Revitalization Without Ruin

By Richard Barvainis

The Gettysburg Borough Council is considering adoption of a new zoning ordinance (set of regulations) covering the entire borough, and will be holding a hearing on October 27 for public input on the plan. There are several important changes relative to the current ordinance, one of which has potentially far-reaching consequences for our town. This change involves allowing 72′ tall buildings in an area that is being designated as the Revitalization Zone, just north of the railroad tracks and extending between Stratton and N. Washington streets and including, for example, the abandoned former Agway property.

One such tall building, proposed as a modern apartment complex with 185 units on the vacant lot across the tracks from the the Lincoln Train Station, has been in the development stage for many years and is currently before the Planning Commission for final approval. This is known as the Gettysburg Station Project. The current zoning ordinance allows buildings no taller than 48′ throughout the Borough, but the Station Project was granted an extra 24′ by special exception.  The total height will be 72′ plus mechanicals on top.

Many in Gettysburg feel that even this single overly tall building will have negative consequences for the character of the town, and may in fact compromise its great success as a place where tourists come to enjoy small town charm and compelling Civil War history. Indeed, Superintendent Kris Heister of the Gettysburg National Military Park has come out strongly against this massive building, and others like it to come, as detracting from the visitor experience of the battlefield. 

Main Street Gettysburg President Jill Sellers, in a recent Times op-ed, stated that 17 parcels in the Revitalization Zone will be eligible for 72′ high buildings under the new regulations. Multiple high-rise development is being seen by Sellers and many in Borough governance as a panacea for Gettysburg’s current budget issues. But destruction of Gettysburg’s very character is a massive price to pay for management of a temporary financial issue which should be addressed by other means. Such buildings stand in contradiction to the Gettysburg Historic District Ordinance of 1972, which was established “To ensure that size, scale and design of new construction within the Historic District is in harmony with the old.”

It bears noting here that neither I nor my friends and  neighbors who oppose these buildings are in opposition to the idea of a Revitalization Zone. We just don’t see the justification for buildings over the legacy zoning height limit of 48′. We are sure that those who long ago instituted this height restriction saw that it would allow buildings consistent with the historical architecture of the town as it has existed since the time of the battle and before.

It has been claimed that the empty lot across the tracks from the train station found no interest from developers until the current proposed developer from Staten Island, Tim Harrison, came along. But Harrison’s plan for the Station Project required a 72′ building which, as already noted, the Borough accommodated by special exception. The claim that Harrison was alone in proposing is untrue. At least three local developers put forth ideas and plans for construction on the site within the 48’ limit, but were discouraged from pursuing them. Apparently those plans were lacking in sufficient tax revenue from the point of view of Borough management. But seriously, is the difference in tax between a 48′ tall building and a 72′ tall one so great that we should allow it to ruin the look and feel of our Old Town Historic District? And now, with the Station Project still in the process of approval, they are talking about many more such buildings on the 17 eligible parcels of the Revitalization Zone.

Gettysburg does not need as many new residents as the tall buildings might bring, if indeed new residents come at all. This is highly questionable given all the other new housing developments currently under construction just outside the borough limits. The current population density of Gettysburg is already in the 91^st percentile for all towns and cities in Pennsylvania. More residents means more traffic, which is already oppressive at times, more strain on the already-overburdened Gettysburg Hospital and emergency services, and more impact on the town’s infrastructure. Where are all the jobs for these new residents? Will expensive new apartments be affordable for our tourist industry workers? Will retirees want to live in 600 square foot apartments right next to the railroad tracks, with train horns blasting throughout the night?

We don’t even know yet what the net effect will be on Borough finances as no cost/benefit analysis has ever been conducted to determine what additional financial burdens these developments might bring. Nor has it been shown that 72′ buildings are a better alternative than 48′ ones, all factors being considered. The “more is better” philosophy driving these plans, without proper analysis of the impact on tourism, services, traffic, infrastructure, and finances, is nothing more at this point than simplistic and wishful thinking.

A look at the current property tax burden on Gettysburg residents, using information publicly available on the real estate website Zillow, shows that residents are not heavily taxed compared with other local municipalities. Our actual property tax rate, defined here as the tax levied divided by the current property value, is quite similar to that of Frederick, Carlisle, and Lancaster, and appears to be somewhat less than that of Hanover. The Borough’s own estimate of the increased revenue from the Station Project is $140,000 per year, assuming (without justification) that it presents no extra costs to the Borough. If the building were 48′ instead of 72′, simple scaling of revenue would yield around $93,000 per year. The difference, $47,000, could be easily made up by a 0.1 mill increase in property tax, resulting in a $20 tax difference for a typical home valued on the current market at $300,000 (assessment value $200,000). Multiply that by several such buildings in the Revitalization Zone and we are still under $100 of extra tax to compensate for the lower height. Residents must ask themselves: Is it worth sacrificing Gettysburg’s historic character and tourist appeal for $100 per year, or even less if infrastructure costs increase?

As an iconic historical town, the site of the Gettysburg Address and the battle that turned the tide on the Civil War, the emphasis and vision for Gettysburg’s future should be on preservation of what makes the town unique and appealing, rather than unbridled growth. As just one example of potential diminishment of the visitor experience, it seems likely that the historic appeal of the new scenic railway and its beautifully restored station would be blunted by the looming presence of a massive seven-story apartment building occupying the Agway lot right across the street. Destroy the ambiance and reverence for the past, make the place look modern and crowded like so many big cities, and people will stop coming. Fill the Revitalization Zone with tall modern buildings that will be seen from the Square and you’ve lost that feeling of stepping back in time that so many visitors and residents alike crave.

But we can be smarter than that.  If we are careful, tone down the buildings, and do things right, we can surely achieve revitalization without ruin.

Richard Barvainis is a 23-year Gettysburg resident and a retired Program Director in the Division of Astronomical Sciences, National Science Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia.