[0:05] Bienvenue à la consultation
[0:08] Welcome to the
[0:10] - Bienvenues la public
[0:13] consultation of the consultation
[0:16] publique municipal du mardi 24
[0:19] temps. Council, Tuesday, October
[0:21] 24th. The consultation this
[0:23] evening will be on the project
[0:28] at two 75 out in. I want to
[0:32] point out a few things before we
[0:34] have the presentation by urban
[0:38] planning on the project. Tonight
[0:42] we are not looking for approving
[0:46] a final architectural project.
[0:49] We are, that has not been done
[0:51] yet, and perhaps some of you
[0:55] were led in error by looking at
[0:57] the website and seeing buildings
[0:59] and things like this. The
[1:02] architectural project itself has
[1:04] not been submitted, or approved.
[1:08] There is a whole process, and I
[1:10] believe that the presentation
[1:12] will touch on that. Actually,
[1:14] what we are doing tonight's, it
[1:17] is on the change of the zoning
[1:20] that is required to go from
[1:25] commercial to residential mixed
[1:27] so we will be looking at
[1:35] La marge, la hauteur, le mixte
[1:36] de logement. Et le nombre de
[1:40] logements maximum. Ben ne sait
[1:43] sûrement le nombre de logements
[1:44] finale, mais le nombre de
[1:45] logements maximum. C'est ce
[1:52] qu'on appelle un PPCMOI,
[1:56] >> In un projet particulier
[1:57] English, it's de construction,
[2:00] de modification ou d'occupation
[2:01] d'un immeuble. One skier, a
[2:03] specific construction,
[2:04] alteration, or occupancy
[2:06] proposal for and -- so I just
[2:10] wanted to introduce the
[2:13] presentation with those words
[2:14] and now we can go on to the
[2:17] presentation. And there will be
[2:18] a question period after the
[2:21] presentation for anyone that
[2:24] wants to ask a question,
[2:32] >> The question period, please
[2:35] go to the mic, because we are,
[2:40] Webb casting this meeting
[2:42] tonight, and the only way that
[2:44] we can really hear you is by
[2:47] going to the mic, identifying
[2:49] yourself, and asking your
[2:51] questions. And now, what we want
[2:54] to go to the official opening of
[2:55] the meeting.
[3:02] 2.1 Adoption de l'ordre du jour
[3:03] de la consultation publique de
[3:04] la Ville de Beaconsfield du 24
[3:05] octobre 2023 à 19 h
[3:06] - Proposé.
[3:07] - Secondé.
[3:08] - En faveur.
[3:09] >> So now we will go to the
[3:14] presentation
[3:15] -.
[3:16] >> Can you hear Monsieur le
[3:17] Maire, est-ce que vous
[3:18] m'entendez bien? Me? Well yes,
[3:19] thank you. Good evening
[3:20] everyone. Thank you. I am Danny
[3:21] Chabot, the head of the urban
[3:23] planning here. My colleague
[3:25] Monterrey gas call, and division
[3:27] chief for permits, permits and
[3:31] certificates.
[3:37] Est-ce que vous entendez, bien
[3:38] maintenant? Parfait, merci. Il
[3:39] faut s'ajuster des fois. Ma
[3:44] >> Like Mr. collègue ici au
[3:45] service d'urbanisme. Mayor said,
[3:46] this is a public consultation on
[3:50] a specified project, which is
[3:53] located at 275 Ella. I will not
[3:57] repeat the long name, Mister
[3:58] Mayor already did that. So we're
[4:00] going to start with the
[4:01] presentation right now.
[4:06] - Ce soir, ce qu'on va vous
[4:07] présenter. On va faire un bref
[4:09] survol de c'est quoi ces
[4:10] Tutsis-là qui est le PPCMOI
[4:11] pouvoir qu'ils sont les
[4:13] paramètres, quelles sont les
[4:14] possibilités de cet outil-là qui
[4:16] est, qui relève de la Loi sur
[4:17] l'aménagement et urbanisme. Par
[4:19] la suite, on va vous présenter
[4:21] la conformité au plan
[4:22] d'urbanisme et la localisation
[4:23] du projet. On va ensuite tomber
[4:25] dans le contenu du projet. On va
[4:27] commencer par le demande de
[4:28] permis de lotissement. Ensuite,
[4:31] les demandes qui sont faites
[4:32] pour les deux lots. Et après
[4:34] chacun des lots profiter. Puis
[4:37] finalement, on va terminer cette
[4:39] section-là avec les conditions
[4:40] qui ont été imposées par le
[4:42] conseiller à la séance du 25
[4:43] septembre dernier. Pour
[4:47] finalement arriver à
[4:49] l'explication du processus
[4:50] d'adoption de ce projet-là. Qui
[4:51] est entamée déjà, mais qui est
[4:53] beaucoup plus long qu'un
[4:55] processus habituel.
[4:58] D'approbation d'un projet. Et
[4:59] finalement, il y aura une
[5:00] période de questions.
[5:01] >> Let's start with the first
[5:03] item. What is a --? If the bylaw
[5:09] adopted by Council, it sent him
[5:11] 28. It's specific construction,
[5:13] alteration, occupancy proposal
[5:15] for an immovable. And French we
[5:17] say --
[5:20] >> It's to authorize under
[5:22] certain conditions a project to
[5:24] be carried out just by the fact
[5:27] that some articles of the bylaw
[5:29] is not being respected. It's an
[5:31] exceptional measure that is
[5:33] provided in the provincial law
[5:35] on menus and it must however
[5:38] respect the master plan of the
[5:41] city and is generally used for
[5:44] large-scale projects such as
[5:45] this one. It offers a certain
[5:50] flexibility in the law in
[5:51] allowing projects to be adopted
[5:53] to a specific area. You have to
[5:54] keep in mind that it has also a
[5:57] dual application. You have the
[6:01] bylaw in the safe as -- and the
[6:03] zoning, because we are only
[6:06] beginning looking at a certain
[6:07] aspect of the prospect that is
[6:09] not being respected in the
[6:13] aspect of this. On some aspect
[6:14] is being respected such as the
[6:17] number of spark parking spaces,
[6:20] commercial projects, and
[6:23] landscape and other elements
[6:24] like that, so only the elements
[6:26] that are not conforming to our
[6:28] bylaw today, in the zone, is
[6:31] being analyzed. Next slide,
[6:34] please.
[6:39] - Donc pour la conformité au
[6:41] plan d'urbanisme, c'est une
[6:42] obligation avant même qu'un
[6:43] projet puisse être évalué par le
[6:46] CCU et le Conseil en vertu du
[6:47] Règlement sur les PPCMOI. Donc
[6:51] un des paramètres qui est
[6:52] important, dans le cadre d'un
[6:53] projet comme ça de
[6:54] redéveloppement, c'est par
[6:55] rapport à la densité. Pour le
[6:58] secteur qui est la zone 0302,
[7:00] vous pouvez le voir à l'écran.
[7:03] Le site en question, 275 elle,
[7:05] c'est l'étoile jaune qu'on a
[7:06] ajoutée. Et l'orientation pour
[7:11] la densité, c'est de maintenir
[7:13] le caractère du secteur en
[7:14] préservant les caractéristiques
[7:15] suivantes: et pour cette
[7:17] zone-là, c'est d'du bâtie de un
[7:20] à quatre étages et un tours
[7:21] d'implantation au sol faible ou
[7:22] moyen. Donc cet élément-là est
[7:24] rencontrée au niveau du plan
[7:25] d'urbanisme.
[7:27] >> This is the location of the
[7:30] project. Most of everyone knows
[7:32] about the area. So the zone is C
[7:37] 330. It is located in the corner
[7:41] of Alabama and fairway. But we
[7:43] what we have around is a multi
[7:46] unit at age 336, a daycare
[7:50] center, town houses, and one
[7:58] >> Single unifamiliales désolé.
[7:59] Detached house. Sorry about
[8:00] that. Next slide, please.
[8:05] - Donc on va tomber dans le
[8:06] contenu du projet. Ce projet-là
[8:09] a dû faire l'objet d'une demande
[8:10] de permis de lotissement. La
[8:12] demande de permis de lotissement
[8:14] est assujettie au passage au
[8:16] comité consultatif d'urbanisme
[8:17] et, ensuite, à l'approbation du
[8:18] conseil. C'est un processus qui
[8:21] ne nécessite pas de
[8:22] consultations publiques. En
[8:24] vertu de la loi et de notre
[8:25] règlement municipal. Donc
[8:28] actuellement, ce qu'on voit,
[8:29] c'est ce que vous voyez à gauche
[8:30] sur les, grands
[8:35] s'est ocelot avec la Plaza qui
[8:37] est en fond de, l'eau et ce qui
[8:38] est proposé, c'est d'avoir deux
[8:39] lots. Donc un qui se situe à
[8:42] l'intersection de Elm est
[8:45] fairways, est un plus petit qui
[8:46] se situe à la limite de ce
[8:48] lot-là et qui est délimitée
[8:51] aussi au Nord par les cours
[8:53] arrières des bâtiments qui font
[8:57] face sur Bolton, et qui a un
[8:58] accès à la rue à Fairway.
[9:02] >> The first item that is
[9:05] concerning both lots is the F A
[9:08] R, which is floor area ratio of
[9:11] the building. What is proposed
[9:14] in the zone, since it is
[9:16] commercial right now, is 0.8,
[9:19] right there. What is proposed in
[9:22] the project is 1.8. We have to
[9:25] keep in mind that, however, the
[9:28] land site coverage, which is
[9:29] basically the side of the
[9:30] building on its lot, is
[9:33] conforming to the actual bylaw.
[9:36] The actual shopping centre is at
[9:38] the 40% right now in the
[9:40] proposed project is at the 34%.
[9:49] - L'autre élément qui fait
[9:51] l'objet d'une demande qui touche
[9:52] les deux lots, c'est concernant
[9:53] les allées de circulation. Donc
[9:54] en ce moment, la réglementation
[9:56] prévoit que les allées de
[9:59] circulation doivent être de 6,5
[10:00] mètres. Qu'est-ce qu'on veut
[10:03] dire parler de circulation, vous
[10:04] pouvez voir sur le schéma. Pour
[10:07] du stationnement
[10:08] perpendiculaire, c'est
[10:09] complètement à la gauche du
[10:10] schéma. C'est représenté par la
[10:11] flèche rouge. Donc c'est
[10:13] l'espace entre les cases de
[10:14] stationnement. Il est proposé
[10:17] que ce soit de 6 mètres pour le
[10:18] projet. Ainsi seulement pour les
[10:21] Cards qui se situent en
[10:22] stationnement souterrain. Pas
[10:23] pour seul à l'extérieur.
[10:25] >> The next item is also
[10:27] concerning both Lance. If the
[10:31] access point and circulation. In
[10:33] the bylaw it states that it
[10:35] cannot succeed 8%, and what is
[10:37] proposed by the developer is
[10:39] three segments of slope. Two of
[10:41] them are respecting the 8%, and
[10:43] the one in the middle is 16%.
[10:54] - La dernière demande qui
[10:55] concerne les deux lots au
[10:56] complet, c'est concernant le
[10:57] nombre de matériaux et les
[10:58] matériaux de revêtement
[10:59] extérieur. Donc au zonage, ce
[11:01] qui est prévu, c'est deux
[11:02] matériaux par bâtiment. C'est
[11:05] sûr que 90% de la ville de
[11:07] Beaconsfield, c'est des
[11:09] bâtiments unifamiliaux isolées
[11:10] ou jumelées. Donc c'est pour ça
[11:12] que cette norme-là existe. Ce
[11:14] qui est demandé, c'est trois
[11:17] matériaux. Ou les types de
[11:19] matériaux de revêtement
[11:20] extérieur au zonage, c'est
[11:22] permet d'utiliser de l'aluminium
[11:24] ou de l'acier, seulement lorsque
[11:26] c'est fait pour imiter de la
[11:27] planche. Par exemple sur votre
[11:29] bâtiment, si vous avez des
[11:30] planches de bois ou
[11:31] (---)
[11:32] deux et que vous voulez de
[11:33] remplacer éventuellement, ça
[11:34] peut être en acier, mais il faut
[11:35] que ça imite la planche. Dans ce
[11:37] cas-ci, la demande, c'est que ce
[11:38] matériau-là soit utilisé, mais
[11:40] sans l'obligation de reproduire
[11:41] la planche. On voudrait aussi
[11:46] prendre le moment à ce point-ci
[11:47] de faire un rappel que ces deux
[11:50] demandes-là, bien qu'elle touche
[11:51] l'architecture, sont encore
[11:53] générales, parce que
[11:55] l'architecture va devoir faire
[11:57] l'objet d'une approbation en
[11:58] vertu du Règlement sur les pays
[12:00] qui sera fait plus tard dans le
[12:01] processus, on va vous présenter
[12:03] quand on vous présentera le
[12:04] processus complet, mais à ce
[12:07] point-ci, c'est vraiment de
[12:09] manière générale. Si le projet
[12:10] est approuvé, O.K., ils pourront
[12:12] y avoir trois matériaux au lieu
[12:13] de deux, et utiliser le
[12:15] revêtement d'acier, mais on ne
[12:17] détermine pas ici la couleur, le
[12:19] format où ce sera installé sur
[12:20] le bâtiment, c'est vraiment de
[12:21] manière générale. On va
[12:26] maintenant passer aux demandes
[12:30] qui sont seulement sur le lot
[12:33] des maisons de ville, alors
[12:34] celui qui se situe le plus au
[12:35] nord, sur le terrain.
[12:42] >> Next slide, please? Thank you
[12:46] so we are now, again, talking
[12:48] only about a lot concerning the
[12:50] town houses. Via specification
[12:55] grid for C 330 essentially
[12:58] commercial. So we have all the
[13:01] variety of businesses that we
[13:03] authorize in the city. The only
[13:05] exception that is not there is a
[13:06] gas station. So everything is
[13:08] there, or permitted. What is
[13:11] proposed now is multi family
[13:13] units, which is the town houses.
[13:16] And what is proposed, in a
[13:18] zoning there's no units because
[13:19] it is a commercial space. So in
[13:22] the grid, there are no dwell
[13:24] dwellings. So what is proposed
[13:25] for the town houses 13 units.
[13:28] And the height in the zoning, we
[13:31] are talking in the zoning about
[13:32] ten metres, and what is proposed
[13:36] is 10.5 metres.
