This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania

Tag: Condemnation

Court Approval Required for Borough to Sell Public Park for Mixed Use Development

In this opinion by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Court was asked to determine whether three statutory provisions — the “Donated or Dedicated Property Act” (“DDPA”), the “Project 70 Land Acquisition and Borrowing Act” (“Project 70 Act”), and the Eminent Domain Code — permitted Downingtown Borough (the “Borough”) to sell Borough owned and maintained parkland to private Developers, and to grant Developers easements over portions retained by the Borough. In reversing and remanding the Commonwealth Court’s decision, the Court held the Eminent Domain Code was inapplicable to the Borough’s right to sell properties acquired by condemnation, and court approval was required to sell properties acquired with Project 70 Act funds and to grant easements across park land pursuant to DDPA.

Continue reading

Burden of Accurately Identifying Ownership Interests of Property Being Condemned Falls on Condemnor

The misidentification of property being condemned by PennDOT for road construction meant that condemnees could challenge the adequacy of PennDOT’s Declaration of Taking after the expiration of the 30-day time limit for filing preliminary objections imposed by the Eminent Domain Code.  In concluding that PennDOT had not provided adequate notice to the property owners, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the burden of accurately identifying the property rested with the condemnor and not the condemnee.

Continue reading

Commonwealth Court Holds That Real Property Owner Had Plenty of Notice (and Chances) to Fix Blighted Conditions

This case involved a dispute regarding the condemnation of land in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.  The Commonwealth Court was required to determine whether or not the owner of real property located in Holland was given adequate notice that its land would be condemned.  In affirming the trial court’s determination, the Commonwealth Court held that the owner had been given adequate notice.

Continue reading