Adam Krom presented American Community Survey (ACS) data to support a proposed parking ordinance requiring only 0.7 parking spaces per unit, with zero-parking requirements for affordable housing and units under 750 sq ft. This analysis demonstrates that the data is statistically unreliable for policy use, misrepresents actual car ownership, and would create a significant parking deficit by the proposal’s own math.

Narberth Borough Parking: A Data-Driven Counter-Analysis

Last week, the agenda and meeting packet for Thursday’s council business meeting was published to the Borough website. It is 161 pages and features a lengthy report from the MCPC about their collaborations with the Borough and NPC in drafting the proposed changes to Narberth’s zoning code as well as an equally dense “Policy Analysis” authored by Council member Michael J. Gaudini, whom, it should be noted, is a professional land use consultant as well as a registered lobbyist for the development industry in Austin, Texas and holds degrees in journalism and public affairs and is therefore not an expert analyst, economist, or planner qualified to objectively evaluate the nuances of the proposed changes and their likely impacts on our town’s character, economy, and built environment. The items composing these two documents thoroughly validate community concerns about the potential for drastic impacts on the character of our town.

On the MCPC’s report – perhaps by design, the document contains an overwhelming amount of information impossible to adequately deconstruct in one sitting. However, there are a number of key details that all residents should be aware of, as they are highly indicative of the kind of preset agenda concerned members of the community feel is being pursued without regard for the will of the people. Indeed, this is not simply illustrated in the particulars of the proposals put forward for consideration in the immediate future, but also in the choice of case studies selected as benchmarks for reference, and the organizations and publications cited to reinforce the need for zoning reforms intended to usher in increased housing density.

Firstly – MCPC’s assertions and the proposals themselves. Much of the focus on the proposed changes revolves around the area designated as Zone 5b under the FBZ, which primarily constitutes the area of Narberth along Montgomery Avenue bordering Lower Merion Township, as well as portions of adjacent residential streets. This is because the commissions designated that commercial corridor as the site of their most ambitious zoning reforms. Responding to the overwhelming consensus that the Montgomery Avenue strip is a prime location with potential to be a thriving asset to the community which has long been and currently remains neglected and underutilized, the MCPC takes a surprising view. They posit that the lack of vibrance displayed along the 5b corridor is the result of too much focus on retail and commercial development. Whereas common sense would indicate that the blight and underutilization of this retail-oriented space is presumably the result of the ongoing neglect of commercial revitalization demonstrated by local officials in recent years in favor of a ceaseless pursuit of increased residential development, they conclude the opposite. They assert that the “existing vision for Montgomery Avenue as a mostly commercial corridor has not created a flourishing place”. They also bemoan that the major roadway is “car-centric” and state their intention to work with Lower Merion Township to “implement an alternative configuration that slows down cars, provides more traffic calming, and provides for an improved pedestrian experience when walking along the sidewalk and crossing the street”. Tidbits like these arguably provide more compelling insight into the questionable priorities of the county and local bodies that perhaps led to the deterioration Narberth finds itself reckoning with today, than any sort of misplaced focus on commercial revitalization (there has been virtually none). Working from the conclusion that there need be an increased focus on residential development over commercial, the MCPC lays out a series of proposals to act on that perceived mistake. These proposals entail some of the most controversial items among the changes the commissions deem it necessary to implement. Acting on the notion that there should be an increased focus on residential development on Montgomery Avenue, the commissions propose a larger spatial allowance in each building for residential units and a decreased spatial allowance for commercial uses. Whereas the current zoning in the 5b zone allows for mixed-use buildings with retail on the bottom floor and residences above, the commissions put forth a proposal to reduce the space reserved for commercial use to “the first 12 feet of depth facing Montgomery Avenue”. They explicitly declare that one intended impact of this change is to limit the potential business uses that structures in the 5b zone can accommodate, stating “this will maintain the retail corridor, but allow for smaller retail uses such as cafes to lease the commercial space in Mixed-use buildings”.

