[0:25] - Merci tout le monde pour votre

[0:26] présence ce soir. Mayor Thomas

[0:27] was unable to attend this

[0:28] evening so I am the Mayor. Je

[0:31] suis le maire suppléant ce soir,

[0:34] pour ce soir seulement. Je suis

[0:35] dans la chaise. Merci encore

[0:38] pour votre présence ce soir.

[0:45] - Yes I can! Bonsoir à tous et

[0:49] toutes, le mois qui s'est

[0:52] écoulée depuis la dernière eûmes

[0:54] ont été extraordinaires, à la

[0:56] fois difficile. Au cours du

[0:58] mois, des

[0:59] (inaudible)

[1:00] ont ravagé tout le pays, la côte

[1:02] atlantique à la côte Pacifique.

[1:04] Ici, au Québec, la Société de

[1:07] protection des forêts contre le

[1:08] feu luttent contre un peu plus

[1:09] de 80 incendies et les

[1:13] conséquences dans toute la

[1:14] province sont très importantes

[1:15] avec des menaces pour la

[1:17] communauté, la santé publique,

[1:20] l'annulation ou le report de

[1:21] nombreuses célébrations de la

[1:22] fête nationale, de la fête du

[1:26] Canada. Pour beaucoup de nos

[1:29] concitoyens, concitoyennes,

[1:30] leurs maisons ont été menacés,

[1:32] ils ont été forcés d'évacuer

[1:34] vers des abris communautaires.

[1:36] Ensemble, prenons un moment de

[1:39] silence maintenant pour

[1:42] réfléchir. Let us respect a

[1:43] moment of silence to reflect on

[1:44] this and our good fortune.

[2:07] Hopefully, this terrible

[2:09] situation will soon ease across

[2:10] the province and country, and

[2:12] life could return to normal and

[2:14] people and threatened

[2:15] communities can once again feel

[2:16] safe and their homes. Here in

[2:18] our city, let us be grateful

[2:19] that we were able to celebrate

[2:22] Canada Day with such fantastic

[2:23] activities for all the family.

[2:25] We have our director general,

[2:26] and her dedicated staff to thank

[2:28] for that. Hopefully, nothing

[2:30] will prevent us from taking full

[2:31] advantage of Pointe-Claire days

[2:33] beginning on August 4th. I would

[2:37] now like to take the opportunity

[2:38] to update you on several

[2:40] important issues, but first, let

[2:42] me wish our American friends a

[2:44] glorious independence day. Happy

[2:45] July 4th. Aujourd'hui, nous

[2:49] avons l'adoption de la nouvelle

[2:52] planification stratégique de

[2:53] notre ville. Ce plan servira à

[2:54] guider les décisions sur la

[2:57] programmation et l'affectation

[2:58] des ressources, les efforts

[2:59] publics pour le reste de la

[3:02] décennie. Nous avons été

[3:03] nombreux à participer à la

[3:04] création de cette nouvelle

[3:05] planification, incluant

[3:07] citoyens, employés, élus. Nous

[3:10] sommes très fiers du résultat.

[3:13] Félicitations encore à madame

[3:14] Verdon et son administration. Le

[3:16] document sera disponible dans

[3:18] une version améliorée sur le

[3:20] site Web de la ville dans les

[3:21] prochains jours. Ce qui est

[3:23] important, ce n'est pas tant le

[3:25] document lui-même, mais les

[3:26] actions qu'il aidera à

[3:28] identifier et qui nous

[3:30] permettront d'améliorer

[3:31] considérablement tout ce que

[3:33] nous entreprendrons non pour

[3:35] perpétuer la vie de nos citoyens

[3:37] et citoyennes forces aux forces

[3:38] de transformation externes.

[3:39]

[3:42] -- archdiocese --

[3:45] continue to work on the final

[3:46] points of the final agreement

[3:48] that will permit Council to

[3:49] release the public funds Council

[3:50] is committed to the window of

[3:51] restoration. The archdiocese

[3:53] will then approach the

[3:54] provincial government for the

[3:55] grant necessary for the balance

[3:57] of the project costs. The most

[4:01] significant detail remaining to

[4:02] be resolved in the manner in

[4:03] which public access to the

[4:04] middle will be insured so that

[4:05] everyone will be able to

[4:07] appreciate our history, as well

[4:08] as the magnificent view this

[4:10] site offers from and of

[4:13] Pointe-Claire. Justice mayor

[4:14] Thomas declared in his public

[4:16] announcement the -- ship last

[4:17] September.

[4:20] Il y a quelque chose à rapporter

[4:21] en ce qui concerne à

[4:22] l'exploration par la ville

[4:23] (---)

[4:24] concernant la forêt Fairview

[4:25] situé dans la zone

[4:26] (---)

[4:27] , assujettis au gel temporaire

[4:30] du développement détaillé dans

[4:32] notre règlement de contrôle

[4:34] intérimaire ainsi que dans celui

[4:35] de la Communauté métropolitaine

[4:37] de Montréal. L'administration a

[4:40] demandé il y a plusieurs

[4:41] semaines en haut CMM, si on

[4:44] pouvait compter sur une aide

[4:47] Financial visant à acquérir la

[4:50] propriété, à le transférer dans

[4:52] le domaine public. Ce que nous

[4:53] comprenons, suite à l'entretien,

[4:55] c'est que présentement, ce n'est

[4:56] pas dans les priorités de ces

[4:57] eux-mêmes.

[5:02] Many citizens have over the

[5:05] years expressed their desire --

[5:08] trimming back vegetation on the

[5:09] river banks, as has been done in

[5:12] neighbouring cities. The river

[5:13] is an important part of our

[5:15] identity, and so, since 2018,

[5:18] the City has attempted to

[5:19] respect the same bounds as our

[5:21] neighbours have between

[5:23] conserving water views and

[5:25] conserving natural habitats and

[5:27] protecting against erosion. This

[5:29] policy may have overly favoured

[5:31] the views. That is certainly the

[5:33] position the Québec Ministry of

[5:34] the Environment has communicated

[5:36] to us, and the administration is

[5:37] now reviewing both the recent

[5:39] direction from the government

[5:40] and the provisions of the 2022

[5:43] amendments to the legislation in

[5:44] order to comply with mandated

[5:47] stricter provisions to protect

[5:48] the shoreline, notwithstanding

[5:50] the practices of our neighbours

[5:52] to the east and to the west.

[5:55] Pour terminer les remarques

[5:57] d'ouverture, j'aimerais informer

[5:58] d'un projet pilote relatif à

[6:00] l'environnement que la Ville met

[6:01] en oeuvre le long du comté nord

[6:03] de l'avenue Drake. Ça, c'est la

[6:06] venue au nord de Pointe-Claire.

[6:09] Comme de nombreux citoyens le

[6:11] savent, l'entretien des pelouses

[6:14] à un coût environnemental en

[6:16] termes d'émissions de CO2, de

[6:19] biodiversité. Nous allons

[6:21] expérimenter et en permettant à

[6:23] cette petite bande de terre à

[6:24] revenir en étant plus naturelle.

[6:26] Nous verrons ce qui se passe.

[6:29] Comment le public réagit? Nous

[6:31] poursuivrons à partir de là.

[6:33] Merci.

[6:36] That concludes my opening

[6:38] remarks. And now we can start

[6:42] today's meeting. Madame

[6:43] Gutierrez?

[6:47] - 1.1 Adoption de l'ordre du

[6:48] jour.. De modification,

[6:52] remplacement du mot dépôt parle

[6:53] mon adoption. Le point 2,1, on

[6:58] va ajouter trois hommage aux

[7:00] personnes suivantes: Raymonde

[7:01] Kirouac, des Fowler, Warren

[7:03] Thomas.

[7:07] So, adoption of the agenda --

[7:09] 17.1, in order to replace the

[7:11] word file with the word adopt

[7:13] and also to add three tributes

[7:14] to the following people -- Dave

[7:17] fuller and

[7:23] Warren T. Thomas --

[7:26] >> -- I move --

[7:28] >> And a seconder? Eric Stork,

[7:34] district seven.

[7:35] >> All in favour? --

[7:37] >> So, 2.1. If you want to move

[7:39] forward with the tributes. --

[7:45] madame Raymonde Kirouac est

[7:46] madame -- --

[7:47] Décédée à l'Hôtel-Dieu

[7:48] d'Athabasca à Victoriaville à

[7:49] l'âge de 1980

[7:51] (---)

[7:52] à l'âge de 83 ans. Elles sont

[7:54] nées joints à la ville en 1981

[7:56] et a servi les Ville de

[7:58] Pointe-Claire pour 15 ans pour

[8:03] jusqu'à 1996 à titre de

[8:04] directeur adjointe à ça

[8:05] (---)

[8:06] .

[8:07] (inaudible)

[8:08] .

[8:11] We must also acknowledge the

[8:13] passing of

[8:19] Mr. David Edward Fuller -- and

[8:23] worked with many organizations,

[8:26] including in his church --

[8:28] United and of course

[8:32] Pointe-Claire old-timers hockey

[8:33] club. -- helping to guarantee

[8:36] the basic rights of citizens to

[8:41] vote in a free and fair

[8:42] election.

[8:43] -- condolences. Mr. --

[8:52] >> I just spoke with Eric

[8:54] Trudeau, president of the

[8:56] Pointe-Claire old timers. And he

[8:57] just wanted me to say that, on

[8:59] behalf of himself, the executive

[9:00] of the PCOT -- David Edward

[9:06] Fuller will be missed. His love

[9:08] and dedication to the PCOT and

[9:10] his communication community was

[9:13] unparalleled. --

[9:14] >> -- just to say a few words.

[9:16] We are so fortunate in our city.

[9:18] This is what makes Pointe-Claire

[9:21] a city, a wonderful place that

[9:23] we love and -- to have

[9:26] volunteers like Mr. David Edward

[9:27] Fuller, who literally devoted

[9:29] his life to every activity of an

[9:31] event and -- people seem to

[9:33] forget that -- make our services

[9:36] happen and -- our services -- on

[9:40] behalf of -- we are very, very

[9:44] sorry for the loss of David

[9:45] Edward Fuller.

[9:50] >> Finally, on June 7th, Mr.

[9:51] Warren T. Thomas passed away at

[9:56] the lakeshore General Hospital

[9:57] at the age of 79. -- and the

[10:00] city councillor for two terms --

[10:03] administration of Malcolm Knox,

[10:05] Warren had a passion for the

[10:06] city and community and was an

[10:09] adviser to many, including me,

[10:10] at one time. So, our condolences

[10:15] to the family of Councillor

[10:20] Warren T. Thomas.

[10:21] >> May I say a few words? I just

[10:24] want to acknowledge all that

[10:26] Warren did for me. I was a new

[10:29] councillor back in 2014, and he

[10:31] was in Valois, and when I

[10:33] knocked on his door, embraced me

[10:36] with wide, open arms. And -- in

[10:39] my early years and continued

[10:41] along that journey with me. In

[10:44] his final days, he said, we need

[10:46] to keep fighting, you need to do

[10:48] what is good for the greater

[10:49] good of the city. Because you

[10:50] need to do that. And I -- so I

[10:53] hope to make him proud and to

[10:55] make all of you proud and I just

[10:57] want to thank him for his years

[10:59] of service to the city of

[11:00] Pointe-Claire into the community

[11:02] organizations that he served.

[11:05] >>

[11:06] Je me joins à mes collègues du

[11:07] conseil pour offrir nos plus

[11:09] sincères condoléances aux amis

[11:10] et aux familles de ces trois

[11:12] personnes qui ont servi leur

[11:13] communauté

[11:14] (inaudible)

[11:15] .

[11:19] - Je pense avec le 3,1. 3.1

[11:21] Approuver le procès-verbal de la

[11:22] séance ordinaire du 6 juin 2023.

[11:27] - Proposé par Bruno Tremblay,

[11:29] district six.

[11:30] >> --

[11:31] Seconder?

[11:32] >> The much better now Eric

[11:37] Stork --

[11:38] >> All in favour? Carried. So,

[11:42] now we are in question period. I

[11:44] would just like to remind

[11:45] everybody that, for the

[11:46] questions -- any questions that

[11:47] have to do with the -- bylaw can

[11:51] come up in the pool bylaw comes

[11:53] up on the agenda, same thing

[11:56] with three 60, boy do lack,

[11:58] lakeshore, any questions or

[12:01] That item is brought up on the

[12:05] agenda as the -- minor

[12:07] exemption. I have a list of

[12:09] people that have -- questions,

[12:11] we will go through the list. And

[12:12] then, if there is anybody who

[12:14] wants to have a full question

[12:17] after that, then -- if we have

[12:19] time, and I think we probably

[12:20] will, then we can address those

[12:23] questions. So the first person

[12:27] Ms. Linda Duane?

[12:35] >> Good evening. Okay. I am not

[12:40] here on behalf of my generation,

[12:42] as I was not in April, either,

[12:46] when I first spoke. I am here

[12:48] for the future, for the youth,

[12:50] for the upcoming generations. My

[12:54] topic is life-sustaining natural

[12:57] landscapes as it pertains to

[13:01] sustaining world societal

[13:02] rights, as it pertains to the

[13:04] still standing 50 acre natural

[13:08] old forest in our area, known as

[13:12] Fairview forest. A few weeks

[13:13] ago, 200 topic educated

[13:16] scientists signed and published

[13:18] an open letter in the Devoir Le

[13:23] Devoir -- nature alone is one of

[13:28] the easiest and most powerful

[13:30] ways to talk about climate

[13:33] change. Why is this massive

[13:37] evidence from -- foresters,

[13:40] statisticians, oceanographers,

[13:42] geographers, thousands of them

[13:44] in the crippling environment of

[13:47] 2023 not good enough to convince

[13:51] landowners, governments, and

[13:54] every able thinking human being

[13:57] in this room and beyond to act

[14:02] now. Just before earth day in

[14:05] April, I had my letters hand

[14:08] delivered to several Cadillac

[14:10] Fairview executives in Montréal

[14:12] and Toronto. And their executive

[14:15] bosses who are the Ontario

[14:18] teachers pension plan. In May,

[14:20] when a fence went up around

[14:22] Fairview forest, the dedicated

[14:24] group saved Fairview forest,

[14:28] asked their readers to copy

[14:31] their form letter and email it

[14:34] to three available email

[14:37] addresses on file for the owners

[14:39] of the Ontario teachers pension

[14:41] plan. Sorry -- I pounced on

[14:49] family and acquaintances to

[14:50] write their own letters, and

[14:53] gave them the three email

[14:55] addresses. Since, I have

[14:59] contacted CTV Montréal, global

[15:02] TV Montréal -- and our Ontario

[15:06] news the stock.

[15:07] >> Excuse, me Ms. Duane, I

[15:11] hesitate to interrupt, but you

[15:12] are supposed to limit your

[15:16] remarks to a brief

[15:21] preamble and a --

[15:22] >> No, ma'am. --

[15:24] >> Ma'am, please. According to

[15:26] the rules of procedure, a short

[15:29] procedure preamble, followed by

[15:31] a --

[15:33] >> A grassroots --

[15:35] >> No, ma'am. Please address --

[15:38] please address Council --

[15:40] >> -- all these people that I

[15:41] contacted, the Canadian teachers

[15:44] federation, Ottawa, came up with

[15:46] one short reply. And that is --

[15:50] and this person is the director

[15:52] of international and social

[15:55] justice of the CTE have. Texting

[15:58] me that senior representatives

[16:01] will contact the Ontario

[16:03] teacher's pension plan with my

[16:05] message. In short, tale your

[16:08] employee, Cadillac Fairview, to

[16:10] sell the development holding,

[16:13] Fairview forest, back to

[16:16] Pointe-Claire, Québec and

[16:18] Canada. Let's stop hedging. A

[16:22] 25-year debt for Quebecers and

[16:25] Canadians is not a unique -- the

[16:29] word sustainability comes up in

[16:31] lots of articles. And I

[16:33] mentioned it a lot. There's no

[16:34] preindustrial eaten Eden to go

[16:42] back to -- others like me come

[16:45] to this grassroots civic chamber

[16:49] to provoke tangible adult

[16:51] actions, not just words. But to

[16:55] offer the world's youth the

[16:57] peace of mind to hope.

[17:01] Mayor Thomas, who is not here --

[17:03] so, Mayor Thomas and a few

[17:05] others in this room, who are in

[17:08] full employ of Pointe-Claire,

[17:11] whose duty is to inform now, all

[17:12] of our residents, of exactly

[17:15] where the forest is -- yeah, a

[17:17] lot of people don't know. Who

[17:20] actually owns it, what the

[17:23] forest means to the surrounding

[17:26] heat islands -- this is an urban

[17:28] forest. What sustainability

[17:34] tasks -- all scientists know

[17:38] this fourth performs daily. I

[17:40] don't mean to be mean or

[17:42] demeaning or anything, but this

[17:47] is a profound situation that we

[17:49] are in in this world and in this

[17:52] planet, on this planet. You and

[17:55] Council have a legal duty. This

[17:57] is your legacy mandate, to

[18:01] inform every -- on this island

[18:03] and beyond that this is their

[18:05] forest, and that we will uphold

[18:09] necessary sustainability with

[18:10] them unnatural tracts of land

[18:11] and water in their geographic

[18:13] zones. Here is my question. I

[18:18] guess I don't have to say I

[18:20] don't want to be commended

[18:21] because that is what the mayor

[18:23] usually says, that people like

[18:25] us comment we perform our civic

[18:27] duty. So, I don't want that

[18:31] tonight because it is what you

[18:34] need to do. My question to each

[18:37] councillor and the mayor, in

[18:39] absence -- will you, tomorrow,

[18:42] as grassroots citizens -- this

[18:45] is a grassroots assembly --

[18:49] begin the urgent task that

[18:52] critical thinking has presented?

[18:57] Does anybody want to --

[19:00] >> Ma'am --

[19:01] >> -- my question -- do any of

[19:03] you want to start --

[19:05] >> Ma'am, I will answer that

[19:07] question, and the answer is

[19:09] quite simple. We have been doing

[19:10] that. That is what --

[19:12] >> No, you have not --

[19:14] >> Ma'am, this is not a form for

[19:16] debate. I am saying that this is

[19:18] a matter that the entire city

[19:20] recognizes is of extreme

[19:22] importance. This is a matter of

[19:24] the Fairview forest, the zone --

[19:28] is a matter of the importance

[19:29] that the entire city well

[19:30] understands, that this council

[19:33] --

[19:34] >> --

[19:35] >> Ma'am -- ma'am, please. I am

[19:37] talking. This council well

[19:39] understands, and we have a

[19:40] process under way. We have

[19:42] frozen development up there as

[19:43] part of the interim control

[19:45] bylaw of the measures, and we

[19:47] are reviewing the entire

[19:48] situation. I have just reported

[19:50] that we have made efforts to

[19:52] reach out to the -- metropolitan

[19:56] des Montréal to ask -- is this

[19:58] not working? To ask them for

[20:01] their participation -- reporting

[20:03] on the results of the. So, yes,

[20:04] we take it very seriously and we

[20:05] are trying.

[20:06] >> --

[20:09] >> It is between the city

[20:12] administration and the City that

[20:13] they are counterparts at the --

[20:16] metropolitan de Montréal, the

[20:19] President of which is the mayor

[20:21] of Montréal, Mayor Plante. So,

[20:23] we are going to do that -- I

[20:25] think I have answered your -- if

[20:26] we can move on to the next

[20:28] question. Next question --

[20:32] excuse -- ma'am, ma'am --

[20:33] >> --

[20:34] >> Your question has been

[20:35] answered fully. So, I am afraid

[20:36] I will have to -- Ms.

[20:42] LeKuitss.

[20:47] >> Ladies and gentlemen of the

[20:49] Council, my name is wounded

[20:57] Wanda McKivich -- it just breaks

[21:01] my heart that people try to get

[21:02] things done and it is not being

[21:04] done. Or maybe not to the speed

[21:06] that it should be. I am here to

[21:09] talk also about the Fairview

[21:10] forest. But I wanted to just

[21:14] make a global approach.

