Fred Shoken stood in the pouring rain outside the Hendler Creamery, poking his camera through the chain-link fence to capture shots of the imposing facade of the 131-year-old red-brick building.

Each beautiful detail he spied made him even angrier.

“Look at that. Under the pediment, that basket-weave detailing,” exclaimed Shoken, a former staff member for Baltimore’s Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation (CHAP).

“Oh, my god, those faces!” declared his wife, Donna Beth Joy Shapiro, pointing to the carved stone faces, decorative columns and other unique features of the Richardsonian Romanesque building.

Toward the top – faded but unmistakable – were the words “Hendler Creamery Company.” Also visible on the facade was the date of construction, “1892.”

Other features were hard to see behind the steel beams now bracing up the building.

The beams lean against three still-standing walls of the building, which developer Kevin Johnson purchased in 2012, promising to bring “transformative” adaptive re-use of the property.

Over time, Johnson got permission from the city to demolish the building’s interior and other parts of the sprawling parcel located in the Jonestown neighborhood.

The luxury apartments and high-end retail never materialized.

Instead, the rubble-strewn lot became an eyesore. And now the Helping Up Mission wants to buy the parcel and demolish the last of the historic building.

Shoken last week took The Brew to the 1100 block of East Baltimore Street after CHAP had ruled – based on the prospective buyer’s engineer’s assessment that the building was structurally unsalvageable – that it had “lost its historic significance” and had to be demolished.

“This is the building they say is no longer historically significant?” Shoken said. “Look at it. How can that be?”

The couple know the building intimately. Shapiro, who ran the Old Waverly History Exchange and Tea Room, had been in discussions with the building’s previous owner to use the creamery space to make artisanal cheese and a bakery. The owner was not able to keep the building and the deal fell through.

Improper Procedure?

Leaving aside the question of whether the hired engineer’s conclusion was correct, Shoken said, there is a more fundamental problem:

The panel’s voting procedure was completely wrong, according to Shoken, who reviewed available footage of the March 14 meeting and has formally requested a re-consideration and fresh vote.

Under CHAP rules adopted in 2015, the “historic and/or architectural significance” of a building must be determined separately at a Demolition I hearing.

• Photos of Hendler’s glory years and a video of its scarred interior today (6/25/19)

Such a determination can be overridden, but only at a subsequent Demolition II hearing intended to consider “economic hardship” and structural issues, the rules say.

Such hearings typically take place when applicants want to make the case that the prohibitive cost of saving a historic building justifies tearing it down.

But at the March 14 meeting, CHAP Executive Director Eric Holcomb focused almost entirely on the building’s structural integrity.

Holcomb skimmed over the building’s historic uses in just over a minute – mentioning that it started as the “beautiful” powerhouse for a streetcar company and was also home to an ice cream factory. (No mention of the Yiddish language theater that was for a time on the second floor.)

Instead, Holcomb focused on what he said is the poor condition of the bricks and masonry, showing photos of cracked and spalling masonry, saying it could not support reconstruction.

“Once the historic fabric is deteriorated beyond repair, that fabric does not convey historic and architectural significance. That’s the way that we looked at it,” Holcomb said.

Shoken and Shapiro point out that the Hendler Creamery has been reviewed several times by the Commission. Previous decisions required that the façade and the west and north elevations be retained, while allowing for the demolition of the rest of the site.

“What is standing today – all those elements and details – is exactly what the Commission previously determined was architecturally and historically significant,” Shapiro told The Brew. “None of that went away.”

Some commissioners disagreed with Holcomb at the March 14 meeting, including architect Sara Langmead, one of the dissenters in the 8-3 vote.

“I vote ‘no’ because I think it should go [more] appropriately to a second demolition hearing,” Langmead said. “Or be handled by the city’s unsafe building inspection.”

“I vote ‘no’ because I think it should go [more] appropriately to a second demolition hearing”  – CHAP commissioner Sara Langmead.

Other commissioners appeared either confused by the process or unsure if it was proper.

Architect Kuo Pao Lian, for instance, sought this reassurance from Holcomb prior to the panel’s vote.

“This is not a precedent, is it? This is not the first time, right?” Lian asked.

“There is a track record of having to go through just a Demo I where it was an unfortunate case of it had to come down, right?”

At one point in the discussion, Holcomb draws chuckles from commissioners when he quips that assessing whether a building no longer has “historical significance” is “a metaphysical problem.”

Langmead disputes him, saying “It’s procedural.”

Gap in Meeting Video

Holcomb assured Lian that there was precedent for the way the staff presented its findings and recommendation.

But it is impossible for the public to know for sure what other discussion and testimony took place because the video of the March 14 meeting posted on the CHAP website goes black and silent for about one hour.

Only the final vote can be heard, including Commissioner Peter Morrill’s emphatic opposition to the motion: “Definitely, no!”

But any comments that Morrill and other commissioners made during the one-hour gap, which included the engineer’s remarks, are currently not available for public review.

Shoken, Shapiro and The Brew noticed the missing footage last week.

On Friday following their visit to the site, they discovered even the partial recording of the March meeting had become unavailable.

Instead, the entire video had been taken offline.

The video first posted by CHAP goes black and silent for about one hour during discussion of the Hendler building. Now the entire video has been taken down.

Saying he did not know that the video had been removed, Holcomb said he was aware of “discrepancies” in the recording and had informed the Planning Department’s technical staff about them.

“That must be why it’s down,” he said, promising to look into whether they had restored the lost footage and post a restored video.

Asked to explain the gap, Planning Department Director Chris Ryer told The Brew that staff was working on the problem.

“They found a corrupted file and are trying to repair it,” Ryer said.

As of noon on March 27, when this story was posted, the video had not returned to the CHAP website.

“That’s horse hockey!”

Holcomb reacted with annoyance when asked whether the March 14 vote was improper.

“What you’re saying shows a complete misunderstanding of the process,” he said in a phone interview with The Brew.

“To say there’s wrongdoing here, that’s just horse hockey!”

Informed that preservation advocates have questioned his handling of the matter, Holcomb asked, “Who are these preservationists? Who’s asking these questions?

“These are people who don’t know which end of a hammer to hold,” he fumed.

“These are people who don’t know which end of a hammer to hold”  – CHAP executive director Eric Holcomb.

Holcomb argues that because, as his staff and the buyer’s engineer see it, the building is unsalvageable, the architectural elements that would qualify the building as having historical and architectural significance are not present.

When commissioners raised the issue of a second hearing on March 14, Holcomb tells them in the existing video, “You’re already there.”

Shoken argues that what Holcomb did violates Article 6 of the Baltimore City Code. (See his letter to CHAP below.)

Langmead, appointed by Mayor Brandon Scott last year, told The Brew she continues to have questions about the process.

“Nothing about this is clear to me,” she said, stressing that she was speaking only for herself and not CHAP as a whole.

Demolition of the Hendler building “would be a very sad loss,” she added.

“Where there’s a will”

Unlike some other preservation battles, like the one in December that appears to have preserved a group of rowhouses on Preston Street, this one did not draw Baltimore Heritage or other prominent advocates.

“We just did not get involved in this issue for whatever reason,” Executive Director Johns Hopkins said. “We can’t take on everything.”

Shapiro, a longtime advocate for historic preservation, was the lone opponent testifying at the CHAP Hendler hearing. She questioned the engineer’s assessment that the building is unsalvageable.

“Where there’s a will there’s way,” Shapiro said. “It seems like every other building in D.C. is a new building behind an old facade.”

• Hendler developer outlines scaled-down project with “workforce” housing (8/26/20)

• Politically plugged-in drywall contractor gets city building with no money down (5/23/13)

“It is because of this developer that we have this mess,” she said, accusing Commercial of reneging on a promise and leaving the structure open to the elements.

“It comes down to a developer who said he was going to do this, that and the other and he didn’t do it.”

Shapiro then pointed to Alyssa Domzal, the Ballard Spahr attorney who reportedly said during the video gap that her client, Helping Up Mission, plans to maintain the parcel as “green space” but would not be demolishing the buildings for 18 months.

“If it’s such a problem that it’s going to fall down in the street today, why does it take 18 months to tear it down?” Shapiro asked at the hearing.

CHAP Chairman Harry Spikes cut her off sharply at that point.

“Hold on, Donna,” he said. “I’m giving an opportunity to give public testimony. But I don’t want to put yourself in a situation or anyone else where you’re combative.”

Allowed to continue, Shapiro observed that “there are other developers with vision” besides the current applicants.

“They [Commercial] are not the only hope. You don’t owe them anything,” she went on.

“We have very little of this unique architecture left. You owe it to the citizens of the city to save it.”

• To reach a reporter: fern.shen@baltimorebrew.com
___________

Check out the Hendler building in three dimensions by exploring this visualization posted three months ago by 3-D modeling specialist, Taylor Houlihan. [Click to enlarge.]
_________________

Email sent by Shapiro and Shoken to CHAP:

We are formally requesting a reconsideration of the decision made by the Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation on March 14, 2023 regarding the Demolition Hearing I – Determination of Architectural Significance for 1100 East Baltimore Street (Jonestown Historic District) due to procedural errors.

