Submission by Residents of Havendale Blvd., Belgrave Crt., and Winchester Blvd.
to
The Committee of the Whole
Regarding PWS-10-25 Citywide On-Street Residential Parking Permits
City of Burlington
Dated February 28, 2025
Respectfully submitted to the Members of the Committee of the Whole.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on such short notice on an issue of vital concern to our neighbourhood. We became aware of the imminent submission and review of the Staff Report regarding On-Street Parking on Tuesday of this week, via an email one of us received from “Get Involved Burlington”. We are grateful that we did!
Introduction
We are currently a group of 20 engaged neighbours sharing a concern for protecting our “established residential neighbourhood”, an important element as specified in Burlington’s Official Plan. Previously, many of us were active on Vision 2100 Brant Neighbourhood Association (formerly The Havendale Advisory Committee) that addressed the National Homes 2100 Brant Street development. We are now actively engaging on the parking permit issue with others in our local neighbourhood, and will continue our outreach efforts in the coming two and a half weeks leading up to the Council meeting.
One of the major concerns previously voiced by Vision 2100 Brant was inadequate parking for residents in the new development, based on driveway length, single car garages, and compressed frontages that almost eliminated the possibility of any on-street parking in that neighbourhood. We expressed the view during our extensive discussions, presentations and other interventions, that the inevitable need for additional parking would result in on-street parking in the adjoining neighbourhood, particularly on Havendale, Belgrave, and Fairchild. We were opposed to additional on-street parking primarily for reasons of traffic and pedestrian safety, and received assurances from Council that overnight parking on these streets would not be permitted, and on-street parking would remain as a 5-hour limit.
We are concerned that the City may be looking to correct an issue that could have been avoided in the first place. These concerns that we are presenting are not new, and deserve to be taken seriously.
As communicated in an email by City staff, “If the concern is that adjacent streets would absorb overflow parking demands from nearby condo subdivisions, that is not the general intent of this program.” Our deep concern is that the reduction in parking standards in the 2100 Brant development may be leading to an unacceptable outcome that will have direct , negative impacts on our existing neighbourhood. “Intent” is not equal to impact. Fixing the parking problem in new, high-density developments by changing the character of established residential neighbourhoods is not the solution.
Our Questions, Issues and Concerns with this Proposal
Following are some of the key questions, issues and concerns identified by us relating to the impact on our neighbourhood.
- Will the permits that are issued apply only to the applicant’s own street, or will they also be applicable to streets within a specified distance from the applicant’s residence? If so, what distance? How might this impact Havendale, Belgrave, Fairchild, etc.?
- Our understanding from Staff is that Havendale and Belgrave will qualify for permit parking on one side of the street only. Therefore:
- Which side of the street will be used for permit parking? Will it be alternating sides(i.e., 1st-15th of the month on one side, 16th-31st of the month on the other)?
- Will all streets be fully signed to indicate which side is allowable, and indicate all relevant parking restrictions in force? For example, curves and inclines where no parking is permitted, safe distance from intersections, crosswalks, etc.
- Will short-term parking still be allowed on both sides of the street, or will all parking be restricted to one side only? It should be noted that in our neighbourhood, we have all experienced dangerous situations where even a single passenger vehicle is seriously challenged to safely pass around blind spots on curving (and even straight)roads due to on-street parking occurring on both sides of the roadway.
- Will there be a restriction on the total number of permits allowed within a defined area? Our concern here, obviously, is that our local streets may be flooded with vehicles not belonging to residents on the streets hosting the on-street parking.
- The four-way stop at Havendale/ Belgrave/ Almonte is now a busy intersection for a residential area, especially at certain times of the day. There are many pedestrians, including school children, as well as school bus stops. Within the past several months, when excessive on-street parking (in particular, overflow from the new subdivision) has occurred on Havendale and Belgrave, the intersection has been hazardous for vehicles and pedestrians. Residential driveways close to the intersection on Belgrave and Havendale have suffered from greatly impeded visibility, endangering drivers and walkers alike. How can this situation be remediated by the City? Our position is that there should be an increase in the legally-acceptable distance from this intersection to park on-street.
- Recent snowbanks encroaching on our streets have reduced the road-widths by over two metres (approximately one metre on each side). We have profound concerns about the safe passage of vehicles and pedestrians when you add day and night on-street parking to this reduction.
- Waste collection days, and planned and unplanned utility and road work, will compound the impact of on-street parking on the safe passage of vehicles and pedestrians.
- The need for additional 24-hour parking enforcement does not appear to have been factored into the concept or cost of the expansion of on-street parking. We do not consider it acceptable for parking enforcement to rely solely on complaints from residents.
- What are the potential parking implications of Almonte being designated as an “Unassumed Road”, as currently posted?
- One suggestion we have heard, would be to address the parking deficit in the 2100 Brant development by using all or part of the designated park space within that development for overflow parking. Perhaps not ideal, but it could potentially be designed and constructed in a creative manner to fulfill the needs for both parking and “open” space in this intensively-developed subdivision.
Summary
Burlington has so much to offer as a community, which is why all of us chose this as our home. We understand the on-street parking issue for Burlington is complex. However, we strongly believe that we, as a neighborhood with deep roots, have a right to be heard and a right to a meaningful response to our questions and concerns.
We hope that our submission today will contribute to a refined and more defined version of an on-street parking solution for our city. Please don’t turn our neighborhood streets into parking for congested and poorly planned developments.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Contact on behalf of residents:
Catherine Hunt