(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Rose Hill : an historic structures report"

"A 



UNivERsmy 

PENNSYLWiNIA. 
UBKARIE5 




ROSE HILL: AN HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT 



Donna Marie Andrews 



A THESIS 



In 



Historic Preservation 



Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in 
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of 



MASTER OF SCIENCE 
2001 



Supeix'isor 

John Milner 

Adjunct Professor of Architecture 

Graduaot Group Chair 

Frank G. Matero 

Associate Professor of Architecture 




Reader 

David Brownlee 

Professor of the History of Art 



^/t^ /V>'/.'^/^/ ^ ^/ ^"^f/ 



OF 
PENNSYLVANIA 



Rose Hill: An Historic Structures Report 

By Donna Andrews 

Table of Contents 

Part I The Historic Structure Report 

Introduction 1 

1 . Cecil County Overview 2 

2. Owner and Property History 1 1 

3. Construction Timeline 19 

4. Building Description & History 22 

5. The Grounds 35 

6. Condition Assessment 42 

Part II What to do with Rose Hill? 

Introduction to the Problem of Continuing Use at Rose Hill 52 

1. Facade Easements, Enforcement, and the Needs of the Owner 56 

2. The Idea of Additions to Historic Buildings 61 

Appendices 

I. Bibliography 67 

II. Index 73 

III. Chain of Title 74 

IV. Tax Assessments, Rent Rolls, Debt Books, and Early Census 91 
V. Reference Images 96 

VI. Historic Images 102 

VII. Deed of Easement 1 10 

VIII. Plans 137 

IX. Molding Profiles, Interior and Exterior 147 

X. Exterior Condition Assessment 164 



11 



Dedication 

This thesis is dedicated my parents, Donald and Linda Andrews. Without you, I 
could never have made it to my Master's. 

Thanks Mom and Dad. 



Ill 



Acknowledgements 

The research and writing of this thesis would not have been possible without 
the assistance and guidance of John Milner. I have learned more from you just 
by being in the same room than I have from a dozen books. Thank you Frank 
and Tannaz Owczarek for allowing me to rumble through your wonderful house. 
I am also grateful to David Brownlee for being my reader, and offering his 
comments and advice when I asked for them. 

Robert and Edward Page and their families have been very generous with their 
time and their memories, and are primarily responsible for forming the vision of 
what Rose Hill was in the early twentieth century. 

Thanks Steve, for listening and understanding. 



IV 



Introduction 

Rose Hill Farm is located in Cecil County, near the town of Earleville on 
Grove Point. Built over the course of three centuries, the historic plantation 
house rests upon a hiU that offers a view south to the Sassafras River, the 
southern boundary of the four hundred acre farm. Access to the farm is from 
the north, down a mile long formal drive once lined with regal Spanish 
Chestnuts. The house cannot be seen from Grove Neck Road, the main public 
access that leads to Cecil ton, but after cresting a hill halfway down the drive, it 
rises up out of the landscape. 

During the time of its greatest significance. Rose Hill was home to 
General Thomas Marsh Forman (1758-1845) and his wife Martha. Forman was 
a Revolutionary War hero and a significant figure in the local and state political 
and social scenes. During their occupancy, they frequently hosted senators, 
governors, and local celebrities. The grounds were immaculately kept and 
landscaped, with a large formal garden nestled in the valley to the west of the 
house. The farm participated in the local agricultural trade, contributing 
tobacco, com, oats, rye, wheat, and a variety of goods to the local and Baltimore 
markets. 

Over the centuries, the house and the farm have fallen into disrepair. 
The current owners wish to restore the house and the grounds, and provide for 
their safekeeping for the centuries to come. 

The purpose of this thesis is to provide a survey of existing conditions 
and a study of the evolution of the property as a base document for the 
restoration. 

1 



Chapter I 
Cecil County Overview 

Cecil County' and the other Eastern Shore counties of Maryland are 

known for the relaxed pace of life that stands in contrast to the busier, more 

heavily populated, and more urban Western Shore. Cecil County has long been 

a destination for those seeking peace, quiet, and beauty in their everyday lives, 

from the time when French explorers poetically called the land "Arcadia"^ to the 

modern day. 

Foundations 

The earliest residents of Cecil County were the Native Americans. The 
Susquehannocks, a militant tribe that occupied the land around the 
Susquehanna River and provided a buffer from the Five Nations to the tribes in 
the South, were among the tribes encountered by Captain John Smith in his 
exploration of the Chesapeake Bay in 1608. The Susquehannocks had come 
south from the area around Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and began 
subjugating the Maryland and Delaware tribes sometime between 1200 and 
1500, making themselves the dominant tribe in the area by the time of white 
exploration. 3 One of the tribes who accepted the status of a tributary to the 
Susquehannocks in exchange for protection from the Five Nations were the 
Tockwoghs, who lived upon the Sassafras River. Their home village was located 



1 Please see Appendix V, Reference Images, for maps of the Cecil County area. 

2 Giovanni de Verazzano, sailing under French sponsorship, encountered the Eastern 
Shore in 1566. Cecil County Historical Trust, Inc., At the Head of the Bay: A Cultural 
and Architectural History of Cecil County, Maryland (Crownsville MD: The Maryland 
Historical Trust Press, 1996), 1. 

3 Cecil County Historical Trust, 1 1. 

2 



about seven miles up from the mouth of the river and was surrounded by a 
palisade for defense.'* The Tockwoghs were most likely the hunters who trod 
upon Rose HiU in the earliest Western history of the land. After John Smith's 
encounter with them, the Tockwoghs faded from history. Encroaching white 
settlement apparently destroyed their town and dispersed their people. s 

The Susquehannocks began to lose interest in exacting tithes from their 
subjugated tribes when procuring furs from the unsettled interior for English 
fur traders began to occupy most of their time. The Dutch, warring groups of 
English settlers and traders, and Swedish settlers squabbled over trapping and 
trading rights in the upper Chesapeake until the decline of the fur trade in the 
mid 1600's. The center of the fur trade in the Chesapeake region was Palmer's 
Island, a small island at the mouth of the Susquehanna River. The 
Susquehannocks found themselves to be of great interest to aU of the European 
traders who needed them but also feared them. Multiple treaties were created 
that curtailed the hunting and trapping activities near European settlements. 
The Susquehannocks were also valuable as a buffer from the warlike tribes of 
the Five Nations to the north, however, something Maryland's setders wanted to 
keep. In 1661, an outbreak of smallpox decimated the tribe, and following all 
out war with the Five Nations in 1674, the Seneca defeated the 
Susquehannocks and the tribe dispersed. Subsequently, the Native American 



** According to Smith's map of the area, the village was located on the south side of the 
Sassafras. Smith's map is not reliable, although his written description supplies the 
distance the town sat from the mouth of the river. Cecil County Historical Trust, 7, 17- 
19; George Edmund Gifford, Cecil County, Maryland, 1608-1850: As Seen by Some 
Visitors, and Several Essays on Local History (Rising Sun MD: George E. Gifford 
Memorial Committee, Calvert School, 1974) 6, 8-9. 
5 Cecil County Historical Trust, 19. 

3 



presence in the upper Chesapeake was limited to migratory tribes after the 
defeat of the Susquehannocks. 

Following a vicious strife between the Dutch and Swedish colonists in the 
Delaware Valley in the 1650's, settlers there fled to the relative safety of Cecil 
County. One of the envoys from the Dutch settlement to the English governor 
at St. Mary's, Augustine Herman, came to work for the English governors as a 
mapmaker. In 1660 he was decreed a resident of Maryland and given a four 
thousand acre manor known as Bohemia^, located on the next peninsula to the 
north along the bay from Grove Neck, between the Bohemia and Elk Rivers. His 
map was complete by 1670, and on it he marks Cecil County as a separate 
political entity from Baltimore County. ^ His fmal payment for the production of 
the map was another large tract of land called St. Augustine Manor, which 
connected Bohemia to the Delaware Bay. 

Herman's work, combined with the significantly reduced Native American 
threat, led to increased interest in settlement in the area. Conflict arose 
between Lord Baltimore and William Penn over the line of demarcation between 
Pennsylvania and Maryland in the 1680's, with both parties furiously importing 
settlers from England and Ireland to lay claim to the disputed area. The 
dispute was not setded until well after William Penn's death, when two English 



6 Please see Appendix V figure 1 for a map of Cecil County with Bohemia's location 

outlined. 

^ Cecil County separated from Baltimore County in 1674. Herman called it Cecil 

County in honor of Cecilius Calvert, the brother of Lord Baltimore. Cecil County 

Historical Trust, 28. 

4 



engineers, Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, laid out their famous line in the 
1760's.8 



^ Cecil County Historical Trust, 35. 

5 



Life in Early Maryland 

Most of Maryland's earliest European settlers lived there without the 
benefit (or burden) of a land patent. Land patents in Maryland came with a 
permanent liability that discouraged large-scale settlement in the early days of 
the colony. The governors of Maryland had sought to create an English feudal 
colony by granting manors to privileged Englishmen capable of outfitting and 
transporting adventurers to the colony. Organizers received one thousand 
acres for every five men, with a quitrent, or land rent, of twenty shillings per 
manor annually, plus other required services for the public good. Common 
adventurers received one hundred acres for themselves and each servant up to 
five, with a quitrent of two shillings per hundred, and families received one 
hundred acres for husband and wife, fifty acres for each child under sixteen, 
with a quitrent of twelve pence per fifty acres. Patenting land in Maryland 
could prove costly unless the land showed a quick profit, so trade in land 
warrants began. A warrant was the first step in obtaining a patent. It engaged 
the land, prevented another from claiming it, but did not require the payment of 
a quitrent. Large tracts of land were tied up in warrants, waiting for obtaining a 
patent to make financial sense or for the warrant to be sold at a profit. 
Patenting, and large settlements, began in Cecil County in the 1650's. 

Although interest in furs declined in the mid seventeenth century, 
another commodity rose to replace it and affect the settlement patterns of the 
area. In 1613 a smooth smoke tobacco was produced that dominated the world 
market. Its creation spurred increased settlement and development in northern 
Maryland. Although anyone who planted tobacco was required to plant at least 

6 



two acres of corn as well, but tobacco, and its lure of instant wealth, was the 
draw for most early settlers. The plantation culture that spread across Cecil 
County was not the same as that of Antebellum South, but was instead 
supported farms with minimal improvements that relied heavily on the success 
of failure of the crop of the first few seasons. Planters were unable to sell 
directly to English markets; they were required to ship their goods to merchants 
in London who would clear the tobacco of duties in exchange for a sizable 
commission, and buy cloth, tea, and other goods with the planter's instructions 
to be shipped back to Maryland with the profits. ^ An unwise planter could wind 
up deep in debt in this system, and many farms failed. 

Heavy dependence upon and production of tobacco in the late 1700's and 
early 1800's had dire consequences for the South as a whole, and for Cecil 
County in particular. The importation of labor from Europe, and then from 
Africa, led to a surplus of tobacco throughout the market. Prices fell, and farms 
failed. Tobacco had long been accepted as currency in Cecil County, 1° but in 
the wake of a surplus of tobacco the value fell. In an effort to make up losses, 
planters began shipping later cuttings of significandy lower quality to 
merchants. Maryland tobacco fell into ill repute, and by 1747 the colony 
instituted a government-controlled inspection, n 

By this time, however, a new market force had come to play: increased 
demand for wheat in the West Indies, war-torn Europe, and New England. The 
success of Cecil County's plantations depended upon domestic trade in a 



5 Cecil County Historical Trust, 38. 

'° See the multiple entries in the Chain of Title where land was traded for merchantable 

tobacco. 

1' Cecil County Historical Trust, 48. 

7 



variety of goods, as one product could not support the farms. Tobacco 
remained a staple crop well into the mid 1800's, but com, wheat, and other 
goods were produced in higher quantities. 

A lack of dependence on tobacco and a growth in the grain industry 
transformed Cecil County's landscape. Where there were formerly tobacco 
houses now stood grain silos and mills. Dependence on slave labor declined, as 
grain harvests required a large but temporary crew during harvest time. 
Providing for a large population of farm laborers year round was inefficient for 
most plantations. By the 1790's, only 24% of the population remained 
enslaved, a significantly lower number than the more than 40% of neighboring 
Kent County. 12 Tenancy in Cecil County increased, as it had benefits for both 
landowner and tenant. Landowners could expect improvements to their land 
without expense to themselves, and tenants had the prospect of saving enough 
to own their own land. By the mid eighteenth century, life on the plantation 
began to turn from subsistence to relative comfort. 

Those landowners who continued to use a large portion of their property 
for producing tobacco tended to control the social and political affairs in the 
county. Large landowners could afford to diversify their crop yet retain some of 
their produce in tobacco. They generally held more slaves to work the fields 
and maintain the land, and had richer and more ornate houses. The owners of 
Rose Hill were a part of this social stratum. 



1^ Cecil County Historical Trust, 5 1 . 

8 



Transportation 

Cecil County's location on the land route between Baltimore and 
Philadelphia made for a large volume of traffic; until the early 1800's, this traffic 
moved via roads. Making a new road was often a simple matter of marking a 
trail over a stony ridge or clearing a few necessary trees. Maintenance was 
often non-existent, and travel was slow, painful, and tedious. Farmhouses 
along the road could find themselves turned into taverns, and many farmers 
may have petitioned for a tavern License simply to avoid putting up travelers at 
their own expense. i^ Ferries crossed the major waterways, and many taverns 
sprung up at the boathouse, doing double duty as ferry operator and resting 
place. 

Regular sloop service for goods and passengers began in 1806 with the 
New Castie/ Baltimore run, which included a stop at the Frenchtown depot, i"* 
The first steamer ship, the Chesapeake, made its way to the head of the bay in 
1813.15 Steamer ship service remained inconstant, however, and most goods 
were transported via sailing ships. Packet ships and steamboats also served 
the Susquehanna side of the bay. Martha Forman and Sidney George Fisher 
both record the regular stops of the ships at their docks, or at a community 
dock, in their diaries. Many of these ships sailed between the docks at Elkton 
and Baltimore to service the plantations on the west side of the Eastern Shore. 

The New Castle and Frenchtown Turnpike opened in 1815, and took a 
decidedly technological turn in 1827, when the company renamed itself the New 



'3 Cecil County Historical Trust, 43. 
i-* Cecil County Historical Trust, 57, 59. 
15 Cecil County Historical Trust, 59. 

9 



Castle and Frenchtown Turnpike and Railroad Company, i^ This was one of the 
earliest railroads in the nation. It opened in 1831, with horse pulled cars 
carrying goods and passengers between Frenchtown and New Castle. A year 
later, the Line unveiled its first steam engine. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad 
was also chartered in 1827, with travel beginning in 1830 by horse car, and in 
1831 by steam locomotive. The Wilmington and Susquehanna Railroad made 
Elkton a stop on its line in 1837. This limited service line was taken over by 
the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad in 1838. The PW&B 
spelled the end of the New Castle and Frenchtown line, which made its fmal run 
in 1854. Within thirty years of the opening of the Frenchtown line, upper Cecil 
County was criss-crossed by rail lines. 

The first connection between the West side of the peninsula and the East 
was the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. The larger purpose of the C&D was 
to connect Philadelphia to Baltimore for trade purposes. Engineered by 
Benjamin Latrobe in the early years of the new century, the first ship passed 
through its locks in 1829. The nineteen mile long canal connected the head of 
the Chesapeake Bay along the Elk River with the Delaware River to the East. 
Martha Forman could now make the trip between Philadelphia and Rose Hill in 
less than a day.'^ 



'6 Cecil County Historical TrustSl. 

''' "...left the next morning at 7 for Rose Hill and landed at Ford's Landing at about 12 
o'clock." Wilson W. Emerson, ed, Plantation Life at Rose Hill: The Diaries of Martha Ogle 
Forman 1814-1845 (Wilmington, DE; The Historical Society of Delaware, 1976), 354 
(hereafter Diary). 

10 



Chapter II 
Owner History 

Thomas Marsh (? - 1782), the son of a Queen Anne County gentleman of 
the same ncune, had bought several tracts of land in Cecil County upon which 
is daughter and son-in-law, Augustine and Ezekiel Forman lived. Augustine's 
mother, Mary, was a granddaughter of Augustine Herman, founder of the 
nearby Bohemia Manor and the first recognized citizen of Maryland. Ezekiel 
apparently ran the plantation, consisting of the tracts "Chance" and "Middle 
Plantation," as he is listed as the taxpayer in the 1783 assessment; however, 
his name appears on no deed or debt record. The 1783 assessment appears to 
have missed some of Ezekiel's property. It is known that the Forman family 
lived on the plantation at this time, and that there was a dwelling house on the 
"Chance" tract. is No dwelling is listed on the assessment tables. 

Marsh's family was an old line from central Maryland. This Thomas 
Marsh was the fourth of the same name. His great grandfather had immigrated 
to Virginia in 1648/49, then moving to Anne Arundel County and serving as a 
county justice and on the Parliamentary Commission. He was probably a 
Quciker, and had left England due to religious strife. He was mortally wounded 
in the Battle of Severn, a rebellion against Lord Baltimore in 1655. i^ His son 
continued to serve Maryland as a justice and sheriff. 20 By the time Marsh IV 
was of age to run his own property, his family was wealthy and well established. 



18 Parnell Eldasley willed her "dwelling plantation" to her grandson Joshua in 1701 (see 
chain of title), and Thomas Marsh Forman was living on the plantation when the 
Revolutionary War began. 

15 Maryland State Archives Biography, MSA SC 1 138-871. 
20 Maryland State Archives Biography, MSA SC 1 138-872. 

11 



Ezekiel Forman (1736-1795) had come to Maryland from Monmouth 
County, New Jersey, where his father Joseph had moved after being banished 
from Scotland. His brother. General David Forman married Ezekiel's wife's 
sister, tying the two families closer together. Ezekiel also served as a member of 
the State House of Representatives, as a judge, and a clerk for Kent County. 
Following his eldest son's assumption of management at Rose Hill and the 
death of his first wife, he left Maryland^' and moved to Philadelphia, where he 
lived for some time with his second wife. After 1789, they moved to Natchez, 
Mississippi. 22 

Marsh left the entirety of his estate, including lands in Cecil County and 
Queen Anne County, to his favored grandson, Thomas Marsh Forman23^ in 
1782. Forman had taken up residence on the estate by 1790. 2-+ He began to 
acquire more property in the area, trading forgiveness on a loan for parts of 
Barbados and Jamaica with John Cox, and buying Wheeler's Point from 
Lambert Veazey. By the time of his marriage in 1814 to the beautiful and well- 
liked widow Martha Brown Ogle Callender of Philadelphia, Rose Hill 
encompassed nearly 800 acres of land. 



21 Maryland State Archives Biography, MSA SC 1 138-443. 

2^ Anne Spottswood and Mrs. E.P. Dismukes, The Forman Genealogy (Cleveland: The 
Forman Bassett-Hatch Company, 1903), 98-99. 

23 Biographical information on Forman comes from a variety of sources. The majority of 
detailed information comes from the following three sources, although multiple books 
and articles contain brief references to Forman Maryland State Archives Biography, 
MSA SC 1 138-1836; Charles Forman Three Revolutionary Soldiers: David Forman 
(1745-1797), Jonathan Forman (1755-1809), Thomas Marsh Forman (1758-1845) 
(Cleveland OH: The Forman Bassett-Hatch Company, 1902), 24-26; Diary, i-ix. 
2-* The 1790 Census for Cecil County, Bohemia Hundred, lists Forman as the head of 
the household, with two white males ages sixteen and above, one white male under the 
age of sixteen, four white females, and forty-eight slaves under his direction. 

12 



Forman was a considerable figure in the social and political life of Cecil 
County. According to a somewhat apocryphal story, he had run away from his 
father's house in Cecil County at the age of 18 to join the American forces. He 
began his military career as a cadet to Captain John Stone's company and 
moved through the ranks to become an aide-de-camp to Major General Lord 
Stirling, ending the war with the rank of captain. He represented Cecil County 
in the state legislature in 1790, 1792, and 1800. At the age of 56 he 
commanded a militia brigade in the defense of Baltimore during the War of 
1812. He was designated as the official representative of the state of Maryland 
to greet the Marquis de LaFayette during his triumphal tour of the United 
States in 1824.25 Nearing the end of his military career, he attained the rank of 
General. Forman's political appeal was such that he turned down two requests 
to run for a Federal Congressional seat, the first in 181 1, and again at the age 
of 79 years in 1837.26 

Forman served as a leader in both political and social realms in Cecil 
County and Maryland as a whole. He helped to found the PimUco Jockey Club, 
later the Maryland Jockey Club, and was the first elected president under its 
new charter of 1830.27 President Andrew Jackson, of whom Forman was a 
staunch supporter, was also a member. On Mrs. Forman's visits to Washington 
DC, she was greeted warmly by Jackson and entertained at his house. 28 



25 Diary, 187. 

26 Diary, 383. 

27 Diary, 286. 
^» Diary, 317. 

13 



Mrs. Forman29 was generally weU beloved. She had been married to 
Captain James Rourke Callender in 1808. He was lost at sea in 181 1, along 
with her nephew, who served as his cabin boy. Her remarriage to Forman in 
1814 was the result of a fairly long courtship. 30 She had no children, while he 
had one daughter, DeUa, from his previous marriage to Mary Porter. 3i Delia 
had married a Southern man, Joseph Bryan, and lived on his estate, called 
Nonchalance, near Savannah. Martha's diary shows her to be a caring person 
who went out of her way to be courteous to everyone she met. Letters and diary 
entries of neighbors, friends, and family are praiseful of her friendliness and 
courtesy. She managed Rose Hill with a capable and caring hand. Her main 
duty was the care of the "family;" Rose Hill's 50 or so slaves. It was she who 
made their clothing, cared for them when they were sick, and attended 
marriages, births, and funerals. 

The Forman 's house was a frequent stop on Cecil County's social circuit. 
Martha laments in one diary entry prior to the construction of the brick section 
of the house that they could not comfortably entertain more than fourteen 
people in their tiny dining room. 32 Senators, preachers, and the local doctor 
were all equally welcome at her table and in her home, despite any feuds they 
may have had with each other. 



29 Biographical information on Martha Forman comes mostly from her diary, although 
her letters on file at the Maryland Historical Society are especially telling about her 
character. 

30 Letters between the two both before and during their marriage are housed at the 
Maryland Historical Society. 

31 Porter died in 1801, leaving her estate to her husband. 

32 "June 13, 1820 - I fmd we cannot with any convenience in our small dine room dine 
more than 14 persons including my husband and self." Diary, 104. 

14 



The Forman's well-written neighbor, Sidney George Fisher of Mount 
Harmon, was a frequent guest at their house and a companion to both Thomas 
and Martha. The Formans would fly a white flag whenever they wished to have 
Fisher's company. Fisher was a member of Philadelphia's society, having his 
main residence in Germantown. He kept diaries for the length of his adult life, 
recording both the ins and outs of Philadelphia society as well as Ufe on his 
plantation in Cecil County. 33 In his diaries from 1837 to 1850, he talks 
frequently of the Formans and is positively poetic in his praise of Martha's well- 
spread dinner table and the Forman's gardens. 3^ He variously describes 
Thomas as a horrible, crusty old man and a vibrant personality and upstanding 
citizen. Fisher's negative comments about Forman and the awful life Martha 
led with him stand in direct contrast to Martha's diary and letters from 
husband to wife throughout their marriage. Martha's diary makes it clear that 
she cares deeply for her husband. His letters are full of poetry to his beloved 
wife. After hearing about Thomas's death in 1845, Fisher's diary entry is a 
tirade against him. A few entries later, he bewails the loss of his closest 
compatriot in Cecil County. He continues to chronicle the change in 
administration of the plantation from Forman to Forman's Georgian grandson. 



33 His diaries have been published in two parts, the first is A Philadelphia perspective; 
the Diary of Sidney George Fisher Covenng the Years, 1834-1871, the second is the 
Mount Harmon Diaries of Sidney George Fisher 1837-1850. 

3'' One of many praises: "December 1 1, 1845 - Rose Hill is a noble place. Its undulating 
surface, compact form, splendid old trees, massy woods, beautiful river views and 
curious, quaint, old-fashioned garden combine to make it the most delightful country 
residence I ever saw. If it was mine it should be, and I never go there without returning 
out of humor with my narrow little farm." Wilson W. Emerson ed, Mt. Harmon Diaries of 
Sidney George Fisher 1837-1850 (Wilmington DE: The Historical Society of Delaware, 
1976), 162 (hereafter Fisher). 

15 



At Forman's death in 1845, his entire estate was bequeathed to his 
favorite grandson, Thomas Marsh Forman Bryan, with the provision that Bryan 
was to officially petition the Maryland legislature to change his name to Thomas 
Marsh Forman. The younger Forman spKt his time between his estates in 
Georgia and Rose Hill, preferring to be in Maryland during the summer, when 
the heat was more oppressive in Georgia. He had six children of his first wife, 
and after her death married a divorcee with a child of her own. 

Following Thomas's death, Martha had the use of the house and grounds 
plus a yearly pension for the remainder of her Ufe. She made frequent use of 
Rose Hill, spending the entirely of the warm season there. The winters, when 
the danger of illness was high, she spent with relatives in Delaware or in 
Philadelphia. She had stopped writing in her diary when her husband became 
iU; there is no mention of his illness or death. One of the few later entries made 
several years after his death expresses her deep sorrow at his passing. His 
death left a hole in her Ufe. 

Although a member of the Georgia legislature and a reasonably well 
respected man, the younger Forman did not gamer the same respect in Cecil 
County as his grandfather. One of his first acts upon taking possession of Rose 
Hill was to send several of the slaves to Georgia. Being sold South was a 
dreaded punishment for slaves in the northern slave holding states. General 
Forman's slaves had enjoyed a fairly easy Ufe on his plantation. They were 
rarely punished, and were given days off from work and gifts at every holiday. 
When one slave ran away and was punished by the Cecil County government 
after being captured, General Forman expressed regret at the consequence. No 

16 



record was ever made of the Forman ordering punishment for one of his slave's 
transgressions. 35 He freed several of his slaves during his lifetime, although 
many stayed to work as freemen on Rose Hill. His grandson, however, played a 
much harsher role in the life of Martha's "family." Several of the slaves he sent 
South had husbands, wives, and children who remained in Maryland. One wife 
begged Fisher to purchase her so she could remain with her husband. He 
refused, and she went to Georgia with the others. 36 

Fisher's comments about the younger Forman vary as widely as they had 
about his grandfather. Upon his first meeting with Forman, he was utterly 
appalled by Forman 's common appearance, coarse manners, and flaming 
Democratic support for the Southern States' Rights movement. 3^ Later diary 
entries reveal that Forman carried a loaded pistol, a practice Fisher despised as 
a sign of the lack of civilization only countenanced in the South and West. His 
opinion of Forman swung wildly over the next several years, as he grew to enjoy 
the company of his neighbor on some occasions, but remained resentful of 
Forman 's lack of gentlemanly poise. It is when he most disliked the younger 
Forman that he missed the old General. 

Forman 's sympathies during the Civil War were with the South. When 
the Confederacy lost, he lost as well. The majority of his holdings were in 
Georgia, near Savannah, and the war had damaged his financial stability. In 



35 Diary, 2 1 . 

36 Nicholas B. Wainwright, ed, A Philadelphia Perspective: The Diary of Sidney George 
Fisher Covering the Years 1834-1871 (Philadelphia: The Historical Society of 
Pennsylvania, 1967), 188. This incident is also recorded in the Mount Harmon diaries. 

37 "May 15, 1826 - The first glance at Mr. Bryan convinced me that he was by no means 
a refined gentleman. He is a common looking man, with a disagreeable countenance & 
course manners. He is evidently devoid of education or gentlemanlike accomplishment. 
A violent Democrat St brimful of Southern prejudices & Americanism." Fisher, 173. 

17 



1867 he sold Rose Hill in two parts, the about four hundred acres was sold to 
Thomas Veazey Ward, and a parcel of about three hundred seventy acres was 
sold to George Hessey. After Rose Hill passed from the Forman family, it was 
sold on average once every six years until the present time. 

Three of the later owners made major impacts on the estate. Edward 
Page (1929-1937) was interested in returning the estate to its former glory. The 
house and grounds were apparently run down by the time Page took possession 
of the property, following the death of his father in 1929. 3^ Two of Page's sons, 
Edward and Robert, remember living on the plantation in the 1930's and the 
hard work their parents put into restoring the house and grounds. He and his 
siblings jointly owned the property until 1937. Alexander Cassatt, 
grandnephew of Mary Cassatt, owned the property from 1954 to 1972. Prior to 
1957, the addition to the 1837 section of the house that currently serves as the 
kitchen was builfss. Either Cassatt or one of the next two owners, E. Newbold 
Smith and Alfred Wilson Darlow, respectively, built the addition to the west 
sometime between 1976 and 1980. In 1980, Darlow donated an easement on 
the property to the Maryland Historic Trust. 



38 " 'Rose Hiir now belongs to Mr. Edward Page of Philadelphia, a man of means who is 
devoted to the old place, and has done everything in his power to repair the damage 
done before his occupancy, when a short-sighted agent sold everything that could be 
moved away, including great quantities of box-hedging, holly trees, rare shrubs, and 
even the interior woodwork of the house." Alice G. B. Lockwod, Gardens of Colony and 
State (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934), 169. 

39 A newspaper article from 1957 showing a photo of the estate provides this date. The 
addition at that time had an open entry way to the north, which was enclosed sometime 
between 1976, when a photograph of the house appeared in the printed edition of 
Martha's diary that showed the entry open, and 1980, when photographs were taken for 
the easement, showing the entry enclosed in its current condition. 

18 



Chapter III 
Construction Timeline 

1675 - Henry and Parnell Eldasley acquire Chance. The first "dwelling 

plantation" is built within a few years. It is believed the existing gambrel 
roof frame house was built at this time, but incorporated exterior brick 
chimneys on the gable ends. 

Early-Mid 1700's - A second possibility is that the existing gambrel roofed 

structure was not a part of the above referenced "dwelling plantation," 
but was build in the early to mid 1700's with exterior chimneys on the 
gable end walls. 

Late 1700's - The house built by the Eldasleys was significantly remodeled. 

The exterior chimneys were brought inside the gable end walls, requiring 
new interior chimney foundations and revisions in the floor framing. 
Most of the original first floor joists were replaced with new joists that 
were "dropped into" the sill plates. 

1790 - Thomas Marsh Forman is listed as the head of household in the first 
Census. 

1814 - Forman marries Martha Ogle Brown, and a 40-year period of record 
keeping and renovation begins. 

1836-1838 - Needing more space to entertain, the Formans build the large 
brick addition. 

Changes to the frame structure at this time: 

• The building is extended 4 feet to the east 

• A new basement bulkhead door is installed in the south east 
corner 

• Windows are possibly replaced. 

• Window arrangement changes, at least on the south wall. 

• The northern basement wall is possibly rebuilt. 

1865-1928 - The property goes through a succession of owners and suffers 
from lack of maintenance and poor management. 

Changes to the frame structure in this time: 

• The kitchen moves from the basement of the brick building to the 
first floor dining room of the frame section. 

• The first floor parlor becomes a bedroom. 

• Decorative woodwork is removed from the house. 

• Marble mantle from the dining room and other decorative features 
vanish. 



19 



1928-1937 - Edward and Elizabeth Page buy the land and institute a 
restoration campaign. 

Changes to the frame structure in this time: 

• The concrete floor in the basement is possibly poured. 

• A bathroom is possibly built in the basement, and the rest of the 
basement space finished. 

• The northern basement wall is possibly rebuilt. 

• The dining room is reconverted. 

• Windows are possibly replaced. 

• Electricity, plumbing, and central heating are installed. 

• The small room at the head of the stairs is converted to a bath. 

• Decorative details that were removed are possibly replaced. 

• Extensive remodeling is done to the second floor spaces. 

Changes to the brick structure at this time: 

• Decorative plasterwork on the first and second floors is repaired 
and restored. 

• Electricity, plumbing, and central heating are installed. The 
middle room on the second floor is converted to a bath. New 
moldings are installed on the inside of the bathroom doors. 

• New openings for window/ doors are cut in the sitting room's east 
wall and in the dining room's west wall. 

• A large brick terrace is built to the east of the building. 

Before 1957 - A small kitchen and service addition is buUt to the east of the 
brick structure by the Cassatts 

Changes to the frame structure at this time: 

• The concrete floor in the basement is possibly poured. 

• A bathroom is possibly built in the basement, and the rest of the 
basement space finished. 

Changes to the brick structure at this time: 

• The north exterior door is possibly removed and infilled with a 
window. 

• The brick terrace area is significantly reduced. 

• A new door is cut through the east wall in the dining room to 
access the new addition. 

Changes to both structures at this time: 

• The existing asbestos tile roofing is installed. 

Before 1976 - The kitchen addition is altered 

Changes to the kitchen addition at this time: 

• The entry nook is enclosed, and the transom light from above the 
former northern exterior door of the brick structure is placed 
above the new main entrance to the house. 

20 



Changes to the brick structure at this time: 

• The north exterior door is possibly removed and infilled with a 
window. 

Between 1976 and 1980 - A new addition is built to the west of the fi-ame 
structure. 

Changes to the fi^ame structure at this time: 

• A new door is cut on the west wall to access the new addition. 

• The decorative moldings are possibly disturbed. 

• The exterior of the west wall above the new addition is reclad in 
aluminum siding. 

1980 - Alfred Darlow donates a fagade easement on the property to the 
Maryland Historical Trust. 

1986-1995 - The property suffers from tenant occupation and absentee 
ownership. 

Changes to the frame structure in this time: 

• The yard is regraded, taking the soil to the wooden sill line. 
Termites enter the building and cause extensive damage to the 
structural members in the basement. 



21 



Chapter IV 
Building Description and History 

Today's Rose Hill Farm encompasses parts of five ancient land patents, 
issued in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The practice of granting 
land patents in Maryland involved two steps: a petition to the legislature to 
issue a certificate of survey, also known as a warrant, and a final certificate of 
patent after the survey was recorded. Survey and patent certificates were 
issued and recorded for the tract of land, which was named by the petitioner. 
The name of the tract could be fanciful or descriptive - that was the choice of 
the petitioner. Rose Hill Farm's tracts or parts of tracts include Wheeler's Point, 
granted in 1658, Middle Plantation granted in 1671, Chance, granted in 1675, 
Jamaica, granted in 1703, and Barbados, granted in 1739.4° Often these tracts 
would be resurveyed after they had passed hands several times, or after a 
dispute with a neighbor over a boundary. The resurvey process required the 
same steps, a petition to the legislature for a certificate of survey and then 
again for the patent. The name could be changed, but was often left as the 
original name with Resurvey tacked on, e.g., "Chance Resurveyed." The original 
patent was null and void after being resurveyed and included in a new tract. 
Additions, even as small as single acres, also had to follow the same process of 
double application, e.g., "Addition to Chance." 

Rose Hni apparently gained its modem name during the occupation of 
Thomas Marsh Forman. Letters from Forman to his soon-to-be wife, Martha 
Callender, in the early years of the 1800's refer to his estate by that name. 



'♦o Please see Appendix V figure 2 for a map with approximate locations of several of the 
ancient land patents. 

22 



Seventeenth Century Section (assumed) 

Possibly built sometime in the late 1600 V^, this section of the house is a 
two-story, timber framed, gambrel-roofed structure with a single pUe center hall 
plan over a stone and brick foundation. This house was probably the "dwelling 
plantation" of Pamell Eldasley, who lived on the land with her husband from 
sometime after 1675-^2. The plantation was continuously occupied from that 
time forward. As an alternative construction scenario, it is possible that the 
existing gambrel roofed structure was built in the early-mid eighteenth century. 
The interior layout was altered sometime in the latter part of the 1700's, 
probably prior to 1790. 

Description of Existing Conditions 

The foundation consists of approximately five feet m height of random 
rubble masonry topped by two feet of brick. Windows are laid into the brick 
section of the foundation. Heavy hand-hewn timbers, spaced on average two 
feet apart and notched into a heavy wooden sill plate, support the floors. -^^ The 
roof was originally covered with wood shingles, but is now roofed in asbestos 
tile. Porches run the length of the house on both the north and south facades, 
recorded by Mrs. Forman and Sidney George Fisher as the "piazza." The porch 



■*! Please refer to Appendix VII for floor plans, and Appendix VI for historic images of 
Rose Hill. 

■*^ A land patent for Wheeler's Point, done in 1739, shows that the property line between 
Wheeler's Point and Chance lay well to the East of the present house. This indicates 
that Rose Hill was built on Chance, and there is a probability that the existing frame 
structure is the one built by the Eldasleys in the late 1600's. See Appendbc VI, figure 1 
for the Wheeler's Point survey. 

''3 Several joists are mortised into the sill plate, suggesting they are parts of the original 
framing structure, while the "dropped in" members are later alterations. 

23 



was customarily a place to work during the heat of the summer, where there 
was ventilation and shade from the sun. The timber frame is sheathed by 
clapboard siding that has a decorative bevel on the lower edge,"*-* a typical detail 
in the tidewater South. The siding contains three different kinds of nails: the 
oldest nails, which secure the thinner upper edge of the clapboard to the frame, 
are hand wrought. The siding also contains examples of nineteenth century cut 
nails and modem wire nails. 

There currently is a basement bulkhead door on the south facade of the 
house. The basement was used as storage for food and goods. In her diary, 
Mrs. Forman refers to the basement as the cellar. At some time, the basement 
was plastered and finished as a working space. There are lath marks on the 
bottom of the floorboards, the beams show evidence of whitewash, and the 
stone and brick still bear some remnants of the plaster. At the western end of 
the basement is the remaining arched brick fireplace support for the fireplace in 
the parlor. A door has been cut through to the north of the fireplace for access 
to the basement and crawl spaces beneath the 1970's addition. Remains of 
pipes and plumbing fixtures in the basement suggest that the area was used as 
a kitchen after the installation of the concrete floor. 

The first floor contains three rooms. The central passage hall has 
doors that open on either side and the stair to the second floor. To the east is 
the original dining room, and to the west is the original parlor. 



'''* See Appendix VIII, Frame Section drawing 12 for a profile of the siding. 

24 



The second floor also has three rooms, plus the open stair. The room at 
the head of the stair is currently used as a bathroom. -+5 Mrs. Forman referred 
to it as the small room or the passage chamber. The room to the east, above 
the dining room, was her chamber, and the room to the west above the parlor is 
the parlor chamber. Small cabinets below the windows offer storage inside the 
gambrel roof.^fe There are no scars on either floor that indicate the moving of 
partitions. The lath, in one spot where it is visible beneath the plaster on the 
second floor, is machine sawn. Mrs. Forman records several campaigns of 
construction, remodeling, and replastering in her forty-year long record. The 
Pages also did quite a bit of work to the upper stories of the building, although 
exactly what they did is uncertain. The original plaster and lath of this house is 
probably long gone. 

Seventeenth Century Conditions and Eighteenth Century Alterations 

The original floor plan was more likely a two-room plan, with a box 
winder stair next to one of the gable end fireplaces and a partition wall 
separating the spaces.'*'^ The stair may have been located along the center 
partition, but no evidence has survived to confirm this. The current layout is 
probably a remodeling or completely new construction from the late 1700's. 



■^s This bathroom was installed by Edward and Elizabeth Page in the 1930's. 

■*6 These cabinets are mentioned in a sketch of Rose Hill in the 1850's written by 

Thomas Marsh Forman Bryan's daughter. Horace L Hotchkiss, "A Visit to Rose Hill in 

the 1850's," Cecil County Historical Society, accessed 21 September 2000; available 

from http:/ /cchistorv.org/roseh.htm ; internet. 

'*'' Conjectural Drawings 1 8s 2 in Appendix VII illustrate possible floor plan 

configurations. 

25 



Early houses with less formal plans were often converted when the 
residents attained high enough social status to require a more formal entrance 
and waiting area. By 1790, when Forman was the head of the household at 
Rose Hill, he was already a local Revolutionary War hero, a State Legislator, and 
a rising figure in Cecil County's social organization. His family was wealthy and 
well established, and the plantation probably created enough wealth to justify 
the alteration of the house. 

The alteration was an almost complete rebuilding. The existing floor 
joists have been dropped into the sill plates, with the exception of one joist, 
which retains a mortise and tenon joint, suggesting it was part of the original 
framed structure of the seventeenth century building. The framed opening 
surrounding the western flreplace foundation is a scrambled mess of mortised 
and dropped in pieces of timber. The peculiarities of the framing suggest that 
the original house had exterior chimneys that were brought into the main body 
of the house during the late eighteenth century remodeling. 

The kitchen and other working facilities were located in separate 
buildings. The kitchen building contained a storeroom and a lower room in the 
basement. There was probably a side door from the kitchen, which was nearby 
to the east-'s, into the dining room. An exterior entrance to the basement was 
also probably located on the east wall facing the kitchen building, allowing the 
servants fairly easy access to the storage space in the basement of the main 
house. 



'^^ The kitchen was quite close. When construction began on the brick addition, the 
kitchen had to be torn down. The carpenters from Philadelphia brought up the "old 
house from the river," probably the house listed in the 1783 Wheeler's Point 
assessment, to use as a temporary' kitchen. 

26 



Expansion into the 1837 Addition 

The house was extended four feet to the west when the brick addition 
was constructed, adding space to the dining room and Mrs. Forman's chamber. 
The seam of the addition is visible in three places: in the basement, where new 
brick forms a visible line of demarcation on both the north and south sides of 
the house; on the exterior, where the siding on the south forms a straight seam; 
and on the second floor, where the floorboards are seamed the entire length of 
the dining room chamber. Mrs. Forman also records this change in her diary. 

The changes in the framing in the basement made for this expansion are 
fairly evident. A large, heavy beam, possibly the former sill plate for the eastern 
wall, rests roughly six inches to the west of the vertical comer post. The 
basement bulkhead door was installed on the south facade, built into the new 
framing. The fireplace foundation is similar to its twin across the basement, 
but the arched area is filled in with brick and it is framed with nineteenth 
century lumber. 

The windows may have been replaced at this time. The frame and 
muntins are far too thin and delicate for eighteenth century windows, although 
the quality of the glass suggests they are not modern replacements. The profile 
of the muntin does not match the profile of the window muntins in the 1837 
addition, although they are very close. They may have been replaced at or near 
the same time as the 1836-38 construction. The westernmost south-facing 
window in the dining room would have been outside the four-foot expansion 



27 



mark. It is possible the windows were replaced at the same time as new 
windows were built for the brick addition. 

