Morning Call – August 3, 2005

Jane Steeley and Upper Bucks YMCA

Dear friends,

Good morning. Several weeks ago, I wondered whether the litigation stalemate between Richland Township and four of its residents could be resolved? As you know, Jane and Philip Steeley, plus Dorothy Steeley and Kenneth Hill brought a suit against Richland because the township had entered into a deal with the Upper Bucks YMCA about land which was designated as open space. Richland had agreed to lease 15 of its 38 acre parcel to the Y for $1 per year for 99 years.

The four plaintiffs lost in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas but won an appeal in Commonwealth Court. Commonwealth Court ruled that the township had violated parts of its zoning ordinance, because its open space provisions prohibit building access roads, parking lots and structures. Richland has asked the Commonwealth Court for a clarification…the case drags on.

In the meantime, the Y’s plans…five years in the making and $5 million in fund raising…have been put on hold. The total cost is estimated to exceed $13 million. I talked with Jane Steeley about the case. “The Y and Richland prefer the Station Road site because it is adjacent to Quakertown Borough and in the heart of Richland,” I began. “Would you drop your suit if the Y purchased 15 acres of land, somewhere else in the township, and donated it to Richland for open space instead?”

“No,” she emphatically replied.

Here’s why. The developer of Spring Meadow Estates [on Station Road] wanted to build more homes than the zoning ordinance permitted, Steeley replied. To obtain Richland’s blessing, the developers gave 38 acres to the township for open space. “The kids in the Spring Meadow Estates deserve the open space which their parents were promised,” Steeley observed.

“Why should people in Spring Meadow Estates suffer because they won’t have open space? No I won’t be satisfied [by a land swap],” Steeley added. “That open space might be ideal for the Y, but it’s not for the neighbors.

“I spent 10 years on the Richland Township Planning Commission,” she said, “And nearly 10 years on the Quakertown Area Planning Committee. Changing Richland’s open space ordinances wouldn’t be fair to the entire township. That [disputed] acreage is the first time that Richland Township had open space in the area.”

“In the meantime, the YMCA Board is looking into other options to move the building project forward,” Doug Hutchinson, Rob Werner, and Pat Edwards penned in a June 15 letter to Y donors and members. Edwards, the Y’s Executive Director, asked if anyone knows of land available south of Quakertown to contact her.

The Commonwealth Court did not render a decision on whether Richland’s lease with the Y was legal. That may be why the township and the Y have asked the court for a clarification. It gives Richland time to amend its ordinance to permit organizations like the Y to build on areas previously designated as open space.

And that’s precisely what Richland is doing. In a 2 to 1 decision, with Supervisor Mike Zowniriw voting no, the supervisors plan to amend its zoning. If Richland’s zoning is eventually altered, look for more litigation. Why? Because Zowniriw supports the Steeley position, you can bet that he will challenge his fellow supervisors...either by continuing to oppose zoning changes or suing in court, or both.

“The purpose of open space is open space, period,” Steeley concluded. This battle is far from done. Stay tuned.

Sincerely,

Charles Meredith