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 22 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 />Mattick stated the ordinance does not allow anything other than a mono pole so there is no need to define <br />what a tower is. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the City Council to combine the two definitions. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Section B, Item 6, talks about wind energy systems. Staff had started by limiting them to <br />less than 10 kV on lots at least 10 acres in gross area within the RR-1A and RR-1B Rural Residential <br />zoning districts. Gaffron stated the wording, wind energy conversion systems are not permitted in any <br />other zoning districts is probably not necessary, but that he would recommending adding the following: <br />Small wind energy conversion systems less than 100 kV are allowed in commercial and industrial zones <br />only by conditional use permit. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission had a discussion about allowing WECS in commercial and industrial zones <br />and the conclusion was that if they were going to be allowed in those zones, that they only be allowed by <br />a conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Walsh asked for an example of why they would not have the same restrictions as residential. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated there are very few commercial or industrial lots in the City that meet the 10-acre standard. <br /> <br />Walsh stated in his view 10 acres is an overreach. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the second justification would be that all of the City’s commercial and industrial districts <br />are fairly close in proximity to residential zoning areas. Gaffron stated the question is whether there is a <br />potential to have a bigger wind turbine on a commercial piece of property than a residential. <br /> <br />Walsh stated he was attempting to find a reason to parcel them out for some reason. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the intensity of use could also be another factor. <br /> <br />Walsh stated the issues associated with setbacks and height are basically the same on residential lots as <br />they are on commercial. Walsh stated the regulations have to be reasonable enough that they allow the <br />potential for someone to have one and not be, in essence, a de facto ban. <br /> <br />McMillan noted they would be required to obtain a conditional use permit and that it is not a de facto ban. <br /> <br />Walsh stated it is a de facto ban is they cannot meet any of the conditions. <br /> <br />Printup stated as it relates to the 10 acres, that is something he has thought about a lot over the weekend. <br />Printed noted the judge made the comment “any person may have.” Printup stated he started to reflect on <br />that and asked himself whether that means any person on 10 acres or any person that has it reasonably set <br />back from a lot line, which may make it a 5-foot structure or a 2-foot structure. Printup stated in his view <br />requiring 10 acres is too much that and that he would take it lot by lot, which might be addressed later in <br />the ordinance when it talks about height.