All rooftop equipment running plus 1 emergency generator nearest property line 3. Emergency conditions. All rooftop equipment and generators running. 106 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 11 Highest dB(A) predicted at property line: Normal Operations Test Conditions Emergency Conditions North 55 56 59 Northwest 47 47 50 Southwest 54 54 56 South 51 51 53 East 53 53 53 RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the requirement set by the county to install all equipment with the low sound fan options, mufflers on exhaust stacks, and generators within the sound rated enclosures, we recommend implementing a parapet that is at least 9’ 6” above the roof level to fully block line of sight to the roof top equipment and help mitigate the sound level from such. With this, and equipment that does not exceed the modeled levels, we anticipate that the data center during normal operating conditions would be noticeably quieter than the industrial limits that are currently placed on the site. With the proper selection of generator enclosures, this data center should also be able to not exceed the industrial limits even during an emergency condition where all generators are operating. Contributors: ALEX HORNECKER, INCE Bd. Cert. Senior Consultant, Acoustics D 469.726.4275 E alex.hornecker@salasobrien.com Aaron Walker Acoustic Designer D 303.472.0779 E aaron.walker@salasobrien.com 107 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 12 APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS A-weighted Sound Level (dB(A)) A unit of sound level that measures how loud a sound is perceived by the human ear. It is a weighted measurement that adjusts the raw decibel reading to account for the fact that human hearing is less sensitive to very low and very high frequencies than it is to mid-range frequencies. C-weighted Sound Level (dB(C)) A unit of sound level that measures how loud a sound is perceived by the human ear at higher sound levels, where hearing is relatively flatter across frequencies. It applies a gentler weighting than A- weighting, reducing the correction of low and high frequencies and providing a measurement that better represents loud or bass-rich sounds. Leq The equivalent continuous sound level is the sound level in decibels, having the same total sound energy as the fluctuating level measured. Leq is also known as the time-average sound level (LAT). LAeq The A-weighted, equivalent continuous sound level, in decibels having the same total sound energy as the fluctuating level measured. Frequency Spectrum A representation of sound energy distribution as a function of frequency, typically displayed in one- third-octave bands. Sound Power The total acoustic energy emitted by a source per unit time, expressed in watts. It is an inherent property of the source and does not depend on distance or environment. Sound Pressure The local variation in atmospheric pressure caused by a sound wave, measured in pascals (Pa). It represents the force of the sound on a surface area and is what the human ear perceives as loudness. 108 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.24.2025 salasobrien.com 13 APPENDIX B– SITE PLAN 109 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 14 APPENDIX C– MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 110 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.24.2025 salasobrien.com 15 APPENDIX D 10.22.2025 Logged Data – 1 second Leq 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Sound Pressure Levels (dBA re: 20 µPa)Apple Valley Rd Rte 37 111 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 16 10.23.2025 Logged Data – 1 second Leq 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Sound Pressure Levels (dBA re: 20 µPa)Apple Valley Rd Route 37 112 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 17 10.24.2025 Logged Data – 1 second Leq 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Sound Pressure Level (dBA re: 20 µPa)Apple Valley Rd Route 37 113 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.24.2025 salasobrien.com 18 APPENDIX E– SPOT CHECK FREQUENCY DATA 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 dBA (re: 20 µPa)LAeq Apple Valley Rd Evening Avg. A weighted Frequency Curve 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 dBA (re: 20 µPa)LAeq Apple Valley Rd Night Avg. A weighted Frequency Curve 114 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 19 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 dBA (re: 20 µPa)LAeq Apple Valley Rd Late Night Avg. A weighted Frequency Curve 115 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.24.2025 salasobrien.com 20 APPENDIX F – PREDICTED SOUND LEVEL MAPS Normal Operations 116 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 21 Test Conditions 117 Winchester Gateway Data Center - 2565-00642 | 11.21.2025 salasobrien.com 22 Emergency Conditions 118 salasobrien.com Addendum Winchester Gateway Data Center – 2565-00642 INTRODUCTION This report is to provide supplemental information to the previous report dated November 24th, 2025 based on the comments from Cerami dated December 5th, 2025. APPLICABLE NOISE ORDINANCE In addition to the sound requirements set forth in the Frederick County Legislation, this project is also subject to the requirements stipulated in the Code of Ordinances for Winchester, Virginia, the applicable sections of both documents have been included in Appendix A. As the maximum sound levels according to the Winchester Code of Ordinances are more stringent than the Frederick County limits, this project will be held to those levels, but the reporting requirements stipulated in the Frederick County Legislation. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The Cerami report, dated December 5th, 2025, requested additional documentation including manufacturer cut sheets for mechanical source sound levels and sound attenuation levels of the mufflers or silencers used to achieve the presented levels. This is information that would be provided after the full project design has been completed, this is a preliminary study to fulfill the requirements of Part II.165.204.41-1-A of the Frederick County Legislation to show the project can feasibly achieve the requirements of the local ordinances. As the Frederick County Legislation also includes requirements for low-noise emission fans, acoustic wraps around any compressors or oil separators, and visual screening and/or acoustic screening for all equipment, these were included in our model and the results of equipment operating without these mitigation efforts should not be up for discussion. EXISTING CONDITIONS The previous measurements that were completed from October 22nd-24th, 2025 included both the spot measurements and two different logging meters that were capturing data every second. Additional metrics including the hourly Leq, L90, L10, Lmin, and Lmax were calculated and are included in Appendix B. Note that the 24 hour Leq was not included as it would be so driven by the traffic noise that it would not provide an accurate picture of what occurs during the nighttime hours. 119 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 2 The quietest single hour Leq that was measured along Apple Valley Road, nearest the residences, during our time on site was 45 dBA, however, during this same hour the Lmax was measured at 56 dBA. This shows that there is still noticeable traffic over those nighttime hours that generates noticeable amounts of noise. That peak noise was likely caused by an emergency vehicle siren as that same hour had a corresponding spike at the meter along Route 37 at 111 dBA. ADDITIONAL MODELING Additional plots from our acoustic model that include the contribution of the existing noise sources (namely traffic noise along Route 37 and Apple Valley Road) are included in Appendix C. These plots show the different conditions either during typical daytime hours or the quietest nighttime hour. The only combination that was not included in this is the single generator test condition with nighttime minimum levels as all maintenance testing of the generators will occur during daytime hours. As this is a representative data center design and not a design that has been fully vetted by all engineering disciplines, it is premature to provide the representative residential point receivers. The approximate impact levels can be seen on the noise sound level maps. The intent of this report is to show the feasibility of the proposed project achieving the limits imposed by the relevant ordinances. DISCUSSION The sound level predictions show that there is a feasible path to meeting the noise limits imposed by both the Frederick County Legislation and the Winchester, Virginia Code of Ordinances. During daytime hours, the average noise levels at the property line are anticipated to be in the 66-69 dBA range due to the combination of existing traffic noise along Apple Valley Road and the equipment from the data center. During the nighttime hours, while the sound levels from the data center will be below the 60 dBA limit, the activity from the data center equipment will significantly raise the Lmin, L90, Leq and L10 and be a clear change in the existing conditions. The peak levels from sirens, motorcycles and heavy vehicles along Route 37 will be reduced because the buildings will provide some acoustic shielding. Contributors: ALEX HORNECKER, INCE Bd. Cert. Senior Consultant, Acoustics D 469.726.4275 E alex.hornecker@salasobrien.com Aaron Walker Acoustic Designer D 303.472.0779 E aaron.walker@salasobrien.com 120 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 3 APPENDIX A – APPLICABLE ORDINANCES Frederick County Legislation Part II Chapter 165 Part 204.41 for Data Center projects as of December 10th, 2025: A. Prior to the approval of a rezoning application or conditional use permit, the following shall be provided: (1) A site assessment to examine the sound profile of the data center on residential units and schools located within 500 feet of the data center property boundary in accordance with Subsection E. B. Generator testing and cycling shall be limited to weekdays (Monday to Friday) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all noise generated by any on-site generator shall comply with County Code § 165-201.12. [Section 165-201.12.H Specifies a property line limit that shall not exceed 70 dBA.] C. Mechanical equipment. (1) Location. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be prohibited in the primary setback. (2) Screening. Ground-mounted and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from public roadways and adjoining properties on all sides. (3) Generators. All generators shall be enclosed with a manufacturer-approved enclosure or located within the primary structure. (4) Other mechanical equipment. An opaque screen shall be provided by either the principal building, louvered wall, or equivalent screen approved by the Zoning Administrator. The maximum height of the opaque screen should correspond to the tallest piece of equipment being shielded from view. D. Setback and screening requirements. (1) Structures must be set back at least 200 feet from the common property line when adjoining land is zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 and MH1. Otherwise, the base zoning district dimensional standards shall apply. (2) A category C full-screen-type buffer shall be provided around the perimeter of the property. If the adjoining property is zoned B3, TM, M1, or M2, no buffer is required. E. Noise and noise monitoring. (1) The applicant shall submit an Environmental Noise Impact Assessment prepared by a qualified full member of the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE), or a member of the National Association of Acoustical Consultants (NCAC). The purpose of such noise impact assessment, modeled in SoundPLAN, CadnaA, or accepted equivalent, shall model anticipated noise levels as a result of facility operation and establish a baseline noise level prior to approval of a rezoning or conditional use permit. (2) A noise study certifying noise levels shall be conducted 12 months after the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO) and every five years thereafter. Each noise study shall be submitted for review to the Zoning Administrator and/or his/her designee to assess the actual impact of the completed project. (a) The measurement of sound or noise pursuant to this section shall be as follows: [1] The measurement of sound or noise shall be made with a Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meter which meet the standards prescribed in ANSI S1.4:2014, Specification for Sound Level Meters. The instruments shall be maintained in calibration and good working order . A minimum of three sound level readings shall be taken. The average of these readings will be used as the average sound level. If the background noise is equal to the levels set forth in this section, 3 dB shall be subtracted out of the average sound level. [2] The slow meter response of the sound level meter shall be used to determine that the average amplitude has not exceeded the dBA readings or the limiting noise spectra set forth in this section. 121 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 4 [3] Unless otherwise specified, the measurement shall be taken at the property boundary on which such noise is generated. (b) Any additions, alterations, or expansion of a facility or its equipment shall require a new noise impact assessment to be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. (c) If the post construction noise study exceeds the maximum noise level permitted, additional noise mitigation strategies, improvements, or operational changes shall be required. (3) Any equipment necessary for cooling, ventilating, or otherwise operating the facility, including power generators or other power supply equipment on the property, whether ground-mounted or roof-mounted, shall include the following noise-mitigation elements: (a) Low-noise emission fans. (b) Acoustic wraps for compressors and oil separators. (c) An acoustic perimeter, which may include a perimeter around a group of individual chillers, which may be louvered or solid. (d) Other sound-attenuation measures as approved by the Zoning Administrator. The owner shall provide documentation, in the form of technical specifications, photographs, and/or engineered plans, of the above mitigation measures contained in Subsection E(3) with each building permit for a data center building on the property and shall further provide documentation that such measures have been installed concurrently with each occupancy. Winchester, Virginia – Code of Ordinances Chapter 17 as of December 3rd, 2025: Sec. 17-6. - Noises prohibited—Enumeration. The following acts shall be unlawful: (4) To permit, operate, or cause any source of sound to create a sound level in another person's residential dwelling in excess of 65 dBA when measured inside the receiving structure at least four feet from the wall nearest the source, with doors and windows to the receiving area closed. Sec. 17-7.1. - Maximum nighttime sound levels in residential zones. No person shall operate or cause any source of sound in such a manner as to create a sound level in a residential zone during the hours between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in excess of 60 dBA when measured at the property boundary of the receiving land. The f oregoing shall not be deemed to include sound generation from any bona fide agricultural activity, including noise caused by livestock. 122 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 5 APPENDIX B – 1-HOUR METRICS The previous measurements that were completed from October 22nd-24th, 2025 included both the spot measurements and two different logging meters that were capturing data every second. The following additional metrics were calculated based on those logged results. Date Hour Apple Valley Road Route 37 Lmin L90 Leq L10 Lmax Lmin L90 Leq L10 Lmax 10/22/2025 11:00 46 51 66 64 94 47 53 59 62 74 12:00 43 48 62 65 79 45 52 59 62 71 13:00 46 50 67 63 98 45 53 59 62 74 14:00 46 51 63 67 77 46 55 65 69 83 15:00 47 51 66 70 92 53 63 70 73 88 16:00 47 50 64 70 77 53 62 70 73 81 17:00 46 51 65 70 80 55 63 70 73 86 18:00 47 50 69 68 100 55 62 69 72 86 19:00 43 47 59 57 76 52 58 67 71 84 20:00 42 47 61 61 78 47 56 67 70 85 21:00 38 43 57 56 78 42 52 63 67 77 22:00 38 42 52 52 74 41 48 61 65 78 23:00 38 41 54 53 76 41 44 59 62 76 10/23/2025 0:00 36 38 64 49 97 40 42 68 60 100 1:00 37 40 45 46 72 37 40 57 59 78 2:00 35 37 44 48 56 35 38 79 62 111 3:00 35 37 51 50 75 34 37 62 62 90 4:00 35 41 55 53 79 39 49 61 65 80 5:00 42 47 67 59 97 48 55 71 70 100 6:00 47 51 62 63 79 51 61 70 73 81 7:00 47 53 64 68 78 58 65 71 74 83 8:00 46 54 65 70 80 54 62 71 74 86 9:00 44 48 62 65 79 51 59 69 72 83 10:00 45 49 66 64 95 52 59 69 72 86 11:00 45 49 64 65 92 47 57 71 71 101 12:00 45 49 63 68 78 48 58 77 71 109 13:00 44 48 62 63 79 50 58 75 73 103 123 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 6 14:00 45 50 64 69 78 51 60 70 72 87 15:00 47 51 66 71 95 56 63 71 74 95 16:00 46 50 65 70 79 55 64 71 74 86 17:00 46 50 64 69 79 55 64 74 74 103 18:00 47 50 63 66 80 52 63 70 73 87 19:00 45 48 61 61 79 52 59 69 72 88 20:00 41 46 67 59 98 40 54 69 71 99 21:00 36 43 58 59 78 38 54 63 67 77 22:00 39 43 52 52 75 43 52 62 66 76 23:00 38 42 54 54 74 35 47 61 65 75 10/24/2025 0:00 36 40 53 51 79 34 40 60 64 76 1:00 39 41 51 51 74 34 37 58 61 76 2:00 38 41 49 52 64 34 39 59 62 78 3:00 37 41 52 52 77 34 40 67 62 100 4:00 41 45 66 55 98 40 52 61 64 79 5:00 44 50 59 59 76 43 56 64 67 79 6:00 50 54 62 62 79 53 60 66 69 79 7:00 53 56 61 64 78 57 62 68 70 78 8:00 - - - - - 50 58 67 70 79 124 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 7 APPENDIX C – SOUND LEVEL MAPS WITH EXISTING SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS Normal Operations – Day 125 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 8 Normal Operations – Night 126 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 9 Test Conditions – Day 127 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 10 Emergency Conditions – Day 128 Winchester Gateway Data Center - Addendum | 01.06.2025 salasobrien.com 11 Emergency Conditions – Night 129 4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. Thomas Moore Lawson, PC From: Shashwat Anant, EIT Kevin Sitzman, PE Gorove Slade Date: December 1, 2025 Subject: Winchester Gateway - Trip Generation Comparison Memo Introduction This memo presents a trip generation comparison with respect to the Winchester Gateway development, situated south of Apple Valley Road (Rte. 651/652), west of Shady Elm Road (Rte. 651), and east of VA 37 in Frederick County, Virginia. This assessment was conducted to evaluate possible changes in the proposed development program from what w as previously analyzed for the site in an approved traffic impact study (TIS), titled Traffic Impact Study – Winchester Gateway dated July 14, 2023 for the development. As presented in this memorandum, the proposed change in development program constitutes a significant reduction in the anticipated trips generated by the site , thereby substantially reducing the previously anticipated impact. Modification of Development Program The Winchester Gateway development is situated on one parcel that can be identified on Frederick County Tax Maps with the following Tax PIN #: 63 A 80I. The property area is approximately 71.85 acres and is currently zoned as M1 (Light Industrial District). In the approved TIS, the development program assumed approximately 805,000 square feet of industrial park use. The Applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for approximately 805,000 square feet of two-story Data Center use, which generates substantially fewer vehicle trips during peak hours and across a typical weekday . Trip Generation Comparison In order to calculate the trips generated by the existing and proposed development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers ’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition, the publication was utilized to determine the total number of trips going into and out of the subject study site during the weekday morning (AM) and weekday afternoon (PM) peak hours as well as the typical number of weekday daily trips associated with the development. Table 1: Site Trip Generation: Existing Development (ITE 11: Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street) As shown in Table 1, the approved development program included in the traffic impact study would generate approximately 270 AM peak hour trips, 274 PM peak hour trips and 2,777 trips on a typical weekday. In Out Total In Out Total Total Industrial Park 130 805.0 kSF of GFA 222 52 274 60 214 274 2,777 Approved Development Trips (Traffic Impact Study – Winchester Gateway dated July 14, 2023) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour DailyLand Use ITE Code Size ------ W e e k d a y ------ 130 131 132 Winchester Gateway - Trip Generation Comparison Memo December 1, 2025 Page 2 4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Table 2: Site Trip Generation: Proposed Development As shown in Table 2, the proposed development use would generate approximately 72 AM peak hour trips, 24 PM peak hour trips and 604 trips on a typical weekday. Table 3: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Development As shown in Table 3, based on the Trip Generation Manual, the proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 202 fewer AM peak-hour trips (a reduction of about 74%), 250 fewer PM peak-hour trips (a reduction of about 91%), and 2,173 fewer weekday daily trips (a reduction of about 78%) compared to the previously approved development scenario . Traffic Impacts The previously approved TIS that evaluated an 805,000 square -foot industrial park determined that no roadway improvements were needed to mitigate traffic impacts. The rezoning nevertheless included proffered roadway widening along the site frontag e and related improvements along Apple Valley Road. With the Conditional Use Permit, all proffers would remain in effect. Because the change in use represents a substantial decrease in traffic activity, the overall transportation impact is significantly lower than what was already approved. In combination with the proffered widening, the proposed CUP development will add more road capacity than traffic, resulting in a net improvement to the adjacent roadway network. Conclusion Given the significant trip reduction and the fact that frontage improvements were proffered with the approved rezoning of the property, despite not being required to mitigate site traffic impacts, the the proposed data center use will have even less impact to the roadway network and no additional roadway improvements would be required to support the revised development program. In Out Total In Out Total Total Data Center (AWS Study)*805.0 kSF 40 32 72 7 17 24 604 Notes: *Trip generation rates extracted from Data Center Trip Generation Assessment, prepared by Bowman and dated March 15, 2023. Proposed Development Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour DailyLand Use Size ------ W e e k d a y ------ In Out Total In Out Total Total Difference (Total Proposed Dev Trips - Total Approved Trips)-182 -20 -202 -53 -197 -250 -2,173 % Reduction -74%-91% -78% AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour DailyLand Use ITE Code Size ------ W e e k d a y ------ 133 Historic Resources Advisory Board Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: February 20, 2026 Agenda Section: Historic Restoration Grant Review Title: Review of Application for Heater House Restoration Attachments: HRAB02-20-26HeaterHouseRestorationApplication_Redacted.pdf 134 Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation 8437 Valley Pike Middletown, VA 22645 (540) 869-2064 Email: info@ccbf.us Historic Preservation Grant Application Grant Title: Historic Preservation Grant Program Applicant Name: Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation Property Name: Heater House Property Address: No physical address – closest is 8437 Valley Pike Department of Historic Resources File Number (if known): 034-0082_ep Contact Information: Mayor Charles Harbaugh IV 540-877-4594 c Funding Amount Requested: $4,000 x 2 = $8,000 Date of Submission: 1-12-26 1. Project Summary: An $8,000 grant from Frederick County in honor of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States would play a critical role in advancing Phase Two of preservation and stabilization work at the historic Heater House, located at the heart of the Cedar Creek Battlefield just south of Middletown. This investment would build directly upon the important Phase One repairs completed in March of last year and ensure that the progress already made is protected, extended, and leveraged for long-term preservation. The Heater House is a rare and tangible link to over 250 years of American history. Originally constructed as a log structure in the 1760s and expanded over generations, the house reflects the evolution of early frontier settlement, agricultural life, and the lived experience of ordinary families who shaped the Shenandoah Valley long before the American Revolution and through the Civil War. The property’s early association with Jost Hite, James Hoge, and the extended Hite family ties it directly to the earliest European settlement of Frederick County, making it especially significant during this milestone anniversary of our nation’s founding. Phase One of the project focused on critical stabilization measures to halt further deterioration of the structure. These efforts addressed immediate threats to the building’s integrity and laid the groundwork for more comprehensive preservation. Phase Two, which this grant would support, 135 builds upon that foundation by advancing targeted repairs and construction work necessary to further stabilize the house and prepare it for eventual restoration and interpretation. Specifically, the $8,000 grant would help fund structural repairs, exterior envelope improvements, and historically sensitive construction work designed to protect original materials and prevent water intrusion and structural failure. These improvements are essential to ensuring that the Heater House does not regress after Phase One and that it remains standing for future generations. By addressing vulnerabilities now, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation can avoid far more costly emergency repairs later and continue its careful, phased approach to preservation. As Frederick County commemorates the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding, this grant would represent a meaningful investment in preserving a place that embodies the full arc of American history, from colonial settlement and the early republic to the defining conflict of the Civil War. Phase Two repairs to the Heater House would safeguard an irreplaceable historic resource and reaffirm the county’s commitment to honoring its past while educating future generations. 2. Historical Significance of the Property: Property Designation: X Listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places X Contributing resource in a National Register Historic District X Designated State or Local Historic Landmark ☐ Eligible for the National Register listing (documentation included) X Included in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey 3. Statement of Significance: The Heater House is a historically and architecturally significant resource located at the center of the Cedar Creek Battlefield in Frederick County, Virginia. Constructed in 1763, the house is a rare surviving example of an early vernacular log-and-frame farmhouse that reflects more than a century of domestic, agricultural, and architectural evolution in the Shenandoah Valley. Its layered construction, association with prominent early landowners, and direct role in one of the most important Civil War battles in the Valley establish its exceptional significance under the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. The core of the Heater House was erected as a two-story log structure in 1763, featuring a traditional hall-and-parlor plan with two heated rooms on the first floor and bed chambers above. This form was typical of early frontier settlement in the region and illustrates the practical building traditions of the mid-eighteenth century. In 1802, the house was significantly enlarged with the addition of a wing designed to accommodate a specialized dining room, reflecting changing domestic needs and evolving social customs. At the same time, the walls of the original 136 log structure were raised and the interior finishes were upgraded to harmonize with the new construction. Dendrochronology analysis, supported by physical evidence, indicates that a gable-roofed ell was added to the north side of the wing in 1823, further illustrating the incremental growth of the house. Although this ell is no longer extant, the second floor of the log section retains character- defining features associated with later modifications made circa 1843. While the chimney and fireplace in the wing were eventually removed and replaced with a stove flue, the building’s exterior appearance remains largely faithful to its form during the 1802–1823 period, preserving its historic integrity. Historically, the Heater House is closely associated with early settlement patterns linked to the Hite and Hoge families and later ownership by Solomon and Caroline Heater. During the American Civil War, the house became a focal point of intense fighting during the Battle of Cedar Creek on October 19, 1864. Confederate artillery was positioned on the property during the morning assault, and the house witnessed both the initial Confederate success and the dramatic Union counterattack led by General Philip Sheridan. This association establishes the Heater House’s significance under Criterion A for its direct role in a defining military engagement. In addition, archaeological investigations have identified intact features and artifact deposits related to the first century of occupation, including well-documented evidence of an early spring house and dairy, qualifying the site under Criterion D. Collectively, these architectural, historical, and archaeological attributes make the Heater House a rare and invaluable resource whose preservation is essential to understanding the region’s early settlement, domestic life, and wartime experience. 4. Scope of Work: Phase Two of the Heater House preservation project will focus on interior stabilization, protection of historic materials, floor repairs, and temporary structural reinforcement. This work builds directly upon the mothballing and stabilization completed during Phase One and is designed to prevent further deterioration while preparing the structure for future restoration and interpretation. All work will follow accepted preservation best practices to protect the historic integrity of the resource. 1. Interior Plaster Removal and Protection Phase Two will begin with selective demolition of deteriorated plaster to relieve weight from compromised framing and allow for inspection of underlying structural elements. All remaining historic wallpaper will be carefully conserved and protected in place during demolition activities to prevent damage or loss. Ceiling plaster throughout the house will be removed, with lath strips retained wherever feasible to preserve original materials and provide documentation of historic construction methods. Following plaster removal, the entire house will be broom-swept to remove dust and debris. In the basement cellar, accumulated debris will be carefully cleaned out, and any remaining pieces 137 of original building material will be restacked and stored for future reference or reuse where appropriate. All non-salvageable debris generated during this phase will be hauled off-site and properly disposed of at the Frederick County landfill. 2. Floor Repairs Open and compromised floor areas on the first and second levels will be addressed to improve safety and structural continuity. Where feasible, floors will be repaired using period-appropriate tongue-and-groove pine flooring to maintain historical accuracy and visual compatibility. As an alternative where historic material installation is not immediately practical, temporary repairs using nailers and plywood (Option #2) may be employed to stabilize floor openings while allowing for future restoration. 