Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 17,2014 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen asked whether the Commissioners feel it would be worthwhile to discuss any of the issues <br /> tonight or whether they would be better suited to table it to the January work session to allow a closer <br /> review of the materials. <br /> Landgraver noted the Planning Commission made a previous recommendation to the City Council which <br /> was not adopted. Landgraver asked why the City Council chose not to follow the recommendation of the <br /> Planning Commission. <br /> Gaffron stated the City Council at that time was not comfortable allowing wind energy systems at all in <br /> the City. Gaffron noted the ordinance also addressed other alternative energy systems, such as wood <br /> boilers,but did not focus on commercial and industrial uses. Gaffron stated in his view the City will need <br /> to discuss some of the other bigger issues associated with wind turbines. <br /> Leskinen asked if the parts of the ordinance dealing with wood boilers and other alternative energy <br /> systems would remain intact. <br /> Gaffron indicated they would unless the Planning Commission or City Council felt changes are needed. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the public comments received tonight negate the industry's comments regarding <br /> flickering, shadows,and glare. Schoenzeit asked if the neighbor has a different location on the <br /> neighboring property that he would find acceptable. <br /> Lanpher stated he was asked that same question in the early lawsuits and that in his view it is not his area <br /> to judge where it should be located. Lanpher noted in 2002,when the neighbors were requesting a <br /> variance to add on to their home,the neighbor agreed to no more structure on the property. Lanpher <br /> stated the neighboring property is small and that he cannot recommend any location since it would likely <br /> be violating hardcover and other setback requirements. Lanpher stated he would refer it back to the City <br /> since he does not feel it is his place to dictate the location of it and that this is a City issue and not a <br /> personal issue. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if it is moved, it could become someone else's issue. <br /> Lanpher stated if someone wants a wind turbine on their property, consideration should be based on each <br /> property individually. Lanpher stated in his view you cannot have them on properties that are two acres <br /> or less given the impacts it will have on the neighbors. Lanpher stated even if it is restricted to properties <br /> ten acres or greater,there still could be potential issues with visual impacts and setbacks given the <br /> different times the sun rises and sets. Lanpher noted the commercial wind farm operations are buying out <br /> the neighboring properties. Lanpher stated the question still remains as to how far is far enough and that <br /> all of the impacts are not all known at this point. <br /> Mack noted the work session in January is intended to be the next discussion point on the various code <br /> amendment topics that were discussed at the joint work session. Mack indicated this is one of the <br /> ongoing topics that the City will be looking at over the coming year and should be made a priority. <br /> Leskinen stated this topic is definitely at the top of the priority list for the work session. <br /> Page 6 of 23 <br />