The Springfield Township Comprehensive Plan is designed to guide
future land use policy and decision-making. A comprehensive plan
can help a community shape its future by guiding zoning decisions,
open space acquisition, transportation improvements, water supply
planning, stormwater management, and sewage facilities planning.
During the past ten years, Springfield Township has experienced only a minimum amount of growth and development, usually a few single-family homes on a couple acres of land. This situation will not last for very long. Area communities, such as Richland, Milford, and Upper and Lower Saucon townships, are beginning to experience increased development pressures and Springfield Township may be next in line. Due to its proximity to major highways, its wealth of natural and historical resources, and large amount of open land, Springfield Township has the potential for a substantial increase in new development. If unplanned, such development could have a series of negative consequences for the township, including an overburdened road network, strained municipal services, increased water and air pollution, species habitat destruction, loss of open space and scenic resources, and a reduced quality of life.
The Springfield Township Comprehensive Plan presents a vision for maintaining a high quality of life for its residents and meeting the challenge of uncontrolled growth. It identifies the characteristics and resources of the township, examines trends in development, and recommends policies and actions for realizing its vision for the future. The plan addresses each of the comprehensive planning elements required by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). Finally, to ensure community participation in the preparation of the plan, public meetings were held to discuss plan elements and the results of a community survey were used to shape the plan's direction.
The Springfield Township Comprehensive Plan is organized into the following sections: Community Goals and Objectives; Regional Location; History; Demographics and Socioeconomic Trends; Land Use Characteristics and Development Trends; Natural Resources; Open Space and Farmland Preservation; Historic, Recreational, and Scenic Resources; Residential Development; Nonresidential Development; Community Facilities; Transportation and Circulation; Wastewater and Water Issues; Stormwater Management; Solid Waste Management; Future Land Use and Growth Management; Township Finances and Budgeting; and Implementation.
Through the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Springfield
Township Comprehensive Plan, the township hopes to appropriately
guide future development, effectively protect and manage the township's
resources, and maintain a high quality of life for its residents.
Springfield Township seeks to protect the township's various natural,
historic, cultural, and scenic resources from negative impacts
posed by future development, incompatible land uses, or other
nuisances. The comprehensive plan seeks to accommodate an appropriate
mix of residential and nonresidential uses to accommodate future
growth, while providing community services that are necessary
to satisfy resident's demands. The township intends to nurture
sound land use planning and growth management principles that
seek to manage natural, economic, and social systems and resources
in a fashion that enhances the resident's quality of life.
The following are the community goals and objectives by topic for each section of the comprehensive plan. A goal is an ideal or desired future condition and is usually not quantifiable or time dependent. An objective defines the purpose and commitment to achieve a desired goal or condition. A proposed recommendation is a specific measure, program, or technique that will accomplish a stated objective or attain a defined goal. A summary of all plan recommendations is provided in the Implementation section at the end of the plan.
Goal: Protect significant natural features and natural
resources such as floodplains, woodlands, steep slopes, wetlands,
sensitive geological formations, sensitive wildlife habitat, and
bodies of water.
Objectives:
· Use natural features as a guide to determine the type
and intensity of land uses to be permitted in the township.
· Minimize negative environmental impacts related to development
and growth.
· Prioritize the Cook's Creek Watershed for preservation
and protection.
· Protect surface and groundwater resources from point
and nonpoint source pollutants through methods such as wellhead
protection and source water protection measures.
· Promote regulations that will provide additional protection
measures for the Cooks Creek watershed by prohibiting uses that
will negatively impact the overall water quality and resource
value.
· Maintain the natural biodiversity within the township
that provides a healthy living environment for plants and animals.
· Preserve natural corridors throughout the township to
allow for the movement of wildlife and link habitat areas.
Goal: Promote open space and farmland preservation that
contributes to the overall rural character of the Springfield
Township.
Objectives:
· Preserve open space and farmland in strategic locations
throughout the township.
· Support and strengthen the economic viability of the
township's agricultural base.
· Promote the preservation of agricultural land through
sound land use policies and regulations.
· Encourage farmland preservation through conservation
easement purchase or donation.
· Provide flexibility in the agricultural zoning regulations
to promote alternative sources of income to farmers.
· Promote private initiatives (in conjunction with public
funding sources) to protect the strategic open space lands.
Goal: Preserve significant historic and cultural resources
throughout the township.
Objectives:
· Plan for future development that safeguards historic
and scenic resources.
· Encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
· Promote land use methods (such as adaptive reuse of a
structure) that help to retain and enhance the character of historic
buildings and village areas.
· Guide the management of historic resources to protect
significant sites from demolition and neglect.
· Promote continued education and outreach to municipal
officials, developers, and residents concerning the importance
of providing sensitive treatment and protection of historic resources.
· Endorse historic preservation activities by the Springfield
Township Historical Society and the Springfield Township Historic
Commission.
Goal: Enhance the health and quality of life of residents
through the provision of adequate parkland and recreational facilities.
Objectives:
· Satisfy the recreational needs of and provide convenient
recreational opportunities for township residents.
· Provide comprehensive planning strategies for the park
and recreational needs of township residents.
· Require passive recreational facilities (such as walking
trails and benches) or fees-in-lieu of recreational facilities
for major residential development proposals.
· Satisfy active and passive recreational needs of residents
(as suggested in the resident survey) within township parks.
· Provide walking and biking trails that connect various
points of the township.
· Consider the requirements of persons with special needs
for using and accessing recreational facilities.
Goal: Maintain scenic views and scenic vistas that add to the pastoral character of the township.
Objectives:
· Protect scenic landscapes from the impact of future development
through appropriate regulatory measures.
· Promote land use, landscape buffering, or other appropriate
methods that help to retain and enhance the character of scenic
areas.
Goal: Provide for safe and adequate housing for present
and future residents of the township.
Objectives:
· Provide for a variety of housing types and arrangements
to accommodate the projected population growth, provide a fair
share of housing needs, and promote housing affordability.
· Provide for continued residential development as necessary.
· Explore innovative residential zoning techniques that
will enhance the preservation of the rural landscape and scenic
views.
· Consider expanding senior citizen housing opportunities
in appropriate areas of the township.
· Encourage the rehabilitation of the existing housing
stock.
· Maintain compliance with existing building codes.
Goal: Encourage nonresidential development that is well
integrated and compatible with the predominately rural residential
character of the township.
Objectives:
· Establish sufficient opportunities for nonresidential
development that provides employment opportunities and a range
of commercial services for residents.
· Develop commercial and industrial use regulations that
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the township residents.
· Minimize potential land use conflicts of nonresidential
uses upon adjacent residential uses through appropriate land use
and zoning measures.
· Concentrate nonresidential development in areas zoned
for such uses and which contain adequate infrastructure to support
this development.
· Promote planned business/commercial development in place
of strip commercial development.
Goal: Promote the adequate provision and accessibility
of community facilities in cooperation with the public, government
agencies, and providers of community services.
Objectives:
· Maintain and/or enhance facilities serving the existing
and anticipated service requirements of residents, allowing for
expansion as needed.
· Provide adequate public safety and protection and preserve
Springfield Township as a safe and desirable community.
Goal: Ensure that wastewater and water facilities will
satisfy the needs of township residents.
Objectives:
· Maintain and/or enhance wastewater and water facilities
in order to provide adequate service to existing and future residents.
· Plan for public water and sewer service within the designated
Development Area to promote concentrated growth in the township.
· Plan for water supply and sewage disposal system that
will protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity.
· Plan for the reliable supply of water, considering current
and future water resources availability, uses and limitations,
and provisions to protect water supply sources.
· Provide the balance of aquifer withdrawals and recharge
so that the long-term safe-yield of the aquifer is not exceeded.
· Where beneficial, develop intermunicipal cooperation
for water service and wellhead protection.
· Develop cooperative efforts among municipalities in water
supply and fire protection.
Goal: Promote sound stormwater management for existing
and future development in the township.
Objectives:
· Manage stormwater runoff created by new development activities taking into account the cumulative watershed-wide stormwater impacts from peak runoff rates and runoff volume.
· Preserve existing natural drainageways and watercourses and provide for proper maintenance of all stormwater management facilities.
· Maintain and/or improve existing water quality, especially
in those areas, which drain to existing lakes and reservoirs,
by preventing additional loading of various stormwater runoff
pollutants into the stream system.
· Maximize groundwater recharge where appropriate and attainable
throughout the watershed where feasible and attainable throughout
the watershed to maintain the existing hydrologic regime.
Goal: Protect, maintain, and improve the capacity of the
township's highway network to reduce travel times, minimize congestion,
and eliminate hazardous conditions.
Objectives:
· Link transportation planning efforts with the future
land use planning.
· Provide appropriate road improvements and implement traffic
impact requirements that will promote safe road conditions.
· Regulate land use along the major roadways in the township
to avoid hazardous situations and to maintain the road's primary
function of serving through traffic.
· Classify the roads in the township according to their
present and potential future use.
· Provide limited cartway paving along rural collector
roads and construct only those improvements necessary to maintain
the safety of road and lanes for turning, acceleration, and deceleration.
· Promote access management techniques that will protect
the function of arterial streets. Reverse-frontage access roads,
marginal access roads, or shared access driveways should be provided
for properties fronting on arterial roads.
· Plan for improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle network
to serve the needs of other users of the transportation network.
· Support the possible reactivation of the Quakertown-Stony
Creek Rail.
· Consider multimunicipal planning to address what essentially
is a regional issue.
Goal: Ensure the proper storage, collection, and transportation
of municipal waste.
Objectives:
· Reduce municipal solid waste streams to ensure future
landfill space and reduce environmental impacts.
· Periodically monitor licensed waste haulers to ensure
municipal waste haulers are properly collecting, transporting,
and disposing of solid waste and recyclables.
· Consider reopening the township's recycling drop-off
facility to enable residents to help reduce solid waste streams.
