Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal 1 Stone Road West Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email:Tribunal@OMAF.gov.on.ca
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1, chemin Stone Ouest Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Email:Tribunal@OMAF.gov.on.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL: McFeeters Petition Drain City of Kawartha Lakes McFeeters Petition Drain (RE) 2004 ONAFRAAT 41
STATUTE: Drainage Act
HEARING: November 10, 2004
DATE OF DECISION: December 9, 2004 2004-41
NEUTRAL CITATION: 2004 ONAFRAAT 41
McFeeters Petition Drain City of Kawartha Lakes
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS AMENDED.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: Appeals to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by W.G. Foerderer, Lindsay, Ontario, William Wilms, Lindsay Ontario and by K. W. Found, Lindsay, Ontario under Sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act from the engineer’s report and from the decision of the Court of Revision on the McFeeters Petition Drain in the City of Kawartha Lakes and by Peter Stapper, Lindsay, Ontario under Section 48 of the Drainage Act from the engineer’s report on the same drain.
Before: John Taylor, Vice Chair; Jack Young, Vice Chair; Doug Flook, Member
Appearances: Tom Pridham, P. Eng., engineer who prepared the Report, representing the respondent, the City of Kawartha Lakes Will Foerderer, appellant William Wilms, appellant Ken Found, appellant Peter Stapper, appellant Beverly Baxter, assessed landowner Dale McFeeters, assessed landowner Robert Wild, witness John Kuntze, P. Eng., witness
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
This appeal was heard in Lindsay, Ontario on November 10, 2004. Three assessed landowners appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) under Sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act (the Act) on the design of the proposed drainage works, whether the benefits of the work warranted the cost, and the equity of assessments. One landowner appealed under Section 48 of the Act on the design of the proposed drain.
Sandra Lloyd, Deputy Clerk of the City of Kawartha Lakes (the Municipality), performed the duties of the Clerk of the Tribunal.
Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal issued an order making all landowners assessed or compensated in the engineer’s report on the McFeeters Petition Drain prepared by R. J. Burnside and Associates Limited, dated April 15, 2004 (the Report) parties to this hearing. Proof was filed with the Tribunal that all parties have been served with notice of this hearing.
Statutory Context
Subsection 48(1) of the Act states:
Appeal to Tribunal
48.(1) Any owner of land or any public utility affected by a drainage works, if dissatisfied with the report of the engineer on the grounds that,
(a) the benefits to be derived from the drainage works are not commensurate with the estimated cost thereof;
(b) the drainage works should be modified on grounds to be stated;
(c) the compensation or allowances provided by the engineer are inadequate or excessive;
(d) the engineer has reported that the drainage works is not required, or is impractical, or cannot be constructed under section 3,
may appeal to the Tribunal, and in every case a written notice of appeal shall be served within forty days after the mailing of the notice under section 40 or subsection 46 (2), as the case may be. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, s. 48 (1).
Subsection 54(1) of the Act states:
Appeal to Tribunal
- (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. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, s. 54 (1).
Preliminary Matters
The appeals of Mr. Wilms and Mr. Found were filed after the statutory time limit for initiating appeals. No party objected to the Tribunal extending the time limit for the appeals and the Tribunal so ordered. Similarly, the appeal of Mr. Stapper was filed after the statutory deadline. As well, Mr. Stapper was not compensated or assessed on the drainage works and had not been made a party to the proceeding by virtue of the Tribunal’s pre-hearing order. The Tribunal extended the time allowed for Mr. Stapper to appeal and granted him status at the hearing.
The Background
Mr. Tom Pridham, P. Eng. (the Engineer) told the Tribunal the proposed drain was a petition drain designed to provide an outlet and relief from flooding to the property identified by Roll No. 2-444-01 (McFeeters property). He said the lands in the watershed were largely agricultural, but there were also two municipal roads and a large hydro station contributing to flooding in the watershed. He said the soils were Lindsay Clay Loam, Solmesville Clay Loam and Otonabee Loam. The watershed was approximately 135.4 ha.
Mr. Pridham said the work proposed in the Report included:
The improvement of 435 metres of existing open drain, including the installation of a straw bale sediment dam.
The construction of 577 metres of closed drain, including a road crossing.
The installation of three catchbasins and two junction boxes.
Removing and disposing of excavated material, including shale rock.
Reseeding side slopes and disturbed areas.
Mr. Pridham explained a small branch drain had also been requested but was ultimately not included in the final design.
With regard to his cost assessment methodology, Mr. Pridham said he divided the work into six portions: outlet investigation, Sta. 000-216 (open work), Sta. 216-435 (open work), Sta. 435-535 (closed work), Sta. 555-610 (closed work) and Sta. 610-1012 (closed work). He said he assessed the open work as 30% statutory benefit and 70% outlet liability, and the closed work as 65:35 benefit:outlet and 70:30 benefit:outlet. The entire cost of the outlet investigation was assessed as an outlet charge. Mr. Pridham said he assessed Willow Glen Road a special assessment for the road crossing.
In response to questions, Mr. Pridham explained he located the drain along a property line to take advantage of an existing small ditch. He said the proposed drain would route water away from a steep roadside ditch on Willow Glen Drive.
The Issues
The issues before the Tribunal were:
Should the lower portion of the proposed drain be relocated to its present location along the south side of Willow Glen Drive?
Is there a negative downstream impact from the construction of this drain?
Is there an alternate outlet for a portion of the water from this watershed?
Should a culvert be constructed at Station 000 for the Wilms cattle?
Is the project cost-beneficial?
Is the watershed correctly defined?
Have the assessments been properly apportioned in the Report?
The Evidence
Design Issues:
Mr. William Wilms told the Tribunal he objected to the design proposed by the engineer because it would move water away from the road ditch and across private lands. He said that he would prefer the drain to continue in an easterly direction, rather than turn south at Sta. 535 to cross the Chui property (Roll No. 2-444-03), the Dachs property (Roll No. 2-444-02) and the Wilms property (Roll No. 2-442-00). He said there was sufficient grade in the existing road ditch to carry the water east to the Scugog River, and that a tile could be installed if it was determined that the road ditch would be too deep. He said the road ditch was not eroding. He explained there had been significant erosion in 1996, the year after the road was built, but that the ditch had stabilized.
Mr. Wilms said there was an existing ditch on private land and it was close to full every Spring. He said he was concerned that routing water from tiled agricultural lands through the ditch would cause it to overflow. He said water had been re-routed to the road ditch in 1995 to keep it off private lands and submitted that was the better route. He confirmed that the route proposed by the engineer was the route that water was drained prior to the roadwork undertaken in 1995.
Mr. Wilms said he pastured his cattle on the Chui property and asked that if the drain was retained in the location proposed in the Report, that a crossing be installed at Station 000 to allow cattle to walk over the ditch.
Mr. Peter Stapper, whose property is located downstream of the proposed project, explained that the proposed drain would outlet on land located immediately behind his property. He said he was concerned that the outlet was at capacity and any additional flow would cause flooding on his property. He said he was told at the time the roadwork was undertaken in 1995 that the old drainage ditch was filled in to slow down the water flow and reduce the amount of water going to the outlet. He said the design in the Report would route water back to this outlet. Mr. Stapper said he would prefer that some water be directed along the existing road ditch on Willow Glen Drive.
Mr. John Kuntze, P. Eng., told the Tribunal he had been the Municipality’s Drainage Superintendent at the time the McFeeters Drain petition was signed. He said he had advised Mr. McFeeters that cleaning out the Willow Glen Drive roadside ditch would not provide a sufficient outlet for his property. He said it would be feasible to deepen the roadside ditch and drain the watershed through that route. He could not provide a cost estimate.
