Municipal setbacks

This is what I have just sent out to my contact list:

The Cumberland County Municipal Council met on Wednesday and passed the first reading of an amendment to the land use bylaws that allows for large wind turbines to be placed as close as three times the height of a turbine to a property line. This is despite all the information and protests that have been sent to them.

A 120m (394 ft) turbine could be as close as 360m (0.22 mile) from your property. This is just too close.

In Europe, where they have been living with turbines for way longer than we have, they have learned their lesson and are placing them further and further away. In Germany the setback is 2km (1.24 mile), in the UK it is most recently suggested to be 1 mile (1.6km) and in Denmark they are no longer allowed on land at all!

The County has used numbers found within Canada where this industry is still quite new and still finding it's feet. Why not look where populations have more experience with turbines and their pros and cons?

I suggest a setback of ten times the height of a turbine or 2km, whichever is greater.

This is already a compromise of what would actually be appropriate. I also suggest that buildings and facilities other than "building intended for occupation" be listed. These would include hospitals, hotels, schools, theatres, fire halls, community/rec centres, parks, campgrounds, golf courses, ball fields, air strips, the Trans Canada Trail, wild life reserves, established snowmobile or ATV trails.

Most people believe that renewable energy resources are the way to go. However, if wind turbines are situated in inappropriate places the public will not continue to support them. Cumberland County is big and sparsely populated - there's lots of room for turbines and for the population to continue to enjoy this beautiful County as they always have.

April 18th will be a final opportunity for the public to make presentations to Council. If not moved by the public sufficiently to postpone the second reading for further consideration, Council would then give this proposal a second reading that day, pass it and we're left with an untenable setback.

This affects everyone, everywhere in the County. That's why it's so very important that everyone on this list and anyone else you know who is not yet on this list who you can contact, send their comments (again) to the County. And this time the gloves are off. Send your e-mail to all the Councillors. And try to get to the April 18th meeting if you possibly can.

Only 21 e-mails/letters from residents and three from developers were reported to have been received by the County so far. I find this a very low number. Many, many people have copied me in on their message and I have to wonder where all the other messages went!. If the County did not already send you a copy of the amendment Friday afternoon (March 23rd), they never received your e-mail and that makes it all the more important that you contact them now. I have a copy of the amendment and attached memo and can forward it on to you if you want it.

Here are the email addresses again:

Gerald Read, Nappan garead@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

John Kellergrew, RR3 Amherst jkellegrew@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

Keith Hunter, Tidnish khunter@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

Kathy Langille, Pugwash klangille@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

Gerald Langille, Wallace glangille@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

Kathy Redmond, Wentworth rkjsredmond@ns.sympatico.ca

Ralph Welton, Oxford welton@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

Ernest Gilbert, Southampton egilbert@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

John Reid, River Hebert jreid@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

Ratchford Merriam Parrsboro info@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

County Planner Jim Coughlin jcoughlin@cumberlandcounty.ns.ca

Gerry Langille (Wallace) is the only councellor who has publicly opposed the current setback and wants to increase it. I hear there are a couple more who are sympathetic but for some reason have not spoken out. The others seem to think that the setbacks need to be a little as possible so they can jam in as many turbines into a development as they can. Kathy Redmond says she asked folk in Westchester if the Higgins Mountain project bothered them and they said "no". I wonder how close they are to the turbines?

Those turbines are pretty isolated.

As they should be!

How much demand do they think there is for power in this County? Or do they expect to make money by selling it? So much for advertising to visitors this beautiful part of the world as a quiet vacation spot! How many turbines did you notice in the latest tourism brochure you picked up or saw on TV tourism advertisements?

The County has not taken into sufficient consideration the affects these turbines have on individuals and their community. What was once a quiet rural get-away becomes an industrial estate.

As far as I am concerned the three most important issues that affect setbacks are:

Safety

Ice throw, failure of the rotors, fire, bird and bat mortality

Health

Noise, shadow flicker, ultrasonic noise/vibration, stress, blight, high voltage cables

Reasonable enjoyment of one's own property.

Including expecting a reasonable return if ever sold.

I moved here for peace and quiet and it is not unreasonable for me to continue to expect it.

~~~~~~~~~

If you have a problem with a particular wind farm in this County, I suggest you also contact those companies.

Gulf Shore/Pugwash (potential site)

Atlantic Wind Power Corporation Inc.

Charles Demond (president) cdemond@awpc.com

(Mr.) Clair Peers c.peers@ns.sympatico.ca

Tantramar Marsh (approved already)

edited 31 May 2009 by request
ACCIONA Energy North America (Spain)
Eric Schneider
312 673 3084
eschneider@acciona-na.com
(As of March 2009, this project is on hold)

Higgins Mountain (three turbines already, Vector wants to add more)

Vextor Wind Energy (Calgary and Ottawa)

All I can find is a phone number: 403 269 9379

Fundy Shore (potential)

No idea who they are, just heard about them on Friday.