Summary#
Montréal city council gave notice of a motion and tabled a draft bylaw to authorize Vidéotron ltée to occupy part of Victor-P.-Gray Park permanently for a telecommunications tower. The bylaw has not been adopted, so this decision does not yet grant that authorization. City staff say the goal is to improve wireless coverage in Pierrefonds-Roxboro.
- The proposed site is part of lot 1 389 582 in Victor-P.-Gray Park, near 18e Rue and 14e Rue.
- The proposed installation includes a roughly 35-metre tower, an equipment shelter, a fenced area and an access path. The occupied area is listed as 465.40 m².
- Earlier borough approvals allowed the proposed conditional use and approved its design. The draft bylaw would authorize permanent occupation of public land, a separate step.
- City staff say construction is planned for spring 2026. The council must still vote on the bylaw.
What it means for you#
- Vidéotron: If council adopts the bylaw, the company would be authorized to occupy the park land for the installation. The draft details provided do not set out the full terms of that authorization.
- Park users: The proposed installation would take up part of the park. City staff say the equipment would be at the back of the park and would not conflict with planned park activities.
- Residents and taxpayers: This decision does not itself approve construction or make the draft bylaw law. The city’s notice only announces a later vote.
Money#
The city would charge Vidéotron $15,707.09, taxes included, for the first year if the bylaw takes effect.
- For each later year, the annual charge would rise by 3% on the anniversary of the bylaw’s effective date.
- The materials give no estimate of the city’s costs.
What is unclear#
- The full draft bylaw is not included in the supplied material, so its complete terms and any conditions on the authorization could not be checked.
- The materials do not say how long the annual charge would apply or whether the authorization could be ended early.
- The exact construction date and any further steps before work begins are not stated.
- City staff say no existing structure in the search area was tall enough, but the supplied material does not include the technical document they cite.
Case for#
- City staff say the tower is needed to meet Vidéotron’s coverage and network-performance goals, including conditions attached to federal licences.
- Staff say they considered existing structures first, to avoid the cost, time and spread of new towers, but found none tall enough in the search area.
- The proposed annual charge would bring revenue to the city for the occupation of public land.
Case against#
- The proposal would permanently dedicate 465.40 m² of park land to telecommunications equipment and an access path.
- City staff acknowledge the equipment would be visible in the park. Their view that it would not conflict with park activities does not address how visitors may feel about that change.
- The supplied material does not show the full bylaw terms or explain how the city could respond if the site’s use or impacts changed.