Is An Ordinance Required If a Declaration of Taking Under the Second Class Township Code Has Been Authorized by a Resolution ?
In Appeal of Heim, 151 Pa. Commw. 438, 617 A.2d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992), the landowners had argued that a declaration of taking under the Second Class Township Code, authorized by resolution, was invalid because it should have been authorized by ordinance.
The Second Class Township Code did not specify which procedure authorized a declaration of taking.
This Court held that a resolution was sufficient because, as in Jordan Appeal, 73 Pa. Commw. 572, 459 A.2d 435 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Jordan Appeal involved the Borough Code, Act of February 1, 1966, P.L (1965) 1656, as amended, 53 P.S. 45101-48501, but this Court held in Appeal of Heim the interpretation of the Borough Code to be analogous to that of the Second Class Township Code, which controls in this case. Appeal of Heim, 617 A.2d at 77.
The Second Class Township Code was silent on the procedure to be followed. While an ordinance was necessary to open a road, a resolution was sufficient to authorize the acquisition of the land upon which the road would be laid.
In Wexford Plaza Associates, 674 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); Appeal of Heim, 151 Pa. Commw. 438, 617 A.2d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992), while the Township was a home rule municipality, it followed the Second Class Township Code for a condemnation proceeding. Wexford Plaza, 674 A.2d at 1206.
In that case, this Court reaffirmed the holding of Appeal of Heim that a resolution was appropriate for the township to condemn. Id.
In Springettsbury Township of a right-of-way interest in a tract of land owned by York Drive-Ins Inc., 50 Pa. D. & C.3d 557 (1988), it was held that neither the Eminent Domain Code nor the former Second Class Township Code required a second class township to enact an ordinance to authorize the filing of a declaration of taking, and that a resolution was sufficient. 50 Pa. D. & C.3d 557.