Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal 1 Stone Road West Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1 Stone Road West Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Courriel: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL: Branch ‘G’ Dell Municipal Drain (RE) Corrected Municipality of Central Elgin
Branch ‘G’ Dell Municipal Drain (RE) Corrected Municipality of Central Elgin 2016ONAFRAAT15
STATUTE: Drainage Act
HEARING: April 19, 2016
DATE OF DECISION: June 16, 2016
005Dell16
NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016ONAFRAAT15
BRANCH ‘g’, DELL Municipal drain - Corrected Decision
Municipality of Central Elgin
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 Barbara and Edwin Lyle of Sparta, Ontario; Colin Ferguson on behalf of 806584 Ontario Ltd. of St. Thomas, Ontario; Roger Somerville of Sparta, Ontario; and Zeljko Zovko of St. Thomas, Ontario under Section 54(1) of the Drainage Act from the decision of the Court of the Revision on Branch ‘G’ Dell Municipal Drain in the Municipality of Central Elgin.
Before: Paula Lombardi, Vice-Chair; Andrew McBride, Member; Sarah Judd, Member
Appearances: Barbara and Edwin Lyle – Appellants Jeff Ferguson on behalf of 806584 Ontario Ltd. – Representative for Appellant Roger Somerville – Appellant Zeljko Zovko – Appellant Henry Huotari, P. Eng. – Parsons Inc. – Engineer who prepared Report Matthew De Wit - Parsons Inc. – Engineer in Training Lloyd Perrin – Director of Physical Services for Central Elgin Ryan DeSutter – Drainage Superintendent David Depuydt – Assessed Landowner
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
This hearing was held in the Municipality of Central Elgin, St. Thomas, Ontario (“Municipality” or “Central Elgin”) on April 19, 2016.
Barbara and Edwin Lyle, Colin Ferguson on behalf of 806584 Ontario Ltd., Roger Somerville, and Zeljko Zovko appealed to the Tribunal under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act from the decision of the Court of the Revision on Branch ‘G’ of the Dell Municipal Drain. The Engineer’s Report, dated October 30, 2015, for Branch ‘G’ of the Dell Municipal Drain (“Report”) was prepared by Henry Huotari, P.Eng. of Parsons Inc. (“Engineer”).
Dianne Wilson, Deputy Clerk of the Municipality of Central Elgin, performed the duties of Clerk of the Tribunal.
Preliminary Matters
Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal issued an order making all landowners assessed or compensated in the Report parties to the hearing. The Clerk filed an Affidavit of Service as proof that all parties had been served with the notice of hearing.
Background
The Report was prepared by Parsons Inc. While Mr. J. Bryon Wiebe was originally the engineer in charge of the project, he is no longer employed by Parsons and Mr. Huotari, another professional engineer with that firm, took over the project and is now the engineer responsible under section 8 of the Drainage Act (“Act”). As Mr. Huotari was not involved in the entire process of developing the Report, he was assisted at the hearing by Mr. Matthew De Wit, an engineer-in-training with Parsons Inc. Mr. De Wit was involved in the project from its commencement to its completion.
The petition for this new municipal drain was submitted by the Director of Physical Services of the Municipality of Central Elgin as “a road authority” in accordance with Section 4(1) (c) of the Act. The area requiring drainage was described as a portion of the municipal road known as Barnum’s Gully Line in the area of Lot 17, Concession 1, being a length of approximately 750 metres. A cross culvert was installed through the road, sometime prior to 1999, by the Municipality in an attempt to alleviate drainage problems associated with the road. This culvert conducted water from the north side of the road to the south side of the road. However, since a sufficient outlet was not provided at that time, the drainage problems along the road continued and drainage issues on the downstream property have increased.
