HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision for Appeal 2024-4 16 Church Streeti i S T0114N. i IE RE
OLD KING'S HIGHWAY REGIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
P.O. Box 140, Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630-0140
Tel: 508-775-1766
Mary & Douglas Robinson and Michal & Abraham Grader, Appellants
1'AR
Decision for Appeal No. 2024-4
Old King's Highway Regional Historic
District Committee for the Town of Yarmouth /Appellee
and Peter Barnes/ Applicant/Appellee
On Thursday, August 29, 2024, at 1:30 P.M. the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District
Commission, herein after called the Regional Commission, held a public meeting and hearing
at the West Barnstable Fire Station, 2160 Meetinghouse Way (Route 6A), West Barnstable,
Massachusetts Appeal No. 2024-4 filed by Mary Robinson, Douglas Robinson, Michal Grader,
and Abraham Grader seeking reversal of the Yarmouth Town Committee's decision granting
Peter Barnes a Certificate of Appropriateness to install roof -top solar panels at 16 Church Street,
Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts in application No. 24-A020. The property is identified as being
shown on Town Map 122 Lot 72. The Town Committee's decision was filed with the Yarmouth
Town Clerk on July 24, 2024. The Appeal Petition was filed within the ten-day appeal period
with the Regional Commission on Thursday, August 1, 2024. The copy was available for public
viewing at the Yarmouth Town Clerk's Office, 1146 Route 28, South Yarmouth, Massachusetts
during regular business hours.
Present for the Regional Commission were Chairperson William E. Bohlin of Dennis; Vice -
Chairperson James Trabulsie of Brewster; Member Elizabeth McCarthy of Barnstable; Member
Robert Wilkins of Yarmouth; Member Peter Williams of Sandwich; Member Ronald Mgrdichian
of Orleans; and James R. Wilson, Regional Commission's Administrative Counsel.
Present for the Applicant/Appellee was Peter Barnes of 16 Church Street, Yarmouth Port,
Massachusetts.
Presents for the Appellants were Mary Robinson of 4 Church Street, Yarmouth Port and Michal
Grader of 17 Church Street, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
Commencement of the Meeting & Hearing:
Chairperson William Bohlin of Dennis called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. and presided
throughout the meeting. He read the posted legal notice for Appeal No. 2024-4 and stated that
the following list of documents and exhibits had been reviewed by the Regional Commissioners
in preparation for the appeal hearing.
List of the Documents and Exhibits for the appeal:
1.) The Regional Commissioners reviewed the July 31, 2024, Appeal Petition setting forth the
Appellants' reasons for the appeal and twelve pages of attached photographs and maps
illustrating possible public views of the proposed roof -top solar panel arrays.
2.) The Regional Commissioners reviewed the Yarmouth Town Committee's file for Yarmouth
Application No. 24-A020, which included an Amendment Form, Statement of Understanding,
45-Day Timeframe Waiver Form, General Specification Sheet, Abutters' List Form, a portion of
Yarmouth Town Map #122, various photographs, maps, and plans indicating the type and
location for the roof- top solar panel arrays that were to be placed on the buildings at 15 Church
Street, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, and the email objections submitted by Mary and Douglas
Robinson of 4 Church Street and Michal and Abraham Grader of 17 Church Street.
3.) The Regional Commissioners individually visited the site and observed the setting,
topography, vegetation, and the features of the buildings and structures in the immediate
surroundings.
4.) The Regional Commissioners observed and reviewed the video recording and Minutes for the
July 22, 2024, Yarmouth Town Committee meeting and public hearing at which the application
had been approved.
5.) In addition to the above items the Regional Commissioners reviewed the March 1, 2022,
Bulletin.
Order of Presentation:
In accordance with 972 CMR 1:04 (2), Chairperson Bohlin announced the following order of
presentation for the appeal hearing:
I".) The Applicant will be afforded an opportunity to present a clear and concise statement
setting forth the description of the proposed project and identifying the specific factors and
reasons supporting the approval of the application.
2"'.) The Appellants will be afforded an opportunity to present a clear and concise statement
setting forth the basis for their appeal.
3rd.) The Yarmouth Town Committee will be afforded an opportunity to present a clear and
concise statement setting forth the basis for the decision to approve the Application.
4"'.) The Regional Commission will accept comments from the public that are relevant to the
subject matter of the appeal.
Soh.) The Applicant will be afforded an opportunity for rebuttal and concluding statement.
61h.) The Appellants will be afforded an opportunity for rebuttal and concluding statement.
2
7`h.) The Yarmouth Town Committee will be afforded an opportunity for rebuttal and concluding
statement.
Conflict of Interest:
Chairman Bohlin noted that during the proceedings an alleged conflict of interest charge had
been raised against a member of the Yarmouth Town Committee. He asked the Regional
Commission's Administrative Counsel to provide an opinion as to the best way to address the
subject matter of the charge.
Attorney James Wilson advised the Regional Commissioners that in his opinion the issue of an
alleged conflict of interest is personal to the Committee Member and that the Massachusetts
Legislature had assigned to the State Ethic Commission the authority and responsibility for
addressing such a charge. He suggested that the Regional Commission should not seek to address
the accusation during the appeal hearing's review process.
Chairman Bohlin agreed with the advice and asked that the parties not seek to address the alleged
accusation during the hearing.
Applicant's Presentation:
Applicant Peter Barnes addressed the Regional Commission and stated that he had been working
on the project since February and that the agent, Venture Home Solar of 231 Weaver Street, Unit
E, Fall River, Massachusetts, had made changes to the plans that addressed many of the
neighbor's concerns and reduce the public's Route 6A and Church Street visibility of the solar
panel arrays.
He reported that these modifications would increase the cost of the project and decrease the
amount of solar energy that the project would generate.
He stated that the panels would be placed on the newer portions of the dwelling and had been
arranged in locations that would reduce their visibility on the front and oldest parts of the
building. He indicated that the building did not front on Route 6A and claimed that by keeping
solar panels off the front of the house and making the requested modifications the project would
have a minimum visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Appellants' Presentation:
Mary Robertson of 4 Church Street addressed the Regional Commission on behalf of the appeal.
She indicated that she felt that the Massachusetts law had not been respected by the Yarmouth
Town Committee. She expressed an opinion that Massachusetts historic district Iaw and its
policies prohibit the placement of roof -top solar panels that can be seen from a public way.
9
She claimed that during the Fall, Winter and Spring seasons when the leaves have fallen from the
trees, the solar panels would become very visible from Route 5A. She expressed an opinion that
this seasonal exposure was sufficient for the Yarmouth Town Committee to deny the project.
She suggested that the architect/builder member of the Yarmouth Town Committee, who was not
present at the local hearing due to illness, ought to have participated and voted on the
application.
She speculated that a two -hundred -year -old Chestnut tree might block the sun from the solar
panels and thereby its existence might be threatened by the solar panel project.
She listed a few of the criteria for the Regional Commission's roof -top solar panel exemption
procedure such as a buildings age or light roof color as not being met by the proposed solar panel
project and expressed an opinion that the Yarmouth Town Committee ought to have applied the
exemption criteria to the Certificate of Appropriateness procedure.
She concluded her remarks by requesting that the Regional Commission reverse the approval of
the 16 Church Street rooftop solar panel project.
Michal Grader of 17 Church Street addressed the Regional Commission expressed
disappointment with the of the Regional Commission's inability to address the alleged conflict of
interest claim.
She stated an opinion that the approval of the roof -top solar panel array would destroy the
antique appearance of the dwelling and lead to an industrialization of the residential
neighborhood. She claimed that the approval of the project would be contrary to the purposes of
the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Act. She suggested that there were many
alternatives for protecting the environment without sacrificing the historic appearance of the
neighborhood.
Yarmouth Town Committee's Presentation:
Robert Wilkins, Chairman of the Yarmouth Town Committee, explained that the Yarmouth
Town Committee over a series of meetings considered and made changes to the proposed
project. He noted that the architect/builder member who was unable to attend the final meeting
had previously expressed in a public meeting an opinion that he would approve the project.
He reported that during the review process the preservation of the view from Church Street was a
major concern of the neighborhood and that changes to the location of the solar panels was done
by the Applicant to reduce the Church Street visibility and to protect the oldest portions of the
building.
He pointed out that the Regional Commission's current Bulletin under Guidelines: Section B. 5a.
Recommendation to Applicants at Page 32 recommends that solar panel projects have a
"Minimum visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood." He disputed the opinion that
Massachusetts law, or the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Guidelines require that
4
solar panels in an historic district must have no visibility from a public way. He expressed the
opinion that while one may be able to see a few of the solar panels from Church Street and/or
Route 6A their impact on the neighborhood will be minimal. He indicated that 16 Church Street
does not front on Route 6A and that there is considerable distance and vegetation between the
location of the solar panels and Route 6A.
He claimed that the decision to approve the application was a fair and reasonable decision and
asked that the Regional Commission uphold the Yarmouth Town Committee's approval of the
project.
Public Comment:
Chairman Bohlin asked for public comments on the appeal.
Lisa Grady of 415 Route 6A, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts expressed an opinion that
preservationists and climate change environmentalists should be able to work together without
destroying the appearance of Yarmouth Port's historic buildings. She stated that she often
walked along the streets in the proposed project area and enjoyed observing the scenic historic
character of the neighborhood.
She described the village as having great historical value and significance as reflected in the
appearance of its many antique buildings and structures. She noted that the area was a popular
site for historic house tours and pointed out that there is not a single antique property in the area
that had solar panels on any part of the house.
She criticized the Yarmouth Town Committee's review procedure for suggesting redesigns be
made to the solar panel layouts and not conducting a formal site visit to better observe the
project's visibility from various locations. She alleged that the solar panels would be very visible
from Route 6A, and Church Street and that the approval would set a precedent for the approval
of roof -top solar panels on historic antique houses located within the historic district.
She requested that the decision be annulled, and that the application be returned to the Yarmouth
Town Committee for further review.
John Grady of 415 Route 6A, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts asked the Regional Commissioners
to take a closer look at the facts, law, and process. He stated that the historic setting and visibility
of the proposed solar panels would be clear and significant from Route 6A and Church Street.
He claimed that Section 10 of the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Act and the
Yarmouth Guidelines prohibited the placement of the solar panels on the Applicant's historic
dwelling.
He argued that the Yarmouth Town Committee's review of the application was flawed by a
failure to require clear and accurate plans of the changes to the final layout of the proposed solar
panel arrays. He expressed support for a return of the application to the Yarmouth Town
Committee for further review.
5
Applicant/Appellee's Rebuttal & Conclusion:
Mr. Barnes indicated that he had reduced the production value of the solar panel arrays to reduce
their visibility and accommodate the wishes of the neighbors. He denied that he was motivated
by financial reasons for doing the project and indicated that he believed that the solar panels
would provide a reasonable path forward in addressing the future energy needs of the
community.
He claimed that he believed in the value of preserving the appearance of historic homes but felt
that the approved project represented a reasonable effort to address the future energy needs of the
Community while having minimum impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
He requested that the Regional Commission rule in favor of the Yarmouth Town Committee's
decision granting the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Appellant's Rebuttal & Conclusion:
Mary Robinson repeated her belief that the Yarmouth Town Committee did not properly
consider the visibility issue or consider possible alternatives for the project.
She repeated her belief that when the seasons changed, the panels would be much more visible
from Route 6A and Church Street and that there were better alternatives such as the use of
ground mounted systems.
She concluded by expressing her opinion that Massachusetts law does not allow the use of roof-
top solar panels that can be seen from a public way in an historic district.
Michal Grader reiterated her frustration with Yarmouth Town Committee's decision and
indicated that the annual loss of foliage in fall would have a major impact on the visibility of the
proposed solar panel arrays.
She again expressed a concern that the decision would set a precedent for the placement of roof-
top solar panels on other historic buildings within the Old King's Highway Regional Historic
District.
Yarmouth Town Committee Rebuttal & Conclusion:
Robert Wilkins, as the Chairman of the Yarmouth Town Committee, stated that each application
is judged on its own unique merit and that precedence does not play a role in determining the
appropriateness of an application. He indicated that each decision is based on the criteria of the
Act, relevant guidelines, and its setting within the historic district. He acknowledged that roof-
top solar panels can be an emotional and contentious subject for all interested parties.
He explained that with this long and extensive review process, the Yarmouth Town Committee
split with a three to two vote (3-2) in favor of the project's approval. He described this decision
0
as being a reasonable compromise requiring specific modification that reduced the public view
of the proposed roof -top solar panel arrays.
He reported that independent site visits were done by all the members of the Yarmouth Town
Committee and claimed that the solar panel Guideline of "Minimum visual impact on the
surrounding neighborhood" was properly addressed in the Yarmouth Town Committee's
decision to approve the modified locations for the solar panels.
Prior to closing the public hearing, Chairperson Bohlin asked the Applicant if he had explored
shingle style solar panels or ground mounted alternatives to the roof -top solar panel arrays.
Mr. Barnes stated that he believed that the shingle style solar panels would be too expensive and
that a ground mounted system would be too visible and consume too much of his backyard land
that he and his wife cultivated for gardening.
Closure of Public Hearing:
Chairman Bohlin announced the closure of the public hearing and stated that the Regional
Commissioners would deliberate to decide on the appeal.
Regional Commissioners' Discussion:
Vice Chairperson James Trabulsie of Brewster began the discussion by pointing out that a house
being more than seventy-five years old or having a lightly colored roof are criteria for a
Certificate of Exemption procedure and are not requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness
procedure. He stated that solar panels are regulated by the Regional Commission's Guidelines:
Section B.5 for Energy Conscious Design which are listed on Page 32 of the March 1, 2022,
Bulletin.
Chairparson Bohlin suggested that the color of the roof could cause the solar panels to stand out
and be more visible.
Commissioner Trabulsie stated that he was disputing the Appellant's claim that the Yarmouth
Town Committee had made a reversable error by approving the placement of solar panels on a
lightly colored roof. He noted that the Guidelines: Section 5a requires adherence to the standard
of "Minimum visual Impact on the surrounding neighborhood." He expressed the opinion that
the proposed project met the solar panel standards of the Guidelines.
