The opinion
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 76 C.D. 2025
: Argued: December 8, 2025
West Lampeter Township Zoning :
Hearing Board and West :
Lampeter Township :
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge (P.)
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge
OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: January 15, 2026
West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC (Applicant) appeals an order of the
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) that affirmed the decision of
the West Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board (Zoning Board) to deny
Applicant’s request for a special exception. Applicant seeks approval to construct
an “agrivoltaics” solar farm, which will be used to generate electricity and to raise
sheep. Because an “agrivoltaics solar farm” is not a use addressed in the West
Lampeter Township Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance),1 Applicant sought a
special exception, as appropriate where a proposed use is not expressly authorized
in any zoning district. Specifically, Applicant sought to locate its 25-acre solar
facility in the Agricultural District where non-agricultural uses cannot exceed 5 acres
in size. Concluding that Applicant’s project constituted a nonagricultural use, the
Zoning Board denied Applicant a special exception because it did not satisfy the
1
WEST LAMPETER TOWNSHIP, LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, ZONING ORDINANCE OF 2006
(July 10, 2006), as amended (ZONING ORDINANCE).
Zoning Ordinance’s size limitation. Discerning no merit to Applicant’s contention
that an agrivoltaics solar farm is an agricultural use, we affirm the trial court.
Background
On May 9, 2023, Applicant applied to the Zoning Board for a special
exception to use a 55-acre farm located in the Agricultural District of West Lampeter
Township for a community agrivoltaics solar farm. Reproduced Record at 9-10
(R.R. __).2 Applicant intends to lease the farmland from Gerald B. and Jewel E.
Garber. On August 8, 2023, the Zoning Board conducted a hearing on Applicant’s
special exception request.
Gerald B. Garber testified that his father purchased the land in the 1970s
for use as a pasture and, later, to grow crops. The farm is enrolled in the Clean and
Green program3 and in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.4 In 2004,
Garber purchased the farm from his father and has been using it for “crop farming
since then.” Notes of Testimony, 8/8/2023, at 12 (N.T. __); R.R. 515.
Garber explained that he would like to pass the farm onto his children
but needs to have it generate income after he retires. After exploring several options,
he decided that a community agrivoltaics solar farm would best suit his objectives.
2
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2173 requires that the reproduced record be numbered
in Arabic figures followed by a small “a.” Pa.R.A.P. 2173. The reproduced record does not comply
with Rule 2173 because it only utilizes Arabic figures. For convenience, we cite to each page as
paginated by Applicant.
3
The Clean and Green program, established by the Pennsylvania Farmland and Forest Land
Assessment Act of 1974, Act of December 19, 1974, P.L. 973, as amended, 72 P.S. §§5490.1-
5490.13, “provides a lower tax rate appropriate for land devoted to farming and forest reserve
purposes.” Feick v. Berks County Board of Assessment Appeals, 720 A.2d 504, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1998).
4
This program pays property owners annual rent to place land in conservation cover. See
https://www.pa.gov/agencies/pgc/habitat-management/landowner-assistance/crep (last visited
January 15, 2026). Garber testified that nothing is harvested from the portion of land enrolled in
this program, but once a year, the grass is cut.
2
The solar farm will occupy 25 to 30 acres and be surrounded by a 7-foot-tall fence.
Below the solar panels, a custom seed mix of clover and other grasses will be planted
on which sheep can graze. The solar panels will provide electricity for the
community and keep the sheep dry and shaded. Once the solar panels cease to be
productive, they will be decommissioned; removed; and the land will become a
“pasture again.” N.T. 13; R.R. 516.
Tim Mills, Senior Project Developer for New Leaf Energy, which owns
Applicant and develops solar energy throughout the country, testified. Because the
proposed solar project is limited to five megawatts, there will be no connection to
transmission lines or need for a substation. Rather, the proposed system uses a
transformer that “steps up the voltage onto the distribution lines.” N.T. 20; R.R. 523.
PPL Electric Utilities’ existing poles will be used to distribute electricity generated
on the Garber farm.
Mills explained that the solar panels are made of silicone glass and can
be recycled at the end of their 25-year expected lifetime. A tracker system will be
installed to allow the panels to face east in the morning, lay flat during the middle of
the day, and face the west at the end of the day. Because the panels are bifacial, they
can also collect sunlight that “reflects off the ground.” N.T. 22; R.R. 525. Sheep
will graze on the site of the solar project to control the vegetation. Small fans will
be installed to reduce heat, but outside the fenced-in area, the decibel level is “very,
very minimal.” N.T. 23; R.R. 526.
Mills testified that New Leaf hired an engineering firm to do an
environmental field study, which concluded that no streams or wetlands will be
impacted by the proposed project. The study investigated endangered species,
including a bald eagle nesting site, and it found no concerns. New Leaf also met
3
with the local fire department. The panels will be separated sufficiently to allow
larger vehicles to move between the solar panels.
Dotterer Farms, LLC has partnered with New Leaf on numerous other
solar sites. Its principal, Daniel Dotterer, testified that he intends to enter into a lease
with the Garbers to use their land for sheep grazing. Dotterer explained that goats
cannot be used to graze under solar panels because they climb, are curious, and chew.
Cattle have the potential to break panels. Although a well will be dug to provide
water for the sheep, Dotterer acknowledged that in a dry year, he may not be able to
keep sheep on the solar farm. Dotterer does rotational grazing, which he explained
as breaking up the site in about “[10] different paddings, and every [4] days we
remove the sheep.” N.T. 37-38; R.R. 540-41.
Dotterer testified that he intends to graze at least 160 Katahdin sheep
on the farm from April through November. Dotterer has developed a “foraged
production seed mix” for the grasses planted under the solar panels that will put
nitrogen back into the soil. N.T. 26, 42; R.R. 529, 545.
Michelle Neckermann, West Lampeter Township’s Zoning Officer,
testified. She explained that the Zoning Ordinance does not define “solar,” “solar
farms,” or “agrivoltaics.” N.T. 106; R.R. 609. The Zoning Ordinance limits
nonagricultural uses to five acres in an agricultural district. ZONING ORDINANCE
§285.35.B(3). The dictionary defines agriculture as “[t]he science, art, or practice
of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees
the preparation and marketing of the resulting products cleared . . . the land to use
for agriculture.” N.T. 91; R.R. 594. Neckermann opined that Applicant’s proposed
use does not meet the definition of agriculture. She observed, in support, that the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has issued a publication advising that a
4
commercial solar farm “does not meet the definition of normal farming activities
under the Right to Farm Act[.]”5 N.T. 92; R.R. 595. Additionally, the Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture advises that land with quality soils should not be used to
site solar panels.
Dennis Grim, who resides at 1035 Eshelman Mill Road, owns three
farms subject to “easement preserves by Lancaster Farmland Trust[.],” adjacent to
the Garber Farm. N.T. 116; R.R. 619. He serves as board member and chair of the
Lancaster Farmland Trust and opposes the special exception application. Grim
testified that it is important to protect agricultural-zoned farms from becoming solar
factories and opined that “sheep grazing on the land under panels is a guise to cover
up the factory aspect of electric generation.” N.T. 118; R.R. 621. “Open spaces and
scenic views are part of [the] Lancaster County life.” N.T. 117; R.R. 620. Grim
noted that most of the Garber farm contains class two and class three soils, which
are “the most productive cropland, non-irrigated, in the world,” and is surrounded
on both sides by Lancaster Farmland Trust farms. N.T. 118; R.R. 621.
Daryl Keener owns a neighboring farm that he uses to raise livestock.
He opined that Applicant’s proposed solar farm is less intrusive than a hog or chicken
farm. Further, the land can be returned to crop farming or other agricultural use.
Zoning Board Decision
Following a hearing, the Zoning Board made 13 findings of fact.
Relevant here, the Zoning Board found as follows:
11. Specifically, Applicant proposes a ground mounted solar
array with sheep grazing between and beneath the solar panels.
12. Applicant’s witnesses testified that the sheep grazing part
of the use will occupy the Property under a lease not yet
5
Act of June 10, 1982, P.L. 454, 3 P.S. §§951-958, commonly known as the Right to Farm Act.
5
concluded between the Applicant and the tenant farmer, and is
intended to be part of the maintenance of the site, providing for
control of the height of the vegetative ground cover.
Zoning Board Decision at 2, Findings of Fact Nos. 11-12. The Zoning Board then
turned to the question of whether the Applicant’s project qualified for a special
exception.
Noting that “agrivoltaics” is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance, the
Zoning Board relied on definitions from several governmental sources that establish
its meaning as “the use of land for both agriculture and solar photovoltaic energy
generation.” Zoning Board Decision at 4, Conclusion of Law No. 5. Because the
Zoning Ordinance does not define “agriculture,” the Zoning Board used the
dictionary definition, i.e., “[t]he science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil,
producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and
marketing of the resulting products[.]” Zoning Board Decision at 4, Conclusion of
Law No. 7 (citation omitted). Based on these definitions and Applicant’s evidence,
the Zoning Board found that Applicant sought to use the Garber farm for the
principal use of a mounted solar array with the accessory use of grazing sheep
beneath and between the solar panels.
The Zoning Board concluded that Applicant’s proposed use is not one
of agricultural, horticultural or forestry related uses that are listed in the Zoning
Ordinance. See ZONING ORDINANCE §285-26; R.R. 290-93 (table of allowed uses in
each zoning district). The Zoning Ordinance allows a landowner to seek a special
exception where it seeks to engage in a use not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance,
but the applicant must show that its proposed use will comply with all applicable
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. ZONING ORDINANCE §285-16.C; R.R. 254.
Notably, the Zoning Ordinance provides that “in no case shall any nonagricultural
6
use contain more than five acres.” ZONING ORDINANCE §285-35.B(3); R.R. 359.
Because Applicant’s proposed solar farm will occupy approximately 25 acres, it did
not satisfy Section 285-35.B(3). Accordingly, the Zoning Board denied the
application.
Applicant appealed the Zoning Board’s decision to the trial court.
Trial Court Decision
Without taking additional evidence, the trial court affirmed the Zoning
Board’s decision. The trial court explained that the Township’s Agricultural District
was established
[t]o promote the continuation and preservation of agricultural
activities in those areas most suitable for such activities. This
zone also intends to protect and stabilize the Township’s viable
agricultural economy by eliminating uses that are incompatible
with farming but permitting limited agricultural support
businesses. . . . Additionally large-scale and obtrusive uses are
permitted by conditional use, to separate them from the
Township’s population concentrations. Finally, it is the intent of
this zone to limit the total number of subdivisions and the
maximum lot sizes of nonagricultural uses so as to avoid
[reducing] the productivity of the Township’s agricultural
economy.
Trial Court Op. at 6 (quoting ZONING ORDINANCE §285-21.D(1)). Accepting the
Zoning Board’s plain meaning of the term “agricultural,” the trial court concluded
that photovoltaic generation of electric power, by itself, is not agriculture. This
conclusion was consistent with the evidence. Garber testified that the Clean and
Green program did not consider solar power generation to be an agricultural use.6
6
At the hearing, Garber testified as follows:
[Q]: Is that enrolled in Clean and Green now?
[A]: Yes. It has been in Clean and Green I think ever since we have owned it.
[Q]: So it will be ruled out?
7
Further, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture discourages the placement of
solar generating facilities on agricultural land, especially where that land contains
certain types of soil, i.e., class one through class four. The Garber farm contains
class two and three soils.
The trial court acknowledged that sheep grazing was agricultural.
However, the generation of electricity is a nonagricultural use and, as such, limited
to five acres in the Agricultural District. ZONING ORDINANCE §285-35.B(3); R.R.
359.
The Zoning Ordinance defines a principal use as “[a] dominant use(s)
or main use on a lot, as opposed to an accessory use,” and an accessory use as “[a]
use customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use or building and
located on the same lot with such principal use.” ZONING ORDINANCE §285-20; R.R.
257, 273. The Zoning Board held that the generation of electricity would be
Applicant’s principal use, and sheep grazing would be the accessory use. The trial
court rejected Applicant’s argument that the holding in H.E. Rohrer, Inc. v. Zoning
Hearing Board of Jackson Township, 808 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (H.E.
Rohrer, Inc.), supported the conclusion that its proposed dual use was authorized
under the Zoning Ordinance.
The trial court found H.E. Rohrer, Inc., 808 A.2d 1014, distinguishable.
It involved a bus company’s request for a special exception to build “a public utility
building with service structure bus terminal facility[]” on property zoned
agricultural. Id. at 1016. However, “public utility building or service structure” was
a use expressly permitted in an agricultural zoning district. Id. at 1017. By contrast,
[A]: Yes.
N.T. 13-14; R.R. 516-17.
8
here, the dominant feature of the proposed use – a photovoltaic power generating
facility – does not qualify as a permissible use in the Agricultural District where a
nonagricultural use cannot exceed five acres.
The trial court concluded that the Applicant’s project would undermine
the Township’s effort “to protect and stabilize the Township’s viable agricultural
economy by eliminating uses that are incompatible with farming but permitting
limited agricultural support businesses.” Trial Court Op. at 10. Thus, it denied
Applicant’s appeal of the Zoning Board’s denial of a special exception.
Applicant appealed the trial court’s decision.
Appeal
On appeal,7 Applicant raises four issues:
1. Did the trial court err when it failed to consider
agrivoltaics as a form of agriculture?
2. Did the trial court err by finding that agrivoltaics was not
a form of agriculture and prohibited under Section 285-35.B(3)
of the Zoning Ordinance?
3. Did the trial court err by finding that the principal use of
the subject property was photovoltaic solar energy generation
and not a dual use of both agriculture and photovoltaic solar
energy generation because the project is an agrivoltaics project?
4. Did the trial court err by failing to follow binding
Pennsylvania case authority which dictates that undefined terms
in a zoning ordinance must be given their plain ordinary meaning
7
Where, as here, the trial court does not take any additional evidence, our review of the Zoning
Board’s decision is limited to determining whether the Zoning Board abused its discretion or
committed an error of law. H.E. Rohrer, Inc., 808 A.2d at 1016 n.1. A zoning board abuses its
discretion when its findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Rickert v. Latimore
Township, 960 A.2d 912, 918 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Substantial evidence means “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Valley View
Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637, 640 (Pa. 1983).
9
and should be construed in favor of a landowner to permit the
least restrictive use of the land?
Applicant Brief at 8-9. For purposes of this opinion, we combine Applicant’s first
and fourth issues.
Applicable Principles
“[Z]oning ordinances are to be liberally construed to allow the broadest
possible use of land,” Tri-County Landfill, Inc. v. Pine Township Zoning Hearing
Board, 83 A.3d 488, 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (quotation omitted), or, in other words,
“to give the landowner the benefit of the least restrictive use[.]” Riverfront
Development Group, LLC v. City of Harrisburg Zoning Hearing Board, 109 A.3d
358, 366 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). “The permissive widest use of the land is the rule and
not the exception, unless a use is specifically restrained in a valid and reasonable
exercise of police power.” Southdown, Inc. v. Jackson Township Zoning Hearing
Board, 809 A.2d 1059, 1065-66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
“The rules of statutory construction apply to ordinances as well as
statutes.” In re Holtz, 8 A.3d 374, 378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). The interpretation of a
statute or ordinance presents this Court with a pure question of law, which is
generally subject to plenary review. Northampton Area School District v. Zoning
Hearing Board of Township of Lehigh, 64 A.3d 1152, 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). The
primary objective of statutory interpretation is to determine the intent of the
legislature. Section 1921 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S.
§1921. A statute’s plain language generally provides the best indication of
legislative intent, and, thus, statutory construction begins with examination of the
text itself. Malt Beverages Distributors Association v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control
Board, 918 A.2d 171, 175 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
10
With respect to zoning ordinances, “[u]ndefined terms are given their
plain meaning, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the landowner and the least
restrictive use of the land.” Caln Nether Company, L.P. v. Board of Supervisors of
Thornbury Township, 840 A.2d 484, 491 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). A zoning ordinance
is ambiguous where a provision is susceptible to more than one reasonable
interpretation, Adams Outdoor Advertising, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board of
Smithfield Township, 909 A.2d 469, 483 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), or when the language
is “vague, uncertain, or indefinite.” Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission, 532 A.2d 325, 332 (Pa. 1987).
Finally, it is well settled that “a zoning hearing board’s interpretation of
its own zoning ordinance is entitled to great weight and deference. . . . Such
deference is appropriate because a zoning hearing board, as the entity charged with
administering a zoning ordinance, possesses knowledge and expertise in interpreting
that ordinance.” Risker v. Smith Township Zoning Hearing Board, 886 A.2d 727,
731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (internal citation omitted).
Analysis
I. Whether “Agrivoltaics” is Agriculture
In its first issue, Applicant argues that the Zoning Board erred in
holding that agrivoltaics is not agriculture. Rather, agrivoltaics involves a dual use
of land for both agriculture and electricity generation. The Township responds that
agriculture is “[t]he science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops,
and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the
resulting products,” which does not include solar energy production. Township Brief
at 12. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture specifically advises that a
“commercial scale solar” or “solar farm” does not meet the definition of normal
11
agricultural operation8 under the Right to Farm Act, id. at 13, and therefore, it will
not receive protection from local ordinances, otherwise given to agricultural
operations.
The Zoning Ordinance states that the Agricultural District is intended
“[t]o promote the continuation and preservation of agricultural activities in those
areas most suitable for such activities.” ZONING ORDINANCE §285-21.D(1); R.R.
282. “[T]he development of nonagricultural uses and structures on existing farms
shall be limited.” ZONING ORDINANCE §285-35.A(1); R.R. 355 (emphasis added).
Where a term is not defined, the Zoning Ordinance instructs:
If a word or term is not defined by this chapter, but is defined in
the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO),[9]
then the SALDO definition shall apply. If a word or term is not
defined in this chapter nor the SALDO, then the word or term
8
“Normal agricultural operation” means:
The activities, practices, equipment and procedures that farmers adopt, use or
engage in the production and preparation for market of poultry, livestock and their
products and in the production, harvesting and preparation for market or use of
agricultural, agronomic, horticultural, silvicultural and aquacultural crops and
commodities and is:
(1) not less than ten contiguous acres in area; or
(2) less than ten contiguous acres in area but has an anticipated yearly gross
income of at least $10,000.
The term includes new activities, practices, equipment and procedures consistent
with technological development within the agricultural industry. Use of equipment
shall include machinery designed and used for agricultural operations, including,
but not limited to, crop dryers, feed grinders, saw mills, hammer mills, refrigeration
equipment, bins and related equipment used to store or prepare crops for marketing
and those items of agricultural equipment and machinery defined by the act of
December 12, 1994 (P.L. 944, No. 134), known as the Farm Safety and
Occupational Health Act. Custom work shall be considered a normal farming
practice.
Section 2 of the Right to Farm Act, 3 P.S. §952.
9
WEST LAMPETER TOWNSHIP SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (February 6,
1984), Chapter 240 of the Code of the Township of West Lampeter, as amended.
12
shall have its plain and ordinary meaning within the context of
the section. In such case, in case of a dispute, a standard
reference dictionary shall be consulted.
ZONING ORDINANCE §285-19.F; R.R. 256. The SALDO does not define
“agrivoltaics,” “agriculture,” or “agricultural activities.”10 The Zoning Board
employed the dictionary to establish the plain meaning of “agriculture” within the
context of “promoting the continuation and preservation of agricultural activities.”
ZONING ORDINANCE §285-21.D(1); R.R. 282.11 This is consistent with
Pennsylvania’s Agricultural Development Act,12 which defines “agricultural
activity” or “farming” as “[t]he commercial production of agricultural crops,
livestock or livestock products, poultry products, milk or dairy products, or fruits
and other horticultural products.” 3 P.S. §1302.
Agrivoltaics is the installation of solar panels for the generation of
electricity and the conduct of an agricultural operation underneath the solar panels.
Notably, the energy generated by the solar panels will not be used to prepare and
market any crop or livestock products.
10
The SALDO, however, does define the term “agricultural purposes.” Agricultural purposes is:
The use of land for farming, dairying, pasturage, beekeeping, horticulture,
viticulture, or animal or poultry husbandry including the necessary accessory uses
for packing, treating or storing the produce and equipment or housing and feeding
the animals and/or the use of dwellings for families headed by a full-time farm
worker. Includes land devoted to and meeting the requirements and qualifications
for payments or other compensation pursuant to a soil conservation program under
an agreement with an agency of the federal government.
SALDO, §240-7. Available at: https://ecode360.com/11693722#11693730 (last visited December
23, 2025).
11
Black’s Law Dictionary defines agriculture as “[t]he science or art of cultivating soil, harvesting
crops, and raising livestock.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 76 (8th ed. 1999)
12
Act of July 2, 1984, P.L. 537, 3 P.S. §§1301-1315.
13
Applicant argues that because the terms “agriculture” and “agricultural
operation” are not defined in the Zoning Ordinance, “there is no limitation on what
can be considered ‘agriculture’ or an ‘agricultural operation.’” Applicant Brief at
22. Applicant directs this Court to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code
(MPC),13 which defines an “agricultural operation” as
an enterprise that is actively engaged in the commercial
production and preparation for market of crops, livestock and
livestock products and in the production, harvesting and
preparation for market or use of agricultural, agronomic,
horticultural, silvicultural and aquacultural crops and
commodities. The term includes an enterprise that implements
changes in production practices and procedures or types of
crops, livestock, livestock products or commodities produced
consistent with practices and procedures that are normally
engaged by farmers or are consistent with technological
development within the agricultural industry.
Section 107 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10107 (emphasis added). Applicant argues that
agrivoltaics is a “technological development within the agricultural industry.”
Applicant Brief at 25. We disagree.
First, we reject Applicant’s argument that terms undefined in the Zoning
Ordinance must be given their broadest construction. Rather, undefined terms are to
be given their “plain and ordinary meaning.” ZONING ORDINANCE §285-19F; R.R.
256. Second, the phrase “technological development within the agricultural
industry” must be read in context. The production of crops, livestock, or
commodities is a necessary part of the MPC’s definition of “agricultural operations”
as “an enterprise that is actively engaged in the commercial production and
preparation for market of crops . . . and in the production, harvesting and preparation
for market or use of . . . crops or commodities.” Section 107 of the MPC, 53 P.S.
13
Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §§10101-11202.
14
§10107. Stated otherwise, there must be a connection between the technological
advance and the preparation of agricultural products. Here, Applicant’s generation
of electricity will not advance the sheep grazing enterprise of Dotterer. Each use can
be undertaken separately from the other.
The Zoning Board’s conclusion that “agrivoltaics” does not constitute
an agricultural use is unassailable. The trial court did not err in affirming its
conclusion.
II. Whether Agrivoltaics is Prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance
In its next issue, Applicant argues that the trial court erred in holding
that its agrivoltaics project is prohibited under the Zoning Ordinance, which limits
“any nonagricultural use” to five acres. ZONING ORDINANCE §285-35.B(3); R.R.
359. Applicant explains that its project will combine agriculture and photovoltaic
solar energy generation as a dual and symbiotic use. Simply, “the sheep need space
for grazing and nutrition and the vegetation around the solar panels needs to be
maintained for proper operation.” Applicant Brief at 18. Applicant argues that as a
dual use project, “it would be a violation of any approval if [Applicant] discontinued
the use of either sheep grazing or photovoltaic solar energy generation” on the land
it intends to lease. Id.
The Township responds that a solar farm is not a use listed in the table
of uses allowed in the Agricultural District. See ZONING ORDINANCE §285-26.B;
R.R. 286-94 (permitting single-family dwellings, plant nurseries, tree farms, and
publicly owned recreation parks). Special exceptions require the applicant to
establish “by credible evidence” that the application complies with all applicable
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Township Brief at 23 (quoting ZONING
15
ORDINANCE §285-16; R.R. 253-54). The Township argues that Applicant did not
make this showing.
The parties agree that the Zoning Ordinance does not regulate
agrivoltaics. For uses not specifically regulated, the Zoning Ordinance provides:
Uses not specifically regulated. If a use clearly is not listed as
permitted by right, as a conditional use, or as a special exception
use by this chapter within any zoning district, the use is
prohibited, except that the Zoning [] Board may permit such use
as a special exception if the applicant specifically proves to the
clear satisfaction of the Zoning [] Board that all of the following
conditions would be met:
(1) The proposed use would be no more intensive with respect
to external impacts and nuisances than uses that are permitted in
the district;
(2) The proposed use would be closely similar in impacts and
character to uses permitted within the district, considering the
standards in §285-67F;
(3) The use would meet the standards that would apply under
§285-17 to a conditional use; and
(4) The use is not specifically prohibited in that district.
(5) The proposed use is a single discrete use and not a
combination of uses allowed individually within this chapter.
ZONING ORDINANCE §285-5.B; R.R. 246 (emphasis added). Further, when
reviewing an application for a special exception, the Zoning Board considers the
following standards:
(1) Compliance with this chapter. The applicant shall establish
by credible evidence that the application complies with all
applicable requirements of this chapter. The applicant shall
provide the Board with sufficient plans, studies or other data to
demonstrate this compliance.
(2) Compliance with other laws. The approval may be
conditioned upon proof of compliance with other specific
applicable Township, state and federal laws, regulations and
16
permits. Required permits or other proof of compliance may be
required to be presented to the Township prior to the issuance of
any zoning permit, building permit, certification of occupancy
and/or recording of an approved plan.
(3) Traffic. The applicant shall establish that the traffic from the
proposed use will be accommodated in a safe and efficient
manner that will minimize hazards and congestion, after
considering any improvements proposed to be made by the
applicant as a condition on approval.
(4) Site planning. The application shall include proper site
layout, internal circulation, parking, buffering, and all other
elements of proper design as specified in this chapter.
(5) Neighborhood. The proposed use shall not substantially harm
any surrounding residential neighborhood, after considering any
proposed conditions upon approval.
(6) Safety. The proposed use shall not create a significant hazard
to the public health and safety, such as fire, toxic or explosive
hazards.
(7) Natural features and agriculture. The proposed use shall be
suitable for the site, considering the impacts upon steep slopes,
mature woodland, wetlands, floodplains, springs and other
important natural features. The proposed use shall be designed
to minimize conflicts with agricultural activities.
ZONING ORDINANCE §285-16.C; R.R. 253-54 (emphasis added). The “applicable
requirements of this chapter” provide as follows:
Other allowed uses. Unless otherwise specified, all other
principal uses shall contain at least one acre. Except as
specifically stated, in no case shall any nonagricultural use
contain more than five acres.
ZONING ORDINANCE §285-35.B(3); R.R. 359 (emphasis added). Applicant seeks to
install photovoltaic panels on 25 to 30 acres of land.
Photovoltaic energy generation is a “nonagricultural use” and cannot
exceed five acres. Applicant’s 25-acre solar farm exceeds this limit. We discern no
17
error in the trial court’s conclusion that the proposed use did not comply with “all
the applicable requirements” of the Zoning Ordinance, as required for a special
exception. See ZONING ORDINANCE §285-16.C(1); R.R. 254.
