Moratorium temporarily halts gas station development

Published 1:30 am Friday, May 22, 2026

A moratorium enacted in Langley is an attempt to forestall the development of a gas station, the possibility of which drew city council’s and the public’s ire at a meeting on Monday.

Technically, the six-month moratorium delays processing applications for any new “service stations” on the basis of lacking relevant design regulations required under state law. It can be renewed continuously for additional six-month periods while regulations are created.

A public hearing on the moratorium is scheduled for June 15.

Langley municipal code defines service stations as any station where vehicles are repaired or refueled. Service stations are allowed through conditional use permits so long as they meet certain “health, safety and welfare” requirements, according to a memorandum, and they are compliant with zoning and the city’s comprehensive plan.

Despite this, there are no gas stations in Langley city limits, and according to Councilmember Thomas Gill, there haven’t been in decades.

The council hopes to keep it that way after the city received a pre-application communication regarding an individual’s desire to build a gas station and convenience store at 249 Cascade Avenue, per a previous News-Times story. Development may necessitate the extension of Third Street to Cascade, as well as the removal of existing structures on the property, Director of Community Planning Meredith Penny confirmed.

Mayor Kennedy Horstman advised council members that outright banning service stations in city limits is likely impossible. Determining the extent of the development’s potential environmental impacts is difficult right now, Penny explained, because a geotechnical report and other documents have yet to be submitted.

But if environmental impacts are insignificant or mitigated, she added, there would be no reason not to allow the development.

Councilmember Chris Carlson pointed out that the comprehensive plan encourages the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but Penny countered that it states the location of the proposed gas station is “ideal” for commercial or mixed-used development.

“There’s a way that you can argue both sides,” she said.

Input from stakeholder state agencies and the public is necessary. Ultimately, the final say on the gas station belongs to the city’s hearing examiner.

A sizable crowd attended Monday’s meeting.

Several residents voiced their opposition to the development, citing concerns about how a gas station would negatively impact things like their health and safety, the environment and traffic in town. One woman pointed out that the majority of gas stations on Whidbey are situated off Highway 525 and Highway 20, raising questions about the economic viability of developing one so far away.

Horstman clarified for those who gave public comment that the city is required to consider applications it receives for developments like this.

“Please don’t assume that because we are sitting up here, that we are in favor of this on a personal basis,” she said. “It’s important that the rules that we have established are applied fairly and consistently.”

Council members largely agreed that if the development cannot be prevented, it must be regulated as thoroughly as possible to mitigate its effects. Gill suggested disallowing illuminated signs and requiring plantings.

Carlson encouraged the community’s engagement in this issue. The stakes, from his point of view, are high.

Gill added, “If we do this wrong, we’ve got not just 20 years, not just 50 years — we’ve got hundreds of years of impact.”