Bylaw proposal a positive first step



Published on August 17, 2011
Published on August 17, 2011
Darrell Cole  RSS Feed

Public meeting Thursday at county building

Topics :
Gulf Shore Association , E.D. Fullerton Municipal Building , Pugwash , Wallace , Cumberland County

AMHERST – While not the end of the debate, a member of the Gulf Shore Association believes the county’s latest effort to create rules around wind turbines is a positive step.

Lisa Betts, who helped lead the effort against a proposed wind farm on the Gulf Shore near Pugwash several years ago, attended a public meeting Tuesday in Wallace on the county’s proposed new wind rules.

“It’s certainly an improvement and the language of the new bylaw has been clarified,” Betts said. “I haven’t had an opportunity to talk to Penny (Henneberry, Cumberland County’s director of planning) or to take a close look at it, but at first glance it looks better than it did.”

Betts said the existing bylaw, developed during the fight against the Gulf Shore project, has some shortcomings, including a cookie-cutter approach to the placement of turbines.

Under the existing bylaw, the separation between a turbine and homes has to be at least 500 metres. She said the present bylaw doesn’t have zones for residential and industrial uses.

The second of three public meetings took place Wednesday with the final meeting set for Thursday at the E.D. Fullerton Municipal Building in Upper Nappan beginning at 7 p.m.

dcole@amherstdaily.com

 

Comments

  • Username
    Rick Phillips
    - August 23, 2011 at 15:46:42

    This article may be confusing encouraging improvement with suggesting approval. I have read the county report and was particularly taken with the very poor analysis that interpreted survey results as supporting a 500m setback. The consultants conclusion that the most “popular vote is the 500m setback” is spurious and an absolutely ridiculous analytical conclusion. The report's conclusion that the “popular vote is the 500m setback” , supporting the county's choice of that setback, was based on the observation that 34% of survey respondents voted for that distance. This analysis ignores the fact that fully 65% of those voting wanted a set back of 1000 m or more.. (13.64% [1000m] + 27.27% [1500m] + 25.00%[2000m]= 65%+). If the county adopted the recently established 1000m setback for HRM in conjunction wtih a robust public consultation process to better mitigate placement issues, I might even be supportive of its work.

    Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

This form is NOT used for emailing the article to a friend. Please use the "Send to a friend" link at the top of the page for that purpose.

Cumberland News Now is not responsible for posted comments. Please be polite and confine your comments to the subject of the posted story. If you have an account, please sign on to it..

(we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

loading...
loading...

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts

Advertising