What Is 198 Elmwood Worth - Should Narberth Buy It?
A ground-level analysis of the 198 Elmwood Avenue parcel: its value under current zoning, the case for borough acquisition as green space, and why the timing of that decision matters.
The former Baptist Church of the Evangel at 198 Elmwood Avenue has been a vacant lot since the structure was demolished around 2023. Sitting immediately adjacent to Narberth’s SEPTA regional rail station, it is the most prominently situated undeveloped parcel in the borough, arguably the one with the most consequential future.
Borough council’s proposed zoning amendments would, if adopted, allow by-right apartment construction on this parcel with a 45-foot height limit and parking requirements of just 0.7 spaces per unit. This prospect has prompted a reasonable question from many residents: could the borough simply acquire this land and hold it as green space, perhaps capturing some environmental benefit in the process?
That question deserves a careful, honest answer. Here is ours.
What the parcel is
The 198 Elmwood Avenue parcel is 0.42 acres — approximately 13,344 square feet — currently classified as commercial acreage for tax purposes and zoned R3 under Narberth’s form-based code. It sits within what the proposed amendments would reclassify as the 4a “General Urban Limited” district. Its flood zone designation is B/X, meaning moderate flood hazard. This is relevant to both development constraints and stormwater considerations.
The lot is, by any measure, exceptional real estate. It is steps from a SEPTA Paoli/Thorndale Regional Rail station with direct service to Center City in roughly 15 minutes. It is walkable to Narberth’s downtown commercial district. And it is currently vacant: a blank slate whose fate will shape the character of the station area for decades.
The stormwater argument: what’s real and what isn’t
Advocates for borough acquisition frequently invoke “stormwater credits” as a rationale. The concept deserves precision, because overstating it invites easy rebuttal.
Pennsylvania does not operate a mature stormwater credit trading market of the kind that exists, for example, within Philadelphia’s combined sewer system boundary. Narberth is outside that boundary. The borough cannot sell stormwater credits on an open market and expect meaningful revenue.
What is real and defensible is this: a developed parcel at this location would be nearly 100 percent impervious. A 3-to-4-story apartment building, underground parking, and hardscaped surfaces eliminate essentially all natural infiltration. Under Montgomery County’s Act 167 stormwater management requirements and Narberth’s MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) NPDES permit obligations, that new impervious cover creates downstream obligations, detention facilities, infrastructure upgrades, or green infrastructure mitigation that must be funded by someone.
Keeping this parcel pervious eliminates that obligation entirely. The correct framing is avoided infrastructure cost, not tradeable credits. That distinction matters both for accuracy and for credibility with anyone who knows how Pennsylvania’s environmental regulatory framework actually works.
How large is that avoided cost? It is site-specific and would require engineering analysis to quantify. But in a borough with aging combined infrastructure and documented CSO compliance challenges, it is not a trivial number. If development of this parcel would otherwise trigger, say, $200,000–$400,000 in downstream stormwater capital improvements over the next decade — improvements the borough would need to make regardless — that is a legitimate offset against the acquisition price.
What 198 Elmwood is actually worth
Under current R3 zoning, assuming the proposed 4a amendments do not pass, this is a constrained residential development parcel. Apartment construction is not permitted by right; a conditional use permit would be required. The height limit remains 35 feet. Parking requirements are more demanding than under the proposed amendments.
Those constraints matter to a developer’s pro forma. Working backwards from what the parcel can yield under current zoning:
A developer could likely build 12 to 18 units in a modest multifamily structure, depending on setbacks, lot coverage, and parking.
Finished units in Narberth rent at roughly $2,000–$3,000 per month for 1-to-2-bedroom apartments (consistent with comparable Elmwood Avenue properties that opened in 2023 nearby).
Multifamily construction costs in Montgomery County run approximately $200–$250 per square foot of building area.
The conditional use requirement adds entitlement risk and timeline uncertainty, which a developer prices into a lower land offer.
Against that backdrop, the rough fair market value of this parcel under current zoning is approximately $400,000 to $700,000, with a midpoint around $500,000–$550,000. The low end reflects a buyer pricing in entitlement risk; the high end assumes a developer who is confident of obtaining conditional use approval.
