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.
thousandlashesdotca 