Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in case of Condemnation of the Property of: Thomas W. Golding and Nancy D. Golding, his wife, at 28 Wilson Avenue, Chalfont, Pa., said Parcel of Land being known as Bucks County Tax Parcel, Nos. 7-7-32 and 7-7-32-1 by the Board of Supervisors of New Britain Township, for Drainage Purposes, No. 75-3747-06-4.
David M. MacFarlan, with him Larry B. Maier, and Charles S. Wilson & Associates, for appellants.
Albert L. Blackman, Jr., with him George M. Bush, and Hartzel and Bush, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of two. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 636]
Before us is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County dismissing a petition for the appointment of viewers.
In May, 1972, the Township of New Britain (Township/Appellee) approved subdivision plans for the Blyden Square Housing Development (Development), including plans for the construction of storm and drain sewers. The Development is located on the Township's eastern border and abuts the property of Thomas and Nancy Golding (Appellants) located in the Borough of Chalfont. The approved drainage plans provided for the drainage of storm water toward Appellants' property but made no provisions for containment of the water or for merging the drainage system with other systems beyond the Township's boundary. Consequently, upon completion of the Development, the drainage system was left open-ended at the Township's border resulting in the discharge of storm water onto Appellants' property.
[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 637]
Appellants petitioned the court below*fn1 for the appointment of viewers pursuant to Section 502(e) of the Eminent Domain Code*fn2 alleging the following: (1) that the Township has caused and approved the collection of drainage of a concentrated flow of water upon their premises; (2) that no declaration of taking has been filed by the Township; and (3) that the Township has done substantial damage and injury to their premises, has imposed a servitude upon it and has effected a partial taking thereof.*fn3
The Township responded by filing preliminary objections stating that the action complained of could not constitute a de facto taking because the Township was not an entity clothed with the power of eminent domain, i.e., without authority to condemn property beyond its geographic boundaries.
The court below sustained the Township's preliminary objections and dismissed Appellants' petition.*fn4 We affirm.
[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 638]
The term "de facto" taking was defined by our Supreme Court in Griggs v. Allegheny County, 402 Pa. 411, 414, 168 A.2d 123, 124 (1961), rev'd on other grounds, 369 U.S. 84 (1962), wherein it wrote: "A 'taking' occurs when the entity clothed with the power of eminent domain substantially deprives an ...