## Facts

- A school district purchased approximately 80 acres to build an elementary school and sought road access acceptable to local governments concerned about traffic and safety.
- To create an access route from Meadow Valley Road, the district agreed to acquire a 50-foot strip (about 2.3 acres) affecting land owned by David and Erma Lauver.
- The Lauvers’ land was burdened by a county-held open-space (agricultural preserve) easement administered through a county agricultural preserve board.
- The board voted to approve removing the strip from the easement and recommended granting the district a right-of-way.
- The district requested that the county commissioners either extinguish the easement over the strip or approve the right-of-way.
- The county commissioners denied both requests.
- The county later conceded that the proposed right-of-way would not interfere with the county’s open-space easement.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Open Space Lands Act, the holder of a prior open-space easement must consent to a subsequently granted right-of-way when the right-of-way does not interfere with the easement.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the county.
- The court held that county approval is not required for a later right-of-way unless the right-of-way would interfere with the existing open-space easement.
- Because the county conceded noninterference, the school district was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- An open-space easement is a negative easement that restricts inconsistent uses; it does not transfer general control over all subsequent compatible property interests.
- Section 11(a) of the Open Space Lands Act requires governmental approval of later encumbrances only to the extent necessary to protect the rights secured by the open-space easement.
- A later-granted right-of-way may be created without the easement holder’s consent when it does not impair or interfere with the easement’s protected open-space purposes.
- Where noninterference is undisputed, the question becomes one of statutory interpretation suitable for resolution as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that a county holding an open-space easement lacks an automatic veto over later rights-of-way that do not impair the easement, and it reversed summary judgment because the county conceded the proposed access right-of-way would not interfere with its conservation rights.


Ephrata Area Sch. Dist. v. County of Lancaster, 886 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005)