The next change broached in the MCPC/NPC collaboration is the one that has gained the most attention – density bonuses. A precious pet project of Council leadership and one delegated directly from the Borough to the commissions for implementation is the density bonus, put into motion in the changes assigned to the 5b zoning district. The controversy surrounding the density bonus proposal stems from its likelihood of being the most disruptive change to Narberth’s built environment as it is currently composed. At the Borough’s “Zoning Open House” in late February, representatives from the MCPC mingled with attending residents ostensibly to exchange viewpoints regarding the appropriateness of changing the FBZ, but in actuality it was a forum for the NPC and MCPC to market the necessity of the changes to a skeptical public. In fact, MCPC planner Adam Schantz, a key contributor to the drafting of the zoning proposals, emphatically insisted to attendees that the changes being considered for Montgomery Avenue were strictly limited to an increase in the allowance of floors each building can have from 3 to 4, while maintaining the current 45’ height limit. However, the proposed implementation of the density bonus in the report directly contradicts these assurances. Density bonuses are something resembling a bargain that localities engage in with developers, wherein the builder is permitted to build beyond the set height and/or other spatial limitations in exchange for reserving a particular number of units for affordable rent rates. In the commissions’ proposal, developers who are awarded the density bonus are allowed an additional floor and ten feet of building height – 5 stories and 55’. Also important to note is that what constitutes affordable housing in the context of Narberth is wildly different from what would constitute affordable housing in most other places. In Narberth and under these proposals, wherein the average income far exceeds that of most of the country, a unit is considered affordable if it can be sustainably inhabited by a median-income resident. Median income in this case is over $100,000 annually according to the chart labeled Figure 1 in the packet. In other words, Narberth would be allowing developers to build higher in exchange for units that are affordable for individuals and families who would be considered high income in most other localities and contexts.

While less remarked upon in the public discourse already ignited by the information previously released regarding the impending changes, other proposals applying to a larger swath of Narberth are equally jarring when their implications are examined. Perhaps due to its confusing nature, the commissions’ proposal for reductions in parking requirements for future residential developments has been the subject of debate but less fixated upon than the proposed height increases, as its actual impact is rendered harder to comprehend due to its opaque nature. The zoning code currently mandates a baseline 1 parking space per residential unit in developments in most sections of town as well as a 0.1 space per unit required for visitors. The commissions’ proposal would eliminate the requirement of any visitor parking as well as any parking whatsoever for “affordable units” and those 750 square feet or smaller and allow “applicants to reduce the parking mandate for other units to 0.7 spaces per unit if the applicant participates in the SEPTA Key Advantage Multifamily Residential Program”. Much of the attention garnered by this portion of the proposal has been motivated by the bizarre nature of its contents. How would this be theoretically acted upon by a builder? How would a builder actually provide one seventh of a parking space per unit? Why would renters of affordable units be less in need of a place to store a vehicle, especially when the standard for what constitutes affordability is the ability of an individual with an income of over $100,000 to pay the unit’s rent, when those individuals are likely to own an automobile? Why would an individual residing in a smaller unit be less in need of parking? Given that the budgetary crisis facing SEPTA has not been permanently resolved, but rather delayed by emergency relief granted by PennDOT, is it sound to implement these changes hinged upon the availability of public transit provided by SEPTA?

Another proposal, which may have stirred more controversy within the NPC itself than amongst the public, is the reduction of setbacks for new apartment developments. Coupled with a proposal to reclassify apartment development from a conditional use to by-right in the 4a district, a section of the borough heavily comprised of single family and duplex residential homes (which is a major change in and of itself), the commissions propose reducing required apartment building setbacks from the current 25 foot distance from the street to 10 feet, opening the door to the development of much more hulking and overwhelming structures, particularly on the south side. This change instigated debate between NPC Chair Adam Krom and Commission member Heidi Boise at the March 2^nd Planning Commission meeting, wherein Boise argued that the change was highly inappropriate for the Borough. This dissent was downplayed in the packet’s retelling, however.

