(Above: location of the building ‘Chez Dame Jacqueline’)

Public consultation by the MRC de Memphrémagog, April 13, 2017: Management plan for the North Hatley flood zone.

The public consultation we are taking part in tonight is premature, since the document on which it is based is incomplete, flawed, at times inconsistent, vague, and tendentious.

1. The document is incomplete: This document, other than in a few details, is the same as the one the Ministry of Municipal Affairs declared not in compliance with government guidelines. To make it compliant, the Village of North Hatley must file with the Ministry of the Environment an application for a certificate of authorization setting out the course of Kezar stream. This application has not yet been filed; the public does not know where Kezar stream will go or how the various properties in the flood zone – both those of the promoter and the surrounding properties – will be affected. This is of crucial importance for an understanding of the Management Plan, as the decanalization of Kezar stream will render approximately 2,000 m² of land in the flood zone unbuildable. This may make it impossible for one of the buildings listed in the Management Plan to be built. Without knowing the actual course of the decanalized stream, it is impossible for the public to give an informed opinion on the Management Plan.

2. The document is flawed: Others have pointed out that the calculations with regard to the delineation of the 0-20 and 20-100 year flood zones have to be redone, for several reasons: 1. The height assigned to the bridge in the EXP document does not correspond to the measurements by the Ministry of Transport, and this is likely to affect the calculation of water levels. The actual effect of this error in the EXP document should have been calculated before holding a public consultation on the document; 2. The delineation of the flood zones in the EXP document does not correspond to what the residents of the area actually experience; 3. The Management Plan does not take into account water levels when the area is flooded directly from the lake, as in 1994 and in the 1920s. Failure to do this means that residents of the flood zone and their property are being unnecessarily put at risk.

Other important flaws in the document relate to the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains.  Article 5.3 sets out criteria for the eligibility of zones for a Management Plan, as well as what the Plan must contain. Despite what is claimed in the document under discussion, the floodplain in North Hatley does not meet the density requirement under article 5.3 of more than five (5) principal constructions per hectare. The figures given in Table 2 (page 11) of the document are incorrect, since they include constructions other than principal constructions in the calculation. In addition, whereas Article 5.3 also indicates that “the management plan must stipulate an implementation schedule (‘calendrier de mise œuvre,’ in the French version. My emphasis),” the document presents no such ‘schedule’ but rather simply a series of tasks to be completed at an indefinite point of time in the future. Finally, Article 5.3. also notes that “the management plan must take into account titles of ownership of the State … .” (My emphahsis) There is, however, no mention made in the document of existing Municipal servitudes in the area, such as that between the Église Inter-foi and the former Emily LeBaron Park. The document needs to be reworked so that it meets the requirements of article 5.3 of the Protection Policy.

3. The document is at times inconsistent: Two studies are cited in the Annex to the Management Plan; they constitute the very basis of its analysis of the site. At times, however, they contradict each other. The Avizo study indicates that parts of the site of the building known in the village under the name of “Chez Dame Jacqueline” (Avizo study: reference number 26) are located variously outside the flood zone, within the 0-20 year zone, and in the 20-100 year zone. Photos confirm that the building has in the past been completely surrounded during flooding by water coming directly from the lake. [See below] The EXP study, however, places the site of the building completely outside the flood zone. This contradiction – and there may be others – only serves to confirm that the data in the EXP study needs to be recalculated prior to approval of the Management Plan; in fact, the data should have been recalculated prior to the public consultation on the document.

4. The document is vague: 1. On pages 22 and 23 of the Management Plan, the newly constructed buildings are presented in terms of ‘floors’ (three floors, four floors, five floors). The concept of ‘floor’ is by its very nature imprecise and does not correspond to the regulations currently in force in the village, which measure the height of buildings in ‘meters’; 2. On page 27 of the Management Plan, it is noted in relation to the decanalisation of Kezar stream, that “[u]ne bande d’une largeur de 10 m sera revégétalisée.” In fact, the width of the strip to be replanted and left unbuilt will be 10 meters on each side of the stream – thus, a band wider than 20 meters.

