HomeMy WebLinkAboutHRABAgenda2026June261.Minutes
1.A.Meeting Minutes April 17, 2026
2.HRAB Historic Preservation Grant
2.A.Heater House
Request by the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation for two grants totaling $8,000 for
the preservation and stabilization of the Heater House on the Cedar Creek Battlefield.
2.B.St. Thomas Chapel
Request by the St. Thomas Chapel Trust for $4,000 to repair water damage to the St.
Thomas Chapel at 7854 Church Street in Middletown.
2.C.Solomon Pritchard House
Request by the Kernstown Battlefield Association for $4,000 for the restoration of the
Solomon Pritchard House on the Kernstown Battlefield.
2.D.Pritchard Cabin
Request by the Kernstown Battlefield Association for $4,000 for the restoration of the
Pritchard Cabin on the Kernstown Battlefield.
2.E.Willa Cather House
Request by the Lindenlight Foundation DBA Willa Cather’s Virginia for $4,000 for the
AGENDA
HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2026
10:00 AM
FIRST-FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
HRAB06-26-26MeetingMinutesApril17.pdf
HRAB06-26-26HeaterHouse_Redacted.pdf
HRAB06-26-26StThomasChapel_Redacted.pdf
HRAB06-26-26SolomonPritchardHouse_Redacted.pdf
HRAB06-26-26PritchardCabin_Redacted.pdf
1
restoration of the Willa Cather House at 6856 Northwestern Pike in Gore.
2.F.Orrick Chapel
Request by the Newtown History of the Stone House Foundation for $4,000 for the
replacement of the doorframe and the double doors of the Orrick Chapel at 5310
Mulberry Street in Stephens City.
3.Membership Updates
3.A.Jack Owen Resignation
HRAB06-26-26WillaCatherHouse_Redacted.pdf
HRAB06-26-26OrrickChapel_Redacted.pdf
2
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: June 26, 2026
Agenda Section: Minutes
Title: Meeting Minutes April 17, 2026
Attachments:
HRAB06-26-26MeetingMinutesApril17.pdf
3
Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
Meeting Minutes
April 17, 2026
County Board Room
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA
Members Present: Lucas Cook, Nicholas Powers, Gary Crawford, Delane Karalow, Steve Cantu, Michael
Swedberg, Dana Newcomb, Jack Owens, Maral Kalbian and Justin Kerns, Planning Commission Liaison.
Members Absent: Elijah Filbert
Staff Present: Eric Bittner, Wyatt Pearson, Tyler Klein,
Agenda Items:
The meeting was called to order at 10:01 a.m.
Item 1: Minutes –
1.A November 21, 2025 - Gary Crawford made a motion to amend Michael Swedberg as attending and
approve the minutes as amended. Steve Cantu seconded. Unanimous approval.
1.B. February 20, 2026 – Jack Owens made a motion to approve. Cantu seconded. Unanimous approval.
Item 2: Winchester Gateway – Conditional Use Permit
Tyler Klein provided an overview of the application to develop a data center campus (+/- 805,000 square
feet) on +/- 71.85-acres of land zoned M1(Light Industrial) Zoning District. 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. Mr. Klein provided a summary of the Board’s previous review of the application
at their February 20, 2026 meeting and requested documents.
Chris Mohn with Greenway Engineering represented the applicant. Chris Mohn provided more
background on the project and the findings of the Phase 1 Archeological Survey results.
Jack Owens requested what the HRAB’s recommendations were in the 2023 rezoning.
Tyler Klein responded with the Phase 1 survey and that the height should match the surrounding area. The
applicant’s was response was to proffer a 60’ limit, in keeping with what other properties are allowed to
reach, but the surrounding industrial averages approximately 40’.
Discussion ensued regarding the viewshed from the respective historic properties of the Kernstown
Battlefield and Sandy’s Ridge.
Discussion ensued regarding the widening of Apple Valley Road.
Point of order, audience.
Justin Kerns inquired about power distribution and if new lines were needed.
Chris Mohn responded a substation is needed, but no new easements or new disturbance is required.
4
Discussion ensued regarding the building height.
Discussion ensued regarding applicable requirements to the substation.
Delane Karalow inquired about water usage and battery storage.
Chris Mohn responded there will be no batteries and they will be using a public water system.
Discussion ensued regarding water usage.
Point of order, audience.
Discussion ensued regarding the building height and methods of reducing its impact.
Tyler Klein stated that the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation’s letter submitted to the Board
includes recommended conditions, and these may be incorporated into a motion.
Jack Owens summarized the letter.
Michael Swedberg asked what happens to the artifacts from the study.
Chris Mohn responded that they are either in the a research lab or DHR.
Discussion ensued regarding the recommendations and report of the Phase 1 Archeological Survey.
Justin Kerns inquired if the viewshed of the sensitive historic ground and measures such as greenscaping
were within the purview of the HRAB.
Eric Bittner responded yes, those comments could be put into the recommendation motion.
Tyler Klein added that color requirements could also be part of a recommendation.
Gary Crawford inquired about whether the structure could be put underground.
Wyatt Pearson advised he would need to consult with the County Attorney and spoke regarding what
counts as a “reasonable” condition.
Discussion ensued about a height specification.
Delane Karalow stated that the entire rt. 11 corridor is historically rich and opposes development in that
area.
Wyatt Pearson clarified that if the CUP is denied, a data center cannto be built.
Tyler Klein stated that previous discussions were concerns over traffic of other uses.
Discussion ensued regarding recommended conditions and recommended action.
Nick Powers made a motion to recommend denial due to impacts on the historic sites identified as
core battlefield and listed as Second Kernstown (VA116) Core Area, the First Kernstown (VA101)
Study Area, and the Second Winchester (VA107) Study Area. But in the event of approval conditions
to reduce visual impacts either or combined with: grading and building height not to exceed forty-five
feet inclusive of rooftop equipment; as well as color and architectural features and materials in
accordance with National Park Service standards; performance of Phase 2 archaeology on the
5
recommended locations identified in the Phase 1 archeological survey; and no ground disturbing,
including utilities development, in the areas identified in the study as 44FK-1076 and 44FK-1077.
Steve Cantu seconded.
Newcomb advised that some of the discussion left the purview of the HRAB, and advised the rest of
the board of the HRAB’s purview.
Ayes – 7(Cook, Powers, Crawford, Karalow, Cantu, Swedberg, Owens) Nays – 1(Newcomb)
The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 a.m.
6
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: June 26, 2026
Agenda Section: HRAB Historic Preservation Grant
Title: Heater House
Attachments:
HRAB06-26-26HeaterHouse_Redacted.pdf
7
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board
FROM: Planning and Development Staff
RE: 2026 Historic Resources Advisory Board Historic Preservation Grant –
Heater House
DATE: June 16, 2026
Background:
This memo summarizes the application for the Historic Preservation Grant for the Heater House.
The grant was opened to application in December of 2025 and the deadline extended to May 31st, 2026.
This is a reimbursement grant program funded by remaining donations from the County’s 250th
anniversary celebration in 1988. Applicants were required to be 501C(3) organizations and the
projects be within the Frederick County, including the Towns of Middletown and Stephens City.
Applicants could submit for multiple projects but only two would be funded, each grant is limited
to $4,000.
The review criteria the HRAB outlined are the following:
• Historical Significance. Priority is given to properties that are individually listed or
contribute to a district on the National Register of Historic Places or are recognized as
historically significant by state or local authorities.
• Condition of the Resource. Buildings in threatened or deteriorated conditions that
demonstrate an urgent need for intervention to prevent further immediate deterioration will
be prioritized.
• Project Urgency and Impact. Priority will be given to projects where immediate intervention
will arrest active deterioration or prevent irreversible damage to the resource.
• Preservation Standards and Approach. Proposed work must follow the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Approaches should emphasize repair over
replacement and prioritize preservation of original materials and features.
• Public Benefit and Community Impact. Projects that will benefit the public through access,
educational use, visibility, tourism, or community revitalization are encouraged.
• Completeness of Application. All requested documents (photos, ownership records, plan for
funding, historic designation, etc.) must be included for the application to be considered.
8
Page 2 of 2
Attached you will find supporting documentation for the grant request, including the application,
budget, photos, and cost estimates.
Request:
Project Name
Description Magisterial
District
Heater House This is a request by the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation
for two grants, totaling $8,000, for the Phase Two
restoration and stabilization of the Heater House on the
Cedar Creek Battlefield.
The application for the two grants is proposed to go
towards the same project. The applicant understands
the $4,000 limit per grant, and is seeking to apply both
grants to the same project.
Back Creek
Requested Action:
Following discussion, staff are seeking action by the HRAB regarding the application. Actions may
be:
• Fully approve the requested amount.
• Fully approve both requests but specify separate steps in Phase Two as to which specific
projects that each grant applies to.
• Deny one requested grant and fully fund the second($4,000).
• Partially approve the requested amount.
• Deny the request.
Questions regarding the application may be directed to the Planning and Development staff and
applicant’s agent.
Attachments: 1.Heater House Application
9
Parcels
CUP # 06 - 18
Scott F. White
PIN:
55K - 2 - 3 - 151
Cottage Occupation - Firearms Dealer
Zoning Map
HRAB Grant Application: Heater House
Location Map µ
10
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,
11
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
12
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
13
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.
14
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
15
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
16
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)
17
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
18
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
19
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
20
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.
21
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.
22
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.
23
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.
24
10
Figure 3. Current plan of Heater House cellar, with room number designations.
25
11
Figure 4. Current plan of Heater House first floor, with room number designations.
26
12
Figure 5. Current plan of Heater House second floor; with room number designations.
27
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
28
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
29
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.
30
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.
31
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
32
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.
33
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
34
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
35
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
36
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
37
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
38
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.
39
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
40
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
41
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
42
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).
43
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.
44
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.
45
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
46
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.
47
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.
48
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
49
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.
50
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.
51
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.
52
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
53
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.
54
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
55
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.
56
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.
57
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.
58
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.
59
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).
60
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.
61
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.
62
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.
63
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.
64
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.
65
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
66
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
67
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.
68
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.
69
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
70
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.
71
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.
72
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.
73
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
74
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).
75
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.
76
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.
77
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.
78
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
79
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.
80
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:
81
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.
82
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
83
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
84
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,
85
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).
86
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.
87
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.
88
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
89
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
90
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).
91
77
Figure 51. Room 101, interior (2021): Doorway 1.
92
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
93
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
94
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.
95
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.
96
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
97
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.
98
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.
99
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
100
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
101
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).
102
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.
103
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
104
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).
105
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
106
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
107
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
108
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
109
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
110
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.
111
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
112
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.
113
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).
114
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
115
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).
116
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.
117
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/
118
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.
119
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:
120
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.
121
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
122
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.
123
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.
124
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
125
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.
126
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
127
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
128
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
129
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
130
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”
131
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
132
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
133
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.
134
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.
135
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”
136
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)
137
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
138
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.
139
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.
140
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:
141
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
142
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”
143
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
144
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.
145
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.
146
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
147
Peter J. Stanley
1199 Deer Rapids Road
Strasburg, VA 22657
(540) 622-3797
www.ShenandoahValleyContractor.com
Page 2 of 2
148
149
150
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: June 26, 2026
Agenda Section: HRAB Historic Preservation Grant
Title: St. Thomas Chapel
Attachments:
HRAB06-26-26StThomasChapel_Redacted.pdf
151
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board
FROM: Planning and Development Staff
RE: 2026 Historic Resources Advisory Board Historic Preservation Grant – St.
Thomas Chapel
DATE: June 16, 2026
Background:
This memo summarizes the application for the Historic Preservation Grant for the St. Thomas Chapel.
The grant was opened to application in December of 2025 and the deadline extended to May 31st, 2026.
This is a reimbursement grant program funded by remaining donations from the County’s 250th
anniversary celebration in 1988. Applicants were required to be 501C(3) organizations and the
projects be within the Frederick County, including the Towns of Middletown and Stephens City.
Applicants could submit for multiple projects but only two would be funded, each grant is limited
to $4,000.
The review criteria the HRAB outlined are the following:
• Historical Significance. Priority is given to properties that are individually listed or
contribute to a district on the National Register of Historic Places or are recognized as
historically significant by state or local authorities.
• Condition of the Resource. Buildings in threatened or deteriorated conditions that
demonstrate an urgent need for intervention to prevent further immediate deterioration will
be prioritized.
• Project Urgency and Impact. Priority will be given to projects where immediate intervention
will arrest active deterioration or prevent irreversible damage to the resource.
• Preservation Standards and Approach. Proposed work must follow the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Approaches should emphasize repair over
replacement and prioritize preservation of original materials and features.
• Public Benefit and Community Impact. Projects that will benefit the public through access,
educational use, visibility, tourism, or community revitalization are encouraged.
• Completeness of Application. All requested documents (photos, ownership records, plan for
funding, historic designation, etc.) must be included for the application to be considered.
152
Page 2 of 2
Attached you will find supporting documentation for the grant request, including the application,
budget, photos, and cost estimates.
Request:
Project Name
Description Magisterial
District
St. Thomas Chapel This is a request by the St. Thomas Chapel Trust for $4,000
to repair water damage to the St. Thomas Chapel at 7854
Church Street in Middletown.
The applicant is seeking funding for window and wall
water damage repairs of the Chapel.
Back Creek
Requested Action:
Following discussion, staff is seeking action by the HRAB regarding the application. Actions may be:
• Fully approve the requested amount.
• Partially approve the requested amount.
• Deny the request.
Questions regarding the application may be directed to the Planning and Development staff and
applicant’s agent.
Attachments: 1. St. Thomas Chapel Application
153
CHURCH STS
H
AW
N
D
R
2190
SHAWN DR
7875
CHURCH ST
7874
CHURCH ST
7844
CHURCH ST
7855
CHURCH ST
7854
CHURCH ST
7855
CHURCH ST
7864
CHURCH ST
2183
SHAWN DR
2182
SHAWN DR
Parcels
CUP # 06 - 18
Scott F. White
PIN:
55K - 2 - 3 - 151
Cottage Occupation - Firearms Dealer
Zoning Map
HRAB Grant Application: St. Thomas Episcopal Chapel
Location Map µ
Middletown
154
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
155
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.
156
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.
157
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.
158
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
159
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.
160
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.
161
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.*
162
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
163
164
165
166
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: June 26, 2026
Agenda Section: HRAB Historic Preservation Grant
Title: Solomon Pritchard House
Attachments:
HRAB06-26-26SolomonPritchardHouse_Redacted.pdf
167
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board
FROM: Planning and Development Staff
RE: 2026 Historic Resources Advisory Board Historic Preservation Grant –
Soloman Pritchard House
DATE: June 16, 2026
Background:
This memo summarizes the application for the Historic Preservation Grant for the Soloman Pritchard
House.
The grant was opened to application in December of 2025 and the deadline extended to May 31st, 2026.
This is a reimbursement grant program funded by remaining donations from the County’s 250th
anniversary celebration in 1988. Applicants were required to be 501C(3) organizations and the
projects be within the Frederick County, including the Towns of Middletown and Stephens City.
Applicants could submit for multiple projects but only two would be funded, each grant is limited
to $4,000.
The review criteria the HRAB outlined are the following:
• Historical Significance. Priority is given to properties that are individually listed or
contribute to a district on the National Register of Historic Places or are recognized as
historically significant by state or local authorities.
