The Corporation of the Township of Huron-Kinloss

Court of Revision Meeting Minutes

Meeting #:

Date:

Monday, June 12, 2023

Time:

8:00 P.m. - 9:00 P.m.

Location:

Council Chambers

Members Present

• Jim Hanna, Deputy Mayor
• Larry Allison, Councillor
• Scott Gibson, Councillor
• Carl Sloetjes, Councillor

Staff Present

• Kelly Lush, Deputy Clerk

Staff Absent

• Mary Rose Walden, Chief Administrative Officer
• Ken McCallum, Drainage Superintendent

---

1.

Call to Order

Chair Jim Hanna called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.

2.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

None disclosed.

3.

Order of Appeals

3.1

Appeal #1 - Appellant: Meyer, Bill - 10 Huron Street Pt. 220 Huron Plan 232

4.

Late or Verbal Appeals 

The Court of Revision passed a motion at the April 12th meeting not to consider late or verbal appeals. 

5.

Engineering Gives Evidence 

Ed Delay, Project Engineer for R.J. Burnside and Associates Ltd. presented to the Court of Revision the Park Street Municipal Drain Improvement (Phase 1). Mr. Delay explained the procedure for the Court of Revision and that the Court's purpose to allow land owners to challenge their drainage assessments. He explained that the Court listens to any appeals and has the power to re-allocate funds in the drainage assessment schedule. 

Members of the Court of Revision asked for the Engineer to clarify what the 25/75 split on an assessment is and what basis the split is determined. Mr. Delay stated that drains can be split into sections and the total cost of each section would be split based on percentage of benefit to the property and percentage of the outlet on the property. Each section has a cost, made up of construction, allowances, engineering, other costs such as investigations, interest, HST, etc. Next the benefit and outlet are split as a percent of the total cost for each section. Two metrics are used for this, the equivalent (land use factored) hectares upstream as a percent of the total equivalent. hectares and second, the percent of drain length downstream as a percent of the total drain length. The Engineer uses their judgement to choose a percent using these two metrics as a guide.

The Court of Revision asked how fairness on the drainage assessments is determined. Mr. Delay stated that "fairness principle" is a standard way of calculating drainage assessments in Ontario. In situations where the Drainage Act is silent or unclear, and the appeal bodies have not yet provided direction, the action that is fair to the community of landowners involved in the drain improvement project should be chosen.

6.

Appellants Present their Case

6.1

Appeal #1 - Appellant: Meyer, Bill - 10 Huron Street Pt. 220 Huron Plan 232

Mr. Meyer presented his appeal to the Court of Revision. Mr. Meyer explained that they are unhappy with the assessment for their property and that water draining onto his property is coming from other properties that are not assessed as high or even on the assessment report at all.

Mr. Meyer reviewed his appeal with the Court of Revision detailing each of his points in his appeal. He first commented that there was no new pipe crossing the neighbouring property. Mr. Delay stated that the drain would be crossing the neighbour's property and that they are looking to finalize the exact location of the pipe.

Mr. Meyer questioned why the abutting properties were not assessed. Mr. Delay stated that the properties downstream were not assessed in Phase I. The Court of Revision asked for clarification on why the abutting properties downstream were not being assessed and requested confirmation that the properties receive no benefit from the drain improvement.  Mr. Delay stated that the properties downstream would not receive any benefit from the Phase I Park Street Drain improvements.

Mr. Meyer inquired why the swale is being moved. Mr. Delay confirmed that the movement of the swale is for better land use in the future and that all options were looked at when engineering the project. 

Mr. Meyer questioned why WS Plan No. 169 and 168  properties owned by the Township of Huron-Kinloss were both not assessed. Mr. Delay explained that WS Plan No. 169 and 169 were are one roll number and therefore are assessed as one property.

7.

Court of Revision Deliberations

The Court retreated to deliberate in private on the appeal presented to them.

8.

Court of Revision Decision

Re: Park Street Municipal Drain (Phase 1)
Decision pronounced on the 12^th day of June, 2023

Appeal #1

Appellant: Meyer, Bill and Lisa

Property: 10 Huron Street, Ripley Pt. 220 Huron Plan 232

Appeal Summary: Assessment on property is too high and other land or road that should have been assessed has not been assessed.

Decision: That the appeal is denied and the assessments for the Park Municipal Drain be confirmed as set out by the Report prepared by Ed Delay, M. Eng., Project Engineer for R. J. Burnside & Associates Ltd.

 

Appeal #2

Appellant: Beishuizen, Linda and Ben

Property: Concession 7, Pt. Lot 13

Appeal summary: Assessment on property is too high as the property is tiled out through subsurface drainage with 1.76 ha. remaining tiled into the watershed.

Decision: That due to the tile map being provided by the owner following the deadline to submit an appeal, the Engineer asked the Court to modify the assessment on this property. The Court ruled that the $1380 difference in total assessment to the Beishuizen property be assessed to the Township Roads.

 

Further Appeal Rights
If dissatisfied with the Decisions of the Court of Revision which were pronounced on the 12^th day of June, 2023, anyone may appeal this decision to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal by filing a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Township of Huron-Kinloss within 21 days of the date of this decision

9.

Adjournment

The Court of Revision adjourned at 7:30 p.m.