[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.