Beyond what the specific proposals put forth in the meeting packet entail, the attitude and ambitions of the entities involved serve as a through line apparent in both the MCPC and NPC’s contributions and Mr. Gaudini’s “analysis”. What the commissions, Gaudini, and their partner organizations offer up as fact and the sources and case studies they cite to reinforce their advocacy for these changes illustrate vividly the agenda underlying the aggressive and unwavering push to further densify our already incredibly dense borough. Case-in-point under the section of the packet entitled “Input from Outside Partners”, the MCPC themselves express their enthusiasm for the proposed amendments to the FBZ by referencing examples from other localities wherein changes more radical than those currently under discussion have been undertaken. In praise of the proposed reductions in parking requirements, MCPC cites the example of Montgomery County, Maryland, a suburb of Washington DC which implemented the full elimination of parking requirements in new developments across the board “within 0.25 miles of D.C. metro stations” (presumably applicable to most of Narberth by comparison due to our proximity to a commuter rail station). The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is given the next word. They similarly look to localities wherein far more radical land-use deregulation has been enacted, approvingly referencing “cities with major land use reforms, such as Minneapolis and Houston”. It is particularly notable that the DVRPC would cite Houston as an example to be emulated, given that Houston is known for being home to some of the most bizarre and alarming urban-planning oddities due to its status as the only city in the country with no zoning whatsoever. This has led to the allowance of everything from a crematorium blowing human smoke into the atmosphere amongst a row of residential homes, a roller coaster menacing a single family home, a massive parking deck built on top of a small cottage, twenty story office buildings and hundred story apartment towers hulking over a residential street, and homes built dangerously close to industrial grade electrical infrastructure. DVRPC also cites a “study” conducted by the organization Up for Growth which asserts that the nation (and therefore Narberth) suffers from an acute “housing shortage”, a bold claim to make in the context of the second densest locality in the state that also happens to inhabit all of one square mile. Despite their framing, Up for Growth is not an academic or objective entity studying the dynamics of housing in America. They are an unabashed real estate industry advocacy organization deeply intertwined with the pro-development YIMBY movement nationwide. The organization is chaired by the CEO of the National Multifamily Housing Council (a developer and corporate landlord lobbying group), co-chaired by the Executive Director of YIMBY Action (the YIMBY Movement’s primary national advocacy organization), and the Vice President of Policy Advocacy of the National Association of REALTORS. Similarly, Gaudini cites the libertarian Niskanen Center to reinforce his commitment to increasing density. These examples are among many that reinforce the widely held view that the push for further density in Narberth and surrounding areas is motivated by ideological commitment rather than objective analysis or a genuine belief that these changes will serve the best interests of our community. Elsewhere among the input from the commissions’ “partners” is the feedback provided by SEPTA, spoken on behalf of by the transit authority’s Manager of Joint Real Estate Development Ken Starr. SEPTA is a staunchly enthusiastic backer of the proposed zoning amendments and a key institutional backer of the proliferation of dubious “Transit-Oriented Development” or TOD proposals across the region. SEPTA cites the TOD Overlay implemented in Ambler, PA, another case wherein more radical changes were undertaken than those the public is being led to believe are the only ones under consideration in Narberth. SEPTA boasts of Ambler’s allowance of 6 story density bonuses and the adoption of a height limit of 65 feet for residential developments in the adoption of their TOD Overlay. This is highly illustrative of a noticeable pattern contributing to the uneasiness of residents concerned about what the future holds for Narberth on its current trajectory. Noticing that the ambitions of the entities involved are far more expansive than they explicitly state is unavoidable. Thinly veiled by reassurances that the changes under consideration are “gradual”, “mild”, “soft” or “incremental” is the insatiable drive for more and more development, further densification, and a dizzying reconfiguration of the very fabric of our town, summed up in the often heard refrain spoken at council meetings in response to contentious public comments: “We’re not considering anything like that…yet.”

