Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council votes to allow demolition of Mattis Law Office after HARB denial; members cite safety concerns
Summary
Scranton City Council amended and adopted a resolution allowing demolition of the Mattis Law Office building at 324 North Washington Avenue, overturning a prior HARB denial. Councilmembers said façade and sidewalk hazards made demolition a public-safety necessity and the motion passed unanimously.
Scranton City Council on the evening it met voted to allow demolition of the long-vacant Mattis Law Office at 324 North Washington Avenue, overturning a prior denial by the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB).
Council took Resolution 25 of 2026 from the table and, after an amendment to change language from denying to allowing the certificate of appropriateness, voted to permit the property owner to move forward with demolition. The council chair declared the item legally and lawfully adopted following a roll-call vote in which Dr. Rothschild, Mr. Shawn McAndrew, Mr. Mark McAndrew, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Schuster each recorded “yes.”
The measure came after extended public comment and council discussion about competing priorities: preserving historic fabric versus removing a building members described as a public-safety risk. Council members noted reports of façade pieces and undermined sidewalks, and said the owner and neighboring businesses had raised safety concerns. One member said the safety rationale outweighed preservation arguments and that demolition was necessary to prevent the structure from becoming a hazard.
Tom Coin, a public commenter with knowledge of the HARB process, urged council to treat historic-review decisions and public-safety authority as separate processes; he recommended upholding HARB decisions unless an imminent hazard required emergency action. Council discussion tracked that approach: several members said they respected HARB’s preservation mission but felt the site’s condition created immediate pedestrian and business-safety issues.
The record shows the item was initially tabled and then amended on the floor to allow the certificate of appropriateness. No council member identified during the roll call opposed the amended measure.
Next steps recorded at the meeting: the owner will proceed with demolition under the certificate that council allowed. The council did not specify a demolition start date during the meeting.
