Council approves the 24-unit Church Street project, over one councillor’s objection

PPCMOI 2026-041 carried on August 3. Before the first question period, the mayor told residents council had obtained a legal opinion and that no valid referendum demand had come from zone R-7 — the only zone, he said, that the law counts. The councillor for seat 4 voted against, the sitting’s only dissent.

Mayor’s opening remarks

Recording 00:02:00The mayor opened with municipal business: infrastructure work under way, a search for grant funding, applications filed federally, and preparation of provincial applications under the PRIMO programme, which he said reopens August 31 and is directed largely at water infrastructure. He acknowledged that the works can be disruptive and described them as necessary to the safety, reliability and durability of the network.

What the mayor said about the Church Street file

Recording 00:08:33Rather than address the file when item 9.3 was called, the mayor spoke to it immediately after his opening remarks and before the first question period, saying he wished to respond on behalf of council and clarify the matter. He said the municipality had received a demand to restart the referendum process following the rejection of a petition the municipal administration had judged non-conforming, that council held a preparatory meeting shortly before the sitting, and that it had obtained a legal opinion covering the admissibility of the demands filed, the legal obligations attaching to the referendum process, and the validity of the public notice and posting procedure.

Recording 00:09:52He said the analysis had found irregularities in what was filed — and then set them aside:

« Il ressort que certaines irrégularités ont été relevées dans les documents qui ont été déposés pour le processus référendaire. Toutefois, ces irrégularités ne constituent pas l’élément déterminant dans une décision de ne pas tenir de référendum. »
“It emerges that certain irregularities were identified in the documents filed for the referendum process. However, those irregularities are not the determining element in a decision not to hold a referendum.”Mayor Philippe Besombes, recording 00:09:52

Recording 00:10:11The determining element, he said, was the statutory framework — and he stated the rule he was applying:

« Lorsqu’une demande de PPCMOI vise à modifier des normes de construction ou des usages dans une zone précise, ici, c’est la zone R-7, un référendum ne peut être déclenché que si une demande valide provient de la zone directement visée par le projet. »
“When a PPCMOI application seeks to modify construction standards or uses in a specific zone — here it is zone R-7 — a referendum can be triggered only if a valid demand comes from the zone directly targeted by the project.”Recording 00:10:16

Recording 00:10:38He then applied it to this file:

« Or, aucune demande n’a été déposée par des personnes habiles à voter dans cette zone, que ce soit par le biais de la pétition ou directement ici, à l’hôtel de ville. Les conditions prévues par la loi pour aller à un référendum ne sont donc pas réunies. »
“Now, no demand was filed by persons qualified to vote in that zone, whether through the petition or directly here, at the town hall. The conditions provided by law for going to a referendum are therefore not met.”Recording 00:10:38

Recording 00:10:54He was explicit that signatures from the surrounding zones could not substitute:

« Les zones qui sont autour de la zone visée directement peuvent signer, puis peuvent participer au processus. Mais il faut absolument que dans la zone concernée, il y ait une demande. S’il n’y en a pas, le processus référendaire ne peut pas se faire. Ça, ça a été vérifié par l’avis légal, ce que je vous dis là. »
“The zones around the directly targeted zone can sign, and can take part in the process. But there absolutely must be a demand in the zone concerned. If there is none, the referendum process cannot take place. That — what I am telling you here — was verified by the legal opinion.”Recording 00:10:54

Recording 00:11:21On the request to restart the process, he said the verifications confirmed the public notice and posting procedure had been carried out in accordance with legal requirements and that no irregularity capable of invalidating the process had been identified. He concluded: « Le Conseil municipal est tenu d’appliquer la loi telle qu’elle est. Dans les circonstances, il n’existe pas de base légale permettant de recommencer le processus. » — “Council is bound to apply the law as it is. In the circumstances, there is no legal basis permitting the process to be restarted.”

What the public notice says

Official documentThe municipality’s public notice of July 8, 2026 — the document that opened the referendum window and set its rules — states under the heading Zones d’où peut provenir une demande that a valid demand may come from « la zone concernée R-7 ainsi que des zones qui lui sont contiguës soit le R-6 et le R-8 ». The three zones are listed together, without distinction between them.

