Letters and events

1. On Friday, May 18, 2007, a letter was sent to John Keating, CEO, Canadian Hydro Developers, putting him on notice that CPAI intended to do everything in its power to protect Amherst Island from being turned into an industrial wind factory.  The letter read in part, "We plan to aggressively and vigorously oppose your proposal to build a wind power plant on the isalnd. We will draw upon the talents and resources of our growing membership to challenge a proposal at all stages, at all levels of government, and at every doorstep."

2. This letter was sent to the Reeve of Loyalist Township on July 30, 2007, putting the Loyalist Township Council on notice of a recent Supreme Court Decision: 

  P.O Box 110 Stella,

        Email:protect.amherst@yahoo.ca

July 30, 2007

Mr. Clayton McEwan, Reeve

Loyalist Township, Box70

262, Main St. Odessa, ON

K0H 2H0 

Dear Reeve McEwan,

Re Amherst  Island — Industrial Wind Turbine Plants

This letter addresses two matters that the Coalition for the Protection of Amherst Island (CPAI) believes are most relevant to members of Council and senior staff in connection with any zoning for, or the negotiation and approval of, wind-turbine projects on Amherst  Island. The first concerns a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on openness in municipal government (a copy of the Reasons is enclosed). The second deals with a petition (copy also enclosed) to the Province of Ontario by the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie, dated January 25, 2007, to have the Province actually study the environmental effects of industrial-wind turbine plants and establish province-wide standards for their siting. 

The case is City of London-v-RSJ Holdings Inc, (2007), S.C.C. (unreported, but available at the S.C.C. web-site). The facts concerned an interim control by-law which effected a one-year freeze on all land development along a section of street. The issue was considered first by the City’s Planning Committee and then by a Committee of the Whole, each time in camera. In neither instance did the public agenda indicate what these meetings were about. At the conclusion of the second meeting, Council resumed its regular public session for 8 minutes, during which time it gave three readings to, and passed, 32 by-laws, including the interim by-law. The by-law was struck down by the Court. 

Charron J., writing for a unanimous court, considered the openness with which the municipalities are required to conduct their business, when discharging public business:

The open meeting requirement [s. 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001] reflects a clear legislative choice for increased transparency and accountability in the decision-making process of local governments…..     Further, the City’s disregard of its statuary obligation to hold public meetings in this case was neither inadvertent nor trivial. In the circumstances, quashing the by-law [by the Ontario Court of Appeal] was an entirely appropriate remedy. (para.4)  

In paragraphs 21-25 of the Reasons, Charron J. analysed s.239 to demonstrate the rare exceptions when closed sessions are justifiable. It appears that these exceptions would not apply to Council, or any committee thereof, considering any matter or communication, or information to or from, or on behalf of, any developer, or other party, or governmental agency, regarding or touching upon the establishment of wind turbines within the Township.  

Accordingly, CPAI respectfully requests that Council ensures reasonable public notice   is given of any such meetings, and that all relevant documents or electronic communications provided to Council members, at or prior to such meetings, be available in sufficient time to permit appropriate public review where possible. And further, that such documents or electronic communications that may have been previously provided to council members now be made available to the public.  

Implicit in the Arran-Elderslie petition is the call for a moratorium on the approval of wind-turbine plants until the Province has got its act together on regulating them. In the opinion of CPAI, Arran-Elderslie was correct to focus on the Provincial Government’s woeful disinterest in the consequences of a virtual absence of rules governing the siting of these industrial plants. What is at stake is not just the spoliation of pristine countryside; but also, and of greater concern, the health and well-being of residents living in proximity to these plants.                                                                                        

Chief among a number of serious concerns is the noise generated by the turbines and their transformers. In this regard some municipalities in Ontario have established wind-turbine zoning set-backs based on guidelines issued by the MOE for measuring wind-turbine noise. Using these guidelines, municipalities have been establishing set-backs of as little as 350m for non-participating residences (e.g. Melancthon Phase I).

 It is now quite evident that much greater set-backs are needed. In fact this may be dawning on the MOE, which is currently conducting some form of internal review of its guidelines.

 There is now a legion of reported examples of substantial health effects on local residents and the torment wind-turbine noise can inflict on them. An authoritative report of the UK Noise Association, dated July, 2006, acknowledges the substance and importance of these issues (see pp.16, 18-19, for example). CPAI believes the report is sufficiently important to warrant enclosing a copy. It should be noted that the first overall recommendation of the report is:

        It would be prudent that no wind turbines be sited closer than 1 mile away from the nearest dwellings. This is the distance the Academy of Medicine in Paris is recommending, certainly for the larger turbines [which are the ones proposed for  Amherst) and until further studies are carried out. There may even be occasions where a mile is insufficient depending on the scale and nature of the proposed development. (p.21)

 In addition, and most telling, are the numerous, sometimes moving accounts by nearby residents of their suffering and distress caused by the indifferent siting of these massive plants, (quoted at pp. 18-19). Do not doubt that similar residents presently exist in Melancthon and that they will be joined by others on Wolfe Island should that plant be approved as proposed. The concluding comment on page 21 of the report is worth repeating:

    Wind farms can play a role in reducing global warming emissions. But there is a very real danger that, in the enthusiasm to embrace clean technology, legitimate concerns about noise are being brushed aside. There is no doubt  that some existing wind farms are causing real noise problems. This report has stopped short of arguing that those turbines should be shut down, though that possibility should never be ruled out. However, it would seem quite unacceptable to our fellow citizens for this situation to replicated in other parts of the country as new turbines come on stream. But this need not be the case. The positive conclusion of this report is that there is a constructive way forward. It simply requires sensible siting of the new wind farms. It’s all about ‘location, location, location’. It is in the interests of the wind power industry, environmental groups and local communities for us to get that right.

                  Ontario is just starting out on a massive wind-turbine program and can thereby avoid the mistakes made in Europe, but only if the Provincial Government and the municipalities have the will to apply the lessons learned in Europe and elsewhere.

It appears to CPAI that, given the level of today’s knowledge, any municipality approving an industrial wind-turbine plant, without generous set-backs for the protection of the health and well-being of residents (CPAI suggests this should be a minimum of 2 kilometres), may well be civilly liable for knowingly inflicting harm on them, together with liability for the inevitable and substantial devaluation of properties that will arise because of the reluctance of people to live in a hostile environment expressly facilitated by the municipality in question. CPAI believes that this letter, by itself, gives Loyalist Township sufficient notice of these matters.

 In the respectful view of CPAI, the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie has got it right, and that no industrial wind-turbine plant should be approved by Loyalist Township until the Ministries of the Environment and Health have fully investigated and can give intelligent guidance on the health and environmental consequences of the Government’s current politically driven wind-turbine initiatives. CPAI believes that, in addition, full-scale environmental assessments of these projects must be conducted.

 CPAI is committed to seek any and all available remedies to prevent the residents of Amherst  Island being subjected to the consequences of such ill-considered and harmful policies.

We hope that you will find this letter helpful in considering Council’s future position on wind -turbines, and we look forward to being kept informed of any developments affecting Amherst  Island.

 Yours truly,

John W. Adams, Q.C.

CPAI Law Group

 cc: Councilor Duncan Ashley; Diane Pearce, Chief Administrative Officer;

Encls: 2

3. The Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie sent a letter to The Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on January 24, 2007, copied to all  Municipalities in Southern Ontario, complaining that, although the government was trumpeting a new era of powers for local municipalities, it had quietly removed energy undertakings from the Planning Act, thus "reducing municipal powers, restricting local autonomy, eliminating local planning processes designed to respond to our citizen's needs and eliminated accountability and transparency to our ratepayers." It also sent to the Southern Ontario municipalities a copy of a Petition to the Province of Ontario with 9 specific petitions regarding wind turbines. These petitions dealt with, among other things, the need for adequate assessments of environmental impact, property values, and the need for the development of guidelines and regulations in consultation with the people of Ontario.

4. A presentation was made to the council of Loyalist Township during Session 22, August 13,  warning council of the dangers of wind turbines on Amherst Island. Information should be available shortly on the Loyalist website.

5.  Several public information sessions have been held at the Amherst Island Community Centre during the course of the summer and fall of 2007, the latest on 21 October.