3. Structural Floor Beam Stabilization To further stabilize the structure, two temporary mid-span floor beams will be installed on the first level to bolster existing floor joists and reduce sagging and stress. The second-level floor beams will be inspected, and similar temporary mid-span supports will be installed where necessary. These temporary reinforcements are intended to protect original framing members while longer-term structural solutions are planned in subsequent phases. Project Outcome Completion of Phase Two will significantly improve the interior stability of the Heater House, protect surviving historic materials, and reduce the risk of further structural failure. This work ensures that the progress achieved in Phase One is preserved and provides a sound foundation for future preservation and interpretation efforts at this nationally significant historic resource. 5. Public Benefit: The Heater House provides a significant public benefit by preserving an authentic and irreplaceable link to Frederick County’s early settlement, agricultural heritage, and Civil War history. Located at the heart of the Cedar Creek Battlefield, the house serves as a tangible reminder of the experiences of ordinary farm families whose lives were shaped by national events, from colonial expansion to the American Civil War. Unlike grand estates, the Heater House represents the everyday people who lived, labored, and endured hardship in the Shenandoah Valley. The property is currently open to the public during the reenactment and special tours and its preservation protects an important historic landmark within a nationally significant battlefield landscape visited by thousands of people each year. Stabilizing the Heater House enhances the integrity of the battlefield as a whole and supports ongoing educational programming, research, and interpretation conducted by the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation and its partners. In the long term, preservation of the Heater House creates opportunities for future public interpretation, heritage tourism, and educational use, allowing students, historians, and visitors to better understand local history within the broader American story. Safeguarding this resource ensures that Frederick County’s history is preserved for future generations and strengthens community identity, pride, and cultural stewardship. 138 6. Ownership and Legal Compliance: Property Owner Name: Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation Proof of Ownership: See link https://www.actdatascout.com/RealProperty/ParcelView?countyIdYearRpid=51069202534964 7. Supporting Documents: See attached Photos, Heater House Report by Maral Kalbian, and Heater House DHR report from 11-13-25 and project budget. Criteria for Grant Award Applicants will be evaluated on the following criteria: Historical Significance – Priority is given to properties that are listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Project Urgency – Demonstrated need for intervention to prevent further deterioration. Capacity and Commitment – Ability to complete the project and maintain the property or program. Public Benefit – Demonstrated community, educational, or cultural value. Documentation – Completeness and quality of application materials. Signature of Applicant: Charles H. Harbaugh IV, Mayor Of Middletown, CCBF Board President Date: 1-13-26 139 Heater House Investigations and Conditions Assessment Prepared for the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. Middletown, VA Maral S. Kalbian Dennis J. Pogue, PhD David L. Weir November 23, 2021 140 2 Table of Contents List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………… 3 Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………….. 6 Chapter 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………….. 8 Chapter 2. Historical Overview ………………………………………………………… 16 Chapter 3. Construction Chronology …………………………………………………… 20 Chapter 4. Building Conditions Assessment …………………………………………… 68 Chapter 5. Period of Significance, Treatment Options, and Recommendations ……….. 107 Appendix A. Architectural Fragments Inventory ……………………………….……... 114 Appendix B. Resumes of Contributors …………………………………………………. 118 Addendum 1. Visual Inspections Spreadsheet (10 pages) Addendum 2. Measured Drawings (33 sheets) 141 3 List of Figures Figure 1. Heater House geographical location …………………………………….…… 8 Figure 2. Heater House, south façade ………………………………………………….. 9 Figure 3. Current plan of Heater House cellar ………………………………………… 10 Figure 4. Current plan of Heater House first floor ……………………………………. 11 Figure 5. Current plan of Heater House second floor ………………………………… 12 Figure 6. Current plan of Heater House attic …………………………………………. 13 Figure 7. Schematic plan of the Heater House ……………………………………….. 20 Figure 8. Heater House, viewed from the southeast ………………………………….. 21 Figure 9. Period 1 building, first-floor plan ………………………………………….. 23 Figure 10. Detail of east wall …………………………………………………………. 25 Figure 11. Room 101, ceiling detail ………………………………………………….. 26 Figure 12. West wall of Room 102 …………………………………………………… 27 Figure 13. North wall of cellar in log section ………………………………………… 28 Figure 14. Cellar in log section facing northwest ……………………………………… 29 Figure 15. Period 2 building, first-floor plan …………………………………………. 31 Figure 16. Room 103, south wall ……………………………………………………… 32 Figure 17. Room 103, north wall ……………………………………………………… 33 Figure 18. Pass-through doorway detail, Room 104 …..………………………………. 34 Figure 19. Room 103, west wall ………………………………………………………. 35 Figure 20. Room 103, detail of hearth evidence ………………………………………. 36 Figure 21. Room 103, west wall detail ………………………………………………… 37 Figure 22. West wall of the wing ……………………………………………………… 38 Figure 23. Brick pad west of the wing ………………………………………………… 40 Figure 24. Detail of the east jamb of D2 in Room 101 ………………………………… 41 Figure 25. Section of the north wall after siding removed …………………………….. 42 Figure 26. Detail of the north wall of Room 102 ……………………………………….. 43 142 4 Figure 27. Period 1 ceiling joist reused in Room 202 ………………………………….. 44 Figure 28. Period 3 building, first-floor plan …………………………………………… 46 Figure 29. Roof frame for the wing …………………………………………………….. 47 Figure 30. Detail of photograph of the north wall of the wing …………………………. 48 Figure 31. Reassembling architecture fragments ………………………………………. 49 Figure 32. Room 101 architectural fragments …………………………………………. 50 Figure 33. Room 101, detail of architectural fragment from the mantel ………………. 51 Figure 34. Room 102, mantel piece ……………………………………………………. 52 Figure 35. Room 102, south wall ………………………………………………………. 53 Figure 36. Period 4 building, first-floor plan …………………………………………… 55 Figure 37. Boards for the partition forming the stair hall ………………………………. 56 Figure 38. Room 101, stair hall door and door frame ………………………………….. 57 Figure 39. Room 101 showing fireplace and chimney base …………………………… 58 Figure 40. Detail of the north wall of Room 101 ……………………………………… 59 Figure 41. Faux-grained risers in the stair leading to the garret ………………………. 60 Figure 42. Room 202, fireplace and mantel …………………………………………… 62 Figure 43. Partition separating Rooms 301 and 302 …………………………………… 63 Figure 44. Period 5 building, first-floor plan …………………………………………… 64 Figure 45. North elevation with renovations underway ………………………………… 65 Figure 46. Period 6 building, first-floor plan …………………………………………… 66 Figure 47. Heater House, south elevation ………………………………………………. 72 Figure 48. Heater House, west wall of the wing ……………………………………….. 73 Figure 49. Heater House, west elevation ……………………………………………….. 74 Figure 50. Heater House, north elevation ………………………………………………. 75 Figure 51. Room 101, interior, D1 ……………………………………………………… 77 Figure 52. Heater House, wing north wall, D5 exterior detail ………………………….. 80 Figure 53. Detail of W4 showing rotted condition ……………………………………… 81 143 5 Figure 54. Room 203, detail of W11 ……………………………………………………. 82 Figure 55. Room 202, north window ……………………………………………………. 84 Figure 56. Heater House, north and west elevations ……………………………………. 85 Figure 57. Heater House, south elevation, main porch ………………………………….. 87 Figure 58. Heater House wing, south elevation, small porch …………………………… 88 Figure 59. Room 101, partition …………………………………………………………. 91 Figure 60. Room 102, facing southwest ………………………………………………… 92 Figure 61. Room 103, west wall ………………………………………………………... 94 Figure 62. Room 103, east wall and portion of ceiling …………………………………. 95 Figure 63. Room 202, west wall ………………………………………………………… 96 Figure 64. Room 201, facing east ……………………………………………………….. 97 Figure 65. Room 302, facing west ………………………………………………………. 99 Figure 66. Room 301, facing west ………………………………………………………. 100 Figure 67. Detail of deteriorated false plate and rafter feet …………………………….. 101 144 6 Executive Summary The Heater House is a rare example of an early vernacular log-and-frame farmhouse, which underwent a series of alterations over the succeeding decades that exemplify local and regional trends in the reorganization and segmentation of functional spaces in domestic households. • The core of the structure was erected in 1763 as a two-story, log house with a traditional plan consisting of two heated rooms on the first floor serving as the hall and parlor, with bed chambers above. • In 1802 the wing was added to accommodate a specialized dining room, and the walls of the log structure were raised, and the interior was upgraded to match the new construction. • The dendrochronology findings combined with other physical evidence indicates that a gable-roofed ell, which is no longer extant, had been added to the north side of the wing in 1823. • The chimney and the fireplace in the wing were later removed and replaced with a flue for a stove, but the current exterior appearance is relatively faithful to the character of the house at it appeared ca. 1802-1823; the second floor of the log section retains character defining features for additions that were made ca. 1843. The Heater House is historically significant according to criteria established by the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, preserving the historic character and integrity of the property is of paramount importance. • The Heater House was a focal point of the intense fighting that occurred during the Battle of Cedar Creek in the American Civil War (Criterion A). • The Heater House is a rare, well-preserved example of an early vernacular farmhouse, which retains its historic integrity for the period when it was enlarged and upgraded in 1802-1843 (Criterion C). • Archaeological excavations have revealed intact features and artifact deposits related to the first century of the occupation of the site; the location of the site of the early spring house/dairy is well documented (Criterion D). The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties promote historic preservation best practices and are intended to help protect our nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. The Standards offer four distinct approaches to the treatment of historic properties -- preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Selection of the appropriate treatment option for the Heater House must be weighed against the proposed uses of the property. The most appropriate options for treating the Heater House are a combination of Preservation and Rehabilitation. 145 7 • Preservation is the most conservative approach, as it generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction, and it is the preferred option if the ultimate use of the resource has not yet been determined. • Under the Rehabilitation standard, a property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The most likely appropriate adaptive use for the Heater House would include opening the structure to the public on a limited basis for guided tours. The investigations of the structure’s historic fabric provide the basis for a series of recommendations included herein. Pending final determination of the appropriate treatment option for the property, several of the highest priority interventions should be undertaken in the near future, as they are crucial to preserving the integrity of the house for both the short and long term. In most instances, the highest priority recommended interventions are envisioned as temporary and reversible, pending the final determination of the overall treatment option. 146 8 Chapter 1. Introduction Purpose: Maral S. Kalbian and Dennis J. Pogue were hired by the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation (CCBF) to prepare a conditions assessment of the Heater House (Figures 1 and 2) as the first phase of a historic structures report. The project was funded by a National Trust grant awarded to CCBF. The primary purpose was to document the house’s current condition, prepare a historical overview and summary timeline, create measured drawings, identify original and added features, assess the physical condition, provide recommendations for stabilization, and compile a list of suggestions for future work. Figure 1. Heater House geographical location, Frederick County, Virginia. 147 9 Figure 2. Heater House, south façade (2021). Methodology: Architectural Historian Maral S. Kalbian managed the project and provided the historical narrative and timeline. Dennis J. Pogue was responsible for documenting the current conditions and analyzing the evolution of the house. This work was completed in conjunction with Kalbian, historic preservationist David Weir, and survey assistant Simon McKay. Approximately 20 days were spent on site documenting and analyzing the house. David L. Weir prepared the final building conditions assessment and generated the accompanying measured drawings (Appendum2). Ashley Sonntag, CCBF Operations Manager and Museum Curator, provided access to the house and historical records held by the Foundation. Figures 3-6 present the current floor plans, with room number designations referenced in the report. 148 10 Figure 3. Current plan of Heater House cellar, with room number designations. 149 11 Figure 4. Current plan of Heater House first floor, with room number designations. 150 12 Figure 5. Current plan of Heater House second floor; with room number designations. 151 13 Figure 6. Current plan of Heater House attic, with room number designations. The authors consulted relevant previous studies of the house. Archaeologist Laurie J. Paonessa included a well-researched, detailed history of the property in a 1996 report commissioned by CCBF,1 which provided easy access to much of the relevant historical information. A dendrochronology analysis of the house completed by Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory in 2015 was also consulted.2 The CCBF provided photographs of the house from the 1980s, before any significant work was conducted, to the early 2000s. Ms. Kalbian reached out to several people who may have had additional information, and especially photographs of the house. Of particular interest were images taken before major repairs were carried out. Kalbian spoke with former directors, Suzanne Chilson (1995-2010); John Christianson (2011-2013), and Patrick Kehoe (2013-2016). She contacted architectural historian, Edward Lay, who along with his colleague, Barbara Hume, visited the site in 1993. Lay produced a sheet of annotated drawings of the floor plans and selected woodwork 152 14 moldings.3 Kalbian was not able to reach Barbara Hume. Kathy Chumley, daughter of John Chumley, the artist who made two painting of the Heater House, was also consulted but could not provide any additional notes or photographs. Summary Description: The Heater House is located northwest of U.S. Route 11 (Old Valley Pike), south of Middletown in Frederick County, Virginia. The house is located on one of several parcels owned by the CCBF in southern Frederick County near the Warren and Shenandoah County lines. The Heater House tract sits on 62.38 acres4 and is held in conservation easement by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). On 19 October 1864, this property was the scene of the Battle of Cedar Creek, fought between troops commanded by Confederate General Jubal Early and Union General Phillip Sheridan. The only standing resource on the property is the log and frame house, which has been vacant for more than three decades. The springhouse, which was accidentally demolished in 1990, exists as a ruin just west of the house. The CCBF also owns another 95.86- acre parcel directly west of the Heater House tract, which does not contain any buildings. Both parcels are currently leased out as pastureland. The Heater House is prominently visible from the Old Valley Pike, located in an open area and surrounded by rolling fields. Meadow Brook meanders east-west through the property just west of the house. No road currently leads down from Old Valley Pike: access is by foot. Cattle are kept away by an electric fence that runs around the perimeter of the house. Locks secure the wooden exterior doors and the windows have been removed and enclosed with plywood painted to represent double-hung sash. Two points of access to the raised basement are open. The building has no electricity or running water and is generally in fair to poor condition, with significant interior deterioration due to extended water penetration and animal infestation. Although the building was once electrified and had telephone service, no lines currently run to the building, nor are there any nearby utility poles. According to a dendrochronology study conducted in 2015, the original two-story log core of the Heater House dates to 1763. The vernacular house is three-bays on the first floor and two on the second floor and features an interior stone chimney on the east end and an exterior stone chimney on the west end. An opening along the south stone foundation provides access to the cellar. Architectural evidence indicates the log walls of this section were raised, which most likely occurred in 1802. A one-story pedimented south porch with Tuscan columns was also added. The one-story, three-bay, gabled, frame wing with stone nogging was added off the west end of the log section in 1802, as confirmed by dendrochronology. To compensate for the sloping site, this section rests on a raised stone foundation and originally featured multiple cellar openings, some of which have been made into windows and others expanded into doorways. The south elevation of this section features a center front door flanked by two windows. The entry is protected by a one-bay, shed-roofed porch that rests on a parged concrete set of stairs with a 153 15 stoop. Dendrochronology completed on rafters in the attic indicates that an ell was erected in 1823 that extended to the north and which is no longer standing.5 Land tax records value the buildings on the property for the first time in 1820 as $787.50, a value it held until at least 1850.6 In October of 1864, the house was at the center of the intense fighting during the Battle of Cedar Creek. Remarkably, the house did not suffer any significant damage, although the owner at the time applied for restitution from the Federal Government for losses to crops, fencing, and outbuildings.7 The Heater House was inhabited at least through the 1970s and was purchased by the CCBF in 1990.8 Since that time, several efforts have been made to stabilize the house, some of which have inadvertently destroyed historic fabric. The stone springhouse was accidentally demolished in the early 1990s. The plastered ceilings and walls and associated woodwork on the first floor of the log section were also removed, exposing the log walls and beam ceilings. This work also resulted in removing door and window casings, along with two mantels and the associated trim.9 Most of this woodwork has been stored in the 1802 wing but had not been systematically identified and catalogued. Fortunately, the frame wing and the upper stories of the log section are largely intact and retain their historic architectural features. The CCBF values the historical and architectural significance of the Heater House and is committed to stabilizing the structure and opening it to the public for interpretation. The property is listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places for its significance relating to the Battle of Cedar Creek.10 In 1969, the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Planation listing was further elevated by the National Park Service as a National Historic Landmark. 154 16 Chapter 2. Historical Overview The land on which the Heater House sits was originally part of a 3,395-acre patent granted to Jost Hite, a German immigrant who moved to the area in the 1730s from Pennsylvania.11 In May 1742, Hite sold 760 acres of his patent to James Hoge12 that included the current Heater House tract, historically known as Cedar Grove. It is not known whether another house was located on the tract before Hoge erected the log structure in 1763. In 1748, Hoge sold 300 acres of his property to Isaac Hite Sr. (son of Jost Hite), which became part of the Belle Grove property.13 After James Hoge died in 1795, the tract was divided between his son Solomon and two grandsons from another son. According to the will, Solomon Hoge received the portion of the land that included the “big house” along with the springhouse, barn, cider mill, granary, and other outbuildings. The will (18 March 1793) details how the house and outbuildings are to be shared with Solomon’s mother, Agnes, who died in 1798. Specifics about the house are stated, including the north and south doors, a room in the east end of the house with a closet, and an addition to the east end of the house.14 Solomon Hoge was responsible for constructing the one- story frame wing on the west end of the house, which was built in 1802, four years after his mother’s death. The log section of the house was also raised around that time to better accommodate the frame wing. Hoge likely named the property Cedar Grove because of its proximity to Belle Grove. In April 1819, Solomon Hoge conveyed his 302-acre Cedar Grove tract to Dr. Cornelius E. Baldwin, Jr., along with the house he was living in, for $15,000.15 Nelly C. Hite, Baldwin’s wife, was the oldest daughter of Isaac Hite, Jr., and grew up at Belle Grove, an architecturally sophisticated stone house located on an adjoining property. Physical evidence suggests that in 1823 a wing was constructed attached to the north side of the 1802 portion of the house. Dr. Baldwin died in 1828, and his wife Nelly died two years later, leaving seven orphans, ranging in age from 6 to 20.16 The inventory of Baldwin’s personal estate includes a variety of items related to his profession as a medical doctor, such as “surgical instruments” and “the shop furniture, medicines, scales, weights, &c.” Perhaps the doctor had intended to use one of the rooms in the new ell as the office to serve his practice. Twelve enslaved individuals were listed as well, with their appraised value ($1535) making up 37% of the total worth of the estate.17 Nelly Baldwin’s will requested that her children continue to live together and that her property not be sold until the children reached the age of 21. Correspondence and other family records suggest that the children remained at Cedar Grove, with various relatives likely spending time there caring for them.18 In 1843, the heirs of Cornelius E. Baldwin sold Cedar Grove (344 ½ acres) to Solomon Heater, a farmer from Loudoun County.19 Heater’s wife, Caroline H. Wunder, reputedly had inherited the money from her mother, who had died before Caroline married heater in 1836, to buy the farm.20 Solomon and Caroline Heater added to their landholdings during the 1850s and early 1860s. 155 17 Solomon Heater deeded the Cedar Grove property to his wife in 1860 but did not record it until 1871, at which time the farm included 540 acres and reflected the additional lands they had purchased.21 After Solomon’s death in 1872, the property passed to his wife. The Heaters had three sons: the two oldest died in the service of the Confederate army during the Civil War, leaving youngest son Charles W. Heater. In 1883, Charles constructed the magnificent Monte Vista, a high-style Victorian brick house located on family land along the south side of the Old Valley Pike. The house was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1987. Enslaved workers likely played a major role in the operation of the Cedar Grove property up until it passed to the Heater family in 1843. By the time of his death in 1795 James Hoge owned only “One negro woman,” named Jude, who he left to his wife, Agnes, in his will.22 In her will several years later, Agnes declared that Jude should be sold at public auction “to the highest bidder,” with the proceeds accruing to her son, Moses. Hoge’s son and principal heir, Solomon, is listed as owning four enslaved individuals in 1800, five in 1810, and three slaves at the time of his death in 1819.23 The 1828 inventory of Dr. Baldwin’s estate specifies the gender and general age categories of 12 enslaved individuals, comprising seven males, four females, and one unspecified child. One of the males was listed as a “boy,” one of the females was a “girl,” and another was a “child.”24 Presumably the six adult males worked in the fields and performed a variety of other manual tasks. The two adult females probably worked as domestic servants in the household, likely with the assistance of the boy and the girl. Dr. Baldwin’s widow and heirs continued to enslave people at least for a time, with several individuals listed as sold during the 1830s. The practice of slavery at Cedar Grove appears to have ceased in 1843 with the purchase of the property by Solomon and Caroline Heater. According to their youngest son, Charles, his mother “never had any slaves. She was violently opposed to slavery and would not have any slaves.”25 Various primary sources support this contention. According to the 1860 Federal Census, the Heater household included an 18-year-old mulatto servant named Elizabeth Gum, and the Heaters are absent from the 1850 and 1860 Federal slave schedules.26 Union and Confederate troops clashed in the Battle of Cedar Creek in October 1864, which took place on and around the Heater property. Although the property received considerable damage as a consequence of the activities of the troops, and despite having lost two sons in the conflict, Solomon Heater was able to recuperate financially after the conclusion of the war.27 Caroline Heater was a native of Roxborough, Pennsylvania, and claimed to have been a staunch Union supporter despite her two sons serving in the Confederate army. The Heaters lost cattle, hogs, fences, timber, and outbuildings during the battle -- most were taken for use by Federal troops quartered at Belle Grove and around the Heater House. As a Union sympathizer, Mrs. Heater was among the first in the area to sue the Federal government for damages incurred by the U.S. troops during two periods of occupation of her property. The court case provides detailed testimony from family members, neighbors, and military personnel.28 Caroline Heater died in 156 18 1892 and the property passed to her son, Charles Heater. In 1901, nearly ten years after her death, her estate was awarded $5,480, less than half of what she had originally requested.29 In 1919, Charles conveyed 282 acres that included the Heater House to Minnie L. Conway. Nine years later, Conway sold the land to M. C. Frost, who, in 1930, defaulted on the property. Minnie Conway purchased the farm back at a public sale, which she held until 1942, when she sold it to Edwin B. Orndoff. In the 1970s, Orndoff sold the property to Monte Vista Associates, after which it was subdivided and owned by several entities. In 1986 a 158-acre tract including the Heater House was sold to Fred L. Glaize, III and Jasbo, Inc.; in early 1990, they sold the property to the CCBF, the current owners.30 Timeline: 3 October 1734: 3,395 acres including the future Heater House site was patented by Jost Hite. May 1742: Jost Hite sells 760 acres including the Heater House site to James Hoge. 1763: Log portion of Heater House was constructed. 1793: Will of James Hoge (written in 1793 and recorded in 1795) refers to an addition to the east end of the house. 1795: James Hoge dies, leaving 460 acres and Heater House to son Solomon. 1802: Southern frame addition created (dining room), ceiling and windows in log section likely raised. April 1819: Solomon Hoge sells 274 acres and Heater House to Dr. Cornelius E. Baldwin Jr. Baldwin was married to Nelly C. Hite (eldest daughter of Isaac Hite Jr. of Belle Grove and great- grand daughter of Jost Hite. 1823: Rear wing likely added, and roof reconfigured. Log section retrimmed. 1828: Dr. Baldwin dies. 1830: Nelly C. Baldwin dies (leaving behind 7 orphans). 1843: 326-acre farm purchased by Solomon Heater from the estate of Cornelius E. Baldwin. The Heaters reconfigure some of the second-floor spaces and partially retrim the log house. 1864 October 19: The Battle of Cedar Creek takes place. 1872: Solomon Heater dies and leaves the property to his wife Caroline and only surviving son, Charles W. Heater. 157 19 1883: Charles W. Heater constructs Monte Vista, located on the south side of the Old Valley Pike, not far from the Heater House. 1919: Charles Heater conveys the property including Heater House to Minnie Conway. 1928: Minnie Conway sells the property to M.C. Frost. 1930: Frost defaults and the property is bought back by Minnie Conway. 1942: Conway conveys the property to Edwin B. Orndoff. 1970: Orndoff conveys the property to Monte Vista Associates 1980 Monte Vista Associates convey the property to Western Union Realty. 1986: Western Union conveys the property to Fred L. Glaize, III and Jasbo, Inc. 1990: CCBF buys the property including the Heater House. 1990: The spring house is inadvertently demolished. 1995/1997: CCBF begins repairs to the Heather House including removal of old wood siding, chimney repairs, roof replacement on log section with modern materials, rebuilding portions of the foundation, and removal of the north porch. 1999: The southeast corner of the 1763 section is raised to replace two bottom courses of logs with 6x6 beams and fill with liquid wood; a 24” x 3’ trench along the northeast to east end is excavated; and a concrete footing and limestone foundation is installed. 2000-2003: East end of house: walls, flooring, and trim on the first floor are removed; rotten joists on north end are replaced; the stairs are jacked up; a support wall for the chimney is built; and a sill plate on front of house (south side) is torn out. In November 2000, the window frames were replaced. 2010: Continued exterior repairs. 