Milton Intensification Strategy Final Report. Given these requirements, the intent of the Milton Intensification Strategy is to implement the Province’s and the Region of ’s intensification

Milton Intensification Strategy Final Report

McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION

January 27, 2010

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 8 2.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY CONTEXT .................................................................... 12 3.0 REGIONAL POLICY CONTEXT ....................................................................... 17 4.0 MILTON’S CURRENT OFFICIAL PLAN, TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND THE OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW ................................................................. 21

4.1 The Current Official Plan ....................................................................... 21 4.2 Transit-Oriented Development (Nodes and Corridors) ...................................... 22

4.2.1 Overview ..................................................................................... 22 4.2.2 Location of Nodes and Corridors .......................................................... 22 4.2.3 The Implications of Including Nodes and Corridors in the Official Plan Review ... 23

4.3 Current Official Plan Review ................................................................... 25 5.0 MILTON’S INTENSIFICATION AREAS ............................................................... 33

5.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 33 5.2 The Urban Growth Centre ..................................................................... 33

5.2.1 Current Land Use ........................................................................... 33 5.2.2 Current Land Use Planning Framework .................................................. 37 5.2.3 Factors to Consider in Developing a Land Use Vision for the UGC ................... 37 5.2.4 Recommended Long Term Land Use Vision .............................................. 40 5.2.5 Infrastructure Implications ................................................................ 42

5.3 THE Downtown Core ............................................................................. 54 5.3.1 What Makes a Downtown Successful? .................................................... 54 5.3.2 Current Land Use ........................................................................... 55 5.3.3 Factors to Consider in Developing an Intensification Vision for Milton’s Historic Core .................................................................. 57 5.3.4 An Intensification Vision for Milton’s Historic Core .................................... 57 5.3.5 Public Realm ................................................................................. 59 5.3.6 Implications on Official Plan .............................................................. 61 5.3.7 Character Areas ............................................................................. 61

5.4 Other Intensification Areas ..................................................................... 62 5.4.1 Description ................................................................................... 62 5.4.2 Factors to Consider in Developing a Vision for Other Intensification Areas ........ 76

6.0 OFFICIAL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 78 6.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 78 6.2 Summary of Recommended Policies ........................................................... 80

7.0 ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 88 7.1 Potential Zoning Approaches ................................................................... 88 7.2 Pre-Zoning ........................................................................................ 91 7.3 Industrial Uses in the UGC ...................................................................... 93 7.4 Zoning of Lands on north side of Main Street in the UGC .................................. 93 7.5 Zoning of Other Select Areas in the UGC ..................................................... 95

7.5.1 Nipissing Road ............................................................................... 95 7.5.2 Allendale Facility Lands .................................................................... 97 7.5.3 Lands and Southeast Corner of Main and Thompson ................................... 97 7.5.4 Area Within the Triangle ................................................................... 98

7.6 Zoning of lands outside of the UGC and CBD................................................. 98 8.0 SUMMARY OF FURTHER WORK REQUIRED ........................................................ 99

FIGURES Figure 1: Location of Built Boundary in Milton Figure 2: Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Figure 3: Location of Milton Urban Growth Centre Figure 4: Height Permissions in the Central Business District Secondary Plan Figure 5: Location of Nodes and Corridors from 2006 TOD Study Figure 6: Location of Bristol and Sherwood Survey Secondary Plan Areas Figure 7: Location of Major Transit Station and 500 metre Radius Figure 8: Proposed Maximum Building Heights in the UGC Figure 9: Theoretical view looking north from the GO station toward Main Street, 25

years from now. Figure 10: Theoretical view looking west along Main Street from Thompson Road, 25 years

from now. Figure 11: Illustration of Transition Between UGC and Low Density Neighbourhoods Figure 12: Planned Road Improvements in Milton Figure 13: Illustration Showing Potential Relationship Between Existing and New Buildings

on Main Street Figure 14: Implications of Staggered Setbacks for Upper Storeys on Main Street Figure 15: Potential Intensification Areas in the Urban Area outside of the UGC Figure 16: Zoning Schedule A, Town of Milton Zoning By-law 144-2003 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Water Servicing in the UGC Appendix 2: Wastewater Servicing in the UGC Appendix 3: Recommended Official Plan Policy Framework

Milton Intensification Strategy 4 Final Report January 27, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE MILTON INTENSIFICATION STRATEGY

WHY THE NEED FOR A STRATEGY

1. “Intensification” is defined by the Province as the:

“development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists through:

• redevelopment, including the reuse of brownfield sites; • the development of vacant and/or underutilized lots within previously developed

areas; • infill development; and, • the expansion or conversion of existing buildings.” (2005 PPS)

2. Both the Province and the Region of Halton require Milton to accommodate a portion

of future growth through intensification inside the already built-up area of Milton, rather than on Greenfield lands at the edge of the built up area. Between 2015 and 2031, Milton is required by the Region of Halton to accommodate at least 5,300 new residential units inside the existing built-up area.

3. The Region of Halton’s Official Plan Amendment's 37 and 38 (ROPA's 37 and 38) are intended to implement the Growth Plan and it provides for the addition of 182,000 people to the population of Milton between 2006 and 2031. About 14,000 of this additional population (7.7% of total) are expected to be accommodated within the built up area as intensification between 2015 and 2031 (5,300 dwelling units).

4. One of the more significant impacts of the Growth Plan in Milton is the identification of downtown Milton as an Urban Growth Centre (UGC). There are twenty-five UGC's within the Growth Plan area, three of which are in Halton: Midtown Oakville, Downtown Burlington and Downtown Milton.

5. The Growth Plan requires certain minimum gross densities in an UGC (minimum of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare). Given that the land area of the UGC is 115.3 hectares (net of lands within the floodplain - 15.3 hectares), this land area would be expected to support 23,060 residents and jobs. It is estimated that there are 7,300 residents and jobs in the UGC in 2009, which means that as a minimum, 15,760 new residents and jobs are to be planned for in the UGC.

6. The policies of the Growth Plan indicate that the number of dwelling units allocated as intensification to the Town is intended to function as a minimum target. This means that the amount of intensification that could occur in the built-up area can exceed the minimum target established by ROPA 128.

7. Given these requirements, the intent of the Milton Intensification Strategy is to implement the Province’s and the Region of Halton’s intensification requirements in a manner that is consistent with the already well - articulated growth and development


strategy in the existing Official Plan that sets the stage for where and how growth will occur in Milton in the future.

8. To a very large extent, the existing Milton Official Plan already implements the Province's requirements since it already permits a significant amount of development in a number of centres and corridors.

9. For example, the area that is now identified as the Urban Growth Centre lies mostly within the current OP's Central Business District Secondary Plan Area, which currently permits building heights ranging from 4 to 7 storeys and allows for a variety of land uses including residential, commercial and mixed use. The current height limits have the theoretical potential to increase the number of residents and jobs in the UGC by 16,252 beyond the 7,300 residents and jobs that currently exist in the UGC. However, this theoretical capacity is likely not achievable since large areas of the UGC are designated primarily for commercial and employment uses, and a large number of 4-7 storey commercial buildings in the UGC is unlikely. Also, the fact that very limited residential development can occur in the UGC in accordance with the existing Official Plan means that the 5,300 residential intensification units allocated to Milton by the Region of Halton cannot be currently accommodated in the UGC. As a result, some changes to the Official Plan are required.

10. In addition, there is now a need for more certainty in the Official Plan on the form and type of intensification to be permitted and to clearly articulate where intensification is not expected or desired. The distribution and location of future intensification also has to take into account the current land use context, the nature of adjacent land uses and the potential for creating vibrant, livable and appealing urban neighbourhoods.

11. There also a need for rules. The rules that are established have to be clear, reflect the current land use context and provide the basis for the development of viable projects that optimize and take advantage of existing infrastructure wherever possible.

12. While the Town is expected to accommodate a significant proportion of future growth through intensification, it can only plan for it. For significant intensification to occur in Milton, there is a need for much more than just supporting land use policies. In the Milton context, there is also a need for a servicing strategy that provides the basis for intensification particularly in areas where significant growth will occur, such as the UGC. Such a strategy has to be developed by the Region in consultation with the Town and has to include a financial component that provides the basis for economically viable intensification projects.

THE WHERE

13. Intensification is not a new land use idea – it has already been occurring in Milton for years. The challenge now is to update the existing policy framework to ensure that the “right forms” of intensification to occur in the “right locations”.

14. The existing Official Plan already encourages intensification within a number of areas in the Town, subject to criteria. Many of the existing permissions contained within the Official Plan and implementing Secondary Plans already provide for a considerable


amount of intensification in the form of medium and high-density development in buildings that are as high as 7 to 9 storeys.

15. On the basis of an analysis of Milton's urban structure and the ROPA 38 policy framework, the majority of the expected intensification is to be allocated to the UGC. In addition, some intensification is to be directed to a number of existing sites along major roads in the Town. Given the strong character and rich history of the Town's historic core, and the presence of a floodplain in the core area, only a limited amount of intensification is expected in the historic core.

16. With respect to the Urban Growth Centre itself, the long-term potential for the Urban Growth Centre also has to be considered. Given that there are significant servicing constraints to overcome and the recent age of many of the newer commercial uses in the Urban Growth Centre, the likelihood of a significant amount of development occurring in the Urban Growth Centre in the next 10 to 15 years is not very likely. In addition, there are a number of viable industrial uses located on the north side of Main Street and to the south of the CP Rail line that are likely to remain as well for a number of years, thereby limiting the amount of development and redevelopment that could occur in these areas.

17. On this basis, as it is expected that the Town of Milton will continue to grow beyond 2031, there is also a need to consider what type and form of development should occur over the long-term, which means beyond 2031. Given the size of the Urban Growth Centre, and the significant potential in parts of it as a result of its location some distance away from low density residential neighbourhoods, it is our opinion that the potential is there for development to occur over the long term that would ultimately result in the minimum target of 200 persons and jobs per hectare being exceeded. On this basis, in considering the future of the Urban Growth Centre, we have assumed that the minimum density target over the long term (25+ years) should be at least 250 persons and jobs per hectare and we have developed a design and built form plan that is intended to implement that minimum target.

WHAT SHOULD THE 'RULES' BE?

18. At the present time, there are criteria in the Official Plan to assist the Town in considering intensification proposals. However, while these general criteria are appropriate, they are not specific enough and it is recommended that this section be replaced with a more refined and complete set of rules that would be applied to each intensification proposal:

a. Height limits should be set below an appropriate angular plane that allows for sunlight penetration to neighbouring properties, with the angular plane measured from property boundaries at the rear or side of buildings as appropriate and from the centre line of streets.

b. Towers should be slender and oriented in a north-south direction to minimize

shadowing. c. Taller buildings that are five storeys or higher shall generally only be permitted

on arterial or collector roads and shall be buffered from adjacent low density


development by open space, roads and/or lower density development with a lower height profile.

d. The height of buildings should have a proportional relationship to the street

right-of-way in order to create a well-defined character for the street. e. Towers should be set back on a podium base that frames the street and creates

a well-defined street wall in a consistent manner, creating a pleasant, lively and pedestrian friendly street frontage.

f. Buildings should be sited and massed in a manner that creates landscaped

courtyards or other open spaces that are usable by the building’s residents. g. Improvements to the streetscape, such as soft landscaping, lighting fixtures,

benches and public art, should be part of the overall project design. h. Open space and walkway systems should be integrated with residential areas

and to other activity areas in the community including schools, parks, commercial centres and institutions with convenient and attractive linkages to encourage walking and cycling.

i. The design of new buildings should achieve a complementary design

relationship to existing buildings, while accommodating a diversity of architectural styles, building materials and colours that provide visual variety and interest.

j. Parking for the building’s residents shall be sited in a manner that does not

dominate the streetscape (e.g. utilize rear, side, underground or above-ground parking).

k. Smaller architectural elements and features on the street frontage should be

used to create a more human scale and to “break-up” the visual impact of buildings.

l. Buildings should be articulated and fenestrated in a fashion that breaks down

large-scale building mass and avoids large expanses of blank walls. 19. The Town does have a role to play in encouraging intensification in the right places –

the Town now has to be more proactive in this regard. This will include the preparation and/or updating of Community Improvement Plans, the pre-zoning of land for intensification projects and the consideration of reduced fees and charges for eligible projects. However, given servicing constraints in some areas, the Region has to also be much more proactive as well, with support from the Province in the form of financial assistance and new regulatory and planning tools.


1.0 INTRODUCTION

“Intensification” is defined as the:

“development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists through: a) redevelopment, including the reuse of brownfield sites; b) the development of vacant and/or underutilized lots within previously

developed areas; c) infill development; and, d) the expansion or conversion of existing buildings.” (2005 PPS)

Both the Province and the Region of Halton require Milton to accommodate a portion of future growth through intensification inside the already built-up area of Milton, rather than on Greenfield lands at the edge of the built up area. Milton's existing built-up area has been delineated by the Province and is shown on Figure 1. Between 2015 and 2031, Milton is required by the Region of Halton to accommodate at least 5,300 new residential units inside the existing built-up area shown on Figure 1. As the Greenfield land supply becomes more limited generally in the Greater Toronto Area and the number of proposals for higher density residential development increase in Milton, the Town requires a clearly articulated intensification strategy to ensure the 'right' type of intensification occurs in the ‘right’ places and results in the development of a sustainable and complete community. In order to implement both the Growth Plan and the Region’s Sustainable Halton initiative, and to provide direction on appropriate intensification to the development industry, the Town needs a strategy that balances policy imperatives with community needs. While intensification has already been occurring in Milton, there is an expectation that the rate of intensification in the Town will increase as the Town's population increases and the demand for alternative forms of housing increase. It is also expected that improved transit services, changing demographics and land economics and the establishment of additional employment in Milton and the establishment of a new post-secondary institution in the Town will make intensification a more attractive prospect for developers.


Figure 1: Location of Built Boundary in Milton


The arguments typically in favour of intensification are that new development in built up areas will allow for the optimization of existing infrastructure and the more efficient and economical provision of services. The creation of diverse communities with a range of uses and opportunities also occurs when the number of people and jobs increases in built up areas. Yet there are also arguments against intensification: increased traffic and density in defined areas can alter neighbourhood character, affect the stability of established communities, and over-stretch the capacity of existing infrastructure and facilities. On this basis, there is a need for a balanced perspective that focuses intensification in areas that are the most ideally suited. There is also another perspective to consider, and one that is not unique to Milton - the lack of appropriate infrastructure for intensification and the absence of financial tools to remedy the issue. Given that significant upgrades to the sewer and water infrastructure are required to support development in the Town's Urban Growth Centre, where the majority of the expected intensification will occur, overcoming this constraint will be a key component in the long term intensification strategy. Meridian Planning Consultants, planningAlliance and a team of other consultants was retained in mid - 2009 to complete an Intensification Strategy for the Town of Milton. The intent of the work program undertaken was to: 1. Identify appropriate Intensification Areas and areas where intensification was not

appropriate;

2. Recommend a policy framework that focuses intensification in Intensification Areas;

3. Recommend what the appropriate type and scale of development should be in each Intensification Area; and,

4. Establish minimum density targets for each Intensification Area based on good planning principles.


The product of this work is this report, which has been divided into the following sections: Section 1.0 - Introduction Section 2.0 - Provincial Policy Context Section 3.0 - Regional Policy Context Section 4.0 - Current Official Plan, Transit Oriented Development and Official Plan Review Section 5.0 - Milton’s Intensification Areas Section 6.0 - Official Plan Recommendations Section 7.0 – Zoning Recommendations Section 8.0 – Summary of Further Work Required


2.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY CONTEXT

Increasing the amount of development within an already urbanized area has become a prevalent theme in planning reform in Ontario. Intensification was an “encouraged” form of development in the 1996 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS):

“Provision will be made in all planning jurisdictions for a full range of housing types and densities to meet projected demographic and market requirements of current and future residents of the housing market area by…encouraging all forms of residential intensification in parts of built-up areas that have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure to create a potential supply of new housing units available from residential intensification” (PPS 1996, Section 1.2.1.4).

With the release of the PPS (2005), the concept of intensification was expanded to now become a required component of municipal planning programs:

“Planning authorities shall identify and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs” (PPS (2005), Section 1.1.3.3). “Planning authorities shall establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas. However, where provincial targets are established through provincial plans, the provincial target shall represent the minimum target for affected areas” (PPS (2005), Section 1.1.3.5). “Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by: e) establishing development standards for residential intensification,

redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety” (PPS (2005), Section 1.4.3(e)).

“Intensification” itself is also defined in the 2005 PPS as:

“…the development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists through: a) redevelopment, including the reuse of brownfield sites; b) the development of vacant and/or underutilized lots within

previously developed areas; c) infill development; and


d) the expansion or conversion of existing buildings” (PPS (2005), Section 6.0).

Clearly, the Province is expecting municipalities to place greater emphasis on promoting intensification in urban areas across Ontario. In the GTA, this policy requirement is translated in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe into a general target for upper-tier municipalities to meet:

“By the year 2015 and for each year thereafter, a minimum of 40 per cent of all residential development occurring annually within each upper-tier municipality will be within the built-up area” (Growth Plan, Section 2.2.3.1).

The Town's Intensification Strategy is intended to implement Section 2.3.2.6 of the Province’s Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe, which states:

"All municipalities will develop and implement through their Official Plans and other supporting documents, a strategy and policies to phase in and achieve intensification and the intensification target. This strategy and policies will: a) be based on the growth forecasts in Schedule 3, as allocated to lower-

tier municipalities in accordance with policy 5.4.2.2; b) encourage intensification generally throughout the built-up area; c) identify Intensification Areas to support achievement of the

intensification target; d) incorporate the built boundary delineated in accordance with Policy

2.2.3.5; e) recognize urban growth centres, intensification corridors and major

transit station areas as a key focus for development to accommodate intensification;

f) facilitate and promote intensification; g) identify the appropriate type and scale of development in

Intensification Areas; h) include density targets for urban growth centres where applicable,

and minimum density targets for other Intensification Areas consistent with the planned transit service levels, and any transit-supportive land-use guidelines established by the Government of Ontario;

i) plan for a range and mix of housing, taking into account affordable housing needs; and,

j) encourage the creation of secondary suites throughout the built-up area”.

One of the more significant items in the Growth Plan changes proposed for the Official Plan is the identification of downtown Milton as an Urban Growth Centre (UGC). There are twenty-five UGC's within the Growth Plan area, three of which are in Halton: Midtown Oakville, Downtown Burlington and Downtown Milton. Figure 2 shows where these Urban Growth Centres are located.


Figure 2: Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe


UGCs are defined in the Growth Plan as areas that will be planned: a) as focal areas for investment in institutional and region-wide public services, as well

as commercial, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses;

b) to accommodate and support major transit infrastructure;

c) to serve as high density major employment centres that will attract provincially, nationally or internationally significant employment uses; and

d) to accommodate a significant share of population and employment growth.

Figure 3 shows the limits of the Milton Urban Growth Centre as determined by the Province. The UGC covers 136.8 hectares, stretching approximately from Martin Street in the west to Thompson Road in the east, and from just north of Main Street in the north, to Nipissing Road in the south. The Growth Plan also requires that the Town identify Major Transit Station Areas and Intensification Corridors in the Official Plan. Section 2.2.5 of the Growth Plan requires these areas to be planned for “densities that support and ensure the viability of existing and planned transit service levels” and “a mix of residential, office, institutional, and commercial development wherever appropriate.” The GO Station in the UGC is the only site in Milton that acts as a Major Transit Station Area. The Growth Plan also requires certain minimum gross densities in an UGC. For Milton, that figure is a minimum of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare (Section 2.2.4.5(b)). Given that the land area of the UGC is 136.8 hectares this land area would be expected to support 27,360 residents and jobs. It is noted that this minimum density requirement is not required on each parcel of land. If this were the case, every hectare of land would be required to support 10 to 15 storey residential buildings or multi-level office or commercial buildings. As a result, it is the intent of the Growth Plan that the density be achieved across the whole of the UGC. It is estimated that there are 7,300 residents and jobs in the UGC in 2009, which means that as a minimum, 20,060 new residents and jobs are to be planned for in the UGC by 2031. Given that the land area of the Urban Growth Centre, net of lands within the floodplain, is 115.3 hectares, the net land area would be expected to support 23,060 residents and jobs. As set out above, it is estimated that there are 7,300 residents and jobs in the UGC in 2009, which means that as a minimum 15,760 new residents and jobs are to be planned for in the UGC.


Figure 3: Location of Milton Urban Growth Centre


3.0 REGIONAL POLICY CONTEXT

The Region of Halton is currently going through a process of updating its Official Plan to being it into conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Council adopted the first component of the Regional Official Plan Update (ROPA 37) on June 24, 2009 and was approved by the Province on November 23, 2009. The intent of ROPA 37 was to implement the basic requirements of the Growth Plan. A further Amendment to the Official Plan (ROPA 38) was adopted by Regional Council on December 16, 2009. ROPA 37 included policies that established the basis for intensification targets and the allocation of population and employment. Section 38 f (5) of ROPA 37 requires the Town of Milton to “delineate and incorporate into their Official Plan the extent of their Urban Growth Centre.” Section 38 f (6) of ROPA 37 also requires local municipalities such as the Town of Milton to designate in their Official Plans major transit station areas and intensification corridors as per the Growth Plan. A number of Growth Plan definitions were also included within the Region of Halton Official Plan by ROPA 37. ROPA 38 is a comprehensive Amendment to the Official Plan that is intended to provide the basis for urban expansions in the Towns of Milton and Halton Hills. A number of other policies are also being updated as well (natural heritage, aggregate resources and agricultural). In the Region of Halton staff report on ROPA 38 LPS114-09, it is indicated “the Region must move from its traditional approach to development that is focused on the expansion into Greenfield areas to a new approach that balances Greenfield development with intensification and uses space and infrastructure more efficiently. New financial and planning tools, through amendments to Provincial legislation are required to assist the Region in implementing the Province’s vision of complete communities as enunciated through the policies of ROPA 38.” It is further indicated that “staff is of the opinion that changes to legislation including the Development Charges Act, the Municipal Act and the Planning Act will provide municipalities with the necessary tools to effect land use changes anticipated under the Growth Plan and supported by Council.” It is proposed by ROPA 38 that the population of Milton increase from 56,000 people in 2006 to 238,000 people in 2031. In addition, employment is anticipated to increase from 28,000 in 2006 to 114,000 in 2031 (according to Table 1). The effect of this forecast is that the Town of Milton is expected to accommodate about 56 percent of the forecasted population growth in the Region of Halton to 2031. This also means that the population of the Town is expected to increase four-fold in this time period. ROPA 38 also requires that a minimum of 5,300 new housing units be added to the built-up area in the Town of Milton between 2015 and 2031 (according to Table 2). A number of the Region of Halton Official Plan are proposed by ROPA 38 and in this regard there are many references within ROPA 38 to intensification and the encouragement of additional intensification within built-up areas. For example, Section 77 (2.1) directs a minimum of 40 percent of new residential development occurring annually within Halton in 2015 and every year thereafter to the built-up area. Policies are also proposed to provide for the monitoring of housing development in the Region to ensure that the targets are being met and to implement a strategy to address any significant intensification deficits which could include limiting Greenfield development if intensification targets are not being met.


