03-09-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING � Monday,March 9,2015 7:00 o'clock p.m. (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO—AMEND ZONING CODE—AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS(WECS)FIRST REVIEW,continued) Mattick stated the ordinance does not allow anything other than a mono pole so there is no need to define what a tower is. It was the consensus of the City Council to combine the two defmitions. Gaffron stated Section B,Item 6,talks about wind energy systems. Staff had started by limiting them to less than 10 kV on lots at least 10 acres in gross area within the RR-lA and RR-1B Rural Residential zoning districts. Gaffron stated the wording,wind energy conversion systems are not permitted in any other zoning districts is probably not necessary,but that he would recommending adding the following: Small wind energy conversion systems less than 100 kV are allowed in commercial and industrial zones only by conditional use permit. The Planning Commission had a discussion about allowing WECS in commercial and industrial zones and the conclusion was that if they were going to be allowed in those zones,that they only be allowed by a conditional use permit. Walsh asked for an example of why they would not have the same restrictions as residential. Gaffron stated there are very few commercial or industrial lots in the City that meet the 10-acre standard. Walsh stated in his view 10 acres is an overreach. Gaffron stated the second justification would be that all of the City's commercial and industrial districts are fairly close in proximity to residential zoning areas. Gaffron stated the question is whether there is a potential to have a bigger wind turbine on a commercial piece of property than a residential. Walsh stated he was attempting to find a reason to parcel them out for some reason. McMillan stated the intensity of use could also be another factor. Walsh stated the issues associated with setbacks and height are basically the same on residential lots as they are on commercial. Walsh stated the regulations have to be reasonable enough that they allow the potential for someone to have one and not be,in essence, a de facto ban. McMillan noted they would be required to obtain a conditional use permit and that it is not a de facto ban. Walsh stated it is a de facto ban is they cannot meet any of the conditions. Printup stated as it relates to the 10 acres,that is something he has thought about a lot over the weekend. Printed noted the judge made the comment"any person may have." Printup stated he started to reflect on that and asked himself whether that means any person on 10 acres or any person that has it reasonably set back from a lot line,which may make it a 5-foot structure or a 2-foot structure. Printup stated in his view requiring 10 acres is too much that and that he would take it lot by lot,which might be addressed later in the ordinance when it talks about height. Page 22 of 43