Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Mike Ellis

Infilling plan would create more country lots

The city could be closer to adding several country residential lots after next week’s council meeting.

By Stephanie Waddell on September 19, 2017

The city could be closer to adding several country residential lots after next week’s council meeting.

That’s when members will vote on first reading of a bylaw.

The bylaw would rezone a number of areas to allow for country residential development as part of the city’s plans to infill residential properties in existing neighbourhoods.

The rezoning plans would see:

• a 5.1 hectare parcel on Couch Road rezoned from Parks and Recreation (PR) to Country Residential 1(RC1);

• a 3.2 ha site on Talus Drive rezoned from PR, Greenbelt (PG) and Environmental Protection (PE) to RC1;

• a 2.03 ha area also on Talus Drive rezoned from PE to RC1;

• a 2.71 ha site on Fireweed Drive rezoned from PG to RC1;

• a 3.16 ha site also on Fireweed Drive rezoned also from PG to RC1; and

• a 2.08 ha site on Salmon Trail from Future Planning (FP) to RC1.

Along with the changes to allow for more country residential homes, there’s also a property on Magpie Road that would be rezoned from Neighbourhood Commercial (CN) and Restricted Residential (RR).

Other residential infill sites are also being considered for Wann Road, Sandpiper Drive and Wilson Drive, but do not require any zoning changes.

“Council may choose to pass a resolution if they support development in these locations,” city planner Mike Ellis noted in a report to council on the zoning changes.

In bringing forward the recommendation council move forward to first reading on the zoning changes, Ellis acknowledged the work to plan for the Whistle Bend neighbourhood.

“However, it is important to augment development in that neighbourhood with new opportunities throughout the city to ensure there is an adequate supply of housing and help ease escalation in housing prices,” he noted.

It was also highlighted that while developing country residential lots is not seen as sustainable, “it adds more tax revenue along existing roads, which helps increase revenue for maintenance costs.

“Additionally, adding units to existing neighbourhoods, where there is already a significant impact; it prolongs the need to move to larger undisturbed wilderness areas.”

Council members have a week to consider how they will vote on first reading next Monday. Some members had questions for Ellis after his presentation.

Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu wondered if the city has had a lot of inquiries about the availability of country residential lots.

Ellis didn’t have exact numbers. He did say that during the first phase of public consultation, there was a “notable” number of people wondering when country residential lots within the city would become available.

Coun. Dan Boyd confirmed that council could pass the rezoning on some sites and opt not to pass it on others.

Curteanu then questioned when would be the right time to look at that.

Ellis replied that typically, those kinds of amendments come forward at second reading, but could be proposed at any point in the process.

Coun. Samson Hartland, meanwhile, noted concerns specifically with the possibility of more lots on Couch Road in the Hidden Valley subdivision off the Mayo Road.

As Samson pointed out, the city’s proposal, combined with a private developer’s plan for another site nearby, could create up to 11 new lots on Couch Road.

He stressed the importance of hydrological and geological testing being done and taking into account the total number of country residential lots that could be developed in the area.

Ellis was also tasked by council members with bringing back information to council on the amount of greenspace that would remain in each neighbourhood.

He was also instructed to notify council whether staff in the territory’s Department of Highways and Public Works have been consulted on the possible sharp increase in lots in Hidden Valley.

First reading of the rezoning will come forward next week. If it is passed, a public hearing would be held on Oct. 23.

A report to council would follow, with second and third readings anticipated for Nov. 14.

Comments (16)

Up 2 Down 0

Thomas Brewer on Sep 25, 2017 at 12:31 pm

@Groucho d'North

I think the various landholder FN's would be better served to build rental units (apartments or houses) on their lands as few reasonable people will build their own house @$275/sq foot on land that they don't own... look what happened to those that did in BC back in 2000: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/vancouver-residents-fighting-musqueam-lease-increases-1.181944

Up 6 Down 11

Salar on Sep 23, 2017 at 5:01 pm

Gotta love the Nimbys. They never give on the 'I can, but'....the City just has to develop where it hasn't yet...only way to avoid the selfish...and really, 20 more CR lots are gonna burn the City down?!...drama queen(s).

Up 20 Down 1

Groucho d'North on Sep 21, 2017 at 3:03 pm

So what's the latest news on the various First Nations opening up their land to residential development? They are the largest land owners in the community yet we are not hearing any progress on their plans to get into the property leasing business. We are only being told a portion of the land development story here.

Up 12 Down 7

Jayne W on Sep 21, 2017 at 1:08 pm

@lynx, Of course we jump all over articles likes these. Comments like yours actually helps bring to light the poor planning from the COW and YTG Government.

Up 24 Down 6

Reality check on Sep 21, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Maybe time for a class action lawsuit against the COW! Why?
Simple: Fraud!
Example: A homeowner bought a country residential lot surrounded by (or even just adjacent to) Parks and Recreation (PR), Greenbelt (PG) or Environmental Protection (PE) zoned lots. Of course, he's believing that it will hold its value and to have a nice and quiet area to live in.
Suddenly the city changes all that, rezones that area and allows to build houses, cut trees and so on...
I'm pretty sure that there are many homeowners in this situation and it is definitely not right! It has to stop!
But complaining here doesn't change anything - time for some action, folks!

Up 17 Down 4

Julius Caesar on Sep 20, 2017 at 9:28 pm

I guess the City wants to go the way of costly litigation.

Up 20 Down 14

lynx on Sep 20, 2017 at 8:03 pm

Wow.... It sure didn't take long for the NIMBYs (Bobby Bitman, Brian Langevin, Jayne W) to jump all over this! I expect more to follow. You folks now have your little piece of heaven and you want to shut the door or at least make it as hard as possible for any others get theirs. Either that or you are playing the realty game and trying to ensure housing prices/rentals stay sky high. Hidden Valley should absolutely be developed for housing. This is what development looks like in any normal growing city, if you don't like it, move further out, the Yukon has no shortage of space. Also, for what its worth............the NIMBYs on the Takhini Hotsprings road are probably the worst lol.

Up 13 Down 5

Miles Ocean on Sep 20, 2017 at 5:40 pm

We do need more and more lots in town!
Move the Robert Service campground which is outdated and put lots in there for wealthy people. Let's put that campground somewhere across the river.
We could put a high rise or two in the Fireweed Market area. People would get used to it eventually.

There is land by the FH Collins high school and along the Millennium trail that could be used for housing. People should be allowed to live in these areas. Who cares what the zoning currently is, let's put motorized trails in these areas and put housing in greenbelts and Environmental Protection areas.

By all means do the planning first and then have surveys and half baked consultation with local residents and the public. When the plans are on track or essentially finalized then continue with consultation with First Nations as an afterthought; this is what was done with the Chadburn Lake Park.

Council knows that most people are just complainers. Sure people have sincere concerns and are emotional about losing greenbelts and environmentally significant areas but they do not understand city planning. Council has a vision to infill where they can regardless of current zoning. The length of time Mary Lake and Cowley residents have enjoyed what they have out there carries no weight.

This is the new age of half baked City of Whitehorse planning. Who is at fault really? The planners have a job to do but our council makes really informed decisions that benefit all of us.

A little satire here.

Up 28 Down 6

Jayne W on Sep 20, 2017 at 2:33 pm

How can anyone dislike readers comments on this article? I am amazed at the residents that think it is okay to take away zoned green space/parks for future development in Country Residential area. There is only one on the list that is zoned already for future planning, so people would expect something eventually. I do not disagree on the fact we need more housing of all types, but these band aid solutions just do not make sense.There are RC1 zoned areas already in these neighbourhoods why are they not being looked at? This whole process has been flawed since the start.

Up 23 Down 4

Brian Langevin on Sep 20, 2017 at 12:33 pm

@ Bobby Bitmaan -
You nailed it..
The area in Hidden Valley is currently zoned PR ( Parks and Recreation) and so it should stay..
Right next to a primary school.
Why is it when other areas of the City are developed there is a need to set aside playground areas? Because it is important - that is why.

This is all about the revenue. Let's face the truth. The City knows all too well that there is no infrastructure ( sewer and water ) to be put in place on these lots. It is a win win for them..tax base goes up and no development costs other than a survey.
And to say they will increase services along these roads and in these areas. I highly doubt that. We don't get bus service, we don't get garbage service. If it were not for the School on MacPherson Rd, I am sure we would not get our roads plowed more than twice a year.
It would be interesting to find out, at what cost these proposed lots will go for.

Regardless..more planning is needed and adherence to some basic development principles had better be adhered to. The consequences of rushing these lots through with no thought to some of the issues I raised in my previous comment could be severe, not only to the surrounding area, but to all of Whitehorse.

Up 26 Down 6

ProScience Greenie on Sep 20, 2017 at 12:28 pm

Time for CoW citizens to demand recall legislation so elected officials can be removed when they fail to represent the people. This bunch of egotistical self-serving lame ducks need to go.