2013: Conditions Report by DHR. 2015: Conditions Report by DHR. 2015: Dendrochronology conducted on the main block and side wing. 2020/2021: Study by Kalbian/Pogue/Weir 158 20 Chapter 3. Construction Chronology Introduction: The Heater House served as the residential core of a family farm for more than 200 years. The house is an evolved structure, consisting of a two-story, log main block, with a one-story timber- framed wing. The results of dendrochronological testing indicate that the log portion was erected in 1763, with the wing added in 1802. The dendrochronology findings combined with other physical evidence indicate that a gable-roofed ell, which is no longer extant, had been added to the north side of the wing in 182331 (Figure 7). A structure that served as a combination spring house and dairy that was located within 50 feet to the west of the wing survived until 1990. Other farm buildings, principally including a substantial barn located some distance to the north, are known from various sources to have existed but do not survive.32 Intermittent efforts to repair the building have stabilized the structure, but it remains in fragile condition. Figure 7. Schematic plan of the Heater House, indicating the main construction periods; locations of kitchen and addition (1793 will) conjectural [north at top]. Description: The Heater House rests on a roughly coursed stone foundation, which is elevated significantly on the west to accommodate the steeply sloping grade. Both sections of the building are sided with horizontal wood weatherboards (twentieth century), covered by side-gabled roofs clad with raised-seam metal panels. A substantial stone interior-end chimney dominates the east wall of 159 21 the main section. A smaller stone chimney on the west was originally located outside the end wall of the log structure but now is incorporated within the wing. An interior brick chimney serving as the flue for a stove is roughly centered on the interior of the west wall of the wing. This flue took the place of a chimney and fireplace that was removed in the years following the Civil War. A full cellar is located beneath the wing, which connects at one corner with a room that underlies a substantial portion of the west end of the original section. Full dovetail joints connect the corners of the log walls, and the spaces between the logs are chinked with random- sized pieces of wood and stones; two of the timber framed walls of the wing are nogged with stones (Figure 8). Figure 8. Heater House viewed from the southeast (ca. 1990): the spring house to the west was demolished in 1990. The log main section of the building is composed of three bays, with single doorways roughly centered on each long wall, flanked by windows on both floors. A one-story, one-bay, open porch is centered on the south façade, with a portico supported by turned wood columns resting on a landing of poured concrete. The wall of the house within the porch is differentiated by a covering of wide, butted horizontal boards. Photographs indicate that an open shed-roofed porch, which does not survive, covered the rear (north) doorway up until the late twentieth 160 22 century. A set of irregular stone steps lead down to an opening in the south wall that provides access to the cellar. The south-facing façade of the wing is also three bays, with a centered doorway covered by an open one-bay, shed-roofed porch. The porch structure rests on a concrete landing, accessed by a set of concrete steps running adjacent to the wall rising to the west. A doorway in the north wall of the wing on the first floor is in the original location, although it had been converted into a window after the ell was removed and remained so until the doorway was restored in recent years. The north doorway is accessed from a wood landing and steps rising to the west along the side of the building, which dates to the second decade of the twenty-first century. A window was originally centered in the north wall next to the doorway, but the opening was closed off when the ell was added. There are four exterior openings in the foundation; two on the south wall contained window sashes to light the cellar room; one on each of the west and north walls have been reconfigured but likely served as doorways at different times. The ceiling of the cellar is plastered with riven lath, the walls are stuccoed, and the floor is compacted dirt. Period 1 -- 1763-1801: As originally constructed, the log building presented the symmetrical, three-bay, south-facing façade that is evident today. The height of the walls was approximately 16” lower than currently, and the tops of the chimneys were lower to match. The roof has undergone significant changes, as the surface was covered with wood shingles rather than metal, the pitch was slightly steeper, and there were no projecting eaves and boxed cornice. The fenestration composed of the two opposing doorways and the four windows in both the north and south elevations remains as it was in 1763, but all the openings were either lengthened or raised along with the walls. According to notes made by architectural historian, Edward Lay, at the time he investigated the structure in 1993, he found vertical battens laid against the exterior walls that were attached with wrought nails; it is likely that the first generation of beaded weatherboard siding was installed when the wing was added in 1802.33 Surviving well preserved logs in the west gable that are trapped by the wing roof indicate that the walls were not treated with whitewash before the siding was attached. The date of construction of the south porch has not been determined, but physical evidence suggests that the current version dates to the mid-nineteenth century. The original plan of the log structure consisted of two rooms on the first level, each heated by an end fireplace, which is the current configuration (Figure 9). The opposing exterior doorways roughly align and are positioned to the east of the board partition that separates the rooms. The east room is significantly longer, at 18’8” compared to 14’4” on the west, to accommodate the prominent fireplace. The fireplace in the east room projects almost 5’ into the space, and the opening was originally more than 8’ wide; the opening of the fireplace in the west room was always more modestly scaled at roughly 4’6”. The presence of the kitchen-sized fireplace, combined with the location there of the opposing exterior doorways, indicates that the east room 161 23 served as a traditional hall. This would have been the more public and utilitarian space, where cooking was carried out, with the inner west room serving as the more private parlor or chamber. A stairway rises to the east in the southeast corner of the east room, which is a mid-nineteenth- century replacement for one or more earlier versions. Figure 9. Period 1 building, first-floor plan. The instructions contained in the will prepared by the builder of the house, James Hoge (18 March 1793), provides important, if not altogether comprehensible, evidence about the character of the property at that time. The document specifies how the house and associated buildings were to be divided for the use of Hoge’s widow, Agnes, and his son and principal heir, Solomon. When describing the associated property divisions, Hoge refers to the doorways located in each side of the house. Agnes Hoge was to have the use of “the room in the East End of the house, and Closet.” A closet is known to have existed in the north corner of the east room at least by 162 24 the mid-nineteenth century, and very possibly much earlier. Solomon was to have “all the rest of the big house” for his use.34 James Hoge also specified that Agnes was to have use of “the addition to the East end of the house.” No evidence for an addition, physical or otherwise, has been so far identified. Photographs of the east end wall of the log structure taken in the late twentieth century during work to repair logs and replace the siding do not offer any evidence of an addition that had been removed. Nor is there any indication in the exposed log walls on the interior to suggest an opening for an internal connection with the “addition.” Archaeological excavations carried out in the 1990s in the area to the east of the house were limited, consisting of only two shovel test units located more than 20’ from the wall.35 Therefore, the results of the archaeological investigations are inconclusive regarding the possible presence of an addition. Hoge’s will refers to several other associated structures. Agnes was to have the use of the room comprising the “Southeast corner of the seler,” and both Agnes and Solomon were to have equal use of the “kitchen.” Other references in the document suggest that the “seler” was a separate structure, and the mention of the kitchen likely indicates that another building for cooking had been erected by that time. Moving the cooking function out of the traditional hall, either into a separate structure or by erecting an addition, was common practice over time. In addition to the kitchen, buildings that are listed include the barn, stables, “the half seler & spring house,” cider mill, and granary, along with the stackyard and cow yard.36 Physical evidence indicates that the original two-story house was raised by adding two courses of logs to the top of each wall, which likely occurred when the wing was added in 1802 (Figure 10). The original ceiling on the first floor was only 7’1”; the ceiling on the floor above was even lower, at 6’7”. The original height of the doorways was only 5’6”, and the window openings were almost square at roughly 2’7”, and thus were either side-swinging lighted casements or relatively short sashes of mis-matched sizes. The tops of the doorways and the flanking windows were roughly at the same height. The rafter feet of the more steeply pitched roof rested directly on the upper wall logs, which did not allow for more than a slight overhang of the shingles, or any eave detail other than a simple trim board. No evidence survives to indicate the character of the door or window trims, but they were likely to be similarly plain in style. The log walls were left unfinished and fully exposed until ca. 1802. 163 25 Figure 10. Detail of east wall (1995): the top two logs were added, and the roof was altered ca. 1802; the empty bevel notches in the third log from the top are related to the original gable studs. The surviving physical evidence provides only limited information for the character of the interior of the house. The finish on the walls consisted of whitewash applied directly to the logs. The first-floor ceiling joists were exposed and smoothly finished, with chamfered lower corners, and were whitewashed as well (Figure 11). The floorboards above have been replaced, so it is not possible to determine, but the underside of the original flooring was almost certainly whitewashed along with the other surfaces. None of the first period woodwork for doors or windows, or any evidence of the fireplace treatments, survives. The appearance of the fireplace in 1763 would have reflected the simple level of finish found elsewhere in the house, with the large (15” x 17”) wooden manteltree spanning the 11’ chimney base likely without any decoration other than possibly beaded or chamfered corners. The fireplace in the west room would have been similarly unadorned, at the most featuring a utilitarian shelf board supported by angled brackets. The two fireplaces indicate the two-room plan, which was divided by a board wall; the current vertical plank partition is in the original location, but it must have been installed 164 26 after the ceiling was raised. The original tongue-and-groove floorboards survive in the west room; their surfaces were likely left unfinished. Without plastered walls, there were no baseboards at the junction with the floor. Figure 11. Room 101, ceiling detail (2021): reused Period 1 ceiling joist in the center, chamfered lower corners and remnants of whitewash, flanked by roughly hewn, Period 2 ceiling joists; millsawn, gauged and undercut floorboards installed mid-nineteenth century. The layout of the second floor cannot be determined with precision, as virtually all of the floorboards were replaced in the mid-nineteenth century, and the room partitions must date to that later period as well. But the plan probably consisted of two rooms, with the larger, heated space occupying the western portion of the building. The west room was heated by a fireplace positioned slightly off-center against the end wall and was lighted by one window in each of the north and south walls. The lower portion of the fireplace was infilled when the ceiling was raised, which is visible in the west wall of Room 102 (Figure 12). The Period 1 stair rose in the southeast corner of the building, likely entering directly into the east room. There is no evidence 165 27 for a fireplace opening in the east chimney on the second floor, but the large size of the mass suggests that the possibility should be explored further. If a fireplace existed there, it is not visible from below, and the mid-nineteenth century flooring does not indicate a former hearth. Although the original ceiling joists do not survive, the log walls were exposed and whitewashed. No evidence survives for the door and window trim or for the fireplace treatment. Figure 12. West wall of Room 102 (2021): fireplace with infilled lower portion of off-center Period 1 second-floor fireplace and infilled hole for later stove pipe. The plan and function of the attic in Period 1 is conjectural as well, and the space may have been unoccupied and inaccessible. The evidence for the original stairway configuration has been lost, and it is uncertain whether a stairway continued all the way to the attic in Period 1. When the 166 28 building was raised, ca. 1802, the collars connecting the rafter pairs were repositioned roughly three feet upward, which increased the headroom significantly. In what seems to be a related development, the second-floor ceiling joists were replaced and the spacing between them was reduced slightly. These measures indicate that a more secure system for supporting a floor in the attic was introduced while the useable area was increased. The cellar below the western two-thirds of the building likely has not changed significantly in character from its original condition. The joists and ceiling boards are exposed, with no evidence that they were ever whitewashed or covered with plaster, and the floor is dirt. The clearance between the floor and the bottom of the joists is only 6’3”. Access to the cellar from the exterior is by a set of irregular stone steps leading to an opening in the south wall. There is no evidence of a frame for a doorway in the opening, but the stonework has been completely rebuilt. A window frame with vertical bars is set in an opening roughly centered on the north wall. The lack of finishes, along with the dirt floor, barred window, and the low ceiling suggests that the cellar was intended solely for the purpose of storage (Figure 13). Figure 13. North wall of cellar in log section (2021): exposed and unfinished joists and ceiling boards; vertical-barred window (obscured by deteriorated plywood covering). 167 29 Remnants of an unusual feature of an undetermined function are set against the west wall of the cellar. Photographic evidence combined with the surviving elements allows a fuller description of its original condition. Two rectangular buttresses made of stone were laid against the wall in the corners of the room; the surviving buttress is 4’1” high and 3’2” by 4’5” in dimension. Three flattened sections of logs, between 14”-18” wide and 6” thick, were laid on the buttresses, running lengthwise east and west. Photographs indicate that three substantial timbers rested on top of the blocks, spanning the width of the cellar and tied into the foundation. Only one of the timbers (8” by 8”) survives, and the south buttress has been removed, which occurred when the foundation was altered to allow a passage connecting the cellar in the main section with the wing. The buttress has no connection with the fireplace in the room above, and there is no obvious function other than to serve as a structural reinforcement for the west foundation (Figure 14). Figure 14. Cellar (C-002) in log section facing northwest (ca. 1990): west wall showing surviving buttress supporting three girders tied into the north and south walls; break in the wall connecting with cellar in the wing. 168 30 Period 2 – 1802-1822: The one-story, stone-nogged, frame wing was appended to the west end of the log structure in 1802 (Figure 15). With the addition of the wing, the internal circulation patterns of the house, and likely the functions of the rooms, changed significantly. The reference to a “kitchen” in the 1793 inventory suggests that the traditional use of the hall as the primary focus for preparing and consuming meals had already changed, at least in terms of their preparation. Given that there is no evidence beyond the documentary source to support the existence of the kitchen, it is not possible to more than speculate about its location. The area to the north of the house, in the same orientation as the later wing, probably always served as the more utilitarian precinct of the homelot, however, and a kitchen in that location would have been within easy access to the east room via the north doorway. When the wing was added in 1802, the kitchen would have been equally accessible from the doorway in the north wall of the wing, which may relate to its function as a dining room. Dining rooms were an early addition to hall and parlor houses, reflecting the trend over time for segmentation of spaces with more specialized functions.37 At the same time, the separate entrance into the south side of the dining room would have allowed visitor access without requiring them to traverse the more private spaces of the house. 169 31 Figure 15. Period 2 building, first-floor plan. The interior of the wing presented a strong contrast to the original character of the rooms in the log building. The height of the ceiling is a generous 9’6”, four tall windows with double-hung sashes afforded ample natural light and ventilation, and the space was well finished and trimmed with fashionable details. In addition to the plastered ceiling and walls, these included stylishly trimmed door and window surrounds, a chair rail, and baseboard. The doorways and windows feature a two-step, beaded architrave, and a backband with a profile consisting of a quirked ogee and astragal. The profile of the molding accords with the Federal-era style but would have been somewhat distinctive as early as 1802.38 The doors were composed of six panels; the dimensions of the windows indicate that they consisted of two sashes with nine panes in each. The plaster is applied directly to the stone nogged frame on the north and south walls, while the plaster on the east and west walls and on the ceiling was applied to riven lath, attached to the framing members with early machine-headed cut nails. The lath and plaster on the west wall have been replaced 170 32 but presumably mirrored the east wall. There is no evidence of stone nogging having been incorporated into the surviving west wall frame. The south elevation was the façade of the house, which is reflected in the treatment of the two long elevations of the wing. The frame for the south doorway is largely intact, indicating that a transom above the opening was an original feature (Figure 16). A transom was not incorporated above the north doorway, and the placement of the north doorway and an adjacent window created an unusual, unbalanced appearance (Figure 17). Surviving pintles inserted in the south doorway architrave indicate that the door was suspended from substantial strap hinges. The trim on the two doorways on the east wall have a similar character; paint ghosts and nail holes indicate that the doors were supported by H or H-L hinges, which have been replaced by smaller butt hinges. The trim pieces are assembled and attached with wrought, rose-headed nails. The surround for the north doorway does not survive. The original, tongue-and-groove flooring is attached with wrought, T-headed nails, and remains intact in much of the room. Figure 16. Room 103, south wall (2021): stone nogging is visible above the door frame. 171 33 Figure 17. Room 103, north wall (2021): seams in the wall plaster indicate the location of the original window opening just to the left (west) of the doorway. With the addition of the one-room wing, two enclosures were created flanking the west chimney of the original section, extending from the exterior surface of the log building and aligned with the exterior face of the chimney to form the wall of Room 103. The space to the north was a closet accessed only from the wing, with peg rails to hang items set into the east and west walls, while the corresponding enclosure to the south served as a pass-through between the two structures. The woodwork of the south space matches that in the wing, while the woodwork in the closet is much simpler and more utilitarian in character (Figure 18). Much later, the access between the sections was switched, as the south doorway was closed off and a doorway was cut through the end log wall into the closet. 172 34 Figure 18. Pass-through doorway (D7), Room 104 (2021): two-step architrave with molded backband, quirked ogee and astragal profile. As constructed, an exterior chimney measuring approximately 8’ in width was installed against the west wall to serve a fireplace that was comparable in size to the one in the west room. The chimney and fireplace for the wing do not survive, and they appear to have been gone for a considerable period, perhaps dating to soon after the Civil War. The lath and plaster on the west wall have been completely replaced with materials (sawn lath with mature cut nails) that are later in character than those found elsewhere in the room. Most of the wall studs are intact, however, indicating the void centered on the wall where the chimney had been located; three studs were added after the chimney was removed to serve as nailers for the plaster and for the exterior 173 35 siding that were installed to close the gap (Figure 19). The spacing of the original studs forecloses the possibility of another window having been located to the north of the fireplace. An infilled section of flooring indicates where the hearth had been located, measuring 5’2½” by 2’5”. The length of the patch aligns with a ledge that was cut into the adjoining floor joist, and trimmer boards are lapped over and nailed to the joist at each end of the ledge to provide supports for the hearth box (Figures 20 and 21). Figure 19. Room 103, west wall (2021): later brick flue; the plaster and lath post-date the removal of the fireplace; three studs and nailers were inserted to support the interior plaster and the exterior siding, indicating that the original chimney was roughly 8’ in width. 174 36 Figure 20. Room 103 (2021), detail of hearth evidence: a patch in the floor indicates the dimensions of the hearth (5’2” by 2’5”); a section of the patch was removed, revealing the ledge in the joist to support the hearth box, and a trimmer piece on the north that further marks the extent of the hearth in that direction. 175 37 Figure 21. Room 103, west wall detail (2021): approximate boundaries of opening for chimney in blue; approximate location of hearth in red. Photographs taken before the siding on the wall was replaced show vertical seams in the weatherboards, clearly indicating where the chimney had been located (Figure 22). Although the chimney was centered on the exterior wall, the hearth and the associated fireplace were shifted more than 2’ to the south. Offsetting the fireplace from the chimney to such a degree is highly unusual, suggesting a functional reason. The absence of a second window in the west wall could indicate that the section of the wall north of the fireplace was reserved for a special activity related to the dining function, such as accommodating a sideboard. Another possibility is that a second fireplace shared the chimney, with each of the fireboxes off-center to accommodate the flues. The second-floor fireplace in the log section, which shared the chimney serving the fireplace on the first floor, is off-center, but it would have been highly unusual to create the unbalanced wall elevation in such a formal space. 176 38 Figure 22. West wall of the wing (ca. 1990): the vertical seams in the siding align with the studs and indicate the width of the exterior chimney; at this time the opening in the foundation appears to have served as a window; there is no evidence apparent in the foundation indicating the existence of a former chimney. The full cellar below the wing functioned in some work-related capacity other than storage. The space was well lit with two windows in the south wall, and two other openings, on the north and west, which served as doorways at different times. The current passage connecting the cellar 177 39 with the space under the log section was created in the twentieth century. Before the ell was constructed in 1823, perhaps the north opening served as the primary exterior access to the cellar, with the opening on the west replacing it when the ell was erected. The ceiling was exposed originally, with the joists and undersides of the ceiling boards whitewashed. The ceiling was subsequently covered with riven laths and plastered, and the walls were covered with stucco. The dirt floor contrasts with the other finished surfaces, suggesting that a harder surface had once existed. If the exterior chimney accommodated a second fireplace, it would have been in the cellar, with a hearth projecting on the interior. Photographs of the west wall dating from extensive repairs undertaken to the foundation in the 1990s do not indicate an opening for a fireplace, however, and there are no visible traces of a former hearth. Archaeological excavations conducted around the west end of the house in the 1990s revealed a substantial brick surface, beginning near the west foundation and extending to the west and south. The extent of the bricks and the nearby location of the spring house suggests that the surface was work related rather than decorative. Angled bricks forming a linear pattern cut across the surface running in the direction of the foundations of the spring house, which suggests that it may have been a shallow trough for draining water. The path of the angled bricks leads from the northwest corner of the wing, where it may have received rainwater fed from a downspout connected to a roof gutter (Figure 23). Before 1823, the gutter would have collected water from the north face of the wing roof; after the ell was added, that roof would have been the water source. The bricks appear to extend within a few inches of the west foundation, but they may have been laid after the chimney was removed. Further archaeological excavations should confirm the presence of the chimney base and may also reveal evidence for a hearth within the cellar. 178 40 Figure 23. Brick pad west of the wing, revealed during archaeological excavations (ca. 1993): with likely brick trough angling from NE to SW toward the spring house. The roof of the log section must have been raised either before or concurrently with erecting the wing. Given the major addition of the wing, and the internal connection with the earlier building, it seems certain that the Period 1 portion of the house was upgraded at the same time, at least to some degree. Failing to do so would have rendered a house with two jarringly contrasting sections, inside and out. It seems inconceivable that the doorways and the window openings on the first floor were not lengthened at that time, along with raising the windows on the second floor. Although the attic remained unheated, the improvements suggest that the space was upgraded somewhat to accommodate occupants. The physical evidence on the interior does not present a clear picture of the changes that were made. Nail holes and ghost marks found on the ceiling joists and on the wall logs indicate the application of only one generation of plaster in the west room. The only remaining remnants of trim for the openings on the interior appear to date to a subsequent period of changes, so there is 179 41 virtually no evidence to indicate the character of the woodwork to match the alterations at this time. The doorways and the windows on both floors were modified along with raising the ceilings. On the first floor, the logs were cut to allow the openings for both doorways and all four windows to be lengthened upward, and for the windows to also extend downward. The original height of the doorways and the opening for at least two of the windows is apparent, as remnants of the original jamb pieces survive (Figure 24). As is typical of log construction, the jambs were secured to the wall logs using wood pegs. On the second floor, the windows were elevated rather than lengthened. Photographs taken when the siding was removed indicate that the bottom portions of the window openings were infilled with bricks or stones (Figure 25). The window trim shown in the photographs consists of single-step architraves with molded backbands in the shape of an ovolo. The dimensions of the enlarged window openings on the first floor are similar to the wing, and would have accommodated double hung, 9/9 sashes. The smaller openings on the second floor indicate that the windows there were double 6/6 sashes. As a transom was incorporated into the south doorway of the wing, it is reasonable to infer that a transom was installed at the south door in the log section to match. Figure 24. Detail of the east jamb of D2 in Room 101 (2021): the gap between the jamb and the log above, which accommodated the doorway header, has been filled with plaster. 180 42 Figure 25. Section of the north wall after siding removed (1995): showing the window (W11) in Room 203 with the lower portion of the opening infilled with bricks and the window raised to match the new building height; two mortises for the Period 2 ceiling joists are visible in the logs just above the architrave of the lengthened first-floor window. 181 43 When the walls were raised, the joists supporting the second floor were removed and reused. Most of the joists were repositioned as ceiling joists on the second floor, except for two that were incorporated into the raised ceiling on the first floor. The frame of the roof must have been raised accordingly, but no dendrochronological testing of the joists or of the framing members in the roof was undertaken to determine their age. The higher ceiling roughly corresponds with the increase in the height of the walls, with the current joists inserted to raise the ceiling approximately 12 inches. Most of the original ceiling joists were cut off, as remnants of several of the members are visible in the notches, which allowed the logs forming the second-floor walls to remain in place. The second period joists are mismatched in size and finish and exhibit other characteristics indicating that most of them were reused from another location (Figure 26). Figure 26. Detail of north wall of Room 102 (2021): remnants of cut-off and infilled Period 1 joists, with a ghost mark running along the tops of the joist remnants indicating the bottom level of the ceiling boards; two joists installed at the higher level when the walls and the ceiling were raised indicate the slightly closer spacing. 182 44 Two of the existing first-floor ceiling joists are similar in character to the second-floor joists, and the evidence suggests that they had also been installed originally as members of the Period 1 first-floor ceiling. The repositioned second-floor ceiling joists and the two first-floor joists are carefully hewn and finished, with chamfered lower corners, and exhibit remnants of whitewash. The second-floor joists are half-lapped and pegged to short pieces of wood of a similar dimension, which lap over the top wall log and extend outward to carry the flat false plate, which, in turn, supports the feet of the roof rafters. After having been cut off to allow them to be removed from the first-floor walls, the joists were too short to span the width of the building, let alone project out to carry the false plate, and thus they were half-lapped and pegged to the extensions (Figure 27). The two similar joists on the first floor are sufficiently long to span the width of the log pen. Therefore, it must have been possible to extract those particular joists without cutting them off, and thus allowing them to be repurposed to support the higher ceiling. Figure 27. Period 1 ceiling joist reused in Room 202 (2021): the joist has been extended, half- lapped and pegged, to support the false plate. 183 45 The layout and treatment of the rooms on the upper levels during this period cannot be determined, as the floorboards were replaced in the mid-nineteenth century and the current partitions and woodwork date to that era. The rooms on the second floor and in the garret were ultimately plastered and trimmed with door and window surrounds, baseboards, and, on the second floor, chair rails. Although there is no apparent evidence to indicate how the attic may have been finished as a habitable space, anticipating that function presumably was the reason for changing out the joists with those salvaged from below. When the attic was unoccupied, the second-floor joists had been sized accordingly but may have been deemed insufficient to support the new purpose. As constructed in 1763, the roof rafters likely rested directly on the top logs of the side walls. Extending the joists to support a false plate and allowing the eaves of the roof to overhang the walls would have provided nailing surfaces for boards forming a vertical fascia and a horizontal soffit for a boxed cornice. This would have been a significant alteration to improve the stylistic profile of the house. The first-period rafters were modified and reused when the house was raised. Extending the joists meant that the angle of the original rafter pairs would require flattening slightly to allow them to rest on the false plates. Two of the rafter pairs are readily visible, and on both there are empty lap mortises and peg holes for horizontal collars, which are roughly 3’ below the current collars. Altering the collars was required to change the angle of the rafters and resetting them upward allowed for a higher ceiling and more generous head room. The connection of the rafters at the peak must have been reworked slightly, and the condition of the current bridle notches, joined with a peg, likely reflects that change, as the connection is relatively loose. Period 3 – 1823-ca. 1843: The property changed hands in 1819, from the Hoge family to Dr. Cornelius Baldwin, and his socially prominent wife, Nellie C. Hite. The Baldwins undertook several alterations and additions aimed at creating a more comfortable and fashionable abode. They completed the reorientation of the service activities of the house, which likely had begun with the addition of the detached kitchen, by constructing an ell connected to the west wing (Figure 28). Physical and photographic evidence indicates that the gable-roofed ell, which no longer survives, was appended to the north wall of the wing in 1823. The dendrochronology revealed that in 1823 a pair of angled rafters were installed centered on the north face of the roof of the wing, to anchor the overlapping gable of the one-story ell (Figure 29). Two in-situ gable-end studs in the wing were found to date to the original construction of the addition, in 1802.39 Photographs taken during the earlier repairs indicate remnants of a plastered surface applied to what is now the exterior north wall of the wing, which was subsequently covered with wood siding. A vertical break in the plaster surface suggests that the ell was divided longitudinally into at least two rooms (Figure 30). 184 46 Figure 28. Period 3 building, first-floor plan; north-south dimension of the ell is conjectural; location of chimney and fireplace in the ell not shown, but presumably centered on the north wall. 185 47 Figure 29. Roof frame for the wing, facing north (2021): the angled rafters mark the intersection of the roof of the ell with the wing, which indicates that the ell extended across the entire north wall. 186 48 Figure 30. Detail of photograph of the north wall of the wing (1995): the plaster surface indicates the interior finish of the rooms in the ell that abutted the wing; the window to the right was inserted in place of the original doorway after the ell was removed; the frame for the doorway on the left was inserted in the exterior wall of the former closet. The original function of the wing likely was as a dining room; the ell probably marks the addition of a new cook room and may have provided space for other functions. The addition of dining rooms to residences that began as two-room, hall-and-parlor plans was quite common over the decades of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.40 Before the addition of the ell, the doorway in the north wall of the wing would have provided access to the space from the free-standing kitchen that Hoge’s will indicates was in existence by 1793. Replacing the exterior kitchen with an attached version was similarly commonplace over time, which allowed the cooking and dining functions to be connected, while remaining separated from the other living spaces in the house. The ell extended across the length of the wing, but the other dimension cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, it is conceivable that the structure housed other service functions in addition to a kitchen. It is not known when or why the ell was removed, but it is quite likely that the former dining room was converted into the kitchen after that occurred. 187 49 The physical evidence indicating the character of the interior of the log section at this time is not extensive, as subsequent modifications have removed much of the historic fabric. Notable exceptions may be the mantel that survives in the west room, and the collection of architectural fragments comprising a mantel and the associated wall that was located in the east room. The physical evidence points to the east chimneypiece as likely having been installed by the Baldwins, most probably before Dr. Baldwin’s death in 1828. While the appearance of the mantel in the west room is not similar, the style suggests a roughly contemporary date. The east wall of the east room was covered with beaded wood boards in conjunction with the installation of a classically styled fireplace surround. There is no discernible evidence to confirm or deny that the other walls were covered in a similar manner. Architectural fragments related to removals made in the 2000s have been reassembled and matched with their attachment to the face of the stone fireplace mass (Figures 31 and 32). The architectural fragments also indicate that a closet was installed in the niche between the north cheek of the fireplace and the outer wall, with the architrave of the doorway matching stylistically with the fireplace surround. A second closet likely was installed on the other side of the fireplace; a closet was located there at least beginning when the stairway was altered in the mid-nineteenth century. Figure 31. Reassembling architectural fragments related to the east wall chimneypiece in Room 101 (2021): the mantel north pilaster and the closet door architrave remain attached to vertical beaded planks. 188 50 Figure 32. Room 101 (2021), architectural fragments: detail of section of reassembled chimneypiece, showing closet opening and remnants of architrave; vertical ghost marks for lath and plaster on the wall planks indicate the later surface, and that the chair rail was removed at that time. The related components of the chimneypiece mark the installation as an important decorative statement. The vertical boards were nailed to the bottom face of the ceiling joist above the stonework, with the mantel and associated elements attached to their surface. Ghost marks clearly indicate that the board wall and the mantel were installed at the same time. The tongue- and-grooved boards have beaded edges and were finished with a brown stain or paint. The decorative fireplace elements consist of an architrave, flanking fluted pilasters, shelf, paneled overmantel, and cornice, which were painted in a contrasting light brown or cream color. An applied chair rail connected the north pilaster with the closet architrave; the chair rail was later removed when the wall was covered with lath and plastered. By this time, the fireplace opening had been narrowed to 5’2”, further testifying to the evolving function of the space. 189 51 Dating the installation of the board wall and the mantel is not precise, as it depends on identifying and comparing the types of nails used for the attachments, combined with stylistic evidence for the decorative elements. Both the boards and the chimneypiece are attached using handmade nails, which suggests a date before circa 1820. The mantel is assembled using mature, cut L-headed nails, however, which would be highly unusual before that date. As the use of wrought nails are known to have continued after their period of greatest popularity, the cut nails suggest that the installation occurred ca. 1823.41 The mantel architrave has a backband with a quirked ogee and astragal profile that is similar to that found on the door and window surrounds in the 1802 wing, and on the southwest doorway in the west room (Figure 33). The nails used to join the architraves in the chimneypiece (mature machine cut), do not match those used for the wing (wrought). Therefore, while the similarities point to a stylistic connection, they do not appear to have been installed at the same time. Figure 33. Room 101, detail of architectural fragment from the mantel (2021): two-step architrave with quirked ogee and astragal backband. Another architectural fragment suggests that the woodwork in the west room, and possibly throughout the first floor, was retrimmed at this time. The surround for the doorway leading to the pass-through from the log building to the wing was removed during the relatively recent renovations, but it was possible to match the architectural fragments to the opening. The backband on the architrave is a match to the quirked ogee profile found throughout the wing and similar to the mantel in the east room, but it was installed with mature cut framing nails. Therefore, the surround was not installed in 1802 and likely dates to ca. 1823, when it is possible 190 52 that all the woodwork on the first floor in the log building was trimmed to match the profile found in the addition. The mantel in the west room is not stylistically similar to either the door surround or the mantel in the east room, but the simple Federal-style elements suggest that it also dates to the 1820s-40s period. The assemblage consists of an attenuated shelf that is articulated to align with a projecting center block, featuring a large patera, and end blocks with medallions, which are supported by coupled colonnettes on block plinths (Figure 34). Unfortunately, the patera element has been lost. Figure 34. Room 102, mantel piece (2021): photographs indicate the design of the center block patera, which has been lost; the shelf board was added. Another alteration that is difficult to date may have occurred around this time, which reflects a dramatic change to the circulation pattern and, presumably, the room functions. An opening for 191 53 a doorway was uncovered in the south wall of the west room, just west of the partition and the original south doorway, during the 2000s renovations. The height of the doorway relates to the higher ceiling, which indicates that the opening was installed after the wing was erected in 1802. The opening had been infilled with stones at an undetermined date, but which almost certainly occurred before (or concurrent with) the installation of the current south porch. Other than the opening itself, the physical evidence is quite limited, consisting of the west door post, which is hewn, with a sashsawn batten attached to the post with a wrought nail. While sparse, the dating evidence correlates best with other changes made in the 1820s or 1830s (Figure 35). Figure 35. Room 102, south wall (2021): the partially framed door opening (D3) is located just to the right (west) of the board partition; the window frame (W2) is one of only two that survive on the first floor in the log section, which likely date to retrimming that occurred in the 1840s. 192 54 Inserting a second entrance in the south wall directly adjacent to the original doorway is an unusual circumstance. Creating an asymmetrical façade in the 1820s runs counter to the standard practice of the time and is odd considering the trajectory of greater segmentation of space and general upgrade in style that marks the development of the Heater House over its first century.42 If the two doorways existed at the same time – and there is no evidence to suggest that the original doorway was ever closed off – then the obvious question is why the occupants felt the need to provide independent exterior access to both the east and west rooms. Perhaps the answer lies with the changing circumstances of the household. Dr. Baldwin died in 1828 and his wife passed away two years later, leaving seven orphan children ranging in age from 6 to 20 years old. It appears that the children continued to live at the property; perhaps the second doorway was related to subdividing the house to accommodate an unusually constituted household.43 Period 4 – ca. 1843-ca. 1864 Solomon and Caroline Heater acquired the property in 1843, and they embarked soon thereafter on several significant changes to their house. The alterations included subdividing the east first- floor room by adding a partition to create a center passage, completely replacing, enlarging, and enclosing the staircase, and improving the stairs to reach the attic (Figure 36). Wainscot was added to the long walls of the west room and was incorporated into the west wall of the new center passage. New flooring was installed on the second and third levels, along with the room partitions, and the second floor and the attic were fully plastered and trimmed. The second doorway in the south wall was removed, and the pedimented front porch was erected, to include the wide, flush horizontal siding boards covering the wall within the porch. 193 55 Figure 36. Period 4 building, first-floor plan. The center passage was roughly 7’ wide and spanned the width of the building, connecting the south and north doorways. The passage was bounded on the west by the vertical plank wall and on the east by the new plastered wall with wainscot. The stairway in the southeast corner of the building was enclosed, with a doorway positioned at the foot of the stairs providing access from the passage, and doorways were roughly centered on both passage walls. The insertion of the passage is another common modification made to residences such as the Heater House, where the original open plans had allowed visitors to enter freely into the living areas. The passage created a buffer, where visitors could be detained before they were invited into the private life of the household and removing the doorway in the west room would be consistent with that intention.44 Physical evidence points to the center passage and the current staircase having been installed concurrently. The boards that made up the north wall of the stairwell survive, and paint ghosts 194 56 for the stair treads and risers, along with protruding nails and the corresponding nail holes, allow the boards to be matched precisely with their original locations (Figure 37). Other architectural fragments relate to the doorway at the foot of the stairs, and nails and framing members associated with the stairs, the doorway, and the partition, all share similar characteristics (Figure 38). These include nails which are of the mature, machine-cut variety, along with horizontal milled saw marks (sashsawn), and several layers of what appear to be similar colors of paint. This evidence indicates that the enclosed staircase and the passage partition were installed at the same time, when the walls of the new, smaller east room were covered with vertical split lathes and plastered, and the walls and the woodwork were all painted a dark green. Figure 37. Boards for the partition forming the stair hall in Room 101 (2021): the header mortise for the door frame at the foot of the stairs is visible near the top of the first board on the left. 195 57 Figure 38. Room 101, stair hall door and door frame (2021): the doorway faced the passage, trimmed with the two-step architrave, on the left; the door frame as it faced the interior of the stair hall is on the right. 196 58 Several ceiling joists were modified to accommodate the more commodious staircase, which extended farther to the west along the south wall and rose higher to meet the landing connecting with the run leading to the second floor. When the ceiling was raised ca. 1802, the stair may not have been significantly altered. New floor joists were added to carry the higher floor, but one original joist located above the face of the fireplace was left in place spanning between the north and south walls. This likely relates to its value as a structural support, while also indicating that it did not interfere with the run of the Period 1 stair located in the southeast corner of the room. That joist was cut off to make way for the expanded stairway installed ca. 1843, however, with the end of the joist headed into the frame installed to support the upper run of stairs. Two other nearby joists that had been installed to support the higher ceiling were replaced, and also were attached to the new stair frame. These members are made of sashsawn material, matching that used elsewhere in the stairway (Figure 39). The gauged and undercut floorboards relate to the new joists, indicating that all these elements were installed concurrently (Figure 40). Figure 39. Room 101 showing fireplace and chimney base, with framing installed to support the mid-nineteenth century stairway (2021): the original joist above the stone mass has been cut off to head into the framing installed to support the upper run of stairs; two replacement joists were installed to support the floor and connect with the new stair frame. 197 59 Figure 40. Detail of the north wall of Room 101 (2021): surviving Period 1 joist related to the original lower ceiling remains, running above the east fireplace; replacement sashsawn joist related to Period 2 ceiling height was installed in the mid-nineteenth century along with the new stairway and flooring. The walls of the stair hall and the risers are all painted a homogenous green color, but paint analysis may reveal that they were originally treated in a much more ambitious decorative scheme. The upper flight of stairs to the garret may reflect at least one component of the earlier 198 60 color combination. The risers are covered with a thin white paint, on which bluish streaks of paint have been applied in a loose, angled pattern (Figure 411). This appears to be an attempt at a faux appearance that likely was intended to imitate the natural variations found in some type of stone.45 Figure 41. Faux-grained risers in the stair leading to the garret (2021). 199 61 Complementary changes were made in the west room as well, where wainscot was attached to the long walls. Architectural fragments that were removed during the twentieth century renovations were again matched to their original locations. The wainscot consists of two assemblages of two horizontal planks, joined with battens and fastened together tightly with tongue and groove joints, capped by a molded chair rail and supported by a baseboard. The wainscot ran the length of the north and south walls – where it covered the former doorway that had been added only a few decades earlier -- and the chair rail joined at the corners with the vertical board partition wall. The surrounds for the windows and all but one of the doorways on the interior in the log section appear to have been replaced. All the surviving elements exhibit a beaded architrave with an ovolo backband, which were installed using mature cut nails. The frame of the west room south window survives in place, which has a two-step, beaded architrave with the ovolo backband. A window with a simpler, one-step architrave survives in the south wall of the east room within the stair hall, which has a backband with the identical ovolo profile. Backbands with a similar ovolo profile are found on all the doorways in the east room – the two exterior doorways, the stair hall doorway, and on both passage doorways -- and on door and window frames on the second floor and in the garret. Therefore, while it seems likely that the downstairs rooms were plastered and the doors and windows were retrimmed ca. 1802, no evidence has been found to indicate their design. With the exception of the door surround in the west room, which may relate to an intermediary round of changes dating to ca. 1823, the architectural fragments for the frames throughout the log section appear to date to the Heater period of renovations. The rooms on the second floor and in the garret were plastered and retrimmed when the floorboards were laid. The door and window architraves are similar to the two remaining window surrounds on the first floor, with an ovolo backband, and are attached with mature cut nails. The paneled mantel in Room 202 aligns stylistically with the mid-nineteenth century (Figure 42). Somewhat surprisingly, the chair rail in Room 202, which must have been installed along with the plaster, is attached with a cut nail that was either hand-headed or machine headed and then worked by a blacksmith into a T-head. The partitions separating the rooms in the attic and the main north-south partition on the second floor are composed of vertical boards with applied lath and plaster (Figure 43), while the plastered wall separating Rooms 201 and 203 is supported by sashsawn studs. Several of the boards that are visible extending within the knee walls have ghost marks indicating that they were reused; perhaps the anomaly of the studded wall reflects the limitation of the reused material. All of the plaster is applied to riven lathes attached with mature cut nails. Therefore, the current layout of the rooms dates to the mid- nineteenth century, when the upper hall may have been created for the first time. If a fireplace had existed in Room 203, the opening must have been closed off by the time that the new flooring was installed. 200 62 Figure 42. Room 202, fireplace and mantel (2021): the mantel with low-relief, raised panels and the other woodwork in Room 202 and throughout the second floor and the garret were installed in the mid-nineteenth century. 201 63 Figure 43. Partition separating Rooms 301 and 302 (2021): with one exception, the partitions on the upper floors are composed of rough vertical boards with applied riven lath attached with mature cut nails; the plaster throughout is lime based with animal hair binder. Period 5 – Post-1864: The most significant structural changes made to the Heater House are the loss of the ell and the removal of the chimney and the fireplace in the wing (Figure 44). The reasons for either of the developments are not presently known. The absence of the ell must have caused significant changes to the circulation patterns of the house and the functions of the rooms. The substantial chimney in the wing was replaced by a smaller brick stack erected against the interior of the west wall to serve as the flue for a stove. This modification likely reflects that the wing was repurposed to serve as the kitchen. 202 64 Figure 44. Period 5 building, first-floor plan. Given their proximity, it is suggestive that the loss of the ell and the chimney and fireplace may be causally and temporally related. Other than purposeful changes undertaken by owners, the most common cause of such extensive loss is damage from fire, but no evidence has been found to support that interpretation. The framing for the west wall and the roof of the wing, and the plastered north wall -- which was covered with weatherboards after the ell was removed -- give no indication of fire damage. The location of the house near the center of the Battle of Cedar Creek that occurred on 19 October 1864, suggests another cause. In the aftermath of the war, the Heater’s filed a compensation claim with the Federal government for a wide range of damages inflicted on their property by Union troops. The claim principally included loss of livestock, crops, rolling stock, and fence materials, however, and did not specify damages to the residence. In July 1865, three land holders in the county presented an estimate of the cost of the damages to the property. Notably, this estimate included $500 for “Damage to barn and buildings.” The assessed value of the buildings in the years between 1844-1850 was $780, so in that context 203 65 $500 was a substantial amount. According to the account of one of the assessors, the principal damage was inflicted on the barn and other outbuildings, however, with no reference to the residence.46 Physical and photographic evidence indicates that the character and the functions of the rooms flanking the west chimney essentially flipped with changes to the circulation patterns in the house. Photographs dating to the late twentieth century show the southwest doorway in the west room of the log section as closed off, with the door removed, and with shelves installed within the doorframe. On the other hand, a doorway was cut through the log wall in the northwest corner of the room opening into the former closet. Therefore, the northwest doorway became the new access point between the two sections of the house. A photograph dating from renovations undertaken in 1995 suggests the reasoning behind the switch in the uses of the spaces (Figure 45). The former doorway near the center of the north wall of the wing, which provided access between the house and the 1823 ell addition, is shown as having been converted into a double-sash window. An opening partially visible at the northeast corner of the wing, which aligns with the closet, relates to a doorway. Presumably after the ell was removed, the occupants preferred a window in the wall but sought to retain access from the wing to the exterior on the north. Shifting the exterior doorway to the wall of the former closet and cutting a doorway in the adjoining log wall completed the transition of the space from storage to a passageway. Figure 45. North elevation with renovations underway (1995): showing the exposed log walls, the surviving plaster wall surface from the ell, the converted window, and the door opening leading into the former closet in the wing. 204 66 The physical evidence indicates that the partition dividing the upper stair hall from the east room on the second floor was installed during this period. If a fireplace had once existed in this room, it must have been closed off by the time the new flooring was installed ca. 1843. Perhaps the partition was added to create the upper stair hall at this time, or the partition was shifted to reduce the size of the space. Period 6 – Post-1990: Figure 46. Period 6 (current) building, first-floor plan. 1990: CCBF acquires the Heater House property; the dairy/spring house is inadvertently destroyed. 1995: A substantial portion of the west foundation wall collapses. 1995-97: The CCBF initiates repairs to the building: 205 67 • Repair/rebuild portions of the stone foundation -- wing • Replace weatherboards – all walls except west gable • Repair/rebuild chimney tops • Replace roof on log section • Remove north porch 1999-2000: The CCBF carries out extensive repairs which are ostensibly aimed at ultimately restoring the property to its eighteenth-century appearance: • Repair/underpin stone foundation • Remove virtually all of the interior finishes, plaster, and the woodwork from the first- floor rooms in the log section • In the east room -- remove the floorboards, repair and raise floor joists, repair and raise the stairway, repoint fireplace and relay hearth, remove partition 2002-2003: The CCBF continues work, which includes more repairs to the foundation and shoring up the floor joists, reinstall partition 2010: The metal roof on the wing is replaced, the siding on the west gable is replaced, and the exterior is painted 2017: North doorway in the wing is restored; steps are installed leading to the doorway. 206 68 Chapter 4. Building Conditions Assessment Methods of Investigation and Summary of Findings: The assessment of the physical condition of the Heater House was carried out based on numerous site visits that took place from early spring through early summer of 2021. The investigators undertook a detailed visual inspection of all visible surfaces, on all three floors and in the cellars on the interior, and of all the exterior walls. Limited access was also available to view the roof frame in the log section; the frame of the roof in the wing was readily accessible. Analysis and documentation of the chimneys, the cornices, and the roof surfaces was limited to what could be observed from ground level, and as could be enhanced by means of photography. A laser level was used to enable us to document the degree of distortion and, in particular, to assess the extent of sag in the floors. The lasers also helped to project ghost lines for walls and old floors to assist in understanding these changes. The number and extent of physical probes and removal of material was limited by the concern with inadvertently exacerbating unseen conditions. The main exception was removing several short (2’5” in length) floorboards from a patch in Room 103 to reveal evidence for the original fireplace hearth. A section of the plywood flooring in Room 101 was removed temporarily to provide access to the crawlspace to assess the condition of the joists. The largely intact plaster surfaces found on the upper floors and in the cellar of the wing inhibited investigating for possible earlier features, such as fireplaces that may have existed in Rooms 202 and C-003. Thermal imaging was attempted with a Flir infrared device in both locations, and elsewhere to look for damage behind plaster, but resolution and temperature differentials were not sufficient to detect hidden openings. Other impediments include temporary protections in place, such as the plywood on the ceiling of Room 202. A significant portion of each visit was spent organizing architectural fragments that derived from interventions and repairs that were carried out by the CCBF in the early twentieth century, and which were stored in Rooms 103 and C-001 and C-002. Sorting the materials to associate them with their original locations was instrumental in tracking how the spaces had changed over time, and provided insights into the building conditions that existed prior to the interventions. This process was aided immeasurably by comparing the fragment assemblages with archival photographs taken before the removals. The character and condition of several of the fragments also correlated with the evidence for earlier repairs. Reassembling the wall of the stair hall in Room 101 demonstrated that the floor had deflected significantly already by the time the wall was installed in the mid-nineteenth century. Moisture and insect damage to wainscot boards from Room 102 reflect the deterioration of wall logs, which were replaced in earlier work. A crucial consideration in assessing the physical condition is the question of stability. Although a given element – from painted surfaces to structural framing – may exhibit wide ranges and degrees of degradation, the level of stability -- or the capacity to continue to serve its essential 207 69 function – is a primary point of concern. Of special interest are instances where the deteriorated condition of the element may compromise the integrity of the building. For historic fabric, the question of stability is also a function of the preservation of character defining features. Thus, decorative treatments and painted surfaces may be determined to be unstable even while the underlaying fabric remains sound. The assessment of stability is integral to making prioritized recommendations for treatment. The conditions assessments found below reflect a numeric range, from 1 (stable) to 5 (failure). 1. Stable May not require attention for 20 or more years 2. Stable but degradable 10-20 years 3. Showing wear, deterioration 5-10 years 4. Deteriorating, requires attention 2-5 years 5. Failure, requires attention soon Within 2 years Considerations of access and life safety are tied to the future use of the building. As the current direction for future use calls for limited public access, which may or may not include the second and third floors, the assessment and recommendations reflect that status. A detailed analysis of code requirements will be required in future when more detailed plans for the occupation of the structure are made available. Local and national codes may be modified for historic structures and the levels of protections can be developed in coordination with local code enforcement. Adding electricity will benefit work and life safety, but will also increase the risk of fire. The Heater House is in generally stable condition. Previous efforts to maintain the building envelope have succeeded in slowing the process of deterioration and in protecting the more fragile elements of framing. Installing the metal roofs and replacing the wood siding, shoring up and/or replacing portions of the foundations, and replacing deteriorated logs close to the ground level have kept the structure stable. Even though architectural elements were disassembled from the log section, most of the items were kept inside the building and could be returned or replicated as desired. The most significant damage to Heater House is on the second floor of the log core, in the upper northwest section, where a long-term roof leak allowed water to penetrate. Room 302 exhibits the most damage, as the flooring had to be removed, and floor joists are rotten where they overhang the north wall. The false plate (a continuation of the floor as opposed to a raising plate) is also rotten, leaving rafters without connection to the joists. Room 202 has plaster damage associated with the leak, both in the ceiling and the walls. The damage is not contained to the area below the leak, indicating that water migrated across the floor and plaster. This area is stable due to recent efforts, but the repairs are more a triage than a long-term solution. This 208 70 damage appears to be stabilized at this point, as no evidence of recent water penetration was visible over the duration of the current investigations. On the exterior, the condition of the windows and doors are a significant concern. The only semi-operational windows are located in the frame addition, as the windows in the log section have all been replaced with plywood inserts. The only functional door is in the north wall of the log section, and the swing is impeded by the temporary plywood floor. It is important to have the ability to seal the building when not in use, but it is equally beneficial to the structure that the openings fulfill their other intended functions. The plywood covering the windows prevents light and air from entering the spaces. Windows that block light and do not operate make it difficult to see and the lack of air circulation on warm days contributes to hot and uncomfortable conditions, particularly on the upper floors. After removing plywood from the north window (W4) in Room 102, rot was exposed in the log beneath the temporary sill that will require attention. The sill is not as wide as the log and allows water to collect. The rot is severe, extending from the exterior all the way to the interior and almost the full depth of the log. In Room 202, there is heavy log sag east of the south window causing plaster to buckle. The sag could be caused by the possible lack of support for the logs around the window and predate the new siding. A first step in preserving the house is to clear the grounds around the building and clean the interior. Construction debris has built up around the foundation and there are weeds growing within the fence line. This detracts from the appearance, but it also makes it difficult to navigate the grounds and access the building. The interior is generally befouled by a combination of dirt, debris, and animal waste. As part of the current investigation, the collection of architectural fragments was sorted, labeled, and inventoried, according to element and room location, and temporarily stored in the house. The collection should be moved to a more secure location to be curated in advance of undertaking any significant repairs. Cleaning of the animal waste and removing bird nests will be an ongoing chore until the envelope of the building is made more secure. Close visual inspection of the chimneys was not possible, but they appear to be in sound condition. The stone chimneys were repaired, and the upper sections were largely rebuilt during the renovations that were carried out in 1995. When repairs to the roof are undertaken, the opportunity should be used to inspect the masonry stacks. Physical Description and Condition of Exterior: The exterior of the building will be addressed according to the main elements: foundation, openings (windows and doors), and siding. As windows and doorways relate to both the interior and exterior, there will be some overlap when discussing the interior conditions. The exterior is also broken down by elevation starting with the south and continuing clockwise (east, 209 71 north, and west) around the building. The openings are included in the foundation description, but they are treated separately on the other floors. Foundation The house is built into a slope that descends from east to west, with virtually no foundation exposed on the northwest corner, to nearly six feet exposed at the southwest corner. The foundation reflects the two construction phases, meeting at a vertical joint line, and with a slight difference in the appearance of the stone; the older stones are slightly darker with more variation in color. Extensive repairs have been made to the foundation of the wing, and archival photographs and documentation indicate that the entire exterior face of the west foundation has been either replaced or re-laid. There are three openings in the foundation on the south elevation. The easternmost (D01) is located below Window 2 and adjacent to the stoop for the main porch. The stonework around the opening has undergone extensive repairs, with the section to the west having been completely rebuilt, and there is no surviving evidence to indicate a door frame. The opening is accessed by a flight of four uneven stone steps; a short wing wall extending from the foundation on the east may relate to an earlier if not original bulkhead (Figure 47). 210 72 Figure 47. Heater House south elevation (2021). Two openings in the south foundation of the wing flank the stairway leading to the first floor. The one to the east (W02) is positioned slightly off-line to the east of the window above, and is partially obscured by the concrete steps ascending to the stoop. The opening is trimmed with a wrought window frame, which includes a portion of the one-step architrave and a backband in the shape of an ovolo. The opening is closed off by wood boards from the interior that are deteriorating, and some of which are missing. The sill and jambs are rotten near the ground level. On the interior, the stucco parging has failed below the opening, exposing the foundation stones. To the west, the third opening (W03) aligns with Window 6 above. No frame survives and the opening is covered from the exterior with a sheet of plywood. The foundation stones below the original opening have been removed to roughly the same width, seemingly to create a crude doorway. 211 73 Much of the foundation under the west wall has been reconstructed. In comparing the current condition with a photograph dating to the 1990s (Figures 48 and 49), it is apparent that much, if not all, of the stonework has been changed out. Three other notable elements visible in the archival photograph are the slight projection of stones to the north of the corner of the wing, along with evidence of instability in the wall in the form of cracks and deflections, and multiple episodes of repair. The protruding foundation stones likely are a vestige of the connection between the ell and the 1802 wing. When the ell was added, the foundations may have been toothed together for structural support, and the projection remained until the required repairs provided the opportunity to create a more regular corner condition. Cracks in the foundation likely indicate either ground subsidence or poorly executed earlier repairs, or a combination of the two. Also shown in the photograph are seams in the wood siding that indicate the extent of a large chimney that once served a fireplace in Room 103. Removing the chimney would have required undertaking extensive work on the foundation. The homogenous condition of the stonework shown in the photograph indicates that those changes had been undertaken many years earlier. Figure 48. Heater House, west wall of the wing (ca. 1993): taken before major repairs made to the foundation and replacement of the wood siding. 212 74 Figure 49. Heater House west elevation (2021). The doorway (D02) positioned near the northwest corner of the cellar below the wing is open, without evidence of a frame or other means of closing off the interior space. The opening is currently larger (3’4”) than it is shown in the earlier photograph, suggesting that it had earlier served as a window and was enlarged to act as a doorway when the foundation was rebuilt. The foundation on the north elevation mirrors the general condition on the south, as it barely projects above the ground surface at the northeast corner, gaining height as it follows the sloping terrain westward. A small opening fitted with a wood frame and remnants of vertical wood bars (W01) is located in the foundation in the west portion of the log section, which 213 75 provides light to the cellar room (C-002). The interior of the frame is covered with a plywood panel. The ground surface outside the window is above the sill, which allows water to flow into the opening. Both the bottom of the window frame and the lower portion of the plywood insert are rotten, and five of the original eight bars are missing (Figure 50). Figure 50. Heater House north elevation (2021). The second opening on the north elevation is in the 1802 wing, positioned off-center toward the east, and overlapped slightly by the first-floor doorway above (W04). There is no evidence of a frame for either a door or a window. The width of the opening is 3’7”, suggesting that it was originally intended to serve as a doorway. Although the two openings seem to conflict, perhaps the foundation opening served as the entrance to the cellar wing before the ell was added. It is not known whether the ell had a cellar or just a crawl space. In either case, after the ell was erected the opening would have allowed access between the ell and the cellar in the wing. If this opening had been the only access to the cellar from the exterior, this may have led to inserting another point of access, such as the opening in the west foundation. The lower portion of the stonework of the opening is deteriorating, with little mortar left and stones shifting out of place. Currently, plywood covers the opening. The grade has risen to a point where water flowing along the wall is entering the window well and rotting the plywood. There is little visible foundation on the north elevation. There are no signs of settling or failing mortar in what is visible. Further investigations into an addition to the east through 214 76 archaeology could be an opportunity to determine the depth of the foundation and assess any underlying conditions. More extensive removal of the plywood floor in Room 101 would also reveal more information about the interior condition of the foundation. Windows and Doors There are two doorways and six window openings on the south elevation, not including the openings discussed in the previous section related to the foundation. Doorway 1 is centered on the log section, with flanking windows on both floors. Doorway 4 is centered on the wing, with windows on either side. Both doorways have a four-light transom that is integral to the jambs. The transom sash over D4 has been removed and the space is covered with plywood. Neither of the doors themselves are original, nor are they currently operable. The sashes in all four of the window openings in the log section have been removed and replaced with plywood or plexiglass panels; the double sashes remain in the windows in the wing. Another doorway (D3) existed in Room 102 in the log section, until it was removed in the mid- nineteenth century. All that survives is the opening in the logs and one original post. The second post was replaced by a modern member during the earlier renovations. The trim of the doors and windows is differentiated between the frame and log sections. The log section has the two-step architrave with an ovolo backband that is similar to surviving elements on the interior. This is also noted above in the description of the doors. The windows on the wing have the two-step architrave but the backband is a quirked ogee and astragal profile. All of the first-floor windows on the south elevation are fitted with shutter attachment hardware. On the 1802 addition, there are pintels driven through the architraves. On the log section, the pintels are on the jamb side of the architraves, welded to a plate that is attached to the window box with screws. This suggests that the pintels on the older section were installed later than the driven pintels, but there is insufficient evidence to be conclusive. The door installed in the main doorway (D1), is not a proper fit, and likely has been reused from another property. The door is smaller than the opening demands, and it is not properly attached with latches or hinges; it is held in place by a board fastened with screws, which holds it tight against the jamb. The door is composed of four raised panels with the flat field to the exterior and raised to the interior. The interior of the door is painted with a faux-grain oak pattern. No other graining of this pattern has been found in the house, with the only other example of the treatment applied to the risers in the short flight of stairs leading to the garret. There are no known openings in the house that match the dimensions of the door. The architrave on the exterior has two steps and an ovolo backband, a portion of which is missing. The trim has been removed on the interior, but most of the assembly survives as an architectural fragment (Figure 51). 215 77 Figure 51. Room 101, interior (2021): Doorway 1. 216 78 The second doorway on the south elevation (D4) enters the 1802 addition from the small porch. Two doors are sandwiched in the doorway and are held in place by a 2”x4” board, which spans the opening on the interior and is screwed in place. The exterior door is composed of two vertical panels flanking a wide stile. On the interior, a smaller board-and-batten door that does not fit the space is clamped to the outer door. The exterior door is attached with five-knuckle butt hinges; the interior door has remnants of butterfly hinges. On the interior, two unused pintles are set in the architrave. With the second door in place, it is not possible to determine whether ghost marks reflect earlier strap hinges on the outer door, but the style of the door indicates that it is not the original. Both the exterior and interior architraves have a two-step profile; the backbands have the quirked-ogee-and-astragal profile found elsewhere in the wing. The exterior architrave is in stable condition with little missing material. The sill has deteriorated but is protected by the porch overhang. The exterior door has material loss at the southwest corner, including portions of the lower rail, the stile, and the west panel. The window sashes in the log section have been replaced with either plywood (W2) painted to simulate window sash or plexiglass (W1). Most of the architraves and backbands have been removed from W1 except the header. The interior architrave of W2 is intact except for the apron, which was part of the removed wainscot. All of the windowsills are in a heavily deteriorated condition. The paint is mostly lost leaving the wood unprotected and eroded. The sill at W2 is covered with metal and the exact condition is unknown. The sill and architrave of W1 have visible rot at the western edge. All of the existing sashes on the building will require reglazing. The sashes on the second floor (log section) have been removed and replaced with plywood panels, which are painted to simulate a 2-over-2 configuration. Sashes similar in size to these openings were found in the fragments collection stored in Room 103. The removed sashes each have 6 panes. The trim matches the windows below with the two-step architrave and ovolo backband. The upper sashes likely were fixed in place, but the detail is not visible with the plywood in place. The interior architraves and backbands are intact on the south elevation. The profile is a flat architrave with bead and an ovolo backband for both window openings. The chair rail acts as the apron. The intact window sashes in the wing are 2-over-2 panes with the upper sash fixed. Some of the stops have been modified to allow the upper sash to lower a few inches. The existing sashes are replacements for the originals; based on the measurements they almost certainly contained 9-over-9 panes. The architraves for the windows on the south elevation (W5 and W6) are largely intact. There are three windows on the whole of the west elevation. The first floor of the wing has one double-sash, single-hung window for Room 103 in the southwest corner (W7). This window is similar in dimensions and presentation to the first-floor windows in the south elevation. The 217 79 window is in degraded condition, with the sill heavily eroded and showing raised grain. There are holes for pintels in the architrave. The lower sash is coming apart at the lower rail. There are two casement windows associated with Room 302, which flank the chimney, and are set tight to the rake boards without trim (W14 and W15). These are much smaller than the other windows. The north window is only visible from the interior, as it is covered with vinyl siding stemming from a repair likely due to a roof or window leak. The north sash is removed from the window box and may be one of the sashes stored in Room 103. The window to the south has a four-light sash in place. At the south window, both the opening and the glazing on the sash are deteriorating and exposing the muntin rails. The south sash is operable but with settling it does not fit the opening well. A screw is driven into the jamb to keep the window closed. The architrave is a flat trim with beaded edge and ovolo backband. There are four windows and two doors on the north elevation. The door architraves retain some original material on the exteriors and a portion of the architrave for D2 was found in the architectural fragments. The windows have little to no original material on the interior or exterior and the side bucks are mostly absent. Door 2, in the log section, is a board-and-batten replacement door that has been moved from another location as well. Where the boards join they form a v” groove. The architrave on the exterior seems to be original as does the casing. During a recent restoration effort, the floor in Room 101 was raised. This has caused a discrepant relationship between the interior and exterior of D2. The door is approximately 5” above the bottom of the exterior architrave but does not clear the floor. This is possible because the log walls act independently from the first- floor joists; when the floor was raised it left the door opening at the height where the building had settled, even with the replaced lower logs. There is no sill in the doorway and the lower wall log and rim joist are exposed. The transom is intact and has four panes, but they are broken and should be replaced. Birds are using the broken panes to go in and out of the building. Door 5, in the wing, has undergone numerous changes but the remnants of architraves that were hidden by siding confirm that this was a doorway at least when the addition was in place (Figure 52). The backbands were probably removed when the addition came down and the wall was plastered over. When the ell was removed, a window was installed in the door opening and was not removed until recently. The door that was installed originated in the doorway in the board wall between Rooms 101 and 102. There are no architraves on the interior. The door does not function properly, and it is secured by a 2’x4” board that spans the opening and is fastened with screws. The box lock on the exterior is rusted; there is no catch. Physical investigation and photographic evidence indicate that there was another exterior doorway, in Room 105, and a window in the north wall of Room 103. The window was plastered over with the 1823 addition and the doorway likely was added after the ell came 218 80 down, but was later closed off. The exact history of this door is difficult to ascertain without removing fabric to allow more physical investigation. Figure 52. Heater House, wing north wall (2021); D5 exterior detail. The windows on both floors have replacement architraves without backbands. These are mitred in the corners and made of a lesser quality wood. The sashes are replaced with temporary plywood infills. Window 4 is sagging, and birds are passing back and forth through the opening. The replacement frame in W4 allowed water to collect on the log below the sill resulting in considerable rot (Figure 53). There are no original elements left of the first or second floor windows, inside or out. 219 81 Figure 53. Detail of W4 showing rotted condition of the sill and the log below. In addition to removing the woodwork for the windows, the openings were altered in some locations. It is unclear how damaged these elements were before their removal. The window box in Room 203 (W11) was lowered to below the chair rail, which elsewhere was used as the apron (Figure 54). In Room 202 (W8) the sill was not lowered but there is significant damage beneath the window. It is likely that the windows were untreated and when the sills rotted (both floors) it caused damage to the interior. 220 82 Figure 54. Room 203 (2021), detail of W11: blocked with plywood, frame changed out, and damage at sill. The windows on the second floor were raised with the floor level, likely when the wing was added ca. 1802. The lower portion of the window openings were infilled with stones or bricks, and the logs above were cut to allow the opening to match the new wall height (Figure 55). All of the windows in the log section likely were originally outfitted with side bucks, which are members installed vertically on either side of the opening. Those members are visible at the two first-floor windows where the logs are visible. The side bucks were attached to the adjoining logs using pegs inserted into drilled holes, to keep the truncated logs from settling and rolling out of plumb. This procedure was particularly necessary on a wall where the logs between windows have minimal reinforcement. The tops and bottoms of the side bucks are often let into the logs above and below that form the opening. The visible portion of the wall under the window in 221 83 Room 202 does not appear to have a side buck. Given the presence of the nogging, it is unclear if replacement side bucks were removed or were never installed. On the first floor, replacement side bucks are visible with the originals in exposed frames, at least on one side. Figure 55. Room 202, north window (W10) (2021); replaced window casing and lower portion of the original window opening infilled with stone when the height of the building was raised ca. 1802. 222 84 The only windows on the east elevation are on the third floor. The sashes were likely four- light casement windows matching those on the west end of the garret. Both sashes have been removed and replaced with plywood. The plywood on the south is painted as a faux window. It has trim on the outside -- unlike the west elevation -- that was installed with the siding. The trim was removed from the interior of this window. The sash north of the chimney is covered from the exterior with plywood. Siding The lapped siding featured on all four elevations relates almost exclusively to the extensive repairs that were undertaken beginning in the late 1990s. The siding boards are 1” pine units, untampered and without a lap joint, assembled with a 2” overlap and a 6” exposure. The bottom edge of the boards are accented with an unrounded faux bead. The stacking of the weatherboards adds thickness to the siding that is concealed somewhat, as the corner boards are placed over the siding, as opposed to butted together. On the south elevation, the lapped siding is all from modern work, but the wall within the main porch is sided with wide butted boards that may be considerably older. The boards are attached with cut nails and are trapped behind the pilasters. Therefore, these boards were not changed out during the recent renovations, and may date to when the front porch was erected. There are corner boards at all corners and where the original section meets the wing. These boards do not line up vertically, with the lower board shifted toward the addition and the upper board conforming just to the original building. A photograph taken before the siding was replaced indicates that the boards on the original section did not match those of the wing. The boards on the addition appear to be one to two inches wider than those on the main house. The siding in the lower right corner is pulling away from the building and suggests that this generation of siding butted against the trim board rather than extending behind it. The siding on the west elevation of the wing is the same as the south elevation (Figure 56). The boards on the addition show some weathering with a minimal loss of material. As is the case on the log section, while the condition of the siding itself is serviceable, it is not of the same quality and does not match the appearance of the original. 223 85 Figure 56. Heater House north and west elevations (2021). The north rake board is a replacement and is failing. The board is a composite, glued together from multiple strips, and the glue joints are failing due to tensions introduced by the installing the board to conform with the sag in the roof. A tapered rake board with a beaded edge was found saved in Room C-003 that may have come from any of the elevations (no original rake boards have been discovered in place) but roughly fits this location. On the second floor, the west elevation siding of the log house is in poor condition. North of the chimney, the siding has been removed from the lower roof to just below the top of the window and was replaced with vinyl siding. The section of siding just above the window is wood. From the interior (Room 302), plywood covers the area, but the vinyl siding is visible. Also visible, from the knee wall looking west, are a row of 2”x4” studs for the end wall north of the chimney, which replaced the original studs. South of the chimney the rear surface of wood siding boards is visible, suggesting that early if not original siding may 224 86 survive in this location. These boards do not seem to be tapered from top to bottom and are a consistent thickness of ½”. Although heavily eroded, a bead is still visible at the lower edge. Several of the boards are cupping and retaining water, and they have lost their nails, either from pulling through or rusting away. The siding on the north elevation is the same material used on the other elevations already described. This siding is in worse condition, however, likely from not being able to dry as thoroughly with less sun and a generally wetter environment caused by water running down the slope and slowed by the foundation. On the log section, water damage and discoloration (mold) are visible extending three feet up on the wall. The bead on the siding boards is dirty/moldy the rest of the way to the eaves. The beads on some of the boards have failed. The siding on the north wall of the 1802 section is in worse condition than the log section. There is no siding from the top of the foundation extending halfway up the doorway. Presumably the siding was removed to investigate the plastered wall surface that is beneath. The plaster is now partially covered by the plastic but the battens holding that in place have been removed, resulting in the exposure of the plaster. The plaster is likely one of the last above-ground remnants of the 1823 addition. Not currently visible is the doorway from Room 105 that is indicated in the archival photographs. Some of the north elevation corner boards and vertical trim boards are missing or displaced. The northeast corner has both trim boards in place. Where the log and frame sections meet, the trim board from the foundation to the lower eaves is missing entirely. The upper section of trim is in place from the lower to upper eaves. The lower trim board was probably removed in conjunction with the siding replacement. The northwest corner board was likely removed at the same time, but not completely. Because the corner boards overlap the siding, this piece was simply covered over, leaving it connected to the board on the west face. The siding on the east elevation is in better condition than on the other walls. This may be due to the lack of cut-outs and long periods of sun exposure to help keep the wood dry. This benefit has come at the loss of more paint than the other sides. The lower course of wood and the corner boards are rotting away from the ground level. There are two cuts in the siding extending up 18 courses from the bottom. These vertical cuts are all in line instead of staggered. This suggests that this portion of the siding was either replaced again, or, more likely, it was installed this way to provide easier access to the back of the chimney mass. In general, the rake boards and fascias are in a deteriorating state. They are all made from boards that are edged and end-glued to make up the required width and length. The boards were fitted to the irregular contours of the house, which created tensions in the wood that has exacerbated their deterioration. This combined with deteriorating paint has stressed the glue 225 87 joints to the point of failure. They are still providing some level of protection to the house given their placement over the siding or under the roofing. The house was painted white when the siding was replaced. Most of the paint is intact on the siding and trim, with the greatest loss on the north side and on horizontal surfaces. The paint is more eroding than flaking. Porches The open-sided main porch, or portico, is roughly centered over the entrance to the original structure. The base of the porch consists of a low concrete pad that rises roughly 1’ above ground level on the east and 2’ on the west, without steps. Two Tuscan columns and two roughly matching pilasters support the portico, with a pediment surmounting a frieze and cornice. The tympanum is large in proportion to the rest of the structure and is clad in flush weatherboards. The raking cornice has a rising cyma profile. The roof is covered with standing- seam metal pans (Figure 57). Figure 57. Heater House south elevation, main porch (2021). 226 88 The capitals of all four columns roughly match, with the exception that the southeast column lacks the squared block found at the top of the cornice of the other three. The base of this column is different as well, reflecting a repair, at it rests on a separate member rather than extending in one piece to the pad. The missing block in the capital may relate to resetting the repaired column. There are also missing or broken pieces from the columns. There are indentations covered with metal patches at the same height on all four columns where there once was a handrail. The smaller porch is centered on the south façade of the wing. Due to the slope in the ground surface, this entrance is much higher and there are six steps (east to west) leading to the landing. The stairs and landing are comprised of monolithic cast concrete. Two 4”x4” posts support a shed roof made of standing seam metal. The stairway creates a drainage and splash issue around the foundation and W02. The lower step is also crumbling (Figure 58). Figure 58. Heater House wing, south elevation, small porch. 