Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017

Home

December 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin aquacultural crops and commodities and/or livestock and livestock products. The term includes an enterprise that implements changes in production practices and procedures or types of crops, livestock, livestock products or commodities produced consistent with practices and procedures that are normally engaged by farmers or are consistent with technological development within the agricultural industry... . The Ordinance's definition of "livestock" specifically "include[d] poultry." Balady Farms maintained that the proposed chicken processing facility met the Ordinance's definition of "agriculture." Ultimately, the Township's Zoning Hearing Board (the "Board") disagreed. The Board declared that the Ordinance did "not include [Balady Farms'] proposed use as a commercial chicken processing facility." More specifically, the Board opined that " `processing' livestock and livestock products is not `preparation and production for mar- ket' of livestock and livestock products. To the contrary, the preparation and production of livestock and livestock products deals more with getting the livestock and livestock products ready to be transferred to a processing facility." The court concluded that processing was a "commercial endeavor" and "not an activity normally engaged in by farmers in the area." Balady Farms appealed, and the trial court upheld the Board's decision. The court held that it was not "against the weight of the evidence for the [Board] to find that find that a slaughtering and processing enterprise that may process an estimated 40,000 chickens per year is not a business in which most farmers engage, and that based on all the evidence presented, it falls outside the definition of agriculture." Balady Farms again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas reversed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that Balady Farms' proposed chicken processing facility fell within the Ordinance's definition of "agriculture," and, thus, was permitted as of right. In so holding, the court looked to the Ordinance's plain language as "the best indication of legislative intent." The court looked specifically at the fol- lowing language in the Ordinance's definition of "agriculture": "[a]n enterprise that is actively engaged in the commercial production and preparation for market or use of . . . [poultry] and [poultry] products." Since the Ordinance did not specifically define "commercial," "production" or "preparation," the court looked to dictionary definitions of those words. The court found com- mercial to include "relating to commerce," which was the "exchange of goods and services." The court found "production" defined, in pertinent part, as "the making of goods available for use[,]" and "preparation" defined, in part, as "the action or process of making something ready for use or service . . .." Based upon the "ordinary context" of the words "commercial," "production," and "preparation," the court concluded that Balady Farms' proposed process- ing of its chickens on the Property fell "squarely within the Township's defini- tion of `agriculture,' and, thus, [was] permitted as of right in the Township's RC District." In reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized that a zoning board "is not a legislative body, and it lacks authority to modify or amend the teiius of a zoning ordinance." The court said that zoning boards "must not impose their 10 © 2016 Thomson Reuters