Planning board approves plan to increase lot sizes from 3 to 10 acres in many areas of township
By: Scott Morgan
SPRINGFIELD After three and a half hours of impassioned pleas, accusations, alternative theories and cries of un-Americanism, the Planning Board OK’d an unpopular downzoning plan Tuesday night that will reshape the future of township growth.
Apart from one abstention, the board unanimously passed a plan to change the Master Plan and increase minimum lot sizes from 3 to 10 acres in many areas of the township. The plan also contains provisions for residential development (called "rural growth centers") in Jacksonville, Jobstown, Juliustown, the area near Old York Road and the area known as Tilghman’s Corner. According to the Planning Board, these areas will house dense clusters of residential property while keeping large swaths of farmland free from development.
It will need to be adopted as a formal ordinance by the Township Council in the coming weeks.
The plan, akin to transfer of development rights (TDR) except without requirements for water and sewer, allows landowners to sell 3-acre parcels of land for development in one of the five aforementioned areas. The plan also, according to the Planning Board, limits the number of potential houses that could ever be built in Springfield to 560. If 3-acre zoning were to remain, officials have stated since the plan kicked off in May, the township could see as many as 1,200 houses.
But many residents didn’t buy it. From an overflowing courtroom inside the Municipal Building, where the Planning Board meeting was held Tuesday night, voice after voice of dissent rang out. Residents, such Bill Hogan of Village Drive and landowners such as Greg Flynn, who lives in Pennsylvania but owns two farms in Springfield, flatly refused to believe 1,200 houses could ever be built here. Mr. Flynn, in fact, said that based on the township’s own calculations (there are 4,400 developable acres in town, nearly half of which is the staunchly independent Helis Stock Farm on Route 537, and much of the rest wetlands) there is no danger of even 500 houses being built in town and that’s without changing the zoning.
Most of the animosity about downzoning came from large landowners, who fear their equity will dissipate under a 10-acre zoning plan. Bob Petruska of Meeting House Road said he lost 66 percent of his land value in 1995 when the township shifted from 1-acre to 3-acre zoning and fears he will ultimately lose 90 percent of his original land value under 10-acre zoning. He asked, "How is that fair to me?"
Nearly all of the roughly 130 residents and landowners who crowded into the meeting Tuesday held, read and waved copies of an October report by the New Jersey Farm Bureau that states how detrimental downzoning is to farming families.
The Planning Board, however, held firm. Richard Toone, a member of both the Planning Board and the Township Council, stated that the board has worked with "top shelf" professionals for several months. Member James Dombrowski, acknowledging his sympathies to anyone who might suffer financially from the measure, defended the Planning Board by saying that it is not for zero-growth (as many claimed) and not out to stomp on anyone’s rights (as many also claimed), but to do the job it has always set out to do protect the character and nature of the agricultural township from certain developmental pressure.
"Developers will win," Mr. Dombrowski said, citing recent growth pressures in surrounding Mansfield, Eastampton and Chesterfield (and those townships’ ensuing battles to develop ratables in order to generate tax income). "They will win if we don’t do something to keep our guard up. They’ve got a lot more money (than we do)."
Member John Hlubik echoed Mr. Dombrowski’s thoughts, saying that despite the fact that some farmers may lose equity, the raw fact is that developers are aiming squarely at one of the last undeveloped areas of the state.
Springfield Township is the next target," Mr. Hlubik said. "This lets us stay ahead."
In the end, only one member of the audience sided with the Planning Board and was soundly booed for doing so. Bill Dury of Jacksonville-Hedding Road said cries that the Planning Board was being un-American by not listening to the people were "absolute baloney" and told the Planning Board, "Do what’s best for the majority of the residents, not just the 40 or 50 farmers."
When the vote was taken, about seven dozen residents held up laminated signs reading, "Just Say No!" but the Planning Board said "yes" anyway. The decision, which amends the Master Plan, will be forwarded to the Township Council for formal adoption in the coming weeks. No dates have been set.

