COMMISSION DE PROTECTION DU TERRITOIRE AGRICOLE DU QUÉBEC

Transcription

1 COMMISSION DE PROTECTION DU TERRITOIRE AGRICOLE DU QUÉBEC IDENTIFICATION OF RECORDS Number Area hectares Municipality Noyan (M) RCM Le Haut-Richelieu Number Area hectares Municipality Lacolle (M) RCM Le Haut-Richelieu Number Area hectares Municipality Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu (M) RCM Le Haut-Richelieu Number Area hectares Municipality Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu (M) RCM Le Haut-Richelieu Number Area hectares Municipality Sainte-Brigide-d'Iberville (M) RCM Le Haut-Richelieu Number Area hectares Municipality Sainte-Anne-de-Sabrevois (P) RCM Le Haut-Richelieu Date July 15, 2005

2 Records to , and MEMBERS PRESENT Bernard Trudel, Vice-President Suzanne Cloutier, Vice-President Mtre. Louis-René Scott, Commissioner APPLICANT INTERESTED PERSONS Le Haut-Richelieu RCM See appendix DECISION APPLICATIONS [1] Further to the revision of its development plan, and with a view to delimiting the urbanization perimeters of the municipalities concerned, the Haut-Richelieu RCM is seeking the authorizations necessary to exclude certain sectors of the municipalities. Six municipalities have been identified: Record , Noyan (2.8 hectares) Sector H-05 Lots 20-P and 21 to 26, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Thomas, Missisquoi registration division, approximately 2.22 hectares in area. Sector H-11 Lots P and to 162-8, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Thomas, Missisquoi registration division, approximately 5760 square metres in area. Record , Lacolle (70.12 hectares) Sector 1 Lots 81-P and 83-P, cadastre of the parish of Lacolle, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately hectares in area. Sector 2 Lots 83-P, 84-P and 85-P, cadastre of the parish of Lacolle, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 8.06 hectares in area.

3 Records to , and Sector 3 Lots 85-P, 85-1 to 85-7, 86-P, 86-1 to 86-11, to 86-16, P, to 86-35, to and 86-60, cadastre of the parish of Lacolle, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately hectares in area. Sector 4 Lots 85-P, 85-9-P, 85-10, P, P, P, and a piece of land with no cadastral designation, cadastre of the parish of Lacolle, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 2.42 hectares in area. Sector 5 Lots 423-P and 424-P, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Valentin, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 5.07 hectares in area. Sector 6 Lots 49-P, 49-1, 49-4 to 49-6, 50-P, 50-1, 50-3 to 50-5, 50-8 to 50-12, 51-P, 51-3, 51-4, 52-P, 52-1 to 52-4, 52-6 to 52-15, 53-P, 871 and a piece of land with no cadastral designation, cadastre of the parish of Lacolle, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately hectares in area. Record , Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu (1.455 hectares) Sector 1 Lots 156-P, , and 428-P, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Valentin, Saint- Jean registration division, approximately hectares in area. Record , Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ( hectares) Sector AC-5 Lots 260-P, 261-P, 261-1, 261-2, 261-6, 264-1, to 265-7, to , to , P, , and a piece of land with no cadastral designation, cadastre of the parish of Sainte-Marguerite-de-Blairfindie, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 7.6 hectares in area. Sector TEM-10 Lots 350-P, 351-P and 351-1, cadastre of the parish of Sainte-Marguerite-de-Blairfindie, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 9.23 hectares in area.

4 Records to , and Sectors AC-6 and TEM-09 Lots 155-P, P, , , , , to , P, , , , , , , to , 156-P, , , P, 157-P, P, 157-3, P, 158-P, P, to , , , , , , , 159-P, 159-1, 160-P, P, P, 161-P and a piece of land with no cadastral designation, cadastre of the parish of Sainte-Marguerite-de-Blairfindie, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 26.6 hectares in area for sector AC-6 and approximately hectares in area for sector TEM-09 (total area of approximately 29.5 hectares). Sector SL-7 Lots 126-P, 127-P, 128-P, 128-1, P, 128-4, 129-P, 130-1, 131-P, 131-1, P, , 133-P, 134-P, 136-P, P, P, P, P, 136-5, 136-6, and , cadastre of the parish of Saint-Luc, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 15.4 hectares in area. Sector TEM-11 Lots 26-P, 27-P, to 27-69, to 27-81, 27-92, 27-93, to , , , , to , to , to , , , to , to , , , to , to , to , , , , to , , , to , , to , , to , to , , , to , , to , to , to , to , to , to , 38-P, 38-2 to 38-4, 41-1, 42-2 and 481, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Luc, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately hectares in area. Sector SA-11 Lots 318-P, 318-1, 319-P, to 319-4, 320-P, to 320-4, to , to , , to , to , 323-P, , , P, , 325-P and two pieces of land with no cadastral designation, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Athanase, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 17.6 hectares in area. Sector TEM-01 Lots 1-1 to 1-6, 1-7-P, 1-8, 1-10 to 1-24, 1-26, 1-27, , , , 1-31, 1-32, 1-38 to 1-47, 1-50 to 1-57, 1-61 to 1-77, , , , 1-81 to 1-87, 1-89 to 1-97, , 1-99, 1-101, 8-P, 8-1, 8-2, 9-P, 9-1 to 9-3, 11-P, 11-1 to 11-7, 11-12, 11-13, 12-P, 12-1, 15-P, 15-1, 16-P, 16-5 to 16-11, P, to 16-20, 16-29, 16-30, to 16-47, 19-P, 19-9 to 19-14, to 19-31, , , 19-33, 19-43, 19-44, 19-53, to 19-68, 20-P, 20-2 to 20-8, to 20-37, to 20-55, 21-P, 21-2 to

5 Records to , and , , 21-13, to 21-36, to 21-42, to 21-53, to 21-74, 23-1-P, 23-2 to 23-12, to 23-23, 25-P, 25-1, 25-3, 25-4, 27-P, 28-P, 28-1 to 28-10, 29-P, 29-1 to 29-8, to 29-12, 29-14, to 29-24, 30-1, 31-P, 31-1 to 31-52, to 31-57, to 31-78, to 31-82, , , to 31-92, 32-P, 32-1 to 32-3, 33-P, 33-1 to 33-4, 35-1 to 35-8, 36-P, 36-1 to 36-3, 36-45, 37-P, to 37-20, 38-P, 38-1, 38-17, 41-P, 42-P, 45-P, 46-P, 48-P, 49-P, 52-P, 52-2, 52-3, 53-P, 53-1 and pieces of land with no cadastral designation, cadastre of the parish of Saint- Athanase, Saint-Jean registration division. Sector TEM-02 Lots 53-P, 54-P, 54-1, 54-4, 490, 58-P and part of rue des Patriotes Est, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Athanase, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 4.07 hectares in area. Sector TEM-03 Lots 256-P, 257-3, 257-P to 259-P, 553-1, 533-P, and part of an autoroute and street, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Athanase, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 7.85 hectares in area. Sector TEM-04 Lots 249-P, , , 250-P, 250-9, , , 251-P, , , , and parts of streets, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Athanase, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately hectares in area. Sector TEM-05 Lots 326-P, 326-a, 326-2, to 326-7, 328-P, to 328-6, to , , to and parts of streets, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Athanase, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 6.85 hectares in area. Sector TEM-06 Lots 230-P, 230-1, 230-2, 231-P, and , cadastre of the parish of Saint- Athanase, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately hectares in area. Sector TEM-07 Lots 219-P, to 219-3, to 219-7, 221-P, to , , to , cadastre of the parish of Saint-Athanase, Saint-Jean registration division, part of an autoroute and parts of streets, approximately 9.37 hectares in area.

6 Records to , and Secteur TEM-08 Lots 91-P, 91-2, 91-3, 91-4, 92-P and part of a street, cadastre of the parish of Saint- Athanase, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 1.2 hectares in area. Record , Sainte-Brigide-d Iberville (8.69 hectares) Sector 1 Part of lot 286, cadastre of the parish of Sainte-Brigide, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately 5.51 hectares in area. Secteur 2 Lots 305-P, to and a piece of land with no cadastral designation, cadastre of the parish of Sainte-Brigide, Saint-Jean registration division, approximately hectares in area. Record , Sainte-Anne-de-Sabrevois (3.85 hectares) Lots 139-P, P, and 139-7, cadastre of the parish of Saint-Athanase, Saint- Jean registration division, approximately 3.85 hectares in area. RESOLUTIONS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES [2] In a resolution adopted on July 8, 2002, Municipalité de Noyan supported the application, considering it to be collective in scope. [3] In a resolution adopted on July 15, 2002, Municipalité de Lacolle, after analysing each of the sectors concerned on the basis of the criteria in section 62 of the Act, supported the application, indicating beforehand that some of the present portions of the urbanization perimeter are located in the agricultural zone. [4] In a resolution adopted on August 7, 2002, Municipalité de Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu supported the application, indicating that it simply wanted to regularize an existing situation, that it had no intention of enlarging the territory intended for residential purposes and that the acquired rights to commercial use should be recognized. [5] In a resolution adopted on October 2, 2002, Ville de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu supported the application, indicating that, among other things, the authorizations sought would not adversely affect agriculture since the lots in question have already been built upon for the most part, and the area occupied by the lots that are still vacant is slight and, in general, located within existing clusters.

