SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY Date: December 2015 Prepared for: The City of Burlington Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) File # : 1106I MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

ii SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0. INTRODUCTION 3 1.1. STUDY PURPOSE 5 1.2. STUDY PROCESS 6 2.0. NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER 11 2.1. DEFINING CHARACTER 12 2.2. NEIGHBOURHOOD HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT 15 2.3. NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGES, INFLUENCES, AND FACTORS 19 2.4. WHAT WE HEARD FROM COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS 22 3.0. MANAGING NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGE 25 3.1. The PLANNING PROCESS 26 3.2. BURLINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN 27 3.3. ZONING BY-LAW 20-20 31 3.4. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 34 3.5. SITE PLAN CONTROL 35 3.6. ONTARIO BUILDING CODE AND BUILDING PERMITS 36 4.0. OPTIONS FOR MANAGING NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGE AND PROTECTING NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER 37 4.1. Official Plan POLICY 39 4.2. Existing ZONING 40 4.3. Other PROCESSES AND BY-LAWS 42 5.0. ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS 43 5.1. OFFICIAL PLAN AND URBAN DESIGN 44 5.2. ZONING REGULATIONS 46 5.3. PROCESS AND PERMITS 48 6.0. RECOMMENDATIONS 49 6.1. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 61 Appendix A Walking Tour map and Handout Appendix B Community Workshop Summary Worksheet (October 6, 2015) Appendix C Best Practice Summary and Examples Appendix D Community Workshop Summary Sheet December 2015 1

2 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

1.0. INTRODUCTION In June of 2014, Council for the City of Burlington provided a direction to staff to review the option of a character study for the Shoreacres community as part of the City s Official Plan Review process. This direction to staff came as a result of concerns raised by residents in the community about changes in the area. Following the staff direction, the Planning and Building Department organized a preliminary meeting with the community to discuss the issues facing the neighbourhood. While staff recognized that changes had been occurring in the larger neighbourhood of Shoreacres (south of New Street, west of Appleby Line, east of Walker s Line and north of Lake Ontario) there was a particular area within Shoreacres that was experiencing change. An initial boundary for the area was outlined which included 185 homes. Prior to the preliminary meeting, a questionnaire was sent out to the 185 residences. A preliminary community meeting was held on July 29, 2014 and a number of issues were raised at the meeting which covered a range of topics including the protection of trees, the demolition and permitting process, incompatible redevelopment and the impacts of redevelopment, zoning controls and specifically controls regarding building heights. December 2015 3

Following the July 2014 meeting, staff provided a report to Council (PB-11-15) outlining the merits of conducting a Character Study for the defined neighbourhood within Shoreacres. Staff noted that the study should be narrower in scope than the similar studies conducted for Roseland and Indian Point and should be independent of the Official Plan Review while being instructive to the future Zoning By-law Review, particularly for residential neighbourhoods south of the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) Highway. In April of 2015, the City issued a terms of reference for the Shoreacres Character Study. MHBC Planning and George Robb Architect were retained by the City to carry out the Shoreacres Character Study. 4 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

1.1. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of the Shoreacres Character Study was to: define the character of the study area; understand changes in the study area; understand the planning tools and controls available to manage change and the impacts of change; and, consider ways to manage change that protects and maintains the neighbourhood character. figure 1.1.1 preliminary and updated study boundary The boundary for the study area was initially provided in the City s staff report (PB-11-15) and was to be further defined through the study process. The preliminary boundary was generally established with Lakeshore Road to the south, Goodram Drive to the west, Juniper Avenue to the east and Spruce Street to the North. Through the course of the study the boundary was adjusted to reflect the original planned subdivision area. See figure 1.1.1 for the updated study area. While the homes located on Lakeshore Road were studied, they were not considered to form part of the same neighbourhood for which the character of the area was to be defined. preliminary study boundary updated study boundary December 2015 5

1.2. STUDY PROCESS The Shoreacres Character Study was divided into three phases. Each phase included engagement with the community. figure 1.2.1 study process chart WALKING TOUR & OPEN HOUSE - Gather feedback from local stakeholders Draft Report PHASE 1 Project Initiation and Background Review PHASE 2 Community Engagement and Analysis PHASE 3 Report and Recommendations Stakeholder Interviews INTERACTIVE WORKSHOP - Understanding Planning Regulations and Impacts - Control and Options October 6th COMMUNITY MEETING - Summary Report - Review & Feedback November 3rd June October November 2015 6 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

Phase 1 Project Initiation and Background Review At the outset of the project, members of the project team from MHBC Planning and George Robb Architect carried out a site visit. The purpose of this site visit was to photo document the area and gain a better understanding of the physical context of the study area. The original registered subdivision plans for the study area and the surrounding area were also obtained from the City. These plans, along with historical blue print drawings were reviewed to develop an understanding of how the Shoreacres community was developed over time. On June 29, 2015, the project team hosted a Walking Tour and Drop-in Open House at Appleby United Church. The walking tour provided an opportunity for the project team and City staff to discuss the study with residents and collect further information about the area. Two walking tours were carried out and residents had a chance to identify features and elements that define the neighbourhood as well as other information about recent developments and the history of the area. At the drop-in there was also an opportunity to provide input on features that define neighbourhood character and to identify the most important elements to be protected to maintain the character of the neighbourhood. A copy of the Walking Tour map and handout is attached as Appendix A. figure 1.2.2 June 29, 2015 walking tour December 2015 7

The first phase of the project also included background research and the collection of information about the study area. George Robb Architects undertook a review of the historical development of the area, prepared an inventory of the current built form and analyzed the changes to the housing stock in the neighbourhood through redevelopment as well as housing replacement. The background research also included an update on planning applications affecting the area, as well as a statistical analysis of the housing market and recent trends affecting land values. During the first phase, a number of stakeholder interviews were also carried out with local residents, architects, designers, builders and real estate agents. Additional input was also received through written and email comments from the public. Phase 2 Community Engagement and Analysis The second phase of the study involved an interactive workshop with neighbourhood residents. The workshop was held on October 6, 2015 at Appleby United Church. The purpose of the workshop was to review the study findings from Phase 1 and to provide an understanding of the planning process and the tools that can be used to manage change and development within an area. At the outset of the workshop, residents also had an opportunity to participate in an exercise to reflect on those elements of the community that they valued through a postcard exercise. The focus of the workshop was an interactive activity facilitated by members of the project team and City staff. figure 1.2.3 postcard activity 8 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

The workshop involved a discussion around eight topics. The topics of discussion related to the process and regulations that manage change and included: lot coverage, building height, setbacks, dwelling depth, lot frontage and area, landscape coverage, official plan policies and urban design, and other processes and permits. Each topic was outlined on a large information sheet that included the topic area, a definition of the topic or regulation, how it worked and why it was in place. Maps and visual diagrams further explaining the topic were provided as well as a chart with the regulation for information. Finally, options on how the regulation or topic area could be used to manage neighbourhood change were provided with examples of best practices from other municipalities. The information from the workshop was analyzed and summarized. figure 1.2.4 word cloud for the postcard activity December 2015 9

Phase 3 Report and Recommendations The information collected from phases 1 and 2 of the study, and the input received from the interactive community workshop in phase 2, was summarized in a series of topic panels and presented at an open house and community meeting on November 3, 2015 at Appleby United Church. During this meeting residents had an opportunity to comment on the analysis and recommendations and provide further comments. Additional information was also received through written and email comments following the meeting. This final report provides a summary of the work completed and a set of final recommendations for the Shoreacres area and broader area resulting from the research, analysis and community engagement undertaken through the study. figure 1.2.5 October 6, 2015 public interactive workshop 10 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

2.0. NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER Neighbourhood character is defined by several elements which include physical characteristics as well as characteristics that are founded in values that are more difficult to measure. Character elements are often rooted in the history of an area and while the area evolves and changes, those defined elements remain distinctive and intact. December 2015 11

2.1. DEFINING CHARACTER In defining the character of the study area, three areas were defined which contribute to the character of the neighbourhood. Character of place is often defined to mean the collective qualities and characteristics that distinguish a particular area of neighbourhood. It is the combination of traits, features, styles and other common design elements that work together to create a feeling and presence of a distinct place or neighbourhood. The characteristics of a place can be land related (i.e. the size of a lot and its frontage along a street), building related (i.e. built form, massing, height, building materials), neighbourhood related (i.e. connections such as sidewalks, trails, street networks) and include special features (i.e. focal points such as parks, community facilities, natural features). These features blend together to create a unique place and character. figure 2.1.1 character element diagram NEIGHBOURHOOD - tree lined streets - connective fabric - openness - walkable SHOREACRES CHARACTER Housing - modest scale - modest height - bungalow housing - original design elements LOT FEATURES - large lot size and wide fronts - spacious lots and privacy - landscaped lots with mature trees 12 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

figure 2.1.2 photos of the neighbourhood Neighbourhood elements include those features that define the broader neighbourhood and include public areas such as the streets including the streetscape and street design, sidewalks, street lighting, street trees, natural features, and general lotting patterns (grid curvilinear, cul-de-sacs). In the study area the neighbourhood elements were defined by mature tree lined streets, a connective fabric of walkable streets and an openness and spaciousness of the lotting pattern. Lot features include those features that define the lots in a neighbourhood. These are both physical characteristics and visual characteristics which describe the look and feel of the area. Lot features include the size and frontage of the lots, the orientation of the lots and the natural features common on the lots. In the study area the lots are large, and spacious, predominantly with wide frontages. The lots also contain significant landscaping and mature trees. Housing or built form elements are those features which define the type of buildings on the lots within the neighbourhood. These features include the architectural style of the homes, building materials, colours and textures, the massing and height of buildings, façade details and building orientation, lot coverage, rooflines, housing features including porches, driveways, garages and other features. In the study area the homes are of a modest scale and height and predominately one storey bungalows that have maintained their original design elements. December 2015 13

The definition of the character of the study area was further reinforced through the community input which included comments and discussions from the initial walking tour and open house, and the comments from the stakeholder interviews. While a range of views were heard on the ways to manage change in the neighbourhood, there was considerable consensus on how the neighbourhood character was defined. More details on the comments received through the community input are set out in Section 2.4. figure 2.1.3 front yard free library in the neighbourhood 14 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

2.2. NEIGHBOURHOOD HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT A number of original plans dating back to the early 1950 s for the Township of Nelson define the original study area. These plans when merged together provide for the original lotting and street patterns that are still in existence today. figure 2.2.1 original site plan from 1954 December 2015 15

The background research conducted also uncovered original promotional brochures published by the County of Halton in the late 1940 s that described the new Burlington communities: Burlington is a place in which to enjoy living. it is a town of wide lawns, and treeshaded streets, where even the humblest homes stand, each in its own garden plot, where cool lake breezes temper the summer heat and the friendly waters of Lake Ontario and Burlington Bay offer aquatic pleasures to all who would enjoy them. It is a town of homes. There are imposing mansions of the wealthy citizens not only of Burlington itself but of nearby Hamilton. There are the somewhat less pretentious but no less attractive homes of the business and professional men. And there are the more modest bungalows, cottages, and villas for those of moderate means. - Excerpt from The County of Halton, Ontario, Canada, Promotional Brochure, c. 1940 s, Burlington Public Library. The wide frontages of the lots allowed for homes that were built to provide their longest dimension to the street as opposed the narrower frontages of the earlier period. The streetscape in the new planned residential areas was designed and created with tree-lined streets and modest homes oriented relatively close to the street. Some of the areas to the east, referred to as Concord Estates (east of Juniper Avenue) provided for two storey homes. The bungalow and ranch style bungalow that was planned in the Arbour Community (name for the original subdivision) had become popular elsewhere in the United States during the post war period and described as the most desirable homes and marketed as the houses of the future. Most of the homes were built with wood framing with horizontal siding with some containing brick cladding. While the project team were unable to uncover the original design plans for the Arbour Community, the examples of mid-century house plans known as Louisiana Architecture of 1945-1965 as shown in Figure 2.2.2 as a collage of sample brochures, is reflective of the house plans that were built in the Arbour Community in the Shoreacres area. While the homes that were built in the study area are representative of the postwar period residential development, it would be difficult to develop a case that the particular neighbourhood is rare or unique. This post-war development model spread across North America and exists in proximity to most urban centres. The ranch bungalow and variations were a particularly useful housing type; simple and utilitarian. 16 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

figure 2.2.2 examples of typical mid-century house plans storyhistory of Character of Characte art] er Stewart] Shoreacres Character Study December 2015 17

of Character figure 2.2.3 examples of typical mid-century house plans 18 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY H [Peter Stew

ging? 2.3. NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGES, INFLUENCES, AND FACTORS While many of the homes built in the early 1950 s have remained in their original form, there have been many changes to the homes, lots and streets in the area since the 1950 s. The streets have been upgraded with some being resurfaced with curbing and sidewalks. The lots themselves have remained predominantly intact with most maintaining in their original size with the exception of the lots along Lakeshore Drive which have been the subject of severances. The map below describes a sample of the inventory of the current housing stock and illustrates the range of changes that have taken place (altered originals, additions to originals, rebuilds of originals and changes post 1970). figure 2.3.1 Sample inventory of homes in Shoreacres What is Changing? [Peter Stewart] legend Original Altered Original Altered Original with Addition New Construction Developed Post-1970 No. of Proprieties 111 18 20 13 22 December 2015 19

