Similar Articles
OC Rescue Boat Called A Major Need
OCEAN CITY – In need of a fire rescue boat, the Ocean City Fire ...READ MOREOcean City Inlet Lot System Upgrade Okayed
OCEAN CITY – The Inlet Parking Lot’s pay-to-park system is...READ MORECouncil Inks Two-Year Contract For Visitors Guide
OCEAN CITY – The Mayor and City Council changed direction and co...READ MOREHeight To Decide If Kids Ride Free In Ocean City
OCEAN CITY – The Mayor and City Council clarified the town’...READ MORECounty Planning Commission Examines Water Resources Plan
SNOW HILL – The Worcester County Planning Commission examined la...READ MOREScam Nearly Costs Area Business Owner Thousands
BERLIN – A prominent local businessman with deep roots in the co...READ MORELocal Recognized Among Sportswear Line’s Featured Athletes
OCEAN CITY – Local surfer Michelle Sommers has been chosen as on...READ MORELegislative Session Underway In Annapolis
BERLIN – The Maryland General Assembly convened this week for it...READ MOREBerlin Mayor, Historic District Squabble Revisited
BERLIN – A discussion of possible reform to the Berlin Historic ...READ MORESummer Visa Changes To Have Major Impact
OCEAN CITY – Significant changes to the summer work and travel p...READ MOREOC Wind Turbine Bill Stalls
OCEAN CITY – The option to install small wind turbines has come to a stand still again.Since 2009, the town of Ocean City has been approached on several occasions to pass an ordinance regulating the placement of small wind energy systems to be placed on waterfront properties.
On April 20, 2009, the Mayor and Council passed an ordinance amending the zoning code to allow small wind turbines under conditional zoning regulations. One of the conditions requires a setback of 1.1 times the height of the turbine from all adjacent property lines, public right-of-way and public utility lines.
Jim Motsko has applied to install a small wind turbine on his waterfront property. The state of Maryland is one of the adjacent property owners of the applicant, being that the land under water is owned by the state.
The state corresponded that there is no need for a license or permit, but the state is unable to grant an easement to allow the construction of the turbine.
City Solicitor Guy Ayres responded that the state’s correspondence is not sufficient enough to overcome the requirement for an easement.
The situation left the Planning Commission and Mayor and City Council with the option of re-wording the ordinance.
The proposed amendment is to “allow a turbine on the waterfront to adhere to the same setback from the water as required for a building. Approval would still be by conditional use, subject to public hearing and final approval by the Mayor and City Council” … or, “provide a variance or special exception process by which the Board of Zoning Appeals would conduct a public hearing and make a determination on the case.”
Councilman Joe Hall made a motion to accept the language of the second option recommended and Lloyd Martin second his motion.
Councilwoman Mary Knight being a waterfront property owner said she has many objections with the ordinance and sustained from the vote.
Council President Jim Hall, who also lives on the bay, went on record to vote against the motion. “I would be livid if one of my neighbors erected one of these things [turbine] because I pride myself on a view of north and south,” Jim Hall said.
Motsko’s attorney, Joseph Moore, reminded the council that this amendment would allow the council to consider the installation of a small wind turbine, not grant permission.
The vote resulted in a vote of 3-3, with Council members Brent Ashley, Jim Hall and Margaret Pillas, in opposition.











There are no comments.