Cornell position documents




Direct Dial: (514) 847-4459
rcharlton@ogilvyrenault.com
URGENT
BY BAILIFF
Montréal, July 26, 2005
Ville de Montréal
Hôtel de ville
275, rue Notre-Dame Est
bureau 1.113
Montréal, Qc
H2Y 1C6
Attention: His Worship Gérald Tremblay, Mayor
and
Conseil de l’arrondissement Sud-Ouest
6039, boul. Monk
Montréal, Qc
H4E 3H5
Attention: Mme Jacqueline Montpetit, Mairesse d’arrondissement

Your Worship and Mme la Mairesse:
RE: « Czech Centre Inc. » - lots 1410 & 1411(part) Ste-Anne (arrondissement Sud-Ouest) – proposed resolution authorizing the construction of a hotel in virtue of the “Règlement sur les projets particuliers de construction, de modification ou d’occupation d’un immeuble”

Our client, Cornell Trading, Inc., the owner of the property adjacent to the above-referenced lots, has asked us to communicate with you with three purposes in mind. First, for the reasons more fully described further below, we request that the above-referenced resolution be withdrawn or defeated and that the proposed construction permit not be granted to the applicant, Centre Tchèque Inc. (or its assignee or representative).
Second, our client wishes to emphasize that it seeks to participate in a collaborative process with the City and all other interested parties in order to ensure the best development of this important historical area surrounding the Lachine Canal, and this in conformity with the spirit and letter of the Plan d’urbanisme of the City of Montréal and the Lachine Canal Management Plan of Parks Canada.
Third, should the requests made herein not be granted, we have been reluctantly instructed to institute the appropriate legal proceedings against all those responsible for the adoption of the proposed resolution and the issuance of such proposed permit, the whole without any further notice or delay.
This matter is urgent as we have been led to believe that the subject resolution will be presented for second reading at the next meeting of the Conseil de l’arrondissement Sud-Ouest on August 2, 2005.
Summary
The subject Lot has been the focus of recent media attention arising from both the unusual grant, in August 2002, by the Crown (Minister of Canadian Heritage acting for Parks Canada Agency) of a 99 year emphyteutic lease (“Lease”), for the sum of one dollar, to a previously inexistent and clearly unknown organization, “Centre Tchèque Inc. – Czech Centre Inc.” (“Applicant”), and the subsequent attempt by such Applicant to build thereon what is clearly a substantial “for profit” hotel. Public interest has been heightened by the fact that the Lot is located within the national historic site of the Lachine Canal near the proposed site of the Loto-Québec/Cirque du Soleil development in the Peel Basin.
It is submitted that the present requests should be granted insofar as:
(a) The Applicant is clearly in material breach of its Lease;
(b) The subject application contains serious misrepresentations;
(c) The Applicant gives no guarantees as to community rights;
(d) The proposed resolution (and permit) do not satisfactorily address the environment;
(e) The proposed resolution (and permit) are contrary to the Plan d’urbanisme;
(f) The proposed resolution (and permit) are contrary to the Parks Canada Lachine Canal Management Plan;
(g) The City would be ignoring other and better options;
(h) The timing of the proposed resolution and improper notices are cause for concern;
(i) It would be politically and legally unwise for anyone to support this tainted project which appears to be contrary to the good faith and public interest requirements of the law;
(j) The City has the requisite discretion to refuse the application; and,
(k) The City has the legal obligation to refuse the application.
The Cornells
Our client is the registered owner of that property bearing civic address 108 Gallery Square, Montréal. Its property is located immediately beside the above-referenced lots (the “Lot”). For the reasons described herein, the adoption of the proposed resolution and the issuance of the proposed construction permit would be not only contrary to law but also very prejudicial to the legitimate rights and interests of our client, as well as those of the population of the City of Montréal in general and of the arrondissement Sud-Ouest in particular.
The principals of our client, April and Chris Cornell, are well known, highly respected and successful native Montréalers who, over the last thirty (30) years, have built up from nothing a major international manufacturing, wholesale and retail business (e.g. “La Cache” on Greene and Laurier Streets in Montréal) which now employs more than one thousand (1,000) people.
They also have an irreproachable reputation as substantial and “hands on” philanthropists for the benefit of the underprivileged, including through the establishment, financing and administration of schools in India.
As the immediate neighbour of the Crown, our client had and has every right to expect a cooperative and forthright relationship with it and with the City of Montréal. This is especially the case in circumstances where all three parties share a common interest in the appropriate development of this important area in keeping with the official goals of Parks Canada and the stated vision of the City of Montréal, the whole in the best interest of the public.
1. The Applicant is in default of its Lease
Of incontestable immediate interest is the fact that the Crown has now publicly declared that the Applicant is in default of its obligations under the Lease in at least two very important (and obvious) respects and has now taken the steps required under par. 14.2 of the Lease to seek its resiliation.

