I just read the two recent articles in The NEWS regarding the wind turbine issue in Beachcomber.
I would like to add a couple of talking points before this issue is laid to rest. First of all, I want to know why the RDN amended the bylaw to lower the height restriction of wind turbines in the Fairwinds development as laid out in bylaw 500.385 but they approved to a height increase of wind turbines in a building variance application in Beachcomber?
I am confounded by RDN director George Holme’s quote in the Dec. 3 edition of The NEWS when he said “most of the opposition live nowhere near the property, and that the turbine does not block the neighbours view.”
A petition of over 30 immediate neighbors were in opposition to this variance application with a map showing the location of these residents was brought as evidence showing that the people in beachcomber clearly were opposed as well as 15 e-mailed letters against were written and shown to the board. I thought that the people had spoken. A video of the turbine spinning from our perspective was shown to the board clearly indicating that turbine is a distraction.
Several of the board directors asked many poignant questions as to why the turbine couldn’t be moved or as to why solar was not implemented as a better, more economical choice, but in the end, only two directors voted for and none voted against. Of the seven RDN directors who were able to vote on this issue, only two actually raised their hands in favour.
I am 100 per cent in favour of supporting alternative green energy initiatives, but I believe that bylaws should be upheld. Bylaws are there for a reason, to protect all of us and when they are broken, I feel that there should be some accountability.
Andy Lankester
Nanoose Bay
