Radnor Township ZHB Meeting – September 18, 2025: Multiple Appeals Heard and Decided
Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board Meeting – September 18, 2025
The Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board met on Thursday, September 18, 2025, at 7:00 PM in the Radnorshire Room. The Board considered six appeals, including a major application from Villanova University for a Welcome Center/Bookstore, which was denied after extensive deliberation. Other appeals involving residential variances were approved, and one was continued.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar was presented; all items were heard individually.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Appeal #3210 (Villanova University): The record was closed at the prior hearing (June 26, 2025); no new public comment was taken. The Township Solicitor’s office (Will Edinger) argued against the application, stating the welcome center was not purely office use and that the proposed sign variance was based on aesthetics, not hardship. The applicant (Nick Cenelia) argued the use was permitted and met all criteria.
- Appeal #3220 (Galloway): The applicant (Diana Galloway) presented testimony about safety issues (unstable stairs) and the need for a dining room for a family of five. All contiguous neighbors submitted letters of support.
- Appeal #3234 (Murphy): Elizabeth Springer, representing the applicant, presented the proposal. No public comment from neighbors was offered.
- Appeal #3236 (Elkins): Scott Elkins testified that the second kitchen was a main reason they purchased the home and that a kosher oven would support religious observance. Nick Cenelia argued the variance was supported under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. A deed restriction was offered to prevent rental or commercial use.
- Appeal #3237 (150-158 E Lancaster Partners LLC): Multiple witnesses (Matt Johnson, Jason Bach, Nicholas Markley for The Little Gym, Kelly Wilson for Strong Pilates, traffic engineer Frank Tavani) testified about market difficulties attracting pure retail tenants, the need for parking variances, and proposed uses (restaurant, children's gym, Pilates studio). The Township's parking study (by Tavani) was questioned by board members regarding its timing (June, not school season) and coverage of daytime hours. The applicant requested a continuance to update the study.
Discussion Items
- Appeal #3210 (Villanova University): The Board discussed the legal questions of changing one non-conforming use to another and simultaneously expanding the non-conformity, and whether the office use included the auditorium and bookstore. Board member Rich (Nick?) provided a detailed analysis, concluding he would vote to approve the special exceptions but could not support the expansion due to setback issues from a lack of a merger ordinance. Other members disagreed on the definition of “road” vs. “driveway” regarding St. Thomas Way, and whether the road separated the lots. The motion was initially complex, then withdrawn, then re-presented as a single motion to approve. The motion failed 4-1 (with Rich as the sole vote in favor). The sign variance was not reached due to the denial.
- Appeal #3220 (Galloway): The board clarified the exact measurements of the encroachments. A motion to approve the rear setback and separation variances was made and seconded. Passed unanimously.
- Appeal #3234 (Murphy): The applicant lacked a full deed; ownership was established via testimony and a mortgage document. The board agreed to proceed conditioned on production of the deed within 30 days. The variance was for a roof overhang extending 18 inches into the rear setback. Approved unanimously with condition.
- Appeal #3236 (Elkins): Discussion focused on the religious accommodation argument and the deed restriction. A motion to approve the variance for a second dwelling unit with a full kitchen, conditioned on the recorded deed restriction of non-commercial use, passed 4-1 (one opposed).
- Appeal #3237 (150-158 E Lancaster Partners LLC): The board raised concerns about the parking study (June, non-school period) and the adequacy of the proposed 18 on-street spaces and nearby lots. The applicant (Nick Cenelia) requested a continuance to update the traffic report. The board agreed to continue to the October 16, 2025 meeting, with an extension to November if needed.
Key Outcomes
- Appeal #3210 (Villanova University): DENIED (4-1) – Motion to grant special exceptions and variance failed. The Board did not reach the sign variance.
- Appeal #3220 (Galloway): APPROVED (unanimous) – Variance granted for rear yard setback (1.2 ft encroachment) and 10-foot separation from principal building (2.9 ft encroachment for stairs).
- Appeal #3233 (Elebah): CONTINUED to the October 16, 2025 meeting (as noted in agenda).
- Appeal #3234 (Murphy): APPROVED (unanimous) – Variance granted to reconstruct sunroom and extend roof 18 inches into rear setback, conditioned on submission of a satisfactory deed within 30 days.
- Appeal #3236 (Elkins): APPROVED (4-1) – Variance granted for second dwelling unit with full kitchen, conditioned on a recorded deed restriction prohibiting rental or commercial use.
- Appeal #3237 (150-158 E Lancaster Partners LLC): CONTINUED to the October 16, 2025 meeting (with extension to November if needed) to allow an updated parking study.
Meeting Transcript
Meeting, which we're calling to order. Would you please uh join me for the Pledge of Allegiance? Pledge of allegiance to the United States of America to the Republicans undervisible liberty. The first item on the agenda is uh appeal 3210, the applicant of Villanova University, property located at 800 East Lancaster Avenue and zoned PI planned institutional and CO commercial office. The applicant seeks to construct a welcome center slash bookstore building on its campus in the area on the south side of Lancaster Avenue adjacent to the existing pedestrian bridge. The applicant seeks a special exception or special exceptions plural in the CO district under Section 280-101A, number one in PrINS, and 280 101A 2 in Friends, to change one nonconforming use, a dormitory, to another nonconforming use, a retail bookstore, and to expand the nonconforming use by no more than 50%. No zoning relief is being requested in the PI district. Applicant also requests a variance from 280-123B to place the lettering for the naming of the building above the arch which spans the roadway. The lettering at its highest point will be 20.5 feet above grade. In the alternative, if necessary, applicant seeks a variance from Section 280-42 of the code for the proposed use of the building or such other relief as required in accordance with the exhibits and testimony presented at the zoning hearing. Now this hearing tonight is continued from uh the hearing on June 8th, June 26, 2025. At that hearing, we took all uh testimony from both uh the applicant Villanova and from the township who elected to be a party uh to the uh uh to the application. Uh so the record was closed as of that time, so there will not be any uh public comment, but we will uh uh have each each uh party will have five minutes to uh take as much as five minutes to sum up their points that they think they would like to make. Uh questions will be asked at that time uh by the board, and we will render our decision. Nick? Thanks, John. Uh Nick Cenelia representing the applicant Villanova University, as uh the chairperson stated these were requests for two special exceptions uh to change one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use, and to expand that non-conforming use by no more than 50 percent. Uh the other request for the variance was for the sign and the height of the sign above where this above the arch where the structure would be located. Um this is a split zoning district as you're aware. Uh PI district and the CO commercial office district. These uses are permitted in the PI district uh where it still would require conditional use approval by the Board of Commissioners to expand that uh the CICD uh if this were granted by this zoning hearing board. So really what we're focused on is the part of the building that is located in the commercial office zoning district. The commercial office zoning district district is just like it says, it's an office type district. Uh there exists in that district an existing dormitory, uh, and that entire district and an entire piece from the CICD all the way down the sprawl road is institutional use. It is institutional use by Villanova, uh mainly offices, and as I mentioned to you that uh the dormitory, I believe, is a 48-bed dormitory and uh 9,790 97 square foot building. Uh the special exception as the board knows is not really an exception to the ordinance. It is something that is permitted under the ordinance, provided the applicant complies with the objectives of the ordinance as specifically stated in the ordinance. In this case, there are objective standards, such as uh for the nonconforming or the expansion of the nonconforming use to 50 percent and a couple others that we will discuss. Uh, and then there's general standards. The general standards is a very heavy burden on the opponent to prove by clear convincing evidence beyond doubt that that is harmful to the health and welfare of the surrounding community. Um has to be a high degree of probability, it can't just be speculation. So on the objective standards of the ordinance, as was stated in both briefs, it references to existing lawful buildings, lots, and uses. This is an existing lawful building. It is a dormitory that is a non-conforming use, a legal nonconforming use. The parties have stipulated to the fact that this is a legal nonconforming use. And everything revolves around this existing nonconforming use in the CO zoning district. Now, as I mentioned, Villanova requests to change that nonconforming use. Really, the only objective standard in the change of nonconforming use is that the building is an existing nonconformity, and as I stated, that's been stipulated to by uh the township itself. What you have to remember when reviewing everything here, too, is that any ambiguity in the ordinance has to be determined in favor of the landowner. That's clear by case law and by municipalities planning code as well. Uh so the township also states that we have two multiple uses that we're intending to put in here. Um as I mentioned, the office uses a permitted use. It is going to be an emissions office. An emissions office part and parcel has a a large room for when the people come in. This prospective students come in and they're shown film and things of that nature. Just like any real estate office, you would have people come in and speak and talk and things of that nature. That doesn't disqualify it as an office use. Uh in this instance, the missions office and the permission for the admissions office in the CO district was stated by the zoning officer in his determination letter that the use was permitted as an office use in the CO district. You have his opinion there. It's marked as exhibit.
openpublica.com