Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

June 10,20091 Volume 31 No.11 Zoning Bulletin operation may be able to produce, through its own crop, only that amount of biodiesel necessary for its own operations." However, the court expressed no opinion on whether that would then be a bona fide farm use within North Carolina statutory law. Decisions Reviewable-Attorney General challenges validity of township ordinance Township maintains challenge can not be made unless or until it attempts to enforce ordinance Citation: Com., Office of Atty. Gen. ex reI. Corbett v. Locust Tp., 968 A.2d 1263 (Pa.2009) . PENNSYLVANIA (04/29/09)-In June 2006, the Commonwealth At- torney General (the "AG") brought an action against the township, chal- lenging the validity of a township ordinance regulating intensive animal operations (th~ "Ordinance"). The AG alleged that the Ordinance con- flicted with and was preempted by a number of Commonwealth statutes. The AG's challenge was. brought pursuant to Chapter three of the Commonwealth's Agricultural Code ("ACRE") (3 Pa.C.S. ~ 311-318). In July 2005, ACRE. Chapter three was enacted in order to en~ure that local regulation of normal agricultural operations was consistent with Commonwealth policies and statutes. Section 313 prohibited local gov- ernments from adopting or enforcing an unauthorized loq.l ordinance. An "unauthorized local ordinance" was defined as including: "an or- dinance enacted or enforced by a local government unit which . . . [P] rohibits or limits a normal .agricultural 'operation unless the local gov- ernment unit . . . is not prohibited or preempted under State law from adopting the ordinance." Section 313(b) said that Chapter three applied to: "the enforcement of local ordinances existing on the effective date of [Chapter three] and to the enactment or enforcement of local ordinances enacted on or after the effective date of Chapter three." Section 315 au- - thorized the AG to bring an action against a local government to "invali~ date the unauthorized local ordinance or enjoin the enforcemept of the unauthorized local ordinance." In response to the suit filed by the AG, the township claimed that the AG did not have an actionable claim. The township said that was be- cause the AG had not alleged that the township had applied or enforced the Ordinance in a' manner inconsistent with state law. The township pointed to ~ 313 (b), and maintained that, as to existing local ordinances, Chapter three applied only to their enforcement. Noting that the Ordi- nance existed at the time Chapter three was enacted, the tow.nship main- 8 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 60 (/~) , \ i \ \ I \ I I i II II II II II 'I \\ I i I I 1\ () \ \1 I ! I I I I ! .\ i I , 1 I -\ { ,) 11" \.,J.'