*1 Here, sufficient incidents ownership. Authority pur- R.R.M., chased all of transferred, the stock of the land was and all of the officers R.R.M. resigned and were replaced by Authority officials. March the Authority From had control of the of the Landfill. The operation only interest prior stockholders R.R.M. maintained was the right repurchase the if it was property determined that the Authori- ty could not successfully expand and use the land for the stated operating Thus, the Landfill. it is clear that present owner of the property Authority, is and that there no was reservation of beneficial interest that was potentially Further, in Owen present J. Roberts. the fact that the landfill was operated through the R.R.M. corporate vehicle did not alter R.R.M., the fact that the Authority controlled land, owned the operated the site. such,
As we find that no to deny there basis the Authority immunity local taxes for case.6 Order Reversed.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued May 1993.
Decided June 1993. Reargument July Dеnied immune, 6. Since we have found the entire to be we do not exemption have to reach the issues. *2 Knorr, III, Foerster, Attys. Deputy John G. T. Jerome Gen., appellants. Meadville, Millin, for appel- K. Jeffrey R. Irwin and
James lees. ZAPPALA, FLAHERTY, NIX, C.J., LARSEN,
Before MONTEMURO, PAPADAKOS, JJ. CAPPY THE OF COURT OPINION FLAHERTY, Justice. for review of actions
Neighboring petitioned landowners a former of Corrections to renovate Department state prison in violation site for as a state college use demurred, аn act of alleging that department ordinances. The project. The authorized the Court held that the bill appropriations ordinances, did not inferentially negate local overruled the demurrer. interlоcutory appeal allowance, we hold that the statutorily superseded ordinance, and reverse the order of the. Commonwealth Court.
On December the General Assembly enacted the 1990-91, Capitаl Budget Project Itemization Act for Act 1990, effective which immediately, authorized the incurrence of $8,876,000 of debt for “[acquisition and renovation of former Polish National College Alliance for use as a State 22,1990, Correctional Institution.” On December the Depart- $2,500,000. ment Corrections acquired property for departments corrections and general services under- took the renovation and conversion of the to serve as a prison. County The Crawford facility located partially *3 Borough Cambridge Springs, district, the in a residential partially in the Township Cambridge, in an educational and institutional district. municipality’s Neither zoning оrdi- nance the permits property to be used aas correctional institution.
Neighboring property
petition
owners filed a
for review
the Commonwealth
a complaint
Court
the nature of
equity, seeking permanent injunction against the conversion
college
and use of the
a prison,
former
as
alleging that such
use would violate
the local
The depart-
ordinances.
ments of
general
correctiоns and
services filed preliminary
demurrer,
objections
the nature
contending
by
the
of the college site for conversion and
as
use
prison,
any
overrode
local zoning and
land use controls. The court
рreliminary objec-
overruled the
tions
entered an order
that the
stating
decision involved
controlling
“a
question
law as to which there is substantial
ground for difference of
an
opinion, and
appeal
immediаte
from this order may materially advance the ultimate termi-
matter,”
nation of this
702(b),
§
as
in 42
prescribed
Pa.C.S.
and this court permitted
interlocutory
appeal pursuant Pa.R.A.P. 1311.
decision,
discussed
the Commonwealth Court
reaching
its
Area
Ogontz
General Services v.
holding
Dep’t
(1984), concluding
Ass’n,
614,
Neighbors that the to infer a “refused that this court powers, land use agency preemptive Commonwealth statement explicit legislative indicаted that thereby Common- Olon v. zoning powers.” negate required Corrections, 606 A.2d wealth, 147 Pa.Cmwlth. Dep’t of (1992). noth- Court found 1241, 1242-43 Commonwealth legislation “which states in the ing by preempted are regulations administering constructing prisоns. charged with conferring preemp- automatically us from only not prohibits agency but also a Commonwealth powers upon tive use land powers by inference.” attributing rejects at 1243. Id. at 606 A.2d Harrisburg v. relied on
Insteаd, the
Court
543 A.2d
Corp., 117 Pa.Cmwlth.
Capitol Housing
(1988).
case,
Pennsylvania
Education
Higher
In that
(PHEAA)
granted legislative
had been
Agency
Assistance
name of the
and hold title in the
“acquire
House, including the
known as the Towne
to the
... and to make such
Annex
leased
thereto
acquisi-
finance such
may
necessary
as
arrangements
amended,
24 P.S.
P.L.
as
August
tions.” Act
(Act 130).
