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,conNnued) Mattick stated the other point that was discussed as one of the reasons for the setback is the flicker or shadow. Mattick stated one of the options is to require the person to provide a report that says they will not disrupt the neighbors,which helps with the setback issue. Mattick stated another option is to require the blades be painted black. Mattick stated if the Council feels it can address the items that cause the need for a setback through other standards,they can do it that,which may eliminate the need for a setback. Mattick stated the one issue that Staff was unable to come up with a solution to was how close the WECS should be to a neighboring property. Walsh questioned whether the 1.5 fall distance would also resolve the flicker issue. McMillan stated it sounds like the Council may be open to reducing the setback. McMillan stated as it relates to Item No. 10,nonintrusive color, she is totally in agreement with that, and that she is okay with the system not being illuminated. Gaffron stated as it relates to Item No. 1 l,the Planning Commission had some discussion about feeding the grid or the neighborhood and their conclusion was that it should just be feeding the person's own home or the grid and not creating neighborhood systems. McMillan asked if Staff wants the Council to pick one of the paragraphs under Item No. 14. Mattick stated they would,and that in his opinion the second option creates a false sense of security. Mattick stated the report could come back and say that it does impact the neighbor but it does not say they cannot do that. McMillan stated she prefers the first paragraph,but that instead of saying fall on or in, she would put neighboring property instead of structure in case of a vacant lot. McMillan stated the intent is that the shadow or reflective flicker should not fall on the adjoining property. McMillan stated the City Council could always require a flicker report in the future. Walsh asked who would determine whether there will be a shadow or a flicker on the neighbor's property. Mattick stated that still may require a report. McMillan stated Staff will need to determine that. Gaffron stated he prefers the third option,but that he would agree to changing it to neighboring properties rather than structures. Gaffron indicated he also has no idea how much a flicker report costs. Mattick stated there should also be some sort of consensus on what constitutes a flicker report. Printup asked if the non-reflective surface would cover the flicker. Page 27 of 43