[MassHistPres] The case of the solar panels and the historic First Parish church in Bedford, Mass.

[swermiel at verizon.net]

The case of the solar panels and the historic First Parish church in
Bedford, Mass.

 

Recently I learned about a troubling case of a historic district commission
determination being overruled in Superior Court, which to my recollection
had not been mentioned on this listserv. The judge required the HDC to issue
a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of solar panels on a
historic church. Why did this happen? As I looked into the case, I found
other points that concern me. Here is a summary of the case and my concerns;
this is based on my reading of publicly available court records and
newspaper articles.

 

Very briefly, the case involved the First Parish church in Bedford, Mass.
(1816-17), located in the Bedford Historic District. This district is not a
40C, but was established in 1964 under a separate act, the text of which is
not as clear as 40C. The church is also a contributing resource in a
National Register district. 

 

In 2016, the congregation (FP) proposed installing solar panels on the roof
of the church and some newer additions. This proposal was on the agenda of
three meetings of the Bedford Historic District Commission (BHDC). The BHDC
turned down the request, on the grounds that "the installation of solar
panels on the roof would be highly visible and incongruous to the historic
aspect of the Church and its architectural characteristics."

 

FP immediately appealed the decision in Middlesex Superior Court. About a
year later, it sent a memorandum to the court to support a motion for
summary judgment. In December 2017, the judge ordered the BHDC to provide
more information regarding its decision. The BHDC complied, but the judge
dismissed the explanations as deficient. In July 2018, he ruled that the
BHDC had acted arbitrarily and exceeded its authority, and the certificate
must be granted. The town appealed the court's decision, but in December
2018, withdrew the appeal. First Parish installed the panels in 2019.

 

Observations

1.	The literal-mindedness of the judge and plaintiff suggest a lack of
understanding of, certainly sympathy for, the work of the BHDC. For example,
the lawyers for FP claimed a roof is not an "exterior architectural feature"
and thus exempt from review. Also, the design guidelines for the district
have a single sentence regarding solar panels. FP's lawyers asserted that
since FP planned to install the panels as described in this sentence, it
complied with all that was required. Strange, to my mind, was the judge's
requirement that only "information that was before the Commission" at the
time of the hearing was allowed to be considered. This harks back to earlier
cases, but it's still puzzling. The purpose of a historic district, for
example Bedford's, "is to promote the educational, cultural, economic and
general welfare of the public though the preservation and protection of
buildings, places and districts of architectural and historic significance."
This is not life and death. In doing its work, a commission cannot act in an
arbitrary way, but it seems to me a fuller explanation of a decision
inevitably would involve words not mentioned at a hearing where an
application is denied.
2.	Another troubling aspect of this case is that FP defines
environmentalism as reducing fossil fuel consumption in a building, such as
from heating. The project involved replacing the roofing on the church
(which evidently had to be replaced anyway), installing 92 new solar panels,
discarding existing equipment (and I assume buying new equipment), and
eventually discarding the solar panels (after 25-30 years). A project like
this should be assessed for its overall impact on the environment taking
into consideration GHG emissions connected with the production of materials,
transportation, construction, disposal of materials and equipment, as well
as energy use in building operation. This is the life cycle assessment
concept. So, it may be that in this case the solar panel project will reduce
GHG emissions more than would maintaining existing services to the end of
their service life, but maybe not.
3.	In this connection, a group with which the FP is involved,
Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light, pushes solar panels for houses of
worship, along with insulation and changing heating/cooling equipment. Are
they experts in appropriate treatments for historic buildings? It would
certainly be a good thing if owners of historic properties hired architects,
engineers, and other consultants who have a practice working on historic
buildings.  

Are there general lessons to draw from this case? With respect to HDC
processes, one takeaway might be to document reasons for a denial as
thoroughly as possible. With regard to environmental concerns, more
education about the care of old buildings is needed, which stresses that
reducing fuel use is not the be all and end all of sustainability. Historic
buildings contribute so little in the way of GHG emissions. Buildings
overall contribute directly a smaller portion than other sectors: 13%,
compared to transportation (29%), industry (23%) and electricity generation
(25%). There are treatments for old buildings (storm windows, attic
insulation, owner behavior, etc.) that can reduce energy consumption and
avoid damage to their integrity. 

 

Sara Wermiel

Construction historian/historic preservation consulting

Jamaica Plain, MA

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20210520/fe017375/attachment.html>