It was nearly a decade ago in October of 2014, when Calgary City Council passed the bylaw to transform the then-residential cottage home (R-CH) into the residential grade-oriented infill (R-CG) designation.
In the time since, Calgary Planning Commission and Calgary City Council have looked at and have either approved or denied—or have seen withdrawn—499 applications to rezone properties to R-CG. To date, 382 have been approved, 21 have been submitted, 43 are under review, 35 have been cancelled.
Only 17 have been refused.
Of those 17, five locations were later approved for R-CG after changing their applications. One was changed to R-C2. That left 11 that have been outright rejected by Calgary City Council.
LWC analyzed all of the R-CG applications that were denied from 2016 on, the first year that an application was denied, by looking at the debated reasons that members of Calgary City Council chose to either support or not support an application.
What LWC found predominantly across those denied applications was the perception of councillors that not enough community engagement had been done by applicants to move a land use change forward.
Some other reasons cited to deny applications were the need to protect the character of communities, and the perceived inappropriateness of increased densification, either by the number of units proposed or the inclusion of secondary suites.
The debate over what constitutes sufficient community engagement has extended beyond just Calgary’s largest-ever public hearing on blanket up-zoning.
Ward 8 Coun. Courtney Walcott has criticized the decisions of council when applications are denied over the perceived lack of community engagement.
“If the answer to why we’re approving or approving is based off of our perception of ‘has the applicant talked to people enough about what he wants to do after that,’ that’s not really fair,” Walcott said.
“If we’re expecting people to go to the length of a development permit of what gets built before they even apply, then it means that is proof that council is actually making decisions outside of what’s in front of them. That, to me, has always set a dangerous precedent.”
The question was always what sort of engagement is expected at the land use stage—and that extended to applications made that were denied because of the stated intent by applicants to build larger numbers of units than councillors were comfortable with, Walcott said.
“I think it always has a factor about whether or not we’re allowing people to live differently, or at least to propose living differently, and where. But for me, I’ll give you the best example, is over the course of the last two weeks, one thing that we keep hearing is nodes and corridors… and that’s what the higher density should be,” Walcott said.
“I very rarely see an R-CG or an H-GO over the last three years that’s not on a node and corridor. If it’s that they are larger—everything I’ve heard is that that’s exactly where they’re supposed to be—and yet somehow those decisions don’t land in council. So, it seems like something that we should have a better conversation about if we’re truly serious about nodes and corridors.”
On the other side of the engagement debate has been Ward 10 Coun. Andre Chabot, who has leaned towards applicants needing more engagement with community members.
“People feel like they’ve not been brought into the whole engagement process, and a lot of folks feel like they haven’t been heard in this process, and that’s why I keep asking folks about this feedback loop of opportunity: What we heard reported, and providing an opportunity for folks to then rebut some of the assertions that are made by administration based on what they heard,” Chabot said.
“You’ll also notice that the majority of the ones that have been refused, we’re also not supported by a planning policy, ie – wasn’t identified as areas that were supportive through either Area Structure Plans (ASPs) or Local Area Plans (LAPs) In fact, there are several that went through that also weren’t supported by policy and required an amendment to the Area Structure Plan or Area Redevelopment Plan.”
He said that when the high number of approved applications are cited, some 94 per cent, what that really means is 100 per cent of those applications are supported by planning.
“So when you start talking about applying this city-wide in areas that are not supported by planning, you’ve got to assume that there’s going to be at least 6 per cent of those are not suitable.”
Follow through or fatigue: Opinions different on subsequently approved applications
Of the denied applications that are then reapplied for to return in front of council for consideration, opinion likewise diverges on the reasons why those applications are approved.
Coun. Walcott said that the big question is whether the requested changes are actually worth it to applicants.
“I know a lot of people will spend a significant amount of time and money to to envision a future, and to have it denied sometimes, there’s a lot of sunk costs. People might end up just selling the property to someone else and letting them decide what to do with it later. For the ones that came forward, the big question I always have is what is the degree of change?” Walcott said.
Using an example of a Marda Loop H-GO application, he said that the application was eventually approved after the number of units dropped from 22 to 20.
“We did we ended up increasing the cost of all of those houses units, collectively, over two units of change. We probably have to ask the question of whether the cost increases that are now levied against the future homeowner, are worth the fact that you might have two less neighbours on a parcel like that, when we consider the 20 is appropriate, but not an additional two,” he said.