It is of the utmost importance that as many residents as possible show up at Thursdays meeting and make their voices heard and maintain an overwhelming presence at every meeting and council session into the foreseeable future. The people making the ultimate decision about the future of Narberth are our elected representatives, and they were elected to serve the community that voted for them. It is well past time they that be reminded of that.

Protect Narberth’s Character – Oppose Overdevelopment Zoning Changes 

Narberth Planning Commission’s recommendations for zoning amendments to “support additional housing.” These changes risk permanently altering our small borough’s scale, charm, parking, and neighborhood feel.

Narberth Planning Commission’s February 19th Recommendations [HERE]

The Narberth Planning Commission proposes sweeping changes to the 5b (Montgomery Ave. Mixed-Use Corridor) and 4a (General Urban Limited District) zones. The stated goals are to encourage more affordable housing, lower building costs, and increase walkability to local businesses. However, the proposals go far beyond modest adjustments—they enable significantly taller, denser, and multi-unit development with reduced protections.

TOP CONCERNS:

5b District (Montgomery Ave. Corridor) – Turning Our Main Street into a 5-Story Apartment Zone

- Allow housing on the ground floor (with only the first 12 ft required as commercial).

- Permit four stories within the existing 45-ft limit (currently limited to “three stories” for mixed-use).

- Introduce a “density bonus” for a fifth story up to 55 ft if only 10% of units are affordable (at ≤80% AMI). Why oppose? This dramatically increases height and density along our historic commercial corridor. A 55-ft building with minimal affordable commitment will overshadow the streetscape, change the feel of downtown, and set a precedent for further escalation. Our current limits protect the walkable, small-town character—don’t dismantle them for marginal affordability gains.

Severe Parking Reductions in Both 5b and 4a Districts

- Reduce base parking requirement from 1 space/unit → 0.7 spaces/unit (with credits for SEPTA pass participation).

- Exempt affordable units and units ≤750 sq ft from any parking requirement.

- Eliminate visitor parking requirements.

- Allow off-site parking up to 900 ft away. Why oppose? Narberth already faces significant parking pressure. These changes will lead to massive spillover into residential streets, blocked driveways, unsafe conditions for pedestrians (especially children), and increased traffic. Exempting many units guarantees under-provisioned parking, burdening existing neighborhoods.

4a District – Rezoning Residential Transition Areas for Multi-Family & Reduced Setbacks

- Allow apartments, rowhouses, and cottages by right (no conditional use).

- Permit up to 5 units in multi-family houses; 3 units in three-story detached/twin houses.

- Reduce front setbacks (to 10–20 ft), increase building coverage to 50% and impervious cover to 70%.

- Slash minimum lot sizes (e.g., 1,400 sq ft for single-family types) and eliminate minimum lot widths in many cases. Why oppose? The 4a zone buffers downtown from our single-family neighborhoods. These changes open stable residential areas to intensive multi-family development on small lots with less open space and setbacks. This threatens neighborhood character, privacy, light, and property values while inviting over-development right next to existing homes.

Bottom Line 

These recommendations are not balanced gentle density solutions. They represent aggressive up-zoning that prioritizes quantity of units over quality of life, with weak safeguards (e.g., only 10% affordable in density bonuses). Narberth is already a desirable, walkable community—further density and reduced parking will erode what makes it special without meaningfully solving regional housing issues.

Attend the May 7, 2026

Borough Council Work Session Meeting

7:00 PM

Details on narberthpa.gov

100 Conway Ave. Narberth, PA 19072 

Development of Montgomery Ave. is to be discussed.