251 250 249 246 4226 245 4226 250 455 4299 4305 242 241 4271 4295 238 234 230 237 517 519 521 523 525 522 524 4312 526 4318 528 4319 534 4327 4327 250 4333 4333 4337 4341 221 223 224 4342 4345 4355 4362 4367 4366 4371 4368 4382 4380 4376 506 436 4390 4388 4406 4402 4410 4411 4407 4412 247 245 123 356 4380 4440 4442 4447 4451 4449 4447 4448 4440 274 4328 4330 225 4334 229 4346 4366 359 4367 4370 4372 4384 4382 4384 4385 140 4388 368 4420 4401 249 4333 4338 4375 4392 4414 4406 4332 227 4338 4342 4349 4429 4445 4443 4441 4439 4437 4435 4441 4450 4446 4444 4438 4481 4501 4505 4509 4513 4517 325 329 314 316 318 320 4488 4494 4500 4506 5005 4376 4368 4378 4381 4108 4391 4398 4400 4130 4099 4103 4107 330 4129 4406 4131 456 4418 4169 D E L A N E Y C R T. 4170 4176 434 4178 4181 4462 284 251 250 4180 4185 4199 4180 4184 4184 4191 4195 4190 4190 298 4194 296 4198 260 295 317 310 322 312 246 4226 249 281 245 4226 321 4512 250 261 5011 304 455 4299 4305 242 241 4271 4295 238 234 230 237 517 519 521 523 522 524 4312 526 W IC K L O W R D 509 60 56 352 4235 428 4218 420 414 408 398 390 378 372 48 44 351 343 327 4215 4219 4223 4227 4231 4235 4216 4220 4224 4228 4232 4236 293 285 279 271 340 361 M C N IC 291 215 4223 359 336 332 328 324 289 287 370 355 292 290 286 280 276 270 269 264 263 258 259 252 egend 436 356 350 344 336 HO L C R E S. 437 431 4269 4266 4270 371 365 359 353 347 341 335 329 323 317 311 295 289 285 279 275 225 221 414 410 4274 4231 4251 4269 4237 CA LD 226 224 4250 S H O R E A C R E S R D. 418 4114278 4282 MD 20 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY 496 494 492 490 488 484 476 422 4286 4290 273 259 253 502 500 498 480 456 4294 430 507 505 499 491 427 423 497 495 493 4298 459 4295 472 475 468 471 467 464 463 460 4302 514 510 502 498 490 435 436 429 430 4297 4301 424 418 412 408 402 392 388 382 376 370 364 358 346 340 4304 336 332 324 318 312 4303 292 284 278 272 264 238 243 232 4280 415 4281 426 MACKAYCRT. S H O RE 4289 4293 277 481 W IC K L O W R D. 509 503 501 4296 494 4300 518 506 4307 4304 226 220 214 210 4306 157 141 4308 246 4308 258 252 173 522 503 4311 515 4316 4312 4311 4316 4315 165 139 495 4312 507 499 B E L FA S T AV E. A CR E S P L. 4299 352 S E C O R D L A N E G O O D R A M D R. 179 425 154 511 419 170 552 550 548 544 531 514 512 475 509 486 4357 456 455 4336 4340 4346 4350 4356 420 410 327 319 311 135 519 508 502 498 4319 381 377 371 367 361 355 351 382 376 340 334 326 320 312 306 4349 4354 4350 285 4349 4348 153 493 539 485 543 4331 4341 4322 417 4328 415 4332 413 4338 411 403 399 393 389 385 494 379 375 369 480 527 504 406 402 398 392 388 382 378 510 480 4320 4340 4319 4341 241 235 229 523 365 368 4319 4329 4317 472 265 259 251 143 535 501 497 479 516 316 547 520 513 476 474 4339 246 236 228 484 4344 409 4320 348 347 341 342 341 335 B L U E W AT E R P L. 538 372 4325 4346 554 551 L IM E R IC K R D. 505 524 517 488 555 521 556 528 490 436 430 424 418 412 407 406 405 401 400 397 394 391 388 387 370 364 358 352 346 563 4346 4344 231 525 492 558 243 241 237 235 233 176 166 156 146 136 529 494 483 4360 487 481 4364 560 533 496 4364 4363 4380 550 546 564 435 353 562 489 537 498 493 476 488 479 484 477 475 480 371 4368 4367 260 254 248 242 236 230 224 541 429 423 419 218 212 206 4372 266 496 502 415 409 403 397 393 387 381 377 345 339 333 327 321 315 309 276 270 4376 The change that has occurred to the housing in the neighbourhood has taken place through a range of applications (building permits, site plan approvals and minor variance applications to adjust zoning regulations). The map below illustrates the applicable development approvals within the area in the last 7 years. 489 482 478 K E R R Y D R. 167 VA L A N N A C R E S. E L M C R E S O A K C R E S T IP P E R A R Y AV E... 473 W IL S O N AV E. AV O N D A L E C R T. 492 137 499 549 500 328 4369 4375 4379 4368 500 495 173 545 497 165 155 4371 504 4377 491 4375 4379 428 424 418 414 408 404 400 392 388 384 344 336 332 4383 4387 553 4394 501 479 475 4379 4380 505 483 376 350 205 269 265 259 253 4381 4382 229 487 4391 4386 4387 508 506 D O N E G A L DR. EVELOPMENT APPLICATION HISTORY - (2008-PRESENT) figure 2.3.2 SHOREACRES CREEK 275 502 4398 500 4393 4389 4391 278 274 268 262 254 248 4393 4395 4397 4399 393 385 377 373 365 353 347 4412 519 405 4408 277 271 265 259 247 239 235 229 484 476 4409 4417 491 4408 4414 4417 398 394 390 386 382 378 358 354 326 322 274 268 4421 4429 465 461 455 223 223 216 215 218 217 214 211 164 148 512 518 498 284 4394 226 4400 4402 496 499 505 511 4416 4404 435 429 423 419 415 409 397 357 515 494 492 490 City of Burlington application summary (2008 - present) NEW STREET VALANNA DR. LAKESHORE ROAD 351 4140 4130 4132 K ILA RNEY C R T. A D R IA N AV E. 4139 4095 4137 McINTOSH PL. P O P L A R D R. 4123 4125 4127 4129 4131 350 4133 4135 4119 354 344 340 336 308 4117 360 156 KERRYCRT. 4115 H E N D E R S O N R D. C A M E L O T C R T. A S H C R E S. 359 329 314 313 L IN D E N AV E. M A R G U E R IT E L A N E 376 367 361 343 333 329 495 353 349 343 325 323 319 253 4420 4416 4424 4407 416 4418 420 408 400 372 368 364 344 336 334 330 4425 164 158 152 146 140 476 474 472 470 468 466 273 267 261 255 249 246 243 240 234 228 222 362 350 280 262 256 252 4428 ANTRIM CRT. S HAN NON C R E S. 406 384 374 372 366 360 354 348 344 339 342 335 307 303 299 295 410 400 396 388 334 298 290 328 4138 308 304 284 B E LV E N IA R D. 4420 4425 487 481 475 T U C K D R. 471 4428 460 395 403 4439 4440 4441 240 237 234 231 230 227 221 480 4440 224 218 4439 4418 4430 4434 4438 4442 4417 4429 415 395 393 377 367 365 357 351 291 134 482 478 464 4434 462 373 381 4439 4440 4159 4430 4437 4440 461 4446 4450 4445 4446 471 467 465 463 4445 4446 4449 4450 4455 4456 4446 270 266 260 256 250 244 473 4442 4444 4451 4455 4450 4460 428 422 416 4463 4459 4460 4450 4456 4460 4466 4464 4466 4460 273 269 4453 4470 4476 4469 4475 4463 4481 4482 306 304 302 300 286 4452 4456 4462 4468 4472 4476 4480 225 243 4456 4435 4441 4447 4448 4451 4454 4455 132 390 382 376 368 340 432 151 4449 4455 4447 215 4457 4446 4450 4456 157 145 4454 4456 DELANEY DR. 125 4446 4457 4459 4460 4465 4466 B R E C K O N G AT E CRT. 4151 313 389 383 331 421 409 401 347 341 335 305 301 295 289 283 277 273 269 259 4158 430 424 418 412 408 J U N IP E R AV E. 419 403 402 397 394 386 362 356 352 348 344 4173 324 4162 4168 4172 4177 4179 409 391 383 4457 4248 4244 4468 4466 4465 4453 4467 4471 4470 4466 4472 4463 4460 B R E C K O N W O O D R D. 4469 4470 4455 4469 419 4475 4457 4459 4465 431 425 411 4461 4476 4461 4467 4471 4466 4470 4476 4480 4489 4482 298 296 4483 4487 4496 4493 4500 4487 4488 4493 4494 4499 4500 310 4489 4495 4501 4489 4499 299 285 283 4473 4477 4481 4485 4489 4493 4476 4463 4467 4473 4477 4483 4493 4488 4482 R O G E R S R D. 4481 C O T TO N W O O D D R. 4182 336 325 4173 4172 4174 4176 B LY T H E W O O D R D. 4178 4182 4183 415 387 4246 4482 308 290 284 4492 4488 280 4488 374 350 4484 4488 4494 4498 4477 4483 4487 4493 4499 4505 4482 4499 4497 4501 4505 4542 4518 4486 4492 4498 4504 4510 4493 4460 4457 4462 4466 4461 4466 4472 4475 4476 4483 4482 4488 4489 4492 4497 4492 4494 4500 313 303 301 297 386 287 4498 4502 4508 4498 360 4507 295 4546 4505 293 289 4512 C O N C O R D P L. T R E M IN E E R AV E. H A W T H O R N E D R. B IR E T T D R. 4233 4231 4229 4227 4225 377 4219 369 363 357 353 4185 4190 4223 4215 4211 4205 4191 4195 4190 306 4191 4239 4221 4217 4213 4200 4242 4240 4196 4200 S P R U C E AV E. 254 4195 D U N V E G A N R D. S H A N E C O S B U R N C R E S 4199 A F T O N C R T. 4204 4203 311 305 299 4203 C O R R IN E C R T. 4226 4224 4222 4220 4212 4211 4212 4199 4209 4225 4208 4218 4238 4236 4234 4232 4230 4228 4218 4216 4214 4210 4208 GLEN AFTON DR. 4210 360 356 352 348 344 4215 293 285 279 271 269 263 259 4215 361 C R T. 436 428 420 414 408 398. 372 4512 4522 4518 4219 4223 4227 4231 4235 291 389 384 383 377 371 365 359 353 4517 291 CARLA CRT. 4516 4524 372 368 362 356 352 346 324 304 328 300 296 288 284 378 4524 256 252 248 246 4515 4519 4523 4511 4531 4535 276 4521 4539 4543 4547 336 4527 371 330 S ILVA N A C R E S. 4224 390 351 343 4231 4235 327 336 332 328 289 287 359 4228 4232 4236 292 290 286 280 276 270 264 258 252 356 350 344 336 324 437 431 4269 4266 4270 329 323 359 353 347 341 335 317 311 295 289 285 279 275 225 221 414 410 4274 4251 4269 4114278 4282 296 359 355 356 351 352 347 346 341 342 337 338 334 333 329 330 325 326 322 321 320 273 291 287 283 313 300 253 237 231 225 221 215 317 273 5008 502 500 498 496 243 277 316 312 281 5014 249 308 5017 226 285 5020 289 5023 507 505 503 501 499 497 494 495 492 490 488 484 480 476 472 468 464 422 4286 4290 259 253 243 4280 415 4281 456 426 4294 277 491 430 427 423 230 493 4298 459 337 333 329 5021 321 317 313 309 305 293 5031 5028 4295 475 471 467 234 4302 514 502 503 498 499 494 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION HI 340 4216 4220 M C N IC 4223 370 355 378 HO L C R E S. 226 224 4237 4250 S H O R E A C R E S R D. 365 Legendstudy area CA LD MD minor variance consent 418 460 MACKAYCRT. SHOREACRES CREEK S H O RE site plan approval 4289 4293 A 435 436 429 430 297 510 490 392 388 382 376 370 364 358 5020 301 336 332 324 5023 CENABER CRT. 5022 278 272 264 246 238 232 226 220 214 210 5024 250 4311 481 4296 4300 4304 4308 4311 4312 463 4297 4301 4299 424 418 412 352 346 340 518 144 506 4307 4304 408 402 318 312 4308 CR E S P L. S E C O R D L A N E 4303 292 284 4306 258 252 173 157 522 179 4312 165 5026 5 5053 50 50 27 2 26 254 154 141 1 140 G O O D R A M D R. 139 495 B E L FA S T AV E. 425 41 LAK 17 13 V

What is influencing changes in the neighbourhood and area? Through the background research and stakeholder interviews, the project team looked at factors that are influencing changes in the area. Many of these factors are general trends that are affecting similar areas throughout Burlington and similar older residential communities in south-central Ontario. Land values in the area have seen a continuous rise over the last five years. The steady increase in land values combined with the low cost of borrowing and the significant demand for housing in the area (with a tightly controlled inventory) have all contributed to the increasing cost of lots and housing. The average selling price for a resale home in Burlington increased by 10.3% between August 2014 and 2015 (Royal Lepage, October 2015). Eleven homes sold in the area last year with an average listing period of 10 days or less. Many of these homes sold at 100% or greater than the original listing price (Royal Lepage, October 2015). Through the stakeholder interviews, these factors were reinforced as contributing to the demand for housing in the area. Original owners have attained considerable equity in their homes which they can access through the sale of their homes. Young families are seeking to purchase homes within the area for its locational benefits. The area is walkable, well serviced by local amenities and accessible to local schools. People moving to the area prefer the older, established neighbourhoods to the newer subdivisions, and will invest in upgrades and changes to the existing homes to accommodate the needs of a younger family today. The larger lots also allow for changes to accommodate more contemporary housing styles. Just as the homes designed 75 years ago had features that defined them as the house of the future at that time, those moving into the area today are seeking changes to accommodate their lifestyle which often includes modernized kitchens and adding additional space to accommodate a growing family with children or space for older parents. In many cases, the current market conditions have created a context in which the cost to tear down an older house and rebuild is more cost-efficient than renovating an existing home on a lot. This decision is also dependent on the extent of changes either being sought or required based on the physical condition of the existing home. While many of the trends and factors that are influencing changes in the area cannot be controlled, there are controls and ways to manage change that can be addressed. The later phase of the study sought to identify the planning processes and tools that manage change in the neighbourhood. December 2015 21

2.4. WHAT WE HEARD FROM COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS Throughout the study the project team received several comments through emails to the project website as well as input received from the community stakeholder interviews. Stakeholder interviews were held with a number of local residents, architects, designers, builders and real estate agents with knowledge and experience in the local area. The following is a sample of the questions asked: How long have you lived or done work in the Shoreacres area? How would you describe the Shoreacres neighbourhood character? What makes it unique in Burlington? What changes do you see happening in the area? Is the trend towards new buildings, renovations or additions? What do you believe are driving these trends and changes? What measures do you feel are important to have in place in the neighbourhood to protect and maintain the character of the area? While the responses to the interview questions varied, several of the responses were similar to the comments received from the survey following the initial public meeting held by the City in July 2014. There were also a variety of comments received from the public through emails to the project website. The response and input obtained can be summarized as follows: Character 1. There is more than one feature that defines character. Character is defined by the lots and the homes in the area and is connected by a fabric that makes it distinctive and unique. The neighbourhood is an extension of the homes in the area. 2. Trees are one of the most important elements of the community. 3. The streetscape, spacious lots and modest one-storey homes define an era of housing that represents an historical planned community that should be maintained and protected. 22 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

Changes 1. The area is evolving and needs to be able to accommodate changing lifestyles, preferences and complementary design considerations. 2. Stewardship of the area for its long term protection as a distinctive area must be considered. 3. Change must respect the defined character and its elements. 4. Change must not be constrained or overly regulated. Changes must be allowed to occur to accommodate different values, changing lifestyle preferences, and stages of life. 5. There must be respect for evolving changes that are needed versus those that are wanted solely for quick financial returns. 6. Control of change should be about avoiding adverse impacts instead of minimizing them. 7. The ongoing construction mode to the area needs to be addressed. Controls 1. Better communication and understanding of the approval and permit process and planning controls is needed. 2. Regulations of critical importance include those that affect scale and the height of development. 3. Regulations should better address elements that define character including setbacks, massing, height and scale. December 2015 23

24 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

3.0. MANAGING NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGE One of the most important components of the Shoreacres Character Study was an understanding of the planning process and the tools that are in place to manage change in the neighbourhood. As part of the second community meeting, a presentation was provided that walked through the planning process from the perspective of someone who has purchased a home in the area. What are their options for change? What can they do in the area? What regulations apply to their lot and what do they mean? What changes are permitted and what processes would guide those permitted changes? All of these questions were raised through the first phase of the study and it was important to build capacity in the community to understand the planning process in order to provide informed input on potential change, the impact of change, and how best to control change. December 2015 25

3.1. The PLANNING PROCESS The planning and development process is guided in Ontario by the Planning Act which sets out requirements for plans and by-laws to manage growth and change and regulate development. The graphic below illustrates the policy and regulatory framework which generally establishes the policies and controls that manage development and change in the community. figure 3.1.1 process and tools Official Plan Zoning By-Law/Minor Variance Site Plan Control Ontario Building Code Building Permit 26 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

3.2. BURLINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN An Official Plan provides an overall policy framework for how growth and development will occur within the City. It sets out land use designations and provides growth targets for a 20 year planning horizon. Residential areas within the City are guided by residential land use designations which provide for the type and density of development and policies to guide development and change. figure 3.2.1 City of Burlington Official Plan Schedule B - comprehensive land use plan APPLEB WALKER'S LINE BELVENIA ROAD NEW ST. SPRUCE AVE LAKESHORE RD. Study Area Residential - Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residenital - High Density Neighbourhood Commercial Mixed Use Centre Greenlands Major Parks and Open Space To be Determined Urban Planning Area Boundary December 2015 27

The entirety of the Shoreacres study area is designated Residential Low Density in Burlington s Official Plan. Part III, Section 2.2.2(c) of the Official Plan states: In Residential Low Density areas, single-detached and semi-detached housing units with a density to a maximum of 25 units per net hectare shall be permitted. In addition, other forms of ground oriented housing units with a density to a maximum of 25 units per net hectare may be permitted, provided that these forms are compatible with the scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood. Other than general language which speaks to compatible development, there are no site-specific policies applying to the lands located within the Shoreacres study area. Section 2.5 of the Official Plan outlines Housing Intensification objectives and general policies. There are general policies in section 2.5.2 a) which set out evaluation criteria for intensification proposals. While infill housing is a form of intensification as it includes development of vacant lands, based on the current definition for intensification and infill housing, these criteria would only apply where the vacant lot is not being developed in accordance with the permitted density on the vacant lot. 28 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

The definition for intensification states Development or redevelopment of a property or site within the existing developed area which is proposed to be undertaken at a higher density or intensity than permitted under the existing zoning, and which may include re-development. Section 2.5.2 e) identifies criteria that shall be considered which are specific to the evaluation of a minor variance proposal for increased height in low density residential neighbourhoods. It states: (i) the maximum building height should not exceed the average height of the highest points of the rooflines of existing residential buildings on the immediately adjoining properties sharing lot lines with the lands under application. Section 2.5.4 sets out a number of policies for infill development. Infill development is defined as Development or re-development within an existing developed area which is proposed to be undertaken in conformity with the existing zoning, and which may include development on vacant lands, the addition of dwelling units, or the creation of new lots. Section 2.5.4 Infill Development states: a. Ground-oriented residential infilling within existing neighbourhoods shall be encouraged. b. New infill development shall be compatible with the surrounding development in terms of height, scale, massing, siting, setbacks, coverage and amount of open space; and in the case of individual applications for consent, the additional policies of Part VI, Subsection 4.4 of this Plan apply. c. The creation of new housing that is compatible with existing neighbourhoods shall be encouraged. d. Where a proposal for residential infill is deemed to have potentially significant adverse impacts, Council may require a planning justification report by a Qualified Person, outlining how the proposed development will be compatible with the existing neighbourhood. This report shall include, but shall not be limited to, the criteria listed in Part III, Subsection 2.5.2 a), above. The report shall determine whether these impacts can be reduced to acceptable levels and shall recommend any measures required to mitigate the adverse impacts to acceptable levels. December 2015 29

e. Where a proposal for residential infill is deemed to have potentially significant adverse impacts, Council may require an expanded public consultation process, including additional neighbourhood meeting(s). The definition of compatible is Development or re-development that is capable of co-existing in harmony with, and that will not have an undue physical (including form) or functional adverse impact on, existing or proposed development in the area or pose an unacceptable risk to environmental and/or human health. Compatibility should be evaluated in accordance with measurable/objective standards where they exist, based on criteria such as aesthetics, noise, vibration, dust, odours, traffic, safety and sun-shadowing, and the potential for serious adverse health impacts on humans or animals. This definition is currently under appeal. Adverse impacts are also not defined within the Plan. 30 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

3.3. ZONING BY-LAW 20-20 While the Official Plan provides for the land use designations and policies to permit low density residential uses in the area, the zoning by-law provides regulations that control the size of lots and the type of housing development that can occur on a residential lot. The zoning regulations essentially create a building envelope within which development can occur. The zoning regulations include provisions that control the size of the actual lots (lot area and frontage), the location of a house on a lot (setbacks) and the size of a house on the lot (coverage, height). Three zone designations apply to properties within the Shoreacres Character Study area. The majority of the area is zoned R2.1, with a portion zoned R2.4. The properties fronting onto Lakeshore Road are zoned R1.2. figure 3.3.1 City of Burlington Zoning By-law 2020 Study Area Regulatory Floodplain Niagara Escarpment Development Control Area Maximum 35% Lot Coverage for 1 Storey Dwelling and 25% Lot Coverage for all other Dwellings Major Creeks ZONE DESCRIPTION R RM RH RA P O Detached Residential Multiple Attached Residential Apartment Residential Alton Comm. Res. Neighourhood Park Open Space December 2015 31

Throughout the City of Burlington, a number of areas are identified on the Zoning maps as being designated areas for reduced lot coverage provisions. The designated lot coverage area applies to the majority of the study area. Detached dwellings are permitted in all three zone designations. A number of zoning provisions apply to properties within the study area, including minimum lot width and area, front, rear, and side yard setbacks, lot coverage, and building height. Zone Provision R2.1 R2.4 R1.2 Minimum Lot Area 700 sq m 600 sq m 925 sq m Minimum Lot Frontage 18 m 16 m 24 m Minimum Front Yard Setback 11 m 6 m 9 m Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10m 9m 9 m Minimum Rear Yard Setback Corner Lot 4.5m 4.5m 4.5 m 10% of actual lot 1.2 m for one or one and a half storey with 10% of actual lot width with attached attached garage; 1.8 m for two or more storey width with attached garage side with attached garage garage Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback (Street Side Yard) 10% of actual lot width, 3 m other side without attached garage 1.2 m, 3 m other side for one or one and a half storey side without attached garage; 1.8 m, 3 m other side for two or more storey side without attached garage 10% of actual lot width, 3 m other side without attached garage 4.5 m 4.5 m 4.5 m 32 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

Zone Provision R2.1 R2.4 R1.2 Non-Designated Area Maximum Lot Coverage one storey (with attached garage/without attached 40% including accessory buildings/32% plus 8 % for accessory buildings garage) One and a half storeys(with attached garage/without 37.5% including accessory buildings/29.5% plus 8% for accessory buildings attached garage) Two storeys 35% including accessory buildings/27% plus 8% for accessory buildings Designated Area Maximum Lot Coverage with attached garage 35% for one storey dwellings including accessory buildings 25% for all other dwellings including accessory buildings Maximum Lot Coverage without attached garage 27% for one storey dwellings plus 8% for accessory buildings 17% for all other dwellings plus 8% for accessory buildings Height Provision R2.1 R2.4 R1.2 Peaked Roof Dwelling Building Height Maximum Detached Semi-detached 1 storey to 7.5 m 1 ½ storey to 8.5 m 2 storey to 10 m Cluster Flat Roof Dwelling Building Height Maximum Detached Semi-detached Cluster 1 storey to 4.5 m N/A 2 storey to 7 m Alternatively, additions and enlargements to existing dwellings are permitted to a maximum Building Additions height of two storeys measured from the ceiling of the existing dwelling a maximum of 6 m at the peak of the roof or a maximum of 3 m to a flat roof. The detailed worksheets that were used in the interactive workshop outline the applicable zoning regulations for the area and the intent of the provisions. These worksheets are provided in Appendix B. December 2015 33

3.4. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT If someone desires to change an existing home or rebuild a home they are required to comply with current zoning regulations in order to obtain a building permit. There is a process set out under the Planning Act which allows for considerations of minor adjustments to existing regulation and the zoning by-law. These adjustments are referred to as minor variances and can be considered through an application to a local body known as the Committee of Adjustment. As was highlighted in Figure 2.3.2, several applications have been made over the past number of years in the study area to accommodate changes through the minor variance process. The Committee of Adjustment process is a public process with public notification requirements and the decisions are subject to appeal. Applications are assessed based on prescribed tests set out under the Planning Act including a requirement that the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law. figure 3.4.1 committee of adjustment - minor variance process Minor Variance A minor variance is required where a proposed development requires relief from a specific zoning requirement Application made to the Committee of Adjustment Notification of minor variance application and timing/location of Committee meeting provided to residents within 60 metres of subject property 34 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

3.5. SITE PLAN CONTROL The City s Official Plan designates the entire City of Burlington as a Site Plan Control Area. Site plan control is a process which addresses the functioning and design of development on a site. The site plan process is not a process for which public notice is required and there is not a right of appeal of a decision other than by an applicant. In most municipalities, site plan control is not applicable to single detached dwellings. It is applicable in Burlington through a specific by-law approved by Council. The City currently provides guidance for the site plan process and design guidelines for applications for single detached infill housing in its document entitled Urban Design Guidelines for Low Density Residential Zones. While architectural style cannot be regulated based on the current Official Plan policies, through the site plan process, the current guidelines allow for the review of architectural elevations and an opportunity to offer suggested changes and guidance for compatible development. Site Plan control for single detached homes is delegated to the Director of Planning for approval but can be directed to Council for approval. figure 3.5.1 site plan control process Site Plan Control The City s Official Plan designates the entire City of Burlington as a Site Plan Control area Site Plan Control is applicable to all new developments, building additions, certain building renovations, and various other site works Review : Location of Buildings and Works Massing and Conceptual Design Relationship of Buildings to streets, other buildings, publicly accessible exterior areas Exterior Design Conditions: Access to/from Roads On-site Landscaping Easements Grading and Drainage December 2015 35

3.6. ONTARIO BUILDING CODE AND BUILDING PERMITS Building permits are issued in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. There are no required public notifications for the issuance of building or demolition permits. In fact, a municipality is required to issue a permit within a prescribed timeframe established by the Code if the permit meets the zoning regulations and all Code requirements. Considerable discussion took place during the workshop about the building permit process. Changes to the building code rests with Provincial Legislation and the City must adhere to its requirements. figure 3.6.1 Ontario Building Code and building permit process Zoning Clearance Certificate Issued through Site Plan approval Building Permit Final Site Plan approval must be granted prior to applying for a Building Permit Demolition permit Construction permit 36 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

4.0. OPTIONS FOR MANAGING NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGE AND PROTECTING NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER December 2015 37

In considering options and considerations for managing neighbourhood change, the project team developed a series of worksheets (Appendix B) that identified those areas that had been raised through the initial phases of the study as areas that should be considered to address change. These areas were also seen as the best way in which to manage changes that most impacted the defined elements of the neighbourhood character. The following is a summary of the information presented. Each area includes a definition or description of the applicable policies or regulations, what the policies, process or regulations do, how they work, their intent and alternative approaches to managing change. In some cases, further examples were provided from best practices (other municipal policies and by-laws). Examples of the best practices from other municipalities and links to further resources are also provided in Appendix C. 38 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

4.1. Official Plan Policy Official Plan land use policies set out the permitted uses in residential designations and provide direction for the types and forms of housing that can be developed. The types and forms of housing are to be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The following are land use policy options used to guide neighbourhood infill development: 1. Specific Character Statements area specific policies that define elements of a neighbourhood character based on specific distinctive and unique features. Development requires conformity with the character statement. 2. Stable Residential Area Policies for Infill character is defined by: land related elements: setbacks, orientation, separation distances/ setbacks, landscaped / natural areas, lotting patterns, grading building related elements: scale, height, massing, architectural design criteria are defined for development 3. Specific policies to define a surrounding neighbourhood and compatibility in the stable residential areas 4. General Policies to define and address the level of intensification infill in stable residential areas Urban Design policies within an Official Plan provide guidance on preferences for the design of new buildings and are intended to ensure that new residential development is compatible with and enhances existing neighbourhoods. Updated urban design policies within the Official Plan that are directly related to infill housing can be considered. Urban design policies that promote development that considers and complements the streetscape and architecture of neighbouring buildings. December 2015 39

4.2. Existing Zoning Local zoning regulations set out provisions to guide development. The following are options for zoning regulations that are currently within Burlington s Zoning By-Law 2020. Existing Zoning Provision Intent Options Alternative LOT AREA AND FRONTAGE Regulating lot areas and frontages provides a lotting pattern that is reasonably consistent in nature. Allow for reduction to introduce smaller lots Maintain existing lot area and lot frontage requirements Tighten to reflect existing lots Regulating front yard setbacks works to promote a streetscape in which dwellings are located at FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS similar distances from the front lot line. It also provides for greenspace and setbacks from the sidewalks and streets. Regulating rear yard Reduce minimum required front/ rear yard setback Maintain existing minimum required front/ rear yard setback Increase minimum required front/ rear yard setback Allow for encroachments setbacks works to create backyard space and mitigate issues such as rear yard shadowing. Coverage controls the scale of LOT COVERAGE development on a lot to ensure homes are proportional. Building footprints within the building envelope are controlled through Increase maximum lot coverage Maintain existing lot coverage Reduce maximum lot coverage Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or GFA Maximum coverage as well. Side yards provide separation between dwellings for site SIDE YARD SETBACKS functions like access to rear yards, drainage and grading, privacy, and utilities. Regulating side yard setbacks works to ensure Reduce minimum required side yard setback Maintain existing minimum required side yard setback Increase minimum required side yard setback that dwellings are separated and appropriate distances are protected. BUILDING HEIGHT Regulating building height works to mitigate shadowing impacts, privacy and massing. Reduce maximum permitted building height Maintain existing maximum permitted building height Increase maximum permitted building height 40 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

Additional zoning measures can also be considered to address change in the residential area. These proposed considerations can further regulate housing and impact on neighbouring areas. Existing/ Amended Zoning Provision Intent Options Alternative Landscape coverage means the LANDSCAPING COVERAGE calculation of the total horizontal area of a lot covered by landscaping. Landscaping provides greenspace on a lot to ensure natural areas for appropriate Introduce residential landscape coverage regulations Do not introduce residential landscape coverage regulations Allow for encroachments drainage and open natural space Dwelling depth means the minimum depth that a dwelling can extend from DWELLING DEPTH the front of the house into the rear yard. Regulating dwelling depth works to control the massing of a dwelling, while also mitigating issues such as side and Introduce a maximum permitted dwelling depth regulation Do not introduce a maximum permitted dwelling depth regulation rear yard shadowing and overlook into adjacent properties. December 2015 41

4.3. Other PROCESSES AND BY-LAWS Additional regulations and public processes outside of planning and zoning have also been considered. The following are relevant to the building process and treatment of landscape areas. Tree Protection Several municipalities have introduced tree protection by-laws to manage tree preservation on private property. A range of options are available to address tree protection. The main considerations for this process include private vs. public rights, administration, costs and enforcement of the program. Tree protection can also be enhanced through increased tree canopy within the public realm (including street tree planting in municipal R.O.W. s) Property Standards The Municipal Act allows municipalities to pass by-laws to regulate and control property conditions and the maintenance of properties. More detailed by-laws can be provided to address specific elements like outdoor storage, refuse, signage, and noise. Building Code and Permitting The Ontario Building Code sets out mandatory requirements for minimum building standards in Ontario. Building permits are required to be issued under the Code through municipal building divisions. Open data related to this process is currently available at the City. The permitting process in Burlington is based on applicants securing planning and zoning approvals prior to demolition of previous structures. Site Plan Control This process is administered by municipalities through a by-law passed under the Planning Act. Site Plan Control in Burlington is used for single family dwellings in protected areas, such as heritage areas and along a shoreline. In Burlington, as previously noted, it is in place for the study area. Committee of Adjustment The Committee of Adjustment is established to hear applications for variances to zoning regulations which are permitted under the Planning Act. Since it process is also based on procedural by-law. The public can be involved and are notified as required by Planning Act regulations. 42 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

5.0. ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS Following the second community meeting and interactive session, a number of additional comments were received and additional comments were forwarded to the project team. In analyzing the information it was important to respect all comments and views but to also to consider recommendations in the context of the historical development of the area, recognizing that while the study area is unique, it is also similar to many other mature, stable residential areas within the City. Any proposed changes to the area may be applicable to several other similarly zoned areas. It was also important to balance the protection of the existing character of the neighbourhood with the need to accommodate further growth and development, recognizing that several lots are significantly larger than the minimum standards for both lot frontage and area. There is a need to consider better controls to minimize impacts and provide regulations which are proportional to the lot sizes and not retain a one size fits all standard. The findings and analysis also considered changes to policies that may be appropriately considered for other stable residential areas of the City as part of the Official Plan review process. Residents were also asked to prioritize the recommendations. The majority of those who commented noted that changes to regulations related to building height and coverage were a priority. A summary of the analysis and comments from the Phase 1 and 2 of the study as well as the initial recommendations are found in Appendix D. December 2015 43

5.1. OFFICIAL PLAN AND URBAN DESIGN The following is a summary from the worksheets from Appendix D. Summary: The current Official Plan policies, while recognizing the need for compatible development are general and not specific to recognize stable residential communities or the need to maintain and protect the character of such areas. Strengthening the general policies with reference to stable residential areas and providing for a better framework for the evaluation of infill housing which includes replacement housing with more specific criteria, would provide for better direction and certainty of exceptions for the management of change in the stable residential areas. These criteria could explicitly refer to those character elements that define the neighbourhood and include the protection of trees and tree canopy, as well as appropriate scale, height and massing reflective of the neighbourhood character. A further consideration of the definition of compatibility may also provide for a clearer direction of how compatibility is to be measured. Policies with criteria used to define character can also be used to evaluate development in relation to character. For example, land related or lot characteristics include setbacks, orientation of homes on lots, driveways and parking areas while building or house related characteristics may include scale, height, massing, architectural study and materials. Both sets of characteristics can be evaluated in comparison to a proposed development to determine the degree to which the development is reflective of the characteristic. Does it maintain the overall character? Does is disrupt the area? Neighbourhood characteristics such as connectivity, grading, lotting patterns are often used as criteria to evaluate infill housing which may be proposed on multiple lots and affect the broader neighbourhood. Other features and characteristics such as tree protection and heritage are also important to be considered as part of the evaluation of criteria when examining proposed development. Technical considerations should be clearly articulated and assessed through the site plan process and include drainage, servicing, traffic and other environmental considerations as well as an assessment of possible physical impacts. 44 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

Urban design guidelines can assist in guiding the development of appropriate and compatible development of new homes. The current guidelines provide such assistance but need to be updated for infill housing and should be referenced through Official Plan policy. They should also be separated from the site plan control manual and form a separate document. Several examples of policy approaches and urban design guidelines from best practices (City of Toronto, City of Mississauga and the Town of Oakville) have been referenced in Appendix C as approaches to be considered. Additional Comments: Many residents commented that the changes to the Official Plan should be accompanied by stronger urban design guidelines that illustrate visually the types of dwellings that are compatible within the area. There should also be consideration of a character statement for each neighbourhood so that the definition of the character of that area is not left to further interpretation. December 2015 45

5.2. ZONING REGULATIONS Summary: The proposed changes to the zoning regulations were highlighted on each of the workshop sheets as found in Appendix D. In general, the proposed changes seek to provide more common standards for the area including a proportional lot coverage provision with a better definition of what is included in lot coverage. A floor area ratio (FAR) regulation should also be considered on a sliding scale. This can further control height and massing. Landscaped open space requirements should be equally applicable to both zones within the area. Building height needs to be defined in metrics and should be more clearly articulated in the by-law to continue be measured from the midpoint of the roof to allow flexibility in design with a better control of design through the roof structure. Yard setbacks should also be considered to better reflect the existing character by considering an averaging feature for front yards and proportional measure for side yards. Current rear yard provisions, given the existing wide lots, should remain intact. No changes are proposed to the minimum regulations for lot areas and frontages. These should also remain intact to maintain the spacious lots characteristic of the area. Additional Comments: There were concerns raised with including porches and covered patios in the coverage calculations. There were also concerns regarding the use of a floor area ratio. Residents raised ongoing concerns over building height and many questioned why an averaging of height between existing dwellings could not be considered. Some also continue to believe homes should be restricted to a one storey height limit. Many asked why the Lakeshore Road frontage lots were not being studied and why they were not recognized in the recommendations. It should be noted that the changes being recommended to the Official Plan policies and some of the general zoning provisions (FAR) should also be considered for the Lakeshore Road zone (R 1.2). One of the comments raised applied to corner lots and asked why consideration was not given to tighter controls around the setbacks for side and rear yards on corner lots. There were also questions raised about ravine lots and how setbacks 46 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

were to be measured. Concerns remained about flooding in the area and how better controls could be put in place. Further consideration was given to corner (flankage) lots and is reflected in the udpated recommendations. It should also be noted that while the majority of those who provided comments appeared to support the changes, some had concerns about implementation and the details of how and when the changes would take effect. Some questioned why further restrictions were being placed on the lots and what the financial implications would be for more restrictive zoning regulations. December 2015 47

5.3. PROCESS AND PERMITS Summary: Three areas were considered under the current processes to better manage change in the area and surrounding neighbourhood. These included better tree protection, an updated site plan process and more open data available to communicate the building and demolition permitting processes to residents. Additional Comments: Many residents reiterated the importance of communication regarding the City processes and the need for better engagement early in the process. There was a continued request to ensure maximized tree protection through whatever measures and best practices that may be available. 48 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

6.0. RECOMMENDATIONS From the initial walking tour to the final presentation of the draft recommendations, the community in the Shoreacres study area has been actively engaged in the planning process. The community cares about their neighbourhood. A considerable amount of information has been collected and analyzed and a wide range of comments and inputs have been received. The resulting study recommendations reflect the historical and physical research and findings, the community and stakeholder input, and reflect a balanced approach to managing future change. The recommendations are intended to provide a balance between protecting and maintaining the character of the neighbourhood with the need to accommodate future needs. While the majority of the recommendations are focused on the Shoreacres study area, many are recommended to be considered as part of the City s Official Plan Review process as they are applicable to all stable residential communities. December 2015 49

Recommendation 1 - Official Plan Polices and Urban Design While the study area has distinctive elements that define its character, it does not have significant elements that distinguish it from other older, mature residential neighbourhoods which were planned and developed in the 1950 s in the City. It does not contain one or more distinctive elements that define it as a unique historic character area. However, its distinctive character as an older, mature residential neighbourhood should be protected and maintained. Updated policies should be considered as part of the Official Plan Review process that are specifically focused on infill housing and the replacement of existing housing in older, stable residential areas of the City. These updated policies could be included as part of the policies that address redevelopment on existing lots within established residential neighbourhoods. The study area is an example of an area with parcel fabric that represents underutilized lots. These lots have the capacity to accommodate additional development. This development should be properly managed and evaluated based on policies and criteria that maintain and protect the character of the neighbourhood to ensure compatible development that minimizes adverse impacts. Policies that refer to character should refer to the definition of character, as described earlier in the report, as the collective qualities and characteristics of the area. The criteria to maintain and protect neighbourhood character should provide a framework to evaluate development applications within all stable residential neighbourhoods. The intent of such policies is to ensure that development does not take place that is out of character and not compatible with the neighbourhood. The terms compatibility and neighbourhood should be used to measure the appropriateness of infill housing in older, stable neighbourhoods. The term compatible could be clarified for infill areas to mean development or redevelopment which may not be the same as, or similar to existing development but can coexist with the surrounding area without unacceptable adverse impacts. In determining if development is compatible criteria should be used to evaluate the development in a neighbourhood context. By providing policies which state that development is to be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, the surrounding neighbourhood will need to be defined. We are recommending that the policies are structured such that the definition of a neighbourhood is based on considerations of a number of measures and characteristics that define the area rather than actually defining each neighbourhood or area through character statements. 50 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

Possible measures for determining the area of a surrounding neighbourhood may include: existing road networks boundaries created by roads or natural features existing lotting patterns lot areas and frontages building orientation and lotting patterns special built form features and/or predominant architectural style surrounding dwelling types surrounding zoning natural features and trees heritage considerations past developments age of construction other technical or design matters All of these factors will help to define the limit of the neighbourhood area in question as well as the qualities and characteristics to define its physical and aesthetic character. It will be important to ensure any new policies are drafted to fit within the Burlington Official Plan context given its policy structure. A number of best practices can be considered as examples in drafting revised policies (Appendix C). To complement the updated Official Plan policies it is recommended that urban design guidelines for infill housing in stable residential areas be updated. Urban Design Guidelines for infill housing for stable residential areas should provide a framework for the assessment of development that looks at the physical layout, massing, functionality and relationships of new and modified dwellings in stable residential communities. The guidelines should address the changes occurring in stable residential communities so that compatibility can be achieved within the existing context and neighbourhood character. Achieving compatibility is not about replicating the existing form or reproducing architectural styles or details of nearby buildings. Rather, the focus is to direct how new development can be designed to protect and maintain neighbourhood character. Recommendation: 1a) Strengthen policies in the Official Plan for infill housing by specifically setting out criteria to evaluate proposed infill housing in older, mature stable residential areas. December 2015 51

Recommendation: 1b) Strengthen the test for the evaluation to require neighbourhood character to be defined and be protected and maintained. 1c) Update and clarify definitions for compatibility. 1d) Ensure existing prevailing lot areas and frontages are reflected within updated Official Plan policies as part of defining the character of a residential lot. 1e) Provide Urban Design Guidelines for infill housing to be used for the assessment of development based on physical layout, massing, functionality and relationships of new and modified dwellings in stable residential communities. Recommendation 2 Processes and Permits Tree Protection Tree protection is an area that was an area of considerable discussion. Private trees cannot be protected through zoning. Other polices and measures need to be considered in order to ensure maximized tree and tree canopy protection. The City may wish to explore options that other municipalities have implemented to help protect the defining character trees and tree canopies provide to a neighbourhood. Many of these were outlined in the Roseland Character Area Study. Strengthened Official Plan policies related to tree protection as part of the neighbourhood character policies should be considered. Recommendation: 2a) Add policies to Section 2.5.4 which refers to maximizing the protection of trees. Site Plan Policies that speak to urban design need to be updated to address the issues of infill housing. Urban design guidelines for infill housing (as recommended earlier) will be able to help address changes proposed in stable residential neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood Context (character, lot size, scale, rear yard privacy, corner lots, ravine lots), architectural context (massing, height, setbacks, facades, architecture, garages, accessory structures), and site context (landscaping, tree preservation, driveways and walkways) all need to be considered in preparing the urban design policies to guide infill development in stable residential neighbourhoods. These policies will assist in guiding the site plan approval process. 52 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

As was noted earlier in the report, Burlington is one of the few municipalities that require Site Plan approval for single detached dwellings. We understand further consideration for the application of the site plan process in all areas is also currently under review. While there are merits to the use of the site plan process for infill housing, consideration of where this should be applied warrants further discussion. Other jurisdictions limit the application to vacant lots in particular areas (proximity to the lake or within older established neighbourhoods). Recommendation: 2b) The site plan process should be maintained for older established neighbourhoods where new development is proposed on vacant lots. Demolition and Permitting While there have been improvements to the demolition and permitting process, there should be continued effort in improving communication of information and ongoing engagement related to the planning processes. Access to open data should also be maintained and enhanced. Recommendation: 2c) To enhance current open data related to the permitting and demolition process. December 2015 53

Recommendation No. 3 Zoning Regulations A number of recommendations are being made to change the City s current zoning regulations that are both specific to the study area but that are also relevant to be considered as part of the City s updated Zoning By-law process and specifically changes to the residential zones. The zoning for the study area should be considered to be changed to provide for common zone provisions with proportional requirements based on lot size. Recommendation: 3a) Provide for one common zone for the study area with aligned regulations. Setbacks Front Yards To ensure that the character of the historical streetscape is maintained, it is recommended that prevailing front yard setbacks should be maintained. The prevailing front yard setbacks can be achieved by using an average of front yard setbacks to determine the setback required or recognizing existing front yards less a one-metre difference. An example of this type of regulation could be established as follows, The minimum front yard for any dwelling shall be the average of the yards of dwellings abutting the same road established by the nearest dwelling on each side. The project team recognize that there are concerns in implementing an averaging measure into the Zoning By-law. Given the earlier recommendation to align the zones provisions for the study area, we would recommend an overall frontage be established that is reflective of the current average which appears to be 9 metres. figure 6.0.1 front yard setback - averaging This should be confirmed by zoning staff. Recommendation: 3b) Establish a front yard setback reflective of the overall average within the study area (9 metres). Side Yards It is recommended that side yard setbacks should be consistent throughout the area and should be based on the size of the lots to ensure proportional spacing. The use of a percentage for side yards 54 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

figure 6.0.2 10% side yard setback based on lot size may result in some homes with existing conditions that would encroach into the side yard setback. It is recommended that a provision be provided to address these situations to ensure that they are not increased. Again, by using similar zoning provisions for the area this new provision should require a minimum side yard setback of 10% of the lot frontage for each yard. This will provide for a consistent approach to redevelopment. Recommendation: 3c) Establish a new side yard setback provision of 10% all zones in the area. figure 6.0.3 rear yard setback for R2.4 zone Rear Yards It is recommended that the rear yard setbacks should maintain the current minimums to ensure protection of rear space and to ensure privacy is not affected. The current rear yard setbacks, given the existing wide lots, are more than sufficient to provide for flexibility for additions or enlargements to existing homes. It may be worth evaluating the provision of a minimum of 9 metre rear yard setback in all zones within the study area and clarification of the 7.5 metre setback to ensure appropriate setback on the ravine lots. Dwelling Depth Dwelling depth regulations are effectively used for narrow deep lots to ensure additions to the rear do not create adverse impacts. Given the wide, shallower nature of the lots in the study area, and the current rear yard setbacks, the implementation of a maximum dwelling depth is not recommended. The current rear yard setbacks and other updated regulations will continue to sufficiently control the scale of development. However, dwelling depth and building length regulations should be considered in areas (or on lots) with narrower frontages or on lots without proportional rear yards. There are areas in the City s stable residential areas where this would be appropriate. Recommendation: 3d) Consider new dwelling depth regulations of 18 to 19 metres based on examples in best practices. December 2015 55

Corner Lots A number of additional comments were received with respect to how corner lots are developed and the impacts of development to adjacent properties which may have side yards adjacent to rear yards. The aligned zone regulations should maintain the rear yards on flankage lots as are currently provided. Clarification in the zoning should be provided that requires the orientation of homes with driveway access from the frontage and not the flankage side yard. Any changes to the orientation of corner lots should require a minor variance process to ensure the development is appropriate for the area.. This ensures consistent orientation and a streetscape that is reflective of the character. Recommendation: 3e) Establish a requirement for access from frontage on corner lots and not side yards. Lot Coverage In order to better control lot coverage, all zones should be part of the designated area which restricts coverage to 35% and 25% in accordance with height. Alignment of this provision to apply to all lots will provide for better consistency in the area and be proportional to lot size. A new provision for Floor Area Ratios (FAR) should also be considered along with the lot coverage regulations as a means to control the massing of dwellings. Floor Area Ratios should be provided on a scale that decreases with increased lot size. Covered porches and decks should be included within the overall calculation of the lot area. figure 6.0.4 lot coverage - floor area ratio (40%) Second story balconies should also be prohibited in order to control the overall massing of the dwelling and provide protection from overlook conditions. Recommendation: 3f) Establish lot coverage for all of the zone area based on height. 3g) Establish FAR based on lot areas (possible scale): Lot areas greater than 700 square metres 40% Lot areas 700 metres or less 41% 3h) Clarify lot coverage to include covered porches and decks. 3i) Restrict second storey balconies in the aligned zone. figure 6.0.5 lot coverage - 2 storey (25%) 56 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

Landscaped Coverage It is recommended that the existing provision related to the combined maximum width of all hard surfaces of 50% of the front or side street lot line should be enforced for all lots in the area. This provision would require a minimum of 50% of the front or street side yards to be covered by landscaped open area. This existing zoning provision should be maintained on majority of the lots located within the study area. A new zoning provision is therefore required for lots that are less than 18m in width to have a minimum 50% landscaped open space area. figure 6.0.6 landscaped coverage for a one lane driveway and two lane driveway Recommendation: 3ji) Establish the 50% landscaped open space provision for front and street side yards for the whole study area through the added provisions for the R2.4 zone. Lot Area and Frontage It is recommended that the current zoning regulations for minimum lot areas and frontages be maintained. The lot area and frontage regulations should have specific reference in an updated Official Plan for stable residential areas (see Recommendation 1d above). figure 6.0.7 lot area & frontage for R2.1 zone figure 6.0.8 lot area & frontage for R2.4 zone December 2015 57

Height Throughout the study, it has been evident that height is one of the most significant issues that has been raised. Regulating building height works to mitigate shadowing impacts and massing of homes. It has been shown that there is a need for clarity around height, specifically what it means and how it is measured (metric vs. storeys) in the by-law. The most important control over the height is to ensure appropriate height and rooflines are maintained. Height should continue to be defined from grade (fixed grade) at the front street line to avoid grading changes to artificially increase heights. Some consideration could also be given to additional regulations that address flat or shallow rooflines. A maximum percentage of a roofline with a shallow slope could be added to the general provisions similar to the City of Toronto provision. Older neighbourhoods with traditional bungalow and ranch style homes should be provided flexibility for alteration, additions, and/or new homes to be built to accommodate current housing needs. Maintaining the current height provision and ensuring measurements are established to the midpoint of the roofline will ensure that any increase to height with additions or rebuilds is addressed in the context of the lot and the area. The current height regulations combined with the other tightened controls and the FAR will ensure appropriate development. Any requests for increased heights will require assessment in accordance with the process of variances, which must maintain the intent of the zoning regulation and Official Plan policies which includes the requirement for averaging of adjacent property heights. Recommendation:: 3k) Clarify height regulations directly with each zone and with where and how height measurements are to be applied based on the proposed height. Height should be measured to the mid point of the roofline. 3l) Consideration of additional regulations for rooflines which maximize span for flat or shallow roofs. 58 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

December 2015 59

60 SHOREACRES CHARACTER STUDY

6.1. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS The Shoreacres Character Study set out to address concerns of the community related to recent developments and changes within the neighbourhood. The Study provided an opportunity to define the character of the Shoreacres area through a review of its historical development and through engagement with the residents. An important component of the study was to define the character of the area and to understand the changes that had and continue to take place. Also critical to the study was the development of an understanding of the planning tools and controls that manage development and to review and assess potential changes to those controls in the area to better manage change and reduce the impact of change. Any revisions to current policies and regulations were also carefully assessed to ensure that future community needs could be accommodated and would not be negatively impacted. The project team recommends that City staff review and consider the recommendations in Section 5, together with other recommendations from the Roseland and Indian Point Character Studies, as well as any additional comments from the community on the final report. City staff should drat appropriate policies to address the broader issue of maintaining and protecting the character of stable residential neighbourhoods as part of the Official Plan Review. Recommendations related to the zoning provisions for the R2.1 and R2.4 zones should also be considered in the context of the City s zoning by-law review. December 2015 61