New housing continues to reshape Stittsville. Growth raises practical questions for residents: Will roads, transit and parks be ready when neighbours move in? Where should denser housing go, and how should the community protect its trees and wetlands?
The pace of growth helps explain why infrastructure is a central concern in this election. In a 2024 post about Stittsville’s growth, Councillor Glen Gower estimated that the community was adding roughly 1,000 homes and apartments annually. That growth brings more people travelling to work, school, shops and recreation, increasing demand on roads and transit. Meanwhile, major infrastructure projects take years to plan and deliver. Construction at the Carp Road and Hazeldean Road intersection is scheduled to begin in spring 2027, subject to land acquisition, while the main widening between Hazeldean Road and Highway 417 is scheduled to begin in 2028. For the next Ward 6 councillor, coordinating those investments with continuing housing development will be a key challenge.
Stittsville Central asked the nine Ward 6 candidates six questions about growth and development. The candidates broadly agree on the importance of infrastructure but differ on what should be in place before development proceeds and which projects should take priority.
Growth and the first year
For a community waiting on road upgrades and better transit, knowing when a project will move forward is part of the challenge. Sheetal Narwal writes: “You can’t hold anyone to a schedule that was never made public.” Her proposed Ward 6 growth tracker would place approved developments beside the roads, parks and services they depend on, showing dates, funding and progress.
That emphasis on public accountability runs through several first-year plans. Paul Meek’s action plan would cover priorities such as Robert Grant Avenue and Carp Road, while Theresa Qadri’s roadmap would show commitments, timelines and funding. Marie-Ange Ahinful would push for a growth and infrastructure plan supported by annual progress reports.
Narwal would also publish intersection reviews and follow up on open resident concerns every 10 business days.
Turning plans into transportation improvements is another priority. Chelsea Walton wants construction underway on the Carp Road widening in her first year, with measures to limit disruption for businesses. Tanya Hein would support finalizing an agreement for the province to take over Ottawa’s LRT. Kevin Hua would pursue planning and funding for a Stittsville bus station and reprioritize the City budget, alongside a Vision Zero action plan to make walking and cycling safer.
For Devin O’Brien and Mani Sharma, the timetable for infrastructure should also affect whether more development proceeds. O’Brien would seek a holding provision under the Planning Act to block building permits for unserviced or bottlenecked subdivision phases until binding contracts for major road improvements are signed. Sharma would propose a Council motion against major new approvals without clear, funded infrastructure plans and seek a timeline for extending Robert Grant Avenue to Palladium Drive. Both proposals would depend on decisions involving City staff and Council.
Infrastructure before residents move in
The consequences of a delayed project can be especially clear to a family moving into a new neighbourhood. As Walton puts it: “A family should not move into a new neighbourhood and spend the early years of their child’s life waiting for the park that was shown on the subdivision plan.” She would tie park construction more closely to building permits or occupancy, while requiring water, wastewater, stormwater capacity and safe access before residents arrive.
The main difference among the responses is whether a firm delivery commitment is enough. Qadri would support future phases if essential infrastructure and community amenities were already in place or firm arrangements had been made for their delivery. Narwal would require safe access, walking links and park space to be in place or firmly scheduled. O’Brien takes a stricter position: key roads, stormwater systems and physical parkland must be operational before residents move in. Hein places particular importance on transit being ready when residents arrive, while Hua wants infrastructure delivered alongside the homes.
Securing that work means tying infrastructure obligations, funding and deadlines more closely to development approvals. Several candidates would use development charges, subdivision agreements and City budgets. Other proposed tools include conditions that control when development phases can proceed, agreements for developers to fund infrastructure upfront, and financial guarantees intended to ensure promised work is completed.
Meek would identify the funding gap and a realistic timetable before further growth proceeds. Ahinful would prioritize available resources according to safety, infrastructure capacity and the number of residents affected. Hua would seek developer contributions through a proposed Community Benefits Framework to help provide community infrastructure and amenities if conventional funding falls short.
Several candidates would also slow development when the essentials cannot be delivered. O’Brien would pause the project, and Qadri would defer approval or prevent residents from moving in until infrastructure could be funded and provided. Narwal would push for later phases to wait until their infrastructure is funded; Sharma likewise supports delaying or phasing development when funding is unavailable.
Family housing and affordability
Even when roads and services keep pace, a new home may remain beyond a family’s budget. Hua writes: “Addressing housing affordability is not just about building more housing but building housing that is truly and deeply affordable.” He would use City land, fee relief and faster approvals to support nonprofit housing, with a citywide goal of at least 1,000 affordable nonprofit homes a year. He aims to lay the groundwork and introduce those supports in his first year.
For several candidates, the first local step is finding a site and a partner. Meek would secure a Stittsville site and development partnership in his first year, with three-bedroom homes in the mix. Narwal would ask staff to identify and publish suitable City-owned sites in Ward 6 and nearby areas within six months; a motion to make a site available for nonprofit, below-market family housing would follow within 24 months if one is found. Ahinful would identify at least two viable Ward 6 sites or projects within 18 months and use tools such as Ottawa’s Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan to support family-sized homes.
