By: Stephanie Prokop
SPRINGFIELD A controversial 10-acre downzoning ordinance was unanimously approved by council members at the Dec. 13 meeting.
Approximately 170 residents representing both sides of the issue came out to the elementary school’s multipurpose room to make their feelings known to council members.
Council member Peter Sobotka said that the issue is finished being heard at the municipal level, and if any residents plan on appealing the issue, it would have to be heard through the courts.
The ordinance is set to take effect on Jan 5. 2007, 20 days from the date of publication.
The council vote was 4-0. David Frank abstained, stating that he wasn’t voting on the issue due to a "conflict of interest."
The four-hour meeting consisted mostly of the public hearing on the issue of raising the minimum lot size from 3 acres to 10 acres.
The ordinance would restore 10-acre minimum zoning in certain portions of the township. A trio of ordinances had initially been adopted in March, raising the township minimum lot size from 3 to 10 acres except in clusters designated for development.
After seven lawsuits were brought against the township challenging the downzoning ordinances, state Superior Court Judge John A. Sweeney ruled that the ordinances were invalid because insufficient notice had been provided to residents and because the measures violated state municipal land use law.
The township then responded by saying that the judge was mistaken and the notification provided was sufficient. In late October, the judge refused the township’s request to reconsider and reverse his ruling, but told the township that the ordinances could be reintroduced and adopted to fit the legal criteria.
Some landowners have claimed that the change would devalue their land and have described the downzoning changes as restrictive. Proponents of 10-acre zoning have said that it will prevent excessive development and help maintain the township’s rural character by limiting the number of houses that can be built.
The ordinance approved last week dealt with establishing a hamlet zone in the township’s three villages. "The purpose of the hamlets is to save people from having to get variances if they want to put a shed or something on their lots," said Councilman Richard Toone.
Roger Lord, a former farmer and resident, led off the public comment part of the meeting simply stating his dislike of the ordinance.
"I am a land owner and I am asking you not to pass this ordinance," he said.
Another resident, Carol Bennett, said that her 13 acres have been in her husband’s family for a long time, and called upon each council member for specific answers to some of her questions as to why they where pushing this ordinance through. "My property will be devalued by two-thirds," she said.
When asked by residents why the council was passing the measure, Councilman Denis McDaniel stated, "There is such a thing as the common good."
Many farmers and landowners were upset because they claimed that their properties would lose a significant portion of their equity. As one resident put it, "What does a farmer do if his barn falls down," meaning that farmers had always leaned on their land as their retirement savings.
The people who supported the ordinance said that they would like to see Springfield maintain its rural character, and expressed opposition to having 3-acre parcels of land for sale that would invite more development. Frank Phillips, a farmer and owner of McGregor’s Farm Market on Route 537 and owner of what he described as a "very old farm" expressed his support of the ordinance.
"I had to comment on how it intends to help farmers," he said, and added that Springfield is "just fields and woods, and we would like to keep it that way."
Another point of residents who opposed the ordinance was that establishing 10-acre zoning was not going to stop "suburbanization," because they said why would you want only one house on a piece of land that is 10 acres in size?
Critics questioned whether Springfield could handle much more development if 3-acre zoning was kept and whether the present aquifer system could support dense development.
John Bauma, a farmer of over 200 acres of land in the township opposed the ordinance with the question, "What are you going to do with 10 acres, let the weeds grow out?"
Another resident, Susan Gephart of Jacksonville-Hedding Road, who was against the ordinance, noted that land is often the only inheritance can leave their families and that she felt downzoning diminishes its value. "I feel families should be able to do for their families," she said.
Resident Gordon Livingston gave his support to the ordinance, noting, "Rapid development is not good."
Wade Hale of Juliustown-Georgetown Road, who was also in support of 10-acre downzoning, said that the ordinance is in "our best interest to stave off (development)."
After the public comment portion of the meeting, the mayor and four of the committeemen gave their input on the matter.
Mr. McDaniel addressed many skeptics by saying that although they had covered a lot of territory in the public comment, the council members had heard most of their statements before. "We ran for election with (these issues) on our platform," he said.
Mr. McDaniel also addressed the township residents questioning the number of studies that have been conducted on these issues.
"We’ve been asked if this has been studied it’s been studied for years," he said. "At some point, you have to make a decision."
All of the council members agreed that one of the ways to keep taxes down is by keep the number of houses down. Mr. Toone said that while he doesn’t blame farmers and landowners for being mad, the council is simply trying to look toward the future by trying to preserve land with the 10-acre downzoning ordinance.
He also addressed the raised issue of the possibility of depreciating land:
"You will find, all of you, your house and land will appreciate greatly, and it’s going to make this a very desirable place to live."

