Rezoning: What you Need to Know & Town Hall Recap
- Mar 23
- 17 min read
In 2024 City Council approved citywide rezoning in response to Calgary’s housing crisis. The purpose was to enable an increase in housing supply and housing choices, and was one of 98 recommendations made in the Home is Here Housing Strategy.
On December 15, 2025, Council initiated the process to consider a repeal of citywide rezoning. The current land use districts and development rules will remain in place until Council makes its final decision at the public hearing, beginning March 23, 2026.
You can read more about the impacts of rezoning and Ward 3 HERE.
Thank You & Next Steps
Thank you to everyone who joined us at the Ward 3 Rezoning Town Hall on March 19th at Vivo. The conversation was thoughtful and the ideas shared about our communities and their needs were truly valuable. Your input matters and continues to shape the work we do at City Hall.
If you were unable to attend in person, the presentation slides and Q&A are available for you to review at your convenience. You can also read more about the impacts of rezoning and Ward 3 HERE.
The Public Hearing on the potential repeal of citywide rezoning begins Monday, March 23, 2026. Members of the public are welcome to participate - either in person or online - by registering to speak at Council or submitting written comments. Details on how to get involved, including the video livestream link and instructions for submitting comments, can be found HERE.
Questions & Answers
A number of questions were submitted both online and in-person at the Town Hall. The full list of questions and responses is available below.
Q: Will you vote to repeal rezoning? Where do you stand on the rezoning issue in the communities you represent?
A: As part of all Public Hearings, Councillors are required to remain open and amenable to persuasion. Therefore, Cllr Yule has not yet taken a defined position.
In Ward 3, citywide rezoning has not changed how our communities are currently being built. Most of our neighbourhoods, particularly those developed after 2013, were planned with mixed-density zoning (R-G) throughout, supporting a balanced variety of housing type and choice. Any townhouses or duplexes you see here have gone through a land use change application and received Council approval.
That said, while Ward 3 is still a relatively young community and not yet ready for older homes to be redeveloped, residents want confidence and clarity about how their neighbourhoods may change over time.
What is clear is that residents hold a range of views on this issue - some have expressed support for city-wide rezoning and the efficiencies it has brought, while others have raised concerns about how intensification is affecting communities. Finding an appropriate balance between these perspectives and working toward an outcome that thoughtfully addresses both the benefits and the shortcomings of the previous rezoning policy is the end goal of this work.
Q: Will council have a replacement for rezoning after repealing the current plan?
A: The short answer is we don’t know. It's possible that amendments to change or replace the current zoning bylaw will emerge during the Public Hearing. It's also possible that Council gives Administration direction to return with recommendations on what the next iteration of the zoning bylaw could look like. Either way, the Public Hearing process will provide greater clarity, and we will share more details as things are finalized.
Q: What is the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF), and how does the City of Calgary use that funding?
A: The Housing Accelerator Fund is a federal program administered by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporate (CMHC). The national fund is designed to support municipalities with transformational change, with a goal of building 100,000 new homes across Canada by October 2026. Calgary was awarded $228.5 million to fund initiatives aimed at delivering 6,825 units above the city's three-year average growth baseline.
The City uses HAF dollars in three main ways:
Policy and zoning reform: City-initiated rezoning to remove barriers to housing development across all neighbourhoods, plus land use bylaw amendments to allow more missing middle housing types.
Incentive programs: HAF directly funds programs that developers and homeowners can access, such as the Secondary Suite Incentive Program, the Stormwater Incentive Program, and the Downtown Development Incentive Program, which includes support for office-to-residential conversions.
Infrastructure investment: HAF supports area improvement projects, infrastructure upgrades in established neighbourhoods, and transit-oriented development work around key LRT stations.
Funding flows to the City in four annual advances, with the final payment contingent on completing the initiatives and meeting housing supply growth targets.
Q: How will the proposed changes to citywide rezoning affect federal housing funding (Housing Accelerator Fund) and what steps will Council take to ensure that any resulting budget gap does not fall on existing residents through increased property taxes or fees?
A: Calgary was awarded $228.5 million through the federal Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF), and following strong performance, received an additional $22.8 million, bringing the total to over $251 million.
Because the city has performed so well against its targets, Calgary is in a stronger position than many other municipalities when it comes to the HAF funding conversation. That said, any changes to the zoning bylaw will need to be carefully considered in the context of the City's commitments under the contribution agreement with CMHC.
In order to maintain federal funding, five conditions must be met:
Overall Supply Growth
Multi-Unit Housing
Missing Middle Housing
Multi-Unit Housing Near Transit (TOD)
Affordable Housing
Calgary has surpassed most of these targets, however, Affordable Housing remains the one area where we are currently behind, with 389 units delivered against a goal of 746. This is an area that will require continued attention regardless of the outcome of the Public Hearing.
It is worth noting that citywide rezoning was just one of the nine initiatives funded under HAF. The majority of the other initiatives are already complete or well underway, meaning the program's progress is not solely dependent on the rezoning policy remaining unchanged.
As for the question of property taxes and fees, any decisions made through this Public Hearing process will need to account for the City's financial commitments, and passing costs on to existing residents through increased taxes or fees is not an acceptable outcome. That will remain an important lens as Council works through what comes next.
Q: How long can people use the current R-CG zoning?
A: The current citywide R-CG zoning remains in effect until the conclusion of the Public Hearing and a majority Council vote to repeal. In the meantime, landowners and developers can continue to submit applications under the existing rules, and any applications already in the system will be grandfathered through the process.
Q: What exactly will Council be voting on at the Rezoning Public Hearing?
A: Council will be voting on whether to repeal the Rezoning for Housing policy - commonly referred to as the blanket rezoning - that was approved in May 2024. If passed, the repeal would revert residential properties back to the zoning districts that were in place before the change took effect.
Q: We’ve seen rents come down since rezoning. Are the other 97 recommendations in the Housing Strategy going to help continue bringing costs down?
Increasing supply is at the core of why rents are responding, and it remains the primary driver of the broader Housing Strategy. More homes means more choice, and more choice puts downward pressure on prices.
The goal of the Housing Strategy is to ensure all Calgarians have an affordable place to call home, with 98 actions aimed at addressing housing needs across the city. Supply is only part of the picture. Actions are already underway that directly support affordability including the sale of City-owned land to nonprofit housing providers at below market value, a new property tax exemption for non-profit and non-market housing providers, and the Secondary Suite Program, which incentivizes homeowners to build and register a secondary suite.
Addressing the challenges of affordability requires collaboration across all levels of government, industry, and the non-profit sector. Calgary’s Housing Strategy is designed to coordinate those efforts over the long term.
You can read more about Home is Here: Calgary Housing Strategy HERE.
Q: Given that citywide zoning has started reducing rents, how will younger residents of Ward 3 afford rent if we revert back to 2024 bylaws?
A: This is a fair concern, and housing affordability, especially for younger residents, is something Cllr Yule takes seriously. Citywide rezoning is just one of 98 recommendations in the Home is Here Housing Strategy - and while it has played a role, it is not the sole driver of housing affordability in Calgary. The remaining recommendations are still very much in play, and all are aimed at creating more affordable housing choices for Calgarians. Any changes to the zoning bylaw would not entirely erase the broader work being done under the housing strategy.
Q: Do we have the infrastructure capacity to accommodate the intensity of development happening, and what does this look like for Ward 3 communities in 30+ years?
A: Calgary does have an existing infrastructure deficit that needs attention, but development and infrastructure are notably connected.
In established neighbourhoods, redevelopment actually helps trigger infrastructure renewal by bringing in assessment dollars and development levies that offset upgrades. Without growth, aging infrastructure in these areas would continue to deteriorate with little funding mechanisms to fix it.
It's also worth noting that many inner-city and established neighbourhoods are currently below their historical peak populations. This is sometimes referred to as the "donut of decline" - older suburbs that experience population loss through natural community cycles, where children have grown up and moved out, leaving a ring of lower-density between the inner city and newer outer suburbs. What were once busy family-filled streets are now predominantly empty nesters, meaning significantly fewer people living in homes and on blocks originally built to house larger populations. These areas already have the roads, utilities, schools, and transit in place - the capacity is there, it's just underused.
As for what this means for Ward 3 in 30+ years, it's difficult to say with any certainty. If the last few years have shown us anything, it's that things can change quickly, and the policies, bylaws, and zoning tools we have today will likely continue to evolve alongside the needs of our communities. What we can commit to is that those changes will continue to be shaped by community input and a long-term vision of what's best for our neighbourhoods.