• Condition of the Resource. Buildings in threatened or deteriorated conditions that
demonstrate an urgent need for intervention to prevent further immediate deterioration will
be prioritized.
• Project Urgency and Impact. Priority will be given to projects where immediate intervention
will arrest active deterioration or prevent irreversible damage to the resource.
• Preservation Standards and Approach. Proposed work must follow the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Approaches should emphasize repair over
replacement and prioritize preservation of original materials and features.
• Public Benefit and Community Impact. Projects that will benefit the public through access,
educational use, visibility, tourism, or community revitalization are encouraged.
• Completeness of Application. All requested documents (photos, ownership records, plan for
168
Page 2 of 2
funding, historic designation, etc.) must be included for the application to be considered.
Attached you will find supporting documentation for the grant request, including the application,
budget, photos, and cost estimates.
Request:
Project Name
Description Magisterial
District
Soloman Pritchard
House
This is a request by the Kernstown Battlefield Association
for $4,000 for the restoration of the Soloman Pritchard
House on the Kernstown Battlefield.
The applicant is seeking funding for the production of a
report on historical and physical investigations to
produce options for the future treatment of the
structure.
Back Creek
Requested Action:
Following discussion, staff is seeking action by the HRAB regarding the application. Actions may be:
• Fully approve the requested amount.
• Partially approve the requested amount.
• Deny the request.
Questions regarding the application may be directed to the Planning and Development staff and
applicant’s agent.
Attachments: 1. Soloman Pritchard House Application
169
2877
MIDDLE RD
3075
MIDDLE RD
Parcels
CUP # 06 - 18
Scott F. White
PIN:
55K - 2 - 3 - 151
Cottage Occupation - Firearms Dealer
Zoning Map
HRAB Grant Application: Pritchard House
Location Map µ
170
`APPLICATION:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) is offering a grant program
funded by remaining donations from the County’s 250th anniversary celebration in 1988. These
monies were allocated to the HRAB for historic preservation efforts and were partially used to
establish the Historic Plaque Program, which recognized notable county buildings with bronze
plaques. The remaining balance is now being dedicated to the rehabilitation of historically
significant buildings in Frederick County that are in urgent need of repair or to support programs
that prioritize historic preservation. The objective is to support the preservation and continued
use of these structures while enhancing their long-term value to the community. Given the limited
funding available, the HRAB acknowledges that these grants are intended to support, rather than
fully finance, larger preservation projects. This grant is limited to 501C(3) organizations. Projects
will be awarded a maximum of $4,000 each. Applicants may apply for multiple projects, but only
two may be approved for funding.
The awarded amount will be reimbursed upon completion of the project. Projects approved for
funding will have a twenty-four (24) month period for completion from signing the grant
agreement. Six (6) month progress reports to the board are to include progression documents,
including photos of work and bills from the project. All applications must be submitted to
Frederick County Planning & Development no later than May 31st.
Priority is given to buildings that meet the following criterion:
1. Historical Significance
Priority is given to properties that are individually listed or contribute to a district on the
National Register of Historic Places or are recognized as historically significant by state or
local authorities.
2. Condition of the Resource
The current physical condition of the structure is a major factor in funding decisions.
Buildings in threatened or deteriorated conditions that demonstrate an urgent need for
intervention to prevent further immediate deterioration will be prioritized.
All applications should include a clear assessment of the resource’s condition, supported
by photos and, if possible, reports from preservation professionals or contractors.
3. Project Urgency and Impact
Priority will be given to projects where immediate intervention will arrest active
deterioration or prevent irreversible damage to the resource.
171
4. Preservation Standards and Approach
Proposed work must follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Approaches should emphasize repair over replacement and prioritize preservation of
original materials and features.
5. Public Benefit and Community Impact
Projects that will benefit the public through access, educational use, visibility, tourism,
or community revitalization are encouraged.
6. Completeness of Application
All requested documents (photos, ownership records, plan for funding, historic
designation, etc.) must be included for the application to be considered.
172
Historic Preservation Grant Application
Grant Title: Historic Preservation Grant Program
Applicant Name: Kernstown Battlefield Association (KBA)
Property Name: Solomon Pritchard House
Property Address: 610 Battle Park Drive, Winchester, VA 22601
Department of Historic Resources File Number (if known): 034‑0003
Contact Information: Daniel Heim, dheim1963@gmail.com, (518) 461-2934
Funding Amount Requested: $4,000
Date of Submission: May 31, 2026
1. Project Summary:
Provide a brief overview (maximum 500 words) of your project that includes an explanation as
to how the funding would help to preserve and revitalize the historic character of the property
while ensuring its long-term use and community value.
The Solomon Pritchard House is located in the Kernstown Battlefield Historic District in Frederick
County, Virginia. The house is a two-story five-bay balloon-framed stucco-clad structure
comprised of a small main block with a long ell extension which we believe was added in one or
more stages, the most recent occurring in 1891. The available evidence suggests that the small
main block portion of this house was constructed during the period 1858-59, placing it on the
property at the time three Civil War battles were fought there and during the period of historical
significance.
This house is the only contributing building in the Kernstown Battlefield Historic District that has
not been professionally studied. As such, there are substantial gaps in our knowledge of the
building’s origin and usage, original construction and later modifications, occupancy during and
after the Civil War, present condition and options for future treatment. Further information in
these areas would greatly assist KBA historians and docents to present this structure more
effectively as part of our overall historical interpretation program for visitors and other
interested parties.
The Solomon Pritchard House is in poor/fair condition. A 1990s fire damaged a portion of the
kitchen, a large fireplace, the second story floor and an exterior wall. Throughout the long-
vacant house, much of the ceiling plaster and some of the wall plaster has collapsed, exposing
the lath. Most of the trim, interior doors and mantels are relatively intact, but the exterior doors
and windows are damaged or have been removed entirely and all window and door openings
have been covered with plywood to prevent further deterioration. The exterior stucco, applied in
the early 20th century over metal lath, has deteriorated and fallen off the board and batten
173
exterior walls in multiple places. The existing metal roof appears to be in good condition and has
protected the building from additional damage.
We propose to engage a professional architectural historian to conduct historical and physical
investigations of this building, and to produce a report for the KBA that: (1) summarizes the
findings of these investigations; (2) provides recommendations on interpreting this building’s
history to our visitors; and (3) includes guidance on properly documenting the building and its
contents, and on the range of potential options for future treatment of the structure. The KBA
seeks $4,000 from this grant opportunity, and is prepared to utilize up to $4,000 of its own
funding to match the grant amount and provide added resources to pursue this project.
Given the somewhat tenuous physical condition of the structure, we propose to work diligently
with the selected professional architectural historian to complete this project within six months
of execution of the grant agreement. The KBA has considerable experience working with
professional historians to assess important structures on our property, including the ca. 1854
Pritchard House and the ca. 1790 Pritchard Cabin, both of which were the subjects of
investigations and detailed reports. These reports are still used to guide preservation and
interpretation efforts.
2. Historical Significance of the Property:
Property Designation:
☐ Listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places
☐ Contributing resource in a National Register Historic District
☐ Designated State or Local Historic Landmark
☐ Eligible for the National Register listing (documentation included)
☐ Included in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey
The Kernstown Battlefield Historic District was listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register on Sept.
19, 2024 (See: Kernstown Battlefield Historic District – DHR) and on the National Register of
Historic Places on Dec. 17, 2024 (See: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-
research.htm, Property ID # 100011178). The Solomon Pritchard House (a/k/a “Tenant House”)
is one of three contributing buildings located in the district. The house was also included in the
Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey (Referred to as “Tenant House at Brightside,” see:
FK-022 Rural Landmarks Survey 1988-1992 PH I-III 1988 KALBIAN report.pdf, p. 48).
3. Statement of Significance:
In 500 words or less, describe the historical and/or architectural importance of the resource.
Include its history, construction date, previous owners or uses, architectural style, role in local
history, and any existing relevant documentation.
174
The Kernstown Battlefield Historic District is considered significant on a statewide basis for its
association with Civil War military history (1862-64) and locally for architectural significance
(1790-1859). Here on this property, parts of three significant Civil War battles were fought which
had a direct and decisive influence on the Shenandoah Valley Campaigns of 1862 and 1864 as
well as the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863. The farmstead is also particularly notable as it was
visited by famed journalist and noted Civil War documentary artist, James E. Taylor, in 1864.
The Kernstown Battlefield property has a nearly 300-year documented history as a farm. William
Hoge headed one of the sixteen families who accompanied Joist Hite to settle in the Opequon
area of Virginia's great valley, south of Winchester. In November 1735, he was granted a patent
for 411 acres that incorporated the property on which the Kernstown Battlefield stands. The
property was conveyed to Rees Pritchard in 1756, who conveyed it to his son, Stephen Pritchard
Sr., who died in 1819 and left the 428-acre farm to his son Stephen. After many years as a
successful farmer, Stephen Pritchard, Jr. died in 1858. He left his property to three of his four
sons: Samuel Rees, Henry James and Solomon Stephen. We believe that his youngest son,
Solomon, constructed a dwelling (ca. 1858-59) on the southwest portion of the Pritchard Family
property. Solomon, who was in business with Samuel Rees, also served as the second in
command of the 51st Virginia Militia. Lieutenant Colonel Solomon Pritchard was killed in battle
in 1861. The property was held in trust by John M. Miller, Solomon’s brother-in-law, and
reportedly sold to A. W. Solenberger in 1869. A farmer, T. Yardley Brown, apparently took
ownership of the property at some point prior to 1885. Further details on the chain of ownership
and usage of the building are currently unavailable.
Although available evidence suggests this house was originally constructed in 1858-59 and it
appears on at least one of Jedediah Hotchkiss’s battle maps, we have yet to find any specific
references to the structure in the literature of the Civil War. There is strong evidence that both
the still-standing 1854 Pritchard House and the no-longer-standing bank barn were used as field
hospitals after the battles fought on the site. On this basis, it is reasonable to conclude that the
nearby Solomon Pritchard House was also used for that purpose.
The comprehensive Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identified only two examples of
the Folk Victorian style constructed during the antebellum period, one of which was the Solomon
Pritchard House. This style refers to buildings of a vernacular form with applied Victorian details
such as brackets in the eaves, spindle-work, corbeled chimneys, and ornate porches. As in the
case of the Solomon Pritchard House, many older houses in Frederick County were enlarged
during the Reconstruction and Growth Period by adding a rear ell or enclosing a rear two-story
porch and updated by adding Victorian decorative details.
4. Scope of Work:
In 500 words or less, provide specific information as to how the funds will be expended.
175
The KBA will contract with an architectural historian to prepare a detailed report on the
Solomon Pritchard House. The architectural historian may engage with other historians and/or
an architectural firm to conduct the historic and physical investigations, and potentially to
provide architectural plans and drawings of the house. The primary purpose s of this report will
be to gain an enhanced understanding of the house's history and place it within a historic
context, as well as to assess the current condition of the structure and provide recommendations
for its future treatment.
The KBA’s Board of Directors has already authorized pursuit of this grant opportunity, as well as
its intent to expend up to $4,000 of additional funding to facilitate completion of this
investigation and report. KBA volunteers will make themselves available to the contractor prior
to and during this engagement to facilitate needed inspections of the house as well as ensure
availability of any relevant pictures or records that the KBA may have in its possession. The KBA
Board of Directors will ask the selected contractor for a presentation of the report and its
findings as soon as practicable after its completion, and will review and consider any
recommended follow-up actions. The KBA’s History and Education Committee will utilize the
report’s findings in 2027 to develop an interpretive plan for the Solomon Pritchard House, which
will be made a part of our overall historical interpretation program.
All Historic Preservation grant funding will be applied to the cost of this investigation. The KBA is
an all-volunteer non-profit organization and, as such, does not incur an administrative cost to
administer such a grant or to work with the selected contractor.
5. Public Benefit:
Briefly describe how this project will benefit the public and how the property will be used and
maintained after the rehabilitation is complete.
In 2025, the Kernstown Battlefield logged a total of 3,582 visitors who came from throughout
the country and beyond to learn about their Civil War heritage – not only its military history but
also the stories of the families who experienced the challenges and rewards of cultivating this
land. We offer our visitors several opportunities to learn and enjoy our beautiful campus
including:
• Our visitor center, which offers informational panels and interesting military artifacts, a
gift shop/bookstore, a three-dimensional electronic map of the Kernstown area, and a
kids’ corner with period clothing for photo opportunities.
• Golf cart battlefield tours offered by our volunteer docents to learn about the First Battle
of Kernstown, where General “Stonewall” Jackson looms large, even in defeat, and the
Second Battle of Kernstown, where a poorly-led Union army was routed by veteran
Confederate forces in what would be their last major victory in the Valley.
• Guided tours of the 1854 home where Samuel Pritchard, his wife and young children
endured both battles and the Union Army occupation of their farm. In the house, visit
176
the field hospital exhibit to learn about Civil War medical care and period herbal
remedies.
• Our Artillery Building, which displays our collection of Civil War artillery and
ammunition, as well as an impressive 36-foot-wide multi-dimensional mural depicting
the final stages of the Second Battle of Kernstown fought on the front lawn of the
Pritchard House.
• Self-guided Historical Interpretation Trails. We have recently developed three color-
coded historical trails on our “main campus”: 1) Battle of First Kernstown, 2) Battle of
Second Kernstown and 3) Family and Farm. The Family and Farm trail currently includes
historical interpretation related to the Pritchard cabin/service building along with the
Pritchards’ use of enslaved labor in support of their farm and businesses.
The KBA Board recently made an important change that is greatly expanding the public’s access
to the battlefield. Beginning on April 3, 2026, Kernstown Battlefield is open every day from 10
am to 4 pm, except on Christmas and when there is inclement weather. This is a major change
from our longstanding schedule, during which the battlefield was open April – October on
Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays and closed on the remaining days. While volunteer-led tours are
still only operated on this more limited, seasonal schedule, visitors are now welcome to enter the
battlefield on the other days of the week to enjoy our beautiful property and walk our historical
interpretation trails.
Touring maps of the trails are provided to visitors. A recently awarded grant is helping us to
develop an audio tour during 2026 to provide supplemental stories of interest related to the
historical interpretation markers on the trails, which will greatly enhance their experience. In
addition to the main campus historical trails, the Kernstown Battlefield features interpretive
markers on our Sandy Ridge property which will soon be linked to the publicly accessible Rose
Hill Park trails. The KBA’s History and Education Committee is developing the educational
content that will be presented in our audio tours starting with our main campus markers, but
eventually incorporating the markers on Sandy Ridge as well.
The report that will be funded jointly through this grant and KBA funding will enable the KBA to
interpret the historic Solomon Pritchard House and its inhabitants with a short-term goal of
adding a historical interpretive marker and supplemental audio tour story to our existing Family
and Farm historical trail. This structure is inextricably tied to the Civil War and the subsequent
agricultural history of the property, and our efforts to educate the public in both areas will be
greatly enhanced.
Over the years, various measures have been taken to preserve the building in its current
condition including sealing all window/door penetrations. The KBA also looks forward to
gaining more insight into the condition of the structure and options available to us for its
treatment in the future. Careful documentation of the building, and potentially its preservation/
restoration, would benefit our visitors by giving them a fuller understanding of the Pritchard
Family and subsequent inhabitants of this historic home.
