Commentaries on the Draft Land Use Planning and Development Plan
of the urban agglomeration of Montreal
Brief presented by SEDA HOLDINGS
From: Diana Shahmoon
President, SEDA Holdings
To: Members of the Agglomeration council, the CMM, and the City of Beaconsfield
Re: Motion to Exempt Angell Woods from the TOD
Date: October 28, 2014
We are writing to register our objection to the current agglomeration proposal for the implementation of the PMAD in Angell Woods, under which the Beaurepaire train station will be exempted from its TOD designation and the agglomeration will assume the Interim Control Bylaw that is currently in force from Beaconsfield. With this proposal, the city of Beaconsfield is confident that most of the Angell Woods’ green space will “remain private land, just zoned for conservation” [The Suburban, October 1, 2014]. In fact, it will make Angell Woods the only area to be exempted from the TOD designation imposed by the PMAD on the whole Island of Montreal. We submit that this proposal, which is meant to guide the implementation of the PMAD, in fact violates it It does not satisfy the PMAD and it does not satisfy the law.
1. In the PMAD, Angell Woods was designated both as an area to be preserved, but also as a TOD by virtue of the Beaurepaire and Beaconsfield train stations. The large red circle that is drawn around the Beaurepaire train station encompasses most of Angell Woods. We challenge the agglomeration’s authority to exempt a legally defined transportation hub with a simple declaration that it is no longer so.
2. If the Beaurepaire train station is exempted as a transportation hub, all that will remain eligible for development in Angell Woods is a slim sliver just above Elm. According to the PMAD, the amount of area to be developed as a TOD was not specified, but inclusion of the TOD designation was mandated, not voluntary. The single slim sliver does not satisfy the intent of the PMAD requirement for a mix of conservation and TOD. Angell Woods will be exactly as the city claims it will be, “zoned for conservation.” This also represents a violation of the law. Property that that has been zoned and taxed as developable property for the 55 years that we owned it cannot legally be turned into conservation property 55 years later by simple fiat of the zoning law.
3.The interim control byla