Balady Farms, LLC v. Paradise Township Zoning Hearing Board
148 A.3d 496
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Balady Farms owns ~23 acres in Paradise Township RC district and raises cattle, goats, and ~28,000 free‑range chickens on site.
- Balady proposed converting an existing ~3,200 sq. ft. building to process chickens raised on the farm (estimated ~40,000/year), with USDA standards and refrigerated waste removal.
- Township Zoning Officer opined the Ordinance did not permit a commercial chicken processing operation; Balady sought a Board interpretation.
- The Zoning Hearing Board concluded the Ordinance’s definition of “agriculture” did not include on‑site commercial processing and denied the use; the trial court affirmed.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the Ordinance’s definition of “agriculture” permitted on‑site processing of chickens raised on the property and reversed the lower courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether on‑site processing of chickens raised on the farm falls within the Ordinance’s definition of “agriculture” | Balady: processing chickens raised on the property is "production and preparation for market" and thus an agricultural use permitted by right | Township/Board: processing is a commercial/manufacturing activity not contemplated by the Ordinance and is not normally engaged in by local farmers | Held: On‑site processing of chickens raised on the property falls within the Ordinance’s plain definition of "agriculture" and is permitted as of right |
| Whether the Board permissibly required the activity to be "normally engaged by farmers in the Township" | Balady: the Ordinance’s phrasing ("includes"...) is illustrative, not limiting; no geographic restriction exists | Township/Board: the term requires conformity with local farming practices; processing is beyond local norms and thus excluded | Held: Board erred; the "includes" clause does not impose a local‑practice limitation and cannot be read to narrow the ordinance |
| Whether the operation would be "intensive agriculture" (and thus excluded from RC permitted uses) | Balady: proposed processing does not meet Ordinance definition of intensive agriculture; evidence did not show the intensive threshold | Township/Board: even if agriculture, processing is intensive/commercial and not permitted in RC | Held: No evidence showed Balady’s operation met the Ordinance’s intensive agriculture definition; Board erred to classify it as such |
| Whether Tinicum Twp. v. Nowicki controls to exclude processing | Township: Nowicki supports treating on‑site processing/industrial activity as non‑agricultural | Balady: Nowicki is distinguishable because processed material there lacked connection to the parcel; Balady’s chickens originate on the farm | Held: Nowicki is distinguishable; because Balady processes animals raised on site, the case does not mandate exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Malt Beverages Distribs. Ass’n v. Liquor Control Bd., 918 A.2d 171 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (plain language of statute is primary guide to legislative intent)
- Kohl v. New Sewickley Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 108 A.3d 961 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (rules of statutory construction apply to ordinances)
- Tinicum Twp. v. Nowicki, 99 A.3d 586 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (an operation must have connection to the land to qualify as an agricultural operation)
- Hafner v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Allen Twp., 974 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (board’s interpretation of its ordinance entitled to deference)
- Greth Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Lower Heidelberg Twp., 918 A.2d 181 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (zoning boards may not rewrite ordinances; must apply text as written)
- Borough of Fleetwood v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Fleetwood, 649 A.2d 651 (Pa.) (letter of an ordinance must not be disregarded under pretext of pursuing its spirit)
- Commonwealth v. Richmond Twp., 975 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (statutory protections for agricultural operations and Right to Farm Act context)