[0:20] >> Okay.

[0:41] - Bonjour. Salut, tout le monde.

[0:42] Séance du conseil du 5 septembre

[0:45] 2023. Le club de canoë-kayak.

[0:52] Les athlètes de Pointe-Claire se

[0:53] sont surpassés aux championnats

[0:54] provinciaux de canoë-kayak de

[0:56] vitesse 2023. Tous les athlètes

[0:59] de Pointe-Claire étaient

[1:01] éligibles pour concourir aux

[1:02] épreuves nautiques. Chaque

[1:05] athlète était placé par groupe

[1:07] d'âge et pouvait participer à

[1:08] des courses en simple, double ou

[1:11] quadruple sur différentes

[1:13] distances, et ce, en canoë ou en

[1:18] kayak. La course était serrée

[1:19] mais notre Club a remporté la

[1:22] compétition avec un total de

[1:23] 1059 points, une avance de

[1:25] seulement 2 points sur leurs

[1:28] rivaux. Félicitations à tous nos

[1:29] athletes!

[1:32] (applaudissements)

[1:39] Pointe-Claire athletes it's all

[1:41] that the 2023 canoe kayak sprint

[1:44] championships. All Pointe-Claire

[1:45] athletes were eligible to

[1:46] compete in these nautical

[1:47] events. Each athlete was caused

[1:49] by age, group, and could

[1:51] participate in single, double or

[1:53] quadruple races at different

[1:55] distances in canoe or kayak. The

[1:56] race for first place was close

[1:58] until the very end, but our team

[1:59] managed to win the competition,

[2:01] with a total of 1059 points,

[2:04] which was only a two point lead

[2:05] of their nautical rivals.

[2:08] Congratulations to all our

[2:09] athletes.

[2:11] C'est entre culturel Stewart à

[2:12] l'. Nous avons été attristés

[2:14] d'apprendre qu'un petit incendie

[2:15] s'est déclaré au deuxième étage

[2:16] du Centre culturel Stewart Hall

[2:17] cette fin de semaine. Les

[2:21] investigations sont toujours en

[2:23] cours afin de connaître la

[2:25] source de l'incendie. Bien que

[2:30] les dommages soient localisés,

[2:32] les travaux de nettoyage et de

[2:33] réparations sont déjà en cours.

[2:34] Heureusement, aucun employé ou

[2:40] utilisateur n'a été incommodé de

[2:41] la situation. Nous remercions

[2:43] toutes les équipes ainsi que les

[2:48] pompiers qui ont agi rapidement

[2:49] pour contenir la situation. We

[2:55] were saddened -- by small fire

[2:56] occurred on the second floor of

[2:59] a V Stewart Hall Cultural Centre

[3:00] this weekend, or weekend past.

[3:02] Investigations regarding the

[3:03] source of the fire are still

[3:04] ongoing, although the damage is

[3:07] localized. -- repair work is

[3:09] already underway. Luckily, no

[3:12] employee or a visitor was

[3:13] affected by situation. We would

[3:14] like to thank the firefighters

[3:16] and all teams who acted quickly

[3:18] to contain the situation.

[3:23] Le plan d'urbanisme. Sondage en

[3:24] ligne avec la prochaine

[3:27] (inaudible)

[3:28] du mois d'octobre. Nous invitons

[3:29] nos citoyennes et nos citoyens à

[3:30] prendre part à une activité en

[3:32] ligne via la plateforme

[3:33] Pointe-Claire, c'est nous au

[3:35] sujet de l'importance de la

[3:40] mobilité. Depuis bientôt un an,

[3:42] la Ville de Pointe-Claire convie

[3:43] sa population à des activités de

[3:48] participation citoyenne sur

[3:49] diverses thématiques telles que

[3:51] l'importance de la mobilité, la

[3:53] planification des milieux mixtes

[3:54] et la forme du cadre bâti. Afin

[3:58] d'aller chercher l'opinion d'un

[4:00] plus grand nombre de personnes,

[4:03] la Ville propose une activité de

[4:07] participation en ligne sous la

[4:08] forme d'un sondage. Le plan

[4:10] d'urbanisme est indisponible...

[4:17] indispensable pour une ville,

[4:18] puisqu'il établit les lignes

[4:20] directrices de son développement

[4:22] pour les années à venir. Il

[4:25] définit les bases d'une nouvelle

[4:27] règlementation et guide le plan

[4:30] d'action. Alors, si vous n'avez

[4:34] pas participé à l'activité qui

[4:36] se déroulait cet été au Centre

[4:37] nautique de la Baie-de-Valois,

[4:40] merci de participer en ligne.

[4:44] Vous avez jusqu'au 29 septembre

[4:46] 16h pour remplir le sondage. We

[4:52] invite our citizens to take part

[4:54] in an online activity via the

[4:57] Pointe-Claire -- platform on the

[4:59] importance of mobility. Over the

[5:01] last year, the City of

[5:02] Pointe-Claire ice held several

[5:04] citizen workshops on different

[5:05] topics, including mobility, land

[5:09] use and mixed use urban

[5:10] planning. To better -- a larger

[5:13] portion of the Pointe-Claire

[5:14] population, the city is offering

[5:17] online participation activity in

[5:18] the form of a survey. The

[5:21] planning program is essential

[5:22] for this city, as it sets

[5:24] standards and guidelines for its

[5:26] development for years to come.

[5:28] It defines the basis for new

[5:29] bylaws and guides the action

[5:31] plan. So, if you didn't

[5:33] participate in the activity that

[5:35] took place this summer at

[5:36] Baie-de-Valois, we hope that you

[5:38] will participate on line. It is

[5:40] open on line until September

[5:43] 29th at four PM.

[5:44] >> Mr. Mayor, may I just add a

[5:45] note to that?

[5:46] >> Yes, absolutely.

[5:48] >> So, in French, that works

[5:50] perfectly well. But an English,

[5:51] the certificate is currently

[5:52] expired and we have contacted

[5:54] the owners of the platform and

[5:56] hopefully that certificate will

[5:57] be put back in place, so that

[5:59] you can access the site properly

[6:02] ASAP.

[6:05] - Événements à venir. Le 9

[6:07] septembre sera une journée très

[6:09] occupée. Nous aurons la nouvelle

[6:10] exposition à la galerie d'art

[6:13] Stewart Hall. Ce sera une

[6:15] exposition très intéressante et

[6:17] différente, car l'artiste

[6:21] montréalaise

[6:22] (---)

[6:23] Bergeron réalise ses oeuvres à

[6:26] partir de matériaux de

[6:28] construction. Son installation

[6:31] occupera tout l'espace de

[6:33] l'exposition. Nous vous invitons

[6:35] à consulter le site Web pour les

[6:38] informations, pour avoir les

[6:41] informations. La Plaza

[6:43] Pointe-Claire tiendra sa journée

[6:45] d'entraide communautaire. C'est

[6:46] une journée qui permet aux

[6:48] citoyens et aux citoyennes de

[6:50] rencontrer les services

[6:52] d'entraide de notre région.

[6:54] Plusieurs clubs et organismes de

[6:56] la ville et des environs seront

[6:58] également sur place pour

[7:00] présenter leurs services à la

[7:03] communauté. Afin... enfin

[7:06] d'après-midi, c'est le festival

[7:08] de blues de l'Ouest Delisle qui

[7:10] se tient à Pointe-Claire dans le

[7:13] village Pointe-Claire. Pour une

[7:15] deuxième année. C'est un

[7:16] événement musical exceptionnel

[7:20] qui nous expose à plusieurs

[7:22] styles de musique. C'est

[7:23] vraiment un très bel événement

[7:24] que nous sommes très fiers

[7:26] d'accueillir au village

[7:27] Pointe-Claire. J'espère que vous

[7:29] serez des nôtres dans le

[7:30] village. September 9th will be a

[7:34] very busy day. There is a new

[7:37] exhibition at Stewart Hall art

[7:38] gallery, a very interesting and

[7:40] different exhibition, as

[7:44] Montréal artist Adrian --

[7:46] Creator works from construction

[7:48] materials. Insulation will

[7:49] occupy the entire ex exhibition

[7:51] space and we invite you to check

[7:52] the City's website for more

[7:55] information. Plaza Pointe-Claire

[7:58] will be holding its community

[7:59] awareness day. It's a day for

[8:01] students to meet the helping

[8:02] hands in our community. Several

[8:03] clubs in organizations from the

[8:04] City and surrounding areas will

[8:06] be there to introduce their

[8:08] services to the community. In

[8:10] the late afternoon, September

[8:11] 9th, again, the West Island

[8:13] Blues Festival will take place

[8:14] in Pointe-Claire for a second

[8:15] year. It is an exceptional music

[8:18] event that exposes us to many

[8:19] different styles of music. It is

[8:21] a truly wonderful event that we

[8:23] are very proud to welcome to

[8:25] Pointe-Claire village, and we

[8:26] hope you will join us in the

[8:28] village.

[8:31] (inaudible)

[8:32] employé au centre aquatique...

[8:35] At the aquatic center

[8:37] Nous avons un employé du centre

[8:39] aquatique qui est très impliqué

[8:42] dans la communauté à titre de

[8:44] bénévoles. Son nom est

[8:46] Marguerite

[8:47] (---)

[8:48] . Elle est avec nous depuis 16

[8:53] ans, Margaret, pardon. Sa mère,

[8:55] René, est décédé d'un cancer

[8:57] l'année dernière. À la fin de

[8:58] ces jours, ça mère à séjourner à

[9:02] là résidences de soins

[9:05] palliatifs

[9:06] (---)

[9:07] . Margaret participera à la

[9:08] course pour la compassion au

[9:10] profit de la résidence, qui se

[9:14] déroulera le 23 septembre

[9:17] prochain au parc Valois. Vous

[9:19] pouvez encourager ça levées de

[9:21] fonds en allant sur sa page. Je

[9:25] joins ma voix à celle du conseil

[9:27] pour lui offrir nos sincères

[9:31] sympathies et lui souhaiter la

[9:34] meilleure des chances pour la

[9:36] levée de fonds de cette belle

[9:37] cause. We have an employee at

[9:39] the aquatic center who is very

[9:42] involved in the community as a

[9:45] volunteer volunteer. Her name is

[9:46] Margaret Maraq. She has been

[9:47] with us for 16 years. Her mother

[9:52] -- palliative care residence.

[9:55] Margaret we'll be taking place

[9:58] part in -- September 23rd in

[10:00] Valois Park. You can support her

[10:03] fundraising efforts by visiting

[10:04] her fundraising page. I add my

[10:07] voice and my legs, actually, to

[10:11] that of Council -- I don't know

[10:13] about councils legs -- offering

[10:15] her sincere condolences and

[10:16] wishing her the best of luck

[10:19] with a -- I actually will be

[10:20] running that way says well. I

[10:23] love to see you all there. And

[10:25] -- palliative care, it's a

[10:27] wonderful, wonderful. And the

[10:29] race is -- it was a very

[10:30] successful event last year and

[10:32] any of you who can run, come on

[10:34] out.

[10:36] Je pense que c'est tout. Madame

[10:40] Thibault?

[10:43] - Alors, 1.1 Adoption de l'ordre

[10:46] du jour avec le retrait du The

[10:52] point withdrawal of 17.12.

[10:54] 17.12.

[10:55] >> Do I have a mover?

[11:00] >> Brent Cowan, district eight.

[11:02] >> And a seconder?

[11:07] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[11:09] >> All in favour?

[11:12] >> 3.1, to approve the regular

[11:15] minutes of the meeting of August

[11:16] 8th, 2023.

[11:18] >> Do I have a mover?

[11:22] >> Seconder?

[11:23] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[11:25] >> All in favour?

[11:26] - Maintenant, 5.1...

[11:33] - Vous avez quelque chose à

[11:34] dire? For question period?

[11:37] - Bonsoir à tous. Je vous

[11:38] remercie d'être présents ce soir

[11:39] pour la séance du conseil.

[11:42] L'exercice démocratique

[11:43] essentielle pour le

[11:44] fonctionnement de notre ville.

[11:45] Afin de nous assurer que tous

[11:46] les participants favorisent un

[11:47] milieu d'échanges respectueux,

[11:49] j'aimerais rappeler quelques

[11:50] règles de fonctionnement

[11:51] entourant la période de

[11:52] questions. Les personnes

[11:53] souhaitant soumettre une

[11:54] question auront préalablement

[11:56] inscrit leur nom à l'entrée.

[11:57] C'est le maire qui veille au bon

[11:58] déroulement de la période de

[11:59] questions. Toute question est

[12:01] adressée au maire qui répond au

[12:02] nom du conseil, il peut ensuite

[12:05] inviter les autres conseillers à

[12:06] répondre. À votre tour, votre...

[12:10] (---)

[12:11] avant de prendre la parole. Vous

[12:12] avez droit de poser une première

[12:15] question avec un court préambule

[12:17] ainsi qu'une seconde question

[12:18] sans préambule. Toute question

[12:20] doit être formulé de façon

[12:21] respectueuse, ne pas faire usage

[12:23] d'un langage violent ou

[12:26] blessant, est irrecevable toutes

[12:28] questions avec une hypothèse,

[12:30] une déduction, des propos

[12:31] injurieux, une insinuation une

[12:33] attaque personnelle ou portant

[12:34] sur une affaire devant les

[12:35] tribunaux. Les questions doivent

[12:36] porter sur un sujet relevant des

[12:38] attributions de la ville. Pour

[12:40] assurer le bon déroulement et

[12:41] permettre au maximum de citoyens

[12:43] de prendre la parole, le maire

[12:45] peut limiter ou retirer le droit

[12:46] de parole à toute personne qui

[12:47] ne respectent pas les règlements

[12:50] qui régissent la période de

[12:51] questions. Je vous rappelle que

[12:53] la valeur du respect et une des

[12:55] quatre valeurs de la Ville de

[12:56] Pointe-Claire. Le respect mutuel

[12:57] et à la base de toute relation

[12:59] entre individus. Tous doivent

[13:02] contribuer à la période de

[13:03] questions, son climat positif.

[13:05] Sur ce, je vous souhaite une

[13:06] bonne soirée.

[13:07] >> Good evening, everyone. Thank

[13:09] you for being present for this

[13:13] evening's council meeting. The

[13:14] democratic exercise that is

[13:15] essential to the running of our

[13:16] city. To ensure that all

[13:18] participants help foster and --

[13:20] I would like to remind you of a

[13:23] few operating rules surrounding

[13:24] the question period. Those

[13:27] wishing to submit a question

[13:29] will have to register their name

[13:30] at the entrance beforehand. It's

[13:34] the mayor who insures question

[13:36] period is run smoothly. Oh

[13:38] questions will be addressed to

[13:39] the Mayor. We will then --

[13:44] however, he may invite other

[13:46] council members to respond if

[13:48] required. When it is your turn

[13:49] to speak, the mayor will invite

[13:52] you to the microphone, we are

[13:53] you will give your name before

[13:56] asking a question. You have the

[13:57] right to ask a first question

[13:59] with a short preamble and the

[14:01] second question without a

[14:03] preamble. Oh questions should be

[14:05] phrased respectfully and shall

[14:06] not include any violent or

[14:08] hurtful language -- language and

[14:13] -- personal attack -- before the

[14:17] court will not be permitted

[14:18] during this activity. All

[14:21] questions must relate to the

[14:23] subjects falling within the

[14:24] functionality of the city. To

[14:26] ensure that the process runs

[14:27] smoothly, and to allow as many

[14:29] citizens as possible to speak,

[14:32] the mayor may limit the white

[14:36] right -- question period. I

[14:38] remind you that respect is one

[14:39] of the -- value of the city of

[14:43] Pointe-Claire. Mutual respect is

[14:45] the -- everyone must contribute

[14:47] to the positive atmosphere of

[14:49] the meeting in question period.

[14:51] With that being said, I wish you

[14:54] all a wonderful meeting.

[14:55] - Nous garderons 90 minutes pour

[14:57] la période des. Une personne à

[15:00] la fois au micro. Nous vous

[15:05] remercions d'attendre qu'un

[15:07] citoyen ait terminé de poser sa

[15:09] question et que vous soyez

[15:11] appelé avant de vous lever pour

[15:12] venir poser votre question. Les

[15:16] non-résidents présents pourront

[15:17] poser leurs questions par la

[15:19] suite, si le temps n'est pas

[15:20] écouler. We shall stick to the

[15:24] 19 minutes timeline for question

[15:26] period. One person at a time at

[15:28] the microphone. I thank you for

[15:31] waiting for a citizen to ask

[15:32] their question and before you

[15:34] get up to ask yours. -- last

[15:37] questions afterwards if there is

[15:38] still time. So, the first

[15:41] question will be mark

[15:45] Sandilowski.

[15:48] >> Yes, hello. Good evening. --

[15:53] and my neighbours. I've been a

[15:54] resident of Pointe-Claire for

[15:56] about 38 years, actually a three

[15:58] time zone owner homeowner in

[16:00] Pointe-Claire. My wife taught

[16:01] elementary school in

[16:02] Pointe-Claire for 20 years. And

[16:04] we raised our family here. I'm

[16:08] also a member of the council --

[16:10] Greenwich. No that's a bad word

[16:14] around here sometimes. Together,

[16:15] with my colleagues I -- 27 year

[16:19] homeowner in Pointe-Claire, and

[16:21] Randy Wightman, a 30-year

[16:27] homeowner here in Pointe-Claire,

[16:28] along with several of our --

[16:31] Cartier Greenwich, built by --

[16:37] 36 storey condo buildings and

[16:40] 138 town houses with some 600

[16:43] taxpaying voters. My goal this

[16:45] evening before asking my

[16:46] question -- and I will try to

[16:47] make this very brief -- is to

[16:49] clarify certain statements made

[16:51] at the last council meeting

[16:54] perceived as some by -- the best

[16:58] of intentions. The result can be

[17:01] -- evil condo owners,

[17:04] essentially unchallenged until

[17:05] now, at least in this forum. We

[17:08] are your neighbours. There is a

[17:11] strong bond, a

[17:13] With Pointe-Claire. I want to be

[17:15] very clear that, as co-owners,

[17:17] we are not champions of any

[17:19] developer. All stakeholders much

[17:21] must manage and execute their

[17:23] issues. We simply want more

[17:26] balance and -- over

[17:28] generalizations about where we

[17:29] live. And I will be specific

[17:31] about that. The four statement I

[17:32] want to clarify was repeated

[17:34] twice at the last meeting in

[17:36] referring to residential

[17:37] developments, including ours.

[17:39] And I quote, Tim, somehow in the

[17:45] process we have come to

[17:46] prioritize the people moving in,

[17:48] and not those who live here.

[17:50] What may not be fully realized

[17:52] is that many of the people

[17:53] moving in are in fact the very

[17:55] people who have lived in

[17:57] Pointe-Claire for many years,

[17:59] and our building alone people --

[18:01] we had a little -- the other

[18:04] day, and just around one table,

[18:06] I counted people from Inglewood

[18:08] Avenue in Pointe-Claire, Cartier

[18:10] Avenue in Pointe-Claire --

[18:11] Avenue, two families, Queen

[18:16] Avenue and Chester Avenue in

[18:17] Valois. Avenue -- lakeshore

[18:19] drive, Compton Crescent. That's

[18:21] just a small sampling around the

[18:23] table. The message is that the

[18:25] needs of your residents change

[18:28] over time, and moving into a

[18:30] condo can be one progressive

[18:32] life cycle option. We have the

[18:34] same people moving in in many

[18:36] cases. Second point, there was a

[18:41] quote that Sotramont caused

[18:43] caused the destruction of trees

[18:44] and wetlands. I'm not going to

[18:46] say that some things weren't

[18:48] done. But, in fact, it's no

[18:50] secret that the bulk of the

[18:51] trees that you are referring to

[18:53] were essentially ash trees. And

[18:56] the emerald ash -- kill the

[18:57] trees. So, the trees were dead,

[18:59] the city cut them down, and is

[19:02] actively protecting the green

[19:04] space within the trees and the

[19:06] wetland areas under the

[19:08] jurisdiction of the Québec

[19:09] government remain preserve

[19:12] beside -- utilized -- Park.

[19:15] Louisville the Pointe-Claire has

[19:19] been very -- high

[19:20] At the last council meeting a

[19:22] reference was made to

[19:24] Pointe-Claire approve

[19:25] development projects that are

[19:27] outpacing areas at the West

[19:28] Island and you mentioned, I

[19:30] think, 13 of them compared to

[19:31] the other cities --

[19:34] >> Dramatically --

[19:36] >> Dramatically, yes. But you

[19:37] also added the statement,

[19:39] altering a once beautiful city.

[19:41] You have also expressed more

[19:42] than once that our project is

[19:43] the reason you ran for mayor.

[19:45] What you might also consider in

[19:48] taking a closer look at our

[19:50] condos is our standout low

[19:53] carbon footprint, probably

[19:54] unmatched Pointe-Claire in and

[19:56] perhaps in the West Island. We

[20:00] have an employee LEED certified

[20:06] building --

[20:07] >> Mr. Sandilowski, are we

[20:08] getting there?

[20:10] >> Yeah, I'm getting there. --

[20:12] lead with multiple electric

[20:15] charging stations. We are cloud

[20:17] of our Pointe-Claire strategic

[20:19] plan, et cetera, I will skip. I

[20:23] had two other points.

[20:25] Unchallenged statements by the

[20:27] -- resident they, were two quick

[20:28] points from last time. Condo

[20:31] condo parking lot rights -- I

[20:34] was shocked that nobody pointed

[20:36] that out. Exterior lights were

[20:38] added to our parking for safety

[20:40] and crime prevention purposes

[20:42] and -- city lights that -- are

[20:45] streets, homes, including those

[20:47] in Austin. The horizontal board

[20:50] received a complaint in public

[20:51] security, first of all. The

[20:52] settings were adjusted to the

[20:54] lowest possible setting.

[20:55] Secondly, the specks were sent

[20:57] to public security, actually.

[20:59] Inspector actually said that he

[21:00] was pleased a solution could be

[21:01] found and we received a

[21:03] beautiful written comment that

[21:05] we were convinced that there was

[21:06] a noticeable difference in the

[21:08] lighting. The issue was simply

[21:11] -- there. So, if there are

[21:13] ongoing issues, we don't know

[21:14] about them. Finally, on the

[21:16] drainage behind Alston, given

[21:18] the underlying mitigation that

[21:19] somehow we were dragged into, I

[21:20] have no comment. We are well

[21:24] aware, well away from this area,

[21:26] but it would appear that the --

[21:28] and drains are connected. Okay?

[21:30] On the new hypotheses that

[21:33] mosquitoes are --

[21:36] notwithstanding our value of

[21:38] wetlands and force, speaks for

[21:39] itself. My question -- to the

[21:42] Mayor and -- Council members

[21:44] believe that condos are an

[21:46] important element in the housing

[21:47] mix for Pointe-Claire? And, if

[21:49] so, what can you do to ensure

[21:51] there is greater balance and the

[21:53] were summary dismissals about

[21:55] approved developments and, as a

[21:57] consequence, the residents that

[21:59] live in them? Thank you for

[22:00] listening.

[22:01] >> Your points are well taken,

[22:03] Mr. Sandilowski. The comments I

[22:07] stand by fully. I speak

[22:10] specifically to what happened to

[22:11] a lot of the Alston residents

[22:14] whose homes were flooded, were

[22:16] not for Pointe-Claire volunteer

[22:17] rescue, many more would have

[22:19] been. I don't have any problems

[22:22] with developments. I have

[22:24] problems with developments that

[22:26] cause harm or discomfort to

[22:28] other citizens. And I speak for

[22:31] the other citizens who are

[22:33] subjected to that discomfort or

[22:36] harm. And I feel we really

[22:38] should prioritize them, and we

[22:39] haven't. We have had flooding.

[22:41] We have had the lighting issues.

[22:43] I went to visit the people who

[22:46] lived in Alston

[22:51] Allston -- one person blocking

[22:55] the view of many others. We, as

[22:58] an administration, in my

[22:59] opinion, should be making sure

[23:01] that developments do not disrupt

[23:03] or cause harm to the existing

[23:05] residents. I stand by that one.

[23:07] And I will say it over and over

[23:09] again. I would also like to

[23:11] point out that our development

[23:16] -- not specifically, or, as I'm

[23:17] referring to Hainas and general,

[23:26] from St. John's to still view --

[23:28] I took my data Verdon as your

[23:31] first introductory visit to

[23:33] Pointe-Claire, I drove her to

[23:34] Kirkland from Hymus and -- the

[23:38] feeling that comes out. And what

[23:41] is clearly apparent to me -- and

[23:44] we will get to Hymus -- coming

[23:46] from that direction, or coming

[23:47] from the other direction, is

[23:48] that there is no street

[23:49] lighting. There is no tree

[23:51] canopy. There is no planning.

[23:53] There is no park. There is not

[23:56] sufficient green space. Also, as

[23:59] Jane Jacobs, who is a mentor of

[24:00] mine, has written, the

[24:02] relationship between the people

[24:03] and the street, when we built

[24:07] for the built environment you,

[24:09] should hear, or pay careful

[24:10] attention to the relationship to

[24:11] the street. So, all development

[24:13] should do so that so that you

[24:16] can build community. I'm not

[24:18] criticizing any other

[24:19] developments in these places.

[24:21] >> But, sir --

[24:23] >> Let me finish. I'm still

[24:25] talking.

[24:26] >> --

[24:27] >> Thank you, sir. What is

[24:28] important to me is that we built

[24:30] build in our build environment,

[24:31] we build community. -- and enjoy

[24:33] each other in space together. We

[24:35] have communal areas. We have --

[24:38] and we have a sense of community

[24:40] where people are proud of where

[24:41] they live, and they are not

[24:42] anonymous to each other. So,

[24:44] there are different types of

[24:45] buildings that are more

[24:46] conducive to that. And we can --

[24:50] ways in which we can augment

[24:52] those things, and not diminish

[24:53] them. I don't deny the

[24:56] possibility that it is happening

[24:58] in other areas. I don't have any

[24:59] problems with that. I am,

[25:01] however, not pleased with the

[25:02] look and feel as a -- someone

[25:05] who studies the built

[25:06] environment -- I would like to

[25:08] see something a little more

[25:09] aesthetically pleasing and that

[25:10] is indeed what I campaigned on,

[25:11] and still campaign on. And there

[25:13] is nothing wrong with building

[25:14] condos. But let's build them in

[25:16] a way where it fits the

[25:18] community and there's not

[25:19] disrupt or alter the lives of

[25:21] people --

[25:22] >> I think you are absolutely

[25:23] right there. The urban planning

[25:25] and execution of how things are

[25:27] done he's an important

[25:28] consideration. But what I'm

[25:29] trying to point out to you is,

[25:32] firstly, that your citizens are

[25:35] moving across the road into

[25:37] different condos. The age

[25:39] profile -- it's one of those

[25:40] steps that happens. And so,

[25:42] people living in -- from ten

[25:44] years from now maybe into

[25:45] condos. And the other point I

[25:46] would make is, I have been

[25:48] around long enough, why remember

[25:49] -- we talked about Hymus

[25:50] boulevard -- I remember when it

[25:52] was a dump on the west side. I

[25:54] remember when the snow permeated

[25:56] across Pointe-Claire at Kirkland

[25:58] Beaconsfield. And guess what?

[25:59] The development hub helped get

[26:00] rid of that. So, there are a

[26:02] number of considerations there.

[26:03] I would just respectfully ask

[26:05] ask that when you talk about a

[26:07] project, you are also talking

[26:08] about the people who live in a

[26:10] given --

[26:11] >> Absolutely. Fair enough.

[26:14] Thank you.

[26:15] >> --

[26:19] >> -- Sanjinski?

[26:31] >> In the resolution adopted at

[26:33] the last council meeting,

[26:35] concerning the window agreement,

[26:37] there was one inaccuracy. Just a

[26:40] suggestion that the City had

[26:42] been negotiating with the

[26:43] archdiocese of Montréal for 20

[26:46] years. In fact, the archdiocese

[26:49] of Montréal I don't become the

[26:50] owner of the area of that point

[26:52] -- the convent -- in 2020. Prior

[26:55] to that, the owner had been --

[26:58] Parish, which had its own set of

[27:01] reasons for not necessarily

[27:03] negotiating with the City. In

[27:07] 2015, there was an agreement

[27:08] which they had been prepared to

[27:09] sell the area of La Pointe --

[27:15] the property is now worth $8

[27:16] million. They did, whoever, sell

[27:20] another property to the City in

[27:22] 2013. 4600 square metres at

[27:28] about $136 per square metre.

[27:30] This was the north end of bore

[27:32] go park, and the 35 space --

[27:35] next to former pioneer park now,

[27:39] at the time, it was widely

[27:41] believed, and this is why the

[27:43] parish agreed to sell it for

[27:47] 600,000 -- this would not

[27:50] change. Within four years, the

[27:52] City had rezoned the parking lot

[27:55] next to the pioneers for

[27:57] residential development. And the

[27:58] following year they sold it in a

[28:01] non tender contract to cobra

[28:05] development run by Mr. Gregory

[28:06] -- this was at $550 per square

[28:09] metre, a transaction. So, the

[28:10] members of the --

[28:19] -- made clear at the time. And

[28:21] there's no doubt -- willingness

[28:24] to negotiate further with the

[28:26] City -- around that point. Now,

[28:29] that property was sold to Mr.

[28:35] Puello's company -- initially

[28:38] proposed -- the Heritage Society

[28:41] disputed the evaluation that

[28:43] proposed sale was based on. We

[28:44] had our own evaluation done,

[28:47] finding it was 1.15 million. The

[28:50] reason for the difference was

[28:53] the evaluation the city

[28:54] initially used was about twice

[28:55] the normal shelf life of a land

[28:58] evaluation, and failed to

[29:00] include the concept of land

[29:01] assembly value, which is when

[29:02] you put to watch together for

[29:04] common real estate project,

[29:05] there is normally a 15 to 20%

[29:08] premium. So, seeing this in

[29:11] September or October of 2018,

[29:16] the City had its previous

[29:21] evaluator PCG Carmen -- and they

[29:23] came up with a new number which

[29:24] is around $900,000 total which

[29:28] -- significant difference around

[29:31] 20%. Now, this, apparently, was

[29:36] not enough for Mr. Cobul and

[29:44] Cobul development. So, he

[29:45] arranged with the City to buy

[29:47] only the fifth -- physical input

[29:51] of this building, while leaving

[29:54] the back third completely of no

[29:56] use to anybody other than

[29:58] himself with construction

[30:00] project and the -- condominium,

[30:02] who now have it as kind of a

[30:04] landscape backyard for

[30:05] themselves. There was talk of

[30:09] the city wanting this property

[30:11] out to Mr. Cobul, as was

[30:13] discussed at the time. Now, in

[30:18] May of 2021, Mark logo

[30:27] Legault -- for the city, for the

[30:30] land he was using. The response

[30:32] that he received on June 8th,

[30:34] 2021 was that, no, such payment

[30:36] had been made and there was no

[30:38] lease agreement. The July six

[30:41] 2021 council meeting, council

[30:43] voted for a lease agreement, a

[30:47] draft lease agreement with Mr.

[30:52] Cogul at -- dollars a month,

[30:54] retroactive to March of 2021

[31:01] -- Mr. Legault row to the city

[31:10] -- as well as proof of any

[31:12] payments that have been made. --

[31:20] Jose -- of the city clerk's

[31:23] office, who said, as follows --

[31:28] - Nouveau informant que nous ne

[31:29] détenons que le projet d'entente

[31:30] éclos qu'on monte... aucun

[31:32] montant n'a été prélevé par la

[31:34] ville à ce jour rien avec

[31:35] celui-ci. In other words, City

[31:38] Council had voted for a lease

[31:41] agreement with Mr. Cogul and he

[31:49] had redefined it with him and

[31:50] this on Tapia disappeared

[31:52] somewhere and he had not charge

[31:54] and ran for -- council it simply

[31:56] adopted a lease agreement that

[31:57] it had no intention of ever

[31:59] enforcing against Mr. Cogul so,

[32:02] he effectively, essentially, got

[32:03] use of this property for free.

[32:05] Now, when we look at something

[32:06] like that in the context of the

[32:09] present situation for the

[32:10] rental, Councillor Cowan has

[32:12] admitted on social media that,

[32:14] as I had said at the previous

[32:17] week -- Mr. Cogul had contacted

[32:20] Stephen oh Maroney

[32:28] 10 Jervis Bay Avenue Maroni --.,

[32:35] Mr. Cogul's reason for doing

[32:41] this -- community care facility

[32:43] that he would rent the convent

[32:45] out to, and then he would give

[32:47] the windmill to the city. Mr.

[32:53] >> -- Mr. Sanjinski --

[32:59] >> Yeah, I'm going to get to. It

[33:02] -- Mr. Cowan said that he would

[33:05] support this use. -- contact the

[33:07] archdiocese to confirm the

[33:08] statement. I spoke with Mr.

[33:12] Maroni, who indicated, first of

[33:13] all, that Mr. had Cogul never

[33:15] indicated -- community care

[33:17] facility -- to him. But did say

[33:20] that he was quite surprised that

[33:23] the city was open to considering

[33:25] that kind of use for the

[33:27] property given that, in the

[33:28] representations, Council had

[33:29] made to him and that City staff

[33:31] had made to him he was in fact

[33:34] told the uses of that nature

[33:35] would not be allowed for the

[33:38] diocese as an owner and would

[33:39] require a zoning change. So,

[33:42] first of all, I find it very

[33:43] difficult to believe that

[33:44] someone so used to getting

[33:46] everything for free or a

[33:48] discount from the City would

[33:50] give the windmill a way to the

[33:53] citizens of -- but I think the

[33:55] more pertinent important

[33:56] question to ask here is why

[33:59] would the city of Pointe-Claire

[34:01] and its Council be comfortable

[34:03] with being given one type of

[34:06] zoning from Mr. Cogul zoning as

[34:08] the owner, and another type of

[34:09] zoning for its current owner? It

[34:12] seems that both should get there

[34:14] and equitable treatment in the

[34:15] situation. And again, if I had

[34:16] to look at these two potential

[34:18] owners, it would seem to me

[34:21] that, if you have to ask

[34:23] yourself, who is most likely to

[34:24] rent this property out, and to

[34:26] be operated as a care facility,

[34:28] is it going to be the

[34:29] archdiocese of Montréal, the

[34:32] current owner? Or is it going to

[34:33] be the luxury condo developer

[34:36] who developed demolished -- and

[34:37] appears to have named his real

[34:41] estate company for either a

[34:43] poison snake or the villains

[34:45] from G.I. Joe? And I would

[34:47] suggest that Council would,

[34:48] perhaps, provide some kind of

[34:52] insight into whether the diocese

[34:54] will get the same kind of

[34:57] treatment and --

[34:59] >> Give me the question again.

[35:01] >> That's my questions.

[35:03] >> My questions, first of all, I

[35:04] would like Council to confirm

[35:05] first of all that they would be

[35:07] prepared to meet the same

[35:08] allowances -- nursing homes, day

[35:10] cares, as Mr. -- had been

[35:12] discussing with that, they would

[35:13] be --

[35:18] >> I would certainly think so.

[35:25] Madame Verdon, I assume we would

[35:27] give the same permission to Mr.

[35:32] Maroni's as we would to Mr.

[35:34] Cogul. I would assume that that

[35:36] would be the case. That would

[35:37] assume to make sense to me. That

[35:39] would be question number one.

[35:48] >> For sure -- we have to

[35:50] respect the -- please.

[35:51] >> And I would assume that the

[35:52] bylaw would apply equally to

[35:54] both. And it would seem to me

[35:56] that it wouldn't be a problem, I

[35:57] would think.

[35:59] >> Okay. -- Council could

[36:02] clarify that in the future given

[36:03] that it communicate -- for Mr.

[36:07] Cogul would not be available to

[36:08] the archdiocese. And, if I had

[36:10] one more question, I guess I

[36:13] would --

[36:14] >> -- you've named to me, I --

[36:17] >> Excuse me, Mr. Sanjinski --

[36:22] >> Councillor Cowan?

[36:23] >> -- and the current zoning is

[36:25] what I heard was the intended

[36:28] use, or the offer of use. But,

[36:30] again, what I heard is what

[36:32] people told me, just like people

[36:36] told you and neither one of us

[36:37] are the principles.

[36:40] >> If I get a second question, I

[36:41] would like to know what happened

[36:43] to those 18 months of 1700

[36:46] dollars a month when four back

[36:49] wallet --

[36:50] >> I can look into that. I'm

[36:52] assuming they have been paid.

[36:54] >> As of August 2022,

[36:57] representatives of the city

[37:00] clerk's office --

[37:02] >> I would --

[37:05] >> Maybe I can speak. First of

[37:08] all, Council -- assigned by the

[37:11] City official. So, the

[37:14] official's -- not being -- as

[37:16] the mayor to enforce the

[37:18] contracts that the City has

[37:19] signed.

[37:21] >> Thank you.

[37:22] >> Thank you.

[37:23] >> Okay. Kim Lance?

[37:29] >> Thank you. I am a brand-new

[37:32] resident of Pointe-Claire since

[37:34] early June. I live in the well

[37:35] is late

[37:40] Wellesley right behind the -- 33

[37:46] years as a very close neighbour

[37:49] in Kirkland and my property

[37:52] backed on -- many things I like

[37:55] about Pointe-Claire, some others

[37:57] not -- that's besides the point.

[37:59] I have a request for

[38:07] 129 which Pointe-Claire

[38:08] residents that live on windmill,

[38:11] Amberley and -- and also for the

[38:16] seniors that live in the man who

[38:18] are Kirkland

[38:27] -- Manoir Kirkland sales you.

[38:31] It's a -- allows people to cut

[38:34] through to get to the hospital.

[38:38] That path is on Pointe-Claire

[38:41] property. Pointe-Claire is not

[38:43] interested in keeping it up. In

[38:45] the wintertime, Kirkland gives

[38:49] out a contract to a snow remover

[38:52] -- a snow removal contract to

[38:53] keep it clear. Now, when

[38:57] Pointe-Claire was asked to do

[39:00] that, it showed no interest in

[39:01] doing so.

[39:03] My request is this. Once --

[39:06] right now the path is -- quite

[39:09] mighty and at the end closest to

[39:12] the hospital. It could be

[39:13] possible to put crushed stone in

[39:15] the air to make it more

[39:17] amenable. Just remember that the

[39:21] people living in the Le Manoir

[39:27] our seniors. The bulk of them go

[39:30] around in walkers. I have a

[39:32] friend that lives there. He has

[39:33] to go to the hospital on a

[39:35] regular basis. And it's awkward

[39:36] now. Because, otherwise, going

[39:38] around might not seem long to go

[39:40] around, over to still view, and

[39:42] walk all the way back towards

[39:44] the hospital. It would be a nice

[39:46] short cut. So, one of two things

[39:50] I'm suggesting we should do. Not

[39:52] interested? See the territory to

[40:00] Kirkland, they will take care of

[40:01] it. Now, remember -- it wouldn't

[40:03] be any skin off your nose. But,

[40:05] otherwise, could you take care

[40:06] of it?

[40:09] >> Interesting point, Sir who

[40:12] asked and when? I would like to

[40:14] know some of the history.

[40:15] >> That was supposedly asked by

[40:19] the -- Kirkland itself. And, if

[40:21] you like, I will check with Joe

[40:23] -- the general manager.

[40:24] >> I know Joe. But who asked

[40:29] Pointe-Claire?

[40:30] >> --

[40:31] >> Did -- tell you this?

[40:33] >> My councillor -- this, it's

[40:37] neither here nor this. Is

[40:39] Pointe-Claire willing to take

[40:40] care of it?

[40:41] >> If we haven't been asked -- I

[40:43] want to make sure we have been

[40:44] asked, and there has been a

[40:45] denial. Because I can't speak to

[40:46] that. That was before my time.

