HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 Church Street OKH Commission Appeal DecisionZEII: JYN � s4 1.1� t #�''
OLD KING'S HIGHWAY REGIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
P.O. Box 140, Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630-0140
Tel: 508-775-1766
Mary Robinson, Appellant
Vs.
Decision for Appeal No. 2026-4
Old King's Highway Regional Historic
District Committee for the Town of Yarmouth /Appellee
and Peter Barnes/ Applicant/Appellee
On Friday, September 18, 2026, at 1:30 P.M. the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District
Commission, herein after referred to as 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. 2026-4 filed by Mary Robinson, seeking reversal of the
Yarmouth Town Committee, hereinafter referred to as Town Committee, granting Peter Barnes a
Certificate of Appropriateness to install 39 roof -top solar panels at 16 Church Street, Yarmouth
Port, Massachusetts in application No. 26-A062. 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 August 11, 2026. The Appeal Petition was filed within the ten-day appeal period with
the Regional Commission on Thursday, August 19, 2026. The copy was available for public
viewing at the Yarmouth Town Clerk's Office, 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 Diane Diloe of Sandwich; Member Richard Weeks of
Orleans; and James R. Wilson, Regional Commission's Administrative Counsel and Jennifer E.
Vecchi, Regional Commission's Litigation Counsel.
Present for the ApplicantlAppellee were Peter Barnes, Applicant of 16 Church Street, Yarmouth
Port, Massachusetts and Skylar Ernst, Area Sales Manager for Venture Home Solar, LLC., 1
Dock Street -Suite 412, Stamford, CT 06489.
Present for the Appellant was Mary Robinson of 4 Church Street, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
Commencement of the Meeting & Hearing:
Chairperson William E. 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. 2026-4 and stated that
the following list of documents and exhibits had been reviewed and used by the Regional
Commissioners for the appeal hearing.
List of the Documents and Exhibits for the anneal:
1.) The Regional Commissioners reviewed the August 15, 2026, Appeal Petition setting forth the
Appellant's reasons for the appeal with attached illustrations with various photographs and maps
of possible views of the proposed solar panel arrays.
2.) The Regional Commissioners had reviewed the Town Committee's file for Application No.
26-A062, which included an Amendment Form, Statement of Understanding, 45-Day Timeframe
Waiver Form, General Specification Sheet, Abutters' List Form with a portion of Town Map
#122, photographs, maps, and plans indicating the type and proposed location for the proposed
roof -top solar panel arrays that are to be placed on the buildings at 16 Church Street, Yarmouth
Port, Massachusetts, and the email objections submitted by Mary Robinson of 4 Church Street.
3.) The Regional Commissioners reviewed the Appellant's Supplemental Presentation Package
mailed to the Regional Commission on September 8, 2026.
4.) The Regional Commissioners had individually visited the site and observed the setting,
topography, vegetation, and features of the buildings and structures in the immediate
surroundings.
5.) The Regional Commissioners had observed and reviewed the video recording and Minutes
for August 10. 2026, Town Committee meeting and public hearing.
6.) In addition to the above items the Regional Commissioners reviewed the Old King's
Highway Regional Historic District Commission March 1, 2022, Bulletin.
7.) During the Regional Hearing the Applicant's Agent Skylar Ernst presented shade reports and
array plans of the original proposal layout, HDC preferred layout, and a ground mounted array
layout.
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 would 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" d.) The Appellants would be afforded an opportunity to present a clear and concise statement
setting forth the basis for their appeal.
Yd.) The Town Committee would be afforded an opportunity to present a clear and concise
statement setting forth the basis for the decision to approve the Application.
2
4111.) The Regional Commission would accept comments from the public that are relevant to the
subject matter of the appeal.
5`t'.) The Applicant would be afforded an opportunity for rebuttal and concluding statement.
6"'.) The Appellant would be afforded an opportunity for rebuttal and concluding statement.
7`h) The Town Committee would be afforded an opportunity for rebuttal and concluding
statement.
Applicant's Presentation:
Applicant Peter Barnes asked agent Skylar Ernst of Venture Home Solar, to present the
statement setting forth the description of the proposed project and identifying the specific factors
and reasons supporting an approval of Yarmouth Application No. 26-A-062.
Mr. Ernst used portions of the Town Committee's file and exhibits that indicated the original
placement of the solar panel arrays that had a few solar panels facing Church Street. He
explained that during the review process changes were made to the solar panel array layout to
relocate Church Street facing solar panels that would reduce the public visibility of the project
while maintaining a reasonable level of solar panel productivity.
He stated that the solar panels would be placed on the newer portions of the buildings and were
all arranged on the eastern facing roof locations that would reduce their visibility on the front and
oldest parts of the buildings.
He claimed that the historic dwelling did not front Route 6A and that by keeping solar panels off
the western roof facing Church Street side, the project would thereby have a minimum visual
impact on the public's view of the proposed rooftop solar panel array.