Q: What happens to R-CG if rezoning is repealed?
A: If citywide rezoning is repealed, changes are being proposed that would retain R-CG as an available land use district, meaning property owners and developers could still apply for it through the standard redesignation process, rather than it being the default base district.
However, several amendments to the R-CG district itself are currently under review. If the repeal proceeds, proposed changes could include:
Restricting townhouses and rowhouses to corner parcels only
Reducing the maximum number of units on a standard parcel from 4 to 3
Reducing maximum building height from 11 metres to 10 metres
Reducing maximum parcel coverage from 60% to 55%
In short, the tool would still exist, but it would be less accessible and be something landowners would need to apply for through an LOC process.
Q: What recourse does a residential property owner have to influence rezoning decisions that may impact their investment - for example, if an apartment building were to be proposed next door?
A: As a point of clarity, apartment buildings are not part of the citywide rezoning bylaw, so unless the land adjacent to your home is already zoned to permit an apartment building, any such proposal would have to go through the standard rezoning process. That process includes a Public Hearing where residents are able to attend and speak directly to any concerns with the proposed development. It is also worth noting that apartment buildings cannot simply be built anywhere - there are specific land characteristics that must be met before an application for rezoning can be submitted.
Under the current zoning bylaw, the maximum permitted density on eligible parcels is up to four dwelling units, with optional basement suites. Even then, there are requirements that must be met, for example, a minimum of two on-site parking stalls must be provided, and the building structure cannot be taller than 11M or cover more than 75% of the land parcel.
When we look specifically at Ward 3, some natural characteristics that make denser redevelopment less straightforward and less desirable than in other parts of the city exist. Many of our street's curve or end in cul-de-sacs, resulting in irregularly shaped lots which can make developing within the zoning framework harder. Additionally, a significant number of Ward 3 lots do not have back lane access, which makes meeting parking minimums for these development sites difficult. Compared to the larger, more standard shaped lots found in many established or inner-city communities, Ward 3 parcels present considerable challenges for redevelopment. For these reasons, we have currently seen zero application for redevelopment in Ward 3, and do not anticipate this type of development to occur very frequently when the time comes.
Q: Why are so many residents upset about the citywide rezoning?
A: The concerns tend to fall into a few themes.
Parking: one of the most frequently raised issues. As more units are added to established neighbourhoods, particularly rowhouses and multi-unit buildings that may not include dedicated off-street parking, residents worry about increased pressure on street parking and overall congestion.
Neighbourhood character and the pace of change: many residents feel that the scale and speed of redevelopment doesn't always fit the existing context of their street or community. When a large infill or multi-unit build goes up next to older single-family homes, it can feel jarring, and for longtime residents, it can feel like the neighbourhood they chose to live in is changing without their input.
Infrastructure capacity: The issues surrounding the Bearspaw South Feeder Main have reinforced for many residents that Calgary's underlying infrastructure is under strain. The worry is that adding density to established neighbourhoods, will compound pressure on aging water, sewer, and transportation networks before those systems have been adequately upgraded.
Underlying all of this is a desire for contextual redevelopment - growth that respects the existing scale, character, and infrastructure of a neighbourhood rather than simply maximizing units. Residents aren't always opposed to change, but want to feel that new development fits where it's going and that their community has a meaningful voice in shaping what that looks like.
Q: Are developments required to have on-site parking for extra tenants? Not just street parking?
A: Currently, the R-CG parking requirement is 0.5 stalls per dwelling unit - meaning a duplex, for example, would only be required to provide one on-site parking stall. It's worth noting that basement suites are not currently factored into density and dwelling unit calculations, so parking is not a requirement for basement developments specifically.
That said, this is something Administration is actively looking at. There is work underway to explore what revising the parking minimums might look like, helping address some of the parking pressures we're hearing about from the community.
Q: Will the public hearing only repeal rezoning? Or will it replace it? And if something is brought forwards to replace it, will that need its own public hearing?
A: There are a few ways this could unfold. The Public Hearing could produce amendments or alternative proposals on the floor, or Council could direct Administration to develop a revised approach to bring back at a future meeting. If any amendments require additional public notice, a separate Public Hearing process would need to take place before they could be formally adopted.
What we can say is that the Public Hearing will bring more clarity to what comes next. We'll continue to keep residents informed as the process moves forward and details become available.
