The proponent’s building would be three storeys above Muskoka Road 169 (even though they previously stated it would not be above the road), and it would be six storey’s above the Moon River – almost double what they received approval for.
In their 2012 Addendum, in which they presented their current Alternative 1A plan to the Ministry of the Environment for environmental approval, the proponent provided the following drawing (click on it for a larger view). In it we see:
- The proponent’s own dimensions show that the roof of their proposed building would be 30′ above the Moon River.
- The width of the proposed building would be 40′.
- Also important is that the proponent stated this 30′-tall building is already as high as required for a vertical turbine. More detail is in our earlier article here.
However, at the October 16, 2015 Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting, the proponent presented the drawing below (dimensions have been added). This is a view of their proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, as viewed from Margaret Burgess Park. It shows:
- The roof of their building would be much higher than the 30′ they presented in 2012 – we now see their building would actually be 55′ above the Moon River (this is the height of a 6-storey building). We also see their building would be 25′ above Muskoka Road 169, even though they previously said their building would not be above road level.
- The 34′-high structure that looks like a hanging gallows at the Moon River would be six huge steel posts topped by a 12″-high steel cross-beam that people would need to look through to look down the Moon River from the proposed building’s look-out. This would not be a scenic view.
- While not shown on the drawing below, at and above the water the proponent’s proposed building would be 62′ wide, not the 40′ the proponent showed above in their 2012 Addendum.
- As shown below, the proposed building would have a depth of 97′ from Muskoka Road 169, this would be as deep as three houses back-to-back.
That is, for their environmental approval, the proponent provided grossly incorrect information.