State College Council Votes Down Amendment That Could Have Ended Historical Architectural Review Board

State College Borough Council on Monday rejected a proposed ordinance amendment that potentially could have led to the end of the Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB)— a proposal that was met with swift backlash by residents during its brief time on public view.

Council members previously asked staff to bring forward the proposed amendment for consideration, but on Monday voted unanimously against adding a “sunset clause” to the ordinance that established the HARB. If approved, council would have been required to take action every three years, beginning this year, to renew the HARB or else it would be repealed.

After about two decades of effort by residents and borough staff, council in 2017 approved an ordinance to establish a HARB for contributing properties in the Holmes-Foster/Highlands and College Heights historic districts as a means of preserving the character of the neighborhoods. The HARB makes recommendations to approve or deny certificates of appropriateness for demolitions, additions to the front of a house and new construction on the nearly 1,000 contributing properties in the districts, but does not apply to non-contributing properties.

Council ultimately votes to approve or deny the certificate.

The move to add a sunset clause to the ordinance arose during a council discussion on March 20 about updated HARB guidelines, when council member Peter Marshall said the process was onerous.

“I think the process goes too far and I think it is too much of a burden on homeowners,” Marshall said. “I think it should be made simpler. I have no suggestions on how to do that.”

After council member Deanna Behring inquired if the ordinance had a sunset clause, Marshall said he liked the idea and motioned to bring an amendment to a future board meeting. Planning Director Ed LeClear said applications for HARB consideration typically are placed on an agenda within 15 days of being received and a recommendation is usually made within two months, but Marshall contended applicants spend much more time, and money, preparing for the HARB process.

“The fact is it should be considered, and it may be something people want to continue; it may be something people want to modify,” Marshall said. “It’s a big deal for property owners. Historic preservation has merit. I’m not talking about getting rid of it. I’m talking about reviewing it officially and deciding what council wants to do at that time.”

Council voted in March to bring the amendment to the table at a future meeting, with only council President Jesse Barlow voting no.

At Monday’s meeting, Marshall clarified that he did not think the HARB would be repealed, but that a sunset clause would provide an opportunity for feedback and review

“But I do think it makes sense to give people a chance to seriously say things about their experience, seriously support something if they like it, and allow council to hear these things and make changes if they’re appropriate,” Marshall said.

Barlow said he “strongly” objected to the sunset clause. The HARB, he said, has “done a lot of good” to preserve neighborhoods and prevent historic homes from being demolished.

“This is important because property owners from outside State College will tend to buy these smaller historic homes, demolish them and build a much larger modern structure,” he said. “That would lead to more housing speculation, hurt the character of the neighborhood and often serve the purpose of cramming more people into student rental properties.”

He added that months of meetings and public forums led to the HARB ordinance, which is much weaker than those in places like Bellefonte and Hollidaysburg. In fact, the final ordinance was significantly pared down from an initial proposal earlier in 2017 that would have governed a wide swath of home renovations for contributing properties, such as cornice changes, exterior cleaning methods, storm doors and windows.

Early in the discussion on Monday, a majority of council members signaled that they would vote against the sunset clause. But 10 community members, all but one of whom opposed the sunset clause, still spoke during public comment over the course of more than 30 minutes. The borough also received more than a dozen emails from residents who opposed the amendment, and two from those who supported it.

Residents who spoke on Monday said they were taken aback by the proposal, and some chided the borough for not giving notice until the agenda for the meeting was released after 5 p.m. Friday.

HARB Chair Eric Boeldt said board members were “upset that there has been some thought that there’s been a problem with the HARB.” He suggested if any council members had a problem, they should talk to him or other board members.

“Why did this come up? I haven’t heard any problems,” Boeldt said. “I’ve had a little whining from a couple people because they didn’t quite like it. Others have thanked us immensely for the design changes we strongly urged.”

He added that, to his knowledge, no council member has ever attended a HARB meeting.

“That’s because what, you don’t want to supervise us? You don’t want to pay attention to us?” Boeldt said. “You just want to say ‘OK, let’s have a sunset.’ Why? That doesn’t make any sense to say ‘let’s get rid of this group if we don’t do anything.’ I think you should all come visit us once in a while.”

College Heights Association President Ron Madrid said he was “perplexed” by the consideration of a sunset clause.

“Neighborhood preservation has been consistently stated as a council priority,” Madrid said. “If so, why would you consider an amendment to the HARB ordinance that would require continued support and reinstatement every three years? The HARB ordinance is one of the few means we have to review and possibly control the destruction or mindless alteration to designated properties within our historic districts.”

Some residents, including at least one who went through the HARB process, said the board has not only preserved neighborhoods, but has also been a helpful resource to provide suggestions that have made home improvements better.

Council voted unanimously against the amendment. Mayor Ezra Nanes said the community input was important.

“I think this has been a powerful statement by the community, and I think it’s been good for council,” Nanes said. “Council can only perform at its best when the community is involved. If this is not an example of that I don’t know what is.

“…The idea of taking a moment to reflect on our organization and how it performs is valuable. Tonight’s been an opportunity to do that. The HARB is a beloved institution that is performing well. That’s what I’ve heard tonight. But it’s good for us to do this with all parts of government and that is not always an easy thing to do.”