Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Period Significance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel revisits Narberth preservation ordinance, period-of-significance and inventory gaps
Summary
Members reviewed the borough's historic preservation approach, discussed a pre-1945 period of significance that appears on the map but not in the ordinance text, and debated how garages and accessory structures are treated under the district rules.
The Narberth Historic and Architectural Review Panel held an extended discussion of the borough's historic preservation ordinance, the map's stated period of significance and the treatment of accessory structures such as garages.
Panel members said the heritage plan that preceded the ordinance identifies a period of significance running to 1945 and provides the rationale used during ordinance drafting. Participants noted an inconsistency: the period appears on the district map and in the heritage plan, but the ordinance text itself does not explicitly enshrine the 1945 cutoff. Members described that omission as a drafting oversight that complicates public explanation of the panel's criteria and could be a point of legal challenge if pressed.
Why it matters: the period-of-significance and inventory definitions drive how the panel evaluates whether a building or element contributes to the district's character. Panel members said clarity is important for fairness and to explain decisions to residents and applicants.
Key implementation points discussed included: (1) the borough's discretion to change the period of significance and the mechanism for doing so, subject to alignment with the comprehensive plan; (2) how the ordinance uses lot-layer rules to limit review of some accessory buildings and garages, meaning many garages fall outside the panel's purview unless visible from primary lot layers; and (3) the purpose-built demolition ordinance and the use of a checklist in the ordinance to guide determinations of character-defining features.
Inventory and integrity: staff and members reviewed the property inventory and said some properties were unintentionally omitted; they recommended producing a consistent document package (heritage plan, inventory and ordinance) and linking it on the new website. Members discussed integrity criteria (changes made during the period of significance, reversibility and visibility) and said case-by-case judgment will remain necessary when alterations occur.
Pipeline notes and advisory work: staff reported a likely near-term advisory review for a front-porch reconstruction and described an accessory-dwelling-unit conversion of a rear garage that is moving through permitting but did not require historic-panel review because of lot-layer rules. Panel members said those applications illustrate the operational impact of the lot-layer approach and reinforced the desire to clarify policy language and public-facing materials.
Next steps: the panel agreed to assemble the heritage plan, inventory and ordinance text for unified publication and to raise the map/ordinance discrepancy with the borough and, if appropriate, the state historic preservation office for technical guidance.