5104(12),
§
PHEAA
attempted
When
of the redevel-
the Towne House
in violation
and use
property,
plan governing
opment
use,
grant
that “Act 130 did not
prohibited
holding
such
*4
regulation”
the local land use
supersede
PHEAA the
to
more, legislation
agency
a state
authorizing
and that “without
local land use con-
inferentially negate
does not
the
Corrections,
26,
The Commonwealth Court municipal specific intent to override require will be deemed powers agency before Commonwealth zoning nevertheless, such an land use preemptive powers; to possess 94 is in evident the legislation underlying this case.
Capitol Housing Corp. on case relied the cases urged appеllees, e.g. City Pitts- Commonwealth, burgh (1976), A.2d do not, however, justify the result reached in the Commonwealth Court. legislation involved empowering department (DPW)
public welfare
acquire
relocating
patients
formerly
at
housеd
Pennhurst State
Hospital,
School and
facility,
mental health
depart-
and the
ment purchased twelve
sites
Philadelphia. When the Com-
agency sought
monwealth
to construct a new facility at one of
sites,
city zoning authority
permission
denied
due to
the proposed
failure to
facility’s
comply with the local zoning
ordinance. This court was presented with the question wheth-
er the Mental Health
and Retardation Act of
Act of
amended,
October
Special Sess. No. P.L. 96 as
§
P.S.
4101 et seq.,
plan,
DPW
supervise,
operate,
acquire property
for mental health and retarda-
tion facilities at
state,
various locations throughout the
or Act
256 of
allocating funds to
develop
DPW to
a regional
program to
patients
relocate
from Pennhurst State School and
Hospital,
created DPW
to override local land use
restrictions. We concluded
general grant
that the
of authority
acquire
land did not imply a legislative intent
that the agency
given
was
powers,
subject
jurisdiction
was
to the
respect
stated,
board with
to local use rеstrictions. We
how-
course,
ever: “Of
should the
determine that one or
more Commonwealth
projects
empow-
should be
ered to
local land use regulations, it need only pass
legislation
to that effeсt.” Ogontz, 505
at
Pa.
This distinguishable the cases discussed supra respect: here the General Assembly specified both to be acquired and the of the property. None the other cases involved this combi- they natiоn factors: either authorized an
95 Ogontz, supra, specific purpose, e.g. a unspecified property Commonwealth, autho- supra, they v. Pittsburgh City of unspecified for an specific property an aсquire rized In supra. Housing Corp., e.g. Capitol purpose, College proper- Alliance Polish National acquisition of the institution, the as a state correctional be used specifically toty local intent to override expressed an Assembly clearly General of property. such use prohibited which zoning ordinances must therefore The of the Commonwealth Court order reversed. reversed.
Order LARSEN, J., dissenting files opinion. a Justice, LARSEN, dissenting. because the General majority
I The holds that dissent. National of the Polish Assembly acquisition authorized specifically to be as state College property Alliance used Budget Projеct Itemiza- Capital institution in the correction (“Act 223”), Assemble for 1990-1991 the General tion Act local an intent to override the ordi- clearly expressed The could reach its decision only way majority nancеs. intent. Commonwealth today by inferring legislative of Services v. Pennsylvania, Department General Association, 483 A.2d Neighbors Area (1984), legislative refused to infer a intent that this court powers. correctly I held that the think or оverride the necessary preempt clear Cambridge Springs Borough ordinances in Act 223. cannot be found Township Cambridge 3(l)(ii) merely provides appropriation Act 223 Section College the Alliance authorization to general prison. granting convert to a it parcel of “does not clothe [an right domain or the with of eminent agency] regulations”. Harrisburg City local land use Capital Housing Corporation, Pa.Cоmmw. 543 A.2d (1988). *6 In Ogontz, supra, majority a of this stated: court course, legislature Of should the determine that one or more or projects empowered should local regulations, it need only pass legislation to that effect.
Id.,
Pa. at
Through zoning enabling Legislature has granted municipalities power su- carefully plan and pervise comprehensive of their land. Yet development specific grant would be highly illusory, and its thwarted, if another wеre public entity able I by implication. override it would hold simply absent legislative grant a exempting zoning regulations, local must regulations control. J., 505 Pa. at
Ogontz, A.2d at (Zappala, concur- McDermott, JJ., ring, joining) origi- Larsen and in (emphasis nal).
If the nullify intended to or negate any local controls, or other land use any they easily could have provided including specific such intent language relat- subject ing matter Act nothing 223. Therе is in the Act which states that regulations are preempted by by the agencies charged with constructing administering and prisons.
Merely providing appropriation for an location for use as a state or fаcility provide institution does not specific legislative nullify regulations intent to local zoning would, effect, accept ordinances. To majority’s decision overrule and would allow the Commonwealth and thе Assembly General to override local merely appropri- ating money specific purpose. clearly for a This is not what this Court intended nor fit Ogontz; seen Ogontz. to “overrule” of the Commonwealth
Therefore, the decision I would affirm Court.
Decided June