[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] | | |