For more information, please see our accompanying story.
The Gettysburg Planning Commission tonight considered, and expressed approval of, a proposed mixed use residential/commercial project next to the Gettysburg Train Station.
The proposed project, to be located between Carlisle and Stratton Streets, includes 186 apartments in 3 buildings, as well as 7,000 square feet of restaurant and 8,000 feet of retail space.
The apartments would be rented at market-rate.
The proposal is designed to take advantage of zoning changes approved by the Borough Council in 2018 for this lot that allow, by special exemption, an increased building height above the regular 48-foot height, to 72 feet.
The zoning plan gives the developer the ability to add height by (1) having Internal parking, (2) relocating the existing Rabbit Transit Center, (3) including green space, and (4) including a bike trail.
The developer said they had tried to meet all four of the proposed incentives.
The proposal includes 195 total parking spaces with 95 of them internal.
The developer will move the Transit Center to the east side of Stratton St. near SCCAP.
The developer will also include space for the Inner Loop bicycle trail and has included a large proportion of green space.
The commission recommended approving the requested special exception for the increased building height to 72 feet, as well as variances that allow reducing the required height of the Transit Center, and changing building stepbacks that would provide more green space.
The developers said the goal was to put the 72-foot tall building in the center of the property while the lower buildings would front Carlisle and Stratton Streets.
The developer Tim Harrison, from Staten Island, NY said he had lived in PA for many years and had completed 32 projects including commercial construction in the Harrisburg area.
Harrison said he visited Gettysburg and decided he wanted to develop the property. “This really is what I like to do,” he said.
Harrison said his original plan was for both a hotel and apartments, but the contracted hotel dropped out during the pandemic. “It eventually became clear the hotel world had changed,” said Harrison.
Harrison said he spent a lot of time redeveloping the plan and took the desires of the community into account as he revised it. “I did a number of iterations of this plan trying to be sensitive,” he said.
The Planning Commission will provide comments to the Gettysburg Zoning Board, which will meet on June 28. The project will also be reviewed by the Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB) as well as the borough council.
The Planning Commission will also be reviewing the plan again when it considers the project’s Land Development Plan.
Featured image caption: Rendering of the proposed project looking from Stratton St. toward Carlisle St. The existing parking garage and railroad track are on the left.
Tim Harrison! You should be ashamed of yourself! Rather have you and your family move back to dirty NY than to have you poison out historic town! Shame on you and shame on all of your supporters!
There seems to be some confusion about the proposed ROR development. Right now, the developer has applied for variances and special exceptions. The major issue requiring a variance is the fact that the 2018 ordinance unfortunately required a tiered wedding cake layout for the building, with the possibility of 48′ buildings five feet from the property line, with stepped upper stories. The special exception part allows additional height past 48′ if certain items are provided.
The proposal is for a 48′ building on N. Stratton and one on Carlisle, replacing the transit station. Those don’t need a variance. What needs a variance is the 72-foot tall building, which would be placed closer to the Carlisle side of the property, behind the funeral home area. There are specific criteria, by state law, that the Zoning Hearing Board has to judge the variance application by. It’s not subjective, or a matter of opinion. (The proposed replacement transit station also needs a variance to be less than 24 feet in height.)
The buildings in the drawing are just generic, to show location and building size, not proposed architecture style. HARB review will come later, when building design is submitted. So will site plan, landscaping, and stormwater review.
Retail use is allowed. I have not heard anything about national chain businesses for the site. It would make sense to have some non-tourist retail for the residents of the apartments, the neighborhood, and tourists. The borough doesn’t get to approve which individual retail businesses rent space (just like other parts of Gettysburg) if that use is allowed by zoning.
There is no evidence of a drive-through restaurant on the plan or in any presentations by the developer.
Gettysburg does need more residential options. This project includes studio, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units. Whether rents are based on market rates or not is not up to local government. There is nothing in the borough ordinances to require subsidized housing. The rents need to be high enough to justify the investment. Perhaps if more affordable workforce housing is needed, local landlords could take note. Maybe existing units will be improved if new units become available.
This property has been vacant for almost two decades now, since buildings were cleared for the ill-fated REDDI project. I disagreed with the height increase in 2018, but it is borough law. If the developer can meet the requirements, the project will move forward. The fact that he has talked with neighbors and businesses seems like a positive thing, rather than something suspect. Ultimately, this site would provide significant property tax revenue — something Gettysburg is short on. Temporary property tax reductions to encourage development are a common practice in order to pitch difficult sites, especially.
The immediate step is whether the project meets the legal criteria for the variances — not something that should be influenced by lobbying individual Zoning Hearing Board members. Come to the July 12 meeting to listen, but they do have rules to go by.