The Marks of the Twentieth Century 

The house suffered from poor management in the later years of the 
nineteenth century and into the twentieth. An interview with Robert and 
Edward Page, sons of the owner from 1929 - 1937 reveals that prior to their 
family's ownership, an agent sold everything that could be moved from the 
property, including interior woodwork from the house. -^^ 

In 1928, the kitchen that serviced the house was located in the dining 
room, and the former parlor was in use as a bedroom. There was no indoor 
plumbing, electrical service, central heating, or phone service. ^o The marble 



•+9Lockwood, 169. His son Edward also remembers that much of the decorative 
woodwork had been removed, although he does not remember specifically from where. 
50 Interviews with Robert Page and Edward Page Jr., 6-8 January 2001. From Edward 
Page Jr.: "When my grandfather, Louis Rodman Page bought Rose Hill in 1928, the 
place was something of a shambles. Decorative woodwork had been removed. I recall 
that the plaster bas-relief ceiling panels imported from abroad were still intact. There 
were no utilities (phone, electricity and central heat). Some of the hardware had been 
removed (lost or sold). There were no indoor toilets -- just the outhouses in back. 

There were remnants of old slave quarters. The farming facilities (bam, equipment, ) 

either didn't exist or needed extensive repairs. Grandfather left Rose Hill to my father 
after he died in 1929. 

"Shortly after my father inherited Rose Hill, my father and mother, Elizabeth 
Griffith Page, hired Bruno Mack and wife Heidi Mack who had migrated from Stettin, 
Germany after World War 11 to manage the house and farm. Bruno was skilled in iron 
and wood working having been trained in the excellent German trade school system. He 
also had served as a maitre-di in an Atlantic City hotel. 

"Under Mack's and my father's supervision, we installed an on-site electric 
plant, installed state-of-art plumbing, central heating and bathroom facilities, replaced 
trim, and renovated the bam and barnyard. 1 have no idea how much all of this cost 
nor can 1 recall a detailed description of the physical improvements. Bruno applied his 
iron-working skills to decorations and fixtures which may still be on the property. He 
also taught my brother and me how to work iron and the farm equipment — and, in 
conjunction with my father, how to handle firearms. We also built a small sailboat, the 
"Sooty Pussy" in honor of the "Black Cat"; a restaurant we used to patronize on our 
periodic commutes from Bryn Mawr, Pa. to Rose Hill. 

28 



mantle that occupied the dining room^' is gone now. It was reinstalled after 
construction, but removed at a later date, probably when the room was 
converted to a kitchen. The conversion of the fireplace from functional to 
decorative probably also happened at this time, or when the kitchen was 
removed. 

Questions that Remain 

The dating of the woodwork in this section of the house is questionable. 52 
Some of it is original, although nearly all of it follows a Colonial pattern and 
profile and is probably a careful replacement. ^3 Much of the woodwork could be 
a 1930's redo, carefully created to match the Colonial look. The molding 
around the doors and ceiling of the passage, however, is more Federal in style, 
and carries heavy coats of paint. The molding on the western wall and the four 
foot section leading up to it was new in 1836-38, although there are no seams 
on the north and south walls showing new four foot pieces joined in. The 
existing woodwork could have been carefully removed and reinstalled, with new 
pieces that ran the length of the room made to match at this time. 



"Bruno collapsed and died on the beginning of a trial run on a new ketch in 
1936. It was not long after that Dad and Mother decided to sell Rose Hill to the 
Eliasons. He was the Treasurer of DuPont. 

51 Mrs. Forman records the installation of this mantle shortly after her marriage to 
General Forman in 1814. Diary, 5. She also records its reinstallation after the 
construction of the brick section in 1838. Diary, 389. 

^- See Appendix VIII, Molding Profiles, for detailed profiles of the moldings throughout 
the historic portions of the house. 

53 The door from the dining room to the passage and its surround is older - the molding 
profiles are richer, and it is heavily coated with paint. Some of the decorative molding 
in the dining room may be original, as is some of the molding in the hall passage. Most 
of the molding in the dining room and parlor has only two coats of paint. 

29 



An addition made to the eastern end of the house could have affected the 
paneling and molding in the parlor and parlor chamber. This addition was 
made sometime between 1976 and 1980. It was necessary to open a doorway 
through the parlor wall into the new addition. What paneling was there before 
the door is unknown, and the date of what is currendy there is questionable. 
The display case to the north of the fireplace could be older; the pattern of the 
half round window repeats the transom above the dining room door and the 
lights of the attic in the 1837 addition. 



30 



Nineteenth Century Addition 

Recorded in Martha Forman's diary, this brick addition was built 
between 1836 and 1838. Construction was mostly finished and the family had 
moved in by 1837, but painting and finish work stretched into 1838. The 
master builder was a Mr. Atwood from Philadelphia. There were six masons on 
the construction crew. They brought quick lime and slaked lime with them. 
The three carpenters, under the direction of Mr. Atwood, brought wood cut by a 
water driven saw with them from Philadelphia by boat. The house is three and 
one half stories, three bays wide, with a flat roof accessible by a trap door in the 
attic. 5-^ The basement is divided into two rooms by a brick wall. The southern 
room with the large fireplace was the kitchen, replacing the separate building 
that had served the household. The foundation is of Port Deposit granite 
approximately four and a half feet tall. Brick made on the site in June through 
August of 1836 continues from that point, with windows on the north and 
south facades. A bulkhead basement door that matches the basement door in 
the seventeenth century section rises on the eastern facade at the north comer. 

Although there is no mention of the house being stuccoed when built, 
there is also no evidence to suggest that it was not. The joints of the brick are 
not pointed beneath the stucco, suggesting they were never meant to be seen. 
The building was stuccoed by 1928.^5 

The first floor originally had two exterior doors, one on each short fagade, 
in the manner of a Philadelphia side hall rowhouse. There is no side hall 



5* "August 9, 1837 - We altered the rafters this day and made a flat roof." Diary, 385. 
55 "I think it was stuccoed. As I remember it was a yellow ochre color." Interview with 
Robert Page, 10 January 2001. One photograph taken sometime before 1935 also 
shows the house stuccoed. Appendix VI figure 3. 

31 



inside, however, the northern rooms extend the entire width of the building. 
This was a conscious decision on the part of the Formans, probably meant to 
ease Martha's dismay over the constricted size of their entertaining facilities. 
The first floor contains a drawing room and dining room. They can be 
connected as one large room with the opening of floor to ceiling bi-fold doors. 
The woodwork and decorative plaster in these two rooms is very elaborate. The 
plaster ceilings were restored in the 1930's, but remained largely intact until 
that time. 56 Yet another apocrjrphal story associated with Rose Hill says that 
the fireplace mantles are of Egyptian marble. It is more likely they are a 
combination of a North American marble and carefully painted slate. ^7 

Two window/ doors, a peculiarity to the Southern climate, were created 
prior to 1935. The upper sash opens like a window, but the lower sash swings 
outward like a door. The combination of movements gives the opening the 
required height and width for a doorway. The southernmost window in the 
dining room's west wall has been converted to this arrangement. The 
window/ door in the sitting room was created to give access to a large brick 
terrace built on the East side of the house. 

The northern door, which led from the dining room to the outside, was 
removed and infilled with a window between 1976 and 1980.58 xhe decorative 
transom from this door was replaced in the 1957 addition, over the northern 



56 Interview with Robert and Edward Page Jr., 6-8 January 2001. 
5^7 This has not been completely determined yet, but will be investigated before 
construction. 

58 A photograph from the printed edition of Martha's diary, published in 1976, shows 
the 1957 addition with an open entry, while photos taken for the easement in 1980 
show it enclosed, with the transom light installed above the door. 

32 



entry. A new door, leading from the dining room into the new addition was cut 
in at this time, surrounded by carefully replicated molding. 

The second floor contains three rooms, one large chamber to the north 
and two smaller rooms. The middle room has been converted to a bathroom, 
although there are no scars indicating this conversion necessitated the moving 
of partitions. 59 The molding surrounding the inside of the bathroom door to the 
large bedroom to the north is different, as is the molding surrounding the closet 
door. It does not match anything else in the house. The southern room has a 
large patch on the floor, probably dating from when the house was wired for 
electricity. The patch is directly over the large ceiling rosette in the sitting 
room. The windows and trim on this floor have only one or two coats of paint, 
and the damage made by refinishing is evident. The fireplaces are of the same 
black marble as the first floor, but less elaborately carved. 

The third floor contains two smaller rooms, with plain wooden fireplaces 
and sloping ceilings. The attic has been converted to a large cedar closet. 

The construction of the addition was fairly rapid. Below is a listing of 

events in the construction of the house taken from Martha's diary: 

8/27/36 - brick manufacture completed 

5/21/37 - building stone arrives from Port Deposit quarries 

6/4/37 - carpenters and wood arrive from Philadelphia 

6/7/37 - carpenters brought up the old house from the river to convert to a 

kitchen 
6/9/37 - the kitchen, lower room, and storeroom taken down. The Formans 

begin using the temporary kitchen. 
6/29/37 - all hands at work digging the cellar 



59 The Pages also added this bathroom in the 1930's. 

33 



7 / 12/31 - the masons arrive 

7/ 13/37 - the cornerstone is laid 

7/20/37 - the first joist is laid 

7/29/37 - second floor joists are laid 

8/ 18/37 - walls of the house are finished 

8/21/37 - roof installation begins 

8/25/37 - the carpenters begin building the stairs and the glazier arrives 

9/ 1 /37 - the laying of the floors begins 

9/8/37 - the first meal is cooked in the new basement kitchen 

9/9/37 - carpenters begin partitioning the rooms upstairs 

9/ 1 1 /37 - the roof gets tinned 

10/ 18/37 - plastering begins 

1 1/29/37 - plastering is complete 

12/ 1/37 - marble mantles arrive for the dining and drawing rooms 

2/21/38 - the carpenters pack up and leave 

4/25/38 - Mr. Armitage from Philadelphia completes the painting 



34 



Chapter V 
The Grounds 

Associated with the historic house of Rose Hill are outbuildings, formal 

gardens, burial plots, and a working farm with several tenant buildings. A 

description of these features is necessary to place the house and its history in 

the proper perspective. s° 

Outbuildings 

The outbuildings associated with the house include an ice house and 
three smaller sheds that stand on the level plot of land directly to the east of the 
house. The ice house definitely dates from the Forman era. The construction 
dates of the other three buildings are uncertain. 

The ice house is mentioned frequently in Martha Forman 's diary. It 
stands roughly one hundred feet to the east of the house, with its entrance 
facing west. Above ground, it is a small building approximately ten feet square, 
with beveled clapboard siding that matches the finish of the oldest frame 
structure and a wood shingled gable roof. It sits upon a random rubble 
foundation. Beneath grade, however, a long staircase leads down twenty to 
thirty feet to a large, approximately fourteen foot in diameter round pit. The pit 
extends another fifteen to twenty feet down into the earth. It would be filled 
with wagonloads of ice cut from the river or the pond in the winter, and used for 
cold storage through the spring and summer until the ice finally melted. &' The 



60 Please see Appendix V, Reference Images, for a current image of the outbuildings and 
the grounds. 

61 The amount of ice needed to fill the pit was considerable. "Monday we finished filling 
out Ice house with 49 loads." Diary, 8. 

35 



structure is in good condition, and needs only routine maintenance. The stairs 
that lead down to the pit are rotten, and in some places entirely gone. 

The three outbuildings vary widely as far as construction, possible dates 
of construction, and exterior and interior finishing. All three are built of wood 
on stone foundations and have wood shingled gable roofs. All of the 
outbuildings were extant when the Pages came to Rose Hill in 1928, and a 
photograph taken in 1935 records their condition at that time.62 

The westernmost building, closest to the house, is in the best condition. 
It has board and batten siding, sash windows on each facade, a concrete 
interior floor that has been tiled, paneled interior walls and an acoustical tile 
ceiling. The structure sits upon a foundation of random rubble, mostly of local 
fieldstone. A few pieces of Port Deposit granite presumably left over from the 
construction of the 1837 addition are worked into the foundation. The 
foundation is in good condition, with few cracks or stress points. In 1935, this 
building had a set of large doors on its southern facade. Today, the wall has 
been rebuilt, and a standard sized door and window occupy the southern 
fagade. Although selective demolition on this building has not yet been 
accomplished, it can be assumed that the 
method of construction is quite similar to 
its neighbor. 

The middle building is a timber- 
framed structure that was mortised and 

Fig. 1 . Exposed rotted framing on 

tenoned together. It has horizontal board ^^e middle building. 




62 See Appendix VI figure 6. 



36 




1^ --'^ di^m 



siding with no lap, no openings to the exterior but the door, narrow board 

flooring, and plywood walls and ceiling. 

Almost the entire foundation is of fieldstone, 

with some Port Deposit granite. This 

building has not changed since the 1935 

photograph. It is in very bad condition. The 

Fig. 2. The character of the timber frame is almost entirely rotted 

masonry is fieldstone with some 

granite. It is pulling apart at the beneath the sheathing, and the flooring has 

corners. 

buckled and rolled. The foundation is distorted and crumbhng, with the entire 

northeastern comer pulling free from the rest of the building. 

The final building is a mix of timber parts. This ^f- 

building is probably the latest in date and was 

constructed from a variety of pieces salvaged from 

other buildings. The comer posts and sill plates are 

heavy timbers that still bear the mortise pockets of 

their former 

'^^^^^ construction and 

^ are nailed together p^g 3 ^^^e frame is 
L nailed together from 

^■- 1 with wire cut nails, salvaged timber. 

^^^11 The other structural pieces are nailed to the 

Fig. 4. Holes cut in the fagade for ,■,-.. 1 t-u 

use as a dog kennel. Note the tarp heavy frame, also with wire cut nails. The 

used as the roof covering and the 

Port Deposit granite foundation. foundation of this building is also almost 

entirely Port Deposit granite. The 1935 photograph depicts this building with a 

large opening on the southem fagade. This opening has since been covered 

37 





with a sliding door. A former tenant of Rose HUl cut three large openings in the 
east wall and used the structure as a dog kennel. 

These buildings may date to prior to 1928 and the arrival of the Pages, 
but there is no sound physical or archival evidence to confirm such a claim. 
The two buildings closest to the house may date from the time of Martha 
Forman, based upon the composition of their foundation and the heavy timber 
construction. The westernmost building appears to be in fair condition, 
although the removal of some of the cladding or interior finishes may expose 
serious structural damage. The middle building, however, is in very poor 
condition and is not salvageable. The building furthest to the east has suffered 
severe damage to its walls, has a tarp for a roof, and probably no historic 
significance. 

The Boxwood Garden and the Grounds 

In a small hoUow approximately two hundred yards to the west of the 
house are the remains of the Forman 's formal boxwood garden. Martha and 
Thomas both spent long hours planning for, planting, and relaxing in this 
place. The garden may have been begun before 1816, when Martha records the 
planting of boxwood in the oval of the garden. ^3 Years of neglect and lack of 
maintenance have left it overgrown, with the boxwood trees rising to eight foot 
or taller heights. The formal pathways are clogged with dead wood and grown 
closed, and no more flowers bloom there. But the basic pattern of the garden 



^3 "General Forman is cutting box for the great oval in the garden." Diary, 32. Although 
several sources cite 1818 as the year 1400 cuttings of boxwood were planted on the 
estate, that event is not recorded in the printed edition of Martha's diary. It may be in 
the original, or recorded in Thomas's planting diary. 

38 



remains, and from it Henry Chandlee Forman created a reconstruction plan of 
the garden. &•* The three large yew trees in the garden are recognized as some of 
the oldest and largest yew trees in the United States. Thomas received them 
from Prince's Nursery on Long Island in 1825.^5 

Thomas and Martha both kept planting diaries that recorded their 
horticultural activities. Thomas's diaiy*^ records the numbers of plants 
received from various places, begun as seedlings or clippings in his own 
quarters, and planted. He makes little or no mention of where he planted trees, 
shrubs, or flowers. Martha, however, records at least the general vicinity of her 
husband's activities, and it is from her diary that we find that thirty-two rose 
bushes bordered the path from the house to the garden. 

Thomas's planting extended beyond the confines of the garden and onto 
the rest of the house's grounds. The mile long drive from Grove Neck Road to 
the house was planted with Spanish Chestnuts on both sides, creating a 
gracious canopy. ^'^ The trees were killed by blight, and only scattered stumps 
remain. Chestnut trees were also planted along Grove Neck Road. A story is 



&■* See Appendix VI figure 13 for the drawing. Forman published this drawing in Early 
Manor and Plantation Houses of Maryland in 1934. 

65 Edith Rossiter Bevan, "Gardens and Gardening in Early Maryland," Maryland 
Historical Magazine, September 1950, p. 260. 

66 This diary is housed at the Maryland Historical Society. 

6'' "...the General and myself took a long walk, got some chestnuts." Diary, 52. "Out of 
1 '/2 bushel of chestnuts planted, only 759 appear to have grown. Squirrels have taken 
the rest." Diary, 84. These plantings were later transplanted to various property lines, 
and to either side of the long drive. The chestnut trees were dying of the blight by 1934, 
"The condition of these chestnuts, which are of immense size, proves definitely that 
they, too are subject to the blight which has devastated our native species. The trees 
are five-sixths dead, and the gaunt limbs, bare of bar together with the litter of huge 
branches that have fallen to the ground and the dense growth of suckers springing up 
from the roots makes this avenue look like one of Dore's somber fancies." Lockwood, 
169. 

39 



told that Thomas planted them exactly one tenth of a mile apart, so he could 
time his racehorses accurately. ^^ 

Burial Plots 

There are two burial plots on the plantation. The oldest is nearest to the 
house, and was referred to by Martha as the "stranger's cemetery." The dates 
on the stones here are difficult to read, but range from the later years of the 
eighteenth century to the earliest years of the nineteenth. This burial ground 
may be part of the servant and slave burial plot, where an apocryphal story 
states one of Thomas's favorite race horses, Silver was also buried, complete 
with silver horseshoes. ^^ There is no fence or any formal declaration of 
dedicated space for this plot. The gravestones are on a knoll near the boxwood 
garden. 

The more formal and demarcated burial plot belongs to the Forman 
family. Thomas is buried there, as are several members of his family. Martha, 
however, is not. She was buried with her family in Delaware. An iron fence 
surrounds this burial plot, and the grave markers are large, flat slabs of marble 
that cover the extents of the grave. When the Pages came to Rose Hill in 1928, 



^^ "A resident of Grove Point told this writer some forty years ago that General Forman 
had planed the trees in an exact one mile stretch, with the trees spaced at one-tenth 
mile intervals. The exact purpose of this was to provide a measured course over which 
he could race and time his horses." Cecil County Bicentennial Committee, Cecil County 
in the Revolutionary War (Elkton MD: Cecil County Bicentennial Committee, 1976), 32- 
33. 

69 This story is also frequently repeated. An interview with Mrs. Cassatt, the resident of 
Rose Hill in the late 1950's, for the Maryland State Historical Resource survey even 
mentions the ghost of Silver neighing at the farm gate. 

40 



wild pigs had dug up the plot. Edward Page restored the burial ground. '''o It 
has been overgrown by briars and fallen into severe disrepair over the years, 
and at least two of the stones have almost lost their inscriptions to the 
elements. 

The Farm 

Rose Hill's farm, which in a former time grew tobacco, com, oats, rye, 
hay, and wheat, now grows only hay. The tenant farmer who runs the 
operations of the farm lives in what Martha called the "lower house," a smaller 
tenant house that sits in the small valley to the east of the outbuildings. Two 
other tenant houses are built along the tree line to the north east of the house. 
Where these houses stand is where the slave quarter, or part of it, was 
located.''! 



^0 Interview with Robert Page, 6 January 2001. 

^1 Robert Page recalls that a few of the slave quarters were still standing in 1928 when 
his family came to Rose Hill. "I do recall that the slave quarters were on the right side 
of the driveway as we knew it - straight out from the back of the main house out to the 
dirt road from Cecilton. The remains of the houses backed up on the woods behind the 
field. I'd estimate that the several slave houses were about 200 yards from the main 
house." Although many of the slaves may have been quartered here, some of the 
literature refers to Sheffield Farm as the "Quarter Farm," and suggests that a common 
slave community for the farmers of the area existed there. 

41 



Chapter VI 
Condition Assessment 

It is useful to analyze a building by breaking down its performance by 

function, because appearance misrepresents functionality. Each building 

system has a purpose, usually described in two words. Whether the system is 

realizing that goal is a measure of its functionality. This section will provide a 

description and definition of the systems, and analyze both the seventeenth 

century frame section and the nineteenth century brick addition. 

Structural System: 

The purpose of the structural system of the building is to minimize 
distortion so the other building systems and materials are not compromised. 
The structural system is functioning as long as the interior furnishings, 
fixtures, and fittings are not seriously disturbed by shifts in the building (and 
the building remains standing). 

Vertical Closure System: 

The vertical system of the structure is defined as the walls, windows, and 
doors. The purpose of the vertical system is to protect the interior. The system 
is working as long as the interior is selectively sheltered from air, sunlight, rain, 
animal invasions, and other exterior environmental conditions, while still 
allowing passage of legitimate human residents. 



Horizontal Closure System: 

42 



The horizontal system includes both the roof and any other horizontal 
surfaces associated with the building and grounds. In this case, the ground 
level horizontal system includes brick paving and open, grassy areas. The 
purpose of the horizontal system is more complicated than other systems 
mentioned; it includes collecting, channelizing, and disposing of water. Water 
on the property must be managed from the time it hits the roof in a rainstorm, 
to when it is properly disposed of away from the building. 



f=*-n?'''d'^--i-'- 



Seventeenth Century Frame Section 

Structural: 

The structural system in this section of Rose Hill is a heavy timber frame 
of hand-hewn members on a stone and brick foundation. The wooden members 
have suffered considerable damage, and the building has problems with 
distortion. The system is in the early stages of failure. 
Termite damage in the basement has 

compromised the 

integrity of the 

southern fagade sill 

plate, and several of 

the floor joists. One 

of the joists is 

missing roughly half its length and no longer supports 

the southern half of the floor. The floor joists are 
currently supported by a temporary beam which runs the length of the 

43 





Fig. 1 . The quasi-summer 
beam and some evidence of 
termite damage. 



