B.B. Craig v. PennDOT
2718 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 14, 2016Background
- Petitioner Brandon B. Craig owns property fronting SR 209 in Pottsville and, without a permit, installed a driveway onto the state highway in September 2013.
- DOT district personnel measured the driveway and found sight distances far below regulatory minimums (required ~240–262 ft; actual 30–75 ft).
- DOT informed Craig the sight deficiency could be cured only if the City removed eight on-street parking spaces adjacent to the driveway; DOT defers parking-removal decisions to municipalities.
- The City refused to remove the parking spaces, concluding removal would create a neighborhood hardship.
- DOT denied Craig’s highway occupancy permit (HOP); after administrative review the Secretary affirmed and ordered Craig to cease using and restore the unpermitted driveway. Craig petitioned this Court pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOT lawfully denied HOP for deficient sight distance | Craig: driveway is his only access; access is a fundamental property right; DOT should not condition HOP on removal of parking spaces | DOT: regulations require minimum sight distance; HOP may be denied if sight distance is inadequate; municipalities decide local parking removal | Held: DOT properly denied HOP; sight-distance rules valid and applicable; Craig still has on-street parking access but no permitted driveway |
| Whether DOT unlawfully preserved on-street parking over abutter’s access | Craig: parking rights should be subordinate to abutter access; DOT/City prioritized parking over access | DOT/City: municipality has discretion to regulate parking to serve neighborhood/public interest; DOT delegates such decisions | Held: City’s decision reasonable, not oppressive; DOT permissibly deferred to municipality |
| Whether DOT abused discretion or violated constitutional rights by denying access | Craig: denial amounts to unconstitutional deprivation of access; seeks mandamus to force solution | DOT: action within police power and regulations; denial is discretionary and aimed at public safety | Held: No constitutional violation; restrictions are reasonable to protect public safety; denial not arbitrary |
| Whether mandamus lies to compel DOT to create access solution | Craig: mandamus should force DOT to find a safe access alternative | DOT: its and municipality’s actions are discretionary and lawful | Held: Mandamus unavailable where discretion is not exercised arbitrarily, fraudulently, or based on legal error; here discretion was properly exercised |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 434 A.2d 1209 (Pa. 1981) (DOT may prohibit vehicular access under police power and delegate authority to municipalities)
- Breinig v. County of Allegheny, 2 A.2d 842 (Pa. 1938) (abutter entitled to reasonable access but regulation may limit access for public safety)
- Pennsylvania Department of Transportation v. Longo, 510 A.2d 832 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (DOT may restrict access to existing driveways for public safety)
- Love v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 569 A.2d 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (municipal regulation of parking valid if not oppressive or unreasonable)
- Burlington Homes, Inc. v. Kassab, 332 A.2d 575 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (mandamus does not lie to compel discretionary acts unless exercise of discretion is arbitrary or illegal)