HARB Minutes

Chairman Gary Shaffer called the Historical Architectural Review Board to order at 

7:33 p.m. Wednesday, April 18, 2012. The meeting was held at the Borough Municipal Building, 59 E. High Street. A quorum was present. Those in attendance were: Board members Nancie Gudmestad, Colleen Lingle, Peggy Gustafson, Philip Goble, Merry Bush, Borough Planning Technician and Historic District Administrator; and Scott Dellett, Borough Planning Director. James McCabe and Dale Gettel were absent. 

Also in attendance were: Paul Kellett and Allen Beckett representing 227 N. Washington Street; John Bardi and Stephanie McElwee, Elm Street program manager, representing 302 S. Washington Street; Robert Queary, 243 Chambersburg Street; Donna Sweesy and David Newell, Earth Net Energy, for 922 Johns Avenue; Dr. Walter Powell, Elwood Christ and Harry Stokes, regarding 227 N. Washington Street; and Susan Naugle and John Butterfield, Borough Council. 

Review of Agenda and Minutes

Gary Shaffer introduced the members and explained the procedures that would be followed during the meeting. He noted that the Board serves as an advisory group to Borough Council, which makes final decisions concerning Certificates of Appropriateness. Borough Council will meet next on Monday, May 14, 2012. 

The agenda was modified to remove review of the application for McDonald’s building, 517 Steinwehr Avenue, as the applicant requested. The application will be considered during the May 16, 2012 meeting.

Peggy Gustafson moved to approve the March 21, 2012 minutes as written. Colleen Lingle seconded. The minutes were approved. 

Certificates of Appropriateness

A. Alteration. Solar panels. 922 Johns Avenue. Greg and Donna Sweesy, owners. 

The applicant proposes installing solar panels on the roof of the structure at 922 Johns Avenue to provide hot water for the laundry. 

Background: The structure at 922 Johns Avenue was built as a laundry between 1969 and 1970 with apartments located above. 

Nancie Gudmestad asked how tall the panels would be. David Newell, speaking for the applicant, said that the maximum height would be six feet, six inches depending on the angle needed. The angle will be with in the range of 25 to 50 degrees. There will be one row of 10 solar collectors. There will be a shed that will house a tank – 512 gallon solar tank – within the existing fenced area at the rear of the building. 

Donna Sweesy, the property owner, said that sunshine wasn’t necessary for the system to work. The system uses the full light spectrum and is highly efficient. The panels are not photovoltaic panels. This system has worked extremely well for both laundries and dairies, according to David Newel, Earth Net Energy. The water will be heated to 412 degrees.

Peggy Gustafson asked about the photo presented in the application. Mr. Newell said that the rendition shows the panels at the maximum height. He said that the panels, once installed, cannot be repositioned. Ms. Gustafson said in previously submitted application the applicant said the panels had to be located three to four feet away from the edge of the building. Mr. Newell said he wasn’t sure that was necessary for this type of system. 

The owner said that their roofer confirmed that the roof could support the equipment and is familiar with the work of the solar contractor, Earth Net Energy.

Ms. Gustafson asked about the reflectivity of the solar panels. David Newell said that the underside is silver but the surface exposed to the sun is dark blue, which absorbs greater amounts of energy from light, to create as much hot water as possible. 

Findings of Fact: The structure at 922 Johns Avenue not is a sensitive building as defined in Chapter 11 of the Borough Code of Ordinances, Historic District (Historic District Ordinance) being less than 50 years old. The building is a non-contributing structure located within the Gettysburg Battlefield National Register Historic District. Though not a sensitive building, 922 Johns Avenue is located within the Borough Historic District bringing the project under the review of this Board.

Based on the application materials submitted by the applicant, the solar panels will not be visible from the ground along the adjacent streets. The panels will be visible from portions of the Gettysburg National Military Park.

Nancie Gudmestad made a motion to recommend to Borough Council that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the installation of solar panels on the roof of 922 Johns Avenue. Colleen Lingle second the motion, which carried 5 to 0. 