Fig. 2. Termite 
damage. 



.juath^ 




Structure, held in position by metal or wooden columns. It is quite clear that 

this is a temporary repair. However, without this 

quasi summer beam, the building would coUapse. 

Most of the joists have puUed free from their 

pockets in the siU plates. This could be due to 

shrinkage in the material due to age and water 

evaporation, or to a shifting or buckling of the wall 

itself. The structural system is no longer able to 

Fig. 3. The beams are 
pulling free of the sill 
support itself withe plate. 

Other, human wrought damage is also 

clearly visible. The work of plumbers and 

electricians in the basement has left gaping 

holes in the floor joists, in at least one case 

nearly cutting through the entirety of the joist. 

Other pipe interventions have left holes in the 

brick foundation. Human action causes more 

damage to a building in ten minutes than 

Fig. 4 & 5. Plumber damage in nature does in one hundred years, 
the basement. 




44 




Distortion of the frame is clearly visible on the 
southern fagade. The wall at the first floor bulges 
outward, twisting window and door frames. The front 
door no longer closes within its frame, and must be 
secured by other means. The distortion could be 
caused by several mechanisms: 

• A by product of the termite damage in the 

basement Fig. 6. The warp in 

the front door is 

• Buckling in the vertical structure caused by a force evident. 

from above. A heavy weight the frame was never intended to carry above the 
distortion is causing the wall to buckle. 

• Lateral earth pressure on the basement wall is creating an S-curve of 
distortion from beneath the ground. If the basement wall is being pushed 
inwards, the concrete floor of the basement pins it in position and throws the 
distortion to the walls above ground. Excess water liquefying the backfiU is a 
prime culprit for this mechanism. 

The joists of the second floor and the roof rafters appear stable. The 
termite damage seems to be limited to the basement and first floor environs. 



Vertical: 

The type of vertical closure system often defines the problems, 
mechanisms, and solutions. The vertical closure in this section of the house 
can be defined as a multiple layer, water screen wall. The purpose of this type 

45 



of vertical closure is to minimize leaks through pressure equalization. Water 
will follow the path of pressure discrepancies, moving from a low-pressure zone 
(the exterior) to a high-pressure zone (the heated interior). A multi layer water 
screen wall has an exterior shell with a pressure equalization cavity behind. In 
this case, the exterior shell is wooden clapboard siding, and the noggin filled 
cavity is the stud space. The wall works to prevent leaks and other 
environmental migrations as long as the cavity has an unbroken connection to 
the exterior. The joints of a clapboard shell provide this connection. The air 
space behind the clapboards works as a vapor-dampening barrier, preventing 
condensation from settling on to the wooden structural members. 

The vertical system is functioning in the frame structure. There are, 
however, several points of failure for this type of wall system that should be 
guarded against: 

• The joints provide open entry for insects and other nuisances. They should 
be inspected regularly. 

• If the stud space is insulated, a vapor barrier should be installed against 
the inside finished space, where the most warm moist air will be generated. 
No vapor barrier should be installed on the outside. 

• The clapboard joints should not be painted. Repainting should be done 
with wedges to separate the joint and prevent it from being sealed. Sealing 
the joints will destroy the functioning of the system. 

The windows and doors are also functioning parts of the vertical closure 
system. Window and door openings are mostly air and watertight and prevent 
the passage of unauthorized occupants. There are only a few exceptions: The 

46 




Fig. 7. The board 
holding the door 
closed is to the left. 



basement bulkhead door is held closed with a long 
board propped against the fireplace foundation, 
suggesting it does not close correctly. This could either 
be part of the distortion of the southern fagade wall, or 
due to a lack of proper hardware on the door itself. The 
south fagade exterior door does not close properly. This 
is a failing in the structural system, but it does impact 
the ability of the vertical system to properly do its job. 




Fig. 8. Rot beneath the pole 
gutter. 



Horizontal: 

The water channel on this section of 
the building begins on the asbestos tile 
roof. The water is collected by a pole 
gutter, removed to ground level by a 
downspout, and dispersed to the ground 
away from the building. The pole gutter 
leaks inside the roof, and on both sides of the porch the wood beneath the 
gutter is rotted and pulling free. 

The roof is a multi layer rain screen system, punctuated by six dormers. 
It is assumed that the roofing material is imperfect, but water dispersion is 
controlled by the slope of the roof and pressure equalization within the 
structure of the roof. The gambrel roof has a moderate slope of approximately 
4/ 12 in the upper portion, and a much steeper slope of approximately 8/ 12 in 

47 



the lower. The unfinished rafter space serves as a pressure equalization cavity, 

including the larger and more usable space 
in the lower slope, where several storage 
i cabinets are located. This space is essential 
to the function of the roof. There is one sign 
of leakage in the building, on the second 
floor, east room, north fagade around the 




Fig. 9. Water damage above the 
dormer. 



dormer opening. This could be a sign of failure in the flashing between the 
main roof and the dormer. 

The grading and paving of the site does not work. The slope of the grade 
was changed sometime prior to the occupancy of the current owner. The soil 
was brought up to the same level as the wooden sill plate, creating an entry for 
the termites. The brick paving beneath the 
porches has been disturbed by plant and 
animal activity. An unknown animal has 
created several burrows through the paving 
on the north fagade. The grading should be pjg ^q. Somethmg is digging, 
adjusted to carry water away from the structure, as well as to cut off access for 
termite and other insect entry. 




48 



Nineteenth Century Brick Addition 



Structural: 

The structural system of this section of Rose HUl is a load bearing 

masonry wall, with pocketed wooden joists and rafters that carry the floors. 

The system is mostly intact and functioning. There are few disruptions to the 

wooden framing. 

The building does have some distortion. It is apparent on the first floor, 

where the brick wall that divides the basement into two rooms is providing a 

hump in the flooring. The short facades on the north and south have settled, 

leaving a resistant section in the middle of the 

house. This distortion is not system 

threatening. It alters the way doors hang and 

baseboards meet the flooring, making it a 

— 1 cosmetic dilemma. This distortion is seen to a 
Fig. 11. The '/2" gap beneath 

the baseboard shows the extent lesser extent on the second floor, and not at all 
of the distortion. 

by the third. 
A different distortion is apparent at the 
second and third floor stair risers. The floor 
joists of these two floors have a bend that has 
shifted the alignment of the staircase. The 
floor in the hall and stairway area tilts away 
from the western facade towards the east. 
This is apparently an old distortion. There are 

49 





Fig. 12. The gap between the top 
of the tread and the bottom of the 
baseboard has been carefully 
infilled. 



carved plugs iilling in the cracks where the stair risers meet the wall to 
minimize the unsightly crack. This distortion is potentially more threatening, 
as it is possible the walls no longer carry the structure of the stair itself. It does 
not threaten the safety of the building as a whole, but it does threaten the 
staircase, and the safety of anyone traveling on the stair when it pulls free of 
the pockets. 

The masonry structure is in reasonably good 
condition. The pipes that serve the bathrooms upstairs, 
however, have been hacked into place through the brick. 
^ The basement fireplace and east wall is deteriorating 
from moisture damage around these pipes. It can be 
assumed that the situation is similar throughout the 
building, wherever the pipes run. 




Fig. 13. The 
moisture from the 
sewage pipe is 
rotting the nearby 
brick. 



Vertical: 

The wall system of the 1837 section is a single 
layer thick wall. The expectation associated with this wall system is that it is 
not perfect, but the sheer size and mass will slow down intrusions. Capillary 
action takes time to move moisture through any material. The assumption is 
that the wall is thick enough to wait out the water, and thus prevent leaks and 
damage to the interior. 

The vertical system is functioning. Doors and windows seal cleanly, 
preventing air, water, and unwanted occupants from entering. 



50 



Horizontal: 

The horizontal system of this section of the house 
is nearly identical to that of the frame structure. The one 
important difference is that this section has a flat roof. A 
flat roof is a danger spot in any building. Drains fail, 
membranes unseal, and water works its way in. There is 
considerable water damage on the third floor, north room 
on the ceiling and down the wall. The path of the water is 
not apparent in the attic, but it can be assumed the water 
leaked in from a faulty seal between the roof and the 
chimney and found its way out on the third floor. 




Fig. 14. Water 
damage on the third 
floor. 




Fig. 15. Paint, 
stucco, mortar, and 
brick face are being 
washed away. 



Downspouts on both sides of the building also 
fail to carry water safely away. The downspout on the 
north fa?ade is throwing moisture onto the comer of the 
building, resulting in a peeling away of the stucco, and 
deterioration of the brick and mortar beneath. The 
brick at the base of th^ structure, beneath the 
basement windows, is in a similar condition. The 
walkway that extends the breadth of the north fagade is 
partially responsible for this, by throwing moisture, 
salts, and impact damage from winter cleanings onto 



that portion of the masonry. 



51 



Introduction to the Problem of Continuing Use at Rose Hill 

Rose Hill Farm is a significant historic property with a distinct problem: 
it is a single family residence, and must adapt itself to the changing needs of its 
occupants while retaining the features that make it significant. Technology, 
lifestyles, and functions of buUt space change over time. The adaptability of an 
historic building is often what determines its longevity. What cannot be 
adapted is replaced or significantly altered, while what can is valued for its age 
and livability. 

Rose Hill's longevity is protected by an easement on real property and 
improvements made to the Maryland Historic Trust in 1980 by then owner 
Alfred Darlow. This easement protects both the exterior and interior of the 
house, as well as the ice house located to the east of the main house. The 
agricultural use of the land, the wetlands, other natural resources, scenic and 
physical access to the river, and the property's use as a wildlife refuge are 
protected by easements held by the Maryland Environmental Trust, the 
Chester-Sassafras Foundation, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 72 While 
all of these easements have a profound effect on the use of the land available to 
the owners, the easement under scrutiny for the purposes of this thesis is that 
held by the Maryland Historical Trust. 

The easement, while serving as a defense against careless management 
of the historic resources, is vague in its definition of what is allowed and what is 
not. In effect, no activity inside or outside the building other than routine 
maintenance and repair can be undertciken without the express written 



72 Deed Book NDS 60 Folio 769. 

52 



permission of the Director of the Maryland Historical Trust. ^3 This vagueness 
allows for a personal interpretation of what kind of alterations and additions are 
allowable that will change with each sitting Director and Committee. 

What alterations and additions are allowable is an issue at Rose Hill as 
the current owner wishes to change the building. Currently, the owner and his 
wife, Frank and Tannaz Owczarek, have their permanent residence in 
Wilmington. Rose Hill is their weekend and holiday home. They want to make 
certain changes to the property, including an addition, which will convert the 
house to their permanent residence. 

While plans for the alterations are far from final, the Owczareks do have 
a fairly clear idea of what kinds of amenities they would like to have. The oldest 
section of the house, the frame structure, will be used as a guest house with 
only minor alterations. The dining room in which Martha entertained prior to 
the construction of the 1837 addition will be returned to its original use, as a 
dining room for small parties. The first floor of the 1837 addition will not 



"^3 The pertinent section of the easement reads in full: "Without the express written 
permission of the Director of the Maryland Historical Trust (hereinafter the "Officer"), no 
other activities shall be undertaken or permitted to be undertaken on the historic 
structures on the property commonly known as the ice house and the main house 
known as Rose Hill, which are depicted and designated in Exhibit A, to affect their 
exterior and interior, provided, however, that the maintenance, reconstruction, repair, 
repainting, or refmishing of any said exterior or interior damage which is a result of 
casualty loss, deterioration, or wear and tear shall be permitted without such written 
permission of the Office provided that such maintenance, reconstruction, repair, 
repainting, or refmishing is performed in a manner which will not alter the appearance 
thereof as they are of this date. The terms exterior, and interior, including the kind and 
texture of building materials and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, 
signs and other similar features. The Maryland Historical Trust shall act definitively 
upon all requests within twenty (20) working days of approval of the request may be 
assumed. The Grantor agrees for himself his personal representatives, heirs, 
successors, and assigns, to maintain the buildings described in Exhibit A in good, 
clean, and safe condition and shall maintain, repair, and administer them to preserve 
their historical, aesthetic and cultural character and appearance as described and 
depicted in Exhibit A." The entire easement document is available in Appendbc X. 

53 



change; the second floor will house the master bedroom with existing bath 
removed; and the third floor will be used as a miniature apartment, with the 
existing bathroom also removed. The existing kitchen addition to the east of 
the 1837 section of the house is to be removed and replaced by a larger, two- to 
three-story addition that wiU house the kitchen, a study, and a powder room on 
the first floor, the master bath, dressing rooms, and an office on the second 
floor, and a bath on the third floor. What is to be done with the western 
addition has not been fully considered at this time. Moisture damage is evident 
in both the decorative plaster ceilings and in the brick wafls of the 1837 
addition from pipe leaks and seeping condensation. Removing most of the 
services to a new addition will add to the longevity of the older buildings, as 
they were never built to carry these systems. 

Correspondence between the owners and the Maryland Historic Trust 
regarding the proposed alterations to Rose Hill began in March of 1997, when 
Susan Snyder of the Company for the Civic Arts (CoCA) first presented her 
ideas for the property to the Trust's Committee. The project is now under the 
supervision of John Milner of John Mikier Architects, and the dialogue between 
owner, architect, and Trust continues. 

The Trust would prefer to see an addition made on a small scale, 
subordinate to the existing structures, where the floors are at different levels, 
requiring several steps down from the 1837 addition to the new eastern 
addition. The architect, however, believes that a larger, more substantial 



54 



addition will balance t±ie lopsided alignment of the existing structures^"* and 
give the owner the space and use they require. The owners also wish to keep 
the floors between the 1837 addition and the new eastern addition on the same 
level, to accommodate the safety and comfort of their elderly parents. 

As a means of understanding the idea of a living building under the eye 
of a restrictive easement, the second part of this thesis will focus on facade 
easements and additions to historic buildings. The discussion on easements 
focuses on the idea of what an easement holding organization can reasonably 
ask of an owner, while the section on additions addresses the appropriateness 
of additions made to historic buildings, with a thought on the way Americans 
view alterations to historic resources. 



''-* The HABS survey form for Rose Hill, CE-27, describes the proportions resulting from 
the construction of the brick addition as "awkward and amusing." 

55 



Chapter I 
Facade Easements, Enforcement, and the Needs of the Owner 

An easement in any form is the giving over of a less than fee simple 
interest in a property to another party. A property owner, in most instances, 
owns the entire fee simple interest in the property. This includes the land, any 
buildings, rights to the minerals beneath the surface, surface timber, rights to 
the air above, and any number of additional items. The rights to these several 
elements could be envisioned as a bundle of sticks, with each right represented 
by a single stick. A deed of easement is the giving away of a stick or a number 
of sticks, while the property owner retains control of the rest of the bundle. The 
easement holder then takes on the responsibility of policing the maintenance of 
their particular sticks. The easement is donated in perpetuity, meaning it is a 
permanent part of the land rights and travels with the land. It is permanently 
enforceable by the easement holder. 

In most cases, an easement is donated to a certified, non-profit 
corporation, designated by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)3 
organization. Donating an easement has various benefits to the property 
owner, including an income tax deduction as a donation to a charitable 
organization, a possible reduction in property taxes, and the satisfaction of 
knowing their tract of land or building will be protected long after they are gone. 
The easement-holding organization gains the right to protect a significant 
natural or built asset, and the responsibility of maintaining that protection. 
Typically, the easement holder will inspect the property yearly for any illegal 



56 



activity or changes and maintain a relationship with the owner as part of its 
enforcement activities'^ 

Although easement enforcement is just as, if not more, important than 
the granting of the easement, there is little attention given to it in the literature 
on the subject. Books and articles about the writing, collecting, and valuing 
easements abound, but to the writer's knowledge no definitive study on how to 
enforce an easement effectively and fairly has been completed. Easements that 
restrict the owner's use of the property are a relatively new phenomenon in real 
estate law, with roughly fifty years of history. A study of what happens when 
the property under easement changes hands for the fifth or sixth time, or is 
purchased by an owner with a lifestyle that cannot be supported by the walls of 
the existing building, should be undertaken. The ultimate goal of this study 
should be to outline an "ideal" easement document, with an eye to what is likely 
to happen to a property fifty years after an easement is granted, and to define a 
checklist of situations and problems, with the appropriate solution, that are 
likely to be faced by an easement holding entity during enforcement. 

How effective the easement holding organization is in their enforcement 
relies heavily on how well the easement is written. A clearly defined purpose, 
description of existing conditions and features to be protected, and definition of 
allowed owner activities and alterations are necessary to preclude the onerous 
activity of personal interpretation by both owner and easement holder. Early 



''5 For an exhaustive exploration of easement definition, donation, and benefits, please 
see the following: Erin Michelle Tobin, "Are Easements an Effective Preservation 
Incentive? An Evaluation of Fagade Easement Program Management in Non-Profit 
Organizations," Thesis: University of Pennsylvania, 1999; Janet Diehl and Thomas S 
Barrett et al, The Conservation Easement Handbook, Alexandria VA: Land Trust 
Exchange, 1988. 

57 



easements often stated that any changes must be approved by the easement 
holding organization, a practice that left the door wide open to varying 
interpretations of what is appropriate. 

A truly disaster-proof easement will contain several features. The first 
required feature is a detailed description of the existing conditions of the 
property, what is historically significant, and an exhibit of HABS-level 
photographs and documentation of the designated features. This will provide a 
baseline against which the future conditions of the property will be measured. 
The second feature is a detailed list of what the owner and the easement holder 
agree upon as allowable alterations. If an addition is to be allowed in the 
future, it should be specifically mentioned, establishing an envelope within 
which a future architect may work. Possible configurations include an addition 
that is a certain percentage of the total square footage of the building, or a basic 
box that includes the height of the roof ridge, and length of the walls. Building 
materials for repair, maintenance, reconstruction, and new construction should 
be named and described, with photographs provided as an exhibit if it is 
deemed necessary. The fmal feature that should be included in the easement 
document is a list of required work, including a maintenance schedule and any 
large repairs or reconstructions agreed upon by both parties to keep the 
structure in good repair in perpetuity. 

Easement-holding organizations must also be sure they have both the 
monetary means and the trained staff capable to enforce the easements they 
hold. Most easement holders ask for a monetary donation^e from the owner of 



■^6 This monetary gift is usually given as a one-time endowment. 

58 



the property in question to cover enforcement expenses. The staff of the 
organization must also be trained or have access to trained professionals who 
are capable of thoroughly inspecting a property. Detailed records of each 
inspection must be kept to provide a history of compliance or non-compliance 
with the terms of the easement. 

The Maryland Historical Trust holds easements on approximately five 
hundred historic properties throughout the state of Maryland. The Trust began 
collecting these easements in 1969, with the largest burst of activity in the late 
1970's. Violations of the easement, proposed alterations or additions, or other 
issues brought before the Director and the Committee are handled on a case by 
case basis. Alterations and additions are normally permitted only when the 
Deed of Easement specifically allows them. A Deed of Easement that does not 
delineate what alterations or what kinds of additions are allowed to a property 
is interpreted to allow no such changes. 

The Trust's enforcement of its easements is hindered by the small size of 
its staff. Although in principle inspections of properties take place yearly, in 
reality it is closer to every two years. Staff members perform the inspections; 
the Trust is seeking volunteers to undertake the inspections, but with little 
luck. The length of time spent on a property inspection varies with the size of 
the building and the extent of the easement. A rowhouse with an exterior-only 
easement may take as little as fifteen minutes, but a large property, such as 
Rose Hill, with extensive square footage and an interior easement provision, 
could take several hours. A file is kept on each property that contains the 
baseline inspection information from when the easement was granted, 

59 



inspection documentation, and all correspondence between the Trust and the 
property owner. The Trust has never taken an easement violator to court, 
although they have secured stop work orders and had unauthorized 
constructions removedJ^ 

Rose Hill's easement language is vague enough to disallow any 
alterations or additions to the property. However, discussion is underway with 
the Trust and a preliminary approval was given to the initial plans proposed by 
CoCA in 199778. 



77 Interview with Richard Brand, 17 April 2001. 

78 Some excerpts from CoCA's report filed with the Trust establish that they had found 
the same faults with the building design as the current project architect: "...Today, 
however, land and water play a different role in daily life. The river, once part of the 
working landscape has instead become valuable primarily for the view it offers to the 
south and for leisure activities. Land transport is now dominated not by horses but by 
cars which require areas close to the house for storage and access. Moreover, the 
house at Rose Hill which at one time was part of the organic system of plantation life 
supported by slaves is now primarily a residence separated from the agricultural work 
of the farm. 

"The dominant feature of the land and hence the organization of the numerous building 
parts remains the east-west ridge. This position offers the best prospects and prevailing 
breezes as well as naturally separating itself from the activities of the farm around it. 
The house itself does not have such clarity. It is an adjunctive composition of four 
parts, each one almost capable of being a complete world. There are presently no areas 
immediately next to the house that encourage continuity of living between indoors and 
outdoors. The challenge in making it work for a single family is to make a coherent 
whole out of its parts that supports the daily routines for family living as well as 
entertaining guests and to provide an extension of activities into the landscape. 
"To this end, we are emphasizing and enhancing the existing axis of the natural ridge in 
the organization of internal spaces and outdoor areas. Presently, the twentieth century 
additions seem to have a slim relationship to the landscape and do little more than 
provide more entrance choices. We are re-organizing the internal activities of the first 
floor of the house as well as changing the envelope of the new additions to provide 
formal spaces for entertaining in the grander scale of the 1837 townhouse and less 
formal daily family spaces in the simpler original structure. The remaining floors will 
continue to be sleeping spaces. Car related activities are kept to the north and east 
(already the more service side of the complex) while the south and west are retained for 
historic views and extension of activities into the landscape (reinforcing solar 
orientation as well as emphasizing the historic garden). 

