The Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously (7–0) on Nov. 3 to deny a certificate of appropriateness (COA) for a front‑facing rooftop solar system at 2591 North Summit Avenue and to approve a revised plan placing the primary array on the rear roof plus limited panels on the front dormers.

Staff told commissioners the applicant’s original front‑facing proposal would produce about 9,800 kilowatt‑hours and cost roughly $29,000 under the HomeTeam Energy quote. A rear‑facing installation would produce about 7,300 kWh—about 80 percent of the front‑only output—at a similar price; adding one or two small dormer panels on the south dormer would raise rear‑facing output to roughly 85 percent of the front‑only system for an estimated additional $2,000–$3,000, according to materials presented to the commission. Staff recommended denial of the front‑only COA and approval of the rear‑facing system with the dormer panel compromise.

Staff also briefed commissioners on the legal framework. The commission’s authority to regulate historically designated properties was described as deriving from Wis. Stat. §62.23 (zoning/police powers for historic preservation). Limitations on regulating solar and wind energy systems were cited from Wis. Stat. §66.0401; staff noted that a political subdivision may restrict solar installations only if a restriction satisfies one of a short list of statutory conditions (for example, preserving public health and safety or avoiding a comparable increase in cost or a significant reduction in system efficiency). Because state law does not specify a numeric threshold for “significant decrease,” staff said the commission must evaluate efficiency and cost tradeoffs case‑by‑case.

Commissioners asked about visibility from the street, the corner lot condition, and whether the property owner would accept the rear‑facing compromise; staff said the owner preferred the front‑only installation and had indicated they likely would not proceed unless the front‑facing system was approved. Despite that, a commissioner moved to deny the front‑only COA and approve the rear‑facing plan combined with limited dormer panels to increase efficiency. The motion was seconded and the commission adopted it with a 7–0 vote.

The commission’s action denies the front‑facing COA as presented and grants a COA for the rear‑facing system with the limited dormer panels described in the staff presentation. The record shows the commission balanced visibility, historic‑district concerns, and the applicant’s stated energy/cost tradeoffs in making its decision.

Provenance: Staff presentation and legal summary (transcript at 00:00:42–00:05:51); motion and vote (transcript at 00:10:38–00:11:32).