According to Baltimore City Historic Preservation Rules and Regulations adopted on December 8, 2015, “the first step in the demolition review process is a public hearing to determine if the building contributes to a local district. A determination regarding the significance of the structure will be made prior to considering details of the demolition and hardship application, and any projects for new construction on the site. Doing so allows the Commission to determine the importance of the structure solely upon architectural and historical criteria.”

However, at the March 14, 2023 hearing on the Hendler Creamery, the Commission primarily considered other factors such as structural stability – a factor specifically identified for consideration in a Demolition Hearing II. Numerous times during the hearing, commissioners expressed confusion over what they were supposed to take into consideration. One commissioner expressly stated that she was voting to demolish the building instead of voting on whether the building contributed to the character of the historic district.

Furthermore, we are concerned that the full recording of the hearing, essential in evaluating what took place, has not been made available.

By not following its own rules and regulations and failing to keep a proper record of the proceedings, we believe the Commission’s decision does not meet the intents and purposes of Article 6 of the Baltimore City Code.

We also request that the Commission refrain from issuing an Authorization to Proceed for the demolition of 1100 East Baltimore Street until this matter can be resolved.

A more detailed presentation of our concerns is attached.

Sincerely,

Fred B. Shoken
Donna Beth Joy Shapiro
_______________________________

Fred Shoken’s March 24, 2023 Formal Letter to CHAP

Request for Reconsideration of Demolition Hearing I – Determination of Architectural Significance for 1100 East Baltimore Street

According to Baltimore City Historic Preservation Rules and Regulations adopted on December 8, 2015, the first step in the demolition review process is a public hearing to determine if the building contributes to a local district. At the hearing the staff shall present the following:

1. The historical and/or architectural significance of the property;
2. The history of all structures on the property including the approximate dates of additions and significant alterations;
3. A determination of the historical and/or architectural significance of a structure’s additions, significant alterations, or ancillary buildings; and
4. Application of criteria for designation (see 2.1) to the structure in question.

A determination regarding the significance of the structure will be made prior to considering details of the demolition and hardship application, and any projects for new construction on the site. Doing so allows the Commission to determine the importance of the structure solely upon architectural and historical criteria.

The Hendler Creamery has been reviewed several times by the Commission. Previous decisions required that the façade and the west and north elevations be retained, while allowing for the demolition of the rest of the site.

What is standing today is exactly what the Commission previously determined to be architecturally and historically significant.

From what was gleaned from the partial record available of the March 14, 2023 hearing, the staff presented only a cursory review of the significance of the property.

The Commission concluded in their motion that “The existing structure is deteriorated beyond repair; therefore, the structure has lost its historical significance and no longer meets criteria eligible as a contributing structure to the Jonestown Historic District.”

The staff failed to identify how the building previously met criteria for it to be determined a contributing structure to the district, which is necessary to determine whether it remains a contributing structure. The statement “deteriorated beyond repair” implies that the historic building is no longer viable – an assessment which can only be made, according to CHAP rules, in a Demolition Hearing II when economic hardship and the structural stability of the building are considered.

The evaluation of significance should be based upon the existence and retention of character defining elements.

A building retains integrity if those elements remain. In the case of the Hendler Creamery, decorative datestones at the ends of the pediment provide the 1892 date for the building when it was a power plant for a streetcar line.

Other lettering on the building identify when it was a creamery and provide the 1912 date for that change in use.

Significant architectural features of the building include elaborate brick work patterns, arched openings defined by multiple columns, an eagle decoration at the peak of the pediment, and the shadow of the Hendler Creamery Company signage.

The façade retains all of these elements behind the bracing and the building largely appears as it did in 1920.

The Commission’s conclusion that the building lost historic significance was based on testimony regarding the viability of the building and future use of the site, factors that should only be considered in a Demolition Hearing II.

By not following its own rules and regulations and failing to keep a proper record of the proceedings, it is questionable whether the Commission’s decision met the intents and purposes of Article 6 of the Baltimore City Code.

The following is a list of specific concerns that we have regarding the March 14, 2023 hearing:

1. Recording of full hearing has not been made public, calling into question what factors CHAP considered when making the decision that the building did not contribute to the historic district.

2. The purpose of the hearing was to evaluate the historical/architectural significance of the property, not to evaluate structural stability, which is identified as a factor to be considered in a Demolition Hearing II.

3. From the limited record available, the staff failed to identify how the property originally contributed to the historic district, which would be necessary to understand why it may no longer contribute to the district.

