Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal 1 Stone Road West
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1 Stone Road West
Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL:
Highway #3 Municipal Drain Township of Norfolk
Highway #3 Municipal Drain (RE) 2001 ONAFRAAT 8
STATUTE:
Drainage Act
HEARING:
December 19, 2000
DATE OF DECISION:
February 16, 2001
2001-08
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2001 ONAFRAAT 8
Highway #3 Municipal Drain Township of Norfolk
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS AMENDED.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: An appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Suzanne Burlatschenko under Section 54 of the Drainage Act, from the decision of the Court of Revision on the Highway #3 Municipal Drain in the Township of Norfolk.
Before: Andrew Osyany, Vice Chair Jim Rickard, Chair Ed Mailloux, Vice Chair Jack Young, Vice Chair
Appearances: Dr. Suzanne Burlatschenko, appellant Mr. Donald Jeffery, for the appellant Mr. John R. Spriet, P.Eng, for the respondent, the Township of Norfolk Mr. Peter Bryan-Pulham, for the respondent, the Township of Norfolk Mr. Edgar Sandham, assessed landowner
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
This appeal was heard in Langton, Ontario on December 19, 2000. Suzanne Burlatschenko ❞ appealed to the Tribunal under Section 54 of the Drainage Act, from the decision of the Court of Revision with respect to the August 11, 2000 engineer’s report from Spriet Associates, prepared by J. R. Spriet, P. Eng. on the Department of Highways No. 3 Drain in the Township of Norfolk.
Mr. Merlin M. Howse, Clerk of the Township, performed the duties of the clerk of the Tribunal.
Section 54 of the Act states:
54(1) Any party to an appeal before the court of revision may appeal to the Tribunal by giving notice addressed to the clerk of the Tribunal, given to the clerk of the initiating municipality, from the decision of the court of revision or from its omission, neglect or refusal to hear or decide an appeal within twenty‑one days of the pronouncement of the decision of the court of revision or of any matter evidencing such omission, neglect or refusal.
54(2) The clerk of the Tribunal shall give ten days notice to an appellant of the time and place of the hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal.
54(3) Every appeal shall be heard by the Tribunal by way of a new hearing and shall be disposed of by the Tribunal in such manner as it considers proper, and its decision is final. R.S.O. 1990, chap. D17, s. 54.
Prior to the beginning of the hearing, the Tribunal issued an order making all landowners assessed or compensated in the August 11, 2000 engineer’s report on the Highway #3 Drain, Township of Norfolk, parties to this hearing. Proof was filed with the Tribunal that all parties have been served with notice of this hearing.
The Background
The Highway #3 Drain was constructed as a result of a July 25, 1960 report by McDowell & Jewit, prepared by John B. Dodd. The 1960 work consisted of 853 feet of new open ditch, 200 feet of existing open ditch and 2,647 feet of 10” concrete tile. The drain ran through Concession 3 and Concession 2 N.T.R. (formerly Township of Middleton) and outlet near Concession 1 Road N.T.R.. The closed portion of the drain ended at the Canadian National Railway in Concession 2 N.T.R..
The drain was extended north across Highway #3 as a result of a report by J.R. Spriet, P. Eng. Dated October 31, 1993. At that time, part of the Ronson Drain watershed was changed to outlet to the Highway #3 Drain. Under the same report, the Main Drain was reconstructed from the Canadian National Railway downstream to 214 metres south of Goshen Road.
Mr. Spriet explained that the August 11, 2000 report was a revisit of improvements to the drain that were made in 1993. At that time, it was decided to add new tile above station 0+600 and replace approximately 99 metres of badly deteriorated tile between stations 0+501 and 0+600. Since 1993, there had been a number of “blow outs” of the drain below station 0+501. The current proposal is to abandon the old 10” tile below station 0+501 and replace it with 21” and 16” concrete tile, in four foot lengths with geotextile wrap at the junctions.
