Residents share feedback on revised Prospect redevelopment

Site layout for 2051-2067 & 2069-2085 Prospect St.
Site layout for 2051-2067 & 2069-2085 Prospect St.

Residents still have concerns about the proposed redevelopment of 2051- 2067 and 2069-2085 Prospect Street to change the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw to permit 96 units in blocks of three-story stacked townhouses. Though some revisions had been made to the plan to increase the setbacks from the rear (north) property line and preserve additional trees, residents said the site is still too many units, too much asphalt and not friendly to families and seniors. The towns contain four units, one partly underground, and three more on each storey, all with stairs. The primary amenity space is balconies.

Residents shared their feedback with council members at a Statutory Public Meeting embedded in the Oct. 14 Development & Infrastructure meeting. Below is a summary of all delegations:


  • Ruth Victor, Ruth Victor & Associates, representing Starlight Investments Inc. provided an overview of the applications and responded to questions by committee. (DI-67)
  • Wilfred Peirrot spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Peirrot expressed concerns with a high rise building being developed behind single family homes. Peirrot is concerned with the loss of sunlight. (DI-68)
  • Phil Fedosiewicz spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Fedosiewicz, representing residents on Maplewood Drive expressed concerns regarding loss of sunlight to their single family homes. Fedosiewicz also expressed concerns with the lack of accessible units and the proposed increase in height and density. (DI-69)
  • Margaret Tanaka spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Tanaka expressed concerns with increased height of the proposal. Tanaka is also concerned with loss of sunlight on her property. (DI-70)
  • Michelle and Christine spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Michelle and Christine, current residents on the site, relayed that the property currently experiences flooding. Michelle and Christine relayed the current rental rates at the property and concerns with increased traffic on Prospect Street. (DI-71)
  • Helen Kowal spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Kowal expressed concerns with increased cars in the parking lot and increased traffic on Prospect Street. Kowal also relayed concerns regarding the lack of accessibility in the proposed development. (DI-72)
  • Pat Bruder spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Bruder relayed concerns regarding the economic feasibility of the proposed development. Bruder expressed a desire to see medium density, lower building heights and preserved green buffer space on the development site. (DI-73)
  • Nick Moskal spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Moskal relayed concerns with the proposed development. Moskal suggested placing buildings with greater height where the fourplexes are currently located. (DI-74)

The following person(s) made written submissions at this meeting:

  • Correspondence from ward 2 resident regarding the proposed Official Plan amendment and rezoning applications for 2051-2085 Prospect Street. (PB-75-15)
  • Correspondence from James Feilders, Burlington Sustainable Development Committee regarding the proposed Official Plan amendment and rezoning applications for 2051-2085 Prospect Street. (PB-75-15)

There were no decisions made at this meeting. Committee voted to Receive and File the information. At a later date, staff will bring forward a recommendation report to do one of: approve the Official Plan amendment and Rezoning;  reject same; or approve with modifications.

Additional information is below:

Staff Report Starlight-Prospect

Staff Presentation – Starlight on Prospect

Modifications to plan – from Starlight

Delegation Material – from Starlight

Sustainable Development Committee input – Starlight on Prospect

Sustainable Development COmmittee – additional comments – Starlight on Prospect

Resident email re Starlight on Prospect

My Take: I share the concerns of residents that this is overdevelopment of the site. I welcome a project that would provide additional rental units for a broader mix of people, suitable to singles, seniors and families, with more greenspace, and less asphalt/parking.

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:

One Comment

Leave a Reply
  1. I am a long-time resident at 2077 Prospect Street of almost 2 decades and was unable to attend the last meeting on Oct. 13th. This proposed plan for STARLIGHT to knock down the existing 4-Quad townhouses,totalling 16 units by replacing them with FOUR 3-storey brick townhouse blocks containing ninety six (96) stacked townhouses at the rear of the existing properties is preposterous.

    The proposed projects’ plan literally sits in the CORE of two existing 8-storey apartment buildings and several residential homes. The existing space already houses two adjacent 8 storey apt. buildings totalling 192 units, both of which contain underground and outdoor parking spaces for EACH unit and are located at the south of the CORE project. Then, there are several RESIDENTAL homes’ also in very close proximity on the NORTH SIDE of this CORE, with back yards facing this project. The overall consensus is that the space availability for this proposed plan is UNREALISTIC and extremely invasive to the residents there now and to nature. Perhaps not in the eyes of the planners, developers, designers, legal council, etc. The City of Burlington have made it known to residents/tax payers over the years in each Ward how important it is for residents to enjoy living in Burlington and the importance of quality of life in Burlington. This project is just too large for the area. It’s a mockery to the existing space and residents. Starlight are campaigning across Canada to redesign and rezone whatever space they can, in order to build further and make money. It’s all about profit. There are about j100+ mature trees that will have to come down for this project and much of existing greenspace will be gone forever. The plan is to design greenspace on top of the existing Underground Garage concrete deck which is not a natural format for grass and trees to grow. Minor issue but there are several resident dogs now utilizing the existing greenspace for their toilet needs. There will be more with 96 additional units. Parking and rush hour movement will be a problem. 1) Getting in and out of Prospect Street is a vision of trouble with only one (existing) driveway access for approx. 300 resident cars. 2) There is a school just a very short distance from the only in/out access on a 40 KM zone. 3) there is an apt. building directly on the east and west side of this project on Prospect Street as well.

    Starlight do not see any of these things as issues. Their claim is that all will be fine and beautiful. If they absolutely have to use this space, then why don’t they just erect another apt. building with one and two bedroom suites and underground parking and try to open up more driveway to street access. As a final say, the renderings for this project are appealing, but just too overbearing for this small space. I invite residents of Burlington to drive into our area now as they will see what we are saying makes a lot of sense and what Starlight is proposing…does NOT.

What's your take?

Community garden applications accepted Nov. 2-22

Ask the Councillor – Oct 2015