Issues surrounding the city-wide greenbelt referendum, including misinformation circulated by city hall before people voted, should be reviewed by Yukon ombudsman Hank Moorlag.

That's the opinion of Carole Bookless, the president of the Porter Creek Community Association.

While the city is making progress on Bylaw 2006-11, she said, the whole process needs to be reviewed to avoid similar problems in the future.

Bylaw 2006-11, the planning study bylaw, was passed by city-wide referendum in June.

At the time of the referendum, city officials said a planning study, including a green space map, would be required for all developments in the city, including individual lot subdivisions.

Earlier this week, city officials conceded they had misled the public during the referendum and single lots would not be affected and planning studies would only be required for larger development initiatives.

'I feel the way the referendum was conducted should go to the ombudsman so that something like this never happens again,' Bookless said in an interview this afternoon.

Bookless said while she is happy the city is making progress on 2006-11, she feels more people would have voted in favour of the bylaw had they been given the correct information.

'If people had been given the correct information, the outcome of the referendum would have been different,' she said.

In June, Whitehorse electors voted in favour of adopting the new green space bylaw by a margin of 71 votes.

In the referendum, 1,118 citizens voted yes on Bylaw 2006-11, while 1,047 voted no.

A total of 2,175 residents, out of 10,318 eligible voters, cast ballots, representing 21 per cent of the electorate.

On Monday, Robert Fendrick, the city's director of operations, informed council the public had been misled during the referendum and 2006-11 would not apply to smaller developments in the city.

In a media release from city hall this morning, city officials stated 2006-11 would be apply to larger developments requiring an Area Development Scheme (ADS).

'After careful consideration, council has determined through considerable discussion and with the benefit of additional legal reviews that the appropriate trigger for a green space map and area plebiscite requirement is the undertaking of a Planning Study leading to the preparation of an ADS.

'Requiring the plebiscite at the time of zoning amendment or subdivision is not appropriate as these steps are regulatory in nature and are designed to implement a plan that has been adopted through the planning process,' the city's media release states.

'Each new development proposal will be considered on a case-by-case basis in relation to the policies and land use designations within the Official Community Plan (OCP) to determine what the planning requirements will be and hence whether or not an ADS is required and hence if a plebiscite on the green space map is required.'

According to the city's OCP, ADSs are more detailed than a planning study and are adopted as a secondary plan to the OCP.

'These are land areas where land use issues exist or need to be resolved at a level of detail that is beyond the scope of (the OCP).

'An ADS is primarily used for new development that requires subdivision design detail, servicing standards, and cost estimates,' the OCP states.

ADSs, according to the OCP, typically include: the provision of parks and open spaces, impacts on existing developments, phasing of development, geotechnical information and impacts on the environment.