More squabbles over upgrades to properties on Lakeshore Road

By Pepper Parr

September 26th, 2022



Is there a permit for what appears to be a significant change to the grading of the driveway at 2414 Lakeshore Road?

The work being done is certainly not minor.

Neighbours are not happy with changes being made to a prominent Lakeshore Road home.

An area resident was concerned and had asked the ward Councillor Lisa Kearns to look into the matter.

Kearns is reported to have told the resident that she could not tell him what was being done.

The owners of the property were part of a group that managed to take possession of what was once public land – a part of the waterfront that was public but at the same time not available to the public.

Certainly a story to be looked into.

This is what the property at the rear of 2421 Lakeshore was to look like – the city gave the three properties the deal of the century when they sold the property in the centre labelled parkette to the property owners.



Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

14 comments to More squabbles over upgrades to properties on Lakeshore Road

  • Bob

    Of and when a building permit is required it is to be posted in a visible location for public viewing
    Usually it is seen in a window of a home being renovated or posted at a gate or fence in the case of a new build

  • Grahame Richards

    The city deal that sold public lakefront property to the nearby home owners at the foot of Market & St. Paul has been a well known secret.Why secret is beyond me .

    • Mary Hill

      Never a secret. Council debated the sale. MMW (then Ward 2 councillor) was, I believe, the only member of Council to vote against the sale.

      Editor’s note: Once again Ms Hill is correct. Meed Ward circulated a petition which the Gazette published

      • Grahame Richards

        Tell me then why it was ever offered for sale.This was public land that could have extended our access to the Lake..

        • David Barker

          As said in my first comment I was not in favour of the sale. But 6 of 7 members of council were. The sale happened many years ago now (2014 i believe) under a previous council administration. History. Move on.

          What on earth does that sale have to do with this property owner re-landscaping? And why is the Gazette even publishing this non-story.

          BTW the property owner has improved the grading and will this coming week have a soak drain installed to improve the flow of rain water away from all properties. This work being undertaken in consultation with the City.and without the need for a permit.

          Let’s all mind our own business and leave this property owner alone. Next time the unwanted and undeserved spotlight might be on you.

          • Grahame Richards

            My query has nothing to do someone’s landscaping.It has to do with the reasons why in 2014 the then Council decided to sell public land ?Just wondering if someone knows.

            Editor’s note: The answer to your question is in the Gazette archives which are searchable

  • Alfred

    Note to editor.

    Permits are to be approved and issued in a timely and efficient manner not take a year and a half to process, because we need a permit to go for a walk in this City. These are Mandates that are issued by the Province. Municipalities must follow them. Instead it appears Burlington can’t keep an employee for long. Sounds like a management problem. Why is everybody leaving? They blame a shortage and understaffed. Once again why is everyone leaving?


    You might comment on the hard time your neighbor to the West had in getting a building permit and how long he had to wait. Burlington must be proud of the number of neighbours from hell we have in this City. With the lack of housing and rental housing we have in this City. This all points to the Mayor. Losing all her OLT appeals is a disgrace. Once again I ask what has this Mayor accomplished for the City of Burlington?

    • David Barker

      Alfred, I honestly do not see the relevance of either of your comments to the subject of the Gazette’s article, which is about one anonymous busy body resident complaing about what another resident is doing to spruce up their private property

  • I see no reason to withold this information from the public. If there is nothing to hide, why could the resident not be told?

    • Mary Hill

      It’s not a matter of having something to hide. It’s likely a privacy issue.

      But i’m interested to understand why you believe you have a right to know what permits I apply for if the scope of the work falls within all zoning and planning regulations and rules.

  • Denise W.

    I would have thought that building permits would be public record? And if there was one, it would be posted in a visible location?

    I see they are protecting the tree, so everybody will be happy. This great canopy we have, came about without any private tree bylaw. Now with one, very few plantings are happening. When these older trees begin to die out, the dubious “benefits” of this bylaw will become evident.

    I have always liked the look of that house. Looks like they are updating the driveway?

    • David Barker

      Denise W.

      I don’t believe any permit issued is made public. For example the house being constructed next to me met all City zoning and other requirements. So no variances were required. Therefore no notice to local residents was made or required. And why should there be if what is being done is within the “rules”.

      I just planted 4 trees. One free one from the City and 3 from Holland Gardens. The City gave away 500 trees last Saturday. They all were snapped up within minutes of becoming available. Many were disappointed not to be successful in getting one.

      Seems others think very differently to you as respects the private tree bylaw. I guesstimate it will be another 20 to 30 years before any of my 4 new trees become subject to the terms of the bylaw, i.e. having a trunk diameter of 20cm or more.

  • David Barker

    I live directly opposite this property.

    I did have a disagreement with the owners over the taking over of the public land along the lake behind their property. That disagreement caused a bit of a strained ongoing relationship.

    Having said that, from what I can see and having nosily spoken to the work crew, the only work being done is a refurbishment of the property’s driveway and enhanced landscaping. The driveway prwviously was completely asphalt. It will now be asphalt bordered by interlock brick. The landscaping involves more large pieces of rock being creating a two tiered affect. As far as I can tell the physical layout of the driveway remains the same. I think it will look great.

    All work is in regard to their own property; not City property!

    So what does what this property owner is doing have anything to do with any other busy body. How would the person who’s complaining like it if their neighbours were to tell them what trees and shrubs they should be allowed to have in their garden. Leave these people alone to enjoy their property as they wish.

    I really wonder why this piece ever got published

    Editor’s note: Apparently a permit is required if you are changing the layout of your property

    • David Barker

      Note to Editor

      There is no change whatsoever to the layout of the property. The driveway is exactly where it was before. The look of the driveway and the landscaping have both been enhanced.

      What does what they are doing have anything to do with anyone else. It’s their property to enjoy.

      If a permit was required and let’s say for the sake of argument not obtained, that is a matter between the owners and the City, and nobody else.

      The person who raised a complaint should be ashamed of themselves. I suspect there is another motive behind the complaint.