Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1 Stone Road West, 2^nd Floor NW Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca

APPEAL: Curry Marsh Drain and the McClure Bridge (RE) Township of Pelee

STATUTE: Drainage Act

HEARING: August 21-22, 2024

DATE OF DECISION: September 11, 2024

11Curry23

NEUTRAL CITATION: 2024 ONAFRAAT 17

IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS AMENDED (“the Act”),

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Craig and Sondi Ryersee of Pelee Island, Ontario, pursuant to Section 54 of the Drainage Act with respect to the Curry Marsh Drain and the McClure Bridge in the Township of Pelee.

AND IN THE MATTER OF a hearing held pursuant to Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

BETWEEN: ) CRAIG AND SONDI RYERSEE ) Self-Represented Appellants )

• and - ) TOWNSHIP OF PELEE ) Represented by Paul Courey Respondent )

Heard August 21, 2024, and August 22, 2024

Before: Tricia Schouten, Vice-Chair; Don McNalty, Vice-Chair; and, David Fawcett, Member.

Appearances: Craig Ryersee, Appellant Sondi Ryersee, Appellant Paul Courey, Counsel for the Respondent Eric Chamberlain, Drainage Superintendent for the Township of Pelee Gerald Rood, P.Eng., Rood Engineering Inc., Engineer who prepared the Report Carl Ryersee, Witness

Present During the Hearing: Mary Masse, Clerk, Township of Pelee

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) heard this matter virtually on the 21^st and 22^nd of August, 2024.

2The Appeal concerns the Curry Marsh Drain (“the Drain”) and the McClure Bridge in the Township of Pelee (“the Township”). The Engineer’s Report, dated January 5, 2023 (“the Report”), was prepared by Rood Engineering Inc. and was signed by Mr. Gerald Rood, P. Eng. (“the Engineer”). An amended Schedule of Assessment dated August 31, 2023, was also provided to the Tribunal. All subsequent references to the Report shall be deemed to reference the Report with the said amended Schedule of Assessment.

3Mary Masse, Clerk with the Township, performed the duties of Clerk of the Tribunal.

4The Township filed an Affidavit of Service, dated August 19, 2024, as proof that all parties had been served with the Notice of Hearing.

OVERVIEW

5The Report provides for the construction of a replacement access bridge (corrugated steel pipe) on the West Dredge Cut of the Drain. The purpose of the proposed bridge replacement is to provide for safer access to Lot 10, Plan 494. The Drain is an open drain with a number of access bridges and tributary drains.

6By letter dated August 3, 2022, the drainage superintendent requested an engineer’s report as a result of a sink hole which appeared on the traveled portion of the entrance over the McClure Bridge. The drainage superintendent and the Engineer agreed that the report was to be pursuant to Section 78 of the Act.

7On September 6, 2022, the Engineer held an onsite meeting with notice to the property owners who use the McClure Bridge. On September 26, 2022, the Engineer held an onsite meeting with notice to all affected property owners.

8The Report recommends that a new replacement access bridge (a 2,000 mm diameter aluminized steel Type II Hel-Cor corrugated steel pipe) be constructed at a cost of $60,200.00. The Report provides that, since all of the work is to be carried out at the existing driveway and primarily from within the limits of the drain, and because full restoration is to be provided, there would be no requirement for damages or allowances pursuant to Sections 29 and 30 of the Act.

9The Report recommends that all of the costs associated with the construction of the bridge be assessed against the abutting property (Parcel 060-01200 MN 57) which is served by the said bridge, and all upstream affected lands and roads. It also recommends that if any maintenance work is required in the future, that 36.6% be assessed as a benefit against the said abutting property, and the remaining balance of 63.4% be assessed pro-rata against the upstream lands and roads based on their outlet liability assessments.

