solar
Firm     Attorney     Directions     Links     Blog     Info     News 

Timeline and Info

 

December 9, 2008 - The Environmental Planning Division (the EPD) of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the MNCPPC) is notified of the owners' intent to install a solar collector system on the owners' property.  The EPD is also notified that a tree save plan (the TSP), which is a restriction on the owners' property and which is administered by the EPD, is in violation of section (b) of Real Property Statute Title 2 Construction Rules § 2-119 (the Solar Easement Law).  The owners request a meeting with the legal department of the MNCPPC, but this request is denied.

December 18, 2008 - In a telephone call initiated by the owners, the EPD maintains that the three trees to be preserved in the TSP would not significantly decrease the efficiency of a solar collector system placed on the owners' property.  The owners offer to provide the EPD with evidence that the TSP would significantly decrease the efficiency of a solar collector system on the owners' property.

January 9, 2009Evidence that the TSP would significantly reduce the efficiency of a solar collector system is presented to the EPD at a meeting held at the offices of the MNCPPC.  The EPD asks for evidence showing that tree #5 alone would significantly decrease the efficiency of a solar collector system.

January 16, 2009 -  A letter from the owners is emailed to the EPD providing evidence showing that tree #5 alone would significantly decrease the efficiency of a solar collector system.

February 27, 2009 -  The owners receive a letter emailed from the EPD offering to allow the owners to remove the three trees to be preserved under the TSP, if the owners agree to 1) make a mitigation payment of $6,664.68 and 2) provide a revision to the TSP.

March 2, 2009 -  A letter from the owners is emailed to the EPD describing how a mitigation payment is in violation of the Solar Easement Law and federal, state, and county public policy.  The owners also notify the EPD that this is a "time is of the essence" case. The owners contact the EPD and learn that the decision is final and that the case is being referred to the legal department of the MNCPPC.  The owners contact the legal department, but they tell the owners that they do not yet have the case.

March 6, 2009 - The owners telephone the legal department of the MNCPPC and learn that the legal department has received the case, and the owners discuss the issues of the case in a telephone call with an associate general counsel.

March 9, 2009 - A letter from the owners is emailed to the legal department of the MNCPPC that reiterates the issues in the case, highlighting again 1) why the mitigation payment is in violation of the Solar Easement Law and 2) why, according to Section 22A-4 of the Montgomery County Forest Conservation Law, the owners are not required to revise the TSP, and outlines the relief sought.  The legal department is also notified that this is a "time is of the essence" case.  This website is established to track events in the case.