In re Borough of Downingtown
132 A.3d 978, 635 Pa. 163
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of February, 2016, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at 410-413 MAL 2015 are GRANTED as [979] to the following issues, as framed by Petitioners:
a. Where a municipality has satisfied the requirement to dispose of condemned property under Section 310(a) of the Eminent Domain Code by abandoning the purpose for which the property was condemned, does the Donated or Dedicated Property Act, Act of Dec. 15, 1959, P.L. 1772, 53 P.S. §§ 3381 et seq. (the “DDPA”) nonetheless require judicial approval before a municipality may dispose of that property?
b. Where a municipality intends to abandon property acquired by condemnation and where that intent is coupled with external acts to achieve such abandonment, has the purpose of the property been “abandon[ed]” for purposes of Section 310(a) of the Eminent Domain Code?
Furthermore, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at 358-361 MAL 2015 and 424-427 MAL 2015 are GRANTED, LIMITED TO the following issues:
a. Does the removal of Project 70 Act deed restrictions also remove all public trust interests in dedicated parkland, such that judicial review of the sale of such parkland would no longer be required under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act, 53 P.S. §§ 3381-3386?
b. May municipalities convey private development easements over public parkland without first obtaining Or- . phans’ Court approval under the DDPA?
The Prothonotary is directed to consolidate these matters for argument.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In re Borough of Downingtown, 132 A.3d 978, 635 Pa. 163 (Pa. 2016).
132 A.3d 978 (In re Borough of Downingtown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Downingtown Borough (Friends of Kardon Park,Aplts)
161 A.3d 844 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)