This entire drainage area is approximately 32 hectares in size and is situated between the existing Dell Municipal Drain watershed to the east and the existing Somerville Parker Municipal Drain watershed to the west. This 32 hectare area drains through the municipal road, then through a private property, and eventually outlets at the high, eroding bluff along the shoreline of Lake Erie. The purpose of the Report is to construct a closed drain along the north side of the road to collect the surface water from this drainage area and conduct it easterly into the existing main Dell Municipal Drain, providing an adequate outlet for the road as well as the upstream agricultural lands, in addition to protecting the downstream property by cutting-off the current flow toward the lake.
While Mr. Roger Somerville has the largest land area within the watershed at 21.94 hectares, the majority of the costs have been assessed to the Municipality for the 1.64 hectare area of Barnum’s Gully Line that is included in the drainage area. The Engineer stated that Central Elgin was allocated a larger proportion of the cost as the Municipality initiated the petition and is responsible for the existing culvert that does not have an adequate outlet. All of the lands upstream of Barnum’s Gully Line are zoned agricultural and were assessed on the basis of agricultural land use. However, parts of two of the assessed properties are forested.
The property on the downstream or south side of the road that is owned by the Lyles, is currently accepting the outflow from the road culvert. The Engineer advised that he did not assess this property for a cut-off benefit as he was of the opinion that the “allowances in the form of property damages that would need to be paid to the Lyles would offset the benefit costs”, and because the purpose of the Report is to provide a legal outlet for Barnum’s Gully Line and the tile drained lands located north of it. The drainage area defined in the Report incorporates only 0.20 hectares of the Lyle property situated on the south side of the road.
What should properly be identified as Schedule A in the Report, sets out the allowances payable to the properties affected by the construction, in accordance with sections 29 and 30 of the Act. Schedule B – Assessment for Construction sets out the benefit and outlet assessments for each property in the drainage area.
Issue
Are the assessments to the Appellants’ lands appropriate?
Evidence
Henry Huotari - Engineer
The Engineer advised that the purpose of the Report is to address the drainage issue along Barnum’s Gully Line in the area of Lot 17 where the road and the lands upstream do not have a proper outlet. Currently, the surface and underdrainage water is directed through Barnum’s Gully Line onto the downstream property owned by the Lyles. The Report proposes the following drainage works:
a) removal of the existing culvert that slopes from the north to the south and replacement of it with a 300mm diameter culvert that slopes from the south to the north;
b) installation of ditch inlet catchbasins on both ends of the new culvert, in the roadside ditches;
c) installation of a ditch inlet catchbasin at the line between Lots 16-17 in the north roadside ditch, at the upstream end of the closed drain, 198m west of the aforementioned culvert;
d) installation of approximately 750 metres of 300 and 350 mm diameter deep, closed drain to collect the water from both sides of the road allowance and the lands north thereof and carry these flows easterly to connect to the large manhole outlet system at the downstream end of the existing Dell Municipal Drain in Lot 18;
e) installation of two ditch inlet catchbasins at the point where the drain crosses the road from the north side to the south side; and
f) installation of a 750mm diameter manhole close to the end of the drain to make the significant gradient change to allow connection to the existing structure on the main Dell Drain.
The drainage coefficient used to design the new closed drain was 38mm or 1.5 inches in 24 hours. Most of the new drain is proposed to be constructed on the private properties just north of the road allowance; however, approximately 75 metres from the outlet, the drain will cross Barnum’s Gully Line to the south side and be constructed within the road allowance to the outlet.
Upon questioning from the Tribunal, the Engineer stated that:
a) A private culvert exists on the Lyle property, in direct line with the culvert on Barnum’s Gully Line. This culvert conducts the water that flows through the road from the north into ponds situated on the Lyle property;
b) Woodlot areas were not taken into consideration and were assessed at the same rate as the cleared, worked, agricultural land;
c) A maintenance assessment schedule was not included in the Report nor could one be found in the project file;
d) The increase in cost of the drainage works caused by the existence of Barnum’s Gully Line is not a ‘special assessment’ but rather is a Section 26 assessment and these assessments were calculated separately but a specific schedule was not included in the Report;
e) The existing Dell Municipal Drain, at the point of connection, is a closed drain and, based on the Engineer’s calculations, the peak flow from the proposed Branch G will pass through the outlet prior to the peak flow from main Dell Municipal Drain;
f) As a result of questions from landowners during the preparation of the Report, a detailed topographic survey of the area was conducted immediately south of the road, on the Lyle property. From this topographic survey the Engineer concluded that a small portion of the Lyle property (0.20 hectares) slopes toward Barnum’s Gully Line, as indicated on the plan; and
g) Some of the agricultural land on the north side of the road has been under-drained and the proposed drain will provide an adequate and legal outlet for those underdrainage systems that will be directly connected to the new drain.
Edwin Lyle – Appellant
Mr. Lyle provided the Tribunal with detailed submissions that included: a series of photographs indicating how the four ponds are being utilized on his property to collect and remove water; photographs showing the results of a four inch rain event in May 2013; an overview of the property’s water drainage history; an outline of the current drainage situation; anticipated future drainage expenses; and, a request that the cut-off benefit assessment that was applied to his property by the Court of Revision be removed. The Lyles purchased the property in 1996 and moved into their newly constructed home in 1997. The Lyle property is 10.1 hectares or 25 acres in area with approximately 4 acres cleared and 21 acres wooded.
Mr. Lyle advised the Tribunal that in the year 2000, the four ponds on the property were dug to a depth of approximately 20 feet. The ponds are interconnected and designed for the purpose of removing ground water and storm water. The main pond was constructed by the previous owner and included a pipe connecting the roadside ditch to the pond. That pond was enlarged by Mr. Lyle and is now triple its original size. A catch basin was added at the edge of the pond with a 12 inch tile outlet that directs the pond overflow to a series of four commercial concrete catch basins that were positioned in a zig-zag formation to slow the water as it flows toward the lake, with the last catch basin outlet at the lake bank.
In response to the Tribunal’s questions, Mr. Lyle advised that the pond and catch basin system was designed by the excavating contractor. The contractor looked at the elevations and determined how best to drain the area. According to Mr. Lyle, this system functioned effectively until approximately 2012.
In 2012, as a result of several severe storms, the amount of water entering the pond system heading to Lake Erie destroyed the first catch basin. Mr. Lyle requested that the Municipality remove the road culvert to prevent further high flows and erosion but this has not yet been completed.
Mr. Lyle then went into detail explaining his understanding of the drainage patterns on the Zovko and Somerville properties. The Zovko and Somerville properties are the two larger farms situated upstream of Barnum’s Gully Line. According to Mr. Lyle, both of these properties artificially collect water through the use of ditches and field tile. Mr. Lyle explained that it is his understanding that Mr. Somerville does not currently have a legal outlet for his field tile drainage system.
Mr. Lyle testified about his concern that, during storm events, the proposed Branch G, as designed, will be insufficient to remove the initial water surge and therefore water will back up at the Somerville catch basin. Mr. Lyle also stated that a smaller diameter culvert is proposed to replace the current culvert under Barnum’s Gully Line and he is concerned that this will result in the continuation of water coming onto his property during storm surge situations and force him to remove his pipe that connects the road ditch to his pond. Mr. Lyle further stated that the erosion caused by the washout of his drainage outlet system has resulted in a gully that is approximately 150 feet in length and leads to the bluff that is about 110 feet in height.
Mr. Lyle explained that the catch basin in the main pond does have a control that can be used to raise or lower the water level in the pond. When questioned by the Tribunal, Mr. Lyle indicated that this control mechanism has not worked for several years but when it was working it allowed him to drain the pond by releasing the water into the tile which flows to the lake. Mr. Huotari confirmed that there is a drain coming from the Somerville property that outlets into the Lyle pond. Mr. Lyle advised that this tile outlet was installed prior to his purchase of the property.
Mr. Lyle stated that the only properties that have roadside ditches in this area are his and Mr. Zovko’s. There are no roadside ditches to the east or west of his property on the south side of the road and no roadside ditch east of the road culvert on the north side of the road.
