By Nick Fonda
Local Journalism Initiative
Housing, in particular the dearth of affordable housing, was one of the major issues in the last federal election. All candidates from all parties promised to provide more of it. Yet, building residential housing is less straightforward than it might appear. Land, even if it is available, is not necessarily entirely suitable. Such is the case of a sizeable tract of land being considered for development in Richmond.
The piece of land in question is located in the south-west corner of the town, and on its zoning map is designated as zones R-p8 and R-29. In all it measures about 16 acres and stretches like a clumsily drawn rectangle, bounded on its long sides by the town limit on one side and Thomas Street—or the houses that line the south side of Thomas Street—on the other. For the most part, the land slopes gently towards the south-east, much like the golf course, it’s neighbour across the street. Approximately along the town limit, the land drops towards a small stream, and the most low-lying section of the tract is somewhat swampy.
Even though it served as farmland as recently as three years ago, the land has been zoned white for almost a quarter century.
At the time of the zoning, the Quebec government was moving to protect the province’s remaining agricultural land. Municipalities were given an option of designating land in their territory as zoned white (available for development) even if it was farmland or forest. Otherwise, the province would zone it green and immune from urbanization.
The piece of land in question was part of a dairy farm that straddled the boundary line separating the Town of Richmond from Melbourne Township. The farm was then being operated by Paul Fortier, who was also a municipal councillor. His house and barns were located in Melbourne Township, on the other side of the invisible municipal boundary and on the other side of the small stream running approximately alongside it. In earlier times, he used the land as pasture for his heifers. That changed when the Quebec government began protecting the province’s waterways from, among other things, cattle wading into small streams. To continue using the land as pasture he would have had to fence off the stream and build a bridge for his cattle to cross over it. He chose to pasture his heifers elsewhere and began using the land to grow corn or hay.
Paul Fortier’s farm is still in the family, but farming practices have changed and three years ago, the piece of land was put up for sale. Being zoned white, it held great potential for developers. It sold quite quickly and then was sold a second time.
In the context of a nation-wide housing crisis, it is almost inevitable that this enviably-located, 16-acre lot will be developed. What is of concern to the 19 households that live adjacent to it, on Thomas Street, is just what form that development is going to take. If housing is going to be built, what kind of housing is it going to be?
On May 21, on their web site and in the local guaranteed circulation weekly, the Town of Richmond posted a notice announcing a request for a change in zoning regulations for R-p8 and R-29, the piece of land in question.
The change would allow for the construction of duplexes on the lower lying land and of multiplex buildings up to three storeys high on the upper slope.
Relatively few people take the time to read the public notices issued by the Town, but one concerned person did. News of the request spread quickly and on Monday, the 26th, a petition was drafted expressing opposition to the zoning change. It was signed by all the homeowners on the Richmond end of Thomas Street. (The upper end of the street is in Melbourne Township.) One of the homeowners contacted the town and learned that the proposed zoning change could represent as many as 170 housing units. Richmond’s urbanist, Francesco Cappai, was open to meeting with the residents of Thomas Street to answer any questions.
At 4:30 p.m. the next day, May 27, the town urbanist, councillor Katherine Dubois, and director general, Mario Mayette, were all present to answer questions from the two dozen residents—almost all of them from Thomas Street—who turned up at the Richmond town hall.
It was explained that the town had received no request for any building permits. The request was for a zoning change. The town had also been asked by the developer to subdivide the land. Despite the brief presence of heavy equipment on the land in question, the town had issued no permits of any kind and the machinery was moved away quite quickly.
One of the residents pointed out that the notice published by the town was not easy for the lay person to read and understand.
Another expressed disappointment that no one on the street had had as much as a phone call from their elected representative about this proposed change.
The residents were told that the request for the zoning change would be debated and voted on at the next council meeting. The request might be rejected and the case closed. However, if the council voted to accept the zoning change, the residents still had recourse to ask for a referendum to settle the issue.
It was a very polite meeting that filled the hour that had been allotted for it. One of those in attendance, who had asked a number of questions, thanked the three town officials for their answers and their time.
Many promised to be present at the next Richmond council meeting.
On Monday, June 2, the Richmond council chamber was filled to capacity. The last half dozen of the 30 people in attendance had to stand.
The meeting was an anticlimax. One of the first items on the agenda, the proposed zoning change, after the briefest of discussions, was voted down. The land in question would not be given over to duplexes and three-storey multiplex buildings. The zoning would remain as is, for single-family homes and apartment blocks of not more than two storeys.
If the rejection of the requested zoning change was a victory for the residents of Thomas Street, it holds limited promise of being permanent. The prospect of 170 new households (representing a possible 340 more vehicles) on Thomas Street was vanquished on Monday night, but the land in question can, in theory, still be developed to accommodate 120 new households (and 240 more vehicles).
All three levels of government are anxious to see more home construction. Builders, whose best profit margins come from upscale construction projects, are being offered financial incentives to build low-cost housing. Similarly, there is a push to densification. A single-family home on a half-acre lot is a luxury of the past. Urban areas are moving towards housing more people in less space.
Richmond, like all other municipalities, operates on what it can generate from property taxes. Bertrand Menard, Richmond’s mayor, pointed out that the town has two potential residential sites that together could create 300 new housing units. (The land in question might yet represent 120 units and a second tract of land (its location undisclosed for the time being) would accommodate 80 units.) Using $3000 as an average household tax bill, Richmond would collect close to an extra million dollars in taxes annually should both sites be developed.
Money collected through taxation is quickly spent on Infrastructure. The water, sewage, and roadway on Thomas Street are scheduled to be re-done this year at a cost of two million dollars. (The work is not related to any possible housing development; the underground piping and the asphalt road surface are both at the end of their expected life spans.)
Still, development of the land in question is going to pose problems. At present, including the residents on Thomas Street, there are about 50 households that have to use either Belmont Street of Thomas Street to go anywhere. Topography has made both streets, particularly the latter, rather steep and potentially dangerous in poor winter weather. Because both streets were initiated more than 125 years ago (in the case of Belmont 200 years ago) when people still travelled by horse and buggy, both streets, and in particular Thomas, are very narrow, with houses perched close to the street.
As well as being steep and narrow, Thomas Street (named after Daniel Thomas, the area’s first notary) meets Melbourne Avenue (which also serves as Highway 243) at a potentially dangerous T-junction.
The residents on Thomas Street say they’re open to more housing, but what they picture is a limited number of single-family homes like the ones they inhabit.
Fully developing the land in question to 120 housing units would triple the traffic on two streets that were originally, to use the mayor’s words, small country roads. Neither of the streets can be significantly widened, nor would Thomas Street have room for a sidewalk and bike path—amenities that today go hand-in-hand with a residential development.
On paper, Zones R-p8 and R-29 in Richmond seem ideal for a housing development. Yet, the site lacks safe, drivable access capable of accommodating the daily traffic that would be generated by a multiplex development.
The task faced by the Town of Richmond is far from enviable. There is no simple, straightforward, easy, common-sense solution to making Paul Fortier’s field easily accessible, however promising it might be as housing development. Rejecting the request for a zoning change reflects just how challenging it is to create new housing.