3 total
Engineer's Report for requisition drain amended to award injuring liability to appellant for increased water flow.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision and an Engineer's Report regarding the construction of a requisition drain intended to provide an outlet for a new subdivision.
The appellant argued the drain would increase water flow onto his property without providing any benefit, and that the estimated costs were too low.
The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to an allowance for injuring liability due to the increased rate of water flow.
The Tribunal also determined that the benefit to the appellant's land was over-stated and adjusted the assessment, ordering the subdivision developer to pay the costs assessed to the subdivision lands.
The Tribunal accepted the engineer's cost estimate and confirmed the project qualified as a requisition drain under the Drainage Act.
Le Tribunal modifie le rapport de l'ingénieur pour accorder une indemnité pour dommages et réviser la répartition des coûts du drain.
L'appelant a contesté le rapport de l'ingénieur concernant la construction d'un drain municipal destiné à desservir une nouvelle subdivision.
Le Tribunal a conclu que le drain proposé répondait à la définition de travaux exécutés sur demande, mais a modifié le rapport pour accorder à l'appelant une indemnité pour les dommages causés par l'augmentation de la vitesse d'écoulement de l'eau sur sa propriété.
Le Tribunal a également révisé la répartition des coûts, attribuant la majorité des avantages statutaires et des coûts à la subdivision plutôt qu'à l'appelant.
Drainage report set aside because proposed work was for erosion control, not proper drainage.
The appellants appealed a Drainage Report that recommended the construction of a municipal drain to address slope instability and erosion on a property adjacent to a natural watercourse.
The Drainage Engineer had recommended filling the bottom of the ravine to stabilize the slope.
The Drainage Referee allowed the appeal and set aside the report, finding that the proposed work was for erosion control rather than the 'proper drainage of lands' as required by Section 3(1) of the Drainage Act.
The Referee concluded that the statutory authorization for a requisition drain could not be stretched to encompass a project whose singular objective was erosion control.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.