HARB Minutes

Meeting date: 
Wednesday, September 19, 2012

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

7:30 p.m. Wednesday, September 19, 2012. The meeting was held at the Borough Municipal Building, 59 East High Street. A quorum was present. Those in attendance were board members Peggy Gustafson, Jim McCabe, Colleen Lingle, Nancie Gudmestad and Dale Gettel, Borough Code Enforcement Officer. Also in attendance were Aubrey Burkholder of Commonwealth Code Inspection Services, and Scott Dellett, Borough Planning Director. Board member Philip Goble and Merry Bush, Borough Planning Technician and Historic District Administrator, were absent. 

Brendon Synnamon, representing Café on the Square, 1 Baltimore Street, was in attendance.

Review of Agenda and Minutes

Mr. 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 next meet on Tuesday, October 9, 2012 to consider the Board’s recommendations and act on the applications. 

There were no changes to the agenda. Ms. Gustafson moved to accept the revised minutes as the official record of the August 15, 2012 meeting. Mr. Gettel seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 

Certificates of Appropriateness 

A. Alteration. Lighting. 1 Baltimore Street. William J. Synnamon, applicant

The applicant proposed to install gooseneck lighting fixtures above the "Café on the Square" sign on the northern façade.

Mr. Dellett summarized the Planning Department memorandum dated September 13, 2012. The building history is as follows: Construction began on the existing building in 1818, though it was not occupied until sometime in 1819. The building was built by John McConaughy and served as his family residence and law office. Previously on the site was a two-story log and wood-frame building ca. 1798 that was relocated to West Middle Street to make room for the new building. According to the Historical Resource Survey Form, the construction of the three-story Federal style house was a monumental task. The building was to serve three functions: home, law office and income property. The building was modified over the years under the ownership of John L. Schick, one of the Borough’s most prominent merchants during the mid-nineteenth century. The most significant changes including the storefront windows came under the ownership of Harvey Washington McKnight, then president of Gettysburg College. When McKnight purchased the building i6 was the first time the building no longer served as the owner’s residence; it became entirely income producing. In the spring of 1890, the storefront windows were installed. The installation, though, caused considerable structural problems, and as a result the 8 April 1890 Complier reported that, "The delay in the old Schick Building [was] caused by waiting on an iron girder to sustain the weight of the wall above the open front on Baltimore Street side." Additional changes to the building were undertaken by McKnight in the early years of the 20th century.

Findings of Fact: 

  • The structure at 1 Baltimore Street is a sensitive building as defined in Chapter 11 of the Borough Code of Ordinances, Historic Districts (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. 
  • The installation of lighting for a sign is a minor project, defined in the Historic District Ordinance as "A project that does not result in change to the appearance of a building, such as replacing deteriorated wood with identical wood pieces. "
  • The building is a contributing structure to the Gettysburg Battlefield National Register Historic District.
  • Based on the application materials submitted by the applicant:
    • The proposed location for the lighting fixtures will light more than just the sign.
    • The proposed location for the fixtures will also impact the second floor apartment. 
    • An UCC electrical permit will be required for the installation of the lighting fixtures. 
    • The fixtures will be highly visible from the street. The white color of the proposed fixtures would not blend into the background of building.

Mr. Synnamon provided a synopsis of the proposed project. 

Mr. McCabe said the hunter green color on the fixtures would be comparable to the sign.

Ms. Gudmestad noted the building look gorgeous and liked the color scheme.

Ms. Gustafson asked if the lighting fixtures could be moved down. She measured the signage and determined the applicant has about 17 feet of signage. Ms. Gustafson noted that the Horse Solider has three lighting fixtures on the building sign which is a little larger than the Café’s sign.

Mr. Synnamon said the second-floor space will be used as a storage room for dry storage.

Ms. Gustafson said in the past, the board has required the light should be no greater than 50 watts. She said if the applicant wishes to have four light fixtures, the Board should hold to that standard. She asked if the light fixtures would be located five bricks above the sign. Mr. Synnamon replied if you count the bricks, the brackets would be located above the fifth brick.

Ms. Gustafson showed the applicant a LED 60-watt light bulb and asked if he would be comfortable with that type of light. Mr. Synnamon concurred. Ms. Gustafson asked if Mr. Synnamon if he was comfortable with painting the light fixture green; Mr. Synnamon agreed.

Mr. Gettel asked how long the fixtures would be lit. Mr. Synnamon said the lights will be on during business hours. The lights will be on a timer.