Narberth Borough Council

100 Conway Avenue, Narberth, PA 19072

Email: info@narberthpa.gov

Phone: (610) 664-2840

www.narberthpa.gov

Fred Bush, President: fbush@narberthpa.gov (Term expires: 12/31/2029) LinkedIn

Cyndi Rickards, V.P.: crickards@narberthpa.gov (Term expires: 12/31/2029) LinkedIn

Jean Burock, Council Member: jburock@narberthpa.gov (Term expires: 12/31/2027) LinkedIn

Michael Gaudini, Council Member: mgaudini@narberthpa.gov (Term expires: 12/31/2027)

Mike Salmanson, Council Member: msalmanson@narberthpa.gov (Term expires: 12/31/2029) LinkedIn

Jim Speer, Council Member: jspeer@narberthpa.gov (Term expires: 12/31/2027)

Joe Straton, Council Member: jstraton@narberthpa.gov (Term expires: 12/31/2029)

The Sabine Coalition Corporation

To learn more, please visit www.sabinecoalition.com 

or email sabinecoalition@gmail.com.

Narberth’s zoning map divides the borough into districts, each with its own character and rules. For the purposes of this guide, we’re focused on two: 5b and 4a. But it helps to understand where they sit in the overall hierarchy.

3a – Neighborhood Residential: The lowest-density areas. Bigger lots, bigger setbacks, single-family detached houses only. Think of the quieter streets with yards.

3b – Mixed Residential Limited: The largest district by area. Single-family homes plus twins (semi-detached houses that share a wall) and multifamily houses.

3c – Mixed Residential Open: A wider variety of housing types, including multifamily dwellings. Schools and civic buildings are found here too.

4a – General Urban Limited: A transition zone between downtown and the residential neighborhoods. Higher density than the 3-series districts. This is one of the two districts with proposed changes.

4b – General Urban Open: Dense residential with mixed-use buildings. Rowhouses dominate. Small front setbacks. Think of it as the densest residential district.

5a – Downtown: The small commercial core near the train station. Mixed-use structures with shops below and housing above.

5b – Montgomery Avenue: The commercial mixed-use corridor along Montgomery Ave. This is the other district with proposed changes.

There’s also a Historic District Overlay (H) that adds extra rules for properties containing historically significant structures, regardless of which underlying district they’re in.

What the Rules Say Now: District 5b (Montgomery Avenue)

The 5b district is the commercial spine of the borough — Montgomery Avenue, with its mix of shops, restaurants, and mixed-use buildings. Here’s what the current code allows:

What you can build: Mixed-use buildings (shops on the ground floor, apartments above) and commercial buildings are permitted by right. Apartment buildings are only allowed as a conditional use, and only on lots that contain a historically protected structure — a pretty narrow exception. Residential space in mixed-use buildings must be located above commercial space. The ground floor along Montgomery Ave must be commercial.

How tall: Buildings can be up to 45 feet, but are capped at 3 stories. This is worth pausing on: 45 feet is enough height for 4 stories. The code allows the physical envelope for 4 floors but only lets you use 3 of them.

How much of the lot you can cover: Up to 80% of the lot with buildings, and up to 90% with impervious surfaces (buildings, pavement, anything that isn’t soil or vegetation).

How close to the street: Buildings must be set back between 3.5 and 9.5 feet from the front lot line — quite close to the sidewalk, which is typical for a commercial corridor.

Parking: One parking space per residential unit, with some credits available for on-street parking depending on the block. Structured (multi-level) parking is allowed only by conditional use.

Lot sizes: Minimum 4,000 square feet for apartment, commercial, or mixed-use buildings. Minimum 40-foot lot width for those same building types.

What the Rules Say Now: District 4a (General Urban Limited)

The 4a district wraps around downtown and bridges the gap between the commercial core and the residential neighborhoods. It has a higher share of multi-unit dwellings than the 3-series districts but is still primarily residential in character.

What you can build: Detached houses, twin houses, and multifamily houses are all permitted by right. Apartment buildings are allowed only by conditional use — meaning a developer must go through a public hearing process with Borough Council. Rowhouses and cottages are not permitted at all in this district.

How tall: Maximum 35 feet and 3 stories. No exceptions, no bonuses — that’s the hard ceiling.

How much of the lot you can cover: About 50% of the first 6,000 square feet of lot area, plus 7% of any additional lot area, with buildings. Impervious coverage is capped at 60%. Both figures are notably lower than the 5a/5b commercial districts.

