Slight or subtle word choices can have big meanings. And consequences.
Brandon Stone, chairman of Gettysburg’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB), recently parsed a few of these words from proposed changes to the borough’s zoning ordinances as they relate to the borough’s designated historic district. He does not like the subtlety or possible consequences. Neither does resident Sue Cipperly, a steadfast and vocal advocate for maintaining the historic integrity of downtown and greater Gettysburg.
For those who are paying attention, Stone and Cipperly certainly are not alone.
One proposed revision to the borough’s municipal code addresses professional expertise and representation on HARB’s board. Under the current ordinance regarding HARB membership, one shall be a registered architect. Another shall be a licensed real estate broker. But the proposed revision would replace “shall” with “should.”
That change risks gradually weakening the institutional competency necessary for consistent preservation review over time, Stone said.
Do you think?
“Should” vs. “shall” changes everything, folks! It is hardly a minor change to those who may desire to gain or shift control.
Currently, HARB’s seven-member board includes two architects and a real estate agent. That’s a nice mix. The board is also expected to include a certified building inspector and codes officer, among other stipulations.
Predictably, the concerns voiced last month by Stone and Cipperly circle back to increased building heights at the core of many months of debate surrounding the Gettysburg Station Project. But the longer-term impact of the proposed changes run deeper than just that downtown housing project.
Leading up to discussion of a draft ordinance during HARB’s May 20 meeting, Stone made it known he feels the revised draft zoning ordinance, including its allowances for increased building heights, may pique interest in additional redevelopment. In other words, more Station-type projects that are long on commercialization and controversy and short on the spirit and fundamental draw of Gettysburg as a small-town historic treasure.
“It becomes increasingly important that the borough maintains a strong, independent, technically informed historic preservation review process,” he said. Stone believes the proposed revisions to chapter 11 of Gettysburg’s municipal code run counter to that goal, according to a recent news article by Times reporter Richard Franki.
“Several of the proposed chapter 11 revisions appear to narrow or weaken key preservation safeguards at the same time development pressures are increasing,” Stone said.
Cipperly has been an outspoken critic of this and related concerns about downtown Gettysburg and historic preservation, including another proposed change that would redefine the term “sensitive building” in the historic district.
This revised definition of a sensitive building would not prevent HARB review, but it would mean that structures built after 1927 would be classified as major or minor projects, not critical, said John Whitmore, director of planning, zoning and code enforcement.
Whitmore provided a timeline on the draft ordinance: Members are requested to provide written comments by June 10 so the matter can be discussed at HARB’s June 17 meeting. The ordinance revision would then go to council, which would set a date for a required public hearing, followed by a council vote to approve or deny the proposal. That final vote on the ordinance would not take place before September.
If it this matters to you, show up. Speak your piece.
For my part, I have said it here before in a column with a headline of “Dance with the one who brought you” — Ideologically, I am a free-market capitalist to my core. Investment, calculated risks, change and growth are constant necessities to sustain almost any vibrant ecosystem. Almost any, that is. The Station Project is a glaring exception. Well-intentioned from most all corners of the
debate, I think, but still good money chasing a bad outcome.
From someone who spent most of his life watching the continually decaying economy of Pennsylvania’s rural northern tier, it is imperative today that any small town fortunate enough to have a truly unique calling card nurture and protect that advantage jealously. That’s more important now more than ever, in a world of virtual sight-seeing and disengagement with downtown USA in general. And yes, occasionally at the expense of “progress.”
Personally, I would not weaken one single safeguard in this regard.