Residents opposed to a bylaw proposal to rid the city of caretaker accommodations in industrial areas came out in force Monday evening demanding that council quash the idea.

Filling nearly every seat in council chambers, local residents with interests in industrially-zoned property voiced opposition to the proposed bylaw. It ranged from concerns over financial losses to threats of a class-action lawsuit.

The bylaw is known as Bylaw Z-13-2005. It was proposed by members of the city's planning department, who sought to remove staff accommodation/caretaker facilities from the city's bylaw to avoid having the areas used for residential purposes.

The current bylaw states a single staff/accommodation facility may be permitted where the nature of the business requires 24-hour onsite supervision and a resident caretaker is in the public interest.

Under the current law, a staff accommodation/caretaker facility is defined as: A building or portion of a building used to provide onsite accommodation by the employer for persons employed on the property, or a residence for the site caretaker.

Currently, such accommodations are permitted in areas that are zoned Highway Commercial, Service Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Quarry, Public Service, Public Utilities and Parks and Recreation.

When proposing the bylaw, planning manager Lesley Cabott said the caretaker provision should be removed from the bylaw to 'avoid confusion' over what type of buildings are permitted under the law as some people applying for development permits were planning on building their primary residence on an industrial site.

'It (the provisions) are supposed to be for caretakers who look after residences, not for residences (themselves),' Cabott said.

Speaking in turn, a number of Whitehorse residents voiced their disapproval of the proposal. They demanded that council 'work with the business community' to ensure that business owners have the ability to reside in industrial zones to be able to conduct business and protect their property from theft.

Speaking against the proposal, local business owner Chistene Doke presented a petition signed by 579 people who opposed the plan, calling on council to consider the needs of business owners.

'The city needs to step back and look at the situation,' Doke said. 'We need to think pro-development, pro-business.'

She said a number of people are upset with the plan. They include people who had purchased industrial lots in the Mount Sima industrial area under the impression their developments would be approved, only to have their applications rejected after they'd already bought the property.

'These people spoke to the city before-hand and were assured their plans were acceptable,' she said.

Doke said she spoke with the members of the RCMP who supported business owners' position that living next to their businesses in industrial areas is a theft-deterrent.

In an interview this morning, Whitehorse RCMP Sgt. John Sutherland said while the RCMP have no official position on the bylaw, having someone live in or near their businesses in an industrial area would likely act as a deterrent to theft.

Ian Pumphrey also spoke out against the proposal. Removing caretaker facilities from the bylaw, he said, would hamper business and would likely lead to a 'class-action lawsuit' against the city from business owners looking to recoup losses on their investments.

Pumphrey said he felt the bylaw was proposed by city officials to 'eliminate controversy' and to avoid dealing with complaints on the issue.

Dan Lang, a veteran realtor who is a shareholder in a construction company in Porter Creek, said he was concerned about the bylaw because it would lead to insurance problems for the business owners.

'This would make it a lot more difficult to (obtain) insurance for property,' he said.

Business owner Anne King said she would like council to consider the green factor of the proposal, which, if passed, King explained, would mean more people commuting to their businesses and adding pollution to the environment.

'I can't think of anything greener than combining your home and your business,' she said.

Dylan Laird, who also opposed the bylaw, asked council members if they were prepared to accept the losses the bylaw would lead to in their tax base.

'If industrial properties are devalued by 20 per cent (because homes are not allowed on them), what would that do to your tax base?' he asked.

Mayor Ernie Bourassa began the public hearing by stating that council is opposed to the proposal as it stood.

He ended it by telling the Star that 'it was dead on its feet.'

He said council will work with the business owners to come up with a solution which would benefit everyone.