HomeMy WebLinkAboutPortion of Council Minutes October 19, 2009Leave. David King seconded.
Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 6y voice vote.
Ordinance 3026, Amending Procedures in PTMC Chapters 1.74 -Uniform
Appeal Procedure, 2.14 -Bearing Examiner, 19.04 - SEPA, and 20.01 -Land
Development Administrative Procedures to Change Appeals from the City
Council to the Hearing Examiner, and Updafing Processes and Removing
Outmoded References
City Attorney John Watts reviewed Thai this ordinance would amend the
administrative process in the Part Townsend Municipal Code, removing the City
Council as the appeals body in certain land use codes. Amendments only involve
process, so there are no changes to regulations or development standards to be
determined. in a recent meeting with the Washington Cities Insurance Authority,
their strong recommendation was that the City use a hearing examiner in all land
use decisions and appeals. They associate lower liability risk with jurisdictions
using hearing examiners for proceedings. Appeal from the hearing examiner's
decision would be to Superior Court. Other modifications are proposed to remove
outmoded references to the Planning commission and other minor clarifications.
Mr. Watts responded to questions about the cost of a hearing examiner versus
City Council hearing. A hearing examiner is more familiar than Council with
running a hearing. At a recent Council hearing, there were also many procedural
matters that became time consuming. tie believes the City would be ahead by
having appeals heard by the hearing examiner.
Ms. Nelson stated that it seems reasonable to have the final appeal on a large
project before the governing body. Mr. Watts noted a Councit decision on land
use matters could have liability for the City.
Mr. Sepler said that the Council would still be able to request reconsideration by
the hearing examiner of a matter.
Mr. Randels expressed concern about his ability to voice his personal opinion as
a citizen on quasi-judicial matters that might be discussed before Council.
Mr. Welch added that this does remove Council from some decision-making
responsibility.
Ms. Sandoval noted this is an important item she became aware of early
on during risk management training as a councilor. She stated her
previous experience with an appeal to council, which was challenging. She also
noted removing the appeal process to the Council could be viewed as a barrier
between citizens and elected officials; however she noted that the Council's
primary responsibility is to establish the regulations and policies guiding the
City. She stated that unclear or dated regulations are a source of concern and
the Council should be working on these. Mr. Sepler said he would distribute the
City Council Business Meeting October l9, 2009 Page 5 of 8
current log of potential issues kept by staff which would require code revisions.
Mr. Randels believes this topic deserves careful consideration, possibly by a
committee.
Ms. Robinson said if we go forvvard with this ordinance, it puts more pressure on
Council to be proactive with policymaking. Ms. Nelson agreed and stated that no
matter how good the policy, Council understands the intent of the policy, whereas
a hearing examiner may not.
Mr. Welch said he shares concerns about losing the intent, but the larger concern
in his mind is the possibility of losing the intent in the pressure of a hearing. This
decision would not preclude reviewing the policy at the council level.
Mr. King concurred with Ms. Robinson's remarks about the critical role of the
Council in policy making versus quasi judicial decision making.
Mr. King said if Councilors cannot discuss a matter due to quasi-judicial restraints,
it precludes Council from doing its job.
Mr. Randels suggested remanding the ordinance, perhaps fo a committee. Ms.
Medlicott noted that she believes the issue is significant and should be discussed
at a full Council workshop. Ms. Sandoval concurred.
Ms. Medlicott said she would support this as a workshop topic. Ms. Sandoval
concurred.
Motion: George Randels moved refer the matter of Ordinance 3026,
Amending Administrative Procedures in Pat Townsend Municipal Code Chapters
to the full Council as a workshop topic. Laude Medlicott seconded.
Vote: motion carried unanimously, 7-0 by voice vote.
Farmers Market -Memorandum of Understanding
Mr. Sepier reviewed the packet materials.
In response to Mr. Randels, Mr. Timmons noted that the agreement between the
City and the Market is on a year to year basis. He noted that the Market has
reviewed other sites due to the growth of the Market in recent years. lie noted
that neighborhood concerns have been increasing with the growth of the Market.
Mr. Timmons also noted that one ofi the Market's concerns is the long term
stability of the Mountain View site.
Mrs. Medlicott stated she has heard from many neighbors that the Market is no
longer compatible in the present space. She also questioned signing an MOU
relating just to the Market's process.
City Council Business Meeting October 19, 2009 Page 6 of 8
