[1:16] Good evening. We have a lot on our agenda tonight, so we like to move

[1:21] through as quickly as we can. I'd like to call this meeting to order. My name

[1:24] is Joseph Edler. I am the vice chair of the Gettysburg Bur Historic

[1:28] Architectural Review Board. Um, and at this time I'd like to do roll

[1:34] call. Assisting us tonight from the burough staff is John Whitmore, who's

[1:38] the code enforcement officer, planning and zoning officer, and Karen Mesher,

[1:44] acting as HARB's administrative assistant. Um, our board members include

[1:49] Miss Stephanie Shara, uh, Mr. Paul Wit, Mr. Gary Schaefer, Miss Suzanne

[1:55] Christensen, and Mr. Kim Spitler representing PMCA as the building code

[2:00] official. Uh, just note that Chairman Brandon Stone is not with us tonight.

[2:07] Um, so at this point, I'd like to review

[2:11] tonight's agenda and see if there are any changes.

[2:18] We just noted a misspelling under the consent agenda. Item B was

[2:25] Yate and not Windgate. And there is no number eight. It skips

[2:32] to number nine for public comment.

[2:41] Does anybody have any other changes or comments?

[2:46] Uh, do I have a motion to approve the business meeting agenda of June 30th,

[2:50] 2026? >> I will.

[2:54] » Okay. I have a motion by Miss Suzanne Christensen.

[2:58] » I'll second that. >> Seconded by Mr. Paul Wit. All in favor?

[3:04] » All right. We'll move on to the meeting minutes of May 20th, 2026.

[3:16] Are there any comments, questions, changes?

[3:24] » Make a motion. We appear the minutes as out.

[3:27] » All right. Do we have a second? >> I'll second.

[3:31] » All right. Motion by Mr. Paul Wit, second by Miss Stephanie Shara. Uh, all

[3:36] in favor? >> I.

[3:39] » All right. Motion passes. Um, item number three, public comment.

[3:45] At this point, we'll open up the podium for public comment for items on the

[3:49] agenda or not on the agenda. Uh, when you get to the podium, please give us

[3:53] your name for Miss Measure.

[4:06] Test one. Can you hear me? Can you hear me?

[4:10] » Yes. Test one two. >> Is it green under here?

[4:15] » It's green on top. Okay. Well, I'll try to speak loud then.

[4:21] Loudly. Um, my name is Thomas Paul's 26 Highland View Lane, Gettysburg. Um,

[4:30] I respectfully and forcefully oppose certain language within the existing

[4:35] historic district ordinance that has of late been used by certain council

[4:39] administrative heads to justify and promote what I see as a desecration of

[4:44] the hollowed ground in this internationally recognized historic

[4:48] place. We all have our opinions on how these

[4:52] things are approached, but quite frankly, I've used the such existing

[4:56] language we have as a form almost of secular blasphemy. I know that's

[5:01] strongly sparted, but there's a reason for that, which I will get into in a

[5:05] moment. So, where there's a problem, there needs to be a solution. And

[5:09] therefore, I once again call on the HARB to recommend and the final

[5:12] decision-making body to adopt that my detailed text amendment language entered

[5:16] in as part of the May 20th, 2026 agenda and under separate cover attached to

[5:21] these June 30th, 2026 HARB comments. These recommended amendments are based

[5:28] upon nearly 40 years of professional planning experience in writing

[5:31] successful oftentimes fully adopted by the elected bodies updates to many land

[5:37] development codes in a number of states. Summary of the amendments and I'll try

[5:41] to be as brief as I can. The first delete the following existing text

[5:46] within the Gettysburg Burough Code Chapter 11 section 1110.1E

[5:52] contemporary design for additional additions to existing buildings that

[5:56] differentiate between old and new parts shall not be discouraged. So it's

[6:00] basically saying contemporary designs in reverse shall be encouraged. They

[6:05] shall not be discouraged when such additions do not destroy the significant

[6:09] historic and architectural cultural material and such design is compatible

[6:13] with the size, scale, color, material, aesthetics and character of the

[6:17] building. That is in a direct contravention to the section 11101 C111

[6:24] where there's a list of what the matters to be considered by the board are and I

[6:29] believe that that language should be struck with other language put in its

[6:33] place. Secondly, and I think more almost more egregiously, is subsection F of the

[6:39] same section saying contemporary design for new buildings shall be encouraged

[6:43] provided design is compatible with existing neighboring structures and

[6:47] scale, size, color, and building materials and other considerations

[6:51] listed in subsection 1C of this section. This is what I'm proposing be put in

[6:56] those two sections place. Section E, section F would no longer be um in

[7:02] existence. Section E. Consistent with the principles of sound historic

[7:06] preservation and as a matter of common practice to reinforce the provisions of

[7:10] this chapter, new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall

[7:14] emphasize the predominant and compatible historic styles and architectural

[7:19] features of neighboring properties in the general surrounding area. This

[7:23] applies to all proposed physical features as cited above in section

[7:26] 11101C 1-11. That's the list that we talked

[7:30] about matters to be considered. Any consideration of contemporary design

[7:33] that differentiates between the old and new shall be considered only when such

[7:38] design has been demonstrated as necessary and shall be incorporated only

[7:41] for purposes of architectural accent or minor embellishments. Such new buildings

[7:46] or additions shall not adversely impact the existing historic architectural or

[7:51] cultural character of the subject property, the surrounding neighborhood

[7:55] and shall further contribute to the overall authenticity of Gettysburg's

[7:59] historic heritage.

[8:03] under section 1 C 110U 11101C it says the following architectural

[8:09] features of the building uh and site along with the compatibility of those

[8:12] neighboring buildings um I would add shall serve as the principal guide for

[8:18] decision makers when considering applications for certificate of

[8:21] appropriate not just under consideration but serve as the principal guide for 1C1

[8:26] modifications to architectural style that have been made over time I would

[8:30] add consistent with section 11-102 purposes of this chapter, such decision

[8:36] to modify the architectural style shall give preferential weight to replicating

[8:40] or historically complementing the predominant existing character of other

[8:44] historic structures located within the vicinity of the subject property.

[8:48] section 1 CB I mean 1 C8 the importance of fences and walls where it talks about

[8:54] um to prop um that it should be cohesive of buildings and line and historic

[8:59] appropriateness. I would suggest that instead it should reinforce the proper

[9:04] facial articulation and authenticity of the type size and positioning of

[9:09] position of materials from which these are made such as brick or stone.

[9:15] 1D1 the removal or alteration of covering of any historic material or

[9:19] distinctive architectural feature. If any such items are removed they shall be

[9:24] properly recorded and if possible it says stored. I would suggest they

[9:29] properly archived so that the materials are taken carefully into account and

[9:33] archived carefully for permanence. So properly archived would be the language

[9:37] I would add in that section. Section 1D3, the surface of cleaning masonry.

[9:42] When brick has been painted in the past, repainted rather than paint when brick

[9:47] has been painted in the past, repainting rather than paint removal shall it's

[9:51] shall be undertaken unless otherwise recommended by the board. Um, so the

[9:56] importance here is that that first of all, it's preferred that the repainting

[10:01] take place. If they wish not to do that, they should get the board's concurrence

[10:05] beforehand. This last item has to do with variances and the height of new

[10:10] buildings or structures shall not exceed the height of the tallest building or

[10:13] structure by more than 10%. It goes on to say how and I would strike this

[10:17] language. However, the board may recommend grant of a variance from this

[10:21] height limitation and goes on. My position is that it really is not the

[10:29] role of the historic and architectural reward to offer a recommendation to an

[10:34] applicant as to whether or not they should file for a variance. That's an

[10:38] item for the applicant and maybe the applicant's representatives to offer.

[10:43] And I would suggest this language. If the applicant for a certificate of

[10:46] appropriateness seeks a variance from the zoning hearing board ZB for any

[10:52] purpose relating to the dimensional requirements cited in this chapter, then

[10:55] such variance must first be approved by the ZB before the historic architectural

[11:00] review board takes final action related to the COA application certificate of

[11:04] appropriateness. It remains the responsibility of the certificate of

[11:10] certificate of appropriateness applicant to decide whether or not to proceed with

[11:14] a variance application. The historic architectural reward shall remain

[11:17] neutral in such cases and not offer any guidance for or against the advisability

[11:22] of seeking such a variance. Those are my comments. I respectfully offer them to

[11:26] you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions?

[11:31] » Are there any questions of the speaker? Y thank you.

[11:40] Is there anybody else here for public comment?

[11:46] Okay. If there is no more public comment, we'll move on to item number

[11:50] four, the consent agenda. The consent agenda allows for expedited approvals of

[11:55] projects that comply with both the Gettysburg Design Guide and the

[11:58] Department of Interior Secretary Standards. Uh the projects listed

[12:02] tonight while larger than a minor project fit into these categories. Uh

[12:06] has the board had opportunity to review and are there any questions or concerns

[12:12] about the two projects? Um A at 222 Buford Avenue or B 54 East Middle

[12:20] Street.

