When Jillian Hardie bought her home in Riverdale, her family paid an extra $10,000 compared to other houses in the neighbourhood for a property that sits next to a greenbelt.

'We paid to have that greenbelt, to have nobody looking in your back yard, to have that greenery, that privacy, and we'll be losing that,' she said in an interview Wednesday night.

She spoke after a heavily-attended public meeting about the proposed new zoning bylaw for the city.

The new zoning bylaw would allow for infill development residential sites within established subdivisions in Porter Creek, Riverdale and Takhini North. It also proposes a number of other changes to zoning within the city.

'I never thought you'd be subdividing subdivisions,' Carol Marks told city officials at the meeting.

In Porter Creek, the area between Rabbit's Foot Canyon on the west, McIntyre Creek in the south and Mountainview Drive in the east would be rezoned to residential single-detached (RS).

In Riverdale, the area between Boswell Crescent and Firth Road would be zoned residential single-detached (RS) from its current greenbelt zoning.

The zoning bylaw comes after the city adopted its most recent Official Community Plan, which requires a new zoning bylaw to reflect the changes in the overall city plan.

The rezoning raises issues of what will happen with taxes, access in and out of the neighbourhood and air quality, among other issues, Hardie said.

'Because with the price of oil and gas right now, people are going to be putting in wood stoves over oil furnaces,' she said of the air quality, adding it's already poor in the community.

Also contributing to inadequate air quality are vehicle exhaust emissions, with many households having two, she said. The numerous vehicles in and out of the community could also mean access problems, with only one bridge into the downtown area.

Earlier in the meeting, one Riverdale resident pointed to the problem she had in the morning getting her daughter to Whitehorse General Hospital from Boswell Crescent.

'It took me 25 minutes,' she said. 'You need to build another bridge if you're going to put (in) 30 more lots.'

City planning manager Lesley Cabott responded by pointing to a recent city transportation study by UMA Engineering which identified the amount of traffic that could be handled if there was infill.

The response was met with laughter from some in the audience.

'Excuse me, not when you're trying to get to the hospital during rush hour,' the mother responded. 'I have a sick child. And I'm trying to get to the hospital during rush hour with a sick child that's impossible.'

Another resident added the city would also need a lot more equipment to keep streets clear in the winter.

One resident argued the potential of jamming up to 30 lots behind Firth Road would destroy the green space in his neighborhood.

'Yes, NIMBY (not in my back yard),' he said. 'It's my back yard, thank you very much! I don't want to see my neighbour like that.

'We are not Calgary. We don't need to have the guy in the next house at 5,000 square feet looking in your window.'

While he said he realized there's a move to make a smaller ecological footprint, 'I don't want you standing in my pocket while you do that, OK? That's harsh.'

His statement was greeted with applause by some of the more than 100 people crowded in and just outside the meeting room at the Westmark Whitehorse Hotel.

Another question centred on whether the city would compensate residents who see their property values fall with the new developments.

Others said they want to have the process slowed down, with more attention paid to individual issues.

'I have no interest in rural residential, but I've a large interest in the industrial area, and I'd like an opportunity to get together with the people who have that interest and focus on that,' one person said. 'So could we not do that and slow the process down at all?'

As Cabott pointed out though, the zoning bylaw is now going through the legislative process, which has seen council approve first reading.

With first reading accomplished, there's a public hearing set for April 25 where residents can speak to the proposal. City administration will then prepare a report for council based on the feedback, with a recommendation on how to proceed.

Later in the meeting, Cabott noted administration is already considering a recommendation that council not rezone the infill areas immediately for residential development.

'I think that's definitely something administration is going to put forward to council: maybe it shouldn't be zoned RS at this time; maybe you want to consider the other zoning which is future development (FD) and then you can look into going into planning studies, understanding the land better and understanding the community values,' Cabott said.

Before any infill development would be done, a planning study of the area would need to be completed, looking at various issues to determine if it's suitable for housing, she stated throughout the meeting.

It is in that stage, the number of lots, air quality and other issues would be addressed, she said.

Others suggested the city could develop the lower bench section of Porter Creek rather than doing infill in the three subdivisions.

Cabott said the lower bench is a longer-term development project, while the infill could be done sooner to address the housing need in the city.

After the meeting, Coun. Doug Graham said he already knows of some changes he wants to bring forward for the proposed zoning bylaw.

'Quite simply, I don't see any of the infill property being zoned residential at this time,' he said.

'I think it should all be zoned future development. Then we prepare a draft plan of what we would like to see in that area and we take it back to the residents.'

At that point, the city would try to 'hammer out' some sort of agreement with the residents on development in the area, he said.

'And if we can't do it, it's up to council to make a decision,' he said.

He and Buckway were pleased to see the overflow crowd take in the two-hour session.

Such gatherings are often the only way to gauge public opinion on municipal issues, Graham said.

'The problem that I see in many cases is the misinformation that's out there and misunderstanding of the situation,' he said.

'And that's our fault because we're not getting the information out to the public, and that's something we really have to work on.'

Coun. Bev Buckway pointed out one such piece of misinformation came from a poster had been placed around the city showing where the city will supposedly build homes this summer.

'And that kind of information isn't correct and it doesn't help anybody because that's where the wrong information flows,' she said.

While some suggested the city should delay voting on the matter, Buckway said at some point, council will have to make a cut-off.

'I think we've got a real good sense of what the hot issues are, what the hot topics are and what the public feels on this,' she said.

One of the big reasons Graham said he wouldn't favour deferring the matter is the time requirement for the zoning bylaw to be in place.

'We have a legislated requirement to pass a new bylaw in two years. We're getting close to that now,' he said.

He was referring to the Municipal Act, which requires communites that adopt an OCP to pass a new zoning bylaw reflecting the new OCP within two years.

'That's not to say we can't make changes,' he said.

'And one of the changes that I was just talking about, the future development zoning, would force us then if we decided to go ahead with infill in any one of the three areas it would force us at that time to go for a rezoning to an RS. So we would have to go through this whole thing again.'

That would give residents some assurance the city would come back with a specific plan for the area, he said.