A Langley Township council decision that could have shut down an agricultural business in Glen Valley will have to be reconsidered, after a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled it was unreasonable.
West Creek Farms petitioned the B.C. Supreme Court to overturn a zoning bylaw that prevents it from producing “growing medium” – mulch used in greenhouse growing – on the Glen Valley property.
The Township had counter-petitioned for a court injunction to shut the facility down.
Justice Francesca Marzari ruled that the matter will go back to the council for another public hearing and reconsideration, having found that the vote last year – which defeated a rezoning bylaw that would have allowed West Creek to keep operating – was unreasonable, given the information presented to council.
“Although the reasonableness bar is very low, I find council’s reasons for its decision fall below it,” Marzari wrote in her Dec. 2 ruling.
“I need not agree with those reasons, but I do need to be able to understand those reasons, and they need to have some foundation in the record before council.”
West Creek Farms has been in operation since the 1980s near River Road, east of Fort Langley.
Starting in 2016, BC Assessment ruled that West Creek Farms wasn’t a farm, but that most of the property was better classified as “light industry,” as their primary operation was processing material into a “growing medium,” which is used by commercial greenhouses to grow their plants.
The BC Assessment ruling led West Creek to ask the Township for the site to be rezoned to allow them to continue operating their business.
The 2024 public hearings on the matter drew a significant amount of opposition from the property’s Glen Valley neighbours, who complained about odours and noise from the site.
Meanwhile, West Creek argued that its work is vital to the greenhouse industry, as one of only two firms producing growing medium in the area. It was noted they had been in business for more than 30 years already.
The June 2024 council vote was close, and with one councillor not voting, the rezoning to allow West Creek to continue operating failed on a 4-4 tie.
In July 2024, West Creek took the Township to court.
Their legal argument includes a claim that the Agricultural Land Commission has given West Creek the authority to keep operating. They also claimed that Councillor Rob Rindt had been in a conflict of interest when he voted, and asked the judge to require the Township council to vote on the matter again, without Rindt present.
Rindt’s family operates Western Turf Farms, and Rindt is the company’s general manager.
West Creek’s petition claims that the two firms are competitors, and that voting on a matter that could shut West Creek down was a conflict of interest.
The Township’s response, filed earlier this year, points out that 90 per cent of Western Turf’s business is growing and selling grass turf for landscapers and sports fields, and that it doesn’t sell West Creek’s type of growing medium.
Rindt sought out a legal opinion from Township lawyers before the debate and vote, not because the companies are competitors, but because in the past Western Turf had made a few soil purchases from West Creek.
Marzari agreed with the Township on this point, finding no conflict of interest.
“I am satisfied that Coun. Rindt was not in a conflict of interest under the Community Charter or at common law and was not disqualified from participating in the public hearing or voting on West Creek’s zoning application, as his family’s business is not a competitor of West Creek,” Marzari wrote in her ruling.
She also agreed with the Township that it was not violating Agricultural Land Reserve regulations, and that the Township acted reasonably in treating West Creek Farms as a processing facility that would need a rezoning to keep operating.
But she did find that the council decision was legally unreasonable.
A “reasonable” decision in law has to be based on evidence that was in front of the council and that is internally consistent.
Marzari focused on comments by Coun. Tim Baillie and Coun. Michael Pratt before the final vote last year. Both councillors suggested that other companies in the same business would have to locate on industrial land – usually far more expensive than agricultural land.
“Interestingly, neither of the councillors who provided reasons for voting against the zoning application referenced any of the neighbours’ nuisance concerns raised during the public hearing,” Marzari wrote.
Instead, they focused on “what they characterized as a lack of an ‘equal playing field’ for those competitors, if the zoning change was approved,” the judge said.
“Some councils might be happy that a business in their municipality has a competitive advantage over businesses in neighbouring municipalities, but opposing any such advantage is not unreasonable,” Marzari wrote.
“However, I am unable to follow the reasoning of council that the zoning application would actually create such an unfair advantage on the record before it.”
A statement from Langley Township said it welcomes the “clear affirmation of the integrity of its council processes” in finding that Rindt was not in a conflict of interest.
It also noted that the judge upheld that West Creek will need a rezoning.
“The Township will now review the decision in detail with legal counsel and determine next steps in accordance with the court’s direction,” the statement said. “The Township remains committed to transparent decision-making and the consistent application of land-use policies for all residents and businesses.”
West Creek’s ownership were contacted, but did not wish to comment on the ruling.