Staff recommending approval of official plan and zoning amendments for 2051-2085 Prospect St.
Development & Infrastructure Committee
July 12, 2016, 6:30 p.m.
City staff will present a report at the July 12 Development & Infrastructure Committee recommending approval in principle of an application to amend the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the properties at 2051-2067 and 2069-2085 Prospect St. to permit 96 stacked townhouses.
Two apartment buildings currently sit on the south end of the site along Prospect Street and are zoned residential high-density. Four fourplexes with 16 units sit at the north end of the site and are zoned residential-medium density. The applicant, Starlight Investments, has applied to rezone the entire site residential high-density, retain the two apartment buildings, and replace the 4 fourplexes with the 96 stacked townhouses.
Meeting Details:
Date: July 12, 2016
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor City Hall, 426 Brant St.
Background:
For background information and the applicant’s technical reports, visit the city webpage dedicated to this project: Starlight on Prospect
Staff Report:
The staff report will be available on the city’s website after June 30, 2016 at www.burlington.ca/agendasandminutes. Scroll down to the Development & Infrastructure Committee meeting of July 12 and select the agenda. If you prefer a hardcopy of the report, it can be picked up at the City Clerk’s Office on the main level of City Hall.
Speak at the meeting:
Residents may attend the July 12 meeting to share their views about the project with council by registering as a delegation online at www.burlington.ca/delegation or by contacting the Committee Clerk, Amber LaPointe, at 905-335-7600, ext. 7862 or . The maximum time limit to speak is 10 minutes.
Contact information:
Questions about the application can be emailed to the planner for the file, Silvina Kade, at or by calling 905-335-7600, ext. 7871.
My Take:The project brings much-needed additional rental units to Burlington, which is a plus. However the design – stacked townhouses with stairs – does not provide for accessibility. In addition, the project decreases greenspace on the property dramatically, replacing it with buildings and parking areas. That loss of greenspace impacts natural storm water management, snow storage, shading and cooling from trees (instead there’s an asphalt heat island called a parking lot) as well as reducing passive green amenity areas for residents.Protecting urban greenspace is just as important as protecting rural greenspace, and we must keep that in mind when evaluating any infill redevelopment project. I look forward to hearing from residents and reviewing the staff report in detail before making a final decision about the project.
Your Take: What are your thoughts about this project – benefits? Concerns? Leave a comment below:
July 7, 2016 @ 8:37 am
I’m actually fine with the added density in Ward 2 if my taxes are not increased. Keep the financial gains in the ward. Those 80 new units should generate enough new tax income to keep the surrounding neighbourhood flatlined for 3-5 years. Raise taxes in neighbourhoods where little change and intensification is happening (Tyandega, Mountainside, BrantHills, Roseland etc.). We pay more already with the dust, traffic and noise.
July 5, 2016 @ 1:19 pm
Adding more density and traffic to Brant St cannot be a good idea. At rush hour it is impossible to cross Brant when traveling northbound by car. Also the Plains Rd Junction with Brant is already saturated. Residents on Ghent Ave have additional problems with the proposed redevelopment of the Burlington Square area.
July 1, 2016 @ 1:10 pm
96 units in place of 16? Now that’s over-intensification Burlington style! A 500% increase in density and a major loss of green space including tree coverage. This looks like our future because the province says we must grow (ie. grow up in more ways than one) whether we like it or not.
July 1, 2016 @ 12:06 pm
Loss of green space is bad and can never be recovered. Stairs only limits availability to disabled etc. An asphalt heat island is an excellent description. On U.S. T.V recently a hand held heat meter registered 171F ! Back to the drawing board please.
July 1, 2016 @ 11:29 am
I agree, fully, with your take, Marianne, but I would like to go further and ask…
What are the “Takes” of the other members of council??? You are only one vote, as I understand it. Quite often the vote of the “home” councillor is overturned by the other councillors, who really have no business or knowledge of what the residents in the affected area actually want.
To my dismay… I fully expect to see 96 residences in place of the current 16… very soon… look at Ghent… look at the mounting traffic problems…
July 1, 2016 @ 10:18 am
I agree with you. The developer are naturally trying to get their maximum profit from the property and then move on, however, we who will live in this community can and should demand a higher standard. Let them go back to the drawing board and be more creative with their designs/proposal. Reduce the number of units, demand more green space be kept. Its our community not the developers. Hold the line, insist on more.
July 1, 2016 @ 2:43 am
As a neighbour, resident on Maplewood Drive, we think it stinks. So much for Burlington`s green space. We still disagree with the `sunlight` factor, that, in the winter, we will not see the sun, because of the low arc, and they can ” computer model” us to death, but, we live here and know at what level the sun is, plus the removal of mature trees. We believe the Council is being very short sighted and is only interested in the tax grab. Ask us where our vote will go in the next election ?
July 1, 2016 @ 9:57 am
Thanks for your feedback James. Council has not voted on this recommendation. It comes to committee first July 12, then to council July 18. I encourage residents to attend as delegations to share your views directly with council.