Official documentThe notice’s Conditions de validité require a demand to identify the provision it targets and the zone it comes from, and to carry the signatures of at least 12 interested persons of the zone from which it comes — or of a majority of them where that zone holds no more than 21 interested persons. The notice states no requirement that one of the demands originate in zone R-7.

Recording 00:10:11From the chair on August 3, the mayor described a narrower rule: that a referendum can be triggered only where a valid demand comes from the zone directly targeted; that the surrounding zones may sign and take part, but there must be a demand from the zone concerned; and that without one, the referendum process cannot proceed. He said this had been verified by the legal opinion.

Where the rule is written

Official documentThe referendum procedure is governed by articles 128 to 137 of the Loi sur l’aménagement et l’urbanisme (LAU). The ministry responsible for municipal affairs publishes a plain-language guide to those provisions, La prise de décision en urbanisme, which summarizes the most common case — a provision adopted under a power to regulate “by zone” — this way:

« Une demande peut provenir de la zone visée ainsi que de toute zone contiguë à celle-ci. […] Lorsqu’au moins une demande valide est déposée, la disposition est soumise à l’approbation des personnes habiles à voter de la zone visée ainsi que de toute zone contiguë d’où provient une demande. »
“A demand may come from the targeted zone as well as from any zone contiguous to it. […] Where at least one valid demand is filed, the provision is submitted to the approval of the persons qualified to vote of the targeted zone as well as of any contiguous zone from which a demand comes.”Ministère des Affaires municipales, La prise de décision en urbanisme — processus d’approbation référendaire

That summary states the general case. But article 130 does not set out one rule for every file: it addresses different kinds of provision in separate paragraphs. A PPCMOI that changes the uses and construction standards authorized in a particular zone — which is what resolution 2026-041 does in R-7, with its six departures from zoning by-law 148-2023 — is addressed by the paragraph the guide’s summary does not quote, the one on a provision that changes the classification of constructions or uses so that those authorized in a zone are no longer the same:

« La demande relative à une disposition qui modifie la classification des constructions ou des usages de telle façon que ceux autorisés dans une zone ne sont plus les mêmes peut provenir de cette zone et de toute zone contiguë à celle-ci, et vise à ce que le règlement soit soumis à l’approbation des personnes habiles à voter de la zone où les constructions ou les usages autorisés ne sont plus les mêmes et d’où provient une demande, ainsi que de celles de toute zone contiguë d’où provient une demande, à la condition qu’une demande provienne de la zone à laquelle elle est contiguë. »
“A demand relating to a provision that changes the classification of constructions or uses so that those authorized in a zone are no longer the same may come from that zone and from any zone contiguous to it, and submits the by-law to the approval of the qualified voters of the zone where the authorized constructions or uses are no longer the same and from which a demand comes, as well as of any contiguous zone from which a demand comes, on condition that a demand comes from the zone to which it is contiguous.”Loi sur l’aménagement et l’urbanisme, RLRQ c. A-19.1, art. 130 (4^e alinéa)

Under that paragraph, the origin of the demand is not only a question of who votes. The contiguous zones — here R-6 and R-8 — count “on condition that a demand comes from” the zone they surround, R-7. Absent a demand from R-7, valid demands from R-6 or R-8 do not, on their own, carry the resolution to a register. That is the condition the mayor described, and it is set out in the statute the process runs on. It is consistent with how PPCMOI notices are written elsewhere in Québec, which anchor the vote to the zone where the immovable sits and add each contiguous zone only where a valid demand comes from it.

Two things the earlier sources did not show are worth stating plainly. The ministry’s plain-language page quotes the general “by zone” case and does not carry this origin condition; the municipality’s July 8 notice reproduced the validity conditions of article 133 — the 12 signatures, or a majority in a zone of 21 or fewer — without spelling out the origin rule of article 130. Neither is the operative text, and both would have been clearer for saying so.

The Observer is not a court and does not purport to settle how article 130 applies to this file. Which paragraph governs a PPCMOI can be argued, the condition turns on the facts of the filing, and the legal opinion council relied on has not been made public. What has changed since this file was first reported is narrower and factual: the condition the mayor invoked is not absent from the law. It appears in the fourth paragraph of article 130 of the LAU — a provision that neither the ministry’s summary page nor the municipal notice sets out.