10The Report provides that the following reports were used as reference:

a) July 31st, 1992 - “Curry Marsh Drainage System – West Branch”, prepared by Ed LaFontaine, P.Eng. (“the 1992 Report”);

b) September 6th, 2018 - “Big Marsh Drain Watershed Plan”, prepared by Gerard Rood, P.Eng. (“the 2018 Report”);

c) April 1st, 2019 - “Big Marsh Drain Revised Assessment Schedule”, prepared by Gerard Rood, P.Eng. (“the 2019 Report”);

d) September 9th, 1976 - “Crawford Drain”, prepared by Wm. Setterington, P.Eng. (“the 1976 Report”); and,

e) August 12th, 1977 - “Frank Wiper Drain”, prepared by Wm. Setterington, P.Eng. (“the 1977 Report”).

11The first sitting of the Court of Revision was held on August 22, 2023. The appeal received from Craig and Sondi Ryersee was denied. The Court of Revision was adjourned, and the second sitting of the Court of Revision was scheduled for September 26, 2023, to allow further revisions to the Schedule of Assessment.

12The second sitting of the Court of Revision was held on September 26, 2023, at which meeting the amended Schedule of Assessment dated August 31, 2023, was presented. At the second sitting of the Court of Revision it was determined that the Township would proceed with the Report with the said revised Schedule of Assessment.

ISSUES

13The Appellant raises the following issue:

a) the assessment for parcel 060-02100 should be $0.00 rather than $3,969.00. The said parcel does not drain into the Crawford Drain, but rather drains to the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch.

EVIDENCE

Engineer’s Report

14Mr. Rood testified as follows:

a) the existing culvert had a sink hole resulting in the culvert having to be replaced. A repair wasn’t sufficient as a result of changes to the design standards and environmental requirements;

b) the 1976 Report, the 1977 Report and the 1992 Report were provided to him to complete the Report and to verify the watershed. As a result of property severances, changes of ownership and other properties having to be incorporated into the assessment, new measures for cost sharing were followed in establishing assessments through outlet liability;

c) although the 1992 Report did provide for maintenance work to the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, it did not identify the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch as a new legal outlet for the Frank Wiper Drain. That report did assess the Frank Wiper Drain to the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, but it did not address diversion of flow or modifications to drainage outlet. As such, he must follow the 1977 Report and the related by-law that legally re-directed flow to the Crawford Drain. The 1992 Report only provided relief for extreme flows coming through the Frank Wiper Drain. It does appear that the Frank Wiper Drain did outlet to the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, but the 1977 Report modified the legal outlet of the Frank Wiper Drain to the Crawford Drain;

d) he was only retained for the purpose of constructing the McClure Bridge. It is typical to not complete a full watershed investigation on such a limited appointment, but rather to rely on existing reports which have been adopted by by-laws;

e) assessments were determined by the location of the McClure Bridge along the length of the drainage works. The assessments were established by the portion of the cost as attributed to benefit to lands and by outlet liability based on flow contributions from upstream lands and roads that utilized that culvert as the outlet. The split of assessment between benefit and outlet was based on the position of the McClure Bridge along the overall drain. If it was located at mid-point, it would be 50/50, if located downstream, it would be reduced due to contribution of flow from upstream. This is a methodology used since the mid-1990's;

f) outlet liability is based on land area and run-off coefficients associated with the use of the land and roads;

g) land data was taken from existing reports. The design guidelines require that the Engineer rely on the previous reports. Unless a concern is raised, the common practice is to rely on previous reports rather than doing the work again. This is the most cost-effective manner of proceeding;

h) after the first sitting of the Court of Revision, he did physically attend at the site to look at the Frank Wiper Drain at a point downstream from the intersection of the Frank Wiper Drain and the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch (“the T Intersection”). From his observation, the state of repair of all of the drains was very poor. There was brush, trees and sediment accumulation which would impede water flow. The Frank Wiper outlet portion was also in poor condition and requires maintenance work to fully restore it to its original profile grade and connection to the Crawford Drain;

i) the Project Assessment and Addendum dated October 17, 2023, was prepared as a result of the following: feedback from the Court of Revision; discussions with and feedback from the Township; and an on-site visit with the Appellants;

j) the primary drain contributing to the culvert at the McClure Bridge is the Crawford Drain. Other contributing drains are the Mahoney Boulevard Drain, the Kenneth Hoare Drain (via the top end of the Crawford Drain) and the Frank Wiper Drain (via the Crawford Drain);

k) as they currently exist, the Frank Wiper Drain, the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch and the Crawford Drain are all interconnected. At the T Intersection, the Frank Wiper Drain could drain into the Crawford Drain or the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch;

l) he did attend at the Appellants’ properties but could not testify as to the direction of water flow as there was no active flow when he attended. He has never been on site when there has been active water flow;

m) he is unaware of any controls or restrictions at the T Intersection. Physically the water could go either way when it gets to the T Intersection. The Appellants’ properties are assessed to both drains;

n) there is minimal elevation changes within the full drainage system;

o) he is of the opinion that the assessments are proper once adjustments were made pursuant to the Project Assessment and Addendum dated October 17, 2023. If he started over today, he would not change the Report. His assessments are fair and reasonable based on existing reports and site visits;

p) he had no authority to change assessments from the previous reports as approved by by-laws;

q) a parcel of land can be assessed into multiple drains;

r) on cross-examination, he confirmed that he did use the 2018 Report and the 2019 Report to establish the northerly limit of the watershed. The 2019 Report did show the pump in the wrong location and incorrect water flows, but that report had no effect on the current issue;

s) also on cross-examination he confirmed that Lots 8 and 9 were originally assessed but were removed because he subsequently confirmed that the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch was repaired and improved such that it would take flow from those lands;

t) also on cross-examination he testified that the 1977 Report provides for a 40 foot culvert to the Frank Wiper Drain, but when he walked it, there was no evidence of a 40 foot culvert. He testified that the Township is responsible for following the drainage reports as adopted by by-law, but he admitted that based on the missing culvert, it is possible that the Township allowed for variations from the reports; and,

u) when questioned by the Tribunal, he confirmed that he created a new assessment schedule relative to McClure Bridge. When asked if he is required by statute to report independent of the Township and unbiased, he replied that he followed the standard practice of relying on historical documents provided by the Township.

15The Respondent then called one witness.

Eric Chamberlain

16Mr. Chamberlain testified as follows:

a) he has been the drainage superintendent with the Township for seven years, and a qualified drainage superintendent since 2001. He is actually employed by another Town, and that Town has contracted him out to the Township. He is at the Township two days every other week from Spring through to Fall. A full-time drainage superintendent would be better suited, but based on the size of Township, this is appropriate;

b) a sink hole on the traveled portion of the entrance to the McClure Bridge initiated the investigation. He inspected it and found that the steel pipe culvert was corroded resulting in materials washing away from the traveled portion of the McClure Bridge;

c) the Engineer was appointed under Section 78 of the Act;

d) he attended at the second Court of Revision in place of the Engineer and presented the Engineer’s proposed changes. The Court of Revision agreed with the revisions as presented to them. The revisions included the removal of assessments to Lots 8 and 9;

e) the Crawford Drain, the Frank Wiper Drain and the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch are all in poor condition and in need of maintenance. They are overgrown with trees and heavy brush and contain considerable sediment. As far as he is aware, there has been no maintenance on the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch since 1992, no maintenance on the Crawford Drain since 1976 and no maintenance on the Frank Wiper Drain since 1977. There has possibly been some minor maintenance since then by land owners;

f) the 2018 Report does show the pump in the wrong location and incorrect water flow directions, but that Report has nothing to do with this project;

g) there was an illegal connection via a culvert connecting the East/West Road Drain into the Frank Wiper Drain. That has now been removed;

h) there are challenges to completing bridge work in the Township. The Township is an island which is serviced by a ferry that operates from April through to early December. The delivery of equipment and materials is limited to that time period. If this work is not completed this year, it will be delayed to next Spring. In that event, it will likely result in further delays due to fish windows. The McClure Bridge is the only access to Lot 10, Plan 494 (the abutting property);

i) he did attend at the site, but he and the Engineer never did together attend at the T Intersection. Rather, they walked approximately 90% of the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch. The Engineer did ask that he attend at the T Intersection to determine whether there existed any dykes, damns or other items to direct water flow one way or the other. He saw no such dykes, damns or other construction that would have diverted flows;