Goal: Guide the form, location, and timing of future development
within Springfield Township while protecting the natural environment,
maintaining visual quality, and providing services and facilities
necessary for its residents.
Objectives:
· Foster a community with a well-balanced mix of agricultural,
residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.
· Provide for future growth in areas best suited for development
and provide appropriate land uses that will promote the protection
the township's overall character.
· Encourage growth in a coordinated and timely manner through
the implementation of the Development District concept.
· Locate the Development Area where more intensive future
growth can be concentrated and supported by infrastructure (e.g.,
public water and sewer) and basic services.
· Use growth management techniques to preserve open space,
protect environmental resources, and minimize site development
costs.
· Maintain the integrity of agricultural and rural areas
by limiting development and the extension of public infrastructure
and services into these areas.
Goal: Maintain a balanced budget and responsibly plan for
future capital expenses.
Objectives:
· Examine future growth trends to gauge the effect of development
on the township budget and the residential tax burden.
· Link the financial planning of the township with the
policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
· Purchase agricultural conservation easements, open space,
historic property, and recreational land (as identified by the
Springfield Township Open Space and Farmland Preservation Plan)
using revenue generated from the open space tax.
Historical Overview
The first permanent settlers of Springfield Township were English
and Scotch-Irish who moved up the Cooks Creek valley from the
Delaware River. German colonists joined this settlement by moving
up from Philadelphia to Quakertown and finally to Springfield.
Most of the English were land speculators, while most of the Germans
were settlers. Thus, it was the Germans who would have the largest
influence on the development of the township.
Colonists first settled in Springfield Township along streams or near the many springs found throughout the hillsides. There they built their homes and cleared the land for farming. This could be exhausting work because the land was heavily forested and, in some areas, very rocky. It was many years before farms became productive and reliable sources of income.
Springfield Township was, of course, originally a part of lands belonging to the Lenape Indians. William Penn, although already holding title to all land in the province under a grant from Charles II of England, still negotiated land purchases from the Lenape. The areas composing Springfield Township were not acquired from the Lenape until the Walking Purchase of 1737, when John and Thomas Penn secured the remainder of Bucks County, as well as lands composing present-day Lehigh and Northampton counties.
In 1743 Springfield's residents petitioned the court to incorporate their settlements into a township. The petition was granted and the township was surveyed and laid out in that same year. The township was named for its abundance of hill and meadow springs. As the agricultural economy of Springfield Township developed, schools, mills, churches, and general stores were built to serve the growing population. Roads were improved to the point where travel to the Lehigh Valley and Philadelphia was possible. Profits rose as these markets were opened to local farmers, craftsmen, and mill operators.
During the remainder of the 1700s, villages developed at crossroads where waterpower was available to operate the grist and saw mills. Springtown became the largest of these villages. Springtown was located along a major road and surrounded by some of the best farmland in the area. In 1737 the town contained six to eight houses, a tavern, and a store. By 1896, the village contained two churches, a tavern, a store, mills, and 40 houses.
Springfield Township remained a largely agricultural-based community throughout its entire history, supplying meat, crops, and dairy products to the region. With the development of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Philadelphia as centers for manufacturing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the population of Springfield declined. With food prices falling, farming became less profitable and the prospect of better wages lured many to the big cities. Local industries were unable to compete and went out of business. Lacking the necessary support of the community, civic institutions, such as the literary and music society and the newspaper, also gradually disappeared.
Between 1980 and 1990, Springfield's population grew slightly, followed by a slight decrease between 1990 and 2000. Despite the construction of I-78 and development pressures moving northward through the county, the anticipated growth in the past decade has not occurred. However, given the township's wealth of natural and historical resources and proximity to major transportation routes make future growth in Springfield Township a distinct possibility. New development may result in a loss of the qualities that make Springfield unique and livable unless sound growth management policies and regulations are successfully implemented.
Demographics and Socioeconomic Trends
Regional Perspective
Springfield Township is located on the southeastern edge of eastern
Pennsylvania's mountain system along the northern border of Bucks
County. In Bucks County, the municipalities of Durham, Nockamixon,
Haycock, Richland, and Milford townships surround Springfield
Township. To its north, it is bordered by Lower Saucon and Williams
townships in Northampton County and by Upper Saucon Township in
Lehigh County. Springfield Township is also part of the Palisades
Planning Area consisting of Bridgeton, Durham, Nockamixon, Springfield,
and Tinicum townships and Riegelsville Borough. Springfield Township
is roughly 5 miles southeast of the Allentown/Bethlehem metropolitan
area and 40 miles north of the City of Philadelphia.
Springfield and its surrounding municipalities have grown by about 3,181 housing units and 7,002 people as shown in Table 1. Municipalities in this region undergoing the most growth are Upper Saucon Township, Lower Saucon Township, Milford Township, and Richland Township, as the major highways of I-78, the Northeast extension of the PA turnpike, and Route 309 run through these communities. As these areas become more built out, Springfield, Williams, Durham, Haycock, and Nockamixon townships will become more likely candidates for development. Springfield Township can expect to experience increased growth pressures, because of the amount of vacant land it has and its proximity to the major highways mentioned above.
Table 1. Housing and Population, Springfield Township Region, 1990-2000
HOUSING POPULATION
| Municipality | 1990 | 2000 | 1990-2000 | 1990 | 2000 | 1990-2000 |
| Springfield | 1,938 | 1,972 | 34 | 5,177 | 4,963 | -214 |
| Durham | 485 | 525 | 40 | 1,209 | 1,313 | 104 |
| Nockamixon | 1,260 | 1,411 | 151 | 3,329 | 3,517 | 188 |
| Haycock | 791 | 841 | 50 | 2,165 | 2,191 | 26 |
| Richland | 3,344 | 3,877 | 533 | 8,560 | 9,920 | 1,360 |
| Milford | 2,525 | 3,161 | 636 | 7,360 | 8,810 | 1,450 |
| Lower Saucon | 3,169 | 3,195 | 746 | 8,448 | 9,884 | 1,436 |
| Upper Saucon | 3,360 | 4,117 | 757 | 9,775 | 11,939 | 2,164 |
| Williams | 1,504 | 1,738 | 234 | 3,982 | 4,470 | 488 |
| Total | 18,376 | 21,557 | 3,181 | 50,005 | 57,007 | 7,002 |
Township Perspective
Springfield Township has an estimated population of 4,963 people
(2000 Census). This estimate is down slightly from the 1990 Census,
when Springfield reached an all-time high of 5,177 people. Housing
units increased from 1,938 units in 1990 to 1,972 units in 2000.
(For more discussion on housing and future housing needs, see
the Residential Development section.) Springfield's average household
size fell from 2.70 persons per household in 1990 to 2.61 persons
per household in 2000. (See Table 2.) This trend, which is occurring
throughout the county, is due to an increase in the number of
smaller families and singles living alone. It may also reflect
an increased number of people whose children have grown up and
left home.
Table 2. Demographic Characteristics, 1990-2000
| Characterestic | 1990 | 2000 |
| Median Age | 38.1 | 41.8 |
| Households* | 1,856 | 1,900 |
| Family household** | 1,485 | 1,471 |
| Married Couple Families | 1,310 | 1,279 |
| Nonfamily Households*** | 371 | 429 |
| Householders Living Alone | 301 | 338 |
| Average Household Size | 2.70 | 2.61 |
| Average Family Size | 3.04 | 2.96 |
*A household is an occupied housing unit.
**A family household is a household with two or more individuals
related by marriage, birth, or adoption.
***A nonfamily household is a household with a group of unrelated
individuals or a person living alone.
Springfield Township contains 1,900 households. Of these households 1,471 of them are considered family households. Of the family households, 1,279 are married-couple families. This is down slightly from 1990, when there were 1,310 married-couple families. The average family size in Springfield Township is 2.96 persons. Nonfamily households rose from 371 in 1990 to 429 in 2000. Of these nonfamily households, 338 consist of a householder living alone.
Age Composition
Almost 13 percent of Springfield residents is age 65 years or
older and about 12.4 percent of Bucks County residents is age
65 years or older. Since 1990 the number of people in Bucks County
age 65 years or older has increased by 25 percent. By comparison,
Springfield has actually experienced a loss of people in this
age group since 1990 (about a 17 percent decline). However, because
the baby boom generation is beginning to hit retirement age, the
percentage of people over the age of 65 will certainly increase
within the next 10 to 20 years. Even in a relatively sparsely
populated municipality such as Springfield Township, much of its
current population is between the ages 45 and 64. In 1980 this
generation comprised people age 15 to 34, in 1990 it comprised
people age 25 to 44, and in 2000 it comprised people age 35 to
54. We can expect the spike to show up in people age 45 to 64
in the 2010 Census. Table 3 provides an overview of this population
trend.
Table 3. Population by Age, Springfield Township, 1980-2000
| 1980 | 1990 | 2000 | |
| Age | Population/Percentage | Population/Percentage | Population/Percentage |
| Under 5 | 322 6.7% | 322 6.2% | 219 4.4% |
| 5 to 9 | 370 7.7% | 336 6.5% | 297 6.0% |
| 10 to 14 | 425 8.8% | 339 6.5% | 378 7.6% |
| 15 to 19 | 376 7.8% | 317 6.1% | 319 6.4% |
| 20 to 24 | 302 6.3% | 247 4.8% | 182 3.7% |
| 25 to 34 | 811 16.8% | 770 14.9% | 477 9.6% |
| 35 to 44 | 667 13.8% | 916 17.7% | 931 18.8% |
| 45 to 54 | 469 9.7% | 680 13.1% | 878 17.7% |
| 55 to 64 | 455 9.4% | 479 9.3% | 641 12.9% |
| 65 to 74 | 326 6.8% | 402 7.8% | 367 7.4% |
| 75 and over | 294 6.1% | 369 7.1% | 274 5.5% |
| Total | 4,817 100% | 5,177 100% | 4,963 100% |
| Under 18 | 1,364 28.3% | 1,194 23.1% | 1,110 22.4% |
| 18-64 | 2,833 58.8% | 3,212 62.0% | 3,212 64.7% |
| 65 and over | 620 12.9% | 771 14.9% | 641 12.9% |
| Total | 4,817 100% | 5,177 100% | 4,963 100% |
Although Springfield Township shows a loss of people age 65 years or older within the last 10 years, population pressures from within Springfield and from surrounding townships and the demand for senior housing could have a dramatic effect on the future composition of the township. Like many parts of Bucks County, the township will likely be composed of older residents. With this projected rise in elderly residents, Springfield Township should consider adjusting its ordinances to accommodate age-specific housing such as retirement communities, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes.