My understanding of the variance application is that it is not for the 72 foot building since they need no variance for that but only to comply with the special exceptions in order to qualify for it. That is the position of the board attorney and it is a correct reading of the ordinance. The 72 feet building is a separate special exception application. The variance application submitted is written to be as confusing and unclear as they could possibly make it but involves the stepback design of the building and the setback line and is so vague and puzzling that it can’t even be analyzed. It also includes a variance to reduce the mandatory height of the transit station from 24′ to 12′. The special exception application should be denied as submitted as it is not even completed. As for architecture style, there is no way to make a 7 story building look appropriate on this lot. It will tower over all of the surrounding homes and businesses and look like what it is: a high rise.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the plan is the parking. It is an element that must be satisfied to meet the requirements for the high rise building and other buildings and as proposed, it does not.
The developer himself when asked at the last meeting said that a dollar store of some type was being considered. The drive-thru is allowed under the code – I didn’t say it was in the plans, I said it was allowed. Once this plan is approved, the borough will have no say in what businesses open in that space.
You can make the argument that the borough needs this and the borough needs that and you can destroy the way the borough looks now in the name of what the borough needs. People have been doing it for 160 years. And the same old tax base arguments have been made as well but it is not a reason to move this project forward – there is no borough budget crisis. There also should be no further franchises allowed in the borough. Put them in the surrounding towns and put the housing there too. There is only one Gettysburg.
As for “lobbying” individual zoning hearing board members: it’s called Democracy and I can’t think of a better reason, particuarly when the variance and special exception applications are far from meeting the legal criteria.
Please walk up and down Carlisle and Stratton Streets and enjoy the small town charm that is our Gettysburg. Drive around Lincoln Square and York and Baltimore Streets and take it all in. It is such a special place. We take it for granted. Please see this community. See how many of the homes and other buildings that were here then and are still here, lovingly restored and maintained. Really see the charming small town full of beautiful historic buildings, no building higher than 50 feet other than the iconic Gettysburg Hotel on the Square. Think of it. Not just what happened here in 1863. But Lincoln, the Gettysburg Address and how millions of people for 160 years have come here to pay homage to Gettysburg’s history. This Gettysburg didn’t happen by accident. Residents of this town have fought since 1863 to keep Gettysburg looking the way it looks today, from high rises and concrete, from being utterly ruined by development like so many other historic Civil War towns. Well now it’s our turn. Because Gettysburg and the way it looks is about to be changed forever, destroyed, by an entirely unnecessary development downtown.
Unless we come together to stop it, the former Farmer’s Market lot next to the railroad tracks and the Lincoln Train Station will be desecrated with 3 modern buildings (think concrete) — two 48 feet tall and a high-rise 84 feet tall (counting the 12 feet of mechanicals on top) — with 186 rental units (he says when asked directly “market rate” rents but can’t say what that is). And commercial space (think dollar store and a fast-food drive thru, both allowed). Picture downtown Lancaster. That’s the look. Not only will you, the taxpayers, be giving this developer a 10-year tax break on this property, we will all be paying for the additional upgrades needed to build and maintain the infrastructure for this development. And entirely aside from the fact that we don’t need 176 new apartments in the Borough or more commercial space or the huge negative impact on traffic, water/sewer, fire/ambulance and police, it does not belong here. Not in Gettysburg. Not ever.
Several years ago, zoning changes were made to allow this project to move forward (by a 4-3 vote) but there are still variances which must be granted. You can thank Council members Schindel, Berger, Lawver and Heyser for this nightmare. Your current borough officials will try to frighten you with the same old arguments: it’s progress, economic disaster if the project isn’t built, etc. etc. This lot has been vacant for years. If the council had worked half as hard to make this space a wonderful park for all to use, what a difference it would make to downtown. A park is one thing downtown doesn’t have and really needs and it is perfect for that use. They yammer on about green space and a bike path and then sell our heritage for a handful of magic beans. This borough manager and council and local media are staying quiet to keep this information from you: no coverage, hurry up, trying to sneak it past, hoping because they have made it so complicated that no one will understand what is happening. And the opportunistic NY developer is actively calling, promising, courting neighbors with his money to get this project approved by the Zoning Board. This project is NOT a done deal. We can stop it.
So it’s our turn to stand up and keep Gettysburg the way it is. Please call and write your council representative and zoning board members. Please show up Wednesday, July 12 at 7 PM to speak out against this project.
I attended the Planning Commission meeting, watched the HARB meeting on Community Media, and attended the first part of the Zoning Hearing Board meeting. The ZHB meeting was extended to July 12 due to the late hour. A ZHB meeting is more like a court proceeding, with presentations, exhibits, etc. The general public cannot comment, but those parties who own property nearby are allowed to sign up to be “interested parties” and can ask questions. Anyone can attend and listen, as I did.
In 2018, the Council at that time, by a 4/3 vote, chose to adopt the ordinance. At that time, a different developer got together with the borough manager to draft something that would allow extra height beyond 48 feet, by providing certain items, e.g. a bike trail, moving the transit station — thus adequate income to justify development — and got it through the Planning Commission and Council despite an impressive amount of public input from an architect, landscape architect, planners, Gettysburg NMP, and folks who appreciate the role of the historic streetscape in making Gettysburg feel authentic to an important period of time. What we have in place is overly detailed as to how buildings could be laid out.
I have been concerned about the loss of the Transit Station at its Carlisle Street site, but found out at last week’s ZHB meeting that the transit board of directors actually didn’t want to build it there, but would have lost their funding if they didn’t build it at that time.(It opened in 2013.) They also want a smaller building. So the ordinance was constructed to help move it, and designated a specific area that it could be rebuilt in, in exchange for 12 more feet of height. Harrison does not need that 12 feet, but has agreed to pay for relocation of the station and will construct a mixed-use building in its place.
The site is not an easy one to design for and there does need to be a financial return for a developer. Tax-wise, it was owned by the County Development agency and was tax exempt. Now, the owner/developer will pay taxes on the land, and be subject to a graduated tax over a few years when development occurs.
Again — it is the 2018 ordinance that is the problem, not the current developer. There are some people who were involved at that time and still are, who believe that Gettysburg needs to transform itself because history will cease to attract tourists. I was one of the citizens who tried to impact the proceedings in 2018, and it was extremely disappointing to see that so much effort and input from professionals and concerned citizens was disregarded.
PLEASE attend the zoning board hearing tonight at 7:00 PM at borough hall. This project could be defeated if enough people show up and speak up. The developer resurrected this project with minimal notice and is trying to push it through and if we don’t show up, this is going to be a nightmare, not only for traffic and infrastructure but for the charming little town we love.
While it would be nice to have public green space where there is now a gravel lot, at what cost? Just as a practical matter we should be asking several questions:
Who will be renting these apartments? There is a shortage of housing in Adams county but for affordable housing. “Fair market” rents mean that folks ( for the most part) who actually work in town will not be able to afford to live there. Most, many of our town work force, works” in the hospitality and service industries where they do not make a living wage, certainly not one that will support fair market housing costs.
How will the impact of 200 to 250 cars (conservatively) that will come and go either from Carlisle or Stratton be mitigated? These streets, as well as the ones that feed out from them, are already bumper to bumper much of the day. What impact will the additional traffic have on the fire stations ability to get trucks and ambulances where they need to go? Has air pollution and noise pollution from the additional traffic been studied? There is already an air pollution issue on York Street at times from traffic congestion.
Moving the transit station to a smaller location squeezed into a housing area and also routing tour buses to the transit station, on what are already crowded streets, next to the fire station, seems like a disaster in the making. I’m not sure why this area is being referred to as by SCCAP, when it sits well in front of and not really adjacent to SCCAP.
I have read that the developer is being generous and giving us many Christmas presents. What are these? Who do they benefit? Are they in fact just paying for the infrastructure and adding a little green space that would be needed for this project anyway or is there something more?
I’m also left wondering why changes to zoning seem to be being made based on projects and not necessarily comprehensive planning (at least that I am aware of) where will this lead us? If I were the folks that were turned down with a request to build a 4 story hotel on the corner of York and Stratton, a block from this location, I’d be wondering what was going on? How are decisions being made? Wouldn’t zoning exceptions be a better option than wholesale zoning changes based on the needs of one specific project?
For good or bad, a project of this magnitude will impact the center of historic downtown Gettysburg. Would make sense to have a full, well advertised town hall type meeting where folks (particularly those who will be most affected) can be informed about the project, ask questions and give input. As far as I understand things there is no plan for this. This project has already gained allot of support and momentum with very little public discussion.
The project is being discussed in an open meeting at the Zoning Hearing Board meeting on Wednesday:
https://www.gettysburgpa.gov/zoning-hearing-board-zhb/agenda/zoning-hearing-agenda-0
Why didn’t you approve my posting today asking people to attend the zoning board hearing at 7 PM tonight? Well thanks to spirited courageous push back from locals, the variance hearing has been adjourned to July 12. Please plan to be there because the good citizens of this town will do what others have done for 160 years: fight to stop this entirely inappropriate construction in the Borough of Gettysburg.
Peggy, We just didn’t get it approved before now. Sorry but we get a lot of comments and we read each one before we share it. Sometimes it takes some time.
What I learned at the zoning meeting last night is that this project is inevitable. The developer and his engineer are simply designing the site by the rules written by Borough Council many years ago, making use of “incentives” to create a taller building and move the transit center in order to maximize their financial return within those rules. If anyone is to blame, it is Borough Council, who apparently have tried very hard for many years to get this plot of land developed. We should be thankful a reasonable developer has chosen to invest millions into downtown Gettysburg. I just hope that HARB uses its power to make the appearance consistent with our 19th century heritage. Lets all hope this project is successful and becomes an asset to the community.
I am not thankful that a carpetbagger developer has found a sweet tax deal to make millions and ruin the historic charm that is Gettysburg. “Reasonable” developer? One of the “upscale” businesses promised for this plot is some variety of a dollar store. The council who moved this forward years ago was a 4-3 vote so we know who is responsible: Schindel, Lawver, Heiser and Berger. And this project is indeed NOT inevitable because no matter what council approved, the developer still needs variances and no variance can be created for this project because it will forever alter the character of the neighborhood. And nothing HARB does can change that.
The support and momentum are all coming from elected officials. No planning. The only “christmas presents” are a little grass and a a bike path through the property. There is nothing else. It doesn’t matter what the developer does. This will never be the right look for Gettysburg one block off Lincoln Square.
I like the idea of the transit center at the Agway site too, but I guess there would be additional parking at the SCAAP site. Considering buses in and out of the lot, the Agway site has appeal since it is near businesses not so much residential and convenient to the college. Noise can be an issue. Lots to consider!
Maybe someday we’d have a train to a major city!
My biggest question is – Do we need all these apartments? Was is surveyed? When you go to CVS, you travel through lanes that tell me they thought they would have a big complex there of stores – not there. Are we going to have empty big building?
I don’t think there is enough space there for that much building?????
The planned space looks nice, but what ugly buildings! I thought they said they wanted it to more or less blend in with the architecture in the area – and I don’t mean the Racehorse Alley parking garage. This is a big disappointment.
The buildings shown on the drawing right now are just representative of the size of the buildings, not the final architectural appearance. The process right now is to get the Special Exceptions which, under the 2018 ordinance give a certain number of feet of additional height if certain things are provided, e.g. a bike trail, 12 feet of height. The 2018 ordinance was so ill-conceived that any developer would need variances. If these approvals are granted, then the site plan process and HARB review for actual appearance will take place.
The article states that the transit center would be moved to the north side of Carlisle near SCCAP. Carlisle St. doesn’t have a “north side” (it runs north to south, so it has an east and a west side, but not a north side). And Carlisle isn’t particularly close to SCCAP. Any clarification on where they would actually move the transit center to? Given the scope of this project, including the cost associated with moving the transit center (only built a few years ago), I’m guessing this project won’t get off the ground, just like all the other projects that have been proposed for this site over the past 10-15 years.
Sorry, the transit center will move to the east side of Stratton St.
I wish they would consider placing the bus terminal at the vacant corner of Railroad and Washington, currently owned and blighted by Gettysburg College. The space on Stratton is much smaller than the current terminal and situated right next to private residences. This appears to be a deal worked out between the developer and ACTA without community consideration.
You’re right. That old Agway site would be much better. It woul be much easier for visitors and locals to find.
While this project is exciting, I trust government planning officials at all levels-county down to the township-are talking to one another and concurrently assessing the immediate as well as future impacts these projects once approved will have on local and county water resources, utility capacity, medical/hospital capacity, educational/school capacity, road and traffic capacity. The planning considerations and the resulting widespread impacts decisions have don’t just start and stop at the borough level.
Well said.
I think this is terrific. That vacant lot is an eyesore and development in our area is inevitable. Dense housing near amenities is better than sprawl. It maintains the rural character of Adams County and reduces reliance on driving.
Actually, while development in our area may be inevitable and is happening in surrounding towns, Gettysburgh is not “our area”. It is Gettysburg – unique in the world visited by millions people annually. They come to see the history, to see a charming small historic town. Many people have fought for hundred of years to keep Gettysburg as it is – that’s why something like 60% of the houses that were here at the time of the battle are still here.
I agree Peggy as a visitor to Gettysburg. I would like it to remain the small Historic town it is.
Then they should build something that fits in with Gettysburg.
Yes, indeed.
They certainly could build something that looks like it belongs if they were motivated to do so. But they are not. They are motivated to make money. Full stop. That means building up and a modern 7-story high rise building can never look like it belongs and will completely alter the character of the neighborhood.