03-09-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#143700 Amend Section 78-1379 November 13,2014 Page 5 SWECS, and because of the limitations established on them regarding location, design, etc. Planning Commission was comfortable allowing them as an accessory use rather than as a conditional use. - The draft did not attempt to identify wind resources within the City. Although statewide mapping of average annual wind speeds is available for specified heights above ground, local SWECS placement for optimum efficiency is very site specific. Height above buildings and trees for a minimum radius distance is potentially a key factor to take into account for efficiency,but at the same time may result in increased visibility. - The 2013 draft established a variety of setbacks and system location requirements specifically designed for the large-lot areas in which WECS were proposed to be allowed. For example: > Because the minimum lot size was proposed at 10 acres, a setback from all property lines of 300 feet was suggested. It is more common in many model ordinances to have a lot line setback of 1.1 to 1.5 times the peak height of the WECS, presumably to have no impact on neighboring properties if the WECS falls over. Such a minimal setback does not take into account other WECS impacts on neighboring properties. > The 2013 draft ordinance required that WECS not be installed in a defined front or side street yard. This appears to be common within other cities' ordinances. It didn't set a standard for lakeshore yards because WECS were prohibited in Shoreland areas. > The draft ordinance required that WECS be located no further than 150 feet from the principal structure to which they are accessory, in order to ensure that such facilitie� are not placed far away from the owner's residence. - The draft included a number of safety, design and operational standards related specifically to Residential Wind Turbines, and did not attempt to address standards for Small Wind Turbines, Utility Wind Turbines, nor for any commerciaUindustrial uses. The design standards listed in the draft were intended to minimize impacts to the natural environment as well as to neighboring property owners. - While the 2013 draft did address the issue of abandonment, it did not fully address the potential impacts to public infrastructure during the construction process. Definitions The Alternative Energy Ordinance as adopted did include a set of definitions for WECS as well as a figure depicting two typical wind turbine configurations - horizontal axis and vertical axis. In considering an ordinance that would allow SWECS, it may be appropriate to redefine certain terms and the relationship between systems and their components. For example, a wind turbine is one component of a WECS; in order to be a WECS, a number of components must be present. Planning Commission should review the definitions found in the model ordinances. Another example to consider is the variation in the terms used for the various rating capacities for SWECS. Additionally there are terms not included in Orono's ordinance that define certain impacts of SWECS, such as `shadow flicker' that should be considered for inclusion. Another item for consideration is defining the difference between a WECS and an ornamental wind device.