public trust doctrine in Pennsylvania

2017As we recounted in Philadelphia Museums, the public trust doctrine was developed in order to protect the significant interests the public acquires in such property through their use of it and the expenditures of tax monies for its care and improvement. 96 A. at 125 .

1989The taxpayers of the Borough (Appellees) opposed the conveyance and hearings were held on October 21, 1988, and October 31, 1988. 3 On December 8, 1988, the Orphans’ Court denied the conveyance and dismissed the Borough’s petition concluding that the Act did not apply because there had been a formal dedication and acceptance by the Borough to use the land as a public park. *146 The Orphans’ Court determined that the public trust doctrine as set forth in Trustees of the Philadelphia Museum v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 251 Pa. 115 , 96 A. 123 (1915) was not satisfied because th

2015Specifically, we held that "the public trust doctrine does not preclude the sale of parcel UPI 11-4-13 to Developers because, although this parcel was purchased with Act 70 funds, the General Assembly’s subsequent enactment of Act 29 of 1999 permitted its conveyance.” Borough of Downingtown, 55 A.3d at 173 .

2015Further, we held that ”[b]ecause the DDPA incorporates the ‘salient common-law principles' of the public trust doctrine, the DDPA likewise may not prohibit the sale of this parcel because the General Assembly, through Act 29 of 1999, specifically authorized its conveyance to Developers.” Id. (citation omitted.) .

2025In re: Est. of Ryerss, 987 A.2d 1231 , 1236 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (en banc).

2025As the Court has explained, the public trust doctrine provides that, “when land has been dedicated and accepted for public use, a political subdivision is estopped from interfering with or revoking the grant at least so long as the land continues to be used, in good faith, for the purpose for which it was originally dedicated.” Id.

2016Id. at 739 n.18 (quoting Borough of Downingtown, 55 A.3d at 173 ).15 In sum, the Board did not err in granting the conditional use application where, as here, Developers met the requirements of the Township’s Zoning Ordinance and it was not shown, with a high degree of probability, that the use will adversely impact the public interest.

2016Id. at 739 n.18 (quoting Borough of Downingtown, 55 A.3d at 173 ).15 In sum, the Board did not err in granting the conditional use application where, as here, Developers met the requirements of the Township’s Zoning Ordinance and it was not shown, with a high degree of probability, that the use will adversely impact the public interest.

2012(Trial court op. at 12) The trial court pointed out that in In re Erie Golf Course, the Supreme Court found that the DDPA incorporates the “salient common-law principles” of the public trust doctrine and held that, “[t]o the extent the [DDPA] modifies the public trust doctrine, the prior common-law principles are superseded.” (Id. quoting In re Erie Golf Course, 605 Pa. at 503 -04 n. 16, 992 A.2d at 86 n. 16).

2012However, the trial court determined that the DDPA applies in this case, and not the public trust doctrine, based on our Supreme Court’s decision in In re Erie Golf Course, 605 Pa. 484 , 992 A.2d 75 (2010).

2009The orphans' court stated that the DDPA is inapplicable because, according to Vutnoski v. Redevelopment Authority of Scranton, 941 A.2d 54 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), overruled by In Re Erie Golf Course, 963 A.2d 605 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal granted, 601 Pa. 92 , 971 A.2d 490 (2009), the DDPA only applies where there is no formal record of acceptance of donated land, and here there is a formal record of acceptance. [9] Ultimately, the orphans' court relied most heavily on Section 7740.3(a) of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code (PEF), 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.3(a), [10] dealing with charitable trusts, and t

2009The orphans’ court stated that the DDPA is inapplicable because, according to Vutnoski v. Redevelopment Authority of Scranton, 941 A.2d 54 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), overruled by In Re Erie Golf Course, 963 A.2d 605 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal granted, 601 Pa. 92 , 971 A.2d 490 (2009), the DDPA only applies where there is no formal record of acceptance of donated land, and here there is a formal record of acceptance. 9 Ultimately, the orphans’ court relied most heavily on Section 7740.3(a) of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code (PEF), 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.3(a), 10 dealing with charitable trusts, and the p

2009The orphans' court stated that the DDPA is inapplicable because, according to Vutnoski v. Redevelopment Authority of Scranton, 941 A.2d 54 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), overruled by In Re Erie Golf Course, 963 A.2d 605 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal granted, 601 Pa. 92 , 971 A.2d 490 (2009), the DDPA only applies where there is no formal record of acceptance of donated land, and here there is a formal record of acceptance. [9] Ultimately, the orphans' court relied most heavily on Section 7740.3(a) of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code (PEF), 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.3(a), [10] dealing with charitable trusts, and t

2009The orphans’ court stated that the DDPA is inapplicable because, according to Vutnoski v. Redevelopment Authority of Scranton, 941 A.2d 54 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), overruled by In Re Erie Golf Course, 963 A.2d 605 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal granted, 601 Pa. 92 , 971 A.2d 490 (2009), the DDPA only applies where there is no formal record of acceptance of donated land, and here there is a formal record of acceptance. 9 Ultimately, the orphans’ court relied most heavily on Section 7740.3(a) of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code (PEF), 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.3(a), 10 dealing with charitable trusts, and the p

2009The orphans' court stated that the DDPA is inapplicable because, according to Vutnoski v. Redevelopment Authority of Scranton, 941 A.2d 54 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), overruled by In Re Erie Golf Course, 963 A.2d 605 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal granted, 601 Pa. 92 , 971 A.2d 490 (2009), the DDPA only applies where there is no formal record of acceptance of donated land, and here there is a formal record of acceptance. [9] Ultimately, the orphans' court relied most heavily on Section 7740.3(a) of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code (PEF), 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.3(a), [10] dealing with charitable trusts, and t

2009The orphans’ court stated that the DDPA is inapplicable because, according to Vutnoski v. Redevelopment Authority of Scranton, 941 A.2d 54 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), overruled by In Re Erie Golf Course, 963 A.2d 605 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal granted, 601 Pa. 92 , 971 A.2d 490 (2009), the DDPA only applies where there is no formal record of acceptance of donated land, and here there is a formal record of acceptance. 9 Ultimately, the orphans’ court relied most heavily on Section 7740.3(a) of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code (PEF), 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.3(a), 10 dealing with charitable trusts, and the p

2008Moreover, this case, unlike In re Biester and Pittsburgh Palisades Park, involves dedicated property and as previously stated, “[t]he standing analysis is different in cases where citizens seek to protect a park, a town square or other land dedicated to a particular public purpose from degradation or intrusion by an inconsistent public or private use.” White, 799 A.2d at 193 . *766 Finally, we address Authority’s claims that Pilchesky has failed to comply with certain requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

1973There is also some hint that article I, sec. 27, as it enunciated the public trust doctrine, may have been simply declaratory of the common law as it existed prior to the enactment of article I, sec. 27: Rundle v. Delaware and Raritan Canal Co., 14 Howard 80 , 55 U.S. 80 (1852).

1973There is also some hint that article I, sec. 27, as it enunciated the public trust doctrine, may have been simply declaratory of the common law as it existed prior to the enactment of article I, sec. 27: Rundle v. Delaware and Raritan Canal Co., 14 Howard 80 , 55 U.S. 80 (1852).