7 Records to , and [6] In a resolution adopted on June 3, 2002, Municipalité de Sainte-Brigide-d Iberville supported the application, indicating that, in the first case, a highly concentrated residential and commercial zone would be consolidated and, in the second, a factory that is already established on the site would be able to change its type of production. [7] In a resolution adopted on March 1, 2004, Municipalité de Sainte-Anne-de-Sabrevois supported the application, basing itself on the implementation of its project for water supply and sewage services and the connection of existing streets. In a resolution adopted on March 8, 2005, it added that the project was essential for the safety of the site. WRITTEN INTERVENTIONS BY THE UPA [8] In record (Noyan), the Syndicat de l UPA de Venise, in a letter dated September 16, 2003, opposed the applications for the following reasons: - To start with, it is proposed that parts of excellent agricultural land that is currently farmed be removed from the agricultural domain. - It does not understand the justification for the applications and, in particular, the need to [TRANSLATION] consolidate the built-up core of the village. [9] In a letter dated April 6, 2005, the Syndicat de l UPA de Venise reiterated its disapproval of any application that would take away parcels of agricultural land to subject them to greater urbanization. [10] In record (Lacolle), the Fédération de l UPA de Saint-Jean-Valleyfield, in a letter dated November 9, 2004, opposed the applications for the following reasons: - There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the exclusions sought will have no impact whatsoever on the permanent agricultural zone. - The land is partly cultivated and has a class 2 soil capability for agriculture. It is therefore a resource with excellent potential, and the exclusions would result in a loss in agricultural productivity. - There are enough available areas (at least 1200 parcels) in the nonagricultural zone to meet the municipality s needs. - Other industrial sectors currently in the urbanization perimeter should be developed before excluding the sector and using it for industrial purposes. - The exclusions sought would unduly extend the non-agricultural zone toward a zone in which farming is intensively engaged in, and would only increase the negative impact on existing and future agricultural activities.

8 Records to , and The approach under section 59 of the Act should be adopted for the destructured sectors. [11] In record (Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu), the Fédération de l UPA de Saint-Jean- Valleyfield, in a letter dated October 28, 2003, found that the municipality did not show the need to exclude the sector concerned from the agricultural zone, and made the following points: - The exclusion would have many adverse consequences for existing or future farming operations. - Enlarging the white zone so that it encroached on a homogeneous, dynamic agricultural area would force future livestock operations to comply with new minimum distances (directives on odours). - The existing uses give rise to acquired rights, a situation which does not require the urbanization perimeter to be modified. - Extending the white zone beyond the physical barrier created by the railway could bring substantial pressure to bear, on the periphery of the sector concerned, to enlarge the commercial zone. - The exclusion would have more adverse consequences for the agricultural zone than benefits for the municipality. [12] In record (Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu), the Fédération de l UPA de Saint-Jean- Valleyfield, in a letter dated October 28, 2003, opposed the exclusions initially requested (AC-5, AC-6, 5L-7 and 5A-11), for the following reasons: - The exclusion of sector AC-6 will box in the agricultural land south of chemin du Clocher. Farmers will therefore have to adjust to new requirements concerning storage, the spreading of animal feces and pesticide use, thereby placing constraints on the practice of agriculture and the maintenance of viable farming operations. - The exclusion of sector AC-5 is unacceptable because of the proximity of a dairy farm. - The exclusion of sector SL-7 would cause problems for the agricultural zone, given its linearity. Moreover, the existing buildings barns and stables no longer in use and a golf driving range cohabit well with the agricultural zone and do not have to be in the white zone. - The exclusion of class 2 soil represents a considerable loss of a nonrenewable resource that must be protected for future generations.

9 Records to , and REMINDER OF THE PRELIMINARY INTENT [13] On February 28, 2005, the Commission sent a preliminary intent report to the interested persons. Its position at that time was the following: Record , Noyan - the exclusion of sector H-05 should be authorized; - the exclusion of sector H-11 should be refused; Record , Lacolle - the exclusion of sector 1 should be refused; - the exclusion of sectors 2 and 3 should be refused, but the unrestricted subdivision, alienation and non-agricultural use of sector 3 and a large part of sector 2, representing a total area of approximately 19.9 hectares, should be authorized; the roughly 19.9 hectares encompass approximately 9.25 hectares that had already been authorized, and were shown by hachuring on a plan, made from an aerial photograph, included with the preliminary intent report; - the exclusion of sector 4 should be refused; - the exclusion of sector 5 should be authorized; - the exclusion of sector 6 should be refused, but the unrestricted subdivision, alienation and non-agricultural use of part of the sector, totaling approximately hectares should be authorized; the roughly hectares were shown by hachuring on a plan, made from an aerial photograph, included with the preliminary intent report; Record (Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu) - the exclusion of the lone sector should be authorized; Record (Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu) - the exclusion of sector AC-5 should be authorized; - the exclusion of sector TEM-10 should be authorized; - the exclusion of sector TEM-09 should be refused;

10 Records to , and the exclusion of sector AC-6 should be refused in part, as the exclusion of the southern part of the sector approximately hectares should be authorized; the roughly hectares were shown by hachuring on a plan, made from an aerial photograph, included with the preliminary intent report; - the exclusion of sector SL-7 should be authorized; - the exclusion of sector TEM-11 (SL-5) should be refused; - the exclusion of sectors SA-11, TEM-05, TEM-06, TEM-07 and TEM-08 should be refused; - the exclusion of sector TEM-02 should be refused; - the exclusion of sector TEM-01 should be refused, but the unrestricted subdivision, alienation and non-agricultural use of the sector should be authorized; - the exclusion of sector TEM-03 should be refused; - the exclusion of sector TEM-04 should be refused. Record , Sainte-Brigide-d Iberville - the exclusion of sector 1 should be refused; - the exclusion of sector 2 should be refused; Record , Sainte-Anne-de-Sabrevoix - the exclusion of the lone sector should be refused. PUBLIC MEETING [14] A public meeting was requested and held in Longueuil on June 14, [15] The following is a summary of the representations: Discontinuance [16] The Haut-Richelieu RCM discontinued its application for the exclusion of sector 4 in Lacolle. No intervention