Branch G - The report also proposes to add a new Branch G to the drain, extending from Station 0+501 in a northwesterly direction through the W. & B. Sandham property (Roll No. 10-20-067) to the Helsdon Investments property (Roll No.10-20-099).
Branch F - A 67 metre length of tile drain on Branch F that was constructed by J.& D. Desmarchais (Roll No. 10-20-069) as part of a residential lot development, is to be incorporated into the drainage works.
The total watershed area contains approximately 67 hectares.
The Issue
The issue before the Tribunal is:
Are the assessments in the August 11, 2000 Engineer’s Report by Spriet Associates appropriate?
The Evidence and the Findings
Suzanne Burlatschenko:
Dr. Burlatschenko stated that her property was a working farm and that it should be assessed as such. The basis of her argument was that the drainage problems on the Highway #3 Drain were the result of urban encroachment into a rural area. She submitted that her farm was naturally porous, as the land was a Class 3 sandy loam soil. She testified that water that accumulated on her property had always drained away within 24 hours, and that even when the municipal drain blew out there was no standing water on her farm. She said that she and her partner were still able to harvest corn after the blow out, and that their yields were comparable to that of growers with similar land. She did not believe that yields would be improved if the drainage works were repaired.
Dr. Burlatschenko explained that the drainage superintendent had discovered a second catchbasin and outlet, running through her property. The slope from the front to the back of the property was estimated as 15 to 17 feet. She suggested that the drain at the back of the farm, which was not part of the Highway #3 Drain, was helping to drain her farm.
Dr. Burlatschenko was concerned that the Court of Revision had assumed that there could be specialty crops grown on her farm, which she did not believe to be possible. She also felt there was a conflict of interest as many of the councilors who passed the provisional by-law to accept the engineer’s report, also sat on the Court of Revision.
Dr. Burlatschenko pointed out that the report proposed an alteration of the existing pattern of the drainage works, as rather than being used solely for agricultural use there was to be a mixture of residential and farm run off entering the drain. She felt that the residential landowners should pay a larger portion of the cost. She also felt that the water re-routed from the Ronson drain was partly responsible for the need to increase the diameter of tiles on the Highway #3 drain. Dr. Burlatschenko suggested that her share of the cost of repairing the drainage works should more closely relate to her property’s share of the watershed. She also noted that the proposed re-construction of the Highway #3 drain called for a solid drain with a geotextile wrap through her property, and that this would not provide the same benefits as a perforated drain.
In response to questions, Dr. Burlatschenko acknowledged that some water from her property could enter the reconstructed drain through geotextile wrap. She said she did not understand how the engineer had assessed costs but that she had compared her costs to the costs assessed in the same report for work to be done on the branches. She understood that a larger diameter tile was to be used in the reconstruction as a new branch was to be added. Dr. Burlatschenko indicated she had owned her farm since 1988 but had rented it to a tenant farmer for a few years before farming it herself, with her partner, Mr. Jeffery.
Don Jeffery:
Mr. Jeffery testified that he believed the newly discovered tile ran along the route to be used for the new Branch G of the Highway #3 Drain. He stated the overflow from a catchbasin in the municipal drain runs into the newly discovered catchbasin and from there out the newly discovered drain along the back of the Burlatschenko property. He said the two catchbasins were approximately 75 feet apart, and located just below station 0+501. The two catchbasins were connected with an overflow pipe located approximately midway between the top and the bottom. He reported that water flows in from the west and exits through the east side of the newly discovered catchbasin, then drains away through the field. He said the private drainage works was not discussed at the site meeting. Mr. Jeffery estimated that the catchbasins were built in the same era as a third catchbasin located on the Sandham farm. He said there was a ten inch plastic tile providing outlet from the catchbasin and that the old drain was made of clay, concrete and plastic.
Dr. Burlatschenko and Mr. Jeffery said they did not sign any of the three petitions to ask that the drainage works be improved. To the best of their recollection, they had never asked that the municipal drain be repaired, although Mr. Jeffery noted that a 1997 report indicated that he had.
Dr. Burlatschenko and Mr. Jeffery said they had never tried to repair the drain themselves.
Peter Bryan-Pulham, Drainage Superintendent:
Dr. Burlatschenko called Mr. Bryan-Pulham, drainage superintendent, as a witness. Mr. Bryan-Pulham explained that the Messsiah and Boc properties were part of the Ronson Drain watershed, not the Highway #3 Drain watershed. He said part of the Ronson watershed was added to the Highway #3 area in 1993, as it was the best solution to high maintenance costs on the Ronson drain. He testified that he had discovered the second catchbasin and drain on the Burlatschenko property while making repairs to the Highway #3 Drain. It was his view that it was a private drain, probably constructed in the 1960’s parallel to the municipal drain. He confirmed that the two catchbasins were connected with an overflow pipe. He said the Highway #3 drain was originally of clay construction and that it drained farmland in the 1960’s but now drains both residential and farm properties.
In response to questions, Mr. Bryan-Pulham stated that he had discussed the drainage works with Mr. Jeffery and that they had discussed how to fix the failed drain. He said he did not have a written request for repairs, but that they had discussed the blow out of the old tile. He reported that he had requests from landowners D. & B. Townsend for an outlet and had a request from a house owner who wanted a portion of the open ditch closed. It was decided to encompass all the requested work in one report in order to minimize engineering costs.
Mr. Bryan-Pulham testified that when the drain was upgraded in 1993, it had been recommended that the tile be replaced all the way to the outlet. To save costs, it was decided not to replace the tile below station 0+501, but it was his understanding that this tile would be replaced if the upgrades caused a problem on the Burlatschenko property. He stated he never considered using the old report to repair that section of the drain, as he had already decided to commission a report to allow a portion of the open ditch to be covered and to add a new branch to the drain. He stated that it had ultimately been decided not to route water from the Townsend property through the Highway #3 Drain. He reported that part of the Jacko property (Roll No. 10-20-050), the Matthys property (Roll No. 10-20-046) and other properties north of Hwy #3 had been in the Ronson watershed before 1993.
Mr. Bryan-Pulham stated that he had been the drainage superintendent for sixteen and a half years and that the Highway #3 Drain was typical for the area. He reported that there were approximately 489 drains in the Township of Norfolk.
Edgar Sandham:
Mr. Edgar Sandham suggested that the newly discovered drain on the Burlatschenko property was likely a clay tile drain installed when the railroad was built. He said it was his belief that it pre-dated the installation of the Highway #3 drain and that he believed it to be at least 60 years old. He also stated that there was an old tile drain in the planned location of Branch G, but that it was in poor condition and its catchbasins had heaved with frost.
Mr. Sandham stated that the newly discovered drain on the Burlatschenko property ran under Goshen Road to the railway. He said the drain ran south and emptied into Otter Creek and he noted there used to be some old catchbasins on the Burlatschenko property many years before. Mr. Sandham indicated he remembered the installation of the Highway #3 Drain in the 1960’s, parallel to the newly discovered drain, but that his family had never owned the Burlatschenko farm.
John Spriet, Drainage Engineer:
Mr. Spriet testified that he had used the Todgham method to assess the costs of the drainage works to property owners. He noted there was a special benefit of $4,900 assessed to the Townsend Lumber property (Roll No. 10-20-066-10) which was not in the watershed. The special benefit was for an engineering study of an alternate drainage scheme for the Townsend property. He said the remaining cost of the main drain was divided between statutory benefit and outlet liability in a 30:70 ratio. Mr. Spriet said he felt this was a reasonable ratio as the Burlatschenko property was close to the outlet of the drain. He indicated that he normally would have put a weighting of 50% or higher on statutory benefit for upstream properties.
