[0:03] - Bonsoir et bienvenue à la

[0:06] réunion ordinaire du conseil

[0:08] municipal de lundi, le 25 mars.

[0:12] >> Good evening and welcome to

[0:15] the regular meeting of the

[0:18] municipal council of March 25th.

[0:27] I would like to start by making

[0:31] --

[0:55] >> Mulroney's tenure as prime

[0:57] minister was marked by the

[0:58] introduction of major economic

[1:01] reforms. En mémoire du très

[1:06] honorable et ancien premier

[1:08] ministre, Brian Mulroney, et par

[1:10] respect à sa famille, je vous

[1:12] invite à vous lever et observer

[1:13] un moment de silence.

[1:24] (silence)

[1:50] merci.

[2:09] Alors, nous allons procéder avec

[2:12] l'ouverture de la réunion.

[2:31] - Alors, avant qu'on passe aux

[2:34] questions écrites, j'aimerais

[2:38] premièrement remercier la

[2:41] conseillère Dominique Godin pour

[2:44] m'avoir remplacé durant le mois

[2:46] de février. C'était elle qui

[2:48] était la mairesse à ce moment-là

[2:51] pour tout le mois de février,

[2:54] merci de m'avoir aussi remplacé

[2:57] au conseil de ville du mois de

[2:59] février. Alors merci beaucoup,

[3:01] Dominique, un travail excellent.

[3:03] - Ça fait plaisir.

[3:08] - J'aimerais aussi souligner que

[3:11] nous avons eues des athlètes aux

[3:17] Jeux du Québec qui ont eu lieu à

[3:18] Sherbrooke. Plusieurs athlètes

[3:23] des Beaconsfield ont remporté

[3:28] des médailles. Je vais les

[3:29] nommer.

[3:31] (---)

[3:34] , médaille d'or pour le

[3:35] badminton. Roger l'ail, médaille

[3:41] d'argent pour le badminton

[3:42] aussi. Et

[3:46] (---)

[3:47] pour lors, pour le badminton et

[3:51] (---)

[3:53] aussi a une médaille d'or pour

[3:55] l'équipe. La première, c'était

[3:58] pour le double et là, c'est pour

[4:01] l'équipe. Il y a aussi Kobe vous

[4:04] skier, médaille d'or pour le

[4:05] curling.

[4:09] (---)

[4:10] , médaille d'argent pour le

[4:11] hockey féminin. Sierra Austin,

[4:16] une médaille d'argent pour le

[4:17] hockey féminin. Et aussi, Sofia

[4:21] Isabella

[4:22] (---)

[4:23] , une médaille d'argent pour le

[4:26] hockey. Alors félicitations à

[4:28] tous ces athlètes de

[4:29] Beaconsfield. Je pense qu'il

[4:31] mérite une main

[4:32] d'applaudissements.

[4:33] (applaudissements)

[4:38] Alors maintenant nous allons,

[4:42] passer... j'aimerais mentionner

[4:44] aussi que le commandant,

[4:46] normalement, le commandant du...

[4:50] de la police, il va être avec

[4:53] nous en avril seulement, je

[4:57] crois qu'il cumule présentement

[5:00] deux fonctions, celle de... un

[5:05] autre pays ADQ cinq. PDQ5,

[5:13] pardon. Malheureusement, il ne

[5:14] peut pas passer autant de temps

[5:15] qu'il aimerait avec nous au

[5:16] Conseil.

[6:23] -- if I remember correctly and

[6:25] homes can be enforced. I've

[6:28] experienced a feeling of

[6:29] suffocation for more than three

[6:31] weeks recently until I stopped

[6:33] the habit of opening my windows

[6:35] every night for half an hour.

[6:37] Which I was practising the

[6:40] entire summer. --

[6:57] >> What measures Beaconsfield --

[7:01] fireplaces comply or have

[7:03] certification that guarantees in

[7:06] the emission rate equal or less

[7:08] to 2.5 grams of fine particles

[7:10] per hour and into the

[7:12] atmosphere, and to ban wood fire

[7:15] places that do not comply from

[7:17] being used. I would like to see

[7:20] Beaconsfield also implement a

[7:22] verification program and

[7:24] implement a ban on the use of

[7:25] noncompliant wood burning stoves

[7:27] and fireplaces. Thank you very

[7:30] much -- so, our answer to -- is

[7:35] that the enforcement is

[7:39] primarily complaint based. In

[7:40] other words, we cannot act on

[7:45] patrolling the city and watch

[7:49] what is wood burning, but if you

[7:51] have a complaint, that's the way

[7:53] that we will react. We have not

[7:56] received any complaints and no

[7:59] infraction has been issued to

[8:01] date. As mentioned at the last

[8:04] two council meetings, we

[8:06] reiterate that if you are

[8:08] witnessing in your neighbourhood

[8:10] continues burning, please do not

[8:14] hesitate to call Municipal

[8:15] patrol and give them the address

[8:18] right away. A permit is also

[8:22] required in order to install a

[8:26] compliant fireplace,

[8:27] documentation is required in

[8:28] order to obtain the permit

[8:30] showing the make and model, and

[8:33] the location in the home. The

[8:40] second questions or the second

[8:43] person to ask a question is Mr.

[8:48] Derrick pounds -- his questions

[8:52] are on an agenda item 40.1,

[8:55] 40.2, 40.3, and 40.4 for March

[9:00] 25th -- council meeting. In good

[9:03] faith and a spirit of

[9:04] transparency, can you justify

[9:06] the reason for each of these

[9:07] loans and explain clearly there

[9:10] consequences of these loans

[9:16] totaling 8,206,490 53 for

[9:17] Beaconsfield taxpayers? I will

[9:18] ask our director general to

[9:20] please answer those questions.

[9:23] >> My pleasure, Mister Mayor.

[9:25] So, to Mr. pounces questions,

[9:29] item 40.1, which is related to

[9:32] the centennial jetty, it's a

[9:35] boring bylaw to help us to pay

[9:36] for the contract if it's awarded

[9:40] tonight. So, the jetty is a

[9:43] project that was approved by the

[9:45] minister of environment,. In

[9:47] fact, we made an application

[9:49] many years ago, at least five

[9:50] years ago, to have a certificate

[9:53] of authorization to do work in

[9:56] the embankment on the riverside.

[9:59] It takes many years for us to

[10:01] get those certifications from

[10:03] the Ministry, so it's been more

[10:05] than five years. That we have

[10:07] started to want to fix the

[10:11] jetty. If you will walk there,

[10:12] you will see that's parts of it

[10:14] that are going down the lake and

[10:15] it's becoming dangerous. So,

[10:18] this is to help us do the work

[10:20] and fix the jetty for hopefully

[10:23] very long period of time. The

[10:26] second boring bylaw, which is

[10:29] related to the construction of

[10:32] work for the retention basin

[10:35] tower and helm in that area. In

[10:37] fact, the retention basin is

[10:40] going to be linked with larger

[10:43] pipes. We're over sizing some of

[10:44] the pipes to make sure they

[10:46] flow, it doesn't flow as fast

[10:49] into the middle Brook creek when

[10:52] it goes too fast, something's

[10:54] coming blocked the creek, then

[10:55] it backs up and it could create

[10:56] some problems, as some of our

[10:58] residents in that area have

[11:01] suffered in some of the past

[11:02] years, and we think that this

[11:03] solution would be very helpful

[11:07] to avoid those backups in the

[11:11] drainage system. 40.3 is related

[11:14] to sanitary sewer pipes and

[11:16] various sectors of the city. So,

[11:18] this is our annual boring bylaw

[11:20] for underground infrastructure.

[11:22] Sometimes it's for sewers,

[11:24] sometimes it's for water mains.

[11:27] So, this is our kind of annual

[11:30] regular boring bylaw and -- in

[11:33] order to prepare plans is to

[11:35] prepare plans inspects for

[11:37] engineers and architects. Item

[11:39] 40.4, I'm sorry. So, boring

[11:42] bylaws two -- by architects for

[11:44] the renovation. Work that needs

[11:46] to be carried out at the

[11:48] recreation center. I believe if

[11:51] you want the reason we are not,

[11:53] you could see that the center is

[11:56] aging and it needs lots of TLC.

[11:59] So, when fixing infrastructure

[12:01] is requiring important funds, it

[12:03] is financially appropriate to

[12:04] loan the money to support

[12:06] municipalities to perform the

[12:08] required work to fix its

[12:10] infrastructure. So, many of

[12:11] those loans are related to

[12:12] grants from the provincial and

[12:14] federal governments, such as

[12:16] what we call a gas tax, for

[12:18] example. The loans that we're

[12:19] looking at tonight are made on

[12:20] 20 years boring duration, so

[12:23] that's to answer Mr. -- the

[12:25] question about the Beaconsfield

[12:27] taxpayers and the impact on

[12:29] taxpayers from when the work is

[12:30] performed, the need to borrow,

[12:32] it takes about two years before

[12:35] it does have an impact on the

[12:36] budget. After two years, the

[12:39] work is performed, it's

[12:40] transmitted into the taxes, for

[12:42] example. A 1 million dollar loan

[12:44] at 5% interest represents an

[12:46] annual cost of $80,200 in our

[12:50] budget, capital interest for, in

[12:52] this case, would be 20 years,

[12:54] for example. That's $12.16, or

[12:59] 0.17%. Everything being equal on

[13:02] the average house, property

[13:04] house in Beaconsfield for 2024.

[13:06] Of course, we're talking 2026 or

[13:10] 2027 and some of those boring

[13:11] bylaws will be with us for

[13:12] three, four, and five years. For

[13:14] example, the architects, they're

[13:16] not doing the work in one year.

[13:18] It's a four, five-year project.

[13:20] We must take into account though

[13:22] that if there is an increase in

[13:25] our debt service capital

[13:28] interest, when we have a new

[13:29] bylaw, we also have old bylaws

[13:32] that are released from our

[13:35] capital interest because there

[13:36] are some bylaws that are 20

[13:38] years old that will be not

[13:41] paying any more. So, there is a

[13:44] rolling effect on the bylaws

[13:45] that we have. When the city. So,

[13:49] we might have to increase our

[13:51] debt to meet the needs at the

[13:53] present time. But our debt is

[13:56] very low, Mister Mayor, as you

[13:58] know. We will be able sometime,

[14:00] probably the next budget, to

[14:02] present some statistics about

[14:03] our debt level and the capacity

[14:06] that we have to increase our

[14:09] debt to face our

[14:12] infrastructures.

[14:13] >> If I'm not mistaken, Mr.

[14:16] Boileau, whenever we increase

[14:18] our debt, we eventually increase

[14:20] taxes.

[14:21] >> Exactly, it does. If we're

[14:23] able to remove some of the debt,

[14:26] everything would be equal, there

[14:27] is no concern. But when we

[14:29] increase the debt more, it does

[14:30] have an impact on taxes.

[14:32] >> I just want to make sure

[14:34] everybody understands that debt

[14:37] is not like our prime minister

[14:38] says, we can't forget about it.

[14:41] It has to be repaid somehow and

[14:43] it does also increase -- taxes.

[14:48] The next question is from Nicole

[14:52] -- from Saint Andrew.

[14:57] - Je pense que vous avez oublié

[14:58] la question deux.

[15:01] - Tu vas répondre...

[15:02] - Vous n'avez pas lu la

[15:03] question. La question deux,

[15:07] d'accord. So yeah, Mister pounds

[15:10] I guess asked a second question

[15:11] in good faith and the spirit of

[15:13] transparency, can you clarify

[15:14] what is implied by the

[15:16] authorization to sign

[15:17] professional services agreements

[15:18] with the finalist of the

[15:21] architectural competition? We --

[15:23] imagine centennial project. How

[15:25] much expense is involved for

[15:27] Beaconsfield taxpayers and will

[15:29] alone bylaw be required?

[15:32] >> Already has, Mister Mayor.

[15:33] So, Jerry council appointed

[15:35] residents and professionals on

[15:37] the jury of the architectural

[15:39] contest for the imagine

[15:41] Centennial project. At the same

[15:42] time, the contest was launched,

[15:45] inviting architects to submit

[15:46] proposals to the jury. The rules

[15:48] of the contest are slightly

[15:50] different than irregular

[15:52] tendering process, so the

[15:56] minister issued an approval to

[15:57] the City to award the contract

[15:58] via the requirements of our

[16:01] architectural contest. The jury

[16:02] will soon be judging the

[16:04] proposals submitted by the

[16:05] candidates as part of the first

[16:06] phase. From there, four

[16:08] finalists will be chosen by the

[16:11] jury to prepare detailed designs

[16:13] and their ideas on the project,

[16:16] as approved by the -- finalist

[16:18] will receive professional fees,

[16:20] which are determined by the

[16:22] professional decree for the

[16:23] second phase of architectural

[16:24] competitions. The four finalists

[16:26] will be announced in April and

[16:30] information will be added to our

[16:32] dedicated section of the website

[16:33] for the imagined project. The

[16:35] cost of this step in the process

[16:37] of the project is around 400 to

[16:40] $500,000. The money will come

[16:43] from our reserve for

[16:46] professional services. As

[16:48] mentioned last year, I am sure

[16:51] many of us have forgotten

[16:52] already, we will receive a

[16:54] substantial grant for this

[16:55] project in the order of $300

[16:57] million from the minister of

[16:59] communications and culture. An

[17:01] official announcement should

[17:02] also be made in April.

[17:07] >> Thank you, Mister Mayor.

[17:09] >> Thank you very much, Mr.

[17:10] Boileau. While we will go to the

[17:14] question that was asked by Madam

[17:17] Colorado from Saint Andrew. Her

[17:20] first question is on 30.8, West

[17:24] Island association for the

[17:26] intellectually handicapped. Mrs.

[17:30] Colorado asked a question

[17:31] regarding financial support for

[17:34] the neurodivergent community. I

[17:36] will not read all the preamble

[17:39] which is -- but Madame -- our

[17:43] director of culture and leisure

[17:45] will answer the questions to you

[17:48] directly. We

[17:51] >> The next question from madame

[17:54] Corrado was on 20.4, 30.4, and

[17:58] 30.9, tree planting -- club

[18:01] contract. Please invest more in

[18:05] tree planting, we -- engage the

[18:07] public in tree planting. I

[18:09] really enjoyed the events at the

[18:11] dog park last year. I'm quite

[18:13] concerned about the 1600 dollars

[18:15] given to the annual greens

[18:17] maintenance of the lawn bowling

[18:19] Club behind -- annex. The lawn

[18:22] bowling Club uses synthetic and

[18:24] toxic herbicides and pesticides,

[18:26] all of which are toxic to the

[18:29] environment. Carcinogenic and

[18:32] tested on animals. A senior

[18:36] friendly municipality should not

[18:37] be spraying -- or 2.4 D or any

[18:40] other chemicals at a place where

[18:43] our elderly residents love to

[18:45] hang out. It is also cheaper and

[18:47] in the long run to use organic

[18:49] methods of weed control. Two

[18:52] places in the USA have done this

[18:54] quite successfully. One golf

[18:55] course and one lawn bowling

[18:57] Club. The -- permit is almost

[19:00] up, please do not renew it and

[19:02] go organic instead. She mentions

[19:06] to the lawn bowling Club in the

[19:09] States and the golf club in the

[19:11] States. I will not get into

[19:13] that. But my response to her is

[19:17] thank you for expressing your

[19:19] concerns regarding the use of

[19:21] synthetic herbicides and

[19:22] pesticides at the lawn bowling

[19:26] Club behind the herb --

[19:27] regarding the regulations

[19:29] covering the use of pesticides

[19:31] at the lawn bowling Club, it is

[19:33] essential to emphasize that

[19:34] while the use of pesticides is

[19:38] authorized, as per the beak one

[19:41] for bylaw, concerning the use of

[19:43] pesticides, it must be done in

[19:45] compliance with strict

[19:47] guidelines outlined in article

[19:48] six of the bylaw. These

[19:51] regulations include requirements

[19:52] for the lawn bowling Club

[19:54] operator to submit a written

[19:57] declaration of the products

[19:58] intended for use, post signage

[20:01] after spring, maintain a

[20:03] registry of pesticides

[20:04] applications, and submit the

[20:07] pesticide reduction plan every

[20:09] three years. Given these

[20:11] regulations, I can assure you

[20:13] that the city is committed to

[20:14] ensuring that any pesticide use

[20:16] of the lawn bowling Club is

[20:18] carried out responsibly and

[20:21] transparently. We will closely

[20:24] monitor compliance with these

[20:25] regulations and work with the

[20:26] lawn bowling Club management to

[20:30] explore opportunities for

[20:31] transitioning to organic methods

[20:33] of the weed control

[20:34] -. We,?

