To the editor:

As former members of Langley’s Planning Advisory Board and its Design Review Board, we are both encouraged and concerned by what we read in your recent articles, “Zoning code will be tossed out in Langley” (South Whidbey Record, Dec. 16) and “City extends subdivision moratorium” (Record, Dec. 9).

We are encouraged that so many citizens and local professionals are continuing to work toward establishing the best guidance for future development of our city.

We are concerned and we sympathize with those among the current PAB membership who are “really confused” by recent proposals that, according to one council member “should have been brought up late last year.” It is confusing to work diligently in one direction for more than two years only to have that work’s usefulness questioned at what was referred to by some council members as this late date (“City extends subdivision moratorium,” Record, Dec. 9). In that article, our city planner is reported to say the lengthy revision of the city’s development regulations has followed guidelines set out in the city’s updated comprehensive plan. In the Dec. 16 article, however, it appears that core aspects of the unfinished work done by professionals and knowledgeable citizen volunteers are now deemed to fall short by some among the city’s leadership.

On a different scale, we are also concerned that so many nitty-gritty details are now being considered as possible requirements. For example, “Developers will need to … build homes so front doors and porches are visible from the street.” By our interpretation, this rule would rule out Langley architectural icons such as the Third Street Cottages, where front doors are visible only from within a private courtyard. As owners of a home wherein our front door is located on the side, we clearly have a personal preference contrary to this proposed rule. We moved to Langley in part for its neighborly eclecticism, not for never-ending process, paternalistic senses of esthetics or necessary “harmonization.”

This is not the first time we have seen policy-makers who are empowered to consider the advice of others unilaterally reshaping that advice before it is fully formed. At the same time, our professional staff and our generous volunteers need to finish their assigned task without further extensions.

Let us recognize that this is an advisory review process intended to bring about reasonable recommendations within reasonable time spans. Ultimately, the results will or will not be accepted by the council.

The process has gone on far too long. It should be allowed to proceed without further reasons for “confusion.”

Hal Seligson

Marilee Seligson

Langley