Public voices opposition to billboards in Springfield Township
Springfield residents and commissioners made it clear they oppose the installation of digital billboards anywhere in the township during a special meeting Sept. 8 at Springfield Township High School.
Township commissioners called the meeting to discuss and clarify a zoning code validity challenge filed by an outdoor advertising company known as MC Outdoor LLC.
MC Outdoor has challenged zoning ordinances in multiple municipalities, claiming they are exclusive and unconstitutional. The company filed an application with Springfield Township in November to install two billboards on Bethlehem Pike, township Solicitor Sean Kilkenny said.
After the application, the board of commissioners took immediate action to create a curative amendment that did in fact allow billboards in the township, but only in industrial districts. Because MC Outdoor’s application was proposed before the amended ordinance was passed, the commissioners must now determine how to fight the challenge.
“We filed documents to acquire the two locations [on Bethlehem Pike], and the township made it clear from inception that what we had proposed was not satisfactory,” said Thaddeus Bartkowski of MC Outdoor. “We asked the township if they would consider alternate locations. We want the public to consider them and for the board to see what those solutions will look like.”
Bartkowski gave a presentation to explain the original application — two signs, each 14 feet high and 48 feet in length, placed at 601 and 1020 Bethlehem Pike. In total, the billboard structures, with their support poles, would be nearly 50 feet tall.
When shown a photo of what the area would look like with the proposed signs, the public yelled in disgust and one audience member called out, “How do you sleep at night?”
Because of the opposition, Bartkowski said he had alternative locations and a different sign structure for everyone to consider. Two locations were on Ridge Pike — at Manor Road and a second at Northwestern Avenue. Those locations were deemed unacceptable because of their proximity to residential areas, Bartkowski said.
The final proposed location is on southbound Route 309, 75 feet beyond La Salle College High School’s property just before the Willow Grove Avenue overpass. Instead of a tall, monopole digital billboard, the sign would be 35 feet in height surrounded by landscaping, according to Bartkowski.
“We would create a visual buffer to the sign because we would plant a double row of trees as tall as the sign structure when they’re planted, and you wouldn’t be able to see through them,” Bartkowski said. “The only place you could see the sign is from road surface of 309 [heading southbound].”
Bartkowski presented photos he took from houses near the 309 sound barrier wall at Summit Lane and Sandy Hill Road and said those residents would not be able to see the proposed billboard.
“Here on the Summit Lane cul-de-sac near Valley Lane, you couldn’t even see the power tower, which is 112 feet or so,” Bartkowski said.
Following his presentation, commissioners and the public questioned the validity of his statements and said the signs do not belong in the community.
“Why would you seek out a sleepy area like Springfield Township to put up your Las Vegas signs?” Wyndmoor resident Holly Kasallis asked. “We have a nice feel in this community that these Las Vegas neon signs don’t jibe with.”
Commissioner Bob Gillies asked about the glow and the frequency of ad changes on the sign, and whether they would affect residents and drivers on 309. The proposed billboards are internally illuminated and would not project any light, according to Bartkowski.
“I saw pictures, and they’re all going downhill. I did not see any photos at the very top of the hill,” said Mickey Hall, who lives on Sandy Hill Road. “I know I’m going to see those lights. Putting that sign so that it shines on my house and into my rooms is something you need to reconsider.”
Other opposition came from the Springfield Township Historical Society and the Friends of Historic Bethlehem Pike, both of which said the billboards would threaten the aesthetics of Bethlehem Pike and compromise its rich history.
“We would move forward with the 309 solution if it was deemed to be the township’s choice, but if they don’t want to move forward with that, then we will move forward on the validity challenge,” Bartkowski said.
MC Outdoor’s attorney, Greg Adelmann, said the company is challenging the zoning in 10 other municipalities in Southeastern Pennsylvania, and he tried to convince the commissioners that resistance would be both expensive and futile.
“In Delaware County, it’s resulted in approximately 17 to 20 hearings at a minimum and cost municipalities between $200,000 and $250,000 in order to oppose the applications,” Adelmann said. “All the claims are the same — that the ordinance is exclusive and prohibits outdoor advertising in the municipality. We’ve found that exclusion is easily proven.”
The decision facing Springfield Township is either to accept the 309 location or to enter into litigation to fight the validity challenge.
“My personal view is that I don’t want an electronic billboard,” Commissioner Jeff Harbison said. “I’m confident that the public safety aspect of it [is questionable] and I would think that common sense would prevail here,” Commissioner Jeff Harbison said. “If we have excluded them, there’s a good reason for it, but to defend this, it would be very expensive. That’s why we want to see the alternatives because if we spend thousands of dollars in litigation that’s a lot of trouble for the community.”
The commissioners took no action at the meeting, and since the township has remedied the zoning code, no other applications for billboards in nonindustrial areas will be permitted in future, they said.
The next zoning board hearing that will discuss the matter is scheduled for Oct. 17 at 7 p.m. The commissioners plan to send Kilkenny to argue the township’s opposition to the MC Outdoor billboards.