Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 08, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000490
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: LIV (Menoke 3) LP
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a mixed residential neighbourhood consisting of 534 units, including single detached dwellings and townhouses.
Reference Number: Z-22-02
Property Address: 8743 Highway 11 North & 3651 Menoke Beach Road
Municipality/UT: Severn/Simcoe
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000490
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000490
OLT Case Name: LIV (Menoke 3) LP v. Severn (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: LIV (Menoke 3) LP
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a mixed residential neighbourhood consisting of 534 units, including single detached dwellings and townhouses.
Reference Number: SV-T-2201
Property Address: 8743 Highway 11 North & 3651 Menoke Beach Road
Municipality/UT: Severn/Simcoe
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000491
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000490
OLT Case Name: LIV (Menoke 3) LP v. Simcoe (County)
Heard: September 19, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| LIV (Menoke 3) LP | Russell D. Cheeseman Stephanie Fleming |
| Township of Severn | Kim Mullin Sean Ovas |
| County of Simcoe | Kim Mullin Sean Ovas |
| Simcoe County District School Board | Justine Reyes Brad Teichman (in absentia) |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1On September 19, 2024, the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) took place before the Tribunal with respect to appeals under sections 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act by LIV (Menoke 3) LP (“Applicant”) resulting from the failure of the Township of Severn to make a decision within the required time period on an Application for a Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) and the County of Simcoe to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”), with respect to the properties municipally known as 8743 Highway 11 North and 3651 Menoke Beach Road in the Township (“Subject Property”) owned by the Applicant.
2The Draft Plan seeks permission to develop the Subject Property into a mixed residential neighbourhood consisting of 534 single-detached and townhouse units, stormwater management facilities, open space, environmental protection areas, a pump station, and pedestrian access to Shadow Creek. The ZBA seeks to amend the current zoning to reflect the proposed mix of uses and site-specific details in the Draft Plan.
3A CMC took place on July 8, 2024 (“First CMC”), where it was confirmed that Notice was adequately served and no further notice was required. Additionally, Simcoe District School Board was added as a Party.
STATUS REQUESTS
4The Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party status.
5Subsequent to the First CMC, the Tribunal received thirteen Participant status requests, from:
a. Cindy Seligman; b. Igor Korenzvit; c. Dallas Stevens; d. Robin Seligman; e. Diane McKinzey; f. Paula and Eric Book; g. Teresa and Germana Corazza; h. Jack Mantle; i. Matt Thomson; j. David Seligman; k. Betty London; l. Jennifer and Robert Allan; and m. William Orr.
6These individuals collectively raised concerns with the proposal, including but not limited to: safety issues arising from the proposal (such as a lack of sidewalk and increased traffic being dangerous for pedestrians); the proposal’s negative impact on the environment; the proposal being too large; lack of infrastructure to deal with the proposal and its negative impact on the existing infrastructure; an increase in crime due to an increase in population; and a negative impact on the rural character of the area. The Parties did not object to the addition of these individuals to this matter as Participants. The Tribunal determined that these individuals had an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in understanding the potential impacts of the ZBA and Draft Plan on the local community. The Tribunal granted Participant status to the individuals listed above.
7The concerns raised by the Participants were very similar in nature. The Tribunal directed that the Participants could collectively submit one Participant statement. To clarify, while they had the right to provide individual statements, if they had shared concerns, they could collectively provide one statement instead.
8Moreover, as outlined in provision 14 of the Procedural Order (“PO”), attached to this Decision as Schedule A, the Participants are to provide their final statement to the Parties and to the Tribunal by Friday, May 2, 2025.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
9A draft PO and Issues List (“IL”) were provided prior to the CMC. These were reviewed at the CMC. Issues were included on the IL relating to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshow, 2020, both of which have now been replaced by the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”). The Tribunal inquired as to whether those issues were to remain on the IL. The Parties indicated that they were waiting to see if any transition provisions would be created by the Province before removing those issues.
