Yellowknife (Nov 22/04) - Yellowknife's 2004 general plan is one vote away from adoption by city council, following a long and often heated debate Monday evening.

Once again, the issue of residential development on Tin Can Hill proved to be a major sticking point.

Coun. Mark Heyck, after watching two of his previous motions fail, tried to convince council to accept a watered-down version that would have kept residential development of Tin Can Hill in the general plan but delayed the implementation of a development scheme for the area.

Heyck has been trying to keep Tin Can Hill preserved for recreational use.

He chastised other councillors who insisted the development of Tin Can Hill was an issue that could be argued at another date, likely by another council further down the road.

The general plan envisions city growth over the next 20 years and indicates development on Tin Can Hill will likely take place by 2010.

"This is not something fuzzy and out there in the future," said Heyck, insisting putting it in the plan ensures that it will be developed.

"The Tin Can development scheme is a primary initiative, not secondary."

Coun. Blake Lyons countered by saying he is frustrated by lengthy delays in freeing up new land while the federal government and Yellowknives Dene negotiate land claims.

He said the city must jump at the opportunity to claim Tin Can Hill while it still can.

"We have a duty to provide housing for people in Yellowknife," said Lyons.

"I can appreciate your wish behind this, but I've been frustrated for too long."

Despite favourable votes from Couns. Kevin O'Reilly and Wendy Bisaro, Heyck's amendment was defeated 5-3.

O'Reilly condemned the general plan altogether because he said it failed to include long-term budget projections, as required under the NWT Planning Act.

He said the lack of foresight will likely heighten perceptions that the city is planning development poorly. He pointed to this year's citizens survey that showed only 45 per cent of residents thought the city was doing a good job planning growth.

"I think it's a critical failure of the plan and contributes to the lack of confidence," said O'Reilly.

His objection raised the ire of Coun. Bob Brooks, who asked administration if any previous city general plan failed to pass scrutiny by the territorial government, who has final say on the plan.

City administrator Max Hall said, so far, none have.

"Look at the title of the document," Brooks demanded.

"It says general plan. It shouldn't be specific with the timeline of any sort of numbers."

Ultimately, council voted in favour of the general plan, 7-1, on a second reading vote, with O'Reilly the sole councillor opposed to it.

It now awaits only one more vote on third reading, likely at the next council meeting, Dec. 6.