Mr. Spriet testified that in 1993 he had only assessed the Burlatschenko property a minimal $930 for the drainage works, even though the drain went very deep through 150 metres of their property. He explained that the purpose at that time was to give outlet to upstream properties. He noted that in 1993 the maintenance schedule was updated and 43% of the cost of maintenance was assigned to the Burlatschenko property.
Mr. Spriet emphasized that the first 150 metres of drain on the Burlatschenko property was installed at a low cost to the property owners. He pointed out that the next 100 metre stretch of drain was quite expensive and that it should have been assessed out under the 1993 maintenance schedule, with the Burlatschenko property paying 43% of $2500. However, it was assessed out under the old assessment schedule and only cost Dr. Burlatschenko $100. He said the next stretch of drain was existing tile that needed to be replaced. He emphasized that 30% was on the low side for statutory benefit.
Mr. Spriet explained that the run-off factor he used on lots varied. Small lots were assigned a runoff factor of 2.0; one acre lots and larger were assigned a run-off factor of 1.25, and a factor of 1.0 was used on properties larger than one hectare. He said highways had a 3.5 runoff factor, roads had a 2.5 runoff factor and the railway was assigned no run-of factor as it was in a low area.
Mr. Spriet confirmed that the drainage area had been enlarged through the additional properties on Branch G. He stated it was not unusual that the Burlatschenko property would have a higher statutory benefit than its share of the watershed as most of the work was to be done on that property. He reiterated that if the work was done as maintenance, Dr. Burlatschenko would pay more and that by doing it under a new report, her net assessment is less as she is eligible for a government grant and gains some allowances. Mr. Spriet acknowledged that 16” and 21” tile was more expensive than 10” tile but he pointed out that the larger tile was a better solution and would be cheaper in the long run. He also pointed out that the new maintenance schedule puts the Burlatschenko property at 25%, not 43% as a direct result of the special benefit assessment. He stated that if the Burlatschenko assessment, were to be reduced it was his opinion that it should be pro-rated over the remaining assessments.
Mr. Spriet indicated that there had been several requests to improve the drainage works and that even if there was no written request from Dr. Burlatschenko there was clearly a benefit to her property to undertaking this work. In his view the Burlatschenko property was being charged a normal, or slightly less than normal assessment.
In response to questions, Mr. Spriet indicated that he was from the local area, that he worked with the family company, Spriet and Associates, since 1966 and that he had written many reports for drainage works in the area since graduating from Queen’s University in 1970.
Mr. Spriet stated that calculations are not usually included in the engineer’s report, that the Todgham method was a well established guide to engineers as to how to assess statutory benefit and outlet liability but that engineers vary weightings according to individual circumstances. He pointed out that “benefit” was defined in the Drainage Act and that this definition was reprinted in his report. He noted that Dr. Burlatschenko had the option of running tile into the municipal drain and that the value of her property would be increased due to the improved drainage. He submitted the landowner’s ability to achieve higher crop yields was not relevant.
Mr. Spriet explained that no statutory benefit was assigned to landowners with residential lots as there was to be no additional work done on the drain on their properties. He suggested that the newly discovered drain on the Burlatschenko property may have been an award drain and said that it seemed logical to him that there would be old tiles from long ago in the area.
Mr. Spriet said there was no formal agreement made in 1993 to revisit the project if the drainage proved to be insufficient, but he noted that any drain may be revisited at any time. He explained that a normal drainage coefficient for the area in 2000 was 1 inch in 24 hours but that some landowners would pay a special benefit to get a larger outlet. He said that in 1993, ½ inch in 24 hours was the standard drainage coefficient and that the Highway #3 Drain, at 3/8 inch in 24 hours was below the norm.
