At the June 4, 2025 Board of Commissioners meeting, the Board took specific action on the historic districts. The minutes show:

• the Board voted unanimously to move forward with dissolving Rosegarden;

• the Board voted to amend Trout Run to exclude parts of Ashcombe Farm, with one exception;

• the Board voted to amend Shepherdstown by excluding certain properties; and

• Yellow Breeches remained unchanged and required no Board action at that meeting.
  
  

That same discussion also shows a policy tension. The minutes reflect concern about homeowners not always realizing they purchased property in a historic district, discussion about whether realtors should disclose district status, and statements that historic-district rules apply to features visible from a public right-of-way.

A factual reading of the minutes shows a tension in priorities, not necessarily a direct contradiction.

One priority is preservation. In the January 8, 2025 Bishop Bridge discussion, Commissioner Fairchild argued that the Township’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Bishop Bridge as a historic asset, and he noted that a professional preservation assessment found it eligible for the National Register. Commissioner Walsh seconded Fairchild’s motion related to Upper Allen potentially taking ownership under preservation-related conditions. 

Another priority is cost, liability, and future infrastructure practicality. In the September 17, 2025 minutes, Commissioner Cochran stated that if the Township ever needed a bridge at that location in the future, he did not believe a one-lane, height-restricted, weight-restricted bridge would adequately serve Township needs, and he said such a structure would likely need to be replaced by a modern two-lane bridge. 

The Township’s development-projects page also shows that subdivision and land-development activity continues to move through municipal review, which underscores that Upper Allen is managing both preservation questions and ongoing development matters at the same time. The page states it contains information on proposed and active residential and non-residential development projects and was last updated on March 4, 2026. 

The Township’s development-projects page also shows that subdivision and land-development activity continues to move through municipal review, which underscores that Upper Allen is managing both preservation questions and ongoing development matters at the same time. The page states it contains information on proposed and active residential and non-residential development projects and was last updated on March 4, 2026.

The clearest direct statement appears in the December 17, 2025 Board of Commissioners minutes. In that meeting, Commissioner Fairchild stated that removing the existing bridge would facilitate larger-scale development and could lead to a larger replacement bridge at additional taxpayer expense. 

The public record suggests that concern rests on three factual ideas:

First, Fairchild tied Bishop Bridge to the Township’s preservation goals by stating on January 8, 2025 that the Comprehensive Plan names it as a historic asset and that a preservation assessment found it eligible for the National Register. 

Second, Walsh’s position appears aligned with the preservation side of Township policy. He seconded Fairchild’s January 8 motion regarding conditional Township ownership of Bishop Bridge, and in the June 4 historic-district discussion he participated in questions and motions aimed at preserving or carefully redefining district protections rather than removing all of them broadly. 

Third, the counter-position in the minutes shows why this became a future-growth debate at all: other officials argued that if a crossing is ever needed there later, a more modern and larger bridge might be necessary. That means both sides were talking about the Township’s future, but from different angles. Fairchild and Walsh appear concerned that demolition removes a historic constraint and makes a larger future crossing more likely; others appear concerned that preserving the current bridge could still leave the Township with an inadequate long-term transportation solution.

The meeting minutes show that the larger issue is not just Bishop Bridge. It is a broader question of what kind of future Upper Allen Township wants: one that emphasizes historic preservation and caution about long-term development pressure, or one that emphasizes cost, liability, legal process, and future infrastructure flexibility. The HARB and Board minutes show those themes appearing in both the historic-district discussion and the Bishop Bridge debate. 

Upper Allen Township’s official planning framework shows that development is guided by the Township Zoning Map, Future Land Use Map, and individual land-development approvals. Current Township records do not identify Bishop Bridge as a required development corridor, and development activity has continued while the bridge has remained closed since 2021.