In Re: Petition of B.R. Adams and J.M. Adams, his wife ~ Appeal of: W. Dittmar and J.M. Corl
2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 743
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Adamses own 231-acre mountaintop parcel in Sullivan County; most of the parcel is reached from the valley via Star Road and a logging trail; Holly Hill Road lies on the opposite side of the mountain on neighboring land.
- Chesapeake built and used a 2,200-foot commercial road (the Roadway) across Corl’s land to reach a gas pad on Corl’s property; Adamses historically used that stretch to access their property.
- Chesapeake gated the Roadway on Corl’s property; Adamses sought to reopen the 2,200-foot stretch under the Private Road Act, claiming their land is effectively landlocked because the Star Road/logging-trail route to the crest is extremely steep, long, and prohibitively expensive to improve.
- A Board of View conducted a site visit, found the logging-trail alternative to be impracticable and costly, and concluded the Roadway was the shortest, safest, and most feasible current access; it recommended granting Adamses access without compensation (Corl did not request compensation).
- Trial court confirmed the Board’s report; Corl appealed arguing (1) Adamses are not landlocked because Star Road provides access, and (2) opening the Roadway lacks the required public purpose. The appellate majority affirmed; a dissent would have reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adams) | Defendant's Argument (Corl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Adamses are effectively landlocked / necessity under the Private Road Act | Adams: existing valley access via Star Road/logging trail does not provide feasible access to most of the parcel; converting the trail is extremely difficult and cost‑prohibitive, so Roadway use is necessary | Corl: Star Road (an abandoned/now-private road) affords access; mere preference for shorter access insufficient | Held: Board/trial court decision affirmed — necessity satisfied because alternative access is "extremely difficult and burdensome" (cost, topography, existing roadbed favor granting access) |
| Whether opening the private road serves a public purpose under O’Reilly (takings/ public-benefit requirement) | Adams: Roadway supports Chesapeake’s gas operations (public utility) and the Adamses enrolled property in a Game Commission access program permitting vehicular hunter access — public benefit | Corl: Primary beneficiary would be private (Chesapeake/Adamses); hunters can access on foot so public benefit is minimal | Held: Affirmed — public purpose found (natural gas transport is public use and Game Commission agreement provides public hunting access); taking small/no compensation challenged |
| Standard of review / role of Board of View | Adams: Board’s factual findings from site visit are controlling and entitled to deference | Corl: Board misapplied legal standard by focusing on preferred portion of property rather than existence of any access | Held: Appellate court deferred to Board; no abuse of discretion shown — Board properly considered cost, topography, existing roadbed per precedent |
| Whether compensation or extent of taking affects public-purpose inquiry | Adams: limited impact on Corl; no compensation sought | Corl: (implicitly) taking of private property must be justified even if small | Held: Extent of taking considered relevant but not outcome-determinative; no compensation issue preserved on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Opening Private Road for Benefit of O’Reilly, 5 A.3d 246 (Pa. 2010) (private-road takings subject to eminent-domain public‑purpose test; public must be primary and paramount beneficiary)
- Application of Little, 119 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. 1956) (necessity standard: not absolute landlock but more than mere inconvenience; alternative must be "extremely difficult and burdensome")
- In re Laying Out & Opening Private Road in Sullivan Township, 964 A.2d 495 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (factors for necessity: cost, topography, presence of existing roadbed that can be opened)
- In re Private Road in Union Township, 611 A.2d 1362 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (upholding private road where alternative to reach portion of property was prohibitive due to topography)
- Westrick v. Approval of Bond of Peoples Natural Gas Co., 520 A.2d 963 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (transportation and supply of natural gas constitutes a public use)