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 3 of 6 Gettman thanked Mr. O’Connell and said that clarifies. Kirchner asked on the photo they are looking at of the neighbor; is that Mr. Mandell who they provided an email of support earlier today. Mr. O’Connell replied that is correct. Bollis asked why not just build to 70% and drop the two panels. Mr. O’Connell would like to maximize the amount of solar energy he can get on the house. There is a state code and although he is not well-versed in State code, from a safety perspective they must have a 3- foot access way. So, the maximum number of panels he can put on that roof, given where roof vents are is 30. He can get a permit approved for 28 as that is the 70%. As outlined, he could put a single solar panel on a bunch of other roof planes, run conduit, but those would be visible from the lake, from the backyard, and more visible from the street if he put it on the front side of the house. He noted he could comply with the 70% and put two more panels on and he thinks that would be aesthetically unpleasing as he wants to minimize if not completely eliminate this array from the lake. This is a way for him to maximize his solar usage and put it on the same plane. He asked to show a picture of the 28-panel design versus the 30-panel design. He pointed out two squares on an aerial image that he would like to add. Mr. O’Connell said it is reasonable to ask for a variance as there is a variance process in place; one was granted with 80-some% and he said granted it was on an outlying structure, and he thinks the visibility is de minimis on this side and his neighbor his fine with it. Mr. O’Connell could add those two panels somewhere else but he does not think that is practical given the negative aesthetic appearance of the panels on other roof planes. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Chair Ressler noted they just had one of the applications in November and is interested in finding out the outcome from that. Something that came from that is perhaps they need to revisit the code for the percentage that the roof occupies. Seeing that it was approved and passed, normally he would say practical difficulty is not exactly met but considering the previous application was approved, he does not see any reason why this one would not be. The practical difficulty is identified as accessibility to sunlight so by definition that roofline if it were to continue on would meet the criteria. It is not as egregious of an overreach from the allotment of 70% as currently written in the City code. Kirchner feels this one is slightly different from the one in November; the application in November was in a large open area without trees obstructing it and he felt in that case there was not a lack of adequate sunlight; the roof structure just was not as big to accommodate the number of panels they wanted. He noted in this application there are some trees providing blockage and with that said, in viewing previous decisions the Planning Commission has made (not specific to solar panels but hardcover) they have stuck pretty certain to a percentage – only 1% versus “this” percent is an overage. In this case he struggles with the slippery slope of “well it’s only 5%, it’s only 15%.” With that being said he does believe there is some wind behind the sails here to evaluate this ordinance in the future as to what the intent of it is and what percentage should truly be allowed to circumvent variance applications such as this.