Ordinance 66-23RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
20. Ordinance No. 66-23 (Amended) Passed
AMENDING ZONING CODE SECTION 153.074 REGARDING
ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES TO ADDRESS LANGUAGE
REGARDING RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT FOR SOLAR, AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend Dublin’s Zoning Code to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin, and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Zoning Code recognizes the need to ensure the uses
provided in the City of Dublin Zoning Code are compatible with surrounding
development and character of the area, and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin promotes sustainable energy opportunities that further
the goals and objectives of our community, and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin recommends proposed amendment to Sections
153.074 of the Zoning Code because it serves to improve the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of
Ohio __s___of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. Section 153.074 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby
amended and shall provide as attached to this Ordinance:
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage as an
emergency measure necessary for the immediate public health, safety and welfare,
such emergency arising in the immediate need to facilitate implementation of Council’s
sustainability objectives through improved regulation of rooftop solar installation.
Passed this __| (* day of Dieu , 2023.
Me. Lol Mayor - vegans Ofieér 7
ATTEST:
Cler! Couficil
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Megan O’Callaghan, City Manager
Date: December 5, 2023
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
Re: Ordinance 66-23 – Amending Zoning Code Section 153.074 Regarding
Accessory Uses and Structures to Address Language Regarding
Renewable Energy Equipment for Solar and Declaring an Emergency
Update - Emergency Legislation
Ordinance 66-23 was presented to City Council on November 27, 2023. The proposed Code
modification was to differentiate solar energy installment for roof-mounted equipment on
pitched roofs based on the location of the panels on the structure. The language requires that
panels installed on the front of a structure meet aesthetic requirements for both color and
configuration. This requirement is not applicable to the side or rear of a structure. The proposed
modification also slightly modified aesthetic requirements for non-residential structures with flat
roofs that are required to be screened. These modifications were based on input that was
received since the adoption of the first solar regulations adopted by City Council on June 12,
2023.
Council was supportive of the modifications and requested one administrative correction and
unanimously requested the passage of Ordinance 66-23 as an emergency measure, which have
been addressed in the amended ordinance. This Ordinance is recommended for adoption at the
second reading and public hearing on December 11, 2023, waiving the 30-day waiting period.
Summary
On June 12, 2023, City Council adopted regulations regarding renewable energy equipment for
solar (Ordinance 70-22) that addressed installation of solar equipment on both residential and
non-residential properties. The adopted Code allowed solar panels to be located on any façade of
a property and included aesthetic requirements to ensure the panels appear as integrated into the
structure as possible. There has been some discussion of whether these aesthetic requirements
were intended to only apply of the front façade of a structure, thus prompting this amendment.
Since the passage of the Ordinance, the City of Dublin has received 25 applications for the
installation of solar panels for residential properties and one application for a non-residential
property. Planning and Building Standards are working collaboratively to review applications and
ensure compliance with the adopted regulations, primarily focused on locational and aesthetic
requirements. After several months of reviewing permits, it has been identified that the aesthetic
requirements incorporated into the update Code have created significant challenges in the
approval of solar installation and resulted in more permits denied than under the previous Code.
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo – Amending Zoning Code Section 153.074 Regarding Renewable Energy Equipment for Solar and
Declaring an Emergency
December 5, 2023
Page 2 of 7
Staff provided an update to the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 9, 2023 and
presented the challenges faced with the updated regulations. Staff requested feedback on
whether the current regulations achieve what was intended or additional Code modifications
should be considered. Based on the Commission’s feedback, staff has draft an amendment to the
Zoning Code for Council consideration that modifies the restrictions related to color and
configuration for City Council’s review.
Background
The City of Dublin initiated modifications to the City of Dublin’s Zoning Code to add regulations
pertaining to solar energy in the latter portion of 2022. The amendment was based on an
increased number of requests for solar panels installation on residential and non-residential
properties. A number of the requests were prompted by financial incentives that are available
for property owners, which have been extended through the end of 2034. Planning collaborated
extensively with several private installation companies, energy providers, local regional partners
including the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and Logan Union and Champaign
Regional Planning Commission, as well as national and local advocacy organizations to
understand various aspects of solar energy. Staff also conducted benchmarking of peer
communities to understand how they address renewable energy. This information and
background was used as the basis for the draft Code language that was presented to various
boards and commissions including the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Planning and Zoning Commission was presented information related to the installation of
solar energy in October 2021 and in May, August, and September 2022. These meetings
provided input for draft code language that was presented to PZC on October 20, 2022. Overall,
the Commission was supportive of solar panels in all districts and acknowledged that the City
should be supportive of sustainability efforts while also balancing the aesthetics and character
of the community.
The draft Code language presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission had general
provisions that applied to both non-residential and residential properties. This included requiring
frames, flashing, etc. to be concealed, allowing solar that acts as a building materials, and
maintaining equipment in proper working order. The language allowed ground-mounted
equipment to the side and rear of a building as long as setback requirements are met, views
from the right-of-way are minimized, and the equipment has a maximum height restriction of
six feet. For roof-mounted equipment, equipment was permitted to be to the side or rear of the
property, a color that is “complementary to the roof”, no more than 18 inches above roof, and
architecturally integrated into the structure. It also required panels to be parallel to roof plane,
limited protrusions, not extend beyond edge of roof, use a single material type, configured
complementary to the roofline, minimize the number of corners, and symmetrical
configurations.
This draft code language was presented to City Council on November 14, 2022 as Ordinance
70-22 with minimal changes from the version recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Council requested additional information including further explanation for the
setback requirement, examples of building material that functions for solar collection, and
extending over the “eave” of a roof. Council also requested graphic illustrations of solar
Memo – Amending Zoning Code Section 153.074 Regarding Renewable Energy Equipment for Solar and
Declaring an Emergency
December 5, 2023
Page 3 of 7
installation, information on functionality of solar panels in our region, how the “front” of a
house is determined, and more information about permitting activity in Dublin.
To address the concerns raised by City Council and gain more input from the public, the City of
Dublin conducted a city-wide survey regarding solar energy, which gained 960 respondents. A
majority of survey respondents agreed that building-mounted solar should be permitted
anywhere on a residential or non-residential sites, 27% and 32%, respectively. The City also
had a public meeting related to solar energy that was held on January 11, 2023. Both the
survey results and the input from the public meeting showed strong support for the installation
of solar panels and encouraged City Council to adopt language that would encourage these
environmentally friendly energy practices.
Following the survey and public meeting, Staff presented updates to City Council during two
work sessions on January 17, 2023 and May 1, 2023. Most of the discussions at these sessions
were regarding the location of where panels can be installed and how the City could regulate
panels if they were permitted on the front façade of the homes. At the June 12, 2023 Council
meeting, the second reading of the ordinance (Ordinance 70-22) was heard. City Council had
considerable discussion about the prior versions of the Code and that they wanted to encourage
solar energy installation to align with overarching goals for the City. With this in mind, Council
adopted the final version of the Code that allowed solar panels on all locations of a building
including the front façade if it is determined that this location was necessary for efficiency,
ground-mounted solar energy was only permitted in non-residential areas, and aesthetic
requirements regarding color and shape.
Solar Regulations Implementation
Since the June 2023 adoption of the updated Code, Planning has been working collaboratively
with Building Standards to review and approve solar applications. It was concluded the
aesthetic requirements are increasing the number of permits that are disapproved. Currently,
the City has received 25 applications since the new language was adopted and nine permits
have been approved. The others are in varying states of review but likely will result in a
disapproval. This equates to a disapproval rate of 64% which is higher than intended to
promote sustainability. Planning has also solicited comments from applicants and their
contractors to determine how the regulations are impacting solar installation. Most comments
say the regulations not only result in more disapprovals than the previous Code but the
requirements are too subjective, and the shape requirement results in additional cost associated
with adding or omitting panels to meet the shape requirement. These requirements are specific
to one portion of the Code that are as follows:
Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(5) that states For “pitched roofs, roof-mounted equipment shall be
installed in a rectangular shape to avoid complex and non-symmetrical configurations” and
Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(5) that states “For pitched roofs, roof-mounted equipment shall be a
color that is similar to the roof color”. These two provisions are discussed below in more detail.
Planning has also heard from our commercial property owners regarding our solar regulations and
expressing interest in installing solar energy. One application has been submitted for a non-
residential property; however, Planning has spoken to several interested commercial consumers.
Memo – Amending Zoning Code Section 153.074 Regarding Renewable Energy Equipment for Solar and
Declaring an Emergency
December 5, 2023
Page 4 of 7
These initial proposals have brought up another potential concern related to aesthetic
requirements on flat roofs. Under the current Code, flat roofs are permitted roof-mounted
equipment if they are screened by Section 153.077 of Zoning Code. Applicants have stated that a
regulation that states no “white or grey” lines are unnecessary, requiring additional costs to the
project with no added benefit if fully screened. According to several potential applicants, this
poses a financial disincentive that is not improving overall aesthetics of the structure. Planning
wants to ensure that all identified improvements are made to the Code to encourage sustainable
practices that are not unnecessarily burdensome to applicants. The Code language has been
modified to address these concerns.
Rectangular in Shape Requirement
The adopted Code language requires that all panels be installed in a rectangular shape to avoid
complex and non-symmetrical configurations. The intent of the regulation was to prevent solar
panels from being installed in an odd configuration that resulted in irregular placement of
panels throughout the roofline. An illustrative example is as follows:
Permitted Not Permitted
The original intent of the regulations was to have all of the panels installed in one, rectangular
shape (as noted above) to make the design as cohesive as possible. Applicants have stated that
this can be challenging based on the shape of the roofline, and existing vents or openings that
prevent one rectangle. Several applications have been approved that meet the “rectangle” shape
outlined in the Code but are at times organized into multiple rectangles to meet the requirements,
as illustrated below:
Memo – Amending Zoning Code Section 153.074 Regarding Renewable Energy Equipment for Solar and
Declaring an Emergency
December 5, 2023
Page 5 of 7
Most applicants have worked with the City to meet the requirement but have concluded that the
requirement may increase the cost of installation, based on adding panels, or will decrease
efficiency by omitting panels.
Color Requirement
The adopted Code language states that the panels must be similar in color to the roof, which
leaves the determination to staff as part of the permit review process and is subjective from the
applicants’ perspective. Given that solar panels are manufactured in a black color with some very
limited companies who offer them in grey, this has resulted in a limited number of roof colors
where panels can be installed. It is important to note that of the eight applications that have been
approved, a majority of the applications included a new roof. This allowed homeowners to modify
the color of the roof to meet the requirements. This is not an option for most homeowners that
are not replacing their roof and may have a lighter color roof than meets the Code.
Planning has recommended disapproval of permits that have lighter color roofs including light
grey, light brown, and beige, which has raised the question regarding the identification of ‘similar
in color’ and how the requirement is implemented. Staff has identified roof colors that would
permit solar installation, as well as those colors that do not and several that have been included
based on the input from the Planning and Zoning Commission. To try and find a review process
that may be less subjective, Planning has reviewed several options including a color app called
Pantone Connect that helps extract various colors in a picture (see below), to help identify the
various colors in a roof shingle and determine if most of the colors are lighter or darker in range.
For example, if the application detects five colors and three of the five color (majority) are dark in
color, the permit is approved. This allows Planning to provide a more concise response regarding
our determination of color and provide a visual illustration of the determination. Planning
proposes to use the Pantone Connect app to review all applications moving forward.
Memo – Amending Zoning Code Section 153.074 Regarding Renewable Energy Equipment for Solar and
Declaring an Emergency
December 5, 2023
Page 6 of 7
During the review of the regulations with the Planning and Zoning Commission, Planning
presented a range of typical shingle colors that are produced by Certainteed. Planning identified
the colors that would be approve under the new regulations, colors that would be disapproved,
and several colors that needed their input. The Planning and Zoning Commission added several
colors to what should be approved for a total of six colors. These colors included Onyx Black,
Brownwood, Teak, Colonial Slate, Driftwood, and Quarry Gray and additional permits have been
approved as part of this discussion. The Planning and Zoning Commission also requested that
Planning provide regular updates to the Commission on decisions related to color so that they
may be aware of the how the regulations are being applied. Planning is proposing to provide
periodic updates as appropriate to the Planning and Zoning Commission moving forward.
Another proposal to address the color requirement included a product called solar skin.
Planning researched this product as part of the information provided to Council through the
code adoption process. Solar skin is an adhesive product that is attached to the solar panel in
an effort to modify the color and appearance of the panel. Staff conducted research regarding
this material including companies that provide solar skin as an option to solar installation and a
national manufacturer that has reviewed the product. Both indicated that the installation
process is very detailed and requires each panel to be individually covered one at a time. The
manufacturer confirmed very few companies offer this product because of the difficult
installation process, its affect on the efficiency of the panels, the impact of weather conditions,
and voids portions of the warranty. Planning does not recommend the application of solar skin
products to meet the color requirements.
Draft Code Language
Planning has reviewed permitting activity since the adoption of the new Code and spoken to
applicants and contractors about challenges faced with meeting the requirements. Planning has
concluded the Code sections that regulate color and shape of the panels is the primary indicator
of approval or disapproval for most residential installation. Based on recent feedback provided
by Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, there has been a request to modify the
requirements to differentiate between the side and rear of a building versus the front of a
building, and that aesthetic requirements should be focused on the “front façade” of a
structure.
Memo – Amending Zoning Code Section 153.074 Regarding Renewable Energy Equipment for Solar and
Declaring an Emergency
December 5, 2023
Page 7 of 7
Planning has modified Section 153.074 – Accessory Uses and Structures to address comments
from the public, as well as Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Planning
proposes to modify the Code in two sections. The first section is for roof-mounted equipment
and is proposed to be modified to allow the color requirement and the rectangular shape
requirement to only apply to the front of a structure. Planning also provided clarification
language in this section to specify what is considered the front of a structure. The proposed
language states:
Building or roof-mounted equipment is permitted to the front of a principal or
accessory structure only when it is demonstrated that this location provides the
greatest efficiency of energy production. The equipment will meet all of the
requirements in Section (c)(5) with two additional requirements including:
a) Be installed in a rectangular shape to avoid complex and nonsymmetrical
configurations.
b) Roof-mounted equipment shall be a color that is similar to the roof color.
For purposes of this section, the “front” of the property is the exterior of the
structure that is facing the public or private right-of-way that provides
frontage for the property. Any roofline adjacent to this exterior, or attached
design elements including dormers, gables or front-loading garages would be
subjected to the provisions in Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(2)-listed above.
The second modification is to flat roofs in non-residential districts. This section is proposed to
omit the requirement for black panels with no white or grey lines if the roof is required to be
screened. This allows for more flexibility when visibility is screened based on Section 153.077.
This allows for more flexibility to structures that are not visible from the public realm and in
response to our corporate citizens.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 66-23 as an emergency measure, effective upon
passage, at the second reading/public hearing on December 11, 2023.
ORDINANCE 70-22 – RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Adopted by City Council – June 12, 2023
1
§153.074 – Accessory Uses and Structures
(A)(3)(a) Residential. Storage, recreation, child care, home occupations, leisure and
gardening/landscaping uses, renewable energy equipment- solar, and others as permitted by
the district in which the property is located or as determined by the Administrative Official.
(A)(4)(a) Residential. Garages and carports (attached and detached), sheds, swimming pools,
hot tubs, sport courts and similar facilities, gazebos, porches/sunrooms, patios, decks,
greenhouses, renewable energy equipment - solar, or similar facilities, and other similar
structures as determined by the Administrative Official.
(A)(4)(b) Non-residential. Dumpster enclosures, sheds, garages/parking structures,
greenhouses, renewable energy equipment - solar, and other similar structures as determined
by the Administrative Official.
(B)(3)(c) This section shall not prohibit accessory uses and structures typical of multiple-family
residential developments, including but not limited to clubhouses and/or administration offices,
pool houses, laundry facilities, gatehouses, mailbox shelters, dumpster shelters or enclosures,
recreational facilities, renewable energy equipment - solar, and other similar structures as
determined by the Administrative Official, provided all applicable development requirements
including but not limited to lot coverage, setbacks, open space, and stormwater management
are met.
(E) Renewable Energy Equipment - Solar
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to promote sustainable environmental practices and
stewardship while balancing the high-quality development standards that define the character
of the community. Promoting renewable energy is an intentional objective of the City of
Dublin and these regulations promote the installation of solar energy, among other
renewable energy practices, in the most effective method possible. To ensure these
installation practices continue to meet our high quality design standards, significant
consideration has been given to the location and configuration of solar installation, material
choices and installation practices, as well as requirements for proper maintenance. The
regulations encourage the location of equipment to the side or rear, but allow equipment to
the front when it promotes the greatest efficiency of energy production.
Applicability
Unless otherwise addressed within a PUD, Planned Unit Development District; WID, West
Innovation Districts, MUR, Mixed Regional Use Districts; BSD, Bridge Street Districts; or HD,
Historic Districts these standards shall apply to all properties within the City of Dublin.
(1) Renewable energy equipment – solar
(a) General Provisions
ORDINANCE 70-22 – RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Adopted by City Council – June 12, 2023
2
1. All solar energy equipment shall be installed to conceal frames, flashing,
fasteners, hardware, conduit, wires and similar elements.
2. Any solar generating materials that function as a building material shall be
reviewed as the building material.
3. All solar energy equipment shall be well-maintained and remain in working order.
If not, then all equipment and associated materials shall be removed or replaced.
4. Solar energy equipment shall be a similar color and minimize gaps within the
panels. White or grey grid lines on solar energy equipment are not permitted.
Framing shall also be a color similar with the solar energy equipment, preferably a
black, blue or similar color.
(b) Ground Mounted Equipment
1. Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall only be
permitted as an accessory structure, as provided in Section 153.074, in non-
residential districts and shall not permitted as a primary or principal use.
2. Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall not be
permitted in residential districts including residential Planned Districts, unless
otherwise specified.
3. Ground-mounted equipment for non-residential districts shall:
a) Be shall have a clearance from the principal structure that is the same or
larger than the height of the equipment.
b) Be sited to minimize view from the public right-of-way and adjacent
properties, and shall be in accordance with Section 153.133(C) of the City of
Dublin Zoning Code.
c) Meet all required setbacks. The equipment shall not exceed height
requirements of the district in which it is located. This shall be measured
from established grade to the top of the equipment.
d) Be permitted as a solar canopy over parking areas or outdoor seating areas.
When located elsewhere on a non-residential site, the equipment shall be
screened to 100% opacity. The equipment shall meet all applicable
development standards of the Zoning Code including but not limited to lot
coverage requirements.
(c) Building or Roof Mounted Equipment
1. Building or roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted to be located to the side or
rear of the principal or accessory structure.
ORDINANCE 70-22 – RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Adopted by City Council – June 12, 2023
3
2. Building or roof-mounted equipment is permitted to the front of a principal
or accessory structure only when it is demonstrated that this location
provides the greatest efficiency of energy production.
3. Roof-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted provided
it extends no more than 6 inches above the plane of the roof and is not
adjustable or movable.
4. Roof-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall be integrated
into the architectural design of the structure to the extent practicable that the
equipment can normally function.
5. For pitched roofs, roof-mounted solar equipment shall:
a) Be mounted parallel to the roof plane,
b) Limit protrusions,
c) Not extend above the ridgeline of the roof,
d) Not extend beyond the edge of the building,
e) Use a single material type,
f) Be configured and have an assembly profile similar to the roof line,
g) Be installed to minimize the number of corners,
h) Be installed in a rectangular shape to avoid complex and nonsymmetrical
configurations, and
i) Roof-mounted equipment shall be a color that is similar to the roof color.
6. For flat roofs, in non-residential districts, roof-mounted solar equipment is
permitted and shall be screened in accordance with §153.077.
(d) Review Procedures
All applications for renewable energy equipment - solar within residential and
nonresidential zoning districts shall require approval by the required reviewing body,
prior to the gaining approval of a building permit.
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Black Font - Existing Code Language
Blue Font – Proposed/Relocated Language
Red Font – Removed Language
1
§153.074 – Accessory Uses and Structures
(A)(3)(a) Residential. Storage, recreation, child care, home occupations, leisure and
gardening/landscaping uses, renewable energy equipment- solar, and others as permitted by
the district in which the property is located or as determined by the Administrative Official.
(A)(4)(a) Residential. Garages and carports (attached and detached), sheds, swimming pools,
hot tubs, sport courts and similar facilities, gazebos, porches/sunrooms, patios, decks,
greenhouses, renewable energy equipment - solar, or similar facilities, and other similar
structures as determined by the Administrative Official.
(A)(4)(b) Non-residential. Dumpster enclosures, sheds, garages/parking structures,
greenhouses, renewable energy equipment - solar, and other similar structures as determined
by the Administrative Official.
(B)(3)(c) This section shall not prohibit accessory uses and structures typical of multiple-family
residential developments, including but not limited to clubhouses and/or administration offices,
pool houses, laundry facilities, gatehouses, mailbox shelters, dumpster shelters or enclosures,
recreational facilities, renewable energy equipment - solar, and other similar structures as
determined by the Administrative Official, provided all applicable development requirements
including but not limited to lot coverage, setbacks, open space, and stormwater management
are met.
(E) Renewable Energy Equipment - Solar
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to promote sustainable environmental practices and
stewardship while balancing the high-quality development standards that defines the
character of the community. Promoting renewable energy is an intentional objective of the
City of Dublin and these regulations promote the installation of solar energy, among other
renewable energy practices, in the most effective method possible. To ensure these
installation practices continue to meet our high quality design standards, significant
consideration has been given to the location and configuration of solar installation, material
choices and installation practices, as well as requirements for proper maintenance. The
regulations encourage the location of equipment to the side or rear, but allows equipment to
the front when it promotes the greatest efficiency of energy production.
Applicability
Unless otherwise addressed within a PUD, Planned Unit Development District; WID, West
Innovation Districts, MUR, Mixed Regional Use Districts; BSD, Bridge Street Districts; or HD,
Historic Districts these standards shall apply to all properties within the City of Dublin.
(1) Renewable energy equipment – solar
(a) General Provisions
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Black Font - Existing Code Language
Blue Font – Proposed/Relocated Language
Red Font – Removed Language
2
1. All solar energy equipment shall be installed to conceal frames, flashing,
fasteners, hardware, conduit, wires and similar elements.
2. Any solar generating materials that function as a building material shall be
reviewed as the building material.
3. All solar energy equipment shall be well-maintained and remain in working order.
If not, then all equipment and associated materials shall be removed or replaced.
4. Solar energy equipment shall be a consistent color and minimize gaps within the
panels. White or grey grid lines on solar energy equipment are not permitted with
the exception of flat roofs in non-residential districts that are screened by Section
153.077 (see below Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(2)-. Framing shall also be a color
consistent with the solar energy equipment, preferably a black, blue or equivalent
color.
(b) Ground Mounted Equipment
1. Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall only be
permitted as an accessory structure, as provided in Section 153.074, in non-
residential districts and shall not permitted as a primary or principal use.
2. Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall not be
permitted in residential districts including residential Planned Districts, unless
otherwise specified.
3. Ground-mounted equipment for non-residential districts shall:
a) Be located to the side or rear of the principal structure and shall have a
clearance from the principal structure, the same or larger than the height of
the equipment.
b) Not be permitted forward of a principal structure or along a public right-of-
way.
c) Be sited to minimize view from the public right-of-way and adjacent
properties, and shall be in accordance with Section 153.133(C) of the City of
Dublin Zoning Code.
d) Meet all required setbacks. The equipment shall not exceed height
requirements of the district in which it is located. This shall be measured
from established grade to the top of the equipment.
e) Permitted only in areas that are hardscaped such as parking areas or outdoor
seating areas. The equipment shall meet all applicable development standards
of the Zoning Code including but not limited to lot coverage requirements.
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Black Font - Existing Code Language
Blue Font – Proposed/Relocated Language
Red Font – Removed Language
3
(c) Building or Roof Mounted Equipment
1. Building or roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted to be located to the side or
rear of the principal or accessory structure.
2. Building or roof-mounted equipment is permitted to the front of a principal
or accessory structure only when it is demonstrated that this location
provides the greatest efficiency of energy production. The equipment will
meet all of the requirements in Section (c)(5) with two additional
requirements including:
a) Be installed in a rectangular shape to avoid complex and nonsymmetrical
configurations.
b) Roof-mounted equipment shall be a color that is similar to the roof color.
For purposes of this section, the “front” of the property is the exterior of the
structure that is facing the public or private right-of-way that provides frontage
for the property. Any roofline adjacent to this exterior, or attached design
elements including dormers, gables or front-loading garages would be subjected
to the provisions in Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(2)-listed above.
3. Roof-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted provided
it extends no more than 6 inches above the plane of the roof and is not
adjustable or movable.
4. Roof-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall be integrated
into the architectural design of the structure to the extent practicable that the
equipment can normally function.
5. For pitched roofs, roof-mounted solar equipment shall:
a) Be mounted parallel to the roof plane,
b) Limit protrusions,
c) Not extend above the ridgeline of the roof,
d) Not extend beyond the edge of the building,
e) Use a single material type,
f) Be configured and have an assembly profile complementary to the roof line,
g) Be installed to minimize the number of corners, and
h) Be installed in a rectangular shape to avoid complex and nonsymmetrical
configurations.
i) Roof-mounted equipment shall be a color that is complementary to the roof
color.
6. For flat roofs, in non-residential districts, roof-mounted solar equipment is
permitted and shall be screened in accordance with §153.077.
(d) Review Procedures
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Black Font - Existing Code Language
Blue Font – Proposed/Relocated Language
Red Font – Removed Language
4
All applications for renewable energy equipment - solar within residential and
nonresidential zoning districts shall require approval by the required reviewing body,
prior to the gaining approval of a building permit.
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
1
§153.074 – Accessory Uses and Structures
(A)(3)(a) Residential. Storage, recreation, child care, home occupations, leisure and
gardening/landscaping uses, renewable energy equipment- solar, and others as permitted by
the district in which the property is located or as determined by the Administrative Official.
(A)(4)(a) Residential. Garages and carports (attached and detached), sheds, swimming pools,
hot tubs, sport courts and similar facilities, gazebos, porches/sunrooms, patios, decks,
greenhouses, renewable energy equipment - solar, or similar facilities, and other similar
structures as determined by the Administrative Official.
(A)(4)(b) Non-residential. Dumpster enclosures, sheds, garages/parking structures,
greenhouses, renewable energy equipment - solar, and other similar structures as determined
by the Administrative Official.
(B)(3)(c) This section shall not prohibit accessory uses and structures typical of multiple-family
residential developments, including but not limited to clubhouses and/or administration offices,
pool houses, laundry facilities, gatehouses, mailbox shelters, dumpster shelters or enclosures,
recreational facilities, renewable energy equipment - solar, and other similar structures as
determined by the Administrative Official, provided all applicable development requirements
including but not limited to lot coverage, setbacks, open space, and stormwater management
are met.
(E) Renewable Energy Equipment - Solar
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to promote sustainable environmental practices and
stewardship while balancing the high-quality development standards that defines the
character of the community. Promoting renewable energy is an intentional objective of the
City of Dublin and these regulations promote the installation of solar energy, among other
renewable energy practices, in the most effective method possible. To ensure these
installation practices continue to meet our high quality design standards, significant
consideration has been given to the location and configuration of solar installation, material
choices and installation practices, as well as requirements for proper maintenance. The
regulations encourage the location of equipment to the side or rear, but allows equipment to
the front when it promotes the greatest efficiency of energy production.
Applicability
Unless otherwise addressed within a PUD, Planned Unit Development District; WID, West
Innovation Districts, MUR, Mixed Regional Use Districts; BSD, Bridge Street Districts; or HD,
Historic Districts these standards shall apply to all properties within the City of Dublin.
(1) Renewable energy equipment – solar
(a) General Provisions
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
2
1. All solar energy equipment shall be installed to conceal frames, flashing,
fasteners, hardware, conduit, wires and similar elements.
2. Any solar generating materials that function as a building material shall be
reviewed as the building material.
3. All solar energy equipment shall be well-maintained and remain in working order.
If not, then all equipment and associated materials shall be removed or replaced.
4. Solar energy equipment shall be a consistent color and minimize gaps within the
panels. White or grey grid lines on solar energy equipment are not permitted with
the exception of flat roofs in non-residential districts that are screened by Section
153.077 (see below Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(2)-. Framing shall also be a color
consistent with the solar energy equipment, preferably a black, blue or equivalent
color.
(b) Ground Mounted Equipment
1. Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall only be
permitted as an accessory structure, as provided in Section 153.074, in non-
residential districts and shall not permitted as a primary or principal use.
2. Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall not be
permitted in residential districts including residential Planned Districts, unless
otherwise specified.
3. Ground-mounted equipment for non-residential districts shall:
a) Be located to the side or rear of the principal structure and shall have a
clearance from the principal structure, the same or larger than the height of
the equipment.
b) Not be permitted forward of a principal structure or along a public right-of-
way.
c) Be sited to minimize view from the public right-of-way and adjacent
properties, and shall be in accordance with Section 153.133(C) of the City of
Dublin Zoning Code.
d) Meet all required setbacks. The equipment shall not exceed height
requirements of the district in which it is located. This shall be measured
from established grade to the top of the equipment.
e) Permitted only in areas that are hardscaped such as parking areas or outdoor
seating areas. The equipment shall meet all applicable development standards
of the Zoning Code including but not limited to lot coverage requirements.
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
3
(c) Building or Roof Mounted Equipment
1. Building or roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted to be located to the side or
rear of the principal or accessory structure.
2. Building or roof-mounted equipment is permitted to the front of a principal
or accessory structure only when it is demonstrated that this location
provides the greatest efficiency of energy production. The equipment will
meet all of the requirements in Section (c)(5) with two additional
requirements including:
a) Be installed in a rectangular to avoid complex and nonsymmetrical
configurations.
b) Roof-mounted equipment shall be a color that is similar to the roof color.
For purposes of this section, the “front” of the property is the exterior of the
structure that is facing the public or private right-of-way that provides frontage
for the property. Any roofline adjacent to this exterior, or attached design
elements including dormers, gables or front-loading garages would be subjected
to the provisions in Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(2)-listed above.
3. Roof-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted provided
it extends no more than 6 inches above the plane of the roof and is not
adjustable or movable.
4. Roof-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall be integrated
into the architectural design of the structure to the extent practicable that the
equipment can normally function.
5. For pitched roofs, roof-mounted solar equipment shall:
a) Be mounted parallel to the roof plane,
b) Limit protrusions,
c) Not extend above the ridgeline of the roof,
d) Not extend beyond the edge of the building,
e) Use a single material type,
f) Be configured and have an assembly profile complementary to the roof line,
g) Be installed to minimize the number of corners, and
6. For flat roofs, in non-residential districts, roof-mounted solar equipment is
permitted and shall be screened in accordance with §153.077.
(d) Review Procedures
All applications for renewable energy equipment - solar within residential and
nonresidential zoning districts shall require approval by the required reviewing body,
prior to the gaining approval of a building permit.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148
June t2, 2023 Page 2 of 20
Held 20
these reappraisals must be done and in what timeframe. He provided
information regarding how reappraisals are calculated and how to determine
the impact it will have on property taxes. He also shared what property owners
in Franklin County can expect throughout this process and how to ask
questions of the Franklin County Auditor's office if needed. Mr. Casey provided
printed literature that was available to attendees of the meeting summarizing
the presentation he gave in the meeting.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Jonathan Smith, 6805 Dublin Road, Dublin, spoke about issues he had over last year’s
Independence Day celebration. He stated that people were pulling off of Dublin Road
and parking in the ditch area to watch the fireworks. Cars parked in the ditch were
impeding traffic and parked there illegally. He stated that this happened after dark until
well after the grand finale of the fireworks. He stated this area is a dark stretch of road
and he was concerned that this caused a safety issue. He asked if temporary ‘no
parking” signs could be erected along Dublin Road. He also suggested more of a
police presence in the area this year. He stated that he also observed people
trespassing on private property last year.
Todd Manifold, 7901 Riverside Drive, Dublin, came forward to speak about the noise
on Riverside Drive. He stated that there are three main categories of noise on
Riverside Drive. He described the convoy of dump trucks starting at about 6:30 a.m.
that use the engine brake; secondly, are the four cylinder small cars with after-market
exhaust from about 3:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. every day; and finally, the small motorcycles
that sounds like chainsaws going up and down Riverside Drive. He wanted to bring the
issue to Council’s attention and see what suggestions they have. Mayor Fox thanked
him for his comments. She stated that Chief Paez is aware of this issue and has asked
that residents call when the issue is happening so they can respond to the area if
possible.
CONSENT AGENDA
e Minutes of the May 15, 2023 Special Council Meeting
e Minutes of the May 15, 2023 Work Session
e Minutes of the May 22, 2023 Regular Council Meeting
e Minutes of the June 5, 2023 Special Council Meeting
There was no request to remove a consent agenda item.
Ms. Alutto moved to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Keeler seconded.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Fox, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr.
Keeler, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes.
POSTPONED/TABLED ITEM
Ordinance 70-22
Amending Zoning Code Section 153.074 regarding Accessory Uses and
Structures and amending Zoning District Sections 153.074;
153.038(B)(4), (C)(17) and (31); 153.044(B)(4), (C)(9), and (H);
153.046(C)(4)(e) and (f); 153.059(C)(4)(j); 153.172(C)(4)(j) to
address language regarding renewable energy equipment for solar (Case
No. 21-151ADMC)
Ms. Noble stated that this topic has been explored and researched by staff for the last
year and a half. This code amendment is an opportunity for the City to express its
commitment to renewable energy, specifically, solar energy. The draft language does
Meeting
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148
June 12, 2023 Page 3 of 20
Held 20
delineate between residential and non-residential areas and the objective is to align
sustainability practices in the City. There has been an increase in interest in solar
energy due to financial incentives that have been offered to property owners. These
opportunities will continue until 2035, so staff is anticipating continual conversations
with property owners on this topic. Ms. Noble shared the background of this topic that
illustrated the amount of input that was solicited from the public, boards and
commissions and Council. After the first reading at City Council in November 2022,
staff collaborated on a survey to area homeowners’ associations (HOAs) as well as
citywide. They received 900 responses.
Ms. Noble noted the amount of research that staff has conducted on solar energy.
Staff did the following research:
e worked with advocacy groups, solar companies, and spoke with other
communities in and outside of Ohio;
e researched all of our planned districts to identify any type of regulations that
would extend beyond zoning regulations;
researched accreditation programs, specifically with Solsmart;
researched cost implications of solar energy and co-op programs;
provided information on the various forms of solar equipment; and
e collaborated on the larger Sustainability Framework initiative.
Ms. Noble provided a map showing the number of HOAs and civic associations that are
within the City of Dublin. HOAs could have deed restrictions that would prohibit solar
energy that can be enforced above and beyond zoning regulations. Civic associations
do not have the same enforcement mechanisms in place, but they could have
regulations regarding solar energy.
Ms. Noble reviewed the SolSmart national solar program that helps local municipalities
and regional governments become solar leaders. Dublin is currently in the process of
obtaining a Bronze level SolSmart Designation. SolSmart reviewed the draft code
language and their comments have been incorporated.
Ms. Noble shared the climate comparisons that were conducted to see if solar is even a
feasible opportunity for our residents. Staff found that comparisons with other cities
over the past decade show there is enough energy consumption that it would be a
worthy opportunity for property owners to proceed with installation.
Ms. Noble reviewed the solar technologies beginning with traditional solar roof panels,
called Building Applied Photovoltaic (BAPV). These panels are mounted to the roof 3.9
to 4.3 inches from the roof. They are not the same material as the roof. The second
type of solar technology is the Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) that is
integrated into the building structure either as a dual functioning building material or
panel that is flush with the roof. Additional materials such as solar window, blinds and
cladding are in the prototype stage. Ms. Noble provided visual examples of these
technologies.
Ms. Noble summarized the draft code language updates. The intent section has been
modified to include language that promotes sustainability practices while still
maintaining high standards. Significant consideration has been given to location
configuration, material choices, installation practices and proper maintenance. The
location of solar has been discussed at length during public meetings. The draft
language allows solar panels to be located at the side or the rear of a building. It does
allow for instances where solar panels could be constructed to the front of the building
if a property owner can demonstrate that the front location provides the greateset
efficiency for the solar production.
Ms. Noble stated that there are five districts within the City of Dublin that currently
have zoning regulations in place for solar. The objective of staff was to ensure that as
we move forward, the districts are consistent among the entire City. There were minor
differences in those districts which staff is proposing to amend as part of this
recommendation.
Ms. Noble stated that staff will remain consistent with the Sustainability Framework
Plan that is currently being updated. Staff has committed to Council that once the Plan
is adopted, staff will come back to Council within a year of the adoption to ensure that
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SOPPTIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. TOT4S
> N Q June t2, 2023 Page 40
Held 20
we are maintaining consistency with that Plan and identify or address any changes if
necessary.
Ms. Noble noted the difference in the code between ground-mounted equipment and
building- or roof-mounted equipment. Ground-mounted equipment is permitted to the
side or rear of the principal building in non-residential areas. The code allows that as
an accessory use opposed to a primary use. Again, the code allows for the building- or
roof-mounted equipment to be installed to the side or rear unless the property owner
can demonstrate that the front of the building provides the most efficiency. Ms. Noble
noted that there are also aesthetic qualifications included in the code regarding how
solar is installed, where it extends and in what configuration.
Ms. Noble outlined the changes that will impact the districts. Notifications have been
provided to property owners and staff has received no concerns. Staff recommended
approval.
Nathan Cicak, 5780 Clearfield Lane, Dublin, stated that he just wanted to confirm that
the City is allowing forward facing solar cells to be placed on the house as long as the
owner shows that a higher efficiency rate is possible with that placement. Staff
responded affirmatively.
Mayor Fox thanked staff for the research and information.
Vice Mayor De Rosa asked how the efficiency rate will be determined. She asked
about the process that the resident will have to follow in order to demonstrate the
efficiency rates on their home. Ms. Noble stated that solar companies typically provide
efficiency options for property owners and the cost associated with each option. Vice
Mayor De Rosa suggested putting the requirements on our website for the residents.
Vice Mayor De Rosa clarified that the districts that had differences will now be
standardized under this code amendment. Unless there is an HOA, all districts will be
held to the same standards under this code. Ms. Noble responded affirmatively.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about building height restrictions and whether a building
that is already at its maximum height could have the solar equipment mounted on the
roof because it was already at the maximum. Ms. Noble stated that the districts would
all be under the same restrictions as anywhere else in the City.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the ground-mounted equipment for non-
residential, specifically, subsection (b) that reads, “shall not be permitted forward of a
principal structure or along a public right of way.” She stated that Council has had
discussions about covering parking areas relative to these facilities. Most of the
commercial districts or office districts have parking to the front. This language would
preclude them from putting solar installations over their parking surface. Ms. Noble
stated that was correct. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she believes Council’s
intent was to allow these types of solar installations. She did not want to discourage
our corporate residents from exercising this option. She added that it could also
mitigate global warming issues due to the cooling nature. She suggested pulling
subsection (b) from the Ordinance because we would want to allow solar canopies
over parking areas. Ms. Noble clarified that Council would still want to make sure that
they would keep the language regarding the right-of-way. Ms. Amorose Groomes
responded affirmatively because there is no parking allowed in a public right-of-way
anyway. Ms. Noble noted that section 3a would also need modified as it addresses
location. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that (d) does as well.
Ms. Kramb stated she was supportive of those modifications and stated that staff did a
good job of addressing the residential roof-mounted, but the commercial areas and the
parking structures, and solar panels over parking could still be improved. Our code
often does not allow accessory structures, but these parking canopies with solar on the
roof could be an accessory structure. She sought clarification about whether this
would be considered ground-mounted or roof-mounted on an accessory structure. Ms.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS blin City Council Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148 APY LLL
Held 20
Amorose Groomes stated they could be called something completely different from
accessory structures to avoid confusion.
Ms. Kramb asked why solar was not considered in residential districts where there are
churches and schools that could be prime solar users. She stated that it could be
impossible to put ground-mounted on a small single-family lot because it would not
meet the setbacks and other requirements. She did not want to preclude churches or
schools from being able to do it if they so choose.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she would be supportive over parking areas, not
driveways of those entities and not in the green spaces.
Ms. Kramb stated that according to the language, ground-mounted must be over a
hardscape surface. She asked if the meaning of that section was to mean existing
hardscape surface or could a property owner pour a concrete pad and put solar on it.
Mayor Fox stated that it appears Council consensus is to allow the canopy parking
structures and these accessory structures. In response to Mayor Fox’s question
regarding procedural handling of an amendment to the Ordinance, Ms. Readler stated
that a Council member could make a motion to amend the Ordinance to incorporate
these suggested revisions.
Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that she is supportive of the allowing the parking coverage
options. She is cautious about the ground-mounted in residential because of the
proximity of location on someone's property. Her apprehension is due to aesthetics.
Ms. Alutto agreed with Vice Mayor De Rosa’s sentiment. She agrees with allowing
parking coverage and she is also apprehensive about allowing ground-mounted solar in
residential for the same reasons that Vice Mayor De Rosa already stated.
Ms. Kramb noted that currently, there are no provisions for any type of screening of
ground mounted equipment. She asked if churches and schools could be allowed to
have ground-mounted solar if they also had to screen it. She suggested adding
language requiring screening to ground-mounted equipment, similar to the language
regarding screening requirements of geothermal equipment. Discussion was held
regarding whether the screening requirement would also apply to parking canopies.
Consensus of Council was to require screening of ground-mounted solar separate from
parking canopies.
Ms. Kramb noted a few minor typos for staff to correct in the material. She also
suggested changing the wording regarding solar equipment being a “consistent” color
or “complimentary” color. She suggested using the word “similar.”
Mr. Reiner suggested that the required screening should be 100% opacity.
Ms. Amorose Groomes moved to amend Ordinance 70-22 to correct the grammatical
changes as outlined to staff, the delineation of parking canopies and the coverage of
parking areas and adding the ground-mounted equipment on commercial properties to
require 100% opacity screening.
Ms. Alutto seconded.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Amorose
Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance as amended: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Mayor Fox, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms.
Kramb, yes.
SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES
Ordinance 14-23
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
MAY 1, 2023
Minutes
Mayor Fox called the Monday, May 1, 2023 work session to order at 6:02 p.m.
Council members present: Ms. Alutto, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Vice Mayor De Rosa, Mayor Fox, Mr.
Keeler, and Ms. Kramb and Mr. Reiner.
Staff present: Ms. O’Callaghan, Ms. Readler, Mr. Ranc, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Earman, Ms. Noble, Ms.
Weisenauer, Ms. Steiner, Ms. Gee, Mr. Krawetzski, Mr. Ament, Ms. Goliver, Ms. Blake, Chief Paez.
Also present were: Leon Younger, Pros Consulting and Rick Fay, OHM Advisors.
Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Reiner led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Renewable Solar Energy Equipment Update
Ms. Noble provided an overview of the topic for this meeting’s discussion. She stated that staff
would be providing updates including:
e Further understanding of architecturally integrating materials;
More clearly defining where panels can be located on the front of a home;
More information about solar materials, costs and climate;
Solar panel resources and example legislation;
Map of Dublin’s subdivisions that define Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and Civic/No HOA
locations; and
e Further refinement of draft Code language regarding permitted location and design
requirements.
She provided background information regarding previous discussions and the variety of venues
where this topic has been discussed. She noted that staff conducted two surveys in January 2023;
one with HOA leadership and a Citywide survey.
She reviewed existing regulations for renewable energy equipment in the Zoning Code in the
following five districts: West Innovation (WID), Bridge Street (BSD), Historic (HD), Mixed Use
Regional (MUR-1) and Tech Flex. Staff reviewed the development text for Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) and found 17 PUDs that regulate roof materials and therefore would not
permit solar equipment. Residential properties are also subject to any rules and regulations from
the neighborhood HOA (if applicable).
Ms. Noble provided the following updates to Council:
Comprehensive Review of Sustainability
Council expressed, in previous discussions, the desire to have a comprehensive review of
sustainability. Staff is currently working with a consultant on updates to the City of Dublin
Sustainability Framework Plan. Solar energy is one component of the City’s sustainability efforts.
Council Work Session
May 1, 2023
Page 2 of 12
HOAs versus Civic Associations.
There are 63 HOAs, 17 condominium associations, and 41 civic associations within the City of Dublin.
Ms. Noble clarified that condominium associations act similarly to an HOA in regulating authority;
whereas civic associations are an organized neighborhood group, but they do not have any legal
authority. Therefore, civic associations would be more susceptible to any regulations adopted by
the City. In response to Mr. Reiner’s question about the warranty deed assigning the legal authority,
Ms. Noble responded affirmatively.
Solar Panel Cost
Ms. Noble shared that there are a variety of solar options at varying cost points available to
residential and commercial properties. The approximate costs per square foot are as follows:
e Integrated panels: $6 - $15 per square foot;
e PV Roof: $14 - $19 per square foot;
e Solar Slate/Tile: $21 - $25 per square foot; and
e Tesla Solar Shingles: $26 - $50 per square foot.
She shared that the City of New Albany spent approximately $231,000 on solar panels for the roof
of their Public Service Complex.
SolSmart Solar Program
Staff has been working with the SolSMart Solar Program. SolSmart is a national solar accreditation
program that helps local municipalities and regional governments become solar leaders. SolSmart
reviewed the City Code and found that increased efforts are needed to specifically address solar
energy. The draft code language addresses much of SolSmart’s comments. The City is currently in
the process of obtaining a Bronze level SolSmart designation.
Solar Benchmarking
City Details SolSmart Designation
Columbus, OH Solar permitted in all districts. Gold
Upper Arlington, OH Solar permitted in all districts. Gold
Lancaster, OH Implemented a new chapter to their code Gold
that permits roof, integrated, and ground
mounted panels. Also includes specific
guidelines for their historic district.
Franklin, TN Includes specific solar guidelines for their N/A
historic district, including roof-top or free
standing. The solar systems are to be
screened by architectural features.
Richmond, IN Implemented a city-wide solar initiative Silver
that permits panels in all zoning districts
Carmel, IN Permitted as an accessory use for Silver
residential and commercial buildings.
Council Work Session
May 1, 2023
Page 3 of 12
Ms. Noble stated that staff looked closely at Bronzeville, IL. Bronzeville, Illinois is a Section 8 housing
community in Chicago that is completely self-sustaining in terms of energy. The installation of
rooftop solar has allowed the community to exist as a microgrid with power. The Great Plains
Institute designed a solar model ordinance for Midwestern states. While they have not studied Ohio
specifically, staff looked to Indiana to provide comparisons. Indiana notably is facing similar issues.
The Great Plains Institute provides recommendations for solar standards as well.
Ms. Noble provided a map illustrating the efficient light trespass for solar energy. We produce
enough light energy to warrant this discussion.
Solar Co-ops
Solar co-ops are a combination of residents, businesses and other entities that partner with a
collective energy need to garner bulk discounts. Staff has been in contact with Solar United
Neighbors, who has been establishing programs across Ohio and has partnered with Sustainable
Columbus, IMPACT Community Action and MORPC to launch programs.
Solar Technology:
Ms. Noble provided the following information regarding solar technologies.
e pullding Applied Photovoltaic (BAPV)
Solar roof-type panels
- Separate design feature from existing building
- For best functionality, recommended to be mounted 3.9 — 4.3 inches from the roof
(ventilation)
- Wiring and other components can be concealed.
- Black delineated sectioning is an improvement.
e Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV)
- Integrated into building structure as either a dual functioning building material or panel
flush with roof
- Replaces traditional building elements with solar modules
- Solar roofs may come in slate or tiling form for more diversity.
- Solar windows (14% efficiency), blinds (22%) and cladding in prototype stage.
Mayor Fox asked about the efficiency of solar panels. Ms. Noble stated that windows and blinds will
lose a little efficiency due to the orientation and they are still in early technology versus a panel on
the roof with direct sun. The percentage of efficiency depends upon the roofline.
Ms. Noble shared photos of different BIPV examples.
Configuration and front facade
Council requested clarification regarding language about placement and the configuration of roof
materials.
e Building or Roof Mounted Equipment:
o Existing definition is, “Any building face generally oriented along a front property line
either within the front building zone or behind the front setback.”
o Suggested language is, “Panels shall be permitted to be installed on roof surfaces that
do not slope toward the front building line.” Staff sought Council’s direction as to the
suggested language.
Ms. Noble shared photos illustrating where panels could be placed on roofs that are not typical
(corner properties with multiple frontage).
Council Work Session
May 1, 2023
Page 4 of 12
Ms. Noble provided the following discussion questions to Council and requested their feedback in an
effort to move this topic forward.
1. What additional modifications or information is needed prior to moving the proposed Code
language forward for adoption?
2. Does Council support modifying the Code based on the draft language that “Panels shall be
permitted to be installed on roof surfaces which do not slope towards the front property line”?
3. Does Council support modifications to these existing districts for BSD, WID, MUR-1, HD, and Tech
Flex to ensure consistency amongst the regulations and providing restrictions regarding
renewable energy equipment for solar as a principal use?
4. Does Council support staff’s recommendation to review the adopted language following adoption
of the Sustainability Framework to evaluate its effectiveness?
5. Other considerations of City Council
Ms. Kramb sought clarification regarding question four. Ms. Noble stated that when the Sustainability
Framework Plan is completed, the Code language regarding Solar would be evaluated to ensure that
it is consistent with the plan.
Ms. Kramb asked about the title in the Code. Ms. Rauch stated that it was to leave the option open
to add additional sustainable solutions and it is consistent with the five districts that already have
regulations.
Mr. Keeler asked about the sides of the gables facing the front of a house and clarified that panels
would be permitted on the sloping roof on gables that are facing front. Ms. Noble responded
affirmatively. Ms. Rauch asked Council for feedback regarding allowing panels on the roof covering
the gable.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that gables are the most visible part of the roof as you come up and
down the street. She suggested language that would specify that panels are not permitted on,
“surfaces that slope toward the front building line or off of a surface that does.” She acknowledged
how difficult it is to write Code because there are so many unintended consequences. Ms. Rauch
stated that the goal is to have visual examples that will help explain what is allowed. Ms. Amorose
Groomes added that she would like to see an overarching purpose statement that describes what
we are trying to accomplish.
Mayor Fox suggested addressing whether or not panels are permitted on the front of the house.
Ms. Rauch clarified that if the solar is integrated into the building materials, as shown in the
presentation of different solar technologies, then that would be permitted on the front of the home.
It is the solar panels that are in question as to whether they would be allowed on the front side of
the home.
Ms. Kramb stated that it will be too difficult to determine what the front is on some homes. It would
be better to say panels are allowed as long as they are comparable to the roof in color/material and
less than 5 inches from the surface. She added that these panels will only last for about 10 years,
and the technology will continue to improve.
Mr. Keeler agreed. The City is trying to be sustainable. He agrees that it is too hard to determine
what the front or the back of a house is sometimes; however, he would prefer they were installed
on the back or side.
Council Work Session
May 1, 2023
Page 5 of 12
Mr. Reiner stated that the panels should not be seen from the front of the home, roof tiles should
be permitted. As technology improves, it will get more attractive and be less expensive. It our duty
to protect the integrity of the neighborhood.
Ms. Alutto stated that the City is trying to make a commitment to renewable energy. Having the
panels mounted closer to the roof is an improvement. She is fine allowing them, in a square or
rectangular formation, she doesn’t want any jagged shapes that draw attention.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she is a huge fan of sustainability, but she is not sure if this is
solving the sustainability question. There are expectations of the visual experience, so we have a
responsibility to protect the appearance of the built environment. She is for limiting where panels
can be installed for now, waiting for the technology to progress and then re-evaluating where they
can go. There are better ways to achieve sustainability than putting a panel on the roof that would
be only marginally effective. She would be in favor of looking into starting a pilot for a micro-grid
using our facilities and the schools facilities.
Vice Mayor De Rosa referred to the HOA slide and stated that many of the HOAs, regardless of
Council action, will prohibit the use of solar. The amount of impact that allowing solar panels could
have on the City, without the HOAs changing their regulations, could be minimal. The cost of solar
energy is prohibitive for most homes. She stated that using the orientation of the house as a basis
of whether or not you can or cannot have panels on your home does not feel good. Vice Mayor De
Rosa stated that she would be in favor of allowing the panels on a home with very specific definitions
as to height, color, materials, etc. She also stated that if we intend to allow wind energy solutions,
then the Code should speak to that as well. She suggested that this topic comes back annually (in
addition to the sustainability plan) for a while so it can be evaluated as technology changes. She
stated that she also feels a duty to protect the visual experience, but it gets complicated to say that
panel can be seen from the back but not the front. She would like to really lean into the aesthetics
and what would be required, but still allow the panels.
Mayor Fox agreed that it is difficult to say we are a Sustainable City but then not allow solar panels.
She stated that it is important to include an objective statement in the Code to say what we are
trying to accomplish, (i.e. sustainable city, encourage solar panels), but that we would prefer if these
panels could be hidden on the back or side if possible. If it is impossible for you to have them
hidden, you should still be allowed to have them. Mayor Fox spoke about the importance of
education for those interested in purchasing solar equipment because a permit is required due to
fire and safety requirements.
Mr. Keeler agreed that the requirement should be to make the installation of the panels as
aesthetically pleasing as possible. Ms. Rauch stated that staff can include language to make the
requirements clear. Discussion was held regarding the desire to have the panels match the shingles
of the roof by either changing the shingles to match the black panels or getting solar skins on the
panels to try to match the shingles.
Mayor Fox asked for feedback from Council on the third discussion question. Council consensus was
to have consistency in regulations among the five districts. Regarding the fourth question, Council
consensus was to re-visit the Code to ensure effectiveness and consistency after the Sustainability
Framework Plan is adopted and annually thereafter.
When asked about other considerations to think about, Council had the following comments:
e Vice Mayor De Rosa asked if there is a coverage requirement to make this economically work.
Council Work Session
May 1, 2023
Page 6 of 12
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that when subsequent versions of the Code are adopted that
there will be no “grandfathering” situations.
Ms. Kramb stated that ground-mounted only applied to non-residential in the Code, but there
would be opportunity for ground-mounted on lots of a certain size with the same criteria. Vice
Mayor De Rosa stated that the other requirement would be where on the property it would go
in relation to neighbors. Mr. Keeler stated that he agrees with Ms. Kramb that it is possible as
long as the criteria is set and followed.
Mayor Fox confirmed that HOAs will still have their regulations in place. Staff responded
affirmatively. Mayor Fox suggested that the Historic District may need additional conversation
due to the restrictions that are already affecting the District. Vice Mayor De Rosa and Ms.
Amorose Groomes stated that if there are no HOA protections in place, they are not in favor of
having separate discussions by neighborhood or district.
In response to Mr. Reiner’s question, Ms. Rauch stated that if an HOA wanted to regulate solar,
then they would have to govern it.
Ms. O'Callaghan stated that staff would like to bring Ordinance 70-22 back to Council for a second
reading. Vice Mayor De Rosa reiterated that Council will expect to see language regarding all the
discussion about aesthetic requirements. Council consensus was to bring the Ordinance back for
second reading.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Mr. Earman introduced Leon Younger from Pros Consulting and Rick Fay from OHM Advisors. He
stated that tonight's discussion will include:
A project recap,
Cross-tabulations,
Parks/facility & Operations review,
Key Focus Areas — Implementation strategies,
Major Projects, and
Discussion Questions/Next Steps.
Mr. Earman provided a graph showing how the Master Plan process has evolved. He shared the
preliminary recommendations of the key focus areas, which include:
e Focus for Parkland: Acquire and develop new parkland, and maximize the value of each park
type currently in the system to reach the full recreation value associated with its design;
e Focus for Recreation Facilities: Enhance park and recreation facilities through new or
improved program services to maximize the community’s investment in its parks and
recreation facilities and enhance their impact on the quality of life for Dublin residents;
e Focus for Program Services: Activate parks and recreation facilities through program
services to maximize the community’s investments made in the these facilities and enhance
their value and impact on the quality of life for living in Dublin;
e Focus for Park and Recreation Operations: Provide industry-leading and innovative services
for parks and recreation operations to deliver an exciting and high-quality experience for
Dublin residents;
e Focus for Financing: Expand the funding options available to the Parks and Recreation
Department to fund the community's desire for a world-class parks and recreation system
that meets or exceeds the community’s vision for Dublin.
DUBUN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 17, 2023
Minutes
Mayor Fox called the Tuesday, January 17, 2023 work session to order at 6:00 p.m.
Council members present: Ms. Alutto, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Vice Mayor De Rosa1 Mayor Fox, Mr. Keeler, Ms. Kramb, and Mr. Reiner.
Staff present: Ms. O'Collaghan, Ms. Readier, Mr. Rane, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Earman, Ms. Gee, Ms. Steiner,
Ms. Noble, Ms. Wigram, Chief Paez, Ms. Rigano, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Gishel, Mr. Ament, Mr. Stiffler, Mr. Rogers, Ms. Weisenauer, Ms. Goliver.
Also present vvere: Leon Younger, President, Philip Parnin, Associate Principal, from PROS
Consulting and Rick Fay and Aaron Domini from OHM Advisors.
Mr. Keeler led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Renewable Energy Equipment for Solar
Ms. Noble stated that this discussion wiil provide information responding to Council's questions
during the first reading of Ordinance 70-22 regarding solar panels and the code process. She stated that she would also be sharing some of the results of the survey and public input meeting on this topic. There is been an increased interest in solar energy over the past two years due to financial
lncentlves available until 2035. The purpose of reviewing the regulations is to: •clarify how renewable energy, specifically solar panels, are reviewed ln commercial and
residential districts within the City in alignment with Council's goal to be "Most Sustainabie.n•Commit to sustainable practice including effo1ts with the Dublin Sustainability Frameworkwhile balancing community character, aesthetics, community values and environmental
stewardship.•Establish regulations that best represent public interest in solar.Ms. Nob!e surnmarized the first reading and the Ordinance that was proposed. Draft Code language
was added to Section 153.074 -Accessory Structures. There was a diffe:-entiation betweer. ground
mounted and building-mounted equipment in proposed amendment. She stated the general purpose statement vvas to "promote sustainable environmental practices and environmental
stewardship while balancing the high-quality standards that defines the character of community." General provisions of the code amendment included: •Conceal frames, flashing, fasteners 1 hardware, etc.;
e Review materials that have dual function as building materials ( such as a window orshingles);•Equipment sha!I remain in working order or be removed; and• These provisions are intended to be regularly updated as this technology advances,
The draft code !anguage addresses ground -mounted equipment as: located to the side or rear of
the principal building, only in non-residential districts and accessory use only. Building or Roof
mounted equipment is proposed to be allowed to be located on the side or rear of the principal building. Council's feedback at the first readmg of the Ordinance, was support for ground-mounted
solar energy only in non-residential districts and over hardscape. They also requested additional information about the five foot separation requirement between equipment and buildings. Ms, Noble
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Form 6101
Held
November 14, 2022 Page 7 of 16
Ordinance 69-22
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute and Accept Necessary Conveyance
Documents and Contracts to Convey an Easement to Ohio Power Company
from City -Owned Property Located on Darby Street, Identified as Franklin
County Parcel Number 273-003680, for the Public Purpose of Completing
the Franklin Street Extension Project 21-012-CIP
Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that the Franklin Street extension project will construct an
extension of Franklin Street from West Bridge Street north to North Street and
reconstruct Franklin Street from West Bridge Street south to Sells Alley. The project
will construct the roadway, install permeable paver parking bays, brick paver
sidewalks, street trees, street lighting, and bury the overhead utility lines from Sells
Alley to North Street. The intersection of West Bridge Street and Franklin Street will be
signalized and include pedestrian crossings and the temporary pedestrian crossing of
West Bridge Street at Darby Street will be removed. This Ordinance provides the Ohio
Power Company (also known as AEP Ohio) with a required easement on City -owned
property for routing of the existing primary overhead electric lines and placing them
underground. The easement will also provide for the installation of necessary
aboveground electrical components. Locating these items on City property allows the
City to keep these units off private property and provides the ability to perform
landscaping installation and future maintenance. This project is planned to start
construction in early 2023 and is anticipated to be complete in the fall of 2023.
There were no public comments.
Second reading/public hearing is scheduled for the December 5, 2022 Council meeting.
Ordinance 70-22
Amending Zoning Code Section 153.074 Regarding Accessory Uses and
Structures to Add Language Addressing Renewable Energy Equipment for
Solar (Case 21-151ADMC)
Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance.
Ms. Noble stated that staff identified an opportunity to clarify how renewable energy,
specifically solar panels, are reviewed in commercial and residential districts within the
City of Dublin. The City is committed to sustainable practices including efforts with the
Dublin Sustainability Framework while balancing community, aesthetics and community
values. Renewable Energy Equipment is permitted as an accessory use in all districts
within the Western Innovation District, Bridge Street District, Mixed Use Regional
District and Historic District. It is not specified in any other areas of the code. The
proposed amendment is based on an increase in requests for solar panel installations
on residential and non-residential properties as a result of financial incentives that are
currently available. Ms. Noble shared some national trends in renewable energy, such
as:
Energy costs are rising and nationwide electric costs have increased 16% and
gas prices are up 33%;
Solar Energy has increased in the residential market by 30% and has accounted
for 514,000 installations nationwide;
Additional interest has been created by federal and state funding and tax
incentives; and
Increased applications have been filed within the City of Dublin for solar energy
equipment.
Staff has collaborated with private installation companies, energy providers, local
partners and advocacy groups. Boards and commissions have conducted discussions
on solar energy. Staff benchmarked other communities to gain insight on their
practices with solar regulations. In general, communities permit solar panels with
restrictions or regulations similar to what is proposed.
Staff reviewed the building permit history to understand the demand for solar panels,
the location of the panels, and if permits were issued for the installation. In the last
ten years, there have been 74 building permits, almost exclusively on residential
Minutes of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS • DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101
Held
November 14, 2022 Page 8 of 16
homes. They also reviewed all residential PUD's to determine if approved development
texts outline permitted roof materials. They found 17 residential PUD's that would
restrict roofing materials. An initial outreach to Home Owners Associations (HOA) was
conducted and included a letter, a survey and a presentation at the fall HOA meeting.
The survey results showed that 50% of the associations reported having no regulations
for solar. The remaining 50% stated that the City should consider the location and
aesthetics.
Regarding boards and commissions, discussions were held by the Joint Work Session
August 2022), Planning and Zoning Commission (October 2021 and April, September
and October 2022), Community Services Advisory Commission (September 2022) and
Board of Zoning Appeals (September and October 2022). Overall there has been
support of solar and sustainability efforts with an interest in ensuring the communities'
aesthetics. There has been discussion about possible additions and clarifications to the
Code while still allowing for technological advancements.
Staff shared the recommendation of adding code language to 153.074 — Accessory
Structures and Uses. The draft language differentiates between ground -mounted and
building -mounted equipment. The purpose of the draft code is to "promote
sustainable environmental practices and environmental stewardship while balancing
the high-quality standards that define the character of community." Ms. Noble
reviewed some of the general provisions in the draft language, including: wiring,
frames, flashing and hardware must be concealed, review materials that have dual
function as building materials, and equipment shall remain in working order or be
removed.
Ms. Noble stated that building mounted solar to the front of the structure is permitted
if it performs as a building material. She noted that it is important to address
advanced technologies and future code updates are anticipated. Ground -mounted
equipment is permitted in the draft language as long as it is located to the side or rear
of the principal building, it is sited to minimize view from the public right-of-way,
meets all required setbacks, and does not exceed six feet in height measured from
established grade. In non-residential districts, it shall not exceed 25% of the gross
floor area of the principal structures unless otherwise permitted. Building or roof
mounted equipment, per the draft language, should be:
located to the side or rear of a principal building;
shall be a color that is complementary to the roof and shall not extend more
than 12 inches above the plane of the roof and be non-adjustable;
integrated into the design of the building to the extent practical that it can
function normally; and
for pitched roofs:
o parallel to the roof plane;
o placed in such a way as to limit protrusions and not extend above
ridgeline or beyond the edge of the roof; and
o configured to complement the roofline, installed to minimize corners
and avoid complex or nonsymmetrical configurations.
The draft code language was presented and discussed at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting of October 20. Planning and Zoning recommended approval of
the proposed amendments with minor revisions. Ms. Noble noted that City Council will
have additional time to review and consider the proposed Code amendment. Staff is
recommending that the second reading/public hearing be scheduled for February 13,
2023 to allow time for additional public input and a Council work session.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Reiner stated that this gives him pause because he is aware of one subdivision's
lawsuit over solar panels and what would be allowed. He stated it would be important
to add the need for screening around the ground -mounted equipment in the draft
code. He believes this will be a controversial issue for the community.
Ms. Amorose Groomes shared her concern over the ground -mounted units being
permitted widespread over the City and whether screening them would inhibit their
ability to gather the solar rays. Commercial spaces would be more appropriate for
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of _ Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS • DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101
Held
November 14, 2022 Page 9 of 16
ground -mounted and she would like to see the City promote the use of this in those
spaces, primarily with parking. She is not in favor of allowing ground -mounted
equipment in the residential areas of the community. She expressed her fear that
trees would need to come down in order to allow the equipment to take in as much
solar energy as possible. She stated that would turn the clock back on the progress
that has been made establishing the green canopy in this community.
Ms. Kramb stated that there are no provisions in the draft code about the amount of
space it could occupy in residential as there are for non-residential. She stated there
certainly should be either a prohibition or a limit to the space. She also stated that this
equipment is required to be mounted to a base of concrete or something like that, so
that is additional yard space needed. In response to Ms. Kramb's question regarding
the required feet from the structure, Ms. Noble confirmed it is required to be five feet.
Ms. Kramb would like additional explanation regarding the following at the next
discussion:
the requirement of five feet to the structure;
material types as it is specified in the draft Code (why certain materials types
would be included or excluded);
clarification regarding eave extension and corners.
Vice Mayor De Rosa asked if any of the 74 permits that were issued were for a ground -
mounted unit. Ms. Noble stated they were not. Vice Mayor De Rosa provided the
following comments for the purposes of clarification at the next discussion:
The pictures provided are not from our community, she would like to see
pictures and examples of what we have in the community;
The "front" of the house needs to be defined and clarified;
She would like to see examples of legislation in other regions with similar light
versus cloud ratio to Ohio; and
The materials themselves are going to have to have more clarity in the Code.
She asked if we have any solar on any of our City buildings. Ms. Noble responded that
the City does not have solar on any of their buildings. Vice Mayor De Rosa suggested
having solar installed on some of our buildings to better educate us on the whole
process. She expressed her appreciation for the public input portions prior to second
reading.
Mr. Keeler stated that he agrees with the statements of the other Council members.
He asked if the terms "front", "side" and "rear" are defined in the Code. Ms. Noble
responded affirmatively. She stated that graphic illustrations could help. Mr. Keeler
agreed. He thought it was odd to have the equipment protruding off the roof when
solar panels are thin. Ms. Noble stated that some of the installation companies they
have spoken with have said it could be less than 12 inches.
Ms. Kramb clarified that with more panels, they are put on a grid, so it is likely the grid
and mechanicals that are causing the height, not the panel itself.
Mr. Reiner suggested deferring to the HOAs. He would like to take this slowly.
Mr. Keeler stated he agrees that the City should utilize solar on our buildings,
specifically the Service Center, to educate ourselves about it more. Ms. O'Callaghan
stated that staff routinely checks -in with IGS Energy to see if they would be interested
in partnering on a project like that for the Service Center. IGS Energy has indicated
that they are interested; however, the regulatory environment has not made it cost
effective to do so.
Ms. Alutto stated that deferring to the HOAs will not work because there are homes in
this community that are not covered under an HOA. She also agreed that additional
clarification is needed regarding determining the front, back or side of a residence.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she would like to see an application with some sort
of expiration date. She would like some motivation for homeowners to get upgraded
equipment when better technologies emerge or when the equipment reaches the end
of its life -span. She would like to be able to hold homeowners accountable for
outdated equipment that is not functioning but is still mounted to their homes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101
Held
November 14, 2022 Page 10 of 16
Ms. Kramb stated that the commercial solar farms equipment has a life expectancy of
10 years. Ms. Amorose Groomes would rather see solar panels cover asphalt than
farmland.
Mayor Fox stated that additional clarification is needed regarding the building materials
review on the front of the structure. She asked about emerging technologies, such as
Solar Skin, and how that would change the Code if something was on the building
materials themselves. She wants to make sure that we can be adaptable to new
technologies.
Second reading/public hearing is scheduled for the February 13, 2023 Council meeting.
INTRODUCTION/ PUBLIC HEARING/VOTE — RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 54-22
Requesting the Delaware, Franklin and Union County Auditors to Draw
Money that May be in the County Treasuries and to Issue a Draft to the
Director of Finance of the City of Dublin for any Money that May be in the
Accounts for the City of Dublin
Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution.
Mr. Stiffler stated that this is a routine Resolution allowing the City to collect money
that has been collected to the benefit of the City a few months early. Staff
recommended approval.
There were no public comments.
Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms.
Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Fox, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes.
Resolution 55-22
Authorizing the City Manager to Cooperate and Enter into an Agreement
with The Ohio Department of Transportation for the Resurfacing of SR -745
from Emerald Parkway north to Shawnee Hills (ODOT PID Number 106081)
Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution.
Mr. Taylor stated that the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is planning
improvements to the SR -745 (Dublin Road) corridor from just north of the Emerald
Parkway intersection in Dublin to the southern corporation limits of the Village of
Shawnee Hills, totaling 3.11 miles. The work includes pavement milling, resurfacing,
curb ramp repairs, and pavement markings. Staff coordinated with ODOT to advance
this project from State Fiscal Year 2025 to the spring of 2023 to improve the conditions
of SR -745 and to resurface over the temporary asphalt patches placed as part of the
Deer Run Force Main and Lift Station Project to provide a safe and smooth roadway for
the travelling public.
There were no public comments.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about whether or not Shawnee Hills received any funding
for this paving. Mr. Taylor stated that the area of this road going through Shawnee
Hills was repaved within the last two years.
Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes.
Resolution 56-22
Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Franklin Street Extension Project
21-012-CIP)
Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that this project will construct an extension of Franklin Street
from West Bridge Street north to North Street and reconstruct Franklin Street from
West Bridge Street south to Sells Alley as shown on the attached exhibit. The work for
the project will consist of constructing the roadway, installing permeable paver parking
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Black Font-Existing Code Language
Blue Front-New Language
Red Font-Changes Based on Planning and Zoning Commission
1
§153.074 – Accessory Uses and Structures
(A)(3)(a) Residential. Storage, recreation, child care, home occupations, leisure and
gardening/landscaping uses, renewable energy equipment- solar, and others as permitted by
the district in which the property is located or as determined by the Administrative Official.
(A)(4)(a) Residential. Garages and carports (attached and detached), sheds, swimming pools,
hot tubs, sport courts and similar facilities, gazebos, porches/sunrooms, patios, decks,
greenhouses, renewable energy equipment - solar, or similar facilities, and other similar
structures as determined by the Administrative Official.
(A)(4)(b) Non-residential. Dumpster enclosures, sheds, garages/parking structures,
greenhouses, renewable energy equipment - solar, and other similar structures as determined
by the Administrative Official.
(B)(3)(c) This section shall not prohibit accessory uses and structures typical of multiple-family
residential developments, including but not limited to clubhouses and/or administration offices,
pool houses, laundry facilities, gatehouses, mailbox shelters, dumpster shelters or enclosures,
recreational facilities, renewable energy equipment - solar, and other similar structures as
determined by the Administrative Official, provided all applicable development requirements
including but not limited to lot coverage, setbacks, open space, and stormwater management
are met.
(E) Renewable Energy Equipment - Solar
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to promote sustainable environmental practices and
environmental stewardship while balancing the high-quality development standards that
defines the character of the community.
Applicability
Unless otherwise addressed within a PUD, Planned Unit Development District; WID, West
Innovation Districts, MUR, Mixed Regional Use Districts; BSD, Bridge Street Districts; or HD,
Historic Districts these standards shall apply to all properties within the City of Dublin.
(1) Renewable energy equipment – solar
(a) General Provisions
1. All solar equipment shall be installed to conceal frames, flashing, fasteners,
hardware, conduit, wires and similar elements.
2. Any solar generating materials that function as a building material such as
windows, roof or other residential or commercial materials shall be reviewed as
the building material.
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Black Font-Existing Code Language
Blue Front-New Language
Red Font-Changes Based on Planning and Zoning Commission
2
3. All solar energy equipment shall be well-maintained and remain in working order.
If not, then all equipment and associated materials shall be removed or replaced.
(b) Ground Mounted Equipment
1. Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted to be
located to the side or rear of the principal structure and within five feet of the
principal structure. Ground-mounted equipment is not permitted forward of a
principal structure or along a public right-of-way.
2. Ground-mounted renewable energy equipment-solar shall be sited to minimize
view from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, and shall be
camouflaged to the extent that the equipment can function normally screened
by Section 153.133(C) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
3. Ground-mounted equipment shall meet all required setbacks. The equipment
shall not exceed six feet in height, unless otherwise permitted by this section.
This shall be measured from established grade to the top of the equipment.
4. Ground-mounted equipment in non-residential districts shall not exceed 25% of
the gross floor area of the principal structure(s), unless otherwise permitted.
(c) Building or Roof Mounted Equipment
1. Building or roof mounted equipment is permitted to be only located to the side or
rear of the principal structure.
2. Building or roof mounted equipment is permitted to the front of a principal
structure only when the equipment is architectural integrated into the design of
the building and incorporated as a standard building materials, including but not
limited to shingles, windows, and façade materials.
3. Roof-mounted equipment shall be a color that is complementary to the roof
color.
4. Roof-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy is permitted provided
it extends no more than 18 12 inches beyond above the roofline and is non-
adjustable or movable.
5. Roof-mounted equipment for the collection of solar energy shall be integrated
into the architectural design of the structure to the extent practicable that the
equipment can normally function.
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
RENEWABLE ENERGY EQUIPMENT - SOLAR
Black Font-Existing Code Language
Blue Front-New Language
Red Font-Changes Based on Planning and Zoning Commission
3
6. For pitched roofs, roof-mounted solar equipment shall:
a) Be mounted parallel to the roof plane,
b) Limit protrusions,
c) Not extend over the edge of the roofline,
d) Use a single material type (i.e. all shingles or panels),
e) Be configured and have an assembly profile complementary to the roof line,
f) Be installed to minimize the number of corners, and
g) Avoid complex and nonsymmetrical configurations.
7. For flat roofs, roof-mounted solar equipment is permitted and shall be screened
in accordance with §153.077.
(d) Review Procedures
All applications for renewable solar energy equipment-solar within residential and
nonresidential zoning districts shall require approval by the required reviewing body,
prior to the gaining approval of a building permit.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
Board of Zoning Appeals
Thursday, October 27, 2022
Members Present: Jason Deschler, Joseph Nigh, Robin Clower, Patrick Murphy, and Dan Garvin
MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH 1 ABSTENTION TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE
RECORD AND APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM 9-22-22.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JOINT WORK SESSION
ON 8-31-22.
TABLED CASE
1. Wadsworth Residence at 6240 Post Road, 22-130V, Non-Use (Area) Variance
A Variance to allow solar panels as an accessory structure to be located on a street-facing
façade on a 1.32-acre site is zoned Planned Unit Development District – Indian Run Meadows.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0 TO TABLE THE VARIANCE.
COMMUNICATIONS
Tammy Noble - This is the time of year meeting dates are being created for consideration for
the next year. The rules and regulations state the BZA meets the fourth Thursday of every
month. She asked the Board if they had a desire to meet on a different day of the week for
October because she recalled scheduling issues.
The Chair - Conflicts in years past were due to Beggar’s Night falling on the meeting
night/Thursday and the Board members wanting to participate with their families. The
October meeting was not an issue this year because it falls on a Monday and there is not
going to be an issue for October 2023 because the 31st falls on a Tuesday.
Tammy Noble – Joint Work Session date(s) will also be identified earlier to better
accommodate members’ schedules.
Tammy Noble – There is a potential case to be reviewed in November and the application is
not for Solar Panels.
ADJOURNMENT 7:28 PM
MEETING MINUTES
Board of Zoning Appeals
Thursday, October 27, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Deschler, Chair, called the October 27, 2022, meeting of the City of Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) to order at 6:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Board Members present: Mr. Deschler, Mr. Nigh, Mr. Clower, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Gavin
Staff present: Ms. Noble and Mr. Hounshell
ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Clower moved, Mr. Murphy seconded, to accept the documents into the record and approve the meeting
minutes from September 22, 2022.
Vote: Mr. Garvin, abstain; Mr. Nigh, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Murphy, yes; and Mr. Clower, yes.
[Motion carried 4-0 with 1 Abstention]
Mr. Nigh moved, Mr. Murphy seconded, to approve the meeting minutes from the Joint Session held on
August 31, 2022.
Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Clower, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Murphy, yes; and Mr. Nigh, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0]
CASE PROCEDURES
The Chair briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Board of Zoning Appeals and swore in Staff and
any members of the public who planned to address the Board during the meeting.
Prior to this meeting, the applicant for case 22-131V – Yi Residence at 6056 Brigids Close Drive, requested
to postpone for a later date.
Mr. Jesse Stamp stated there may be some presentations from Staff this evening about potential updates
being considered to the solar panel Code by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. These
are not law yet; changes are still being considered by City Council. The focus for tonight’s meeting needs
to be on the criteria in the Code, which is the same that was applied at the meeting last month.
Ms. Noble stated her comments relate to the Board’s questions since the last meeting. There is a list of all
permits that have been issued from the Building Department in terms of solar panels. This data includes
the locations where all solar panels were approved. Staff has received information where solar panels were
installed without permits and will be pursuing information about those. The City has been communicating
with the public that included private meetings with Home Owner Associations (HOAs) to discuss the Code
modifications being considered along with Council’s goals. The latest modifications were presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission last Thursday, October 20, 2022. Staff received very direct feedback as
DRAFT
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2022
Page 2 of 8
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
DRAFT
to the Code language that would be adopted and the amendment should move forward to City Council with
a minimum of two readings. The first will occur in November and the second i s anticipated for December.