"...The second floor of this volume (new eastern addition) will complete the master suite 
with a new bath/dressing room and private study at the same floor level as the adjacent 
rooms. This will allow removal of the existing bathroom from the historic 1837 building 
and restoration of these rooms to original volumes." 

60 



Chapter II 
The Idea of Additions to Historic Buildings 

Humanity is constantly on the move; growing, changing, turning the 
world as it stands upside down. The structures we build to house our activities 
must keep up with our movements. Buildings that adapt remain. Those that 
do not go the way of the dodo. 

The idea of an addition to an historic building in modern times is skewed 
from the same idea as applied in the past. The modem theory, as voiced by 
multiple Charters, Standards, and Guidelines, advocates a dual approach that 
is inherently contradictory. 

Historically, a new addition to an existing building was considered as a 

point of necessity. If more space was necessary, an addition was built. Quite 

often, these historic additions are what created the character we appreciate in 

modern times. Rose Hill as it stands is the product of additions and 

alterations. Without the large addition made by the Formans in 1837, the 

frame structure of Rose Hill would still be an important landmEirk in the history 

and culture of Maryland. However, the depth of understanding of that history 

and culture is increased by the large brick addition. The Formans gave little 

consideration to the context and site of the existing building when deciding if 

and how large of an addition to build. The new building was the height of style 

and opulence, a marker of the importance of the builder, and it solved the 

problem of space constraint the Formans were facing. It overpowered the 

existing building and the final arrangement of volumes was unbalanced, but it 

is the final melding of the two time periods and architectural types that we 

appreciate today. 

61 



The Louvre, the Duomo of Florence, the Houses of Parliament of 
England, the Palazzo Publico of Siena, and thousands of other landmark and 
average domestic buildings around the world have a common denominator: 
they all grew by bits and pieces over time, as residents and users had need of 
more space, a new tower, a new entrance, or any number of things. There is a 
quality to buildings that have grown in this manner that goes beyond an 
appreciation for their age. They are whole and alive, they respond to the needs 
of their users, and they tell their stories by their very existence. Additions can 
be a powerful force in the meaning of a building and the place of that building 
in the history of the culture it was built in. 

Christopher Alexander, in his landmark series of books from the Center 

of Environmental Structure, explores the idea of what makes a good building. 

According to Alexander, the quality that separates a good building from a bad 

one is nameless, but apparent. Some of the key words he uses to describe this 

quality are, "alive, whole, comfortable, free, exact, egoless, and eternal, "^^ yet 

none of these words really manage to capture its essence. One of the qualities 

he considers is the idea of adaptability and change. 

"What does it take to build something so that it's really easy to make 
comfortable little modifications in a way that once you've made them, 
they feel integral with the nature and structure of what is already there? 
You want to be able to mess around with it and progressively change it 
to bring it into an adapted state with yourself, your family, the climate, 
whatever. This kind of adaptation is a continuous process of gradually 
taking care.''^o 



■^5 Christopher Alexander et al, The Timeless Way of Building (New York: Oxford 
University Press, 1979), 28-39 (hereafter Timeless). 

80 Alexander, quoted in Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn: and What Happens after 
They're Built (New York: Viking, 1994), 21, 23. 

62 



When the process works, the result is easy to see. The following quote deals 

specifically with a townscape, but is easily applied to a building: 

"Because the adaptation is detailed and profound, each place takes on a 
unique character. Slowly, the variety of places and buildings begins to 
reflect the variety of human situations in the town. This is what makes the 
town alive. "^' 

The concept of piecemeal growth is dealt with in some length in the third 
volume of Alexander's works, The Oregon Experiment. Although this book deals 
specifically with the master plan for University of Oregon, the concepts are 
easily translated to all levels of the built environment. The concept of piecemeal 
growth is related to the organic growth and adaptation of the environment at 
large. An individual organism will repair and replace its cells to maintain its 
overall function. The environment will do the same, but with adaptations on 
every scale for changing uses and activities. This is what keeps the 
environment aUve and functioning: 

"All the good environments that we know have this in common. They are 
whole and alive because they have grown slowly over long periods of time, 
piece by piece. The pieces are small - and there are always a balanced 
number of projects going forward at every scale. If one large building is 
being built, there are, simultaneously, many repairs and changes going 
forward at smaller scales all around the building: and each new building is 
not a "finished" thing, but brings in its train a long series of smaller repair 
projects. In such a way buildings adapt to changing users and changing 
needs. They are never torn down, never erased; instead they are always 
embellished, modified, reduced, enlarged, improved. This attitude to the 
repair of the environment has been commonplace for thousands of years in 
traditional cultures. "^^ 

It is this attitude of repair, regeneration, and reinvention that the modern 
world has rejected, in favor of guidelines that are inherently contradictory and 
difficult to obey. The historic building, particularly those of high significance, 



81 Timeless, 231. 

8^ Christopher Alexander, The Oregon Experiment (New York: Oxford University Press, 

1975), 69-70 (hereafter Oregon). 

63 



has taken on a mantle of monumental and inflexible status. Needs and uses 
change, old ones become white elephants and buildings that cannot adapt or 
cannot be adapted begin the swift decline to demolition. 

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation began their 
life in 1978 as a non-codified guide for rehabilitators and officials to evaluate 
rehabilitation projects as eligible or not eligible for the Federal Preservation Tax 
Incentive. Now in their forth revision and reprinting, the Standards remain the 
American bible for the appropriate treatment of historic buildings. In the two 
Standards that relate to new additions, an attempt is made to synthesize two 
combating ideas about how to build a new addition^S; 

One half of the modem theory is the idea of separation: the idea that a 
modern addition must defer to the historic building. Under this view, the 
historic building has a level of meaning that a modem addition could never 
attain. The historic building is an artifact that could never be improved. 
Contemporary needs take the back seat to historic aesthetic. Contemporary 
architects also disappear into the shadows behind the ancient masters. 

The conflicting voice to this theory is that of integration: that a modem 
addition must relate to the historic structure and its setting. This theory stems 
from the theories of both VioUet-le-Duc, in his attempts to restore ancient 
buildings to a completed state and unity of style they had never knowns-*, and 



^3 Scott Demel, "Preservation, Historic Significance and a Theory of Architectural 
Additions: The Canon and its Consequences" (Thesis: Columbia University, 1996), 
accessed 15 February 2001; available from http://demel.net ; internet, Chapter 2: The 
Contrasting Method, 6. 

^"^ "Restoration... it is to reinstate it in a condition of completeness that could never have 
existed at any given time." Viollet-le-Duc, quoted in M.F. Hearn, ed.. The Architectural 
Theory of Viollet-le-Duc: Readings and Commentary (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990), 269. 

64 



Ruskin, who believed new construction should use traditional methods and 
materials that would gain meaning through age and weathering. ss 

The first incarnation of the Standards, published in 1978, had this to say- 
about new additions: 

"Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties 
shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy 
significant historic, architectural, or cultural material, and such design is 
compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, 
neighborhood, or environment."'^^ 

The new must be compatible with the old in terms of color, material, and 

volume, but a separation must exist between the new structure and the old. 

The new structure should be of a contemporary design, to ensure that the new 

addition is not confusedly considered to be peirt of the historic building. 

The current edition of the Standards reads differently, but the dual 

message is still there: 

"New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall 
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new 
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with 
the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic 
integrity of the property and its environment."^^ 

This time, the contradiction happens within the same sentence, "The new work 
shall be differentiated from the old cmd shall be compatible with..." Also, new 
additions are accorded little respect. It is assumed they wiU never gain a level 
of meaning and worth to equal that of the historic building. The fmal Standard 
adds insult to injury: 

"New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be 

The quotation is originally from the article "Restoration," as part of the Dictionnaire 
Raisonne de L' Architecture. 

85 "Aphorism 25: All good work must be free hand-work." John Ruskin, Seven Lamps of 
Architecture (New York: Noonday Press, 1961), 169-170. 

86 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects, 1978. 

87 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, 1997. 

65 



undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential 
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be 
unimpaired. "88 

A new addition is meaningless to the historic building. It is assumed 
that it will always be that way, an assumption that is belied by thousands of 
additions made to historic buildings throughout human history. 

Today, another addition is planned for Rose Hill. Whereas the first 
addition was designed and buHt by a Philadelphia Master Builder for a 
regionally known couple, a noted and respected architect will design the most 
recent addition for an upstanding doctor and his wife. The effect of this 
addition on the significance of the house as a whole is unknown. But it must 
be noted that significance is not determined by the generation that does the 
building. It is determined by their grandchildren. It is up to us to protect what 
our grandparents provided for us, and build new with an eye to the future. 



88 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, 1997. 

66 



Appendix I 
Bibliography 



Primary Sources 



Annapolis. Hall of Records, 350 Rowe Boulevard. 

. Queen Anne County Wills. Will Book TW 1 Folio 102. 

• Queen Anne County Wills. Will Book 22 Folio 85. 

. Original Wills Box A Folder 1 1 . 

• Cecil County Wills. Will Book B 9 Folio 307. 

• Cecil County Wills. Will Book BB Folio 34. 

• Cecil County Wills. Will Book 1 1 Folio 45. 

. Cecil County Probate - Inventories. Book 19 Folio 150. 

. Cecil County Probate - Inventories. Book 36 Folio 66. 

. Cecil County Probate - Inventories. Book 71 Folio 133. 

• Cecil County Rent Roll. Volume 6 Folio 295. 

. Cecil County Rent Roll. Volume 6 Folio 300. 

• Cecil County Rent Roll. Volume 6 Folio 301. 

. Cecil County Rent Roll. Volume 6 Folio 411. 

• Cecil County Rent Roll. Volume 6 Folio 423. 

. Cecil County Rent Roll. Volume 6 Folio 432. 

• Cecil County Patent Books. Book Q Folio 246. 

. Cecil County Patent Books. Book EI 2 Folio 672. 

• Cecil County Patent Books. Book 18 Folio 359. 

. Cecil County Patent Books. Book BY & GS 2 Folio 524. 

. Cecil County Patent Books. Book Y & S 8 Folio 582. 

. Cecil County Patent Books. Book 16 Folio 432. 

. Cecil County Patent Certificates. #1045. 

■ Cecil County Assessment of 1783. 

. Maryland State Archives Biography. SC 1138-443. 

. Maryland State Archives Biography. SC 1 138-871. 

. Maryland State Archives Biography. SC 1 138-872. 

. Maryland State Archives Biography. SC 1138-1836. 



Baltimore. 



Maryland Historical Society, 201 West Monument Street. 

.. Thomas Forman's land: papers, 1847-1850. Vertical File. 

.. Forman Papers, 1732-1908. MS 403. 

.. Forman Papers, 1809-1937. MS 1277. 

.. Cecil County Tax List, 1761. MS 1929. 

.. Cecil County Papers: Property Holdings and Taxes 1746-1827 

MS 231 Box 6. 
. Historic Houses, Rose Hill. Vertical File. 



Elkton. Cecil County Historical Society. 

. Rose Hill vertical file. 

. 1790 Census. 

. 1800 Census. 



67 



Elkton. Records Office, Cecil County Courthouse, 129 East Main Street. 

. Deed Book 1 Folio 7 1 . 

. Deed Book 1 Folio 72. 

. Deed Book 1 Folio 82. 

. Deed Book 1 Folio 181. 

. Deed Book 2 Folio 1. 

. Deed Book 2 Folio 2 1 . 

. Deed Book 5 FoUo 20. 

. Deed Book 5 Folio 511. 

. Deed Book 10 Folio 378. 

. Deed Book 19 Folio 266. 

. Deed Book 21 Folio 410. 

. Deed Book JS 2 Folio 483. 

. Deed Book JS 17 Folio 33. 

. Deed Book HRT 3 Folio 132. 

. Deed Book HRT 3 Folio 139. 

. Deed Book DS 6 Folio 528. 

. Deed Book JAD 10 Folio 338. 

. Deed Book MD 8 FoUo 180. 

. Deed Book CK 6 Folio 46. 

. Deed Book WGP 3 Folio 57. 

. Deed Book HWL 1 Folio 506. 

. Deed Book HWL 14 FoUo 204. 

. Deed Book HWL 18 Folio 395. 

. Deed Book HWL 18 Folio 417. 

. Deed Book SRA 5 Folio 564. 

. Deed Book WEB 6 Folio 265. 

. Deed Book RRC 1 10 Folio 28. 

. Deed Book WAS 100 Folio 286. 

. Deed Book WAS 298 Folio 108. 

. Deed Book WAS 377 Folio 53. 

. Deed Book NDS 191 Folio 900. 

. Deed Book NDS 60 Folio 769. 

. Deed Book WLB 568 Folio 2 1 . 

Elkton. Register of Wills, Cecil County Courthouse, 129 East Main Street. 

. Will Book 11 Folio 233. 

. Will Book 70 Folio 521. 

. Will Book LDR 12 Folio 462. 

Brand, Richard. Personal Interview. 17 April 2001. 

Emerson, Wilson W. ed. Plantation Life at Rose Hill: The Diaries of Martha Ogle 
Forman 1814-1845. Wilmington, DE: The Historical Society of Delaware, 
1976. 

. Mt. Harmon Diaries of Sidney George Fisher 1837-1850. Wilmington 

DE: The Historical Society of Delaware, 1976. 

68 



. Diaries of Phoebe George Bradford 1832-1839. Wilmington DE: 

Historical Society of Delaware, 1976. 

Page, Robert, and Edward Page Jr. Personal Interview. 6-8 January 2001. 

Wainwright, Nicholas B. ed. A Philadelphia Perspective: The Diary of Sidney 
George Fisher Covering the Years 1834-1871. Philadelphia: The 
Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1967. 



Secondary Sources 

Bevan, Edith Rossiter. "Gardens and Gardening in Early Maryland." Maryland 
Historical Magazine 45, no. 3 (September 1950): 243-270. 

Crownsville. Maryland Historical Trust, 100 Community Place. 
. National Register Nomination. Rose Hill. CE-27. 

Cecil County Bicentennial Committee. Cecil County in the Revolutionary War. 
Elkton MD: Cecil County Bicentennial Committee, 1976. 

Cecil County Historical Trust, Inc. At the Head of the Bay: A Cultural and 
Architectural History of Cecil County, Maryland. Crownsville MD: The 
Maryland Historical Trust Press, 1996. 

Dandridge, Anne Spottswood, and E.P. Dismukes. The Forman Genealogy. 
Cleveland: The Forman-Bassett-Hatch Company, 1903. 

Forman, Charles. Three Revolutionary Soldiers: David Forman (1 745-1 797), 
Jonathan Forman (1 755-1809), Thomas Marsh Forman (1 758-1845). 
Cleveland OH: The Forman-Bassett-Hatch Company, 1902. 

Forman, H. Chandlee. Early Manor and Plantation Houses of Maryland. 2"^ 
Edition. Baltimore MD: Bodine and Associates Inc, 1982. 

Forman, William Peter. Records of the Descendants of John Forman, who 
Settled in Monmouth County, New Jersey, about the Year A. D. 1685. 
Cleveland: Short & Forman, 1885. 

Genealogical Society of Cecil County. Land patents of Cecil County, Maryland. 
Silver Spring MD: Family Line Publications, 1986. 

Gifford, George Edmund. Cecil County, Maryland, 1608-1850: As Seen by 
Some Visitors, and Several Essays on Local History. Rising Sun MD: 
George E. Gifford Memorial Committee, Calvert School, 1974. 



69 



Demel, Scott. "Preservation, Historic Significance and a Theory of Architectural 
Additions: The Canon and its Consequences." Thesis: Columbia 
University, 1996. 

Edwards, A Trystan. Good and Bad Manners in Architecture. London: P. Allen 
and Company, 1924. 

Fram, Mark. Well Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation's Manual of 
Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Erin Ontario: 
Boston Mills Press, 1988. 

Greer, Nora Richter. Architecture Transformed: New Life for Old Buildings. 
Gloucester MA: Rockport Pubhshers Inc, 1998. 

Heam, M.F. The Architectural Theory of Viollet-le-Duc: Readings and 
Commentary. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990. 

Lynch, Kevin. What Time is this Place? Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972. 

Madsen, Stephan Tschudi. Restoration and Anti-Restoration: A Study in 
English Restoration Philosophy. Oslo: Universitetsforl, 1976. 

John Milner Associates. The Beaufort Preservation Manual. 

National Trust for Historic Preservation et al. Old & New Architecture: Design 
Relationship. Washington DC: Preservation Press, National Trust for 
Historic Preservation, 1980. 

Prentice, Helaine Kaplan and Blair Prentice. Rehab Right: How to Realize the 
Full Value of Your Old House. Oakland CA: City of Oakland Planning 
Department, 1986. 

Pye, David. The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. New York: Van Nostrand 
Reinhold, 1978. 

Ru skin, John. Seven Lamps of Architecture. New York: Noonday Press, 1961. 

Raburn, J Stanley. Structural Analysis of Historic Buildings: Restoration, 
Preservation, and Adaptive Reuse Applications for Architects and 
Engineers. New York: Wiley, 2000. 

Stephen, George. New Life for Old Houses. Washington DC: Preservation 
Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1989. 

. Remodeling Old Houses Without Destroying Their Character. New York: 

Alfred A. Knopf, 1972. 



71 



Viollet le Due, Eugene Emmanuel. On Restoration. London: Sampson Low, 
Marston, Low, and Searle, 1875. 

Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior's 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: With Guidelines for 
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic 
Buildings. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National 
Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Parnterships, Heritage 
Preservation Services, 1995. 

Easements 

Barrett, Thomas S and Stefan Nagel. Model Conservation Easement and Historic 
Preservation Easement, 1996. Washington DC: Land Trust Alliance, 
1996. 

Diehl, Janet and Thomas S Barrett et al. The Conservation Easement 
Handbook. Alexandria VA: Land Trust Exchange, 1988. 

Dunn, Julianne Lauren. "Preservation Success and Demolition Disaster: A 
Comparison of Alden Park and the Mayfair House." MS Thesis, 
University of Pennsylvania, 2000. 

Tobin, Erin Michelle. "Are Easements an Effective Preservation Incentive? An 
Evaluation of Facade Easement Program Management in Non-Profit 
Organizations," Thesis: University of Pennsylvania, 1999 



72 



Appendix II 
Index 



Addition to Chance, 22 
Armitage 

Mr., 34 
Atwood 

Mr., 31 
Bryan 

Thomas Marsh Forman, 14, 16, 
17 
Cassatt 

Alexander, 18, 20, 40 
Cecilton, 1,41 
Chance, 11, 19, 22, 23 
Chance Resurveyed, 22 
CoCA, 54, 60 
Darlow 

Alfred Wilson, 18, 21, 52 
Eldasley 

Parnell, 11, 19, 23 
Elkton, 9, 10, 40 
Fisher 

Sidney George, 9, 15, 17, 23 
Forman 

Ezekiel, 11, 12 

Martha, 1,9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 
16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 
29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40, 
41, 53 



Thomas Marsh, 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 
15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26, 38, 39, 
40 
Herman 

Augustine, 4, 1 1 
Ice house, 35, 52, 53 
Marsh 

Thomas, 11, 12 
Maryland Historical Trust, 18, 21, 

52, 53, 54, 59, 60 
Middle Plantation, 11, 22 
Milner 

John, 54 
Owczarek 

Frank and Tannaz, 53 
Page 

Edward, 18, 20, 25, 28, 33, 36, 41 

Edward Jr, 18, 28, 32 

Louis Rodman, 28 

Robert, 18, 28, 31, 32, 41 
Pimlico Jockey Club, 13 
Port Deposit granite, 31, 33, 36, 37 
Secretary of the Interior's 

Standards, 61, 64, 65 
slave quarter, 4 1 
Susquehannocks, 2, 3, 4 
Tockwoghs, 2, 3 
Wheeler's Point, 12, 22, 23, 26 



73 



Appendix III 
Chain of Title 



Tract I: Wheeler's Point 



3 August 1658 Book Q Folio 246 

Patent to 

John Wheeler Sr. 

As "...John Wheeler hath transported himself Catherine his wife Samuel 
John and Ann his children into this our Province here to inhabit..." 
Wheeler was granted a tract of land with the following description: 

"East side of Chesapeake Bay and on the North side of a River in the said 
bay called Sassafras River Beginning at a point called Wheeler's Point at 
a marked oak running North West and by North up a branch called 
Wheeler's Creek for breadth 125 perches to a marked oak by a branch 
bounding on the West with the said branch and a line drawn North North 
East for length 320 perches on the North with a line drawn South East 
and by South until it fall into a branch running North and by East on the 
East with the said branch on the South with Wheeler's Creek containing 
and now laid out for 250 acres of land more or less... 



17 July 1676 Deed Book 1 Folio 72 

John Wheeler, Sr. 

To 

John Wheeler, Jr. 

Following his wife's renunciation of him as her husband (recorded on 
folio 71) Wheeler passes the same piece of land to his son, also named 
John. The property is described as a "dwelling plantation." 



20 March 1676 Deed Book 1 Folio 82 

John Wheeler of Sassafras River in Cecil County, Planter 

To 

Nicholas Allome of Cecil County, Planter 

John Wheeler Jr. parted with Wheeler's Point for 4000 pounds of "good 
sound merchantable tobacco." The property description remains the 
same. 



