West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC v. West Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board and West Lampeter Township

Summary

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reviews the denial of a special exception for a proposed 25-acre agrivoltaics solar farm in West Lampeter Township's Agricultural District. The Court holds that the proposed solar-energy generation is not an agricultural use merely because sheep would graze beneath the panels, and therefore the project is subject to the zoning ordinance's five-acre limit on nonagricultural uses. The Court affirms the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and the Zoning Hearing Board.

Holdings

1. Agrivoltaics, as proposed, is not an agricultural use because the solar panels generate electricity rather than advancing the production, harvesting, preparation, or marketing of agricultural products.
2. The proposed 25- to 30-acre photovoltaic facility is a nonagricultural use subject to the ordinance's five-acre maximum, and the application therefore fails to comply with an applicable zoning requirement.
3. The ordinance authorizes more than one use of land, but one use must be principal and the other accessory; here, photovoltaic electricity generation is the principal use and sheep grazing is subordinate and accessory.
4. Undefined zoning terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning in context; the least-restrictive-use principle does not require an undefined term to receive its broadest possible construction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an agrivoltaics project combining photovoltaic electricity generation and sheep grazing qualifies as an agricultural use under the Township's zoning ordinance.
2. Whether the proposed 25- to 30-acre photovoltaic facility violates the ordinance's five-acre limit on nonagricultural uses.
3. Whether the proposed project constitutes a dual use with two principal agricultural uses or instead has photovoltaic electricity generation as its principal use and sheep grazing as an accessory use.
4. Whether the zoning board properly interpreted undefined ordinance terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning while applying the least-restrictive-use principle.

Disposition

affirmed