Mr. Pridham told the Tribunal he had considered routing the drain along the existing roadside ditch but that he rejected this option because:
The existing roadside ditch was eroding laterally and adding water would worsen the erosion.
The cost of this route would be higher because an additional 200 metres of tile would be required, shale rock would need to be removed and significant erosion control structures would be necessary.
Mr. Pridham said water would flow through his proposed route until the point when the capacity of the 21-inch tile is reached, then the overflow would be routed through the existing roadside ditch. He acknowledged that the route he proposed was longer than the proposed roadside ditch route but he said it would not move any more water to the existing outlet behind the Stapper property. He explained the water would be flowing faster at the upstream end of the drain but would slow down due to the length of the proposed drain. He said he was confident the outlet was adequate and no additional hardship would occur as a result of the work proposed in the Report. He provided a hydrological analysis to support this conclusion.
Cost:Benefit Issue:
Mr. Ken Found pointed out that the proposed drain would cost $125,000 and would drain 30 acres of land on the McFeeters property. He said this worked out to $4,000 per acre and land in the area was not worth that much. He said the engineer had not justified the cost of the proposed drain.
Mr. Wilms said if everyone in the watershed wanted to improve their drainage then over 100 acres would be drained and the proposed project would be economically feasible. He said that since Mr. McFeeters was the only landowner who petitioned for drainage improvements, the project was not cost-beneficial.
Mr. Dale McFeeters said he could not say if he would tile his property or not until he had an outlet.
Mr. Pridham said the benefit to the McFeeters property was obvious, as a portion of the land could not be cropped under existing conditions. He said the drain would also provide flood relief to the Foerderer property. Mr. Pridham testified the proposed drain would provide a tremendous benefit to Willow Glen Drive by removing water from the north roadside ditch, which was close to capacity. He said Angeline Road would also benefit, as an outlet would be available when it is reconstructed. Mr. Pridham said the Hydro One property required an outlet and would be able to expand the hydro station if it petitioned to extend the drain across the road. Mr. Pridham said he believed the benefits of the proposed drainage project exceeded the cost. He clarified that the estimated cost was $108,000.
Assessment Issues:
Mr. Will Foerderer told the Tribunal he did not dispute the engineer’s calculations of land elevations but that he had observed water from Spring runoff running from South to North, from the McFeeters to the Foerderer property (Roll No. 2-445-00). He said the land was fairly level but there was a low spot that straddled the McFeeters and Foerderer property line. Mr. Foerderer said water flowed into the low spot from both properties and from the properties identified by Roll No. 2-138-02 (Hydro One property) and Roll No. 2-444-00 (Boskov property).
Mr. Foerderer said the engineer had included too much of his property in the watershed. He explained that water from the low spot on his property eventually evaporated or was absorbed into the earth. He acknowledged that it could flow south if the water level was ever high enough but that some of the water would flow north, based on the elevations measured. Mr. Wilms stated he once owned the Foerderer property and confirmed that water was absorbed into the ground before it could run off the property.
Mr. Robert Wild told the Tribunal he was retired but was a Certified Engineering Technologist. He said he had used an engineer’s level to take elevations on the Foerderer property. Mr. Wild said he determined that water flowed north out of a ditch originating on the Wilms property (Roll No. 2-442-00) and that it also followed a shallow, poorly defined swale travelling in a generally southerly direction. He said he concluded that early in a wet period water would flow to the north, and later would flow to the south. He said that his levels confirmed those of Mr. Pridham.
Mr. Found testified that he was a land developer and had been involved in drainage projects for 40 years. He said the McFeeters Drain was the first time he had been involved in a drainage project developed under the Act. Mr. Found said he objected to the amount of costs assessed to the Found properties (Roll Nos. 2-131-10, 1-138-00, 2-138-01). He said he used his land to pasture cattle and he could see no benefit to the proposed drainage works to his properties. He said if any future landowner ever did want to drain his properties, this could be done by directing water through an abandoned rail line to the Scugog River. He said the old rail line was 12-15 feet deeper than the rest of his lands.
