Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,March 9,2015 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (11. #14-3700 CIT'Y OF ORONO—AMEND ZONING CODE—AMEND SECTION 78-1379: <br /> WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS(WECS)FIRST REVIEW,continued) <br /> Printup stated he is not comfortable with the paragraph on ornamental wind devices since it leads the way <br /> into Alice's rabbit hole. <br /> Walsh stated it comes down to semantics. <br /> Printup stated the City has been talking about this for a number of years and that it is all semantics. <br /> Printup indicated he would lean towards eliminating that paragraph. <br /> Walsh asked if a 10-foot pole that has something spinning on it would fall under accessory structures. <br /> Mattick stated that would probably be viewed as an accessory structure. <br /> Walsh stated those two items need to work in tandem then. <br /> Mattick stated the current code does not really address flickering. Mattick noted the City's lighting code <br /> says the light must be downcast and not cause glare on neighboring properties. Mattick stated the <br /> question is whether the Council cares about something that is spinning but not causing flickering. <br /> Printup stated he does not see that as a bad thing. <br /> McMillan stated the ornamental wind device definition could perhaps be eliminated and then perhaps <br /> address the spinning,moving,or making noise under accessory use. <br /> Walsh stated he would prefer to stick with wind energy exclusively and not ornamental devices. Walsh <br /> stated the issues associated with accessory structures should be dealt with separately. <br /> Mattick and Gaffron concurred that that approach makes sense. <br /> McMillan asked if the Council is okay with the different residential definitions or whether they should be <br /> combined into one, such as small wind. <br /> Printup stated that makes sense. <br /> Levang stated it does not appear that all the categories are necessary. <br /> Mattick stated the ordinance does not differentiate between them as it relates to how they are regulated <br /> and that Staff has struggled with the issue of whether a 100 kV wind turbine is bigger than a 10 kV. <br /> Mattick stated it might take a bigger size windmill to generate more electricity but that he does not know <br /> that. <br /> McMillan suggested those two definitions be combined. McMillan noted the two tower definitions can <br /> also be combined. <br /> Levang stated one tower definition appears to be sufficient. <br /> Page 21 of 43 <br />