Friends Amis North Hatley – fanhca.org – had its roots in the petition, 130, trois et beau, that gathered over 350 signatures from people who know and love North Hatley to request a less dense, lower and more harmonious project than the one presented to the public in August, 2014.

On September 8, 2014, the results of the petition were formally presented to the Mayor of North Hatley, Mr Michael Page, at a public meeting of citizens and the Town Council. Replying to an email to Communications North Hatley, the Village’s communications address, Councillor Pauline Farrugia* acknowledged the petition but rejected the numbers, stating, “The petition of 350 signatures is actually a petition of about half that. This is because many people who signed the petition are not North Hatley residents and many others did not actually sign.” 

On September 17, 2014, the Mayor and Council were provided with a list of the ties which certain people who signed the petition but indicated an out of town address might have with North Hatley.

Replying to my email sent to the Communications North Hatley, asking what significance the petition would have, Councillor Farrugia* replied on December 11, 2014, ”When the petition was officially presented to us at September’s public meeting, we said at that time that we will be taking it under advisement.  This is indeed what we have done. .. We read it and are keeping it in mind.”

However, at the public Town Council meeting earlier in the fall, when each council member was asked individually about whether their views on the acceptability of the project had been affected by the petition, one councillor said she had not been influenced, that the petition had been signed by non-residents, and that it wasn’t possible to know how many people in the town were in favour of the project.

To a degree, Council is correct saying that many who signed are not North Hatley residents but what they ignore is that many who signed the petition who are not North Hatley residents come from as nearby as Hatley, the Canton de Hatley and Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley, and have a close relationship with the Village, use its services, and care about its future. They form an integral part of the life of the village.

More significantly, others come from further afield: Montreal, Toronto, New York, Baltimore, Los Angeles, the Caribbean, Europe and elsewhere. These aren’t just casual tourists who happen to have once set foot in our beautiful village – many are the sons, daughters and extended families of current residents who will inherit these properties and will have more interest in the on-going structure of the village than perhaps their parents or current members of the council. But, in the eyes of Council, these people don’t count.

Perhaps there’s a deeper reason why Council is eager to discount these 200 or so petitioners. Councillor Farrugia continues, in her December 11th reply, “..a certain number of people think that (the project as presented in August, 2014) is fine just the way it was presented. Just as we are not ignoring the people who signed the petition, we are also not ignoring the people who have told us the opposite.” 

Council is vague on the numbers of those they feel are in favour of the project as presented in August, 2014, and, while it insists that it claims to represent the population that counts in its eyes – that is the “real” residents of North Hatley – it has all but rejected the possibility of a referendum on the subject. To date, the petition remains the most direct expression of dissatisfaction with the proposed project and, in particular, with its proposed size and density, by a quantifiable number of people. As such, the petition must be respected. Only a referendum would prove otherwise.

fanhca.org continues to offer a public forum on which citizens and groups can meet to exchange concerns and opinions regarding the future of the Village of North Hatley. We invite all citizens of North Hatley and beyond to avail themselves of this open and unedited forum to express their concerns and opinions and to respond to those of others. Let us not forget that this project, if it is built, in whatever form it takes, will drastically and forever change the face of North Hatley, one of the most beautiful villages of Quebec.

*In an earlier version these comments were erroneously attributed to Council as an entity. They are, in fact, the personal opinion of Councillor Farrugia. Council has not commented on the significance of the fanhca petition.

Préambule :

M. Don Watt au Conseil du Village le 2 juillet 2015: Auriez-vous l’obligeance de considérer les questions suivantes lors de votre prochaine réunion :

Questions, suivies des réponses :

1. Puisque nous discutons de ce projet [projet de développement proposé par M. Laliberté pour le centre du Village] depuis quelques années maintenant pourriez-vous nous mettre au courant de l’envergure et des dimensions du projet actuellement ?

Réponse: Le Conseil n’offrira aucun commentaire sur cette question avant la publication du PPU.

2. Quelle est maintenant la somme totale déboursée par le Conseil, de l’année 2011 à l’année 2015, pour le Plan de Gestion, le PPU, les rapports techniques commandés à EXP, les rapports environnementaux, et autres études techniques, frais juridiques, etc. tenant à ce projet ?

Réponse.: Nous n’avons pas ces chiffres en main.

 [M. Paul St.-Pierre, présent à cette réunion, a indiqué qu’il avait calculé, à partir des Procès Verbaux du Conseil que la somme totale à date dépassait 79 000$].

3. Quelle proportion de cette somme sera financée par la MRC?

Réponse : Aucune. 

4. Quelle proportion de cette somme a été payée ou remboursée par le promoteur du projet, M. Laliberté ?

Réponse : Aucune à date.

5. Si rien n’a été remboursé par M. Laliberté,  combien de cette somme comptez-vous lui facturer et quand allez-vous la facturer ? Avant ou après l’octroi des permis ?

Réponse : Le Conseil ne s’attend à être remboursé que pour les frais relevant directement du projet et ils devront être payés avant l’octroi éventuel des permis.  Cela dit, les frais tels les études commandées à EXP, la demande du PPU et les frais juridiques attenants sont à la charge du Village.

[Pour mémoire : le Conseil avait indiqué, lors de sa réunion de juin 2014, que ces frais seraient à la charge du promoteur].