[40:48] But I would imagine that --

[40:52] would you like to speak,

[40:56] Cynthia? Absolutely.

[40:57] >> I would just like to address,

[40:59] because this has been brought to

[41:01] City of Pointe-Claire several

[41:02] times -- don't live close, but

[41:04] they also use that pathway. It's

[41:05] easier to park and go through.

[41:07] At the time, it was explained to

[41:08] me that it actually belongs to

[41:10] the city of Kirkland. So, I

[41:12] think the discussion has to be

[41:13] had between the city of Kirkland

[41:15] and the city of Pointe-Claire as

[41:17] to who is actually maintaining

[41:22] -- statement. You did mention

[41:23] that the City of Kirkland is

[41:25] doing snow removal. I think it's

[41:28] crazy. But -- I'm personally not

[41:30] against it. I think it would

[41:32] lend value to people in the

[41:33] area. So, perhaps it is

[41:36] something we can look at and

[41:37] have a chitchat with the City of

[41:38] Kirkland. How is that?

[41:40] >> Can I ask a simple

[41:43] suggestion? That you were GM

[41:46] talks to Joe --

[41:49] >> --

[41:50] >> -- can be done.

[41:51] >> -- something along the way.

[41:53] But it's probably simply a

[41:54] thing, like you said, they see

[41:56] -- the hospital. This small

[41:57] section, it's probably ever been

[41:59] looked at, but now with all the

[42:01] senior homes in the area, I

[42:02] think it's a valuable point and

[42:03] I certainly supported, if we are

[42:05] able to. But it looks like we

[42:06] have to have a to chat with --

[42:08] >> We are going to have a to

[42:11] chat for sure. And your point is

[42:12] an excellent one.

[42:13] >> Thank you very much. One of

[42:14] the question. It is a request

[42:16] for the aquatic center. And --

[42:20] little bonjour. When I go

[42:24] swimming, we have the choice now

[42:26] of the big pool, the ten lane

[42:28] pool. The water is colder, the

[42:29] air is cold. I get out of that

[42:30] pool, I am shivering. We used to

[42:33] have a sauna that worked. There

[42:35] is no money to fix it. It is

[42:37] rotted all the way because it

[42:38] was closed down for so long

[42:39] because of COVID. Can we get

[42:41] some money to fix that thing?

[42:43] >> I have asked about the way

[42:45] that. I can't remember the

[42:46] response. But I was on that

[42:49] side. And I think it was

[42:52] impending. I can't speak for

[42:53] sure on that. But I have had

[42:54] some correspondence on that.

[42:55] There is a plan to get it up and

[42:57] running and make it functional.

[42:58] I'm pretty sure.

[42:59] >> I checked with one of the

[43:02] supervisors at the pool and he

[43:03] said, because they had a leak in

[43:06] the ten lane pool, that their

[43:07] budget is shot, and they don't

[43:09] have money to do it. That's why

[43:10] I'm bringing it up here.

[43:12] >> Okay. I will look into it.

[43:15] >> Last thing -- I respect the

[43:16] to question thing, and I hope

[43:18] it's enforced. Another thing I

[43:19] would suggest is that we, the

[43:22] questioners, be concise. All

[43:25] right? I am cutting it off in 30

[43:28] seconds. I would like to

[43:30] congratulate the city for what

[43:32] they have done for the bike path

[43:33] that runs from -- over to

[43:37] Allston. It is beautiful.

[43:38] Really, really beautiful.

[43:39] >> Thank you very much.

[43:42] Susan Weaver?

[43:52] >> The first one is a preamble,

[43:53] no question. Two minutes, 20

[43:55] seconds. And the second one's --

[43:57] question. So, after attending

[44:01] August 8th council meeting, I

[44:02] decided I must say something

[44:04] about Mr. Thomas's monologue at

[44:07] the beginning of the meeting.

[44:09] Regarding the new house at 360

[44:11] aboard the Lac

[44:16] -- as being a large, dark

[44:18] building taking up the whole

[44:19] length of the property. I felt

[44:21] the photo is very misleading and

[44:23] displaying it was very

[44:24] inappropriate. For my

[44:25] understanding, the owner had

[44:26] explained at the at the previous

[44:28] council meeting that the new

[44:29] building would be -- the from

[44:31] property line and the cladding

[44:35] would -- orchard. It seems to me

[44:37] that the owners put much thought

[44:39] into how they're renovated

[44:40] property would fit into the

[44:42] streetscape. People really

[44:43] should go back and listen to the

[44:45] owner's description of the plan.

[44:47] I sympathize with those worried

[44:49] about their Lakeview, having

[44:51] been involved with demolitions

[44:52] before. And I do involve

[44:54] understand the frustrations

[44:56] about the mustard clauses in

[44:58] bylaws. But, as an observer, I

[45:00] really don't understand how much

[45:02] Lakeview would be lost. I was

[45:03] impressed, though, that the

[45:05] owners are removing a 35 foot

[45:08] pool, thereby restoring a

[45:10] shoreline as best as possible

[45:12] and removing all that asphalt in

[45:13] front. I support those who take

[45:15] care of the environment. Back to

[45:17] the problem at hand. I have come

[45:19] to Council for many years with

[45:21] different issues and not one of

[45:22] the past three mayors ever took

[45:25] a side. They remained neutral,

[45:27] as which a mayor should be. Mr.

[45:29] Thomas in, his place, decided to

[45:32] take a side. That was actually a

[45:34] very mean action on the part of

[45:35] the Mayor. There seems to be a

[45:38] pattern here with Mr. Thomas --

[45:42] he always gravitates to groups

[45:47] who have grievances and those

[45:48] who are angry. That is where the

[45:50] votes -- try to keep it in place

[45:52] for his mandate so he can keep

[45:54] saying that nothing was

[45:55] fulfilled when he runs for the

[45:57] next election in 2025. He has

[46:00] garnered $28 million in lawsuits

[46:02] and litigations against the City

[46:06] since January 2022. Now, my

[46:08] question -- second question --

[46:09] is also about water.

[46:11] >> What's the first one?

[46:13] >> I don't have a question.

[46:15] >> What's the --

[46:16] >> I said, I have one preamble,

[46:18] no question. And now, this is my

[46:20] question, with no preamble.

[46:22] Regarding a public notice of

[46:24] August 11th, there was an

[46:26] information session August 24th

[46:28] for the future of Montréal

[46:30] water. I would like a brief

[46:32] update on the first information

[46:33] session for this consultation.

[46:37] >> The one a couple of weeks

[46:38] ago?

[46:39] >> -- last week.

[46:42] >> Yeah. No. A week and a half,

[46:44] I think. But I would have to go

[46:45] back on my calendar. I will just

[46:48] address a few things first. You

[46:51] heard my -- I am intrigued at my

[46:55] introduction comments or a

[46:56] monologue. I prefer -- mayors

[46:59] message or what I do in the

[47:01] opening of every council

[47:02] meeting. So, there is nothing

[47:04] too bizarre about that. A

[47:06] doctored photo? No, it wasn't a

[47:08] doctored photo. It was a

[47:09] geometrical rendition to the

[47:13] dimensions and specks, exactly

[47:14] what the property would look

[47:15] like. And it was done to scale.

[47:22] I am intrigued that the mayor

[47:25] should be neutral. Maybe some

[47:27] mayors. Some mayors have

[47:29] opinions and beliefs and would

[47:31] like to lead by example and

[47:33] would like to ascertain or

[47:37] espouse certain perspectives and

[47:39] visions, and vision is a good

[47:41] thing, I think. Maybe it isn't,

[47:45] according to your statement, Ms.

[47:47] Weaver. Vision is a good thing.

[47:51] And vision means you are beyond

[47:53] neutrality. You are espousing

[47:54] something that you believe in.

[47:56] Referring to 360 Lakeshore, the

[48:00] greatest -- mayor McMurray

[48:07] McMurtry -- like to do half as

[48:10] well as he did. Going where the

[48:12] vote is? Well, that is kind of

[48:16] presumably not a bad thing to

[48:18] do. As for the freeze, the

[48:21] freeze, I would love to see us

[48:24] get it. I'd love to see us get a

[48:26] wonderful urban plan so we can

[48:27] get it up and running and have a

[48:29] beautiful city. I am 100% for

[48:31] accelerating that process. It's

[48:32] taking longer than I would like.

[48:34] And I have a spouse that on

[48:36] numerous situations. As for the

[48:39] water, it is very intriguing

[48:40] where we are headed with water.

[48:43] Everybody -- it's interesting.

[48:45] What we have learned is that the

[48:46] Americans, surprise, surprise,

[48:48] are far ahead of us on

[48:51] waterfronts and on shorelines.

[48:53] And we are learning from them.

[48:56] And we are trying to get

[48:57] together as a group. The great

[49:01] lakes and St. Lawrence

[49:02] Association are trying to get

[49:03] together, so that we can all

[49:05] share best practices and learn

[49:06] from each other. And I was

[49:08] intrigued to learn in that

[49:11] meeting that, in fact, we have a

[49:13] lot to learn from the United

[49:15] States of America on protecting

[49:16] our shorelines and our water

[49:18] which, I think, is quite a

[49:20] revelation. So, hopefully, I

[49:21] have answered your question as

[49:23] well, Ms. Weaver. Steve Nade?

[49:36] >> Hello, everyone. My name is

[49:39] Steve Nade. My question is on 50

[49:42] terracotta park, you have the

[49:45] public works department and

[49:48] putting up a new building, by

[49:49] the looks of it. And -- big,

[49:53] huge mural that describes

[49:55] terracotta park. It's been there

[49:57] for a long, long time and I've

[50:01] been living in Pointe-Claire for

[50:03] a long time. I noticed it. But I

[50:05] wonder if, now they have taken

[50:07] out that mural, is there a

[50:08] possibility that maybe Council

[50:10] can think about moving that

[50:12] mural and put to get somewhere

[50:14] else, either in or for us, as

[50:20] citizens, to see the mural of

[50:24] Terracotta's history -- I don't

[50:25] know if you guys have ever --

[50:26] it's a pretty nice set up.

[50:27] Right? But it's so hidden away

[50:28] from everybody else -- the only

[50:30] people that actually sees it is

[50:32] the public works department or

[50:33] the people that are going to

[50:34] work. Right? The workers. Okay?

[50:39] But, as us, citizens, we never

[50:41] have a chance to look at it,

[50:43] because it is in the way. So, I

[50:45] wondered if you guys can take

[50:47] out the time. And you have, what

[50:49] is it called, the -- area? And

[50:52] you have these murals murals of

[50:54] what the history of the pool is

[50:55] or was. And as much as we all

[50:58] want -- take a look at it --

[51:00] pretty cool. So, I wondered if

[51:02] you guys could take the time

[51:04] out, and maybe look into finding

[51:08] a better spot than --

[51:12] >> Okay. Just before you -- make

[51:15] a correction --

[51:16] >> It's actually not about

[51:18] Terracotta -- the first flight

[51:20] in that area. That's why it's in

[51:22] that spot. But I certainly agree

[51:23] that we have to preserve it. And

[51:25] there is a sign, historical sign

[51:27] that was put there about five or

[51:30] six years ago. So, it's not

[51:32] anything to do with Terra-Cotta

[51:39] --

[51:40] >> It was explained to me, many,

[51:41] many years ago, it has the

[51:43] flight -- whatever happened in

[51:45] that area, flight wise --

[51:46] >> But it's very important, sir.

[51:47] I don't disagree -- how we

[51:49] disagree with it and I --

[51:51] >> But if you could preserve it

[51:52] somewhere else.

[51:53] >> We will have to look at that

[51:55] for sure.

[51:56] >> It's a great idea. And my

[51:58] personal favourite -- I love

[51:59] what we did in the Oliver Cote

[52:05] center and her -- please read up

[52:07] on olive Carte and -- sports

[52:14] complex. Thank you, Mr.

[52:20] Nadier. Danielle --?

[52:31] - Deux paires de lunettes...

[52:33] Daniel Montpetit. Moi, je suis

[52:34] ici à cause... à côté de chez

[52:37] nous, il y a un contracteur qui

[52:38] a acheté le terrain. Ils sont en

[52:39] train de faire des rénovations.

[52:43] Puis là, vers le début d', où il

[52:45] a commencé à

[52:46] (inaudible)

[52:47] tout ça. J'ai réalisé qu'il

[52:48] laissait ça

[52:49] (inaudible)

[52:50] assez haut en arrière chez nous

[52:52] chez le voisin. Alors là, je

[52:53] suis venu ici le 9 août. Pour

[52:56] des renseignements. Tous les

[53:00] renseignements que j'ai eu,

[53:02] monsieur, fabuleux, très bon.

[53:04] Moi, ce qui me concerne, ce

[53:05] n'est pas ce que j'ai eu comme

[53:06] renseignements, ceci, cela. Je

[53:08] ne comprends pas pourquoi il

[53:09] faut venir ici, demander une

[53:13] permission ou avoir accès à

[53:16] l'information pour savoir ce

[53:17] qu'un contracteur va bâtir à

[53:18] côté de chez nous. Je ne veux

[53:21] pas savoir s'il y a trois

[53:24] femmes... ça ne m'intéresse pas,

[53:25] sa vie personnelle. Ce qui

[53:27] m'intéresse, c'est ce qu'il va

[53:28] faire à côté de chez nous, comme

[53:30] citoyen, comme n'importe quel

[53:31] citoyen de la ville. C'est là où

[53:34] je ne comprends pas que... moi,

[53:35] je peux venir ici, demander un

[53:37] permis pour un contrat, bâtir

[53:39] une chaise, tout ça. Que tu

[53:41] dises a tout le monde que tu

[53:43] veux bâtir une shed de 20 par

[53:44] 20, par ceci, par cela. Ça

[53:47] dérange personne.

[53:48] (---)

[53:49] ça me dérange. Mais je ne

[53:50] comprends pas comment ça se fait

[53:53] que les villes... pas la seule,

[53:55] je suis certain, qu'on mette ça

[53:56] de cette façon-là. Que quelqu'un

[53:59] qui bâtit une maison à côté de

[54:01] quelqu'un d'autre devrait avoir

[54:02] toutes les informations

[54:03] possibles pour savoir: ça va

[54:05] bien aller. Ce qui arrive, c'est

[54:06] qu'on a des informations ici et

[54:09] là, ceci, cela. Et on se pose

[54:11] des questions. On vient à

[54:12] l'information, on a les bonnes,

[54:14] quelqu'un m'a bien répondu,

[54:16] madame Thibault, toute la gang.

[54:17] Mais je me demande pourquoi on

[54:19] doit faire tout ça quand c'est

[54:20] pour bâtir à côté de chez nous.

[54:22] Il me semble... si je bâtis de

[54:24] quoi chez nous, je sais, j'ai

[54:25] travaillé à la Ville 33 ans. Et

[54:27] si tu te bâtis une maison neuve,

[54:29] aujourd'hui, il faut faire les

[54:30] trois services. C'est

[54:32] automatique pour tout le monde.

[54:33] Ma voisine l'autre bord, quand

[54:35] on a réalisé... il a installé

[54:37] deux services. Par après, je me

[54:39] suis fait dire par le

[54:40] contracteur lui-même qu'il va

[54:42] mettre un puits en arrière.

[54:45] Jusqu'à ce qu'il puisse faire

[54:47] les services. Les autres,

[54:48] d'habitude, 33... je ne

[54:50] comprends pas ce système du

[54:51] tout. Ma question, c'est:

[54:52] pourquoi il faut demander

[54:53] l'accès à l'information pour

[54:54] savoir comment ça va se bâtir à

[54:55] côté de chez nous? On peut pas

[54:59] avoir l'information direct.

[55:00] - Une bonne question. Je vais

[55:01] poser cette question à des

[55:02] experts.

[55:10] - Il y a plusieurs façons de

[55:12] répondre à votre question,

[55:13] monsieur Montpetit. Mais comme

[55:15] organisme public, on a une

[55:17] obligation de... plus élevé

[55:22] qu'un organisme privé, je

[55:23] dirais, de préserver les

[55:26] renseignements des gens qui sont

[55:29] nommés

[55:30] (inaudible)

[55:31] aux renseignements confidentiels

[55:32] quant à leur propriété. C'est la

[55:33] première chose. Vous avez

[55:37] l'opportunité, comme voisins, de

[55:38] poser la question directement à

[55:41] votre voisin. Alors, il y a

[55:43] aussi cette communication-là qui

[55:45] est possible dans le voisinage.

[55:46] Parce que nous, on est gardien

[55:48] de ces documents-là, certaines

[55:51] informations qu'on ne peut pas

[55:52] divulgués sans demander une

[55:54] autorisation, comme je vous ai

[55:56] expliqué quand vous êtes venu,

[55:57] d'ailleurs. On peut fournir

[55:59] l'information qui appartient à

[56:00] un voisin dans la mesure où le

[56:01] voisin nous dit: pas de

[56:03] problème, je vais vous donner...

[56:05] vous pouvez transmettre

[56:06] l'information à monsieur

[56:07] Montpetit. Dans le cas qui nous

[56:09] occupe, votre question, c'était

[56:11] vers ça que je vous orientait.

[56:12] Je n'ai pas de problème à

[56:13] prendre votre demande. Je vais

[56:15] simplement demander la

[56:16] permission aux propriétaires de

[56:18] ces documents-là: est-ce qu'il

[56:19] veut que je rende disponibles à

[56:21] son voisinage? La réponse aurait

[56:23] pu être oui. C'est comme ça

[56:24] qu'on doit fonctionner. Et les

[56:25] gens ont des attentes par

[56:26] rapport à une ville... vous avez

[56:28] raison de dire qu'on n'est pas

[56:29] la seule, au contraire. On

[56:32] appelle tous la même loi. Mais

[56:34] on a des citoyens qui ont des

[56:36] attentes par rapport à la

[56:38] documentation.

[56:39] - Je suis encore avec vous. Mais

[56:41] c'est la confidentialité... il

[56:43] peut la garder. Mais qu'est-ce

[56:44] qui est confidentiel dans poser

[56:47] trois services au lieu... de

[56:49] deux? Et il va faire l'autre

[56:51] dans... ces tes services

[56:53] sanitaires, pluviales, une

[56:55] entrée dos...

[56:56] - Vous l'avez dit. Alors, votre

[56:58] questionnement, c'est pourquoi

[56:59] ça a pas été fait à ce

[57:00] moment-là. Mais vous avez raison

[57:01] de dire qu'il y a l'application

[57:03] des règlements. Comme je vous

[57:04] expliquais, six à trois services

[57:05] obligatoire, il n'y avait pas à

[57:07] parier que les trois services

[57:08] allaient apparaître à un moment

[57:09] donné dans la construction.

[57:10] Notre question, c'est: pourquoi

[57:11] ça n'a pas été fait à ce

[57:12] moment-là?

[57:17] (problème technique)

[57:21] - D'après moi, il va creuser

[57:22] plus tard.

[57:23] - Vous avez la réponse en même

[57:24] temps que moi, quand vous étiez

[57:25] à mon bureau.

[57:26] - D'abord, c'est d'être pour ça

[57:27] qu'ils les vendent chers, les

[57:28] maisons. Il va devoir creuser

[57:30] une deuxième fois, Fair... c'est

[57:31] pour ça qu'ils vont. Chers

[57:32] - Je me rappelle pas la réponse

[57:33] que vous avez eu, mais c'était

[57:35] pas nécessairement

[57:36] (inaudible)

[57:37] ... d'accord, merci.

[57:40] - Merci beaucoup. Bonne soirée.

[57:41] - Pareillement.

[57:42] >> Okay. -- or is it Ellen?

[57:51] Eleanor?

[57:53] - C'est bien ça. Bonsoir,

[57:54] Monsieur le Maire, Madame,

[57:57] Messieurs. Bonsoir à l'audience.

[57:59] Je suis présente ici avec mon

[58:00] mari. On veut bâtir une maison

[58:02] pour y vivre avec nos deux

[58:04] enfants sur l'avenue

[58:07] Saint-Louis. 397, l'adresse.

