Park proponents will continue to promote petition
The City Whitehorse is telling McLean Lake preservation proponents to hold back on promoting their petition.
The City Whitehorse is telling McLean Lake preservation proponents to hold back on promoting their petition.
It appears the questions being proposed by the McLean Lake Residents Association, the Friends of McLean Lake Society and the Yukon Conservation Society may be illegal.
"The City of Whitehorse therefore has some concern as to the validity of the question, and has asked for a legal review of the question," reads a city statement released last Thursday.
The petition's author, Marianne Darragh, told the Star last Thursday her lawyers have given her the A-OK to proceed with the petition.
Last Tuesday, the Star published a lengthy letter by the McLean Lake resident asking her fellow residents to sign a petition that asks the city to designate a 500-metre area around McLean Lake as Park Reserve under the Official Community Plan (OCP).
"The 500-meter boundary allows for protection of the riparian zone, the land forms around the lake, the scenic quality of the approach to the lake, and it keeps the trail access route in tact for recreational use," writes Darragh.
Her letter reads that as long as 2,000 signatures in support of the petition are collected, the city must hold a referendum, pursuant to rules in the Municipal Act.
The petition, which was filed with the city on March 14, asks the city to include the area of McLean Lake under the OCP's list of Park Reserve parcels, and to create a "McLean Lake Park Zone" that would prohibit anything but recreational activity.
"There are three private properties and leases contained in the area identified in the petition for referendum question, as presented," said the city's statement.
One of the properties alluded to is part of a saga to develop a gravel quarry in the McLean Lake area that received much public outcry, and, at one point,a prohibition from the Yukon Supreme Court.
Territorial Contracting, the company proposing the gravel quarry, has most recently been approved to develop four hectares in the McLean Lake area for a concrete batch plant.
"This bylaw was passed because the gravel extraction that was previously ruled against by the Supreme Court was no longer in the application for the re-zoning," reads a city statement.
City staff have advised Darragh that until a legal review of the petition's questions is complete, she must stop collecting signatures.
The city estimates a legal review to be complete by March 28.
Darragh said she has had her lawyer, Zeb Brown, review the petition questions.
She said the Municipal Act and referendum rules do not say the city can complete a legal review before the petition proponent can start collecting signatures.
The city says if the petition is found to be legally sound, the city clerk must sign off on the petition and referendum bylaw, and the signature collection process can start.
As of now, Darragh said the city clerk has only stamped the petition, acknowledging the city has received her request.
"It's the petitioner's responsibility to make sure it's legal," she said. "I've done that."
Because of OCP guidelines, the city estimates the referendum process, with all its paperwork, checks and balances, would likely not occur until this fall.
Referendums are budgeted to cost taxpayers $10,000, plus $4,000 to cover administrative overhead.
City council has also periodically discussed the option of designating the McLean Lake area as a protected park during the OCP rewrite slated for this fall.
Darragh said the city's discussions differ from the McLean Lake residents', and she will proceed gathering signatures for her petition, "absolutely."
"I really don't understand the city's position here,' she said. "This has been consulted with municipal experts for months. This isn't being done on a whim."
The McLean Lake Residents' Association has also filed a challenge against the city's bylaw to rezone Territorial Contracting's four-hectare land parcel to IQx-Quarries Restricted.
A trial to be heard by Justice Leigh Gower has been scheduled for 10 a.m., May 15.
Comments (1)
Up 0 Down 0
Doug Rutherford on Mar 25, 2008 at 10:05 am
I am curious as to why anyone would file such a petition that might result in the expropriation of both private property and existing approved commercial properties. Should I presume that the proponents are including their own property in this parcel as well?