Mr. Lyle stated that, in his opinion, both the Engineer’s Report and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (“OMAFRA”) publication Drainage Conflict – Surface Water indicate that there is not a legal drainage outlet through his property for the water from the upstream lands and Barnum’s Gully Line. Mr. Lyle testified that his property does not derive any “cut-off benefit” and the assessment directed to his property by the Court of Revision should be rescinded.
806584 Ontario Ltd. – Jeff Ferguson – Representative for Appellant
Mr. Ferguson testified that his main concern relates to the delineation of the watershed. Branch G is shown as connecting into the Dell Municipal Drain but it is unclear to Mr. Ferguson as to why the mutual watershed boundary stops at Barnum’s Gully Line. Mr. Ferguson indicated that most of his property is included in the Dell Municipal Drain watershed.
In support of his concern about the determination of the watershed boundary for this drain, Mr. Ferguson referred to another drainage report being prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited. Mr. Ferguson understands that Dillon is working with the Municipality and the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority to determine how to manage the outflow from the Dell Main Drain.
Mr. Ferguson testified that the Branch G Report fails to address how to manage the water seeping out of the bank along the Lake Erie shoreline. Mr. Ferguson expressed concern about whether Branch G will be effective in accommodating surface water for the next 50 to 100 years. The crux of Mr. Ferguson’s concerns is two-fold. The first concern relates to the fact that the watershed boundary for Branch G has been terminated at the road rather than extending all the way through the properties on the south side of the road to the lake bank. Mr. Ferguson’s second concern relates to the erosion problems that are occurring along the properties situated at the bank of Lake Erie and at the outlet of these municipal drains.
Mr. Ferguson took the position that the properties located on the south side of Barnum’s Gully Line need to be assessed as part of Branch G and included in the Report.
In response to the issues raised by Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Perrin explained that the 1997 Dell Municipal Drain report established a legal outlet in an existing ravine that extends through the property now owned by Mr. Miller. During the meetings for Branch G, Mr. Miller expressed his concern about the erosion problems on his property. The Municipality confirmed that the 1997 drainage report described the downstream end of the drain terminating prior to reaching the lakefront, approximately 100 metres south of Barnum’s Gully Line. The area that is experiencing erosion problems presently has no status under the Act. However, it appears that some of the erosion of the ravine is being caused by the outflow from the Dell Municipal Drain.
The Municipality also indicated that the County of Elgin is relocating an existing road due to erosion of the lake bank which is claiming approximately 1.0 to 1.5 metres of land at the top of the slope per year. The cause of this erosion at the toe of the lake bank is the high water level in the lake. Mr. Perrin provided an overview of the issues that the Municipality is working on resolving as they relate to the erosion of the lake frontage, but these are not included in the Branch G Report and, therefore, are not the subject matter of this hearing.
Roger Somerville – Appellant
Mr. Somerville advised the Tribunal that he accepts and understands that he will have to pay his share of the drain cost. Mr. Somerville expressed concerns as approximately 30 acres (approximately 12.14 hectares) of his property is a woodlot that does not require drainage. The Tribunal notes that this represents almost 50% of his property that is subject to assessment.
Mr. Somerville testified that he is appealing the boundaries of the watershed located on the south side of Barnum’s Gully Line on the following basis:
- all the properties in the old watershed are benefitting by the change to the outlet;
- some properties on the south side of Barnum’s Gully Line are not included in the assessment schedule and he feels they should be or should be to a greater extent;
- Branch G will reduce the quantity of water flowing to the south resulting in less erosion to the lakefront;
- cutting off the natural flow of surface waters from adjoining lands is known as a cut-off benefit; and,
- the Dell Municipal Drain goes south to the lakefront and all the properties are assessed, including the lands located on the south of Barnum Gully’s Line and questions why this is not the case with Branch G.
