Residents, council question HARB approval after historic stone retaining wall removed without permit

Columbia Borough Council and members of the public on July 15 raised concerns after the Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB) recommended approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a house on North Third Street despite what residents say was the removal of an original stone retaining wall before HARB review.

Council reviewed the COA for 149 North Third Street and a separate COA for 440 Chestnut Street. The 149 North Third application proposes porch repairs and removal of a front-yard retaining wall; HARB recommended approval with no conditions. Several residents and council members said photographs show the stone wall was removed before any HARB or council review, and they urged the council to seek an expert consultant's opinion before final action.

A resident and frequent commenter, Sharon, said the stone wall removal set a troubling precedent: "The original is now gone. We won't be able to get the original," and urged stronger enforcement when historic features are altered without prior approval. Another resident who identified himself as the property owner said financial and medical circumstances led to the work, and he asked for understanding. Several speakers asked whether the porch's curved eave would be retained; the application drawings submitted to staff show only a single section and did not make clear whether the round porch profile would be restored.

Councilperson Fisher and other members recommended sending the COA back to HARB for more documentation and for the Lancaster County consultant (used by HARB) to review the application and provide guidance on appropriate in-kind repairs or required restitution. Council agreed not to vote on the matter that night and asked staff to secure the consultant's recommendation and to clarify whether HARB inspected the property before making its recommendation.

The public raised two recurring issues: whether HARB had sufficient information and whether the borough has enforcement mechanisms (fines or ordered restoration) that would meaningfully deter after-the-fact alterations to historic features. One resident noted prior cases where enforcement actions required reconstruction, while others said fines alone do not restore the original fabric.

Council members said they want clearer drawings and documentation showing what will be replaced or restored, plus the consultant's assessment of historical significance, before making a final determination.

Next steps: Council asked staff to obtain the Lancaster consultant's review and to return the COA to HARB for clarification; no final council vote was taken on the 149 North Third COA during the meeting.