Mr. Spriet did not have the exact acreage of land diverted from the Ronson drain to the Highway #3 Drain in 1993 but he estimated that the watershed had been increased by 30% at the time. He said he did not calculate whether the 10 inch tile would be sufficient at the time. He had suggested that the tile be replaced all the way to the outlet in 1993 but, after five public meetings, it was decided not to do so. At the time, the tile on the Burlatschenko property was thought to be in good working order. But, it blew out when the 1993 work was added to it. Mr. Spriet said the outlet for the 1993 may have been slightly inadequate but that he would have to check the figures to confirm this.
Mr. Spriet indicated he had received a copy of a petition dated 1997, for the proposed Branch G. He pointed out that no petition was needed for the other work on the drain. He did not have direct knowledge of a request for work by Dr. Burlatschenko or Mr. Jeffery but he had understood that they had requested that the remaining 150 metres of tile on their property be reconstructed. He recalled that Mr. Jeffery was at the site meeting where the proposed work was discussed.
With regard to the work on Branch F, Mr. Spriet explained that the work was done before the report was completed as there were delays in writing the report. He said the owner of a property that was benefiting from the closing in of an open portion of the drain was billed the cost of the work and that there was a maintenance schedule for it in the current report. He indicated he was satisfied that the specifications on Branch F were adequate.
With regard to the removal of the Boc property from the assessment schedule, Mr. Spriet explained that the property owner had paid a one time cut-off assessment in 1993. He explained that maintaining the old branch of the Highway #3 Drain on the Boc property was difficult as water was being forced uphill, rather than through its natural course which took it through the Ronson Drain.
Mr. Spriet explained that there were separate maintenance schedules for the drainage works above and below station 0+501. His logic was that the portion above station 0+501 was designed to serve the upstream area and that the drain was 7 feet deep at that point. He noted that only 2% of the maintenance cost of that portion of the drain was assessed to the Burlatschenko property. He explained that the purpose of the current reconstruction of the drain below station 0+501 was to renew existing tile and upgrade the drain to allow for extra capacity for future development. As the lower section of the drain was not deep, he treated it as a normal drain. He reiterated that his 30% benefit assessment was on the low side.
Mr. Spriet explained that the upper area of the watershed was a trapped area that depends on the drain for outlet. This was why these properties had a larger proportion of construction costs of the drain above station 0+501.
Mr. Spriet theorized that if there were no drains in the area, water would run onto the Matthys property (Roll No.10-20-046), off the Jacko property (Roll No. 10-20-050) to the highway ditch and lay at the back corner of the Toth property (Roll No. 10-20-041-50). Also water from the Idsinga, Harvey and Jacobs properties (Roll Nos. 10-20-041, 044 and 045) would run to the highway. He explained that part of the problem was that the Ronson Drain was poorly designed.
He pointed out that the cost of incorporating maintenance schedules into the current report was minimal as much of this work had been done for the 1993 report.
Mr. Spriet said the life expectancy of drainage works built in the 1960’s varied depending on the materials used in construction. He said that clay drains tended to suffer from frost damage unless they were deep drains and that concrete tile varied in quality. He also noted that some drains had well protected joints whereas others did not. He estimated the oldest parts of the Highway #3 system could last between 20 and 80 years. He said that new drains were expected to last two or three generations.
Mr. Spriet explained that a large part of the assessments on Branch G was statutory benefit as it was to be a new drain. He explained that statutory benefits were assessed along the length of the drain and that they were also based on the diameter of the drain. He also reasoned that most farmers would not want an open ditch through their properties. Mr. Spriet did not agree that maintenance charges should be based strictly on outlet liability.
Mr. Spriet explained that the share of maintenance costs assessed to the Burlatschenko property was less than the share of construction costs assessed to that property, as he was in the habit of reducing statutory benefit assessments to some degree, before printing out the maintenance schedule. He indicated this was common practice for his firm. He said the open drain maintenance schedule in his report was based on acreage, but that he did not normally assess maintenance on a straight benefit basis.
Mr. Spriet agreed that the drainage system had been adequate until the watershed was expanded in 1993 and that it would be reasonable to assign a greater portion of the costs to benefit.
