Item 12 — Deletion of the R-CGex Designation

Understanding what R-CGex was, why it was deleted, and what both sides say about it

What Happened

Bylaw 21P2024 deleted the R-CGex designation from Calgary's Land Use Bylaw. This was done through several coordinated changes:

• Section 4(b) deleted "(R-CGex)" from the Division 11 title

• Section 4(c) deleted subsections 525(2) and 527.1 which contained the specific rules for R-CGex

• The zoning map changes in Schedule A converted all R-CGex properties to R-CG

Any property that was previously designated R-CGex is now designated R-CG.

What Was R-CGex?

The Basic Definition

R-CGex stood for Residential Grade-Oriented Infill Exclusionary. It was a variant of the R-CG designation that had the same permitted and discretionary uses as R-CG with one critical difference: it excluded Secondary Suites and Backyard Suites entirely.

How It Differed From R-CG

The distinction between R-CG and R-CGex was straightforward:

R-CG allowed:

• All standard R-CG permitted and discretionary uses

• Secondary Suites in the basement of the main dwelling

• Backyard Suites in a detached building at the rear of the lot

R-CGex allowed:

• All standard R-CG permitted and discretionary uses

• No Secondary Suites

• No Backyard Suites

Why R-CGex Existed

R-CGex was created as a tool for communities or areas where residents and the City had agreed that the addition of suites was not appropriate. It allowed those areas to participate in the broader R-CG framework for grade-oriented development while maintaining a specific restriction on the number of dwelling units per lot.

Where R-CGex Was Applied

R-CGex was not applied broadly across the city. It was used in specific areas where particular circumstances made suite restrictions appropriate. The designation represented a considered decision that those specific locations should not accommodate the additional density that suites bring.

What Do the New Rules Require?

The Effect of the Deletion

All properties that were previously R-CGex are now R-CG. This means:

1. Secondary Suites are now permitted on all formerly R-CGex properties

2. Backyard Suites are now a discretionary use on all formerly R-CGex properties

3. The specific restrictions that R-CGex provided no longer exist anywhere in the bylaw

4. There is no mechanism within the current bylaw to recreate an equivalent designation

Why Did the City Delete R-CGex?

Consistency With the Blanket Rezoning

The overarching goal of Bylaw 21P2024 was to create a single consistent R-CG designation across all low-density residential land in Calgary. Maintaining R-CGex as a separate designation would have created an exception to that consistency. Areas that remained R-CGex would have been carved out of the blanket rezoning in a way that the City determined was inconsistent with the policy intent.

Increasing Housing Supply

Secondary Suites and Backyard Suites are among the most cost-effective ways to add housing units to established neighbourhoods. By eliminating the R-CGex designation the City opened up formerly excluded areas to suite development, increasing the potential housing supply across a broader geographic area.

Simplifying the Bylaw

Having two nearly identical designations — R-CG and R-CGex — that differ only in their treatment of suites adds complexity to the bylaw. Eliminating one of them simplifies the regulatory framework and reduces the potential for confusion about which rules apply in which areas.

Alignment With Provincial Direction

The Province of Alberta has encouraged municipalities to reduce barriers to secondary suite development as part of broader housing supply initiatives. Eliminating R-CGex removes one such barrier across all formerly excluded areas.

What Are the Concerns About This Change?

The Designation Was Applied for Specific Reasons

The most fundamental concern about deleting R-CGex is that it was not applied arbitrarily. In each area where it was used there was a specific reason why suites were considered inappropriate:

• Some areas had infrastructure constraints that made additional units problematic

• Some areas had particular neighbourhood characteristics that the R-CGex designation was intended to protect

• Some areas had community agreements with the City that R-CGex reflected

• Deleting the designation overrides all of those specific local decisions simultaneously

No Individual Community Input

The deletion of R-CGex affected every area carrying that designation simultaneously without individual community consultation:

• Communities that had specifically sought R-CGex status had that status removed without being asked

• Residents in those areas had no opportunity to make the case for retaining the restriction

• The blanket deletion treated all R-CGex areas identically regardless of the specific reasons each area had the designation

Loss of a Useful Policy Tool

Beyond its effect on currently designated areas critics argue that deleting R-CGex removes a useful tool from Calgary's planning toolkit:

• Future communities or areas may have legitimate reasons to exclude suite development

• Without R-CGex there is no equivalent mechanism available within the current bylaw framework

• Recreating an equivalent designation would require a new bylaw amendment

• Critics argue the City should have retained R-CGex as an available tool even if it chose to convert existing R-CGex properties to R-CG

Cumulative Density Impact

The deletion of R-CGex needs to be understood alongside the other suite-related changes in Bylaw 21P2024:

• Item 7 expanded Backyard Suite permissions across R-CG generally

• Item 12 removed suite restrictions from formerly R-CGex areas

• Together these changes significantly expand the geographic area where suites are permitted

• Critics argue the cumulative density impact of these changes combined has not been adequately assessed

Conflict With Community Expectations

In some formerly R-CGex areas residents purchased their properties with a specific understanding that suites would not be permitted in their immediate neighbourhood:

• That understanding was a factor in their purchasing decision

• The deletion of R-CGex changes those conditions retroactively

• Critics argue this is analogous to the broader concerns about the blanket rezoning covered in Item 1 but applied specifically to communities that had taken additional steps to protect their neighbourhood character

What Does This Mean in Practical Terms?

For Homeowners in Formerly R-CGex Areas

• Your neighbourhood can now accommodate Secondary Suites and Backyard Suites

• Any property in your area can now have up to three dwelling units as described in Item 7

• The specific protection that R-CGex provided is no longer available through the planning system

• A Restrictive Covenant is currently the only private law mechanism available to reinstate equivalent restrictions

For Homeowners Considering Adding a Suite in a Formerly R-CGex Area

• You are now permitted to add a Secondary Suite or apply for a Backyard Suite

• The rules governing those suites are the same as for any R-CG property

• The process for approval depends on the specific suite type and its compliance with R-CG rules

For the Broader Neighbourhood

• The cumulative effect of suite permissions being extended to formerly R-CGex areas adds to the overall density increase enabled by Bylaw 21P2024

• The impact will vary depending on how many properties in a given area choose to add suites

• The parking and infrastructure concerns raised in Items 8 and 9 apply equally to formerly R-CGex areas

Key Facts

• What was deleted: The R-CGex designation and all rules specific to it including subsections 525(2) and 527.1

• What R-CGex did: Allowed all standard R-CG uses while excluding Secondary Suites and Backyard Suites

• Where R-CGex was applied: Specific areas where suite restrictions had been determined to be appropriate

• What happened to R-CGex properties: All converted to R-CG as part of the blanket rezoning

• The City's argument for the deletion: Consistency with the blanket rezoning, increasing housing supply, simplifying the bylaw, and alignment with provincial direction

• Primary concern among critics: The designation was applied for specific reasons in specific areas and its deletion overrides those local decisions without individual community consultation

• What replaced it: Nothing within the current bylaw framework. A Restrictive Covenant is the only private law mechanism available to reinstate equivalent restrictions

Read the full bylaw: calgary.ca

See the related proposal: [Link to Item 12 Proposal — insert once created]

Next: Item 13 — Freezing Direct Control Bylaw References →