|
A township’s condemnation of land for “recreational and open space purposes” was allowed because the evidence supported the conclusion that it was taken for recreational purposes and the township did not rely on the Open Space Lands Act to condemn the land.
Middletown Twp. v Lands of Stone,
882 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), app. granted.
Supervisors adopted a resolution authorizing the township to acquire “private land for recreational and open space purposes, pursuant to the Second Class Township Code.” Landowner appealed, arguing that the township condemned the property under the “guise of a recreational purpose” when in fact the township really wanted to prevent the land from being developed because the landowner intended to subdivide and develop the property.
Noting that the Township’s long-range plan had identified the property for acquisition for its potential recreational value, including the expansion of a nearby park, the trial court dismissed the landowner’s appeal.
On appeal, over the dissent of President Judge Colins, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision. First, the Court noted that the Second Class Township Code authorizes condemnation for recreational purposes. Second, it decided not to disturb the trial court’s conclusion that “the evidence established the Township acquired the Property for recreational purposes.” Third, even though the Township’s resolution stated that the land was being acquired for recreation and open space purposes, the resolution relied exclusively on powers vested by the Second Class Township Code, not the Open Space Lands Act.
Dissenting Judge Colins sided with the landowner’s argument that only the Open Space Lands Act provides for condemnation of land for open space purposes, and only counties or county authorities can invoke the provisions of the Act. Because the Township’s resolution specifically stated that the property was being taken partially for open space purposes, the dissent found the taking to be “partially illegal” and one that should not “be bootstrapped into a lawful taking.”
DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top |