177
178
Project Budget
Architectural historian fees*: $8,000
Estimated Total $8,000
* Includes the cost of any professional subcontractors involved in the project. All project work will be
supported by invoices.
The project budget is to be funded through grant ($4,000) funding and Kernstown Battlefield
Association matching funding of up to $4,000.
179
Pictures of Solomon Pritchard House
Solomon Pritchard House, principal façade.
Solomon Pritchard House, west elevation.
180
Solomon Pritchard House, southern elevation.
Solomon Pritchard House, interior condition.
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: June 26, 2026
Agenda Section: HRAB Historic Preservation Grant
Title: Pritchard Cabin
Attachments:
HRAB06-26-26PritchardCabin_Redacted.pdf
188
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board
FROM: Planning and Development Staff
RE: 2026 Historic Resources Advisory Board Historic Preservation Grant –
Pritchard Cabin
DATE: June 16, 2026
Background:
This memo summarizes the application for the Historic Preservation Grant for the Pritchard Cabin.
The grant was opened to application in December of 2025 and the deadline extended to May 31st, 2026.
This is a reimbursement grant program funded by remaining donations from the County’s 250th
anniversary celebration in 1988. Applicants were required to be 501C(3) organizations and the
projects be within the Frederick County, including the Towns of Middletown and Stephens City.
Applicants could submit for multiple projects but only two would be funded, each grant is limited
to $4,000.
The review criteria the HRAB outlined are the following:
• Historical Significance. Priority is given to properties that are individually listed or
contribute to a district on the National Register of Historic Places or are recognized as
historically significant by state or local authorities.
• Condition of the Resource. Buildings in threatened or deteriorated conditions that
demonstrate an urgent need for intervention to prevent further immediate deterioration will
be prioritized.
• Project Urgency and Impact. Priority will be given to projects where immediate intervention
will arrest active deterioration or prevent irreversible damage to the resource.
• Preservation Standards and Approach. Proposed work must follow the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Approaches should emphasize repair over
replacement and prioritize preservation of original materials and features.
• Public Benefit and Community Impact. Projects that will benefit the public through access,
educational use, visibility, tourism, or community revitalization are encouraged.
• Completeness of Application. All requested documents (photos, ownership records, plan for
funding, historic designation, etc.) must be included for the application to be considered.
189
Page 2 of 2
Attached you will find supporting documentation for the grant request, including the application,
budget, photos, and cost estimates.
Request:
Project Name
Description Magisterial
District
Pritchard Cabin This is a request by the Kernstown Battlefield Association
for $4,000 for the restoration of the Pritchard Cabin on the
Kernstown Battlefield.
The applicant is seeking funding to engage an architect
for the initial phase of architectural and structural
design for a phase-one restoration.
Back Creek
Requested Action:
Following discussion, staff is seeking action by the HRAB regarding the application. Actions may be:
• Fully approve the requested amount.
• Partially approve the requested amount.
• Deny the request.
Questions regarding the application may be directed to the Planning and Development staff and
applicant’s agent.
Attachments: 1. Pritchard Cabin Application
190
Winchester
2877
MIDDLE RD
Parcels
CUP # 06 - 18
Scott F. White
PIN:
55K - 2 - 3 - 151
Cottage Occupation - Firearms Dealer
Zoning Map
HRAB Grant Application: Pritchard Cabin
Location Map µ
191
APPLICATION:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) is offering a grant program
funded by remaining donations from the County’s 250th anniversary celebration in 1988. These
monies were allocated to the HRAB for historic preservation efforts and were partially used to
establish the Historic Plaque Program, which recognized notable county buildings with bronze
plaques. The remaining balance is now being dedicated to the rehabilitation of historically
significant buildings in Frederick County that are in urgent need of repair or to support programs
that prioritize historic preservation. The objective is to support the preservation and continued
use of these structures while enhancing their long-term value to the community. Given the limited
funding available, the HRAB acknowledges that these grants are intended to support, rather than
fully finance, larger preservation projects. This grant is limited to 501C(3) organizations. Projects
will be awarded a maximum of $4,000 each. Applicants may apply for multiple projects, but only
two may be approved for funding.
The awarded amount will be reimbursed upon completion of the project. Projects approved for
funding will have a twenty-four (24) month period for completion from signing the grant
agreement. Six (6) month progress reports to the board are to include progression documents,
including photos of work and bills from the project. All applications must be submitted to
Frederick County Planning & Development no later than May 31st.
Priority is given to buildings that meet the following criterion:
1. Historical Significance
Priority is given to properties that are individually listed or contribute to a district on the
National Register of Historic Places or are recognized as historically significant by state or
local authorities.
2. Condition of the Resource
The current physical condition of the structure is a major factor in funding decisions.
Buildings in threatened or deteriorated conditions that demonstrate an urgent need for
intervention to prevent further immediate deterioration will be prioritized.
All applications should include a clear assessment of the resource’s condition, supported
by photos and, if possible, reports from preservation professionals or contractors.
3. Project Urgency and Impact
Priority will be given to projects where immediate intervention will arrest active
deterioration or prevent irreversible damage to the resource.
192
4. Preservation Standards and Approach
Proposed work must follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Approaches should emphasize repair over replacement and prioritize preservation of
original materials and features.
5. Public Benefit and Community Impact
Projects that will benefit the public through access, educational use, visibility, tourism,
or community revitalization are encouraged.
6. Completeness of Application
All requested documents (photos, ownership records, plan for funding, historic
designation, etc.) must be included for the application to be considered.
193
Historic Preservation Grant Application
Grant Title: Historic Preservation Grant Program
Applicant Name: Kernstown Battlefield Association (KBA)
Property Name: Pritchard Cabin
Property Address: 610 Battle Park Drive, Winchester, VA 22601
Department of Historic Resources File Number (if known): 034‑0003
Contact Information: Daniel Heim,
Funding Amount Requested: $4,000
Date of Submission: May 31, 2026
1. Project Summary:
Provide a brief overview (maximum 500 words) of your project that includes an explanation as
to how the funding would help to preserve and revitalize the historic character of the property
while ensuring its long-term use and community value.
The Pritchard Cabin is located in the Kernstown Battlefield Historic District in Frederick County,
Virginia. Originally constructed ca. 1790, the one-and-one-half-story structure is the oldest
building on the property. The log structure is composed of hewn members joined with V-notches
at the corners, supported on a roughly coursed stone foundation that encloses a full cellar. While
the original function of the building remains uncertain, based on the findings of a 2023
professional historical preservation study (appended), it most likely was a service building for the
original Pritchard House. Physical evidence indicates that the cabin underwent a major
renovation beginning ca. 1850, when the original one-room structure was divided and
upgraded, likely to serve as a residence for the first time. This renovation relates directly to the
period of significance of the Pritchard House and the Civil War battlefield.
Unfortunately, the Pritchard Cabin is in poor condition. It was damaged extensively in a fire set
by arsonists in Oct. 2000, resulting in the total loss of an added room, porches, chimney, and
side-gable roof. The fire virtually gutted the interior of the log crib as well, including the loss of
nearly half of the ceiling joists and most of the wall plaster and lath, along with the corner
stairway, the partitions, the garret floor, the doors, and the doorway and window trim. Heavily
burned remnants of the latter elements survive, however, which provided an opportunity to
interpret the character of the space as it changed over time. The cabin was covered in plywood
and temporary roofing to prevent further damage.
Restoration efforts began in 2021 when the foundation was stabilized and repointed,
and the KBA is using the results of the 2023 study to guide its further restoration and historical
interpretation.
194
KBA has solicited a proposal from Main Street Architecture, P.C. (MSA) for professional design
services to restore the Pritchard Cabin to its ca. 1850 appearance as a residential building. The
proposal reflects architectural and structural design based on a design and use program for a
phase-one restoration to include the exterior finishes, windows and doors, and interior structural
frame. Design guidelines will be based on “The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation.”
We propose to engage MSA for the initial phase of this design work, which would involve a site
visit and examination of the structure by a group of professionals including an architect, a
structural engineer, a framing contractor, an architectural historian and an expert in dwellings
that housed enslaved people. This examination would include measuring and photographing the
existing structure as needed to supplement the existing Computer-Aided Design (CAD) file for
phase-one work.
The KBA seeks $4,000 from this grant opportunity, and is prepared to utilize up to $4,000 of its
own funding to match the grant amount and provide added resources to pursue this project.
Given the somewhat tenuous physical condition of the structure, we would work diligently with
MSA to complete this work within six months of execution of the grant agreement.
2. Historical Significance of the Property:
Property Designation:
☐ Listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places
☐ Contributing resource in a National Register Historic District
☐ Designated State or Local Historic Landmark
☐ Eligible for the National Register listing (documentation included)
☐ Included in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey
The Kernstown Battlefield Historic District was listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register on Sept.
19, 2024 (See: Kernstown Battlefield Historic District – DHR) and on the National Register of
Historic Places on Dec. 17, 2024 (See: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-
research.htm, Property ID # 100011178). The Pritchard Cabin is the oldest of three contributing
buildings located in the district.
3. Statement of Significance:
In 500 words or less, describe the historical and/or architectural importance of the resource.
Include its history, construction date, previous owners or uses, architectural style, role in local
history, and any existing relevant documentation.
The Kernstown Battlefield Historic District is considered significant on a statewide basis for its
association with Civil War military history (1862-64) and locally for architectural significance
(1790-1859). Here on this property, parts of three significant Civil War battles were fought which
195
had a direct and decisive influence on the Shenandoah Valley Campaigns of 1862 and 1864 as
well as the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863. The farmstead is also particularly notable as it was
visited by famed journalist and noted Civil War documentary artist, James E. Taylor, in 1864.
According to the 2023 study, the Pritchard Cabin underwent a major renovation beginning ca.
1850, when the original one-room structure was divided and upgraded. With an enslaved
population of six adults and eight children (ages one through sixteen) in 1850, the enlarged
cabin could have accommodated numerous individuals who presumably served the Pritchard
family. At least three generations of Pritchards utilized enslaved labor in their farming and
business ventures from the late-Colonial period to the Civil War years. While there is no record
of Samuel Rees Pritchard owning enslaved individuals, there is direct evidence he utilized
enslaved labor well into the Civil War, most likely through rental agreements with large slave
owner neighbors.
Evidence suggests that the updated Pritchard Cabin incorporated elements common to slave
housing of the time. In the 19th century, slave quarters in Virginia were often “improved,”
reflecting a new attitude among enslavers that combined Christian duty, paternalism,
agricultural reform, and a sharp business approach to managing the enslaved workforce. For
example, whereas earlier quarters generally had few small windows, new houses tended to
feature windows with glass panes. Some enslavers may have used such improvements to signal
to their peers that they were rich and moral enough to invest in higher-quality accommodations.
More importantly, though, glazed windows provided improved light and ventilation that kept
enslaved people healthier and facilitated extra indoor work. The Pritchard Cabin windows were
likely added/enlarged to illuminate the interior spaces of the building when it was retrofitted
from a service building to a residence. The Pritchards also may have remodeled this structure for
aesthetic reasons as well, as they may not have wanted a rustic log structure located
immediately adjacent to their new 1854 brick house.
Of the thousands of slave quarters that were erected throughout Virginia, fewer than 300 still
survive. The surviving buildings fall into two broad categories: those that are in poor condition
and are in dire peril because they no longer serve a viable function and others that have been
adapted, and usually extensively altered, to accommodate contemporary uses. Finding and
recording the few relatively intact quarters that survive therefore is crucial to documenting and
preserving the memory and significance of these buildings. These structures also carry social
and cultural significance for African American communities. While places of confinement and
oppression, slave buildings also served as homes for families and places of community and
culture. As such they are important sites related to the legacy of slavery in Virginia.
4. Scope of Work:
In 500 words or less, provide specific information as to how the funds will be expended.
196
If awarded, the grant and KBA matching funds will be utilized to engage MSA for the initial
phase of architectural and structural design for a phase-one restoration including exterior
finishes and interior structural frame. This initial engagement would involve a site visit and
examination of the structure by an architect, structural engineer, framing contractor,
architectural historian and an expert in dwellings that housed enslaved people. This effort may
include selective intrusion to access certain areas of the structure. The exterior logs and frame
will also be evaluated. The overall structural conditions will be documented for corrective
analysis and repair details. Areas of water intrusion and animal access will also be addressed.
This examination will include measuring and photographing the existing structure as needed to
supplement the existing CAD file. Remaining funding will be applied to MSA work to confirm
documentation and for CAD drawing drafting of base sheets. MSA has estimated the associated
expenditures as follows:
MSA architect: $1,150
Structural engineer: $1,700
Framing contractor: $2,200
Architectural historian: $ 520
Expert on slave dwellings: $1,000
Estimated Subtotal: $6,570
MSA Drafting of base sheets in CAD $1,430*
Estimated Total $8,000
* The full estimate for drafting of base sheets is $1,840. With the possibility that KBA volunteers can
assist with replacing any removed materials, we believe the total project cost will be limited to $8,000. If
not, any remaining drafting work can be completed in a follow-up engagement. All project work will be
supported by invoices.
The KBA’s Board of Directors has authorized pursuit of this grant opportunity, as well as its intent
to expend up to $4,000 of matching funding. KBA volunteers will be available to MSA to
facilitate needed inspections of the cabin and the availability of any relevant documentation.
The findings of this phase of the work – anticipated to be completed within six months of the
grant agreement – will be reviewed in detail by the KBA Board. The Board will then develop a
plan to fund the remaining MSA architectural/engineering fees, which are estimated at
approximately $26,500. Once final drawings, schematics and construction cost estimates are
developed, the KBA intends to pursue a grant or private funding for the actual construction and
a full historical interpretation plan for the Pritchard Cabin. We have investigated, as a potential
construction funding source, the Virginia Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Historic
Preservation Fund (BIPOC), a grant program to protect and support Virginia’s historically
underserved and underrepresented communities and the cultural and historical sites associated
with them. The BIPOC funding cycle typically begins with a pre-application in February and grant
197
awards in September. Dependent on funding availability and the timeframe for the
architectural/engineering work, we would anticipate applying for BIPOC in either the 2027 or
2028 funding cycle.
All Historic Preservation grant funding will be applied to the cost of this investigation. The KBA is
an all-volunteer non-profit organization and, as such, does not incur an administrative cost to
administer such a grant or to work with the selected contractor.
5. Public Benefit:
Briefly describe how this project will benefit the public and how the property will be used and
maintained after the rehabilitation is complete.
In 2025, the Kernstown Battlefield logged a total of 3,582 visitors who came from throughout
the country and beyond to learn about their Civil War heritage – not only its military history but
also the stories of the families who experienced the challenges and rewards of cultivating this
land. We offer our visitors several opportunities to learn and enjoy our beautiful campus
including:
• Our visitor center, which offers informational panels and interesting military artifacts, a
gift shop/bookstore, a three-dimensional electronic map of the Kernstown area, and a
kids’ corner with period clothing for photo opportunities.
• Golf cart battlefield tours offered by our volunteer docents to learn about the First Battle
of Kernstown, where General “Stonewall” Jackson looms large, even in defeat, and the
Second Battle of Kernstown, where a poorly-led Union army was routed by veteran
Confederate forces in what would be their last major victory in the Valley.
• Guided tours of the 1854 home where Samuel Pritchard, his wife and young children
endured both battles and the Union Army occupation of their farm. In the house, visit
the field hospital exhibit to learn about Civil War medical care and period herbal
remedies.