j) the Frank Wiper Drain can flow to either of the two outlets. If there were a blockage in the Crawford Drain such as ice, snow or a fallen tree, it could force water down the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch. The same could be said for flow down the Crawford Drain if the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch were obstructed. There are two alternatives for outlets for the Frank Wiper Drain;

k) the elevations on the island are very flat from upstream to the pump stations;

l) on cross-examination he testified that he has never been at the T Intersection after a rainfall and has never seen the water flow at the T Intersection. When he attended at the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, he did observe water flow traveling east as pointed out by Appellants. He also witnessed that the wheat and bean stubble in the area indicated that water flowed north along a portion of the Frank Wiper Drain south of the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch; and,

m) when questioned by the Tribunal, he testified that there were different engineers for the various reports, and therefore there are potential different benchmarks that do not tie into one another. Based on the reports, it is therefore possible that, whether the Crawford Drain or the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch have a lower grade cannot be determined. The 1977 Report was only for the Frank Wiper Drain, which report included a larger culvert for the McClure Bridge. As a result, only the Frank Wiper Drain was assessed into that culvert in that report. The McClure Bridge receives water from the Frank Wiper Drain, the Crawford Drain and the Canal Drain. The 1977 Report only assessed the Frank Wiper Drain.

17The Appellants then called three witnesses.

Carl Ryersee

18Mr. Carl Ryersee testified as follows:

a) his family moved into the area in 1938. He was an owner of Lots 46 and 47 in 1977 when the work was carried out pursuant to the 1977 Report, and he was present when that work was completed;

b) in his opinion, the work provided for in the 1977 Report was not fully carried out. He built a barn that same year. The drain contractor helped him with the trusses on his new barn, and as a result, he helped the contractor with the culverts. He observed that the Frank Wiper Drain was only extended to a bush at Lot 35. The contractor positioned his equipment a little south of the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch. He then dug as far to the north and south as he could with his boom and went no further. He did not reach the Crawford Drain such that the Frank Wiper Drain does not connect to the Crawford Drain;

c) in 1977, he did not know that he was paying for the McClure Bridge culvert to be enlarged, nor did he understand that the water was being rerouted into the Crawford Drain;

d) the general slope of land is such that water is draining from west to east. He has never observed water draining into the Crawford Drain. It has always drained to Curry Marsh Drain West Branch; and,

e) on cross-examination, he testified that, as far as he is aware, the compensations provided for in the 1977 Report were paid, and he paid his assessment provided for in that report.

Craig Ryersee

19Mr. Craig Ryersee testified as follows:

a) on July 10, 2024, he personally took video of the water flow in the area at issue, which video was played for the Tribunal. A rainfall (approximately one inch) had occurred prior to taking the video. The video shows that the water coming out of the tile drainage located on his land runs into the Frank Wiper Drain. It shows a stick and debris running down the southerly end of the Frank Wiper Drain from the south to the north, after which it flows into the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch. He was standing at the westerly end of Curry Marsh Drain West Branch when the video was taken;

b) he repetitively attempted to advise the councillors for the Township that his water drains down the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch and that therefore, Lots 46 and 47 should not have been assessed. The Engineer and drainage superintendent repeatedly said that he was incorrect as to waterflow. The councillors advised that they had to defer to the Engineer and drainage superintendent. None of the Engineer, the drainage superintendent or any councillor ever came to the site after a rainfall;

c) it is unfair to be assessed 100% for two drains;

d) whatever the 1977 Report intended to achieve, it failed. In 1977, the Crawford Drain already drained 305 acres and the Mahoney Drain drained another 100 acres. The Crawford Drain would have been overwhelmed with another 205 acres from the Frank Wiper Drain. The result is that it never worked and therefore, in 1992, they went back to the historical outlet through the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch. The work completed pursuant to the 1992 Report is the best manner of draining the property;

e) the Engineer did not take proper account of the 1992 Report;

f) prior to the Township’s canal system being built, the end of the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch was considered a marsh. Everyone in the area was aware that the easterly end of Lots 8 and 9 were marshes and would not drain;

g) the land slopes from west to east and the water is then taken south by the Curry Marsh Drain;

h) this issue would have been resolved long ago had a councillor attended at the site to observe the water flow;

i) even in an overflow situation, the water does not flow down the Crawford Drain. Rather, it gathers in the marsh (Lots 8 and 9 and on the east side of Curry Dyke Drive). When they received 10 inches of rain last year, the water was three feet deep at the bottom of his field (at the west end of Lots 8 and 9) resulting in the loss of all crops in that area. Once the water reaches that area, it does not go back up the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch into the Crawford Drain. If the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch is overwhelmed, the water sits on Lots 46 and 47. The Crawford Drain drains so much land, that the Crawford Drain is full before the Frank Wiper Drain is full;

j) if the drains were properly maintained, he feels that the water would still flow down the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch;

k) on cross-examination he testified that he would have no issue with the outlet to the Crawford Drain being plugged as long as he did not have to pay for it;

l) also on cross-examination he testified that, if the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch was effectively plugged, water would not drain to the Crawford Drain. He is at the bottom of the marsh. As a result, if the water can’t get out through the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, it will flow onto his property and sit there until it gets pumped off. It will not flow south to the Crawford Drain. Last year after a large rainfall, water lay there for five days until they pumped it off. The water will not go down the Crawford Drain. Two engineers’ reports might state that the water flows south in that area, but it does not; and,

m) also on cross-examination he testified that the 1992 Report did not change water flow as it was always going down the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch. There is nothing in that report evidencing that the water flow was redirected.

Sondi Ryersee

20Ms. Sondi Ryersee testified as follows:

a) the Essex Region Conservation Authority (“ERCA”) map has drainage overlays for Pelee Island which show that the southerly end of the Frank Wiper Drain flows north into the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch. The maps were presented to the Tribunal. She understands that the drainage over lay maps were provided by the Township;

b) she and her husband are not arguing against paying for their share of drainage. They simply want the drainage to be properly set up this time so that it reflects the actual drainage of their lands. They want this issue properly resolved so that future generations, such as their children and grandchildren, do not have to deal with it; and,

c) on cross-examination she testified that she did receive all required notices in the drainage procedure.

ANALYSIS

The Frank Wiper Drain

21This Tribunal finds as follows:

a) that the natural flow of water with respect to the Appellants’ properties is from west to east;

b) that as a result of the work completed pursuant to the 1992 Report, the flow of water from the Frank Wiper Drain was restored to its natural flow such that it outlets through the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch;

c) that due to the elevations of the properties, there is an area along the southerly end of the Frank Wiper Drain where the water does flow north into the Curry Drain West Branch; and,

d) that in the event of substantial rainfall such that the Frank Wiper Drain cannot fully outlet through the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, the surplus water accumulates on the Appellants’ farmland rather than outletting to the Crawford Drain.

22Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, it cannot be determined whether the failure of the Frank Wiper Drain outletting into the Crawford Drain is as a result construction (such that the Frank Wiper Drain was not fully extended to the Crawford Drain in 1977) or the absolute lack of drain maintenance. There was evidence that the work completed in 1977 was not fully completed in accordance with the terms of the 1977 Report. The Engineer testified that the 1977 Report provides for a 40-foot culvert to the Frank Wiper Drain, but when he walked it, there was no evidence of a 40-foot culvert. In addition, Mr. Carl Ryersee testified that he personally witnessed the work being done to the Frank Wiper Drain in 1977, and that the drain was not fully extended to the Crawford Drain. We find his evidence to be very credible.

23Regardless of the cause, the water is clearly not draining from the Frank Wiper Drain into the Crawford Drain under current conditions.

The Reports

24The 1976 Report provides for repairs and improvement to the Crawford Drain. There was no assessment to Lots 46 or 47 in this report as the Frank Wiper Drain did not drain into the Crawford Drain in 1976.

