Snow Shoe Twp., a Pennsylvania Municipal Corp. v. Boggs Twp., a Pennsylvania Municipal Corp., Snow Shoe Twp., a Pennsylvania Municipal Corp. v. Boggs Twp., a Pennsylvania Municipal Corp.

Background

Snow Shoe Township petitioned (Sept. 11, 2013) to ascertain the boundary with Boggs Township; the Centre County Court appointed a three-member Board of Boundary Commissioners under the Second Class Township Code.
The Board held hearings (Feb. 23, 2015; Oct. 15, 2015), reviewed a 1992 Sweetland Engineering survey, and added GPS coordinates (three points) displayed via Google Earth in lieu of a full in-person view across remote, hazardous terrain.
Sweetland Engineering produced additional subpoenaed materials after testimony; Boggs moved to replace the Board and later objected when the Board declined an additional hearing to receive that material.
The Board adopted the 1992 survey (supplemented by GPS coordinates) and recommended monumenting the three GPS points; Trial Court confirmed the report nisi (Mar. 22, 2016) and overruled Boggs Township’s exceptions (June 23, 2016).
Boggs appealed, raising four legal challenges about the Trial Court’s and Board’s roles, report sufficiency, use of aerial/GPS for a view, and handling of late-disclosed subpoenaed material. The Commonwealth Court affirmed (Aug. 1, 2017).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Boggs)	Defendant's Argument (Snow Shoe)	Held
Whether Trial Court erred by not directing Board as to the original boundary	Trial Court should instruct Board based on official records so Board can locate boundary	Boundary location was a factual inquiry for the Board; no clear original boundary records existed	Court: No error; question was factual, within Board's province; trial court properly refrained from directing factual findings
Whether Board report was legally insufficient (lack of findings/credibility analysis; need for metes and bounds)	Report failed to state findings, credibility rulings, or reconcile discrepancies; insufficient for review	Code does not require detailed findings; Board identified record and ultimate determination	Court: Report adequate; review asks only whether competent evidence supports the determination
Whether Board erred in conducting view via aerial imagery/GPS instead of in-person site visit	In-person view required; Google Earth/GPS insufficient	Statute does not prescribe method; difficult terrain made in-person view impractical and aerial/GPS are acceptable means	Court: Use of aerial imagery and GPS was not error absent proof the method was so unreliable as to fail as a view
Whether Trial Court should have appointed a new Board or ordered more hearings after late production by subpoenaed surveyor	Late-produced materials warranted a new Board or additional hearings to consider the evidence	Board had discretion to hold or forego additional hearing; material was part of the record the Board considered	Court: No error; Board acted within its discretion in declining further hearings and still considered the materials

Key Cases Cited

Adams Township v. Richland Township, 154 A.3d 250 (Pa. 2017) (board is factfinder; its report has effect of a jury verdict and may not be disturbed absent error of law or lack of competent evidence)
Miles Land Co. v. Hudson Coal Co., 91 A. 1061 (Pa. 1914) (distinguishes questions of law about what a boundary is from factual location; rules on calls vs. courses and distances)
In re Petition of Viola, 838 A.2d 21 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (board may reopen record if it determines additional evidence will aid its determination)
Moon Township v. Findlay Township, 553 A.2d 500 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (no burden of proof allocation in township boundary disputes; reviewing court limits)