Attorney General Appeals ACRE Rulings

CHARLENE M. SHUPP ESPENSHADE
Special Sections Editor

HARRISBURG, Pa. — In the waning days of 2006, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania regarding the Dec. 12 ruling of the Commonwealth Court dismissing two ACRE cases.
On Dec. 12, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the attorney general can challenge an ordinance adopted prior to ACRE only if the municipality has acted to enforce the ordinance.
The court upheld preliminary objections filed by Lower Oxford Township in Chester County and four municipalities in Berks County — Heidelberg Township, North Heidelberg Township, Robesonia Borough and Womelsdorf Borough.
In the appeal court documents, Corbett said that Lower Oxford and the Berks County municipalities, have “taken affirmative action to compel compliance with the ordinance or penalize noncompliance.”
ACRE (Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environment) refers to Act 38 of 2005 giving the attorney general’s office authority to file a suit against ordinances that restrict normal agricultural practices.
“I appealed the decisions,” Corbett said, “because I believe that ACRE protects farmers just as much from old unlawful ordinances as from new ones.”
Corbett said that five lawsuits have been filed by the attorney general’s office under the ACRE protection law since it took effect.
According to the attorney general’s lawsuit, Heidelberg Township adopted a joint zoning ordinance in January 2004 to define, regulate and place a series of restrictions on the “intensive raising of livestock or poultry.”
The lawsuit against Lower Oxford Township states that in March 2004 the Lower Oxford Township board of supervisors adopted an ordinance that defines a “commercial composting processing operation,” placing a series of restrictions on mushroom compost preparation.
Corbett said that the lawsuit states that Lower Oxford Township has no legal authority to regulate mushroom compost preparation, which is a normal agricultural operation under state law.
Both lawsuits asked the Commonwealth Court to declare the township ordinances null and void and prevent the townships and boroughs from enforcing the illegal ordinance.
Since its creation, members of the General Assembly, Rendell administration and agriculture organizations have touted ACRE as the answer to local conflict resolution.
All eyes now turn to the Supreme Court as it decides if it will take up the case.
“We applaud the news and appreciate the continued efforts of Attorney General Tom Corbett to free Pennsylvania farm families from illegal local ordinances,” said Pennsylvania Farm Bureau (PFB) President Carl Shaffer.
Betsy Huber, Master of the Pennsylvania Grange, said, “I am not happy with the Commonwealth Court’s decisions that the ACRE law does not apply in the Chester and Berks County cases. I am pleased that the attorney general is appealing these two decisions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Hopefully these justices will verify the intent of the legislature in passing the ACRE law, that townships should be prevented from adopting ordinances, regardless of the adoption date, that discourage or prevent normal agricultural practices. Pennsylvania municipalities should be supportive of local agriculture, not attempt to drive it away.”