On January 15, 2026, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court released its decision in In West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC v. West Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board, No. 76 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 15, 2026), wherein it affirmed the denial of an agrivoltaic solar energy generating facility in an agricultural zoning district. While this decision employs basic zoning standards, it raises bigger-picture questions about siting solar farms and the need for zoning ordinances addressing these uses.
The Background
The West Lampeter Solar 1 case arose from the rolling farmlands of central Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in West Lampeter Township. A solar energy developer applied for special exception to build a 25-acre “agrivoltaics” solar farm on a 55-acre property that was in the township’s “Agricultural” zoning district. The renewable energy “agrivoltaic” project would consist of ground-mounted solar panels that would be elevated to allow sheep to graze beneath the panels. The sheep would generally be present about half the year and would graze on a seed mix designed to grow beneath the panels. But, if it were a dry year, the grazing may not be possible.
The site of the proposed development was fertile farmland, consisting of class two and class three soils. The land was used for crop farming and enrolled in both Clean and Green and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The property owner identified that he wanted to “. . . pass the farm onto his children but needs to have it generate income after he retires.” The solar panels would occupy about 25-30 acres of the 55-acre property and, after the panels were no longer commercially productive, they would be removed and the land would return to pasture.
For its part, the solar energy developer applied for special exception approval because its proposed “agrivoltaics” solar farm was not a land use that was contemplated in the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance did provide that land uses that were not expressly authorized in a zoning district could be sought as special exceptions.
Zoning Approval is Denied
The West Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board denied the proposed agrivoltaic solar farm project. This denial was rooted in a deductive approach that turned on a basic question: was the agrivoltaic solar energy generation project “agriculture”? The zoning hearing board concluded that it was not.
Ironically, the township zoning ordinance did not define either “agrivoltaic” or “agriculture”, forcing the zoning hearing board to consult external sources to determine if the “agrivoltaic” project was “agriculture”. Relying on a dictionary definition, the zoning hearing board defined “agriculture” as being “[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[.]” For its definition of “agrivoltaic”, the zoning hearing board relied on governmental sources that described it as “the use of land for both agriculture and solar photovoltaic energy generation.”
The core question here involved the predominating use. Was the agrivoltaic project principally for solar energy generation with an agricultural element as an offshoot of that? Or, was the sheep grazing the real use, with the land simultaneously being used for solar energy generation as a secondary consideration? The zoning hearing board determined that the principal purpose of the agrivoltaic project was to generate solar energy, with the sheep grazing being an accessory to that.
From this foundation, the zoning hearing board determined that the agrivoltaic project was not an agricultural use, a horticultural use, or a forestry use that was authorized by the zoning ordinance. So, special exception authorization was needed for this project to go forward. The proposed project ran into a problem here because the zoning ordinance did not authorize non-agricultural uses to be larger than 5 acres. Special exception applicants must satisfy the objective criteria of a zoning ordinance that are applicable to the special exception. Since the agrivoltaic solar energy development project did not satisfy the express criteria of the zoning ordinance, the zoning hearing board denied the requested special exception.
The Commonwealth Court Affirms
The zoning hearing board’s denial of the special exception was first appealed to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed. It was then appealed to the Commonwealth Court which affirmed after a further review. The Commonwealth Court began its substantive analysis by addressing the solar company’s argument that its proposed “agrivoltaic” system was agriculture. The court disagreed.
It observed that the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture “. . . specifically advises that a ‘commercial scale solar’ or ‘solar farm’ does not meet the definition of normal agricultural operation under the Right to Farm Act.” But, addressing this point, the solar developer argued that the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code established a broader definition of “agricultural operation” which includes practices and procedures that are normally engaged by farmers or are consistent with technological development within the agricultural industry.” According to the solar operator, its agrivoltaics plan was “a ‘technological development within the agricultural industry.’” The Commonwealth Court disagreed, because the solar energy generation was not going to be used for the actual farming.
The Commonwealth Court also rejected the developer’s related argument about the size of its proposed operation. Like the zoning hearing board, the Commonwealth Court identified that a solar farm was not a use found in the ordinance and therefore could only be obtained via special exception approval. Since the entitlement to a special exception requires an applicant to satisfy the objective criteria in an ordinance, the solar farm failed the test because the ordinance limited non-agricultural uses to a maximum 5-acre size in the agricultural zoning. The agrivoltaic solar farm was proposed to be much larger, so it failed to satisfy the ordinance requirement.
The last item that the Commonwealth Court considered was the solar farm developer’s argument that the zoning hearing board incorrectly treated energy generation as the principal use of the land in the proposed agrivoltaic operation. The solar developer argued that the zoning ordinance did not prohibit a dual use, with the land being used for solar energy development and grazing. The Commonwealth Court disagreed with this position, observing that while the solar panels would be present all year, the grazing sheep would likely only be there for half the year, and less if there was a drought. The grazing sheep were not needed for the agrivoltaic operation.
Takeaways
The West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC highlights some important issues for landowners, solar energy developers, and municipalities to consider. The first item is the absence of clear ordinance provisions addressing land uses. This resulted in a need to examine sources outside of an ordinance for definitions, creating additional uncertainty.
The second item is an economic reality intersecting with public policy. Farming is a tough business. It requires long hours, high cost inputs, and an uncertain return. Even with preferential real estate tax treatment, it can be difficult to make money farming. Using that land for solar energy generation projects can, as suggested in this case, provide a bridge to generate revenue to allow the farm to carry on. But, at the same time, there is a public policy preference to preserve as much prime farmland for agricultural activities as possible. Agrivoltaics is not a perfect solution, but can at least maintain some degree of agricultural use of the land.
Finally, the tension between preserving agricultural lands and generating revenue from those lands is not new in Pennsylvania zoning. Of the municipalities in Pennsylvania with zoning ordinances that host unconventional shale gas wells, many of those well sites are in areas zoned for “agriculture” in some manner.
In West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC, the purpose of the agricultural zoning district was stressed in opposition to the proposed agrivoltaic project. But, many municipalities have that same language in zoning districts that are home to many shale gas well pads that take up acres of farmland. It may be difficult for municipalities to draw a line between allowing oil and gas development (for energy production) in an agricultural zoning district, but to reject solar energy development in the same zoning district.
See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.
© Houston Harbaugh, P.C.
Refine your interests »
Please take our short survey – your perspective helps to shape how firms create relevant, useful content that addresses your needs:
Back to Top
Explore 2026 Readers’ Choice Awards
Copyright © JD Supra, LLC

source