The Redfin automated estimate from when the building still stood placed it somewhat below comparable sale prices in the $1.18 million range — but that figure incorporated the building’s value and is no longer relevant. The parcel today is raw land.
For comparison: Narberth’s median single-family home sale price was approximately $595,000 in 2024 and $751,000 in 2023, with a market peak reflecting strong demand and constrained supply. Land pricing at a fraction of those figures reflects the entitlement risk and construction cost burden a developer must absorb.
What the proposed amendments would do to that value
If the 4a amendments pass and survive any legal challenge, the development yield on this parcel increases substantially. By-right construction rights, a 45-foot envelope, and 0.7-space parking minimums could support 20 to 30 units instead of 12 to 18 — with materially lower parking infrastructure costs. That increase in yield drives land value upward, potentially into a $700,000–$1,200,000 range.
The difference between those two numbers — roughly $200,000 to $500,000 — is the zoning premium that the proposed amendments would confer on whoever owns this parcel. That is not a moral argument against the amendments, but it is a material fact that informs the fiscal analysis of borough acquisition.
The fiscal case for acquisition: strengths and honest weaknesses
The case is strongest when framed as follows:
Under current zoning, acquisition cost is in the $400,000–$700,000 range — painful but plausibly achievable through a combination of state and county open space grants, developer exactions from other borough projects, and a capital budget allocation.
Montgomery County’s Open Space program, DCNR’s Community Conservation Partnerships Program, and PECO’s Green Region grants have collectively funded acquisitions in this range in inner-ring suburban communities. A well-structured application is not a fantasy.
A permanently vegetated, permeable parcel at this location avoids real stormwater infrastructure costs that the borough would otherwise face. That avoided cost is a legitimate offset.
What is built at the station-adjacent entrance to Narberth will define the character of that gateway for a generation. That is a legitimate community interest even when it is difficult to monetize.
The case is weakest on the following points, which advocates should acknowledge rather than omit:
Municipal acquisition removes this parcel from the tax rolls permanently. If developed under current zoning into 15 units, that building would generate ongoing real estate tax revenue for the borough, the school district, and the county — perhaps $40,000–$100,000 annually in aggregate across all taxing bodies, recurring indefinitely. Over 30 years, discounted to present value, that is a substantial sum.
There is also a legitimate regional housing supply argument to contend with. Transit-adjacent land of this quality is exactly where housing density is most defensible from a land use and transportation standpoint.
The strategic timing argument
This is perhaps the most practically important point.
The optimal moment for the borough to negotiate acquisition is now, under current zoning, before any council vote on the amendments. Here is why:
If the amendments pass and the parcel’s value rises to the $700,000–$1,200,000 range, the fiscal case for acquisition deteriorates and the grant funding gap widens. If the amendments are defeated or successfully challenged under the MPC, the parcel returns to its current valuation range. However the window for a negotiated acquisition at the most favorable price may already have passed if the owner has since received offers from developers pricing in speculative upside.
A borough council member who might vote against the zoning amendments might also, with appropriate framing, support exploring a negotiated purchase or at minimum authorizing an appraisal and a conversation with the current owner. Those are not the same vote, and they are not mutually exclusive with the zoning debate.
The bottom line
Borough acquisition of 198 Elmwood for green space and stormwater management is a defensible policy option — but only if it is pursued honestly, with clear-eyed acknowledgment of its costs and a realistic funding plan.
The strongest version of the argument rests on avoided infrastructure cost, station area character, and the availability of grant funding that could reduce the net municipal outlay significantly. The weakest version leans on monetizable stormwater revenue that does not exist in this regulatory context, or pretends that the tax base and regional housing supply implications are not real.
Narberth residents who want to see this parcel remain open space have a reasonable case to make. Making it credibly — with accurate numbers, honest tradeoffs, and a plausible path to funding — is the only way it will be taken seriously.
Our Narberth, Inc. is a Pennsylvania nonprofit civic organization engaged in research, public education, and community advocacy on land use and zoning issues in Narberth Borough. Nothing in this article constitutes legal or financial advice.
I've sent this to Borough Council and Mayor Edwards