The Washington Township Zoning Board denied a validity challenge to the township's commercial solar panel ordinance on Monday night. A commercial solar panel field of approximately 14 acres with a screened fence and seven acres of solar panels was proposed along Sycamore Road and Old Route 100.
Township Solicitor Joan London defended the township's zoning ordinance from a challenge by Washington CSG 1, LLC, which acted on behalf of Sun Vest Solar. Washington CSG 1 asserted that the township commercial solar panel ordinance was exclusionary because it allowed only .06 percent of its available zoning for commercial solar panels.
London presented two expert witnesses, township Engineer John Weber, LTL Consultants and Charles Schmehl, a landscape designer and community planner, who is a principal in the firm of Urban Research and Development.
Attorney Sean Gallagher, who represented Washington CSG 1, noted his client would withdraw its request for a variance from the township ordinance. As a result, it was not necessary for Weber to testify.
Schmehl did testify concerning Washington Township membership in a comprehensive plan.
Gallagher claimed that membership in a comprehensive plan is not a binding document.
Schmehl noted that every municipality must allow for every possible use. However, if there is a joint inter-municipal agreement with an adjoining municipality such as Hereford Township, a use may be accommodated, if there is room. In that case, Hereford Township would be able to accommodate a commercial solar panel ordinance.
However, it is uncertain if there exists a joint inter-municipal agreement with Hereford Township. Schmehl explained a use must be located where there is buildable land, not where there are steep slopes, forested land, wetlands, flood plains, or agriculturally significant soils.
Watershed conservation districts, where the subject property is located, are ecologically important because any disturbance of the area would impact the west branch of the Perkiomen Creek as well as other waterways in the region.
Additionally, disturbance in a watershed conservation district eventually would drain into the Green Lane Reservoir. The reservoir is an 814-acre lake that feeds downstream waterways that provide drinking water to the Philadelphia region. Green Lane Reservoir is at least five miles distant from the proposed commercial solar panel site.
Several residents who were neighbors of the property in question and had legal standing in the matter explained they preferred commercial solar panels to a large housing development.
It was noted that the 14 acres where the solar panels would be located are very difficult to farm because of the soils on the property.
One neighbor questioned what would happen to the property once the useful life of the solar panels was finished.
Dan Stauffer, whose land was the subject of the zoning challenge spoke on behalf of solar panels on his property.
Stauffer explained he owns 125 acres that have been in his family for six generations. He would like to remain on his property for his entire life, but he has exorbitant taxes of over $15,000 per year on the property. He said if taxes remain the same he would, after 20 years, have paid over $300,000. However, property taxes continue to rise. Stauffer estimated he may pay as much as $500,000 in taxes over a 20-year period. He hoped the solar panels would offset his tax burden.
After a short executive session the zoning board denied the challenge.
It is possible there will be a challenge to the zoning board decision in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas.