Item 5 — How Rowhouses Get Approved Now

Understanding the change from permitted to discretionary use, why it happened, and what both sides say about it

What Happened

Bylaw 21P2024 restructured how rowhouse buildings are classified and approved in the R-CG district. Specifically it:

1. Deleted the permitted use status for rowhouses entirely

2. Moved all rowhouses to the discretionary use list

3. Deleted the design standards that previously separated the two categories

To understand why this matters it helps to understand the difference between a permitted use and a discretionary use in Calgary's planning system.

Permitted Use vs Discretionary Use

What Is a Permitted Use?

• Automatically approved if the application meets all the rules in the bylaw

• The Development Authority has no discretion to refuse it

• No public hearing is required

• Neighbours are not notified

• The only grounds for refusal are that the application does not comply with written bylaw rules

What Is a Discretionary Use?

• Requires a decision by the Development Authority

• The Development Authority can approve, approve with conditions, or refuse

• Neighbours within a certain distance are notified and can submit written comments

• The Development Authority weighs factors including the impact on neighbouring properties

• Decisions can be appealed to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

What Was the Old System?

The Two-Track Approach

Before Bylaw 21P2024 there was a two-track system for rowhouses in R-CG:

Track 1 — Permitted Use Rowhouses that met all the design standards in subsection 347.3 were permitted uses. They were automatically approved if they complied with those standards. No public hearing. No neighbour notification. No discretion by the Development Authority.

Track 2 — Discretionary Use Rowhouses that did not meet those design standards were discretionary uses. They required a decision by the Development Authority, neighbour notification, and could be refused or approved with conditions.

Why the Two Tracks Existed

The design standards in 347.3 acted as a quality threshold:

• Meet the threshold and your rowhouse was automatically approved

• Fall short of it and you had to go through a more involved process

• Developers had a concrete incentive to design to that standard because it meant a faster and cheaper approval

What Is the New System?

How It Works Now

Under Bylaw 21P2024:

1. All rowhouses are now discretionary uses regardless of their design

2. The design standards in subsection 347.3 have been deleted entirely

3. The Development Authority evaluates all rowhouse applications against the general R-CG rules

What Changed in Practice

• There is no longer a design threshold that separates automatically approved rowhouses from those requiring a decision

• All rowhouses go through the discretionary process

• That process now has fewer specific written standards to apply

• Developers no longer have an incentive to meet a specific design threshold to gain automatic approval

Why Did the City Make This Change?

Structural Consistency

The two-track system only made sense when there were design standards creating the threshold between the two tracks. Once the City decided to delete those standards having some rowhouses as permitted and others as discretionary became structurally incoherent. Moving everything to discretionary was the logical result.

Maintaining Some Oversight

By making all rowhouses discretionary rather than permitted the City ensured that every rowhouse application receives at least some level of review by the Development Authority. Supporters argue this actually increases oversight compared to the old system where compliant rowhouses were automatically approved with no Development Authority involvement at all.

Reducing Prescriptive Barriers

The old design standards were detailed and prescriptive. Requiring all rowhouses to meet them added cost and complexity to the development process. Removing them and relying on the Development Authority's discretion instead gives both developers and planners more flexibility to find solutions appropriate to specific sites and contexts.

What Are the Concerns About This Change?

Discretion Without Standards Is Weak Oversight

The central criticism of this change is that moving rowhouses to the discretionary category sounds like stronger oversight but is actually weaker in practice:

• The discretionary process gives neighbours the right to comment but not the right to refuse

• The Development Authority makes its decision based on the rules in the bylaw

• If the bylaw no longer contains specific design standards the Development Authority has limited written grounds to impose design requirements

• A developer whose application meets the general R-CG rules has a strong basis for approval even if neighbours object to the design

The Old System Had a Genuine Quality Threshold

Critics argue that the old two-track system created a real incentive for developers to produce better-designed rowhouses:

• Meeting the 347.3 standards meant automatic approval, which was faster and cheaper

• Developers had a concrete reason to design to that standard

• Without that incentive the quality threshold disappears entirely

• There is no longer any reward for designing a better rowhouse

Neighbour Notification Is Not the Same as Neighbour Input

The discretionary process notifies neighbours and allows written comments. But those comments are advisory:

• The Development Authority is not required to follow them

• Notification without meaningful power to influence outcomes gives residents the appearance of participation without its substance

• A well-organised neighbourhood objection can still result in approval if the application meets the bylaw rules

Appeal Rights Are Limited

Decisions on discretionary use applications can be appealed to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. However:

• Appeals are time-consuming and expensive

• The appeal board evaluates decisions against the rules in the bylaw

• Without specific design standards in the bylaw the grounds for a successful appeal are narrow

• Most residents do not have the time, resources, or expertise to mount an effective appeal

The Combination of Changes Is the Problem

Several critics have pointed out that no single change in Bylaw 21P2024 is as concerning in isolation as the combination of changes is together. Moving rowhouses to discretionary use while simultaneously deleting the design standards and broadening the purpose language of R-CG means that:

1. There are no automatic design requirements rowhouses must meet

2. The purpose statement gives planners maximum flexibility to approve them

3. The general R-CG rules provide limited specific grounds for refusal

4. Neighbour comments are advisory only

5. Appeals are difficult and expensive

The cumulative effect critics argue is a system that appears to maintain oversight while substantially reducing it in practice.

What Does This Mean in Practical Terms?

For a Homeowner Whose Neighbour's Property Is Being Redeveloped

• You will receive a notice that a discretionary use application has been made

• You can submit written comments to the Development Authority

• The Development Authority will make a decision based on the general R-CG rules

• Your comments are advisory and not binding on the Development Authority

• If you disagree with the decision you can appeal to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

• The success of any challenge will depend largely on whether the application complies with the written rules in the bylaw

For a Developer Seeking to Build a Rowhouse

• All rowhouse applications now go through the discretionary process

• There are no specific design standards that must be met beyond the general R-CG rules

• Neighbour comments will be considered but are not binding

• A compliant application has a strong basis for approval

• There is no longer a faster permitted use pathway available as an incentive for better design

For the Development Authority

• Every rowhouse application now requires a decision rather than automatic approval

• There is more work involved in processing applications

• There are fewer specific written standards to apply when evaluating design quality

• More decisions rely on professional judgment rather than written prescriptive rules

Key Facts

• What changed: Rowhouses moved from a two-track permitted/discretionary system to a single discretionary track

• What was deleted at the same time: The design standards in subsection 347.3 that previously separated permitted from discretionary rowhouses

• The City's argument for the change: Structural consistency, maintaining some oversight, and reducing prescriptive barriers to development

• Primary concern among critics: Discretionary oversight without specific written design standards provides weaker protection for neighbours than it appears to

• Who is notified of a discretionary rowhouse application: Neighbouring property owners within a distance specified in the bylaw

• Where decisions can be appealed: The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board

• The key practical difference: Neighbours are notified but their comments are advisory only

Read the full bylaw: calgary.ca

See the related proposal: [Link to Item 5 Proposal — insert once created]

Next: Item 6 — Adding Contextual Single Detached Dwelling as a Permitted Use →