11 Records to , and [17] There was no intervention with regard to the following sectors: o sector H-11, Noyan; o sector 5, Lacolle; o sector TEM-11 (5L-5), Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu; o sectors TEM-2 and TEM-04, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Short interventions [18] Sector H-05, Noyan: Annie Tessier, who is with the Fédération de l UPA de Saint- Hyacinthe, pointed out that the Syndicat de l UPA de Venise was opposed to this exclusion (see above, under Written Interventions by the UPA ). [19] The single sector of Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu: the Fédération de l UPA de Saint-Jean- Valleyfield (Pierre Caza) reiterated its opposition to the exclusion of this sector, for more or less the same reasons as those in its written intervention (see above). Mr. Caza added that the status quo would not bother in any way the firm that is already on the site. [20] Sector SL-7, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu: Mr. Caza (UPA) pointed out to the Commission that this strip is not really destructured. The Commission then noted that the strip of land enjoyed acquired rights under section 105 of the Act (water supply and sewer services authorized before the coming into force of the Act - depths varying from 60 metres to 120 metres, according to use). [21] Sectors 5A-11, TEM-05, TEM-06, TEM-07 and TEM-08, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu: With regard to sector 5A-11, one of the owners, Michelle Bonenfant-Marcinkowska, wanted to express her agreement with the Commission s position (denial) and to inform the Commission that she set up a small biological farm there and reforested her property at the back. Mr. Turcotte also asked the Commission if it was possible, instead of excluding these sectors, to authorize the general subdivision, alienation and non-agricultural use of the areas in question. Mr. Bessette of UPA Pré-Vert then indicated that he would prefer an intervention along the lines of section 59 of the Act (application of collective scope). That way, any non-agricultural use would be limited to a residential use, which would avoid the addition of protected immovables, such as restaurants. [22] Sector TEM-03, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu: It is alleged in favour of the application that agriculture is not in any way possible there. The opposition (UPA) states that the parcel in question is used for growing hay and that the status quo is preferable because of the quality of the agriculture practised all around the parcel.

12 Records to , and Record , sectors 1, 2, 3 and 6, Lacolle [23] In favour of the application - After the merger of Village de Lacolle and Municipalité de Notre-Dame-du-Mont- Carmel, the basic principle chosen by the new municipality for the planning of its territorial development was the consolidation of both agricultural and nonagricultural activities. - It must be pointed out that one of the basic objectives of the development plan is to ensure the sustainability of agriculture, while promoting the consolidation of urbanized territories. - The development plan identifies two urban areas where planning efforts must be concentrated, considering the indications given to the RCM by the ministère des Affaires municipales et de la Métropole (MAMM). - More specifically, it is important to: extend the sewage network to provide service to the Beaujeu sector; give preference to the cohesion of urban clusters and structure development around existing connections, in accordance with the water supply and sewage networks. - The revised development plan (in effect since June 2004) recognizes the delimitation of the urbanization perimeter proposed by Municipalité de Lacolle. - This said, two development poles exist: the nucleus of the former Village de Lacolle; the main development axis of the former Municipalité de Notre-Damedu-Mont-Carmel. - The non-agricultural zone of the latter municipality was limited to a part of the territory along the rivière Richelieu, bordering on Barbotte range. That territory does not offer any potential for development, given that the latter essentially took place along the axis of Highway 202 pursuant to various authorizations granted by the Commission. - Sector 1: Its owner owns 268 hectares in Lacolle and Saint-Valentin. There is a dilapidated house and barn in this sector.

13 Records to , and It is serviced by a water supply network and a sewage network is planned. The neighbouring sector, in the non-agricultural zone, is industrial; sector 1 would also be industrial after its exclusion from the agricultural zone. The nearest livestock operation is one kilometre away. - Sector 2: Its current use is mainly residential; it also includes a business (Florent Guy Électrique). It is serviced by a water supply network and a sewage network is planned. It has an urban vocation. The nearest livestock operation is one kilometre away. - Sector 3: This sector includes Mail Lacolle and residential sites. It is serviced by a water supply network and a sewage network is planned. It has an urban vocation. The nearest livestock operation is one kilometre away. - Sector 6: Clearly, it is an urban sector. It is serviced by a water supply network and a sewage network. It is bordered by the non-agricultural zone of Saint-Paul-de-l ïle-aux- Noix. The nearest livestock operations are 1 and 2 kilometres away. - The location of the present industrial zones was set by the RCM s first development plan. The industrial activities Village de Lacolle could accept at the time were essentially so-called transhipment activities and necessarily had to be established next to railways. With time, other types of industries established themselves in the RCM. Furthermore, the merger, new international business rules and the abandonment of one of the railway lines imposed a change of orientation,

