To the editor:

A few weeks ago Westmount’s need for a second full-size hockey rink was once again made clear to me. As a volunteer at the Sports and Recreation sign up in late August, I saw the demand for ice time. All of the kids’ hockey and skating programs filled up rapidly. Most have waiting lists, including 49 kids wait-listed for Pee Wee hockey. Some of these will move to inter-city hockey and another team will be added. However, some kids will not play hockey this year.

But this is not just about the kids. The men’s executive hockey league for those over 35 doesn’t have enough rink time either. There are over 25 men on the waiting list, and there are eight teams at this level. The last spot was handed out to a dad whose daughter got in line for him at 4 p.m. — two hours before the start of registration. Everyone after that is hoping to get a chance to play.

This is not just about hockey. The Friday night broomball games have been cancelled because the big rink was no longer available. Time for free skating on the big rink is limited to two time slots, on the weekend.

Don’t we want to encourage our community to be more active, play more sports?

It is about time Westmount had the facilities to meet the current demand and growing interest in these activities.

Rosalind Davis

Lorraine Avenue

To the editor:

Bruce St. Louis put the "customer" in customer service, and "service" in his capacity as chief civil servant. But most of all, Westmount will miss his humanity.

Dorothy Lipovenko

York Street

To the editor:

We would be very surprised if Councillor Patrick Martin’s recent article (A view from here) was not supported by all the councilors, since he is only stating basic principles and values.

Regardless of the pending judgment concerning 27 Bellevue, there already is a multi-level process in place in Westmount to evaluate, minimize, or ideally eliminate, any infringement of the individual citizen’s rights in relation to building projects. This process starts with each considerate Westmount citizen first ensuring that their proposed project has no significant negative impact on the surrounding homes. This is best done by transparent discussions with pertinent neighbours, as is apparently routinely recommended by the City’s architectural expert, Joanne Poirier.

Should this first step not result in adequate modifications to eliminate significant negative impact, then the PAC experts are best capable of carrying out a detailed on-site evaluation, including interviewing the involved neighbors when necessary, which is sometimes the only way they can be sure to best balance the rights of all those involved, and respect their obligation to sufficiently “minimize” the impact. Additional close vigilance is obviously required for those particular projects that challenge any number of bylaws and guidelines, thus relying on any special discretionary powers, before PAC can recommend that any such request for a permit be considered by the Council. When any controversial case still makes it through these first two levels, every Westmount citizen should be able to take some comfort that its elected Council, our only accountable body, responsible for making and applying the City bylaws, will then be fully informed by PAC and thus be able to make the final crucial decision regarding the pertinence of any such project before granting the permit. Only when the City ensures that all these checks and balances are fully functioning, as was the intention of the legislators, can it claim to consistently protect the value of our Westmount homes, which for most of us, represent our major asset.

Mireille R. Raymond and John R. Keyserlingk

Sunnyside Avenue

To the editor:

As a longtime former member and Chair of the Westmount Architectural and Planning Commission — now called the Planning Advisory Committee — I’ve been following the recent debate over the roof modifications on Bellevue Avenue, and would like to make a few comments.

First of all, it is accepted practice that as long as you meet zoning requirements and get other needed approvals, your right to build is not subject to your neighbours’ approval, and you are not liable for the impact of your project on your neighbours’ lifestyles or property values. So while many cities have measures to protect public views — like Westmount’s protection of the view from the Lookout — they generally do not deal with private views. Let’s say someone in a hypothetical city built a bungalow set back one lot from the shores of the St. Lawrence. For years, they enjoyed a great view because the waterfront lot was empty. Then, the owner of the riverfront lot built a 10-storey condominium and convenience store, as allowed by zoning. The quality of life of the people in the bungalow and their property value may well decline, but they don’t have recourse against the owner of the condominium or against the city that allowed its completely legal construction.

Of course, Westmount has zoning regulations and a design review process focused on preserving the city’s traditional character, while allowing owners some flexibility to meet their needs. Westmount generally tries to minimize the impact of a project on neighbors, but doesn’t deny an otherwise acceptable proposal solely because of this.

Secondly, it is not unusual to have a City Council approve the work of other committees and departments, without redoing all the work itself. In this case, Westmount relies on the professional expertise of a group of experienced professional architects to do the very demanding design review of dozens of building applications every month. Council usually ratifies the PAC’s recommendations, though it can ask for more information and change the decision if it sees fit. I would think that Council would want to avoid doing this in other than the most exceptional circumstances, because it simply doesn’t have the time or expertise to carry out a professional quality design review process. So it would be useful that Council work with the PAC on the process, in order to provide greater public notice and input, at least for major projects. However, once that is done, it would be best that the individual project review remain principally in the hands of the objective professionals, rather than be brought into the political forum.

Thirdly, the PAC’s guidelines are not absolutely rigid rules. Sure, it would be easier if we could reduce good design to simple formulas. However, designing and evaluating a building project involves a complexly interrelated series of issues, which cannot be reduced to absolute requirements. Westmount helps applicants and the public by providing one of the most extensive sets of guidelines and building surveys of any community. However, each case presents its unique set of circumstances, which is why these are guidelines rather than regulations, giving the PAC and the City some flexibility in their application. The PAC might even recommend denial of a poorly designed project although it follows all the guidelines, and could recommend approval of a well-designed project that doesn’t strictly conform to all guidelines. In the Bellevue case, after working with the applicant on design revisions for several months, the PAC concluded that the final design was appropriate.

Not every owner or abutter will be happy with every decision. The PAC and City are sometimes criticized by owners for being too restrictive, or by abutters and others for being too permissive. However, on the whole, this system has worked remarkably well for Westmount, helping create and preserve a built environment that offers great beauty and quality of life, which is reflected in extraordinarily high property values.

Westmounters should be very proud and protective of this system.

Mark London

Former Chair of the Architectural and Planning Commission; current Executive Director of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission