Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 20,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> across a road from residentially-zoned property. In the Highway 12 commercial areas,the same <br /> proximity to residential zoning is found. Certain properties in the Orono industrial park on Highway 12 <br /> may be the exception, being surrounded by non-residential uses. <br /> Questions to be answered related to residential versus nonresidential WECS are as follows: <br /> 1. Is there a desire on the part of the City or its residents to allow WECS of greater than 10 kW <br /> capacity within residential zoning districts? <br /> 2. Is there a desire to allow WECS of any generating capacity within commercial or industrial <br /> districts within Orono? Is there a known demand for such use? <br /> 3. Are the visual aspects of WECS a significant factor in whether WECS should be allowed in <br /> commercial/industrial areas? <br /> Leskinen stated she would be opposed to having any WECS in a residential area that is greater than the <br /> 10 kW capacity. Leskinen indicated she likes some of the recommendations that were proposed <br /> previously in 2013 and that it is her belief there was a maximum of 10 kW capacity included in that draft <br /> ordinance. <br /> Gaffron indicated it was included in the 2013 draft ordinance. <br /> Leskinen stated she cannot see a reasonable need for anything larger than that as an accessory use and that <br /> if something larger is allowed, there would need to be a higher level of scrutiny. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if someone with ten acres would be allowed to have more than one wind turbine. <br /> Gaffron stated the draft ordinance and many of the other city ordinances only allows one per property. <br /> Landgraver stated his answer would be no to the first question since there has been no demonstrable <br /> demand for it. Landgraver stated to his recollection the reason why the Planning Commission was <br /> circumspect about Questions 2 and 3 was that they could not envision it and that they would like to see a <br /> formal plan before allowing or not allowing it. <br /> Thiesse asked if there should be a minimum size. Thiesse indicated he is not interested in allowing a <br /> micro-WECS or something that would only power a microwave given the possible impacts to the <br /> neighboring properties. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if you look at who is sponsoring that ordinance,the micro-WECS may turn out to be <br /> more like a small dish antenna, which state law allows everyone to have one and would trump any city <br /> code. <br /> Leskinen stated she is less inclined to look for a minimum only because in the other aspects of the <br /> ordinance those potential issues will be addressed. Leskinen stated she would like to allow it on a <br /> residential property that is large enough to handle it without having any impact on the neighbors. <br /> Leskinen stated once there is an impact off the property,then it becomes an issue. <br /> Page 5 of 21 <br />