5. The document is tendentious: A management plan is a document that serves as a framework and is integrated into the Schéma d’aménagement. The Schéma d’aménagement is “un document de planification chargé d’énoncer les grandes orientations et grandes affectations de la politique générale de la MRC quant à l’aménagement de son territoire” (Marc-André LeChasseur, Zonage et urbanisme en droit municipal québécois, page 255. My emphasis.) What is presented in the North Hatley Floodplain Management Plan is linked directly to a particular agreement in principle between the municipality and a developer, the owner of most of the land in the flood zone. To be convinced of this direct link, one need only compare the agreement in principle and the Management Plan with regard to the number and the height of the buildings envisaged, the number of units, as well as the proposed footprint. This means that the Management Plan has not been developed according to general needs or broad guidelines; it does not constitute a general framework for the development of the village. What will happen if this project is not carried out and another project is presented, perhaps by another promoter (townhouses, for example)? Since the Management Plan has been developed on the basis of a particular project, the specific details of which determine the content of the document, does this mean that only this project would be possible under the proposed Management Plan?

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs’ guidelines for public consultations are clear – the documents submitted to the public must be reliable. The Management Plan discussed this evening is not a reliable document; the public consultation is premature.

This is why I am calling for the public consultation to be suspended and resumed once the Management Plan has been completed and corrected.

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)

À l’attention de Monsieur Jacques Demers

Préfet  de la MRC Memphrémagog

1. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi on fait un plan de gestion pour éviter de respecter la règlementation des zones inondables pour un projet qui est en partie construit dans la zone 0-20 ans et en partie construit dans la zone 20-100 ans, avec un empiétement important et non pas marginal dans ces zones. Les lois sur la protection des zones inondables adoptées pour protéger l’environnement sont ici modifiées par un plan de gestion pour passer outre la réglementation générale. Une chose est sûre, il y aura un problème un jour, donc pourquoi élaborer un plan de gestion pour construire de toute pièce un problème.

2. Je me rappelle 1994, alors que l’eau traversait la rue Main et où l’on ne pouvait plus utiliser le pont, mais devions faire le tour par Ayer’s Cliff. Ces inondations sont évidemment occasionnelles, mais elles reviendront, c’est une question de temps. Dans le contexte des changements climatiques, on nous annonce que les pluies deviendront encore plus importantes. La zone dans laquelle on veut construire un projet est un secteur qui a déjà été largement modifié et remblayé, mais qui est tout de même toujours inondable. Ce que l’on soustrait d’une zone inondable en termes de volume est remplacé par une modification de la zone quelque part ailleurs et on ne fait donc que déplacer le problème.

3. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi construire un problème de toute pièce dans un petit village charmant ou on y vient pour retrouver le charme d’un village patrimonial. Construire un projet de 210 unités de logements dans un village qui compte environ 400 unités de logement c’est évidemment le modifier de façon importante surtout quand c’est dans une petite zone en plein cœur du village. On nous propose de détruire le charme pour lequel on est venu s’installer à North Hatley.

Pourquoi construire un problème en faisant un projet à risque avec des stationnements sous-terrain, ce qui n’existe pas à un seul exemple à North Hatley, et prendre les mesures pour limiter les risques. Pour moi c’est une question qui va arriver, la question est-ce dans 5 ans, dans 100 ans ou dans 20 ans, mais la loi de la moyenne existe. J’aimerais rappeler qu’à Cannes il y a à peine quelques années, plusieur personnes se sont noyées lorsqu’ il y a eu inondation des sous-sols et qu’elles voulaient tout simplement sortir leur auto du stationnement sous-terrain.

4. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi construire un projet qui ne respecte aucunement la morphologie du village. On parle d’un zonage de 5 et 4 étages. Pouvez-vous imaginer un bâtiment de 5 étages entre la petite église brune et le bâtiment bleu de 2 étages. 5 étages c’est donc 2 fois et demie environ la hauteur des bâtiments existants de part et d’autre. 5 étages c’est le seul bâtiment de cette hauteur dans North Hatley.

