Also in attendance were Alison Allman and Bob McCoole, owners. Susan Istenes explained that the applicant proposes to install 23 rooftop solar panels on the south (side) facing portion of the pitched roof of the home, and 4 solar panels on the east (front) facing

2 dormer roof. The proposed solar panels measure 5.5 feet by 3.15 feet, are positioned in a symmetrical fashion, and are set back at least 2 feet from the roof edges, peaks, and valleys. Susan stated that Section 405.3880 of the Renewable Energy Systems regulations states the following: “When located on a sloped roof, solar energy collectors shall be located on a rear or side-facing roof, as viewed from a fronting street.” The four proposed panels on the front dormer are located on a front facing roof and therefore fail to meet this requirement. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance to allow the solar panels to be installed as proposed. Section 405.3920 of the Renewable Energy Systems regulations states that the Architectural Review Board may approve an applicant's request for alternative compliance if, in the Board’s judgment, the purpose of the regulations will be satisfied and the alternative design will have no adverse impact on any other property or unreasonably disturb the peaceful occupancy of adjoining or nearby property. According to the applicant, the subject panels are located at a 10 degree angle and could easily be shielded from view with an architectural parapet; however, the parapet design is not shown on the plans. The proposed solar panels on the south (side) facing roof are arranged in a symmetrical fashion and are in conformance with the Renewable Energy Systems regulations; however, staff is of the opinion that the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the requested alternative compliance to allow four solar panels on the front facing dormer roof. Staff is not aware of any past approvals for solar panels on front facing roofs and has concerns that approval of this request may set a precedent for future requests and therefore, recommends denial of the proposal as submitted.

Mr. Hartupee (EFS Energy) indicated that they’ve been in business since 2011 and to date have installed 500 kilowatts; this will increase their portfolio by 7.5 kilowatts. He noted that only a small amount is visible from the street. He distributed a photograph of the front of the house.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the four on the front dormer could be relocated.

Mr. Hartupee indicated they would not produce the same value elsewhere.

Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that he visited the site and, while looking at the photo that was just distributed, the panels on the south facing roof; the ones permitted by the code, are more visible from the street than the four being discussed.

Mr. Hartupee agreed.

Josh Corson commented that he hates to not allow those 4 panels if there’s a creative solution to the situation.

Mr. McCoole thanked the members for allowing them to present this evening. He asked that, while he respects the ordinance, an exception be allowed as they already removed four panels from the south facing roof that were not symmetrical, bring the number of the panels on that part of the roof down to 23; they started with 27 panels. He added that as rates go up, more energy will be saved. He asked the Board to consider future applicants. He then referred to a new house being built on

He asked the Board to consider future applicants. He then referred to a new house being built on

3 his street that is different in appearance than traditional homes. He stated that they are appealing to their subjective viewpoint. He referenced the photograph, noting that the panels will only be seen for a very short time as one goes down the street due to the slope of the street.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about the panels already removed that Mr. McCoole mentioned.

Mr. McCoole replied “yes”; noting they removed because they were not symmetrical.

Louis Clayton informed the members that symmetry is not a staff concern or issue. He reiterated that the four panels on the front facing roof are the panels that don’t meet Code.

Chairman Lichtenfeld voiced his concern about setting a precedent. He asked about a parapet.

Mr. McCoole indicated that he would construct one if he has to, although a parapet would be more visible than the panels without a parapet.

Mr. Hartupee informed the members that the panels are 1 ½” thick and are raised 4-6” above the roofline.

Mark Winings commented that in the mock-up/rendering, the front panels are visible; however, in the photograph distributed tonight, that part of the roof is not visible.

Mr. Hartupee stated that the mock-up/rendering is a google view (higher up) and the photo brought in this evening was taken by the owner from across the street or thereabouts.

Mr. McCoole informed the members that he is not doing this for the money/return and that actually, he wants people to see that they are doing their part to conserve energy.

Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that he does have a concern about precedent but is looking for a way to approve.

Mr. McCoole asked the Chairman to comment on the subjectivity.

Kevin O’Keefe informed Mr. McCoole that this is not subjective; regulations are based on ordinances and include certain criteria.

Mr. McCoole stated that he would build a parapet if that’s the way to get this approvfed.

Pepe Finn asked when the ordinance was passed.

Susan Istenes replied “2012”.

Mr. Hartupee noted that the panels are almost the same color as the roof.