Introduction

In response to FANHCA’s invitation to open a dialogue between the citizens of North Hatley and the Mayor and Council, Jane Meagher and Brian Merrett were invited to meet with Mayor Michael Page last August 2.

Given the current 18-month moratorium on building in flood zones in Quebec, including in the Village of North Hatley, we wanted to communicate to the Mayor that this would be an ideal time to open a dialogue with the citizens as FANHCA feels it is important that the citizens participate in shaping the vision and personality of their village.  As had been expressed by numerous citizens over the three years since the first public presentation of the Laliberté project—which had been granted agreement in principle earlier in 2014—there have been numerous calls for open, transparent dialogue with Town Hall.

Mayor Page, in his official message on the town website states, “Together, we accept the mandate to manage the Municipality with humility and respect.  Humility because the citizens have high expectations; and respect because we want to preserve the distinctive character of North Hatley.  Our village, despite its small size, has and will continue to assume an important regional leadership.  This Council, as the ones before it, is at the service of the citizens and has been assigned to take decisions that are in the best interest of the citizens.  The Council is attuned to the citizens’ needs.  Transparency of decisions remains a priority.”

But unfortunately, such humility and respect does not seem to have always been present.  Indeed, in describing Town Hall public meetings, one citizen speaks of an “..atmosphere of heaviness, non-transparency and reciprocal mistrust.”  This is surely not a productive atmosphere in a small town where citizens, Mayor and councillors are also neighbours.

Summary of Meeting with Mayor Page, Jane Meagher and Brian Merrett

There was discussion concerning the use of an outside, commercial firm such as Les Services EXP to determine the future appearance and personality of our village and of how this was seen by the citizens as denying them the right to participate in these important decisions.

The Mayor talked about the enthusiasm around the recent Orford fundraiser event and suggested that more such events could be held.  That brought up a discussion about the Town Square project and the student work in 2012 which calls for a revamping of the Grist Mill / Marina / Mill Street area to provide shops, services and activities, pedestrian areas, focal points and other attractions.

There was discussion about the small marketing business currently in the space previously occupied by the Canton which seems to be doing well (it has even expanded since moving there) and how businesses such as these and tech businesses don’t need much space and are perfect for North Hatley.  We should try to attract more small businesses.  Small tech companies, eco-friendly sporting outfits and unique retail outlets were suggested as possible initiators of new investment in North Hatley.

We learned that the Quebec Government has until August 28th to either approve or reject the Plan de Gestion prepared by the MRC.  We also learned that the Government of Quebec will hold a forum this fall on building / rebuilding in flood plains.

We agreed that there was no housing presently available for people with modest means.   While one possibility is to convert the White House / Maison Blanche into affordable housing, M. Laliberté owns the White House  / Maison Blanche and he is waiting to see what comes of the rest of the project before deciding what to do with it.  The Mayor stated that the flood plain development is no longer a seniors’ project but a condominium project open to anyone, that the Connaught Home project would be for seniors and that the White House / Maison Blanche should eventually be housing for younger people who would come to work in North Hatley in the new stores and businesses providing new services.

It was expressed that waiting for M. Laliberté to make a decision as to the eventual use of the White House / Maison Blanche was putting the future planning of our village on hold because this meant waiting for the outcome of the floodplain decree.  According to the Mayor, M. Laliberté is currently interested in moving forward with the flood plain project but could not guarantee that he will remain interested in pursuing it.

Strong concern was then expressed that, by putting so much emphasis on M. Laliberté’s decision-making, the participation of the citizens in shaping the Village is also being overshadowed.

The Mayor explained that the PPU is nearly completed but that not only does the Village not feel it can present its PPU until the Plan de Gestion is approved, it also feels that even if the Plan de Gestion is approved, it may not be appropriate to present it while the decree is still in effect.  The Mayor would like to reveal it to the citizens because he and Council have worked so hard on it, taking the time to do it right.  He says citizens will be happy with it.  We suggested that Council could present it to the community as a work in progress as opposed to an official PPU, in order to show the community what it has been working on and what it has accomplished, and to get feedback from the community before completing it and then presenting it as the PPU.  In order to provide a real opportunity for the community to provide its input, the Mayor was encouraged to make this presentation prior to Labour Day while the majority of the summer residents are still here.

FANHCA Summary

FANHCA encourages transparency and dialogue, especially regarding a project that has such potential consequences for our beautiful and harmonious village.  We feel that having the citizens included in the planning process is key to the successful outcome of any major project.  It would have been good, certainly, to have had regular updates on how the Mayor and Council were thinking regarding a vision for our Village.  And it would be good to know where over a quarter of a million of our dollars have been spent in preparing the groundwork for a project that may, in fact, never get off the ground,

Regarding the proposed condo project, the Connaught Home and the White House / Maison Blanche, given the Mayor’s statement, we are concerned that we’ll have condos (and most likely ‘luxury condos’ at that) in the flood zone, seniors in the Connaught, and younger people at the Maison Blanche.  In terms of town planning, this does not seem very desirable.  Mixing together the different populations would be preferable.  For the moment, certainly, the Connaught seems to be on hold.  What, if anything, is actually likely to be done there?

It is unsettling that the future of the village seems to be being determined by the decisions of one person, rather than an attempt being made to fashion a Master Plan, a long-term vision, a sense of what North Hatley could or should look like in the future.

No matter what happens in the flood plain, if it is thought that events in the big park might be ongoing, there will be a need to improve the ‘Town Square’.  As discussed in the 2012 student work, a refurbished marina and Old Grist Mill, as well as pedestrian spaces on Rue Mill, shops and services would add to the ambiance and visitor experience.  The mayor expressed concern about costs of such a project.

During the next year and a half, then, FANHCA feels that the best avenue that the Mayor and Council can take is one of open dialogue with the citizens to achieve consensus.  With an election coming up in November, this is all the more important.

Jane Meagher and Brian Merrett

August, 2017.

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.

 

(English follows)

Je voudrais commencer par dire que j’applaudis le gouvernement d’avoir adopté ce projet de décret concernant la déclaration d’une zone d’intervention spéciale sur le territoire de certaines municipalités locales affectées par les inondations survenues en avril et en mai 2017. J’ose espérer qu’il tiendra bon dans son intention de réduire les effets des inondations saisonnières et ira jusqu’au bout de sa réflexion sur les moyens de le faire. Mon intervention portera principalement sur la présence de North Hatley dans la liste des municipalités présentée à l’annexe 1 du décret. Mon argument est que North Hatley doit absolument y figurer et que doit être déclarée zone d’intervention spéciale la partie de son territoire située en zone de grand courant.

Bien sûr, le conseil municipal et le directeur général de la municipalité du village de North Hatley ont travaillé fort et depuis longtemps sur un plan de gestion applicable à la zone d’inondation, plan qui permettrait la construction de trois bâtiments résidentiels (210 condominiums), et de deux bâtiments commerciaux. Mais si le conseil municipal et le directeur général ont travaillé fort, ils ont aussi travaillé aveuglément, en fermant les yeux sur les faits – que la zone prévue pour la construction des résidences s’inonde régulièrement et sévèrement. La carte de la zone d’inondation à North Hatley, datée mai 2017, à laquelle se réfère le plan de gestion adopté par la MRC de Memphrémagog le 21 juin dernier, le confirme. Plus de 84 % de l’emprise au sol des bâtiments résidentiels  préconisés dans le plan de gestion (voir tableau 4, à la page 28) se situe dans la zone de grand courant! Lorsqu’il y aura inondation, il y aura évacuation – aux frais des contribuables de toute la province, de tout le pays même, et non seulement aux frais de ceux qui auront profité de la construction : c’est-à-dire, le promoteur et la municipalité.

