A proposed seasonal RV park in Kaslo, British Columbia, is facing delays as outdated road access rules and ongoing negotiations continue to complicate the development process.
The plan hinges on a land swap involving century-old road allowances, many of which were laid out by Crown surveyors in the 1800s.
The proposal, brought forward by a private landowner, seeks to consolidate their property with nearby unused road allowances to create access for the planned RV park.
The village council is considering a purchase and sale agreement that would facilitate the exchange while preserving public access to the Kaslo River.
The council also continues to work with QP Developments to finalize terms of the purchase and sale agreement, which must also consider Indigenous consultation, environmental protections, zoning amendments, and permit approvals.
Until the land swap is finalized, the proposed development cannot proceed. If the deal is not approved, the project will be halted entirely. If accepted, the process will move into the next regulatory phase.
“The only part we’re at right now is we’re getting ready to issue the purchase and sale agreement or the notice of disposition, and we haven’t completed it figured out all of the terms and conditions of the sale at this point,” Suzan Hewat, mayor of Kaslo, said, as reported by Castanet on July 24.
Because the historic road allowances include steep or undevelopable terrain, they cannot be used for infrastructure. The proposed swap would repurpose these areas while preserving a public route through a new 15-metre-wide strip of land along the river, offered by the proponent as a compromise.
In June 2024, the village council passed a resolution for a notice of disposition, signaling its intent to transfer the land.
The RV park proposal has also been the subject of community discussion for nearly a year. After its introduction in 2023 and initial rejection in February, the proponent submitted a revised plan in May that was later approved by council for further negotiation.
Public input has been sharply divided. Some residents voiced concerns about losing access to the waterfront area, which they have used informally for years despite it being private land.
Others worry that a seasonal RV park could bring transient visitors who may not contribute to the local community.
Opponents of the proposal have also expressed concern about the potential loss of what they call a “nature reserve,” while supporters see the development as a way to formalize access and create new tourism opportunities.
At a July 22 meeting, the village presented a detailed report clarifying the current state of the proposal and outlining the next steps. The document aimed to address confusion surrounding the land sale and ongoing public concerns.