On the agenda: Whitemarsh Township meeting — data center (Mar 10)

WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (IN-PERSON)
AGENDA
MARCH 10, 2026
6:30 PM
BUSHONG__ GLANTZ PATCHEN___ KOSTYK___ QUITEL___ SHAW-FINK___ SHULA___ NORBECK___
MANUELE (BOS) ___ GUTTENPLAN (Staff) ___ HEINRICH (Engineer) ___ SANDER (Solicitor) ___

1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE
•

All speakers are requested to speak directly into the microphones.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
•

February 10, 2026

4. ZONING HEARING BOARD APPEALS (None)
5. CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS
•

CU #02-26 Lafayette Hill Shopping Center, LLC; 428 Germantown Pike; Conditional Use for a
Smoothie & Bowl Restaurant

6. SUBDIVISION &/OR LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (None)
7. OLD BUSINESS
•

Continued Discussion of the Conservation Design Overlay District, Off-Street Parking & VC
Shared Access Requirements—Tim Konetchy, AICP from MCPC

8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
10. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS
11. ADJOURNMENT
TENTATIVE AGENDA NEXT MEETING; April 14, 2026
Undetermined at this time

____________________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Public meetings of the Commission shall follow a prescribed agenda, which will be available to
the general public no later than the Friday preceding the meeting.
If members of the public wish the Commission to address a specific item at a public meeting, a
written request to the Staff Liaison shall be submitted at least one week before the meeting.
The written request shall specify the item or items the individual desires to be addressed.
The Commission may consider other matters for the agenda as they see fit.
The Commission will entertain Public Comment at the conclusion of the discussion of the item
and prior to specific action on the item during the meeting, at the discretion of the
Chair. Individuals must advise the Chair of their desire to offer such comment.
A Public Comment period will be provided at the conclusion of a meeting for input on any new subject.
The Commission Chair shall preside over Public Comments and may within their discretion:
a.
Recognize individuals wishing to offer comment.
b.
Require identification of such persons.
c.
Allocate total available Public Comment time among all individuals wishing to comment.
d.
Allocate up to a five (5) minute maximum for each individual to offer Public
Comment at a meeting, Township Staff shall time comments and shall announce,
“one minute remaining” and “time expired” to the Chair.
e.
Rule out of order scandalous, impertinent and redundant comment or any comment the
discernible purpose of which is to disrupt or prevent the conduct of the business of the
meeting including the questioning of, or polling of, or debating with, individual
members of the Commission.

____________________________________________________________________________________

WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (IN-PERSON)
MEETING MINUTES
February 10, 2026
6:30 PM
Attendees/Participants: Carmen Bushong, Sherri Glantz Patchen, Scott Quitel, Dave Shula (Vice Chair), Donald Norbeck,
Krista Heinrich (Township Engineer), Charlie Guttenplan (Director of Planning and Zoning), Deanna Williams (Solicitor’s
Office), Vince Manuele (BOS Liaison), Samantha Zrillo (Township Planner), Timothy Konetchy (MCPC)

1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Shula called the meeting to order at 6:33 PM.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE

•

Mr. Guttenplan noted a modification of the agenda, and that there was a new business item that
won’t be discussed; it was put on the agenda prematurely due to a communication error. Mr.
Guttenplan indicated that we will wait until FEMA replied with a final determination on the floodway
line modification to proceed with a discussion of a possible conservation easement purchase for
the Highpoint project. Once that is received it will be put back on the agenda. The handouts tonight
will be redistributed when this is on the agenda, Mr. Guttenplan explained that if the FEMA approval
is not granted, then the issue is void and the developer would have to start from scratch.
Mr. Guttenplan reminded everyone to speak directly into the microphone.

•

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 13, 2026

•

A Commission member suggested amending the meeting minutes by revising the language on
page three and adding a sentence before the last paragraph stating, “A commission member
commented that since zoning relief would be required for either density or demolition, given the
preference to take down the buildings, this may be a better path.” A Commission member also
commented on public attendance, asking if attendees are always listed, both speaking and nonspeaking. Mr. Guttenplan explained that we have done it with and without the list of residents
attending and it can be removed. The Commission member suggested changing it to “public
comment” and removing all references to “residents” to keep it consistent, as well as making the
address for Sydelle Zove upper case.
On page four at the bottom, the reference to the 60-day review period was noted as confusing, so
deleting “beyond the 60 day review period” would make it clearer, and adding a new sentence
stating, “It wasn’t clear what the impact of the responses would be, given the 60 day review period
had passed.” On page five, in the first full paragraph, it should be revised for clarity to state that the
engineer suggested adding an asterisk at the bottom noting that the Planning Commission is not
comfortable answering some of the questions. In the paragraph beginning with “Mr. Guttenplan
mentioned,” the third sentence should read, “While the questions were discussed with the
developer” for clarity. Regarding the motion, Ms. Glantz Patchen suggested to remove “agree with
the presented info,” and change it to “as described above”. There were also two misspellings of
names in the third paragraph: Tim Doll should be corrected to Tom Doll, and Dave Shula was
misspelled at the bottom of the first page.
Mr. Norbeck made a motion to approve the minutes, and Ms. Bushong seconded. Motion carried
5-0.
6. ZONING HEARING BOARD APPEALS (None)
7. CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS
•

CU #01-26 Fort Washington Real Estate, LLC; 451 Bethlehem Pike; Conditional Use for a
medical/dental office & for possible parking reduction

1

This is an application in the VC1 district. Mr. Celso Leite, Esq. is here to make a presentation on
the property. Dr. Zebrick would like to open a dental office at 451 Bethlehem Pike, which was
originally the old Wissahickon Hall building.
Celso Leite, from Hamburg Rubin explained that much of the building is vacant, but it’s difficult to
find long term tenants for the space. Conditional use approval is needed in order to do renovations
and adaptive use. Mr. Leite, Esq. mentioned that this is not the first time Wissahickon Hall has
been before the Township, about 10 years ago they went before the board for a lot line adjustment
with the adjacent property. Now the property relies on 455 Bethlehem Pike for parking.
Dr. Zebrick wants to bring his orthodontist’s office to the building. He serves clients of all ages and
is looking to open a second location. Dr. Zebrick is looking to start on the first floor, then gradually
works his way up to the second. They don’t take walk ins, and are by appointment only, so no
overly intensive use. Their office hours are 8:30-5:30 pm, and peak hours are 3-5:30 after school.
Mr. Leite, mentioned that the dental office is permitted to the VC1 district by conditional use, and
they comply with the criteria and compatible with commercial character of the neighborhood. The
office will not have a harmful effect on local pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Mr. Leite, also talked
how the dental office will not produce any objectional noise, lighting, glare, heat, ventilation, smoke,
fumes, vapors, dirt, gases, radioactive or electrical disturbances.
Mr. Leite, continued that there will not be any adverse effects like visual impacts on adjacent
property, it won’t interrupt or burden any public services. Mr. Leite, talked about the review letter
received from Mr. Guttenplan and the memo from the Fire Marshal.
A Commission member asked if Dr. Zebrick would be making any site modifications. A Commission
Member suggested an ADA ramp may be necessary. Dr. Zebrick and Mr. Leite, replied that there
would be signage and that an existing ramp may require alterations because it is too steep for ADA
compliance. A question was asked for more information on the parking easement. That easement
was set in place due to the potential redevelopment of the area when the lot line change took place
in 2015; another developer is contemplating a new mixed use development. So, if Dr. Zebrick buys
the building then he has parking rights based on the easement that’s been recorded. If the
developer decides to develop the properties around it, they will have to work with Dr. Zebrick to
make sure there is adequate parking for the building, possibly by new easement.
Mr. Guttenplan mentioned a Zoning Hearing Board case, when the lot line change went through,
and one of the variances was for the number of parking spaces. The number of parking spaces
hasn’t changed, yet the parking requirements have, so this building has a lesser requirement than
it did in 2015. Mr. Guttenplan mentioned that all offices used to have 1 parking space per 200 sq.
feet, whereas now professional offices have 1 space per 250 sq. feet, and only medical facilities
have 1 per 200. A Commission member asked if the parking spaces are sufficient for Dr. Zebrick,
and Mr. Leite, replied that it would be because the office is by appointment only, which means there
will be more control over the traffic.
A Commission member asked if the applicant would use the ground floor, so what’s the use for the
rest of the building. Mr. Leite, replied that there is an office on the third floor along with a therapist,
and the second floor is being renovated. A Commission Member asked if Dr. Zebrick would become
the landlord, Dr. Zebrick replied yes. A Commission member asked how many parking spaces there
are, Mr. Leite, Esq. replied 27. A Commission Member asked what’s on the first floor currently, Mr.
Leite, Esq. replied that it used to be a financial services office.
Mr. Quitel made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use. Mr. Shula seconded the
motion. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Guttenplan mentioned that this will now go to the Board of Supervisors for a public hearing at
their March 12th meeting.
8. SUBDIVISION &/OR LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (none)

2

9. OLD BUSINESS
•

Continued Discussion of the Conservation Design Overlay District—Tim Konetchy, AICP from
MCPC
Mr. Konetchy stated that he would be providing an update on the 2026 program, specifically
outlining progress on several miscellaneous items, before returning to discussion of the
Conservation Design Overlay project, which he noted is the major project for the year. He explained
that while there were not many formal deliverables at this stage for the miscellaneous items, there
were several updates to report. Following last month’s meeting, Mr. Konetchy met with Charlie and
Sam to prioritize a handful of miscellaneous items. He stated that the primary item stems from the
Planning Commission’s discussion last month regarding the Floodplain Conservation Overlay
District. He began discussions with Environmental Planning Manager Jon Lesher (at MCPC)
regarding the matter. Mr. Konetchy explained that the FEMA model ordinances for the floodplain
fringe would allow residential uses, as Whitemarsh is largely located within the floodplain fringe,
and therefore adoption would ultimately be a policy judgment for the Township. He noted that staff
must conduct additional research to determine whether this approach is the right fit for the
Township at this stage. This includes reviewing what neighboring municipalities are doing and
evaluating available data and anecdotal evidence, including photographs documenting flooding
along the river. He added that around 2014, the County prepared model floodplain ordinances
based on FEMA guidance, and staff is currently gathering all relevant information before bringing
forward recommendations.
Mr. Konetchy further reported that Mr. Lesher has been invited to attend an upcoming Planning
Commission meeting. He indicated that Mr. Lesher would like to provide an update on a range of
environmental planning and sustainability initiatives, including recent cooperation with Chester
County and DVRPC regarding solar energy, a forthcoming product from the County’s new
sustainability office, and also mentioned issues related to new data centers, which he described as
a significant topic both regionally and nationally. Mr. Konetchy stated that this presentation would
likely occur in April if not at the next meeting, and that staff hopes to compile all floodplain-related
information for discussion at that time.
Turning to the Spring Mill Mixed Use District and the Transit-Friendly Design Overlay District, Mr.
Konetchy explained that when these topics were initially introduced, staff anticipated receiving a
sketch plan application. He reported that a sketch plan has since been submitted and that staff has
received a list of potential text amendments from the applicant. He noted that these items appear
on the bottom of the agenda for potential discussion next month. With the districts now in an
amendment phase, Mr. Konetchy stated that the Township has the opportunity to consider its own
edits in addition to those proposed by the applicant.
Regarding the Village Commercial District, Mr. Konetchy stated that he has begun reviewing
provisions related to shared access, which he described as an important strategy for promoting
cross-access easements and reducing curb cuts as redevelopment occurs. While he believes this
is the appropriate time to address those changes, he noted that the draft is not yet at a stage where
it is ready to present and anticipates bringing it forward next month. He added that Charlie and
Sam will also review conditional use provisions to determine whether certain uses, such as medical
offices, might be permitted by right rather than requiring conditional use approval in each instance.
Mr. Konetchy also reported that staff have begun meeting regarding off-street parking and loading
requirements and has already made progress on that effort. He explained that he plans to review
parking requirements comprehensively, noting that the Township has recently updated parking
standards in various districts. He observed that there is a broader national trend toward reducing
or eliminating minimum parking requirements, particularly in boroughs that are actively pursuing
such changes, and that staff have been compiling significant data on the topic.
Finally, Mr. Konetchy addressed the solar energy systems item (mandating Township Engineer
review for proposed efficiency), stating that he has reviewed the existing regulation, which currently
appears as a single paragraph indicating that its elimination would be straightforward. He