Finally, the township should also take into account the loss of younger residents. Since 1980, the township (and the county) shows a decline in the number of people age 20 to 34 (as shown in Table 3). Part of this loss is due to the baby boom generation getting older and moving out of these age categories. But another part of this loss is due to these age groups moving out of the township. Possible reasons for moving out include a lack of employment opportunities, a lack of affordable housing, and lack of sufficient goods and services in the region. One of the decisions the township will have to make is whether efforts should be made toward maintaining and attracting this segment of the population. Such efforts may consist of zoning for higher density uses and attracting a greater diversity of commercial uses.
Population Projections
Population projections are useful in helping a municipality plan
for future needs, such as park and recreation facilities, emergency
services, and senior services. The following population projections
shown in Table 4 were developed using an age cohort survival model.
The age cohort survival model simulates the process by which population
actually changes by applying birth (fertility), death, and migration
rates to a starting population (2000 Census). Under the process,
the starting population was broken down into five-year increments
(called cohorts) according to the age structure and sex of the
population. Fertility, death, and migration rates based on past
trends were applied to the cohorts of the starting population
to produce a 2010 projected population. Holding past death and
fertility rates the same, three possible migration rates were
used to produce three different population projections.
Table 4. Springfield Township Population Projections, 2010
2000
Census
2010 Projections
Low Medium High
| Age | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female |
| 0-4 | 101 | 118 | 111 | 125 | 118 | 132 | 130 | 143 |
| 5-9 | 163 | 134 | 148 | 121 | 154 | 126 | 162 | 134 |
| 10-14 | 178 | 200 | 139 | 171 | 145 | 177 | 154 | 186 |
| 15-19 | 171 | 148 | 193 | 137 | 198 | 142 | 206 | 150 |
| 20-24 | 96 | 86 | 142 | 129 | 149 | 369 | 161 | 148 |
| 25-29 | 101 | 97 | 164 | 140 | 175 | 151 | 193 | 169 |
| 30-34 | 133 | 146 | 151 | 147 | 161 | 157 | 177 | 173 |
| 35-39 | 206 | 228 | 144 | 176 | 149 | 181 | 157 | 189 |
| 40-44 | 254 | 243 | 166 | 184 | 170 | 188 | 177 | 195 |
| 45-49 | 201 | 216 | 197 | 235 | 199 | 237 | 202 | 240 |
| 50-54 | 240 | 221 | 272 | 232 | 274 | 234 | 278 | 238 |
| 55-59 | 190 | 171 | 208 | 213 | 210 | 215 | 213 | 218 |
| 60-64 | 151 | 129 | 222 | 206 | 223 | 207 | 225 | 209 |
| 65-69 | 97 | 95 | 170 | 142 | 171 | 144 | 173 | 147 |
| 70-74 | 88 | 87 | 114 | 96 | 115 | 97 | 116 | 99 |
| 75-79 | 63 | 78 | 66 | 63 | 67 | 64 | 68 | 66 |
| 80-84 | 33 | 50 | 40 | 45 | 40 | 46 | 40 | 47 |
| 85+ | 19 | 31 | 18 | 35 | 18 | 36 | 18 | 37 |
| Total Male/Female | 2,485 | 2,478 | 2,665 | 2,597 | 2,736 | 2,670 | 2,850 | 2,788 |
| Total | 4,963 | 5,262 | 5,406 | 5,638 | ||||
| Migration Rate* | -1.37% | -2.74% | 0% | 4.33% | ||||
*Migration is determined by subtracting the
change in population due to births and deaths from the change
in population. Migration rates are calculated by dividing migration
by the total population. The low projection uses a migration rate
twice that seen in the 1990's, the medium projection assumes no
migration in or out of the township, and the high projection uses
a migration rate seen during the 1980s.
The low-growth scenario projects an additional 300 people in
2010, the medium-growth scenario projects an additional 440 people,
and the high-growth scenario projects an additional 670 people.
It should be noted that these numbers are not definitive and that
any forecast of future growth is tentative and subject to a given
set of assumptions holding true for a defined period of time and
constraints of the projection model employed. However, these projections
should provide a fairly good picture of population growth to the
year 2010.
Land Use Characteristic and Development Trends
Regional Perspective
Springfield Township is part of the Palisades Planning Area consisting
of Bridgeton, Durham, Nockamixon, Springfield, and Tinicum townships
and Riegelsville Borough. Historically, the Palisades Area has
been relatively undisturbed by the wheels of change. To this day,
the character of the area is still reminiscent of earlier times,
with numerous pristine farms, historic villages, bridges, and
inns. While growth (primarily in the form of single-family detached
lots) has been minor, growth is expected to continue throughout
the area. Given the relatively easy access to Interstate 78 via
Routes 611 and 412, this area may see increased development pressures
from commuters to and from the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton corridor
and New York City metropolitan area. Over the past decade, growth
and development was not as significant as anticipated in the Palisades
Area, but lower interest rates and the recent approval/construction
of several large-lot residential subdivisions in Lower Saucon
Township, Northampton County may be a signal of increased development
across the region.
Township Perspective
Springfield Township is the second largest Bucks County municipality
in land area (30.78 square miles) and is predominately rural in
character. Table 5 provides a snapshot of the land use characteristics
within Springfield Township in 1990 and 2001 and Figure 1 highlights
existing 2001 land use.
Nearly 83 percent of the township land area consists of three primary land use categories-rural residential (6,627 acres or 33.6 percent of the total land area), agricultural (6,057 acres or 30.7 percent of the total land area) and vacant (3,659 acres or 18.6 percent). A majority of the agricultural land is concentrated within the central portion of the township, which generally corresponds to the township's Agricultural Zoning District.
Table 5. 1990 and 2001 Land Use Characteristics
| Land Use Category |
1990 Acreage |
1990 % |
2001 Acreage |
2001 % |
1999-2001 Amt. Chg. |
1999-2001 % Chg. |
| Single Family Residential | 1,930 | 9.8 | 2,271 | 11.5 | 341 | 15 |
| Multi Family Residential | 62 | 0.3 | 19 | 0.1 | -43 | -226 |
| Rural Residential | 6,013 | 30.5 | 6,627 | 33.6 | 614 | 9 |
| Agricultural | 6,625 | 33.6 | 6,057 | 30.7 | -568 | -9 |
| Minig & Manufacturing | 28 | 0.2 | 51 | 0.3 | 23 | 45 |
| Commercial | 220 | 1.1 | 252 | 1.3 | 32 | 13 |
| Transportation & Utilities | 581 | 3.0 | 593 | 3.0 | 12 | 2 |
| Governmental & Institutional | 117 | 0.6 | 148 | 0.8 | 31 | 21 |
| Park & Recreation | 22 | 0.1 | 22 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 |
| Vacant | 4,101 | 20.8 | 3,659 | 18.6 | -442 | -12 |
| Total | 19,699 | 100 % | 19,699 | 100 % |
Single-Family Residential category contains single-family detached dwellings on lots less than 5 acres. Rural Residential land use contains a single-family detached dwelling but is located on lots that are 5 acres or greater. (For a detailed description of land use classification definitions, see Appendix 1.) The purpose of Rural Residential land use category is to identify large residential lots that may have future development potential for future subdivision or development. This category will be useful for identifying potential areas for future development in the township as discussed in the Future Land Use and Growth Management section.
Multifamily Residential land uses are generally limited to the Route 309 corridor and within or adjacent to the villages Zion Hill, Pleasant Valley, and Springtown corresponding to the Highway Commercial, Village Commercial, or Village Residential Zoning District where this is a permitted use. Multifamily Residential consist of 19 acres or 0.1 percent of the total land area. The current Development District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and nonresidential uses, including higher density housing types. The provision of public infrastructure may provide incentives for the provision of multifamily residential uses within this area (as discussed in the Future Land Use and Growth Management section).
Mining & Manufacturing land uses (51 acres or 0.3 percent of the total land area) are limited to the Route 309 corridor which corresponds to the Planned Industrial zoning district. Other nonresidential land uses (i.e., Commercial and Government & Institutional) consisting of approximately 400 acres or 2 percent of the total land area, are scattered around the township.
The only Park and Recreational land use in the township is a portion of Locust Valley Golf Course (22 acres or 0.1 percent of the total land area) which is predominately located in Upper Saucon Township, Lehigh County. Private recreational facilities (fraternal organizations/clubs) are considered Government & Institutional for the purposes of identifying land use characteristics.
Existing Nonconformities
A nonconformity is defined as an existing condition (e.g., use,
building, or lot) that does not comply with the zoning ordinance
for the jurisdiction as it predated the zoning regulations in
the municipality. Based upon a cursory review of the existing
land uses in Figure 5 and the township's zoning map, there appears
to be only a few existing nonconformities based solely on use.
Additional analysis will be performed in the Future Land Use and
Growth management section to determine if the future land uses
categories from the previous comprehensive plan are still appropriate
or require changes. Certain zoning district boundaries may need
to be altered (e.g., increased, decreased, or eliminated) to reflect
the current land use policies while eliminating specific nonconformities
that are determined to be appropriate.