(i) Proposed hotel is contrary to the stated purpose of the Lease
First, the proposal by the Applicant (as reflected in the proposed resolution) to build what is clearly a substantial “for profit” hotel contravenes the stated purpose of the Lease: the erection of a “centre for the activities of the Czech Community and other communities” (par. 7.2 of the Lease).
For the moment, if one is to rely on the terms of the Lease, there is every appearance that both the Crown and others have been seriously misled regarding the true purpose of the Applicant which purports to be a “not for profit” entity. It is self-evident that the proposed building does not constitute a community centre even by any rational stretch of the imagination. In fact, on June 29, 2005, during the “assemblée publique de consultation” of the arrondissement Sud-Ouest, it was confirmed that there was not even any space within the proposed building exclusively reserved for the Czech (or any other) cultural community.
Furthermore, during such meeting, Mr. Jean Durcak, a well known and long-standing representative of the Czech community in Montréal, stated that the principal of the Applicant, Mr. George Syrovatka, as well as the Applicant itself, are not and have never been recognized in any way as representatives of the Czech community in Montréal. Mr. Durcak clearly disassociated himself and his community from this project, the very existence of which had been withheld from him until very recently.
(ii) The Applicant has failed to remedy environmental problems prior to August 29, 2004
It is also self-evident that the Applicant has failed to meet its obligation under par. 8.2 of the Lease “to remedy the environmental problems specified in the Environmental Site Report and to carry out the appropriate restoration work to the Immovable at its own cost within a delay of twenty-four (24) months of the date of signing of these presents”. In fact, no “restoration work” of any kind has been carried out on the Lot despite the fact that we are now more than thirty-four (34) months past the date of the Lease (August 28, 2002).
During the meeting of June 29, 2005, it was suggested by an elected representative of the arrondissement that this unusual delay was due to the fact that such environmental restoration work required the very construction permit presently under consideration. With all due respect, such an explanation is both inaccurate and irrelevant.
It is inaccurate because the Applicant could easily have sought and obtained the requisite approval to carry out the restoration work and could have completed same within the stipulated delay of twenty-four (24) months. It is the Applicant that chose not to do so. Indeed, it is the Applicant that chose to tie (if at all) such environmental work to the issuance of the much wider permit now under consideration. In any case, the Applicant has only itself to blame for waiting almost fourteen (14) months before making the present application (October 24, 2003).
In addition, the stated excuse is irrelevant inasmuch as the Applicant knowingly bound himself to such a term and cannot now blame its default on others.
2. The application contains serious misrepresentations
In light of earlier comments, it would appear that the Applicant has made material misrepresentations in its application. This is further demonstrated by a review of the « Système de gestion des décisions des instances - Sommaire décisionnel » dated June 7, 2005 issued by the City of Montréal which indicates that it is precisely on the basis of such misrepresentations that the application has to date received certain favorable internal recommendations and first reading approval. For example, the Applicant is not, as misstated, the « Centre culturel Tchèque » but rather the « Czech Centre Inc. », a legal entity created for the only purpose of building the proposed hotel. The purpose is obviously not to « faciliter les échanges internationaux dans divers domaines tels la culture, les sports, l’éducation, la recherche et développement, (…) » but rather to foster profits for an undisclosed hotel investor.
3. The Applicant gives no guarantees as to community rights
In addition, the proposed resolution (and permit) do not contain any guarantees as to the allegedly community oriented purpose of the project. As noted, no space is exclusively reserved for such purpose. No minimum time is guaranteed for any community activities. In summary, there is nothing that ensures the use of the premises any different than that applicable to any ordinary hotel.
4. The proposed resolution (and permit) do not satisfactorily address the environment
It is also remarkable that the proposed resolution (and permit) do not specifically require that the site be decontaminated prior to the issuance of the proposed permit. During the meeting of June 29, 2005, it was suggested that such a condition was so obvious that no stipulation was required. With respect, this is ill-founded, both in fact and in law.
A careful reading of the proposed conditions described in the « Sommaire décisionnel » reveals numerous conditions of far less importance than decontamination, yet it is notably silent in respect of the environment. Such a serious omission is aggravated by the fact that the proposal requires, prior to the issuance of the proposed permit, a $50,000 guarantee to ensure that the appropriate landscaping be done, and yet requires nothing to ensure decontamination.
In short, under the proposal the priorities required by law are simply not being met.
5. The proposed resolution (and permit) are contrary to the Plan d’urbanisme
It is further submitted that that the project runs afoul of the Plan d’urbanisme, contrary to the legal requirements of the « Règlement sur les projets particuliers de construction, de modification ou d’occupation d’un immeuble ». Examples of this have been given above.
A further example would be the fact that the proposal would create “massing” which would result from the construction of a building covering essentially the entire surface of the Lot. This would completely block off access to two existing parks located behind the subject property.
6. The proposed resolution (and permit) are contrary to the Parks Canada Lachine Canal Management Plan
The May 2004 Parks Canada Lachine Canal Management Plan provides for the coordination between interested parties, including the City and property owners, of “development projects” to “ensure coherence of interventions for the entire Lachine Canal corridor” (p. 67). The Plan d’urbanisme and related documents confirm the importance of such co-ordination.
Please note that we have recently communicated with Parks Canada to seek a meeting to further explore common interests and expect to hear from it shortly. To the extent the City chooses nevertheless to proceed with the project, we would be faced with a series of disconnected and contradictory initiatives. This could only be detrimental to the public interest.
7. The City would be ignoring other and better options
In addition, by proceeding with this project, the City would be missing the opportunity of considering other and far better possibilities. For example, assuming the Lease is resiliated, as it should be, Parks Canada may choose to allow the property to be used as a park, thus permitting public access from the Lachine Canal to the two parks behind the Lot. This would certainly be in conformity with both the Plan d’urbanisme and the Parks Canada Lachine Canal Management Plan and be beneficial to the public.
Another example would be our client’s proposal to build a mixed use commercial and residential building which could include, subject to the approval of both the City and Parks Canada, a swap of portions of the Lot and our client’s property such that:
(a) the public would be given a more direct and aesthetic access from the Lachine Canal to the two other parks, as initially foreseen by planners;
(b) a portion of the proposed building would be designated for the exclusive benefit of the community; and,
(c) the disadvantages of “massing” would be avoided, contrary to present plans which would result in two contiguous buildings (the two envisaged by the Applicant and our client) covering the entire block fronting on the Lachine Canal.
8. The timing of the proposed resolution and improper notices are cause for concern
Generally accepted planning principles include the need to consider the development of the subject Lot in the overall context of the affected area in consultation with all interested parties, including our client. Clearly, this has not occurred in the present case, despite the fact that our client’s property is located immediatley adjacent to the subject Lot and is specifically identified in most, if not all, development maps of this important area.
Even more troubling is the appearance that the proposed resolution is being handled such as to avoid proper analysis and consultation. You will recall that the proposed resolution was first presented for public consultation in January 2005. It was subsequently decided to suspend any further consideration of it inasmuch as Parks Canada had advised the City that it was reviewing the Lease and the Applicant’s apparent failure to respect same.
Despite this, and without any further consultation or advice, our client learned by chance that, on June 7, 2005, the City had changed positions and had given first reading approval to the proposed resolution. Furthermore, it learned that a public consultation had been fixed for June 29, 2005 at a time when many people are on vacation. To aggravate matters, the notice to the public was improper thus leading to a shorter notice period than is usually the case.
No explanation has been given for this new persistence of the City.
• Why pursue the matter when it is now publicly known that Parks Canada has declared that the Lessee is in default of the Lease?
• Why should it be suggested that Parks Canada’s position is not relevant when the City clearly considered it relevant when it chose to suspend matters earlier this year?
• Why bring this matter up for second reading now when, as a result of the facts and arguments raised during the public consultation of June 29, 2005, the City chose not to proceed to second reading as originally planned on July 5, 2005?
