in ,

Residents launch campaign to protect neighbourhood character

IMG_0719A group of residents in the Seneca/Delaware neighbourhood have launched a lawn sign campaign to promote respect for the existing character of the neighbourhood. The campaign is in response to an influx of new infill homes that replace existing homes. Many of these homes are by the same builder following similar designs. As such, one of concerns many residents have is the overall “cookie cutter” impact of the number of new homes on the same streets that look very similar.

At the same time, most, if not all, of these homes conform to existing zoning and did not require any variances (or public notice).

Residents had asked earlier this year for a “character area study” to determine whether and what kind of changes to zoning or other policies would help protect their neighbourhood. Character area studies are underway in Roseland, Shoreacres Creek and Indian Point. The view of staff at the time was that instead of beginning a new study (some of which have already taken more than two years), Seneca/Delaware and other mature neighbourhoods could benefit and perhaps apply the learnings from these studies.

In a recent Character Study Update memo, staff advised that the reports related to Roseland and Shoreacres, Indian Point, and a third more general report on site plan expectations for detached homes, are all expected to come to the same Development & Infrastructure Committee in February 2016. The reports will be released well in advance of the committee meeting to allow the public time for review. I will let any residents who are on my Delaware/Seneca email, or monthly newsletter, know when these are released.

Large window overlooking back deck. Guideline 2.1.1 states: “second storey balconies or windows overlooking adjacent properties are discouraged.”

Meanwhile, this summer, I had an opportunity to walk the neighbourhood with about 70 residents to hear the specifics of their concerns, and to look for ways in the short term to mitigate the impact of the new builds. Though the homes may conform to zoning, residents are concerned that some aspects of some of the homes do not conform to the Site Plan Requirements & Urban Design Guidelines for low density residential zones. These requirements and guidelines were passed in 2009 in response to “monster homes.” Below are some of the concerns raised, with photos, and reference to the site plan/design guidelines.

This fall, I met with staff working on the character area studies to share these pictures and community feedback, so staff can incorporate Seneca/Delaware concerns into the overall character study work and final recommendations.

Second storey windows overlooking a back yard. Also, the new home extends well past existing home. Guideline 2.1.1 states “site layout and setbacks of a proposed dwelling or addition to an existing dwelling should be consistent with the adjacent homes.”
Window overlooking back yard; house extending well past neighbouring home.
Neighbouring window looking into family window.
Two car garage to the right dominates first floor.








My Take:

In my view, homes that conform to zoning must be permitted to proceed, however, if the existing rules deliver a product of concern, we must look at whether and how to change the existing rules. Residents have raised some legitimate concerns regarding areas they believe the new homes do not conform to site plan or design guidelines, which do not have the power of zoning. But some of these matters could be incorporated into future zoning. For example, there are opportunities with zoning changes to tighten the restrictions on garages as a proportion of the first floor. That is one area being considered by staff.

I have also asked each new home builder to voluntarily meet with the residents on each side to discuss window placement, boundary trees, massing and other items to modify designs where possible. This has occurred already on several occasions, with some success.

Regarding the lawn campaign, I am supportive of lawn signs as they help to draw awareness to an issue, promote community dialogue and invite diversity of perspective. In fact, that is happening here. After the signs went up, I received a number of calls and emails from residents, many of them in support of the new homes in their neighbourhood. This diversity of perspective is important. I welcome and listen carefully to all views as they help to inform my service to residents on the issue of infill development in mature neighbourhoods. For more about the rules covering lawn signs, and other types of signs, visit related article here:

Think an ad is misleading? Omits key facts? Is graphic or distasteful? Tell Advertising Standards Canada

For information on the public meeting in the spring on the Seneca/Delaware infill visit:

Residents seek character study for Delaware-Seneca-Lakeshore School community

Character area study not proceeding for Delaware-Seneca-Lakeshore School Community

Written by Marianne Meed Ward

A Better Burlington began in 2006 after my neighbours said they felt left out of city decisions, learning about them only after they’d been made.

As journalist for 22 years, I thought “I can do something about that” and a website and newsletter were born. They’ve taken various forms and names over the years, but the intent remains: To let you know what’s happening at City Hall before decisions are made, so you can influence outcomes for A Better Burlington.

The best decisions are made when elected representatives tap the wisdom of our community members, and welcome many different perspectives.This site allows residents to comment and debate with each other; our Commenting Guidelines established in 2016 aim to keep debate respectful.

Got an idea or comment you want to share privately? Please, get in touch:

One Comment

Leave a Reply
  1. Several months ago Mayor Goldring wrote an article extolling the virtues and benefits of our provinces “Places to Grow’ policy on infill development. Although from a politician’s point of view the benefits are many, he failed to mention the dark sides and unintended consequences of this policy.
    The divergent views on development in the Deleware / Seneca residential areas can be directly traced to this provincial policy. When developers buy up older houses and replace them with newer and often larger units that are perceived to be out of character with the existing residences, neighbours are pitted against each other. Secondly, just as a ‘rising tide lifts all ships’, the newer homes raise the value of all properties on the street. That’s great if you happen to be selling your home. Not so great however when you find out your older home is being reassessed and your municipal taxes are following the trend higher.
    Burlington is gaining the reputation of being a market that has shut out first time home buyers. Can one of the reasons why rents are sky rocketing along with home values is the provincial ‘Places to Grow’ policy? And what about the perception of Burlington being a ‘caring and sharing’ community? When neighbours are yelling at each other it’s tough to listen to someone that says we should all just get along.

What's your take?

Freeman Station mural & six others officially unveiled Dec. 1

New garbage collection downtown will help keep streets clean