Dear Members of Borough Council, I am writing as a property owner whose land shares a boundary with the proposed 4a rezoning area to formally register my strong opposition to the Planning Commission’s proposed zoning changes in that district. I ask that this letter be entered into the public record.
My primary objections are as follows:
The proposed changes would allow apartment buildings where none currently exist by right, and would permit building heights significantly beyond what is consistent with the surrounding residential character. As a bordering property owner, I would bear the most direct consequences of these changes: reduced property value, reduced sunlight, reduced ground coverage ratio, increased traffic on adjacent streets, and the introduction of a building scale that is fundamentally incompatible with the existing neighborhood fabric. These are not abstract concerns. They are the lived reality of anyone whose home sits next to a structure permitted under the proposed code.
The reduction of the base parking requirement to 0.7 spaces per residential unit is, in my view, the most poorly reasoned element of the entire proposal. Narberth is not a car-free urban environment. Residents here drive to grocery stores, medical appointments, and work. The latter particularly true for the workforce households that the Council cites as the intended beneficiaries of affordable housing. Reducing parking does not reduce car ownership; it relocates cars onto streets that are already at or beyond capacity. The burden of that overflow falls directly on adjacent residential blocks, including mine.
I also note that the March 2026 community survey, which drew over 440 responses, showed that approximately 68% of respondents opposed the 4a/4b zoning changes overall, with an even higher proportion (approximately 75%) specifically opposing the parking reduction. These are not fringe views. They reflect a broad and consistent community sentiment that the Council has an obligation to take seriously.
If the Council’s genuine goal is housing affordability, I would urge focus on the approaches that did receive meaningful community support: encouraging mixed-use development within the existing commercial corridors of 5a and 5b, supporting accessory dwelling units on appropriate lots, and most urgently, addressing the prolonged vacancy of downtown storefronts, which respondents across the survey identified as the borough’s most pressing quality-of-life issue.
Changing the character of established residential zones through rezoning that permits large apartment blocks and reduced parking requirements is not a targeted affordability measure. It is a structural change to the borough that cannot be undone, and one that disproportionately harms those property owners who chose to invest here precisely because of the existing zoning protections.
In light of the above, I am not opposed to some changes: allowing cottages, semi-detached houses, town houses be incorporated into the area.
I respectfully but firmly ask that the Council reject the proposed changes to the 4a district, and that any future planning process begin with genuine community engagement rather than proposals developed in advance of it.
Sincerely,
Aongus & Katherine 201 Woodside Avenue