Three months ago I reported the abrupt mass-resignation of Reading’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) following intense administrative friction, and the beginning of the shift to the City making unilateral decisions regarding historic district properties. Since that time I have analyzed 6 years worth of HARB documents via a “Right to Know” request, to better understand the breakdown between the volunteer board and the City’s Preservation office. The documents are called “Resolutions” which are essentially just approvals or denials sent to property owners regarding their proposed exterior changes.

My findings are concerning. During the years 2019, 2020 and most of 2021 the City Preservation Office operations ran correctly and smoothly as it relates to HARB decisions. All of the documented resolutions for 2019-2020 were correct. However, things began to derail in the fall of 2021. As the chart above shows, total resolutions completed per year hover around 60, confirming the amount of work was stable. However beginning in 2022 most contained missing or incorrect data. This raises massive legal vulnerabilities, rendering a vast majority (84.6%) of HARB’s documented decisions between 2022–2025 highly susceptible to legal challenge.

The prevailing pattern was that one document was continually duplicated to create new resolutions. However, only the address on each document was changed to the correct information, the rest of the document remained stagnant; cloning unrelated project descriptions, listing incorrect third-party property owners, and introducing contradictory legal phrasing. If these resolutions were mailed to applicants, this opens a door for massive potential legal problems for the City. Those who were both approved or denied with faulty documents were not legally bound to the decision.

I took this data directly to City Hall, and spoke with Community Development Director David Barr about the breakdown and operations since the HARB resignations. Barr, having recently marked his first year as the City’s Community Development Director, stated he wished the members of HARB had come to him with their grievances prior to mass-resigning. However, Barr adamantly defended the City’s Preservation Office, reiterated his stance that the HARB’s rulings were sometimes oppressive and petty, and insisted that things have been flowing smoothly internally since the process no longer runs through the board. It is worth noting that the board has only been vacant for five months, roughly two of which the Preservation Specialist was out on leave. It would not be surprising if the process has been quicker and more seamless, especially for residents, considering they do not have to attend meetings, and their approvals or denials are expedited through one person. However, it is not speed but external regulation which was the benefit of having the type of oversight that the HARB supplied.

Barr also provided insight into the City’s potential path moving forward. In mid-June Pennsylvania’s Historic Museum Commission sent a representative to analyze the situation here in Reading, to make eventual recommendations on how the City can move forward. On July 20th this representative is scheduled to speak in front of City Council and present said recommendations. Barr believes those recommendations may include shrinking the borders of some of the current historic districts, changing stipulations of rules for homeowners in the districts, as well as a new HARB with perhaps altered qualifications for potential board members. He fully expects a HARB to eventually be reformed, and gave the rough timeline of a year or so before that becomes a reality.

My second interview in City Hall was with the employee at the epicenter of this conflict, the Historic Preservation Specialist, who informed me that the decisions being made on current HARB applications still follow the guidelines and precedent set by the HARB. The nearly 30-year city employee who occupies the position did not want to see the historic districts disbanded or even shrank in terms of borders, and would like to see a HARB return.

It is worth noting that these documents were collected and obtained during the Preservation Specialist’s 6-week leave, and when presented with this data, claimed they had no part in collecting the documents and therefore cannot speak to their contents. However the documents provided by the City’s legal team aren’t arbitrary files—they are the legally binding registry of HARB decisions.

The Preservation Specialist also gave me an idea of the position’s role outside of HARB work, which responsibilities include helping manage the preservation side of federal, state, and non-profit infrastructure projects, archival documentation, and internal development projects. It seems noteworthy to mention the Preservation Specialist oversaw the creation of two of the City’s current districts: Penn’s Common Historic District in 2005, and Hampden Heights – a conservation district, essentially ‘historic district-lite’ in 2012. Sentiments were that the responsibilities of the preservation office have been overextended for some time. In 2024, a secondary Historic Specialist was hired to assist, an addition advocated for by members of HARB. Yet, the data shows there was no meaningful difference in the amount of incorrect resolutions documented between 2024 and 2025.

Ahead of July 20th, the public and City Council face a definitive choice: do we shrink the historic footprints and lower regulatory standards to accommodate current administrative shortfalls, or do we rebuild the infrastructure to accurately, effectively and fairly preserve pieces of our architectural history? What guardrails can be implemented to ensure this type of administrative derailment cannot reoccur?

To be clear, this extensive data analysis was not undertaken to disrupt City operations, but to protect them. Everything that I am publicly stems from my deep belief in preserving Reading’s unique history and architectural fabric. The solution to pulling ourselves out of this current administrative situation is not to subvert our preservation standards, but to embrace them. Our historic districts provide a unique charm that new construction could never replicate—making them one of the City’s greatest assets for genuine economic revitalization. By increasing public awareness, we can help protect that asset. I will be back with an update after the PHMC’s recommendations are formally presented to City Council.