11 A.3d 902
Pa.2011Background
- McGavitt property in Speers Borough, zoned for heavy industrial use, bordered by railroad (west), industrial owner (north), Monongahela River (east), and Guttman Realty (south).
- Appellants’ land access to the river exists, but their only land access is over appellee’s property.
- A public road over appellee’s land existed until 1916; post-1920s, appellee allowed prior owners to use it, but the parties disagreed after purchase.
- Trial court granted a prescriptive easement to McGavitt; Superior Court reversed as to commercial/industrial use. McGavitt v. Guttman Realty Co., 909 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).
- McGavitt then sought to open a private road under the Private Road Act; Board of View found it necessary to open over appellee’s land.
- Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded, holding river access evidence should be considered; noted Monongahela River as public highway/place of necessary resort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether water access must be considered to decide private road necessity | McGavitt argues water access is irrelevant; Act concerns roads only. | Guttman argues water access should be considered as part of access to property. | Yes; Board must consider river access in assessing necessity. |
| Does water access equate to land access under the Act | Water access cannot substitute for land access. | Water access is not required to be identical to land access but should be considered. | Water access may factor into necessity; not a per se prohibition. |
| What standard governs review of Board of View under the Private Road Act | Appellants seek proper statutory interpretation of whether water access is required. | Board’s consideration must follow the Act’s strict necessity standard. | De novo statutory interpretation; Board must assess all relevant access, including river access. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graff v. Scanlan, 673 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (necessity under the Act must be strictly construed)
- In re Opening a Private Road ex rel. Timothy P. O’Reilly, 954 A.2d 57 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (en banc decision; later reversed)
- O’Reilly v. Pa. DOT, 5 A.3d 246 (Pa. 2010) (Supreme Court reversal of Cmwlth. decision)
- Balliet v. Commonwealth, 17 Pa. 509 (Pa. 1851) (public resort concept cited in access cases)
- In re Daniel, 656 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 2003) (navigable water access considered in necessity)
- Graff v. Scanlan, 673 A.2d 1028 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996) (eminent domain and strict necessity)
- In re Packard, 926 A.2d 557 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (board review scope and jurisdiction)