[MassHistPres] Solar Panels

[Dennis De Witt]

Ralph

On the face of it, I would suggest that, while “shall” is indeed strong language, “consider” would appear to reduce its strength very substantially.  Developing a set of guidelines, taking it into account along with all aspects of 40c, would seem to be evidence of having “considered” the issue.

Dennis De Witt
Brookline


On Jul 8, 2015, at 2:42 PM, slater at alum.rpi.edu wrote:

> My reading of the direction given by the 40C statute is that LHDs must be more flexible than the National Park Service. Based on the examples given, the NPS seems to only consider extremely non-visible installations to be appropriate. The wording says "consider the policy of the commonwealth to encourage the use of solar energy systems and to protect solar access." That is somewhat strong language.
> 
> We haven't seen many requests for solar in Springfield, and because of that our formal guidelines are not developed, however some things we have discussed in the past:
> 
> * Placement. Given two equally advantageous locations, we would want to go with the less visible location; in the rear, or on a secondary structure such as a garage.
> 
> * Material color - we have seen some panels that have white borders and this is very visible against a black roof. We would want the borders of the panels to be dark in color so that the panels blend in with the roof.
> 
> * Impact to building. Obviously removing elements from the building to get more solar would be not allowed. Slate roof could be tricky - installation might make the roof fail sooner (though in Springfield, we have realized that slate roofs are no longer economically feasible since a $100k roof on a $150k house makes no economic sense).
> 
> * Profile. Are there multiple choices of panels? We haven't seen many installations so we don't have a feel for this yet. Are there thinner panels which might be a bit more expensive, but look better? I don't know - but we are currently making such judgments with replacement windows, so it seems like an area to control.
> 
> * Amount of panels. This is where it starts to get tricky - how much solar is needed? Since people can sell back to the grid, they can argue that they must fill every last square inch of their roof and adjacent property with solar panels. Does that trump everything? I don't know, but I don't think so. But what is a reasonable amount? I read that a typical panel gets you 200 watts, and a typical installation might be 25 panels or 5KW. 
> 
> If tricking out every last inch gets you 10KW - putting panels on the south-facing roof, putting panels on other roof faces with scaffolding, putting panels in the yard, on the side of the house, etc - is it reasonable to say "no, that is too much" (it seems to be to me)? If so, then what is the standard to use? There is a point where the panels are not economically feasible to install - adding just 2-3 panels isn't enough for these solar leasing companies to bother. 
> 
> Should the minimal installation kW for the solar leasing companies be used as a lower bound for any installation? Let's say it is 1kW, and there is no way to get 1kW to work by putting the panels on the rear of the house - the rear gets 0.5kW. We are then faced with either putting 2kW on the front of the house, 1kW on the side, or telling the homeowner that all we will accept is the 0.5 kW on the rear, an amount that scuttles the job?
> 
> Another thing to consider is that older homes do use more energy than newer homes, so solar may be a way for these homes to remain economically viable. We are already seeing softness in larger (> 4k square feet) houses on the market, many buyers are saying "too big". We have to look at the big picture sometimes.
> 
> 
> Ralph Slate
> Springfield Historical Commission
> 
> 
> <-----Original Message----->The National Park Service Technical Preservation
> >Services Briefs on Solar Panels should provide suitable guidance to your Commission.
> > 
> >Anne Louro
> >Historic Preservation Planner 
> >Department of Planning, Housing & Community Development
> >133 William Street
> >New Bedford, MA 02740 
> >____________
> >508-979-1488 p
> >508-979-1576 f
> >mailto:Anne.Louro at newbedford-ma.gov
> > 
> >
> > 
> >From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu]
> >On Behalf Of Mike
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 7:14 AM
> >To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> >Subject: [MassHistPres] Solar Panels
> > 
> >The Town's Building Department has informed me that the Historic District
> >Commission will be getting an application to install roof-top solar-electric
> >panels on a building in the Historic District.
> > 
> >Does the MGL and/or CMRs that govern sustainable energy/solar-electric panels
> >contain any wording that supercedes an Historic District Commission's authority
> >to preserve the appearance of the historic district?
> > 
> >Michael Potaski
> >Chairman, Uxbridge Historic District Commission
> ******************************
> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************