Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Narberth commission debates keeping historic status for Montgomery Avenue storefronts to retain review rights
Summary
A Narberth work group walked the Montgomery Avenue/Iona area and debated whether to retain "contributing" historic-district status for shallow commercial parcels. Commissioners leaned toward keeping the designation to preserve the commission's right to review redevelopment, while one member said removal could speed investment.
Members of the Narberth Historic Commission discussed whether commercial-front properties along Montgomery Avenue and adjacent Iona rear lots should remain designated as "contributing" resources in the borough's historic district, following a site visit intended to inform a response to Borough Council. The commission did not take a formal vote but directed staff and commissioners to prepare language for council and to return to the full commission in November.
Commission members walked the block from a private residence area behind Caliber Collision, along Iona and Montgomery Avenue, and assessed individual buildings that show alterations but may still have underlying historic fabric (for example, a brick collision shop on a stone foundation that has a later front addition). The group discussed both the physical condition of small, shallow parcels and the likely market forces: several speakers said small lot sizes and fragmented ownership have so far discouraged assemblage and redevelopment.
Why it matters: retaining a contributing designation would preserve the Historic Commission's formal opportunity to review redevelopment proposals that might affect adjacent properties. Removing contributing status would remove that review right and, some commissioners cautioned, could still deter or encourage developers depending on perception of regulation and review time.
Discussion details and options - Keep designation to retain review rights: Several commissioners said keeping the contributing status would allow the commission to represent nearby property owners and press for mitigation of negative effects on rear yards and abutting residential fabric if large-scale redevelopment occurs. - Remove designation to encourage redevelopment: One commissioner stated a dissenting view that further layers of review and regulation create cost and delay that deter investment; that member said they would write a dissenting opinion if council seeks removal. - Middle path — signal support for redevelopment but preserve review: Participants discussed drafting a response that signals the commission welcomes redevelopment and will participate constructively, while explicitly reserving the right to review projects that affect the historic district. - Referral / "friend-of" review model: Commissioners proposed asking council to enable a formal referral relationship with the Planning Commission (a "friend-of" or advisory role) so the Historic Commission can provide timely, expert comments without creating a separate regulatory delay. - Documentation / archiving: Commissioners discussed documenting buildings that might be demolished and identified a local archival recipient. The commission noted the Lower Merion Historical Society as the intended repository for documentation if the borough pursues that option.
Scope and potential changes discussed Commissioners explored expanding the district’s period of significance to roughly 1945–1970 to include commercial and institutional properties that contribute to civic life (examples discussed: local schools, former movie house, mixed-use buildings with storefronts and apartments). Members disagreed on whether multifamily apartment buildings should count as "commercial/institutional" for this purpose; mixed-use storefronts with civic or cultural contribution were viewed as likelier candidates.
Practical context mentioned in the meeting included a 2017 building-permit reconstruction at a former pizza shop that remains mostly vacant, and the observation that some extensively altered commercial fronts have little remaining historic integrity. Commissioners emphasized the difference between properties that contribute directly to civic life (schools, movie house, cultural institutions) and office or contractor buildings that do not.
Next steps and final note The group agreed to draft a response to Borough Council that (a) affirms willingness to support sensitive redevelopment, (b) asks to remain a review participant so the commission can represent neighboring property owners, and (c) proposes an efficient referral process with the Planning Commission. The commission will bring the draft to the full commission meeting in November for formal action. No formal vote on the substantive recommendation was taken during this meeting.
Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes from Aug. 11: approved by voice vote (mover/second not specified in the record). - Adjournment motion: approved by voice vote (mover/second not specified in the record).
