Parkbridge receives a verbal request from a third resident to relocate their mobile home to a replacement site.

Parkbridge meets with two site homeowners interested in relocating their mobile home and received signed offer.

Parkbridge receives an unsigned letter from some residents containing a rejection of the Parkbridge offer and a counter-offer from the residents which would leave them and the mobile homes in harms’ way for years to come.

Parkbridge’s final offer expires with no agreement from residents to relocate; Parkbridge cancels plan for expansion at Meneset.

Parkbridge meets with the residents to discuss the final offer from Parkbridge.

Parkbridge extends deadline of final offer to November 1, 2018.

Parkbridge receives a request to re-assign an existing lease.

Parkbridge receives sign-off from only one resident to relocate to a new site in the community.

For safety and security, Parkbridge issues to residents a final offer of a replacement site; residents must respond no later than October 1, 2018. In the final offer, Parkbridge indicates that if the offer is not accepted, Parkbridge will not seek approval to create and will not service a replacement site in the Meneset on the Lake community for a resident’s mobile home.

Parkbridge offers replacement sites to affected residents; Parkbridge, at its own expense, would finish approvals and create replacement sites within a safe location in the community and the residents would move their mobile homes at their expense to the new sites.

The Landlord & Tenant Board renders its decision: a) dismissing a tenant application to have Parkbridge fix the bluff and reduce their rent; and b) dismissing Parkbridge’s application to have the leases declared frustrated. Any appeal period has expired and the decision is final and binding upon all parties. The Board found:

• The landlord acted reasonably;
• It did not appear the bluff could be stabilized;
• Frustration of the leases was premature as the landlord did not actually apply for and fail to obtain a permit from the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) to stabilize the embankment relying only on the MVCA verbal advisory that their policies would not permit the type of work the landlord’s consultants considered necessary and that MVCA staff would not recommend approval of such a permit.
• The rulings effectively result in no change in the situation.

Parkbridge continues its work to obtain the required Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Agreement for the creation of replacement sites outside of the hazard zone. A public meeting is scheduled to hear the application. Affected residents object to the rezoning requirement from the MVCA that the bluff lands be zoned hazard as part of creating the replacement sites. Area residents complain on the method of notice given by the municipality. Parkbridge agrees that if and when the matter is brought back before the public, it will arrange for notice of the meeting to be delivered to all Meneset residents in addition to public notice requirements. Any decision by the municipality is deferred until such time as a later, second meeting can be held.

Hearings at Landlord & Tenant Board are completed.

Parkbridge issues one last written offer to the affected residents on December 13, 2016.

Affected mobile homeowners counter with a verbal offer; Parkbridge declines the offer.

A Tribunal hearing date scheduled for August 2016 is postponed to February 2017, and then set to July 2017.

Parkbridge satisfies documentary disclosure, which includes advice from Parkbridge’s geotechnical consultant and civil consultant that there is no practical solution that guarantees the stability of sites near the bluff, and the safety of residents and property in the hazard zone.

Parkbridge holds meeting with resident group, without prejudice, in an attempt to reach a settlement; a settlement was not reached.

Pre-trial conference is held; Parkbridge offers to meet with residents and a meeting is scheduled for June 10, 2016

A third Tribunal hearing is scheduled; adjudicator orders residents to satisfy disclosure.

Parkbridge makes its first submission to local officials for a site plan agreement; Parkbridge engages engineering consultants to explore range of potential engineering solutions to stop erosion and stabilize slope so houses can remain.; residents’ lawyer resigns from the case.

Two hearings are rescheduled after both parties request postponements after residents do not satisfy disclosure.

Majority of the affected homeowners on the bluff file a joint action and claim against Parkbridge at the Landlord & Tenant Board; residents claim Parkbridge failed to maintain the property and that Parkbridge has interfered with their reasonable enjoyment of land.

Maitland Valley Conservation Authority advises that Parkbridge can submit an application to do the work to stabilize erosion at the toe of the slope and the application will be referred to their Board of Directors for a decision, but that staff will not recommend acceptance of the application.

Parkbridge meets a third time with residents on leased sites in the erosion zone to urge them to relocate. Parkbridge presents concept drawings of potential replacement sites in an attempt to get agreement on a relocation strategy; residents are told they will have to cover the costs of development and relocation through a Above Guideline Increase (AGI) in their rent.

Parkbridge asks Maitland Valley Conservation Authority to clarify its understanding from meetings and staff communication that works to stabilize erosion at toe of slope would not be permitted under MVCA policy.

Parkbridge meets with Huron County and Township officials regarding Parkbridge’s wish to create replacement sites.

Parkbridge meets a second time with the affected residents leasing sites in the erosion zone and provides them with a copy of the LVM report; residents inform Parkbridge they are seeking legal representation (letter dated March 31, received April 20).

Parkbridge receives a study by its geo-technical consultants LVM (now called EnGlobe) which indicates that all 24 mobile home sites were within the 100-year erosion limit, most bisected by the 25-year erosion limit (in some cases significantly). The report further highlights the risk to personal safety and property.

Parkbridge learns that the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) established a 100-year erosion line restricting the issuance of building permits, and impacting all leased sites located in the erosion zone.

The urgently affected home is relocated off the bluff at that homeowner’s expense, to a replacement site provided at Parkbridge’s expense.

Parkbridge installs the last new unit at Meneset on the Lake, with building permit, orienting it to maximize setback from the bluff.

“Schedule D” is added to the Lease Agreement, warning any new homeowners of the safety risk on sites in the erosion zone.

Parkbridge holds first meeting with then 24 affected homeowners to advise them of the potential risk to personal safety and property if the houses remain on the sites in the erosion zone; Parkbridge continues the monitor slope for erosion and changes.

Parkbridge becomes aware of localized slope failure behind one mobile home placing it in immediate risk. Parkbridge hires geo-technical engineers to evaluate the localized event. At this point, the significance of the erosion issue is unclear. Parkbridge begins to monitor the erosion of the bluff and restricts removal of vegetation.

Parkbridge installs 3 new units at Meneset on the Lake in compliance with applicable permits.

Parkbridge acquires Meneset on the Lake