With regard to outlet liability, Mr. Found said that he had done nothing to his land that would cause water to artificially flow so he should not be charged an outlet assessment. He said water was entering the McFeeters property because of artificial flows from the Hydro One property, Angeline Street and Willow Glen Drive.
Mr. Found said it would be fairer to have the drain proponent pay the up front costs of the project and then have him reimbursed by any other landowners who subsequently used the drain. He also questioned the democracy of the process established in the Act.
Mr. Wilms said there could be some benefit to his property from the proposed drain, but that the land adjacent to the proposed drain was the lowest on his property and he would continue to use it for pasture. He said that field had never been cropped.
Mrs. Beverly Baxter said the Hydro One property and the road culverts generated most of the water that flowed onto the McFeeters property. She said her family had farmed the McFeeters property and it had always been wet but the water problem intensified after the Hydro One property was developed. Mrs. Baxter acknowledged her property (Roll No. 2-139-00) was higher than the Hydro One property. She said she did not see any benefit to her property from the proposed drain and felt her assessment was too high.
Mr. Pridham told the Tribunal the technician who defined the watershed had 35 years of experience in this field. He stated that he personally walked the watershed again in October 2004 and November 2004. He said he used a global positioning system model to take additional measurements of the elevations on the Foerderer property. He agreed that water ponded on the Foerderer property but said that it then ran off to the south.
Mr. Pridham said he agreed that water flowed along the old railway line on the Found properties, but said that it was blocked from travelling further south and made its way through a culvert back into the McFeeters Drain watershed. He said Mr. Found could not artificially discharge this water along the route of the old railway onto another property.
Mr. Pridham said he agreed that there was a significant flow of water from the Hydro One property into the drainage area. He said he charged the Hydro One property twenty times the rate charged to farmland, and charged the roads five times the agricultural rate. He explained this was to account for the increased rate of flow from the impervious surfaces of the intensively developed lands.
With regard to the Found properties, Mr. Pridham pointed out that he had not assessed any of them for statutory benefit. He referenced a Drainage Referee decision which he said indicated that lands that were directly or indirectly using the drain could be assessed outlet liability. He said the smallest Found property – Roll No. 2-131-10 – was assessed a minimal charge of $150 for outlet liability. He explained that water from the two larger Found properties would use a larger portion of the drain. He said he reviewed his assessments for fairness, and believed that the Found properties, which were assessed approximately 12.5% of the total cost, were fairly assessed. It was pointed out that simply clearing land for agricultural use contributed to the artificial flow of water off the land.
Mr. Pridham said the Wilms property was assessed 2.3% of the total cost. He said it would benefit from improvements to the existing open drain as these would prevent field flooding.
Mr. Pridham said the Foerderer property was cropped with a bush in the middle at the south end. He stated that after some ponding, water did flow off the Foerderer property onto the McFeeters property and would eventually flow through the drain. He said the Foerderer property was assessed only outlet liability and it was assessed 3.6% of the total cost. In comparison, Mr. Pridham said the McFeeters property was assessed almost one-third of the cost and the Hydro One property was assessed 18% of the cost of the drainage works.
Mr. Pridham also said:
He charged a benefit assessment of $3,000 to the McFeeters property for the cost of engineering work done on Branch B of the drain.
He designed a closed drain on the Dachs-Chui property line at the request of Mr. Dachs; however he did not assess a special benefit to the Dachs property for a closed drain.
Summations:
Mr. Foerderer told the Tribunal he accepted that some water from his property would run off to the McFeeters property but submitted the amount was minimal and he was assessed too large a share of the cost of the proposed drain.
