A sizeable housing development within Langley city limits is no longer moving forward in its current form.

Last week, applicants for the Coles Valley Planned Unit Development, or PUD, decided to withdraw their application for the city’s consideration, Langley Director of Community Planning Meredith Penny informed a shocked city council on Monday, Nov. 18.

The proposed project, which has drawn much attention from the community, has been several years in the making. The site, 40 acres off Coles Road, was annexed into the city in 2005. Development was proposed for 28 of those acres; the latest project description included 137 homes with the potential for approximately 31 accessory dwelling units. A variety of types of housing were proposed, from single family dwellings to duplexes, fourplexes and sixplexes, as well as designs for commercial tenant spaces and a community hub.

Opponents of the project expressed concerns about its size, more traffic on Coles Road, environmental issues and the development’s proximity to a wastewater treatment plant, among other things.

Bob Libolt, who owns the property with his wife, indicated this week that a combination of factors led to their decision to halt the PUD application process, the most prominent being the amount of time it has taken.

“In recent months we just felt that the light at the end of the tunnel was getting dimmer, not brighter,” he said.

As a result, Libolt is scaling down the project with the intention of submitting an application for a standard long plat instead of the previously planned PUD. It’s something he feels he will be able to accomplish and with more predictability in 200 days, which is the amount of time he was told it would take between the hearing examiner’s recommendation and the city council’s final decision.

Libolt has done at least a dozen PUDs in Lynden, where he lives. The PUD process in Langley has been unusually long and some of the requirements have been very specific, such as an economic study, soils analysis and civil engineering aspects.

“The level of detail, the amount of information just far exceeds anything I’ve ever done,” Libolt said.

Twice now, the city has issued a notice of incomplete application for the project.

Libolt implored the city council to consider the annexation agreement for the property as a standalone issue. He believes the agreement, which will need to be amended by the council to allow more than 24 units on the site, has arbitrary requirements limiting density and buildable lands with no explanation or justification.

While council members may have good intentions, Libolt said, he didn’t have any confidence that they would in fact modify the annexation agreement.

“The current planner and mayor seem very supportive of the effort, but I can’t live with an indefinite timeframe and no assurance that even if we met all the conditions of a PUD that I would get the approval of the council,” he said.

At least two members of the current city council made attempts in the past to curtail the development, one with a building moratorium and the other with a proclamation limiting density – although they both rescinded these proposals following public outcry.

An ad hoc city committee recommended that at least 30% of the units be affordable, three-quarters of which must be rentals. But without an affordable housing project entity, Libolt was unsure of how he could manage that element.

“The process has just gotten increasingly more complicated,” he said.

Home on Whidbey, a community land trust established in 2023, had expressed interest in the Coles Valley PUD’s affordable housing aspect.

Though it will have less creativity than the PUD and fewer housing units, Libolt said, the standard long plat application that he plans to submit should allow for homeowners with varying incomes.

David Rothrock, a board member for Home on Whidbey, said the organization is “still very enthusiastic about the opportunity to acquire some of that site for permanently affordable housing.”