Speaking to one R-CG application location that was put before council three times before being approved, he said that speaks to a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed between council, applicants, and community members.
“That doesn’t indicate a problem with the R-CG, because if there’s a problem with R-CG, it would have always got denied,” Walcott said.
Coun. Chabot though said that there is frequently an issue with fatigue amongst community members to continually oppose projects if they come before council multiple times.
“Folks will come and they’ll oppose something, and then they get ridiculed for opposing things. So they’re reluctant to come back to council,” he said.
“Contrary to what a lot of people think, presenting to council is intimidating. All members of council that have not had that experience may not or may not appreciate just how intimidating it is to present a council. I’ve been on both sides of that bar, and I can tell you personally, even after I presented multiple times to city council, every time I came before them it always felt intimidating,” he said.
Refused R-CG applications
July 4, 2016: 712 - 2 Street NE – Crescent Heights
Application made on Sept. 11, 2015 for a potential four-unit rowhouse development
The first R-CG application to be opposed by Calgary councillors was done unanimously.
Among the reasons why the application was rejected by councillors were cited as the need to better better engage neighbours, lack of developer engagement with city council, and the balance of housing diversity in Calgary's inner city communities.
The application for the location was resubmitted and denied in 2017, before being resubmitted and approved in 2019.
Sept. 12. 2016: 3727 - 5 Avenue SW – Spruce Cliff
Application made on May 19, 2016 for a potential four-unit rowhouse development
This application was opposed 14 to 1, with Coun. Gian-Carlo Carra in favour.
Then Coun. Evan Woolley moved to reject the application based on several factors, including the applicant not appearing before council, a perceived lack of engagement with the community, and 20 letters of opposition to the change.
Councillor Carra cited his support for the application, despite the applicant not appearing before council, as being an application that was similar to one approved during the same Sept. 12 council meeting, and rezoning for corner lots for R-CG being a normal approval for council.
April 10, 2017: 505 - 51 Avenue SW – Windsor Park
Application made on Nov. 15, 2016 for an R-CG use re-designation before building planning
Council debated the transformation of this subdivided property from R-C2 to R-CG, with councillors Richard Pootmans, Gian-Carlo Carra, Diane Colley-Urquhart, Druh Farrell, and Mayor Naheed Nenshi for, and Joe Magliocca, Brian Pincott, Ward Sutherland, Evan Woolley, Andre Chabot, Sean Chu, Peter Demong, Ray Jones, and Shane Keating against (5 to 9 against).
Among the reasons cited for the application to be approved were to encourage more architecturally interesting buildings through R-CG, greater affordable housing options, and filling the missing middle for housing.
Points made against the proposed land use change was a perceived lack of community engagement on the land use change, and a lack of existing R-CG projects at the time to show that this project would have been successful.
July 3, 2017: 712 - 2 Street NE - Crescent Heights
Application made on Feb. 28, 2017 for a potential four-unit rowhouse development
The 712 - 2 Street NE location returned before council for a second time, being rejected by councillors 7 to 4 with Councillors Carra, Jones, Magliocca, and Stevenson for and Woolley, Demong, Farrell, Pincott, Pootmans, Sutherland, and Mayor Nenshi against.
Speaking against the application, Coun. Farrell acknowledged improved community engagement but stated the application itself had not significantly changed. Other concerns included community concerns over densification and community support for preserving community characteristics.
Speaking for the application, Coun. Carra emphasized the importance of R-CG zoning in creating mixed community, and contradicted community concerns over family suitability, saying that many families do desire to live in homes other than single detached houses.
The application for the location was resubmitted and approved by council in 2019.
July 31, 2017: 201 - 10 Avenue NE – Crescent Heights
Application made on February 28, 2017 for a potential four unit rowhouse development
The application was rejected by council, with only Couns. Carra and Pincott for (13 to 2).
Speaking against the approval were Coun. Farrell and Woolley, who cited the need to protect single-family historic homes in Crescent Heights, a lack of consultation with the community by the developer, and concerns over the planning process for the site.
Speaking in favour of the application, Coun. Carra critiqued the notion that it should be primarily an applicant's responsibility to engage with communites, saying that should have been led by the planning department.
The application for the location was resubmitted and approved by council in 2023.
Nov. 6, 2017: 1718 - 25A Street SW – Shaganappi
Calgary City Council received the report from the Calgary Planning Commission for this application, with Councillors Chu, Colley-Urquhart, Davison, Demong, Farkas, Farrell, Gondek, Jones, Keating, Magliocca, Sutherland, and Councillor Woolley for, and Mayor Nenshi, Councillor Carra, and Councillor Chahal against.
The application was refused two years later automatically after the application failed to receive further readings by council.
Feb. 20, 2018: 1920 Home Road NW – Montgomery
Application made on May 7, 2017 for an R-CG use re-designation before building planning
Council rejected the application 10 to 4, with Mayor Nenshi, and Councillors Chu, Colley-Urquhart, Demong, Farkas, Farrell, Jones, Keating, Magliocca, and Sutherland against, and Councillors Carra, Chahal, Davison, and Gondek for.
Among the reasons cited for not supporting the application by councillors was the perceived lack of community consultation, along with laneway access and parking issues, calling it a challenging site.
In support of the application, councillors argued that placing a single-detached home would be a waste of potential for the site and that it would meet the needs of individuals who would not need parking.
The application for the location was resubmitted and approved by council as an R-C2 land use in 2020.
March 19, 2018: 2507 - 17A Street NW – North Hill
Application made on Nov. 28, 2016 for an R-CG use re-designation for a potential seven-unit rowhouse with seven secondary suites development
The public hearing for this application was heard on Feb. 20, 2018, with council moving the hearing to March 19 to allow for more time for citizens to make submissions.
The application was rejected by council (8 to 6), with Mayor Nenshi, and Couns. Carra, Chahal, Colley-Urquhart, Farrell, and Jones for the application, and Chu, Davison, Demong, Farkas, Gondek, Keating, Magliocca, and Sutherland against.
Points made in support of the application included building forms that matched existing houses nearby, the consolidation of two lots made the use of the space more acceptable for parking and density, and that the application respected the adjacent backyard spaces of other homes.
Councillors speaking against the application were concerned about a 14-unit multi-family structure in the neighbourhood, and more community opposition than support for the application.
April 16, 2018: 8139 - 46 Avenue NW – Bowness
Application made on September 26, 2017 for an R-CG use re-designation for a potential development of four rowhouses.
The application was denied by council (10 to 4), with Couns. Chu, Colley-Urquhart, Davison, Demong, Farkas, Gondek, Jones, Keating, Sutherland, and Woolley against. Mayor Nenshi, and Councillors Carra, Chahal, Farrell, and Magliocca were for the application.
Speaking against the applications, councillors said that there was a need to better engage with the public on the application and had concerns that issues brought forward by members of the public were not addressed properly.
For the application, councillors argued that the existing consultation process was adequate and that overemphasizing consultation would hinder the project's progress and that focus should be put on land use technical merits first.
The application for the location was resubmitted and approved by council in 2019.
Jan. 14, 2019: 3235 Kinsale Road SW – Killarney/Glengarry
Application made on Aug. 10, 2018 for an R-CG use re-designation for a potential development of four rowhouses.
The application was denied by council (9 to 5), with Mayor Nenshi, and Councillors Carra, Chahal, Colley-Urquhart, and Keating for, and
Chu, Davison, Demong, Farkas, Farrell, Gondek, Magliocca, Sutherland, and Woolley against.
Points raised by councillors against the application included a lack of perceived engagement with the community association and community members by the applicant, and for not being present to speak for the application in front of council during the public hearing.
Speaking for the application's merits, council noted the location being suitable for R-CG development and similar approvals on adjacent blocks for R-CG up-zoning.
The application for the location was resubmitted and approved by council in 2020.
Sept. 9, 2019: 802 - 23 Avenue NW – Mount Pleasant
Application made on March 4, 2019 for an R-CG use re-designation for the potential development of up to four housing units.
The application was denied by council (8 to 4), with Mayor Nenshi, and Councillor Carra, Chahal, and Chu for, and Colley-Urquhart, Davison, Farkas, Farrell, Gondek, Keating, Sutherland, and Woolley against.
Council members expressed uncertainty about the site, saying that it would have been more appropriate to present both a land use and a development permit concurrently to clarify the structure on a difficult building site. A perceived lack of community engagement and community clarity about development on the site were also cited as reasons against the application.
Feb. 3, 2020: 1704 - 27 Street SW – Shaganappi
Application made on Oct. 18, 2019 for an R-CG use re-designation for the potential development rowhouses.
Council refused the application (9 to 3), with Couns. Carra, Farrell, and Gondek for, and Chu, Colley-Urquhart, Davison, Farkas, Keating, Magliocca, Sutherland, Woolley, and Mayor Nenshi against.
