Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Green Bay Landmarks Commission denies alternate placement for solar panels at 914 S. Quincy
Summary
The Landmarks Commission formally denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for an alternate solar-panel placement at 914 South Quincy after staff said the property owner installed panels at a previously approved location; the application will be reported as withdrawn for staff statistics.
The Green Bay Landmarks Commission on Oct. 15 denied an application seeking approval of an alternate placement for solar panels at 914 South Quincy, after staff said the property owner had already installed panels in a previously approved location.
Jason, a staff member for the Green Bay Landmarks Commission, told commissioners the item had been held over from the July meeting and had been reviewed previously: "This was an item from our July meeting that we had held. This was a solar panel application that we have reviewed twice prior to that. 1 time denying, 1 time approving. They had come back with some inconsistencies between what their contractor was telling them and then what our inspection code was telling them." He said the applicants had proceeded with the placement approved last summer and that the commission needed to complete action on the outstanding alternate-placement application: "However, we do need to formally deny this application for the other placement because we did take action on this item. So we are looking for a denial."
Commission discussion focused on how the decision would be reported. One commissioner asked that the item not be shown as a denial in annual statistics because the installation at the approved location represented a successful outcome; Jason said he would record the matter as a "withdrawn" application in his reporting even though the commission formally took action.
The commission recorded a motion to deny the alternate-placement application and voted in favor; the meeting record does not include individual roll-call votes. The commission did not change the approval for the panels already installed at the location that staff said had been approved previously.
The decision completes the commission's action on a solar-panel application that had been considered multiple times earlier in 2025 and resolves a discrepancy between the contractor's plan and the city's inspection-code interpretation.
