Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Brian O'Connell,Applicant,was present. <br /> Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart showed on screen a view of the house near <br /> the lake and noted the portion of the roof is right over the corner and said it is fairly well screened by the <br /> neighboring house to the side. Staff reviewed this proposed variance for solar panels and this is not <br /> dissimilar to the variance the Planning Commission saw in November or December of 2020 where that <br /> property was asking for approximately 85% solar roof panel coverage where 70%is allowed. Barnhart <br /> showed on screen a very complex roof system with many relatively small roof planes;the goal here from <br /> a solar panel array is to provide southern exposure and this house works out well in that the largest roof <br /> plane is towards the south which provides good exposure. He pointed out the large stands of trees that <br /> block view from the lake and pointed out the neighboring property onscreen. The Applicant provided <br /> some practical difficulty statements,they are in attendance tonight and the Planning Commission should <br /> ask them for additional statements. From Staffs perspective the goal of solar panel regulations is to <br /> minimize an aesthetic impact and the difference between 75%and 70%lot coverage is relatively minor <br /> from a distance. Barnhart said close to the property the visual impact of the additional arrays is very <br /> negligible. Given the building code standards in terms of safety issues to make sure there is access into <br /> the solar array and access around the edges, it is probably appropriate that they examine their solar <br /> regulations as it applies to roof coverage. Barnhart noted some of the Commissioners made that <br /> statement last November. From Staffs perspective,they found there were practical difficulties. In <br /> particular,the State has a practical difficulty for lack of adequate sunlight; from a State statute perspective <br /> this is not a carte blanche that someone can automatically get a variance for roof panels. Staff thinks the <br /> intent of the State legislature when they made that regulation is that existing trees and vegetation block <br /> the ability for a property to access the sun. In those situations,the remedy is to cut down those trees and <br /> that is not the goal of Orono's Comprehensive Plan, nor the goal of many neighborhoods where they want <br /> to protect established vegetation, and they certainly want to protect vegetation within the lake. In lieu of <br /> cutting down the trees to provide maximum solar access,the Applicant is requesting the variance. The <br /> Applicant is present tonight and Staff is recommending approval of the variance as proposed. <br /> Bollis asked when calculating the 70%, are they calculating just the garage roof or how are they coming <br /> to that number. <br /> Barnhart noted they just calculate that portion of the roof where there are panels,that plane. They do not <br /> calculate the other side,they just calculate"this side"(referencing on the screen). <br /> Bollis asked if that is spelled out specifically in the code that it is just that plane. <br /> Barnhart replied yes. He said if it was the"roof system"then they would be at approximately 14%. <br /> Kirchner noted Barnhart mentioned this was not entirely different than November. If he recalls,that one <br /> was adding an accessory structure in an open area. <br /> Barnhart clarified there was an existing accessory structure and they put the panels on that. The argument <br /> for that one was one could not see that structure from anywhere. He noted this one can be seen from <br /> other places but if the analysis is variance or no,they are allowed 38 panels and are just asking for 2 extra <br /> ones,that difference is relatively negligible from a Staff perspective. <br /> Page 17 of 28 <br />