Summations:
Dr. Burlatschenko reiterated that her main concern was that the drain was being expanded to accommodate urban buildup and that she was not opposed to the project, just the benefit assessment. She did not have a specific suggestion as to what the appropriate assessments should be, but she felt that her assessment should be reduced somewhat and that she preferred that assessments be increased on urban properties, rather than farm properties.
Mr. Spriet reiterated that he believed that he had assessed the cost of the drain reconstruction as fairly as he could and that he had tried to explain how he arrived at his assessments. He said he would be happy to fix deficiencies that had been identified in his report.
Findings
This part of the municipality is home to several contiguous drains and the watersheds are sometimes not easily separated. The Tribunal's impression is that over the years the municipality had taken the approach that it would do its drainage work as frugally as possible to deal with the problem at hand, while recognizing that if the solutions do not work, the issues have to be revisited.
The evidence is that the drain worked reasonably well through the Burlatschenko lands up until 1993. At that point the drainage area was increased by some 30%. Immediately, the drain along the top portion of the Burlatschenko lands began to blow out, so much so, that even before the construction work was completed it was decided to reconstruct that part of the drain as well, though that work had not been called for in the report. In the engineer's view, this work was not assessed out sufficiently to the Burlatschenko lands and the current assessment restores a better overall balance. However, the Tribunal has generally held that past "wrongs" cannot be set "right" by re-working the assessments in the current report. The new assessment schedule that the engineer commonly develops in inequitable situations is the maintenance schedule, not the construction schedule.
Since 1993 the problems worked their way down the rest of the Burlatschenko lands and the current report is addressing that problem, as well as doubling the capacity of the drainage works.
There has been significant urbanization over the years and this has contributed to an elevated set of expectations from the drainage works.
In applying the various components of the Todgham method, the first question is: why is this work being done, what is the purpose? This assists in assigning the overall breakout proportions of statutory benefit and outlet liability. It appears to the Tribunal that this report is driven by the need of the lands in the upper and added watershed to take their waters to an outlet, and by the increased urbanization.
Therefore, the statutory benefit assessment on the Burlatschenko lands should be reduced. In the view of the Tribunal, a reduction of $2,700 would be fair in the circumstances. To balance this reduction, an additional assessment of $100 should be allocated to each non-agricultural property as outlet liability, to recognize the demands on non-agricultural properties and the need for them to share in the expenses of the drainage community in a more equitable way. The balance of the change in assessment should be added to the outlet liability assessments of the lands that were brought in to the watershed in 1993.
The body of the report explains how allowances were calculated, but fails to reveal any of the engineer's thinking in regard to the overall allocation of costs, and how various portions of the project were assessed out. Details of the site meeting and requests for work were not well documented. The Tribunal notes that by and large, the profession has been turning out more complete reports, and wishes to record its concern in this regard.
Part of the work done in the course of this report was to investigate bringing in the Townsend Lumber lands into this drainage area. In the end it was decided not to do it, and Townsend Lumber was rightly assessed $4,900 in this regard. However, this is a special benefit assessment, and should be so identified.
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
After careful consideration of the evidence filed and the submissions made the Tribunal orders:
That the decision of the Court of Revision which heard appeals of assessments under the August 11, 2000 Engineer’s Report on the Department of Highways No. 3 Drain dated October 17, 2000 is set aside.