Development Trends
Historically, there have been subtle shifts in land use characteristics
in Springfield Township. An examination of the land use and development
trends between 1990 and 2001 are provided in Table 5, above. Every
attempt was made to provide consistency between the methodology
between the 1990 and 2001 land use statistics and mapping; however,
there are several discrepancies. The comparison of land use acreage
change and percentage change are only intended to be a general
planning tool, reflecting overall development trends that have
occurred within the township in the past decade.
Most of the development in the past decade was in the form of single-family detached dwellings as reflected in the increase of single-family residential land use by 341 acres (or 15 percent). Significant acreage will be added to Single-Family or Rural Residential land use categories in the future as the recently approved development proposals (shown in Table 6, below) received building permits. Reflecting land available for subdivision and land development, the vacant and agricultural land use categories decreased by approximately 442 acres (6 percent) and 568 acres (9 percent), respectively between 1990 and 2001. The reduction of agricultural acreage may also be due to a trend of loss or discontinuation of agricultural activities since 1990.
Rural Residential acreage increased by approximately 614 acres (9 percent) as the result of the subdivision and subsequent construction of a single-family dwelling on previously agricultural and vacant land.
The decrease in Multi-Family Residential by 43 acres (226 percent decrease) is not a result of a loss or conversion of multi-family apartments or units but rather changes in the classification. In 1990, the Multi-Family Residential category included uses such as nursing home and parsonages. However, in the 2001 land use update, the reclassification of these uses to Government & Institutional was deemed appropriate.
Development trends over the decade suggest only modest increases to Commercial (32 acres or 13 percent), Mining & Manufacturing (23 acres or 45 percent), and Government & Institutional (31 acres or 21 percent) land use categories.
Since there has not been additional park and recreational land provided over this time period, park and recreational acreage has remained the same.
Approved Development Proposals
As of September 2002, various development proposals have received
approval or preliminary plan approval status from the township,
but have not received a building permit as shown in Table 6. The
inclusion of the following subdivision and land development proposals
into the 2001 land use statistics and mapping was deemed inappropriate
at this time, since there is no guarantee of their implementation.
However, there is potential that one or more of the proposals
will be completed in the future.
Table 6. Recently Approved Development Proposals
| Proposal Name | Location | Total Acres | Review Type |
| Cummings | Moyer Road & Route 412 | 39.9 | 2 Single-Family Lots |
| Cross Creek | Drifting Drive | 44.79 | 4 Single-Family Lots |
| Mager Tract | Harrow Road | 87.7 | 24 Single-Family Lots |
| Marsh | Route 412 & New Hill Way | 1.86 | 2 Single-Family Lots |
| Hidden Ponds (Mager) | Old Bethlehem Road | 20.60 | 4 Single-Family Lots |
| Schnell | Winding Road | 61.00 | 2 Single-Family; 1 Commercial |
| G&H | Hickory Lane | 58.70 | 4 Single-Family Lots |
| Springhill | Drifting Drive | 21.36 | 16 Single-Family Lots |
| Thompson | 1550 Maple Road | 11.42 | 2 Single-Family Lots |
| Quay | School and Maple | 41.21 | 3 Single-Family Lots |
| Station House Farm | Bursonville Road | 71.00 | 7 Single-Family Lots |
| High Meadow | Peppermint Road | 63.85 | 10 Single-Family Lots |
| Martin's Estates | Route 412 & Lehnenberg Road | 39.00 | 9 Single-Family Lots |
| Rick | Route 412 & School Road | 43.57 | 2 Single-Family Lots |
| Brink | Carlton Road | 38.46 | 2 Single-Family Lots |
| Oppecker | Ebert & Nemeth Roads | 9.56 | 2 Single-Family Lots |
| Saddle Ridge Phase 2A | Highpoint Road | 13.20 | 3 Single-Family Lots |
| Pfeiffer Farm | Highpoint Road | 45.06 | 4 Single-Family Lots |
Natural Resources
Geology
Springfield Township lies within the physiographic provinces of
the Triassic lowlands of the Piedmont province and the Reading
prong of the New England province. The township is characterized
by large rocky hills cut by stream valleys. The rock types in
the township consist of gneiss, Lockatong lithofacies, red shales
and sandstones, diabase, limestone, and quartzite. (See Figure
2: Natural Resources.)
Rock types determine groundwater supplies. By identifying rock types, the township can plan for the water supply needs for future residents. Quartzite and gneiss, located in the north corner of the township, provide small to moderate supplies of groundwater. Red shales and sandstones, which are rocks of the Brunswick formation, represent significant supplies of water to the township. These rocks are located in the township's south-central region and also extend in a band from this area toward the township's eastern portion. The Lockatong lithofacies, which are generally a poor source of water, are located in a small area at the eastern corner of the township. Diabase, which makes up most of the western portion as well as areas in the eastern portion of the township, has among the poorest water supply yields in the county.
The limestone areas of the township are part of the Durham Carbonate Valley, which is an area that stretches from Riegelsville, across the northern half of Durham Township, to the northern corner of Springfield Township. Limestone varies greatly in its supply of water and is susceptible to groundwater contamination, sinkholes, and solution channels. Groundwater contamination is a particular problem because contaminated water can move rapidly through solution channels, threatening an extensive area in a short period of time. Other carbonate valley phenomena include disappearing and influent streams, ghost lakes, land surface mottling, and cave formation.
For areas underlain by carbonate geology, the Springfield Township Zoning Ordinance requires subdivision and land development applicants to identify all carbonate geologic features. The mapping and identification of these features must be based on a field survey and published data and the qualifications of the individual performing the survey must be listed. Stormwater management facilities are required to meet specific design standards. Proposed buildings, sewage disposal facilities, and utilities must meet setback requirements from susceptible areas. Uses such as landfills, junkyards, fuel storage and distribution, and truck terminals are prohibited in these areas.
Consideration should be given to requiring applicants for land development or subdivision to use geologists and/or hydrogeologic professionals specified by the township to identify carbonate features. This could provide a more independent analysis of the geology of the site.
Groundwater Resources
About 90 percent of the township gets it drinking water from private
wells, located throughout the township. Groundwater supplies largely
depend upon geology, surface characteristics, water use, and seasonal
precipitation. There are two public wells operating in the township.
One public well is operated by Scenic View Apartment (located
in Lower Saucon and Springfield townships). The other public well
is operated by the Springfield Township Authority (STA) located
in Springtown. As mentioned in the geology section above, however,
much of this area is underlain by carbonate geology. Compounding
this situation is the fact that Springtown has been identified
as an area of failing septic systems. Clearly, this is in area
that is very susceptible to groundwater contamination.
To protect groundwater resources in this and other vulnerable areas, the township should seriously consider the development of a wellhead protection ordinance. Such an ordinance would offer protection for aquifer recharge areas from land uses that could potentially threaten Springfield's future groundwater supply. (See Future Land Use and Growth Management section for further details on wellhead protection programs.) Careful consideration should be given to the recommendations of both the Springfield Township Sewage Facilities Plan (1994), which recommends a public disposal system that accommodates only areas within the existing village area, and the Springtown Village Study (2000), which recommends that the township also consider a system most appropriate for the types and intensities of future land uses in this area. Water supply and methods of protecting water supply will be discussed more thoroughly in the Wastewater and Water Issues section.
Woodlands
Springfield Township remains heavily wooded. Over 44 percent of
the township consists of woodlands as shown in Figure 2. A woodland
is an area 1/4 acre or more in size, where trees form a canopy
with ten or more of the trees measuring at least 10 inches in
diameter at breast height or 4 1/2 feet from the ground. Woodlands
are an integral part of many land ecosystems. Their benefits to
the environment include water and air purification, regional and
local climate control, open space, erosion control, and habitat
for wildlife. In addition to their aesthetic value, woodlands
also filter out upland pollutants in stormwater runoff and are
prime areas of aquifer recharge.
The Springfield Township Zoning Ordinance provides for the protection of woodlands. The percentage of protection ranges from 30 percent in the HC Highway Commercial district to 80 percent in the RP Resource Protection district. Mature trees with a circumference of 60 inches or greater, measured 14 inches above ground must be preserved. In addition, the ordinance requires a tree protection area around protected woodlands so that they do not suffer damage from site development.
Steep Slopes
Due to its hilly topography, the township contains many areas
of steep slopes. Almost 27 percent of the township is covered
by slopes of 15 percent or greater. (See Figure 2.) Development
on steep slopes, if not regulated and designed properly, can lead
to accelerated erosion, instability of structures, limited access,
and screening of scenic views.
The Springfield Township Zoning Ordinance restricts the development of areas with slopes of 15 percent or greater. For areas with slopes of 15 to 24 percent, 70 percent of the area shall be protected; for areas with slopes of 25 to 30 percent, 85 percent of the area shall be protected; and for areas with slopes of greater than 30 percent, 100 percent of the area shall be protected. These standards apply to all zoning districts except the AD Agriculture district, where the steep slope protection standards are 20, 30, and 50 percent respectively. The reduced standards are intended to allow more agricultural development on steep slopes and greater protection of agricultural soils on sites located in the AD district with both natural resources.
Surface Water Resources View
Hydrological Resources Map
Almost all of the significant aboveground water resources in the
township are creeks and streams as shown in Figure 3. In the western
portion of the township are the headwaters of the Hickon, Tohickon
and Saucon, and Unami creeks. A few miles south in Richland Township,
the Hickon Creek empties into the Tohickon Creek. In the east,
a small area of the township contains the headwaters of Haycock
Creek and Gallows Run. At Lake Nockamixon, Haycock Creek also
empties into the Tohickon. The Tohickon then meanders eastward,
where it eventually empties into the Delaware River. Gallows Run
moves in a northeasterly direction until reaching the Delaware.
The primary aboveground water resource in the township is Cooks Creek. The Cooks Creek watershed is about 30 square miles in size and covers the eastern two-thirds of Springfield Township and the western half of Durham Township. From its headwaters the creek runs eastward into Durham Township where it eventually empties into the Delaware River. Cooks Creek has been designated an Exceptional Value stream by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and is the only stream in the county that supports a natural population of brown and brook trout.
In 2000, the Durham Township Environmental Advisory Council
(DTEAC) sponsored a study of the Cooks Creek watershed. The goal
of the project was to provide information to the DTEAC on wetlands
and watershed conservation to be integrated with a total water
resources management plan of the watershed. Phase I is the Wetlands
Management Plan and Phase II is the Watershed Conservation Plan.
The goal of Phase I was to provide information to the DTEAC for
a wetlands conservation plan to be integrated with a total water
resources management plan of the watershed. The plan delineates
wetlands, identifies area soils, delineates karst features and
other hydrogeologic features, determines important hydrologic
characteristics, and develops a GIS base for the inclusion of
future information.
Some unique features of the Cooks Creek Watershed identified in
the plan include:
· Cooks Creek has been designated as 1-A priority for
consideration as a state scenic river, although a state moratorium
exists on the designation of new state scenic rivers;
· The watershed supports federally and state-listed endangered
and threatened species;
· The watershed contains unusual geologic conditions, such
as karst-prone areas and a Triassic basin. The local geology,
particularly karst areas, makes the stream and area groundwater
particularly vulnerable to contamination.
To protect and manage this critical resource, the plan recommends several actions, all of which can be incorporated into the recommendations of the Springfield Comprehensive Plan:
· Watershed Management-Use a holistic approach that
recognizes the connections between different elements.
· Comprehensive Planning-Discuss the social and environmental
value of the watershed in future comprehensive plans. The environmental
section of the comprehensive plan should include an inventory
of sensitive resources and goals, objectives and strategies for
protecting these resources.
· Overlay District-Adopt overlay zoning districts that
would require new development projects to identify sensitive resources
and use best management practices to protect these resources.
· Growth Management-Incorporate growth management tools
such as cluster development, open space preservation, riparian
corridor protection, wellhead protection, and transfer-of-development
rights.
· Education and Public Outreach-Conduct seminars and distribute
newsletters to educate the community about the importance of protecting
the watershed.
· Water Monitoring Program-Develop a water-quality monitoring
program of the stream and primary water supply aquifer.
· Funding-Seek additional funds to develop a watershed
approach for management and preservation of the Cooks Creek natural
resources and water supply.
· Protection of Sensitive Areas and Vulnerable Wetlands-Promote
the protection of sensitive segments of the watershed and wetlands
through acquisition and the establishment of vegetated buffers.
The plan identifies particular resources and areas to be protected
including riparian zones, endangered or threatened species habitat,
wetlands, recharge areas, springs and seeps, and headwater areas
of the Cooks Creek tributaries.
The Watershed Conservation Plan (Phase II), adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March, 2002, is a compilation of numerous studies that have been conducted within the Cooks Creek watershed. These studies include: geologic and wetland surveys, well water level monitoring, stream gauge data collection, water quality chemistry, bioassessment surveys, stream corridor evaluations, and GIS database development. This WCP references all these studies and the appendices to this report include the results of many of the studies performed. The notable exception being the results of studies performed in support of the Wetlands Management Plan that was prepared for the USEPA (published under separate cover).
The overall goal of the Cooks Creek Watershed Conservation Plan is two fold: 1) to formulate a management program that truly sustains water resources through utilization of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 2) to highlight those characteristics or critical issues in the watershed that require further study. This can be achieved through projects conducted in cooperation with watershed associations, agricultural organizations, various governmental agencies and others. Management options will include maintenance, enhancement and restoration activities. The following management options and recommendations should be considered for protecting, enhancing, and preserving the Cooks Creek Watershed resources:
1. Develop a Water Management Plan
2. Monitoring Cooks Creek Flow
3. Monitoring Aquifer Levels
4. Generate an Upgraded Water Table Map
5. Expand the GIS Database
6. Continue to Develop the Hydrologic Database managed using the
computer interface WAMOS
7. Develop a Nutrient Management Plan
8. Develop a Township Level Storm water Management Plan
9. Develop a Comprehensive Biological Inventory
10. Expand and Maintain a Water Quality Monitoring Program
11. Educational Activities
12. Riparian Buffer Improvements
13. Ordinances and Planning Documents
The following critical areas should be considered for zoning ordinance
and Comprehensive Plan preparation:
¨ Storm water management and erosion control;
¨ Wetlands protection;
¨ Baseflow protection;
¨ Conservation easements and open space;
¨ Endangered and/or threatened species habitat protection;
¨ Karst and sinkhole land development standards;
¨ Overlay districts of critical areas (first order sub-basins,
wetland buffers, riparian floodplain, and lakes and ponds);
¨ Septic systems types based upon soil districts;
¨ Steep slopes;
¨ Stream or riparian buffers; and,
¨ Wellhead protection.
Richland Township is proposing a similar watershed conservation plan for Tohickon Creek, and has requested the participation of Springfield Township. Regional cooperation by those municipalities affected is important to the overall success of watershed planning programs and activities. The Cooks Creek Watershed Association intends to conduct a biological assessment of wildlife present in the Cooks Creek Watershed; however, are awaiting the approval of a grant to proceed with this activity.
The Springfield Township Zoning Ordinance requires streams and watercourses to remain 100 percent open space. The ordinance also requires a 75-foot margin adjacent to the stream or watercourse in which no development or site alterations may take place. This stream margin, also known as a riparian buffer zone, serves to maintain stream temperature, stabilize stream banks, control erosion, and absorb nutrients and sediments from stormwater runoff. Additional requirements, such as larger margins and maintenance requirements, should be considered for riparian corridors. In general, the larger the corridor is, the greater the habitat and stream protection provided.
Floodplains
While Springfield Township is not a municipality usually given
to flooding problems, there are many floodplain areas throughout
the township as shown in Figure 3. These areas are adjacent to
the township's streams and watercourses. The 100-year floodplain
is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as
the area adjoining a stream or river that accommodates floodwater
produced by the 100-year storm (or base flood event), which has
a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in a given year.
The township zoning ordinance contains provisions for the protection of floodplain areas that comply with the National Flood Insurance Program and the Pennsylvania Floodplain Management Act. The ordinance contains provisions that limit the expansion and enlargement of existing structures that would cause an increase in the elevation of the 100-year flood heights, provisions that deny the granting of any variance for any construction, development, use, or activity that would cause an increase in the elevation of the 100-year flood heights, and provisions that set out elevation and floodproofing requirements for residential and nonresidential structures built in the floodplain.
Wetlands
Wetlands are dynamic ecosystems that encompass areas inundated
with water for all or part of the year. They provide many beneficial
functions to the environment, including habitat for wildlife,
water quality protection and improvement, and flood and stormwater
management.
A little over 2 percent of the township consists of wetlands as shown in Figure 3. They are located throughout the township, mostly along stream corridors and in isolated, low-lying areas. The township zoning ordinance requires 100 percent protection of all wetlands and wetland margins. The wetland margin consists of a 25-foot area extending from the outer limit of the wetland. No development, alteration, regarding, filling, or piping may take place within the margin.
Agricultural Soils View
Agricultural Soils Maps
Springfield Township contains significant agricultural soils.
The quality of these soils is determined by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
NRCS has recently recertified soils in Bucks County and Figure
4 highlights Prime Agricultural Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance.
Most important agricultural soils in the township are located in the north and northwestern portion of the township. Areas to the south, east, and west of Springtown contain mostly Prime Agricultural Soils with some Soils of Statewide Importance. Areas surrounding Passer and Pleasant Valley contain mostly Farmland Soils of Statewide Importance with some Prime Agricultural Soils. The southwest and eastern portions of the township contain lesser amounts agriculturally important soils, except for the Bursonville and Zion Hill areas, which contain both Prime Agricultural Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance.
The township currently designates the area south of Springtown and north and east of Pleasant Valley as its AD Agriculture zoning district. The Springfield Township Zoning Ordinance restricts development on both Prime Agricultural Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance in its AD Agriculture district. Prime Agricultural Soils must be 70 percent protected from development and Soils of Statewide Importance must be 60 percent protected.
The existing agricultural zoning district is based largely on the soils maps provided by NRCS. Since the soils locations on the new maps may vary from the previous maps, the township should consider adjusting the boundaries of its agricultural zoning district to reflect the new locations of Prime Agricultural Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance. However, if the new soils maps are not significantly different, no adjustments may be necessary.
Open Space and Farmland Preservation View Protected Farmland & Open Space
Map
Springfield Township's open space resources include areas containing
rural residential, vacant, agricultural, and park and recreational
land uses. It may not seem important to preserve open space and
agricultural resources in Springfield Township, since approximately
83 percent of the total land area falls within these four land
use categories. However, a significant portion of this area may
not be protected from future development. This chapter examines
the type, nature, and extent of the township's existing open space
and farmland resources and identifies potential preservation strategies
and techniques that may be appropriate for implementation in Springfield
Township.
Open space resources can be classified into three categories: permanently protected, temporarily protected, and unprotected. Permanently protected lands include areas that are more likely to be preserved due to its ownership, such as publicly-owned lands (e.g., parks or vacant lands), lands owned by nonprofit conservation organizations or homeowner's associations. In February 2002, the township acquired land for future public park use and there are a few private recreational facilities (to be discussed in the next section). Nockamixon, Ralph Stover, and the Delaware Canal State parks and Tohickon Valley, Tinicum, Weisel, Lake Towhee, and Ringing Rocks County parks are located within a 10-mile radius of the township.
Temporarily protected lands are areas that are in open space or partial open space use. However, these property owners reserve the right to develop the land in the future (under the parameters of the underlying zoning). The most common lands comprising temporary open space are properties enrolled in preferential tax assessment, agricultural security areas, and school facilities.
