Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 17, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 6 of 23  <br />  <br />Leskinen asked whether the Commissioners feel it would be worthwhile to discuss any of the issues <br />tonight or whether they would be better suited to table it to the January work session to allow a closer <br />review of the materials. <br /> <br />Landgraver noted the Planning Commission made a previous recommendation to the City Council which <br />was not adopted. Landgraver asked why the City Council chose not to follow the recommendation of the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the City Council at that time was not comfortable allowing wind energy systems at all in <br />the City. Gaffron noted the ordinance also addressed other alternative energy systems, such as wood <br />boilers, but did not focus on commercial and industrial uses. Gaffron stated in his view the City will need <br />to discuss some of the other bigger issues associated with wind turbines. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the parts of the ordinance dealing with wood boilers and other alternative energy <br />systems would remain intact. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated they would unless the Planning Commission or City Council felt changes are needed. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the public comments received tonight negate the industry’s comments regarding <br />flickering, shadows, and glare. Schoenzeit asked if the neighbor has a different location on the <br />neighboring property that he would find acceptable. <br /> <br />Lanpher stated he was asked that same question in the early lawsuits and that in his view it is not his area <br />to judge where it should be located. Lanpher noted in 2002, when the neighbors were requesting a <br />variance to add on to their home, the neighbor agreed to no more structure on the property. Lanpher <br />stated the neighboring property is small and that he cannot recommend any location since it would likely <br />be violating hardcover and other setback requirements. Lanpher stated he would refer it back to the City <br />since he does not feel it is his place to dictate the location of it and that this is a City issue and not a <br />personal issue. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated if it is moved, it could become someone else’s issue. <br /> <br />Lanpher stated if someone wants a wind turbine on their property, consideration should be based on each <br />property individually. Lanpher stated in his view you cannot have them on properties that are two acres <br />or less given the impacts it will have on the neighbors. Lanpher stated even if it is restricted to properties <br />ten acres or greater, there still could be potential issues with visual impacts and setbacks given the <br />different times the sun rises and sets. Lanpher noted the commercial wind farm operations are buying out <br />the neighboring properties. Lanpher stated the question still remains as to how far is far enough and that <br />all of the impacts are not all known at this point. <br /> <br />Mack noted the work session in January is intended to be the next discussion point on the various code <br />amendment topics that were discussed at the joint work session. Mack indicated this is one of the <br />ongoing topics that the City will be looking at over the coming year and should be made a priority. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated this topic is definitely at the top of the priority list for the work session. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 01/20/2015 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 6 of 23]