K
I
T
I
M
A
Sentinel
T
Northern
Years est. 1954
www.northernsentinel.com
Volume 60 No. 31
Riverbrook moving ahead
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
$
1.30 INCLUDES TAX
Councillor meanwhile worries for overbuild Does Kitimat need a new housing complex that could provide up to 217 individual units? Council will wrestle with that question as the process has begun on a zoning amendment for the Riverbrook Estates. That development is proposed for the area in the undeveloped land beyond Liard and Nadina Streets. The complex would have apartment buildings, townhouses and detached housing at full build, but project proponent Leonard Kerkhoff said it would be built in phases to ensure a market for the construction.
“I see no point in trying to jam possibly 217 families.” With a 5-1 vote, council has issued public notice for the proposal which would effectively subdivide the parcels of land owned by Riverbrook Estates. Right now the proponent could go ahead and build 80 living units on the site. A staff report to council shows the site in question was created by subdivision in 1968 and a 70-unit subdivision to complete Liard and Nadina Streets was approved in 1981, but work was halted in 1982. Among council’s suggestions is to expand the area of public notice to nearby homeowners, which currently cuts out around 90 metres. Mario Feldhoff also suggested pushing the developer to hold open houses. “It’s a very large development proposal, and it’s exciting but at the same time potentially a concern to some of the immediate neighbours,” he said. Meanwhile the idea of building out the community rather than in concerned councillor Phil Germuth who thinks allowing rezoning to accomodate so many more units goes against the community plan. “Back in 1952 Clarence Stein designed this community for us. It was planned out for well over 20,000 people. At this point we’re nowhere near there,” he said. “I see no point in trying to jam possibly 217 families in to the space where 80 should be going. This is not Vancouver, this is still Kitimat. There’s nothing wrong with having people that have yards and driveways.” He said it doesn’t make sense to open up land to new development when places in town need to be re-developed as it is. Continued on page 2
The parking lot at the Riverlodge is just a field of dirt while contractors dig up and repair the pavement. Repairs to the Riverlodge parking lot is part of the District of Kitimat’s annual roads project this year.
Incentives for secondary suites Cameron Orr Kitimat Council has approved a secondary suite incentive program that will kick money back to homeowners who develop their homes with secondary rental suites. The program is one of the options the District of Kitimat had been researching as ways to potentially alleviate some of the trouble associated with low vacancy rates in town. The amount of secondary suites in Kitimat has dropped significantly since 1985, when there were 274. Today only 95 secondary suites remain. While this new incentive program won’t apply to existing suites, it is designed to help absorb some of the construction cost in establishing it. Kitimat planner Daniel Martin said the incentives start at up to $2,500, or up to 33 per cent of the construction. If
Several layers of grants await those who create secondary suites in approved zones you design you suite with accessibility in mind — for instance wheelchair accessible — you get an extra $2,500 grant. More grants, either $5,000 or $7,500, is available if you rent it out as an affordable housing unit, as defined by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the grant amount depends on how affordable you make the unit. The largest concern in debate came from Mario Feldhoff who was concerned that taxpayer money could potentially go to homeowners who then turn around
and rent out to family members. “I personally don’t feel that’s an appropriate use for taxpayers money,” he said. Director of Community Planning and Development Gwen Sewell said that staff decided not to pursue those restrictions primarily because human rights legislation make restricting persons who can rent units very challenging. As well, even if a unit is rented to a family member that’s still a rental unit that is freed up elsewhere, such as an apartment building. Feldhoff attempted to have the program tabled until council could receive a legal opinion regarding limiting renting to family members, but was ultimately defeated with the rest of council opposed. In calling for finally approving the program as a whole, with a $50,000 budget, all of council stood with it.
PM477761
Tickets for unsightly properties ... page 3