25The 1977 Report relates to the Frank Wiper Drain. It noted the growth of trees and brush along the side and slope of the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch. That report provides that the most cost-effective manner in which to drain the Frank Wiper Drain was to extend it such that it connects to the Crawford Drain rather than cleaning the Curry Marsh West Drain Branch. Pursuant to the 1977 Report, the north and south branches of the Frank Wiper Drain were to be repaired and improved, the northerly 1,150 feet of outlet was to be repaired and improved, a 1,395 foot drain was to be added to the southerly end of the Frank Wiper Drain so that it drained into the Crawford Drain and the culvert at the McClure Bridge was to be removed and enlarged. The total cost of this project was $18,635.00, $1,880.00 of which was allocated to the cost of replacing the culvert at the McClure Bridge.

26The 1992 Report provides for the cleaning and improving of various drains, including the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch. The work completed pursuant to the 1992 Report therefore included the cleaning and improving of the outlet which the Frank Wiper Drain historically drained into.

27The Tribunal finds as follows:

a) that the 1977 Report is not an appropriate report to refer to with respect to assessments for the current Report. The 1977 Report provides for significant work to improve upon the Frank Wiper Drain. Only ten percent of the total cost of the project relates to the culvert at the McClure Bridge. In addition, there is evidence that the work pursuant to the 1977 Report was not fully completed in accordance with the terms of the 1977 Report. The result is that it appears that the Frank Wiper Drain was not fully extended to the Crawford Drain; and,

b) that the 1992 Report is the more appropriate report to refer to with respect to assessments for the current Report. The drawings indicate it extends to and provides an outlet for the Frank Wiper Drain, the lands on the Frank Wiper Drain are assessed for the work, it is in accordance with the historic drainage patterns in the larger watershed area and it is the most recent report and best reflects the manner in which water flows out of the Frank Wiper Drain.

28It is the opinion of this Tribunal that, upon discovering the contradictions between the reported water flows and the actual waterflows, the Engineer should have advised the Township of the need for a new watershed investigation, and the Township should have commissioned such an investigation.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

29Mr. Courey objected to the manner in which the hearing proceeded.

30The Rules of Procedure for the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal provide as follows:

• Rule 1.03(i): The Tribunal may issue general or specific procedural directions at any time; and,

• Rule 16.04: Subject to these rules and any applicable statute, the procedure at an oral hearing shall be determined by the presiding members of the Tribunal.

31With respect to an appeal pursuant to Section 48 of the Act, it is the practice of the Tribunal to proceed as follows: opening statements by each party; the Appellant presents evidence; the engineer presents the engineer’s report; the Respondent presents evidence; the Appellant presents any reply evidence; and, each party makes a closing statement. The same procedure is followed with respect to concurrent appeals pursuant to both Sections 48 and 54 of the Act.

32With respect to an appeal pursuant to only Section 54 of the Act, it is the practice of the Tribunal to proceed as follows: opening statements by each party; the engineer presents the engineer’s report; the Respondent presents evidence; the Appellant presents evidence; the Respondent presents any reply evidence; and each party makes a closing statement.

33Mr. Courey objected to this procedure on the basis that, notwithstanding that the appeal was pursuant to Section 54 alone, the Appellant should be required to present evidence prior to the Respondent. Mr. Courey’s objection was noted, and the hearing proceeded in the standard practice of the Tribunal for an appeal pursuant to only Section 54 of the Act as provided for above.

34Presumably as a result of his objection, Mr. Courey requested that the Tribunal order that the Tribunal’s recording of the hearing be provided to the Respondent. This request is denied. No such order is required. Upon the written request of a party, the Tribunal will provide its recording of the hearing.

ORDER

35For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The appeal by Craig and Sondi Ryersee under Section 54 of the Act is allowed.

2. The Engineer is to revise the Schedule of Assessment contained in the Report as follows: the assessment for the property identified as Roll No. 060-02100 in the amount of $3,969.00 shall be removed; and, the amount of that assessment, being $3,969.00, shall be added to the assessment to be paid by the Township.

3. Any additional costs to the project resulting from paragraph two herein shall be assessed to the Township.

4. The engineering and legal costs associated with this hearing, with exception of the costs referenced in paragraph 3 herein, shall be charged as a general expenditure directly to the Township and shall not be charged to the Drain.

5. There shall be no other Order as to costs and all parties shall be responsible for their own costs.