Solar Panels Or Obey The Law?
Editorial: The Karaffa's installed solar panels on the roof of their house on Pearl Street. That's a laudable endeavor, but unfortunately they did it without a zoning permit. They surely knew they needed one - they had obtained a permit a couple of years ago when they intalled the standing seam metal roof on their house.
Their house is within the historic district and modifications are subject to the rules of the Architectural Review Overlay District. That part of our zoning code was written over thirty years ago to ensure that the historic district remains with the look and feel of a 19th Century village. That part of our law was written in response to the construction of the modernist addition to the library and the modernist building, Burke Hall.
No modernist building or addition has been constructed within the historic district since the passage of the law. Indeed, just this past year, the Library has de-modernized its addition and constructed additional space that fits in with the 19th Century look of the village.
However, over the course of a year, Denison has tried to construct modernist additions to Cleveland Hall, Denison has attempted to flood-light the modernist building, Burke Hall, and the Karaffa's have installed modern solar panels on the roof of their house - panels that are clearly visible from Pearl Street.
How did the Village respond to this? The Planning Commision by a vote of 4 to 1 approved the solar panels in spite of the fact that they clearly violate the intent and spirit of the law. Moreover, the Planning Commision did not somehow "punish" the Karaffa's for asking for "forgiveness" rather than "permission."
How should we deal with these issues in the future? I think the Planning Commission should, in the future, require a homeowner who has completed the work before the application is reviewed by the Commission, to remove the new work. In the case of the Karaffa's, they should have been required to remove the solar panels before the Planning Commission heard their application.
Is this too harsh? I think not and here's why. The Karaffa's installed a type of solar panel that is clearly visible and obviously inappropriate within the historic district. If the Karaffa's had come before the Commission, presumably, the Planners would have asked the Karaffa's to install a more suitable style of solar panel that would fit in with the look and feel of the historic district.
For example, they might have installed flat solar panels that fit between the raised seams of their metal roof.
But, the Planning Commission didn't have the opportunity to suggest or insist that the Karaffa's use such a panel that would not compromise the historic district.
It seems to me that in our enthusiasm for encouraging solar panels, we have missed an opportunity to preserve our historic district.
A lot of the blame for that rests with the Karaffa's who went ahead with a project without a permit. More blame, it seems to me, rests with the Planning Commission who permitted the Karaffa's to present a fait accompli and then approved it.
Yes, our village should work with homeowners who wish to press the frontier of technology, but shouldn't those homeoners also work with our village?
Perhaps we should just follow the law and if that doesn't work, change the law.
why are we arguing about solar panels in Granville?
> Granville is a great place to live and raise a family, not because it happened to be founded in the 19th century, but because it is and always has been a progressive community blessed with a highly educated population and a modern university in our back yard. We do not live, nor do most of us want to live in a museum. Development needs to be tightly controlled in the Village and Township, but that is a very different argument from controlling every aesthetic detail in an AROD district with arbitrary boundaries including late twentieth century buildings, and many modern conveniences in full view. If we continue to argue about the aesthetics of important advancements like solar power, we've completely lost the big picture! The world is in trouble all around us. Two Billion live on less than two bucks a day, and I've met many living in slums on far less than that. Having friends who's lives are on the line right now as a result of global warming and the global energy and food crisis, it is very clear to me that there are much more important things we, the citizens of Granville, should be spending our time and resources discussing. After spending 3 days stuck in the middle of food riots in Haiti a couple of months ago, I know these problems to be fact, not political opinion as some would have us believe. We are the lucky ones who are only slightly inconvenienced by the problems killing those living on the edge. We are the ones with the resources to come up with solutions.
>
thanks for the solar
Tracee, Don't let a few negative posts get you down. People aren't "pissed" at you. Overall, people are appreciative. You're breaking ground that should have been broken a long time ago, and others will follow. If the law needs to be cleaned up to clearly permit environmentally sound practices, it will happen. Indeed, the planning code has many pages dedicated to sound environmental practices with regard to flood zones, drinking water, emphasizing pedestrians over cars, etc. Solar panels are in the tradition of Granville, not at odds with it. There's been a lot of huffing and puffing about what really is little more than tweaking a law. Smart people with forceful personailities is a Granville tradition, too. Don't let it wear you down. We thank you for the hard work of clearing a path for solar in the village.
This has never really been about solar panels
Dr. Karaffa,
Your perspective is interesting if nothing else.
This is not about Solar Panels. Nobody cares (in the grand scheme of things) that you added some glass to your roof. It looks different; it doesn't fit in; it doesn't improve your neighboring home's values; but no one really gives a hoot. It's your house. Do to it whatever makes you happy.
The continuing issue (in my opinion) is you chose to simply defy the village zoning laws. You may claim that there had been no precedent set for solar panels, but you had no problem going down to 2nd Street in Newark and getting a county permit for the same installation.
You defied the law, then tried to turn it upside down, and now people are pissed at your arrogance.
The fact that you feel we need to 'green up' is of no relevance in this argument. So, for you to make the above comments is nothing more than a political stand that has little bearing on your argument. We get it. The fact that you have a gas powered generator absolutely ruins your argument, but that's become the liberal way (do as I say, not as I do).
As green as you think we should be, I'm here to tell you that we all rely on the beauty of fossil fuels. I mean, when you travel to Haiti, did you sail down the Raccoon Creek, catch a tailwind on the Muskingum to Marietta; follow the Ohio to the Mississippi finding your way to New Orleans a la Samuel Clemens.... or did you jump a Jet loaded with fuel to Miami, then find your way to the islands via gas powered boat and or plane.
Green is fine. But until we include Nuclear, Coal, and other more efficient fossil fuel opportunities, we're really not solving any problems in the global economy.
The world is in trouble all around us because of political unrest, and dictatorial control. Imagine a world run on the Free Enterprise system. A world where each nation entrusted the rule of law to its citizens. A world population free to speak against anything and anyone they felt oppressed by without fear of losing their life.
I don't doubt the food riots in Haiti, but I question how they arose, and what part the government had in quelling such riots. You've been there, you've seen it first hand. I can't question that part. But knowing how so many governments handle 'entitlements', I do question your implication that we, as Americans, have some impact on their livlihood because we have the absolute freedom to live as we choose.
No one is above the law.
Everyone should play by the rules.
Should I reduce my standard of living to the world's average?
I appreciate your many efforts for those less fortunate than ourselves. I have for a number of years contributed in a relatively minor way by buying more than I should have (given my income) at the annual Haitian art auction you so wonderfully arrange.
However, I am not inclined to support the lessening of Granville's standards.
The community decided some time ago (I suspect before you knowingly purchased a home in the district) that it would regulate the appearance of district properties. This regulation was enacted for a number of reasons including protection of our history, protection for future generations of the unusual concentration of 19th century buildings, and protection and enhancement of property values. People have made purchases in the district relying on the district architectural protections. That you now appear to not like those protections is fine. You have the right to not want to be covered by such protections. You just bought a house in the wrong area.
I know that I am consuming more than an equal (per capita) share of the world's resources. I know you are too. Everyone in Granville is. I know I would consume less if I would move to any number of places other than Granville. But, I want to stay in Granville. I like how nice it is. It is worth the tradeoff to me.
Perspective
- panels that are clearly visible from Pearl Street.
And yet instead of a photo of the offending solar panels from Pearl Street, we have this photo ^^^^^
...that is unless someone pulled the house from it's foundation and turned it 180 degrees. I suspect if the latter is the case, the Planning Commission would be most upset. ;-)
Rather likely, the view of the panels from Pearl Street were not nearly "objectionable" enough for the Granville Press readers in the eyes of management. In fact, from the angle of the photo and looking at satellite maps, it appears that photo was taken from a house on Summit. Keep pounding the square peg into the round hole GP Staff!
Don't the homes on Summit deserve protection?
Cyclenut,
I have no idea from where the photo was taken, but I don't think it solves the problem when properties in the architectural review district can see the panels in question.
Roger
A matter of objectivity
I agree with you sir, it makes no real difference where the photo was taken. I walked by today and the panels are visible from either Summit or Pearl. The point is the matter of objectivity. The panels are not "clearly" visible from Pearl Street as the article suggests. If they were in fact clearly visible from Pearl Street, why was a photo not taken from Pearl Street? Does the Granville Press editorial staff have a problem with presenting facts or is it simply a case of sloppy journalism? Maybe they spent too much time trying to interpret the "spirit" of the zoning code and not enough time on fact presentation. But I suspect it is more a simple matter of sensationalism: there is a very large tree that obstructs the view of the panels, in direct contrast to what the article suggests.
