Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cosmopolis council votes to review and potentially repeal 2021 ordinances that shifted land‑use review away from local boards
Summary
Council member Darcy urged the council to repeal three 2021 ordinances (13-60, 13-61 and 13-62) that created a land‑use hearing examiner and, the council was told, effectively removed the planning commission and board of adjustments; the council voted to move forward with preparing repeal language and public notice.
Council member Darcy told the Cosmopolis City Council on May 21 that she has spent two weeks researching three 2021 ordinances—13-60, 13-61 and 13-62—that she says changed how conditional‑use permits are reviewed, created a land‑use hearing examiner, and abolished the board of adjustments. Darcy said the changes were not widely known and that she could not find signed ordinances in the municipal records, raising concern that some changes may have been published or recorded incorrectly.
"What I'm looking to do is repeal those three ordinances and go back to where the chapters were before," Darcy said, describing her request as an effort to restore the planning commission's and board of adjustments' roles in conditional-use review.
City Attorney Chris Cofer cautioned against acting immediately without staff review. Cofer recommended consulting the city's code adviser and records, verifying what was actually enacted, and handling any repeal through the standard ordinance process with public notice. "I would recommend this get put into a committee and discussed in more detail," Cofer said.
Building Official Bill Sidor told the council his office has the originals of the earlier ordinances that the 2021 measures appear to have overridden, and he said the city must determine whether any previous variances or hearings are affected. Several council members said residents expect planning and adjustment matters to be handled locally by citizen boards rather than a single hearing examiner.
After discussion the council voted to move forward with preparing review and repeal language and to place the issue on a future agenda for formal ordinance action and public notice. Mayor Spreel said staff should follow the attorney's direction on timing and publication.
Public commenter Miss Slushberry urged careful legal review, noting that some of the measures may not have been enacted as written and asking the council to rely on legal guidance to avoid unintended consequences.
Next steps: staff and the city attorney will review archival records and the municipal code, draft amendment or repeal language as needed, and present a formal ordinance and public‑notice timeline to the council at a subsequent meeting for final action.
