Narberth planning commissioners review draft reorganization of zoning code

Narberth Borough Planning Commission Chair Adam Crom convened the March 3 meeting to review a working draft that would reorganize the borough zoning code so zoning districts, definitions and measurement rules are easier for residents, property owners and applicants to find and use. Commissioner Todd (last name not specified) presented the outline and said “the idea is for it to be policy neutral,” while staff member Michael (last name not specified) described alternatives for charts and how users navigate the code.

The draft presented to the commission restructures the code so the zoning district page becomes the primary “portal” for a property owner, with cross-references to allowed land uses, permitted building types and applicable site standards. The outline would move definitions and measurement rules toward the front of the document, consolidate conditional-use and special-exception provisions into centralized sections, and group nonconforming-use rules that are now scattered across multiple chapters.

Why it matters: commissioners and staff said the current code can be hard to use because provisions are dispersed across chapters and because the borough is largely built out. That dispersal makes it difficult for residents and applicants to locate applicable rules quickly—an issue that has affected past applications, the presenters said. The draft aims to make the structure more usable without changing policy, while capturing policy-level items in a separate “bucket” for later review.

Key elements of the draft and discussion

- Definitions and measurements: The draft moves operational definitions and measurement methods (for example, how building height or pitch is measured) to a front section so users do not have to hunt through standards to find basic rules.

- District-as-portal: Each zoning district page would list the uses allowed as of right, uses subject to performance or distance standards, conditional uses and special exceptions, and the building types allowed in that district, with cross-references to the chapters that contain detailed standards.

- Downtown / 5A complexity: Presenters identified the downtown 5A district as functioning like multiple subareas (e.g., different rules for Haverford Avenue vs. Windsor Avenue) and proposed either creating overlays or subdividing 5A into smaller districts so users can see applicable rules without searching many provisions.

- Conditional uses and special exceptions: The draft would gather those provisions in one place and explore making them “plug-and-play” (standardized modules usable across districts) rather than scattered, district-specific text.

- Building types and charts: The presenters showed two organization options: (a) organize standards primarily by district (district page lists building types and dimensional rules) or (b) organize primarily by building type (a single page for each building type with the dimensional and site rules). Staff cautioned against overly large “mega-charts” that duplicate language and complicate future amendments.

- Historic district interaction: Commissioners raised the need to flag the borough’s historic district and its overlay early in each district page. Staff and commissioners noted that some uses—cottage and twin house rules, for example—are tied to the historic district and that failure to call out the overlay can halt projects when applicants do not realize historic rules apply.

- Nonconformities and administration: Presenters proposed consolidating all nonconforming use/structure/lot rules into a single chapter to reveal gaps and make administration more transparent. They also described a desire to clarify roles and responsibilities among staff, the zoning hearing board and council where those duties are now dispersed.

Timeline and next steps

Staff circulated sample pages to commissioners and said they aim to produce a fuller draft for broader review by May. Presenters suggested smaller working meetings for commissioners who want deeper involvement and proposed a future “table reading” session to walk through the reorganized code and resolve layout questions (for example, whether site standards live on district pages or building-type pages). No policy changes were adopted at the meeting; presenters described the work as primarily organizational and “policy neutral,” with a separate tracking process for any substantive policy items that emerge.

Ending

Commissioners did not take formal action on the draft at this meeting. Staff will continue drafting, circulate a fuller version for review, and return with materials and options for commissioners’ feedback in the coming weeks, with a target for a broader review in May.