14 Records to , and which was confirmed by the second-generation development plan. This is why large portions presently devoted to industry are still unused and will probably stay so, because their inadequate location does not enable them to be viable. - Moreover, the survival of the agricultural zone of Saint-Paul-de-l île-aux-noix, located between that municipality s non-agricultural zone, sector 6 (Lacolle) and the rivière Richelieu, which the Commission finds is threatened, is not imperilled in any way and the parcel is still actively farmed. Without discontinuing its application for the exclusion of sector 6, Municipalité de Lacolle would accept an exclusion that would be limited to the single portion located north of Highway Given the presence of protected immovables (accommodations, restaurants, marina, etc.) and protective strips, the establishment of new livestock production installations is already not reasonably possible in proximity to sectors 1, 2, 3 and 6. Knowing how prudent farmers are, it would be surprising for them to move closer to the urban zones; all the more so since, in order to do so, they would have to invest up to roughly $3 million. In addition, they would then be in a precarious position. - As concerns sector 1 and the western part of sector 2, it must be acknowledged that farming on a small area of 9 hectares, enclaved between an industrial zone and a road, is already pretty compromised. Since the owner of sector 1 owns more than 268 hectares in Lacolle and Saint-Valentin, removing this parcel of land will not seriously hinder his farm operation. - It will be harder to obtain subsidies for the development of infrastructures and those subsidies may even be compromised as long as the urbanized sectors stay in the agricultural zone. - According to Mayor Duteau, municipal administrators must not constantly be made to pay for the errors of previous administrations and it must be understood that the rules evolve and change over the years. [24] Against the application - According to Jaclin Bisaillon, UPA Lacolle, efforts should be primarily devoted to developing the downtown core of Village de Lacolle, instead of expanding left and right. The present buffer zones should stay as they are, not be constantly pushed back. - Mr. Caza (Fédération de l UPA de Saint-Jean-Valleyfield) is convinced that farming is not practised in sector 1 merely for upkeep purposes. The farming in sector 1 is true farming, with modern equipment; the area is indispensable for the spreading of manure. According to Mr. Caza, the representatives of the RCM and the municipality have clearly shown that Lacolle has problems living with choices it made in the past. Lacolle has the benefit of a highly interesting pool of land parcels (1200 parcels) and should rethink its planning so as to make better use of them. If

15 Records to , and absolutely necessary, however, Mr. Caza would accept the conclusions of the Commission s preliminary intent report. Record , Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu Sector AC-5 [25] In favour of the application - Linda Bonneau, urban planner, informed the Commission that the RCM and Ville de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu had already filed with the Commission the documents required for the omitted site, between the parcel initially contemplated and the river, to be added to the application for exclusion. [26] Against the application - Ferme J.L. Therrien enr. vehemently opposes any zoning change that might affect part of its agricultural landholding. - The Therrien family operates a farm in this location, and has handed it down from father to son for 200 years. - Jean-Luc Therrien acknowledged that his father sold a few parcels of land and created exclusively residential sites prior to the coming into force of the Act. However, he does not intend to destructure further. In 1996, he even expanded his agricultural installations. - At the time, nothing jeopardized the survival of his operation, which is currently located at a distance of 400 metres from the urban perimeter. Were the exclusion to be authorized, that distance would shrink to less than 25 metres, which would be catastrophic for all future agricultural projects. - Ferme J.L. Therrien enr. is a dairy farm (32 dairy cows and 48 replacement cows). In addition, Mr. Therrien registered the necessary declaration regarding his right to produce. - According to Mr. Caza of the UPA, the exclusion sought would completely change the dairy farm s status.

16 Records to , and Sector TEM-10 [27] Against the application - Mr. Caza of the UPA indicated that the exclusion would result in a major encroachment on the agricultural zone, whereas the non-agricultural zone of Saint- Jean-sur-Richelieu has enough areas. - By retaining the status quo, the Commission would control the future use of these 9.23 hectares. Sectors AC-6 and TEM-09 [28] In favour of the application - Développement L Acadie S.E.N.C. owns land on both sides of the public road. - The exclusion sought would enable the company to sell 10 parcels and thereby obtain the amounts needed to pay the additional taxes assessed further to the introduction of certain municipal services. [29] Against the application - The UPA opposes the exclusion in its entirety, including the exclusion of the southern portion of sector AC-6, which the Commission was prepared to authorize in its preliminary intent report. - First, the UPA indicated that part of the agricultural zone, located east of the public road, would be completely enclaved, jeopardizing its future agricultural use. Second, it maintained that the partial exclusion (approximately hectares) agreed to by the Commission would cause urbanization to encroach on cultivated land and displace buffer zones accordingly. - In Mr. Caza s view, these two sectors are cases in point for the application of section 59 of the Act. Sector TEM-01 [30] Against the application - According to the UPA, one should ideally proceed in accordance with section 59 of the Act in order to ensure that the strip is not used solely for residential purposes. - In the opinion of Mr. Bessette (UPA de Pré-Vert), an authorization for general nonagricultural use could lead to the introduction of protected immovables, such as