Section 77(4) indicates that local municipalities are required to “demonstrate with sufficient details, through their respective Official Plans and Amendments thereof, how the targets and tables 1 and 2 can be achieved and maintained at all times.” Section 77(6) requires that local Official Plans should specify “development phasing strategies within the urban area, consistent with the policies of this Plan, giving priority to development of intensification areas, employment lands, infilling and completion of existing neighbourhoods and communities.” With respect to infrastructure, Section 77(12) indicates that the Region will prepare a joint infrastructure staging plan “as well as local and Regional development phasing strategies to ensure that infrastructure and human services to support development is planned and financing is secured in advance of need.” 77(13) then indicates that “once the staging plan is completed, the Region will seek funding assistance and coordination of their expenditures from the Federal and Provincial governments for the orderly and timely provision of infrastructure and human services”. Section 80 indicates that intensification areas in the Region of Halton context consists of Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station area (which generally consist of areas within a 500 metres of a major transit station), intensification corridors as identified in local Official Plans and mixed-use nodes as identified in local Official Plans. Major Transit Station areas are shown on Map 1 and the GO station in the Milton UGC is identified. Higher order transit corridors are shown on Map 3 and the one such corridor, which affects lands within the Town of Milton boundary, is the Bronte Road corridor that extends from Main Street in the Urban Growth Centre south to the Queen Elizabeth Way. Arterial roads are also shown on Map 3 and within the Built Boundary of the Town of Milton, Steeles Avenue, Derry Road, Bronte Road, Ontario Street and Thompson Road are identified as arterials. Section 81(2) requires local Official Plans to identify intensification areas with detailed boundaries. Section 81(3) requires local municipalities to prepare detailed Official Plan policies for intensification areas. Section 81(4) requires policies to provide for transportation network designed to integrate active transportation, local transit services and inter-municipal and inter-regional higher order transit services in intensification areas. Section 81(5) indicates that alternative design standards for arterial roads through intensification areas should be developed. Section 81(6) requires local municipalities to ensure the proper integration of intensification areas with surrounding neighbourhoods through pedestrian walkways, cycling paths and transit routes. Section 81(7) requires local municipalities to include Official Plan policies and adopt zoning by-laws to meet intensification objectives. Section 81(7) also indicates that minimum densities within intensification areas should be prescribed in Official Plans and zoning by-laws and that development densities can only be reduced in such areas at the time of a Municipal Comprehensive Review of the policies applying to the intensification area. Section 81(7.1) encourages municipalities to implement a Development Permit System in intensification areas. Section 81(7.2) indicates that local municipalities are required to “consider intensification and development of intensification areas as the highest priority of urban development within the Region and implement programs and incentives, including Community Improvement Plans under the Planning Act to promote and support intensification.” Section 81(7.3) further indicates that local municipalities are required to ensure that intensification areas are ‘development ready’ by making available at the earliest opportunity water, wastewater and transportation service capacity to support the


development densities prescribed for intensification areas. Section 81(8) encourages local municipalities to adopt parking standards that are specific to intensification areas and to consider planning approval, financial and other incentives to promote the development of intensification areas. A new section is proposed to be included within the Region of Halton Official Plan dealing with Urban Growth Centres. These policies require that the minimum development density of 200 residents and jobs combined per gross hectare be achieved by 2031 or earlier in Urban Growth Centres as per Section 81.3(1). It is also indicated in Policy Section 81.3(2) that local Official Plans are required to show how “the development density target for urban growth centres can be met.” Section 86(10) indicates that local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws are required to permit second residential units within an existing dwelling in residential neighbourhoods as of right, “provided that health, safety and other reasonable standards or criteria including parking and the adequacy of urban services are met.” Section 86(11) indicates that the intensification of land use for residential purposes such as infill, redevelopment and conversion of existing structures provided that the physical character of existing neighbourhoods can be maintained should be permitted. On the basis of the above review of ROPA 38, it is clear that the Region will be requiring local municipalities to update their Official Plans to specifically implement the directions contained within ROPA 38. In this regard, the Town of Milton will be required to update its Official Plan by: 1. Including the Table 2 Intensification target and demonstrate how it can be achieved

and maintained at all times;

2. Including policies that give priority to development within intensification areas;

3. Identifying Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station areas, Intensification Corridors and Mixed-Use Nodes in the Plan and on the Schedules to the Plan;

4. Identifying all intensification areas with firm boundaries on the Schedules to the Official Plan;

5. Including policies that provide for the integration of all modes of travel within the transportation network in the Town and promote development densities that will support existing and planned transit services;

6. Including policies that provide for alternative design standards for arterial roads within intensification areas;

7. Including policies that provide for the proper integration of intensification areas with surrounding neighbourhoods;

8. Including policies that prescribe minimum densities in intensification areas and which provide the basis for including minimum densities in implementing zoning by-laws;

9. Including Community Improvement Plan policies and preparing Community Improvement Plans which support intensification;


10. Including parking standards for intensification areas that promote the use of active transportation and public transit; and,

11. Permitting second suites and providing the basis for their permission in the implementing zoning by-law.


4.0 MILTON’S CURRENT OFFICIAL PLAN, TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND THE OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW

4.1 THE CURRENT OFFICIAL PLAN

The current Milton Official Plan (OP) was approved in 1997. The OP supports and encourages residential intensification as a means for meeting the Town’s future housing needs, however it is does not establish a specific intensification target. The Central Business District Secondary Plan does identify specific areas where intensification in the form of medium and higher density housing is directed (such as in the vicinity of the GO station). In addition, both the Bristol and Sherwood Secondary Plans identify nodes at certain intersections where medium density development is encouraged. While most of the lands that are subject to these two Secondary Plans are not within the Built Boundary, there are components that are, particularly in the Bristol Secondary Plan area. It is noted however that while the Bristol Secondary Plan does encourage medium density development in these locations, it does not require it, which means that some of these identified areas have been recently developed with low density housing to respond to market demand. The area that is now identified as the Urban Growth Centre lies mostly within the current OP's Central Business District Secondary Plan Area as discussed above. This area currently permits building heights ranging from 4 to 7 storeys and allows for a variety of land uses including residential, commercial and mixed use. Figure 4 shows the maximum heights permitted in the Central Business District. These maximum heights would theoretically provide for development that would accommodate approximately 23,562 residents and jobs, which is slightly higher than what is required by the Growth Plan and ROPA 38 with respect to the policies on minimum density. Figure 4: Height Permissions in the Central Business District Secondary Plan


The current height limits have the theoretical potential to increase the number of residents and jobs in the UGC by 16,252 beyond the 7,300 residents and jobs that currently exist in the UGC. However, this theoretical capacity is likely not achievable since large areas of the UGC are designated primarily for commercial and employment uses and a large number of 5-7 storey commercial buildings in the UGC is unlikely. Also, the fact that very limited residential development can occur in the UGC in accordance with the existing Official Plan means that the 5,300 intensification units allocated to Milton by the Region of Halton cannot be currently accommodated in the UGC. 4.2 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (NODES AND CORRIDORS)

4.2.1 Overview

On February 13, 2006, Council endorsed the findings of the Transit-Oriented Development Policy Review (through Report No. PD-017-16). Staff were directed to incorporate the Study into the Official Plan Review. Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a planning framework designed to integrate transit infrastructure with land use planning to maximize the investment in public transit by increasing the number of users in appropriate areas. Transit-oriented development encourages increased development density at key locations and transit stations (nodes), with complementary development encouraged along transit routes (corridors) that are walkable and do not necessarily require a vehicle trip to enjoy. The intended end result is an area within a municipality that is supported by a frequent, well-used transit network, reducing vehicle needs along that route. 4.2.2 Location of Nodes and Corridors

The TOD Study identifies Major and Minor Nodes and Corridors. Major Nodes are the GO Station Planning Area and the intersections of Ontario Street and Derry Road (in Built Boundary), Thompson Road/Third Line and Louis St. Laurent Boulevard (north side of Louis St. Laurent is in Built Boundary) and Bronte Street and Louis St. Laurent Boulevard (not in Built Boundary). Minor Nodes include the intersections of Bronte Street and Derry Road (northwest, northeast and southeast corners are in Built Boundary), Third Line and Derry Road (in Built Boundary) and James Snow Parkway and Derry Road (not in Built Boundary). Additional Minor Nodes are Main Street and Ontario Street (now in UGC) and Steeles Avenue at Martin Street (in Built Boundary). “Corridors” are additionally identified along portions of Main Street, Derry Road, Bronte Street, Ontario Street, Thompson Road, James Snow Parkway and Louis St. Laurent Boulevard. Figure 5 (Figure 4 from the Transit-Oriented Development Policy Review Study) identifies each of these Nodes and Corridors.


Figure 5: Location of Nodes and Corridors from 2006 TOD Study

4.2.3 The Implications of Including Nodes and Corridors in the Official Plan Review

At the present time, the Major Nodes described above are already incorporated within the Official Plan (with the exception of the GO Station Node) and designated as Secondary Mixed Use Nodes. The two nodes on Louis St. Laurent Blvd. have a radius of about 500 metres. The node on Derry Road has a shape that reflects the location of a valley system and existing development and has a radius that is less than 500 metres. As a result, the location of the Major Nodes is already reflected in the existing Official Plan. The Minor Nodes at the Bronte, Third Line and James Snow Parkway intersections are already identified on the schedules as Local Commercial Areas or Residential Office Areas. The Minor Node at the Martin Street and Steeles Avenue is designated Employment Area and Institutional. None of the proposed Corridors are shown on the existing Official Plan. While the Nodes and Corridors identified in the TOD study can be incorporated within the Official Plan, the effect of the change may be minimal, given the nature of the existing land use and the policy framework that currently applies to the Nodes and Corridors in the Bristol Survey and Sherwood Survey Secondary Plan areas. Figure 6 is a draft map from the proposed Official Plan that shows where the Bristol and Sherwood Survey Secondary Plan areas are located (it is noted that only portions of the Bristol Survey are within the Built Boundary and that very limited lands on the south side of Derry Road in the Sherwood Survey are within the Built Boundary).


Figure 6: Location of Bristol and Sherwood Survey Secondary Plan Areas

At the present time, the policies in the existing Official Plan applying to Secondary Mixed Use Nodes (the Major Nodes identified in the TOD Study) do permit a ‘full range of high density residential uses’, with no minimum density specified. However, Section C.6.5.5, which deals with the node at Thompson and Louis St. Laurent and Section C.8.5.5, which deals with the node at Bronte and Louis St. Laurent only permit medium density residential uses. Low density residential uses are also permitted at the Thompson/Louis St Laurent node subject to criteria. Within the Residential/Office designations along Derry Road (the Minor Nodes identified in the TOD Study), it is stated in Section 3.3.2 that the minimum density is 70 units per net hectare and the maximum density is 100 units per net hectare. However, medium density uses are also permitted, provided the minimum density is 20 units per net hectare. In addition, Section C.8.5.1.1 of the Sherwood Survey Secondary Plan encourages, but does not require, medium density uses along arterial roads (some of which may be Corridors), provided the minimum density is 35 units per net hectare to a maximum of 70 units per net hectare. A similar policy exists in the Bristol Survey Secondary Plan, however, there is no minimum density requirement. In both cases, the maximum permitted height is four storeys. Lastly, it is noted that Sections C.6.5.3.2 and C.8.5.3.2 do require a minimum density of 70 units per net hectare for high density residential uses in Neighbourhood Centre areas in the Bristol Survey and Sherwood Survey Secondary Plan areas. However, these areas have not been identified as nodes or corridors in the TOD study. On the basis of the above, all of the Nodes and Corridors in the Sherwood Survey and Bristol Survey Secondary Plan areas are subject to policies that generally permit medium and in some cases, low density residential development (with a few exceptions). In addition, high density residential development is not permitted within any of the existing nodes (outside of the UGC).


It is as a result of the existing policy framework that it is indicated in the TOD Report that opportunities to develop the recommended nodes and corridors in the Bristol Secondary Plan Area are limited, since development has progressed considerably since the Secondary Plan was approved. In addition, it is noted that in the case of the Sherwood Secondary Plan, opportunities for significant development within potential nodes and corridors are also limited for a variety of reasons. As a result, it is suggested in the TOD report that the greatest potential for development in accordance with TOD principles would be in the Phase 3 Secondary Plan Area, which extends to the south of Louis St. Laurent Blvd. to Britannia Road (and which is outside of the Built Boundary). The other area outside of the two Secondary Plans is the Minor Node at the intersection of Martin and Steeles, which is currently the site of primarily commercial uses and an Ontario Provincial Police station. In addition to the above, specific policy recommendations made in the TOD Study include: • Amending the Plan to require any rezoning that reduces development density on a site

to be supported by evidence that demonstrates the lack of a market for development originally anticipated by the Plan;

• Amending the phasing and financing policies of the Plan to permit the Town to develop a program supporting transit-supportive projects;

• Creating new policies supporting reductions in standards in areas where transit-supportive development is proposed (for example, reduced parking requirements, use of the 5% parkland standard or waived or deferred taxes or development charges);

• Creating phasing policies that give preference to transit-supportive developments, including policies that link development to the provision of transit and/or transit infrastructure;

• Recognizing and providing for medium and high density developments within Plans of Subdivision; and,

• Allowing development bonuses for including transit-supportive facilities in developments, such as underground parking and transit access amenities.

With respect to the first recommendation above, it is noted that Section 81(7) (c) of ROPA 38, as adopted by Council on December 16, 2009 requires local municipalities to:

“Prohibit site specific Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendments to reduce development density within an intensification area unless it is part of a Municipal comprehensive review of the Official Plan or a review of the area specific plan for the intensification area.”

Given the above policy in ROPA 38, the Town’s Official Plan will also be required to contain a similar policy. 4.3 CURRENT OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW

The intent of this Intensification Strategy report is to provide the basis for the development of updated intensification policies in the Official Plan. As noted above, the current Official Plan does provide for a significant amount of intensification in the newly identified UGC, and limited intensification elsewhere.


The Town of Milton initiated an Official Plan Review in 2006 to implement Destiny Milton Two, which was the Town's updated Strategic Plan. A significant amount of background work was completed in 2006 and 2007, and a number of background reports dated May 2007 prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants on behalf of the Town were prepared (all of which are on the Town's website). The background report was divided into the following parts: Overview 1.0 Overview of Current Official Plan 2.0 Implications of Provincial Policy on Milton Official Plan 3.0 Implications of Region of Halton Official Plan on Milton Official Plan 4.0 Implications of Destiny Milton 2 on Milton Official Plan 5.0 Official Plan Review Issue #1 – Phasing of Development 6.0 Official Plan Review Issue #2 – Urban Design 7.0 Official Plan Review Issue #3 – Central Business District 8.0 Official Plan Review Issue #4 – Urban Employment Areas 9.0 Official Plan Review Issue #5 – Community Improvement Areas 10.0 Official Plan Review Issue #6 – Parking in New Development Areas 11.0 Official Plan Review Issue #7 – Ninth Line Corridor 12.0 Official Plan Review Issue #8 - Greenbelt Plan Conformity 13.0 Technical Issues

A. Population, Intensification and Housing Mix B. Nodes and Corridors and related transportation issues C. Trails Master Plan D. Retail Policy Framework E. Parkland F. Home occupations, home industries and cottage industries in the rural area G. Minor Text and Mapping Issues

A draft Official Plan was released for public review in October 2009 and it is also located on the Town's website. The over 300 - page document is a combination of new and old policy. The Draft Official Plan is considered to be a preliminary draft for discussion purposes. The primary reason for updating the Official Plan was to implement the Destiny Milton 2 (DM2) Strategic Plan, which was adopted by Council in June 2006. While there are a number of policies that are required to change at the Region of Halton level first, before policies changes can be made at the Town of Milton level, a number of Milton Official Plan policies were reviewed in the 2006 to 2008 time period. The Official Plan Review was initiated by Meridian Planning Consultants in 2007. The overall intent of the review was to review those policies that would lead to the preparation of an Official Plan that would serve as the foundation for the future urban planning of the Town of Milton. Specifically, it was recommended that certain revisions and enhancements were necessary to provide the basis for the continued urban development in the Town of Milton in a manner that reflects local priorities. Many of these revisions were based on the strategies articulated in the adopted DM2. On this basis, the focus of the review was to establish policies that will assist in shaping growth in the manner most desired by the Town over the next twenty years. As a result, the


2007/2008 Official Plan Review was seen as an opportunity for the Town to define how growth should be managed and to codify a vision for Milton through its land use planning policies. With the above in mind, below are the main policy areas that were reviewed in the context of the 2007/2008 Official Plan Review: • The phasing and finance policies were reviewed to determine how they could be

enhanced to provide more detail on what the Town’s expectations are. • The urban design policies were reviewed to determine how they could be improved to

encourage the establishment of an appropriate built form and mix of land uses in the urban area.

• The policies within the Central Business District (CBD) Secondary Plan were reviewed along with a review of the CBD boundary. This review also investigated options with respect to an Urban Growth Centre Boundary, since downtown Milton was identified as an Urban Growth Centre by the then newly released Provincial Growth Plan.

• The employment area policies were reviewed, to ensure that the use permissions are appropriate and to determine whether a new designation permitting only office uses is required.

• The community improvement area policies were reviewed and new CIP areas were considered.

• Policies on parking issues in new development areas were reviewed to determine how to properly manage this issue in new Secondary Plan areas.

The Draft Official Plan contains a series of new goals, objectives and strategic policies that are intended to directly implement DM2. It is indicated in Section 2.1 of the Official Plan that:

“Milton’s vision is to be an engaging, balanced and connected community. The following goals have been established as a basis to implement this vision: 1. A responsible, cost effective and accountable local government; 2. Well managed growth, well planned spaces; 3. A safe, livable and healthy community; 4. A diverse and sustainable economy; 5. A thriving natural environment.”

One of the objectives of the draft Official Plan, as articulated in Section 2.2.5 is to “encourage the provision and maintenance of an appropriate mix of residential, commercial and institutional uses.” Section 2.2.5.1 lists a series of strategic objectives that have an implication on the overall intensification strategy. a) Encourage the development of a range of uses that will support Milton as a place to

live, work and play.

b) Create a sense of civic identity and pride through a high standard of urban design for all new development.

c) Encourage the provision of a full range of housing opportunities for present and future residents of all ages and incomes.


d) Encourage the integration of new development areas into the fabric of the existing community.

e) Encourage the development of new medium density development throughout the urban area.

f) Encourage the establishment and pre-zoning of medium and high density areas.

g) Encourage the location of high density development on major arterial roads, transit corridors and employment areas.

h) Encourage the infilling and intensification in the existing urban area.

i) Encourage the provision of a healthy supply of employment and commercial lands to serve local needs at all times.

j) Encourage the siting of employment areas in locations that are easily accessed by 400 series highways.

k) Encourage the development of home based business in the rural area.

Section 2.2.11 indicates that one of the other goals of the Town is to “protect and enhance our heritage, identity and character.” A number of strategic objectives to support that goal have been prepared and the ones that have a direct bearing on the intensification strategy are listed below: a) Respect and honour the Town’s rich history.

d) Encourage the development of public spaces that foster community involvement and interaction.

e) Build on the strengths of our urban and rural character.

f) Encourage the maintenance and enhancement of the character of existing and well established neighbourhoods.

g) Foster civic pride by recognizing the contribution that cultural heritage resources make to the urban and rural fabric.

Section 2.2.12 indicates that one of the other goals of the Town is to “make the Central Business District a main focal point of the community.” Three strategic objectives in support of that goal have been prepared and they are set out below: a) Reinforce and encourage the functions of the Central Business District as the

administrative, cultural, entertainment, commercial, social and historic focal point of the community.

b) Support the ongoing transition and the positive changes occurring in the Central Business District.


c) Encourage the development of residential uses in the Central Business District to support local businesses.

Section 2.6.3(d) of the Draft Official Plan contains a policy on the design of Regional arterial roads that is being carried forward from the 1997 Plan. The Regional roads within the Built Boundary that would be subject to this policy are: a) Derry Road; b) Ontario Street; c) Steeles Avenue; and, d) James Snow Parkway. This policy is reproduced below:

“The Town when providing comments on the design of Regional arterial roads and in designing its arterial, collector and local roads, will balance the provision of a safe, functional and attractive pedestrian oriented environment that supports the provision of public transit as well as the policies of the Niagara Escarpment Plan where applicable, with an acceptable level of vehicular traffic. The Town is prepared to accept a level of service that is less than optimum, in return for a more pedestrian-oriented and transit supportive environment along its major roads provided that public safety is not adversely impacted. To achieve this environment, the Town may be prepared to use a variety of “traffic calming” techniques including: i) reduced lane width; ii) provision of a centre median that may be landscaped; iii) provision for on-street parking; iv) provision of transit priority measures; v) provision for regular intersections of local roads with Provincial

Highways, Major Arterials, Minor Arterials, Multi-Purpose Arterials and Collectors to allow for the creation of a grid or modified grid system; and,

vi) use of alternative road geometrics and materials at pedestrian crossing areas”.

The above policy is considered to be appropriate, since it recognizes the multiple roles that municipal roads play in an urban context. A comprehensive set of new urban design policies are also to be added to the Official Plan. Many of the proposed urban design policies reflect contemporary thinking with respect to good urban design and the placement of buildings and structures on a lot. These new urban design policies deal with the streetscape, roads, services and utilities, site design, building design and siting, landscaping, parking, signage display areas and lighting, services utilities outside processing and storage, access and circulation, cultural heritage, safety, barrier-free access, public art and micro-climate, and views and vistas. With respect views and vistas, Section 2.8.2.8(b) indicates the following:


“It is recognized that the Niagara Escarpment is the main defining feature of the Town. In this regard, every effort should be made to preserve and enhance views of the Niagara Escarpment at the termination of view corridors that extend along existing and future public roads and open space corridors. While there may be other views over private land, the preservation of these views is only encouraged where appropriate.”

The above policy has an impact on the design framework that is established for the Urban Growth Centre and it clearly indicates that it is the view corridors that extend along existing public roads that are key considerations. In the case of the Urban Growth Centre and Central Business District, the Escarpment is viewed at the termination of the Main Street West vista. A new policy on drive-through service facilities is proposed in Section 2.8.2.2.3. In this regard, the Draft Official Plan proposes to prohibit new drive-through service facilities within the Central Business District, the Urban Growth Centre and within any of the Secondary Mixed Use Nodes. This prohibition is consistent with the overall intensification vision established in later sections of this report. Section 2.11.2 contains policies on built heritage and it indicates in Section 2.11.2.6 that specific zoning provisions will be included within the Implementing Zoning By-law for character areas that are identified on the Schedules to the Plan. It is further indicated in this section “these provisions shall specify the extent to which development or redevelopment can occur on a lot to recognize the importance of protecting the integrity of the character area.” A further discussion of Character Areas is found in a later section in this report. Section 2.12 establishes Community Improvement Plan areas and the Central Business District is identified as one such area. The Draft Official Plan establishes a number of new land use designations in the Urban Core, which includes both the Historic Central Business District and Urban Growth Centre. A detailed discussion of these policies and our recommendations on them are contained with Section 6.0 of this report. The general policies of the modified Residential designation in the draft Official Plan establish an optimum housing unit mix in Section 3.3.5, which is 60% low density, 15% medium density and 25% high density. It is noted that Section 86(6)(a) of ROPA 38 as adopted on December 16, 2009, states that the Region will adopt the following housing targets: that at least 50% of new housing produced annually in Halton be in the form of townhouses or multi-storey buildings. On the basis of this new ROPA 38 policy, the policies of the new Town of Milton Official Plan will be required to reflect this overall Regional direction. The draft policies also discourage reductions in density, according to Section 3.3.3.6. Section 3.3.3.11 is a new policy that is intended to deal with infill development in established residential neighbourhoods. This policy is reproduced below (it is noted that changes to this draft policy are proposed in Section 6.0 of this Report):

“Infill development, in accordance with the applicable land use designation in this Plan, shall be encouraged provided Council is satisfied that: a) The proposed development, including building form and density, is

compatible with the character of the existing neighbourhood;


b) New buildings are designed in a manner that is sensitive to the location, massing and height of adjacent buildings;

c) A suitable transition in lot sizes, densities, building forms and heights is provided from adjacent development;

d) Existing trees and vegetation will generally be retained and enhanced where possible and additional landscaping will be provided to integrate the proposed development with the existing neighbourhood;

e) The proposed development will not create a traffic hazard or an unacceptable increase in traffic on local roads; and,

f) Significant views and vistas which help define a residential neighbourhood are preserved”.

Section 3.3.3.12 indicates that accessory apartments may be permitted in single detached dwellings subject to criteria. Proposed Section 3.3.4.2 establishes a number of general criteria with respect to medium and high density residential uses. These criteria are listed below:

“New medium and high density residential development may be permitted in accordance with this Plan, provided it: a) Respects the character of adjacent residential neighbourhoods, in

terms of height, massing and setbacks; b) Can be easily integrated with surrounding land uses; c) Will not cause traffic hazards or an unacceptable level of congestion

on surrounding roads; d) Can easily be accessed by public transit; e) Is located in close proximity to community facilities, such as parks,

schools and open spaces; f) Is located on a site that has adequate land area to incorporate the

building, on-site parking, an outdoor amenity area, and appropriate buffering such as setbacks, landscaping and fencing to ensure the compatibility of the use with adjacent land uses;

g) Takes advantage, where appropriate, of the topography and natural vegetation of the site and area in minimizing the impacts of tall buildings on adjacent land uses;

h) Is demonstrated that the potential shadow impacts associated with tall buildings will be at an acceptable level on adjacent properties; and,

i) Municipal water and wastewater services are adequate and available”.

Section 3.3.4.3 establishes the basis for the pre-zoning of lands for medium and high density residential uses. This section indicates that pre-zoning may be considered in circumstances where the lands are not adjacent to existing low-density residential neighbourhoods. Section 3.3.8 establishes the Residential 4 Corridor Sub Area. This designation is proposed to apply on the east side of Ontario Street between the Urban Growth Centre and Derry Road and on most of both sides of Ontario Street between the Urban Growth Centre and Steeles Avenue. Only medium density uses are to be permitted, in addition to a number of other complementary uses. The proposed minimum building height is three storeys and the


maximum height is intended to be six storeys. The Draft Official Plan indicates that the density range shall be a minimum of 100 persons and employees per hectare in these corridors, as defined by the Growth Plan. The policies indicate that a wide variety of building forms are permitted, but they will generally be low to mid-rise in height. An additional Mixed Use/High Density Corridor has been identified on the south side of Main Street East to the west of James Snow Parkway. A further area has been identified on Bronte Street to the north and south of Main Street and at the south west corner of Steeles Avenue and Martin Street. These lands are also located within the Built Boundary. Section 3.3.9 includes a new Residential 5 Minor Node Sub Area designation in the Official Plan. Two of these Minor Nodes are located within the Built Boundary on Derry Road. Other Minor Nodes are located within the Bristol Survey Secondary Plan along Derry Road, also within the Built Boundary. Minor Nodes are intended to have a radius of 250 metres and shall be planned to have a minimum density of 125 persons and employees per hectare. Minimum building height is intended to be three storeys and the maximum building height is not intended to exceed six storeys. The Secondary Mixed Use Node designation is an existing land use designation that is proposed to be carried forward. This designation applies to lands at the intersection of Derry Road and Ontario Street. This designation is also to be applied to the intersection of Thompson Road and Louis St. Laurent Avenue. Both of these areas are within the Town’s Built Boundary. The policies of the Draft Official Plan as currently written are already proposed to implement many of the policies of the Growth Plan and the policies included in ROPA 38. However, based on the work completed through the Intensification Strategy, enhancements to some of the proposed policies are required and these enhancements are discussed in Section 6 of this report.


5.0 MILTON’S INTENSIFICATION AREAS

5.1 OVERVIEW

Both the Province and the Region of Halton require Milton to accommodate a portion of future growth through intensification inside the already built-up area of Milton, rather than on Greenfield lands at the edge of the built up area. Between 2015 and 2031, Milton is required by the Region of Halton to accommodate at least 5,300 new residential units inside the existing built-up area. The overall intent with the Milton Intensification Strategy is to develop policies that implement current Provincial policy and which work with and support the Town’s current vision for long-term growth and development as articulated within the existing Official Plan. As described in the previous section, the existing Official Plan already encourages intensification within a number of areas in the Town, subject to criteria. Many of the existing permissions contained within the Official Plan and implementing Secondary Plans already provide for a considerable amount of intensification in the form of medium and high-density development in buildings as high as 7 to 9 storeys. The challenge is to now translate current Provincial requirements, which have been implemented by the Region in ROPA 38, into policy in the Town of Milton. To a very large extent, the proposed policy framework in the draft Official Plan requires only minor refinements to provide more certainty on built form and to also provide for increases in density and height as appropriate to reflect the significant focus now being placed on intensification are required. The intent of this section of the report is to: • Review the potential for intensification within the Town's Built Boundary; • Identify the factors that should be considered in developing a land use vision for the

Intensification Areas that have been identified; • Recommend what the vision for each Intensification Area should be; • Describe how the form, type and density of development for intensification areas

should be established; and, • Discuss other considerations and the potential for intensification in other parts of the

Town. Section 6 of this report contains a proposed Official Plan policy framework to implement the recommendations made in this section. 5.2 THE URBAN GROWTH CENTRE

5.2.1 Current Land Use

The dominant land use in the Downtown Milton Urban Growth Centre (UGC) is single-storey commercial uses. The Milton Mall is the largest retail area, but major retail uses also exist next to the GO station, where a large supermarket and a number of smaller retail uses have been developed in the last five years. The dominant land use in the central part of the UGC is the Milton GO station and its associated parking lot, which covers a significant amount of


land. Figure 7 below is an air photo of the Milton UGC showing the location of the GO station and the 500 metre radius around the GO station. Figure 7: Location of Major Transit Station and 500 metre Radius

The lands on the north side of Main Street are currently occupied by low rise industrial and commercial buildings and are used for a variety of motor vehicle and service commercial uses (in particular, mechanics and body shops), restaurants, private clubs, offices, commercial self-storage operations, workshops and manufacturing operations. This commercial/industrial development does not possess the same status as the stores found in the Downtown. It is not as accessible as local shopping plazas with large parking lots, nor does the area have the aesthetic appeal of the Downtown businesses. Businesses are separated from the pedestrian realm by narrow parking lots. However, commercial/industrial strip developments such as this one have played a vital role in the urbanization of Milton, and continue to be occupied by a diverse range of uses.


Since many of the existing uses are viable enterprises and a clear demand exists for these uses in the Town, the majority of the uses were recognized in the 2003 zoning by-law and a Holding provision was applied, which means that new uses could be established in accordance with the Official Plan if some comprehensive planning was carried out. The basis for the existing policies in the Official Plan was that it was inevitable that higher order commercial and office uses would be attracted to the area. The thinking was that once the demand for these uses increased, rents would have increased and existing businesses would have had to locate elsewhere to remain competitive. However, this has yet to occur. Lands south of the rail-line are designated Commercial Node Sub-area and Residential/Office Sub-Area. The intent of these two designations is to provide the basis for the redevelopment of this primarily industrial area. Given the nature of many of the existing uses (concrete batching, outdoor storage, manufacturing, repair garage), the redevelopment of this area has not occurred. However, the proximity of the GO Station, the current development of a number of retail uses at the southwest corner of Main and Thompson and the recent construction of a tunnel for Thompson Road under the CP rail-line will eventually create some interest in the area. The current CBD Secondary Plan does anticipate the re-alignment of Nipissing Road in two locations to provide for the optimum development of the lands. However, it is not expected that this re-alignment will occur in the future any longer, and as a result the reference to the re-alignment is to be deleted in the new Official Plan. At the south end of the UGC boundary, south of the mall site, lies the Region of Halton’s Allendale property that includes a senior’s residence and various regional services. An arena and community use facility is located on the east side of Thompson Road. A linkage across the CP rail line between Ontario Street and Thompson Road does not exist, which severely restricts the potential for linking uses and activities on both sides of the rail line. As mentioned previously, there are a number of recently developed commercial uses in the eastern half of a triangle of land formed by Main Street East, Thompson Road and the CP rail line. Given the recent age of these commercial uses, it is not anticipated that redevelopment will occur in this area in the short to medium terms. Although permissions were built in to the approval process to permit residential uses on these lands in the future. The existing GO station is located in the centre of this triangle and much of the western half of the area of land formed by this triangle is the site of the parking lot for the GO station.


Drew Centre is a new road that was recently constructed between Main Street and Thompson Road in conjunction with the development of the commercial uses to the east. The lands west of Drew Centre are occupied by a number of land uses, including a large parking lot used by residents accessing GO Transit services and the GO station itself. Given the age of the existing uses and the amount of undeveloped or under-developed land in this portion of the triangle, the potential for development in this area is high and is potentially much more imminent than on the remainder of the triangle lands, given the absence of recently developed commercial uses. The Milton Mall and associated commercial uses is located at the south-east corner of Ontario Street and Main Street. This mall was developed 20 to 30 years ago and has undergone a number of renovations since. However, a number of other recently developed commercial uses in the Town, most notably to the east at the Main Street and Thompson Road intersection and adjacent to James Snow Parkway and Highway 401 have been developed. Prior to these new commercial uses being developed, the Milton Mall was the only significant shopping area in the Town of Milton. Given the location of the Milton Mall at a high profile intersection (Ontario Street and Main Street), the potential is significant for some redevelopment and development to occur on this site in the medium term. Residential uses are limited in the UGC, and consist primarily of low density housing southwest and northwest of Ontario and Main Streets. Park space is completely absent from the UGC, although recreational uses and the proposed arts and entertainment complex lie at the eastern boundary along Thompson Road. Also within the UGC is a Regulatory Flood Plain Designation covering lands already developed within the regulatory floodplain of Sixteen Mile Creek as shown on Figure 7 above. The Official Plan contains “interim policy” to guide Conservation Halton in their review of development applications within this designation “until such time that [lands] within the Regulatory Flood Plan is designated as a Special Policy Area” by the Province. As noted in Section 3.14.1.3 of the Official Plan, a “Special Policy Area” is a designation approved by the Ministries of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs and Housing on lands within a floodplain that have been developed for many years. Normally, floodplain lands are not permitted for any new development due to the hazard nature of the lands. If this rule was applied in historic urban areas, many downtowns across Ontario would be prohibited from allowing any type of development or redevelopment. Special Policy Areas recognizes this past development (almost always of a historic nature) and permit some redevelopment. In Section 3.14.1.1 of the Official Plan, the Town declares its intent to “in conjunction with the Halton Region Conservation Authority (now Conservation Halton), will attempt to have the Existing Urban Area of Milton designated as a Special Policy Area by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.” In recent years, Conservation Halton has indicated to the Town that the 'interim policies' should be deleted from the Official Plan and that new development be prohibited in the floodplain in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement. The floodplain occupies about 15.3 hectares of the UGC, or 11.7% of the UGC. If this land area was deducted from the total land area of 130.6 hectares, about 115.3 hectares would remain, which means that the overall growth target to meet Provincial density requirements would be reduced to 23,060 residents and jobs.


It is noted that the Town has been very supportive of the role of the downtown area. In 2001, Town Council approved a high-level report dealing with the proposed Arts and Entertainment Centre, the Milton Town Hall and the Milton Central Library. This report recommended that the Town Hall remain in the CBD and that it be expanded (work completed in 2009), and that a new Arts and Entertainment Centre, along with a new Central Library, be established at the intersection of Main and Thompson, which is on the edge of the CBD. In June 2006, Council adopted the Program and Business Plan for the new Arts and Entertainment Centre. Since public/private sector funding strategies will need to be developed for the new centre, opportunities exist to provide for the development of residential condominiums and/or institutional uses on the lands. The development of the new centre is expected to occur in the 2010 to 2013 time period. 5.2.2 Current Land Use Planning Framework

As noted previously in this report, the current Milton Official Plan was adopted in 1997. This pre-dates the Province’s 2006 Growth Plan that identifies the Downtown Milton Urban Growth Centre, so the Official Plan does not specifically identify the Urban Growth Centre as an intensification area, or establish any density requirements for it. However the area that is now identified as the Urban Growth Centre is located within the Central Business District Secondary Plan Area. This area currently permits building heights ranging from 4 to 7 storeys and allows for a variety of land uses including residential, commercial and mixed use. These maximum heights would provide for development that would accommodate approximately 23,562 residents and jobs, which is generally consistent with Provincial requirements, based on the net land area (net of floodplain) of the UGC. These current permissions have the effect of theoretically increasing the number of residents and jobs in the UGC by 16,252 beyond the 7,300 residents and jobs that currently exist in the UGC in 2009. However, this theoretical capacity is not achievable since large areas of the UGC are designated primarily for commercial and employment uses, which means that very limited residential development can occur in the UGC in accordance with the existing Official Plan. 5.2.3 Factors to Consider in Developing a Land Use Vision for the UGC

In 1997, the Town anticipated that significant changes would occur when lake-based servicing was provided in 2000 and 2001. These changes were anticipated in the Destiny Milton Strategic Plan and then within the 1997 Official Plan. The implementing Secondary Plan for the Central Business District then included a number of use permissions and height permissions that would have had the effect of significantly increasing the population in the area affected by the Secondary Plan. However, since lake-based services were extended, only development in the form of commercial uses has occurred at the south-west quadrant of the Thompson Road and Main Street intersection. While the land use permissions associated with the commercial development do provide for residential development in the future, it is not anticipated that redevelopment will occur on recently developed commercial lands in the short to medium terms. While some minor development has occurred on the north-side of Main Street, redevelopment in the form anticipated by the Central Business District Secondary Plan has not occurred.


Similarly, new development has not occurred along Nipissing Road in the manner anticipated by the Secondary Plan, primarily because use restrictions and the existence of a number of space extensive industrial uses. With the identification of this area as one of the 25 Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, it is our opinion that a significant opportunity exists to provide for and encourage the development of a Growth Centre that would firstly complement the historic core located to the west and secondly provide for the development of a significant number of new residential uses and employment opportunities, with a focus of that development being the existing GO Station which is located in the centre of the UGC. In planning for the future of the UGC, the following factors were considered. Legislative Requirements: • Province’s minimum density requirement of 200 people and jobs per hectare. • Accommodating a significant portion of the 5,300 intensification units required by

Halton Region in order to reduce intensification pressures elsewhere in the Town. Physical Attributes: • Destiny Milton 2 seeks to make the CBD the main focal point – administrative, cultural,

entertainment, commercial, social and historic – of the community. • Several large parcels that provide significant opportunities for future redevelopment. • The GO station is a major trip generator and presents an opportunity to shift a

significant proportion of trips from private automobiles to public transit. • The low density and car-dependent nature of existing commercial development and

amount of land devoted to surface parking. • Destiny Milton 2 directs higher density development to arterial roads and transit

corridors; Main Street, Ontario Street and Thompson Road bisect the UGC. • The function of Main Street as the main east - west arterial road leading to a

significant new business park now being planned to the east of James Snow Parkway. • Recent age of many of the commercial uses at the southwest corner of Main and

Thompson, and resulting reduced likelihood of redevelopment in the near term. Alternatively, the age of the Milton Mall means that redevelopment potential is greater in the short term.

• Need for new residential development to support local stores and businesses. • Preservation of views of the Niagara Escarpment Physical Constraints: • Proximity to low-density residential neighbourhoods at the edges of the UGC. • Lack of park space. • Presence of floodplain. • Absence of pedestrian connections over CP rail ine. • Water and wastewater servicing constraints. • Poor connections between the UGC and the historic town centre along the western

part of Main Street. • The significantly sized GO parking lot. • Lack of gateway features.


• Lack of development focus. • Traffic congestion is already significant along Main and Ontario Streets and there are

limited alternatives for east-west and north-south travel movements. • The fragmented nature of the ownership of the multi-unit buildings on the north side

of Main (multiple Plans of Condominium). In addition to the above factors, the long-term potential for the Urban Growth Centre also has to be considered. Given that there are significant servicing constraints to overcome (as discussed later in this section) and the recent age of many of the newer commercial uses in the Urban Growth Centre, the likelihood of a significant amount of development occurring in the Urban Growth Centre in the next 10 to 15 years is not very likely. In addition, there are a number of viable industrial uses located on the north side of Main Street and to the south of the CP Rail line that are likely to remain as well for a number of years, thereby limiting the amount of development and redevelopment that could occur in these areas. On this basis, as it is expected that the Town of Milton will continue to grow beyond 2031, there is also a need to consider what type and form of development should occur over the long-term, which means beyond 2031. Given the size of the Urban Growth Centre, and the significant potential in parts of it as a result of its location some distance away from low density residential neighbourhoods, it is our opinion that the potential is there for development to occur over the long term that would ultimately result in the minimum target of 200 persons and jobs per hectare being exceeded. On this basis, in considering the future of the Urban Growth Centre, we have assumed that the minimum density target over the long term (25+ years) should be at least 250 persons and jobs per hectare and on this basis, we have developed a design and built form plan that is intended to implement that minimum target. Figure 8 below shows how maximum building height permissions would be distributed across the UGC in accordance with this philosophy. Figure 8: Proposed Maximum Building Heights in the UGC


The concept plan recognizes that buildings with higher heights should be focused on the lands that are in close proximity to the existing GO Station. Other lands within the triangle formed by Main Street, Thompson Road and the CP rail line should also be the site of higher buildings as well. A key component of any development within this triangle should be the provision of a public open space area that is designed and intended to be over the long term the focus of public activity within the UGC. This open space area should also be linked to lands to the south of the CP rail line by a pedestrian crossing to provide greater connectivity within the area. To ensure that the Urban Design objectives set out in this Study are implemented, a comprehensive development plan for the triangle area should be completed. With respect to lands on the north side of Main Street between Ontario Street and Thompson Road, it is recommended, as it has been recommended in the draft Official Plan, that the lands be designated primarily for residential use, with permissions for non-residential uses on the ground floor. Given the proximity of a low-density residential neighbourhood to the north, building heights should be staggered so that the impacts of new buildings on the north side of Main Street on the existing neighbourhood are minimized. The same philosophy is also recommended to apply to lands on the south side of the CP rail line, where higher buildings are recommended on the north side of Nipissing Road and lower buildings are recommended for the south side of Nipissing Road. Again, the primary use should be residential, with limited permissions for non-residential uses in this area. The intersection of Main Street and Ontario Street is to be recognized as a major focal point in the UGC and the Town of Milton. Buildings with higher heights are recommended at this intersection, with these higher buildings also being permitted on the east side of Ontario Street on the Milton Mall property and on the Allendale property located to the south. With respect to heights on these two properties, higher buildings would be located adjacent to Ontario Street and lower buildings located to the east to minimize impacts again on the existing low density residential neighbourhoods that exist in this area. The Thompson Road and Main Street intersection is also recommended to be a focus of development as well with higher buildings potentially being located in three of the four quadrants of the intersection. Given that lands at the north-east corner of Thompson Road and Main Street are currently developed with low-density residential uses, it is not anticipated that lands will be available for development in the north-east quadrant in the foreseeable future. In the area to the west along Main Street west of Ontario Street, the intent is to maintain the existing built form in this area since it is part of the Milton Historic Core. The above land use vision is further described and articulated within Section 6 of this report, which contains a proposed policy framework. 5.2.4 Recommended Long Term Land Use Vision

On the basis of the above, the following elements of an Intensification Vision for the UGC are recommended and they are intended to build upon the directions of Destiny Milton 2: • Maintain, promote and enhance the UGC as one of the primary focal points for

commerce, tourism and pedestrian-scale activity in the Town. • Encourage the development of a range of uses that will support the UGC as a place to

live, work and play.


• Higher density, high quality employment uses, such as office buildings, that take advantage of the GO station access.

• Create a sense of civic identity and pride through a high standard of urban design. • A model of environmental sustainability, including buildings that meet the highest

standards of energy and water use efficiency. • Provide a full range of housing opportunities for present and future residents of all

ages and incomes. • Carefully integrate new development into the fabric of the existing community,

through context sensitive urban design. Minimize the impacts of new development on adjacent low-density residential neighbourhoods through the use of reduced heights and staggered setbacks.

• Ensure that there is a strong relationship between new development and the street and that new development is supported by improvements to the public realm.

• Enhance the eastern edge of the UGC as a gateway to the Town that demonstrates civic pride and creates a sense of arrival in the heart of Milton.

• Encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic through the use of trails, paths and lanes.

• Introduce new park space into the UGC. • A pedestrian, cycling and transit-first community, where dependence on the private

automobile is minimized. • Fully integrate the GO station into surrounding neighbourhoods by providing quick and

easy access, particularly by pedestrians, cyclists and local transit. Figures 9 and 10 show how development could occur in accordance with this recommendation and with the building height permissions shown in Figure 8. Figure 9: Theoretical view looking north from the GO station toward Main Street, 25 years from now.


Figure 10: Theoretical view looking west along Main Street from Thompson Road, 25 years from now

It is recognized that there are low density residential neighbourhoods to the north and south of the UGC. Given the amount of land in the UGC, it is recommended that higher buildings be located closer to the centre of the UGC and that lower buildings be located on the edges of the UGC. Figure 11 below shows how this gradation in density should be planned. Figure 11: Illustration of Transition Between UGC and Low Density Neighbourhoods

5.2.5 Infrastructure Implications

The recommendations contained within this report for development in the UGC establish the basis for a significant amount of development to occur over the long-term. In order to ensure that this development can be serviced with infrastructure, an assessment of the water, sewer and transportation infrastructure was carried out. A summary of this analysis is below. It is noted that this type of analysis was not carried out at the time of the preparation of the 1997 Official Plan or the 1999 Central Business District Secondary Plan. Given that the Region is in control of water and wastewater infrastructure, this report recommends that the Region take the lead in developing a strategy to upgrade infrastructure to support development within the UGC. Without these upgrades, very little development can occur in the UGC and the longer it takes for the Region to develop and implement a strategy, the longer it will take for the Town of Milton to meet its obligations as set out in the Growth Plan for Urban Growth Centres.


5.2.5.1 Sewer and Water

AMEC Philips was retained by the Town as part of the Intensification/Infill Study, to review water, wastewater and stormwater management opportunities and constraints. Water and Wastewater Current Servicing in the UGC The focus of the AMEC Philips review was on the Urban Growth Centre (UGC). Water supply for the Urban Growth Centre is from Zone M-5L and Zone M-5G. Zone M-5L is the Lake Ontario based system pumped to Milton through the Kitchen Pumping Station located near Upper Middle Road and the Fourth Line in Oakville. This zone covers the east section of the UGC eastward from Ontario Street. Storage and pressure maintenance is provided by the Milton elevated tank. The service area for Zone M-5L is 5,598 hectares and it had a 2006 population of 28,295 and an equivalent industrial, commercial and institutional population of 23,212. Zone M-5G is a groundwater based system that provides water to the western component of the UGC and the Central Business District, with that western component being west of Ontario Street. The Main Street reservoir provides the supply required to both areas. The service area for Zone M-5G is 811 hectares, it had a 2006 population of 20,318 and an equivalent industrial, commercial and institutional population of 8,892. Wastewater treatment for the entire UGC is provided by the Milton wastewater treatment plant located at Fulton Street, south of Oak Street. This facility was the only treatment facility servicing Milton until services were extended from the Halton wastewater treatment plant in 2000/2001. The Milton wastewater treatment plant services about 1,780 hectares, a 2006 population of 15,358 and an equivalent industrial, commercial and institutional population of 22,161. Projected Sewer and Water Demand in the UGC The Milton trunk sewer system includes a 600 mm sub-trunk on Main Street from Thompson Road to MacDonald Crescent, and a 675 mm sub-trunk through easements and the rail corridor to a 1050 mm diameter trunk through the Sixteen Mile Creek corridor to Fulton Street. For the area south of Main Street, 200 mm to 300 mm diameter sewers discharge to the 1050 mm diameter trunk. For the purposes of determining water needs and the amount of wastewater that would be generated from development in the UGC, the UGC itself has been segmented into four (4) areas, each with an anticipated increase of population and employment. A summary of the growth is provided in Table A1 and A2 below. Appendices 1 and 2 (attached at end of report) show the extent of the four sub-areas in the UGC that were created for the purposes of this analysis.


Table A1: Summary of Growth Impact (Existing Conditions) Existing Condition

Area Population (persons)

Employment (jobs)

Water Wastewater

Demand Demand

(ML/c/d) (ML/c/d)

1 1,807 1,012 1.394 0.999

2 849 858 0.753 0.597

3 0 1,072 0.276 0.359

4 0 1,864 0.480 0.624

Totals 2.903 2.579

Table A2: Summary of Growth Impact (Proposed Conditions)

Proposed Condition Increase Average Day

Area Population(persons)

Employment (jobs)

Water Wastewater Water Wastewater Water Wastewater

Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand

(ML/d) (ML/d) (ML/d) (ML/d) (L/s) (L/s)

1 3,500 1,250 2.516 1.617 1.123 0.618 13.00 7.15 2 7,500 1,250 5.024 3.025 4.271 2.428 49.43 28.10 3 4,000 1,250 2.830 1.819 2.554 1.460 29.56 16.90 4 10,000 2,000 6.785 4.274 6.305 3.650 72.97 42.25

Totals 17.156 10.735 14.253 8.156 164.96 94.39

The amount of development anticipated in the UGC will result in flow increases for the area of 164.96 L/s for water and 94.4 L/s for wastewater. These flows will be distributed through the system and the impact will be evaluated based on the anticipated connection locations for the services. AMEC Philips notes that the trunk systems are not well distributed through the UGC. The comments of AMEC Philips on each of the four sub-areas are below. In Area 1, the water supply is a 300 mm diameter watermain along Main Street. With a modest increase in population, the existing 300 mm may be able to provide for the area. However, the existing distribution watermain is primarily 150 mm, which may not be sufficient to provide for the anticipated growth. For wastewater within Area 1, small diameter sewers exist throughout the area (200 mm to 300 mm in diameter), although the 1050 mm trunk crosses the area in a north-south direction. Any growth in this area will require an assessment on the trunk sewer as well as the local sewers. For Area 2, a significant amount of growth has been projected, virtually doubling the water demand. The watermain in the area ranges from 150 mm to 300 mm , which will likely be insufficient to provide for the area. The wastewater connections to the trunk include a 375 mm diameter on Childs Drive and a 675 mm on the rail corridor. The sewer on Childs Drive is the outlet for part of Area 2 and Area 3. Both areas have been identified for substantial growth and this system requires a detailed assessment. The 675 mm sub-trunk provides the


outlet for part of Area 2 and Area 4. Area 4 has been identified for the most significant growth, and this will necessitate a detailed assessment of the entire system. Water supply for Area 3 and Area 4 is from the Lake-Based system and are included in Zone M- 5L. Although substantial growth has been allocated to the areas, water supply issues will likely be more a function of security of supply and fire flow as limited system storage is available. The assessment does not address any operational issues currently experienced by the Region and is theoretical in nature. Additional investigation will be as required to evaluate any operational issues. The actual impact on the system will require the assigning of flows to specific nodes and identify any constraints within the existing systems. Notwithstanding the node assignment process, the water and wastewater flows resulting from development in the UGC are significant and likely cannot be accommodated within the existing systems. On this basis, AMEC Philips recommends that a detailed modeling exercise is required to quantify the impact the UGC growth will have on existing water and wastewater servicing. State of Infrastructure Planning for Intensification The Region of Halton completed the Halton Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update in June 2008 and it identified a number of projects that would have an impact on the Urban Growth Centre. These projects include Project 5873, which involves the development of a new 400 millimetre diameter water main on Main Street between Ontario Street and Wilson Drive and Project 3820 which involves the establishment of additional pumping capacity at the Kitchen Pumping Station. Project 5728 is intended to twin the existing feeder main from the Fulton Pumping Station and the Milton wastewater treatment plant and its connection to a new chamber at Commercial Street. Project 5924 involves the reconstruction and expansion of the Fulton Pumping Station itself. Project 5935 identifies improvements to the Milton Groundwater System although these works are not described. There were no works identified in the Halton Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update (2008) for the Milton wastewater treatment plant. As part of the Sustainable Halton planning process, water and wastewater servicing issues were reviewed. The first report dealing with water and wastewater infrastructure prepared as part of the Sustainable Halton Planning process was dated May 2007. The purpose of the report was to provide an overview of current, planned and potential water and wastewater infrastructure in the Region. The report reviews the existing Lake-based system, which services Oakville and Burlington and new urban areas in Milton and the Halton Hills 401 employment corridor. The following is noted in the report with respect to the Milton Groundwater and wastewater treatment facilities:

“the Milton well water supply system consists of the Kelso and Walkers Line well fields. The two aquifers are at the maximum safe aquifer yield and therefore, an expansion of this supply is not considered feasible for servicing new growth. The Milton wastewater treatment plant is a tertiary treatment facility which discharges treated effluent to Sixteen Mile Creek which is limited receiving water and therefore, offers only minimal opportunity for expansion of the Plant. Therefore, new growth in Milton will be serviced by the Lake-based system.”


It is noted in Section 5.0 of the 2007 Report that “the well and stream-based systems will probably not be able to support intensification in current serviced areas or expansion of the current urban boundaries.” A second report on water and wastewater servicing was prepared on April 7, 2009 as part of Phase 3 of the Sustainable Halton planning process (Report 3.13). The purpose of the report was to “present the strategic level assessment undertaken of the water and wastewater infrastructure required of each of the three concepts prepared for urban intensification and new urban land required for the period 2021 to 2031.” It is noted that the April 7, 2009 report specifically did not deal with intensification servicing requirements prior to 2021. It is also noted in the report that “it is anticipated that additional local servicing improvements would be required to support the proposed intensification. Additional full pipe modelling will be required to confirm the extent of the additional system requirements.” It is further noted that “intensification is proposed in the existing groundwater service areas of Milton. It is anticipated that intensification in the groundwater based areas on the existing systems is not a sustainable solution”. With respect to wastewater, it is also anticipated that additional local servicing improvements would be required to support intensification. It is further stated that “it is anticipated that intensification in the stream-based areas on the existing systems is not a sustainable solution. Diversion of the Milton wastewater treatment plant flows will still be required.” On June 25, 2009 the Region of Halton staff prepared a report dealing with the Financial and Implementation Plan for the 2008/2009 allocation program. The intent of the report was to recommend revisions to the 2008/2021 Infrastructure Staging Plan approved by Regional Council in November 2008 and to recommend approval of the Financial and Implementation Plan for the 2008/2009 allocation program. It is indicated in the report that the preparation of an infrastructure staging plan is a requirement of the Region’s Official Plan, which indicates that a Financial and Implementation Plan be prepared to Council’s satisfaction prior to development proceeding. Essentially, such a plan is required to provide the basis for service extensions and improvements to support new Greenfield development. It is noted in the June 25, 2009 report that the Water/Wastewater and Transportation Master Plans and the Region’s Development Charges By-law requires about 2.5 billion dollars of infrastructure between 2008 and 2021. It is further noted that about 1.3 billion of the 2.5 billion dollars of infrastructure is required in the first four years, to 2011. It is further noted in the report that the November 2008 Infrastructure Staging Plan identified 753 million dollars of water and wastewater infrastructure as being required in the allocation areas (Greenfield) of Milton and Oakville to accommodate planned occupancy prior to 2021. The report then reviews the commitments made by landowners/developers in Oakville and Milton regarding their interest in participating in the 2008/2009 allocation program. While letters of commitment were received from some developers/landowners, other developers/landowners did not sign these letters. The report also reviews the key principles of the development financing plan framework approved by Regional Council in November 2008 as set out below:

“• The Development Financing Plan will not impact the 2009 or subsequent years forecasted tax and rate increases;


• The Development Financing Plan will not require the Region to exceed its own debt capacity levels:

• The repayment assumptions for Regional Interim Financing will assume a conservative slow growth scenario to ensure that economic conditions do not create unexpected impacts to the Region.

• All growth related costs that can be recovered under the DC By-law from growth will be recovered; and,

• Halton’s strong financial position and financial planning principles will not be compromised.”

It is noted that the above indicates very clearly that developers/landowners who benefit from the provision and/or extension of infrastructure will have to pay for that infrastructure. However, it is also recognized by the Region that this financing model cannot be easily applied to intensification. In this regard it is noted in the Region of Halton staff report LPS114-09 that, “the Region must move from its traditional approach to development that is focussed on the expansion into Greenfield areas to a new approach that balances Greenfield development with intensification and uses space and infrastructure more efficiently.” In other words, as long as the Financing and Implementation Plan in the Region of Halton is designed in the manner it is, it will be very difficult to achieve any level of intensification within the Urban Growth Centre. It is further noted in the June 25, 2009 Financial and Implementation Plan Report that 276 million dollars of infrastructure will be required for intensification. It is then anticipated that 133 million dollars of this amount will be recoverable through Development Charges or other means. Ten million dollars of the residential intensification component would not be recoverable and 7.5 million dollars would be allocated to over-sizing. In addition, there would be a 46 million dollar debt for non-growth related infrastructure improvements in intensification areas and it is further assumed that there would be a 78 million dollar subsidy. The nature of this ‘subsidy’ is unknown. It is further indicated in the staff report that “financial plans for the employment areas and the intensification areas will be the subject of future reports.” The last report prepared by the Region of Halton with respect to infrastructure, with a focus on fiscal affordability, was prepared in October 2009. The intent of the report is to “broadly estimate the fiscal implications of the amount, type, location and timing of growth on which Sustainable Halton is based, in order to establish whether there are financial affordability issues relating to the Plan.” It is noted that the primary focus of the analysis was on the cost of servicing the 2021 – 2031 growth increment. While “general conclusions has been given to the 2015 – 2021 period because of the intensification requirement introduced by Sustainable Halton, detailed Master Planning inputs are not currently available.” It is further noted that 2021 – 2031 is the primary focus of the analysis, as it represents the planning period increment to the Region’s existing Official Plan. 2015-2021 is given limited consideration in terms of the implications of the shift toward additional intensification and density. It is recognized in the October 2009 report that “the scale of intensification envisioned by the Plan (Sustainable Halton) involves major shifts in the housing market and will need to be considered carefully as part of the implementation process otherwise capital funding difficulties may arise.”


Based on their preliminary analysis of the potential for intensification and development in the Urban Growth Centre, AMEC Philips indicates that the development as proposed “will result in an order of magnitude increase of 5 times for water and 3 times for wastewater.” On the basis of the above, the servicing requirements for the UGC are significant. As noted above, the current development financing plan framework does not deal with intensification, primarily because intensification occurs within the existing urban area as opposed to new Greenfield land. On Greenfield land, landowners typically join together to determine collectively how their lands will be serviced and then they enter into agreements with the Region to provide for servicing in exchange for permissions for a certain amount of development. Landowners will only enter into these agreements if there is a benefit to them, with such a benefit being net of infrastructure costs. In the case of intensification, development occurs on a property by property basis, on lands that are already within a serviced area and on roads that already exist. In the case of the Milton UGC, while the basic infrastructure is available, the amount of water required and the amount of sewage to be generated cannot be accommodated within the existing water and sewer systems that provide services in the UGC. Given this reality and the fact that the Region of Halton controls these services, it will be difficult for the Town of Milton to demonstrate in its Official Plan that policies 77(4), 81(7.2), 81(7.3) and 81.3(2) of ROPA 38 are to be met in its Official Plan. Specifically, Policy 77(4) indicates that local municipalities are required to demonstrate with sufficient details, through their respective Official Plans and Amendments thereof how the targets and tables 1 and 2 can be achieved and maintained at all times. Policy 81(7.2) indicates that local municipalities are required to consider intensification and development of intensification areas as the highest priority of urban development. Policy 81(7.3) indicates that local municipalities are required to ensure that intensification areas are ‘development-ready’ by making available at the earliest opportunity, water, wastewater and transportation service capacity to support the development densities prescribed for intensification areas. Lastly, policy 81.3(2) indicates that Official Plans are required to show how the development density target of UGC can be met. On the basis of the above, it is recommended that the Region initiate an Infrastructure Staging Plan as soon as possible to determine how infrastructure and the required human services to support development is considered, planned and financed to support intensification. This Infrastructure Staging Plan is provided for in Policy 77(12) of proposed ROPA 38. It is noted that policy 77(13) then indicates that once the Staging Plan is completed the Region will seek funding assistance and coordination of their expenditures from the Federal and Provincial governments for the orderly and timely provision of infrastructure and human services. The implication is that once the Infrastructure Staging Plan is complete there will be a need for Federal and/or Provincial resources to provide for the implementation of that plan particularly within intensification areas. Stormwater AMEC Philips has also provided input into stormwater management planning within the Built Boundary. It is noted that theoretically, each parcel of redevelopment land would need to provide separate stormwater managements systems at source and that that on-site quality controls provide benefits by controlling contaminants at the source. However, these benefits


may be functionally lost due to subsequent discharge to stormwater sewers and the mixing with untreated/contaminated water before outletting to water courses sustaining habitat. In addition, the amount of land available for development is potentially reduced on a site-by-site basis to provide for the treatment of stormwater. On this basis, it is noted that the Ministry of Environment has advanced a cash-in-lieu of on-site stormwater management program as an alternative to scattered on-site facilities for infill and redevelopment projects within existing urban areas. Under this alternative, the intensification developments, in-lieu of constructing on-site facilities will contribute financial resources toward the construction of one or more centralized facilities to treat contaminated discharge at strategic locations downstream of existing and future development areas. In this regard, the Town of Milton Stormwater Management Master Plan identified four potential sites for the construction of retro-fit facilities. A preliminary design assessment has already been completed for each candidate site as part of the Stormwater Quality Master Plan. An assessment of candidate sites for infill and redevelopment has been completed by AMEC Philips as part of the Milton Intensification Strategy, which focused primarily on the candidate development areas within the Milton Urban Area south of Steeles Avenue. A similar undertaking was completed as part of the Stormwater Quality Master Plan, in order to establish requirements for off-site stormwater quality control for future infill and redevelopment areas (ref. attached); of key significance, the assessment completed for the Stormwater Quality Master Plan included redevelopment and infill development areas north of Steeles Avenue (i.e. within the industrial sector). An updated off-site stormwater quality needs assessment has been completed, based upon the future redevelopment areas identified in the Stormwater Quality Master Plan, and those identified in the Milton Intensification Strategy. For this assessment, future infill and redevelopment south of Steeles Avenue has been assumed to correspond to the sites identified in the Milton Intensification Strategy, and the future infill and redevelopment north of Steeles Avenue has been assumed to remain as per the Stormwater Quality Master Plan. The updated assessment of the stormwater quality needs for the future redevelopment and infill development areas is summarized in Table A. For this assessment, the future infill and redevelopment areas north of Steeles Avenue have been assumed at 90 percent impervious cover (due to the industrial land use conditions), and the future infill and redevelopment areas south of Steeles Avenue have been assumed to be, on average, 75 percent, consistent with the assessment which was completed for the Stormwater Quality Master Plan stormwater quality control, as anticipated based upon the foregoing assumptions, is less than the treatable capacity identified for the retrofit sites under the Stormwater Quality Master Plan (i.e. 248.5 impervious ha requiring treatment versus 268.3 treatable impervious ha). The assessment carried out be AMEC Philips has conservatively assumed full redevelopment of the various sites, including redevelopment of all parking areas and driveways. The actual warrants for stormwater quality control for the future redevelopment areas would depend upon the specific form of redevelopment (i.e. redevelopment internal to existing structures, with no revisions to the landscape, would not require stormwater quality control), hence the actual warrants for stormwater quality control for the future infill and redevelopment areas may be further reduced. As more details for the redevelopment areas are advanced (i.e. form of redevelopment and associated land use), it will be necessary to more clearly establish


requirements for individual on-site stormwater quality controls and to account for the available capacity within the retrofit areas. 5.2.5.2 Transportation McCormick Rankin Corporation is part of the Study Team retained by the Town of Milton to prepare the intensification strategy. As with the water, wastewater and stormwater management review, the focus of McCormick Rankin’s work was on the Urban Growth Centre, since it is the Urban Growth Centre which is planned to accommodate a significant amount of growth in the form of intensification. The Transportation Analysis carried out by McCormick Rankin is based on an assumption about the long-term intensification potential of the UGC that is contemplated in the Intensification Strategy. The Transportation Analysis assumes a 2031 population and employment in the UGC of between 22,600 and 26,600 combined people and jobs. The Intensification Strategy does not identify a split between people and jobs. For the purposes of the Transportation Analysis, McCormick Rankin assumed a “worst-case” scenario of 100% population growth and 0% employment growth compared to today. It is noted by McCormick Rankin that the nature of the mix of population and employment growth has potential implications for the need for future transportation system improvements in and around the UGC. Specifically, a predominantly residential character places more people in the advantageous position of being in proximity to the GO station and to the hub of local transit services. On the other hand, the lack of any significant increase in employment in the UGC means that many of the additional residents in the UGC, at least in the short to medium term, will be working outside the UGC lessening any advantage associated with living in the UGC itself. The growth assumed for the Transportation Analysis is slightly higher than what was assumed for the Transportation Servicing Report prepared as part of the Sustainable Halton planning exercise (dated April 6, 2009). That report assumed that the number of residents and jobs in the Urban Growth Centre would increase to 21,500 by 2031, with population more than quadrupling (2,660 people in 2006 to 11,700 people in 2031) and employment doubling (4,810 jobs in 2006 to 9,800 jobs in 2031). The numbers relied upon in the Transportation Servicing Report are slightly different than the numbers prepared by Hemson Consulting in Sustainable Halton Report 3-07. In that report, it was indicated that the Urban Growth Centre would grow to 23,600 residents and jobs by 2031, with a 60:40 split between population and jobs. On the basis of the above, both the numbers relied upon for the Transportation Servicing Report and put forward by Hemson are slightly below what the Intensification Strategy has deemed the actual potential to be, and that were used as the basis for McCormick Rankin’s analysis. McCormick Rankin also assumed for their transportation analysis that the take-up for residential development across the Town of Milton will be generally consistent through 2031 regardless of where this growth occurs within the Town. This assumption is being made since the Town is required to plan for accommodating a certain amount of population and employment, with only a small portion of that total amount being identified as intensification.


