02-08-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 6 2. LA20-73 ALL ENERGY SOLAR O/B/O BRIAN O’CONNELL + LYNNE RASMUSSEN, 3145 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Brian O’Connell, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart showed on screen a view of the house near the lake and noted the portion of the roof is right over the corner and said it is fairly well screened by the neighboring house to the side. Staff reviewed this proposed variance for solar panels and this is not dissimilar to the variance the Planning Commission saw in November or December of 2020 where that property was asking for approximately 85% solar roof panel coverage where 70% is allowed. Barnhart showed on screen a very complex roof system with many relatively small roof planes; the goal here from a solar panel array is to provide southern exposure and this house works out well in that the largest roof plane is towards the south which provides good exposure. He pointed out the large stands of trees that block view from the lake and pointed out the neighboring property onscreen. The Applicant provided some practical difficulty statements, they are in attendance tonight and the Planning Commission should ask them for additional statements. From Staff’s perspective the goal of solar panel regulations is to minimize an aesthetic impact and the difference between 75% and 70% lot coverage is relatively minor from a distance. Barnhart said close to the property the visual impact of the additional arrays is very negligible. Given the building code standards in terms of safety issues to make sure there is access into the solar array and access around the edges, it is probably appropriate that they examine their solar regulations as it applies to roof coverage. Barnhart noted some of the Commissioners made that statement last November. From Staff’s perspective, they found there were practical difficulties. In particular, the State has a practical difficulty for lack of adequate sunlight; from a State statute perspective this is not a carte blanche that someone can automatically get a variance for roof panels. Staff thinks the intent of the State legislature when they made that regulation is that existing trees and vegetation block the ability for a property to access the sun. In those situations, the remedy is to cut down those trees and that is not the goal of Orono’s Comprehensive Plan, nor the goal of many neighborhoods where they want to protect established vegetation, and they certainly want to protect vegetation within the lake. In lieu of cutting down the trees to provide maximum solar access, the Applicant is requesting the variance. The Applicant is present tonight and Staff is recommending approval of the variance as proposed. Bollis asked when calculating the 70%, are they calculating just the garage roof or how are they coming to that number. Barnhart noted they just calculate that portion of the roof where there are panels, that plane. They do not calculate the other side, they just calculate “this side” (referencing on the screen). Bollis asked if that is spelled out specifically in the code that it is just that plane. Barnhart replied yes. He said if it was the “roof system” then they would be at approximately 14%. Kirchner noted Barnhart mentioned this was not entirely different than November. If he recalls, that one was adding an accessory structure in an open area. Barnhart clarified there was an existing accessory structure and they put the panels on that. The argument for that one was one could not see that structure from anywhere. He noted this one can be seen from Exhibit B