Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Lampposts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Board tables decision on South Historic District lamppost replacements
Summary
The Palatka Historic Preservation Board postponed action until July, asking the CRA to return with a physical sample, specifications and responses from adjacent property owners within 50 feet before approving lamppost replacements or solar conversions.
The Palatka Historic Preservation Board on June 5 tabled action on a Community Redevelopment Agency proposal to replace or retrofit 17 historic lampposts in the South Historic District and asked the CRA to return in July with a physical sample, material specifications, bulb-color options and responses from property owners within 50 feet of the poles.
The request to defer came after the CRA representative, Miss Odom, said the CRA had not made a final decision and that the CRA would pay for any work if approved. "The CRA has not made a final decision on what we're doing," Odom told the board, adding that the agency would bring options to the CRA board if the historic board endorsed a preferred aesthetic.
The matter drew questions about cost, light quality and longevity of solar equipment. A staff packet did not include detailed product specifications, and board members asked for samples and technical data before signaling approval. A public commenter, Allegra Kitchens, urged caution on solar conversions: "All the studies I've read, solar does not work very well in Florida," she said in public comment, noting historic gas lights had stayed lit reliably in the past.
Board members also discussed who pays for ongoing operation and maintenance. Odom said the CRA would assume maintenance responsibility if the CRA-funded project moves forward. Questions about whether solar panels would provide enough night-time illumination and how long panels and batteries would last remained unresolved; Odom said she did not have lifetime specifications on hand and would include them in a return presentation.
After discussion and public comment, a board member moved to table the item until the July meeting so the CRA could bring a sample, provide specifications including material and glass details, show bulb-color options and report outreach results from property owners within 50 feet of the affected poles. The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Board members stressed aesthetic consistency: several said any replacement or retrofit should match the existing pole appearance and avoid a markedly different, modern look. The board did not approve any replacements or conversions at the June meeting and will reconsider the item at its July session when the requested materials and neighbor feedback are presented.
