Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 9, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 21 of 43  <br />  <br />(11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: <br />WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) <br /> <br />Printup stated he is not comfortable with the paragraph on ornamental wind devices since it leads the way <br />into Alice’s rabbit hole. <br /> <br />Walsh stated it comes down to semantics. <br /> <br />Printup stated the City has been talking about this for a number of years and that it is all semantics. <br />Printup indicated he would lean towards eliminating that paragraph. <br /> <br />Walsh asked if a 10-foot pole that has something spinning on it would fall under accessory structures. <br /> <br />Mattick stated that would probably be viewed as an accessory structure. <br /> <br />Walsh stated those two items need to work in tandem then. <br /> <br />Mattick stated the current code does not really address flickering. Mattick noted the City’s lighting code <br />says the light must be downcast and not cause glare on neighboring properties. Mattick stated the <br />question is whether the Council cares about something that is spinning but not causing flickering. <br /> <br />Printup stated he does not see that as a bad thing. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the ornamental wind device definition could perhaps be eliminated and then perhaps <br />address the spinning, moving, or making noise under accessory use. <br /> <br />Walsh stated he would prefer to stick with wind energy exclusively and not ornamental devices. Walsh <br />stated the issues associated with accessory structures should be dealt with separately. <br /> <br />Mattick and Gaffron concurred that that approach makes sense. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if the Council is okay with the different residential definitions or whether they should be <br />combined into one, such as small wind. <br /> <br />Printup stated that makes sense. <br /> <br />Levang stated it does not appear that all the categories are necessary. <br /> <br />Mattick stated the ordinance does not differentiate between them as it relates to how they are regulated <br />and that Staff has struggled with the issue of whether a 100 kV wind turbine is bigger than a 10 kV. <br />Mattick stated it might take a bigger size windmill to generate more electricity but that he does not know <br />that. <br /> <br />McMillan suggested those two definitions be combined. McMillan noted the two tower definitions can <br />also be combined. <br /> <br />Levang stated one tower definition appears to be sufficient.