Council tables Coles Valley land-use agreement

Published 1:30 am Friday, June 5, 2026

A decision was delayed on a proposed land-use agreement that could pave the way for a low-income housing development in the Village by the Sea.

On Monday, members of the Langley City Council voted 3-2 to table the proposed Coles Valley agreement until the June 15 meeting.

Last month, Langley Mayor Kennedy Horstman presented a proposed land-use agreement intended to replace an older annexation agreement that has long constrained a project on the site. She explained that nonprofit group Habitat for Humanity of Island County is now under contract to purchase the entire 40-acre property, assuming approval of the new agreement.

Council members and property owner Bob Libolt stressed that concerns about environmental impacts and other issues would be addressed if and when any development proposals move forward.

“I think the biggest takeaway that everyone needs to have here is that this is step one,” Councilmember Chris Carlson said. “We are putting a limit as to what the maximum amount could be done on this property. But that still doesn’t mean it’s carte blanche to do anything within that bounds.”

He added that environmental studies will have to be completed if the property is subdivided and again if building permits are applied for.

Councilmember Thomas Gill said he wasn’t comfortable tabling the discussion, saying that the proposed agreement doesn’t make any change to the property “per se.”

“I think if we delay,” he said, “we’re just going to invite … more people talking about stuff that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.”

As currently envisioned, the land use agreement would allow for 65 single-family lots and two cottage tracts limited to ten cottages each. The current zoning would normally allow for 115 lots on the property, but the annexation agreement limits it to 24.

Housing proposals on the property have garnered significant public interest over the years, and the discussion this week was no different. People at the meeting spoke both for and against the latest proposal. Resident David Stenberg, a critic of the proposal, said he and 33 people attended the meeting remotely but weren’t allowed to comment.

Marnie Jackson, executive director of Whidbey Environmental Action Network, voiced both substantive and procedural concerns about the proposal. She pointed out that the city’s website wasn’t updated with information about the meeting until five days prior, which she said “is insufficient for the kind of transparent public process the city owes its constituency.”

Jackson argued that the original designers of the annexation agreement considered the environmental constraints on the property. She said she shared other people’s concerns about impacts on a salmon-bearing stream, steep slopes and critical areas, as well as the proximity to the wastewater treatment facility.

“I would assert that land probably shouldn’t have been annexed in the first place, but what’s done is done,” she said. “I would further assert that the land probably shouldn’t have been clearcut in the first place, but what’s done is done.”

Supporters of the annexation agreement argued that the project could help with the severe lack of affordable or workforce housing in the city. In addition, the mayor said it would likely avoid litigation from the owner of the property.