Skip to content

Editorial: Middle ground wise on residential camping

Both sides of the residential camping debate have a point.

Both sides of the residential camping debate have a point.

And we think some judiciously written bylaws should be able to satisfy everyone. (Well, almost everyone. You never satisfy everyone universally.)

Last week we brought you the story about how the Cowichan Valley Regional District is considering rezoning 15 properties in the Nantree and Peri roads area in Meade Creek to permit up to three RVs on each of the residential lots.

Some neighbours aren’t happy with the prospect, while some of the landowners argue they’ve been coming up and camping through the summer by the lake for decades.

It is their own property. Surely it’s not a big deal if they want to stay a while on it?

We doubt anybody has a problem with the quiet neighbour who shows up like the snowbirds for a few months to enjoy the serenity.

The problems come when large groups show up and party the nights away, disturbing the neighbourhood. Sometimes its not even the property owners, just someone to whom they’ve given permission (possibly for a fee). Think similar issues with Airbnb party houses trashing whole communities. Only here, there aren’t even proper facilities for waste, etc.

We can understand why someone wouldn’t want three RVs (which could house many, many people with the size recreational vehicles have attained over the years) suddenly parked next to their property line, with strangers coming and going.

There are regulations and procedures that legal campsites have to follow, for good reason.

But there must be some possible middle ground. Possible bylaws that wouldn’t be all or nothing. Rules that would allow the quiet individual, couple or family who’s been heading to their lake getaway for years and never bothered anyone to continue to do so, while preventing seasonal properties from turning into party central, to the annoyance of the neighbours.

We wonder how the CVRD came up with the three RV number they’re currently considering. We’d guess this was an attempt at such a compromise. Extended family allowed, but not a rager.

The real key, of course, is enforcing whatever rules are brought into place. That’s always the final word.