Condemnation of Surface of Certain Tract of Land Located in Borough of Centralia, Columbia County, Pa., Matter of
| Decision Date | 28 April 1995 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the CONDEMNATION OF the SURFACE OF that CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN the BOROUGH OF CENTRALIA, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, and Described in Columbia County Deed Book 451 at , in the Office of the Columbia County Recorder of Deeds in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, and Further Identified as 436 Troutwine Street, in the Borough of Centralia, Columbia County, Pennsylvania, by the Columbia County Redevelopment Authority, as Agent of the Department of Community Affairs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in Connection with the Acquisition of Surface Rights to Certain Real Properties Threatened by an Underground Mine Fire Located in and Around the Borough of Centralia and the Township of Conyngham, Columbia County, Pennsylvania. Betty Noble, William P. Noble and Bonnie Hynoski, Appellants. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Lewis Kates, for appellants.
Robert Spielman, for appellee.
Before DOYLE and KELLEY, JJ., and SILVESTRI, Senior Judge.
Betty Noble, William P. Noble and Bonnie Hynoski (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Condemnees") appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County (trial court) denying Condemnees' preliminary objections to the declarations of taking filed by the Columbia County Redevelopment Authority (CCRA) as agent of the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs (DCA). We affirm.
In 1983, the DCA and the CCRA initiated a program to voluntarily relocate residents of Centralia Borough (borough) due to an alleged threat to the public health and safety resulting from a fire in abandoned mine workings in the vicinity of the borough. The majority, but not all, of the residents chose to voluntarily relocate, sold their homes, and moved from the borough. A relatively small number of borough residents declined to relocate and continued to reside in the borough.
On February 18, 1992, attorneys for CCRA notified the remaining residents of the borough that as the result of the continuing threat to the public safety posed by the mine fire, CCRA, as the agent for the DCA, would acquire all of the remaining occupied properties in the borough by exercising the DCA's power of eminent domain. Thereafter, DCA and CCRA executed a contract wherein CCRA agreed to act as DCA's agent in relocating and acquiring the property of the remaining residents, businesses, and non-profit organizations of the borough who would be required to move from the mine fire area. Reproduced Record (R.) at 6a-26a. After the execution of the contract between CCRA and DCA, the CCRA adopted a resolution to proceed, in accordance with its contractual responsibilities and obligations to DCA, with the acquisition, by the initiation of eminent domain proceedings, if necessary, of the surface of all the remaining homes, business and non-profit buildings which were located with the borough. R. at 28a.
On January 28, 1993, the CCRA, as agent of the DCA filed declarations of taking with the trial court for the purpose of acquiring only the surface to certain parcels of real property threatened by the underground mine fire located in and around the borough. R. at 2a-4a. The CCRA declared that the statutory authorization for the condemnations was set forth at 71 P.S. § 1049.4. 1 Id. Further, the CCRA declared that just compensation for the condemnations was secured by the power of taxation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Id.
In response, Condemnees and numerous other remaining residents of the borough filed identical preliminary objections to the declarations of taking. The preliminary objections raised the following issues:
1. The declarations of taking and the condemnations sought to be effected thereby are void because the CCRA, as the agent of the DCA, is acting ultra vires of its powers and the authority vested in it pursuant to and in accordance with the Urban Redevelopment Law, Act of May 24, 1945, P.L. 991, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 1701-1719.1.
2. The declarations of taking and the condemnations sought to be effected thereby are void to the extent that the DCA is deemed to be the condemnor because it does not have the power or right to acquire the properties sought to be acquired by the exercise of the right of eminent domain.
3. To the extent the DCA is deemed to be the condemnor, the declarations of taking and the condemnations sought to be effected thereby are void because it has not been delegated the authority to acquire property by the exercise of the right of eminent domain by the Commonwealth.
4. The declarations of taking filed in this case and the condemnations sought to be effected thereby are void because they constitute a taking of property without due process of law and without proper security first being made in violation of the Untied States Constitution.
5. The declarations of taking and the condemnations sought to be effected thereby are void because they constitute a taking of property without proper security first being made in violation of the Pennsylvania Eminent Domain Code, Act of June 22, 1964, Special Session, P.L. 84, as amended, 26 P.S. §§ 1-101--1-903, and the Pennsylvania State Constitution.
Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Condemnees' preliminary objections to the declarations of taking based upon the record, the briefs and oral argument. Condemnees now appeal to this court. 2
On appeal to this court, Condemnees raise the following two issues: (1) Whether a trial court has jurisdiction to dismiss preliminary objections to a declaration of taking in an eminent domain case without conducting an evidentiary hearing or otherwise affording a condemnee the opportunity to present evidence in support of the preliminary objections where the preliminary objections raised disputed issues of fact; and (2) Whether a redevelopment authority created pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law has the right to commit the Commonwealth's power to levy and collect taxes to secure a taking of private property.
In support of its argument that the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing, the condemnees assert that factual issues were raised in their preliminary objections. 3 Specifically, condemnees contend that the preliminary objections challenge the taking on the grounds that the subject condemned premises was not endangered and therefore did not fall within the compass of the contract and its acquisition. Condemnees argue that there first must be a certification that the area is blighted within the meaning and compass of the Urban Redevelopment Law. Condemnees base this assertion on their contention that the CCRA, having been created pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law, is empowered only to acquire by condemnation blighted property.
This court agrees that the CCRA was created pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law and that the law sets forth the authority for the CCRA to acquire blighted areas by eminent domain. See §§ 1-19.1 of the Urban Redevelopment Law, 35 P.S. §§ 1701-1719.1. This court also agrees that before the CCRA can acquire any property pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law, the area in question must first be certified as blighted. Id.
However, it is clear from the declaration of taking filed by the CCRA seeking to acquire the Condemnees' property by eminent domain that the CCRA was not acting pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law. The CCRA was acting as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hynoski v. Columbia Cnty. Redevelopment Auth., Case No. 4:10–CV–2222.
-
Hynoski v. D.C. Cnty. Redevelopment Auth.
...filed preliminary objections but the condemnation was upheld by the Pennsylvania state courts. In re Condemnation Proceeding (Borough of Centralia), 658 A.2d 481, 483–85 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). In April 1996, the United States Supreme Court denied the condemnees' petition for certiorari. Nob......
-
Hynoski v. Commonwealth, 2696 C.D. 2010
...court denied the Preliminary Objections and Condemnees appealed to this Court. In the Matter of the Condemnation of the Surface of That Certain Tract of Land Located in the Borough of Centralia, 658 A.2d 481 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), appeal denied, 542 Pa. 651, 666 A.2d 1059, cert. denied 517 U.S......
-
Condemnation by Penn Tp., York County, of Right- Of-Way and Easements Over, Across and Through Tracts of Land Located in Penn Tp., York County, In re
...not be required to file a bond with the declaration of taking." Section 403 of the Code, 26 P.S. § 1-403. As stated in Matter of Land in Borough of Centralia, 658 A.2d 481 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 542 Pa. 651, 666 A.2d 1059 (1995), inasmuch as the borough h......