[20:37] -.

[20:38] >> Thank you. I would add about

[20:39] the tree planting, the contract

[20:42] 20.4 is to replace the -- trees

[20:45] that were taken down after the

[20:47] ice storm of last year and this

[20:49] contract is going to be paid

[20:52] back by the agglomeration under

[20:55] the security civil rules of the

[20:57] government, due to this ice

[21:00] storm that we had. Also, I would

[21:01] like to mention that since 2012

[21:04] -- we've been doubling the

[21:06] amount of trees that were

[21:08] planting previous to those

[21:09] years. And also, we have an

[21:13] agreement with -- two encourage

[21:15] residents to plant trees at

[21:19] advantageous costs because we do

[21:22] subsidized at a cost to plant a

[21:23] tree that was taken down or to

[21:25] plant a new tree.

[21:29] >> Thank you, Mr. Boileau. Next

[21:32] question was on the demolition

[21:34] of pipe 24 rock hill. Thank you

[21:38] for saying no to the demolition

[21:41] of 524 rock hill. That was voted

[21:47] at the committee, but it is on

[21:49] the agenda tonight, again, for

[21:53] the Council to determine whether

[21:55] the demolition will not go on or

[21:58] will be accepted. So, when it's

[22:02] not saying no to the demolition

[22:04] at this point. The homeowner had

[22:07] allegedly deliberately poked

[22:08] holes in the roof, so they could

[22:10] claim the house was damaged. I

[22:14] looked at the front and back of

[22:15] the house close up and it looks

[22:17] perfectly salvageable. If it is

[22:19] for sale, I would love to buy

[22:21] it. If I could somehow afford

[22:23] it. It is across from my

[22:26] cousin's house and I love 524

[22:29] rock hill. It is a lovely,

[22:31] little house with a beautiful

[22:33] backyard and a nice shed that

[22:34] could be made into an art

[22:37] studio. Tearing it down would be

[22:39] very disruptive to their lives

[22:40] and to my life, respectfully. I

[22:44] go over to their place all the

[22:45] time. Please keep the property

[22:46] intact. Also 74 Devin seems to

[22:49] have a lot of trees and seems to

[22:51] have we building on it already.

[22:54] Please preserve buildings and

[22:55] trees on all the properties as

[22:56] much as possible. So, Madam

[22:59] Corrado, I want to thank you for

[23:01] your comments regarding the

[23:04] demolition and regarding the

[23:05] trees at 74 common, Devin last

[23:11] question is on. Rodenticide.

[23:16] Madam Colorado makes comments

[23:17] and suggestions regarding

[23:20] rodenticide use in Beaconsfield.

[23:21] I will not read all the comments

[23:24] and the preamble, but I can

[23:27] assure you, Madam Corrado, that

[23:28] we will transfer your comments

[23:30] to the environmental inspection

[23:33] of public works. The next

[23:37] question is from Zachary P

[23:41] travesty of Olympic and subject

[23:45] is the jetty rehab. There are

[23:51] several questions with regard to

[23:56] the jet he rehab and I will ask

[24:00] Mr. Boileau to perhaps go circle

[24:01] all the questions and the

[24:05] answers as well.

[24:06] >> -- so, the question was, why

[24:07] was this not included in the

[24:09] three-year capital program if it

[24:10] is included -- why was this the

[24:14] case? It speaks to the need to

[24:16] stop bundling things together

[24:17] and continuing to refuse to put

[24:19] line item specific in the

[24:20] three-year plans that showed for

[24:22] public use. If this project was

[24:24] not included, it represents

[24:25] pressure to capital plan --

[24:29] reductions elsewhere to balance

[24:31] the pressure. So, it's not worth

[24:35] imagining and yes, it was not

[24:36] included in the three-year

[24:38] capital plan. It was a project

[24:41] that was carried over from 2023,

[24:44] we but I agree, it could've been

[24:47] presented as so that there was

[24:49] this project that we would come

[24:52] through for 2023. Which was not

[24:56] the case, but point taken. So,

[24:59] we it is the same for a few

[25:01] other projects. I'm thinking of

[25:02] the arena that it's coming soon.

[25:04] But for the jetty, we're also

[25:06] hoping to receive a confirmation

[25:07] of 1 million dollar grant from

[25:09] Infrastructure Canada. We are

[25:11] still waiting after eight months

[25:12] of the requests, so there is

[25:16] also the -- guarantees the price

[25:19] of the bids. The bids were open

[25:22] November 1st and so, the

[25:24] guarantees for the prices in the

[25:27] bids processor ending this week,

[25:28] so this is the latest date that

[25:30] Council meets that we can award

[25:33] this contract. The question to

[25:34] was, how required or critical is

[25:36] this work? How much of this is

[25:38] from a safety structural

[25:39] perspective or desire to improve

[25:41] cosmetics? Why is so important

[25:42] and why now? Can we not wait

[25:45] until government grant money is

[25:46] confirmed? A jetty

[25:48] rehabilitation is mutually

[25:50] exclusive from any building in

[25:51] the park. These are separate

[25:52] projects and should be treated

[25:54] accordingly. Yes, they are

[25:56] separated and we treat them

[25:57] differently. You are right when

[25:59] you say that is not directly

[26:01] related to imagine project. We

[26:04] have work with the minister of

[26:05] the environment for the last at

[26:06] least the last five years to

[26:08] obtain this see a certificate of

[26:10] authorization to fix the jetty

[26:12] that's becoming more and more

[26:15] dangerous. We've already

[26:17] installed the one section of the

[26:18] embankment and -- safety

[26:19] reasons. This is a ends in 2025,

[26:22] therefore, the work has and

[26:24] could only be performed during a

[26:27] very specific time of the year,

[26:29] which is late August to the end

[26:32] of October and depends on the

[26:33] level of the water, movements of

[26:35] the fish, and bird migration.

[26:37] That's when we work with those

[26:39] biologists, we have to look

[26:40] after these things and it's huge

[26:43] constraints, of course. Question

[26:45] three, what alternatives have

[26:47] been explored to this week,

[26:48] reduce score, functional repair

[26:50] replacement only versus

[26:51] beautification. -- so, we have

[26:54] considered to removal of the

[26:56] jetty because we cannot leave it

[26:57] as is. So, the cost estimated is

[27:03] about 1.8 million of taking the

[27:05] jetty out of the water, in

[27:08] comparison to fix it cost as

[27:10] presented to the Council tonight

[27:11] and it could only be done after

[27:14] another lengthy process of

[27:16] obtaining a CA, so if we decide

[27:19] we don't want to fix the jetty,

[27:20] we have to remove it, we will

[27:21] have another five, six, seven

[27:24] years, I don't know, with the

[27:25] Ministry of the Environment. I

[27:26] have no control on that but we

[27:29] have to reset -- redo plans and

[27:31] specks, go to their government,

[27:34] -- remove that and it's going to

[27:35] take more years, of course. It's

[27:37] going to be -- 1.8 million in

[27:40] that time and in that case, we

[27:42] could think that the jetty would

[27:43] have to be condemned totally or

[27:46] partially for safety reasons.

[27:49] >> Thank you, Mr. Boileau. Last

[27:54] written question we've received

[28:00] was from Caroline Malcolm,

[28:01] Montrose. The subject is speed

[28:02] once at Sherbrooke and Monroe's

[28:03] intersection. Again, as I watch

[28:05] people drive right through stop

[28:07] signs at this intersection,

[28:09] regularly, I ask for speed

[28:12] bumps. It's dangerous for the

[28:14] children and adults. Speed bumps

[28:16] work. I have to commend the fact

[28:19] that when I notified authorities

[28:22] at one of the stop signs was

[28:23] damaged by the snow clearing

[28:26] activities at this intersection

[28:28] this past winter, the resolution

[28:30] was within hours. Why can this

[28:33] not happen with a speed bumps?

[28:36] What more do we need to study as

[28:38] we all know, speeding is an

[28:40] issue. I would think that speed

[28:43] bumps are a low cost solution

[28:44] that could be implemented in a

[28:46] couple of weeks, not months or

[28:49] years. And speaking of issues

[28:51] that take too long to resolve, I

[28:53] would hope that the tax

[28:55] situation with the City of

[28:56] Montréal could be finally

[29:00] resolved in 2024, as well as

[29:02] improved action from

[29:04] Hydro-Québec reducing the number

[29:05] of electrical outage we are

[29:07] experiencing. We could start

[29:09] with buying the wires, pruning

[29:11] tree branches, and enhanced the

[29:14] network. Thanks in regards for

[29:17] your consideration. So, Madam

[29:22] Malcolm, your request regarding

[29:24] speed bumps was sent to the

[29:27] traffic advisory Committee last

[29:29] November. The first meeting

[29:32] since then will be held in

[29:34] April. Your requests will be

[29:36] studied and analyzed at the

[29:39] April meeting. With regard to

[29:43] Hydro-Québec, the city adopted a

[29:46] resolution last May to this

[29:48] effect and a meeting was held in

[29:51] July between the mayor and

[29:53] representatives of Hydro-Québec.

[29:56] Further discussions are planned

[29:57] with the administration. I agree

[30:05] that -- wires should be done. It

[30:08] has been my saying with hydro

[30:14] all along. In Beaconsfield,

[30:16] particularly because of the

[30:17] large tree canopy, it is an

[30:24] expensive proposition to realize

[30:26] but I think it could be done in

[30:30] stages. Personally, I have so

[30:35] much confidence in Hydro-Québec

[30:36] that I have now, like many other

[30:39] residents, installed a

[30:44] generator. So, now that is the

[30:50] end of the written questions.

[30:54] Likely we can go to the floor

[30:59] Pour les gens qui sont ici dans

[31:01] le moment. Poser les questions.

[31:04] I would appreciate that the same

[31:11] questions, with Matt the same

[31:17] information, does not come back,

[31:21] so that you give everybody a

[31:23] chance to have questions if they

[31:27] are on various subjects. So,

[31:33] please, after a while, if I see

[31:36] that the same question is being

[31:37] asked, we will try to move on to

[31:40] other people that have other

[31:42] questions as well. So, here we

[31:44] go. Questions?

[31:49] >> Thank you, gentlemen. I'm

[31:52] here to ask you a question.

[31:53] >> Could you identify yourself?

[31:55] >> Oh, Jason Bolton. So, it's in

[31:58] regard to downplay the

[32:00] development. I think the first,

[32:02] I have a question, but my

[32:04] statement is, our community is

[32:05] not against the development of

[32:07] this project. This needs to be

[32:09] understood, but we are against

[32:10] it as it stands, and that's why

[32:12] we would like for you to vote no

[32:13] because of my understanding is,

[32:15] there is no opportunity to

[32:17] negotiate it. It's either yes or

[32:18] no and in order to do that, it

[32:20] would have to be a no. So,

[32:22] question to you with respect to

[32:23] this and not to rehash the same

[32:26] questions that have come forth

[32:27] to you guys, and ladies, is

[32:31] around the floor area ratio. So,

[32:33] I tried to do some homework to

[32:35] understand currently were on

[32:37] zero point and the request for

[32:38] the development 1.8. That sounds

[32:41] as 100 25% increase. I am not

[32:43] able to find any relevant

[32:45] example. I found examples, but

[32:47] no relevant example that shows

[32:51] 125% increase. So, my question

[32:54] to everybody is, what have you

[32:56] used as an example when you're

[32:58] debating in your caucus to

[33:00] justify such an increase?

[33:11] Je n'ai pas l'information.

[33:12] >> I don't have the specific

[33:13] answer for that. I believe we

[33:15] did some studies in the

[33:17] department with our experts. Je

[33:21] ne sais pas, Mireille, si tu es

[33:23] capable à m'aider à répondre à

[33:24] we have -- cette question. Nous

[33:25] avons Mireille. Who's a division

[33:26] with the urban planning. We're

[33:28] very fortunate to have her with

[33:29] us tonight.

[33:41] -

[33:42] >> I will do it from here. There

[33:44] is no other projects like that

[33:45] in Beaconsfield, so the only one

[33:47] that exists, and that's

[33:48] permanent in the zoning bylaw,

[33:49] is the Artemis project on the

[33:51] corner of elm and Alvin. This

[33:55] one is at 1.6, but 1.6 is one

[34:00] per metre of the project. It is

[34:03] at 1.6 the building that's the

[34:04] right now, but at the end of the

[34:06] project, it's going to be 1.6.

[34:08] But the density is going to be

[34:10] way higher because per building,

[34:13] it's permitted to go all the way

[34:18] to 60 units. It's just different

[34:22] density per metres, but it would

[34:23] come to basically the same

[34:25] density at the end regarding the

[34:28] size of the lot that it's built

[34:30] on.

[34:31] >> So, why are we setting a

[34:32] precedent? Is this a follow-up

[34:34] question to that, because there

[34:35] is no other example in

[34:37] Beaconsfield, there is no other

[34:38] example in neighbouring boroughs

[34:40] either. So, this particular one,

[34:42] in that particular area, with

[34:44] that location and the residents,

[34:46] is quite a large increase with

[34:48] respect to where it's being put.

[34:49] So my only question is, why

[34:51] can't the project move forward

[34:54] with a reasonable rate rather

[34:56] than such a drastic one? But

[34:59] this is for everybody, please.

[35:02] >> I think you'll hear more

[35:04] about, because there will be a

[35:06] -- leader on this project. But

[35:08] we are voting now -- Projets

[35:15] particuliers de construction, de

[35:17] modification ou d'occupation

[35:18] d'un immeuble. The -- has been

[35:24] reviewed by the sea seat you and

[35:30] it's recommended, the

[35:31] recommendation of the CCU is to

[35:33] go ahead and, you know, it's one

[35:43] of the few fraudulence of

[35:45] Beaconsfield, so obviously there

[35:46] will be exceptions to this one

[35:49] from any other. We can't compare

[35:51] ourselves with some of the other

[35:52] said he's. Cities.

[36:01] >> Hi, good evening, my name is

[36:03] Amanda. I'm the director of --

[36:06] daycare center located right

[36:10] beside elm plaza. I want to take

[36:12] a moment to thank you for taking

[36:13] the time to hear what I have to

[36:14] say because I know

[36:16] wholeheartedly how important my

[36:18] role as an advocate for young

[36:19] children, especially in regards

[36:21] to their well-being and health.

[36:25] I've signed you guys countless

[36:28] informations and research

[36:29] regarding the effects on young

[36:32] children's developing systems

[36:34] and how the brain, nervous

[36:36] system, and respiratory system

[36:37] are not fully developed until

[36:39] the age of six. Young children

[36:41] at our daycare centre are there

[36:43] from, you know, six months old

[36:46] until five and a half years old

[36:47] sometimes. So, they will spend

[36:48] on average four or five of those

[36:51] years because the project is

[36:52] expected to last at least five

[36:55] years. In a zone that can be

[37:01] absolutely detrimental to their

[37:02] health. So, some people will

[37:05] only ever know that further

[37:07] daycare experience where they

[37:08] spend more than eight hours

[37:09] every day. Under no circumstance

[37:13] should the health of young

[37:14] children be risked to ensure

[37:16] that a project for a developer

[37:18] is profitable. My question to

[37:22] you is, has the city looked at

[37:24] every safety and construction

[37:25] code in relation to young

[37:27] children, including those

[37:29] considered vulnerable or with

[37:30] disabilities? Because we do have

[37:32] children with disabilities that

[37:33] are extremely sensitive to

[37:34] noise, vibration, to all of

[37:40] that. To ensure that the

[37:44] children will not be compromised

[37:45] in any way. If you have, what

[37:48] are they? Because I haven't

[37:50] heard or seen anything discussed

[37:52] about it. And if it hasn't been

[37:55] looked at, how can you possibly

[37:57] consider passing a project

[37:59] without any regard for this? Is

[38:02] the city ready to suffer the

[38:04] consequences, air and noise

[38:06] pollution, and construction

[38:08] sites can have on the developing

[38:10] systems of young children during

[38:12] their most fragile years? And

[38:14] these are lifelong consequences

[38:16] we are talking about. There are

[38:18] not just, you know, immediate,

[38:19] one or two years and then

[38:21] everything is good. They can be

[38:22] lifelong health consequences for

[38:25] this. So, have they've been

[38:28] discussed? And have you consider

[38:29] them? If so, you know, what is

[38:30] it?

[38:34] >> Thank you. For your question,

[38:36] I have to tell you that the

[38:37] safety and health of children

[38:40] are as important as those of all

[38:43] road users. We prioritize all

[38:46] active and passive safety

[38:48] measures to provide a safe

[38:52] environment for all road users,

[38:54] be they children, young people,

[38:56] families, or senior citizens. We

[39:00] have always acted and continue

[39:03] to active vigilantly and

[39:06] promptly to ensure road safety

[39:08] in Beaconsfield, even in the

[39:10] context of some of our schools

[39:13] being located close to arterial

[39:15] roads, particularly Beaconsfield

[39:19] boulevard, beau repair drive,

[39:20] and elm avenue. In 2022, alone,

[39:24] the city of Beaconsfield spent

[39:26] more than $400,000 on

[39:30] improvements and traffic calming

[39:32] measures near schools and parks.

[39:36] It's also worth noting that

[39:39] recent construction projects at

[39:42] Christmas Park and St. ramie

[39:44] schools did not result in any

[39:46] health impacts on the students

[39:48] or children playing in adjacent

[39:51] parks. When all cases, and other

[39:55] all circumstances, our

[39:56] priorities are the same toward

[39:57] pedestrians, cyclists, and

[39:59] motorists. It's never about

[40:01] compromise, it's always about

[40:03] safety and you can count on the

[40:05] whole administration of the

[40:06] City, your councillors, and

[40:08] myself, to keep you safe.

[40:10] >> I can appreciate that. I just

[40:12] want to point out that, you

[40:13] know, the majority of what you

[40:14] said to me right now is about

[40:16] road safety and that's, you

[40:17] know, very little of what I

[40:19] asked. My question in terms of,

[40:21] you know, --

[40:22] >> I think I answered your

[40:23] questions, thank you.

[40:25] >> No --

[40:28] >> That's my answer. That's my

[40:32] answer. Thank you.

[40:36] >> That's quite frustrating.

[40:38] >> Thank you.

[40:43] >> Hi, my name is -- I'm glad

[40:48] you complemented Brian Mulroney.

[40:50] I worked with by Brian one

[40:51] really. This is a health

[40:52] question. Infectious diseases

[40:55] are spreading. I worked with

[40:57] Bryan when I was an

[40:59] environmental engineer, he was

[41:00] working for iron work company.

[41:01] He was very conscious of that,

[41:03] it was -- he was good at that.

[41:06] And right now, there is a big,

[41:08] big epidemic globally, whooping

[41:11] cough, tuberculosis, all

[41:14] diseases that I remember when I

[41:17] was a young guy and said, I'm

[41:18] not going to get them. But

[41:19] people are getting older and

[41:22] this is going to be a calamity.

[41:23] Now, I didn't see anything

[41:26] Beaconsfield put in writing we

[41:28] are going to improve the doctors

[41:30] or I'm not saying that you don't

[41:31] have good doctors.

[41:32] >> What is your question?

[41:34] >> The question is what the heck

[41:35] are you doing about telling the

[41:36] people that we're having an

[41:37] epidemic and you're doing

[41:38] nothing about it?

[41:40] >> I think it's a provincial

[41:41] health issue and it is up to --

[41:44] >> So, we are part of the

[41:45] province.

[41:46] >> Then talk to your am and a,

[41:50] not to us.

[41:53] >> Can you not put in your --

[41:55] >> Speak to your am and a

[41:57] because it is a health issue.

[42:00] >> You publish this thing

[42:03] everywhere.

[42:04] >> Talk to your MNA.

[42:05] >> Mister Mayor, we did publish

[42:07] it last Friday around five PM

[42:08] because we have received --

[42:11] afternoon a notification from

[42:12] the Ministry that we are asking

[42:15] us to defuse a message to as

[42:17] many as possible, so we did --

[42:20] >> It's in writing?

[42:21] >> It's in writing if you read

[42:23] your social media network from

[42:27] the city, -- or Facebook, or

[42:29] other messages that we send out.

[42:32] >> Well, there are old folks who

[42:34] would appreciate that, thanks.

[42:35] >> Thank you.

[42:46] >> Good evening, everyone. My

[42:48] name is David world, I'm a

[42:49] resident of fairway Drive in

[42:51] Beaconsfield. My question is

[42:53] kind of a twofold question and

[42:57] it relies, it's based a little

[42:59] bit on the daycare situation.

[43:03] Part of that first question is,

[43:04] and I noticed that we've

[43:06] allocated or there is an

[43:08] allocation of a five-year term

[43:11] in which to bring this proposal

[43:13] or this building of 275 elm to

[43:21] its rightful completion. With

[43:24] five year period is absolutely

[43:27] absurd. If you look at buildings

[43:29] being built, I mean, first of

[43:30] all, I believe there is an

[43:33] 18-month sort of cap on these

[43:36] buildings being built. If we

[43:38] look at the Champlain Bridge, it

[43:41] took about a year and a half.

[43:44] Why would a project as small as

[43:46] 275 get a five-year term? That's

[43:49] the first question. And in that

[43:52] five-year term, the daycare is

[43:54] going to suffer yet even

[43:56] further. If it was controlled in

[44:01] an 18-month fashion, measures

[44:03] could be put in place to protect

[44:06] the kids and the surrounding

[44:08] area. Over a five-year term, I

[44:12] can't even imagine what the

[44:15] consequences are. We

[44:20] >> I will ask me Ray if she

[44:23] could perhaps explain the whole

[44:28] process that will eventually

[44:32] complete the project and how

[44:36] complicated, how complex it is.

[44:39] >> Yes, first of all, the

[44:40] project is that they propose is

[44:44] three phases. So, the first

[44:47] building that is on elm would be

[44:49] two phases. Each permit that we

[44:52] issue at the City can be

[44:54] realized, completed in 12 months

[44:57] with an extension of six months,

[44:59] so 18 months. So, that's what

[45:01] the 18 month is four in the --

[45:04] bylaw. That's the first thing,

[45:06] so adding all these three

[45:11] permits, the five years, that's

[45:13] why it's proposed, to make sure

[45:15] that they fit in the five years.

[45:17] And they have time to complete

[45:21] the project. If that condition

[45:23] would not be in the resolution,

[45:25] that would mean that the sky

[45:30] will be could be valid as long

[45:32] as a resolution exists. So, if

[45:35] that five-year where there is no

[45:37] condition regarding delays of

[45:39] the completion of the project,

[45:40] then that would mean that in

[45:43] 2030, the promoter could come

[45:44] and ask for a permit. And in the

[45:46] meantime, there could be nothing

[45:49] done with that plaza elm. So,

[45:53] that's why it was suggested by

[45:56] sea see you and the urban

[45:57] planning department to council

[45:58] to add that condition to the

[46:01] project. So, it makes sure that

[46:03] yes, it's going to be five

[46:05] years. It can't seem quite long,

[46:06] but at the same time, it

[46:09] segments in time when that

[46:11] project can be done. After that

[46:12] five years, what happens? That

[46:14] resolution is no longer valid,

[46:16] so the promoter has to do this

[46:17] all over again.

[46:20] >> That is fair, it's a fair

[46:22] response. But I think it's more

[46:24] of a work around that allows a

[46:29] developer to work a project

[46:33] longer by working little

[46:35] segments of the same parking

[46:37] lot.

[46:38] >> There is an important element

[46:40] on that, it's that right now,

[46:45] there's -- that goes through the

[46:48] lot that needs to be placed in

[46:52] the back of the lot and this is

[46:53] where that needs to be done.

[46:56] There is an agreement that needs

[46:57] to be made with the public works

[46:59] of the city that means we have

[47:01] to wait until the referendum

[47:06] process which is going to happen

[47:07] if Council decides to vote to

[47:10] approve the project tonight. We

[47:12] can explain later the next

[47:14] steps. But that could be done in

[47:18] parallel, but as soon as the

[47:20] work starts, there needs to be

[47:25] that -- that needs to be moved.

[47:26] There needs prior work to be

[47:27] done and then they need to make

[47:28] sure that everything is secured

[47:30] and stuff like this, so five

[47:32] years to be honest is kind of

[47:34] short to realize a project like

[47:36] that and it is important to know

[47:39] that the major work that's going

[47:42] to cause traffic or trucks

[47:46] coming in and out and air

[47:51] pollution or dust and stuff like

[47:52] that is when they are building

[47:55] the structure. But after that,

[47:56] most of the work, like nine

[47:59] months, 9 to 12 months, is

[48:01] inside and after that, they put

[48:05] the exterior -- so 18 months is

[48:07] kind of fair to a project like

[48:08] that and in other cities, four

[48:11] towers of 12 storeys, they can

[48:14] do it in 18 months. So, for four

[48:17] storeys and it's not their first

[48:19] project. So, we think it is a

[48:21] reasonable time to achieve that

[48:23] whole project within the five

[48:25] years that is proposed to

[48:27] Council to approve.

[48:29] >> But at the end of the day,

[48:31] wouldn't it make more sense that

[48:32] if you start the project, you do

[48:36] it from a to z? What you're

[48:39] sounding like you're going to do

[48:40] partial work because there is

[48:44] infringements on part of the

[48:46] lot.

[48:47] >> No, it's also, and tomorrow,

[48:51] if Council approved the project

[48:52] tonight, there is going to be

[48:56] refused documents on the website

[48:57] and in that document, there's an

[49:01] old page that explains why

[49:02] they're doing it in phases,

[49:04] because there are some

[49:07] commercial users right now that

[49:10] are going to move in the

[49:11] building, so they're asking to

[49:13] do demolition of the plaza in

[49:14] sections and then they have to

[49:16] make sure they are moving and

[49:18] then to the other part. This is

[49:20] all explained in the document

[49:23] that is going to be uploaded

[49:25] tomorrow, if Council's approved

[49:27] tonight. And if I may, there's

[49:29] another condition that is in the

[49:34] resolution if Council approved

[49:35] tonight. There is a committee of

[49:38] -- the promoter, that is why the

[49:43] promoter agreed to that after a

[49:45] public consultation and it's a

[49:48] good practice. It's being done

[49:49] in other cities and the fact

[49:51] that it is going to be in the

[49:53] resolution, we have to enforce

[49:54] that it is maintained. There are

[49:57] some elected officials that are

[49:59] going to sit on that committee,

[50:03] so it's --

[50:04] >> But correct me if I'm wrong,

[50:05] that committee has absolutely no

[50:08] rights. The people that --

[50:11] >> Give somebody else an

[50:12] opportunity.

[50:13] >> I have a question, that's

[50:14] fine because my name is Victoria

[50:15] and I live at 251 Brighton. I

[50:18] actually went to one of the

[50:19] meetings that was held by the

[50:22] promoter at revolution hair

[50:25] studio, where it was treated

[50:26] very poorly by the promoter. I

[50:28] don't believe that the promoter

[50:30] has any interest in what the

[50:32] community has to say and it's

[50:35] only interested in the bottom

[50:36] line, obviously, of his project.

[50:38] So, I would like to know the

[50:42] past projects that he has done,

[50:44] what are they? And do they have

[50:47] any examples? This was a

[50:48] question that I brought to

[50:50] Council a few months ago and I

[50:52] don't think anyone has looked

[50:54] into it.

[51:01] >> We have done other --

[51:05] >> Have you seen the past

[51:06] projects? Can we have names of

[51:08] those past projects?

[51:09] >> Tonight we are approving the

[51:12] PPCMOI, not the architectural

[51:14] project.

[51:15] >> I don't care about the

[51:16] architectural project. I want to

[51:18] make sure it gets done and get

[51:19] some properly.

[51:20] >> PPCMOI just as I told you

[51:21] before, is the first step and

[51:24] then we will come to the

[51:27] architectural project.

[51:29] >> It's not about the

[51:30] architectural project. We saw

[51:31] the Artemis, how well that went

[51:32] over.

[51:33] >> The PPCMOI, if you will have

[51:37] the opportunity to vote against

[51:38] it. So, if you want to vote

[51:41] against it, you will have the

[51:43] opportunity in the referendum.

[51:45] >> The referendum is not a good

[51:47] referendum. It includes a huge

[51:50] zone that is not part of our

[51:52] area that does not concern the

[51:56] residents.

[51:57] >> Madam, I don't think I've

[51:58] changed your mind on this topic.

[52:00] >> I don't think so but I would

[52:01] like to know if you've looked

[52:02] into the past projects and what

[52:04] they are. That is my question.

[52:05] >> Thank you.

[52:06] >> -- Monsieur le Maire to

[52:09] answer your, avec votre

[52:10] permission question, any project

[52:11] that we now adopt, whether it's

[52:14] this one tonight or another one

[52:16] coming in the next two months or

[52:18] two years, many projects that

[52:21] require this type of approval --

[52:27] this one, whatever, we have put

[52:30] into our bylaw since at amiss

[52:34] has become what is now, you

[52:35] know, the -- we have put into

[52:39] our bylaws financial guarantees.

[52:43] So, --

[52:47] >> Other financial --

[52:51] >> I'm sorry, I'm a frustrated

[52:53] resident because -- I wasn't

[52:55] treated with respect. What tells

[52:58] me about that is that there is

[53:01] no open communication, even if

[53:03] we have this group that's

[53:06] formed, right? Are we going to

[53:09] be able to have a any say on

[53:11] anything? Does that group have

[53:13] any power at all besides being

[53:14] there to have an opinion?

[53:20] >> If I could just add,

[53:22] Victoria, I think based on some

[53:23] of the questions -- plaza, that

[53:26] was something we were concerned

[53:27] about and the City did contact

[53:31] the developer, it'd come back

[53:33] with a whole portfolio. They

[53:34] have experience, we require that

[53:37] they had the financial

[53:38] possession. We were told that

[53:41] there are some partners behind

[53:42] our that are very successful.

[53:45] But as usual, like no company is

[53:47] going to throw all their assets

[53:49] into a building, so these are

[53:51] all different companies, so

[53:52] there's only so far that you

[53:53] could go on this thing. In terms

[53:55] of do they have experience?

[53:58] >> --

[53:59] >> Do they know what they're

[54:00] doing? The answer is yes. That

[54:03] doesn't change, you know, the

[54:07] way that he came on to it --

[54:16] >> Louise, sur la rue Beaudin.

[54:17] Bon...

[54:18] >> Now it's going to be the

[54:20] third question on 275 elm. I

[54:23] will ask --

[54:24] >> It's a project!

[54:25] >> I will ask, if you -- please

[54:30] lineup because, please lineup

[54:33] because at one point, we are

[54:35] going over the period and I will

[54:40] have asked a question, if the

[54:43] council wants to continue on the

[54:45] question period. So, this is the

[54:49] lineup and that will be the end

[54:51] of the question at that point.

[54:52] Thank you.

[54:54] - Bon. On avait un zonage, vous

[54:59] l'avez changé pour deux alors il

[55:01] a l'air de dire que ça va

[55:02] prendre 5 ans, ça va être par

[55:05] session. Alors est-ce qu'un

[55:07] zonage, un permis? Deuxième

[55:09] zonage, deuxième permis? Ça

[55:11] pourrait être séparé en deux?

[55:15] - Je ne sais pas... je n'ai

[55:16] aucune idée.

[55:17] (brouhaha)

[55:21] - Répondre à la demande qui a

[55:23] été faite par le promoteur...

[55:27] - Vous séparez ça alors vous

[55:28] pouvez très bien commencé par

[55:31] un, pas de permis, après, on

[55:33] verra pour le deuxième. Là, en

[55:34] ce moment, on ne sait pas

[55:38] combien de ma servitude le mur

[55:41] du stationnement. Ensuite de ça,

[55:45] je ne sais pas la hauteur. Vous

[55:47] changez de projet avec celui de

[55:50] Bolton. On n'a rien de

[55:51] spécifique. La hauteur du

[55:53] garage... est-ce que les

[55:57] appartements ont 8 pieds

[55:58] seulement ou si ils sont plus

[56:00] haut que ça?

[56:01] - En ce moment, vous pourrez

[56:05] voir les plants dès qu'ils

[56:06] seront rendus publiques mais les

[56:08] les ment des maisons de ville

[56:10] sur Bolton n'apparaissent plus

[56:12] dans la résolution parce que ces

[56:14] bâtiments-là ont été rendus,

[56:16] suite à la consultation

[56:17] publique, le promoteur a réussi

[56:20] à réduire les maisons de ville à

[56:22] deux étages d'une hauteur de

[56:24] moins de 10 mètres. Ça, c'est ce

[56:28] qui est prévu au règlement. En

[56:30] ce moment, ce qu'ils proposent,

[56:31] à part le fait que ce soit du

[56:33] résidentiel et que dans la zone,

[56:34] c'est seulement du commercial

[56:36] qui est permis, en ce moment,

[56:39] deux étages et moins de 10

[56:40] mètres de hauteur, c'est

[56:41] conforme au règlement pour ça

[56:42] s'élément. C'est pour ça que ça

[56:44] a été retiré, ce n'est pas un

[56:46] élément qui est dérogatoire

[56:47] maintenant à part usage.

[56:50] - Moi je parlais en pied

[56:52] encore... 10 mètres, à ce que

[56:53] c'est pour chaque étage?

[56:55] - C'est la hauteur totale du

[56:56] bâtiment.

[56:57] - 10 mètres?

[56:58] - Oui. Un bâtiment comme par

[57:01] exemple le vôtre, c'est une

[57:03] hauteur maximale de 9,2 mètres.

[57:04] - O.K.. Bon, ensuite, le toit,

[57:08] est-ce qu'il va être plein? On

[57:10] ne sait pas, vous avez changé...

[57:11] pour en avant, oups... ça, c'est

[57:15] correct, je n'en parle pas. Je

[57:17] parle juste celui qui touche ma

[57:18] maison.

[57:19] - Pour le moment, ce qu'on sait,

[57:20] c'est les paramètres généraux

[57:22] globaux du projet. La hauteur,

[57:24] la dimension, la distance par

[57:26] rapport aux listes de terrain.

[57:28] Pour ce qui a trait à

[57:29] l'architecture, comment les

[57:30] volumes vont être traitées,

[57:32] est-ce que ça va dépendre d'où

[57:33] seront situés les fenêtres? Ça,

[57:35] ce sera dans une phase

[57:36] subséquente une fois que le

[57:37] processus référendaire sera

[57:38] fait. Le comité consultatif

[57:40] d'urbanisme, c'est le même

[57:41] processus que pour tous les

[57:44] projets. Le comité va analyser

[57:47] la demande en fonction des

[57:48] critères qui sont établis pour

[57:49] cette zone et il pourra formuler

[57:51] des recommandations au conseil

[57:52] qui décidera d'approuver ou non

[57:54] l'architecture. C'est vraiment

[57:58] deux morceaux qui sont séparées.

[57:59] Pour le moment, c'est vraiment

[58:00] une bonne façon d'expliquer.

[58:02] C'est comme si on disait: bon,

[58:03] ça va être deux poids une

[58:05] par-dessus l'autre qui vont être

[58:06] à une telle distance de la ligne

[58:07] de terrain. Après on, va venir

[58:08] ajouter des couleurs, le type de

[58:10] matériaux, des briques, dépend,

[58:11] des choses comme ça. On n'est

[58:12] pas encore là comme ça. On est

[58:14] sur des gros paramètres de la

[58:16] forme générale du projet.

[58:18] - Alors, est-ce qu'on va avoir

[58:19] quelque chose à dire sur

[58:20] celui-là? Si vous changez de

[58:26] projet, en arrière de chez

[58:28] moi... est-ce que j'aurais

[58:29] quelque chose à dire après quand

[58:32] vous présentez...

[58:33] - Quand c'est présenté au pays

[58:34] a, c'est le comité consultatif

[58:36] d'urbanisme qui est un comité

[58:40] consultatif de citoyens. Un élu

[58:41] qui est président et une autre

[58:44] élue qui assiste aussi et qui

[58:46] sont la voix des résidents, dans

[58:48] le fond, pour s'assurer que ce

[58:49] règlement-là... pour vérifier

[58:54] l'architecture, il est bien

[58:55] appliqué. Tous les projets, il y

[58:58] en a plusieurs à toutes les

[59:00] séances du conseil, c'est un

[59:01] comité de citoyens qui

[59:03] recommande ou non d'approuver

[59:04] l'architecture. Ça va être le

[59:06] même processus.

[59:07] - Ça va être juste avec le

[59:08] conseil. Nous autres, on aura

[59:09] plus rien à dire.

[59:10] - Pour ce processus-là, non, les

[59:12] citoyens qui ont quelque chose à

[59:13] dire, c'est ceux qui sont sur le

[59:15] comité consultatif d'urbanisme.

[59:17] - On va se mettre sur le

[59:18] comité...

[59:19] (rires)

[59:21] - Vous avez toujours la période

[59:25] référendaire où il y aura un

[59:26] registre. C'est là que vous

[59:30] aurez quelque chose à dire.

[59:35] - J'aimerais, après le vote,

[59:36] vous votez ce soir.

[59:39] - On va voter sur les PPCMOI,

[59:41] oui.

[59:43] - Pour approuver le projet.

[59:46] - Pour approuver le PPCMOI.

[59:47] - Eh bien, qu'est-ce que c'est,

[59:48] au juste?

[59:50] - Ce n'est pas la même chose.

[59:51] C'est ça qu'il essayais de vous

[59:53] expliquer. Un PPCMOI, c'est la

[59:54] boîte.

[59:55] - La boîte.

[59:57] - La façon dont

[1:00:00] l'architecture... l'architecture

[1:00:01] de la boîte, ça va être une

[1:00:02] deuxième phase. Où il y a un

[1:00:05] PIA. Il faudra passer à travers

[1:00:09] le même processus.

[1:00:10] - Mais on n'a rien à dire...

[1:00:12] - Les consultations avec une

[1:00:16] recommandation du CCU. Et encore

[1:00:18] une fois, il y aura un vote

[1:00:22] référendaire à ce moment-là.

[1:00:24] - Alors, si jamais après ce

[1:00:26] soir, après que vous ayez voté,

[1:00:28] et j'aimerais vous parler...

[1:00:30] - Vous pouvez me parler

[1:00:31] n'importe quand.

[1:00:33] - Ça dépend du vote...

[1:00:34] (rires)

[1:00:40] - Comme on dit, en bon français,

[1:00:41] attachez votre tuque!

[1:00:42] (rires)

[1:00:45] je suis plus petite que la

[1:00:47] moyenne. Bonsoir, je m'appelle

[1:00:49] Christine, je ne suis pas

[1:00:51] résidente du secteur en

[1:00:52] particulier mais j'ai suivi, je

[1:00:54] suis résidente de Beaconsfield

[1:00:55] et j'ai suivi depuis le début de

[1:00:59] l'histoire du redéveloppement du

[1:01:01] Plaza elle-même. Je vais faire

[1:01:02] mon commentaire. J'ai une

[1:01:03] question à la fin du

[1:01:04] commentaire. Je vais commencer

[1:01:05] en français et je vais changer à

[1:01:06] l'anglais parce que je pense que

[1:01:07] c'est bilingue dans la salle. Je

[1:01:11] pense que la question du CIO

[1:01:13] est, le fameux taux

[1:01:15] d'implantation qui est souvent

[1:01:16] discutée, Jason n'est pas là, je

[1:01:17] ne corrigerait s'il n'était pas

[1:01:18] là... il s'est trompé dans ses

[1:01:21] calculs. Mais le 1,18... tout

[1:01:26] ça, dans le fond, c'est des

[1:01:27] chiffres qui, dans l'absolu, ne

[1:01:28] veulent pas dire grand-chose. À

[1:01:30] Montréal, vous pouvez avoir un

[1:01:31] projet qui est en plein

[1:01:33] centre-ville. Ça devient un COS

[1:01:40] des deux ou des deux 0... 2,5.

[1:01:42] (---)

[1:01:43] ça devient un COS des un ou de

[1:01:45] 1,5. La question, c'est le

[1:01:47] différentiel et comment il

[1:01:48] s'intègre dans le cadre

[1:01:49] existant. C'est d'ailleurs même

[1:01:52] mentionné dans vos règlements.

[1:01:55] L'important, c'est que le projet

[1:01:57] soit intégré dans le cadre bâti

[1:02:00] existant et comment on perd avec

[1:02:01] les environ. Ici, à

[1:02:03] Beaconsfield, un COS de 0,8 ou

[1:02:06] un, c'est normal pour un taux

[1:02:07] familial, pour un quartier

[1:02:08] familial. Un COS de 1,8, c'est

[1:02:12] quasiment doubler, si ce n'est

[1:02:13] pas plus, étant donné l'impact

[1:02:14] sur les auteurs, du calcul des

[1:02:17] unités et des densité possibles.

[1:02:18] Je pense que là demeure l'enjeu

[1:02:21] principal par rapport à la

[1:02:22] population dans le secteur. Ce

[1:02:23] que vous n'êtes pas dans un

[1:02:24] secteur du centre-ville, vous

[1:02:25] n'êtes pas dans un secteur non

[1:02:26] plus comme le projet dus à la

[1:02:28] mise... qui malgré son taux du

[1:02:32] 1,6, et madame Mireille l'a bien

[1:02:35] expliqué, le secteur du

[1:02:36] (---)

[1:02:37] est un secteur particulier. Il

[1:02:38] n'a pas le même cadre bâti

[1:02:39] environnants. Ce projet-là,

[1:02:43] croit que similaires, n'aura pas

[1:02:45] le même impact, vous avez des

[1:02:49] étages, des bâtiments à quatre

[1:02:50] étages en plein milieu, je

[1:02:52] remarque et en passant, je

[1:02:53] voulais passer le bravo à

[1:02:54] l'équipe de la ville pour avoir

[1:02:56] quand même commissionné une

[1:02:57] deuxième étude de trafic. Le

[1:03:01] timing était malheureux parce

[1:03:02] que tout le monde était en grève

[1:03:03] mais vous l'avez quand même

[1:03:04] fait, vous avez imposé des

[1:03:05] changements au promoteur. Il y a

[1:03:07] clairement une volonté d'écouter

[1:03:08] les citoyens. Le promoteur s'est

[1:03:11] mis d'accord pour ces

[1:03:12] aspects-là. Cela dit, et là, je

[1:03:13] vais passer en anglais... It's

[1:03:16] cosmetic changes. So the bulk of

[1:03:18] the issue remains the density

[1:03:20] that essentially is way too high

[1:03:22] for that neighbourhood. So yes,

[1:03:25] the residents on both, it's

[1:03:26] going to be a bit better for

[1:03:27] them, they have one floor less.

[1:03:30] But everyone around is still

[1:03:31] going to suffer a devastating

[1:03:34] impact of a huge increase

[1:03:35] compared to the neighbourhood.

[1:03:37] So my question, and I think

[1:03:41] there's a lot of goodwill on the

[1:03:42] part of the city, but I don't

[1:03:44] know to what degree the

[1:03:46] relationship is transparent with

[1:03:47] the developer. Clearly there's

[1:03:49] good reason for the City to

[1:03:51] approve a project like this,

[1:03:53] it's understandable. And

[1:03:54] obviously the developer want to

[1:03:55] maximize profit, that's also

[1:03:57] understandable. But it's not

[1:03:58] worth the cost and sacrifice for

[1:04:00] citizens in that area. There

[1:04:01] will come other projects. And if

[1:04:03] ever, my question is, has a

[1:04:05] development mention the fact

[1:04:07] that in two years the bylaw

[1:04:09] might change in favour of

[1:04:12] developers? He mentioned that?

[1:04:13] Okay.

[1:04:14] >> No, he did not mention that.

[1:04:16] >> He knew?

[1:04:18] >> No, but it's a fact. What you

[1:04:19] just said is an absolute fact.

[1:04:20] >> It's an absolute packed.

[1:04:22] >> In two years, you can put ten

[1:04:24] storeys.

[1:04:25] >> So what's gonna happen for

[1:04:26] the benefit of everybody? In ten

[1:04:27] years, there will be a change of

[1:04:29] provincial laws or by-laws that

[1:04:31] is going to allow suppression of

[1:04:34] citizen participation in

[1:04:36] consultations. So this will

[1:04:37] probably be one of the last

[1:04:38] projects that gets to

[1:04:39] participate. That being said,

[1:04:41] and I heard through the

[1:04:42] grapevine that the developer

[1:04:45] mentioned that if let's say

[1:04:47] there was a no or a rejection of

[1:04:50] the project, he would sit on the

[1:04:51] property for two years. I would

[1:04:53] caution you not to believe that.

[1:04:55] It's an empty threat. It happens

[1:04:56] in real estate when the

[1:04:58] developer has no other arguments

[1:05:00] in his at the end of the rope

[1:05:02] and scared.

[1:05:03] >> Yeah, but most important, no

[1:05:05] matter who is going to

[1:05:07] eventually own that -- in two

[1:05:10] years, somebody is going to own

[1:05:13] it, and they can do whatever

[1:05:15] they will want because the

[1:05:17] demand will actually change,

[1:05:20] increase the density and will

[1:05:25] allow, and I will mention that

[1:05:29] probably a much bigger project.

[1:05:31] And right, now we are --

[1:05:34] >> The City will conserve its

[1:05:36] power though. The citizens will

[1:05:37] not have much power left, but

[1:05:38] the city will -- especially in

[1:05:43] -- the City does have.

[1:05:45] >> You know, we -- there is not

[1:05:47] too many opportunities for

[1:05:49] development in this city. And we

[1:05:50] will have to consider seriously

[1:05:54] any development that is being

[1:05:55] proposed to us.

[1:05:57] >> So assuming --

[1:05:58] >> It's either that, or -- keep

[1:06:02] going up, and they will go up.

[1:06:04] And a lot more, because --

[1:06:06] >> I hear you, I understand. Is

[1:06:09] there a reason why you didn't

[1:06:13] request a reduction of a number

[1:06:14] of units to the developer?

[1:06:16] >> We have already gone through

[1:06:17] that.

[1:06:18] >> And what did they say?

[1:06:19] >> The project that's being

[1:06:21] proposed to us is now less than

[1:06:24] original. It's now -- it becomes

[1:06:29] an economics situation.

[1:06:30] >> The developer?

[1:06:32] >> There comes a point where

[1:06:34] he's gonna say no, I can't do

[1:06:36] that project, because it's not

[1:06:38] economical for me to do it. At

[1:06:40] that point, he can sell it to

[1:06:42] somebody else, whatever is going

[1:06:43] to happen. But the point is you

[1:06:47] brought so much. We have some

[1:06:50] control over what's being done

[1:06:52] now. In two, years we will not.

[1:06:54] >> You will have less in terms

[1:06:56] of the citizens but you'll still

[1:06:58] have control over your PPCMOI.

[1:07:01] So for the amount of changes --

[1:07:03] >> We are forced to increase our

[1:07:04] density by quite a bit.

[1:07:08] >> So then what I would say is,

[1:07:10] keep in mind you still have a

[1:07:11] lot of power with the developer,

[1:07:13] you can still request a lot of

[1:07:15] things. And no developer in his

[1:07:17] right mind is going to sit on a

[1:07:18] property for two years, okay? So

[1:07:22] they want to develop the

[1:07:23] property.

[1:07:24] >> What is being proposed now by

[1:07:27] the promoter, with the

[1:07:29] discussions that we've had,

[1:07:31] that's the limit that he is

[1:07:32] prepared to accept. Otherwise

[1:07:33] there is no project.

[1:07:35] >> So in that case, what I would

[1:07:37] recommend, assuming you pass the

[1:07:39] -- assuming that's what will

[1:07:40] happen, in the neighbourhood

[1:07:42] community, please include the

[1:07:44] daycare, because it's not

[1:07:46] included right now.

[1:07:47] >> We are going to have a good

[1:07:49] neighbour committee.

[1:07:50] >> And also new construction

[1:07:51] agreement with the developer,

[1:07:53] make sure you include all the

[1:07:55] guarantees and also the sound

[1:07:56] barrier and the air pollution

[1:07:58] barrier during construction for

[1:07:59] the daycare, because it's a

[1:08:01] minor cost for them and it can

[1:08:04] do a lot to requests the air

[1:08:06] transfer with the daycare.

[1:08:08] >> I'm sure that is being

[1:08:09] considered right now.

[1:08:10] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:08:12] [Applause]

[1:08:18] >> Hello, it's to fallen from --

[1:08:22] I had a question from you guys

[1:08:26] in terms of -- oh, sorry, tall

[1:08:29] person problems. So I've a

[1:08:31] question for you guys actually.

[1:08:33] When this was originally

[1:08:35] floated, the whole prospect of

[1:08:36] this being a numbered company

[1:08:39] was raised and people are

[1:08:40] understandably concerned. Now,

[1:08:41] we do understand that you have

[1:08:43] spoken with these people behind

[1:08:45] the developers, well, behind the

[1:08:47] development company. My question

[1:08:49] is, has the city done an actual

[1:08:52] due diligence on these people?

[1:08:55] Because saying that someone has

[1:08:56] money to bankroll this --

[1:08:59] >> Yes, we have. We have and we

[1:09:03] know that the people behind the

[1:09:04] project, the financiers behind

[1:09:07] the project, have lots of money.

[1:09:10] >> So where is the documentation

[1:09:11] for this?

[1:09:12] [Laughter]

[1:09:14] It's -- you can ask the promoter

[1:09:16] to give it to you, because it's

[1:09:20] not available and it's not

[1:09:23] public.

[1:09:24] >> So we have someone who is not

[1:09:27] --

[1:09:28] >> It's not public, no.

[1:09:29] >> I just want to establish that

[1:09:31] was the case.

[1:09:32] >> Thank you very much.

[1:09:38] >> Good evening everyone, my

[1:09:39] name is -- I'm the owner of the

[1:09:43] daycare. Tonight, I stand before

[1:09:46] you to advocate for the future

[1:09:49] of -- Canada. Our 80 children.

[1:09:53] The daycare director -- has

[1:09:58] presented 1 million aspects of

[1:09:59] the project's impact on children

[1:10:03] aged zero to five. I want to

[1:10:06] emphasize that when you vote for

[1:10:09] this project, it's not just

[1:10:10] about the children being

[1:10:12] directly involved, nor is it

[1:10:15] only about financial gains.

[1:10:18] Early childhood education is a

[1:10:21] collective responsibility that

[1:10:22] shapes the future of our

[1:10:25] society. I believe that each

[1:10:29] councillor conscience, sense of

[1:10:30] responsibility, mission, and --

[1:10:33] I urge you to consider these

[1:10:36] values as you make your

[1:10:37] decision. Thank you.

[1:10:39] >> Thank you very much.

[1:10:40] [Applause]

[1:10:46] >> Hi, I was just wondering if

[1:10:48] there's any other residential

[1:10:49] area in Beaconsfield that has so

[1:10:51] many by-laws change towards

[1:10:53] project?

[1:10:55] >> Yes, Adamus.

[1:10:56] [Laughter]

[1:10:57] >> That's it? The

[1:10:59] >> In fact, the Adamus project

[1:11:02] is more massive than the one

[1:11:04] that's there.

[1:11:05] >> Does the city consider it it

[1:11:07] success?

[1:11:08] >> Eventually, it's completed

[1:11:09] the way it was proposed to.

[1:11:14] Unfortunately, we have another

[1:11:15] issue with that house, because

[1:11:18] obviously the project should

[1:11:20] have been done a long time ago.

[1:11:23] But that project is much more

[1:11:25] massive than the one on elm.

[1:11:29] >> Fair enough. Now, the

[1:11:32] motivation behind all of these

[1:11:33] adjustments, because I'm

[1:11:34] talking, like, those are big

[1:11:36] projects, like elm is going to

[1:11:38] be. But as a resident of

[1:11:41] Beaconsfield, I've had to

[1:11:42] constantly go back to the city

[1:11:43] for different permits and bylaws

[1:11:44] and making sure, like, your

[1:11:47] fence here has to be lowered by

[1:11:49] a couple inches or your paint is

[1:11:50] white, I want to change it to

[1:11:52] off-white, no, you can't do

[1:11:53] that. There's been a lot of back

[1:11:55] and forth about little things.

[1:11:57] >> Keep in mind that here we are

[1:11:59] going from a commercial sewn or

[1:12:04] commercial to a residential. And

[1:12:07] that requires a lot of changes

[1:12:09] from what it was before. The

[1:12:12] vocation is completely

[1:12:13] different. So that's why we need

[1:12:18] to allow a lot of changes in the

[1:12:20] PPCMOI to be able to accommodate

[1:12:23] a presidential.

[1:12:24] >> Do you feel like the by-laws

[1:12:26] for everybody should be adjusted

[1:12:28] and then? No. So just for

[1:12:31] certain cases we will have

[1:12:32] exceptions? Okay. And then my

[1:12:35] final question is we did a

[1:12:37] traffic study. Did anyone on the

[1:12:42] City team notify you that there

[1:12:44] was a public school strike going

[1:12:46] on during the time that it was

[1:12:49] being -- nobody brought this up?

[1:12:54] >> Yes.

[1:12:55] >> Yeah.

[1:12:56] >> Sorry, what was that?

[1:12:58] >> What was --

[1:12:59] [Laughter]

[1:13:01] Shot

[1:13:02] >> Yeah, we know that it was

[1:13:04] done, there were some days where

[1:13:05] there are some strikes, there

[1:13:06] was a day where there's a

[1:13:07] snowstorm, another with a water

[1:13:09] break. So there's always a

[1:13:10] reason.

[1:13:11] >> I think it was a week.

[1:13:12] >> It was a seven-week strike.

[1:13:14] >> We cannot control what other

[1:13:17] third parties do, if they go on

[1:13:19] strike or not. We were asked to

[1:13:22] produce a new -- study, we

[1:13:24] started it. There was a strike,

[1:13:25] so there is a little less

[1:13:27] traffic. But at the end of the

[1:13:29] day, I don't think that will

[1:13:32] have changed the issue of the

[1:13:37] recommendations, or the analysis

[1:13:38] that was done by the experts.

[1:13:41] They did seven intersections.

[1:13:45] How many days, do you remember?

[1:13:48] [Inaudible]

[1:13:49] Three days, but it wasn't during

[1:13:51] the strike. It was planned to be

[1:13:53] done in the first week -- the

[1:13:56] last week of November, but it's

[1:13:59] been moved so they could have

[1:14:01] the right count. So it wasn't

[1:14:04] during the strike. Some schools

[1:14:07] in Beaconsfield were still in

[1:14:08] strike, but not the English

[1:14:10] school board. Some of the

[1:14:12] schools on the north side. So

[1:14:13] that's why it's been moved. But

[1:14:15] it's been really -- we had the

[1:14:18] moved because of that. We want

[1:14:20] to make sure the numbers were

[1:14:22] correct.

[1:14:23] >> And this was -- traffic study

[1:14:26] --

[1:14:27] >> For done.

[1:14:28] >> So we did to. The residents

[1:14:31] did not like it. And we did a

[1:14:33] second one.

[1:14:34] >> So, the first one suggested

[1:14:36] that a sidewalk be built. Will

[1:14:38] the City commit to building this

[1:14:40] sidewalk before the de

[1:14:41] construction or demolition?

[1:14:43] >> The first one -- people that

[1:14:46] we had ignored would ignore

[1:14:50] Beaconsfield station.

[1:14:51] >> Correct.

[1:14:53] >> Actually, it's halfway

[1:14:54] between the two. So it has an

[1:14:57] impact on whether it will be on

[1:14:59] Beaconsfield station or --

[1:15:01] station.

[1:15:02] >> Sure, but the question was

[1:15:03] about the sidewalk. Okay, it

[1:15:07] will be built before the

[1:15:08] demolition?

[1:15:09] >> We are going to do a

[1:15:11] sidewalk. Yeah, it's part of the

[1:15:12] project.

[1:15:13] >> Sorry, I'm getting two

[1:15:14] different answers. Will it be

[1:15:15] done before the demolition?

[1:15:17] >> I don't remember if it's

[1:15:18] before the demolition, that is

[1:15:19] part of the overall project.

[1:15:24] >> Usually, you don't want to do

[1:15:26] before.

[1:15:27] >> Usually, infrastructure work

[1:15:29] can occur like that, it's done

[1:15:32] after. Because of all the

[1:15:33] construction that's got to be

[1:15:34] done, like for other projects,

[1:15:36] even for a single house. They do

[1:15:40] break the sidewalk. So it would

[1:15:42] be a good decision to have them

[1:15:44] make the sidewalk beforehand.

[1:15:46] >> I understand that. But for

[1:15:49] the daycare and all the kids and

[1:15:50] just general population, when

[1:15:52] you have large trucks moving all

[1:15:55] the debris, wouldn't it make

[1:15:56] sense to have some protected

[1:16:00] area that they could walk to

[1:16:01] parks?

[1:16:02] >> I think we can take note of

[1:16:04] your comment.

[1:16:05] >> We will take a look at it,

[1:16:06] thank you.

[1:16:09] >> One public work --

[1:16:10] >> Thank you.

[1:16:11] >> I think you are the last one?

[1:16:14] >> We are together. We are from

[1:16:17] Elm plaza. We both have

[1:16:18] businesses there. My name is

[1:16:21] Tamara, I own revolution hair

[1:16:22] studio.

[1:16:23] >> I work at the animal

[1:16:24] hospital.

[1:16:25] >> I've been unattended for 30

[1:16:26] years with my mom and my uncle.

[1:16:27] We've been paying taxes in the

[1:16:29] plaza since the 80s. And we've

[1:16:31] seen this go on a few times over

[1:16:33] the years. And here we are

[1:16:35] again. My concern is the plaza

[1:16:37] is falling apart, and the safety

[1:16:39] of the plaza is an issue. My

[1:16:42] clients do not feel safe coming

[1:16:43] in. I have clients from one year

[1:16:46] old to sum that are in their

[1:16:47] 90s. The older ones -- one of

[1:16:50] them has even stop driving, and

[1:16:51] she takes a taxi, because she is

[1:16:54] too scared to walk in the

[1:16:55] parking lot to the salon. The

[1:16:57] bricks are falling off, not just

[1:16:59] on one pillow or, they're all

[1:17:00] starting to fall on the floor.

[1:17:02] There are potholes everywhere.

[1:17:04] The access ramp for the

[1:17:05] wheelchair is full of potholes

[1:17:06] and rocks. And these sort caps

[1:17:09] are off. There were no lights in

[1:17:11] the plaza from the fall until

[1:17:13] the end of the winter, when the

[1:17:15] days started getting longer. Not

[1:17:17] one light. My employee fell, she

[1:17:19] hurt her knee, she could not

[1:17:20] come to work for a few days. I

[1:17:24] mean, how is this acceptable?

[1:17:25] And if this is going on now, how

[1:17:27] is it gonna be safe well he is

[1:17:29] building? What am I going to do

[1:17:31] to -- what is he going to do to

[1:17:33] ensure the safety of the tenants

[1:17:34] that are still there while he is

[1:17:35] doing his construction? I don't

[1:17:37] understand how it is going to

[1:17:38] work.

[1:17:39] >> So I'll just add to that

[1:17:40] before, just to reiterate, that

[1:17:42] our question to Council, really

[1:17:44] our comment to Council and the

[1:17:46] citizens of Beaconsfield, is

[1:17:48] that our experience when the

[1:17:49] promoter has not been a positive

[1:17:51] one for the past 1.5 years that

[1:17:53] we've been working with them.

[1:17:56] And as a result, we are very

[1:17:58] concerned about the project in

[1:18:00] itself and whether or not it

[1:18:01] will be safe, whether he will be

[1:18:04] or they will be ensuring that

[1:18:06] things are done on time, that

[1:18:08] the streets are safe, that --

[1:18:11] and we understand, we don't

[1:18:12] really have the same anyways,

[1:18:14] because we are renters. We don't

[1:18:16] own the property. But our

[1:18:18] clients come to us, their pets,

[1:18:22] and their safety is important to

[1:18:23] us, as is the ability for us to

[1:18:25] continue to have our businesses

[1:18:28] actually provide a service to

[1:18:29] this community. So we are asking

[1:18:31] that Council consider that

[1:18:33] history that we have this

[1:18:34] particular promoter when you are

[1:18:36] coming to vote today, as well to

[1:18:38] the citizens if it does go to a

[1:18:39] yes to please support us, as

[1:18:41] well as the daycare, which will

[1:18:43] be very highly affected in the

[1:18:45] coming years.

[1:18:46] >> I understand that you are

[1:18:49] going to --

[1:18:50] [Applause]

[1:18:51] >> Continue to operate with a

[1:18:54] new -- after the development,

[1:18:56] there will be room for you to

[1:18:58] continue to operate. Is that

[1:19:00] correct?

[1:19:01] >> Well, what the developer or

[1:19:02] promoted says and what he says

[1:19:04] to us and what we see in these

[1:19:05] plans that have been passed her

[1:19:07] two very different things.

[1:19:10] >> And in the meantime, what

[1:19:12] about in the meantime, we have a

[1:19:14] lease.

[1:19:15] >> This is something we --

[1:19:18] >> I understand.

[1:19:19] >> We can't tell the promoter

[1:19:21] what to do.

[1:19:22] >> Like there's some safety,

[1:19:23] like has to follow certain --

[1:19:26] have yet a talk with him?

[1:19:27] >> Yes, I have.

[1:19:29] >> We have had to send leaguer

[1:19:32] legal letters to him about

[1:19:34] safety at our place.

[1:19:35] >> -- come to the city, that's

[1:19:37] what I was recommended to do. So

[1:19:39] I just don't know what to do

[1:19:40] right now, because the sword

[1:19:45] caps are not on the whole, like,

[1:19:47] the cars are driving in and

[1:19:49] following in the sewer.

[1:19:53] >> Well, I don't really have any

[1:19:54] answers for you. I know that a

[1:19:56] lot of people have moved out of

[1:19:57] there.

[1:19:58] >> I know, but I have been there

[1:19:59] for 38 years, I can just up and

[1:20:01] leave.

[1:20:02] >> Yeah, and you are what I call

[1:20:04] a destination business, will

[1:20:07] survive this development because

[1:20:10] that's the type of business that

[1:20:13] if he is smart, as a developer,

[1:20:16] he will make sure that he keeps

[1:20:19] you happy until he's able.

[1:20:22] >> So, far yeah.

[1:20:23] >> I can't talk for him.

[1:20:25] >> Yeah, already.

[1:20:33] >> Okay, we will now -- we've

[1:20:35] been into it for 1.5 hours, an

[1:20:38] hour 20 minutes, so we will now

[1:20:39] move on to the agenda.

[1:20:51] Approbation du procès-verbal de

[1:20:53] la séance ordinaire du Conseil

[1:20:54] de la Ville de Beaconsfield du

[1:20:55] 26 février 2024.

[1:20:56] - Je propose.

[1:20:57] - J'appuie.

[1:20:58] - En faveur.