[58:09] Nous avons présenté le projet et

[58:12] ça a été présenté deux fois. La

[58:15] première fois, on a reçu un avis

[58:18] négatif. Suite à cet avis, nous

[58:21] avons rencontré madame

[58:24] (---)

[58:26] et d'autres personnes, le 23 mai

[58:29] passer pour voir quelles

[58:30] seraient les améliorations à

[58:31] apporter au projet pour que ça

[58:33] corresponde aux règlements de la

[58:35] ville et tout. Lors de cette

[58:37] rencontre, ça nous a été dit

[58:39] qu'il serait acceptable de

[58:40] proposer, pour le revêtement du

[58:42] deuxième étage, le

[58:44] (inaudible)

[58:45] d'ingénierie ou le revirement

[58:46] (---)

[58:47] . Le revêtement, pardon. Le

[58:49] projet a été présenté en... une

[58:53] deuxième fois devant le CCU, a

[58:56] reçu un avis positif avec trois

[58:58] conditions. La première, c'était

[59:01] au niveau du rez-de-chaussée. La

[59:02] deuxième, de choisir son boire

[59:05] plus clair, et plus foncé, et en

[59:08] bas, pour couper un peu le

[59:10] contraste. La troisième

[59:11] condition, c'était de remplacer

[59:13] le bois d'ingénierie par le vrai

[59:15] bois. Les deux premières

[59:16] conditions, pas de problème, on

[59:17] a bien compris. On a un petit

[59:19] problème avec la troisième. Le

[59:25] boire véritable, c'est sûr que

[59:26] c'est un bon matériel. On

[59:27] l'aime. Mais ça exige beaucoup

[59:28] de dépenses, d'entretien. Ce

[59:30] sont des dépens significative.

[59:33] On veut bâtir pour habiter

[59:34] là-bas, on veut pas vendre la

[59:36] maison. Donc, les dépenses

[59:37] d'entretien, ça nous intéresse.

[59:40] On a regardé la garantie offert

[59:42] sur le marché pour le vrai bois.

[59:45] Puis, la garantie, c'est entre

[59:48] trois et cinq en. Après cet

[59:50] intervalle, il faut le

[59:51] repeindre, tout dépendant...

[59:53] entre trois et 50, tout

[59:55] dépendant de l'exposition au

[59:56] soleil et aux intempéries. Trois

[1:00:00] et cinq on, pardon. On doit

[1:00:03] mettre ce bois sur les quatre

[1:00:04] murs de la maison. Il faut

[1:00:06] utiliser échafaudages et payer

[1:00:07] une compagnie pour faire la

[1:00:10] peinture après trois à cinq ans.

[1:00:12] Ça va coûter 10 à 15000 dollars.

[1:00:13] On a estimé ça. Le règlement, à

[1:00:21] l'article 46.10,

[1:00:23] (---)

[1:00:24] oui imitation, le bardeau et la

[1:00:27] brique d'argile. Le recouvrement

[1:00:29] de bois est... préférable comme

[1:00:31] matériau principal. Je veux

[1:00:33] souligner que le règlement

[1:00:34] utilise les mots privilégié,

[1:00:38] préférable. Ça parle pas d'une

[1:00:39] obligation, d'utiliser le

[1:00:41] revêtements de bois. En, plus il

[1:00:42] donne l'option d'utiliser soit

[1:00:44] le bois, soit une imitation. De

[1:00:47] la même façon que le règlement

[1:00:49] donne une préférence à

[1:00:50] l'utilisation du bois, il parle

[1:00:52] du bardeau de cèdre ignifuges et

[1:00:54] comme étant un matériel à

[1:00:56] privilégier. Pourtant, je n'ai

[1:00:57] pas vu de maison qu'il utilisent

[1:00:59] dans le secteur des vétérans, ce

[1:01:02] type de bardeau. Nous avons

[1:01:03] regardé également les maisons

[1:01:04] qui sont situés dans le secteur

[1:01:06] sur l'avenue Saint-Louis. Et les

[1:01:11] maisons récemment bâti, dans

[1:01:12] celle-ci, j'ai vu des maisons

[1:01:14] qui utilisent soit le

[1:01:15] (---)

[1:01:16] ... je parle du deuxième étage,

[1:01:17] tout le temps. Soit le

[1:01:18] (---)

[1:01:19] , soit le revêtement James

[1:01:20] Hardy, où j'ai même vu de

[1:01:21] l'acier. Par exemple, j'ai 440

[1:01:25] et, un bâti en 2019, sur

[1:01:27] l'avenue Saint-Louis. La maison

[1:01:29] voisine, bas si en 2022. Les

[1:01:31] deux maisons qui ont été bâties

[1:01:33] dans la place de l'ancienne 436.

[1:01:36] Une bâti en 2022, l'autre, cette

[1:01:39] année. Deux autres maisons

[1:01:43] bâties entre 436 et 438, St.

[1:01:44] Louis. Également, sur Dieppe,

[1:01:47] aussi, j'ai pu constater

[1:01:50] l'utilisation du

[1:01:52] (---)

[1:01:53] . On a une autre adresse, il y a

[1:01:55] un revêtement en acier. On a

[1:01:57] fait des recherches sur

[1:01:58] Internet, on a vu par exemple

[1:02:00] que le revêtement d'acier, une

[1:02:02] compagnie québécoise produite ça

[1:02:04] à partir du matériel recycler.

[1:02:08] Le matériel est recyclables à

[1:02:11] 100%. Garantie de 40 ans. Donc,

[1:02:13] ce qu'on veut, on veut utiliser

[1:02:15] n'importe quel autre matériel

[1:02:18] qui offre une garantie

[1:02:20] raisonnable et qui tourne

[1:02:21] alentours de 25 ans, parce qu'il

[1:02:22] y a des coups importants

[1:02:24] d'entretien pour le vrai boire.

[1:02:27] Et on est prêt a utilisé tout

[1:02:29] autre matériel, sauf le vrai

[1:02:31] bois, qui pose... qui impose des

[1:02:35] coûts d'entretien important pour

[1:02:36] nous. Donc, on veut savoir

[1:02:38] pourquoi ça nous a été imposée,

[1:02:40] la condition d'utiliser le vrai

[1:02:42] bois. Et comme je vous ai dit,

[1:02:43] on est prêt à utiliser n'importe

[1:02:45] quel autre matériel.

[1:02:47] - Je ne peux pas parler

[1:02:49] spécifiquement pour tout le CCU,

[1:02:52] mais ce que j'ai compris, dans

[1:02:54] votre cas, c'est que peut-être

[1:02:56] que vous pouvez utiliser un

[1:02:59] autre faux bois, mais de plus

[1:03:01] haute qualité. C'est peut-être

[1:03:02] une des solutions. C'est pas moi

[1:03:04] qui décide, on a parlé de ça...

[1:03:06] ce soir, je pense qu'on en a

[1:03:07] parlé

[1:03:12] (problème technique)

[1:03:13] .

[1:03:14] - Sur la table ce soir.

[1:03:15] (inaudible)

[1:03:16] un vote ce soir. Mais en accord

[1:03:19] avec les suggestions et après

[1:03:21] discussion ensemble, c'est une

[1:03:22] bonne idée. Après, si c'est

[1:03:24] (inaudible)

[1:03:25] le conseil, peut-être parler

[1:03:28] avec

[1:03:29] (---)

[1:03:30] .

[1:03:31] - Je vous remercie.

[1:03:35] >> Good evening, Mister Mayor,

[1:03:39] councillors. My name is -- I am

[1:03:46] (inaudible)

[1:03:47] so, I don't want to repeat that

[1:03:49] in English, everything she said.

[1:03:52] Personally, I'm a company owner.

[1:03:54] We build furniture. I know would

[1:04:00] need special treatment to be

[1:04:01] outside. I love wood. We don't

[1:04:04] find wood. Traded, to be exposed

[1:04:08] 25 years, 30 years without any

[1:04:10] care. So, the question was

[1:04:14] already asked by my wife, so

[1:04:16] thank you --

[1:04:17] >> You are welcome, sir. I love

[1:04:18] would, to. I have a rotten barn

[1:04:20] and working on right now with

[1:04:22] chunks of it falling off. I know

[1:04:24] what you are talking about.

[1:04:26] >> Thank you very much.

[1:04:30] >> Conway?

[1:04:42] >> Good evening. Last month, you

[1:04:46] announced, Mayor Thomas, last

[1:04:47] month you announced there is now

[1:04:49] a committee for the windmill

[1:04:52] restoration. And wanted to know

[1:04:54] if there is discussion about the

[1:04:56] amount of money for the

[1:04:58] renovation and, lately, the

[1:05:00] discussion has been about public

[1:05:03] access. So, I don't know if you

[1:05:06] can address any advancement that

[1:05:08] there is been in the last month,

[1:05:10] and I also want to know in

[1:05:13] particular for the public

[1:05:14] access, what will that be? Would

[1:05:16] it be outside access, is anybody

[1:05:19] suggesting we have inside

[1:05:20] access? It's a building, like

[1:05:22] why would the public go inside?

[1:05:25] >> It's an interesting question.

[1:05:27] We have more public access than

[1:05:29] we had before, what we had

[1:05:33] before was owned by the diocese,

[1:05:35] the church at the time. It's

[1:05:37] been owned by the diocese as it

[1:05:40] was pointed out recently. We

[1:05:42] could walk around it, we could

[1:05:44] enjoy it, we could look at it,

[1:05:45] we didn't own it. How you -- the

[1:05:49] whole dilemma with the windmill

[1:05:50] is it's privately owned. How do

[1:05:51] you make it? It's public, how do

[1:05:53] you make it a public resource,

[1:05:55] something people can enjoy when

[1:05:56] someone else owns it? It's been

[1:05:58] the challenge of the

[1:05:59] arrangement. We had -- it

[1:06:02] functioned and lived with the

[1:06:03] windmill, with public access

[1:06:04] that we've had in the past four

[1:06:07] decades. We made a new deal

[1:06:10] where we considered, maybe,

[1:06:13] securing a more firm definition

[1:06:15] of that. We strengthen the

[1:06:18] public access by denying the

[1:06:20] diocese the possibility to fence

[1:06:22] it in in the agreement. What

[1:06:24] happened was, this is my

[1:06:26] understanding of it, it became

[1:06:29] -- it then became an insurance

[1:06:31] issue because, if you have

[1:06:32] greater public access, and

[1:06:33] anybody can get there, and it's

[1:06:35] free game, then it has to be

[1:06:37] patrolled or surveyed, it has to

[1:06:38] be looked after. We need a

[1:06:40] certain type of definition for

[1:06:41] the City to actually surveyed or

[1:06:44] patrol it. My expert director

[1:06:47] over there may be able to inform

[1:06:49] us better on this. The laws may

[1:06:50] or may not allow them to do so.

[1:06:52] This is one of the dilemmas with

[1:06:54] public access as per inside

[1:06:58] access, no. I mean, in the --

[1:07:02] the idea is to have a working

[1:07:05] mechanism like the other one

[1:07:07] that was worked on in the past

[1:07:10] in Île-Perrot. There's a

[1:07:13] functional -- you have a

[1:07:14] functional windmill --

[1:07:15] apparently, is not much more

[1:07:16] expensive to make it functional,

[1:07:17] and we have the parts that's

[1:07:19] been paid for by the Heritage

[1:07:20] Society. So, ideally, it would

[1:07:23] be to get a working mechanism in

[1:07:25] there because, when it works,

[1:07:28] the sales actually move so

[1:07:29] they're not mobile. We are less

[1:07:30] likely to wrought. In fact,

[1:07:32] there are benefits to making it

[1:07:35] mobile and functional. In fact,

[1:07:36] maintenance may be less

[1:07:37] overtime, plus we have a lot of

[1:07:38] the parts already purchased to

[1:07:40] make it functional. I want a

[1:07:44] functional interior when,

[1:07:45] multiple go inside it, it's

[1:07:47] small, I don't know if you've

[1:07:48] been in it, but it's pretty

[1:07:49] small and there, and if you've

[1:07:51] got a working mechanism in,

[1:07:52] there it wouldn't be a wise idea

[1:07:55] unless supervised or escorted by

[1:07:59] somebody professional. As for

[1:08:01] the committee, we have our first

[1:08:04] meeting tomorrow. We're going to

[1:08:07] find out, your question will be

[1:08:10] better Austin next council

[1:08:11] meeting. We will see where it

[1:08:13] goes. Yes, Councillor Stork? Go

[1:08:19] ahead.

[1:08:20] >> Just to clarify I'm not going

[1:08:21] to go in-depth, but we don't

[1:08:24] have more access now than we've

[1:08:25] ever had, we've had the same

[1:08:26] access, it's private land, it's

[1:08:28] been tolerated. All right asking

[1:08:29] for in the definition of public

[1:08:31] access is through now and,

[1:08:32] through time, regardless of

[1:08:34] owner, a citizen can freely walk

[1:08:35] up to the windmill with advance

[1:08:37] around, it affects not around

[1:08:38] it, inside access, that's all to

[1:08:40] be determined. We want to make

[1:08:42] sure our citizens can freely

[1:08:43] walk up to the wind today,

[1:08:47] tomorrow, and all-time going

[1:08:48] forth. That is where we are

[1:08:49] headed.

[1:08:51] >> Just to clarify, according to

[1:08:54] Mr. Weemaes, who I spoke with,

[1:08:57] and the representative of the

[1:08:59] archdiocese, the language is

[1:09:00] stronger. The access -- language

[1:09:03] for access is stronger. That has

[1:09:05] made it more problematic. That

[1:09:06] is what the experts have told

[1:09:09] me. I have read the document. I

[1:09:11] do know they have said

[1:09:13] specifically they're not allowed

[1:09:14] to barricaded in, and that was

[1:09:16] never worded before, that we

[1:09:17] couldn't barricade it in. This

[1:09:18] is my understanding of the

[1:09:20] agreement, and it has been.

[1:09:23] Anyhow, is there another

[1:09:25] question?

[1:09:26] >> The second topic was -- I

[1:09:30] wasn't planning on asking a

[1:09:31] second question, but earlier,

[1:09:33] there was mention of the

[1:09:37] terracotta mural and the first

[1:09:38] flight. I thought I saw some,

[1:09:41] where or read somewhere, someone

[1:09:44] told me that, at some point,

[1:09:45] they had a plaque, I think, in

[1:09:48] front of Jean René or close to

[1:09:49] here saying the first flight in

[1:09:52] Canada happened here. Somebody

[1:09:54] on May would close to St. Louis

[1:09:57] said his father told him that

[1:09:59] the first fight in Canada

[1:10:01] happened in front of his house

[1:10:03] on May would. Because the

[1:10:07] terracotta public works are on

[1:10:09] May would and Donegani, I think,

[1:10:11] can we not say it happened on

[1:10:12] May would?

[1:10:15] >> I'm not sure, can anybody

[1:10:17] answer that? It was

[1:10:19] fundamentally there, that little

[1:10:20] park, the green space in the

[1:10:22] corner.

[1:10:23] >> Thank you. It's been

[1:10:25] acknowledged. Thank you.

[1:10:26] >> Thank you.

[1:10:27] >> Now to the rest of the world.

[1:10:29] >> There we go.

[1:10:30] >> The rest of Canada. Thank

[1:10:33] you.

[1:10:43] >> Good evening. In science,

[1:10:49] every problem they have has a

[1:10:50] solution, and sometimes, many

[1:10:53] solutions. We are facing a big

[1:10:57] problem disconnecting between

[1:10:59] the City Council and the

[1:11:02] citizens of Pointe-Claire or the

[1:11:06] existing citizens of

[1:11:07] Pointe-Claire. To assume the

[1:11:10] problem, to have confidence, and

[1:11:11] before you issue any, I'll tell

[1:11:14] you the problem and give you the

[1:11:16] solution and you can ask the

[1:11:19] city council if they're able to

[1:11:21] do it or not. If any -- before

[1:11:26] you give any permission for any

[1:11:30] building or any high rise

[1:11:34] building, you can consult the

[1:11:37] district city of it. How is it

[1:11:39] going to be? How's it going to

[1:11:41] affect them, what is going to be

[1:11:43] exactly, so you can get all of

[1:11:44] their view from them. If it is

[1:11:47] good for them, or, you know,

[1:11:50] what he can do before you start

[1:11:53] discussing or giving the permit.

[1:11:55] That is how we start. We, as a

[1:12:00] citizen, elect the City Council

[1:12:01] to take care of all of the

[1:12:06] problems. Or are not against any

[1:12:09] building or any construction,

[1:12:11] but it has to be -- with the

[1:12:18] citizen, and existing citizens

[1:12:19] of the district. If you do that

[1:12:22] before we start doing any

[1:12:25] discussion, or any voting on it,

[1:12:29] we have to deal with the

[1:12:31] problem. City Council, are they

[1:12:33] ever to do that? So all the

[1:12:35] problem, people don't complain

[1:12:37] because the majority, they're

[1:12:38] going to know what's going on,

[1:12:40] and they accept it or not.

[1:12:44] >> I would argue most of the

[1:12:45] people on this council would say

[1:12:47] that's exactly what they are

[1:12:48] doing.

[1:12:49] >> No, no, sir.

[1:12:51] >> Not in your opinion --

[1:12:52] >> I'll tell you what's

[1:12:55] happening.

[1:12:56] (inaudible)

[1:12:57] building is going to go to ten

[1:12:59] floors. We have to go --

[1:13:01] >> There's a health care

[1:13:02] facility going in there.

[1:13:04] >> Before you get elected, not

[1:13:08] in the past previous

[1:13:13] administration. Would you know

[1:13:14] about it? This -- exactly what

[1:13:17] happened, and all of a sudden,

[1:13:19] all of this --

[1:13:21] >> I will say in fairness that

[1:13:23] we are working on public

[1:13:25] consultation right now to come

[1:13:26] up with an urban plan to avoid

[1:13:29] the problem you are outlining.

[1:13:31] >> I understand.

[1:13:32] >> That is why we have the

[1:13:35] freeze, and citizen

[1:13:37] consultation, and we are in a

[1:13:39] good period right now where I'm

[1:13:42] hoping we may, in fact, do what

[1:13:44] you are suggesting, and it may

[1:13:46] be the results, and I'm hoping

[1:13:47] --

[1:13:48] >> The consultation is still --

[1:13:50] if the City Council vote for, it

[1:13:54] -- I've said this before, sir,

[1:13:56] that remains to be seen. We have

[1:13:59] to allow things to fulfill

[1:14:01] themselves. We have to let

[1:14:02] people vote, we have to see what

[1:14:04] happens. We can't assume people

[1:14:05] are going to behave in a certain

[1:14:06] way, until the event has

[1:14:08] occurred, or until the

[1:14:11] consultation has been done, and

[1:14:12] we will see the urban plan, and

[1:14:14] whether the public respected, I

[1:14:16] suspect it will be, but he can't

[1:14:18] speak in advance to what an

[1:14:20] outcome will be, in all

[1:14:21] fairness.

[1:14:22] >> I understand, but I'm going

[1:14:24] from the past. Suddenly, we see

[1:14:27] already -- we were talking about

[1:14:30] too many projects -- we don't

[1:14:33] know about it. We just learned

[1:14:36] from the past to avoid all that

[1:14:38] to do consultation with every

[1:14:41] district where you're going to

[1:14:42] build it to get the view from

[1:14:45] the district, from the citizen.

[1:14:47] >> Who are not at that level

[1:14:50] yet. We're not there yet. You

[1:14:52] may nonresidential housing, that

[1:14:53] kind of thing? That is the CCU

[1:14:56] or the pack that does that.

[1:14:58] Council does vote on it. We do

[1:15:00] not include residential or

[1:15:03] private homes in the freeze or

[1:15:06] in the urban planning. Maybe we

[1:15:08] can in the future, who knows? It

[1:15:09] remains to be seen. It has been

[1:15:11] suggested.

