We are writing on behalf of…

We are writing on behalf of the Agerton New Urban Ltd. which is comprised of a group of
landowners who own approximately 240 hectares of land in the Agerton Secondary Plan area in
the Town of Milton north of Derry Road and south of Highway 401 which surrounds a future GO
Station.

On behalf of landowners group, we are providing comments on OPA 92 regarding where the
Official Plan is not clear in case of conflict between the parent plan and a secondary plan.

Part 1, Section 1, Policy 1.1.4 of OPA 92 currently states that:

• “In the event of a conflict between a policy and schedules in Part 1: New Direction: a Vision
to 2051 and a policy that is in the Part 2 – Local Policy Direction or Part 3 – Regional Policy
Direction for the Town of Milton, the policy and schedules in Part 1- New Direction: A Vision
to 2051 prevail.”

This policy as written is a significant concern. However, we understand that the language noted
above is an error and it was in fact intended for the Part 2 – Local Policy Direction or Part 3 –
Regional Policy Direction for the Town of Milton, to prevail. Accordingly, we request the policy
be modified as follows:

• “In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a policy and schedules in Part 1: New
Direction: a Vision to 2051 and a policy that is in the Part 2 – Local Policy Direction or Part
3 – Regional Policy Direction for the Town of Milton, the policy and schedules in Part 1-New Direction: A Vision to 2051 prevail, with the exception of the policies and schedules
in Part 2, Section 12, Secondary Plans, which shall prevail.”

Part 2 Policy 11.4.3.6 states that “The Secondary Plans prepared for specific areas of the Town
and identified in Section C.1.3 provide a policy framework to guide development and manage
growth within the secondary plan areas. Where there is a conflict between the policies for these
secondary plan areas and the policies of this Plan, the Secondary Plan policies shall prevail.”

This policy provides some comfort to the Landowners Group; however, it would be clearer if the
policy were revised to include reference to schedules as follows:
§ “Where there is conflict or inconsistency between the policies and schedules for these
secondary plan areas and the policies and schedules of this Plan, the Secondary Plan
policies shall prevail.”

We request that through your approval, OPA 92 be modified to implement the above changes.
Thank you for your considerations.

Yours very truly,
SGL PLANNING & DESIGN INC.