O’Brien and Sharma offer unit targets, but their milestones differ. O’Brien would secure approval and break ground on 150 below-market homes with at least three bedrooms in Ward 6 within 36 months, backed by binding agreements to keep them affordable for 25 years. Sharma aims to help secure at least 150 below-market or attainable Ward 6 homes within four years, reporting publicly each year. Breaking ground and helping secure units are different commitments and should be assessed on those terms.
Walton’s target centres on an identified property: the City-owned 2 Pretty Street site, which she would seek to move through approval and toward construction during her first term. Hein proposes funding partnerships for at least 10 below-market, three-bedroom homes, without a deadline. Within two years, Qadri would seek to introduce a policy requiring a percentage of homes in major new developments to be affordable or attainable, though she does not specify the percentage. Together, these responses range from preparing individual projects to changing the conditions under which future housing is built.
Where density belongs
The location and design of new housing matter alongside its price. Across the responses, Hazeldean Road is generally seen as a place for greater density, while Stittsville Main Street calls for more attention to village character. Hua would seek a community design plan for Hazeldean and favour low-rise growth on Main Street. Walton similarly supports more intensive development near Hazeldean while keeping the historic core low-rise. Hein is more cautious about the level of intensification until roads and services catch up.
There are differences within that broad corridor approach. Qadri favours Hazeldean West beyond West Ridge, Fernbank and Flewellyn, with moderate growth on Main Street south of Fernbank. O’Brien would concentrate buildings of six or more storeys along the Hazeldean commercial corridor and seek a four-storey limit on Main Street. These are proposed directions for growth, rather than a shared position on every location or building height.
Where taller buildings meet existing homes, the common concern is how to protect privacy and reduce impacts. O’Brien proposes a 45-degree angular-plane rule to limit building height near neighbouring homes, and Narwal also favours angular planes to step height down toward neighbours. Meek and Ahinful support gradual transitions into existing neighbourhoods. Sharma favours building stepbacks and street-facing façades that create a comfortable scale for pedestrians.
Hein emphasizes trees and controls on light and noise, while Qadri and Walton also want on-site parking that limits overflow onto residential streets.
Parks, trees and wetlands
As neighbourhoods become denser, access to parks, shade and natural spaces becomes increasingly important. Meek would measure “usable public park space per resident,” including whether people can reach it safely. Ahinful and Sharma also want park provision assessed against population, while Narwal cites the City’s target of two hectares of municipal active parkland per 1,000 residents. Walton’s emphasis on routes, shade and amenities for different ages and abilities—and Hua’s concern for park quality and capacity—shows why acreage alone does not describe a park’s usefulness.
Preserving existing natural features is another recurring theme. Hein and Walton emphasize mature trees, and both raise concerns about development in wetland areas. Walton opposes development on wetlands; Hein would resist expansion into sensitive wetland areas. O’Brien proposes a one-to-one mature-canopy replacement ratio using native species and a 30-metre vegetated buffer around protected wetlands. Narwal would require reporting on trees removed and replanted.
The follow-through after approval matters as much as the standard itself. Candidates propose inspections, financial securities, compliance reporting and enforcement to check whether promised planting, parks and protections are delivered. Qadri supports measurable standards and penalties, without setting numerical targets in her response. Ahinful would seek post-development compliance reports on significant projects, and Narwal proposes an annual Ward 6 green report card. Those reports would give residents a way to see what was completed after the construction crews leave.
Residents’ role in decisions
Residents’ ability to influence these decisions depends partly on when they are invited into the process. All nine candidates support early involvement. O’Brien and Narwal call for ward meetings before applications are filed, and Walton would encourage developers to meet the community while designs can still change. Meek also wants early developer engagement followed by City-led consultation.
Hein would support City-facilitated early engagement, with clear guidance on what residents can realistically influence.
Other responses describe how that engagement would continue. Hua would involve residents once a concept plan exists and throughout its development. Qadri would begin when an application is being discussed with the City, while Sharma proposes concept meetings and town halls. Ahinful’s three-stage process would move from early notification to a community meeting and then an explanation of the decision, with online opportunities for people who cannot attend.
Early involvement does not mean every requested change can be secured. Most candidates would pursue changes grounded in traffic safety, drainage, tree protection, privacy or the transition to neighbouring homes, while explaining the legal limits on what the City can require. O’Brien says he would vote against a proposal where citywide density requirements conflict with infrastructure deficits that cannot be resolved, and publish his reasons.
Explaining the outcome is a common commitment. Narwal would publish a plain-language summary within a week of a pre-application ward meeting, then report after the decision on what residents raised, what changed and what did not—and why. Walton and Ahinful also propose follow-up summaries. As Ahinful writes: “Residents deserve both a voice and an explanation of how their input affected the final decision.” That final step would let residents see how consultation affected the proposal.
The choices behind the promises
The clearest differences lie in what candidates would require before more homes are approved or occupied, which affordable-housing milestones they would pursue, and how they would report results. Those commitments give residents specific measures against which to assess the next councillor’s progress.
Delivery will depend on funding, City staff, Council and, in some cases, housing partners. Residents can look for both progress on the promises and clear explanations when projects fall behind.