Mr. Somerville testified that the increase in drainage problems being experienced over the last ten or so years has been caused by the Municipality re-directing water from the north to the south side of Barnum’s Gully Line. The Municipality created significant ditches on the south side of the road and along the front of the Zovko property on the north side of Barnum’s Gully Line forcing water to go to the culvert under the road and onto the Lyle property and that, if the ditches had been properly installed, the water would run to the east on both the north and south sides of Barnum’s Gully Line. Mr. Somerville confirmed that there is no roadside ditching across the front of his property.
Mr. Somerville indicated that the Lyle property should not be treated differently from other properties in the area particularly since it benefits from cut-off by the drainage works.
Mr. Somerville confirmed that, in his experience, the tiles in his field do not properly drain out as they do not have adequate outlet in the Lyle pond, as it is always full of water. Mr. Somerville also explained that when his tiles back up, it means that none of the drainage in the area is working. Mr. Somerville highlighted some of the photographs provided by Mr. Lyle to show the Tribunal that there is no ditch between his property and Mr. Zovko’s property and the only reason water sits there is because the roadside ditch is not properly graded in that area.
In response to questions from the Tribunal, Mr. Somerville advised that his property is randomly drained and that about one third of the drains are clay tile while the remaining two thirds are filtered plastic tile.
Mr. Somerville testified that he had a ten thousand dollars ($10,000) quote from Demaray Farm Drainage to provide him with an outlet to the main Dell Drain, while his property is assessed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for the outlet being constructed as Branch G. The Tribunal clarified that the proposal from Demaray Farm Drainage would not have been in accordance with the Act as the area that would be drained was not within the main Dell Drain watershed and could not be done without following proper process set out by the Act.
It was clarified that the portion of Mr. Somerville’s property located outside of the Branch G watershed is assessed into the main Dell Municipal Drain and that there is a distinction between the area subject to the Branch G Report and the area assessed into the existing Dell Municipal Drain.
Zeljko Zovko – Appellant
Mr. Zovko indicated that he does not understand why his land should have to pay for mistakes made at least ten (10) years ago by others. Mr. Zovko stated that surface water flows easterly in the roadside ditch in front of his property from the lands to the west. Mr. Zovko testified, for the purposes of clarification, that there is no ditch between his property and the Somerville property and that the pictures presented by Mr. Lyle do not indicate a ditch but rather just a slight low area between the two fields. Mr. Zovko stated that he has no drainage tiles in his property.
Lloyd Perrin – Director of Physical Services for Municipality
Mr. Perrin has worked for Central Elgin since December 1997. He is now the Director of Physical Services and was previously the Drainage Superintendent. Mr. DeSutter is now the Municipality’s Drainage Superintendent. Mr. Perrin testified that he met with Mr. Lyle in or around 1999, prior to Mr. Lyle undertaking the development work on this property, specifically the work on the ponds. Mr. Perrin discussed with Mr. Lyle what was being proposed and did not express any concerns since the Municipality does not require permits to dig ponds or construct drainage works on private property. At the time of the discussion with Mr. Lyle, the road culvert was already in existence and had been for quite some time.
The last drainage report on the main Dell Municipal Drain was prepared in 1997 and included the construction of two concrete silos, or drop structures, on the property east of the Lyle property which is now owned by Mr. J. R. Miller, to facilitate a step down system for the drainage outlet. Mr. Perrin indicated that this system has performed well and has acted as a good outlet.
In 2002, when the road culvert was replaced and the roadside ditching was undertaken on Barnum’s Gully Line, Mr. Perrin was not aware of any issues or concerns associated with the Lyle property. In reply to Mr. Somerville’s suggestion that the ditching should have been directed to the east into the Dell Drain at that time, he advised that this was not possible for two reasons; (1) the area draining to the culvert and that section of the road were not within the Dell Drain watershed, and (2) due to the grading of the area, the ditch would have had to be over 3 metres deep at some points, which was not feasible due to safety concerns and property issues.
Mr. Perrin confirmed that the Municipality is well aware of the problems associated with lake bank erosion and indicated the difficulty in putting any tile outlets directly over the bank into Lake Erie. In Mr. Perrin’s opinion, such a tile outlet could not be sustained, given the dynamic nature of the lakeshore erosion.