• Our Artillery Building, which displays our collection of Civil War artillery and
ammunition, as well as an impressive 36-foot-wide multi-dimensional mural depicting
the final stages of the Second Battle of Kernstown fought on the front lawn of the
Pritchard House.
• Self-guided Historical Interpretation Trails. We have recently developed three color-
coded historical trails on our “main campus”: 1) Battle of First Kernstown, 2) Battle of
Second Kernstown and 3) Family and Farm. The Family and Farm trail includes historical
interpretation related to the Pritchard cabin/service building along with the Pritchards’
use of enslaved labor in support of their farm and businesses.
The KBA Board recently made an important change that is greatly expanding the public’s access
to the battlefield. Beginning on April 3, 2026, Kernstown Battlefield is open every day from 10
am to 4 pm, except on Christmas and when there is inclement weather. This is a major change
198
from our longstanding schedule, during which the battlefield was open April – October on
Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays and closed on the remaining days. While volunteer-led tours are
still only operated on this more limited, seasonal schedule, visitors are now welcome to enter the
battlefield on the other days of the week to enjoy our beautiful property and walk our historical
interpretation trails.
Touring maps of the trails are provided to visitors. A recently awarded grant is helping us to
develop an audio tour during 2026 to provide supplemental stories of interest related to the
historical interpretation markers on the trails, which will greatly enhance their experience. In
addition to the main campus historical trails, the Kernstown Battlefield features interpretive
markers on our Sandy Ridge property which will soon be linked to the publicly accessible Rose
Hill Park trails. The KBA’s History and Education Committee is developing the educational
content that will be presented in our audio tours starting with our main campus markers, but
eventually incorporating the markers on Sandy Ridge as well.
The work that would be funded jointly through this grant and KBA funding will enable the KBA to
further advance its plan to return the Pritchard Cabin to its ca. 1850 appearance , and to better
interpret the building and its inhabitants to our visitors as part of our in-person and audio tours.
This structure is inextricably linked to the period of significance of the Kernstown Battlefield
Historic District, and our efforts to educate the public on its storied history will be greatly
enhanced.
The Kernstown Battlefield is maintained by a group of dedicated volunteers throughout the year.
This is in furtherance of the KBA’s mission, which is to protect and interpret this Civil War
battlefield and historic farm for the benefit of all future generations. Various measures are
routinely taken to ensure the security of our site and the safety of our visitors.
6. Ownership and Legal Compliance: Property Owner
Name: Kernstown Battlefield Association, Inc.
Proof of Ownership: [Attach deed or tax record]
If the applicant is not the property owner, include a letter of permission from the owner.
Frederick County Property Tax Record is appended.
7. Supporting Documents:
Include with the application the project budget and current photos of the project area.
See below for budget and pictures. The 2023 Pritchard Cabin study is appended.
199
200
Project Budget
MSA architect: $1,150
Structural engineer: $1,700
Framing contractor: $2,200
Architectural historian: $ 520
Expert on slave dwellings: $1,000
Estimated Subtotal: $6,570
MSA Drafting of base sheets in CAD $1,430*
Estimated Total $8,000
* The full estimate for drafting of base sheets is $1,840. With the possibility that KBA volunteers can
assist with replacing any removed materials, we believe that savings will be achieved in other areas and
the total project cost will be limited to $8,000. If not, any remaining drafting work can be completed as
part of a follow-up engagement. All project work will be supported by invoices.
The project budget is to be funded through grant ($4,000) funding and Kernstown Battlefield
Association matching funding of up to $4,000.
201
Pictures of Pritchard Cabin
The appended 2023 professional study, “Pritchard Cabin, 610 Battle Park Drive, Winchester, VA:
Physical Investigations and Recommendations,” also contains several exterior and interior
pictures of the building.
Pritchard Cabin, south elevation
Pritchard Cabin, north elevation
202
Pritchard Cabin, east elevation
Pritchard Cabin, west elevation
Pritchard Cabin, basement level interior
203
204
2
Executive Summary
The building known as the Pritchard Cabin is located on the property of the Kernstown
Battlefield Association, positioned just to the southwest of the mid-19th century Pritchard House
(Figure 1A and B). The cabin was seriously damaged by a fire set by arsonists in 2000. The
remnants of the cabin were preserved, and the envelope was secured by protective measures that
remain in place more than 20 years later. The Board of the KBA intends to rehabilitate the cabin
so that it may serve an interpretive function and contribute to the historic values of the
surrounding cultural landscape. To that end, a team of historians and preservationists under the
helm of Maral Kalbian, LLC, were engaged to study the cabin’s historic fabric, develop a
chronology of structural changes, assess the structural conditions, attempt to ascertain the
original and subsequent uses, and prepare recommendations for its treatment.
The most complete corpus of information relating to the character of the cabin naturally dates to
the decades of the late 20th century, just before the cabin burned. This information consists
primarily of photographs of the exterior derived from a variety of sources; no images of the
interior have been identified. Little of the fabric for the cabin as it was originally constructed
survives aside from the log walls, part of a door frame, and likely the wood floorboards and joists.
On the other hand, while the elements were seriously damaged by the fire, detailed information
for the mid-19th century layout and finishes of the first floor of the cabin survive.
The original function of the cabin remains uncertain, but it likely was a service building erected in
association with the original Pritchard dwelling. It has been speculated that this structure was the
“wheelwright shop” depicted in sketches prepared by James E. Taylor during the Civil War. The
character of the cabin does not conform to the requirements of that type of shop, however. Along
with the small overall dimensions, the limited access to the first floor would not have been
conducive to any craft activity, especially one that involved making and/or repairing wagons and
other large, wheeled vehicles. The physical investigations revealed that the cabin had undergone a
major renovation that took place beginning after ca. 1850, when the original one-room structure
was divided and upgraded, likely to serve as a residence for the first time. This intervention
relates directly to the period of significance of the Pritchard House and the Civil War battlefield.
Our recommendations primarily address the question of preserving the fabric of the cabin, while
also providing guidance for restoring the building to recapture a measure of its historic character.
We have adopted a phased approach in our recommendations, providing options to be considered
for implementation in both the near- and long-term. Initiating the Phase I recommendations
should be possible with only limited additional investigation required beyond this report. More
ambitious efforts to restore the cabin to a more complete recreation of its character at an earlier
point in time would require considerable additional study, to include targeted archaeological
excavations.
205
3
Figure 1A. Location of project on Kernstown Battlefield, 610 Battle Park Drive, Winchester, VA.
Figure 1B. Location of project, Kernstown Battlefield, Winchester, VA: Pritchard Cabin (A);
Pritchard House (B).
206
4
Historical Overview
The land on which the Pritchard House and the nearby cabin stand has a history of permanent
occupation that reaches back into the 18th century. Although the property’s primary significance
comes from its location at the core of a significant Civil War battle, the rich Valley farmland that
surrounds the dwelling site was long a settlement destination for immigrants from Europe. The
Kernstown vicinity bordered the Great Wagon Road to Philadelphia, now U.S. Route 11, one of the
most important conduits for the large numbers of settlers coming to the new world. The roadway
later became known as the Valley Turnpike and appeared on survey maps as early as 1734.1
William Hoge, a native of Scotland, headed one of the 16 families who accompanied Jost Hite to
settle in the Opequon area of Virginia’s great valley, south of Winchester. In November 1735,
Hoge was granted a patent for 411 acres that incorporated the property on which the Pritchard
Cabin stands. In his will of 1749, William Hoge willed the tract “on which he resided” to his son,
John Hoge.2 This reference is particularly significant because it indicates that there was a dwelling
on the property by that time and that it was William Hoge’s primary residence.
The property passed from the Hoges to the Pritchard family in 1756, who proceeded to own and
operate the farm for more than 100 years. A deed dated March 1, 1756, indicates that the farm had
descended to George Hoge, who sold a 206-acre portion of the property to Rees Pritchard.3 The
tract was described as the place where Rees Pritchard then resided. Rees Pritchard died in 1758 and
the property descended to his son, Stephen Pritchard. The 1810 census enumeration records a large
household, with 16 enslaved people in addition to seven family members.4
Stephen Pritchard Sr. died in 1819. His will stipulates: “To Son Stephen, residue of tract I live on
near Kernstown, approximately 428 acres.” The items in Stephen Pritchard Sr.’s will confirm that
he was a fairly wealthy man and well able to provide for his many children from his estate, in the
categories of household goods, bonds, and enslaved workers. One item directs that his daughters
were to occupy one half of his dwelling, with the other half presumably occupied by his son
Stephen Pritchard, Jr., wife Mary, and children. This suggests that the dwelling was substantial in
size.5
Various records indicate that Stephen Pritchard Jr. was a highly successful farmer, who made
substantial improvements to the property that he inherited from his father. The 1830 census records
Pritchard with a large household including three white males and five white females.6 In 1837 he
was charged taxes for 455 acres of land “near Kernstown,” with $1,687.50 worth of buildings.7
The 1850 censuses present a picture of a thriving farmstead. Stephen Pritchard is listed as a 72-
year-old farmer with real property valued at $13,000. The slave schedule for 1850 indicates that he
owned four black males who would have been able to work in the fields. One mulatto male age 80
was listed and may be the man, Amos, mentioned in Stephen’s father’s 1819 will. Five enslaved
Black females are listed as well, two of whom were adults. Seven other individuals are described as
207
208
6
improvements were listed as $2,500. This suggests that the old house that had served the Pritchard
family for at least half a century was still standing. In 1857, the value of buildings declined to
$2,000, with no explanation, which might indicate that the older house had been torn down.10 The
presence of “the new brick dwelling” is confirmed by the terms of a deed of trust to secure a $700
loan entered into by Stephen Pritchard’s heir, Samuel Pritchard, in 1858.”11
Figure 3. Ca. 1915 Photograph of “Brightside,” showing south elevation of rear ell (KBA
collection).
The property changed hands again when Stephen Pritchard died in 1858. His will directed that his
sons Samuel Rees (later referred to as “Rees”), Henry James, and Solomon Stephen, were to
receive the “estate whereon I now live.”12 The following year Rees’s brother, Henry James
Pritchard, conveyed his interest in the farmstead to Rees Pritchard.13 The journalist and noted Civil
War documentary artist, James E. Taylor, visited the Pritchard farm and produced detailed sketches
of the landscape and selected buildings. Undoubtedly based on the evidence of Taylor’s Sketch
Book, several historians have suggested that Rees Pritchard was a wheelwright during the Civil
War period. Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any local census records available to
substantiate this claim, but the fact that Taylor was a contemporary observer gives credence to that
contention. The drawing on page 149 depicts “S.R. Pritchard’s Wheelwright Shop.” The view is
209
7
looking south toward Opequon Church. Taylor’s text on page 148 of the Sketch Book declares: “A
few strides now brings us in view of Pritchard’s wheelwright shop, house and barn laying a short
distance ahead the former being at the end of the lane fifty yards away”14 (Figures 4 and 5).
Figure 4. James E. Taylor sketch entitled, “Scene of the pivotal point of Crook’s Battle with Early
at Kernstown -- Pritchard’s farm and lane” (Courtesy of Western Reserve Historical Society). The
wheelwright shop is depicted in the center of the image, with a barn and what appears to be a
domestic structure and an associated outbuilding in the background. None of these buildings
survive.
210
8
Figure 5. Image from James E. Taylor’s Sketchbook, with the building on the right identified as “S.
R. Pritchard’s Wheelwright Shop” (Courtesy of Western Reserve Historical Society).
One of the most informative documents associated with the Pritchard Farm is a set of drawings
prepared by Percy DeVere Burton (born ca. 1877), who lived at the Pritchard Farm from 1879 until
1890.15 The name “Brightside” appears for the first time on a copy of P.V. Burton’s drawing of the
main house. The plans show the configuration of the rooms on all three levels along with all the
window and door openings and the fireplaces.16 The drawings confirm the presence of the two-
story rear ell that was demolished in the mid-20th century, which functioned as a service wing.
Unless the Burton family made substantial changes to the dwelling, these drawings are probably the
best rendering of how the house appeared in the 19th century (Figure 6).
211
9
Figure 6. Drawing by P.V. Burton of the plan of the first floor, showing the hall, servant’s dining
room, kitchen, laundry, and porch in the rear ell.
The physical evidence indicates that the Pritchard Cabin underwent a major renovation beginning
ca. 1850. Given the date of construction of the main house at about the same time, the change in
function of the cabin likely is related. Joining formerly separate facilities for cooking and other
services directly with the main residence was a common practice in the region by the mid-19th
century. If the cabin had performed in a service capacity for the original Pritchard house, which
may well have been sited nearby, the availability of the new wing would have allowed the structure
to be converted for other purposes. In this case, the cabin was upgraded to serve as a permanent
residence. With an enslaved population of 10 adults and seven children in 1850, the enlarged cabin
212
10
could have accommodated numerous individuals who presumably served the nearby Pritchard
family household. None of these changes, or anything else about the cabin, were compatible with a
function as a wheelwright shop.
The Rees Pritchard family, including their young children, continued to reside at their Frederick
County farm adjacent to Kernstown during the war years. In an interview with Taylor in 1864,
Pritchard described the battle, mentioning his barn and that he and his family were forced to take
refuge in his cellar.17 After the war, Samuel R. Pritchard continued to be assessed for 302 acres of
land near Kernstown on the Valley Pike, with a valuation of $2,000 assigned to the buildings. This
record strongly suggests that the dwelling and farm buildings, and presumably the wheelwright
shop, did not sustain any substantial damage during the two Kernstown battles. In that same year,
however, Pritchard and his family had moved to Hampshire County, West Virginia, where he was
described as “running a steam saw mill.” His wife Helen, and four of their children were listed in
the household and his real property holdings were assessed at $1,500.18
In 1871, Samuel R. Pritchard made a claim against the Federal government for repayment for the
loss of livestock, agricultural goods, a cord of wood, and “use of engine and saw mill [for] 4
months,” incurred during the war. The claim was disallowed in 1879, four years after Pritchard’s
death, with testimony provided by Pritchard’s neighbors that his “disloyalty is fully proved.” They
elaborated that Pritchard “was strong and outspoken for the Confederacy and against the Union
cause. He rejoiced at Confederate victories.”19 The contents of this claim suggest that Pritchard
operated a saw mill for part of the war and continued in that activity after he moved to West
Virginia. The location of the saw mill on the Kernstown tract is unknown. A saw mill was also
mentioned in an 1861 Deed of Trust on the property that describes “new brick buildings and a
steam saw mill.”20
Samuel Rees Pritchard died ca. 1875, and in 1876, special commissioners for Pritchard’s estate sold
a tract of 343 acres “near Kernstown,” to John M. Miller.21 In 1879, Miller sold the Pritchard Farm
at Kernstown to James H. Burton, a native of Jefferson County, West Virginia.22 The Frederick
County Land Tax records for 1880 charged Burton for 205½ acres at Kernstown, with $1,500
assessed for buildings. This decline may suggest the removal of some of Samuel Pritchard’s farm
buildings or it may just reflect some deterioration since it seems there may not have been anyone
residing on the farm for the previous decade.
