Riparian ordinance is mired in debate
Unable to satisfy residents with an inclusive riparian corridor ordinance governing all properties along waterways in Springfield Township, the board of commissioners is tacking toward legislation that would affect only larger parcels, much to the frustration of environmental activists in the community.
Previous attempts to make the ordinance more palatable to resisting residents — by moving enforcement from the zoning hearing board to the board of commissioners and by not requiring owners of nonconforming properties to come into compliance unless they plan a major addition to their property — have not quieted complaints and have left the most recent draft of the legislation unlikely to make a substantial environmental impact, President Jeff Harbison said at the board of commissioners meeting April 8.
"Now the board is looking at returning to a tougher ordinance and having it affect only the larger properties," he said.
A riparian corridor ordinance would limit development along waterways and protect water resources by creating a vegetative buffer along the sides of streams in the township.
While the board has struggled to come to a consensus on an inclusive ordinance, this new approach has wider support, Harbison said.
Residents Mara Baird and Richard Metz spoke out against the new approach during the meeting's public comment portion.
Approximately half of the township's 10 miles of streams are in dense residential areas and would be unprotected by an ordinance that only governs larger parcels, said Baird, who is also a member of the township's environmental advisory committee.
"You haven't made the philosophical commitment to protect those streams legislatively," she said.
Because the older version of the ordinance would not force nonconforming homes to comply, and because so few homes along the streams would undergo enough change to trigger enforcement, the environmental benefit of continuing with the inclusive model had been greatly reduced, Harbison said April 9.
"From my point of view, I can't speak for other people, but for someone who wanted more, we were making so many exceptions that no small properties were going to be affected," he said. "Maybe a dozen homes [were] going to get pulled into this in the next couple years — that's not much benefit."
The political will to continue trying to convince opponents of the benefits of the ordinance just was not there, Harbison said.
"Part of the way it works is convincing people that the impact is positive or minor, and I believe that, but we weren't able to do that," he said. "We didn't get that through to people. People felt that it was going to affect the resale value of their home. I don't feel that way, but that is part of the public will that we are trying to channel and not ignore."
The board will return essentially to square one to redraft the ordinance and has not yet determined how small a property would have to be to remain exempt, Harbison said.
When combined with a thorough educational program, the commissioners' new direction will have a positive effect on the environment, he said.
"I hope that by removing the loopholes and grandfathering what we had added to the original version, we can more than offset the impact of losing the few smaller properties that would have been affected by the ordinance ," Harbison said in an e-mail April 9. "This tighter approach should leave Springfield better protected than the most recent version,"
"I was very disappointed. It was surprising, the direction they took," Metz said April 9. "It's not better than nothing. They didn't even specify how many properties what they're suggesting would actually affect. Will it be two? Four? Five? I'm very frustrated."
A proposal submitted to the board commissioners by the environmental advisory commission is something of a compromise, Metz said. This included reducing the buffer area from 25 feet to 10 feet, forcing compliance immediately but allowing residents two to five years to phase it in and changing the size requirements for plantings in the buffer area, so that residents could install trees and shrubs from cuttings or saplings, according to Metz.
Any ordinance without provisions required on day one would have almost no effect in Springfield, Metz told the commissioners April 8.
Metz characterized such an ordinance as "green-washing" — "creating the veneer of environmentalism, while actually doing nothing."
"It is important that we create an ordinance rather than just do educational work," he said. "The health of the water systems in our community requires that everyone participate. Making participation voluntary sends the message that it's not important."
Harbison said the board "seems to be united" about the new direction.
"It's no longer a partisan type thing; we all want to pass something. [This is] a step towards a resolution that makes the township better," he said.