City staff recommend rezoning approval for 11 townhouses at 2360, 2364, 2368 New St

Planning & Development Committee Feb. 28, 1pm

City staff are recommending approval of a zoning amendment to allow 11 3-storey townhomes at 2360, 2364 & 2368 New St. The staff report is scheduled to be presented to the Feb. 28 Planning & Development Committee meeting at City Hall beginning at 1 p.m. Recommendations from this committee will go to City Council March 27 for final approval.

Currently three single family homes occupy the assembled properties.  Surrounding the site are 1 – 1 1/2 storey townhouses (South), an 11-storey apartment building (East), single detached dwellings (North), and 1 1/2 storey semi-detached and triplex dwellings (West).

The original application submitted last year was for 12 townhomes. In light of all public and technical comments received, the applicant submitted updated plans which reduced the number of units to 11, provided two dedicated visitor parking spaces at the rear, and reduced the height of the proposed retaining wall.

The applicant has proposed two blocks of townhouses that will provide individual front door accesses facing onto the existing condominium roads to the east and west of the subject lands. There currently are no agreements with the surrounding condominium association for access to these roads. Vehicular access will be provided via a proposed roadway in the centre of the site. Each townhouse unit will provide a one car garage, one driveway parking space and one visitor parking space. Amenity space will be provided as second storey balconies above the garages facing the internal road. The height is 10.73m with a 0.5 m retaining wall; the maximum permitted height in the RM2 zone is 11.5m.

The existing zoning is Residential – Medium Density. That designation would remain, with site specific amendments. The RM2 zone allows for the development of two storey single detached, semidetached, triplex, fourplex, townhouses, and four storey retirement homes up to a density of 40 units per hectare. The Official Plan policies for Residential Medium Density areas allow a density ranging between 26 and 50 units per net hectare. Detached and semi-detached homes, townhouses, street townhouses and stacked townhouses, back to back townhouses, attached housing and walk-up apartments are permitted. The applicant has proposed to develop townhouses with a density of 55 units per hectare on the site. The Official Plan permits minor variations from numerical requirements without a Plan amendment.

The RM2 zoning requires a minimum rear yard setback of 9m and a side yard of 4.5m. Although, the south lot line is considered the rear lot line by the Zoning Bylaw, due to the proposed orientation of the buildings it will effectively function as a side yard. The setback for the East block of townhouses is 6.6m; for the West block is 8.9m.

The following table outlines the zoning changes required.

The Tree Inventory and Protection Plan identified 27 trees on or adjacent to the site which could be impacted by the proposed development. A total of 20 trees are to be removed in order to facilitate the development. These 20 trees are comprised of two City trees and all 18 private trees on the site. Four city trees and three private boundary trees owned by the neighbour are to remain.

Staff have worked with the landowner to determine if additional trees at the rear of the site could be retained; however, due to the existing grades of the subject property, the site will have to be raised to ensure that stormwater and sanitary servicing can flow out to New Street. Although the landowner was able to lower the height of the retaining wall by approximately 0.5m, they were not able to eliminate it entirely and were not able to retain any additional vegetation.

Speak at the meeting:

Residents may attend the Feb. 28 meeting to share their views about the project with council by registering as a delegate to speak at the meeting no later than noon on the day before the meeting. The maximum time limit to speak is 10 minutes. More information about appearing as a delegation and to register, visit Residents are also welcome to attend the meeting as audience members, to listen to the discussion, without having to speak.

Contact information:

Questions about the application can be emailed to the planner for the file, Lisa Stern, at or by calling 905-335-7600, ext. 7427.

Additional materials:

Details of the application, along with all of the supporting documents, can be viewed on the city’s website at

Residents shared their views at a public meeting last year. Details can be viewed here:

My Take:

At this point, I am inclined to support this application, though I am concerned about the tree loss and would have preferred fewer units to increase the setbacks to the abutting homes and ensure appropriate space for tree planting and growth. I appreciate the removal of one unit, the reduced height of the retaining wall and the addition of dedicated on-site visitor spaces. Before making a final decision, I am interested to hear from residents on this matter.

Written by Marianne Meed Ward

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

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

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

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


Leave a Reply
  1. I’ve been pretty ambivalent about this development even though we live just steps away. The three houses there now are an eyesore and the residents have junked up the properties. Something more aesthetically pleasing will be welcome. I’m glad they have scaled the number of units down. The comments on traffic – Sterling Walk contributes almost zero to rush hour traffic – it’s full of retirees. I can’t imagine that 11 town home units will do much to affect traffic. Perhaps considering the derelict state of the existing houses I’m not so ambivalent after all. I don’t believe there is enough visitor parking however. We all know that with only two spots the residents themselves will be using it. Currently the residents from the apartments at 2400 New Street use Beverly (and Easterbrooks) for overflow parking. If these new townhouses at the bottom of my street start using Mayzel for overflow parking I will indeed have much to say.

  2. Has anyone given any thought to the impact of New St traffic, or is that just being ignored? Or is council just ignoring the “road diet” problems for the ordinary resident of Burlington?


  4. Not a fan of the 3 driveways side by side fronting New St. Would be better for walkability in the neighbourhood if there were windows & side porches to provide eyes on the street. Garages can be moved to back and accessed via the existing condo roads. As this is one of our primary accesses to downtown, developers should be required to make the front-facing portion of the development an example of beautiful design and include both natural and architectural elements to that effect. No cookie cutter designs here please!

    • Chris, The three driveways are there now – three single family homes. Plus the two driveways for the Stirling Walk condo – total of five driveways now. The townhouses will have only one driveway for entrance. So, a reduction of two driveways. The towns face each other so garages are internal to the site, not visible from the street. The end of each townhouse unit facing New St will have a porch, door, windows, landscaping – and will effectively look like a front door facing the street.

What's your take?

City to review administrative space requirements

Rotary Centennial Pond closed for skating season