Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Photo submitted

PROPOSAL BACK ON – Plans to redevelop the former tank farm to provide for a mix of residential and commercial lots is back on the table, with Mike Mickey and Paramjit Sidhu backing the initiative. Drawing courtesy of HB LANARC/GOLDER

Planned development would be sprawling but green

The city's largest private-sector subdivision proposal is back on the table, with all the parties seemingly pulling in the same direction.

By Chuck Tobin on June 4, 2012

The city's largest private-sector subdivision proposal is back on the table, with all the parties seemingly pulling in the same direction.

There could be anywhere from 500 to 800 housing lots available at the old tank farm property if a proposal for the area between Valleyview and Hillcrest goes forward as planned, says a Vancouver consultant.

Joaquin Karakas said in an interview Friday that under the current schedule, lots could be available by 2014 or 2015, with the entire subdivision built out sometime around 2030.

Karakas is a senior planner and urban designer with HB Lanarc/Golder. He and an associate were in Whitehorse last week for three days conducting consultation meetings on behalf of their clients.

Those clients are: Whitehorse businessman Mike Mickey, who acquired the property in the late 1990s as part of a real estate deal with White Pass and Yukon Route; and Mickey's partner in the project, Paramjit Sidhu, of Sidhu Trucking, which has one of the largest fleets of heavy equipment in the territory.

Planning meetings were conducted last week with officials representing the City of Whitehorse, Environment Yukon and both First Nations with properties adjoining the 140-acre tank farm, he explained.

Karakas said meetings were held with the local community associations representing residents of surrounding area, and with the Yukon Conservation Society and representatives of the Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition.

There's a general consensus, he noted, that the subdivision development should provide the full range of housing options, from small single-family lots to large lots and everything between, from townhouses to apartment complexes for rental.

"We are about establishing a co-operative approach with adjacent land owners to develop a vision for a comprehensive neighbourhood that includes not only the initial tank farm property but lands owned by adjacent land owners.”

Karakas said the proposal also provides for a mix of commercial and residential commercial, and there have been discussions about provisions for institutional lots to allow for medical or educational facilities.

Large fuel storage tanks – similar to the large tanks in the Marwell industrial area – were once speckled throughout the tank farm.

The tanks were removed by Mickey and the site was cleaned to the point that the National Energy Board released the site from under its jurisdiction a couple of years ago when it ruled it had been cleaned up enough to be used again for industrial activity.

The Yukon government, however, resisted attempts by the late Brad Taylor, who was working under an arrangement with Mickey, to move forward with a residential development.

The government said the site did not meet residential standards.

Taylor, however, insisted and provided proof the technology did exist that would allow for perfectly safe residential development.

Karakas said the proposal on the table now calls for the excavation of all contaminated soil so it can be exposed to air and sunlight on site.

Aeration and sunlight exposure is the accepted method of treating soil contaminated with fuel and oil.

The site will be remediated down to a numerical value that will dispel any question of whether it is suitable for residential development, he said.

Karakas said just how much dirt will have to be excavated, and where it will go once it has been remediated, are details that have not yet been finalized.

It will be, he pointed out, a phased-in approach to soil restoration and the development and sale of lots.

But it's expected somewhere around 18 years from now, the vision will have come full-circle, Karakas suggested.

"In 2030, the tank farm will be a green multi-use neighbourhood that welcomes a variety of residents who feel safe and engaged in their community,” reads one of the posters put up at last Wednesday evening's open house for the public.

The session followed the three days of meetings between governments and various stakeholders.

Karakas said the intent is to get all the parties standing behind the proposal, and it appears that is happening.

Officials with Environment Yukon, he said, indicated the developers didn't have to go all the way down to zero contaminants to achieve acceptability for residential development, but that's the plan, he said.

Karakas said the city is in full support, and has indicated that providing the necessary water and sewer infrastructure will not be an issue.

Having a comprehensive residential neighbourhood throughout the tank farm area is entirely consistent with the the city's revised Official Community Plan adopted in 2010, he said.

Karakas said the next step is to refine the planning sufficiently enough to prepare a submission to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.

In addition to seeking comments at the open house about the development and the type of neighbourhood people wanted to see, the consultants were also asking for suggestions about renaming the site.

The tank farm, he acknowledged Friday, just isn't a name one associates with a neighbourhood of trails, trees and open green spaces.

As reported in Friday's Star, city councillor Ranj Pillai has called upon his fellow members of council to halt the planning for the controversial Porter Creek D residential development.

The city already has five phases of the new Whistle Bend subdivision on the books. As well, there a couple of private sector developments in the works, such as the proposal moving forward for a residential development of 130-plus lots in the old Mackenzie RV Park beside Crestview, Pillai pointed out.

With the tank farm now emerging in a very substantial way, he said, there's no need to push forward with Porter Creek D.

In fact, Pillai said, with so many housing proposals on the table, it behooves the city to sit down with the Yukon government and the two First Nations to come up with a comprehensive approach to housing.

It does nobody any good if the city is working on the Porter Creek D proposal in isolation of what the Kwanlin Dun First Nation and the Ta'an Kwach'an Council might want to bring to the market, he said.

Pillai said there's also a very real need for a comprehensive analysis to determine today's demand and what the future demand will be.

