Witnesses Say Shots Fired at Kanesatake Dispensary

Police claim a man crashed a stolen car into the pot shop but deny any shooting took place.

The Sweet Lodge with windows boarded up on Thursday, November 21, 2024. PHOTO: Éanna Mackey

By Christopher Curtis

Kevin* was working at his desk when he heard the first burst of gunfire.

“It sounded like an automatic weapon, small caliber, just a quick brrrrrap!” said Kevin, who did not want his real name published. “There was a pause and then, a couple seconds later, I heard this bang, bang, bang. Sounded like a different gun this time.

“This guy who lives (nearby), he just lost his dad to cancer. I thought maybe he was just sad, got drunk and fired a few shots to blow off steam. People have guns here, sometimes they do that. 

“Not this time, though.”

Four sources in Kanesatake say they heard shots fired outside the Sweet Grass Lodge around 5:30 a.m. Thursday. They say the driver of a black car pulled into the dispensary’s parking lot, slammed down on the accelerator and crashed into the building, destroying its wooden porch.

Police confirmed that a stolen black car did, in fact, ram “a pot shack” near Nelson Rd. in the predawn hours on Thursday, but they categorically deny there was gunfire.

“That could have been the sound of airbags bursting,” a spokesperson for the Sûreté du Québec said. “We’ve reviewed security footage and no shots were fired. The driver got away.” Another police source, who reviewed the footage, said the collision did not appear accidental.

Two sources — including one who drove by the area as it was happening — say an armed man chased the driver away and fired at the car. They claim the driver, who was not Mohawk, rammed his car into the building, pulled out a gun and began firing at the front windows. They say he was surprised by an armed security guard who fired at the driver before he escaped through the parking lot of High Times, a dispensary next to Sweet Grass.

Normand Théoret, who owns the Sweet Grass Lodge, flatly denies this.

“Drunk driver,” he wrote in a message to The Rover. “Why don’t you get a real job and stop spreading rumours and lies like a little bitch.”Support Little Bitches

Théoret is one of 17 people on trial for his alleged role in an illegal dumping scheme that contaminated entire sections of the Mohawk territory. 

Though most of his co-defendants are elderly and appear to be minimally involved in the scheme, Théoret’s property was one of the largest dumping sites in Kanesatake. That is, until the practice was shut down by court order last month. 

He is accused of accepting contaminated soil on his land, pushing soil directly into the Lake of Two Mountains, and two other violations of provincial law — charges that have not been tested in court. Alongside co-defendants Robert Gabriel and Barry Bonspille, Théoret is one of the few suspects who also happens to be a player in the territory’s lucrative cannabis trade.

The alleged car attack is the latest in a series of violent incidents plaguing Kanesatake’s cannabis industry.

Earlier this year, an arsonist tried to set the Golden Star Oka dispensary on fire with an incendiary device but failed. A police source says it was the third time someone tried to burn down the dispensary, which opened earlier this year on a plot of contaminated land owned by Barry Bonspille.

When asked if these arson attempts were the work of Mohawks or outsiders, one source laughed.

“Did the building burn down? No? Well, then it was outsiders,” he said. “When Mohawks set out to burn a building, the building burns.” 

Mohawk Council of Kanesatake Grand Chief Victor Bonspille. PHOTO: Chris Curtis

Mohawk Council of Kanesatake Grand Chief Victor Bonspille said regardless of whether shots were fired during Thursday’s incident, people on the territory are fed up. Since their police force was dissolved in 2004, Kanesatake has been patrolled by a small Sûreté du Québec detachment about five kilometres away in Oka. Bonspille says there’s minimal police presence at night.

“All I know is that an incident happened up the bay, a car was involved and security chased this person off,” said Bonspille. “Just last week I met with the regional chief of police and the SQ’s local chief and just said enough is enough. Just last week a drunk driver hit one of our youth, and the students at our high school say they don’t feel safe.

“I demanded more police presence, whether community members agree to it or not. We need something here. And the SQ has been mandated to patrol our community. I understand they’re afraid to come here at night. But at the very least, they can patrol here during the day and patrol undesirables.”

Both Théoret and the police say they’re certain no shots were fired Thursday. When presented with this, each of the four sources who claimed to have heard gunshots stood by their initial statement.

“Listen, I grew up around guns, I know the difference between an airbag popping and the rattle of gunfire,” said Jane*, who did not want her real name published. “I was getting ready for work and I heard what I heard. It was gun shots followed by a pause and more gunshots.”

Another source said, “I am a licensed gun owner, I know what guns sound like. Those were gunshots.” 

Finally, The Rover reviewed security footage from Thursday morning that includes audio of two distinct bursts of gunfire. 

“So if all that happened was a car ramming into the porch then why are windows on both sides of the front door smashed? And I ain’t never heard of airbags going off and then going off again seconds later,” Kevin said. “They’re trying to say it was ‘some drunk Black guy’ but that’s not what happened.”

The Rover drove by Sweet Grass on Thursday and inspected the damage. While the wooden steps at the front of the building were clearly broken, the remainder of the porch, bannister and front door did not appear damaged. But the large windows on either side of the stairs were boarded up.

The Sweet Grass Lodge with windows boarded up and apparent damage to the wooden stairway leading to the entrance, on Thursday, November 21, 2024. PHOTO: Chris Curtis

If the theory is that the impact of the car against the building — and not bullets — that smashed three windows, there’s little other damage to the storefront. 

Unlike some of the more problematic dispensaries, Sweet Grass is in a small aluminum shack and doesn’t incentivize customers to stay and hang out. 

At places like High Times — which police say belongs to Robert Gabriel — buying cannabis is just one in a litany of pleasures one can enjoy.

During a walk through the dispensary Thursday, non-Indigenous vendors were seen selling pre-rolled joints, magic mushrooms and THC-infused desserts as people walked around smoking pot in the store. At the back of the room, a large man sat by the bar and kept watch over the front door, occasionally glancing up at a 10-foot television screen projecting hockey highlights.

Over a dozen sources on the territory say alcohol is served 24 hours a day at High Times. Alongside the Green Room — owned by Robert’s brother Gary — it attracts people with connections to organized crime, according to police. One patron stumbled out of the bar a few months ago and drove his Mercedes into a steel pole along Route 344, narrowly missing someone’s home.

Last week, a drunk driver crashed his pickup truck into a Mohawk family’s vehicle. The driver was arrested and the family taken to the hospital. Residents took his truck, which police had left by the road, smashed it beyond recognition and spray painted the words “enough is enough” onto it. They then planted two Mohawk flags in the vehicle and dragged it to the band council office to protest inaction against the criminals using their land as a playground.

The first cannabis shops opened in Kanesatake just months before the substance was legalized across Canada in 2018. Initially pitched as medicinal cannabis dispensaries, the first shops were family-owned businesses that tried to establish a self-regulating industry on Mohawk land. They even partnered with an Indigenous laboratory to test each gram of cannabis for contaminants.

That year, they reached out to Serge “Otsi” Simon — who was grand chief at the time — and asked for the band council to work with dispensaries and draft regulations to keep gangsters out of the business. Though Simon was adamant that the industry would lead to the sale of hard drugs in Kanesatake, his council did not take action to oversee the industry.

Within months of the first dispensaries opening, some of Kanesatake’s less scrupulous residents partnered with outsiders to turn cannabis into a regional attraction. At the Green Room, opened in late 2018, customers could buy alcohol, gamble on slot machines, get a haircut and eat fast food. 

It was during a raucous Green Room party that Montreal gang leader Arsène Mompoint was shot to death on July 1, 2021. Witnesses say the shooter then got into a truck, cut across the pine forest and escaped Kanesatake through the back roads. Police later found the stolen car torched in a cornfield a few kilometres away, suggesting this was a professional hit.

Sources say Gary Gabriel, who was sitting next to Mompoint when the gangster was murdered, was summoned to a community meeting where other dispensary owners berated him. At the time, they tried to get Gabriel to stop serving liquor and attracting outsiders who would linger on the territory, often under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Instead, Gabriel expanded the Green Room even more, hosting bigger parties, mixed martial arts events and drawing huge crowds into a community of just 2,000 residents. The expansion fueled a sort of cannabis arms race, where rival dispensaries got bigger and bigger, gradually pushing the family-owned shops to the margins.

It may have been this push for bigger attractions that led to the dumping scheme, according to police and Mohawk sources. The contaminated soil was brought into the territory from outside construction companies, dumped directly into the lake, flattened by steamrollers and paved over to make new cannabis shops like Golden Star Oka, High Times and Sweet Grass.

So far, at least two of those dispensaries have come under attack.

Sources say these are generally business disputes where owners hire an outsider to vandalize or burn down their rival’s shop to put them out of business. Others have tried slashing their cannabis prices as low as $40 an ounce to draw customers away from their competitors. Three years ago, one dispensary had Hells Angels hang out on their front porch — in full biker regalia — to scare off potential vandals.

Given the violent nature of these incidents, residents of Kanesatake are hesitant to speak out publicly. Even Grand Chief Bonspille was warned, by loved ones, not to come forward for fear that it would put a target on his back.

“I have no choice but to speak out, there’s kids and elders at risk,” Bonspille said. “We need our own police force, we need the federal government to get serious about solutions here.”

Indigenous Services Canada was not immediately available for comment, but negotiations over restarting a local police program have been ongoing for at least four years. Given the possibility for conflicts of interest in such a small community, creating a police force that’s impartial, effective and consistent with Indigenous values has been challenging.

“Something’s going to have to change,” Bonspille said. “I have young women, teenagers, complaining about outsiders coming onto the territory and propositioning them. What’s it going to take for the SQ to do their job?”

With files from Éanna Mackey.

Did you appreciate reading this article? Share it with a friend!

The Rover prides itself for reporting without corporate owners or asset-stripping hedge funds. We exist to serve you, our readers. As a reader-supported publication, you are our stakeholders and the people we’re accountable to.

So if you believe in our mission and can get behind it, consider becoming a monthly donor today. Every dollar goes towards building a better informed Montreal.Support The Rover

More From The Rover

Criminal Charges Sought in Illegal Dumping Scheme

Most defendants so far have been small players or victims themselves, but investigators say they’re pursuing criminal charges against construction companies.

By Christopher Curtis

Quebec Scrambles to Provide Students Social Services

Expert says this may be a violation of provincial law.

By Isaac Peltz

This email was sent to duffcraig48@gmail.combecause you opted into The Rover’s newsletter.

Want to change how you hear from The Rover? Update your preferences or unsubscribe here.

Christopher Curtis, 3565 Decarie Boulevard, Montreal, QC H4A3J4, Canada

This is my submission to the public consultation (Wednesday, Oct. 23/24) on the Town of Hudson’s proposed parks and greenspaces policy.

With this past week’s indefinite closure of Hudson’s historic steamboat landing at the foot of Wharf Road, residents and visitors lose another window on the Ottawa River. I don’t hold out much hope that it will ever reopen, given the extent of its deterioration.

The preservation of a crumbling 19th-century town wharf may be no big loss for some, but this indefinite-closure thing is becoming a trend, what with the posting of Sandy Beach and now the barricading of the footbridge which used to be the sole public access. Unless you’re a Hudson Yacht Club member, the only remaining public access to Hudson’s 14 kilometres of waterfront is via Jack Layton and Thompson parks.

Hundreds of boaters depend on the JLP launch ramp, dock and the nearby cove. The dock was widened under the previous administration, but the ramp hasn’t changed since Dudley Reid and Lucien Mallette opened a marina on the location of the massive Wilson Company icehouse where Canadian Pacific once loaded blocks of ice from the Ottawa River into reefer cars to transport perishables in the time before refrigeration.

Those of us who use the ramp are immeasurably grateful for the privilege. (Use of the ramp is free because the last council determined that it doesn’t conform to standards that would justify charging people. Instead, we use it at our own risk.) It’s self-policing; people wait their turn regardless of the size and value of their craft.

Hudson worked out a deal with St. Lazare that would allow residents of both municipalities a free annual permit and nearby parking privileges. In return, Hudson residents enjoy free access to Les Forestiers and its well-maintained ski and walking trails. For $125 a year, Vaudreuil-Soulanges residents can buy the right to park nearby; for everyone else, it’s $250 unless they choose to park free at the snow dump, a five-minute walk. Use of the park is free for all.  

Our council looked at Thompson Park as an alternative to JLP for non-motorized craft. The problem is getting one’s boat to the water’s edge, a football field’s distance and a steep hill away, most of it within the 100-year floodplain. We had serious doubts the environment ministry would approve construction of a road, a parking lot near the water and a dock. As well, the sandy shoreline quickly grows an impenetrable thicket of aquatic vegetation that would require regular cutting. We agreed it wasn’t a sustainable solution. 

We took a closer look at the former marina. If mayor Liz Corker’s council made the decisions necessary to begin its transformation, the artistry of landscape architect Brian Grubert and stonemason Bob Houghton turned it into a riverside gem while preserving its vocation as a boat launch with public parking. 

How could we expand its use? Council mandated the parks and recreation department to come up with a survey detailing how other waterfont municipalities manage access to users and residents. A local business proposed a boat rental kiosk similar to the operation at Vaudreuil-Dorion’s Valois Park. Our regional Caisse Desjardins offered to fund a separate launch at the east side of the park where kayakers and paddleboarders could launch and recover their craft without having to queue up with the powerboaters. 

A council majority ended up rejecting all suggestions, based on the probability that the environment ministry would probably says no. End of discussion.

When news broke of the wharf’s closure, Bob Houghton had an interesting suggestion. Why not continue what Mother Nature began, knock down the crumbling concrete and backfill with boulders as he and Grubert did with the icehouse site? It would allow the creation of a waterfront promenade on the footprint of the original wharf, typical of the commonsense simplicity that once graced Hudson’s approach to problem-solving. The environment ministry could hardly reject a project built on what was. 

But would residents support a relatively low-cost proposal that would give us another window on the lake when previous plans to repurpose the wharf went nowhere? A 2019 a Canadian Coast Guard proposal would have seen the wharf turned into a much-needed base on the Lake of Two Mountains. Wharf Road residents objected, council was wary of hidden costs to taxpayers and the Coast Guard went elsewhere. Last year, I wrote about how one of the subcontractors for the new Ile aux Tourtes bridge proposed to assemble components in the town snow dump, transport them to the wharf, and ship them to the site by barge (www.thousandlashes.ca/23/06/06). In exchange, the town would get a rebuilt wharf.

The plan was scrapped because the wharf was too far gone.

Meanwhile, other municipalities recognize the social and economic value of accessible public waterfronts. Pointe Claire has its waterfront walk and pier where the Edgewater Inn once stood. Ile Perrot transformed a crumbling seawall into public access. Les Cedres and Pincourt revitalized their small-boat launch facilities. Oka added small-boat docks to its well-maintained public wharf opposite the Hudson-Oka ferry landing. It’s not the cost, but the political vision required to see the value in expanding public waterfront access.

Why should Hudson maintain, even increase public access to its waterfront? 

Boat ownership is quickly moving away from parking one’s boat in a yacht club or marina. It’s both generational and about how people want to spend their money. Paddleboards, canoes and kayaks are relatively inexpensive, easily moved on rooftop racks anywhere with public parking where they can be launched and hauled out. It’s also a a matter of freedom; boats on cartops or trailers and in pickup beds can be stored on one’s property (with some bylaw exceptions) and driven to any body of water with a public ramp.

In light of the exploding interest in low-overhead boating among enthusiasts who may live nowhere near the water, the Montreal Metropolitan Community is encouraging riverfront municipalities to clean up their shorelines and add launch facilities, preferably with non-motorized boat rentals and maps of local waters registered with the MCC’s aspirational Blue Corridor, the paddle/oar community’s vision of a network of boating routes through the hundreds of islands surrounding Montreal. 

At the same time, more and more waterfront municipalities are restricting access to their launch facilities in response to residents complaining about the small-boat invasion. It boils down to making one’s facilities either pay per use or open only to passholders. Like Hudson, a handful offer launch facilities open to all with restrictions on parking, but all draw the line at overnight camping. I’ve seen waterborne travellers stealth camping at Hudson’s Thompson Park and Lachine’s Stoney Point and there are safe places to pull out if one knows where to look, but municipalities see these outliers the same way they look on homeless encampments — with suspicion. 

The problem with nostalgia is that most Hudson residents have no memory of what was. As kids growing up in Hudson’s waterfront, we grew up building driftwood rafts and poling them with saplings. As we grew older, we acquired our first boats and roamed further afield to Oka Beach and the sandbars off Carillon Island. Most of us learned to swim off whatever wharf or dock we had access to. 

Hudson’s public access to these simple pleasures is under increasing pressure from too many conflicting demands. Rather than accepting their closure, we should be investing in maintaining, upgrading, expanding and exploring alternatives.

Earlier this week I took my boat upriver on a late-season camping trip to the islands, bays and wild spaces below the Carillon hydro dam. I began these forays when I was in my teens, drawn by the pull of wetland wilderness. I would make camp on one of the sandbars and beaches.

In late October, the only boats on the water are the fisherfolk and my 18-foot Angus Expedition, a rough-water sliding-seat rowboat designed by B.C.’s Colin and Julie Angus. In the hold are my tent hammock, sleeping bag, cooking gear, food and water, plus extra kit in case of a turn in the weather. In my lifejacket I carry a handheld VHF radio (the fisherfolk always have their ears on), strobe, cellphone (music!) and survival basics. As Coast Guard rescue jumpers put it, if you’re not wearing it you don’t have it.

Louise pushed me off from the Jack Layton Park dock before 8 a.m. The forecast was sunny and breezy, with winds from the southwest between 20 and 40 km/hr., so I hugged the Hudson and Rigaud shorelines to take advantage of the shelter they provided from the wind. Waterfront mansions gave way to modest cottages, many raised or on stilts after the epic 2017 and 2019 floods.

The Raquette estuary marks the division between civilization and wilderness. The gulls have now taken over the sandbar since my last visit in 2020; they sounded a raucous alarm as I rowed past. Around the next promentory was a surprise — a quiet bay, bisected by a manmade peninsula and at its end, a stone cottage, clearly predating environment ministry edicts about what one can and can’t do in a floodplain. It’s boarded up for the season but in good repair. I can understand why someone would want that view, across the Lake of Two Mountains to the westernmost mount the Mohawks believe is sacred.

I continued upriver, past Rigaud’s Grand Quai, clusters of waterfront homes where residents continue their struggle against the river and the environment ministry’s latest floodplain map. Many are either raised or armoured against flood-borne ice with breakwaters. The goal is finding ways to prevent Quebec from justifying demolition of one’s home if it is seriously damaged in the next flood.

Four hours after pushing off from the JLP dock, I rounded the corner at the upper end of Carillon Island. This marks the junction of three rivers where the fluorescent yellow Rigaud and the polluted North River both discharge into the Ottawa, relatively clear after its trip through Hydro Quebec’s turbines.

Ten kilometres long, less than a kilometre at its widest, Carillon Island has three faces. The south side is a primal forest of trees in riotous fall colours. There’s no evidence of human habitation.It’s another story on the north side, where well-kept summer chalets are perched well above the highest floodline and rough-hewn shanties taking their chances. There’s an underwater electrical cable to the island, so I suppose one could live here year-round.

Emergency access is the dealbreaker. There’s an old concrete dock, but no indication it’s still in use. In the four months between freezeup and thaw, access by water isn’t possible. In the 19th century, inhabitants risked their lives crossing the ice to Terrasse Robillard on the north side or to Rigaud Bay to the southwest. With the advent of warmer winters and thinner ice, I’m not sure it’s any different with snowmobiles and ATVs.

My destination for the night — Carillon Island’s migratory bird sanctuary at the eastern end of the island. It’s a kilometre from the closest habitation, with an ATV track to the main beach and a collection of broken chairs and fire rings where the summer folk party. I found a cozy cove a fair distance from partyville where I could pull Gus well up on the beach and pitch my tent hammock five feet away. Perfect — as long as one can live with the avian party going on.

Every year at this time, massive flocks of Canada geese, ducks and other wildfowl home in on Horseshoe and Carillon bays. Late into the night, one is treated to the sound of excited birds welcoming their relatives at they fly in long past dark. After sunup, they spread out to fatten up on acres of ripe duck corn for the next leg of their migration.

Sundown was blessedly bug-free but the October chill brought out a puffer jacket as I heated up Louise’s chili. After 25 kilometres of rowing against a headwind, I was ready for my sleeping bag before 8 p.m.

Morning brought another surprise. Overnight, the wind had shifted 180 degrees. Now it was out of the northeast, straight into my face on the row back to Hudson. Wind against current equals shorter, steeper waves. I girded for the pull with oatmeal, homemade beef jerky and a pot of strong coffee before loading everything into Gus and pushing off. 

In a small boat, one looks to minimize the effects of wind and wave, which meant following the line of weedy sandbars and islets stretching from the foot of Carillon Island through the Pelleys to Hay Island, then across the south channel to Graham Island, a rocky outcrop off Hudson’s Rousseau St. Four hours and 22 kilometres after starting out, I pulled up to the JLP dock where Louise was waiting to stand watch on Gus while I went home to get the trailer.

°°°°°°

This isn’t everyone’s idea of a good time. A good boat and equipment are prerequisites, plus It’s a fair amount of work. The payback is a winter’s worth of memories — the sight of a massive orange hunter’s moon rising above the sacred mountain, the indescribable emotion of being far from civilization yet close to home. Even the sound of excited geese.

As this world grows crazier and less hospitable, short escapes to wild places will grow in importance. By all means, write and enforce rules needed to protect them from overcrowding and vandalism, but don’t put them beyond the reach of those without the means.

Shocking news in this morning’s La Presse: thousands of Quebec residents have 24 hours to learn whether their homes are included in the government’s latest government floodplain maps.

“Their houses will be worth nothing,” a clearly perturbed Vaudreuil-Dorion mayor Guy Pilon tells La Presse’s team. Almost 2,000 homes in Pilon’s city are included in the environment ministry’s revised charts. Schools, seniors residences and the city’s water filtration and wastewater treatment facilities are included in Quebec’s new 350-year flood zones.

What’s especially disturbing is how Environment Minister Benoît Charette unveiled the changes in June without releasing the interactive website geoinondations.gouv.qc.ca which allows every municipality and residents to see for themselves who will be affected before the end of the public consultation process.

That process runs out on Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024 — tomorrow. 

The Montreal Metropolitan Community, which represents 82 Greater Montreal cities and towns, put together their own interactive map showing who in the MMC would be affected, but appears to have done little to alert member municipalities of the extent of the impact on their residents.

For the average resident, neither interactive map is user friendly. However, the geoinondations.gouv.qc.ca application includes civic addresses, which allows the user to get a feel for the number of people whose lives will be impacted — and to see who’s in the new red zone.

Hudson hit hard

The Town of Hudson risks losing several hundred millions in property values, depending on whether the structures affected can be insured, mortgaged or sold. Given the disproportionate worth of lakefront properties, the town’s $2.2 billion valuation roll will almost certainly take a hit.

Starting with 896 Main at the foot of Montée Lavigne, some 250 properties fall either partly or totally within Quebec’s new red zone. All but a handful were untouched by the 2017 and 2019 floods. They include mansions (the multimillion-dollar structure at 814 Main falls partly into the red zone) and cottages as well as most of the town’s sewage treatment facilities, the Hudson/Oka ferry and landmarks like the Hudson Yacht Club, Willow Inn, Greenwood and sections of Main Road itself. 

