Court Opinion

ID: 9645289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:19:34.175851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:26.524696
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Mencer:
I respectfully dissent.
I cannot conclude on this record that the court below erred as a matter of law in deciding that the condemnation by Hatfield Township under review here was taken arbitrarily or in bad faith. Compare Stubbs v. Township of Snyder, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 613, 361 A.2d 464 (1976).
My reading of the record convinces me that Judge Honeyman was absolutely correct when he wrote the following:
Condemnor’s explanation for why it leapfrogged over the closer intervening lots and condemned the subject tract was that it didn’t have the money to acquire the intervening lots and that the subject tract fronted on Maple Avenue and at some future date might offer additional access to the park from Maple Avenue. This Court concluded that such contention was not genuine on the part of the township. It is manifestly clear that the intention of the township in this condemnation was to thwart the building plans of the condemnees.
*118That the subject property was condemned while it was still the subject of a zoning appeal pending in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania also indicates that the condemnation was done in bad faith.
Therefore, I would affirm on the opinion of Judge Honeyman.