Coalition wants noise/nuisance bylaw to regulate turbines
Administrator | Feb 12, 2014 | Comments 13
The County will be asked to join a coalition of Ontario municipalities to create a noise/nuisance bylaw that could regulate operations of wind turbines.
Warren Howard, a councillor from North Perth (north of Stratford) and one of the leaders of the Wainfleet Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group, are to make the deputation to council at Thursday’s Committee of the Whole meeting, beginning at 1 p.m.
Howard is proposing the County join the coalition to create and defend (in court) a noise / nuisance bylaw to regulate the operations of wind turbines. He notes the bylaw would rely on, and leverage, municipal powers that are not overridden by the Green Energy Act, including:
• Health, safety and well-being of persons;
• Public nuisances; and
• Noise, vibration, odour, dust.
The presentation is to propose using a noise bylaw to establish a “Quiet Nights” noise level limit for rural areas that would prohibit ‘clearly audible’ noise in these areas duirng a defined night time period as a nuisance – providing general exemptions for specified farming practices, festivals, emergency vehicles.
Preview Warren’s deputation: https://princeedwardcounty.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=80710.
Filed Under: Local News
Great idea here on the noise bylaw! $3500 per community is chump change…Where do I sign?
I am wondering if the spring election will have any policy change should the Liberals fall. I guess the unknown is how many irreversible contracts are in place for this nonsensical scheme or what it would cost to break them. Ontario is approaching the point where there needs to be two governing bodies, one for Toronto and the urban sprawl and one for rural Ontario. The ruralites presently are not being listened to and are nothing but a playground for Toronto who by their size determine most governments.
Mr. Howard estimated the cost of drafting the bylaw to be $25,000 to $30,000. This bylaw would then be referred to the Superior(?) Court in Ontario for a ruling on its legality. Howard was certain that the Ontario government and wind companies would strenuously fight this bylaw. The estimated cost of this process – $250,000. These costs would be split amongst the participating municipalities. If the 79 municipalities who have designated themselves “not a willing host” joined the coalition, the approximate cost, based on Norman’s figures, would be roughly $3500 per municipality. Not a lot of money to insure safe sleep.
Quinte News is running a Poll for those interested. But the cost mentioned is Total Cost NOT PEC’s portion.
If this by-law does see the light of day, it would require that turbines be shut down if their audible noise exceeded a certain threshold. This would insure, for example, that residents sleep would not be disturbed. (A known, serious health issue.)
Norman has taken this approach because the equipment to measure dbs, and the manpower to do it, is readily available to any municipality. The measurement of infrasound, which Mr. Howard acknowledged is a much more serious issue, requires very expensive equipment and expertise not likely available in many municipalities. This is a “do what we can with what we have approach”. This would have no impact on whether or not IWTs are erected.
Sadly, if Harper wasn’t so hell-bent on closing down every scientific library and research facility in Canada in order to fulfill his agenda of development at all costs, and Wynne wasn’t continuing the provincial Liberals paper rural Ontario with IWTs and damn the consequences policy, this much-needed research on infrasound might have been conducted already. If this research proved infrasound is harmful to human health that would certainly modify where/how IWTs are constructed and perhaps make them impossible to build in certain areas.
Hey David, we all didn’t watch Fraser, ok?
Just kidding.
Loretta, I see this as a two-step process: deal first with the audible noise, which is easily measurable, and then move on to infrasound, which requires more sophisticated, less available measurement equipment.
I noticed that the coalition is asking for by laws to regulate ‘clearly audible noise’ when the bigger problem posed by sound fron IWTs is the infrasound, sound waves below our threshold of hearing. Even the UN recognized that infrasound could be weaponized and tried to have treaties banning so called ‘sonic weapons’ in the seventies. Infrasound can be amplified by homes and affects organs that resonate at similar low frequencies, such as our brain and heart.
Jethro, thank you for your informative ‘peer review’ of my comment… it’s just that I get so “warmed up” by the seemingly clever abstractions of the restaurant gadflies of PEC with appetites for Blandings Turtle soup and Red Tailed Hawk squab (obtained legally of courses courtesy of MOE permits to harm and kill), the cravings of a scientifically enchanted locovores.
Oh my Jethro we know you like the wind. I find it a little comical that you couldn’t comprehend David’s post. Even a thick head like me got it first go around. You had better seek assistance when you sign that wind contract! Lol
David Norman why don’t you use English that most of the people in the county can understand
Ron Hart, is your statement “This is just a covert attempt to shut down the restaurant industry! Shame!” an opinion or a fact based on a probability declaration which is being continually adjusted because it is based on County Sustainability Group modelling using unverifiable proxy data?
This is just a covert attempt to shut down the restaurant industry! Shame!