11-16-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,November 16,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Commission to approve this variance so her children can grow up knowing and understanding that everyone needs to do their part to keep our collective home safe. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. Chair Ressler said to Barnhart they've discussed a bit about what the spirit of the maximum of 70% is how Orono views the maximum for coverages and practical difficulty can allot for accessibility to sunlight. Of course the alternative would be to clear trees and he does not think anyone is for that, either. His question is perhaps Barnhart can give him some insight as far as the 70% access to sunlight if there is not an alternative placement for it in this case. He would have to look a bit closer at the primary,but it does not seem like it's a large difference between what is allotted and what is requested and that could be argued either way. He is looking for more insight on the definition of the practical difficulty as it relates to accessibility to sunlight. Barnhart replied he may not have a lot of background on that,but the State statute says practical difficulties also include, but are not limited to,inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy system. He noted that is all it says on the subject, so maybe the question is,is"inadequate access"the difference between 70%and 83%. The 70%is Orono's number and is not a State number, so Barnhart applied the practical difficulty for the request for variance. Onscreen, Barnhart pointed out the roofline of the principal structure and said it is really a lot of little roofs and they would get to that 70%pretty quickly and pretty inefficiently to create the desired amount of solar panel. They have also already learned that the option in terms of providing ground-mounted solar array,which in many respects is much bigger screened, is a variance that the Council in the past has not been willing to accept. He noted they approved one but denied the most recent one. He cannot offer that as a recommendation in terms of variable and what the Applicant is asking for. He thinks the 13%difference between what is allowed and what they are requesting is reasonable,given when they know to be a practical difficulty and the impact it has on the adjacent property. Barnhart thinks they are satisfying the requirements of City code by approving this variance. Kirchner is struggling a little bit,he has heard the practical difficulties were listed as inadequate access to sunlight, and if he understands correctly, it does not seem that there is inadequate access to sunlight. Rather, in order to offset the primary structure's power consumption, there needs to be this amount of panels. He understands that the roofline of the primary structure is a challenging roof with many gables, which then allows for the accessory structure to be the next best option for the placement of this. He is struggling to understand how the gables on the roof of the primary structure should then allow for the variance over and above the 70%here. Generally,he is very supportive of something like this and he believes it is a great use of the property; it looks like there is a lot of land there and good space to do something like this. He is struggling on truly grasping that the practical difficulty is inadequate access to sunlight. Gettman said the State statute actually says "the practical difficulties shall include,but are not limited to, the access to the sunlight." He sees this as discretionary and said they have arbitrarily come up with the 70% and that seems to be for the fire control, so if they are able to still do the fire control he does not see any reason why this arbitrary number of 83%would not be acceptable. Page 4 of 23