I recently wrote that densification of the territory was “inevitable and even desirable” after “developing a long-term vision” following consultations.
I still believe it.
However, our most “recent” planning programme dates back to 2005. Beaconsfield was not even the city it is today. It was part of a burrough of the City of Montreal with Baie-D’Urfé. This is incredible if we consider that an urban plan “constitutes the most important official document of the municipality in terms of planning the development of its territory” [1].
The planning programme is, in a sense, a form of social contract between the municipality and its citizens; it allows everyone to know, in terms of zoning, what is permitted or not in different zones within the city’s territory. It aims to shape and adapt neighborhoods, as necessary, to a constantly changing environment.
Beaconsfield was legally required to adopt a planning programme no later than in 2017, following the adoption of a new development plan by the agglomeration of Montreal in 2015[2]. The city didn’t do it then. Those in place at that time are in a better position than me to tell you why.
This therefore means that today, Beaconsfield has a planning programme which dates from 2005. It is still in force, but it does not comply with the Agglo’s land use and development plan subsequently adopted.
The good news? Is that a new planning programme, consistent with the land use and development plan the Agglo will adopt in the not-so-distant future, will have to be adopted within a few years and comply with it. Currently however, the process is still at another level, at that of the Metropolitan Community of Montreal which is developing a new version of the Plan Métropolitain d’aménagement et de développement (also referred to as the “PMAD”) [3].
Consulting residents and listening to them is essential. This explains why the Let’s Imagine SPACE project is progressing. A number of consultations have been held and several reports written over the past ten years[4], if not more. They all emphasized the need to construct a new building as a first step, and as for its location, Centennial Park and the Marina were identified as a prime location very early in, and throughout, the process.
Although, like many people, I was not initially convinced of the need for a new cultural center, I have received enough information over the past two years to conclude that a new building was indeed necessary. The quality of services provided to our community depends on it, in the near future and for future generations.
However, I would still have preferred that this building be built somewhere other than Centennial Park. Despite this, given the history of numerous public consultations and their conclusions, I recently rallied and voted in favor of the launch of an architectural competition and the appointment of the members of the jury which will lead, in all likelihood, to the construction of a building on the land of Centennial Park or the marina.
Likewise, for the Elm Plaza project, I will respect the results of the latest public consultations.
In September 2023, upon the presentation of the first draft of the SCAOPI for the Elm Plaza file, I voted in favor of its adoption. I did so while making it clear that my vote aimed to make the project public and to allow a public consultation to be held. I then expressed reservations about the project and expressed that if certain elements were not modified, my vote in favor of the project could become a vote aimed at rejecting it.
The public consultation of October 2023 allowed me to hear, among other things, many citizens express, during the consultation and subsequently, that the project was – these are my words – “too big and too high” on Elm.
You should know that in 2016, a committee mandated by Council recommended for the redevelopment of Elm Plaza, after holding public consultations, “a maximum density of three floors” and buildings “closer to Elm Avenue which would respect (…) the setbacks of current regulations” [5]. This report also recommended promoting “a “village” atmosphere through the establishment of public spaces”.
The current project is very far from these recommendations. The consultation process last fall did not result in a consensus which, in my opinion, justifies setting aside the recommendations made in 2016. Au contraire.
Until a new planning programme is adopted, I believe we should be guided by what past consultations have taught us. Accordingly, in my opinion, at this time, any building constructed on the Elm Plaza site should not, among other things, be taller than three stories. In my opinion, the redevelopment of this space should offer a much less massive visual appearance on Elm and, as was suggested in 2016, promote a village atmosphere.
A new planning programme will create a long-term vision and will form a new social contract with our population. Everyone will then be able to know what will be possible and permitted – which areas of Beaconsfield will be identified for greater density and/or a change of use for example – and prepare for it if necessary.
[4 ]Imagine Centennial – Imagine Centennial
[5] Report on land use planning and evolving housing needs (beaconsfield.ca)