State College Borough Council on Monday night approved an ordinance creating two local historic districts and a Historical and Architectural Review Board.
Council voted 6-1 on the measure, with Evan Myers voting against.
The ordinance will establish local historic districts for the Holmes-Foster/Highlands and College Heights neighborhoods, both of which are in the National Register of Historic Places but have no local regulations related to maintaining their historical character. A HARB will make recommendations to approve or deny certificates of appropriateness for demolitions, additions to the front of a house and new construction on contributing properties in the district.
There are 706 contributing properties in Holmes-Foster/Highlands and 274 in College Heights in the proposed HARB boundary. The HARB would not apply to non-contributing properties within the boundaries.
The borough will now submit the local historic district map to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission for certification and begin planning for development of design guidelines and community outreach.
In opposing the ordinance, Myers said he would have been in favor if it only regulated demolitions and made other standards were recommended, not required. He recalled comments made by late Mayor Bill Welch, who in 2002 vetoed a similar ordinance, saying it made borough council a ‘micromanager’ of individual properties and would be better served by starting with a voluntary program of advice and education.
‘The alteration or design change to properties in the historical neighborhoods is not so much a problem,’ Myers said. ‘I am also concerned prescriptive requirements for people to adhere to… would create an economic hardship. We need more diversity and economic opportunity for families to buy homes in our neighborhoods, not less.’
The ordinance has been significantly refined since it was first proposed in the spring. The initial concept would have governed virtually any exterior work done to a home in the districts.
Council member Theresa Lafer noted that the ordinance approved on Monday is focused only on demolitions and additions.
‘There is nothing in this that we’re voting on tonight that talks about the color of your house, the shape of your door, the kind of windows you put in or any other prescriptive data,’ she said. ‘I think it can help our homes to survive, our community to maintain its character.’
Council received public comment at meetings and forums over the past several months, including a public hearing earlier this month. The majority of comments received were generally in favor, but a number of residents expressed a variety of concerns. Some said the regulations would compromise property owners’ rights, while others said the length of time allowed for the HARB’s recommendations and a final decision — up to 90 days — would be onerous. Other concerns included increased costs for renovations and insurance and that the HARB would further prevent prospective young homeowners from being able to buy in those neighborhoods.
‘I have the impression many people who are opposed to this haven’t really read it,’ council member Janet Engeman said.
She questioned how it would discourage a prospective young homebuyer, saying they wouldn’t be buying the property to demolish it, and would be unlikely to be buying with making additions in mind. If they were, however, the HARB would not be prohibitive, she said
Others have said the ordinance was being moved through too quickly without enough time for public review.
‘I don’t believe, nor am I impressed by, the argument that this is being rushed and needing more time,’ council member David Brown said. ‘This has had time to germinate and reach fertile ground, [with] thoughtful discussion and dialogue over a number of years and a lot of different folks’ points of view.’
Brown also said the ordinance seemed to be most opposed by realtors and landlords.
‘I think the greatest risk to our town and our housing… is not the HARB,’ Brown said. ‘It’s the realtors, the developers and the speculators who keep coming in and trying to take up these houses to tear them down or turn them into rentals, or God forbid even slumlords who see a profit to be made.
‘Much of the opposition to the HARB I think comes from those who have an economic interest in seeing very little control or regulation over the neighborhoods or housing.’
The HARB will be comprised of an architect, real estate broker, building code inspector and four individuals who reside in the historic districts and have ‘demonstrated interest, knowledge ,ability, experience or expertise in restoration, historic rehabilitation, or neighborhood conservation or revitalization.’
