Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, in case of Condemnation of Property in the Borough of Homer City, County of Indiana, Pennsylvania, owned or reputed to be owned by Naponic Enterprises, Inc., by the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Indiana, No. 1932 of 1983.
Richard DiSalle, with him, Andrew L. Weil and Templeton Smith, Jr., Rose, Schmidt, Chapman, Duff & Hasley, for appellant.
Myron Tomb, with him, Errol S. Miller, for appellee.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Kalish.
[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 34]
Naponic Enterprises, Inc. (Naponic) appeals from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County which dismissed its preliminary objections to a declaration of taking filed by the Redevelopment Authority of Indiana County (Authority). We affirm.
On November 30, 1983, the Authority condemned real estate of Naponic consisting of a restaurant, an apartment building, and a plumbing shop on Main Street in Homer City. All of these properties were situated in an area which was damaged by floodwaters from the Yellow Creek which had overflowed on July 20, 1977. It was all designated as a floodway area.
To this condemnation, Naponic filed preliminary objections contending that some or all of these properties
[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 35]
had been taken prior to the filing of the declaration, in a de facto taking in the summer or autumn of 1978. Naponic claims just compensation should therefore include the value of any building that existed before the filing of the declaration, and that was destroyed by the flood. It bases its claim on section 602(c) of the Eminent Domain Code (Code), Act of June 22, 1964, Special Sess., P.L. 84, as amended, 26 P.S. § 1-602(c). This section affords to condemnees of property damaged by flood the before-flood value of their property when taken in connection with a flood prevention project.*fn1 The trial court dismissed the preliminary objections.
Our scope of review is to determine whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether an error of law was committed. Petition of Ramsey, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 182, 375 A.2d 886 (1977).
The obvious intent of the Legislature in section 602(c) of the Code is that when property is taken as the result of an attempt to aid victims of a flood disaster, the market value of the property before the flood shall be considered in determining the measure of damages (before and after value). Redevelopment Authority of City of Nanticoke v. Spencer, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 77, 350 A.2d 442 (1976). This presupposes a taking preceded by planning, executing and financing of a project, similar to that which is involved in a blighted area project. It is not ...