The Montesano City Council continued a discussion about municiple code changes to the city’s hearing examiner process proposed by Councilman Dan Wood,

Interest in changing the hearing examiner process, as stated in city code, became a center-stage issue late in August when an application for a variance went before the city’s hearing examiner. The variance was for a potential retail marijuana store within city limits, and if approved it would have allowed for the store to open within 1,000 feet from restricted structures (like schools and playgrounds).

The state has allowed for cities to pass ordinances that allow for a variance of the 1,000-foot buffer. Montesano has not passed an ordinance allowing for a variance. During the August hearing, citizens and Wood told the hearing examiner he didn’t have the authority to approve the variance.

Ultimately, the hearing examiner agreed and the application was dismissed. Because the application was asking for a variance to the buffer written into state law, the matter could not be decided the city’s hearing examiner.

But how the variance application went before the hearing examiner in the first place was an issue Wood said he’d like solved.

Wood hopes changes to the hearing examiner process will have three outcomes: First, he hopes to revise the code so issues that can’t be decided by the hearing examiner are not sent to the hearing examiner (as was the case during the aforementioned variance); second, Wood would like to see the hearing examiner become advisory to the council; third, all of the costs of a hearing should be covered by the applicant, meaning fees would be adjusted to match the costs.

Councilman Chris Hutchings wondered if the changes were necessary.

“Even in that situation it showed how the process worked because the hearing examiner is supposed to recognized as the local expert in use regulations,” Hutchings said. “They said they don’t have the authority and we don’t have the ordinance to permit them to do it. It worked in this weird situation.”

During public comment, local architect Will Foster asked the council to proceed with caution in changing the hearing examiner process and authority.

“I would have some difficulty in having the council make decisions on things like variances and permissive use permits. Those are case-by-case instances that we’re asking for a variance to a specific written code or ordiance. I think it’s better handled by a hearing examiner. It takes it out of the political realm,” Foster said. “The applicant for a varaiance or another change needs a predictable process.”

Foster agreed with Hutchings saying, “I think the ordinance the way it’s written right now is actually pretty good, but it could use some tweaking.”

Like the proposed changes to the municpal code dealing with the RV park, the council is planning to hold a public hearing to discuss any changes to the hearing examiner process.