|
Michael Zowniriw Supervisor, Richland Township, Bucks County
RE: Bucks County No. 03-05069-20-5 Steeley et al vs. Richland Township, Land Use Appeal CCP
June 2, 2004
Honorable Sir:
I am submitting this opinion Amicus Curie. My name is Michael Zowniriw, newly elected Richland Township Supervisor. I have done my best as a lay person to review the elements of this case. I hope you will allow me some latitude because, of course, I am not a legal professional. I have researched the transcripts of the March 24, 2004 Public Hearing, held in relation to this matter at Richland Township’s Municipal Building. I have also researched our Zoning Ordinances, our Comprehensive Plan, and the PA Municipal Planning Code. I was the lone Supervisor in attendance at the above-mentioned hearing. This land-use issue is important to Richland Township citizens. Below are my observations and my conclusion.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Zowniriw
My observations: Transcript page 19, lines 15–19: “All open space areas, areas E, C, F, and G shall be deed restricted portions of the building lots…” Zoning Ordinance # 256: “Open space shall not include land occupied by nonrecreational buildings or structures, roads or road rights-of-way, parking areas for nonrecreational uses, land reserved for future parking areas for nonrecreational uses, stormwater detention or retention basins, or yards or lots of dwelling units”. All site calculations are therefore inaccurate. This should be resolved before any use decisions can be made on these areas. Transcript page 21, lines 8-14: “It is my opinion that fairly clearly stated that open space ‘A’ can be developed because it specifically states that other areas cannot be except for open space area ‘A’, so my belief is open space area ‘A’ or area ‘A’ could be developed.” Illogical. Because other areas cannot be developed does not mean Open Space Area A can be developed. Transcript page 41, lines 12-20: “An in Richland Township there is a zoning provision that prohibits further subdivision of open space, isn’t there?” “ With certain conditions, that’s correct.” “And a lease under the zoning ordinance is a subdivision of property in Richland Township, isn’t it?” “Yes, that’s correct.” Zoning Ordinance page, section 531a: “A statement that the open space land shall not be separately sold or further subdivided, except for transfer to the municipality or a conservation organization approved by the municipality. And, a statement that the open space land shall not be further developed, except for recreational facilities.” Transcript page 41, lines 21-42” “If this project, that being the project that the Y had been proposed at the same time as Spring Meadows, it couldn’t be built because of the site development characteristics on the plan already from the residential; isn’t that correct?” “Objection.” “I don’t quite understand your question.” “s opposed to open space on the other side of the road, you were asked about the site density calculations by Mr. VanLuvanee and by Mr. Macanich, had this proposal of the Y been proposed at the same time as the Spring Meadows subdivision, it would have been prohibited because of this site density problems that it would have created; is that correct?” I don’t understand why Mr. VanLuvanee doesn’t know what the ‘density problems’ means. Clearly with his years of experience, he must understand only so much impervious surface is allowable on a given area, and once that capacity has been met, to build on it further flies in the face of the contract with the community that open space really is. Building on public open space must be done carefully and only with the approval of the citizens of the municipality who actually own that open space. In this case, apparently we Supervisors of Richland Township did not make clear to the community that a Y fit our definition of open space. Now that they recognize this fact, they feel manipulated. I believe that if site density calculations at the time of construction of Spring Meadows were almost maximized, then to allow a commercial structure such as the Y, to be built on that location is breaking a confidence with our citizens. Transcript page 61, lines 16-17: “108,000 square feet.” “What’s the square footage of the day care portion? About 24,00 square feet.” 108,000 square feet of building on open space whether defined as municipal purpose or not will be a shock to the citizens of Richland Township. I was studying witness Mr. McGuffin’s resume and found all listings under “municipal facilities” were clearly that of local government except for the first one, Paxton Hollow Country Club, Marple Township. How could a golf course possibly fir a General Municipal Purpose? I called Paxton Hollow and got the following information from past Marple Township Commissioner, Bob Jordan, who planned the purchase of the course. Please note the differences below.
