Chestnut Hill Local - Springfield Township residents oppose development, again by AMY BRISSON In a long and contentious meeting last Monday night, the Springfield Township Board of Commissioners voted to hold a second public hearing in September on the proposed Tecce tract development, despite the protests of a crowd opposed to the hearing. Many in the audience came ready to oppose possible developments on the Tecce tract, at 9303 Ridge Pike in the Springfield Panhandle section of the township, and the Boorse tract, at 10 Camp Hill Road in Oreland. They insisted on being heard, despite the board’s assertion that that it was not the time for a public hearing on either issue. Fred Tecce, owner of the 41-acre swath of open space along Ridge Pike near Northwestern Avenue, has sought for over a year to amend his property’s AAA zoning, a sprawl-limiting regulation that restricts development to low densities. At a public hearing last October, developer James A. Nolen III proposed building 64 twin homes and an age-restricted community comprised of 24 condominiums on the tract. The number was reduced to 66 total units after the public mobilized to oppose the plan at the hearing. A conservation group called the Friends of the Springfield Panhandle opposed Tecce’s request and declared at last year’s hearing that a change in AAA zoning would be “spot zoning,” a practice, often ruled by courts to be illegal, in which zoning changes benefit a sole property without clear benefit to the public. The group said the proposed development was inconsistent with the township’s 1998 comprehensive plan and would harm the ecological balance in an area that includes steep slopes and wetlands. Since the last public hearing, the developers and Friends of the Springfield Panhandle were charged by the board to begin a dialogue and work toward a plan that could be amenable to both public and property owner. Asked about their progress at the board meeting last Monday, a representative of the Panhandle group, Brennan Preine, claimed that they had twice made concessions in what they were willing to accept in terms of density, but that the developer had made no changes to their 66-unit proposal. Arguing that another public hearing would pressure the developers into making concessions, the board voted in favor of scheduling one for September, with commissioner Kathleen Lunn dissenting. The quick decision provoked anger and accusations from audience members, who said that they were not given a chance to speak before the vote. “[The vote] should have happened differently,” said Preine, reminding the board of how much money and effort went into organizing the opposition at the last hearing. “You know the public hearing is a burden on the public.” Preine and others, supported by Lunn, argued that the public hearing should have been withheld until the developers gave concessions and agreed to “serious negotiation” with the Friends of the Springfield Panhandle. The board members who voted in favor of the hearing held their position, restating that they hoped to prod the developers toward concessions with the threat of another negative reaction from the public in September. In the end, they asserted that it was at their discretion whether or not they scheduled the hearing, and that any compromise between the developers and Friends of the Springfield Panhandle was only a suggestion to the board, not a necessary condition before their final vote on the rezoning. Though there was no vote on the Boorse tract development proposal at the meeting and the board made it clear that the two days of public testimony about the property were already closed, discussion of the plan still sparked debate from the audience. The owner of the Boorse tract is seeking an exception to AAA zoning in order to build 39 semi-attached, age-restricted condominiums. Although most of the board seemed in favor of the plan, Lunn argued that she saw no compelling reason for rezoning and said that it was important to maintain the open space requirements specified by AAA. She said that though the developers claimed to have exceeded open space requirements in their design, she had not seen an analysis that confirmed it Commissioner Robert Gillies argued that providing housing that would cater to elderly Springfield residents was a compelling reason in and of itself. He pointed out that houses would be built on the property no matter what, but rezoning would give the commissioners a chance to get concessions from the developers. The public appeared split on the issue of age-restricted housing, but many were concerned about the local environment and the preservation of historical structures, which include a mill, house and slave quarters from the early 18th century. Elizabeth Jarvis, archivist for the Chestnut Hill Historical Society, offered to provide information about the site’s historical significance, and argued in favor of asking the developer to preserve, or at least let them carefully document, the structures. The board finally agreed to reconsider the issue when more information about the site and the proposed plan is available. “We have all this testimony that needs to be synthesized so the public can understand it and we can understand,” said commissioner Marc Perry. But, he cautioned, “we don’t want to throw out this plan for a worse plan.” Many in the audience remained adamantly against the developments after the discussion. “I don’t want any more traffic and I don’t want any more people; I want to keep the green space … the developer doesn’t care about the quality of life,” said Marian Coopersmith, a resident of Hawthorne Lane who opposed the developments. Expressing that the board was not taking public concerns seriously enough, she said, “they pull things in the summer, when they think no one will be here or no one will be interested.”



August 18, 2005 Issue Letters \| Opinion \| News \| LocalLife \| This Week \| Sports \| News Makers \| Obituaries \| Links \| About Us \| Archives \| Subscribe \| Classifieds \| Advertising

Springfield Township residents oppose development, again

by AMY BRISSON

In a long and contentious meeting last Monday night, the Springfield Township Board of Commissioners voted to hold a second public hearing in September on the proposed Tecce tract development, despite the protests of a crowd opposed to the hearing.

Many in the audience came ready to oppose possible developments on the Tecce tract, at 9303 Ridge Pike in the Springfield Panhandle section of the township, and the Boorse tract, at 10 Camp Hill Road in Oreland. They insisted on being heard, despite the board’s assertion that that it was not the time for a public hearing on either issue.

Fred Tecce, owner of the 41-acre swath of open space along Ridge Pike near Northwestern Avenue, has sought for over a year to amend his property’s AAA zoning, a sprawl-limiting regulation that restricts development to low densities. At a public hearing last October, developer James A. Nolen III proposed building 64 twin homes and an age-restricted community comprised of 24 condominiums on the tract. The number was reduced to 66 total units after the public mobilized to oppose the plan at the hearing.

A conservation group called the Friends of the Springfield Panhandle opposed Tecce’s request and declared at last year’s hearing that a change in AAA zoning would be “spot zoning,” a practice, often ruled by courts to be illegal, in which zoning changes benefit a sole property without clear benefit to the public. The group said the proposed development was inconsistent with the township’s 1998 comprehensive plan and would harm the ecological balance in an area that includes steep slopes and wetlands.

Since the last public hearing, the developers and Friends of the Springfield Panhandle were charged by the board to begin a dialogue and work toward a plan that could be amenable to both public and property owner. Asked about their progress at the board meeting last Monday, a representative of the Panhandle group, Brennan Preine, claimed that they had twice made concessions in what they were willing to accept in terms of density, but that the developer had made no changes to their 66-unit proposal.

Arguing that another public hearing would pressure the developers into making concessions, the board voted in favor of scheduling one for September, with commissioner Kathleen Lunn dissenting.

The quick decision provoked anger and accusations from audience members, who said that they were not given a chance to speak before the vote.

“[The vote] should have happened differently,” said Preine, reminding the board of how much money and effort went into organizing the opposition at the last hearing. “You know the public hearing is a burden on the public.”

Preine and others, supported by Lunn, argued that the public hearing should have been withheld until the developers gave concessions and agreed to “serious negotiation” with the Friends of the Springfield Panhandle.

The board members who voted in favor of the hearing held their position, restating that they hoped to prod the developers toward concessions with the threat of another negative reaction from the public in September. In the end, they asserted that it was at their discretion whether or not they scheduled the hearing, and that any compromise between the developers and Friends of the Springfield Panhandle was only a suggestion to the board, not a necessary condition before their final vote on the rezoning.

Though there was no vote on the Boorse tract development proposal at the meeting and the board made it clear that the two days of public testimony about the property were already closed, discussion of the plan still sparked debate from the audience.

The owner of the Boorse tract is seeking an exception to AAA zoning in order to build 39 semi-attached, age-restricted condominiums.

Although most of the board seemed in favor of the plan, Lunn argued that she saw no compelling reason for rezoning and said that it was important to maintain the open space requirements specified by AAA. She said that though the developers claimed to have exceeded open space requirements in their design, she had not seen an analysis that confirmed it

Commissioner Robert Gillies argued that providing housing that would cater to elderly Springfield residents was a compelling reason in and of itself. He pointed out that houses would be built on the property no matter what, but rezoning would give the commissioners a chance to get concessions from the developers.

The public appeared split on the issue of age-restricted housing, but many were concerned about the local environment and the preservation of historical structures, which include a mill, house and slave quarters from the early 18th century. Elizabeth Jarvis, archivist for the Chestnut Hill Historical Society, offered to provide information about the site’s historical significance, and argued in favor of asking the developer to preserve, or at least let them carefully document, the structures.

The board finally agreed to reconsider the issue when more information about the site and the proposed plan is available.

“We have all this testimony that needs to be synthesized so the public can understand it and we can understand,” said commissioner Marc Perry. But, he cautioned, “we don’t want to throw out this plan for a worse plan.”

Many in the audience remained adamantly against the developments after the discussion.

“I don’t want any more traffic and I don’t want any more people; I want to keep the green space … the developer doesn’t care about the quality of life,” said Marian Coopersmith, a resident of Hawthorne Lane who opposed the developments. Expressing that the board was not taking public concerns seriously enough, she said, “they pull things in the summer, when they think no one will be here or no one will be interested.”

Archives | Subscribe | Classifieds | Advertising