To begin its analysis, McCormick Rankin reviewed a number of other GO stations situated in urban contexts, comparable to what is forecast for the Milton UGC, to understand how the travel mode choice may evolve in the Milton UGC. The other stations reviewed were Port Credit, Cooksville, Clarkson and Richmond Hill. It was determined in Port Credit that the transit modal split is approximately 26 percent, in Cooksville the transit modal split is just under 23 percent, in Clarkson it is just over 14 percent and in Richmond Hill it is about 14 percent. The average of the four stations reviewed is 19 percent. It is estimated at the present time the transit modal split is currently 3.5 percent in the Milton UGC. Based on a review of the comparable GO station areas, McCormick Rankin assumed the mode shares for residential development shown in Table B. The transit mode share is assumed to be 12% in order to be consistent with the work completed by Dillon Consulting for the Region of Halton; however it is noted that the actual transit share in 2031 may be higher, given the average seen at comparable GO station areas and the potential growth rates anticipated in the Intensification Strategy. Table B: Mode choice for residential development in comparable GO station areas and assumed 2031 mode choice for residential development in the Milton UGC

Port Credit

Cooksville Clarkson Richmond Hill

Average Milton UGC

(2006)

Milton* UGC

(2031) Drive auto 57.3% 54.9% 61.6% 56.6% 57.6% 73.6% 60% Passenger in auto

7.0% 12.6% 11.6% 13.8% 11.3% 10.8% 12%

GO Transit 15.6% 7.6% 10.6% 1.6% 8.9% 3.1% 9% Local transit 10.0% 13.8% 3.6% 12.2% 9.9% 0.4% 3% Walk and cycle 8.8% 8.3% 11.4% 6.8% 8.8% 8.4% 13% Other 1.5% 2.8% 0.7% 9% 3.5% 3.6% 3% * Total transit modal split (GO + LOCAL transit) of 12% is consistent with Sustainable Halton assumptions for the central area of Milton under the enhanced transit scenario.

Assumed mode shares for employment in the Milton UGC are shown in Table C. Table C: Assumed 2031 mode choice for employment in the Milton UGC

2006 2031 Drive auto 68.7% 47% Passenger in auto 12.7% 13% GO Transit 0 5% Local transit 0.3 10% Walk and cycle 8.7 20% Other 9.6 5%

Based on the growth and mode share assumptions described above, McCormick Rankin carried out an assessment of the transportation impacts of the development that may occur within the Urban Growth Centre. Future transit service expansions, potentially including all day and off-peak direction rail service to Milton and possibly two new stations under discussion for the longer term at Trafalgar Road and Tremaine Road, will have the potential to increase the proportion of Milton residents using the GO train station over the next 25 years. This enhanced rail service could also attract a more transit-oriented demographic to locate in the UGC.


Several factors could also result in reductions in traffic impacts associated with the GO station. The development of the two new stations would make it easier for some of the current park and ride users to access GO station service at the new locations. Also, with approximately 45-50% of the area of the UGC (and potentially of the proposed population growth) falling within 500m (8-10 minute walk) of the existing GO station, there is high potential for an increase in people accessing the station by walking or cycling. The combination of these factors means that traffic impacts around the existing GO station may be reduced in the future. It is important to note, however, that while the Metrolinx vision (The Big Move) proposes to extend all day rail service in both directions to Milton within 15 years (2023), and GO Transit is undertaking an Environmental Assessment to evaluate rail service expansions in the Milton Corridor, the current GO Transit Strategic Plan (GO 2020) indicates that all day train services in both directions will terminate at Meadowvale until 2020. With respect to Milton Transit, the current bus terminal for Milton Transit is at the GO station and it provides connections between the GO station and the Milton Transit service area. It has been determined that once riders reach the GO station terminal, 40 percent continue on Milton Transit, 41 percent transfer to GO Transit and only 6 percent proceed to a destination presumably in the UGC. For the purposes of the analysis, it is not expected that local transit will make significant in-roads into the travel market related to the UGC. The current Milton Transit strategy recognizes that improvements are required to adjust for new growth locations and that servicing the GO station is an easy to serve market segment. It is noted by McCormick Rankin that based on the population and employment increases projected, it will not be possible to maintain the current road system at a consistently high level of service into the future. Furthermore it is indicated that congestion is inevitable in a fast growing urban area particularly in a circumstance where development and infrastructure improvements are not necessarily timed to go hand in hand in every case. The transportation implications of intensification in the UGC occurs in two ways: System-wide and Local. Figure 12 below identifies the current system status and planned improvements for the road system in the Town of Milton. It is noted by McCormick Rankin that the Sustainable Halton planning process has already identified broad system requirements in terms of new lanes required. The proposed intensification of the UGC is not anticipated to create any additional requirements or change the timing of future needs relative to those already identified, provided that the overall rate of population growth remains unchanged in Town. Regardless of where the growth occurs, the total number of trips generated to, from, and within the Town will be similar. That said, there is potential that the growth contemplated in the Intensification Strategy could reduce some system-wide traffic impacts. For example, since the primary alternative locations for residential growth are to the south, southwest, and southeast of the UGC, and since almost 60% of auto trips are oriented to Highway 401 (or further north), focusing population growth in the UGC may defer the need for transportation improvements south of Main Street. This will be offset to a lesser extent by the 15-20% of auto trips that are oriented to the south and would travel further from the UGC to reach their destination compared to the same trips originating in the south part of the Town.


2 4

4

4

4 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

4

4

2

4

2

2

2

2

4 4

4

4

4

4

4

2

4

4

Figure 12: Planned Road Improvements in Milton

Existing lanes Current widening project 2006-2008 construction start –

Region of Halton and Town of Milton

Proposed widening project Beyond 2008 Proposed intersection improvements Region of Halton Signalized intersection – Level-of-service E/F From 2007 – State of the Regional

Road System Report – Region of Halton

Signalized intersection – Level-of-service C/D Unsignalized intersection – Level-of-service E/F Unsignalized intersection – Level-of-service C/D


However, there are certain aspects of the road system that require further discussion in a system-wide context. These include access to Highway 401 and Highway 401 itself, the potential for significant employment growth north of the 401 and the potential extension of Main Street to Trafalgar Road to the east. In addition, Steeles Avenue itself represents a barrier to north-south traffic flow as well. With respect to specific recommendations in the UGC, it is recommended that every effort be made to make access to the GO Station as easy as possible through the UGC as it is developed. In addition, the road pattern should be designed in a manner that provides for direct access to Ontario Street and Thompson Road and to Main Street east and west of the UGC without relying heavily on the central portion of Main Street. Planning ahead for the pedestrian and the cyclist in the UGC is also strongly recommended. Given that the intersections of Main Street/Ontario Street and Main Street/Thompson Road are currently operating at level of Service C, it is expected that service levels may decrease as development occurs in the UGC. On this basis, it is suggested that some consideration be given to establishing an alternative to Main Street on the north side of Main Street along the northern edge of the UGC. This alternative would connect Thompson Road with Ontario Street. An automobile crossing of the CP rail-line is not recommended, given its significant cost and the little benefit that may occur. 5.3 THE DOWNTOWN CORE

5.3.1 What Makes a Downtown Successful?

A downtown is recognized as healthy and vibrant when retail space is rarely vacant, when the downtown is a primary meeting space for people who live in the community and when the streets are alive with pedestrians. A downtown is healthy when the business community is unified in providing above average customer service, when parking spots are sometimes hard, but not impossible, to find, and when the image or character of the place is apparent. The keys to a successful downtown are well documented. The physical layout and component pieces of that layout plays a key role. A term that is often used to describe the places that we have been to and remember is “Sense of Place”. A downtown may have a great sense of place or be lacking a sense of place, and often they lie somewhere between these two. In the case of Milton, there clearly is a distinct 'Sense of Place'. In order for a downtown to have a distinct sense of place, it should be representative of the heritage of the community. Generally, the distinct mixture of building types that represent the area's history are not found in newer areas of commercial development. Downtowns are distinctly different from the master planned commercial nodes built today and should focus on capitalizing on this distinction by preserving the built history of the downtown and requiring infill projects to complement the built form of the historical downtown. Almost every downtown is individualistic and distinct. Encouraging the continued distinctiveness and enhancing is therefore key. In other words, applying suburban rules to downtown areas do not work, since they will have the effect of stripping away the downtown’s identity. For a downtown to have a distinct sense of place it must also be pedestrian friendly. Walking the street in a downtown is the way we experience the place. For this activity to occur at


sufficient levels to make an impact pedestrian needs must be considered paramount and vehicular traffic should be slowed and organized with clear directional signage. A downtown also requires a sufficient level of human activity. People on the streets, in the stores, visiting the public institutions, and communing in the public spaces are required. Public institutions are best located downtown where possible, as they are important to the health and vitality of the downtown. In order for a downtown to have a distinct sense of place it should support, allow and encourage multiple uses. Office, retail, dining, lodging, residential, entertainment, tourist and cultural attractions all belong downtown. Diversity creates excitement and vibrancy, and mixed - use downtowns are the most successful variety. For a downtown to have a distinct sense of place it also needs to be safe, attractive, interesting and conveniently linked to the rest of the community. A downtown that is safe, attractive and interesting is a downtown that people will frequent and remain in longer. The longer people linger in the downtown the more establishments they will visit and the more other people are encouraged to do the same. For a downtown to have a distinct sense of place, orientation to the physical environmental must also be easily perceived. Cultural as well as commercial attractions should be easy to find. The uniqueness of the community should be celebrated and in some cases made more apparent to visitors. 5.3.2 Current Land Use

The existing Official Plan makes it clear that a Town objective is to maintain the CBD as Milton’s centre and for it to play a defining role in the Town:

“To maintain, strengthen and expand the downtown (Central Business District) area as the focal point of the community” (Section 2.1.3.19).

Section 3.5.1.1 of the Official Plan details the larger purpose of the CBD:

“It is intended that the Central Business District (CBD) will continue to be a multi-functional centre which acts as the primary focus of commercial and other services which serve a Town-wide function, as well as a major residential community, all the while recognizing flood susceptibility in the urban core.”

Essentially, the CBD consists of three large nodes: the established commercial core centered upon the intersection of Martin and Main Streets, Milton Mall and the GO Station. The latter two are now in the Urban Growth Centre. In addition to the above, the existing Official Plan includes a number of stable residential neighbourhoods within the Central Business District, according to Schedule C, which is the Central Business District Land Use Plan. As part of the DM2 Strategic Plan process, the role of the CBD was confirmed. In fact, one of the specific directions in the new Strategic Plan is to “make the Central Business District the main focal point of the community”. Three specific Initiatives were established to implement this Direction as set out below:


• Reinforce and encourage the function of the Central Business District as the administrative, cultural, entertainment, commercial, social and historic focal point of the community;

• Support the ongoing transition and the positive changes occurring in the Central Business District; and,

• Encourage the development of residential uses in the Central Business District to support local businesses.

Milton’s historic core includes a wide range of residential, retail and employment uses. Buildings generally range in height from 1 to 3 storeys and many are of historic significance. The most significant cultural heritage landscape in the Town of Milton is the Courthouse Square. This four-acre space includes Victoria Park on the west of Brown Street and, to its east, a complex of heritage buildings comprising the former Halton Court House and Jail and former Registry Office and their associated open spaces. The urban form is pedestrian-oriented, with wide sidewalks, pedestrian amenities such as benches and landscaping, and buildings generally set close to the street. Lands to the north and south of Main Street are dominated by low density housing, many of which are of historical significance. Mill Pond functions as a major park and amenity, drawing visitors from across the Town. The floodplain of the Sixteen Mile Creek also bisects the historic core, limiting opportunities for redevelopment. A limited number of locations are potential candidates for redevelopment or infill projects. In some cases the existing building stock is not of a significant quality to be preserved and redevelopment should be encouraged, in other cases infill development is available due to vacant land. In replicating or complementing the traditional main street character, where infill development is proposed, consideration should be given to, building size, location and materials, the percentage of glazing on the front façade, minimum two storey heights and details such as cornices, arched windows, gracious entrances connected directly to the sidewalk, brick ornamentation, pilasters, awnings and moldings including brick and wood.


5.3.3 Factors to Consider in Developing an Intensification Vision for Milton’s Historic Core

In terms of planned function, the downtown should continue to function as a focal point for commerce, tourism, entertainment and hospitality in the Town, accommodating a diverse mix of commercial, residential, cultural and social uses and opportunities. The factors considered in developing a vision are: a) The significance of the downtown to the identity of Milton and its role as the cultural

and civic heart of the Town.

b) Presence of a large concentration of historical and heritage buildings.

c) Desire to improve public realm and build on the pedestrian focus of the downtown.

d) Desire to encourage investment and additional residential uses to support commercial uses and revitalization efforts.

e) A lot pattern that is fragmented and irregular, with a wide range of frontages and depths.

f) Proximity to low-density residential neighbourhoods on the edges of the downtown.

g) The traffic in the area, particularly during peak hours and the existence of parking, both on street and off street.

h) Need for new residential development to support local stores and businesses.

i) Maintenance of views to the Niagara Escarpment.

j) Location of floodplain and its impact on development.

k) Relatively few potential intensification parcels.

Given the presence of a number of heritage properties and established businesses, it is difficult to predict where redevelopment and development will occur in the Downtown Core in the short to medium terms. However, there are a number of parcels that are not considered to be significant from a heritage perspective on which development in the form of intensification may occur. The majority of these properties are located on Main Street. An opportunity also potentially exists on the municipal parking lot located on the south side of Mary Street and to the west of Charles Street. However, this latter property would only be suitable for intensification if the parking that was displaced was subsequently replaced either on the property or elsewhere in the Downtown Core. 5.3.4 An Intensification Vision for Milton’s Historic Core

The following principles are recommended as the Intensification Vision for Milton’s historic core: • Maintain, promote and enhance the historic core as one of the primary focal points for

commerce, tourism and pedestrian-scale activity in the Town.


• Protect historic buildings and views to the Niagara Escarpment. • Encourage the development of a range of uses that will support the historic core as a

place to live, work and play. • Create a sense of civic identity and pride through a high standard of urban design,

public space and public art. • Provide of a full range of housing opportunities for present and future residents of all

ages and incomes. • Carefully integrate new development into the fabric of the existing community,

through context sensitive urban design. • Minimize the impacts of new development on adjacent low-density residential

neighbourhoods through the use of reduced heights and staggered setbacks. • Ensure that there is a strong relationship between new development and the street

and that new development is supported by improvements to the public realm. • Enhance the western edges of the historic core as a gateway that demonstrates civic

pride and creates a sense of arrival in the heart of Milton. • A pedestrian, cycling and transit-first community, where dependence on the private

automobile is minimized. • Encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic through the use of trails, paths

and lanes. A key component of the overall built form vision of the Downtown is to ensure that new development is both compatible with existing development and preserves views of the Niagara Escarpment, from all east-west streets in the Downtown Core. In order to maintain a consistent façade, the minimum height of buildings fronting on Main Street should be 2 storeys and the maximum height should be four storeys. Building heights greater than four storeys and up to six storeys may be permitted on the rear portions of buildings, or at intersections subject to the approval of a specific development application. Allowing for greater heights at the rear of buildings fronting on Main Street will also assist in preserving the view of the Niagara Escarpment along Main Street. With respect to built form, the policy framework that applies in the Downtown Core should ensure that any new buildings have a complementary design relationship with existing buildings, particularly if the existing buildings are considered to be significant from a heritage perspective. Figures 13 and 14 below illustrate how this built form vision could be applied: Figure 13: Illustration Showing Potential Relationship Between Existing and New Buildings on Main Street


Figure 14: Implications of Staggered Setbacks for Upper Storeys on Main Street

A significant opportunity also exists to provide for the development of taller buildings in a mixed use setting on the west side of Bronte Road on both sides of Main Street West. However, any development on the west side of Bronte Road should be sited in a manner that does not block views of the Niagara Escarpment from any east-west road that runs through the central portion of the Milton Downtown Core. 5.3.5 Public Realm

Main Street is expected to continue functioning the major east-west route through the Downtown. However, in addition to accommodating motor vehicles, equal emphasis should be placed on accommodating future public transit, bicycles and pedestrians wherever possible. In order to provide the basis for the continuing upgrading of the public realm, it is recommended that the Town prepare a scoped public realm sustainable design element plan that will, when completed, assist in the review of development applications. The Town has already carried out a number of design exercises in the Downtown Core that have lead to a number of significant improvements to the public realm along Main Street and some of the side streets. However, it is recommended that some further work be completed to determine where bicycle parking facilities and covered bus shelters should be located in the Downtown Core. It is also recommended that the Official Plan continue to encourage the development of a distinctive public realm in this area that has the effect of attracting new development and reducing the impact of the motor vehicle on the character of the area. In order to implement this intent, special pavement treatments, unique street furniture and signage should be established in the Downtown. Lastly, it is recommended that encroachment of patios for restaurants and the outdoor display and sale of goods related to a business in the Downtown


be encouraged and permitted within the municipal right-of-way provided the scale and extent of the encroachment does not affect pedestrian/vehicular movement in the area. As noted above, the Town has already carried out a number of improvements to the public realm along Main Street. These improvements include the planting of trees in key locations and the erection of historic streetlights as shown on the photo. The pedestrian zone that exists as the area between building face and curb and is the area of most importance when considering future streetscape enhancement strategies. The pedestrian zone is further divided into the sidewalk travel surface and the amenity strip as shown on the sketches below.

The pedestrian zone differs slightly where a surface parking lot is at the street edge and the building is set back from the street. In this case and in order to create a framed and complete pedestrian zone, an edge is required along the street frontage to define the edge of the pedestrian zone and buffer the parking area. Edges at the front of properties if a building happens to be setback from the street can be created by using pedestrian amenities, masonry and decorative metal walls and landscaping as shown below. These improvements are generally located on private property and as a result site plan control is required at the time of development to ensure these improvements are installed.


Establishing and maintaining street trees in an urban environment over a long period of time is sometimes challenging as a result of salt contamination and lack of a water source. The urban environment is tough on trees and the average life span of a street tree planted in a traditional tree pit in a sidewalk is two years. However, street trees are one of the most attractive, defining, and critical parts of a downtown. Trees narrow the perceived width of the road, generate a sense of enclosure, shade the pedestrian zone in the summer and make public areas more inviting for pedestrians. A successful street tree program results when the program is implemented with adequate resources and using a thorough understanding of urban forestry principles. 5.3.6 Implications on Official Plan

Policies which are intended to implement the recommendations made in this section are contained in Section 6.0 of this report. 5.3.7 Character Areas

Schedule D to the existing Official Plan identifies an extensive character area that applies to a portion of the Downtown Core and to existing stable residential neighbourhoods located to the south of the Downtown Core. Schedule C.7.d.CBD also identifies a special heritage area within the Central Business District. Section 2.10.3.31 to Section 2.10.3.36 of the existing Official Plan indicates that Character Area plans should be prepared for identified character areas. The policies indicate that in the absence of a Character Area plan, the Town shall ensure “to the degree possible that all new development is compatible with and sympathetic in design to existing building forms including heights, setbacks, scale, architectural features, and complies with the relevant provisions of Section 2.8, Urban Design of this Plan.” A Character Area plan has not been prepared for this area. Section 3.5.3.26 of the existing Official Plan contains specific policies on heritage in the Central Business District and it indicates that Site Plan Control is to be applied to new homes and additions to homes in the Character Area discussed above. The policies indicate that the Town’s Site Plan Control By-law should be amended to apply to single-detached dwellings within the Character Area identified in the area and that “special attention to alterations or improvements will be given to buildings designated as a cluster of significant architectural merit on Schedule C.7.d. CBD”. Section 2.10 of the Official Plan contains a number of policies that apply to heritage, generally throughout the Town of Milton. The policies


indicate that the Town shall continue to maintain a Citizen Heritage Advisory Committee and that a heritage resource inventory would be prepared. The policies also deal with the designation of individual properties and the identification of heritage conservation districts. The policies also deal with the protection of heritage resources, signage and the retention of pioneer cemeteries. 5.4 OTHER INTENSIFICATION AREAS

5.4.1 Description

A significant amount of land is located outside of the UGC and within the Built Boundary. However, there are very few locations within the remainder of the Built Boundary are appropriate for intensification, since they are the site of a range of established uses and neighbourhoods. On this basis, an analysis was undertaken to identify sites that have potential for intensification over the next 25 years. Parcels of land that met a series of criteria relating to size and lot coverage were identified as “potential intensification sites”. Outside of the Urban Growth Centre as shown on Figure 8, a number of properties have been identified as having potential for intensification. Most of the land that has been identified is concentrated in two areas. The first area is focused on the intersection of Ontario Street and Derry Road, which is currently the site of a number of older commercial uses on large parcels of land. The redevelopment potential is significant at this intersection. The second area is focused on the south side of Main Street, west of James snow Parkway. These lands also have significant potential for intensification, given their location adjacent to a Highway 401 interchange and the emerging Urban Growth Centre. A number of other smaller sites have been identified as well, with most of these sites being located within or adjacent to the Central Business District. Given that the majority of the older part of Milton is considered to be 'stable' opportunities for intensification within these established neighbourhoods are limited. With respect to the remainder of 'Olde Milton', which is bounded by Bronte Street, Derry Road, Thompson Street and Steeles Avenue, most of the development in this area occurred since 1950/1960 and occurred in the form of typical suburban development. As a result, opportunities are also generally limited in this area. Figure 15 shows where these intensification sites are located. It is noted that staff have also identified a number of sites that are currently designated for employment purposes as potential intensification sites - sites 2, 5, 6, 10 and 24. The determination of whether these sites are appropriate for residential use will be made in the context of the current Official Plan Review.


Figure 15: Potential Intensification Areas in the Urban Area outside of the UGC


Table D describes each of the intensification sites, their current land use and the status in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Recommendations are also made on Table D on how these sites should be planned. All of the 'intensification allocation' to Milton can be accommodated in the UGC. As a result, there would be no need to plan for intensification on the parcels identified on Table D. However, development in the UGC will take many years as a result of a number of factors. In addition, the more efficient use of any land within the Built Boundary is supported by Provincial and Regional policy, and current Town policy. The intensification sites are located on predominantly four-lane, car-oriented arterial roads with no on-street parking. The intensification potential is generally low in these corridors because the majority of the potential intensification parcels have limited lot frontages and depths and are located immediately adjacent to established and stable residential neighbourhoods. Both of these factors have a significant impact on the viability of constructing structured or underground parking, which means that it will be difficult to achieve higher densities on these parcels unless a number of parcels of land are consolidated, in most cases. Particularly on the smaller, more isolated parcels, it will be difficult to achieve higher densities. In cases such as these, the optimization of the land should be encouraged, provided the development is compatible with adjacent development. Notwithstanding the above, there are a few parcels and areas that have greater potential because of their size and they are identified in Table D above. While the properties that are already developed with commercial uses may take some time to intensify, the other vacant parcels have a greater likelihood of developing sooner. The factors considered in developing a long term vision for those ‘other’ areas include: a) Current function of these corridors as primarily streets for motor vehicles and how

that function will evolve in the future as transit is improved.

b) Importance of each corridor for traffic movement and their role as the main north-south and east-west corridors for traffic in the Town.

c) Relatively limited and isolated opportunities for intensification, and particularly the limited number of larger parcels available to achieve higher densities in accordance with ROPA 38.

d) Compatibility with surrounding residential neighbourhoods.

e) Potential for improved transit service if higher density development occurs.

f) Reverse lot frontages that sterilize sections of each corridor.

g) Phasing new development onto lands that are currently used for parking, while maintaining the viability of existing commercial uses.

h) The potential for future development to contribute to a much stronger pedestrian orientation.


The appropriate form, type and density of development for each intensification site should be determined through the consideration of a number of factors, as listed below: • planned function for the area as per the Official Plan; • planned function of roadway the parcel fronts on; • nature of the existing land uses; • sizes and shapes of the parcels of land; • effect of development on historical and heritage buildings; • nature and location of adjacent land uses and the impacts of new development on

these uses; • nature and type of transit that exists now and in the future; • implications of new development on traffic patterns and the provision of

infrastructure; • presence of parkland, schools and other community facilities; and, • viability of intensification, from an economic perspective. Some locations may be appropriate for high-rise building forms and others may be more suitable for mid or low rise building forms. Generally, buildings with higher heights should be permitted in locations within Intensification Areas where: • the impacts on primarily low density residential neighbourhoods are expected to be

minimal to non-existent; • parcels sizes are generally larger, which lend themselves to larger comprehensively

planned developments with limited to no land assembly required; • higher buildings will assist in establishing a focal point in an area, and/or; • the lands are in close proximity to major arterial roads with public transit. In areas that are located close to existing residential areas, or are the site of a number of historic or heritage buildings, densities and building heights should be generally lower to reflect this existing land use context. On the basis of the above it is recommended that the long term vision be to: a) Transform the corridors from car-oriented arterial roads to multimodal corridors that

support transit, walking and cycling.

b) Respect the character of adjacent residential neighbourhoods by ensuring that new development complements the existing built form to the extent possible.

c) The height of buildings should have a proportional relationship to the street right-of-way and new buildings should be located close to the street to better define the street edge and create a well-defined character for the street.

d) Focus the massing of buildings at intersections to establish focal points.

e) Include active retail uses on the ground floors of taller buildings to contribute to pedestrian activity.

f) Orient windows, main entrances and other primary building façade elements toward the street to contribute to a more pleasant pedestrian environment.


g) Encourage the consolidation and expansion of parcels of land to provide for greater economies of scale in the corridors.

Table D: Location, Land Use, Designation and Zoning of Other Intensification Sites Parcel Current Uses Permitted Uses –

Official Plan Permitted Uses –

Zoning By-law OP Densities Recommendation

1 Martin Street, at Steeles Avenue, south-east corner Current designation Employment

Restaurant and other commercial uses

• Light industrial;

• Office uses;

• Service commercial uses, wholesale and retail functions directly related to industry;

• Hotel, conference, convention and banquet facilities;

• Research and development (exclude uses producing biomedical waste);

• Institutional uses;

• Restaurants;

• Theatre/entertainment uses;

• Automobile sales, service and repair;

• Automobile service stations, washing facilities;

• Commercial recreation uses;

• Parks.

Auto Commercial (C5)

• Motor vehicle dealership;

• Motor vehicle gas bar or service station;

• Motor vehicle washing establishment;

• Convenience store;

• Restaurant;

• Hotel;

• Drive-through service facility.

•

No minimum or maximum provided.

• Should be designated for residential purposes

• Location is ideal for the development of a gateway type project

• Building heights of between four and six storeys could be considered on this property, provided impacts on adjacent single-detached dwellings can be minimized.

• Consideration could be given to permitting the consolidation of lots on the south side of Steeles Avenue east of the subject lands to provide for more intensive development.

6

Bronte Street North, south of former rail line, west side Current designation Secondary Commercial Sub-area

Retail store

• Financial service

uses;

• Home furnishing and renovation service uses;


• Offices;

• Personal service uses;

• Restaurants;

• Retail uses (existing);

• Service commercial uses;

Secondary Commercial (C1-B)

• Upper-floor dwelling units;

• Offices;

• Retail stores and restaurants;

• Broad range of service commercial uses;

• Fitness centre;

• Funeral home;

• Galleries and studios;

Minimum height – 2 storeys. Maximum height – 4 storeys.

• Minimum height of two storeys should be retained. The maximum height should be increased to six storeys

• View corridor along Mill Street of Niagara Escarpment should be maintained on the site


Parcel Current Uses Permitted Uses – Official Plan

Permitted Uses – Zoning By-law

OP Densities Recommendation

• Small-scale residential development: includes street townhouses; stacked townhouses; triplexes; quattroplexes; row housing; apartments.

• Theatre.

7 Multiple properties along Bronte Road and Mains Street Current designation Secondary Commercial Sub-area

Detached dwellings; triplex; quattroplex; apartments (includes mixed use); medical offices; offices; retail stores; motor vehicle repair.

• Financial service uses;

• Home furnishing and renovation service uses;


• Offices;

• Personal service uses;

• Restaurants;

• Retail uses (existing);

• Service commercial uses;

• Small-scale residential development: includes street townhouses; stacked townhouses; triplexes; quattroplexes; row housing; apartments.

Secondary Commercial (C1-B)


• Offices;


• Broad range of service commercial uses;

• Fitness centre;

• Funeral home;


• Theatre.

Minimum height – 2 storeys; Maximum height – 4 storeys.

• This area includes a number of heritage buildings (25, 41 and 45 Main Street, 12 Elizabeth Street, and 6 and 56 Bronte Street South)

• Identified heritage buildings have the potential to be used for retail purposes on the ground floor.

• It is not expected that heritage buildings will be removed.

• On lots which are not the site of heritage buildings, maximum heights can be increased to six storeys, provided that view corridors along Mary Street, King Street and Robert Street of the Escarpment are maintained.

• Any development on the south side of Main Street will need to be designed in a manner that minimizes the impacts of such development on the existing single-detached development on the north side of





Mary Street.

8 Main Street East, selected properties South side of Mary Street, between Hugh Street and Charles Street

Current designation Core Commercial Sub-area

Vacant land (residential and commercial); detached dwelling; duplex; parking lot; place of worship

• Community facilities (includes religious, recreational and cultural facilities;

• Entertainment facilities;

• Existing industrial uses until such time that the use is discontinued;

• Medium- and high-density residential uses

• Offices;

• Retail uses (maximum floor space limit of “approximately 2,750 square metres”);

• Service commercial uses (includes personal service uses, but excludes automobile-oriented uses);

• Special needs housing.

Core Commercial (C1-A)


• Offices (not an office building);


• Selected range of service commercial uses;


• Theatre.

Minimum height – 2 storeys; Maximum height – 4 storeys.

• This area includes the St. Paul’s Church and heritage properties at 96, 100 and 114 Main Street.

• The maximum heights on the properties fronting on Main Street should be no more than four storeys.

• The parking lot on Mary Street owned by the Town of Milton has a significant amount of potential. However, maximum height on this site will be limited, given the configuration of the parcel and its proximity to low-rise single-detached dwellings.

• It is not expected that heritage buildings will not be removed.

9 Bronte Street South, at Anne Boulevard Current designation Residential Proposed designation

Local Commercial

Shopping centre

• Low Density Residential (detached dwellings; accessory apartment in a detached dwelling; rooming, boarding and lodging houses in a detached dwelling; bed and breakfasts in a detached dwelling; duplex and semi-detached dwellings; townhouses; quattroplexes)

Local Commercial (C3)

• Small retail stores;

• Restaurants;



• Drive-through service facilities;

• Studios.

Low Density – maximum 20 units per net hectare; Medium Density, Group I – maximum 35 units per net hectare;

Medium Density, Group II – Maximum 70 units per net hectare.

• Site of the La Rosa Plaza

• Plaza is a typical suburban L-shaped plaza with parking for the uses located at the intersection.

• Considerable amount of potential exists on this site.

• Buildings up to six storeys in height will be appropriate on the western half of the property fronting on Bronte





• Medium Density, Group I (street townhouses; stacked townhouses; triplexes; quattroplexes; row housing);

• Medium Density, Group II (stacked townhouses; apartments);

• Local commercial uses;

• Local institutional (elementary school, library, place of worship, day care facility, community centre);

• Special needs housing (group homes, rest homes, residential care facilities, crisis care facilities);

• Home occupations;

• Garden suite (on the same lot as a detached dwelling);

• Parks.

Street.

• Buildings up to three to four storeys in height would be appropriate on the eastern half of the property.

11

Milton District Hospital Current designation Institutional

Milton District Hospital

• Hospital;

• Major educational facilities (includes secondary schools);

• Large religious facilities;

• Supportive housing;

• Residential care facilities;

• Correctional group homes;

• Community uses on sites that generally exceed 1.0 hectare in area;

Major Institutional (I-B)

• Community centre;

• Day nursery;

• Schools;

• Correctional Group Home;

• Hospital;

• Library;

• Place of worship;

• Residential care facility.

No minimum or maximum provided.

• Currently the site of the Milton District Hospital.

• Site is under-utilized and has potential for the expansion of the hospital in the future.

• Residential development should be permitted on the lands, provided the lands are not required for hospital purposes.

• A wide range of uses should be permitted on the





• Accessory service, retail and office uses;

• Residential uses “in conjunction with institutional uses.”

site.

• Buildings with heights of up to eight to ten storeys would be appropriate on the site.

• Any new buildings should be focused on the Bronte Street/Derry Road intersection to establish a focus of development in the area.

• Any building developed adjacent to Derry Road or Bronte Street should contain a mix of uses where possible.

14 Ontario Street South, east side, north of Laurier Avenue Current designation Residential

Detached dwellings; retail store; mixed residential/ office and retail/office

• Low Density Residential (detached dwellings; accessory apartment in a detached dwelling; rooming, boarding and lodging houses in a detached dwelling; bed and breakfasts in a detached dwelling; duplex and semi-detached dwellings; townhouses; quattroplexes)



• Local commercial

Low Density Residential (RLD)

• Detached, duplex and semi-detached dwellings;

• Group Home Types 1 and 2;

• Home occupations.

Local Commercial (C3)

• Small retail stores;

• Restaurants;



• Drive-through service facilities;

• Studios.

Low Density – maximum 20 units per net hectare Medium Density, Group I – maximum 35 units per net hectare Medium Density, Group II – Maximum 70 units per net hectare.

• Currently the site of a number of single detached dwellings on large lots which back on to a small ravine. A number of small scale commercial uses are also located on the north side of Laurier Avenue.

• This area has a considerable amount of potential, provided lots are amalgamated.

• Policies in the Official Plan should restrict additional development on these lands unless at least three to four adjacent properties are amalgamated to provide for a larger development site.

• Given the depth of the lots,





uses;





• Parks.

buildings that have a height of up to 8 storeys would be appropriate along the Bronte Street frontage.

• Building heights would be reduced to no more than six storeys on the east side adjacent to the ravine.

15

Derry Road West, at Ontario Street South Current designation Secondary Mixed Use Node

Motor vehicle service station; motor vehicle dealership; shopping centre (includes offices above)

• Commercial uses, including a food store;

• High-density residential uses integrated with the commercial uses;

• Institutional uses integrated with the commercial uses;

• Office uses integrated with the commercial uses.

Secondary Mixed Use Commercial (C2)

• Retail stores;

• Restaurants;


• Full range of service commercial uses;

• Fitness centre;

• Food store;

• Funeral home;


• Places of assembly and entertainment;

• Theatre;

• Drive-through service facilities.

Secondary Mixed Use Commercial Exception Twenty-nine (C2*29)

• In addition to the above uses, a dry cleaning establishment at the Derry Centre.

Auto Commercial (C5)

Maximum commercial floor space – 16,725 square metres.

• Policies of the Official Plan already anticipate a full range of uses in this area.

• Significant opportunity exists for all of the developed lands in this area to be redeveloped with higher intensity mixed-use and residential development.

• Buildings with heights of up to 12 to 15 storeys would be appropriate in the north-east quadrant, given that the lands are surrounded by roads and a ravine.

• Lands in the north-west quadrant are also suitable for development, however with building heights





• Motor vehicle dealership;

• Motor vehicle gas bar or service station;

• Motor vehicle washing establishment;

• Convenience store;

• Restaurant;

• Hotel;

• Drive-through service facility.

Future Development (FD)

• Existing uses and additions to existing buildings and structures only;

• No new buildings or structures.

no higher than six storeys, with the higher heights focussed at the intersection.

• There is little available land for development in the south-west quadrant – however buildings of up to 12 storeys are appropriate on this site, provided structure parking was constructed.

• Lands in the south-east quadrant are also appropriate for high rise development in the form of 12 storey buildings. Higher buildings should be focused at the intersection wherever possible.

• Buildings with higher heights may also be appropriate subject to the consideration of a specific application.

19 Main Street East, at Harris Boulevard Current designation Institutional Area

Vacant land • Public, quasi-public and private non-profit uses serving the Secondary Plan area or Town on sites that generally exceed 1.0 hectare in area;

• Special needs housing (seniors, single persons, emergency or supportive housing), in conjunction with institutional uses or on separate




Minimum density for high density residential – 70 units per net hectare; Maximum density for high density residential – 100 units per net hectare; No minimum or maximum provided for other uses;

• Parcel is currently vacant and located on the south-side of one of the main east-west corridors in the Town.

• Site can easily function as an extension of the Urban Growth Centre located to the west.

• Given the size of the site, high density residential uses in buildings of up to 12





sites;

• High-density residential uses “in conjunction with institutional uses;”


• If lands are identified for an institutional use (such as a school) or park but are not required or are proposed to be closed, they may be additionally used for low- and medium-density housing.

storeys in height would be appropriate.

• Lower heights would be recommended for the southern half of the property adjacent to Hampshire Way.

20 Main Street East, both sides of Sinclair Boulevard (west of James Snow Parkway) Current designation Residential/Office Proposed designation

Mixed-use/High Density Corridor

Vacant mixed use land





• Office uses;

• Special needs housing (group homes type 1 and 2, but not Correctional Group Homes);


• Parks and other public spaces.




Minimum density, Medium Density Groups I and II – 20 units per net hectare; Minimum density, main permitted uses – 70 units per net hectare; Maximum residential density – 100 units per net hectare; Maximum office density – 2.0 FSI.

• Parcel is currently vacant and located on the south-side of one of the main east-west corridors in the Town.

• Site can easily function as an extension of the Urban Growth Centre located to the west.

• Given the size of the site high density residential uses in buildings of up to 12 storeys in height would be appropriate.

• Lower heights would be recommended for the southern half of the property adjacent to Hampshire Way.

22 Detached • Low Density Low Density Residential Low Density – • Large lot with





End of Pitfield Road Current designation

dwelling Residential (detached dwellings; accessory apartment in a detached dwelling; rooming, boarding and lodging houses in a detached dwelling; bed and breakfasts in a detached dwelling; duplex and semi-detached dwellings; townhouses; quattroplexes)








• Parks.

(RLD)



• Home occupations

maximum 20 units per net hectare; Medium Density, Group I – maximum 35 units per net hectare; Medium Density, Group II – Maximum 70 units per net hectare

single detached dwelling located to rear of apartment buildings on Ontario Street.

• Potential exists for some limited intensification on this site provided new buildings are no higher than 2.5/3 storeys.

• It is not expected that heritage buildings will be removed

23 Place of • Low Density Low Density Residential Low Density – • Currently the site





Ontario Street North, west side, at Pitfield Road Current designation Residential

worship with an accessory dwelling unit

Residential (detached dwellings; accessory apartment in a detached dwelling; rooming, boarding and lodging houses in a detached dwelling; bed and breakfasts in a detached dwelling; duplex and semi-detached dwellings; townhouses; quattroplexes)








• Parks.

(RLD)



• Home occupations.

maximum 20 units per net hectare; Medium Density, Group I – maximum 35 units per net hectare; Medium Density, Group II – Maximum 70 units per net hectare.

of a place of worship

• Potential exists for some limited development, provided new buildings have a height that is no greater than three storeys.

• Lands to the south on the west side of Ontario Street are also considered by Town staff to have some potential for low rise intensification if multiple lots are amalgamated.

• However, the limited depth of the lots will limit development options


5.4.2 Factors to Consider in Developing a Vision for Other Intensification Areas

All of the 'intensification allocation' to Milton can be accommodated in the UGC. As a result, there would be no need to plan for intensification on the parcels identified on Table A. However, development in the UGC will take many years as a result of a number of factors. In addition, the more efficient use of any land within the Built Boundary is supported by Provincial and Regional policy, and current Town policy. All of the corridors that are the site of the majority of the intensification sites are predominantly four-lane, car-oriented arterial roads with no on-street parking. The intensification potential is generally low in these corridors because the majority of the potential intensification parcels have limited lot frontages and depths and are located immediately adjacent to established and stable residential neighbourhoods. Both of these factors have a significant impact on the viability of constructing structured or underground parking, which means that it will be difficult to achieve higher densities on these parcels unless a number of parcels of land are consolidated. Particularly on the smaller, more isolated parcels, it will be difficult to achieve higher densities. In cases such as these, the optimization of the land should be encouraged, provided the development is compatible with adjacent development. Notwithstanding the above, there are a few parcels and areas that have greater potential because of their size and they are identified in Table A above. While the properties that are already developed with commercial uses may take some time to intensify, the other vacant parcels have a greater likelihood of developing sooner. The factors considered in developing a long term vision for those ‘other’ areas include: a) Current function of these corridors as primarily streets for motor vehicles and how

that function will evolve in the future as transit is improved.

b) Importance of each corridor for traffic movement and their role as the main north-south and east-west corridors for traffic in the Town.

c) Relatively limited and isolated opportunities for intensification, and particularly the limited number of larger parcels available to achieve higher densities in accordance with ROPA 38.

d) Compatibility with surrounding residential neighbourhoods.

e) Reverse lot frontages that sterilize sections of each corridor.

f) Phasing new development onto lands that are currently used for parking, while maintaining the viability of existing commercial uses.

g) The potential for future development to contribute to a much stronger pedestrian orientation.

The appropriate form, type and density of development for each intensification site was determined on Table D determined through the consideration of a number of factors, as listed below:


• planned function for the area as per the Official Plan; • planned function of roadway the parcel fronts on; • nature of the existing land uses; • sizes and shapes of the parcels of land; • effect of development on historical and heritage buildings; • nature and location of adjacent land uses and the impacts of new development on

these uses; • nature and type of transit that exists now and in the future; • implications of new development on traffic patterns and the provision of

infrastructure; • presence of parkland, schools and other community facilities; and, • viability of intensification, from an economic perspective. Some locations may be appropriate for high-rise building forms and others may be more suitable for mid or low rise building forms. Generally, buildings with higher heights should be permitted in locations within Intensification Areas where: • the impacts on primarily low density residential neighbourhoods are expected to be

minimal to non-existent; • parcels sizes are generally larger, which lend themselves to larger comprehensively

planned developments with limited to no land assembly required; • higher buildings will assist in establishing a focal point in an area, and/or; • the lands are in close proximity to major arterial roads with public transit. In areas that are located close to existing residential areas, or are the site of a number of historic or heritage buildings, densities and building heights should be generally lower to reflect this existing land use context.


6.0 OFFICIAL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 OVERVIEW

The intent of this Section is to make recommendations on the policy framework that should be included within the Official Plan to implement the intensification policies of the Growth Plan and ROPA 38. As the Official Plan is in the process of being updated, new policies on intensification may be included in the Official Plan as part of that updating process. However, the potential does also exist for there to be a need for an Amendment that deals solely with intensification and other related Growth Plan matters. Given the many policies in the existing Official Plan that require revision at the present time, it is recommended that the entire Official Plan be repealed and replaced by a new Official Plan that is also re-structured and simplified. However, given timing and resourcing constraints at the Town, this may not be feasible for a few years. It is recognized as well that there is a draft of the updated Official Plan dated October 2009 - however, many of the proposed policies in this draft may not end up in the Amendment for any number of reasons. Many of the policies in the draft Official Plan dated October 2009 already deal with intensification. On the basis of the above, this section is intended to provide the Town with a suite of intensification - related policies that could be included in the Official Plan in the future. Some of these policies are already contained in some form in the draft Official Plan. Other policies in the draft Official Plan are to be modified. New policies are also proposed as well. These policies included within this Section of the report could be included in a stand - alone section that is dedicated to intensification, or they may be dispersed throughout the Official Plan as required. No matter which route is selected, the Milton Official Plan is required to implement Section 2.3.2.6 of the Province’s Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe, which states:

"All municipalities will develop and implement through their Official Plans and other supporting documents, a strategy and policies to phase in and achieve intensification and the intensification target. This strategy and policies will:

a) be based on the growth forecasts in Schedule 3, as allocated to lower-tier

municipalities in accordance with policy 5.4.2.2; b) encourage intensification generally throughout the built-up area; c) identify Intensification Areas to support achievement of the intensification

target; d) incorporate the built boundary delineated in accordance with Policy 2.2.3.5; e) recognize urban growth centres, intensification corridors and major transit

station areas as a key focus for development to accommodate intensification; f) facilitate and promote intensification; g) identify the appropriate type and scale of development in Intensification

Areas; h) include density targets for urban growth centres where applicable, and

minimum density targets for other Intensification Areas consistent with the


planned transit service levels, and any transit-supportive land-use guidelines established by the Government of Ontario;

i) plan for a range and mix of housing, taking into account affordable housing needs; and,

j) encourage the creation of secondary suites throughout the built-up area. On the basis of the above, and with specific reference to Milton, an Amendment to the Official Plan is required to: 1. Include the Built Boundary established by the Province of Ontario on the schedules to

the Official Plan; 2. Include the boundary of the Urban Growth Centre on the schedules to the Official

Plan; 3. Identify all potential Intensification Areas within the Town, within which most of the

anticipated intensification occur; 4. Include policies within the Official Plan that are intended to provide the basis for

accommodating a minimum of 5,300 intensification units in the Town between 2015 and 2031;

5. Include the minimum density target for the Urban Growth Centre in the Official Plan; 6. Include criteria in the Official Plan that are intended to provide the basis for the

consideration of intensification proposals in the Urban Growth Centre and other Intensification Areas as appropriate;

7. Include policies in the Official Plan that are intended to restrict intensification or

carefully control intensification in parts of the Town that are not within identified Intensification Areas; and,

8. Include a comprehensive set of urban design policies in the Official Plan that are

intended to provide decision makers with the tools required to assess applications. On the basis of a review of ROPA 38, an Amendment to the Town of Milton Official Plan will be required to: 1. Include the Table 2 Intensification target;

2. Include policies that give priority to development within intensification areas;

3. Identify Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station areas, Intensification Corridors and Mixed-Use Nodes in the Plan and on the Schedules to the Plan;

4. Identify all intensification areas with firm boundaries on the Schedules to the Official Plan;

5. Include policies that provide for the integration of all modes of travel within the transportation network in the Town;


6. Include policies that provide for alternative design standards for arterial roads within intensification areas;

7. Include policies that provide for the proper integration of intensification areas with surrounding neighbourhoods;

8. Include policies that prescribe minimum densities in intensification areas and which provide the basis for including minimum densities in implementing zoning by-laws;

9. Include Community Improvement Plan policies and preparing Community Improvement Plans that support intensification;

10. Include modified parking standards for intensification areas; and,

11. Permit second suites and providing the basis for their permission in the implementing zoning by-law.

6.2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES

The recommended policies are in Appendix 3 attached to this report. Below is a brief description of that policy framework: SECTION A – INTENSIFICATION AREAS The intent of this general section is to establish the basis for identifying intensification areas in the Town of Milton. This section describes where the intensification areas are, establishes the intensification target and identifies the factors to be considered in determining appropriate built form and density when considering intensification proposals. SECTION B – URBAN DESIGN This section is intended to contain the criteria to be considered when specific proposals are submitted to the Town of Milton for consideration. Much of the wording in this section is already contained within the draft Official Plan dated October 2009. However, there are a number of significant additions that deal specifically with building design and location. SECTION C – GENERAL INTENSIFICATION POLICIES The intent of this section is to include a number of other general policies which are also intended to assist with the decision making process. Section C1 contains a series of policies on how good urban design can be implemented. Section 3.3.4.3 of the draft Official Plan already contains a policy that provides for the pre-zoning of lands to permit higher density development. It is recommended that this policy be replaced with a more comprehensive framework as set out in Section C2. Section C3 then deals with reductions in density and this section reflects the ROPA 38 policy that prohibits reductions in density unless it was considered through a municipal comprehensive review or through a review of an area specific intensification plan. Section C5 deals specifically with increases in height through the bonusing process established by Section 37 of the Planning Act. Section 37 of the Planning Act provides municipalities with the ability to grant bonuses. A bonus is a permission granted to a landowner that allows that land owner to exceed


performance standards that may be contained within a zoning by-law on a particular site in exchange for the provision of items that serve a public interest objective. These items may include the provision of space within a building for non-profit organizations, the provision of public art, the provision of space for local recreational groups, the provision of recreation facilities or the provision of any of the above or some other amenity on another parcel of land in the vicinity. Most urban municipalities have bonusing provisions within their Official Plans. These provisions typically identify the types of amenities and/or other items that could be provided in a manner that would permit a bonus to be granted. Many municipalities also restrict the amount of the bonus to a percentage. For example, limiting the increase in height and/or density permitted by a bonus to 15%. Given that bonusing is extensively utilized in Toronto, we reviewed a number of OMB cases and legal newsletter relating to increased density and/or height in Toronto. Our review found several instances where Section 37 was used to permit increases in height and/or density in exchange for the following:

• Cash payments for city improvements to neighbouring areas/buildings; • Cash payments for improvements to local parks; • On-site provisions e.g. alternate vehicle entrances; • Park improvements/provision of park amenities e.g. water fountains,

playground equipment etc; • Preservation of heritage buildings; • Preservation of rental housing e.g. no applications for condominium conversion

for a select period of time e.g. 5-20 years; • Public art; and; • Rental caps limiting rental rates in an area for a select period of time e.g. 5-20

years. While the Planning Act provides no definitive answer on what specifically can and cannot be required under Section 37, there are a number of OMB cases that have tried to interpret the use of Section 37. According to a newsletter entitled “Height and Density Bonusing” prepared by Municipal and Planning Law, Aird & Berlis, Spring 2005 by: John Mascarin, the seminal case upon which future OMB panels considered the use of bonusing by-laws was Copthorne Holdings Ltd (1987). This case involved the first challenge to the OMB regarding the use of bonusing provisions in Ontario. The OMB made two important determinations in this case:

1) The facilities, services or matters to be provided by the owner of land do not necessarily have to be located on the site of the proposed bonused development; and

2) Cash-in-lieu of the provision of the public amenities is acceptable. While the Copthorne decision attempted to set the groundwork for future OMB decisions, recent OMB decisions have strayed from this framework. Another interpretation on the use of Section 37 comes from OMB case PL020884. In this case (1430 Yonge Street-Toronto), it was ruled that the benefits received in exchange for increased height and/or density need not be related to the project caused by it e.g. improvements to a park can be required even if the park will not necessarily be used by residents of the development. What is relevant is that the public receives some tangible benefit or amenity to offset the cost e.g. if the area residents must put up with increased height, massing and congestion caused by the developer getting additional development rights, then the public should receive some tangible benefit.


Other OMB decisions and an Ontario Superior Court ruling have disagreed with the above interpretation including, Toronto v. Irber Holding Ltd. (2005) and Toronto v. Sterling Silver Development Corporation (2005). These cases rely on the Toronto v. Minto BYG (2000), which stated:

“In the Board’s view, there must be a real and demonstrable connection

between the Section 37 benefit being requested and the positive features of the development proposal as stated in the Official Plan policy.”

Essentially, when a municipality is deciding whether or not contributions can be authorized under Section 37, the connections between the benefits being received and the positive features of the development must be linked. It would also appear that municipalities now have the responsibility of demonstrating a connection between the benefits being sought and the policies found within the Official Plan and on other fundamental planning principals. As a result, municipalities should now ensure that their Official Plans have clear policies relating to Section 37 and that they rely on these policies when seeking density increases. This should provide developers with some certainty as to what may be required in terms of a public benefit pursuant to S.37, which was encouraged in the Minto (2000) case and reaffirmed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In 2001 the City of Toronto appealed the Minto decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (2001) O.J. N0.455, stating that the Board’s decision took away its right to impose any Section 37 requirements unless it changed its Official Plan to contain policies relating to the specific bonus being sought (as noted in OMB decision PL040659). The Superior Court disagreed with the City and stated (as noted in OMB decision PL040659):

“The Board did not rule that the City could not utilize the provisions of Section 37…, unless the City had clear pre-existing Official Plan policies in force and effect. Rather, the Board considered the applicable Official Plan and determined that the need to require Section 37 contributions had not been established for this particular site… In determining (the policy) framework under which an application should be examined, it must be tested against the policy document in place at the date of the application, to lend some certainty to the land use planning process and to ensure that fairness to all parties prevails…(The Board) found that the city had not provided identification or support for other matters which could validly be included for contribution…The Board correctly applied the specific provisions relevant to the Minto application. In my view, the Board’s decision does not impinge on the City’s ability to obtain Section 37 benefits for other development proposals seeking additional height and density, in appropriate circumstances.”

While there appear to be two discerning views on the use of Section 37, it would appear that the recent decisions of Irber Holding Ltd. (2005), Sterling Silver Development Corporation (2005) and Minto BYG (2000) are the ones presently being relied upon. Based on our review of applicable case law, municipalities such as the Town of Milton should ensure that proper and up-to-date Official Plan policies relating to Section 37 exist and that


they rely on these policies and other planning rationale when making a decision relating to the use of Section 37. Section C4 in the Policy Appendix is a first draft of a potential policy framework in this regard. Section C5 deals with roads and transit. This recommended section is intended to balance the requirements of all users of a public road. In addition to the proposed policy, it is also recommended that new Official Plan identify transit corridors on the Schedules and identify what the width of these corridors should be. Once these corridors are identified, the Town or the Region can require that these additional lands be dedicated at no expense to the Town or Region in accordance with Sections 41(7)(d), 41(8)(c), 41(9.1), 51(25)(b) and (b.1) of the Planning Act. It is also noted that Section 51(25)(b.1) of the Planning Act additionally indicates that lands can be dedicated for commuter parking lots, transit stations and related infrastructure. The location of these facilities can be conceptually shown in the Official Plan. Section C6 contains a policy framework that deals with intensification incentives and it is a requirement of ROPA 38 that policies be included within the Official Plan to support intensification wherever possible. In this regard, It is recommended that the Official Plan remove as many barriers as appropriate to support the further intensification and more efficient use of land within the Town’s Built Boundary. Given that infrastructure is generally already available in Intensification Areas, the optimization of that existing infrastructure is in the public interest. In addition, additional development in intensification corridors supports existing and planned commercial uses in those same areas and supports the use of public transit. However there are a number of challenges inherent in developing land within built-up areas and while many of these challenges can be overcome, there is also a need to consider how the Town and other agencies can work in concert to ensure that there are incentives available to support intensification and minimize the challenges that may present themselves on any given site within an identified Intensification Area. On the basis of the above, it is recommended that the Town investigate the following matters and/or implement the potential intensification strategies identified below: a) Community Improvement Plans – Changes made to the Planning Act in 2007 had the

effect of expanding the range of items or matters that could be the subject of a Community Improvement Plan. The Town will investigate, as part of a broader review of the Official Plan, whether the Community Improvement policy framework should be updated and how it can be applied within the Urban Growth Centre, Central Business District and other intensification areas.

b) Fees and Charges – The Town has the ability to reduce Planning Act application fees, Building Permit fees and reduce the amount of Development Charges payable for specific projects and/or specific areas. In addition, the Town has the ability of reducing cash-in-lieu of parkland amounts and cash-in-lieu of parking amounts as appropriate, again for specific projects and/or specific areas. The Town will investigate the feasibility of reducing fees and charges where appropriate as part of an overall review of the Official Plan. The intent of any reduction in a fee or charge would be to reduce the administrative costs of processing an application.

c) Tax Reduction and/or Deferment – Any additional development on a property in the form of intensification has the potential of increasing assessment and therefore the


amount of taxes paid. The Municipality does have the ability pursuant to the Municipal Act to establish strategies that minimize the impacts of increased assessment for a period of time. The intent of such a program would be to minimize the impacts of the increased assessment on the feasibility and viability of the project in its early years.

d) Parking Management – In many Intensification Areas, there is an expectation that parking will be provided in underground or above ground parking garages. In some cases, it may be feasible for there to be common garages that serve multiple projects. These garages could also be potentially be owned and/or operated by the Town. In cases where the provision of communal or shared parking is appropriate, the Town will investigate as many relevant options in this regard to ensure that there is a mechanism and process in place to establish parking in an area for all uses as they are developed over time.

e) Infrastructure – The Town will work with the Region to ensure that appropriate sewer and water infrastructure is available in all Intensification Areas to meet the goals and objectives of this Plan. In this regard, the population ranges for each Intensification Area shall be factored into any Region led water and sewer master planning process.

f) Development Permits – The Town will investigate whether the establishment of a Development Permit System in one or more Intensification Areas is appropriate to stimulate development. A Development Permit system has the effect of combining the zoning, minor variance and site plan approval processes into one process, which results in the issuance of a Development Permit. Areas specific policies would need to be included within the Official Plan to provide the basis for the establishment of a Development Permit System.

g) Pre-Zoning – The Town will determine whether it is appropriate to pre-zone lands for a certain amount of development in identified areas to reduce the number of Planning Act processes that are required to provide the basis for intensification. It is not anticipated that all lands within Intensification Areas would be pre-zoned. Instead, the intent would be to identify those areas that are not located adjacent to low density residential areas for example, and pre-zone those areas only.

Section C7 contains a series of general policies that are intended to establish the criteria for considering medium and high density development in the Town. These criteria are already contained within the draft Official Plan.

SECTION D - LOW DENSITY INTENSIFICATION ON LANDS OUTSIDE OF INTENSIFICATION AREAS

Given that there is an increased expectation for intensification, policies in the Official Plan are required to provide some direction on how land use compatibility issues will be assessed as intensification is proposed in stable residential neighbourhoods. The intent of these policies would be to implement the Council adopted initiative in DM2 that is set out below:

• Encourage the maintenance and enhancement of the character of existing and well established neighbourhoods.


The Town Official Plan currently contains general criteria to meet in an intensification development. Section 2.7.3.17 in particular requires that infill and redevelopment projects meet locational criteria, can be supported by current infrastructure, is compatible with the existing neighbourhood character, can accommodate additional parking required and complies with the Zoning By-law and floodplain standards. However, since land use compatibility is often a concern when intensification is proposed, it is recommended that additional policy be included within the Official Plan on how compatibility is determined in the context of an application. While it is anticipated that higher densities will be established in the nodes and corridors, within the Urban Growth Centre and in greenfield areas, it is anticipated that some intensification will occur within a number of well established neighbourhoods in the Town. This intensification will take the form of accessory apartments, the duplexing of existing single detached dwellings, the replacement of single detached dwellings with semi-detached or townhouse dwellings and small scale apartment buildings. It is in cases such as these where compatibility issues will arise. Compatibility has been an issue under consideration at numerous Ontario Municipal Board hearings. In a decision of the OMB dated August 11, 2006 (Decision/Order # 2263), a reference is made on page 7 of that decision to the language of Mr. Chapman in "Motici et al v. Bernardi) when he said being compatible with is not the same as being the same as. Being compatible with is not even the same thing as being similar to. Being similar to implies having a resemblance to another thing; they are like one another, but not completely identical. Being compatible with implies nothing more than being capable of existing together in harmony." On the basis of the above, it is recommended that detailed criteria that assist in determining whether uses can exist together in harmony when intensification is proposed are required. Factors to consider in determining compatibility could include:

• Relationship between the massing and height of existing and proposed buildings;

• The location of established building lines (the average setback of existing development from the street);

• The placement of existing and proposed buildings on a lot; • The lot coverage of existing and proposed development; • The nature of existing and proposed building materials; and, • The location of driveways, garages and trees.

Section 3.3.3.11 of the draft Official Plan already contains policies on infilling in established residential neighbourhoods. However, based on our experience throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe, it is recommended that Section D be considered by the Town of Milton. SECTION E - URBAN GROWTH CENTRE This section contains policies applying to the Urban Growth Centre. It is recognized that the draft Official Plan dated October 2009 contains a policy framework for the Urban Growth Centre. These October policies established three land use designations and included a number of criteria to be considered when proposals are submitted for review.


Based on a further review of the Urban Growth Centre, it is now recommended that the Urban Growth Centre be divided into two land use designations with the Urban Growth Centre Mixed-Use Area One designation applying to the triangle of land formed by the CN rail line, Main Street and Thompson Road. The Mixed-Use Area Two designation would apply to the lands on the north side of Main Street, to the east side of Thompson Road and to all lands that are to the south of the CN rail line. The proposed UGC Mixed Use Area One designation recognizes the major commercial nature of the existing land uses and as a result provides for a range of commercial uses. High density residential uses are also permitted as of right. The proposed policies also require the maintenance and enhancement of a pedestrian oriented environment that is integrated with surrounding lands and in particular with lands within the Urban Core located to the west. These policies also recognize that the future redevelopment of the GO Station is a key component of the future of the area. The draft policies also indicate that the minimum height of any new residential building shall be six storeys and the maximum height shall be 14 storeys. The draft policies also prohibit the development of additional surface parking in the UGC Major Commercial/Office Area designation. The UGC Mixed Use Area Two designation applies to lands of the north side of Main Street between the CP Rail line and Thompson Road. At the present time, these lands are occupied by low rise industrial and commercial buildings and used for a variety of motor vehicle and service commercial related uses, restaurants, private clubs, offices, commercial self-storage operations, workshops and manufacturing uses. It is the intent of this designation to encourage the redevelopment of this area into a vibrant Mixed Use Area where the predominant use of land is residential. The policies of this designation encourage land assembly and permit non-residential uses only within the first storey of any building on Main Street. Policies also seek to minimize new surface parking and require that buildings be located close to or at the Main Street street line. The proposed policies also indicate that the minimum height of these buildings shall be four storeys, with this height being permitted to be less adjacent to the residential areas located to the north. The maximum permitted height according to the proposed policies is eight storeys. However, the maximum height may be increased to 10 storeys at the northwest corner of Thompson Road and Main Street. The UGC Mixed Use Area Two designation also applies to lands to the south of the CP Rail line and located on both sides of Nipissing Road. This area is currently the site of a number of industrial uses including a concrete batching plant, manufacturing uses, repair garages and outdoor storage establishments. Lands on the east side of Thompson Road between the CP Rail line and Main Street and lands on the south side of Childs Drive and known as the Allendale facility are also included within the UGC Mixed Use Area Two designation. These latter lands are currently used for institutional purposes. It is the intent of the Mixed Use Two policies is to encourage the transition of the area on both sides of Nipissing Road from an Industrial/Service Commercial Area to a predominantly residential area. The draft policies also indicate that the Town’s Official Plan will not recognize existing industrial uses as permitted uses and that the Implementing Zoning By-law will be amended to also render these existing uses as legal non-conforming uses. With respect to height, the proposed policies indicate that the maximum height of any buildings between Nipissing Road and the CP Rail line is 12 storeys. It is further indicated that the maximum height on the south side of Nipissing Road is proposed to be 1 to 2 storeys.


The policies do not include minimum or maximum heights for lands in this designation on the east side of Thompson Road and on the south side of Childs Drive. SECTION F - URBAN CORE This section contains the policies that would apply to the Urban Core, which is the historic Central Business District of the Town of Milton. As with the Urban Growth Centre, there are a number of draft policies in the draft Official Plan dated October 2009 dealing with the urban core. A number of minor changes to these policies are now proposed. The policies of the CBD Core Commercial Area permit the widest range of uses in buildings that are located at or close to the street line that are the site of active/pedestrian oriented uses within the first storey. The proposed policies indicate that no part of a dwelling unit is permitted within the first storey of any building within 12 metres of the Main Street street line. The policies also indicate that the minimum height of buildings fronting on Main Street shall be two storeys and that the maximum height shall be four storeys. The policies also permit building heights greater than four storeys and up to six storeys on the rear portions of buildings. The policies of the CBD Secondary Commercial Area designation also permit a wide range of uses, however residential uses are permitted within the first storey. Higher buildings are also permitted in the CBD Secondary Commercial Area to the east of the CBD Commercial Core designation where eight storeys are permitted. The maximum height of buildings fronting on Main Street is proposed to be four storeys to the west of the CBD Commercial Core designation. The CBD Mixed Use Area designation applies to lands along Mill, Mary and Martin Streets, which have primarily a residential character. Existing buildings in this land use designation are encouraged to be retained.


7.0 ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS

The intent of this section of the report is to provide the Town with a series of recommendations that should be considered when the Town's current zoning by-law is updated to implement the new Official Plan. 7.1 POTENTIAL ZONING APPROACHES

A number of municipalities have relied upon zoning by-laws to control built form in urban areas in a manner that achieves a number of urban design objectives. In accordance with the Planning Act and relevant case law, zoning by-laws are intended to be clear and as black and white as possible, since they are essentially legal documents and considered to be 'applicable law' in accordance with the Ontario Building Code Act. In other words, zoning provisions cannot be discretionary and cannot be interpreted in a number of ways by the average person. It has been our experience that when zoning is not clear, that the courts have very often favoured the landowner because of the lack of clarity. Notwithstanding the above, the Planning Act does allow a municipality to regulate a number of matters through zoning, many of which are designed to provide for a certain character of development. Below is a discussion of some of the zoning tools that have been used in other municipalities and which may be appropriate in the Town of Milton. 1. Minimum and Maximum Building Heights – most municipalities only restrict the height

of buildings to ensure that a certain character is maintained in an identified area or neighbourhood. However, a number of municipalities are now requiring minimum heights as well to ensure that a certain character is maintained and/or established along a street. In many cases, and in particularly in a downtown setting, municipalities will require minimum heights to ensure that there are a range of uses in buildings that are located close to the street. In addition, establishing a minimum height also ensures that traditional downtown areas are lined by buildings that have a consistent height. In other circumstances, establishing a minimum height is intended to provide for a certain density of development, which in turn is intended to support other public interest objectives, such as supporting public transit and the establishment of a complete community.

Many municipalities also use a combination of minimum and maximum height

provisions to control the height of buildings adjacent to streetlines and to provide for the stepping back of the upper storeys of buildings from streetlines and property lines. A common provision in this regard is the use of angular planes, which are intended to establish an area in which building is not permitted to minimize the impacts of that building on either the street or adjacent properties. In the case of a street, the angular plane measurement is typically taken from the centre line of the street and with respect to property boundaries, the angular plane measurement is taken from the lot lines and not the buildings on adjacent lots.

Some municipalities also use minimum and maximum heights to focus the height of

buildings at intersections. For example a municipality may require that the minimum height of a building within 75 metres of a intersection be six to ten storeys, while on other parts of the property, the minimum height is only two to four storeys. In the case of the Milton Urban Growth Centre and the lands at the intersection of Derry


Road and Ontario Street, the application of minimum and maximum heights to focus development at intersections would be entirely appropriate.

2. Minimum and Maximum Setbacks – As with height, all municipalities include minimum

setbacks from lot lines and streetlines in their By-laws. A number of municipalities are now including maximum setbacks as well, with these maximum setbacks designed to ensure that buildings are located close to the streetline, particularly in an urban context. In a pedestrian environment, these maximum setbacks could measure no more than one or two metres from the streetline. In other circumstances, greater maximum setbacks may be included in the By-law if other amenities are proposed in the space between the building and the lot line. These other amenities may include sustainable design elements, semi-public squares and court yards.

3. Mixed-Use Zoning – A number of municipalities now require that new development

contain a mix of uses. However, establishing zoning provisions that ensure that mixed-uses actually get developed is somewhat problematic, since a zoning by-law cannot require an actual use to be initiated. Instead a zoning by-law can require that the design and form of the building and its space be in a manner that supports different types of uses.

For example, a zoning by-law could require that the first storey in a mixed-use

building have a certain minimum height, which would encourage the use of that space for commercial uses instead of residential uses. However, one of the more effective ways to ensure that mixed-use development occurs over time is to restrict the location of residential uses on the first storey to an area that is a certain distance away from the streetline. For example, the City of Brampton restricts residential uses in the first storey within 12 metres of the streetline. Another way to achieve mixed-use development is to cap the amount of development on a property that can be occupied by each use. This means that the full use of the land from a building and massing context can only be realized if a number of different uses are developed.

The Town of Markham has been a leader in encouraging mixed use development. The

original intent of the Community Amenity Area designation in their Official Plan was to provide the basis for developing mixed-use projects such as projects that combine both residential and retail/service uses, along with office uses. However, the majority of the lands within the Community Amenity Area designation have either been developed only with residential uses or only with retail/service uses. Examples include the Leitchcroft area (Highway 7 and Leslie) where permissions were built into the policy framework to permit a wide range of commercial uses. However, while a number of small convenience type of retail uses have been developed in Leitchcroft the majority of land has been taken up with residential uses. In other cases the Community Amenity Area designation has been applied to community shopping centre where there was an expectation over time that residential uses would also be developed. While this still may be the case, these community shopping centre sites are now only the site of retail uses.

Markham's policy framework was written in a manner that strongly encourages a range

of uses in Community Amenity Areas. However, a supportive policy framework and implementing Zoning By-law framework, which permits mixed-uses as-of-right in many


cases and locations, it is not enough to ensure that mixed-use developments actually get constructed.

To a very large extent the retail and service commercial uses encouraged by the Town

in the Community Amenity Area designation are all population related. This means that there is a need for a certain population base to support the establishment of these uses. Without this population base there is no market for these uses and until such a market exists, these uses will not be developed. The presence of other areas which are the site of population related uses will also have an impact on how many of these types of uses will locate in identified Community Amenity Areas. For example, a wide range of population related uses are located within the Highway 7 corridor and within a number of the Business Corridor areas in the Town. This situation also exists in the Town of Milton as well. Given the number of major corridors and their extent, opportunities are limited from a market perspective to develop additional retail and service commercial uses in some mixed use areas.

One way to potentially encourage the development of more mixed-use development

generally is to actively discourage the development of commercial areas that are devoted exclusively to large format retail uses. While there is and will continue to be a market for these kinds of uses, locating them on larger tracts of land will have an impact on the Town’s desire blend together different kind of land uses on the same site.

In this regard, establishing a policy framework that permits these kinds of uses but

only in the context of a mixed-use development would be an appropriate policy direction to take. An example would be a mandated requirement on behalf of the applicant to deliver a certain number of medium or high density residential units for each and every 5,000 square metres of retail space. Such a policy would make sure that future retail/service commercial developments are immediately integrated into a mixed use setting and improves the public realm in a more immediate and tangible way. The municipality doesn’t necessarily need to require that commercial and residential uses are vertically mixed, the more central feature is that the two elements are balanced; that the connections between the various elements are thoughtfully linked together; and that they are supportive of and compatible with existing and future uses on adjacent sites.

4. Lot Coverage, Density and Floor Space Index – a number of municipalities use lot

coverage to control the amount of development that is permitted on a lot. With respect to urban development, it is our opinion that lot coverage is not a useful tool, particularly in circumstances when the maximum size of a building in accordance with the lot coverage provision would provide for the development of a building that did not maximize the yard permissions in the by-law. In our opinion, if it is determined that the yard provisions are appropriate, there is no need for a lot coverage provision.

The Planning Act was recently amended to make it clear that municipalities can

control minimum density through zoning. While municipalities have often required a certain density, most municipalities establish only maximum densities to control the amount of development that is permitted. The Province of Ontario, in the Growth Plan, also establishes minimum densities in the form of persons and jobs per hectare. Translating a persons and jobs per hectare minimum target into an actual density is


very difficult because the size of a household is beyond the control of a municipality and the number of jobs that may exist in any building is also beyond the control of the municipality. It is our opinion that it is much more effective to establish minimum building heights in conjunction with maximum setbacks and then in conjunction with use permissions to achieve a certain building form and use profile on any particular property.

A further challenge with establishing minimum densities is that in some cases,

depending on the size of the parcel, the minimum density may provide for development that exceeds the zoning envelope that is created in the zoning by-law and in other cases, it may permit development that does not maximize development on the property in accordance with the zoning by-law. As a result, establishing minimum densities is not recommended. Similarly with maximum densities, it is recommended that development be controlled by tangible provisions, such as minimum heights and maximum setbacks.

With respect to floor space index controls, a number of municipalities do establish

minimum floor space index requirements and of course, maximum floor space index requirements. However, these requirements, while easy to measure, are sometimes difficult to apply given that every parcel of land is unique in terms of its configuration, frontage, area and relationship with adjacent land uses. On this basis, it is our recommendation that while establishing an overall minimum target for an area is appropriate, it should not be applied on a property by property basis in a zoning by-law. Similarly with maximum floor space index controls, maximum heights working in conjunction with maximum setbacks, minimum heights and so on are the most effective in terms of controlling a built form in a given location.

5. Treatment of Façades – a number of municipalities are now requiring that a certain

percentage of the façade of the first storey of a building be the site of openings, instead of blank walls. The intent is to foster the development of buildings that have a strong relationship to the public realm and the pedestrian environment. Municipalities also require that certain percentages of the walls of upper storeys be the site of openings to ensure that buildings with blank walls are not developed.

7.2 PRE-ZONING

The draft Official Plan dated October 2009 already establishes the basis for the pre-zoning of land for medium and higher density residential forms of development. This direction and initiative was highlighted in the DM2 strategic planning process in 2006. The pre-zoning of lands in this manner provides greater surety to the development industry on potential development yields and also provides surety in the form of notice to existing and potential future land owners that a medium or higher density form of residential development is anticipated on a particular site. There are two distinct circumstances in which pre-zoning can be considered. The first is in ‘greenfield’ areas, where as a result of a Secondary Plan process, it is determined that medium or higher density development is desirable in certain areas. In cases such as these, these lands can be pre-zoned in advance so that as the surrounding lands develop with lower density forms of development and the new residents in the area are aware of the potential


use of the vacant sites, which are typically developed later on in the evolution of a ‘greenfield’ community. The second circumstance applies in the existing urban area, where sites may be identified as having some intensification potential. While there is merit in pre-zoning these sites as well, it is recommended that an open public process be undertaken as part of this pre-zoning process to ensure that existing residents in these neighbourhoods are provided with an opportunity to comment on a pre-zoning proposal. Given the Province’s direction to municipalities to increase densities and to change the housing mix to provide for more medium and high-density unit types, the pre-zoning of certain lands would assist in achieving this objective. However, since the ultimate built form on these lands will not be known in most cases, it is our opinion that the inclusion of the holding provision in this circumstance would provide the municipality with the ability to be involved in the design of the development in the future. For example, the City of Mississauga selectively utilizes Holding provisions in cases where an identified public interest would be met. In this case, the City pre-zoned the whole of the City Centre and applied a holding provision to the lands. The by-law identified the requirements to lift the “H” as well as performance standards for the lands, which contained no restriction on height. The rationale behind this approach was to stimulate development activity in the downtown core. In this regard, the municipality was responding to the interests of the development community and by prezoning lands, was identifying the type of built form they wished to encourage. They were also receiving what they were entitled to under the Planning Act in terms of studies, securities and infrastructure improvements. There was a requirement to enter into a development agreement with the lifting of the “H”. According to staff, the approach has been extremely successful in promoting and encouraging investment in the downtown core. The City Centre District Plan combined a district policy review as well as a zoning review and the preparation of urban design guidelines. There were sessions held with the development community to bring them on side and as a result the process was well received. There were some outstanding appeals to the by-law by developers particularly with the language for road dedications however, they have now been resolved (last appeal dealt with in 2003). In the Town of Milton context, pre-zoning lands within the Urban Growth Centre to provide for development in accordance with the Growth Plan may be premature, until the Infrastructure and Staging Plan required by ROPA 38 is completed. However, there may be some merit in applying a UGC Development Zone across the entirety of the UGC, which would have the effect of permitting a range of uses. In addition, there may be some merit in selectively changing the zoning in a number of key locations as set out in the following sections. If lands are to be pre-zoned, they should be pre-zoned with a Holding provision. This approach is attractive to landowners, since it means that a Planning Act process that is subject to third party appeals are not a requirement. In order for this approach to be implemented, the conditions for Hold removal would have to be clearly articulated so that only appropriate development that conforms with the Official Plan actually occurs. However, the absence of servicing in any certainty with respect to servicing is a challenge and on this basis, it is not recommended that lands be pre-zoned within the Urban Growth Centre generally to implement the Growth Plan.


7.3 INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE UGC

Section 3.2.3 f) of the draft Milton Official Plan contains the following policy: “f) It is recognized that a number of viable industrial uses existed in the Urban Core at

the time this Official Plan came into effect. Given the Town's long term goals and objectives and to implement the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, existing industrial uses are not recognized as permitted uses in this Official Plan. Instead, these existing uses will be considered to be legal non-conforming uses and will be rendered as such in the implementing Zoning By-law in accordance with the Planning Act. The implementing zoning by-law will also include provisions that have the effect of only recognizing the existing Industrial uses as legal non-conforming uses and which prohibits the reuse of such buildings for other industrial uses once the existing use has discontinued”.

On the basis of the above, it is recommended that the implementing zoning by-law be amended to delete certain permissions for uses that if established, could compromise the objectives of the Province, Region and the Town with respect to future development in the Urban Growth Centre. Specifically, it is recommended that permissions for industrial uses be deleted as permissions within any zone in the UGC. This means that any existing use would then be considered a legal non-conforming use in accordance with the Planning Act. 7.4 ZONING OF LANDS ON NORTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET IN THE UGC

The subject lands are currently zoned C1-D-H2 – Commercial/Office Node as shown on Figure 16. Permitted uses include:

• Artist’s studio; • Commercial school – skill; • Day nursery*; • Financial office; • Fitness centre; • Funeral home; • Laundromat*; • Medical clinic; • Office use; • Office building; • Personal service shop*; • Restaurant*; • Retail store 1*; • Veterinary clinic – small animal*; and, • Veterinary clinic – large animal*. • * - only permitted on the first storey of a building

The subject lands all have a holding provision attached to them. Theoretically, only uses that existed on the date the Zoning By-law was adopted (that being October 20, 2003) are allowed to exist.


Section 13.2 of the Zoning By-law describes the conditions that are attached to any zone with a holding provision. Specifically,

“Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, where a Zone symbol is followed by the letter “H” and the number “1” or “2, (for example M2-H1 or A1-H2) no person shall use the land to which the letter (H) applies for any use other than the use which existed on the date this By-law was passed, until the (H) is removed in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan and the Planning Act, as amended. Council may pass a By-law pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act to remove the Holding (H) Symbol, thereby placing the lands in the zone indicated by the zone symbol, when all of the applicable requirements have been met.”

For the C1-D-H2 Zone, the holding symbol cannot be removed “until a development plan has been provided to the satisfaction of the Town of Milton.” (Section 13.2) Figure 16: Zoning Schedule A, Town of Milton Zoning By-law 144-2003.

Given that the new Official Plan proposes that the principal use of these lands be residential, there is a need to consider, in the short term, how the zoning by-law should deal with permitted uses in this area, recognizing that many of the existing businesses in the area are viable and needed in the Town. In this regard, there are two options for Milton to consider. The final course of action selected may involve more than one option.


Option 1 - Change the list of permitted uses and remove the Holding Provisions

This option involves modifying the list of permitted uses in the C1 Zone on the subject lands and deleting the Holding Provision. Uses in the C1 zone that in our opinion may not be appropriate on these lands as-of-right include:

• restaurant; • medical clinic; • day nursery; • commercial school; • retail store accessed by the general public; and, • veterinary clinic – large animal.

In this way, some of the uses in the commercial zone can continue to occur as-of-right while other uses that are potentially problematic from a by-law compliance perspective have to go through a process. This option has some merit since it reduces the number of potential non-residential uses on the lands in accordance with direction proposed in the draft Official Plan.

Option 2 – Pre-Zone in Accordance with Official Plan Direction

Given the location of the subject lands and the location of the GO station, the draft Official Plan proposes to change the land use permissions on these lands to permit primarily residential uses and limited commercial development. It is our opinion that it would be appropriate to consider pre-zoning these lands for residential development as a result. However, servicing constraints are an issue, as described in Sections 5.0 of this report. On this basis, when these servicing issues are in the process of being resolved, the lands should be pre-zoned. 7.5 ZONING OF OTHER SELECT AREAS IN THE UGC

7.5.1 Nipissing Road

Properties having direct frontage onto Nipissing Road fall into one of two Central Business District Commercial Zones. Each implements the corresponding Secondary Plan designation. The Commercial Node (C1-C) Zone includes the Milton Mall property and additional retail development further to the east as shown on Figure 16. Permitted uses in this zone include:

• Upper floor dwelling units; • All types of retail stores, including a food store; • Offices and office buildings; • Banks; • Commercial schools (skill); • Dry cleaning depot and laundromat; • Fitness centres; • Personal service shops; • Places of assembly and entertainment, including a theatre; • Restaurants; and, • Drive-through service facilities.


The Office Node (C1-E) Zone applied to lands further east along Nipissing Road that today are primarily occupied by service commercial and employment uses. Permitted uses in this zone include:

• Offices and office buildings; • Banks; • Commercial schools (skill); • Convenience stores; • Funeral homes; • Laundromat, within a first storey of a building only; • Medical clinic; • Personal service shops, within a first storey of a building only; • Restaurants, within the first storey of a building only; • Take-out restaurants; and, • Veterinary clinics, within the first storey of a building only. •

Five site-specific exceptions also apply to lots having frontage onto Nipissing Road. Two of those (Exception *63 at Milton Mall and Exception *64 further east along Nipissing Road) only amended the zone standards on the applicable lots. The remaining three exceptions created additional use permissions:

• Exception *51 permits a concrete batching plant and accessory uses, buildings and structures at 805 Nipissing Road (the St. Marys Cement premises). Zone standards for this lot were also amended; and,

• Exceptions *54 and *55 permits a day nurseries at 900 Nipissing Road (Milton Baptist Church) and 800 Nipissing Road (Little Kids Daycare).

All of the lands are also subject to the H2 provision, as are all of the lands on the north side of Main Street, as discussed in Section 7.3. However, the lands are not subject to the same requirement for a development plan pursuant to Section 13.2 of the by-law. The St. Mary's cement property was the subject of an OMB hearing in 2004, when the Town proposed in its new by-law at the time (the one now in effect - By-law 144-2003) that the concrete batching plant use be deleted as a permitted use, therefore making it a legal non conforming use. However, the Town decided to not pursue that zoning change and instead agreed to zone the property to permit the use. The following extract from the OMB decision (PL031213) summarizes the effect of the settlement of the appeal:

"The Parties have now come to a settlement. The Board heard evidence from Angela Janzen, a planner on the Town’s staff and Glenn Wallings a consulting planner retained by St. Marys. The two planners explained in detail that St. Marys operation is now to be recognized and certain surrounding sensitive uses that could affect their operation are deleted. A concrete batching plant and accessory uses will be permitted with performance standards appropriate for the existing use. The Holding Provision will apply to other permitted uses other than the batching plant. Certain sensitive residential uses proposed for the C1-E zone are deleted and 2 existing day nurseries are zoned in. The Zone is amended to C1-F and a map change is made to apply the intended 30 metre setback from the railway to the area south side of Nipissing Road as well as


the north side. The changes conform with the Regional Official Plan and the Local Milton Official Plan in the opinion of the planners. Both planners have had regard for the Provincial Policy Statement."

Given that the new Official Plan proposes that the principal use of these lands be residential, there is a need to consider how the zoning will change in the future. However, it would be premature to consider re-zoning the lands now, until issues with respect to servicing and the existing heavy industrial uses in the area are considered further. Notwithstanding the above however, it is recommended that some consideration be give to rezoning the Milton Mall lands because of their key location at the western gateway to the UGC. In this case, the lands could be pre-zoned for residential uses, but still made subject to a further amendment to deal with standards, or the lands could be pre-zoned with a holding provision. 7.5.2 Allendale Facility Lands

With respect to the Allendale facility lands, it is noted that the property is zoned Institutional - Major (I-B) and is permitted to be used by a range of uses and which allows buildings that have a height of up to 36 metres (or up to 10 storeys). Permitted uses include:

• Community centre • Day nursery • Elementary school • Group home, correctional • Hospital • Library • Place of worship • Post Secondary School • Public park • Residential care facility • Secondary school

In addition to the above, Section 4.16 of the Town's zoning by-law permits public uses in any zone, provided the use conforms with the applicable standards of the zone. A public use is defined by the by-law as "any use of land, building or structure by or on behalf of a public authority." This means that a range of other uses may be permitted as well. Given that the Region of Halton is going through a process of evaluating the future of the site, making any changes now to the by-law would be premature. 7.5.3 Lands and Southeast Corner of Main and Thompson

The lands at the southeast corner of Main Street and Thompson Road, which are planned to be the site of the new arts and entertainment centre, are also zoned I-B, and it is recommended that the zoning of the lands be changed to provide for residential and other uses that take advantage of the property's key location at the eastern gateway to the UGC. Provisions that require buildings to be located close to the streetlines and specific minimum and maximum height provisions should also be applied.


7.5.4 Area Within the Triangle

The Mixed Use (C1-F) Zone applies to the triangle-shaped block of lands north of the railway, south of Main Street East and west of Thompson Road South. These lands include the Milton GO Station and associated parking lot, plus additional retail uses. Permitted uses in this zone include:

• Retail and convenience retail stores, including a propane retail facility; • Food stores; • Offices and office buildings; • Artist’s studios • Banks; • Commercial schools (skill); • Dry cleaning depot and laundromat; • Fitness centres; • Hotels; • Medical clinics; • Personal service shops; • Places of assembly and entertainment, including a theatre; • Restaurants; • Veterinary clinics; and, • Drive-through service facilities.

A single exception applies on these lands. Exception *16 prohibits an enclosed shopping centre and department store at the southwest corner of Main Street East and Thompson Road South. Exception *16 additionally permits institutional uses; cultural and entertainment uses; upper floor dwelling units; motor vehicle service stations and motor vehicle agencies (accessory to a permitted use or as part of a mixed use development); apartment buildings and parking, circulation, landscaping and driveways for adjacent commercial development. Schedule C to By-law 144-2003 permits buildings of up to 4 storeys in the C1-F zone, but permits 7 storey buildings in the vicinity of the Main Street and Thompson Road intersection. As with the other areas discussed, it would be premature to pre - zone for additional uses or change any zone standards until some progress is made on the infrastructure issue in the area. 7.6 ZONING OF LANDS OUTSIDE OF THE UGC AND CBD

With respect to the other intensification areas identified, it is recommended that only parcels of land that are large enough to sustain a considerable amount of development be considered for pre-zoning. In my opinion, lands that could be pre-zoned now in accordance with the recommendations made in this report are those lands on the west side of Bronte Street to the north and south of Main Street, the lands located at the intersection of Derry Road and Ontario Street and the lands on the south side of Main Street west of James Snow Parkway. The zone standards should provide for a minimum building height of two to three storeys on these parcels of land to make the best use of infrastructure. The implementing zoning by-law should also establish maximum setbacks from streetlines to encourage a strong street relationship for new buildings.


8.0 SUMMARY OF FURTHER WORK REQUIRED

On the basis of the work completed, it is recommended that the following additional work be completed in support of an overall intensification strategy: 1. The Region needs to initiate an Infrastructure Staging Plan as soon as possible to

determine how services can be provided to the UGC. Without such a plan, and a means of implementing that plan, development in the UGC will not occur.

2. Once the servicing plan is completed, a financial implementation plan will also be

required for the UGC. 3. Once the above two plans are completed, a Comprehensive Development Plan for all

or portions of the UGC should be prepared to provide the basis for development. 4. GO transit should continue to be encouraged to either develop structured parking or

parking areas on the south side of the CP rail line to 'free up' some land for development.

5. Lastly, some of the existing industrial uses should continue to be encouraged to move

to other more suitable lands outside of the UGC to spur development and redevelopment in the UGC.

Documents

Milton Intensification Strategy Final Report. Given these requirements, the intent of the Milton Intensification Strategy is to implement the Province’s and the Region of ’s intensification