Northampton Area School District v. Zoning Hearing Board of Lehigh
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 101
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- School District owns 19 acres in A/RR zoning in Lehigh Township, with Lehigh Elementary School on site.
- Applicants seek to install a 4-acre solar energy field (7,000 panels, 280 units) on the property to power the School.
- ZHB denied the application, viewing it as a second principal use; deemed not permitted as an accessory use and referred to special exception.
- Evidence included engineer Toedter’s testimony that the field would cut costs and have educational value; it would comply with codes and cause no noise or disturbance.
- ZHB concluded the solar field was not a customary incidental use to a school under Hess; found 7,000 panels too or not aligned with A/RR purpose.
- Common Pleas Court affirmed the ZHB; on appeal, the Superior or appellate court reversed and remanded to approve as accessory use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether solar energy units are permissible as an accessory use as of right | Applicants: Section 180-25(A) states solar units are allowed in any zone. | ZHB: must show solar field is customarily incidental via Hess and school-specific criteria. | Reversed; solar energy field approved as accessory use. |
| Whether the solar field is customarily incidental to the School | Electricity would serve the School; evidence shows on-site use and cost savings. | No evidence of prior similar school-related solar fields; Hess standard not met. | Not decided; issue reversed implicitly by remand on issue 1. |
| Whether lack of evidence that such use has never been constructed elsewhere defeats incidental use | Uniform interpretation; absence of prior examples does not negate incidental nature. | Hess requires considering precedent and typicality; lack of examples matters. | Not decided; abandoned as unnecessary after issue 1 ruling. |
| Whether number and location of structures disqualify the use as incidental | 7,000 panels on four acres would be subordinate to the School and meet zoning requirements. | Mass and proximity to residences undermine rural open-space character of A/RR. | Not decided; abandoned as unnecessary after issue 1 ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess v. Warwick Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 977 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (defines 'customarily incidental' in context of accessory uses)
- A & L Investments v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the City of McKeesport, 829 A.2d 775 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (role of plain meaning in zoning ordinance interpretation)
- Rudolph v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of College Township, 470 A.2d 1104 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (presumptions in interpreting zoning drafters' intent)
- Appeal of Perrin, 305 Pa. 42, 156 A. 305 (1931) (ancillary guidance on interpreting zoning standards)