Site powered by WP Engine MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Monday, May 21st, 2018

Gilead’s nine-turbine project approved

The Ministry of Environment issued an approval Thursday, Dec. 20 for Gilead Power’s nine-turbine Ostrander Point Project in Prince Edward County.

We are very pleased with the Ministry of the Environment’s approval for the Ostrander Point project and we’re committed to making it a model of responsible wind energy development,” says Mike Lord, Gilead Power vice-president of project development. “There are many very specific conditions related to the approval and we are committed to meeting or exceeding the conditions”.

As a part of the standard Renewable Energy Approvals process, any resident of Ontario has 15 days from the notice of approval to request an appeal of the decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal at the Ministry.

The proposal was loaded onto the registry Nov. 30, 2011 and the approval loaded Dec. 20, 2012. Public consultation on the proposal was provided for 81 days, from Nov. 30, 2011 to Feb. 19, 2012. There were 1,517 comments on the proposal: 1000 comments were received in writing and 517 were received online. The dates brought the ire of Todd Smith, Prince Edward Hastings MPP.

“This is the second year in a row that the ministry has tried to silence public comment on this project by making sure that it coincided with the holiday season,” said Smight. “That kind of behaviour is unacceptable, it’s unprofessional and it makes a disgrace of the ministry to engage in such underhanded tactics. This kind of tactic has become far too common for the government when it comes to the green energy file.

Smith pointed to a recent report by the province’s Environmental Commissioner which criticized the Environmental Approvals process and slammed the government for planning wind power projects in Important Bird Areas, like the one on the south shore of Prince Edward County.

“This government has repeatedly proven that if there’s a closed door that they can do something behind, they’ll find it,” said Smith. “Honesty and transparency have never been high on this government’s priority list. The Environmental Commissioner just two months ago criticized the government for engaging in exactly this kind of behaviour. The Ministry of Environment has just said that it’s willing to ignore the advice of its own Environmental Commissioner. It also shows a lack of respect for the residents and municipal government of Prince Edward County.”

The Ministry’s decision reads:
A Renewable Energy Approval has been issued to Ostrander Point GP Inc, as general partner for and on behalf of Ostrander Point Wind Energy LP to engage in a renewable energy project in respect of a Class 4 wind facility consisting of the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of 9 turbines, rated at 2.5 MW generating output capacity, with a total name plate capacity of 22.5 MW. The facility will be connected to Hydro One’s distribution system.

This Class 4 wind facility, known as the Ostrander Point project, is located in Prince Edward County, Ontario. The project will consist of 9 wind turbine generators. Emissions discharged to the atmosphere include noise.

The Renewable Energy Approval requires the proponent to construct, install, operate, use and retire the facility in accordance with specific terms and conditions. The terms and conditions, as summarised below, require the proponent to:
– properly decommission the facility upon retirement of the facility,
-construct and install the facility within 3 years of the date of the approval,
-construct and install the facility in accordance with the documentation considered for the issuance of this approval,
-receive all required permits under the Endangered Species Act, 2007, prior to construction or installation,
-carry out acoustic audits of certain noise generating components of the facility, including the transformer substation and wind turbine generators,
-comply with the ministry’s noise emission limits at all times,
-manage stormwater and control sediment and erosion during and post construction,
-prohibit water-taking activities to less than 50,000 litres of water per day,
-design, construct and operate a spill containment system to current and best standards,
– implement the Environmental Effects and Monitoring Plan for bird and bat monitoring,
-retain a third party for the implementation of the environmental effects monitoring plan for wildlife and wildlife habitat,
-conduct a research project to determine the effectiveness of radar technology,
– make all monitoring reports available on website,
-prepare a Traffic Management Plan to be provided to the municipality and enter into a traffic Users Agreement,
-properly address any archaeological resources discovered,
-create a community liaison committee with members of the public and with the company,
-maintain ongoing communication with interested Aboriginal communities,
-maintain records of the operation and maintenance of equipment and inspections and complaints related to the facility,
– notify the ministry of complaints received alleging adverse effect caused by the construction, installation, operation, use or retirement of the facility, and
-notify the ministry prior to a change of ownership.

Additional information regarding this project:
The applicant has also applied for an authorization under the Endangered Species Act (2007) for habitat for Blanding’s Turtle and Eastern Whip-poor-will. The applicant is seeking a permit and has committed to providing an overall benefit to both species. The applicant intends to achieve this through activities such as habitat preservation, rehabilitation, financial support to fund graduate research related to the Eastern Whip-poor-will, and value added monitoring for multiple years to gather new information and knowledge about Blanding’s Turtles.

