HARB approves Locust Street storefront sign with color and framing conditions; address discrepancy flagged

The Columbia Borough Historical Architectural Review Board on April 9 approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a storefront sign at 234 Locust Street with conditions requiring the applicant to change yellow lettering to white, add a border or frame evocative of the existing molding, and size the sign to fill the existing architrave panel on the storefront.

Hamid, who identified himself as the property owner, told the board the proposed sign is an aluminum panel affixed above the doorway and that the sign company provided the sample in the application packet. "I'm the owner of the property," Hamid said while describing material and placement options. Board members debated materials (painted letters on glass versus vinyl), visibility from the street, and compatibility with neighboring storefronts.

Board members recommended paint over vinyl for historic glass lettering and suggested the applicant could emulate the surrounding trim by adding a white border to better integrate the panel with the Victorian façade. The board also discussed an existing painted address on glass (“236”) that may predate the current owner; members advised the applicant to coordinate address labeling with the post office and said the applicant can place the correct address on the door if needed. Paula (borough staff) told the owner that HARB's approval is a recommendation and that the application must proceed to borough council for final approval.

The board approved the COA subject to the two conditions (change yellow to white; add a framed border and fill the existing architrave) and recorded that council review is required before work begins. Board members also made an official recommendation that borough council consider drafting a uniform sign ordinance for the historic district to standardize materials, fonts, and size rules; the board recorded that recommendation as a formal referral. A separate application for 02:33 Locust Street was tabled because the applicant was not present.

Motions recorded in the transcript include a motion to approve the COA with the stated conditions (moved by a board member identified in discussion as "Matt" and seconded by a member who said "I'll second"), a motion/referral to ask borough council to consider a uniform sign ordinance, and a motion to table the 02:33 Locust Street application due to applicant absence. The transcript shows those motions carried, but it does not record a numeric roll-call tally.