In re Rights of Way & Easements Situate in the Twp. of Hempfield

1

In the Matter of: Condemnation of Rights of Way and Easements Situate in the Township of Hempfield, County of Westmoreland, Commonwealth Pennsylvania, by the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County for Sanitary Sewer Purposes Property of: Edwin C. and Brenda B. Hurst Tax Map No. 50-27-00-0-141 Appeal of: Edwin C. and Brenda B. Hurst In the Matter of: Condemnation of Rights of Way and Easements Situate in the Township of Hempfield, County of Westmoreland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County for Sanitary Sewer Purposes Property of: George Hapchuk and Ellen I. Hapchuk Tax Map No. 50-27-00-0-188 Appeal of: George Hapchuk and Ellen I. Hapchuk In the Matter of: Condemnation of Rights of Way and Easements Situate in the Township of Hempfield, County of Westmoreland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County for Sanitary Sewer Purposes Property of: George Hapchuk and Ellen I. Hapchuk Tax Map No. 50-27-00-0-208 Appeal of: George Hapchuk and Ellen I. Hapchuk In the Matter of: Condemnation of Rights of Way and Easements Situate in the Township of Hempfield, County of Westmoreland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County for Sanitary Sewer Purposes Property of: Erica M. Shuglie and Jason Shuglie Tax Map No. 50-27-00-0-332 Appeal of: Erica M. Shuglie and Jason Shuglie In the Matter of: Condemnation of Rights of Way and Easements Situate in the Township of Hempfield, County of Westmoreland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County for Sanitary Sewer Purposes Property of: George Hapchuk and Ellen I. Hapchuk Tax Map No. 50-27-00-0-280 Appeal of: George Hapchuk and Ellen I. Hapchuk In the Matter of: Condemnation of Rights of Way and Easements Situate in the Township of Hempfield, County of Westmoreland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County for Sanitary Sewer Purposes Property of: John H. Robosky Tax Map No. 50-27-00-0-178 Appeal of: John H. Robosky In the Matter of: Condemnation of Rights of Way and Easements Situate in the Township of Hempfield, County of Westmoreland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County for Sanitary Sewer Purposes Property of: David Painter Silvis and Teresa Silvis Tax Map No. 50-27-00-0-143 Appeal of: David Painter Silvis and Teresa Silvis

Nos. 777 C.D. 2021, 779 C.D. 2021, 780 C.D. 2021, 781 C.D. 2021, 782 C.D. 2021, 783 C.D. 2021, 784 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

June 16, 2023

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: December 2, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LORI A. DUMAS, JUDGE

Edwin C. and Brenda B. Hurst, George and Ellen I. Hapchuk, Erica M and Jason Shuglie, John H. Robosky, and David Painter Silvis and Teresa Silvis (collectively, Condemnees),^[1] appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (trial court) overruling their preliminary objections to the declarations of taking filed by the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (Condemnor). Condemnees primarily claim that Condemnor was required to receive approval of the condemnation from the Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board (Board) and that the condemned land was for a private enterprise. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 2020, Condemnor filed declarations of taking against Condemnees, who own land in Hempfield Township (Township) that Condemnor would use to construct wastewater (sewer) pipes. Decl. of Taking, 11/6/20, ¶ 5. The land at issue appears to be either farmlands or wetlands that purportedly fall within the scope of the Agricultural Area Security Law (Agricultural Law).^[2] Hursts' Prelim. Objs., 11/19/20, at 3; Hapchuks' Prelim. Objs., 11/12/20, ¶¶ 11, 16. Condemnor served written notices of the declarations on Condemnees.

Condemnees filed preliminary objections, which generally raised two arguments. First, Condemnees argued that Condemnor was required to receive approval from the Board. Hursts' Prelim. Objs., at 6-7 (citing Section 13 of the Agricultural Law); accord Hapchuks' Prelim. Objs. ¶¶ 10, 15. Second, Condemnees claimed that because the condemned land was for a private enterprise, the Property Rights Protection Act (Protection Act), 26 Pa.C.S. §§ 201-208, prohibited the condemnation. Hursts' Prelim. Objs. at 7-8; Hapchuks' Prelim. Objs. ¶ 5.^[3]

The trial court partially overruled Condemnees' preliminary objections and scheduled an evidentiary hearing. Order, 1/25/21.^[4] In relevant part, the trial court held that Condemnor is a Commonwealth agency for purposes of Section 13(a) of the Agricultural Law, 3 P.S. § 913(a), and ordered an evidentiary hearing as to whether Condemnor was required to obtain the Board's approval under Section 13(a). Order, 1/25/21, ¶ 1(a)-(b).^[5] Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court overruled the remaining preliminary objections. Order, 6/8/21.

Because the instant condemnation involved underground waste pipes, the trial court concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the condemnation pursuant to Section 306(d) of The Administrative Code of 1929 (Administrative Code).^[6] Trial Ct. Op., 6/8/21, at 4-5. In so doing, the court rejected Condemnees' argument that the Agricultural Law granted broader jurisdictional authority to the Board than the Administrative Code. Id.

The trial court also rejected Condemnees' argument that the condemnation was for an improper private enterprise because certain third parties that owned land near the pipes could use their land for development. Id. at 6-7. Specifically, according to the trial court, Condemnees failed to elicit evidence that these third parties "brought about the proposed" sewer pipes by approaching Condemnor directly and that the third parties would operate and maintain the pipes. Id. at 9. Condemnees timely appealed and timely filed court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statements.^[7]

II. ISSUES

Condemnees raise three issues. First, Condemnees contend that the trial court erred by holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to approve the condemnation. Hursts' Br. at 16. Second, Condemnees assert that because the condemned land would be used for a private enterprise, the trial court should have sustained the preliminary objections. Id. at 16-17. Third, Condemnees claim that the trial court should have considered that one of the Township Supervisors had a conflict of interest in approving the condemnation. Id. at 17.

III. DISCUSSION^[8]

A. The Board's Jurisdiction

In support of their first issue, Condemnees contend that the Board has "jurisdiction" over Condemnor pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Agricultural Law, 3 P.S. § 913.^[9] Id. at 21. Condemnees note that the Agricultural Law was adopted after the Administrative Code. Id. at 20. Because the Agricultural Law postdates the Administrative Code, Condemnees specifically contend that Section 13 "should be interpreted to amend" Section 306(d) of the Administrative Code, 71 P.S. § 106(d). Id. at 21. Therefore, Condemnees reason, the jurisdictional limitations of Section 306(d), i.e., the Board has no jurisdiction over a condemnation for "underground pipes used to transport waste," do not exist and cannot apply to Condemnor. Id. at 19-20.

Condemnees then discuss the three Section 13(a) exceptions and argue that the Board's approval was required because Condemnor is "not a public utility within the meaning of the section." Id. at 21-22 (discussing In re Condemnation of Springboro Water Auth. of Prop. of Gillette, 898 A.2d 6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (Springboro)). In Condemnees' view, Springboro stands for "the determination that the phraseology in the exception set forth in § 913(a) is limited to a regulated public utility," and Condemnor is not a public utility. Id. at 22 (cleaned up and emphasis added). Condemnees conclude that because Condemnor is a municipal authority and "since a municipal authority is not regulated, [Condemnor] does not fit within the [public utility] exception" at Section 13(a). Id. (emphasis added).^[10]

Condemnor counters that Section 306(d) of the Administrative Code provides that the Board has no jurisdiction over condemnations for underground sewage pipes. Condemnor's Br. at 7-8 (discussing 71 P.S. § 106(d)). Because the instant case involves such pipes, Condemnor reasons that the Board has no jurisdiction. Id. at 8. Alternatively, Condemnor reasons that even if the Board has jurisdiction under Section 13(a) of the Agricultural Law, then the Board's approval is not required because the condemnation is for "an underground public utility facility that does not permanently impact the tilling of soil," i.e., the underground sewer pipes at issue. Id. at 9.

By way of guidance, in statutory construction, a court is obligated to effectuate the General Assembly's intent, which we discern by examining the plain language of the statute. Retina Assocs. of Greater Phila., Ltd. v. Retinovitreous Assocs., Ltd., 176 A.3d 263, 270 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Retina).^[11] "If the [plain] language of the statute clearly and unambiguously sets forth the legislative intent, it is the duty of the court to apply that intent and not look beyond the statutory language to ascertain its meaning." Id. (citation omitted). Finally, it is well settled that we read all decisions against their facts. Maloney v. Valley Med. Facilities, Inc., 984 A.2d 478, 485-86 (Pa. 2009).

This issue involves two statutory acts: the Administrative Code and the Agricultural Law. In 1979, the General Assembly enacted Section 306 of the Administrative Code, which created the Board and required it to review certain condemnation requests of agricultural...