Fee structure and usage comparison of a municipal golf course and the YMCA:
Golf Course YMCA Ownership by municipality Ownership by YMCA Fee structure set by municipality Fee structure set by YMCA Facility scheduling by municipality Facil. scheduled at convenience/ discretion of YMCA Fees set by municipality Fees set by YMCA Deep discount to residents Sliding scale set by YMCA Profits (if any) to General Fund Profits (if any) to YMCA Decision to own – citizen referendum Decision to own – the in question Gen. Munic. Purp.
I am also greatly concerned that the fee to the Y is an unreasonably low figure. It is absolutely a give-away. There also seems to be an attempt at a barter here, for the Y to provide recreational use for the Township, but we are bartering our citizens’ open space, without them having a clear understanding of the situation. Transcript page 70, lines 1-4: “And the road to provide access to the YMCA’s parking lot and the Y is proposed to be built on the remaining part of the open space, not on your 15 acres?” Again, Zoning Codes page 20, section 256: “Open space shall not include land occupied by non-recreational buildings or structures, roads or road right-of-way, parking areas for non-recreational uses, land reserved for future parking areas for non-recreational uses, stormwater detention or retention basins, or the yards or lots of dwelling units.” Transcript page 83, lines 14-16: “Page 32, the table of uses. And the C-9 community center, is that marked as a ‘P’ for permitted in the SRL zoning district?” An assumption is made that the proposed Y is in a SRL (Single Residential Low) Zoning district and therefore is a permitted use. The proposed Y is in a Public Open Space Zoning District, therefore the permitted use is in question. Transcript page 84, lines 10-12: “Yes, in residential districts, the use shall be conducted in a building designed to look like a single family detached residence.” The day care center is proposed to be on a minimum 12,000 square foot (1/4 acre) to 24,000 square foot (about ˝ acre). From the low to high square footage, it is unreasonable to believe it will resemble a house, based on sheer scale. It could only look like a house on paper. As an example, my wife and I went to visit a friend in Washington, DC. We stopped at a Wendy’s restaurant for lunch on the way, and when I looked across the street I saw a huge building obviously designed to look like a house. It clearly reminded me of the drawing of the Y’s daycare center proposed at this hearing. It was a police building of a town called Northeast, Md. It was clearly designed to “look like a house”. On paper, I’m sure it did, but in reality, its sheer scale precluded the thought of it being anything other than a commercial structure. Scale Matters. If the intent of “looking like a house” is for aesthetic purposes (so as not to be a “big box”, for example) then it looks like a house. Transcript page 102, lines 4-9: “If the Y were to construct that road in relation to this application, is there any reason that you know of as township manager the use of that road by a residential development would be prohibited?” “No I do not.” Again, page 20, section 256 of our Zoning Ordinance states, “Open space shall not include land occupied by non-recreational buildings or structures, roads or road right-of-way…” I believe the planning here is dangerously close to intending to use this road through open space as a common throughway. Transcript page 106, lines 2-6: “Yes, in fact, it is becoming actually popular I believe in a number of municipalities, they are building community centers, recreational facilities that are very similar to what the Y plans to build here in Richland.” Our own township manager here attests that other municipalities have built these types of facilities similar to the Y successfully without opposition from the community. Transcript page 107 – examples of other municipalities which have paid to build facilities and charged a reasonable fee. The difference is, all have retained ownership, and any profits have gone to the General Fund, as in Quakertown, East Rockhill, Upper Saucon, not to the entity. Public comment produced testimony from seven citizens of Richland Township.
1. Mr. David Rhoads feels when this land was dedicated there was “never mention of any municipal use.” He points out many flaws in our Comprehensive Plan which were identified by the Bucks County Planning Commission. To build a Y on it is “not only inappropriate and a violation of the special trust and confidence of the citizenry of this township, but is also unconscionable”. 2. Mrs. Lois Stevens expresses “If the Y were not to build in this particular place at this particular time, we would still have a Y facilities in the area. And that 38 acres could be and to my point of view should be into a field and playground and whatever the township demands as far as park and recreation”. I suspect her criteria is it would be more appropriate if the Y added another building elsewhere as necessary and left these 38 acres alone. 3. Mrs. Patricia Keller, former supervisor, supports allowing the Y to build there as a Gen. Munic. Purp. It was also recommended by the Township Park and Rec Bd. She then read a letter from the park and Rec chairman at the time, strongly supporting the benefit that the Y would bring to the community. I agree the Y would bring much benefit and I would like to see it here in Richland, but I am not convinced it fits the definition of a general Municipal Purpose. 4. I interpret Paul Maderson’s primarily expressed concern to be the original site calculations, which would not have allowed a Y and the proposal was not concrete enough to make a decision. Also, “Number one, the tendency of this Township to consider one issue at a time, as if the other issues are not in any way related and occur in another place in space and time. And number two, this issue of impervious surface is of critical importance, particularly in this central area of the entirety of Richland Township, because it is actually within the floodplain of Beaver Creek was clearly indicated on the very first fare that we saw here. Therefore, without accurate figures having been presented here this evening as to exactly what is involved, I don’t know how anyone can reach a judgment with respect to the judge’s charge pertaining to the second question.” 5. Mrs. Susan Cooke suggests a Y is not a “normal, usual, and customary” General Municipal Purpose. She goes on to express “ The decision that was made for this agreement resulted in local citizens, the Steeley and Mr. Hill standing up and saying no and filing the lawsuit before the Court today and resulting in this hearing tonight. The Township should be obligated to reimburse these fine people for all of their legal fees and costs. Better advice, sound judgment and true representation of the citizenry were needed to avert this conflict.” She believes a referendum on the ballot would have been appropriate, as do I. 6. Mr. Victor Stevens was a member of the Preservation Board when this open space came available. “From the builders and the Township had worked that out and as a preservation board, we were kind of glad that we got that, because that was open space and we really thought this would be, because they were trying to purchase open space, we got a referendum passed to purchase more open space and then we found out that it was titled municipal use and the next thing we found out is that the Y was possibly going to build there. The preservation board passed a motion to recommend to the supervisors not to do this. And the idea was that if we are asking the people of the community to give their money to purchase open space and we already have open space as a gift for allowing the builder to put all those homes on the other side of the road, that we didn’t think it was right to do that to the people, especially since in order to go to the Y, you either have to pay or you have to show your financial position to a couple of people, which is embarrassing. I would not want to do that. I would not go before the Y and give them my financial statement and beg them to allow me to come for any release of payment.” 7. Mrs. Amy Zowniriw expresses concern that huge buildings such as these do not fit her definition of open space. “ General Municipal Open Space, I don’t see how a building fits that picture. A ball field, a golf course, or a field of wildflowers that children can just hike through, untouched, left in its natural state. I read newspaper articles over the past couple of years about this plan and I was under the impression that there was a trade-off. The developer got to have extra houses all on one side of the street, and the Township would get this beautiful field. And I don’t see how anybody could construe that a building and roads and parking lots in open space. Ask anybody in nursery school, they will tell you it is ridiculous. If the Township doesn’t have money for a rec center, hold off, do it another time. Save up some money, have a referendum. But you can’t trade open space to put a building on it. It just. It just boggles the mind. And as far as this building being a single-family house, maybe for the Prince of Wales, but not for anyone around here.”
All opposed expressed concern that a YMCA never fit into their impression of what a General Municipal Purpose was. They expressed a playground, park, ballfield or Township structure as an appropriate General Municipal Purpose. Never a 100,000 square foot building.
Question #1: “The contention that the proposed YMCA constitutes a ‘Municipal Use’ pursuant to the Richland Township Zoning Codes and applicable Township Planning Objectives”. By dictionary definition, municipal means, “of or pertaining to the local government of a town or city.” The Y is a multi-use facility. Some internal uses, such as recreation itself, certainly fit Township planning objectives. But the building itself falls outside of applicable Township Planning Objectives in that traffic in that area is horrendous, and within that immediate area, the addition of a Y boggles the mind. Zoning Objective #1: To recognize that a certain amt of growth is inevitable and imminent. It is the intent of the Comp. Plan and the zoning ordinances to provide areas sufficient to accommodate the anticipated need for a variety of housing types and densities and for nonresidential uses for the 1990 to 2000 period. The size and location of this project does not “provide areas sufficient enough to accommodate the anticipated need for a variety of housing types and densities…” Zoning Objective #3: To limit development in reserve Areas to low intensity, rural uses where supportive services and facilities cannot or should not be provided at this time. Hundreds of acres of RA zoning (one unit per 2 acres) has just been changed to allow up to 11 units per acre. As Paul Maderson suggests, if we look at the big picture, this project does the opposite of objective #3. Zoning Objective #4. To recognize that, other than areas used or intended for higher density housing and intensive nonresidential uses, the Q-Town Area is essentially rural or semi-rural in character. Planning efforts shall protect this character while providing for anticipated new development in appropriate locations. A structure this size in no way adds to the rural character of our Township. Again, along with on-going and proposed development, this area will never again have even a semi-rural character. It will have a semi-commercial character when over 1150 proposed condos of 24-48 units each are built across the street. Zoning Objective #6: To base any further expansion of higher density residential or nonresidential areas on demonstrated need for expansion and on specific and committed improvements in infrastructure. The expansion in this area is creating a need for improvements in infrastructure, otherwise this great need would be non-existent. The cure is worse than the illness. Zoning Objective #7: To recognize that responsibility for improvements to the Quakertown Area’s road system is shared by municipalities, the Commonwealth and developers. Other municipalities’ supervisors have shared concern with me that we will and are affecting their plans for growth. Zoning Objective #8: To develop programs and procedures that will coordinate the provision for all infrastructure. The lopsidedness of planned and proposed development in this area is obvious. A large quasi-commercial structure in this area would exacerbate the unevenness of development in Richland Township. Of 10 planning objectives, I find clearly this proposal does not fit all or parts of at least six. Therefore, I do not believe the YMCA proposal fits well enough into Richland Township planning objectives pursuant to Richland Township Zoning Codes. I conclude that the use of the Y is not a General Municipal Purpose. It is a convenience, and therefore should be located elsewhere.
Question #2: Whether the combination of the Spring Meadows Estates PDRE and the proposed YMCA project confirm to applicable law, Richland Township Zoning codes, and applicable Township planning objectives with reference to unit density and impervious calculation. At the time of the proposal of Spring Meadows Estates PRD, the Y could not conform to site development calculations. Since then, our zoning codes have been changed, with the intention of accommodating the Y project. As stated above in my answer to question one, I do not believe Township Planning Objectives are met, especially based on the intent of the framers of the Comprehensive Plan, as they themselves are plaintiffs who oppose the project. Because answering this question would require specific site calculations based on actual dimensions, this question cannot be answered. The daycare center example is proposed to be from 12K to 24K square feet, a fluctuation of up to 12K feet.
Question #3: Whether the proposed Day Care Facility, associated with the proposed YMCA, is or is not an “accessory use” and thereby must, by code, be designed to appear as a single family residence, or whether it has been granted or is required to obtain a “special exception”. When I saw the sketch drawing of the proposed daycare center, it alluded to the appearance of a house. Shortly after this hearing, I had occasion to stop at a Wendy’s restaurant in a town called Northeast, Maryland. I looked across the street at a nearly completed Northeast police building. It resembled the Y’s drawing. Confronted by its sheer mass and size (and only about 1˝ stories high like the Y’s sketch; having 25 years construction experience to back up my contention that the police building does not even cover the square footage of the proposed daycare center), I would not have for one second, thought it actually looked “like a house”, were it not for the fact that I had already seen the Y’s drawing of the daycare center made to “look like a house”. Therefore, even though it may “look like a house” on paper, it would never resemble a house in reality. I have first hand experience with the Y. My oldest daughter was in a Super-tot swimming class from 3 months to 2 years, in Philadelphia. She also attended nursery school there, for two years. No one can say I am against the Y because I’ve been delighted with its service. This is a legal matter though, and as such, I must say that I cannot support the construction of a Y on Richland Township Open Space, as a municipal use. On the contrary, I believe our rules are written to prevent just such an occurrence.
Thank you.
|