First question period

Recording 00:18:00The Church Street project. The organizer of the petition read a prepared statement to council covering how the July 2 public consultation had been announced, asking for email or text alerts and an online monthly municipal calendar so that residents could find such meetings, and saying that the only consideration evident in the municipality’s communications appeared to be legality rather than whether residents actually receive them. The statement said new housing should be built but not at this scale, that existing zoning should be respected, and asked why projects offering future residents the possibility of owning were not favoured. It asked whether council would discard the 35 signatures gathered, and asked council to authorize a reset of the proposal.

Recording 00:25:39Its closing question was put directly: « Le conseil municipal va-t-il vraiment jeter aux poubelles les 35 voix des résidents à Ormstown, vos électeurs? » — “Is council really going to throw in the bin the 35 voices of Ormstown residents, your electors?” The statement added that there might be consequences, and asked council to authorize a reset.

Recording 00:26:08The mayor asked for the question to be summarized, then replied that he had already largely answered in his preamble and that council members had been elected to advance the municipality. He objected to the word “consequences”:

« Je n’ai pas l’habitude de fonctionner en menace. Donc quand on me dit qu’il y aura des conséquences, je m’excuse mais j’ai un peu du mal à le prendre. »
“I am not in the habit of operating under threat. So when I am told there will be consequences, I am sorry, but I have some difficulty accepting that.”Recording 00:26:41

Recording 00:26:49When the speaker began to clarify, the mayor said: « vous n’avez pas la parole, c’est moi qui parle » — “you do not have the floor, I am the one speaking.” The clarification came a few moments later: what was meant was that residents may feel betrayed when a clearly expressed view is not taken into account. The mayor accepted it — « OK, je préfère ça. Merci de la précision » — “OK, I prefer that. Thank you for the clarification.”

Recording 00:27:00On the substance he said one may agree or disagree with the development, but that council is an elected and legal body obliged to respect the law: « On a un pouvoir discrétionnaire, mais qui n’est pas sans limites. C’est pour ça qu’on a demandé un avis légal, parce qu’on voulait savoir jusqu’où on peut aller, ce qu’on peut faire. » — “We have a discretionary power, but one that is not without limits. That is why we asked for a legal opinion, because we wanted to know how far we can go, what we can do.”

Recording 00:27:37How many people could have signed in zone R-7. The speaker asked, to clarify the process, whether there was only a single person in R-7 who could have signed. The mayor answered: « C’est pas une seule, c’est trois. » — “It is not one, it is three.” He continued:

« Puis il y a des précédents, il y a d’ailleurs une jurisprudence là-dessus. Puis la jurisprudence, c’était une personne. Puis la municipalité a perdu. »
“And there are precedents, there is in fact jurisprudence on this. And in the jurisprudence, it was one person. And the municipality lost.”Recording 00:27:47

He named no case, no court and no year, and no document was tabled. He added that council is there for the good of the whole community and cannot commit itself to courses of action that will bring it trouble, closing: « La démocratie, c’est respecter les règles aussi. Donc, c’est malheureux que ce soit comme ça, mais les règles sont là. » — “Democracy is also about respecting the rules. So it is unfortunate that it is this way, but the rules are there.”

Recording 00:12:21The bypass route and emergency access. A resident asked whether fire trucks would be able to use the detour route, particularly at the intersection of rue Prince-Albert, describing difficulty turning a smaller vehicle there that afternoon.

Recording 00:28:57Cyclist signage. A resident offered a suggestion rather than a question: the cyclists’ rest stop built at the end of rue Lambton, with water, toilets and a bicycle repair station, has no signage directing passing cyclists to it.

Recording 00:30:09Park-and-ride distance. A resident said the substitute parking provided during the works is beside the provincial police station and questioned the walking distance for an older resident. The mayor said the sector’s cul-de-sac configuration created the difficulty and that this was the closest option found; the director general said the choice had been made on geography, that the work would proceed in phases, and that he would review it with the engineer for other options.

Administration, Finance & Personnel

Recording 00:45:594.1 — Accounts payable: carried. Council approved the list of accounts payable as at August 3, 2026.