How close to the street: Buildings must sit at least 25 feet back from the front lot line — a substantial front yard. Compare this to 5b’s 3.5–9.5 feet.

Parking: One parking space per residential unit, with some reductions available. Apartment buildings must also provide visitor parking. Parking lot driveways must be one-way, which effectively means any parking lot needs two curb cuts (two driveways) — one for entering, one for exiting.

Lot sizes: 4,000 square feet minimum for detached houses, 3,000 for twin house halves, 3,000 per family for multifamily houses, and 8,000 for apartment buildings. Lot widths range from 25 feet (twins) to 80 feet (apartments). These minimums are larger than those in the denser 4b district.

What the Narberth Planning Commission Wants to Change: District 5b

The NPC has recommended several changes to the 5b district. These are policy changes — they alter what is actually permitted.

Allow housing on the ground floor (with a catch). Currently, the ground floor of mixed-use buildings along Montgomery Ave must be entirely commercial. The proposal would allow residential units on the ground floor, provided that the first 12 feet of building depth facing Montgomery Ave is still commercial space. Picture a shallow storefront or cafe space along the sidewalk, with a residential unit behind it. This responds to the reality that retail demand has shrunk — storefronts are smaller than they used to be, and mandating large commercial ground floors can leave space permanently vacant.

Allow 4 stories within the existing 45-foot height limit. The current code says buildings can be 45 feet tall but only 3 stories. The proposal removes the 3-story cap and allows 4 stories within the same 45-foot envelope. Nothing gets taller. The buildings would look the same from the outside. You’d simply fit an extra floor of housing inside the same box.

Create a 5th-story density bonus. Allow a 5th story (up to 55 feet) if the developer reserves 10% of all units in the building as affordable housing for households at 80% AMI or below. The 5th story would have to be set back an additional 10 feet from the front and rear facades — so it steps back from the street, reducing its visual impact.

Reduce parking minimums to 0.7 spaces per unit. The base parking requirement would drop from 1 space per unit to 0.7 spaces per unit, on the condition that the development participates in SEPTA’s residential pass program (which gives residents discounted transit passes). The maximum number of parking spaces a developer could build stays the same — this only changes the minimum. Affordable units would be exempt from parking requirements entirely. And required parking could be provided on other lots within 900 feet of the building, rather than on the building’s own lot.

What the Narberth Planning Commission Wants to Change: District 4a

The 4a proposals are more extensive, touching nearly every aspect of the district’s rules.

Allow new building types by right. Apartment buildings would be permitted by right on lots of sufficient size (currently they require conditional use). Rowhouses and cottages — currently not allowed at all in 4a — would both be allowed by right. All house types could contain at least two dwelling units plus an ADU. Multifamily houses could hold up to five units. A three-story detached house or twin could contain up to three units.

Reduce front setbacks. The front setback for houses would drop from 25 feet to 20 feet. Apartment buildings would need to be at least 10 feet from the sidewalk. Stories above the third floor would need to step back an additional 10 feet from any boundary with a less-dense zoning district.

Increase allowable lot coverage. Building coverage would go to 50% of lot area (up from the current sliding-scale formula). Impervious coverage would increase from 60% to 70%.

Create a 4th-story density bonus. Apartment buildings could add a 4th story (up to 45 feet — the current height limit is 35 feet) if 10% of units are reserved as affordable at 80% AMI, mirroring the 5b density bonus structure.

Reduce parking requirements. Same formula as 5b: 0.7 spaces per unit for apartments and multifamily houses, conditioned on SEPTA pass program participation. Affordable units and units under 750 square feet would be exempt from parking. The visitor parking requirement for apartments would be eliminated. Two-way driveways would be allowed (currently only one-way is permitted). Required parking could be provided on other lots within 900 feet.

