In Re: Condemnation of Fee Simple Or Absolute Title Lands Owned By C.B. Motta
2459 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- Carl B. Motta owned a 0.44‑acre lot at the southwest corner of Furnace St. and 1st St. in Birdsboro containing a vacant historic railroad freight station (the Station). The Borough adopted a redevelopment plan (Armorcast Redevelopment Area) that included improving that intersection.
- The Redevelopment Authority of Berks County (Authority), acting as the Borough’s agent, prepared a Proposal identifying Motta’s parcel for acquisition and filed a Declaration of Taking for intersection/roadway improvements as part of the redevelopment project.
- Motta filed preliminary objections claiming the taking was arbitrary, in bad faith (real purpose to acquire the Station for a rail project), unnecessary, and excessive; the Authority/Borough defended the taking as necessary for a right‑turn lane and broader intersection improvements.
- Testimony showed Borough officials documented longstanding traffic/stacking problems at the intersection, the Borough listed intersection improvement as a stated plan goal, and the Borough’s engineer later prepared a concept right‑turn lane design; the Authority also intended (separately) to repurpose the Station for a rail project.
- The trial court overruled Motta’s preliminary objections. On appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed as to the land taking but held the Authority’s acquisition of the Station itself was excessive and not needed for the public purpose, and remanded to permit Motta to keep the Station (and to address relocation costs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Motta) | Defendant's Argument (Authority/Borough) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the taking made in bad faith (real purpose to obtain Station)? | Taking was a pretext; primary motive was to obtain the Station for Authority/Trust rail project. | Taking was for Borough‑led public intersection improvements; any benefit from the Station was incidental. | No bad faith; plaintiff failed to prove bad faith by clear, precise, indubitable evidence. Taking upheld as to land. |
| Was there demonstrated need for the taking (necessity/investigation)? | Borough lacked sufficient planning (no traffic counts/pre‑condemnation engineering). | Borough performed adequate investigation and made an informed judgment; further design awaited property acquisition. | Need satisfied: Borough’s investigation and planning were adequate; taking for intersection improvements lawful. |
| Was taking of the entire parcel excessive? | Entire parcel unnecessary; partial taking would suffice. | Vast majority required for right‑turn lane; partial taking would leave nonviable remnant. | Taking of the entire parcel not excessive; trial court’s finding that full parcel needed was upheld. |
| Was condemnation of the Station (building) excessive / within scope? | Station not needed for intersection improvements; it is movable and historically distinct, so should be excluded. | Authority generally acquires improvements and intended redeployment of Station was collateral/benefit. | Acquisition of the Station was excessive and not tailored to the public purpose; condemnation of Station reversed and remanded for relief (including relocation costs). |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie Municipal Airport Authority v. Agostini, 620 A.2d 55 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (defines bad faith standard in condemnation context)
- York City Redevelopment Authority v. Ohio Blenders, Inc., 956 A.2d 1052 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (condemnation bad‑faith and statutory procedure review in URL cases)
- Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331 (Pa. 2007) (taking must be tailored to actual public purpose; excessiveness principle)
- In re Forrester, 836 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2003) (public purpose primary test; private benefit may be incidental)
- Downington Area School District v. DiFrancesco, 557 A.2d 819 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (requirement that condemnor’s investigation lead to informed judgment)
- In re Condemnation of Lands of Laughlin, 814 A.2d 872 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (post‑condemnation efforts can validate public‑use determination)
- Reading Area Water Authority v. Schuylkill River Greenway Association, 100 A.3d 572 (Pa. 2014) (statutory authority for eminent domain must be strictly construed in favor of landowner)