With no one present to represent an awning and painting proposal for 81 W. Broad St., the Historical and Architectural Review Board had extra time to hold a scheduled “open discussion” at the Dec. 7 meeting. This was the only property listed on the evening’s agenda.

Chaired by Connie Postupack, the commissioners held a public, but informal, conversation on issues such as streamlining the application process, especially for “replacing like for like” proposals, finding out how other historic district boards address changing technology, and researching new building materials that could be considered historically appropriate.

Chief Building Inspector Mike Simonson spoke about a pending “over-the-counter approvals” process ordinance, still in draft form, that would allow for “a select group” of HARB proposals to be approved through his office, as long as they involve a “like for like” replacement that follows the historic district guidelines. “A slate roof is being replaced with a slate roof,” cited Simonson as an example. He mentioned that he was working with former HARB co-chairman Philip Roeder on crafting the legislation. The board itself has input.

While a work in progress, he mentioned any final draft would need to be reviewed by the city solicitor’s office before going before city council.

Vice Chair Diana Hodgson expressed concern that an applicant could possibly receive administrative approval to replace something historically inappropriate, such as an existing white roof with a similar one. “We don’t want to be played by applicants,” she said. Simonson assured her that he would check out a building before issuing approval. As with a certificate of appropriateness obtained through the board, it would still need to be approved by council.

Nik Nikolov weighed in on possible transparency issues and if there was room for public comment on an applicant’s “like for like” proposal. He cited possible “drainage problems” if an applicant is replacing a fence that could affect the neighboring yard, as well as making sure the fence doesn’t cross property lines.

Simonson said the agenda is posted on the city’s online calendar for 15 days prior to meetings. He also stressed that proposals with material changes, color changes, and other factors, like replacing a slate roof with GAF asphalt shingles would still need to be reviewed at a HARB hearing.

The subject of HARB application fees came up to fund compliance inspections.

How to address new technology like solar panels and vehicle charging stations was discussed. It was mentioned they should research how other municipalities deal with it in their historic districts.

While the applicants are required to show how any new construction materials would be appropriate, board members are looking to do some research on their own in order to suggest alternatives.

There was consensus that an effort should be made to inform the public better about the historic district. Posting articles in the city’s newsletter and holding an informative neighborhood ice cream social were suggested.

The commissioners also discussed tweaking the application to make it easier for applicants to understand.

The Historical and Architectural Review Board regularly meets the first Wednesday of every month to review all exterior changes proposed to buildings in the Bethlehem Historic District north of the Lehigh River. When a proposed project receives a certificate of appropriateness from the board, applicants must wait for City Council to vote on it before proceeding. Meetings can be viewed on YouTube.