4. There was confusion among the commissioners as to what was being voted upon. For example, one of the commissioners voted “to approve demolition” when the issue at hand was to determine the architectural/historical significance of the building.

5. Early in the hearing, Mr. Holcomb stated that an important factor in the analysis of the building’s significance was, “How much of building can be saved?” and “How much of the building – if we could restore it – would be original fabric?”

These are not factors that should be considered in evaluating the historical/architectural significance of the building, but rather are factors dealing with the viability of the building and if it would be an economic hardship to preserve it, which are issues for a Demolition Hearing II.

6. During the discussion of the motion, a CHAP staff member stated that “If it has to be completely reconstructed to save the building, the building no longer contributes to the district . . . in keeping with previous staff recommendations even when a building looks historic.”

This is a misstatement of how buildings are evaluated according to CHAP’s criteria for designation, which mirrors National Register Criteria.

If character defining elements of a building no longer exist – for instance, if large portions of the façade had collapsed to the degree that it no longer conveys the significance of the structure, then the building would no longer contribute to a historic district due to integrity issues.

It is important to note that no portions of the building that the Commission previously found significant have collapsed.

Please see the three following pages for CHAP Rules and Procedures.

CHAP DEMOLITION RULES AND PROCEDURES:

Highlights in bold red show which issues should be reviewed in the Demolition Hearing I and II and the criteria relevant for determining historical/architectural significance.

DEMOLITION HEARING I –  DETERMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

The first step in the demolition review process is a public hearing to determine if the building contributes to a local historic district or continues to meet standards for designation as a local landmark. At this hearing staff shall present the following:

1. The historical and/or architectural significance of the property;
2. The history of all structures on the property including the approximate dates of additions and significant alterations;
3. A determination of the historical and/or architectural significance of a structure’s additions, significant alterations, or ancillary buildings; and
4. Application of criteria for designation (see 2.1) to the structure in question.

A determination regarding the significance of the structure will be made prior to considering details of the demolition and hardship application, and any projects for new construction on the site.

Doing so allows the Commission to determine the importance of the structure solely upon architectural and historical criteria.

If a structure does not meet the criteria or contribute to the historic character of a local district, then an Authorization to Proceed for demolition shall be issued.

DEMOLITION HEARING II –  DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP

If a structure is determined to contribute to a local district or meets landmark criteria, staff shall schedule a second public hearing. At this hearing, the Commission will review a completed Application for Authorization to Proceed for demolition.

In addition, the applicant must provide the information requested in the Demolition Application Requirements.

This additional information is required to determine “whether demolition is necessary to avoid a substantial hardship” and whether denial of a demolition permit would result in “no reasonable beneficial use” of the historic structure.

The Commission will also determine whether demolition will constitute a “substantial detriment to the public welfare” and demolition will be “without substantial derogation to the intents and purposes of Article 6 of the Baltimore City Code.”

In making their finding, the Commission may consider the following, among other case specific factors:

1. The historic and architectural value and significance, architectural style, general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the structure and the immediate neighborhood;
2. The location and visibility of the structure to be demolished;
3. The structural stability, hazardous conditions, health and public safety issues, and code enforcement history; and
4. Previous Commission actions regarding the structure.

An Authorization to Proceed for demolition may only be issued if a property has been determined noncontributing to a local district or the Commission determines that demolition of a contributing structure meets the following requirements of the ordinance:

1. The demolition will be without substantial detriment to the public welfare;
2. The demolition will be without substantial derogation from the intents and purposes to the CHAP ordinance; and
3. The denial of a demolition permit will result in substantial hardship to the applicant.

At the conclusion of the second hearing, the Commission decides upon the demolition application.

If it is determined that all three of these factors have been met, they may approve the demolition.

DEMOLITION HEARING III – REVIEW OF PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION

A third public hearing may then be scheduled to review plans for any replacement structure.

Unless the existing structure is determined to be detrimental to the public safety and welfare, the Authorization to Proceed approving demolition shall not be issued until the replacement design is approved.

CHAP CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATING DISTRICTS AND LANDMARKS

In making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for new districts, landmarks, and interior landmarks, the Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation will apply the following criteria in relation to the procedures for historic district and landmark designation outlined in this document.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

The quality of significance in Baltimore history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, public interiors, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Baltimore history; or
2. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in Baltimore’s past; or
3. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
4. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in Baltimore prehistory or history.

The above criteria mirror the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, which were developed by the National Park Service to determine historic significance in American history and culture.

The evaluation of integrity for National Register Criteria can be found on page 44 of National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf