IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Greencastle Area Franklin :

County Water Authority, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 204 C.D. 2015

: Argued: September 14, 2015

Mary Ann Young :

and Fred M. Young, III, h/w, :

and Thomas J. Moore :

and Deborah J. Moore, h/w :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: October 23, 2015

Greencastle Area Franklin County Water Authority (Authority) 

appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District, 

(Franklin County Branch) (Trial Court) granting the motions for summary 

judgment filed by Mary Ann Young and Fred M. Young, III (the Youngs) and 

Thomas J. Moore and Deborah J. Moore (the Moores) (collectively, the Property 

Owners) and denying the Authority’s motion for summary judgment. In this 

matter, the Authority filed suit in the Trial Court seeking an injunction to compel 

the Property Owners to connect to an extension of the water system abutting their 

properties. We conclude that the Property Owners were exempt from mandatory 
2

connection to the water system pursuant to Section 2603(b) of the Second Class 

Township Code (Code)1and accordingly affirm the order of the Trial Court.

The facts in this matter are not in dispute. The Youngs own and 

reside at 569 Lynn Drive in Greencastle, Pennsylvania (Young Property) and the 

Moores own and reside at 11634 Kimberly Drive in Greencastle, Pennsylvania 

(Moore Property). (Am. Compl. ¶¶2, 3, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 84a.) The 

Young Property and Moore Property are located within the same residential 

development in Antrim Township (Township). 

In 2000, the Board of Supervisors of the Township entered into a 

contract with the Authority to provide water systems in certain areas of the 

Township. (Am. Compl. ¶7, R.R. at 85a.) That same year, the Board of 

Supervisors enacted Ordinance No. 266 of 2000 (Ordinance), which compelled 

property owners in the Township to connect to water systems abutting their 

properties pursuant to Section 2603 of the Code. (Am. Compl. ¶6, Exhibit A:

Ordinance, R.R. at 85a, 93a-102a.) The Ordinance provided in relevant part:

A. The Owner of any Improved Property as defined in 

143-1, supra., abutting the water system and whose 

principal building is within 150 feet of the water system, 

shall connect such Improved Property with such Main 

and shall use such Water System, in such manner as the 

Authority may require, within 90 days after notice to 

such Owner from the Township or the Authority to make 

such connection; subject, however to such limitations and 

restrictions as shall be established herein or otherwise 

shall be established by the Township or the Authority, 

from time to time. 

...

 

1 Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 103, added by Act of Nov. 9, 1995, P.L. 350, as amended, 53 P.S. § 

67603(b). 
3

E. The notice by the Township or the Authority to make 

a connection to a Main, referred to in Section 143-2(A) 

shall consist of a copy of this Chapter, including any 

amendments and/or supplements at the time in effect, or 

a summary thereof, and a statement requiring the 

connection in accordance with the provisions of this 

Chapter and specifying that such connection shall be 

made within 90 days after the date such notice is given or 

served. Such notice shall also state that failure to connect 

within the 90 days shall result in the Board of 

Supervisors or their agents entering upon the property 

and constructing the connection at the owner’s expense. 

Such notice may be given or served at any time after the 

appropriate Main or Lateral is in place that can deliver 

water to the particular Improved Property. Such Notice 

shall be given to or served upon the Owner by personal 

service or by registered mail to his last known address, or 

by such other means as shall be permitted by law. 

(Ordinance § 143-2(A), (E), R.R. at 96a-97a.) 

In 2007, the Authority completed construction of the “Hess Line,” an 

extension of the main water line that abutted the Young Property and the Moore 

Property and was within 150 feet of the principal buildings on those properties. 

(Am. Compl. ¶¶9, 11-12, R.R. at 86a.) During an April 10, 2007 meeting of the 

Board of Supervisors of the Township, Fred Young addressed the Supervisors on 

behalf of the owners of the properties abutting the Hess Line and raised the 

owners’ concerns regarding the presumed mandatory connection requirement that 

the completion of the Hess Line would entail. (Moore Answer and New Matter, 

Exhibit D-1: Minutes of April 10, 2007 Township Board of Supervisors Meeting at 

1-2, R.R. at 26a-27a.) Following a discussion of other water main extension 

projects within the Township, the Supervisors passed Resolution No. 156, in which 

they “agree[d] to grant a waiver exemption from connection to public water...for 

ten homeowners along Kimberly Drive and Lynn Drive through proper legal 
4

proceedings that, if possible, may require a revised ordinance.” (Id. at 2, R.R. at 

27a.) 

Although the Hess Line was completed in 2007, the Authority did not 

send out notices to connect to the Property Owners until May 25, 2011. (Am. 

Compl. ¶14, Exhibit B: Notices to Connect (Notices), R.R. at 86a, 104a-107a.) 

The notices indicated that pursuant to Section 143-2(E) of the Ordinance, “you are 

hereby notified that you must connect your residence...to the water lateral of the 

public water system of [the Authority] within ninety (90) days of the date that this 

Notice is served upon you.” (Notices, R.R. at 105a, 107a.) The notices advised 

the Property Owners that failure to connect would result in the Authority entering 

their property and building the connection itself, but offered the Property Owners 

the option of signing an agreement to promise to connect before July 1, 2019. 

(Notices, R.R. at 104a-107a.) 

In August 2011, the Property Owners informed the Authority by letter 

that they would not connect to the Hess Line or execute the agreement promising 

to connect. (Am. Compl. ¶¶17, 18, Exhibits C and D, R.R. at 87a, 109a, 111a112a.) The Authority filed a complaint against Mary Ann Young and the Moores 

on November 7, 2011 seeking an injunction to compel connection to the Hess Line 

in accordance with the Ordinance and Section 2603 of the Code. After Fred 

Young was added to the deed for the Young Property, the Authority amended its 

complaint on May 1, 2013 to name the Youngs jointly, along with the Moores. 

The Property Owners filed answers and new matters and following the close of 

discovery, the Authority and the Property Owners filed cross motions for summary 

judgment. 
5

In their summary judgment motions, the Property Owners set forth 

two arguments for why they were exempt from mandatory connection to the water 

system. First, the Property Owners argued that they were exempted from 

connection by Resolution No. 156 of the the Township Board of Supervisors. The 

Property Owners asserted that Resolution No. 156 was authorized by the 

Ordinance, which states that the mandatory connection requirement is “subject...to 

such limitations and restrictions as shall be established...by the Township or the 

Authority, from time to time.” (Ordinance § 143-2(A), R.R. at 96a.)

Second, the Property Owners argued that they were exempted by 

Section 2603(b) of the Code, which was added by the Act of July 4, 2008, P.L. 

284, and became effective on September 2, 2008. Section 2603(b) provides:

(b) A property owner who, after the effective date of this 

subsection, is subject to mandatory connection pursuant 

to subsection (a)(1), shall not be required to connect to 

the water system pursuant to that subsection if all of the 

following conditions exist:

(1) The water system or part or extension of 

the system that is within one hundred fifty 

feet of the principal building was in 

existence on the effective date of this 

subsection.

(2) The principal building has its own 

supply of water which is safe for human 

consumption.

(3) Prior to the effective date of this 

subsection, the property owner was not 

required to connect to the existing system.

53 P.S. § 67603(b). The Property Owners argue that they meet each of the three 

criteria for the Section 2603(b) statutory exemption because (i) the Hess Line was 

completed in 2007 prior to the effective date of this provision, (ii) the water in the 
6

Property Owners’ wells has been tested to show that it is safe for human 

consumption,2and (iii) the Property Owners were not required to connect until 

May 25, 2011 when the notices to connect were issued, which was after the 

effective date of subsection (b).

The Authority argued in its summary judgment motion that the 

Property Owners met all of the requirements for mandatory connection under the 

Ordinance and Section 2603 because they owned property abutting the Hess Line, 

the principal buildings on the Young Property and Moore Property were within 

150 feet of the Hess Line and the Property Owners had received notices to connect. 

The Authority contended that the Property Owners were not exempted from 

connection pursuant to Resolution No. 156 because Section 2603 does not permit 

township ordinances to authorize selective exemptions of properties. Finally, the 

Authority argued that the Property Owners could not claim the statutory exemption 

of Section 2603(b) because the Property Owners were legally obligated to connect 

when the Hess Line was completed in 2007 and the Section 2603(b) exemption 

only applies to properties that were “required to connect” after September 2, 2008.

The Trial Court granted the Property Owners’ summary judgment 

motions and denied the Authority’s summary judgment motion. In an opinion by 

Judge Angela R. Krom, the Trial Court first rejected the Property Owners’

argument that they were specifically exempted by Resolution No. 156, observing

that in cases decided prior to the 2008 amendment this Court held that “[a]n 

ordinance that gives some but not all property owners the option to connect to the 

water system violates the authorization language of Section 2603, but one that 

 

2

The Property Owners produced the results of water tests for their wells during discovery. (See

Moore Summary Judgment Motion, Exhibits A and B, R.R. at 155a-161a; Young Summary 

Judgment Motion, Exhibit B, R.R. at 338a-339a.)
7

requires all abutting owners to connect does not.” Greenfield Township Municipal 

Authority v. D. R. Burket Trust, 959 A.2d 522, 527 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); see also 

Sharp v. Conewago Township, 833 A.2d 297, 301 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); Vernon 

Township Water Authority v. Vernon Township, 734 A.2d 935, 938 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1999). Therefore, the Trial Court concluded that the language of the Ordinance 

that purports to allow the Township to limit the effect of the mandatory connection 

requirement was contrary to the version of Section 2603 in effect at the time the 

Ordinance was enacted and Resolution No. 156 was without legal effect.

Turning to the statutory exemption added in 2008 as subsection (b) of 

Section 2603, the Trial Court concluded that there was no dispute that the first 

criteria for the exemption under paragraph (1) of subsection (b) was met because 

the “water system...that is within one hundred fifty feet of the principal building 

was in existence on the effective date of this subsection.” 53 P.S. § 67603(b)(1). 

The Trial Court also concluded that the second condition was satisfied because the 

Property Owners had submitted evidence that their well water was safe for human 

consumption and the Authority had not challenged this evidence. 

The Trial Court thus determined that the only dispute was whether the 

Property Owners satisfied paragraph (3) of subsection (b) which requires that 

“[p]rior to the effective date of this subsection, the property owner was not 

required to connect to the existing system.” 53 P.S. § 67603(b)(3). Because there 

was no case law interpreting Section 2603 after the 2008 amendment or any 

analogous provision3and no legislative history addressing this issue, the Trial 

Court looked to the Ordinance to determine the meaning of the phrase “required to 

 

3

The Borough Code was amended in 2012 to include an identical statutory exemption, see 8 Pa. 

C.S. § 2461, but no cases have been decided analyzing this provision. 
8

connect.” The Trial Court held that the Ordinance, which provides that property

owners “shall use such Water System, in such manner as the Authority may 

require, within 90 days after notice to such Owner from the Township or the 

Authority to make such connection,” (Ordinance § 143-2(A)), by its plain text

requires that a notice must be issued before a property owner is “required to 

connect” to the water line. The Trial Court noted that the Authority may have had 

many valid reasons to wait until May 2011 to issue the notices, but concluded that 

by not issuing the Notices until after the effective date of the amendment to 

Section 2603 the Authority allowed the Property Owners to become eligible for the 

Section 2603(b) exemption. The Authority appealed the denial of its summary 

judgment motion and grant of the Property Owners’ summary judgment motion to 

this Court.

4

 

We affirm the well-reasoned opinion of the Trial Court. The only 

issue in this appeal is whether the Property Owners met the third prong of the 

Section 2603(b) statutory exemption in that they were “not required to connect to 

the existing system” prior to September 2, 2008, when the amendment adding the 

exemption went into effect. 53 P.S. § 67603(b)(3). The Authority argues that the 

Trial Court opinion was inconsistent and illogical because it struck the selective 

exemption language in the Ordinance as contrary to Section 2603 while at the same 

 

4 Our standard of review of a trial court’s order granting summary judgment is de novo, and our 

scope of review is plenary. Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 687, 692 (Pa. 2011). Summary 

judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035.2(1); Pyeritz, 32 A.3d at 692; 

Royal v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 10 A.3d 927, 929 n.2 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2010). We review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and 

any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the 

moving party. LJL Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp., 962 A.2d 639, 647 (Pa. 

2009); Royal, 10 A.3d at 929 n.2.
9

time giving effect to the Ordinance’s requirement of notice to determine when the 

Property Owners were “required to connect.” However, simply because one 

portion of the Ordinance cannot be given legal effect does not mean that the entire 

Ordinance must be disregarded. The Ordinance provides that if any part of the 

Ordinance is rendered invalid then this invalidity shall not affect or impair the 

remaining portions of the Ordinance. (Ordinance § 143-9, R.R. at 101a.) This 

interpretation is consistent with our rules of statutory construction, which require 

that individual portions of a statute rendered invalid be severable from the whole

except where the invalid portions are so essential and inseparable that application 

of the remainder of the statute cannot be accomplished in accordance with 

legislative intent. 1 Pa. C.S. § 1925; Coppolino v. Noonan, 102 A.3d 1254, 1279 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (en banc); see also O’Connor v. City of Philadelphia Board of 

Ethics, 105 A.3d 1217, 1230 (Pa. 2014) (noting that courts should look to the 

Statutory Construction Act of 1972 when interpreting local laws in addition to state 

statutes).

The Trial Court properly looked to the requirement in the Ordinance 

of connection and use of the water system “within 90 days after notice to such 

Owner from the Township or the Authority to make such connection” to determine 

the date a property owner was “required to connect” for the purposes of the Section 

2603(b) exemption. The notice requirement does not conflict with any portion of 

Section 2603, including this Court’s holding in prior cases that a township 

ordinance may not permit selective exemptions. See D. R. Burket Trust, 959 A.2d 

at 527; Sharp, 833 A.2d at 301; Vernon Township Water Authority, 734 A.2d at 

938. In fact, Section 2603(f)(1) expressly contemplates that notice would be 

required to property owners:
10

If any property owner required under subsection (a) to 

connect with and use the system fails to do so within 

ninety days after notice to do so has been served by the 

board of supervisors, the board of supervisors or their 

agents may enter the property and construct the 

connection.

53 P.S. § 67603(f)(1). Mandating notice prior to a property owner being deemed 

to have been “required to connect” to the water system is also consistent with 

general principles of due process which require that an individual receive notice 

and an opportunity to be heard prior to the deprivation of a property right. 

Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754, 764 (Pa. 2013).

The Authority further argues that the Trial Court’s interpretation of 

Section 2603(b) would allow townships or municipal water authorities to 

selectively exempt property owners by not issuing a notice, contrary to decisions of 

this Court. In this case, however, there is no question that the Authority served 

notices to connect on the Property Owners and intends to enforce the mandatory 

connection requirements in the Ordinance on the Property Owners. Thus, the 

hypothetical question of whether or not a township or water authority could evade 

the prohibition on selective exemption by not issuing notices to properties that 

otherwise would be subject to mandatory connection is a matter not presently 

before this Court. 

Finally, the Authority argues that the issuance of the notices was 

solely a ministerial act to establish the date for physical connection and that 

sending out staggered notices was necessary to ensure an orderly connection 

process. While the Authority may have had practical reasons to delay issuing the 

notices to connect until May 2011, we agree with the Trial Court that the 

Authority’s rationale is immaterial to our analysis. The focus in this appeal is 

solely whether the Property Owners qualify for the statutory exemption because 
11

they were required to connect after September 2, 2008. Having concluded that the 

Property Owners were not required to connect until May 2011 within the meaning 

of Section 2603(b)(3), we affirm the Trial Court’s order granting summary 

judgment in favor of the Property Owners. 

____________________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Greencastle Area Franklin :

County Water Authority, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 204 C.D. 2015

: 

Mary Ann Young :

and Fred M. Young, III, h/w, :

and Thomas J. Moore :

and Deborah J. Moore, h/w :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 23rd day of October, 2015, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District (Franklin County Branch) granting 

Appellees’ motions for summary judgment in the above matter is AFFIRMED.

____________________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge