Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Urbanism Commission of August 18, 2026. I would ask you, if possible, to put your phones in silent mode, it would be appreciated. And I would like to greet some people present tonight. Robert Sbert, lawyer of the canton, Jonathan Palin, urbanist of the canton, and Ava Miller and Joe Bombe from Goss-Webster. On this, I will proceed with the appeal. Cathy Bosberg? Present. Eric Aydeder? Alton James? Karl Leonard is present? Present. Brian Carr?

Present.

Richard Bocarté? And Mark Renaud as well as Kevin Ustek are both excused. On this, please rise for the oath of allegiance.

I swear allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic, that it represents a nation under the aegis of God, indivisible, with freedom and justice for all.

I would like to make a proposal to approve the 21st of July verbal trial. Questions or comments? If not, who is for or against the motion adopted? I would like to make a proposal to approve the order of the day as submitted Questions or comments? Proposition to approve the order of the day as submitted by Karl, supported by Rich. Agree for? Agree. The motion is adopted.

Mr. President, Mechkame Vosberg has supported the motion aiming to approve the verbal trial of today's meeting as proposed.

I'm sorry, we didn't hear you.

Thank you for that.

All right, we're ready. All right, thank you. Are there any comments from the audience? Anyone else? There is no public audience. And we have the ordinary day. The LATTA group has come back, as requested, with some changes, and we are going to ask... ...to tell us a little more.

So, during the meeting on July 17, the Urbanism Commission wanted to see updates on the plans concerning the material of the waste enclosure, as well as the compliance of the existing building with the current standards of construction materials on the plans updated by the applicant on the date of 05-01. Provided on the third sheet, the applicant proposes to build the enclosure with a concrete wall covered with a brick frame attached to the building. It is always offered in the frame of the enclosure, a galvanized steel door of 6 feet high and raw cedar boards, all tinted with a natural finish. Regarding the site's construction materials, first for the proposed building, to confirm the materials chosen, the south side road facade will be equipped with a brick plating made by Brampton Brick and a brick anti-impact barrier will be provided on the other facades. The remaining facades are made of gray insulated metal panels of a minimum thickness of 2 inches, manufactured by the American Buildings Company. For the existing building, the applicant proposes that it be composed almost entirely of the same gray insulated metal panels as those planned on the non-oriented facades towards the projected road of the building. On the south and east facades, a black aluminum composite panel decorative strip is planned above the tiling, on the existing building and it extends on the projected building. That's all for the updates and if there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Very well, thank you.

Will you ask for something to add? I think she covered everything. Everything is good, okay, thank you. On this, we go back to the commissioners. Cathy, do you have anything?

No question.

Just a few questions.

So, the site's borders, I haven't seen any borders on the site. Have you planned borders, for example, in front of the new escalator?

You know, in front of the loading area of the benzahordures. Because I didn't see any edge.

We usually install slats in front of our sliding doors to protect them.

And we also integrate them around the fence of the garbage bins.

Yes, I know, that's it. And this is part of the site plan examination, to examine your slats, their location and make sure that the finishes are correct. That's why I asked, because I didn't see any slats or slats on your site plan.

Yes, they appear for the Eben stage, but... ...add them around the doors... ...is something we can certainly do.

We will... ...we will have all the doors of the entrance... ...where the sliding doors will be... ...will be surrounded by strips of... ...to protect the... And concerning the finish of these strips, will they be yellow plastic handles? Will they know that she is there?

They are generally, yes. A safety yellow plastic handle. If their demand allows us to paint, we will paint. But if it is a handle, then we will do that.

We will follow the rules. We do not allow painting. Is that why I was asking myself the question? Of course.

Okay. Because I don't have... And then, this case of loading, I think it already exists. The one that is just like a small concrete pit, isn't it? Charging, unloading. The one adjacent to the Benin-Hordieu. So, for this loading and unloading, what is the size of the trucks that come in and out? Because your range shows just a small truck, but the pit seems deep. I mean, I didn't find the dimensions, but I was curious. I suppose that a 16-meter trailer does not come in there, because the range indicates only a small truck and the parking is really narrow. Exactly. So these are just small trucks, not 16 meters or anything that enters.

For the management of rainwater, I see the underground retention system. It looks like ...

When I look at the rainwater, I see that you have an underground retention system.

So...

I just want to make sure I understood your retention system well.

So, we would say that the retention system only recovers the two sewage mouths in front of the loading case.

Is that right? Because your exit is located at, I would say, in the northwest corner, right? North. You see how you have the exit that comes out by the proposed exit.

Yes, that's the intention. We will recover this one. There are actually three reception basins because we also recover those of the neighbors. The design of the rain network, what engineering has allowed us to do, is to recover all the additional impermeable surface added to the site.

And that's why they were able to place it in this place.

So you take the exit of your neighbor who arrives in front of the quay. It looks like you added another one on the surface in front of this one. Then it's... From there, it drains into the underground retention system. And then...

It comes out, doesn't it? That's more or less how it works. Exactly. The challenge on this site was simply...

The elevation of existing public exits and...

So you must have...

Yes, I see. That's what I thought. I thought it was the elevation. That's what I was asking for. Just to understand... But yes, no, it makes sense. Where parking for bikes is planned. What is this material on which these parking, finally on which the bikes are placed? I see that it has not been treated as concrete. Concrete, it's just, it's empty, but it indicates something. It looks like a hard surface, I guess it's concrete. You know where the bike workshop is going to be installed.

Are you talking about the bike support? Yes, the bike support.

Yes, this surface where you placed it. Once again, I guess the north is up. I couldn't find it. The north is over there. So, at the southwest corner of the building, you have the bike parking lot.

Do you see what I'm talking about? What is this surface? It's concrete, I guess. Yes, it would be concrete. Yes, it's just that it was not insulated like concrete. That's why I was wondering. So it's concrete.

Okay. Then when I looked at your landscape planning plan, you have a tree in the middle of your concrete.

I guess this tree is elsewhere.

So if you go on your landscape plan.

We're going to move this tree. Okay, but I just want to make sure we keep the tree. What do I mean? I don't want it to disappear because I like my trees. So I just want to make sure we keep the tree. I just wanted to make sure it was placed in the right place.

We will certainly move it next to the bike parking locations. Very good.

Otherwise, yes, I thought it was a beautiful plant.

Thank you. Thank you. Rick.

You are ready. The president is ready. So if there is nothing else to add, I'm waiting for a motion. Well, he must first make the motion. I will accept it. Someone will do it.

But you will have it when he does it.

Monsieur le Président, je voudrais faire une motion. Je propose que la commission d'urbanisme accorde l'approbation finale pour le point 2026-09 de l'ordre du jour. Le identifiant de la propriété est 15-09-30-3-0-19. Elle est située au Vanscan Collect Coast 75 Terry Industrial Drive. Sous réserve de l'examen administratif du personnel et de la confirmation que toutes les signatures légalement requises ont été obtenues. This approval is based on the plans dated July 28, 2026. The examination of the implementation plan by Gifless Webster dated July 14, 2026. The addition of a threshold on the site which will be managed administratively and subject to all the conditions presented to the Commission including the ZVA approval of July 8, 2026, which allows the applicant to reserve parking spaces at the discretion of the municipality for further use. With these conditions, I propose to approve.

We have a proposal from Rick Lille supported by Alton James to approve the ATTA Group CMA Design Services 2026-09. All those in favor? Against? The motion is adopted. Thank you.

We have

A few presentations tonight on zoning regulations. I don't know if it's Joe or Ava who's going to take care of it.

Monsieur le Président, nous avons également Monsieur Browne avec nous ce soir pour l'ordonnance sur le bruit. Je pense qu'il serait préférable de commencer par celle-ci. Elle est un peu plus détaillée. Il y a quelques changements depuis la dernière fois que vous l'avez vue. Et nous avons également intégré certaines de ces normes de bruit dans la partie zonage. Donc je pense que nous devrions commencer par là.

Nous pouvons faire cela.

The floor is yours.

And if I may, before you start, I would like to apologize for any confusion regarding the information sent by M. Brown and the one we have integrated into our project. They are slightly different, but that's why I think it would be useful for you to examine all the articles on the noise he prepared and then we can discuss how they are integrated into the zoning regulations.

Very well. So I suppose that everyone has seen the proposed ordinance that I presented. I have reformulated this ordinance or restructured the ordinance so that it fits into chapter 34, division 2, entitled noise and vibrations. Overall, the structure of this is I would say that it is quite direct. There are some subtleties that I would address. But the first section, you know, section 34, 46, entitled Noise, gives a short title, an objective and a declaration of public nuisance, in a way defining the intention of this ordinance. And as you go along, if you have any questions, if you want to interrupt me, there is no problem. If you prefer to wait for the end, that's fine too. Section 3447 is entitled Definition, and we review a number of definitions. These definitions serve to inform the readers of the order, of the meaning of these terms, but they also provide technical explanations on how certain elements of the order must be interpreted, such as the definition of the tonal sound or the discreet tonality. In the definition that we propose in this ordinance, it gives in fact a kind of instruction on the way in which the tonalities must be evaluated. Section 3440 concerns the general prohibitions. This simply identifies what people would commonly consider as a sound damage, including general prohibitions. Hum, maybe how factors could... Enter the game to determine a violation. And things like that. Section 3449. regarding the quantitative limits of the sound levels. These are therefore the objective limits according to which an absolute violation would be determined. We have a table that provides the maximum noise limits. These are instant sound levels. But just to underline, the residential level of the day is 60 dBA, 50 dBA. 75 dBc and 65 dBc at night. So it's about the differences between the limits of day and night. And it's important to distinguish these two periods because during the day people are generally awake, active, the noise is less annoying. During the night people rest, people want to sleep, so the environment should be calmer and naturally it tends to be calmer.

A few points to highlight. May I ask a question? Well, the first thing I wanted to ask you when you were in the definitions, but... At 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

I suppose that this corresponds to our current ordinance on what is defined as the day.

The only reason I'm asking is that I don't know how many people would be happy if their neighbor tumbled their pillow at 7 a.m. or, you know, did something at 8 p.m. You know, I mean, if we're talking about residential areas, right? I mean, people put their children to bed at 8.30 a.m. You know, I know we have to let companies be companies, but I was just wondering how did you get to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. is a standard definition of the noise commonly found in the neighborhood.

It is also provided by the PR. It's a kind of standard definition for the nocturnal period. It doesn't necessarily have to stay that way. If the urbanism commission or the council wants to change that, it can be modified, modified.

Yes, because I know from experience, you know, when we work with communities, I always had in my previous job,

when we were managing noisy activities like turbines and that kind of thing. When I was working at DT, we were working with the municipality to move things around around 8 p.m. or something like that, simply because 8 p.m. or 8 p.m. it became a bit difficult.

But I was just, I was curious. So you did, so you used the norm. I used the standard definition for the night, but it can be modified.

I understand.

Okay.

Perfect.

Yes, I just want to understand because by keeping the decibels for day and night from my point of view, it seemed a little higher than I thought. But I remember your previous presentation, I had taken notes and I was more in a fork of 40 at night and 50 during the day. You see, I was close to 10 points.

It was based on what you had taught us. during your first presentation. That's why when I saw that, I said to myself, you know, he went more on the...

So, here's how the noise order is structured. There is a separate section that will be integrated into the zoning order. Thus, when the projects are approved, we expect that there will actually be a second series of limits based on continuous type noise sources. It will therefore be a limit of average sound level per hour, and these limits are intended to be less than 5 dB, as indicated here. Now, in addition, and I can go into the details. So, under the same section, below the noise limit table, we define, we add a few stipulations, including one concerning the adjustment for tonal noise. So if the noise is tonal, the sound level limits will be reduced by 5 dB. This applies to both the A and C pondering. So in this sense, you know, at least with these limits, you know if it's a tonal noise, the limits will actually be 55 the day and 45 at night on the A scale. And then, you know, Something similar.

Yes, I remember reading that.

Well, no, continue, please. I thought I could ask the question now, before. Keep in mind that these are...

These limits, so I'll come back a little later. But let me at least finish this section and I'll talk about the limits a little more in detail afterwards.

Yes, thank you.

In addition to the limits, we define the measurement points and indicators that will be used essentially to define how the sound levels will be measured. They will be measured at the limit of the receptive property or inside it, at a height of 120 to 180 meters above the ground. We also refer to the ANSI S12.9 and ANSI 12.18 standards C'est important. Bien que la plupart des gens ne consultent pas ces normes lorsqu'ils effectuent des mesures acoustiques, cela devient vraiment important en cas de litige car ces normes serviront de saventure viange. Référence de normes selon laquelle les mesures auraient dû être effectuées. Les gens devraient donc au moins les connaître. It can also happen that the sound impacts a higher floor of a building. The C element of this section, the alternative of measurement to the floor, allows measurements of the external sound level in the facade in order to take into account situations where the sound level on the ground is relatively low. But on a higher floor, due to a screen or a wall, the levels are actually higher. Nous voulons donc pouvoir protéger le domicile des gens, non seulement au niveau du sol, mais aussi au deuxième étage. D. La sous-section D justifie ensuite les limites pondérées C. Il s'agit plus ou moins d'une explication pour informer que les limites A et C s'appliquent toutes deux, et non l'une ou l'autre B, A, C, N, ou l'autre. The subsection E provides a penalty for impulsive noise, as well as for the tonal penalty. In case of impulsive noise, the sound level limits will be reduced by 5 dB. After section F, we have section G for the adjustment of the ambient sound level. This one needs to be slightly modified. As it is currently written, it indicates the sound level of L90 on an hour attributable to other sources than the presumed sound in infraction. What we really need to say is attributable source to road traffic. So it should be adjusted. But essentially, it's a way for us to take into account the fact that, you know, in some places, road traffic will be higher than the allowed noise levels. But we want to make sure that at certain times of the day, the lowest portion of the day or the lowest portion of the night, when these traffic noise levels define, in a way, the ambient noise level, that should be the noise limit. As long as it is higher than the proposed noise limits. It's logical.

Small question about the adjustment of the tonal noise. You say that the sound in question is determined as containing a discrete tonality.

Is it a hardness or what is this discrete tonality?

I don't understand. So, a discreet key would refer to the definition of its key or discreet key as defined in the section of definitions. So, but a key is essentially a pure sound that would be commonly created by a mechanical equipment. It can be characterized by a buzz, a whistle. It could be constant. It could also be intermittent, but it's often linked to a certain type of mechanical equipment. It's not an impulsive noise, like a bang or a detonation. It's a tonality. Exactly, exactly. Does that help clarify?

I don't find the definition of discreet.

So yes, it was at least in the second section, there was the 3446 called noise and after that the 3447 called definition. And this should be the penultimate element in these definitions. Thank you.

Well, since we are there.

So the other thing I noticed and another thing I noted was the measurement point.

I am a fervent supporter of the measurement at the limit of the property of the property that receives the noise and not inside this limit. So what do you think? I remember when you informed us about this subject and I remember having noted that because I am a great supporter of the limit of property.

Only that it seems a bit strange to me, you know.

As if you have a property, for me it is more restrictive if you say to the limit of property of the receiver because you know you can be on your terrace or have a pool 15 meters from your garden. For me, if you just say limit of property, then you know that the the the the the the the

The limit must be the most restrictive, which means that at the limit of the property, you cannot exceed the levels of decibels established.

So, the way it's written, all of this is included, the limit of the property, and anywhere within the property. But when I read this, the reason why it's like this is that we don't always know where the sound level will be the highest.

For example, someone builds a data center, and I hope it won't happen, but let's say that the data center is directly adjacent to a residential property.

And he decides to put up an anti-noise wall near the property limit. It's not just on the property limit, but near the limit. So if you measure just at the property limit behind the anti-noise wall, you will have a protection of the anti-noise wall which will lower the level. But if you go three or six meters further from the wall inside the property, the receptive property, the sound level will increase. So we try to protect the entire residential property, not just the demarcation line.

I have to reread the text. I hadn't thought of that. I just want to make sure it's not a flaw. As you know, should we add a mention of the type?

The one that is the most restrictive, or just so they don't say, hey, I measured here and it goes, and you, you said, limit of property or inside, and I measured at the limit and it goes. And that was my, I think, my concern.

So is it the question of where, which is perhaps the... Yes, that's what I think. It's that you feared that the text would allow you to measure anywhere and that if it goes somewhere, I see. He says to himself, hey, he stuck the box.

And I see what I want to avoid, it's precisely this fault. I want to make sure that whatever it is, because what you just said, I didn't even think about it, it's really very relevant. It's really very relevant. Like, you know, because let's say we ask them to put a wall in masonry 2.5 meters high, and you'll say, I didn't think that at 4.5 meters behind this wall, it's more noisy than at 1.5 meters behind the wall.

You see what I mean? It's a good point. I just want to make sure there's no escape, you know, because, yes, I want to make sure. I appreciate this interpretation and...

You know, we write something, we reread it so many times knowing our intention that we don't always read it like someone else could interpret it. So I'm going to review that and we might be able to make adjustments to make it clearer.

Yes, that's all. Because yes, when I read K or KAU, it means that they have the choice. They can choose the place where to make this measurement within this definition.

And I just want to make sure that we give them, I just want to make sure that we protect the adjacent owners in the most restrictive way possible.

Of course. Yes, absolutely.

One of the most problematic points is that the infrasounds, the frequencies below 20 Hz, are not treated. In the current editorial, the measurements are taken from 25 Hz to 10 Hz. If there were problems with sounds lower than our hearing threshold that could affect us, there are several scientific studies dealing with physiological impacts, infrasounds on the human body. Isn't it?

If it is not treated as it is currently, then if a company generated excessive sound levels in its beaches, we would have no way of respecting the law for the moment. Yes and no. Je comprends votre point de vue sur le fait qu'il n'y a pas de mesures ou de limites spécifiques pour les infrasons. Et voici la difficulté. Il existe très peu de références concernant les infrasons et les limites de bruit dans le contexte du bruit communautaire. Et ce n'est pas pour dire que je ne pense pas que ce soit une question importante. It's just that I don't think we have the scientific background and the necessary support to include it at the moment. That being said, when you measure the ponderous limits or the ponderous sound levels, and we have ponderous limits in the ordinance, most sonometers do not stop at 20 Hz. Most sonometers go down to about 10 Hz. Donc lorsque vous mesurez une limite pondérée C, certaines informations sur les infrasons sont contenues dans cette mesure du niveau sonore. Merci. J'en suis conscient. Cependant.

to come back to the point raised by MCAR. What is written is written, and I consider it from a political point of view and from what would hold in front of a court in case of a dispute. And since the frequencies below 25 Hz are not specifically treated, it is a gap that I see in this document as it is written.

So when you say that the frequencies below 25 Hz are not treated, which part of my proposal does not cover this.

I understand that if you take a measure with a sound meter in c-ponderance, it will take into account the lower frequencies, but we cannot hear these frequencies. And as I mentioned, there are scientific studies, and I was reading one earlier from the NIH, a series of researchers who just appeared this year. There are therefore physiological problems. People talk about headaches or anxiety, difficulty sleeping. So, just because the measurement in ponderation C will take these frequencies into account, we cannot hear these frequencies. I think it would be wise to explicitly include frequencies below 25 Hz because, once again, if there was a problem or a factory where any type of installation emitted infrasounds at certain levels and impacted us and impacted us and There is nothing here to say that these levels below 25 Hz should not exist. On what legal basis could we support ourselves to prevent this company or force it to change its practices?

Absolutely. I understand what you are saying and infrasounds are a sensitive subject, particularly with data centers. The reason is that mechanical equipment can contain a lower sound energy than 20 Hz in the range of infrasounds. The question is to know how this is taken into account. Okay, if we want to measure infrasounds, how do we proceed? Okay, I have a sonometer, I can certainly measure it. Other acoustics professionals can also measure it. Most of the sonometers that a municipality would generally have do not allow them to be measured. So if you find yourself in such a situation, then you know maybe you have to involve a professional in acoustics to ensure that the infrasounds are measured with precision. But then where do we set the limits? That's the big question, because infrasounds are all around us all the time. Especially if you're close to a highway. There are many infrasounds coming from highways. There are infrasounds coming from the movement of the wind. There are many sources of infrasounds. And that doesn't mean that it's not potentially Different from what a company could create, but once again, that's where we set this limit. You know, we can examine some data and base ourselves on it, but there is not much scientific experience on the real limits of the infrasound, which is protective and adapted to certain environments. So I can, if that's what the Urbanism Commission asks of me, help formulate something concerning infrasound. Personally and professionally, I do not recommend it at the moment, but it is a path that we can follow if the Urbanism Commission wishes so.

What would be your reason for not recommending it?

Because we do not know what the effective limits would be. What is the difference between a protection limit and an acceptable limit?

Je vois ce que vous voulez dire. C'est là que nous atteignons ce nouveau monde à la pointe où je pense qu'il est dans notre... Intérêt à tous de définir ce que c'est et de commencer à fixer ses limites.

Parce que ce que nous faisons pourrait créer un précédent pour... Les gens qui nous entourent.

Et vous savez... Notre bien-être à l'avenir. Donc je... Just because it may not have been done before or that it has not been part of the best practices by the past, I do not think that it dispenses us necessarily to have to do it in the future. I agree. I think there are elements that must be developed in this field to help protect communities and people. I do not disagree. What I say is that science is not ready yet. Il n'existe aucune norme permettant de mesurer les infractions comme moyen de protection des communautés. C'est ce que je dis. I want to offer you a scientifically established and supported order so that if it is contested, we have these elements on which we rely and which hold the road. If we start to venture into areas that are not scientifically founded, this becomes debatable.

And if we examine the effect on animals, like 40 Hz, a dog can hear it, we can't, right?

Okay. So if this irritates my dog and I don't know what's wrong with him, and if we set 40 Hz, is it infrasound or am I...

I mean, when we start talking about animals, when we start talking about animals, it's not my field of expertise.

You know, my goal is communities and people. And I understand that, you know, dogs hear differently from us. But the norms, you know, the ordinance norms, the community norms, the American ANC norms, all this revolves around people, not animals.

So what is the lowest frequency that people hear?

People. It is therefore a difficult question to solve. If we speak strictly to hear with our ears, the accepted hearing range goes from 20 Hz to 20 0.0 Hz. D'accord, c'est une plage très large. Il existe maintenant des fréquences inférieures à 20 Hertz. Vous savez, potentiellement, beaucoup d'entre elles, entre 10 Hertz et 20 Hertz, que nous ressentons, vous savez, autour de nos oreilles, de notre tête, ou de certaines parties de notre corps, lorsque les niveaux sonores sont très élevés. Et quand je dis très élevés, très élevés, This sound energy must be able to hit our skin and create a sensation, which usually happens at a very high level. You may have attended a concert and there are the basses, and sometimes you can feel them in your chest. You know, it's the music that excites a resonance in your body. So you have a sensation that is not auditory, but you still have a sensation. At 20 hertz. Il y a une large gamme, mais oui.

Mais vous dites ? Eh bien, pourquoi 20 Hz n'est-il pas un bon point de départ ?

Eh bien, c'est justement le point de départ. Lorsque nous mesurons en pondération A ou C, cela commence au moins à 20 Hz.

Donc, je ne sais pas ce que les gens... Je suppose que je ne connais pas la définition des infrasons. J'ai toujours pensé que c'était en dessous de 70, mais je suppose que j'ai tort.

Mais... Les infrasons sont techniquement en dessous de la plage que nous pouvons entendre.

Donc, en dessous de 20.

So, below 20 Hz, these are technically infrasounds. However, when people talk about measuring infrasounds as measurements, they start talking about measurements ranging from 10 Hz to 180 Hz or 125 Hz. They want to include more frequencies because there is a perception of low frequencies covering a beach, not only up to 20 Hz. This could go beyond.

Thank you, Mr. Sbert. Could we include something in the ordinance where the canton of Chesterfield could demand from a solicitor or from someone creating this noise to do infrasound tests if residents please? I mean, could that be a clause in the ordinance? It is not required to begin with, but if you manage to do it, and that people are starting to get sick, that people are starting to complain, then you have to move on to the next step and do it. The most detailed test, hire your KNNS engineers and do it. That kind of thing. First of all, I'm going to go back to the expert who is Darren on the question.

You know, we understand that, but we are developing an order on noise. Okay, we could spend hours discussing all this with, you know, all these imaginary noises that you're going to hear. We've had a stop on noise in force for 50 years. I don't remember the last time we pursued a violation of the stop on noise in Chesterfield Township. We're here and we're pursuing them. I don't remember the last time the Urbanism Service, the Zonage Service or any other service put a contravention for a loud noise outside a graduation party with young people drinking. Okay, these problems have never occurred before. So, you know, we should... You know, the initial mission was to find a stop to the noise to deal with things like data centers and some of these new types of installations that make their appearance, which is the goal of all this.

You know, we can enter the fourth dimension with some of these problems that have never been raised before.

And I'll go back to Darren to find out how to write them best. Why did we hire him? Because he is an expert and I will refer to him to know if there is a scientific basis or not. But do not forget that if we issue a contravention or if we are in front, we would not go to the Circuit Court unless it is a continuous violation.

Obviously, this is not an isolated case, it is continuous.

You issue a contravention and you go to the Court. If it is a company that makes these noises for a long period and that it is not willing to give up, then we would go to the Circuit Court. We must go to the Circuit Court and we must have an expert ready to testify under oath. According to a recognized science and recognized industrial standards, this is a violation. This is the person I have to take and she must be convinced that she can go up to the bar, testify and tell a judge that what they are doing violates a recognized standard. And if he can do it, it's perfect. If he can't. And what I hear him say on some of these points is that there is not, maybe I understand it badly, that there may not be any science available on some of these problems that are measurable. Maybe. But you know, we can't. You owe when you. But the simple fact of saying that a resident complains will not be enough to tell a company that it must carry out a study and spend 20 or 30,000 dollars on a study because a resident complains.

It's not going to happen. So I'm going to address it this way. These topics are important, but we also have to develop the associated science. And it's in progress. When we have a better science, a better explanation of what people feel and the way we can apply it to a sound limit, I would be completely for it. But for now, we're not quite there yet.

So Darren, can you measure up to 10 or go down to 10 in frequency?

I can measure, that's the question, what I can measure and what I can measure with precision. Okay.

Let's talk about what you can measure precisely.

Precisely, I can probably go down, I don't know, maybe around 6 or 8 hertz.

And a test like this one would cost 20,000 dollars?

No, not necessarily. I mean, if we just take a measurement of the sound level, here is the other element. I don't know what we should think about. It's that when a company arrives and wants to build a data center and that it wants to understand, you know, before building, we prepare an order according to which it will have to provide an acoustic study to demonstrate that it will respect the order. And if a part of the ordinance mentions infrasound limits, we currently have no way to make predictions on this subject. Normally, we use a norm called ISO 37 or sorry, 2113, which is similar to the norm that I mentioned here to predict future sound levels, But there is currently no norm or method to predict infrasounds.

But there is a method to measure them on an existing installation. So if it were the second installation that the company implements on Earth, we could ask them if it is similar to your installation A or installation 1. If they answered yes and that we had measured it, we would know.

That would be a good indication. A good indication. You know, if things were configured in a very similar way. Thank you. Very good. Let me continue. So we have passed the definitions, we have passed the limits. We still have the tonal noise, the adjustment of the ambient sound level, then the measurement requirements, giving details on the instrumentation. The weather conditions, we can't measure when the weather is bad because we measure the weather and not the sources of real noise. Frequency and time constants of the sonometer. Simply define these elements so that there is no doubt about the way we measure the sound. Then there is a list of specific regulations on noise that could be interesting to review. Maybe you have already read them, we have discussed them in the past and some of them we could not want to include them. It is simply a list of elements that we recognize generate noise and we want to have a mechanism that allows to the police or to an agent in charge of the application of the orders to be able to stop this noise. So, the sound alarms and signaling devices, amplified sounds and music, which is often a problem. No one must create excessive noise on the public road. Animals, like noisy birds or wooden dogs. There are motor vehicles. Sometimes people use motor vehicles in a noisy and annoying way. Escapement emissions are quite common, but this concerns the mechanical systems of buildings, which can include gas turbines, internal combustion engines, motor vehicles, motor boat engines, things like that. by saying that they must be silent to avoid loud noises. Construction and demolition activities are defined or limited to certain hours of the day. The fixed mechanical equipment, just to point them out, make sure that these elements are also recognized and kept conforming to the limits of the ordinance. Interference with institutional operations. Trying to prevent people from creating noise that disrupts the functioning of institutions, governments and others. The noise of loading and unloading, alarms, race tracks and tests. Some of them are reports of what exists today. All-terrain recreational vehicles, land and field maintenance equipment. Just a little remark.

So, to go back to my opening hours, right? We are completely scattered. I see that some things can go up to 8 o'clock, others up to 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. It's still the same thing. They are sources of noise. So why don't we just choose one hour? I mean, seven hours seems to be the basis to start with, which is quite typical, isn't it? But why? To have this variation? For me, you just have to choose one hour. And to stick to it, because in the end, it's what we're trying to do, for example, simply the landscaping, isn't it? Well, yes. I mean, I think most of us would be furious if our neighbor... Oh, sorry. Most of us would be opposed if their neighbor turned his lawn at 9 p.m. or 9.30 p.m. I mean, no one wants to hear that. Of course. When we start to relax, don't we? So for me, a company that works at 70 or 75 dB, no matter what's on your graph, can go up to 22 hours, that's where I think we need to try to harmonize the noise.

I don't disagree. And many of these periods come from the existing ordinance. But isn't that the reason why we're here? But I understand what you're saying, namely that for some of these things, yes, yes, a standard period where we think that these things should happen or, you know, when they should stop. I understand.

I suppose it's an element that you... So, as an advice, I think we must examine which window we want. My recommendation is to make it consistent for all noise production. Because personally, I don't see a difference. I don't see a difference. I mean, of course, you know, being... You know, having been in the business world all my career, but also going home at the end of the day, you know, it's a good thing. As I said, I think of my days at DT. You know, it was a very good company. And I worked with a lot of municipalities in the whole state. And DT's philosophy was always to work with the municipality. And as I told you, I was more restrictive when I was building, you know, gas turbines that are very noisy and high frequency.

And then I had my... You know, combustion turbines. And I mean, I... We always work with our communities and we generally invent them around 8 p.m. And... So yes, you know, for me, it's really...

This would be the section where, you know, for some noises, we can be a little more restrictive about their operating hours. And so, in this regard, I think that this completes the limits of noise, because you know that whether or not you have these noisy events prohibited as listed, everything must always respect the limits of noise. But this allows some activities to only take place for a few hours.

I had another question about the measure. I'm not an expert, but I'm asking. What about it? So what about, for example, seasonal measures? Because I think you've already mentioned it, but I've also done a lot of research and you know, like data centers, it's generally the cooling equipment that is the loudest, isn't it? So typically, it would be the cooling season compared to the winter season. How do we define this here to make sure that a developer is not a scapegoat You know, for them to do their acoustic studies in the most... Or, how would you say, the most strict, where I try to find the... Good word, but you see where I'm coming from. Like the worst possible scenario...

Which would generate the most noise.

Because for me, it's this peak that you're trying to... So, when we work with companies on acoustic studies for the EDS according to the ordinance, We always choose the worst scenario. And the reason is that, on the one hand, they invest a lot of money in the installation and they want to conform to their orders, because if they don't, it's bad for their business. In particular, the data centers. You know, as long as they have good solid rules to follow, they will follow them. And they will model, if we talk about noise, they will model the noise as a worst scenario. In the summer, 100% load, you know. Turgem, you know. So I don't think you should worry about that. Now, if they have to measure the ambient sound levels, Honestly, you would want them to measure at the end of autumn or at the beginning of spring, because that's where things tend to be the calmest. The measurements of the ambient sound levels they perform before the construction of the installation are just a point of data, you know, so that we know what it was before and then there will be something different and we want to know the relative impact. Very well. We then move on to a list of exemptions according to section 3451. And it's, I think, direct and intuitive. Emergency vehicle, governmental activity, public event and assembly approved. Warning device and security signals. We have to ensure our safety and noisy things help us sometimes. And then we have a section on vibrations. So the vibrations are in substance similar to the ordinance on the noise, namely that no one must conduct, cause or allow an activity or an operation generating vibrations in a residential area or sensitive to noise exceeding the applicable multiplier factor defined in subsection B. And this is a slightly different structure of certain ordinances which cite a specific level of vibration whether by acceleration or movement or any other reference, to a norm. Because honestly, if you have a vibration problem, you will hire someone to measure it and then someone will examine the norm. And he should be familiar with the norm if he has to make the measurement. And in substance, this allows a slightly higher level during the day and a lower level at night. So it's one of those things that will probably never be used. Honestly, it is very, very rare that we try to apply an order on vibrations. During my career, I did it. My career lasts, I don't know, 26. Now, I did it twice. One was last year. But before that, it was probably 15 years ago. So, you know, it can happen, but it's one of these elements that happens very, very rarely. So that's it, just in case, however. So, that's more or less where I'm going to leave the order on noise. You know, if you have any additional questions, I'll answer them. But then, the rest of my document starts to address what I recommended for the zoning order, and I think that Gilles is going to deal with that.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to you. Le sujet des animaux a été soulevé précédemment.

Est-ce similaire à l'infrason ? S'il n'y a pas, s'il n'y a pas de raisons scientifiques connues expliquant pourquoi ce is dangerous for something, you cannot register it. You can register it in an ordinance, but you will never be able to. As our lawyer said, you cannot. This will not hold in front of the court because there is nothing to...

There are certain elements concerning infrasounds that are understood. And what is not precisely understood is what infrasound limit should be used for protection.

And I had never heard that before sitting here. What I was thinking about, however, was the animals. But if, well, I don't have pets, so it doesn't concern me. But if an animal, the animal of a neighbor, starts making a lot of noise, it is covered by other parts of our ordinance.

We have noise limits that should deal with most of it. But honestly, they are focused on people, not on people, not on animals.

Of course. Very good. And even the noise of animals on people.

You have to control your animals. So here's where I want to come from, and I don't wait, I don't want you to answer. This is not your agreement.

You're not hired to do that, but my little son works in zoos, and there are zoos whose adjacent property is proposed for data centers. But he is not involved in the precise stop of this or whatever.

But for them to have something, it will take a kind of study, something that will show its impact on animals more than a simple article in a zoo magazine.

I leave you with this concerning animals. And animals and people are similar in many ways. One of the similarities is that when we, as humans or animals, are exposed to sound levels during an extended period. You know, as long as the sound levels are not too high, they are not too annoying. You know, there is nothing specific about this subject that, you know, is annoying. People end up getting used to these noises over time. Someone who lives near a highway will get used to it. I lived about 30 meters from a railway track at one point in my life. And it's incredible. Those who get used to it, when these trains pass at 2 a.m. during the first two months, you wake up. But afterwards, your body recognizes the source of the noise for what it is, and it is not a threat. So it doesn't bother you anymore. That being said, you know, noise is very subjective and some people hear a noise, don't like it and decide mentally that the noise is bad. No matter the level of sound, it's bad and it will always bother them. It is therefore the subjective nature of the noise and the order is intended to address more an objective limit on which we can carry based judgments as to what is allowed and what is not.

The only last thing, and I'm not trying to take a lot of time. For the report, I think that as a group, we must address certain questions concerning infrasounds, because research is underway.

It's at an embryonic stage, of course, but our technology has progressed so much in the last ten years that these studies only start. All this being very recent, given the increased robustness of our infrastructure.

There will be continuous research and new developments over time, and I want to make sure that we are proactive as a group.

The other point, it is not only animals but also insects. Obviously, we have a lot of agricultural areas around us. I know that the frequency is limited to 10.00 Hz here. I know I've already tested my hearing. I can't hear until 18.02. I can't hear until 15.01. But I guarantee you that 15.01 Hz is atrocious. If you hear them, it's atrocious. For insects, it could affect their reproduction cycle or vegetation. These are things that can impact us beyond only humans. And I just want to make sure that we keep that in mind and that we are proactive in the way it will affect us in the future.

So this is not really a remark for you, M. Brown, but for us as a group, to ensure that these elements are encoded and documented. Thank you. I just want to make a comment. If it affects mosquitoes and flies, I don't care.

And I agree with you, M. James. But I think we should also remember that this is an evolutionary document and that we have the opportunity to make changes to it at any time. Thus, when these technologies become more relevant, we will have the time and opportunity to make these changes in order to take into account the lower frequency range that concerns us all.

Have you worked on the relationship between sound and the ecosystem in any way?

Yes, we're talking about animals, birds, insects, you know, migration. Have you worked on something that could impact an ecosystem?

An ecosystem. Yes, you know, once again, you have migration, you have birds coming and migrating. I would say yes, in a limited measure. And the measure is that The Department of Natural Resources imposes noise limits for oil and gas drilling, which, you know, could be authorized on the land of Oman. And the goal of these limits is to protect animals. That being said, the sound level limits are quite high near the pump. But you know, as we move away from the pump, the sound levels decrease. So a limited experience, yes, but not much. No, not really. Yes. And very honestly, I think that most of the sounds that protect humans also protect animals.

Thank you. I suppose this is addressed to Joe.

So, as I said, we have included some of Em Brown's comments. We had a few emails about their version and ours. And I think there are a few points that we can update in this one regarding the noise, but the idea is that it is complementary. So we're going to review this and then we'll be able to examine the whole thing. And really just note that the text highlighted in yellow corresponds to the additions made since the last time you saw this. So you'll see these definitions. We'll start there. And note that on page 2, we talked about the use of earths sensitive to noise the last time. We have therefore added a definition that explains a little why we are concerned about sensitive use of noise and we have indicated which ones it was. This differs, I think, from the initial definition of M-Brown or I even think that you have it in the current version or was it in the old M-Brown? I feel like I'm coming from them. Okay. I think that in your previous mess, it stopped at the public parks and it seemed that a park as an air of aquatic games, these things are very noisy. So we may not want it to be considered as a use of land sensitive to noise. We have therefore specified that public parks, similar outdoor areas are mainly intended for passive use. So rather like a nature center and areas where we expect it to be calm. That's why we're going there. So it was just to clarify this point a little bit. The rest should be quite consistent with the last fog. By going through the next pages, you will see that each time that the zoning ordinance currently has a norm on The noise, or at a certain decibel level, we delete it. And let's just say that it must be in accordance with section 5.38. This will help us to remain consistent. So we have this. I noted that there is a specific limitation in district M1 concerning equipment and machines. This is section 3.V 1.4. which stipulates that machines such as automatic towers, printed presses, punctured presses, etc. must be removed from residential areas. We do not propose to modify it as it is. It will always have to be conformed to it, but it is a specific norm that I found useful to keep. We can continue. This same norm is repeated in District M2, so 0.3 VoIP. There is also one in the wind energy conversion system, where we have added that requests for new wind energy conversion systems must provide a sound impact study in accordance with section 6.9. We therefore report this specifically. Then we address our high-intensity residential uses and all the standards. Well, we have brought some modifications. The firefighters noted that we had two redundant sections. We have removed one. The number 5 was largely identical. And we have also added to the recommendations that if a specific equipment is required, the applicant must provide this equipment specialized for these costs. And then, on the part of public works, we have received feedback on section F, the use and rejection of water.

One thing that I have added, for which I have not received confirmation, is the last line of number 2.

The facilities must obtain an industrial pre-treatment program permit via legal and meet the requirements of the Great Lakes Water Authority. I think they must do it anyway. But this allows us to clarify what is required for everyone. This is not really an addition, but I wanted to confirm with the public works that it was a reasonable thing to add. We will therefore confirm this. Not much else, since we came to a few small corrections that we have made. Small pieces that we have corrected. I hope we have corrected most of them. And then we'll talk about the noise. We are now on page 14. And we had an internal conversation about the painting and I took the bad one. This one concerns the instant sound limits. This is the painting that is actually in section 34. It should be in this case, as Embran advised me, measures on an interval of one hour. We will therefore replace this. Can you replace it with table 5.3a plus one hour of Embran?

It's this one.

Help me remember which one we talked about because we had...

I think it was in the previous one, it's in the previous project.

The first project was a...

When we discussed it as a group, we decided that to help the order be implemented more easily, we would deal with the limits of instant sound levels.

And then, for the development of new companies, they would have an additional limit to be respected. And that would be essentially the average level of sound over an hour. And the goal is to help limit the sources of continuous noise that could come from a data center. So that, that, that, that. It has to work in tandem. We would always have to conform to both.

And then concerning the measure, it was a little consolidated compared to the previous project. It's slightly different and we're just going to review them to make sure they're consistent with the way you formulated them in the general code section.

And then I, well, that's what I wanted.

So enlighten me a minute because I know you mentioned it at the beginning and I know it was just, okay.

There is this ordinance project that, yes, you read.

Then there is the M. Brown document. What is it? This second document that I looked at. The amendments to the General Code. So, according to us, it is integrated into your ordinance.

So, the points that section 34.4 mentioned earlier. Whatever it is, it is part of the General Code. So, this ordinance will go to the municipal council and they will adopt it. Then there are the sections we are talking about now. The version you have seen, it is not really included in the details. There were the sections 5, article 5, section 5.38 and the evaluation of the sound impact. What do we include in the zoning ordinance? So they should be very similar. Well, they are, but there are some small points that we are going to resolve. But yes, so the idea is that

It's just that I look at the measurements, for example, you have 4.5 feet to 5.5 feet to 5.5 feet. There, I think 4 to 6, I just see a little bit.

It was, yes, because it came from his previous mess.

And so, as I said, they are a little crossed. They were, he made updates on his and then we made updates and... So... Everything will be, everything will match when the intention is that it matches.

That's what I wanted.

And I apologize again for the confusion on this subject.

Are we going to continue to examine them? We will also remove, I think, the section on vibrations. because it will simply refer to the section that you also include in the general code. Very well.

And then... At the bottom of page 18, you will see that number 2 is highlighted. It was highlighted because it was also supposed to be blocked because it is a measure that is not in accordance with the other elements that we were already talking about. So these existing standards that should be removed. So I highlighted it as if I intended to do it. and then we will discuss the evaluation of the sound impact. Once again, this came from the previous mbran noise that you saw, trying to provide clear standards on how someone would follow the process. And I think that's what I hope we can focus on. At the same time, especially the section on applicability and to whom we are going to ask to do this in this mess. It's really, it's quite simple. It simply says that if you ask for a special use permit, a plan unit arrangement or a implicating zoning, a proposed land use identified as a potentially important source of noise, including but without limitation, and we have a list. So you should do it. All development of less than 500 feet of residential property or sensitive to noise use. And then everything that the urban planning commission determines according to the nature of the use and its proximity with existing or future sensitive receivers. And we could delete this line. An evaluation of the sound impact is justified. It is therefore about trying to reach our high-intensity industrial uses and to add a few additional elements. So I think we went there, and I think you also said that we went there in such a conservative way that it is possible, perhaps to begin with, Then, I think it's worth discussing if we are too restrictive and if we impact existing companies, because this concerns the sound impact, so this would apply to future users or to user extensions. So, thinking about the fact that we risk finding ourselves in a situation where we demand it a lot and where it is considered by developers as too restrictive, Sorry, I'll continue. I'm trying to establish a visual contact with everyone up there. So it's up to you all to discuss it.

Are you ready Joe? Does anyone have any questions? I don't necessarily have a question, but just one thing to highlight. I was looking at page 15, the section on smells, and I find it really interesting. So if I may, any condition or operation leading to the creation of an intensity and a character such as it harms the health and well-being of the public or interferes in an unreasonable way with the comfort of the public must be removed, stopped or modified in order to eliminate the smell. Such a smell will be prohibited when it is perceptible at all points along the limit of ownership or beyond the limit of ownership if a place where people live, work or gather is impacted. The fact that the odor emission interferes or not with the use and the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of a property must be measured according to the objective standards of a reasonable person of normal sensitivity. For me, it's a highly nebulous language and open to a lot of interpretations. And I think of... various press articles and things that I read on other very sophisticated installations. And up to this point, I have never even pronounced the word data center. No matter the installation, if it's something that we can determine how impacting people are. So, to reach the point of Richard, I think it is important to be able to have the means to examine this, because at the moment, I'm just wondering how this language would hold up in front of a court, because it's very subjective, a reasonable person of normal sensitivity, and even in this, you know, case. After that, he mentions the use of a field olfactory. So, Of course, you use an objective measure, but we can take objective measures with other things as well, including infrasounds or hypersonic frequencies. So I just wanted to note that, because it's more subjective than anything else we're discussing. You're absolutely right about that, and it's just so you don't think your lawyer is sleeping at work. C'est vraiment la première analyse approfondie que vous faites de cette ordonnance et nous avons eu quelques appels Zoom avant cette réunion. I have some concerns about other provisions that could be of dubious applicability. But rather than starting to point fingers at them at the first reading, I will examine the text, because I am sure that the Commission, tonight or at the next meeting, will study it and you will modify it and rework this project to give it an almost definitive form. And some of my concerns could be eliminated. So when we have a fairly final version, I will give my opinion on a few points. But I agree with you to say that this is a very good project, very in-depth, both for the noise ordinance and for the zoning ordinance amendment. But there will be legal questions whose executive character is not yet determined. Il y a des éléments ici concernant cette étude d'impact sonore. Il y a des choses ici concernant le déclassement dont nous avons parlé. Serait-elle validée ? Peut-être. Mais nous pourrons en discuter à mesure que nous avancerons. Mais je reconnais que votre point est tout à fait pertinent. Merci, Monsieur Sivert. Ce n'était pas censé être critique ou méchant de quelque manière que ce soit. Deux fois. I just wanted to let you know that there are concerns here concerning certain legal problems and we do not want to do all this work, approve an order, see the first company arrive, then be attacked and see all this contested. We will make sure that when we are done, it will be correct. You will carry out all the work on the issues of planning and at the end, if there are legal concerns, I will make you part of it and we will discuss it.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think there is a question.

Jill, just a little question, if you'll allow me. On point 4.59b, you're talking about the distance between noisy facilities and residential properties. You're talking about 500 feet. Where are you coming from, those 500 feet? That was a first.

Are you?

Let's see, you are in section B, did you say?

Page 8. I think it was a fairly standard 500-foot step back, but it's certainly something you can discuss to increase or reduce it. I really think that, and I think we have already talked about it, we are trying to update all the standards for all these types of use, anticipating the moment when we think about these specific data centers today. We think we know the impacts, but are there other industrial uses that could also appear and have very similar impacts and shouldn't we treat them in the same way? So I think it is useful if we do this, and this also relates to something else that we have this margin of retreat, while allowing the Commission of Urbanism to grant a reduction if certain standards are respected. It was therefore 100 feet. But the margin of 500 feet, I think it is a reasonable and standard margin that is not too restrictive or too restrictive.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Jonathan, would you like to take care of the next point?

Did you mention earlier...