[13:39] - Une autre demande encore une
[13:41] fois pour ce lot-là, c'est
[13:43] concernant les marges de recul
[13:44] du bâtiment principal. Donc
[13:46] étant donné le projet de
[13:48] lotissement qui a été approuvé,
[13:50] la marge avant se situe sur
[13:51] fairways, à l'arrière, la marge,
[13:56] c'est, on pourrait dire, la
[13:57] portion qui donne plus près de
[14:00] West Kraft, et les marges
[14:01] latérales serait entre le
[14:04] bâtiment protégé et les
[14:06] bâtiments adjacents qui seront
[14:08] sur Bolton et vers la cour
[14:09] intérieure du projet. La demande
[14:13] est actuellement au zonage pour
[14:15] une marge avant, c'est 9 mètres
[14:16] qui est prévu dans la zone
[14:17] commerciale, et une marge
[14:19] arrière de 12 mètres. Ces
[14:22] marges-là font référence à du
[14:24] commercial où actuellement il y
[14:26] a du stationnement qui est prévu
[14:29] et des aires de chargement, des
[14:31] chargement de camion pour
[14:32] approvisionner les commerces. Ce
[14:34] qui est proposé, c'est une marge
[14:36] avant de 6,9 mètres, et une
[14:38] marge avant de 8 mètres. Dans
[14:42] les zones adjacentes, les
[14:44] marches arrière pour les
[14:46] bâtiments résidentiels sont de 6
[14:48] mètres, par exemple, ce qui se
[14:49] trouve à l'intersection de West
[14:51] Coast et Elm, et pour les
[14:53] marges, avance pardon, il est
[14:58] demandé 6,9 mètres et pour
[14:59] l'arrière, dans l'ensemble de
[15:01] Beaconsfield, c'est entre 9 et
[15:02] 10 mètres, et ce qui est demandé
[15:04] c'est vite maître. 8 mètres.
[15:08] -
[15:09] >> We would merci. Just like to
[15:10] show you an example of the cross
[15:13] section that would be conforming
[15:15] to the actual bylaw for a
[15:17] residential area. On the right
[15:19] side you have, let's say, those
[15:22] town houses, litter ten metres,
[15:24] for the purpose of discussion.
[15:26] And since they have a lateral
[15:27] setback, the building could be
[15:29] located as close as 4.5 metres.
[15:32] What is proposed in the project
[15:35] is to have the town houses back
[15:40] to 8.96 metres from the limit of
[15:42] the property, and they are using
[15:45] the setback here to build the
[15:48] balcony. It will stop there.
[15:49] Then after that there is still
[15:51] close to three metres that will
[15:54] be the vegetation on this site.
[16:04] - On voit aussi ici, juste pour
[16:06] mettre en perspective, que la
[16:07] marge latérale du bâtiment qui
[16:08] est proposé est de 8,85. Et en
[16:11] moyenne, les bâtiments sur
[16:13] Bolton, la moyenne, c'est une
[16:14] distance de 10 mètres. De cette
[16:17] ligne-là, de l'allée. Donc c'est
[16:20] sûr qu'il y a le bâtiment qui
[16:21] est ici qui semble un peu plus
[16:22] près. Il donne sur fairways.
[16:26] Donc le 7,62 qu'on voit, c'est
[16:28] la marge latérale de ce
[16:29] bâtiment-là, et non la marche
[16:30] arrière. Prochain... l'autre
[16:38] élément qui a fait l'objet de
[16:39] beaucoup de questions, c'est
[16:42] concernant la différence de
[16:44] hauteur des rez-de-chaussée,
[16:45] donc entre les bâtiments qui
[16:46] sont sur Fairway, Boston et les
[16:48] maisons de ville qui sont
[16:49] proches. Et ce qui est démontré,
[16:53] ici par le prolongement de deux
[16:56] lignes, c'est que c'est environ
[16:57] 46 centimètres. Donc 1 pied et
[16:59] demi. De différence entre les
[17:01] auteurs. Qui est rattrapé par un
[17:08] maximum d'étages à 3 mètres.
[17:10] Donc 8 pieds.
[17:11] - Dix.
[17:12] - Dix. Les prochaines demandes
[17:18] s'adressent seulement, sont
[17:19] seulement applicables pour le
[17:20] lot qui est, qui donne sur Elm
[17:22] et Fairway.
[17:26] >> Again, in the grid we have,
[17:29] again, all these commercial
[17:31] activities. What is proposed
[17:33] now, for this building, is
[17:35] multi-units. We're going to mix
[17:39] use. Mixed-use needs to be
[17:41] compatible with residential
[17:42] activities. For instance, you
[17:44] will not see any restaurants
[17:46] because cooking, the smell,
[17:48] things like that. What you are
[17:49] going to have as retail and
[17:51] services. It could very well be
[17:55] a veterinarian, that would work.
[17:57] General retail and services.
[17:59] Next item is the number of
[18:00] dwellings. Again, there is no
[18:03] dwellings permitted in the
[18:05] commercial zone. So what is
[18:06] proposed for this building is
[18:09] 117 units. And the building
[18:11] height is, again, it's a
[18:12] commercial building, what is
[18:14] proposed is 13.5 instead of ten.
[18:24] - La prochaine demande, c'est
[18:25] concernant le nombre d'étages.
[18:27] Actuellement, dans la zone,
[18:28] c'est prévu que ce soit deux
[18:29] étages. Ce qui est proposé pour
[18:30] ce lot-là, spécifiquement, c'est
[18:31] d'avoir quatre étages. On vous
[18:33] encore une fois mis la coupe du
[18:37] bâtiment proche qui est ici.
[18:40] Étage rez-de-chaussée est
[18:41] beaucoup plus haut, parce que
[18:42] c'est du commercial qui est
[18:43] prévu à cet endroit-là. Pour
[18:45] mettre en relation avec les
[18:47] maisons de villes qui sont à
[18:49] l'ouest du projet, donc à
[18:51] l'ouest de faire, qui sont déjà
[18:53] existantes par rapport aux
[18:55] auteurs de qu'est-ce que ça
[18:56] pourrait donner en termes de
[18:58] gradation.
[19:01] >> We are basically repeating
[19:03] the exact same slide but this
[19:04] time in English, just to make it
[19:06] clear. The building you see on
[19:07] the left is located on the west
[19:10] side of Fairway, so what you see
[19:13] is the two stories of
[19:15] underground parking. The first
[19:17] level is the commercial, that's
[19:18] why it's higher. And then after
[19:20] that you keep on going all the
[19:22] way to the fourth floor. It's
[19:25] approximately one storey higher
[19:26] than the building located on the
[19:29] west side.
[19:36] - La prochaine demande concerne
[19:37] les marges de recul du bâtiment
[19:39] principal, pour commencer, c'est
[19:40] important de mentionner que dans
[19:41] le projet qui est adopté par le
[19:43] conseil le 25 septembre, les
[19:45] demandes étaient à l'effet que
[19:46] la marge avant, la marge avant
[19:48] secondaire, la marge latérale et
[19:50] la marge derrière nécessitait,
[19:54] constituant des non-conformité
[19:56] pour lesquels il y avait des
[19:57] demandes. Par contre, les marges
[19:59] prévues sont des marges
[20:00] minimales. Donc les marges avant
[20:03] et latérales excèdent le minimum
[20:04] prescrit. Ce que ça veut dire,
[20:07] c'est que si vous regardez le
[20:08] tableau, la marge avant en
[20:09] zonage, c'est un minimum de 9
[20:10] mètres.,, Ce qui est proposé,
[20:17] c'est 14,7. C'est conforme, ça
[20:18] n'aurait pas dû se retrouver
[20:19] dans le projet. Même chose pour
[20:20] la marge latérale, on a 4,5 de
[20:22] prévus au zonage, ce qui est
[20:23] proposé, c'est 8 mètres. Donc
[20:25] étant donné que c'est au-delà,
[20:26] ça ne fait pas l'objet d'une
[20:27] demande non conforme. Et pour la
[20:30] marche derrière, je veux vous
[20:31] montrer le schéma des marges à
[20:32] la prochaine diapositive et vous
[20:34] allez comprendre qu'il n'y a pas
[20:35] de marge arrières, finalement,
[20:37] donc cette demande-là n'aurait
[20:38] pas dû faire l'objet non plus
[20:39] d'une demande. Ce qui fait en
[20:41] sorte que c'est seulement la
[20:42] marge avant secondaire qui est
[20:43] non conforme. Si on passe à la
[20:46] prochaine diapositive, ce qu'on
[20:47] voit, ce qu'étant donné que le
[20:50] bâtiment a frontale sur deux
[20:51] rues, c'est un lot de coin,
[20:53] c'est probablement le cas de
[20:54] certaines de vos propriétés
[20:55] aussi, c'est qu'on retrouve une
[20:56] marge avant. Dans ce cas-ci,
[20:59] elle est sûre Elm et une marge
[21:00] avant secondaire qui se
[21:01] retrouvent sur Fairway, ce qui
[21:03] fait en sorte que la portion
[21:04] entre le bâtiment projeté et
[21:08] les, la Cour dans la cour du
[21:12] projet et ce qui se trouvent
[21:14] entre le bâtiment projeté est
[21:16] plutôt vers l'est près de
[21:23] Westcroft sont des marges
[21:24] latérales qui sont non
[21:25] conformes. Ce qui est qu'on non
[21:26] conforme, et pour lesquels il y
[21:27] a une demande, et c'est ce qui
[21:28] sera proposé pour le deuxième
[21:29] projet en vue d'une décision par
[21:30] le Conseil, c'est une marge
[21:33] avant secondaire de 6,9 mètres,
[21:35] au lieu de 9 mètres. Par rapport
[21:39] à ce qui est présenté pour les
[21:41] maisons de ville, c'est pour
[21:43] essayer de conserver un
[21:45] alignement sur faire Wade et
[21:46] deux bâtiments pour que
[21:48] justement, il y a un alignement
[21:50] qu'{city_council} il n'y a pas
[21:51] de retrait ou quoi que ce soit
[21:52] >> The next. Item is the
[21:54] dimension of walls in the
[21:56] existing bylaw. The front wall
[21:58] of a multi family cannot exceed
[22:00] 40 metres. However it could go
[22:02] all the way to 60 metres if 30%
[22:04] of the total length of the wall
[22:07] is backed up by at least one
[22:09] metre. For a minimum of three
[22:11] metres. In other words, if you
[22:14] have 60 metres, you must have a
[22:16] recess in the building. They are
[22:19] actually asking exactly the same
[22:20] thing, but for a building that
[22:24] is 110 metres. If you look at
[22:25] the next slide, you will see
[22:27] that it is quite comparable with
[22:29] the buildings that we have next
[22:32] door. Those buildings are 56, 65
[22:36] metres each, and it's quite
[22:40] similar, in terms of distance.
[22:46] >>
[22:47] - Donc ça fait le tour des
[22:48] demandes qui sont faites pour le
[22:49] projet. Le 25 septembre dernier,
[22:53] les membres du conseil ont
[22:54] approuvé le premier projet de
[22:55] résolution. En imposant
[22:57] certaines conditions. Donc la
[23:00] première est qu'il y ait une
[23:01] entente sur les travaux
[23:02] municipaux soit conclue entre le
[23:03] requérant de la ville et la
[23:05] ville, pardon, concernant la
[23:07] localisation d'une conduites
[23:08] pluviales municipales.
[23:10] Actuellement, il y a une
[23:11] conduite pluviales qui passe à
[23:12] travers le terrain à peu près
[23:13] dans les cours arrières, à
[23:15] partir des cours arrières de
[23:17] Westcroft devant le bâtiment de
[23:18] la Plaza existante. Donc ça, ça
[23:21] devrait être relocalisés et
[23:22] confirmé par les Travaux publics
[23:23] de la ville que c'est fait dans
[23:24] les règles de l'art. Les membres
[23:28] du conseil ont aussi exigé
[23:29] connaît aménagements paysagers
[23:31] danse ne permettant aucune forme
[23:33] de circulation soit réalisée
[23:34] entretenue est maintenue dans la
[23:36] marge latérale du lot des
[23:37] maisons de ville. Donc entre les
[23:40] cours arrières sur Bolton et
[23:43] Fairway est le garage de ces
[23:45] nouvelles maisons de villes-là.
[23:49] Un mur d'intimité soit construit
[23:50] à l'extrémité nord de tous les
[23:51] balcons. Donc encore une fois,
[23:54] pour les maisons de ville, qu'il
[23:55] y a une certaine forme
[23:56] d'intimité qui soient prévus
[23:58] entre le nouveau bâtiment et les
[23:59] bâtiments existants. Par la
[24:04] construction d'un mur
[24:05] d'intimité, le tout en
[24:06] conformité avec les règlements
[24:07] de zonage en vigueur. Et que les
[24:10] bâtiments prévus à la présente
[24:11] demande, évidemment, fasse
[24:13] l'objet d'une demande de PIIA.
[24:15] (inaudible)
[24:18] >> Yes. The first item is that,
[24:20] as you know, there is a storm
[24:23] sewer that is passing right in
[24:25] the middle of the property. That
[24:27] will be re-localized. It will
[24:29] have to be localized on the
[24:33] north of the property. That will
[24:35] be the expense of the developer.
[24:39] The other thing is, there's
[24:40] going to have to be a dense
[24:44] landscaping project between the
[24:48] access ramp and the balconies of
[24:50] the town houses, and the limit
[24:52] of the property on the other
[24:56] street. The next one is a wall
[24:59] that will have to be constructed
[25:02] along the balconies to create
[25:05] certain screen in order to not
[25:09] to impinge on the neighbouring
[25:10] property. And all of this plus
[25:15] the authorization of the
[25:17] architecture will have to go
[25:18] back to the Planning Advisory
[25:19] Committee for recommendation to
[25:24] Council. The next slide is the
[25:29] timetable for the process of
[25:32] approval of such a project. Just
[25:35] keep in mind that the best
[25:37] people that will guide you to go
[25:40] through the process is the
[25:42] clerks office. There will be
[25:43] dates, there will be notices on
[25:45] the website. We encourage you to
[25:49] go after November 20th. But what
[25:52] we do know now is that there was
[25:56] a first adoption by Council on
[25:57] September 25th. We are tonight
[26:00] on October 24th for the public
[26:01] consultation. On November 28th
[26:04] the Council may adopt the bylaw
[26:07] with or without change. Then
[26:10] after that, there is a
[26:13] referendum process that will
[26:15] take place. The first item will
[26:16] be the public notice explaining
[26:18] the process to register into the
[26:22] process. And then after that,
[26:23] pending on the number of zones
[26:24] that will be implicated, there
[26:26] will be numbers that will be
[26:29] calculated from the clerks
[26:31] office, with other dates. But
[26:32] for the rest, we encourage you
[26:33] to talk to the clerks office,
[26:36] and talk to the assistant clerk
[26:40] or our city clerk.
[26:47] - Je voudrais juste rajouter, si
[26:48] on peut passer à la prochaine
[26:50] diapositive, oui, on va passer
[26:51] aux questions par la suite...
[26:52] >> Do you want it in French?
[26:58] Yes. We're going to explain it
[27:00] later.
[27:01] >> Yes. We're going to go back
[27:03] to it. No worries.
[27:07] [Inaudible]
[27:08] >> No, it's not a registration
[27:09] process. It's before that. Or
[27:13] after -- we won't do anything --
[27:15] >> That's the maximum day but
[27:16] those things are not gonna
[27:17] happen between Christmas and New
[27:18] Year's, we can assure you of
[27:19] that. We are going on vacation
[27:21] as well.
[27:24] - L'autre chose qui est très
[27:25] importante, tantôt, je vous ai
[27:26] parlé du processus de,
[27:28] approbation du PIIA. Donc de
[27:30] l'architecture et de la
[27:31] démolition. Ces processus-là
[27:34] pourront se faire en parallèle,
[27:35] mais seront seulement député
[27:37] quand le processus référendaire
[27:38] sera complété. Donc on peut
[27:43] parler quelque part en février,
[27:44] mars 2024. Pour le début de ça.
[27:47] >> I would like to repeat that
[27:48] in English. The process of
[27:51] adoption of the architecture and
[27:52] features of the project will not
[27:54] take place unless this is
[27:56] brought to the end. If this
[27:58] doesn't go, we will not be
[28:00] presenting the project to
[28:02] architectural features. So this
[28:03] is the first part. Once this is
[28:05] done, then we could go ahead
[28:08] with looking at the architecture
[28:09] of the building. That will take
[28:11] place, most probably, in
[28:12] February or March.
[28:16] - Donc juste étant donné que ça
[28:17] a été mentionné en anglais, il y
[28:20] a un premier projet qui est
[28:21] adopté actuellement.
[28:22] Aujourd'hui, il y a la
[28:23] consultation publique. La
[28:26] consultation publique, en vertu
[28:27] de la Loi de l'aménagement sur
[28:28] l'urbanisme, c'est pour entendre
[28:29] les résidences sur un projet
[28:31] dans le but que le conseil
[28:34] prenne une décision qui puisse
[28:35] tenir compte des commentaires
[28:36] qui ont été faits. Contrairement
[28:42] à certaines informations qui ont
[28:43] été véhiculés, ce projet-là
[28:44] n'est pas approuvée tout cuit.
[28:47] Il y a quand même des processus
[28:48] qui se fait en vertu de la Loi
[28:49] sur l'aménagement et d'urbanisme
[28:50] qui est obligatoire. Maintenant,
[28:54] au niveau des zones visées par
[28:56] le processus référendaire,
[28:59] donc...
[29:00] - Prochaine diapo, s'il vous
[29:01] plaît?
[29:02] - Sont présentées à l'écran. Ce
[29:04] ne sera pas bien long, il faut
[29:05] arriver. Mais tout ça pour dire
[29:13] que c'est les zones qui pourront
[29:15] avoir une implication dans le
[29:18] processus, en vertu encore une
[29:19] fois de la Loi sur l'aménagement
[29:21] et urbanisme. Donc le rectangle
[29:23] jaune que vous voyez, c'est la
[29:28] zone C330. Les zones visées sur
[29:30] la zone H334 h333, ça c'est
[29:41] Westcroft, H336 qui est à
[29:43] l'ouest de Fairway, les maisons
[29:44] de ville, les quatre, entente et
[29:45] la zone H340 qui est une partie
[29:47] au nord. Donc ça complète pour
[29:50] nous la présentation.
[29:56] - Merci beaucoup.
[29:57] >> Thank you very much, Mary and
[30:00] Denis. And now we are going to
[30:04] the question period. As I said
[30:06] before, if you have a question,
[30:09] please come up to the
[30:11] microphone, identify yourself,
[30:14] and then either make a comment
[30:18] or ask a question. We will try
[30:20] to answer. You
[30:21] >> Can I just add something to
[30:22] that? We provide closed
[30:26] captioning for the web, so it's
[30:28] really important that you speak
[30:29] into the microphone and that you
[30:31] don't speak from the crowd,
[30:32] because we can't capture it that
[30:34] way. Thank you.
[30:35] >> Yes. That's very good. Yes.
[30:37] We need to be at the mic to make
[30:40] a comment or ask a question.
[30:57] >> My name is Maria Jeremy Lowe.
[30:59] I live on West Coast. My
[31:01] question is regarding the
[31:03] parking situation there. Based
[31:06] on the amount of space you have
[31:07] available, and the way you're
[31:09] going to redesign your parking
[31:10] lot, how many spaces are they're
[31:12] going to be for the hundred and
[31:14] 17 units that are meant to be
[31:19] occupied by people that are that
[31:22] own one or maybe more than one
[31:24] car? In Beaconsfield it's not
[31:26] easy to get around. I think
[31:28] almost everyone needs at least
[31:29] one car.
[31:31] >> Yes. That's a good question.
[31:35] The number of parking spaces,
[31:41] 140 for the residential. And 30.
[31:45] They are exceeding the ratios
[31:47] that we ask normally for zoning.
[31:49] So the ratio for us is 120. And
[31:53] they are at 134.
[31:56] >> 1:40?
[31:57] >> Yes.
[31:58] >> So, 117 units have access to
[32:02] 140 parking spots. So let's say
[32:03] the invite someone over for
[32:05] supper. It's Thanksgiving. Where
[32:07] do they tell these people to
[32:08] park?
[32:11] >> There are some rules about
[32:12] visitors. So there is a
[32:15] percentage that is added to that
[32:17] for visitors. It's also a
[32:19] different number of parking
[32:21] spaces for the commercial use.
[32:24] So they respect the ratio, and
[32:26] it is also above the requested
[32:30] ratio in the bylaw.
[32:32] >> Okay. So you're saying,
[32:33] within the hundred and 70 total
[32:36] spaces, because you're not going
[32:38] to create more space --
[32:40] >> They have more than the
[32:42] bylaws have.
[32:43] >> I understand bylaws. I'm just
[32:46] thinking logic here. 170 spaces
[32:50] is, you think, more than
[32:51] sufficient for 117 units, plus
[32:55] 30 commercial businesses that
[32:56] are going to be taking in
[32:59] clients?
[33:00] >> If it's Thanksgiving dinner,
[33:01] it's at night. Most of the
[33:03] businesses are going to be
[33:04] closed. So that space is
[33:06] available. Let's take my
[33:08] example. I've got, to the max,
[33:10] on my parking space at home,
[33:12] four parking spaces. If my kids
[33:14] are there with the boyfriend and
[33:15] everything, it's eight cars. So
[33:17] where are they going to park?
[33:19] They park on the street.
[33:20] >> Well you definitely don't
[33:21] want to live in this complex
[33:23] because you can have a big
[33:24] problem.
[33:25] >> The thing is that we cannot
[33:28] plan 500 parking spaces when
[33:29] they are not going to be used.
[33:32] It's ratios that are normally
[33:34] used to park the residents. If
[33:36] you have visitors, of course,
[33:38] sometimes there's not going to
[33:39] be space.
[33:40] >> I think that the answer was
[33:42] there. The number of spaces. --
[33:48] maybe we are following the
[33:51] bylaw. Can you hear me okay?
[33:57] >> My name is Jason, I'm a
[33:59] resident of Beaconsfield. I have
[34:01] a comment to make before I pose
[34:03] a question. Thank you for
[34:05] hosting the public consultation.
[34:07] I'm here today concerned about
[34:09] the development going on and to
[34:11] express a deep apprehension
[34:12] about the ongoing development
[34:15] proposal for this in our
[34:16] community as it stands now. I
[34:18] ask you, and I employer plot
[34:20] implore you, to look at the long
[34:22] term implications of this
[34:24] project and taken median action
[34:25] to reject the plans as they are
[34:27] proposed. We are open to a
[34:29] development, but not as it
[34:30] stands now.
[34:33] >> We haven't shown you the
[34:35] development yet. It's not the
[34:37] development.
[34:38] >> All October 17th.
[34:39] >> It is not been submitted to
[34:40] us.
[34:41] >> Well, with all due respect,
[34:42] we were asked to vote.
[34:44] >> No, no, what you can comment
[34:46] on what we presented tonight,
[34:48] but the architectural design is
[34:52] not approved, has not been
[34:53] submitted to us, what is not
[34:56] even, and what you may have seen
[34:59] was not, is not a done deal. We
[35:02] are not approving an
[35:05] architectural design.
[35:07] >> So, perfectly, appreciate
[35:08] that. You mentioned a done deal.
[35:10] It was brought up to her
[35:11] attention, October 17, 18, and
[35:13] 19, that this was a done deal.
[35:15] So this obviously
[35:18] miscommunication going around
[35:19] within the public. But I
[35:20] continue. I understand the
[35:21] importance of development
[35:23] progress in our city and for a
[35:24] growth, but it's crucial we
[35:26] strike a balance between
[35:27] development and preservation of
[35:28] our environment. Our heritage of
[35:29] the well-being of our citizens.
[35:31] I will be two more minutes. The
[35:33] proposed development of Elm
[35:36] plaza has raised numerous
[35:38] concerns among residents, and I
[35:39] think is vital to address these
[35:40] concerns. Several issues have
[35:42] been raised. Today you may be
[35:44] hearing them around traffic,
[35:45] bylaw amendments, cultural and
[35:47] social impact, skulls cultural
[35:50] integrity of the homes in the
[35:51] neighbouring area, which I
[35:54] didn't necessarily hear comment
[35:55] about the presentation to the
[35:57] large construction that's going
[35:58] to take place. So my question to
[35:59] you around the bylaws, have they
[36:02] been approved with the changes
[36:05] that were proposed? Because I
[36:08] ask, why would you accept 18
[36:11] bylaw amendments when you ask
[36:13] owe residents to the upholding
[36:16] citizens and to respect existing
[36:18] bylaws, for example, trees, fans
[36:21] height, how big your home can
[36:23] be, how much you can put your
[36:25] shared, your pool, all of these
[36:27] different things, and there are
[36:29] 18 that effect the privacy of
[36:30] the local residents. And I'm
[36:32] curious as to why you would
[36:35] accept that.
[36:40] [Applause]
[36:41] >> That's why we're having a
[36:42] consultation. That's exactly why
[36:43] we're having a consultation, so
[36:44] we can hear the concerns. And
[36:46] then we will have to take your
[36:48] concerns into consideration.
[36:49] >> I appreciate that. May I ask
[36:51] one more question? If I
[36:53] understand the way this process
[36:54] works, September 23rd you
[36:56] already approved special
[36:58] concessions for this
[36:59] development.
[37:00] >> Now.
[37:03] >> The process is multi layers.
[37:07] The first of the first project,
[37:08] then we have to do a
[37:09] consultation. That's what we're
[37:10] doing tonight. Hearing the
[37:12] concerns. And then we turn back
[37:14] go to the developer, see if they
[37:16] can arrange something, make it
[37:18] happen the way the citizens are
[37:20] concerned, and I'm just going to
[37:22] get to that, and after that it
[37:24] comes back to Council for a
[37:26] second lecture, with or without
[37:29] modification of the bylaw,
[37:31] depending on what is proposed.
[37:32] >> So may I ask, because you did
[37:34] explain, it thank you, but I
[37:36] probably missed. At September
[37:38] 25th, you guys approved what,
[37:40] exactly?
[37:42] >> The first project.
[37:46] >> That does not mean -- that
[37:47] >> The parameters of that, time
[37:49] now or have your consultation.
[37:52] Hopefully that consultation that
[37:53] we are having tonight, based on
[37:55] the comments we're going to
[37:56] hear, make some changes. After
[38:00] that, it will come back to
[38:04] Council. Hopefully there will be
[38:08] some changes approved at that
[38:10] point. One set stone we give the
[38:11] process of the registry and the,
[38:15] again, at the end, the citizens
[38:18] still will have the last word on
[38:20] this.
[38:21] >> Okay. So step one, special
[38:24] concessions, the term they
[38:25] refer, to that was already
[38:26] approved?
[38:27] >> Not approved. Not approved.
[38:31] It's the first process.
[38:35] >> First step. So nothing has
[38:39] been approved, and contrary to
[38:41] what you have done, there is no
[38:43] done deal.
[38:45] >> I would just like to add
[38:47] something. It's a dual
[38:49] application, so everything that
[38:51] our requests tonight is going to
[38:53] be what they are asking for and
[38:56] if Council decides to go with
[38:58] it, what will be a place-able.
[39:00] Everything else that's in the
[39:02] bylaws, fences, number of trees,
[39:04] percentage of green spaces
[39:05] needed, needs to be conforming
[39:07] to the bylaw. So these are only
[39:10] the elements that they would
[39:11] like to derogate from in order
[39:14] to work a residential project in
[39:16] a commercial zone. But
[39:18] everything else needs to be
[39:19] conforming. If not, they have to
[39:21] do the whole thing again.
[39:23] >> So my final point, if anybody
[39:25] wants to come up, by all means,
[39:26] but my final point before I move
[39:28] on, I would like you to think
[39:30] about that when you go to vote.
[39:31] What you ask the residents to
[39:33] vote to do versus the amount of
[39:36] amendments they've asked for. It
[39:37] seems to be 18. I don't think
[39:38] I'd be allowed 18 amendments to
[39:43] my own property to do. That
[39:44] [Applause]
[39:45] >> Mister Mayor, can I just say
[39:49] something? I was out the
[39:50] presentation. I spoke to a lot
[39:51] of you. Please keep in mind what
[39:53] the mayor said. It is not a done
[39:54] deal. So I know a lot of you are
[39:57] here frustrated because I did
[39:58] hear you, the night and you were
[40:02] there with me. It's not a done
[40:03] deal. This is the process. So
[40:05] coming up Ed saying their duties
[40:07] are done deal, it's not.
[40:08] >> I didn't say that. I was
[40:10] asking for clarification and
[40:13] September 20th.
[40:14] >> In what you saw or may not be
[40:17] what's going up. The way it
[40:18] looks and everything, it's just,
[40:21] every step is, you know, we're
[40:24] going --
[40:25] >> All our bylaws apply here.
[40:29] What you are being presented
[40:31] tonight is exceptions to the
[40:33] bylaws. All the other bylaws
[40:37] are. Gonna --
[40:38] >> Like you to consider those
[40:42] urns exceptions. Thank, you you
[40:43] guys.
[40:46] >> Mayor Bourelle and District
[40:47] councils, I am Jim -- and I live
[40:50] on Kraft Street. I've been
[40:51] living there for almost 30
[40:52] years. My interest is a little
[40:55] different, I think, than the
[41:00] construction, the project, the
[41:02] project itself. My interest is
[41:08] regarding Beaconsfield seniors,
[41:09] who are at the point, have lived
[41:12] there in the community for many
[41:14] years, who have contributed to
[41:18] the community of Beaconsfield in
[41:20] many ways. Obviously through
[41:22] taxation but also through
[41:25] community projects, recreation,
[41:28] sports, et cetera. And for those
[41:30] seniors who want to continue to
[41:33] reside in Beaconsfield, when
[41:35] they are at the point of age
[41:37] where they want to perhaps
[41:40] downsize and look for housing at
[41:43] the next stage of their life.
[41:45] So, for example, when it
[41:48] becomes, everybody, I think,
[41:49] wants to live in the residence
[41:51] for as long as they're capable
[41:52] of living. But when it gets the
[41:54] point where you want to downsize
[41:56] and you want to be on a mean for
[41:58] dwelling, in a condo or a
[42:01] rental, this project seems to be
[42:03] interesting for that
[42:04] demographic. And so it seems to
[42:08] me that there is not space for
[42:15] development or much space, if
[42:16] any, for a project of this type,
[42:20] that would meet the needs of the
[42:21] tape of residence that I have
[42:24] just presented. I wondered what
[42:29] happens to residents who get to
[42:31] the age where we need to
[42:35] downsize, but there is nowhere
[42:38] to go in Beaconsfield. Where do
[42:41] those aging citizens of
[42:43] Beaconsfield go? I think they go
[42:47] to places like, maybe
[42:50] Pointe-Claire? DDO? Pierrefonds?
