Contact Person:

Brook Duer Staff Attorney

Phone:

Email:

dhd5103@psu.edu

Case Law

The following resources represent a collection of court filings and judicial opinions regarding the Pennsylvania Agricultural Area Security Law (AASL). Furthermore, the decisions may be viewed via an online legal database using the mentioned docket number.

This list of cases is not exhaustive.

Corbett v. Richmond Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 360 MD 2006

  • Opinion and Order (May 28, 2010) (holding that an ordinance requiring a 1500-foot setback for manure storage facilities and prohibiting “commercial composting and the exportation of compost for use elsewhere,” unreasonably restricts farm structures and farm practices in violation of section 911 of the AASL.)

In re: Agric Sec. Area in E. Lampeter Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1521 CD 2008

  • Opinion (May 27, 2009) (upholding a decision that determination of the need for an ASA rests with landowners, not the Township.)

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, No. CI-07-12367

  • Opinion (Jul. 11, 2008) (holding that the need for an ASA is determined by the landowner and is not within the discretion of the municipality.)

In re: Condemnation of Springboro Area Water Authority
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1128 CD 2005

  • Opinion and Order (Feb. 2, 2006) (holding that “underground public utility facilities” in the context of AASL’s requirements for exclusion from pre-approval means “regulated underground public utility facilities;” determining that such interpretation effectuates the intent of the legislature to have all proposed condemnations of land in an ASA subject to some form of agency review.)

41 Valley Associates v. Board of Supervisors of London Grove Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 50 CD 2005

  • Opinion (Aug. 2, 2005) (determining that the purpose of the Agricultural Area Security Law is to preserve land for a broad class of agricultural uses not to enable a specific use.)

In re: Interest of Forrester
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

  • Opinion (Nov. 20, 2003) (reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1299 CD 2000

  • Opinion (May 2, 2001) (holding that approval under the Pennsylvania Agriculture Area Security Law was not required because the Act was not eminent domain procedure under the Pennsylvania Eminent Domain Code.)

White v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

  • Order (Oct. 19, 2000) (affirmed Order of the Commonwealth Court)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 288 MD 1999

  • Opinion (Aug. 30, 1999) (holding that approval of the Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board (ALCAB) is required prior to the condemnation of agricultural land for highway purposes in an ASA, except for activities relating to existing highways that do not go beyond the existing roadbed.)

R.R Preserv. v. Agr. Lands Condemn
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

  • Opinion (Jan. 8, 1998) (finding that an historical preservation statute does not give priority to historical preservation over agricultural lands for the purposes of condemnation; holding the petitioner must prove that the condemnation of land would not have a substantial adverse impact on the entire agricultural security area.)

In re: Laying Out & Opening a Private Rd. in Charleston Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

  • Opinion (Oct. 17, 1996) (holding that Agricultural Area Security Law does not apply when a private landowner desires to open a private road to gain access to landlocked property.)

Cook v. Pa. Dept. of Agriculture
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

  • Opinion (Jul. 22, 1994) (finding that to subdivide property subject to a conservation easement, each easement grantee must first consent pursuant to the standard stated in the regulation.)

Lenzi v. Agric. Land Preservation Bd.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

  • Opinion (Jan. 7, 1992) (holding that an owner of property neighboring a proposed agricultural security area is permitted to object to the approval of the proposal and/or the purchase of an agricultural conservation easement if they will be adversely affected.)

Nw. Lehigh Sch. Dist. v. Agric. Lands Condemnation Bd.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

  • Opinion (May 30, 1989) (finding that legislative policy requires evidentiary showing that the proposed condemnation would not have an adverse effect upon the preservation of agricultural services within the area nor upon environmental and comprehensive plans of the county, and that a reasonable alternative to proposed condemnation was not available; finding the requirement that a school district receive ASA board approval prior to an exercise of eminent domain was not an unconstitutional limitation on the district.)