The Town of The Blue Mountain court of revision has dismissed an appeal by two local landowners regarding drainage work proposed for the Craigleith area.
Bernard Oegema and Alison Kay, owners of a Lakeshore Road East property impacted by the proposed work, appealed the amount they were assessed through the Drainage Act process for drainage improvements being proposed by three developers for three large projects in Craigleith.
The Drainage Act process required The Blue Mountains council to form a court of revision, which consisted of three members of the town’s committee of adjustment: Jim Oliver, Robert Waind and Michael Martin. Oliver chaired the hearing.
The situation was unique as all required property owners, including the town, the ministry of transportation, three developers and two property owners, were assessed costs for the drainage work, but the three developers (Parkbridge Craigleith, McPherson Homefarm and Eden Oak Trailhead) have agreed to pay for all the drainage works proposed.
In order to accommodate their three developments that total 620 residential units, the three developers are proposing a host of drainage upgrades and improvements in Craigleith. The work is estimated to have a total cost of just over $1.2 million.
“The land developers - they are paying for the whole project,” said Jamie Witherspoon, and engineer with the firm WT Infrastructure,
Town staff also confirmed that the three developers, as part of their development agreements, would be signing legally binding agreements with the town to pay for the drainage costs.
“They will pay all costs. The total of the costs will be borne by them,” said Brian Worsley, manager of development engineering for the town.
Kay and Oegema appealed two aspects of the drainage project (the full report on the proposed work can be found here). They objected to being assessed responsibility for $4,506.09 of the cost of the drainage works (for which, the three developers have agreed to pay). They also objected to compensation proposed for loss of trees and impacts of the project on their land ($21,600 for land, $7,500 for trees).
“We would prefer our property be left untouched,” Kay told the court of revision during the hearing. “We should be compensated fairly for the negative impact on our property.”
The hearing, held in the council chambers at town hall in Thornbury, consisted of a presentation from Witherspoon regarding the engineering report, appellants Kay and Oegema then presented their case, there were questions and answers and the court of revision then adjourned to another room to deliberate on the information received.
After deliberating for approximately 30 minutes, the court of revision returned to public session and passed two resolutions to dismiss both aspects of the appeal.
“I suspect these may not be the decisions you were hoping to get,” Oliver told the appellants.
The court of revision ruled that the assessment of capital costs of the project (which the three developers are paying in full) were reasonable. The court also noted that the appellants would not have to pay the costs assessed in the report.
“You are not, in reality, going to be asked to pay that cost,” Oliver said.
On the matter of the compensation, the court of revision ruled it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on that aspect of the appeal.
“Our understanding, as the court of revision, we have no jurisdiction relative to how much you’re being compensated for impacts on your property,” said Oliver.
Before adjourning the meeting, Oliver noted that the appellants had the opportunity to appeal the court of revision decision to the provincial drainage tribunal. He also noted they had the opportunity to appeal the compensation aspects of the engineering report through a separate process.