Entire neighbourhoods may lose the right to build, rebuild or be compensated for future losses, including Hodgsonville and all but two homes on Quarry Point. While structures of the south side of Main Road are generally spared, the red zone reaches far inland along wetlands in the east and west ends.

Ultimate irony: most of Sandy Beach along Beach Road is on high ground, well above the new high-water mark.

Climate change

Why is François Legault’s CAQ government resorting to these draconian measures? Quebec hopes to avoid having to compensate residents and municipalities for damages incurred as the result of rapidly changing climatic conditions. The torrential rains from Hurricane Debbie were a wakeup call for municipalities far from major bodies of water and resulted in cities and towns rushing to revise their urban planning bylaws in response to pressure from the insurance industry.

Eight years in the planning, an 18-unit assisted-living facility in Hudson’s downtown sector is being withdrawn by its backers following council’s rejection of a proposed parking modification.

Although the Villa Wyman project was approved by council a year ago (Nov. 7/22), the configuration of parking spaces on the enclaved lot proved to be the devil in the details. 

According to Hudson mayor Chloe Hutchison, the project’s promoters could not reach agreement with its neighbours on the layout of the parking area shared with the former Wyman Memorial United Church, now a Sikh temple. 

At its December meeting, council voted to reject Villa Wyman’s request to modify the approved project to satisfy both its neighbours and the town’s bylaws. Council’s rejection was based on the lack of landscaping and vegetation on a parking lot that has existed in its current form since the church was built in 1909.

Council’s refusal to grant Villa Wyman a derogation of less than three feet was the last straw for Villa Wyman’s volunteer board.

 “Our Board of Directors […] decided on Thursday by resolution to abandon the project,” founding member Diane Ratcliffe told me Saturday. “If [this council] had wanted to wear us down, they’ve succeeded.”

The project’s financial backers, including Soulanges MNA Marilyne Picard, Vaudreuil-Soulanges MP Peter Schieke and the Town of Hudson will have received an email advising them of the board’s intent to terminate the endeavour, Ratcliffe added.

 The board’s decision triggers the lengthy process of unwinding years of work, beginning with the hiring of a professional evaluator early in the new year. The property — with a 2020 evaluation of $3,296,672 — will be listed for sale and close to $7 million in funding from the federal and provincial housing programs will be returned. Hudson’s only financial exposure is in the form of a 10-year tax holiday, representing $23,661 annually.

At some point in this process, the Town of Hudson is expected to file a preemptive reserve on the property. At the August 2023 council meeting, the mayor included “the Wyman Memorial parking lot where Villa Wyman is to be built” in a list of properties eligible for a pre-emptive reserve.

Adopted at that same meeting, Bylaw 762 enables the municipality to freeze the transfer of designated lots for up to 10 years while an expropriation tribunal determines its market value. (Companion legislation currently before the National Assembly would allow a municipality change zoning to lower a property’s market value.)

Ratcliffe questions the motives of the current council, which twice rejected approval of plans for the structure (in June and October 2022) before conditionally approving them in November. 

“Consistently, every single time, council would tell us to go back and redo the plans. They have not shown any good will. There has been zero co-operation…if you don’t have the support of the town, you won’t succeed.” 

She also wonders whether the temple’s executive has its own agenda for refusing to agree to a servitude in a shared parking lot when Villa Wyman already has 22 parking spaces, whereas the bylaws require 15. “At first they were very agreeable to a servitude, but after months of chasing after them to make it official, they said no.” 

Could it be that the temple hopes to buy the entire site for parking after the town refused to allow them to pave over the greenspace  at the corner of Main and Selkirk? Ratcliffe asks the question, but doesn’t expect an answer to this or any queries about council’s agenda.

After years living in Hudson, she and her husband Peter moved to Kingston to be closer to their daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren. Their son James, a Hudson volunteer firefighter, died in a nautical training accident June 7, 2005.

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.