[42:52] But I think that their desire is
[42:55] to stay in our community and
[42:57] live where we have invested so
[42:59] much, emotionally, both socially
[43:03] and economically, and if this
[43:08] project would go to completion,
[43:11] and if it was approved and
[43:14] built, my question is, is it
[43:18] possible that the people that
[43:19] have access to this residential
[43:24] project would be prioritized,
[43:26] seniors First, citizens of
[43:28] Beaconsfield? I don't know the
[43:31] gala teeth of it. And if the
[43:34] galleries are such that no, that
[43:36] is not something that can be
[43:39] passed, a compromise, and I'm
[43:42] not sure if it's rentals and
[43:45] condos, or just rentals, it's
[43:47] not clear to me. But if this
[43:51] project was to go through to it
[43:53] and, I would advocate that
[43:57] citizens, our citizens who have
[43:59] been living here for many many
[44:00] years, have access to this
[44:03] project. So that they can live
[44:05] on one floor. If they need
[44:07] something downstairs that they
[44:08] can get, through the different
[44:12] commercial establishments, to
[44:13] meet their daily needs, whether
[44:15] it's a loaf of bread or milk or
[44:17] whatever, that they just go
[44:20] downstairs. They don't have to
[44:21] get on a bus. They don't have to
[44:22] travel in their car. They don't
[44:24] have to take a taxi. There is a
[44:26] certain amount of commercial
[44:30] needs that are available to them
[44:31] to meet their needs. So I
[44:33] suppose that my question is, if
[44:37] it's approved, can the
[44:39] residential units be exclusively
[44:42] for a Beaconsfield seniors, or,
[44:44] as a compromise, a significant
[44:47] significant proportion be
[44:50] allotted for Beaconsfield senior
[44:52] citizens so they can continue to
[44:54] live in their community that
[44:56] they've made a contribution and
[44:57] wish to continue to live in?
[44:59] That's my question.
[45:02] >> If I may, Mister Mayor?
[45:06] >> Certainly, we will take note
[45:08] of this. It's exactly why we
[45:11] want you to come tonight, to
[45:13] make comments like this so that
[45:14] we can take that into
[45:16] consideration and take note of.
[45:18] It I don't know whether Denis
[45:21] can --
[45:22] >> There are multiple aspects of
[45:23] the question, but one component
[45:26] existing in our bylaw for now,
[45:28] five years, is, all those types
[45:31] of construction, multi family,
[45:33] needs to have the first floor,
[45:35] where we have dwellings.
[45:39] Everywhere for those type of
[45:40] projects, the first ground floor
[45:42] where there is dwellings, they
[45:44] need to be designed as
[45:45] adaptable. What it means is that
[45:48] the floor is flat. So a
[45:50] wheelchair can come in. The
[45:52] shower, the bathroom has already
[45:54] had the drain in the centre. The
[45:58] cabinets are designed to be
[46:00] modular so they can put a
[46:03] wheelchair. So everything is
[46:05] ready to go. It's not adapted,
[46:06] but if somebody gets in there,
[46:10] is living ten years in a rental,
[46:12] we've got confirmation from the
[46:15] developer that it is the multi
[46:16] family is rental, town houses
[46:18] are going to be sold. But if for
[46:21] some reason you need to adapt
[46:22] your dwelling, you don't have to
[46:24] go out. You can do minor
[46:26] modifications on it and it's
[46:28] already adaptable. With the
[46:29] question of who is allowed to
[46:31] rent what, that is not,
[46:33] unfortunately, in the hands of
[46:35] the municipality. It's up to the
[46:37] developer to decide who wants to
[46:38] rent to. But in terms of who he
[46:41] wants to read, he is limited
[46:43] also. He cannot refuse a citizen
[46:46] from another city just because
[46:48] he's not from Beaconsfield.
[46:49] There is not something that
[46:50] would fly very well with the
[46:55] law. What
[46:57] >> So, if I understand
[46:58] correctly, there's a law in
[47:01] place that would not support,
[47:04] even in a compromise, a certain
[47:06] amount of citizens from
[47:09] Beaconsfield to have a priority,
[47:10] correct?
[47:11] >> Correct. That would be
[47:12] discrimination.
[47:13] >> Yeah, okay. So it's
[47:16] unfortunate, because I think we
[47:19] like that kind of housing for
[47:21] our citizens.
[47:23] >> I agree.
[47:24] >> It will be there. If this
[47:26] project is completed, it will be
[47:27] there. And with some adaptable
[47:32] units, hopefully Beaconsfield
[47:35] residents will jump on those
[47:37] units quickly. But we can't
[47:41] refuse somebody from new moving
[47:44] into Beaconsfield and buying or
[47:46] renting a unit. There is no
[47:47] bylaw that allows that.
[47:50] >> All right, well that's my
[47:52] concern. Thank you for the
[47:54] opportunity.
[47:55] >> It's a very legitimate
[47:56] concern. I think it has to be
[47:58] taken into consideration. Thank
[48:01] you very much.
[48:13] >> Hi Mr. Mayor, members of the
[48:14] Council, thank you. My name is
[48:17] Stephanie pack. I'm a resident
[48:20] of Beaconsfield. My children
[48:23] attend a daycare that it's
[48:24] impacted by this project. I'm
[48:25] not gonna be asking questions
[48:26] about the impact and how we can
[48:32] assess the impact for the
[48:35] daycare, because the director of
[48:37] the daycare will be focusing on.
[48:39] That I have similar questions.
[48:40] What is the process to assess
[48:44] impact on circulation in the
[48:45] neighbourhood? It's a one lane
[48:47] road that we are suggesting to
[48:50] put over 100 units on, and
[48:52] arguably some of the worst
[48:54] intersections, exits being
[48:56] Woodland and St. Charles, it's
[48:57] right in the middle of that. So
[48:59] that's my first question.
[49:03] >> I think there is a traffic
[49:04] study.
[49:05] >> Yes.
[49:06] >> We can consulted. It's right
[49:07] there.
[49:10] >> Okay.
[49:11] >> It's on the website. The
[49:14] study.
[49:15] >> And who conducted that?
[49:19] >> A company called -- they
[49:22] specialize in those type of
[49:23] studies.
[49:24] >> And the approved it?
[49:28] >> There's nothing to
[49:29] disapprove. It's just not an
[49:30] issue, based on the study.
[49:31] >> Okay. The second question, is
[49:33] how do you determine the
[49:35] referendum inclusion of who can
[49:37] be participating in that?
[49:39] >> Well, I'll ask our Clerk here
[49:42] to perhaps answer that question.
[49:44] There is a number of people,
[49:46] based on the zones.
[49:49] >> Could we go back with the
[49:51] map? The yellow zone is the
[49:54] concern zone, and the zone that
[49:56] are touching the yellow zone,
[49:59] can ask for to open a register.
[50:03] So this will be the first
[50:05] process. Each zone may ask for a
[50:10] register. So this is the first
[50:12] step. So depending on the zones
[50:14] that will ask for industry, we
[50:16] will know the number of
[50:18] signatures required in the
[50:19] registered.
[50:20] >> But if you don't leave those
[50:21] old, you capital paid?
[50:23] >> Now. You have to be adjacent
[50:25] to the zone.
[50:26] >> Even if you could be impacted
[50:28] by the circulation and
[50:29] construction?
[50:30] >> That's the way the law is.
[50:33] >> Okay. Those are my questions.
[50:39] >> Think you.
[50:43] >> Hello. My name is Amanda. I
[50:45] am the director of -- daycare
[50:50] center and that's the office
[50:52] directly affected by this. I'm
[50:54] here tonight because I have an
[50:56] obligation to ensure the safety,
[50:58] security, and well-being of the
[51:00] children, and so I am their
[51:03] voice tonight. What we have
[51:06] major concerns about this. Some
[51:08] of those concerns being during
[51:12] the construction process. The
[51:13] noise level, the air quality,
[51:15] these are all things that will
[51:17] directly impact children. It's
[51:22] likely a project of the size
[51:23] going to entail years of
[51:26] construction, and so for those
[51:29] children to have that constant
[51:31] noise, day in and day out, the
[51:33] majority of those children are
[51:35] there for a few more hours a
[51:36] day, 261 days a year. This is
[51:39] the majority of their childhood
[51:41] from 1 to 5 years old. My
[51:45] obligation is to ensure that
[51:47] those levels can be controlled
[51:50] at somehow. I don't know how.
[51:52] This is not my field. But they
[51:54] do have a right to have some
[51:57] peace in their own home. This is
[52:00] their second home. And so they
[52:02] do have a right to have some
[52:03] peace and also some quality air.
[52:06] We know that children, the
[52:09] respiratory rate in the heart
[52:10] rate or obviously much quicker
[52:12] than adults, and so they're
[52:13] gonna be breathing in a lot more
[52:15] of those particles than adults
[52:16] will. So what can be done, and
[52:18] have you taken that into
[52:20] consideration for the children?
[52:22] >> There are rules that have to
[52:25] be followed. Perhaps Dave can
[52:27] explain?
[52:29] >> Control over dust, mainly.
[52:32] Unfortunately it's a
[52:33] construction site, so there will
[52:35] be concrete trucks coming in,
[52:38] concrete pumps. So, indeed,
[52:39] there will be disruption, that's
[52:41] for sure. One thing I could do
[52:43] is get to in touch with the
[52:45] promoter and see, with him, what
[52:47] can be done to mitigate the
[52:50] problems that you're gonna be
[52:52] facing. Efforts temporary
[52:54] temporary wall could be record
[52:55] or something like that, we could
[52:58] sit down with the promoter and
[53:00] yourself to see what can be
[53:01] done.
[53:02] >> My question to that response
[53:04] would be, those laws around all
[53:07] of that bite, who is there to
[53:09] ensure that they are actually
[53:12] being respected?
[53:13] >> We do have inspectors that
[53:15] are there.
[53:16] >> All the time?
[53:17] >> Not all the time.
[53:18] >> Okay. --
[53:24] >> But I'm sorry, if there are
[53:25] complaints, we will go for sure.
[53:30] >> And are those noise, are
[53:32] those regulations geared towards
[53:34] adults at the moment, the way
[53:36] they are written? Or are they
[53:38] written with respect to
[53:39] children?
[53:40] >> For everyone.
[53:41] >> For everyone.
[53:43] >> I think, that's your question
[53:46] I think -- I
[53:47] >> Have a lot. We have 80
[53:49] children.
[53:50] >> Sorry about, we have to give
[53:53] everybody a chance.
[53:57] [Inaudible]
[53:59] >> There is a line of people
[54:01] there. I think you have had
[54:03] three questions. She has asked
[54:07] three questions. I will give you
[54:08] one more, and that's it.
[54:10] >> You can come out.
[54:12] >> That's yet. That's. It
[54:15] >> Okay. Where
[54:19] >> You can go back in line
[54:21] after. You go back online.
[54:23] >> One more question and then go
[54:24] back in line? Okay. So another
[54:27] question would be, the way that
[54:28] it is right now, you showed the
[54:31] model with the town houses
[54:33] having green spaces and in
[54:37] proximity to the houses on a
[54:40] Boulton. Could we not have town
[54:42] houses along our side of the
[54:43] wall with some green space
[54:44] between the buildings to allow
[54:49] for a more maybe private
[54:52] building-type for the children
[54:54] of the daycare?
[54:55] >> I think it's in the plan, if
[54:57] I'm not mistaken.
[55:02] [Inaudible]
[55:09] >> Again, this is something that
[55:10] could be discussed with the
[55:11] developer.
[55:13] >> Okay. Welcome back.
[55:17] >> Thank you.
[55:19] [Applause]
[55:20] >> Hi. I'm Beaconsfield resident
[55:22] for over 30 years. My question
[55:27] -- closer? Okay. My question
[55:30] actually is concerning
[55:32] information about the developer.
[55:34] We know that there was a project
[55:38] on the east side of St. Charles
[55:40] that is not completed. We met
[55:45] the developer on the 17th, 18th,
[55:49] 19th, and I and others
[55:52] specifically asked if the
[55:55] developer had completed any
[55:58] projects of this size, of this
[56:01] nature, and we were told yes,
[56:03] absolutely. We did big winds,
[56:05] small ones. But when I asked
[56:08] nutritional details, there was
[56:10] none forthcoming. So my concern
[56:13] is, my understanding of this is,
[56:17] a numbered company and this was
[56:21] registered June of 2022, for a
[56:25] number of us in this room
[56:26] tonight and in the
[56:28] neighbourhood, that raises some
[56:32] concerns. We all will have to
[56:35] live with the decisions that we
[56:38] make and the results of this
[56:40] project, and I think we would
[56:42] just like to have a little more
[56:46] information on this development
[56:47] or development in the type of
[56:49] projects that have been
[56:50] completed, and just give us a
[56:51] bit of confidence that the
[56:54] pictures that were being shown
[56:56] and the beautiful trees that
[56:58] they are planning on putting in
[57:00] the project, the pictures --
[57:02] >> The pictures that have been
[57:03] shown or not the architectural
[57:04] design that we will necessarily
[57:06] approve.
[57:07] >> Even worse.
[57:08] >> It hasn't been given to us.
[57:11] What you have seen, and you are
[57:13] told was a done deal, is not a
[57:16] done deal.
[57:17] >> Understood.
[57:18] >> Very clear.
[57:19] >> My question is can we get
[57:23] some additional information
[57:26] about the developer that would
[57:29] give the neighbourhood some
[57:33] confidence that we're not going
[57:34] to end up with another situation
[57:37] like that. I feel for those
[57:40] people that unfortunately are
[57:43] looking a part of a nice
[57:44] building that was completed, and
[57:46] a big hole in the ground, and
[57:48] there's not much that can be
[57:49] done about it at the moment.
[57:51] Work
[57:54] >> Jeannine, you have any
[57:55] information on that?
[57:56] >> We will talk with a developer
[57:58] and see if we can get some
[57:59] addresses. We know that he's --
[58:03] most in the south shore, but we
[58:04] will see what we can get.
[58:06] >> Where the projects are
[58:08] located is really not an issue.
[58:10] It is just, do we have
[58:11] experience with this kind of
[58:14] project?
[58:15] >> And about the completion of
[58:16] the project, because it's --
[58:21] Council can put some condition
[58:23] in their decision, so one of
[58:25] them could be had a timeframe to
[58:28] do the project unless that bylaw
[58:31] is not applicable any board, is
[58:33] not valid. So, that could be
[58:34] something that Council looks at
[58:35] when they do. But those are
[58:38] elements that they can look at,
[58:40] yes, when they approve the
[58:42] project.
[58:43] >> So, what you're talking about
[58:45] is some kind of penalty or
[58:48] deposit?
[58:49] >> No, it's not a deposit. Well,
[58:50] we have a bylaw that prescribes
[58:54] that a deposit needs to be
[58:55] given, based on the cost of the
[58:57] work. But that is a thing, but
[58:59] also because that it's sky will
[59:01] be, which wasn't the case with a
[59:03] damning, it was just a zoning
[59:05] change. So, no conditions can be
[59:07] imposed by Council with that
[59:09] form of bylaw. Compared to this
[59:11] one, it can be. Council can put
[59:14] some conditions and that could
[59:17] be something that can be done
[59:20] with --
[59:21] >> That could be a delay to
[59:23] complete a construction, for
[59:24] instance.
[59:25] >> And if it was not completed
[59:26] in time, then what would be the
[59:28] consequences?
[59:29] >> Well, they would have to
[59:30] start over the process of
[59:33] getting the approval. That is
[59:34] the first thing. And with the
[59:35] deposit, there are things that
[59:36] the city could do with the
[59:39] approval of the courts. Because
[59:41] we cannot act, you know,
[59:44] directly. So, we need a judge to
[59:46] tell us that we're allowed to
[59:47] take those monies to at least
[59:49] level the land and stuff like
[59:51] that.
[59:52] >> Thank you very much.
[59:53] >> You are welcome.
[59:58] >> It's me again. I came back up
[1:00:01] because one of the lady over
[1:00:03] there had asked a question about
[1:00:04] the traffic report and I wanted
[1:00:06] to follow up. So, first, I did
[1:00:09] read it. Forgive me if I've
[1:00:11] missed anything and I pose a
[1:00:12] question and the answers in
[1:00:13] their, because it was in French
[1:00:14] and I did my best to understand
[1:00:17] 130-page document. As the
[1:00:19] Council read this, okay, did you
[1:00:22] notice that Woodland is excluded
[1:00:24] from the traffic report? And I
[1:00:26] think that was the ladies
[1:00:27] question. So, my question to you
[1:00:29] is, will you accept the traffic
[1:00:31] report as it stands, knowing
[1:00:33] that the woodland intersection
[1:00:35] is a major concern? And is
[1:00:37] excluded from the traffic
[1:00:39] report.
[1:00:40] [Applause]
[1:00:41] >> We will take a look. We will
[1:00:44] take a look.
[1:00:45] >> Have you read it, sir?
[1:00:46] >> The report?
[1:00:48] >> Yes.
[1:00:49] >> No, but I've seen the traffic
[1:00:50] at the shopping centre, because
[1:00:52] I was there several times, and
[1:00:55] the parking lot was full of cars
[1:00:57] at the time that I was there,
[1:00:58] during the day. So, there is an
[1:01:01] awful lot of traffic because of
[1:01:04] the real estate firm that is
[1:01:06] there, because of the hospital
[1:01:08] that is there. One restaurant
[1:01:12] has a delivery service, so there
[1:01:15] is already a lot of traffic
[1:01:16] there. So, I'm not sure that, I
[1:01:19] think the pattern will be
[1:01:21] different because you are
[1:01:22] looking at perhaps more traffic
[1:01:24] in the morning and at night. But
[1:01:27] overall, I don't think it's
[1:01:29] going to be any different.
[1:01:31] >> So, the only thing I would
[1:01:32] ask is that you read it first
[1:01:34] before you have the opinion on
[1:01:35] it.
[1:01:36] >> We will take a look, thank
[1:01:37] you.
[1:01:38] [Applause]
[1:01:44] >> I'm Dave oral, resident of
[1:01:47] fairway Drive. Thank you all for
[1:01:48] coming, it shows good community
[1:01:50] spirit. My concern, like a lot
[1:01:53] of people this evening, is the
[1:01:56] volume of traffic that this
[1:01:59] particular development is going
[1:02:01] to bring to our neighbourhood.
[1:02:03] >> Now, we've already heard
[1:02:04] that. So, I don't want to come
[1:02:06] back with the same thing.
[1:02:08] >> Fair enough. I'm just
[1:02:09] elaborating a little bit because
[1:02:12] it is brought up in the other
[1:02:14] night at the developer meeting
[1:02:17] that there is no sustainable
[1:02:20] impact on traffic flow, in our
[1:02:24] neighbourhood. It was also
[1:02:26] brought up that where are people
[1:02:29] going to park? Additional people
[1:02:31] going to park.
[1:02:32] >> We've already heard that as
[1:02:33] well.
[1:02:34] >> Fair enough, fair enough. But
[1:02:35] one thing that I brought up
[1:02:37] several times is that the elm
[1:02:40] plaza parking lot presently,
[1:02:43] with only four possibly people
[1:02:46] left in this building, it's
[1:02:48] quite full in the evening, and
[1:02:49] these are people that are
[1:02:50] parking from the Markham plaza,
[1:02:54] Markham apartments, in that
[1:02:56] section. We also have the
[1:02:59] parking lot at Shannon Park,
[1:03:02] which also has fortified six
[1:03:05] cars every evening from people
[1:03:07] from Markham. Now you're going
[1:03:10] to bring out a whole hundred and
[1:03:13] X number of apartments or town
[1:03:17] houses. These additional people
[1:03:18] coming over for Thanksgiving
[1:03:21] dinner have no place to park.
[1:03:23] There is already a tremendous
[1:03:28] chokehold on the flow of traffic
[1:03:29] in this neighbourhood. Adding
[1:03:32] this number of units is going to
[1:03:34] have a devastating impact. On
[1:03:37] traffic.
[1:03:38] >> We heard this already. I
[1:03:39] thank you very much, but I want
[1:03:41] to I don't want to hear the same
[1:03:42] questions every time from
[1:03:43] everyone.
[1:03:44] >> Fair enough. Actually, I
[1:03:47] haven't answered a question. I'm
[1:03:49] making a bold statement and I
[1:03:50] think that's what people want to
[1:03:52] hear as well tonight.
[1:03:54] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:03:55] [Applause]
[1:04:02] >> Thank you, Mister Mayor and
[1:04:04] councillors. I greatly
[1:04:05] appreciate the opportunity
[1:04:06] you've given us to meet with you
[1:04:08] and raise our concerns. My name
[1:04:10] is Pamela Rice and I live on
[1:04:12] Preston Drive, which is not far
[1:04:13] from where this development is.
[1:04:15] I have a question. One is, if
[1:04:18] I'm not mistaken, you're going
[1:04:19] to be asking for a bylaw
[1:04:22] derogation for 117 units, I
[1:04:24] think I got that correct. How
[1:04:27] did you arrive at that amount,
[1:04:30] in terms of number of units to
[1:04:32] be developed on that relatively
[1:04:35] small space? How did that number
[1:04:37] come out? Why not 120? Why not
[1:04:40] 112? 50?
[1:04:43] >> This was the discussion we
[1:04:44] had with the developer and he
[1:04:45] came up with a first number that
[1:04:47] was more like 150 units. And
[1:04:52] slowly, we have been downsizing
[1:04:54] the project to this point.
[1:04:56] Obviously, and I'm not the
[1:04:57] developer. I'm working for the
[1:04:59] city, but he is going to be,
[1:05:02] he's investing in the land, that
[1:05:04] cost him money, he's going to be
[1:05:06] debauch in the building, that
[1:05:07] cost money. He probably has to
[1:05:09] have a certain number of units
[1:05:10] in his mind in order to make it
[1:05:11] profitable and that is all for
[1:05:13] us. We started with about 150.
[1:05:17] Downsized it to 117. There were
[1:05:20] 16 town houses that we -- if I'm
[1:05:23] not mistaken, down to 13.
[1:05:25] >> On what basis,? I mean, I'm
[1:05:29] still concerned about 117, but
[1:05:31] you want for 150 to 117. What
[1:05:35] was the logic for that?
[1:05:37] >> It's also because other
[1:05:38] parameters of the bylaw need to
[1:05:40] be conforming, like parking
[1:05:41] spaces. They need to have a good
[1:05:43] ratio and with downsizing, they
[1:05:45] have more than the minimal
[1:05:47] ratio. That is an example and
[1:05:48] also for the green space on the
[1:05:51] property. It is way bigger than
[1:05:53] what's actually there, at the
[1:05:55] moment. And it's higher than
[1:05:57] what the bylaw prescribes. So,
[1:05:59] all these elements, they have to
[1:06:01] make sure that all the
[1:06:05] parameters are conforming in
[1:06:07] they're asking for some
[1:06:08] delegation in order for it to
[1:06:09] comply. And also because it is a
[1:06:12] commercial zoning right now and
[1:06:13] they want to put residential.
[1:06:15] So, obviously, there are some
[1:06:17] elements that need to be
[1:06:18] addressed with the bylaw.
[1:06:20] >> They did also cut by -- to
[1:06:23] recess it.
[1:06:24] >> I don't oppose
[1:06:26] identification. We all know that
[1:06:27] this is a crises in Canada, in
[1:06:30] terms of housing. And I don't
[1:06:31] have a problem with seeing, you
[1:06:33] know, more housing in that area.
[1:06:35] I find that is an awful lot, in
[1:06:37] terms of another traffic
[1:06:38] circulation keeps coming up and
[1:06:39] that is an issue. Secondly, we
[1:06:43] also know that there is a trend,
[1:06:45] of importance in affordable
[1:06:46] housing in Canada. And in some
[1:06:49] cities, they are now passing
[1:06:52] bylaws that require developers,
[1:06:53] when they develop an area, a
[1:06:56] site, that they must provide
[1:06:58] affordable housing within that
[1:07:00] complex. However that may be
[1:07:01] done. And I would urge this
[1:07:04] council to really consider that
[1:07:06] because this is one of the
[1:07:07] issues in Beaconsfield, is there
[1:07:08] is not of affordable housing.
[1:07:11] And that limits the diversity in
[1:07:14] our population in the city. So,
[1:07:16] I would like to just really
[1:07:18] consider that. This is happening
[1:07:20] in other cities and I think
[1:07:22] that's really an important
[1:07:24] factor in looking at this whole
[1:07:25] project as well. Thank you.
[1:07:28] >> Thank you.
[1:07:31] [Applause]
[1:07:34] [Speaking French]
[1:07:37] - Je suis pas mal la plus
[1:07:39] vieille ici qui demeurent à
[1:07:40] Beaconsfield depuis 57 ans!
[1:07:42] - Non, non, non.
[1:07:43] - Ça fait 57 ans que vous
[1:07:44] demeurez ici?
[1:07:46] - À Beaconsfield?
[1:07:47] - Non, pas 57 ans. Non.
[1:07:49] - Moi, ça fait 57 ans.
[1:07:55] (applaudissements)
[1:07:56] - Il y a des gens qui sont ici
[1:07:57] depuis 50 ce temps.
[1:07:58] - Vous me battez, vous me
[1:07:59] battez.
[1:08:00] - Alors on le met sur Bolton, en
[1:08:01] plus? Quand je suis arrivé, moi,
[1:08:04] on a changé le zonage comme ça
[1:08:05] sans nous le dire pour faire un
[1:08:06] centre commercial. Maintenant,
[1:08:09] vous voulez encore changer le
[1:08:10] zonage.
[1:08:12] - Alors vous êtes ici parce
[1:08:13] qu'on vous consulte.
[1:08:14] - Oui, ce sera. Dernièrement,
[1:08:17] depuis quelques années, on a
[1:08:18] voté pour un référendum il y
[1:08:21] avait quelqu'un, on est venu
[1:08:22] voter ici pour un référendum
[1:08:25] disant que si on ne voulait pas
[1:08:27] de deuxième étage sur le centre
[1:08:28] d'achats, maintenant, vous
[1:08:30] voulez mettre trois étages juste
[1:08:32] en arrière de chez nous? Ça ne
[1:08:34] marche pas, là.
[1:08:36] - Non, c'est quatre. C'est
[1:08:38] quatre, ce n'est pas trois.
[1:08:39] - C'est quatre en avant. En
[1:08:40] arrière de chez moi...
[1:08:41] - Trois en arrière de chez vous.
[1:08:42] - C'est trois. Alors si moi je
[1:08:47] voudrais mettre trois étages sur
[1:08:48] ma maison, vous diriez non.
[1:08:52] Alors et à part ça, sur Bolton,
[1:08:55] une voisine a demandé, ça lui a
[1:08:57] pris quatre fois venir vous
[1:08:58] demander pour changer juste la
[1:08:59] façade de sa maison. Vous disiez
[1:09:02] non, vous disiez non. Comment
[1:09:05] vous permettez de mettre trois
[1:09:06] étages? Ça ne marche, pas la
[1:09:07] faire. Définitivement, cette
[1:09:11] personne-là parce que vous vous
[1:09:12] êtes trompé dans les papiers a
[1:09:13] réussi à l'avoir, sinon, vous
[1:09:15] disiez non les quatre fois qu'il
[1:09:16] s'est présenté. Donc le
[1:09:18] troisième étage, nous dit pas
[1:09:19] deux et demi, je ne connais pas
[1:09:20] de maison qui a des moitiés de
[1:09:23] chambre de cuisine. Un étage,
[1:09:26] c'est un étage. Alors trois
[1:09:27] étages, je ne l'accepte pas.
[1:09:29] - Merci.
[1:09:30] (applaudissements)
[1:09:36] >> Hi, I am back. I want to
[1:09:39] address the issue of --
[1:09:40] >> Could you identify yourself,
[1:09:42] please?
[1:09:43] >> Yeah, Amanda, director of the
[1:09:45] -- daycare, yes from the daycare
[1:09:46] right beside. And, so right now
[1:09:47] I would like to address the
[1:09:48] issue of the height of the
[1:09:50] building proposed. And so, on
[1:09:53] our side of the daycare would be
[1:09:55] four storeys. You know, for us,
[1:09:57] we worry about natural light for
[1:09:59] the children, the impacts that
[1:10:02] the shade could have, some
[1:10:04] studies have been done to
[1:10:06] analyze all of that? And then to
[1:10:08] the same point, right? We are
[1:10:11] looking at possibly authorizing
[1:10:13] this and yet, when we ask for a
[1:10:15] second shed in our backyard
[1:10:16] assortment period for children
[1:10:18] and their development, we can't
[1:10:20] put a door on it because it's
[1:10:23] not allowed.
[1:10:24] [Applause]
[1:10:25] I just think it's so --
[1:10:27] >> Thank you.
[1:10:29] >> That's a comment and we will
[1:10:31] take note of it.
[1:10:32] >> And in terms of a sudden
[1:10:34] study --
[1:10:35] >> There is a sun study that was
[1:10:36] done.
[1:10:37] >> It's available online if you
[1:10:38] want to go see the documents,
[1:10:39] yeah.
[1:10:40] >> For the whole year.
[1:10:41] >> And the implication?
[1:10:42] >> For the whole year.
[1:10:45] >> Thank you.
[1:10:46] >> Excuse me, what was the site
[1:10:47] study you are referring to?
[1:10:48] >> Shade study.
[1:10:52] >> Shade study? Okay.
[1:10:54] >> Mister Mayor, councillors,
[1:10:56] and guess, my name is Alex Moss.
[1:10:58] I'm a real estate broker here in
[1:10:59] Beaconsfield. My office is on
[1:11:01] this, at this address. I'm a
[1:11:03] resident of Beaconsfield, I live
[1:11:04] on elm, so I know the traffic.
[1:11:07] Quite well. And I am here in
[1:11:10] support of the project. I must
[1:11:12] say, I appreciate everybody's
[1:11:13] comments. I speak with citizens
[1:11:16] on a daily basis. 30, 40 people
[1:11:18] every single day in Beaconsfield
[1:11:20] because -- Kirkland and I can
[1:11:22] say that there are a lot of my
[1:11:24] clients who are elderly living
[1:11:25] in homes in Beaconsfield and
[1:11:27] like the gentleman from Alan
[1:11:29] Croft said, there is a definite
[1:11:31] shortage of apartments. People
[1:11:33] always ask me, where am I going
[1:11:34] to move? Well, there is nothing
[1:11:36] in Beaconsfield right now, so
[1:11:37] this would be very appreciated
[1:11:38] for them many, many people that
[1:11:40] I have spoken to. The other
[1:11:42] aspect of it is my office. So in
[1:11:44] terms of commercial space, right
[1:11:46] now, the building is a
[1:11:48] nightmare. The nightmare on elm
[1:11:50] street. It's not a great place
[1:11:51] to bring clients. It's quite
[1:11:52] embarrassing to bring them there
[1:11:53] and its current state, so we are
[1:11:55] all, all of the conferences that
[1:11:57] are within this building, are
[1:11:59] very much looking forward to a
[1:12:01] new facility that we can be
[1:12:03] proud of and that is all.? I
[1:12:07] have no questions, I just wanted
[1:12:08] to bring that comment from me.
[1:12:10] From us.
[1:12:11] >> Thank you very much.
[1:12:12] >> Appreciate it.
[1:12:21] >> -- west craft, I think
[1:12:22] everybody stole my thunder
[1:12:23] tonight. Especially Louise, I've
[1:12:26] lived on the street for almost
[1:12:29] 50 years and I was going to
[1:12:32] mention just how big this --
[1:12:35] doesn't fit in with our
[1:12:36] neighbourhood but instead I'm
[1:12:37] going to ask a question. The
[1:12:40] designation of the units has
[1:12:43] gone from condo to rental. And I
[1:12:47] know that the City was kind of
[1:12:49] planning on a lot of welcome tax
[1:12:54] from this project. And as far as
[1:12:57] I know, rental units don't
[1:13:00] generate welcome tax. Am I
[1:13:03] correct?
[1:13:04] >> I think so. I don't know of
[1:13:06] any rental unit where we collect
[1:13:09] rental tax or welcome tax, nope.
[1:13:12] That was my only comment.
[1:13:14] >> Yes, thank you, thank you. I
[1:13:17] also agree with you, the more
[1:13:19] condos instead of rental, the
[1:13:21] better for us, yes. Yes?
[1:13:29] >> Hello, my name is Tina,
[1:13:32] amorous and --
[1:13:33] >> Lift it up a little bit.
[1:13:34] >> Okay, my name is to know is
[1:13:35] it will, I am a resident of west
[1:13:37] craft and as many people that
[1:13:39] live on Westcott, we know how
[1:13:41] inconvenient construction can
[1:13:42] be, like we've suffered through
[1:13:44] three months when they put in
[1:13:45] the sidewalks, three months
[1:13:46] currently when they're putting
[1:13:47] the water mains, which I don't
[1:13:49] mind because there are
[1:13:50] improvements that our benefit
[1:13:51] from. However, this project
[1:13:52] doesn't really benefit me, but
[1:13:55] my main concern is when I spoke
[1:13:56] to the developer during the open
[1:13:58] house, I asked them how long
[1:13:59] this was going to take and he
[1:14:00] told me, three phases. I said,
[1:14:02] okay, how longer these phases?
[1:14:05] 18 months. So, if you do the
[1:14:07] math, that's like four and a
[1:14:09] half years and as you all well
[1:14:10] know, construction projects
[1:14:12] never run on time. So, we're
[1:14:14] looking at 5 to 6 years that we
[1:14:16] have to undergo, we have to be
[1:14:18] in the middle of a construction
[1:14:20] site where there are trucks
[1:14:21] rumbling by, noise, particulate
[1:14:25] being thrown in the air and
[1:14:26] diesel fumes. I was just
[1:14:27] wondering if you guys were aware
[1:14:29] how long this project was going
[1:14:31] to take and the inconvenience
[1:14:33] it's going to cause to all the
[1:14:36] local residents like the lady
[1:14:37] from the daycare mentioned, the
[1:14:40] students that go across the
[1:14:41] bridge to the high school and,
[1:14:43] of course, all the residents in
[1:14:44] the area.
[1:14:45] >> We haven't even submitted the
[1:14:48] project yet. So --
[1:14:49] >> But the the developer told
[1:14:53] me, he told me how long it was
[1:14:55] going to take. So, that's what
[1:14:56] concerns me because I did ask
[1:14:57] him the question.
[1:14:58] >> When he summits an
[1:15:00] architectural project, we will
[1:15:01] take a look at that.
[1:15:02] >> Okay, well you should be very
[1:15:04] concerned because I am very
[1:15:05] concerned about being in a
[1:15:06] construction zone for five
[1:15:07] years. It is annoying being in a
[1:15:09] construction zone for three or
[1:15:10] four months with the water
[1:15:11] lines, so five years is really
[1:15:14] --
[1:15:15] >> I understand exactly what
[1:15:16] you're saying and certainly,
[1:15:17] that we will take into
[1:15:20] consideration when we have a
[1:15:21] project. But we don't have a
[1:15:23] project yet.
[1:15:24] >> Okay, I just gotta bring it
[1:15:25] to your attention.
[1:15:26] >> Thank you.
[1:15:27] >> Thank you, Mister Mayor.
[1:15:28] [Applause]
[1:15:34] >> Yes? That's fine, but I see
[1:15:37] there are four people in line
[1:15:40] and okay, five. That will be it.
[1:15:43] Now we are in 15 minutes now, so
[1:15:46] that will be it, in terms of
[1:15:47] questions. Yes?
[1:15:49] >> Hi, I'm Nicole cradle, I'm a
[1:15:52] resident of Beaconsfield for the
[1:15:54] last few months and I was going
[1:15:59] to mention what an elderly
[1:16:02] gentleman had said about seniors
[1:16:05] units. I was going to say that
[1:16:10] my concern is that it is not
[1:16:12] going to be affordable. It seems
[1:16:15] like developers only care about
[1:16:17] rich people and I don't think
[1:16:21] any of these units are going to
[1:16:23] be affordable for anybody. And I
[1:16:26] don't think they're all going to
[1:16:28] be accessible. Just having the
[1:16:29] ground floor be excess-able,
[1:16:31] that is not really fair. All the
[1:16:33] units should be accessible if
[1:16:34] this is going to go through.
[1:16:37] It's not hard to do. It may cost
[1:16:41] a little more to build, but it
[1:16:43] certainly is better to build it
[1:16:46] with a universal design. But it
[1:16:47] also needs to be affordable for
[1:16:50] everybody. It is not accessible
[1:16:51] if it's not affordable and we
[1:16:54] don't need more place for rich
[1:16:58] people to move in. We need
[1:17:01] affordable housing. I'm, you
[1:17:04] know, paying rent as a single
[1:17:10] person on disability and it's
[1:17:14] 1000 a month I'm paying at a
[1:17:15] basement apartment I have
[1:17:18] refugees living upstairs, I have
[1:17:20] family and they're living in the
[1:17:21] same unit. We need affordable
[1:17:23] housing and the other thing is I
[1:17:25] hope that if there are any trees
[1:17:27] on their, I hope that they are
[1:17:29] preserved. I'm sure that is in
[1:17:31] the bylaw. It doesn't seem like
[1:17:32] there really are trees on that
[1:17:34] site. It is good to be building
[1:17:36] on already built space.
[1:17:37] >> I just want to tell you, we
[1:17:39] haven't seen the architectural
[1:17:40] project yet, so --
[1:17:42] >> Okay, yeah, so that wouldn't
[1:17:44] be debated yet?
[1:17:46] >> No, no.
[1:17:48] >> Okay, but I think if this is
[1:17:51] to go through, it does need to
[1:17:54] be made accessible and
[1:17:59] affordable.
[1:18:00] >> Do you know what the average
[1:18:01] house is, real estate value, a
[1:18:05] valuation in Beaconsfield right
[1:18:06] now? Do you have any idea?
[1:18:07] >> It's over 1 million.
[1:18:09] >> It's over 1 million, so there
[1:18:11] are rich people in Beaconsfield.
[1:18:14] >> Yes, but what about people
[1:18:17] who are looking for housing?
[1:18:18] >> That's going to be up to --
[1:18:21] once the developer puts together
[1:18:25] an architectural project, it is
[1:18:27] up to him to determine how he's
[1:18:29] going to sell it and how he's
[1:18:31] going to rent it. It's not up to
[1:18:34] us to decide how he is going to
[1:18:36] do that. We can approve the
[1:18:40] architectural project and there
[1:18:42] is a process for that, but after
[1:18:44] that, it is his project and it's
[1:18:46] up to him to lease it for two,
[1:18:51] I'm sorry, but the last person
[1:18:53] that just got up, no, no, no,
[1:18:58] sorry. There are five people and
[1:18:59] that is it. Yes so, you know, I
[1:19:03] will take note of that and we
[1:19:05] will pass it on to the, but it's
[1:19:06] up to the developer to determine
[1:19:08] what is he's going to put in and
[1:19:10] how much he's going to charge,
[1:19:12] and how much he's going to sell
[1:19:14] those units. It's not up to us
[1:19:16] to determine that. He has to
[1:19:19] make a profit, he has to have a
[1:19:23] viable project, and I'm sure
[1:19:25] he's going to come up with
[1:19:27] something and we are going to
[1:19:28] take a look at it and see if it
[1:19:31] meets what we, what Council is
[1:19:33] ready to adopt. At that point.
[1:19:35] But we are not there yet.
[1:19:38] >> Okay, yeah, the other thing
[1:19:40] is just that I think it seems
[1:19:41] like they're going to be
[1:19:43] removing local businesses and
[1:19:47] those are Third spaces for
[1:19:49] people where they connect. If
[1:19:51] you put in completely
[1:19:53] unaffordable housing for rich
[1:19:56] people, we are going to be
[1:19:58] driving out to other places to,
[1:20:02] you know, more rich, expensive
[1:20:06] stores, and that's not only bad
[1:20:08] for the environment, it also
[1:20:09] takes away from the community.
[1:20:11] Doesn't add anything to it.
[1:20:17] >> We will take that information
[1:20:19] and pass it on to the developer.
[1:20:21] >> Mister Mayor?
[1:20:22] >> Yes?
[1:20:23] >> There is commercial space as
[1:20:24] scheduled, it's about 10,000
[1:20:26] square feet. We know that there
[1:20:27] are businesses that are in L
[1:20:29] plaza that will be going back
[1:20:31] there again.
[1:20:32] >> Okay, well that is good, but
[1:20:34] it does need to be affordable
[1:20:36] housing. And certainly, you
[1:20:39] could look at putting in a bylaw
[1:20:41] saying that just like a certain
[1:20:43] percentage has to be accessible,
[1:20:44] putting in a bylaw that certain,
[1:20:46] at least a certain percentage
[1:20:47] has to be affordable.
[1:20:50] >> It has to be a viable project
[1:20:51] for the developer and he will
[1:20:55] determine how it's going to be
[1:20:56] done.
[1:20:57] >> Well, it sounds like
[1:20:59] unfortunately the city of
[1:21:00] Beaconsfield favours developers
[1:21:02] over citizens and over ordinary
[1:21:04] people.
[1:21:05] >> Not at the million dollar
[1:21:07] evaluation per homes in
[1:21:09] Beaconsfield, I don't think so.
[1:21:11] Thank you very much.
[1:21:13] >> Mister Mayor? I would like
[1:21:15] to, if I may, I would like to
[1:21:18] have you rethink the idea of
[1:21:21] that we should put a limit on
[1:21:22] five or more people.
[1:21:24] >> You can -- on that. He can
[1:21:27] vote on that.
[1:21:30] >> -- what? No, I said when we
[1:21:35] see the architectural project.
[1:21:37] >> I'm talking about question
[1:21:39] period tonight.
[1:21:40] >> Go ahead, the two of you.
[1:21:42] >> Mister Mayor, if you want to
[1:21:46] listen, what Councillor Amos is
[1:21:49] suggesting is that we allow
[1:21:50] everyone that has a question to
[1:21:52] ask their question.
[1:21:53] >> No.
[1:21:54] >> Mister Mayor, I am not done.
[1:21:57] >> I am sorry. You are out of
[1:21:59] order and there are five people
[1:22:01] there. An hour and 20 minutes
[1:22:04] and that is it, and if you ask
[1:22:06] if, you want to ask questions or
[1:22:08] people want to ask you a
[1:22:09] questions after, they can go
[1:22:10] ahead and you can stay here as
[1:22:12] long as they have questions for
[1:22:14] you. You are out of order.
[1:22:16] >> Mister Mayor?
[1:22:17] >> You are out of order.
[1:22:18] >> It is a consultation of the
[1:22:20] Municipal --
[1:22:21] >> An hour and 15 minutes is
[1:22:23] fine for me.
[1:22:24] >> For you?
[1:22:25] >> Yeah. And I'm the chairman!
[1:22:28] I'm the chairman of --
[1:22:32] [Inaudible]
[1:22:33] >> I'm not asking anybody. If
[1:22:36] you don't like it, tough.
[1:22:39] >> You are an autocrat.
[1:22:41] >> Tough.
[1:22:42] >> Excuse me, how about putting
[1:22:44] a minimum of one minute, so
[1:22:46] people can at least say their
[1:22:47] piece? We don't need to have
[1:22:49] answers for them. At least
[1:22:50] they've come here tonight to ask
[1:22:51] questions.
[1:22:52] >> Well, five people, it's an
[1:22:53] hour and 20 minutes. There are
[1:22:55] plenty of people that have come,
[1:22:57] Roger. If you want to answer
[1:22:59] their questions after. Go ahead?
[1:23:03] >> Thing is, I didn't know we
[1:23:04] had a time limit tonight.
[1:23:06] >> Normally it was a 7 to 8 --
[1:23:12] >> Seven to 8:00 is the time and
[1:23:17] -- now it's seven to 8:00,
[1:23:18] normally.
[1:23:19] [Inaudible]
[1:23:20] The consultations normally are
[1:23:22] 30 minutes. So, right now, we
[1:23:25] are at an hour in 20 minutes and
[1:23:27] I will take those five people
[1:23:28] and that is it.
[1:23:32] >> --
[1:23:33] >> And you are back.
[1:23:34] >> I am back, yeah.
[1:23:36] >> I have a lot of concerns.
[1:23:38] >> Mister Mayor? Can I make a
[1:23:40] suggestion? Just so that we can
[1:23:41] all maybe just get through this.
[1:23:43] If anybody else has a question,
[1:23:45] stand up now and we will answer
[1:23:47] those. Everyone has their chance
[1:23:49] and then we get to do a full,
[1:23:50] complete --
[1:23:52] >> That is fine.
[1:23:53] >> If you have a question --
[1:23:54] >> If anybody stands up --
[1:23:56] >> Standup now then you get your
[1:23:57] chance, even if we run over the
[1:23:58] time.
[1:23:59] >> And get in line.
[1:24:00] >> Please get in line, we do
[1:24:02] want to hear from you.
[1:24:03] >> That is it after that.
[1:24:05] >> Thank you.
[1:24:08] >> Good compromise. I like
[1:24:11] compromises from councillors,
[1:24:12] not orders from councillors.
