Whitehorse Daily Star

Purchase property, city officials advise council

Instead of signing off on a rezoning bid, the city could find itself shelling out cash to buy a private property off Fish Lake Road.

By Stephanie Waddell on September 18, 2012

Instead of signing off on a rezoning bid, the city could find itself shelling out cash to buy a private property off Fish Lake Road.

At Monday evening's city council meeting, members were presented with a staff recommendation that they reject Erik Nyland's rezoning application for his 2.3-hectare piece of land and "enter into discussions for purchase of the property, so that it may be retained as a wilderness area.”

The proposal came forward in the report on the public hearing held last week for the rezoning application, which would see the site go from being Future Planning to Country Residential 1.

Nyland, a proponent with Raven's Ridge Development, wants to build his own home and a secondary building on the site. As he told council, he's been planning to do so for years.

During the public hearing, numerous delegates argued against the plan, noting the area is highly valued for its wilderness.

It serves as part of a wildlife corridor, and many Whitehorse residents enjoy bird watching and other recreational pursuits there.

Residents also took issue with plans for a powerline that would cross McIntyre Creek and run up a steep ridge to his land.

They also objected to the impact that would have on the local bird population, as well as an access road that would run to the property through an area designated as parkland in the city's Official Community Plan (OCP).

Nyland indicated he would be willing to keep his property off-grid, instead relying on things like solar panels and a generator to power his home.

A piece of the road is already there in the form of a rough trail as well.

Last night, two delegates continued to argue against the rezoning.

"I think McIntyre Creek is such a phenomenon,” said Rosh Govindasamy, a resident of the Raven's Ridge neighbourhood, adding the area is "bursting with wildlife.”

Meanwhile, Michael Bendall, who's building his own home in Raven's Ridge, continued to urge the city to "uphold the principles” of the OCP and not allow the development to happen.

"This will affect us all,” he said, noting he didn't want to see the area destroyed by development.

Council members were quick to question whether the two property owners had any of the same concerns when the first section of Raven's Ridge, where their properties are, was developed.

Bendall noted he had contacted the city at that time with concerns, while Govindasamy noted she didn't know of the city's OCP when she purchased her lot.

She also noted that while the first phase of Raven's Ridge had an impact, she always felt that at least there was still the other side of McIntyre Creek for the wildlife and birds where Nyland's property is.

In making the recommendation to look at purchasing the property, city planner Mike Gau agreed the proposal doesn't fit with the city's OCP, which promotes more compact development that makes use of existing infrastructure.

"Examined strictly from the need to better use land that could hold residential development, adding one dwelling unit to an area that is currently vacant could be viewed as a positive towards achieving this objective,” states his eight-page report to council.

"However, this development fails on all other accounts. It adds a large amount of highly inefficient infrastructure in terms of a very long access road used solely to access one property; it is not conducive towards the usage of transit or active transportation; and it causes development within the middle of what otherwise would be a large relatively intact wilderness area.

"The negative impacts here (road expansion, fragmentation of habitat, implications for emergency response) outweigh the positives (addition of one housing unit).”

If council turns down the rezoning bid, Gau continued, the city could approach Nyland about buying the site. It would use the land bank reserve, which currently has nearly $2.8 million in it.

Council will vote on the rezoning at its meeting next week.

Comments (4)

Up 0 Down 0

fred norris on Sep 19, 2012 at 12:51 am

Mr Nyland wants to build a house, not an aluminum smelter.

Considering the rezoning trend that has swept the city in the last few years, it makes no sense to deny this one. Let's be honest here, if the city buys this property back, it will only be a matter of a few years before some other developer with deep pockets comes along and has it rezoned to build more condos on it. The "wilderness" designation won't mean anything.

Up 0 Down 0

Stan on Sep 18, 2012 at 12:54 pm

"However, this development fails on all other accounts. It adds a large amount of highly inefficient infrastructure in terms of a very long access road used solely to access one property; it is not conducive towards the usage of transit or active transportation; and it causes development within the middle of what otherwise would be a large relatively intact wilderness area.

"The negative impacts here (road expansion, fragmentation of habitat, implications for emergency response) outweigh the positives (addition of one housing unit).”

The people concerned with the negative effects of this property may win in this situation. However, the road has been built- has it not? And I know of properties in similar situations where birds and mammals can become habituated to both structures and people. There would have to be restictions to reduce bear interactions etc but the eagles would likely be comfortable being very close to human presence.

Up 0 Down 0

Saddened Yukoner on Sep 18, 2012 at 10:37 am

Wow! So now because these people decide they want the whole area to themselves, they want the rest of us to pay to keep it for them. Hmmmm! Does this sound a wee bit shady? This developer deserves to keep the land he bought. He just wants to live there. It is absolutely unfair that some people purchased property, developed it and now do not want anyone else to live there. This guy helped you to develop your properties. Where in the world is the empathy and understanding that was shown to you when you purchased this property! All of this is that "not in my backyard" mentality that was not in effect when the properties were purchased.

Up 0 Down 0

YukonAnn on Sep 18, 2012 at 8:05 am

Raven's Ridge should not have even been allowed to enter development either.What a bunch of NIMBYS

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.