Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 20, 2015 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 9 of 21  <br />  <br />Schoenzeit noted 10 kW will not generate that much electricity and that the City could require they only <br />connect it to their house and local meter grid but not redistribute it. <br /> <br />Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with that. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if there is a reason why those points were not raised in the other model ordinances. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated there are a few that specifically prohibit that but that he does not know the answer to that. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated that would be the safest way to connect it and that a licensed electrician will need to do <br />the hookup. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if there is a risk to someone only feeding their house and not the grid. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the extra current would not be a problem if it is hooked properly to a person’s meter. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he would recommend allowing a connection to the grid. <br /> <br />Leskinen indicated she would also be agreeable to that. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated that would also help to eliminate the commercial component to it if they are allowed to <br />connect it to the local utility to offset their electrical use. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated with only one turbine on a property, the electricity generated would be rather minimal. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the way the language is currently drafted, more than one would not be allowed. Gaffron <br />stated he has not seen multiple wind turbines addressed in other city ordinances. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated as it relates to accessory use versus conditional use, the Planning Commission had <br />concluded under the limitations recommended in 2013 that WECS could be listed as an allowed accessory <br />use in the RR-1B and RR-1A districts, and approval would be administrative, with any deviations subject <br />to the variance process. The administrative approval process negates any neighbor input, while the <br />conditional use permit or variance processes each involve neighbor notification and the public hearing <br />process. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission should consider the following: <br /> <br />1. Should residential WECS be allowed administratively as an accessory use or should they be <br /> allowed only as a conditional use. <br /> <br />2. Should any deviations from the standards be subject to the variance process rather than a <br /> conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated a number of suggested changes have been incorporated into the 2013 draft ordinance and <br />that the Planning Commission should review the comparison of various jurisdictions’ WECS code <br />provisions provided in their packet and attempt to answer the questions listed in Staff’s memorandum. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 9 of 21]