[21:16] We are now suffering climate

[21:20] change that is -- far away. The

[21:24] Amazon has been burning for

[21:27] years. And just that has caused

[21:30] a circulation of --

[21:33] consequences. We have, here in

[21:36] Pointe-Claire, a 50,000 --

[21:42] attractive land at Fairview

[21:44] forest. And it breaks my heart

[21:46] when I saw the fence going up. I

[21:48] know that Fairview forest is

[21:51] owned by Cadillac Fairview. But

[21:54] I also wanted to say that you

[21:56] have all heard the story of

[21:59] David and Goliath. If you think

[22:03] that Cadillac Fairview is so

[22:05] high and mighty, well, you are

[22:08] able to be able to do something

[22:11] and make it happen for the

[22:13] citizens of Pointe-Claire. Now,

[22:15] I wanted to just point out what

[22:18] we have all lived through in the

[22:20] past two weeks, even Montréal

[22:22] being the worst air quality in

[22:24] the world, and New York getting

[22:28] smog caused by fires. What do

[22:31] you think absorbs fires if not

[22:34] trees? The carbon? We have got

[22:37] the -- trail coming through

[22:39] right by the forest. It will be

[22:43] absorbing a concrete heat that

[22:44] is going to be caused by

[22:48] additional high-rise of

[22:49] apartments that are going to be

[22:50] built there. Do you want us to

[22:53] do like the people in China? We

[22:56] have lived through the pandemic

[22:58] and worn masks. They wear masks

[23:00] in their cities all the time

[23:02] because they can't breathe. They

[23:05] go for forest bathing, which

[23:07] means, on the weekends, they go

[23:08] to the forest just to breathe

[23:11] the air. We have that air. Let's

[23:14] keep it that way. I wanted to

[23:21] also ask whether we could do

[23:26] more in terms of getting the

[23:29] citizens aware. A lot of the

[23:32] citizens are young working

[23:34] families. I can tell from my son

[23:37] and daughter in law, to people,

[23:39] working little kids -- they have

[23:41] no time to even watch the news,

[23:43] they don't even know what is

[23:44] happening. They don't even know

[23:47] exactly where Fairview forest

[23:48] is. They need to be aware so

[23:51] that they could maybe help you

[23:53] to get publicity out. One thing

[23:56] that I recall is that there was

[23:57] a lot of publicity that I heard

[24:00] on TV -- beacon steel angel

[24:03] woods. I have not heard the same

[24:07] thing about a Fairview forest --

[24:11] I would think that we are a --

[24:14] make people aware. So my -- what

[24:18] I wanted to also say -- I know

[24:20] what it is like for breathing --

[24:24] lungs. I have a girlfriend who

[24:26] is slowly dying because her

[24:28] lungs are receding. And my

[24:30] father in law died from lung

[24:33] cancer. Looking at you and the

[24:35] council, you still have many

[24:38] years of good health. But as

[24:40] you, age are you going to want

[24:43] to find yourself in a situation

[24:45] where the smog is so bad that

[24:47] you are going to have a hard

[24:49] time breathing? So, I am asking

[24:51] you, is there a way that we

[24:54] could communicate more to the

[24:56] citizens and to have more

[24:58] publicity? And we cannot be

[25:02] ostriches with our heads. We

[25:03] have to really remember David

[25:05] and Goliath. Thank you so much.

[25:08] >> To answer your question, we

[25:11] are going through this process

[25:14] very carefully, working to

[25:16] organize public participation,

[25:17] to -- the public to participate

[25:20] and bring their points of view

[25:23] into this interim control bylaw

[25:26] process that we are reviewing

[25:27] the entire planning program for

[25:29] the city, including what will

[25:30] happen at the Fairview forest.

[25:32] And -- now -- I am sure we

[25:37] could. But if there are any

[25:40] specific suggestions of what we

[25:41] could -- not tonight, ma'am. But

[25:45] please send them in. Send them

[25:47] into your councillor. And let

[25:51] them be given consideration, put

[25:53] on the positive. We let them --

[25:57] >> I was very short, so, let me

[25:59] just give a little suggestion.

[26:01] You have the possibility -- you

[26:03] probably know your counterparts

[26:08] through Dollard, Pierrefonds --

[26:14] get the whole West Island -- you

[26:16] are already saying that you are

[26:17] in touch with mayor Plante. The

[26:19] more the merrier. And that is

[26:22] kudos if you --

[26:24] >> Thank you for the question.

[26:27] And next, Ms. Christine Clark.

[26:36] >> Good evening. There is a lot

[26:38] of people that have a lot to say

[26:40] this evening concerning the

[26:42] property at 360 lakeshore. And I

[26:46] am wondering if perhaps I should

[26:47] defer any questions or comments

[26:50] --

[26:51] >> Yes, please. It will come up

[26:54] at 17.2, the item on the agenda,

[26:55] that is where 360 --

[26:58] >> Thanks. Sorry for -- that

[27:01] >> --

[27:03] >> --

[27:06] >> Ms. weaver

[27:14] Weaver?

[27:18] >> Lots of paper, little

[27:19] question. -- I asked a question

[27:22] about lawsuits against the City.

[27:24] And I did not really get an

[27:25] answer. So, I will make it

[27:27] quick. What I understand --

[27:29] there are 11 lawsuits since

[27:32] January 2022, and as high as 28

[27:34] million. Our legal fund is 1.5

[27:38] million. So, how can I City

[27:41] prepared to deal with these

[27:42] lawsuits moving forward? That

[27:44] is, maybe, not a little short

[27:47] question, but a big question?

[27:50] >> I am not sure how to answer

[27:51] that one.

[27:52] >> -- so --

[27:55] >> May I repeat what I said -- I

[27:57] wrote down what I said last

[28:00] April.

[28:01] >> Sorry?

[28:02] >> I think it was a little bit

[28:05] more diplomatic, maybe --

[28:07] >> Last -- taxes -- lawsuits --

[28:09] city has been set. I believe

[28:12] there are 11 lawsuits in January

[28:14] 2022. Some are quite hefty, and

[28:16] our legal funds would never --

[28:18] some lawsuits are unavoidable.

[28:20] But, if others can be avoided

[28:22] with mediation and consultation,

[28:24] they should be. And I said,

[28:27] unnecessary lawsuits was a waste

[28:29] of taxpayer taxpayer money.

[28:32] Explain. And the answer that I

[28:34] received is not word for word --

[28:37] was lawsuits are -- the

[28:39] government, which, probably it

[28:41] is. And it is up to the judge to

[28:44] decide. And I believe he -- he

[28:47] went on to say that it is up to

[28:48] the citizens, what they want.

[28:50] And it's how they voted -- voted

[28:51] for. But I don't know if they

[28:53] voted for lawsuits. And I am not

[28:55] convinced that a developer files

[28:57] a lawsuit if they know that they

[29:01] might lose. You know?

[29:03] >> Well -- I can't comment on

[29:05] any particular case, but, in

[29:07] general, what happens, is that

[29:09] somebody has agreement and they

[29:10] take another entity to court,

[29:12] both sides believe they can win.

[29:14] That is why there is a court

[29:16] case. Then, what happens is --

[29:18] what tends to happen is that

[29:21] both parties will talk and see

[29:22] if there is an ability to

[29:24] resolve the differences without

[29:25] going to court, and that is

[29:28] usually what happens. And I

[29:30] can't speak on behalf of any

[29:32] cases before -- that the City is

[29:34] involved with right now. But

[29:35] that is generally the practice.

[29:37] So, nobody wants to go right

[29:42] through -- the lawsuit. Nobody

[29:44] does. So, it creates a

[29:46] motivation to resolve. Maybe --

[29:48] for now. Madame -- do you have

[29:53] anything to add to that?

[29:55] >> I will not comment, because

[29:57] we are talking about lawsuits. I

[29:59] am sorry.

[30:00] >> I guess that ends that.

[30:02] >> Okay. So, I guess I will

[30:03] never know.

[30:08] >> -- not asking specifics about

[30:10] -- lawsuit --

[30:16] >> -- well --

[30:21] >> Excuse me? I did ask for the

[30:24] access to information. And I am

[30:27] not a lawyer. I don't know

[30:28] anything about it. But, to me,

[30:30] it seems awful big. And I guess

[30:32] they are asking for more than

[30:34] the -- they ask for higher than

[30:37] they really expect, or something

[30:38] like that? -- up to 28 million,

[30:40] I have read so far.

[30:43] >> --

[30:46] >> In general, nobody wants to

[30:48] go to court.

[30:49] >> -- that's why we have to

[30:51] negotiate -- yeah.

[30:52] >> -- we are not --

[30:59] >> We are not getting into a

[31:01] discussion.

[31:02] >> I guess we would have to have

[31:03] a consultation on that one.

[31:07] >> Thank you, Ms. Weaver. Next

[31:19] question Line Conway.

[31:23] >> Thank you, counsel. It's

[31:25] about the -- they have no

[31:27] guidance from the city during

[31:28] the whole process. I will

[31:31] continue my thought on that. Are

[31:33] you aware of they are consulting

[31:35] as well with stakeholders, or

[31:38] just consulting with

[31:40] Pointe-Claire citizens during

[31:41] the process?

[31:48] >> They are organizing the

[31:53] participation process, so

[31:56] everybody is invited. So, the

[31:57] question is -- how are you

[31:59] distinguishing between

[32:00] stakeholders and citizens?

[32:02] >> Are you also consulting with

[32:04] developers?

[32:05] >> Only in the -- whoever shows

[32:07] up at the public participation

[32:08] period, that is who they are

[32:10] consulting with. And I don't

[32:11] believe any developers have

[32:12] showed up --

[32:13] >> So, the report that they will

[32:14] do, that they will present to

[32:16] Council, will only reflect the

[32:19] consultations during these

[32:21] meetings? Are there other

[32:22] discussions on the side that we

[32:24] don't know about?

[32:25] >> There are no other

[32:27] discussions that you don't know

[32:28] about.

[32:29] >> Okay. Thank you.

[32:33] >> So, I have attended the

[32:35] collaborative workshop. The

[32:38] concern is the meetings are very

[32:42] well organized, maybe a little

[32:44] bit too much. Because it says,

[32:46] though they want us to give our

[32:49] opinion -- but it seems, in a

[32:51] way, that we have to agree or

[32:54] disagree every time it is a

[32:56] specific topic that they have

[32:57] presented to us, rather than

[32:59] asking us for our opinion

[33:00] without any constraint. My --

[33:04] decide on the topic at every

[33:06] meeting, and in the end, maybe

[33:09] something will get moved, as

[33:11] well as making a category with

[33:13] the decision that was made last

[33:15] month about the Northview Park

[33:16] fence. It seems as though most

[33:20] everybody -- disagree -- fence

[33:21] in the park. However, the

[33:23] council voted for the fence.

[33:25] This is the worrying aspect,

[33:27] that the end, the council will

[33:29] make decisions without

[33:30] considering what the citizens

[33:32] want.

[33:33] >> Your question?

[33:35] >> It was more of a statement. I

[33:36] don't know if you can answer

[33:38] something like that. Because we

[33:39] saw the vote last month. --

[33:42] reflect about -- like the lady

[33:43] said, the legacy.

[33:45] >> If you ask a question, I will

[33:46] do my best to answer it. But if

[33:48] you don't ask a question --

[33:51] >> Are you going to reflect on

[33:53] what I said?

[33:54] >> That is the purpose of

[33:56] question period and the purpose

[33:58] of all public consultation

[34:00] period, is to actually listen to

[34:02] citizens. So, yes, we are

[34:04] listening. We did listening.

[34:06] >> Yes, but the fence still went

[34:08] up. Each district might have a

[34:10] situation. But, in the end, its

[34:12] councillors from other districts

[34:13] that vote. And the fence went

[34:15] up. So, this is the concern,

[34:18] that in the -- against our

[34:19] wishes might happen.

[34:21] >> Again, I don't quite

[34:23] understand what the question is.

[34:24] I understand the statement. But

[34:26] not the question. If you ask a

[34:27] question, I will do my best to

[34:29] answer it.

[34:32] >> It's a reflection and it's a

[34:34] light up switch, open your eyes

[34:35] to what the citizen wants,

[34:36] please. If you are able to

[34:39] reflect on that.

[34:40] >> The council -- I can

[34:41] guarantee the Council does that

[34:44] every time they put on the head

[34:45] of being a councillor. That is

[34:47] why -- each one of us stood for

[34:49] election. That's what we do. So,

[34:52] yes, to the extent that you've

[34:54] asked a question, does Council

[34:56] think about with the citizens

[34:57] present? Of course. The answer

[34:59] is yes.

[35:00] >> You see attend reflect on

[35:01] what the citizens want?

[35:03] >> That is what I just said.

[35:05] >> Okay. But the fence still

[35:07] went up in north of you.

[35:10] >> Yes. Thank you. And if that's

[35:11] it, we will move on to the next

[35:13] question.

[35:26] Nasr El Dabee?

[35:30] >> Good evening.

[35:32] >> Good evening.

[35:33] >> As you see, you all --

[35:35] elected by -- transparency. And

[35:38] working for your own citizen

[35:40] district. And, as everybody see,

[35:49] that the -- district -- that

[35:54] example can -- and --

[36:09] not listening to the citizen out

[36:10] of the district. So, when you're

[36:12] going to listen to the district

[36:13] and the citizen, what they are

[36:16] paying taxes to do the right

[36:19] thing before you start voting on

[36:22] any project? When you are going

[36:24] to do that? And witness too many

[36:27] thing, the -- Cadillac Fairview.

[36:30] And you went with resolution.

[36:34] You want to start discuss with

[36:36] public figure. So, when you are

[36:39] going to listen to the citizen

[36:41] before you start doing any

[36:45] voting in -- or decide to do any

[36:48] project? You get elected to

[36:51] listen to the citizen of

[36:54] Pointe-Claire, not anybody else,

[36:58] not the special interests. So,

[37:01] please, tell me when you are

[37:02] going to do that.

[37:05] >> As I explained before, we do.

[37:08] Every councillor that has been

[37:10] elected and -- stable, all of us

[37:13] -- we listen to the citizens and

[37:15] we reflect upon what the

[37:16] citizens have said. We reflect

[37:18] upon our own study of whatever

[37:20] matter as come before us. And

[37:22] then we act on it, usually,

[37:24] ultimately, with a vote. And

[37:25] that happens every time. Thank

[37:28] you very much.

[37:29] >> No. It didn't happen. And I

[37:32] witness all of that.

[37:33] >> Thank you very much for your

[37:34] question. I have answered --

[37:36] >> I have two questions --

[37:38] >> You have a follow-up? Okay.

[37:40] Fine.

[37:41] >> I have the solution for you.

[37:46] Each -- district -- why they

[37:50] don't decide to -- before you

[37:53] start voting -- like -- Cadillac

[37:57] Fairview -- the City Council --

[38:02] against what you asked for, and

[38:04] you still went with it. The same

[38:07] thing last months for the -- the

[38:14] -- Eric about the district. But

[38:16] the -- Fairview -- you went for

[38:21] the project. I want to be sure

[38:25] -- it's supposed to be the City

[38:27] Council of the district's --

[38:32] charge about and doing the --

[38:33] >> We --

[38:35] >> -- serve, they -- is

[38:38] important in the city of

[38:39] Pointe-Claire. And the

[38:40] environment, everybody is

[38:42] talking about it. Building

[38:45] affordable housing for --

[38:46] family, not able to come here

[38:48] and listen to what you are going

[38:51] to say. The road, the traffic --

[38:53] there's too many people supposed

[38:55] to work in it, and still voting

[38:57] for -- I hope you listen to the

[38:59] citizen of Pointe-Claire, what

[39:01] they paying the taxes, paying

[39:03] all your salary, and all the

[39:06] city salary. So, we get 16 and a

[39:09] half percent increase for the

[39:11] taxes. -- we have to do -- the

[39:16] environment and building

[39:18] affordable houses for dying

[39:19] family. I thought hope you

[39:22] really understand what everybody

[39:23] -- and most people talking about

[39:26] the environment. Thank you.

[39:29] >> Thank you. And the next

[39:32] question Mr. Paul Atkinson.

[39:34] >> --

[39:37] >> --

[39:39] >> -- me.

[39:44] >> Hi, Brent. Thank you,

[39:46] everybody.

[39:47] >> Thank you for the update

[39:49] about CMM. I understand that

[39:51] meeting came about before the

[39:52] expropriate law came through?

[39:53] Correct?

[39:54] >> Yes.

[39:57] >> And possibly, no private

[39:59] funding has been looked at

[40:00] either, at this point? So,

[40:01] there's lots of other options

[40:03] possible?

[40:05] >> They're --

[40:06] >> Exactly. Thank you for

[40:08] acknowledging that. I'm actually

[40:09] here to follow up on a question

[40:10] asked on April 4th by --

[40:15] -- Cayman asked you to adopt a

[40:18] declaration of private emergency

[40:20] as a Council, or to adopt the --

[40:26] platform for climate emergency.

[40:27] I was wondering if there had

[40:28] been any developments --

[40:31] Council.

[40:32] >> I don't believe it has come

[40:33] up. So, you are bringing it up.

[40:37] >> I am bringing it up. I am

[40:38] reminding you that it's out.

[40:40] Their over 28 municipalities

[40:42] have signed the one from the --

[40:44] group and hundreds have --

[40:46] including Brassard, Beaconsfield

[40:47] --

[40:48] >> We will discuss it at the

[40:49] next caucus.

[40:50] >> That would be super important

[40:52] to do. Especially because we

[40:53] just lost -- 76,000 square

[40:57] kilometers of forest --

[40:59] declarations adopted by Council.

[41:02] My second question is, if

[41:05] maintenance workers allowed in

[41:07] Fairview forest, with the -- in

[41:08] place, if the maintenance work

[41:10] is done by Fairview Cadillac

[41:12] Fairview, by the City of

[41:13] Montréal, by Hydro-Québec, they

[41:16] have to respect the migratory

[41:18] bird Act -- nesting season,

[41:19] which is June 15th to September

[41:22] 15th.

[41:23] >> Well, right off the cuff, I

[41:25] can say they have to respect --

[41:29] madame -- in this case.

[41:32] >> I don't have exactly the

[41:33] question about Hydro-Québec. I

[41:35] have to look at it and -- maybe

[41:37] back to you tomorrow about

[41:39] Québec Hydro. Because I know

[41:42] they have some special -- you

[41:43] know, they have some --

[41:48] -- for some projects, but for

[41:50] the city --

[41:51] >> Okay, I'm looking forward to

[41:52] hearing from you tomorrow about

[41:54] that.

[41:55] >> Tomorrow, maybe -- could be

[41:59] two days.

[42:00] >> --

[42:01] >> Thank you, okay. Thank you.

[42:03] >> Thank you.

[42:12] Janet -- did I pronounce it?

[42:17] Right

[42:18] >> Hannah. -- it's more about

[42:22] the surplus of approximately $25

[42:25] million for this year's budget,

[42:27] and I'm wondering, are there any

[42:30] plans to reduce property taxes

[42:34] and how long is one of the

[42:36] questions -- we would all like

[42:38] to reduce property taxes. But we

[42:41] do have to -- the expenses that

[42:49] -- and also we have to -- the

[42:53] agglomeration which also gets in

[42:55] the way -- as far as the surface

[42:59] the -- surplus. I used to think

[43:00] the same thing, before I ran and

[43:03] -- started to dig into what the

[43:04] budget is all about. I used to

[43:07] think the surplus was -- if you

[43:10] budget right, you should break

[43:11] even. The surplus comes because

[43:14] an forecasted -- money

[43:16] forecasted, transfer duties --

[43:18] the sale of properties -- don't

[43:22] know for sure what that is. And

[43:23] so, we don't budgeted. But when

[43:25] there is a lot of excess --

[43:28] activity, we do well.

[43:30] >> Okay.

[43:32] >> And then the money is

[43:33] earmarked for -- some of the

[43:34] goes for that collection, and

[43:36] some of it goes to fund nice to

[43:37] have capital projects.

[43:41] >> At the same time, you voted,

[43:43] and that was done on the 9th of

[43:45] May. However, it was a point on

[43:47] the agenda for the 2nd of May,

[43:49] but it wasn't discussed then.

[43:51] And it was 24 and a half million

[43:55] that was going to be for the

[44:00] construction and renovation

[44:02] extension of public works. That

[44:05] seems like an awful lot of money

[44:08] and I don't see the benefit of

[44:10] it to myself, as a taxpayer, and

[44:14] anyone here, as taxpayers. And

[44:17] it's $25 million, which is a

[44:18] whole lot of money for

[44:20] renovation and for an extension,

[44:23] which I don't comprehend. I

[44:25] don't understand. And are the

[44:28] details of this construction and

[44:32] extensions on the website, on

[44:33] the Pointe-Claire website, and

[44:35] was it really necessary? Since a

[44:37] lot of us are suffering and are

[44:40] having a hard time paying our

[44:42] taxes, whereby an evaluation for

[44:44] property has gone up by over

[44:47] 100%, just from last year. Sort

[44:49] of, you know, a home that was

[44:52] valued at 380 is all of a

[44:53] sudden, in less than a year, is

[44:55] now valued at 700,000, which is

[44:57] very hard to swallow. And

[45:01] Councillor Kelly had given an

[45:04] explanation to that, which was

[45:05] not really clear at the time.

