[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.