Pennsbury Village Associates, LLC v. McIntyre et al.

In 1996, Pennsbury Township acquired a parcel of conservation land with funds from the Chester County Heritage Park and Open Space Municipal Grant Program. This program was established by a 1989 county resolution, which was enacted pursuant to the state Open Space Lands Act.

The County resolution required that all lands purchased with program funds must include perpetual deed restrictions limiting the land's use to public park or recreation purposes, and the conveyance to the Township accordingly included such deed restrictions. In 2004, Pennsbury Village Associates, LLC (LLC) applied to the Township for conditional use approval for a mixed-use, high-density residential development on a property that abutted the Grant Program land. The development would require the construction of an access road across a portion the Grant Program land. The Township approved conditional use, subject to 55 separate restrictions. Neighboring landowners, including Aaron McIntyre, contested the approval, and the LLC contested some of the 55 restrictions. The parties entered negotiations, which ended with a written settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement allowed for the construction of the road on the Grant Program land. The settlement agreement also included a provision that it was intended to be legally binding on all parties and that no party could ever challenge the validity of the agreement. Subsequently, McIntyre opposed the road's layout on the Grant Program land at a public meeting of the County Commissioners and via e-mail, and the County eventually stated its opposition to the road's layout. The LLC then sued McIntyre for violating the settlement agreement by opposing the road's layout. McIntyre asserted a defense based on the state Environmental Immunity Act, a statute that provides immunity to persons who communicate to 'a government agency relating to enforcement or implementation of an environmental law or regulation.'

The trial court held for the LLC, finding that the deed restrictions were not an 'environmental law or regulation.' The intermediate appellate court reversed, finding that the deed restrictions were an environmental law or regulation because they were established pursuant to the County regulation and the Open Space Lands Act. The LLC appealed.

Holding: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that rights under the Environmental Immunity Act could be waived in a settlement agreement, and that McIntyre had in fact waived such rights. The court did not decide the question of whether the deed restrictions constituted an environmental law or regulation. ?

Analysis and Notes: Pennsylvania's Environmental Immunity Act is an example of an anti-SLAPP statute. 'SLAPP' stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, and refers to a person (usually a developer or other business interest) suing another person (usually an activist or citizen) to try to prevent them from participating in a public process. Many states have passed anti-SLAPP laws over the past couple decades. The issue upon which this case was decided (whether a person can agree to waive their rights under an anti-SLAPP law) is not specific to land conservation, although it could, as here, arise in a land conservation context.

The question of whether a public communication concerning an amendment, termination, or violation of a public deed restriction (or a conservation easement of which a government entity is the holder, the landowner, or the funder) could enjoy anti-SLAPP protection is an interesting one, and is left to be decided by future cases.