William Crooks
Residents filled the Austin town hall the night of Sept. 2, pressing council for answers about a controversial development project on chemin Fisher

By William Crooks

Local Journalism Initiative

More than 50 residents and several members of the media packed Austin’s town hall Sept. 2 to demand answers from council regarding a controversial development on chemin Fisher. Accusations of environmental damage, legal violations, and insufficient oversight swirled as citizens pressed municipal officials on how a supposed orchard and vineyard project allegedly turned into an unauthorized private golf course on protected agricultural land.

The heated meeting was presided over by Mayor Lisette Maillé, who acknowledged the unusually high turnout. “Thank you, everyone, for being here. It’s not often we see the room this full,” she said, adding, “It would be nice if it were for regular municipal business.” The municipality’s handling of the issue—centred around landowner Glenn Chamandy—has triggered provincial scrutiny, community outcry, and widespread media coverage.

Residents demand answers

Much of the meeting focused on whether the municipality responded appropriately to mounting evidence that the land was being used for a private golf course—despite permits issued for an orchard. According to a May 2025 order from the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (CPTAQ), Chamandy’s development on chemin Fisher involved illegal work in protected maple stands and agricultural zones, as well as possible wetland disturbances.

Johanne Lavoie, president of Memphrémagog Conservation Inc., challenged council on its role. “The CPTAQ and the Environment Ministry have condemned this work. Why has the municipality remained silent?” she asked. “The evidence is overwhelming—photos, notices, orders.”

Mayor Maillé rejected that characterization. “The municipality has not been silent,” she replied. “We’ve explained the situation in media interviews. Our inspectors are on the ground. We’re conducting our own investigations—within our jurisdiction.”

She clarified that the town is investigating potential violations in the “white zone,” where municipal powers apply, while the CPTAQ and provincial ministry oversee protected wetlands and forests. “We’re not rushing into a legal trap,” she said. “We need solid evidence before acting.”

Concerns over inspections and oversight

Residents questioned how the municipality failed to detect months of land clearing and construction. Several recounted seeing large trucks carrying logs and rocks, wondering why this did not trigger earlier action. One speaker noted, “You need a permit to cut a single tree in Austin. How did hundreds of trucks go unnoticed?”

Maillé admitted that while one inspection took place in October 2023, no further visits were made until after concerns were raised. “Our former inspector did go to the site and was told it was an orchard. Based on that, there was no follow-up at the time.”

Pressed further, she said, “Could we have been more vigilant? Maybe. But the area is large. Multiple properties are under development. Not all trucking activity is tied to this one site.”

She emphasized that while oversight could have been stronger, the town has limited personnel. “We’re not making excuses,” she said, “but we don’t have unlimited inspectors.”

Staffing challenges and next steps

Council confirmed that Austin is in the process of hiring a new part-time inspector and that organizational changes are being considered for the 2026 budget. “We need to make the job attractive,” Maillé said. “It’s hard to find and retain inspectors. It’s not a popular profession.”

One speaker urged the town to “be ambitious” in its recruitment. “Austin has the means,” he said. “If we need five inspectors, hire five inspectors.”

Council acknowledged the point and received applause from the room. “We hear you,” Maillé responded. “We’re working on it.”

Transparency and legal caution

Several residents pressed the town to make public an upcoming third-party report on zoning interpretations. Maillé confirmed the report is expected shortly and will be discussed by council in the coming days. “The council will decide whether to release it publicly,” she said. “That’s always the case with reports we commission.”

Others pushed for immediate restoration of the affected land and a review of zoning regulations to prevent future cases. “Can we suspend work on the site while this is being sorted out?” one person asked. Maillé said legal advice would be sought on that question. “We can’t just shut things down without proper grounds,” she explained. “We need proof of wrongdoing first.”

Another speaker asked if contractors could be held accountable. Maillé responded, “Yes, both owners and contractors can be sanctioned under municipal law. We’ve done it before.”

The fines, however, are modest. The mayor outlined that for a corporation, the maximum fine for an infraction under the municipal code is $2,000. Illegal clear-cutting over one hectare could trigger fines between $15,000 and $100,000, depending on the case.

The road ahead

One resident asked whether the town would pursue land restoration under the law. Maillé said it would depend on the final analysis. “We first need to confirm which activities were non-compliant in our jurisdiction,” she said. “Then we’ll decide on the best course of action.”

Part of that confirmation will come from topographical surveys now underway. The town is comparing current site conditions to LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data gathered several years ago. This will help determine where land was filled or excavated. “It’s the only way to measure the scale of earthworks,” she said.

The town’s timeline to issue infractions is one year from the date of formal observation. “We’re currently gathering evidence,” a staff member confirmed. “We don’t want to miss any details. Once a notice is issued, it’s locked in.”

Some residents expressed scepticism that justice will be done. “It can’t feel like rich people play by different rules,” one said. “The law has to apply equally.”

Heritage and regulatory gaps

Attention also turned to possible use of heritage protection tools. A member of a local heritage committee raised concerns about the destruction of views from a historic promontory known as Cape Gibraltar. “It’s iconic, and we’ve lost it,” she said. “Can we protect the landscape through heritage laws?”

Maillé confirmed that some areas of the property fall within a corridor of recognized landscape interest defined by the MRC. “We are looking into it,” she said.

Finally, a resident pointed out that the zoning bylaw does not define “golf course,” leaving room for interpretation. “Chamandy says it’s a recreational trail. We don’t agree,” Maillé said. “But it’s a grey area. We’ll need to look closely at that too.”

Legal framework and citizen engagement

The mayor concluded the meeting by reiterating that the town is proceeding carefully. “We’re not hiding anything,” she said. “We’re following the law. When we have solid evidence, we’ll act.”

While tensions remain high, residents were assured that investigations are progressing and legal recourse is being prepared.

Austin’s council is expected to revisit the matter at its next regular meeting. As the case continues to draw provincial attention, residents are likely to keep showing up in large numbers.