According to Mr. Perrin, in 2013, when Mr. Lyle expressed concern about the drainage issues at his property, the Municipality started to consider a legal outlet to get the water to a controlled system that would not compromise any further area of the lake bank. Accordingly, in March 2014, Mr. Perrin, as road superintendent for the Municipality, signed the petition to secure a proper outlet.
Mr. Perrin again testified that the work being performed by Dillon Consulting Limited on the main Dell Drain is the subject of a separate matter under Section 78 of the Drainage Act. Additionally, as part of that work, a new maintenance schedule will have to be prepared for the main Dell Drain, assuming this Branch G project proceeds.
Mr. Perrin supported the cut-off assessment to the Lyle property as, it was his opinion, the surface water that would have naturally drained towards the Lyle property is being cut off and artificially directed to another watershed.
According to Mr. Perrin, the Municipality is a proponent of good drainage which is evidenced in this case, as the Municipality owns approximately 5% of the property and is assessed 51% of the cost associated with the proposed works. While the Municipality accepts the approach set out in the Report, it does not want to accept any more of the assessment, since the Municipality believes it is paying more than its fair share.
Findings and Analysis:
The Tribunal accepts the testimony and evidence provided by the Engineer as it relates to the definition of the watershed area. The Tribunal has also been advised that the Municipality agrees with the boundary that has been established in the Report. The Tribunal notes that the Report incorporates a small portion of only one property on the south side of Barnum’s Gully Line, that is, 0.20 ha of the Lyle property. A very significant portion of the cost of the drainage works is being borne by the Municipality, with the road being assessed 51% of the total cost, despite it being only 5% of the drainage area.
Mr. Ferguson outlined his concerns with the watershed area and the erosion problems occurring along the properties situated at the bank of Lake Erie. None of the land adjacent to the bank of Lake Erie is included in the Report. The Tribunal notes that the Municipality has retained Dillon Consulting Limited to look into issues associated with the erosion problems occurring at the outlet of the main Dell Drain.
The Report properly deals with a surface water system and the proposed drainage works are not designed to affect subsurface flow. The original assessments were completed strictly on an area basis and it is noted that only a narrow strip of land is included for some of the properties. It is also noted that, while it is normal practice to discount forested areas for assessment purposes due to the lower runoff coefficient of such land, known as establishing equivalent areas, the Engineer did not do so in this case.
A maintenance schedule must be incorporated into all municipal drain reports in order to give direction to the Drainage Superintendent as to how to apportion future maintenance costs for each property included in the drainage area. Since such a schedule was not included in this Report, the Tribunal finds that the establishment of a schedule for maintenance is warranted and has attached such a schedule to this decision as Appendix A. This schedule has been based on a combination of outlet assessments and equivalent areas, including the Lyle property, with the Municipality of Central Elgin being responsible for 100% of the costs of maintaining the Barnum’s Gully Line road crossings and the catchbasins.
The Tribunal finds that the entire Lyle property will benefit on the basis that surface water flow is cut off from entering the property. Accordingly, the Lyle property should be assessed a greater amount for cut-off benefit based on the entire property area of 10.12 hectares and this has been done in the revised assessment schedule attached hereto as Appendix B.
The Tribunal agrees that the Municipality should bear a significant portion of the cost of this project and that the assessment made to the Municipality by the Engineer is fair and reasonable. The Tribunal also understands that the Municipality accepts the amount of costs it is being allocated.
The Tribunal has some concern regarding the design of the Drain with respect to the possible surcharging of the new road culvert at times of runoff in excess of the design criteria, which would result in water flowing southerly in the culvert, flooding the south roadside ditch, and flowing into the Lyle property, as it has been doing in the past. Accordingly, the Tribunal suggests that the Lyles consider blocking or completely removing the private culvert that connects the south roadside ditch to their pond, or, as a minimum, significantly reducing its size. The Tribunal further recommends that the Engineer and the Municipality consider installing a cast iron flap gate on the north/downstream end of the new road culvert to prevent reverse flow from occurring under extreme runoff conditions. If this recommendation is followed, the additional cost of supply and installation of the flap gate should be borne entirely by the Municipality.