17 Records to , and restaurants, without any requirement to obtain authorization from the Commission, which must exercise tighter control. Record , Sainte-Brigide-d Iberville Sector 1 [31] In favour of the application - The municipality no longer has any industrial land. - Les Habitations Nabco inc. is an important business in Sainte-Brigide. - It has to change its sprinkler system. Hence, the municipality has to extend its water supply network. It is a known fact that subsidies are easier to get when the industry is established in an urbanization perimeter. Sector 2 [32] Against the application - Mr. Bessette (UPA Pré-Vert) is surprised to hear that water supply and sewage networks were installed in this sector, despite the fact that the sector is in the agricultural zone. - Why, he asked, could sector 1 not be used for the same thing? The answer was that, in sector 2, the owners had agreed to assume the costs, which is not the case in sector 1. Record , Sainte-Anne-de-Sabrevois [33] In favour of the application - According to the municipal representatives, the main purpose of the application is to link rue Normandie to 28 e Avenue, in order to, among other things, increase traffic flow and improve safety. - The northern part belongs to the Fabrique, whose property extends to water s edge. It is partly cultivated and also used as a footpath. - The central part belongs to Isabelle Reid and is cultivated.

18 Records to , and On April 7, 1989 in record , the Commission authorized, on part of the stretch contemplated (0.7 hectares, southern part), the extension of a street (28 e Avenue), the enlargement of the community centre and the construction of an immovable with subsidized housing units. - Sewage and water supply services (authorized by the Commission) are already available at the site of the future street linking rue Normandin and 28 e Avenue. - Highway 133 (further east) is currently the only north-south roadway. It is a national highway with a large volume of traffic. Accidents frequently occur on the highway, and there is no alternate road. - The owner of the site prefers to sacrifice that part of her land and cultivate instead another part located in the non-agricultural zone. She would eventually agree to a strip at the westernmost end of that part of the non-agricultural zone being included in the agricultural zone. - In these circumstances, the exclusion sought meets an urgent need and development objective of the municipality. [34] Against the application - Annie Tessier (Fédération de l UPA de Saint-Hyacinthe) reminded the Commission of the requirements under the Agricultural Operations Regulation, in particular regarding manure management and deforestation. - She added that, under the Regulation, parcels of land may no longer be enlarged if they have not been cultivated for 14 years. NOTICE OF CHANGE [35] On June 28, 2005, a notice of change was sent to the interested parties. At that time, the Commission was of the opinion that: - The exclusion of sector AC-5 of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu should be refused. - The exclusion of sector AC-6 of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu should be refused in its entirety, including the exclusion of the southern portion, which the Commission was prepared to authorize in its preliminary intent report. - The subdivision, alienation and non-agricultural use of sector TEM-01 of Saint- Jean-sur-Richelieu should still be authorized (as indicated in the preliminary intent report); however, that authorization should be subject to the following condition:

19 Records to , and It does not ensue that protected immovables may be introduced. Prior, specific authorization must always be obtained from the Commission for such immovables. - The exclusion of part (roughly 2.5 hectares) of the only sector sought in Sainte- Anne-de-Sabrevois should be authorized. ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICATION General considerations [36] Before analysing individually each of the sectors covered by the applications, the Commission wishes to set forth certain general considerations that guided it in its assessment. In addition to obvious factors such as the quality of the soil in question, whether or not it is actually being used for agriculture and the effect that granting authorization would have on neighbouring lots and the homogeneity of the agricultural area, the Commission took the following elements, in particular, into account: - the fact that the revised development plan is now in effect, and the delimitation of buffer zones for malodorous livestock operations; - the extent of enclavement of the required space; - the existence of a natural or physical barrier constituting the boundary of an urban perimeter; except for one case, given the occupation and configuration of the premises; - the creation of regular urban perimeters avoiding, as much as possible, jagged boundaries and extensions that would result in undue, dangerous encroachment of the urban perimeter on agricultural land; - the urban development already carried out, and the necessary adjustments and additions to be made; - the non-extension, as a rule, of the extremities of urban perimeters, particularly linearly, even when the required space is already used for non-agricultural purposes, so as to circumscribe the area in which present and future activities are influenced by the urban perimeter. That concern will not, however, prevent a better distribution of agricultural and non-agricultural uses from being carried out from time to time, particularly when non-agricultural intensification near the urban perimeter is already intermingled with the perimeter. [37] Because the applications generally cover sectors in which construction has been carried out or in regard to which authorizations have already been granted, the question of alternative available areas is less relevant.

20 Records to , and [38] It should be noted that the Haut-Richelieu RCM also filed, in record , an application under section 59 of the Act for the purpose of delimiting its destructured tracts of land. However, the RCM discontinued its application, preferring to add new sectors to the initial applications for exclusion, more specifically in Lacolle and Saint- Jean-sur-Richelieu. [39] Since many of these applications concern destructured tracts of land, the Commission is reluctant, in several cases, to authorize their exclusion and takes the approach that a collective scope application should be preferred in a number of cases, as shall be seen below. Hence, it is regrettable that discontinuance was served. However, one must remain optimistic and hope that such an application (section 59) is filed once again. Record , Noyan (2 sectors) Context [40] The two sectors in question are adjacent to the non-agricultural zone, not far from the intersection of highways 202 and 225. [41] Near the existing non-agricultural zones, the agricultural area is active, dynamic, homogeneous and characterized by grain farming, dairy production, various livestock operations and high-quality soil (primarily classes 2 and 3 soil and organic soil). Part of the territory is wooded, with regular maple stands. [42] The question of available space in the non-agricultural zone is not as relevant in the Noyan record, as the aim is merely to adjust the urban perimeter on the basis of the lots already given over to non-agricultural uses. [43] The municipality is 4380 hectares in area; the non-agricultural zone accounts for 371 hectares, or roughly 8.5% of the territory. [44] Noyan has a buffer zone where certain malodorous operations (hog, mink, fox and veal calf) are not allowed. Sector H-05 Description of the site [45] The exclusion sought would extend the non-agricultural zone or the urban perimeter northward approximately 265 metres, west of Highway 225 and north of chemin Derrick. [46] The parcel concerned is divided into six properties, five of which correspond to separate residential sites. The sixth property is tied to contiguous lots 16-P and 20-P, but there are three residences on it.

