The future of a proposed quarry and concrete plant is now in the hands of Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale.

After listening to arguments Tuesday and Wednesday over a petition against the city, the territorial lands branch and zoning approval for the project, Veale opted to reserve his decision on the matter.

The McLean Lake Residents Association has asked the court to declare both city council's zoning decision on the site as well as the territory's approval for the land invalid.

Skeeter Miller-Wright presented arguments on behalf of the association Tuesday over the public consultation and the territory's and city's responsibilities in considering approval for the project.

The territory's lawyer Michael Winstanley and then city lawyer Lori Lavoie countered the arguments into Wednesday afternoon.

Winstanley suggested the residents association waited too long to bring their petition to the court. As he pointed out, residents of the area were familiar with the application since 2002, but didn't bring forward the petition until this year.

'They knew what their issues were,' he said.

The public had an opportunity to comment on a map of the proposed location as well, he said.

There is a 15-year limit on bringing such petitions, which fall under the Environment Act, before the courts. But Winstanley said that was put in place under the act because of the time it may take to show there's been a detriment to the environment.

In this case, the territory's Land Application Review Committee considered the concern and comments of nearby residents and did an environmental screening to ensure the project would be safe to go ahead.

If all those factors have been seriously considered, he stressed, then there is no error in law.

Although he can sympathize with Miller-Wright's views, he said there are no grounds for a judicial review.

While Winstanley focused on portions of the territory's Environment Act and Environmental Assessment Act, Lavoie used extensive portions of the territorial Municipal Act (which governs incorporated municipalities) and the city's Official Community Plan (OCP) in her arguments.

Earlier Miller-Wright had told the court the city hadn't complied with portions of the OCP in approving the zoning for the property.

The OCP, she said, is a guiding document with broad objectives for land use in the city. Council is not obliged to follow specific provisions in it, she said.

'The plan doesn't become a bylaw,' she said, pointing out that bylaws are required to be followed.

And even if it had to be followed as a law, she noted there was no direct collision between OCP guidelines and the zoning for the sight and the OCP guidelines were followed, she said.

The Industrial Quarry zone is more consistent with OCP than a Future Development zone on the site would be, she said.

The zoning of the property also doesn't ensure the development will go ahead, she said.

'It still has a number of hoops it has to go through,' Lavoie stressed, pointing to development permits, a potential development agreement and environmental impact considerations before any physical work can begin on the quarry, which is proposed by Ron Newsome and his Territorial Contracting Ltd. company.

While Miller-Wright had argued the hydrological and hydrogeological studies needed to be more than a tabletop study, Lavoie noted because there has been no gravel extraction yet and because there wouldn't be much water being used there was no need to do a hydrological study.

Miller-Wright later countered that argument again, stating a hydrological study is needed because the quarry, which is essentially a hole in the ground, can affect underground water flow and temperature. The excavation could also impact the insulation between the underground water and air, he said.

Before the matter closed yesterday, Miller-Wright reminded Veale the development is continuing as the court matter proceeds.

It's unknown when Veale will hand down his decision.