Council amends HARB decision, clears picture window at 103 North Newbury Street

The York City Council on March 3 approved an amended HARB recommendation that will allow a single picture window at 103 North Newbury Street after removing a prior condition requiring simulated vertical dividers.

Joe Musso, representing owner Ron Friend, asked the council to amend HARB’s earlier approval so the shop can install a single picture window without the vertical members HARB had required. "We are here to request is that you amend the approval…to remove that portion of the application and the approval," Musso said, arguing the dividers "defeat the purpose of having a window in a business." (Joe Musso)

A representative from the business (Friend Salon) told the council the vertical members would undermine the purpose of the picture window and asked council to allow the single-pane appearance. Sarah, speaking as a Downtown Inc. representative and alternate HARB member, said HARB requested a structural-engineer evaluation to ensure the opening would support the upper wall and that HARB recommended simulated divided lights to maintain historic proportions. "We are not opposed to the picture window…we just wanted a structural engineer to look at it," she said. (Sarah, Downtown Inc.)

Council discussion focused on the proper role of HARB (an advisory board) versus building-permit and structural review. Several councilmembers said they were surprised HARB included simulated dividers and questioned whether HARB should be addressing structural matters rather than leaving those determinations to permitting and a building-code official. Manuel Gomez, speaking from the public, emphasized that HARB is advisory: "It is an advisory board…Their direction is not an imperative." (Manuel Gomez)

Motion and vote: Councilmember (speaker 8) moved to remove the portion of HARB's approval requiring the vertical separations; the motion was seconded, called to a roll-call vote and passed. The council then approved HARB's recommendation as amended. The council and staff noted that the applicant will still need to secure building permits and any required engineering review during the permit process; if field conditions change, the applicant may be required to return to HARB.

Why it matters: The decision balances business-owner preferences with historic-preservation concerns while preserving building-permit review as the venue for structural evaluation. It also clarifies HARB's advisory role and the sequence between HARB recommendations and permit-level engineering checks.

Next steps: The applicant will apply for a building permit; the permit process will address structural requirements and could require the applicant to return to HARB if changes affect the approved design.