• Why proceed when even the identity of the true financial backer of the subject project is unknown?
• In summary, why proceed at all with the proposed resolution when it is so clearly contrary to the public interest, proper planning principles as well as our client’s legal rights?
At best, the City’s position is most perplexing.
9. A tainted project contrary to good faith and the public interest
It is accepted law that in adopting a resolution, a municipality must act in good faith and in the public interest. Therefore, it cannot completely ignore the circumstances that gave rise to this remarkable gift made by the Crown to the Applicant in 2002, at a time when the Crown advised our client that it had no intention of permitting, or even discussing, the development of this Lot. It would be both politically and legally inappropriate to ignore the facts surrounding the proposed project especially in light of the disturbing apparent similarities between such a gift and certain other events disclosed during the hearings of the Gomery Commission.
In that regard, there can be little doubt that the decision to dispose of valuable public property in this way must have been made at the political level. As such, federal officials will no doubt be the subject of numerous pointed questions including in respect of the role played, if any, in the granting of this extraordinary Lease by the former Minister of Public Works Alfonso Gagliano and the former Member of Parliament for Verdun-St. Henri Raymond Lavigne.
At the municipal level, questions will also be asked as to why any elected municipal official would support such a project especially now that many troubling facts have become public. In particular, such officials would have to explain how the adoption of the proposed resolution (and the granting of the permit) would meet the good faith and public interest conditions required by law of any municipal resolution.
10. The City has the requisite discretion to refuse the application
For the reasons given, it should be obvious that the City of Montréal should not want to associate itself in any way with the Applicant’s project. At the very least, one would expect a responsible municipality to defer consideration of the application until such time as all of the above issues have been either clarified or resolved. As noted, to do otherwise would necessarily raise some very serious questions.
From a legal standpoint, we submit two points in that regard. First, the City is well within its rights to refuse the application at this time. Second, it has no legal right to approve the resolution or to issue the proposed permit.
As to the first point, it has been suggested that the City must proceed with the proposed resolution, failing which it might face the risk of legal proceedings instituted by the Applicant. We submit that this is not a valid concern.
Let us recall that the City is being asked by the Applicant to permit a derogation from the « Règlement d’urbanisme 01-280 » of the arrondissement Sud-Ouest. By law, such permission is discretionary. The Applicant has no right to require that such resolution be adopted or that the subject permit be issued. It has no basis in law to complain if, in the proper exercise of its discretion, the City chooses to reject such application.
The least that can be said is that, in the exercise of such discretion, it is quite appropriate, in law, for the City to consider the points raised above and, on the basis of one or more of such points, to reject the subject application.
11. The City has the legal obligation to refuse the application
That having been said, we submit that the City has no legal option other than to withdraw the resolution or to dismiss the application. While the question of permitting a derogation is discretionary, such discretion cannot override the legal requirement that any such derogation be in conformity with the law including, for example, that it be in conformity with the Plan d’urbanisme. Furthermore, any such discretion must be exercised reasonably. For the reasons mentioned above, the granting of the application would constitute an abusive and improper exercise of such discretion.
Conclusion
In light of the above, you are requested to withdraw or reject the above-referenced proposed resolution and refuse the issuance of the construction permit sought by the Applicant, Centre Tchèque Inc. (or its assignee or representative), and to give further consideration to the development of this area in conjunction with all interested parties, failing which our client has regretfully instructed us to institute the appropriate legal proceedings against all those responsible for the adoption of the proposed resolution and the issuance of such proposed permit, the whole without any further notice or delay.
We are confident that such proceedings will not become necessary. In that context, our client and its principals look forward to an open and cooperative relationship with the City of Montréal, the Crown and other interested parties, the whole in the best interests of all concerned.
You are requested to respond in writing to advise of your position prior to 5 p.m., August 1, 2005.
Yours truly,


Robert P. Charlton
Senior Partner
c.c. M. Robert Bousquet, Conseiller de la ville (Émard), Conseil de l’arrondissement Sud-Ouest, 6039, boul. Monk, Montréal, Qc H4E 3H5
Mme Line Hamel, Conseillère de la ville (Louis-Cyr), Conseil de l’arrondissement Sud-Ouest, 6039, boul. Monk, Montréal, Qc H4E 3H5
M. Pierre Bourque, Chef de l’opposition, Hôtel de ville, 275, rue Notre-Dame Est, bureau R.112
Montréal H2Y 1C6, pbourque@ville.montreal.qc.ca

Czech deal bounces -The Suburban

Czech deal bounces


Bloquiste queries senator's role
By Trevor Rouse, Jason Magder and P. A. Sévigny


Parks Canada had already rejected a proposal for a Czech community centre/luxury hotel complex alongside the Lachine Canal when a Liberal senator and Sud-Ouest borough councillors attended a March 21 meeting with agency officials, The Suburban has learned.
According to sources, Senator Raymond Lavigne was accompanied to the March 21 meeting in Ottawa by Sud-Ouest borough councillors Lynn Hamel and Robert Bousquet. The meeting took place prior to a public information session in the borough, called to discuss a height derogation which would allow the addition of a six-storey luxury hotel to the community centre project.
 In 2002, Czech community centre promoter George Syrovatka paid a dollar for a 99-year lease on the lot on Peel Basin, a widening of the Lachine Canal at the intersection of Olier and du Séminaire. The site is part of a 1.5 million-square-foot Parks Canada parcel adjacent to the proposed Montreal Casino hotel/ entertainment complex. In return, Syrovatka undertook to decontaminate the land within two years.
Although the decontamination has yet to proceed, Syrovatka presented the borough with a revised proposal in January. He asked for an exemption from the zone’s 12-metre heigh limitation to permit the addition of a 25-metre luxury hotel to the project, arguing that the hotel’s revenues were crucial to making the centre self-supporting.
But Parks Canada confirms it had already rejected the hotel project by the time the meeting with Lavigne and the Sud-Ouest borough councillors was called for March 21.
According to spokesperson Nicole Racette, the promoters presented their expanded hotel project on Jan. 31.
“Parks Canada sent a letter refusing the proposal on February 11,” Racette said Tuesday.
 Racette also confirmed the March 21 meeting was called at the request of the “Centre Tcheque and Senator Lavigne.
“It’s normal for a local MP or senator to present a project of this kind to the minister’s office,” she added. “There’s nothing wrong there.”
Parks Canada is still interested in the original proposal, Racette told The Suburban.
Bousquet and Hamel initially voted in favour of the expanded project, but announced at last week’s council meeting they would defer the derogation until Parks Canada concludes a probe of the entire transaction.
Neither Bousquet nor Lavigne had returned The Suburban’s calls by presstime. Hamel was unavailable for comment.
The third member of the Sud-Ouest borough council, chairwoman Jacqueline Montpetit, says she declined an invitation to the March 21 meeting.
“I didn’t go to the meeting because it was the promoter who asked me to go. I didn’t want to defend the promoter’s project,” Montpetit said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “Everyone wants a property on the Lachine Canal....Why should a promoter get a property for one dollar to build a hotel?”
Montpetit said she was surprised to learn that Lavigne had attended the meeting.
“I don’t know why he was there...The process isn’t transparent...As long as the process is not clear I will oppose the project.”
Former Jeanne-Le Ber Bloc Québécois candidate Thierry St-Cyr is demanding that Lavigne’s successor, Jeanne-Le Ber MP and Canadian Heritage Minister Liza Frulla, probe the deal in her home riding.
“We heard that the purpose of the meeting was to unblock the dossier, but in the last borough council meeting, we heard Bousquet say it was just to get information,” said St-Cyr, who lost to Frulla in the 2004 election by 72 votes.
“Why is a senator and not the MP in charge of the file? Why was this land suddenly made available without a call for tenders and without consultation? If the information that we have now confirms it, she should stop this project because it doesn’t make sense to give land worth $1 million to a promoter.”
St-Cyr isn’t alone in questioning the deal. At last week’s borough council meeting, Bousquet’s attempt to justify the decision to defer voting on the rezoning bylaw until next month’s council meeting was challenged by borough activist Marc Tremblay.
“The people won’t forget this,” Tremblay told Bousquet. “Stop taking us for granted…Stop trying to fool us!”
“What more do they need to know?” he said later. “This deal stinks, and if they can’t smell it, they [Bousquet and Hamel] would have to step into dog s—t before either of them knew something’s wrong.”
Prior to last week’s meeting, Montpetit said that it had become very difficult to continue working with Hamel and Bousquet as a result of their initial support for the controversial project.
“Too many questions have been raised about this project, its dubious merits and the credibility of its promoter for any of us to have anything more to do with it,” Montpetit said. 
2005-08-10 09:08:42

Czech centre's permit on hold

MONTREAL

Czech centre's permit on hold
Borough axes item; Needs to hear from feds, Czech groups
 
ANN CARROLL
The Gazette


August 4, 2005
CREDIT: GORDON BECK, THE GAZETTE
George Syrovatka obtained a 99-year lease on prime land.


Bowing to public pressure and troubled by doubts about the legality of the property lease, Southwest borough officials have postponed approval of a hotel and Czech cultural centre on the Lachine Canal.

City councillors Robert Bousquet and Line Hamel withdrew the item from the borough council agenda Tuesday night, saying they want to hear from the landowner, Parks Canada, and from other Czech groups.

George Syrovatka, who's promoting the project, and his organization, Czech Cultural Centre Inc., have proposed a six-storey hotel and cultural centre on federal land at the corner of Seminaire and Olier Sts., in the old Griffintown neighbourhood.

"I'm convinced we have to work toward achieving this project, as long as it conforms with Parks Canada and the Czech community," Bousquet said, noting the hotel complex would create 70 jobs.

Borough mayor Jacqueline Montpetit voted against postponing a decision on the building permit.

"I'm against this hotel," she said. "This was supposed to be a nonprofit project, but now it's for profit."

Montpetit joined community groups, residents and business owners who questioned how

Syrovatka managed to obtain a 99-year lease on the property in 2002 for only $1 and the promise to decontaminate the land.

Federal authorities are reviewing the lease conditions, an inquiry closely followed by other Czech groups in the area.

Jean Durcak, of the Maison Tcheque du Quebec, claims

Syrovatka borrowed his idea for a canal-side cultural centre.

"I'm here to defend the original project that has value, merit and support in our community," Durcak said, after asking the borough council to hold off on approving Syrovatka's plans.

A top official of the Beseda Czech and Slovak Culture & Folklore Centre, a group that rents halls for Czech language classes, folk dancing and art shows, is also mystified by the Lachine Canal project.

"We've been getting calls from people asking to buy the land, or congratulating us for finally getting our cultural centre," said Victor Vonka, the group's founding director.

"But we don't know anything about it. Durcak and Syrovatka have never contacted us about a centre."

acarroll@thegazette.canwest.com

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2005

Projet hôtelier au Bassin Peel: décision reportée-Nouvelles Radio-Canada

Nouvelles: http://radio-canada.ca/regions/Montreal/nouvelles/200508/02/005-hotel-permis-rb.shtml

Projet hôtelier au Bassin Peel: décision reportée

Mise à jour le mercredi 3 août 2005, 11 h 19 .



Le projet de construction d'un centre culturel tchèque et d'un hôtel dans l'arrondissement Sud-Ouest, à Montréal, continue de provoquer des remous.


Mardi soir, en plein conseil d'arrondissement, les élus favorables au projet ont décidé de remettre à plus tard l'adoption d'une résolution ouvrant la voie à sa réalisation.

La controverse vient du fait que le projet ne devait pas comprendre d'hôtel au départ.

M. Syrovatka propose de construire l'hôtel sur un terrain cédé par Parcs Canada et qui est situé à l'intérieur du parc du Canal-de-Lachine.

En 2002, l'agence fédérale a cédé le terrain au promoteur pour 99 ans, pour la somme symbolique de 1 dollar.

L'hôtel, d'une capacité de 75 chambres, s'élèverait à une hauteur de 25 mètres, le double de ce que permet la réglementation dans le secteur.

Le site retenu par le promoteur est situé non loin du Bassin Peel, où Loto Québec envisage de déménager le Casino.

