Kira Erickson reports from the Langley City Council meeting of Dec. 11, 2023 for the South Whidbey Record.
A divided Langley City Council considered the implications of honoring a request to give up the city’s access to a part of a property for utility-related reasons.
During a special meeting this week, the council spent nearly an hour discussing whether or not to relinquish a sewer easement for 510 Cascade Ave. The property’s owners first asked the city in June 2022 for this action.
They Said It
Deanna Nollette, one of the property owners, addressed the council during Monday night’s meeting.
Nollette explained that the current easement bisects the property and makes any design and future construction very expensive and complex. She said she has spoken to other municipalities and that they routinely vacate unused easements…. Nollette advocated for them to relinquish it and accept the $500 she and Marco Diaz, the other property owner, are offering as compensation.
“The public understands that a large vacant property, as you enter town, does not help businesses or to create the feeling of a thriving Village by the Sea,” Nollette said. “A vacant building does not provide a place for people to live, work or shop in town.”
Former mayor Tim Callison spoke in support of the property owners during the meeting this week.
“It’s one of the three areas that I was always asked about whenever I was in a meeting anywhere else on the island – what’s going on with Mike’s Place, what’s going on with the Dog House and what’s going on with the Edgecliff [Restaurant, formerly located on the property]?” he said, naming several vacant buildings around the Village by the Sea. “People always wanted to know.”
According to a memo from city staff, the purpose of the easement is to provide a location for a sewer main that provides gravity sewer service to three parcels. Two side sewers for the two other properties, however, were relocated and no longer utilize the easement…
Councilmember Rhonda Salerno worried about a gift of public funds if the council pursued the latter option, but Sara Springer, the city’s attorney, assured her that the property owners would have to provide just compensation for the value of the easement.
Wanting more time to continue the discussion, and with the input of the property owners, Councilmember Craig Cyr made a motion to table the topic, which failed. Eager to make a decision that night, the majority of the council decided to retain the easement and relocate it to a different spot on the property. As a result, the developer will need to propose the alternative location.
The motion passed 3-0, with Cyr and Councilmember [Harolynne] Bobis abstaining from the vote. Bobis said she abstained because she did not have enough information, and Cyr gave his above reason.