21 Records to , and [47] It may therefore be concluded that there are no more agricultural uses on the 2.2 hectares and that the land s vocation is essentially residential. [48] The closest livestock operation is more than 1.1 kilometres away from the tract targeted. However, it is less than 400 metres away from the agricultural zone corresponding to lots 1 to 9. The farms in the neighbouring range are more than 2.5 kilometres away. [49] The sector would retain its residential use. Assessment [50] The Commission cannot help but note that the parcel concerned is a completely logical addition to the existing urban corridor, with which it already forms the Noyan village core. The rest of Noyan s non-agricultural zone has more of a holiday vocation, along the rivière Richelieu, except for the strip south of Highway 202 (linking the village core to the holiday zone). [51] Because of the occupation of the site, the exclusion sought will not result in any loss in agricultural productivity, even though the soil originally had class 3 or 4 capability. [52] Given the location of the existing non-agricultural zones, the distant location of livestock activities and the existence of the buffer zone, there are relatively few constraints because of the calculation of minimum distances. Sector H-11 Description of the site [53] This sector comprises two separate residential properties and part (no more than roughly 160 square metres) of a third located primarily in the non-agricultural zone. [54] The urban perimeter would be extended eastward roughly 140 metres. [55] The dairy farm currently located approximately 1660 metres away from the urban perimeter would end up being 1540 metres away, and two feed lots currently about 1920 and 1960 metres away would instead be 1780 and 1820 metres away. [56] A residential use would be assigned to the sector. Assessment [57] The Commission is aware that the loss in agricultural productivity is truly negligible, even non-existent, and that the constraints because of the calculation of minimum distances are virtually insignificant.

22 Records to , and [58] However, despite the site s occupation, the Commission cannot accept the out-of-control extension of the urbanization perimeter in that direction, with all of the unforeseeable consequences that could arise in the future as a result of such an illogical change of course. [59] Under the circumstances, the status quo is clearly preferable and does not penalize the municipality in any way. Record , Lacolle (6 sectors) Context [60] Sectors 1 to 3 are adjacent to the non-agricultural zone, extending eastward from the urban perimeter of the former municipality of Village de Lacolle, along Highway 202. [61] Sector 5 is surrounded on three sides by Lacolle s non-agricultural zone and corresponds to part of the former Municipalité de Saint-Valentin, annexed to Lacolle in [62] Sector 6 is west of the rivière Richelieu. It is not close to Lacolle s non-agricultural zone, but is adjacent to the non-agricultural zone of Saint-Paul-de-l Île-aux-Noix. [63] Beyond these non-agricultural zones and the sites concerned, the agricultural area is active, dynamic, homogeneous and characterized by grain farming, dairy production, various livestock operations and high-quality soil (class 2). There is not much woodland, although there are a few maple stands. [64] After the municipalities of Lacolle (village) and Notre-Dame-du-Mont-Carmel (parish) merged, Lacolle was 4913 hectares in area and its non-agricultural zones totaled 335 hectares, or almost 7% of its territory. These non-agricultural zones correspond to that of Village de Lacolle and to a holiday zone bordering the rivière Richelieu, southeast of the former Municipalité de Notre-Dame-du-Mont-Carmel. [65] At the time the application was made, the RCM believed that Lacolle has enough land to ensure its development. According to an inventory taken by the Commission s professional services in 2004, hectares are vacant. Of that total, 39.2 hectares are intended for residential use and hectares for industrial use. Most of the area excluded in the 1991 revision decree is still unused. Sector 1 Description of the site [66] Sector 1 would extend the non-agricultural zone roughly 400 metres southeast of the village, north of Highway 202, to the eastern limit of the non-agricultural zone located north of the rivière Lacolle.

