Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 21 7 Use —After township issues enforcement notices, landowners contend their mulching operations are protected as agricultural or forestry activities Township disagrees, noting none of the raw materials in the mulching operation are derived from the landowners' property Citation: Tinicum Tp. v. Nowicki, 2014 WL 4411661 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014) PENNSYLVANIA (09/09/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether landowners' mulching operations were a permitted use as protected agricul- tural operations or forestry activities under Pennsylvania's Municipal Plan- ning Code and/or Pennsylvania's Rights to Farm Act and Pennsylvania's Agriculture Code. The Background/Facts: River Road Quarry, LLC ("River Road") owned property located in Tinicum Township (the "Township"). The property was a three -acre former quarry located in the Township's E (Extraction) Zoning District. Pennswood Hauling, LLC ("Pennswood") hauled raw materials, including tree stumps, yard waste, and logs to the property. River Road processed those materials into mulch using a tub grinder. Pennswood then hauled the finished mulch off the property to buyers. (Hereinafter, River Road and Pennswood are collectively referred to as "Landowners.") In June 2009 and again in October 2011, the Township's Zoning Officer is- sued enforcement notices to the Landowners for violating the Township's Zoning Ordinance and operating nonpeuuitted mill, warehouse, and wholesale uses on the property. The Landowners appealed the October 2011 enforcement notice. The Township's Zoning Hearing Board (the "Board") upheld the enforcement no- tice, concluding that the mulching operation on the property was not a permit- ted use on the property because it did not qualify as an A-1 crop farming/ nursery use or an A-6 forestry use under the Township's Zoning Ordinance. In its decision, the Board emphasized the fact that none of the raw materials from the mulching operation were derived from the Landowners' property itself. The Landowners appealed the Board's decision to trial court. The trial court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the mulching operation was not an agricultural or forestry use. The Landowners again appealed. First, they argued that their mulching operations on the property qualified as permitted agricultural or forestry uses protected under Pennsylvania's Municipal Planning Code ("MPC"), which prohibits zoning ordinances from unreasonably restricting forestry activities and requires zoning ordinances to encourage the continuity, development, and 2014 Thomson Reuters 7