Either way, it is a moot point. The Planning Commission had never addressed the issue of solar panels and in a rare moment of wisdom, realized that opposing them was futile. And the homes on Summit do deserve protection, but maybe it's protection from an over-zealous Planning Commission. The adjoining properties did in fact submit letters of support for the panels. The Planning Commission did not lose credibility in approving them, they lost credibility in thinking they legally had a say in the matter. This was further exemplified by Tim Ryan's statement, "The question is not whether you can see the solar panels. Part of our problem here is the solar panels have been installed. The application should have come before us prior to the panels being installed." Is the Commission signaling its intent to hold a meeting on not only everything the code covers, but everything the code does not cover as well? Good luck with that one bucko.
To further state that the Karaffas should be punished for the ineptitude of the Commission is not just laughable, it's absurd. With statements like that, it may very well be that the credibility of the Granville Press is in doubt.
The View From Pearl Street
What to do next
This has been a healthy debate, both about solar panels and about preserving Granville's historic look. It's worthwhile to untangle the two issues.
First, we do have a problem with homeowners acting, then asking. It may date back to DanR's construction of his big barn, more than was approved. Despite the contentious back-and-forth, DanR got what he wanted. I think this undermined the cred of our zoning laws and our enforcement ability. Now, people put up everything -- roofs, fences, solar panels, you name it -- without approval and the Village has not docked a single offender. "Act first, ask later" is, in fact, a very effective strategy.
The problem is our zoning code has no mechanism to penalize a non-complier in a proportional way. The only recourse now is to order the entire offending change to be removed. But who wants to cost a homeowner $10,000 because he put on illegal shingles?
I suggest adding a fine of $100 to $500 to the zoning code for failing to apply for the proper permit. A penalty proportional to the offense would be more effective than the current all-or-nothing approach. The Planning Commission would still have the power to reject the application.
Second, on solar panels. Let's allow them in all Village districts -- even the historic district.
It's not a failure of the zoning code that no language exists on an issue that had never occurred before. It's our job to add appropriate language. I suggest a single amendment that applies across the Planning Code -- rather than separate variations within each zoning district. The language should be general. "Something like: 'Solar panels shall be permitted subject to Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall ensure that the solar panels are compatible with the architectural style and environmental needs of the building and neighborhood, to the extent reasonably possible."
The Village Council shouldn't sit on its hands on these issues. Quite simply, the Planning Commission doesn't havew the tools it needs to do its job and only the Village Council can provide these.
The Planning Commission took a see-no-evil approach to get results that make sense (to me, at least). But long-term it undermines the credibility of the Village and increases the belief that playing favorites (on issues and people) -- rather than following the law -- is how things get done. That helps nobody. The perception of fairness and fairness itself are closely related.
The village already has the tools it needs
I would agree with the idea of having a penalty in the zoning ordinance.
In fact, it is such a great idea that a penalty of the nature you suggest is already in the village zoning ordinance. [see section 1137.08 below]
With respect to the idea of a specific provision related to solar panels, I don't believe it is necessary. Included in chapter 1161 of the zoning ordinance (establishing the Architectural Review Overlay District) are sufficient criteria for the Planning Commission to use in evaluating various items placed in readily visible locations in the district. Past examples of items easily handled by the Planning Commission under this chapter, but not specifically listed in the zoning ordinance, include everything from air conditioners to garden sheds to hot tubs.
The problem in this case was the Planning Commission never had a chance to evaluate the solar panels before the panels were already installed. Had they been able to do so, I suspect they would have suggested the very sort of panels mentioned in the editorial above.
However, there are clear problems with the village's enforcement of the zoning ordinance. What the Village Council, the Planning Commission, the BZBA, and Village Planner need are not more tools, but more help in understanding how to use the tools already available. The quality of the legal advice given to the village in zoning related matters has been, and continues to be, low. When the village is challenged in court, the legal advice given to the village has led to the village losing the case when the village goes against the applicant (e.g., Speedway) and when the village goes against those opposed to the application (e.g., Cleveland Hall). Whether the village supports the application or opposes it, what is consistent is the source of the legal advice.
Your comment raises an interesting question. Part of the role of an attorney is to come up with ways to solve client problems. Why has the village law director not suggested using the very sort of penalty you suggest; the penalty that is already in the village zoning ordinance?