Allow smaller lots. Minimum lot sizes and widths would be reduced to match the denser 4b district: 1,400 square feet for houses, 2,000 for multifamily. Minimum lot widths would be eliminated entirely for detached houses, cottages, rowhouses, and twins (side setback rules would still apply, effectively controlling how close buildings can be).

Why are the Changes Needed?

This is where we get a list of somewhat vague and weak arguments that are quite questionable to some of us. In a recent survey by the Borough, there is a clear setiment from participents that the changes are not that welcome. See an outline of the survey’s results here

So What Is the Recodification, Then?

Here’s where people get tripped up. The recodification is an entirely separate project from the 5b and 4a changes described above. They’re happening in parallel, they both involve Chapter 500 of the Borough Code, but they do fundamentally different things.

The recodification is a top-to-bottom reorganization of the entire zoning code. The borough’s own website describes it as a “policy-neutral amendment” — it doesn’t change any of the rules. What it does is clean up the document. Narberth’s form-based code was adopted in 2016 and has been amended more than 15 times since through individual ordinances. Each amendment was stitched into the existing text, creating cross-references that are hard to follow, tables with footnotes that modify their own values in non-obvious ways, and conditional use provisions scattered across multiple sections. If you’ve ever tried to read the current code and figure out what’s actually allowed on a given lot, you know the experience: you start in one section, get sent to a table, the table has a footnote, the footnote sends you to another section, and by the time you arrive you’ve forgotten what you were looking for.

The recodification reorganizes all of this into a structure that’s easier to navigate, read, and understand. Same rules, cleaner presentation. The Montgomery County Planning Commission has been helping prepare the rewrite.

The 5b and 4a zoning changes are substantive policy amendments. They change what can be built — new building types, different heights, new parking rules, density bonuses tied to affordability. These are the proposals that generated community debate at the February 2026 open house and the survey of over 300 residents.

To put it simply: the recodification is rewriting the instruction manual so you can actually follow it. The 5b/4a amendments are changing the instructions themselves.

Both projects modify the same document, which is why coordinating their timelines matters. Ideally, you’d integrate the new 5b/4a provisions into the reorganized code rather than bolting them onto the old structure and then reorganizing again. The Planning Commission discussed this sequencing challenge at its December 2025 meeting, with some commissioners noting that the borough solicitor’s drafting schedule could push the recodification’s advertisement into February 2026 or later.

A Quick Reference Card

This post draws on the Narberth Planning Commission’s February 2026 Recommendations for Zoning Changes, the Montgomery County Planning Commission’s April 2026 Summary of the Housing Affordability Open House and Survey, and the current Borough of Narberth Zoning Code (Chapter 500). The author is a Narberth resident, not a land-use attorney — this is a plain-language guide, not legal advice.

If you’ve lived in Narberth for any length of time, you’ve probably heard murmurs about “zoning changes” and “recodification” at borough meetings, on neighborhood corners, or over coffee. You may have nodded sagely while having absolutely no idea what anyone was talking about. That’s okay. Zoning is one of those topics that affects every single property in the borough and yet somehow never made it into anyone’s dinner party conversation, at least until now.

Two things are happening at roughly the same time in Narberth, and people are mixing them up. One is a set of proposed changes to what can actually be built in two specific zoning districts. The other is a recodification of the entire zoning code — a reorganization that doesn’t change the rules at all. Both involve the same document (Chapter 500 of the Borough Code), which is why it’s confusing. This guide is here to un-confuse you.

First, Some Terms You’ll Need

Before we get into the specifics, let’s define some words that zoning zealots throw around as if everyone learned them in school.

Zoning Code

The zoning code is the set of rules that governs what can be built on every piece of land in the borough. It tells you how tall a building can be, how far it has to sit from the street, how much of the lot it can cover, how many parking spaces it needs, and what it can be used for (housing, shops, offices, etc.). Every municipality has one. Narberth’s is Chapter 500 of the Borough Code.

Zoning Districts

The borough is divided into geographic zones — districts — each with its own set of rules. Think of them as neighborhoods with different rulebooks. Narberth has seven main districts plus a historic overlay. They range from 3a (the lowest-density residential areas with bigger lots and single-family homes) up through 5b (the Montgomery Avenue commercial corridor). The higher the number, generally, the more intense the permitted development.

Form-Based Code

This is the type of zoning code Narberth uses, and it’s somewhat unusual. Most municipalities in the region use what’s called Euclidean zoning (named after a court case involving the Village of Euclid, Ohio — not the Greek mathematician, disappointingly). Euclidean zoning works primarily by separating uses: houses go here, shops go there, factories go way over there. Its main concern is keeping incompatible uses apart.

A form-based code takes a different approach. Instead of focusing primarily on what happens inside a building, it focuses on what the building looks like and how it relates to the street. How tall is it? How close to the sidewalk? How wide? Does it have a front porch or a storefront? The idea is that if buildings have the right form and placement, a mix of uses can coexist comfortably — an apartment above a shop, an office next to a house — as long as the physical character of the street is maintained.

Narberth adopted its form-based code in April 2016, becoming the first municipality in all 62 of Montgomery County’s jurisdictions to do so. It’s been amended more than 15 times since then through various ordinances, which is part of why the recodification is needed (more on that below).

By-Right vs. Conditional Use

These terms describe how easy it is to get permission to build something.

By-right means you can build it as long as you meet the code’s requirements. Submit your plans, meet the rules, get your permit. No public hearings, no special approvals, no discretionary review by elected officials. It’s the zoning equivalent of an ATM — meet the requirements, get the result.

Conditional use means the use is allowed in principle, but you have to go through a public hearing process before Borough Council. Council evaluates your proposal against a set of criteria — is it compatible with the neighborhood? Does it have adequate parking? Will it harm adjacent properties? — and can approve it, deny it, or approve it with conditions. This process adds time, cost, and uncertainty. For a developer, conditional use is a significant hurdle; for neighbors, it’s an opportunity to weigh in.

When the proposed zoning changes talk about making something “by-right” that’s currently “conditional use,” they’re removing that extra layer of review. Whether that’s a good or bad thing depends entirely on your perspective and what’s being changed.

Density Bonus

A density bonus is a deal the zoning code offers to developers: we’ll let you build more (an extra floor, more units) if you do something the community wants in return. In Narberth’s proposed changes, the “something” is affordable housing. The developer gets an additional story of market-rate units they can sell or rent at full price. In exchange, they must reserve 10% of all the units in the building for households earning 80% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Montgomery County. In 2024, 80% of AMI was about $91,000 for a family of four.

AMI (Area Median Income)

The Area Median Income is a number calculated by the federal government for each metropolitan area. It’s the income level at which half the households earn more and half earn less. Housing policy uses AMI as a yardstick for defining “affordable”: if you’re at 80% of AMI, you earn 80% of what the median household earns. Housing is considered “affordable” if it costs no more than 30% of a household’s gross income. If you’re paying more than that, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers you “cost-burdened.”

Recodification

Recodification is the process of reorganizing and rewriting a legal code to make it clearer and easier to use without changing what it actually says. If you’ve ever worked on a software project, think of it as refactoring: you restructure the code, rename confusing variables, consolidate redundant logic, and improve the documentation — but the program does the same thing it did before. Same inputs, same outputs, cleaner internals.

Missing Middle Housing

You’ll see this term in discussions about Narberth’s zoning. “Missing middle” refers to housing types that fall between single-family detached homes and large apartment buildings: things like duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, rowhouses, and small apartment buildings. These housing types were common in older neighborhoods (Narberth included) but have been effectively banned or made very difficult to build by many modern zoning codes. They’re called “missing” because there’s a gap in the housing stock where they should be.

ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit)

A small, self-contained housing unit on the same lot as a main house. Think of a converted garage apartment, a basement unit with its own entrance, or a small cottage in the backyard. ADUs are one of the gentlest ways to add housing — they’re typically invisible from the street and use existing infrastructure.

See the next post for details on the current zones 4a and 5b