James Burton sold “Brightside” to Charles Henry Grim on October 18, 1890,23 and the Grim family
retained the property until it was acquired by the Kernstown Battlefield Association in the early
2000s. There do not appear to have been many changes in the building improvements since the
ownership of the Burtons. According to members of the KBA, Charles Hardy Grim, Jr., was
responsible for the construction of the large bank barn on the property during the 1940s.24 During
the 1950s the rear service wing of the Pritchard dwelling house was demolished by Mr. Grim.25 A
photograph dated to 1957 shows the ghost marks on the brick wall where the rear wing had been
213
11
attached to the main block of the dwelling. Charles Hardy Grim Jr. (born 1914) died in 1989.26 The
dwelling house and the surrounding property was acquired by the Kernstown Battlefield
Association following litigation initiated by Charles Hardy Grim’s widow contending the value of
the property.27
Physical Evidence
The evidence available to inform the study of the Pritchard cabin consists primarily of the
findings from our investigations of the structure as it was stabilized following the arson fire
(Figures 7 and 8), which were undertaken during three separate visits to the property during
October and November 2022. In addition, a separate consultant undertook dendrochronological
testing of selected logs in 2021, and consideration of those findings are included below.28 As the
exterior of the cabin remains sheathed with plywood, our work focused on the interior of the log
crib along with the underlying stone-walled cellar. We inventoried the surviving historic fabric,
made detailed notes on the characteristics of the elements, measured the floor plans and wall
elevations, took documentary photographs, and prepared a set of scaled drawings detailing both
the current conditions and our interpretation of the inferred periods of construction. We focused
particularly on the surviving diagnostic features related to the methods and materials of
construction, and to the stratigraphic relationships of the data.29 Although the interior of the cabin
had been extensively damaged by the fire, we were able to discern the original configuration of
the building, and to develop a relative chronology of changes that were carried out beginning in
the mid-19th century.
Figure 7. Pritchard cabin, east façade, shortly after the arson fire (2000), before the roof was
removed and the walls were sheathed with plywood.
214
12
Figure 8. Pritchard cabin, west elevation, shortly after the arson fire (2000).
The Pritchard Cabin is a 1.5-story log structure, composed of hewn members joined with V-notches
at the corners, supported on a roughly coursed stone foundation that encloses a full cellar. The
results of the dendrochronology study yielded mixed results, with most of the sampled logs
determined to have been felled in the late 18th century, but with several logs dating as much as a
half-century later. Whatever the original date of construction, the building underwent a series of
significant alterations over the years. Photographic evidence indicates that by ca. 1950 an open
porch ran the length of the east-facing façade, a one-story room had been added to the north wall,
and a shed roof supported by corner posts sheltered a doorway on the west leading to the addition.
The building was damaged extensively by the arsonist fire, which resulted in the total loss of the
added room, the porches, the chimney, and the side-gable roof. The fire virtually gutted the interior
of the log crib as well, including the loss of three of the seven ceiling joists and most of the wall
plaster and lath, along with the corner stairway, the partitions, the garret floor, the doors, and the
doorway and window trim. Heavily burned remnants of the latter elements survive, however, which
provides an opportunity to interpret the character of the space as it changed over time (Figure 9).
215
13
Figure 9. East wall interior, showing extent of fire damage. Remnants of plaster surface (lath,
nails, and ghost marks on logs) overly an earlier layer of whitewash; remnants of chinking and
daub in the gaps between the logs; remnants of the Period II partition and baseboard; framing
elements of east doorway, three iterations.
Period I
The inferred first floor plan derived from the physical evidence is presented in Figure 10. The
doorway was roughly centered on the east wall, and no evidence is visible to suggest that either
216
14
the first floor or the garret were divided before the mid-19th century. The doorway was altered
twice, so the evidence for the original opening is fragmentary (Figure 11). A wood board, 2”
thick, survives attached to the wall logs on the south, which served as the jamb for the doorway;
the log above the top of the jamb has been cut several inches to indicate the height of the opening.
The width of the Period 1 doorway cannot be determined, but the height of the opening was 4’8”
to 4’9”, which is remarkably low for a non-agricultural structure. The 4’11” example found at the
mid-19th century Sotterley slave cabin in St. Mary’s County, Maryland (SM-7A), is the shortest
other doorway in a domestic structure currently known to the investigators. The height of the door
threshold above the existing ground surface indicates that a set of stairs must have been in place
beginning in Period I.
Figure 10. Inferred plan of the first floor in Period I; locations of both interior and exterior
stairs are conjectural.
217
15
Figure 11. Evidence for three iterations of doorways in the east wall.
Standard construction practice of the day called for installing jambs at openings for doors and
windows, which in log buildings usually were attached to each of the adjoining logs to secure
them in place. Wooden pegs were used for this purpose in early buildings, with large iron spikes
replacing them by the mid-19th century.30 The surviving door jamb is attached to the logs with at
least two pegs driven into drilled holes. One of the side pegs is visible and the butt is square in
cross section. A peg with a round cross section is visible penetrating the upper corner of the jamb,
driven at an angle and secured with a wedge. Tellingly, none of the other openings for windows
or doorways in the cabin exhibit jambs attached with pegs, which indicates that none of those
opening in their current form were original. Windows in log buildings tended to be rather small in
size, and these examples were enlarged over time, likely more than once, which could have
obliterated any evidence for their original character.
The location of the fireplace is indicated by a gap in the north wall, measuring approximately 8’
by 4’6”, which was later infilled with bricks (Figure 12). A narrow patch in the floor in front of
the opening for the fireplace indicates the former location of a masonry hearth. There is no doubt
that the fireplace was the original condition, which was replaced by a more efficient wood stove
as part of the upgrades to the building undertaken at mid-century. The in-filled fireplace opening
is positioned slightly off-center on the wall, beginning 5’ from the northwest corner and 4’5”
from the northeast. The wider space between the west wall and the fireplace supports the
inference that the original stairway, most likely a much steeper ladder stair, had been located
218
16
there previously.
Figure 12. Infilled fireplace in the north wall, with ghosts of applied mantel and locations of two
generations of doorways in the northeast corner.
The decision to create a half-story implies that the builders intended for the space to have a
function beyond simply serving as storage, but the garret appears to have been largely neglected
before the later upgrades that were made to the building. The insertion of ceiling joists positioned
less than 1’ from the north and south walls indicates that the plan called for the garret to have a
floor. But the remnants of the floorboards and the associated nails that survived the fire, indicate
that the floor was installed after ca. 1850, and that no permanent flooring predated its
installation. Loosely laid boards could have served as an interim measure for an area that appears
to have been lightly used, which has been found to be the case at other sites. A row of four round
holes drilled into the side of one of the joists are angled slightly upward, suggesting that they
held pegs that were used to hang foodstuffs or other household items. The pegs presumably were
removed when the permanent floor was laid.
The roof frame was completely lost due to the effects of the fire and the clean-up required to
install the temporary shed roof. The upper logs survive and are well preserved, however, which
provide important evidence indicating the original character of the roof (Figure 13). The rafters
were 3” wide by approximately 5” tall, and they were spaced at an interval of 2’2”, each secured
to the top log with a single large (3½”-4” long) wrought nail. The top logs on the long walls
were cut to form a 90-degree peak, running lengthwise and extending 3” above the vertical sides
219
17
of the log on either face. The rafter pairs rested against the inner slope of the peak and were cut
so that the member projected over the top of the log following the angle of the outer slope. The
rafter likely projected 5-6” beyond the outer face of the log wall to create an overhanging eave.31
While the rafters do not survive, several of the nails that were used to attach the members to the
outside face of the logs are intact, and the width of the rafter is indicated by ghosts on either side
of the nail or nail hole. The 90-degree angle of the peak indicates the 45-degree pitch of the roof.
Figure 13. East wall top log with hewn peak to anchor rafters; extent of blackened surface on the
inner face of the log indicates the junction of the wall and ceiling plaster in Period II; a line of cut
nails used to attach vertical lathes to the log is visible projecting from the surface.
Period II
The cabin underwent a range of alterations that occurred in the mid-19th century. The materials
that were used for all of the work are circular sawn boards, which were not commonly available in
Virginia before ca. 1850, attached with machine-headed cut nails of a type that also dates to that
period.32 The interventions reflect upgrades to both the configuration and the finishes of the
spaces, and they were complemented by adding a room connected to the north wall of the
building and by installing two additional exterior doorways. These changes transformed the
building the original one-room building with white-washed walls and an undivided and unfinished
garret into a two-room, hall and parlor plan house, with a divided half-story and a one-story wing
(Figure 14). The extent of the changes indicates that the function of the structure was altered,
likely to accommodate the occupation by full-time residents for the first time.
220
18
Figure 14. Inferred plan of the first floor during Period II; footprint of north addition is estimated;
exterior stairs are conjectural.
The most dramatic change to the first-floor plan was to install a vertical board partition running
east to west that divided the building into two rooms of roughly equal size. The boards are
attached to a ceiling joist, which slightly overlaps the south side of the original doorway. To be
able to use the joist as a header for the wall boards thus required shifting the doorway several
inches to the north. One of the wooden jambs for the second doorway survives, which is circular
sawn and attached with machine-headed cut nails. At 5’8” by 3’4”, the new doorway was
considerably taller than the original. A doorway was positioned slightly off-center in the partition.
When the partition was added, the walls were covered with circular sawn lath and plaster, and a
5” beaded board was installed at the base of the walls. The partition boards were not plastered at
that time, however, as remnants of whitewash are visible below a later covering of lathes.
A second doorway was cut into the west wall, positioned just to the north of the partition, and a
third doorway was inserted in the northeast corner of the north room to provide access to the
addition. The doorways were framed similarly, with circular sawn wooden jambs, attached to the
logs with large iron spikes. The spikes used in both locations are identical, even including both
221
222
20
ladder stair that was shorter and much steeper (Figure 16). The stairway ran along the west
wall to a three-step winder, turned 90 degrees, and then rose along the north wall to a point
above the west edge of the former fireplace opening. When the stairway was added,
portions of two of the ceiling joists in that corner of the building must have been cut and
removed to accommodate it. The fragment of a wood block found inserted into the notch in
the east wall where the north-most joist had been set indicates that the member had been
removed before the fire.
Figure 16. Remnants of lower flight of the Period II enclosed stairs in the northwest corner; a
doorway was positioned on the second tread from the bottom. Ghosts on the logs indicate that a
three-step winder was inserted in the corner, with a second flight of stairs running against the
north wall.
As a consequence of creating the two-room plan, priority likely was given to adding or enlarging
windows and doorways to illuminate the newly plastered spaces. The new “inner” room on the
south would have been especially dark, with no opening in the south wall and without exterior
access. The facing windows in the west and east walls are of markedly different dimensions,
suggesting that they were installed at different times, and they were both altered during
subsequent renovations. The east window is lower and wider, creating a squarish opening, and
223
21
its placement on the wall may relate to that of the original doorway. No pegs were found to
indicate that they were used to attach the window jambs to the logs, however, revealing that if a
window in this location was an original feature, that it had been widened earlier on. Both
windows have been lengthened by cutting adjoining logs – above the opening on the east and
below on the west – which likely occurred in the 20th century during another round of
modifications.
The garret space received an array of similar alterations and upgrades. A board partition wall
was installed to mirror the one on the first floor, with a doorway set slightly off-center.
Floorboards were nailed to the ceiling joists for the first time, and the walls, the ceiling, and the
gables were plastered. Physical and photographic evidence indicates that two windows were
installed, one in each gable, which also may have occurred at this time. Remnants of a window
sill indicate that it was centered in the south gable; a small, square 4-light window is visible in a
1989 photograph, set into the north gable to the east of the rebuilt chimney.
Although the roof frame does not survive and the walls were seriously damaged by the fire, the
surviving evidence indicates that the garret was completely plastered. A layer of whitewash on
the knee walls indicates the Period I condition, before circular sawn lathes were attached with
machine-headed cut nails. The knee wall logs are heavily burned and blackened by the fire,
extending to a rough line running along the top of the shoulder of the logs where the plaster
lathes terminate. The inner face of the peak of the top log is not blackened, indicating that it had
been protected from the flames. A closely fitted lath and plaster ceiling attached to the bottoms
of the rafters presumably offered sufficient protection from the fire. A dimension of roughly 5”
for the rafters would fit with this spacing, allowing approximately 1½” of wood to project over
and beyond the peak to create the eave. The evidence that the gables were plastered as well
consists of the remnants of a row of studs that were attached to the inside edge of the tops of the
end logs. Clusters of cut nails driven at angles into the logs indicate the locations of the studs,
spaced at an interval of 1’6” to receive horizontal lathes.
Similar evidence was found to indicate the placement of studs to attach the boards enclosing the
exterior of the gables. Following common practice, the studs were set into notches cut into the
outer edge of the end wall logs and nailed in place. Clusters of nails project from the surface of
the logs in alignment with the notches, which indicate that the studs were set at an interval of
approximately 3’. The projecting nails were machine made, sheared from iron plates and then
mechanically headed. This type of nail was not available in the Chesapeake in the 1790s, and
they were not in common use in the region until after ca. 1820. As these nails do not match the
wrought nails used to attach the rafters, perhaps the gable walls were replaced. If so, evidence
for an earlier set of studs was not found, and a circumstance where the gables required
replacement even while the rafters remained in place is difficult to imagine.
Combining both hand-made and cut nails to address different needs at the same time was not
unusual practice in the first half of the 19th century. Substantial cut nails with stamped heads that
were several inches long were often difficult to obtain, and these spikes continued to be made as
224
22
needed by local blacksmiths. Spikes were typically used to attach jambs for doorways, and both
machine-cut and hand-made spikes were used to install two of the surviving door jambs at
Pritchard in mid-century. Securing the feet of the rafters to the top logs is an application where
spikes would have been preferred, while using multiple smaller cut nails to attach the gable studs
was typical. Therefore, the combination of the technologies would not be particularly notable in
the mid-Antebellum period, but the practice would not be possible in the 18th century.
Periods III-IV
Slight changes to the cabin were undertaken that likely occurred in less obviously apparent
phases in the 20th century. By 1950 the full-length porch was in place along the east elevation.
The east doorway was altered for a second time, when it was narrowed slightly and raised in
height (6’2” by roughly 2’8”), and the north doorway was altered as well to meet the same
dimensions. The jamb of the east doorway was attached with wire nails, indicating that the
change occurred after ca. 1890.33 The doorway in the west wall was converted into a window,
and photographs from the 1980s indicate that the new window and the southwest window were
framed identically, with 6/6 double sashes. The opening of the former west doorway was raised
to match the height of the earlier window by cutting a notch in the log above. Creating the
matching windows on the west, in concert with the doorway leading into the shed addition,
produced a regular fenestration that was not attempted with the openings on the east (Figure 17).
The uneven fenestration there was somewhat masked by the open porch running the length of
the wall, and the two elevations were visibly separated as well.
225
23
Figure 17. West elevation showing Period II doorway converted into 6/6 window to match the
southwest window.34
Modifications on the interior appear to have mainly consisted of retrimming the doorways and
windows to correspond with the new dimensions. In addition, the board partition was plastered
for the first time, and plaster was overlaid onto the frame of the east doorway. When the window
was installed to replace the doorway in the west wall, baseboard was laid across the former
opening. Finally, tongue and grooved flooring was laid on top of the original floorboards in both
of the downstairs rooms.
