For the second time in a month, there were more questions than answers as the Langley City Council resumed discussion of the controversial 20-home Langley Passage subdivision proposed for the Edgecliff neighborhood.

There were nearly 30 more questions than answers, most proposed by Councilman Bob Waterman, who missed last month’s council opener on the proposal because of a teaching commitment in New Mexico.

“I don’t want to prolong it,” Waterman said, “but I want to be fair.”

He promised to try to pare down his list of queries.

Councilwoman Fran Abel also said she wanted clarification on two points in the record regarding a proposed drainage ditch and outflow, and a proposed water line running through a wetland on the property.

The result was a quick suspension of the closed-hearing discussion, which was pushed off to the next council meeting on Monday, Nov. 1. The continuation was so that those with questions could submit them in writing, and developers and appellants could respond in kind.

Questions must be submitted by late Wednesday, and developers and appellants must respond in writing within a week. Those documents will be submitted to city Planning Director Larry Cort, who will review them and pass them on to the council.

In the closed-hearing process, council members, who must rule on the fate of the development and the appeals against it, can only consider the written record accumulated during a multiple-sessions public hearing.

Langley Passage, a 20-home subdivision that local developers want to build on 8.52 acres next to Edgecliff Drive, has been pushing its way through the planning process since early 2006.

City planners urged approval of the development, saying it meets environmental and other standards in place when it was submitted four years ago.

The city’s volunteer Planning Advisory Board completed its lengthy review of the new neighborhood in early August.

On a 2-1 vote, the board asked the council to reject the project’s preliminary plat — a general plan of streets, homes and other components — but upheld the city’s environmental review of the project with a unanimous vote.

Five appeals have been filed challenging the PAB’s recommendations. The developers, Whidbey Neighborhood Partners, contested the board’s rejection of the preliminary plat.

Longtime critics of the project also appealed; the Whidbey Environmental Action Network and the Langley Critical Area Alliance have challenged both the recommendation to reject the project’s plan and the city’s environmental review.

Guided by attorney Carol Morrison, acting as the city’s representative for the Langley Passage deliberations, Waterman asked two of his questions. It was soon evident that the verbal process wouldn’t accomplish results and permit the council to move into a deliberation of the subdivision’s fate.

“I don’t think we can realistically make reference to the record tonight,” said Clinton attorney Doug Kelly, representing the Langley Passage developers.

It was quickly decided to continue the closed hearing until November.

Previous council questions about the development centered on groundwater flows, planning policies, vegetation and the erosion of the Edgecliff bluff. Members also questioned the implications if the project is approved and the bluff does erode, or if the project is denied even though it meets city regulations.

Council members have a hard row to hoe. One council member described the project’s paperwork as being three feet high. Also in the record are more than

20 hours of testimony on tape from 10 meetings conducted by the PAB.

At the beginning of Monday’s discussion, Morrison asked council members if there were any conflicts of interest regarding the development.

Councilwoman Rene Neff and Waterman said they both had a business connection with Kelly, attorney for the developers. Neff and Waterman’s wife, Anne, are partners in an art gallery in a building on First Street owned by Kelly, and Bob Waterman said Kelly has done unrelated legal work for his family.

Morrison asked Neff and Waterman if the connections would influence their decision on Langley Passage, and both said no.