Radnor commissioners defer vote on nonconforming‑use zoning amendment after legal and practical questions

Radnor Township commissioners discussed a proposed amendment to Chapter 280 of the township code meant to clarify rules for nonconforming uses but did not vote, instead moving to continue the item to a future meeting amid unanswered legal and practical questions.

Commissioner (speaker 7) flagged a provision that refers to compulsory merger of two nonconforming lots and said, "that sometimes ... destroys property value for an individual," asking for concrete examples of how the provision would be applied. The commissioner requested that staff produce a scenario showing when two nonconforming lots would be forced to merge.

Staff member Mike said the amendment's primary purpose is to define what constitutes "abandonment" of a nonconforming use and to reduce reliance on case law that can favor landowners in court. "If this were the nonconforming use under Section 2‑80...the answer is yes," Mike said when describing circumstances in which previously conforming uses could cease to be permitted following abandonment; he also said he could not supply an on‑the‑spot hypothetical and pointed commissioners to the subsection in the draft for later review.

Other commissioners raised procedural concerns. Commissioner (6) said the timing and rationale for this narrow amendment were unclear given the township's broader Radnor Vision code‑rewrite project and noted that the zoning code officer had recently left, arguing for better integration and recordkeeping. Commissioner (8) asked whether the amendment would make it easier or harder to create housing in mixed‑use buildings (using a local restaurant with upstairs apartments as an example); Mike responded that specific outcomes would depend on the district's permitted uses and whether the upstairs units were already recognized as a nonconforming use.

Because the meeting lacked a voting quorum for this item, Commissioner (7) moved to continue consideration until a meeting where a quorum would be present; the motion was seconded and the item was continued. The record shows the commission will revisit the draft with requested examples and clearer references to the draft language before any vote.

The discussion did not produce a formal ordinance adoption; next steps are for staff to provide examples of the merger mechanism, clarify the abandonment timeline referenced in the draft and explain how the amendment interacts with the larger Radnor Vision code rewrite.