Township of Millcreek v. Angela Cres Trust of June 25, 1998
25 A.3d 1288
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Millcreek Township seeks to condemn 0.618 acres of Angela Cres Trust land for the Heidler Road Channel Improvement Project to realign about 800 feet of a drainage canal, add three 50-foot culverts, and install concrete bank walls.
- The trial court sustained the Trust's preliminary objections, holding the Second Class Township Code does not authorize condemnation for this project.
- Section 1513 permits widening/deepening watercourses; Section 2702 permits acquiring an existing system for surface water runoff, not creating a new system.
- Evidence focused on whether the project would create a new channel rather than merely modify an existing one, including pipe and ditch configurations on Trust property.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, ruling the Township lacked authority under the Second Class Township Code to condemn for a new channel or for a new system to manage runoff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the project falls within authority to widen/deepen a watercourse | Cres Trust argues relocation does not widen/deepen existing watercourse | Millcreek asserts relocation is within 1513 | Not authorized under 1513 |
| Whether the project creates an existing system or a new system for runoff | Trust contends no existing system; project not authorized | Township argues it creates system for runoff | Not authorized under 2702 |
| Whether pipes/ditch on Trust property constitute an existing facility for surface water management | Evidence irrelevant if not part of existing system | Evidence relevant to authority; may show existing system | Evidence insufficient to authorize condemnation |
| Whether the trial court erred in evidentiary rulings and findings of fact | Trial court precluded relevant evidence | Court properly limited evidence to statutory question | No reversible error; findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether the Township has strict statutory authority to condemn for this project | Township has broad power to condemn for drainage | Power is limited to widening/deepening or existing systems; not new channel | Lacked authority; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Marple Township v. Marple Newtown School District, 856 A.2d 225 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (strict construction of eminent domain powers; limits on scope of condemnation)
- Olson v. Whitpain Township, 141 Pa. Cmwlth. 270, 595 A.2d 706 (Pa.Cmwlth.1991) (strictly construed grants of authority in condemnation)
- Valley Rural Electric Co-op., Inc. v. Shanholtzer, 982 A.2d 566 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (scope of review for prelim objections in condemnation)
- In re Legislative Route 1018, 422 Pa. 594, 222 A.2d 906 (Pa. 1966) (statutory limits on eminent domain authority)