CFFO: Using MDS to Mitigate Wind Turbine Conflicts

By John Van Dyk, CFFO Commentary 
Despite protests against them, Wind Projects are slowly being completed. Many townships are tackling a wide variety of issues, such as determining the right amount to charge for a wind development permit, other questions are emerging. One of the biggest and most important question to ask is whether the Minimum Distance Separation , or MDS, is appropriately balancing current development with future potential development on the part of neighbors to ensure fairness in the long-term.

Whenever an application for a permit for a new development like a livestock barn, house, or shed occurs, then the township must assure that all the MDS criteria have been met. In cases where an applicant is within a specified distance to an identified concern, such as a to a creek, wetland or municipal well then additional clearances will be required before constructing the building can proceed.

Since many wind turbine developments have been signed with landowners, often unknown to the adjacent neighboring farms, then getting the MDS right the first time has the potential to prevent many legal battles. It is often suggested that one of the reasons people find wind turbine development a problem is that they have lost out on an economic opportunity, but properly applied MDS regulations can prevent this situation from occurring. Read article

9 thoughts on “CFFO: Using MDS to Mitigate Wind Turbine Conflicts

  1. Remember the drill – ‘Sustainable Development’
    Asking councils – to think?

    ‘[excerpt] Forward looking township and building officials should be ensuring that appropriate MDS guidelines are in place for these wind turbine developments.’

    A little chicken kabob – shake! shake!
    Sue who? – in what country of origin?

    ‘[excerpt] Some foresight today with permit fees and MDS requirements has the potential to prevent many legal battles in the coming years.’

    Municipal councils – ‘Natural Companions’ – to cronyism!
    All nice and golden –
    dusted up with some confectionery sugar!

    Council meetings – a real bargain –
    if ya like – Cha Cha lessons!

    • Shame on you – PowerStream
      Is anyone safe – from ‘energy’ thugs!

      A Superior Court in Toronto has ordered an injunction against PowerStream to restore electricity services for a Markham woman.
      Sonia Chisholm has been in an ongoing legal battle with the local utility company jointly owned by Markham, Vaughan and Barrie.
      Nearly three months after PowerStream disconnected her service over alleged outstanding payments, Ms Chisholm filed for injunction relief which was granted by the court to have her service restored as soon as reasonably possible.
      Lights were on at Ms Chisholm’s condo unit the same day the court ordered was issued Tuesday.
      The order also required Ms Chisholm to make payments in the sum of $272, representing amounts from her current residential account PowerStream claimed are in arrears.
      Ms Chisholm is also required to keep her account in good standing to avoid another disconnection.
      The terms of the order don’t impact the wider litigation between Ms Chisholm and PowerStream that’s still before the court.
      Ms Chisholm is seeking $200,000 from PowerStream in damages, claiming intimidation, harassment, business interruption and the denial of vital essential services.

      PowerStream is counter-suing her for unpaid debts, prejudgment and postjudgment–court-orders-electricity-be-restored-for-mom-daughter

      Simply cooked and served – by PowerStream

      Let’s not be too judgmental – Ugh!
      Stay tuned – it’s not over yet!
      Time for a snack………………………………….
      interest and costs.

  2. While I commend CFFO for suggesting MDS as a possible solution, I don’t think it will work. But at least they are trying something. What have we heard from OFA about this topic lately? Zip, zero, zilch.

    There indeed is minimum distance separation formulae in place for livestock barns and manure storages, to ensure they are an acceptable distance from neighbors, schools, etc. However, many distances for even large livestock farms are in the 500 m to 1 km range.

    Presently 550 m is the distance from turbine to receptor (one’s house). This distance does not apply to a barn. A farmer’s animals in a barn can be closer to his neighbour’s turbine.

    Again, at least CFFO is trying something. But a new formula will need to be created – good luck with that. The 550 m is the distance because this is the distance which can be accommodated in Ontario’s road (concession) system any deviation and far, far fewer IWT’s can be shoehorned onto our lovely landscape.

    Do you really think McTurbine and Whorwath will let that happen?!

    • Another attempt to confuse the issues surrounding IWTs? It’s always just install them in the right places and everything will work out. The central scientific issue is that IWTs won’t work to supply a reliable source of electricity no matter where they are placed. They will do nothing to prevent climate change either which is a major reason presented to the public to get them to accept IWTs. This makes them a waste of money to begin with.
      Next there are all the health,safety,environmental,property values,etc associated with them.

      • Then you have people like Rajendra Pachauri who is in the OIL business and Maurice Strong who is into URANIUM & RARE EARTH MINERALS promoting renewable energy such as IWTs. Wake up Ontarians!!!

      • Great! And the US is doppler so can show where tornados can form and where strong winds can occur.
        Ontario is a smart place to install IWTs with the severe weather and lightning that occurs here isn’t it?

      • There is a storm front moving into Lake Erie just south of London. The doppler and non-doppler radar images can be viewed form the US and Ontatio. Select the Cleveland ,OH doppler radar site for comparison images for this storm front.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *