Photo by Whitehorse Star
Coun. Rob Fendrick
Photo by Whitehorse Star
Coun. Rob Fendrick
The city will at least consider changing the Official Community Plan (OCP) to allow for a gravel quarry off the Alaska Highway next to the Utah Siding yard.
The city will at least consider changing the Official Community Plan (OCP) to allow for a gravel quarry off the Alaska Highway next to the Utah Siding yard.
In a 4-2 vote by council Monday evening, members voted to move ahead with the process to consider an OCP amendment that would change the designation of the site to allow for the quarry Norcope Enterprises is proposing.
Norcope president Doug Gonder had asked council to move forward with the OCP change earlier this year, but council had not taken it any further after the request was made.
Gonder approached council about it again last Tuesday, after submitting an altered quarry plan for the site to address concerns that had come up.
Coun. Roslyn Woodcock then served noticed that she would come back with the motion Monday to bring forward the amendment.
Councillors Dan Boyd and Samson Hartland, who both attended last night’s meeting via conference call, voted against the motion to consider the OCP change.
Hartland didn’t comment on his vote.
Boyd stated his belief that the Yukon government, as the land’s owner, should be applying for the OCP change rather than Norcope, which would be using the territory’s land for the operation.
Beyond that and “most important,” Boyd argued documents show the site being considered features a large depression.
At the very least, for any development to happen there down the road, the site would have to use a significant amount of fill.
Taking more material out for gravel through the quarry operation would essentially render it undevelopable, Boyd said, noting he couldn’t support such a move.
Other council members, however, argued the city should at least consider the request.
“I believe this deserves due process,” Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu said.
She pointed out that Norcope has made a number of efforts through this application to deal with concerns that came up over his proposal.
As Coun. Roslyn Woodcock said in an interview last week when she first put forward her motion that it be considered, Norcope has altered its initial proposal to address concerns.
The areas for quarrying are now narrower than initially proposed, making them further from area trails.
Norcope also assured council there would be a visual barrier to keep the quarry out of sight, and plans were outlined to deal with noise and dust.
Coun. Rob Fendrick voted in favour of moving forward with considering the OCP change. However, he stopped short of fully supporting the plans, stating that his vote too was an endorsement for due process more than anything.
“This is what I consider a fairly major development,” he said of the proposed quarry.
Many ramifications must be considered, he added. They range from the impact of the development to the continued need for gravel throughout the city.
As it was stated in a report presented by Mike Gau, the city’s director of development services: “The proposed land use by Norcope would have a significant, long-term impact on the subject site through the quarrying operations and could also potentially impact future land use options in the surrounding area.”
With council’s vote in favour of considering the OCP change, city staff will be tasked with bringing forward a bylaw for the amendment along with outlining the process for that, including the required public input on any proposed change to the OCP.
Meanwhile, Norcope’s proposal is moving through the Yukon Environmental Socio-economic Assessment review.
Most recently, Norcope has been given until Oct. 24 to submit further information requested by the assessment board on the quarry lease, air emissions, a closure plan and a dust management plan.
If the information isn’t provided by the Oct. 24 deadline, the application for the project would be considered withdrawn, the most recent correspondence from the board to Norcope states.
Coun. Betty Irwin was absent from Monday’s meeting.
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 (6)
Up 0 Down 0
Salar on Sep 20, 2016 at 6:55 am
Yes amend the OCP to use gravel....and while the vault is open reverse the very similar prohibition of atv use
Up 5 Down 3
Mark Sanders on Sep 15, 2016 at 3:31 pm
I agree with Jose Wales second post.
"again...predetermined outcome and great acting"
Thinking back, there were city councilors a few terms back who would have held the line, honoured the intent of the OCP; these councilors, respected people who wanted greenspaces and parks to be developed in a manner which is consistent with all the work that went into the OCP.
Up 5 Down 3
POD on Sep 15, 2016 at 12:41 pm
City amended OCP a few years back to allow "temporary" quarry at Tank Farm, despite the fact that YESAA had not first studied and made recommendations about the costs and benefits of quarrying the area, supposedly for "remediation purposes". Project specifically stated there would be no new roads in/out, visual barriers would be maintained, gravel material would not be moved off site, no trees cut during nesting season, etc. Site now has two new access roads connected to Burns Road to haul out gravel for City's and YG use (with a Yukon-issued permit), a huge swath of trees was cut and gravel is being mined on a City strip of land next to Tank Farm (this was not assessed by YESAB, as it should have been). The previous visual barrier has been completely eliminated and is a gravel quarry with no fencing, warning signs and gravel sloped well beyond the angle of repose, trees were cut during nesting season, continuous fencing is not in place around Tank Farm itself and results of required dust monitoring not being actively communicated to nearby residents. A tragic failure of the YESAA process, that looks more like a farce when you consider it is happening right under the noses of the Department of Environment that is supposed to monitor these things. Be very suspicious of what City, YG and company are telling you about this project.
Up 5 Down 1
Josey Wales on Sep 14, 2016 at 10:56 pm
Folks I feel the need to correct a clearly completely silly post in regards to pencils. My illustration of the OCP being done in pencil was not well thought out. Given the Eco-zealotry coming outta the nobles at city hall, of course they would never use lead, erasures require digits and limbs to move often with great effort...never mind chronically searching for the key to the sea can.
So upon revisit, perhaps our OCP was done on...an etch a sketch?
I can see them now...holding meetings discussing protocol on how long and which knob you can turn.
yup gravel pit it is, again...predetermined outcome and great acting.
Up 9 Down 3
Josey Wales on Sep 13, 2016 at 7:20 pm
Hello Max, very astute observation. Those folks you spoke of and the word logic mix like a lady gaga concert at Mecca...they don't.
Devoid of any type of logic the nobles will do as they please, as...
they really do not give a s**t about those folks paying their wages.
Aaaaaaand the OCP was written in pencil, they have no doubt a sea can (heated certainly & ac) full of erasers.
The only thing up here that will remain unchanged, is the reality that we are thought of as mere subjects, our money is theirs, and the entitlement disease so ripe up here?
Will be the only constant...as it currently is.
Up 16 Down 5
Max Mack on Sep 13, 2016 at 4:33 pm
But, wait . . . didn't the City essentially argue that the OCP was an unalterable document as it had gone through a "democratic" consultation process; hence, Marianne Darragh's referendum petition was thrown out by the courts and ignored by CoW.
Same inconsistent logic applies to the Riverdale foot bridge and the skate park. "Original intent" matters for the foot bridge. But, meanwhile, CoW advocates for the destruction of the existing skate park and construction of another in Rotary Peace Park. What about the "original intent" of the funders and volunteers that built the existing skate park? What about the "original intent" of Rotary Peace Park?
Seems to me the City has highly selective logic.