[1:15:14] >> My second question, please,

[1:15:21] because Mr. Cowan, we ask him

[1:15:23] hard questions, he leaves the

[1:15:24] room. It happened with me a few

[1:15:26] months ago when I asked him what

[1:15:28] the relationship between

[1:15:30] Cadillac Fairview -- he left the

[1:15:32] room because he doesn't want to

[1:15:33] answer. Last month, same exact

[1:15:35] -- I asked him, what the

[1:15:36] relation -- were why he told the

[1:15:47] -- to let the -- I'm just trying

[1:15:55] to say when someone asks you a

[1:15:58] question, they never left the

[1:16:01] room. Why did he leave the room?

[1:16:06] >> I will answer that --

[1:16:07] >> Absolutely.

[1:16:08] >> In my judgment, the rules,

[1:16:10] and procedures have not been

[1:16:11] followed, in my judgment, the

[1:16:14] toll of the room has become

[1:16:15] disrespectful, and breaking all

[1:16:17] the proper rules, proper

[1:16:18] conduct. That's when I say I

[1:16:20] have had it. I'm not going to

[1:16:21] sit here and listen to it. I

[1:16:24] will also answer your point --

[1:16:28] to make a correction on the

[1:16:29] fact, the contractor chose to

[1:16:32] consult with the public when

[1:16:35] they didn't have to. They didn't

[1:16:36] because they were encouraged by

[1:16:37] Council to do it. It does work.

[1:16:42] When the public became aware of

[1:16:44] a full briefing of the project,

[1:16:48] it started the wheels in motion

[1:16:49] that resulted in the project

[1:16:51] being turned down by Council.

[1:16:55] >> It has happened, and it

[1:16:57] happened in your example. A lot

[1:16:58] of this consultation can come

[1:17:01] about through voluntary good

[1:17:03] citizenship, corporate

[1:17:04] citizenship, between the average

[1:17:08] citizens like -- was talking

[1:17:11] about how come I don't know

[1:17:12] about what is going on with the

[1:17:14] property next door? There is

[1:17:17] nothing holding back a citizen

[1:17:19] sharing information on their

[1:17:20] own. They should. My neighbour

[1:17:22] is putting in a new swimming

[1:17:23] pool, a new fence, you comes

[1:17:25] over, he talks to me about it.

[1:17:27] We work things out. That's the

[1:17:28] way it should work.

[1:17:31] >> I hope, in the future, we

[1:17:32] have to work together so the

[1:17:37] existing citizens can be

[1:17:38] comfortable when something is

[1:17:39] being built in their backyard

[1:17:40] and in front of them. We don't

[1:17:41] have to argue or to complain

[1:17:43] about it.

[1:17:44] >> Okay --

[1:17:45] >> Please.

[1:17:46] >> I will answer the second

[1:17:48] question. On a personal level, I

[1:17:51] seem to see things differently

[1:17:52] than a lot of people on this

[1:17:54] one. I used to teach in

[1:17:56] university for a long time. I

[1:17:57] would always let people -- I

[1:17:59] would run and let people address

[1:18:01] the questions to the point of

[1:18:02] understanding. I would spend a

[1:18:03] lot of time at it. So, you have

[1:18:07] seen that with me in this room.

[1:18:09] I have had some very

[1:18:12] confrontational questions put at

[1:18:13] me, especially at the outset.

[1:18:16] Don't shy away, don't leave the

[1:18:18] room. It is my job to stay here

[1:18:20] and answer them. I will never

[1:18:22] leave the room while I'm in this

[1:18:24] office, just to let you know.

[1:18:27] >> Thank you for your good

[1:18:29] answer, thank you.

[1:18:31] >> Thank you. June dire?

[1:18:43] >> Good evening.

[1:18:45] - Bonsoir, Mesdames et

[1:18:46] Messieurs. I will keep this

[1:18:47] short and sweet at this point. I

[1:18:49] want to talk to the minor

[1:18:52] exemption for 220 Lakeshore

[1:18:55] later in the meeting. Basically,

[1:18:56] my question is, what constitutes

[1:18:58] a minor exemption, and one is a

[1:19:00] minor exemption no longer minor?

[1:19:04] Under section 145.2 of the

[1:19:06] provincial act respecting land

[1:19:08] use and landing, Council is

[1:19:11] empowered to grant exemptions,

[1:19:13] minor exemptions, to the zoning

[1:19:14] bylaw in place, provided such

[1:19:17] exemptions respect the aims of

[1:19:20] its planning program. In section

[1:19:22] 145.2, the act goes on to

[1:19:24] stipulate that such exemption

[1:19:26] shall be granted only if the

[1:19:28] application of the bylaw causes

[1:19:31] serious prejudiced, not just

[1:19:32] prejudice, serious prejudice to

[1:19:34] the person applying for the

[1:19:36] exemption. The exemption may not

[1:19:38] be granted, but it hinders the

[1:19:40] owners of the in -- right of

[1:19:43] ownership. The implication is

[1:19:46] the noncompliant element is

[1:19:47] relatively small and minor, and

[1:19:50] without it, not just

[1:19:51] (inaudible)

[1:19:52] prejudice would be caused to the

[1:19:54] applicant. The granting of

[1:19:56] exemption to the zoning bylaw is

[1:19:59] hedged around with conditions.

[1:20:00] It can't be granted willy-nilly.

[1:20:03] And applicant can ask for a

[1:20:05] variant for whatever the zoning

[1:20:07] bylaw has established as the

[1:20:08] norm. It must be minor as

[1:20:13] understood compared to major in

[1:20:15] nature and scope. Minor,

[1:20:16] according to the dictionary,

[1:20:18] means lesser or secondary in

[1:20:20] extent, importance, for degree.

[1:20:22] Without it, the applicant must

[1:20:24] offer not just prejudice, but

[1:20:27] serious prejudice. No prejudiced

[1:20:29] to be occasion to the

[1:20:30] neighbours, not to be impacted

[1:20:32] in the enjoyment of the right of

[1:20:34] ownership. Definitely not a

[1:20:35] question of anything goes. The

[1:20:39] question is, quite simply, is

[1:20:41] Council mindful of, and does it

[1:20:43] abide by the limitations on it's

[1:20:45] discretionary right to grant

[1:20:47] exemptions to the zoning bylaw?

[1:20:49] What's the rule of thumb

[1:20:51] supplied in deciding what's

[1:20:54] being applied for is no longer

[1:20:55] minor?

[1:20:58] >> These are all good questions.

[1:21:03] From what I understand of the

[1:21:07] infamous 2020 project, a lot of

[1:21:09] this was decided before, and was

[1:21:12] being decided on now is based on

[1:21:14] what's occurred prior. Some of

[1:21:18] those -- hideaway say it? The

[1:21:20] things you may prove not

[1:21:24] satisfactory happened earlier in

[1:21:25] a previous mandate, in a

[1:21:27] previous time. What's being

[1:21:29] asked now is an improved version

[1:21:32] of the initial proposal. That is

[1:21:35] my understanding of the current

[1:21:36] arrangement. As to the

[1:21:37] specifics, you are good

[1:21:39] questions about exemptions,

[1:21:41] minor, and distinguishing

[1:21:43] between them all, I will pass it

[1:21:46] over to be answered.

[1:21:52] >> It's more a discretionary

[1:21:55] bylaw that the City Council can

[1:21:58] approve on. It doesn't have any

[1:22:02] definitions in -- the

[1:22:03] >> I understand that, and that

[1:22:07] is where unnerving lies. When

[1:22:10] this mine are no longer stays

[1:22:12] minor, is that when you are

[1:22:13] asking for a double whatever is

[1:22:15] the normal permitted thing, or

[1:22:17] whatever? Depending on what it

[1:22:20] is?

[1:22:21] >> It is case by case, you know,

[1:22:24] that we have to -- its case by

[1:22:26] case, we don't have a clear

[1:22:28] definition for --

[1:22:29] >> Should you not have at least

[1:22:32] some kind of rule of thumb that

[1:22:35] would indicate that when it's

[1:22:37] this percentage it is beyond the

[1:22:38] pale, and no, it is not minor

[1:22:40] anymore? One incident this

[1:22:42] number of feet, it's not minor

[1:22:44] anymore? It's major?

[1:22:46] >> It's not working like this,

[1:22:47] it's very case by case that they

[1:22:49] have to follow. It's depending

[1:22:50] on the bylaw, depending of the

[1:22:52] setback. You have a lot -- of

[1:22:53] >> That is arbitrary in that

[1:22:55] point.

[1:22:56] >> It's a discretionary bylaw

[1:22:58] for the City Council.

[1:23:02] >> Okay, right, well, I will be

[1:23:04] back.

[1:23:05] >> It's quite arbitrary from

[1:23:07] what we are understanding. John?

[1:23:23] >> As somebody had mentioned

[1:23:25] before about the church, and

[1:23:29] that, I have a few questions.

[1:23:31] How much money is being put

[1:23:34] forward to restore the windmill?

[1:23:38] >> How much is being proposed?

[1:23:41] 950,000 from the city, and

[1:23:43] roughly 1 million from the

[1:23:44] province of Québec.

[1:23:45] >> I'm going to assume this is

[1:23:50] because there's structural

[1:23:52] issues, decay, right, and

[1:23:53] everything?

[1:23:54] >> Correct.

[1:23:55] >> This building is on private

[1:23:57] property.

[1:24:01] >> Correct.

[1:24:02] (inaudible)

[1:24:04] as a building --

[1:24:05] >> I've been waiting for this.

[1:24:06] >> It's got wrought, it's got

[1:24:07] cracks, it's got things. It is

[1:24:09] on my property. The city is

[1:24:12] going to spend money to restore

[1:24:16] the windmill for the city but

[1:24:20] the city wants me to preserve my

[1:24:23] tree for the city. Isn't there

[1:24:27] to standards here?

[1:24:29] >> There is. Because of

[1:24:32] (inaudible)

[1:24:33] historic importance,'s legacy,

[1:24:35] it was built in 1710, it is the

[1:24:39] logo of our city, it is a far

[1:24:42] more important item than your

[1:24:43] tree. However, I get the gist of

[1:24:46] your point. The gist of your

[1:24:47] point is -- I actually quite

[1:24:51] understood what you are saying

[1:24:52] the last time he came to the

[1:24:53] microphone. I felt for you. If

[1:24:57] you are liable, there is -- it

[1:25:01] was an interesting question,

[1:25:02] what do you post. I don't know

[1:25:04] the rules on this. I do think we

[1:25:07] have to explore this a little

[1:25:09] more thoroughly for your sake,

[1:25:11] and you pose a question that is

[1:25:13] valid for a lot of other

[1:25:15] citizens. We have to go over

[1:25:17] this one and refine it, and how

[1:25:19] we feel and interpret this. You

[1:25:21] haven't wasted your words at the

[1:25:22] microphone. You have had an

[1:25:24] impact, trust me.

[1:25:25] >> I'm getting more and more

[1:25:27] worried, winter is coming.

[1:25:28] There's going to be a break.

[1:25:29] There is going to be damage, and

[1:25:31] hopefully no deaths or injuries.

[1:25:35] The city put the onus back on

[1:25:37] me. All I'm going, if you put 1

[1:25:41] million dollars to a building,

[1:25:42] what you are doing for the

[1:25:43] community, even if it is

[1:25:45] historical, my tree is 75 years

[1:25:46] old, it's older than I am, it is

[1:25:48] historical. Good point. Why

[1:25:51] would I have to be forking out

[1:25:53] all the money? If I look at it,

[1:25:55] it will be nearly $8,000 to

[1:25:57] cable my tree. I could get it

[1:25:59] cut for 2000. In three years,

[1:26:01] it's going to be cut anyway. Why

[1:26:02] would I spend $1,000 --

[1:26:05] >> Hopefully not to years

[1:26:06] because otherwise the investment

[1:26:07] wouldn't be worth it, and I'm

[1:26:09] sure the arborist's wouldn't be

[1:26:11] recommending --

[1:26:12] >> The arborist -- there's a lot

[1:26:13] of issues with it because the

[1:26:15] arborist, which the city told me

[1:26:18] to go to you, they don't take

[1:26:20] care of the trees. They don't

[1:26:22] cut it. They gave me other

[1:26:23] people. They came and said,

[1:26:25] there's nothing wrong with your

[1:26:26] tree. I said, it's cracked. They

[1:26:28] said, oh, doesn't mean anything.

[1:26:30] I said -- the city says it needs

[1:26:32] cabling. Put 800 dollar cable up

[1:26:34] there. To make the city happy. I

[1:26:37] am going, I'm getting so many

[1:26:40] different stories coming

[1:26:41] through. Who is right? Who is

[1:26:44] wrong? You know? It comes back

[1:26:50] down -- in my expected to put

[1:26:52] out all this money? I'm retired.

[1:26:56] I took early retirement because

[1:26:58] I want to enjoy my life. I'm

[1:27:00] dealing with this stress because

[1:27:03] every storm, I don't know what

[1:27:04] is going to happen.

[1:27:06] >> Well, hopefully the arborist

[1:27:09] have some sense of what that

[1:27:11] danger is, and I suspect they

[1:27:13] do. I hope they do --

[1:27:15] >> I don't. The ones that are

[1:27:17] being asked for are saying there

[1:27:19] is nothing wrong with the tree

[1:27:20] and it doesn't need cabling.

[1:27:23] >> Okay.

[1:27:24] >> Now I have a problem, you

[1:27:26] want a cable, the arborist that

[1:27:29] are being recommended to me are

[1:27:31] saying there is nothing wrong

[1:27:32] with it. It doesn't need it.

[1:27:35] Now, what do I do?

[1:27:37] >> Okay. You pose an interesting

[1:27:39] question -- I have to give you a

[1:27:41] better answer than the one I

[1:27:43] have right now. Do you have

[1:27:45] anything to contribute, or --

[1:27:48] >> Am I going to get another

[1:27:49] letter saying, well, it's

[1:27:52] another legal? I'm getting tired

[1:27:56] of this.

[1:27:57] >> You're making a valid point.

[1:27:59] We should get back to in a more

[1:28:02] elusive manner. I will try to

[1:28:03] get back to in a more lucid

[1:28:05] manner than this one. It is an

[1:28:08] interesting question.

[1:28:09] >> If any of you want to come

[1:28:11] and look at the tree, --

[1:28:12] >> Actually, I would.

[1:28:13] >> Well --

[1:28:14] >> I know nothing about -- I

[1:28:17] can't give you and -- I can't

[1:28:18] give an expert opinion, but I

[1:28:19] wouldn't mind looking --

[1:28:20] >> It's cracked down the middle.

[1:28:21] It's simple.

[1:28:22] >> That's one.

[1:28:25] >> Number two, my mother lives

[1:28:27] on lakeshore, just away from Mr.

[1:28:31] Bissonnette. Condos are going

[1:28:34] up. I am not against condos, I

[1:28:37] am not against development. What

[1:28:39] I have a big issue with is the

[1:28:43] infrastructure. It's going on

[1:28:47] Lakeshore. The waterways isn't

[1:28:48] good, plumbing isn't good, hydro

[1:28:50] isn't good, and roads are

[1:28:52] pathetic. What are we doing

[1:28:55] about all of this? It's great to

[1:28:56] say, let's do things. What are

[1:29:00] we doing to ensure the traffic,

[1:29:04] the safety, everything that's

[1:29:05] going on? I find it's getting

[1:29:10] worse, and worse, and worse.

[1:29:12] >> The short answer, we are

[1:29:13] doing our best. The longer

[1:29:15] answer, you know what I have run

[1:29:18] on, and what I believe in. It is

[1:29:21] a concern of mine as well,

[1:29:22] whether we have infrastructure

[1:29:23] for the population density we

[1:29:25] bring in. We have sufficient

[1:29:26] infrastructure? Will it handle

[1:29:28] well? What will be the cost for

[1:29:32] the additional densification,

[1:29:35] the on roads, on sewers,

[1:29:38] recreational facilities on

[1:29:40] everything public gets the

[1:29:42] demands on everything public of

[1:29:44] hospitals, schools, everything

[1:29:45] that comes with. Increased

[1:29:48] populations. It's substantial.

[1:29:50] We have to be very sure we could

[1:29:54] handle that. You are right, the

[1:29:56] roads are absolutely a top

[1:29:58] priority, and whether we could

[1:30:00] get around safely. Civilization,

[1:30:04] the head of the traffic

[1:30:05] Committee over there, there is a

[1:30:06] lot to be taken into

[1:30:08] consideration, and you bring

[1:30:09] volumes of people into an area.

[1:30:13] We are doing our best. I share

[1:30:16] your concerns. I think I'd like

[1:30:18] a slower rate of densification

[1:30:20] that we've had in the past. I

[1:30:23] would like intensify using the

[1:30:25] middle. I would like to use

[1:30:26] duplex, triplex, go above five

[1:30:28] storeys. I have all kinds of

[1:30:29] solutions for that. I tend to

[1:30:33] concur with you. It is on my

[1:30:35] mind as much as it is on yours,

[1:30:37] I suspect.

[1:30:38] >> Thank you.

[1:30:42] >> Go ahead, Paul.

[1:30:44] >> If I could make a comment on

[1:30:45] some of yours manse. Number one,

[1:30:47] the roads are terrible, I agree,

[1:30:51] going west. Terrible shape. Hard

[1:30:53] for bicycle people and

[1:30:55] everything. There is no water

[1:30:58] main breaks on Lakeshore. The

[1:31:00] statement on water is not good,

[1:31:02] not correct. There's less water

[1:31:03] main breaks on Lakeshore then it

[1:31:05] has been four years, compared to

[1:31:07] other areas, for four years.

[1:31:10] Hydro-Québec has been all over.

[1:31:11] The whole system is overloaded.

[1:31:13] This latest storm comes up when

[1:31:17] there's a fuse, lights flicker,

[1:31:19] or whatever. That is not -- the

[1:31:23] roads or the city's

[1:31:24] responsibility. They were

[1:31:25] supposed to be paved, but with

[1:31:27] the two buildings going up, they

[1:31:29] delayed it. It was supposed to

[1:31:30] be paid up to the canoe club by

[1:31:32] last year, because it was from

[1:31:35] Milroy between 36, 32. Now,

[1:31:40] maybe next year, we will get up

[1:31:42] there from rain or. For sure, it

[1:31:45] hasn't been. That's it. I don't

[1:31:48] think your mother has to worry.

[1:31:49] Where is she living? Which one?

[1:31:52] Which one?

[1:31:53] >> 45.

[1:31:54] >> Okay. I don't think she has

[1:31:56] to worry. Take care.

[1:31:59] >> Thank you.

[1:32:00] >> Thanks, Paul. Okay, so, that

[1:32:04] is it for question period. One

[1:32:06] more? It's scratched out on my

[1:32:08] list. Larry -- is he there? I

[1:32:13] have his name scratched out. I

[1:32:16] know Larry. It scratched out?

[1:32:19] Okay, so, Je pense que nous

[1:32:24] sommes maintenant au point 5.1.

[1:32:29] - 5.1 Avis de motion et dépôt

[1:32:30] d'un projet de Règlement créant

[1:32:31] une réserve financière afférente

[1:32:32] à certaines activités de l'Unité

[1:32:34] de Sauvetage Volontaire de

[1:32:35] Pointe-Claire. Un règlement a

[1:32:39] été adoptée en 2016 établissant

[1:32:40] une réserve maximal de 100000

[1:32:42] dollars, ainsi qu'une date

[1:32:44] d'échéance au 31 décembre 2025.

[1:32:47] Actuellement, ce montant est

[1:32:49] presque atteint. Afin de

[1:32:50] permettre à l'unité de sauvetage

[1:32:52] de Pointe-Claire de continent

[1:32:53] accepté des dons en échange de

[1:32:54] leurs services, et pour garantir

[1:32:56] une saine gestion de leur budget

[1:32:58] d'opération, il est recommandé

[1:32:59] d'augmenter le montant maximal à

[1:33:01] 200000 dollars et de reporter la

[1:33:03] date d'échéance au 31 décembre

[1:33:04] 2030.

[1:33:10] >> Who gives this notice a

[1:33:12] motion?

[1:33:13] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[1:33:15] district three.

[1:33:16] >> 5.2 Adoption of a By-law

[1:33:17] amending zoning by-law number

[1:33:18] PC-2775 of the City of

[1:33:19] Pointe-Claire to ensure

[1:33:20] concordance with the provisions

[1:33:21] of the provincial by-law on

[1:33:24] residential pool safety. An

[1:33:27] amendment is required to update

[1:33:28] certain recommendations

[1:33:29] associated with swimming pools,

[1:33:31] and definitions concerning water

[1:33:32] gardens and rain garden, and

[1:33:34] modify and adapt section 5.10 in

[1:33:36] order to implement the

[1:33:37] provisions of the provincial

[1:33:38] bylaw on residential swimming

[1:33:40] pools.

[1:33:42] - 5.3 Adoption d'un règlement

[1:33:43] modifiant le Règlement PC-2949

[1:33:44] décrétant les tarifs exigibles

[1:33:45] pour le financement de biens,

[1:33:46] services et activités offerts

[1:33:47] par la Ville de Pointe-Claire

[1:33:49] pour l'exercice financier 2023.

[1:33:53] Certains revenus qui nous sont

[1:33:54] actuellement pas taxé doivent

[1:33:55] l'être, comme le remplacement de

[1:33:58] permis détérioré certaines

[1:33:59] ex-... est soucions et

[1:34:00] abonnements à des activités,

[1:34:01] pardon.

[1:34:04] >> 5.4 Adoption of a By-law

[1:34:05] decreeing a long-term borrowing

[1:34:06] in the amount of $ 19,500,000

[1:34:07] for phase II of the Public Works

[1:34:08] building extension project. This

[1:34:12] bylaw decreases long term loan

[1:34:13] and capital expenditure to carry

[1:34:14] out the expression work of the

[1:34:16] Public Works Building in

[1:34:17] accordance with the 135

[1:34:19] preliminary structural

[1:34:20] mechanical, and electrical

[1:34:21] plants prepared by the

[1:34:22] consortium, consisting of

[1:34:25] (inaudible)

[1:34:27] and DWB consultants for an

[1:34:31] estimate of cost of 19,000,500,

[1:34:34] including fees, net taxes, and

[1:34:35] contingencies.

[1:34:41] - Pour ces Do I have points... a

[1:34:44] mover?

[1:34:45] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen.

[1:34:46] >> Seconder?

[1:34:48] >> Seconded by Tara Stainforth,

[1:34:49] district 4.

[1:34:50] >> All in favour?

[1:34:53] - Monsieur Cousineau, vous êtes

[1:34:54] contre les trois?

[1:34:56] - À l'exception du 5.4, je vote

[1:35:00] pour, mais pas pour le 5.4.

[1:35:02] Merci.

[1:35:03] - Parfait, merci.

[1:35:05] - 6.1, Considérer une demande de

[1:35:06] révision de la décision du

[1:35:07] comité de démolition concernant

[1:35:09] l'approbation de la démolition

[1:35:10] et du programme de réutilisation

[1:35:11] du sol visant l'immeuble situé

[1:35:13] au 28, avenue du Bras d'Or. La

[1:35:17] décision du comité de démolition

[1:35:19] était rendu le 20 juillet 2023.

[1:35:21] Cette décision autoriser la

[1:35:23] démolition du bâtiment et

[1:35:24] approuve le problème de

[1:35:26] réutilisation du sol dégagé. Ce

[1:35:27] soir, le Conseil peut décider de

[1:35:29] maintenir la décision tel que

[1:35:31] rendu ou rendre toute autre

[1:35:32] décision que le comité de

[1:35:33] démolition aurait dû rendre.

[1:35:35] Veuillez cependant noter que

[1:35:36] depuis la décision rendue par le

[1:35:38] comité de démolition le 20

[1:35:40] juillet dernier, des précisions

[1:35:41] et des informations

[1:35:42] additionnelles ont été

[1:35:43] transmises et des engagements

[1:35:44] ont été pris par le propriétaire

[1:35:49] du 28... 28, avenue du Bras d'Or

[1:35:50] sur le principal a enjeu

[1:35:51] soulevé, la protection des

[1:35:53] arbres à proximité du site visé

[1:35:54] par les travaux. Les mesures de

[1:35:56] protection à mettre en place ont

[1:35:58] son décret dans le rapport de

[1:35:59] l'arbre et cultures et

[1:36:00] s'applique tout particulièrement

[1:36:01] aux arbres localisées sur le

[1:36:03] terrain du 30, avenue du Bras

[1:36:06] d'Or. Les mesures à prendre

[1:36:07] brise à prévenir des dommages

[1:36:09] causés par la machinerie que

[1:36:11] pourrait servir... subir des

[1:36:12] arbres lors des travaux.

[1:36:19] - Pour ces points...

[1:36:21] >> I will just keep reading --

[1:36:24] >> Okay. Pour moi, c'est

[1:36:30] jusqu'au 6.4.

[1:36:31] >> 6.2 Grant a financial support

[1:36:32] for a total amount of $ 17,000

[1:36:33] to the Pointe-Claire Village

[1:36:34] Pool. This financial support is

[1:36:37] justified by a much lower than

[1:36:38] expected Canada summer jobs

[1:36:40] grant, and a reduction in

[1:36:41] membership revenues.

[1:36:47] -, 6.3 Accorder un soutien

[1:36:48] financier pour un montant total

[1:36:49] de 1520 $ à la Fraternité des

[1:36:50] policiers et policières de

[1:36:51] Montréal. Ce soutien financier

[1:36:52] dans le cadre de la 55e

[1:36:55] collectes de fonds

[1:36:57] (---)

[1:36:58] organisées par la fraternité des

[1:37:00] policiers policières de

[1:37:01] Montréal. 190 report seront

[1:37:02] ajoutés par la Ville, au coût de

[1:37:03] 8 dollars chacun, des repas

[1:37:04] plutôt pardon.

[1:37:06] >> And 6.4 Authorize the

[1:37:07] participation of four

[1:37:08] (4)

[1:37:09] members of Council and the Mayor

[1:37:10] at the 29th edition of the WIAIH

[1:37:11] - Richard Held charity golf

[1:37:12] classic to be held on September

[1:37:13] 18, 2023, at the Summerlea Golf

[1:37:14] Club. The city will purchase a

[1:37:19] golf course at a cost of $1,260,

[1:37:22] and cover the cost of equipment

[1:37:24] rental as well as $60 to cover

[1:37:25] the cost of the mayors meal.

[1:37:29] >> For six point 16 weren't for,

[1:37:31] I do a mover?

[1:37:33] >> Paul Bissonnette, district.

[1:37:35] You

[1:37:36] >> And a seconder?

[1:37:37] >> Claude Cousineau, district

[1:37:38] one.

[1:37:39] >>

[1:37:40] - Claude Cousineau, district un.

[1:37:41] All in favour?

[1:37:42] >> To be clear, Mister Mayor, I

[1:37:43] understand that Council upholds

[1:37:45] a decision made by the motion

[1:37:48] coming. This is your decision,

[1:37:50] to be clear, yeah?

[1:37:57] >> He is one of the owners. He

[1:37:59] should have read it.

[1:38:01] >> This is my understanding,

[1:38:04] Council upholds the decision

[1:38:05] made by the motion committee on

[1:38:08] July 20.

[1:38:11] >> With the protection of the

[1:38:13] trees as been amended -- as was

[1:38:16] read --

[1:38:17] >> Like I said.

[1:38:18] >> The re-considerations and

[1:38:19] discussions --

[1:38:20] >> I can repeat in English --

[1:38:22] >> Perfect.

[1:38:23] >> That would be --

[1:38:25] >> No problem.

[1:38:26] >> Thank you.

[1:38:27] >> The decision of the new

[1:38:29] motion committee was rendered on

[1:38:31] July 20, 2023. This decision

[1:38:32] authorizes the demolition of the

[1:38:35] building and approves the --

[1:38:37] raising the vacant land.

[1:38:39] Tonight, Council can decide to

[1:38:41] uphold a decision as it was

[1:38:43] rendered, where do you render

[1:38:44] any other decision that the

[1:38:46] motion committee should have

[1:38:47] rendered. Please note that,

[1:38:50] since the decision rendered by

[1:38:51] the demolition committee on July

[1:38:53] 20, the owner of 28 Bras d'Or

[1:38:59] has provided -- regarding a main

[1:39:01] issue raised, mainly the

[1:39:03] protection of trees near the

[1:39:04] site targeted for demolition. To

[1:39:07] protect the measures put in

[1:39:08] place are described in the

[1:39:11] arborist's report, and apply

[1:39:13] specifically to the trees

[1:39:14] located on the property at 30 du

[1:39:19] Bras d'Or Avenue. The measures

[1:39:20] are designed to prevent damage

[1:39:21] caused to the trees by the

[1:39:22] agreement during the

[1:39:23] construction work.

[1:39:31] And the decision made by Council

[1:39:33] is to --

[1:39:34] (inaudible)

[1:39:41] | | |

[1:39:45] >> Is that my understanding? --

[1:39:47] >> Can you repeat, please?

[1:39:50] >> If you want to use the

[1:39:51] microphone, it may be easier.

[1:39:56] >> I'm Pat Baker, I love it 30

[1:39:59] du Bras d'Or Avenue. My

[1:40:01] understanding -- the reason I

[1:40:03] put an appeal for this process,

[1:40:07] the original decision by the

[1:40:09] demolition committee was to take

[1:40:10] some trees down that were on my

[1:40:11] side of the fence. We have since

[1:40:15] done a lot of work together,

[1:40:17] Justin and myself, along with

[1:40:19] Cynthia and other members of the

[1:40:21] Pointe-Claire group, and there

[1:40:24] was a second revised Arbour

[1:40:27] culture report to protect the

[1:40:29] trees in question --

[1:40:30] >> That's what she read. The --

[1:40:32] >> I guess what I am confused

[1:40:34] about is, if the Council is

[1:40:36] approving the first decision on

[1:40:40] the July 20th, that revised

[1:40:41] report was not part of that

[1:40:43] decision --

[1:40:44] >> We are upholding the first

[1:40:45] decision with that revised

[1:40:47] report. It is like an addendum.

[1:40:49] >> It will be added in the

[1:40:51] resolution tonight. We uphold

[1:40:53] the -- Council pulls the

[1:40:55] decision with this addition that

[1:40:57] will be written in the

[1:40:59] resolution for this decision.

[1:41:00] >> I didn't hear any reference

[1:41:01] to the revised report, and what

[1:41:03] you had said. You said something

[1:41:06] that my neighbour had done,

[1:41:08] which I appreciate. There was no

[1:41:09] mention of the revised report.

[1:41:12] That's what I wanted to clarify,

[1:41:13] that that will be followed as

[1:41:14] opposed to the original one from

[1:41:16] --

[1:41:17] >> That is the report -- yeah.

[1:41:18] It's the report filed after the

[1:41:20] decision was made by the motion

[1:41:22] committee. It's a report you

[1:41:23] revert to.

[1:41:24] >> That's right.

[1:41:25] >> Okay.

[1:41:26] >> Thank you.

[1:41:27] >> Okay,

[1:41:29] - 7.1?

[1:41:30] - Déposer le procès-verbal de la

[1:41:31] réunion du 21 juin 2023 du

[1:41:32] Comité consultatif en

[1:41:33] environnement et développement

[1:41:34] durable.

[1:41:40] >> Are we supposed to vote on?

[1:41:44] >> You did.

[1:41:45] >> I did? Okay.

[1:41:50] -

[1:41:51] >> 7.1, je m'excuse. 7.2.

[1:41:52] >> 7.2 File the minutes of the

[1:41:53] February 8, 2023, meeting of the

[1:41:54] Sustainable Development and

[1:41:55] Environment Advisory Committee.

[1:42:04] - 8.1 Adhésion à la déclaration

[1:42:05] d'engagement de l'Union des

[1:42:06] municipalités du Québec: Unis

[1:42:07] pour le climat. La déclaration

[1:42:10] de gage ment rappelle rôle de

[1:42:13] premier plan des municipalités

[1:42:14] dans la lutte aux changements

[1:42:15] climatiques. Elle invite

[1:42:16] également les élu et élu

[1:42:17] municipaux affaire sorte que les

[1:42:19] enjeux climatiques soient les

[1:42:20] moteurs permanents de leur

[1:42:21] décision.

[1:42:27] - Ce point, ou...?

[1:42:29] >> You need to vote --

[1:42:31] >> 8.1?

[1:42:32] >> Yes, please.

[1:42:34] >> Do I have a mover?

[1:42:35] -

[1:42:36] >> Bruno Tremblay, Bruno

[1:42:37] Tremblay, district six. District

[1:42:38] six.

[1:42:39] >> Seconder?

[1:42:40] >> Cynthia Homan, district five.

[1:42:41] >> All in favour?

[1:42:42] >> 10.1.

[1:42:43] >> 10.1 File the list of budget

[1:42:44] amendments and the register of

[1:42:45] cheques for the period of July

[1:42:46] 27, 2023, to August 23, 2023.

[1:42:59] - Autoriser le transfert de

[1:43:00] fonds pour des postes

[1:43:02] budgétaires associés à des

[1:43:03] réserves pour lesquels les

[1:43:04] projets sont complétés. Grâce au

[1:43:05] programme de subventions 2019 à

[1:43:07] 2023, la taxe sur l'essence et

[1:43:09] de la construction du Québec, la

[1:43:12] Ville obtenu des sommes

[1:43:13] importantes qui ont servi à

[1:43:14] financer divers projets

[1:43:15] d'infrastructures municipales.

[1:43:16] Ceci a permis de dégager des

[1:43:17] sommes en réserve pour ces

[1:43:19] projets. Les sommes des réserves

[1:43:20] disponible suite à la

[1:43:22] réalisation divers projets

[1:43:24] admissibles à la

[1:43:25] (---)

[1:43:26] 2019 à 2023 peuvent donc être

[1:43:27] affectés à d'autres projets. La

[1:43:28] somme transférer totalise 3

[1:43:31] millions 600160 dollars et 18.

[1:43:33] >> Do I have a mover?

[1:43:37] -

[1:43:38] >> For 10.2? C'est pour le 10.2,

[1:43:40] c'est ça? Donc, je

[1:43:42] >> And propose, Bruno Tremblay,

[1:43:43] district six. A seconder?

[1:43:44] >> Cynthia Homan, district five.

[1:43:46] >> All in favour?

[1:43:48] >> 12.1, 12.1 File the list of

[1:43:49] delegated staff changes for the

[1:43:50] month of September 2023.

[1:43:54] - 12.2 Approuver la liste des

[1:43:55] changements au personnel par

[1:43:56] décisions non déléguées au 5

[1:43:57] septembre 2023.

[1:44:02] >> 13.1 Authorize the City to

[1:44:03] lend equipment to Teresa Dellar

[1:44:04] Palliative Care Residence. This

[1:44:07] agreement is provided in support

[1:44:09] of the residents, the annual

[1:44:12] compassion race to be held on

[1:44:14] September 23rd.

[1:44:15] >> For 12.2 and 13.1, do I have

[1:44:17] a mover?

[1:44:19] - Bruno Tremblay, je propose la

[1:44:22] liste également d'autoriser la

[1:44:24] Ville... Bruno Tremblay,

[1:44:25] district six.

[1:44:26] >> And a seconder?

[1:44:28] >> Cynthia Homan, district five.

[1:44:29] >> All in favour?

[1:44:32] - 14.1, Se prévaloir de l'option

[1:44:33] de renouvellement prévue au

[1:44:34] contrat intervenu avec SIMO

[1:44:35] MANAGEMENT et AQUA DATA, pour

[1:44:37] l'année 2024, au montant de

[1:44:39] 143744,92 $, taxes incluses,

[1:44:41] pour le diagnostic du réseau

[1:44:43] d'aqueduc et mise à jour du

[1:44:44] programme de rinçage

[1:44:46] unidirectionnel. Dans le but de

[1:44:51] planifier la mise à niveau de la

[1:44:52] gestion des composantes du

[1:44:53] réseau d'eau potable, le service

[1:44:55] des Travaux publics mandate deux

[1:44:57] fermes spécialisés pour

[1:44:58] effectuer le diagnostic du

[1:45:00] réseau d'aqueduc,

[1:45:01] (---)

[1:45:02] incendie, l'exécution du

[1:45:03] programme de Reims âge

[1:45:04] unidirectionnel, ainsi que la

[1:45:05] mise à jour des informations

[1:45:07] recueillies lors du diagnostic

[1:45:08] du réseau d'aqueduc dans la base

[1:45:09] de données. 14.2 Award a

[1:45:11] contract for the rental, with

[1:45:12] operators, of snow removal

[1:45:13] equipment for the 2023-2024 and

[1:45:16] 2024-2025 winter seasons, to

[1:45:21] 3024407 Canada Inc. also known

[1:45:25] as (Entrepreise Valliant)

[1:45:27] (1994)

[1:45:28] , for a total amount of $

[1:45:29] 859,783.05, taxes included, with

[1:45:32] the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027

[1:45:34] seasons in option. This contract

[1:45:39] is required for snow clearing

[1:45:40] and snow plowing at the depot.

[1:45:43] - 14.3, Autoriser la tenue d'un

[1:45:44] encan pour la disposition de

[1:45:45] biens en collaboration avec le

[1:45:46] Centre d'acquisitions

[1:45:47] gouvernementales

[1:45:48] (CAG)

[1:45:49] . La ville entrepris de

[1:45:51] remplacer certains de ses actifs

[1:45:52] en fin de vie utile. C'est actif

[1:45:54] étant de type industriel,

[1:45:57] l'autorisation permet dans une

[1:45:58] optique de développement durable

[1:45:59] d'offrir ces biens à la réalité

[1:46:02] utilisation, recyclage,

[1:46:04] valorisation... réutilisation,

[1:46:05] pardon, au prix du marché de ces

[1:46:06] articles.

[1:46:10] >> 15.1, to award a contract for

[1:46:12] professional services for

[1:46:13] envelope work as well as partial

[1:46:14] renovation of the basement at

[1:46:15] Valois Library, to Atelier

[1:46:16] Milieau Inc., For a total amount

[1:46:17] of $ 149,130.43, taxes included.

[1:46:23] this contract aims to ensure the

[1:46:25] sustainability of the building

[1:46:26] and to allow the use of the

[1:46:27] space in the basement, by the

[1:46:29] -, Community 16.1 organization

[1:46:30] WICA.

[1:46:31] Approuver une entente à

[1:46:32] intervenir avec HydroQuébec

[1:46:33] concernant une réalisation

[1:46:34] d'alimentation souterraine au

[1:46:35] Parc TonyProudfoot. J'entends de

[1:46:39] réalisation visa fixer les

[1:46:41] engagements des participerait

[1:46:42] mettront à Hydro-Québec de

[1:46:43] répondre à la demande

[1:46:44] d'alimentation de la Ville de

[1:46:47] Pointe-Claire et à préciser les

[1:46:48] coûts et l'échéancier de la

[1:46:49] réalisation des travaux.

[1:46:53] >> For 14.1 to 16.1, do I have a

[1:46:56] mover?

[1:46:57] >> -- district to.

[1:47:01] >> Tara Stainforth, district

[1:47:02] four.

[1:47:03] >> All in favour?

[1:47:08] >> 17.1. The persons may address

[1:47:10] Council on the items 17.1 to

[1:47:11] 17.4. 17.1 Consider a minor

[1:47:13] exemption request concerning the

[1:47:17] property located at 220 Du

[1:47:21] bord-du-lac Lakeshore road to

[1:47:25] authorize a -- front lot with,

[1:47:28] whether than the maximum of 70%

[1:47:30] permitted, as well as vehicular

[1:47:32] access, with a portion of 11.8

[1:47:35] -- 6.1 metres.

[1:47:40] - Bonsoir!

[1:47:44] >> So, I am the owner of 221

[1:47:47] your Lakeshore, which is the --

[1:47:49] coordinator of 220. And my

[1:47:51] privacy and enjoyment of

[1:47:53] ownership is gonna be negatively

[1:47:55] impacted if the plans and minor

[1:47:59] exemptions for 220 our approved

[1:48:01] tonight. 220, and 221 -- we

[1:48:05] formed part of a block between

[1:48:07] bowling green and Killarney, all

[1:48:10] designated as houses of heritage

[1:48:12] interest and -- of exceptional

[1:48:15] historic value. That is a new

[1:48:17] term to me. 220 is of particular

[1:48:21] heritage interest, as the house,

[1:48:22] built in 1934 by -- who is the

[1:48:27] can quarter, the municipal judge

[1:48:31] of Pointe-Claire for 20 years

[1:48:32] and the federal MP for

[1:48:33] Jacques-Cartier and subsequently

[1:48:35] a superior court judge -- lies

[1:48:38] buried across the street there

[1:48:39] in the -- and he is no doubt

[1:48:42] turning in his grave at the

[1:48:45] prospective fate of the house

[1:48:46] that he built and occupied for

[1:48:49] occupied. Because the plan is up

[1:48:52] for approval tonight once the

[1:48:54] minor exemptions have been

[1:48:55] safely granted involve a massive

[1:48:57] shift in the centre of gravity

[1:48:58] of this house to the west,

[1:49:01] involving a considerable double

[1:49:02] height extension to the house

[1:49:04] and -- across the expanded 50

[1:49:07] foot facade and a huge 140 foot

[1:49:11] new driveway leading to a

[1:49:15] breezeway, a new double height

[1:49:16] -- have a window overlooking my

[1:49:19] property. To understand that 220

[1:49:23] Lakeshore is possibly the

[1:49:25] largest lot, or certainly one of

[1:49:26] the largest lots in

[1:49:28] Pointe-Claire. It's 40,000

[1:49:30] square feet. So, there is a

[1:49:33] substantial red brick house

[1:49:34] standing there just now. This

[1:49:36] huge addition is going on the

[1:49:38] site. And then the original

[1:49:40] driveway is being condemned,

[1:49:42] although it is a unit stone

[1:49:47] unistone driveway -- over to my

[1:49:52] side and all along my property

[1:49:54] line, the length of a house, the

[1:49:58] breezeway and the garbage.

[1:50:02] Garage. -- 220., So, this is a

[1:50:16] massive driveway extension. And

[1:50:18] to make it work, they need to

[1:50:23] double the width, the permitted

[1:50:25] with, to make a turning circle,

[1:50:28] so, there is going to be this

[1:50:30] big belly out of it that will be

[1:50:31] 12 feet. And there will be a

[1:50:34] spur coming, literally, right to

[1:50:35] my property line. And, from what

[1:50:38] I can see on the property

[1:50:40] diagram, there are five trees --

[1:50:42] this is bringing this House

[1:50:44] absolutely, on this huge lot --

[1:50:47] huge locked -- right over in --

[1:50:52] right along my property line.

[1:50:57] And since the houses on

[1:50:59] Lakeshore are noted for their

[1:51:03] expensive setbacks, the entire

[1:51:07] setback, apart from whatever the

[1:51:09] minimum allowed with will be

[1:51:11] occupied, and this is against

[1:51:12] the -- you could drive a coach

[1:51:14] and horses through these plans.

[1:51:18] The number of -- it's actually

[1:51:21] quite perverse in the number of

[1:51:23] ways the -- it is being ignored

[1:51:28] in order to realize this plan.

[1:51:32] And it is not even -- it is not

[1:51:40] done an elegant plan, actually.

[1:51:43] And it's not the answer to the

[1:51:45] conundrum of how to achieve --

[1:51:48] this is all to achieve an

[1:51:51] attached driveway. They have an

[1:51:54] existing single driveway -- and

[1:51:57] attached garage, I should say.

[1:51:58] Have an existing garage, which

[1:52:00] is to come down anyway. I can't

[1:52:02] understand why you can't just

[1:52:04] run up there, except, of course,

[1:52:06] it would still be a -- garage.

[1:52:10] But that is what is historically

[1:52:12] accurate for a house in our

[1:52:14] area. And is what the spate

[1:52:20] recommends. So, why -- I don't

[1:52:23] really understand the

[1:52:24] requirements to do this. So, a

[1:52:30] minor exemption is being sought

[1:52:33] to make the width of the house

[1:52:36] larger then is normally

[1:52:38] permitted. It's already a large

[1:52:41] house. So, -- going beyond the

[1:52:44] permitted with, you can just

[1:52:46] imagine how big this is going to

[1:52:48] be. It is going to be a monster.

[1:52:50] And I understood that the spate

[1:52:53] was brought in at that point to

[1:52:56] prevent monster homes. I

[1:52:57] absolutely do not want to be a

[1:52:59] neighborly in all of this -- and

[1:53:03] I know you are both here. I am

[1:53:06] sorry. But this is not right,

[1:53:09] what you want to do. And I have

[1:53:12] been advocating for heritage in

[1:53:15] Pointe-Claire for the last 20

[1:53:16] years. So, I find myself in this

[1:53:20] invidious position tonight,

[1:53:21] speaking out against what my

[1:53:23] neighbours want to do. But it

[1:53:25] really should not be allowed.

[1:53:31] Will you suffer -- so, these

[1:53:33] exemptions, we talked about

[1:53:35] minor exemptions on their own.

[1:53:37] -- the planning program? The

[1:53:39] planning program calls for the

[1:53:40] protection of heritage, et

[1:53:41] cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[1:53:42] Well, clearly not. They will not

[1:53:45] be an element of heritage value

[1:53:48] left in this house. -- house

[1:53:52] from the outside. But it will

[1:53:54] not be a heritage house. The

[1:53:57] original style, architectural

[1:53:59] style of the house is to be

[1:54:02] concealed. The red brick is to

[1:54:05] be lime washed. It is to be

[1:54:07] turned into an arts and crafts

[1:54:09] house, when it is a four square

[1:54:13] red brick design. And nothing

[1:54:16] about this is authentic or has

[1:54:22] integrity, essentially. So, no.

[1:54:25] The aims of the planning program

[1:54:28] are not being met, which

[1:54:31] requires -- which, acknowledges

[1:54:33] the existence of the importance

[1:54:34] of heritage, to the Special

[1:54:36] carriage of Pointe-Claire and

[1:54:41] establishes a spate consequence.

[1:54:46] And the so-called minor

[1:54:48] exemptions are, certainly as far

[1:54:49] as the driveway is concerned, is

[1:54:51] not minor in anybody's book.

[1:54:54] This is major, excessive and not

[1:54:56] allowable. And the whole

[1:54:58] driveway design is exactly what

[1:54:59] this -- it's terrible, that

[1:55:02] we've come down to discussing

[1:55:04] driveways. But this is where we

[1:55:06] are at. Instead of Heritage. But

[1:55:08] never mind. This is exactly what

[1:55:09] is -- in the spate. Criteria --

[1:55:16] in the spate say that the

[1:55:19] footprint or parking areas and

[1:55:21] access should be designed in

[1:55:22] such a way to preserve as many

[1:55:24] mature trees as possible while

[1:55:27] the -- trees -- vehicular access

[1:55:31] and other -- but natural,

[1:55:34] permeable surfaces. And asphalt

[1:55:38] is to be avoided. -- this

[1:55:42] enormous thing, a scar of the

[1:55:43] middle of the -- all around to

[1:55:45] me and all the way up, 100

[1:55:47] something feet. And, as much as

[1:55:49] possible, parking areas,

[1:55:51] including maneuvering areas,

[1:55:52] should be situated, laid out and

[1:55:55] developed. So, it's to be less

[1:55:57] visible to the street and avoid

[1:55:59] the creation of larger expenses.

[1:56:01] It is going to be, particularly,

[1:56:04] in my face. And it's going to be

[1:56:06] in everybody else's faces as

[1:56:08] well. And this goes against the

[1:56:11] provisions of the space to keep

[1:56:13] everything green and the touched

[1:56:19] garages subsidiary and hidden

[1:56:20] behind the houses. As I say,

[1:56:26] five trees are coming down, and

[1:56:28] one of the criteria pertaining

[1:56:30] to the conservation of the

[1:56:33] Special carriage of Point clear

[1:56:35] is that existing -- that serve

[1:56:37] as a visual or privacy screen

[1:56:40] between two land sites should be

[1:56:41] protected and maintained. So,

[1:56:48] all this grief -- you can have

[1:56:52] iron attached garage as opposed

[1:56:54] to a detached garage we are at

[1:56:56] currently -- a unit stone

[1:57:01] unistone driveway -- the cost

[1:57:02] the previous owner to instill,

[1:57:05] leading up to -- the existing

[1:57:08] single garage is no good --

[1:57:11] demolish it, as is expected, and

[1:57:15] build your -- double garage

[1:57:19] there, and -- on top of it if

[1:57:21] you must and have the window and

[1:57:25] -- your property, not over mine.

[1:57:36] The problem is trying to figure

[1:57:41] out some way of having an

[1:57:43] attached garage. Does it do

[1:57:45] serious prejudice to these young

[1:57:49] and healthy homeowners not to

[1:57:51] have an attached garage? --

[1:57:55] serious prejudice if they have

[1:57:56] to settle for a detached garage,

[1:57:58] we are a detached garage

[1:58:01] currently exists. I don't think

[1:58:02] it does. But, who is suffering

[1:58:04] prejudice? It is me. And, it's

[1:58:08] so happens that this month -- it

[1:58:11] marks the 40th anniversary of

[1:58:16] our buying 221, I should say,

[1:58:19] and moving to Pointe-Claire. In

[1:58:21] these four years have always

[1:58:22] sought to live in harmony with

[1:58:24] my neighbours and have no desire

[1:58:26] to be a neighborly in speaking

[1:58:27] out against these plans tonight.

[1:58:28] And I hope that my opposition to

[1:58:31] it as such, as a -- they had to

[1:58:38] bring down 100-year-old asked

[1:58:41] tree in the summer. It was -- it

[1:58:46] was felled at the end of May.

[1:58:47] And it made sense to bring it

[1:58:49] down over my property. Fine. And

[1:58:51] then it was cut up into enormous

[1:58:54] great logs lying on my property.

[1:58:55] And then, of course, there

[1:58:57] cowboy of a contractor took off.

[1:59:01] I still have, bit by bit, the

[1:59:03] wood and the brush on my

[1:59:07] property has been removed. But I

[1:59:08] still have half that tree three

[1:59:10] months later on my back garden.

[1:59:14] And I have been very for bearing

[1:59:18] and very tolerant, and making no

[1:59:20] fuss about it and -- I am not

[1:59:22] trying to be a neighborly

[1:59:32] unneighbourly but this whole

[1:59:37] design -- to numerous, in fact,

[1:59:42] and I think they cannot be

[1:59:45] regarded as the solution, with

[1:59:48] the design conundrum of my

[1:59:51] neighbours -- garage. And what

[1:59:53] you should bear in mind is that

[1:59:54] what you decide tonight for this

[1:59:57] house will set a precedent for

[1:59:59] this block, for the future.

[2:00:02] Because several of these

[2:00:03] properties, given how long we

[2:00:05] have all been there, are likely

[2:00:07] to come on the market in the not

[2:00:08] too distant future.

[2:00:11] And if the human scale

[2:00:15] Pointe-Claire, 2025, according

[2:00:17] to the draft -- if, in the human

[2:00:20] scale, objected to preserve --

[2:00:22] architectural landscape and

[2:00:23] heritage character of existing

[2:00:25] neighbourhoods is to be met, --

[2:00:28] not grant these exemptions. And

[2:00:31] so, the buck stops with you. And

[2:00:33] if you grant them, well, I'm

[2:00:38] never short of a quotation from

[2:00:39] Shakespeare. I would say, with

[2:00:42] my -- a plague on all your

[2:00:45] houses. Thank you.

[2:00:51] >> You can go to the microphone.

[2:01:02] >> My name is Marco. I am the

[2:01:04] owner of 220. The urine -- you

[2:01:08] are allowed the -- we will still

[2:01:09] be friends -- still

[2:01:14] Don't worry about that -- there

[2:01:16] are many points you brought up.

[2:01:19] The trees, they are ash --

[2:01:20] trees. They are already down.

[2:01:21] So, the five trees that are

[2:01:24] marked for felling, it is

[2:01:25] already down. They are already

[2:01:26] taken care of. So, that is not

[2:01:27] really an issue. The driveway is

[2:01:32] -- secondly, the garage is

[2:01:33] already approved. We had a plan

[2:01:34] that was approved a little over

[2:01:37] a year ago. The plan itself in

[2:01:41] retrospect didn't really make

[2:01:42] sense. We are trying to approve

[2:01:43] that plan. We had countless

[2:01:45] meetings face to face, and

[2:01:47] emails with the Planning

[2:01:48] Committee, the -- Planning

[2:01:50] Committee, to try and find

[2:01:51] something that works, that the

[2:01:53] Planning Committee agreed with

[2:01:54] and could also be doable for us

[2:01:56] and our family. The driveway

[2:01:59] being moved, it's the same

[2:02:01] length. We didn't want to move

[2:02:02] it. We want to to go continue

[2:02:05] going up where it is, going up

[2:02:06] across the front of the house.

[2:02:08] And I go to the garage. The

[2:02:10] Planning Committee was against

[2:02:11] that. So, they wanted us to --

[2:02:14] the driveway to the other side

[2:02:15] of the house and go up to the

[2:02:18] garage. In a more straight line.

[2:02:23] What else was the issue? So, the

[2:02:26] minor variance for the 70 to

[2:02:29] 74%, it's because we wanted to

[2:02:32] have an attached garage just for

[2:02:35] -- our winters are harsh. We

[2:02:36] didn't really want to -- the

[2:02:38] car. So, the attached garage,

[2:02:43] the variants were also --

[2:02:44] present because we were going to

[2:02:45] be over the allowable 70% width

[2:02:47] of the total project because,

[2:02:49] with the breezeway -- if we do a

[2:02:51] detached garage, we are not

[2:02:52] over. With unattached breezeway,

[2:02:54] we are now at 70%. So, 70 --

[2:02:57] percent -- that's what the first

[2:02:59] variant was for. The second

[2:03:01] variant was for the turnaround.

[2:03:03] So, right now a driveway is a

[2:03:06] straight line up and down. If we

[2:03:09] drive up to the garage, we will

[2:03:10] have you back out on the

[2:03:12] lakeshore. It becomes a safety

[2:03:13] issue, with the pedestrians,

[2:03:16] bogs, animals, cyclists without,

[2:03:19] being able to have a turnaround.

[2:03:22] So, actually, in the wording of

[2:03:25] -- in the wording it seems like

[2:03:27] it is a massive width driveway.

[2:03:29] It's actually not. It's a two

[2:03:30] car driveway. The width pertains

[2:03:33] to where their turnaround is

[2:03:34] going to be. And it's not a

[2:03:36] circular turnaround, as John

[2:03:37] mentioned. It's actually going

[2:03:38] to be an L. So, we're going to

[2:03:43] back out in the al part and. But

[2:03:44] -- turn.

[2:03:45] >> --

[2:03:50] >> The output actually --

[2:03:51] >> Okay. -- debate during --

[2:03:54] >> Just to clarify, the L parked

[2:04:01] part -- away from her house --

[2:04:04] the other two points, the line

[2:04:06] was -- the urban committee asked

[2:04:08] us not to do the limewash, so,

[2:04:13] we agreed. -- it is going to be

[2:04:17] a I L turn around. -- it's not

[2:04:19] going to be visible from the

[2:04:21] street. Like I, said we had

[2:04:22] multiple meetings. We have been

[2:04:23] trying to work with the pact to

[2:04:25] get something to drink at

[2:04:26] something that makes sense for

[2:04:27] everyone. And we feel that all

[2:04:30] their issues or grievances that

[2:04:32] we addressed -- that's pretty

[2:04:37] much all I have to say. I don't

[2:04:38] know if my wife would like to

[2:04:41] add to that.

[2:04:42] >> Joan, we are neighbours. And

[2:04:45] I hope we can always be

[2:04:46] friendly. I'm not going to lie.

[2:04:48] I would have wished if you would

[2:04:50] have just come to talk to us.

[2:04:53] Because this is the first I am

[2:04:55] hearing -- we were told to do

[2:04:56] this by the City, and we

[2:04:58] accepted. And if they want to

[2:05:00] change it, we will change. I

[2:05:02] just invite you to come to our

[2:05:03] property and tell us how to back

[2:05:05] out without killing pedestrian

[2:05:07] or hitting a car. That's the

[2:05:08] only thing I ask, is that we

[2:05:11] cannot back out directly on to

[2:05:13] lakeshore. It's extremely

[2:05:14] dangerous. There's too many kids

[2:05:16] going by. In terms of where it

[2:05:17] goes -- we are open to

[2:05:18] everything.

[2:05:19] >> -- three times --

[2:05:22] >> Sorry, folks -- this is -- we

[2:05:26] can do this -- it is supposed to

[2:05:30] be directed to us.

[2:05:31] >> And in terms of the variance,

[2:05:33] for eight to be 70% versus -- we

[2:05:39] purposely set it back from this

[2:05:41] -- so that it looks like a

[2:05:43] detached garage. So, in terms of

[2:05:45] it being 74% from what you see,

[2:05:48] even if we remove that

[2:05:49] breezeway, and it becomes a

[2:05:50] detached, it would give you the

[2:05:52] same facade look as what we see

[2:05:53] there. So, we have really been

[2:05:55] trying to respect everything. We

[2:05:56] try to restore. We spent a

[2:05:58] fortune restoring those bricks.

[2:05:59] We absolutely love those homes.

[2:06:02] We've been told it's a four

[2:06:03] square architecture. I looked up

[2:06:04] everything there was to do with

[2:06:05] four square architecture. And

[2:06:07] all of them have a front porch.

[2:06:10] So, I was shocked as why are

[2:06:12] house didn't. -- I love this

[2:06:13] home. I have been walking by

[2:06:15] this home -- I was born and

[2:06:18] raised in Beaconsfield. The

[2:06:20] second I could use where I

[2:06:21] lived, I moved to Pointe-Claire.

[2:06:24] -- been walking by this house

[2:06:26] that 220 Lakeshore I really want

[2:06:28] to give it as much impact as I

[2:06:30] can and -- trying to highlight

[2:06:32] everything that is heritage

[2:06:33] about it and bring forth the

[2:06:35] actual heritage architecture

[2:06:36] features of that four square

[2:06:40] architecture. In terms of us

[2:06:41] being young and healthy and that

[2:06:43] -- is, I dislodged my wrist. I'm

[2:06:45] in awful pain. I'm young and

[2:06:48] healthy. But, yes, it's not fun

[2:06:51] being here sitting on these

[2:06:52] chairs right now -- I know, it

[2:06:54] doesn't make sense. -- I love

[2:06:55] this home. I love the city. And

[2:06:57] I really love the area. So, I

[2:06:59] really hope everyone can stand

[2:07:00] by us as we try to improve --

[2:07:04] Lakeshore. --

[2:07:13] >> Is that it on 220? Anybody

[2:07:14] else? If I may just comment, I

[2:07:21] do actually own a house

[2:07:24] Pointe-Claire from scratch, in

[2:07:25] heritage -- the oldest part of

[2:07:26] the village. The average

[2:07:30] neighbour was, I think, 90, the

[2:07:33] average age of my neighbours.

[2:07:34] There were five of them all

[2:07:35] around me. They had lived in the

[2:07:39] village their whole life. So,

[2:07:41] when I went to build my house, I

[2:07:44] did consult a lot and actually

[2:07:46] gave them input into the actual

[2:07:48] design. Because I wanted to fit

[2:07:50] in with my community. And so,

[2:07:54] when I say, people -- should

[2:07:56] respect the people that are

[2:07:58] already there, I truly -- walk

[2:08:00] the walk and my theory --

[2:08:04] Pointe-Claire -- maybe that's

[2:08:05] not happening enough. And I'm

[2:08:06] not being specific to you guys.