Le conseil municipal, où du moins les trois conseillers (en fait la moitié d’un conseil municipal) ayant voté pour la résolution que vous présente le maire et le directeur général de la municipalité, fait valoir que North Hatley est en meilleure position que les autres municipalités, que North Hatley n’a pas souffert de dommages en 2017, que North Hatley surveille mieux que les autres les niveaux des eaux – mais rien de tout cela ne change le fait que North Hatley veut permettre la construction de bâtiments résidentiels en zone de grand courant, et le ferait – pour citer le projet de décret – « dans un contexte de changements climatiques. » Si l’on permet à North Hatley de continuer dans cette voie, si l’on soustrait la municipalité à l’annexe 1 du décret, on va augmenter et non réduire, comme le veut le décret, et le gouvernement, le « nombre de personnes et de biens exposés aux inondations futures ».

On fait valoir, aussi, l’immunisation prévue des bâtiments à construire, à un niveau tout arbitraire de 32 cm au-dessus de la cote d’inondation de 100 ans (une majoration arbitraire de 20 % des débits d’eau), qui les sécuriserait en cas d’inondations. Mais est-ce que des simulations ont été faites pour établir s’il s’agit là d’un niveau suffisant? Il suffirait, très probablement, d’un évènement majeur – qui n’aurait même pas besoin d’être de l’ordre des 158 mm de pluie tombés en quelques heures à Mount Forest en Ontario le 24 juin dernier – pour démontrer le contraire. Par ailleurs, sécuriser les bâtiments en les immunisant, même cela était possible d’une manière absolue et certaine, n’empêcherait en rien que les personnes qui y sont installées devront être évacuées, éventuellement en zodiacs et par hélicoptère, et que ce sera les contribuables de Montréal, de Chicoutimi, de Jonquière et de Stanstead qui en assumeront les frais. La seule façon d’assurer la protection des personnes et des biens est de construire en dehors des zones d’inondation 0-20 ans.

Le conseil municipal appuie un projet sans savoir quelles en seront les conséquences. C’est précisément ce que le gouvernement veut éviter par son projet de décret : les conséquences désastreuses pour les résidents, mais aussi pour tous les contribuables, de construire dans des zones qui seront inondées. Accorder un statut exceptionnel à la municipalité du village de North Hatley, en la soustrayant à la liste des municipalités auxquelles le projet de décret s’applique, reviendrait à dire que le gouvernement est d’avis que la construction de bâtiments résidentiels en zone d’inondation 0-20 ans est conforme à sa politique. Accorder une telle exemption voudrait dire que l’on reste dans le statu quo, que l’on n’est pas dans « un contexte de changements climatiques, » que les inondations printanières de 2017 n’avaient rien d’exceptionnel et étaient sans grande importance. Or, l’existence même du projet de décret démontre que le gouvernement veut que la situation actuelle change, qu’il ne peut plus avoir d’exceptions possibles à la Politique de protection des rives, du littoral et des plaines inondables pour des bâtiments résidentiels. Pour cette raison, on doit maintenir North Hatley sur la liste des municipalités auxquelles s’applique le projet de décret. Et entretemps, dans les 18 mois à venir, on devrait procéder à des simulations de tombées de pluie importantes et de combinaisons de fonte rapide des neiges et de pluies, afin de vérifier l’exactitude et le sérieux des études et des projections mises de l’avant par la municipalité du village de North Hatley, et de déterminer si, en fait, les effets des changements climatiques sont susceptibles de produire des situations dans lesquelles l’immunisation des bâtiments, à quelque niveau que ce soit, reste inadéquate. Pendant cette période de 18 mois, la municipalité pourrait, de son côté, explorer la possibilité de développer d’autres terrains sur son territoire, en dehors de la zone d’inondation, car il en existe plusieurs.

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.