3

expressed confidence that the remaining miscellaneous items can be addressed by the end of the
year and concluded his update.
A Commission member asked whether the Township could prioritize the overlay items in a way that
would streamline interactions with government and reduce recurring issues. The member also
inquired about establishing key performance indicators and a tracking system to monitor outcomes
over time and identify areas where regulations may be too permissive or require adjustment. Mr.
Konetchy replied that it was a great idea and that the Planning Commission could identify the
metrics to use for this type of endeavor. A Commission member mentioned that during prior work
they were trying to avoid undue burden on both citizens and also the zoning board, that way they
could track it and say it resulted in better service for the government and citizens.
Mr. Konetchy stated that, similar to the off-street parking and loading updates, the Floodplain
Conservation District rose to the top of the priority list due to its significance, while the remaining
items are generally organized in priority order. He confirmed that as each item advances, staff will
incorporate performance metrics to help track effectiveness and ensure nothing is overlooked.
Mr. Konetchy then transitioned to the Conservation Design Overlay (CDO) update, explaining that
the goals of any replacement district should align with the legislative intent of both the existing CDO
and the draft Open Space Conservation Overlay (OSCO). He noted that while the original intent of
the CDO remains sound, it has fallen short in practice and needs refinement. He emphasized that
all zoning amendments must generally implement the Township Comprehensive Plan, and the
Planning Commission plays a role in interpreting its vision and implementation strategies. He
summarized the key Comprehensive Plan objectives guiding this effort as preserving sensitive
natural resources (i.e.- steep slopes, riparian corridors, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and
scenic viewsheds), ensuring that clustering regulations produce high-quality design rather than
simply meeting minimum density or open space requirements, evaluating whether a mix of housing
types could promote diversity and greater site flexibility, and requiring meaningful greenway and
trail connections so that new developments are not isolated from surrounding neighborhoods or
the regional trail network. He also stressed the importance of simplifying the zoning ordinance to
make it more user-friendly and written in clear, plain language.
Regarding the OSCO draft, Mr. Konetchy explained that it was prepared by a steering committee
and brought to the Planning Commission in early 2022, and that staff is currently working from the
April 2022 version. He reviewed its primary components, including expanded legislative intent
language with specific references to the Comprehensive Plan and climate change mitigation,
updated applicability standards, use regulations largely focused on single-family detached
dwellings with significant open space preservation, revised site capacity and density calculations,
a large-lot option, enhanced design standards emphasizing clustering, scenic view protection
provisions, and standard conservation easement and maintenance requirements.
Mr. Konetchy highlighted several ways in which the OSCO differs from the current CDO, including
the addition of a 10-acre minimum tract size, more detailed scenic view protection language
addressing natural landmarks and public views, and a restructured method for calculating site
capacity and density. He explained that the OSCO approach applies open space requirements to
the full site before determining constrained land and buildable area, whereas the current CDO
calculates these elements differently. He noted that staff intends to run side-by-side calculations
using example properties to better understand how each method affects development yield and
land preservation outcomes and will present those comparisons at a future meeting to help guide
policy decisions.
A Commission Member asked are there any times where they result in other appreciable
differences in calculation. Mr. Konetchy replied that he had just done this type of calculation for
Upper Frederick Township using draft regulations based on an MCPC model ordinance called the
‘Rural Preservation District’ from 2006. Mr. Konetchy explained that this concept operates similarly
to the CDO and OSCO draft but would apply to any property containing significant natural features.
He stated that the approach begins with the gross acreage, then subtracts constrained lands—
such as areas with high water tables or shallow bedrock—to determine the net developable area.
He noted that he conducted a preliminary analysis using example eighty-acre farm parcels
associated with Planning Commission members and indicated that staff can run those same

4

parcels through both calculation methods to compare how each system ultimately affects
development yield and land preservation outcomes.
A Commission Member asked why OSCO drafters went with a different process or a different
approach to calculating maximum permissible density to build. Steve Kaufman (Harts Ridge Road)
replied that it was a desire to maximize the percentage of open space and ensure that all
constrained land was properly accounted for as part of required open space.
Mr. Konetchy stated that the next step is to test and compare the different calculation methods,
noting that they vary somewhat from the Township’s current model ordinances, particularly given
local constraints such as shallow seasonal high water tables, shallow bedrock, and diabase
geology. He emphasized that the Township must strike a balance between preserving natural
features and avoiding regulations that make development infeasible. He added that smaller lot
sizes may be a logical solution when significant open space is preserved, as residents would rely
more on shared greenways and trail systems than on large private yards.
Mr. Konetchy explained that staff will analyze existing developments constructed under the current
CDO by reviewing both approved plans and built results, then compare those outcomes to what
would have occurred under the OSCO draft, other model ordinances, or a potential hybrid
approach. He stated that this analysis will help determine which natural resources are most
important to preserve, how they should be defined and inventoried, and how detailed those
requirements should be—such as whether to broadly preserve woodland acreage or require
detailed tree inventories above a certain diameter. He noted that staff will also review best practices
from other municipalities and planning organizations, including cluster subdivision models used
elsewhere in Pennsylvania, and will continue drafting, testing, and refining provisions until an
appropriate framework is reached.
Mr. Konetchy concluded that, over the coming months, staff will continue refining the CDO while
also pursuing public outreach, potentially through an open house format, to present existing
conditions, proposed legislative concepts, and illustrative site plans to the community. He stated
that the overall goal is to improve development quality, enhance preservation outcomes, and
reduce unnecessary complexity in the review process.
A Commission member commented on the importance of carefully testing and comparing the
various density and site capacity calculation methods, recognizing that local environmental
constraints must be considered while maintaining a practical balance between preservation and
development feasibility. The member agreed that analyzing existing CDO developments,
comparing them to the OSCO draft and other models, and reviewing best practices would help
clarify priorities for natural resource protection and appropriate design standards.
The Commission member also supported continued refinement of the ordinance through drafting
and testing, along with public outreach—such as an open house—to gather input and ensure the
revised district improves development quality while simplifying the review process.
Mr. Konetchy agreed that the ordinance must clearly define areas of interest and ensure that
required connections are meaningful rather than superficial. He emphasized that preservation
should focus not only on the size of woodland areas but also on tree maturity, ecological value, and
connectivity to surrounding natural features, rather than isolated stands of trees. Mr. Konetchy
noted that the Township can rely on existing plans to identify priority trail connections, viewsheds,
and significant natural resources, while also planning for future development to ensure long-term
connectivity. He added that the ordinance should clearly outline the legal mechanisms necessary
to secure those connections, even if a property initially appears isolated.
A Commission member suggested incorporating a GIS mapping component on the Township
website to visually overlay zoning districts and identify priority open space areas the Township is
seeking to protect. The member noted that mapping valued forested areas, trail corridors, and other
natural resources would allow the Commission to be more intentional and strategic, rather than
relying solely on broad regulatory standards. The member added that this approach could help
determine whether stronger or more targeted measures are needed to meaningfully connect

