Radnor planners review rewrite of nonconforming-use rules; ask for examples and redlines

The Radnor Township Planning Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance intended to clarify and separate three categories of nonconformities in the zoning code: non-conforming lots, non-conforming buildings and non-conforming uses.

Solicitor Nelson opened the discussion by saying the rewrite responds to longstanding ambiguities and legal requirements: "we're required to recognize nonconformities that are more kind of normally known as grandfathering," he said, explaining that property rights allow preexisting uses and structures to continue even when later zoning would prohibit them.

Commissioners focused on several practical and legal points in the draft. Key outcomes from the meeting:
- Staff and solicitor advised separating the three categories so that rules for lots, buildings and uses are distinct and easier to interpret.
- Commissioners asked staff to provide three concrete examples (one non-conforming lot, one non-conforming building and one non-conforming use) so the commission can see how the language operates on real parcels; Mr. Kim agreed to circulate those examples by the 15th.
- The draft contains a provision that would limit physical expansion of a non-conforming use to an aggregate of 50% of the existing area; the solicitor said a 50% cap is a commonly used and legally defensible limit. The draft also contains a separate clause limiting the owner to "no more than one expansion," a provision several commissioners called unnecessary or administratively burdensome. Commissioners expressed a preference to consider deleting the one-time-expansion clause and rely on the percentage cap.
- Commissioners debated whether the zoning officer should be required to register nonconforming parcels. Several members pushed for stronger recordkeeping; Solicitor Nelson warned that requiring the zoning officer to identify and register "all" nonconforming properties is impractical and could create enforceability issues given the workload and historical gaps in records. Commissioners suggested deleting the word "all" to make the registration discretionary but to state an intent to pursue registration when appropriate.
- A merger provision would treat two or more adjacent undersized lots under common ownership as merged to reduce nonconformity. Solicitor Nelson said the so-called doctrine of merger is supported by case law and is intended to limit developer gaming; several commissioners asked for clearer, more narrowly drawn language and the ability to rebut a presumption of merger in family or innocent-owner cases.
- The ordinance references a fee for registration that would be placed on the townships annual fee schedule rather than in the ordinance text; staff said a specific registration fee does not currently appear on the fee schedule and would be recommended to the finance department and board for adoption. Fees, the solicitor noted, must be set to recover costs and cannot be used as a revenue-raising device.

No formal recommendation to the board was adopted at the meeting. Instead, Solicitor Nelson said he would redline the ordinance to reflect commissioners input and return a revised draft at a future meeting after commissioners review the three sample properties. Several commissioners said they needed additional time to review the merger language and the one-time expansion limitation.

The commission also noted that modern GIS and digital records make tracking expansions and registrations more feasible than in the past, but that establishing a full township-wide inventory would require consultant support and board approval.

The commission deferred final action and will revisit the revised ordinance and the examples at a subsequent meeting; staff indicated the board of commissioners has been briefed on the issue and supports resolving the code deficiencies.