Highlights of key Endangered Species Act permit conditions include:
-creation of 37.64 hectares of habitat for Blanding’s Turtle and Eastern Whip-poor-will for a minimum of 20 years
-no construction activities to occur between the months of May – October of any year to avoid most critical life cycle period for Eastern Whip-poor-will and Blanding’s Turtle
-protocols for species encounters
-scientific research requirements for the Eastern Whip-poor-will

Comments received were reviewed by the ministry and summarized below:

Concerns regarding potential impact to birds, bats and butterflies
The Natural Heritage Assessment (NHA) discusses the significance of the site for migratory birds and other wildlife. The potential effects to birds using this habitat and the mitigation measures that have been committed to by the applicant are discussed in the NHA. The applicant will implement mitigation measures including operational controls and periodic turbine shutdown to minimize impacts to birds. A comprehensive bat monitoring program has been proposed and reviewed by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Mitigation measures including blade feathering and periodic turbine shutdown at certain points of the year will also be used to minimize impacts to bats. In addition, the applicant has committed to avoiding construction in breeding seasons and will also be creating habitat for endangered species. MNR has reviewed the NHA and is satisfied with the mitigation measures that have been proposed.

Concerns related to health and safety
The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has built safety requirements into Ontario Renewable Energy Approval Regulation (O. Reg 359/09). For wind facilities, a proponent must meet section 53 of O. Reg. 359/09, which prohibits a proponent to place a turbine closer than the height of the turbine to a property boundary.

The applicant included a detailed review of available information relating to public health and safety within the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) documentation. The Construction Plan Report and the Design and Operations Report discuss potential health and safety impacts associated with the project. Minimum setback requirements have been met in all cases, the noise report meets MOE guidelines and the applicant has committed to implementing appropriate construction and operational health and safety protocols.

Further, a condition has been imposed in the REA to operate and maintain the facility in accordance with good engineering practices and as recommended by the equipment suppliers.

Consultation inadequate
While mandatory consultation requirements are specified in REA Regulation (O.Reg. 359/09), it is not prescriptive in regards to the techniques or methods used. MOE has reviewed the proponent’s Consultation Report and deemed that it satisfies the legislative requirements outlined in O. Reg. 359/09.

The applicant conducted an extensive consultation program that commenced in 2007, including hosting several public meetings, releasing draft REA reports for public review, and numerous meetings with local residents, government agencies and Aboriginal communities.

MOE has imposed a condition in the REA requiring the proponent to create a Community Liaison Committee for the Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park project. This Community Liaison Committee will be made up of individuals in the community and company representatives. The aim of the committee will be to act as a liaison, facilitating two way communications between the Company and members of the public with respect to the project. It will provide a forum for the Company to provide regular updates to the community.

Concerns about project location and siting of turbines
The proponent has identified the current area as being the location of the proposed project due to various factors including a good wind resources, available land base, proximity to load center, and availability of capacity in the local electrical grid to accept electricity generated by the project.

Three turbines that were originally proposed were removed from the project layout by the proponent to address concerns raised throughout the planning of the project.

The project has been reviewed and determined to meet all applicable setback requirements.

Concerns about setbacks from residents
The range of setback distances for wind facilities with one or more specified turbine is provided in the table in Section 55 of O. Reg. 359/09. The table of noise setbacks is used to illustrate the closest distance the base of any turbine can be from the nearest noise receptor. The minimum setback distance of 550 metres (m) must be met in all cases and greater numbers of turbines may result in higher required setback distances applied to the nearest turbine. Proponents are also given the option of conducting a noise study to prove that siting turbines closer than the setback distances (but no closer than 550 m) in the table to Section 55 of O. Reg. 359/09 will not cause adverse effects. Such a study must be prepared in accordance with MOE’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (2008) and must be submitted as part of the REA application.

For this project, the applicant completed a noise impact assessment that was reviewed by MOE. It was concluded that the applicant has met and is in compliance with all applicable sound level limits as identified in MOE’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (2008).

The setback distances are based on MOE’s conservative sound level limit of 40 dBA at the nearest noise receptor. This stringent 40 dBA sound level limit has been used in Ontario for the approval of industrial facilities built in rural areas for the past 30 years. Furthermore, this sound level limit is consistent with the World Health Organization’s recommendation that the outdoor annual average night sound level should not exceed 40 dBA.

The project exceeds the minimum 550 m setback distance from all receptors and is compliant with O. Reg. 359/09.

Impact on property values
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) is the provincial agency that determines property assessment values. MPAC’s analysis of property sales has not indicated that wind turbines that are either abutting or close to a property have either a positive or negative impact on the value.

On March 29, 2012, the Assessment Review Board, an independent tribunal of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, released a decision regarding a property on Wolfe Island. The Board found that based on the evidence in this case there appeared to be no evidence of any negative impact to the value of the property.

MPAC continues to monitor property values in areas where wind turbine are present and will reflect any impact to property values in the 2012 province-wide Assessment Update.

Impacts to local roads
Details regarding the transportations routes to the site have been provided within the REA documents. The applicant has committed to being responsible for any damages/repairs to local roads as a result of the project construction.

A condition has been imposed in the REA requiring the applicant to prepare a traffic management plan in consultation with Prince Edward County and to enter into a road user’s agreement with Prince Edward County.

Wind turbines do not generate adequate electricity and are not efficient
The Province of Ontario has identified wind as one component of a diversified energy mix for the province, as identified in Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan. The Ontario Power Authority, the agency responsible for supply procurement, and the Independent Electricity System Operator, the agency responsible for the reliability of Ontario electricity system, have both researched, modeled and proposed a target for wind (10% by 2030) that ensures an efficient and reliable system supply to meet Ontario electricity demands while satisfying the Government’s and the Ontario public’s goals for new supply.

Compliance issues
MOE is committed to providing timely services for receiving, assessing, and coordinating responses to all complaints related to potential environmental incidents (including those from wind farms). MOE’s first level of field response is provided by environmental officers working out of the MOE’s District or Area Offices. For example, in the case of an incident involving wind farm operations noise that has resulted in a complaint call into MOE, the District staff will attempt to verify the complaint and assess the impact on the complainant, which may include several visits to the complainant’s residence at various times of the day. After the site assessment is completed, District staff will decide whether actions need to be taken to resolve the situation.

Since September 2009, MOE has been proactively inspecting existing wind facilities in Ontario. Inspections include an evaluation of approval requirements such as equipment location, operation and maintenance requirements, records related to environmental complaints, measures taken to address the cause of complaints and compliance with transformer sound level limits. Additionally, to follow up on citizen’s complaints about wind turbine noise, Environmental Officers will attend wind facilities and make an assessment as to whether wind turbine noise is causing an adverse effect on neighbouring residents.

MOE uses a progressive suite of enforcement tools to ensure wind farms operate in compliance with approval conditions. This includes both voluntary and mandatory abatement measures to address non-compliance. The manner in which the complaint is addressed may vary from site to site and can include continued noise monitoring, a noise reduction plan and shutting down turbines. MOE also regularly inspects projects to ensure compliance. If these proactive inspections trigger the need for additional noise monitoring, MOE will use the tools in the new protocol to ensure noise limits are adhered to by wind farms.

Noise
MOE staff have reviewed the noise assessment provided by the proponent. MOE’s noise engineers have confirmed that the project will meet MOE’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms. Further, the noise assessment and the facility meet the requirements of O. Reg 359/09.

If the public has any noise concerns, incidents to report, or has any complaints they would like to raise relating to a wind farm operation, they should contact their local District or Area Office. MOE’s first level of field response is provided by environmental officers working out of MOE’s District or Area Offices.

Decommissioning
As part of the REA approval, there is a decommissioning condition. This condition requires the proponent to comply with all commitments made in the REA documentation. Further, consultation with the local District Manager of MOE will be required in order to meet all the requirements at the time of decommissioning.

MOE has included a condition for the proponent to contact the ministry prior to decommissioning of the facility, to ensure that the lands can be restored to their original use.

Moratorium on wind turbines
When developing the Renewable Energy Approvals regulation, MOE drew upon extensive existing scientific research from around the world. Reviewing a large body of peer-reviewed reports and studies enabled MOE to develop a regulation that was based on the best available science to protect human health and the environment. MOE continues to review emerging scientific and engineering studies to ensure Ontario’s REA regulation remains in line with the latest and best in science.

Visual impact
It is recognized that people have varying opinions about the changes a wind farm will bring to the visual landscape. Wind turbines and the associated infrastructure take up only a small portion of the land on which they are situated.

Concerns related to shadow flicker
Although not required in O. Reg. 359/09, the proponent completed a Shadow Flicker Assessment for the Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park project. This was included in the proponent’s Environmental Review Report under the previous regulatory process.

Concerns about the length of time of the Environmental Registry comment period
Most proposals for instruments are posted on the Environmental Registry for 30 days. Additional public participation opportunities may be provided at the discretion of ministry decision-makers after taking into consideration such factors as the complexity of the proposal in question, level of public interest, and extent and nature of mitigation measures that may be required to prevent harm to the environment.

The ministry provided 81 days for the public to provide comments on this project.

Concerns regarding impact to the local economy
There are various economic benefits to the Municipality including monies spent locally during construction on goods and services, and contribution to the annual municipal property taxes.

The applicant is expecting to pay approximately $50,000 in municipal taxes each year for the site. In addition, is it estimated that over $5 million in construction expenditures will accrue to persons and business in the local area. It has also been confirmed that the project is located outside of the County’s tourism corridor (including the Wine and Taste Trails) and is not anticipated to have an impact on the County’s tourism industry.

