City Transfers Laneway Land to Neighbours for Free

Summary#

Montréal City Council adopted a bylaw closing part of a laneway beside 89th Avenue, between Eugène-Couvrette Street and Perras Boulevard, in the borough of Rivière-des-Prairies–Pointe-aux-Trembles. The stated goal is to transfer the closed land to the neighbouring property owners. The decision also creates a utility servitude (a legal right to use or protect land for a specified purpose) on two lots.

  • The land designated for transfer comprises lots 4 522 523 to 4 522 548, lots 6 395 913 to 6 395 916, and lot 6 685 500.
  • The transfer is to be free, according to the city staff summary.
  • A servitude for telecommunications and energy distribution applies to lots 4 522 523 and 4 522 524, within the area marked on plan Q-143.
  • Lots 4 522 521, 4 522 522, 6 685 501 and 6 685 502 remain public land. City staff say this section has a steep slope and cannot be used by neighbouring owners.
  • Council adopted the decision unanimously. City staff say the bylaw must come into force before a certified copy is registered.

What it means for you#

  • Owners of properties bordering the closed section: The decision provides for the land to be transferred to neighbouring owners at no charge. The materials do not specify how the lots will be divided among individual owners.
  • Owners affected by the servitude: The two named lots will be subject to rights for telecommunications and energy distribution.
  • Other residents: The decision closes only the identified section of the laneway. It does not close the separate four-lot section that remains public.
  • The city: It gives up ownership of the land designated for transfer. City staff say the transfer will allow the city to collect property taxes on those lots.

Money#

The transfer is free, but the materials give no estimate of the city’s costs or future tax revenue.

  • The staff summary says the city expects to receive property taxes on the transferred lots; it does not estimate the amount.
  • No costs for preparing, registering or carrying out the transfer are stated.

What is unclear#

  • The regulation itself and the plan are not included, so the precise legal boundaries and transfer terms could not be checked.
  • The materials do not say which owner receives each lot, or whether owners receive shared interests.
  • The timing of the bylaw coming into force and the transfers is not stated.
  • The materials do not estimate the land’s value or the future property-tax revenue.

Case for#

  • City staff say the laneway is not open to traffic and is not needed for access to the neighbouring buildings or their rear areas.
  • Staff say neighbouring owners already occupy the land, and that the required support threshold was met: 23 responses were positive, three negative and three owners did not respond.
  • The transfer would end the city’s responsibility for managing this unused public laneway, according to staff.

Case against#

  • The land is transferred free, but the materials do not state its value or explain why no payment is required.
  • The decision transfers public land to neighbouring owners. The materials do not explain how the land will be divided among them.
  • The city gives up ownership while retaining a utility servitude only on two specified lots; the materials do not describe the practical effects of that servitude on the affected owners.