In addition, the communications team has sent Senate Bill 61 information to the HOAs to facilitate
conversations they may be having.
TABLED CASE
1. Wadsworth Residence at 6240 Post Road, 22-130V, Non-Use (Area) Variance
The Chair - This is an application for a Variance to allow building-mounted solar panels as an accessory
structure to be located on a street-facing façade on a 1.32-acre site is zoned Planned Unit Development
District – Indian Run Meadows. The site is located ±250 feet northwest of the intersection of Post Road
with Holt Drive.
Mr. Hounshell – He presented the same information that was presented at the September meeting for the
benefit of the member that was not in attendance. A n aerial view of the site included a number of mature,
evergreen trees along Post Road as well as mature vegetation to the rear of the property where a stream
runs along the north property line. A photograph showed the existing conditions from Post Road with the
evergreens split only by the width of the driveway.
Current Code language on Solar Panels:
• Residential solar panels are not currently listed as a specific use in areas excluding the West
Innovation District, Bridge Street District, and the Dublin Corporate Area Plan.
• To allow solar panels with existing Code language, the City utilizes Zoning Code Section
153.074(B)(6)(a) which regulate accessory structures.
• All accessory structures are required to be constructed within the permitted buildable area of a lot,
behind all applicable setback lines, and to the rear or side of the principal structure.
• The applicants are requesting solar panels to the front façade of their home , which necessitates
review by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
A graphic was presented showing the areas proposed for 31 solar panels to be mounted on the south-
facing roof.
Staff has reviewed the application against the Non-use Variance Review Criteria and found the first three
criteria have not been met when all three are required to be met. Since the totality of the requirements
above were not met per Staff’s analysis, disapproval was recommended for the Non-Use (Area) Variance
to Zoning Code §153.074(B)(6)(a) to allow solar panels as an accessory structure to be located on a street-
facing façade.
Questions for Staff
Mr. Gavin – He asked if the applicant’s house sits far enough back from the street that the solar panels
would not be visible.
Mr. Hounshell – The setback of the home from Post Road is 120 feet.
Applicant Presentation
Kevin Wadsworth, 6240 Post Road, said the only way to see the house is a view from the driveway. He
took a photograph of the house at eye level, which is not visible due to the 30-foot pine trees. There is a
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2022
Page 3 of 8
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
DRAFT
line of trees on the east side of the property, also, which screen very well. The house meets unique
conditions as it faces south along with 45% of houses in Dublin and the only economical place to install
solar panels is on the south-facing roof. At the last meeting we discussed ground-mounted systems but
they are less efficient and by the language in the current Code, ground-mounted panels could be installed
to the west side or the rear of the house but would be more expensive and less efficient, defeating the
purpose of the solar panels. The house is on a septic system and the entire front yard is a leach bed where
planting trees is not permitted. Without shade, the electric use is quite high, which makes them a great
candidate to switch to solar panels on the south/street -facing side of the house. This also sets them apart
from other residential homes in Dublin. This property is not in a neighborhood, it is on a rural road without
a sidewalk and the house is set back 120 feet from Post Road. This environment makes their property
unique as compared to a lot of houses in Dublin and is visually screened from the neighbors.
When he sought a solar company, Ecohouse provided him with one of the references on 5676 Tara Hill,
just a block north of them who had a solar system installed on the south face of their roof that was
completed in 2021. The Code has not changed since 2021, only the interpretation of the Code has. He
was told at the September meeting he would be in compliance if he built a shed on the west side of his
property and added the solar panels to the shed on the south-facing roof. That did not make a lot of sense.
Sometime in 2022, the City decided they did not like solar panels on street-facing facades so the accessory
structure requirements were applied. That in itself is a reasonable verification for a Variance to the Code.
Mr. Deschler asked Staff to clarify as the applicant’s statement may not be accurate.
Ms. Noble – In the current Code, solar panels are not a permitted use outside of the three areas Mr.
Hounshell noted. Solar panels are not a use allowed in the Zoning Code. To allow for opportunities under
the current Code, Staff found the accessory structure section as a temporary relief to allow some solar
panels until the Code could be updated.
Mr. Wadsworth – He consulted with a lawyer about this. The attorney’s answer was if something is not in
the Code, it is allowed. Staff has taken the complete opposite approach where if something is not in the
Code, it is disallowed. 5676 Tara Hill Drive applied and were approved for two different permits in 2021:
one to install solar panels and the other for the electrical component when the Code was the same and
allowed.
Mr. Descheler – The City made a determination at some point in time.
Ms. Noble – Before Staff was able to make a consolidated decision with the Building Department, solar
panels would be reviewed as an accessory use/structure. The Building Department had different
interpretations under which they issued permits. That is why Planning stepped in for consistency until
there is a Code Amendment was approved . Planning recognized this was not ideal and is working toward
a solution.
Public Comment
There were no online comments received.
No attendees to comment at this time.
Board Discussion
Dan Garvin – It is clear, the City does not have the appropriate language in place right now but that is
being expedited. The request would have to meet all three of the criteria in the first section and his thought
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2022
Page 4 of 8
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
DRAFT
is that it does not. The closest to meeting the criteria is the Special Condition criteria as the home is set
back and largely blocked from view. He could appreciate the energy bills, but it does not meet the other
two qualifications. While a modification could be forthcoming, he would not feel comfortable granting a
Variance now.
Mr. Clower – He asked to repeat his comments from the last meeting regarding Action/Inaction. If someone
wants to build a shed in the backyard or side yard, it is not the fact they are building a shed that would be
a problem, it is the fact that they are choosing to build it in a location that is causing the problem. If the
only place to build a shed on a property is forward of the house because there is a s teep gradient on the
backside and there is no way to build a shed on that steep gradient it is not that a homeowner wants to
build a shed that is a problem, it is if the only place to possibly build a shed is on the front of the house.
In those cases, the Board has decided it is not the action/inaction of the applicant ; they did not choose the
terrain that included a steep grade in the back yard or choose the layout of the site . The Board has ruled
in favor of the property owners for these cases.
It was not the action/inaction of the applicant wanting to build the solar panels, it is that they want to
install panels on the south-facing side of the house. It was not their option to build the roof facing the
south, they are not responsible for the sun being significantly stronger on the south side, and there is no
other location to install the solar panels. At the meeting last month, solar companies stated they do not
build on the north side of houses and they do not build ground -mounted panels for residential properties.
The only way the applicant could achieve having solar panels is on the south-facing side of the roof. Based
on previous findings, this is not the fault of the applicant to need the Variance.
Mr. Gavin – That argument makes a lot of sense. We see sheds not being built where they are required to
due to a steep terrain. Sometimes the Board is looking for alternatives rather than allowing the shed in
front of the house. Initially the process is to come as close to meeting the standard in the Code as possible.
However, the position of the solar panels for effectiveness is a gray area rather than black and white. There
are probably degrees of effectiveness at play. To have solar panels installed on the side would not require
a Variance.
Mr. Clower – Solar companies will not add panels to the north side of roofs ; it is not financially feasible.
The return on investment is not at all there. Snow does not melt off the solar panels in the winter months
because the sun is not hitting it as strongly. That adds a cumulative amount of snow on the panel that can
fall in large clumps.
Mr. Wadsworth – His house faces 180 degrees south, incident sun on the south versus the north is a factor
of 5. Over a 25-year lifespan, the solar panels are guaranteed. For panels installed on the south, electricity
is produced at 7 cents per kwh versus 14.5 cents for electricity produced by American Electric Power (AEP).
The cost is 35 cents per kwh, if installed on the north side. His house is a single-gable roof so there is no
‘side of the house’ solar panels could be installed.
Mr. Gavin – He recognized building ground-mounted solar panels is not cost effective.
Mr. Wadsworth – He clarified, ground-mounted panels are more expensive. The City has determined solar
panels on the front of the house would be an eyesore. If the Board agrees with that, a ground-mount
would be more of an eyesore than a roof-mounted system. He did not want to adversely affect his
neighbors in that way. This would also cause a challenge having to mow around the solar equipment.
Ms. Noble – If someone has a house with a front-loaded garage, it pushes their house further back to the
rear yard setback. There have been a lot of requests that have come before the Board whe re the applicant
requests to do something in the rear space, but because of the design of the house, and it was pushed
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2022
Page 5 of 8
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
DRAFT
back to the rear yard setback, they were not permitted per Code. As part of that analysis, the Board has
asked if the applicant was the original owner that designed the house, and if so, they contributed to the
problem. If it was not the owner that designed the house, it was not the applicant’s action/inaction that
caused the problem. She spoke with a lot of companies, and some companies wi ll not put solar panels on
the north side but some companies will take more liberties. It is not a blanket statement that all companies
will not build on the north side of a home. There is an economic threshold when that decision is made.
Mr. Wadsworth – More reputable companies will shy away if it does not make sense and some companies
will do anything.
Mr. Gavin – There is a clear measurable return on investment and that is not always the case with these
types of projects. The Board dealt with a fire pit case where the Variance was not granted so the fire pit
was going to have to be more expensive. The Board cannot include the economic factor when determining
outcomes. This is not black and white but more of an economic issue. There are other options available
that are less effective, economically.
Mr. Wadsworth – It was time to replace the roof and after research, he found this would be a good time
to install solar panels. With a fire pit, someone is not building it because they wan t to start a hot dog
business, they are wanting one because it is a nice feature to have. It is not the case for the solar panels.
Some people might want solar to be more environmentally friendly, which is a nice bonus, but for his family,
it is to bring the electricity costs down. He did not realize having solar panels would make sense in Ohio
like it would in Arizona until he did the research. He indicated as more people do the research, more and
more requests for solar panels will be seen in the next 5 to 10 years.
Mr. Gavin – The Board has to determine whether the solar panels can be installed in the optimal position
while seeing that the criteria is met in order to approve the Variance. As the Code is not yet solidified with
an amendment, timing is an issue.
Mr. Clower – There is a representative from a solar company present. He asked if perhaps she was ready
to provide input into this discussion.
The Chair – The Board should finish deliberation first.
Mr. Gavin – He asked the applicant to explain how he met the intent and purpose criteria.
Mr. Wadsworth – He struggled with what that wording meant. If the only reason a Variance is not granted
is “because I said so”, there is not a counter argument to that. Reasoning might be flawed but if “the Board
said so”, that is it. Criteria 3 reads, we wrote a Code stating X is not permitted. He asked how the Code did
not say that. Arbitrarily, it does not say that. He could put a shed next to his house and install solar panels
on that shed, but that has far more of an impact on the neighbors and the property value on the street
than if solar panels were installed on the rooftop where they are flat, black panels on a dark roof. He drove
past that house on Tara Hill and never noticed it had solar panels until the company pointed it out to him.
That is where he would put the intent of Criteria 3. Clearly, the intent of the Code was not there to prevent
solar panels given I could put them on a shed and our neighbors have them.
Mr. Gavin – That is where we run into the timing issue. The intent of the requirement is to keep the street -
facing homes without solar panels or with something considered distracting, an eyesore, and out of
uniformity with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. The applicant had asked how there could ever
be a case where that intent would not be impaired because it is in the Code, which is the idea behind the
Variance. Maybe this case could be put in that category of something that was not thought of at an earlier
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2022
Page 6 of 8
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
DRAFT
stage but at this point the City is operating under the idea that it is considered a non-use structure. If the
intent is to prevent anything that could be distracting or take away from the uniformity of street -facing
facades it is hard to see how the criteria has been met. He understood the frustration but right now, this
is the Code.
Mr. Clower – ‘Substantial adverse effect’ means the City does not want people building swimming pools or
sheds in their front yards where it would be hideous and cause property values to drop.
Mr. Gavin – He agreed that for those cases requirements are intended to stop that.
Mr. Clower – In a 2019 study done by Zillow, adding solar panels to the house raised property values 4.1%.
Mr. Gavin – That makes sense for the house being sold but that goes back to the economic value factor.
Mr. Clower – By raising the house value for the one house with solar panels, comps were also increased in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Nigh – He asked if those homes on Zillow had the same Code that Dublin had because he is not
understanding the relevance of that information.
Mr. Clower – The study shows solar panels do not cause a substantial adverse effect, as it is raising property
values as a whole in the United States.
Mr. Nigh – That is assuming the only reason for the Code is to affect property values. It could be people
do not like looking at them. His thoughts on this case have not changed since the September meeting. The
applicant should know where the Board stands.
Mr. Gavin – He cannot get over the third criteria and is not all the way on the first criteria. Accumulatively,
he was leaning no to granting the Variance.
Mr. Nigh – He will not support the Variance.
Mr. Murphy – The aesthetics of the neighborhood would be the only substantial adverse effect and that
will come down to a matter of taste. With the factors of the Zillow study and the added value of the panels,
we are back to the question of what the benefit is. We have had so much difficulty fitting solar panels in
as an accessory use. He has not been persuaded because nothing fits perfectly to the contour of the facts
and circumstances with the Code criteria we have to consider. Until we see significant steps moving forward
by City Council, he is not as inclined to make this decision for one specific home when there are
neighborhoods. When there is a broader standard this Board can go by, and that appears to be where the
momentum is right now, then that is where he is. He has softened given the new information the Board
has regarding the movement of City Council. He was not hot on granting a Variance at this point as it is an
imperfect match, leaning less now to granting a Variance without more information leading to the contrary.
Mr. Deschler – He as staying with the same position he had at the September meeting. A house facing
south is not a special condition. Nothing satisfies the Special Condition requirements. The applicant would
hear 4 no votes and 1 in support of a Variance if a vote was taken now.
The Chair – He asked legal if it is okay to allow someone from the solar panel company to speak now who
did not choose to speak earlier. He swore that speaker in.
Jillian Dyer, Ecohouse Solar, 1809 O’Brien Road, Columbus, Ohio 43228, said there may be companies that
will install panels on the north side but one of the largest solar companies in the country just went bankrupt
and out of business. They had a reputation for doing cheap installs that were not done up to Code and did
not always get the necessary permits. It has been a sticking point in the industry and the Ohio Attorney
General filed an injunction to not allow them to ever do business in the State of Ohio. That is the only
company that comes to mind that would build wherever. There are multiple class-action law suits against
them. As was discussed at the last meeting “Just because you can, does not mean that you should”. Most
companies in central Ohio will not install on the north side of the home. Installing a ground -mount would
require trenching and that would not be possible over a septic tank or a leach bed. There are requirements
for how deep wires need to be buried so she is not sure if they could go around it in this instance. It is
likely the array would have to be a lot larger to meet the electrical usage in the home. Being a long, narrow
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2022
Page 7 of 8
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
DRAFT
property, she was not sure how the ground equipment could be angled properly and fit within the setbacks.
It is not reasonable to expect someone when they build or move to a property to know they might need to
adhere to a Code that is not written for a technology that was not available at the time they moved in.
Household solar has only been offered in the last 10 years for most homeowners and efficient enough to
install on a single house roof. The process may be exhilarated but there is no guarantee the new Code will
not still require a Variance to be permitted.
Mr. Gavin – He asked if trees would be a factor for ground-mounted systems
Ms. Dyer – She answered affirmatively. The solar panels would need to be positioned almost due south
and there may not be enough room beside the house or behind it without being shaded by the house or
trees.
Mr. Gavin – He asked Staff if the Code was updated, if it would allow the applicant to request a new
Variance.
Mr. Stamp – Most likely, yes.
The Chair – He asked the applicant, since they were in the same position they were last month of not
having enough votes to grant a Variance, if he wanted to again table or for the Board to proceed with a
vote.
Mr. Wadsworth – He agreed to table the case. He was interested to see what would go into the revised
Code.
Mr. Clower moved, Mr. Murphy seconded, to table the Non-Use (Area) Variance to allow building-mounted,
residential solar panels as an accessory structure to be located on a street-facing façade.
Vote: Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Nigh, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Murphy, yes; and Mr. Clower, yes.
[Motion to table passed 5-0]
COMMUNICATIONS
Tammy Noble - This is the time of year meeting dates are being created for consideration for the next
year. The rules and regulations state the BZA meets the fourth Thursday of every month. She asked
the Board if they had a desire to meet on a different day of the week for October because she recalled
scheduling issues.
The Chair - Conflicts in years past were due to Beggar’s Night falling on the meeting night/Thursday
and the Board members wanting to participate with their families. The October meeting was not an
issue this year because it falls on a Monday and there is not going to be an issue for October 2023
because the 31st falls on a Tuesday.
Tammy Noble – Joint Work Session date(s) will also be identified earlier to better accommodate
members’ schedules.
• Tammy Noble – There is a potential case to be reviewed in November and the application is not for
Solar Panels.
Mr. Deschler adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m.
___________________________________
Jason Deschler, Chair
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2022
Page 8 of 8
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
DRAFT
Board of Zoning Appeals
____________________________________
Administrative Assistant II, Recorder
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes October 20, 2022
Page 15 of 18
Mr. Fishman inquired if the rock on the site is prohibitive to placing the parking under the apartment
buildings.
Mr. Gonzales responded that the rock is not prohibitive to placing parking under the apartment
buildings. It is an issue on the eastern side of the block where there is also the grade change.
Mr. Fishman stated that he believes placing parking under the apartment buildings is worth
consideration. The primary item in the proposed development tha t he has an issue with is the large
parking garage.
Ms. Call stated that the Commission looks forward to seeing the revised plan at the next
development phase.
NEW CASE
3. Solar Panels, 21-151ADMC, Administrative Request - Code Amendment
A Code Amendment to provide regulations in regard to solar panels for residential and commercial
properties within the City of Dublin.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Noble presented the case background. Several previous discussions have occurred with City
Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Architectural
Review Board regarding the need for a Code Amendment to provide regulations for renewable
energy equipment, in particular, solar panels, on both residential and commercial properties. At
their September 15, 2022 meeting, the Commission reviewed proposed Code language and
provided recommendations that have been incorporated into the revised Code amendment for the
Commission’s consideration tonight. The regulations are proposed to be added to Code Section
153.074 - Accessory Uses and Structures within the Zoning Code and will be applicable to all
residential and commercial zoning districts. Staff has researched the number of solar panel
installation permits have been issued in the City in the last 10 years, and learned that 74 permits
that have been issued, primarily for residential properties. Ms. Noble provided an overview of the
proposed solar panel regulations. If the Commission is satisfi ed with the draft Code, staff requests
a recommendation of approval be forwarded to City Council.
Commission Questions/Discussion
Mr. Supelak inquired if the proposed language, “architecturally integrated” or “incorporated as a
material,” is sufficiently effective and future proofed.
Ms. Call responded that the needed clarifications are provided in #2 under General Provisions,
which states that, “any solar-generated material that functions as a building material, such as
window, roof or other residential or commercial material, shall be reviewed as a building material.”
Mr. Supelak inquired if that means solar bricks would automatically be approved because brick is
an approved material.
Ms. Call responded that the material would be reviewed. If it is a master development, the
application would be reviewed by PZC; individual home applications would be reviewed by Building
Standards.
Mr. Supelak stated that the Building Standards’ evaluation is limited to the material’s structural
performance as a brick. Are we comfortable with that? Building Standards staff do not aesthetically
evaluate the building material.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes October 20, 2022
Page 16 of 18
Mr. Boggs responded that if the item performs as a building material – has the structural integrity
of a brick and look of a brick – it would be evaluated as a non-solar brick. The objective of the
Code, as drafted, was to avoid the step of evaluating its solar functionality.
Ms. Call inquired if the Commission was in agreement with that objective.
[The majority of members expressed agreement.]
Mr. Schneier stated that if the brick, window or shingle meets the building material requirements,
the fact that it also has solar capability is not relevant to whatever approving body reviews and
approves it. The draft language covers that intent. It does not adversely impact a material with
solar qualities.
Mr. Supelak stated that Commission members are in agreement that if the material is architecturally
integrated, it should be considered as a building material. However, neighborhoods also have
protocols in place regarding the choice of bricks, and a solar brick is a different brick.
Mr. Schneier stated that if a solar brick is proposed that, due to its function, looks different than a
standard brick, the intent is that it would not be permitted based on the fact that its appearance
is different than the approved brick. The solar building material should not be held to either a
higher or lower standard.
Mr. Fishman stated that his concern is that the argument will be made that the material functions
as a brick and looks fine, although somewhat odd.
Mr. Supelak stated that his concern is that the Building Department does not evaluate the aesthetic
factor.
Ms. Rauch stated if it is a commercial development, PZC would be reviewing the building materials.
If it is in a standard district, the Commission would not see those applications. The Commission
would review and approve the proposed building materials for a PUD.
Mr. Supelak responded that if the Commission sees the application, they have the opportunity to
evaluate the aesthetics of the solar brick. However, if the application is not reviewed by the
Commission, perhaps because of the district in which it lies, does Planning staff evaluate the
aesthetics of the materials?
Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively. The building permit review does not consist only of the
construction component; there is a zoning component, as well. Zoning staff looks at the
development text to determine what is permitted by that text.
Mr. Supelak stated that was the component he was attempting to determine – the process that
ensures that the aesthetic of the material is acceptable for that development district.
Ms. Call suggested that #2 be removed under “Building Roof Mounted,” which states that “Building
or roof-mounted equipment is permitted to the front of…..only if it is integrated with the
architectural detail.” #1 could be expanded to include that clarification.
Ms. Noble responded that the language would be revised and #1 would provide the location details.
Mr. Way stated that the proposed language applies to residential and commercial districts. Does
the commercial district cover everything, including industrial and institutional?
Staff indicated that clarification would be added.
Mr. Way inquired if it would be better to provide separate regulations for residential and non-
residential districts, even if some language is repetitive.
Ms. Rauch stated that staff looked at that possibility. However, because the requirements are
essentially the same, the two were consolidated. The only element in a commercial district that is
different is the percentage of lot coverage. There is not a separate non-residential section of the
Code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes October 20, 2022
Page 17 of 18
Ms. Call inquired if the requirement that colors shall be complementary to the roof is important to
include.
[Consensus was that it was important to include.]
Ms. Call referred to ground-mounted, renewable energy equipment requirement, “shall be sited to
minimize view…and shall be camouflaged to the extent that the equipment can function normally.”
Does that mean that if landscaping would cast a shade part of the day, the argument could be
made the equipment is not functioning normally?
Mr. Way responded that functioning normally does not mean 100% of the time.
Ms. Harter stated that it is important that the equipment be camouflaged, regardless of the
homeowner’s particular site situation.
Mr. Way suggested the word “camouflaged” be revised to “screened.”
Mr. Chinnock stated that “shall be camouflaged” could be removed, and leave “minimize the view
from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties.” The Code does not need to address
“function properly.”
[Discussion regarding screening continued.]
Ms. Rauch stated that the requirement could default to the service structure screening
requirements.
Ms. Call requested Commission consensus on removing #2 under “Building Roof-Mounted,” as it is
non applicable.
Commission consensus was to remove.
Ms. Call requested Commission consensus on revising “camouflaged” to “screened according to the
general standards for service equipment,” and remove the language, “can function normally.”
Commission consensus was to revise accordingly.
Discussion continued regarding the solar panel extension above the roofline or ridge line of the
roof. The Commission recommended that the language be revised from not above 18 inches from
the roofline to 12 inches. Staff will investigate the appropriate dimension further and revise as
needed before the draft Code is forwarded to City Council for consideration.
Ms. Harter inquired about the stipulation that the solar panels be in working order or be removed.
State laws address the aspect of maintenance in greater detail.
Ms. Noble responded that the City’s Code already includes regulations for property maintenance.
Mr. Boggs stated that the State law does not address what the C ity can do in regard to regulations,
so the City can address maintenance issues in its usual manner.
Mr. Fishman stated that #3 states that the solar panels must be maintained or removed, so the
City can enforce that. He believes there could be a problem whe n the equipment becomes obsolete
and no longer used, similar to the current issue with obsolete TV antennas. If the equipment is not
functioning, it must be removed.
Public Comment
Jillian Dyer, 2273 Indian Avenue, Columbus, OH:
“I am not a resident of Dublin, but I work for a solar company based in Dublin and have considered
moving to the area. I recently joined a resident to apply for a zoning variance for roof-mounted
solar panels, as there was no other viable place to install them. It was disappointing and
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
BOARD ORDER
Board of Zoning Appeals
Thursday, September 22, 2022 | 6:30 pm
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
MOTION: Mr. Nigh moved, Mr. Murphy seconded, to accept the documents into the record and approve
the meeting minutes from August 25, 2022.
VOTE: 4 – 0.
RESULT: The documents were accepted into the record and the minutes from the meeting on August
25, 2022, were approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jason Deschler Yes
Joseph Nigh Yes
Robin Clower Yes
Patrick Murphy Yes
Dan Garvin Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
________________________________
Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 370C4153-4456-4B6B-9C97-6025FF1BBECF
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
BOARD ORDER
Board of Zoning Appeals
Thursday, September 22, 2022 | 6:30 pm
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
1. Tomin Residence at 5692 Richgrove Lane
22-112V Non-Use (Area) Variance
Proposal: Variance to allow building-mounted, residential solar panels as an
accessory structure to be located on a street -facing façade on a 0.19-
acre site zoned Planned Low Density Residential District – Brighton Park.
Location: ±260 feet northeast of the intersection of Richgrove Lane with Kentfield
Drive.
Request: Review and approval of a Non-Use (Area) Variance under the provisions
of Zoning Code §153.231(H).
Applicant: Christopher Tomin, property owner
Planning Contact: Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4649, tnoble@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-112
MOTION: Mr. Murphy moved, Mr. Clower seconded, to table the Non-Use (Area) Variance to allow
building-mounted, residential solar panels as an accessory structure to be located on a
street-facing façade.
VOTE: 4 – 0.
RESULT: The Non-Use (Area) Variance was tabled.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jason Deschler Yes
Joseph Nigh Yes
Robin Clower Yes
Patrick Murphy Yes
Dan Garvin Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
________________________________
Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 370C4153-4456-4B6B-9C97-6025FF1BBECF
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
BOARD ORDER
Board of Zoning Appeals
Thursday, September 22, 2022 | 6:30 pm
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
2. Wadsworth Residence at 6240 Post Road
22-130V Non-Use (Area) Variance
Proposal: Variance to allow building-mounted, residential solar panels as an
accessory structure to be located on a street-facing façade on a 1.32-
acre site zoned Planned Unit Development District – Indian Run
Meadows.