Concerns about impacts from construction
The applicant prepared a construction plan report which outlined how the company would minimize any potential impacts from construction or traffic.

MOE has reviewed and imposed conditions relating to stormwater management and traffic management to ensure that these impacts are minimized.

Concerns about impacts to natural environment and wildlife
MNR has reviewed the Natural Heritage Assessment and provided a Confirmation Letter as per section 28 (2) of O. Reg 359/09. MNR provided a letter for this project confirming that the applicant used applicable evaluation criteria or procedures accepted by the MNR for the determination of the existence and boundaries of natural features; site investigation and records review; and evaluation of the significance or provincial significance of the natural features.

A bird and bat monitoring plan has been developed in accordance with MNR’s guidelines. This monitoring plan has been reviewed and approved by MNR.

A condition is being imposed in the REA to require the applicant to implement its bird and bat monitoring plan, as submitted in its REA application. In addition, MOE is requiring that the applicant retain a third party to ensure that the monitoring plan is being implemented as it is documented. MOE is also imposing a condition requiring the applicant to conduct a research project on its proposed radar technology for advanced detection of birds and bats.

Archaeological and Cultural Heritage concerns
Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessments were conducted and the results have indicated no concerns with proceeding with construction at the project location. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has signed off on the results and findings of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments. The net effect to archaeological and heritage resources are considered minimal given the mitigation measures used to document and recover any potential archaeological materials.

Out of scope comments
A number of comments were received that were not project specific. As they did not pertain to the project, MOE staff did not consider these comments in the decision making process.

* * *

Any resident of Ontario may require a hearing by the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) within 15 days after the date this decision was loaded to the Environmental Registry (December 20, 2012) by written notice served upon the following:

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
1075 Bay Street
Suite 605
Toronto Ontario
M5S 2B1
Phone: (800) 701-6454

Issuing Authority:
Vic Schroter
Director, Section 47.5 Environmental Protection Act
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 12A
Toronto Ontario
M4V 1L5
Phone: 416-314-1051

Proponent:
Ostrander Point GP Inc, as general partner for and on behalf of
Ostrander Point Wind Energy LP
158 Casimir St 2nd floor
Port Perry, Ontario
L9L 1B7

Appellate Body:
Secretary
Environmental Review Tribunal
655 Bay Street
Floor 15
Toronto
M5G 1E5
Phone: (416) 212-6349
Fax: (416) 314-4506

An applicant for a hearing shall state in the notice requiring the hearing, (a) a description of how engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause, (i) serious harm to human health, or (ii) serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment; (b) the portion of the renewable energy approval in respect of which the hearing is required; and (c) the relief sought.

Further information is provided on the ERT’s website at: http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/english/guides/index.htm.

Filed Under: Local News

About the Author:

RSSComments (47)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Doris Lane says:

    Lois I can probably get someone to do a title search for you if the field natuaralists thinkit might be useful,

  2. Lori Cairns says:

    Unfortunately, no one in my immediate family knows anything about the land. It appears that it has been out of the family for a very long time.

    I don’t have the money to do a title search. I think the next step is a visit to the archives and search the records there.

    Frustrating!!!

  3. County Steve says:

    My apologies to Painterman … my misunderstanding.

  4. painterman says:

    @ Steve
    the turbine that I was speakng of was not Jerrys but one he built and it was on main street in Wellington. Just for the record I am dead against these tax payers waste of money IWT. The only thing green about them is the money that is generate for the off shore compaines that own them. peace out

  5. County Steve says:

    Sorry, it’s me again.

    It also occurs to me that ‘health concerns’ in 1979 were not like they are today. Wellington had wells right beside their septic tanks, and the butchers would hang meat in the full sun in the front window to attract buyers.

    The concept of citing a tiny prop at the edge of town as a health hazard is close to ridiculous. Also consider that Wellington had a famous windmill tower for decades at the waterfront behind the Alexandra Hotel, so Jerry’s little tower would probably not draw a note of interest.

    So, basically, I only find your entry ‘interesting’ in that it seems to be totally without factual merit. It’s just a smug put-down of those of us who stand against monster IWTs and the destruction of pristine land and natural wildlife.

  6. County Steve says:

    Oddly enough, a friend of mine and I were discussing the possibility of First Nations rights just this morning. This could go somewhere, as the natives have been fighting government for years, when no-one else cared about their lot. Suddenly, when the government came to get us, we ‘get it’. They’ve been stealing land from the natives for years (witness the shrinking of Tyendinaga since 1800).

    Quick note to Painterman:
    I’m not sure you’re quite right on this. I talked to Jerry Ball in the late 70s, because I’ve always been a proponent of wind microsystems. At the time, he told me was running his machine shop almost entirely from his wind source. It was up and operating when I was there. He would not let me do a story on it for County Magazine, because he didn’t want publicity.

    I never heard of a complaint being filed, but I question that as well, as his shop was at the edge of Wellington, and his machines made a much louder noise than the windmill, which was virtually silent when I saw it running.

    Perhaps you can quote your source, or the name of the complainant.

  7. Doris Lane says:

    Lori you can search the property at the registry office–every property goes back to the crown grant and gives the history of the property from that grant to present day.
    It is a horrible thing that the government should be able to take land that belongs to the people of Ontario/Canada and do this terrible thing with it. I have personally never done a title search but there are lots of people in the county that do. The registry office is at the back of the Court House on Union Street.

  8. Dayton Johnson says:

    Lori..The Gilead property was formerly a DND testing area and I THINK purchased or expropriated in the 40s or early 50s. if it helps any Lots were numbered from Ostrander Pt.road west to Helmers Rd. They are # 4,5,6,7,8,9,10.and extend to the north side and south side of what is now called Helmers Rd. Concession is: West of Long Point. This from the Belden Atlas 1878.
    Questions: As these Lot #s extend also to the north side of the road of the Gilead plan,,What kind of building is allowed even as a seasonal camping or hunt lodge? Could this building stall the process if it was closer than 550m? Are there any other wrenches we can throw in there?

  9. David Norman says:

    Lori, a goodly proportion of my “Norman” family are Tahltan-Iskut First Nation. Let’s “band” together on this!

  10. Lori Cairns says:

    David, I am of three different First Nations so IF documentation can be found, this may go somewhere.

    Here’s hoping.

  11. Lori Cairns says:

    Unfortunately, David, I don’t have any documentation. I wonder if any information about the land transfer can be found in the archives in Wellington?

    Older family members may have more information on this. I will check with them over the holidays and see what comes up.

  12. David Norman says:

    Lori, was this land sold to or a bequest to the Crown by your family? Do you have any documentation?

  13. Lori Cairns says:

    If the greedy ones have their way, these turbines will be going up on land my family was given for being loyal to the crown. It sickens me. If the land has to be out of the family, the best thing is to have a wildlife sanctuary.

    How about the families of loyalists take the land back since the government has failed to keep it a wildlife sanctuary? We can establish our own version of treaty rights.

  14. Mark says:

    County Steve; I believe there is still some room to manouver in regards to the issuing of a building permit. I will be looking into this in depth. Any delays that can be put in place until the spring election will be an asset. No one can accept this unilateral declaration that reeks of greed and collusion. The most important thing that can happen now is the reaction of the residents. If they feel torn down and defeated they will be, if they stand up with more vigour than ever they may win the right to make decisions in their own community, a right that should never, ever been removed.

  15. Mark says:

    I am not convinced the game is over. Mayor Mertens has surprised me initially by moving quickly. He either has a plan or is putting up a front. Don’t forget that it is most probable an election will be called in the spring as they almost have to with the Legistature either at a stand still or porogued. We can only hope that will be the difference maker. I very much doubt you will see another Liberal Government. Another reason why they are pushing this through and at Christmas of all times. Shame!

  16. Painterman says:

    About 25 years ago a smallish wind turbine was installed in the middle of the town of Wellington.It was built by Ball Machine shop. After it was installed and before it ever was turned on a complaint was lauched and because of possible health concerns it was never able to operate.Interesting

  17. Henri Garand says:

    Wind energy supporters have fallen for another fantasy if they believe that everyone will accept wind turbines once installed.

    Consider this report from Massachusetts:

    “. . . each time a new megawatt commercial wind turbine gets installed another local citizens’ group in that town quickly forms to curtail the operation of the turbines because of noise, shadow flicker, ice throw and real estate property devaluations. Groups of pro-wind residents living near wind turbines within weeks become anti- wind as soon as the 400 foot turbines start to spin. The operators of the turbines quickly find themselves in front of local boards and court.”

    From http://falmouth.patch.com/blog_posts/massachusetts-renewable-energy-goals-fall-short

    If life with turbines is so rosy, why is there a website devoted to VICTIMS living near current Ontario wind projects? http://windvictimsontario.com

    Apart from developers, those who truly love wind development are the absentee landowners banking the lease payments. Or those living safely in cities or expecting to enjoy the industrial view from far across Prince Edward Bay.

  18. County Steve says:

    Alas, David, both governments only think BIG when they think of electrical power. Sharp County folk, and even sharp Canadian engineers, have no place at the table here.

    I’ve been pondering what I could possibly submit as an objection during our 15 day time period, and I come up cold. Most of my points were already submitted to the MOE on the first call.

    I knew they would weasel out of their obligation to protect the environment, but I had no idea how they would do it. On my second read, I figured it out. MOE and MNR have both stated that Gilead has met the criteria for IWTs across the board.

    This brings the question: Who established the criteria?

    We all know the answer. It was the Big Weasels at the top.

    Nice job! They sandbagged us all by setting the rules, and then finding out, quite by surprise, that wind farms met the rules!

    Mertens and other councillors are doing their best to throw a wrench in the works, but Dalton clearly cut them out of the plan … knowing full well that if he engaged local Councils in the Plan, they would buckle under the pressure of the County folk they were elected to represent.

    One councillor told me the County, early in the game, offered to help the Province find appropriate locations for IWTs here, and they were turned down flat.

    And, yes, maybe the IWTs won’t be the end of the world as we know it. But this project opens the door for further developments, and further violation of our right to our chosen lifestyle – providing our use of property does not infringe upon the rights of others.

    The Province has broken this law, which is entrenched in a Property Rights statement established in the BNA Act over 100 years ago. It has never been revoked or amended, and still stands today as a Canadian right. Perhaps Garth Manning can explore the possibilities of this.

    After all, if you put up a 250-ft amateur radio antenna tower on your property, your neighbours can make you take it down. There are many precedent-setting cases on just this issue alone.

    Food for thought?

  19. David Norman says:

    Ostrander Industrial Wind Turbine development and beyond: What if?

    Well folks, the flaming juggernaut of Industrial Wind Turbine development has finally, by legislated edict, touched the shores of Prince Edward County. The battle will now be one of attrition and brutal irrevocable force rather than one of virtue and merit. A shame really! But despite my resignation I can’t help thinking, what if?

    What if our Provincial government had offered us some purchase on our fate. Instead of pre-determining and dictating the nature of our penance for our Climate Change sins, had allowed us instead to offer up our own self determined redemption.
    For example:
    What if we were instead legislated to contribute as a community and to come up with mechanisms to produce the amount of electrical energy we consume? Fair enough!

    What if we were instead legislated to come up with methods that sequestered specified amounts of atmospheric carbon? Can do!

    What if we were legislated to reduce specified amounts of Green House Gases and particulate emissions? Certainly possible!

    What if we were legislated with measures of lost autonomy for not following through on these and other what if’s? Good motivator and sustainable community building thrust!

    This would most certainly have promoted equitable and educated choices for Municipal government representation. I saw an inspirational inkling of this when our local County Sustainability Group created their “Climate Change” agenda questionnaire for municipal candidates in the last election. The current basis on which we are to merit our choices is perhaps some measure of community and academic credential, familial and fraternal relationships, rhetorical sophistication, a glossy pamphlet, sign and maybe good looks (not that there’s anything wrong with that)!

    From what I have experienced this is an extraordinarily talented and resourceful community that is capable of setting an example for all the world to marvel at. Community engagement of this caliber could have set an inspiring precedence. What if?

    David Norman, Rogue Primate of Bloomfield

  20. PJM says:

    Ignore the voice of the people at your own peril. Just look to the middle east to see the power of the people. Government’s, municipal and provincial, are playing with fire here. Let’s keep their feet to the fire and continue to push till they hear what the majority are demanding!

  21. Marie says:

    No to Building Permits!

  22. Kim Ryan says:

    Truly disheartening news. Does it surprise anyone? And this is democracy? Sucks Big Time.

  23. Mark says:

    No building permit no construction. Council take a stand. This is their defining moment not only for the County but provincially.

  24. JD says:

    The sooner this project gets up and running the better. Then the misinformation spread by the anti-winds will be clearly evident. Council can then turn their attention to the development of a viable, sustainable community instead of wasting their time and efforts emulating Don Quixote.

  25. This is a SCAM…..a grift, a crime…..what else can one call it?……….it is being forced down the public’s throat by a bunch of sleazy back room deals all approved by a Government in hiding!!!!
    Where’s the justice?……………..time to haul these “palookas” out of their fat cushy tax payer funded leather chairs and drag them in the sunshine of public opinion!
    Without the gutless Municipal Councils right across Ontario not working on behalf of “their” bosses, the electorate, but instead the, Provincial mandarins and their back room buddies in the wind companies, this would not have happened. Time to wake up Ontario……we’ve been swindled!!!!!!

  26. Doris Lane says:

    Steve is correct as usual. Big oil controls big wind,
    Big oil also controls the government both provincial and federal. Foreign takeover is rampent in Canada.
    What can we do about all this stuff? Your guess is as good as mine.
    The rel kicker is the timing of this announcement. IT STINKS!!!!!!

  27. County Steve says:

    This news was heartbreaking indeed but, as David says, inevitable. Reading the documentation only shows me how cleverly the various government agencies wound their way through the gauntlet of pylons to achieve the goal they were ordered to approve.

    Frankly, I think the deadline was imposed because the government knew I would write a column on this … when no newspapers are being published during the Christmas season! That’s the kind of power I wield! They’re a-scared of me!

    Peter has his finger on the pulse of the situation, and I’ll add to that.

    While the wind proponents crack a bottle of champagne by bringing in old technology at incredible expense, using foreign manufacturing and engineering, with questionable health and property value concerns, and more than questionable damage to our environment … land, trees, habitat and wildlife – both sides miss the point that Peter has touched on.

    This is a marriage of government and corporations. The oil companies are laughing their butts off as we swing wildly at each other over wind energy.

    They’re the ones who rule, and yet no-one is going head-on with them. Not the government, not you or me, not anyone.

    We’re all dancing around like crazy trying to save the world from the devastating effects of coal and oil, and yet no-one seems capable of attacking the source of the problem.

    Oil companies still get big tax breaks, red carpet treatment and congratulatory handshakes from each of our provincial governments, while the rest of us ‘eat it’.

    Pro-winders? Want to change the world? Destroy their world, not ours.

  28. lou says:

    Ostrander now, (and they try and minimize this ).trying to make all feel ok………THEN the next company comes in with another 29 (which is HUGE number).in SM………taking over

  29. Mark says:

    http://www.intelligencer.ca/2012/12/20/wind-project-okayed-pec-

    Mayor Mertens states he is not happy. Of course not, most in the County are not. But what steps are being taken to stop this particularly with such a sleazy short turn around time for appeal over the Holidays. One person suggested that the municipality not issue building permits or institute significant setback requirements. Council needs to take immediate action.

  30. David Norman says:

    I must admit to feeling disheartened (shocked) by this development even though I have always felt/known it was inevitable. I also recognize that it is a necessary motivating stimulus in the confrontation of the flaming juggernaut that is !now! Industrial Wind Turbine development in Prince Edward County. It is the time to rally around the stalwarts, the true environmental champions in the County… folk like Henri, Gary, Terry, and the like. Whilst on this day the conniving, cowardly County pro wind sycophants gather round to celebrate and worship, with their Svengali hailing their ill conceived ideological victory, !know! that in the course of time, although seemingly painfully prolonged, that these giant fetishes will lie as derelict pathetic symbols of their pathology. The timing could not have been more appropriate, a new day and age has indeed begun.

  31. MadAsHell says:

    Bad news for Gilead !!! The people of South Marysburgh do not approve ! Keep the pitch forks handy folks , the defication’s about to hit the oscillation. Hide all copy’s of the Riot Act. Are they even aware there is no law past the rock-cut…. ha ha ha ! They will be before it’s over me thinks !

  32. PEter says:

    With all due respect, wake up people. Energy is king! Don’t believe me? Ask Sir Dalton. He’s still trying to recover from his sword wound… He had to fall on it, if you know what I mean. Some of you will recognize this for exactly what it is. Others, not so much.

    And, don’t be fooled by periodic and “soft” partisan attacks from opposition parties. Rest assured, energy in Ontario is not a partisan issue, despite what they’ll have you believe. Regardless of which party governs in Ontario, the direction on this file will remain unchanged. Other parties may move the deck chairs slightly, giving the appearance of change, but the general direction is predetermined. Want proof? Read the recent LDC report coming out of the Ministry of Energy. Connect the dots. They are.

    Unfortunately, as each day passes, it’s like the fog of secrecy lifts, and in the clearing we discover the decision to erect industrial scale wind turbines in PEC was a fait accompli the day it was planned. Public consultation was an afterthought, certainly with respect to decision making. In other words, your comments were never going to matter, especially with regard to halting a single installation. Who is kidding who. Give me a break.

    In my humble opinion, and I think I may have wrote about it in this very forum, the “wind energy” debate needed to be moved up a level many, many months ago. I believe today, as I did then, the feds needed to be engaged. Yes, I know, Ontario energy decisions are exactly that, made in and by Ontario leadership. However, energy is much more complicated than years past. Our grid is interconnected, which by default, means federal and provincial energy decisions overlap. This is where it gets really complicated. Think NERC. This, I believe, is why we should have forced our federal representative to become engaged. It probably wouldn’t have changed a thing. But, at least residents of our community would have understood where to direct our collective displeasure. Nothing wastes energy faster than fighting the wrong party. Time to engage Mr. Kramp?

    Finally, I understand clearly that Canada has an obligation to assess and strategize its energy position as a nation. I think you, the folks of PEC understand that too. However, we live here. We raise our children here. We invest here. We love our County. All we were asking for then, as now, is a little decency and heck of a lot more honesty.

    In the county, we shoot straight. Now, can you guys do the same. We’re waiting.

    Cheers. PEter

    Follow me on Twitter @peterstwit77

  33. Anon says:

    I hear there is a sale on tinfoil…looks like it’s time to make some hats to protect from the infrasound

  34. Bill says:

    It is a lawyers tactic to file and serve on a Friday of a long weekend. This gives them the best advantage of minimal reprisal due to holidays and such. The Government is the middle facilitation and as long as the concerns are answered and hypothetical solutions are met they can do nothing to stop it, that is the Democratic way.
    Objections need to be fact based, opinions are just that one’s opinion. Rose Mary’s comment is just that an opinion that will not help.
    The Grinch comment is also silly, because if you apply that one then the “Grinch” will grow a bigger heart and help the towns folks and all will be good in the long run.
    Looks like you have 15 days to somehow come up with facts as to why this project will be detrimental to the county. Wolfe Island would be a good place to start to find the answers and see how those turbines have impacted that county as a whole and look for reasons based on fact. I have seen wind farms that stretch across the countryside for miles and miles i the south, the impact is real and does draw for concern and to have this really looked at so as to save the County from the it’s harm. The biggest problem is EVERYTHING is only a guess as to how that impact will effect our County good and bad.

  35. Jack says:

    I cannot express in words the outrage I feel. Council and the population should not lay down. It is time to take action. We should not under any circumstance allow this to happen.

  36. Nancy says:

    What great news on the wind turbines.I have a dead bird on my deck not sure if the wind turbine killed him or he flew into the window?

  37. Rosemary Smith says:

    Not all the “rat-faced whores” are in Ottawa.

    Sound the Appeal.

  38. Doris Lane says:

    Yes I believe the Mayor but I know this for myself.
    The vote in SM, the attendance at wpd meetings. Talking to people on the street and other places, everyone but those who financially benefit are opposed.
    But one of the worst things about Gilead is that it is on Crown Land and a IBA. The people of Ontario own that land
    and we have spoken loud and clear that we do not want turbines there or anywhere else on the South Shore.
    Terry Sprague is correct and he only speaks out when he has something important to say.
    WE NEED TO STOP THIS INSANITY AND STOP IT NOW

  39. Mark says:

    It is the people’s right to have the doors of our provincial legislature re-opened.I say “Open up those doors”. Allow the democratic voice to be heard.

  40. Gary Mooney says:

    Anon, you may recall the recent vote in South Marysburgh that was 90% opposed to wind turbines. And the earlier poll on CountyLive that was 76% opposed to wind turbines. And the poll on the OFA website where more than 70% wanted a moratorium.

    75% of the current Council are opposed to wind energy development here. Mayor Mertens made it very clear when speaking to the wind industry at the FIT Forum in Toronto last April that PEC doesn’t want wind turbines.

    While 3 years ago, there might have been a fairly high percentage of County residents in favour of wind turbines, now there are only a handful (other than those leasing land) whom we can identify as being pro-wind. And they, like you, prefer to remain anonymous.

  41. Mark says:

    Anon, get out and speak with the people of the County. A sad day for residents and our environment. The poor landowners in SM will now never be able to sell. I was hoping a change in government in the spring could bring some sanity but this may be a pre-emptive stike to that.

  42. Anon says:

    Doris; Where are the stats that say the majority of PEC residents are opposed to wind power? Surely you don’t believe the Mayor when he tells you this.

  43. Valerie Hounsell says:

    When Terry Sprague leaves a comment condemning MNR you know there is a problem. It is time to rally and make some noise!

  44. Cheryl is right. The MNR (& MOE) no longer stand for anything in this province and I am embarrassed and ashamed to say that I once worked for them. The windies seem fixated on how these 9 monstrosities are going to save the world. Let me know when this happens.

  45. Doris Lane says:

    Check Mayor Mertens comments on Facebook. Kudos to him for standing behind the majority of citizens in PEC on this issue. He does not want tubines in PEC and most of the citizens do not want them–remember the vote in SM.

  46. Doris Lane says:

    Amazing that they would announce it today when the 15 days for the ERT takes in the christmas and new years holiday
    We know the story of How the Grinch stole Christmas
    We know who the Grinch is and what he stole is the lives of hundreds in our natural habitat.

  47. Cheryl Anderson says:

    The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment should be ashamed. They no longer stand for anything in this province.

OPP reports
lottery winners
FIRE
SCHOOL
irrigation MPP Todd Smith
County Traders Eurotech

HOME     LOCAL     MARKETPLACE     COMMUNITY     CONTACT US
© Copyright Prince Edward County News countylive.ca 2018 • All rights reserved.