,

Staff support 3-home plan for 2267 Lakeshore Road

To Council, Mon. Apr.20, 6:30

City staff are recommending approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment application by Rosedale Properties to permit three homes to be built at 2267 Lakeshore Road, in place of the single family dwelling that exists there now.

The Community & Corporate Services Committee of council approved the application Tues. March 21, 6:30pm. Recommendations will go to City Council Mon. April 20, 6:30pm for a final decision. Residents can register to speak at either meeting here: Register as a Delegation

Staff have proposed that the property be rezoned from R3.2 to R5 – Exception with the following provisions:

  Visitor Parking                                                        0 spaces
  Maximum Lot Coverage for entire site                 35% for all dwelling types
Yard abutting a rear building elevation                6.0 m
Driveway setback from a wall containing
a window of a habitable room                             2.0 m minimum
Landscape buffer abutting R1, R2, R3 zones      1.0 m along western property line

Read the staff report here:

Recommendation report regarding a zoning by-law amendment application for 2267 Lakeshore Road.  (PB-22-15)

Presentation, showing new layout: FInal layout 2267 lakeshore

My Take:  This proposal is a significant improvement over the initial five-home plan, and subsequent four-home plan. I appreciate the developer listening to the concerns of residents and working with city staff to submit a project that is more in keeping with existing lot patterns in the area, reduces the lot coverage and increases setbacks from neighbouring homes.

Read my previous articles about this project:
70+ folks attend discussion of 2267 Lakeshore Road; prefer scaled back development
Revised plans submitted for 4 homes at 2267 Lakeshore
Public meeting on 4-unit development at 2267 Lakeshore Sept. 29

Your Take: Do you support the modified proposal? Leave a comment.

I was inspired to seek public office because I believe, like so many of you, “I can do something about that” on the issues we face. As councilor, my role is to take a stand on what’s best for residents and go to bat for it. Pushback is inevitable from those who don’t have the community’s interests at heart. I will stand with you and for you, to achieve the best interests of our city, without caving to unacceptable compromise in the name of consensus.

3 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Brian, Good question. The policy your refer to is actually in the Planning Act, and any municipality can use it. In short, where there is redevelopment of any kind (including along the waterfront), and that waterfront adds additional units (for example, a single family home becomes 10 townhomes) the Act allows the municipality to take 5% of the land for each additional unit as “parkland dedication.” Or, the city can take “cash in lieu” of land. Oakville has chosen to take parkland, and has chosen for waterfront redevelopments to take that land adjacent to the shoreline. Burlington has chosen to take cash, to purchase or enhance parks throughout the city.

  2. I believe that Oakville has a policy of requiring an easement along the waterfront when such property is redeveloped. Why does Burlington not have a similar policy? This is a good way to slowly recapture some of our waterfront for public use.

  3. Another ghastly over-built nightmare, such as the horror that have been built on once elegant Robert Street. Two homes would be the maximum to be in keeping with a nice neighbourhood that already is single home lots. Three homes is simply tacky. We now have several examples south of New Street where two to four homes were jammed on a single lot, with the developer moving out within six months in each case. Leaving supreme ugliness behind. Why not stop this street vandalism now? Two lovely homes would add to the area. Three simply denote poor taste and greed.

What's your take?