Unprotected lands include any vulnerable resources that do not have an inherent mechanism in place that would discourage or prevent land from being developed or being impacted from the development in the future. This includes a significant portion of the township's existing natural, historical, and scenic resource lands.
Permanently Protected Lands
The following provides a brief description of all permanently
protected open space lands. The permanently protected lands comprised
approximately 262 acres or slightly over 1 percent of the total
area in the township. The location and extent of these lands are
illustrated in Figure 5.
County-Owned Lands
Since the 1970s, the county has been actively acquiring land between
Lehnenberg and Buckwampum roads (along Buckwampum Mountain), near
the Durham and Springfield Township border. Initially, the County
intended to construct a ski slope but these plans were later dashed.
Currently, the land is being used for access to the county-owned
radio tower located on one of these parcels (TMP #42-22-57). Collectively,
the 20 county-owned parcels total approximately 130 acres and
contain a restrictive covenant limiting the use of the land to
passive recreation (i.e., park, wildlife preservation, and open
space).
Township-Owned Lands
The township owns three parcels totaling approximately 69 acres.
Two of these parcels contain the municipal building and recycling/maintenance
building. In February of 2002, the township acquired the Kurtesan
Farm, which is a 45.3-acre tract located on Peppermint Road. The
property was purchased through the Bucks County Open Space Program
and is intended for future park use. The township also has an
option to purchase an additional 25 acres of land on the opposite
side of Peppermint Road.
Heritage Conservancy-Owned Lands
There is one property that is owned in fee-simple by the Heritage
Conservancy totaling about 63 acres and at this time, is being
held for open space conservation purposes.
Lands with Conservation Easements/Deed Restrictions
There are 13 properties in the township totaling approximately
477 acres that contain conservation easements or deed restrictions.
It is important to note that a conservation easement or deed restriction
does not necessarily prohibit development from occurring over
the entire tract. Often, only a portion of a property may be protected
from future development depending upon the legal descriptions
or conditions established as part of the individual conservation
easement and deed restriction.
There are six properties totaling approximately 166 acres that
contain conservation easements that is held by the Heritage Conservancy.
The Heritage Conservancy notes that only a portion of these properties
(and not necessarily the entire property) contains a conservation
easement restricting future development.
Two properties in the township are enrolled in the Bucks County
Agricultural Preservation Program-the Fleishman farm (96.8 acres
located northwest side of Slifer Valley Road) and a portion of
the Berger farm, predominately located in Nockamixon Township
(12.9 acres located in Springfield Township on the northwest side
of Berger Road). These properties contain an agricultural conservation
easement restricting its use substantially to agricultural and
directly associated uses. Several properties may be eligible for
future designation. (See the description under Agricultural Land
Preservation Program section below.)
The Matcak property totaling 100.68 acres is enrolled in the Bucks County Natural Areas Program. This property has been placed under a conservation easement that restricts specified future uses and activities on the site. (See the description under the Natural Areas Program section below.)
Lastly, there area various parcels in the township that contain deed restrictions. Based upon a review of subdivision and land development plans since 1989, there are four properties totaling about 101 acres containing deed restrictions that prohibit further subdivision, but not necessarily further development. This is a partial listing, since plan notations and deed records were not researched for this publication prior to this date.
Temporarily Protected Lands
The following provides a brief description of all temporarily
protected open space lands that comprise approximately 10,385
acres or about 53 percent of the total area in the township. The
location and extent of these lands are illustrated in Figure 5.
School Facilities
There is one public school located within the township totaling
approximately 12 acres. The Springfield Elementary School property
is located on the northeast side of Bethlehem Road (Route 212)
and contains a playground.
Lands with Preferential Assessment
Numerous residents within the township have registered their properties
with the county under the preferential assessment programs. Bucks
County has entered into voluntary covenants with owners who have
valuable open space resources (e.g., farmland, forested areas,
water resources) in order to preserve open space. Consequently,
the property is assessed by the county at the fair market value
(or at less than its highest and best use). As a result, the property
owner is afforded a significant savings through preferential property
tax assessment as an incentive to maintain the land as open space.
Two acts are applicable to preferential assessments:
Act 319 Lands (Pennsylvania Farmland & Forest Land Assessment
Act of 1974)-This legislation, also known as the "Clean and
Green Act," is available to landowners for the following
uses: agricultural use, agricultural preserve, and forest preserve.
Under this program, soil classification and yield per acre determine
a property's individual assessment. Enrollment in this program
is continuous unless dissolved by the landowner or eligibility
requirements are not met. There are 147 parcels enrolled in this
program totaling approximately 5,126 acres.
Act 515 Lands (Pennsylvania Open Space Covenant Act of 1966)-This
act enables a property owner to enter into a covenant with the
county to preserve farm, forest, water supply, and open space
land. However, in 1993 the county commissioners gave a 10-year
termination notice of the Act 515 program. Consequently, properties
under this the program will continue to be honored until the end
of 2003. At this time, participants are allowed to convert their
properties into the sister program known as Act 319. However,
applicants must satisfy Act 319 requirements, which are more stringent.
There are 114 parcels totaling approximately 3,362 acres protected
under Act 515.
Lands covenanted under Acts 319 or 515 are considered only
temporarily protected because the property owners have the right
to terminate the agreement at any time. However, as a result,
the property owner must pay a penalty in the form of rollback
taxes (i.e., the difference between the preferential assessment
value and the fair market or development value) and accumulated
interest (i.e., 7 years for Act 319 and 5 years for Act 515).
Although covenanted lands are only temporarily protected, it shows
a willingness of landowners to maintain their properties in open
space. Commitment into Act 319 and 515 programs is an example
of a local grassroots action that should be considered in the
overall comprehensive planning process. In total, there are 8,488
acres of land covenanted under Act 319 and 515 within the township.
Agricultural Security Areas
Similar to lands covenanted under the preferential assessment
programs, enrollment into an Agricultural Security Area (ASA)
suggests a significant commitment by property owners for ongoing
farmland preservation. The ASA program was created by the Agricultural
Security Area Law (Act 43 of 1981) to protect the agricultural
industry from increasing development pressure. ASAs are intended
to promote more permanent and viable farming operations by strengthening
the farmer's sense of security in their right to farm.
For properties to be eligible for enrollment into an ASA, the
aggregate total of the properties must be a minimum of 250 acres
in viable farmland, and the zoning district in which these properties
are located must permit agricultural uses. Individual parcels
comprising a designated ASA must be at least 10 acres in area
and at least 50 percent of which contains Class I-IV soils. Respective
property owners must petition the township supervisors in order
to gain approval into the program. Consequently, once enrolled
into an ASA, farmers gain the following benefits:
o Protection from municipal nuisance ordinances which restricts
odors and noise in a community;
o Protection from governmental acquisitions of land through condemnation
or eminent domain; lands proposed for such action within a ASA
must first be approved by Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval
Board;
o Enrollment into the county's easement purchase program requires
previous establishment of properties in ASA.
Three are 61 properties in Springfield Township enrolled into an ASA totaling approximately 1,760 acres.
Springfield Township Open Space Plan
In 1999, the township prepared an open space plan to qualify for
county open space preservation funding. Springfield Township was
eligible for up to $531,000 for the preservation of open space
and farmland in the township. Among the plan's major findings:
· Cook's Creek is important because it is an Exceptional
Water Quality Stream (the only one in southeastern Pennsylvania),
it is only one of two streams in the state that are natural spawning
grounds for trout, and the watershed contains significant wetland,
floodplain, and woodland areas.
· The township has good agricultural soils, a strong farming
heritage, and a viable farming community.
· Less than 1 percent of the township has been permanently
preserved. No public recreation areas exist in the township. Most
open spaces are vulnerable to development.
· A number of farms and open areas, however, have been
temporarily preserved as Act 319 and 515 land.
The vision for the township is to preserve as much open space and farmland as possible. The plan recommends nine priorities for its preservation program: farmland preservation, resource protection, the Cooks Creek watershed, water supply, recreational areas, linkages and greenways, a workable and affordable implementation program, regional cooperation, and public participation. The plan lists action steps for carrying out each of these nine priorities and identifies alternative funding sources to acquire properties. A system of ranking potential properties is included in the plan, but it does not identify specific properties for acquisition. In February of 2002, the township purchased the Kurtesan Farm (56.7-acres) located on Peppermint Road through the County's Open Space Program. The township also has an option to purchase an additional 25 acres of land on the opposite side of Peppermint Road.
Agricultural Land Preservation Program
In May 1989, the Bucks County Commissioners appointed a nine-member
board to develop and oversee a county farmland preservation program.
The Bucks County Agricultural Land Preservation Program (BCALPP)
seeks to acquire agricultural conservation easements on viable
farmland within the county.
An agricultural conservation easement secured through acquisition
is a legally binding document that is filed in the land records
with the deed of a farm property, restricting its use substantially
to agricultural and directly associated uses. As an easement in
gross, restrictions are binding upon the owners and future owners,
carrying with the land. A conservation easement allows a landowner
to protect his farmland for agricultural uses while retaining
private ownership of the farm.
The BCALPP compensates farmers for the difference between the
fair market value (development value) and the agricultural value
of their land. To be eligible for this program, the following
criteria must be satisfied for eligibility:
o Size restriction: 50 acres (minimum)
o Location: within agricultural security area
o Soil criteria: at least 50 percent Class I-IV soils
o Harvest criteria: at least 50 percent harvested cropland/pastureland
o Plan approval: approved U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Plan in effect
Once a farm is accepted into the program, the property owner may sell or convey a conservation easement and receive cash for the respective development rights. The easement is placed in perpetuity. As of December 2001, approximately 5,500 acres of agricultural land in Bucks County (consisting of 60 farms) have been preserved through the BCALPP.
Natural Areas Program
The Bucks County Natural Areas Program is intended to protect
significant natural habitat areas identified by the Natural Areas
Inventory of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. This document ranks sites
throughout the county by assigning sites one of four priority
levels.
