OPEN LETTER: Amberway and Bryanston Gate residents express concerns for 5924 and 5938 Hazeldean Road

(Editor’s Note – The residents of Amberway and Bryanston Gate reached out to Stittsville Central to share this OPEN LETTER to Councillor Glen Gower regarding the new development and the issue of Parking at 5924 and 5938 Hazeldean Road.)


Extracts from Glen Gower’s Blog —

On April 28, 2020 – “I disagree with the staff recommendation and I will be seeking deferral until the applicant provides more information about their request for reduced parking. Someday, it will be easier for residents of this townhome development to get around the community with one – or even zero – vehicles. Until then, the applicant must provide stronger evidence of mitigation measures to reduce spill-over parking on Victor Street.”

“On Thursday May 14, 2020, the City’s Planning Committee approved a zoning by-law amendment for the proposed Hazeldean Crossings development at 5924 and 5938 Hazeldean Road. Despite having reservations Glen voted in favour of this application , knowing that it would not be a popular choice for many (actually ALL) the neighbours in the Amberway community but it is the right choice overall for Stittsville.”

Dear Glen Gower,

The meeting was understood to be about zoning, not about the development itself. At no time did the community dispute the lands should be developed. From your blog, “We heard dozens of comments from residents that there should be enough parking provided for two cars.” This is untrue. The community requested the existing bylaw of 1.2 parking spaces per unit be respected. Please address the questions below with regards to the reasons you overrode the safety concerns of existing homeowners in Amberway and Bryanston Gate. Each of the numbered statements is taken from your web page

1) There are comparable townhome developments in Stittsville, Kanata and Barrhaven where we are seeing lower car ownership – one or zero vehicles – and no significant parking overflow issues.
a) How was this information obtained?
b) Who collected the information?
c) When was this information collected?
d) What was the sample size in relation to the population?
e) Where exactly was this information collected?
f) How would you explain Patten Homes on Sweetnam has 9 units out of 32 with 2 cars and only 1 unit doesn’t have a car (on site survey was taken May 2-4, 2020 in person for all units)

2) The applicant is providing more than the minimum visitor parking spaces.
Yes, one more!
a) why would an additional visitor parking space have anything to do with the owners second cars?
b) Is the purpose of Visitor Parking to hold the owner’s overflow parking?
c) If yes, why is it called visitor parking? Why not say there is no visitors parking?

3) The builder has also agreed to several additional measures to mitigate potential parking issues:
a) bus passes for new residents,
Would you agree they will learn about how bad the bus service is in Stittsville and that most adults need to own a car? You have publicly admitted Stittsville has a problem
b) securing temporary overflow parking
Why is it temporary? How long is temporary? How far away is this parking? If it is a kilometer away why would anyone use it when the street is 1 meter away? Having it far offsite will allow it to be discontinued because of lack of use. Also, just because the applicant agreed does not mean it will happen. (If the city doesn’t know that, the City is ignorant.)
c) including parking restrictions in the purchase & sale documents
It is expected the applicant can only restrict parking on the property, not ownership. To comply to that clause, forces people to not use visitor parking and instead put their second cars onto the street.

4) It is the right choice overall for Stittsville.
a) How is adhering to the existing bylaw of 1.2 parking spaces not the right choice for Stittsville?

With you asking the builder to agree to Item 3) there is an admission Item 1) is not applicable for this site. Community residents already know 3 people who have bought a Hazeldean Crossing unit who have more than one car.

Please explain what your plan is if/when these measures don’t work?

The Amberway Community


SUPPORT LOCAL STITTSVILLE

SHARE THIS


8 thoughts on “OPEN LETTER: Amberway and Bryanston Gate residents express concerns for 5924 and 5938 Hazeldean Road”

  1. We’re aware of new condo purchasers, 2 young couples, with 4 vehicles of which 2 are big work trucks. Parking is a challenge before the build even begins. Developer could add in costs for a two tiered parking garage, or purchase the lot across Hazeldean Road for a parking lot.

  2. Hello,
    This will never work!!! Stittsville first ghetto!!! Very jammed in, Very high density living..Been there, Done that…
    R.R.

  3. I keep reading about developers requesting relief from 1 or more by-law restrictions for their amazing new development. And it it seems the relief is always granted in the end. If a by-law concerning the amount of parking spaces is in place, then developers should have to abide by it. But instead exceptions are allowed more as a rule than not. Similarly if there are requirements for spacing between units or other lands, then these should be meet rather than voted away.

    New developments should be designed to meet the rules not constantly re-writing the rules as if they don’t exist.

    1. When relief is granted the city ends up getting many things out of that take the Trinity Station project right down downtown the city is getting 2.5 million on top of the permit fees so about 15 million in total that going to be used for all types of things.If relief was not granted your not going to get that extra cash and might not get some community perks like parks etc.

    2. I agree. My guess is the bylaws are made to be broken. For this development, my question is how many people were paid How much under the table to get this through? This wouldn’t have passed unless there was a benefit to someone outside the applicant.

  4. As for parking i put much of that blame on core council members they have made it clear they wantt little to no parking in all new developments.

Leave a Reply