Kelowna’s new limits on RV sites invalidated

B.C. Supreme Court judge strikes down city bylaw tightening regulations for RV campgrounds on farmland

A city bylaw governing the operation of RV campgrounds on Kelowna farmland has been declared invalid by the B.C. Supreme Court.

The public notification done in advance of a hearing where campground rules were changed was deemed insufficient and misleading by Judge Dev Dley.

The pending changes were described as “housekeeping” in a city advertisement.

But Dley said the proposed alterations were much more significant, relating to such things as the maximum allowable number of RV camping sites, the total amount of land a campground could occupy on a farming property and the time of year when camping would be allowed.

“The notice did not adequately state the purpose of the bylaw,” Dley wrote in a judgment released Tuesday. “The intent was to change the bylaw in substantial ways — not just for housekeeping purposes.

“This was tantamount to the city advertising for a housekeeper when a renovating contractor was required,” the judge ruled.

As it was, the wording of the advertisement might cause an an average person only to conclude that “sections might be renumbered, moved or rephrased so as to bring better clarity or better organization to the document,” the judge ruled.

The case against city bylaw No. 10269 was brought by Surinder Khurana and Seema Khurana, who were granted permission by the city in 2008 for an RV campground on their Kelowna farm. Such ventures were seen as a way of helping farmers diversify their income stream, while providing an agricultural experience for tourists.

By 2010, fielding many complaints about campgrounds on agricultural land, the city wanted to tighten the regulations that applied to such businesses. The complaints related to such things as campgrounds being used for long-term rentals, noise, unsightly premises and impact on other farmlands.

In court earlier this month, the Khuranas said they weren’t aware of the 2010 public hearing where the changes were to be discussed because the wording in the advertisement didn’t make plain the significance of the proposed bylaw amendments.

In his ruling, Dley agreed with the Khuranas, declared the bylaw invalid and ordered the city to pay the Khuranas’ legal costs.

In an email, city clerk Stephen Fleming wrote: “Staff will review the five definitions contained in the 2010 bylaw to see if they are still current, and bring forward any amendments if/as appropriate. Staff are not concerned that this should significantly affect our ability to carry on enforcement actions, and we are proceeding with court action against the Khuranas and others.”