Tinicum Township v. Nowicki
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 440
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- River Road Quarry, LLC and Pennswood Hauling, LLC operated a mulching business on a 3-acre former quarry in Tinicum Township’s Extraction (E) zoning district; raw wood materials were brought in from off-site, processed into mulch, and sold off-site.
- Township issued enforcement notices (2009 and 2011), asserting the mulching operation violated the zoning ordinance by operating non-permitted manufacturing/wholesale uses in the E district; Landowners appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board (Board).
- The Board upheld the notice, finding the mulching was not an A‑1 (crop farming/nursery) or A‑6 (forestry) use under the Ordinance, emphasizing that raw materials did not originate on the Property and mulch was not used there.
- The trial court affirmed the Board without taking new evidence, relying on precedent that agricultural/forestry protections require a connection between the use and the land where the commodity is produced/used.
- On appeal to this Court, Landowners argued the operation was protected under the MPC (Sections 107, 603) as a forestry/agricultural activity and under the Right to Farm Act / Agriculture Code as a "normal agricultural operation." The majority affirmed the lower courts; a dissent argued Gaspari controls and would protect mulch production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mulching operation qualifies as "forestry" under MPC §107 and thus is protected by MPC §603(f) | River Road: processing tree byproducts into mulch is a silvicultural/forestry activity; MPC protects forestry uses in all districts | Township: forestry requires management/production of trees on the property; River Road buys/receives materials from off-site, so activity is not forestry | Held: Not a forestry activity — protection requires a connection to the land (trees produced/managed on the property) |
| Whether mulching qualifies as an "agricultural operation" under MPC §107 and MPC §603(h) | River Road: transforming silvicultural commodities for market is "preparation for market" and thus agricultural | Township: agricultural operation requires production/harvest on the land; off‑site inputs and off‑site use mean no agricultural nexus to the Property | Held: Not an agricultural operation — definition requires use/production tied to the land producing the commodity |
| Whether mulching is a "normal agricultural operation" under the Right to Farm Act / Agriculture Code (3 P.S. §952 and related) | River Road: Right to Farm covers silvicultural activities and equipment like tub/hammers/grinders; custom work and processing should be protected | Township: statutory "normal agricultural operation" focuses on production/harvest connected to farmland; no such connection here | Held: Not a normal agricultural operation — statutory purpose protects farmland production; no evidence raw materials or product were produced/used on the Property |
| Whether Gaspari requires treating mulch production as agricultural (preventing municipal restriction) | River Road: Gaspari holds production of synthetic compost/mushroom spawn is agricultural, so mulch similarly protected | Township: Gaspari factually distinguishable; Gaspari involved producing a growing medium used to start a crop on-site | Held: Majority distinguishes Gaspari on its facts and declines to extend it; dissent would apply Gaspari and protect mulch production |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaspari v. Muhlenberg Township Board of Adjustment, 139 A.2d 544 (Pa. 1958) (Supreme Court held production of synthetic mushroom compost was within farming, not manufacturing)
- Stoltzfus v. Zoning Hearing Board of Eden Township, 937 A.2d 548 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (log‑processing business not a forestry activity where trees/products did not originate from landowner’s property)
- Clout v. Clinton County Zoning Hearing Board, 657 A.2d 111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (compost facility that imported all inputs and did not use product on site was not agricultural under local ordinance)
- Wellington Farms v. Township of Silver Spring, 679 A.2d 267 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (limitations on treating operations as agricultural where production/use were not tied to the property)