By Gabbie Burton
Contributing Writer

Kennett Square Borough Council’s April 6 meeting centered around familiar concerns including the NVF site development and short-term rentals in the borough. The meeting lasted until 10 p.m. at borough hall as council and members of the public shared a number of concerns and opinions on action items. 

The first item on the agenda that sparked debate was a vote on whether to advertise a draft ordinance that amends the borough’s code of ordinances for zoning to permit multi-family development by conditional use in the OI-2 office and industrial zoning district. The ordinance would enable housing to be built on the former NVF site. 

Lexi Gambs, codes manager for the borough, explained that the draft ordinance underwent edits by the planning commission and received recommendations from the county through the draft process. She also explained that language was added to state the intention of there being a mixture of affordable and market-rate development at the site, along with other changes which can be found in the document that is available on the borough’s website. 

Council member Michael Bertrando shared a majority of the concerns about the ordinance to planning commission representatives Doug Doerfler and Carrie Dickmann.

“This ordinance only covers that site, and there's no other industrial site that it would cover, and so we're basically doing this ordinance to appease the developers,” Bertrando said. 

Dickmann explained that while the developers of the NVF site have been involved with the ordinance, the ordinance is not explicitly dictated by them. 

“I shared your concerns that I had right off the bat that we were allowing a developer to write an ordinance,” Dickmann said. “The ordinance that now comes before council is not the developers' ordinance. They began it, it has gone through substantial changes.”

Additionally, Bertranado shared concerns about the affordability aspect of the project, saying that 49 new affordable units would not help affordable living in the borough.  

“I’m sorry that doesn't solve any affordability issue,” he said. “That brings 49 units that are rentals, correct, and so those are people who may be here a year and then move somewhere else later. That's not community building, and that doesn't help affordability for the residents here now.”

Dickmann countered Bertranado, saying that the affordable units can contribute to community building in the borough. 

“Affordable housing isn't an agreement that you're going to stay forever in need of affordable housing,” Dickmann said. “The beauty of rental affordable housing means people can come in as their situation changes, and if they progress upward, they can leave affordable housing and still, potentially, hopefully, stay in the community. So it's not that someone is going to come in and not be a part of our community. I think it welcomes people to the community and hopefully sells them on wanting to stay even if they no longer need affordable housing.”

Other concerns about the ordinance included potential missed economic opportunities for commercial business at the site, infrastructure demands and health and environmental concerns about the site. 

Council member Juan Tafolla put forward a motion to table the vote on advertising the ordinance until all council members were present. At Monday’s meeting, one council member, Hilda Matos, was not present, and there was still a vacancy left by the resignation of former member Elea McDonnell Feit. 

Tafolla, Bertranado and Amy Riegel voted to table while Borough Vice President Joel Sprick and Borough President Bob Norris voted against tabling. Council voting rules require a majority of full council to table so the motion did not pass and council had to finally vote on advertising the ordinance. The motion ultimately failed, 3-2, along the same voting lines. 

Council then considered an advertisement of a draft ordinance that would change the local agent requirements for rentals that currently requires local agents for short- and long-term rentals to live within a five-mile radius of the rental to a ten-mile radius for short-term rentals and no distance requirement for long-term rentals. 

Council ultimately voted down advertising the measure and suggested changes to be made that would enforce the ten-mile radius rule on all short- and long-term rentals as well as a possible stipulation that the responsible local agent should also live within the county as well. 

Council then had a discussion on the planning commission's recommendations for short-term rentals. The recommendations included that short-term rentals in residential districts can only be accessory dwelling units to a primary home that is owner occupied. Short-term rentals can be the principal use of an apartment or house so long as it is in a commercial district. The recommendation also included a borough-wide cap of 20 short-term rentals. The borough currently has about 24 short-term rentals that would not be forced to close to accommodate the new limit but rather no new rentals will be added and if any current rentals sell, those residencies would no longer be allowed to be a short-term rental until there were less than 20 rentals again. 

The recommendations received mixed feedback from residents with some supporting the recommendations and others feeling it does not go far enough. 

Other items from the meeting included council tabling a resolution for a new civic honor award and the approval of a co-op fuel bid. 

The next borough council meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 8, and the road map strategic planning document will be a topic on the agenda. The meeting will be held at borough hall.