Yellowknife council approves Burwash Hill development

A housing development on top of an urban Yellowknife park will go ahead after city councillors backed it on Wednesday over opposition from some residents.

The City of Yellowknife had sought to rezone part of Burwash Hill – between Con Road and Burwash Drive – from “natural area” to “residential central one” and subdivide the land to allow for housing, though a portion would remain a park.

Residents contesting that plan had argued the land is already a public park under a city bylaw. One, Toby Kruger, said ignoring that designation to pursue new homes would demonstrate that “protections don’t matter and rules can be sacrificed.”

On Wednesday, council unanimously agreed to rezone the area. Doing so advances it toward development. Multiple councillors argued the city’s housing shortage – and lack of land available for greenfield building – left them with no choice.

The city has for years maintained that the NWT government is not releasing land within the municipal boundary quickly enough to meet housing demand, forcing City Hall to rely on infill – homes built in gaps within existing neighbourhoods.

“We have been trying for our entire term through several different approaches, with no results, to gain access to more land,” said councillor Tom McLennan.

“At some point, we have to act in a meaningful way.

“Given our experience over many years as a city, I believe it’s difficult to rely on the GNWT to be a collaborative partner when it comes to land availability, and this means we, as a city and as a council, have to make difficult choices.”

McLennan said the benefits of new homes ultimately outweighed the concerns expressed by residents.

“We hear this often: ‘We support housing, but it should go somewhere else,'” said deputy mayor Rob Warburton, characterizing some residents’ views.

Warburton said that attitude cannot prevail as the housing problem is sufficiently large to require action “everywhere all at once” and, even then, demand would not be fully met.

“It’s not a ‘don’t build here, build somewhere else.’ We need it everywhere,” he said.

“We had over a decade where we didn’t build anything in this city, and that deficiency is going to haunt us for decades … that hole is massive. We added over 450 units and our vacancy rate went down. That’s telling you there’s a massive demand we’re not even meeting right now.

“Nobody just wants stuff beside them. And if I’ve got to pick between upsetting neighbours and building housing units, this is not a hard decision for me.”

‘Disappointing but not surprising’

The city attempted to address the issue of Burwash Hill’s status as a public park during a final discussion before Wednesday’s vote.

City staff suggested a council vote to rezone the land, followed by subdividing it, would change the nature of Burwash Hill and assign it new lot, block and plan numbers, in effect wiping it from the city’s maps. “The bylaw will be pointing at nothing,” acting planning director Greg Littlefair said.

City manager Stephen Van Dine acknowledged the parks bylaw “will eventually need to be dealt with.” Mayor Ben Hendriksen said he would bring forward a motion at a scheduled August 26 meeting directing that the bylaw be amended.

Following council’s decision, Kruger said he found it “deeply disappointing but not surprising given the pressure councillors are under.”

“Any time elected officials bend the rules in the face of pressure, all citizens should be concerned,” he wrote in a message.

“I understand loud and clear council’s motivation to move forward with this amendment. But if they’re going to do so, then I think the public expects them to do so according to rules set by previous councils and by the legislature.”

While some councillors were less vocal than others in their support, councillor Garett Cochrane said developing the land was “the right decision.”

“I am fully confident that within the next few years there will be families living there,” Cochrane said, adding the development would offer some residents “the same social mobility that people who moved into that neighbourhood 40 years ago” enjoyed.