Location: ±250 feet northwest of the intersection of Post Road with Holt Drive.
Request: Review and approval of a Non-Use (Area) Variance under the provisions
of Zoning Code §153.231(H).
Applicant: Jillian Dyer, Ecohouse Solar
Planning Contact: Zachary Hounshell, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-130
MOTION: Mr. Murphy moved, Mr. Clower seconded, to table the Non-Use (Area) Variance to allow
building-mounted, residential solar panels as an accessory structure to be located on a
street-facing façade.
VOTE: 4 – 0.
RESULT: The Non-Use (Area) Variance was tabled.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jason Deschler Yes
Joseph Nigh Yes
Robin Clower Yes
Patrick Murphy Yes
Dan Garvin Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
________________________________
Zachary Hounshell, Planner II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 370C4153-4456-4B6B-9C97-6025FF1BBECF
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
BOARD ORDER
Board of Zoning Appeals
Thursday, September 22, 2022 | 6:30 pm
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
3. Yi Residence at 6056 Brigids Close Drive
22-131V Non-Use (Area) Variance
Proposal: Variance to allow building-mounted, residential solar panels as an
accessory structure to be located on a street -facing façade on a 0.23-
acre site zoned Planned Low Density Residential District – Dublinshire.
Location: Northwest of the intersection of Brigids Close Drive with Curragh Court.
Request: Review and approval of a Non-Use (Area) Variance under the provisions
of Zoning Code §153.231(H).
Applicant: 7BRS Permitting, Blue Raven Solar
Planning Contact: Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4649, tnoble@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-131
MOTION: Mr. Nigh moved, Mr. Clower seconded, to table the Non-Use (Area) Variance to allow
building-mounted, residential solar panels as an accessory structure to be located on a
street-facing façade.
VOTE: 4 – 0.
RESULT: The Non-Use (Area) Variance was tabled.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jason Deschler Yes
Joseph Nigh Yes
Robin Clower Yes
Patrick Murphy Yes
Dan Garvin Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
________________________________
Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 370C4153-4456-4B6B-9C97-6025FF1BBECF
.Cityof
/ D~blin
OHIO, USA
MEETING MINUTES
Board of Zoning Appeals
Thursday, Sep t ember 22, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Deschler, Chair, called the September 22, 2022, meeting of the City of Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) to order at 6:38 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Board Members present:
Board Member absent:
Staff present:
Mr. Deschler, Mr. Nigh, Mr. Clower, and Mr. Murphy,
Mr. Gavin
Ms. Noble and Mr. Hounshell
ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS/ APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Nigh moved, Mr. Murphy seconded, to accept the documents into the record and approve the meeting
minutes from August 25, 2022.
Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Clower, yes Mr. Murphy, yes; and Mr. Nigh, yes.
[Motion carried 4-0]
CASE PROCEDURES
The Chair briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and swore in
Staff and any members of the public who planned to address the Board during the meeting.
CASE
1 . Tomin Residence at 5692 Richgrove Lane, 22-112V, Non -Use (Area) Variance
The Chair -This is an application for a Variance to allow building-mounted solar panels as an accessory
structure to be located on a street-facing fac;ade on a 0.19-acre site is zoned Planned Low Density
Residential District -Brighton Park. The site is located ±260 feet northeast of the intersection of Richgrove
Lane with Kentfield Drive.
Ms. Noble -She presented an aerial view of the site that is approximately a fifth of an acre in size and
contains a single-family home with a patio to the rear. The home is oriented towards the south with a
general layout similar to the adjacent properties to the east and west. The applicant has proposed solar
panels to be installed on the forefront of the roof.
This is the first time the Board has reviewed an application of this type. The current language in the City
of Dublin Zoning Code for solar panels is as follows:
• Residential solar panels are not currently listed as a specific use in areas excluding the West
Innovation District, Bridge Street District, and the Dublin Corporate Area Plan.
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 2 of 17
• To allow solar panels per the existing Code language, the City utilizes Zoning Code
§153 .074(B)(6)(a), which regulate accessory structures.
• All accessory structures are required to be constructed within the permitted buildable area of a lot,
behind all applicable setback lines, and to the rear or side of the principal structure.
• The applicants are requesting solar panels for the front part of the roof of their home that faces
the street, which necessitates review by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The applicant has provided two options from their solar company, Ohio Power Solutions . The first option
indicates 12 panels that produce 5,932 Kwh pe r year on the south/street-facing portion of the roof and the
second option contains 19 panels and produces 5,828 kwh per year on the north portion of the roof.
Planning has taken into cons ideration both options in this general location. She presented a photograph of
the home as viewed from the street.
This application was reviewed against the Non-Use Variance Review Criteria of which none were met.
All three criteria in the first set need to be met and shared Staff's findings for the criteria :
1. Special Conditions -Criteria Not Met
The site is similar in size to the adjacent properties and the applicant's house, along with adjacent
properties, are southern facing. There are no special conditions .
2. Applicant Action/Inaction -Criteria Not Met
The Variance request is necessitated by the applicant and is necessitated on the basis of switching to
renewable energy on the home .
3. Impair the Intent & Purpose of the Requirement-Criteria Not Met
The Variance reques t would directly impact the requirements and intent for all accessory structures to
be located forward of the build ing.
The City is in the process of revising the Code but at this point in time, Staff and the Board must follow
this criteria . The second set of criteria are less stringent and include four criteria, of which two have to be
met in order to allow this Variance. Staff found two of the cr iteria had been met as follows:
1. Special Privileges -Cr iteria Met
Several properties within the zoning district could obtain roof-mounted solar panels that meet zoning
requirements due to the orientation of each home that does not have a south-facing front fac;ade.
2. Recurrent Nature -Criteria Not Met
The request is recurrent in nature to warrant a Code upda t e to contemplate locations and requirements
for solar panels in a res idential district.
3 . Delivery of Governmental Services -Criteria Met
The proposed location of the solar panels would not affect the delivery of governmental services.
4. Other Method Available -Criteria Not Met
Utilizing solar energy can be accommodated by other methods that may be less economical but
continue to produce energy. The appl icant states that by adhering to the Code the solar panels would
PLANNING 5200 Emera ld Park way Dublin , Ohio 43017 phone 61 4.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
,,.
· [VfRYTHl~G GRONS H[R[
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 3 of 17
be "an underperforming, over-expensive solar system". However, the Board does not factor in cost
when reviewing applications for Variances.
Questions for Staff
Mr. Clower -The City plans to change these requirements in the Code and asked if there was a draft
version yet, available to the public.
Ms. Noble -Planning Staff presented a version to the Planning and Zoning Commission {PZC) in April 2022
and they requested more information about the functionality of solar and the advancing technologies.
Planning Staff presented again to the PZC on September 15, 2022, and a Code Update should be ready for
review in the next month or so.
Mr. Clower -He asked if building mounted solar panels will still fall under the accessory structure category.
Ms. Noble -The draft document will not include accessory structures and will be a standalone Code
modification for solar panels.
Mr. Clower -He asked what the draft document states about street-facing solar panels.
Ms. Noble -Based on the feedback received last week from the PZC, there is not a draft currently in place.
There has been limited support for street-facing solar panels but staff is obtaining options for those
situations.
Mr. Clower -He asked how much of a role the particulars of the house (roof pitch) will factor into the
language of the 'yet to be drafted' regulation.
Ms. Noble -General aesthetics and material choices have been a larger topic than the functionality of solar
panels.
Mr. Deschler -The applicant had provided a photograph of a house and an address with front fac;ade solar
panels and asked Staff to confirm if it was located in Dublin.
Ms . Noble -There have been conversations with the City's Building Department as solar panel applications
for permits have been reviewed within the Building Department as a structural device and contain an
electronic component. Staff needs to be cohesive in how the permits have been reviewed. Staff has not
identified if all the locations where solar panels have been installed, were first reviewed and a permit
approved and whether they precede the Code that identified solar panels as accessory structures. She
deferred to the applicant on this particular location.
Mr. Nigh -He wanted to ensure that each of the applicants for the three cases being heard this evening
were aware that since there is one Board Member absent, three of the members would have to approve
the request and if the Board was split 2 -2, the Variance would not be approved due to the lack of a
majority. The applicants also have the opportunity to request to table this evening and wait until the
measures for Code Amendments are finalized and approved .
Mr. Clower -Normally, the process is, if an application is denied, the applicant has to wait one (1) year
before reapplying. In this case, if the applicant does not receive the requisite three (3) votes and are
denied, if the applicants would have to wait a full year or when the Code has been amended and apply
under the new regulations.
Ms. Noble -It is undetermined at this point what the regulations will allow but as soon as the new
regulations go into effect, the applicant may reapply.
Applicant Presentation
Chris and Olga Tomin. property owners, 5692 Richgrove Lane -Mr. Tomin said the main point in their case
is about efficiency. The solar panel company first presented just a solar panel installation on the front
portion of the roof as it is the most obvious placement as the Tomins live on a street that runs east-west
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Du bl in, Oh io 43 017 phone 614.4 10 .460 0 dublinohiousa.gov
fVf.RYTHll'iG CROWS ll(RE.
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 4 of 17
with the front of the house facing south. If the panels were placed on the north side of the house, algae
starts to build with the absence of sunlight. Significantly more panels would be needed to provide even
less electricity. 19 panels would produce less than 90% of the energy that is needed for our young family
based off of the current electric bills and as the two children grow, the panels would produce even less of
the energy needed. Panels installed on the front makes the most sense and will provide energy for the
whole property. Given the current Zoning Code, it will not make sense for anyone residing in Dublin with
the front of the house facing south to have solar panels . The solar panels will not produce enough energy
to power the house.
Ms . Tomin -Our house does not face a main street with a lot of traffic. The only people that view our
house are our neighbors and many of them have been inquiring to the progress in recent weeks; all of
which support the project. The photograph taken of our house makes the roof appear to be a light gray
when in fact, it is a darker shade of gray. The panels proposed will be black; they are not proposing a lime
green product with red polka dots. Our house is not a historic building; it was built in 1994. The applicants
are trying to raise awareness about renewable energy resources.
Ms. Tomin read from the Zoning Code §153.074(B)(6)(a) as referenced by Ms. Noble:
All accessory uses and structures including swimming pools/ and associated decking shall
be constructed within a buildable area of a lot behind all applicable setback lines and to
the rear or side of the principle structure.
Ms. Tomin -She understood solar panels are considered an accessory; but they are not intending on adding
a swimming pool or deck on the front of their house. She also found on the City's website case 21-151
Administrative Request -Code Amendment was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April
21, 2022 . Under MUR-4, Renewable Energy Equipment, as an accessory use in all districts would use
specific standards. Item 3 : Rooftop and Building-Mounted Equipment shall adhere to the following
requirements:
A. Rooftop equipment for the collection of solar energy shall not extend beyond the maximum
permitted height of the principle structure.
B. Building-Mounted Renewable Energy Equipment shall be completely integrated into the
architectural character of the principle structure and shall not be located on an elevation fac ing
residential use.
Ms. Tomin -They are within the limits as stated. They have not proposed something outrageous; they are
just planning to install the solar panels where they are efficient. The way the house is situated and the roof
is sloped, they cannot install the panels on the backside.
Questions for the Applicant
Mr. Clower -He asked for the location of the house referenced earlier that has solar panels installed on a
south/street-facing street. The address was 6152 Jacana Drive, off of Avery Road.
Mr. Tomin -When the application was submitted a few months ago, he even referenced the Ward it was
in but cannot recall now.
Mr. Clower -He requested confirmation that the 12 panels could be installed on the front versus the 19
panels on the back.
Ms. Tomin -She answered those were the options they were provided and the pitch of the roof is 32
degrees.
Mr. Clower -He confirmed the house reference on Jacana Drive is across from the soccer fields . A
photograph of the house was shown on screen.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin , Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov . --
[ HRYTHl~C GROWS Hl Rl
...!· ~··
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 5 of 17
Mr. Deschler-He confirmed the house was in Hawk's Nest. He asked Staff for information on this address.
Ms. Noble -There are two scenarios that could have taken place. The solar panels were constructed without
permits or constructed before solar panels were identified as an accessory structure.
Mr. Deschler-It is the City's pos ition that there is this home that has solar panels on a street-facing fac;ade
that is not relevant to the cases this evening.
Ms. Noble -Toe home does not meet the Code restrictions that are applied to this application.
Mr. Clower -He asked when the City started enforcing that solar panels were considered accessory
structures.
Ms. Noble -Permits are issued by the Building Department so exact dates are not available. She estimates
within the last couple of years.
Mr. Deschler -He clarified with Staff that regardless of the reason, the fact that this house in Dublin has
front-facing solar panels, is simply not relevant for the Board's consideration this evening, to which Ms.
Noble answered in the affirmative.
Jesse J. Shamp, Frost Brown Todd. 10 W. Broad St.. Ste 2300. Columbus. OH 43215 -The only difference
is this Board did not grant a Variance for that address.
Mr. Tomin -Toe audience provided him with more properties in Dublin with solar panels on street-facing
roofs. If nothing has been approved by the Board, perhaps those properties pre-date Code restrictions.
Mr. Clower -A Google search on the address for Jacana Drive showed a picture taken from the street in
August 2019, which did not have solar panels, which is right in line with the timeframe discussed by Staff.
Mr. Nigh-All three of the first set of three criteria have to be met to approve the application. Toe applicant
is required to present to the Board how all three of these have been met. He asked the applicant for the
Special Condition (Criteria 1) for his property that does not exist somewhere else.
Mr. Tomin -Our property is special because it is not a one-off case; any house on the north side of the
street is going to run into the same issue.
Ms. Tomin -Our house is special because of the direction of the pitch.
Mr. Nigh -Stating that your house faces a direction that many others in the City face is the exact opposite
of a Special Condition. He asked if there was anything else that was special about the property.
Ms. Tomin -She repeated this is applicable to this case.
Toe Chair -Even if the Board were to agree that is a Special Condition, he asked if the applicants could
apply the second and third criteria.
Mr. Clower -Toe Action is not that you want to build solar panels on the house, it is that the solar panels
you wish to install are what is causing the action.
Mr. Shamp -He clarified the applicant is requesting the Variance out of need because the applicant wants
to install solar panels on the front of the house. A Variance is not needed, if the panels are installed on the
back of the house. The Action that has necessitated the Variance is the applicant's decision for economic
and efficiency reasons. The applicant does not have to do that to have solar panels but might be more
costly and less efficient.
Mr. Tomin -In this situation, it defeats the purpose of having solar panels on a house if it cannot supply
the energy needs of the home.
Mr. Clower -He asked about the third criteria. He asked the applicant how adding solar panels on the
street-facing fac;ade does not adversely affect the neighborhood.
Mr. Tomin -He asked how the solar panels on a street-facing fac;ade would affect the neighborhood.
Ms. Noble -Toe whole intent of the Code Section is to allow certain locations for accessory uses and this
is the one location that is prohibited.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 430 17 pho ne 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov --------
EVERYTIIING GROWS HCRE.
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 6 of 17
Mr . Nigh -The intent of the City, per the Code, is to not have solar panels on the front of the house . The
applicant would have to state why this was not contrary to the intent of the Code to permit panels on the
front of his house.
Mr. Tomin -He asked for an example of a similar residential situation where this criteria had been met
because the way it was just phrased, it is meant not to be met. The Board is asking the applicant/us to
prove why the Code does not apply to us . The whole point of the Code is to keep people from doing
something that is not permitted.
Ms. Noble -This Board has approved Variances but the process is meant to be difficult. It is for instances
where the Code cannot be met to accommodate the use requested. There are no similar instances for solar
panels, as of yet.
Mr . Tomin -He asked for a general residential issue that would meet this criteria so he could frame his
argument from that example .
Ms. Noble -In June, 2022, the Board approved a Variance for a property owner (Johanssen's) to allow a
structure in front of the principle structure based on the topography and the size and shape of the lot.
Mr. Tomin -He asked how that application met the criteria, specifically.
Ms. Noble -That property owner would not have been able to build an accessory structure/shed because
of the conditions of the site unless a Variance was approved allowing the applicant to build it where it was
not permitted per the Code.
The Chair-The difficult situation here is the Code Section is currently under consideration for modifications
to allow in certain instances where perhaps front-facing, solar panels could be permitted within the City.
The applicants this evening are falling in this gap period for requesting solar panels now. There is going to
be reluctance on this Board to approve this Variance or set an improper precedent. The applicant's option
if solar panels are wanted now, need to be placed on the north/rear side of the house .
Mr. Nigh -A lot of the people requesting Variances from this Board have no other options. He reiterated
that the applicant does not have to request a vote for approval of the Variance but could request a vote to
table the application.
Public Comment
Ms. Noble -There is a new process for signing in electronically but she was not sure how that information
is to be relayed to the Board. She suggested the Chair just ask the audience if anyone wanted to provide
public comment.
Bob Moffit. 5667 Kentfield Drive, lives in same neighborhood and supports anyone putting solar panels in,
front or back . Solar panels have probably evolved since the Code was conceived. Panels are all black now,
streamlined, and have a low profile. Somewhat by default, 25% of the homes in the neighborhood are
going to fall under this same situation and will be limited on the ability to have solar panels. If the Code is
kept the same, it will prevent 25% of Dublin of being able to make a good financial and environmental
decision for their own home.
Kevin Wadsworth, 6240 Post Road (actually the second applicant), the Department of Energy and NREL
both have good solar modeling. The difference in solar gain from a south-facing panel versus a north-facing
panel in one year is negative 5. Solar panels are an efficient way to generate energy. AEP is 15 cents a
kwh, putting a solar panel on the south side of his house, over a 25 year period which they are under
warranty for, works out to 7 cents a kwh, half the price he is paying to AEP right now for electricity . If put
on the north side, 7 cents goes to 35 cents a kwh. There is no reason to do that.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkwa y Dublin , Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohlousa.gov
C -l.'ll R YTHINq GHOW S HtRf .
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 7 of 17
Before he signed a contract with EcoHouse Solar, some references were provided for people to talk to and
one of the residents lived on Tara Hill; that installation occurred in 2020 and was permitted by the Building
Department. The same black panels were used on the roof. He was not a lawyer but identifying solar panels
as an accessory structure is a stretch. He thought someone from the City decided they were going to stop
people from adding solar panels and came up with stretching the accessory structure requirements to make
it fit since there was nothing in the Code at that time. That is not the right fit and there are a lot of houses
in Dublin with solar panels. 2020 was not that long ago when the same type of panels were permitted. The
Board is reluctant to let the Tomin's do what a lot of their neighbors might have done, as recently as two
years ago.
Staff addressed the public comment.
Ms. Noble -Solar is not a use listed in Dublin's Zoning Code that is permitted outside of the three locations:
Bridge Street, the West Innovation District, and the Dublin Corporate Area Plan . Until solar could be included
in the Code properly, Staff needed a way to implement solar; accessory uses was the best option found for
the use of solar panels at the side or the rear of a structure. Staff realized the limitations imposed until a
proper Code could be created and approved.
Jillian Dyer. 2273 Indiana Avenue, a representative of EcoHouse, was attending with Kevin Wadsworth
( case 2). EcoHouse does not install panels on the north side of houses in Central Ohio as it is not worth it.
People would end up paying more than if they were just paying for regular electricity, which prevents
people with a south-facing house to install panels and experience the benefits. In the winter, even if a
small amount of power is produced, there are brooms sold for sweeping off the snow from the roof.
EcoHouse does not recommend that as it is more likely the solar panel would get damaged trying to remove
snow or ice off the panels. Getting the panels fixed or replaced would be more expensive. Black panels on
the south side of a roof will help snow melt more quickly from the sun. Just because there is a plan that
shows that solar panels could be put on the north side of the house, does not mean you should do it and
it would not be useful.
Mr. Tomin -He asked to address the Board, again. The whole reason they provided the north option was
at the behest of the City. The applicant was told it was a good idea to show how less efficient panels
installed on the north side would be. His provider also recommended against installing any panels on the
north side.
David Shell. 5582 Baybrook Lane, fully supported the Tomin's effort. The Board has been very conservative
with interpreting the Code identifying solar panels as an accessory structure but solar panels are also like
a shingle, performing the same exact function. A case could be made that the first criteria is met and based
on that, the second and third criteria would fall in line. Criteria 2 & 3 are built-in rejections that occur when
the first is not met. The Code is not stating it cannot be done, but the Board is interpreting that solar panels
cannot be permitted.
Ms. Noble -Those policy decisions are not made by this Board.
Mr. Clower -He asked Ms. Noble to speak to Mr. Tomin's statement that Staff recommended that
comparison be added for the Board to consider.
Mr. Tomin -There was a Zoom call with Bob/the solar provider, Ms. Noble and another staff member and
Bob asked if it would be helpful to provide that information and Ms. Noble agreed it should be added to
the application, which the Tomin's provided. Bob made it clear panels should not be added to the north
side of the roof. The intent of adding the proposal for the back half of the house was not a good solution
for the applicant.
PLANNING 5200 Eme rald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43 017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
lVl RYHll~G CHOWS HfRl
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 8 of 17
Ms. Noble -Staff guides applicants in preparation for the Board. Not knowing what that analysis would
have brought, she could imagine that conversation was more of the panels absolutely cannot be installed
at another location. She did not anticipate the fact that the north side would be less efficient would become
a conclusion.
Ms. Tomin -She reiterated the solar company professional recommended not placing the panels on the
north side because when trying to clear the snow off, the panels will be damaged and potentially an unsafe
practice for the homeowner. She wondered if this subject came up the first time solar panels were being
considered. This cannot be the first time efficiency and the need for the solar panels to be cleaned after
snowfall has been discussed. She assumed all the solar panel companies in Central Ohio must anticipate
and believe the same.
Mr. Clower -He asked the applicant if her installer stated the same as Ms. Dyer from EcoHouse.
Ms. Tomin -She did not talk with the installer, personally but her husband received the information from
the installer that installation on the north side was not the way to go.
Jill Raudabaugh. 6329 Conleth Circle, referred to a case where a Variance was granted to permit a shed to
be on the front of the property when it was required to be to the rear of the property; that is very analogous
because the shed could have been built on the back if the homeowner would spend a lot of money to build
a very sophisticated infrastructure that would adjust off of a cliff. Additionally, they could have built that
shed on the back of the house. That Variance was granted and the solar panel issue is the same kind of
argument.
Board Discussion
Mr. Nigh -There has been a lot of great information presented but what is missing is, the Board is not the
body that writes the Code and does not decide what is an accessory structure. While those arguments
could be extremely valid, it is not for this Board to debate. He has heard solid arguments for why there
needs to be a change to the Code that needs to be re-evaluated, which the City agrees. There is a divide
between what is happening here and what the Board is tasked with deciding based on what is being asked.
This should not be the section in the Code for the Board to follow but that is not a determination for this
Board. The Board is not ignoring those statements but are tasked with dealing with a very narrow subject.
He agreed with the statements made earlier, these standards in this Code Section seem to make it very
difficult to obtain a Variance and that appeared to be the intent. He wanted to go over first, what the Board
has to review versus the valid and well-educated comments that have been made of which the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council have to consider, next.
Mr. Clower -The Substantial Adverse Effect, just by the language of intent and purpose of the requirement
being varied is relatively invalid. -The Board has determined Solar Panels have been accommodated into
the Code the only way possible until a code modification can be compiled yet clearly not the intent of the
section. That is the intent and purpose of the requirement being varied. If these were solar shingles, we
would not be having this discussion because they would not be considered an accessory structure.
Mr. Shamp -There are two clauses in that third criteria. Substantial Adverse Effect to property or
improvements in the vicinity or will not materially impair the intent and purpose of this other requirement.
Staff stated permitting them in the front materially impairs the intent and purpose of the requirement rather
than causes a substantial adverse effect to the property or improvements.
Mr. Clower -The intent of this is to prevent someone from building an aesthetically displeasing structure .
He asked what the adverse effect was in this case. In a Zillow study, adding solar panels to the house
raises the value by 4.1 %. Solar panels do not have a negative effect to the house value, it raises the value
of the house. Studies show 80% of buyers say energy efficient features are important when buying a house
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkwa y Dublin , Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
f VI HY THl~G GROWS HERT
'
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 9 of 17
and are more inclined to buy solar panels. To address a neighbor1s perception of solar panels, a main
talking point in Dublin, there have not been any studies on the neighboring land values other than full-
scale commercial solar installed, like a giant solar field. A house selling for 4.1% more in a neighborhood
because of having solar panels increases the comp value for all the houses in the neighborhood. Zillow is
seeing this 4.1 % increase of sales on several houses in a neighborhood that increases the value of all
houses in the neighborhood. Therefore, he did not see how there can be a substantial adverse effect of
someone installing solar panels in a neighborhood, if it raises home values on that house or the surrounding
houses.
Mr. Deschler -He asked if Mr. Clower was in favor of passing this Variance.
Mr. Clower -The third requirement does not make any sense for any of the cases to be reviewed this
evening. Therefore, the criteria is met for this particular case in front of us.
Mr. Nigh -He asked Mr. Clower if he would grant a Variance in this case.
Mr. Clower -Based solely on requirement three, yes, but requirements one and two still need to be
addressed. For criteria two. Action/Inaction: This Board has found in the past, if someone wanted to build
a shed, as discussed earlier, there is nothing preventing someone from building a shed in their backyard.
Because of the topography, there was no other place to build a shed. It was not the action of wanting to
build a shed, it was wanting to build a shed in a particular location because of geography of the land. The
solar panel providers have stated installing solar panels on the north side of a house is a "no-go". The snow
is dangerous, it is way less efficient, if they are trying to remove the snow, they face potential injury by
getting on the roof when there is snow and ice. The solar provider did not want to even give an estimate
for installation on the north side for this case and the other two cases we will review later, do not give that
estimate, we would be penalizing this applicant for providing the Board with the comparison. The solar
panel professionals and the homeowners stated this is not something that is recommended. It is not the
fact the homeowners want to build solar panels on the front/south side of the house that is a problem.