Recording 00:46:394.2 — Temporary credit line, borrowing by-law 172-2026: carried. Council authorized a temporary loan against borrowing by-law 172-2026.

Recording 00:48:084.3 — Temporary credit line, borrowing by-law 173-2026: carried. Council authorized a temporary credit line described at the sitting as $4.8 million.

Recording 00:48:554.4 — Federal funding application: carried. Council ratified applications for financial assistance and a declaration of interest under the Fund to Build Strong Communities, filed July 16.

Recording 00:52:204.5 — Hiring of a clerk and director of legal affairs: carried. The post has been vacant since May 7, 2026. Council approved the hire on the terms of the employment contract. The mayor gave the start date as September 8, 2026; the director general corrected it on the microphone to September 9. The Observer is not publishing the appointee’s name until it can be confirmed against a written source — see the note below.

Bylaws

Recording 00:54:425.1 — First draft by-law 149.1-2026 amending subdivision by-law 149-2023: carried. This is the first draft stage only; a public consultation and further adoption steps follow before it takes effect.

Resolutions of support and municipal affairs

Recording 00:56:566.1 — Resolution of support, watercourse maintenance: carried. The resolution recognizes the importance of functional watercourses and points to overgrowth causing problems for farmland. In the second question period the mayor clarified that this is a resolution, not the creation of a committee, and that watercourse maintenance is the MRC’s responsibility.

Recording 00:59:506.2 — Resolution of support, Regulation respecting the language of the Administration: carried. The resolution asks for the restoration of the exception applicable to contracts of $5,000 and less. The mayor described it as a procurement question: businesses without full French-language certification could previously take contracts under that threshold, and the change has made the process heavier. He said a similar resolution had been adopted by the city of Mercier.

AgendaRecording 01:00:576.3 — Modification to the calendar of regular sittings: carried. The published agenda numbers this item 6.3; the mayor called it 6.4 from the chair. The change concerns the September sitting. The Observer is not publishing the new date from the recording alone — see the note below.

Public Works & Technical Services

Recording 01:03:227.1 — Contract award, 3e Rang and chemin de la Rivière-Châteauguay: carried. Awarded following a public tender to the lowest conforming bidder, conditional on receipt of insurance, performance and labour-and-materials bonding certificates, and financed under borrowing by-law 172-2026. Figures are in Approved spending below.

Recording 01:05:537.2 — Authorization to tender, aerated pond emptying: carried. Council authorized municipal administration to prepare tender documents and launch a public call for tenders, with results to come back to council for study and award.

Fire Safety

Agenda8.1 — Monthly report for June 2026: tabled. A deposit of the fire service’s monthly report; no resolution was required.

Urban Planning & Environment

Recording 01:07:579.1 — Permits issued, July 2026: tabled. Twelve authorizations in July: eleven permits and one subdivision application. They included one tree-felling permit, one extension permit valued at $45,000, one construction, one patio/terrace/gallery/parking, four pool-and-spa permits and three renovation permits.

Recording 01:08:579.2 — PPCMOI 2026-039, 33 rue Prince-Albert: carried. The Royal Canadian Legion file. The project regularizes the existing use of the adjacent vacant lot as parking for the Legion, creates public parking to be integrated into a wider network of parks and active transport, and enables an agreement under which the Legion premises become an emergency shelter site under the municipal civil security plan. The CCU recommended in favour. The referendum request period ran July 9–16 and the mayor said no valid demand was filed.

Recording 01:11:399.3 — PPCMOI 2026-041, lot 6 455 729: carried, with one councillor against. The resolution authorizes an integrated residential project of four multifamily buildings of six dwellings each, filed by Yannick P. Michel for Groupe Firma inc., in zone R-7. The mayor read the six departures from zoning by-law 148-2023 into the record: six-dwelling multifamily buildings; three storeys at 13 metres; a 6-metre isolation margin; a 6-metre two-way lane; a vegetated strip narrowing to 1.3 metres; and 27.4 metres between the two site accesses. He recited findings that the application respects the urban plan’s guidelines and orientations 1, 2 and 5, the evaluation criteria of PPCMOI by-law 169-2025 and by-law 114-2021 in force when the project was filed, and that the CCU recommended in favour. He said the referendum request period ran July 9–16 and the municipality received no valid demand. The authorization is conditional on written confirmation and on the works being carried out as presented in the fourth issue of the report submitted April 20, 2026.

Recording 01:16:34Observer, in the roomAfter the resolution was moved and seconded, the mayor asked whether anyone voted against, and the councillor for seat 4, Michel André Émond, was recorded against. The Observer’s editor was present for the sitting and confirms the vote. It was the only vote against any item that evening.

Recording 01:16:539.4 — Minor exemption, 1876 4e Rang: carried. A multifunctional pavilion for an artisanal bakery, filed by the owner February 20, 2026, at 85.29 m² where the by-law allows a maximum of 70 m². Council accepted the CCU’s recommendation subject to conditions: construction plans signed by a professional technologist or architect, electrical plans, and plans and specifications for technical installations including a ventilation system established by an engineer; filing of the make and model of all ventilation systems, hood and oven, with any required silencers; a noise ceiling of 40 dB measured at the lot line nearest the building; multi-stage filtration combining high-efficiency particulate filters and gas-phase chemical media such as activated carbon; and an air outlet on the south wall facing the wooded and agricultural part of the lot.

Communication, Culture & Community Life

Recording 01:19:0410.1 — Service exchange agreement with New Frontiers School Board: carried.

Recording 01:20:4510.2 — Financial assistance, Salon des aînés du Haut-Saint-Laurent: carried. $750, for an event the mayor said takes place September 19 at CVR high school. The mayor called this item 10.4 from the chair; the published agenda numbers it 10.2.

Recording 01:22:1510.3 — Financial assistance, Circuit régional des courses de chevaux du Québec: carried. $500. The mayor called this item 10.5 from the chair; the published agenda numbers it 10.3.

Approved spending

AgendaRecording 00:46:16Accounts payable. Council approved the list of accounts payable as at August 3, 2026 in a total given at the sitting as $533,671.38.

Recording 01:03:343e Rang and chemin de la Rivière-Châteauguay reconstruction. Awarded by public tender. Four bids were opened, ranging from about $1.57 million to about $1.75 million. Council awarded the contract to the lowest conforming bidder at $1,568,399.77 plus applicable taxes, conditional on receipt of insurance and bonding certificates, financed under borrowing by-law 172-2026. The Observer is not printing the bidders’ company names from the recording — see the note below.

Recording 00:47:20Borrowing and credit. Council opened temporary credit lines against two borrowing by-laws: 172-2026, for a figure given at the sitting in the region of $3.78 million, and 173-2026, described as $4.8 million. No interest rate was stated at the session.

Recording 01:21:31Community grants. $750 to the Salon des aînés du Haut-Saint-Laurent and $500 to the Circuit régional des courses de chevaux du Québec.

Who pays. The road contract is financed under borrowing by-law 172-2026. The mayor said applications have been filed for federal funding and that provincial applications are being prepared under the PRIMO programme, which he said reopens August 31. No subsidy share or cap was stated at the sitting.

Second question period

Recording 01:28:30The Toit Vert restaurant. A resident asked whether the project approved at item 9.3 means the Le Toit Vert restaurant will be demolished. The mayor said no — the project is beside it.

Recording 01:28:47Legal services during the new clerk’s probation. The Observer’s editor noted this is the fourth person in the clerk’s post in two years and asked whether the external legal retainer continues during the incoming clerk’s six-month probation. The mayor said the arrangement is a bank of hours voted at an earlier sitting to support the municipality legally while the post was vacant; once the clerk takes up the post as director of legal affairs the municipality stops drawing on it, and an unused bank simply lapses. He said this does not mean the municipality will not retain law firms for other matters, but that there will be no further cost for supporting the clerk’s office.

Recording 01:30:36Deadline for written questions. The Observer’s editor noted that the deadline for submitting written questions by email — noon on the Friday before a sitting — falls at the same time as the agenda’s publication, leaving no window in which to read the agenda and then submit a question about it.

Recording 01:36:11Agenda legibility. A speaker suggested adding a short sentence to each agenda item to situate it for readers who are not already following the file.

Full resolution index

Every item that came to a vote or was formally tabled. Mover and seconder are not reported for routine resolutions; a councillor who votes against is reported by name.

Communications watch

What to watch