Are restrictive covenants the answer to lot-splitting?
Neighbourhoods divided over covenants forbidding lot-splitting
Many Edmontonians are so ticked off with the city’s new plan for lot-splitting and skinny homes that they’re talking about putting restrictive covenants on their own homes. The covenants will forever forbid their properties from being subdivided into two lots.
But are they killing a fly with a sledgehammer? That’s how it looks. Two skinny homes are going up across the street from my own house. I also live on a 50-footplus lot that can now be subdivided. The first thought that came to mind when I heard about these covenants is that I wouldn’t want to just listen to any pro-covenant neighbour on the matter, I would want legal and business advice.
For one thing, neighbours might have some facts wrong. That’s certainly the case in a pro-covenant email sent out in Capilano, Gold Bar and Fulton Place. The document warns the new rules will allow for “3 storey houses,” but that’s not accurate. Any new skinny home must be the same height as has been allowed for decades.
In mature neighbourhoods, the height limit was and will continue to be 8.6 metres, says Colton Kirsop, a senior city planner. That works out to at most two or maybe 21/2 storeys, allowing for a small attic room.
I also question how prevalent skinny homes will be. There are 54,000 lots 50 feet or wider in mature neighbourhoods that can now be split. In the first 13 months since this bylaw passed, only 122 lots were split. That works out to 0.2 per cent.
So no need for anyone to worry that skinny homes will pop up like dandelions. They will generally only be built where the economics make sense, on huge lots with now marginal houses. By taking the place of cruddy knockdown properties, could it be that skinnies might just improve neighbourhoods?
Perhaps you still want to sign a covenant. What say the lawyers?
Top real estate lawyer Robert Assaly says covenants aren’t anything new or unusual. “It’s being used all the time.” In business, a shopping mall might limit how many coffee shops it can have. In a residential neighbourhood, there might be a covenant upholding architectural guidelines, such as forbidding vinyl siding.
Many homes in Glenora have been under a restrictive covenant, the Carruthers Caveat, limiting development to singlefamily homes since 1912.
Once these covenants are in place, it’s virtually impossible to get rid of them, says Robert Noce, a former city councillor and prominent real estate lawyer.
“I think people should realize that once they enter into this agreement, they are stuck with it forever and the future owner of your property will be stuck to it as well.”
But Noce says city politicians should take note of the popular appeal of these restrictive covenants.
“Shouldn’t that be a message to council that maybe we got the policy wrong?” Noce asks.
A moratorium should be put in place on lot-splitting until new rules are worked out, Noce says, with more emphasis on making sure any new development isn’t out of step with the character of the existing neighbourhood. Otherwise, some neighbourhoods will go heavily for restrictive covenants, which will have the impact of pushing infill elsewhere.
“The communities who are well-equipped to organize are going to be the ones that will prevent it from ever happening in their communities, and the communities that don’t have the ability to organize will bear the brunt of it,” Noce says. “How does that achieve anything?”
There’s a major negative with restrictive covenants, says real estate agent Camron Rahmanian: a decrease in resale value.
“When you restrict the number of people who are looking at your property, it really hurts you.”
Rahmanian says the splitting of 100-foot lots will be a positive change.
“It’s not like people are going to build these ramshackle duplexes. They’re going to build stunning, beautiful, modern homes on two lots that are 50 feet wide.”
Rahmanian also sees the value of lot-splitting from the city’s perspective.
“Densification increases taxation and that’s what the city’s end goal should be.
“For city council, it’s in their best interest. They have no reinvestment in facilities, infrastructure, hardly anything at all, to support infill. You can have more people living in the city without having to build fire halls and police stations.”
In the end, I can’t agree with a moratorium on lot-splitting and skinny homes. I’m also not inclined to sign on to any restrictive covenant, given I have a stupid big front lawn. Why would I forever give up any right to subdivide my lot?
If others dislike lot-splitting so much, let them proceed. It’s their right and a resounding response if they feel so strongly about the matter.
But not everyone in every neighbourhood will sign a restrictive covenant. Lot-splitting and infill will go ahead in every city neighbourhood and the city will be better off for it.
Bottom line: we’ll have more people in our core neighbourhoods with dwindling populations, an increasing tax base, and better use of already existing schools, roads, sewers, hospitals and other costly infrastructure.