Q: Why can we not find a compromise position here instead of turning over blanket rezoning? Why not retain blanket rezoning of duplexes and 4-plexes but require more community input in *8 and 12-plexes?
A: It's possible that amendments will emerge during the Public Hearing that include keeping pieces of the policy that do work while modifying some of the bigger concerns residents have shared. Council could also give Administration direction to return with recommendations on what the next iteration of the zoning bylaw could look like. Either way, the Public Hearing will provide greater clarity and we will share more as things are finalized.
*As a point of clarification, 8- and 12-plexes are not permitted uses under R-CG. The maximum allowable density under the current R-CG designation is 4 dwelling units, with the inclusion of up to basement suites.
Q: Why didn't Council do the work to develop a replacement before moving to repeal?
A: This comes down largely to the political dynamics of the current Council. A number of councillors ran on an explicit campaign commitment to repeal the citywide rezoning, and once elected, there was significant motivation to move forward on that commitment. For some, the goal is repeal - full stop. Others may be more open to a repeal-and-replace approach that preserves some of the benefits of the current framework while addressing the concerns that drove the repeal motion in the first place.
Rezoning was not an explicit part of Councillor Yule's campaign platform. The top three priorities heard from Ward 3 residents during the campaign were: infrastructure, transit, and the need for more community spaces - reflecting concerns that go beyond land use policy alone.
Q: Is there a possibility of approaching rezoning on a community-by-community basis rather than citywide?
A: Potentially. A community-by-community approach could come in the form of amendments to what replaces the current bylaw, allowing for more localized decision-making rather than a single citywide standard.
One idea is enhancing the Local Area Plan (LAP) process to incorporate more community-specific context - essentially giving neighbourhoods a stronger voice in shaping how density and land use evolve in their area, while still working within a broader city framework.
That said, this conversation is still evolving. The Public Hearing will be an important moment for these ideas to be heard and tested, and we'll have a clearer picture of what's possible once that process moves forward.
Q: Why are taxpayers always on the hook to subsidize everyone else's homes?
A: It's perhaps worth reframing the question slightly - housing policy isn't about subsidizing other people's homes, it's about investing in the kind of city we all want to live in. Calgary's quality of life and its reputation as one of the world's most livable cities depends on us remaining a place where people at all stages of life can afford to stay and thrive. That benefits everyone.
Much of the work being done under the Home is Here Housing Strategy is about enabling housing growth through smarter policy - removing barriers and creating the right conditions for more housing to come to market. When supply increases, prices stabilize and residents at all income levels have more choices. Right now, one in five Calgary households cannot afford their housing, and with the city expected to grow to two million people in the coming years, the scale of this challenge is significant.
The reality is that inaction carries its own cost. When housing supply doesn't keep pace with population growth, pressure increases on emergency housing supports, social services, and emergency responses like EMS and CPS - expensive, reactive interventions that cost far more than upstream mitigation does. Part of living in a thriving community means investing collectively in things that keep our city functioning well for everyone, the same way we invest in roads, parks, recreation, and transit.
You can read more about Calgary Housing Strategy HERE.
Q: I am concerned that many communities are becoming overcrowded due to the rapid increase in condo developments. What steps will be taken during rezoning to ensure balanced growth, adequate infrastructure, and preservation of community character
A: Condo developments are not part of the citywide rezoning bylaw. Larger multi-unit developments like condos are either part of a community master plan, or will need to go through the standard rezoning and development permit process, which includes opportunities for community input.
When it comes to infrastructure, the City does assess servicing capacity, including water, wastewater, and transportation networks, as part of the development review process. Growth is not meant to outpace the infrastructure needed to support it, and those considerations are factored in when applications are evaluated.
On the question of community character, this is precisely why the conversation around what replaces citywide rezoning matters so much. Any future policy will need to strike a thoughtful balance - allowing for the housing growth Calgary needs while ensuring that the scale and form of new development is appropriate for the communities it's going into. Lower-density forms like duplexes and row houses tend to integrate more naturally into existing neighbourhoods, while larger projects may warrant a closer look and more community involvement.
Councillor Yule shares your belief that growth should be balanced, well-planned, and respectful of the communities that already exist, and that will continue to be a guiding principle as this process moves forward.
