In reviewing this issue, I think the Florida AHJs that reject solar installs by homeowners are misinterpreting the law.
Florida Statue Title XXXII Chapter 489.103 says:
---
(7)(a) Owners of property when acting as their own contractor and providing direct, onsite supervision themselves of all work not performed by licensed contractors:
1. When building or improving farm outbuildings or one-family or two-family residences on such property for the occupancy or use of such owners and not offered for sale or lease, or building or improving commercial buildings, at a cost not to exceed $75,000, on such property for the occupancy or use of such owners and not offered for sale or lease. In an action brought under this part, proof of the sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, of any such structure by the owner-builder within 1 year after completion of same creates a presumption that the construction was undertaken for purposes of sale or lease.
---
The act of installing a solar power system on an owner occupied residence is improving that residence and thus appears to qualify under this clause for the homeowner exemption. Solar power systems do not appear to be excluded from the list of things deemed improvements.
Further, 489.105 (definitions) does not define "improving" at all, so the term has a very general meaning. Given the solar power systems add value to the home, it clearly meets the general definition of an improvement since the home value went up.
The existence of 489.103(7)(a)(3), which is dealing with the specific and unique case of the Solar Challenge, does not mean solar power systems are excluded if there is no Solar Challenge underway. Just because 489.103(7)(a)(3) describes a means to an exemption doesn't mean it is the ONLY means to that exemption, any of the other clauses can apply.
In order to exclude solar power systems from the exemption, the AHJ would have to show that solar power systems are not improvements that qualify under 489.103(7)(a)(1). So when they say you cannot get a homeowner permit, ask them to explain the legal basis for not counting the solar power system as an improvement.
For what it is worth, there is guidance from
Solar power, with its promise of sustainability and energy independence, is a beacon of hope for a greener future. Yet, the cost of entry often casts a shadow over this renewable energy solution.
ecuip.com
1. Owner-Occupied Residences – Improvements under $75,000:
- Statute Code: Florida Statutes, Chapter 489, Section 489.103(7)(a)(1)
- Scope: Building or improving farm outbuildings, one-family, or two-family residences, or commercial buildings on the owner’s property.
- Cost Limit: The cost should not exceed $75,000.
- Usage: The construction is for the occupancy or use of the owners and is not intended for sale or lease.
- Presumption: If the owner-builder sells or leases the structure within 1 year after completion, it is presumed that the construction was undertaken for purposes of sale or lease.
- Inclusion of Solar: Solar improvements can fall under this exemption if the total cost is within the specified limit.
Further, the Solar Challenge clause was added in 2012. In 2011, there was not mention of solar at all in the exemption statute so a homeowner was seemingly able to use the general "improvement" clause then. It would be very odd if the appearance of the Solar Challenge clause in 2012 not caused there to be less access to homeowner exemption than before.
I would insist the AHJ answer the legal basis for excluding solar power systems from 489.103(7)(a)(1). Why are they not improvements? Why did the Solar Challenge clause added in 2012 cause there to be less means to get an exemption?
You fight city hall using their own weapons against them.
Mike C.
