"STAYNER—The little hut not far from the end of Kevin Elwood’s airstrip looks more like a hobbit house than anything: almost a play house, a mere 16 by 20 feet.The entire article can be read at The Star
But since it comes complete with electricity, running water and a septic system it qualifies as a dwelling.
And it’s part of a game of tic-tac-toe between a wind developer and a group of local residents who want nothing to do with wind turbines."
The residents have been sprinkling mini-houses like Elwood’s in the path of proposed turbines – knowing that provincial rules forbid turbines from being erected within 550 metres of a dwelling.
It has cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, permit fees and building materials.
“It has taken a lot of money and a lot of time,” says Elwood’s neighbour Chuck Magwood, who has 400 acres nearby, with a similar mini-house, one of seven in total that are either built, permitted, or under construction.
“But we haven’t even started to do what it takes to win.”
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Who can stop the wind? These residents are trying - thestar.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a quick question that somebody here probably can answer because I’m sure this has come up before (probably many times). Let’s say I owned a one acre chunk of land in the country that was subdivided years ago. It has been sitting vacant but it was always my intent to build a house on it. What would happen if I wasn’t in the country for a year or so and in the interim, plans were approved to put up IWTs that were less than 550 metres from the property. Could this theoretically happen even if the property was zoned for a single family dwelling but no building permit was taken out yet?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Under the current regime, if the "receptor" (ie-residence) doesn't exist, it doesn't need to be considered by the developer. If you want to build a house after the wind turbines are there, then apparently you can waive your right to a safe setback. In that case, your right to a safe and healthy separation distance from an industrial activity means less than the theoretical health of our "children and grandchilren" that is imperilled by "dirty coal". It doesn't seem right that a parent can elect to do this and put their children at risk, but it's happening all across the province today with participants living closer than 550 metres, and all those other wind turbines approved before 550 metres was the minimum.
ReplyDeleteSo far, under the McGuinty regime, your property rights are superceded by "green energy". But whether or not this is just will probably eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. I suspect a legal challenge based on property rights violations is in the works.
You may wish to read the Inco leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from last fall for more discussion on a related issue.
What a bonus! This article was on the front page of the Toronto Star.
ReplyDelete