FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—Upper Pottsgrove Township Seeks Post-Trial Relief Following Erroneous Court Decision on Gilbertsville Road Project.
11/21/2025 — The Township has filed a request for post-trial relief following a recent court decision regarding the planned improvements to the Gilbertsville Road property. The Township asserts that the ruling is based on unsupported factual findings and incorrect conclusions of law, and is asking the Court to amend its decision and deny the Plaintiffs’ request for relief.
Key Grounds for Post-Trial Relief
- Misinterpretation of the Open Space Act:
The Decision incorrectly concludes that the Township’s planned improvements violate the Act. In fact, the Act expressly permits development and use of open space properties for purposes consistent with the public benefits derived from Township ownership. - Ignoring Permitted Uses of Open Space Funds:
The Act clearly allows open space tax funds to be used for amenities and for developing and improving acquired properties. The Decision fails to account for these provisions. - Dismissal of Uncontested Township Testimony:
The Decision disregards uncontroverted testimony confirming that the Township has always intended to use the Gilbertsville Road property for public purposes — specifically, to house essential Township buildings — consistent with the open space purpose for which it was acquired. - Overlooking Evidence That the Property Remains Predominantly Undeveloped:
The Township provided testimony that the planned development would leave the majority of the property in an undeveloped state. The Decision omits this fact. - Failure to Consider Testimony Regarding Fund Adjustments:
Testimony showed that the concept of adjusting fund entries originated from counsel for the plaintiffs in the Smola Case and from a judge. This testimony was improperly disregarded. - Misapplication of the Smola Case:
The Decision fails to recognize the critical distinctions between the Smola Case — in which the property was intended to remain permanently preserved — and the current case, where the Township’s intent to develop a portion of the Gilbertsville Road property for public buildings was clear and unchallenged. - Incorrect Conclusion Regarding Laches:
The Decision mistakenly finds that the Plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by laches. - Failure to Recognize Plaintiffs’ Lack of Due Diligence:
Evidence of the Plaintiffs’ lack of timely action was ignored. - Mischaracterization of Harm to the Township:
The Decision incorrectly states that harm from delay “could not be tested” and faults the Township for not introducing contracts into evidence. In reality, the Township presented extensive uncontradicted evidence of significant financial harm — including more than $346,446.61 in taxpayer funds spent prior to June 17, 2025, well before the Township was notified of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs had full opportunity to question Township witnesses and did not do so, nor did they present any contrary evidence.
The Township remains committed to transparency, responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources, and the continued pursuit of facilities necessary to serve the community. The Township believes the Court’s Decision was made in error and is requesting post-trial relief that will clarify the record and correct the misunderstandings reflected in the ruling.