Opening Comments by Mayor Peter J. Malouf - Regular Meeting of Tuesday, January 21, 2025

" Good evening and happy new year to all; thank you for joining us this evening.

Contrary to past practice, this evening I'm going to speak on a single topic, that of the proposed change to the urban plan for 1000 Lucerne.

As you are aware, the Beth-El synagogue has been vacant for several years and, at the end of 2019, the property was purchased by a developer (Sajo).

According to our urban plan, the property is earmarked for institutional use. However, there are currently no religious institutions wishing to set up on this site, nor are there any educational institutions. The CSSMB has informed us that there is no need for a new school on our territory.

Faced with these facts, the only choice to avoid having a derelict building is to allow residential use.

In order for residential use to be possible, the Town's urban plan must be modified. Such a modification, according to the “Loi sur l'aménagement et l'urbanisme”, is not a referendum process (i.e., residents cannot oppose it). However, a public consultation is still required to inform residents.

Such a consultation was held on Tuesday, January 7.About thirty residents attended, and despite the presentation made by Town officials, the answers provided to questions and explanations given, it emerged that many are still confused about the process, don't understand the steps involved and are circulating misinformation.

Council members have rediscussed the file in caucus and have therefore decided to postpone the vote on the urban plan modification to a later date. Also, a Q and A is being prepared in the hope of clarifying the process, answering questions and calming residents with respect to the misconceptions circulating.

We should have the Q and A available on our website at the end of the week.

Nonetheless, I hope to clarify certain points presently.

To enable this residential project to be carried out, it is necessary to amend the urban plan from “institutional use” to “residential use”.

The details of this potential residential use will be specified at a later date in a zoning by-law. The zoning by-law is prescriptive, meaning it sets maximum authorized heights, the number of storeys, setbacks, etc. It is not a legal document.

By law, the zoning by-law is referendary and must be presented publicly at a consultation session. Residents of areas adjacent to the 1000 Lucerne zone will then be able to vote on the zoning proposal.

Adjacent zones (zones contigués), deadlines and the procedure for contesting a zoning by-law are prescribed by law.

We have not yet reached this stage and, therefore, cannot give you any details concerning dates, number of signatures, etc. However, please note that it is not the current Council's intention to proceed by concordance to establish normative guidelines for a future project.

An urban plan and zoning modification process is complex, and I understand how it can seem confusing and non-transparent. However, please be assured that we are following the required steps of the law. And as required by law, the residents will be informed.

There have been comments concerning the label “high density’’. This classification in the Town’s by-laws refers to all buildings of 3 or more dwellings. As an example, the buildings around Connaught Park and on Graham blvd. are considered ‘’high density’’.

The current project on the table features 47 units, with a height of 48ft. And a variable number of storeys (maximum 4 storeys in some sections). The total height is therefore similar to that of the existing building.

It should be noted that whatever residential project is built on the site, the urban plan must be amended to allow residential use.

Within the proposed project, the promoter is giving the Town a 12 000 sq. ft area for a future green space/park. To benefit from this, a minimum number of units need to be built on the site. No matter what, the number of units will need to be more than 3; therefore, the definition of ‘high density’’ will be needed. 

We have heard several people refer to the number of dwellings per hectare and raise concerns. This minimum number of dwellings is not a figure that must be absolutely respected; it is a general trend, and as the Town is fully developed, there is no obligation to meet this figure exactly. It's an orientation to increase density, without arriving at an exact figure.

We have also heard comments concerning fears about increased traffic and drainage problems. A residential project of 47 units will have less impact on area traffic than the presence of a religious institution or school or day care, as, with residential, all users do not arrive and leave at the same time. As for drainage and our sewer system, there are norms which control the amount of wastewater that can be evacuated at a time; these norms must be respected and are part of the approval process of all projects.

I would like to reassure you that council members and I have been studying and discussing this file for quite some time and have been evaluating the various options possible. We are of the opinion that the change of vocation from institutional to residential is the best route for the Town going forward.

I hope to have clarified certain points and answered some questions which are circulating.

Thank you for listening and I wish you a good meeting."