Request for private road denied by judge
“An Allegheny County landowner has failed to show that the public at large is the “primary and paramount beneficiary” of his request to build a private road on his neighbor’s land that leads to his two landlocked parcels, a judge has ruled.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Eugene E. Fike II’s ruling is the most recent development in a protracted case that has already heard from a sharply divided state Supreme Court, which held in 2010 that “the constitutions of the United States and Pennsylvania mandate that private property can only be taken to serve a public purpose.”
The case — In the Matter of Opening a Private Road for the Benefit of O’Reilly — came as a petition under a 177-year-old piece of legislation known as the Private Road Act, which allows owners of landlocked property to seek a judicial remedy to place a private road between their property and another roadway that leads to, or is part of, the public road system.
“We hold that the trial court erred in holding that the Raaps could not invoke the Private Road Act to open a roadway to their landlocked property. … Permitting the owner of landlocked property in this situation to open a roadway ensures that the government can exercise its power of eminent domain for important public works and infrastructure projects without depriving the property owner of access to his land,” she wrote.
Mr. Bresnahan noted the public benefits from property taxes that grow “immensely” when a large property is accessible by road. The ability to use the Private Road Act, Mr. Bresnahan added, affects a lot of property owners in Pennsylvania’s smaller counties.
“They have to be able to get these properties to the point where they’re usable,” he said.”
Present, Ben.Post Gazette.com 1 April 2013.