[45:07] So, we are taxpayers, we need

[45:10] for our money to be spent wisely

[45:14] and for our taxes to be kept at

[45:17] a reasonable rate. And it feels

[45:21] like 25 million for the

[45:22] construction renovation,

[45:23] extension of public Works does

[45:25] not do any good for us. Putting

[45:28] up a fence and spending

[45:31] $115,000, considering taking it

[45:33] down in a year, spending about

[45:35] $100,000 is a total waste of our

[45:36] money. And the list goes on. You

[45:40] are participating in golf

[45:41] tournaments. I wonder how much

[45:43] that costs. There are points

[45:46] authorized participation for

[45:47] members in this golf tournament,

[45:49] yet how much does that cost?

[45:50] There's one in August, there is

[45:52] one -- so I don't know how many

[45:53] there are.

[45:54] >> May I answer? Can I break in

[45:56] an answer?

[45:57] >> Yeah.

[45:59] >> The everything that Council

[46:01] votes for is -- they do it

[46:05] because it does, in their

[46:06] judgment, good to the public.

[46:08] There is no other reason to

[46:09] spend any money. When it comes

[46:10] to the Public Works building,

[46:13] used the metaphor, it's hard to

[46:15] swallow. I can tell you a lot of

[46:16] councillors had a tough time

[46:19] swallowing that one. But it is a

[46:21] lot of money, it's by far the

[46:24] most amount of money we spent on

[46:26] any one thing. But you are

[46:27] saying, how do you benefit?

[46:30] Well, your streets are clean in

[46:34] the wintertime, salt laid down

[46:37] when there's an aqueduct that

[46:39] breaks, who goes out and repairs

[46:42] it? This all of that requires

[46:45] equipment. A lot of equipment, a

[46:48] fleet of vehicles. Those

[46:49] vehicles need to be maintained.

[46:51] Right now, they're maintained in

[46:52] a squishy little dangerous space

[46:54] where the society of, whatever,

[46:58] the Commission de norm Detroit

[46:59] by four has said that, they've

[47:03] identified the conditions, work

[47:04] conditions, are unsafe and, you

[47:08] know, they are tolerating it

[47:09] because we don't have a choice.

[47:10] But the only

[47:11] [Inaudible]

[47:13] This space needs to be expanded

[47:15] to allow for safe maintenance of

[47:18] these vehicles that go up and

[47:19] serve the public. That's for the

[47:22] public works building. For golf

[47:23] tournaments, it's not like we

[47:24] can go play golf. I mean, I just

[47:26] bought a pair, a set of golf

[47:28] clubs. I never played golf

[47:29] before in my life. Why? These

[47:32] are donations to charitable

[47:35] causes. The mechanism, donation

[47:37] is the golf.

[47:39] >> But we don't need those

[47:40] donations to be donated to those

[47:42] organizations. We need the money

[47:43] in our pockets, we need to pay

[47:45] our electricity. Food on the

[47:47] table. We need to close our

[47:48] kids.

[47:49] >> Yes, ma'am, let me explain.

[47:51] Some portion of our money goes

[47:52] to support these, it's in the

[47:53] budget, some portion of our

[47:55] budget money from the budget

[47:56] goes to support these charitable

[47:58] organizations that support the

[47:59] community. It goes around like

[48:01] that. That's the whole reason.

[48:03] Lakeshore Hospital, you know, is

[48:05] one example. So, yes, all of the

[48:09] money that we spent, supports

[48:11] the citizens. Now, you may not

[48:12] agree of the actual choices,

[48:14] that is fine. That's the

[48:16] reality.

[48:17] >> The details of the 25 million

[48:19] for public works, where is that?

[48:21] Because I've not seen that. Is

[48:22] it possible to make it available

[48:23] on the website so we see exactly

[48:26] what is being spent? It's a

[48:27] whole lot of money, it's huge.

[48:29] >> I will ask that question.

[48:31] Madame, to what extent can we

[48:32] provide that information to the

[48:33] public about that project, the

[48:34] public works building?

[48:41] >> We only, you know, publish

[48:43] the -- for now, so the city

[48:45] council wants to add, you know,

[48:47] maybe a function, we can talk

[48:48] about it at the next caucus on

[48:51] this --

[48:52] >> So, I guess I answer your

[48:53] question, that information is

[48:56] not yet available or not

[48:57] available at the present time.

[48:58] This is something that Council

[48:59] can discuss. It's a good point,

[49:00] as I told you, we all had to

[49:04] swallow hard. It wasn't a

[49:05] decision that came, oh yeah, no

[49:07] problem, 25 million, we will

[49:08] spend it. It didn't go like

[49:09] that.

[49:10] >> I understand that and it

[49:12] makes me feel better. However,

[49:14] the reality of it is still our

[49:15] money and it's being spent in a

[49:18] building, and we don't have any

[49:20] details of it, and a lot of

[49:21] people have, because of COVID,

[49:24] and they are scrambling to pay

[49:25] their mortgages, scrambling to

[49:29] pay taxes, and another thing on

[49:31] the website, it showed that

[49:33] residential taxes have gone down

[49:35] by 0.2%. Yet, industrial

[49:37] building taxes have gone down by

[49:39] 2%. A tenfold reduction for

[49:44] industrial buildings, as

[49:45] compared to residential. We

[49:47] don't make as much as a company

[49:49] does and yet there reduction, of

[49:50] taxes for 2023 is tenfold our

[49:55] reduction in taxes. We and by

[49:59] super hiking the value of their

[50:00] homes, we won't be able to full

[50:03] afford living in our homes very

[50:04] long because we have no

[50:05] guarantee that you won't take up

[50:07] taxes next year and the year

[50:08] after that, and the year after

[50:09] that, the year after that. So,

[50:12] paying a certain percentage of

[50:13] 350 is not the same as paying

[50:15] another percentage on 700, which

[50:17] is --

[50:18] >> There is no direct

[50:19] relationship between the

[50:20] increase in property valuations

[50:23] and the tax rate. Generally

[50:24] speaking, if the property values

[50:26] go up, the percent we charge

[50:29] goes down. Because we need the

[50:31] same amount of money. That

[50:33] doesn't change just because your

[50:35] property value goes up. But what

[50:36] happens is the rate of property

[50:40] value, property increase value

[50:42] increase is not uniform. Across

[50:45] the city. If it were, nobody

[50:47] would notice a change at all.

[50:49] Unfortunately, what happens is

[50:50] you have some areas of the city

[50:51] where the property value goes up

[50:53] a lot faster in other areas and

[50:56] those people tend to pay more.

[50:58] >> But that does not change the

[51:01] fact that for residential

[51:02] properties, our taxes have gone

[51:04] up by 0.2, have gone down by

[51:06] 0.2%. Yeah, for industrial

[51:09] buildings, it's gone down by 2%.

[51:12] So, who stands to benefit more?

[51:15] >> I see my colleague on the

[51:17] finance committee desperately

[51:18] wanting to intervene, so, I what

[51:20] --

[51:21] >> I will tell you this. They're

[51:22] a lot of things that you're

[51:23] seeing right now that are

[51:24] confusing and they're somewhat

[51:25] contradictory. In terms of

[51:27] mentioning, you know, and I'm

[51:28] not trying to be negative or

[51:29] anything of that nature, but

[51:30] there is a lot of explanations

[51:31] that you had, I don't think at

[51:32] this point, we will be able to

[51:34] resolve those. But as a member

[51:35] of the finance committee, if you

[51:36] want to reach out to me, I would

[51:37] be more than happy to wrap the

[51:39] budget and explain to you how do

[51:40] evaluations work. Industrial

[51:42] versus commercial, versus

[51:43] retention, why things go up, was

[51:44] the average? How it affects some

[51:46] citizens versus other citizens.

[51:47] I'll be more than happy to

[51:48] explain that. -- before I got

[51:50] elected, those are my exact

[51:52] suggestions and it took a

[51:53] considerable amount of time and

[51:54] energy to understand. It's

[51:57] definitely not something we will

[51:58] be able to fix tonight, but if

[51:59] you want to reach out to me, and

[52:00] if any other colleagues would

[52:01] like to join us, I don't know

[52:03] what district you live in, but I

[52:04] would be more than happy to

[52:06] spend an hour, two hours, two

[52:08] days explaining that to you.

[52:09] >> I think we need for all of us

[52:10] to understand because this is a

[52:12] lot of money and it's our money

[52:13] that is being managed. And as

[52:17] another person, another resident

[52:19] mentioned, for the fans, it went

[52:22] up regardless of the numerous

[52:25] people who have spoken up

[52:26] against the fence, and yet,

[52:28] still the decision was made to

[52:29] put up the fence and spend that

[52:31] money, which is money that was

[52:32] literally wasted because nobody

[52:34] wanted it and you still went

[52:36] ahead with it. So, what I'm

[52:38] concerned about is the

[52:40] management of our money is very

[52:42] important for us, and we need to

[52:44] make sure that it is properly

[52:47] managed. And it has to be in a

[52:49] way that is transparent. So,

[52:51] it's great you want to explain

[52:52] it to me, but I think a lot of

[52:53] people here want to understand,

[52:54] want to have that information,

[52:55] so it should be, I think,

[52:57] available on the Pointe-Claire

[52:58] website, so people realize as

[53:01] you --

[53:02] >> Ma'am, I would have to write

[53:03] a book to put on the website and

[53:05] it would take probably a couple

[53:07] hundred pages and every citizen

[53:09] that lives in my district here,

[53:11] everybody asks financial

[53:12] questions, -- they answer to the

[53:14] best of our ability. We're not

[53:15] just scratching the surface

[53:16] here, you're talking about a lot

[53:17] of lower level analysis so.,

[53:20] Believe me, all of us care

[53:22] greatly about our city finances.

[53:24] Is one of the most challenges

[53:26] challenges things we have going

[53:27] for us the next few years with

[53:28] what's going on in the economy

[53:29] today. So, we do take it very

[53:30] seriously. Once again, I will be

[53:32] more than happy to -- your

[53:34] suggestion about the monitoring

[53:38] the cost for the public works as

[53:40] well motive and discuss that in

[53:41] caucus to. I think that's a good

[53:44] idea.

[53:45] >> In some form up there might.

[53:47] Not be the detail you want, that

[53:49] will come --

[53:50] >> As long as we got some

[53:51] information, that will be great.

[53:52] Thanks for considering that. The

[53:54] other thing I've got as well is

[53:55] that the population in

[53:56] Pointe-Claire is increasing.

[53:57] That is increasing our revenue.

[53:59] By increasing our revenue, we

[54:01] are increasing the collection of

[54:03] taxes. Somehow, that should

[54:05] count for the residents and that

[54:07] should be taken into

[54:09] consideration to lower our

[54:11] taxes, rather than increase it.

[54:14] And lastly, I would like to

[54:15] close with the valuation of

[54:19] homes. The valuation of homes, I

[54:20] would like to understand how the

[54:22] valuation of homes came out to

[54:25] be 100%, and if that's possible.

[54:27] If it can also be made available

[54:29] on the website, so we, as

[54:31] citizens understand, because I'm

[54:32] going to contest it.

[54:34] >> The property valuation is

[54:35] done by the societally -- Ville

[54:38] the moral and all the

[54:40] information you can get on their

[54:41] website. It is accessible. They

[54:44] are the ones who, not the City,

[54:47] nobody here does the, has

[54:49] anything to do with property

[54:50] valuations. It's all done by the

[54:51] Ville de Montréal. And the way

[54:53] they calculate it is they look

[54:55] at the cost, the sale of

[54:58] properties in the comparable

[55:00] neighbourhood or comparable

[55:01] properties, then they just put

[55:03] the same rate across the that

[55:10] entire group of properties that

[55:12] they designate as being

[55:15] comparable. There is an

[55:18] explanation online for how they

[55:19] do that.

[55:20] >> And is it done by an

[55:23] independent company or is it by

[55:25] --

[55:26] >> No, it's done by the

[55:27] employees of the, the agents of

[55:30] the societally -- Villa

[55:31] Montréal.

[55:32] >> Isn't there a conflict of

[55:33] interest there? Because they're

[55:34] also collecting taxes. So, if

[55:36] they have got property.

[55:37] >> They are a separate entity,

[55:40] not, they are the society --

[55:42] madame -- maybe you can explain

[55:43] a little more, expertly than I?

[55:45] >> The valuation -- is not the

[55:51] City of Montréal, it's part of

[55:52] the City of Montréal, but it's

[55:54] different because it's the

[55:55] agglomeration of Montréal. And

[55:57] they are, you know, employees up

[55:58] there and they are all, I don't

[56:04] know, what is it in English, but

[56:07] it's -- so they are under their

[56:10] own code of ethics.

[56:12] >> But still, they are part of

[56:13] the City of Montréal and the

[56:14] City of Montréal gets a certain

[56:16] percentage of our taxes. So,

[56:18] there would be some level of

[56:19] conflict of interest there.

[56:21] >> Ma'am, that may be, but you

[56:23] will have to take that up with

[56:25] Premier logo. That's where the

[56:26] power lies in deciding that.

[56:28] >> Now, my question is, two more

[56:31] questions. When you've made the

[56:33] decision about the 25 million,

[56:35] which was on the agenda for the

[56:37] 2nd of May, but it was taken out

[56:38] of the agenda. Not a lot of us

[56:40] were aware of the meeting that

[56:42] took place on the 9th of May

[56:44] when that point was discussed. I

[56:47] was not made aware of it and it

[56:49] wasn't announced, I don't think,

[56:50] or maybe I didn't hear it. If it

[56:53] were announced at that point,

[56:54] going to be discussed on the 9th

[56:55] of May. It wasn't done in a way

[56:58] that really, like, the

[57:00] announcements that you make at

[57:01] the very beginning by the way,

[57:03] everyone, this point is not

[57:04] going to be discussed today. It

[57:06] is rather going to be discussed

[57:07] on the 9th of May. I didn't

[57:09] catch that at all.

[57:12] >> I believe we did..

[57:13] >> At the beginning? Okay, okay,

[57:15] well I missed it. So, what is

[57:19] the process to first reverse the

[57:22] decision that was taken. Let's

[57:23] say, the 25 million expenditure

[57:26] for public works. And then when

[57:28] you have points on the agenda

[57:29] that we don't agree to, what is

[57:31] the process for us to object to

[57:34] them?

[57:35] >> Go Collier Councillor. If

[57:37] there is no process in the

[57:38] meeting if you are doing that.

[57:40] As far as reversing a decision

[57:42] that was made, it can always

[57:44] reverse itself, but any decision

[57:45] sets in motion a series of

[57:47] things, like contracts. And lots

[57:49] of once a contract is signed,

[57:51] you can't reverse it. Who are

[57:52] bound to your contract. So, and

[57:54] then as far as pulling things

[57:56] off of agenda or, you have to

[57:59] call your Councillor and try to

[58:01] influence your Councillor. On

[58:03] anything you want.

[58:04] >> So, basically, we don't have

[58:06] the right to interfere or

[58:09] interject, or object to any

[58:11] items that are on the agenda if

[58:12] we don't agree with them?

[58:14] >> That is correct.

[58:15] >> And is there any way, other

[58:17] than meeting with the

[58:18] councillor, to change that? Is

[58:20] there a law, how is it set up

[58:22] that way?

[58:23] >> No, the way municipal

[58:26] government is organized is

[58:27] created by the provincial

[58:29] legislation, which sets the

[58:31] rules of how government works.

[58:34] And the responsibility that you

[58:39] are referring to our delegated

[58:40] to councillors that you elect.

[58:42] So that if you are unhappy with

[58:44] the performance of your council

[58:45] or Councillor, well, you know

[58:47] what you can do. You can run or

[58:49] you can encourage other people

[58:50] to run, or you can vote for

[58:51] whoever is running against the

[58:53] councillor in the future. That's

[58:55] democracy.

[58:56] >> Thank you.

[59:01] >> Kathy Polina?

[59:10] John Kirkpatrick?

[59:26] >> That's a little short. I'm

[59:31] here about the tree cutting. I

[59:32] was here last month, I brought

[59:34] up about the tree and the City

[59:37] responded back regarding my

[59:39] questions. I was reading through

[59:40] the email and it brought up a

[59:42] few other questions that I have.

[59:46] As stated in the email that the

[59:48] person sat down with the

[59:50] professionals, I would like to

[59:51] know who the professionals are,

[59:53] what are their qualifications.

[59:56] Because if it's a city

[59:59] inspector, what's that

[1:00:02] qualification that they have for

[1:00:04] looking at trees? Also, if they

[1:00:09] talked about it, did anyone come

[1:00:11] and actually look at it? The

[1:00:13] first inspector to stopped on

[1:00:14] the road, took a photo, and said

[1:00:15] the tree was safe and in the

[1:00:17] back, it was all cracked up. So,

[1:00:19] I'm sort of wondering, nobody

[1:00:21] can again, because I have a

[1:00:22] camera on my house, so I see the

[1:00:26] tree, and the people coming up

[1:00:28] the driveway, and nobody is

[1:00:29] looking at the tree. So, my

[1:00:34] question is, are people really

[1:00:38] looking at the tree? Or did

[1:00:42] anyone physically look at that

[1:00:43] tree? Or are they just taking

[1:00:47] pictures?

[1:00:49] >> I can't answer that question

[1:00:50] and I doubt the administration,

[1:00:53] Madam Verdun came because she

[1:00:54] would not have been prepared.

[1:00:56] >> I expect I will get another

[1:00:58] email. Coming back with it.

[1:01:05] Okay, that was the first one.

[1:01:09] Second one. I submitted a report

[1:01:17] from a tree specialist, which

[1:01:21] Pointe-Claire gave me six

[1:01:22] options. All six options were

[1:01:25] companies that would do

[1:01:26] everything to save trees. The

[1:01:28] report basically said, the tree

[1:01:31] had major cracks in it and was

[1:01:35] not, in a sense, safe. They

[1:01:37] suggested that the tree should

[1:01:40] be tabled to try to preserve the

[1:01:43] tree. I'm not thrilled with it

[1:01:45] because that is going to cost me

[1:01:47] a tremendous amount of money.

[1:01:50] So, I'm so looking to have the

[1:01:54] tree cut. Just give me a minute.

[1:02:03] Okay, so, it sort of got me

[1:02:11] questioning in Pointe-Claire, of

[1:02:13] all trees that are being cut,

[1:02:16] excluding the ash, how many

[1:02:19] trees are being cut on property

[1:02:22] of the city? How many trees on

[1:02:25] the property of the cities are

[1:02:27] being refused? How many trees

[1:02:30] are being deemed they should be

[1:02:33] cabled? I would also like to

[1:02:34] know on the private side for the

[1:02:37] past three years. Because I'm

[1:02:38] sort of looking at it going, am

[1:02:40] I being subjected because I'm

[1:02:44] questioning the City? Since I

[1:02:47] want that one extra step that

[1:02:49] the City is now coming for me to

[1:02:51] spend money when a tree should

[1:02:53] be cut. Because it's dangerous.

[1:03:00] Under Point clear section nine

[1:03:04] point 6.1, preservation, it

[1:03:07] indicates, it is prohibited to

[1:03:09] fall a tree other than the

[1:03:11] following reasons. Section four,

[1:03:13] the tree is a danger to people

[1:03:17] because of the risk of falling

[1:03:19] branches and pruning or dawning

[1:03:22] would not make the tree safe.

[1:03:25] Now, I sat there, what's a

[1:03:29] going? It's basically putting

[1:03:32] three sticks around the tree,

[1:03:35] attaching a wire, or thin rope,

[1:03:38] through the steak, and moving it

[1:03:40] around the tree, and tying it to

[1:03:42] the trunk. And then in a year,

[1:03:46] cut it. My tree, the base is

[1:03:52] about 24 inches. The branch is

[1:03:54] 18 inches. You think a little

[1:03:56] wire is going to hold my branch?

[1:03:58] >> Excuse me, Mr. Kirkpatrick,

[1:03:59] can you address Council?

[1:04:02] >> Sorry, do you think the wire

[1:04:03] is going to hold it? So, in

[1:04:07] reading the bylaw, there is

[1:04:10] nothing saying about cabling.

[1:04:12] >> Mr. kill Patrick, I

[1:04:14] sympathize with the case. We've

[1:04:15] spoken to you because you are my

[1:04:18] constituent, but this isn't the

[1:04:19] place to argue your case. You

[1:04:22] can ask a particular question

[1:04:23] and I can help you later to

[1:04:29] prepare perhaps a convincing

[1:04:30] case to convince my colleagues,

[1:04:32] but this is not the place for

[1:04:33] that.

[1:04:34] >> Okay, so then the question

[1:04:35] that I would like, it's about

[1:04:38] the professionalism. Where the

[1:04:40] people? Because I think that is

[1:04:42] critical. Critical to what I'm

[1:04:45] doing. And the other part is

[1:04:46] about the tree cutting. Because

[1:04:50] it is important. Is it just a

[1:04:54] little section or are there

[1:04:56] other trees?

[1:04:57] >> The aim of the policy is to

[1:04:58] find the balance between, we

[1:05:00] want to preserve trees, but they

[1:05:02] also have to be safe.

[1:05:04] >> Correct.

[1:05:05] >> So, this is the objective of

[1:05:09] the policy, this is what the

[1:05:10] citizens of Pointe-Claire

[1:05:11] require. How that gets

[1:05:14] interpreted and any one

[1:05:15] particular case is another

[1:05:16] situation. In your case that we

[1:05:17] have discussed, the way I see it

[1:05:22] is the issue boils down to, is

[1:05:23] it appropriate for the city to

[1:05:28] require a private citizen to

[1:05:30] invest money to take

[1:05:33] extraordinary measures to Roger

[1:05:35] render a tree safe when you can

[1:05:36] just cut it down? That's a

[1:05:37] legitimate question. But we will

[1:05:38] not answer that here tonight.

[1:05:40] >> That's fine. Just to give you

[1:05:42] an idea, I went back to the

[1:05:44] company that asked for the

[1:05:46] cabling, they don't do cabling.

[1:05:49] So, they gave me other

[1:05:50] companies. Two companies refuse

[1:05:52] to cable my tree.

[1:05:53] >> I will enjoy working with you

[1:05:55] later to organize.

[1:05:57] >> I'm doing what I can to try

[1:05:59] and find a solution. But the

[1:06:04] companies that I'm being given

[1:06:05] don't want to come and do one

[1:06:07] tree. So, it's just, you have to

[1:06:10] understand that this is going to

[1:06:12] be an issue and my biggest

[1:06:16] concern is my tree still hanging

[1:06:17] with a broken limb. And I'm

[1:06:22] responsible for it.

[1:06:23] >> We hear that and we should

[1:06:25] talk later, and I will help you

[1:06:27] organize your case because I

[1:06:29] understand it and I sympathize

[1:06:30] with it. But again, tonight is

[1:06:32] not tonight for that. But later,

[1:06:33] we will do that. Give me a call.

[1:06:36] You have my number.

[1:06:37] >> I do.

[1:06:41] >> If there anybody else? That's

[1:06:44] the limit of my list.

[1:06:45] >> There is one more name that

[1:06:47] was added while you are calling

[1:06:48] out names.

[1:06:49] >> A surprise.

[1:06:50] >> Madam Sue stucco.

[1:06:53] >> Good evening, thank you for

[1:06:55] letting on non residents speak

[1:06:58] at your meetings. Just a little

[1:07:00] recap on some history. -- 2017,

[1:07:06] 800 homes affected by floods in

[1:07:08] Pierrefonds. 2019, 1700 people

[1:07:12] forced to flee their homes due

[1:07:14] to flooding's across Québec.

[1:07:16] 2018, a heat wave in Montréal

[1:07:18] where over 90 people died, and

[1:07:20] here we are in 2023 with the

[1:07:22] forest fires that have, my

[1:07:25] numbers are sketchy, but it

[1:07:26] looks like almost 3000 people

[1:07:28] evacuated from their homes. You

[1:07:30] know, we have climate crisis at

[1:07:33] our doorstep. It is not going

[1:07:35] away and we have some really

[1:07:38] complicated things we have to do

[1:07:39] for that, but we also have some

[1:07:40] really simple things. And

[1:07:43] protecting forests is one of the

[1:07:45] simplest things we can do to

[1:07:47] help mitigate some of the

[1:07:50] climate change. So, I urge you,

[1:07:52] it's not a question, but I urge

[1:07:54] you to consider that. Every week

[1:07:58] or every month, things are

[1:08:01] changing. So, decisions we were

[1:08:03] making even two years ago don't

[1:08:04] even apply right now to climate

[1:08:06] change. So, new current

[1:08:08] thinking, new current ideas,

[1:08:10] and, you know, the future isn't

[1:08:12] all of our hands, but we really

[1:08:13] are meeting our elected

[1:08:15] officials to be making some

[1:08:16] strong, strong moves to help us

[1:08:18] feel safer. Thank you.

[1:08:20] >> Thank you. Last call, anyone

[1:08:24] else? Okay, we shall proceed

[1:08:26] then, madame Gutierrez.

[1:08:29] Remainder of the agenda.

[1:08:36] - 5.1 Consultation publique

[1:08:37] concernant un projet de

[1:08:38] Règlement modifiant le Règlement

[1:08:39] de zonage numéro PC-2775 de la

[1:08:40] Ville de Pointe-Claire afin

[1:08:41] d'assurer une concordance aux

[1:08:42] dispositions du règlement

[1:08:43] provincial sur la sécurité des

[1:08:44] piscines résidentielles.

[1:08:46] une modification du règlement de

[1:08:48] zonage est nécessaire afin de

[1:08:49] mettre à jour les

[1:08:50] (inaudible)

[1:08:51] associés aux piscines. Ajouter

[1:08:52] des définitions concernant les

[1:08:54] jardins de pluie. Modifié et

[1:08:56] adapté la section 5,10 de façon

[1:08:59] à mettre en oeuvre les

[1:09:00] dispositions du règlement

[1:09:02] (inaudible)

[1:09:03] . Nous sommes à l'étape de la

[1:09:04] consultation publique. Par la

[1:09:05] loi, la ville doit tenir une

[1:09:07] consultation publique avant

[1:09:08] l'adoption du deuxième projet de

[1:09:09] règlement prévu à l'item

[1:09:10] suivant, soit l'item 5,2. Les

[1:09:13] personnes présentes peuvent

[1:09:15] s'adresser au Conseil sur ce

[1:09:16] sujet.

[1:09:18] >> Can you say that in English?

[1:09:21] >> Sure. A public council to

[1:09:23] regarding a draft bylaw amending

[1:09:24] zoning bylaw number PC 27 75 of

[1:09:26] the city of Pointe-Claire to

[1:09:27] ensure concordance with the

[1:09:29] provisions of the provincial

[1:09:31] bylaw on residential pool

[1:09:32] safety. An amendment to zoning

[1:09:33] bylaw is required to update

[1:09:35] certain definitions, primarily

[1:09:36] associated with swimming pools.

[1:09:38] I had definitions concerning

[1:09:40] water gardens and rain gardens.

[1:09:42] Modify and adapt section 5.10,

[1:09:44] in order to implement the

[1:09:45] provisions of the provincial

[1:09:46] bylaw on residential swimming

[1:09:48] pools. We are now at the public

[1:09:50] consultation stage. Bylaw, the

[1:09:52] city must hold a public

[1:09:54] consultation before adopting the

[1:09:56] second draft bylaw, which is on

[1:09:57] this next item, 5.2, and those

[1:09:59] present may address Council. On

[1:10:01] this item.

[1:10:04] >> May I address?

[1:10:05] >> Your name please, sir?

[1:10:07] >> Michael gave me, I'm a

[1:10:08] resident of Pointe-Claire for

[1:10:09] six years now. We are looking to

[1:10:14] redo the fence or replace part

[1:10:15] of the fence around our pool.

[1:10:17] So, happy to respect the bylaws.

[1:10:19] We have looked into the bylaws,

[1:10:22] so, just for everyone's

[1:10:23] contacts, I believe that in

[1:10:26] Québec, in general, it is four

[1:10:28] feet around a pool.

[1:10:30] Pointe-Claire chose to make it

[1:10:31] five feet, to make it extra

[1:10:32] safe, which again, we are happy

[1:10:34] to do. However, I don't think

[1:10:38] that everything was considered

[1:10:39] when it comes to a glass fence

[1:10:42] around a pool. Most fences, you

[1:10:45] can reach through, you can kind

[1:10:46] of adjust it by reaching through

[1:10:48] the fence. When it comes to a

[1:10:50] glass fence, you have to reach

[1:10:51] over. So, the installer came to

[1:10:53] look at the glass fence and let

[1:10:54] us know that this is actually

[1:10:55] something that is a problem in

[1:10:57] many municipalities there

[1:10:58] reversing. I believe the City of

[1:11:00] Saint Lambert just did. When it

[1:11:02] comes to a five foot fence, my

[1:11:05] wife should be able to open up

[1:11:06] the pool door and potentially

[1:11:08] save my children if they are

[1:11:10] drowning. It's a big concern for

[1:11:13] me. I live on the water, so the

[1:11:15] nature of somebody falling in

[1:11:16] the water is present. Whether I

[1:11:18] have a fence around my pool or

[1:11:19] not. So, my question is, as you

[1:11:24] are looking at this bylaw, I

[1:11:27] would suggest that you consider

[1:11:29] glass fences and how those, how

[1:11:32] those work and, you know, having

[1:11:34] a latch above five feet requires

[1:11:36] somebody to be at least five

[1:11:37] foot eight to reach over and to

[1:11:40] open it.

[1:11:41] >> That thank you, it's a good

[1:11:42] question. We will have to

[1:11:43] address that, for sure. But if

[1:11:45] we are going to have, if the

[1:11:47] final version goes the way it is

[1:11:48] written, then we have to make

[1:11:50] sure that the fans can be open

[1:11:52] from both sides. Now, that said,

[1:11:54] I have seen high fences,

[1:11:55] wouldn't ones, mind you,

[1:11:57] somebody put a pulley on a

[1:11:58] string over, so you could open

[1:11:59] it from the outside. So, that

[1:12:01] may be a solution. But I don't

[1:12:03] know.

[1:12:04] >> No, I'm not looking for the

[1:12:06] approval right now.

[1:12:08] >> Your what you're pointing out

[1:12:09] is that the City, to be safe,

[1:12:11] truly safe, you have to be able

[1:12:12] to open the fence from both

[1:12:13] sides. If we are making a rule

[1:12:14] that you cannot do that, then we

[1:12:16] should --

[1:12:17] >> It is a concern.

[1:12:18] >> We should look at it.

[1:12:19] >> It's definitely concerning

[1:12:20] and, I mean, I will say that

[1:12:21] right now, we are in the process

[1:12:23] of replacing, it so our pool is

[1:12:24] exposed right now and we are

[1:12:25] waiting on a decision to decide

[1:12:29] whether five feet or four feet.

[1:12:30] So, --

[1:12:31] >> The final version will be

[1:12:32] next month. That's why we do all

[1:12:34] of this consultation.

[1:12:35] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:12:38] >> I would like to ask the

[1:12:40] question whether it is around

[1:12:43] the pool or is it if we block

[1:12:46] access from the house to get to

[1:12:47] the pool?

[1:12:50] >> Around the pool.

[1:12:53] >> So, it's not good enough if

[1:12:56] there's parameter? Because we

[1:12:57] have, like, an unusual setting.

[1:13:01] >> I suggest you make a sketch

[1:13:02] and send it into the planning

[1:13:03] department.

[1:13:05] >> To the planning department?

[1:13:07] >> Yeah.

[1:13:08] >> Okay, great, thank you.

[1:13:09] >> Anybody else? Madam

[1:13:12] Gutierrez? 5.2 Adoption with

[1:13:14] modification of a second draft

[1:13:15] Bylaw amending Zoning By-law

[1:13:16] PC-2775 of the City of

[1:13:18] Pointe-Claire to ensure

[1:13:20] concordance with the provisions

[1:13:21] of the provincial by-law on

[1:13:23] residential pool safety.

[1:13:27] >> This modification concerns

[1:13:29] the English version of the

[1:13:30] appendix, in order to render it

[1:13:32] conforming and bilingual. This

[1:13:34] modification does not change the

[1:13:35] object of the bylaw.

[1:13:38] - 5.3 Adoption d'un Règlement

[1:13:39] modifiant le règlement PC-2918

[1:13:40] relatif à la lutte contre la

[1:13:41] propagation de l'agrile du frêne

[1:13:42] sur le territoire de la Ville de

[1:13:43] Pointe-Claire.

[1:13:47] les modifications visent à

[1:13:48] corriger des erreurs et à

[1:13:51] apporter des clarifications afin

[1:13:52] d'éviter toute ambiguïté dans

[1:13:54] l'interprétation du règlement,

[1:13:55] entre autres dans les délais

[1:13:57] applicables par l'émission d'un

[1:13:58] avis par la Ville, suite à

[1:13:59] l'autorisation de l'abattage

[1:14:00] reçu par les citoyens. Une

[1:14:01] amende en cas de

[1:14:02] (inaudible)

[1:14:03] a été ajoutée.

[1:14:06] >> Do I have a mover

[1:14:08] For 5.2 and 5.3?

[1:14:12] >> Claude cuisine of, district

[1:14:14] one.

[1:14:15] >> A seconder?

[1:14:16] >> Paul Bissonnette, district

[1:14:17] to.

[1:14:18] >> All in favour? Carried. 6.1

[1:14:21] Authorize the participation of 4

[1:14:22] members of Council and the Mayor

[1:14:23] at the 30th Golf Tournament

[1:14:26] organized by NOVA West Island to

[1:14:28] be held on August 14, 2023, at

[1:14:30] the Beaconsfield Golf Club. Nova

[1:14:35] West Island is a nonprofit

[1:14:36] organization whose mission is to

[1:14:38] respond to community needs

[1:14:39] through the development and

[1:14:40] delivery of high quality,

[1:14:42] innovative health care services.

[1:14:44] The city representatives will be

[1:14:45] councillor Stork, Tremblay,

[1:14:47] Cowan, and casino, as well as

[1:14:48] the Mayor for dinner.

[1:14:52] - 6.2 Autoriser la participation

[1:14:53] de 4 membres du conseil et le

[1:14:54] maire au 13e édition du tournoi

[1:14:55] de golf annuel de collecte de

[1:14:56] fonds organisé par la résidence

[1:14:57] de soins palliatifs Teresa

[1:14:58] Dellar devant se tenir le 28

[1:14:59] août 2023 au Club de golf Royal

[1:15:00] Montréal.

[1:15:05] les représentants de la ville

[1:15:06] seront les conseillers Starke,

[1:15:10] Tremblay, Thorstad-Cullen et

[1:15:11] Monsieur le Maire.

[1:15:13] 6.3 Authorize the participation

[1:15:14] of the Mayor and his companion

[1:15:16] at the Lakeshore Ball organized

[1:15:18] by the Lakeshore General

[1:15:20] Hospital Foundation to be held

[1:15:21] on October 14, 2023. they liked

[1:15:25] for ball is a fundraising event

[1:15:26] in order to help provide health

[1:15:28] care, improve the departments,

[1:15:29] and make technological and

[1:15:31] improvement equipment upgrades.

[1:15:38] Quelqu'un pour proposer?

[1:15:40] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[1:15:41] district three. Pour seconder la

[1:15:44] proposition?

[1:15:47] >> Seconder?

[1:15:48] >> Cynthia

[1:15:49] Homan, district five.

[1:15:50] >> All in favour? Carried.

[1:15:53] - 7.1 Déposer et approuver le

[1:15:54] procès-verbal de la réunion du

[1:15:55] comité de circulation du 13 juin

[1:15:56] 2023.

[1:16:11] And approved?

[1:16:20] We have a mover for 7.1?

[1:16:22] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[1:16:24] district three.

[1:16:25] >> Seconder?

[1:16:26] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[1:16:27] >> All in favour? Carried.

[1:16:29] >> Thank you. 8.1 File the

[1:16:30] Sustainable Development Action

[1:16:32] Plan 2016-2020 report. This

[1:16:36] report will be published on our

[1:16:38] available in the coming days on

[1:16:40] our website.

[1:16:44] - 10.1 Déposer la liste des

[1:16:45] amendements budgétaires et le

[1:16:46] registre des chèques pour la

[1:16:47] période du 25 mai 2023 au 21

[1:16:48] juin 2023.

[1:16:53] 10.2 Exercise the renewal option

[1:16:54] provided for in the

[1:16:56] - Contract entered into with

[1:16:57] The National Bank of Canada, for

[1:16:58] the period of June 30, 2023 to

[1:17:01] December 31, 2025, for the

[1:17:03] supply of banking services. The

[1:17:09] city does not incur any costs

[1:17:10] with this option.

[1:17:16] 12.2 Approve the list of

[1:17:17] - 12.1 Déposer la liste des

[1:17:18] changements au personnel par

[1:17:19] décisions déléguées pour le mois

[1:17:20] de juillet non-delegated staff

[1:17:21] changes 2023. as of July 4,

[1:17:22] 2023.

[1:17:23] - 12.3 Adopt the 2023-2030 12.3

[1:17:24] Adopter le Plan stratégique

[1:17:25] 2023-2030 de la Ville de

[1:17:26] Pointe-Claire pour fins de

[1:17:27] publication.

[1:17:30] >> Do I have a mover for items

[1:17:32] 10.2, 12.2, and 12.3?

[1:17:35] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[1:17:37] >> And seconder?

[1:17:39] >> Seconded by Bruno Tremblay,

[1:17:41] district six.

[1:17:42] >> All in favour? Carried.

[1:17:47] >> 14.1, confirmed the adhesion

[1:17:48] of the city of Pointe-Claire to

[1:17:50] the Frontenac -- governmental

[1:17:52] group purchased for cellular

[1:17:55] mobility goods and services. The

[1:17:56] City has received a proposal

[1:17:57] from the Frontenac -- gov

[1:17:58] governmental to form a

[1:17:59] purchasing group for the

[1:18:00] purchase of cellular mobility

[1:18:02] goods and services. This

[1:18:03] contract is required for

[1:18:04] employees who are eligible to

[1:18:06] have a cellular phone. The city

[1:18:07] wishes to subscribe to this

[1:18:08] group purchase for the period of

[1:18:10] October 21st, 2023, to October

[1:18:12] 20th, 2028, in order to benefit

[1:18:14] from an advantageous price. This

[1:18:16] contract represents an annual

[1:18:17] expenditure of -- dollars.

[1:18:21] - 14.2 Octroyer un contrat pour

[1:18:22] le traitement des frênes par

[1:18:23] injection sur les domaines

[1:18:24] public et privé pour l'année

[1:18:25] 2023, à BIO-CONTRÔLE ACÉRICOLE

[1:18:26] INC.

[1:18:32] le contrôle de traitement des

[1:18:34] freins par injection pour

[1:18:37] (---)

[1:18:39] 47628 dollars et 16 sous. Pour

[1:18:40] le volet du traitement des

[1:18:41] (---)

[1:18:42] du domaine privé, le taux est de

[1:18:44] 4 dollars et 24 sous par

[1:18:46] centimètre, et ce, sans taxe. La

[1:18:48] Ville s'engagera à aucun montant

[1:18:49] pour le volet.

[1:18:51] >> Do I have a mover? Sorry.

[1:18:52] 15.1 Exercise the renewal option

[1:18:53] provided for in the contract

[1:18:54] entered into with prevention in

[1:18:59] Cindy safety first Inc., for the

[1:19:00] period of July 2023 to July

[1:19:02] 2024, in the amount of $ 140,

[1:19:03] 000, taxes included for the

[1:19:05] maintenance, the repair and the

[1:19:07] inspection of sprinkler systems,

[1:19:08] annunciator panels and

[1:19:10] mechanical fire protection

[1:19:11] components for the City of

[1:19:12] Pointe-Claire. This is the third

[1:19:15] and last renewal option. The

[1:19:17] renewal of this contract will

[1:19:18] ensure that all the equipment is

[1:19:19] functional, secure, and

[1:19:20] conforming to the building code.

[1:19:24] - 15.2 Se prévaloir de l'option

[1:19:25] de renouvellement prévue au

[1:19:26] contrat intervenu avec

[1:19:27] CORPORATION KRYPTON SCIEN-TEK

[1:19:28] INC., pour la période du 1 août

[1:19:29] 2023 au 31 juillet 2024, pour un

[1:19:30] montant de 45856,63$, taxes

[1:19:31] incluses, pour le contrôle

[1:19:32] hebdomadaire de la qualité de

[1:19:33] l'eau pour les piscines du

[1:19:34] Centre Aquatique et du Centre

[1:19:35] Sportif de la Ville de

[1:19:36] Pointe-Claire.

[1:19:42] il s'agit de la première année

[1:19:43] d'option sur deux années

[1:19:45] d'option, le renouvellement de

[1:19:46] ce contrat servira

[1:19:47] l'optimisation de la filtration

[1:19:48] et au contrôle de la qualité de

[1:19:49] l'eau des piscines. 15.3

[1:19:52] Exercise the renewal option

[1:19:53] provided for in the contract

[1:19:54] entered into with

[1:19:55] ENTRETIEN AVANGARDISTE INC., For

[1:19:57] the period of August 1, 2023 to

[1:19:58] July 31, 2024, in the amount of

[1:20:02] $ 181,563.55, taxes included for

[1:20:06] janitorial services at the

[1:20:07] Olive-Urquhart Sports Center

[1:20:11] this is the

[1:20:12] - First of two optional metres.

[1:20:13] 15.4 Approuver une modification

[1:20:14] au contrat intervenu avec PRISME

[1:20:15] ARCHITECTURE, pour des services

[1:20:16] professionnels pour le

[1:20:17] réaménagement et

[1:20:18] l'agrandissement du bâtiment des

[1:20:19] travaux publics, pour un montant

[1:20:20] de 26280,99$, taxes incluses.

[1:20:27] le montant représente des

[1:20:29] services professionnels pour la

[1:20:30] reprise des

[1:20:31] (---)

[1:20:32] selon les nouvelles

[1:20:33] recommandations géotechnique, le

[1:20:34] rehaussement sismique du

[1:20:35] bâtiment existant. 15.5 Approve

[1:20:36] a change order to the contract

[1:20:37] entered into with MDA

[1:20:38] ARCHITECTES,

[1:20:39] For professional services for

[1:20:40] the construction of a new police

[1:20:42] station PDQ5, for an amount of $

[1:20:44] 31,490.22, taxes included. This

[1:20:52] request for additional fees

[1:20:53] follows the extension of the

[1:20:55] construction site beyond the

[1:20:56] scheduled completion date. Due

[1:20:57] to very second issuance,

[1:20:59] including -- procurement delays

[1:21:00] for certain construction

[1:21:01] materials and equipment, the

[1:21:03] project took approximately four

[1:21:04] months longer than originally

[1:21:05] anticipated and the contract

[1:21:07] documents for professional

[1:21:08] service.

[1:21:10] >> Do I have a mover from

[1:21:13] guidance 14.1 through --

[1:21:15] >> Paul Bissonnette, district

[1:21:17] one is a mover.

[1:21:18] >> 15.5.

[1:21:19] [Laughter]

[1:21:21] And a seconder?

[1:21:23] >> I moved to second items 14.1

[1:21:26] through 15.5, Kelly

[1:21:27] Thorstad-Cullen, district three.

[1:21:29] >> All in favour?

[1:21:32] >>

[1:21:33] - Un instant, je compte

[1:21:34] (---)

[1:21:35] comprends que vous votez contre

[1:21:37] quelque dossiers?

[1:21:38] - 15,4.

[1:21:39] - O.K..

[1:21:50] 16.1 Approuver une modification

[1:21:51] au contrat intervenu avec

[1:21:52] ROXBORO EXCAVATION INC., pour la

[1:21:53] réfection et la mise en oeuvre

[1:21:54] du plan de mobilité active de

[1:21:55] l'avenue Aurora entre les

[1:21:56] avenues Sedgefield et Donegani,

[1:21:57] pour un montant de 36814,02$,

[1:21:58] taxes incluses.

[1:22:02] les modifications: étude

[1:22:07] géotechnique,

[1:22:08] (---)

[1:22:09] au raccordement de tuyaux, la

[1:22:11] nomination d'une section de

[1:22:12] tracteurs, la décontamination,

[1:22:13] la reconstruction de la

[1:22:14] fondation de la chaussée, le

[1:22:15] transport des sols contaminés.

[1:22:18] Une pénalité de 27000 dollars

[1:22:20] est applicable à l'égard d'un

[1:22:21] entrepreneur, un délai du projet

[1:22:22] et la non-conformité.

[1:22:25] 16.2 Approve a change order to

[1:22:26] the contract entered into with

[1:22:27] ENERGERE, for Phase II of the

[1:22:29] contract for the supply and

[1:22:30] installation of LED streetlights

[1:22:31] through the Fédération

[1:22:33] québécoise des municipalités

[1:22:35] group purchasing program, for an

[1:22:36] amount of $ 21,515.24, taxes

[1:22:38] included. This involves paying

[1:22:42] for additional work. Namely,

[1:22:44] this appliance installation of

[1:22:45] plates as well as the supply and

[1:22:46] installation of photo cells on

[1:22:48] -- lights.

[1:22:50] - 16.3 Approuver une

[1:22:51] modification au contrat

[1:22:52] intervenu avec TROICÉ

[1:22:53] CONSTRUCTION INC., pour la

[1:22:54] construction d'un bâtiment

[1:22:55] sanitaire accessible au parc

[1:22:56] Tony-Proudfoot, pour un montant

[1:22:57] de 14023,27$, taxes incluses.

[1:23:04] le but de Son ancien d'autoriser

[1:23:05] le paiement de deux

[1:23:07] modifications: l'installation

[1:23:08] d'un compteur d'eau, c'est la

[1:23:09] fourniture et l'installation

[1:23:10] (inaudible)

[1:23:11] (problème technique)

[1:23:12] .

[1:23:16] 16.4 Approve a change order to

[1:23:17] the contract entered into with

[1:23:18] TROICE CONSTRUCTION INC., For

[1:23:19] the construction of an

[1:23:21] accessible sanitary building at

[1:23:22] Augusta Park, for an amount of $

[1:23:23] 758.84, taxes included. The

[1:23:25] purpose of this file is to

[1:23:26] authorize the payment of

[1:23:27] modification to the contract for

[1:23:29] the installation of a fire

[1:23:30] retardant plywood panel and the

[1:23:31] mechanical room.

[1:23:34] - 17.1 Dépôt d'un premier projet

[1:23:35] de résolution pour une demande

[1:23:36] PPCMOI au 195-197, boulevard

[1:23:37] Brunswick autorisant

[1:23:38] l'occupation d'un immeuble à des

[1:23:39] fins de « Mini-entrepôt ».

[1:23:45] un PPCMOI est un projet

[1:23:46] particulier de construction, de

[1:23:48] modification, d'occupation d'un

[1:23:49] immeuble, le tout en vertu d'un

[1:23:51] règlement et C-29 57, cette

[1:23:53] demande est fait pour un

[1:23:55] immeuble construit, les étapes

[1:23:56] d'approbation sont les mêmes que

[1:23:59] les réglementations

[1:24:00] (---)

[1:24:01] . La tenue d'une consultation

[1:24:02] publique, l'adoption d'un second

[1:24:03] projet, l'adoption référendaire,

[1:24:04] adoption finale.

[1:24:06] >> Do I have a mover for item

[1:24:09] 16.1 through 17.1?

[1:24:13] >> Claude casino, district one.

[1:24:16] >> And a seconder?

[1:24:18] >> Cynthia Homan, district five.

[1:24:19] >> All in favour? Carried.

[1:24:23] >>

[1:24:24] (---)

[1:24:25] Go ahead. -- 17.2 Consider a

[1:24:30] minor exemption request

[1:24:31] regarding the property situated

[1:24:32] at 360 Du Bord-du-LacLakeshore

[1:24:34] Road

[1:24:35] >> Okay, this is the point for

[1:24:37] 360 lakeshore. And then we will

[1:24:38] talk about the, so, I will ask

[1:24:41] people from 360 lakeshore to

[1:24:42] speak for us and then we can

[1:24:44] speak afterwards about the one

[1:24:45] on the conditional use on --

[1:24:49] just to explain it to be able,

[1:24:50] (voix de l'interprète)

[1:24:51] because I think there is some

[1:24:52] Confusion. When a project like

[1:24:54] this is brought to the city, it

[1:24:57] follows a process, okay? So, the

[1:24:59] applicant will go to the city

[1:25:01] with plans or an idea and

[1:25:03] discuss with the officials at

[1:25:04] the urban planning department

[1:25:05] how to proceed, and they will be

[1:25:07] told what they needed to do, in

[1:25:08] terms of plans. In this case,

[1:25:11] they will be given the access to

[1:25:14] the village code, which

[1:25:15] describes in detail what can be

[1:25:18] done in that area. They will go

[1:25:19] out, do their plan, then they

[1:25:20] will come out and submit their

[1:25:21] plan. The plan will be reviewed

[1:25:23] by the Planning Department, to

[1:25:24] make sure it complies with

[1:25:26] technical specifications of the,

[1:25:28] in this case, the village code.

[1:25:31] And once the planning department

[1:25:33] is satisfied that it conforms

[1:25:35] with the technical

[1:25:36] specifications, then it goes to

[1:25:39] the Planning Advisory Committee.

[1:25:41] The Planning Advisory Committee

[1:25:42] will then pick it mostly with

[1:25:44] respect to how it conforms to

[1:25:46] the subject of criteria that are

[1:25:48] in the village codes. The

[1:25:51] technical specifications are

[1:25:52] black or white. The subjective

[1:25:55] criteria are Gray. Does it need

[1:25:57] to subjective? Yes, no, kind of.

[1:26:00] The Planning Advisory Committee

[1:26:01] weighs in on that. And then they

[1:26:06] make a recommendation to

[1:26:07] Council. So, it's only after it

[1:26:09] has gone through all of this

[1:26:10] process and the Planning

[1:26:12] Advisory Committee has come up

[1:26:13] with this recommendation, does

[1:26:15] it come to Council. So, I would

[1:26:17] like now to ask the city clerk

[1:26:20] to read to you the

[1:26:21] recommendation that was received

[1:26:22] by Council, with respect to 360

[1:26:24] lakeshore.

[1:26:30] >> So, the recommendation

[1:26:32] received were where the village

[1:26:33] codes -- presented to allow the

[1:26:34] construction of a single car

[1:26:38] garage attached by a wall, to

[1:26:40] the existing house by a link, as

[1:26:43] well as important extensive,

[1:26:44] sorry to use the word extensive

[1:26:46] renovations, whereas 360 board

[1:26:48] you lack lakeshore is not

[1:26:49] identified as a building of

[1:26:51] heritage interest. Whereas

[1:26:52] according to the village code

[1:26:55] chapter six you P3, each

[1:26:57] frontage plane of a building

[1:26:58] must have a minimum width of

[1:27:00] four metres, whereas a minor

[1:27:03] exemption request has been

[1:27:04] presented in order to permit a

[1:27:06] breezeway with a facade plain of

[1:27:08] three metres in width rather

[1:27:09] than the four metres as

[1:27:11] required. Whereas the project

[1:27:13] generally meets the objectives

[1:27:14] and criteria of the village code

[1:27:16] chapter six you P3, whereas no

[1:27:18] -- will be affected by the

[1:27:19] proposed works. Consequently, it

[1:27:22] is proposed to recommend to

[1:27:24] Council to approve the village

[1:27:26] code review described above. And

[1:27:28] it's also proposed that Council

[1:27:30] approved the request from

[1:27:32] exemption as described above.

[1:27:35] >> Thank you. Now, the matter

[1:27:37] right now, the item right now is

[1:27:39] just a conditional use, but will

[1:27:41] allow questions or, sorry, the

[1:27:44] exemption, excuse me. But we

[1:27:45] will allow questions on the

[1:27:48] speakers review that's coming up

[1:27:49] a little bit later in the

[1:27:50] agenda. So, in essence, anything

[1:27:51] you want to ask or something you

[1:27:53] would like to say about 360

[1:27:56] lakeshore, now is the time.

[1:28:07] >> We are Christine and Tom's to

[1:28:09] miss, we've been residents of

[1:28:10] Pointe-Claire for eight years.

[1:28:12] I've got too much stuff while my

[1:28:16] husband starts addressing you.

[1:28:18] Would I be permitted to present

[1:28:22] some photographs? Would I be

[1:28:24] able to pass photographs to the

[1:28:25] Councillors?

[1:28:26] >> I don't believe that you are

[1:28:29] permitted to present materials.

[1:28:31] We can give them --

[1:28:32] >> A picture is worth 1000

[1:28:33] words. Sorry?

[1:28:35] >> Pardon?

[1:28:36] >> We would like you to see what

[1:28:37] it is we are talking about.

[1:28:39] >> Council is voting on the next

[1:28:40] thing here. Would it hurt to

[1:28:41] have a look at it to see? --

[1:28:43] >> They are just photographs.

[1:28:45] Would it be okay?

[1:28:47] >> Well, sure. Okay, yeah, you

[1:28:53] will have to submit --

[1:28:55] >> So, I will hold up the

[1:28:56] papers. Is that what I have to

[1:28:58] do so people can see?

[1:29:00] >> No, signage is not permitted

[1:29:01] to bring with you. Just speak.

[1:29:06] >> I will start.

[1:29:08] >> Sorry, I'm the president of

[1:29:10] the --

[1:29:11] >> I'm disappointed.

[1:29:12] >> Hang on, I'm going to ask

[1:29:17] Councillor Thorstad-Cullen,

[1:29:18] she's on the Planning Advisory

[1:29:19] Committee. She can explain a

[1:29:20] little more detail.

[1:29:22] >> So, just to let you know,

[1:29:24] when this bylaw was presented in

[1:29:26] caucus, all of Council received

[1:29:28] all of the photos along with

[1:29:29] different viewpoints from the --

[1:29:31] so it's not that we haven't seen

[1:29:32] them. Anybody on Planning

[1:29:34] Advisory Committee has driven

[1:29:35] past the property and was also

[1:29:38] discussed with caucus. It's not

[1:29:39] that we don't want to take it,

[1:29:40] it's just protocol to not take

[1:29:41] it.

[1:29:42] >> I understand. Not to be

[1:29:43] competitive, but did you see the

[1:29:45] perspectives, the views --

[1:29:48] >> On Pointe-Claire -- people

[1:29:50] that live on Pointe-Claire

[1:29:51] Avenue as well?

[1:29:53] >> With the addition that is

[1:29:55] being proposed to be built, how

[1:29:57] it would block those views?

[1:30:00] >> Yes, we were given those

[1:30:02] perspectives.

[1:30:03] >> Is that something that's

[1:30:04] available to the public to be

[1:30:05] able to look? Decide for

[1:30:07] themselves whether it has

[1:30:08] blockage or not?

[1:30:09] >> It's part of the submission

[1:30:11] the Planning Advisory Committee

[1:30:12] is part of that. I believe it's

[1:30:16] available access the

[1:30:17] information, but that would be

[1:30:18] it.

[1:30:19] >> Well, I guess I will pass

[1:30:20] them around the room, I guess,

[1:30:21] for people to see, so they know

[1:30:22] what we are talking about.

[1:30:24] >> Excuse me, ma'am, no. Excuse

[1:30:26] me, no, we are not --

[1:30:28] >> That's what I would like.

[1:30:29] >> It is not an open discussion.

[1:30:32] >> Okay, can I just say that it

[1:30:34] really would be useful for

[1:30:35] people to see the photos?

[1:30:39] Because a lovely gentlemen came

[1:30:40] by our house earlier this

[1:30:41] evening and he said that --

[1:30:45] road, his writing, I lived on

[1:30:48] three continents and this view,

[1:30:50] from this bus stop, is unique

[1:30:53] and should not be affected. And

[1:30:56] I thought that was, Thomas is

[1:31:00] going to speak to you.

[1:31:02] >> Hi, can I get started? I want

[1:31:03] to get started with the timeline

[1:31:06] here. I guess what had happened

[1:31:07] was why we are here this evening

[1:31:09] is, we noticed the surveys

[1:31:12] around early May. Didn't really

[1:31:14] think a lot about it at the

[1:31:15] time, but my neighbour Luis and

[1:31:19] myself a few weeks ago, she

[1:31:20] asked me to if I had noticed any

[1:31:23] survey. So, what she did was

[1:31:25] Louise sent an email to Mr.

[1:31:29] casino on June the 14th, and I

[1:31:30] quote, just wanted to touch base

[1:31:32] with you on the property across

[1:31:33] the street. Namely, 360 360 Du

[1:31:37] Bord-du-Lac-Lakeshore. I've seen

[1:31:38] the property being surveyed and

[1:31:39] would like to know if there's

[1:31:41] any anticipated expansion.

[1:31:44] Claude responded same-day, and I

[1:31:45] quote, no demolition

[1:31:48] anticipated. Should there be a

[1:31:49] proposal from the owners, you

[1:31:51] should be advised. On June the

[1:31:55] 15th, the next day, Louise,

[1:31:58] myself, and my wife, Christine,

[1:32:00] decided to visit the planning

[1:32:02] department counter to not only

[1:32:04] confirm closed response, but

[1:32:05] also for a sense of ease that

[1:32:06] there is no proposal from the

[1:32:08] owners of 360. We met with -- at

[1:32:11] the counter, much of our dismay,

[1:32:14] in fact, there was a proposal

[1:32:16] received by the City. Contrary

[1:32:18] to clothes email. We asked if we

[1:32:20] could see the details of the

[1:32:22] proposal and we were informed

[1:32:24] that it was not available for

[1:32:25] public view at this moment. We

[1:32:28] asked if there were any specific

[1:32:29] codes, bylaws available for our

[1:32:31] area. She provided a copy of the

[1:32:33] village code. After reviewing

[1:32:40] the village code, I would like

[1:32:41] to just read an excerpt of the

[1:32:44] preamble. It said, with the

[1:32:46] adoption of the village code,

[1:32:47] the city of Pointe-Claire

[1:32:48] becomes the first municipality

[1:32:50] in the province to assemble all

[1:32:53] planning provisions applicable

[1:32:55] to a particular sector in the

[1:32:57] document prepared and presented

[1:32:59] according to four based planning

[1:33:01] principles. The village code is

[1:33:04] thus a first in Québec. Now, we

[1:33:09] are also going to highlight some

[1:33:12] additional points in this code

[1:33:14] pertinent to this 360 lakeshore.

[1:33:16] My wife will do that. On June

[1:33:18] 21st, we received the public

[1:33:22] notice. Request for minor

[1:33:24] exemption to permit 360

[1:33:27] lakeshore road, a facade plane

[1:33:30] with three metres rather than

[1:33:31] the required four metres, and

[1:33:33] that came in via Canada Post. We

[1:33:36] receive that on the 21st of

[1:33:39] June. This notice was extremely

[1:33:43] confusing to all of the people

[1:33:46] that received that notice on

[1:33:48] Lakeshore. This notice was also

[1:33:50] not sent to anybody on

[1:33:53] Pointe-Claire Avenue on the east

[1:33:55] side, whose views would also be

[1:33:57] blocked with the addition of the

[1:34:00] garage. I guess the question

[1:34:03] that I have, and why I'm a

[1:34:05] little bit confused is, what is

[1:34:08] the purpose of this notice? For

[1:34:11] >> The purpose of a notice was

[1:34:13] for the minor exemption to make

[1:34:15] sure that all citizens that are

[1:34:20] affected by that minor

[1:34:22] exemption, and that is defined

[1:34:25] in the bylaw. So, when you ask

[1:34:26] why these people did not get the

[1:34:28] notice, it's because they are

[1:34:29] not defined. Whether they are or

[1:34:31] not is another issue, but they

[1:34:32] are not defined in the bylaw as

[1:34:34] being affected, so they didn't

[1:34:35] get the notice. The notice goes

[1:34:37] all citizens that are affected,

[1:34:38] so that they can come to Council

[1:34:41] and address that minor

[1:34:43] exemption, if they oppose it or

[1:34:45] support it. Before the decision

[1:34:47] was made.

[1:34:48] >> Okay, so, what I would like

[1:34:51] to know is, by reducing that

[1:34:54] facade from three metres down to

[1:34:56] four metres, is that to reduce

[1:34:59] the facade to make room for the

[1:35:01] attached garage? To be in there,

[1:35:03] so that the --

[1:35:04] >> No, I don't know the reason

[1:35:06] for it. You know, I'm not privy

[1:35:08] to that. But it could've been

[1:35:10] four metres. So, if they had

[1:35:13] left it at four metres, there

[1:35:14] would be room for a garage. And

[1:35:17] there would've been no minor

[1:35:18] exemption. And he would've

[1:35:19] gotten no notice.

[1:35:22] >> Okay, at this point, we are

[1:35:26] unaware of the project, there is

[1:35:28] no mention of it in the attached

[1:35:29] garage that would block the view

[1:35:30] of the lake. Households that

[1:35:32] receive the notice live on

[1:35:33] lakeshore, however, households

[1:35:35] on Pointe-Claire did not receive

[1:35:37] a notice. This would also have a

[1:35:39] major impact on them. In fact,

[1:35:41] the entire community have

[1:35:42] enjoyed their walk, jog, or bike

[1:35:44] along the sidewalk will lose the

[1:35:48] spectacular view of the lake.

[1:35:49] This will disappear for all if

[1:35:52] this is approved. With various

[1:35:55] informal meetings, phone calls

[1:35:56] over the next few days, had

[1:35:58] occurred to no avail. June 28th,

[1:36:01] meeting held at the City Hall

[1:36:04] with Claude Cousineau -- Karina

[1:36:08] Verdun, Cindy Fisher and Louise

[1:36:09] -- Christine Clark, and myself,

[1:36:13] Cindy showed us the dimensions

[1:36:14] of the proposal layout for the

[1:36:16] facade and the attached garage.

[1:36:18] This proposal would wipe out

[1:36:20] over 75% of the view of the

[1:36:23] lake. No resolution. So, as you

[1:36:25] had mentioned, you folks had the

[1:36:27] opportunity to have a look at

[1:36:29] some of how this would block the

[1:36:34] lake. The citizens did not get

[1:36:36] that opportunity. And the

[1:36:39] question is, why did we not get

[1:36:41] that opportunity to look at

[1:36:43] something like that before any

[1:36:44] kind of notice would have been

[1:36:46] sent out? Because it seems like

[1:36:48] we are putting the cart ahead of

[1:36:50] the horse here by going with the

[1:36:54] reduction of four metres down to

[1:36:56] three metres. Like, what sense

[1:36:57] does that make when we are not

[1:36:59] being told in the public notice

[1:37:01] what the scope of the project

[1:37:03] is? How are we supposed to have

[1:37:05] any kind of knowledge as to what

[1:37:09] the endgame is here?

[1:37:12] >> The way is exactly the way

[1:37:13] you did. You've got a notice, so

[1:37:16] that permitted, give you enough

[1:37:17] time to investigate, and you

[1:37:19] investigated.

[1:37:20] >> Didn't get enough time to

[1:37:21] investigate.

[1:37:22] >> It seems to me you did.

[1:37:23] You've come here fully prepared,

[1:37:25] it seems to me. You have

[1:37:27] knowledge of what the building

[1:37:29] is going to go, and so, you

[1:37:31] know, I think that the statutes

[1:37:36] have done their job, in terms of

[1:37:38] making sure that -- I understand

[1:37:40] that you may feel he would've

[1:37:41] liked, preferred to have more

[1:37:42] time, but that's what is in the

[1:37:44] bylaw. That is what is also in

[1:37:46] the law. Now, when it comes to

[1:37:48] the actual building, you don't

[1:37:52] have a right of advanced notice.

[1:37:55] According to our bylaw, and

[1:37:56] according to the process, it

[1:37:59] explained, and up to the point

[1:38:01] where it comes to Council, there

[1:38:03] is no right of public access, to

[1:38:06] that information. That is the

[1:38:07] process between the citizens and

[1:38:09] the city. When it comes to

[1:38:11] Council, it comes in the form of

[1:38:14] the site planning architectural

[1:38:16] integration plan. We have to

[1:38:17] approve it. That typically

[1:38:19] comes, like, a lot of other

[1:38:21] properties that are coming up

[1:38:23] from what's called a spade

[1:38:24] review. That notices given the

[1:38:26] public on the Friday for the

[1:38:27] Tuesday meeting. That's

[1:38:28] according to our bylaw and

[1:38:30] statute. Now, perhaps it's an

[1:38:34] idea to increase that notice,

[1:38:36] but that is not the way the law

[1:38:37] is written now. So, you've been

[1:38:39] given the notice that is

[1:38:42] required and by the presence of

[1:38:44] everybody here tonight, it seems

[1:38:46] adequate.

[1:38:47] >> With respect, the notice did

[1:38:49] not offer full disclosure as to

[1:38:51] the scope of the project. There

[1:38:52] was no mention of the garage.

[1:38:57] And the notice was not given to

[1:39:00] everyone, which wasn't fair.

[1:39:02] This isn't just about us. This

[1:39:06] is affecting a lot of people.

[1:39:07] >> This file is a bit

[1:39:09] complicated because that minor

[1:39:12] exemption is required to have

[1:39:14] this public disclosure, public

[1:39:16] notice. It's attached to

[1:39:18] something that's not. And so, it

[1:39:20] doesn't have the same

[1:39:21] requirements. So, that made it a

[1:39:22] little complicated and that's --

[1:39:25] >> Minor is really major.

[1:39:26] >> I can understand that

[1:39:27] perspective, but on the one

[1:39:29] hand. On the other, you did

[1:39:31] organize to have that meeting.

[1:39:33] The information was passed to

[1:39:35] you. You've got an information,

[1:39:37] you are addressing us tonight,

[1:39:38] so you have clearly prepared

[1:39:40] yourself. You know what the

[1:39:43] project is, so it actually did

[1:39:45] work.

[1:39:46] >> We were not provided a plan.

[1:39:50] We were allowed to look at it. I

[1:39:54] asked the question about the

[1:39:57] facade. That is to build. And I

[1:40:02] was told three metres, plus five

[1:40:07] point 64 metres, which is almost

[1:40:11] nine metres coming out from the

[1:40:13] main building, the main house.

[1:40:16] It's a huge --

[1:40:17] >> I understand that.

[1:40:18] >> It's a huge construction.

[1:40:19] >> The staff is caught in this

[1:40:22] position when they are dealing

[1:40:23] with you that they have to

[1:40:24] respect the privacy of the

[1:40:26] applicant. Until that

[1:40:28] information is put before

[1:40:29] Council, until it's on the

[1:40:30] agenda this meeting, and is

[1:40:32] published, that information is

[1:40:34] confidential. So, you know,

[1:40:37] whatever information they gave

[1:40:38] you, they had to play with, that

[1:40:39] had to recognize that they have

[1:40:41] to give you information on the

[1:40:42] one hand to support your ability

[1:40:45] to comment on the minor

[1:40:46] exemption, but they have to

[1:40:47] protect the applicants

[1:40:49] confidentiality and privacy for

[1:40:51] their project. This is a bit of

[1:40:53] the tight situation. But in this

[1:40:56] case, as I said, you've come

[1:40:58] prepared, you seem to know what

[1:41:00] is coming ahead. What the

[1:41:03] decision that Council is being

[1:41:05] required to make and you can

[1:41:06] make a representation to

[1:41:07] Council, you can hold Council

[1:41:09] accountable. No, ma'am, this is

[1:41:13] not a discussion. This is a

[1:41:16] public consultation. Ma'am, the

[1:41:20] public --

[1:41:21] [Inaudible]

[1:41:22] >> Yeah, you have to address

[1:41:25] Council in the mic. I think

[1:41:27] we've dealt with you.

[1:41:29] >> We've got a few things --

[1:41:30] >> And just make a clarified

[1:41:31] point? I think there's some

[1:41:33] confusion here. The property

[1:41:37] owners at 360 lakeshore, if they

[1:41:38] had built, -- what they're going

[1:41:40] to build with a four metre

[1:41:41] connection, they are allowed to

[1:41:43] do that in a current bylaw.

[1:41:45] Nothing that they are doing

[1:41:47] opposes our current bylaws that

[1:41:49] are written as such. The only

[1:41:51] reason it became a minor

[1:41:52] delegation is because they are

[1:41:53] shortening that connection

[1:41:55] piece, so, bylaw, on paper, you

[1:41:57] look at the bylaws, there's

[1:41:59] nothing that's not in accordance

[1:42:00] with our current bylaws if the

[1:42:02] city of Pointe-Claire. Whether

[1:42:03] you agree with the bylaws or not

[1:42:04] is a whole different story, but

[1:42:06] they are abiding by the bylaws

[1:42:08] that exist. So, you just need to

[1:42:09] remember that and then there are

[1:42:11] two other points. We never share

[1:42:14] with neighbours the plants of

[1:42:15] somebody who's going to do a

[1:42:16] renovation. We don't knock on

[1:42:17] every door and say, oh, your

[1:42:18] neighbour is about to build

[1:42:19] this. It doesn't happen in the

[1:42:20] city of Pointe-Claire.

[1:42:22] >> Of course not.

[1:42:23] >> So, we cannot do that, and we

[1:42:24] have to respect the rights of

[1:42:26] 360, and that's a different

[1:42:27] perspective is the village code.

[1:42:28] But you need to also remember

[1:42:29] that the village code speaks

[1:42:31] about the public views, not

[1:42:33] private because. Private views

[1:42:34] are not protected in

[1:42:36] Pointe-Claire. So, I'm just

[1:42:37] telling you what we have to work

[1:42:38] with on black and white bylaw.

[1:42:41] >> It is the village code a

[1:42:43] binding document?

[1:42:44] >> Sir, as I explained, try to

[1:42:47] get across at the beginning, in

[1:42:48] the village code, there are

[1:42:50] absolute binding black and white

[1:42:52] criteria, but there are also

[1:42:54] subjective criteria. That are

[1:42:56] subject to judgment, a judgment

[1:42:58] call. When Madam Gutierrez read

[1:43:00] out the recommendation of the

[1:43:02] Planning Advisory Committee, it

[1:43:05] says specifically, whereas the

[1:43:07] objectives of the village code

[1:43:09] are generally respected, that

[1:43:11] doesn't mean that every single

[1:43:13] one is respected, in terms of

[1:43:16] black and white. It means

[1:43:17] there's been a trade-off in the

[1:43:20] assessment of the Planning

[1:43:22] Advisory Committee and that

[1:43:25] trade-off is incorporated into

[1:43:27] their recommendation that has

[1:43:28] been given to Council.

[1:43:29] >> But we seem to have -- in the

[1:43:33] village code itself, and I

[1:43:35] quote, it's preserved in a high

[1:43:37] lab outstanding views of the

[1:43:38] lakes, and it's scenery. So,

[1:43:40] you're saying that in all the

[1:43:44] sections, the various sections

[1:43:46] that are there, those types of

[1:43:48] comments that are written --

[1:43:51] >> Are disregarded?

[1:43:53] >> We are just taken into

[1:43:55] consideration, they don't hold

[1:43:56] any water.? We

[1:43:58] >> That is a subjective, it says

[1:44:00] it's the intention of the

[1:44:03] village code to preserve the

[1:44:04] water views as Councillor

[1:44:08] Thorstad-Cullen said, that the

[1:44:09] intention is directed at the

[1:44:11] public perspective, not at a

[1:44:12] private perspective. So, that's

[1:44:14] the intention. The

[1:44:17] recommendation from the Planning

[1:44:19] Advisory Committee is that the

[1:44:21] general objectives of the

[1:44:22] village code have been

[1:44:24] respected. That is the

[1:44:25] recommendation that they are

[1:44:26] giving to Council.

[1:44:30] >> Can we start reading our

[1:44:31] petition? We have a petition,

[1:44:32] please read it very quickly. I

[1:44:34] can talk quickly. It's important

[1:44:40] that

[1:44:41] [Silence]

[1:44:46] And this isn't for us. It's

[1:44:51] important for people to

[1:44:52] understand, yes it's personal,

[1:44:53] this is our home, we are

[1:44:55] emotional about it, we feel

[1:44:56] protective. But anyone who's

[1:44:58] found out about this in our

[1:45:00] immediate area and even other

[1:45:01] districts of Pointe-Claire,

[1:45:03] they're very troubled and very

[1:45:04] upset. And they asked us to

[1:45:07] start a petition. So, I just

[1:45:10] want to make that clear. It's

[1:45:12] not entirely for us, ourselves

[1:45:15] as individuals. So, the petition

[1:45:19] states, as a Pointe-Claire

[1:45:20] citizen, I'm strongly opposed to

[1:45:22] the construction of a garage at

[1:45:26] 360 lakeshore or any other

[1:45:27] building, for that matter, that

[1:45:29] could potentially severely

[1:45:30] degrade the panoramic view of

[1:45:32] Lac-Saint-Louis, impacting the

[1:45:34] Pointe-Claire Village,

[1:45:35] negatively, by threatening it's

[1:45:37] important to heritage, property

[1:45:39] values, and is in contradiction

[1:45:42] to chapter six, you P3 West

[1:45:46] Island Village entrance code as

[1:45:48] follows. And I've already shown

[1:45:50] it, I will show it again, it's

[1:45:52] on the website, so a city of

[1:45:55] Pointe-Claire website. I can

[1:45:56] help you find it, it's a bit of

[1:45:59] a labyrinth, but it is there.

[1:46:02] Under intentions, strengthen the

[1:46:03] relationship with the village

[1:46:04] core. Preserve views towards

[1:46:08] Lac-Saint-Louis under citing

[1:46:09] number nine. Site setbacks

[1:46:11] providing views of

[1:46:13] Lac-Saint-Louis should be

[1:46:14] preserved and laid out as, so as

[1:46:16] to provide a strong visual link

[1:46:18] between the public domain and

[1:46:21] the lake. Number 11, garages and

[1:46:24] sheds should be hidden or barely

[1:46:26] visible from the street, their

[1:46:28] location should be setback from

[1:46:30] the main building, and ideally,

[1:46:32] behind it. For waterfront

[1:46:35] properties along

[1:46:36] Lac-Saint-Louis, the placement

[1:46:37] and height of the construction

[1:46:39] or expansion of a building, wall

[1:46:41] hedge, or fence should allow for

[1:46:43] views between buildings or over

[1:46:45] walls, hedges, and fences, and

[1:46:48] should enhance the exceptional

[1:46:50] views of Lac-Saint-Louis and his

[1:46:52] landscape, taking into account

[1:46:54] the vegetation and the existing

[1:46:56] plant land levels. Under

[1:46:59] treatment of front setback, a

[1:47:01] development should preserve and

[1:47:02] enhance views towards

[1:47:06] Lac-Saint-Louis. Number 12, for

[1:47:09] waterfront properties along

[1:47:10] Lac-Saint-Louis, any wall,

[1:47:11] hedge, or fence should be placed

[1:47:13] so as to preserve and highlight

[1:47:16] outstanding views of the lake

[1:47:20] and it's scenery. I need a drink

[1:47:23] of water very badly.

[1:47:24] >> -- how is that subjective?

[1:47:26] >> Okay, --

[1:47:28] >> Just a moment, please.

[1:47:29] >> I just want to introduce, I'm

[1:47:30] sorry.

[1:47:31] >> I would like to ask Council,

[1:47:34] how is that subjective, with all

[1:47:36] of the, this is all coming from

[1:47:41] the village code right here. The

[1:47:42] village code is written for a

[1:47:44] reason. If I'm not mistaken, I

[1:47:47] think -- we're involved with the

[1:47:48] writing in the village code with

[1:47:50] the last administration. That

[1:47:52] was one in 2017, 2018. And I

[1:47:59] believe some of you may have

[1:48:00] also participated in that. So,

[1:48:02] all of these points, are they

[1:48:05] classified as valid or invalid?

[1:48:07] >> Sir, we are not going to get

[1:48:09] into a debate.

[1:48:10] >> It's not a matter of debate,

[1:48:12] sir.

[1:48:13] >> It is.

[1:48:15] >> Upholding the village code.

[1:48:16] >> I get, that but answering the

[1:48:18] question is kind of soliciting

[1:48:19] debate. The answer, in general

[1:48:22] sense, is that, as I've said,

[1:48:24] the village code has objective

[1:48:26] elements and it has subjective

[1:48:27] elements. And Council, when we

[1:48:29] get to it, will vote and each

[1:48:31] one will vote their conscience,

[1:48:33] according to what they think.

[1:48:35] And if they are in agreement,

[1:48:38] the village code is black and

[1:48:40] white on perspectives and of the

[1:48:42] lake, and that putting any kind

[1:48:43] of an obstacle in front of the

[1:48:45] way it should be absolutely --

[1:48:47] they will vote against it. If

[1:48:49] they have a feeling differently,

[1:48:51] they will vote the other way.

[1:48:53] So, that is as complete and

[1:48:56] answer as I can give you.

[1:48:57] >> But I would think like

[1:48:58] something like that would be put

[1:49:00] under preamble that, you know,

[1:49:02] something in the verbiage that

[1:49:04] would indicate that it is

[1:49:06] subjective. Because it doesn't

[1:49:08] say anything in here that, you

[1:49:09] know, these items may be

[1:49:14] subjective, but based on --

[1:49:18] whether he believed in these

[1:49:19] issues or not, I'm confused.

[1:49:22] >> Well, you may have a point.

[1:49:23] Maybe we should re-look at the

[1:49:24] preamble, but that's not up for

[1:49:26] decision tonight. Tonight,

[1:49:28] talking about the minor

[1:49:30] exemptions and then later on,

[1:49:31] the -- review for 360 and that

[1:49:34] is it. And they said,

[1:49:36] councillors will make their own

[1:49:37] determinations to what is

[1:49:38] subjective and what is

[1:49:39] objective, and they will vote

[1:49:40] accordingly.

[1:49:41] >> So, going back to that notice

[1:49:44] that we had received, the

[1:49:46] reduction of four metres down to

[1:49:49] three metres. You are saying

[1:49:53] that even at four metres, with

[1:49:55] the addition of the garage it is

[1:49:58] within the proper confines, that

[1:50:02] is there?

[1:50:03] >> Yes, that meets the technical

[1:50:04] specifications of the village

[1:50:05] code, correct.

[1:50:06] >> Okay, so that's the part

[1:50:07] that, then you will make a

[1:50:10] decision on that tonight at --

[1:50:14] ten 17.5 it will be taken into

[1:50:16] consideration in the village

[1:50:18] code?

[1:50:19] >> The next, I guess the 17.5,

[1:50:21] that's where the speed comes up.

[1:50:23] Yes, that's exactly the village

[1:50:24] code. That is, the application

[1:50:27] of the subjective elements of

[1:50:31] the village code is right there.

[1:50:33] So yes, council will vote on

[1:50:35] that.

[1:50:38] >> And if I may add, when

[1:50:39] council votes, we really hope

[1:50:40] that they will vote with their

[1:50:43] heart and with their head, to

[1:50:48] make an intelligent decision and

[1:50:51] a decision that is best for

[1:50:55] Pointe-Claire. And not a

[1:50:59] decision, what can I say? A

[1:51:02] decision that is politically,

[1:51:05] strategic.

[1:51:06] >> I guess maybe the best thing,

[1:51:08] the best way to word it is to

[1:51:10] put yourselves in positions of

[1:51:13] the people that are being

[1:51:15] affective but are here this

[1:51:16] evening. Not just for the

[1:51:17] addition of the garage, where

[1:51:20] you are going to take away that

[1:51:21] beautiful view of the lake for a

[1:51:24] garage.

[1:51:25] >> May I just finished?

[1:51:27] >> Does that serve any of the

[1:51:29] citizens in the area in any way,

[1:51:31] shape, or form?

[1:51:32] >> I think you made a point very

[1:51:34] clear and you to, I think we

[1:51:36] have to move on.

[1:51:37] >> With respect, I have to

[1:51:38] finish this and present the

[1:51:39] petition.

[1:51:40] >> You can do that, but we are

[1:51:41] going to have to move on. Let

[1:51:42] other people have a chance. Let

[1:51:44] me answer one question and one

[1:51:45] point. I can guarantee that

[1:51:48] every councillor on every person

[1:51:50] here tonight, all councillors

[1:51:51] will do exactly what you have

[1:51:52] asked. That is, they will vote

[1:51:57] to further the best interest of

[1:51:58] the city of Pointe-Claire, all

[1:51:59] the residents in the city of

[1:52:00] Pointe-Claire. That is what they

[1:52:01] all do every time. That means

[1:52:04] some people will not like what

[1:52:05] they have and what they vote,

[1:52:07] and other people will. That's

[1:52:08] just the nature of the game. But

[1:52:10] they do it every time.

[1:52:15] >> May I present the petitions?

[1:52:17] >> Yeah.

[1:52:18] >> Thank you.

[1:52:24] >> Jill Barker, 14 Pointe-Claire

[1:52:26] Avenue. I guess my concern is

[1:52:32] the creep of this decision. So,

[1:52:34] Iran, cycle, walk along

[1:52:36] lakeshore Road. And if we do

[1:52:38] this for this instance, then we

[1:52:41] do it the next time, and the

[1:52:43] next request, and the next

[1:52:44] request, and ten years from now,

[1:52:46] that view on lakeshore road that

[1:52:48] we all enjoy, that public view,

[1:52:51] will slowly erode. And this is

[1:52:53] the beginning of the creep. And

[1:52:56] this is what is going to change.

[1:53:00] What we all, we shout

[1:53:02] Pointe-Claire. We tout its views

[1:53:04] of the lake, the access to the

[1:53:06] lake. And so, how do we stop the

[1:53:09] creep? It is here. And that's

[1:53:12] the public access. That is what

[1:53:14] we look for when we walk, you

[1:53:16] know? The people that walk

[1:53:17] through the village, that is

[1:53:19] what they are looking for. They

[1:53:20] are not looking for more

[1:53:22] garages, they want the view of

[1:53:25] the lake. So, we need to stop it

[1:53:30] now.

[1:53:31] >> Thank you. Anybody else?

[1:53:36] Well, I don't have a list now,

[1:53:38] so --

[1:53:46] >> Hello, my name is Louise --

[1:53:48] bomber, I live at 361 lakeshore

[1:53:51] road. I love directly across

[1:53:53] from 360.

[1:53:55] >> Ma'am, can you speak into the

[1:53:57] mic? For all the people at home.

[1:54:00] Just for the people at home,

[1:54:01] speak in the Mike. We can hear

[1:54:02] you.

[1:54:04] >> Okay, wherever the mic takes

[1:54:06] me. I'm just, of course I'm in

[1:54:09] great opposition. You know,

[1:54:12] we've lived there for over 20

[1:54:13] years. We bought it because of

[1:54:17] the spectacular view, because we

[1:54:19] love to sit on the balcony and

[1:54:21] see all the people going by. It

[1:54:23] is a quality of our life. And

[1:54:25] that is going to be taken away

[1:54:28] with this, our view it's going

[1:54:30] to be completely obstructed. You

[1:54:33] know, I don't think it is fair

[1:54:35] and I don't, you know, I really

[1:54:37] think, I really think that is

[1:54:39] not for the greater good. But

[1:54:41] however, whatever way the system

[1:54:43] works here, do you really mean

[1:54:44] to tell me we get this minor,

[1:54:48] little, oh, it's a minor

[1:54:50] exemption. But it's a minor

[1:54:52] exemption for a major building.

[1:54:55] I mean, seriously, I really feel

[1:54:58] here that there is no

[1:54:59] transparency. I really do. It

[1:55:01] was not full disclosure. We

[1:55:04] should've had full disclosure.

[1:55:06] And, you see, my house is here,

[1:55:09] as a heritage interest. One of

[1:55:13] the things to preserve views

[1:55:17] towards Lac St. Louis. How come

[1:55:18] that is not important? I really

[1:55:21] do not understand. How it

[1:55:24] could've gotten this far and the

[1:55:26] person who bought, I mean, if we

[1:55:29] hadn't seen the person on the

[1:55:31] road and said, oh, are you doing

[1:55:32] something to your house? Oh

[1:55:34] yeah, he showed us the picture,

[1:55:35] it's not Pointe-Claire who

[1:55:38] divulge what was being done.

[1:55:40] It's the man himself and that is

[1:55:41] when we took action. Hey, wait a

[1:55:44] minute here. So, I'm just asking

[1:55:46] you, you know, to take our point

[1:55:49] of view to. Yes, for me

[1:55:50] personally, yes and it evaluates

[1:55:53] our property, I think, come on.

[1:55:55] But it is for everybody. As Joe

[1:55:57] said, everybody walks, jobs,

[1:56:01] stops there, you know? It is an

[1:56:03] obstruction of our view and the

[1:56:05] quality of our life. And that is

[1:56:08] really what I want to say. I'm

[1:56:11] terribly sorry. That we even

[1:56:13] have to do this.

[1:56:14] >> Thank you, ma'am.

[1:56:20] >> As you can tell, a lot of

[1:56:22] people feel very strongly.

[1:56:24] Claude, you live on our street,

[1:56:26] so he would. No you drive down

[1:56:28] the street, you see the lake

[1:56:29] when you walk the dog. It's one

[1:56:30] around, it is one of the longest

[1:56:33] streak in Pointe-Claire, by the

[1:56:34] way. A lot of people live on

[1:56:35] that street. I'm on seven

[1:56:37] Pointe-Claire Avenue -- by the

[1:56:38] way, have lived there 13 years,

[1:56:41] was raised, born and raised in

[1:56:43] Pointe-Claire as well. So, when

[1:56:46] somebody mentioned that you've

[1:56:48] gotten all the views and all the

[1:56:50] views that were impacted, nobody

[1:56:51] came on my front porch to see

[1:56:53] how I feel. By the way, I just

[1:56:55] did I know I'm very familiar

[1:56:56] with the process because I just

[1:56:58] did a major renovation on my

[1:57:00] house, including a wraparound

[1:57:01] porch. Because of the view. It

[1:57:04] is where I have coffee every

[1:57:05] morning, it's where I have a

[1:57:06] glass of wine, or to, every

[1:57:07] evening, it's where bring my

[1:57:09] friends, it is my life. I built

[1:57:11] my dream home around the views.

[1:57:15] And someone wants to build a

[1:57:17] garage because it's convenient

[1:57:18] and all of this, we are 15

[1:57:21] people. Just showing up tonight.

[1:57:23] Many were not available because

[1:57:25] it impacts our everyday life. My

[1:57:27] every morning coffee, my friends

[1:57:29] that come over for the view, you

[1:57:30] know? My dinner I have that I

[1:57:32] had last night looking at the

[1:57:35] lake. We heard a lot earlier

[1:57:39] that frustration from residents,

[1:57:42] citizens that are not being

[1:57:43] heard. So, I know the process is

[1:57:46] -- I believe you mentioned there

[1:57:47] is going to be a committee and

[1:57:48] they will make a decision. How

[1:57:51] can they be aware of our

[1:57:54] thoughts or feelings, or

[1:57:55] objections? There is a petition,

[1:57:57] will they see the petition?

[1:57:59] >> Ma'am, --

[1:58:00] >> How can our voice be heard

[1:58:01] greater than here?

[1:58:02] >> The committee has made a

[1:58:04] recommendation without hearing

[1:58:05] you, correct. But now that

[1:58:07] recommendation doesn't, it has

[1:58:08] no bearing until council votes

[1:58:10] shortly on that issue. So, now

[1:58:12] we are hearing you. And

[1:58:14] everybody else.

[1:58:15] >> Okay, we are a lot. This is a

[1:58:17] great opportunity to listen to

[1:58:19] the residents and its citizens.

[1:58:21] That they feel strongly about

[1:58:22] this and you will have one guy

[1:58:23] not happy that he doesn't have a

[1:58:25] garage. I should've bought that

[1:58:27] house. I'm going to build a

[1:58:29] garage. That guy was not going

[1:58:30] to be happy, but you're going to

[1:58:31] make an entire street and entire

[1:58:33] community much happier. It's not

[1:58:36] -- to listen to us and to take

[1:58:38] us seriously.

[1:58:39] >> Thank you.

[1:58:41] >> Yeah, I'm just going to use

[1:58:43] your own words that you said,

[1:58:44] that you would listen to the

[1:58:45] citizens of Pointe-Claire. A lot

[1:58:49] of people, not just citizens of

[1:58:51] Pointe-Claire. Everybody from

[1:58:52] Montréal walks on that

[1:58:53] lakeshore, goes through

[1:58:54] Pointe-Claire village is. Spends

[1:58:57] the money and looks at the view

[1:58:59] and hangs out at that park. And

[1:59:01] if you are going to take the

[1:59:03] view of the Pointe-Claire

[1:59:05] citizens to heart, then you

[1:59:07] should listen to what everybody

[1:59:11] is saying. Really, the only

[1:59:13] person who's going to benefit

[1:59:14] from that garage is one guy. But

[1:59:16] you have hundreds of people,

[1:59:19] thousands of people who go

[1:59:20] through Pointe-Claire Village

[1:59:21] who enjoy that view. So, I would

[1:59:25] ask that you would honour what

[1:59:27] you said, that you would take

[1:59:29] Pointe-Claire citizens opinions

[1:59:30] to heart.

[1:59:31] >> Thank you. Anybody else on --

[1:59:36] >> I'm that guy.

[1:59:42] [Inaudible]

[1:59:48] >> Hello, thank you for

[1:59:51] receiving us tonight. --

[1:59:55] Nous sommes les co-propriétaires

[1:59:58] du 360 Lakeshore. Au besoin,

[1:59:59] s'il y a des questions

[2:00:01] techniques auxquelles on peut

[2:00:02] répondre, madame Monique

[2:00:05] Villeneuve et notre architecte

[2:00:07] du village de Pointe-Claire, son

[2:00:09] bureau est

[2:00:10] (inaudible)

[2:00:11] , il connaît le village, le Code

[2:00:12] et la propriété.

[2:00:17] I understand this is a very

[2:00:19] emotional issue for both

[2:00:21] councils. Understand that's why

[2:00:22] I'm supposed to talk. And I know

[2:00:23] I'm talking to the people over

[2:00:24] here and the people that are not

[2:00:25] in this room right now. It is an

[2:00:28] emotional issue. We fought hard

[2:00:31] and long before purchasing this

[2:00:34] property that had been on the

[2:00:35] market for a couple of years. We

[2:00:38] are residents of Pointe-Claire.

[2:00:40] We go to the water side pretty

[2:00:42] much every day with our dogs,

[2:00:43] and by the way, our sons have

[2:00:46] spent 23 years in this

[2:00:48] incredible community. So, we

[2:00:50] know Pointe-Claire. Well we are

[2:00:52] not outsiders coming to do a

[2:00:54] flip. We have people from

[2:00:56] Pointe-Claire that looked at

[2:00:57] property, an interesting

[2:00:58] property, and it is not moving,

[2:01:00] it is not moving. -- disaster.

[2:01:02] All the discussion so far has

[2:01:04] been about the guy in the

[2:01:05] garage. If I can, I would like

[2:01:07] to bring a bit more context.

[2:01:09] Because, unfortunately, I

[2:01:11] thought the people who came to

[2:01:13] city hall saw more than what

[2:01:15] they did see. I thought they saw

[2:01:16] the whole set of plans we had

[2:01:18] given for the urban Planning

[2:01:19] Committee. I guess that's not

[2:01:20] the case. And that's fine,

[2:01:22] whatever the proposal is, or

[2:01:23] whatever the approach.. So, let

[2:01:25] me describe a little bit what we

[2:01:27] went through to get to this

[2:01:29] point. We are also emotional, by

[2:01:31] the way. --

[2:01:38] >> I let you speak.

[2:01:42] >> Before buying this house, we

[2:01:44] did our homework. What's the

[2:01:46] first thing we did? Checked

[2:01:49] titles, checked -- checked to

[2:01:52] see what can be done on this

[2:01:54] property. Because, obviously,

[2:01:56] anybody that has seen it, you

[2:01:58] know there is a major work to be

[2:02:00] done on this house. And if you

[2:02:02] haven't been inside then you

[2:02:03] would really know that there is

[2:02:05] major work to be done in this --

[2:02:07] the status quo is not an option.

[2:02:08] It's not an option. So, we

[2:02:10] looked at the titles. Nowhere

[2:02:13] did it say, in the --

[2:02:19] On ne pouvait pas densifier le

[2:02:20] terrain. -- nowhere didn't say

[2:02:22] that. We actually, also -- my

[2:02:24] wife went to city planning here,

[2:02:26] and said, look, we are looking

[2:02:28] at buying this property, can we

[2:02:31] build a garage? And the answer

[2:02:33] was, yes. One storey, two

[2:02:36] storey. These different

[2:02:37] conditions and criteria. There's

[2:02:39] a process you would have to go

[2:02:40] through. But there is no reason

[2:02:42] why you can't. And, in fact, we

[2:02:45] also studied the city code, UP3.

[2:02:51] And in the code, not only does

[2:02:52] it not say you can't build a

[2:02:54] garage -- and to answer some of

[2:02:55] the questions before -- the

[2:02:57] intentions are because it is

[2:03:00] should, and not must --

[2:03:04] C'est le conditionnel, devrait

[2:03:06] et n'ont pas droit. So, it's

[2:03:07] very different in the

[2:03:10] intentions, in how you and your

[2:03:11] colleagues must consider all the

[2:03:13] various factors, the same way we

[2:03:14] consider all the various

[2:03:16] factors. So, when you put

[2:03:19] through all of that, you say,

[2:03:21] wow, we can actually do

[2:03:23] something very interesting on

[2:03:24] the property. And I will talk to

[2:03:25] you about what the mandate is

[2:03:27] that we gave to our architect.

[2:03:31] So, once again, just to finish

[2:03:33] on that --

[2:03:37] It doesn't say you can't build a

[2:03:39] garage. It actually gives you a

[2:03:40] lot of indication as to what you

[2:03:42] should consider if you were to

[2:03:44] do something -- such as, and you

[2:03:45] mentioned some of the articles

[2:03:46] -- well, build in the back.

[2:03:47] Well, unfortunately there is

[2:03:48] something called

[2:03:51] We can't build. There we can't

[2:03:53] build on the side. We can build

[2:03:55] on the other side. It can't be

[2:03:56] built. So, that's the only place

[2:03:57] it could be built. So, let me

[2:04:00] address the

[2:04:03] -- of tonight. We could have

[2:04:06] saved ourselves a lot of

[2:04:07] trouble, by the way, by just

[2:04:09] saying, okay, the portion that

[2:04:12] connects the house to the garage

[2:04:14] -- the City has told us it's got

[2:04:16] to be four metres. We want to

[2:04:18] keep all of this as small as

[2:04:21] possible to enhance what is

[2:04:25] available from the public views.

[2:04:26] And I will talk to you about a

[2:04:28] few of the things we are going

[2:04:29] to be doing. So, we would like

[2:04:31] to have that link? Four metres?

[2:04:33] The answer is yes. But we are

[2:04:36] trying to make this reasonable

[2:04:38] with respect to the people

[2:04:39] around us, and what we are doing

[2:04:41] with the property. And I will

[2:04:42] tell you some of the other

[2:04:43] things are doing. And I see you

[2:04:46] -- please respect what I am

[2:04:47] saying. I respected you.

[2:04:50] >> --

[2:04:52] >> Ma'am, ma'am. Please, no --

[2:04:54] no, ma'am.

[2:04:56] >> -- listen -- I dressed me in

[2:05:03] a derogatory manner. Yes. --

[2:05:08] tell him to show some respect

[2:05:11] to.

[2:05:12] >> Ma'am, I'm trying to keep

[2:05:14] nous avons an even embauché avec

[2:05:15] la keel -- please cooperate.

[2:05:16] Recommandation de la ville. Vous

[2:05:18] êtes mieux d'avoir des plans

[2:05:19] bien étoffé. On s'est dit, qui

[2:05:22] n'est qu'un architecture locale.

[2:05:23] Nous avons rencontré madame

[2:05:25] Villeneuve. C'était automatique.

[2:05:27] Il fallait qu'elle croit en a

[2:05:28] trop roulé. Le mariage a été

[2:05:32] très bien. Quelques extraits du

[2:05:36] mandat que nous lui avons donné.

[2:05:37] Nous ne sommes pas des experts.

[2:05:39] And by the way. We have never

[2:05:41] spoken to the

[2:05:42] City since we bought the house.

[2:05:43] The architect has been working

[2:05:44] with the experts, not us. We

[2:05:46] haven't talked to any of you. We

[2:05:48] have let the process go as we

[2:05:50] were told to let it go. The

[2:05:52] first thing we told her is, we

[2:05:54] want a

[2:05:55] On veut garder l'immeuble est

[2:05:57] existant dans la mesure du

[2:06:00] possible, reconnaissant qu'il y

[2:06:01] a des travaux majeurs à cet

[2:06:02] immeuble et de structures. La

[2:06:04] première chose qu'on veut faire

[2:06:05] est de tenter de le maintenir.

[2:06:07] On veut ajouter engage, une

[2:06:09] jonction qui s'élève sur un

[2:06:11] niveau, pas de niveau, un

[2:06:12] niveau. Tout en minimisant

[2:06:15] l'impact visuel du domaine

[2:06:16] public. Je vais venir voir, vous

[2:06:20] allez voir comment est-ce qu'on

[2:06:21] fait sur. Avoir des percées sur

[2:06:24] le domaine publique, on fait des

[2:06:27] choses, ce n'est pas nécessaire

[2:06:28] de les faire pour accentuer les

[2:06:29] lieux. S'assurer que le projet

[2:06:33] tienne compte des lois,

[2:06:34] règlements, intentions

[2:06:36] municipales et provinciales,

[2:06:37] tout ça a été fait.

[2:06:41] Quelques chiffres.

[2:06:44] And I don't want to get boring

[2:06:45] on stats.

[2:06:46] Qu'il y a des chiffres

[2:06:47] importants, le tour

[2:06:49] d' implantation et

[2:06:50] le coefficient sur le sol. And I

[2:06:51] won't get

[2:06:52] Into the details. But these are

[2:06:53] things that the experts look at

[2:06:56] to see, can you build? And the

[2:07:00] total implementation that we are

[2:07:01] doing is 1688 square feet. We

[2:07:05] are allowed to put 2300 square

[2:07:11] 2345 square feet --

[2:07:13] Cardiff qui sont sur le sol, un

[2:07:15] maximum de 6229 pieds carrés

[2:07:16] permis. Nous proposons 4453

[2:07:22] pieds carrés avec le projet

[2:07:23] global. On optimise pas ce qu'on

[2:07:27] pourrait, même la valeur de la

[2:07:28] propriété. J'achève.

[2:07:32] I don't have too much more. So,

[2:07:35] what are the things that we are

[2:07:37] doing? The junction between the

[2:07:40] garage and the house is three

[2:07:42] metres, not for. That means that

[2:07:44] the garage is not sliding east.

[2:07:49] If we are refused three feet

[2:07:51] instead for, because it's a

[2:07:55] Three metres instead of four,

[2:07:56] then the garage would slide an

[2:07:58] extra three feet -- by the way,

[2:08:00] the end of the garage -- we

[2:08:03] don't like to have a nice big

[2:08:05] garage? The answer is yes. It's

[2:08:07] not a nice big garage. The

[2:08:12] garage and is 16 feet from the

[2:08:15] property line. The law requires

[2:08:17] a setback of two feet. So, in

[2:08:20] theory, we can have the garage

[2:08:22] another 14 feet towards the

[2:08:23] east. We are not doing. That

[2:08:25] that is our decision. The same

[2:08:27] thing -- it's in our decision

[2:08:28] not to build that link four

[2:08:31] metres as we should do. So, we

[2:08:33] are doing things in that

[2:08:34] respect, to minimize. For those

[2:08:36] that know the property, there

[2:08:37] are other things that would be

[2:08:40] done that help the views. As you

[2:08:42] look at the house on the west

[2:08:44] side, there is a driveway, there

[2:08:45] is -- a

[2:08:47] We are voluntarily removing that

[2:08:49] -- to clear an unobstructed view

[2:08:52] from the road.

[2:08:57] We are not optimizing the -- as

[2:08:59] I mentioned

[2:09:05] But now there is a brown fence,

[2:09:07] if you look at the property, on

[2:09:09] the west side of the property.

[2:09:11] That brown fence is, as I say,

[2:09:12] we will be removed, where the

[2:09:16] garage ends 16 feet

[2:09:18] approximately from the property

[2:09:19] line

[2:09:20] Ce serait une cour dure enfer

[2:09:21] Forget, vous pouvez voir à

[2:09:22] travers. Ce n'est pas toute la

[2:09:24] propriété qui est obstrué, 16

[2:09:26] pieds aura maintenant une

[2:09:28] clôture en faire forger,

[2:09:30] contrairement à la clôture

[2:09:31] opaque qui est là maintenant.

[2:09:34] Toute la végétation planté sera

[2:09:36] de la végétation basse, des

[2:09:39] fleurs, ce ne sera pas des

[2:09:41] arbres qui vont bloquer la vue.

[2:09:43] Tout est fait par le respect et

[2:09:46] les intentions articulées dans

[2:09:48] le Code. En conclusion, quoi que

[2:09:53] mon épouse aurait peut-être des

[2:09:54] points à ajouter que j'aurais dû

[2:09:56] dire, l'architecture du projet,

[2:09:57] on ne peut pas montrer les

[2:09:59] photos. On a tout fait, bravo

[2:10:02] mené pour le travail que tu as

[2:10:03] fait. On reconnaît l'importance

[2:10:06] du projet à l'

[2:10:07] entrée du village.

[2:10:08] We recognize the importance.

[2:10:10] It's a beautiful entrance of the

[2:10:11] village. So, that house right

[2:10:14] now, that is brick, falling

[2:10:16] apart brick, stone. There's all

[2:10:17] sorts of different things -- it

[2:10:20] is proposed to be -- the roof is

[2:10:22] like the old orchard. Dark metal

[2:10:25] roof for the garage and the

[2:10:28] house. The brick will be

[2:10:30] covered, in its entirety, with

[2:10:33] cedar shingle, a bit like many

[2:10:34] of the homes around, and as you

[2:10:36] enter the village -- three

[2:10:39] houses around. Light colour and

[2:10:42] --

[2:10:44] He says, whether a line of brick

[2:10:46] around it at the base.

[2:10:49] Les matériaux seront bien

[2:10:50] choisis. Also, right now --

[2:10:51] C'est un îlot de chaleur,

[2:10:52] maintenant. If you look at the

[2:10:55] house, there's a lot of

[2:10:56] pavement. All the pavement is

[2:10:57] going. It's going to be

[2:10:59] Ce sera remplacé par des pierres

[2:11:01] à violer, qui favorise le

[2:11:03] drainage, qui favorise moins

[2:11:06] d'obtention de la chaleur. Ce

[2:11:08] sera fait, des deux côtés, de

[2:11:10] l'entrée du côté ouest ainsi que

[2:11:11] de l'entrée au garage.

[2:11:15] Dernièrement, lorsque les

[2:11:16] travaux ont été faits sur cette

[2:11:18] maison,

[2:11:19] (---)

[2:11:20] . And I don't know when

[2:11:21] Some of the work was done, for

[2:11:22] example, the pool.

[2:11:23] La bande riveraine. -- was not

[2:11:26] something that was very

[2:11:27] important in our lives. Whereas,

[2:11:28] to date

[2:11:31] And there's a lot of talk today

[2:11:33] about climate change, et cetera.

[2:11:34] We know how important the

[2:11:35] shoreline is. Right now, there

[2:11:38] is a 35 foot pool, eight feet

[2:11:40] deep, that is in

[2:11:42] We will be removing that pool

[2:11:46] and reestablishing the

[2:11:48] As it should be in its natural

[2:11:50] state as well as the -- that is

[2:11:53] also partially in the --

[2:11:55] And these are things that were

[2:11:57] not asked of us. These are

[2:11:58] things we want to do. So, I

[2:12:00] could carry on, of course, but I

[2:12:02] won't. And -- you want to

[2:12:06] emphasize.

[2:12:07] >> Yeah, minor variance again,

[2:12:10] we've done, the intention was

[2:12:11] done to -- maximize the views.

[2:12:17] The --

[2:12:19] -- with the -- gone. And even

[2:12:22] with the garage -- the -- which

[2:12:25] is an awning glass, again

[2:12:28] It's important. It's important

[2:12:30] to us. That was done with

[2:12:32] intent. Also, preserving the

[2:12:35] architecture of the four square

[2:12:37] house of Pointe-Claire, which is

[2:12:39] beautiful. So, all that in mind,

[2:12:41] we think our project is very

[2:12:42] viable. You do have a municipal

[2:12:45] park next to it. We are not

[2:12:47] hiding views. If you are coming

[2:12:48] in from the east going west, the

[2:12:50] garage is not big, it's not two

[2:12:52] storey. It blends into, which is

[2:12:54] not -- views at all. Thank you

[2:12:56] for your consideration.

[2:13:04] Il y a des millions de gens qui

[2:13:05] nous écoutent à la télévision.

[2:13:10] - Je vais m'exprimer en

[2:13:12] français. Je suis plus

[2:13:14] confortable en français. C'était

[2:13:16] super bien écrit. Comme

[2:13:22] architecte, je considère qu'on a

[2:13:24] fait un travail de qualité.

[2:13:25] C'est l'objectif. Oui, les liens

[2:13:31] visuels, on a fait des efforts

[2:13:33] pour les préserver. Ça se

[2:13:35] traduit par la jonction qui a 3

[2:13:38] mètres au lieu de quatre. Elle

[2:13:39] est transparente. Ça n'a pas été

[2:13:42] mentionné, je voulais ajouter

[2:13:43] ça.

[2:13:48] >> Just a minute. This is

[2:13:51] Not a forum for debate. It is a

[2:13:53] form for adding information for

[2:13:56] Council to be able to reflect

[2:13:57] upon. I expect the review, since

[2:14:00] you have already had a chance,

[2:14:02] may be one of the debates. -- we

[2:14:05] have also addressed this for an

[2:14:08] adequate amount of time. But two

[2:14:10] minutes each. No more. Okay?

[2:14:11] - Merci pour votre

[2:14:12] considération.

[2:14:14] >> All I wanted to say was that

[2:14:19] -- oh, God, I forgot what I was

[2:14:20] going to say.

[2:14:22] >> Get back in line. You can

[2:14:23] come back later.

[2:14:26] [Laughter]

[2:14:27] >> Pierre mentioned we were

[2:14:29] talking about -- I have a copy

[2:14:30] of the village code here. And we

[2:14:34] were talking about some of the

[2:14:36] points being subjective. And he

[2:14:40] used should rather than will.

[2:14:43] But I've gone through the code

[2:14:48] here. And I don't see anything

[2:14:51] that is registered under should.

[2:14:55] They are all valid points that

[2:14:56] have been put up here. And the

[2:14:58] ones that have been read to you

[2:15:00] through the petition as well.

[2:15:02] So, I think, as far as being

[2:15:05] subjective -- concern -- that is

[2:15:07] -- what he had mentioned about

[2:15:09] should and will. Those are two

[2:15:13] different things.

[2:15:14] >> --

[2:15:15] >> It's in the code right here,

[2:15:17] sir.

[2:15:19] >> It's okay.

[2:15:20] >> --

[2:15:21] >> Sir, we have all read the

[2:15:24] code, and have reviewed. The --

[2:15:25] >> I just want to clarify the

[2:15:27] point that that is not the case.

[2:15:29] Okay? I don't want the wool

[2:15:31] being pulled over our eyes here.

[2:15:33] >> I understand.

[2:15:37] >> I just wanted to sincerely

[2:15:40] apologize if I spoke out of turn

[2:15:42] when others were speaking. I am

[2:15:47] as close to begging as I have,

[2:15:51] perhaps, I've ever been in my

[2:15:52] life, that everyone really

[2:15:54] consider what is best for the

[2:15:56] majority of the people, that

[2:15:58] they respect the village code.

[2:16:04] Please put your differences

[2:16:05] aside, whatever they may be, and

[2:16:09] ask yourself, what is the value

[2:16:10] add to the community if you

[2:16:12] approve this project? Thank you.

[2:16:16] >> Thank you.

[2:16:17] >> I was just going to say.

[2:16:18] There seems to be a theme for

[2:16:20] the night about building or not

[2:16:22] building. And it's just that --

[2:16:24] if maybe there is no codes being

[2:16:26] broken or anything like that,

[2:16:27] but just because there is no

[2:16:28] codes being broken does not mean

[2:16:30] that you have to build. You

[2:16:32] don't have to take away the

[2:16:33] beauty of Pointe-Claire by

[2:16:35] building fences or building

[2:16:37] garages. Like, it's up to you.

[2:16:39] You are going to decide whether

[2:16:42] you want to preserve

[2:16:43] Pointe-Claire the way that it

[2:16:44] is. Just because no codes are

[2:16:47] being broken doesn't mean that

[2:16:48] you have to go with it. --

[2:16:50] >> Thank you.

[2:16:53] >> I would also like to say,

[2:16:54] thank you, I appreciate all the

[2:16:55] effort that you put forth to

[2:16:58] make a nice build, et cetera. I

[2:17:02] am -- and certainly that is your

[2:17:03] right, and I appreciate you

[2:17:05] taking that time. But it does

[2:17:07] not change the fact that it will

[2:17:12] absolutely change the views. And

[2:17:13] it is not my view. My view is

[2:17:15] not hampered from my house. But

[2:17:18] what will happen is that

[2:17:21] everybody -- like I said, it's

[2:17:23] the creek. And this is the start

[2:17:25] of Pointe-Claire, from

[2:17:27] Beaconsfield. So, is it going to

[2:17:28] start from there? And is it

[2:17:30] going to continue? So, more

[2:17:32] garages because it is in by law,

[2:17:34] and then there is a subjective

[2:17:36] code -- that is actually the

[2:17:37] first time that I have

[2:17:39] understood that there is some

[2:17:41] subjective and objective parts

[2:17:42] of the code. Because it is not

[2:17:44] very well defined. So, if you

[2:17:46] were looking at that, you would

[2:17:48] be reading it, and then you

[2:17:49] would say, this actually

[2:17:51] violates the code. But now there

[2:17:57] are subjective parts of the

[2:17:58] code. And black and white parts

[2:17:59] of the code. And I don't see

[2:18:02] that in the preamble. And I

[2:18:03] don't see that anywhere else.

[2:18:05] So, I am wondering how those

[2:18:07] terms are applied and who

[2:18:09] applies them.

[2:18:13] >> Those are applied by the

[2:18:14] members of Council and that will

[2:18:16] inform their vote. That is all I

[2:18:18] can say. You can't -- you can

[2:18:20] talk to any councillor and ask

[2:18:23] him for a full explanation -- if

[2:18:25] you want to, that is your right.

[2:18:27] But thank you.

[2:18:29] >> I am not sure that is an

[2:18:31] answer.

[2:18:32] >> It's the best I can do. Now,

[2:18:35] I'm going to close the

[2:18:36] discussion on 17.2. Before we go

[2:18:38] to vote, is the -- yes?

[2:18:46] >> Okay. I will do my best to --

[2:18:52] Premièrement, j'aimerais que ça

[2:18:55] soit clair. On the

[2:18:59] 15th, madame --

[2:19:02] I learned of that project on the

[2:19:05] 20th. First, I -- for your

[2:19:11] writing. There was something

[2:19:13] suspect. I mean, I would have to

[2:19:16] be stupid not to notice that. I

[2:19:19] found out on the 20th. I met

[2:19:24] with you and -- and madame

[2:19:32] Clark, I met with you on the

[2:19:34] 21st, in the morning, and then

[2:19:36] on the 22nd with the mayor

[2:19:42] Thomas, and all that. I just

[2:19:43] want to clear -- that is the

[2:19:49] facts. For me, I don't want any

[2:19:51] in the windows that I knew for

[2:19:56] the last month before --

[2:19:58] anything like that. I -- the

[2:20:01] 20th is a Tuesday. It was

[2:20:04] presented to Council that

[2:20:07] evening. Okay. So, I have taken

[2:20:12] care of that. Again, if you

[2:20:16] remember our conversations, it

[2:20:19] is within the regulations. I

[2:20:25] can't insist more than that. It

[2:20:28] is -- if it wasn't within the

[2:20:31] regulations, I would have been

[2:20:34] the first one to say, hold on

[2:20:36] here. I did not influence any

[2:20:40] councillors. I did not talk to

[2:20:43] them about this project on the

[2:20:46] phone or whatever in private,

[2:20:48] like that, except when

[2:20:51] Councillor called me twice. We

[2:20:54] talked extensively about it. And

[2:20:56] the thing I said -- I said it

[2:21:00] again. This evening in caucus --

[2:21:04] vote within your conscience. So,

[2:21:08] that is the statement I have.

[2:21:12] And also, for the creeping up,

[2:21:15] the

[2:21:19] That is right next to it. That

[2:21:22] is specific in the village code.

[2:21:24] It -- be built. Because it is a

[2:21:28] public space. So it is

[2:21:31] protected.

[2:21:32] >> --

[2:21:35] >> --

[2:21:36] >> Yeah, yeah.

[2:21:38] >> You understand -- protected

[2:21:42] -- but it's just all --

[2:21:44] >> --

[2:21:45] >> Of the homes --

[2:21:47] >> Ma'am -- ma'am, your point

[2:21:49] was well made about your fear of

[2:21:53] --

[2:21:54] >> No, no --

[2:21:55] >> You were speaking --

[2:21:57] everybody wish to address

[2:21:58] Council, now Councillor

[2:22:02] Cousineau's is --

[2:22:06] >> I just want to address the

[2:22:08] difference with a subjective

[2:22:10] public regulation. That's all I

[2:22:11] want to make. I'm not pushing

[2:22:13] back. You are very right that it

[2:22:18] could spread. It could spread.

[2:22:20] But I am sure that we are going

[2:22:22] to be looking at that in the

[2:22:24] future. But now, these are the

[2:22:28] regulations right now. Thank

[2:22:29] you.

[2:22:32] >> I don't know -- no, sir. Now,

[2:22:36] this matter is closed for

[2:22:37] discussion. We are going to --

[2:22:40] before voting, we are going to

[2:22:41] allow anybody who wants to

[2:22:43] address 17.3

[2:22:44] Est-ce que quelqu'un veut

[2:22:45] s'adresser au Conseil concernant

[2:22:47] 17,3? Commissioner -- this

[2:22:51] manner.

[2:22:57] - 17.3 Considérer une demande

[2:22:58] d'usage conditionnel concernant

[2:22:59] la propriété sise au 10, avenue

[2:23:01] Manor. c'est pour permettre des

[2:23:03] services personnels, des

[2:23:04] activités artisanales en tant

[2:23:05] qu'usage additionnel dans une

[2:23:06] habitation unifamiliale

[2:23:08] détachée, la fabrication et la

[2:23:10] vente de couteau artisanaux, de

[2:23:12] planche à découper, un service

[2:23:14] d'aiguisage, des ateliers

[2:23:15] d'aiguisage de couteau.

[2:23:20] >> Does anybody wish to address

[2:23:22] the

[2:23:23] Council on the --

[2:23:29] >> It's a conditional use that

[2:23:31] -- that's a residential

[2:23:33] neighbourhood. The request is --

[2:23:35] no shopping operation in the

[2:23:37] garage. That is --

[2:23:38] >> --

[2:23:41] >> That knife sharpening craft.

[2:23:46] -- knife sharpening. It is not a

[2:23:49] major industrial activity.

[2:23:52] Residential -- to allow that buy

[2:23:54] -- in the garage. So, if there

[2:23:57] is nobody that wishes to address

[2:23:59] Council on that issue, then we

[2:24:01] will have a mover for item 17.2

[2:24:05] and 17.3. Well, actually, we

[2:24:07] will vote separately. -- mover

[2:24:10] on 17.2?

[2:24:14] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[2:24:19] >> And a seconder for --

[2:24:23] >> -- all in favour -- and

[2:24:25] before we vote, if anyone in

[2:24:27] Council wants to address the

[2:24:28] motion before the floor, now is

[2:24:30] the time. Anybody wish to

[2:24:31] address? All in favour? 17.2.

[2:24:36] All opposed? So, carried,

[2:24:42] majoritarily -- do I have a

[2:24:46] mover for 17.3?

[2:24:49] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[2:24:51] >> -- district to.

[2:24:54] >> In favour? Opposed? Carried.

[2:24:56] (---)

[2:25:02] >> 17.4, consider the slight

[2:25:03] site planning and -- with

[2:25:04] respect to the property situated

[2:25:06] at 214 Bord-du-Lac-Lakeshore.

[2:25:09] - This is 17.5 Considérer les

[2:25:11] plans d'implantation et for --

[2:25:12] D'intégration architecturale

[2:25:13] relatifs à la propriété sise au

[2:25:14] 360, chemin du

[2:25:16] Bord-du-Lac-Lakeshore.

[2:25:19] On parle d'une nouvelle

[2:25:20] construction.

[2:25:24] >> Excuse me,

[2:25:26] People. Quiet.

[2:25:28] >> 17.6, consider the site

[2:25:29] planning and architectural

[2:25:30] integration programme plans with

[2:25:31] respect to the property situated

[2:25:32] at 39 De La Pointe-Claire

[2:25:33] Avenue. This is for a new

[2:25:37] construction.

[2:25:38] >> Do I have a mover for item 17

[2:25:42] point 44 item 17 point? Six

[2:25:45] >> Eric Stork --

[2:25:46] -

[2:25:47] >> --

[2:25:48] >> -- all in favour?

[2:25:49] Monsieur Tremblay, je comprends

[2:25:50] que vous votez

[2:25:51] >> Contre...

[2:25:52] - All opposed? For item 17,4.

[2:25:55] 17.4 -- you are opposed?

[2:25:57] >> --

[2:26:00] >> 17.4, you are for?

[2:26:02] >> --

[2:26:08] >>

[2:26:09] 17.6, a for.

[2:26:11] 17.7 Considérer les plans

[2:26:12] d'implantation et d'intégration

[2:26:13] architecturale relatifs à la

[2:26:14] propriété sise au 107, avenue de

[2:26:15] la Pointe-Claire. on parle d'une

[2:26:19] extension, rénovations

[2:26:20] extérieures.

[2:26:22] 17.8 Consider the site planning

[2:26:23] and architectural integration

[2:26:24] programme plans with respect to

[2:26:26] the property situated at 133 De

[2:26:27] Windward Crescent Avenue. This

[2:26:30] is for an extension and

[2:26:32] - Exterior renovation.

[2:26:33] 17.9 Modifier la résolution

[2:26:34] 2023-212 afin de retirer trois

[2:26:35] conditions applicables au PIIA

[2:26:36] autorisés au 153, avenue de

[2:26:37] Windward Crescent.

[2:26:45] le but de la modification avait

[2:26:46] retiré les trois qu'on dit si on

[2:26:48] concernant

[2:26:49] (inaudible)

[2:26:50] au-dessus de la porte d'entrée,

[2:26:51] les places, la cohorte

[2:26:52] (---)

[2:26:53] .

[2:26:54] (inaudible)

[2:26:55] . 17.10, amend resolution

[2:26:56] 2023-212 in order to remove --

[2:27:01] lakeshore road from the

[2:27:02] authorized SPAIP. the purpose of

[2:27:06] this modification is to remove

[2:27:07] the line referring to the

[2:27:08] approval of plans for 214

[2:27:11] Bord-du-LacLakeshore Road

[2:27:12] concerning an extension and

[2:27:14] exterior renovations with the

[2:27:16] 8000 dollar deposit.

[2:27:18] >> Do I have a mover for item

[2:27:22] 17.7 through 17.10?

[2:27:24] >> I approved too -- Cynthia

[2:27:33] Homan

[2:27:34] - District --

[2:27:35] >> --

[2:27:36] >> Carried.

[2:27:37] 18.1 Autoriser la réalisation

[2:27:38] d'une oeuvre-d'art public situé

[2:27:39] dans le parc Seigniory. un

[2:27:41] projet de Michal qui fait partie

[2:27:43] des actions visant à accroître

[2:27:44] la qualité de vie des résidents

[2:27:45] du secteur, ainsi que la

[2:27:46] visibilité, le rayonnement des

[2:27:48] arts, de la culture sur le

[2:27:50] territoire de la Ville de

[2:27:51] Pointe-Claire, leur ancrage dans

[2:27:52] la communauté par l'organisation

[2:27:53] de projets de médiation

[2:27:54] culturels.

[2:27:57] >> Do I have a mover for items

[2:28:00] 18.1?

[2:28:01] >> Eric Stork,

[2:28:02] District one.

[2:28:04] >> Seconder?

[2:28:05] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[2:28:06] district three.

[2:28:07] >> -- carried. Before closing, I

[2:28:09] would like to thank you all for

[2:28:10] coming tonight, and I thank you

[2:28:11] all for your decorum. It was a

[2:28:14] difficult subject. So we will --

[2:28:17] handle yourself very well. Thank

[2:28:18] you. Do I have a mover

[2:28:20] foreclosure?

[2:28:21] >> Yes, I propose to move the

[2:28:24] meeting -- district six. To

[2:28:26] close the meeting.

[2:28:27] >> Seconder?

[2:28:29] >> -- district to.

[2:28:30] >> All in favour?

[2:28:32] >> Good night, everybody, and

[2:28:33] thank you.

2023-07-04 Conseil de la Ville de Pointe-Claire

Transcript