Free classified ads | Online Auctions | Our Weeklies | Long distance call | Weblocal |
The Chronicle
Merkado TEMP
Send this text to a friend Print this article Comment on this article

Developers defend Mount Royal project

by Martin C. Barry
View all articles from Martin C. Barry
Article online since July 6th 2009, 13:32
Read all 2 comments about this article / Comment on this article
Developers defend Mount Royal project
Carlo Bizzotto (right) and Tony Micelli of Cato Development Inc., at the former Marianopolis campus. Photo: Martin C. Barry
Developers defend Mount Royal project
Facing stiff opposition from special interest groups determined to minimize future development on Mount Royal, two developers who purchased the former Marianopolis College site on Côte des Neiges Road say it’s time to “stop letting the vocal minority speak for the silent majority” when it comes to property development in Montreal.
“If we want to progress as a city, we have to be intelligent about development,” says Tony Micelli, co-owner of Cato Development Inc.

Constructed in the late 19th century, the former Marianopolis College property was part of the Sulpician Fathers’ Domaine de la Montagne dating back to the 17th century.

The Sulpicians put the property up for sale after Marianopolis ended its lease in 2007. The 65,332 square metre site is part of the natural and historic district of Mount Royal, making it subject to strict development rules.

Micelli and his business partner, Carlo Bizzotto, who bought the site for $46 million, hope to turn it into a $300 million, 325-unit residential community to be known as the Boisé des Sulpiciens.

However, les Amis de la Montagne maintain the project will test the city's new protection plan for Mount Royal.

In an interview with the Examiner last week, the developers stressed that the site is private, even though some people treat it as though it is a public park. During the time Marianopolis was a tenant, the college built a large sports complex, which was sublet. But the lease, which was transferred to the new owners, ends in August.

“You might hear people say that a gym is needed in the area,” said Micelli. “But the problem is that this is not a community gym. We didn’t buy a park. There’s another issue. People seem to think that this is a park. First of all this is not Mount Royal Park. We’re in the beltway … This never was a park. It’s private property.”

Despite this, they insist they want to give the public access to part of the site through a deal through which the developers would grant a servitude of non-build on a forested belt to the City of Montreal for $1, although “the city doesn’t want to have the onus of the maintenance,” Micelli said.

“The access that people seem to feel is their right is not the case. They are actually trespassing on private property, whether we owned it or the Sulpicians or Marianopolis. So we are trying to formalize these things via servitude, right of access, etc.”
Biggest issue in 10 years
While some critics maintain the project will be too dense and take up valuable green space on the mountain, the developers insist that is not the case. They also claim their buildings — none of which can be taller than the existing former college — respect guidelines established on Mount Royal for height.

Sylvie Guilbault, executive-director of les Amis de la Montagne, said le Boisé des Sulpiciens is the most important issue the group has dealt with since 1999, when a former federal government armoury property on Atwater Avenue north of Sherbrooke Street was redeveloped into a housing project.

“The protection for Mount Royal, which is a City of Montreal document, decrees that the city recognizes that there is limited capacity for developing the mountain,” she said. “This past April 30, a protection plan was also adopted, so we now a law to protect it.”

Guilbault claims Cato’s project “changes” the rules set out in Montreal’s urban plan, as well as the “spirit” of the decree and the protection measures. “That’s why it will be a test case, if that project passes as presented, despite all the measures the city and government has put in place,” she said.

From the City of Westmount’s perspective, the project presents no immediate problems. The developers plan to close off a roadway at the western end of the property that used to lead towards Ramezay Road in Westmount. However, according to Mayor Karin Marks, Westmount still has reservations.

“We were not as adamant that there should be absolutely no development,” she said. “But I do think there’s too much development. There’s even a nine-storey building there, which seems quite high and doesn’t seem appropriate for the site.”

Photo: Martin C. Barry

These articles could also interest you

Your comments

Full name:
(required)


Email address:


Your comments :
(required)


Please retype the word displayed below Can't read the word?

Please retype the word displayed below:


Sam Lale

Comment online since July 7th 2009
A small town of about 1000 residents (350+homes/670+parking) is going to be installed in what the city has promised to leave as a green space with a fabulous 300 year old heritage. Of course this will affect Westmount! The city needs to stay true to its own zoning laws and its promises not to build (certainly not 19 new buildings, depanneur and medical clinic, etc..), then this beautiful property will find its correct price and rightful, respectful owners. Otherwise, it's a cash cow for developers, a loss for the neighbourhood residents and the whole city. It was given to the Sulpicians for educational purposes only, to begin with. This heritage property should not be turned into another bland, dense housing project, good for only the developers.

Mike Matlin

Comment online since July 6th 2009
Question: If that land which I believe should be protected (which is a moot point in this question) is private land and the owners are insisting that the City stop meddling in it'sa private affairs. Where were you when the owner of the building and land that houses the Cleopatra Theatre on St Lawrenece was told by the City to sell at the offered price or be thrown out? Why weren't these developers in court fighting that case? It is a common cause isn't it? Or is it just a double standard or a greed factor. Or is it nothing so sinister and just the City of Montreal flexing it's empty brain once again? After all we have that fancy new Crayola™ Logo!

Related Newspapers


Links