The Narberth Planning Commission on Sept. 8 began a phased review of zoning rules for Montgomery Avenue intended to encourage transit‑oriented development, missing‑middle housing types and options for modest affordability set‑asides.

The review will start with the 5B Montgomery Avenue commercial district and move inward to downtown and surrounding residential zones. Commissioners said they want clear recommendations for when and how additional height or density could be allowed, whether ground‑floor commercial should remain a requirement along the avenue and how parking and affordability incentives should be written.

The commission opened the meeting with a briefing by Jason Duckworth of Arcadia Landry, a developer that works on infill, walkable projects in the Philadelphia suburbs. Duckworth said developers often run into zoning rules that prohibit the building forms that attract buyers and tenants in walkable town centers. “We aspire to create new Norberths,” Duckworth said, describing projects that mixed missing‑middle housing (duplexes, alley‑loaded townhouses and small multifamily) with sensitive adaptive reuse of historic buildings. He showed case studies in Media and Doylestown that combined design controls, density bonuses and public improvements to catalyze larger neighborhood reinvestment.

Developer Adam Rosenzweig, representing the owner of 640 Montgomery Ave. (the former Rite Aid site), told the commission he has a conceptual plan but paused a formal informational presentation at staff’s request. Rosenzweig outlined three requests he expects to bring back if the commission considers zoning relief for that parcel: allowing a four‑story building consistent with the existing 45‑foot height limit, limited fifth‑story setbacks for a stepped top floor, and flexibility from a strict requirement that entire first floors be finished retail space. “Planning a building without having a tenant in tow and chopping it up is not an efficient use,” Rosenzweig said, explaining why he favors larger, adaptable ground‑floor bays rather than multiple small retail suites.

Council president Fred Bush said borough council wants the recodification project completed in a timely fashion and encouraged the planning commission’s outreach to county and regional partners, including SEPTA, DVRPC and Montgomery County programs such as the Montco 30% initiative.

Commission staff outlined the council’s detailed charge and proposed a three‑phase schedule: (1) Montgomery Avenue (5B) first, timed to the on‑going corridor study; (2) the downtown collar (4A) next; and (3) the remaining residential and mixed‑use districts afterward. The list of council questions circulated to commissioners asked staff to evaluate eight items, including whether extra stories should be treated as density bonuses tied to affordability or green building, whether first‑floor commercial should remain required on Montgomery Avenue, and which zoning and administrative barriers most restrict missing‑middle housing.

Commissioners voiced broad support for allowing mixed‑use buildings that better reflect the 45‑foot limit in place along Montgomery Avenue (effectively permitting a four‑level building form that appears elsewhere in the borough). Several commissioners asked staff to analyze the risk that added height or more permissive rules could incentivize off‑corridor lot consolidation and asked for visuals showing how taller buildings would appear from adjacent streets and back yards.

On parking, Duckworth and other presenters described site‑specific constraints on infill projects: high site work and utility costs, environmental remediation risks, and fixed professional fees that burden smaller projects. Duckworth recommended design‑based tools — alley‑loaded garages, shared common elements within homeowner associations, and overlay districts — as ways to make smaller infill feasible. He also described how mixed‑income projects often rely on a combination of market units and subsidy programs (for example, LIHTC) or other public incentives to hit feasibility targets.

Staff and commissioners agreed to seek additional external input (county planning, SEPTA, and economic development partners), to test a draft approach that clarifies Montgomery Avenue building form and mixed‑use expectations, and to return with mapped examples and a draft of code language within the coming month. The commission also received an update on the zoning recodification project from staff, who said most provisions have been consolidated into a clearer structure and that a circulatable draft should be available for review soon.

Votes at the meeting were procedural: the commission approved the minutes from the June meeting (motion carries; two abstentions noted) and later voted to adjourn.

The commission scheduled follow‑up work to test specific sites and architectural demonstrations before recommending any legislative zoning changes to borough council.