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) Printup indicated he is okay with private property,private wells, and other items. Printup stated the question becomes,who can say someone cannot have a 45-foot pole if it does not harm someone else's property. Printup stated based on that,he gets a little uneasy with limiting these only to the larger lots. Levang stated she is not being afforded the same level of protection simply because she lives on a larger lot even though she can see her neighbor just as well as someone who lives on a smaller lot. McMillan indicated the Council can come back to the 10-acre restriction. Gaffron stated Item B talks about residential WECS standards. McMillan stated it appears everyone on the Council is okay with the height standards. McMillan suggested the title be changed to WECS standards for residential zones. Gaffron stated another standard included under residential WECS includes clearance,which requires a minimum distance from the ground for the lowest point of a blade or any other moving part to be 12 feet. Roof or wall mounted WECS would not be permitted. The conclusion of the Planning Commission meeting was that they should be ground mounted and that roof or wall mounted presents a different visual impact but there was not a strong reasoning for one versus the other. Gaffron indicated a number of other cities do not allow roof or wall mounted. Walsh indicated he is fine with that. Gaffron stated the base of the WECS tower shall be set back at least 300 feet from all property lines. WECS cannot be installed in the front yard of any lot or in the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a public right-of-way. It also cannot be located more than 150 feet from the principal structure on the property. Gaffron stated the City Council would need to provide justification for that,but from a technical standpoint,there may be some electrical or technical reasons why it should not be located too far from the residence. McMillan stated the person who owns the wind turbine will need to live with it more than his neighbors but that it may be redundancy as it relates to the setbacks. Levang stated essentially the 150 feet is subsumed with the 300-foot setback. Gaffron stated every site will be different. An example would be a house that is located in the woods and the site for a wind turbine is over 150 feet away. Walsh stated the setback also dovetails with the acreage. Walsh stated if the 10-acre lot is a perfect square,the property owner would have approximately 60' x 60' in the middle,which likely does not exist and would essentially be a de facto ban. Printup stated in his view that is not reasonable. Page 25 of 43