Up 25 Down 1

Josey Wales on Sep 20, 2017 at 8:14 am

Really....? "Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu wondered if the city has had a lot of inquiries about the availability of country residential lots."
To even ask that question illustrates very well how tone deaf our nobles are. I do not have any numbers myself, but speculate exponentially more folks desire CRL than rainbows on our streets.

They are something else these nobles that are so disconnected from reality that clearly STUPID questions are regular ones.
Back into your echo chamber Josey haters, nobles carry on...as you do.
So absolutely clueless and clearly blind.

"As long as I got mine" ...a far better city moto than the laughable
Striving for perfection...

Up 23 Down 3

Miles Ocean on Sep 19, 2017 at 5:59 pm

No mention of the many sincere presentations to council and the surveys.

Have to say council has an agenda to create these lots despite what anyone says.

Up 31 Down 1

joe on Sep 19, 2017 at 5:09 pm

So they don't allow any of the mt-sima crowd to sub-divide their lots ( after letting two lucky owners do so) citing issues with septic and water supply and now they want to add more lots in the same areas. These are the fools running our city.

Up 19 Down 2

Brian Langevin on Sep 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm

Here..in part.. is a copy of a letter that I sent to my MLA, Brad Cathers.
I also sent the letter to the Mayor and Council, the City Fire Chief-Kevin Lyslo along with a few other Honorable members of our government.
I am not opposed to the infill program, but it has to be done with more planning. My area of greatest concern is "fire protection" in these rural areas.
I live in the Hidden Valley area-you will note the reference to the infill in this area. It should be noted that there is the potential for much more country residential in this area than just what the City is proposing.
A private developer has recently made available many lots in Hidden Valley and just across the highway is the Ta'an country residential sub-division that sooner or later will be developed.

To date I have not received a response to my letter.

Here "in part" is my letter.

"Have you or the current governments, both territorial and municipal, given any consideration to putting some form of fire smart legislation as a pre-development condition on these proposed country residential lots?
Are there any plans in any of these proposed country developments to make utilization of natural or man made fire breaks? Vegetation thinning? Building code restrictions in terms of siding and roofing types? The Hidden Valley sub-division is one of the furthest residential sub-divisions from the City fire hall. In fact we have two rural fire stations that are closer, namely Hootalinqua and Ibex Valley fire departments. Are these volunteer stations trained for forest fire suppression? Are they even permitted to be first responders with-in the City limits? Will there be mandatory building codes to ensure that each of these country residential properties has a sufficient source of water in reserve to ensure that responding fire departments have a source of water to rely on? As you know, we don't have City hydrants in these areas.
Escape routes and safety corridors?
Macpherson, where the Hidden Valley School is located, has one road in or out. Could you imagine the chaos should a major incident block egress routes at the MacPherson/North Klondike Hwy intersection?
We recently had an accident involving the roll over and fuel spill at the Mayo Rd-Alaska Highway intersection. This resulted in an extended closure of the two major arterial links serving our Wilderness City from the west and north. I can't imagine what the consequences would have been if a wildland fire had broken out from this incident.

One can only assume, because of the proximity of the Hidden Valley School, that the proposed new lots in the Hidden Valley area will be quite attractive to those with young, growing, families. This in itself will lead to an increase in young children having access to the surrounding forested areas to utilize as their playground. To build forts, biking trails and yes, small fires, in these new found areas.

As a first responder to seasonal interface forest fires, I have and am currently seeing, here in British Columbia, the devastating impact of poor country residential planning in regards to country residential development in heavily forested areas. If you don't understand what I am referring to, one only needs to pay attention to current events in regards what is going on in British Columbia. It is only a matter of time before the City of Whitehorse will be facing, and hopefully not dealing with, similar fire concerns.

It is not a question of if, but a question of when!

As a 58 year resident of the Yukon and with over thirty years in aerial fire suppression, as an air tanker pilot, having responded locally, nationally and internationally, I trust you will give credibility to my observations and concerns on this issue.

Now, before further development takes place, is the time to address the concerns outlined above. Not after the fact."

Up 24 Down 5

Bobby Bitman on Sep 19, 2017 at 4:43 pm

Environmental Protection, Greenbelt, and Recreation. These designations do not mean: Future housing. There is only one location on the list that is actually zoned future development.

Is this what those zoning designations really mean? 'for now' Until the city decides to change the zoning to do whatever they want? That would be my question if I were a councillor.

It's like the tax situation where people are saying territorially, the Taxpayer Protection Act can be changed unilaterally by the Liberals so that they can avoid a referendum on creating a sales tax.

Do any other citizens have a problem with this?! Because I do!

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.