Photo by Vince Fedoroff
WHERE TO PUT THE PEOPLE? – Whitehorse is seen earlier this month in this aerial photo. As the population climbs, city council is looking to create housing lots in established subdivisions – including the country residential communities of Hidden Valley to the north and Mary Lake and Cowley Creek to the south. Inset Mike Gau.
Residents will have a chance to directly tell the city their thoughts
Residents will have a chance to directly tell the city their thoughts on potential infill development in country residential neighbourhoods, along with a property on Magpie Road in the Logan subdivision.
On Monday night, in passing first reading of the rezoning for seven pieces of land, council has prompted an Oct. 23 public hearing on the proposal.
Under the proposal, the zoning amendments would see:
• a 5.1 hectare parcel on Couch Road rezoned from Parks and Recreation (PR) to Country Residential 1(RC1);
• a 3.2 ha site on Talus Drive rezoned from PR, Greenbelt (PG) and Environmental Protection (PE) to RC1;
• a 2.03 ha area also on Talus Drive rezoned from PE to RC1;
• a 2.71 ha site on Fireweed Drive rezoned from PG to RC1;
• a 3.16 ha site also on Fireweed Drive rezoned also from PG to RC1;
• a 2.08 ha site on Salmon Trail from Future Planning (FP) to RC1; and
• a site (the size of the lot was not provided in city documents) at Magpie Road and Falcon Drive from Neighbourhood Commercial (CN) to Restricted Residential (RR).
There are also other areas around the city that are being considered for infill residential development that do not require rezoning. Those sites are on Wann Road, Sandpiper Drive and Wilson Drive.
Council may pass a separate resolution on those sites to support development of those sites, city planner Mike Ellis stated in a report to council last week.
The zoning for country residential sites, though, will have to go through the public hearing and then second and third readings before it can go ahead.
City officials have proposed the infill plans as a way of augmenting the ongoing development of the Whistle Bend neighbourhood to ensure an adequate supply of housing throughout the city.
During discussion among council last night, it was stressed that first reading would simply move the process into the public hearing stage.
Coun. Rob Fendrick commented that he’ll “be very interested to hear what the public has to say” on the rezonings.
In general, he noted, he believes there is a need to plan for more lots in the city.
“I believe the demand is there,” he said.
Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu questioned the reasoning for proposing residential development on land zoned for parks and environmental protection.
Mike Gau, the city’s director of development services, noted the mapping for those sites was not developed at a detailed level.
Looking at the sites in more detail, it is clear that some of those areas could see development.
Curteanu, who said she walked the proposed development area in the Mary Lake subdivision, noted there are a number of trails zig-zagging through the site.
Gau responded by noting that while there are paths through the area, none of the city’s official trail network would be impacted.
“There is a spiderweb of minor trails through every neighbourhood,” he said.
If the city were to avoid every small, informal pathway, Gau pointed out, development would never happen.
Curteanu noted that council members will wait to hear what the public has to say.
Coun. Betty Irwin agreed with Gau, saying there is the reality that informal trails can’t all be protected.
Many of the informal trails, she added, came about after housing was developed in the neighbourhoods.
After next month’s public hearing on the matter, a report will come forward to council before second and third readings are voted on in November.
Coun. Samson Hartland was absent from Monday night’s council meeting.
See letter.
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (15)
Up 3 Down 0
Jayne W on Oct 2, 2017 at 3:40 pm
@John, you got a good idea. I think everyone in CR should try and subdivide their property.....throw in a garden suite if you can.....lets pack' em in there. Who needs green space? Find any spots of green in those areas that are buildable and build away. Everyone wants the life in CR and they will get it. Oh, but wait it won't be that any more, it will be filled with houses. And don't worry about water/well problems, we are told water delivery is acceptable, we don't need wells.
Up 8 Down 2
john on Oct 2, 2017 at 12:15 pm
I want to subdivide my mount sima lot. We will be putting an application forward soon.
Up 10 Down 1
Groucho d'North on Oct 1, 2017 at 6:51 pm
With this rational and attempt at planning logic, at some point down the road, Porter Creek Phase D will be back on the table.
Up 7 Down 7
Yukoner 81 on Oct 1, 2017 at 2:08 pm
@Atom. I couldn't agree more. Well said, People need housing - NIMBYs need to stop their greed. They couch it in all sorts of different language and reasoning, but that is what it really comes down to.
Up 12 Down 7
Atom on Sep 30, 2017 at 1:32 pm
@Miles Ocean....market value is affected by lots of things....nimbyism is one thing.
Seems it doesn't matter if it's infill or subdivision creation, nimbys don't like it.
Planners and City officials need to do their job so everyone can have an option for housing. You don't have a say in that just because you feel your 'investment' is at risk.
Nimbys wiĺl come up with anything to not let others do what they have done.
Up 18 Down 19
Miles Ocean on Sep 28, 2017 at 11:19 pm
BnR, You are so wrong.
Country res owners have larger lot sizes and access to greenbelts and in some cases new parks. We bought at market value and we value what we have. There is lots of land available for similar country res development. The demand is there so why not provide it. There is no shortage of land.
Now, the city is allowing infilling which takes land out of the bank, land that was vacant, but land was appropriately zoned as green space or park or Environmental Protection. In many country res areas, the city has approved garden suites so there will be 2 homes on many lots. This I do not oppose as it helps family members in many situations. What I oppose is the infilling.
It is not NIMBYism, pure and simple. People want to protect what they have. They are not wealthy, many people live in trailers and small homes. Their lifestyle is under siege by poor city planning.
Up 12 Down 3
Joe on Sep 28, 2017 at 6:01 pm
Ocp...actually designated land use residential-country. Zoning by-laws put the plan into effect and provide for its day-to-day administration. They contain specific requirements that are legally enforceable. The only people that need education on land use planning are the inexperienced staff at city. Poor planning. The point I've made is the fact when people have bought land with specific zoning adjacent to their properties ( sets the market value) and subsequently, incompetent city staff try and repair their poor planning by changing established zoned areas and thus affecting market value of the affected adjacent properties. If zoning is irrelevant, then let the Mt. Sima landowners subdivide their lots.
Up 10 Down 2
OCP on Sep 27, 2017 at 8:14 pm
Joe - certainly it would serve the City to run a little public education on land use planning. The OCP and zoning are two different documents. The OCP sets Land Use designations which may not be the same as the zoning which sets out the specific allowed uses. An OCP will set out a broad area as Country Residential but zoning is used to permit specific areas within that as suitable for actual such development, over time, subject to all manner of criteria, changing values and land needs.
These lands in question have Country Residential Land Use designations in the OCP but PR, PG, PE etc. zoning, the change of which is on the table and relayed in the article.
It would not be legal for the City to change the zoning to Country Residential if the OCP did not support that use. They would need to change that OCP first.
This is no comment on the merits of the change. Just to warn that nobody should put too much faith in zoning if you are interested in protection for your decision-making.
Up 23 Down 14
Salar on Sep 27, 2017 at 4:44 pm
Clearly those against infill are not thinking of the future....just themselves.
Up 10 Down 2
joe on Sep 27, 2017 at 4:05 pm
OCP, read the article the sites in question are not "clearly country residential" they are :
• Couch Road rezoned from Parks and Recreation (PR) to Country Residential 1(RC1)
• Talus Drive rezoned from PR, Greenbelt (PG) and Environmental Protection (PE) to RC1;
• Talus Drive rezoned from PE to RC1;
• Fireweed Drive rezoned from PG to RC1;
• Fireweed Drive rezoned also from PG to RC1;
• Salmon Trail from Future Planning (FP) to RC1; and
Up 17 Down 8
OCP on Sep 26, 2017 at 8:53 pm
Zoning tells you only what land can be used for now. The OCP is the forward looking document that tells you what land may be used for in the future. Being overlooked is that these sites in question are clearly Country Residential in the OCP so nobody should be surprised that use is now being proposed.
And yes, is is a basic premise of the democracy we live in that any government can change the laws and decisions of those that preceded them. If we don't like our government and what they have done, we can throw them out for new people who will do it differently. And so on.
Up 18 Down 15
BnR on Sep 26, 2017 at 7:53 pm
Miles Ocean, you contradict yourself.
Country res owners ARE the wealthy people. Buying country res only entitles you to a larger lot size. Tha'ts it. What was there prior to the country res development? It was someone else's walking area, group hunting, whatever.
It is NIMBYism, pure and simple.
Joe, it's just zoning. Zoning can be amended or variances granted. Happens all the time. I'd be willing to bet many country res owners are in contravention of zoning regs in some way. Hell, drive around town and look at people whose lots back onto greenbelts, a majority of them infringe into the greenbelt in some manner.
Up 20 Down 3
Jayne W on Sep 26, 2017 at 5:18 pm
Residents that are for or against this, need to write both the planning department as well as Mayor and Council. Both are interpreting information differently. There were Councillors that were unaware that these are zoned green space areas. My jaw dropped when Coun. Fendrick said he was curious what the public has to say. Duh.....what have people been doing for the last two months, do you not read the emails sent to you, did you not read the What we heard report? In my opinion only 1/2 of the Councillors are actually trying to do a bit due diligence.
Up 32 Down 11
joe on Sep 26, 2017 at 3:59 pm
So what is the value of having designated zoning? Doesn't zoning come from a hugely consulted( and expensive) OCP? I buy a property with PE ( protected) and PG ( greenbelt) adjacent land and I specifically buy the land with that in mind, likely pay way more for that lot because of the adjacent zoning and then the City can come along and change the zoning as they feel? Something seriously wrong with this process or someone cannot do their job properly.
Up 20 Down 15
Miles Ocean on Sep 26, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Coun. Betty Irwin agreed with Gau, saying there is the reality that informal trails can’t all be protected.
Some truth to this and it seems that the country residential lifestyle that many residents have come to enjoy cannot be protected because council somehow does not seem to care enough to protect it.
What this means is that wealthy people who have influence can maintain their quiet lifestyle but others see and erosion of the greenbelts because council made a choice not to protect that lifestyle.
I do not see many people's concerns as NIMBY, I see the concerns as let's protect what we have.