Letter to the editor 1, Nov. 15, 2018
I was baffled by Saint-Lazare Mayor Robert Grimaudo and Councillor Pamela Tremblay’s vote against the moratorium on developments west of Côte Saint-Charles. To berate a moratorium on an area of high ecological value where rare species of flora have been registered by the Liber Ero study, where a predominant, contiguous wildlife corridor has been identified in the town's own Plan de Conservation, where the predominant recharge areas from which Saint-Lazare sources all its water is nonsensical.
His rationale to vote against the moratorium was because it did not span over the whole territory of Saint-Lazare. One moratorium does not preclude another. They should have embraced and supported this bold new step in the right direction put forth by our new council members.
The protection of rare species, wildlife corridors and the recharge area merits immediate attention. Other municipalities have expressed concerns over our recharge area where along with Hudson's provides 40 per cent of the water sources in the Vaudreuil-Soulanges area.
The issues concerning the west end are very different from those of the east urban perimeter where the need to modify and plan for new infrastructure to handle the influx of development, schools and the problematic of traffic circulation and issues are becoming apparent. These are more complex and will require years of studies, planning, and modifications.
The mayor admitted that Saint-Lazare is not prepared for this rate of densification. I hope he will follow through in his quest for a moratorium that will cover the urban perimeter and deal with its specific issues and challenges.
A moratorium in the west does not preclude one in the east. The focus and reason for the moratoriums for the west and east are too diverse to conjoin.