74 



After August 1695 MSA - Original Wills Box A Folder 1 1 

Nicholas Allome 

To 

Nicholas Milward 

Allome dictated his will in August of 1695, being "sick and weak in 
body," leaving all of his real and personal property to his wife for the 
remainder of her Ufe. She was specifically granted "the whole estate and 
to live quietly upon the plantation during her life..." Following her death, 
the inheritance passed to Nicholas Milward. William Freeman was 
requested to live on the property until Milward was of such an age to 
manage it himself. 



Between 1695 and 11 June 1734 

Nicholas Milward 

To 

John Milward 

There is no record of either Milward anywhere in Maryland; it is probable 
Nicholas died and had his estate probated in a different state. John 
Milward is likely the relative who inherited Nicholas's property. 



1 1 June 1734 Deed Book 5 Folio 20 

John Milward of Kent County, Planter 

To 

Thomas Ward of Cecil County, Planter 

Wheeler's Point passes hands between these two planters for the 
consideration of 2000 pounds good sound merchantable tobacco and 
100 bushels good sound winter wheat. The property description changes 
a small amount, and the tract is now somewhat smaller: 

"...Wheeler's Point lying and being in Cecil County and on the East side 
of Chesapeake Bay and on the North side of a River in the said bay called 
Sassafras River Beginning at a point called Wheeler's Point to a marked 
oak running North West and by North up a branch called Wheeler's 
Creek for breadth 122 perches to a marked oak by a branch bounding on 
the West with the said branch and a line drawn North North East for 
length 320 perches in the North with a line drawn South East and by 
South until it fall into a branch running North and by East on the East 
with the said branch on the South with Wheeler's Creek by Estimation 
about 218 acres together with all houses edifices buildings..." 



75 



23 July 1737 Book EI 2 FoUo 672 

Wheeler's Point Resurvey 
Patent to 
Thomas Ward 

Ward had discovered some surplus and unclaimed land near his tract 
and petitioned the legislature for a resurvey and repatent. The end result 
was a lengthier but more traceable tract description: 

"Beginning at a banded red oak tree standing on a point made by a small 
cover or bit of marsh coming out of Back Creek by a place called the 
Back Landing and turning thence South 14° West 50 perches to a point 
at the mouth of Back Creek then with the river and Wheeler's Creek and 
a branch there of three several courses then South 60° West 7 perches 
North 67° West 9 perches North 50° West 18 perches North 38° West 32 
perches North 52° West 16 perches North 62° West 10 perches North 80° 
West 12 perches North 24° West 24 perches North 60° West 14 perches 
North North East 9 perches to a locust post set up at the head of a small 
branch where the second bounded tree did stand thence North North 
East 320 perches then South East by South 82 perches to the south side 
of a valley thence down the same valley South 30° West 44 perches 
thence down the same valley and a small branch binding there to the 
mouth of a small creek South 20° West 8 perches South 30 perches 
South 30° West 12 perches South 10° West 18 perches South 14° East 
24 perches South 22° West 30 perches South 40° East 33 perches thence 
with a straight line down the creek to the place of beginning at the back 
sounding containing 250 acres of land more or less..." 



23 March 1795 Deed Book 19 Folio 266 

Thomas Ward formerly of Cecil County by now of Kentucky 

To 

Lambert Veazey of Kent County 

Transferred for 495 pounds of the current money of Maryland: 

"Wheeler's Point and whatever quantity of acres it may contain together 
with all and singular the houses buildings..." 



76 



Tract II: Chance 

9 June 1675 Book 18 Folio 359 

Patent to 
Henry Eldasley 

"Beginning at a marked water oak standing up on a point by a little cove 
and being the westernmost bounded tree of a tract of land formerly taken 
up by John Wheeler running from the said oak back a little cove West 
North West 42 perches and unto a marked oak standing by the side 
Chance Branch bounding on the said oak by a line drawn North Easterly 
339 perches bounding on the North by a line drawn South East running 
until it shall intersect the long line of the said Wheeler's Land bounding 
on the intersection and running back the said line South South West and 
unto the first bounded tree containing and now laid out for 200 acres 
more or less..." 



After 7 March 1700 WiU Book 1 1 Folio 45 

Henry Eldasly 

To 

Parnell Eldasly 

In a will made while "sick and weak in body," Henry wills all of his estate 
to his wife, Parnell. 



25 April 1701 Deed Book 2 Folio 1 

Parnell Eldasly 

To 

"Joshua the son of my Daughter Elizabeth Laramore aged 4 years and 4 

months..." 

Out of "natural love and affection" Parnell deeds her grandson, among 
other things, "...the plantation I now dwell on, called by the name of 
Chance..." 

James Rogers, Samuel Richardson, and Elizabeth Laramore were named 
as trustees vidth the property to be divided equally among them if 
Elizabeth's children should not survive. 



77 



18 April 1739 Deed Book 5 Folio 511 

Richard Hind of the parish of St. Mary Magdalene Bermothsay in the county of 

Surry Mariner and Elizabeth his wife, and Robert Coulson of Shad Thames 

Waterman and Sarah his wife which said Elizabeth and Sarah were the only 

daughters of Samuel Richardson late of London Mariner deceased 

To 

Colonel John Ward of Cecil County Gentleman 

The property apparendy passed along to the trustees. Richardson's 
daughter's sold Chance to John Ward for 250 pounds lawful money of 
Britain. 



After 13 March 1747 Will Book BB Folio 34 

Colonel John Ward 

To 

Henry Ward 

Henry was John's son. In his wUl, John Ward willed most of his 
property, including his real estate in other counties, to his son Peregrine. 
The remainder of his estate, real and personal, was put in trust to be 
held by his wife Mary and sons Peregrine and Henry for his grandsons, 
then split between them as they reached the age of 20. One of the 
named grandsons was John, Henry's son. Henry apparendy managed 
his son's properties while John remained a minor. 



17 September 1750 Book BY & OS 2 Folio 524 

Chance Resurveyed 
Patent to 
Henry Ward 

Ward discovered some vacant land near Chance and petitioned the 
legislature for a resurvey and repatent: 

"Beginning at a small cedar standing very near the original beginning on 
a point and on the East side of a little cover or gulf, it being the 
westernmost boundary of a tract of land formerly taken by John Wheeler 
and from thence running across the said cove or gulf West North West 18 
perches South 74 perches West 22 perches North 22° 30 minutes West 
16 perches North for []° West 12 perches North 44° West 14 perches 
North 4° West 46 perches North 12° West 44 perches North 26° West 23 
perches North 40 perches then North 73° West 37 perches, then North 
East 184 perches then East South East 114 perches where it interposes 
with Wheeler's land aforesaid, then South South West to the place of 



78 



beginning here by enclosing the whole resurvey containing and laid out 
for 250 acres of land more or less. 



9 April 1753 Book Y & S 8 Folio 582 

Addition to Chance 
Patent to 
Henry Ward 

"Addition to Chance situate lying and being in Cecil County on the North 
side of Sassafras River and adjoining to a tract of land on the West called 
Middle Plantation and a tract on the East taken up by WiUiam Freeman 
and a Tract on the South called Chance. Beginning at a bounded poplar 
standing in the East South East of the aforesaid land called Chance now 
in the possession of the aforesaid Ward and in or near the given line of 
the aforesaid land called Middle Plantation where it crosses Chance is 
East South East and from thence running East South East 1 1 perches 
then North East 83 perches then North 48° West 3 perches and half 
perch then South 49° West 87 perches and half perch to the Beginning 
thereby closing this survey containing and laid out for 3 acres of land 
more or less..." 



Before 1760 

Henry Ward 

To 

John Ward 

John took over management of his properties upon reaching the majority 
age of 20. His father died prior to 1760 according to an inventory record 
of his estate, and after that time John was in full possession of the 
property. 



30 September 1765 Deed Book 10 Folio 378 

John Ward of Cecil County Maryland, Gentleman, son of Henry Ward 

To 

Thomas Marsh of Kent County Maryland, Gentleman 

For the consideration of 1000 pounds sterling. Marsh purchased 250+/- 
of land adjoining his current Cecil County holding, Middle Plantation. 



79 



Tract III: Middle Plantation 

10 January 1671 Book 16 Folio 432 

Patent to 

Andrew Woodberry 

"...a tract of land called Middle Plantation lying and being in Chesapeake 
Bay and on the Eastern side of said Bay in the County of Baltimore and 
on the bank of a River in the said Bay called Sassafras River Beginning 
at a marked poplar being one of the three poplars commonly called and 
known by the name of the three poplars and running along down a 
branch of the head of the pond creek North West for breadth 150 perches 
unto a marked gumm standing in the said branch bounding on the said 
gumm by a line drawn South West by a line drawn South East 150 
perches bounding on the South East by a line drawn North East and 
unto the first bounded tree containing and now laid out for 300 acres 
more or less..." 



Between 1671 and 1692-3 

Andrew Woodberry 

To 

Marmaduke Symms of St. Mary's County 

There is no one with the name of Woodberry (or variation thereof) listed 
in any Maryland land or probate record. It is probable that Woodberry's 
estate was probated in another state, and the heir resold the property to 
Symms. Symms took possession by 20 March 1692-3, when he wills the 
300 acres of Middle Plantation to his son James. There is no other 
record of Symms in any listing in Maryland. 



20 March 1692-3 St. Mary's County Wills 

Marmaduke Symms of St. Mary's County 

To 

James Symms of Charles County 

Marmaduke died in March, leaving his property to his son James. 



80 



15 October 1701 Deed Book 2 Folio 21 

James Sjonms of Charles County 

To 

Colonel John Thompson of Cecil County 

For the sum of 80 pounds sterling, Colonel John Thompson buys 
Middle Plantation. Johnson's wife was Judith Herman, one of the 
daughters of Augustine Herman. The property description remains 
the same. 



4 July 1702 WiU Book 1 1 Folio 233 

Colonel John Thompson 

To 

Augustine Thompson 

The Colonel died in early July of 1702, leaving behind a will dated 
10 December 1701, which left Middle Plantation to his son Augustine. 



26 February 1738 Queen Anne County WiU Book 

22 Folio 85 

Augustine Thompson 

To 

Mary Marsh 

Augustine died in 1738, leaving Middle Plantation and None So Good in 
Finland to his daughter Mary, who was married to Thomas Marsh. 
Thomas later sold None So Good in Finland but retained Middle 
Plantation. 



81 



Rose Hill 

7 February 1782 WiU Book TW 1 Folio 102 

Thomas Marsh of Queen Anne County Maryland 

To 

Thomas Marsh Forman 

When Marsh died, he bequeathed his entire estate, including lands in 
both Cecil and Queen Anne Counties to his daughter Augustine's son, 
Thomas. Forman 's father, Ezekial Forman, was living on the Cecil 
County plantation when Marsh died. Thomas took up management of 
the estate by 1790. The estate that was passed along to Forman 
included Middle Plantation, Chance Resurveyed, and Addition to Chance. 
Forman later bought Wheeler's Point and added it to Rose Hill. 

9 February 1799 Deed Book 21 Folio 410 

John Cox the Younger of Cecil County Gentleman 

To 

Thomas Marsh Forman of Cecil County Gentleman 

Forman owned a mortgage taken by Cox, and in exchange for forgiveness 
of part of the loan he accepted a tract of land known as Barbados. Cox 
was still to pay $1762.34 to Forman. Barbados was granted by patent to 
William Rumsey 20 December 1739 and contained 180 acres more or 
less. 

"...part of the said tract lying on the West side of a tract of land called 
Mournifield Journey sold to a certain Robert Mercer and divided from the 
residence of the said tract by a line drawn West by South from the upper 
end or Extend to the second line of Mournifield across the tract to 
Frisby's Wild Chase and also one moiety or half part of another tract of 
land situate in Cecil County called Jamaica patented 1 February 1703 to 
Thomas Kelton containing 252 acres of land more or less, conveyed to 
John Cox from William Rumsey. 

20 March 1807 Deed Book JS 2 Folio 483 

Lambert Veazey of Sassafras Neck Cecil County Maryland 

To 

Thomas Marsh Forman of the same place 

For the consideration of $4500, Forman purchased the lot of land known 
as Wheeler's Point, which was then added to the lots known as Middle 

82 



Plantation and Chance to form the Rose Hill estate as it was when it 
entered its period of highest significance. 



12 April 1819 Deed Book JS 17 Folio 33 

Anne Fisher of Philadelphia 

To 

Thomas Marsh Forman of Cecil County 

There had been some dispute between Fisher and Forman over the 
dividing line of their properties, so to end the dispute for good and 
"establish a sure and convenient divisional line between their said lands" 
a line was resurveyed. To the west and south of the line laid Forman 's 
land, to the east laid Fisher's. Forman bought the excess land from 
Fisher for the amount of $1775. Anne Fisher was the mother of Sidney 
George Fisher, who would later become the famous diarist of Mount 
Harmon. The boundary in dispute in this case is between Mount 
Harmon and Rose Hill. 

"Beginning at a Tadnay oak means the marsh and running thence North 
80° and one half of a degree, West 37 perches and one fourth of a perch, 
thence North 67° West 18 perches thence North 1 1° West 15 perches and 
one third of a perch thence North 17° and three quarters of a degree 
West 134 perches and one third of a perch to a Locust post thence North 
12° and three quarters of a degree West 151 perches to a white oak tree 
by Money's Branch and from thence the same course continued until it 
intersects the line of a tract of land called Sheffield then turning to the 
Tadney oak at the first beginning and running from thence South 2° 
West to the middle of the marsh thence Eastwardly with the middle of 
the marsh together with ..." 



5 July 1845 Will Book B 9 Folio 307 

Thomas Marsh Forman of Cecil County Maryland 

To 

Thomas Marsh Forman Bryan of Savannah Georgia 

General Forman died in 1845, leaving his wife the right of entry and 
exclusive occupancy of their house at Rose Hill, as well as use of the 
garden and out buildings, a sufficient supply of firewood, and a yearly 
stipend of $1800, in addition to the Federal pension she received as 
widow of a Revolutionary and War of 1812 veteran. To his favorite 
grandson, Bryan, son of his daughter Delia, Forman bequeathed all of 
his property, including Rose Hill. The will stipulates that Bryan legally 



83 



change his name to Thomas Marsh Forman in order to claim his 
inheritance. 

The property left to Bryan was more extensive than what has been 
passed since. The description left by Forman in his will is as follows: 

"I devise and bequeath to my grandson Thomas Marsh Forman Bryan my 
Rose Hill estate consisting of several tracts or parcels of land situate 
lying and being in Sassafras Neck in Cecil County and known by the 
names of Middle Plantation, Chance, Chance Resurveyed, Addition to 
Chance, Wheeler's Point, Wheeler's Point Resurveyed, or by whatsoever 
name or names the same may be known or called also a tract or parcel of 
land which I purchased of the late Mrs. Fisher and that piece or parcel of 
land which I received in exchange from John J Cox the whole containing 
together by estimate 800 acres of land more or less..." 



9 December 1867 Deed Book HRT 3 Folio 132 

Thomas Marsh Forman and Helen B Forman his wife of Savannah Georgia 

To 

Thomas Veazey Ward of Cecil County Maryland 

Forman lost all he owned in the Civil War, being a Confederate from 
Savannah, and was forced to sell the property. This tract that Forman 
sold to Ward is the present day Rose Hill. Another 370 acres more or 
less was sold at the same time to George B. Hessey for $25,010 and 
recorded in Deed Book HRT 3 Folio 139. 



12 December 1872 Deed Book DS 6 Folio 528 

Thomas Veazey Ward and Mary J Ward his wife of Cecil County Maryland 

To 

Their son, William Ward of Cecil County Maryland 

For the consideration of $5000, the property changes hands in the 
description that follows: 

Beginning at a stone at the distance of ten chains and forty-five links 
from the public road into Groves Neck in the division fence between the 
tract of land known as "Rose Hill" and the tract known as "Sheffield;" and 
running thence with said division fence north nine degrees west to said 
public road; thence down said road, south eighty-seven degrees west 
thirty-two chains and thirty-eight links to a stone in the fence dividing 
the lands formerly conveyed by Thomas Marsh Forman to Thomas V. 
Ward from the land formerly conveyed by the Said Thomas Marsh 
Forman to a certain George Hessey; thence south two degrees east thirty- 
three chains fifty-four links to a stone in the orchard fence; thence south 

84 



eighty-two degrees west five chains along said orchard fence to the barn 
field fence; thence south seventy-four and one quarter degrees west 
nineteen chains and forty links along said bam field fence to a white oak 
tree' thence to a locust post in the middle of the old ice pond; thence 
south six chains across a dam to the lands formerly belonging to a 
certain Anthony Reybold where they join the Rose Hill Estate; thence, 
down the middle of the stream knovm as Cox's Creek, and which divides 
the Rose Hill lands on the west from the lands formerly owned by the 
said Anthony Reybold to the mouth of said creek' thence, with the 
Sassafras River, and bounded on the South thereby, to Forman's creek; 
thence, with the middle of Forman's Creek, which separates the Rose Hill 
Estate from the lands formerly belonging to a certain Sidney G Fisher 
known as Mt. Harmon, and from the tract known as Sheffield to a dam; 
and thence, by and with the lands of said tract known as Sheffield, to a 
stone at the place of beginning, containing four hundred acres of land, 
more or less. 



26 October 1885 Deed Book JAD 10 Folio 338 

Clinton McCullough, appointed Trustee of the Estate of William Ward 

To 

Andrew Woodall 

In a dispute of equity between William Ward and Andrew Woodall, 
McCullough is appointed by the Circuit Court as the Trustee to sell Real 
Estate and the 400 acres of Rose Hill pass to Woodall for the 
consideration of $13,000. The property description remains the same. 



26 March 1907 Deed Book MD 8 Folio 180 

Kent County Commissioners appointed in Kent County Equity Case 1595 to 

distribute lands of Andrew Woodall, deceased. 

To 

Andrew W Woodall 

Folio 180 is a deed of division of the Estate of Andrew Woodall, deceased. 
The portion of the estate labeled "D" contains Rose Hill, and was 
conveyed to Andrew W Woodall. The property description remains the 
same. 



85 



29 July 1912 Deed Book CK 6 Folio 46 

Alice I Woodall widow of Andrew W Woodall, deceased, of Kent County Maryland 

To 

John B Cooke of Philadelphia 

Sold for the consideration of $16,650.00. The property description 
remains the same. 



24 December 1918 Deed Book WGP 3 Folio 57 

John B Cooke of Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

To 

Helen N Cooke his wife, of Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

The same property was transferred from husband to wife for the one 
dollar and "...other good and valuable consideration..." 



27 July 1920 Deed Book HWL 1 Folio 506 

John B Cooke and Helen Naudain Cooke his wife of Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

To 

Allison P Prettyman of Kent County Maryland 

Prettyman paid ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration for 
the Rose Hill Estate. The other consideration was a personal mortgage 
taken from the Cookes. 



2 December 1924 Deed Book HWL 14 Folio 204 

Henry L Constable of Cecil County Maryland 

To 

Helen Naudain Cooke of Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

Prettyman defaulted on his mortgage to the Cookes and Constable was 
empowered to sell Rose Hill at a pubhc sale held 5 July 1924. Cooke re- 
acquired the property for $10,500. 



86 



3 July 1926 Deed Book HWL 18 Folio 395 

Helen Naudain Cooke of Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

To 

John B Cooke her husband of Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

The exact same piece of property transferred from wife to husband for 
one dollar and other good and valuable consideration. 



14 July 1926 Deed Book HWL 18 Folio 417 

John B Cooke and Helen Naudain Cooke his wife of Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

To 

Eunice Stewart BurreU of Kent County Maryland 

The Cookes ended their association with Rose Hill Farm with the sale of 
the property to BurreU for $18,000. The property description remains 
the same. 



27 February 1929 Deed Book SP?A 5 Folio 564 

Eunice Stewart BurreU and Orange B BurreU her husband of Cecil County 

Maryland 

To 

Louis R Page of Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

"For five dollars and other good and valuable consideration this day 
paid..." The property description remains the same. 



2 July 1929 WiU Book 70 FoUo 52 1 

Louis K Page of Montgomery County Pennsylvania 

To 

Louis Rodman Page Jr. and Edward C Page executors and trustees, Annette 

Page Hacker all of Bryn Mawr Pennsylvania, and Mary Page Brown of Villa Nova 

Pennsylvania. 

Louis K Page died on 2 July 1929, naming his two sons executors of his 
will. One-quarter of the estate was given to each child. The executors 
were empowered to sell the land at will by article six of the wUl. 



87 



26 April 1937 Deed Book WEB 6 Folio 265 

Louis Rodman Page and Edward C Page, Executors and Trustees under the will 
of Louis K Page, deceased, the said Louis Rodman Page Jr., individually, and 
Katherine H K Page, his wife, of Bryn MawT Pennsylvania, the said Edward C 
Page, individually, and Elizabeth G Page, his wife, of Bryn Mawr Pennsylvania, 
Anne Page Hacker, widow of Casper W Hacker, deceased, of Bryn Mawr, 
Pennsylvania, and Mary Page Brown and J Marechal Brown Jr., her husband, 
of Villa Nova, Pennsylvania 
To 
James B Eliason of Wilmington Delaware 

Page's estate changes hands to Eliason for ten dollars and "other 
valuable consideration this day paid..." The property description 
remains the same. 



28 June 1954 Deed Book RRC 1 10 Folio 28 

James B Eliason and Gertrude L Eliason his wife of Wilmington Delaware 

To 

Alexander J Cassatt and Cassandra S Cassatt his wife of Philadelphia 

Pennsylvania 

Cassatt purchases the farm for five dollars and other good and valuable 
consideration - namely a $60,000 mortgage. The property description 
remains the same. 



