O'Reilly v. (a) Hickory On Green Homeowners Ass'n
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 224
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- This case is on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding constitutionality of the Private Road Act (PRA).
- O’Reilly petitioned for appointment of a board of viewers to open a private road to access his landlocked property in South Fayette Township, Allegheny County.
- The Association and many landowners objected, arguing the PRA permits unconstitutional takings for private use.
- Common pleas overruled objections; this court affirmed; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, the Court must evaluate whether the public is the primary and paramount beneficiary under Lands of Stone standard.
- The current record is thin; there is no factual record of highway condemnation timing or related matters; a hearing is needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PRA satisfy the Lands of Stone public-purpose standard? | O’Reilly argues PRA serves public purpose under Lands of Stone and related cases. | Association argues PRA is facially unconstitutional and private-use with no primary public benefit. | Remand to assess public-primary-beneficiary question; no ruling on constitutionality yet. |
| Is the record sufficient to determine the public-beneficiary issue? | Record is thin; insufficient to decide public purpose. | Record needs development; nonetheless, arguments exist that private use prevails. | Remand to develop factual record and determine primary beneficiary. |
| Should the case be remanded for a hearing to develop the necessary record? | Hearing is necessary to supplement the record on highway condemnation and timing. | Not expressly stated, but objectors rely on record deficiency to challenge the PRA. | Yes; remand to common pleas for a hearing and findings of fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lands of Stone, 595 Pa. 607 (Pa. 2007) (public purpose requires primary-beneficiary test)
- In re Forrester, 575 Pa. 365 (Pa. 2003) (primary beneficiary not the private petitioner)
- In re Bruce Ave., 438 Pa. 498 (Pa. 1970) (public purpose must be real and primary)
- Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority, 357 Pa. 329 (Pa. 1947) (real or fundamental public benefit required)
- Waddell’s Appeal, 84 Pa. 90 (Pa. 1877) (longstanding PRA validity)
- O’Reilly I, 954 A.2d 57 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (precedent upholding PRA with later Supreme Court questions)
- O’Reilly II, 607 Pa. 280 (Pa. 2010) (Supreme Court remanded for case-specific public-purpose analysis)