thousandlashesdotca

As promised, the Town of Hudson has posted a more detailed list of changes to proposed bylaws 767 and 768 replacing or modifying the the town’s urban planning regulations.

But it still hasn’t spelled out how the current council proposes to tax new or replacement residential development in the town centre — or what parts of town will be subject to this reinterpretation.

The list — posted Friday on the town’s website — compares only those sections changed as the result of concerns raised in the public consultation process. It does not permit comparison with urban planning bylaws currently in force. 

Still unclear is how the revisions to draft bylaw 767 will “redefine Hudson’s central sector to include only areas for potential for new residential development at higher density.”

The original draft bylaw had proposed to apply a 20% land/cash “contribution” on new residential development anywhere within Hudson’s urban perimeter, which represents nearly half of Hudson’s total land area (Hudson’s Valleys, Alstonvale and a handful of neighbourhoods in the east and west ends are excluded from the town’s urban perimeter because they are still classified as agricultural.)

The most significant changes:

Wetlands: 

— The 15-metre shoreline buffer will allow exceptions when the wider buffer makes it impossible to build;

— Withdrawal of the town’s permission to businesses with permits from the provincial environment ministry to carry out work in wetlands;  

— Withdrawal of restrictions on hunting, trapping and harvesting in wetlands.

Trees:

—The minimum diameter of trees allowed to be cut without a permit has been restored to 10 centimetres; 

— Tree-cutting fines have been revised to comply with provincial requirements adopted in December; 

— Golf courses lose the right to cut up to 10% of their trees per year;

— The Town will now pay for assessment of whether one of Hudson’s 188 “remarkable trees” needs to be felled;

— Tree-cutting setbacks around pools and accessory buildings have been increased.

Parks and greenspace tax: 

— The 10% parks tax has been removed for additions or renovations unless the purpose is to add two or more units to an existing building or to demolish an existing building to make way for an apartment or condo complex (still 10%);

— The contribution for construction of a new single-family residence is being cut from 10% to 2.5%;

— No contribution is required for the demolition and reconstruction within 24 months of of a single-family residence.

As announced, residents will be advised of the revisions at a public meeting (7 p.m. Wednesday, April 24 at the Community Centre). Like the draft bylaws, they are not subject to approval by referendum. Unlike the bylaws, they are not subject to further consultation prior to their adoption at the May council meeting.

The main concern should be how these revisions are worded in the revised bylaw. The conforming usages in Hudson’s residential and commercial sectors are clearly identified in bylaws 525 and 526, Hudson’s current zoning bylaws. How is this proposed central sector identified? One might infer that it would include the stretches of Main and Cameron where intensive development has long been rumoured, but it could also be applied to the quadrilateral between Mount Pleasant, Côte St. Charles, Lakeview and the railway right of way. 

We have received mixed signals from the current council over its intentions for the core. Mayor Chloe Hutchison has hinted in the past at the possibility of a plan particulier d’urbanisme, a provincial urban planning instrument that allows a municipality to consult with property owners to come up with a comprehensive redevelopment plan without citizen input. Council recently approved a money resolution to hire a facilitator in discussions with developers.  

Last week, District 6 councillor Daren Legault posted: How is this any different from the idea that some people have: that any new development, any new construction in town should pay a levy up front to cover their “buy in” to the town’s existing infrastructure. I believe that the levy I mention was something you pushed for? Please correct me if if I’m wrong. The results that you now say you were worried about with the bylaw proposals would be no different in my opinion.

It’s a fair question, especially in light of my written comments to council in response to the public consultation:

I was extremely disappointed to note the absence of a section imposing connection fees on the developer. Most municipalities in North America charge developers the entire cost of connecting to existing infrastructure, plus any unforeseen connection costs incurred by the town. (Example: a still-valid development agreement signed by the town and the developer of Sandy Beach saddled Hudson taxpayers with roughly $350,000 in expenses.) Quebec has given municipalities the power to require that these costs of hooking up to water, sewers, drainage, roads, trails and other public infrastructure, so why is it not part of these proposed bylaws?

I ask that council consider taking it a step further by assessing any existing or future residential or commercial expansion the cost of replacing the capacity of our drinking water, sewage treatment and other municipal systems consumed by their project. Surely this is a far easier way to fundraise for a parks and greenspace fund than taxing renovations?

In that context, a levy on large-scale densification projects is logical. But what may be fair and equitable for a 20-unit apartment or condo project is neither fair nor equitable for a small infill project somewhere in the quadrilateral that characterizes the downtown core. Until residents get a clear view of what is being proposed, it’s a legitimate question that remains to be answered.

With the clock running out on its campaign to find legal ways to limit and shape development, Hudson’s administration is heading back to the people with minor tweaks to a controversial pair of draft zoning bylaws adopted in January.

In a message to residents sent out Tuesday (April 16), the town stated that modifications to bylaws 767 and 768 would be presented to residents at an information session (7 p.m. Wednesday, April 24 at the Shaar Community Centre, also broadcast live on Zoom).

Unlike two open houses and a mandatory public consultation in late January, it appears there will be minimal opportunity for public input, given the administration’s stated intent to vote on final adoption of the modified draft bylaws at the May 6 council meeting. They would come into force “approximately” 120 days later. 

Modifications highlighted: 

— Withdrawal of the financial contribution for parks, playgrounds, and natural area for renovations of 33% or more of the volume of a residential building; 

— Withdrawal of the financial contribution for the enlarging of commercial buildings; 

— Withdrawal of the financial contribution for changes of use of an existing building; 

— Reduction of the construction perimeter around accessory buildings and pools; 

— Withdrawal of the minimum diameter of 5 cm for a tree requiring a tree felling permit. The minimum diameter remains at 10 cm; 

— Withdrawal of the ban on hunting and harvesting in wetlands; 

— Update of the fines for tree felling without a permit to comply with the amounts established in the provincial law in effect since December 2023.

One significant change: the modifications propose to redefine the central sector to include only areas with potential for new residential development at higher density; this newly redefined zone is subject to the 20% contribution. We can assume this will directly impact property owners and developers along Main and Cameron.

The tweaks respond to the parts of the bylaw that elicited the greatest negative reaction at the Jan. 31 consultation and in the comments and responses from close to 800 people — 97% of them claiming to be Hudson residents — who answered an online survey. As well, more than 465 comments were submitted. 

Bylaw 767 proposed greater protection for Hudson’s trees, wetlands and bodies of water as well as a parks and greenspace surtax on a wide range of construction and renovation permits.

To gauge from the report by the consultant who oversaw the public meetings and survey, most residents reacted strongly to anything in the bylaw that could affect them. That included the reduction of the diameter of trees that could be cut without a permit from 10 to 5 cm and council’s proposal to levy a tax in cash, land or both on a list of permit applications for new construction and major renovations.  

Well over half of all respondents were either somewhat or very unfavourable to both, with close to 80% opposed to a tax grab on residential renovations of 33% or more by volume and a similar percentage opposed to a reduction in the size of trees requiring cutting permits. 

The best reading in consultant Marie-Helene Gauthier’s report are the condensed comments from residents on the rationale behind council’s parks and greenspace levy:

Participants call on the municipal council to conduct a comprehensive review of the section regarding contributions for parks, playgrounds, and natural areas in the draft by-law. They wonder if research has been conducted to explore more equitable alternatives and if a thorough assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and residential properties has been carried out. Although many recognize the importance of funding parks, especially to provide play spaces for children, they question the proposed approach to financing. For many, the current plan lacks clarity for proper understanding and represents a major obstacle to improving the living conditions of owners of already developed land. 

Several participants also question the need to increase revenues from this fund or seek additional sources of income, considering that the Town currently has a surplus. They point out that despite this surplus, parks and natural areas are barely maintained, and there is currently a deficit in recreational facilities. They therefore believe that the need for such a fund should be evaluated first and consider that the municipal council is currently proceeding with this process in reverse. 

In general, participants reject the idea of an additional financial contribution from them. They also express doubts about the actual use of these new revenues for parks, playgrounds, and natural areas, highlighting their lack of trust in this regard. They consider this contribution to be discriminatory and punitive, as it would result in double taxation, especially regarding renovation fees and the increase in property value resulting from these renovations. They fear that this contribution will penalize owners of small houses, those with more modest incomes or fixed budgets, retirees, first- time buyers, and discourage young families from settling in Hudson, which would have repercussions on the vitality of the town. Furthermore, they express concerns about the effects on the value of their properties. 

Participants raise several inconsistencies in the proposed activities to expand the contribution for parks, particularly in the context of establishing a fund for the protection of natural areas. They believe that the inclusion of various activities subject to this contribution could discourage densification. For example, many note that the inclusion of works, such as the development of an unfinished basement or the creation of intergenerational homes, in activities subject to a payment equivalent to 10 % of the land value, is nonsensical. These renovations do not increase the building’s footprint and do not require tree felling, unlike an extension or detached garages, which are exempt. Some feel that imposing a sum equivalent to 10 % of the land value or giving away a portion equivalent to 20 % of their land is extremely high and would require a study and evaluation based on projected revenues. Therefore, several believe that only activities with a negative impact on the environment should be subject to this contribution, to deter their realization. 

Moreover, several believe that the contribution for redevelopment projects is not justified and could discourage renovation projects or ensure that these projects escape municipal administration control. They also doubt the reliability of this source of funding. Furthermore, they unanimously oppose any additional financial burden for homeowners wishing to renovate their homes. Some also wonder how disagreements over the determination of the 33 % volume would be managed or if the land given up is appropriate for the intended purposes. They fear an additional burden on the urban planning department due to the complexity of implementation and question whether the costs of the disputes that will arise will be taken from the parks fund or will come from the general fund. 

Some wonder if the impacts on local businesses have been considered and point out that in commercial areas, many buildings require renovations and that it would be desirable to encourage these renovations to maintain a dynamic, viable, and healthy village instead of penalizing them. Others note that home construction has taken place in areas outside the central sectors and should therefore be included. For example, the Bellevue, Alstonvale, and Turtle Pond areas. 

Several suggestions have emerged from participants. For example, some suggest increasing the fees required for a permit, others propose keeping only the contribution for subdivisions, sparing landowners who have maintained land for several decades, using connectivity fees charged to real estate developers, reallocating the budget, taxing large developments, using existing provincial and federal grants, or adopting a borrowing by-law for the next 25 years to purchase lands targeted for development. 

In conclusion, Hudson residents invested time and thought in considering what is being presented as our roadmap for the future. If council’s response is summarized in a few minor tweaks to silence the loudest complainers, we’ve all wasted three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on this exercise.

I had hoped for better.

The Town of Hudson isn’t using its multi-million-dollar surpluses and cash reserves to best advantage, according to an audit of its fiscal procedures by the Quebec Municipal Commission (CMQ), the municipal affairs minister’s governance arm.

Worse, says the CMQ, there has been an historic lack of accountability and followup when it comes to knowing how tax dollars are being spent until it’s too late to do anything about it.

With an accumulated surplus in excess of $8M and long-term debt of close to $23M at the end of 2023, Hudson was one of three similar-sized towns (with Saint-Gabriel-de-Valcartier and Saint-Roch-de-l’Achigan) flagged last May for in-depth audits to determine why they were piling up year-over-year cash reserves instead of providing residents with services, leveraging infrastructure improvements or paying down long-term debt.

In Hudson’s case, the municipal affairs ministry had already noted the town’s total debt load per resident — $1.85 per $100 evaluation — because anything over $1 per $100 is considered high.

Posted this morning (Tuesday, Feb. 27) on the CMQ website, the audit will be be tabled at the March 4 council meeting. On March 11, financial consultants RCGT (Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton), mandated in 2023 to prepare the Town’s financial portrait and projection for 2023 to 2028, will present their report to residents, a fact the CMQ audit took into consideration.

Most of the 31-page document applies to all three municipalities, beginning with the observation that surpluses and reserves are not well integrated with the planning process. Councils and staff didn’t prioritise how or where the monies should be spent. Triennial investment plans (PTIs), adopted along with annual budgets, were concocted with minimal public input and didn’t conform to Cities and Towns Act requirements that funding sources be included. Although councillors discussed how PTI projects were to be funded, this wasn’t shared with the population, leading to a possible transparency issue with residents.  

Without transparency, there can be no accountability, the report continued. “Without the accountability that the citizens have a right to, a municipality can’t guarantee sustainable finances.” Without sustainable finances, a town makes itself vulnerable to unforeseen situations.

The CMQ’s second observation: none of the three municipalities has a formal framework for how they earmark their surpluses and cash reserves. In the case of Hudson and St. Gabriel, a lack of followup mechanisms means the management of these surpluses and reserves is left to individuals, with no guarantee the funds will be spent according to the town’s long-term strategic plan — if there is one.

The audit singles Hudson out for special mention on issues dating back to 2013, including:

— taxing property owners before the enabling loan bylaws were approved by Quebec or shifted from bridge financing to long-term debt, then failing to compensate them for the excess collected;

— failing to make clear the funding source for spending bylaws until the end of the fiscal year, long after decisions had already been made;

— shifting funds between earmarked surpluses without enabling resolutions.

Most of the allegations have already been the subject of management letters from the town’s external auditors. The overtaxing of property owners connected to the municipal sewer system  was dealt with by the previous council, although the victims were never compensated. 

“The report makes clear to me that the CMQ is prepared to blame the past and point to the bright future,” said a source familiar with the file. “It is positive [and] points to a future plan. Still curious what that is.”

Mayor Hutchison mentioned it in passing but most people probably missed it. For the next four months, you won’t be allowed to do anything to your house, commercial building or property that will be affected by the bylaws the town wants to adopt. One way to find out who and what will change.

So don’t be cutting any two-inch trees without checking in with Urban Planning.

Under Quebec’s Land Use and Development Act (LAU), Hudson’s proposed planning bylaw revisions trigger a four-month freeze on any application or operation which would be altered or refused once the two bylaws are given final adoption.

But if council fails to adopt bylaws 767 and 768 within that window for whatever reason, the freeze is automatically lifted, leaving only the town’s stale-dated interim control bylaw (RCI) to block property owners from demanding permits under current bylaws.

Two months after that, the proposed replacements become what is known in municipal parlance as zombie bylaws — still on the books but inoperative.  

The countdown began at the Jan. 10 council meeting where notices of motion for draft bylaws 767 and 768 were presented, followed by their adoption.

LAU Art. 114: When a notice of motion has been given to adopt or amend a zoning by-law, no building plan may be approved nor may any permit or certificate be granted for the carrying out of works or use of an immovable which, if the by-law that is the subject of the notice of motion is adopted, will be prohibited in the zone concerned.

Because both bylaws were presented and adopted, council gains an additional two months for final adoption:

The first paragraph ceases to be applicable to the works or use in question on the date occurring two months after the filing of the notice of motion if the by-law has not been adopted by that date or, if the by-law has been adopted, on the date occurring four months after the date of its adoption if the by-law is not in force on that date.

Council can buy more time in the form of a replacement bylaw. (A revised bylaw could be based on citizen’s comments and recommendations): 

Where, however, within two months after the filing of the notice of motion, the amending by-law is the subject, under section 128, of a second draft by-law, the first paragraph ceases to be applicable to the works or use in question on the date occurring four months after the filing of the notice of motion if the by-law has not been adopted by that date or, if the by-law has been adopted, on the date occurring four months after the date of its adoption if the by-law is not in force on that date.

As the mayor explained at the Jan. 10 meeting, final adoption is planned for the April council meeting, after which the bylaws go to the Vaudreuil-Soulanges regional municipality to ensure they harmonize with the MRC’s master plan before the town can bring them into force. 

All this time, the LAU clock is ticking. 

UPDATE: Here’s the town’s response to my question about the freeze at the last council meeting (my translation):

As a follow-up to your question at the last city council, here is why there is no freeze that applies:

Currently, tree-cutting applications should not be suspended until the regulations come into force in the fall, because our notice of motion has no freezing effect.

Any adoption of a regulation must be preceded by a notice of motion and a tabling of the draft regulation. In urban planning, the notice of motion can have a freezing effect if it is a zoning (or amendment) by-law, subdivision, PIIA or on municipal works agreements. According to section 114 of the Planning and Urban Development Act, the freezing effect seems automatic. However, in 2012, the courts determined that a notice of motion must be specific enough to have a freezing effect. The purpose of the freeze effect on the filing of the notice of motion is to prevent the municipal will from being neutralized by the filing of substantially complete permit applications before the coming into force of the by-laws, Whereas the procedure for adopting urban planning regulations is longer than that for other regulations.

As we are already under a certain freeze with the Interim Control Regulation (RCI) in place, it was decided not to impose an additional freeze effect.

Once the revised bylaws are given final approval later this spring, the mayor has said council will vote to lift the RCI.

Those familiar with the LAU’s regulatory timeline say any delay in lifting the RCI increases the likelihood of a legal challenge. “An RCI is supposed to be an interim measure”, one municipal governance consultant told me. “By Year 3, a judge could agree with a plaintiff the clock has run out.”

So it’s no wonder that Hudson’s mayor and council are hoping to get away with “a few tweaks” in their rush to adopt 767 and 768 in their final versions. The alternative: a geriatric RCI, zombie bylaws and three years of squandered promises to their supporters.

“Groundhog Day”, Buddy said to me prior to this week’s public consultation on draft bylaws 767 and 768. “Remember?”

On Monday, Nov. 18, 2019, mayor Jamie Nicholls chaired a public consultation on draft bylaw 526.8 proposing to establish a 30-metre buffer zone around watercourses and wetlands.

The proposed bylaw — within council’s authority, according to an opinion from one of Quebec’s foremost environmental lawyers — would ban all tree-cutting as well as the owner’s use of machinery within any part of the setback on their own property, including lawn cutting. Any new projects — pools, sheds, decks, gazebos, even replacement of a failing sewage treatment system — would be prohibited.

In the leadup to the consult, the urban planning department was asked to create a map overlay showing the 30-metre line imposed on a municipal cadastral map. The overlay confirmed the proposed bylaw would directly impact hundreds of properties throughout the municipality.

The mayor opened the presentation by telling the room that councillors were deadlocked 3-3, so he had already decided to vote yes to break the deadlock. In other words, don’t waste your breath, folks.

“We’re not doing this to make people angry or to remove peoples’ rights,” Nicholls told the standing-room-only crowd at the Community Centre. “We’re doing this to protect the network of wetlands and watercourses which make up Hudson’s natural spaces.” 

Nicholls strove to convince residents this was the price taxpayers needed to pay for protecting Hudson’s natural heritage, thus opening the outrage floodgates and a pushback campaign by the bylaw’s supporters. By that December, the mayor had taken a leave of absence and caucus had agreed to let 526.8 expire without adoption. (It remains on the books, even though it has no effect, a so-called zombie bylaw.)

___________________________________________________

There may be those who have never seen the classic 1993 film Groundhog Day. In it, Bill Murray is a burnt-out weatherman and Allie McGraw the bubbly TV reporter trapped in a time loop centred on an annual celebration of the rodent’s storied ability to predict the weather. Groundhog Day has become a synonym for being trapped in an unpleasant situation without hope of a positive outcome.

On the eve of Groundhog Day, 2024, I’m listening to the recording of that 2019 public consultation. Many of the voices are those of people who spoke out at Thursday’s public consultation. The comments and the tone of the 2019 gathering were remarkably similar to those of 2024.

The difference was that this time, the mayor sat this one out. Apart from her opening and closing comments, Chloe Hutchison and councillors left it to former DG and special projects consultant Martin Houde, urban planning department deputy director Melissa Francis and Paré+ urban planning consultant Vincent Langevin to answer questions. Running the meeting was professional facilitator Marie-Hélene Gauthier. 

The mayor’s absence at the front of the room meant that questions concerning the intent of the bylaws went unanswered because they were political. Instead of taxing growth and improvement, why not finance park infrastructure upgrades and new acquisitions with Hudson’s $8 million accumulated surplus or the $1 million plus the town collects from the welcome tax? Or how about a townwide special tax, seeing as how parks and greenspace are for everyone’s benefit? 

That’s political, we heard. Save it for the next council meeting (at 7 p.m. next Monday, Feb. 5). 

From the outset, it became clear that those answering questions were not familiar with the contents of the draft bylaws or how they propose to modify Hudson’s current zoning, tariffs and land use bylaws. For the vast majority of residents, Sections 10 and 11 of draft bylaw 767 were hopelessly confusing and poorly explained. What renovations cross the 33% threshold by volume? Why is the commercial threshold — 25% of floor area — different than residential? Where does a building’s footprint enter into it? Why should council be the arbiter in determining whether the 20% tax grab in the urban core is in land, cash or both? What constitutes an intensification of existing activities? A change in usage? The difference between an extension and an addition?

The deeper they got into the weeds, the more people realized that the explanations and Cole’s notes they had been given at the two open houses were either misleading or just plain wrong.

Some of the answers came as a shock. The town has no clue what revenues they hope to raise through green fund “contributions,” which suggests to me they don’t know who and what will be taxed. Property owners would have no way of knowing they have triggered the parkland contribution threshold until they find out their building permit will cost them $40,000. The findings of an upcoming parks and recreation study could force a change in the tax structure.

Other sections of both bylaws were no clearer. The owners of a lot in Hudson Valleys were told their lot was unbuildable because it contained a wetland — regardless of the facts that suggest the wetland was created by the buildup of adjacent properties since the original subdivision. Many wondered whether a protected wetland had a minimum area to require a 15-metre buffer. (what, my frog pond?) A resident whose property abuts on one of the four zones slated for comprehensive development programs in draft bylaw 768 asked whether the developer would be required to ensure a minimum treed buffer on the property line (not in the bylaw). Would the town consider paying for the biologist’s report? Why not subsidize the cutting and replacement of ash trees on private land?

Because of the lack of clarity, emotions ran high. Ken Crombie’s questions — shouldn’t all citizens pay for greenspace instead of a small percentage and what can we do to force a referendum instead of letting six councillors decide — brought the first of many rounds of applause as resident after resident vented their frustrations. For many, it was purely personal. “With this bylaw, who will buy a fixer-upper,” one resident asked. 

I suspect that this council will be more cautious than our council was in the 2019 showdown. Wiser heads will prevail and the draft bylaws will be sent back for revision. But as several residents opined on Facebook, it makes it difficult to trust a council when something this full of holes is run up the flagpole. Again.

After two public consultation sessions, Hudson residents are voicing their frustration over the confusion surrounding the impact of a proposed parks and greenspace surtax on subdivision, construction and renovation permits in nearly half the municipality.

Termed a ‘contribution’ in the town’s documents and presentations, the proposed 10-20% levy — in cash, land or a combination of both — would add thousands to the cost of a major commercial or residential renovation — or change in usage, such as from commercial to residential.

The calculation of what a property owner will pay in cash, land or both would be based on the assessed value of the lot.  

For most residents, the grey area is what will trigger the surtax. The addition of a detached garage, new kitchen, bathroom, pool,  or shed won’t. Homeowners will be able to rebuild after a disaster, replace windows, a roof, flooring or siding without any impact. But new contruction on a vacant lot, rebuilding after a demolition or renovation of a third or more of their home will cost the owner 10% of the assessed value of their lot. Same goes for the addition of two or more residential units in an existing building or enlarging a commercial building by more than 25% of its original footprint.  

In examples cited in an explanatory sheet distributed at both open houses, the owner of a property with a taxable value of $400,000 would be billed $40,000 — a contribution equal to 10% of its assessment. If that property had been the result of a subdivision on which the owner had already paid 10% of its value in land, cash or both, the tax bill would be reduced to $30,000.

Several points in the explanation document appear to contradict the draft bylaw, perhaps the reason for the fine-print disclaimer at the bottom.

Questions most asked:

How many property owners are affected? 

Facilitators at last Wednesday’s open house tried to minimize the potential impact. A Hudson urban planning staff member told me that between January 2021 and December 2023, only five of the 112 major renovation permits issued by the town would have crossed the contribution threshold. However nobody running the event would hazard a guess as to the number of properties — commercial or residential — with a potential tax burden, should their owners apply for a permit. One resident told me they’re already planning renovations in phases in order to stay below the 33%.

Who came up with this scheme?

Draft bylaws 767 and 768 were the product of urban planning consultants Paré+, Hudson’s planning department and an ad-hoc conservation working group (CWG) which included councillors Mark Gray and Doug Smith and seven unelected residents. Created in January 2022 as part of the interim control process, the CWG was dissolved by a council vote at last month’s meeting because it had completed its’ mandate. Gray credited Donald Attwood, Tanja Bruns, JJ Corker, Sylvie Ferron, David Kalant, Briony Lalor, Kevin Solarik and non-resident resource person Lorraine Caron.

Whoever came up with Section 11, the part of draft bylaw 767 laying out the surtax framework, they’re not claiming responsibility. 

Why?

Besides creating a sustainable source of funding for greenspace acquisition and upkeep, the financial burden is concentrated on those with the financial resources to absorb the hit, as opposed to the entire taxpaying body. It also discourages would-be developers from coming anywhere near Hudson unless they’re ready to play by the town’s terms.

Couldn’t council use Hudson’s $8 million accumulated surplus instead of targeting those who want to improve their property?

Yes, they could. But the mayor has said the surplus should be used for social projects, such as affordable housing. 

Is there anything similar anywhere else in Quebec? 

Pare+ representative Vincent Langevin told me only one other Quebec municipality — on the West Island — charges a similar surtax on development. Consultant/facilitator Marie-Helene Gauthier said Hudson was taking a bold step with the proposed taxation structure. Bold isn’t the word I’d use. Foolhardy? Feckless?

Where does the land and/or money go? 

The cash will go to a segregated account, to be used only to acquire land for parks or to protect wetlands and woodlands of ecological value as well as to maintain existing parks, playgrounds and trails. However, the bylaw adds this: “the Town may, however, […] dispose of lands acquired under this section.” Simply, this bylaw will allow future councils to resell lands acquired under this bylaw as long as the proceeds go to the parks fund.

Last week I urged the administration to withdraw both bylaws and take the time to redraft them in light of generalized confusion. I reiterate: these bylaws are unadoptable as drafted. Fix them so they at least make sense.

The twin bylaws comprising Hudson’s proposed urban planning program overhaul are seriously flawed — so much so that this council must take whatever time it takes to have them redrafted.

But that’s just my opinion, which I’ll explain below.

This week, residents are being asked to weigh the impact of bylaw changes that would impose a 10-20% surtax in land, cash or a combination of both on a subdivision, major renovation, expansion or change in usage of any residential or commercial property in Hudson.

As Hudsonites will learn at two open houses (7-9 this Thursday evening and 9-noon Saturday) as well as at a public consultation (7 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 31), the administration’s intent is to finance acquisition of lands for future parks and recreation areas as well as to encourage landowners to sign over their properties.

Among other proposed changes are mandatory 15-metre no-touch zones on properties adjacent to wetlands or shorelines and the protection of close to 200 ‘remarkable’ trees throughout the urban core. (Demand to know whether your trees are on the list.)

Draft bylaws 767 and 768 were presented at the Jan. 10 council meeting with final adoption planned for the April 2 session. Bylaw 767 amends four existing bylaws — 526 (zoning); 527 (subdivision); 529 (permits and certificates) and 571 (site planning and architectural integration programs).

Bylaw 768 ordains a new set of rules for future development of four large non-agricultural blocs of land including Willowbrook, Sandy Beach, the site of a proposed continuing-care seniors’ campus off Côte St. Charles, and a woodlot between Main Road and the rail line east of Mount Pleasant.

Neither bylaw is subject to approval by referendum as long as citizens are given the opportunity to comment. Council is not obliged to withdraw or modify either bylaw regardless of public concerns, which can be submitted in writing until Feb. 14. Mayor Chloe Hutchison has said the target date for final adoption is the April 2 council meeting.

Depending on input from the Vaudreuil-Soulanges MRC, Hutchison hopes to lift the Dec. 2021 interim control measures by August. 

____________________________________________________

Here’s why I think council should redraft these bylaws:

1) It’s a laudable goal, building a fund for parks and recreation. But on the backs of property owners? This change wasn’t thought through in light of higher mortgage interest rates and construction costs and Ottawa’s threat to penalize municipalities that refuse to densify their housing stock.

Residents should know that Hudson already has a parks fund containing monies collected in lieu of land for Quebec’s mandatory 10% subdivision levy in either land or cash. The municipality decides which.

Council must be brought to realize the draconian fiscal impact of an improvement surtax/land grab over and above the table d’hote of taxes Hudson property owners already pay.

It’s not because Hudson needs the revenue. The town is sitting on an $8 million accumulated surplus that can easily be accessed for parks and greenspaces, so let’s hear council’s justification for hammering anyone who wants to upgrade their residence or commercial property.

Draft bylaw 767 defines a major renovation as any project involving 33% and more of the volume of an existing construction, which currently requires a building permit — and in the case of a property located in one of Hudson’s SPAIPs, a yes vote from council on a recommendation from TPAC.

The addition of a garage, a kitchen/bathroom upgrade, family room, basement living quarters or intergenerational suite would likely trigger the 33% parks threshold.

The median price for a house in Hudson is close to $600k. Most buyers will want to upgrade to meet their requirements, so the question becomes whether the Hudson cachet is worth an additional 10% — over and above the transfer tax. So do sellers of unimproved properties compensate for the added charge by lowering their asking price?

If adopted, Bylaw 767 would give the town the power to dictate the combination of cash and greenspace in any subdivision, renovation or usage change. This has been abused in the past and I can understand why council would hang tough on this one. But Sections 401.1 through 401.5 create an obligation on the property owner to transfer land or pay a sum of money for parks, playgrounds or natural areas for the following:

— Any subdivision permit application for approval of a cadastral operation;

— Any building permit application related to construction of a new main building on a property whose registration as a separate lot has not been the subject of a subdivision permit resulting from Quebec’s 1994 cadastral reform;

— Any building permit application for a redevelopment project on a property (described above);

— Any building permit application for the intensification of existing activities on a property (defined in the bylaw as any construction project with the aim of adding two or more residential units in a building or enlarging a commercial building by more than 25% of its existing floor area);

— Any building permit application to allow new activities on a property. (Nowhere is this defined in the draft bylaw. Would the Chateau du Lac be obliged to sign over cash and greenspace for renting to healthcare professionals? Would any of Hudson’s commercial landlords be billed for a change in tenants? Clearly, this clause is both incoherent and beyond the town’s authority to enforce.  

2) Section 15 of draft bylaw 768 bestows on the Town Planning Advisory Committee the power to defer its recommendation on a developer’s comprehensive development program (CDP, or PAE in French) application on the basis that it needs further information. This has been a standard go-to excuse by TPAC to stall a council vote and has led to past turf wars, such as those over Willowbrook and condo projects at 426 Main and 98 Cameron. I see this as a rationalization for more stalling tactics on politically difficult files, like what happened to Villa Wyman.

Even more concerning are these clauses from Section 17 Approval by the town council:

— Once it votes to approve TPAC’s positive recommendation, “council may also require as the condition for approval of an application, that the owners of the buildings located in the area covered by the comprehensive development program […] bear the cost of certain elements of the CDP, including infrastructure or equipment.”  I’m not a lawyer, but surely requiring neighbours and residents of a new subdivision project to complete the project within a specified period and provide financial guarantees is beyond a town’s powers.

Even more baffling is the following weasel clause:

“The approval of a CDP/PAE in no way commits the town council to undertake a modification to urban planning regulations and issue corresponding permits, nor does it constitute an obligation for the town to accept the proposed roads appearing in the CDP, decree their opening, bear the construction and maintenance costs or assume civil responsibilities.”

In other words, even if council approves a subdivision development, it is under no obligation to municipalize the road network. Quebec already requires the developer to build, pave and pay for all CDP/PAE infrastructure, roads included, so why would this bylaw allow council to wriggle out of taking them over? So that the town can then ban winter snow plowing, waste collection, school bus service and other municipal services? Smells like another stalling tactic to make those pesky developers and their needy buyers go away.

I’ll be submitting these and other concerns, both orally during the Jan. 31 consult, and in writing for the two weeks following. I have no illusions that this council will heed my or anyone’s advice.

Please take the time to attend either of the two open houses, or failing that, the public consultation on Jan. 31. The only reason we live with bad laws is because we don’t demand better.

Hudson households will be getting a pamphlet in the mail from the town, advising them of the consultation process required for adoption of two bylaws imposing new constraints on future residential development.

But despite extensive lobbying by Save Sandy Beach activists and those opposed to Como’s Willowbrook, nothing in either bylaw blocks their development.

Bylaws 767 and 768 have been in the works since December 2021, when the current council adopted an interim control resolution, or RCI, imposing a 90-day subdivision and construction freeze on any lot falling within wetlands or woodlots characterized in a conservation plan adopted by the previous council. Residents were told at the time the 90-day freeze was required to buy time to revise Hudson’s planning program so that development could not proceed. 

The 90-day freeze stretched into more than two years, during which mayor Chloe Hutchison would regularly tell concerned residents the bylaw rewrite was delayed for a variety of reasons, most of them having to do with staffing issues. The delay froze almost all new multi-unit residential development, including projects approved by previous councils and triggered an undisclosed number of lawsuits. In adopting the freeze, Hutchison said hundreds of lots would be impacted, although construction on many has been approved following third-party analyses of their ecological value.

Replying to questions at Wednesday’s first council meeting of 2024, Hutchison predicted that the interim control measure, or RCI, won’t likely be lifted until August because of delays built into the approval process. Although neither proposed bylaw adopted this week is subject to approval by referendum, both make public consultation an integral part of their adoption. 

The consultation process agreed to by the town and its urban planning consultants calls for three meetings (open houses Thursday, Jan. 25 and Saturday Jan. 27, plus a Q&A Wednesday, Jan. 31). Residents have two weeks after that to submit their observations and suggestions, which may or may not result in changes to either or both draft bylaws. Hutchison said the target for final adption is April 2.

Next, the draft bylaws must be submitted to the Vaudreuil-Soulanges MRC to ensure they don’t clash with the MRC’s master development plan, or SADR3, and by extension, the Montreal Metropolitan Community’s PMAD. The MRC has 150 days to respond.

Bylaw 767 is what is termed an omnibus because it amends sections of existing bylaws without replacing the bylaws themselves. Parts of zoning bylaw 526, subdivision bylaw 527, permits and certificates bylaw 529 and architectural control bylaw 571 are being replaced with new definitions and tighter rules on everything from tree protection and replacement to the acquisition and sale of private and town-owned greenspace. Remarkable trees — a new protection category — lists 187 trees by address and GPS co-ordinates and will require a consultant’s finding that the tree is dead, dying or dangerous before one can be felled. Fines for violations range between $100 and $15,000.

Bylaw 768 “on comprehensive development programs” imposes tighter development constraints  on the four largest parcels of undeveloped land in the urban perimeter: Willowbrook (R-7, R-15); Sandy Beach (R-22, R-24); Charleswood/Côte St. Charles (R-55) and a site on the north side of Main Road opposite Somerset.

The bylaw defines comprehensive development programs thus: 

“When one or more owners wish to enhance one or more properties in the sectors concerned by theis bylaw, they must prepare a comprehensive development program (CDP/PAE) before making any request to modify the current urban planning bylaws…” To be eligible for submission to the town planning advisory committee (TPAC), a CDP must be in the form of a booklet which must satisfy a lengthy list of requirements. These include studies and concepts for the preservation of natural and built structures, plus allowances for transportation, recreation and other public amenities such as underground energy and communications infrastructure. 

Any CDP of more than 10 pages must also include an executive summary of up to six pages.

The bylaw also establishes the town’s right to demand that developers shoulder the bill for connection to existing infrastructure.   

Noteworthy in light of the town’s potential exposure to legal action by thwarted developers and  property owners is Section 4: “this bylaw is adopted in parts, so that if any division of this bylaw is declared nul and void by a court, such a decision would have no effect on other parts of the bylaw.” 

Also noteworthy are the built-in delays and the revised role of TPAC in draft bylaw 768.

The town’s urban planners have up to 60 days to determine whether a file is complete or requires additional material before passing it to TPAC, which can take as long as it wants  to draft its recommendation for acceptance, modification or rejection of the project. TPAC may also request additional information from the CDP applicant and defer its recommendation indefinitely.

The bylaw’s second chapter deals with Willowbrook, with permitted densities of between five and 15 units per hectare depending on whether they are single-family, townhouses or row housing, all of which are open for consideration as long as the result is more greenspace. “The planning of any development must be subordinate to the respect for natural environments and ecosystem balance.” The goal is to preserve a minimum proportion of greenspace for the overall project, rather that per lot.

In summary, the bylaw would allow Habitation Robert to proceed with future phases of Willowbrook if the developer agrees to protect additional greenspace.

Regarding the proposed 214-unit Sandy Beach development, Bylaw 768 holds out the possibility the town could approve single-family, semi-detached two and three-family dwellings with an gross density of 17.5 to 35 units per hectare. Again, the claimed goal is to preserve greenspace by encouraging greater densities in sectors of the project. 

For both R-55 and Sandy Beach, the bylaw offers the conceptual underpinning for creation of residential sectors where people aren’t dependent on their cars. “The comprehensive development plan […] is close to the village core and at a short distance from the Hudson train station…Therefore particular attention must be paid to reducing facilities favouring automobile use, both in housing offerings and outdoor facilities.”

Neither bylaw addresses the fate of multi-unit residential projects in the town core, of which three were approved by previous councils. Only one, the 18-unit assisted-care Villa Wyman, has been cancelled by its promoters.

But despite extensive lobbying by Save Sandy Beach activists and those opposed to Como’s Willowbrook, nothing in either bylaw blocks their development.

They are a bunch of amateurs,” Hudson mayor Chloe Hutchison tells 1019 Report’s Brenda O’Farrell. “Put it in the hands of people who can get it done.”

An unfortunate choice of words in a town which depends on amateurs and volunteers for a wide range of activities and services, many of them taxpayer-funded. Was it meant to be off the record? Not for attribution? Or will the mayor insist yet again that she was taken out of context?

Whatever, the mayor’s gratuitous insult appears to have been directed at the Villa Wyman’s board of directors, who voted earlier this month to abandon plans for an 18-unit assisted-care senior’s residence in Hudson’s downtown core after having been jerked around by the current council for the better part of two years. 

Although the Villa Wyman project was eventually approved by the current council a year ago (Nov. 7/22), the town continued to demand architectural, parking and landscaping modifications, each one of them pushing back the construction start date by the time it took to work its way through the urban planning approval process.

The board’s Dec. 7 decision to terminate the project followed council’s refusal to grant the project a minor derogation to accommodate an encroachment on the parking lot shared with the former Wyman Memorial church, now a Sikh temple. “It was less than three feet,” board member Diane Ratcliffe told me. 

A municipal derogation was required because the temple’s administrators, after months of delay, refused Villa Wyman’s request for a legal servitude.

The irony in the mayor’s bunch-of-amateurs comment is that it was Villa Wyman’s architect —a professional — who failed to notice the encroachment. Nor were they alone in missing it. Encroachments are highlighted in surveys as well as in deeds of sale, which involve realtors, surveyors, notaries and urban planning departments. 

My point is that a raft of professionals were involved in the eight-year journey planning this $8 million project. Municipalities, Hudson included, routinely approve minor derogations for exactly these reasons.

Earlier this fall, an alarm bell rang when the mayor, asked about the project’s advancement, said this council would not approve a derogation. I took it as a warning that unless the various actors in this slow-mo farce could come up with an alternative, the Villa Wyman project was doomed. 

Those of us who have followed its evolution since it was introduced as a rezoning bylaw during the Prévost administration know it was crippled from the outset by a slew of factors. Its location, on the south end of the Wyman parking lot behind Stephenson Court, was less than ideal. 

Residents, including Hutchison, fought the rezoning bylaw before a provincial administrative tribunal, which ruled the town was within its powers.

Throughout the process and even now, board members have refrained from attacking the administration, but when asked if they might reconsider their decision, the answer remains a firm no.

The board isn’t looking at doing anything else in the future, Diane Ratcliffe told me this past week. “If we were to go forward, we would be getting into the hard part — construction, where decisions have to be made quickly.”

In the end, it became a matter of whether the board could trust the current council not to sabotage the project, then blame it on them.

“In any endeavour you need partners. The town told us ‘Do not come to us for a request for a derogation’ […] the Sikhs are not willing to work with us. Without approval, support or partnership we didn’t have the stomach to go forward.”

The next phase begins with cancellation of the mortgage associated with the project, Ratcliffe said. “The SHQ (Société d’habitation du Québec) will help guide us through the process of rolling it back.”

Once costs already incurred are paid out,  the rest of the $4.2 million in federal and provincial funding will be returned. 

As for the now-empty lot, the mayor indicated at the August 7 council meeting that the town could use its power of pre-emptive rights to put a freeze on the land for as long as 10 years. Whether or not the town would be forced to buy it at some future date will depend on recent changes to legislation giving Quebec municipalities greater powers to expropriate land.

(https://lp.ca/ekojcV?sharing=true)

Ratcliffe is hopeful that the board’s work won’t be wasted. “I gather that there is a non-profit group created this past February, Toît d’abord, that has been set up, with (St. Lazare mayor) Genevieve Lachance president of the board of directors […] Chloe, chairing the MRC regional housing board, suggested we get in touch with them.”

“We are going to look into it with Manon Leduc, our point person and DG of Groupe des ressources techniques du sud-ouest, our staff person who steered us through the entire process,” Ratcliffe added. 

Leduc’s professional track record includes the 82-unit co-op apartment block in Pincourt’s Pointe-a-Renard sector. “She has contacts with similar associations that exist everywhere in Quebec.”

Ratcliffe’s harshest words directed at the mayor and council? “It would be really nice if they made their intentions clear. If they had a plan for the village core, they should share it.”

A heartfelt apology is in order, Madam Mayor.