[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.