5. Je ne pense pas que réaliser un projet aussi gros pour le village permettra de régler l’aspect financier du village. On sous-estime sans aucun doute l’impact d’un tel projet sur la voirie, les infrastructures, à une intersection qui est déjà un peu congestionnée.

6. Un projet acceptable serait un projet qui respecterait la morphologie du village :

–        On nous propose un projet avec un CES de 50%, c’est ce que l’on fait au centre-ville de Montréal dans de nombreux projets de densité de 8 à 12 étages.

–        On nous dit qu’il n’y aura aucune ouverture dans le mur de fondation et qu’est ce qui arrive de la porte de garage.

–        On ne nous parle aucunement de la protection des arbres qui seront mis en péril avec leurs remblais.

 

On nous propose donc de détruire le cachet pour lequel on est venu à s’installer à North Hatley.

Conclusion

C’est un projet qui n’a pas sa raison d’être, il n’y a aucun besoin de construire dans les zones inondables et de construire ce type de densité dans un village comme North Hatley et il n’y a aucun besoin de modifier l’aspect pittoresque d’un village dont le cachet est reconnu de tous.

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.

To the attention of Mr. Jacques Demers
Prefect of the Memphrémagog MRC

1. I do not understand why we are preparing a management plan in order to avoid having to respect the flood zone regulations for a project that is in part built in a 0-20 year zone and in part built in a 20-100 year zone, with an encroachment which is important and not negligible in both zones. The laws protecting flood zones which are adopted to protect the environment are modified here by a management plan to overturn the general regulations. One thing is certain, there will one day be a problem, so why elaborate a management plan in order to build a problem from scratch.

2. I remember 1994, when Main Street was under water and we could not use the bridge, but had to go drive around via Ayer’s Cliff. Obviously, this kind of flooding happens only on occasion, but it will happen again, it is only a question of time.  In the context of changing climate conditions, we are told that heavy rains will increase even more. The zone in which we want to build a project is a sector which has already been modified and backfilled but is nonetheless still a flood zone. What one removes from a flood zone in terms of volume is replaced by a modification to the zone somewhere else and all one does is shift the problem.

3. I do not understand why we are building a problem from scratch in a small charming village where one comes in order to benefit from the charm of a Heritage Village. Building a 210 unit housing project in a village that has about 400 housing units is obviously modifying it in a substantial way, especially when it is in a small zone in the heart of the village. We are proposing to destroy the charm which made us settle in North Hatley.

Why create a problem by doing a risky project with underground parking, of which there is not one single other example in North Hatley and then take measures to limit the risk.  For me, it is a question which will arise, the question is whether it is in 5 years, in 100 years or in 20 years, but the law of averages applies.  I would like to remind you that in Cannes just a few years ago, several persons drowned when basements were flooded and they simply wanted to get their cars out of the underground parking.

4. I do not understand why we would build a project which does not in any way respect the morphology of the village. We are speaking of 5 and 4 storeys.  Can you imagine a 5-storey building between the small brown church and the blue 2-storey building? 5 storeys is approximately 2 and a half times the height of the existing buildings. 5 storeys would be the only building of that height in North Hatley.

5. I do not think that to complete such a large project will allow the village to solve the village’s financial concerns. One is no doubt under-estimating the impact that such a project will have on the roads, the infrastructures at an intersection which is already fairly congested.

6. An acceptable project would be one that respects the morphology of the village :

1. • We are being proposed a project with an FAR of 50%, this is what we do in downtown Montreal with numerous projects with an 8 to 12 storey density.
   • We are told that there will be no opening in the wall of the foundation and yet what of the garage door?
   • There is no discussion regarding the protection of trees which will endangered because of their backfill.

The proposal is therefore to destroy the charm which made us settle in North Hatley.

Conclusion

It is a project which does not hold up, there is no need to build in the flood zones nor to build this type of density in a village like North Hatley and there is no need to modify this picturesque aspect of the village which has a charm known to all.

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.