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.
thousandlashesdotca 