Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RALPH R. RIEHL v. MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SEWER AUTHORITY (08/11/76)

decided: August 11, 1976.

RALPH R. RIEHL, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS
v.
MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SEWER AUTHORITY, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County in case of In the Matter of: The Condemnation by the Millcreek Township Sewer Authority, Erie County, Pennsylvania, of Property for the Construction of a Sewer System in the Township of Millcreek, Erie County, Pennsylvania, No. 2062 A of 1975.

COUNSEL

Norman H. Stark, with him MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton, for appellants.

William C. Sennett, with him Donald E. Wright, Jr., John M. McLaughlin, and Knox, Graham, Pearson, McLaughlin and Sennett, Inc., for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judge Kramer did not participate. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 71]

As part of an extensive program (Project No. 4) to expand an existing sewage collection system, the Millcreek Township Sewer Authority (Sewer Authority) planned to construct public sewers to serve properties fronting on Watson Road, a private road within the township. On June 3, 1975, in accordance with the Municipality Authorities Act of 1945*fn1 and the Eminent Domain Code,*fn2 the Sewer Authority filed a declaration of taking in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County for the purpose of acquiring a 50-foot wide right of way to construct the sewer in the roadbed of Watson Road. The road itself is 20 feet wide,

[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 72]

    and a matter of importance to the litigants here involved is the fact that the road is lined by a row of locust trees set back approximately five feet from each side of the road edge. The condemnees, who own the road and the trees as well as the properties fronting on the road, filed preliminary objections to the taking and, after hearings before the lower court, all objections were dismissed. This appeal followed.

In appeals from a lower court dismissing preliminary objections to a declaration of taking, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether or not the court below abused its discretion or committed an error of law in reaching its conclusions. It is not for this Court to determine whether or not we would have reached the same conclusions but rather whether or not the record contains sufficient competent evidence to support the conclusions of the court below. Blank v. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., 11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 304, 314 A.2d 880 (1974).

Among the objections raised by the condemnees and of those preserved on appeal is the assertion that notice of the declaration of taking served on the condemnees failed to meet the requirements of the Eminent Domain Code (Code). Particularly concerned are the provisions of Section 405(c) of the Code, 26 P.S. ยง 1-405(c) which require that the notice describe the purpose for the condemnation, state the nature of the title being acquired, and, in the case of a partial taking as is the case here, include a plot plan showing the condemnee's entire property and the area being taken. Upon examination of the record, however, we must affirm the lower court's finding that these requirements have been met. The affidavit of service of the notice filed in the court below indicates that a copy of the actual declaration of taking was included with notice served upon each condemnee. The declaration by its numbered paragraphs and accompanying

[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 73]

    exhibits clearly describes the purpose for the condemnation, indicates that a permanent easement is being acquired, and includes a plot plan adequately showing the properties involved. The evidence thus presented amply supports the lower court's conclusion on this issue.

The condemnees also alleged in their preliminary objections that the public benefits of the Watson Road sewer project are not sufficiently substantial to justify an exercise of the power of condemnation. It is well established, of course, that the power of eminent domain cannot be used to acquire property for private rather than public purposes, Borough of Big Run v. Shaw, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 623, 330 A.2d 315 (1975), but a taking does not lose its public character merely because private interests may also be benefited. Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia, 357 Pa. 329, 54 A.2d 277 (1947). The condemnees here argue that sewers on Watson Road will serve no public purpose, asserting that only the construction contractor will benefit from the installation of the sewer line. They point to the fact that the on-lot sewage disposal systems currently serving the properties have neither malfunctioned nor contributed to local pollution. Moreover, because the proposed sewer will be a closed-end line, it is not necessary to the flow in the township wide sewage collection system. They do not believe, therefore, that large construction costs for this project can be justified. Again, however, our examination of the record reveals ample justification. Indeed in March of 1975, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.