-
-
-
1137.08 PENALTY.
No person shall locate, erect, construct, reconstruct, demolish, enlarge, change, maintain or use any building, structure or land in violation of any of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, or any amendment or supplement thereto adopted by Council. Whoever violates any provision of this Ordinance, or any amendment or supplement thereto, for which no other penalty is provided, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00). Each day during which such illegal location, erection, construction, reconstruction, enlargement, change, maintenance or use continues shall be deemed to be a separate offense.
fines for violations
Thanks for pointing out that the Planning Code already contains (reasonable) fines for failing to get a required permit. The more I understand this 250-page law, the more thoughtful it seems. Each section seems to have been given great thought at some time in the past,
One question, though: Who imposes the penalty? The law doesn't seem to say. If possible, it seems proper to have the Planning Commission do it, with an appeal to Village Council permitted.
Just The Facts:
1) House color is not regulated in the historic district in Granville - no one has to ask permission to change the color of their house. I have heard this before; must be a case of “if you tell a lie enough times, people start believing it.” This tactic has been all too familiar over the past few years.
2) Solar panels raise the value of a house, which raises the value of homes in the community. I’d like to know where “rod363” gets his or her “facts”. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, home values rise an average of $20 for every $1 reduction in annual utility bills.…. And, from Business 2.0 Magazine, 10/06; “Considering a remodeling project to boost the value of your home? Before you drop $40,000 or more on a new kitchen or master bath, consider the newcomer on the renovation block: a rooftop solar-power system that not only will lower your overhead costs and insulate you from a volatile energy market but will likely add just as much to your home value over the long haul.” In addition, every home owner with property contiguous to ours submitted a letter of support for our solar panels to the planning commission.
3) The main reason we chose the panels currently installed, is that they are far more efficient than the roll-down type. They are also trimmed in bronze to match the roof. The cost of the system was $26,000, not cheap; but, if you can produce twice the electricity for the same cost, it is a better value.
4) Our house was built in the early 20th century, and it’s style was completely altered when the 2nd story was removed in the mid 20th century. Granville has rightfully changed with the times: we’ve paved roads, added gas, electric, telephone, cable, air conditioners, and TV antennas.
5) Generators are not regulated. They can be installed in full view. Solar panels had never been addressed, so why would it be assumed that they are regulated? More than “change the law”, we really just need to enter the 21st century and address the issue of Solar panels, as well as other renewable energy sources in the AROD ordinances. Granville has shown us it overwhelming supports promotion of clean, renewable, local energy. Thanks!
The question is the impact on the other homes in the district
You are right on target on the question of house color. The only local control of color are private restrictions in developments like Bryn Du.
I suspect you may be right that your solar panels may be raising the value of your home. However, I doubt that solar panels, of the design chosen, increase the value of other homes in a district where people buy houses in part because of the historical authenticity of the district.
Air conditioners are regulated. If generators are not being regulated by the planning commission then we have yet another example of inconsistent behavior by the planning commission.
I feel ripped off
I like the idea of solar panels and applaud the Karaffa's for their efforts on conservation. However I also believe in the importance of the architectural review district in protecting and enhancing property values.
When asked in earlier comments why they did not install the more suitable solar panel you have pictured, Dr. Karaffa offered in explanation that the more suitable solar panel would have had a higher cost.
In other words, they were aware of the panels that would have been more suitable for the architectural review district; panels that would have maintained property values for others in the neighborhood. But they just decided to forgo getting a permit and put up the cheaper, relatively ugly, panels.
Now let's contrast this with my last home project. I, rube that I am, applied for a permit and willingly paid for the required significantly more expensive shingles so the roof of my house would have the historically accurate appearance of slate.
How does the planning commission repay me for following the rules? They allow the Karaffa's to reduce property values in the district, including mine, by endorsing a clear violation of the zoning ordinance. Really nice. I get to pay more money to keep the Karaffa's property values up, and then the Karaffa's get to cheap out and reduce my property values.
Now I don't impute any ill motive whatsoever on the part of the Karaffa's. I suspect at the worst they did not really think about how their project might impact neighboring property values. But, that is one of the central jobs of the planning commission. For me this is yet another example of the current planning commission's inability to fairly and evenly apply the law.
Hmmm..
I like the idea of solar panels and applaud Tracy and Bob.....SO:
1) they get to have their panels and not have to follow the process..
2)BREWS has always been a good citizen but the Village threw a fit because the mesh on the balcony wasn't what the Village said was ok...even though it was in alignment with the rest of the design AND was safer,objects couldn't fall through.
3) You have to jump through hoops to change the color of your house but the Village was giving Denison a pass on the process,too.(I like the Cleveland Hall design.)
Who is advising the Village in these matters? Oh yeah, it's the Village Law Director.....if any of us did our job that poorly we'd be fired!