The proponent’s incomplete application

Summary
The proponent has submitted several requests for driveway entrance permits, which they would require for both the construction and operation of their proposed generating station.

In examining these applications to the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Township of Muskoka Lakes, we have found  several errors, omissions, and oversights in the information the proponent provided to support their applications. As detailed in this letter, we also have several concerns about public safety, risk to public infrastructure, traffic delays, and increased costs and liability to the District Municipality of Muskoka.

The District’s staff report responds to these and other concerns, noting that issues raised are either unrelated to this particular decision, the province would not tolerate the municipality over-stepping its authority, or the proponent will address any shortcomings later. We feel that just as complete and correct information must be provided when applying for a building permit, the proponent should be required to provide complete and correct information for these applications. The public deserves to know in advance of approvals what the impacts would be.

The proponent’s permit applications will be considered at the next meeting of the District Municipality of Muskoka’s Engineering and Public Works Committee, which is Wednesday May 21, 2014, at 9:00 am in the Council Chambers at the District’s offices at 70 Pine Street in Bracebridge.

Please come out to show your support that the proponent be required to provide complete and correct information before their applications can be considered by the District’s Enginering and Public Works committee.

Detail
The proponent has requested the following (click on the links below to see the drawings the proponent submitted with their application):

1. Approval from the District Municipality of Muskoka:
   1. To create a driveway off of Muskoka Road 169 during their proposed construction so they could drive construction vehicles into Margaret Burgess Park.
      • The existing parking spaces in front of Margaret Burgess Park and some in front of the Bala United Church could not be used during the proposed construction period (which they claim would be up to two years).
      • The proponent would also need to turn-around construction vehicles in the park, to install a construction bridge so these vehicles could drive over the Bala north falls to the proposed construction site, to install a large steel sediment settling tank in the park, and to remove enough trees from the park so they could do all this.
   2. To create a permanent driveway off of Muskoka Road 169 to their proposed generating station site south of the Bala north falls.
      • They would need to remove the guardrail there, leaving an opening more than 32′-wide, which is more than enough for errant cars coming from Bala Falls Road that don’t stop or turn enough to go over the embankment and into the construction site’s excavation.
      • Also, the view of vehicles using this driveway (all would need to either back-in or back-out of the driveway – rather dangerous at this location) would be obstructed by the west railing of the Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel. This would be dangerous for both pedestrians walking along the west side of the road as well as for vehicles attempting to pass by all this.
   3. To widen the shoulder on the west side of Muskoka Road 169 just south of their proposed generating station site.
      • At the west side of this widened shoulder they would need to build a retaining wall which would have more than a 10′-drop down to the Township’s Portage Landing area south of the proposed construction site.
      • Being at the top of a 10′-high retaining wall would be dangerous for both pedestrians walking by, as well as for vehicles, as the guardrail proposed does not appear to be anchored well enough to be useful.
   4. For a Roadway Occupancy permit to park vehicles, store materials and otherwise use the shaded road shoulder areas on this drawing as they wish.
       
2. Approval from the Township of Muskoka Lakes:
   1. To create a driveway off of Bala Falls Road just west of Purk’s Place so they could transport blasted rock under the Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel, and out beside Purk’s Place.
      • This would require building a cofferdam in the north channel extending from the proposed construction site all the way east to behind Purk’s Place.
      • The proponent does not have the required environmental approval for such a cofferdam: Figure 5.1 from the proponent’s Addendum shows they do not have approval for this area for their proposed Alternative 1A, and Figure 5.2 from the proponent’s 2009 Environmental Assessment shows they do not have approval for this area from their abandoned Option 2 approval either.
   2. To access Diver’s Point, which would be closed to the public for the duration of the proposed construction.
   3. For a roadway occupancy permit to park vehicles, store materials and otherwise use the shaded area beside Purk’s Place as they wish.

Of course, the main purpose of the driveways would be for loaded construction vehicles to enter and exit those sites. What is unknown is how often this would happen and therefore, the impact on traffic as these trucks wait to make left turns and merge into traffic. Traffic would also need to be stopped for the proposed blasting and during the subsequent bridge inspections.

Clearly, this proposed construction has many implications for traffic (for example, would emergency response vehicles be delayed), as well as for pedestrians – and these need to be considered.

There are many other important issues. For example:

• Would there be any risk to the District Municipality of Muskoka’s bridge over the Bala north channel.
• Would the District Municipality of Muskoka have any increased liability given the undesirable location of the requested driveway to the proposed generating station, and if so, how could this be mitigated.

And looking closely at the information from the proponent shows some surprises:

• The proponent’s drawings show that some of their proposed generating station would be built on District Municipality of Muskoka property.
• The blasting and excavation would be within inches of both the support piers for the Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel and the Bala north dam, but there has been no exploratory drilling or analysis of the ground there to know if this could be done without shifting and damaging this important public infrastructure.
• The proponent’s construction techniques could increase the District Municipality of Muskoka’s inspection and maintenance costs for their bridge over the Bala north channel.
• The guardrail at the top of the proposed retaining wall does not meet Ontario Building Code standards.
• The proponent’s construction plans include building a cofferdam in a location for which they do not have environmental approval.

This is a complex request. However the proponent seems to believe their demands should be instantly met without taking the time to consider the implications to the public. The proponent’s lawyers sent a threatening “We demand” letter to the Township of Muskoka Lakes, and the proponent’s Director sent a threatening letter to the District Municipality of Muskoka (copied to the proponent’s lawyer just in case anyone forgets they have one).

We have detailed our concerns to the Commissioner of Engineering and Public Works, and hope this will be of assistance in the Engineering and Public Works Committee’s review of the proponent’s Driveway Entrance and Roadway Occupancy Permit applications.

The District Municipality of Muskoka’s Engineering and Public Works Committee will be considering these Permit applications at their next meeting, which is Wednesday May 21, 2014, at 9:00 am in the Council Chambers at 70 Pine Street, Bracebridge.

Please come out to show your support that these issues be fully considered as part of the District’s review of these applications.