State Representative Amy Morin Bello of Wethersfield told the Planning and Development Committee on Feb. 19 that Bill 06/1959 would ease an inconsistency she has seen in historic‑district decisions and reduce litigation costs for towns.
"By permitting installation of solar panels on the rear of homes, we can do both," Morin Bello said, describing three recent residents in her district who were denied rear‑roof solar by the historic district commission and one earlier case in which a court later found for a resident.
Supporters said modern, low‑profile panels can help households lower energy bills and reduce carbon emissions while preserving public‑facing facades. Several committee members and other legislators signaled sympathy for the goal but pressed for changes to the bill’s language to avoid unintended effects on distinctive town centers and to provide clearer rules for sight lines and what counts as a "rear" roof.
Senators and representatives asked whether corner lots, angled houses or lots visible from adjacent streets would be covered by the proposed exception and whether municipalities should have flexibility to write local sight‑line criteria. Morin Bello said the measure is intended to set a baseline—permitting rear‑facing installations in a way that reduces arbitrary denials—while preserving local authority to refine details.
Architects and historic‑preservation experts who spoke later in the hearing suggested that language could reference existing preservation standards and sight‑line tests used by the National Park Service to keep front façades intact while accommodating renewable technology in less visible locations.
The committee did not vote on the bill at the hearing. Members encouraged the sponsor and stakeholders to work on clarified statutory language—definitions of "rear" and specific sight‑line standards—before any markup so the measure can better protect both historic character and homeowners’ access to rooftop solar.