Mr. Found submitted that the Act required the engineer to conduct more than an engineering exercise. He argued that it also required that the proposed drainage works had to be justified on economic grounds. He submitted that the engineer had not demonstrated that the cost of the proposed drain was justified. He asked the Tribunal to put a hold on the project and order the engineer to retain a qualified agricultural economist to provide an opinion on the feasibility of the project. He also stated that the Municipality’s council should have taken a more political role and allowed landowners to make submissions to council. With regard to the Found properties, Mr. Found suggested that the assessments be significantly reduced as the properties received questionable benefits.
Mr. Wilms asked the Tribunal to either order that the drain not be constructed at all or that it be routed along the south side of Willow Glen Drive, in the location of the existing roadside ditch. He said if neither of those options were possible he would like a culvert so that his cattle could cross from his land to the Chui property. However, he later said he would rather install a gate in a different location than pay for a culvert.
Mr. Stapper asked the Tribunal to consider whether or not alternative routes for the proposed drain had been fully investigated. He asked that the project be considered from a homeowner’s point of view.
Mrs. Baxter asked the Tribunal to ensure that assessments were fair.
Mr. McFeeters said he had already lost three crops while waiting for the drainage issue to be resolved. He said he objected to the proposed feasibility study as it would add to the cost and prolong the process. He said he was paying the majority of the cost of the project, but that the majority of water causing problems on his property originated on other properties.
Mr. Pridham asked the Tribunal to uphold the Report. He said he had checked the watershed and the appellants’ properties were in it. He reiterated that his route would not create any additional problems at the outlet and that it moved water away from a steep incline in the existing roadside ditch. Mr. Pridham said he did not believe the cost of an economic feasibility study was warranted. He said there were significant benefits to the roads and the Hydro One property, as well as the benefits to some of the agricultural lands.
The Findings
Should the lower portion of the proposed drain be relocated to its present location along the south side of Willow Glen Drive?
The Tribunal concurs with the proposed location of the drain as shown in the Report. While Mr. Wilms pressed the Tribunal to consider directing the engineer to design the lower portion of the drain to follow the south side of Willow Glen Drive, the Tribunal is not persuaded that this is a feasible option. One of the concerns is that the present flow of water has deepened the existing ditch down to the shale ditch and the erosion is continuing in a lateral direction, contributing to an ever-widening road ditch. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Pridham’s view that deepening out the drain by approximately one metre to accommodate a tile outlet would create a serious safety hazard along Willow Glen Drive and is not a desirable alternative.
Is there a negative downstream impact from the construction of this drain?
The engineer has undertaken considerable hydrologic work to investigate the potential downstream impact of the proposed work. The Tribunal accepts the engineer’s analysis that the project as designed will not cause any significant increase in water post construction as opposed to pre construction, either in the volume of water or in the timing for the peak flow to reach the outlet area.
Is there an alternate outlet for a portion of the water from this watershed?
The Tribunal heard suggestions from several landowners that a portion of the watershed could be drained to an alternate outlet along the abandoned railway right of way in Lot 26 and 27 of Concession 4. No details of this option were provided, and the parties did not provide expert evidence that this outlet was feasible. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not feel that alternative should be pursued.
Should a culvert be constructed at Station 000 for the Wilms cattle?
Discussion took place with respect to a request by Mr. Wilms for a culvert at Station 000 to allow his cattle to enter the Chui property, which he leases. Further discussion revealed it was feasible for the landowner to construct an alternate cattle entrance between Lots 26 and 27 of Concession 5 which would not conflict with the drainage project.
Is the project cost-beneficial?
A number of the appellants questioned the Report as complying with Subsection 48(a) of the Act, which reads as follows:
48.(1) Any owner of land or any public utility affected by a drainage works, if dissatisfied with the report of the engineer on the grounds that,
(a) the benefits to be derived from the drainage works are not commensurate with the estimated cost thereof;
The appellants pressed the engineer to provide financial details as to how this was measured. A detailed benefit:cost agricultural economic analysis had not been commissioned for this project. The Tribunal was left to rely on the professional opinion of the engineer who emphatically justified the project on one or more of the following grounds:
There would be a substantial improvement to the McFeeters property, including the possibility that it could be tiled;
That waters generated from the upstream lands, the Hydro One property in particular, would be taken to a proper outlet.