They literally cannot build solar panels anywhere other than the south-facing side of the house.
Mr. Tomin -Multiple solar providers came out to provide a quote. After the applicant learned Dublin did
not allow solar panels on street-facing roofs, two of the three providers said they could not help us. It was
only one provider that offered to align with us to fight for a Variance request and the other two completely
backed out.
Mr. Clower -Solar panels providers are coming out to these homeowners and stating they would like to
install solar panels on the house, but the only place they can be installed is on the south side, which is
street-facing. Two-thirds of the providers stated they cannot install panels otherwise. That is not Applicant
Action; it is wanting to build solar panels on the only location possible and that is the same as wanting to
build a shed on the only viable location possible. That criteria was met in the shed case so the criteria
should be found met in this case.
Mr. Clower -Special Condition -If all the houses face the south, there are no special conditions. If 25%
of the houses in Dublin are on south-facing streets, none of those houses would be permitted to have solar
panels. The City is working on changing the Code but in the meantime, the Board is still held to the specific
criteria. In this case, the pitch of the roof is 32%, which is a 50% drop in efficiency. If there is a low-
pitched or flat roof, there would be a non-issue. It becomes increasingly more challenging to build solar
panels on higher-pitched roofs. The Special Condition for this house applies as there is nothing else in the
Code that states all the houses facing a certain side of the street are not permitted to do "X".
When houses have a side-loaded garage, the requirement is to build the house further back on the property
making it harder to include patios so Variances for those cases were approved as having a special condition
even with other houses in the neighborhood with side-loaded garages. When 25% of the houses in Dublin
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Park way Dublin, Oh io 43017 ph one 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
EVERYTHl ~C CROWS HERE.
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 10 of 17
are affected, there is a problem including this house, which is a Special Condition with this house and the
pitch of the roof is 32% completely prevents it from getting solar panels. The last part of this criteria is the
practical difficulty and in this instance is there is no way to install solar panels on the north side of the
home as the sun would not produce the same efficiency, the solar panels would be more expensive for a
worst result deeming it not economical and a worthless addition.
Ms. Noble -There are location requirements in many sections of the Code.
Mr. Deschler -He asked Mr. Tomin if his house was governed by a Home Owner's Association (HOA).
Bob Moffit, HOA representative as the treasurer for the last 10 or 15 years or so was present.
Mr. Deschler -He asked Mr. Moffit if there were any Code regulations/declarations, or restrictions under
the HOA.
Mr. Moffit -There are three requirements: Must have a certain mailbox; satellite dishes were not originally
permitted because when the Code was written they were huge but when they became much smaller, they
were installed all over; clotheslines are not permitted; and fences must follow the Dublin City Code
requirements.
Mr. Deschler -Mr. Clower sounds like he would be in favor of granting a Variance in this instance.
Mr. Clower -If any of his arguments are wrong, he was willing to entertain those. Personally, he felt
strongly about criteria two and three as being met. The first criteria was the one by far that he struggled
with the most. He requested comments and feedback from the rest of the Board.
Mr. Murphy-He asked if there were any deed restrictions that would preclude the applicant from installing
the solar panels, albeit it does not govern the decision of this Board.
Mr. Tomin -None to his knowledge.
Mr. Murphy -To address the Special Conditions and 25% of the homes in Dublin would not be permitted
to enjoy the benefits of solar panels is fairly compelling. Couple that with the inclement weather in Central
Ohio and the risks faced, not just with the efficiency of the panels themselves in the winter time but also
in the maintenance placed in a certain area of the home would create special conditions.
Action and Inaction depends on our definition but utility charges are an issue and again the maintenance
needs to be taken into consideration putting the homeowner in harm's way.
Intent of the Code -there is an incongruence here with what the Board normally sees with the Variance
requests. Going back to the example of the shed proposed for a flagship lot with a significantly sloped
backyard. The Variance was granted because the front was the only viable area to place a shed. He was
inclined to agree with the arguments made by Mr. Clower.
Mr. Nigh -Intent of the Code. The argument has been that it does not impair the other homes. He asked
legal to explain the impairment of the Code. It would directly impact the intent of the Code, if that is to not
have someone install panels on a certain facing element. If the Board were to grant that Variance, the
Board would be doing the exact opposite of the intent.
Mr. Shamp -Yes, that is what the language states; to not materially impair the intent and purpose of the
requirement being varied. They called out examples in the Code are swimming pools and sheds but the
requirement the City has determined to apply is accessory use. And the Code states accessory uses are not
permitted on the front of the structure. If an accessory structure use is permitted in the front that materially
impairs the intent and the purposes of the requirement.
Mr. Nigh -He asked if the intent of the Code is to not permit an accessory structure on the front of the
property, how granting a Variance is not contrary.
Mr. Clower -When he hears materially impair the intent and the purposes of the requirement, he hears
the City not wanting people having giant sheds or ugly swimming pools in the front making the houses look
ugly and decreases materially the resale value of the other houses in the neighborhood and in turn,
affecting the tax base. The City is looking out for the taxpayers by not permitting something that would
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkwa y Dublin , Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov ,..
-1· f ll R IT H I N G G R O \VS H I R f
7.
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 11 of 17
decrease values. Materially impair implies there is a down side to whatever Variance happens. Materially,
solar panels are a good thing for the City.
Mr. Nigh -He did not disagree but thought Mr. Clower was not hearing what the Code is stating. He was
trying to get behind Mr . Clawer's argument. He is not saying solar panels are good or bad but the Code
does not address solar panels, correctly. The intent of the current Code as written is to not permit solar
panels no matter the value as a result.
Mr. Clower -The purpose is to keep accessory structures behind the front of the home no matter what
they are.
Mr. Murphy -The purpose is also to adhere to setbacks that are applicable to property lines. This applies
to the structure in relation to the boundaries of the site itself and not necessarily to the structure.
Mr. Shamp -He understood that argument. The plain reading of the Code is that accessory uses are to be
kept to the side or behind the principle structure.
Mr. Nigh -It is clear to this Board that the Code needs to be changed but he felt handcuffed as they had
no say in identifying solar panels as an accessory structure. When 25% of the homes have an issue means
the City needs to address this immediately. To move forward with this case, he cannot get there. Once the
Code has been changed, there will be an even better situation so all the applicants should table and go to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council who can make this sweeping pertinent change.
Mr. Tomin -He questioned the purpose of the process since it seems every Variance request should fail
based on the interpretation of the materially impair part of it.
Mr. Nigh -If you look at the history, this Board has probably granted most Variances. None of these very
valid comments are being dismissed. This body does not have the authority to make these necessary
changes. We are only tasked with applying these very strict criteria and standards.
Mr. Deschler -Mr. Clower and Mr. Murphy are supportive of granting a Variance and Mr. Nigh is not. This
Board has been put in a very difficult situation until the City has its Code. He was reluctant to grant a
Variance where there could be some precedent for this gap period. As of this evening with just four on the
panel, the Variance would be disapproved. The applicant has the opportunity to table the decision or get
disapproved now and reapply at another time with an alteration. He believed the applicants will get what
they want with a change in the Code and will not need to request a Variance. If the applicants do not want
to wait, it is possible they could return with the fifth member present that could rule in favor of the Variance.
In this case, the applicant has already convinced two Board Members. He wanted the applicant to have
solar panels on the south side but with the process, he could not get there.
The Chair adjourned the meeting for a short break so the applicants could respond to the Board's
comments.
Upon return, the Chair asked the applicant how they wanted to proceed.
Mr. Tomin -The applicant requested to table the case.
Mr. Murphy moved, Mr. Clower seconded, to table the Non-Use (Area) Variance to allow building-mounted,
residential solar panels as an accessory structure to be located on a street-facing fa<;ade .
Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Nigh, yes; Mr. Clower, yes; and Mr. Murphy, yes.
[Motion passed 4-0]
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov ------------~-
lVERYTHING GROWS HERE . -
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 12 of 17
2. Wadsworth Residence at 6240 Post Road, 22-130V, Non-Use (Area) Variance
The Chair -This is an application for a Variance to allow building-mounted solar panels as an accessory
structure to be located on a street-facing fac;ade on a 1.32-acre site is zoned Planned Unit Development
District -Indian Run Meadows. The site is located ±250 feet northwest of the intersection of Post Road
with Holt Drive.
Mr. Hounshell -He presented an aerial view of the site that for the most part, was rectangular in shape,
with a maximum lot depth of approximately 312 feet and a lot width of 149 feet at the front property line.
The home is oriented at the center of the site towards the south and is setback ±120 feet from Post Road,
53 feet from the west property line, and 31 feet from the east property line. There are a number of mature
trees along Post Road as well as mature vegetation to the rear with a stream that runs along the north
property line. A photograph showed the existing conditions from Post Road.
As read from the Code:
Residential solar panels are not currently listed as a specific use in areas excluding the West
Innovation District, Bridge Street District, and the Dublin Corporate Area Plan.
• To allow solar panels with existing Code language, the City utilizes Zoning Code Section
153.074(8)(6)(a) which regulate accessory structures.
All accessory structures are required to be constructed within the permitted buildable area of a lot,
behind all applicable setback lines, and to the rear or side of the principal structure.
The applicants are requesting solar panels to the front fac;ade of their home which necessitates
review by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
A graphic was presented showing the areas proposed for 31 solar panels to be mounted on the south-
facing roof.
Staff has reviewed the application against the Non-use Variance Review Criteria and found the first three
criteria have not been met when all three are required to be met.
1. Special Conditions -Criteria Not Met
The site is one of the larger properties in the area, with the house located at the center of the site and
landscaping and mature vegetation along the perimeter of the site. The home has a south-facing front
roof fac;ade that is not unique to this site; adjacent sites are the same. No special conditions apply to
this site.
2. Applicant Action/Inaction -Criteria Not Met
The Variance request is necessitated by the applicant on the basis of switching to renewable energy
on the home.
3. Impair the Intent & Purpose of the Requ irement -Cnteria Not Met
The Variance request would directly impact the requirements and intent for all accessory structures to
be located forward of the building.
For the second set of criteria, two of the four criteria have been met, which is required for approval.
1. Special Privileges . -Cnteria Met
Several properties within the zoning district could obtain roof-mounted solar panels that meet zoning
requirements due to the orientation of each home that does not have a south-facing front fac;ade .
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkwa y Dublin , Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa .gov
I ii RY I HING GROW S IIERf
r
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 13 of 17
2. Recurrent Nature -Criteria Not Met
The request is recurrent in nature to warrant a Code update to contemplate locations and requirements
for solar panels in residential district. Staff is aware of the increase in these requests and is working
towards a Code Amendment for solar panels.
3. Delivery of Governmental Services -Criteria Met
The proposed location of the solar panels would not affect the delivery of governmental services .
4. Other Method Available -Criteria Not Met
Utilizing solar energy can be accommodated by other methods that may be less economical but
continue to produce energy.
Since the totality of the requirements above were not met per Staff's analysis, disapproval is recommended
for the Non-Use (Area) Variance to Zoning Code §153.074(8)(6)(a) to allow solar panels as an accessory
structure to be located on a street-facing fa<;ade .
Questions for Staff
Mr. Clower -He asked the distance from the west side of the house to the No Build Zone setback.
Applicant Presentation
Kevin Wadsworth. 6240 Post Road. the houses on the north side of Post Road are on septic systems, with
to access to City sewer. His leach bed is in his entire front yard; planting trees is not permitted. Without
shade, the electric use is quite high but solar panels on the south/street-facing side of the house is a great
alternative. This property has mature trees on a rural road without a sidewalk and the house is set back
120 feet from Post Road. The only way to see the house is a view from the driveway. He took a photograph
of the house at eye level which is not visible due to the 30-foot pine trees. This environment makes their
property unique as compared to a lot of houses in Dublin and are visually screened from the neighbors.
The neighbors to the east are in attendance. Trees were planted back in the 60's between the houses
there, which makes them fairly secluded. The underlying assumption of the Code is that solar panels are
ugly and are bringing down the aesthetics of the neighborhood so the City does not want them. Even if
that was accepted as true, the roof is not visible from the street or the neighbors. This makes for a Special
Condition. This is all he had to say at this point since he made points earlier in the meeting for the first
case.
Questions for the Applicant
The Chair found there were no questions for the applicant and was also interested in the setback on the
side yard.
Mr. Deschler -He asked if the applicant considered having solar panels installed on the ground on the west
side of the house.
Mr. Wadsworth -Generally those are disfavored and more expensive. He uses a lot of electricity and was
looking for an economic solution for power. The neighbors stated the panels installed on the ground are
less attractive than those that are installed on the roof. A ground-mounted array would detract from the
neighbors. The less expensive and more attractive option of a roof-mounted system would be selected over
a ground system. He did not need to get a quote; he did research and found the ground-mounted systems
were more expensive.
PLA NN ING 5200 Emerald Park way Dublin, Ohio 43 017 phon e 614.410.4 600 dublinohiousa.gov ------------
[ Yf RYTltlNG GROWS HlR[
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 14 of 17
Mr. Deschler -It was his understanding that ground-mounted panels can be tracked and directed towards
the sunlight.
Mr. Wadsworth -Those are for commercial uses only and not produced for residential homes.
Mr. Hounshell -At most, the side yard setback is eight (8) feet. Ground-mounted solar panels are
considered accessory structures and would need to meet those requirements. The side of the house begins
at the front plane of the house.
Mr. Deschler -The applicant would have the option to have ground-mounted solar panels to the side of
the house that could go back to the rear yard setback for the near term.
Mr . Nigh -Additionally, the applicant could apply and obtain ground-mounted solar panels without having
to receive approval from this Board.
Mr. Wadsworth -That is a different system than what he has requested.
Mr. Clower -He asked Staff if the applicant could build a shed on the west side of the house and add solar
panels to that.
Mr. Hounshell -The shed would need to meet the requirements of an accessory structure.
Ms. Noble -If an accessory structure were added to an accessory structure it is considered one accessory
structure.
Mr. Deschler -Considering the topography of the side and rear of the yard, is there anything that could
further impede having ground-mounted panels such as a steep slope.
Mr. Wadsworth -The rear yard slopes quite a bit, starting at the tree line. The backyard is shaded by the
house and the trees. The west side is not appreciably sloping. He has lived here for 20 years and thoroughly
understands the topography of the yard.
Mr. Hounshell -He presented a graphic to show there is four feet of slope from the back of the house to
mature vegetation .
Public Comment
Jillian Dyer. Ecohouse Solar. said the company does not install ground-mounted panels for residential;
those are typically for commercial use as they are large and cost a lot more to maintain. There are more
opportunities for animals to come through and chew on wires and it would be difficult to maintain vegetation
that would grow under the panels to keep it from damaging any of the equipment. It is more dangerous
to have everything right there on the ground if the area is not fenced off. More ground mounts are installed
in rural areas. There could be an issue with trenching for the wiring when there is a septic sewer such as
this that would also increase the cost. Rotational mounts that were mentioned earlier as an option are not
something her company installs for residential use nor does she believe any companies in the Columbus
area would do so.
In November 2020, Ecohouse Solar installed a system on the front roof of a house at 567 Tara Hill Drive
that was approved by the City . Ecohouse just recently found out they would have to be applying for
Variance requests in Dublin. In other jurisdictions, the company has not had issues getting approvals for
installations.
Mr. Deschler -He asked Staff when the City began requiring solar panels to be identified as accessory
structures.
Ms. Noble -There was no specific date for when a specific policy was written. There were solar panel
inquiries coming in that needed avenues for approval. Staff will research that site to ensure there were
permits issued.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin , Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
..
£'If RYTHl~G GROWS HF Rf .,
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 15 of 17
Jillian Dyer -One of the representatives from Ecohouse Solar attended a Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting last year. The company was informed that solar panels would no longer be permitted on the south
side if street-facing.
Ms. Noble -The policy would have been in force prior to that meeting because that is what prompted that
conversation.
Mr. Nigh -Assuming what Ms . Dyer said was correct, it was sometime after November 2020 but before
November of 2021.
Ms. Noble -She wanted to verify there were permits issued .
Ms. Dyer-She had no further comment as everything else was addressed during the first case this evening.
There were no online comments received.
Board Discussion
Mr. Clower-His thoughts were known on the second and third criteria, which were stated for the first case
this evening. For the first criteria, he found the septic system to be a Special Condition and even more
convincing than the previous case. This prevents trees from being planted in the front yard, causing a
higher electricity bill to cool the house and it cannot be shaded to make it more energy efficient. The
applicant said the house is visibly blocked which he found to be incredibly true per Google maps. For Intent
and Purpose of Code he argued solar panels are fine, if installed with aesthetics in mind.
Mr. Murphy -This Zoning Code seems to be more focused with adding accessory structures that could
border the property (shed) needing to be behind all applicable setback lines, and to the rear or side of the
structure. The solar panels would be an improvement on the actual structure itself actually affixed rather
than something that is additionally placed on the property . That should be underscored with respect to
how the Board approaches this. This Code section is so inelegant that there is no one-to-one comparison
here. It was difficult to say. The Board is having t o address the current Code to come to any conclusions.
The Special Condition that exists here, as mentioned, is the significant amount of vegetation in the back
which would render ground-mounted panels extensively useless, if the applicant had to install the panels
in the backyard. There are the complications with the septic system including a leach bed, forcing the
panels off to the side . That all goes into Special Conditions.
Mr. Nigh -The comments about the side yard and the rear yard are not at all compelling to him because
the applicant is not asking the Board to rule on the side or rear yard. Some consideration should be given
to the property given no trees can be planted for shade of the house but the septic system is the same for
the neighbors and not unique to this property. When the applicant states "this is what happens in our
neighborhood", that dismisses the Special Condition. All three cases this evening should be tabled. The
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should be asked to expedite this process to amend the
Code. He asked the members if they believe all three of the solar panel cases this evening should be tabled
at least and ask CC and PZC to move on a Code Amendment as expeditiously as possible .
Mr. Wadsworth -There are only six (6) or eight (8) houses in Dublin with these conditions so that still
qualifies as special. With so few houses in the entire population of Dublin that have a septic system, he
could not believe he was the only one to consider that as special.
Mr. Nigh -He asked Staff how many houses have a septic system like this .
Ms. Noble -Definitely it is a small demographic but in the Summit View area, there are homes on septic
systems.
Mr. Clower -He did not want to take the decision away from the applicant about the opportunity to table
but he would recommend that the applicant do so.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Park way Dublin, Ohio 43017 phon e 61 4.410 .46 00 dublinohiousa.gov
~--
EVlRHIIING GROW S HERE. . , ·--..
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 16 of 17
Mr. Murphy -The most persuasive voice City Council could hear from would be the public. A lot of
compelling arguments have been made this evening. Granting a Variance is not an easy decision to make
based on the current language of the Code; additional language and guidance is needed. There is no
compelling reason this process should continue as it has for solar panels and the applicants being precluded
from installation as the legal boundaries described here. He suggested the public reach out to City Council
and let them know the feelings on this and tonight's proceedings should not be the last word on this matter.
This Board does not have the authority to change the law, we have to adhere to its structure.
Mr. Deschler -Similar to the reasons of the prior case, south facing is not a Special Condition. Our task to
follow the Code as currently constituted cannot satisfy that condition. The septic system was not relevant.
The applicant could try and convince the fifth member to be supportive but may have an equal chance
when the Code is revised. If the applicant moves forward with the vote tonight of 2 -2, he could appeal
to Franklin County.
Mr. Wadsworth -He disagreed with Staff's assertion that this Variance should be disapproved.
Mr. Deschler -The Board has agreed with the applicants but their hands are tied. Everything that has been
expressed as far as the compelling arguments need to be restated at City Council. We all .want to l)Se
renewable energy and the tax credit is going to be extended.
Mr. Wadsworth -He had no idea he would run into these problems because solar panels were permitted
as early as two years ago. He wanted to feel good about using renewable energy but his intent was also
to save money. He said he would like to table the Variance request.
Mr. Murphy moved, Mr. Clower seconded, to table the Non-Use (Area) Variance to allow building-mounted,
residential solar panels as an accessory structure to be located on a street-facing fac,;ade.
Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Nigh, yes; Mr. Clower, yes; and Mr. Murphy, yes.
[Motion passed 4-0]
3. Yi Residence at 6056 Brigids Close Drive, 22-131V, Non-Use (Area) Variance
The Chair -This is an application for a Variance to allow building-mounted solar panels as an accessory
structure to be located on a street-facing fac,;ade on a 0.23-acre site is zoned Planned Low Density
Residential District -Dublinshire. The site is located northwest of the intersection of Brigids Close Drive
with Curragh Court.
Toe Chair asked the applicant's representative to approach.
Salvador Pareja. Blue Raven Solar, 2029 Riverside Drive, Suite 102 requested to table the case.
Mr. Nigh moved, Mr . Clower seconded, to table the Non-Use (Area) Variance to allow building-mounted,
residential solar panels as an accessory structure to be located on a street-facing fac,;ade.
Vote: Mr. Murphy, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Clower, yes; and Mr. Nigh, yes.
[Motion passed 4-0]
COMMUNICATIONS
Tammy Noble stated that during the Joint Session held in August that included City Council, the Planning
and Zoning Commission, the Architectural Review Board, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, a request was
made of Staff for comparing past cases with similar scenarios to the cases under review. This process was
not followed for this meeting as there were no past cases that aligned with the current cases under review
for solar panel usage. The process will be followed for applicable cases going forward.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin , Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
! 'If RYTHING GROWS H[ R!
Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2022
Page 17 of 17
Solar panels are slated to be discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) meeting on October
20, 2022. The public was encouraged to reach out to the PZC and City Council Members with their thoughts
concerning solar panels so amendments to the Zoning Code can be expedited.
Mr. Deschler adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Jason eschler, Ch air
Boara of Zoning Appeals
PLANNING 52 00 Emerald Parkway Du blin, Oh io 430 17 pho ne 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
UlRYIHINC CHOWS H[Rl
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 15, 2022 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Solar Panel Code Amendment,
21-151ADMC Administrative Request – Code Amendment
Proposal: Request for a future Code Amendment to provide regulations in regards
to solar panels for residential and commercial properties.
Request: Review and informal discussion with non-binding feedback.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4649, tnoble@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-151
RESULT: The Commission provided significant feedback regarding potential regulations for both
commercial and residential solar energy systems and comments included both ground-
mounted and roof-mounted systems. The Commission suggested that commercial use of
solar energy allow roof-mounted on flat roofs and on pitched roofs allowed with limitations.
For ground-mounted solar energy in commercial districts, should be permitted with limitations
and the Commission did not support ground-mounted systems in the front of a principle
structure and did not support solar farms. The Commission suggested that solar energy in
residential districts be allowed allow roof-mounted on flat roofs and on pitched roofs with
limitations. The Commission stated that this should be permitted to the side and rear of a
structure, with limitations, and solar energy to the front be limite d to solar shingles. The
Commission supported ground-mounted systems to the side or rear of a residential structure
but did not support to the front.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Lance Schneier Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Kim Way Yes
Warren Fishman Absent
Jamey Chinnock Absent
Kathy Harter Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7CB9BF7D-B6D6-475B-B620-FF6FC4CE451A
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes September 15, 2022
Page 2 of 9
A proposal to install a patio and associated site improvements for an existing restaurant on a 17.08-
acre site zoned Planned Unit Development, Northeast Quad, Subarea 5A, located northwest of the
intersection of Sawmill Road with Hard Road.
Mr. Supelak moved, Ms. Harter seconded approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with
no conditions.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes.
[Motion approved 5-0.]
2. Sunny Street Cafe at 7573 Sawmill Road, 22-122CU, Conditional Use
A request to allow an outdoor dining patio for an existing restaurant on a 17.08-acre site zoned
Planned Unit Development, Northeast Quad, Subarea 5A and located northwest of the intersection
of Sawmill Road with Hard Road.
Mr. Way moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the Conditional Use with one (1) condition:
(1) That the patio amenities be stored off-site during off-season.
Vote: Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Way, yes.
[Motion approved 5-0.]
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST
5. Solar Panel Code Amendment, 21-151ADMC, Administrative Request – Code
Amendment
An informal discussion of a future Code Amendment to provide regulations regarding solar panels
for residential and commercial properties.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Noble stated that this is a topic that has been discussed previously by the Planning and Zoning
Commission (PZC), as well as by other City bodies. Currently, the City’s Zoning Code remains silent
on the issue of solar panels. The Commission is pursuing an amendment to address that. The topic
originally was presented to PZC in October 2021 and again in May 2022. The most recent
discussion was at the August 31, 2022 Joint Council-PZC-ARB-BZA work session. Currently,
requests for installation of solar panels are handled as accessory structures, which permit
installations to the side and rear of properties. It does not permit installation of solar panels to the
front of properties. At this time, solar panels and sustainable devices are permitted within the
Bridge Street District and the West Innovation District, but they are not permitted throughout the
City. As part of their analysis, staff looked at surrounding co mmunities and states. They have found
that most communities exercise some jurisdiction in regard to solar, wind and geothermal
regulation. In term of local regulations, they have benchmarked two other communities that
address solar panels as accessory structures, with a variance in regulations as related to Historic
Districts. With commercial buildings, it is easier to integrate the panels with the architectural
elements of the building. Residential solar panels are more difficult to install aesthetically. This
topic was discussed at the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC) meeting earlier this
week. [Images of different methods of installing solar panels were displayed.]
Ms. Rauch stated that staff also took this item to CSAC for consideration, because they are
overseeing the Sustainability Framework topic. Some of the committee members were supportive
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes September 15, 2022
Page 3 of 9
of permitting solar panels everywhere; others were supportive of having regulations concerning
how and where solar panels could be installed.
Ms. Noble noted that at the Commission’s last discussion on this topic, members had requested
technical analysis regarding installations and advancements in the industry be provided. Initially,
two professionals in the field were scheduled to speak tonight, but due to schedule conflicts, were
unable to attend. Tonight, staff is interested in learning Com mission members’ thoughts on a draft
code related to solar panels, specifically in regard to their location.
Ms. Rauch noted that although a professional on this topic was unable to attend tonight, staff has
had extensive conversations with the representatives and conducted a significant amount of
research. They are able to share what has been learned.
Commission Discussion
Ms. Call stated that discussions on commercial and residential installations would be handled
separately, beginning with commercial installation. The discussion should include the desired types
and the submission/review process. For instance, should applications be included with the
Preliminary and Final Development Plans, or should they be handled differently? Probably the
easiest location for commercial installations are flat roof commercial buildings, so discussion will
begin with flat-roof installations.
Solar Panel Installations on Commercial Buildings with Flat Roofs:
Mr. Way inquired, for clarification purposes, if the assumption is that the panels also are flat, as
they often need to be tilted to optimize their solar collection ability.
Ms. Call responded that they could be canted, but the assumption is that they would be shielded,
not visible.
Mr. Way indicated he would be supportive of flat roof installations.
Ms. Harter inquired if they would be visible from the street. Additionally, would there be ground-
mounted mechanicals?
Ms. Call responded that roof-mounted solar panels would be subject to the usual requirements for
screening of mechanicals. Ancillary ground-mounted installations also would be required to be
screened.
Ms. Harter inquired if the assumption is that flat roof-mounted installations would not be visible
across the street.
Ms. Rauch stated that this would be handled the same as rooftop mechanicals. The intent is that
there would be a parapet that would screen them. There may be some instances, however, in
which they would visible.
Mr. Supelak stated that the Code for commercial flat roof installations could be handled the same
as HVAC units screened with parapets. Other installations would necessitate different regulations.
Mr. Way inquired if visibility of solar equipment was a negative issue.
Ms. Call stated that some objections are based on their visual impact.
Mr. Supelak stated that if visible, the aesthetics would be a contributing factor.
Mr. Way noted that not every commercial building has a flat roof.
Solar Panel Installations on Canted Commercial Building Roofs:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes September 15, 2022
Page 4 of 9
Ms. Call stated that looking at canted roofs, one way to mitigate the visual impact would be to
permit them only on parcels that are not adjacent nor street-facing. The only people who would
be visually impacted would be those using the building.
Mr. Schneier stated that it would be helpful to have a spreadsheet depicting the taxonomy of this
topic. Within that, there are probably only 20 different types.
Mr. Supelak stated that he believes that is what the discussion is attempting to achieve. It is
important also to future-proof our Code. It cannot deal only with the types of solar installations
currently known. Technology is accelerating so quickly that there will be many types not yet known.
The Code should be both specific, yet over-arching.
Residential Installations:
Ms. Call directed the discussion to residential installations, including roof-integrated solar shingles,
roof-mounted panels framed and frameless; ground-mounted solar panels 18 inches or less off the
ground; accessory structures roof-mounted; stand-alone solar structures greater than 18 inches;
solar windows, etc.
Ms. Call stated that, beginning with roof-integrated solar shingles – she believes these should be
addressed as shingles, therefor would be subject to the City’s Code regulations related to roofs.
Similarly, solar windows should be addressed as windows, not solar panels. Future solar collection
devices, such as stucco or paneling, would be addressed by the Code section related to those
categories. Thereby, we would be future-proofing regulations related to many solar energy devices.
Ms. Call noted that while she believes that would be the best way to address the residential
installations, the Commission does not review individual residential applications.
Commission members had no objections to addressing residential installation in that manner.
Commercial Installations:
Ms. Call asked that, reverting to the commercial installations, what the Commission believed should
be addressed by the Code to facilitate the Commission’s review of future applications.
Ms. Rauch noted that staff would take the Commission’s suggestions, develop draft Code and
review it with the industry professionals with whom they are in discussions. Those representatives
are anticipated to share their recommendations at a future Commission discussion on the topic.
The Commission discussed the components of the images of different types of rooftop mounted
versus integrated installations, such as rain-screen solar panels.
Mr. Supelak noted that it would be important to define integrated versus mounted. Accessory
structures are different.
Mr. Way suggested that the smaller commercial buildings could be handled the same as residential
solar panel installations, i.e., they would be addressed by the Code section related to that building
component, such as roofs or windows.
Mr. Supelak agreed, noting that it also could be itemized/referenced in the new Solar Code section.
Mr. Way stated that he is concerned about stating that solar panels should not be permitted on
street-facing roofs. There is evidence that solar panels placed on the incorrect side of roofs do not
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes September 15, 2022
Page 5 of 9
perform well. The purpose of installation of solar panels is their anticipated performance, so he is
less supportive of making the roof location the controlling factor.
Mr. Supelak stated that if homeowners are not permitted to install them on the south-facing façade,
they could be dissuaded from installing any solar panels.
Ms. Noble stated that solar companies have provided an analysis that indicates solar panels can
function if located to the side or rear of homes, but not as well; those types of installations are
also more costly.
Ms. Call directed the discussion to commercial installations on pitched roofs, beginning with
traditional framed or frameless solar panels. Is the Commission supportive of any placement, a
percentage of roof coverage and any height elevation from the roof? The elevation we used for
ground-mounted panels was 18 inches.
Ms. Noble stated that current City regulations limit the height to 18 inches.
Mr. Way stated that the sample solar panel Codes from other cities regulate panels extending
above or hanging over rooflines; he would be supportive of using similar language. Aesthetically,
he has an issue with the appearance of staggered cells on roofs with valleys, as they make the
roofs look “busy.” A rectangular or square shape is cleaner. T hose are however, more of a concern
on residential buildings than commercial. It would be preferable if the panels mimicked the shape
of the roof.
Ms. Rauch stated that with the Bexley Code example, that is one of the stated requirements: “The
configuration profile of the assembly shall be complementary to the roofline. Installation should
minimize the number of corners and should avoid complexity and non-symmetry.”
Ms. Call stated that the Bexley language is clear and accomplishes what is desired.
Mr. Way stated that it should require a relationship consistent to the plane of the roof.
Ms. Call stated that in her opinion, the traditional framed or unframed panels should not be located
on the front of homes. The location of integrated solar shingles would not be an issue.
Ms. Harter stated that if the solar shingles have a sheen that could be a concern, as they would
look different from other shingles.
Ms. Call stated that solar shingles would not be addressed the same as solar panels. They would
be addressed by the section of the Code related to roof shingles. The Tesla shingles look like clay
shingles.
Ms. Harter stated that she would like to see a sample of the product.
Mr. Way suggested that, rather than saying no front-mounted solar energy devices are permitted,
the Code could state that solar shingles would be required, if front-mounted; installation of
traditional solar panels would be required to be rear-mounted. That would permit some flexibility.
Ms. Harter inquired the price difference between solar shingles and traditional solar panels.
Ms. Noble stated that solar shingles are much more expensive. None of the solar panel companies
with whom staff has been speaking provide solar shingles. She believes some roofing companies
are developing the expertise to install them in connection with other roof repairs.
Ms. Call inquired if there are any other recommendations related to residential installations other
than that on the front façade, integrated roof shingles would be required; roof-mounted solar
panels would be required to be located on rear facades.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes September 15, 2022
Page 6 of 9
Mr. Schneier stated that neighborhoods, such as Martha’s Vineyard, would have the most stringent
aesthetic solar installation regulations. Their Code provides for a committee to review each
application. In comparison, Dublin prefers a Code that provides guidance. Kiowah Island Code
states, “Solar panels may be incorporated into the roofscape or installed on an ancillary structure,
provided views are screened from neighboring properties. Solar panels may not be rack-mounted,
unless integrated into the roof design, using roof wells or par apets. External piping is not permitted.
The views must be approved in advance of the installation.” He believes that, in practice, this would
be very restrictive.
Mr. Supelak recommended Code language that stipulated rear-mounted panels should be coplanar
with elevations no greater than 18 inches.
Ms. Harter stated that it would be important that the Code stipulate that rear-mounted solar panels
should not be visible from the front.
Ms. Call noted that utilizing language similar to the Bexley Code would address that element.
Ms. Call stated that the definitions should clarify that solar panels are non-integrated; they are
mounted to the surface of a structure. Solar shingles are integ rated and part of the roof’s integrity;
they are not mounted to the roof.
Discussion continued regarding integrated elements that are part of the structure – stucco, paint
rainscreens and complete roofs.
Ms. Call noted that those are design elements.
Mr. Way clarified that he is not opposed to front-mounted installations but would concur with the
Commission’s consensus.
Ground-mounted Residential Solar Panels:
Commission consensus was that residential ground-mounted solar panels not be permitted in the
front yard. Ground-mounted structures with a height no greater than a certain number of inches
(staff would insert a recommended height from a safety perspective) would be permitted in the
side or rear yards, if landscaping screening of a matching height were provided. The height of
stand-alone solar panels should be minimal, so that they can be screened by landscaping. Standard
setbacks would apply.
Ms. Call inquired if they would apply to lot coverage.
Mr. Schneier noted that in the Historic District, such devices, such as air conditioner units, do not
count toward lot coverage.
Mr. Way inquired if ground installations would be handled different in sideyards that face a principal
street.
Ms. Rauch responded that if it is on a public right-of-way, a corner lot is considered to have two
front setbacks.
Commercial Ground-Mounted Solar Panels (not accessory):
Ms. Call inquired if commercial solar farms would be permitted.
Ms. Noble stated that it would be a use question. If it is not a free-standing use, it would not be
permitted.
Commission consensus was that the frontage would be addressed in the same manner as
residential ground-mounted installations. The amount of screening on a large commercial lot would
be greater than the amount required on a residential lot.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes September 15, 2022
Page 7 of 9
Residential Accessory Structures (sheds, detached garages, pergolas):
Commission consensus was that the location be limited to the rear of the lot with similar
requirements as other solar panels.
Commercial Accessory Structures (covered parking structures):
Ms. Call stated that the Commission would want to see these included in the Preliminary and Final
Development Plans and reviewed at that time.
Mr. Supelak stated that the perimeter screening of commercial lots would buffer the views. The
solar panels could be integrated and comprise the roof plane.
Ms. Call noted that if they are not integrated and are mounted, an 18-inch height would be too
great.
Commission consensus was to permit them.
Ms. Noble inquired about size, shape and concentration of panels.
Ms. Call stated that language similar to the Bexley Code, which requires that it “be complementary
to the roof line,” would address size, shape and concentration of panels, as well.
Mr. Schneier noted that regulating the number, size and concentration of panels could impact the
output.
Ms. Harter inquired if tree removal could potentially occur with these installations.
Ms. Rauch stated that could occur, although would be discouraged. However, homeowners are
permitted to remove trees on their single-family residential lot, regardless of solar panel
installation; only a permit is required.
Mr. Way stated that the permitted heights has not yet been specified.
Ms. Call responded that staff is researching the height element further before making a
recommendation.
Mr. Way stated that the sample Codes from other cities use a height of 6 to 8 feet, so there are
models from which we could draw a height requirement.
Ms. Harter inquired if due to th e prohibition of front-facing installations, one side of a neighborhood
was permitted to have solar panels but the other side was not, that could change the value of
some homes in that neighborhood. The City might want to track that factor.
Mr. Way noted that there could be value in the City offering a renewable energy program to which
homeowners could contribute and receive some return. Perhaps a solar farm could be located in
the West Innovation District.
Ms. Call stated that is an item that could be proposed to City Council for consideration.
Mr. Way inquired if any City buildings had solar panels.
Ms. Noble responded that, currently, there are none. This is a topic, however, that has also been
discussed with Dublin City Schools.
Mr. Way stated that perhaps this is an opportunity that could be considered for all public buildings,
along with a strategy for contribution.
Ms. Call stated that there are many related components, and potentially a Pandora’s Box, with
which she does not believe the City would want to become involved. However, the idea could be
passed along to City Council for consideration.
Mr. Way noted that current social media is reflecting the public’s opinion that the City is opposed
to solar panels. This legislation is an opportunity for the City to change that messaging to its
residents.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes September 15, 2022
Page 8 of 9
Ms. Call suggested that the City’s public information office take steps to get in front of that
messaging.
Ms. Rauch stated that there was discussion to that effect at the recent joint work session, including
the suggestion to provide some information for the Fall Homeowners Association meeting.
Ms. Noble stated that the fact that the City is pursuing a Code amendment shows that the City is
interested in permitting solar panels. In the interim, solar panels are being handled as accessory
structures, which has the risk of being appealed.
Ms. Call stated that it will be important to control the messaging. Many residents perceive any
proposed Code amendments to be for the purpose of restriction. That is the opposite of the City’s
intent, which is actually to free up the restrictions.
Public Comment
No public comments were received on the proposal for a Code ame ndment related to solar panels.
Staff will draft a Code amendment consistent with tonight’s discussion for future review by the
Commission.
COMMUNICATIONS
PZC Meeting Dates Calendar - October 2022 through February 2023
Commission consensus was to confirm the remaining calendar dates.
Ms. Rauch noted that the 2023 PZC Meeting calendar would be developed for Commission
consideration after City Council had adopted its 2023 meeting calendar. The Commission calendar
also will include the joint meeting, training and project tour dates.
Upcoming Commission Education/Training Opportunities
1) OKI Regional Planning Conference, conducted by the American Planning Association’s
Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana chapters, will be held in Louisville, Kentucky, September 28-
30.
2) Ohio Economic Development Association Annual Summit, “Aligning Housing and
Economic Development,” will be held October 3-6 at The Exchange. The Conference is
sponsored by several local groups, including MORPC and the Ohio Department of
Development.
Ms. Rauch stated that any Commission member interested in attending either of the conferences
should contact staff quickly for registration purposes.
Administrative Approvals
Ms. Rauch inquired if the Commission believed there were any additional types of requests that
would be appropriate for administrative review. The Commission directed staff to research previous
Commission approvals and develop a list of items, which the Commission most often has directed
the applicant to work with staff. The list should also include requests typically approved on a
Consent Agenda. That list of potential additional Administrative Approval items will be provided to
the Commission for consideration and direction.
The next regular meeting of PZC is scheduled for 6:30 p.m., Thursday, October 6, 2022.
CSAC Minutes 9/13/22
Page 13 of 26
those just in vehicles or walking. It is meant to look at the street as a holistic system. There are
several initiatives going on that talk about transit in other mobility options. One option being
looked at is bringing CoGo to Dublin which would be a mixture of peddle bikes and e-bikes. There
are other initiatives with COTA and bringing bus rapid transit to Dublin, if and/or when that
becomes a reality for our region. These are all active initiatives the City is trying to work on to try
to provide other options and get people out of their vehicles.
Ms. Qiu thanked staff and Mr. Shipps for all of the information and the great discussion.
V. Solar Panel Discussion – Jenny Rauch
Ms. Rauch started by introducing herself and explaining that she is here to discuss renewable
energy, in particular, solar panels. This is being presented because more recently, there have been
numerous request through Building Standards and Planning for single family residents that want
to install solar energy on their homes. Staff has had some initial discussions, but in the light of City
Council’s goal of sustainability and what opportunities that brings to the city, staff wanted this
opportunity to talk with this commission and get feedback on this topic before the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council review a code amendment.
Ms. Rauch provided a quick overview of the current regulations are as they relate to solar panels
and renewable energy in the City and how that fits with individual homeowner association (HOA)
restrictions and who oversees that. Ms. Rauch said the existing regulations, which are the City’s
responsibility are as follows:
• Renewable Energy Equipment is considered an accessory use and typically is limited to the
side or rear of a structure, including single-family homes
• Planned Unit Developments may be more restrictive
• West Innovation District, Bridge Street District, Historic Dublin and Dublin Corporate Area
have additional permissions which are provided
• In all instances a building permit is required prior to installation
Ms. Rauch said the HOA restrictions include:
• Individual HOA’s enforce deed restrictions, which may have limitation regarding renewable
energy than what the Code would permit
• Senate Bill 61 is a new law that governs how HOA’s may apply rules to solar panels on
residential properties
Ms. Rauch continued to explain that the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this topic was
in October of 2021 and then again in April 2022. Ms. Rauch highlighted the discussion that took
place:
• Support of solar panels and sustainability efforts
• Recommended regulating the location of solar panels as to not be visible from the public
rights-of-way to the extent possible.
• Solar energy should be permitted to ensure compatibility with the community’s aesthetics,
while also pursuing the latest technology
CSAC Minutes 9/13/22
Page 14 of 26
• Discussed incentivizing solar panels for new developments
• Supported the need to balance the approach to solar and provide clearer direction within
our Code
• Requested additional information and benchmarking
Ms. Rauch continued to say that two weeks ago there was a joint session between Dublin City
Council, Architectural Review Board, Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Zoning
Appeal Board regarding this topic. They had conversations about roof-mounted solar panels on
residential homes and how those should be regulated. There were concerns raised about the
general aesthetics of solar panels and the installation of the panels on front elevations. Also,
discussed the impacts of the new Senate Bill regarding how HOA’s regulate solar panels. The next
steps are to be here tonight to discuss this commission’s perception of solar panels from your
neighborhood, personal experience and as a committee. We would also like to get some feedback
about what this commission would like to see, as a part of a potential Code amendment for the
Planning and Zoning Commission to take into consideration.
Ms. Rauch said the City did benchmarking with similar communities that have comparable Zoning
Code which include Westerville, Worthington, Hilliard, Grove City, Upper Arlington, Columbus, Blue
Ash and Montgomery, Ohio and Carmel, Indiana. Blue Ash, Westerville, Worthington, Upper
Arlington and Montgomery allow wind, solar and geothermal, which Grove City, Upper Arlington,
Worthington and Columbus permit solar only in all districts and locations.
Ms. Rauch provided some non-Dublin commercial building examples and explained the differences
between them.
CSAC Minutes 9/13/22
Page 15 of 26
Ms. Rauch also provided some non-Dublin residential home examples.
CSAC Minutes 9/13/22
Page 16 of 26
Ms. Rauch said for this evening, staff would like for the Commission to discussion on the following
questions.
• What have the Committee members heard from Dublin residents regarding renewable
energy, particularly solar panels on single-family residential?
• What should the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council consider regarding
aesthetics, location (front, side and/or rear), and technology types (roof-mounted v.
ground-mounted, or solar shingles v. panels) when reviewing a proposed Zoning Code
amendment for renewable energy equipment?
• Other considerations of the Committee?
Mr. Arunachalam asked if the City looked at areas similar to Muirfield when benchmarking.
Ms. Rauch said staff did not specifically look at communities with golf courses.
Ms. Qiu said the City has a very robust business community. Ms. Qiu asked if the City could
encourage the businesses to install solar panels on their building first, before moving to residential
areas.
Ms. Rauch said the City can encourage businesses to do this, but by no means are we suggesting
that everyone needs to have solar panels. The challenge is that our Code could be clearer about
what we would like to have happen and how to permit that. For single family residential there is
the opportunity for federal incentives for them to install solar panels, which is why there has been
a push. There has also been interest from residents to put solar panels on the front of their homes,
which is currently not permitted in Dublin.
Ms. Qiu said if the City wants to encourage the use of solar panels; it would be helpful to provide
educational sessions for the residents. Ms. Qiu said she is very interested, but as she was looking
for information online, she realized there is a lot of information out there and it can be
overwhelming. It would be helpful for people to understand better the technology and to know
which vendors are reputable to provide services.
Ms. Rauch said the City could provide educational sessions once the Code has been adopted. The
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) has a program called SolSmart, which can help
provide resources to the City and thus to residents. Ms. Rauch asked the commission members if
any of their neighbors have solar panels on their homes.
Mr. Dritz said his neighbors do not have any solar panels on their roof. The only one he has seen in
Dublin is the one at the Golf Club of Dublin on Hole 14. It is not aesthetically appealing and it is on
the back on the house. Mr. Dritz said he imagines that allowing this on the front of the property
would decrease the property value of the home.
Ms. Qiu said she is only aware of one person that has solar panels on this home and he is a coworker
of hers. He is not a Dublin resident, but she has spoken with him about his solar panels and his
CSAC Minutes 9/13/22
Page 17 of 26
were installed through Tesla and he has had issues after issues. This is why she suggested the
educational portion and recommendations on what works well and what does not, for residents
that are not familiar with what is available.
Ms. Kanonchoff said depending on how someone’s how faces the sun, could depend on where the
individual would like to place solar panels, so if there are restrictions that would not allow for equal
opportunity. She asked what the points of discussion are, to determine what the City might be
looking at, as far as placement.
Ms. Rauch said Ms. Kanonchoff makes a very valid point, which is why this is a very challenging
conversation. There may be neighborhoods that completely prohibit them and other
neighborhoods that allow them within specific areas of a residential property. This is the nature of
zoning requirements for various neighborhoods. The conversation at Planning and Zoning
Commission and our joint session, which included Dublin City Council, was largely related to what
you would want to see on the front of the property and concerns about the aesthetics. We know
we want to be sustainable and we have this opportunity for sustainable equipment and we want
to permit that in some capacity, but we also want to make sure we are upholding the character
and quality of Dublin. Are solar panels something we want to see on the front of the property?
There have been concerns on how to tackle it.
Ms. O’Callaghan said the discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission would really be
focused around #2 and the details. Should there be a desire to accommodate solar panels on
residential properties, how could the City best accommodate. Those very specific questions will be
discussed, such as location, where should allow them to be placed, what types should be allowed
and how best to regulate them.
Ms. Qiu said she feels like residents need to be sure that it will be a good investment before
investing in solar panels. Ms. Qiu is only aware of JP Morgan using solar panels. She thought it
might be a good idea for staff to check to see if they are getting their money back on their
investment. If it is beneficial for them, then maybe it will be worth the investment from a
residential standpoint.
Ms. O’Callaghan said if it does seem beneficial for residents to have solar panels, she asked if the
commission has any preference on the aesthetics. Are there any suggestions as to how or if they
should be incorporated in residential neighborhoods?
Ms. Qiu said if it makes financial sense and if residents are interested, it should be up to the HOA
they live in. I think it would depend on where they live and the scenario of what the resident would
like to install.
Ms. O’Callaghan said it sounds like Ms. Qiu is stating that it should be up to the HOA as to what
each neighborhood will allow, but based on the new law that is in place, that may not be an option
for HOA’s to determine what is allowable.
CSAC Minutes 9/13/22
Page 18 of 26
Ms. Von Sadovszky said it is something different than people are used to seeing, but with time,
people will get used to it. If the goal is for our community to be sustainable, then it goes hand in
hand with that. She said she does not have a problem with placement of the solar panels.
Mr. Pryor said he is all for solar panels 100% across the board. He feels that it adds to the general
attitude of a sustainable Smart City and he likes the way they look.
Mr. Dritz said he has seem some instances of solar panel at are aesthetically fine. He feels like there
should just be guidelines on installation regardless of where they are installed so they look
professionally installed.
Mr. Arunachalam said he agrees with Mr. Dritz. He would also like to see solar panels made better
so they looked more pleasing then they currently do.
Ms. Kanonchoff asked if this topic is coming up a lot recently; so that it is becoming an issue that
does need to be addressed in the near future. She asked if many people are trying to apply for
permits for solar panels.
Ms. Rauch said yes, there has been much more inquiry in the last six months in regards to solar
panels than staff has seen over the last several years. Ms. Rauch said it is to the point where there
are several homeowners that are not permitted to have solar panels on the front and they have
requested a variance to that requirement at the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Kanonchoff said she was not sure what the issues with aesthetics is. She does not think they
look obnoxious and from a commercial standpoint, it makes perfect sense. It might take some
getting used to but as Mr. Pryor stated, if Dublin wants to be a Smart City, then this make sense
with how we are trying to project Dublin to be. It make sense to be energy efficient.
Ms. Qiu said if aesthetics is not a concern, then why we are limiting solar panels just to the backside
of the property. She does suggested incorporating some rules such as panels matching the
house/shingle and having the solar panel covering 80-90% of shingles so it blends better and
aesthetically looks nice.
Mr. Arunachalam commented that there is the possibility of the solar panels being damaged due
to hail or other factors. He suggested having language about replacing damaged equipment in a
timely manner so it is not an eyesore.
Ms. Rauch thanked the commission for their time and the information and feedback provided by
the commission.
VI. Dublin Sustainability Framework 2.0 – Emily Goliver
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes May 19, 2022
Page 14 of 18
should be added to enliven it, such as coining and brick coursework. As proposed, the south wall
appears solid and closed, which must be addressed. Landscaping will enliven the project.
Ms. Call stated that at this point, the plan has good building blocks, and working with staff, the
applicant will be able to add the architectural details needed to develop within the City of Dublin.
One concern is having overnight stays within a medical plaza. Currently, there are no other over-
night stay facilities in that area. The public safety needs for an area that is occupied at night are
different than those for an area not occupied at night. That is her primary concern. She has no
objections to waiving the 3-acre minimum for a 13,500 square foot building.
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant requested any additional input from the Commission.
The applicant indicated that they needed no additional input to proceed.
3. Veterinary Emergency Group at 3800 Tuller Road, 22-056WR, Waiver Review
Ms. Call stated that this is a request for approval of a waiver to reduce the required street-facing
transparency along Tuller Road on a 1.87-acre site zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center
Neighborhood, located northeast of the intersection of Tuller Road with Dublin Center Drive.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Mullinax stated that this is a request for review of and approval of a waiver to reduce the
required street-facing transparency at 3800 Tuller Road for an animal hospital. This 6,100-square
foot building was previously used as a Chase Bank facility. In February 2022, the Administrative
Review Team (ART) approved a Minor Project for exterior modifications for the veterinary hospital,
which included the removal of a drive-through canopy and associated features. The existing
building resembles a commercial center building type, which determines the façade transparency
requirements. Modifications to existing structures are permitted if the improvements bring the
building closer to compliance with the requirements of the Bridge Street District (BSD) Code. Per
Code, commercial center buildings must have a minimum of 65 percent transparency on any ground
story, street-facing facade. Existing conditions indicate only 44 percent transparency on the west
façade, so it is already deficient. Additional reductions in transparency require a waiver.
The applicant is requesting to further reduce the transparency of the west façade to 29 percent
through the application of an opaque, white polyester film with a semi-gloss finish on the inside of
the storefront windows. The proposed window film will accommodate the specific needs of the
animal hospital by providing additional shade, which will prevent the animals from overheating and
becoming subsequently ill. Staff is supportive of the waiver, since there have been previous
instances where the Commission has approved window film within the Bridge Street District, and
this is a unique site for this use. The window film is not a permanent material and could be removed,
if a new tenant were to occupy this space in the future. Furthermore, the reduction in transparency
is facing Tuller Road, not Sawmill Road. Tuller Road is a neighborhood street, which diminishes the
impact to the character of the district as a whole. Staff has reviewed the application against the
applicable criteria and recommends approval with no conditions.
