Downingtown Borough (Friends of Kardon Park,Aplts)
161 A.3d 844
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Kardon Park in Downingtown comprises five contiguous parcels (two "Northern Parcels," two "Southern Parcels," and the donated Meisel Parcel). The Borough acquired them in the 1960s–1970s using a mix of purchase, Project 70 Act grants, and eminent-domain condemnations; the Borough maintained and opened the land as a public park for decades.
- Northern Parcels: acquired in part with Project 70 Act funds (50% grant); deeds contained Project 70 restrictive covenants; legislature later enacted releases of some Project 70 restrictions (1999 and 2012 statutes).
- Southern Parcels: acquired by the Borough through condemnation in the 1970s and dedicated as part of Kardon Park.
- Borough contracted to sell most park parcels to private developers and granted various construction, stormwater, utility, and maintenance easements; Objectors (Friends of Kardon Park, nearby businesses/landowners) challenged the planned sales and easements under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act (DDPA).
- Lower courts: Orphans’ Court denied Borough relief under the DDPA (pre-remand). Commonwealth Court vacated/ remanded on several questions (considering Project 70 Act and Eminent Domain Code issues) and affirmed some orphans’ court rulings; Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Borough/Developers) | Defendant's Argument (Objectors/Friends) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether legislative release of Project 70 restrictions removes DDPA oversight over sale of lands acquired with Project 70 funds (Northern Parcels) | Release by General Assembly authorized disposition and thus preempts DDPA; Project 70 is the specific governing statute. | DDPA still applies because dedication to public use (and public acceptance) creates a public-trust interest independent of Project 70 deed covenants; release of Project 70 restrictions does not terminate DDPA protections. | Held: DDPA still applies. A municipality must obtain both the General Assembly’s release (for Project 70 constraints) and orphans’ court approval under the DDPA before conveying dedicated parkland. Reverse Commonwealth Court on Northern Parcels. |
| Whether Section 310(a) of the current Eminent Domain Code allows Borough to dispose of condemned parkland without DDPA approval (Southern Parcels) | Borough/Developers invoked §310(a) (disposition after abandonment of condemnation purpose) to permit sale without orphans’ court approval. | Objectors argued DDPA governs disposition of dedicated parkland and constrains municipal disposal even when land was condemned. | Held: §310(a) (2006 Eminent Domain Code) does not apply because the condemnations occurred in the 1970s (prior to Act 34’s prospective application). Court vacated Commonwealth Court’s rulings based on §310(a) and remanded for further proceedings to address DDPA application in light of that error. |
| Whether the Eminent Domain Code (generally) supersedes the DDPA for condemned property, making municipal decision controlling | Borough claimed Eminent Domain Code provides exclusive procedure and control over condemned property disposition. | Objectors maintained DDPA remains applicable to dedicated/condemned property; Erie Golf Course supports court oversight. | Held: Court rejected treating §310(a) as controlling here (see prospectivity point) and remanded; left open question for Commonwealth Court to address in first instance given §310(a) inapplicability. |
| Whether granting permanent/ongoing construction, stormwater, utility, and maintenance easements over dedicated parkland requires orphans’ court (DDPA) approval | Borough/Developers argued easements do not change park’s intended public use and thus do not implicate DDPA. | Objectors argued easements transfer rights to private parties, alter use/experience of parkland, and are alienations requiring DDPA approval. | Held: Granting these private easements constitutes an alienation/diversion of portions of the dedicated parcels and requires orphans’ court approval under the DDPA. Reverse Commonwealth Court on easements. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Erie Golf Course, 992 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2010) (DDPA incorporates key public-trust principles; purchased property dedicated to public use may fall under DDPA).
- Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, 886 A.2d 667 (Pa. 2005) (definition and nature of easement as interest in another’s land).
- Payne v. Kassab, 361 A.2d 263 (Pa. 1976) (government may not convey public trust land to private use).
- Board of Trustees of Philadelphia Museums v. Trustees of Univ. of Pa., 96 A. 123 (Pa. 1915) (foundation of public trust doctrine protecting dedicated public property).