Rulings Deal Setback to ACRE Appeals
Submitted by Editor on Fri, 12/15/2006 - 12:53pm.
DAVE LEFEVER
Editor
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court this week dismissed two petitions brought by Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett against municipalities under the 2005 law commonly known as ACRE (Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environment).
Two separate but practically identical rulings Tuesday upheld preliminary objections filed by Lower Oxford Township in Chester County and four municipalities in Berks County — Heidelberg, North Heidelberg, Robesonia and Womelsdorf.
Corbett earlier filed lawsuits against the municipalities for ordinances he deemed illegally restrictive to agricultural operations. The ordinances Corbett challenged were in place prior to July 6, 2005 when ACRE was enacted.
Citing a section of ACRE, the court dismissed the lawsuits, reasoning that the municipalities have not attempted to enforce the ordinances in question, thereby invalidating the attorney general’s petition.
In the court opinion written by Judge Rochelle S. Friedman, for “ordinances that existed prior to the effective date of section 313 (of ACRE) . . . ACRE applies only to their enforcement.”
A Corbett spokesman said Wednesday that the attorney general will decide soon on the next course of action.
“We disagree and are disappointed with the Commonwealth Court’s Opinion,” said Kevin Harley, press secretary in the attorney general’s office. “We are reviewing it and will decide shortly whether or not to appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.”
A statement released Wednesday by Pennsylvania Farm Bureau (PFB) said the court’s decision is “contradictory to the intent of ACRE. It makes no sense that farmers must first be targeted with an enforcement action by a township before they can request the state Attorney General’s review of a questionable ordinance.”
Gary Swann, director of PFB’s government affairs and communication division, said he believes ACRE is still valid, despite the disappointment of Tuesday’s ruling.
“The bottom line is that the overall integrity of the ACRE law has not been compromised by these early decisions,” Swann said.
Because the court decisions focused only on ordinances that existed prior to the ACRE’s enactment in July 2005, PFB’s position is that they should not affect the part of the ACRE law that enables Corbett to review and possibly challenge new local ordinances.
ACRE should also be effective against ordinances enacted prior to July 6, 2005 that municipalities have tried to enforce, according to PFB.
A court hearing was scheduled this Thursday for an ACRE case in which Richmond Township in Berks County enforced an ordinance preventing a farmer from building poultry facilities.
In this case, “if the court is consistent, it should allow the trial to go forward,” Swann said.
Hearings are also set soon for other ACRE cases involving municipalities in counties including Columbia and Fulton.
DAVE LEFEVER
Editor
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court this week dismissed two petitions brought by Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett against municipalities under the 2005 law commonly known as ACRE (Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environment).
Two separate but practically identical rulings Tuesday upheld preliminary objections filed by Lower Oxford Township in Chester County and four municipalities in Berks County — Heidelberg, North Heidelberg, Robesonia and Womelsdorf.
Corbett earlier filed lawsuits against the municipalities for ordinances he deemed illegally restrictive to agricultural operations. The ordinances Corbett challenged were in place prior to July 6, 2005 when ACRE was enacted.
Citing a section of ACRE, the court dismissed the lawsuits, reasoning that the municipalities have not attempted to enforce the ordinances in question, thereby invalidating the attorney general’s petition.
In the court opinion written by Judge Rochelle S. Friedman, for “ordinances that existed prior to the effective date of section 313 (of ACRE) . . . ACRE applies only to their enforcement.”
A Corbett spokesman said Wednesday that the attorney general will decide soon on the next course of action.
“We disagree and are disappointed with the Commonwealth Court’s Opinion,” said Kevin Harley, press secretary in the attorney general’s office. “We are reviewing it and will decide shortly whether or not to appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.”
A statement released Wednesday by Pennsylvania Farm Bureau (PFB) said the court’s decision is “contradictory to the intent of ACRE. It makes no sense that farmers must first be targeted with an enforcement action by a township before they can request the state Attorney General’s review of a questionable ordinance.”
Gary Swann, director of PFB’s government affairs and communication division, said he believes ACRE is still valid, despite the disappointment of Tuesday’s ruling.
“The bottom line is that the overall integrity of the ACRE law has not been compromised by these early decisions,” Swann said.
Because the court decisions focused only on ordinances that existed prior to the ACRE’s enactment in July 2005, PFB’s position is that they should not affect the part of the ACRE law that enables Corbett to review and possibly challenge new local ordinances.
ACRE should also be effective against ordinances enacted prior to July 6, 2005 that municipalities have tried to enforce, according to PFB.
A court hearing was scheduled this Thursday for an ACRE case in which Richmond Township in Berks County enforced an ordinance preventing a farmer from building poultry facilities.
In this case, “if the court is consistent, it should allow the trial to go forward,” Swann said.
Hearings are also set soon for other ACRE cases involving municipalities in counties including Columbia and Fulton.
