Residents in the northwest community of Parkdale worry that an upcoming land-use redesignation in their neighbourhood is designed to deliberately override a restrictive covenant on the site.

The parcel, located at 2904 – 7 Avenue NW, which is already zoned R-CG under Calgary’s citywide rezoning, will be reviewed for a potential Direct Control (DC) R-CG land use.

According to the sign at the site, the proposed change is to require a minimum density on the site to facilitate a rowhouse or townhouse development and to remove contextual semi-detached development, contextual single-detached dwelling and duplex dwelling.

The site has a concurrent development permit under review for a rowhouse project that allows for four secondary suites, which would already qualify under Calgary’s R-CG zoning.

The location has a restrictive covenant, limiting the type of dwelling on the site to lower density, according to Gwen Giese, who lives next door to the proposed development and is also attached to the same restrictive covenant.

Giese is irked over the route taken by the property developer.

“The frustrating part about that is that it’s a legal document. It is at the provincial level, so the city and the province in that regard, kind of work in silos. If the (developer) wants to remove the covenant, then really, they should be going through the appropriate legal channels and going through a consultation process to have it removed,” Giese said.

She had hired a lawyer and sent a demand letter to the landowner and the survey company, who is acting as the consultant for the project.

“I don’t know whether it was on that basis that they said, ‘oh boy, we’re going to have pushback here. Let’s try a workaround,’” Giese told LWC.

“Now what they’re proposing is this land use change, which would effectively create a situation where that land … could only be used to put up row houses, and then our restrictive covenant would then be at issue.”

Land use change and discharging the covenant are two separate issues: Consultant

Lei Wang with Horizon Surveys, who is consulting on the land use change and property development for the owner, said they aren’t changing the base zoning.

“We’re just applying for the direct control so we can deal with the restrictive covenant, registered on the title,” he told LWC.

They’re two separate issues, he said. One is a zoning bylaw, which is within the City of Calgary’s jurisdiction. The other is a land title issue, which is reviewed by the courts.

Wang said they’re not against restrictive covenants. They just want the city to recognize certain sites are good for increased density, particularly ones that are on corner lots, close to transit.

“Recently, we see people use restrictive covenants to kind of significantly delay this kind of project,” he said.

He said a court case to deal with the restrictive covenant could take years and cost a lot of money, all while no new units are built on the site.

“Through the zoning process, we just remove those options. It just makes it easier for the judge to understand what the city’s plan and policy for this lot is.”

Parkdale falls under the South Shaganappi Local Area Plan, which was approved by Calgary city council in March 2025. According to the Urban Form map in that local area plan, the location is designated as Neighbourhood Local, with multiple housing types allowed, though a building scale is limited to 3 storeys.

Ward 10 Coun. Andre Chabot, who is the new chair of Calgary city council’s Infrastructure and Planning Committee, also said zoning and the discharge of a restrictive covenant are two separate, distinct processes.

“I know there was a concern when some of those types of land uses came to council as a potential, I guess, way to influence the courts,” he told LWC.

“At the end of the day, we have no say on what the courts decide, and we are not bound by restrictive covenants as a council so it’s not something we factor into our decision.”

Chabot said he doesn’t really see it as an end-around the restrictive covenants. Plus, he’s expecting future motions to potentially revert back to the original land use bylaw.

“Which could then make it a lot more difficult for them to make their case if they no longer have the R-CG designation,” he said.

Girding for the fight

In the applicant submission, the request for the Direct Control clarifies that its intent is to set up a minimum density for the site and eliminate “single house, semi-detached and duplex use.”

It reads that the restrictive covenant, 8464AG creates “unusual site constraint for this perfect corner lot.”

“The goals and objectives of the LAP includes ‘diverse, accessible and inclusive housing choices’ which focus on providing diverse and accessible housing options to support inclusive and equitable communities,” the application reads.

“The restrictive covenant is in direct contrast to the LAP.”

Currently there’s a bungalow on the site that Giese said is being rented out. Though she opposes the project in general, Giese does recognize that the R-CG zoning already allows this kind of project to move ahead without the proposed land-use change.

“If we didn’t have a restrictive covenant, and they didn’t, then we could just say, ‘well, we don’t like it, because I don’t want all those people looking into my backyard. We don’t have the infrastructure to support that many more individuals and where on God’s green earth are all these people going to park,'” she said.

“We’ve already got enough people parking from the hospital and from the charter school. We have people sitting in front of our house and, in fact, across our driveway, quite often, just sitting waiting for a pickup or whatever. So, there’s already pain point, and so it’s just adding to it.”

The plan does include a four-car detached garage building on the north side of the site.

Giese said that she and other residents have started going door-to-door to curry support for a potential court challenge. She said their lawyers have said it could cost upwards of $30,000 to make their case in front of a judge.

“We have engaged a lawyer, and our next step is to have them make application to the (Court of) King’s Bench, and that also kind of needs a bit more involvement from other neighbours, too,” she said.

“So, if we can pull it all together, we’re hoping to gather neighbours and get people to sign kind of a group statement identifying how this would impact them and the neighbourhood and see where it goes from there.”

The land-use redesignation is under review, with comments on the application closed as of Oct. 31. There’s no specific date set for it to appear before the Calgary Planning Commission or Calgary city council for Public Hearing.