Steve Brickman, P. Eng, Headway Engineering presented the Bruce Beach Municipal Drain Phase 1 Report. He explained that there are 3 components of the drain that will be discussed, including the construction of the detention pond, Lake Range Drive road crossing, and improvements to the ravine. It does not include works, the downstream works to the beach. That will be included in a separate phase.
He explained that Dietrich Engineering Limited was appointed by Council on November 19, 2018, under Section 4 of the Drainage Act which Council then modified its appointment of the Engineer on May 3, 2021, to Headway Engineering.
Mr. Brickman reviewed the timeline of events that the project has taken place so far. He noted that there was a significant event that happened end of summer 2020 that enforced the need to move forward with the project to protect public and private property.
In 2021, the Township applied to OMAFRA for an emergency order to move forward quickly which was not approved and resulted in Headway Engineering preparing the Phase 1 report that is being discussed at this meeting. Phase 2 is to deal with taking the drainage system to the lake will be presented in a separate report.
He noted that the findings include that nearly 200 acres drain to the ravine and the ravine is experiencing high levels of erosion. He explained that the design includes the construction of the detention facility (intercepting surface water runoff, detains the water, and releases it in a controlled manner downstream), road crossing on Lake Range Drive, and improvements to the ravine.
He explained that through his modeling it was discovered that the ravine erosion would continue in the same manner with the construction of the detention pond. Mr. Brickman noted that flooding projects are designed for big storm events and erosion projects for small storms.
The estimated costs are around one million dollars including allowances, construction costs, administration, and taxes. Mr. Brickman went on to explain the process moving forward, tonight's meeting is to consider adopting the report, pass the provisional by-law and set the date for the Court of Revision. Following Township staff will forward a copy of the provisional by-law to the landowners and include a notice of the court of revision. This is when the appeal process commences.
The Court of Revision is to deal with the assessment. Once the appeal process is complete the Township can move forward with passing the By-Law.
Council Comments and Questions
Confirmed that it is important to understand that it is the design elements to be discussed tonight. Council requested clarification on the works going downstream and the control structure at the detention facility.
Mr. Brickman explained that the outlet structure is CSP riser, circular perforated surrounded by riprap to prevent debris from getting in. The cap will control the flow going downstream. In emergency situations when the flow is beyond what the system is designed it can overflow into the top and into the emergency flow pipe.
A question was asked regarding the west of the Lake Range Dr, 20-meter drop, and the orifice plate. Mr. Brickman clarified that the difference between the orifice plate and ground centerline is 29 meters.
Council requested confirmation that the agriculture property where the detention pond is located can still be farmed. The Engineer explained that it is designed to be workable it would only have rainfall during an event and a short time after, designed as a dry detention facility.
Public Comments
Peter Schlegel, questioned the depth of the detention pond and if it will have any effect on his tile drainage system as it is all systematically drained and was unsure of the location of his outlet.
Mr. Brickman confirmed that the location of his outlet is close to the property line between his and Brucelea Poultry Farms and other outlets upstream. The proposal will affect his tile and given him an allowance for use of property and damages. The damage allowance is to provide compensation for Mr. Schlegel to adjust his tile drainage system but it won't impede his drainage.
Mr. Schelgal confirmed his net assessment for the project is approx $130,000.
Tom Clark, 97 Bruce Beach Road noted that the Engineer provided an outstanding report. He explained that during the events in 2018 and 2020 his property got washed out. Questioned if the design Phase 1 will slow the velocity of the water so he won't experience what happened in 2018 and 2020.
Mr. Brickman confirmed with the construction, the damage seen in the past will not occur, the flow will be substantially reduced and released in a controlled manner.
David Moore, 94-2 Bruce Beach Road explained that the ravine is dry most of the time when there is an event there is flow then get dry again. He noted that the bend has eroded slightly only happens when there is an event. He supports the detention facility and noted that it is the key part to control the flow. He noted that there has been a new culvert constructed with a grate with 2" holes on it and it is already blocked with debris and with an event it could cause serious issues. Mr. Moore has concerns with the cover on the culvert as it will cause damage to the neighbouring properties that he understands was constructed without approvals from the conservation authority and the Township.
He questioned what effects will the appeal process have on the timelines for the construction of the detention pond and if the retention pond could be dealt with separately from the ravine.
The Engineer explained that with the construction of the detention pond the erosion of the ravine will remain similar to how it is currently.
Mr. Brickman explained that if there is an appeal it will hold up the construction. He noted that the Tribunal is trying to have hearings however they are backlogged. An appeal to the Tribunal on the design will hold up construction, if there is an appeal to the assessment it may affect construction times, it will be up to the Tribunal to determine to allow the construction to proceed with an appeal to assessment.
Mark Gancevich, 98 Bruce Beach Road noted he was a major recipient of water and his property has experienced several hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages and noted that it is more than just the pond it is the whole system that is failing. He felt that over the years the Township did not allocate enough financial resources to the management of the water and that the Township should look at the allocation for the Township's portion for the system. He suggested that this system was not designed to take the additional flows from the development at Lake Range and that there have been missteps along the way.
Kristy Botden, 714 & 716 Lake Range Drive noted that in the report the outlet for 98 Bruce Beach Road was not a long-term solution, she questioned why consider Phase 1 if it is unknown where the outlet will be for Phase 2. She further questioned if property owners would be assessed for both Phases, what determines outlet liability, and is there a yearly value in total for maintenance costs.
The Engineer explained that the project was looked at in phases as a way to get the detention pond constructed being the most important part. Phase 2 portion will deal with an outlet to the beach. Regardless of the outcome of Phase 2 the work in Phase 1 is required and will not be redone. Mr. Brickman confirmed that properties in the watershed would be assessed for both phases of the work.
He explained that the outlet liability on all properties portion of the area within the watershed and depends on the land cover type and the portion of the property that uses the drain. Mr. Brickman explained that there won't be an annual maintenance cost. Maintenance is performed as needed on a response basis and billed out accordingly.
Richard Outerbridge- 89 Martyn Lane- Confirmed that the maintenance costs are on an as-needed basis and questioned if, when Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be protected from the 100-year storm.
Mr. Brickman confirmed that the level of damage that occurred in 2020 would not occur once the detention pond is constructed.
Barb Moffat 102 Bruce Beach Road- Noted that there was not a response from Mark Gancevich earlier questions about the distribution of the costs and questioned if Council had a response.
Council commented that the general levy is distributed across the Township but the report and assessment are based on the drain project. If you are part of the watershed and confirmed that property owners are responsible for the water on their land as it contributes to the municipal drain. Projects costs are isolated to those in the report, not the entire Township different from storm sewer projects in urban areas.
Brett Pollock on behalf of Sandy Pollock 95-2 Bruce Beach Road - Noted concerns with the work on the ravine and requested that the ravine be taken out of the report until the outlet has been settled and requested information on the appeal process as related to the design. Commented that it might be an option to straighten the ravine.
Mr. Brickman explained that the appeal period for the design to the Tribunal is a time-limit based on the mailing of the provisional By-Law (40 days) forms available from OMAFRA on the process.