[1:20:59] - Approval of the minutes à

[1:21:00] l'unamimité. of the City of

[1:21:01] Beaconsfield's special Council

[1:21:02] meeting of March 11, 2024, at

[1:21:03] 5:30 p.m.

[1:21:06] >> Opposed.

[1:21:07] >> I second.

[1:21:08] >> All in favour?

[1:21:10] - À l'unamimité. Octroi du

[1:21:13] contrat 599-23-GC concernant la

[1:21:14] réhabilitation de la jetée

[1:21:15] Centennial au plus bas

[1:21:16] soumissionnaire conforme, soit

[1:21:18] Pronex Excavation inc., pour la

[1:21:19] somme de 3 259 946,97 $, toutes

[1:21:22] taxes incluses.

[1:21:28] - Je propose.

[1:21:41] >> Motion carried. Awarding of

[1:21:43] contract 650-24-GC for the

[1:21:46] concrete sidewalk repair to the

[1:21:47] lowest conforming bidder, Les

[1:21:48] Entreprises Ventec Inc., in the

[1:21:49] amount of $161,079.98, all taxes

[1:21:57] included

[1:22:00] >> Proposed.

[1:22:01] >> Seconded.

[1:22:03] >> In favour? Unanimous.

[1:22:05] - Merci. Octroi du contrat

[1:22:08] 650-24-GC concernant la

[1:22:09] réfection des trottoirs au plus

[1:22:10] bas soumissionnaire conforme,

[1:22:12] soit Les Entreprises Ventec

[1:22:13] inc., pour la somme de

[1:22:15] 161 079,98 $, toutes taxes

[1:22:17] incluses.

[1:22:23] (---)

[1:22:25] Insituform Technologies limitée,

[1:22:26] pour la somme de 423 423,00 $,

[1:22:27] toutes taxes incluses.

[1:22:29] - À l'unamimité.. Awarding of

[1:22:31] contract TP 2024-01 for the

[1:22:32] supply and planting of trees in

[1:22:35] parks and on municipal rights of

[1:22:36] way in the spring of 2024 to the

[1:22:37] lowest conforming bidder,

[1:22:42] Terrassement Technick, in the

[1:22:43] amount of $152 745,44, all taxes

[1:22:45] included

[1:22:50] .

[1:22:53] >> I propose.

[1:22:54] >> I

[1:22:56] - En faveur. Second. In

[1:22:58] - Favour? À l'unamimité.

[1:23:01] Renouvellement du contrat TP

[1:23:03] 2018-12 pour la collecte et le

[1:23:05] transport des matières

[1:23:06] recyclables pour une année, du

[1:23:08] 1er avril 2024 au 31 mars 2025,

[1:23:10] avec Services Ricova inc. au

[1:23:11] coût approximatif de 386 198 $,

[1:23:17] toutes taxes incluses.

[1:23:22] >> Second. In favour? À

[1:23:26] l'unamimité. Mandate to the

[1:23:27] Union des municipalités du

[1:23:28] Québec

[1:23:29] (UMQ)

[1:23:30] with regard to the group for the

[1:23:31] purchase in common of liability

[1:23:33] insurance for skateboard parks,

[1:23:35] BMX park tracks and similar

[1:23:41] installations for 2024 to 2029.

[1:23:43] >> I propose.

[1:23:47] >> I, in favour. À l'unamimité.

[1:23:51] Approbation de la liste des

[1:23:52] comptes à payer au 25 mars 2024

[1:23:54] et de la liste des paiements

[1:23:55] préautorisés pour la période du

[1:23:56] 15 février 2024 au 25 février

[1:23:58] 2024 et du 27 février 2024 au 13

[1:24:00] mars 2024, pour un déboursé

[1:24:02] total de 17 584 462,29 $.

[1:24:12] - Malheureusement, je n'ai pas

[1:24:13] tous les détails du 17 millions

[1:24:16] comme normalement... mais je

[1:24:19] peux vous mentionner que ça

[1:24:22] inclut les paiements des

[1:24:25] quote-part pour la deuxième

[1:24:26] moitié de l'année. En fait, la

[1:24:31] première moitié de la fin de

[1:24:32] l'année, c'est ça? Et nous

[1:24:35] allons payer sous protêt ses

[1:24:40] quotes-parts. La plupart d'entre

[1:24:43] vous sont au courant that we...

[1:24:46] have a lawsuit against Montréal

[1:24:50] on the sharing of expenses and

[1:24:53] the formula. So we are

[1:24:55] continuing to pay the -- but we

[1:24:59] are paying that under protest

[1:25:01] hoping that eventually it will

[1:25:03] all be settled in court.

[1:25:24] Deposit of the Treasurer's

[1:25:25] transactions report in

[1:25:26] compliance with section 513 of

[1:25:27] an Act respecting elections and

[1:25:28] referendums in municipalities.

[1:25:33] Il s'agit d'un dépôt.

[1:25:38] Dépôt de la liste des

[1:25:39] remboursements des dépenses de

[1:25:40] recherche et de soutien des

[1:25:41] conseillers autorisés par la

[1:25:42] Ville de Beaconsfield pendant

[1:25:43] l'exercice financier 2023

[1:25:44] conformément à l'article 31.5.5

[1:25:45] de la Loi sur le traitement des

[1:25:46] élus municipaux.

[1:25:51] >> Approval of the -- lawn

[1:25:52] bowling Club and the the City

[1:25:53] for the Herb Linder Annex and

[1:25:54] the lawn bowling greens for the

[1:25:55] year 2024

[1:25:59] >> I propose. In

[1:26:00] - Favour? À l'unamimité. à

[1:26:04] l'unamimité. Approbation d'un

[1:26:05] appui financier de 500 $ à

[1:26:06] Services à la Famille AMCAL pour

[1:26:07] l'année 2024.

[1:26:12] - En faveur.

[1:26:13] - Approval of a $2,000 à

[1:26:17] l'unamimité. contribution to

[1:26:21] West Island community resource

[1:26:22] center for the year 2024.

[1:26:25] >> Opposed.

[1:26:26] >> Second.

[1:26:27] >> In favour. À l'unamimité.

[1:26:32] Approbation d'un appui financier

[1:26:33] de 1 000 $ à Centre de

[1:26:34] ressources communautaires de

[1:26:35] l'Ouestde-l'Île pour l'année

[1:26:36] 2024.

[1:26:37] (---)

[1:26:38] Approbation d'un appui financier

[1:26:39] de 2 000 $ à NOVA

[1:26:40] l'Ouest-de-l'Île pour l'année

[1:26:41] 2024 Approval of a $3,000.

[1:26:42] - À l'unamimité. contribution to

[1:26:43] West Island Association for the

[1:26:44] Intellectually Handicapped for

[1:26:45] the year 2024.

[1:26:49] >> Proposed.

[1:26:57] - Oui, j'appuie.

[1:26:59] - En faveur.

[1:27:00] (rires)

[1:27:02] - À l'unamimité.

[1:27:08] Approbation d'un appui financier

[1:27:09] de 6 500 $ pour l'entretien

[1:27:11] annuel des espaces verts entre

[1:27:12] le Club de boulingrin de

[1:27:13] Beaconsfield et la Ville de

[1:27:15] Beaconsfield pour l'année 2024.

[1:27:19] - Proposé.

[1:27:24] - Approval of a financial à

[1:27:27] l'unamimité. contribution of

[1:27:28] $170,000 for renovations of the

[1:27:30] Beacon Hill pool and

[1:27:31] authorization to sign the

[1:27:32] agreement between the City of

[1:27:33] Beaconsfield and Beacon Hill

[1:27:34] Swimming Pool Club.

[1:27:39] >> Proposed.

[1:27:40] >> Second.

[1:27:41] >> In favour. À l'unamimité.

[1:27:44] Ordonnance pour vendre les

[1:27:46] immeubles comportant des soldes

[1:27:47] de taxes impayées pour 2022 et

[1:27:48] 2023 aux enchères publiques et

[1:27:49] dépôt par le trésorier de la

[1:27:51] liste de ces immeubles.

[1:27:56] - Proposé.

[1:27:57] - Appuyé.

[1:27:58] - En faveur.

[1:27:59] - À l'unamimité. Filing and

[1:28:01] notice of motion of Draft By-law

[1:28:03] BEAC-153 entitled « By-law

[1:28:05] authorizing a loan of $3,392,077

[1:28:08] for the rehabilitation of

[1:28:13] Centennial jetty, 288

[1:28:16] Beaconsfield, Beaconsfield ».

[1:28:22] It's a notice of motion.

[1:28:23] >> I give the notice of motion.

[1:28:25] >> Thank you but. Dépôt et avis

[1:28:32] de motion du projet de Règlement

[1:28:33] BEAC-159 intitulé « Règlement

[1:28:34] autorisant un emprunt de

[1:28:37] 1 149 113,18 $ pour des travaux

[1:28:38] de construction pour le bassin

[1:28:39] pluvial Tower et Elm ».

[1:28:42] - Je donne un avis de motion.

[1:28:43] - Merci. Adoption of By-law

[1:28:46] BEAC-157 entitled « By-law

[1:28:48] authorizing a loan of $1,332,260

[1:28:50] for the structural

[1:28:58] rehabilitation work of sanitary

[1:28:59] sewer pipes for various streets,

[1:29:01] as well as for the structural

[1:29:04] rehabilitation work of water

[1:29:06] mains for various streets. This

[1:29:16] by-law is for a loan for

[1:29:18] municipal infrastructures. There

[1:29:19] is more registered to be held,

[1:29:21] since it falls under -- cases of

[1:29:25] loan bylaw, which we do not

[1:29:26] require the approval of

[1:29:27] qualified voters, as per the --

[1:29:29] and it will be applied to the

[1:29:32] whole territory of the city of

[1:29:36] Beaconsfield.

[1:29:37] >> I second.

[1:29:41] - À l'unamimité.

[1:29:42] - Oui.

[1:29:45] - Dépôt par la greffière du

[1:29:46] certificat relatif aux résultats

[1:29:47] de la demande d'approbation

[1:29:49] référendaire tenue le 19 et 20

[1:29:50] mars 2024 concernant le

[1:29:52] Règlement BEAC-160 intitulé «

[1:29:54] Règlement autorisant un emprunt

[1:29:55] de 2 333 040,35 $ pour des

[1:29:59] honoraires professionnels

[1:30:00] (ingénieurs et architectes)

[1:30:02] pour la préparation des plans et

[1:30:03] devis, concernant des travaux de

[1:30:05] rénovation et mise aux normes du

[1:30:06] Centre récréatif de Beaconsfield

[1:30:08] ». Le registre s'est tenu. Il y

[1:30:11] a eu cinq signatures. Il y avait

[1:30:16] 1411 signatures requises pour

[1:30:19] s'opposer aux règlements. Donc

[1:30:21] le règlement est réputé pour

[1:30:22] avoir été appuyé par les

[1:30:24] personnes habiles à voter

[1:30:25] puisqu'il n'y avait pas de

[1:30:26] signature

[1:30:27] (inaudible)

[1:30:28] . C'est un dépôt. Request for a

[1:30:29] review of the Demolition

[1:30:30] Committee's decision of February

[1:30:31] 13, 2024, pertaining to the

[1:30:32] building located at 524

[1:30:34] Rockhill. This is to revise the

[1:30:42] committee's decision taken on

[1:30:46] February 13th 2024, and approve

[1:30:47] the application for a

[1:30:48] certificate of authorization to

[1:30:50] demolish the building.

[1:30:52] >> All in favour?

[1:30:56] >> Who is proposing?

[1:30:57] [Inaudible]

[1:30:58] >> I'm seconding.

[1:31:00] >> All in favour? All against?

[1:31:07] >> Motion carried.

[1:31:08] >> So, it's carried, yeah.

[1:31:09] [Inaudible]

[1:31:12] >> Yes.

[1:31:13] >> Oh, dear. I can't --

[1:31:16] >> Listen, this is not the time

[1:31:18] to interview.

[1:31:19] [Inaudible]

[1:31:22] >>

[1:31:23] - No. Non.

[1:31:26] >> I will be visiting my family

[1:31:27] [Inaudible]

[1:31:31] - Demande d'approbation d'un

[1:31:32] deuxième projet particulier de

[1:31:33] construction, de modification ou

[1:31:34] d'occupation d'un immeuble

[1:31:35] (PPCMOI)

[1:31:36] situé au 275, Elm, Beaconsfield,

[1:31:38] avec changements,

[1:31:43] (lots projetés 6 555 296 et 6

[1:31:44] 555 297 du cadastre du Québec)

[1:31:45] dans la zone C330 du Règlement

[1:31:47] de zonage 720

[1:31:48] (Projet PP-12-1)

[1:31:50] . La recommandation du CCU est

[1:31:56] approuvé, ce serait selon les

[1:31:58] plans d'architecture daté du 28

[1:31:59] novembre 2023.

[1:32:00] >>

[1:32:02] - Okay -- O.K.. Alors, en

[1:32:04] faveur? Propose, all proposed

[1:32:08] law.

[1:32:11] - Je propose.

[1:32:15] - Qui seconde?

[1:32:16] - J'appuie.

[1:32:17] - En faveur?

[1:32:21] - Contre? Trois. Alors moi, je

[1:32:27] vais voter... comme c'est mon

[1:32:29] vote, je vais voter pour. And I

[1:32:33] want to read a statement that I

[1:32:36] prepared to explain my vote. I

[1:32:38] would like to specify that

[1:32:42] tonight we are approving these

[1:32:43] specific construction

[1:32:45] authorization or occupancy

[1:32:47] proposal for an immovable,

[1:32:49] commonly referred to as PPCMOI,

[1:32:54] for 275 Elm plaza, as

[1:32:56] recommended to Council by the

[1:32:59] Planning Advisory Committee.

[1:33:01] This is not about the

[1:33:03] architectural design of the

[1:33:04] project. As a next step, the

[1:33:07] planning advisory committee will

[1:33:08] have to analyze the project

[1:33:10] under the site planning an

[1:33:13] architectural integration

[1:33:14] program, commonly referred to as

[1:33:18] the PIA, and make a

[1:33:20] recommendation to Council. I

[1:33:22] think it is important to explain

[1:33:23] why I had to intervene with my

[1:33:27] vote on the Council split,

[1:33:29] something I rarely do, because I

[1:33:31] prefer our policies and actions

[1:33:32] to be adopted unanimously or at

[1:33:35] the very least by consensus.

[1:33:39] Density projects are often

[1:33:40] opposed by immediate neighbours

[1:33:43] but supported by the general

[1:33:45] population. This is the

[1:33:46] experience of most cities where

[1:33:49] densification is taking place.

[1:33:54] Conscient de cette sensibilité

[1:33:56] du voisinage du projet du 275

[1:33:59] Elm, le conseil a bien pris soin

[1:34:02] de consulter la population pour

[1:34:03] écouter attentivement leurs

[1:34:04] observations...