[12:29] Okay. And is there anybody do you have any comments for Gary?

[12:36] » Is anyone here for 54 East Middle Street?

[12:41] » Yes. >> The the windgate board on board fence.

[12:44] Is that a style or is that a manufacturer?

[12:51] » We're Long Fence Company did the original fence. It's a part of the fence

[12:56] that's there. So I it's matching the I guess it's the style of the board the

[13:03] design >> and it is wood.

[13:04] » Yes, it is wood. So we were just going to match continue

[13:09] to match what was currently put there before.

[13:14] It's a

[13:19] it's a I I once again it's come from long fence company. I think we my wife

[13:23] and I got it directly out of there. So both sides of the fence actually look uh

[13:28] identical. So it's looks good on both sides. It's not it's not a front side

[13:33] and a back side, but the fence looks like it's a front side on both. So

[13:37] there's boards on both sides.

[13:46] » No issue. Just >> Okay.

[13:51] Well, for the record, how do you spell what is it? Windgate W

[13:55] » in the application. It's W Y N G A T E. Uh, it's just missing the N in this

[14:08] summary.

[14:11] » Okay. If there's no other comments or questions for approval at their next

[14:16] meeting and burough council will give you the certificate of appropriateness.

[14:21] So

[14:24] you free to go.

[14:30] Okay. We will move on to old business uh which

[14:35] there is none. Uh, so we'll move on to 6A, new business. Uh, CO A26-00

[14:47] 216 major project 120 or 162 York Street, Anton Hummer.

[14:58] Would you like to give us uh some information about your project?

[15:02] » Sure. Thank you and thanks for having me. I'm Anton Hummer uh at 162 York

[15:06] Street. Um, so maybe just a little bit of background. I purchased the property

[15:10] back in um, June of last year. Um, so I was here in October and requested to

[15:16] replace the windows and the roof to kind of improve the house. Um, that work was

[15:21] completed. It's not reflected yet in that photo, but um, but it's going to be

[15:25] back again. And um, looking to make some improvements to the exterior of the home

[15:29] now. Um, as you can see there in that photo, there's an existing fence on the

[15:34] one side. It's kind of it's wooden which is kind of starting to rot and fall down

[15:39] a bit. And on the other side and kind of in the back it's more of a chain link

[15:43] kind of style. Um so looking to replace that with a a PVC style fence um wood

[15:49] grain look to it. Um that'll last a lot longer and just look a bit cleaner, you

[15:55] know, in the rear of the property. Um, also looking to install a 14 by14

[16:02] stamped concrete patio just right in the back of the house there. Um, just to add

[16:06] some some living space really on the nice summer days that hopefully aren't

[16:10] as hot as today uh to enjoy the outside of the property. Um, you know, nothing

[16:16] no changes to the to the look of the property from the from the front. Just

[16:19] all all changes to the rear here. Um, so that's a high level summary. happy to

[16:25] take any questions you have. >> And I'm sorry, I think I jumped the gun.

[16:28] Uh, Mr. Whitmore, uh, can you give us the background for the project?

[16:33] » No problem. Um, as discussed, this is a replacement of rear yard fence, uh,

[16:37] changed from a wood material to a vinyl 6ft tall PVC fencing, total linear

[16:41] length of 227 ft. Um, first identified on 1907 Sandborn maps as a two-story

[16:47] brick building with rear wood frame porch all with a shingle roof. It is

[16:51] also featured in the 1912 maps and similarly designed but with a slate roof

[16:55] at that time. Uh we do have previous permits as identified. Uh we have the

[17:00] roof replacement, window glazing, brick repointing, installation of hardprove

[17:03] vinyl windows and installation of sign occurring most recently on November 20th

[17:08] uh 2025. uh staff recommendation. Uh in

[17:12] particular, we're recommending denial of this application as the installation of

[17:17] vinyl fencing does not meet design criteria established by the Burough of

[17:21] Gettysburg or the US Department of Interior Secretary standards for the

[17:24] treatment of historic properties. An alternative material such as wood would

[17:28] be in keeping with the rear box fence designs and would meet design

[17:32] requirements. That concludes staff report.

[17:37] » Okay. Thank you, Mr. Whitmore. Um, at this time I'll open up the floor of

[17:42] the board members to ask questions of the applicant and I'll start with Miss

[17:45] Stephanie Shar.

[17:49] » I don't. >> Okay. Mr. Wit, um,

[17:55] I'm kind of at odds here whether he wants to put up a PVC

[18:01] fence which be woodooking. What What color are you talking about?

[18:06] White or brown? There's um it's a brown color. There's actually kind of a

[18:10] rendering of it later in the um if you have the application.

[18:16] » This this was denied by the burrow the PVC thing.

[18:26] » Couple more pages. Oh, right there in the bottom. It's kind

[18:30] of a >> Yeah,

[18:32] » general this >> feel how it would look

[18:36] on page 71.

[18:43] » I'm not sure if I have any real problem with that. Some other people have issues

[18:49] with that. >> Um, well, the I believe uh Mr. Dr.

[18:56] Whitmore said the burough would recommend denying this material.

[19:07] All right. So, John, if you can go back to the tax map

[19:22] there. So,

[19:26] We had gone we have gone through a period of

[19:32] replacement fences and the popularity of the vinyl has increased and

[19:40] it's created a look in many places that's just alien to the historic

[19:47] district to be honest and uh I appreciate the fact that you chosen a

[19:55] color that's a little subtle, more subtle, but along this stretch of the

[20:02] rear of these properties and some of the properties, um, Molly and Steve Wilds,

[20:10] they were here earlier about 54 East Middle Street, you can't even see any of

[20:15] their backyard from either the alley or the

[20:20] street. So, kind of when you work with that, and they're putting a very nice

[20:26] wood fence on it, but it has limited visibility.

[20:29] This has a great deal of visibility from the parking lot of the

[20:36] um firehouse, which is a very frequently used place for activities,

[20:42] gatherings, people park there. And when you look at across at this at these kind

[20:48] of garage buildings and older fences,

[20:55] I I go up that alley frequently because my office is on that alley just one

[20:59] block away. So

[21:04] would you consider I mean you have a wood fence on the one side. I know

[21:09] there's some maintenance issues with wood. I have wood of my own. And I look

[21:14] out across a parking lot at a white vinyl plastic fence

[21:20] that's just alien. That's just very um perfect. That's the best way to

[21:27] describe the plastic look. It's just kind of everything looks the same and

[21:32] all plastic. and the materials become critical in a in the historic district.

[21:41] Is wood out of the question for you? >> Certainly wouldn't be my preference just

[21:46] from a maintenance perspective, but if it's the preferred option,

[21:51] » the other question I have is why such an extensive fence?

[21:58] Now, I know there's one side to the west that does have fence from the back of

[22:05] the house to the garage, and that's a wood fence. It's kind of tumbled down.

[22:12] Now, that was on the left side there. There's an existing wood fence along the

[22:18] property line. >> Um,

[22:22] » yeah, and the map Oh, sorry. Well, I was just going to say, do you expect uh your

[22:28] guests to really use that much of the yard that they need that much privacy or

[22:34] » it's just a lot of fence 6 foot high around that property?

[22:39] » So, this rendering here like that this red outline would not be the

[22:44] footprint of the new fence. Um there's another I don't know if you have the

[22:48] application the pictures I submitted. I can give you a better idea. 27 ft. So

[22:54] that's pretty expensive. This

[22:59] » walk kind of show you here. >> I think this is the gravel parking.

[23:03] » Here it is here. So So on the left side there you can see kind of really from

[23:08] the from the rear of the really the neighbor's house back to the start of

[23:12] the the parking area which on the left side there that's the that's where the

[23:16] existing fence is. Um and then along the back there is already chain link fence

[23:20] there. And then on the right side there's some kind of wiring type, you

[23:24] know, fence material. But really just looking to complete the right side to

[23:29] add some symmetric, you know, symmetricity to the to the design and,

[23:34] you know, some privacy, you know, as well.

[23:39] » I've got a neighbor who has a a plastic fence next to our property and I can

[23:45] understand the desiraability of the plastic. The problem is it's like a

[23:48] redwood color and it's fading. It's not that old

[23:53] » and the sun hits it and it it just fades out. This one you have picked out, the

[23:59] tan one, I don't think would have that. I could see why a white plastic fence

[24:04] would look pretty PVC plumbing type thing. But

[24:10] » and that's why we picked that color to try to, you know, have it

[24:14] maintenancefree, have it look clean, but also, you know, look like as close as we

[24:18] could to wood.

[24:22] » Well, that's all I have. >> I have no other question other than the

[24:27] fact that the fence does not only impact the district, it impacts two neighbors

[24:34] very significantly. two adjoining properties that are

[24:41] private res well they're residential apartments now

[24:48] » again on the left side that there's an existing sixoot fence there already so

[24:52] there wouldn't really be a change from >> as Paul's pointed out the wood a wood

[24:57] fence ages differently than plastic it's more subtle look it's it's it is a

[25:05] maintenance issue They at what ages it kind of becomes softer in appearance

[25:11] than more harsh. >> I have no other questions and I went

[25:18] into too much discussion already. >> I don't really have any questions. I

[25:24] mean I feel bad. It's just that it doesn't comply with what we are allow.

