Narberth council refers transit‑oriented development review to planning commission after extended debate on housing, parking and downtown character

The Narberth Borough Council on April 3 spent an extended discussion on transit‑oriented development (TOD), concluding the session by asking the planning commission to study a range of zoning and policy changes intended to support housing diversity and downtown vitality.

Adam Kron, chair of the planning commission, summarized TOD as "a town built around the train station with a mixed‑use downtown and a wide range of housing types," and said the commission would be willing to study whether current zoning around the station allows a range of housing types already present in town. Council member Michael Galdini, who described long experience in transportation and urban development, said TOD presents "an opportunity to make, take advantage of the infrastructure that we have," citing rail access, walkability and local commerce as linked benefits.

Council members and planning commissioners raised several recurring issues: the borough’s limited developable land, historic‑district constraints in residential areas, parking and traffic, unit tenure (condo versus rental), the feasibility threshold for developers to build small apartment projects, and how added housing could affect retail foot traffic. Several council members urged context‑sensitive standards near the train station: reduced parking requirements appropriate for transit areas, smaller setbacks, lot‑coverage standards and a height limit that still permits “apartment‑scale” buildings where appropriate.

Council member Jean (last name not specified) and Council member Cindy (last name not specified) pressed for explicit study of "missing middle" housing types—duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments and other forms that can deliver for‑sale and rental units at lower price points than single‑family homes or large, high‑end complexes. Cindy also asked that the commission examine tenure options, including condominiums, to support long‑term equity for residents.

Speakers cited preliminary local data and one recent development as context: a 56‑unit complex built downtown was required to provide roughly 0.9 parking spaces per unit and, according to council discussion, the site’s garage has come in under capacity, suggesting lower car ownership among residents there. The planning commission and staff said they will examine real parking utilization and survey the new complexes to refine parking ratios that are sensitive to a transit area.

Public comment reflected the range of opinion. Resident John Monroe urged the council to reject liberalized zoning and said he was worried about loss of neighborhood character; another commenter, Carol Marie Scanlon, objected to any sale or reclassification of Sabine Park and urged preservation of green space. Other residents, including Katie Skeen and Joe Tiscamo, argued that increasing housing supply near transit improves affordability over time and helps sustain local retail and SEPTA ridership. The council chair noted that no vote would be taken and confirmed the purpose of the meeting was to set a referral scope.

Action and next steps: council members agreed to refer TOD and related zoning issues to the planning commission for study. Adam Kron said he would summarize the council’s direction and the planning commission would consider the items at its next meeting; the council asked that the charge include: reduced parking standards in transit areas (but not a blanket zero), context‑sensitive setback and height guidance near the station, appropriate lot‑coverage and driveway consolidation, study of missing‑middle housing borough‑wide, and public outreach including town‑hall style informational sessions. The council did not adopt any code changes at the session.