Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gettysburg HARB debates streamlining administrative approvals and preserving height limits in draft ordinance update
Summary
Board members discussed draft Chapter 11 revisions that would expand administrative approvals for minor work and set meeting/submission timelines; several members cautioned against weakening height protections and noted overlap with National Park Service scenic-easement properties.
At the June 30 meeting the Historic Architectural Review Board reviewed staff’s draft updates to Chapter 11 of the borough code and discussed two procedural changes: expanding administrative approval for certain minor repairs and moving regular HARB meetings to the first Wednesday of each month to speed review and align better with borough-council timing.
Staff said council is encouraging opportunities for more administrative reviews to reduce the burden on applicants for minor, non-visual changes and to facilitate timely emergency repairs; staff proposed a 15-day completeness deadline for applications before a scheduled meeting so packets can be distributed equitably. Board members sought clarity on how emergency repairs would be handled, noting that repairs that preserve existing materials already can be administratively approved but that material changes tied to an emergency can be problematic.
Several members argued the draft should retain strong height protections. One member said preserving height limits in core blocks prevents out-of-scale redevelopment and cited the example of a historic school property that drew developer interest; members worried that weakening the language could erode the district’s character. Another member reported contacting the National Park Service about two properties (Red Patch on Confederate Avenue and the McMillan House) that hold NPS scenic easements; NPS advised it would be the approving authority for those sites and recommended excluding them from any HARB extension to avoid duplicative or conflicting review.
Quoted
“We should retain the height restriction — a strong ordinance actually protects the council and it protects the borough,” a HARB member said during debate.
What happens next
Staff requested any additional board comments by July 7 so a formal recommendation on the ordinance updates can be prepared for the July 15 HARB meeting; the board indicated it will consider whether to preserve or modify height protections as it finalizes its recommendation to borough council.
