Court Opinion

ID: 9754368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:57:29.316244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:52.774152
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court “correctly declined to grant damages and ruled in favor of the City.” I cannot agree, however, that the SWMA applies to the City’s activity of razing a single house and the regrading of a lot.
Section 11 of the SWMA, 32 P.S. § 680.11, provides:
§ 680.11. Effect of watershed storm water plans
(a) After adoption and approval of a watershed storm water plan in accordance with this act, the location, design and construction within the watershed of storm water management systems, obstructions, flood control projects, subdivisions and major land developments, highways and transportation facilities, facilities for the provisions of public utility services and facilities owned or financed in whole or in part by funds from the Commonwealth shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the watershed storm water plan. (Emphasis added.)
The trial court determined that the SWMA applies to larger developments than single lots. The trial court stated:
*156The legislature also recognized the need for uniformity in dealing with the drainage concerns associated with large scale developments. The enactment of the SWMA was the legislature’s response to this need. This statute changed the common law but only with regard to activities within its scope. The activities herein complained of do not fall within the contemplation of this legislation. Consequently, the SWMA was an improper ground upon which to rest liability.
Bahor v. City of Pittsburgh, No. GD 89-14585, Civil Division, filed December 10, 1992, at 12.
I believe that the trial court properly concluded that under the present facts the City’s activities do not fall under the SWMA.
KELLEY, J., joins in this concurring opinion.