Cellar
The one-room cellar is accessed via a full-height doorway positioned at grade at the southeast
corner of the south wall; two window openings are asymmetrically positioned near the corners of
the east wall. Iron spikes and nails are driven into the ceiling joists in a seemingly random pattern,
and they are the only remnants of any interior fittings that may have been found there. Recently
the KBA undertook repairs to the cellar, which included repointing all of the stone walls, inserting
posts and a summer beam to provide structural support, and spreading a layer of sand on the floor.
The combination board and batten door is old, exhibiting hand-planed boards, with blacksmith-
made strap hinges hung from pintles, and rose-headed wrought nails were used to clinch the two
wide, chamfered battens. An iron hasp and eye allowed the door to be secured from the exterior.
A wooden sliding bolt attached to the inner face of the door is matched with a keeper nailed to
226
24
the frame, providing a means to secure the door from the inside. The sliding bolt and keeper are
fastened with machine-headed cut nails. Remnants of an interior iron box lock, with keyhole and
knob, indicate that the locking mechanisms were upgraded later on (Figure 18). At the windows,
exterior wooden shutters are hung from strap hinges and pintles, which are blacksmith-made and
attached with wrought nails. It is unclear whether the openings ever were outfitted with sashes.
The cellar would have provided a secure area for storage, but given the separate entrance and the
generous amount of light provided by the windows, the room could have served as a workspace
that may or may not have been related to the activities carried out in the floors above.
Figure 18. Cellar doorway, southeast corner.
Wooden elements found throughout the building exhibit empty mortises, notches, and other
characteristics that indicate that they were reused from one or more other structures. At the level
of the log crib, these materials include both fragments of logs and squared timbers – likely
227
25
rafters, collars, and/or studs -- inserted as chinking in at least three of the four walls. Scavenging
whatever materials were at hand to fill the random spaces between wall logs was common
practice during all periods. The evidence found in the cellar is less predictable and raises
additional questions about the chronology of events. One of the two header beams used in
framing the opening for the doorway, and one of the beams for the northeast window, are both
squared and planed smooth, with beaded corners and empty mortises and holes for pegs. Thus,
they likely were originally exposed members of either a door or a window frame (or frames), and
their similarity suggests both a common origin and that they were reinstalled at the same time.
At least one of the cellar window frames was also reused, and the second one likely was as well.
The dimensions of the frames, and the workmanship, is comparable. But the frame set into the
northeast opening is laid horizontally, to accommodate the steeply sloping ground surface
(Figure 19A and B). The projecting ears of the frame, which were intended to help anchor the
jambs in the wall, have been cut off, but otherwise the frame matches closely with the character
of the southeast window. Ghost marks reveal that double-sashes had been inserted in both of the
frames, but the evidence for the side pieces on the northeast opening indicates that the sashes
were oriented according to the long dimension, rather than horizontally to match the current
condition. Nails that relate to the trim pieces that held the sashes in both windows are cut and
machine headed. Therefore, both of the frames must have been salvaged and reinserted during
the machine-headed cut nail period, certainly not in 1793-94 and likely no earlier than the 1820s.
Figure 19A and B: Southeast cellar window frame installed in the standard manner; northeast cellar
window frame installed on its side.
Dating and Dendrochronology
The dendrochronology findings yielded mixed results that raise a number of questions regarding
the construction history. Of the 17 logs that were sampled, eight were specifically dated to 1793,
and two others were felled in the 1780s. One log was dated to 1848, however, and two others
228
26
could not be specifically dated but were felled after 1813 and 1832, respectively. All three of the
19th-century logs are located midway up the walls, in positions that are not obviously more
vulnerable or more subject to deterioration from weathering than any of the other logs around
them. Replacing full-length logs (two of the three) would have been a difficult proposition,
requiring either modifying the corner notches or temporarily elevating the logs above them to
insert the replacement members. No evidence is visible to indicate that anything of the kind
occurred, but the ends of two of the logs are covered on the exterior, and thus could not be
investigated from that aspect.
The competing scenario calls for the 18th-century logs to have been salvaged from another
location and re-erected on this site, but this faces equally puzzling complications. The arson fire
that gutted the interior above the cellar left intact only a few features that relate to the original
structure. These include the chinked and daubed log walls, evidence for a substantial fireplace
opening in the north wall, along with a patch for an associated hearth, and a framing element of a
doorway that survives in the east wall. The wooden chinking inserted between the logs is held in
place by wrought nails in several locations, and covered with a traditional mud-based daub, which
exhibit remnants of whitewash on the smoothed surface. It would have been impossible for the
daub and whitewash to survive the move if the logs were salvaged from elsewhere. The doorway
on the east wall and the fireplace on the north are also almost certainly original to the building on
this site, as their survival does not make sense if the logs were salvaged and re-erected.
On the other hand, abundant physical evidence testifies to the suite of alterations that almost
certainly mark the change in function from what was primarily a service building to a residence.
With a stairway positioned in the northwest corner, the north room thus was confirmed as serving
as the social core of the house, as all other spaces were accessible from it. In contrast, the newly
created room occupying the south half of the log crib became a much more private space, with
access only via the doorway in the partition. Assigning a precise date for these activities is not
possible, but the materials used indicate that the interventions did not occur before ca. 1850.
The original function of the building is uncertain, but the earlier Pritchard residence is believed to
have been located in the general vicinity before it was replaced by the current house ca. 1854.
Given the proposed 18th century date of construction, its proximity to the Pritchard house, and the
substantial fireplace, the cabin may have served as the kitchen for the main household. The large
fireplace opening on the north wall is the most telling indication of the original function. If so,
that use ceased sometime after ca. 1850, when the building was retrofitted to serve as a residence.
If this conversion occurred around the same time that the new Pritchard dwelling was erected, the
occupants may have been enslaved individuals who worked as house servants. If the alterations
occurred after the Civil War, the occupants, Black or white, likely still were tasked with those
duties.
229
27
Preservation Options and Recommendations
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment
When undertaking the repair of a historic structure, standard practice for owners is to look for
guidance to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.35 This is true for properties that are
currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as those that are not but have
been deemed to have a historic value. The historic resources of the Kernstown Battlefield are
not currently included in the National Register, but we recommend that the KBA seriously
consider pursuing listing. The Secretary of the Interior also provides Guidelines for the
Treatment of Historic Properties to enable the application of best practices and are intended to
help protect our nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. Together, they provide a framework
for decision-making about making repairs and any other 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 approaches to the treatment of historic properties: preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Selecting the proper treatment often depends on
many factors, which include physical condition, intended use, practicality, and funding. Factors
to consider when selecting one treatment option over another often also take into account the
property's significance under National Register criteria, the integrity of the character defining
features, the extent of documentation available, and, when applicable, interpretive goals. 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. Work, including
preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the
ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive
replacement and new construction. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties
functional is appropriate within a preservation project. However, new exterior additions
are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards for Preservation require
retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form.
● 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. The rehabilitation
standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing
or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.
230
28
● 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. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties
functional is appropriate within a restoration project. The restoration standards allow for
the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials,
features, finishes, and spaces from its period of significance and removing those from
other periods.
● 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. The reconstruction standards establish a
limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new
materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.
Considering Treatment Options
The condition of the Pritchard Cabin places limits on the options for treatment that are
realistically available. The result of the fire was the irreplaceable loss of many layers of history
that had built up over the years. As such, the choice to maintain the structure using the
preservation option is not viable under any reasonable plan for the future that recognizes the
historic value of the structure. The current condition is a mothballed building, sheathed within
21st-century building materials that protect the cabin but do not allow its historic character to be
understood. In order to return the cabin to a semblance of its historic appearance, a number of
features would need to be restored, beginning with the gable roof. The KBA board has indicated
that their desire is to return the structure to a previous appearance as best informed by the
evidence available -- thus preservation is not the best option.
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. Again, the fire damage leaves intact few of the features and finishes of the cabin
from any period, either inside or out. While rehabilitation allows for repair, the assumption is
that original materials survive to be incorporated into the rehabilitation.
Restoration is the most realistic option for protecting the existing structure. At a minimum to be
able to convey the appearance of a historic resource, the elements making up the envelope of the
building should be restored. This includes installing a new roof, windows, and doors. The building
was covered with horizontal siding at the time of the fire, which may have been installed for the
first time during the major alterations that were undertaken beginning in the mid-19th century. The
231
29
surviving siding on the south wall is of a later design and may have been changed during the late
19th century. Reinstalling siding that is appropriate for that period would be highly beneficial in
protecting the damaged wall logs as well as achieving historic and aesthetic objectives. Evidence
for the details of the original siding may be revealed when the plywood covering, that is on three
sides of the building, is removed. Details for windows and doors and for their frames may be
informed effectively by local and period traditions. This report recommends the evidence for Period
II (beginning ca. 1850) as the best choice for guiding the restoration, which aligns with the period
of interpretation centered on the Battle of Kernstown (1862) that has been adopted by the KBA.
Reconstruction is the most problematic option for treatment, which is generally aimed at
reconstructing buildings in instances where the original fabric is largely or entirely lost. The
decision to reconstruct brings with it the expectation that sufficient information exists to inform
the project and to avoid a false representation of history. As important components of the cabin as
it existed in Period II no longer survive, reconstruction of selected features would be required.
Recreating the gable roof, replacing the doors and windows, and applying siding all fit reasonably
within the restoration option. If other features, which are entirely missing and are documented so
far only by photographic evidence -- such as the porch and the north addition -- are to be
recreated, that work falls more squarely within reconstruction.
Recommendations
The Pritchard Cabin does not fit neatly into any of the four options for treatment, but restoration
best addresses both the goals of the KBA and the needs of preserving the structure. Similarly,
choosing a period for which to restore the Pritchard Cabin is complicated by the finding that there
are three distinct building episodes evidenced in the structure. Primary considerations in choosing
the period are a combination of weighing the evidence to be confident in the historical accuracy
of the appearance, and in determining that it would be compatible with the Period of
Interpretation (POI) for the Kernstown Battlefield.
Of the three identifiable phases of construction for the Pritchard Cabin, Period II is the best
candidate for restoration work. Although necessarily incomplete, the physical evidence for this
period is excellent, consisting of a combination of factors and features related to the means and
methods of construction. This period reflects a change in the function of the building, from what
was likely a combined kitchen and workspace, to a residence for workers, either black or white,
enslaved or free. Most of the Period I evidence is lost except for the log walls, the south side of
the D1 door opening, and the indications of the fireplace on the north wall. Period 1 is especially
significant to the story of the property and the building components and the fragments from this
period should be carefully preserved in place. The evidence relating to Periods III-IV consist
almost exclusively of 20th-century photographs of the exterior of the building, and they represent
the least significant iteration of the structure.
232
30
Given the compatibility of Period II with the POI, a partial restoration to that period is the most
viable at this time, but that choice brings with it significant challenges. On the exterior, it is
uncertain what type of steps and/or porch was in place to reach the doorway on the east façade.
Erecting the north addition was part of the mid-19th century work, but the dimensions and other
construction details are largely unknown. On the interior, while the evidence for the appearance for
the spaces is remarkably informative given their virtual destruction by the fire, the extent of the
damage and the condition of the surviving historic fabric makes their restoration quite challenging.
Therefore, restoration of Period II should be considered as consisting of two distinct phases. The
first efforts should be devoted to preserving the structure by buttoning up the building envelope,
while also returning the building to a reasonable representation of its historic character. This work
could be accomplished requiring only limited additional investigations. A second phase of work
might include reconstructing the east porch and the north addition, but would entail significant
additional investigations, which would include targeted archaeological excavations. Restoring the
interior of the cabin would represent an even more ambitious intervention, which would require
detailed planning, including weighing the interpretive gains against financial costs and the
undoubted loss of much of the surviving historic fabric.
For the near future, at least, the restoration of the cabin should focus on the exterior with a very
light hand applied on the interior. With this approach, the Pritchard Cabin can become a positive
contributor to the larger cultural landscape, which also leaves visible the different periods on the
interior. A full restoration of the interior to Period II is possible but would need to be done in a
sensitive manner that protects the historic fabric to the extent possible. The interior work would
also require a deeper analysis of the materials used, and the preparation of both an interpretive
plan and detailed construction documents. While this is possible, we think the highest priority is
to restore the envelope.
Differing levels of additional investigations may be in order. Archaeological excavations would
likely contribute valuable information related to the history of the cabin by recovering building
debris and domestic artifacts that relate to the occupation and use of the site. In addition, if there
is interest in reconstructing the north addition and/or the east porch or other means of access to
the doorway, archaeology would be required to guide those designs. It is likely that there were
several iterations of steps and porches along the east façade, and archaeology is the only means of
teasing apart the chronology and identifying their character and dimensions. Archaeology would
also likely determine the footprint of the addition and may reveal other important structural
evidence.
Phase I: Stabilization and Restoration:
The following work is geared toward protecting the original fabric and returning the exterior of
the main structure of the Pritchard Cabin to the Period II appearance. Phase I work does not
include interventions on the interior that goes beyond stabilization, nor does it propose the
reintroduction of the additions.
233
31
1. Unwrap the building
1.1. The plywood envelope that has done a good job of protecting the remaining
historic fabric. Framing for the covering generally respects the fabric but is
attached to the walls in places. Removal of the wrap should be staged in phases
in tandem with other work.
1.2. The German-lap siding on the south side should also be carefully removed to
see evidence of original siding.
1.3. The exterior should be documented similarly to what has been accomplished in
the interior. This will help in clarifying the extent and timing of interventions.
2. Walls
2.1. Openings in log buildings for windows, doorways, and fireplaces are
generally trimmed with wood jambs or bucks. In older buildings, these are
roughly 2” thick pieces secured to each log end using a wooden peg. Later
openings may be thinner and attached with metal spikes (nails).
2.2. The bucks should be reinstalled at all openings.
2.2.1. Lift logs to a level position or to one that reflects any chink and daub
that remains. Ensure that the logs are in a vertical plane. Temporary
shoring may be needed to hold logs in place.
2.2.2. Attach white oak bucks (1” thick in most cases and 2” thick where
possible).
2.2.2.1. At the west side of the fireplace opening, the shoring may need
to be the permanent fix unless the firebox is replaced at some
point.
2.2.2.2. W1 should have trim elements and bucks removed and
replicated. The style should be used as the model for the other
window opening (W2).
2.2.2.3. The P3 buck in D1 can be used as the model for the other door
openings.
2.3. Exterior Finishes
2.3.1. Siding – Reinstalling siding will help to protect the original fabric.
Returning to P2, the siding was likely a sawn clapboard that was later
replaced by the German drop lap. Detailed investigations may be able
to confirm this.
2.3.1.1. The siding was attached to the logs via vertical furring strips.
These should be examined to determine the generations of
siding. If only one generation is found, then the German drop
lap siding may be the best option for replacement. Along with
the strips themselves, the nails used to attach them should be
closely examined. Nails that match the period for the 1850s
alterations found on the interior would support the
234
32
interpretation that the siding was first installed at that time.
2.3.1.2. An earlier generation of siding would have been ~¾” x 6”-8”
flat sawn boards lapped approximately 1” to 1 1/2”.
2.3.2. Paint - If the building is to be re-sided, the logs should first be treated
with borates and/or a preservative oil such as Q8 Log Oil (00).
2.3.2.1. The German drop lap siding was likely always painted white.
2.3.2.2. Earlier siding was likely left unpainted, and these boards
should be treated with a protective oil
2.3.2.3. Leaving the logs exposed is not recommended, and only should
be considered if evidence for whitewash is found after the
plywood is removed.
2.4. Interior Finishes
2.4.1. From a preservation perspective, it is preferable to leave the charred
surfaces of the logs as they are.
2.4.2. Chinking is mostly intact, but new blocking should be added to log
ends. If re-chinking is required in some locations, the material used
should replicate the original.
2.4.3. Much of the daubing is missing. Renewing the daubing should leave
large enough sections in place that are still functioning. Replacement
daub should replicate the original. If the building is to be sided, new
daubing can be a lower priority.
3. Doors
3.1. There is only one door left in the building, in the cellar, and an image
captures a panel door leading into the shed addition.
3.2. D1, D2 and D3 should be of the board-and-batten type, with 3-4 boards and
two battens.
3.3. The design should match that of the cellar access.
3.4. No other doors are necessary at this point.
3.5. D1 will either need stairs to the ground or bars to prevent people from exiting.
3.6. The cellar door should have the existing layers of paints stabilized and then be
painted.
4. Windows
4.1. The best model for replacement windows are the remnants of W1. This is
augmented by photographs of the building.
4.2. First floor
4.3. Windows should be 6 over 6 divided light sashes, with the upper sash fixed
and a lower sash sliding.
4.4. Garret
4.4.1. North window should be a four light casement if installed.
4.4.2. South window should be 6 over 6 divided lights, with the upper
sash fixed.
235
33
4.5. Cellar
4.5.1. Installing sashes does not seem to be appropriate in the openings based
on the extant evidence. Either screens reinforced with hardware cloth
or plexiglass interior storms should be installed to prevent animals
from using the openings to gain access to the building.
4.5.2. The shutter in the south opening is quite well made, but it has been
gnawed by animals to gain access. The shutter may need to be
replicated, including the tapered battens and fasteners. Short of that,
treating with an oil such as Q8 that will deter bugs and animals
would benefit the piece.
4.5.3. The north opening has pintles for a shutter that could be produced to
mimic the southern example, but this is a low priority.
4.5.4. Bare wood should be treated from the inside with a borate treatment
such as Nissus Bora Care. This will help to prevent powder post
beetle and termite infestation, rot, and fungal growth. This treatment
should be repeated every five years.
5. Roof
5.1. Rough information about the roof is gained from the photographs and in situ
evidence found during investigation. This information gives guidance to a
historically viable replacement roof.
5.2. Rafters are roughly 3” wide by 5”-5½ deep.
5.3. Rafters should be made of oak.
5.4. The pitch is inferred to be 12/12.
5.5. Refer to the drawings provided for the number of rafters and spacing.
5.6. Details
5.6.1. Forked joint at the peak. The tenon should be 1” thick and 1” from the
reference face. Spiked with either two rose head nails or one 1”
trunnel.
5.6.2. Rafter feet should be notched per the drawing with a 1”-1½” tail that
extends beyond the top log to create an overhang. The notch will
vary by location to keep the top surface of the rafters in plane.
5.6.3. 1” x 3” nailers made of oak with a gap of 1” between the boards.
5.6.4. Random width wood shingles from 4” - 6” width by 20”. This is an
expensive option so a metal standing seam roof should be considered
as an alternative.
6. Floor
6.1. Currently the lowest, likely original wooden floor is covered by a second
floor consisting of boards with tongue and groove joints, and by a layer of
plywood. The second floor is laid on furring strips to level it out over the
buckled first period floor that runs north and south. The first period floor
should be mostly unharmed by the fire.
236
34
6.2. Carefully remove the plywood covering and assess the condition of the
earlier flooring. If the second floor, which likely is related to Period III-IV,
is repairable with limited effort, that would be sufficient for the PI repairs.
6.3. If a full restoration of the space is ever undertaken, it will be necessary to
assess the condition of the first period floor. Near the fireplace, there are
two areas where the fire penetrated, flanking an area of flooring that
replaced the hearth.
6.3.1. Replace damaged floor with like material matching as well as possible
the grain orientation.
6.3.2. Flatten buckling in the floor.
6.3.2.1. Boards will likely need to be lifted and their edges trimmed so
they can lay flat.
6.3.2.2. Nails should be preserved and reused if possible or replaced
with slightly larger reproduction nails.
6.3.2.3. If the first period floor is not salvageable, replace all boards
as necessary in kind. Nails should match those found in the
period flooring.
6.4. Clean floor and possibly sand the surface; heavy sanding should be avoided.
7. Chimney
7.1. Replacing the chimney will aide in the interpretation of the building in the
landscape.
7.2. The base of the replacement chimney is in place currently. There are sufficient
pictures showing the thin stack with corbelling above the roofline; rebuild the
stack based on that evidence.
7.3. Rebuild the chimney using handmade bricks and an appropriate restoration
mortar. Tool the mortar joints according to historic precedent.
237
35
Notes
1 Maral S. Kalbian. Frederick County, Virginia: History through Architecture. (Winchester, VA: Winchester –
Frederick County Historical Society, Rural Landmarks Publication Committee, 1999), 1.
2 Frederick County Will Book 1:338 (1749).
3 Frederick County Deed Book 4:232 (1757).
4 1810: Third Census of the United States U.S. Federal Census for Pughtown, Frederick County, Virginia. Roll 68, p.
342. (Image 00659).
5 Frederick County Will Book 10:432.
6 1830 United States Federal Census, Western District, Frederick County, Virginia, 127.
7 Frederick County Land Tax Books, 1837-1853.
8 1850 U.S. Federal Census, Slave Schedules; http://www.ancestry.com.
9 Frederick County Agricultural Census for 1850, beginning at page 360. Miscellaneous Reel s, Library of Virginia.
10 Frederick County Birth Records, 1855-1896.
11 Frederick County Deed Book 81:186 (1859). A deed of trust from Samuel R. Pritchard to David W. Barton.
12 Frederick County Will Book 25:504 (1858).
13 Frederick County Deed Book 84:180-181 (1859).
14 The James E. Taylor Sketch Book. [Cleveland, Ohio: The Western Reserve Historical Society, 1989]. Publications
No. 175. 148-149.
15 According to the Burton family history supplied to KBA by Burton’s great granddaughter, Eugenia Scheffel, Percy
DeVere Burton was born on Nov. 26, 1881, in Kernstown. Eleven of the 13 children were born prior to 1870. Percy D.
Burton’s birth date as confirmed by the Census of 1910, 1920 and 1930, however, suggests a birth date of 1877.
16 The copies of these undated drawings were provided by Ronald Burton of Conway, Arkansas, a descendant of James
Burton. “Plan of Brightside, Kernstown, Virginia.” According to P. V. Burton, “This was the home, for 12 years, my
birthplace.”
17 Sketch Book., 149-151. See U.S. Federal Census for Frederick County, 1850, 1860.
18 U.S. Federal Census for Hampshire County, Gore, West Virginia, 1870. Roll M593_1687 494 B, Image 26.
19 Southern Claims Commission, file by Samuel R. Pritchard, # 14653 (undated but the form is dated 1871).
20 Frederick County Deed Book 85:351-352 (1861).
21 Frederick County Deed Book 92:467 (1876).
22 Frederick County Deed Book 95:137 (1880).
23 Frederick County Deed Book 107:366 (1890).
24 KBA Gazette, [Volume 6, issue 1, Summer, 2006], 1.
25 Conversation with David Powers and Gary Crawford by Maral Kalbian, November 19, 2009.
26 Winchester Evening Star, July 5, 1989.
27 Conversation with David Powers and Gary Crawford by Maral Kalbian, November 19, 2009.
28 Shawn Cockrell, “Tree-Ring Dating of the Kernstown Battlefield Association Cabin,” Final Report Submitted to the
Kernstown Battlefield Association (January 2022).
29 For a discussion of the process of architectural investigation, see Edward A. Ch appell, “Chapter 3: Fieldwork,” in
The Chesapeake House: Architectural Investigation by Colonial Williamsburg , ed. Cary Carson and Carl R. Lounsbury
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013), pp. 29-47. Nails are the most diagnostic construction material
commonly available; for a guide to the process of identifying and dating nails, and using them in architectural analysis,
see, Jay D. Edwards and Tom Wells, Historic Louisiana Nails: Aids to the Dating of Old Buildings (Baton Rouge, LA:
Geoscience Publications, 1993).
30 Willie Graham, “Chapter 10: Timber Framing,” in Carson and Lounsbury, Chesapeake House, pp. 220-225.
31 The condition using peaked tops on the logs to anchor the rafter feet is highly unusual. For a discussion of standard
practice using flat false plates, see Graham, “Timber Framing,” p. 221. The peaked top appears to be an offshoot of the
alternate practice of installing a boxy false plate at an angle, so that the rafters butted against the inner face, with a
thinner upper portion extending beyond the wall line to create an overhang, Graham, “Timber Framing,” pp. 227 -228.
32 The earliest dendro-dated circular sawn boards in Virginia date to the late 1840s.
33 Standard wire nails were introduced in 1880, but they were not in wide use until about a decade later, see Edwards
and Wells, Louisiana Nails, p. 63.
34 Mike and Betty Heazel, “Getting to Know the Hoges,” AAFA Action #56 (Spring 2002): 94-102.
35 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Technical Preservation
Services (U.S. National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-
properties.htm. (2022).
238
239
240
241
242
243
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: June 26, 2026
Agenda Section: HRAB Historic Preservation Grant
Title: Willa Cather House
Attachments:
HRAB06-26-26WillaCatherHouse_Redacted.pdf
244
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board
FROM: Planning and Development Staff
RE: 2026 Historic Resources Advisory Board Historic Preservation Grant – Willa
Cather House
DATE: June 16, 2026
Background:
This memo summarizes the application for the Historic Preservation Grant for the Willa Cather
House.
The grant was opened to application in December of 2025 and the deadline extended to May 31st, 2026.
This is a reimbursement grant program funded by remaining donations from the County’s 250th
anniversary celebration in 1988. Applicants were required to be 501C(3) organizations and the
projects be within Frederick County, including the Towns of Middletown and Stephens City.
Applicants could submit for multiple projects but only two would be funded, each grant is limited
to $4,000.
The review criteria the HRAB outlined are the following:
• Historical Significance. Priority is given to properties that are individually listed or
contribute to a district on the National Register of Historic Places or are recognized as
historically significant by state or local authorities.
• Condition of the Resource. Buildings in threatened or deteriorated conditions that
demonstrate an urgent need for intervention to prevent further immediate deterioration will
be prioritized.
• Project Urgency and Impact. Priority will be given to projects where immediate intervention
will arrest active deterioration or prevent irreversible damage to the resource.
• Preservation Standards and Approach. Proposed work must follow the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Approaches should emphasize repair over
replacement and prioritize preservation of original materials and features.
• Public Benefit and Community Impact. Projects that will benefit the public through access,
educational use, visibility, tourism, or community revitalization are encouraged.
• Completeness of Application. All requested documents (photos, ownership records, plan for
245
Page 2 of 2
funding, historic designation, etc.) must be included for the application to be considered.
Attached you will find supporting documentation for the grant request, including the application,
budget, photos, and cost estimates.
Request:
Project Name
Description Magisterial
District
Willa Cather House This is a request by the Lindenlight Foundation DBA Willa
Cather’s Virginia for $4,000 for the restoration of the Willa
Cather House at 6856 Northwestern Pike in Gore.
The applicant is seeking funding to construct a
foundation and preserve the structure until more
funding is available to complete the project.
Gainesboro
Requested Action:
Following discussion, staff is seeking action by the HRAB regarding the application. Actions may be:
• Fully approve the requested amount.
• Partially approve the requested amount.
• Deny the request.
Questions regarding the application may be directed to the Planning and Development staff and
applicant’s agent.
Attachments: 1. Willa Cather House Application
246
6856
NORTHWESTERN
PIKE
6814
NORTHWESTERN
PIKE
Parcels
CUP # 06 - 18
Scott F. White
PIN:
55K - 2 - 3 - 151
Cottage Occupation - Firearms Dealer
Zoning Map
HRAB Grant Application: Willa Cather House
Location Map µ
247
Willa Cather’s Virginia
6856 Northwestern Pike
Gore, Virginia 22637
May 26, 2026
Frederick Couty Planning and Development
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Attn: Eric Bittner
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Mr. Bittner,
Please find enclosed the Willa Cather’s Virginia Grant Application for the HRAB Grant. Please feel free to contact me with
any additional questions or comments as I have prepared the application.
Sincerely,
Katherine Solenberger
Willa Cather’s Virginia Board Member
1454 Apple Pie Ridge Rd
Winchester, VA 22603
(5
248
The
Willa Cather Birthplace
Preservation Project
249
1
Historic Preservation Grant Application
Grant Title: The Willa Cather Birthplace
Preservation Project
Applicant Name: The Lindenlight Foundation DBA Willa Cather's Virginia
Property Name: The Willa Cather Birthplace aka The Rachel E. Boak House
Property Address: 6856 Northwestern Pike, Gore VA 22637
Department of Historic Resources File Number (if known): NAID# 41680816
Contact Information: Charles Miller, President, Willa Cather's Virginia
Funding Amount Requested: $4,000
Date of Submission: May 15, 2026
1. Project Summary:
The Willa Cather Birthplace Preservation Project is focused on the preservation and restoration of
the first home of one of America's greatest writers. Pulitzer Prize-winning author Willa Cather
(1873-1947) a fifth generation Virginian, whose relatives aligned on opposing sides of the Civil
War. Her fiction, although often set far from Virginia, deals again and again with issues and
characters that are deeply involved with Virginia and the South. Cather was reared amidst the
beauty of Back Creek Valley and later embraced the complexities of her Virginia birthplace-
including the stories of those who inhabited what she described as "that out-of-the-way, thinly
settled district between Romney and Winchester." Indeed, Cather's final novel, Sapphira and the
Slave Girl (1940), is set on Lucas Lane across from her birthplace just a few miles northwest of
Winchester, in the traumatic decade preceding the Civil War. Through the restoration and
revitalization of the Willa Cather's birthplace, the non-profit organization, Willa Cather's Virginia,
aims to widen and deepen members' and visitors' understanding of this place: its resources, issues,
and stories-past and future.
Virginia Realtor Katherine Solenberger purchased the house in 2023 to ensure its stabilization
and preservation. In October 2025, she donated the birthplace property to Willa Cather's
Virginia, a Virginia-based nonprofit that has recently been formed to receive the house for
restoration and promotion of Cather's Virginia legacy.
The Willa Cather Foundation in Red Cloud Nebraska is proud to be working collaboratively
with Willa Cather’s Virginia to assist in planning for the site’s stabilization and eventual
restoration and programming.
250
2
2. Historical Significance of the Property:
Property Designation: ☐ Listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places ☐ Contributing resource in a National Register Historic District ☐ Designated State or Local Historic Landmark ☐ Eligible for the National Register listing (documentation included) √Included in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey
3. Statement of Significance:
The Willa Cather Birthplace has been on the National Register of Historic Places since
1978. It was the home of Rachel Seibert Boak (Cather’s maternal grandmother). Also known
as the Rachel E. Boak House, the original log structure is believed to be built by Jeremiah
Smith, the earliest settler to the Back Creek Valley now known today as Gore, Virginia. The
site has fallen into disrepair, subjected to neglect of time and the elements. While the
structure is still intact, with many of its original features, the cost to restore this site will no
doubt be significant. This grant will help move this project forward, and help ensure that the
birthplace does not fall into complete ruin. The urgency of this rehabilitation is paramount as
the structure is near collapse. This restored historic resource can be utilized to tell the story of
the early life of this prominent historic figure and highlight the early days of life in Frederick
County, Virginia. The Willa Cather birthplace remains a testament to the humble, rural
origins of a great writer who, toward the end of her life, struggled to write the story of her
home state. Sapphira and the Slave Girl (1940) is of increasing interest to contemporary
Cather scholars, and the preservation of this birthplace could attract more visitors to explore
the beauty and complexity of Cather’s Shenandoah Valley home.