Order of the Tribunal
For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
The appeal by Roger Somerville under Section 54 of the Act is granted in part.
The appeal by Zeljko Zovko under Section 54 of the Act is granted in part.
The appeal by Barbara & Edwin Lyle under Section 54 of the Act is dismissed.
The appeal by 806584 Ontario Ltd. under Section 54 of the Act is granted in part.
The Report is hereby amended to include the schedule for maintenance costs attached hereto as Appendix A.
The benefit assessment to the B. M. and E. O. Lyle property, roll number 002-033000, shall be increased to $6,569, as a benefit assessment for cut-off, and the benefit assessments of all other private lands shall be lowered, all as indicated in the revised Assessment Schedule attached hereto as Appendix B.
The heading SCHEDULE ‘A’ – ALLOWANCES shall be added to page 7 of the Report.
The non-administrative costs of the Township incurred with respect to this appeal shall form part of the cost of the drainage works, and such costs shall include the Engineer’s fees and expenses for preparing the Report, as well as the Engineer’s fees and expenses for preparing for and attending the Tribunal hearing.
There shall be no other Order as to costs and all parties shall be responsible for their own costs.
Dated at London, Ontario this 16th day of June, 2016.
Correction Issued June 23, 2016
APPENDIX A – MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
As Prepared by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal
Branch G, Dell Municipal Drain
| CON. | LOT | HECTARES AFFECTED | ROLL No. (OWNER) | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16 | 0.36 | 002-0250 * (D. T. Depuydt) | 1.0 |
| 1 | 16 | 0.71 | 002-02400 (E.C. Somerville) | 2.0 |
| 1 | 17 | 6.73 | 002-03200 (S. Zovko) | 15.0 |
| 1 | 17 | 21.94 | 002-03201 (R. Somerville) | 45.0 |
| 1 | 17 | 10.12 | 002-03300 * (B.M. / E.O. Lyle) | 15.0 |
| 1 | 18 | 0.69 | 002-03500 (806584 Ontario Limited) | 2.0 |
| 1.64 | Barnum’s Gully Line * | 20.0 | ||
| TOTAL | 100.0 |
The Municipality of Central Elgin shall also be responsible for 100% of the costs of maintaining the Barnum’s Gully Line road crossings and all catchbasins.
- not agricultural lands
APPENDIX B – ASSESSMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
As Amended by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal
Branch G, Dell Municipal Drain
| CON. | LOT | HECTARES AFFECTED | ROLL No. (OWNER) | BENEFIT | OUTLET | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16 | 0.36 | 002-0250 * (D. T. Depuydt) | $ 234 | $ 100 | $ 334 |
| 1 | 16 | 0.71 | 002-02400 (E.C. Somerville) | $ 461 | $ 205 | $ 666 |
| 1 | 17 | 6.73 | 002-03200 (S. Zovko) | $ 4,368 | $ 1,900 | $ 6,268 |
| 1 | 17 | 21.94 | 002-03201 (R. Somerville) | $ 14,240 | $ 6,300 | $ 20,540 |
| 1 | 17 | 0.20 | 002-03300 * (B.M. / E.O. Lyle) | $ 6,569 | $ 60 | $ 6,629 |
| 1 | 18 | 0.69 | 002-03500 (806584 Ontario Limited) | $ 448 | $ 200 | $ 648 |
| 1.64 | Barnum’s Gully Line * | $ 17,540 | $ 5,850 | $ 23,390 | ||
| Sub-Totals | $ 43,860 | $ 14,615 | $58,475 |
Section 26 Assessment to the Municipality of Central Elgin for the cost of crossings on Barnum’s Gully Line and Relocating appurtenances. | $ 13,500
TOTAL ASSESSMENT | $ 71,975
- not agricultural lands