Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board upholds HDC decision limiting front‑facing rooftop solar at 65 Pulpus Road
Summary
The Select Board unanimously denied an appeal challenging the HDC’s conditional denial of front‑facing rooftop solar at 65 Pulpus Road, ruling the HDC acted within its case‑by‑case visibility standard; the applicant argued the decision applied an unwritten 'front' prohibition.
The Select Board voted unanimously to deny an appeal by ActSmart and the property owners challenging a Historic District Commission decision that conditioned approval of rooftop solar on visibility and screening requirements.
Appellant counsel Tobias Glidden argued the HDC applied an inconsistent standard by effectively prohibiting front‑facing panels and that the 2009 solar guidelines require a case‑by‑case evaluation focused on scale, proportion and context rather than an absolute prohibition. Glidden said panels proposed at 65 Pulpus Road were flush‑mounted, matte and aligned with the roof plane and that comparable visible installations exist elsewhere in the town.
HDC chair Steven Welch and HDC staff responded that the commission’s review is governed by the HDC’s statutory charge to preserve character and setting, and by local guidelines and past practice. The HDC told the board it reviewed the application at multiple meetings, took a view of the property as seen from Kelly Road and Pulpus Road, and conditioned approval to reduce visibility from public ways. Staff noted alternatives the applicant could pursue, including rear‑mounted panels, screening or a ground array.
Why it matters: The decision underscores the HDC’s reliance on visibility and context when reviewing modern interventions in historic settings; it also highlights continuing tensions between renewable energy goals and preservation practices on Nantucket.
Board action: After closing the public hearing, the Select Board voted to uphold the HDC’s decision by roll call. The board recorded unanimous support for the HDC’s approach and encouraged applicants to work with the HDC on alternative placements or mitigation.
Next steps: The applicant may revise the proposal (move panels to a rear roof plane, add screening or pursue a ground array) and reapply to the HDC; the Select Board’s action affirms the HDC’s case‑by‑case, visibility‑focused approach for rooftop solar in historic settings.
