La Conner Weekly News - Your independent hometown award-winning newspaper

We, the citizens of La Conner, elect a mayor and a town council.

The mayor appoints a town administrator and a planning director.

Regarding the oversized and imposing 20 unit development proposal in the 300 block of Center Street, Town Planner Michael Davolio has made a few statements that are troubling, at best. (Weekly News, March 9):

1. Davolio informed the duly elected town council, that they will have no role in the approval process of said proposal.

2. Davolio stated that “the staff recommendations will rest solely on our determination as to whether the proposal meets the requirements of the town’s development code.”

This massive project, on a small parcel of land, will require considerable infrastructure improvements. The nearby neighborhood has no curbs or sidewalks, which will be needed, as well as upgrades to waterlines, sewers, etc.

The council will have to approve these and other expenditures, as well as dealing with the effects on the neighborhood.

Leaving the council out of this process seems wrong on many levels.

Mr. Davolio’s statement that the proposal's approval rests solely on the legal requirements of the La Conner development code ignores some obvious issues.

Many letters were written to the mayor and town administration by concerned citizens regarding the impact this project will have on the surrounding neighborhood.

Traffic in the area will increase dramatically, which will impact the safety of the elderly walkers in the area, as well as local children, students, bicyclists and skateboarders.

The residents of the proposed project's second cars and vehicles of visitors, will heavily stress on-street parking availability for many blocks.

There is a brew pub under construction now, one block away, that has no required parking.

What to do?

Change the zoning to four single family or four townhouses. This can be accomplished!

This scaled down version would reduce traffic considerably, improve the parking situation, reduce safety concerns, and allow the developer to improve their property and create some additional housing. Further, this approach would complement the neighborhood and be much more aesthetically pleasing than the monolith, as proposed.

It sounds as though the only criteria that Davolio is considering is that which is written in the city code, thereby ignoring the very citizens who live in the neighborhood, and La Conner in general.

The area in question is a neighborhood. Decisions need to be made with this in mind, not the developer and the legalese in the La Conner development code.

Jim Matthews

La Conner