Planning commission addresses county comments on historic‑architect review in HO overlay ordinance

At the work session commissioners reviewed two written county comments on a draft ordinance that would require historic‑architect review for new development in HO overlay districts.

County reviewers asked whether the proposed review applies to all new buildings in the overlay districts or only to structures that exceed existing height maximums in HO‑60 and HO‑75. Commissioners and staff confirmed an existing provision requires architectural review for buildings in the HO‑60 and HO‑75 districts and that the commission can respond to the county clarifying that the ordinance covers those districts as intended.

A second county comment urged consistency between the county historic architect’s recommendations and the borough historic architect or review body to avoid conflicting guidance for borough council. Commissioners discussed whether the ordinance should make the county reviewer a formal part of the borough review or simply ensure both comment letters are provided to borough council for its consideration. Staff noted the intent had been to keep the review separate from the borough’s Historic Architectural Review Panel but agreed the commission should clarify procedures and state how differing recommendations will be presented to borough council.

Commissioners indicated they could prepare written responses addressing both county points and return the ordinance language to counsel for any needed edits. No formal vote was taken; staff will prepare clarifying language and a suggested response to the county comments.