Nestled on a 24-acre property in Chester Springs, Shannon Grady and her husband maintain a homestead where they raise goats, ducks, turkeys, chickens, and rabbits. The couple, parents to five children, purchased the property in 2019. Since then, they transformed a portion of the property – a former horse pasture – into a family-friendly space complete with a pond for recreation and animal watering. However, what began as urgent repairs after a 2021 hurricane has escalated into a protracted legal dispute with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), involving allegations of unpermitted construction and environmental violations.
Grady, who serves as the Chair of Moms For Liberty in Chester County and has been active in local conservative causes shared her story during a recent visit The Lancaster Patriot made to the property. Crossing a small drainage ditch via a private driveway lined with trees with no trespassing signs – a hint at the trouble the family has been facing – visitors encounter a bucolic scene that belies the family’s ongoing challenges. As Grady tended to the family’s rabbits, she described how the ordeal started following Hurricane Ida in October 2021, when storm damage destroyed the private driveway crossing over a small drainage ditch.
“The crossing was impassable, and we needed to fix it immediately so our family could access food, medical help, or anything else,” Grady explained. Within a day, the family piled stones and installed a large metal culvert to restore access – a common setup seen on dozens of neighboring properties. However, this action drew scrutiny after an anonymous complaint about earth disturbance activities prompted an October 5, 2021, warrantless search by representatives from the Chester County Conservation District (CCCD) and DEP.
Grady refers to this and subsequent visits as “raids,” emphasizing that officials entered without her consent. A Water Obstruction and Encroachment Inspection Report by Aquatic Biologist Carol Canigianai noted: “[Property owner] told us that it was private property and asked if we saw his no trespassing sign on the driveway. We advised him that we did not see a sign. He continued complaining about us being there so I advised him that we had a right to be there and that denying us that right is against the law and could subject him to civil penalties and enforcement.”
During the warrantless search, officials also identified a pond constructed without permits. A report detailed the pond’s alleged impermeable construction, over an acre of earth disturbance without a permit or stabilization, pollutants discharged into waters of the Commonwealth, the unpermitted driveway culvert, and failure to implement erosion and sedimentation plans. Grady contests these findings, stating the pond is not impermeable, nor over an acre, and that she has never received documentation of “pollution of the waters of the Commonwealth.”
“No evidence of pollution has been submitted,” she said, adding that no neighbors have complained about damage from her property.
Grady argues the regulations apply to “statutory entities” rather than private People like herself and her husband. She has refused to sign any paperwork, viewing permit requirements as a “forced contract.”
“If I’ve caused harm to others, I demand a trial by jury and evidence to be presented,” she asserted.
Complying with the DEP’s demands, she estimates, would cost nearly $500,000, including various permits, a certified wetland specialist to delineate areas around the pond, a wetland restoration plan, and a Notice of Intent for an individual NPDES permit.
The property improvements, Grady explained, have actually reduced environmental impact. The pond area, once part of a muddy horse pasture prone to mud from runoff, now features grass and serves as a water source for animals. She questions the wetland designation, noting that state images show only minor dirt displacement likely from rain – common on any property.
Government visits have occurred at least eight times, with armed police officers present on multiple occasions. Only two involved warrants, which Grady claims were invalid due to lack of probable cause and improper execution. Each time, if home, she informs officials they are trespassing and demands they leave, but they have refused.
On April 5, 2024, DEP conducted an inspection under a search warrant with West Pikeland Police present. Observations included alleged reduced pond size due to added fill and grading, new fill spread into woods without erosion controls, encroachment and obstruction of wetlands, and stormwater runoff causing pollution. The Administrative Order issued on July 11, 2024, cited violations of the Clean Streams Law and Dam Safety and Encroachments Act. It defines “pollution” broadly as contamination that could harm public health, welfare, or aquatic life, including sediment discharge.
The Order requires ceasing earth disturbances until authorized, paying for permits and specialists, implementing restoration, and allowing final inspections. Grady responded with a Cease and Desist order to the state, demanding they stop harassment.
In a May 28, 2025, hearing before Commonwealth Court Judge Matthew S. Wolf, Grady represented herself pro se, questioning officials on their authority to enter her land. “They had no clue,” she recalled.
Judge Wolf’s June 23, 2025, Memorandum and Order granted DEP’s Petition to Enforce, finding the couple did not appeal the Administrative Order, were served on August 5, 2024. “The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until Respondents have fully complied with the Court’s Order. Failure to comply with the Court’s Order may subject respondents to sanctions, including contempt,” the Order states.
In their Answer with New Matter, Grady argued: “It is a FACT that the Plaintiffs actors knowingly, intentionally, and willingly acted under the color of law to induce the Respondents, by using harassment, threats, and coercion into a simulated legal process by which their Administrative code regulations are intended to be enforced and was undermined and misused to obtain the ability to initiate administrative procedures and processes along with ‘Administrative Orders’, all of which have been deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL by SCOTUS, upon NON-REGULATED private property.”
She further noted: “No evidence or facts have been submitted by the Plaintiff that supports any substantial impact or burden on public safety, health, or welfare and its trade or commerce in this matter, as such relationships SHALL BE SUBSTANTIAL for a state agency to even bother the Respondents, two of the People of Pennsylvania.”
