What I Heard Report: Infill

Building Our City

There’s an urgent need for more diverse housing options, given our significant population growth over the past few years. In order to develop neighbourhoods that support all stages of life — from young adults who live independently, to families, to seniors who want to downsize but stay in their own communities — we need housing options within each community that provide for the diverse needs and budgets of the people who live there.

Edmonton is a geographically large city. There is no debate that our urban sprawl has put a strain on our city’s finances. Infill and changing how we grow are key to ensuring sustainable growth over the long term. Infill creates more places to live where services and infrastructure already exist, strengthens the tax-base, and allows for greater housing choice in sought-after neighbourhoods..

However, I do acknowledge that infill is a nuanced matter. I’ve heard that we can do it better, and I’m committed to continuing to listen to all perspectives, and to adapting and adjusting our bylaws to ensure we fairly balance the needs of a growing city while respecting residents in mature areas.

I had the opportunity to talk with so many of you about this issue, between emails and phone calls, and conversations while doorknocking. While perspectives are diverse along a spectrum, I want you to know that I’ve heard you. My commitment is to honour your thoughts and take them forward as Council further refines zoning and land use bylaws around this issue.

The most timely discussion will be at the Urban Planning Committee on February 10, 2026. After this debate, and upon direction from the Committee, it will be brought forward to a future Council Public Hearing. Recommendations in this upcoming report are related to reducing the maximum number of dwellings in a mid-block infill development, reducing the impact of infill height on adjacent properties, clarity around where to consider additional height, and potential tree protection.

Infill: What I Heard From You

There are a number of key themes that emerged from our conversations about infill.

Broadly, infill concerns fall under a few categories: development scale and design, infrastructure capacity, landscaping and tree retention, parking, and accountability.

What follows is a description of the most common concerns, along with some of the actions that have been taken to-date in response to feedback.

Development Scale

Many residents feel that infill developments should be at a scale that suits the surrounding community.

In terms of scale, I’ve heard about these primary areas of concern:

- Allowable Dwelling Units: Many community members have a spectrum of perspectives on the appropriate number of units allowable in mature neighbourhoods. These ideas typically range from 4-8 units, with more willingness for larger unit-counts on corner lots and arterial roads. This also brings up concerns related to utility capacity and parking as well.
- Height: Residents have told me that they are concerned with the height of new developments. Their primary concerns are about privacy, access to sun and enjoyment of their property.
- Lot Coverage: Concerns exist about the amount of space a new development can take up on a lot. Many have noted that allowing multiple permits on a single parcel results in significant lot coverage, leading to a loss of landscaping and green space. Residents have concerns about drainage as well.

Infrastructure Capacity: Some residents have concerns that infrastructure such as utilities, roads, and services will not be sufficient for increased density.

What has been done to date

The New Zoning Bylaw collapsed two existing zones into one. This means that the development rights on any residential previously zoned RF1 were increased to up to 8 units mid-block and residential previously zoned RF3 were decreased from 12. This is an important context as Inglewood and Prince Charles were primarily previously zoned RF3.
In response to concerns around height, I moved a motion at Council in September for considerations of height reduction in the RS zone. This is coming back to the Urban Planning Committee at the February 9/10 meeting.

As part of the Zoning Bylaw Public Hearing, Councillors were able to submit written questions. I asked, “If the proposed zoning bylaw is approved, what considerations/protections are being put in place to ensure that the neighbourhood infrastructure can support this densification?” You can see the Councillor Q&A and the full response to my question on page 32.
EPCOR created a public website to communicate their plans and analysis of infrastructure capacity in redeveloping areas.
When upgrades are needed, the costs for the upgrade are the responsibility of the developer.

Design Concerns

I’ve heard that, in general, residents understand the need for infill, However, there is also a general sentiment that the developments are lacking in design and visual interest that integrates well within the neighbourhood.

There are calls for clearer and more enforceable design guidelines to ensure that new projects better integrate with the surrounding context.

There are limitations to what the City can require for buildings, as the Government of Alberta has prohibited municipalities from requiring anything beyond building code.

