[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Airport to be key issue at Cruickshank OMB hearing  

Many appeals have been withdrawn from the Cruickshank Wind Project Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, with future expansion restrictions on the Kincardine Airport coming forward as the lead.

The second of two pre-hearings was held at the Kincardine Municipality Administration Centre on Sept. 28. Chair Norman Jackson ruled the hearing would begin on time on Oct. 16, but reduced from six weeks to two.

Wind Action Group (WAG) members Kathy McCarrel, Tony Clark, Lynn DiCocco, John Sheppard and Ron Stephens all withdrew from participating in the hearing, as many of their concerns were addressed at the recent Enbridge OMB hearing.

Left are appellants Andy Robinson, Rachel Thompson, Janice McKeen, Bill Palmer and Linda Lowns, represented by lawyer Jay Feehely.

They will call the municipality’s chief administrative officer, John deRosenroll, public works manager Jim O’Rourke and former airport manager Carol Little as witnesses, along with Bruce County senior planner David Smith.

Other appellants included Spencer and Tara Tudor, whose home is closest to turbine six of the six-turbine project at 600 metres. They are represented by lawyer Tom Mainland.

Municipality of Kincardine’s legal council George Magwood, was present, but left the case to Cruickshank lawyer Stephen D’Agostino as his involvement in Saugeen Shores’ Wal-Mart OMB hearing has been extended. D’Agostino will now represent both the municipality and Cruickshank.

The appellants’ case centres around a conflict of land use, where they say the erection of the six-turbine project north of the airport would “impact the current operations of the airport and its future uses”, said Feehely.

The appellants only professional witness, airport engineer’ Bernhard Schropp, will argue on their behalf, to discuss why the project will have such an impact on the project. Other participants want to ensure the Cruickshank project follows the same safety protocols as the Enbridge project.

Mainland will argue the impacts on the Tudor’s horse farm.

He said if the project proceeds, they’ll also be seeking legal action against the realtor who sold them the property days after the municipality approved the project. He said the Tudors received no information or notice about the wind project when they purchased the property and have been ignored during the process.

D’Agostino attempted to have the airport concerns thrown out, as he said NAV and Transport Canada have given their approval to the project.

He said safety issues have been resolved, so the issue should be stricken. D’Agostino said Feehely may just be using “cunning language” to keep the issue alive.

D’Agostino also complained both the expert and many of the lay witness statements had yet to be submitted. Feehely apologized and the chair said entire cases had been thrown out for this kind of tardiness.

Feehely pleaded for an extension and was granted time to have witness statements in by the middle of this week, while expert statement must be in by Friday.

The 10-megawatt, six turbine project near Ainsdale Golf Course was approved by the Municipality of Kincardine on Oct. 11, 2006.

Since then appeals were issued surrounding setbacks, noise, shadow flicker and impacts on neighbouring properties, as well as from pilots and the Kincardine Airport.

By Troy Patterson
Kincardine News Staff


3 October 2007

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.