Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of In Re: The Condemnation by County of Allegheny of a certain parcel of land in Robinson Township, Allegheny County, now or formerly of: Frank N. Pyle and spouse, if married, or any other parties found to have an interest in the said parcel of land, for the purpose of establishing, making, enlarging, extending, operating and maintaining public parks, Nos. G.D. 77-7776 and G.D. 78-202328.
John B. Nicklas, Jr., McCrady and Nicklas, for appellant.
James H. McLean, County Solicitor, with him William P. Bresnahan, Assistant County Solicitor, for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Williams, Jr. and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 643]
The Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, by order, denied Frank Pyle's (condemnee) motion for a new trial. Pyle appeals. We affirm.
Following a Declaration of Taking, a Board of Viewers assessed damages for the taking of Pyle's unimproved lot at $5,000. On appeal, a jury awarded a
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 644]
verdict of $4,000. Pyle now appeals the jury verdict, contending that the trial court erred by permitting the County's two valuation experts to testify that a single-family residence was the highest and best use although the lot was zoned public recreational. He also asserts it was error to admit comparable sales examples of residentially-zoned lots located more than two miles from the condemned property. Finally, Pyle complains that the lower court erred by permitting the use of a blackboard.
The County contends, inter alia, that the issues of admissibility of the value evidence and the use of the blackboard were not preserved for appeal. We agree.
Pa. R.A.P. 302 states that "[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." This Court stated, in Nobel v. West Penn Power Co., 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 577, 579, 388 A.2d 781, 783 (1979), that:
Issues not properly raised and preserved in the trial court will not be reviewed for the first time on appeal. . . . A litigant must do two things in order to preserve an issue. First, he must make a timely, specific objection at trial and, second, he must raise the issue on posttrial motion. (Citations omitted.)
While the condemnee's post-trial motion for a new trial raised the issues of the admissibility of the highest and best use evidence, the comparable value evidence, and the use of the blackboard at trial, a review of the record*fn1 ...