Swarthmore Borough Planning and Zoning Committee
Minutes for February 24th, 2009

1. The Committee convened at 8:10am in Borough Hall. Present were Committee members Elisabeth Knapp (chair), Ralph Jacobs and Melissa Lewicki, Planning Commission Chair Tim Kearney and Borough Manager Jane Billings

2. The minutes of the January 27th Planning & Zoning Committee meeting were approved.

3. Update on WSSD Rutgers Ave. and Henderson Field properties: Jane Billings reported that Tom Huestis has written a letter to the President of the School Board stating Swarthmore’s interest in the two fields.
Update on the on-site parking waiver requested by Rudy’s Restaurant: Tim Kearney reported that the Planning Commission approved of the resubmitted parking waiver request in their February meeting. (The waiver request will move on to review by Borough Council in March.)

Update on the Planning Commission’s review of the current zoning ordinance as it pertains to accessory structures: Tim Kearney indicated that the Planning Commission is working on an overall statement defining those existing characteristics of the Borough which our zoning ordinance should protect and promote. The hope is that once this statement is crafted, discussions that pertain to accessory structures, fences, and preservation of historic resources will benefit from its overall guiding approach. Some specific comments made in the Planning Commission’s discussion relating specifically to garages were 1) RB and RC zoned areas perhaps have a different character and site constraints than RA zoned areas, 2) to approach the review process as applications for Special Exceptions versus Variances (ie: allowed as long as certain criteria were met), and 3) to approach the review process from a form-based zoning ordinance.

4. The Planning Commission’s Memo on Historic Resources was discussed. The general feeling was that the Committee supported an approach that went beyond a demolition delay, and which would have some sort of review process that had clear jurisdiction over allowing alteration and/or demolition to specific buildings. The “where” and “how” remained an open issue at this meeting. The following comments were made:

• Elisabeth Knapp suggested that starting with a defined area such as the Business District would make sense, with the goal of expanding to other parts, or all, of Swarthmore in the future, thereby using the experience of the Business District as an educational tool for the whole community to better understand the value of historic preservation.
• Ralph Jacobs wondered whether such a phased approach would be wise, since it might take so long for a second phase to be established. His point was also to use the impetus of the initial discussion to do a complete zoning revision, rather than expending more time and energy at a later point to put in place another phase.
• Melissa Lewicki pointed out that if the current State survey of historic structures identifies a block of houses along a street, but not all the houses along the street, and that only those residents in the “historic” structures need to follow a review procedure, residents may feel the process is unfair; she suggested that we should think about a review process that every homeowner would have to follow.
• Discussion then moved to whether a general form-based zoning review would work in neighborhoods to establish what should be preserved and what could or couldn’t be added/modified.
• Elisabeth Knapp expressed worry that Swarthmore should not try to create a town fixed in the architecture of a particular time range, but to protect the historically significant structures (of a wide variety of time periods) that already exist, while allowing the natural progression of new styles and materials to blend into the Borough.
• In conclusion, Tim Kearney suggested, and it was decided, that the Planning Commission would be asked to (briefly) refocus their Historic Resources Memo on a discussion of the memo’s approaches #3 and #4 (page 2 of memo), and to further explore the amount of work necessary to enact an ordinance that covers only the Business District versus a Borough wide ordinance. This input would clarify the Committee’s proposal to Borough Council.

5. The Zoning Hearing Board has one variance application to consider at their March meeting, an addition at 105 Forest Lane that would require a variance from the rear 35’ setback and 18% maximum lot coverage requirements.

6. There has been one new building permit in the last month, as well as several sales of existing homes. 110 -112 Park Avenue has been converted from a single property to five separate condominiums units.

7. There was no new business.

8. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15am.