Parcs Canada en désaccord

Le 6 juillet dernier, le quotidien La Presse révélait que Parcs Canada avait fait part au promoteur de son étonnement devant la transformation de son projet initial.


Canal Lachine (archives)
C'est qu'à l'origine, M. Syrovatka voulait acquérir le terrain pour y construire un Centre culturel tchèque. Or, il est maintenant question de construire également un hôtel.

Une porte-parole de l'agence a déclaré que le promoteur avait fait des changements sans en parler à Parcs Canada, qui ne pouvait supporter le virage commercial du projet.

Menaces de poursuites

Par ailleurs, un homme d'affaires de Montréal, Chris Cornell, a mis en demeure la Ville de refuser le permis demandé par George Syrovatka, sous peine de poursuites.

M. Cornell a expliqué qu'il tentait depuis des années d'acheter ou de louer le terrain en question, ce que Parcs Canada avait toujours refusé. Il dit avoir été renversé par l'annonce en 2002 de la cession du terrain au promoteur Syrovatka, d'autant plus que Parcs Canada n'a jamais publicisé la disponibilité du terrain.

François-Nicolas Pelletier raconte que le conseil d'arrondissement a plié sous la pression populaire.


Le Devoir -30 juillet 2005

Parcs Canada ferme la porte

Myles, Brian
Longueur : Court ( 202 mots )
«C'est très clair pour Parcs Canada. Nous avons approuvé la construction d'un centre culturel tchèque, pas d'un édifice à vocation commerciale», a dit hier Lynn Cleary



La Presse 28 juin 2005
Nicolas Bérubé

Corruption - centre culturel tchèque

Un hôtel de luxe sur un terrain patrimonial?

Un projet de centre culturel tchèque, pour lequel Ottawa a accepté de céder un terrain patrimonial longeant le canal de Lachine pour un dollar symbolique, s'est mystérieusement transformé en un projet d'hôtel de luxe, a appris La Presse.

Le terrain est situé à un jet de pierre du bassin Peel, où Loto-Québec projette de déménager son Casino. Jusqu'en 2002, il faisait partie du parc du Canal-de-Lachine, espace classé « lieu historique national » que Parcs Canada se fait un devoir de protéger des intérêts privés.

En août 2002, sans tambour ni trompette, le ministère de la Justice, dirigé alors par Martin Cauchon, et celui du Patrimoine, dirigé par Sheila Copps, ont donné leur accord à un projet de location à long terme du lot situé à l'intérieur des limites du parc, à l'angle de la rue du Séminaire et de la rue Dock.

Dans un bail emphytéotique d'une durée de 99 ans et d'une valeur symbolique d'un dollar, le gouvernement cède le contrôle du terrain à George Syrovatka, responsable du Centre tchèque inc. Cette organisation à but non lucratif compte y construire un centre culturel visant à faire la promotion de la culture tchèque.

Or, en janvier 2005, le projet soumis par M. Syrovatka à la Ville de Montréal est tout autre: le promoteur veut désormais construire un édifice de six étages et de 70 000 pieds carrés abritant un hôtel de 75 chambres ainsi qu'un centre sur la culture tchèque. Le projet s'appelle maintenant « Centre culturel et hôtel- Centre culturel tchèque ». L'édifice proposé est d'une hauteur de 25 mètres, soit le double de ce que la réglementation permet.

Jointe par La Presse hier, la directrice nationale des communications de Parcs Canada, Nicole Racette, a indiqué être au courant du dossier. « Pour le moment, tout ce que je peux vous dire, c'est qu'une enquête interne est en cours afin de déterminer si les conditions du bail ont été respectées », a-t-elle dit.

George Syrovatka, le responsable du projet, a lui-même un parcours unique: il a été le petit ami d'Ivana Trump avant que celle-ci ne devienne la femme du richissime américain Donald Trump. M. Syrovatka a aussi été champion skieur: une course de descente baptisée George Syrovatka Downhill Race est organisée annuellement depuis 25 ans à la station de ski Jay Peak, au Vermont.