6. Si, pour quelque raison, le promoteur refuse de rembourser les frais qui lui seraient attribués, quelles mesures préconisez-vous afin d’obtenir satisfaction? Je fais noter au Conseil que le promoteur a récemment mis en vente une partie de l’un des terrains acquis – avant même qu’il n’ait entrepris quelque travaux que ce soit.

Réponse : Le Village ne recevra rien du promoteur.

7. Quels conseils d’experts professionnels de l’immobilier indépendants avez-vous sollicités quant à la faisabilité et la profitabilité de ce projet – tenant compte plus particulièrement de son envergure, de sa situation dans une plaine inondable et quant à l’effet qu’aurait éventuellement ce projet sur les valeurs immobilières des autres propriétés du Village ?

Réponse : Le Conseil n’a sollicité aucun conseil d’expert en immobilier.

8. Bien que le financement de ce projet relève entièrement de la responsabilité du promoteur, auprès de quels professionnels du financement avez-vous sollicité conseil afin de vous assurer que le promoteur a pris toutes les mesures appropriées pour entreprendre le financement du projet ?

Réponse : Le Conseil n’a obtenu aucun conseil quant au financement. 

9. Quelle institution financière majeure devra fournir le financement de ce projet ? Ou encore, y a-t-il un locataire principal prêt à ancrer le financement de ce projet ?

Réponse : Cette question n’a pas été adressée par le Conseil.

10. Êtes-vous prêts à nous présenter une étude détaillée des avantages et soulagements fiscaux que ce projet pourrait, éventuellement représenter pour le Village?

Réponse : Cette question n’a pas été adressée par le Conseil.

11. Quelles mesures avez-vous prises afin de protéger le Village de toute poursuite juridique, de tout litige financier éventuel, au cas où ce projet venait à échouer financièrement – soit pendant la phase de la construction des bâtiments, soit plus tard, une fois les immeubles complétés, si ceux-ci ne se vendaient pas suffisamment,  selon les attentes du promoteur, ou encore, si les ventes s’avéraient insuffisantes pour subvenir à la charge fiscale attendue du Village ? (je ne fais ici aucune référence à quelque engagement fiscal préalable normalement requis, pendant la phase de construction).

Réponse : Le Conseil n’a tenu aucun compte de ces questions, mais il s’est retenu d’émettre quelque servitude que ce soit en rapport avec les zones inondables – ainsi qu’il le lui avait été conseillé par ses avocats, en 2014. 

Merci

Donald Watt

Les opinions exprimées sur ce site Web reflètent celles de leurs auteurs. L’espace est offert à titre de service à la communauté et FANHCA, ses administrateurs et son hébergeur ne peuvent en aucun cas être tenus responsables des opinions qui y sont émises.

Would you please address the following issues at the next council meeting. 

Here are the answers we received to the questions addressed to the Council July 6, 2015 :

1) Since we have been considering this project for several years now, can you update us on the current size and scale now under consideration?

Answer: The Council will not comment before the PPU is made public.

2) What is the total sum of money spent by the Council to date , 2011 through 2015, on the Plan de gestion, PPU,  technical reports by EXP,  environmental & other technical studies, and legal expenses related to these issues?

Answer: We do not have that figure on hand.  

(Paul Saint-Pierre commented that he totaled it from Council meeting minutes to be more than $79 000)

3) How much of this will be funded by the MRC?

Answer: None

4) What portion of this has been funded by the developer… i.e. how much money has he actually contributed to date toward these expenses?

Answer: Nothing to date.

5) If none has been collected to date from him, how much money are you expecting him to pay and when are you going to collect it, before issuing building permits or after?

Answer: The Council expects to receive only those funds spent directly on the project, to be paid before issuing building permits.  Items such as the EXP studies, PPU applications, legal fees are to the village account.

(The reader may recall that in June 2014, the Council indicated all these expenses were for the developer’s account)

6) If, for some reason, the developer declines to cover these expenses, what steps are planned to collect them? I note that he is now offering for sale some of his recently acquired property, before anything is actually built.

Answer: The village will receive nothing from the developer.

7) What independent real estate advise have you had with respect to the feasibility of this project given its flood zone location and size and the expected effect on real estate prices for the rest of the village ?

Answer:  The council has not received any expert real estate advice.

8) Though the financing of the project is the responsibility of the developer, who have you consulted for financial advice so the Council knows that all the pertinent issues have been properly addressed by the developer ?

Answer: The Council has received no expert financial advice!

9)  Which major financial institution will provide the financing for this project or is there a major tenant involved to financially anchor the project?

Question not addressed 

10) Are you now prepared to give us a detailed study of the tax relief benefits of this development?

Question not addressed 

11) What are the plans to protect the village financially from any litigation resulting from this project running into difficulty financially, both during construction and later on, should it not generate sufficient revenue to meet the developer’s expectations, or be in default of taxes owed to the Village? I am not referring to any bonding requirements during the construction phase, which I understand is part of the requirement.

Answer: The Council has not given any special consideration to this, other than to not act on issuing of a servitude on the flood zone properties, as recommended by their legal adviser at the time in 2014.

Thank you

Don Watt

The opinions expressed on this website are those of their authors. Space on the website is provided as a service to the community and FANHCA, its administrators and host cannot be held responsible for any of the opinions expressed thereon.