Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2014

Home

November 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin viability of agricultural operations (53 P.S. § 10603(f), (h)). Second, they argued that their mulching operations on the property were protected under Pennsylvania's Rights to Farm Act and the Agriculture Code, which prohibit unauthorized local ordinances that restrict or limit normal agricultural operations. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed. Rejecting the Landowners' first arguments, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Landowners' mulching operations were not protected as an agricultural or forestry use under the MPC. In determining whether the mulching operations qualified as either a for- estry or agricultural use, the court turned to the definitions of those terms provided by the MPC. Section 107 of the MPC defined "forestry" as "the management of forests and timberlands when practiced in accordance with ac- cepted silvicultural principles, through developing, cultivating, harvesting, transporting and selling trees for commercial purposes, which does not involve. any land development." (53 P.S. § 10107.) Section 107 defined "agricultural operation" as: "an enterprise that is actively engaged in the commercial pro- duction and preparation for market of crops, livestock and livestock products and in the production, harvesting and preparation for market or use of agricul- tural, agronomic, horticultural, silvicultural and aquacultural crops and com- modities . . . produced consistent with practices and procedures that are normally engaged by farmers or are consistent with technological develop- ment within the agricultural industry." (53 P.S. § 10107.) In looking at these definitions, the court emphasized the MPC's definition of "forestry" as the "management of forests and timberland," and the MPC's definition of "agricultural activity" as "production" of crops and its purpose of protecting farmland. The court concluded that in order to qualify as either an agricultural operation or a forestry activity as defined by § 107 of the MPC and protected by § 603 of the MPC, "the use in question must have some con- nection to or utilization of the land itself for production of trees, livestock or agricultural, agronomic, horticultural, silvicultural, or aquacultural crops or commodities." The court concluded that since none of the raw materials from the mulching operation were derived from the Landowners' property itself, the mulching operation did not qualify as an agricultural or forestry use under the MPC. The court similarly rejected the Landowners' position that the mulching operation fell within the protection of Pennsylvania's Right to Farm Act and Agricultural Code. The Agricultural Code prohibits ordinances that limit a normal agricultural operation. The Right to Farm Act defines "normal agricul- tural operation" as including "new activities . . . consistent with the technological development within the agricultural industry." The Landowners had argued that the mulching operations met this definition of "normal agri- cultural operation" because they represented a new practice in silviculture or forest management whereby the processing of trees or tree products is conducted in a different location than the property on which the trees are grown and felled. The court, however, found that like with the MPC, the Right to Farm Act's definition of "agricultural activity" necessarily required some con- nection between the use at issue and the employment of the property in ques- 8 © 2014 Thomson Reuters