B. Alteration. Replacement windows. Replace porch railing. 302 S. Washington Street. John Bardi, owner.

The owner, John Bardi, proposes to replace the existing windows with aluminum-clad wood windows made by Andersen. He does not think the two-over-two windows are original to the house. Mr. Bardi said he would like to replace the windows on the back of the house with vinyl replacement windows as they cost half of what the Andersen windows cost. 

Background: This brick National Folk-style house was built c. 1875 for John Reiling and his wife the former Lizzie Zeilinger (a native of Franklin County). The property was purchased by Edward F. Menchey in 1888. Of special note is the use of wood lintels over the doors and windows, including basement openings. The front (west) façade may have been renovated due to the absence of a third window on the first floor and certain foundation details. A portion of the east façade’s second-story porch has been enclosed. 

Gary Shaffer said that the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Buildings are very specific; only if windows are not visible from a street or alley could vinyl be approved. Mr. Shaffer said, however, that the back of this building is highly visible from Breckenridge Street. The Board could accepted an older window configuration if documented. Continuing, Mr. Shaffer said that when a house displays the utmost simplicity, the windows and doors get a particular focus. 

Peggy Gustafson said this is a charming building. She asked if the owner had tried to remove the lower sashes from the window frame. When asked if the windows are on ropes, Mr. Bardi replied no. Ms. Gustafson then asked if it was possible to repair the windows to make them functional. The owner said he had tried that but the bindings are stripped and he has broken several panes while trying to open the windows. The windows have no insulation value. Continuing, the owner said that it is not possible to close the windows properly as they no longer fit well. Some windows have the strip of wood that holds the sash inside the frame but most have been removed. He said he does not open any of the windows, even in summer. When asked if there was any weather stripping, Mr. Bardi said that the windows are so over painted they don’t work. 

Gary Shaffer asked if the owner had obtained any estimates from contractors regarding the cost to maintain or refurbish the existing windows. The owner replied no. Mr. Bardi said that when he went to Gettysburg Glass four years ago they were not enthusiastic about repairing or replacing the glass. Mr. Bardi said that all the windows have vinyl storm windows though some of the parts are missing. He went on to say that the storm sashes are not all functional. 

Gary Shaffer said he was confident that these are the original windows to the house. They are a key architectural feature. The configuration, style and size of the mullions and wavy class are all consistent with the age of the building. 

Colleen Lingle agreed that these are the original windows. She recommended finding someone who could restore the windows before approval for replacement could be considered as noted in the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines. 

Philip Goble said he fixed the windows in his home at one third the cost of Andersen windows. He recommended that the owner speak with a contractor not a window salesman. 

Nancie Gudmestad asked if there was a possibility that the windows could have been six over one. Gary Shaffer said no. 

Peggy Gustafson asked if the owner could install new storm windows over restored windows. The applicant said yes, though it would cost more. 

Peggy Gustafson then asked about the railing on the rear second story porch; what was the owner planning to do? Mr. Bardi said he wanted to replace the balusters with something wider to make the space more solid and usable. He would also like to install removable panels for privacy. 

Gary Shaffer said that the balusters must meet code, pointing out that some are missing. Mr. Shaffer explained that the square foot rail must be sloped to allow water to drain off. Colleen Lingle confirmed that the applicant was using wood. She pointed out the need for new footers beneath the existing posts. 

Peggy Gustafson asked if the applicant wanted to screen the porch. The applicant said it was under consideration. Ms. Gustafson said that the panels would need to be approved by HARB. 

Findings of Fact: The structure at 302 S. Washington Street is a sensitive building as defined in Chapter 11 of the Borough Code of Ordinances, Historic District (Historic District Ordinance). A sensitive building is defined as any building that has been standing for at least 50 years at the time of the application, even though it has been considerably modified, and certain sites of later historic significance or buildings that the Board has determined to be exemplary of later architectural styles. 

Replacing windows is a permanent change, making this proposal a critical project, which is defined in the Historic Districts Ordinance as "A project involving demolition of all or part of any building or change in configuration and rhythm of any building as a whole, or any alteration to a sensitive building." 

The building is a contributing structure to the Gettysburg Battlefield National Register District. Based on application materials submitted by the applicant: While fenestration would remain the same, the proposed changes to the windows would be highly visible from Breckenridge and S. Washington streets. The porch columns are original as is the wood railing. Both retain a high degree of architectural integrity. 

The Board agreed to introduce two motions – one for the replacement windows and second for the porch. Peggy Gustafson moved to repair the second floor porch and replace the railing, replicating the rails and balustrades in wood, which would then be painted. Colleen Lingle seconded and the motion carried 5 to 0. 

Philip Goble moved to recommend that a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the windows not be issued until further information is garnered from a craftsman; the evidence submitted is not sufficient to determine viability of retaining the historic windows. Nancie Gudmestad seconded. The motion passed, 5 to 0. 

Gary Shaffer said that for the three historic windows facing the rear of the property Andersen windows might be considered but not vinyl. Storm windows must either be painted or made of enameled aluminum and the sashes of the storm windows must line up with those of the existing windows. 

C. Alteration. Front porch. 243 Chambersburg Street. Robert & Shonna Queary, owners.

The applicant proposes to upgrade the front porch with a center pillar consisting of a four-inch-by-four-inch treated post with white PVC pillar cover and cap. White PVC railings will be installed between center pillar and corner column and also between corner and wall column. The porch floor boards were replaced with 1-inch x 3-inch tongue and groove and will be painted.

Background: According to the owner, Robert Queary, this two-and-a-half story wood frame dwelling was built c. 1904. The Folk Victorian has a small front porch and a rear side porch. The applicant previously came before the Board for alterations to the rear porch. 

It was noted that the architectural integrity was compromised with the installation of an alternate finishing material, aluminum siding, sometime before the current owner purchased the building. 

Colleen Lingle asked if the woodwork would be retained. The owner said the wall post and corner column are original to the building and he plans to strip and repaint them. The remainder of the wood work at the top of the porch will be repainted. Mr. Queary said he had to repair the front porch or lose his homeowner’s insurance. 

Mr. Queary said he wants to replace the railing, rails and balustrades, with a PVC system. The downspout will be realigned with the porch column. When asked what railing was there before, the applicant said wood. He said that he already purchased the replacement railing sections. Peggy Gustafson said it was charming house. 

Findings of Fact: The structure at 243 Chambersburg Street is a sensitive building as defined in Chapter 11 of the Borough Code of Ordinances, Historic District (Historic District Ordinance). A sensitive building is defined as any building that has been standing for at least 50 years at the time of the application, even though it has been considerably modified, and certain sites of later historic significance or buildings that the Board has determined to be exemplary of later architectural styles. 

Installing railings made of an alternate material is a permanent change, making this proposal a critical project, which is defined in the Historic Districts Ordinance as "A project involving demolition of all or part of any building or change in configuration and rhythm of any building as a whole, or any alteration to a sensitive building."

The building is a contributing structure to the Gettysburg Battlefield National Register District. The front of the house maintains its original fenestration, except for the attic window has been replaced with a smaller one. The building was previously altered with the installation of aluminum siding. The proposed work will be highly visible from Chambersburg Street.

The owner stipulated that the wall and column posts and the spindle work with brackets would be maintained. The replacement railing is to be made of an alternate material. The balustrades will be square. 

Peggy Gustafson moved to recommend that Borough Council approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the railing with an alternate material as presented in the application. Philip Goble seconded and the motion carried, 5 to 0. 

Public Comment—227 N. Washington Street

Harry Stokes, owner of nearby 22-26 Mummasburg Street, expressed concern on how the project at 227 N. Washington Street was going. He said that the owner violated the Certificate of Appropriateness issued by Borough Council when the rear portion of the building was demolished. Mr. Stokes said that the owner did not correctly present to HARB. There was no discussion of demolition. Stating his opinion, Mr. Stokes said that the proposed addition violates the scope and scale of the Historic District Ordinance. According to Mr. Stokes, the proposed addition has increased four feet in elevation. One of his major concerns was the protection of the front building that faces N. Washington Street. Mr. Stokes said that he had completed a federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit project at 215 N. Washington Street.

Mr. Stokes said that the more vertical-style windows proposed for the front elevation would impact the adjacent Civil War Institute building, which is critical to the college in his opinion. He asked why there was no representation from the college. 

Dr. Walter Powell, former Historic Preservation Officer for the Borough, said that one of the reasons the Historic District was expanded in 1991 was to include properties on North and South Washington Street and Carlisle. Street protecting the modest buildings existing at the time of the Civil War. He said the scale of the proposed addition is not appropriate to a Civil War building. He said that between the years of 1891 and 1896 there changes to the rear of the building.

Elwood Christ, 212 S. Franklin Street, a former member of HARB for 20 years, said that he has seen this situation before where owners do things because they are ignorant of the HARB and Historic District requirements. Some have the attitude that they can demolish without review and ask for retrograde approval. 

D. Alteration. New Construction. 227 N. Washington Street, Daniel and Shannon Knudsen, owners. Paul Kellett and Allen Beckett, representatives.

Gary Shaffer spoke of the complexity of the application because of the demolition that took place without approval. Mr. Shaffer requested a focused and directed review of the new application noting that the pre-Civil War structure remains standing. 

Allen Beckett, the contractor, said that the building permit issued said to fix or repair the foundation, as needed. It was made clear to him that repair did not mean demolition. 

Paul Kellett, speaking for the owner, withdrew drawing A.1, one of two proposals for the front elevation. This particular drawing shows six-over-six windows. He said that all windows installed would be made of wood. Mr. Kellett said that the rear shed-roof addition used two- foot-by-six-foot boards for the ceiling joists, which could not support a second floor. He reported that the house had shifted three inches off the foundation. According to Mr. Kellett, the required insulation value of R-38 of the building code could not be met with the existing mud floor of the larger of the two additions. The new foundation, said Mr. Kellett, is within the required setback lines. He reported that the structure consisted of board and batten construction. There were no framing members or lathe for plaster. The owner has no plans for further demolition. Mr. Kellett said he never would be a part of the project if the Civil War structure was to be torn down. He apologized for the confusion. 

Philip Goble said that he visited the site and asked why a structural engineer’s report had not been submitted to the Board. Allen Beckett said a report was written by Jeffrey Fertich, a local structural engineer, but he did not bring it to the meeting. Mr. Goble said that the submitted plans are not identical to the fenestration of the south elevation of the original building. Then proposed windows are of different sizes and are in different locations than the original house. The proposed windows A & J are approximately 5.6 square feet, much less than the original three-foot by five-foot openings. 

On the front of the building, Mr. Goble said, the first floor windows should be larger than the second floor windows. Paul Kellett agreed to amend the application so that the windows on the north and south elevations of the Civil War home would be two-over-two windows located in the original openings – same size, same location. 

Nancie Gudmestad asked about the front stoops, would they remain concrete? She also asked about the handrails, would they remain the same? Paul Kellett said he would prefer wood, while Allen Beckett said he was open to change. The front "porch" overhang is about three feet deep; Mr. Beckett said the owner planned to use actual slate or install Grandrib 3 – a standard roofing material, if the Board preferred. 

The siding would be Smart Siding, a composite wood material with the thickness of wood; the same siding used on the Cullison property on S. Washington Street. Ms. Gudmestad asked about the style of gutters and downspouts to be used. Mr. Kellett said they were looking for the Board’s direction. Several other items were mentioned by Ms. Gudmestad including the presence of a small window on the first floor front and the lack of lighting fixtures by the entry doors. 

Mr. Kellett said the applicant was willing to install all wood windows with a one-over-one configuration on the north, south and east elevations except for the Civil War Building. Those windows will all have a two-over-two configuration. Gary Shaffer pointed out that a through-the-wall air conditioner unit would not be approved for the Civil War section of the building. The sidelight will be removed from the doorway on the south elevation. The front will have six–paneled doors; the side, a four panel door and on the rear, two-panel doors with a nine-light panel on top. 

Philip Goble said he looked at the building from the rear of the property and noted that the new foundation is not on the exact footprint of the original addition. Mr. Kellett said that the foundation height was following the building code’s best practices and the foundation is the same height as those of the adjoining properties. He said that the new foundation is only 14 inches taller than the original foundation. 

Peggy Gustafson said that the windows on the north and south elevations of the historic building should fill the existing openings. The second floor windows on the front elevation should be smaller or at least the same size as the first floor windows. The second floor windows are never larger than the first floor. Ms. Gustafson wanted to know why the plans show 16 different sized windows from six different companies. Paul Kellett said the all-wood windows would be manufactured by MW and purchased through Allen Beckett. Mr. Kellett said that the windows shown on the plan are windows the owner has on hand; there was no logic to the selection. Mr. Kellett confirmed that the windows would be the two-over-two configuration in the historic building, while the new section would have a one-over-one configuration. The windows will be the same size on each floor or perhaps a bit smaller on the second floor. 

Peggy Gustafson said that the location of the windows compared to the foundation in the portion of the building immediately adjacent to the 1859 is awkward. The applicant agreed to continue the siding down over the foundation wall to make the windows appear more proportionate. 

Ms. Gustafson noted the nine-light windows on the rear elevation and asked why the door on the south elevation was different. The applicant agreed to remove the sidelight at that entrance. A sidelight is not in keeping with the design of the rest of the house. 

When Ms. Gustafson pointed out that the roof area on the front of the building was added in the 1960s, Paul Kellett said the applicant would be willing to remove the roof. 

Ms. Gustafson recommended that a new application be submitted to include all the changes discussed at this meeting. 

Colleen Lingle said the plans show two separate dwellings on one lot so the owner can to maximize rental income. 

Peggy Gustafson provided more information on the house she had received from one of the former owners. Laura Hamilton, sometime between 1900 and 1914, extended the building to the rear with a dining room, where she served meals to college students, a kitchen and porch. At some point she added a second story over the dining room, where the students could sleep. As far as Ms. Gustafson is concerned, the building is a two-family dwelling unit and any other such discussions should be left to planning and zoning. 

Philip Goble made a motion that the application be held in abeyance until a revised application is submitted. Colleen Lingle seconded the motion. Gary Shaffer pointed out that the Historic District Ordinance requires the HARB to advise Borough Council of its recommendation within one month (30 days) of the meeting where the application was reviewed by the Board. Paul Kellet agreed to withdraw the application and follow the recommendations of the Board when submitting a revised application. It was agreed that the clock stops until the new submission is received. The motion passed 5 to 0. 

Nancie Gudmestad asked if she was opening a "can of worms" by suggesting that one of the front doors be removed to return the Civil War house back to its earlier appearance. She said that doing so would match other buildings on that side of the street. Why keep the second door? It was pointed out that doing so might look better but the original application kept the 1960s doors and the Board cannot require the owner to return the building back to its pre-Civil War appearance. It would be up to the applicant to make that decision. 

The Board listed the following items it would like to see in the revised drawings:

Maintain the integrity of the fenestration in the Civil War house; keep the existing window-, door- and other openings the same. 

Place the windows and doors in the new addition respecting the Civil War house and adjoining buildings

Match exterior to floor plans.

Provide a scale on each sheet of drawings.

Windows on the rear addition could be wood-clad windows to maintain the historic profiles.

Reduce the appearance of the building’s mass 

Board will not approve through-the-wall air conditioning units in the Civil War house. 

New Business

Philip Goble suggested that approved HARB applications with drawings be included in any application before the Planning Commission and Zoning Hearing Board, as well as in any application for a building permit. 

Peggy Gustafson suggested that if a special meeting is called for 302 S. Washington Street then the Board could also review a new application for 227 N. Washington Street if submitted. Philip Goble disagreed with the idea. 

Ms. Gustafson suggested that a statement be placed on the HARB application giving Board members the right to be on any property for which the owner submitted an application. The owner would have to sign the statement. The idea will be presented to the Borough Manager and Borough Solicitor. 

The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Merry V. Bush

Borough Planning Technician and 

Historic District Administrator