LaSalle Demolition Bylaw to be Amended in February

On January 14 at 6:30 p.m., the borough of LaSalle consulted the population about a proposed amendment to its demolition bylaw, LAS-0014.

Proposed changes are designed to allow the urban planning committee to allow land owners to demolish commercial or industrial buildings on residentially-zoned properties without considering a replacement project and even in cases where the current building is structurally sound.

“This will allow us to get rid of visual eyesores, like the old Benjamin News building or the PPO Schevchenko,” said Mayor Manon Barbe, who chaired the consultation.

The demolition bylaw lists all the rules owners must follow to protect architectural, heritage and ecological values to match the vision of the borough as reflected in its urban plan. Regulations preserve protected sectors such as: the Lapierre region; heritage buildings like the Maison Penniston and the Fleishmann building; and scenic benefits, such as riverfront views. The 47-page document before it was revised is at LAS-0014.

The demolition bylaw is one of five Site Planning and Architectural Integration bylaws in the borough of LaSalle. In French, these are called plans d’implantation et d’intégration architecturale or P.I.I.A bylaws and they are designed to govern construction so that it meets the vision outlined in the borough’s urban plan. LaSalle’s other PIIA bylaws are: industrial, Shevchenko, supermarkets and Village des Rapides.

Citizens commented that they would like the Borough to revise the bylaw to ensure that buildings with asbestos or other contaminated elements are carefully decontaminated before they are demolished. Barbe said that provincial regulations require private contractors handling demolitions to do so, but Normand Trottier suggested that the bylaw might be able to ask contractors to provide lists of contaminants to the borough before they receive a demolition permit. The amended bylaw was taken off the agenda for the council meeting later in the evening to enable Borough staff to add the requirement. It will be considered at the February council meeting instead.

Citizens have been asking council to tighten the demolition permit process in the borough at every council meeting since June. They say that the destruction of the single story building at 153 Chatelle Street to make room for a quadraplex is a perfect example of the current system gone wrong.

LaSalle residents of the tiny older residential street three blocks north of the river submitted a petition to council to argue against the demolition before a permit was even requested on the grounds that the single story building fit within an ensemble of homes protected under the PIIA. A month later, a petition in favour of the project was submitted, but residents say they don’t know anyone who signed it. Every question period since June has included at least one question begging council to reject demolition.

Despite their pleas, LaSalle’s council approved the demolition at their regular meeting in November, citing an engineers’ report submitted by the owner that indicated that the foundation was inundated with water. At the same meeting, councillors accepted an $11,110 contribution from the builder to go towards the borough park fund.

More than 53 citizens attended the November meeting, with several making comments against the decision and the entire demolition procedure in the borough.

“I have better things to do than come here and battle for my privacy,” said Sophie Desmarais. “This process wasted my time. I do not feel heard.”

“The way everything is done here is unfair,” said Claire Michaud, another Chatelle resident. “Why didn’t the committee let us express our concerns? If the house was in such bad repair, why did Remax advertise it with such glowing colours? The ad said that the only thing needed was a repair to the garage door. There should be more transparency. Lachine has a demolition committee; we need one too. If we had one, we’d still have another 30 days to appeal this decision.”

After the demolition was approved over their objections, residents discovered that the home had asbestos in it. When a contractor arrived to tear it down anyway, a neighbour called the CSST to complain. The resulting investigation upheld their concerns about environmental damage from asbestos flying into the air.

The building was demolished on January 8^th and 9^th after a specialized company (Boytech) took the asbestos out of the building. Residents noticed then that the foundation was made of poured concrete, even though the engineering report by Nicola Mattia specified that it was concrete blocks.

“Residents in our neighbourhood think that the system is rigged,” said neighbour Claire Michaud during the question period at the council meeting. “We don’t feel listened to.”

“There should be a way to ensure that demolished homes get replaced with projects of similar size,” said Steven Laperrière. “People moving in shouldn’t be able to change the built environment of a community against the wishes of people who already live there.”

Note: A version of this article appeared on p 15 of the City edition of the Suburban on January 16.