The purpose of this letter is to generate meaningful public participation toward amending what I believe are two grossly inappropriate provisions in Chapter 11, subsection 11.110 of the Gettysburg Historic District Ordinance. This ordinance, currently under review by the Gettysburg Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB), will be an item for discussion and consideration at their June 17th meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. in the borough’s council chambers located at 59 East High Street. The ordinance changes I cite below address important matters of ‘contemporary’ versus ‘historic’ design elements of new buildings and building additions within the historic district. My suggested deletions of existing text are shown in (parentheses). My proposed replacement text is shown in “quotes”. Whether you agree or disagree with these changes, please contact the borough office to express your opinion and, if possible, attend Wednesday’s HARB meeting.
My proposed amendments to the Historic District ordinance include:
Deleting the following existing text within Chapter 11, Section 11.110.1E and F:
(E. Contemporary design for additions to existing buildings that differentiate between old and new parts shall not be discouraged when such additions do not destroy significant historic, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, aesthetics and character of the building.)
(F. Contemporary design for new buildings shall be encouraged, provided the design is compatible with existing neighboring structures in scale, size, color, building materials and other considerations listed in Subsection 1C of this section.)
Replacing the deleted text with the following language:
“E. Consistent with the principles of sound historic preservation and as a matter of common practice to reinforce the provisions of this chapter, new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall emphasize the predominant and compatible historic styles and architectural features of neighboring properties and the general surrounding area. This applies to all proposed physical features, as cited above in Section 11.110 (1) (C) (1 through 11). Any consideration of contemporary design that differentiates between old and new shall be considered only when such design has been demonstrated as necessary and shall be incorporated only for purposes of architectural accent or minor embellishments. Such new buildings or additions shall not adversely impact the existing historic, architectural or cultural character of the subject property, the surrounding neighborhood and shall further contribute to the overall authenticity of Gettysburg’s historic heritage.”
By Thomas Pauls, AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners), Straban Township
I read the proposed replacement text twice. To me, the thing that stands out (and that I don’t agree with) is this: “… new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall emphasize the predominant and compatible historic styles and architectural features of neighboring properties …”
We formerly lived on Buford Avenue in Gettysburg Borough and, if you look at the houses on that street, you will see a range of styles all the way from the Civil War-era Sheads House to 1940s era bungalows to a couple of small houses built on an open plot of land in the mid-1980s.
On this particular avenue (and I would wager that many streets in Gettysburg share this type of hodge-podge non-regulated development), how can you align a particular house to a neighboring property? If the Sheads House undertook a renovation, do we really want it to resemble the “compatible historic style and architectural features” of a couple of 1980s-era houses a few doors down? I think not.
I think each existing property in Gettysburg needs to stay true to its existing historical era at the time of its original construction or, if changes/renovations are contemplated, then the automatic default should be to an “older” style. For example, say a house built in the 1990s chooses to emulate a 19th century style, that would only be an enhancement to Gettysburg’s historic character.
But if a house built in the 19th century wants to reconstruct itself to look like its modern 20th century neighbors (even though that would make it compatible with neighboring properties), I would say not.
There is a house in Colt Park near the Rec Park that I’ve always found charming. It came up for sale in the last decade and if we could have purchased it, I would have done so in a heartbeat. I noticed at the time of its sale listing, that this 19th century house was advertised as being moved – literally moved – from a distant location in the 1960s to this plot of land at the edge of Colt Park in Gettysburg. It was not originally built here, but it fits perfectly with the historic vibe that Gettysburg is known for.
If the suggested revised text were adopted, I believe this house would have been denied its current location in Colt Park, because the house does not fit in with the existing 1960s-1970s architectural styles surrounding it. But it’s a true historical asset and that’s what I believe our zoning laws should strive toward.