5

isolated open space areas in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Konetchy replied that
he would map sensitive natural features using GIS and bring a series of maps to a future Planning
Commission meeting for consideration.
A Commission member emphasized that the ordinance revisions should be driven by clearly
defined outcomes, particularly maximizing connectivity and thoughtful site design, and that the tools
created must be simple, practical, and easy for developers to understand and apply. The member
noted that developers often approach projects with a narrow focus and may not naturally prioritize
conservation or connectivity, so the Township’s regulations should proactively guide them toward
those outcomes rather than assume that sensitivity. The member further suggested reviewing past
developments to identify where better tools or clearer standards could have led to improved
conservation results and using those lessons to craft provisions that produce measurable, realworld improvements rather than relying solely on strong policy language. Mr. Konetchy agreed that
the ordinance should clearly and consistently define open space standards to avoid ambiguity and
ensure predictable expectations for developers and the Planning Commission.
A Commission member acknowledged that developers are motivated by return on investment and
will naturally seek to maximize units, and that this economic reality must be recognized. However,
the members emphasized that while the Township should not be adversarial, ecological and longterm planning goals cannot be secondary to financial considerations. The member expressed a
desire for clearer tools that guide better development outcomes upfront, balancing economic
interests with environmental stewardship rather than creating conflict during the review process.
A Commission member stated that clearer, more user-friendly standards could help foster more
constructive discussions with developers and avoid repetitive disputes over technical compliance.
The member noted that relying solely on narrow interpretations—such as meeting arborist or Shade
Tree requirements—may satisfy the letter of the ordinance but not advance broader conservation
goals related to ecological function and connectivity. The member emphasized the need to address
these recurring issues directly in the ordinance to encourage more positive and outcome-focused
interactions going forward.
Mr. Konetchy responded that expectations need to be clearly established upfront, particularly by
referencing the Comprehensive Plan and the notable natural features identified within it. He
indicated that grounding the ordinance in those adopted policy documents will help set a clear
framework for applicants and reduce uncertainty during the review process.
Steve Kaufman (Harts Ridge Rd) made a comment on one of the cut outs of Federick Douglas. He
then stated that while the Commission is considering more prescriptive standards—particularly
around forest health, connectivity, and ecological value—the more subjective and difficult those
criteria are to quantify, the harder they are to enforce clearly. He suggested that the strongest
prescriptive tools may instead be firm open space requirements and clearly defined net-out
calculations, which would provide leverage for the Planning Commission to negotiate better site
outcomes.
Mr. Kaufman also expressed concern that, historically, the Zoning Hearing Board has not
consistently upheld environmental protections, noting that riverfront setback requirements have at
times been reduced, and emphasized the importance of continued education and alignment across
Township bodies. Lastly, he suggested exploring incentives such as workforce housing bonuses
or flexibility for twin homes and smaller lots, viewing these as potential opportunities to achieve
both ecological restoration and greater equity within large redevelopment sites.
10. NEW BUSINESS
• Discussion of Potential Township Acquisition of Open Space/Conservation Easement at 1001
Washington Street (former David’s Bridal property)
(Removed from this agenda at start of meeting)
11. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS (none)

6

13. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Shula made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Glantz Patchen seconded the motion. Motion
carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:38 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles L. Guttenplan, AICP
Director of Planning & Zoning
The Planning Commission is appointed as an advisory group to the Board of Supervisors and the Zoning
Hearing Board with respect to comprehensive land use planning, existing land use, and various land use and
zoning applications in Whitemarsh Township. No formal decisions are rendered by the Planning Commission.
Formal decisions are rendered by the Board of Supervisors or Zoning Hearing Board, as prescribed by law,
based on the type of application.

7

MONTGOMERY COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Jamila H. Winder, Chair
Neil K. Makhija, Vice Chair

Montgomery County
Planning Commission
Montgomery County • PO Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Thomas DiBello, Commissioner

610-278-3722
[email protected]

www.montgomerycountypa.gov

Scott France, AICP

March 6, 2026
SUBJECT:

Continued Discussion of the Conservation Design Overlay District – Constrained Land

TO:

Charles L. Guttenplan, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning/Zoning Officer;
Sam Zrillo, AICP, Township Planner;
Whitemarsh Township Planning Commission

FROM:

Tim Konetchy, AICP, Senior Community Planner

Introduction
Over the past few months, the Whitemarsh Township Planning Commission has received a high-level overview of
the existing Conservation Design Overlay District (CDO) and the draft Open Space Conservation Overlay District
(OSCO), the latter of which was drafted by a steering committee of Township residents and board members. A
central component of both the CDO and OSCO is the concept of a site capacity calculation. This calculation
establishes the methodology for determining the portion of a tract or lot that may be developed after accounting
for areas containing sensitive natural features and other required common open space.
This memo includes more information regarding the site capacity calculations of both the CDO and OSCO and
initiates a discussion of how sensitive natural features should be planned around as part of future residential
developments constructed under the forthcoming replacement for the CDO.
Site Capacity Calculation Under the CDO and OSCO
Section 116-273. of the Whitemarsh Township Zoning Ordinance requires that all residential developments of five
or more dwelling units in the A, AA, AAA and AAAA Residential Districts undertake a site capacity calculation. The
process involves the following steps:
1. Calculate the base site area based on the tract/lot by subtracting existing road and utility rightof-way, as well as any land that is zoned other than A, AA, AAA, or AAAA.
2. Calculate the constrained land area using the following ratios:
(a) 100% of floodway
(b) 50% of floodplain
(c) 95% of wetlands

(d) 85% of slopes exceeding 25%
(e) 25% of slopes of 15-25%
3. Calculate the adjusted tract area by subtracting the constrained land area from the base site
area.
4. Using the adjusted tract area, apply the common open space requirement. Add any
constrained land area.
5. Calculate the development area by subtracting the common open space requirement from the
adjusted tract area.
6. Lastly, apply the maximum density to the development area to determine the total number of
dwelling units permitted.
The OSCO site capacity calculation process involves similar steps:

