[RE-wrenches] Solar rights precedent

[William Miller]

Joel:

Two points:

1. There is no one behind the residence and the adjacent property is a 
conservation easement, so there will never be anyone there in the future to 
have a blocked view.  Our non-penetrating installation will be only about 
14" tall, so view blocking is not an issue.

2. State law allows only review based on whether a project affects the 
public health or safety.  I can not see how view protection has anything to 
do with the health and safety of the public.  This seems so straight 
forward, but the city attorney insists that the city can charge $500.00 for 
a use permit application and then debate the merits of a height limitation.

If there were some possibility that the arrays could blow off the roof and 
strike some one, then there would be a safety nexus.  The system is 
certified safe for wind zone C and the issue of safety has never been 
addressed.

I think I will call the state AG.

Code below:


17959.1.  (a) A city or county shall administratively approve
applications to install solar energy systems though the issuance of a
building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. However, if the
building official of the city or county has a good faith belief that
the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon
the public health and safety, the city or county may require the
applicant to apply for a use permit.

William Miller


At 04:49 PM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
>William,
>The rational concern is that something added to a roof will block 
>someone's view. If you can show that the solar equipment does not rise 
>above the existing roof line, then the rational conclusion is that the 
>view is not blocked and no waiver is needed. The solution is to show that 
>the equipment does not rise above the existing roof line. If this is not 
>the reason they are asking for a waiver, then it may be because the law 
>did not, or now does not, allow the building as it stands now because the 
>building height is above the allowable height. In this case, the building 
>owner may be able to "grandfather" in the building and get the waiver.
>Joel Davidson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20100226/2b16480b/attachment-0004.html>