Vous pourrez vous familiariser avec Ce plan qui est répandu dans toutes les villes. ici
http://ville.deux-montagnes.qc.ca/pages/services-citoyens/policies-urbanplanning.aspx?lang=FR-CA
Mais voila certaines de ces villes évitent ou tardent a appliquer ces politiques soit par mépris ou par indifférence. Parfois même par ignorance. A Deux-Montagnes c'est un peu tout a la fois.
Vous pourrez constater avant tout que c'est le comportement anti-démocratique, suivi par une malsaine application du processus du prétendu CCU qui sont tout au haut des reproches portés envers l'administration Lauzon. Ce texte est tiré du bulletin anglophone Community Connection qui circule a Deux-Montagnes et environs. Je vous laisse apprécier ce texte qui est en anglais.
Extraits du Bulletin Anglophone Community Connections
Date du présent document, mardi, 3 janvier 2012
Par Peter Largie
Community Connections Dec 2011/Jan 2012 p.23
From Rudolf Neumayer - The failing of democracy in DeuxMontagnes (continued)
In his response to my letter to the Editor (August / September issue), the current mayor
gave several explanations of how the process concerning ―special permits‖ is supposed
to work. It continues by claiming how open and democratic the city has become. Here
are some facts that were left out.
They change the complexion of the issue markedly.
It was stated that all the regulations must be followed. But because of the overabundance
of articles falling under the Zoning Plan and Architectural Implementation and
Integration Plan (AIIP), it has become impossible, in some instances, to comply with all
the articles without the need for some exceptions. The third plan that I submitted to the
Urbanism department had only one exception. The CCU rejected the plan (so I am told ,
however no official response came from them). The result was that an entirely new plan
was drawn up by the Urbanism Director.
The Urbanism Dept. plan consisted of five exceptions. This, according to the Mayor‘s
response, must have been modifications to improve the project. The contradiction is
clear to me. If the bylaws are meant to improve matters, how can an increase in the
exceptions to the bylaws improve a plan? And those changes were wholesale. All the
parking areas were moved, all the building placements were different, and even a
building‘s shape and size was changed!
Nothing in the city plan was in the submitted plan. Obviously the land owner‘s input was
nil. It sounds like the administrations attitude is much more like:
you may be the owner of the property, you have paid your taxes, and you may even
want to invest in construction and improvements, oh but you will do as WE say. I don‘t
consider that very democratic.
Democracy is not just getting a vote once every four years. It is a broader concept, a
way of thinking and acting. And it is equal treatment under the law (amongst other
definitions).
My original plan included the subdivision of the property. I was told that the CCU
rejection (again no formal notice) was due to an entrance being only four meters wide.
The Council stated that the project would not go ahead unless it was an ―integrated
project‖. But no bylaw existed for ―integrated projects‖ in DeuxMontagnes.
A non-existent bylaw was used to reject my project.
This is democratic?
As for the four meter entrance, well it is legal under article 6.4 A of the zoning bylaw. If
it wasn‘t, why would the city allow it for a commercial property on Oka road? Or is there
a different standard for different people? I would not want to think that it is because the
owner of that property sits on the CCU.
There is one other statement that I cannot let go by without comment. In the last
paragraph of his response, the Mayor states that ―all are free to express their opinion.‖
This is true but that is nothing that is bestowed on us by the Municipal Council.
That comes from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and from the men and women who
fought for our freedom.
This Council under this mayor has enacted policy and bylaws that are blatant violations
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don‘t consider that democratic either.
See Mayor Louzon’s response on our website: www.communityconnectionsdm.ca
Community Connections Oct-Nov 2011
Letter from Marc Lauzon, Mayor of Deux-Montagnes to the Community Connections in response to a letter from Rudolph Neumayer, September 2011
Dear Citizens,
I thank the Community Connections for giving me the opportunity to comment on Mr.
Rudolph Neumayer‘s opinion letter that appeared in the August/September issue,
concerning both democracy and the Comité Consultatif d‘Urbanisme (CCU) or Urban
Development Advisory Committee.
What I understand from Mr. Neumayer‘s comments is that he does not accept CCU
recommendations. However, I feel it‘s important to point out certain facts about how the
CCU and the City operate.
The CCU makes recommendations to City Council, whose members ultimately make the
decisions. The City Council can reject CCU recommendations if it deems it necessary.
We have already done so a few times.
Ville de Deux-Montagnes by-laws are public and available to all citizens. The CCU
consists of citizen volunteers who examine all applications for special permits and
requests falling under the City‘s Architectural Implementation and Integration Plan.
Members are appointed by City Council in accordance with the laws and obligations
imposed by the Quebec government.
The CCU must make recommendations that comply with current by-laws. Its members
are accompanied by the Clerk and City Planner during meetings, in addition to one or two
City Council members. The minutes of CCU meetings become public after their official
submission to City Council.
Each project is first examined by the Urban Development Department. It is then resented
to the CCU and, if applicable, is discussed with the citizens involved. Once these steps
have been completed, the project is presented and examined by City Council. The riginal
project can sometimes be modified to improve it. Some projects undoubtedly generate
ore heated discussions. The ultimate goal is to find solutions that comply with laws and
by-laws and that are in the citizens‘ best interest. With regard to the property and home
involved, CCU members and City Council definitely wish to promote the development of
the Neumayer property. The property offers excellent development potential despite
some constraints, but can blend very well into the neighborhood. The CCU made a
recommendation in this matter. City Council members met with the owners and then
made a decision on the proposed project.
Everything was public. Further discussions have since taken place, and other alternatives
were discussed with Mr. Neumayer. Hence, this matter is still under consideration as far
as we‘re concerned, and my door and that of the Urban Development Department
remains open.
A municipal organization must have rules governing the harmonious development of its
territory. City Council was elected in part to enforce and improve these rules, if necessary.
Elected municipal officials also have a duty to listen to the citizens they represent and to
act in the best interests of residents, and, of course, each individual. This is the principle
that guides my actions and my work every day. To conclude, in my humble opinion,
democracy is alive and well in Deux-Montagnes. All are free to express their opinion,
and municipal information has never been more available than it is today. I make a point
of listening to and answering questions from citizens, as do our city councilors. Our city
is almost completely developed, and new sources of revenue are scant. Thus, all
applications for new construction, renovation work and/or expansion are gladly
considered. However, they must comply with standards, by-laws and neighborhood
guidelines. For these reasons, I believe that communication remains the key to success.
Mayor Marc Lauzon
Aout/Sept-2011
Community Connections Page 21
Letter to the Editor
By Rudolph Neumayer
The loss of democracy in Two Mountains, the CCU, and you… it is here, it is now, and
here it is - my opinion.
Most of us have a concept of democracy.
Most of us know who we are and what we stand for. How many of you know what the
CCU is, what it is made up of, what is the purpose, and how it affects us as individuals
and as a community?
The CCU is the ―Comite Consultative d‘Urbanism‖. It is a committee that evaluates
―projects‖ to ensure they are viable, make sense, and follows the regulations. Well the
last item is the responsibility of the Urbanism Department; we will get back to that later.
There is logic to the formation of such a committee and that would be to have citizen‘s
representation with respect to projects that may have an effect on the community. The
problem is that it has extended to the point where the regulations are so burdensome
that the municipality cannot keep up with all of the requirements within the laws they
enacted.
Does this sound strange? Try this one on for size. The city can tell you what color you
may paint your house, how many feet there must be between trees, which brand of
siding, and much much more. Those regulations all come under the Architectural
Integration and Implementation Plan (AIIP).
And, the CCU can reject any plan simply on the basis that ―they don‘t like it‖! The AIIP
applies in various forms to every property in Deux-Montagnes. Everyone potentially has
the problem that I have recently experienced. The following is what can happen to you.
Like all residents, my tax bill went up significantly, more than one thousand one hundred
dollars. And that was on top of the one thousand dollars last year. So it became evident
that it was time to subdivide and build. It would bring in nine (9) new taxable properties
to the city. I had many meetings with various officials, including the Mayor.
The planning took place over several months. Thousands of dollars were spent to ensure
all was in order. But the CCU rejected the project. I was told ―the citizens don‘t like it.‖
Oh, really?
How many citizens were consulted? Well, only the four on the CCU. But who are these
people? I encourage you all to inquire. When you see the composition of the CCU
and know a bit of the background, you will certainly see that not all is well. You will
see that the CCU does not have open meetings. You will see there is no publication of the
minutes of the meetings.
No written response is given to the property owner. The CCU decisions are made in
isolation, and they are supposed to represent you?
Perhaps the most galling aspect of this situation is that even if your project follows
all the regulations, burdensome as they are, the CCU can reject any project based on
their personal opinion. That affects your property, your lifestyle, your finances, and
those of the community as a whole. The CCU could even say to you, as they did to
me, that I should demolish my home. Oh, it can happen to you too.
So as the CCU renders its opinions, the citizens of this community lose. We lost
Giant Tiger because it was not allowed to expand. A restaurant called Funocchio
never opened because one of the CCU members did not like the name. And we are
about to lose three or four more businesses. Now look along Oka Road at all the empty
business locations and ask if we can afford this type of overbearing restrictions on the
development of our city. The people of Deux- Montagnes deserve better. That is my
opinion.
Next time: The AIIP, the Municipal Council, and bogus environmentalism. Let‘s look at who doesn‘t walk the walk and more regulatory foolishness. ««« Fin Citation.»»»
D'autres cas suivront, car ils sont multiples.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire