Council delays vote on ordinance updating board of adjustment procedures and appeal bond

Longview City Council on Thursday heard a staff presentation on ordinance 35-58, proposed updates to Longview Municipal Code section 19.12 that would change how the Board of Adjustment dockets appeals, clarify decision-making authority and update the bond required when an appeal is taken to Cowlitz County Superior Court. The council opened a public hearing but postponed a final vote until its April 24 meeting.

The update, presented by Nick Little, community development director, would allow the board secretary to docket items once an application is complete so staff can prepare a report, post public notice and schedule a meeting more quickly. Little said the change was driven by a desire for “a streamlined review and docketing procedure.” The ordinance also replaces references to the building official with the director of community development where appropriate and explicitly references the city’s shared-driveway ordinance so the board’s powers align with other land-use rules.

Little told the council the draft also moves a potentially problematic provision about the board deciding alternate construction materials into the correct authority bucket: under the revision, technical building-code authority rests with the building official/director, with appeal routes preserved. The draft adds the city website as an acceptable form of public notice and updates a historic $200 bond amount to reflect current dollars for appeals to superior court. Little described that bond as conditioned on prosecuting the appeal without delay and paying city costs if the appellant is unsuccessful.

During the public hearing one attendee asked whether the new bond is intended to compensate the city’s costs if the city must defend an appeal in superior court; staff replied that the bond is meant to secure payment of costs should an appellant lose. Council members asked how often superior-court appeals occur (Little said they are rare) and whether the bond amount should be placed in the fee schedule rather than in code (staff said that could be done for transparency).

Council members then considered a motion to approve the ordinance as presented with an addendum discussed by council to set a fee amount in the fee schedule. The motion on the floor included language placing the fee at $1,200 and reflecting a $1,500 amount in the master fee schedule, as read aloud during the meeting. Council member Eric (first name used in the transcript only) then moved — and a colleague seconded — to set the item for a decision at the next regular meeting rather than vote tonight. The superior motion carried on voice vote; the council did not take final action on ordinance 35-58 and will consider it at its April 24 meeting.

The ordinance is described by staff as housekeeping to bring a dated code (parts of which date to the 1970s) into alignment with current procedures and reduce city liability by clarifying lines of authority and modernizing notice and bond language. Council discussion and the public hearing focused on procedural clarifications and the practical effect of raising the appeal bond to better reflect likely city costs if appeals reach superior court.

If adopted, the ordinance would change how applications are docketed and noticed, adjust terminology to reflect current city organization, and update the appeal bond. The council did not vote on final adoption; staff and council signaled agreement to continue refining fee placement and to return the ordinance for final action on April 24.