Potential to generate power
He agreed that the worst-case scenario at this point would be if the current council fails to get the draft land use planning documents approved before the end of its term. Peck believes the turnover on council and with municipal staff since the large-scale wind debate began is one reason why the process has dragged on. The one constant has been concerned citizens.
Peck’s large-scale wind proposal
Peck said there was a “eureka moment” at a public meeting in March 2015 when a map was presented showing proposed large-scale wind turbine separation distances. It revealed a location in southwest Kings County capable of largescale wind energy development that could provide a minimum three kilometre separation distance between turbines and the nearest residents, perhaps as much as 3.5 km. This realization was the catalyst for his proposal. Peck said what concerns him about this is the length of time it to identify an area in nicipality where a wind industrial be sited in land took the mu- large-scale park could without resulting use conflicts. Considering that the now repealed bylaw was enacted in 2011, it makes him wonder how many other decisions are being made without decision makers being fully informed.
Peck’s proposal involves a dedicated area in the southwest portion of Kings County where large-scale wind turbines would be permitted as-of-right. You could drop the footprint of the South Canoe wind farm in Lunenburg County into the proposed area of provincial Crown land in the southwest corner of Kings.
The proposed location off Aylesford Road has many attributes indicating strong potential for wind energy development. In an earlier interview, Peck said you could easily put in 40 turbines, each standing 490 feet tall. The Kings site could generate 100 to 120 megawatt nameplate production, compared to 102 at South Canoe.
Peck said he believes the County of Kings is still in need of a well thought-out, comprehensive, holistic energy plan.
PAC consideration
There was unanimous support for the proposal when portions of the draft Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and Land Use Bylaw (LUB) relating to energy were reviewed by the planning advisory committee (PAC) in December. Benefits were reviewed, including providing a minimum 3,000 metre separation distance from any existing dwelling and a similar separation distance from the Cloud Lake Wilderness Reserve. The proposed area is within a reasonable distance of a large electrical transmission line, approximately 7 kilometres.
PAC directed staff to incorporate the proposal by applying an overlay. This would continue to permit uses within the underlying Resource (N1) zone.
PAC is recommending that all property owners within five kilometres of the proposed overlay be notified in writing of the final consultation meeting and be invited to comment. The general public would also be invited to comment. Peck said he believes this provision for public consultation is of the utmost importance.
PAC is recommending that any proposed policies and regulations related to permitting largescale wind turbines
using a separation distance approach — anywhere in the municipality — be removed from the draft documents. There had been a provision in the draft to allow large-scale turbines where a 1,000 setback from existdwellings could be
achieved. Peck was pleased with this “total rejection” of a 1,000 metre separation, which rendered several other staff recommendations redundant.
PAC is also r e com - mending that the proponents of large-scale wind turbines be responsible for decommissioning them after a period of one year of inactivity. Peck said he would be pushing for a third-party surety bond or trust for decommissioning that the proponent would wind metre i n g have to pay into. This way, decommissioning costs couldn’t fall to the taxpayer or landowner leasing property to the proponent.
Peck said he doesn’t understand why the draft planning documents contain provisions for surety bonding for the decommissioning of photo voltaic or solar panels but not large-scale wind turbines.
Consistency is key
Peck said the draft planning documents contain no provision for a maximum height of a wind turbine but he’ll be pushing for that.
“I look for reason and I look for consistency and I look for reason- able statements and policy when I go and watch and listen to PAC and all of these debates,” Peck said.
He said it’s important to have consistency between provincial and municipal definitions of small and large-scale wind turbines. Small scale wind turbines are defined provincially as those capable of generating up to 50 kilowatts of power and can be as tall as 115 feet (35 metres). Peck said this would mean that anything over 115 feet would be considered large scale but there is no upward height limit identified.