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

Tag: taking

Sporadic Flooding of Property by Sewage Treatment Plant a De Facto Taking of Property

In this condemnation case out of Luzerne County, the Commonwealth Court determined that the sporadic flooding of a property adjacent to a sewer treatment plant constituted a de facto taking under the Eminent Domain Code.  The Court reasoned that the Mountaintop Area Joint Sanitary Authority (the “Authority”) made specific decisions that resulted in the flooding of the interior and exterior of Colleen DeLuca’s property, and the Authority was aware of the adverse consequences of those decisions.

Continue reading

Court Holds Validity Challenge of Stormwater Ordinance Not Within Jurisdiction of ZHB

In the first of two cases relating to the subject property, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County affirming the London Grove Township Zoning Hearing Board’s (“ZHB”) denial of a variance to Delchester Developers (“Delchester”) to develop two adjoining properties.  The Court concluded that the ZHB had properly interpreted its zoning ordinance, that Delchester’s validity challenge of the Borough’s stormwater ordinance was not within the ZHB’s jurisdiction, and the Township’s “net out” provision was neither a violation of due process nor an illegal taking.

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

One Year SOL in Urban Redevelopment Law Not Repealed by Act 34

In this appeal out of Fayette County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine which of two conflicting statutes of limitations (“SOL”) applied to petitions for the appointment of a board of viewers following a municipal authority’s declaration of taking and payment of just compensation.  In finding that the 1 year SOL within the Urban Redevelopment Law (“URL”) was applicable, the court found that this statute had not been expressly or impliedly repealed by Act 34 which had repealed and replaced the Eminent Domain Code.

Continue reading