[1:34:06] (---)

[1:34:08] et leurs préoccupations

[1:34:10] concernant ce projet. C'est

[1:34:11] pourquoi, à la suite de la

[1:34:12] consultation publique, nous

[1:34:16] avons commandé une étude des

[1:34:17] populations qui sera rendu

[1:34:18] public sous peu. Nous avons

[1:34:22] aussi ajouté des conditions aux

[1:34:23] développeurs. Nous avons

[1:34:27] restreint les délais pour éviter

[1:34:29] les inconvénients de la phase de

[1:34:31] construction et nous avons en

[1:34:32] plus imposer la création d'un

[1:34:33] comité de bon voisinage. Cela

[1:34:37] dit, il y a plusieurs raisons

[1:34:39] pour lesquelles il est

[1:34:40] préférable est avisé d'aller de

[1:34:41] l'avant avec ce projet. This

[1:34:45] area is in dire need of

[1:34:48] revitalization. The fact that

[1:34:50] this site has been used strictly

[1:34:52] for commercial purposes for

[1:34:54] decades has shown that it is not

[1:34:57] viable. Most of the businesses

[1:35:00] have left in recent years. As a

[1:35:02] result, the area is not very

[1:35:08] appealing in a purely commercial

[1:35:11] sense. We developing the site as

[1:35:13] a residential area will make it

[1:35:17] more attractive and improve both

[1:35:18] the landscape and the urban

[1:35:21] fabric. It will also maintain

[1:35:24] the limited range of destination

[1:35:27] shops. I understand that

[1:35:31] residents in the immediate

[1:35:33] vicinity are opposed to this

[1:35:34] project, believing that blocking

[1:35:36] it will result in a site being

[1:35:39] developed and a more limited way

[1:35:40] in the future. However, the

[1:35:45] office it is likely to happen

[1:35:48] and in the short term because of

[1:35:51] the current revision of the

[1:35:57] PMAD, which stands for Plan --

[1:35:59] métropolitain de développement

[1:36:01] the framework imposed by the

[1:36:03] Québec government for land

[1:36:05] development. As far as the

[1:36:07] metropolitan region is

[1:36:08] concerned, we already know that

[1:36:10] it will impose densification of

[1:36:14] the territory, particularly in

[1:36:17] major transport routes, such as

[1:36:19] we had on elm with the the two

[1:36:24] train stations.. Le grand

[1:36:29] terrain du 275 Elm, longe la

[1:36:31] voie ferrée et se trouve à peu

[1:36:32] près à mi-chemin entre deux

[1:36:34] stations du train de banlieue

[1:36:36] exo qui dessert le centre-ville.

[1:36:38] Il y a un nouveau paiement sans

[1:36:40] doute adapté d'ici 1 an et c'est

[1:36:46] le 275... 275 Elm, il sera

[1:36:48] classifié pour une densification

[1:36:49] encore plus imposante. On pourra

[1:36:51] penser qu'un bâtiment de deux à

[1:36:52] quatre étages comme c'est le cas

[1:36:55] ici sera insuffisant en vertu de

[1:36:57] ces nouvelles règles. Il faut

[1:37:00] comprendre que ces nouvelles

[1:37:01] règles sont motivés par un

[1:37:03] esprit de développement durable.

[1:37:06] On vise à promouvoir le

[1:37:08] transport actif et collectif et

[1:37:09] à augmenter l'offre d'habitation

[1:37:12] plus abordable tout en réduisant

[1:37:13] le coût des infrastructures

[1:37:16] publiques par la densification

[1:37:17] du territoire. Another factor to

[1:37:19] consider is that new housing --

[1:37:23] is the new housing the project

[1:37:25] will provide. Many Beaconsfield

[1:37:27] residents, particularly seniors,

[1:37:29] want to reduce their obligations

[1:37:31] and the upkeep of their home and

[1:37:33] grounds. It is very difficult

[1:37:35] for them to find appropriate

[1:37:37] housing that will allow them to

[1:37:38] stay in Beaconsfield. This is

[1:37:41] also the case for younger adults

[1:37:43] who want to stay in or return to

[1:37:46] Beaconsfield but who cannot

[1:37:47] afford to buy a single family

[1:37:49] home or do not want a house

[1:37:51] woodland to maintain. Of the

[1:37:54] 6600 homes in Beaconsfield,

[1:37:56] there are about 250

[1:37:59] condominiums. This represents

[1:38:02] barely 4% of our housing stock.

[1:38:06] What's more, our vacancy rate is

[1:38:08] less than 3%. Below this

[1:38:11] threshold, experts consider that

[1:38:14] there is a housing shortage.

[1:38:17] Under these circumstances, the

[1:38:20] 275 Elm Plaza project will

[1:38:22] provide an opportunity for many

[1:38:23] of our citizens to return or

[1:38:27] choose to live in Beaconsfield.

[1:38:29] Again, -- against this backdrop

[1:38:32] I believe Council is making a

[1:38:36] wise decision that respects the

[1:38:37] needs of the population and is

[1:38:39] keeping with the provision of

[1:38:43] sustainable development. If any

[1:38:46] other councillors wish to

[1:38:47] express their thoughts, please

[1:38:49] go ahead.

[1:38:54] >> I will say a word, Mister

[1:38:55] Mayor. You stole a lot of my

[1:38:58] words though. I don't know what

[1:39:01] to say. I will probably just

[1:39:02] picked on an expanded a couple

[1:39:04] of points you made.

[1:39:06] - J'ai demandé tout à l'heure.

[1:39:08] J'ai dit que je parlerais après

[1:39:09] votre vote.

[1:39:11] - La période de questions est

[1:39:12] finie. Si vous voulez nous

[1:39:13] parler, c'est après. Pas

[1:39:15] maintenant. Je m'excuse.

[1:39:16] - Merci.

[1:39:18] - J'ai demandé tout à l'heure.

[1:39:19] - O.K....

[1:39:22] >> Maybe a reminder also on a

[1:39:23] couple of things, as I said

[1:39:24] before, let me just pick out,

[1:39:26] dive into a couple of points

[1:39:27] that he raised, at the risk of

[1:39:29] being repetitive and so on. I

[1:39:31] also just highlight, this all

[1:39:33] started with the CCU in many

[1:39:36] ways, or the Planning Advisory

[1:39:37] Committee. And as it was

[1:39:39] mentioned earlier it also should

[1:39:42] be known that it's not a City

[1:39:45] committee necessarily, it's a

[1:39:47] residence committee. The six

[1:39:48] members of people just like you

[1:39:49] on that committee. And their

[1:39:53] recommendations after months of

[1:39:54] months of back and forth is just

[1:39:56] recommendation. Again, just a

[1:39:57] recommendation to the City

[1:39:58] Council, which we all know that,

[1:40:00] and I've looked at this for many

[1:40:02] many months and given the amount

[1:40:04] of work that's there, I would

[1:40:05] also like to thank all of

[1:40:07] Council and the CCU, who

[1:40:08] probably listen tonight, but all

[1:40:09] the people who came, most of you

[1:40:11] are here tonight, who also came

[1:40:12] to the public consultations as

[1:40:13] well, because that was very

[1:40:15] helpful in a lot of the changes.

[1:40:17] And you probably see a lot of

[1:40:18] people going through the

[1:40:19] documents, you see a lot of the

[1:40:21] conditions and stuff that were

[1:40:22] added. And for the most part,

[1:40:24] that was because of the public

[1:40:25] consultations, the ones that

[1:40:26] were done by the City

[1:40:28] specifically. So I think

[1:40:32] congratulations for that,

[1:40:33] because it was very helpful, and

[1:40:34] we'd listen to all of those

[1:40:35] comments, put all that together

[1:40:37] at the same time. And those are

[1:40:39] important conditions around

[1:40:40] that. And a lot of them reflect

[1:40:42] not only about the -- itself,

[1:40:46] which is fundamentally the

[1:40:48] parameters of a project. We

[1:40:50] don't know what a building is

[1:40:51] going to look like. I know a lot

[1:40:53] of you have talked about and

[1:40:54] brought up issues around the

[1:40:55] building, because a presented a

[1:40:57] caricature of a structure. And

[1:41:00] sometimes that's the one that

[1:41:01] gets imprinted in your mind. But

[1:41:03] that is not the official project

[1:41:04] that has been submitted. But

[1:41:06] tonight, it's clearly not about

[1:41:08] the project. The project has a

[1:41:10] structure, but simply has the

[1:41:12] parameters around the form of

[1:41:13] something that go in there. So I

[1:41:16] am just saying that in a

[1:41:17] different way. The other thing

[1:41:20] is that this was also mentioned

[1:41:25] in one of the criteria. And I

[1:41:26] think it's an important one. I

[1:41:28] saw a few people shrunk about

[1:41:29] it. But I look at it a little

[1:41:34] differently as the resident

[1:41:35] committee during the

[1:41:36] implementation. A lot of

[1:41:37] comments that are brought up

[1:41:38] tonight with the same ones

[1:41:39] trying to consultation, pretty

[1:41:40] much about the nuisance during a

[1:41:43] construction period, Dustin

[1:41:45] sound and whatnot. So a lot of

[1:41:47] that stuff would happen no

[1:41:48] matter what got built on that.

[1:41:50] You are not going to see one

[1:41:53] single family home in acres of

[1:41:54] grass going around that.

[1:41:55] Whatever would go there would be

[1:41:57] a sizeable project to begin

[1:41:59] with. So there would always be a

[1:42:02] little bit of dust and whatnot

[1:42:03] there. But I think we would take

[1:42:05] in some mitigation around that

[1:42:07] in terms of the barrier. But I

[1:42:08] think beyond that and ongoing to

[1:42:11] have the committee, which would

[1:42:15] have a lot of, some of you

[1:42:16] there, for example, and even

[1:42:18] some of the people to be defined

[1:42:20] ultimately. But the point of

[1:42:21] having that committee in and of

[1:42:23] itself with a permit or all the

[1:42:24] people there gives a way to

[1:42:27] either mitigate or to plan for

[1:42:29] certain things that will be

[1:42:30] happening. I believe that the

[1:42:33] promoter is acting in good

[1:42:35] faith. So if you are acting the

[1:42:37] relationship so far, I guess

[1:42:38] he's also frustrated, because he

[1:42:39] doesn't have a plan to work with

[1:42:40] either. So there could be that

[1:42:41] element. That is just my

[1:42:43] conjecture. But nonetheless, the

[1:42:45] fact that that opportunity is

[1:42:47] there to move forward on a

[1:42:49] project I think is practical and

[1:42:52] useful. So I think we didn't

[1:42:54] really expand on, that but I

[1:42:55] think it's an important one,

[1:42:57] because it involves the

[1:42:58] residents choice. I wanted to

[1:42:59] bring that up. The other thing,

[1:43:00] not to repeat anything, but I

[1:43:03] think also I look at this and

[1:43:04] Council looks at it and say we

[1:43:06] look at ourselves also looking

[1:43:07] at a broader perspective. We

[1:43:08] touched on this a little bit

[1:43:10] looking at the types of --

[1:43:13] >> I don't have an answer for,

[1:43:14] that is there something else I

[1:43:15] could help with?

[1:43:16] >> Well, my phone is smarter

[1:43:17] than I am. Well, I have an

[1:43:20] answer for that. Part of it is

[1:43:23] also looking at housing in

[1:43:25] general. And we are conscious of

[1:43:28] that in Beaconsfield,

[1:43:31] predominately unit family

[1:43:32] structures and so on. Now we've

[1:43:34] seen it in other areas and there

[1:43:36] are other projects that we have

[1:43:38] certainly been looking at in the

[1:43:39] future, looking to diversify

[1:43:41] what we can offer in terms of --

[1:43:43] we sought over and over over the

[1:43:44] years. People want have

[1:43:46] different housing opportunities,

[1:43:49] different housing of

[1:43:50] combinations and so on, whether

[1:43:51] be in an apartment, condo, town

[1:43:52] house, what have you. So this

[1:43:54] type of project and others

[1:43:57] perhaps to follow really help to

[1:44:01] diversify what we offer to the

[1:44:03] city. And a lot of people have

[1:44:04] been looking forward to that.

[1:44:06] That's why people criticize

[1:44:08] Beaconsfield sometimes, we don't

[1:44:09] offer enough of that. So this is

[1:44:10] one way, one project of perhaps

[1:44:12] more to come that we can

[1:44:13] actually do that. The other

[1:44:16] thing, the last point as well,

[1:44:18] which is an important one, I

[1:44:19] look at it this way is also the

[1:44:23] future, not only for our broader

[1:44:25] perspective, but we need to be

[1:44:26] mindful of what can come down.

[1:44:28] You mentioned this, Mister

[1:44:29] Mayor, about -- and so on. Now

[1:44:33] what we are looking at a PPCMOI

[1:44:34] tonight, you can imagine, in

[1:44:36] certain areas, even without a

[1:44:37] PPCMOI, just a zoning, people

[1:44:39] can come in and do something

[1:44:40] that can be much more dense and

[1:44:42] much more dense than what we are

[1:44:44] proposing here tonight, without

[1:44:48] even doing a PPCMOI. So it could

[1:44:49] just be part of a zone that

[1:44:52] would qualify, for example. So

[1:44:54] this does give an example to

[1:44:56] control some of the apartments

[1:44:59] and so on. The volume of the

[1:45:01] overall project when it first

[1:45:02] started, carrying down to what

[1:45:05] it is today is actually

[1:45:06] significantly less than what it

[1:45:07] was originally. I know that may

[1:45:08] not please all of you, I

[1:45:10] understand, but it's to be noted

[1:45:11] nonetheless. So I think overall,

[1:45:15] we are just getting started.

[1:45:18] With the PPCMOI, it's really

[1:45:19] just the first step of what I

[1:45:22] think would be the next step in

[1:45:24] what this thing is going to look

[1:45:26] like when we are there. I think

[1:45:28] that's a big important step,

[1:45:30] because a lot of your comments

[1:45:31] have been about that type of

[1:45:32] thing. Because it's not as

[1:45:34] technical. It's always easier to

[1:45:35] get your head around a picture

[1:45:36] when you are looking at

[1:45:37] something they are a lot of

[1:45:39] potentially numbers on a page

[1:45:40] and so on, which becomes very

[1:45:42] academic in a way. So I think we

[1:45:45] have a good opportunity in front

[1:45:47] of us and responsibility at the

[1:45:48] same time. So we are looking for

[1:45:50] to that as we go for it.

[1:45:54] >> Thank, you Councillor Newell.

[1:45:56] Any other comments?

[1:45:57] >> I would say -- thank, you

[1:45:59] Mister Mayor. I'm not going to

[1:46:01] add any more to what residents

[1:46:03] have been saying since September

[1:46:07] council and also at the public

[1:46:10] consultations and tonight. I

[1:46:13] thought that tonight we heard

[1:46:15] some really interesting stories

[1:46:17] that were different than what we

[1:46:19] had heard before. It was

[1:46:22] interesting tonight that a

[1:46:25] president mention the new --

[1:46:26] that's coming. That's certainly

[1:46:28] a risk that we all take that

[1:46:30] perhaps densification at the Elm

[1:46:32] Plaza might be higher. But at

[1:46:33] the same time, the key word

[1:46:36] there was that the City will

[1:46:37] have its own power and it will

[1:46:39] not lose it. And I think what

[1:46:41] most of the citizens were

[1:46:43] concerned about where things

[1:46:44] like the setbacks, you know

[1:46:47] other infringements that are

[1:46:49] taking place. So I hope that is

[1:46:53] something that the City, Mister

[1:46:56] Mayor, may take into

[1:46:57] consideration and some of the

[1:46:59] other -- if it's possible

[1:47:01] tonight. But at the same time,

[1:47:06] let's not who that with the

[1:47:08] future demand they would allow a

[1:47:10] five year construction period

[1:47:12] and also bring another

[1:47:13] guarantees in protections for

[1:47:14] the public's and residents and

[1:47:16] also to the daycare nursery.

[1:47:18] >> Yeah, I just want to rectify

[1:47:21] one thing. The density of a

[1:47:24] particular area such as that one

[1:47:27] on elm would be imposed on us,

[1:47:30] will not be in our power to

[1:47:32] determine the density. It will

[1:47:35] be imposed by the government.

[1:47:37] >> I did say also, I'm hoping

[1:47:38] that some of the -- if there's

[1:47:40] any initial preconditions that

[1:47:42] can be made to the project now

[1:47:44] that it's moving ahead, and I

[1:47:48] believe that for the urban

[1:47:50] planning in the City to work

[1:47:52] about, be added as well for --

[1:47:55] as soon as possible, given the

[1:47:57] vote tonight. Encourage you to

[1:48:00] do it.

[1:48:01] >> Any other comments? Okay, we

[1:48:05] will move on. Request for

[1:48:09] approval of a first draft for a

[1:48:12] specific construction project,

[1:48:13] alteration or occupancy

[1:48:16] proposals for an immovable

[1:48:17] (SCAOPI)

[1:48:18] located at 550 Beaconsfield,

[1:48:25] Beaconsfield

[1:48:26] (lots 1 416 861 and 1 416 862

[1:48:27] of the Cadastre of Québec)

[1:48:28] in zone C102 of Zoning By-law

[1:48:29] 720

[1:48:30] (Project PP-13-1)

[1:48:32] . The recommendation of the CC

[1:48:38] is to refuse.

[1:48:39] >> I propose.

[1:48:40] >> I second.

[1:48:43] >> In favour of the

[1:48:44] recommendation?

[1:48:49] - À l'unamimité. Demande

[1:48:54] d'approbation du Plan

[1:48:55] d'implantation et d'intégration

[1:48:56] architecturale

[1:48:57] (PIIA)

[1:48:58] relatif à la demande d'un permis

[1:48:59] de construction pour un nouveau

[1:49:00] bâtiment principal situé au 74,

[1:49:01] Devon. La recommandation est de

[1:49:02] refuser.

[1:49:03] - Proposé.

[1:49:04] - Secondé.

[1:49:05] - En faveur pour la

[1:49:06] recommandation.

[1:49:07] - Request for the approval à

[1:49:08] l'unamimité. of the Site

[1:49:09] Planning and Architectural

[1:49:10] Integration Programme

[1:49:11] (SPAIP)

[1:49:12] relating to a building permit

[1:49:13] application for the extension of

[1:49:14] the main building located at 88

[1:49:15] Beaconsfield. The recommendation

[1:49:18] is to approve as per planned the

[1:49:21] positive on March 12th, 2024.

[1:49:24] >> Proposed.

[1:49:25] >> Seconded.

[1:49:27] >> In favour of the

[1:49:28] recommendation?

[1:49:31] - À l'unamimité. Demande

[1:49:33] d'approbation du Plan

[1:49:34] d'implantation et d'intégration

[1:49:35] architecturale

[1:49:36] (PIIA)

[1:49:37] relatif à la demande d'un permis

[1:49:38] de construction pour

[1:49:39] l'agrandissement du bâtiment

[1:49:40] principal situé au 116, Angell.

[1:49:41] La recommandation est de

[1:49:42] refuser.

[1:49:44] - Proposé.

[1:49:45] - Secondé.

[1:49:46] - Request for the approval en

[1:49:47] faveur du projet de of the Site

[1:49:48] Planning and recommandations.

[1:49:49] - À l'unanimité. Architectural

[1:49:50] Integration Programme

[1:49:51] (SPAIP)

[1:49:52] relating to a building permit

[1:49:53] application for the extension of

[1:49:54] the main building located at 124

[1:49:57] Taywood. The recommendation is

[1:50:00] to approve, as per planned

[1:50:03] positive on March -- 2024.

[1:50:07] >> Proposed.

[1:50:08] >> I second.

[1:50:10] - En faveur de la

[1:50:11] recommandation.

[1:50:16] Demande d'approbation du Plan

[1:50:17] d’implantation et d’intégration

[1:50:18] architecturale

[1:50:19] (PIIA)

[1:50:20] relatif à la demande d'un permis

[1:50:21] de construction pour

[1:50:22] l'agrandissement d'un bâtiment

[1:50:23] principal situé au 124, Taywood

[1:50:24] (---)

[1:50:25] 168, Chartwell, plutôt.

[1:50:28] (---)

[1:50:29] à l'unamimité. Request for the

[1:50:31] approval of the Site Planning

[1:50:32] and Architectural Integration

[1:50:33] Programme

[1:50:34] (SPAIP)

[1:50:35] relating to a building permit

[1:50:36] application for the extension of

[1:50:37] the main building located at 285

[1:50:38] Westcroft. The recommendation is

[1:50:43] to refuse.

[1:50:44] >> Proposed.

[1:50:46] >> Second.

[1:50:47] >> In favour.

[1:50:51] - À l'unamimité. Demande

[1:50:52] d'approbation du Plan

[1:50:53] d'implantation et d’intégration

[1:50:54] architecturale

[1:50:55] (PIIA)

[1:50:56] relatif à la demande d'un permis

[1:50:57] de construction pour la

[1:50:58] modification de la façade du

[1:50:59] bâtiment principal situé au 180,

[1:51:00] Sherwood. La recommandation est

[1:51:03] d'approuver.

[1:51:05] - Proposé.

[1:51:07] - En faveur.

[1:51:09] - Request for the approval of

[1:51:10] the Site Planning and à

[1:51:11] l'unamimité. Architectural

[1:51:12] Integration Programme

[1:51:13] (SPAIP)

[1:51:14] relating to a building permit

[1:51:15] application for the modification

[1:51:16] of the facade of a main building

[1:51:17] located at 224 Sherwood. The

[1:51:22] recommendation is to approve.

[1:51:23] >> Proposed.

[1:51:24] >> Seconded.

[1:51:25] >> In favour.

[1:51:28] - À l'unamimité. Demande

[1:51:29] d'approbation du Plan

[1:51:30] d'implantation et d'intégration

[1:51:31] architecturale

[1:51:32] (PIIA)

[1:51:33] relatif à la demande d'un permis

[1:51:35] de construction pour la

[1:51:36] modification de la façade du

[1:51:37] bâtiment principal situé au 361,

[1:51:38] Robin. La recommandation est de

[1:51:41] refuser. Cependant, le Conseil

[1:51:43] accepte la proposition de

[1:51:44] vinyle.

[1:51:46] - Proposé.

[1:51:50] - En faveur d'accepter la

[1:51:53] recommandation telle que décrite

[1:51:56] par... accepting -- yeah. Okay,

[1:52:04] good.

[1:52:06] - À l'unamimité. Request for the

[1:52:08] approval of the Site Planning

[1:52:09] and Architectural Integration

[1:52:10] Programme

[1:52:11] (SPAIP)

[1:52:12] relating to a building permit

[1:52:13] application to modify the

[1:52:14] already approved plan at 30

[1:52:15] Madsen. The recommendation is to

[1:52:19] refuse.

[1:52:20] >> Proposed. Seconded.

[1:52:23] - En faveur.

[1:52:26] - À l'unamimité. Demande de

[1:52:28] certificat d'autorisation pour

[1:52:29] l'installation d'une enseigne

[1:52:30] pour le commerce situé au 482,

[1:52:31] Beaconsfield - Suite 203. La

[1:52:35] recommandation est d'approuver

[1:52:37] selon l'option du fond blanc.

[1:52:41] - Proposé.

[1:52:42] - Secondé.

[1:52:43] - En faveur.

[1:52:44] - À l'unanimité. Permanent

[1:52:46] nomination as Chef de section,

[1:52:47] bâtiments to position 5105.

[1:52:55] >> Proposed.

[1:53:00] - En faveur.

[1:53:03] - À l'unanimité. Nomination en

[1:53:06] vue de permanence à titre de

[1:53:07] Contremaître, égouts et aqueducs

[1:53:08] au poste 5204

[1:53:09] >>. Proposed.

[1:53:12] >> In favour. Nomination in view

[1:53:17] of permanency as Agente,

[1:53:18] - À l'unanimité. Paie et

[1:53:19] avantages sociaux to position

[1:53:21] 2002.

[1:53:26] - Je propose.

[1:53:27] - Je seconde.

[1:53:28] - En faveur.

[1:53:29] - À l'unanimité. Nomination en

[1:53:30] vue de permanence à titre

[1:53:31] d'Inspectrice en canopée au

[1:53:32] poste 7108.

[1:53:37] - Je propose.

[1:53:40] - En faveur. Suspension of an

[1:53:42] employee

[1:53:43] - À l'unanimité.

[1:53:45] >> I propose.

[1:53:46] >> Second.

[1:53:47] >> In favour.

[1:53:51] - À l'unanimité. Procès-verbal

[1:53:52] de la réunion du Comité

[1:53:53] consultatif d'urbanisme du 6

[1:53:54] mars 2024.

[1:53:56] - Proposé.

[1:53:58] - Secondé.

[1:54:01] >> Anything to say?

[1:54:04] - Non, je n'ai pas d'autres

[1:54:06] commentaires au-delà de ce qu'on

[1:54:07] est passé à travers ce soir.

[1:54:11] Renewal of the mandate of a

[1:54:12] member of the Traffic

[1:54:14] - À l'unanimité. Advisory

[1:54:15] Committee

[1:54:17] >> Mister Chairman, I propose.

[1:54:20] We are welcoming back -- for a

[1:54:24] second term. Ms. Lalonde is a

[1:54:27] resident of the sweet bar area,

[1:54:29] so we are looking forward to

[1:54:31] continue working with her.

[1:54:34] >>

[1:54:35] >>

[1:54:36] >> Second. In favour.

[1:54:38] >> Oh, yeah, sorry, second.

[1:54:41] - À l'unanimité. Nomination d'un

[1:54:43] cadre de la Ville de

[1:54:44] Beaconsfield au Comité du Fonds

[1:54:45] de pension.

[1:54:48] - Proposé.

[1:54:49] - J'appuie.

[1:54:53] - Est-ce qu'on peut mentionner

[1:54:54] ce qui?

[1:54:56] - Oui, il s'agit d'un autre

[1:54:58] trésorier et directeur des

[1:55:00] finances, Robert Lacroix, suite

[1:55:02] au départ de l'assistant

[1:55:03] trésorière. Donc, il va combler

[1:55:06] ce poste-là pour quelques mois.

[1:55:07] On verra en mi-juin s'il va

[1:55:10] continuer là aussi on va

[1:55:11] redonner à la remplaçante de

[1:55:12] Dominique.

[1:55:14] - En faveur.

[1:55:23] - Est-ce qu'on avait proposé?

[1:55:26] Federal infrastructure parfait.

[1:55:27] C'est donc à l'unanimité.

[1:55:28] Funding not keeping pace with

[1:55:29] population growth.

[1:55:33] >> I propose.

[1:55:34] >> Second.

[1:55:35] >> In favour.

[1:55:41] - À l'unanimité. Dépôt du

[1:55:42] rapport annuel portant sur

[1:55:43] l'application du règlement de

[1:55:44] gestion contractuelle BEAC-151

[1:55:45] pour l'année 2023. Mandate given

[1:55:48] to il s'agit d'un dépôt.

[1:55:49] Bélanger Sauvé law firm to

[1:55:50] represent the City of

[1:55:51] Beaconsfield's interests

[1:55:52] regarding the private property

[1:55:53] located at 372 Chantilly.

[1:55:58] >> Proposed.

[1:55:59] >> Seconded.

[1:56:00] >> In favour. Demande

[1:56:07] d'autorisation pour tenir des

[1:56:08] opérations de nuit dans le cadre

[1:56:09] d'un tournage cinématographique

[1:56:10] au 313, Pinetree le 2 mai 2024.

[1:56:13] - Proposé.

[1:56:15] - J'appuie.

[1:56:16] - En faveur. Authorization for

[1:56:17] street

[1:56:18] - À l'unanimité. Closure for the

[1:56:19] event Beau Market, on Fridays

[1:56:20] between May 31 and September 13,

[1:56:23] 2024, from 2 p.m. to 6:30 p.m..

[1:56:32] >> Proposed.

[1:56:33] >> Seconded.

[1:56:34] >> All in favour.

[1:56:36] >> Unanimous.

[1:56:42] - Autorisation pour Les Amis du

[1:56:43] Village Beaurepaire d'organiser

[1:56:44] une vente de garage

[1:56:45] communautaire

[1:56:46] (Big Beau)

[1:56:47] dans le secteur du Village

[1:56:48] Beaurepaire le 11 mai 2024 de 10

[1:56:49] h 30 à 19 h 30 et autorisation

[1:56:50] de fermeture de rue.

[1:56:54] >> I propose.

[1:56:55] >> Second.

[1:56:56] >> In favour. Authorization to

[1:56:59] sign

[1:57:00] - À l'unanimité. Professional

[1:57:01] services agreements with the

[1:57:02] finalists of the architectural

[1:57:04] competition as part of the

[1:57:05] Imagine Centennial project.

[1:57:10] >> Propose.

[1:57:11] >> Second.

[1:57:12] >> In favour.

[1:57:14] - À lui d'un imité.

[1:57:15] Municipalisation de partie de

[1:57:16] voie ouverte à la circulation

[1:57:18] publique depuis au moins dix ans

[1:57:19] en vertu de l'article 72 de la

[1:57:20] Loi sur les compétences

[1:57:23] municipales. Il s'agit de la rue

[1:57:27] Lakeshore dans le secteur

[1:57:28] Thompson point.

[1:57:31] - Proposé.

[1:57:32] - J'appuie.

[1:57:33] - En faveur.

[1:57:34] - À l'unanimité. Authorization

[1:57:35] to request a financial support

[1:57:36] for the free training leading to

[1:57:38] national lifeguard and aquatic

[1:57:40] instructor for the period of

[1:57:41] April 1, 2024, to March 31,

[1:57:45] 2025.

[1:57:48] >> I propose.

[1:57:51] >> Second.

[1:57:52] >> In favour.

[1:57:55] - À l'unanimité. Rapport du

[1:57:56] maire sur les décisions prises

[1:57:57] par le Conseil d'agglomération

[1:57:59] lors de sa séance du 21 mars

[1:58:01] 2024.

[1:58:04] - La seule chose que je voudrais

[1:58:07] mentionner, c'est qu'à

[1:58:09] l'agglomération, à la séance du

[1:58:11] conseil d'agglomération, les

[1:58:12] maires des villes reconstituée,

[1:58:16] veulent Hillier, continue de

[1:58:20] voter contre les items sur le

[1:58:25] partage des dépenses entre

[1:58:27] Montréal et les villes liées où

[1:58:29] les villes reconstituée. Alors,

[1:58:34] c'est un message qu'on essaie de

[1:58:35] passer à Montréal qu'on est

[1:58:38] réellement pas d'accord avec la

[1:58:40] façon que les dépenses de

[1:58:43] l'agglomération sont partagées

[1:58:45] par Montréal et par les villes

[1:58:48] liées. On continue, à chaque

[1:58:51] séance agglomérations, on va

[1:58:53] continuer à voter contre les

[1:58:55] systèmes où il y a un partage de

[1:58:57] dépenses entre Montréal et les

[1:58:58] villes liées.

[1:59:04] >> The positive or the

[1:59:05] director's report.

[1:59:08] - Pas du tout.

[1:59:11] - C'est bon.

[1:59:17] - Alors, les affaires nouvelles.

[1:59:19] Je ne pense pas qu'il y ait des

[1:59:21] affaires nouvelles, à ce que je

[1:59:22] sache. Alors, est-ce que

[1:59:24] quelqu'un va proposer et

[1:59:27] seconder la levée de la séance?

[1:59:28] - Je propose.

[1:59:29] - Je seconde.

[1:59:30] - Merci beaucoup. And I want to

[1:59:33] thank everyone that still here

[1:59:38] for state for the whole meeting.

[1:59:41] It is much appreciated. Quite

[1:59:44] often after the question period,

[1:59:47] the room empties. And it's not

[1:59:51] the case this time. It is much

[1:59:55] appreciated that you showed an

[1:59:58] interest and what goes on in

[2:00:02] your cities and that you were

[2:00:04] there for the whole agenda. Et

[2:00:10] je remercie aussi les gens qui

[2:00:12] sont sur la webdiffusion. Merci

[2:00:16] beaucoup d'avoir été patient,

[2:00:18] parce que c'est une réunion qui

[2:00:19] a quand même duré 2 heures. Mais

[2:00:25] je suggérais, la prochaine fois,

[2:00:27] que madame Godin soit en charge

[2:00:31] de la réunion, parce que pour

[2:00:32] elle, ça a été 41 minutes.

[2:00:34] Alors, 41 minutes. Elle a été

[2:00:39] très efficace pour la réunion.

[2:00:42] Aujourd'hui, c'est 2 heures.

[2:00:44] Mais merci beaucoup pour les

[2:00:45] gens sur la webdiffusion de nous

[2:00:46] regarder. Thank you very much

[2:00:48] for watching us and showing an

[2:00:50] interest in your city. And we

[2:00:53] will see you all next month. Au

[2:00:58] mois prochain. Encore une fois,

[2:01:00] je vous invite à venir à la

[2:01:02] réunion du conseil du mois

[2:01:04] d'avril. Merci.

[2:01:05] | | |

2024-03-25 - Conseil municipal de Beaconsfield

Transcript