Public records confirm DEP’s involvement since at least April 2022, as noted in West Pikeland Township meeting minutes. On May 28, 2025, Chester County resident Leah Hoopes posted on X, sharing a link to a Commonwealth Court YouTube channel and writing, “Watch my friend Shannon Grady representing herself against the weaponized PA DEP aka Josh Shapiros climate goons. Department of Environmental Protection are violating her constitutional rights.”
The family maintains no harm has been proven, and many neighbors have similar setups without issue. Grady points to deteriorating public bridges nearby, questioning the state’s priorities.
Grady is appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, seeking not only denial of the petition but remedy for damages, including privacy invasion and stress on her family. Her youngest child experiences anxiety, fearing arrests when vehicles approach the driveway.
“This has revealed we don’t have the freedoms we think,” Grady said. “Americans need to wake up and push back against this bureaucratic tyranny.”
Any ordinance enacted by a County governing board to be a law in the strict sense of the word must be backed by a statute; otherwise, its jurisdiction extends only to those deemed to be within the corporation.
Then, as a corporate bylaw, the ordinance acquires the force and effect of law where appropriate. While the county’s jurisdiction may extend from border to border for comprehensive zoning, it does not necessarily extend to every property or person within its borders. If it were otherwise, it would constitute a gross deprivation of all rights and render all laws, as well as both the Federal and State Constitutions, invalid.
“An agency of government (DEP is not the government or a department or an officer of it.” U.S. ex rel Salzman v. Salant & Salant, K.C., N.Y., 41 F Supp. 196, 197.
Regulations sought to be imposed by laws or ordinances must have real and substantial bearing upon the public health, public safety, public works or general public welfare, and a belief, no matter how fervently or widely entertained, that municipal authorities can assert some communal control over privately owned lands, is at variance with the fundamental nature of private ownership and in derogation of the protection of private ownership. – Cooley Const. Lum. 7th Edition, page 245; Truax v. Corrigan 257 U.S. 336, 66L. Ed. 264, 27 A.L.R. 376; 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124.
It has been held that the exercise of police power under an ordinance may be proper in a general sense but unreasonable and confiscatory as applied to particular property.
“And the right of the landowner to build on his property according to his own desires, free of unconstitutional or arbitrary restraint, is a property right.” Bryan v. Kennett, supra, Ind; Adams v. Merrill, 85 N.E. 114; 87 N.E. 36, 45 Ind. APP. 315; 50 C.J.S., P. 740, note 85.
The permit process has three primary purposes. First, to induce the property owner, by intimidation, to voluntarily waive his rights by signing a contract which places him within the jurisdiction of the governing board. Second, to ensure compliance with ordinances. And third, to notify the assessor’s office of new construction or alterations so that property taxes may be adjusted and/ or applied accordingly.
The State legislature provided for a hearing process before the agency, but how can he be successful if the appeals board has already decided against him?
Every property owner should understand that all zoning is contractual. When you voluntarily apply for a permit, you are signing a contract; you acquiesce to the corporate jurisdiction; you request to be regulated and restricted, as a proper corporate member, by the corporate bylaws.
The heading of a provision of the code may be APPLICATIONS REQUIRED, but the heading is not part of the provision itself. Read the provision itself, and you will find instructions on how to apply, but nothing about the class of persons required to apply.
The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code’s Purpose in Section 105 is to protect and promote safety, health, and morals, PROVIDE for general welfare by GUIDING and protecting amenity, convenience, future GOVERNMENTAL, economic, practical, and social and cultural FACILITIES, [not private facilities], as well as improvement of GOVERNMENTAL processes and functions [not private processes and functions]; to GUIDE [not impose private property] uses of land and structures, type and location of streets, PUBLIC grounds and facilities; [not private grounds and facilities]; to PROMOTE [not require] the effective utilization of renewable energy sources; and to PERMIT municipalities to minimize such problems as may presently exist or which may be foreseen.
In Section 107. Definitions. the word “applicant” is defined as “a landowner or developer, as hereinafter defined, who HAS FILED [past tense] an application FOR development, including his heirs, successors, and assigns. Landowner is defined as “the legal or beneficial owner or owners of land. Developer is defined as “any landowner, agent of such landowner, or tenant with the permission of such landowner, who makes [past tense] or causes to be made a subdivision of land or a land development.”
Section 617. Causes of Action states, “… an officer of the municipality, or any aggrieved owner or tenant of real property who SHOWS that his property or person will be substantially affected by the alleged violation, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such building, structure, landscaping or land, or to prevent, in or about such premises, any act, conduct, business or use constituting a violation.”
It seems to me there must be evidence that the use of one’s private property for one’s private non-public use would have to be alleged to have harmed the public’s health or safety before instituting an appropriate action or proceeding. The failure of a landowner to voluntarily apply for a permit would not harm the public health, safety, or welfare.
I don’t think failure to apply for a permit is relevant. Actual evidence of harm to another’s property or person would have to be proven. But, living under a de facto government, what does truth have to do with anything today?