The recent mass resignation of the Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB) in Reading, Pennsylvania, has sparked a critical conversation about the future of historical preservation in the city. This event, which occurred in February, has left a void in the city's historical preservation efforts, prompting the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission to offer recommendations for reestablishing the HARB. The HARB, an advisory citizens group composed of volunteer professionals and residents, plays a crucial role in preserving the city's five historical districts: Centre Park, Callowhill, Prince, Penn's Common, and College Heights. The group reviews and approves alterations to the exteriors of buildings in these districts, ensuring that any changes are in line with the city's historical preservation goals.
One of the key recommendations from the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office is a rewrite or revision of the city's historic preservation ordinance. Megan McNish, the eastern region community preservation coordinator, suggests that the city consider whether the Historic District Act is the best fit for its goals and needs. She points out that the Act requires specific positions for the HARB's makeup, while the Municipalities Planning Code is less specific. This distinction could be a significant factor in the city's decision-making process. McNish also proposes that the ordinance update could be funded through grants, offering to assist the city staff in making applications for these funds.
In the short term, McNish recommends assessing current staffing responsibilities and reassigning them based on the number of permits being reviewed. She also suggests integrating historic preservation into the digital permitting process to provide better access to information and track records more effectively. During this phase, the city would also adopt bylaws for the preservation review board to reflect the updated ordinance.
Looking ahead, the medium term involves developing and adopting design guidelines for each of the city's historic preservation districts. These guidelines would speak to the character-defining history of the districts. The new preservation review board would also have continuing education and training requirements to comply with the standards. In the long term, the city would begin to implement the survey plan, ensuring that all districts are comprehensively surveyed to meet ongoing performance standards.
The process of reconstituting the HARB is a complex and time-consuming task, estimated to take until early 2029. This timeline raises questions about the legality of City Council temporarily acting as the HARB, as noted by Council President Donna Reed. Reed also emphasized the importance of transparency, requesting a log of projects that have been approved or denied. The city's longtime historical preservation officer, Amy Johnson, has responded to accusations of favoritism, asserting that all applicants are treated fairly and evenly as long as they have submitted a completed application.
In conclusion, the mass resignation of the HARB has presented an opportunity for the city to reevaluate and strengthen its historical preservation program. The recommendations from the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office provide a roadmap for the city to follow, but the process is likely to be lengthy and challenging. The future of Reading's historical districts hangs in the balance, and the city's leaders must navigate the complexities of reconstituting the HARB while ensuring transparency and fairness in the process. Personally, I think that the city's commitment to historical preservation is commendable, and I am hopeful that the recommendations will be implemented in a way that benefits the community and preserves the city's rich history for future generations.