· Priority 1 sites-areas that have statewide or countywide
significance based on uniqueness or exceptionally high quality
of natural features.
· Priority 2 sites-areas that have countywide or statewide significance based on the overall quality and the diversity and importance of the resources.
· Priority 3 sites-areas that have local or countywide significance that may contain small or degraded resources.
· Priority 4 sites-areas that have biological or ecological resources that are important at the local level.
Springfield Township contains several of these identified areas. These areas consist of land in the entire Cooks Creek watershed (identified as a priority 1 site), Cressman Hill (a priority 1 site), the Lookout (a priority 2 site), and Buckwampum Mountain (a priority 3 site). (See Figure 6: Natural Areas Inventory, Bucks County.)
The Natural Areas Program is a competitive grant program. Sites with higher priority levels are given greater consideration when competing for grant funding. This program should be a primary source of future open space funding for Springfield Township.
Agricultural Preservation Zoning
Because of the widespread distribution of active, productive farms
in the township, a primary goal of this comprehensive plan is
to promote the preservation of prime agricultural land. Agricultural
preservation zoning, also known as effective agricultural zoning,
is one approach that municipalities can use to limit the conversion
of farmland into nonagricultural uses. It focuses on permitting
landowners to subdivide a limited number of residential lots from
their property based on a minimum acreage necessary for a viable
farm unit.
One Approach to Agricultural Preservation Zoning
In 1995, Bedminster Township officials initiated the preparation
an update to township's comprehensive plan. The plan set the stage
for agricultural preservation and the need for implementation
techniques such as zoning revisions. Natural resource protection
and preservation was considered important since more development
was expected to occur in the township. Over 80 percent of the
soil in the township was determined to be farmland. Additional
action was deemed appropriate to preserve these agricultural areas,
particularly the local Agricultural Security Area properties.
The existing ordinance did not assist in this preservation effort.
Several approaches to agricultural preservation were examined from a land use regulatory standpoint. Input was provided from the local farming community, agricultural extension service, the County agricultural preservation board, and the conservation district on how certain approaches would affect the farming industry, the development rights of landowners, and the natural resources in the township. As a result of this work, the township officials, in August 1996, adopted revisions to the zoning ordinance that included a set of agricultural protection standards as a backbone for regulating development in a new Agricultural Preservation (AP) zoning district.
The AP zoning limits the subdivision and development of a tract
of land consisting of 10 acres or more. A site analysis must be
performed to identify the "nonbuildable site area, the area
composed of portions of the site protected from development in
accordance with environmental performance standards. This includes
protection of 60 percent of prime
farmland and 50 percent of farmland of both statewide importance
and local importance. After determining the protected, nonbuildable
portions of the site, the landowner subtracts the nonbuildable
site area from the "base site area" to arrive at the
net buildable site area. A landowner may subdivide and develop
the net buildable site area into lots containing a contiguous
area of at least 1 acre. The proposed lots must have a contiguous
"building envelope" of at least 10,000 square feet to
provide sufficient area and flexibility for the location of the
building, driveway, parking, and other improvements and site alteration
while meeting the natural resource protection and minimum setback
requirements.
Four possible options are available for addressing the nonbuildable area: (1) fee simple dedication the township; (2) transfer to a private conservation organization that will continue to make the land available for agricultural activities; (3) transfer to private ownership with the agreement that the land is intended for agricultural activities and/or protecting natural resources and shall not be subdivided or developed; and (4) ownership by a homeowners association, which is encouraged to make the area available for an agricultural enterprise.
Upheld in Court
Recently, the courts have shown their support for agricultural
preservation. In April 2001, the Commonwealth Court affirmed a
lower court's ruling that upheld Bedminster Township Zoning Hearing
Board's decision to deny C&M Developers validity challenge
to the AP zoning district. Subsequently, C&M Developers have
appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and a
decision is expected in the near future.
Since 1996, 11 developments have been proposed under the AP zoning requirements in Bedminster Township, which could result in the preservation of approximately 280 of agricultural land. In addition, five municipalities have considered adopting similar agricultural preservation requirements: East Rockhill, Hilltown, Warwick, and Plumstead townships. Several others have begun analyzing the technique and its potential benefits. With the recent judicial support, many more may become interested in using the approach to preserve their agricultural heritage.
Agricultural Preservation in Springfield Township
View Map of Historic,
Recreational, & Scenic Resources
While Springfield Township provides significant protection of
farmland with Prime Agricultural Soils and Farmland Soils of Statewide
Significance, the AD district may need additional provisions.
For example, in Bedminster Township the agricultural protection
standards only apply to sites containing 10 acres or more. Sites
containing less than 10 acres as of the effective date of the
ordinance do not have to comply with the agricultural protection
standard. In addition, farmland that has been set aside as required
by the protection standard must meet certain minimum standards
so that the land is suitable for farming. The ordinance also allows
the farmer to maintain the existing farmhouse and accessory buildings
as well as build a new house and accessory buildings on the protected
land as long as the lot size is 20 acres or more.
Historic, Recreational, and Scenic Resources
Historic Resources
Established in 1743, Springfield Township has an abundance of
historic resources, and their recognition is important in maintaining
the township's cultural heritage and identity. Residential and
nonresidential development proposals often pose a potential threat
to historic and archeological sites. The Springfield Township
Historic Commission and Springfield Township Historic Society
have been instrumental in the identification and prompting the
protection of historic properties. The Township Historic Commission
has identified and documented various historic sites and has compiled
the Township Historic Registry. The Historic Registry contains
a listing of properties that possess architectural integrity and
local significance and participation is entirely voluntary. The
Historic Commission and Historic Society have also identified
other significant historic properties, including sites that have
received a 250th Springfield Township Anniversary commemorative
plate due to their historic value (see Appendix 2 for a brief
description of the township's historic resource sites).
The township's historic resource sites are listed in Table 7 below. The table also identifies sites that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Heritage Conservancy Register of Historic Places.
Figure 7 identifies the location of these historic sites within the context of the township.
Table 7. Summary of Springfield Township Historic Resource
Sites
(Refer to Figure 7 for Map Number locations)
Map Number/Historic Resource Sites
1. Knight Property*
2. Gunster Residence*
3. Buckwampum Farm*
4. Opp's Tavern*
5. Passer Schoolhouse*
6. Knecht's Covered Bridge* t
7. Smith-Leith House
8. Nusbickle House
9. Pleasant Valley Schoolhouse
10. Passer Creamery
11. Ritter House
12. Boyer House
13. Church School
14. Funk's Mill
15. Kockert's Tavern
16. Slifer's Log House
17. Springfield Meeting House
18. Post Office and Henry Mill's General Store
19. Springfield High School
20. Blacksmith Shop
21. Zion Hill Lutheran Church
22. Walking Purchase Monument
23. Meyer-Moyer/Kirkland/Meyer
24. White Horse Inn/Hess/Strock
25. Times Building-Funk
26. Johannes Cyphert/George Seifert/Homer Strock
27. Springtown Hotel
28. Frankenfield Homestead
29. Pleasant Valley Three Stone Arch Bridge
30. Milestone 1793 "43 m to P"
31. Weierbach's Store
32. Pleasant Valley Inn
33. Pleasant Valley Feed Mill-Yost Mill
34. Schuckenhausen Evangelical and Reformed Church
35. Passer Hotel
Notes:
t Listed on the National Register of Historic Places
* Listed on the Heritage Conservancy Registry of Historic Places
Figure 7 also identifies four historic villages in the township-Springtown, Pleasant Valley, Passer, and Zion Hill. Other villages or hamlets that do not contain an existing village zoning district are not shown.
While a comprehensive township-wide historic survey has not yet been prepared, the Heritage Conservancy is currently seeking support from the township officials to conduct such a survey in the near future.
Methods of Preservation
Register of Historic Places
The National Historic Register is the official list of the nation's
cultural resources, providing recognition that buildings or districts
have historic, architectural, or archeological significance. A
building or district that is listed will be protected from alterations
to the extent that any Federal or federally funded, assisted,
or licensed project will be reviewed if the project might have
a negative impact on the specific resource. The National Register
does not place restrictions on the actions of private property
owners, but has the effect of alerting landowners to its historic
significance. Listing on the National Register does not in any
way limit what a private property owner may do to a property.
Buildings of historic significance that are listed on the National
Register may still be altered beyond recognition or demolished.
Designated in 1980, the Knecht's Covered Bridge in Springfield Township is the only site in the township listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Well-preserved, this covered bridge was one of two in the township; however, Haupt's Mill Covered Bridge was destroyed in a fire in January of 1983. Kockert's Tavern (built 1738) is the oldest tavern and store in the township and was declared eligible to the national register by the Pennsylvania Historic Museum Commission in 1994; however, its designation was never pursued.
The Heritage Conservancy maintains a separate historic registry for sites throughout the region. In Springfield Township, six properties have been listed on the Heritage Conservancy Registry of Historic Places (formerly the Bucks County Registry of Historic Places) as shown in Table 7. The purpose of this listing is to identify and promote public awareness of architectural and historic significance.
Historic Districts
A common used planning strategy for historic preservation is the
adoption of ordinances that establish historic districts. The
Springfield Township Historic Commission is in the process of
preparing detailed site surveys of historic properties within
the villages of Springtown and Pleasant Valley for the purpose
of obtaining a local historic district designation.
The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission must approve historic districts before local regulations can be enforced. This planning strategy is most appropriate in those municipalities that have concentrations of historic structures or sites (such as villages). A local historic district ordinance designates an area containing historic structures and protects it by (1) limiting the type of alterations that may be made to existing buildings, (2) reviewing proposed demolitions, and (3) ensuring compatible design of new construction. Act 167 of 1961, the Historic District Act, provides authorization for Pennsylvania municipalities to designate historic districts and regulate the alteration of buildings within them based on the historic context. Historic districts created under the authority of Act 167 are not zoning districts but a review process separate from zoning concerns. The preservation of historic districts has many benefits. Historic buildings give a community a unique character and heritage, providing a source of pride to residents. The character of historic neighborhoods is valued as an attractive environment and some communities have capitalized on their historic character to promote economical development and tourism.