As a child of Virginia’s difficult post-Civil War Reconstruction, young Willa was surrounded
by family members who, in her father’s family, had supported the Union and, in her mother’s
family, had fought in the Confederate army. Cather’s maternal grandmother, Rachel Seibert
Boak, was the inspiration for Rachel Blake in Sapphira, who assists a young enslaved woman
escape captivity.
The Willa Cather Birthplace Preservation Project’s goal is to rehabilitate the original wooden
structure and elevate Cather’s legacy in Virginia. Willa Cather last visited the region of her
early childhood in the 1930s while doing research for her final novel Sapphira and the Slave
Girl, which she described as the most difficult book she ever wrote. Her family stories and
memories of the region are entangled in the book, which was an attempt to confront the
slaveholding realities in her family’s past.
4. Scope of Work:
This grant will be used to prepare for the complete restoration of this structure. The entire
structure is in such disrepair that a foundation must be built under the north half of the front
251
3
portion and under the back kitchen “L”. The two portions will be lifted and stabilized in order to
accomplish this. Also, the windows will be covered, roof repaired and the property “mothballed”
until more funds are available. Contractor William Wine specializes in historic restorations in the
Shenandoah Valley and has submitted a proposal to Willa Cather’s Virginia (see attached) and the
board has selected him for this phase of stabilization. (The Secretary of Interior’s Standards will be
adhered to.) Once the structure is lifted and foundation built, it will then be safe to start the next
phase of rehabilitation. This grant will be used to help fund the initial portion of the project.
5. Public Benefit:
Jeff Miller, president of Willa Cather’s Virginia, emphasized the organization’s commitment
to safeguarding the property as a cultural and historical landmark. “We are excited to explore
potential uses for the site, including educational programs, literary events, and community
gatherings that honor Willa Cather’s legacy and contribute to the community at large.” The
Willa Cather Foundation in Nebraska hosts many “Writer’s Retreats” and Cather Seminars
and this site can be utilized for similar programming. This will be the first project highlighting
Willa Cather’s first home in the Back Creek Valley of Virginia.
6. Supporting Documents:
The Willa Cather Birthplace Project
Restoration Budget
Phase 1: Stabilization & Structural Core ($121,000 – $150,000)
Lifting & Stabilization: Professional hydraulic lift and cribbing to secure the shell ($36k – $45k).
Foundation Reconstruction: High-strength reinforced concrete footings with a period-accurate
stone or brick veneer façade. ($65k – $80k)
Main Floor System: Industrial-grade joist replacement and subflooring to provide a rock-solid base
for heavy visitor foot traffic. ($20k – $25k)
Phase 2: Professional Fees & Contingency ($250,000 – $345,000)
Preservation Plan: Functions as the road map for the project including documentation and
research, management and implementation of the project. ($40k - $50k)
Architectural & Engineering: Specialized historic preservation designs and fees. ($75k - $100k)
Contingency: A robust buffer to ensure the project meets the standard regardless of unforeseen
structural discoveries. ($135k - $195k)
252
4
Phase 3: Mechanical & High-End Interior ($600,000 – $750,000)
MEP Systems: Invisible high-velocity HVAC, commercial-grade electrical with period-style
switches, and a fire suppression/sprinkler system. ($200k – $250k)
Interior Craftsmanship: Artisan horsehair plaster walls, ornate millwork/wainscoting, and premium
wide-plank reclaimed wood floors. Includes kitchen and bath cabinets and fixtures along with
plumbing and electrical work. Interior and exterior painting, hardware, etc. ($400k – $500k)
Phase 4: Exterior Envelope & Utilities ($450,000 – $595,000)
Well & Septic Systems: Complete overhaul and/or a new ground water well and a commercially
designed septic system to handle public usage. ($75k – $100k)
Historic Exterior Restoration: Hand-selected cedar siding, custom-milled trim, and a high-end roof
(like premium metal roof or premium wood shake) to match historical photos. ($215k – $255k)
Custom Wood Windows: Historic reproduction sashes with high-efficiency glazing. ($95k –
$145k)
Electrical and Plumbing (Separate from Phase 3 work above) - New underground electrical wiring
service and plumbing including septic system attachments. ($65k - $95k)
Phase 5: Site Infrastructure & Parking ($300,000 – $450,000)
Civil Engineering & Grading: Mass earthwork to ensure perfect site drainage and ADA-compliant
slopes.
Parking & Curbing: Heavy-duty paved parking area for staff and visitors, including concrete curbs
and gutters and professional line striping. The utilization of semi-permeable paving as an
alternative to asphalt for the parking area to assist in the management of surface water run-off.
Culverts & Stormwater: Integrated underground management to handle heavy runoff and protect
the site's lower elevations.
Phase 6: Landscaping & Grounds ($85,000 – $125,000)
Heritage Planting: Use of mature specimen trees and period-accurate gardens and landscaping to
provide a finished look.
Hardscaping: Paved or reclaimed brick walking paths between structures and adjoining parking
areas to house and ancillary structures.
253
254
6
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
255
PHOTOS OF THE RACHEL BOAK HOUSE
April 2026
256
257
2023
258
Interior Door Under Steps with “Boak” 1854
259
Supporting Documentation
1. Site Photos (3 Pages)
2. Frederick County Tax Record
3. National Register Nomination
4. Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Acceptance Letter
5. Ruckman Report
6. Collaborative Agreement
7. Historic Restorations LLC Estimate by Willam Wine
8. Lance Construction Estimate
9. MSV Birthday Event Program (2024)
10. Dessert Reception Invitation
11. Dessert Reception Program (2025)
12. Birthday Reception Invitation (2025)
13. Birthday Reception Program (2025)
14. Thank You Letter to Donor from Willa Cather Foundation
260
261
262
VLR Listed: 9/21/1976NRHP Listed: 11/16/1978
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
221 Aviation Drive VA Class A License: 2701 02775A
Winchester, VA 22602 WV Class A License: WV 002797
Phone: 540-665-0130 MD Class A License: 507018
Fax: 540-722-2678 SWAM Certification: 10613
www.lcwconstruction.com
November 22,2024
To: Willa Cather’s Virginia Board of Directors
540-305-6330
Sherryhudson01@comcast.net
PROPOSAL
RE: Willa Cather’s Birthplace
6856 Northwestern Turnpike
Gore, Va. 22637
The undersigned proposes to provide all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to complete
all work addressed in this proposal. This work is in accordance with all the following:
Noted (checked) documents:
X This Proposal
_ Plans/Drawings
_ Addenda
X Technical Specifications (Ruckman Engineering Report)
Proposed Project Summary:
LCW will complete the temporary shoring and underpinning work as noted in the Ruckman
Engineering report. This will include select demo of the shed, porch and covered walk. Boarding
up of windows and large holes in the structure. LCW will secure the metal roofing and install
temporary gutters and downspouts to prevent further water damage from occurring.
281
Scope of Work
The work below includes all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to
complete each item of work (U.O.N.)
Inclusions:
1. Project Supervision
2. Project Management
3. Permitting
4. Temporary toilet
5. Equipment and Fuel
6. Mobilization / Demobilization
7. Demo as noted in the Ruckman Engineering report and disposal of debris.
8. Removal of vegetation on and immediately around buildings
9. Secure roof and installation of temporary gutter system
10. Underpinning of the foundation per Ruckman Engineering report. LCW will utilize LVL
beams to prevent the building from settling any further.
11. All other work as described in the Engineering report.
Construction Proposal:
All work shall be performed in a professional and workmen-like manner in accordance
with industry standards for a value of: Ninety-Seven Thousand Dollars----------($97,000.00)
Exclusions:
1. Any work not described above or in the Ruckman report
2. Any engineering or third-party inspections
3. Maintenance of traffic plans or lane closures
4. Any work at the “Dr.Shaffer’s house” noted in the report.
5. Hazardous material demo or disposal
Qualifications & Assumptions:
1. LCW is completing the work as described in the Ruckman report and is not responsible
for any future wind damage by wind, weather or other natural occurrences. We
recommend complete renovation as soon as possible.
Anticipated Schedule:
[3 weeks]
This work shall commence with the execution of the following noted (checked) Agreement:
X LCW agreement with signatures (both parties)
_ AIA contract documents with signatures of both parties.
282
Contract Terms & Conditions:
1. LCW shall hold this proposal valid for a period of thirty (30) calendar days.
2. LCW is licensed, fully insured (including workmen’s compensation) and bondable.
Payment and Performance bonds are not included in the AGREEMENT unless otherwise
noted above.
3. LCW does not require any deposit to initiate construction after signature of this
AGREEMENT. LCW will bill monthly with payment due within fifteen (15) calendar
days of receipt of bill. Invoices unpaid beyond thirty (30) days will bear interest at a rate
of 3% per annum.
4. Unless otherwise indicated retainage shall not be held on payments issued.
5. Final payment is due within 30 calendar days of completion.
6. At its sole discretion, LCW may stop work immediately upon payments becoming
delinquent for services billed. Costs incurred related to demobilization and/or
remobilization shall be paid by the OWNER prior to the recommencement of work.
7. Unless otherwise specifically stated Builder’s Risk insurance is not included in this
AGREEMENT and shall be carried by the OWNER.
8. LCW excludes removal, restoration or remediation of any unforeseen or hidden
conditions.
9. Unless otherwise specifically included, testing, abatement and removal of hazardous
materials is not included in this AGREEMENT.
10. If required by local building codes, third party testing shall be the responsibility of the
OWNER. If requested, LCW can include an allowance for third party testing.
11. Unless otherwise noted all excavation is assumed to be classified. Rock excavation, if
applicable, will be billed at a unit rate of [N/A]. If applicable, unsuitable materials will
be exported/imported and billed at a unit rate of N/A].
12. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the OWNER agrees to indemnify, hold harmless
and defend the Contractor, its subcontractors and all of their agents and employees from
and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to
attorney’s fees, arising out of or resulting from their performance, or failure in
performance. The word, “DEFEND” means to provide and directly pay legal counsel
acceptable to LCW and to reimburse LCW for its attorney’s fees and costs related to any
such claim.
13. Unless specifically included above, overtime, weekend or after-hours work is not
included in this AGREEMENT. LCW’s standard working hours are 7AM to 3:30PM,
Monday through Friday.
14. Liquidated and/or consequential damages are not included under this AGREEMENT and
no claims for monetary damages shall be made under any circumstances.
15. No changes to the work will be made or executed without a prior written change order
signed by both OWNER and LCW. LCW reserves the right to claim for appropriate time
extensions as a result of approved changes in the work.
16. Overhead and profit for additions to the work will be billed at a rate of [15%].
17. Should this AGREEMENT be terminated by the OWNER for any reason all costs
incurred, including, but not limited to labor, materials, equipment, subcontractors,
overhead and labor burden, will be billed and become payable under the terms of this
283
AGREEMENT. A markup for profit equitable to 10% will be applied to all costs
incurred prior to the termination of the AGREEMENT.
18. LCW warrants its work for a period of one (1) year from the following, whichever should
occur first: 1) Beneficial use by the OWNER or 2) Substantial Completion. Maintenance
or registrations required by equipment manufacturer’s warranties shall be the
responsibility of the OWNER to follow and/or maintain.
19. The parties agree that all claims, disputes and other matters in question arising out of, or
relating to, this AGREEMENT or the breach thereof that are not the responsibility of the
Owner shall be decided by litigation in the Circuit Court of the City of Winchester,
Virginia, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parties. The parties hereby
waive their right to remove any litigation to federal courts of any jurisdiction and
expressly consent to the sole and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the Circuit Court of
the City of Winchester, Virginia for the resolution of all claims, disputes and other
matters in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by:
Lantz Construction Company of Winchester, Inc.
______________________________
Ryan Dougall - Estimating
November 22, 2024
Accepted By:
OWNER
_______________________________ _______________________________
Signed: Print:
_______________________________
Date:
284
285
286
287
288
289
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: June 26, 2026
Agenda Section: HRAB Historic Preservation Grant
Title: Orrick Chapel
Attachments:
HRAB06-26-26OrrickChapel_Redacted.pdf
290
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board
FROM: Planning and Development Staff
RE: 2026 Historic Resources Advisory Board Historic Preservation Grant –
Orrick Chapel
DATE: June 16, 2026
Background:
This memo summarizes the application for the Historic Preservation Grant for the Orrick Chapel.
The grant was opened to application in December of 2025 and the deadline extended to May 31st, 2026.
This is a reimbursement grant program funded by remaining donations from the County’s 250th
anniversary celebration in 1988. Applicants were required to be 501C(3) organizations and the
projects be within Frederick County, including the Towns of Middletown and Stephens City.
Applicants could submit for multiple projects but only two would be funded, each grant is limited
to $4,000.
The review criteria the HRAB outlined are the following:
• Historical Significance. Priority is given to properties that are individually listed or
contribute to a district on the National Register of Historic Places or are recognized as
historically significant by state or local authorities.
• Condition of the Resource. Buildings in threatened or deteriorated conditions that
demonstrate an urgent need for intervention to prevent further immediate deterioration will
be prioritized.
• Project Urgency and Impact. Priority will be given to projects where immediate intervention
will arrest active deterioration or prevent irreversible damage to the resource.
• Preservation Standards and Approach. Proposed work must follow the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Approaches should emphasize repair over
replacement and prioritize preservation of original materials and features.
• Public Benefit and Community Impact. Projects that will benefit the public through access,
educational use, visibility, tourism, or community revitalization are encouraged.
• Completeness of Application. All requested documents (photos, ownership records, plan for
funding, historic designation, etc.) must be included for the application to be considered.
291
Page 2 of 2
Attached you will find supporting documentation for the grant request, including the application,
budget, photos, and cost estimates.
Request:
Project Name
Description Magisterial
District
Orrick Chapel This is a request by the Newtown History of the Stone
House Foundation for $4,000 for the repair of the Orrick
Chapel at 5310 Mulberry Street in Stephens City.
The applicant is seeking funding to replace the
doorframe and double doors of the Chapel.
Opequon
Requested Action:
Following discussion, staff is seeking action by the HRAB regarding the application. Actions may be:
• Fully approve the requested amount.
• Partially approve the requested amount.
• Deny the request.
Questions regarding the application may be directed to the Planning and Development staff and
applicant’s agent.
Attachments: 1. Orrick Chapel Application
292
5306
MAIN ST
5318
MAIN ST
5324
MULBERRY ST
5310
MULBERRY ST
5321
MULBERRY ST
5300
MULBERRY ST
Parcels
CUP # 06 - 18
Scott F. White
PIN:
55K - 2 - 3 - 151
Cottage Occupation - Firearms Dealer
Zoning Map
HRAB Grant Application: Orrick Chapel
Location Map
MULBERRY STµ
Stephens City
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: June 26, 2026
Agenda Section: Membership Updates
Title: Jack Owen Resignation
Attachments:
308