27 December 1960 Deed Book WAS 100 Folio 286 

Alexander J Cassatt and Cassandra J Cassatt his wife 

To 

Alexander J Cassatt 

Sold for five dollars and other good and valuable consideration. The 
property description remains the same. 



5 October 1972 Deed Book WAS 298 FoUo 108 

Alexander J Cassatt 

To 

E Newbold Smith 

Sold for $700,000. The property description remains the same. 



88 



24 May 1977 Deed Book WAS 377 FoHo 53 

E Newbold Smith of Paoli Pennsylvania 

To 

Alfred W Darlow of Bridgewater New Jersey 

Sold for five dollars and other good and valuable consideration. The 
property description remains the same. 



26 May 1986 Will Book LDR 12 FoUo 462 

Alfred Wilson Darlow of Cecil County Maryland 

To 

Alexander P Rasin III, Personal Representative of the Estate of Alfred Wilson 

Darlow, deceased. 

Darlow died on 26 May 1986, naming Rasin as the representative of his 
estate. 



12 March 1987 Deed Book NDS 191 Folio 900 

Alexander P Rasin III, Personal Representative of the Estate of Alfred Wilson 

Darlow, deceased 

To 

The Institute of Christian Economics, a Trust of the State of Illinois of Tyler, 

Texas 

Darlow bequeathed three parcels of land including Rose Hill to the 
Institute of Christian Economics in his will. The actual consideration 
was zero dollars. The property description remains the same. The 
easement held by the Maryland Environmental Trust, the Maryland 
Historical Trust, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chester- 
Sassafras Foundation dated 1 December 1980 and recorded in Deed 
Book NDS 60 Folio 769 was transferred with this sale. 



89 



9 November 1995 Deed Book WLB 568 FoUo 21 

Robert Valiant Jones and Edward J Lopata, Trustees appointed by Circuit 

Court for Cecil County on 27 April 1995, Case 90422E 

To 

Rose Hill LC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company 

Jones and Lopata were appointed for the sale of the property from the 
Institute of Christian Economics to Rose Hill LC, the current owner. The 
consideration was $1,300,000 and the property description remains the 
same. 



Current Owner Information: 
Rose Hill LC 
Dr. Frank Owczarek 
1110 Berkley Road 
Wilmington DE 19807 

Current Property Address: 
Rose Hill Farm 
1110 Grove Neck Road 
EarlevilleMD 21919 



90 



Appendix IV 
Rent Rolls, Tax Assessments, Debt Books, and Early Census 

Rent Rolls 

Volume 6 Folio 295 

Wheeler's Point, John Wheeler, 250 acres 
-170 held by Parnell Rogers 
-80 held by William Freeman 

-218 to Thomas Ward from John Milward 1 1 June 1734 



Volume 6 Folio 300 

Middle Plantation, Andrew Woodberry, 300 acres 

Volume 6 Folio 30 1 

Chance, Henry Eldasly, 200 acres 

-To Parnell Rogers for Jos Laramore 

-200 to Colonel John Ward from Richard Hind of UK Rober Coulson of UK 10 

April 1739. As returned by Mr. Heath 

-200 acres to Henry Ward from Colonel John Ward 6 December 1742 Deed of 

Gift 

-Resurveyed to 250 acres for Henry Ward - Chance Resurveyed 

-To Thomas Marsh 

Volume 6 Folio 411 

Wheeler's Point Resurveyed, Thomas Ward, 250 acres 

Volume 6 Folio 423 

Chance Resurveyed, Henry Ward, 250 acres 

Volume 6 Folio 432 

Addition to Chance, Henry Ward, 3 acres 

-Tract to Thomas Marsh from John (of Henry) 3 September 1766 



91 



Early Tax Assessments 

1760 

Bohemia Manor Hundred 

Captain Thomas Marsh 

John Morgan 

10 Negros 

1771 

Bohemia Manor Hundred 

Ezekiel Forman 

John Morgan 

8 Negros 

1774 

Bohemia Manor Hundred 

Ezekiel Forman 

John Morgan 

7 Negros 



92 



Assessment of 1783 

Wheeler's Point 

Original survey, owned by Thomas Ward, 1 dwelling house, 3 outhouses, 100 

acres arable land, 75 acres wooded, 175 acres total, valued at 306.. .5 

Chance Addition 

Owned by Ezekiel Forman, 10 Y^^ acres of orchard, good and bad soil, 224 acres 
arable land, 15 acres wooded, no meadows, 249 % acres total, valued at 
561. ..40 

Chance Pt. 

Original survey, owned by James Louttit, old and broken soil, 34 acres arable, 

31 acres wooded, no meadows, 65 acres total, valued at 146. ..5 

Middle Plantation 

Owned by Ezekiel Forman, 3 outhouses, old and some bad soil, 238 'A acres 

arable land, 65 acres wooded, 303 % total, valued at 602.. 6.. 8 



Ezekiel Forman 

7 males 8-14 @175, 2 males 14-45 @ 14, 8 females 14-36 @ 480, 17 males and 
females under 8 @ 143, 2 males above 45, females above 36 @ 51.15, no plate, 
18 horses @ 126, 30 black cattle @60, no mills, other property @ 40, 559 acres 
@ 1238.5, total value @2454, no white inhabitants 

Thomas Ward 

1 male 1-14 @ 25 2 females 14-36 @ 120, 2 males and females under 8 @15, 4 
males over 45, females over 36 @ 1 10, no plate, 9 horses @36, 12 black cattle 
@24, no miUs, other property @38.. 15, 175 acres @ 306.5, total value @ 675, 7 
white inhabitants 

James Louttit' 

1 male 1-14 @ 25, 7 males 14-45 @ 490, 1 female 14-36 @60, 4 males and 
females under 8 @ 31, 5 infirm males over 45, females over 36 @ 50, 32 plate @ 
13. .6. .8, 28 horses @ 168, 53 black cattle @ 106, no mills, other property @ 
90... 184, 1043 acres @ 2946... 13, total value @ 3981, 4 white inhabitants. 



1 Louttit also owned Forlorn Hope (47 acres), Go Look (91 acres), Hog Pen Neck (136 
acres), Mount Harmon (156 acres), Shillington (153 acres), Sheffield (390 acres), and 
Ward's Lott (5 acres). Louttit's father, of the same name, bought Mount Harmon 
around 1760. The younger James was a minor when his father died and willed all of 
his property to him in 1766, who in turn willed the land to his sister's husband, his 
first cousin Sidney George Jr., who would become the grandfather of Mount Harmon 
diarist Sidney George Fisher. Sheffield is also known as the Quarter Farm, and until 
the Mount Harmon slaves were freed by Fisher's mother it was the slave quarter for the 
Mount Harmon plantation. W. Emerson Wilson, Mt Harmon Dianes of Sidney George 
Fisher, p. i-xiv. 

93 



Debt Books 

Thomas Marsh - Middle Plantation 

1739 

1749 

1754 

1755 

1756 

1757 

1758 

1761 

1766 

William Freeman - Wheeler's Point 

1734 

1739 

1749 

1754 

1760 

Henry Ward - Chance Resurveyed, Addition to Chance 

1734 

1749 

1754 

1755 

1756 

1757 

1758 

1760 

1761 



94 



Census Records 

1790 

Bohemia Hundred 

Head of Household - Thomas Marsh Forman 

2 white males 16+ 

1 white male <16 

4 white females 

48 slaves 

1800 

Bohemia Hundred 

Head of Household - Thomas Marsh Forman 

1 male < 10 

1 male 10-16 

1 male 16-26 

2 males 26-45 

1 female 10-16 

1 female 16-26 

2 female 26-45 

32 slaves 



95 



Appendix V 
Reference Images 




_^ / mount tic?.rc 
J ' /H^rmott ] 



■lA 



1 



Figure 1 

Cecil County 

Rose Hill, Bohemia, and Mount Harmon marked for reference 



96 




ftOAD CLASSIRCATtDN 



Figure 2 

Area Map with approximate Land Patent locations 



97 




Figure 3 

Easement Map 

Outlined portion includes Rose Hill and Sheffield Farm 

Maryland Historical Trust 

Rose Hill File 

CE-27 



98 




■ »j>.iK\%r^iy. 



Figure 4 

View of Rose Hill from the Point 




Figure 5 

View South toward Point from the House 



99 




Figure 6 

View of Seventeenth Century Building from the South 




Figure 7 

View of 1837 Addition from the South 



100 




Figure 8 

Outbuildings East of Main House 



101 



Appendix VI 
Historic Images 




Figure 1 

Wheeler's Point Survey, 1739. 
Maryland State Archives. 
Patent Certificate #1045. 




Figure 2 

Rose Hill about 1840. 

Lockwood, Alice. Gardens of Colony arid State. P. 171. 



102 




Figure 3 

Rose Hill prior to 1928-1937. 

Emerson, Wilson W. ed. Plantation Life at Rose Hill: The Diaries of Martha Ogle Forman 

1814-1845. Frontspiece. 




Figure 4 

Rose Hill around 1932. 

Lockwood, Alice. Gardens of Colony and State. 



P. 171. 



103 




Figure 5 

View from the Southwest, 1935. 

VF - Cecil County - Houses 

(Cecilton) Rose Hill 

Fagade 2, c.1935 

The Maryland Historical Society, 



Baltimore, Maryland 




Figure 6 

Outbuildings, 1935. 

VF - Cecil County - Houses 

(Cecilton) Rose Hill 

Outbuildings, c.1935 

The Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, Maryland 



104 




Figure 7 

View from the Southeast, 1935. 

VF - Cecil County - Houses 

(Cecilton) Rose Hill 

Fagade 3, c.1935 

The Man>'land Historical Society, 



Baltimore, Mar}'land 




Figure 8 

View from the Southwest, 1935. 

VF - Cecil County - Houses 

(Cecilton) Rose Hill 

Facade 1, c. 1935 

The Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, Marshland 



105 




Figure 9 

Rose Hill sometime after 1935 

Forman, Henr\' Chandlee. Early Manor and Plantation Houses of Maryland. 



P. 237. 




Figure 10 

Rose Hill sometime after 1935 

Forman, Henry Chandlee. Early Manor and Plantation Houses of Maryland. 



P. 237, 



106 




Figure 1 1 

Rose Hill sometime 1957-1976. 

Emerson, Wilson W. ed. Plantation Life at Rose Hill: The Diaries of Martha Ogle Forman 

1814-1845. Btwn pgs 244-245. 




Figure 12 

Floor plan around 1934. 

Forman, Henr>' Chandlee. Early Manor and Plantation Houses of Maryland. P. 237. 



107 



THE 50X GARDEN at ROSE HILL 




Figure 13 

Reconstruction Plan of Boxwood Garden 

Forman, Henry Chandlee. Early Manor and Plantation Houses of Maryland. P. 237. 




Figure 14 

Remains of the Boxwood Garden, around 1934 

Lockwood, Alice. Gardens of Colony and State. P. 170. 



108 




Figure 15 

Remnants of the Spanish Chestnuts along the drive, around 1934. 

Lockwood, Alice. Gardens of Colony and State. P. 171. 




Figure 15 

Martha Forman, photograph taken after the death of her husband. 

Emerson, Wilson W. ed. Plantation Life at Rose Hill: The Diaries of Martha Ogle Forman 

1814-1845. Btwn pgs 212-213. 

109 




Figure 17 

Thomas Marsh Forman, drawing made before his marriage to Martha. 

Emerson, Wilson W, ed. Plantation Life at Rose Hill: The Diaries of Martha Ogle Forman 

1814-1845. Btwn pgs 212-213. 




Figure 18 

Thomas Marsh Forman 

Forman, Charles. Three Revolutionary Soldiers: David Forman (1 745-1 797), Jonathan 

Forman (1 755-1809), Thomas Marsh Forman (1 758-1845). P. 24. 



110 



nui 60 rA0£7G9 

DEED OF EA5EHEHT 



1 ^day o f d'crCti^:^ 



THIS DEeO OF EA5EME1IT, made thls_ 

) by and between ALFRED WILSOH DARLOW, hereinafter called the Grantor, 

the IIARYLAUD ENVIROHHENTAL TRUST, THE HARYLAHD HISTORICAL TRUST, TIC j 

SAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION, and THE CHESTER-SASSAFRAS FOUNDATION, hereinafter ' 

lectlvely called the Grantee. CEC 19-60 * E5993 *****51, 

nEC 19-CO A ^25993 *****51 

WITNESSETH I 

WIEREAS, the Maryland Environmental Trust Is charitable In nature and la 
;ated and exists pursuant to Subtitle 2 of Title 3 of the Natural Resources 
tide, Annotated Code of Maryland (197^ Volume as amended), to conserve 
e natural and scenic qualities of the environment! and 

WIIEHEAS, the Maryland Historical Trust Is charitable In nature and nas 
eated and exists pursuant to Article 'tl. Section 181A of the Annotated 
■de of Maryland (197'> Volume, as amendedj for the purpose generally of 
reserving and maintaining historical, aesthetic and cultural properties! and 

WHERAS, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation Is a non-profit organization 
jrmed for the purpose. Inter alia, of preserving in their present state, land; 
aving ecological significance; and 

WHEREAS, the Chestec-Sassafras Foundation Is organized exclusively for 
harltablB and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501{o) (3) 
r the internal Revenue Code of 1951*, as amended, to carry out the same 
lurposes as the Maryland Environmental Trust, Including but not limited to, 
jonserving the natural, man-made and cultural environment! and 

WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner in fee simple of certain real property, 
hereinafter described, situated in the First Election District of Cecil County 
Maryland! and 






110 £c=-^ 



F' lo- 
co t- -.'•■? 






iiQ".; 



60 paceTTO 

^S, such property has scenic, economic, natural, historical, 
and ecological value In Its present state as a natural and 
al area which has not been subject to developmentt and 
;AS, such property contains Foreman's Creek, a small shrub swamp 
1 and described In the "Maryland Uplands Matural Areas Study" (1976) j M 
:AS, the Rose Hill residence dates back to the late Eighteenth 
nas put on the national Register of Historical Places on Hovembar 5, 

is the subject of the booki "Plantation Life at Rose H1I1« The 
if Martha Ogle Forman lBlt^-18'^5^" and 

<EAS, the Grantor Is willing to grant a perpetual Conservation 
ervatlon Easement over such property, thereby restricting and 
the' use of the land, streams, contiguous water area, and historic 
es of such property, on the terms and conditions and for the purposes 
'ter set forth, and the Grantee Is willing to accept such Easement|and 
inEAS, the Grantor and the Grantee recognize the historic, scenic, 
o«l, cultural, and ao.thotlo value of the property In Its present 
r agricultural use and have, subject to conveyance of a Conservation, 
•servation Easement to the Grantee, a common purpose of conserving 
tural, historical, and cultural values of said property, preserving the 
nt agricultural and woodland character and preventing the use or 
pment of said property for any purpose or in any manner which would 
ct with the maintenance of said property in Its scenic, historic, cultural 
lltural, woodland, and wetland condition) and 

,WEnEAS, the Grantee Is authorized to accept, hold, and administer 
rvatlon end Preservation Easements, and possesses the authority to accept 
Conservation and Preservation Eascmenl under tl<e terms. and conditions 

Inafter described) and 

NOW, THEnEFOnE, as an absolute gift of no monetary consideration ($0.00) 
In consideration of the ™tual covenants, terms, conditions, and restric- 
,5 hereinafter set forth, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee 
Its successors and assigns forever and in perpetuity an interest and 

111 



iin; CO pf.C[771 

Ion and Preservation Easement of the nature and character and to the 
irelnafter set forth, In respect to the lands of the Grantor situated 
;rst Election District of Cecil County, Maryland, and more particularly 

Sheffield Farm and Rose Hill Farm more particularly described as 

eel 1 (Sheffield Fann)t All that land conveyed to 
red Wilson Dariow by Irene H. Anderson on October 27, 
7 and recorded among the Land Records of Cecil County 
Liber N.QS.7, Folio 737, containing ((Sc.e? acres more 
less. 

_'eel II (Rose Hill Farm)i All that land conveyed to 
fred W. Dariow by E. Mewbold Smith on May Z^, 1977 and 
:orded among the Land Records of Cecil County In Liber 
^.S, No. 377, Folio 53, containing WO acres more or 
ss. 

gether with all and singular the buildings, Improvements, 
ghts, ways, waters, easements, privileges and appurtenances 
ereunto belonging or In anywise appertaining. 

ihlblt A hereto consists of /J pages and Includes in Page 1 a 
le (which is recorded with this Deed of Easement) desorlbing the 
Fits, photographs and other things that are part of the Exhibit and 
re filed at the office of the Maryland Historical Trust which are' not 
ed herewith but are nonetheless as fully and completely incorporated 
his Deed of Easement as though recorded herewith, 
fhe purpose of this easement Is to preserve the natural and hlstorio 
)nment of "Rose HIU Farm" and "Sheffield Farm" and the open space 
s of the property and contiguous water areas, and to maintain Its 
ultural, woodland, wetland, beachfront, historical and cultural character. 
;hieve this objective, the terms, conditions, and restrictions of this 
arvatlon and Preservation Easement are hereinafter set forth. 
1. This Conservation and Preservation Easement shall be perpetual. 

It is an easement in gross and as such is Inheritable and assignable 
and runs with the land as an incorporeal Interest In the property 
enforceable with respect to the property by the Grantee, against the 
Grantor and his personal representatives, heirs, successors, and 
assigns. 



112 



iin-j 60 PACf I (2, 

loept as otherwise provided herein, no Industrial or commercial 
itlvltles, with the exception of farming, forestry, and activities 
lat can be conducted from the existing residential or farm 
illdlngs shall be conducted on the property. Sales of farm products 
/ the- owner to the public shall be a permitted use, 
Kcept as related to farming, and as otherwise provided herein, no 
lllboard or advertising material shall be erected on the property, 
xcept as may be necessary for the agricultural and forestry uses 
f the property, there shsll be no dumping of trash, garhage or 
raste. There shall be no dumping or filling In of any marsh or wet- 
Land except as may be permitted by applicable laws for the purposes 
>f combatting erosion or gaining access to navigable water. 
Excavation, dredging, mining and removal of loam, gravel, soil, rock, 
sand, coal, petroleum and other materials are prohibited, except fori 

(a) Application of good farming and forestry practices; and 

(b) Maintenance of existing accessesj and 

(o) Construction of structures permitted within the provisions of 

this Deed of Easement; and 
(d) Construction and maintenance of farm accesses and accesses to 
structures permitted within the provisions of this Deed of 
Easement; accesses shall be designed and constructed to cause a 
minimum of interference with the existing topography, drainage, 
vegetation, wildlire, and conservation purposes of the property; 
accesses to structures constructed in accordance with Paragraph 
9 herein will be -subject to the written approval of the Maryland 
Environmental Trust. 
Removal, destruction, and cutting of trees, shrubs, or other vege- 
tation is prohibited except for: 
(a) Application of good husbandry practices including the prevention 

or treatment of disease; or ' 

(b)s Furtherance and perpetuation of the agricultural, horticultural, 
slivlcultural, and naturalistic uses of the property; or 

■ 113 



iiD.; 60 PACE ( i'3 

(o) Clearing for the location of the structures permitted within the 
provisions of this Deed of Easement^ or 

r 

' (d) Reasonable maintenance of existing accesses and the construction 
and maintenance of accesses permitted within the provisions of 
this Deed of Easement; or 
(e) The use of firewood on the property. 

All forest management activities shall be in accordance with sound 
forestry guidelines promulgated by the Society of American Foresters 
for natural forests and plantations and, to the extent possiblSi in 
cooperation with a Registered Professional Forester in the State 
of Maryland, 

7. Except as herein provided, there shall be no activities or uses 
detrimental or adverse to water conservation, erosion control, soil 
conservation and, subject to the primary uses of farming and forestry, 
the preservation of wildlife habitat. 

8. No building, facility or other structure shall be erected or , 
constructed on the property, unlessi 

(a) Such structure is a new structure which is designed, constructed 
and utilized in connection with the continued agricultural, 
horticultural, sllvlcultural and naturalistic uses of the 
property) or 

(b) Such structure Is a new structure constructed In accordance 
with Paragraph 9 or 10 herein) or 

(o) Such structure Is in the form of a structural modification as 

provided In Paragraph 12(c). 

All structures permitted in Paragraph 8 herein shall be 
constructed and located so as not to disturb or alter in any manner 
the wetland and waterfront bordering the Sassafras River, Foreman 
Creek and Cox Creek and shall be constructed and located to cause a 
minimum of Interference with existing topography, drainage, vegetati 
wildlife and conservation purposes of this easement. 



114 



jr reserves t(i8 rigm, lui v..v= ,. _.. 

tlonal facility, or conference center pursuant to the standards con- 
d herelnbelow. The Grantor may exercise this right by designating a 
Iclary of this right in his Will or at some other time, provided how- 
that the Grantor sliall notify the Maryland Environmental Trust of the 
i beneficiary. The right to construct one educational facility or con- 
nce center Is limited to the named beneficiary and is not assignable or 
rltable, and If the Grantor falls to designate a beneficiary of the 
it or if the named beneficiary falls to construct one educational 
.llty or conference center during the duration of the beneficiary's 
irshlp of the property, then the right to construct one educational 
tllty or conference center ceasesi 
The construction and location of all new permanent structures and 
land use related to the administrative, social, domestic, and recrea- 
tional functions of the facility shall be contained within the 19.992 
acre parcel shown on the attached plat prepared by William R. Nuttle 
on September, 1980, designated as Exhibit B, and more partlcularlly 
described herelni 

Beginning for the same at a point In the center of a paved 
lane leading from Grove Heck Road to "Rose Hill", said point being 
S 86°29'10"E-3'»5.1'f', measured along the south side of Grove 
Heck Road (30' wide), and S 03°2'»'W-2918.75' , measured along the 
centerline of said lane, from the northwest corner of the lands 
of Alfred W. Darlow and the northeast corner of the lands of Robert 
C. Hillerj and running, thence, by and with a new division line 
between the liereln described lands and other lands of Darlow the 
fourteen follo\Ying courses and distances: (1) S 86 10'20"E-382.2O' 
to an iron pipe, (2) 5 01 05'50"W-262.92' to an iron pipe, (3) 
S 27°22'30"W-'il8.81' to an iron pipe, (1) H39°19'10"W-298.08' 
to an Iron pipe, (5) M 87°11 ' 50"W-358.83' to an iron pipe, (6) 
S 05°18"iO"W-378.73' to an Iron pipe, (7) S 67°'rt'50"\V-218.5r 
to an Iron pipe, (8) S 02°32'20"W-162.50' to an Iron pipe, (9) 
5 87°'»5'20"E-262;87' to an iron pipe, (10) S 08 -35' 20"W-670.8t' ^ 
to an Iron pipe, (11) H 81°2[f''t0"W-328.39' to a point, (12) M 03 
't9''tO"E-1706.6S" to a point, (13) S 66 10'20"E-6'»2.80' to an 
iron pipe, and (lit) S 66 10'20"E-15.00' to the place of beginning. 
Containing In all 19.992 acres of land, more or less. 

The number of structures and accesses, and the location, exterior desi( 
appearance, height, and bulk of each structure and access constructed 
- nlthln the 19.992 acre parcel shall be subject to the written approval 
of the HaryJana Environmental Tr\JSt| this right of review and approval 
by the Maryland Environmental Trust shall pertain only to matters of 
aesthetic, ecological, and environmental consequence to the property 
and any disapproval or rejection must be accompanied by a written- 
Justification with specific reasons given. If the Maryland Environ- 
mental Trust has not definitively responded to the Grantors request 

115 



w: 60 PWt (I'O 

for review and approval within twenty (20) working days, approval of 
such request may be assumed. 

(b) The location of the 19.992 acre parcel may be changed by the Joint 
consent of the named beneficiary and the Maryland Environmental Tru? 
the location of any now site shall be surveyed and delineated by a 
registered surveyor and shall be located so as not to interfere wit' 
the scenic vistas to and from the historic house "Rose Hill") so as 
not to disturb or alter in any manner the wetland and waterfront lar 
bordering the Sassafras River, Foreman Creek and Cox Creek) and so 
not to interfere with the agricultural and silvicultural activities 
on the land, 
(o) The educational facility or conference center shall be constructed 
accomodate no more than one hundred (100) persons at one time for ( 
use and overnight programs) the facility shall have no permanent ri 
Idencas except as permitted by the terms of this Deed of Easement, 
(d) SurfaoQ area tia«d for the eduaational facility or conference oente; 
shall Include as little paved and impervious surface as possible, 
particularly for roads, paths and parking facilities. Parking 
facilities shall be constructed to contain no more than fifty (50) 
permanent parking spaces with additional emergency parking provide 
on grass. Crass Block, or other suitable pervious parking surfaces 
(o) One overall master plan for the educational facility or conferencr 
center shall be submitted at one time to the Maryland Environment; 
Trust and shall bo subject to its review and written approval) wh.' 
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and must be given bef< 
any construction or excavation may occur. The Maryland Environmei 
Trust shall review and respond definitively to the proposed maste 
plan within twenty (20) working days of its receipt, or approval 
the master plan may be assumed. Construction from this master pi 
may proceed in stages and the master plan Itself may be revised i 
altered at a later date subject to the written approval of the 
Maryland Environmental Trjst, 

116 



no J 60 mill^ 

(f) Any replacement, improvements, or alterations of permitted 
structures within the 19.992. acres shall be subject to the 
approval of the Maryland Environmental Trustj the Maryland 
Environmental Trust shall approve or deny all such requests 
by Grantor and assigns within twenty (?0) working days or 
approval of the request may be assumed. 

(g) The site plan for the educational facility's structures and 
operations shall conform to the purposes, terms and restrictions 
of the Conservation and Preservation Easement. 

"Grantor, his personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns 
reserve the right to build up to five (5) additional single family 
residences and accesses thereto to be used by the persons Involved 
In the fanning, forestry, agricultural and historical uses of the 
property and, if applicable, for use by the staff of the educational 
facility or conferenco center. Such structures shall not disturb 
or alter In any manner the wetl«nd ».id waterfront land bordering 
the Sassafras River, Foreman Creek and Cox Creek and shall not inter 
fere with the existing topography, drainage, vegetation, wildlife 
and conservation purposes of the property; the location, exterior 
design, appearance, height, and bulk of each structure shall be 
subject to the written approval of the Maryland Environmental Trust. 
Without the express written permission of the Director of the 
Maryland Historical Trust (hereinafter the "Officer"), no other 
activities shall be undertaken or permitted to be undertaken on the 
historic structures on the property comnonly known as the ice house 
and the main house known as Hose lUU, which are depicted and 
designated In Exhibit A, to affect their exterior and interior, 
provided, however, that the maintenance, reconstruction, repair, 
repainting, or reflnlshlng of any said exterior or interior damage 
to which is a result of casualty loss, deterioration, or wear and 
tear shall be permitted without such written permission of the Offlc«jr 
provided that such maintenance, reconstruction, repair, repainting, 
or reflnlshlng is performed in a manner which will not alter the 
appearance thereof a, they are as of this date^ The terms exterior 



exterior, and Interior, Including the kind and texture of building 
materials and the type and style of all windows, doors, light 
fixtures, signs, and other similar features. The Maryland Historical 
Trust shall act definitively upon all requests nlthln twenty (20) 
working days or approval of the request may be assumed. The Grantor 
agrees for himself his personal representatives, heirs, successors, 
and assigns, to maintain the buildings described in Exhibit A in 
good, clean, and safe condition and shall nalntsl.n, repair, and 
administer them to preserve their historical, aesthetic and cultural 
character and appearance as described and depicted in Exhibit A. 
12. Notwithstanding anything contained in Paragraphs l,2,3,'f,5,6,7,8,9, 
10, and 11 herein the Grantor expressly reserves to himself, his 
personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns the right toi 

(a) Continue the agricultural, forestry and naturalistic uses of 
the property. 

(b) Continue to hunt, fish or trap on the property subject to 

relevant laws. 

\ (c) Construct, Improve, repair, restore, alter, remodel, or replace 
the existing and permitted structures, with the exception of 
the historic structures on the property commonly known as the 
ice house, and the main residence, more particularly known as 
Rose Hill, which are designated and depicted In Exhibit A, with 
structures of similar purpose, size, bulk, height, and floor 
area, provided that changes are compatible with the conservation 
purposes of. the property and in accordance with Paragraphs 8,9, 
10, and 11 herein, 
(d) Continue the use of the property for all purposes not 
inconsistent with this Conservation Easement. 

13. The granting of this Conservation Easement does not grant the 
public the right to enter the property for any purpose whatsoever. 

14. The parties agree that monetary damages vrould not be adequate 
remedy for breach of any of the terms, conditions and restrictions 
herein contained, and, therefore, In the event that the Grantor, 
his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, violate 



118 



hd'j 



60 miTIS 



:h any of such terms, conditions and restrictions herein contained, 
ntee, its successors, or assigns, may Institute a suit to enjoin by 
e, temporary and/or permanent Injunction such violations and to 

the restoration of the property to Its prior condition. The Grantee 
successors, and assigns by any prior failure to act do not waive or 
; the right to take action as may be necessary to insure compliance 
le terms, conditions and purposes of this Conservation and 
nation Easement. 

antee. Its successors and assigns, has the right, with reasonable 
, to enter the property at all times for the purpose of inspecting 
■roperty to determine whether the Grantor, or his personal represent- 
I, heirs, successors, or assigns, are complying with the terms, 
tlons and restrictions of the Conservation and Preservation Easement, 
the intention of the parties hereto that this Conservation and 
rvation Eaa«m«nt, which is by nature and aharaoter negative in that the 
or has restricted and limited his right to use the subject property 
ir than granted any affirmative rights to the Grantee except as other- 
set forth herein, be construed at all times and by all parties to 
jtuate their terms, conditions and purposes. The Maryland Environmental 
t may assign Its rights under this easement to any state or federal 
cy charged with the responsibility of conservation of natural or farm 
3, or to any non-profit, tax-exempt organization engaged In promoting 
ervatlon of farm or natural areas, and If such assignee shall be 
lolved or shall abandon this easement or the rights and duties of 
jrcement herein set forth, or if proceedings are instituted for condem 
ion of this easement, the easement and rights of enforcement shall revert 
the Grantee. 

i Grantor agrees for himself, his personal representatives, heirs, 
icessors, and assigns to send in writing to the Grantee the names and 
dresses of any party to whom the property Is to be transferred at the time 
Id transfer Is executed. 

119 



iioj 60 r&c[779 

The Grantee agrees to hold this Easement exclusively for conservation 
purposes, I.e., It will not transfer the easement In exchange for 
money, other property, or services. 
. Hotlce - Any notice required to be given by this easement shall be 
In writing and may be given by certified or registered mall, with 
postage prepaid and return receipt requested! addressed to each 
party as followsi 



If to the Crantori 



or If to the Grantee t 



and, 



and. 



and, 



Mr. Alfred W. Darlow 

Rose mil Farm 

Grove Heck Road 

Earlevllle, Maryland 21919 

The Executive Director 
Maryland Environmental Trust 
501 St. Paul Place, Suite IWl 
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 

Director 

Maryland Historical Trust 

21 State Circle 

Annapolis, Maryland 21'»01 

Director 

The Cliesapeake Day Foundation 
162 Prince George Street 
The Church ' 

Annapolis, Maryland 21'K)1 

President 

The Chester-Sassafras Foundation 

Route 3, Box 160 

Chestertown, Maryland 21S20 



or such party at such other address as Grantee may from time to 
time designate by notice to the Grantor. Any notice given in the 
foregoing manner shall be deemed to have been given upon receipt 
thereof. 

TO HAVE AMD TO HOLD unto the Maryland Environmental Trust, the 
iryland Historical Trust, the Chester-Sassafros Foundation and the Chesapeake 
ly Foundation, their successors and assigns, forever. The covenants agreed 
3 and the terms , conditions, restrictions and purposes Imposed as aforesaid 
hall not only be binding upon the Grantor, but also his agents, personal 
epresentatlves, heirs, assigns, and all other successors to him in Interest 
ind shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the above 
described land. 



120 



• "0-: 60 p«[7C0 



I WITNESS MIEREOr, the Grantor and Grantees have hereunto set their 
seals In the day and the year above wrlttsn. 



^/O^. ^ By, {}Ue(^?/<Ly, A ri^ 

/Alfred Wilson Dariow 



Ux^ 



^JTSEAL) 



HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this /.<d. day of MI/HuajuUm^ jjgo^ 
1 the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, 
.y appeared Alfred Wilson Dariow, known to me to be the person 
le Is subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged that 
ted the same for the purpose therein contained and In my presence 
nd sealed the samei 
IN WITHESS THEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. 



Notary Public 





My Commission explresi JhJ-A^ /, I'jfXj 



ACCEPT I 

Maryland Environmental Trust 



K. King Burnett, Chairman, Board of 
Trustees 



Maryland Historical Trust 



■71^^^ 




kd. i 7 md. 



Orwln C. Talbott, Dl rector y^Yy/frts 
Chester-Sassafras Foundation 



Byi A'^UciX rl^cu-t 

Michael Hlller, President 



The Chesapeake Bay Foundation 



^ 



o^-^ s:: >f^.^-^^. liAdfi 



Wnl^ 



David 0. HcGrath, Director 
ived as to legal form and sufficiency this J)' 1 ^ay of /Irv^.^^ , 



1980. 



I!D-J 



60 PAG[7Si 



SCHEDULE OF EXHIBIT A 



Schedule 

Site Plan 

North Elevation 

Detail, Kitchen Wing, North Elevation 

Detail, Kitchen Wing, South Elevation 

South Elevation 

Ice House 

Detail, door of Ice House 

Dining Room 

Living Room mantle 

Stairway and Hall 

Inventory of Existing Structures 

Copy of Aerial Photograph 



FARM 






Schedule of Exhibit A, 




ITY 






SCALE' 




EXHIBIT NO. 


A, 


Page 1 of 13 


PREPARED' 10/80 JEF 
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST 


NORTH 



122 



W Jif 



rJorfh>^esf corner o( Darlov^ lands 
and norfheasf corner of Solxrf (3. 
Miller lands. 





DIS-r 




lO^O.OO 




e6e.97 




■4-1 ear 




s9ao6 




3S6e3' 




37a. 7 J 




ziair 




I6Z..^0 




Z6e.6T 




67ci.a-i-' 


1 


jea-i^?' 




nc6.66' 




OrHse Lawos op DAeLow 



P'c/sr OP A Suevev of Paer or rue 
ALFRED W. DAELOW LAMD3 

/"'^ P/sTEiCT, Cec/L Cbufjry, Mo. 

Scale I"' 300- Sepl. 1980. 

iv,///nm e. Mc/Hle ,]^'^ ■5arveY<^r- 




124 



INZENTORY_OF_EXISTINGSTRUCTURES 



herein, are as follows: ^^^ 



^ric House - Rose Hill (main residence) 
Jle Family Residences 
Lng Lodge 
Office 
IS _ 

ler Houses 

lity Structures (sheds) 

n Silos 

Blinds 



125 



Pae^-EL. II 

^U EFF I r.LP rAF>A 













"*«" 






,h!;:^^i -• -■"; 
%^f^■ 









■Iv^' 






t 









■'■> 




/ ,- 


i'i 


- jT r ^;. 




i 


•-■ 'S 


. ^:v 


*'^ 



J*- 









#P^;?^ ii^s ^ >%^ 



IC£L I 

?£ MILL fAOA 



126 




127 



^'^^'i-mm:'- '■■■ 




128 




129 



m 




130 




131 






" IBI lar lii^ *,-«..«_ L 

r-n F'l "n | r-z:--~ 1 = 










132 




133 




134 




135 



nd;; 60 pAi;[783 

CONSENT AGREEMENT 

Peoples Bank of Kent County, Maryland, hereinafter 
ereby consents to the execution by Alfred Wilson 
after "Mortgagor" , of the conservation easement 
eed of Easement executed on the 1st day of Dec. 



. the Maryland Environmental Trust, et al, are Grantees, 
lately prior hereto . , among the Land 

^cil County, Maryland., . ' • _ 

: the purposes of its Mortgages from Mortgagor (dated 
' and recorded in Ceci] County Liber W.A.S. No. 377, 
dated .November 2nd, 1977, and recorded among the Land 
;cil County in Liber N.D.S. No. 7, Folio 737) hereby 
and accepts that from the date of this Consent Agreement, 
, the property described in the aforesaid Mortgages is 
perpetuity, by the terms and conditions of said Easement, 
sale or other transfer of the subject property by or at 
of the Mortgagee shall be subject to said Deed 'of Ea^e- 

WITNESS WHEREOF, the Peoples Bank of Keri'^vidfoXih'ty'^ '>., ,f\. 

caused its corporate name to be sigji^-d.-byvit^ rPre^ia^n-t; 

- "C • ■ ^i- • ' 

; 'u ; ni' <= ■. ', ^ 

V of December - , 1980 . ' ^ : o * ' "^ : u : 

— ' •. ^,-. % »■ °; .• .' 

PEOPLES BANK OK, fe'NT ^UNfY , .FIAR/Lf^: 
; 7/ E. Roy Owens .^Pcesident 




136 




I'^-l 




Q 



c 



rt DC O 
C w o 

o o 



Q Di O 



01 
v> 
D 
u 
D 

03 '5b 
OO 

TO in 

2§ 

u ^ 

S 15 

U hJ 



> 

>< 
-S 

c 

a 
a 
< 



15^ 




31 




)Uo 



[ 




Q 

6 S 



< r^: o 

2 'jj " 

C c/3 cj 

O O <U 

Q K U 



c 

1- 
o 
o 



in 

c 

D 



u < 



> 

■5 
c 

a 
a 

< 



sn 





T= 



J^ 



Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MO 
Existing Conditions 
Base men I 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Fann 
Cecil Count>' Mp 



Existing ConiiitKCis 
Finn Floor 



Appendix VIll 




_□ □ □_ 




I 



Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MP 
I Existing Conrfitiotis 
I Third Floor 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MP 
Existing Ccnditioiis 
lurth Floor 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 1 



Frame Section 

Window/ Door/ Fireplace Surround 

1st Floor - All openings but passage/ dining 

2nd Floor - Non-hall sides of doors, fireplaces 



MT 





Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 2 



Frame Section 

Door Surround 

1st Floor - Dining/ passage door 



H-^ 



O O ^ r^ r^ 

O O 

O O O 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 3 



Frame Section 

Chair Rail 

1st Floor - Passage and Dining 

No Pattern - Sitting Room 



iH'l 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 4 



Frame Section 

Baseboard 

1st Floor - Dining room, West wall 

Passage Walls 

2nd Floor - All rooms 



|-SX> 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 5 



Frame Section 

Baseboard 

1st Floor - Dining room, East wall 

Sitting Room, all walls 



1^1 



L____-l-- 



Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 6 



Frame Section 

Baseboard 

1st Floor - Under stair only 



iirz- 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 7 



Frame Section 
Chair rail 
2nd Floor 



fT> 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 8 



Frame Section 

Door Surround 

2nd Floor - All Passage doors 

East Bedroom closet doors 



IS'H 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 9 



Frame Section 

Door Surround 

2nd Floor - West Bedroom closet, door to 

Brick Structure 



("^•s 



Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 10 



Frame Section 

Door Surround 

2nd Floor - Gable storage space doors 



1"^ o? 



Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 1 1 



Frame Section 

Cornice 

1st Floor - Passage, Dining Room 



is-7 



8' 



Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Frame Structure 
Drawing 12 



Frame Section 

Exterior Cladding 

Ship Lapped Wooden Siding 



i<r^ 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Brick Structure 
Drawing 1 



Brick Section 

Door Surround 

1st Floor - All doors and windows 

2nd Floor - All doors and windows 



iS^ 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Brick Structure 
Drawing 2 



Brick Section 
Door Surround 
3rd Floor - All doors 



lUO 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Brick Structure 
Drawing 3 



Brick Section 
Chair Rail 
1st Floor 
2nd Floor 




Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Brick Structure 
Drawing 4 



Brick Section 
Base Board 
1st Floor 
2nd Floor 



U2. 



r 



i_ 



Donna Andrews 
Rose Hill Farm 
Cecil County MD 



Appendix IX 
Molding Profiles 



Brick Structure 
Drawing 5 



Brick Section 
Base Board 
3rd Floor 



\u^ 




llfi^ 



>s\ 






!\- ::^ 



K 



f.- 



V 



\,- 



i \ 



\ 



\\ 



\ . 



, \ 



X \ 







■^- 



■^'^ ^ i'ts- 




1 



':^ 







S' ^i^^^- 



\ 



M 



^i 



._jj 



. - » 






, »= 



;i^ 



4 



..r<r.ttOH-i .1 ".^l M.«* " 



'\ 






■\ 



'SJ. 



w 









^i :^ 



fV 



-^ 



?>v- 



S.7' y 



■> •flfi =' 



SJ 



K. 



UC 



•\ 



(' 



l*r 



/ 



^^ 




\ 




III 




\. 









7 



\\ 









/ 



/• 



/ 



/ 



/ 



/ 



/ 



.•J 



■-^wj ^--;? 



N 




! 


' '' 


.i 


. '*'**^j 






■:^ 


HHUm^^^' 
















^ 






i&: 




1 


r 




■ 

i 


. 




\\\ 




i 




h 


•vu( 


w 


'>'^-. 


. -Jft^sfeBSX-l 


Mi MM 




r 


,,^ 




1 ' 

mm 


! 1 



♦ ^ *- *«ife. ^^11^«f jiS^'*.?ii' 



\ 



\ 



u 









\ 



\ 



\ 



\ 



\ 



/ 



./ 



/ 




♦ 


• 


BMpI 


i 


1 
1 


i 





{^ 





■ 


i 


1 


K^wty 




itTT 


W! 




■■1 


■■[ 


Ki 


ii 


■■! 






■BE 


KM. 


-4 


II 


|Kl;V 








■ 


Mi 








. - ! 

, I* 



■^ 



t? 



A 11 



) •- 



■■> 1 



y.y 



i 1 



-\\ 



I 



'1 



ii 



11 
1 



J 


• 


! 




,1 




^ 


(' 



»: 



I 



' 1 
■ ( 



, I! i 



I" 



M 







Hiij 







jfy 



m£!= 



f 
«/ 



r- — _.. 



I. 



i 






^1 



^u 



-^y^::r 



m 









r-^; 






1L.. 



^^ 



1i 



^l^ 



/ v^.> 



^. 



/■: 



y/. 






■/^ 




-/ / 



Anne & Jerome Fisher 
FINE ARTS LIBRARY 

University of Pennsylvania 

Please return this book as soon as you have finished with 
it. It miisr t-tf- rprijmprl by the latest date stamped below. 







SEP 1 2 2001 



3 1198 03059 7624 

II mil 11 mil mil nil 



N/infl/D3DST/7tDEMX