HomeMy WebLinkAboutCoholan LetterDecember 11, 2023
RE: 260 Church Street, West Barnstable: Solar Panels
Please accept this letter, related to our applicatfon for the installatfon of solar panels on our residence
located at 260 Church Street, West Barnstable. We have raised this previously, yet there has been no
acknowledgment that there is a past practfce as well as precedent for the installatfon of solar panels on a
designated “scenic” road within the Old Kings Highway District. This precedent not only allows for the
installatfon of solar panels on a contrastfng color roof, but also directly visible from the “scenic” road. As
this board is aware, there is a standing Solar Exemptfon for Sigle Family homes. Elements of the
exemptfon include:
• To be affixed to the dark shingled roof of a less than seventy-five (75) years of age single-family
residentfal dwelling;- CONFIRMED
• The dwelling is not part of a listed contributfng property on the Massachusetts or Natfonal
Register of Historic Buildings and Sites;- CONFIRMED
• The panels will not be visible from Route 6A, or any other road designated under M.G.L. Chapter
40 Sectfon 15C, or other authority, as a scenic road; and- PRECEDENT
• The dwelling’s roof shingles are a dark color that will blend with the solar panel array; the length
of the dwelling’s roof ridgeline is not greater than fifty feet; the dwelling’s height is not greater
than thirty-five feet; the dwelling’s roof pitch ratfo is not greater than 7 over 12.- PRECEDENT
Please see photographs taken in the vicinity of 247 High Street, West Barnstable:
High Street, is designated as a “scenic” road, for the purposes of this discussion. After reviewing the
minutes of the April 12, 2023 OKH meetfng, we were able to see that an applicatfon for the installatfon
of solar panels was presented to the committee. Based on the review of the minutes, it appears there
was some discussion concerning the array layout, and the desire for symmetry, as it was stated that the
road is “traveled”. Also, it was acknowledged by the committee that the roof color was “light”, and an
inquiry was made to see if the roof was going to be changed, to which the answer was no. It does
appear that the item was contfnued to the next meetfng. For the record, Ryan Coholan was not present
at the 04/12/23 meetfng.
A review of the agenda and minutes from the April 26, 2023 meetfng shows that the applicatfon was
heard again. At this meetfng, it appears that the design was changed to make the array symmetrical, as
requested. At this meetfng, the applicatfon was approved. For the record, Ryan Coholan was not present
at the 04/26/23 meetfng.
As you can see from the previous images, the panels are black, on a brown roof, and fully visible from a
“scenic” road.
We presented our original array layout, which was very consistent with the aforementfoned applicatfon.
Moreso, the original proposal had black panels on a grey roof (and not brown). We were asked to come
back before the committee, with an adjusted design that removed the panels from the front of the
house, which we did. Upon presentfng the revised design, we were again met with oppositfon from the
committee, and were asked for another contfnuatfon, so that the committee could further evaluate. This
matter has been heard twice, with a 3rd hearing scheduled for 12/13/23. We are very troubled by the
fact that this committee approved a solar installatfon as described earlier on a scenic road (High St), and
we are now being heard for a 3rd tfme. This coupled with a review of the previous meetfng minutes
regarding this applicatfon, as well as the applicatfon for 247 High Street demonstrates a drastfc
inconsistency in what has been deemed “appropriate” by this committee.
Here is an image of our property:
As you can clearly see, our property is significantly set back from the roadway. Our initfal plan would
have solar panels on a portfon of the front roof, and our second proposal took the panels off the front
and placed them on the side. This change drew accords of irrelevant commentary (irrelevant to the
regulatfon), and has resulted in further delay to our project.
Based on the people in attendance and comments heard at the last two meetfngs, it seems that many
people are interested in what we are doing with our property, vs the interest that there was for the
aforementfoned applicatfon on High Street. We would offer that there is certainly an appearance of
questfonable tactfcs in this matter….. certainly, beyond what is in the essence of the regulatfon as well
as the purpose of the Committee.
Respectiully Submitted,
Ryan & Katfe Coholan