Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to pause zoning changes, warn 0.7‑parking standard will stress Narberth
Summary
At a packed March 19 meeting, dozens of residents urged Narberth Borough Council to reconsider proposed zoning changes and a 0.7‑spaces‑per‑unit parking standard, citing traffic, school impacts and the loss of neighborhood character. Council said zoning is not on tonight’s formal agenda and will schedule outreach sessions.
A large turnout of residents told Narberth Borough Council on Thursday that proposed zoning changes and a plan to reduce required parking for new housing would strain the borough’s streets and schools and erode neighborhood character.
“More housing stacked downtown will not save our downtown if people can’t find parking,” said Margaret Dietz, a chemistry teacher and Narberth resident, during the public‑comment period. Dietz said the proposal’s parking ratio of 0.7 spaces per unit is unrealistic for a community that depends on short customer trips to sustain small businesses.
John Pro Duffy, who identified himself as a resident and business owner, said the borough’s infrastructure cannot absorb dramatic density increases. “We don’t have the infrastructure for it,” he said, arguing that the borough should prioritize finishing long‑running projects such as the Elm Grove Park bridge and restoring local shops rather than allowing tall apartment buildings.
Several speakers presented quantitative concerns. “Existing apartment buildings such as Montgomery Court do not have enough spots for the residents and have caused increased congestion onto many neighboring streets,” Dietz said. Others cited a borough survey and traffic observations to press for a data‑driven approach rather than an automatic expansion of density.
At least one public commenter, Shayla Smedley, distributed a petition signed by 52 residents asking the borough to preserve a mature ginkgo tree at Maple Ave and Woodside and to reconsider a potential bump‑out at that corner. Public Works Director Jeff said crews found the inlet wall was pushed in and that repairing pavement damage related to tree roots could cost roughly $9,400; he said the borough is communicating with the property owner and investigating engineering options.
Council President responded that the list of stormwater bump‑out sites is an engineer’s long list of possible locations and that staff have not decided to install a bump‑out at the tree site this year. “We are not planning to build any bump‑out in that site in the immediate future,” the president said, adding that the two bump‑outs under consideration this year are on Windale Road and Shady Lane.
Speakers also raised concerns about transit reliability and the limits of transit‑oriented development in a borough that relies heavily on car access. “If you don’t have good transit, you can’t reduce parking down to 0.7 and expect the same outcomes,” one resident said, citing SEPTA service issues.
Council said zoning amendments are not on the night’s agenda; staff and several council members said they plan office‑hour outreach sessions focused on the zoning item labeled “5b” and expect to return to deliberations in coming months. Council noted the planning commission and outside consultants have provided materials and that any formal ordinance would come back for further discussion and public hearings.
What happens next: Council members said they will schedule informal outreach sessions in the coming weeks to hear residents’ concerns about zoning and parking. No zoning vote occurred at the March 19 meeting.
