Swarthmore Planning Commission
Minutes of May 17, 2007
Swarthmore Borough Hall


Attendees: Chair Tim Kearney, Vice-Chair Tom Shaffer, Al Federico, Joe Foglio, David Grove, Laura Memeger, Leslie Price, and David Virgil. Guests: Peg Hebner Christenson, Mary Lou Parker, and Susan Wright

1. Tim Kearney called the meeting to order and the minutes were approved by on a motion by David Grove, seconded by David Virgil.

2. The first order of business was the continuation of discussions related to demolition of historic structures and review of the draft ordinance forwarded from council. Tim Kearney began the discussion noting possible precedents that the PC should review including Lansdowne’s demolition ordinance which created a HARB to review all applications within their recently created Historic District. Tom Shaffer stated that he would contact Beverlee Barnes, Delaware County Planning, with regard to the Lansdowne ordinance and any other examples of town demolition ordinances of historic structures. Laura Memeger noted various mechanisms for creating historic districts and their respective guidelines and ordinances were delineated in Historic District Designation in Pennsylvania published by the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission. Susan Wright described two paths to creating historic districts, and the related ordinances, were by PA Act 167 or through the PA Municipalities Planning Code. David Grove reiterated interest in Tom’s suggestion in April to have Michel LeFevre of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission address the various paths possible to educate the P.C. on the merits of each. Mary Lou noted she would be attending a conference that Michael LeFevre was speaking at on June 26th. At the conference Mary Lou was planning to approach Michel to address the town about historical districting and the resulting guidelines and ordinances.

The draft demolition ordinance forwarded to the P.C. was discussed. Tim Kearney reiterated the need for education to avoid the possible “knee jerk” misconceptions possible with this type of ordinance. Education can mitigate the perception that these ordinances are prohibitive, punitive, or restrictive. Leslie Price asked whether the ordinance as written was intended to be applied to the entire town or a specific district. Leslie also posed the question on whether the demolition ordinance is an academic discussion or a more intellectual debate. Peg Hebner Christenson noted Council’s discourse of the demolition ordinance which was initially withdrawn from P.C. review in lieu of more specific questions being posed to the Commission. The Commission discussed whether they were restricted to Council’s questions on this issue or had a broader mandate to go beyond council’s question reviewed and discussed in prior meetings. The consensus was that the P.C. should go beyond Council’s questions in considering the demolition ordinance and related historic districting issues including mechanisms for their creation and implementation.

Al Frederico suggested that a straw poll be taken to establish whether the P.C. was in favor of a demolition ordinance. The poll was conducted and the PC was unanimous in creation of some type of ordinance that would protect “Historic Structures”. Al commented on exactly what we are trying to save with said ordinance and what is the difference between the current ordinances vs. the draft. Tim responded stating the current ordinance is purely administrative dealing with public safety issues rather than any preservation concerns. The draft ordinance and “what is historic” as discussed is tied directly to either historic districting or applied to the whole town as a historic district”. Joe noted his opposition to the ordinance being applied to the entire town based on a historic survey that he felt was not comprehensive and unintentionally omitted structures. David Grove noted the next step appears to be a political matter in determining what the town is trying to save. Laura Memeger asked what the original impetus for the town’s historic structure survey was. Susan Wright stated it was initially undertaken as part of Swarthmore’s Centennial Celebration as well as the groundwork for a historic preservation plan. Susan Wright offered that Susan Morikawa present the John Gibbons Historic Preservation Power Point to the P.C.

Leslie Price recalled previous discussions of implementing a delay ordinance as a less contentious mechanism than a demolition ordinance. This she believes would allow the ability for all interests to “talk about it”. David Grove stated that to consider delay vs. demolition at this point he believes requires the P.C. to be informed by the experiences and precedents of other towns. He noted that at one end of historic structures in Swarthmore is the Benjamin West House followed by the 283 structures surveyed with varying degrees of historic significance.

Tom Shaffer summarized that the council would find it beneficial to ascertain what towns similar to Swarthmore experienced and what the political ramifications were. Tim Kearney will contact Michael LeFevre to meet with the P.C. Susan Morikawa will be invited to present John Gibbon’s presentation on Historical Preservation. The P.C. will contact towns listed in Historic District Designation in Pennsylvania to obtain copies of ordinances and experiences once they have been enacted.

3. The second order of business was a review of the commissions Multi-Municipal Comprehensive Plan action items. Tim will circulate a memo from Jane Billings regarding potential grants for implementation of items listed in the MMCP. Tim noted the following list including but not limited to:

· Historic Resources
· Natural Resources and Open Space
· Land Use and zoning including cluster housing and parking
· Transportation and traffic calming
· Parks and Recreation
· Housing and Economic Development

Tim would like commissioners to take ownership of these items listed in the MMCP and report back to the P.C.

Al noted the Swarthmorean reported the formation of a Traffic Calming Committee. Laura questioned if the P.C. should be responsible for identifying potential traffic calming projects. David Grove would like to be educated on traffic calming methods (what are and are not effective traffic calming tools).

4. The meeting was adjourned.