The Gettysburg Borough Council voted on Monday evening to approve two zoning amendments for “publication and intended enactment.” The ordinances will be voted on for final enactment by the council at its May meeting.
The first is for a proposal to remove 49 parcels along the NW side of Johns St. and the SE side of Highland Ave from the tourist-commercial district and to add them to the low-density residential R1 district. The vote was unanimous.
In a 4-3 vote with councilmembers Wes Heyser, Matt Moon, and Chris Heyser dissenting, the council also approved for publication an ordinance for establishing and regulating events venues. According to borough solicitor Harry Eastman, the council has completed the required work of creating the code, holding a public hearing, and receiving recommendations from the borough and county planning commissions.
Before the vote councilmember Chad Carr asked about issues raised in the county’s recommendations about whether the ordinance would apply in any way to the rights of hospitals and other existing venues designated as “commercial auditoriums.” Eastman said the proposed ordinance was clearly for a new use and would not influence prior zoning categories.
“Shops and hotels are just as important as residents,” said Carr. “We are in a tourist town. If we continue to let buildings that are historic that were here long before we were to sit empty or not being used to their furthest extents to encourage even more of a vibrant town then we’re not doing our due diligence.”
Moon said the county planning assessment of the proposed ordinance was “pretty damning. It talks a lot about how this application is not in line with the original intent of the Elm St. project. Both the career professionals at the county as well as our own planning committee are advising a more restrictive approach to this,” he said. Moon noted that the Elm St. Overlay is residential; zoned as R2.
Moon also commented on public accusations made about the process and the “ethical standards of our staff. I think those complaints are completely unfounded and unrealistic. This council does everything right here at this table,” he said.
Moon said it was the duty of the council to create zoning regulations. “That’s what we do; we tell people what you can do and can’t do,” he said.
Moon said there had been a compromise model in place in September and October. “It had the mechanisms in it with the management plan that would be annually reviewed. It had the special exceptions that our own planning department is recommending as opposed to the right by use.”
“It is noteworthy that in the seven zones we’re adding this use to, most of them would be special exceptions but just this one is by right,” he said.
Referring to the Johns Ave. and Highland Ave zoning changes, Moon said “I don’t understand how it was so easy for us to say ‘yes we must protect residential housing inventory.’ There was no debate on that. Yet in the same breath we do not have the same concern for this specific section of the Third Ward. I’m asking you all to proceed with caution. We don’t know the future,” he said.
Councilmember Patti Lawson thanked her colleagues and the members of the community. She said she could argue both sides of the issue. “We need the local residents. We need the shopkeepers. We need the historical venues. It’s not been easy. It’s been complicated and very layered,” she said.
Lawson said she did not think a 4-3 vote was unusual or problematic. “When I look at a 4-3 vote people should be scratching their heads if we’re always a 7-0 vote,” she said.
Lawson said she was wondering if the council should revisit the special exceptions. “Are there things that we might do that would mitigate and give people a little more confidence?” she asked.
Both Lawson and councilmember Judie Butterfield spoke about a property owner who lived across the alley from the proposed event venue on High St and yet who was in favor of it.
Butterfield also suggested the ordinance should perhaps be by special exception rather than by right.
Carr said it was unfortunate that it was not possible to do a pilot program for the zoning. Solicitor Eastman said once the zoning was in place it could not be taken back.
“This encapsulates many of the issues we have in local politics,” said Heyser. It’s a political matter, people have to make decisions. Things have been said that I don’t think were entirely fair to the members and entirely fair to other members of the public. I really found that disparaging. Whether it be this evening or some other evening people are going to leave here being upset. I think that all of your representatives here on this council have attempted to do what they think is best.”
Charles (Chuck) Stangor is Gettysburg Connection's Owner, Publisher, and Editor in Chief. I would like to hear from you. Please contact me at cstangor@gettysburgconnection.org.