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 27 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 other point that was discussed as one of the reasons for the setback is the flicker or <br />shadow. Mattick stated one of the options is to require the person to provide a report that says they will <br />not disrupt the neighbors, which helps with the setback issue. Mattick stated another option is to require <br />the blades be painted black. Mattick stated if the Council feels it can address the items that cause the <br />need for a setback through other standards, they can do it that, which may eliminate the need for a <br />setback. Mattick stated the one issue that Staff was unable to come up with a solution to was how close <br />the WECS should be to a neighboring property. <br /> <br />Walsh questioned whether the 1.5 fall distance would also resolve the flicker issue. <br /> <br />McMillan stated it sounds like the Council may be open to reducing the setback. <br /> <br />McMillan stated as it relates to Item No. 10, nonintrusive color, she is totally in agreement with that, and <br />that she is okay with the system not being illuminated. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated as it relates to Item No. 11, the Planning Commission had some discussion about feeding <br />the grid or the neighborhood and their conclusion was that it should just be feeding the person’s own <br />home or the grid and not creating neighborhood systems. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if Staff wants the Council to pick one of the paragraphs under Item No. 14. <br /> <br />Mattick stated they would, and that in his opinion the second option creates a false sense of security. <br />Mattick stated the report could come back and say that it does impact the neighbor but it does not say they <br />cannot do that. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she prefers the first paragraph, but that instead of saying fall on or in, she would put <br />neighboring property instead of structure in case of a vacant lot. McMillan stated the intent is that the <br />shadow or reflective flicker should not fall on the adjoining property. McMillan stated the City Council <br />could always require a flicker report in the future. <br /> <br />Walsh asked who would determine whether there will be a shadow or a flicker on the neighbor’s property. <br /> <br />Mattick stated that still may require a report. <br /> <br />McMillan stated Staff will need to determine that. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he prefers the third option, but that he would agree to changing it to neighboring properties <br />rather than structures. Gaffron indicated he also has no idea how much a flicker report costs. <br /> <br />Mattick stated there should also be some sort of consensus on what constitutes a flicker report. <br /> <br />Printup asked if the non-reflective surface would cover the flicker.