Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Installation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant withdraws proposal for visible solar panels at 395 Route 6A after neighborhood objections
Summary
An application to install 43 roof-mounted solar panels at 395 Route 6A in Yarmouth Port was withdrawn without prejudice March 24 after residents raised concerns that panels visible from Route 6A would alter the historic district’s character. The applicant said they will work with the contractor on a less-visible plan and resubmit.
Get email alerts on the Solar Installation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Old Kings Highway Committee of the Town of Yarmouth heard and accepted the withdrawal of a certificate of appropriateness application to install solar panels at 395 Route 6A on Monday, March 24. The applicant’s representative said the owner will work with the contractor to submit a revised plan that keeps panels out of sight from Route 6A.
The application, listed on the agenda as 24-A027 and described in the record first as requesting 41 panels (the applicant later confirmed 43), sought to place panels on the front and rear roofs of the primary house and on a detached rear structure. Melissa Fleming, representing Freedom Forever, told the committee the front dormer would not have panels visible from the road and the panels on the rear structure were on a flat roof she said could not be seen from Route 6A. Owner George Kennedy said, “It’s not our intent to… diminish the appearance of the house when you go by Route 6A,” and that the family would “work with the contractor to accommodate you.”
A series of written comments by nearby homeowners—submitted to the committee and read into the record—urged denial or reconfiguration. Dinah Wolf and Les Peet, Route 6A residents, wrote that panels visible from Route 6A “directly violate the mandate of Old Kings Highway and its rules” and urged the committee either to deny the application or limit the number of visible panels. Other letters from Mary and Douglas Robinson, Maureen Roxalas, Michael Grader and Susan Flack similarly said visible panels would alter the historic character and urged alternatives such as ground-mounted or rear-yard installations.
The committee chair accepted the applicant’s offer to revise the plan. After the applicant confirmed a willingness to withdraw and rework the design, a motion to accept the withdrawal of application 24-A027 without prejudice was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. The withdrawal means the applicant may submit a new application addressing visibility concerns; Lisa Sherman, the committee’s office administrator, said revised plans will be scheduled for the next available agenda once submitted.
The committee’s review is governed by the Old Kings Highway Historic District rules and the committee noted it must balance preservation standards with other considerations. One letter read into the record cited recent state climate-and-energy legislation and urged the committee to give weight to climate goals when considering solar installations; the committee did not take formal action on that statutory interpretation during the meeting.
With the withdrawal, no certificate was issued or denied; the applicant will return with a revised proposal aimed at keeping panels out of view from Route 6A.
Next steps: the applicant is to work with Freedom Forever and submit revised drawings; the committee’s office administrator will place a new application on the next available agenda once plans are filed.

