Windsor Park Resident, David Lynch, Answers Your RC Questions

Note: David Lynch is not a spokesperson for the Windsor Park Restrictive Covenant initiative. He has been a canvasser for the southwest corner of the north Windsor Park (WP) neighborhood between Saskatchewan Drive and 119 St, and between 87 Ave and 89 Ave. The following answers provided by David Lynch are based solely on his opinion. Thank you for sharing your insights and knowledge of real estate and the Windsor Park community.

Question #1: Why are there no protections for mature trees in the proposed Windsor Park (WP) Restrictive Covenant (RC)?

The construction of large multifamily buildings (such as the Westrich “Windsor West” 172 unit apartment building along 118th Street) and the construction of many, large multiplexes in Windsor Park, along with new singlefamily houses being built on split lots, has resulted in the “clearcutting” of many properties resulting in the destruction of many large, mature trees.

David Lynch Response to Question #1:

The existing large, mature “urban forest” is a special, beautiful feature of the WP neighborhood enjoyed by all community members along with supporting birds and other wildlife. The City of Edmonton specifies that the large mature trees on the City’s land in WP must be protected during construction, but there are no current protections for trees on private property. The City of Edmonton is currently considering the development of a bylaw that would perhaps establish a permitting system that could protect some trees on private property. From the recent discussion at City Council, this is apparently a quite complicated matter, and City Council has requested the City Administration to study this matter and report back to City Council. Because there is currently no City Bylaw governing mature trees on private property, there is unfortunately no mechanism under a Restrictive Covenant by which trees on private property can be protected. A Restrictive Covenant can only “restrict” development relative to an existing bylaw.

Question #2: Why are there no protections for sunlight in the proposed Windsor Park Restrictive Covenant?

The very large multifamily structures being built in Windsor Park, along with some of the very tall single-family infill structures, have blocked much, or almost all, of the sunlight that formerly reached many homes, gardens and yards in Windsor Park.

David Lynch Response to Question #2:

Protecting access to sunlight is even more complicated than protecting mature trees. There unfortunately does not appear to be any effective mechanism under a Restrictive Covenant to protect access to sunlight for neighboring properties. Under the City of Edmonton zoning bylaw, shading of neighboring properties is mainly controlled by building height restrictions along with required setbacks that restrict the location and size of the “building pocket” where a building is allowed to be located. Fortunately, Edmonton City Council appears to have realized that they went too far when the new Bylaw 20001 (2024) allowed for a building height of 10.5 m in the RS (residential small scale) zoning for mature neighborhoods. This had been increased from 8.9 m that was allowed in the RF1 zoning areas under the previous Bylaw 12800. City Council is currently considering a change to the zoning bylaw that would reduce the currently allowed height of 10.5 m to a new maximum of 9.5 m. This is scheduled to be considered at a City Council Public Hearing on April 7, 2026, but it is possible that consideration will be delayed to a later date due to a very long agenda on April 7th.

Question #3: The savewindsorpark.com website for the WP Restrictive Covenant indicates the covenant is intended to protect property values. In that regard, what is the impact of a restrictive covenant on the owner’s ability to sell their property—both sale price and length of time the property is on the market? We have heard from various sources, including lawyers, that an RC affects both negatively.

David Lynch Response to Question #3:

A very experienced former Realtor with extremely detailed knowledge of Windsor Park real estate over the past approximately 4 decades told me that the three most important factors affecting future prices and days on market for houses in Windsor Park would be (in order of importance): 1. Location, 2. Location, and 3. Location, i.e., Buyers are most focussed on the location to the exclusion of almost everything else.

Windsor Park (WP) is considered to be an exceptional overall location, perhaps the most desirable location south of the river (with Glenora, and specifically Old Glenora, being perhaps the most desirable location north of the river). The extreme desirability of WP is based on the proximity to the University of Alberta, the University Hospital, the river valley parks and amenities, the large, spacious lots with primarily (almost exclusively) single-family homes, the beautiful mature trees, the well-maintained properties, the extremely highly-rated elementary school, the active, engaged community of highly educated, accomplished neighbors including many professionals, and the overall sense of a very safe, family-friendly and family-oriented community where the community members very much look out for each other and are actively engaged in protecting both the community and the neighborhood.

In the context of the preceding, if a Buyer is interested in purchasing a single-family home in WP that is surrounded by other single-family homes (i.e., the subject property is in a desirable location in WP), the envisioned Restrictive Covenant (RC) would not detract from the value of the home in the mind of the Buyer, or cause a home to be on the market for an extended period (relative to other homes in similar locations without a RC), because the subject property for sale is in exactly the type of overall location that is desired by the Buyer. The RC would be essentially irrelevant because the main factors for the Buyer are Location, Location, and Location.

However, the presence of a multiplex next to, or even somewhat close to, the subject property (which is a very recent phenomenon for Windsor Park) is now possibly seen to be a major negative influence on the "Location". Buyers potentially perceive that the subject property is now in an "inferior and less desirable Location" due to the presence and close proximity of the multiplex. This could very much result in a decreased selling price and probably extended time on the market for the subject property that has a multiplex in close proximity relative to an otherwise comparable property that does not have a multiplex located in close proximity. The main way to compensate for an inferior Location, Location, Location is through Price, Price, Price.

Thus, the real question is not, does the presence of a RC negatively affect the selling price of a subject property or cause an extended number of days on the market, but instead, does the presence of an RC on the neighboring properties surrounding the subject property actually preserve and potentially enhance the selling price for the subject property and reduce its days on the market? It appears that this is the likely outcome. Buyers in WP who want to live in a predominantly single-family environment will see the presence of surrounding properties with RCs on their titles as preventing multiplexes from being constructed in close proximity to the subject property which will protect and enhance the value of the subject property that they are considering buying. So, the subject property will be perceived by Buyers to be in an enhanced and more desirable Location, Location, Location resulting in an enhanced Price, Price, Price.

Of course, if a subject property without a RC on its title is already perceived to be in an inferior location (close to multiplexes, located on a very high-traffic road, close to decrepit, derelict and/or poorly maintained properties, etc.), then building a multiplex on the subject site could be the best future use of the subject property, in which case having an RC on the title would be a bad idea. Fortunately, there have in the past been very few locations like this in Windsor Park, a situation that now appears to be changing primarily due to the rapid incursion of multiplexes and large multi-family apartment buildings.

Of course, much of the preceding is hypothetical. Fortunately, there is a concrete, nonhypothetical example in Edmonton that could help answer this question. Approximately 400 properties primarily in Old Glenora are subject to the Carruthers caveat restrictive covenant from 1911 that prohibits lot splitting and any form of densification. Only one principal dwelling is allowed for each of the original large lots.

Is there any evidence that having the 1911 Carruthers caveat restrictive covenant on the approximately 400 properties in Old Glenora has reduced their value (and selling price) and caused them to take long periods of time to sell? Absolutely not! Quite the contrary. The properties in Old Glenora subject to the Carruthers restrictive covenant are some of the most desirable properties on the north side of the river, have the highest tax assessments and highest selling prices and generally sell quite quickly. Admittedly, because the selling prices are quite high (some years averaging over $2 million per property), there are a limited number of buyers in Edmonton who can afford the selling prices in Old Glenora which can result in some time being needed for a qualified buyer to make an acceptable offer.

The actual evidence from Old Glenora demonstrates that a restrictive covenant can apparently actually increase the value of ALL of the properties subject to the RC. There are many buyers who very much want the single-family home environment in Old Glenora and are willing to pay a premium to have it. It is quite possible that Windsor Park will experience the same effect if there is sufficient uptake for the proposed RC and that the RC will enhance the value of the WP properties if RC coverage is sufficient to preserve some large areas of single-family environments. The City's densification efforts with multiplexes and rezoning (“upzoning”) in mature neighbourhoods will result in a reduction of single-family areas. Buyers who want the single-family environment will gravitate to those reduced areas of availability. The economic laws of supply and demand, predict that a reduced supply of single-family areas combined with constant, or increased demand (due to population growth), for single-family areas will result in an escalation of the prices for homes in the single-family areas preserved by the RC.

In conclusion, all of the neighbours in WP who have agreed to support the RC, are in essence, supporting and potentially enhancing the value of their neighbours' houses whether or not their neighbours sign the RC.

Question #4: While we understand that a restrictive covenant is, by definition, restrictive, we’re wondering why the proposed Windsor Park restrictive covenant is restricted to 2 units per lot, i.e., principal dwelling and secondary or garden suite (now called backyard house)?

Note that the previous Zoning Bylaw allowed 3 units per lot, i.e., principal dwelling, secondary suite and garden/garage suite, even for subdivided lots. This was in place for about a dozen years under the previous Zoning Bylaw and some were built. We don’t recall widespread opposition in the neighbourhood to 3 dwellings per lot. Why is the Restrictive Covenant for Windsor Park more restrictive than what was allowed prior to the new (2024) Zoning Bylaw?

David Lynch Response to Question #4:

It is my understanding that there are a few factors behind the RC allowing one principal dwelling and one subsidiary dwelling on each lot (including on subdivided lots).

Firstly, the members of the WP community wish to be seen as being open to, and accepting of, increased density. Historically, the residential portion of Windsor Park was exclusively zoned RF1 in which only single-family dwellings could be constructed on each lot, and secondary suites, garage suites or other forms of subsidiary dwellings were not allowed (while there were certainly some "illegal" basement suites). In addition, lot splitting was difficult to get approved and occurred quite rarely. So, for example, for the approximately 325 lots in north Windsor Park, until about 2014 there were approximately 325 single-family dwellings. This then changed in 2015 and thereafter due to the modifications to the old zoning Bylaw 12800 followed by major changes in the new zoning Bylaw 20001.

Under the proposed Windsor Park RC, with the currently increasing frequency of lot splitting, and the construction of two new principal dwellings (one on each of the subdivided lots) along with one subsidiary dwelling on each smaller ("half") lot, this would then potentially result in four (4) dwellings where there used to be just a single dwelling. So, the approximately 325 dwellings in north WP would in due course potentially reach a level of 1,300 dwellings, i.e., an increase of 300% in the number of dwellings (or a 300% increase in dwelling density). Many WP residents believe that this is a very strong demonstration of the WP community's embrace of progressive, gradual and very significant densification. This would occur over time and would be "gentle" densification. Many residents of Windsor Park very much do NOT believe that the Westrich “Windsor West” 172 unit apartment building facing the school on 118th Street is gentle densification, or that the potential 280 units in the proposed Westrich 27 story tower, or the proliferation of multiplexes/(some apparently "lodging houses"), etc. are gentle densification.

When considering the details for the RC, some WP residents wished for the 1911 Carruthers caveat Old Glenora model (no lot splitting, no subsidiary dwellings), some wanted lot splitting, some wanted one subsidiary dwelling, some wanted two subsidiary dwellings, etc. The details of the RC were then guided by the actual experience in north Windsor Park. For example, of the original approximately 325 single-family (RF1) lots in north Windsor Park prior to the changes in zoning Bylaw 12800, starting after 2014, the following has occurred (according to my count):

(a). 22 lots have been split

(b). 33 single secondary suites and single garage suites in total have been built

(c). 3 properties now have two subsidiary dwellings (this is very infrequent)

(d). 9 multiplexes with approximately 70 dwellings containing approximately 175 bedrooms are occupied, or in construction, or are awaiting development approval,

(e). 484 multifamily dwellings are occupied or in construction (38 dwellings in the Bentley, 140 in Windsor House, 172 in Westrich “Windsor West”, and 134 in Westrich "Windsor East" on 116th St south of 89 Ave)

(f). 500 multifamily dwellings (approximately) are in the proposed Westrich 27 story tower (approx. 280 dwellings) and the proposed Westrich "Windsor North" along 116th St between 92nd Ave and Edinboro Rd (approx. 220 dwellings)

What is clear is that Windsor park property owners very much wanted to be able to split lots and they also embraced adding one subsidiary dwellings, but adding two subsidiary dwellings was very infrequent. Thus, this actual experience in north WP was incorporated into the RC, i.e., lots may be split, with one principal dwelling and one subsidiary dwelling per lot (on the original or split lot).

Note that from the preceding items (a). to (f)., there will be approximately 1,115 additional dwellings in north Windsor Park plus 309 of the original 325 single-family properties are still remaining. This represents approximately a 250% increase in density of dwellings. The RC will still permit a further 1,200 dwellings on the remaining 309 single-family properties (after accounting for a reduction in number of available building lots due to the construction of the multiplexes and the multi-family structures). This could eventually result in over 2,315 dwellings in north Windsor Park. Based on the original 325 single-family homes, this would in total then be over a 600% increase in dwelling density in north Windsor Park if it all occurs. North Windsor Park would very much appear to be doing its part in providing increased densification. Adding yet further subsidiary dwellings on each lot does not appear to be necessary and was not, in fact, desired in the past by very many WP residents.

Question #5: We’re wondering why 50 years was chosen for the time period of the Windsor Park restrictive covenant? It’s our understanding that the RC in Lansdowne is for 10 years. That’s long enough to slow the pace of development, gives property owners some breathing room, and provides time for making adjustments to the Zoning Bylaw. But 10 years doesn’t freeze development options for 2 generations, as 50 years does.

David Lynch Response to Question #5:

I don't know the details regarding Lansdowne. However, I can state in my canvassing that I only encountered one person who wanted a 10 year RC, but I encountered several people who wanted a perpetual RC such as in Glenora. The vast majority saw 50 years as an appropriate time period.

The many new and newer houses in north Windsor Park will typically have a lifespan of approximately 75 years, but will also need a major renovation/renewal after approximately 40 years (mechanical systems, electrical systems, a few roof replacements, etc.). The 50 year RC provides for approximately one generation of housing renewal (in contrast to two generations of people).

In addition, the current city plan goes out to 2050 (24 more years, which would indicate that a 10 year RC is much too short). It is preferable to have the RC extend beyond the thinking embedded in the current City Plan that has been driving the densification desired by City Council.

Question #6: A 50-year restrictive covenant in Windsor Park likely gives the impression that WP neighbourhood residents are snobbish, entitled, and NIMBY. What is the Windsor Park RC team doing to counter that perception, which is hard enough to do without an RC, or is that what it wants to convey?

David Lynch Response to Question #6:

I cannot really comment on what impressions and/or perceptions, unnamed people may have, or not have, on anything. In our current social media driven echo chambers there are all sorts of strange and unusual ideas, opinions, impressions and perceptions circulating. That is why, for my own mental health, I religiously avoid all contact with social media.

The economist Henry Rosovsky once famously said: "Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts". I think that applies in this case to the individuals or groups that may have these impressions and/or perceptions about the "community culture" in Windsor Park.

The actual current 250% increase in dwelling density underway in north WP shows that north Windsor Park is contributing significantly to meeting housing needs, let alone the projected ultimate 600% increase in dwelling density possible under the RC. These major increases in housing density do not appear to be "snobbish, entitled, and NIMBY" but others are or course entitled to their opinions, impressions and/or perceptions.

However, as sometimes attributed to US Senator and diplomat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts".

If these above "facts" concerning densification still cannot change the "opinions, impressions and/or perceptions", I think that Professor Rosovsky has indicated that it will be futile to expend too much effort to try to change the false beliefs, opinions, impressions and/or perceptions.

Personally, I do not think that many people in other Edmonton neighbourhoods spend even a single minute of their typical day thinking about Windsor Park. They are much too busy with their own lives. I know that I personally do not spend any time or mental energy any day thinking about the "community culture" in Rio Terrace, Aspen Gardens, Allendale, Capilano, Clareview, or anywhere else in Edmonton, and I anticipate that the residents of the more than 250 neighborhoods in Edmonton rarely, if ever, have a single thought about the "community culture" in Windsor Park. So, I would not worry very much, or be overly concerned, about possible opinions, impressions and/or perceptions about Windsor Park held by others living in other neighbourhoods in Edmonton.