Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays decision on Coles Valley land-use agreement after wide public comment
Summary
After hours of public comment and council discussion about environmental, infrastructure and affordability concerns, Langley council voted to table a proposed Coles Valley land-use agreement until the next regular meeting on June 15 to allow more notice and information.
The City of Langley council on June 1 debated a proposed Coles Valley land-use agreement that would replace a 20-year annexation agreement and allow higher maximum densities on the property east of Coles Road. The proposal described by staff would permit up to 65 single-family lots plus two cottage-housing tracks (up to 10 units each), with open-space set-asides on the west side of the road.
Bob Leggold, the property owner, told the council: “what we're talking about here is not approving the project… all of these concerns that have been raised will be addressed” through the permitting process. Staff and council repeatedly emphasized that site-specific environmental, traffic and stormwater analyses — and SEPA review — occur later in the subdivision and permitting steps.
Multiple residents and community groups urged caution. Marnie Jackson, executive director of Whitby Environmental Action Network, told the council that the site’s “hydrogeologic connections … to the headwaters of a salmon bearing stream” raised substantive conservation and treaty-rights concerns and recommended more deliberate notice and review. Other public commenters cited steep slopes, proximity to the wastewater treatment plant, aquifer recharge areas and the potential effects of disturbing reportedly buried landfill material.
Council members weighed competing objectives: unlocking an opportunity for permanently affordable housing, including a potential Habitat for Humanity track, versus protecting infrastructure and sensitive environmental features. One council member framed the decision as a process question about public notice: the updated land-use agreement had been shared with the wider public only recently, and more time would give the community the opportunity to review materials and raise issues.
Council voted to table formal action until the next regular meeting, scheduled for June 15, citing the need for more public notice and additional information. The vote carried; the council will revisit the agreement after further outreach and any supplemental materials provided by the property owner or prospective affordable-housing partners.