23 Records to , and [67] It is divided into two properties: - a large residential parcel of about 1.3 hectares; - part (approximately 9 hectares, for the most part cultivated) of a larger piece of farmland. [68] The farm incorporated into sector 4 is the one most likely to be affected by the exclusion. Livestock raising is no longer engaged in there and is not likely to resume given the proximity of protected immovables (restaurants and a medical clinic). The next farms are over 2.4 kilometres south of sector 1, but closer to the current urban perimeter (approximately 2.3 kilometres). [69] An industrial use would be assigned to the sector. Assessment [70] At the public meeting, an attempt was indeed made to show that it was necessary for Lacolle to establish this new industrial zone in the non-agricultural zone, in continuity with that to the west. [71] It was, of course, acknowledged that vacant industrial lots were still available in the nonagricultural zone, mainly in the southern part of the urban perimeter of the former Village de Lacolle, but it was alleged that they are not used and will stay so, for several reasons, the main one being that these lots are hard to access and are rather unsafe. [72] Therefore, the Commission must once again express its adamant disapproval of the reflex of local and regional authorities to immediately resort to use of the agricultural zone as soon as a development problem arises in the urban zone, rather than seeking new, more advantageous, solutions using the available areas already assigned to the purposes sought. [73] Moreover, even if attempts have been made to reduce the impact, it is clear that the exclusion sought would result in the loss of an excellent soil resource, i.e. at least 9 hectares of cultivated, high-quality land (class 2 soil). [74] Keeping this sector in the agricultural zone avoids needlessly displacing even further the starting point for calculating minimum distances; preserves a natural boundary, namely the rivière Lacolle; maximizes preservation of agricultural dynamics in the area and maintains the best conditions for the practice and development of agriculture. [75] In addition, as indicated in the preliminary intent report, the refusal to exclude this sector will prevent sectors 2 and 3 from bordering on the agricultural zone and, consequently, section 61.2 of the Act from applying in their regard, thereby allowing the subdivision,

24 Records to , and alienation and non-agricultural use, hereafter accepted, of sector 3 and a large part of sector 2. Sectors 2 and 3 Description of the site [76] Sector 2 is composed of a number of separate residential properties, a commercial site (electrical contractor) and, at its eastern end, a shopping centre with acquired rights (declaration records 6886, 81440, and ) that includes a restaurant and medical clinic. The sector would retain its residential/commercial use. [77] Sector 3 has been the object of four previous applications, resulting in four favourable decisions. In two of the decisions (records and ), construction of a single residence was allowed on separate properties. In the two other decisions (records and 30157), a residential development was authorized on several lots. It goes without saying that these hectares represent a destructured, predominantly residential sector served by rue Carré Beaujeu and rue Mail. A hair salon, the historical society building (the former town hall of Notre-Dame-du-Mont-Carmel) and a plant nursery are also located there. A residential use would be assigned to the sector. [78] None of these applications for exclusion involves parcelling out an active agricultural landholding. Assessment [79] Having refused the exclusion of sector 1, the Commission would clearly be ill-advised to order the exclusion of sectors 2 and 3, which would result in spot zoning because the two sectors are not immediately tied to Lacolle s urban perimeter. [80] However, so that the municipality does not have to seek authorization from the Commission every time the introduction of a new non-agricultural use is proposed for the perimeter targeted or a new subdivision becomes necessary, the Commission agrees to authorize the subdivision, alienation and non-agricultural use of sector 3 and a large part of sector 2, totaling 19.9 hectares and shown by hachuring on a plan, made from an aerial photograph, included with this decision. The said 19.9 hectares encompass the area totaling approximately 9.25 hectares authorized in records 20053, 30157, and [81] To the west, the 19.9-hectare expanse starts at the place where the rivière Lacolle is closest to Highway 202; to the north, it follows the rivière Lacolle; to the east, it ends at the eastern boundary sought; and, to the south, it follows the northern boundary of the Highway 202 right of way. [82] The Commission prefers not to include the western part of sector 2 the portion sought in the said 19.9 hectares, because the latter s rural characteristics are better

25 Records to , and preserved given the area of the properties affected, and more in line with those of sector 1, the exclusion of which was refused, and those of the land extending south of Highway 202, with all due respect for the opposite opinion. [83] After receiving the notice of change, the Fédération de l UPA de Saint-Jean-Valleyfield, in a letter dated July 7, 2004, told the Commission that it would be more pertinent to proceed in accordance with section 59 of the Act for sector 3 and the said part of sector 2, and suggested, should the Commission maintain its authorization, that a condition be added to prevent the establishment of protected immovables. In the Commission s view, section 59 can hardly apply to these sectors (non-residential use) and this condition would be superfluous, given the current presence, in these sectors, of commercial and institutional immovables or immovables already considered as protected immovables. Sector 5 Description of the site [84] The site is surrounded on three sides by the non-agricultural zone, and a railway constitutes its fourth boundary. [85] This is the case because, strangely, the parcel was tied to the territory of the former Municipalité de Saint-Valentin. [86] Two properties are affected but, according to the information obtained, their owners do not possess the adjacent parcels on the other side of the railway. [87] A residential use would be assigned to the sector. Assessment [88] As already noted, the exclusion sought would not require any agricultural landholding to be parceled out. [89] Clearly, the presence of these 5 hectares in the agricultural zone constitutes an enclave created by an atypical delimitation of the former municipalities. [90] For a distance of 1.7 kilometres, it is the only place where the railway does not constitute a boundary of the non-agricultural zone. On the basis of a wholly acceptable homogeneity criterion, this sector belongs more to the urban zone than the agricultural zone, making its agricultural future highly problematic despite its good-quality soil. [91] Consequently, given the sector s enclavement and out of a concern for logical development of the territory, the Commission is of the opinion that the exclusion of this sector can be allowed.