Q: The water main break has dominated the infrastructure conversation lately, but Ward 3 has broader needs - utilities, community amenities, a need for seniors housing, and options to age in place. What is being done beyond water?
A: Lacking infrastructure is one of the most pressing concerns for Ward 3, and it goes well beyond water. While the Bearspaw South Feeder Main situation has put water infrastructure front of mind, the deficit is much broader, and the goal is to make sure that as development happens, the infrastructure and amenities that make neighbourhoods livable come with it.
On the utility side, ENMAX has been a constructive partner in upgrading and maintaining the electrical grid alongside growth. As Calgary moves toward greater electrification (ie: EV charging) - keeping the grid ahead of densification is just as critical as addressing water capacity. For new development, utility upgrades are already built into the Development Permit process, with developers responsible for helping to fund the improvements their projects require.
The concern is that Council doesn't become so narrowly focused on one area that others are neglected. The electrical grid, transit access, recreational facilities, and community amenities all need to be part of the infrastructure conversation - not addressed as an afterthought once the water crisis is resolved.
For Ward 3 specifically, the commitment is to fight to ensure that development is accompanied by the community infrastructure residents need and ensuring follow through on what has been promised.
Q: Livingston and Carrington have seen rapid density and population growth, and residents are raising concerns about safety, missing schools, and a lack of amenities - things that were promised when these communities were being sold. What's being done?
A: These are legitimate frustrations, and they speak to a broader challenge with how newer communities are built out. Density and population often arrive ahead of the amenities and services that were anticipated, and when promises made during the development and sales process don't materialize on expected timelines, it erodes trust in the system.
It's important to acknowledge that some of the promised amenities, schools in particular, involve different orders of government. School placement and timing is ultimately a provincial and school board decision, which limits what the City can direct or accelerate on its own.
On safety concerns specifically, we want to hear from residents directly - please reach out to the office so those concerns can be documented and escalated through the appropriate channels.
More broadly, community associations are one of the most effective ways residents can make their voices heard at the City level. They carry real weight in planning conversations and advocacy efforts, and getting involved is one of the most practical things residents can do to push for the amenities and infrastructure their communities need.
Q: With so much density being added to Ward 3, what is the update on the hospital planned for the area?
A: A new hospital is something Ward 3 and our city needs, and that need only grows as the area continues to densify. However, hospitals are a provincial responsibility, and the City's direct influence over the timeline and outcome is limited.
What we do know is that the province is currently undertaking a study, expected to take approximately three years, to determine the best path forward. Key questions still being worked through include the optimal location (whether a site closer to Airdrie might better serve the broader regional population) as well as what the facility itself would look like. Funding also remains an open question at this stage.
We will continue to advocate at the provincial level for a facility that reflects the scale and pace of growth happening in north central Calgary and will share more details with residents when they become available.
Comments Received
"I support the blanket rezoning previously approved however I would also be supportive of some changes to address some of the community challenges. I do NOT support a full repeal."
"If Council does repeal citywide rezoning then how will you ensure that we retain Housing Accelerator Fund money? Currently we are on track to losing all of that funding which will mean increased property taxes!"
"I think reversing rezoning would be a step backward."
"We must curb urban sprawl, which contributes to loss of wetlands, grasslands, and prime agricultural land. Not to mention, spreading the city's resources across an ever growing land mass only results in more maintenance expenses. Access to transit is poor at new developments and that just means more cars on the roads. There are no upsides to continued sprawl. We must learn to embrace density and build it well!"
"I just want to say that I agree with the concerns listed in your email. As someone who has added a secondary suite to my house I think that a more controlled process needs to be in place. Especially when it comes to infrastructure concerns, electricity, water, schooling, parking etc. I went through the development process prior to the revised policy and I think that having a more controlled process will ensure neighborhoods are developed in a respectful and thoughtful way. And will ensure a commitment to thoughtful development of our communities"
"Blanket rezoning should not be happening city wide. Rezoning should be implemented on a district by district basis with neighborhood input."
"Please completely repeal this destructive bylaw. There is no value in this."
"I am concerned that many communities are becoming overcrowded due to the rapid increase in condo developments. While I understand Calgary is growing and housing is necessary, it should not come at the expense of proper planning and the long-term well-being of existing communities."
"Impacts I am most concerned about? Lack of homeowner choice in their own property development and slowing down of affordable housing availability."
Comments