Summary of consultation

Applicant-led Consultation

Applicant-led consultation included an online survey, virtual open house, and project website, and residents within 100 m. of the project were notified of opportunities to provide feedback. A total of 8 community members attended the open house and 4 survey responses were received. Click here for a description of the consultation process and all received feedback.

Survey feedback indicated that 75% of respondents fully or partially support the project. Feedback was focused on increased family-oriented housing in Brow of the Hill; increased density; and, architectural design. City staff note that the proposed density is consistent with the RT Zoning District, and that the project is generally consistent with the DPA guidelines, which do not dictate a specific architectural expression.

City-led Consultation

City-led consultation included this project website and online survey on this page. Residents within 100 m. of the project were notified of the online survey. In total, 8 survey responses were received, the majority (63%) of which expressed full or partial support for the project. Click here to review all feedback received by the City.

New Westminster Design Panel

The application was presented to the New Westminster Design Panel (NWDP) on May 24, 2022. The NWDP passed a motion recommending that the applicant re-examine several aspects of the project, to the satisfaction of Planning staff. Click here for the meeting minutes. Staff considers NWDP feedback has been addressed.

Applicant Response and Revisions

The applicant has addressed consultation feedback in the following ways:

• Revised the ground-floor layouts of four units to better accommodate those with mobility challenges (e.g., larger washrooms, open concept layout).
• Provided barrier-free access to two units from St. Andrews Street, and two units from the rear parking area;
• Removed rear fencing adjacent to off-street parking, to provide eyes on the lane.

The applicant has further indicated that the site constraints (namely grade and overall size) and the desire to create functional unit layouts, preclude the project from provision of an accessible courtyard. Instead, the applicant has proposed the following to better accommodate those with mobility challenges:

• Revised units layouts with barrier-free access where feasible, per the above;
• Provision of one accessible parking space, not required by the Zoning Bylaw; and,
• Inclusion of front patio outlets for mobility device charging.

Staff considers the above changes and rationale reasonable responses to the community feedback received.