De son propre aveu, M. Syrovatka n'est pas celui qui finance cet ambitieux projet. Il est associé à un ou plusieurs hommes d'affaires, dont il veut taire l'identité pour le moment. « Le projet en est encore aux phases préliminaires, dit-il. Nous avons notamment besoin d'un changement de zonage. Nous allons avoir une meilleure idée de la version finale du projet d'ici la fin de l'année. » Selon le bail signé avec Parcs Canada, Centre tchèque inc. doit assumer les coûts de la décontamination du terrain avant d'y ériger un bâtiment.

On trouve déjà un endroit consacré à la culture tchèque dans le quartier, soit la Maison tchèque du Québec, située dans le quartier Émard. Selon M. Syrovatka la mission du futur centre culturel « sera sensiblement la même » que celle de la Maison tchèque. « Nous allons promouvoir la culture tchèque. La différence, ce sera l'hôtel, qui attirera une clientèle internationale et qui servira à financer le centre culturel », dit-il.

Pour Marc Tremblay, membre du regroupement Information Logement Pointe-Saint-Charles et bien au fait des projets immobiliers du quartier, les circonstances de la signature du bail entre le gouvernement et le Centre tchèque sont « étranges ».

« Ça n'a pas été annoncé, dit-il. Tout le monde s'est retrouvé devant un fait accompli. C'est extrêmement rare qu'un terrain en bordure du canal soit mis en disponibilité, et pour la somme d'un dollar... Je connais des tas de gens qui auraient aimé profiter de cette offre alléchante. »

À titre de comparaison, la future mise en disponibilité du centre de tri de Postes Canada, situé tout près du terrain en question, fait présentement l'objet d'un appel de propositions complexe.

La semaine dernière, la Ville de Montréal a annoncé qu'une assemblée publique de consultation sur le projet du Centre tchèque aura lieu demain, le 29 juin, à 20 h, au centre Georges-Vanier, au 2450, rue Workman.

Nicolas.berube@lapresse.ca

Czech centre faces permit hurdle

Czech centre faces permit hurdle
Second appeal tonight for those miffed at decision to grant it Parks Canada site
 
ANN CARROLL
The Gazette

Tuesday, August 02, 2005



The promoter of a controversial hotel and Czech cultural centre tackles one hurdle tonight when the project permit comes up for second approval at the Southwest borough council meeting.

But George Syrovatka's real challenge will be hanging on to the Parks Canada land he wants to develop on the Lachine Canal.

Federal justice officials have given Syrovatka and his organization, Czech Cultural Centre Inc., until the end of August to decontaminate the site and respect other lease conditions.

To meet the government deadline, Syrovatka says he has hired an environmental firm to clean up the soil by mid-August.

Parks Canada is staying out of the dispute until the deadline passes, saying it is waiting for word from the Justice Department.

In 2002, Syrovatka negotiated a 99-year lease with Parks Canada on behalf of the Czech Cultural Centre Inc. for 15,000 square feet of industrial land at the corner of Seminaire and Olier Sts.

For $1 and the promise to decontaminate the land within two years - at an estimated cost of at least $300,000 - the group won the right to build a $1-million centre with rooms for meetings, exhibitions and overnight guests. The building was to revert to Parks Canada at the end of the lease.

But Syrovatka ran afoul of federal authorities this year after postponing the soil cleanup, and expanding the building plans without prior approval.

Business and community groups have questioned how a little-known Czech organization could win a lease on choice canal-side property, without a public bidding process.

Cornell Trading Ltd., an international manufacturing, wholesale and retail business (selling in Montreal in La Cache boutiques), also had its eye on the site. Its Canadian headquarters and distribution warehouse sits next to the Parks Canada property.

When Cornell asked about acquiring the federal land as part of a major residential-commercial redevelopment project, it discovered the site already had been promised to the Czech group.

"People are getting land from the Canadian government in a Canadian park for nothing," said an outraged John Kaine, a Cornell consultant. "And there's no process to ensure the people getting the land are legitimate and are building something that serves the community they purport to serve."

Cornell said it has been the victim of "questionable private arrangements" in Parks Canada's handling of the lease.

Cleary conceded the federal government generally encourages bidding on its properties.

But Parks Canada, which was part of the Canadian Heritage Department in 2002, made an exception at the Lachine Canal site to further the interest of cultural exchanges, she said.

acarroll@thegazette.canwest.com
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2005