In re Borough of Downingtown
116 A.3d 727
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Borough of Downingtown entered agreements to sell/develop portions of Kardon Park; parcels at issue include two Southern Parcels (acquired by condemnation), two Northern Parcels (acquired with Project 70 funds), and the Meisel parcel (contains lakes).
- Objectors (neighbors and park advocates) challenged proposed conveyances and easements, invoking the Donated or Dedicated Property Act (DDPA) and the public trust doctrine; Borough sought Orphans’ Court approval to convey or declaratory relief that approval was not required.
- The General Assembly previously released Project 70 deed restrictions for the Northern Parcels (1999 and 2012 releases), with the 2012 release authorizing sale of one parcel subject to conditions.
- Trial court denied sale of the Southern Parcels under the DDPA, allowed conveyance of the Northern Parcels based on Project 70 releases, and held easements (Meisel and portion of UPI No. 40-1-23.1) did not require Orphans’ Court approval.
- This Court affirmed that DDPA governs the Southern Parcels (condemned land still used as parkland), held Project 70 releases permit disposition of the Northern Parcels (DDPA does not block sale), reversed trial court on standing (Objectors have standing to challenge Northern Parcels conveyance), and affirmed that the easements do not implicate the DDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DDPA or Eminent Domain Code §310(a) controls disposition of Southern Parcels (condemned land) | Borough: §310(a) governs condemned property disposition; Orphans’ Court approval not required | Objectors: DDPA applies because parcels were dedicated/used as parkland and dedication persists | Held: DDPA applies; §310(a) only governs abandoned condemnations and here parkland use continues, so Orphans’ Court approval required |
| Whether Project 70 Act releases prevent DDPA from applying to Northern Parcels | Objectors: DDPA/public trust still restrict conveyance despite releases | Borough: General Assembly releases removed Project 70 restrictions and permit conveyance | Held: Releases by General Assembly void Project 70 dedication as to those parcels; DDPA does not bar conveyance of Northern Parcels |
| Whether Borough needed Orphans’ Court approval to grant easements (Meisel & portion of UPI No. 40-1-23.1) that aid adjacent private development | Objectors: Easements alter park use/alienate parkland and require Orphans’ Court approval under DDPA | Borough/Developers: Easements are temporary/underground/serve park purposes and do not change public park use | Held: Easements do not substantially interfere with park use; DDPA not implicated and Orphans’ Court approval not required |
| Whether Objectors have standing to challenge conveyance of Northern Parcels post-Project 70 release | Borough: Only Commonwealth may enforce Project 70 restrictions; Objectors lack standing | Objectors: As residents/taxpayers and under private-attorney-general principles, they may challenge inconsistent disposition | Held: Objectors have standing to contest conveyance of Northern Parcels (trial court erred in denying standing) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Erie Golf Course, 992 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2010) (DDPA applies to fully realized dedications; §6 ambiguous and not an absolute exclusion for purchased property)
- White v. Township of Upper St. Clair, 799 A.2d 188 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (residents have standing to enforce dedication; municipal duty to uphold dedication is absolute)
- Pilchesky v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Scranton, 941 A.2d 762 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (resident/taxpayer standing to challenge disposition of property dedicated to public use)
- Borough of Downingtown v. Friends of Kardon Park, 55 A.3d 163 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (prior en banc opinion addressing interaction of Project 70 releases and public trust/DDPA)
- Reading Area Water Authority v. Schuylkill River Greenway Ass'n, 100 A.3d 572 (Pa. 2014) (condemnation/easement cannot be used to provide exclusive private benefit; limits on using public powers to enable private development)
- In re Estate of Ryerss, 987 A.2d 1231 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (public trust doctrine summary in the context of dedicated public land use)