OK, I'm willing to learn. Suppose 85% of downtown Tofino businesses and land owners want a ban on fast food restaurants in town limits. How do they go about achieving this via covenants? Because, quite frankly, I can't see how they can do it w/o unanimous support. So again we are left with the situation where one landowner uses their land to the detriment and against the wishes of the rest of the community.
One of the wonderful things about Canadians is that you recognize, by and large, that being in a majority doesn't entitle you to trample the rights of the minority. That is to say, you know that sometimes the desires of 85% of the community don't mean diddly. You still don't get to steal. So, as it stands, in Tofino certain property owners purchased their properties attached with the right to operate fast food establishments. If any number of people, whether 1% or 99.9%, want to take that right away, they must organize and negotiate an agreement with those property owners. Without question, it may be a complicated and lengthy process, but Canadians don't use that as justification for violating people's rights.
The same sort of thing applies to doing things that are 'detrimental'. It is the nature of our existence that our actions will sometimes have adverse consequences for others. It does not follow that those actions should therefore be forbidden, or that compensation is due, because they are the result of the natural competition for resources that all living things are subject to. If someone builds a modern factory in one town that results in the closing of a factory in another town, there is an adverse consequence, but no rights have been violated. So, it may well be that fast food restaurants would have a detrimental effect on Tofino, but no one knows for sure, not even the civic-minded angels in office. As far as I can tell, there is no moral option other than respecting rights and leaving the market to pick the winners and losers.