Williams v. Borough of Blakely
25 A.3d 458
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Owner filed a petition for viewers alleging a de facto taking due to Borough-installed drainage facilities that cut off access to Virginia Avenue from his subject property.
- Borough asserted an easement and that Owner’s de facto taking claim accrued before 2006 and was barred by the 21-year limitations period under the former Eminent Domain Code.
- Historical acts include a plastic drainpipe placed in the ditch in the 1980s–1990s, later replaced and covered with fill, and the pipe reportedly unable to support vehicular traffic without a reinforced concrete pipe.
- Owner also claimed the Borough confiscated fill Owner had purchased and deposited it in nearby ditches, and later erected a fence with No Trespassing/No Dumping signs facing his property.
- In 2010 the trial court sustained Borough’s preliminary objections and dismissed the petition for viewers as premature under Centralia’s ripeness approach.
- This Court affirms, holding Owner’s claims are not ripe for de facto taking and that he did not advance concrete planning or permits processes supporting a present, substantial deprivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Centralia governs ripeness of de facto taking claims | Williams asserts Centralia is distinguishable and the alleged actions foreclose a premature dismissal | Blakely Borough contends Centralia controls and destroys ripe de facto claims unless facts are concrete | Centralia controls; petition properly dismissed as premature |
| Whether the drainage pipe installation and related actions constituted a de facto taking | Williams contends concrete acts (pipe, fill confiscation, fence) substantially deprived use and value | Borough argues no present diminution of use beyond anticipated stormwater management; not a taking | No ripe de facto taking found; not sufficiently proven at this stage |
| Whether Owner’s petition should be analyzed under ripeness and whether concrete planning steps were required | Owner relied on existing interference with access as a current injury | Lack of formal plans, planning commission involvement, and zoning action means not ripe | Petition dismissed as not yet ripe; needs change in facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Visco v. Dep't of Transp., 92 Pa.Cmwlth. 102, 498 A.2d 984 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (de facto takings require substantial deprivation of use)
- Lehigh-Northampton Airport Auth. v. WBF Assocs., L.P., 728 A.2d 981 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (heavy burden to show exceptional circumstances before taking)
- Centralia, 658 A.2d 840 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (ripeness doctrine; hypothetical, non-ripe de facto taking claims fail)
- Petition of 1301 Filbert Limited Partnership for Appointment of Viewers, 64 Pa.Cmwlth. 605, 441 A.2d 1345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (tunnel construction potentially speculative; not ripe relief)
- Lehigh Airport Auth. I, 728 A.2d 981 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (de facto taking assessed based on exceptional circumstances)