Opinion: No exceptions
The controversy over development in Springfield Township heated up again last week when the Board of Commissioners decided to proceed with public hearings on two projects that require exceptions to the township's zoning code. An updated proposal from the Nolan Companies for the Tecce Tract, a 41-acre parcel of open space along Ridge Pike near Northwestern Avenue, will be considered at a public hearing on Sept. 28. On Sept. 14, the board plans to vote on a rezoning proposal for the Boorse tract, located along Camp Hill Road near Pennsylvania Avenue in the township's northern section.
These two development proposals epitomize current issues surrounding zoning in Springfield Township, which has long struggled with how best to honor its natural and historic character while handling growth. The primary issue for those opposing the Tecce Development is environmental: the proposed development would put 66 housing units on a tract zoned for 47 in an environmentally sensitive area near Fairmount Park and the Schuylkill River. Opposing the Boorse Tract are those who wish to preserve a significant slice of the township's history: a mid-18th century Georgian house built by a prominent Pennsylvanian, colonial surveyor general Nicholas Scull, along with several other buildings (including a combination home/mill) dating from the 1700s and the remains of slave quarters. The site is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The developer plans to demolish existing structures to make way for townhomes.
Without a preservation ordinance, which some activists have been calling for since Whitemarsh Hall was torn down over 20 years ago, there is little that can be done to save the Boorse Tract on historical grounds. There is on the books, however, the township's Cluster AAA zoning ordinance, enacted in May 2003 with the stated intention of protecting what little remains of open space ("preserve natural features such as woodland, steep slopes, wetlands and floodplains") and historic value ("preserve natural, scenic, cultural and historic resources") in the township. On a technical level, the proposed developments exceed the density allowed by the ordinance, meaning that both will require "spot zoning" exceptions. On a philosophical level, both run counter to its intent. No compelling reason, beyond the tax revenue benefit afforded by age-restricted housing on this scale, has been offered as to why these exceptions to the ordinance should be allowed.
While another public hearing on the Tecce Tract may sound like a good idea, it is not. A hearing was already held last October, and to schedule another one simply indicates that the board is still looking for a way to sidestep the law it passed two years ago by refusing to take these proposals off the table. If the board is dead set on allowing these developments, it could at least insist, in the Boorse case, on the sort of cluster development designed to save historic lots as allowed for by the AAA designation and, in the Tecce case, on further concessions regarding density to minimize runoff and protect wooded slopes.