He indicated that his visit to the property and observation of the view from Church Street and
Route 6A confirmed his opinion that the Yarmouth Town Committee had correctly determined
that the solar panel arrays would have a "minimum visual impact on the surrounding
neighborhood."
He declared that the review process had been extensive, thoughtful, and reasonable and that he
did not see where the Yarmouth Town Committee had exceeded its authority, or exercised poor
7
judgement, been arbitrary, capricious or erroneous in approving the modified location for the
placement of the solar panels.
Commissioner Ronald Mgrdichian of Orleans indicated that he agreed with Commissioner
Trabulsie's thoughts and comments about the appeal.
Commissioner Elizabeth McCarthy of Barnstable reported that she was very familiar with the
Church Street neighborhood. She stated that she had visited the site many times in the past and
that she agreed completely with the decision of the Yarmouth Town Committee.
Commissioner Peter Williams of Sandwich stated that he agreed with the Yarmouth Town
Committee's decision to approve Application No. 24-A020. He suggested that it looked like the
Yarmouth Town Committee took reasonable steps to allow the project to fit into its setting. He
indicated that after reviewing all the submitted material and statements, he did not see an error or
facts that would require a reversal of the decision to approve the project as modified during the
review process.
Chairperson Bohlin suggested that he was concerned about the trees and vegetation that obscured
the visibility of the solar panels. He pointed out that there have been many examples of when
projects have been approved because they were obscured by vegetation and subsequently the
vegetation was removed causing the project to become too visible.
Commissioner Williams stated that he disagreed with a concern about what may or may not
happen in the future. He expressed an opinion that appropriateness must be based upon the
setting as it presently exists and not upon speculation as to what might happen in the future.
Chairman Bohlin stated that he disagreed. He suggested that if this project had come before the
Dennis Town Committee, he would have voted against it.
Commissioner Trabulsie suggested that even if the vegetation was removed, he doubted that the
solar panels would be more than minimally visible from Route 6A or Church Street.
Commissioner Trabulsie moved, seconded by Commissioner Mgrdichian, that the following
findings of fact be approved and incorporated into the Regional Commission's decision. The
motion was adopted by a vote of 4-1-1. (Trabulsie, Mgrdichian, Williams, & McCarthy in favor;
Bohlin opposed; and Wilkins, abstaining)
The Regional Commission findings:
1. The project consists of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness in Application No. 24-
A020 to install roof -top solar panels at 16 Church Street, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, which
property is identified as being shown on Yarmouth Town Map 122 Lot 72.
2. The property is located within the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District.
N.
3. The Yarmouth Town Committee had jurisdiction and authority under the Old King's Highway
Regional Historic District Act (Chapter 470 of the Acts of 1973, as amended), to determine the
appropriateness of the proposed roof -top solar panel arrays.
4. The approval of the visual appearance of the proposed roof -top solar panel arrays' exterior
design features in their proposed locations will not be obviously incongruous with the setting or
the purposes of the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Act (Chapter 470 of the Acts
of 1973, as amended).
S. An allegation that a Town Committee member acted with a conflict of interest in participating
in the review process goes beyond the scope or authority of the Regional Commission's review
under Section 11 of the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Act (Chapter 470 of the
Acts of 1973, as amended).
6. The Yarmouth Town Committee's record indicates a reasonable basis for granting the
Certificate of Appropriateness in Application No. 24-A020.
7. The Yarmouth Town Committee did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous manner in
reviewing and granting the application for the proposed roof -top solar panel arrays.
8. The granting of Certificate of Appropriateness in Application No. 24-A020 by the Yarmouth
Town Committee was not an exercise of poor judgment.
9. The granting of the Certificate of Appropriateness in Application No. 24-A020 by the
Yarmouth Town Committee should be affirmed.
Regional Commission's Determination:
Commissioner Trabulsie moved, seconded by Commissioner Mgrdichian, that the Regional
Commission vote to uphold the decision by the Yarmouth Town Committee granting a
Certificate of Appropriateness in Application No. 24-A020 for the installation of roof -top solar
panel arrays located at 16 Church Street, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, which property is
identified as being shown on Town Map 122 Lot 72. It is hereby noted that we find that that the
Yarmouth Town Committee did not exceed its authority or exercise poor judgment and was not
arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous in its action and that the decision was within the guidelines of
the Act and specific to the setting under consideration.
The motion was adopted by a vote of 4 - 1 - 1. (, Williams, TrabuIsie, Mgrdichian, & McCarthy
in favor; Bohlin opposed; and Wilkins, abstaining)
Any person aggrieved by this decision has a right to appeal to the District Court Department,
Barnstable Division, within 20 days of the filing of this decision Jwith the Yarmouth Town Clerk.
Gr/r- �iCG
Dated: September 17, 2024 William Bohlin, Chairperson
9