Peters Township v. Russell
121 A.3d 1147
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- In 1951 a subdivision plan in Peters Township identified Mt. Blaine Drive; Lower Mt. Blaine Drive (gravel) remained private and was maintained by adjacent landowners.
- In October 2013 the Landowners installed an unlocked swinging gate with a chain and padlock across the end of Lower Mt. Blaine Drive at the Y-intersection with Nevin Drive.
- Peters Township officials (police and fire) raised public-safety concerns that the gate could impede emergency response; Township demanded removal.
- Township sued for injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) and the Pennsylvania Private Road Act (which requires court permission before installing swinging gates on private roads).
- The trial court granted the Township’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, found a statutory violation, ordered removal of the gate, and permanently enjoined reinstalling obstructions without leave of court.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, resting its decision on violation of the Private Road Act and rejecting the Landowners’ defenses (factual disputes, de facto taking, and estoppel/waiver).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Township) | Defendant's Argument (Landowners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether judgment on the pleadings was appropriate | Gate installed without court approval violated Private Road Act and merits injunction | There are disputed facts (traffic, availability of alternate routes, gate unlocked) that preclude judgment | Judgment on the pleadings affirmed: undisputed statutory violation (no court leave) warranted injunction |
| 2. Whether the gate converted the road into a prohibited dead-end under SALDO | Gate functionally created a dead-end street, violating SALDO §76(1) | Gate is unlocked at a Y-intersection; does not force turnarounds, so no dead-end | Court did not decide SALDO issue (affirmed on Private Road Act grounds) |
| 3. Whether Township’s paving of Upper Mt. Blaine constituted de facto condemnation (taking) | N/A (Township did not concede) | Paving increased traffic and amounted to a taking requiring compensation | Not addressed: de facto condemnation was not properly pleaded as a separate petition under the Eminent Domain Code |
| 4. Whether Township is estopped from seeking injunction due to alleged prior consent | Township contends statutory right to seek relief unaffected by prior statements | Landowners assert Township employees consented to gate, barring relief by equitable estoppel | Estoppel defense waived: not pled as New Matter, so cannot be asserted |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Forest Township v. Bear Creek Lakes Civic Ass'n, 606 A.2d 1296 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (subdivision gates that caused turnarounds/dead-ends violated municipal ordinance)
- Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Israel, 52 A.2d 317 (Pa.) (statutory violation can constitute irreparable harm warranting injunction)
- Belitskus v. Hamlin Township, 764 A.2d 669 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (appellate court may affirm trial court on any ground supported by record)
- Borough of Walnutport v. Dennis, 13 A.3d 541 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (de facto condemnation claims must be pursued under the Eminent Domain Code)