Communities creating historic districts must follow procedures outlined in Act 167 for regulating alterations to structures within the districts. A local historical architectural review board (HARB) must be appointed and must consist of an architect, a real estate broker, a municipal inspector, and at least two citizens with an interest in or knowledge of historic preservation. The HARB reviews and advises the governing body regarding any proposed erection, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or razing of a structures in the Act 167 historic district. The governing body then makes the decision to approve or deny the proposal. In determining if a change is appropriate, the HARB and governing body may consider its visibility from the public right-of-way, and general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and its relation to the historic character of the district.
Local historic districts provide the "teeth" that are lacking in the nomination of a district to the National Register of Historic Places. A local historic district ordinance provides a means for limiting the amount of change that can occur to historic structures. The National Register program is a credible way to identify a community's historic resources while the local district designation can further protect and enhance them. Thus, what the National Register helps identify, the local district helps to protect.
Landmark Designation
Often, a municipality's historic structures are not located within
an easily defined district. A historic preservation ordinance
can contain provisions to encourage property owners of historically
significant properties to use and maintain significant historic
structures in order to protect a township's individual landmarks
throughout the township. The preservation of individual structures
or landmarks is often more difficult than establishing historic
districts, but their preservation has been used successfully by
various communities. Section 605(2) (vi) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities
Planning Code (MPC) allows municipalities to pass ordinances for
the "regulation, restriction, or prohibition of uses and
structures at, along or near places having unique historical,
architectural, or patriotic interest or value." This approach
may allow for additional uses within historic buildings in order
to encourage the continued use rather than demolition. Additional
uses are often permitted by special exception only and standards
for use would have to be met to protect surrounding areas.
The township's zoning ordinance provides additional use opportunities for historic structures. The purpose is to encourage the continued use (and reuse) of historic resources and facilities, and to regulate the use of places having unique historical value. Eligible properties are only those that are listed on the township's official list of Historic Resources; however, the township has not adopted an official list. Therefore, the provisions of this zoning provision are not applicable. The township's historic registry and other sites of historic significance that have been identified may be appropriate for inclusion on the official list.
Village Planning Studies
There are still over one hundred identifiable villages remaining
in Bucks County, however, many have been lost or overshadowed
by growth and development. Historic villages are a unique resource
and once they are lost are irreplaceable. While municipalities
cannot prevent growth, they can alleviate the effects that development
can have on villages through appropriate land use policies and
regulations (more on village planning in the Future Land Use and
Growth Management section). Additionally, residents can work together
to maintain or improve the positive aspects of their village.
As a general rule, villages are classified into three basic categories: hamlets, residential villages, and commercial villages. The village of Springtown is a sizeable commercial village. The villages of Pleasant Valley, Passer, and Zion Hill can be classified as residential villages while Amity, Bursonville, and Gallows Hill are hamlets since they contain a limited number of buildings or structures. (For a brief description of the villages and hamlets in Springfield Township, see Appendix 3.)
Lands within a village can be used for a wide variety of uses. How the land will be used or developed is partially dependent on the actions of local officials. Controlling where land uses will occur is governed by the land use policies and land use regulations. Inappropriate land use policies and regulations have resulted in various problems for communities such as the loss of valuable natural resources and the degradation or loss of many of Bucks County villages.
Currently, the villages of Springtown, Pleasant Valley, Passer, and Zion Hill are recognized as villages though the establishment of village zoning district designations, but Amity, Bursonville, and Gallows Hill lack this distinction. There may be a need to explore the appropriateness of village protection strategies and techniques not only in those villages with village zoning districts, but also those that lack the village zoning protection. The preparation of a village planning study can establish a community vision and a set of standards for public improvements and guidelines for future action.
The Springtown Village Study (2000) prepared by the BCPC, analyzes various components of village enhancement, protection, and revitalization. The study examines the current zoning regulations and district boundaries for Springtown to determine their appropriateness based upon the existing conditions. Study recommendations include: amending the zoning ordinance to revise the village zoning district's area and dimensional requirements and use summary table, redistricting the village district boundaries to be more responsive to the existing land uses and conditions, implementation of public improvements (e.g., sidewalks, parking facilities, and streetscape amenities), and examination of implementing adjacent village protection alternatives (e.g., village protection overlay district, transfer of development rights program, and placement of easements, and outright purchase of strategic land).
Each of the villages and hamlets in Springfield Township are unique, and township officials should determine if separate village planning studies or specific preservation techniques should be implemented in order to preserve and enhance the historic character of these valuable historic resources.
Recreational Resources
Springfield Township has several private recreational facilities,
but until recently, lacked a township land to provide public park
and recreational facilities. In February of 2002, the township
acquired the Kurtesan Farm which is a 45.3-acre tract located
on Peppermint Road. The property was purchased through the County's
Open Space Program and is intended for future park use. The township
also has an option to purchase an additional 25 acres of land
on the opposite side of Peppermint Road. The property is suitable
to satisfy a wide-range of active and passive recreational opportunities.
Responses from the township survey mailed out at the beginning
of the comprehensive planning process will allow township officials
to identify the specific park and recreational activities requested
by residents.
In 1991 Springfield Township developed a park and recreation plan to enable the township to acquire or develop (via fees in lieu of dedication) park and recreation facilities through the subdivision and land development process as permitted by Section 503 (11) of the municipalities planning code. The plan was also intended to provide guidelines to the Supervisors as to the size, location, design, and types of park and recreation facilities that are appropriate to the township. The plan was completed but never adopted. The plan analyzed five different park types: tot lots and miniparks, neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks, and linear park and provided an inventory of available facilities. Private park and recreational facilities are as shown in Figure 7 and in Table 8, below.
Missing among these facilities in the township are tot-lots, public community parks, linear parks, and a regional park. The linear park, while desirable, may be difficult to develop because land along township linkages is mostly in private hands. Tot-lots are generally not recommended by the park and recreation plan, unless a high-density development comes to the township. The park and recreation plan recommends that neighborhood parks be placed in or near the villages of Zion Hill, Springtown, and Pleasant Valley or future high-density areas. The plan suggests a need to further study whether a community park is appropriate for the township and where such a park should be located. Although the township has no regional facilities, the plan identifies 12 regional parks in Bucks, Lehigh, and Northampton counties that are within one hour's drive. As with community parks, the plan suggests the need to further study whether a regional park is needed within the township.
Table 8. Springfield Township Recreational Facilities
| Name | Park Type | Facilities | Acreage | Ownership |
| Springfield Elementarty School | Neighborhood | Baseball Field, Basketball Courts, Playground Equipment | 0.43 | Public |
| Passer Community Center | Neighborhood | Basketball Court, Swing | 3.75 | Private |
| Zion Church | Neighborhood | Baseball Field, Basketball Courts, Playground Equipment | 3.74 | Private |
| Locust Valley Golf Club (Springfield Township Portion) | Golf Course | 18-hole Public Course | 22.0 | Private |
| Ridge and Valley Rod and Gun Club | Community | Archery Shooting Range | 11.38 | Private |
| Springtown Rod and Gun Club | Community | Picnic Area, Shooting Range | 30.7 | Private |
| Silver Creek Athletic Association | Community | Baseball Fields , Basketball & Tennis Courts, Picnic & Playground Facilities | 31.82 | Private |
The Springfield Township Park and Recreation Plan provides a good analysis of the park and recreation needs of the township. The plan uses the population ratio method to determine the amount of acreage needed for each park type. This method assumes that acreage needed can be directly related to the local population. The types of parks, their sizes, and the standards used to determine the recommended amount of space are based on guidelines available from the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA).
While the population ratio method was an accepted way of determining park needs when this plan was written, the NRPA now prefers to determine park needs by means of user surveys and observation. One of the difficulties Springfield Township has encountered with the population ratio method is the unexpected loss of population from 1990 to 2000. The Park and Recreation Plan assumed a 2000 population of 6,400 people. Springfield's 2000 population stands at 4,973 people, significantly less than the projected figure.
Thus, to help determine park and recreation needs, the township has decided to survey its population on whether new park and recreation facilities are needed (as part of a general survey) and if so, the types of facilities residents would like to see. The survey asked residents five questions on parks and recreation in the township:
1. What type of activity does your family currently participate
in? (Among a list of responses, respondents were asked to check
all that applied).
2. What type of activity would your family like the township to
plan for or provide facilities for? (Among a list of responses,
respondents were asked to check all that applied).
3. What three activities did the adults participate in most?
4. What three activities did the children participate in most?
5. What type of park and recreation facility would you like to
see the township develop? (Among five responses, respondents were
asked to check all that applied).
The responses were as follows:
1. Hiking/walking, fishing, exercise/fitness, camping, and
bicycling (top five responses)
2. Senior citizen programs, teen activities, bicycling, playgrounds,
and community groups (top five responses)
3. Walking, hiking, biking, and fishing (top four responses)
4. Baseball, biking, soccer, and swimming (top four responses)
5. 27 percent felt a limited number of larger, well equipped parks
should be provided in central locations, 18 percent felt numerous
smaller parks with fewer facilities that are dispersed throughout
the township should be provided, 60 percent felt a walking or
biking trail which connects various points of interest in the
township should be provided, 14 percent felt the township should
look to neighboring townships for relief in this area, and 31
percent felt the township should not provide parks.
It appears from the results of the survey that hiking and walking are popular adult activities and that residents would like to see the township plan for these activities. Bicycling appears to be another popular activity, making the list of activities in the first four questions. Outdoor activities, such as camping and fishing, were also popular. The responses to the second question points to the need to provide facilities for underserved groups, including seniors, teens, a