III. Whether Agrivoltaics Constitutes a Dual Use
Permitted by the Zoning Ordinance
Finally, Applicant argues that in concluding that the photovoltaic solar
energy generation would be the principal use and the sheep grazing would be the
accessory use, the Zoning Board erred. Applicant contends that “[w]here a proposed
use falls within two classifications, a zoning hearing board should opt for a
classification that permits the broadest use of the land.” Applicant Brief at 19. It
argues that the Zoning Ordinance does not prohibit a dual use of the Garber farm
and authorizes more than one principal use on a single parcel.
The Township responds that Applicant offers no authority to support its
argument that the Zoning Board had to treat two separate, albeit mutually beneficial,
uses as a distinct combined use. The Township argues that to interpret the proposed
project as wholly agricultural, simply because it has an agricultural component,
would “lead to an absurd result[.]” Township Brief at 21.
A “principal use” is “[a] dominant use(s) or main use on a lot, as
opposed to an accessory use.” ZONING ORDINANCE §285-20; R.R. 273. An
“accessory use” is “[a] use customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal
use or building and located on the same lot with such principal use.” Id.; R.R. 257
(emphasis added).
Here, Applicant proposes to use the installed solar panels on the
Property for 12 months a year. The sheep will be on the Property from April through
November. During periods of drought, the sheep may have to be completely
removed. The sheep are not necessary to the solar farm because the underlying
18
vegetation can be controlled with a lawn mower. The record fully supports the
Zoning Board’s conclusion that Applicant’s principal, or “dominant,” use will be the
25- to 30-acre solar farm, and the sheep grazing enterprise will be “subordinate” or
“incidental” to the solar farm, ZONING ORDINANCE §285-20; R.R. 273. We discern
no error in this conclusion.
We agree with the trial court that Applicant’s reliance on H.E. Rohrer,
Inc., 808 A.2d at 1016, is misplaced. There, a bus company requested a special
exception to build a “public utility building with service structure bus terminal
facility” on property zoned as agricultural. Id. The proposed building included a
wash bay for buses, office and storage space, and a parking area, but no mechanical
services or passenger terminal. The zoning board denied the request for the stated
reason that the proposed use was not a “regulated public utility,” but more akin to an
“automobile garage,” which was not permitted in the agricultural district. This Court
reversed, explaining that the zoning ordinance permits a “public utility building or
service structure” by special exception and did not define the phrase. Id. at 1017
(emphasis added). The case was remanded with instructions to apply the “public
utility building or service structure” classification to the special exception
application. Id.
Unlike H.E. Rohrer, Inc., Applicant’s proposed “agrivoltaics” solar
farm does not meet the definition of “agriculture,” the use expressly permitted in the
Agricultural District. Here, the Zoning Ordinance does not authorize solar
photovoltaic energy generation in the Agricultural District beyond a 5-acre facility.
The Zoning Ordinance was intended “to limit the development of agricultural
tracts,” and to “limit the number of single-family dwellings or other principal uses
19
which may be established on any tract” within the Agricultural District. ZONING
ORDINANCE §285-35.A(3); R.R. 356.
The Zoning Board did not err in holding that Applicant’s solar farm
would constitute the principal use, and the sheep grazing enterprise would constitute
the accessory use.
Conclusion
We hold that agrivoltaics is not an agricultural use, and Applicant did
not establish that its proposed use complied with the applicable requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance for a nonagricultural use. The Zoning Ordinance authorizes more
than one use of land: one must be principal and the other accessory. Applicant’s
principal use will be the production of electricity, not sheep-grazing. In any case, in
the Agricultural District, a nonagricultural use, whether principal or accessory,
cannot exceed five acres. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
____________________________________________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita
20
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 76 C.D. 2025
:
West Lampeter Township Zoning :
Hearing Board and West :
Lampeter Township :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2026, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Lancaster County, dated December 18, 2024, is AFFIRMED.
____________________________________________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita