Solar panel decision appealed

"Couple appeals solar panel decision," by Freda R. Savana, Intelligencer, May 5, 2010:

A zoning hearing board ruling found the permits the township issued allowing the couple to install backyard solar panels were flawed. The homeowners disagreed.


Andrew and Marlene Capreri believe the zoning and building permits they got from Plumstead Township to install solar panels in their backyard on Essex Drive are valid.

So the couple has filed an appeal in Bucks County Court challenging the township zoning hearing board's finding that the permits were issued in error.

"The Plumstead Township zoning ordinance is, at best, ambiguous as to the classification of solar panels and, thus, according to the municipalities planning code, the ordinance should be interpreted in favor of the property owner, which the board failed to do," states the appeal, filed by the Capreris' attorney, Francis Buschman.

The Capreris applied for a zoning and building permit last November to install a three-panel solar array in the backyard of their property. The township's part-time zoning officer, whose services they subcontract from Keystone Municipal Services, approved the zoning on Dec. 4 and the building permit on Dec. 9. The officer, Rich O'Brien, determined the panels were a residential accessory use.
Advertisement

In accordance with plans provided to Plumstead, the panels, each measuring about 10 feet wide and 16 feet high, were installed.

Jeff and Beth Earl, whose Cheshire Drive property borders the Capreris', challenged the permits, arguing the township's ordinance does not specifically include solar panels as an accessory use.

Plumstead's zoning hearing board agreed, saying an accessory use is defined as garages, fences, walls, non-commercial swimming pools and other similar uses.