Berner v. Montour Township, 120 A.3d 433

Applicant (Scott Sponenberg) sought preliminary/final land development approval to build a swine nursery with under‑house manure storage on an 82.4‑acre agricultural parcel in Montour Township; proposal contemplated leasing an additional 28 acres and annual land application of ~1.29 million gallons of manure.
Applicant submitted engineering plans, a DEP Chapter 91 Manure Management Plan, and geologic reports; Objectors submitted competing geologic/soil and road condition reports. Township retained its own geologist and planner.
The Montour Township Planning Commission recommended conditional approval; the Board of Supervisors approved the plan subject to ten conditions, including baseline and post‑application well testing and an annual bond for potential road damage.
Objectors appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, arguing (1) the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) did not preempt the Township SALDO regarding soil suitability for manure application and (2) the plan failed mandatory local road‑width design standards; trial court affirmed the Supervisors.
On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the court reviewed whether NMA preemption applied and whether the Supervisors abused discretion in approving the plan with conditions; the court affirmed on other grounds (i.e., rejected Objectors’ SALDO violation claims and upheld conditions addressing water and road concerns).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NMA §519(b) preempts local SALDO regulation of soil suitability for manure application	Objectors: NMA is only conflict‑preemptive; state law does not regulate soil suitability, so SALDO can govern hazardous soils and bar/condition development	Applicant: SALDO does not regulate manure application; even if framed as soil suitability, NMA preempts local regulation of manure storage/handling/land application	Court: Although no specific conflict in record was identified, NMA regs address soil and water protection; regardless, Supervisors did not err in approving plan with conditions and Objectors failed to show SALDO provisions cited were violated
Whether plan violated SALDO minimum local road/cartway width requirements	Objectors: Tower Drive’s cartway is narrower than SALDO minimum (measured as ~16 ft) and Supervisors did not grant a waiver or require widening	Applicant: SALDO’s relevant provision concerns right‑of‑way width, not cartway; plan depicts a 50 ft future right‑of‑way; Supervisors may exercise discretion and imposed a bond condition for road damage	Court: SALDO speaks to right‑of‑way for existing streets; Applicant’s plan shows adequate future right‑of‑way and Supervisors permissibly used discretion and attached a bond condition; approval stands

Office of Attorney General v. Locust Twp., 49 A.3d 502 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (interpreting NMA preemption language and field/consistency limits)
Walck v. L. Towamensing Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 942 A.2d 200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (consideration of NMA conflict preemption principles)
Burkholder v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Richmond Twp., 902 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (NMA and nutrient management plan centrality)
Hoffman Mining Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Adams Twp., 32 A.3d 587 (Pa. 2011) (preemption types and requirement of clear legislative intent to preempt)
Robal Assocs., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Charlestown Twp., 999 A.2d 630 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (land development approval required where plan complies with objective SALDO provisions)
Koresko v. Farley, 844 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (governing body may impose reasonable, economically feasible conditions on approvals)
Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of Borough of Oakmont, 964 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2009) (distinction between regulating "how" vs. "where" in preemption context)