G. Morris Solar, LLC v. Borough Council of the Borough of Gratz
1380 C.D. 2023
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 14, 2025Background
- G. Morris Solar, LLC applied to develop a large solar energy project on approximately 180 acres, mostly in the C-1 Conservation District of Gratz Borough, with one parcel split between C-1 and R-1 Residential Districts.
- The Borough's Zoning Ordinance permits major solar energy systems as a conditional use only in the C-1 District; Section 305 allows a parcel split between districts to be treated as wholly within a district if 80% of the land falls there.
- Borough Council denied the application for several reasons, including alleged non-compliance with zoning, lack of demonstrated harmony with residential uses, and supposed impairment of property values.
- The trial court reversed, finding the solar project met the ordinance's objective standards, that the Borough's last-minute attempt to supplement the record with findings was untimely, and that objectors’ evidence was not sufficient.
- The Borough appealed, challenging the trial court’s refusal to remand for supplemental findings, its rulings on harmony, property values, district compliance, and emergency service planning.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court, finding its handling of the record and factual findings consistent with the law and supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Borough Council's Argument | G. Morris Solar's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Supplemental Findings | Trial court should have allowed Borough Council to supplement decision with findings and conclusions post-appeal | Trial court should make its own findings since none were timely issued | Borough Council's attempt was untimely; trial court properly made findings |
| Compatibility with Residential Uses | Solar project not harmonious with residential neighborhood and local landmarks | Conditional use is presumed harmonious; evidence shows no unique harm | Conditional use presumption stands; objector evidence insufficient |
| Impact on Property Values | Appraiser not credible; project would impair adjacent property values, especially aesthetics | Appraiser qualified, no expert evidence rebutted; project won't impair values | Evidence supports finding of no impairment to property values |
| 80% Rule for Parcel 5 Zoning | No proof 80% of Parcel 5 is within C-1, so split-district rules shouldn't apply | Project manager testified and maps show >80% in C-1 | Sufficient evidence supports trial court's finding |
| Emergency Services Plan | No emergency plan provided as required by ordinance | Plan required only before zoning permit, not at conditional use stage | Ordinance requires plan pre-permit, not pre-conditional use approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Allegheny Tower Associates, LLC v. City of Scranton Zoning Hearing Board, 152 A.3d 1118 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (objector testimony on property values must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Marquise Investment, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 11 A.3d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (speculative testimony from objectors insufficient to deny conditional use)
- In re Drumore Crossings, L.P., 984 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (describes shifting burden in conditional use applications)
- In re McGlynn, 974 A.2d 525 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (legislative approval of conditional use presumes harmony with district)