SWARTHMORE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 21, 2010

Members Present: Tim Kearney, Chair; David Virgil; Helen Speck; Laura Memeger; Al Federico; Chris DeBruyn; Denise Disney; Stuart Seidman; Rex Brien

Also in attendance: Elisabeth Knapp, Borough Council representative

The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Council Room at Borough Hall.

The minutes of the March meeting: The March 2010 meeting minutes will be revised to remove the attribution to Laura Memeger of the suggestion that the “porch maximum protrusion” stated in the revised porch ordinance drafted by Borough Solicitor be changed from 8 feet to 10 feet. In addition, as per Helen Speck, the meeting minutes should state that they will be placed on the Borough website. Finally, it was agreed that the statement under “New Business” that the design of the built structures in the Swarthmore Business District “is not considered ‘Architecturally Significant’”, will be deleted. With those changes, the March 2010 Meeting Minutes were approved on motion by Laura Memeger, seconded by Denise Disney.

Planning Commission Addition: Chris DeBruyn was introduced and welcomed as the newest member of the Swarthmore Planning Commission.

Old Business:

Cell Phone Tower at 101 S. Chester Road. Tim Kearney reported that at the request of Tom Killian, the Planning Commission attended the March 23, 2010 Zoning Hearing Board hearing to review the request by the owners of the property for a variance.

Historic Resources Protection

Discussion continued with respect to the scope and direction of planning efforts, primarily with respect to the Business District Area. Al Federico suggested that initial efforts should focus on a basic demolition delay ordinance, providing for a hearing, and opportunity for third-party buyers to consider preserving the structure. It was noted that Bob Scott previously drafted such an ordinance. Elisabeth Knapp suggested that a proposed ordinance should allow any resident to challenge the demolition, and that an automatic delay of any demolition should be considered.

Chris DeBruyn suggested that some residents may see a demolition delay ordinance as a “significant taking”, and that such an ordinance should only protect properties of historical significance. He suggested that residents could elect to include their property under that designation.

Tim Kearney noted that the Commission should be focusing on what is worth protecting. David Virgil noted that the Commission has sought guidance from Borough Council with respect to the level of protection it envisions. Elisabeth Knapp advised that Council wants something stronger than demolition delay, and is interested in form-based zoning, i.e., preserving the visible parts of buildings. This might entail regulation of massing cadence along the sidewalk, window layout, pedestrian-friendly facades, etc. She stated that Council is not proposing a prohibition against demolition, but, rather, the preservation of the character of the fabric of the built environment. Tim Kearney noted that similar, proposed regulations were created with respect to the proposed Inn on the Swarthmore campus.

Tim Kearney also suggested that “protection of historic properties” may not be the appropriate approach for the Borough. Laura Memeger suggested that an alternate approach might be from the urban design perspective. Al Federico agreed that design standards can be used to preserve the character of the Borough. Laura Memeger noted that a design standards approach may not, for example, protect the “Michaels” building from demolition, however that building may be a “designatable” building.

Chris DeBruyn suggested that a municipality can purchase building rights for purposes of preservation. Stuart Seidman similarly noted that “façade easements” can be donated by a municipality. Laura Memeger suggested that another approach might include incentives to upgrade a building. David Virgil emphasized that any approach should include an “education component”, sufficient to empower residents’ participation in the process.

Helen Speck noted that, for purposes of ongoing discussion, a point of reference could be the previously drafted Historic Structure Demolition Permit Ordinance. Tim Kearney noted that such an approach may require professional assistance in conducting an inventory of historic structures, and that grant money may be available for that purpose. Helen Speck noted that Delaware County may have services available to assist in such an endeavor.

It was the consensus of the participants to table current discussions regarding a demolition delay ordinance. In the interim, Al Federico agreed to review the previously drafted demolition delay ordinance, though noting that the Commission generally does not draft ordinance language.

David Virgil proposed, as a point of reference, looking again at the form-based language in the Swarthmore campus Inn proposal. Stuart Seidman suggested that such an approach may include a design review hearing to consider permit applications. Tim Kearney noted that there is a draft zoning overlay ordinance pertaining to the Inn that is available for review. Denise Disney also suggested that a review of the Lansdowne Borough Zoning Ordinance may provide guidance to ongoing discussions.

Elisabeth Knapp stated that she will discuss obtaining grant money from Delaware County at the next Council meeting.

In closing, Al Federico suggested that the Commission devise a process for collecting and organizing documents relevant to the Commission’s ongoing discussions.


New Business: No new business was discussed during the Meeting.

The Meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m., on motion by Denise Disney, seconded by Laura Memeger.


Respectfully submitted,

Rex Brien, Acting Secretary