Councillors spoke about the importance of adherence to established area planning, and established mix of housing as reasons against the application, but said that they would be open to changes if future planning eliminated R-C1 and R-C2 zoning universally.
Speaking for the application, other councillors noted the ideal location of the application site as being near transit and with the inclusion of purpose-built rental housing options. They also argued that the application supported the vision of creating more mixed, inclusive communities in Calgary.
April 27, 2020: 113 Coachway Road SW – Coach Hill
Application made on Dec. 18, 2019 for an R-CG use re-designation for the potential development of a backyard suite.
Council refused the application (10 to 5), with Councillors Chu, Colley-Urquhart, Davison, Demong, Farkas, Jones, Keating, Magliocca, Sutherland, and Woolley against, and Carra, Chahal, Farrell, Gondek, and Mayor Nenshi for.
Speaking in favour of the application, Coun. Carra called the applicant's situation an unusual one given the shape of the applicant's site but said that the design of a suite built above a backyard garage was good urban design and that concerns over privacy and laneway access could be mitigated.
Speaking against the application, Coun. Davison said that while he was sympathetic to the applicant, everyone had a right to apply but not a right to an approval. He said that there was a misunderstanding of the R-CG rules, and that was proof that blanket approaches to R-CG don't work—but that a no at that hearing could be mitigated by future work to clarify the use for the site.
January 11, 2022: 637 - 51 Avenue SW – Windsor Park
Application made on June 21, 2021 for an R-CG use re-designation for the potential development of six units with a further six secondary suites.
The application was opposed by council (8 to 7), with Councillors Demong, Sharp, Spencer, Pootmans, McLean, Wyness, Chabot, and Dhaliwal against, and Carra, Chu, Walcott, Mian, Penner, Wong, and Mayor Gondek for.
Speaking for the application, Coun. Penner called it a tricky application saying that the concerns from the community association over Windsor Park taking the bulk of densification were valid. She said that the applicant had engaged with the community, but stressed further conversations would have to continue for land use and planning in Windsor Park.
No council members spoke in debate against the application.
The application for the location was resubmitted and approved by council in 2023.
November 1, 2022: 1845 - 18A Street SW – Bankview
Application made on Oct. 14, 2021 for a potential four-unit rowhouse development
Council rejected the application through an abandonment of the bylaw change allowing for the rezoning (8 to 7), with Mayor Gondek, and Couns. Carra, Spencer, Walcott, Mian, Penner, and Dhaliwal for, and Chu, Demong, Sharp, Pootmans, McLean, Wyness, Chabot, and Wong against.
Councillors expressed frustration with the proposal presented before both council and Calgary Planning Commission, saying that an R-CGex designation that disallowed secondary suites would be more appropriate for the site—which the applicant did not support. Other issues raised included a lack of assurance about appropriateness of development for the site, given that plans had not yet been developed ahead of the land use change.
December 6, 2022: 114 Hounslow Drive NW – Highwood
Application made on June 7, 2022 for a potential three-unit rowhouse development
The application was rejected by Calgary City Council (10 to 3), with Councillors Carra, Spencer, and Penner for, and Chu, Demong, Sharp, Pootmans, McLean, Wyness, Mian, Chabot, Wong, and Dhaliwal against.
Speaking for the application, Councillor Penner said it was important not to hinder development goals and allow for progress that creates homes for future residents, and that the proposal was in line with low-density zoning applied to most neighbourhoods.
Speaking against the application, Councillors Wong, Mian, and Wyness were concerned about the contextually insensitive infill development and acknowledged community opposition to the application. Among other reasons why the application was rejected included a perceived lack of community engagement, and the appropriateness of the application being mid-block not on a main road.
March 5, 2024: 4371 - 69 Street NW – Bowness
Application made on Sept. 19, 2023 for a potential five-unit rowhouse development with secondary suites
The application was rejected by Calgary City Council (10 to 4), with Councillors Carra, Councillor Mian, Councillor Penner, and Mayor Gondek for. Against the application were Councillors Chu, Demong, Sharp, Spencer, Pootmans, McLean, Wyness, Chabot, Wong, and Dhaliwal.
Among the reasons for the application cited by councillors were the application complying with the Area Redevelopment Plan, and the consistency with other approved R-CG projects.
The reasons cited by councillors against the application were concerns over community engagement with the developer of the project, a perceived lack of community consultation over the application, and the cost of redeveloped housing once completed and the infrastructure and environmental impact from the number of units.
