Berner,et al v. Montour ZHB,et al Apl: Sponenberg, 217 A.3d 238

The Nutrient Management Act (3 Pa.C.S. §§ 501–522) requires certain concentrated animal operations (CAOs) to adopt and implement written nutrient management plans (NMPs); smaller farms may submit voluntary NMPs (VAOs).
Section 519 of the Act contains an express preemption provision: state law "occupies the whole field" of nutrient management and bars local regulations that conflict with or are more stringent than the Act and its regulations, while permitting local rules that are consistent with and no more stringent than state standards.
Montour Township zoning ordinance requires, as a condition for a special-exception permit for hog raising, proof via "legally binding assurances with performance guarantees" that manure and related operations will be conducted "without adverse impact upon adjacent properties" (the "adverse impact" requirement).
Scott Sponenberg sought a special exception to construct a swine nursery with under-building manure storage; his operation was not an NMP operation (no mandatory or voluntary NMP). The township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) concluded the Ordinance’s adverse-impact requirement was preempted and granted the exception.
The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the Act’s preemption protects only operations subject to the Act (i.e., with an NMP); this appeal reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Nutrient Management Act preempts a local zoning provision that imposes an "adverse impact" condition on manure storage for a farm that does not have an NMP	Sponenberg: Section 519 occupies the field of nutrient management and preempts local rules that are more stringent or conflict with the Act, and that protection applies to non-NMP operations too; municipalities cannot impose stricter operational nutrient-management conditions on small farms	Objectors/Township: Preemption requires a conflict with state requirements that apply to the operation; because Sponenberg lacks an NMP the Act/regulations do not apply and local regulation is not preempted; he could submit a voluntary NMP for protection	Supreme Court: Section 519 preempts local regulation of nutrient management to the extent it is more stringent, inconsistent with, or in conflict with the Act/regulations — regardless of whether the operation currently has an NMP; the Ordinance’s adverse-impact requirement is preempted

Burkholder v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Richmond Twp., 902 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (NMP preparation and implementation is the centerpiece of the Act)
Office of Atty. Gen. ex rel. Corbett v. Locust Twp., 49 A.3d 502 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (interpreting scope of Act preemption and distinguishing applicability to smaller operations)
Walck v. Lower Towamensing Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 942 A.2d 200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (holding local ordinances may not be preempted where Act/regulations do not apply absent an NMP)
Nutter v. Dougherty, 938 A.2d 401 (Pa. 2007) (overview of express, conflict, and field preemption concepts)
Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of Borough of Oakmont, 964 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2009) (discussing express preemption where statute contains specific prohibitory language)
Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2006) (definition and role of special exceptions in zoning)