Sunpin Energy Services, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Petersham

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Town of Petersham Zoning Board of Appeals (Zoning Board) did not provide “reasonable opportunities” to build solar energy systems, as required by Massachusetts law, when it denied a special permit for a large-scale ground-mounted solar energy system. The court concluded that a special permit for such a project could not be denied unless denial was “necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare,” a determination that requires “individualized and site-specific reasons.” The court described the Zoning Board’s denial as based on “generally applicable concerns about tree cutting,” which in a town that is 97% forested would effectively constitute a “blanket prohibition” on large-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems. The court found that because Massachusetts law (the solar provision of the Dover Amendment) requires that “sylvan as well as urban communities” provide reasonable opportunities for solar energy facility development, the denial of the special permit was improper. The Supreme Judicial Court directed that the matter be remanded to the Zoning Board for further proceedings.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the Land Court’s judgment upholding the denial by the Zoning Board of Appeals of Petersham of a special permit for a large-scale solar energy system on rural private property. Approval of the permit required a unanimous vote by the three-member board. Although two members voted to approve the special permit application, the third member voted against it, citing, among other factors, its incompatibility with the State’s energy policy, as embodied in the State’s Clean Energy Results Questions & Answers Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Systems and the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap, which the board member concluded discouraged siting of solar projects in forests where significant tree cutting is required. The Appeals Court found that the denial was “contrary to the legislative goal of promoting solar energy and rested primarily on the subjective beliefs of one board member” and found that the board exceeded its discretionary powers when it concluded that maintaining forest land was preferable to solar energy development.

Filing Year For Action