Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fitness Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks planning commission to clarify whether fitness studios should be a separate land use after dispersion concerns
Summary
Council asked the Planning Commission to study whether "fitness" (gyms, dance and studio uses) should be defined separately from personal‑care uses so local dispersion (350‑ft separation) rules do not unintentionally bar ground‑floor fitness on Hford Avenue; staff said no applications exist yet and the change is meant to reduce ambiguity.
Narberth Borough Council on May 7 asked the Planning Commission to study whether "fitness" uses — gyms, dance and exercise studios — should be defined as a standalone land use distinct from the current umbrella of personal‑care/personal‑service uses, a change that would alter whether separation (dispersion) rules apply on certain downtown blocks.
Emily, planning staff who summarized the Planning Commission's review, said the commission discussed "whether or not they felt it would be beneficial for Narberth to look further into having fitness in the land use," and noted the practical effect: "fitness use, dance, [a] studio use is currently by right available on the side streets and we've never allowed that on Hford Avenue," because those uses have been folded under the personal‑care category.
Under the borough's current approach, personal‑care uses are subject to a separation requirement intended to avoid clustering — staff described a ~350‑ft spacing rule that had been applied historically to businesses such as nail salons. Council members raised examples of upstairs yoga studios and downtown storefront vacancies to show how the existing classification creates uncertainty for prospective tenants and property owners.
Several council members said the goal of clarifying the code was to reduce the risk of inconsistent enforcement and minimize the chance of a validity challenge. Staff told council there are no active permit applications; the request to revisit the code came after property owners and prospective tenants asked which uses would be allowed if spaces were re‑tenanting.
Fred, attending on Zoom, said he saw "no downside to bringing fitness downtown" and emphasized the need to clear up the ambiguity for businesses and landlords. Multiple council members said they supported sending the question to the Planning Commission to develop possible code amendments and recommendations on whether fitness should be a separate "fitness" or "indoor recreation" use and, if so, what separation criteria (if any) should apply on Hford Avenue and elsewhere.
Next steps: council directed staff to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a formal review and recommended that the commission consider at least three options: (1) create an indoor‑recreation category that would include dance and gym uses, (2) create a narrower fitness‑studio use with tailored dispersion rules, or (3) retain the status quo but clarify enforcement guidance. No zoning amendment or formal vote was taken tonight.
The referral aims to give the Planning Commission a clear charge so staff can return recommended code language and policy options to council for a future decision.