There was a substantial benefit to the municipal roads, in particular Angeline Street, as the drain would provide an immediate outlet should this street be reconstructed in the future. In addition there is substantial benefit to Willow Glen Drive to having the flow of water removed from the south road ditch except for overflow conditions.
The Tribunal concurs with the engineer that it is difficult to affix a dollar value to these benefits and does not believe the expense and delay of a formal cost:benefit analysis would be warranted. The Tribunal accepts the engineer’s judgement that the project is beneficial. The Tribunal finds that the reasoning of the engineer is sound.
Is the watershed correctly defined?
The Tribunal heard considerable evidence regarding the outlet of surface water from the south side of Lot 28 Concession 5 (the Foerderer property). The Tribunal accepts the point plan and the contour plan of the area of Lots 27 and 28, Concession 5 and notes that Mr. Wild, CET, confirmed the elevations. The Tribunal accepts that the general flow of surface water from the south half of Lot 28, Concession 5 is to the south into the drainage project. The Tribunal accepts the watershed as shown on the plan and profile drawing contained in the Report.
The Tribunal recognizes that some portion of the water ponds in a low area on the Foerderer property, but there is no conclusive evidence that it will not end up in the drainage works.
Have the assessments been properly apportioned in the Report?
With regard to the assessments, the Tribunal does have some concern with the overall fairness with the manner in which the engineer has apportioned them. At several occasions in his testimony Mr. Pridham emphasized the long term benefits to the Municipality in relieving the flow of water on both the north and south sides of Willow Glen Drive. He further suggested that municipal drains should not outlet into road ditches. The Tribunal also recognizes the value of a proper outlet for future improvements to Angeline Street. The Tribunal finds that a larger assessment against these municipal roads is justified.
Likewise, the engineer described substantial benefits to the Hydro One property, which lies on the west side of Angeline Street. Mr. Pridham mentioned the fast rate of discharge of the water that accumulates on that property. The volume and flow of the water generated from the Hydro One property has a large impact on the size of the closed drain (18 inches) going through the McFeteers property. Again the Tribunal finds that this fact merits a larger assessment against the Hydro One property than that which the Report already imposes.
The Tribunal also heard the testimony of the engineer that the owner of property identified by Roll No. 2-444-03 (the Dachs property) requested that the first 100 m where the drain enters his property (Sta. 435-535) should be a covered drain rather than an open drain, as the nature of these lands would warrant. He also stated that only a small portion of the incremental cost for a closed drain had been assessed to the Dachs property. Accordingly, the Tribunal believes in all fairness to the other contributors to the cost of the drain, that the Dachs property should have an additional assessment as a result of this increased benefit.
The Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to increase the statutory benefit assessments to the two roads and the Hydro One property by $1,000 each. The statutory benefit to the Dachs property should be increased by $2,000. The Tribunal will order that the outlet liability assessed to agricultural lands in the watershed be reduced accordingly. A total reduction of $5,000 in outlet liability is to be prorated across agricultural lands. All the appellants, except Mr. Stapper, complained that the engineer’s recommended outlet assessment on their respective properties far exceeded the actual benefit to their lands. Most felt the petitioner should shoulder most of the cost of their project. The Tribunal in part accepts this position and for that reason will order the above mentioned reduction in outlet assessments.
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
After careful consideration of the evidence filed and the submissions made the Tribunal orders:
The appeals by Mr. Foerderer, Mr. Wilms, Mr. Found and Mr. Stapper under Section 48 of the Act are dismissed.
The appeals by Mr. Foerderer, Mr. Wilms and Mr. Found under Section 54 of the Act are granted in part as detailed below.