Commission Questions
Mr. Chinnock inquired if the applicant had explored the opportunity for shades or another type of
sun protection for the animals.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes May 19, 2022
Page 15 of 18
Ashley Schulz, Director of Design, Veterinary Emergency Group, 4400 South Broadway – Lower
Level 3, White Plains, New York, stated that there are actual animal housing cages located against
the glass. Shades would help but would not fully block the solar heat received from the windows.
A wall actually will be built in front of the windows to provide a physical element against which to
back the cages. Additionally, medical gas is run through that wall to supply oxygen to those cages,
when needed. The window film is part of that overall assembly, allowing them to provide the
appropriate operational needs within those areas of the facility.
Mr. Way inquired if only part of the wall of glass is being treated, or if light would enter from the
upper portion, also causing the heat situation.
Ms. Schulz responded that a ceiling would be added. The room has been designed so that there
will be a ceiling that would extend to the horizontal mullion. The light entering from above would
not cause solar heat gain within the room containing the animals.
Mr. Way inquired if the primary purpose of the opaque film was to hide the wall.
Ms. Schulz responded that its primary purpose was aesthetic. Without it, the backside of the wall
would be visible against the glass.
Mr. Chinnock inquired if the film would not extend to the ground.
Ms. Schulz responded that it would extend to the ground. As she understands it, City Code is
explicitly concerned about the area from two feet to eight feet above the floor.
Mr. Chinnock inquired if the applicant meets the transparency requirements on the Sawmill Road
frontage.
Ms. Mullinax responded that the façade transparency requirement exists for all sides of the building,
but the film would be added only to the west side. It would be extended 8 feet.
Mr. Chinnock inquired if the transparency requirement on the other sides of the building was less.
Ms. Mullinax responded that there is a difference between a non-street façade versus a street-
facing façade.
Ms. Martin responded that the entire building is deficient, because it pre-dates 2012.
Mr. Way inquired if there is an existing door in the front façade.
Ms. Schulz responded that the door is a new addition; it will not have film on it.
Mr. Way stated that photos were provided of other facilities where the applicant has applied the
film. The film has been extended to the white band, but if it were extended all the way to the top
on the two panels on the right, it would achieve the same results, but would be more aesthetically
pleasing.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Chinnock stated that he is supportive of the request, as long as it can be tied to this particular
use. With any future tenant, the Commission could require the film to be removed.
Mr. Way stated that he is concerned that placing the film halfway across the glass façade and not
all the way to top will not be aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Supelak inquired if the signs have been approved.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, April 21, 2022 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Solar Panels
21-151ADMC Administrative Request – Code Amendment
Proposal: A Code Amendment to provide regulations for solar panels in residential
and commercial zoning districts within the City of Dublin.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for an
Administrative Request for a Code Amendment under the provisions of
Zoning Code §153.234.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contacts: Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4649, tnoble@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-151
MOTION: Mr. Schneier moved, Mr. Supelak seconded, tabling the proposed Code Amendment, pending
further study.
VOTE: 6 – 0.
RESULT: The Administrative Request – Code Amendment was tabled.
RECORDED VOTES:
Lance Schneier Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Kim Way Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Jamey Chinnock Absent
Kathy Harter Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7119C589-2EB0-4B2C-B878-6CF94E1CE2A9
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes April 21, 2022
Page 12 of 16
Mr. Way stated that the signs are attractive and designed well with simple, clear messaging. He
supportive of the additional signage.
Mr. Supelak, Mr. Fishman, Mr. Schneier and Ms. Call also expressed support.
Mr. Schneier moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with
one (1) condition:
1) That the applicant obtain sign permit approvals through Building Standards, prior to
installation.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms.
Harter, yes.
[Motion approved 6-0.]
3. Solar Panels, 21-151ADMC, Administrative Request – Code Amendment
Ms. Call stated that this is a request for recommendation to City Council of a Code Amendment to
provide regulations regarding solar panels for residential and commercial properties within the City
of Dublin.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Noble stated that staff has been working on a proposed Code amendment related to
sustainability practices within the City of Dublin for both commercial and residential properties. This
proposed amendment relates specifically to solar panels. Due to the influx of requests for solar
panels, there is a need for Code language to deal with those requests. In 2018, Council approved
the Dublin Sustainability Framework Plan, and staff has been working on the Plan’s
recommendations. Currently, renewal energy solar panels are permitted in only three areas in
Dublin, the West innovation District, the Bridge Street District and the Dublin Corporate Area Plan.
This amendment would expand that ability to all commercial and residential districts within the
City. There are tax incentives available, limited to this year, to residential property owners to install
renewable energy equipment. The Commission reviewed an initial Code amendment proposal in
October 2021, and based on that feedback, staff has revised the language. The proposed
amendments establish a new section within the General Development Standards, permitting
renewable energy equipment – solar (i.e. solar panels) in all zoning districts. Regulations are
provided for ground-mounted and roof-mounted equipment. The proposed language indicates
renewable energy equipment as an accessory use in all zoning districts and ground-mounted
renewable energy equipment as a detached accessory structure. Consistent with the BSD, roof-
mounted renewable energy is limited to eighteen inches above the roofline of a building and
ground-mounted equipment is screened to the extent possible. The proposed Code language allows
solar panels to the side and rear of a building with an administrative approval of a Certificate of
Zoning Plan Approval. Staff requests Commission review and feedback, and when a final draft is
achieved, a recommendation of approval to City Council.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Schneier stated that the Code contains a definition of renewable energy, however, that could
include other forms of renewable energy. There may be a need for a separate definition for solar
energy.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes April 21, 2022
Page 13 of 16
Mr. Supelak expressed agreement.
Ms. Call stated that there is a need to address the type, as well. Solar shingles are very different
from solar panels. She agrees that a definition is needed. A simple description of ground-mounted
is also insufficient. One of the most preferential locations would be on top of a pergola, an accessory
structure, which is usually taller than 6 feet. Technically, that is ground-mounted, not roof-
mounted, because it is not on the roof of the principal structure.
Mr. Way stated that the proposed amendment attempts to combine all districts, but there is a
difference between residential and commercial. He is not opposed to ground-mounted equipment,
if it located within a campus in some manner. He would prefer to see the commercial and residential
districts separated.
Ms. Call stated that she believes there is consensus on the Commission for that suggestion. Many
commercial buildings have flat roofs, but not many homes do.
Mr. Supelak stated that there might be merit in refining the proposed language. In this case, the
approach is more economical than environmental. Fuel is a commodity, which continues to increase
in price over time. Solar is a technology, which decreases in c ost over time. Moore’s Law which has
proven to be accurate for 60-80 years, is a data-driven trajectory that can be used to project the
future. There are also data-driven trajectories around solar energy, i.e. the price decreases by 20%
and the amount generated increases x10. At some point, we will be able to get all our energy from
the sun. Part of this was included in discussions regarding the 2035 Framework Plan. Solar energy
is evolving so quickly that we have insufficient case studies to identify agreeable vs. disagreeable
elements. Although we might identify a short-term solution for now, there is a long-term trajectory
for which the Commission needs to plan.
Mr. Way expressed agreement. There is a need for a short-term solution, as residents currently
are installing solar panels on their homes. The City needs to provide guidance for that.
Ms. Call stated that there is a concern with the traditional framed solar panels in residential
neighborhoods. There are other alternatives less disagreeable. She is not comfortable deferring
all those projects to staff until Code is adopted that will govern it.
Mr. Schneier recalled that there were past issues with satellite dishes during the time where no
appropriate regulatory authority had been established. Is there model legislation on the renewable
energy topic?
Ms. Call suggested that the Commission confirm the issues that they have already identified, then
direct staff to conduct additional research, engaging industry leaders and experts.
Mr. Schneier suggested that staff contact the Governmental Affairs contact from the American Solar
Panel Society and learn what they would recommend, which we may or may not accept.
Mr. Fishman suggested a special meeting be scheduled to provide an opportunity for producers of
solar panels to present the technology and future of that technology. Education about solar panels
is necessary in order to define our long-term process. Learning from the existing issues with old
TV antennas remaining on homes, regulations should be included for this newer technology that
will address the disposal of the older elements.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes April 21, 2022
Page 14 of 16
Ms. Harter stated that at the Statehouse, the Senate recently passed a bill that would prevent
homeowner associations from banning solar energy elements. That bill will now progress to the
House, so the legislation will move quickly.
Mr. Fishman stated that the City does not want to ban the technology, but have Code in place that
provides protections and addresses the evolution of that technology. 20 years from now, we do
not want to have old solar panels attached to roofs. The intent is not to restrict the technology,
but intelligently evolve with the technology.
Ms. Call stated that this is an intelligent community interested in making good choices. We have
the opportunity to elevate that thinking. For example, if the City Code were to recommend solar
shingles, as opposed to solar panels, because they are more aesthetically pleasing, we could
educate our community on how to embrace the technology in a way that is as aesthetically pleasing,
as well as future thinking. Tonight’s discussion has identified the need for definitions in the Code;
to separate commercial and residential districts; separate the technologies, addressing the different
types, technologies and placement. As future technologies emerge, the Code should require them
to follow an approval process.
Mr. Way stated that staff’s research should also include costs. Tesla shingles, for instance, cost
much more that traditional solar panels, although the product and costs will evolve. We need to
understand over the short term what will be attractive to our residents, and that cost will be an
issue. Understanding the cost of each technology should be included in our considerations.
Ms. Call stated that costs can be part of our consideration, but we would not provide a preference
for one solution based on costs. We can attempt to understand how the economies affect decision-
making.
Mr. Way stated that there should be sufficient flexibility, so our residents can adopt affordable
technology, or help them find a way to pay for it, such as subsidization.
Mr. Fishman stated that the Commission needs to recommend the appropriate product for the
appropriate place, and also address the removal of obsolete structures.
Ms. Call recommended that staff reach out to technology leaders. There probably is an organization,
which draws these technologies together. Staff could also contact the sponsor of the Senate
legislation, as they have already conducted the research and might also be able to provide useful
contacts.
Mr. Schneier inquired how to expedite the process, when the topic requires extensive study. We
want to address the topic correctly. Hopefully, Dublin can create model legislation that other
communities might want to emulate. Due to the current demand, however, there is also a need
to not stall the topic.
Mr. Fishman reiterated the need for the Commission to have a meeting where knowledge experts
explain the issues and options.
Mr. Schneier noted that the public might need to know that the Code development process could
take some time to complete.
Ms. Call stated that it is important to place a priority on acquiring the needed information to make
a good decision, but we want to expedite the gathering of that data. If residents have pertinent
information, they are invited to share in the public comment portion of the Commission’s meeting
discussion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes April 21, 2022
Page 15 of 16
Ms. Noble requested clarification of Mr. Fishman’s comment regarding either the replacement of
old technology with current technology or the removal of abandoned technology.
Mr. Fishman responded that he is suggesting that the Code require the removal of obsolete solar
structures.
Ms. Call suggested issuing permits valid for a specific period of time, which either must be renewed
to retain the structures or said structures must be removed. A permit process would provide the
City an opportunity to offer any associated education regarding solar technology, as well.
Mr. Way stated that use of recyclable technologies would be preferable.
Mr. Fishman suggested that an educational presentation be scheduled as soon as possible for a
future Commission meeting.
Mr. Supelak that there are products and applications that are more preferable. He would suggest
the Commission be provided copies of images of the different products and applications for
discussion purposes. The Code must address the current needs and obsolete structures, but it
should also be cognizant of anticipated future technology. It should also include a non-prescriptive,
“catch all” phrase concerning appearance standards.
Ms. Call stated that if staff should happen to identify a city that has addressed solar technology in
a manner that appears to be consistent with the Commission’s direction, discussion should be
scheduled as soon as possible for an upcoming Commission meeting.
Mr. Fishman noted that it might be easier to address the commercial use, as solar structures could
be hidden in the same manner in which other mechanicals are hidden.
Mr. Supelak stated that identifying the definitions, categories and infrastructure will be important.
Ms. Call stated that it will not be possible to future-proof the Code but addressing the general
appearance and equipment that is no longer used would be beneficial.
Ms. Noble requested Commission input on the preferred review process. Would the Commission
have any hesitations regarding an administrative review component?
Ms. Call responded that it would depend on the Code language. If it is vague, the Commission
would prefer Commission approval; if the requirements can be clearly identified, an administrative
review component could be considered.
Mr. Supelak stated that in the long term, an administrative review component might be possible.
Ms. Call noted that, ultimately, the preferred review process would be determined by City Council.
Ms. Noble stated that there could be a short-term solution and eventually, a long-term solution.
The process can be revised.
Ms. Call stated that with new development, the solar energy com ponent would likely be part of the
Preliminary Development Plan review.
Mr. Way stated that the Commission would not be approving plans for individual parcels within
neighborhoods.
Ms. Call stated that staff is inquiring if once the Code is established, the Commission would be
agreeable to staff administering that Code. Her view is that it would depend on how well that Code
is structured.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, October 14, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
6. Solar Panel Code Amendment
21-152ADMC Administrative Request
Proposal: Introduction of a Code Amendment to establish general regulations in
regards to solar panels for residential and commercial properties.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-152
RESULT: The Commission considered an Amendment to the Zoning Code to accommodate solar energy
within commercial and residential districts in the City. Presently, the Code addresses these
requests in a very limited manner, and greater guidance for the public, Staff, and Boards and
Commissions is sought. The Commission agreed that the City should support and incentivize
solar energy, when also meeting aesthetic goals, as well.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Absent
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Absent
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: A3A27B96-8610-4BE7-8646-C26BA54D23E2
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2021
Page 18 of 21
Ms. Fox stated that the ARB Code provides criteria for demolition. It does not provide a penalty for
Code violation. What makes it difficult for Historic District p roperty owners is that the pertinent Code
sections are in different places. There are Historic Design Guidelines in addition to that Code. It is
difficult for them to know and find what is applicable to them. It is important that the City begin to
educate the owners of any historic properties. They should be provided educational pamphlets and
a handbook with the Code and Guidelines. Otherwise, the property owners may make mistakes and
be subject to penalty. She would prefer to focus on demolition of all historic properties within the
City. The Appendix G listing is smaller than the total number of historic structures.
Public Comments
Ms. Martin stated that one public comment in support of the proposed amendment was received in
advance of this meeting, which was included in the Commissioners’ packets. No additional public
comments were received.
Staff will revise the proposed Code amendment reflective of the Commission’s guidance.
5. Solar Panel Code Amendment, Administrative Request, 21-152ADMC
Introduction of a Code Amendment to establish general regulations in regard to solar panels for
residential and commercial properties.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Martin stated that requests for solar energy components have been increasing, both with
commercial and residential applications. Existing City Code addresses renewable energy equipment
and solar energy in a very limited manner. In reviewing the Code, it was found that solar panels are
explicitly regulated only in the West Innovation District (WID) and Bridge Street District (BSD). The
City of Dublin Zoning Code permits solar panels in the WID and BSD. In the WID, Renewable Energy
is permitted as an accessory use in all districts with use-specific standards. In the BSD, Renewable
Energy Equipment is permitted as an accessory use in all districts with use-specific standards. The
Accessory Structures section of the Code identifies solar panel s, but they are defined as an accessory
structure and have no use-specific standards. To inform the discussion, Planning staff contacted
municipalities in Ohio and Indiana regarding each city’s current regulation of REE (solar panels,
geothermal units, and wind turbines). Most of the cities contacted have specific sections within their
code that provides details on if, and where, REE may be installed. The communities contacted
include Blue Ash, Mason, Grove City, Westerville, Worthington, Upper Arlington, and Montgomery,
Ohio, and Carmel, Indiana. Approximately 50% of the jurisdictions allowed a variety of alternative
energy solutions, including solar, wind and geothermal. The discussion tonight will focus solely on
solar. All of the benchmark research was provided in the meeting packet.
[Representative images shown.] Ms. Martin stated there are a variety of options available for
commercial buildings. On a flat roof, the solar panels can be treated as a mechanical structure and
be fully screened behind a parapet. On a commercial building with a pitched roof, the solar panels
cannot be screened as a mechanical, so judgments must be made according to location on a street-
facing façade, sustainability, and the community’s character. Additionally, there are architecturally
integrated panels available for commercial applications. These could be appropriate in the BSD and
the West Innovation District. In regard to commercial sites, there are a variety of site and
implementation considerations and options. Two examples are solar farms and solar vehicular
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2021
Page 19 of 21
canopies. In regard to residential properties, almost every home in the City has a pitched roof,
consistent with the City’s Residential Standards. With pitched roofs, solar panels cannot be screened
and must be exposed to the sun. There are different installation options; there is also the option of
Tesla roof solar tiles. Additionally, there is the option of detached, accessory structures and
residential site installations. Staff has provided a number of questions to guide the Commission’s
discussion:
1) Does the Commission support solar in all, or some, locations (residential, commercial, City-
owned property, etc.) within the City of Dublin?
2) Should regulations vary based on land use: specifically, should roof and ground-mounted
equipment be permitted in all districts?
3) Should Use Specific Standards regulate the location of solar panels, despite the importance
of direct sun? (i.e. solar panels are currently discouraged on the fronts of homes).
4) Should there be guidance for solar panel installation, regardle ss of location, in order to meet
Dublin’s aesthetic goals?
Commission Questions/Discussion
Mr. Schneier stated that the images do not reflect anything desired, because the examples are
aesthetically lacking. However, we do not want to prohibit these uses when the City is interested in
pursuing sustainability objectives and goals. He is supportive of advancing solar energy uses, but
guidance for installation or design guidelines are needed.
Mr. Fishman stated that solar panels are becoming increasingly popular. Having them on
commercial buildings with flat roofs is not an issue, because they are not visible. The Tesla shingles
are the most attractive of the options. There is a need to embrace technology, but it must be done
aesthetically. Technology continues to improve, and in time, solar panels likely will not be
discernable from the roof shingles.
Ms. Fox stated that she is supportive of solar panels in all locations. She believes that solar energy
will become a right, the same as the usual utilities. She does not believe they should be based on
land use. Many municipalities are doing this, and we need to do the necessary research. The
proposed Code should permit solar energy in a way compatible with the community’s aesthetics.
She believes the City should allow this new path, with the caveat that the concerns will need to be
managed.
Mr. Way stated that the 2035 vision for Dublin should declare Dublin a solar city. This technology is
here, but it is changing rapidly. There are now windows that are solar panels. There probably are
many solar energy options. The examples shown are old technology; the Commission can encourage
pursuing the latest technology for solar energy. We probably do not want free-standing solar panels,
but he is supportive of the opportunity for solar.
Ms. Call stated that she is supportive of the opportunity; however, guidance should be provided,
and the location should be regulated in a manner so as to meet Dublin’s high aesthetics standards.
Mr. Way stated that he does not believe solar panels should be accessory structures. They should
be integral to the structure.
Ms. Call stated that she sees two types. The integrated option would be part of the structure. If
there is a separation of 18 inches, it is an accessory structure, similar to an air conditioning unit.
Mr. Way stated that it would need to be defined.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2021
Page 20 of 21
Mr. Fishman stated that in Dublin, it is necessary to have a permit for installation of many items.
There is no reason a permit should not be required to attach a solar panel.
Ms. Call stated that Tesla roof shingles have been in existence ten years, but they are not perfected
nor are they prevalent. There are other similar competitors. Most of the applications the City would
receive today would be for the older technology. The standards would have to be applied to those,
but the integrated option could be treated differently. If it looks like shingles, it can be treated as
shingles; if it looks like a mounted solar panel, it would be treated as such.
Mr. Fishman noted that at this point in time, there might be a need to hide the panels. With future
technology, that may not be necessary.
Mr. Way inquired if incentives should be granted for developing solar panel projects.
Ms. Call noted that would not be a Planning and Zoning item.
Ms. Martin stated that Mr. Way may be referring to a density bo nus. All of the items being considered
by the Commission would require Code changes, which means the Commission would send a
recommendation to Council for decision. Several drafts would be prepared for the Commission’s
consideration before they would make a Code recommendation to Council.
Mr. Kim stated that solar options should be part of the review of development applications, and he
would encourage this direction.
Ms. Fox noted that the Commission can make recommendations for any type of changes regarding
land use.
Ms. Call stated that there is consensus on the Commission that solar energy in the City is something
that the Commission believes should be incentivized. Could the communications shared with Council
also include the Commission’s encouragement to consider the opportunity to incentive the solar
energy with development? If Council is receptive, a recommendation could be drafted and forwarded
to Council for approval.
Ms. Martin indicated that it would be shared with Council. She inquired if the Commission would be
supportive of requiring solar features on a large-format commercial building. For instance, if a
building footprint and roof were over 20,000 square feet, would the City require that 50% of the
roof space have alternative energy integrated into it?
Ms. Call stated that she would be more supportive of incentivizing than requiring. She also would
encourage that the Code be sufficiently strict and rely less on interpretation. Currently, the Code
requires the minimum requirements, so that is what we get.
Public Comment
No public comments were received on the case.
Staff will revise the proposed Code amendment reflective of the Commission’s input.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Call indicated that she has images of well-done large-scale retail, office and big
development in Eldorado Hills, California that she would like to share with staff and the
Commission.
Ms. Martin responded that there is an Urban Design subfolder in the Commission’s One Drive
folder for inspirational images. Commissioners are encouraged to upload any mages they
would like to share into that folder.
DUBLIN SOLAR INSTALLATIONS-
PERMIT HISTORY
1. Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(5). For pitched roofs, roof-mounted equipment shall be installed in a
rectangular shape to avoid complex and non-symmetrical configurations.
2. Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(5) For pitched roofs, roof-mounted equipment shall be a color that is similar
to the roof color.
Contractor Record # Status Address
1. Ecohouse Solar
RALT-23-01240 Approved - IKO Dynasty
Summit Grey shingles
7387 Wings Livery Road
Color and Configuration
Met
2. Crafty Electric
REPR-23-00038
Approved-solar shingles-
shingle color Timberline HDZ
charcoal grey
6923 Ernest Way
Color and Configuration
Met
3. Blue Raven
REPR-23-00063 Approved-black composite
shingles
5334 McGinty
Color and Configuration
Met
DUBLIN SOLAR INSTALLATIONS-
PERMIT HISTORY
4. Solshine
REPR-23-00069 Approved - IKO Dynasty
Granite Black shingles
5780 Clearfield Lane
Color and Configuration
Met
5. Gold Path Solar REPR-23-00075 Approved-Driftwood
Owens Corning
4094 Domnall Drive
Color and Configuration
Met
6. Gold Path Solar REPR-23-00072 Approved-Driftwood
Owens Corning
4134 Domnall Drive
Color and Configuration
Met
7. Ohio Power Solutions
RADD-23-01789
Approved-
Weatherwood
4313 Wyandotte Woods Blvd
Color and Configuration
Met
8. Ambia REPR-23-00057 Approved- 4905 Applecross Dr
DUBLIN SOLAR INSTALLATIONS-
PERMIT HISTORY
9. Ambia REPR-23-00044 Approved-dark grey
shingles
6027 Hathaway Ave
Color and Configuration
Met. Note-submitted prior
to effective date.
10. Ambia REPR-23-00074 Awaiting response-
shingle color
5011 Ballybridge
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Met
11. ADT Solar RALT-23-01141 In review-panel
efficiency- shingle color
7571 Worsley Place
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Met
12. Ambia
REPR-23-00040
Awaiting response-panel
efficiency-shingle color
261 Odessa Lane
DUBLIN SOLAR INSTALLATIONS-
PERMIT HISTORY
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Met
13. ADT Solar RALT-23-01339 Awaiting response-
shingle color
5962 Winslow Court
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Met
14. Third Sun Kokosing RALT-23-01422 Awaiting response-
panel effiency-shingle
color
6865 McDevitt
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Met
15. Ambia
REPR-23-00070 Awaiting response-
shingle color
5955 Hathaway Avenue
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Met
16. Ecohouse Solar
RALT-23-01229 Awaiting response-
panel efficiency-shingle
6240 Post Road
DUBLIN SOLAR INSTALLATIONS-
PERMIT HISTORY
color and panel layout.
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
17. Ion Solar
RALT-23-01043 Awaiting response-
panel layout-shingle
color
6804 Monticello Lane
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
18. Ambia
REPR-23-00039
Awaiting response-
panel efficiency-panel
layout- shingle color
4202 Haymaker Lane
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
19. Ambia
REPR-23-00043 Awaiting response-
panel layout-shingle
color
5806 Killiney Lane
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
20. Ambia
REPR-23-00053 Awaiting response-
panel layout-shingle
color
7357 Christie Chapel Rd
DUBLIN SOLAR INSTALLATIONS-
PERMIT HISTORY
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
21. Ambia
REPR-23-00054 Awaiting response-
panel layout-shingle
color
6452 Scarlett Lane
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
22. Blue Raven
REPR-23-00064 Awaiting response-
panel layout-shingle
color
6342 Avondale Woods Blvd
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
23. Goldpath
RADD-23-01375 Awaiting response-
panel layout-shingle
color
95 Longview Drive
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
24. Ambia
REPR-23-00073
Awaiting response-
efficiency- panel layout-
shingle color
6456 Tanseyclose Lane
DUBLIN SOLAR INSTALLATIONS-
PERMIT HISTORY
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
25. Freedom Forever
RALT-23-01764 Awaiting response-
panel layout-shingle
color
6726 Royal Plume Drive
Color: Not Met
Configuration: Not Met
Roof Color Examples
Code Requirement-Section 153.074(E)(1)(c)(5) For pitched roofs, roof-mounted equipment shall
be a color that is similar to the roof color. Planning has identified color examples to provide a
guide of roof colors for solar panel approval. These are intended to provide a range colors to
meet the ‘similar in color’ requirement.
https://www.certainteed.com/residential-roofing/products/landmark/#expanded
Approved Colors (with PZC Comments)
Disapproved Colors