Density-restricting covenants attached to the land titles of more than 60 lots in a Coquitlam subdivision are pitting neighbours against one another. Some want the decades-old restrictions dissolved to allow for multi-unit developments, while others want to retain the neighbourhood’s single-family character.
Historical covenants such as these across Metro Vancouver present a challenge to efforts to increase density on residential lots to address B.C.’s housing-shortage crisis.
“Covenants that are over 60 years old restricting land to one-family use restrict the ability to create more housing solutions in our communities,” said Bill Laidler, a real estate agent and developer who wanted to assemble a dozen of the Coquitlam homes in question but backed out, in part, because of the split over the covenants.
The number of such covenants is not known, but some industry observers have suggested they could be in the thousands.
So far, the provincial government — which recently passed legislation requiring municipalities to change their zoning bylaws to allow for multi-unit developments on single-family lots — has said its legislation does not override the historical covenants and urged homeowners caught in this predicament to consult their lawyers.
In the Chineside neighbourhood of Coquitlam, covenants were written in the 1950s and 1960s covering 59 lots on Thermal Drive and nine lots on Como Lake Avenue. They were registered by the developer Harbour Chines Ltd., which was dissolved in 1976 and no longer owns any of the lots.
The restrictive covenants specify, among other things, that no more than one single-family dwelling can be built on a lot with an area of less than 10,000 square feet, or one two-family dwelling on a lot greater than 10,000 square feet.
Some homeowners had thought the recent provincial legislation would render the covenants obsolete and are pressing for the provincial government to close what they see as a loophole.
“I am frustrated, annoyed and angry,” said Walter Pandolfo, who was part of a group of 12 homeowners who had wanted sell their properties so townhouses could be built.
He thinks that in not finding a way to handle the covenants, “the provincial government is holding back progress for people, which includes what I want to do with my property.”
Laidler had agreed to purchase their properties in 2020 as part of a land-assembly deal.
“The site would have allowed new families to live in (this) neighbourhood of Coquitlam across from Mundy Park, on a major bus route, and within walking distance to all three levels of schools,” said Laidler.
But after 18 months, he cancelled the sale, in part because the planning process was delayed, but also because of the covenants restricting the properties to one dwelling per parcel.
He thinks there is value in some neighbourhoods retaining their single-family character, but this isn’t one of them.
“It’s centrally located, on a major street, across from Coquitlam’s largest park, minutes from a grocery store, and between three levels of schools.”
At least one homeowner has gone to court seeking to cancel the restrictive covenants.
That homeowner had consolidated two lots into one in the 1970s, but wanted to divide them back into two lots and build a single-family home on each lot.
A neighbour, according to court documents, who is said to have lived in the area the longest and opposed cancelling the covenants, took the following position: “The community is quiet, with plentiful greenspace, view lines and curving streets. This character has not undergone any substantial change since he moved into the community 35 years ago. He believes the [covenants] protects the character of the neighbourhood against future change sought by developers or politicians.”
In November 2023, a B.C. Supreme Court judge refused to cancel the covenants for all of the properties. But the judge did agree to lift two clauses in the covenant that applied to the one homeowner’s lot so the subdividing of that lot could proceed.
There are many kinds of covenant agreements that could limit the number of homes on one lot — some in areas of White Rock where owners of lots with ocean views have agreed to write in height restrictions. The Chineside covenants in Coquitlam also included clauses that each lot can have no more than two dogs. Some specify requiring permission from original builders or landowners that no longer exist.
In Ontario, the Land Title Act states that covenants without defined expiry dates should be cancelled 40 years after the date of registration. But in B.C., restrictive covenants do not automatically expire.
“Why not here? There is no particular reason,” said Ron Usher, a retired real estate lawyer and former general counsel at The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia.
“There are many differences from province to province in property law matters. It would be a good idea, though, something to run by B.C. politicians and the Land Title Office.”
Meanwhile, Pandolfo, the homeowner who was eager to sell his home as part of a land assembly, is now seeking other homeowners in the area to join him in a petition to the courts to remove the covenants.
“Change has to happen fast if you want people to stay in communities,” he said.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
