While it’s obvious there’s a wind farm in Mapleton because the turbines are plainly visible, it appears nobody currently on township council or working for the municipality is exactly sure how they got there almost four years ago.
Mapleton resident Dunc Lamond came to council on March 8 to ask who is responsible for any future repairs to a tile drain that crosses Sideroad 17 near his farm.
Lamond told council the transportation route outlined in the agreement between the township and NextEra Energy Canada indicates turbines would be brought to the site via a series of back roads off Highway 6.
However he said he and other area residents saw blades and turbine components transported straight to the site along Sideroad 17 from Wellington Road 109.
“I am suggesting all of these came down 17 from 109 past our farm here and because of heavy loads they caused problems on that sideroad, caused the road to settle and disrupted the tile outlet that came across to my farm,” said Lamond, who made clear he was part of a committee of local residents who opposed the establishment of the Conestogo Wind Energy Centre in Mapleton.
“I still get upset, I probably should say I get mad as hell at some of the underhanded means that were used to develop that wind farm,” said Lamond.
Lamond said the tranSports used to bring the turbine components to the site were up to 175 feet long and some of the turns on the official back road route “would be impossible.”
“I’m suggesting there would have been about 50 of those tranSports come down this sideroad,” said Lamond, who pointed out the development agreement contains a provision allowing for fines of $5,000 for any deviation from the approved route.
“I’m estimating there were 50 violations here – seems to me that’s about a quarter million dollars.”
Lamond stated in an interview that he didn’t see 50 turbines go down Sideroad 17, but did see “numerous” processions led by OPP vehicles, as did some of his neighbors.
“We saw these things roll by; unfortunately, we did not take pictures,” said Lamond, who told the Community News he was raising the issue now because of current concerns about the condition of the sideroad and drain.
“So as far as proving they went that route the police can corroborate that,” suggested councillor Marlene Ottens.
“No they cannot,” replied Lamond.
He said he was advised by police “they have no jurisdiction since it was a county road … they sent me off to the county and the county sent me here.”
Lamond told the Advertiser that a Freedom of Information request to the OPP was returned with the response that documents relating to the transportation could not be provided “because they do not exist.”
Mayor Neil Driscoll thanked Lamond for bringing the information to council.
“I think this is an issue we have to deal with as council. We need to answer your questions because I feel we need to answer them for ourselves,” said Driscoll, who pointed out, “We’ve changed a lot of the people that were in a position that possibly … should have monitored this project.”
The township has replaced both its CAO and public works director since the wind farm was built in the summer of 2012.
Contacted by the Advertiser, former Mayor Bruce Whale said he did not recall council approving use of Sideroad 17 from 109, but he believes some changes to the transportation route were made.
“I don’t recall it ever coming to council about the route. I remember Larry (former public works director Larry Lynch) talking about it one time, that they had brought some in a different route and he talked to them.
“They worked out some way that was going to be more logical because of a couple sharp turns on narrow intersections or something, that they got a more direct route, but I don’t remember Sideroad 17 being part of it at all.”
Whale said council would not necessarily have been involved in decisions of this nature.
“It would just be worked out with staff unless there was a complaint that came in – like a public complaint or even from the company about not being able to work out an agreement – but most of that stuff was worked out between staff and NextEra,” said Whale, adding there were no official written or verbal complaints to council about any use of Sideroad 17 at the time.
From discussions at council meetings at the time, it appears the original transportation route was questioned by township officials.
At a meeting on May 22, 2012, Lynch pointed out what the company submitted for a route is “not the simplest route at all.” At the same meeting, Whale suggested, “These are routes pulled off Google.”
Also at the May 22, 2012 meeting, then-CAO Patty Sinnamon suggested the township could include a clause in the development agreement stating that in the event of an emergency the company could use a different route than the one it submitted on its plan.
At a special meeting on May 30 council approved a draft agreement, but did not pass it in bylaw form because it was still subject to negotiations. At the May 30 meeting, Lynch said until he has the final route, it made no sense to check conditions of roads that are not going to be used.
At the meeting last week council passed a resolution accepting the delegation for information and directing staff to compile a report on the matter. Mapleton CAO Brad McRoberts said it could take until the last meeting in April to obtain the necessary information.
“We may run into the same roadblocks (as Lamond),” he told council. McRoberts said in a telephone interview on March 10 that NextEra officials he has spoken to indicated the original transportation route, which did not involve Sideroad 17, was never changed.
NextEra officials did not return phone calls or emails by deadline.