I would like to begin by saying that I applaud the government for having adopted this draft decree concerning the declaration of a special intervention zone in the territory of certain local municipalities affected by the floods that occurred in April and May 2017. I hope that the government will remain steadfast in its intention to reduce the effects of seasonal flooding and continue its reflection on the ways of doing so. My intervention will focus on the presence of North Hatley on the list of municipalities set out in annex 1 of the decree. My argument is that North Hatley should most definitely be on this list, and that the part of its territory in the high-velocity flood zone should be declared a special intervention zone.

The town council and the general manager of the Village of North Hatley have worked hard and long on a management plan that would apply to the flood zone. It would allow the construction of three predominantly residential buildings, containing 210 condominiums, and of two largely commercial buildings. But if the city council and the general director have worked hard, they have also worked blindly, closing their eyes to the facts – that the area planned for the construction of the residential buildings floods regularly and severely. The map of the flood zone produced in May 2017, to which the management plan adopted by the MRC de Memphrémagog on 21 June 2017 refers, confirms this. More than 84% of the footprint of the three residential buildings foreseen in the management plan (see page 28, table 4, Plan de gestion) is situated in the high-velocity, 0-20 year flood zone! When the area floods, residents will have to be evacuated – at the expense of taxpayers across the province and across the country, and not only of those who have benefited from the construction, i.e. the developer and the municipality.

The municipal council, or rather the three councillors – half of a full council – who voted for the resolution being presented by the mayor and the general manager of the municipality, argue that North Hatley is in a better position than other municipalities, that North Hatley did not suffer damage in 2017, that North Hatley monitors water levels better than do others – but none of these change the fact that North Hatley wants to allow the construction of residential buildings in a high-velocity flood zone, and would do so – to quote the language of the draft decree – “in the context of climate change.” If North Hatley is allowed to continue to proceed with this development, if the municipality is removed from annex 1 of the decree, this will increase – not reduce, as is the stated objective of the decree, and of the government – “the number of people and the amount of property exposed to future flooding.”

It is argued as well that the planned waterproofing of the buildings to be constructed, set at a level of 32 cm above the 100-year flooding level (based on an arbitrary projected 20% increase in water flow) makes the buildings safe in the event of flooding. But have simulations been carried out to establish if this theoretical level is indeed sufficient? A major rainfall event – even substantially less than the 158 mm of rain that fell during a few hours in Mount Forest, Ontario, on 24 June 2017 – would most probably demonstrate that it is not. Moreover, securing the buildings by waterproofing them, even if that were possible with absolute certainty, would not prevent the people living in them from having to be evacuated, possibly in inflatable boats and by helicopter, and it will be the taxpayers of Montreal, Chicoutimi, Jonquière and Stanstead who will pay the cost of doing so. The only certain way of ensuring the protection of people and property is to build outside 0-20 flood zones.

The town council is supporting a project without knowing what its consequences will be. This is precisely what the government wishes to avoid by adopting its draft decree: the disastrous effects for residents, but also for taxpayers generally, of construction in zones prone to flooding. Granting an exceptional status to the Village of North Hatley by withdrawing it from the list of municipalities to which the proposed decree applies would be tantamount to saying that the construction of residential buildings in 0-20 year flood zones is consistent with government policy. Granting such an exemption would mean returning to the status quo; it would send a signal that we are not living “in a context of climate change,” that the 2017 spring floods were nothing special and of little importance. The very existence of the draft decree demonstrates that the government wants the existing situation to change, that there can no longer be any possible exceptions to the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains in the case of residential buildings. For this reason, North Hatley must be kept on the list of municipalities to which the draft decree applies. In the meantime, over the next 18 months, simulations of significant rainfall and of combinations of rapid snowmelt and of rainfall should be carried out to verify whether the studies put forward by the Village of North Hatley have any basis in reality and whether, in fact, the effects of climate change are likely to produce situations in which waterproofing, to any level, is an insufficient response. During this 18-month period, the village should itself explore the possibility of developing other areas of its territory, outside the 0-20 year flood zone, since several such areas in fact exist.

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.