City transfers alley land to owners

Summary#

Montréal city council adopted the bylaw titled Règlement modifiant le Règlement 2486… aux fins de transfert aux propriétaires riverains. It amends former Lachine’s Règlement 2486 to allow the remaining part of an alley south of Sherbrooke Street, between 6th and 7th Avenues in Lachine borough, to be transferred to adjoining owners. City staff say the goal is to regularize the owners’ occupation of the land.

  • The four remaining alley lots—6 552 423 to 6 552 426—are intended to be transferred to the four adjoining property owners, without payment.
  • The council also created a public utility easement (a right to use land for public services) for telecommunications and energy distribution on lots 6 552 425 and 6 552 426.
  • The alley was already closed to traffic under the earlier bylaw. City staff say it is not needed for access to nearby buildings.

What it means for you#

  • The four adjoining owners: They are intended to receive the remaining alley land without payment. The materials do not identify which owner receives each lot.
  • Owners of lots 6 552 425 and 6 552 426: The utility easement will allow telecommunications and energy-distribution uses on the area shown in the council documents’ survey plan.
  • Other residents: The decision does not reopen the alley to traffic or create a new public service. City staff say the alley is not needed for access to the nearby buildings.
  • The city says it will publish notice of adoption and notify the adjoining owners. Once the bylaw is in force, a certified copy is to be registered in the land registry.

Money#

The land transfer is without payment; the materials give no estimate of its financial value or of future tax revenue.

  • City staff say the city may collect property taxes on the transferred lots. The amount is not stated.
  • The materials do not provide an estimate of costs for administering or registering the transfer.

What is unclear#

  • The bylaw text itself is not included, so the exact legal steps and timing for the transfers cannot be verified from the supplied materials.
  • The decision summary says three of the four owners who had not previously acquired land responded in favour; one did not respond. It does not identify that owner or explain how the transfer will proceed for them.
  • The materials do not explain how the utility easement may affect the owners’ use of the land.

Case for#

  • City staff say the alley is not needed for access or rear service to the nearby buildings, so keeping it as city land is not necessary for that purpose.
  • The transfer would regularize adjoining owners’ existing occupation of the land. Several nearby owners had already acquired their part of the alley.
  • Staff say the required support threshold was met: at least two-thirds of the adjoining owners, representing at least two-thirds of the frontage, signed the request.

Case against#

  • The city is transferring land without payment, but the materials do not state its value or compare the value with expected property-tax revenue.
  • One of the four owners who had not previously acquired a portion did not respond to the request. The materials do not explain how that owner’s position was addressed.
  • The easement preserves utility uses on two lots, but the materials do not explain its practical limits for the owners.