03-09-2015 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 43 (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) Gaffron stated in the very first paragraph it talks about limiting it to a lot of at least 10 acres. Gaffron indicated what is on the overhead is an analysis that was done for the Comprehensive Plan five or six years ago. In gray and yellow are the lots that are at least 10 acres in area and the green and orange are two and five acre lots. Gaffron noted the map does not take into account wetlands and that there are quite a number of properties out there that might meet the standard of 10 acres if it is simply the gross area. Gaffron stated on the 10-acre lots, the question becomes, where can a wind turbine be located. Many lots are not square and the shape could be such that they might not be able to place a WECS on the property. Gaffron stated he also looked at a small area of the City west to northwest of Stubbs Bay, which is an area that has quite a number of 5-acre lots as well as 10-acre lots. Gaffron indicated he looked at 30 to 50 lots and only five or six were able to meet all the standards. Gaffron stated Staff can do a much more detailed analysis to determine which lots would be able to meet the proposed standards or parameters. Gaffron stated the other issue that comes into play is whether those sites are located in a woods or a depression where there is not any wind. As it relates to setback and height, the ordinance limits the total height to 45 feet with a blade height of no more than 15 feet, which will not get above the tree line and will likely hurt the efficiency of the system. Gaffron asked if the Council feels a 300-foot is acceptable when it is 45 feet high. Gaffron stated in order for the wind turbine to be effective, it needs to be away from trees and buildings and will likely be visible to the neighbors. Gaffron stated there are a lot of factors that need to be balanced in determining whether a WECS is appropriate in a specific location and that most cities have adopted an ordinance that says the setback must be at least 1 or 1.4 times the height so that in case it falls over, it does not cross the lot line, which is as far as most of the other cities’ ordinances take it. Printup stated that is an important requirement. Printup stated in talking with the residents, he finds that once they have a better understanding of the impacts, they understand the rationale for the setbacks. Walsh asked what the Council thinks about reducing the lot size to two acres with a 1.2 or 1.3 setback and with a maximum height of 45 feet. Walsh stated there also should not be any shadowing on anybody’s yards or houses. Walsh stated all the elements need to fit together. McMillan stated height and setbacks go together and that the height will help determine the necessary setback. McMillan asked if the Council is okay with the 45-foot height limit. It was the consensus of the City Council to go with the 45-foot height limit. McMillan stated the other issue is the flicker and noted that reflected light can travel further than the fall zone for the tower. Levang asked if the fall zone is the 300 feet that the Planning Commission recommended or the 1.5.