The Clerk is directed to amend the Engineer’s Report to incorporate changes as follows. The outlet liability assessment be increased by $100.00 on each of the following properties:
| Roll Number | Owner | Original Outlet Assessment | Change | Revised Outlet Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-20-098-10 | S. & S. Wingrove | $72.00 | +$100.00 | $172.00 |
| 10-20-099-10 | P. Heath, P. Booy-Heath | $138.00 | +$100.00 | $238.00 |
| 10-20-100 | J. & W. Wall | $147.00 | +$100.00 | $247.00 |
| 10-20-100-10 | J. & C. Peters | $114.00 | +$100.00 | $214.00 |
| 10-20-101 | D. & B. Townsend | $90.00 | +$100.00 | $190.00 |
| 10-20-047 | L. & A. Anderson | $213.00 | +$100.00 | $313.00 |
| 10-20-101-50 | D. & J. Sandham | $117.00 | +$100.00 | $217.00 |
| 10-20-072 | D. & E. Falkins | $183.00 | +$100.00 | $283.00 |
| 10-20-067 | W. & B. Sandham | $153.00 | +$100.00 | $253.00 |
| 10-20-068 | L. Smith | $129.00 | +$100.00 | $229.00 |
| 10-20-069 | J. & D. Desmarchais | $210.00 | +$100.00 | $310.00 |
| 10-20-070 | J. & O. Vandeenbrink | $829.00 | +$100.00 | $929.00 |
| 10-20-045 | H. Idsinga | $153.00 | +$100.00 | $253.00 |
| 10-20-044 | M. & M. Harvey | $153.00 | +$100.00 | $253.00 |
| 10-20-043 | M. & M. Harvey | $243.00 | +$100.00 | $343.00 |
| 10-20-041 | L. Jacobs | $300.00 | +$100.00 | $400.00 |
| 10-20-071 | B. & S. Sandham | $159.00 | +$100.00 | $259.00 |
| 10-20-073 | R. & L. Bilger | $189.00 | +$100.00 | $289.00 |
| Total | $3,592.00 | $1,800.00 | $5,392.00 |
- The outlet liability assessment on the Jacko, Matthys, Toth and Kamenar properties be increased to the amounts set out below:
| Roll Number | Owner | Original Outlet Assessment | Change | Revised Outlet Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-20-050 | A. & M. Jacko | $1,501.00 | +$208.00 | $1,709.00 |
| 10-20-046 | E. Matthys | $2,372.00 | +$328.00 | $2,700.00 |
| 10-20-051 | S. & E. Kamenar | $ 540.00 | +$75.00 | $ 615.00 |
| 10-20-041-50 | M. & M. Toth | $1,366.00 | +289.00 | $1,655.00 |
| Total | $5,779.00 | $900.00 | $6,679.00 |
- The benefit assessment on the Burlatschenko property (Roll No. 10-20-103) be reduced by $2,700.00. The benefit assessment on this property will be $6,800.00
| Roll Number | Owner | Original Benefit Assessment | Change | Revised Benefit Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-20-103 | S. Burlatschenko | $9,500.00 | -$2700.00 | $6,800.00 |
- The Clerk is directed to amend the Engineer’s Report of August 11, 2000, to incorporate additional changes as follows:
Benefit assessment to the Townsend Lumber Inc. properties (Roll No. 10-20-066-10) is to be recorded as a special benefit and fixed as a non-proratable cost.
Properties referenced in the written summary portion of the report are to be identified by roll number.
Footnotes are to be added to Schedules C and D to explain that the properties identified by an asterisk are non-agricultural land.
The Assessment for Maintenance Schedule is to be titled “Schedule ‘D’ – Assessment for Maintenance” throughout the report.
The reference to a second petition on page 2 of the report is to be removed.
All of the amendments shall be highlighted or italicized in the report and the Amended Report shall have endorsed on the front the following wording: As Amended by order of the Drainage Tribunal, dated February 16, 2001.
Since Page 13 of the August 11, 2000 Engineers Report provides for a schedule of maintenance for the open portion of the drainage project, the engineer is directed to provide a profile of the open portion for future maintenance purposes. Schedule D on Page 13 shall be amended to show the stations affected.
The non-administrative costs of the Township in respect to this appeal shall form part of the cost of the drainage works and it is ordered that there be no other order as to costs and all parties are responsible for their own costs. Attention is drawn to Section 73 of the Act.
Dated at Shelburne, Ontario this 16^th^ day of February, 2001