By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. May 1, 2013. Burlington is holding the second “neighbourhood character” study, which is part of the Official Plan Review. The first study was done with the people of Indian Point where there are some differences as to what can and what shouldn’t be permitted in terms of lot severances and the kind of housing that can be built on a piece of property.
The ‘what kind of housing’ gets built is one of the reasons these “neighbourhood character” studies are done. People who live in a neighbourhood chose to live there and take offence to anyone who wants to come in and build a house that they feel is “inappropriate.
Who gets to decide what’s appropriate? The person who owns the property, the neighbours, the planning department?
Roseland is made up of large two and a half storey homes on great lots that were built before the depression.
The community also has large and small bungalows that were built after the depression and on into the 40’s.
Who decides what a neighbourhood’ s character actually is? The people who live there or course – but you know that within the residents there will be differences in view point.
A few days before Roseland goes through its own ‘character” study the Roseland Community Organization held an event and did a SWOT exercise and looked at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to their community,
Each of the 40 some odd people at the meeting wrote down their thoughts under each term on Post-It notes and put them up on a board where everyone could read them. They are set out below for you to review and think about how your community would rank and be reflected under a SWOT analysis.
These are the results, unfiltered.
|
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
|
Trees |
Trees – age |
|
Neighbours who care |
Continued development on Rossmore north |
|
Trees and landscaping |
Homes being built are too homogenous |
|
Tall trees |
New houses look like a subdivision |
|
Safe streets where kids can play |
New houses |
|
Quiet street |
Neigbours do not know each other as before |
|
Proximity to Lake |
Roseland Club different |
|
Trees |
House flipping |
|
Family culture |
Overly large house on lots |
|
Traditional architecture |
Power outages |
|
Grand property sizes |
Old hydro poles |
|
Lots of green spaces |
Loss of old trees |
|
Roseland Community Organization |
Old trees that are weak or sick causing damage |
|
Mature trees |
Not enough support from community |
|
Open spaces |
Water table, flooding |
|
Beauty due to variation in styles, character, trees, lot sizes and boulevards |
Aging trees |
|
Friendly |
Some apathy to selected lots and absentee landlords |
|
Not gated – open visitors, walkers, bike riders |
Too attractive to developers |
|
Friendly neighbours |
Starting a feeding frenzy for developers to move through an area – their activities pushing neighbours out, allowing more homes too big |
|
Safety |
Unclear development guidelines |
|
A good investment for a home owner |
No or little pre consultation |
|
Trees |
Decaying trees |
|
Large lots with setbacks allow large tree |
No guidelines to Committee of Adjustment – have too much leeway to interpret the by-laws |
|
A forest in the City with a neigbourhood in the woods |
Weakness in the City in terms of protection of ambience |
|
A real neighbourhood – a sense of community, a history as a community |
No protection trees on private property |
|
RCO |
New homes totally out of scale, devoid of design to fit neigbourhood |
|
Neighbours |
Street lighting |
|
Overall Ambience, especially trees |
RCA membership too low |
|
Spaciousness of lots and space between the houses |
Construction madness – it goes on and on in some areas – weak or no enforcement, the developers skirt the law on the street blockage |
|
Varied architecture |
Inappropriate severing |
|
Role of Roseland in history of Burlington as a prestige neighbourood |
Traffic as motorists avoid Lakeshore traffic |
|
A place for visitors from far and wide to walk, walk their dog, to drive and ride through |
Existing by-laws too weak or not enforced |
|
Keystone properties that set the character of the area |
Garages in front lawns – suburban style |
|
Diversity and scale of architecture – houses fit their lots |
Developers put enormous homes on small lots , so that smaller neighbourhood homes are dwarfed |
|
Neighbourliness |
Too many developers interested, killing the goose that lays the golden egg |
|
Good Neighbours |
The culture in this seems to be to roll over, giving them variances they want |
|
Roseland Club |
Intensification mandates |
|
Parks |
Existing by-laws |
|
Great place to raise a family |
Pass through traffic |
|
Wide boulevard streets |
|
|
Roseland park |
|
|
Sense of community |
|
|
Excellent lot to dwelling proportions |
|
|
Attractive homes of character |
|
|
Lot width and space between houses |
|
|
Places for kids to play safely |
|
|
Wonderful people and neighbours |
|
|
Unique home designs – not a subdivision |
|
|
Trees |
|
|
Roseland Park |
|
|
Wide streets |
|
|
Opportunities |
Threats |
|
Community events |
The stakes are so high, it is worth it for a developer and his consultants to always try, and to go to the OMB – relentless |
|
Acknowledge the history of Roseland development from 1925 |
Due to large lots, the threat of severance always hangs there |
|
More control of development |
Roseland being stereo-typed and not listened too |
|
Stronger protection in the Official Plan |
Uncontrolled development, severances |
|
Better and stronger direction to the Committee of Adjustment |
Over-development |
|
Careful selection of Committee of Adjustment members to be sensitive to communities |
Lot severances |
|
Replace aging infrastructure |
Infill |
|
A tree maintenance and plating project – a public private venture |
Old hydro poles |
|
Clarity on appropriate development |
Uncontrolled development |
|
Need by-laws to protect lot sizes, to make by-laws hold, and not be undercut |
Desire or market demand to over build- greed |
|
Replanting |
City planning – intensification |
|
RCO provides an opportunity to maintain the unique quality of the neighbourhood |
Developers profiting from the ambience of the neigbourhood they are destroying |
|
Think of ways to bring everyone together again – use the Club |
Only planting dwarf trees as replacements |
|
Ability to be vocal on problems – the community has much capacity to react |
Having water table changed with super size basement |
|
We need to use political clout, stay organized |
Monster homes, gorilla additions |
|
Increase commitment to maintain qualities of Roseland |
Insensitive infill |
|
Tree maintenance |
Loss of neighbourhood loyalty |
|
Official plan study |
Over-sized Homes on rebuild lots |
|
Tree by-law |
Loss of character homes |
|
Push City to pass tree by-law |
New builds that lack elegance, imagination and variation |
|
Keep “variances” minor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