Not the next point. No, I have a few points that I want to discuss at the end of the meeting. I wanted to address a few subjects concerning what we have just talked about. Many points have already been mentioned at different times. But for the Urbanism Commission to understand that the order on noise and what we call the order on data centers are different, the order on noise as a regulatory order follows a different process. You know, the Commission of Urbanism is working on its editorial work at the moment, but it must be submitted to the Council. This goes twice in front of the Council for a first reading, then for publication and adoption, while the zoning ordinance requires a public hearing with the Commission of Urbanism, then an adoption. There are therefore some differences, which constitute a large part of the discussion tonight. One of them being that with the regulatory ordinance, there is no right clause. As science progresses or problems arise, as Rick said, this ordinance can be modified and corrected and we can solve the problems that may arise. Moreover, we do not want to propose something that would harm existing companies. We have a new norm that would put half of our industrial sector in infraction. There are therefore two or three points on which we must be careful. And then, on the other hand, if the zoning regulation contains a provision related to noise, we could say that it could pose a problem. We have existing companies that do not pose any problem.

I will come back in a moment, if you allow me, on the 500 feet, 150 meters, to note that the sections that I was talking about earlier and that we have not modified in the M1 and M2 areas concern both the embouchure equipment and others. The retreat distance is also 500 feet. It is therefore used in several different cases, such as for entertainment devices or leisure centers, which must also be 500 feet high. It is therefore a provision that already appears in the ordinance, but this does not mean that it cannot be modified, if we have a good reason to do so.

If I asked this question, it is because we have often talked about a property located on the 25 Mine Road. The property surrounds someone's house. They won't get 500 pounds. Thank you.

All right. Point B, common vision of the director's plan for 2026. Who will take care of it? Oh, all right. Thank you.

So we have provided a little summary of the common vision meeting in your service note or in your files. Nous n'avons pas l'intention de l'examiner en profondeur aujourd'hui. Nous voulions simplement vous le transmettre pour que vous puissiez le consulter. Nous avons l'intention d'en discuter lors d'une prochaine réunion et de couvrir les sections intitulées prochaines étapes. Nous irons donc plus en détail, mais si vous avez des questions à ce sujet aujourd'hui, nous pouvons certainement y répondre.

I will also do a follow-up on this subject. Two or three things that are related. We have been informed by the MCOM canton that they are also updating their director plan. They do not have any projects available yet. But they said that they would keep us up to date as planned and would give us the opportunity to make comments. I would therefore hold the urbanism commission informed on the subject. Then, during the last meeting of the Council, it adopted a resolution for us to officially engage with the MEDC and for the certification Redevelopment Ready Community Agree. We will therefore follow this process and the Urbanism Commission will be requested on certain aspects. This means that we will work with the MEDC to obtain this certification by following the best practices that cover everything from the development process to the way in which the information is displayed on your website, to the nomination of members of the Council and Commission. There will therefore be work to be done both at the level of the personnel and at the level of the Urbanism Commission. We will certainly work with the JFLCM team this BR and we will keep you informed as the process progresses.

I would like to quickly add that we have been working on these best practices with the MDC since 2013 as part of their RRC program. We fully support it. It is quite logical for the communities to follow this path. If we look at these best practices, the first concerns the director's plan. Then, points 2 and 3 relate to the zoning ordinance, the examination of projects, public participation, marketing, as well as training for you, for the staff and for all decision-makers. C'est un processus fluide et cohérent. Je trouve donc cela excellent. Nous ferons ce qu'il faut pour garantir que les projets sur lesquels nous travaillons comme le plan directeur et vos ordonnances de zonage soient parfaitement alignées. Nous pouvons déjà cocher la case concernant le fait d'avoir une ordonnance de zonage claire.

C'est donc une bonne chose.

Thank you. Well, it was a good meeting. There was a lot of interesting information. It's a bit dense, but it was very good information. Are there any other comments from the members of the Urbanism Commission? Cathy, Eric, Alton?

Just one question, because I was the only one who commented on this topic in the council.

Who was asking if we were defining growth objectives for the municipality?

Because for me, these are quite important elements to determine the rest of the objectives that we are going to have, you know, in terms of income generation and so on, concerning the socio-economic status. and the demography of the growth objectives that we consider for the municipality, which can influence everything else that we are trying to accomplish in the municipality. Have you, you and your team, discussed or elaborated some of these objectives?

The Urbanism Commission has elaborated the objectives as part of the last director plan and part of our work for this new plan will be to examine these, to update them, to refine them, to add or remove them if necessary.

Thank you. Thank you, Rich.

J'aimerais voir une version propre de la proposition d'ordonnance. À la prochaine fois, s'il vous plaît.

Et je veux juste dire, Brian, je pense que vous aviez raison. Nous devons être cohérents sur ce qu'est le jour et ce qu'est la nuit. Et je proposerais de 7h00 à 22h00 pour le jour. Et de 22h00 pour la nuit. Je pense que... I think that's all for now. I think we have to move forward on this issue. Move forward so that we can, you know, get a clean version, overcome the challenges we are facing to present this to the Council. And I understand, and I also have concerns about infrasounds too. But if we don't have precise means to describe them, precise means to measure them, we should put that aside and continue to move forward. That's what I feel and that's all for me. Thank you.

Is this part of the package of nine bill projects? I think I understand that all these bill projects are in the process of revision and refinement following the important comments coming from people across the state. So I have no update on anything new that will be proposed, but I know that they are all in the process of work.

So what is your feeling? What do you think this is going towards?

I think that from a practical point of view, it is very difficult to apply some of these proposed changes. I think that some communities will really have a hard time, especially those who do not have the capacity to modify their municipal arrests. That said, many communities have already done a lot of these things. So I think the challenge is at a global level. And housing. I think that more communities must act and take up the challenges of housing on their territory. This does not mean that each community must provide all housing for everyone in the region, but that we think more about the way we respond to the needs of people in our community. Is there a part of this that could potentially be beneficial? But I think a large part depends on its practical application. Rainwater is also a major problem and I know that it is a great concern when we talk about reducing the size of the land and allowing households to occupy all the space, especially in communities where we already have a lot of aging infrastructure. I think there is a lot of work to be done, but I think it is good to have this conversation, to launch ideas and to let people debate and deepen them. So does it help?

Yes, it helps. And that's where I thought we were, or that we are. But the direction they are taking is that of a unique rule for everyone.

No matter where you live, in which canton, in which city, everything is the same for everyone, whoever you are. Whereas for us here in Chesterfield, we are in a more urban context. And that's what's hard for me, to think that they can regulate the distance of retreat in a more rural area so that it is identical to that of a

more densely populated areas.

They actually take into account public water and sanitation services as well as infrastructure and this should be linked more closely to these elements. So it would not be identical. But I think you raise a good point and I also think that the canton of Chesterfield has done a very good job. We have had a lot of projects here over the last two years that have been really unique with different I think you have had a good mix of large properties and small projects of densification. I think the municipality is doing good work at this level.

Thank you, and I have nothing to add to this subject, but I just wanted to inform the council that I will not preside over the next meeting. Marc Renaud will take care of it. I will be in the Quad Cities in Moline in Illinois for my son's wedding. I really can't wait to be there. I will be absent for two weeks and I will be back after that. On this, I propose to start the session at 8h28. I have a proposal from Carl, supported by... I know. By Cathy. To all those who are for... Against. The motion is adopted.