He suggested that Mr. Barnes had been working with his neighbors and Town Committee for
nearly two years and made eight design revisions to reach the present Town Committee's
approved layout which he indicated would maintain energy efficiency and system viability.
A ellants' Presentation:
Mary Robertson of 4 Church Street addressed the Regional Commission on behalf of her appeal.
She identified herself as an abutter with forty years of real estate experience in California. She
expressed an opinion that the approval of the solar panel arrays would devalue her property.
She criticized the Town Committee for not having the architect/builder member present during
September 18, 2026, decision process.
She questioned whether her September 8, 2026, Supplemental Presentation Package containing a
62-page technical analysis with 31 sketches and photographic exhibits mailed to the Regional
3
Commission on September S, 2026, had been reviewed by the Regional Commissioners prior to
the hearing. Administrative Counsel James Wilson reported that the Supplemental Package had
been scanned and forwarded by email to all six Regional Commissioners for review prior to the
September 18, 2026, hearing.
Ms. Robinson stated that she would focus her comments on the core merits of her appeal.
She claimed that the Certificate of Appropriateness was defective based on technical procedural
omissions and the hazardous violations of fire safety codes.
She alleged that the Town Committee failed to properly consider the solar panel's visibility from
Route 6A.
She claimed that the black color of the solar panels would contrast with the existing brown roof
shingles.
She disputed the visual audit and system engineering viability analysis.
She expressed an opinion that the location of the rooftop solar panel arrays would have a major
visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the visual corridor of Route 6A.
She concluded by asserting that there was more than enough room in the Applicant's lot for a
ground mounted solar panel array that could reduce the adverse visibility impact, fire safety
risks, and provide more efficiency for the solar energy project.
Yarmouth Town Committee's Presentation:
Robert Wilkins, Chairman of the Yarmouth Town Committee, stated that the Yarmouth Town
Committee addressed the application within the limits of the Old King's Highway Regional
Historic District Act and determined that the project would be appropriate for its setting within
the historic district.
He pointed out that fire safety risk was governed by other Town Departments and Committees
and was not within the authority of the Town Committee in determining the appropriateness of a
proposed solar project.
He acknowledged that the architect/builder was not present for August 10, 2026, Town
Committee hearing and did not participate in the decision process.
Mr. Wilkins pointed out that a quorum of the Town Committee was present and voted to approve
the Application.
Mr. Wilkins stated that 16 Church Street does not front on Route 6A and that there are a
substantial house and 200-300 feet distance between the roofs of the applicant's dwelling and
Route 6A. He confirmed that the applicant's agent went to great lengths to accommodate the
visual consideration and concerns of the Town Committee.
4
He stated that there was no public visibility from Church Street and only minimal public
visibility from Route 6A. He suggested that the seasons do not change the distance and that some
of the trees in the area were evergreen.
He pointed out that the Act and Guidelines require the Town Committee to consider the energy
advantage of the use of solar devices.
He suggested that the decision to approve the application was a fair and reasonable decision and
expressed an opinion that the Regional Commission should uphold the Town Committee's
approval of Yarmouth Application No. 26-062.
Public Comment:
Chairman Bohlin asked for public comments on the appeal.
Lisa Grady of 415 Route 6A, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts expressed an opinion supporting the
appeal. She indicated that she was a frequent walker on Route 6A, Church Street, and Thacher
Shore Road and that she had observed tree removals and vegetation changes that will affect the
visibility of the roof top solar panels and cause changes in the character of the neighborhood.
She stated that the Act does not require that the Town Committee approve all solar panel
applications.
She agreed with the Appellant that the Regional Commission should overturn the decision to
allow time for a full investigation into substituting a ground mounted solar panel array for the
roof top solar panel arrays.
Applicant/Appellee's Rebuttal & Conclusion:
Mr. Ernst acknowledged that a ground mounted system might in theory be possible but
expressed the opinion that it would not be practical because of its high expense, taking up too
much yard area, and destroying an existing memorial garden.
He disputed the fire hazard claim and claimed the proposed roof top solar panel arrays met the
fire code requirements.
Mr. Barnes indicated that he believed in the value of preserving the appearance of neighborhood
and felt that the approved project represented a reasonable effort to address the future energy
needs of the Community. He requested that the Regional Commission rule in favor of the Town
Committee's decision granting the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Appellant's Rebuttal & Conclusion:
Mary Robinson repeated her belief that the Town Committee did not properly consider the fire
hazard risks or possible alternatives to the project.
5
Yarmouth Town Committee Rebuttal & Conclusion:
Robert Wilkins stated that it is not that Town Committee choose not to consider the fire safety
hazard being raised by the Appellant. He repeated his opinion that the Act does not give the
Town Committee authority over the subject matter fire risks that are being raised in the appeal.
He indicated that he believed that the Town Committee made a proper determination in
approving the Application.
He stated that the Town Committee reviewed the application in respect to its setting and
visibility, which in the situation the solar panels will not be seen from Church Street and very
difficult to see from Route 6A.
Questions from the Regional Commissioners:
Chairman Bohlin asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for the parties.
Vice Chairperson James Trabulsie of Brewster asked the Applicant's agent if the project required
a permit from the local fire department and Mr. Ernst stated that a permit would be required.
Mr. Trabulsie asked the Appellant if she had spoken with the Yarmouth Fire Department about
her concerns and she indicated that the Yarmouth Fire Chief showed her outdated and inaccurate
plans for the project.
Mr. Trabulsie indicated that he believed that the alleged improper role of the fire department was
outside the jurisdiction of the Regional Commission.
Mr. Ernst also stated that a permit would be required from the Yarmouth Wiring Inspector.
Closure of Public Hearine:
Chairman Bohlin announced the closure of the public hearing and stated that the Regional
Commissioners would deliberate among themselves to decide on the appeal. He stated that the
parties and public could remain to see and hear the deliberation but would not be allowed to
speak or join in the process.
Regional Commissioners' Discussion:
Vice Chairperson James Trabulsie of Brewster began the discussion by suggesting that the Town
Committee was correct in not denying the project based on alleged building or fire code
violations. He stated that other Town Boards and Departments were more familiar with the
Codes and permitting requirements. He expressed the opinion that if the Town Committee had
denied the project based on an alleged violation of the fire codes, it would exceed its authority.
At this point, the Appellant interrupted the Regional Commission's deliberation, announced that
she was withdrawing, and left the room.
R
The Regional Commissioners resumed the deliberation process.
Mr. Trabulsie continued by expressing an opinion that the project displays the "extensive use of
vegetation to minimize the visual impact of the system" as recommended in the Regional
Commission's Guidelines: Section B.5 for Energy Conscious Design. He claimed that the public
would not notice or see the solar panel arrays.
He dismissed any thought that the Town Committee might have been too rushed and arbitrary in
deciding on the Application. He stated that the video of August 10, 2026, meeting showed an
hour and a half of thoughtful and careful review of the project. He suggested that the Town
Committee did an excellent job.
Chairperson Bohlin stated that he would like to share a couple of thoughts about the appeal. He
suggested that the phrase "minimum visual impact" can mean different things for different
people. In some respects, it can be called "a gray area" or has "a subjective meaning."
The second thought is about the new State mandate that Historic Committees and Commissions
must give substantial weight to the threat posed by climate change." This does not mean that we
must approve all solar devices. It is a new solar criterion that is a factor to consider in reviewing
an application for a solar project.
Mr. Bohlin suggested that there are alternative devices such as solar shingles that might be more
attractive.
Commissioner Diane Dileo of Sandwich raised a question about the tan or brown roof color and
whether a new or darker roof shingle might be more appropriate.
Mr. Trabulsie suggested that some applicants replace their roof shingles or paint the roof with
asphalt paint.
Commissioner Elizabeth McCarthy of Barnstable stated that age of the roof should not be a
factor in the Town Committee's review process.
Commissioner Richard Weeks of Orleans stated that the present criteria for a roof top solar panel
array is a dark color not a black color roof. He agreed that the fire hazard objection goes beyond
the Town Committee's authority and needs to be addressed by other regulatory bodies.
He indicated that he believed that the Town Committee did not make an error or exercise poor
judgment in its review and approval of the Application.
Commissioner Dileo agreed with Mr. Weeks.
Commissioner McCarthy suggested that 16 Church Street is quite a distance from Route 6A and
that the solar panels will not be visible from Church Street.
7
The Regional Commission findings:
Commissioner Trabulsie moved, seconded by Commissioner Dileo, that the following findings
of fact be approved and incorporated into the Regional Commission's decision.
1. The project consists of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness in Application No. 24-
A062 to install 39 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.
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).
5. The Yarmouth Town Committee's record indicates a reasonable basis for granting the
Certificate of Appropriateness in Application No. 26-A062.
6. 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.
7. The granting of Certificate of Appropriateness in Application No. 26-AO62 by the Yarmouth
Town Committee was not an exercise of poor judgment.
8. The granting of the Certificate of Appropriateness in Application No. 26-AO62 by the
Yarmouth Town Committee should be affirmed.
The motion was adopted by a vote of 5 -0 -1 (Trabulsie, Dileo, Weeks, Bohlin, & McCarthy in
favor; None opposed; and Wilkins, abstaining).
Regional Commission's Determination:
Commissioner Trabulsie moved, seconded by Commissioner Dileo, that the Regional
Commission vote to uphold the decision by the Yarmouth Town Committee granting a Certificate
of Appropriateness in Application No. 26-AO62 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 the Yarmouth Town
Committee did not exceed its authority or exercise poor judgment and was not arbitrary,
E:
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 5 - 0 - 1 (Trabulsie, Dileo, Weeks, Bohlin, & McCarthy in
favor; None 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 with the Yarmouth Town Clerk.
s-
Dated: September 30, 2026 James Trabulsie, Chairperson
J