{"id":5551,"date":"2018-06-19T08:58:04","date_gmt":"2018-06-19T12:58:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/?page_id=5551"},"modified":"2018-06-19T08:58:04","modified_gmt":"2018-06-19T12:58:04","slug":"transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017","title":{"rendered":"Transformation Permit \u2013 Recommendation \u2013 Rejected (2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Arrondissement du Plateau-Mont-Royal<\/em><\/h3>\n

A co-owner residing on the second floor of a duplex wishes to expand her dwelling by adding a third floor and roof terrace.<\/p>\n

The regulation allows for third floors in this area. However, the project is subject to a qualitative review under the R\u00e8glement sur les plans d\u2019implantation et d\u2019int\u00e9gration architecturale<\/em> (PIIA). The Borough opens a file \u2013 Demande de permis de transformation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The citizen\u2019s plans provide for a third floor with a surface equivalent to 88% of the second floor. The Borough and the Urban Planning Advisory Committee (Comit\u00e9 consultatif d\u2019urbanisme <\/em>(CCU)) deem the project to be non-compliant with the PIIA due to its significant risk of visual and shading impact<\/em>. The Borough demands that the depth of the third floor be decreased and aligned to the adjacent building: the third floor surface setup would then be 60% relative to the second floor.<\/p>\n

Our Intervention<\/h3>\n

In this type of situation, our office always attempts to bring the parties to a common ground before proceeding to in-depth file analysis. This is what we did.<\/p>\n

\u2022 The citizen agrees to review her initial project.<\/p>\n

\u2022 The Borough confirms its willingness to consider alternative propositions to address the required configuration.<\/p>\n

\u2022 The citizen suggests two new configurations: one with a surface setup of 80%, the other with a surface setup of approximately 73%.<\/p>\n

\u2022 The Borough rejects the two alternative propositions. It then indicates that the only acceptable configuration is the one that was originally requested (60%).<\/p>\n

The citizen is subsequently notified that her initial project will be submitted for decision at the next Borough Council assembly. This project standing no chance to ever being approved, we obtain from the Borough to not submit it immediately. We then proceed to examine the complaint in depth.<\/p>\n

At the end of our enquiry, we view the Borough’s approach as being problematic. The Borough declines our invitation to meet with us to discuss our findings. The OdM<\/strong> issues the following Recommendations<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00ab La Ville d\u00e9clare r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement que le r\u00f4le des services responsables de la d\u00e9livrance de permis est de venir en appui aux citoyens et de les accompagner dans leurs d\u00e9marches destin\u00e9es \u00e0 am\u00e9liorer leur projet, pour le rendre conforme \u00e0 la r\u00e8glementation et au PIIA.<\/em><\/p>\n

(\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Pour tous ces motifs, l\u2019Ombudsman <\/strong>de Montr\u00e9al<\/strong> Recommande<\/strong> \u00e0 l\u2019arrondissement du Plateau-Mont-Royal\u00a0:<\/em><\/p>\n

De ne pas soumettre le projet initial d\u2019agrandissement (configuration B) au Conseil d\u2019arrondissement pour d\u00e9cision, puisque la citoyenne ne souhaite plus cette configuration; et<\/em><\/p>\n

De poursuivre ses discussions avec la citoyenne ainsi qu\u2019avec ses architectes, concernant la recherche d\u2019une configuration alternative conforme aux exigences du PIIA, et tenant compte des pr\u00e9f\u00e9rences raisonnables de la citoyenne. \u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n

The second Recommendation<\/strong> is rejected<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Our power strictly lies in issuing Recommendations<\/strong>: they are almost always accepted and implemented by the City administration. \u00a0Unfortunately, this was not the case for the current file.<\/p>\n

Our office does not have the authority to impose its findings to the City administration. This file has therefore been closed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Arrondissement du Plateau-Mont-Royal A co-owner residing on the second floor of a duplex wishes to expand her dwelling by adding a third floor and roof terrace. The regulation allows for third floors in this area. However, the project is subject … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"parent":337,"menu_order":35,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-5551","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nTransformation Permit \u2013 Recommendation \u2013 Rejected (2017) - OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Transformation Permit \u2013 Recommendation \u2013 Rejected (2017) - OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Arrondissement du Plateau-Mont-Royal A co-owner residing on the second floor of a duplex wishes to expand her dwelling by adding a third floor and roof terrace. The regulation allows for third floors in this area. However, the project is subject … Continue reading →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017\",\"name\":\"Transformation Permit \u2013 Recommendation \u2013 Rejected (2017) - OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-19T12:58:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cases handled\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Examples of cases handled\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Permits, Urbanism and Maintenance\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":5,\"name\":\"Transformation Permit \u2013 Recommendation \u2013 Rejected (2017)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/\",\"name\":\"OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Transformation Permit \u2013 Recommendation \u2013 Rejected (2017) - OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Transformation Permit \u2013 Recommendation \u2013 Rejected (2017) - OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al","og_description":"Arrondissement du Plateau-Mont-Royal A co-owner residing on the second floor of a duplex wishes to expand her dwelling by adding a third floor and roof terrace. The regulation allows for third floors in this area. However, the project is subject … Continue reading →","og_url":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017","og_site_name":"OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017","url":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017","name":"Transformation Permit \u2013 Recommendation \u2013 Rejected (2017) - OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-06-19T12:58:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance\/transformation-permit-recommendation-rejected-2017#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cases handled","item":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Examples of cases handled","item":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Permits, Urbanism and Maintenance","item":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/cases-handled\/examples-of-cases-handled\/urbanism-and-maintenance"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"name":"Transformation Permit \u2013 Recommendation \u2013 Rejected (2017)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/","name":"OMBUDSMAN de Montr\u00e9al","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5551"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5551\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/337"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ombudsmandemontreal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}