[25:28] » Sure. >> Okay.

[25:30] » Doesn't comply. Yeah. I mean I have a white fence. I'm not in the B. I am in

[25:35] the burrow, but I'm not in the historic district. Let me clarify that. Um, and

[25:40] it actually I do have to clean it a lot. But, um, yeah, it just I'm sorry. It

[25:47] doesn't fit. >> Yeah. Would I be able to get approval

[25:50] for recommendation for approval if I did it with wood instead?

[25:54] » I think so. Right. >> I believe so.

[25:58] » Yeah.

[26:02] Does >> that need to be a separate application

[26:03] or could I we could take care of that here today?

[26:06] » I believe we can make a motion to approve once we

[26:09] » I'm good. >> Okay, you're good.

[26:11] » Right with Susan. >> Okay.

[26:14] » Staff would just recommend in making that app making that motion to specify

[26:18] the material as wood. Then we can make that the condition.

[26:23] » Okay. So, I guess I go through the proposed finding effect.

[26:27] Um the structure at 162 York Street is located within the boundaries of the

[26:32] Gettysburg Historic District and thus comes under the review right of this

[26:36] board is subject to oversight under chapter 11 of the burrow of Gettysburg

[26:41] Municipal Code which governs the preservation of historic and

[26:44] architecturally significant areas within the burrow. It is a sensitive building

[26:50] as defined by the Gettysburg municipal code being over 50 years old and

[26:55] represents a vernacular interpretation of Greek revival style with early

[27:00] Italianade influence. Uh the building is a contri contributing

[27:05] structure to the Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District with a long history in

[27:10] the Burrow of Gettysburg. Constructed circa 1850 as a twostory brick dwelling

[27:16] and its masonry construction, balanced proportions and modest ornate treatment

[27:21] aligned with our local vernacular forms that bridge the early federal and late

[27:26] Italian architectures. The proposed work is considered a major

[27:31] project with exterior alterations to a sensitive building, including

[27:35] replacement of 227 linear feet of 6ft tall fencing in the rear yard with a

[27:41] material change from wood to vinyl PVC and construct a new 14x14 stamp patio.

[27:48] The property is viewable from the public way of York Street and East Racorse

[27:54] Alley. The Secretary of Interior Standards and

[27:58] Gettysburg Design Guide both play a crucial role in our historic

[28:01] preservation process. Please consider the following. Standard 9, compatible

[28:05] alterations provides that new additions, exterior alterations

[28:10] uh and related site improvements should be compatible with the historic property

[28:15] in terms of scale, design, materials, workmanship, and overall visual

[28:20] character. Accordingly, proposed elements including the replacement

[28:24] fencing and patio should remain compatible with the historic character

[28:28] of the structure in terms of scale, proportion, material, finish, and

[28:32] architectural appearance. At this point, is there a motion by this board as a

[28:37] issuance of a certificate of appropriateness to the burrow for the

[28:41] proposed work? And are there any additional conditions this board would

[28:45] advise be added to the application? >> Joe, John had a comment. Um just to

[28:51] confirm with the findings of fact that the material would be wood that just

[28:58] » correct. So in the motion >> so I'll make a motion to propose

[29:02] acceptance if it is confirmed that the material is

[29:07] worth in a prettier way. You can say that

[29:11] nicely.

[29:14] So, there is a motion to approve the 227 linear feet of 6ft bench in the rear

[29:22] yard uh with a proposed material of wood. Um, do we need to specify a style

[29:30] » and you you had the option to do so, but this time the issue that staff found and

[29:36] recommend basically material itself. Okay.

[29:39] » There's a specific design you'd like to see other than what's being provided by

[29:42] the clarify style.

[29:45] » Do you want to specify a style? >> No.

[29:48] » Okay. Um,

[29:52] so we have a proposed motion. Is there a second?

[29:59] I'll second it. >> Okay. Mr. Spitler has second. Uh,

[30:07] all in favor say I. >> I.

[30:10] » I. Uh any opposed? All right. So, the motion has been

[30:17] approved uh for the new fence in a wood material.

[30:23] Are there any questions about the patio? >> No questions about the patio.

[30:27] » Okay.

[30:31] » Well, you good. >> Just want to make sure we didn't miss

[30:34] it. Thank you.

[30:38] » Okay.

[30:42] Moving on to new business COA26-000061

[30:48] critical project 26 East High Street. Uh Kevin Buyers.

[30:54] » Yep. >> And I guess we'll go to Mr. Whitmore for

[30:58] the background of the project. This is a rear exterior construction to include a

[31:02] new patio, masonry fireplace, 8 in square, 8 foot tall endura stone pro

[31:08] series columns on second floor balcony, replacement exterior ceiling with wood,

[31:13] and construction of a 6 ftx 8 ft utility shed. Structure first appears on the

[31:19] 1912 Sandborn maps as a two-story brick dwelling with a slate or tin roof with

[31:25] iron shutters. Um, numerous permits uh since 2013 are found. The most recent

[31:32] involved with minor subdivision uh related to consolidating parking to the

[31:37] rear of the structure. But otherwise, um, in February of 2025, there were, um,

[31:42] um, improvements to the structure itself, including replacement of front

[31:45] awning, painting the wood, replacing rear vinyl siding with LP siding,

[31:48] conversion to of electric to gas lighting elements, and interior work to

[31:52] include new kitchen laundry room bathrooms, adding a gas fireplace, and

[31:56] electric upgrades. Um, staff recommends that any historic features that can be

[32:01] repaired and restored should be preserved. Uh the applicant should

[32:05] discuss the current condition of the facade and proposed window style with

[32:08] board members. Um additionally the um any the

[32:14] accessory structure uh the utility shed. Um the appropriateness of exterior

[32:19] architectural features which can be seen from a public street rightway is a point

[32:23] of consideration as is the general design arrangement, texture, material

[32:27] and color of the building sign or fence and the relation of such factors to

[32:30] similar features in the district. That concludes the report with a

[32:35] recommendation based on um factors two and five of the US Secretary of

[32:39] Interior's standards for the rehabilitation and guidelines for

[32:43] rehabilitating historic buildings 2017. Okay. Uh thank you. Uh would you like to

[32:51] give us a summary of your project? >> Yes. So um to the rear currently um

[32:57] we'll go down the list. So currently the there's vinyl railing and vinyl columns

[33:04] uh on the second floor to the back. And we're looking to replace that vinyl with

[33:11] um it's a endura cast stone. It's going to be painted, so it will look like

[33:15] wood, but it's actually a cast stone supportive column. Um, and then for the

[33:21] railing was just going to be a black rot iron uh railing.

[33:26] So, it would have painted columns, rot iron railing. Um

[33:32] that and then working down the ceiling to

[33:37] that second floor balcony and the ceiling that would

[33:41] that picture was just included to show that's the only pvious part of my

[33:47] property. Everything else is already blacked top or concreted.

[33:50] Uh that's that's for the front which we're not doing anything with that.

[33:55] Um but anyway, so replace the vinyl columns, the vinyl railing with uh newer

[34:00] columns. Replace the Yeah. replace the ceiling above, which again is all vinyl

[34:07] um with wood. Um and that would be on the second floor ceiling and the first

[34:12] floor porch ceiling. Take away the vinyl, make it wood. Um and then there's

[34:18] a there's the columns. there is a um outline there or a a plan of the

[34:25] property. So, we do want to enclose with a privacy fence which would be six foot.

[34:30] It'll be wood. Um I think I sent a picture of the fence in as well there.

[34:37] Be similar to that. The boards would overlap. It would be finished on both

[34:41] sides just like the other gentleman had said for his. Um, and that would just

[34:45] kind of enclose a little um, PA patio out back. And then the only other two

[34:52] things would be the shed itself, which I think this the notes say um, 6x8, but

[35:00] it's going to be 6x10, but with the overhangs, it'll end up being 7 by 10.

[35:06] And that would fit to the one side of the property. It's kind of a salt box

[35:10] carriage style. Um, the siding on that is going to match the approved LP smart

[35:18] siding that's actually on the taking down vinyl siding and putting LP smart

[35:23] siding um to the back of the house as well. So, that'll just match that. It'll

[35:27] be the same same thing. Um, oh, and then the only other thing would

[35:32] be we're actually proposing a masonry uh fireplace to the rear of this this new

[35:39] patio section. And I have kind of a pretty close example of what that would

[35:44] look like. So, it's fireplace, shed, pavers, fence,

[35:50] replace vinyl with wood andor uh rod iron.

[36:03] Okay. If there's uh nothing more, we can uh open up to the board to ask

[36:09] questions. make comments. We can start with you, Mr. Wit.

[36:16] » I have no questions or comments now.

[36:21] » So, if you if you'd go to Can you show this

[36:27] picture?

[36:32] So, you're changing the exist You're changing a lot of material on this back

[36:37] porch. Well, yeah. The the siding to the right is vinyl, and that's going to be

[36:42] that was already approved as part of this current um permit, but that's going

[36:47] to be the LP smart siding, which is basically wood and then painted. Um and

[36:52] then yes, the vinyl would disappear. >> And so, and you're replacing that with

[36:58] the this wood? >> Yes.

[37:00] » Material for the >> be like a tongue and groove wood ceiling

[37:04] for um each of the two. And then the columns

[37:08] are just going to be a um they're not PVC, it's called Endura

[37:13] Stone. It's but they're they're weightbearing uh Craftsman style

[37:19] uh columns. >> Okay.

[37:21] » Is it plastic? >> I'm sorry. I'm not

[37:23] » It is >> um

[37:26] » it will be it's not plastic, but it it's called Endura Stone Pro. Let me I'll see

[37:31] what it's actually made of. But you have a currently they're all

[37:37] just wood columns. Wood >> wrapped in vinyl.

[37:40] » Yeah. >> Okay. And

[37:44] » even the upper columns are wrapped in vinyl.

[37:47] » Yeah. The two downstairs ones are not. They are wood.

[37:51] The two green ones on the front. But all of those up top there are wrapped in

[37:56] vinyl. just and that railing is only about I don't

[38:01] know 28 30 in tall

[38:05] » and that is a vinyl railing now. Okay. >> Um

[38:10] » so it's a fiberglass reinforced polymer stronger than concrete and steel by

[38:13] weight. >> Okay.

[38:15] » A stone column

[38:22] » and a rod iron railing. A very decorative railing.

[38:25] » Yeah. Okay. >> Well, it's I mean at the at the very top

[38:30] there's like 6 in that has a little bit of a

[38:32] » Mhm. >> decorative, but the rest of it, you

[38:35] know, just

[38:42] it just seems like a very modern update to a kind of what was it? A late

[38:48] Victorian house, Italian 8 influence house. You don't see many porches kind

[38:53] of variate from the the white fence or the white railing.

[39:00] » Um, okay. I do have a question.

[39:03] » Oh, I was just going to say, sorry. Um, there's iron on the front of the house.

[39:07] There's a, you know, stairs to the front that has black railing. So, rod iron is

[39:14] kind of part of the house already in the front.

[39:19] » Okay. Um, as far as the shed, is is it a

[39:26] permanent structure? Is there a foundation? Is or is it just kind of

[39:30] dropped off and >> Well, it's not going to be dropped off.

[39:32] It'll be stick built there, but it'll be it'll just sit on the macadam that's

[39:36] already there. >> Okay.

[39:41] All right. I don't have any more questions. Yeah, my my questions are

[39:46] very similar to Joe's as far as I just think uh

[39:52] even though the railings and columns are plastic.

[39:56] Um did you install them?

[39:59] » No, we just I just we just purchased the property two and a half years ago. So I

[40:04] don't know how long those have been there. Um, I would imagine they possibly

[40:09] replicated particularly particularly the

[40:15] railing replicated pretty much the style that was on the porch. As Joe said, we

[40:21] don't see row iron railings on porches in general that were there that style.

[40:30] Um just we

[40:36] it's not unusual for these houses front and back or front porches when these

[40:41] properties were built. Um very few railings were put on the lower porches

[40:47] and very few railings on stairs and everything. And as they've

[40:52] been added over time, you're correct. They have gotten rod iron and iron

[40:57] railings on the front. on these steps because they were they were added. They

[41:03] were a later addition. Um even now we're hearing we're seeing code enforcement

[41:11] direct people that have apartments to put railings on. So we're getting deck

[41:17] style railings on the front of houses. I just

[41:24] the endura the lower columns look like they pretty much replicate what may have

[41:31] been original because a lot of these on back porches and rear porches had a

[41:37] square column with a beveled corner and it had a little bit of decorative

[41:42] element to it. But um

[41:47] the how large I mean your rendering makes those columns go from very thin

[41:54] look very heavy and out of proportion >> right well to space them out properly up

[42:00] because the other thing with this is we're planning to take those stairs away

[42:04] right now there's I don't know if there's a better picture but there's

[42:08] there was a second floor apartment upstairs before so there's these stairs

[42:12] that come down. So, they would come off and then that would make those two

[42:16] columns to spread them out correctly. Uh they're basically about 8 feet in

[42:20] between each one of those. So, those columns upstairs would would move to

[42:24] make it more symmetrical or that was the plan

[42:29] because without the stairs, >> how big are the columns?

[42:32] » Um they're very small. They're five, six inches. I don't know. They're

[42:38] not. They're probably only four to five inches.

[42:42] » 8 in square. >> They're 8 inch square, which is not

[42:45] » Oh, you mean the new columns? I thought you meant the old ones.

[42:48] » The Yeah, the the the new ones would be wider than the old ones. Yeah, I thought

[42:51] you were talking about the width of the old ones.

[42:53] » That's Yeah, that's a larger column than would have been typical for that house.

[42:59] » Well, it's closer to the size of the ones that are currently downstairs on

[43:02] the first floor.

[43:08] We're going to have the white up up pieces and then the crack metal

[43:15] railing, black metal railing on that. >> Yeah, these would get painted a trim

[43:19] color there. It' be more of a um well, it's called a stone color, but it's more

[43:24] of a grayish tan color because that's the color of the siding. Um, so they're

[43:31] not going to be white. They will be painted.

[43:34] And then the black, which I can try to find a less

[43:38] decorative black and just I was having trouble finding an affordable solution.

[43:43] I went to a metal fabricator in handover to just get single pickets and his price

[43:48] was just crazy. But I was able to find these. I don't know if I can find them

[43:53] without the decorative so that they're just slats there.

[44:00] which would which would replicate more of what's out front on the front steps,

[44:03] which is just a railing with straight row iron.

[44:10] » Um, no further questions right now.

[44:19] » So, the fence is wood, right? >> Yes.

[44:21] » Yeah, that wasn't I don't think it was listed in here. We have to make sure we

[44:24] list that. >> Oh, yes. There was a picture included,

[44:27] but yeah, it's wood. >> Yeah, I don't really have any questions.

[44:34] » I don't have any either.

[44:39] Okay.

[44:42] All right. I guess I'll go through the proposed finding effect.

[44:47] Uh the structure at 26 East High Street is

[44:53] located within the boundaries of the Gettysburg Historic District and thus

[44:58] comes under the right review right of this board. It is subject to oversight

[45:03] under chapter 11 of the Burough of Gettysburg Municipal Code which governs

[45:07] the preservation of historic and architecturally significant areas within

[45:11] the burrow. Two, it is a sensitive building as

[45:15] defined by the Gettysburg Municipal Code being over 50 years old and represents a

[45:20] vernacular commercial residential building with late Victorian and Italian

[45:26] influence. The building is a contributing resource within the

[45:30] Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District. First depicted on the 1912

[45:34] Sandborn maps as a two-story brick dwelling with a slate or tin roof and

[45:39] iron shutters. Uh the structure continues to convey its historic

[45:44] character through its masonry construction, vernacular Victorian form,

[45:48] asymmetrical facade and a projecting second story bay window, decorative

[45:54] cornice treatment and traditional urban lot configuration. The proposed work is

[45:59] considered a major project uh with exterior alterations to a

[46:04] sensitive building including replacement of first and second floor columns and

[46:09] railing, exterior ceiling, second floor balcony railing, uh the construction of

[46:15] a 16x 24 patio and surrounding 6ft tall wood privacy fence. construction of a

[46:23] masonry fireplace and construction of a 6' x10 ft utility shed. The property is

[46:29] viewable from the public way on East High Street and East Legion Alley. Uh

[46:34] the Secretary of Interior Standards and Gettysburg Design Guide both play a

[46:38] crucial role in our historic preservation process. Please consider

[46:42] the following. Standard 9 compatible al alterations provides that new additions,

[46:47] exterior alterations, and related site improvements should be compatible with

[46:52] the historic property in terms of scale, design, materials, workmanship, and

[46:57] overall visual character. Accordingly, proposed elements include a patio,

[47:01] masonry fireplace, utility shed, fencing, and replacement columns and

[47:06] railing, and should be evaluated for their compatibility with the historic

[47:10] character of the structure and its setting.

[47:14] Uh, one thing that came up during his presentation, it was about the rear

[47:18] stair. >> We can't address that at this time. Is

[47:22] that correct? >> Was already

[47:24] » or was it already approved?

[47:28] I believe that was previously approved in 2025. Um, let me go back.

[47:40] » Can I say something real quick while you're looking?

[47:43] » Would it look less modern if this ceiling was painted?

[47:59] instead of stained wood. You mean? >> Yeah.

[48:06] » We don't want it to look more modern. >> No, I meant I didn't mean more modern.