Prior to the passing of Provisional By-Law No.2004-100, the Clerk of the Municipality shall amend the Construction Assessment Schedule as follows: a) Increase the benefit assessment to Angeline Street North, City of Kawartha Lakes by $1,000. b) Increase the benefit assessment to Willow Glen Drive, City of Kawartha Lakes by $1,000. c) Increase the benefit to the property identified by Roll No. 2-138-02 (Hydro One property) by $1,000. d) Increase the benefit to the property identified by Roll No. 2-444-03 (Dachs property) by $2,000. e) Decrease the outlet liability assessments on the agricultural assessments by $5,000 on a pro rata basis.
The “Construction Assessment Schedule” in the provisional bylaw shall be replaced by the attached schedule to reflect the changes in Item 3 above.
The “Maintenance Assessment Schedules” in the provisional bylaw shall be amended by the Engineer to correspond to the revisions to the “Construction Schedule of Assessments”. The revised schedules shall be marked “As revised by the Tribunal dated December 9, 2004".
The cover page of the Engineers report shall be marked “As revised by the Tribunal dated December 9, 2004"
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 Tilbury, Ontario this 9^th^ day of December, 2004.
CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE AS REVISED BY TRIBUNAL DECISION DATED DECEMBER 9, 2004 ASSESSMENTS
| Roll Number | Owner | Con | Lot | Approx. Hectares Affected | Land Class | Revised Benefit and Cut-Off | Revised Benefit by Outlet | Revised Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-130-02 | J. & N. Penny | 4 | E. Pt. 26 | 2.5 | NA | 310 | 310 | |
| 2-131-00 | D. Watson | E. Pt. 26 | 2.5 | NA | 310 | 310 | ||
| 2-131-10 | Found Reality Ltd. | E. Pt. 26 | 0.3 | NA | 150 | 150 | ||
| 2-138-00 | Found Reality Ltd. | E. Pt. 27 | 28.2 | A | 5,441 | 5,441 | ||
| 2-138-01 | Found Reality Ltd. | S. Pt. 27 | 14.9 | A | 3,684 | 3,684 | ||
| 2-138-02 | Hydro One | E. Pt. 27 | 14.9 | NA | 7,500 | 10,417 | 17,917 | |
| 2-139-00 | B. Baxter | Pts. 27-28 | 14.5 | A | 3,584 | 3,584 | ||
| 2-442-00 | Wm. Wilms | 5 | W. Pt. 26 | 5.0 | A | 1,500 | 485 | 1,985 |
| 2-444-00 | L. & E. Boskov | N. Pt. 27 | 3.0 | A | 500 | 402 | 902 | |
| 2-444-01 | D. McFeeters | W. Pt. 27 | 13.0 | A | 26,500 | 2,769 | 29,269 | |
| 2-444-02 | T. Chui | S. Pt. 27 | 1.5 | A | 500 | 205 | 705 | |
| 2-444-03 | W. & N. Dachs | W. Pt. 27 | 13.8 | A | 5,000 | 1,380 | 6,380 | |
| 2-444-10 | D. & C. McKinley | W. Pt. 27 | 0.4 | NA | 300 | 300 | ||
| 2-445-00 | W. & P. Foerderer | S. Pt. 28 | 16.8 | A | 2,656 | 2,656 | ||
| 2-445-10 | C. Urpesz | W. Pt. 28 | 0.4 | NA | 250 | 250 | ||
| Total Lands | 41,500 | 32,343 | 73,843 | |||||
| Angeline Street North, City of Kawartha Lakes | 7,500 | 3,029 | 10,529 | |||||
| Willow Glen Drive, City of Kawartha Lakes | 10,000 | 1,128 | 11,128 | |||||
| Total Roads | 17,500 | 4,157 | 21,657 | |||||
| SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, WORK ON WILLOW GLEN ROAD | 12,500 | |||||||
| TOTAL ASSESSMENT, McFEETERS PETITION DRAIN | $108,000 |