Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves solar panels on new dormers after split vote and expert testimony
Summary
After extended debate and testimony from an architectural historian, the Newport Historic District Commission approved 12 solar panels installed on newly built dormers at 33 Poplar Street, finding them minimally visible and consistent with preservation guidance despite several commissioners dissenting.
The Newport Historic District Commission voted to approve an application to install solar panels on newly constructed dormers at 33 Poplar Street after hearing expert testimony and a lengthy exchange among commissioners.
Owner Charles F. Padovina said the 12-panel layout was reduced from earlier proposals to limit visibility and to meet performance needs. "These panels are set back and high enough that they, they do have some visibility, but they would have minimal visibility from a very limited area on Poplar Street, basically 2 houses, and basically little or no visibility on the rest of the street," Padovina told the commission. He said the panels are non-reflective and that the project is part of a broader sustainability plan for his house, which includes heat pumps and dormer work.
An architectural historian called as an expert witness, Dr. Ronald K. Onorado, testified that the panels do not harm the structure's character-defining features and that the proposal complies with the Newport standards and Department of the Interior/National Park Service guidance for low-slope roofs. "They do to my evaluation," Dr. Onorado said when asked whether the panels met the standards. He added that, in his inspection and site walk, the mock-ups were largely unseen from most vantage points.
Several commissioners disagreed about whether even minimal street-view visibility should disqualify the installation under the commission's solar guidance. Commissioner Jim Madsen said he was concerned about precedent and visibility and stated, "And for that, I'm gonna, vote to deny it." The motion to approve ultimately carried; commissioners recorded several specific ordinance citations in their votes and three commissioners noted opposition in the record.
The commission accepted photographic and video exhibits of mock-ups from both the east and west approaches and required that the installation meet the adopted condition set out in the staff report and the commission's findings. The approval was framed as case-by-case: staff and the commission emphasized that acceptance of this arrangement does not automatically set a broad precedent for other properties without similar context and examination.
Next steps: staff will record the certificate of appropriateness and the applicant may proceed with permits consistent with the approved exhibit set and the commission's conditions.
