Laserfiche WebLink
of the roof, even the other south facing roof planes would not acquire comparable photovoltaic rays. <br /> The reduction of two solar panels results in almost a 1,000 kWh loss of potential sunlight obtainable <br /> by this roof for the homeowner. Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6, states that inadequate access to <br /> direct sunlight for solar energy systems is a practical difficulty. <br /> 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any <br /> use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected <br /> person's land is located. <br /> Response: N/A <br /> 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family <br /> dwelling as a two-family dwelling. <br /> Response: N/A <br /> 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br /> property or immediately adjoining property. <br /> Response: The proposed location for 30 solar panels is at an azimuth of 180 degrees. Due to <br /> Minnesota residing on the North side of the equator line, the optimal azimuth for solar access is <br /> South, therefore this is the ideal spot on the roof. Additionally, the residence's roof structure consists <br /> of many valleys and hips between other south facing planes and are slightly shaded and less <br /> supreme. <br /> The ordinance would require two of the 30 solar panels be removed. It is impractical to require two <br /> solar panels be placed on another roof plane, a great distance away. Due to the nature of the layout <br /> of the roof, even the other south facing roof planes would not acquire comparable photovoltaic rays. <br /> The reduction of two solar panels results in almost a 1,000 kWh loss of potential sunlight obtainable <br /> by this roof for the homeowner. Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6, states that inadequate access to <br /> direct sunlight for solar energy systems is a practical difficulty. <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br /> said land is located. <br /> Response: N/A <br /> 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant. <br /> Response: It is the property owner's and right to supplement or utilize alternatives to conventional <br /> fuels, in which they are choosing to do so by installing a solar energy system. <br /> 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, <br /> comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. <br /> Response: The City of Orono's Community Management Plan, Part 3A Environmental Protection Plan <br /> outlines the need for protecting solar access. Granting this proposed variance will not impair health, <br /> safety, comfort, morals or otherwise, but rather be contributing to the City's 2040 plan. <br />