Court Opinion

ID: 9713120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:08:31.16917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:16.729416
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
President Judge COLINS.
I first wish to commend the majority opinion writer for his scholarly, thorough, yet concise, treatment of the complex issues in the instant matter.
However, I must dissent insofar as the opinion affirms the trial court’s order overruling the preliminary objections of Josef S. Stone. As noted by the majority, the initial Declaration of Taking stated, inter alia, that the taking was to acquire “recreational and open space.”
Since the Township has admitted that one of the major purposes of the Taking was for the creation of open space, it is admittedly in violation of the Open Space Lands Act, Act of January 19, 1968, P.L. (1967) 992, as amended, 32 P.S. §§ 5001-5013. At this point, the eminent domain action must be terminated.
The fact that the Taking is only partially illegal cannot be bootstrapped into a lawful taking. It is not for Judges to speculate how much of the land will be used for *1076recreational purposes and how much will be illegally condemned for open space purposes.
It is overwhelmingly apparent from the totality of the record that the Township seeks to create open space so as to preserve the property values and enhance the esthetic livability of the Township. This is not permitted under the Township Code, or under the Open Space Lands Act.
I would sustain the preliminary objections to the Declaration of Taking.