The citizens are the owners and have lived in their \u201cshoebox\u201d type residence for approximately 20 years.\u00a0 Their roof is in a bad condition and they must quickly redo all of their roof structure. \u00a0They want to take this opportunity to enlarge their residence by adding a second floor.\u00a0 They file a permit application with the Borough, in February 2015.<\/p>\n
The project is submitted to the Urban Planning Committee (Comit\u00e9 consultatif d\u2019urbanisme (CCU)) on August 12, 2015.\u00a0 The project is supported by a favourable recommendation from the Direction du d\u00e9veloppement du territoire et des \u00e9tudes techniques <\/em>(DDTET) of the Borough.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, the CCU issues an unfavourable recommendation, <\/em>suggesting to the Borough Council to reject this project. \u00a0According to the CCU, the project would not emphasize the original building (shoebox) and would not retain its trace.\u00a0 The CCU does not mention that the owners plan to keep the existing fa\u00e7ade. \u00a0The CCU notes, however, the Borough\u2019s desire to preserve \u201cboom town\u201d and \u201cshoebox\u201d type buildings; it also recommends that the DDTET should make an inventory of these types of buildings and elaborate more specific criteria to ensure their enhancement.<\/p>\n Based on information from the CCU, the Borough administration later informs the citizens that if they added a second floor, set back from the fa\u00e7ade and with a contemporary flavour, the project would likely receive positive comments.\u00a0 The administration cannot, however, specify what type of setback would be acceptable to the CCU.<\/p>\n The citizens contact the OdM<\/strong>.<\/p>\n They explain that a setback second floor would make them lose a lot of space and would not integrate seamlessly to the existing building.\u00a0 \u00a0Moreover, they do not want a project with a contemporary flavour. \u00a0They insist that their project, as submitted, provides for the preservation or renewal of many original architectural elements in the treatment of the fa\u00e7ade, and thus satisfies the criteria and objectives of the Plan d\u2019implantation et d\u2019int\u00e9gration architecturale <\/em>(PIIA).<\/p>\n The OdM<\/strong> does not have jurisdiction over decisions made by a CCU or a Borough Council. \u00a0It can nonetheless communicate preliminary information or comments to them.<\/p>\n In the present instance, the OdM<\/strong> felt it was appropriate to inform the members of the Borough Council of some facts we had gathered in the course of our investigation; the whole with a view to contribute to their global understanding of the situation, when asked to take position on this project.\u00a0 The following elements were submitted:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n On October 5, 2015, the Borough Council approves the project, with a majority vote.\u00a0 The citizens are able to obtain their permit quickly.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The citizens are the owners and have lived in their \u201cshoebox\u201d type residence for approximately 20 years.\u00a0 Their roof is in a bad condition and they must quickly redo all of their roof structure. \u00a0They want to take this opportunity … Continue reading \n