Motion: Ms. Gustafson moved to recommend to Borough Council that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted for the installation of light fixtures on the building at 1 Baltimore Street as proposed in the application dated August 16, 2012, subject to the following conditions: 

1. The applicant shall lower the location of the light fixtures;

2. The applicant shall paint the light standards in a hunter green color;

3. The maximum wattage for the lights shall be no greater than 60 watts as some newer bulbs are equal to 60 watts rather than 50 watts; and 

4. The lights shall not be lit overnight.

The motion, seconded by Ms. Gudmestad, carried 6 to 0.

After the vote, Ms. Gustafson referred the applicant to a lighting guide and Tristate on Biglersville Road.

B. Alteration. Accessibility. Rear. 421 Baltimore Street. Susan Saum-Wickline and George Lomas, owners.

Mr. Shaffer recused himself due to a fiduciary relationship with this applicant. Ms. Gustafson assumed the role of chairman.

The applicant proposes to construct an accessible ramp at the rear of the property. 

Mr. Dellett summarized the Planning Department memorandum dated September 13, 2012. The building history is as follows: According to the Gettysburg Borough Comprehensive Building Inventory of 1988, the brick structure located at 421 Baltimore Street was constructed ca. 1900. The National Folk style, two and a half story building, was modified with the installation of a picture window on the front elevation. There is no record of when the change was made, but from the design of the window it was likely in the 1970s before the Historic District Ordinance was adopted. The rear of the building has also been modified with either an addition or enclosure of a rear porch. The rear façade is covered with an alternate siding material.

Mr. Shaffer presented a synopsis of the project. Ms. Gudemestad asked if the applicant had any intention of brining the window back; Mr. Shaffer said no. He added the building will be used for mail order business. The building had been a residence, but the present owner does not have plans to rent. 

Mr. Gettel asked about the building material for the ramp. Mr. Shaffer said the railing would be pressure-treated lumber. Mr. Gettel asked about the use of metal. Mr. Shaffer said there is a lack of visibility; the project would have no visual impact.

Ms. Gustafson read the findings of fact into the record:

• The structure at 421 Baltimore Street is a sensitive building as defined in Chapter 11 of the Borough Code of Ordinances, Historic Districts (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. 

• The construction of an accessible ramp is a permanent change, making this proposal a critical project, which is defined in the Historic District 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 Historic District.

• Based on the application materials submitted by the applicant:

o The ramp will not be visible from Baltimore Street. 

o The ramp will be visible from Court Alley to the rear of the property.

Motion: Mr. Gudmestad moved to recommend to Borough Council that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted for construction of an ADA-handicap accessible ramp at the rear of 421 Baltimore Street, as presented in the application dated September 5, 2012. Mr. McCabe seconded and the motion carried, 5 to 0, with Mr. Shaffer abstaining. 

Old Business 

Mr. Shaffer resumed the role of chairman.

Mr. McCabe commented on an article in the Gettysburg Times regarding the new McDonald’s Restaurant on Steinwehr Avenue. He said the comments made by the franchise owner were disturbing. Mr. McCabe added he was upset that the franchise owner said that McDonald’s will be the leader in the redevelopment on Steinwehr Avenue.

Mr. Shaffer noted that Steinwehr Avenue consists of a mixture of building types, including modern design.

Revisions to Historic District Ordinance

Board members discussed the draft revision to the demolition section of the ordinance, which was distributed at June’s meeting. The Board also reviewed and discussed written comments by Ms. Gustafson.

Mr. Shaffer made several comments on the draft and the following revisions will be incorporated into the document:

  • Delete Section 110.3.A.3.f: A report of the applicant's/owner's maintenance of the structure since it was acquired; whether the applicant/owner has neglected maintenance to destroy the building's historic integrity or structural integrity; removed architectural fixtures from the exterior of the structure or otherwise damaged the property. Mr. Shaffer suggested that language be added to Section 110.3.A.2 where the Planning Department prepares a report to the Board regarding the building maintenance and code enforcement actions.
  • Review the provision in Section 110.3.B.2.b that requires a site plan be prepared by a registered design professional. Mr. Shaffer asked if a registered design professional must be required to prepare a site plan. Mr. Dellett said he would look into the legal requirements.
  • Add a missing word in Section 110.3.B.3.b.
  • Ms. Gustafson recommended removal of "legalese" terms to more user-friendly verbage from the draft.

Other Business

Board members agreed to move the November meeting, originally scheduled for November 21st, which is the day before Thanksgiving, to Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.

There being no additional business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.