The City draft lot-splitting guidelines call for lot-splitting only on “improved lanes”. The City has now taken three different stances on what this all-important phrase means.
First, Public Works has provided me with a map that demonstrates that all gravel lanes are considered “unimproved”. The planning department then contradicts this statement, saying that gravel lanes (despite decades of neglect by City) actually count as “improved” just like asphalt or concrete lanes. No matter that, resurfacing concrete lanes is done at the City’s expense, whereas residents must pay to upgrade their gravel lanes.
Planners treat them all the same. Despite a committee of Councillors rejecting a lot-split at 147 Imperial in 2019, providing lengthy comments about the terrible gravel lane, City planners were back a year later supporting the lot-splits and making NO mention of a gravel lane. This, despite the brave words that the particular conditions of a site “are considered” in lot-split applications.
The third different City stance: mud lanes are NOT considered improved. City staff tell me in 2020 that there are no “mud lanes” in St. Vital. More conflicting information, because in 2016, City staff listed three mud lanes, including one east of Norfolk behind Kingston Row. Who cares? The new pro-tear down, pro lot-split guidelines would NOT apply to that block on Kingston Row.