The city's push for new residential development in Porter Creek and Crestview clearly goes against the wishes of the people, says Jeff Marynowski, president of the Porter Creek Community Association.

While he can see the benefits of denser neighbourhoods in the city, "We live in a democracy,” he said in an interview at a public meeting last night. At that gathering, he outlined the opposition to the five infill sites proposed for residential development.

At the meeting, Marynowski provided residents with the results of the public input session held earlier on the Porter Creek infill.

He pointed out there was at least 50-per-cent opposition to any sort of development at each site, a number city officials did not provide to the media at a news conference on the matter last week.

Those numbers are problematic though and can be misleading, planning manager Mike Gau explained in an interview this morning. That's why the figures weren't provided on city information boards at last night's meeting, he added.

"The numbers are really dicey to use and we didn't want to confuse the public,” he said.

Gau said the city was not asking residents if they favour the infill proposals, but rather how they wanted to see the areas developed.

That meant some residents who may be opposed to development may have answered the question directly, stating what type of housing they'd want to see if development were to happen. Others, meanwhile, stated outright they were opposed to any development.

"We didn't ask those questions, but we got those answers,” he said.

The city spent two years revamping the Official Community Plan (OCP), asking the public about infill and finding that 72 per cent of people favoured the concept overall throughout the city.

The sites in Porter Creek and Crestview were among 15 throughout the city – most being in Porter Creek because it has most of the available land.

Given the OCP's direction, the recent infill meetings were held not to ask whether residents oppose or favour development in those areas, but rather how they should be developed, he said.

Council will have the opportunity to vote on whether development will go ahead when the rezoning and subsequent subdivision of the sites come forward.

The areas would be at 12th Avenue and Centennial Street, on 14th Avenue near the Guild Hall, the north end of Elm Street, the south side of Boxwood Crescent and, in Crestview, on Klukshu Avenue near Rainbow Road.

While Gau hopes residents will keep in mind the numbers are somewhat misleading, the largest opposition expressed came in adding new homes to Elm Street, with 65 per cent stating they oppose any development.

Another 10 per cent were in favour of single-family residential, eight per cent supported multiple-family, five per cent wanted single-family homes that included infrastructure and three per cent each favoured duplexes that encompassed infrastructure and duplexes with the children's park.

The city's suggestion, provided after the consultation for the area, would see a 4,030-square-metre multi-family lot and two 834-square-metre single-family lots with a road connection linking Elm Street with Versluice Place and a 30-metre riparian setback.

Sixty-one per cent of respondents stated opposition for any development at the 12th Avenue site, with 14 per cent calling for mixed single-family and duplex zoning.

A further nine per cent wanted single-family zoning, and three per cent called for duplexes.

A draft made by city planners after the consultation suggests two lots at 1,098 square metres and 768 square metres, with the larger lot being enough space for a duplex.

The length of each lot would be limited to 45 metres to reduce the potential conflicts with a toboggan hill behind the new properties. A trail connection at the site is also proposed to be relocated.

Near the Guild Hall site, just over half of those providing input – 53 per cent – wanted no development, while 19 per cent called for single-family residential, eight per cent called for duplexes and a children's park, six per cent wanted single-family homes and the children's park, and three per cent called for a mix of single-family and duplex homes.

City officials have suggested if the infill goes ahead, the playground currently sitting on the site near the Guild Hall would be taken down and replaced with a tots' park two blocks away at Elm Street and 14th Avenue.

Revenue from the lot sales would pay for the replacement, along with work to rehabilitate Versluice Meadows.

At the Boxwood Crescent site, 50 per cent stated they didn't want any development.

Twenty-one per cent suggested single-family residential homes on the site and four per cent suggested a mix of single-family and duplexes to the site, which planners have suggested include five single-family properties, ranging from 955 square metres to 1,113 square metres, and could also accommodate duplexes.

Planners also suggestd lot boundaries be pulled back from a slope in order to retain trees.

The Crestview site had the lowest stated opposition, at 38 per cent.

Another 28 per cent wanted to see single-family developments, with 13 per cent each showing support for duplexes as well as a mix of single-family and duplex homes and another three per cent each stating support for multi-family or selecting a different option.

There, planners have suggested five single-family lots in the range of 625 square metres to 813 square metres.

Residents had no problem stating their views to city planners, with a number arguing they want the sites to remain as they are.

As Gerry Steers recalled, when she bought her Boxwood Crescent property back in 1993, she was assured the property across the street would remain zoned Environmental Protection.

"Suddenly,” in 2011, she said, the city wants to rezone it for residential use.

She chose the location based on the assumption the area across the street would remain protected, offering her the quieter quality of life she was looking for when buying a home.

"It's my quality of life at stake here,” Steers said. If the land is sensitive, she asked, how can it be changed for residential use? She compared it to a person who has an allergy.

The allergy just doesn't go away, she said as planner Mike Ellis noted more recent studies show the area isn't as sensitive as it was once believed.

He also told her there's no provision in the territorial Municipal Act, which governs municipalities in the territory, that says zoning is required to stay the same.

Questioned how she would address the need for housing in Whitehorse, Steers argued there is space elsewhere to accommodate apartments.

The city could start there, along with speeding up work on Whistle Bend, the next major residential area being developed in town on Porter Creek's lower bench. she said.

Marynowski was also quick to point to Whistle Bend, suggesting it should have been done sooner. As it stands, lots there aren't expected to go on sale until the fall of 2012.

City officials have stated in the past that even with the addition of Whistle Bend, the infill areas identified will still be needed to meet the city's housing demands.

Also pointing to the need for lots was Yukon Real Estate Association president Mike Racz. If this goes ahead, he pointed out, these would be the only lots available for sale this year other than those already sold in Ingram.

He pointed out city staff made concessions with the plans after listening to local residents with proposals such as the rerouting of a trail, retention of trees and so on.

"I think it's not as bad as it could be,” local resident Joanne Oberg said after looking over the plans, though she noted it seems that despite opposition, the city is pushing the plan through anyway.

It's expected the rezoning of the sites will come forward in March and April, with a public hearing on the matter tentatively scheduled for council's April 11 meeting.

Council typically votes on whether to go ahead with a rezoning two weeks after the public hearing.