City of Milwaukee - File #: 121399

• File #: 121399
• Version: 0
• Type: Resolution
• Status: Passed
• File created: 1/25/2013
• In control: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
• Final action: 3/11/2013
• Title: Resolution relating to a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of solar panels on the roof at 929 N. 33rd Street in the Concordia Historic District for Tom and Amy Fritz.
• Sponsors: THE CHAIR

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result	Tally
3/11/2013	0	HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION	ADOPTED; Minutes note: Mr. Jakubovich gave an overview on the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the installation of solar panels at 929 N. 33rd St. The panels were installed on the house without issuance of a building permit and COA, which were an oversight of the contractor. At the last meeting, there were questions about the state statute that applies to the installation of solar panels on residences. The Commission can review these installations. The preference is for a consultation with Commission staff before the design process of such panels and for installations of panels to not occur at the front of buildings. The State Historical Society was asked to weigh in, but it does not have the authority to review this matter due to there being no direct federal subsidy. The Office of Environmental Sustainability (OES) has agreed to work with Commission staff. There will be a possible small seminar educating contractors and installers of the solar equipment, permitting process, COA process if historically designated buildings are involved, and preferable areas of a property for such installations. For this particular case, Commission staff recommends acceptance as the solar collectors are not the real thick collectors. Future COAs of this nature will be reviewed by staff on a case by case basis. Staff approvals are possible for COAs of this nature if they’ve met the requirement for semi visibility. More visible solar panel proposals will be brought to the Commission for review. Tom Fritz, property owner, appeared and gave comments. Over the years he and his wife have been interested and installed high efficiency and alternative energy systems. The decision to install solar panels was done due to its recent affordability. In the past they’ve obtained COAs from the Commission for exterior modifications to their home, such as alterations to two attic windows in 1990 and replacement of asphalt shingles on the roof in 2004. They were misinformed and told that nothing was needed to address the installation of the solar panels on their home. Mr. Williams questioned the permitting and COA processes for solar panel installations going forward. Mr. Jakubovich replied that DNS and OES are working on a new and reasonable procedure that will expedite the process resulting in a combined building and electrical permit. Plan examiners will be able to see from records if a property is historically designated and requires a COA for exterior modifications. Mr. Williams said that the Commission may be able to influence and restrict solar panel installations going forward if the costs and efficiency of the installations are not significantly impacted, but it would be complicated for the Commission to deem such installations inappropriate. Mr. Jakubovich concurred with Mr. Williams based on out of pocket costs of homeowners. He added that the situation would be completely different if federal dollars are involved. Ms. Nemec inquired as to the life expectancy of the solar panels and restoration of the home at the time the panels would be removed. Chuck Smith, Current Electric and installing contractor on the panels, appeared and responded. His company has installed solar panels on buildings and historic properties in the City and throughout Wisconsin since the last four years. The solar panels for this home have a guaranteed output of 25 years and should last 50 years. Mr. Hoeschen asked if the state statute needs to be applied if this particular installation was granted with a COA by the Commission? Mary Schanning, Assistant City Attorney, appeared and said that the Commission would be required to apply the state statute only in cases where the Commission places any restrictions on such installations. She added that a COA will be required at the time when the solar panels are removed from this house. Mr. Williams moved approval, seconded by Mr. Hoeschen, of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of solar panels on the roof at 929 N. 33rd St. There were no objections.	Pass	5:0
3/6/2013	0	HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION	HEARING NOTICES SENT
3/6/2013	0	HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION	HEARING NOTICES SENT
2/11/2013	0	HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION	HELD IN COMMITTEE; Minutes note: Mr. Owczarski said that the details of the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 929 N. 33rd St. are left to the commission’s discretion, but there is some precedent that will be potentially set with the COA. Based on conversations with the City Attorney’s office, there is a state statute relating to the installation of solar panels that appears to exclude the ability of the Historic Preservation Commission to weigh in on the aesthetics of a solar energy system installation with very narrow exceptions. Ald. Bauman said that he disagrees with the conclusion of the City Attorney’s office that the commission has no jurisdiction or ability to render a judgment on the appropriateness of a particular solar installation. A legal opinion of the City Attorney’s office should not be accepted before it preferably goes into litigation for a judge to decide. This is another case of the dislike for historic preservation and its process. There are deed restrictions in connection to historic preservation. Solar panels can screw up historic properties, but this particular installation may possibly be passable. Other options have been looked at. Maybe the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances should be amended to have structures in a historic district that have solar panels become noncontributing structures and be ineligible for state tax credits. The State Historical Society may already have entered into a superseding arrangement with the Federal Energy Department on this particular issue. Atty. Greg Hagopian from the City Attorney’s office appeared and said that the City Attorney has not issued an opinion yet. The commission has some jurisdiction on this COA due to the building being in a historic district and a COA being applied for. Under the statute there are factors to consider regarding whether any restrictions placed on an installation or use of a solar energy system serves to protect public health or safety, does or does not significantly increase the costs of the system or decrease its efficiency, and allows for an alternative system of comparable costs and efficiency. Ald. Bauman said that he is concerned about city agencies fighting each other and about the Office of Environmental Sustainability saying that the commission has no jurisdiction while the matter is not very clear at this point. Ms. Nemec questioned about the commission’s purview and the possibility of tabling the matter if the commission’s purview cannot be defined? Mr. Owczarski said that the State Historical Office expressed strong concerns about their role, the federal government’s role, and whether or not there will be federal laws or regulations that would supersede. The State Historic Office will respond to clerk staff soon. Without that knowledge, there is a general feeling that a final framework on the commission’s purview cannot be attained. Mr. Jakubovich gave a summary of the solar panel installations at 929 N. 33rd St. The panels were installed on the south elevation of the house. An electrical permit was pulled by the contractor, but no building permit was pulled. As a result, a COA was not triggered. The contractor said that he was unaware of the requirement to pull building permits for solar panel installations. The contractor has done about forty other solar panel installations in the City of Milwaukee. Atty. Hagopian said that a building permit and COA is required for a solar panel installation in the City of Milwaukee, and the commission has jurisdiction on whether to issue a COA. Amy Heart, Solar Program Manager from the Office of Environmental Sustainability, appeared and said that there has been confusion among installers not knowing that they need to pull a building permit. The installer on this particular installation is trying to rectify the situation and is helping with the completion of new forms with the Department of Neighborhood Services. Clarification of the building permit process for solar energy installers is occurring, and installers are being informed of the correct process going forward. Mr. Jakubovich said that electrical permits are typically for interior work and not considered to have a major impact on the exterior of a building. As a result, electrical permits do not necessarily trigger a COA requirement. Atty. Hagopian said that, according to the state statute when there is a solar energy system, no political subdivision may place any restriction either directly or indirectly or in effect on the installation or use of a solar system unless the restriction satisfies one of the following: serves to protect public health or safety, does or does not significantly increase the costs of the system or decrease its efficiency, and allows for an alternative system of comparable costs and efficiency. Ald. Bauman gave additional comments. The owners of the house can appeal through the Common Council process if the commission orders to remove the solar panels. He was assured at the time of deliberation of the new solar energy zoning ordinance that no problems would come up as COAs and building permits would be obtained. The historic district and deed restrictions of the district were created long before the state statute concerning solar energy systems. Through the deed restrictions, there is a mutual agreement between citizens, not the City, to impose restrictions on each other consistent with the guidelines. According to the discussion between the State Historical Society and the Federal Energy Department, the state statute was not intended to say that solar panels on roofs trump everything Mr. Williams asked if satellite dishes would require permitting and a COA? Mr. Jakubovich replied that staff does require a COA for a satellite dish. If a dish is installed without a COA in the wrong place of a building, staff will issue an order for its removal. A satellite dish is not recommended to be put up at the front of a house, and there are other means of getting the same services of a satellite dish. Ms. Nemec said that the commission should wait until next month to find out more information. Ms. Nemec moved to hold in committee for the March HPC meeting, seconded by Mr. Bryant, of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of solar panels on the roof at 929 N. 33rd St. in the Concordia Historic District for Tom and Amy Fritz. There were no objections. Mr. Jarosz said that there was a Supreme Court case about two or three years ago that upheld the restriction of satellite dishes in a historic district. Mr. Williams said that other than disclosure on an offer and title, there is a serious disconnection among homeowners understanding that they live in a historic district. At the very least historic district associations should be contacted on an annual basis, and the associations should spread the word out.	Pass	7:0
2/8/2013	0	HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION	HEARING NOTICES SENT
2/8/2013	0	HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION	HEARING NOTICES SENT
1/25/2013	0	COMMON COUNCIL	ASSIGNED TO

Number

121399

Version

ORIGINAL

Reference

Sponsor

Title

Resolution relating to a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of solar panels on the roof at 929 N. 33^rd Street in the Concordia Historic District for Tom and Amy Fritz.  

Requestor

Drafter

CC

pj

1/25/13