Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 5B Mixed Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates allowing fourth story and ground‑floor residential in 5B; defers decision pending county data and broader review
Summary
Council members split over permitting four stories within the existing 45‑ft limit and allowing some ground‑floor residential in the 5B/Montgomery Avenue district. Supporters said more housing and tax base would help long‑term needs; opponents pressed for affordable housing set‑asides, parking/traffic studies and protective buffers for adjacent neighborhoods. Council deferred further action to a business meeting after county data is provided.
Narberth Borough Council spent the bulk of its May 7 workshop debating whether to permit mixed‑use buildings in the 5B (Montgomery Avenue) district to occupy a fourth habitable floor within the borough's existing 45‑ft height envelope and to allow some residential on the ground floor.
Staff opened the discussion by noting the change would not increase the 45‑ft height limit but could allow an additional interior floor within that envelope, potentially increasing unit counts and developer revenue. Maggie and other planning staff explained that a developer could pursue a site variance but the owner of a high‑profile property (650 Montgomery was named) opted not to seek a variance and instead prompted a corridor‑wide policy conversation.
Councilors split on the policy tradeoffs. Fred, speaking in favor, said he saw a net community benefit: "I do see a benefit in allowing a fourth story which is more residents," and added that more residents could energize downtown commerce. Jim pushed back on offering an added floor without community return: "I don't want to hand over an extra story for him to collect rent unless we're getting something out of that," and urged requiring affordable housing set‑asides or other benefits if council grants that flexibility.
Other council members pressed for more analysis before action: questions included how a blanket change across 5B would affect parking and traffic on Montgomery Avenue, whether nearby residential properties would get adequate buffer protections (landscaping, setbacks, light mitigation) and whether the borough should test the change in multiple locations rather than for a single site.
Staff and multiple councilors said they had requested additional policy responses and data from county staff and consultants; council agreed to wait for that input. One councilor emphasized the borough's capital‑improvement funding gap and argued the options to address it are higher taxes or more taxpayers — a point cited as part of the motivation for housing‑capacity discussions.
No formal zoning amendment or vote occurred. The council amended the meeting agenda to take public comment, heard a series of residents who largely opposed increased density and asked for a holistic approach, and then concluded the discussion with the intent to revisit the 5B questions at the next business meeting after county data and answers to written policy questions are provided.
Next steps: council directed staff to compile outstanding policy questions for the county presentation and to include 5B in a broader package addressing parking requirements, buffering and any affordability incentives before taking action.