227 89 The wall seems to be stable, but there are signs that the mortar is degrading. Stabilizing the original mortar with a sympathetic mortar will slow the erosion. Finishing off the opening will help protect the original foundation. This could be either filling in the opening completely or creating a cleaner opening in the wall to retain the communication between spaces. Physical Description and Condition of Interior: Cellars Three subterranean spaces occupy the footprint of the combined log and frame sections of the Heater House. The original log section contains both a crawl space (C-001) on the east and a cellar room (C-002) on the west, separated by a stone wall. The crawl space, which underlies most of Room 101, is normally inaccessible, although a portion of the area was visible to the investigators after they raised one of the temporary floor panels in Room 101. The cellar (C- 002) consists of one unfinished room, with a dirt floor and a low ceiling, accessed by an open doorway on the south and lighted by a horizontal barred window on the north. A cellar occupies the entire footprint of the wing (C-003), which has stuccoed walls, a plastered ceiling, and a dirt floor. Two window openings are located in the south wall; one doorway-sized opening is located in each of the west and north walls; an opening has been cut in the foundation to provide a direct connection with Room C-002. The wall separating C-001 and C-002 is laid in stones that match the outer foundation walls. The height of the crawl space on the east side of the wall is less than 2’, which means that the masonry acts as a retaining wall rather than a partition. The soils visible in the crawl space appear stable and there was no evidence of active water penetration. There is substantial loss of mortar throughout the length of the wall, however, as well as deflection. The retaining wall should be further investigated to determine its overall stability, but it will at least require repointing. A substantial portion of the south wall of Room C-002, extending from the juncture with the retaining wall to just east of the exterior opening, has been rebuilt using concrete blocks and bricks, suggesting that there were prior severe foundation issues. There is a substantial gap in the west wall of Room C-002 occupying the space to the south of the chimney base. The opening was presumably created to provide direct interior access between the cellars in the log section and in the wing. The foundation at the junction of the two sections has been re-laid with bricks and is stable. The stonework of the west foundation is uneven and does not appear to have had any recent interventions. The stonework seems to be stable, but there is considerable mortar loss. Stabilizing the original joints with a sympathetic mortar will slow the erosion. Finishing off the opening, by filling in voids, and repointing, would help preserve the historic fabric. Room C-002 is cluttered with construction debris and equipment (a ladder, scaffold buck, wire fencing), architectural elements, and assorted trash. The space should be cleared out, and any 228 90 architectural elements should be inspected and assessed for significance before considering disposal. Cleaning the space will improve access and allow the conditions to be more effectively monitored. Most of the issues related to Room C-003 are covered in the above sections. The major issues noted were the window and door openings, which are missing proper closures. In addition, the openings for W03, D02 and W04 all will require repairs to the stonework to reestablish the bottoms of the openings. This work should be conducted in conjunction with reinstalling the window and door frames. The plastered ceiling in Room C-003 is in relatively stable condition. Roughly 15% of the plaster surface has been lost, which includes a significant percentage of the underlying lathes. Portions of the remainder of the plaster have become detached from the lathes and should be refastened. As with Room C-002, Room C-003 is currently used to store refuse and leftover materials from previous repair efforts, along with architectural fragments removed from Rooms 101 and 102. Any fragments that were determined to have historic value were retrieved and inventoried during the current investigation, and stored in the first floor of the house. Less significant fragments such as flooring, siding boards, and those of undetermined function were left in the space. These items should be further investigated as they are removed along with the non- historic materials. First Floor: Log Section Rooms 101 and 102 have been stripped of all of their ceiling and wall coverings and of most of the woodwork for the windows and doorways. As discussed above, virtually all of the historic components of the windows and the doors have been lost, and either infilled or closed off with temporary measures. These removals were undertaken in conjunction with a series of repairs that were undertaken in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Major structural repairs that were undertaken include leveling and reinforcing the staircase, repointing the mantels, relaying the hearth in Room 101, replacing several of the lower wall logs, and replacing the floor in Room 101 with plywood sheets. The wood partition wall was removed and reinstalled (Figure 59). 229 91 Figure 59. Room 101, partition (2021): showing exposed ceiling joists, temporary plywood floor, and partially reinstalled board partition wall. Investigators examined archival photographs of the spaces taken before the interventions in conjunction with sorting and identifying the architectural fragments. This has allowed the fragments to be associated with their original locations and to be placed within the chronological development of the house. The treatments and elements that existed before the interventions have been found to date to the pre-Civil War era, and thus relate to the period of significance of the Heater House. The fragments could form the basis for restoring the interiors to that period if a restoration treatment option were to be adopted. Aside from the question of restoring the spaces to their earlier appearance, there are several relatively minor issues of structural concern. There is a small area of rot on a log under the stair carriage, which is likely associated with the nearby window leaking and water being trapped between the stair stringer and the wall. The rot appears to be inactive. The board partition between Rooms 101 and 102 was taken down and reinstalled, which likely occurred when the floor was raised. Some of the boards south of D6 are not in their proper order, and two or three 230 92 boards are missing where the partition meets the south wall. The appropriate door is located in opening D5. The paint and wallpaper are flaking in many locations. The condition of Room 102 is similar to that of Room 101, as most of the elements have been removed from the space. Only the trim for Window 3 and the trim and door for Doorway 8 remain in place. The window trim is intact except for the sill portion that associates with the wainscot. D8 is a later door with a board and batten assembly. The architrave is a simple board without any embellishments. Architectural fragments associated with this room include the fireplace mantel, the architrave for D7, and sections of wainscot, chair rail, and baseboard (Figure 60). Figure 60. Room 102 facing southwest (2021): showing exposed log walls, plywood floor patches, and architectural fragments (D7 surround, wainscot, and mantel) placed in original positions. Most of the original floor also survives and is in relatively good condition. Boards are missing or have holes in them in several locations, however, and should be replaced or repaired. A portion of the bottom of the hearth bricks in Room 102 is visible from the cellar and appear to be stable. A gap along the south wall exposing the rim joist indicates that one or two 231 93 floorboards have been removed. The rim joist has been reinforced at the point it meets the west wall. A section of floorboards spanning the width of the fireplace also has been replaced. The thinner replacement boards are laid on a plywood panel. Plywood has been laid on the south portion of the replaced flooring. Plywood also has been laid in the southeast corner of the room, where several boards are deteriorated and require replacement. The wall logs and the chinking are in generally good condition, with only two small areas of missing chinking. One void is between D7 and the chimney (west wall) and the other is near where the south wall meets the west wall above the second log. These voids may be associated with mounting the chair rail and the mantel and are a low priority in general. The board wall is in similar condition inside Room102 as it was in Room 101, with peeling and friable paints and wallpapers. The only surviving original trim is located at the south window (W3) and the northwest doorway (D8). The window trim is intact except for the sill portion that associates with the wainscot. D8 is a later door with a board and batten assembly. The architrave is a simple board without any embellishments. Doorway 7 had trim removed but it survives and could be reinstalled. This opening had been most recently converted to a closet and had different generations of left and right hung doors. The mantel has a missing element on the center block; small sections of the diagonally reeded inlay are missing as well First Floor: Wing The extensive removals of interior features and finishes that were carried out in Rooms 101 and 102 did not extend to Room 103. Alterations to the historic fabric, therefore, are largely the result of historic developments, most notably the addition of the ell in 1823 and its subsequent removal. These changes include infilling the window that had been located on the south wall and inserting both an interior and an exterior doorway in the closet (Room 105). The doorway in the south wall (D5) was converted into a window after the ell was removed, and then returned to a doorway during the period of the CCBF ownership. The other significant changes consisted of removing the exterior chimney and the fireplace on the west wall, then repairing the foundation, altering the wall frame accordingly and replacing the plaster, and infilling the opening in the floor for the hearth. It is not known for certain when the ell and the other features were removed, or whether their removals were related. With the removal of the fireplace, a brick stove flue was erected centered on the west wall, and a mantel, in two matching pieces, was installed flanking the flue (Figure 61). The mantel is no longer in place, but the elements survive. With the exception of the doors and the surround for D5, the woodwork in Rooms 103-105 is largely intact. Except for the east wall where the chair rail has been removed (but survives), the original chair rails and baseboards are completely preserved. The doorway and window surrounds are in generally good condition, with limited 232 94 areas of deterioration related to water penetration and paint failure. The two-over-two window sashes are not original but survive in place, and they could be repaired and continue to be used. Figure 61. Room 103, west wall (2021); faux fireplace mantel installed in association with stove flue. With some notable exceptions, the floorboards in Rooms 103 and 104 are largely intact and date to the 1802 construction: the floors slope slightly from east to west. The flooring in Room 105 has been replaced. A small section of flooring in the southwest corner of Room 103 near the southwest corner has deteriorated, likely due to water penetration via the window. Metal floor patches in the northwest corner of the room suggest deteriorated and/or missing fabric. The floor in Room 104 is not well supported, as it deflects perceptibly under the pressure of a person’s weight. The plaster in the room is in various stages of disrepair. Along the east wall, the plaster and lathes are a combination of original and replacement material. Most of the plaster and the chair 233 95 rail have been removed between the doorways, exposing the back of the stone chimney mass. Most of the plaster and much of the lathes on the ceiling have been lost (Figure 62). The original plaster surface on the west wall has been replaced, and most of the later finish coat plaster layer is now gone, exposing the brown coat. The plaster on the north and south walls is applied directly to the wood frame and stone nogging, and it is largely intact. Figure 62. Room 103, east wall and portion of ceiling (2021). Second Floor The wall plaster, the door and window surrounds, the chair rails and baseboards, and the flooring in all three rooms on the second floor are relatively well preserved. The ceiling plaster in Room 202 is in poor condition, however, due to water damage from a long-term leak in the roof (Figure 63). As elsewhere in the house, the window sashes have been removed and the openings have been covered with temporary measures. The staircase rises in the southeast corner of Room 201, with remnants of a handrail. The upper stairway in Room 201 was 234 96 enclosed at a later date and fitted with a framed board-and-batten door, which survives (Figure 64). The wall plaster is exposed in areas of all of the rooms, but remnants of wallpaper indicate that all of the spaces were papered at one time. The wallpaper is deteriorating throughout, as are the panted surfaces. The plaster on the wall of the stair landing between the first and second floors is in poor condition, with both plaster lathes and the log walls exposed. Figure 63. Room 202, west wall (2021): the most serious loss of plaster in the ceiling is in the northwest corner, but the plaster has separated from the lathes in numerous locations. 235 97 Figure 64. Room 201, facing east (2021): remnants of handrail, stairs leading to garret, and enclosed upper hall. The major structural issue in Room 202 is the failing plaster ceiling, which is the result of leaks from the roof and/or window in the northwest corner at the garret level. With the floors sloping to the midline of the building, the water migrated deep into the room and not just in the area of the leak. A substantial portion of the plaster ceiling is missing, and much of the surviving 236 98 surface is in perilous condition. The plaster is suspended without adequate support, as most of the keys have broken free of the seams in the lath. The floorboards throughout are in good condition, as they are made from good quality wood and have escaped the water damage seen on the other surfaces. The walls have significant cracks related to the settling of the house. It is difficult to determine how this condition has affected the chinking between the logs, but it is likely to be reasonably well preserved, held in place by the plaster and exterior siding. The plaster below the two windows in Room 202 is in poor condition, with buckled surfaces and significant loss of material. The chair rail was removed from the north wall, likely to accommodate work on the window; the piece is stored in the room. The brick hearth in front of the fireplace (Room 202) is sagging, although the undercarriage appears sound as viewed from below. Stone rubble piled in the firebox may indicate deterioration of the chimney stack at a higher level. The parged face of the firebox opening is deteriorating. The interior of the firebox was also parged, which has mostly eroded over time. The door assembly in the partition (D11) is in good condition, with a six-panel door that is similar in style to the others on this floor. When the door is opened, however, the swing is impeded as the bottom edge drags on the floor. If the wood on the bottom allows, trimming a bit off the bottom will ease the action and save damage to the floor. The knob and box lock should be removed for cleaning and repair to function properly. Room 203 escaped the extensive damage caused by the roof leak and is in generally good condition. The plaster is largely intact on the ceiling and the walls. The exceptions consist of minor damage to wall plaster where the window box was removed, and a patch made of a 4’x8’ sheet of one-half-inch plywood has been attached to the ceiling above the window. Presumably the plaster there failed, and the plywood is holding the remaining surface in place. The rest of the ceiling is in remarkably good condition compared to the rest of the ceilings in the house. There is a minor settling crack on the south wall, east of the door (D12) that will require filling and reattachment to the wall. The chair rail on the on the north wall was removed, likely when the window box was removed. If the member survives it should be reinstalled after a new window box is installed. The window box currently interrupts the chair rail and was likely lowered in error. The two doorways in the room each have fully intact surrounds and six-panel doors. Both swing freely, but heir latching systems are incomplete. The door to the hallway (D12) has a box lock which is missing the knob and has a missing panel. The closet doorway (D13) has only a slide bolt visible, and it does not connect with its keeper. 237 99 The woodwork and the floor in Room 201are in generally good condition, but there are sections of missing plaster on the ceiling and the walls, and cracks in the walls indicate that plaster layers have separated from the lathes. In addition to the plaster, the major condition issues are the broken handrail, and the missing window assemblages. Third Floor The major structural issues found on the third floor relate to the significant damage caused by the roof leak, which was described above in the assessment of exterior conditions. The floorboards in Room 302 have been removed as a consequence, and the failing plaster ceiling in Room 202 is readily visible (Figure 65). The west wall of this room has also been damaged by the water penetration. In contrast, the other rooms on this floor are in generally good condition, with a high degree of survival for the plaster surfaces, the flooring, and the woodwork. Figure 65. Room 302, facing west (2021). 238 100 In Room 301, 90% of the plaster is intact. There is an area at the landing rising from the second floor where the plaster has failed along with the lath. Plaster is applied directly to the stones of the chimney stack in this room, and the finish coat near the ceiling is failing. Small areas of plaster are failing where the ceiling meets the partition wall with Room 303, which is likely caused by a leak in the chimney. There are diagonal settling cracks on the partition wall. A small, roughly 6”x6” hole penetrates the partition. On the south knee wall there is a 2’x 2’ hole that serves as an access to the space behind the knee wall (Figure 66). Figure 66. Room 301, facing west (2021). The plaster surfaces in Room 302 are in varying stages of deterioration. Most of the ceiling is intact, except in some areas where the slope meets the knee wall towards the west end of the room. The damage is a combination of total loss of plaster and just loss of the finish coat. Much of the finish plaster on the knee walls is missing. On the north, the plaster loss on the knee wall is nearly complete, and the damage also extends to the lower portion of the sloped ceiling. The lost plaster on the south side is confined to roughly 60% of the finish coat on the 239 101 knee wall. The plaster on the west wall is missing beneath the two windows. The damage is worse on the north side, corresponding to what must have been a roof failure. A piece of plywood is nailed across where the northern window on the west wall is (or was) and it is also covered on the outside by vinyl siding. Much of the framework in this area has been replaced with modern 2”x4” studs, and there is little to no original stud frame material. In addition to the damage to the floor and the ceiling below, the extent and impact of the water penetration is evident in the roof frame behind the north knee wall. The feet and lower sections of several rafters, the associated false plate, and several joists at the northwest corner of the house are seriously deteriorated, as described in the exterior conditions assessment section Figure 67). Figure 67. Detail of deteriorated false plate and rafter foot behind knee wall in Room 302 (2021). 240 102 Recommendations: The Heater House is a rare example of an early vernacular structure that evolved along with the needs and ambitions of its occupants over a span of almost 250 years. The house retains its architectural integrity for the period from the construction of the log building in 1763 until it was a focal point of the Battle of Cedar Creek in 1864. The structure is in stable condition as the result of repairs and other interventions that were made by the CCBF over the years of their ownership. The recommendations to follow are aimed at providing guidance for preserving the structure, and are prioritized to focus on saving historic fabric, both in the short and the long term. Securing the envelope of the building is the highest priority for the immediate future, to ensure the opportunity for more ambitious approaches to treatment in the future. The steps to accomplish the first level of preservation are outlined below. Appendix A contains a table listing the specific needs and are ranked according to their priority. ❖ Life and Building Safety. The Heater House is unoccupied and generally inaccessible to the public at present. The following recommendations are intended to meet the desire to allow visitor access on a limited basis. All applicable codes should be followed even if not called out here. ➢ Install electrical service. Adding electricity has benefits and drawbacks. There is increased safety for people in the house through lighting, but there is also an increased risk of fire and those using the house should be encouraged to unplug lights and tools when not in use. ➢ Install smoke detectors. ➢ Install lightning protection. ➢ Provide fire protection. ➢ Install handrails and guardrails in compliance with building codes. If visitation is restricted to the first floor, handrails will be required at the porches, and may be required for the north doorway; a new stairway providing access to the north doorway of the wing will also require a handrail. Follow USBC 906.11 and OSHA standards. ➢ During any periods of work, OSHA guidelines and Virginia USBC Chapter 12 should be followed. ➢ The building should conform to the Virginia USBC. Chapter 9 refers specifically to historic structures. ❖ Secure the envelope. The plywood coverings for windows and doors are a good first step to securing the envelope. The work that was done can be improved upon and continued on the basement level where there are still uncovered openings. Part of securing the envelope will require lowering the ground surface around the foundation to expose window openings and divert water toward the depression and stream where the spring house was located. 241 103 ➢ Use 6 mil plastic to cover all openings until proper sashes and doors are inserted. Animals are coming and going from the building, particularly birds. Sealing openings with plastic will allow time to drive out the animals so they move somewhere else and do not expire in the house. ➢ Unsecured openings. On the basement level there are two openings that are not sealed. Closing these off will help to prevent animals from taking up residence in the house. ■ Install pressure treated frame inserts for the openings and install doors. The frames should wedge against each other to hold tight in the opening; avoid attachments to the foundation. If attachments are necessary, they should penetrate repointed mortar joints, not masonry units. Where the stonework has crumbled underneath, this should be rebuilt or the gap between the frame and existing stonework should be covered with hardware cloth to block animals but allow airflow. ■ Install simple board and batten doors or salvage exterior doors of appropriate size. ■ The small, barred window in C-002 should be removed and the opening sealed in a similar manner or with constriction cloth. ■ The cellar window frame should be protected with marine plywood from the exterior to reduce further damage. The plywood may be attached to the boards with long screws to close off the opening from the inside. ➢ Window openings. The plywood closures are mostly effective in keeping weather and animals out of the building. The downside is that they block the light and are difficult to open, limiting the air circulation. New sashes should appear consistent whether they are faux windows or salvaged. ■ Create temporary sashes using Lexan and wood frames that match the channel openings. This would allow light, and a lower sash could be raised while people are in the building to bring in fresh air. A grid pattern can be e made on the glass using vinyl tape to simulate muntin bars. Lexan panes are preferable to glass due to better impact resistance. Alternatively, architectural salvage sites may have windows that can be modified to fit the openings. If glass windows are used, shutters should be installed on the south side, first floor to add protection when the building is not in use. Salvage sashes should be in good condition with glazing intact. Any sash installed should be freshly painted prior to installation. Possible sources of salvaged materials: ● Old House Parts, Front Royal: http://www.oldhouseparts.net/ ● Caravatis, Ashland: http://www.caravatis.com/ ● Second Chance, Baltimore: https://www.secondchanceinc.org/ 242 104 ■ On the north side where there are no window channels, stops can easily be created to support the sashes. Lower sashes on the north side could have vents set into marine grade plywood with screen stapled to the interior. This would provide light from the upper sash and venting through the lower. These will be noticeable from the exterior but could be painted to minimize the appearance. ■ The third-floor windows could all be replaced with vented temporary sash. Ideally, the sashes would be hung on hinges similar to the original installation. This will allow the building to breathe, and hinges will allow in light when the building is in use. Removing the one older sash will be necessary for reglazing and it should be curated until third floor restoration is finalized to avoid damage. Windows in Room 103 can be maintained if restored. The window in the south wall will require extensive work. All sashes should be reglazed if retained. Salvage or replacement temporary sashes are also an option. ■ All of the windowsills will require repairs to fill deep crevices in the wood; they should be filled with putty and then painted with a high-quality paint. ➢ Door openings. It is desirable to have functional doors for multiple points of egress: D1, D2, and D5 will likely be the most used doors. D2 is currently the entry and the other two should be secured in a manner so they are easily opened from the interior. The boards used to secure the doors can be modified with drop-in pockets, metal or wood, instead of attached with screws. ■ The bottom of D2 should be trimmed to allow the door to swing freely. The sill should be covered with metal flashing to protect the lowest log. ■ The hinges for D1 should be attached to the frame; the hinges should match the location and hole pattern in the original hinge mortises. The bar securing the door should be easily removable from the interior in case of emergency. To make the rim lock functional, a catch should be installed on the frame and the doorknob replaced. ■ D4 should be removed and replaced with a suitable salvage door. Hinges should be installed using any original hinge as a model. ■ D5 door should be removed for eventual reinstallation at D6. A suitable exterior door should be installed using existing hinge locations in the frame. Replace the landing and stairs outside of the doorway. ■ Replace any broken panes in the transoms. ➢ Secure plastic/PVC covering over exposed plaster on the north exterior wall of Room 103. 243 105 ➢ Inspect the interior of the chimneys and the caps; repair or replace the caps as needed. ➢ When the exterior envelope is secured and animals removed, the building should be thoroughly cleaned, which should include: ■ Remove nests and other signs of animals ■ Vacuum excess dust and dirt from rooms and cover floors with Ram board (this will protect floors from traffic as well as show dust from failing elements and water if there is a leak) ■ Clear excess building material from around the foundation and cellar rooms. ❖ Stabilize materials. ➢ Scrape and paint the exterior, repair siding and trim as necessary. ➢ Repair floors: ■ Cut in new floor material matching quality and style as close as possible in Rooms 102 and 103, where flooring is degraded and or missing. In Room 102, the floorboards along the south wall should be left loose to monitor the rim joist. ■ Add supports under floor in Room 106 ■ Add support under hearth in Room 102 ➢ Secure ceiling plaster: ■ Room 202 has the worst damage. 