[48:12] I'm sorry. I meant >> it looks more modern wood than it would

[48:17] be if it were painted. >> Oh, so a painted ceiling. Their

[48:31] question was, should the columns be smaller like the upper columns?

[48:35] » When I look at the back picture with the white, even though they're vinyl, the

[48:39] white, the back photograph of what's there now is very much in character with

[48:46] what the house would have looked. >> The rod iron is alien.

[48:50] Um if it's

[48:54] if the columns are a little I think 8 in is bigger than

[49:00] generally on the properties we've done we use a 6x6 column

[49:05] um for porch columns uh 8 in by 8 in

[49:13] just a heavier look. >> Do you wrap those 6 in x 6 in columns?

[49:18] » Pardon? Do those 6 in x 6 in columns you refer to get wrapped then or just

[49:22] painted? >> I think that the endura stone or the

[49:28] there's other there's other PVC columns that have a that are made that

[49:36] have the weightbearing capacity that are 6x6.

[49:40] I even found some hollow well wooden columns that are structural that are

[49:47] hollow in the middle that I could I could use those too. But I was I was

[49:51] looking for an 8 in as opposed to

[49:55] » I think that's just heavier than what if we can get the pictures back. It I think

[50:00] it would have had a white railing uh p similar to what was there. You know, it

[50:07] shows up in 1912 on the tax tax maps that kind of dates it much earlier.

[50:16] » It's It was built in 1908. >> Pardon?

[50:19] » It was built in 1908.

[50:29] » The current columns, even though they're modern, you said they're vinyl, but

[50:33] they're still turned. So they have a instead of just a straight form, they

[50:38] have character. >> Yeah. And there's all kinds of different

[50:41] styles as you walk around. Some are turned like that. Some are just like the

[50:45] the bottom ones there, which are just they just have shaving on the corners

[50:50] and things like that.

[50:56] » I my I think the port should retain the

[51:02] white um railing of the and I'm not going to

[51:07] stipulate any height because I don't know whether this is a vacation rental

[51:13] now or will be >> well I'm I'm going to live there when

[51:17] I'm here but for part of the year about a third of the year I would probably

[51:21] want to offer to short-term rental but it'll be my primary residence

[51:25] » because I don't know what that does to the railing a private residence can have

[51:30] a three-foot railing a commercial use >> shortterm goes to commercial. So 42 in,

[51:37] » right? >> Oh, I thought it was 40. It's 42.

[51:39] » 42 on a commercial. >> So still I would pref I myself think

[51:47] um the white square columns that look about the same as the

[51:52] ones on the first floor, the green ones, is an appropriate look for back porch.

[51:58] Even though the vinyl ones were turned, that's probably a little bit more

[52:03] decorative than they would have had on a rear porch. Um, we saw them mainly in

[52:11] town. We see them mainly on front porch. Um, so I have no issue with the square

[52:17] column that's a a little smaller, but I would I will

[52:23] have I would prefer and would recommend we ask for the white railing um the

[52:32] traditional top rail square um pickets and bottom rail rather than a

[52:40] ornamental rod iron. >> I could do that. Um,

[52:44] » it's not going to be PVC though. It'll be wood. I don't you know

[52:47] » it doesn't I I would not actually You've got vinyl material in place.

[52:54] I think you could use one of the vinyl railings that replicates.

[53:00] » Well, we want to try to make this house more like it looked too. So, we would go

[53:05] to that's why we're trying to replace some of this vinyl with wood.

[53:09] So my point is simply that's a very strong look and it's very close to I

[53:15] think what would have been original to the building.

[53:17] » Okay. >> And the rod iron is a different look

[53:24] and I don't think I mean that would be a change from what was there. I don't

[53:29] think it would had raw iron.

[53:35] So, would you be okay if we made a motion to

[53:41] change the porch railings to the specified whatever is required height,

[53:47] » right? Required height, which 42 in and the more of a more of a spindle,

[53:52] » right? White. >> Well, yeah, I guess it won't be white.

[53:56] It'll be painted a >> painted to match the trim.

[54:00] » Yeah, I don't like white.

[54:04] and the columns to be six inch square. Is that is that what you're saying? Six

[54:13] inch square columns.

[54:21] Um I don't know if I want to be that specific. I I'd like them to be about

[54:26] what's on the first floor. And >> yeah, there won't be

[54:31] » saying those are eight, but I don't think those are 8 in squares.

[54:34] » I think they're about six. >> If they are, they're appropriate.

[54:39] » But >> so the columns to match the columns on

[54:42] the first floor. You're keeping the columns on the first floor.

[54:45] » Well, I wasn't planning to, but if I am, then I have to I don't know if they'll

[54:50] match. Well, if they could if they could the columns could be

[54:56] similar size to the columns that are there currently.

[54:59] » I can do 6 in >> wooden columns is what you're looking

[55:02] for.

[55:08] » Okay. >> And then a

[55:10] similar spindle type railing

[55:18] 42 in. Yeah, I mean that's my recommendation if

[55:23] the board. >> So I guess we the the motion that we put

[55:27] forward would be to approve uh the replacement of the first

[55:34] and second floor columns and and railing

[55:39] uh with 6 in wooden or composite >> wooden columns.

[55:46] Um, a 42 inch railing. >> Are we specifying a design?

[55:53] » Not red iron. >> Okay. But it could be a composite or PVC

[55:59] or >> Okay.

[56:02] » Or wood. >> Or wood.

[56:06] Just not rot iron. >> Correct.

[56:09] » Okay. Well, a simple traditional a traditional

[56:13] railing similar to what's in place. >> This compliant with code.

[56:20] » What? >> This compliant with code. Correct. Okay.

[56:23] » Right. >> Wood ceiling

[56:26] » compliant with code. >> All right. So, we're going to go with is

[56:34] » wood fence. >> The the motion would be to replace the

[56:37] first and second floor columns. uh with 6-inch wooden columns,

[56:42] uh either a wood composite or PVC fence that is code compliant.

[56:48] Um the exterior ceiling in wood. Uh construct a new 16x 24 patio and

[56:58] surrounding 6 ft tall wood fence. uh construction of the masonry fireplace

[57:05] and construction of a six foot by 10 foot utility shed.

[57:12] » Does the shed have to be specify what what materials was it listed?

[57:19] » It'll be the LP smart siding wood >> wood and then architectural shingles.

[57:28] But >> I believe that was in here. Okay.

[57:31] All right. So, is that a motion by you? >> All right. We have a motion made by Miss

[57:38] Suzanne Christensen. Do we have a second?

[57:43] » Second. >> Okay. All in favor say I.

[57:48] » I. >> Any opposed?

[57:52] Uh, so motion will pass with with considerations. Yes.

[57:58] » Thank you. >> Thank you so appreciate it.

[58:00] » It'll be gorgeous. >> I can't wait.

[58:09] » You know, you have to wait till the burrow meeting is the burough council

[58:14] meeting is >> it'll be July 13th.

[58:18] » July 13th. And then you'll you should start buying material then,

[58:23] » right? >> Yep. Okay.

[58:25] » I mean, when they approve it, if they approve it,

[58:28] move. >> Yeah.

[58:31] » When have a good night. Appreciate your time.

[58:35] » And I see we have representation for 312 Baltimore Street. Mr. Ted Hurt. Uh Mr.

[58:43] Whitmore, can you give us a background on the project?

[58:46] » Uh yes. This is the reconstruction of the exterior facade of the carriage

[58:50] house to include a new carriage door design. This project had previously been

[58:54] presented to the board. Um, the parcel has been scoped on the 18/19 Sandborn

[59:01] maps as a two-story brick dwelling with a tin or slate roof and rear wood framed

[59:06] porch all with shingled roof. A carriage house is shown as 318 12 and comprises a

[59:12] 1.5tory woodframe structure with shingle roof and side portion being onetory

[59:16] tall. It is also featured in the 1912 map, similarly designed but with a slate

[59:21] roof. By 1902, the structures on site had uh changed with the carriage house

[59:26] now being a twostory brick structure with a slater tin roof. The structure

[59:31] remained on the same uh remained the same in 1907 Sanborn maps but was

[59:36] updated in 1902 1912 map sorry to include onestory southacing addition

[59:43] with a slate or tin roof. Um, terms of land use permits, most recent was in

[59:48] June uh for the emergency repairs to the foundation and exterior wall. Um, staff

[59:55] recommends that any historic features that can be repaired and restored should

[59:58] be preserved. The applicant should discuss the current condition of the

[1:00:00] facade and proposed window style door style with board members. uh the

[1:00:05] appropriateness of the exterior architectural features which can be seen

[1:00:08] from a public street or of wideway and the general design or arrangement

[1:00:12] texture material and color of the building sign or fence and the relation

[1:00:15] of such factors or to similar features in the districts are point of

[1:00:19] consideration and then um establishing the um US Secretary of Interior

[1:00:24] standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic

[1:00:27] districts. Um there the enumerated standards in particular uh the historic

[1:00:33] character of the property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of

[1:00:36] historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a

[1:00:40] property shall be avoided and distinctive features, finishes and

[1:00:44] construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a

[1:00:47] property shall be preserved. That concludes the staff report.

