Summary#

Calgary City Council passed Bylaw 25P2026, amending the City’s Land Use Bylaw 1P2007. From August 5, 2026, it generally prohibits a main residential building in the rear yard of a midblock R-CG parcel; the bylaw’s density-reduction proposal was rejected. City staff’s stated goal was to address concerns about the scale and effects of some midblock developments while keeping rowhouse and townhouse housing viable.

• The new restriction targets rear main buildings used in some “dual semi-detached” or “courtyard-style” developments. It does not prohibit every kind of building or suite in a rear yard.
• There is an exception for certain development permit applications submitted before August 5, 2026, on laned parcels. It applies only if the development has more than one main residential building, at least half its units are in buildings within the first 60% of the parcel depth, and the front and rear buildings are at least 6.5 metres apart. The rear building must be wholly within the rear 40% of the parcel depth.
• Council refused the proposed change that would have cut R-CG’s maximum density from 75 to 60 units per hectare. The maximum remains 75 units per hectare.
• Bylaw 25P2026 passed third reading, as amended, by a 13–0 vote. The motion to refuse the density cut passed 10–3; Councillors Jamieson, Johnston and McLean voted against.

What it means for you#

• People planning an R-CG development: From August 5, a main residential building generally cannot be placed in the rear yard on a midblock parcel. The limited exception above may apply to some permit applications submitted before that date.
• Neighbours near R-CG parcels: The change removes one way of arranging main residential buildings on midblock parcels. It does not lower the district’s maximum density, which remains 75 units per hectare.
• Residents concerned about suites or other building rules: This decision does not change the rules for backyard suites, building height, or lot coverage.

Money#

City staff reported no anticipated financial impact; the materials give no cost estimate.

• The materials do not estimate costs to developers or any effect on housing prices, rents, or the number of homes built.

What is unclear#

• The materials do not explain how the City will assess whether a development meets the exception’s conditions.
• They do not estimate how many projects may qualify for the exception or be affected by the new restriction.
• The materials do not say whether or how the City will review the restriction’s effects after it takes effect.

Case for#

• City staff say reducing density to 60 units per hectare could make rowhouse and townhouse projects economically unviable. They recommended keeping the 75-unit maximum while removing rear main buildings on midblock parcels.
• City staff say the rear-building arrangement has raised concerns about privacy, building mass and shadowing. They concluded it could be removed without lowering the maximum density.
• City staff report that industry participants supported this approach in working sessions. It aims to address concerns about this specific building arrangement while retaining the R-CG district’s role in allowing rowhouses and townhouses.

Case against#

• Some public submissions supported reducing density to 60 units per hectare or otherwise limiting building impacts. They raised concerns about sunlight, solar panels, trees and neighbourhood character.
• The decision keeps the 75-unit-per-hectare maximum. It therefore does not address concerns that higher density or other permitted building forms may affect neighbours.
• The exception means some rear main buildings may still proceed if they meet its conditions. The materials do not estimate how many projects this could include.