The Gettysburg Planning Commission revisited the two biggest questions facing the zoning code rewrite project at their meeting on Monday — building heights, and the definition of “family.”
Final decisions are likely to be made soon, as the commission hopes to come to consensus on a re-written zoning ordinance at their next meeting scheduled for December 16 and vote to send the document to the Gettysburg Borough Council for approval.
The commission has released a revised draft of the document.
The five voting members of the commission and its non-voting alternate were present to give input on the meeting, though no formal votes were cast. The planning commission will vote on the revised zoning ordinance draft as a whole at a future meeting.
Commission chair Charles Strauss said at the start of the meeting, “We all know how important this process is, not just for us who live and work and enjoy the borough, but how this impacts those who visit the borough of Gettysburg from other parts of Adams County, those who might want to relocate their business or their home to our borough, and those who we will hand this off to, the legacy of future generations.”
He spoke about how the commission is tasked with “weighing competing goods” in making decisions for the zoning code.
Defining “family”
The commission discussed the definition of “family” in the zoning code, which comes into play, for example, when determining what is a single-family home versus a multi-family dwelling.
Ahead of the meeting, Planning Director John Whitmore and borough staff prepared five options for language that could be included in the ordinance.
After discussion, the majority of commission members settled on a definition based on language used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
The term “Family” includes but is not limited to the following, regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status: a single person, who may be an elderly person, disabled person, near-elderly person, or any other single person; or a group of persons residing together. Such group includes, but is not limited to a family with or without children (a child who is temporarily away from the home because of placement in foster care is considered a member of the family), an elderly family, a near-elderly family, a disabled family, a displaced family, or the remaining member of a tenant family.
A household consisting exclusively of two or more full-time college students does not qualify as a family unless each individual in the household satisfies the following conditions: The individual either must have established a household separate from their parents or legal guardians for at least one year prior.
The borough’s existing ordinance limits families to a group of four or fewer when the members are “not related by genetics, adoption, or marriage.”
During a public comment period several members of the public expressed concern that limiting the number of persons who are not legally related could have unintended consequences like punishing those who live with chosen family over legal relatives.
One resident said that she has had women and children fleeing domestic violence situations reside in her home. She also talked about the struggles of young people aging out of the foster system. She expressed concern that these groups would struggle if a borough ordinance limiting the number of unrelated people living in a home prevented borough residents from offering them a place to stay.
“I think we should all be able to have open doors to anybody who needs space in our home, and we should choose who’s there,” she said.
Several commenters asked the borough to take action on households creating public disturbances, but felt that the ordinance’s definition of family was not the proper tool to address problems.
Several spoke about “pseudo-fraternities” to refer to groups of college students living together off-campus and throwing parties that are disruptive to neighbors and may include illegal behavior like underage drinking. Some commenters felt that limiting the number of college students able to live together off-campus in a single-family home would not eliminate the loud parties because most of the party guests are visitors.
One commenter, who said he was the landlord for multiple properties in Gettysburg Borough, questioned whether it would be practical for landlords to have to prove two people are truly related by genetics in order to comply with a zoning ordinance when renting to a family.
“You should be going after parties and misbehavior, not going after families. You’re going to catch a lot of dolphins with these tunas and it’s not fair,” he said.
Building Heights
The commission then returned to the question of whether to allow the possibility of extended building heights in the revitalization (REV) district.
“We’ve talked about this not just for months, but for years,” Strauss said.
Whitmore reviewed the Extended Height Building Use provision of the ordinance which he said might be applied to the REV district east of Carlisle Street.
The proposed Extended Height Building Use would require developers to provide at least three public “incentives” in the site plan to be approved for the extended height buildings. The incentives defined in the draft ordinance include features like integrated parking, community green spaces, and affordable housing.
Some members of the planning commission, however, questioned the need for this change given the parcels in question are the site of the Gettysburg Station project. This project’s approvals are already granted and would not be affected by the zoning code rewrite.
Commission member Sarah Kipp said she was concerned that nearby properties could request a map amendment to allow them to be included in the revitalization district, and that the number of properties eligible for the extended height incentive might therefore increase increase.
Strauss felt it should be “a very rare and radical occasion to change [the building height limit] in the interest of revitalization.”
Commission member Martin Jolin spoke in favor of the extended height provision. He cited Hotel Gettysburg as an example of a building that was not historic, but he felt was still a positive addition to the landscape and character of the area. He said maybe in the future the new development would be considered just as fondly as part of the community.
“Things can change and often when they do, people grow to like them, so I think people should just keep an open mind to that” he said.
Vice-Chair Nicholas Redman felt it would simplify things to divorce the building height discussion from the rezoning process. If the situation arose again where the borough felt that an extended building height would promote revitalization of a certain lot, the issue could be brought before the borough council at that time.
Catalina Righter, freelance reporter, lives in New Oxford. She previously wrote for the Carroll County Times and the Kent County News, covering crime, education, local government and arts. She works as a legal assistant.