1” insulation board is lightweight and can be used with prop sticks or zip poles to hold the plaster in place. There are not enough keys left for plaster buttons to work and the keys should be reestablished. With light support of the ceiling from below, it should be cleaned from above so the plaster can be raised as close to the lathes and joists as possible. If prop sticks are used, there should be a thin piece of plywood under the end to keep from marring the floor. ■ In Room 103, battens running under the joists can be used to sandwich the plaster in place. Screws should not be placed too close together. Add plaster buttons as needed. ➢ Secure loose wall plaster with plaster buttons. Vacuuming behind the plaster will help it to go back into place. ➢ Apply Borate treatment to exposed framing and logs: ■ Remove lowest courses of siding to check logs and treat, replace siding ■ Remove OSB in R 101 to inspect joists and treat, replace floor ❖ Restore northwest corner of the log section: ➢ Repair floor joists in Room 302. The ceiling of Room 202 may need to be opened to facilitate work. Much of the plaster is missing but lathes may need to be removed: 244 106 ■ Sister joists if the existing material has enough strength for fasteners or, ■ Replace joist extensions in kind using the same joint or replicated joint if relocated due to deteriorated material. ➢ Repair false plate/floor in knee wall of Room 302. The soffit and fascia will likely need to be removed to insert new boards. ➢ Rebuild rafter feet with either sisters or dutchmen. ➢ Replace 2”x4” studs with material matching other original studs and using the same joinery if possible. ➢ Repair window box: ■ Match dimensions to the other window in Room 302 ■ Joinery for the opening should be derived from evidence in the other window boxes. ➢ Replace siding with material matching the siding south of the chimney: ¾” pine with bead on the bottom edge. 245 107 Chapter 5. Period of Significance, Treatment Options, and Recommendations The Heater House is located on a tract that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (034-0002), the significance of which relates to the Civil War Battle of Cedar Creek and the nearby Belle Grove historic house (1797). The site has also been demonstrated to have intact archaeological resources and has the potential to yield information important in Virginia and American history. Therefore, preserving the historic character and integrity of the property is of paramount importance. Beyond the priority of preserving the historic fabric of the building, the ultimate use of the property is the primary consideration when formulating a plan for how it should be treated. The process for determining the approach to maintaining and using the property should entail a series of linked steps ultimately leading to a detailed preservation and interpretive plan. Fundamental to that process is determining how the Heater House relates to the current and presumed future mission of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation. The question of the period of significance of the historic resource is integrally related to determining the role of the property in contributing to the mission of the Foundation. Equally crucial to the process is to conduct systematic investigations of the structure to identify character defining features, determine the level of integrity in relation to its historic significance, inventory the historic fabric, and assess its physical condition. With those elements in hand, the organization may determine the most appropriate option for treating the historic resource, and plan for its preservation. Statement and Period of Significance: The Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove National Register nomination form was prepared in 1969, when the documentation for NR listing was much less comprehensive than is currently the standard. In addition, the detailed system of applying criteria for assigning historic importance and determining period of significance was not in place. The assessment of the significance of the historic resources for the purposes of the NR form focused exclusively on the history and architecture of the Belle Grove historic house, and the event of the Battle of Cedar Creek, which was fought on and around the property on 19 October 1864. Neither the role of the Heater House in the battle, nor its history or architectural character, were addressed. In addition to its location at the center of the fighting during the battle, the Heater House served as the residential core of a family farm for more than 200 years. The house is an evolved vernacular structure, consisting of a two-story main block comprised of log walls, with a one- story frame wing. The results of dendrochronological testing indicate that the log structure was erected in 1763, with the wing added in 1802. The dendrochronology findings combined with other physical evidence indicates that a gable-roofed ell, which is no longer extant, had been added to the north side of the wing in 1823. A structure that served as a combination spring 246 108 house and dairy that was located within 50 feet to the west of the wing survived until 1990. Other farm buildings, principally including a substantial barn located some distance to the north, are known from various sources to have existed but do not survive. Preliminary excavations conducted in the 1990s revealed substantial intact features and deposits of artifacts testifying to the integrity and significance of the archaeological remains. The Heater House is a rare example of an early vernacular log farmhouse, which underwent a series of alterations over the succeeding decades that exemplify local and regional trends in the reorganization and segmentation of functional spaces in domestic households. The structure started as a two-story, log house with a traditional plan consisting of two heated rooms on the first floor serving as the hall and parlor, with bed chambers above. In 1802 the wing was added to accommodate a specialized dining function, and the log structure was raised, and the interior was upgraded to match the new construction. On the exterior, both sections of the house were covered with horizontal beaded weatherboards, the fenestration and the cornice details were regularized, and the chimneys were likely made uniform. Two porches on the façade are not original but likely are similar in character to the previous iterations. Although the chimney and the fireplace in the wing were later removed and replaced with a flue for a stove, the current exterior appearance is remarkably faithful to the character of the house at it appeared ca. 1802- 1823. On the interior, the 1802 wing is well preserved, and the second floor of the log section retains its character defining features dating to renovations carried out in the 1840s. When applying current criteria for significance to the Heater House resource specifically, it is almost certain to be found eligible under the following: Criterion A – Property is associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history. The Heater House was a focal point of the intense fighting that occurred during the Battle of Cedar Creek during the American Civil War. Criterion C – Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. The Heater House is a rare, well-preserved example of an early vernacular farmhouse, which retains its historic integrity for the period when it was enlarged and upgraded in 1802-1823; important historic fabric survives on the upper floors of the log section that date to ca. 1843. Criterion D -- Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 247 109 Archaeological excavations have revealed intact features and artifact deposits related to the first century of the occupation of the site; the location of the early spring house/dairy is well documented. For the purposes of National Register consideration, the period of significance is the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for listing. Period of significance usually begins with the date when significant activities or events began giving the property its historic significance; this is often a date of construction. Under Criterion A, the period of significance for the Heater House and the associated property would be the date of the Battle of Cedar Creek, 19 October 1864. Under Criterion C, the period of significance for the Heater House would begin with the date of the first period of construction and span the years of subsequent development for which ample evidence exists, and for which the historic integrity is demonstrable: 1763-1843. The first period of construction has been dendro-dated to 1763, which makes the structure one of the earliest documented log buildings in Virginia. A wing was added in 1802, and the configuration of the building at that time is largely intact. A second addition to the house was erected in 1823, but that structure no longer survives. Alterations to the interior that were made in the 1820s-40s are well preserved. Under Criterion D, the period of significance spans the years beginning with the construction of the Heater House in 1763, ending with the Battle of Cedar Creek, in 1864. Historic Integrity: Historic integrity is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s prehistoric or historic period. The property must possess historic integrity for all periods of significance, and the overall sense of past time and place must be evident. Historic integrity is the composite of seven qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The Heater House meets all seven considerations of integrity, and amply illustrates the significant aspects of its history. There is little doubt that the structure would be easily recognizable by previous occupants and visitors. • The house retains its historic setting within a rolling open landscape bounded by Cedar Creek to the west, the hamlet of Middletown on the north, the Valley Pike to the east, and the historic boundary with the Belle Grove property on the south. • The house retains its design and overall character as an evolved farmhouse spanning the period 1763-1823, with interior furnishings dating to the 1820s-40s. • The structure is well preserved, with a high percentage of surviving original material. 248 110 • The structure reflects the building practices and workmanship of its periods of construction. Secretary of the Interior Standards Treatment Options : The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties promote historic preservation best practices and are intended to help protect our nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. Together, they provide a framework and guidance for decision-making about work or changes to a historic property. Federal agencies use the Standards and Guidelines in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities. State and local officials use them in reviewing both Federal and nonfederal rehabilitation proposals. The Standards offer four distinct approaches to the treatment of historic properties -- preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction -- with accompanying guidelines for each. One set of standards will apply to a property undergoing treatment, depending upon the property's significance, existing physical condition, the extent of documentation available and interpretive goals, when applicable. In each case, the Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project. Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Considering Treatment Options: Selection of the appropriate treatment option for the Heater House must be weighed against the proposed uses of the property. Preservation is the most conservative approach, as it generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction, and it is the preferred option if the ultimate use of the resource has not yet been determined. Practically speaking, few organizations have the 249 111 luxury to adopt a pure preservation standard for the long term, as historic structures almost always must be adapted for either private or public benefit, but measures to preserve the resource necessarily are given the highest priority. Under the Rehabilitation standard, a property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The plan for adaptive reuse must be carefully considered, to ensure that the historic character of the property will be retained and preserved, and the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. At a minimum, accessibility and life safety standards must be achieved and local code requirements satisfied. For the Heater House, the most likely appropriate adaptive uses would include opening the structure to the public on a limited basis for guided tours. Providing access to the upper floors will be a challenge, however, and may not be allowable given local code requirements. At a minimum, new steps will need to be installed at two or more access point, and safety lighting will be required. In any case, the building first will require a variety of repairs to ensure its preservation. The viability of the structure for touring is currently further compromised by the condition of the two rooms on the first floor in the log section, as they were virtually stripped of all fittings and finishes during the 2000s repairs. Restoration is a much more ambitious option, where a specific time period is selected as the focus of interpretation. With reference to the property’s periods of significance, the target for restoration could be either October 19, 1864, corresponding with the Battle of Cedar Creek, or 1802, when the house was expanded. The findings of the current investigations have revealed detailed evidence for the appearance of the first-floor rooms in the log structure prior to the removals in the 2000s, and confirms that the appearance reflected alterations that had been undertaken in the years prior to the Civil War. With the evidence at hand, it would be possible to restore the rooms to their antebellum appearance, likely reflecting their character at the time of the battle. Additional impediments to interpreting the structure to either 1802 or 1864 consist of the loss of important exterior structural elements. The ell that was added to the north wall of the 1802 wing in 1823 does not survive, nor does the chimney and fireplace that existed on the west wall of the wing. It is not certain when those features were removed, but physical evidence points to the chimney’s removal soon after the Civil War. While the loss of the chimney represents a significant alteration to the 1802 structure, the overall character of the building at that time remains largely intact. If the ell was in existence during the battle, its absence would be a more significant impediment in selecting the year 1864 as the period of interpretation. Archaeological excavations have the potential to determine whether the ell survived to that date. 250 112 Reconstruction is the most problematic treatment option, as it is used to depict vanished or non- surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. The work will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. Both the 1823 ell and the chimney/fireplace for the 1802 wing are possible candidates for reconstruction, but only if compelling archaeological evidence could be found to inform their design. The spring house, which survived until ca. 1990, is another candidate for reconstruction given the availability of numerous photographic depictions, which could be augmented by archaeological excavations. Other structures and features of the property that are known to have existed based on documentary references are more problematic candidates for reconstruction. Recommendations: The recently completed investigations of the structure’s historic fabric provide the basis for a series of recommendations included herein. The highest priority recommendations include securing the building envelope against weather and unwanted incursions, making repairs to deteriorated elements, and addressing questions of life safety and accessibility. Additional physical investigations are recommended as well, including archaeological excavations, specialized analyses of painted surfaces, and more detailed assessments of currently unavailable structural elements. Pending final determination of the appropriate treatment option for the property, several of the highest priority interventions should be undertaken in the near future, as they are crucial to preserving the integrity of the house for both the short and long term. In most instances, the recommended interventions are envisioned as temporary and reversible, pending the final determination of the overall treatment option. For a complete list of recommendations, see Chapter 4 and Addendum 1. Highest Priority • Provide safe access to the structure; remove unsafe stairs and landing on north side of wing; support/replace sections of unsafe flooring • Install temporary, weather-tight windows and doors; secure building envelope against weather and unwanted incursions (to include closing openings in foundation leading into cellars, removing barred window frame in cellar window and replacing with temporary barrier) • Establish system to promote drainage away from the building • Remove exterior siding in selected areas to investigate underlying conditions – reinstall siding after conclusion of investigations • Stabilize historic fabric; of particular concern is second floor plaster 251 113 • Repair or replace deteriorated structural elements; particular concern is NW roof frame • Install electrical service; provide lighting for life safety • Remove trash, clean filth, and implement cyclical schedule of inspection and maintenance • Architectural fragments: curate architectural fragments related to 2000s repairs; store properly for long term preservation High Priority • Select overall treatment option; prepare preservation and interpretation concept plan • Archaeology: conduct excavations to reveal footprint of chimney on west wall of the 1802 wing; determine the character of the floor and other features in the wing cellar; reveal the footprint of the 1823 ell; investigate the existence of an early addition; expose evidence for earlier porches • Paint Analysis: systematically sample woodwork throughout to reveal the character of finishes and to test current interpretations of relative chronology Medium Priority • Restore window and doorway architraves, window sashes, doors, and other exterior elements either in kind or to historic precedents according to the period of significance • Remove and replace concrete steps and landing for wing porch • Remove and replace concrete landing for main porch • Replace exterior siding with historically appropriate design Low Priority • Update National Register nomination form 252 114 Appendix A. Architectural Fragments Inventory Room 101: Stair hall wall boards (10 pieces), in ascending order 101.1.A First (lowest) board W/mortise for door header - stair ghost – green paint (all) 101.1.B Second board (1 of 2 fragments) Stair ghost 101.1.C Second board (2 of 2 fragments) Stair ghost 101.1.D Third board Stair ghost 101.1.E Fourth board Stair ghost 101.1.F Fifth board (1 of 2 fragments) Stair ghost 101.1.G Fifth board (2 of 2 fragments) Stair ghost 101.1.H Sixth board Stair ghost – stringer ghost 101.1.I Seventh board Stair ghost – stringer ghost 101.1.J Eighth board Stair ghost – stringer ghost – cut out Chimneypiece/wall (16 pieces), from left to right 101.2.A Vertical board, closet opening (left) – split (2) Architrave ghost – baseboard ghost - lath ghosts 101.2.B Vertical board, above closet Bead (two sides) – architrave ghost - lath ghosts 101.2.C Vertical board, above closet Bead – architrave ghost - lath ghosts 101.2.D Vertical board, closet opening (right) Bead – architrave ghost – baseboard ghost - lath ghosts - chair rail ghost 101.2.E Closet header Green paint 101.2.F Closet architrave – two-step - top Green paint 101.2.G Closet architrave – two-step - right Green paint 101.2.H Vertical board W/attached pilaster Bead - baseboard ghost – lath ghosts – chair rail ghost; Volutes – baseboard – rail – cornice - green paint 101.2.I Mantel – left panel (fragment) Baseboard – green paint 101.2.J Mantel – left and top panel - shelf Green paint 101.2.K Mantel – right pilaster Volutes – rail - ghosts of cornice & baseboard – green paint 253 115 101.2.L Mantel crown Green paint 101.2.M Rail below crown Green paint 101.2.N Rail above mantel shelf Green paint 101.2.O Fireplace cover (20C) Green paint 101.2.P Closet door – 6 panel – butt hinges Green paint East partition wall (22 pieces), from left to right 101.3.A Chair rail – facing west White paint 101.3.B Chair rail – facing east Green paint 101.3.C Baseboard – facing west White paint 101.3.D Baseboard – facing east Green paint 101.3.E Doorway (1) (partition) - header Green paint 101.3.F Doorway (1) north architrave, facing west White paint 101.3.G Doorway (1) door frame (3 sides) Green paint 101.3.H Doorway (1) south architrave, facing west White paint 101.3.I Chair rail – facing east Green paint 101.3.J Wainscot – facing east Green paint 101.3.K Wainscot – facing east Green paint 101.3.L Baseboard – facing east Green paint 101.3.M Doorway (2) (stair) – architrave, west side (3 sides) White paint 101.3.N Doorway (2) – header, backband – facing east Green paint 101.3.O Doorway (2) – post. Backbands (2) Green paint 101.3.P Doorway (2) – backband - east Green paint 101.3.Q Doorway (1) – plinth - west White paint 101.3.R Doorway (2) – plinth - west White paint 101.3.S Doorway (2) – door 6 panel – white paint – butt hinges 101.3.T Doorway (1) – architrave top – facing east Green paint 101.3.U Doorway (1) – architrave north – facing east Green paint 101.3.V Doorway (1) – architrave south – facing east Green paint Doorway 2 (1 piece) 101.4.A Architrave – west side Two-step - transom evidence – white paint 254 116 Doorway 1 (2 pieces) 101.5.A Architrave – east side Two-step – transom evidence – white paint 101.5.B Architrave – west side Two-step – transom evidence – white paint Doorway 6 (2 pieces) 101.6.A Architrave – north side Two-step 101.6.B Architrave - top Two-step Plank wall (4 pieces) – exact origin unknown, possibly part of center passage partition 101.7.A Board (long) Unpainted – lath ghosts 101.7.B Board (long) Unpainted – lath ghosts 101.7.C Board (long) Unpainted – lath ghosts 101.7.D Board (short) Unpainted – lath ghosts Existing partition wall – loose plank (1 piece) 101.8.A Loose plank Matches boards in reinstalled wall Stair hall window (W1) (1 piece) 101.9.A Backband – east side Ovolo profile Miscellaneous pieces, likely Room 101 (7 pieces) 101.10.A Baseboard – 5” tall White paint 101.10.B Backband – likely D6 – south side 101.10.C Backband - side 101.10.D Backband - top 101.10.E Chair rail – 18” 101.10.F Architrave, jack mitre - broken 101.10.G Baseboard – 30” 255 117 Room 102: Mantel (1 piece) 102.1.A Mantel Complete except for center block patera Wall treatments (5 pieces) 102.2.A Chair rail North wall 102.2.B Wainscot board 1 North wall 102.2.C Wainscot board 2 North wall 102.2.D Baseboard North wall 102.2.E Chair rail West wall Wall treatments (2 pieces) 102.3.A Chair rail South wall 102.3.B Wainscot boards (2) - joined South wall Partition wall (2 pieces) 102.4.A Chair rail cap White paint 102.4.B Base board White paint Doorway 7 (3 pieces) 102.5.A Architrave - top Two-step - white paint 102.5.B Architrave - left Two-step – white paint 102.5.C Architrave - right Two-ste- - white paint Room 103: Faux mantel, west wall (2 pieces) 103.1.A Mantel – left side 103.1.B Mantel – right side 256 118 Appendix B. Resumes of Contributors Maral S. Kalbian, LLC Architectural Historian Historic Preservation Consultant P. O. Box 468 Berryville, Virginia 22611 (540) 955-1231 I. EDUCATION AND DEGREES The University of Virginia: Charlottesville, Virginia Master of Architectural History and Certificate in Historic Preservation, 1988 Smith College: Northampton, Massachusetts Bachelor of Arts, Art History; Cum Laude, 1984 II. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1988-Present Maral S. Kalbian, LLC, Preservation Consultant: Berryville, Virginia - An historic preservation specialist whose primary tasks consist of research, evaluation, and documentation of historic architecture. This work includes the organization and completion of architectural history and cultural inventories, preparation of survey reports, writing of individual and historic district nominations for the National Register of Historic Places, writing of walking/driving tours, formulation of local historic district ordinances, implementation of historic districts, des ign recommendations for historic districts, 106 compliance projects, Historic Preservation Certification for rehabilitation tax credits, historic structures reports, and extensive experience using the state’s digital database for historic properties. Exten sively lectured on topics related to historic preservation throughout the region and has earned numerous honors. During her career, she has completed more than 40 historic district and 35 individual National Register nominations, and 30 tax credit applications. Certified by the Virginia Department of Transportation as a DBE for federal projects and a WBE for state projects, as well as meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as a Historian and an Architectural Historian. Fall 1988 Associate Professor: NOVA, Manassas Campus – Instructor of architectural history. Spring 1988 Archaeological Assistant: Monticello, Virginia - Participated in the excavation of the ha-ha surrounding the main house at Monticello. Summer 1982 Archaeological Assistant: Kourion, Cyprus - Performed on-site digging of Roman and Greek ruins of the Temple of Apollo Hylates. Participated in laboratory research, restoration of votive figurines, and documentation of site plans and stratigraphy sections. January 1982 Curatorial Assistant: Textile Museum, Washington, D. C. - Responsible for the display of an 257 119 exhibit of traditional crafts of Saudi Arabia that included over 300 artifacts. Catalogued and evaluated over 100 artifacts in the museum's permanent collection. III. HISTORIC PRESERVATION: SELECTED PROJECTS Clarke County, Virginia: 1987-present Conducted an architectural survey of 1,000 historic properties, produced three historic context reports, presented numerous slide lectures on the historic resources o f the county, and evaluated fifty properties as possibly eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Consultant for 30 years to the Clarke County Historic Preservation Commission, which deals with a variety of issues concerning historic properties and design review in the county's two local historic district. Co-authored design criteria for access corridors into historic areas of the county. Completed an African-American Historic Overview of the county that resulted in the identificati on and documentation of 20 African-American communities. Solely responsible for the survey, research, and writing of a National Register Nomination for the Greenway Historic District, a rural historic district located in southwest Clarke County that encomp asses an area of approximately 19,000 acres. Successfully completed the nomination of the approximately 10,000 -acre Long Marsh Run Rural Historic District located in northern Clarke County, the Chapel Rural Historic District of 14,000 acres in central Clarke, the 3,000-acre Bear’s Den Rural Historic District along the Blue Ridge in both Clarke and Loudoun counties, as well as Historic Districts in the communities of Boyce, Millwood, and Josephine City. Fauquier County, Virginia: 2001-2017 Conducted a survey of 230 architectural resources in the rural county as well as identified 21 potential Historic Districts. Contracted with the county to complete nominations on 18 districts including Ashville, Atoka, Bristersburg, Calverton, Catlett, Casanova, Delaplane, Hume, Markham, Marshall, Morgantown, New Baltimore, Paris, The Plains, Rectortown, Remington, Midland, and Sumerduck. City of Charlottesville, Virginia: 2007-Present Completed under a multi-year contract with the Department of Neighborhood Planning and Development to document and evaluate five local historic districts and four National Register Historic Districts including the Fifeville and Tonsler Neighborhoods Historic District, the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Historic District, and the Fry’s Spring Historic District. Completed a Preliminary Information Form on the Rose Hill Historic District and a National Register Nomination for Jackson P. Burley School. Unison Battlefield Historic District: Loudoun and Fauquier Counties, Virginia: 2010 -2011 Worked with archaeologists and Civil War Historians to investigate and document this pristine and Nationally-significant, 8,000-acre battlefield that resulted in President Lincoln relieving Gen. George McClellan in November 1862. The district was listed in the National Register in 2011. Middleburg, Virginia: 2010 Updated architectural data for 155 properties in the Middleburg Historic District, located in Loudoun County. Co-authored a comprehensive walking tour highlighting 52 individual properties within the town’s historic district. Documented 55 properties within the Ridge View Subdivision and evaluated them as to National Register eligibility. Traffic Calming along US Route 50: Loudoun and Fauquier Counties, Virginia: 2002 Architectural Historian for the Route 50 Traffic Calming Measures Project as well as for the Cultural Resources Overview of the Western Transportation Corridor Study. 258 120 Frederick County, Virginia: 1988-present Responsible for documenting 1,900 historic properties over a four-year period and writing three survey reports. For 28 years, I have consulted to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), which responds to issues concerning historic properties, and aided the county in drafting their Historic Overlay Regulations. Rehabilitation Tax Credit Applications: Successfully completed tax credit application forms for both Federal and Virginia State rehabilitation tax credits for multiple projects. Several have involved the syndication of tax credits. A partial list includes: Clarke County Courthouse, Josephine School Community Museum, Berryville Pharmacy Apartments, and the Hobert and Nicholson houses in Berryville; the Old Town Events Center, the Adam Bowers House, the Lewis Jones Knitting Mill, the Charles Brent House, the Stryker House, the Adam Kurtz Residence, the Coca-Cola Bottling Works, and the George Washington Hotel in Winchester; the Joseph Carr House and Brick House in Upperville; Unison Store and Elton in Unison; the Waterford School in Waterford; the Luck House in Middleburg; the Lucy Simms School and the Whitesel Brothers Building in Harrisonburg; Chapel Hill, Emmanuel Chapel, and The Cliff in Clarke County; The Tabernacle in Purcellville; Carter House in Charlottesville; and the Laurel Brigade Inn in Leesburg. Other National Register of Historic Places Nomination Forms: Have successfully completed National Register Nomination forms for these properties and districts: Blandy Experimental Farm, Millwood Colored School, Boyce Historic District, Millwood Commercial Historic District, Bethel Church, Guilford, Josephine City School, Long Meadow, Chapel Hill Farm, Soldier’s Rest, and Norwood in Clarke County; Fair Mount, Coca– Cola Bottling Works, and Hawthorne in Winchester; Riverside, Rose Hill, Mountain Home, and Riverton Historic District in Warren County; Shenandoah Historic District in Page County; Edinburg Historic District in Shenandoah County; Huntland and the historic districts of Unison, Round Hill, and Paeonian Springs in Loudoun County; The Purcellville Train Station and The Tabernacle in Purcellville; Sunrise, Crumley-Lynn-Lodge House, Long Meadows, and the Newtown/Stephensburg Historic District in Frederick County; Lucy Simms School in Harrisonburg; Preston Court Apartments in Charlottesville; Kinsale Historic District, in Westmoreland County; and Capon Springs Historic District in Hampshire County, WV. Historic Structures Reports: Lead member of a team of professionals on completing a multi-year, two-phase Historic Structure Report on Clermont, an 18th-century plantation in Clarke County. Worked as an architectural historian on a preliminary HSR for Glen Burnie and Rose Hill, 1 8th-century estates in Frederick County, VA; project leader for a Phase 1 HSR on Happy Retreat, the 18 th-century home of Charles Washington in Charles Town, WV; completed an HSR on Building 249 at Fort Myer, VA (2008); and the historic context for Fort Bowman in Shenandoah County. Dam Demolitions: Moore’s Creek (Charlottesville, VA) and Jordan’s Point (Lexington, VA) As part of Section 106 mitigation, documented the demolition of the two historic dams in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in 2017 and 2019. Proposed Improvements to US 340: Jefferson County, West Virginia Conducted a survey of architectural resources along proposed alternates for the improvement of this road. Co-authored a Phase I and Phase II survey report and assessment, which included the identification of two potential rural historic districts. 259 121 Warren County, Virginia Conducted a comprehensive reconnaissance-level survey of 475 of the county's historic sites and structures, identified properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, researched the county's history, created a scripted slide show about the county's historic resources, and authored a survey report summarizing the project. Completed the Rockland Rural Historic District (10,000 acres) in northern Warren County in 2015. Shenandoah County, Virginia Acted as the co-project manager for a Phase I survey of historic sites and structures in Shenandoah County. The project resulted in the survey of over 350 structures and communities in the county. Presented several slide shows concerning the historic resources of the county. Route 37 Architectural Survey Report: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared a Phase I Section 106 survey report on the architectural resources impacted by the proposed Route 37 corridors. This included the evaluation of over 85 properties. Route 123 (Ox Road) Survey Report: Fairfax County, Virginia Surveyed and evaluated the potential effects of road improvements on historic properties along this 10-mile corridor. Ranson, West Virginia Conducted a reconnaissance-level survey and identified the boundaries and contributing structures for a National Register Historic District. Prince William County, Virginia Advised the county Architectural Review Board on historic preservation issues including ones related to design. Documented several historic properties that were to be demolished. Strasburg, Virginia Identified and analyzed historic resources in this town located along Route 11 and developed a series of recommendations for the preservation and economic revitalization of its downtown area. IV. Publications “Clarke County, VA” Authored this history of Clarke County using 213 old photographs and images. Part of The Images of America series published by Arcadia Books, September 2011. “Frederick County: History Through Architecture” An overview of the architectural history of Frederick County based on fieldwork conducted in the late 1980s. Published by the Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society in September 1999. “Buildings of Virginia: Valley, South, and West” Preparation of catalog entries of architectural resources in Clarke and Frederick counties and the City of Winchester for this volume that is part of the “Buildings of the United States” series sponsored by the Society of Architectural Historians and published by the University of Virginia Press in December 2014. “Destination Middleburg: A Walking Tour Into the Past” 260 122 Co-authored this 48-page booklet on the history and architecture of Middleburg in 2001. V. Honorary and Professional Awards Thomas C. Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia- Candidate Training Program, 2015 Clarke County Historic Preservation Commission, Certificate of Merit, 2013, 2015 Carroll H. Henkel Award, Preservation of Historic Winchester, Inc., 2009 Excellence in Preservation Award, Shenandoah Preservation League, 2001 Stewart Bell, Jr. Award, Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, 2000 Ben Belchic Award, Preservation of Historic Winchester, Inc., 1991, 2000 Artie Award, Shenandoah Arts Council, 1999 Governor’s State Graduate Fellow, University of Virginia, 1985-1987 Kaprelian Scholarship, University of Virginia, 1985-1987 VI. Community Service Clarke County Library Advisory Council, Chairman Mount Hebron Cemetery – Board of Managers Belle Grove (National Trust Property) – Board of Trustees (past) Berryville Main Street – Board of Directors (past) Clarke County Historical Association Board (past) 261 123 Dennis J. Pogue, PhD, RPA, LLC Education: PhD The American University, Washington, DC, 1997. Anthropology with an emphasis in historical archaeology. Dissertation: Culture Change Along the Tobacco Coast: 1670-1720. MA The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1981. American studies with an emphasis in museum studies and material culture; tool specialization in historical archaeology. Thesis: The Trees Point Pottery, Charles City County, Virginia: An Archaeological Examination. BA The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 1975. History with an emphasis in pre-1900 American social history and culture; included 15 credit hours in secondary education. Participated in the 61st annual Attingham Summer School for the Study of Historic Houses and Collections; England, three weeks, July 2012. Professional Employment: Interim Director (2018-2021), Adjunct Associate Professor, Historic Preservation Program in the School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, University of Maryland, College Park. Taught the following courses: Introduction to Historic Preservation, Conservation of Historic Places, Historical Research Methods, American Vernacular Architecture, Archaeology and Preservation, Final Seminar in Historic Preservation, Cultural Landscapes of Yorkshire, and Historic Preservation Studio (graduate); Honors Seminar: Colonial Chesapeake (undergraduate). Spring 2013 to the present, ongoing. Vice President of Mount Vernon, for Preservation, Mount Vernon Estate, Museum & Gardens, Mount Vernon, VA, April 1999 to September 2012. Served as a member of the senior management team, charged with overseeing all preservation activities on the Mount Vernon estate, including maintaining the historic structures, preparing historic structure reports, designing and implementing historic restorations/reconstructions, and overseeing the archaeological research program. Major projects included restoring several rooms in the mansion; planning and directing the reconstruction of three 18th- century structures: the blacksmith shop, the whiskey distillery, and the dung repository; restoring the replicated 18th-century gristmill; fully restoring two 18th-century outbuildings; fully restoring two 19th-century outbuildings; constructing a replica slave cabin; and restoring the 18th century upper garden. Directly oversaw four full-time professional staff of the preservation department. Director of Restoration, Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens, Mount Vernon, VA, August 1994 to April 1999. Oversaw the activities of the restoration department, charged with conducting archaeological research, architectural restoration and conservation, and coordinating 262 124 maintenance of all historic buildings. Served as manager of the George Washington: Pioneer Farmer treading barn reconstruction project, completed September 1996. Other major projects included: directing research and physical investigations of the servants’ hall (1775) to prepare an historic structure report, and overseeing its restoration; planning and directing installation of the first HVAC system for the Mount Vernon mansion and three other buildings; planning and then directing installation of a perimeter drain around the Mount Vernon mansion; developing a restoration plan for the Mount Vernon fruit garden and nursery. Chief Archaeologist, Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens, Mount Vernon, VA, July 1987 to August 1994. Directed all aspects of the permanent archaeology program, including intensive excavations at the site of the blacksmith shop, the fruit garden and nursery, a slave quarter, the dung repository, and an extensive kitchen midden. Developed a public archaeology program, including interpreting the current excavations via tours and signs, special group tours, exhibits, and brochures and other publications. Southern Maryland Regional Archaeologist, Maryland Historical Trust, October 1983 to June 1987. Served as director of research for the Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, as well as Southern Maryland regional representative for the state historic preservation program. Conducted archaeological excavations and surveys, prepared and reviewed project scopes of work, performed federal and state compliance activities, prepared archaeological site inventory forms and National Register nominations, and worked with both the public and private sectors on behalf of the protection of archaeological resources. In addition, directed all historical and archaeological research relating to Patterson Park and served as museum registrar and member of exhibits development committee. Professional Practice: Dennis J. Pogue, LLC, September 2012 to the present; specializing in archaeology, architecture, historic preservation, and museum services throughout the Middle Atlantic region. Past projects include participating as a team member in preparing historic structure reports for numerous properties in Virginia and Maryland; conducting investigation and documentation of historic structures for interpretive purposes; preparing building condition assessments; assessing proposed alterations to historic buildings in reference to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation; providing preservation services to state and local governments, historical organizations, and private individuals. Publications (selected): Books and Monographs: 2011 Founding Spirits: George Washington and the Beginnings of the American Whiskey Industry. Buena Vista, Virginia: Harbour Books. 263 125 2005 George Washington’s Gristmill at Mount Vernon. MVLA. With one co- author. 1997 Culture Change along the Tobacco Coast: 1670-1720. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The American University, Washington, DC. 1993 The Historical Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia. Richmond, Virginia: Dietz Press. Co-editor with T. Reinhart. Chapters in Books: 2017 The Archaeology of Virginia’s Long Seventeenth Century, 1550-1720. In The Historical Archaeology of Virginia, from Initial Settlement to the Present: Overview and New Directions. Clarence R. Geier, ed. Pp. 5-30. Richmond: Archeological Society of Virginia. 2012 Entrepreneur. In A Companion to George Washington. Edward G. Lengel, ed. Pp. 70-85. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell. Articles in Journals: 2019 The Rossborough Inn on the University of Maryland Campus: Two Centuries of Change. Maryland Historical Magazine 114(2):153-186. With four co- authors. 2017 The Architecture of John Mottrom’s Coan Hall. The Bulletin of the Northumberland County Historical Society 54:5-18. With two co-authors Technical Reports (selected): 2017 Clermont Slave Quarter After Action Report: Historic Fabric. Prepared for the Clermont Trust. With K. Livingston. 2017 Chapter 3: Architectural Description, and Chapter 4: Architectural Development. In Sully Historic Structure Report. Prepared for the Fairfax County Park Authority, Fairfax, Virginia. 2016 Phase I of a Historic Structure Report, Happy Retreat, Charlestown, WVA, prepared for the Friends of Happy Retreat. With M. Kalbian. 2016 Physical Investigation and Documentation of the Fairfax-Moore-Montague Kitchen. Prepared for the property owners and for the Alexandria Board of Architectural Review. 2016 Sanford-Burgess Property, Stafford County, Virginia: Condition Assessment and Recommendations for Preservation Services. Prepared for the Stafford County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors. 264 126 David L. Weir - Weir Woodworks, LLC 116 Gardner Drive Annapolis, MD 21403 301/481-5124 Professional Experience: June 2020-Present Weir Woodworks ■ Flint Farm (Lincoln, MA) Porch repair and barn door repair ■ ELY Inc. team member - Deinstallation of 3 architectural pieces on display at the Baltimore Museum of Art ■ Clifton Kitchen Quarter (Warrenton, VA) window and door restoration ■ Chris Mills Conservation Services team member - Drawing Room restoration prep work at Cloverfields, (Queenstown, MD) ■ Sands House (Annapolis, MD) door adjustments ■ Heater House (Middletown, VA) Documentation of building with Dennis Pogue PhD - UMD Director of Historic Preservation Program June 2015-June 2020 Senior Preservation Carpenter - George Washington’s Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon, Virginia (2019 Promotion) ■ Responsibilities: • Prepared conditions assessments of historic structures • Performed general maintenance of structures in the historic area • Developed building maintenance strategies • Coordinated with other departments to maintain historic core and reconstructed buildings • Engaged with Mount Vernon visitors and responded to historic structures questions • Managerial duties: Assigned tasks and supervised junior preservation carpenter and interns • Technology skills: Carpentry tools, digital photography, and Google tools for data collection and collaboration among colleagues • Aided in the installation of a Marioff Hi-Fog fire-suppression misting system in the main house and other historic area buildings ■ Major Projects: 265 127 • Two-week professional development at Monticello with conservator, Andy Compton, repairing composition ornament in the central parlor using modern and reversible materials • Repaired and restored the wood siding on the mansion’s entire west front in collaboration with painting contractors • Repaired the central passage door frontispiece taking detailed measurements to develop drawings • Recreated missing elements using a combination of power and hand tools • Supervised interns from the American College of the Building Arts • Worked with the fire suppression project and the process of returning the mansion to its pre-construction state • Served as the preservation liaison to the fire suppression team installing new system in the mansion • Developed strategies for in situ repair of structural elements • Applied knowledge of composites (fiberglass) to reinforce a heavily deteriorated top plate to avoid removal and compromise of the structure • Evaluated and restored the North Garden House • Conducted design, setup, data collection, and troubleshooting of the technology for a study on rehydrating wood to reduce warping • Restored the east and west exterior walls of the North Dependency • Evaluated and restored the wood floor in the mansion’s central passageway • Restored the Necessary adjacent to the gardens and restored the west and south exterior walls of the kitchen including inserting new sill plates • Reconstructed part of the fence line using historic methods such as broad axing and adzing posts • Consulted and helped prep materials for the construction of the new Boat Shed • Prepared wall and attic cavities for fire suppression • Restored the Mount Vernon cupola • Stabilized the salt and overseer’s houses • Collaborated with supervising preservation carpenter to determine structural needs of the cupola and plan of action • Removed pieces that were not able to be preserved from the structure and replaced with historically accurate materials • Created custom replacement pieces to match the materials removed from historic structures • Stripped paint using methods to preserve the wood underneath 2013 - 2015 Self employed working on boats and small yacht repair and delivery, private carpentry jobs 266 128 ■ Designed and constructed custom workshop spaces inside of shipping containers for sailboat racing programs ■ Assessed and resolved fiberglass, structural, and mechanical problems on boats ■ Made numerous yacht deliveries between the Chesapeake Bay and St. Thomas ■ Crewed on transatlantic crossing from Cape Verde Islands to St. Thomas ■ Helped prepare a yacht for a transatlantic crossing in Mallorca and then delivered to Tenerife ■ Worked with a captain on a sailing yacht doing maintenance and assisting him and the owners on sailing trips 2009 - 2013 Sail repair team - North Sails, Annapolis, Maryland ■ Repaired damage to custom made sails ■ Operated large sewing machines to facilitate repairs ■ Conducted performance improvements to sails 2005 - 2009 Junior carpenter - Mount Vernon Ladies Association - Mount Vernon, Virginia ■ Worked with a team of carpenters and masons to reconstruct the distillery and blacksmith shop from the ground up ■ Restored the grist mill, gardener's house and porter's lodges. 2002 Roofing installer - Jack Moore Chimney and Roofing, St. Mary’s County, Maryland ■ Replaced and repaired roofs ■ Repointed chimneys 2001 Assisted in a renovation of a historic schoolhouse in Nahant, Massachusetts and the replacement of balusters on a Congregational Church in Dedham, Massachusetts 1995-2001 Sail and canvas maker - Quantum Sail Design Group, Solomons, Maryland ■ Designed and manufactured custom canvas for boats and service sails Education: M. A. in Historic Preservation - Goucher College, Baltimore, Maryland (2019) -Winner of the Lee Prize for Diversity in Historic Preservation for paper “No Farms, No Sense of Place” 267 129 -Winner of the Lee Prize for Diversity in Historic Preservation for paper “The Cemetery at George Washington’s Mount Vernon” B. A. in History with an East Asian Concentration - St. Mary's College of Maryland, St. Mary's City, Maryland (2000) Training certifications: OSHA 10 Hour Construction Safety and Health - February 2021 OSHA 16-hour Operations and Maintenance course to perform Class III asbestos work - January 2020, Valid for one year Lead Renovator Certification - February 2020, valid for 5 years 268 130 Notes: 1 Laurie J. Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations at the Heater House . Prepared for the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. (1996) . 2 Daniel W.H. Miles, The Tree-Ring Dating of the Heater House, Cedar Creek Battlefield, Middletown, Virginia . Prepared for the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. (Oxford Dendrochronological Laboratory, 2015). 3 K. Edward Lay, Annotated Plans, James Hoge House, Frederick County, Virginia, 7 November 1993. 4 Map #91A28C 5 Miles, Heater House, 3. 6 The assessed values of the Cedar Grove tract for the period between 1788 -1850 is presented in Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, Table 2. 7 For a detailed discussion of this episode, see Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 12-16; the claim and the estimate of damages are contained in Ibid, Appendices H and I. 8 For a full chain of title, see Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 2-9. 9 CCBF records. 10 Cedar Creek and Belle Grove, National Register of Historic Places Inventory N omination Form (1969). 11 Patent Book No. 15, p. 330, 3 October 1734. 12 Orange County Deed Book 5 p. 178. 13 Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 2. 14 Frederick County Will Book 6:90. 15 Frederick County Deed Book 41:492; see Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, Table 1 for clarification on the acreage. 16 Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 3. 17 Ibid, Appendix F. 18 Ibid, 3-4. 19 FCDB 71:305; Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, Table 1. 20 Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 19; Cedar Grove (aka Monte Vista), National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form (1987). 21 Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 6, Table 1. 22 Ibid, Appendix A. 23 Ibid, 21. 24 Ibid, Appendix F. 25 Ibid, 22. 26 Ibid, Table 3. 27 Cedar Grove National Register Nomination. 28 Photocopies of the court case are held at the Handley Library Archives in Winchester, VA; Belle Grove Collection, 890 THL, Box 13: Heater vs the U.S; Paonessa Archaeological Investigations, 12. 29 Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 21 and 28. 30 Ibid, 9, Table 3. 31 Miles, Heater House. 32 Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 9-15. 33 Lay, Annotated Plans. 34 Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations , Appendix A. 35 Ibid, Figure 27. 36 Ibid, Appendix A. 269 131 37 For a detailed analysis of the factors that encouraged the greater specialization of room uses, and the central role of dining rooms in that process, see Mark R. Wenger, “Town House and Country House: Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries, in Cary Carson and Carl R. Lounsbury, editors, The Chesapeake House: Architectural Investigation by Colonial Williamsburg (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013), 120-155. 38 For more on the chronological development of molding profiles, see “Portfolio II: DNA in Moldings, in Carson and Lounsbury eds., Chesapeake House, 348-355.; Willie Graham, personal communication. 39 Miles, Heater House. 40 Wenger, “Town House,”128. 41 The best source to consult regarding dating developments in nail production is , Jay D. Edwards and Tom Wells, Historic Louisiana Nails: Aids to the Dating of Old Buildings (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1993). 42 See Wenger, “Town House,” 128-134, for a discussion of the trend for greater regularity in room use and access. 43 Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 17-19. 44 For the significance of the center passage, see Wenger, “Town House,” 125-128. 45 On the social significance of faux painting, see Susan Buck and Willie Graham, “Paint,” in Carson and Lounsbury eds., Chesapeake House, 356-375. 46 Paonessa, Archaeological Investigations, 23-28. 270 Peter J. Stanley 1199 Deer Rapids Road Strasburg, VA 22657 (540) 622-3797 www.ShenandoahValleyContractor.com Page 1 of 2 HEATER HOUSE THIS ESTIMATE PREPARED FOR CEDER CREEK BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION **Estimate for The following work for safe entry of structure #1 Demolition of all loose ceiling plaster in cielings as needed remove off site to landfill Note: conserve or protect exsisting wallpaper during discovery proccess $4,840.00 #2 Make all necessary floor repairs to match exsisting period flooring including cut nails for period correct appearance $3,200.00 #3 Install temporary floor support beams under 1st and second level floors $3,920.00 TOTAL PROPOSED ESTIMATE FOR PRIORITIZED HEATER HOUSE WORK $11,960.00 January 12, 2026 271 Peter J. Stanley 1199 Deer Rapids Road Strasburg, VA 22657 (540) 622-3797 www.ShenandoahValleyContractor.com Page 2 of 2 272 273 274 Historic Resources Advisory Board Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: February 20, 2026 Agenda Section: Historic Restoration Grant Review Title: Review of Application for St. Thomas Chapel Restoration Attachments: HRAB02-20-26StThomasChapelRestorationApplication_Redacted.pdf 275 Town of Middletown 7875 Church Street Middletown, Virginia 22645 (540) 869-2226  Fax (540) 869-4306 Gateway to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Charles H. Harbaugh IV, Mayor Historic Preservation Grant Application Grant Title: Historic Preservation Grant Program Applicant Name: Mayor Charles Harbaugh IV Property Name: St. Thomas Chapel Property Address: 7854 Church Street Middletown VA 22645 Department of Historic Resources File Number (if known): 73002015 260-0001 Contact Information: Mayor Charles Harbaugh IV Funding Amount Requested: $4,000.00 Date of Submission: January 30, 2026 1. Project Summary: A Frederick County Historic Preservation Grant will support critical rehabilitation efforts at St. Thomas Chapel, a historically and architecturally significant Gothic Revival landmark in Middletown, Virginia. Built in the 1830s and listed on both the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places, St. Thomas Chapel has served the community for nearly two centuries as a place of worship, a Civil War hospital site, and today as a non-denominational venue for public events, weddings, memorials, and educational programming. The proposed project focuses on repairing water-damaged historic windows and adjacent wall areas that threaten both the structural integrity and historic fabric of the building. Grant funding will be used to restore deteriorated window components, improve weatherproofing, and repair interior wall and plaster damage caused by moisture 276 infiltration. All work will follow preservation best practices to retain original materials, craftsmanship, and architectural character wherever possible. By stabilizing key historic elements and preventing future deterioration, the grant will help ensure St. Thomas Chapel remains a safe, functional, and visually authentic community asset. Preservation of the structure supports heritage tourism, strengthens Middletown’s historic identity, and provides continued public access to an important cultural landmark. This investment will protect the chapel’s historic character while revitalizing its role as a meaningful gathering space, ensuring its long-term use, sustainability, and value to Frederick County residents and visitors for generations to come. 2. Historical Significance of the Property: Property Designation: X Listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places X Contributing resource in a National Register Historic District X Designated State or Local Historic Landmark ☐ Eligible for the National Register listing (documentation included) X Included in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey 3. Statement of Significance: St. Thomas Chapel, also known historically as St. Thomas Episcopal Church or St. Thomas Protestant Episcopal Chapel, is a significant historic and architectural landmark located on Church Street in Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia. Constructed between 1834 and 1837, the chapel represents one of the earliest Episcopal congregations in the county and stands as an enduring example of Early Gothic Revival church architecture in the Shenandoah Valley. Established as the seventh Episcopal congregation in Frederick County, St. Thomas served a community that included prominent local families, notably the Hites of nearby Belle Grove Plantation. The congregation acquired a quarter-acre parcel of land for fifty dollars and completed the church by April 1837. Although the original architect is unknown, the structure was reportedly modeled after York Cathedral in England, reflecting European ecclesiastical influences adapted to rural Virginia. Its Gothic Revival design is expressed through a stepped gable roof, three-by-three bay configuration, recessed chancel, pointed Gothic details, and a distinctive wood cupola with an octagonal belfry, Gothic-arched vents, pyramidal roof, and wooden cross. 277 The building played a critical role in Civil War history. In 1862, Union General Nathaniel Banks used the church as a commissary and stable, while local physician Dr. John Guyer operated it as a hospital treating wounded soldiers from nearby battles. During the Battle of Cedar Creek in 1864, it again served as a field hospital, and fallen soldiers were temporarily buried in the churchyard before reinterment elsewhere. Later in the war, Union forces repurposed the structure as a stable, damaging it extensively by breaking windows, burning pews, and destroying shutters—leaving only the walls intact. Following the war, the Federal government contributed to restoration, allowing worship services to resume by 1867. St. Thomas continued serving a small congregation through the early twentieth century, though attendance declined over time. Regular services ended by 1930, with occasional use until 1945, after which the deteriorated building was abandoned. Ownership later transferred from the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia to Christ Episcopal Church in Winchester, and in 1966 the property was conveyed to the Town of Middletown for community use as a chapel or cultural space. A citizen-led effort resulted in the formation of the St. Thomas Chapel Trust and a major restoration during the 1960s. This work preserved and revived the building’s historic character, including restoration of original pews and organ, replacement of windows, installation of modern utilities, structural improvements, and rehabilitation of the steeple and bell tower. The chapel was repurposed as an interfaith and nondenominational space for weddings, special events, and occasional religious services. Recognizing its architectural integrity, historic role in regional religious life, and its Civil War associations, St. Thomas Chapel was listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register in 1973 and added to the National Register of Historic Places the same year. It also contributes to the Middletown Historic District, listed in 2003. Today, St. Thomas Chapel stands as a preserved symbol of Middletown’s cultural heritage, religious history, and resilience across generations. 4. Scope of Work: The requested grant funds will be used to address critical water damage affecting the historic windows and adjacent wall areas at St. Thomas Chapel in Middletown, Virginia. Over time, moisture infiltration has caused deterioration to window frames, glazing components, surrounding trim, and interior wall finishes, creating both preservation concerns and the risk of further structural and material damage if not promptly addressed. Funds will be allocated to the careful repair and stabilization of affected windows, including replacement or restoration of deteriorated wood elements, sealing and weatherproofing to prevent future water intrusion, and repair of panes where needed. All work will be completed in a manner consistent with historic preservation best practices to maintain the architectural integrity and original character of the Gothic Revival structure. In addition to window repairs, if grant funds remain it will go to repairing the louver on the north side window. 278 The St. Thomas Chapel Trust Maintenance Committee, chaired by Rodney Hodgson and Middletown Fire Chief Mark Dalton, will oversee project planning, contractor coordination, and quality assurance. The committee has an established working relationship with local contractor Brandy James, who has previously completed successful repairs at the chapel. This continuity ensures familiarity with the building’s historic fabric and adherence to preservation-sensitive methods. Recent maintenance and rehabilitation efforts at St. Thomas Chapel demonstrate ongoing stewardship and responsible use of funds. Completed projects include shutter repairs, plaster restoration, and interior and exterior painting, all of which have contributed to stabilizing and enhancing the historic structure. The proposed window repairs build upon this recent work, addressing remaining vulnerabilities and preventing more costly damage in the future. By focusing on targeted, high-impact repairs, the grant will help extend the lifespan of key historic features, improve weather resistance, and reduce long-term maintenance costs. This investment will preserve St. Thomas Chapel as a valuable community asset, ensuring it remains safe, functional, and visually authentic for public events, educational activities, and special occasions. 5. Public Benefit: A $4,000 grant will support critical preservation and rehabilitation efforts at St. Thomas Chapel, helping to protect an important historic and cultural resource in Middletown, Virginia. The project will improve the building’s structural integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability, ensuring it remains available for public use and community benefit. Once rehabilitation is complete, St. Thomas Chapel will continue to serve as a non- denominational and interfaith space for weddings, memorial services, community gatherings, educational programs, and special events. The project will enhance public access by providing a safer, more functional venue for residents, visitors, and local organizations. The property will be maintained by the St. Thomas Chapel Trust in coordination with the Town of Middletown. Ongoing maintenance will follow established preservation standards to protect the building’s historic character, with regular inspections, routine repairs, and continued community stewardship to ensure the chapel remains a preserved and welcoming public asset for future generations. Revised 1/6/2026 7. Supporting Documents: Include with the application the project budget and current photos of the project area. 279 6. Ownership and Legal Compliance: St. Thomas Episcopal Church Trust 23-7111211 Property Owner Name: St. Thomas Episcopal Church Trust Proof of Ownership: https://www.actdatascout.com/RealProperty/ParcelView?countyIdYearRpid=51069202526696 If the applicant is not the property owner, include a letter of permission from the owner. Criteria for Grant Award Applicants will be evaluated on the following criteria: Historical Significance – Priority is given to properties that are listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Project Urgency – Demonstrated need for intervention to prevent further deterioration. Preservation Approach – Conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Capacity and Commitment – Ability to complete the project and maintain the property or program. Public Benefit – Demonstrated community, educational, or cultural value. Documentation – Completeness and quality of application materials. Signature of Applicant: Charles Harbaugh IV Electronically Signed 1--26 at 1:57pm _ Date: 1-30-26 280 Page 1 of 4 ESTIMATE Prepared For ST. THOMAS CHAPEL/CHARLES HARBAUGH IV 7854 CHURCH STREET MIDDLETOWN, VIRGINIA 22645 (540) 877-4594 ANTS HOME IMPROVEMENTS 727 Laurie Drive Strasburg, Va 22657 Phone: (540) 683-2183 Email: s Web: Facebook: Ant's Home Improvements Estimate #401 Date 02/10/2026 Business / Tax # VA CONTRACTOR LICENSE# 2705171594 Description Total MISC. EXTERIOR WORK(REPAIR/INSTALLATION/PAINTING)$4,250.00 *START/PREP* - RECEIVE START/MATERIALS DEPOSIT CHECK.(SEE BELOW) * 1 WINDOW EXTERIOR TOP HEADER/TRIM REPAIR/INSTALLATION* (TOTAL COST $550.00) - CUT OUT EXTERIOR ROTTEN WOOD FROM TOP WINDOW HEADER. - MEASURE, RIP DOWN AND CUT NEW EXT. PVC TRIM. - REINSTALL PVC TRIM OVER/ON WOOD HEADER. - CUT OUT ROTTEN WOOD APPROX. 4" OF MIDDLE LOUVER VENT TRIM. - CUT, INSTALL NEW APPROX. 4" PIECE OF MIDDLE LOUVERE VENT TRIM. - PAINT NEWLY INSTALL EXT. HEADER WOOD, ETC. WITH EXT. PAINT. *EXTERIOR WINDOW/LOUVERED VENT CAULKING* (TOTAL COST $800.00) - APPLY CAULKING TO ALL WINDOW/S ALUMINUM TRIM/FLASHING. 281 Page 2 of 4 - APPLY CAULKING TO ALL WINDOW/S TOP LOUVERED VENTS. * 1 SIDE WINDOW SCRAPE AND PAINT* (TOTAL COST $350.00) - SCRAPE LOOSE PAINT FROM SPECIFIED SIDE WINDOW BY PEGGY HODGSON. - CAULK NECESSARY WINDOW SEAMS/AREAS. - PAINT SPECIFIED WINDOW WHITE. (1-2 COATS WILL BE APPLIED) *LOUVERED VENT SLATE REPAIR* (TOTAL COST $100.00) - 1 LOUVERED VENT SLATE REPAIRED/REINSTALLED BACK INTO PLACE. *ABOVE WINDOW/S LOUVERED VENT PAINTING*(ONLY LOUVERED VENTS ABOVE FIRST LEVEL WINDOWS) (TOTAL COST $1,950.00) - SCRAPE LOOSE PAINT FROM ALL OF THE SPECIFIED LOUVERED VENTS. - REPAINT ALL LOUVERED VENTS WITH APPROX. MATCHING WHITE AND GREEN PAINT. *EXTERIOR CLEAN UP* - CLEAN UP ALL TRASH/DEBRIS AFTER COMPLETION OF EACH TASK AND UPON FINISHING EXT. WORK. *MISC. INTERIOR DRYWALL/PLASTER REPAIR WORK* (NO INTERIOR PAINTING INCLUDED IN THIS ESTIMATE) (TOTAL COST $500.00) - SCRAPE LOOSE PLASTER OFF AND DISPOSE OF ACCORDINGLY. - MIX AND APPLY FIRST DRYWALL MUDD BASE COAT. - MIX AND APPLY 2 SKIM COATS. - SAND TO A SMOOTH FINISH. 282 Page 3 of 4 *CLEAN UP* - CLEAN UP ALL TRASH/DEBRIS UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE DRYWALL REPAIR. Subtotal $4,250.00 Total $4,250.00 Notes: *START DEPOSIT/FIN AL BALANCE* - I ANTHON Y BUTLER OF (ANT'S HOME IMPROVEMEN TS) WILL NEED THE 1/2 START/MATERIALS DEPOSIT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,250.00 WHICH IS $2,125 TO START/BEGIN THE MISC. WORK STATED ABOVE ON THIS DOCUMENT. - I ANTHON Y BUTLER OF (ANT'S HOME IMPROVEMEN TS) WILL NEED THE FINAL 1/2 REMAINING BALANCE OF THE TOTAL AMOUN T OF $4,250.00 WHICH IS $2,125.00 UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE MISC. WORK STATED ABOVE ON THIS DOCUMENT. *MISC. INFO* - EST. START DATE:(ASAP) I WILL SCHEDULE UPON THE ACCEPTANCE/SIGNATURE ON THIS ESTIMATE. - EST. COMPLETION TIME: 4-5 DAYS(BASED UPON WEATHER CONDITIONS) *THIS ESTIMATE IS ONLY VALID FOR 30 DAYS BASED UPON MATERIALS/SUPPLIES PRICE FLUCTUATIONS.* 283 Page 4 of 4 By signing this document, the customer agrees to the services and conditions outlined in this document. Signed on: 02/11/2026 ANTHONY BUTLER ST. THOMAS CHAPEL/CHARLES HARBAUGH IV 284 285 286 287