Commission members debated whether altered commercial-frontage properties on Montgomery Avenue should remain under the commission’s purview or be removed from the borough’s historic-district map.

The discussion followed a request from Council President Fred (last name not specified in the transcript) asking the commission to review and consider removing specific properties—mostly small former residences converted to commercial uses—from the historic district. Several commissioners said they want to stay involved and offer design-oriented advice rather than remove the commission’s ability to comment.

Commissioner Graham argued against removing the properties wholesale and urged a focus on incentives and design guidance rather than additional regulation. “I frankly think that, the more encouragement and incentivization as possible is what's needed, not regulation,” Graham said. He and other commissioners noted the commission’s role is advisory to borough council and emphasized they can help shape redevelopment to better knit commercial and residential areas together.

Opposing views were also raised. One commissioner described a row of altered properties as “bastardized” and said the buildings should be targeted for change, not preservation. Commissioners acknowledged the two realities along Montgomery Avenue: parcels now dominated by commercial uses, and residential blocks behind the avenue that the borough wants to shield from incompatible redevelopment.

What the commission agreed to do: members asked staff to prepare a building-by-building response to Council President Fred’s request. That response will include the commission’s recommendation on whether each property should remain subject to review. Commissioners suggested the analysis should also address a related question raised in the meeting: whether the borough should emphasize design guidelines and incentives through planning and zoning (including form-based code tools) to drive higher-quality redevelopment, rather than relying primarily on preservation regulation.

Context and examples cited: commissioners pointed to recent and pending redevelopment on Montgomery Avenue as evidence the street is shifting away from single-family use toward commercial or mixed-use. Participants named specific addresses discussed during the meeting: 840 Montgomery Avenue (former Sun Valley Pizza building; a nail salon application was reported as imminent during the meeting) and 814 Montgomery Avenue (a small building noted as slated for new restaurant use). Commissioners said the Albrecht site redevelopment was an example of a recent successful adaptive-reuse project.

Process notes: Commissioners emphasized that any formal change to the borough’s historic-district map or ordinance is ultimately a decision of borough council. The commission’s work will be limited to analysis and recommendation. Several members asked for clarity about the ordinance’s scope versus the map’s listing of contributing properties; the commission noted an internal inconsistency between the map’s property list and the ordinance language that frames the commission’s review authority.

Next steps and timeline: The commission chair said he will follow up with Council President Fred and that the commission will prepare a written response, property-by-property, for discussion at upcoming meetings. Commissioners asked for that response to be ready within the next one to two meetings so the commission can present a recommended position to council.

Ending: Commissioners agreed to continue the conversation and to coordinate with the planning commission and borough staff on design- and zoning-based incentives that could be used to guide Montgomery Avenue redevelopment.