Renewable energy vs. cultural preservation - Solar, Wind and Land: Conflicts in Renewable Energy Development - page 135

a public roadway and was thus off-limits for solar panels. Under the District
of Columbia Historic Preservation Guidelines:
Owners sometimes consider adding solar panels as part of an overall
energy efficiency plan for their building. If installed on a flat roof, solar
panels should be located so they are not visible from the public street.
If located on a sloping roof building, they should only be installed on
rear slopes that are not visible from a public street. 93
In this case, any panels on the couple's southern roof would have been
“visible from a public street” and would have violated the guidelines.
Chandler and Wingate also knew that complying with the guidelines by
installing panels solely on the back, north-facing side of the roof was not
a viable option. An array consisting of panels installed only on the home's
back roof would have had far less access to direct sunlight and would have
thus generated less than half as much electric power. 94
Determined to find a way to make a solar energy installation work
on their home, Chandler and Wingate approached historic preservation
officials and proposed a compromise: an array that occupied portions of the
northern and western roofs of the house. Under its proposal, the couple also
offered to replace their roof's light-colored shingles with darker shingles to
help camouflage the panels. 95 Although some of the panels proposed for
their west roof would have been partially visible from the street, any other
layout providing less sunlight exposure simply would not have been cost-
justifiable. The array needed to be capable of producing enough electricity
to pay for itself through energy bill savings within a reasonable number of
years.
The stakeholders who seemed most likely to suffer adverse impacts from
the couple's proposed solar array expressed vocal support for its instal-
lation. The Cleveland Park Historical Society's own Architectural Review
Committee indicated that it “support[ed] the installation of solar panels
on this property,” 96 noting that the committee had “received very strong
statements of support from neighbors adjoining the property.” 97 The neigh-
borhood's local “Advisory neighborhood Commission 3C” even passed a
resolution in favor of allowing the solar array. 98
In spite of this neighborhood support, the District of Columbia Historic
Preservation Review Board proved unwilling to approve installation of the
panels. The board's initial vote on the issue was a 4-4 even split. One board
member then abstained and the group voted a second time, voting 4-3 to
disallow the new solar panels.
The Board's decision not to approve the proposal seemed to be based on
a strict interpretation of the Board's guidelines prohibiting any solar energy
installations that were visible from a public street. 99 One board member
complained that the panels would “create a visual intrusion on the house
and into an intact historic streetscape” and would be “visually distracting