Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd. v. Milton (Town), 2022 CanLII 34876

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 29, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001210

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 64

Municipality: Town of Milton

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001210

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001210

OLT Case Name: Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd. v. Milton (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd.

Subject: By-law No. 053-2021

Municipality: Town of Milton

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001211

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001210

Heard: March 22, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd.

David Donnelly

Town of Milton

Konstantine Stavrakos

Vue Developments On Main

Scott Snider

Shelley Kaufman

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON MARCH 22, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Introduction

1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding appeals brought by Our Milton – Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd. (“Appellant”) of the Town of Milton’s (“Town”) adoption of the Official Plan Amendment No. 64 (“OPA”) and the Town’s passing of Zoning By-law No. 053-2021 (“ZBLA”). The OPA added Specific Policy Area No. 39 which together with the ZBLA would facilitate the development of 2 high-rise residential towers with ancillary commercial and office uses at 28, 60 and 104 Bronte Street North, Milton (“Subject Property”).

2Vue Developments On Main (“Applicant”) is proposing to construct 2 high-rise residential towers with heights of 17 and 18 storeys with ancillary commercial and office uses. In total, the proposed development will provide 508 residential units, 1,062 square metres of commercial space and 853 square metres of office space.

3At the CMC, the Tribunal addressed the draft Procedural Order (“PO”), identification of issues to be addressed at the hearing, identification of opportunities for mediation, and setting of hearing dates.

Service of Notice of CMC

4There was no issue with service of the Notice of this CMC, and as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service, which was marked as Exhibit 1.

Party and Participant Status

5The Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party or Participant Status.

Mediation and Settlement

6The Tribunal canvassed the Parties regarding whether the appeals would be appropriate for mediation and reminded the Parties that Tribunal-led mediation was available if that would be of assistance.

7Mr. Donnelly, counsel for the Appellant, acknowledged the benefits of mediation and advised the Tribunal that the Appellant was interested in mediation and that he had spoken with Mr. Snider, counsel for the Applicant.

8Mr. Snider agreed and was going to seek instructions from the Applicant following the CMC regarding mediation. Mr. Stavrakos, counsel for the Town, noted that he had not spoken to the Town about meditation as yet, but that he anticipated they would be supportive.

Procedural Order

9In advance of the CMC, the Applicant provided the Tribunal with a draft PO which had been circulated amongst the Parties.

10Prior to the CMC, Messrs. Snider and Donnelly had discussions regarding the timing of exchange of expert statements. Mr. Snider raised concern about the timing, particularly with respect to experts in the field of traffic, which may require a more technical response. Mr. Snider was proposing 60 – 90 days. Mr. Donnelly responded that he agrees that additional time may be necessary for a technical response and would accept extending the deadline to 60 days, but was not in agreement with 90 days. Mr. Stavrakos had no concerns with the extension of the timeline.

11Mr. Donnelly advised the Tribunal that the PO that was circulated was slightly different than the Tribunal’s form which is available on the Tribunal’s website. Mr. Snider felt that the differences were minor and that they could amend the PO accordingly.

12The Tribunal noted that a date for an expert’s meeting in paragraph 10 of the PO had been omitted. The Tribunal directed the Parties to include a firm date in the revised PO that would be filed with the Tribunal.

13Mr. Snider was tasked with circulating the revised PO to the Parties incorporating the changes discussed at the CMC and populating relevant dates. Mr. Snider agreed to file the revised PO with the Tribunal on or before April 8, 2022.

Issues List

14Mr. Snider advised the Tribunal that he has not had a chance to review the Issues List that was circulated by the Appellant the afternoon prior to the CMC. Mr. Snider noted that they had been requesting an Issues List from the Appellant for a number of months. He advised that he would require time to review and discuss with the Applicant and the Applicant’s experts.

15Mr. Snider did note that there may be some dispute as to the relevance of some of the issues and suggested scheduling a further CMC to deal with any disputed issues that the Parties cannot resolve. The Tribunal suggested that resolution of any outstanding issues could be resolved by way of written submissions and Mr. Snider agreed.

16Mr. Stavrakos also noted that he only received the Issues List one day prior to the CMC and had not had a chance to review. He noted that attempting to resolve the issues at the CMC would not be productive, as he has not had a chance to evaluate the Issues List. He noted that written submissions to resolve any disputed issues would be appropriate.

17Mr. Donnelly agreed that any outstanding disputed issues could be resolved through written submissions to the Tribunal.

18The Tribunal directed as follows:

a. Messrs. Snider and Stavrakos provide comments on the Issues List to Mr. Donnelly on or before March 29, 2022.

b. Mr. Donnelly provide a response to Messrs. Snider and Stavrakos on or before April 4, 2022.

c. The Parties will either:

i. Attach an agreed upon Issues List to the revised PO and file with the Tribunal for review and approval on or before April 8, 2022, or

ii. Advise the Tribunal that the Parties are unable to resolve the Issues List and request direction with respect to written submissions.

19The Parties were unable to resolve the Issues List and provided the Tribunal with written submissions relating to 3 disputed issues.

Disputed Issues

20The Applicant requests that the 3 disputed issues relating to inconsistency and non-conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) and the Region of Halton Official Plan (“RHOP”) be excluded from the Issues List. The Applicant submits that where there is no reference to, or concern raised, in the notice of appeal with respect to consistency or conformity with the PPS, the Growth Plan or the RHOP, then they cannot become part of the Issues List to be adjudicated at the merit hearing. The Applicant cited various sections of the Planning Act (“Act”) in support of its position and brought the Tribunal’s attention to Brampton Areas 52, 53, Landowners Group Inc. v. Brampton (City), [2019] LNONLPAT 906. The basis for an appeal must be known and the Appellant failed to meet the tests set out in the Act to raise consistency and conformity after the notice of appeal has been filed.

21The Town did not file submissions with respect to the disputed issues, but did notify the Tribunal that they support the position of the Applicant.

22The Appellant requests that the 3 disputed issues be included on the Issues List and submitted that the Tribunal has complete discretion under the Act to allow its request. The Appellant submits that the disputed issues relate to matters and grounds raised in the Notice of Appeal. The Appellant acknowledges that the PPS, the Growth Plan and the RHOP were not explicitly named in the Notice of Appeal. However, it contends that many of the listed grounds in the Notice of Appeal relate either directly or explicitly to the provincial plans and the PPS. The Appellant cited various sections of the Act, the PPS and brought the Tribunal’s attention to Morrow v. Ottawa (City), 2019 CanLII 32415 (ON LPAT). The Appellant contends that the Applicant has had fair notice of the 3 disputed issues, will not suffer any prejudice if the issues are included and that the inclusion of the issues will not affect the length of the hearing.

23The Tribunal agrees with the submissions of the Applicant. The fact that the Appellant has ample notice of the 3 issues and including them on the Issues List will not affect the length of the hearing is not persuasive. It would be unfair to allow the Appellant to add additional grounds to the appeal after the notice has been filed, even if the notice made passing reference to the matters. In this case, the Notice of Appeal does not contain any references to conformity and consistency with the PPS, the Growth Plan or the RHOP. The Tribunal will not allow the disputed issues to be included in the Issues List. The Issues List attached as Attachment 2 is hereby approved.

Hearing Dates

24The Tribunal understands that the Applicant is anxious to set hearing dates and canvassed the Parties regarding the number of witnesses and experts each intended to call at the hearing and the number of days that the Parties were proposing.

25Based on the discussion during the CMC, the Parties indicated that in total they would be calling between 6 – 10 witnesses. The Parties requested, and the Tribunal agreed, that it would be reasonable to schedule the hearing for 8 days.

ORDER

26The Tribunal directs that the Applicant provide a revised Procedural Order to the Tribunal on or before April 8, 2022.

27The Tribunal directs that the Applicant and the Town provide their comments on the Issues List to the Appellant on or before March 29, 2022.

28The Tribunal directs that the Appellant provide responses to the comments on the Issues List to the Applicant and the Town on or before April 4, 2022.

29The Tribunal directs that on or before April 8, 2022, the Parties either:

a. provide the Tribunal with a revised Issues List which has been attached to the Procedural Order referred to in paragraph 13 above; or

b. if the Parties are unable to resolve any dispute on the Issues List, the Parties will provide the Tribunal with an update on their progress or a request for assistance.

30The Tribunal directs that the 3 disputed issues will not be included on the Issues List.

31The Tribunal is in receipt of the revised Procedural Order and Issues List and the Tribunal Orders that the Procedural Order and Issues List attached hereto as Attachment 1 and 2 respectively are in full force and effect.

32The Tribunal orders that the hearing in this matter will be held by video hearing on Monday, October 24, 2022 commencing at 10 a.m. Eight days have been set aside.

https://meet.goto.com/709076365

Access Code: 709-076-365

33Parties are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.

34Parties and 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

35Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.

36Individuals 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 video hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

37There will be no further notice.

38This Member is not seized.

“C. Hardy”

c. hardy

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.

OLT-21-001210 – Attachment 1

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd.

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 64

Municipality: Town of Milton

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001210

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001210

OLT Case Name: Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd. v. Milton (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd.

Subject: By-law No. 053-2021

Municipality: Town of Milton

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001211

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001210

Procedural Order

1. 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

2. The video hearing will begin on Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10 a.m. Parties are directed to the following link to access the video hearing:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/709076365

Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373

Access Code: 709-076-365

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 8 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 procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits it, and a party who asks for changes to this list may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 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.

7. 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 such person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and phone number as soon as possible.

8. 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Video-Hearing-Guide-1.html).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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, June 24, 2022 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.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, July 8, 2022 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 Coordinator on or before Tuesday, October 11, 2022.

11. 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, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and Curriculum Vitae. 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.

12. 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.

13. On or before Thursday, August 25, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT Case Coordinator in accordance with paragraph 22 below. On or before Monday, July 25, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of any expert witness statement in the field of traffic/transportation to the other parties and to the case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before Thursday, August 25, 2022, 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.

15. On or before Tuesday, October 11, 2022, 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.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT Case Coordinator a written response to any written evidence within thirty days (30) after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT Case Coordinator a written response to any traffic/transportation written evidence within sixty days (60) after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

17. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT Case Coordinator on or before Tuesday, October 11, 2022.

18. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT Case Coordinator, on or before Monday, October 24, 2022.

19. 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).

20. 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.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, October 14, 2022 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 any 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.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically. The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of the materials. 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.

23. 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.

24. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Friday, June 24, 2022

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

Friday, July 8, 2022

Meeting of Expert Witnesses

Monday, July 25, 2022

Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports related to traffic/transportation

Thursday, August 25, 2022

Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements (except traffic/transportation)

Friday, September 23, 2022

Exchange of Reply Statements (if any)

Tuesday, October 11, 2022

Exchange of visual evidence (if any), Joint Document Book (with 1 hard copy to Tribunal) and Agreed Statement of Facts filed with the Tribunal (if agreement)

Friday, October 14, 2022

Hearing Plan

Monday, October 24, 2022

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

list of parties and participants

PARTIES

COUNSEL

Town of Milton (Approval Authority)

O’Connor MacLeod Hanna LLP 700 Kerr Street Oakville, ON L6K 3W5 Konstantine Stavrakos Email: stavrakos@omh.ca Tel: (905) 842-8030 ext.3361

Our Milton- Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd. (Appellant)

Donnelly Law 276 Carlaw Avenue, Suite 203 Toronto, ON M4M 3L1 David Donnelly Email: david@donnellylaw.ca Tel: (416) 572-0464

Vue Developments on Main (Applicant)

Turkstra Mazza 15 Bold Street Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3 Scott Snider Email: ssnider@tmalaw.ca Tel: (905) 529-3476 Shelley Kaufman Email: skaufman@tmalaw.ca Tel: (905) 529-3476

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List is intended to provide notice to all parties that a party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgement of relevancy to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

[Issues to be inserted]

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Town of Milton (planning overview only)

2. Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd.

3. Vue Developments On Main

4. Town of Milton

5. Our Milton – Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd. (in reply, if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

Meaning of Terms used in the Procedural Order

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;

• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;

• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;

• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or

• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

OLT-21-001210 – Attachment 2

Issue List

Our Milton - Miltonians for Sensible Development Ltd.

1. Does approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications have regard to the following matters of provincial interest in section 2 of the Planning Act: sections 2(h), 2(n), 2(p) and 2(r)?

2. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment in conformity with the following policy sections of the Town of Milton Official Plan:

• Policy Section 2.1.3.2 (Municipal Structure and Community Context, Urban Area);

• Policy Section 2.1.6.3 and 2.1.6.5 (Intensification);

• Policy Section 2.6.3.7, 2.6.3.8 and 2.3.6.9 (Roads);

• Policy Section 2.6.3.12 to 2.6.3.14 (Travel Demand Management)

• Policy Section 2.3.15 (Public and Private Parking);

• Policy Section 2.7.3.15 (Residential Intensification);

• Policy Section 2.8.3 (2.8.3.3, 2.8.3.8, 2.8.3.9, 2.8.3.10, 2.8.3.19, 2.8.3.39, 2.8.3.40) (Urban Design);

• Policy Section 3.5.3 (3.5.3.7, 3.5.3.8, 3.5.3.9, 3.5.3.15, 3.5.3.36, 3.5.3.46) (Central Business District);

• Policy 3.5.3.18 (Downtown Supportive Area).

3. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for the following matters in the Town of Milton Tall Building Design Guidelines:

• Section 1.4 (Guiding Principles)

• Section 2.1 (Podium Design)

• Section 2.2 (Tower Design)

• Section 2.4 (Public and Private Open Space)

4. Do the Town of Milton Mid-rise Building Design Guidelines apply? If so, do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard for the following matters in the Town of Milton Mid-Rise Building Design Guidelines:

• Section 1.4 (Guiding Principles)

• Section 2.1 (Street Interface)

• Section 2.3 (Open Space and Parking)

5. Is the proposed reduction in off-street parking requirements for residential uses appropriate for the development of site?

6. Is it appropriate for the off-street parking facilities to be shared between the commercial uses and visitor parking for residential uses?

7. Are road widenings and road improvements required to accommodate the proposed development including improvements to Bronte St., Main St. and other streets in the area?

8. To the extent relevant to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, are the locations of the points of egress/ingress appropriate?

9. Will the proposed development permitted by the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments result in “cut-through” traffic affecting the surrounding neighbourhood?

10. Do the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments authorize an appropriate level of height, density and intensification for the subject lands?

11. To the extent relevant to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, does the proposed development provide for an appropriate streetscape?

12. Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate amount of amenity area?

13. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment sufficiently regulate matters of built form including height, density, massing, scale, setbacks, lot coverage and landscaping having regard for the site, adjacent properties and the character of the surrounding lands?

14. Are the traffic issues being addresses at the existing “F” rated intersection at Main Street and Bronte Street?

15. Does the proposed development address the Crash Wall requested by CN?

16. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?