What has been done to date

A number of amendments to the RS Zone have been made, intended to improve the way mid-block housing is built in mature neighbourhoods. This was based on community feedback from July 2025. These amendments include:
- Reducing the maximum building length
- Limiting the number of side entrances
- Increasing interior side setbacks for row housing and multi-unit housing
- Adjusting regulations for stairs in side yards
- Strengthening front and side facade design
At the same meeting, District Plan Policy changes were made so as to not support rezoning to RSM for mid-block developments.
Along with the Edmonton Design Committee, the City is exploring an expansion of their geographical mandate to include mature neighbourhoods, in recognition of the important role design can play in maintaining the character of our neighbourhoods.

Landscaping and Tree Retention

I've heard concerns related to landscaping requirements, as well as mature tree retention, on developing parcels.

Residents have shared that the removal of mature, healthy trees is reducing canopy cover and negatively affecting their neighbourhood’s quality of life. They have also voiced concern about habitat removal for native birds and wildlife. There are mixed perspectives on the best way to address this issue. Some people have suggested the implementation of a private tree bylaw to prevent the unnecessary removal of mature trees. Others are opposed to this, as it would apply to all private properties, which might add more red tape for any resident. I have also heard that while there are landscaping requirements in the Zoning Bylaw, they are either not strong enough nor regularly enforced.

The Zoning Bylaw includes regulations regarding minimum required landscaping and incentives for mature tree retention.

The Zoning Bylaw includes requirements for a certain percentage of permeable landscaping on a parcel.
Recently, we have also added landscape security requirements for multi-unit (5+) buildings and a report is coming back to Council In May, in regards to adding this security requirement to all infill developments.

Other Infill Concerns

I heard residents are concerned about the lack of parking for new developments with higher unit counts. There is general agreement that parking minimums can be adjusted to context (ie. proximity to transit).

I also heard concerns from residents about noise, lack of respect for neighbouring properties during infill construction, construction delays and abandoned properties.

Finally, residents are concerned about affordability and property values being negatively affected by infill developments.

What has been done to date

I submitted a formal inquiry on March 31, 2025, for data regarding residential developments and parking allocation, such as the ratio of parking spots to units.
- The memo shows that that while some projects are delivering zero parking spaces, the majority of projects continue to deliver on-site parking. The memo also shows that the more central the location, the fewer parking spaces per unit are being provided.

As part of the Curbside Management Strategy, the City is updating the Residential Parking Program to better prioritize growing and competing demands for curbside space

Council recognizes that all developers need to be good neighbours, therefore, complementary to the Zoning Bylaw Renewal, several accountability measures for developers were implemented in 2025:
- The Project Implementation Plan (PIP) allows Safety Codes Officers and bylaw enforcement to more readily hold the constructor, owner, and/or permit holder accountable for any issues that arise on or around the site. These plans are required for every development application, including demolition.
- The Construction Accountability Program (CAP) creates a legally-sound opportunity to refuse permits for developers who repeatedly create non-compliant conditions or consistently use non-equitable levels of City resources due to poor-quality building permits.
- Approval of budget to establish an infill liaison team in 2026.
There has been an expansion of City tools for addressing vacant and abandoned properties.
- A motion was made in 2025 for the Administration to provide options to address vacant, unimproved properties in order to encourage timely development and productive land use in Edmonton’s Redeveloping Area. This report will be coming back to Council in March 2026.
While outside of direct City control, recent market evidence shows that land values tend to increase with infill, which positively impacts surrounding property values. While individual infill prices vary significantly, as a whole more density in a neighbourhood does offer more properties at a variety of price points in sought-after neighbourhoods.

Taking Your Concerns Forward

As the Council has ongoing discussions about these important issues, I want to make sure that I’m accurately reflecting the voices of residents that I represent. So, do you see your views reflected in this document? I will be using these points to inform my decision-making going forward, so please let me know if I’ve missed any of your thoughts about infill. Please continue to share — this is an ongoing conversation! Please reach out to my office at [email protected], or give me a call at 780-496-8136.

Here are past blogs on the topic of zoning and infill for your reference: