Application to Close Laneway - procedure and caveats

[David Mennier]

Good afternoon, neighbours,
 
 
I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season. It was good to see many residents at the information exchange meeting on 20 December. Thank you for your continued participation in this issue as we work toward a reasonable solution for all owners and residents affected by the planned change of function of our common laneway.
 
As you are now likely aware, the results of the questionnaire circulated in early December indicated that the vast majority of the owners and/or residents of the 24 lots abutting the laneway were opposed to the intended change in function of the laneway.
 
As the lane has always been legally categorized as 'open' by the City, our logical next step would be to apply to the City to close the lane.
 
I have the application form filled in and ready to submit, should we collectively choose to do so. (See attached 5-page PDF.)
 
However, before we vote to submit this application, I am writing to everyone with some notes of caution.
 
My notes are not intended to dissuade or discourage owners or residents from supporting this application, but to ensure everyone is fully aware of the associated costs and responsibilites.
 
I will soon distribute to each home on the block a voting slip. If you support the application to close the lane, we will require your name, address, ownership status, and signature on this slip. If we vote to go ahead, I would then return to ask for a cheque for each owner's share of the application fee.
 
Here are some issues to ponder before we vote to apply to close the lane:
 
1. COSTS
The cost for the application to close the lane is $4608.66.
Considering that 22 of 24 lots abutting the lane are in favour of closing the lane, that works out to about $210 per owner.
Due to the significant amount, I would ask for this money up front, and placed in a community account, rather than pay myself and then ask for re-imbursement.
In addition to the application costs, if the City approves our application to close the lane, this approval would almost certainly come with conditions. The main condition would likely be that each abutting property owner purchase at market value their portion of the currently encroached upon lane. I have no substantiated estimates on how valuable a 6-foot by 33-foot strip of New Edinburgh land is worth, but I would say we should expect in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per abutting owner, and perhaps more. (Remember that single lots are now being purchased - lots with homes intended to be demolished - for about $400,000 to $500,000.)
 
2. LONG-TERM ACCESS OPTIONS
The legal closing of the lane would ease many of our concerns, and keep the block as it is, with our trees, patios and gardens intact. However, we also need to consider the coming decades, the changing nature of homes in the neighbourhood, and the options we or future owners may want to have for uses for the laneway. I am sure we do not want to be re-visiting this issue every 5 to 10 years. So, I ask everyone: are you 100% sure you would never want rear access to your property?
 
3. CHANCES FOR SUCCESS
Note that applying to the City to close the lane in no way implies that the application will be successful. The City has confirmed to the new owners at 169 Ivy Crescent that they can have rear access through the lane to their property. Many of us may disagree with this point, but the City will have to weigh this factor when considering whether to support our application. Procedurally, the application will go through the Planning Dept. They will advise on whether they support our application or not. If we disagree with the Planning Dept.'s decision, we can then take it to Council.
 
Again, thank you, residents and owners, for your attention in this matter and I hope this information is not too dense. Please look for the voting sheet, coming to your home soon.
 
 
Kind regards,
 
 
David Mennier
Chair, Block Residents' ad hoc Laneway Committee
87 Vaughan Street
 

[dco...@sympatico.ca]

FYI,

the recent prices for 40x96 lots have slighly over 500,000 or about 130 per square foot, so that 6 feet by 40 feet strip maybe worth 30,000.

I did ask City guy, Alain, what the price of the strip of land. He passed it along to the real estate department, and they have yet to respond.

Steve Grabner

---

From: men...@hotmail.com
To: lan...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [laneway] Application to Close Laneway - procedure and caveats
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 21:35:43 +0000

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ivy/Vaughan Laneway" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to laneway+u...@googlegroups.com.
 
 

[Lynn Townsend]

I think we need to be clear on the costs before committing. The thought of an additional $30k plus associated taxes needs careful consideration. When do we expect replies from Alain?

Lynn

Sent from my iPhone

[David Mennier]

Hi Lynn,

Alain is away until Monday, but I spoke with one of his colleagues today, a planner. 

There is no word yet on how much the strip of land is currently worth, but I think for our current purpose, that is, simply wishing to explore the option of applying to close the lane, abutting owners need to know the costs involved will be significant, in the many thousands of dollars. 

That is the question each owner now must ponder: how much is it worth to each of us to retain the lane as it is?

Regards,

David

Sent from my DavePad

[Kathryn Verey]

Not necessarily.  The application to close and the offering of the land for sale are not connected.  The procedure for closing a laneway states that once an application to close a laneway has been received and approved, the land continues to be owned by the city, and the city can then at any point offer the land up for sale.  I would vote for applying to close the laneway (the approx. $210 per household that you mentioned).  After that (if approved) the ball is in the city's court in terms of whether they offer it up for sale.  K.

[David Mennier]

Yes, Kathryn, it is two separate issues in theory. However, the planner I spoke with yesterday, in Miguel office, said that if the Planning Dept. support an application to close, that their approval will most likely come with a condition - that abutting owners buy the land. There is then a timeframe put on this approval to close. If by the end of the timeframe the abutting owners do not commit to buying their parcel of land, the approval is revoked. At that point, would could then appeal and take it to City Council.
 
Cheers,
 
_________________________
David P. Mennier
Ottawa
 

---

Subject: Re: [laneway] Application to Close Laneway - procedure and caveats
From: kathry...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 23:51:04 -0500
CC: lan...@googlegroups.com
To: men...@hotmail.com

[dco...@sympatico.ca]

Dave,

Is the application to close the entire lane, or only the portion not affected by the new development at 159 ivy. It was my understanding that the portion was going to be opened, and that we could apply to close the remaining part of the lane.

Thanks,

Steve Grabner

---

From: men...@hotmail.com
To: kathry...@gmail.com; lan...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [laneway] Application to Close Laneway - procedure and caveats
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:08:03 +0000

[David Mennier]

That is a very good question, Steve, and something I have to clarify with Miguel at the City when he returns to the office next week. There is nothing on the City application documents that specify partial lane (or street) closures, so this could be a partial solution. Still, Diana, Martha and Nino would be negatively affected.

Let's see what Miguel at the City says about this point.
 
Regards,

 
_________________________
David P. Mennier
Ottawa
 

---

From: dco...@sympatico.ca
To: men...@hotmail.com; kathry...@gmail.com; lan...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [laneway] Application to Close Laneway - procedure and caveats

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:34:33 +0000

[Miguel Planas]

I think whether we go for full or (if we can) partial lane closure, we need to emphasize to the city that activating the entire lane way is not a viable option because:

1. The right-angle turn in a very tight space it would require at the junction of 99 Vaughan, 4 Putman and 131 Ivy would make it very difficult for a car to use that portion of the lane way safely, particularly in the winter. The tightness of space is caused by the location of the building at 99 Vaughan.
2. The retaining wall that the city built between 4 Putman on one side, and 97 & 99 Vaughan on the other make this section of the lane way no more than a footpath. Opening this portion of the lane way to traffic would require knocking down and rebuilding the retaining wall, which could easily compromise the foundation of the SW corner of 4 Putman (our property). I think it would also require cutting down several mature trees at the edge of the lane way, which I believe are on our property, but would be too close to a new retaining wall.
3. The N and W sides of 99 Vaughan (a 100 year old building) are at the edge of the lane way. Activating the lane way in the area around this property would leave it with no front or side space. I haven't measured the space, but it looks to me that if the the front steps of the building don't actually lie on the lane, they would end almost directly on it, causing a self-evident safety issue, particularly given its closeness to the right-angle turn mentioned in point (1).

I mentioned these points at the Dec 20 meeting. After the meeting, Alain said to me that he wanted to come and see that portion of the lane way. I think we should bring him over ASAP and be there when he sees it. It may be that if we can persuade the city that  activating the North end of the lane way is not viable, we may be in a better position to close the rest of the lane way if we wish to do so, or make it much less attractive for future owners of the properties abutting the lane to wish to activate it, since it would only have one exit point, making it harder to snow-plow it etc. 

BTW, I think Alain's last name is Miguelez, not Miguel. Regardless, maybe to avoid confusing it with my name, we should refer to him in our correspondences by his first name:-)

…Miguel

[Lynn Townsend]

I really believe the City should be required to conduct an environmental assessment at their cost

L

Sent from my iPhone

[David Mennier]

Hi All,

Miguel, once Alain is back in his office next week, we can ask him to come to the house in the lane to assess the tight physical dimensions for himself. It would be hard to imagine a functioning lane in that space.

Lynn, I have not yet had time to follow up on the environmental assessment angle, nor the idea of requesting a study to determine the impact on protected species of birds or fauna. Would anyone in the group be will to follow these avenues?

I have the voting ballot for block residents ready, and will distribute shortly.

Regards,

David

Sent from my DavePad