1. Identify the base site area, which is the gross area of the tract/lot within property lines.
2. Calculate the minimum common open space, which is 50% of the base site area.
3. Calculate the sum of constrained land, which includes all area where floodways/floodplains,
wetlands, steep slopes, and riparian corridors are present, plus 50% of all woodland area.
4. Check the constrained land area against the minimum common open space requirement. If
additional area is required to meet the minimum common open space requirement, identify the
area where such will be provided.
5. Determine the maximum buildable land area by subtracting the constrained land area and
then any additional required common open space.
6. Lastly, apply the maximum density to the buildable land area to determine the total number of dwelling
units permitted.
There are a few notable differences between the two calculation methods. First, the OSCO process requires that
50 percent of the base site area (gross lot area) be set aside as common open space, whereas the CDO requires a
portion of the adjusted tract area — which excludes constrained land — to be preserved as common open space.
Second, the OSCO draft requires that constrained land — which adds woodlands to the CDO list of constraints —
be counted toward the required open space, thereby granting “credit” for these areas. In contrast, the CDO
subtracts constrained land from the gross lot area when calculating site capacity, but this land area does not count
toward the required common open space. While the resulting development potential under each approach will
likely be quite similar, the methodologies used to arrive at those outcomes differ. MCPC will evaluate each of these
calculation scenarios to better understand how the outcomes may vary.

2

Constrained Land Maps
At the last meeting the location of key natural features and open spaces to help understand how natural features
and open spaces can be best located to ensure the maximum value/efficiency. MCPC has prepared a package of
maps of the key natural features that area included in the constrained land calculations, as well as a map of the
applicable zoning districts (A, AA, AAA, and AAAA) and existing open spaces. The latter is based on a recent MCPC
project to map all open space across the county while noting ownership and protection status. These maps will be
presented to the Planning Commission at the March 10 meeting.
Next Steps
Over the next several months, MCPC will coordinate with Township Planning & Zoning staff on the following items:
1. Analysis of Site Capacity Calculation – MCPC will coordinate with Township Planning & Zoning staff to
determine an appropriate lot or lots to use for calculating the two existing options for the site capacity
calculation. This may reveal that ot some aspects of each may be preferred.
2. Review of Recent Developments – Before considering specific regulations for the replacement of the
CDO, the Planning Commission should have a solid understanding of existing regulations and where they
have fallen short of expectations. With that in mind, Township staff and MCPC will coordinate on review of
recent developments, including site visits, to see what aspects of the development meets expectations and
where there may be room for improvement. The findings of this review will be presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
3. Draft Preparation – MCPC will prepare draft regulations, along with an explanation and overview to aid the
Planning Commission in their review. Some of the key provisions include:
a. Legislative intent – The rationale behind district regulations and a set of aspirational principles for
new development.
b. Applicability – The circumstances when the regulations apply, which will likely remain five or more
dwelling units within the A, AA, AAA, and AAAA Residential Districts.
c. Site capacity calculation – An analysis of environmental constraints and calculation of developable
area for the tract.
d. Dimensional standards – The measurable standards such as minimum lot area, setbacks, building
height, residential density, building coverage, impervious coverage, etc. This may result in a
continuation of the current system whereby the underlying zoning districts inform the dimensional
standards, or this may be reenvisioned with a unified set of standards that apply regardless of the
underlying zoning district.
e. Design standards – Requirements and guidelines on how the site must be designed in order to
accommodate existing natural features, required open space, infrastructure, and buildings.
f.

Common open space standards – This will include provisions for how constrained land us
preserved, how useable open space must be designed in order to provide meaningful recreational

3

options, and define the legal instruments required to ensure all required open space is preserved in
perpetuity.
4. Site Plan Testing – MCPC designers will prepare mock site plans based on the full set of draft regulations.
These mockups will be reviewed by MCPC, Township staff, and the Planning Commission to ensure that
the resulting site layout/design meets the intent of the Township. Where issues are identified, edits will be
made to ensure that the design reflects the desires of the Township.

4

MONTGOMERY COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Jamila H. Winder, Chair
Neil K. Makhija, Vice Chair

Montgomery County
Planning Commission
Montgomery County • PO Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Thomas DiBello, Commissioner

610-278-3722
[email protected]

www.montgomerycountypa.gov

Scott France, AICP

March 6, 2026
SUBJECT:

Whitemarsh Township – Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements Revisions

TO:

Charles L. Guttenplan, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning/Zoning Officer;
Sam Zrillo, AICP, Township Planner;
Whitemarsh Township Planning Commission

FROM:

Tim Konetchy, AICP, Senior Community Planner

Background
In 2021, Whitemarsh Township made substantial reforms to their off-street parking requirements, significantly
lowering the requirements for many land uses. After several years of applying the regulations, Township Planning
& Zoning staff identified several areas for improvement. The proposed amendments involve modifying a handful of
parking requirements, establishing parking requirements for previously unlisted uses, and providing more detail to
several regulations to aid in application and interpretation of the regulations.
This memo outlines the proposed amendments to Article XXVI, Off-Street Parking and Loading, as identified by
Township Planning & Zoning staff. Additional details about the proposal will be presented at the Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for March 10. You can review the full draft with markups at the conclusion of this
document (7 pages). The Township is also examining shared access and parking, which may lead to further changes
to this article. To start the discussion, a summary of existing issues and expected outcomes is provided, though
discussion will continue at a future meeting.
Summary of Proposed Amendments to Off-Street Parking and Loading
§ 116-184. Required off-street parking facilities.
Determining an appropriate parking requirement relies on an understanding of the projected parking demand.
Further, parking requirements are applied to specific land use categories identified in the zoning ordinance, which
may vary in terms of the operations and activities but are subject to the same parking requirement. Parking demand
is therefore difficult to estimate. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual – which
analyzes the parking demand for various land uses – is a useful starting point for determining parking demand and
has informed several modified parking requirements described below.
Proposed amendments to this section include the following:

•

•

•

•

•

•
•

•
•
•

The definition and application of gross floor area have been clarified, and a provision empowering the
Township Zoning Officer to determine appropriate parking requirements for any uses not specifically
identified has been added.
Veterinary offices and hospitals are now included within the “animal boarding and dog day care” category,
and the parking requirement has been reduced slightly. This adjustment aligns the standard more closely
with the ITE Parking Generation Manual (2019), which indicates a peak demand of 2.8 spaces per 1,000
square feet.
A new parking requirement has been established for “auto dealership,” which was previously not
addressed. Township Planning & Zoning staff used a real example from a recent land development in
Whitemarsh to determine the appropriate requirement.
Separating the “industrial manufacturing” category into two distinct categories: (1) manufacturing,
processing, and production, and (2) warehouse, storage, and distribution facilities. According to the ITE
Parking Generation Manual (2019), manufacturing typically requires approximately one parking space per
1,000 square feet, consistent with current standards. Warehouse uses demonstrate a lower demand,
around 0.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet; therefore, the proposed requirement is one parking space per
employee plus 0.5 truck spaces per 1,000 square feet. The introduction of a truck parking requirement is a
new concept and may warrant further discussion.
The parking requirement for “monastery or convent” has been revised from one space per two residents to
one space per four residents. While the ITE Parking Generation Manual (2019) provides a benchmark of four
spaces per bed for similar uses, direct data for convents and monasteries was unavailable.
Adjustments have been made to the parking requirements for “park/recreational facility/community
center” to account for outdoor amenities.
A parking standard for “personal service shop” has been added, which is based on the number of customer
chairs and employees per shift. Where no customer chairs are present, a standard of one space per 300
square feet will apply.
All school-related subcategories have been consolidated into a single row to enhance the clarity and
usability of the ordinance.
The required parking setback from structures has been modified to accommodate proposals that obtain
Fire Marshal approval for a setback below the baseline of 10 feet.
A citation to the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance has been added to subsection ‘F.’

§ 116-185. Off-site parking spaces.
The existing language under subsection ‘C’ was phrased in a manner that made interpretation difficult. The current
language refers to “total sales floor area,” which is not applicable to all parking requirements. Therefore, the
language has been amended to clearly empower the Zoning Hearing Board to reduce the parking requirement for
shared parking facilities by up to 75%.
§ 116-186. Required off-street loading and unloading.
The current regulations lack an explicit requirement for off-street loading facilities, which has created challenges
in enforcing this provision for land use proposals. The proposed amendments introduce a mandate that any facility

2

receiving or distributing goods more than once per week must provide a dedicated loading space. Furthermore,
facilities equipped with loading bays are required to provide a loading space at each bay. Lastly, a reference to the
Subdivision and Land Development standards governing off-street loading areas has been incorporated.
§ 116-188. Special events.
This section was slightly restructured by relocating subsection D—defining the frequency of a “special event”—to
the introduction.
Shared Access and Shared Parking Provisions
The Township requires shared access and parking in Village Commercial (VC) and Transit-Friendly Design Overlay
(TDO) Districts. Shared driveways reduce curb cuts, lowering risks for pedestrians and drivers by clearly indicating
entry and exit points and improving safety. The goal of requiring shared access would be to consolidate driveways
as redevelopment occurs, thereby improving the corridors over time.
In the VC Districts, shared driveways are parking is encouraged for all uses and required for conditional uses.
However, there is a provision that states that alternative options may be pursued for properties under 5 acres “after
a bona fide attempt has been made to secure a shared parking arrangement with an adjacent or nearby property”
(Section 116-291.A.(7)(a)[1]). The VC also offers a “bonus” provision that allows for up to a 10% increase in
impervious coverage when shared parking with shared access driveways are provided.
In the TDO, “every effort shall be made to provide shared means of ingress and egress to developed and developing
properties” and “where deemed necessary and appropriate, shared access drives and/or cross-easement
agreements may be required for rear access lanes,” (Section 116-320.H.(3)(a)). This standard is not a requirement
as currently written, though it may be required as part of the review and approval process.
The shared access and parking standards for VC and TDO lack specificity, making them difficult to interpret and
apply. Because shared access and parking is central to the Township’s redevelopment vision for these areas,
revising these standards is recommended to ensure practical application.
MCPC and staff are seeking the Planning Commission’s input on shared parking:
-

Should driveways in these zoning districts always be shared, or are there cases where shared
access or parking isn’t suitable? Alternatively, when is shared access or parking essential?
Would it be better to encourage shared access or parking by offering incentives, rather than
making it mandatory?
Should there be a process to allow exemptions from this requirement?

Factors like driveway spacing, feasibility of interconnection, and relevant land uses may guide the decision-making
for these questions. Following the initial conversation, a draft of regulations designed to align with the Planning
Commission's objectives will be prepared.

3

Next Steps
At the next Planning Commission meeting, MCPC will present revised off-street parking and loading regulations
that incorporate any requested modifications. Additionally, MCPC will provide examples to promote shared
parking solutions, as well as introduce the initial draft of these regulations. Both items are included in the Planning
Commission’s work program and will be included in the midyear ordinance amendments package, as discussed.

4

Article XXVI
Off-Street Parking and Loading
§ 116-184 Required off-street parking facilities.
[Amended 10-21-1982 by Ord. No. 442; 10-28-1982 by Ord. No. 444; 7-25-1985 by Ord. No. 518; 10-241985 by Ord. No. 522; 5-16-2002 by Ord. No. 755; 1-28-2010 by Ord. No. 891; 3-28-2013 by Ord. No.
925; 12-9-2021 by Ord. No. 1009]
A.

Any building or other structure erected, altered, or used or a lot used or occupied for any of the
following purposes shall be provided with minimum off-street parking spaces as set forth below,
together with adequate passageways or driveways or other means of circulation and access to and
from a street.
(1) The square footage referenced in the table below shall refer to the gross floor area of the use
being served by the parking. Floor area may only exempt areas which cannot practically be
converted from their current use to a use requiring parking, such as stairways, elevators,
mechanical rooms, restrooms, or similar uses, with the concurrence of the Zoning Officer.
(2) provided that t The number of such spaces which shall be handicapped (accessible) spaces
shall be based upon the requirements set forth in the latest edition of the International Building
Code and associated ANSI standards, as implemented by the Township in accordance with the
Construction Code Act, 35 P.S. §§ 7210.101 to 7210.1103, as amended, and the Uniform
Construction Code, 34 Pa. Code Part XIV, as amended.
(3) When a use is proposed that is not identified in the list below, it is the responsibility of the
Zoning Officer to identify the most similar use. The standards for the identified use will be
applied.

Permitted Use

Minimum Requirements

Animal boarding,/dog day care, and veterinary
office/hospital

1 per 2300 square feet

Auto service

1 per service bay and 1 per 200 250 square feet of office
space

Auto dealership

1 space per 250 square feet of display floor area, one space
per 250 square feet of office space, 1 space for each 500
square feet of storage and maintenance areas and 1 space
per vehicle for sale

Cemetery

1 per 250 square feet of office space;
1 per employee if no office building exists

Clinic

1 per 300 square feet

College/junior college

1 per faculty member and 1 per 10 classroom seats or 1 per
10 auditorium seats (whichever is greater)

Permitted Use

Minimum Requirements

Commercial school

1 per 250 square feet

Conference center

1 per guest room and 1 per 250 square feet of space
allocated for conference rooms

Continuing care retirement community

1 per single-family detached, semidetached and attached
dwellings and 1 per multifamily unit and 1 per 3 assisted
living facility beds and 1 per 3 skilled nursing care facility
beds and 1 per employee

Country club

1 per 4 people of total capacity and 1 per employee

Day nursery/kindergarten

1 per faculty member and 1 per 2 classrooms and offices

Department store/supermarket

1 per 250 square feet

Dwelling

2 per dwelling unit (single family, townhome, attached
square feet); 1.5 per dwelling unit in apartment and
multifamily dwellings

Elementary school

1 per faculty member and 1 per 2 classrooms and offices

Emergency services

3 per 4 employees on the 2 major shifts at max employment
or 4 per emergency vehicle where no community room is
part of the building (whichever is greater); where a
community room is provided, 2 per emergency vehicle and
1 per 100 square feet

Farmers/flea market, indoor and outdoor

1 per 1,000 square feet and 1 per vendor

Funeral home

1 per 100 square feet of assembly room

Home occupation uses

1 per home occupation in addition to number required for
the associated dwelling

Hospital

1 per patient bed and 1 per every 2 employees

Hotel/tourist home/automobile court

1 per rental unit

Indoor theatre

1 per 4 seats

Industrial building (warehouses, manufacturing, 1 per 1,000 square feet
processing, or production storage, distribution)
See: § 116-187 for off-street loading and unloading space
requirements
Junior high school

1 per faculty member and 1 per 2 classrooms and offices

Laboratories, research and development facilities 1 per 500 square feet of industrial use and 1 per 350 square

Permitted Use

Minimum Requirements
feet of office use

Library

1 per 200 square feet

Medical office

1 per 200 square feet

Microbrewery/microdistillery

1 per 300 square feet

Mini/self storage

1 per 4,000 square feet and 1 per 250 square feet of office
space

Monastery or convent

1 per 2 residents 1 per 4 residents

Museum

1 per 400 square feet

Nursing home

1 per 2 patient beds and 1 per 2 employees

Office

1 per 250 square feet

Other commercial buildings/uses

1 per 1,000 square feet except if a lesser number is
authorized as a special exception

Park/recreational facility/community center

1 per employee, and 1 per 200 square feet of floor area and
1 per 4 individuals that an outdoor facility is designed to
accommodate at maximum capacity

Personal service shop

1 per customer service chair and 1 for each employee per
shift. If there are no service chairs, 1 additional per 300
square feet

Place of worship

1 per 4 seats and 1 per full-time employee

Restaurant/cafe/tavern/bar/cabaret

1 per 100 square feet up to 2,000 square feet, and 1 space
for every 200 square feet thereafter

Retail store or shop

1 per 200 square feet

Rooming house

1 per room for rent

Schools, including:
College or junior college

College or junior college: 1 per faculty member and 1 per
10 classroom seats or 1 per 10 auditorium seats (whichever
is greater)

Commercial school

Commercial school: 1 per 250 square feet

Elementary school

Elementary school: 1 per faculty member and 1 per 2
classrooms and offices

Permitted Use
Junior high school
Senior high school

Shopping center

Minimum Requirements
Junior high school: 1 per faculty member and 1 per 2
classrooms and offices
Senior high school: 1 per faculty member and 1 per 10
students of projected building capacity
1 per 250 square feet (under 100,000 square feet);
1 per 300 square feet (over 100,000 square feet)

Warehouse, storage and distribution facilities

1 per employee, plus 0.5 truck parking spaces per 1,000
square feet
See: § 116-187 for off-street loading and unloading space
requirements

B.

Any development that provides parking, other than residential uses, shall not exceed the minimum
number of parking spaces as required by 116-184.A. herein by more than 110%.

C.

Required parking spaces shall be all-weather and shall be paved unless an alternate surface treatment is
approved by the Township Engineer. Such parking spaces shall be on the same lot as the principal use
except as provided in § 116-185.

D.

Parking areas. A maximum of 30 individual parking spaces may be placed together in any parking area.
No dimension of any parking area may exceed 150 feet. Parking areas shall be separated from each
other by planting strips not less than 10 feet in width. Where a double row of parking spaces is provided,
a ten-foot-wide planting strip is required to separate each row. Such planting strips shall be planted and
maintained with grass and/or ground cover and trees as approved by the Shade Tree Commission.

E.

No parking shall occur within 10 feet of any structure except at the entrance to an approved garage;
however, this setback may be reduced based upon the type of construction of said structure with the
approval of the Fire Marshal.

F.

All parking areas shall conform to the requirements of the Whitemarsh Township Fire Prevention Code
and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, as enacted and amended.

§ 116-185 Off-site parking spaces.
[Amended 12-9-2021 by Ord. No. 1009]
The parking spaces required in § 116-184.A. herein may be located elsewhere than on the same lot when
authorized as a special exception, subject to the following conditions:
A.

That the owners of two or more establishments shall submit with their application for special exception
a site plan showing joint use and location of a common off-street parking area.

B.

That some portion of the common off-street parking area lies within 200 feet of an entrance, regularly
used by patrons, into the building served thereby.

C.

That the Zoning Hearing Board may, in its discretion, reduce the required aggregate amount of required
parking spaces by a maximum of 75% of such a requirement upon determination that the greater
efficiency is effected by joint use of a common parking area, but in no case shall the ratio of total off-

street parking area to total sales-floor area be reduced less than 25%.
§ 116-186 Reduction of facilities.
Off-street parking facilities existing at the effective date of this chapter shall not subsequently be reduced to
an amount less than required hereunder for a similar new building or new use. Off-street parking facilities
provided to comply with the provisions of this chapter shall not subsequently be reduced below the
requirements of this chapter.
§ 116-187 Required off-street loading and unloading.
In addition to required off-street parking spaces, the foregoing uses shall be provided with adequate off-street
loading space, any facility that intends to receive or distribute goods or materials more than once per week,
or that has a loading dock or loading bay, must provide at least one loading space that meets the requirements
of § 105-40, Off-street loading facilities, of Whitemarsh Township Subdivision and Land Development
Ordinance. Any such use shall provide no less than one off-street loading space in addition to one loading
space per loading dock or loading bay.
§ 116-188 Special events.
In addition to the parking permitted under other sections of this chapter, the owner of a lot in any zoning
district may permit public parking for a fee upon such lot for the express and sole purpose of serving a
special event which occurs not more frequently than once every six months and which is occurring within 1/2
mile of any portion of such lot upon the following conditions:
A.

Such use shall be limited to a maximum of seven consecutive days.

B.

Such lot shall not be used for this purpose more frequently than once in any six-month period.

C.

The owner of such lot shall be responsible for compliance with all Township ordinances, resolutions and
regulations relating to parking, including obtaining requisite permits.

D.

A special event shall include any event which occurs not more frequently than once every six months.

§ 116-188.1 Incorporation of reserve parking and electric vehicle charging stations.
[Added 12-9-2021 by Ord. No. 1009]
A.

The Township of Whitemarsh encourages the use of reserve parking, included in § 116-188.2, by
applicants if all of the required minimum parking spaces are not currently needed.

B.

The Township of Whitemarsh requires the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, as regulated
in § 116-188.3, within all new, expanded or reconstructed parking areas.

§ 116-188.2 Reserve parking.
[Added 12-9-2021 by Ord. No. 1009]
A.

Reserve parking. Required parking may be held in reserve if the applicant can show, to the satisfaction
of the Board of Supervisors, that the additional parking is not currently needed. Regardless of the
number of spaces actually installed, a parking area to accommodate the aggregate number of parking
spaces required shall be fully designed and the area which is proposed to be held in reserve shall be
shown on the site plan application as "reserve parking area."

B.

Where the Board of Supervisors determines that the required number of parking spaces is not currently
needed, it may authorize up to 50% of the required parking spaces to be held in reserve as part of a land
development application, provided the following criteria are met:

(1) The applicant demonstrates that 100% of the required parking spaces can be paved without violating any

applicable provisions of this chapter. When constructed, the reserve parking must meet all applicable
provisions of this chapter in effect on the date of approval of the land development plan.
(2) The Township Engineer recommends the reduction and the applicant then demonstrates, to the
satisfaction of the Board of Supervisors, that the number of required parking spaces is not currently
needed for the proposed use's operations.
C.

The authorization of reserve parking shall be conditioned upon the following:

(1) The applicant shall install stormwater management facilities, as required by the Township, for the total
number of required parking spaces, including those parking spaces held in reserve, unless the applicant
demonstrates to the Board of Supervisors' satisfaction that postponing the installation of the stormwater
management facilities required for the reserve parking allows natural features on the site to be
maintained until such time, if ever, that the construction of the reserved parking is deemed necessary.
(2) The reserve parking area shall be fully designed and clearly designated on the land development plan.
The total surface area of required parking spaces and reserve parking spaces must be utilized to
calculate the proposed impervious ground cover ratio.
(3) The applicant shall install landscaping, as required by all applicable Township ordinances, for the total
number of required parking spaces. The reserve parking area shall be planted with vegetative cover and
integrated into the applicant's landscaping plans until the reserve parking is constructed. The
landscaping shall not be counted toward landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance or any other
chapter of the Township Code.
(4) The landscaping shall be distributed in a manner to provide appropriate screening of the parking
facilities and shall not be concentrated on only one portion of the site.
D.

Reserve parking shall be enforced as provided below:

(1) The reserve parking, or a limited portion thereof as determined by the Township, must be constructed
when the Township Engineer and/or Township Zoning Officer determines that such spaces are needed
to accommodate the operation of the use(s) on the property.
(2) If there is any change in the use, ownership, building size or number of occupants/employees using the
property that affect the number of parking spaces required, the Township Engineer and/or Township
Zoning Officer will notify the applicant, in writing, of the requirement to install parking spaces.
(3) The Township Zoning Officer may deny or revoke a use and occupancy permit for failure to construct
the previously reserved parking spaces when directed to do so under this section.
§ 116-188.3 Electric vehicle charging stations.
[Added 12-9-2021 by Ord. No. 1009]
A.

Size and location. A standard-size parking space shall be used for electric vehicle charging stations
where such a station is required or planned.

(1) Placement of electric vehicle parking stations is preferred at the beginning or end of a series of parking
stalls.
B.

Design. The following requirements apply with respect to the design of electric vehicle charging
stations:

(1) Charging station equipment mounted on pedestals, bollards or other devices shall be a minimum of 24
inches clear from the face of the curb.

(2) Charging station outlets shall be no lower than 36 inches and no higher than 48 inches from the top of
the surface where mounted and shall contain a retraction device and/or place to hang permanent cords
and connectors sufficiently above the ground or pavement surface.
C.

Maintenance. Charging station equipment shall be maintained in all respects, including the functioning
of charging equipment. A phone number or contact information shall be provided on the charging
station equipment for reporting when the equipment is not functioning or other problems are
encountered.

D.

Number of spaces. Parking spaces providing electric vehicle (EV) charging stations are to be included in
addition to the minimum number of parking spaces required, as provided in Article XXVI, Off-Street
Parking and Loading. The required number of EV charging stations is based on the total number of
spaces required as part of land development plan or applicable permit plan approval and shall not be
reduced based on approved spaces held in reserve.

(1) EV charging stations shall be required for all new, expanded, or reconstructed parking areas. The
number of spaces shall be counted as total spaces associated within a development parcel, even if
parking areas are broken into smaller facilities within the larger development parcel.
(a) Electric vehicle charging stations are not required for parking facilities with less than 20 off-street
parking spaces.
(b) Two electric vehicle charging stations are required for any parking facilities that contain at least 20 but
not more than 50 off-street parking spaces.
(c) Five electric vehicle charging stations are required for parking facilities that contain at least 50 but not
more than 100 off-street parking spaces.
(d) One additional electric vehicle charging station shall be provided for every 50 spaces over 100 off-street
parking spaces.
(2) Publicly accessible electric vehicle charging stations are required, as specified above, within residential
developments even when charging stations are provided for individual dwelling units.
(3) A minimum of 50% of all required EV charging stations shall be ADA-accessible, provided, however,
that where only one electric vehicle charging station is required, it shall be ADA-accessible.
E.

Access. All EV charging stations must have a barrier-free route of travel.

F.

Fees. The property owner is not restricted from collecting a reasonable service fee for the use of electric
vehicle charging stations made available to residents, employees, and visitors to the property on which it
is located.

G.

Signage. Each electric vehicle charging station must include signage identifying spaces as "No Parking
Except for Electric Vehicle Charging." Days and hours of operation shall be included if time limits or
tow-away provisions are to be enforced.