Post #3819797
2026-02-14 01:37 UTC
@ECityMom@mstdn.ca The original decision in 2023 upheld the caveat (convenant) on the basis that the caveat was not in direct conflict with the zoning by-law (since existing houses were permitted to stay) and the public interest standard had not been met.
The developer says that since no new development can meet both the zoning by-law & the Caveat restrictions, they are in conflict. The appeal judge agrees:
When analyzed from this perspective, a conflict clearly emerges. The Caveat requires the construction of only single family dwellings whereas the construction of new single family dwellings is not permitted by the Zoning Bylaw. When it comes to the minimum density requirements, it is impossible to comply with both the Caveat and the Zoning Bylaw. The Caveat prohibits more than two; the Zoning Bylaw requires at least [ten]. There is no overlap.
On public interest, the Judge states that ongoing city rezoning/planning & the LRT development demonstrate a clear public interest in densification for this lot.
Replies (1)
-
@AmeliasBrain@mstdn.ca 2026-02-14 01:42
@ECityMom@mstdn.ca So, I'm not sure if this would help strike down restrictive covenants on former grocery store locations (that prevent them from being used for other grocery stores that would compete with the former owner's newer larger locations). I think the public interest in grocery store competition & walkable neighbourhood stores would be easy to demonstrate. However, in order for this section to apply, there would have to be a direct conflict between the restrictive covenant and a zoning by-law. So, the city would basically have to zone a lot to be a required grocery store, in order to create that conflict. I can't really see that happening.