[1:24:16] >> Okay, so Amanda, once again,
[1:24:19] from last part of the Lachance
[1:24:20] they care. My question is with
[1:24:21] regards to you mentioned they
[1:24:22] would have to redo all of the
[1:24:24] water system. Would there be an
[1:24:29] effect on our daycare right now
[1:24:31] that's already really bad? Every
[1:24:32] other day, we have groundwater
[1:24:33] and nobody knows why. When you
[1:24:35] have 80 kids and, you know,
[1:24:38] trying to get some clean water,
[1:24:40] it becomes a little bit
[1:24:43] frustrating to have to go out
[1:24:44] and buy bottled water all the
[1:24:46] time and nobody seems to have a
[1:24:48] solution for us. So, --
[1:24:51] >> It's not the aqueduct that
[1:24:52] they're touching, it's a storm
[1:24:53] sewer. It's rainwater,
[1:24:55] basically.
[1:24:56] >> So they would not have to do
[1:24:57] anything?
[1:24:58] >> One other reason why you have
[1:24:59] all those -- in front of the
[1:25:00] daycare right now is there
[1:25:02] working on the aqueduct right
[1:25:03] now.
[1:25:06] >> Yes, okay.
[1:25:08] >> Good evening
[1:25:11] - Bonsoir, Monsieur le Maire et
[1:25:12] les conseillers, mon nom est
[1:25:15] Leylah
[1:25:16] (---)
[1:25:17] et je suis une résidente de
[1:25:18] Beaconsfield depuis plus de 30
[1:25:19] ans. Ma première question pour
[1:25:22] vous, Monsieur le Maire, est
[1:25:23] venu comme ça. Est-ce qu'on est
[1:25:25] à Montréal, est-ce qu'on est au
[1:25:26] Québec, est-ce qu'on est au
[1:25:27] Canada, de voir ce qui se passe
[1:25:28] aujourd'hui? Lorsque vous mettez
[1:25:32] un veto avec vos députés? Avec
[1:25:34] vos conseillers, pardon. Je
[1:25:35] trouve ça inacceptable.
[1:25:36] - Merci.
[1:25:37] - En tant que résidents.
[1:25:40] (applaudissements)
[1:25:43] - Ma deuxième question, si votre
[1:25:45] petite-fille allait à cette
[1:25:46] garderie, la perle de l'enfance,
[1:25:48] est-ce que votre réaction
[1:25:49] n'aurait pas été différent ce
[1:25:50] soir, et même quand vous avez
[1:25:51] voté pour changer le vote, le 25
[1:25:52] septembre?
[1:25:55] - Pour le 25 septembre?
[1:25:58] - Quand vous avez voté.
[1:25:59] - Non, non, non.
[1:26:01] - Je ne sais pas si les
[1:26:02] résidents savent votre décision.
[1:26:04] - Absolument pas, absolument.
[1:26:05] Pas
[1:26:06] - D'autres décisions n'aurait
[1:26:07] pas été différent et vous ne
[1:26:08] serez pas inquiet pour votre
[1:26:09] petite-fille qui irait à cette
[1:26:10] garderie?
[1:26:11] - Absolument pas.
[1:26:12] - Très. Bien
[1:26:14] >> My biggest concern is about
[1:26:15] the rental. We have no power or
[1:26:17] no control over who will be in
[1:26:20] those apartments. Yesterday on
[1:26:22] CTV, there was a bulletin about
[1:26:27] the fire that took place in
[1:26:29] place develop where there was an
[1:26:31] Airbnb. I'm wondering if the
[1:26:34] promoter will have control on
[1:26:36] who will be renting and will be
[1:26:41] subletting.
[1:26:42] >> If you are talking Airbnb?
[1:26:44] >> Yes.
[1:26:45] >> We have rules and
[1:26:46] regulations.
[1:26:47] >> Oh, there are rules, yes, but
[1:26:50] -- yesterday on the news --
[1:26:51] >> Do you have a say on when who
[1:26:55] buys the house next door to you?
[1:26:58] >> That's why we are here
[1:26:59] tonight. It's to discuss this
[1:27:00] and to --
[1:27:01] >> Do you have a say?
[1:27:04] >> Tonight, we have a say that
[1:27:05] maybe there are way too many
[1:27:07] apartments to be rented in this
[1:27:09] complex. As a resident who loves
[1:27:11] Beaconsfield, me and my husband,
[1:27:13] my kids grew up here and I wish
[1:27:15] one day that my son would come
[1:27:17] and live in Beaconsfield. I
[1:27:19] don't want him to see this big,
[1:27:21] huge building and we don't know
[1:27:23] who will throw on the other --
[1:27:29] who cannot throw something Les
[1:27:30] cours des gens qui ont leur
[1:27:31] maison. On their backyard? Who
[1:27:32] can throw a jelly with weed on
[1:27:35] the daycare? So, I am worried
[1:27:36] and this is my concern.
[1:27:40] >> Thank you. Yes?
[1:27:43] >> Yes, my name is Patricia, I
[1:27:45] also lived in Beaconsfield for
[1:27:47] 30 years. I am a mother of a
[1:27:48] child who goes to this daycare
[1:27:50] and I share all the concerns
[1:27:52] that Amanda has mentioned, if
[1:27:53] not more. I would just like to
[1:27:55] mention from the get-go that
[1:27:56] this is a public assembly where
[1:28:00] we are asked to give our opinion
[1:28:02] on a major complex project that
[1:28:05] has a significant impact on its
[1:28:07] environment based on what you
[1:28:08] are hearing, there are major
[1:28:09] concerns and everyone here has a
[1:28:10] right to speak fully and give
[1:28:12] their opinion, and raised their
[1:28:14] concerns. There should not be
[1:28:15] any limit to the concerns of
[1:28:18] individuals for a public
[1:28:20] assembly, in virtue of the law
[1:28:22] and your bylaws.
[1:28:23] >> I probably have heard every
[1:28:26] concern already, so, I mean, --
[1:28:30] >> I also don't think there
[1:28:31] should be a debate between the
[1:28:33] members of the council and the
[1:28:34] public, who are raising very
[1:28:36] legitimate concerns.
[1:28:38] >> Thank you.
[1:28:40] >> So, myself, I have followed
[1:28:42] this project from the beginning,
[1:28:43] since I've heard about it. I
[1:28:45] have read all the documents that
[1:28:47] were on the City website. I went
[1:28:48] to the developers meeting last
[1:28:50] week, where I did not get much
[1:28:52] info about this project. I had
[1:28:56] some concerns. My concerns were
[1:28:58] not answered during that meeting
[1:28:59] either. I have to mention from
[1:29:01] the get-go that I believe there
[1:29:03] is a lack of information about
[1:29:05] this project. We are now, for
[1:29:07] the first time, seeing on the
[1:29:09] PowerPoint that the city where
[1:29:10] the lots are situated, where the
[1:29:12] setbacks are situated. We didn't
[1:29:14] have this information at all
[1:29:16] before today. I was trying,
[1:29:17] myself, to understand the public
[1:29:22] consultation notice that was
[1:29:24] only wording with no plans
[1:29:26] whatsoever for such a major
[1:29:29] project.
[1:29:30] >> What plans are you talking
[1:29:31] about?
[1:29:32] >> Well, normally, Mister Mayor,
[1:29:34] we would see, I believe, in this
[1:29:35] type of project, a sort of plan
[1:29:37] that would explain, that would
[1:29:39] describe the setbacks that
[1:29:40] you're mentioning.
[1:29:41] >> You're talking about an
[1:29:42] architectural approach?
[1:29:44] >> I'm talking about what's
[1:29:45] putting --
[1:29:46] >> I agree that was on the
[1:29:47] website.
[1:29:48] >> No, it was not, in fact.
[1:29:49] There was no plan that I saw,
[1:29:50] other than the zones that are
[1:29:52] entitled to vote. That was at
[1:29:53] the end of your public notice.
[1:29:56] >> Make sure that I understand
[1:29:59] what was on the website.
[1:30:00] >> -- on the website.
[1:30:01] >> It is.
[1:30:03] >> The documents were on the
[1:30:05] website? They were available,
[1:30:07] they have been since the public
[1:30:09] notice was published.
[1:30:11] >> What I'm saying is it was
[1:30:13] very difficult for us to
[1:30:14] visualize what was written in
[1:30:16] the public notice, until today,
[1:30:18] and even then, it was not very
[1:30:20] easy to see what you are
[1:30:22] referring to, where the lots,
[1:30:25] the limitation and I believe
[1:30:26] that in other projects, we would
[1:30:27] have more details, which I did
[1:30:29] not see in this large scale
[1:30:32] project.
[1:30:33] >> Can I just ask a question,
[1:30:35] for clarification? Because
[1:30:36] tonight for me, anyway, I would
[1:30:38] like to hear from residents
[1:30:41] around specific things that were
[1:30:42] presented both online and
[1:30:45] tonight that are, you know, of
[1:30:47] concern to you. Like, I
[1:30:48] understand there's a certain
[1:30:50] emotionality in the room, but if
[1:30:51] we could just step away from it
[1:30:52] also now talk about what
[1:30:55] aspects, you know, concretely.
[1:30:57] >> Absolutely, yeah, I'm just
[1:30:58] bringing up facts. For me, one
[1:31:01] thing that is clear from these
[1:31:02] documents is that we are talking
[1:31:04] about a major project of four
[1:31:06] storeys. 117 units, fully
[1:31:10] residential, with the front wall
[1:31:11] that does 110 metres long. Four
[1:31:16] storeys when the bylaw allows
[1:31:18] two storeys and there is a
[1:31:19] reason why the bylaw allows for
[1:31:21] two storeys in this area. 110
[1:31:24] metres one normally, it should
[1:31:26] be 60 metres. I don't believe
[1:31:29] that this project, this project
[1:31:33] raises major concerns for the
[1:31:36] daycare. I do not believe it is
[1:31:38] compatible to build 117 unit
[1:31:43] building fully rental, directly
[1:31:46] adjacent to a daycare. I have
[1:31:49] not seen any concern about this
[1:31:52] daycare throughout the meetings
[1:31:53] that I attended, throughout the
[1:31:54] documentation before it was
[1:31:55] raised by our director. It
[1:32:00] raises security questions for
[1:32:02] the children, privacy questions.
[1:32:05] The tenants will be occupying
[1:32:08] their balconies have the full
[1:32:11] right to smoke marijuana, drink
[1:32:13] whatever they want, all the more
[1:32:14] that we don't even know who will
[1:32:15] be the people that will be
[1:32:17] coming into this building, since
[1:32:20] there's no right to request
[1:32:22] seniors to be there in priority.
[1:32:27] It does not seem to me that we
[1:32:29] took into consideration the
[1:32:30] interests of these vulnerable
[1:32:32] population, which are the
[1:32:33] children. And your own bylaw in
[1:32:37] the -- allows, defines
[1:32:42] criteria's regarding -- and I
[1:32:46] don't see that being addressed
[1:32:47] at all tonight. L'by the
[1:32:50] ensoleillement, le vent, la
[1:32:51] pluie, la circulation. City. So,
[1:32:55] in conclusion, I believe that
[1:32:58] this is a very high density
[1:33:01] project that simply does not
[1:33:02] meet the criteria of your own
[1:33:04] bylaw on -- it does not
[1:33:06] integrate at all with the small
[1:33:09] community that surrounds it and
[1:33:10] this is why you have so many
[1:33:12] concerns tonight that need to be
[1:33:13] heard. Thank you.
[1:33:15] [Applause]
[1:33:20] >> Hi, my name is Corey, I live
[1:33:22] on west Croft. I've been in
[1:33:24] Beaconsfield for almost 20 years
[1:33:26] and I've been on west craft for
[1:33:28] almost ten. Two things. I didn't
[1:33:31] hear anyone mention the sewer
[1:33:34] infrastructure and capacity to
[1:33:36] hold another 100 and something
[1:33:38] toilets, 200 sinks, 200 watching
[1:33:41] machines. Has there been any
[1:33:43] study that's actually looked at
[1:33:44] that capacity and seen if it can
[1:33:47] handle it? --
[1:33:49] >> Very good question.
[1:33:50] >> I'm on west craft. We've had
[1:33:52] numerous sewer backups in our
[1:33:55] basements in the past ten years
[1:33:56] that I've been there.
[1:33:59] >> We did show the project to P
[1:34:02] W networks. They did confirm to
[1:34:04] us that there was no problem
[1:34:06] with the aqueduct in the sewer.
[1:34:09] >> I find that hard to believe
[1:34:11] because --
[1:34:12] >> --
[1:34:13] >> We have had basements backing
[1:34:14] up with, you know, water from
[1:34:16] the sewer, not from, you know,
[1:34:20] rainwater. This is sewage water.
[1:34:22] So, I would take that into
[1:34:23] consideration.
[1:34:24] >> Well, we will take it into
[1:34:26] consideration --
[1:34:27] >> It's coming directly from
[1:34:28] elm, backs up the west borough.
[1:34:30] >> That's a good point and I
[1:34:31] will take into consideration,
[1:34:32] yes.
[1:34:33] >> My second point is I'm not a
[1:34:35] stranger to the current process.
[1:34:36] I've been here ten years, I've
[1:34:38] gotten many permits. A few years
[1:34:40] back, I got a permit for a shed.
[1:34:42] I asked what the minimum was. I
[1:34:44] asked if I could do it a little
[1:34:45] bit over the minimum and I was
[1:34:47] told I was not allowed. I asked,
[1:34:50] sorry, the maximum. I asked what
[1:34:53] the process was to get an
[1:34:54] exception to the bylaw to, go
[1:34:56] through this process. And I was
[1:34:58] not given that opportunity as a
[1:35:01] regular resident. What is ironic
[1:35:03] is --
[1:35:04] >> When it was this?
[1:35:05] >> This was maybe six or seven
[1:35:07] years ago. What is ironic is
[1:35:09] that not 12 months after I
[1:35:10] finished my shed, the amendments
[1:35:13] were, the bylaws were amended to
[1:35:15] allow bigger sheds. So, it
[1:35:17] clearly was not an issue of, you
[1:35:19] know, it didn't fit within the
[1:35:21] area. So, I would just requests
[1:35:23] that the developer be treated
[1:35:25] the same way as all the
[1:35:28] neighbouring residents and stick
[1:35:29] to the setbacks, stick to the
[1:35:30] height limits and all the other
[1:35:32] restrictions that are imposed.
[1:35:35] >> Thank you.
[1:35:40] >> Testing, all right, sorry.
[1:35:42] So, Mister Mayor, council men
[1:35:44] and women, hello. My name is
[1:35:47] Christine, I'm a resident of
[1:35:49] Beaconsfield for the last two
[1:35:50] and a half years now. I've done
[1:35:53] real estate development and
[1:35:54] financing with developers in
[1:35:55] town for about 18 years. So,
[1:35:57] when I came here tonight, I can
[1:35:59] both as a resident, but also as
[1:36:02] an observer. So, what I have to
[1:36:04] offer is a recommendation, a
[1:36:06] humble recommendation. I think
[1:36:08] the communities very well
[1:36:09] served, in terms of voicing
[1:36:11] comments and questions that are
[1:36:12] all quite legitimate. And I
[1:36:14] think it is a great forum for
[1:36:16] hearing people out and for the
[1:36:19] council to take in those
[1:36:20] comments. So, with that, I'm
[1:36:22] going to offer a very practical
[1:36:25] recommendation. I do believe
[1:36:27] that, I mean, what I've heard
[1:36:29] tonight throughout the night is
[1:36:30] clearly a problem with the
[1:36:31] integration of the project and
[1:36:33] its neighbouring urban
[1:36:34] landscape. So, there's clearly,
[1:36:36] in terms of urban planning, it
[1:36:37] might need to be revisited in
[1:36:38] terms of how it merges with the
[1:36:42] neighbouring lots. When you look
[1:36:45] at the F A R of the project, it
[1:36:47] is 1.8. Typically for lots in
[1:36:49] this neighbourhood, and in
[1:36:50] general in residential sectors,
[1:36:51] you would see an F A R of up to
[1:36:53] one. So, 1.8 is quite high. Now,
[1:36:57] obviously, I think even though
[1:37:00] there is tension, there's
[1:37:01] obvious tension tonight, we're
[1:37:02] all partners in this. The
[1:37:03] community, the City, the
[1:37:05] developer as a corporate
[1:37:06] citizen. Everybody is going to
[1:37:07] need to agree at some point. I
[1:37:10] would urge the Council to
[1:37:11] revisit the F A R and to really
[1:37:15] work with the developer to
[1:37:16] adjust the heights at the limit
[1:37:18] of the lots. The developer can
[1:37:21] clearly work on reducing heights
[1:37:23] and reducing the number of
[1:37:25] floors in certain sectors that
[1:37:26] are closer to the limit of the
[1:37:27] lots, while maintaining
[1:37:29] profitability of his project.
[1:37:31] The other point I would urge you
[1:37:32] to do is revisit the traffic
[1:37:34] study with the engineers if --
[1:37:37] wasn't taken into account
[1:37:38] because that's a major issue for
[1:37:39] their numbers. What I read in
[1:37:40] the report is that on morning
[1:37:42] traffic, it's about 225 cars on
[1:37:45] elm. And the project would add
[1:37:47] about 75. So, if Woodland is not
[1:37:50] considered, then it doesn't
[1:37:51] surprise me that the levels
[1:37:53] maintain a very acceptable
[1:37:55] amount. But if you enter
[1:37:57] woodland into the equation, your
[1:37:59] engineers might find other
[1:38:00] results. I'm not sure I am an
[1:38:02] expert, but I will urge them to
[1:38:03] revisit that study. And I would
[1:38:06] say at the very end, you know,
[1:38:08] you want the whole community to
[1:38:10] support the project. You want to
[1:38:11] be welcome. For the developers
[1:38:13] as well, we're going to want to
[1:38:14] have fun on the site for the
[1:38:16] next few years. I know this
[1:38:17] construction, it will bring a
[1:38:18] lot of issues. But ultimately,
[1:38:20] you want the community to back
[1:38:21] it up and right now, clearly,
[1:38:23] they are not. So, I think
[1:38:25] there's a real effort to be made
[1:38:26] to maybe reduce some of the
[1:38:28] Heights, to work on the privacy
[1:38:29] issues, both for the daycare and
[1:38:31] the houses on both ends, the
[1:38:32] work on the number of parking
[1:38:34] and cars, and units that you're
[1:38:37] willing to enter into your socks
[1:38:40] SCAOPI. Good luck, thank you.
[1:38:42] >> Thank you, thank you very
[1:38:44] much. May
[1:38:46] >> I just want to mention, if my
[1:38:50] service can be useful pro bono
[1:38:52] as a citizen, feel free to
[1:38:53] contact me. It'll be my
[1:38:54] pleasure.
[1:38:55] [Laughter]
[1:38:57] Thank you.
[1:38:59] >> Good evening, everyone, my
[1:39:00] name is -- I'm a resident of
[1:39:02] avenue -- but my daughter goes
[1:39:03] to the deck or -- neighbouring
[1:39:06] to the project that we're
[1:39:08] talking about. So, my main
[1:39:09] concern for tonight is the
[1:39:11] safety, especially during the
[1:39:13] construction period, which as we
[1:39:14] talked about, in best case in
[1:39:16] areas, they go like four and a
[1:39:18] half, five years. And with the
[1:39:21] heights of the project, it only
[1:39:23] takes one brick to fall and
[1:39:25] create a disaster. So, that is
[1:39:27] why it's very concerning for me
[1:39:28] in the future for all the kids
[1:39:30] that are going to the daycare
[1:39:31] and the backyard of the daycare
[1:39:33] is facing the project. So,
[1:39:35] that's very, very concerning.
[1:39:37] The second point that I want to
[1:39:38] bring up is the referendum. So,
[1:39:41] I found it unfair that only the
[1:39:44] neighbouring or adjacent lots
[1:39:46] are allowed to participate and
[1:39:49] register in the referendum. I
[1:39:50] think the parents of the daycare
[1:39:52] who are pretty much the second
[1:39:54] home from them should be or
[1:39:57] pretty much eligible to be
[1:40:00] participating in the --
[1:40:01] >> Thank you. We are following
[1:40:04] the law.
[1:40:05] >> The developer apparently is
[1:40:07] not, so they have like 18
[1:40:09] minutes.
[1:40:10] >> Well, we have to follow --
[1:40:12] register and the referendum.
[1:40:14] Follow the law. Thank you.
[1:40:15] >> I just wanted to bring that
[1:40:16] up.
[1:40:19] >> Thank you.
[1:40:20] [Applause]
[1:40:21] >> Good evening, Council, thank
[1:40:22] you for your time, thank you for
[1:40:23] your time. My name is Tanya, I'm
[1:40:24] a resident of fairway. I'm just
[1:40:25] a very brief question. So, the
[1:40:27] traffic report is dated for
[1:40:29] August 3rd. So, I'm presuming it
[1:40:30] was done over the summer. Would
[1:40:31] it be possible to get it
[1:40:33] reconnected during the school
[1:40:34] year? Considering that there are
[1:40:35] three schools bordering elm? You
[1:40:37] have B H S, you have the French
[1:40:38] primary school, you have a
[1:40:39] daycare, then there's another
[1:40:40] school. You also have parents
[1:40:42] driving children on elm to the
[1:40:44] train station, so would it be
[1:40:45] possible to get it read undoing
[1:40:46] the school year?
[1:40:47] [Applause]
[1:40:51] >> If I may, if I'm not
[1:40:53] mistaken, the accounting's were
[1:40:55] done somewhere at the beginning
[1:40:56] of June. I can check that out
[1:40:57] for you.
[1:40:58] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:40:59] >> I did and I believe it was
[1:41:01] done on a Monday, sometime in
[1:41:03] May. So, I'm guessing the May
[1:41:07] 15th or something.
[1:41:08] >> --
[1:41:09] >> We don't conduct those types
[1:41:10] of studies during the summer,
[1:41:11] for obvious reasons.
[1:41:12] >> Okay, I thought I saw June on
[1:41:13] the report.
[1:41:14] >> That's when it was submitted.
[1:41:16] >> Submitted and publishers
[1:41:18] August 3rd is the date? Okay,
[1:41:19] thank you.
[1:41:22] >> Thank you.
[1:41:26] >> Hi, my name is Carolyn
[1:41:27] Laurent, I live on West Croft.
[1:41:28] In fact, I have a new neighbour
[1:41:30] and I want to thank you for
[1:41:32] being so courageous the last
[1:41:34] three weeks putting up with us.
[1:41:35] Thank you. And for meeting the
[1:41:37] architect. We have some concerns
[1:41:41] and you are part of our
[1:41:42] neighbourhood. And I think our
[1:41:45] city has worked really hard to
[1:41:46] put together some really good
[1:41:50] bylaws that create an ambiance
[1:41:53] have wellness for our community,
[1:41:54] and I think the greatest piece
[1:41:55] here that I'm hearing is the
[1:41:57] shake of that. We want a new
[1:42:00] development. But we also want
[1:42:02] the hard work that has gone in
[1:42:04] for the last decades, from our
[1:42:06] workers here at the city and our
[1:42:08] councils, with the bylaws that
[1:42:09] have been put in place to
[1:42:11] maintain our culture, to be
[1:42:13] respected. And on that note, I'm
[1:42:17] looking at there are several big
[1:42:18] projects happening in
[1:42:20] Beaconsfield, and my concern is,
[1:42:23] do we have the capacity, the man
[1:42:25] power to make sure these
[1:42:27] projects are supported by the
[1:42:28] City? But we have people there
[1:42:34] and available to make sure the
[1:42:36] environmental issues are being
[1:42:38] addressed, that access is being
[1:42:42] maintained, that our cities are
[1:42:44] being cleared, you know? And all
[1:42:46] of those tangible pieces, do we
[1:42:50] have the manpower within our
[1:42:52] city to handle not only this
[1:42:54] project, but several other
[1:42:55] projects that are happening at
[1:42:56] the same time right now? So,
[1:42:57] that's maybe something to be
[1:43:00] considered that has not been
[1:43:01] kind of on the plate tonight.
[1:43:03] And my request is around
[1:43:05] topography. A lot of the
[1:43:07] beautiful pictures have been
[1:43:09] with the angle from fairway,
[1:43:13] with the town houses which, in
[1:43:15] fact, is probably one of the
[1:43:16] highest points. I am in the back
[1:43:19] corner and I have the lowest
[1:43:22] point. And some of my neighbours
[1:43:24] who have at least a metre and a
[1:43:25] half over me have come tonight
[1:43:28] talking about sewage backup
[1:43:30] that's happened frequently over
[1:43:31] the last decade. I have a lot of
[1:43:34] issues with water and so to my
[1:43:36] neighbours. So when we're
[1:43:38] talking typographical and we are
[1:43:40] talking about water does not
[1:43:43] flow uphill,. So, my request is,
[1:43:48] can we look at the setting of
[1:43:51] these new buildings, with
[1:43:53] regards to the back corner of
[1:43:56] lot, in regards to my property
[1:43:58] and the leases property, Jason's
[1:44:00] property? Because one of the
[1:44:02] pieces you put out was about how
[1:44:04] the privacy fences on the first,
[1:44:08] and my language may not be
[1:44:10] translating --
[1:44:11] >> It's on the site.
[1:44:12] >> Right, what are those privacy
[1:44:16] fences over are six foot fences?
[1:44:18] Do you know what I'm saying?
[1:44:20] >> They probably are.
[1:44:21] >> And that's a concern. So, how
[1:44:24] many of you have your
[1:44:27] neighbour's six foot fence over
[1:44:30] your six foot fence? So that
[1:44:32] when they stand in their living
[1:44:34] room, they are looking over your
[1:44:37] six foot fence into your
[1:44:39] backyard? And that is the first
[1:44:41] floor. So, if we are proposing
[1:44:45] three and four floors and -- you
[1:44:47] know, the fourth floor is --
[1:44:51] well, you're a great architect,
[1:44:54] you made great use of the space
[1:44:56] and having an outdoor space for
[1:44:58] people to sit is ideal. But that
[1:45:01] means it's an extra access
[1:45:05] viewpoint for us and when I
[1:45:07] purchased my home, I purchased
[1:45:08] it with certain bylaws and my
[1:45:10] property market will go down. It
[1:45:12] is my largest investment and it
[1:45:15] will go down if I have four
[1:45:17] storeys looking into my house.
[1:45:18] And it comes back to, what did I
[1:45:20] buy into? I bought into a bylaw
[1:45:22] that said no more than two
[1:45:23] storeys. And I would like that
[1:45:25] respected. So, that is my
[1:45:27] request and if those type of
[1:45:29] graffiti pictures from the
[1:45:30] corner of our lots could be just
[1:45:34] for a visual, that would be
[1:45:35] helpful.
[1:45:36] >> --
[1:45:37] >> Thank you.
[1:45:38] >> Thank you.
[1:45:39] >> And thank you.
[1:45:40] [Applause]
[1:45:44] >> Just concerning the intimacy
[1:45:46] walls, they cannot be higher
[1:45:48] than 3.2 metres, so it wouldn't
[1:45:50] be a six foot fence, it would be
[1:45:52] less higher than the regular
[1:45:54] fence because it is an intimacy
[1:45:56] wall. I just wanted to nuance
[1:45:57] that point.
[1:45:59] >> So, concerning the traffic
[1:46:01] study, one of the
[1:46:02] recommendations was to put
[1:46:04] sidewalks on fairway and
[1:46:08] Brighton. So, my question is,
[1:46:11] what the City commit to getting
[1:46:14] those sidewalks installed prior
[1:46:15] to the construction? And who is
[1:46:17] going to pay for those
[1:46:19] sidewalks? Thank you.
[1:46:30] >> Hi, my name is Shawn
[1:46:31] Thibault, I've been in
[1:46:33] Beaconsfield since 2017, so I
[1:46:36] bought just in time.
[1:46:37] [Laughter]
[1:46:41] I'm just wondering. It is such a
[1:46:45] big lot. Is there not another
[1:46:47] concept that could've been
[1:46:49] brought that conforms better to
[1:46:50] the -- or is it just all about
[1:46:55] profit?
[1:46:56] >> That is the only submission
[1:46:58] we've had.
[1:47:01] >> And you mentioned that some
[1:47:02] of the businesses are going to
[1:47:04] be moved to the new area from
[1:47:07] the plaza.
[1:47:08] >> That's the developers said.
[1:47:11] >> But what business is going to
[1:47:13] shut down for four years and
[1:47:14] then reopen?
[1:47:15] >> They won't, it will be
[1:47:17] constructed in phases, so they
[1:47:19] will not be any disruption for
[1:47:20] those businesses, for that main
[1:47:22] reason.
[1:47:23] >> So, they're going to leave
[1:47:24] the existing building the way it
[1:47:25] is?
[1:47:26] >> Part of it, yes.
[1:47:27] >> Build a new -- okay.
[1:47:29] [Inaudible]
[1:47:35] >> Next comment is, the building
[1:47:37] right now is dumpy and not taken
[1:47:40] care of. Is there a way that if
[1:47:41] this doesn't go through, that
[1:47:43] you guys make sure that the
[1:47:44] owner of that building can set
[1:47:46] it up a little better? And my
[1:47:52] last comment to end the night, I
[1:47:54] guess, is judging by the
[1:47:56] attitude of people at this
[1:47:58] meeting, it is going to really
[1:47:59] make me rethink 2025 decision.
[1:48:03] >> Great.
[1:48:04] [Applause]
[1:48:11] >> This brings us to the end of
[1:48:15] the question period. I think
[1:48:18] that -- closing of the public --
[1:48:25] - Est-ce que quelqu'un propose?
[1:48:29] Pardon? Merci beaucoup.
[1:48:31] >> Thank you very much for
[1:48:33] coming and thank you very much
[1:48:36] for your comments and your
[1:48:37] questions. We will certainly
[1:48:39] take note of what you've said
[1:48:44] this evening. For unfortunately,
[1:48:46] a lot of it was repetitive, but
[1:48:48] that's why I think I give
[1:48:50] everybody a chance to express
[1:48:52] themselves and we will seriously
[1:48:55] take consideration what you
[1:48:57] said. I am sure that the
[1:49:01] developer -- as well, so
[1:49:04] hopefully there will be some
[1:49:05] changes and some -- from the
[1:49:11] developer in the district. So,
[1:49:13] thank you very much. Merci vous
[1:49:14] coupez.