Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Recodification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Narberth council tables zoning recodification after residents raise parking and density concerns
Summary
Council delayed authorizing advertisement of a reorganized zoning code to allow more technical review after residents raised concerns about parking minimums, four‑story development allowances and confusing parallel TOD discussions. Staff outlined a multi‑step internal review and public posting schedule before formal advertisement.
Narberth Borough Council voted to table authorization to advertise a recodified zoning ordinance after extended discussion about process, public messaging and substantive concerns from residents.
Planning staff told council the recodification is intended to be "policy neutral"—a reorganization and clarification of the borough's existing form‑based code rather than a change in what land uses or building types are permitted. Maggie, a borough planning staff member, described a timeline for internal review: council comments due April 24; a revised draft May 8; final internal comments by May 15; a posted final draft by May 29; public availability June 12 ahead of a June 18 authorization to advertise; and a public hearing and potential adoption targeted for the July 16 business meeting.
Several council members and residents urged caution. Resident Carol McGlaughlin told council she opposes proposed changes to the 4A zoning code that would lower base parking requirements to seven spaces per residential unit and allow four‑story apartment buildings, warning that "this loophole will likely result in even more cars competing for non‑existent street space." Other public commenters echoed concerns about commuter parking, SEPTA service reductions and the impact of increased density on neighborhood character.
Adam Chance, a representative from the Montgomery County Planning Commission, and Adam Crom, a Narberth planning commission member, answered technical questions about the recodification process and the document's intent section. Planners said the intent section is descriptive and was carried forward from the 2016 form‑based code; it does not itself create enforceable regulations, though it reflects community objectives at the time it was adopted.
After discussion, Council voted to table the authorization to advertise the recodification and directed staff to compile council comments and return revised drafts under the schedule described by staff. Council members emphasized clearer public communications are needed so residents can distinguish the recodification (a technical reorganization) from separate Transit‑Oriented Development (TOD) policy conversations planned for May workshops.
Next steps: staff will collect council comments through the internal deadlines and provide revised drafts for additional review; the recodification will not be advertised until council explicitly authorizes advertisement after the internal review and solicitor review.
