In the summer of 2014, citizens bought, via their small construction business, a \u201cshoebox\u201d type property which they planned to replace with a building containing four condo units of three bedrooms each, for families.<\/p>\n
In December 2014, after many discussions with the Borough\u2019s architect and an employee from the permit office, the citizens apply for a Demolition<\/em><\/strong> permit<\/em>.<\/p>\n In May 2015, nearly six months later, no \u201cagent du cadre b\u00e2ti\u201d has been assigned to process this application. \u00a0Discouraged by the delays, the citizens send a default letter to the Borough and turn to our office.<\/p>\n We quickly begin discussions with the Borough and pursue them all summer long. \u00a0We ask:<\/p>\n In July 2015, the citizens file their official application for a Construction<\/em><\/strong> permit<\/em> and pay the file analysis fees: \u00a0most of the documents required at that time were already in the Borough\u2019s file, but they have to be submitted again.<\/p>\n On August 12, 2014, the file is presented to the Comit\u00e9 de d\u00e9molition <\/em>(Demolition Committee) which rejects the Demolition<\/em><\/strong> permit<\/em>, without explanation and despite the favourable conditional recommendation of the Direction du d\u00e9veloppement du territoire et des \u00e9tudes techniques<\/em> (DDTET).<\/p>\n The citizens appeal this decision to the Borough Council.<\/p>\n The OdM<\/strong> deems it important to communicate to the Borough Council members some information likely to enhance their comprehension of the file and to contribute to their analysis, before they make a decision.\u00a0 Namely, we submit that:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n On October 5, 2015, the Borough Council authorizes the demolition<\/strong> of the building, by unanimous Resolution. \u00a0The Council adds that the replacement project must satisfy the conditions previously stated by the DDTET.<\/p>\n On October 14, 2015, the project is submitted without modification, to the Urban Planning Committee (Comit\u00e9 consultatif d\u2019urbanisme (CCU)). \u00a0The CCU concludes that the objectives and criteria of the Plan d\u2019implantation et d\u2019int\u00e9gration architecturale <\/em>(PIIA) adopted by virtue of the R\u00e8glement d\u2019urbanisme <\/em>(Planning regulations) are not satisfied.\u00a0 It reiterates, therefore, the conditions stated by the DDTET, in August 2015.<\/p>\n The parties initiate discussions to determine which modifications should be brought to the project, to comply with the PIIA.<\/p>\n On December 9, 2015, an amended project is submitted to the CCU which issues a favourable recommendation, subject to some conditions:\u00a0 these are executed.<\/p>\n On January 19, 2016, the Borough Council approves the issuance of the Construction<\/em><\/strong> permit.<\/em><\/p>\n Thereafter, our office maintains close monitoring so as to make sure that the citizens will officially get their permits, before the expiry of their funding program.<\/p>\n The Demolition permit<\/em><\/strong> is obtained on January 20, 2016 and the Construction permit<\/em><\/strong>, on January 29, 2016.<\/p>\n Post Mortem<\/strong><\/p>\n The citizens spent significant amounts of money and time for the preparation of their file and for the production of the many plans and reports requested by the Borough.\u00a0 They had to invest a tremendous amount of energy to make their file progress.<\/p>\n The OdM<\/strong> had to be present at every step to obtain details or explanations regarding certain Borough\u2019s requests and, sometimes, to object to them; to facilitate the relationship between the citizens and the municipal representatives; and to convince the citizens, who were exasperated by the long process, to revise certain elements to satisfy the requirements of the PIIA.<\/p>\n Although they obtained their permits, the citizens remain bitter. \u00a0They deplore the long delays, the lack of clarity regarding the requirements of the Borough, the inaccuracy of some of the information provided to them and the fact that documents already in the possession of the Borough were sometimes requested again.<\/p>\n It must also be noted that many Borough architects and agents succeeded themselves in this file.\u00a0 This turnover was certainly detrimental to the coherent and efficient processing of the file.<\/p>\n The policy changes regarding how applications should be handled when a demolition permit and a construction permit are requested for projects submitted to the PIIA also seem to have had an impact on the management of this file.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the summer of 2014, citizens bought, via their small construction business, a \u201cshoebox\u201d type property which they planned to replace with a building containing four condo units of three bedrooms each, for families. In December 2014, after many discussions … Continue reading \n
\n
\n