Many residents still opposed to Kingfisher townhouse rezoning plan

A plan to increase density on a townhouse proposal on Kingfisher has many residents concerned and speaking out.

A July 28 public hearing on the proposed density increase to land along Kingfisher Avenue near the golf course still did not turn out any support for nearby residents.

In fact letters and petitions of opposition came out, along with a presentation from Margetts Street resident Leland Harris.

Harris spoke of the challenges of the land in that there’s only a small, 2.6 acre area that is buildable.

Previous council’s approvals of density increases weren’t well grounded as well, he said.

In 1991 the site was rezoned to allow a 40-unit townhouse complex. Staff say in a report to council that historically applications for up to 124 units have been received.

The current application will up the 40 allowed to 53 units on the land, which backs on to Margetts Street at its southern end.

A covenant is proposed for the land with the proponent that will allow 25 units to be immediately built, with the rest contingent of the completion of a sewer study, as only 25 units are proven able to be serviced with existing sewer capacity.

“We feel it’s just not going to fit in the neighbourhood and not fit in this valuable area,” said Harris.

There was a lot of other feedback received as well.

There were four written submissions include in Council’s information package from residents on Margetts and Currie Street who were concerned or outright opposed to the project, and another letter which set out a number of questions for the town to reply on.

At the outset of the public hearing the deputy Chief Administrative Officer read in newer submissions received, as well as a petition from area residents against the proposal.

The petition was signed by 115 Kitimat residents, worded to say “we the undersigned are residents of Kitimat and strongly oppose the proposed changes to the property at 1851 Kingfisher Avenue…”

The four letters read in to the record on July 28 were also generally opposed to the proposal, noting concerns about public timelines, worries over the density affect on street parking and the general aesthetic of the neighbourhood.