[ 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

Amaranth turbine hearing rescheduled  

The conclusion of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing into the Amaranth portion of the 132- megawatt Melancthon II wind farm is being scheduled for the township offices at Laurel on Feb. 27 and 28.

In the meantime, the various protocols requested by hearing officer Norm Jackson at the adjournment of the hearing last October were to be reviewed by township council last night. The protocols form part of the minutes of settlement between the township and the proponent, Canadian Hydro Developers Inc.

The major focus of the protocols is noise monitoring at the transformer substation. Monitoring has been continuing, but the results have not been made public.

At the earlier hearing, Mr. Jackson indicated his dissatisfaction with an earlier Certificate of Approval for the first of two 230 kV transformers at a time when neighbour Paul Thompson and others said they were still unhappy with the noise abatement.

At the hearing, Mr. Thompson played a digital recording of noise levels at his home. These, however, had been recorded prior to the erection of noise barriers and berms at the substation.

Mr. Jackson was at least as impressed by Cheryl Whitworth’s claims to noise effects on her health and sleep patterns as he was by the recordings.

He said he empathized with Mrs. Whitworth, whose health claims had arisen after Joan Lever (another party to the hearings) had e-mailed her a report of someone else experiencing similar problems.

Since the hearing last fall, there have been indications that additional noise barriers will be built at the substation, and the existing transformer is likely to be replaced with a different model.

By Wes Keller
Freelance Reporter

Orangeville Citizen

21 February 2008

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.