[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.

2023-10-24 - Consultation publique du conseil municipal de Beaconsfield

Transcript