Two real estate developers are suing Franklin Park, several municipal officials and, in an unusual twist, three dozen neighbors who opposed their plans to build townhouses in the northern part of the borough.

Rose Mance, Diane Wroblewski and their development company, Rodi Services, claim more than $180,000 in out-of-pocket losses and $2.4 million in lost profits from the sale of 21 townhouses they proposed for 4.7 acres between Interstate 79 and Aldon Drive, just east of Nicholson Road.

Those losses resulted from unnecessary delays the pair faced in getting approval for their project, according to their lawyer, William Weiler Jr. The delays resulted from actions by borough officials and residents, according to the 49-page lawsuit.

"We suffered extreme losses, physically and emotionally," Ms. Mance said.

Franklin Park Manager Ambrose Rocca had no comment because the matter was in litigation.

"This is very stressful, to say the least," said Tom Harvey, who, along with his neighbors had just learned they were named in the suit. He said he had not decided on a response.

The lawsuit charges negligence, two counts of abuse of process and two counts of wrongful use of civil proceedings. The developers are seeking punitive damages, claiming the borough lacked probable cause to turn down the townhouse plans. The neighbors were included in the request for punitive damages because they raised "frivolous objections" to the project, Mr. Weiler said.

The inclusion of the neighbors in the legal dispute raised warning flags for the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. "This sounds like a classic SLAPP," Witold Walczak said. "It's a very dangerous kind of lawsuit designed to chill protests against developers."

"SLAPP" is an acronym for "strategic lawsuit against public participation." Mr. Walczak said developers have filed them to discourage residents from exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and to address government officials.

Franklin Park residents appear to have done nothing more than speak out at a public meeting, communicate with borough officials and petition the court when the developers appealed council's decision, he said.

"I would not only file motions to dismiss the suit, but would ask the court to award attorneys' against the developers," he said.

The dispute began in June 2003, when council rejected a proposal by Ms. Mance and Ms. Wroblewski to build 10 double units and one single-family home on land that was divided between two types of zoning. Part of the tract is zoned R-2, on which single-family homes can be built, while most of it is zoned R-3, on which duplexes, townhouses and garden apartments are permitted.

The proposed subdivision, called Carriage Estates, would adjoin a neighborhood of single-family homes.

The borough's planning commission, which advises council, had recommended against approval. After hearing from a lawyer for the residents who said townhouses would hurt the character of the neighborhood, council voted to reject the plans, citing safety concerns about the access road to the development and saying the project was not consistent with the neighborhood.

Ms. Mance and Ms. Wroblewski appealed council's decision to Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. Common Pleas Judge Joseph M. James ruled in June 2004 that the borough had no valid reasons to turn down the townhouse plans.

The borough did not appeal his ruling.

Ms. Mance and Ms. Wroblewski said the judgment came too late for them. They have sold the tract to a South Hills developer, who will build the townhouses, but both are sales associates with Coldwell Banker, and they will help market the homes.

Neighbors' fears about how the one-floor townhouses would fit into the neighborhood were unfounded, Ms. Mance said. Each unit would be about 2,600 square feet. When the project was announced, the estimated selling price was about $200,000. That number is likely to be closer to $300,000, she said.

The neighborhood has been designed to appeal to empty-nesters and senior citizens.

The borough and the individual defendants were advised of the suit last week. They have 20 days to file preliminary objections in Common Pleas Court.