[1:00:51] » Thank you, Mr. Whitmore. Um good evening. Would you like to tell us

[1:00:57] uh a description of your project? >> Uh yes. My name is uh Ted Hurt and uh

[1:01:03] the corporate ownership is actually the uh company called Gard LLC, but I'm the

[1:01:08] manager and co-owner. And um I mean by way of background, we

[1:01:13] had an emergency permit uh granted uh because basically the the wall uh was

[1:01:20] basically literally coming down in April and we had to shore it up. uh and

[1:01:25] basically then we filed uh the application and uh we actually were

[1:01:31] before this body I believe it is May 20 and at that time uh we walked through

[1:01:38] the design proposal which was basically replicating

[1:01:44] the carriage door facade style uh somewhat different from what you see

[1:01:50] but basically the same style and we submitted the drawings to that effect

[1:01:55] and uh Mr. Hartzell is with me and he's also submitted I believe to Mr. Whitmore

[1:02:01] uh what the what the U designs would be for the door and windows in question

[1:02:05] because that came up at the at the meeting as well. So basically we're

[1:02:10] trying to replicate what it was before the collapse of April.

[1:02:18] Okay, thank you. I'll open up the floor to the board for comments or questions.

[1:02:24] Mr. Schaefer, do you want to start?

[1:02:30] So, um, what are you actually then proposing

[1:02:37] with this? Um,

[1:02:43] okay. We had some question about how the windows were divided in the last month's

[1:02:50] discussion and I've been back and and the smaller divisions in the windows

[1:02:57] and door are appropriate to the building because the dormers and everything have

[1:03:03] very old small pane window. Um,

[1:03:10] yeah. I have no questions in regard to this new design.

[1:03:17] » Yeah, you're doing the the white board and the brick in between,

[1:03:22] » right? >> Yes.

[1:03:23] » Yeah. Yep. No questions. >> Down to you, Stephanie?

[1:03:29] » No. No questions. >> All right.

[1:03:34] I'll go on to the proposed finding effect. The structure at 312 Baltimore

[1:03:39] Street is located within the boundaries of the Gettysburg Historic District and

[1:03:43] this comes under the review rights of this board. It is subject to oversight

[1:03:47] under chapter 11 of the Bureau of Gettysburg Municipal Code which governs

[1:03:52] the preservation of historic and architecturally significant areas within

[1:03:56] the burrow. It is a sensitive building as defined in the Gettysburg municipal

[1:04:01] code being over 50 years old and represents a 19th century brick carriage

[1:04:06] house or stable building exhibiting vernacular architecture. The building is

[1:04:11] a contributing resource within the Gettysburg Battlefield Historic

[1:04:14] District. First depicted on the 1896 Sanborn map and by 1902 the structure is

[1:04:22] described in its current form as a one and a halftory brick carriage house with

[1:04:26] slate or tin roof and exhibits a simple design which is utilitarian rather than

[1:04:32] stylistic emphasizing function over ornament. The building's historic

[1:04:37] character is conveyed through its masonry construction, simple massing and

[1:04:41] large carriage openings. The proposed work is considered a major project with

[1:04:45] the exterior alterations to a sensitive building or site including

[1:04:50] reconstruction of exterior facade of rear carriage house to include new

[1:04:54] carriage door design as presented in the proposed exterior elevation option two.

[1:05:00] The property is viewable from the public way of Baltimore Street and schoolhouse

[1:05:04] alley. The Secretary of the Interior Standards

[1:05:08] and the Gettysburg Design Guide both play a crucial role in our historic

[1:05:12] preservation process. Please consider the following. Standard two, historic

[1:05:16] character. The proposed work retains and preserves the historic character of the

[1:05:21] property includes including those features, materials, and spatial

[1:05:25] relationships that convey its significance as a historic resource.

[1:05:30] Standard nine, new work. Any new construction, reconstruction,

[1:05:33] replacement, features, or exterior alteration should remain compatible with

[1:05:38] the historic character of the property and district while remaining

[1:05:42] distinguishable from the original historic fabric. At this point, is there

[1:05:46] a motion by this board as to an issuance of a certificate of appropriateness to

[1:05:51] burrow counsel for the proposed work? Are there any other conditions or

[1:05:55] stipulations that the board would advise?

[1:06:00] I also have one comment. >> Go ahead.

[1:06:05] » After last meeting, it was recommended that we change to a two panel manor

[1:06:14] instead of what was proposed on the design,

[1:06:17] » which we did, >> and was recommended that we eliminate

[1:06:21] the uh 6 over6 light

[1:06:26] windows. >> Mhm. Um there was some controversial

[1:06:30] comments made by the board about like the existing windows that wasn't

[1:06:35] necessarily true. >> Okay.

[1:06:37] » Um but we did eliminate them as well kind of with the board recommendation of

[1:06:42] trying to move in that direction. The both structures do have windows that

[1:06:46] have grids in them currently. Um but the new window will not based off of what we

[1:06:52] heard you guys uh desiring and then the the door will keep

[1:06:59] the nine light um extruded or it's in the light. Um

[1:07:07] » okay. So so this design is what you're proposing is changed from this design

[1:07:13] » those two things. Correct. >> Okay.

[1:07:16] Are there any questions from the board based on that comment? And Miss Meer,

[1:07:21] that's Darren Hartzell.

[1:07:26] » So, you've you've already replaced them, right? Or no?

[1:07:30] » Well, we've changed the design to not match that based off of last meeting's

[1:07:35] comments, basically. >> Okay.

[1:07:38] » All right. So, the two comments were that the the window on the left have no

[1:07:43] grids, >> correct? And the second was a instead of

[1:07:48] the nine light door or >> instead of a smooth panel door, it's a

[1:07:52] two panel. >> Okay.

[1:07:55] » To resemble the existing wood two panel door 9 that was there before the

[1:08:03] reation.

[1:08:07] So, and I think that goes back to your comment about the the light, the divided

[1:08:12] light. >> Yeah, we we had basically

[1:08:18] focused all on the front elevation and if if that's what we stipulated, I can

[1:08:25] go with it. But in going back and walking around more closely after that

[1:08:31] last meeting, the windows and everything all have

[1:08:35] grids on all the other sides. So, but it it's not inappropriate to

[1:08:47] prove what we did la, you know, to continue with what we directed them to

[1:08:51] do last month. >> Okay.

[1:08:55] It says

[1:09:13] using the main house struct using the main house structure.

[1:09:20] Yeah, the garden is very short. I don't know. This is so much stuff.

[1:09:25] » Basically, the way that I interpreted the meeting and the questions and the

[1:09:28] comments from last meeting was that when these bridged windows are being

[1:09:33] replaced, >> you guys would like to see

[1:09:38] » solid windows. When the rest of these windows

[1:09:43] get replaced in this building, they would be getting replaced to match the

[1:09:47] house and the new window since we're not doing an entire

[1:09:53] renovation. They won't match for now, but when they do get renovated,

[1:09:59] the rest of them do get replaced, they at that point match this particular.

[1:10:03] » So the so the window on the left is going to be a one over one.

[1:10:07] » Correct. >> And then the door will be

[1:10:12] » it is a nine light. It will be a nine light.

[1:10:14] » It will be a nine light. >> Yeah.

[1:10:15] » Just a nine light two panel. Make sure

[1:10:20] » Jen whatever

[1:10:32] » has the window on the left been bought? >> It has.

[1:10:40] » Yeah, cuz that wouldn't match what's shown here for the front building.

[1:10:44] » Yeah, we looked at the house. Yeah. >> And took that as the direction.

[1:10:49] » We only we only changed it because of the recommendation from the last.

[1:10:54] » Mhm. >> Thank you.

[1:10:57] » I agree. I think that would look nicer, but

[1:11:02] » Okay. Well, is there a motion

[1:11:19] Okay, I'll do it. Nobody else will I'll make a motion

[1:11:24] to um

[1:11:29] to accept the proposal with the clarification

[1:11:33] that the window will be a one over one and the door will remain

[1:11:41] in my right. Is that what you call it? like my

[1:11:45] » Mhm.

[1:11:48] » And that the materials are brick

[1:11:55] and wood as described. That's wood. Is that That's wood. Okay.

[1:12:00] As described in the proposal. >> Okay.

[1:12:05] So, it's pretty much the the motion is to be approved as submitted with the

[1:12:12] addition of the one over one window, >> right?

[1:12:16] » And the nine light. >> Well, I mean, the the door that's there

[1:12:21] isn't is a nine light. You're replacing the door with the same door,

[1:12:25] » right? A similar door. >> Style door.

[1:12:27] » Yeah, same style door. >> Okay. Well, it's just different than

[1:12:32] submitted. Okay. Uh, is there a second?

[1:12:38] » I'll second. >> Oh, second by Mr. Wit. Uh, all in favor

[1:12:44] say I. >> I.

[1:12:46] » I. >> All opposed.

[1:12:51] None. Okay. Thank you.

[1:12:57] » Thanks. and you know to wait until uh the

[1:13:02] burough council approves this before you do all your work.

[1:13:11] » All right. So that is the end of new business.

[1:13:18] We're on to section seven reports.

[1:13:24] » Thanks. >> Thank you.

[1:13:26] » Thank you.

[1:13:29] Is that me or is that you? >> Um, if if you have nothing to report on,

[1:13:34] we can provide the the COA. Um, I >> have nothing to report on.

[1:13:38] » Okay. Yes, we did have four uh certificates of appropriateness for

[1:13:41] minor projects that were administratively approved. Um, those are

[1:13:46] provided on the um agenda. The draft chapter 11 historic district ordinance

[1:13:53] updates. We received some comment from board members. we provided a draft. Um

[1:13:58] the expectation is that at the July 15th meeting, which is going to be here

[1:14:04] before we know it, um at that meeting, then we would probably seek a

[1:14:08] recommendation for the changes. Um the HARB is providing a recommendation to

[1:14:15] council. Ultimately, the historic district is their review. Um

[1:14:21] there have been um specific wants that they would like to see specifically as

[1:14:27] it relates to administrative processes and providing opportunities for

[1:14:31] increased uh um I would say providing opportunities for increased

[1:14:37] administrative review to eliminate potential for increased building opport

[1:14:42] building building costs associated with having to go through an a longer review

[1:14:47] process or potentially really um challen making plans challenging to approve. Um

[1:14:54] as it relates to the um revised district standards, we did include the um

[1:15:01] revisions to the um district as has previously been

[1:15:08] recommended by HARB. Um, additionally, we made changes to reverse language that

[1:15:15] uh included should statements for um the professionals that are required to serve

[1:15:20] on the board. And then um there were some uh I guess other changes that have

[1:15:25] been brought to the attention of the board from public comment. Um I guess

[1:15:29] now is this would be the the final opportunity really to put these into a

[1:15:34] document to be have a recommendation. We would need any further comments from

[1:15:39] board members by when would this be? Next July. It would be July 7th, so next

[1:15:46] Tuesday. So we can have it in the agenda for the 15th. Um but otherwise, if

[1:15:53] there's any specific pro um properties of this ordinance that you'd like to

[1:15:57] discuss, we can we're available right now. Um but we'll have a formal

[1:16:01] presentation at next month's meeting. Okay.

[1:16:06] » Can you repeat what you said about

[1:16:11] what people are looking forward to >> having opportunities for administrative

[1:16:18] approvals and there's there are um specifically as it relates to um

[1:16:28] review criteria for projects that some some of them

[1:16:33] historically may have been permitted or at least they were occurring and not

[1:16:37] being enforced upon. Um certain minor activities or certain replacement

[1:16:43] activities that were not viewable. Um we'll be providing

[1:16:48] that direct information that's in the uh recommended by staff at next month's

[1:16:54] meeting, but overall that's direction I've received from council.

[1:16:59] » That seems so am I supposed to read into that? like how do I how do I determine

[1:17:05] what you're saying? Like I feel like it's

[1:17:08] um so there specific examples of things

[1:17:13] that they'd like us to consider or think about, but we're not sure what they are

[1:17:18] exactly. >> No, no. if they're just looking for

[1:17:22] opportunities to streamline the process and to remove the potential for

[1:17:26] individuals having to come before this board for improvements. If there's

[1:17:30] opportunities where we can have >> oh

[1:17:33] » review review not occur through this board but still be acceptable to the

[1:17:36] board if that makes sense. >> I misunderstood. No, I I I go on a train

[1:17:41] wreck when I when I'm talking.

[1:17:45] And I know there was a document that uh that uh Brendan Stone sent about

[1:17:52] changing the date of PARB >> that was that was also put into the

[1:17:56] ordinance. Um this would have uh let me pull it up.

[1:18:03] So this would be uh the board shall meet publicly on the first Wednesday of each

[1:18:08] month. um that would potentially enable um quicker review time by the um council

[1:18:18] when it comes to the the board's motions. Additionally, we're including

[1:18:22] that the applications must be submitted to the bureau of Gettysburg and

[1:18:25] determined to be completed by the planning zoning code enforcement officer

[1:18:29] or designate at least 15 days prior to scheduled meeting to be included on the

[1:18:34] meeting's agenda to provide a deadline. Um the problem we will run into

[1:18:39] otherwise is it'll be the day of the meeting and people have an expectation

[1:18:43] of being able to be on the agenda. We have to be able to have a deadline

[1:18:47] that's then equitable for everyone. >> I have a question. So if they meet the

[1:18:53] first Wednesday of the month, would then the council meeting would fall that

[1:18:58] following Monday? No, it would be um in most all in most instances it's going to

[1:19:04] be the next Monday because the first Monday council does not meet.

[1:19:08] » Yeah, there was a whole kind of timeline depending on each which which day of the

[1:19:14] month or which Wednesday of the month you uh submitted on and whether it added

[1:19:19] time subtracted time to the review process. I think there was one I think

[1:19:24] it was the last uh Wednesday you either missed the meeting and it was longer or

[1:19:30] you made the meeting and it was shorter. So it spelled out all the advantages and

[1:19:35] disadvantages of every Wednesday of that month.

[1:19:39] » So there's like four times a year where the Wednesday falls in the same week as

[1:19:43] the council meeting.

[1:19:47] » You know what I mean? >> Yeah.

[1:19:49] » So that's what makes it longer between >> Well, no. The council the council

[1:19:53] meeting would never fall directly on the same week because the council meeting is

[1:19:58] meeting on the second Monday. They're going to be meeting on the first

[1:20:03] Wednesday.

[1:20:06] » Like in September >> Yeah.

[1:20:08] » council would meet on the 14th. We typically would meet on the 16th.

[1:20:13] » Yeah. But they'd meet on September 2nd then because that's the first Wednesday.

[1:20:21] Yeah, that's that's what's been recommended by uh Chair Stone.

[1:20:25] » Okay. >> And and just to clarify, any comments,

[1:20:30] questions, revisions that we have should come to you by the 7th.

[1:20:35] » Yeah. That that way we can have them in the packet uh with the hope to get the

[1:20:39] packet out either by the 8th or the 9th for next week.

[1:20:44] » Okay. >> Because it's we're going to be meeting

[1:20:46] in two weeks almost. I know I did hear somewhere probably,

[1:20:52] but I didn't find it. Um, is there something with regards to

[1:21:01] emergency situations? >> What What do you mean?

[1:21:05] » Well, you know, somebody has an emergency. I know that over the course

[1:21:10] of the year years there has been situations where for example the food

[1:21:16] kitchen the um there was a an emergency and they needed a roof or something um I

[1:21:24] can't remember was that it >> shel

[1:21:26] » yes >> at the uh

[1:21:29] is there situations to is there some is there is there a portion in here that

[1:21:34] I've missed >> well no that

[1:21:37] » that falls into demolition by neglect. So there's you have situations where the

[1:21:43] building starts to fall down, >> right? Yeah.

[1:21:46] » That doesn't happen unless when the building's maintained.

[1:21:52] » So failure to maintain the structure is resulting in an emergency situation.

[1:21:58] » I'll give you an example. Suzanne Christensen just decided to

[1:22:03] paint her front door and

[1:22:07] then it turned into a bigger project where I was painting another part of my

[1:22:11] house and realized when I'm up on the scaffolding that there's rotted wood

[1:22:17] that water is coming into a space that was unknown. I don't neglect my house.

[1:22:22] It's an it's it's a sort of a similar example where there are times when

[1:22:30] you that it's not neglect that it's too far away. We can't see it. It's you know

[1:22:37] we see it when it happens. I'm just wondering like that really made me feel

[1:22:42] bad that we couldn't deal with that in a timely manner that it had to go.

[1:22:49] I mean, and by the way, it made us look terrible, which is not something we

[1:22:54] love. >> What do you think?

[1:22:57] » Um, I think one, the soup kitchen was unfair

[1:23:05] to us because it wasn't the emergency they were talking about. They had known

[1:23:11] about it for some time and they had it on their schedule for the for this year

[1:23:17] to raise funds and replace the roof. The contractor sort of created it as a

[1:23:25] uh emergency situation and when we looked into it and I looked into the

[1:23:31] minutes and contacted the soup kitchen um

[1:23:36] » it was an emergency. >> It wasn't an emergency and

[1:23:40] You're right. It made us look bad, but it was it was an inaccurate portrayal of

[1:23:46] what had happened. But I don't want to stop there. Had they come in for a

[1:23:52] repair using the same materials, it could have been administratively

[1:23:57] approved. >> Okay.

[1:24:00] » Immediately. That's what we have in our ordinance. You can re if you're

[1:24:05] repairing a situation that needs >> e

[1:24:10] » immediate attention and it's maintaining the same materials and everything, you

[1:24:15] can do that through administrative approval. It's when they wanted to

[1:24:19] change materials or do a new design because there's some long-term design

[1:24:26] deficiency, then they then you can get in a bind.

[1:24:30] But I don't think we should consider major revisions to materials and design

[1:24:37] on a short-term basis because as John said, it's often related to a problem

[1:24:45] that needs more significant investigation

[1:24:49] because there's a design flaw or something of that nature.

[1:24:54] So, I'm comfortable with the repair aspect.

[1:24:59] Now there was the the shed that the trash truck dumped dump, you know, and

[1:25:07] that came in and that has to be an emergency situation. Demolition was

[1:25:13] going to be occurred immediately, you know, without review by the board

[1:25:18] because it was unsafe. But that shed stayed up for weeks, you know, and um so

[1:25:25] the emergency situations usually are are fire related.

[1:25:30] » And we had the one >> on Baltimore Street which just couldn't

[1:25:35] be saved. the one where the beautiful shingle style home that

[1:25:40] came down, >> the the burned out shell, the 202

[1:25:44] Carlile, >> the burned out shell, you know, where

[1:25:48] there was some consideration for demolition,

[1:25:52] but I want to be careful not to build in some kind of emergency,

[1:25:59] » okay, >> thing that doesn't allow us to put the

[1:26:02] brakes on it a little bit. >> Right. Okay.

[1:26:07] B our BCO is not going to go in and approve demolition willy-nilly

[1:26:14] if they know that they're looking at a historic building and they may

[1:26:20] reconsider a little bit. I I would note that from an

[1:26:25] administrative perspective, when we have requests coming to us for from the

[1:26:31] public, an individual seeking immediate repair for an emergency, it's almost

[1:26:37] always ex going to be exclusively located on the roof.

[1:26:41] Um, one of the problems we've run into as of late is there's a real desire from

[1:26:47] our roofing contractors to not utilize three tab asphalt shingles.

[1:26:53] So, here we have a situation where someone is arguably putting on a better

[1:26:58] type of shingle, but they're not able to do so without coming to this board

[1:27:03] first. So that's something that council has indicated they would like to see

[1:27:07] opportunities for those administrative approvals to facilitate

[1:27:13] situations that it may be an emergency. It may be something that in a week or

[1:27:18] two it will still keep but eventually it needs to be replaced in the really near

[1:27:23] term. That's something that council wants to see providing more flexibility

[1:27:27] to residents.

[1:27:32] Reason they don't want to use three tab shingles is they can't keep a straight

[1:27:36] line. >> What?

[1:27:38] » They can't keep a straight line. Architectural hide it.

[1:27:46] » Do they sell three tap shingles? >> Oh, all day long.

[1:27:49] » Really? >> Yes, ma'am.

[1:27:51] » We're going to move to strike the comment by the BCO.

[1:27:57] » It's just his opinion.

[1:28:02] Okay. There's nothing else for >> No, I I'm going to ask a question

[1:28:08] because I was spending some time in the zoning ordinance

[1:28:12] and I'm still in favor of maintaining the height restriction.

[1:28:18] Um, it has not stopped critical

[1:28:24] projects being in there, but it does allow again kind of a

[1:28:33] a review, a slow down, the brakes may take a closer look at this. And in the

[1:28:40] zoning ordinance, it's mentioned. Of course, the height is still mentioned

[1:28:46] about the difference in how they have to comply with the harb with the historic

[1:28:52] district ordinance. And that was one of the critical features

[1:28:58] in the original uh the 50-year-old we have uh ordinance

[1:29:06] is that to stop the acceleration. So I'm looking at I can be very specific. The

[1:29:13] second block of York Street is a twostory block except for St. James

[1:29:21] church which anchors the corner has a very distinct character. It's all two

[1:29:27] stories. Any type of construction in that that suddenly jumps even to three

[1:29:33] stories or three and a half stories is going to be an alien feature in that

[1:29:40] block. It's going to change the character of the historic

[1:29:44] that block in general. And I think you know the the height of this the town

[1:29:51] when we talk about historic character is kind of highest at the core around the

[1:29:59] square you have more massive buildings and some height and then as you move out

[1:30:06] the buildings become shorter as you go down the streets because you're moving

[1:30:11] away from that central core. and it was a critical component of the original

[1:30:18] ordinance that that sort of be protected and currently there seem you know

[1:30:26] there's an attack on that and I think it's uh dangerous and that's the one

[1:30:33] aspect I still see in what's a larger rewrite of the ordinance than I expected

[1:30:40] is that diminishing of any control on height

[1:30:44] um other than just saying I don't like it

[1:30:49] cuz it's too tall. Um but that's that's my opinion and I'm

[1:30:57] I'm having having had people approach me as an architect asking,

[1:31:04] you know, do you think they'll let us tear this down?

[1:31:09] And there were a couple buildings in particular and build a taller building.

[1:31:15] And just having the strength of the ordinance stopped some projects

[1:31:21] as did the first the first

[1:31:27] approaches to me about the me school

[1:31:34] and I we may have still been working together at that when some people when

[1:31:39] me school went on the market the first approaches to me as an

[1:31:45] architect and as chairman of Harb were, would they, you know, can we tear that

[1:31:51] down? Because at that time they were looking for a place to put Starbucks

[1:31:58] and this was a perfect piece of property and they were it was helpful to have the

[1:32:05] strength of the ordinance saying demolition would be very difficult if

[1:32:11] not impossible. So I think while

[1:32:18] there's frustration at times with the ordinance,

[1:32:22] a strong ordinance actually protects the council and it protects the harm and it

[1:32:30] protects the burough. And I think efforts to weaken some of

[1:32:36] the provisions are not wise.

[1:32:44] I can't believe somebody was going to take down this school.

[1:32:47] » That was interest from more than one developer.

[1:32:50] » Wow. >> Wow.

[1:32:54] It wasn't even in bad condition. >> It was bad condition is depends on how

[1:33:01] you >> bad condition depends on how you look at

[1:33:05] the expense. >> Sure.

[1:33:07] » To fix it up or to restore it. >> Yeah. Well, I always say big big

[1:33:12] project, big big, you know, um renovations, big money, you know. So,

[1:33:21] yeah,

[1:33:25] I two things. Um, one is I have reached out to Zach Balo

[1:33:32] from the National Park Service, the acting superintendent, and asked the

[1:33:37] question, um, if Harb district is to extend up to Seminary Ridge. Um, Red

[1:33:46] Patch on Confederate Avenue as well as the McMillan House on Confederate Avenue

[1:33:52] both have scenic easements with the National Park Service. So any work

[1:33:57] that's done on either of those properties has to have park service

[1:34:01] approval. And if those two properties are now included in HARB,

[1:34:07] they will the owners will have to go through two different hoops.

[1:34:12] And knowing how this board changes and potentially how the park service might

[1:34:18] change, there could come a time where the park

[1:34:21] service doesn't agree with PARB or vice versa.

[1:34:26] And overall, my question to Zach was who will have final word? And Zach said it

[1:34:33] will be the National Park Service for those two properties. And he recommended

[1:34:38] removing those two properties if it's extended to remove those two properties

[1:34:43] from the historic district because they are protected with the National Park

[1:34:47] Service. That makes sense. I I think that makes

[1:34:52] sense. Um the other thing I know that um Gary and Suzanne we we it is proposed to

[1:35:01] change the age of the houses. Is that correct?

[1:35:07] » Uh let me see if that's been updated. >> I think the updating

[1:35:12] changed that back. >> Did they change it back? Okay. I if I

[1:35:16] apologize. >> Yeah, I believe I did.

[1:35:18] » Okay. It it was the intent to do so because that was we received negative

[1:35:24] comment from that. >> Okay. Okay.

[1:35:26] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:35:28] » Any building that has been standing for at least 50 years at the time of

[1:35:32] application even though has been considerably modified and certain sites

[1:35:37] sites or later historic significance or building that the board

[1:35:44] has determined to be exemplary of later architectural styles.

[1:35:49] So that would be considered as sensitive. That was on page 157.

[1:35:55] » I was looking at um the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, their

[1:36:00] architectural field guide, and the latest period that they um they protect

[1:36:06] is from 1925 to 1950, the modern movements um with the international mod

[1:36:13] and and um art deco style. So 1950 was their latest date as well as from what I

[1:36:20] could find with the Department of the Interior. 1950 was also with the

[1:36:25] Department of Interior's latest um property design.

[1:36:39] Okay. Any other comments?

[1:36:46] Okay, there's another section for public comment if the public needs to

[1:36:53] make any final. No.

[1:36:57] All right. I guess at this time we have completed the meeting and we need to

[1:37:03] make a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved by Mr. Whit. Do we have a

[1:37:09] second? >> I'll second it.

[1:37:13] » All right. I tied it. >> Yeah,

[1:37:17] there we go.

Gettysburg Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) - 06/30/2026

Transcript