I recently found the decision of the Ontario Assessment Review Board related to this story. From the story:
Ed and Gail Kenney are calling it a setback, not a defeat.
The Wolfe Island couple learned this week that the potentially precedent-setting challenge to their home property assessment - based on the proximity of wind turbines - was unsuccessful.
Well, if you read it through, the ARB decision pretty thoroughly demolishes the Kenney's position.
For example, re the noise of the turbines:
Ms. Kenney is the only witness who testified with respect to the noise level at the Kenneys’ property interfering with the enjoyment of the property. Under cross-examination by Mr. Fleming, Ms. Kenney agreed that she could carry on a normal conversation, watch television, sit outside, and listen to music and that she continues to garden although sometimes she chooses not to if bothered by the noise.
There is no evidence that the noise from the turbines has restricted the Kenneys’ activities. Ms. Kenney did testify that she sometimes wakens at night and can hear noise from the turbines.
In response to questioning by Mr. Fleming, it became clear that the noise complained about is not a problem to the extent that the Kenneys have felt compelled to do something about it such as putting in air conditioning so that they can keep their windows closed.
And re. the Kenney's inability to enjoy the view from their property:
Photographs of the wind turbines’ proximity to the Kenneys’ property were entered into evidence by both the Kenneys and MPAC. The Board finds that the Kenneys’ main view of Lake Ontario and Simcoe Island is unobstructed by the location of the turbines. The turbines are located on the road side of the property and not in the direction that the Kenneys would usually be looking out from inside their home (Page 4, Exhibit 14 and Page 14, Tab 2, Exhibit 10).
While the Kenneys did submit a photograph (Page 6, Exhibit 14) taken from a boat out on the Bateau Channel showing the Island windmills in the background, the Board is not satisfied that the Kenneys’ enjoyment of their property is from a boat on Lake Ontario.
In answer to the most pertinent complaint, that the value of the Kenney's property fell after the turbine's construction, after looking at comparable sales in the area between about 2005 and 2010 the Board found this:
The Board finds that there is nothing in the MPAC evidence of sales in proximity to or abutting wind farms to lead to the conclusion that property values on the Island or of the Kenneys’ property have been adversely affected by the wind farm.
While their methodology is a bit complicated, in essence the Board was able to locate properties that are, like the Kenny's, currently in sight of wind-turbines that had sold both before and after the turbines had been built. Since these properties did not lose value, it was inferred that the Kenny's would not.
So there you have it.