Pulling a number out of a hat – such as the old 200 lots per year – doesn't add up to comprehensive planning, the councillor argued.

Comments (13)

Up 0 Down 0

C.J. on Jun 12, 2012 at 5:03 am

"distant shore of no consequence". Ha.

The source of contamination was only removed 13 years ago? I think everyone has lost their minds here. It's true, too much money -- or the prospect of too much money -- costs brain cells.

I wouldn't go near buying a lot on a site contaminated by hydrocarbons and the cocktail of chemicals that implies. If Stephen Harper drew water from it and drank it in front of me. This isn't the only distant shore of no consequence people can live on.

Up 0 Down 0

Brice Carruthers on Jun 11, 2012 at 5:11 am

@ Steve E:

Just because a site is designated as contaminated now, does not mean it will be contaminated in perpetuity. There are soil and groundwater remediation technologies that work and can be employed at the site to clean it up. The source of the contamination (the tank farm) was removed 13 or more years ago. Therefore, there is finite amount of contamination that can be remediated. If the developers can prove to Environment Yukon's satisfaction, through analytical soil and groundwater testing, that the contamination has been cleaned up, then the site will be taken off the list of designated contaminated sites.

Up 0 Down 0

Steve E on Jun 8, 2012 at 5:03 am

"it is only the government of Yukon that had any issues with the site." You write like Yukon is some distant shore of no consequence, something maybe to be ignored. Meanwhile at the Environment Yukon site it states right off and crystal clear, "Environment Yukon has formally designated the former Upper Tank Farm and nearby properties as a contaminated site. Soil and ground water contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons at lower depths are present on the property." I'm relieved you have stated that well informed people should be able to make up their own minds about purchasing a lot or not. I do think that maybe there is gonna be a little bit of snake handling regarding this apparently contaminated property.

Up 0 Down 0

Joel on Jun 8, 2012 at 1:33 am

Some back references to what has happened in the past to this site...

From what I can see and read, it is only the government of Yukon that had any issues with the site. There is alot of information about the possible issues. Well informed people should be able to make up their own minds about purchasing a lot or not

http://whitehorsestar.com/archive/story/ytg-accused-of-stalling-tank-farm-development/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2010/09/02/whse-tank-farm-contaminated.html

And the Environment Yukon site for the tank farm and the reasons for the designation the site was given.

http://www.env.gov.yk.ca/monitoringenvironment/upper_tank_farm.php

Up 0 Down 0

Joel on Jun 8, 2012 at 1:18 am

Actually Don, these are the same developers. Also, I seem to remember it was YTG that was not happy with the cleanup, the federal government gave the OK but the territory didn't want to . I will have to find the reference for that since it was a couple of years ago and maybe my mind is misleading me.

BTW, saying it twice doesn't make it any more true....

Up 0 Down 0

Don Strickman on Jun 7, 2012 at 5:02 am

So basically, YG and the City officials are completely ignoring the fact that Environmental scientists have determined that the area is unfit for human habitation. If there is a problem a few years down the road, they will have retired from their positions and won't have to deal with the aftermath. Pretty short term thinking, guys.

Up 0 Down 0

Brice Carruthers on Jun 6, 2012 at 9:33 am

No Jackie, NOT the same planners that "botched" Whistle Bend. ...sigh....Whistle Bend is entirely a Government of Yukon and City of Whitehorse endeavour. The Upper Tank Farm is being planned by a private sector consortium. Please be intelligent and check your facts, when you display your cynicism and negativity. Also, it was necessary to remove trees from Whistle Bend to have proper lot drainage in the design of the subdivision. Additionally, construction costs (already high) would have further escalated if contractors had to worry about working around trees (that future homeowners will likely be cutting down anyways). Higher construction costs get transferred on to future buyers in the form of more expensive lot values.

Up 0 Down 0

Jackie Ward on Jun 5, 2012 at 9:49 am

You mean the same planners who botched the entire Whistle Bend subdivision by cutting down all the trees? Common sense unfortunately is not taught in University.

Up 0 Down 0

Brice Carruthers on Jun 5, 2012 at 5:28 am

north_of_60 the answer is yes, in addition to a whole host of contaminants of potential environmental concern. The testing is very rigorous and comprehensive. As for the stigma, that's your call. There are plenty of things that can kill you. You can be paranoid, if you wish. I laugh at people that smoke a pack a day, eat red meat three times a week, and then get paranoid about cell phone signals giving them brain cancer. Be a nervous nellie if you wish.

Up 0 Down 0

Don Strickman on Jun 5, 2012 at 5:05 am

I thought the Feds just finished handing down their decision saying it would never be suitable for residential development and would only be available for industrial development if it could clear testing for two consecutive years. Why is the City/YG now ignoring that decision....which shut down the last would be developers???

Up 0 Down 0

jack p on Jun 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm

north_of_60: The tank farm estate has been off limits for years as the area was cleaned up.

Mind you, I won't be rushing to buy a lot on formerly contaminated land!

Up 0 Down 0

Jackie Ward on Jun 4, 2012 at 8:50 am

Contaiminated soil? Thanks, but no thanks.

Up 0 Down 0

north_of_60 on Jun 4, 2012 at 8:00 am

Any gasoline stored there would have contained lead. Has the site been tested for this dangerous pollutant?

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

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.