10The Parties were directed to provide the final and updated PO and IL by October 21, 2025, a month after the CMC, and after the PPS 2024 was to come into effect on October 20, 2024. This would allow them time to determine which Provincial policy document(s) to include on the IL. The Parties have now provided the final PO and IL, which are approved as attached to this Decision.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
11The Tribunal raised the issue of mediation and settlement discussions. The Parties indicated that Tribunal-assisted mediation was scheduled to proceed the week after the second CMC, with the mediation assessment having taken place in August 2024. The Parties were directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the Hearing. Moreover, while the Parties were already scheduled to attend Tribunal-assisted mediation, the Tribunal reminded them that, if this mediation did not result in a settlement, they could again choose to utilize this resource in the future.
HEARING DETAILS
12Given the number of Parties, potential issues, and potential witnesses, the Tribunal agreed that a 15-day Merit Hearing would be sufficient. A Hearing has been scheduled to take place commencing on Monday, July 7, 2025, at 10 a.m. to and including Friday, July 25, 2025.
13The Parties and/or Participants are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/692665589
Access Code: 692-665-589
14The Parties and/or Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
15Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (toll-free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 692-665-589.
16Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. The following are Participants in this proceeding: i. Cindy Seligman; ii. Igor Korenzvit; iii. Dallas Stevens; iv. Robin Seligman; v. Diane McKinzey; vi. Paula and Eric Book; vii. Teresa and Germana Corazza; viii. Jack Mantle; ix. Matt Thomson; x. David Seligman; xi. Betty London; xii. Jennifer and Robert Allan; and xiii. William Orr.
b. The Hearing in this matter is scheduled to take place as described above in this Decision.
c. The Procedural Order and Issues List, attached as Schedule A, shall govern this proceeding.
18This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
SCHEDULE A
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000490
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: LIV (Menoke 3) LP
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a mixed residential neighbourhood consisting of 534 units, including single detached dwellings and townhouses.
Reference Number: Z-22-02
Property Address: 8743 Highway 11 North & 3651 Menoke Beach Road
Municipality/UT: Severn/Simcoe
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000490
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000490
OLT Case Name: LIV (Menoke 3) LP v. Severn (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: LIV (Menoke 3) LP
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a mixed residential neighbourhood consisting of 534 units, including single detached dwellings and townhouses.
Reference Number: SV-T-2201
Property Address: 8743 Highway 11 North & 3651 Menoke Beach Road
Municipality/UT: Severn/Simcoe
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000491
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000490
OLT Case Name: LIV (Menoke 3) LP v. Simcoe (County)
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.
Organization of the Hearing
The video hearing will begin on Monday, July 7, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is fifteen (15) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Requirements Before the Hearing
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Friday, April 4, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, April 18, 2025 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, April 25, 2025.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.
On or before Friday, May 2, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
On or before Friday, May 2, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before Monday, June 2, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before Friday, June 27, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Monday, May 12, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, June 27, 2025.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, June 30, 2025 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
This Member is not seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
Summary of Procedural Dates
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Friday, April 4, 2025 | Witness List |
| Friday, April 18, 2025 | Final day for expert witness meeting |
| Friday, April 25, 2025 | Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues filed |
| Friday, May 2, 2025 | Expert witness and witness statements due |
| Friday, May 2, 2025 | Written participant statement due |
| Monday, May 12, 2025 | Response to written evidence due |
| Monday, June 2, 2025 | Hearing date confirmation |
| Friday, June 27, 2025 | Visual evidence due |
| Friday, June 27, 2025 | Joint Document Book due |
| Monday, June 30, 2025 | Preliminary hearing plan due |
| Monday, July 7, 2025 | Hearing |
Attachment 1
List of Parties and Participants
LIV (Menoke 3) LP Russell D. Cheeseman & Stephanie Fleming Municipal Law Chambers rdcheese@aol.com sfleming@mlawc.com 416-955-9533
Township of Severn Kim Mullin & Sean Ovas Wood Bull LLP KMullin@woodbull.ca sovas@woodbull.ca 461-203-5633/416-203-7306
County of Simcoe Kim Mullin & Sean Ovas Wood Bull LLP KMullin@woodbull.ca sovas@woodbull.ca 461-203-5633/416-203-7306
Simcoe County District School Board Brad Teichman & Justine Reyes Overland LLP bteichman@overlandllp.ca jreyes@overlandllp.ca 416-730-0180 / 416-730-8377
Participants
John and Robert Allan Jennallan2505@gmail.com
Paula and Eric Book paula@bookfamilyl.com
Teresa and Germana Corazza g.clementi@me.com
Igor Korenzvit igor@ikor.com
Betty London bettylondon@hotmail.com
Jack Mantle mantlejack388@gmail.com
Diane McKinzey rondiview41@gmail.com
William Orr William_orr@live.ca
Cindy Seligman cindy.seligman@rogers.com
David Seligman Davidseligman60@gmail.com
Robin Seligman robin@seligmanlaw.com
Dallas Stevens dstevens@concreteplantsolutions.com
Matt Thomson Matt.jthomson@gmail.com
Attachment 2
Issues List
County of Simcoe and Township of Severn
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990
Do the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications (the “Applications”) have regard for matters of provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to subsections (a), (f), (h), (i), (o), (p) and (r)?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision satisfy the criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k)?
Provincial Planning Statement 2024 *
- Are the Applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including but not limited to the following policies: a. 2.3.1.2 (a), (b), and (c); b. 2.3.1.3; c. 3.1.1; d. 3.2.1 e. 3.5; f. 3.6.7; g. 3.6.8; h. 3.9.1; i. 3.6.7 and 3.6.8; j. 4.1.1, 4.1.6, 4.1.7 and 4.1.8; and k. 4.6?
County of Simcoe Official Plan
- Do the Applications conform to, and meet the overall goals, objectives, and intent of the County of Simcoe Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 3.1, 3.2.4, 3.2.14, 3.3.2, 3.3.4, 3.3.9, 3.3.15, 3.3.17, 3.3.19, 3.3.22, 3.5.2, 3.5.5, 3.5.15, 3.5.16, 3.5.17, 3.5.26, 3.5.29, 3.5.30, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.5.25, 4.7.2, 4.7.7, 4.8.4, 4.8.6, 4.8.23, 4.8.42(b) and 4.8.45 ?
Township of Severn Official Plan 2010
- Do the Applications conform to, and meet the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Township of Severn Official Plan, including but not limited to policies A.2.1.2 e) and h); A2.2.2 c), e), h) and i); A.2.3.2 c), e) and g); A.2.6.2 f); A.2.8. b), c) and e); B.1.4. a), b), c), f) and h); B.7.4; B8.3; B.11.1; C1.2.1; C1.4.2; C1.4.4; C1.6; C2.1; C2.2.1; C2.3.1; C2.3.5 d) and h); C2.3.7.2; C2.3.7.3; C2.3.12; F1.1; F1.2; F.1.3.1.3; F2.1; F2.2; F2.3; F3.1; G.1.3; and G1.5?
Technical Issues
Transportation and Related Impacts
Are adequate mitigation measures and setbacks incorporated into the proposed plan of subdivision to mitigate potential negative impacts from the MTO right of way in accordance with MTO guidelines and standards?
Has ownership of the proposed mitigation features been adequately considered and secured?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision adequately demonstrate appropriate separation between pedestrians / cyclist and vehicular traffic?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision accommodate a sufficient amount of well-connected trail networks that support active transportation and pedestrian mobility?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision demonstrate complete road alignment and geometry that would facilitate the safe and efficient movement of vehicle traffic, including emergency and waste collection vehicles?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision incorporate appropriate daylight triangles?
Are offsite road network improvements required to address traffic impacts generated by the proposed development, including traffic generated by a potential school site?
Servicing
Are the existing and proposed servicing solutions and mechanisms appropriate and adequate to facilitate implementation of the proposed plan of subdivision?
What changes to the proposed plan of subdivision and phasing of same are required to address the limits on the servicing capacity of the water infrastructure and sewage plant and the allocation of the existing and potential future capacity of the plant?
Is a holding provision in the proposed zoning by-law amendment required to ensure development does not proceed until servicing capacity has been allocated?
If a reduced interior side yard setback is deemed appropriate for residential units, how will drainage be handled to ensure that public and private lands will not be negatively impacted?
Built Form, Site Layout and Urban Design
Does the proposed plan of subdivision and overall development proposal demonstrate appropriate and functional built form and urban design? In particular, does the proposed development demonstrate appropriate: a. Height for the proposed residential dwellings; b. Variety of built form and housing typologies; c. Setbacks between the proposed residential dwellings; d. Setbacks between the proposed plan of subdivision and existing utility infrastructure; and e. Layout, configuration and size of the proposed subdivision blocks.
Is the proposed plan of subdivision compatible with the massing, scale, and character of existing development in the surrounding area?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision show adequate and appropriate lotting of residential blocks and lots?
Is a school block required for the development of the proposed plan of subdivision? If so, has the applicant appropriately considered the layout, configuration, and size of the required school block to the satisfaction of the Simcoe County District School Board?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision provide adequate opportunities for commercial and other uses required for the development of a complete community?
Environmental Protection and Parkland
Are the proposed buffers for natural features appropriate and justified?
Are the road crossings of Street “C” and Street “F” on the proposed plan of subdivision appropriately justified in relation to the Environmental Protection lands?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision provide sufficient quality community amenity space?
Has the ownership of the parkland parcels, open space blocks and environmental protection areas been appropriately considered and secured?
Has the applicant adequately assessed the impact of the proposed development on habitat of endangered species and threatened species, including Black Ash?
Should the draft plan of subdivision provide a trail connection to the proposed Westshore multi-use pathway?
Future Planning
If a draft plan of subdivision is approved, what are the appropriate draft plan conditions to (1) address all outstanding concerns raised by the Township, County and external agencies and (2) secure future mitigation measures required by the Township, County, and external agencies?
Does the proposal represent good planning and is it in the public interest?
Issues List of Simcoe County District School Board
Does the Proposed Development have regard for matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, particularly Subsections 2(i), (m) and (n)?
Does the Proposed Development have regard for Section 51(24)(j) of the Planning Act?
Provincial Planning Statement (October 2024) *
- Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), including policies 2.1.6(a), 2.2.1(c), 2.3.1.2(b), 2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.6, 3.1, 6.2.1 (a) and (d), and 6.2.4?
County of Simcoe Official Plan (2023 Consolidation)
- Does the Proposed Development conform with the County of Simcoe Official Plan (2023 Consolidation), including policies 3.2.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.16(a), 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.1, and 4.2.4?
Township of Severn Official Plan (2010 Consolidation)
- Does the Proposed Development conform with the Township of Severn Official Plan (2010), including policies B8.3(b) and (f), B11.1, C2.1(f), C2.3.2(g), and C2.3.5?
General
Would the Proposed Development reflect good community planning and be in the public interest if it does not provide for an elementary school site?
Is a school site required to constitute the Proposed Development as a complete community?
Where in the plan of subdivision should a school site be located and what size and configuration should it be to ensure that it is adequate?
Should the school site be located beside a park to achieve economies and thus reduce the size of the school site?
If the school site cannot be located beside a park, should the draft plan incorporate features to facilitate efficient access between the school site and the park?
Are the School Board’s conditions of approval reasonable having regard to the nature of the Proposed Development and the need for an elementary school site?
* Note: In the event that the PPS 2024 comes into force without transition regulations, any issues referring to the PPS 2020 and/or the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe shall be struck from this list or modified to address any issues raised by the transition regulations.
Attachment 3
Order of Evidence
- LIV (Menoke 3) LP
- Township of Severn / County of Simcoe
- Simcoe County District School Board
- LIV (Menoke 3) LP (in reply)