[2:08:08] But I'm just saying, in general,

[2:08:09] it's something we have to pay

[2:08:11] attention to. I think neighbours

[2:08:14] really eloquently expressed

[2:08:15] their dismay on what is going up

[2:08:17] beside them. I think that really

[2:08:18] has to be respected. I think,

[2:08:21] the same with the property on

[2:08:23] Lakeshore, blocking peoples

[2:08:24] views. Those people's

[2:08:25] perspectives have to be

[2:08:27] respected. They live there. It's

[2:08:29] their quality of life. So,

[2:08:32] there's a lot of things involved

[2:08:33] in this equation. You can go to

[2:08:36] spate, you can talk about

[2:08:38] heritage, you can talk about a

[2:08:39] lot of things. But for me the

[2:08:41] one that is prevalent and it's

[2:08:42] been raised a couple of times of

[2:08:43] the condo issue is, it should

[2:08:47] fit we are moving into. And

[2:08:49] that's a really important

[2:08:50] variable to me. And I will

[2:08:52] reiterate it again. And -- speak

[2:08:54] to that. But, for me, let's --

[2:08:56] view on all of this.

[2:09:00] >> I would like to speak. But

[2:09:03] the proper time would be after

[2:09:05] the motion is moved --

[2:09:09] >> Okay. All right. So --

[2:09:14] >> --

[2:09:15] - 17.2, Oh Considérer une

[2:09:17] demande de dérogation mineure

[2:09:18] concernant la propriété sise au

[2:09:19] 275, avenue Braebrook. Pour

[2:09:24] permettre une antenne implanté

[2:09:25] au sommet de la flèche de

[2:09:26] l'Église plutôt que dans une

[2:09:28] marche arrière ou sur un toit

[2:09:31] tel que permis. Une antenne

[2:09:33] d'une hauteur de 28 mètres à

[2:09:35] partir du niveau du sol naturel

[2:09:37] immédiatement en dessous de

[2:09:38] l'antenne plutôt que le maximum

[2:09:39] permis de 13,7 mètres. 17.3

[2:09:42] Consider a minor exemption

[2:09:43] request concerning the property

[2:09:44] situated at 755 Saint-jean

[2:09:46] Boulevard. To order the

[2:09:49] installation of a wall sign

[2:09:51] identifying attendant tenant

[2:09:52] with no direct access from the

[2:09:53] outside to be situated on the

[2:09:55] highest floor of the building,

[2:09:56] in addition to the existing sign

[2:09:58] identifying the name of the

[2:09:59] building also situated on the

[2:10:01] highest floor, where no sign is

[2:10:02] permitted.

[2:10:06] - 17.4,

[2:10:07] - Considérer Considérer une

[2:10:08] demande de dérogation une

[2:10:09] demande de dérogation mineure

[2:10:10] concernant la mineure concernant

[2:10:11] la propriété sise au 5501,

[2:10:12] autoroute Transcanadienne.

[2:10:13] Propriété du 5501, autoroute

[2:10:14] Transcanadienne pour permettre

[2:10:15] l'pour permettre l'intense...

[2:10:16] l'installation installation d'un

[2:10:17] poste de de postes de

[2:10:18] transformation électrique dans

[2:10:19] la marge avant, là où ce n'est

[2:10:20] pas permis. Transformation

[2:10:21] électrique

[2:10:22] (inaudible)

[2:10:23] là où ce n'est pas permis.

[2:10:24] L'installation de panneaux

[2:10:25] l'installation de panneaux

[2:10:26] métalliques métallique isolé

[2:10:27] isolé peints en peints en résine

[2:10:28] sur la façade usine sur la

[2:10:29] façade avant plutôt qu'avant,

[2:10:30] plutôt que matériaux de un

[2:10:31] matériau de classe A classe A

[2:10:32] tel que requis. Tel que requis.

[2:10:33] L'installation de l'installation

[2:10:34] panneaux métallique de panneaux

[2:10:35] métalliques isolé isolé et sur

[2:10:36] la partie avant des en usine sur

[2:10:37] la murs latéraux partie avant

[2:10:38] des murs latéraux sur sur toute

[2:10:39] la hauteur et toute la hauteur

[2:10:40] et sur sur 20% de la 20% de la

[2:10:41] largeur de ces largeur de ces

[2:10:42] murs murs, plutôt plutôt que

[2:10:43] matériaux de classe A tel que

[2:10:44] requis. Qu'un matériau deux

[2:10:45] classes à l'installation

[2:10:46] quelques requis. L'd'équipements

[2:10:47] mécaniques sur le installation

[2:10:48] d'équipements toit dépassant la

[2:10:49] ligne du toit mécaniques sur le

[2:10:50] toit du bâtiment de

[2:10:51] (inaudible)

[2:10:52] (---)

[2:10:53] plutôt que plutôt que le maximum

[2:10:54] le maximum permis de 3 mètres.

[2:10:55] Permis de 3 mètres. Enfin, la et

[2:10:56] construction de enfin, la deux

[2:10:57] volées d'construction de

[2:10:58] escalier deux volées d'escalier

[2:10:59] extérieure, chacune

[2:11:00] d'extérieure, chacun d'une

[2:11:01] hauteur de une hauteur de 2,9

[2:11:02] mètre, plutôt que le 2,9 mètre,

[2:11:03] plutôt que le maximum permis de

[2:11:04] maximum permis de 1,5 mètres.

[2:11:05] 1,5 mètres.

[2:11:06] 17.5 Consider the site planning

[2:11:07] and architectural integration

[2:11:08] programme plans with respect to

[2:11:09] the property situated at 220 Du

[2:11:10] Bord-du-Lac Lakeshore Road.

[2:11:11] Which is an extension of the

[2:11:12] house, exterior renovations,

[2:11:13] modification of the

[2:11:14] - Consideration 17.6

[2:11:15] configuration of the joint way.

[2:11:16] , Considérer les plans

[2:11:17] d'implantation et d'intégration

[2:11:18] architecturale relatifs à la

[2:11:19] Propriété sise au 275, avenue

[2:11:20] Braebrook 17.6. Considérer les

[2:11:21] plans d'implantation et

[2:11:22] d'intégration architecturale

[2:11:23] relatifs à la propriété sise au

[2:11:24] 275, avenue Braebrook c'est l'

[2:11:25] installation d'une antenne. Et

[2:11:26] c'est l'installation d'une

[2:11:27] antenne.

[2:11:28] >> -- speak? Before vote or

[2:11:29] after vote?

[2:11:30] >> -- choose to speak on the

[2:11:31] minor exemptions, 17.1, to 17.4,

[2:11:32] they should do it now.

[2:11:33] >> -- she did after the motion

[2:11:34] is moved --

[2:11:35] >> I thought he was talking

[2:11:36] about people who were in the

[2:11:37] audience.

[2:11:39] >> Okay. So, do I have a mover

[2:11:44] for a 17.1 to 17.6?

[2:11:45] >> Yes, I moved to approve 17.1

[2:11:49] to 17.6, Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[2:11:50] district very.

[2:11:52] >> And a seconder?

[2:11:53] >> Eric Stork, district seven

[2:11:55] >> I would like to speak to

[2:11:57] 17.1. This project actually came

[2:11:59] before Council in March of 2021.

[2:12:02] And at the time, careful

[2:12:05] consideration was given because

[2:12:06] it was a heritage building. I

[2:12:08] had reached out to the --

[2:12:12] Pointe-Claire to make a decision

[2:12:14] -- didn't at that time. I don't

[2:12:17] think anybody actually -- it was

[2:12:18] during the pandemic, mind you.

[2:12:20] But the submissions could have

[2:12:22] been made by writing. I think

[2:12:24] the meeting was held by Zoom. I

[2:12:27] voted against this project in

[2:12:30] 2021 because I felt it didn't

[2:12:33] properly respect the heritage

[2:12:36] requirements, to preserve the

[2:12:37] heritage interests of that

[2:12:38] building. That being said, the

[2:12:42] vote carried to approve the

[2:12:45] project. And I'm convinced that

[2:12:47] now -- let me backtrack a

[2:12:51] session session. -- March 2021

[2:12:54] plans if they chose to, if they

[2:12:56] had gotten the permit. And I am

[2:12:58] convinced now -- if they

[2:13:00] requested a promise that would

[2:13:01] have been given it. I'm commits

[2:13:02] now that this project is better

[2:13:04] than the one that Council

[2:13:05] approved in 2021. I believe that

[2:13:08] the issue on heritage, that boat

[2:13:11] sale two and a half years ago.

[2:13:13] So, I am prepared to support

[2:13:16] this project based on the fact

[2:13:17] that it is a better one than was

[2:13:20] presented in 2021. And I wished

[2:13:24] at the time the more attention

[2:13:26] had been paid for heritage, but,

[2:13:28] as I said, that boat has sailed.

[2:13:30] It will be unfair to reopen it

[2:13:32] and revisit it at this time.

[2:13:35] There is no debate now. This is

[2:13:38] just --

[2:13:39] >> -- can I ask -- intentions --

[2:13:45] last year --

[2:13:46] >> No.

[2:13:47] >> -- so, that's why? I was not

[2:13:49] notified.

[2:13:54] --

[2:13:59] >> Anyway, as -- mom, as the

[2:14:01] applicants explained, the

[2:14:05] request for a minor exemption is

[2:14:07] in fact a technicality because

[2:14:09] if they had a detached garage

[2:14:11] there would be no need for a

[2:14:14] minor exemption. So, they are

[2:14:16] actually making a better

[2:14:17] project, in my view, then they

[2:14:19] submitted in 2021, therefore,

[2:14:21] that's -- I am going to support

[2:14:24] it.

[2:14:25] >> -- this business of having a

[2:14:27] -- it is news to me, and it's

[2:14:30] news to me as the owner of the

[2:14:32] -- and also as the owner of --

[2:14:34] >> Ms. --

[2:14:39] >> --

[2:14:40] >> So I heard -- the association

[2:14:43] was not asked on this issue?

[2:14:46] >> --

[2:14:48] >> Pardon me?

[2:14:49] >> A few weeks ago, only.

[2:14:51] >> I personally reached out to

[2:14:53] people, two and a half years

[2:14:54] ago. I personally. I don't know

[2:14:56] about the official, whether the

[2:14:57] City did or not. But I

[2:14:58] personally did.

[2:15:04] >> Would anybody else like to

[2:15:05] speak?

[2:15:09] >> I would.

[2:15:10] >> Okay.

[2:15:13] >> Unfortunately, on Council, we

[2:15:14] are quite often confronted with

[2:15:16] these issues that wind up being

[2:15:18] neighbour versus neighbour. My

[2:15:20] real preference in these kinds

[2:15:22] of situations is a long process

[2:15:25] before we get to where we are

[2:15:28] today's further discussions to

[2:15:29] understand where we are failing,

[2:15:32] how we arrive at these

[2:15:33] situations, where there is a

[2:15:36] lack of clarity in terms of

[2:15:38] whether or not we are meeting

[2:15:40] our heritage objectives, which I

[2:15:42] still think need to be further

[2:15:43] to find somewhere down the line

[2:15:45] so that we can be -- and then

[2:15:50] really abiding by -- and the

[2:15:53] rest of it. This is a really

[2:15:57] difficult vote for me,

[2:15:58] incredibly difficult vote for

[2:15:59] me. I hear an impassioned plea

[2:16:02] for from a neighbour who has

[2:16:03] lived their most of her life, I

[2:16:05] suppose, who has been a long

[2:16:07] time resident of Pointe-Claire,

[2:16:08] in that particular house, with

[2:16:12] -- exact arguments that are

[2:16:16] really of seriousness. I'm

[2:16:19] hearing passionate views from

[2:16:20] the folks who want to be with

[2:16:23] the house, in progress, and now

[2:16:24] here we are dedicated to

[2:16:25] heritage and making things move

[2:16:28] forward. So, I initially was

[2:16:32] going to vote against the

[2:16:37] project. But I'm willing at this

[2:16:39] juncture to support it. We went

[2:16:42] through the motion that Heritage

[2:16:44] will be kept supreme going

[2:16:46] forward in the work that you are

[2:16:48] doing, based on what you just

[2:16:50] mentioned here, so that the --

[2:16:52] what we are looking at is an

[2:16:54] example of something that can be

[2:16:56] done that combines maternity,

[2:16:58] heritage, and the rest of it. I

[2:17:00] would encourage the neighbours

[2:17:01] to speak together, to get

[2:17:02] together and find ways of

[2:17:04] working on the project. I wish

[2:17:05] this had happened before it got

[2:17:07] to this point. This is extremely

[2:17:09] frustrating for us at this

[2:17:10] table, particularly -- well, I

[2:17:12] can only speak for myself. When

[2:17:14] we have to decide something like

[2:17:17] this -- so, that is my opinion,

[2:17:21] as to where things stand in

[2:17:24] terms of my vote right now.

[2:17:27] >> --

[2:17:28] >> I have something to say,

[2:17:29] please.

[2:17:30] >> There is no more debate.

[2:17:31] There is no more debate.

[2:17:32] >> Even if there is no more

[2:17:36] debate, may she speak?

[2:17:37] >> --

[2:17:39] >> No.

[2:17:40] >> --

[2:17:41] >> I guess no.

[2:17:43] >> As a sitting member of the

[2:17:49] back to committee -- Councillor

[2:17:51] Tremblay, is right -- multiple

[2:17:55] times, correct me if I'm wrong,

[2:17:56] Kelly, please. We talked about

[2:17:58] the

[2:18:04] limestoning. That was taken off.

[2:18:09] -- asked by the PAC. Every

[2:18:11] consideration was looked at, to

[2:18:13] -- do we have to pay more

[2:18:14] attention? I think we all have

[2:18:15] to pay more attention to

[2:18:17] heritage as well. But there is a

[2:18:19] lot of discussion of my right to

[2:18:21] see this, my right to see that,

[2:18:23] but there's also the individual

[2:18:24] rights of the owner themselves

[2:18:26] which, in my opinion, supersedes

[2:18:29] everything else. And as

[2:18:32] Councillor Tremblay said, it's a

[2:18:34] tough decision. But as

[2:18:36] Councillor Cowan said, this was

[2:18:37] approved in 2021. We are not

[2:18:40] debating the actual house

[2:18:42] itself. One was already

[2:18:43] approved. We are saying, is this

[2:18:46] the proposal better than the old

[2:18:48] one? And that is what the -- is

[2:18:50] being decided on. Thank you.

[2:18:54] >> Anyone else?

[2:18:56] >> Am I allowed to speak -- only

[2:18:58] one time, right? Or --

[2:19:01] >> Sorry.

[2:19:02] >> -- a chance to speak to you

[2:19:03] later.

[2:19:04] >> Okay. Four for 17.1 --

[2:19:12] >> We need to vote --

[2:19:13] >> -- all those in favour? All

[2:19:18] right. 17.7?

[2:19:21] >> 17.7 -- to consider site

[2:19:22] planning and architectural

[2:19:23] integration programme plans with

[2:19:24] respect to the property situated

[2:19:25] at 28 Du Bras d'Or Avenue. Which

[2:19:28] is the -- and new constructions.

[2:19:32] - Considérer les plans

[2:19:33] d'implantation et d'intégration

[2:19:34] architecturale relatifs à la

[2:19:35] propriété du 108, avenue de

[2:19:37] Breslay, c'est une dévolution et

[2:19:38] une nouvelle construction. 17.8

[2:19:39] Consider the site planning and

[2:19:41] architectural integration

[2:19:42] programme plans with respect to

[2:19:43] the property situated at 108 De

[2:19:44] Breslay Avenue.

[2:19:49] - Which is also demolition a new

[2:19:50] construction.

[2:19:51] 17.9, Considérer les plans

[2:19:52] d'implantation et d'intégration

[2:19:53] architecturale relatifs à la

[2:19:54] propriété sise au 130, avenue de

[2:19:55] Dieppe. Une modification de

[2:19:59] rentrer charretière. 17.10

[2:20:01] Consider the site planning and

[2:20:02] architectural integration

[2:20:03] programme plans with respect to

[2:20:04] the property situated at 64

[2:20:05] Donegani Avenue. Which is an

[2:20:10] -

[2:20:11] - Extension exterior renovation.

[2:20:12] 17.11, Considérer les plans

[2:20:13] d'implantation et d'intégration

[2:20:14] architecturale relatifs à la

[2:20:15] propriété sise au 397, avenue

[2:20:16] Saint-Louis. Suite à une

[2:20:18] sous-divisions les nouvelles

[2:20:19] constructions. For 17.7 to

[2:20:28] 17.11, do I have a mover?

[2:20:30] >> Can you just clarify 17.11,

[2:20:34] the sentence modification?

[2:20:35] >> Yes, there will be ordered a

[2:20:37] higher quality of engineered

[2:20:38] would. Wood.

[2:20:44] >> -- only wood. It's higher

[2:20:47] quality engineered wood. -- do I

[2:20:49] have a mover?

[2:20:58] - Claude Cousineau, district un.

[2:21:01] >> And a seconder?

[2:21:02] >> Brent Cowan, district eight.

[2:21:06] - 17.13, Approuver les critères

[2:21:07] d'évaluation à employer dans le

[2:21:08] cadre d'un appel d'offres devant

[2:21:09] être lancé pour des services

[2:21:10] professionnels en évaluation et

[2:21:11] inspection immobilière. Cette

[2:21:14] approbation vise la grille

[2:21:15] d'analyse et les critères de

[2:21:17] sélection requis dans le but de

[2:21:18] retenir les services

[2:21:20] professionnels d'une firme

[2:21:21] spécialisée en inspection de

[2:21:22] bâtiments et évaluations

[2:21:23] immobilière.

[2:21:28] >> 18.1. Approval needs to be

[2:21:31] entered into with Caesar Cesar

[2:21:37] Manuel, carrying on business

[2:21:38] under the legal name of Mon Kape

[2:21:41] (9491-2888

[2:21:42] >> -- food concession at the

[2:21:43] Olive-Urquhart Sports Center. --

[2:21:47] then be automatically renewed

[2:21:50] for four successive periods of

[2:21:51] 12 months. The rent is set at

[2:21:52] $1,200 per month.

[2:21:54] - 18.2, Approuver une entente à

[2:21:55] intervenir avec le Club

[2:21:56] aquatique de Pointe-Claire Inc.

[2:21:57] concernant l'établissement des

[2:21:58] lignes directrices de

[2:21:59] fonctionnement du Club, les

[2:22:00] modalités et les conditions

[2:22:01] relatives au versement, par la

[2:22:02] Ville, d'une subvention annuelle

[2:22:03] de fonctionnement et à la mise à

[2:22:05] disposition du Club des

[2:22:07] installations et du matériel

[2:22:09] nécessaires à la réalisation de

[2:22:10] tout plan d'action.

[2:22:19] >> For our 17 point -- do I have

[2:22:23] - Brent a mover? Cowan, district

[2:22:24] numéro 8.

[2:22:25] >> Brent Cowan --

[2:22:26] >> --

[2:22:27] >> -- all in favour?

[2:22:30] >> So, 18.3, approve financial

[2:22:32] assistance agreement to be

[2:22:33] entered into with Service

[2:22:34] national des sauveteurs inc.

[2:22:35] Within the framework of the --

[2:22:42] the financial assistance shall

[2:22:43] be in the amount of $93,378 for

[2:22:49] the lifesaving in --

[2:22:51] Pointe-Claire aquatic center for

[2:22:52] the autumn 2023 session,

[2:22:54] initially, and for the year

[2:22:55] 2024. If the grant amount is

[2:22:58] revised during the session, the

[2:22:59] grant will cover labour costs

[2:23:00] and the costs of teaching

[2:23:01] materials.

[2:23:05] >> Do I have a mover?

[2:23:08] >> Eric Stork, district seven.

[2:23:10] >> And a seconder?

[2:23:15] >> Cynthia Homan, district

[2:23:16] seven.

[2:23:20] >> Foreclosure, do I have a

[2:23:21] mover?

[2:23:24] >> Tara Stainforth, district --

[2:23:26] >> And

[2:23:27] - Merci. A seconder?

[2:23:29] >> Kelly Thorstad-Cullen,

[2:23:30] district three.

[2:23:31] >> Thanks folks.

2023-09-05 Conseil de la Ville de Pointe-Claire

Transcript