LANGLEY — Hoping to avoid future legal entanglements — and another nightmarish mess such as the one that hamstrung the city during its review of Langley Passage — the Langley City Council gave its initial approval Monday to creating a hearing examiner system.

The move to hire an outside expert to act as judge for environmental appeals, subdivision plans, rezones and other land-use matters has some in the Village by the Sea worried, though.

At Monday’s meeting, residents of the Edgecliff neighborhood lambasted the idea as too far-reaching, and wondered why the city council would remove itself, and the city’s Planning Advisory Board, from the decision-making process.

“This ordinance is a classic case of government mission creep,” said Robin Adams, an Edgecliff resident and a candidate for the city council.

Adams said a hearing examiner should only be used to settle disputes, and should stay out of regulatory matters that are now decided by the council or the PAB.

Edgecliff was ground zero in the Langley Passage saga, a 20-home development proposal that was bitterly opposed by nearby residents — two of whom are now running for the city council.

Jonathon Moses, another Edgecliff resident who is seeking a seat on the council, said the change would limit the influence that citizens have on their decision-makers.

“In voting for you, we grant you the authority and responsibility to make these decisions on our behalf,” Moses told the council.

“I’m concerned that my voice and my potential influence through you is being restricted,” Moses said, adding that he was worried that if someone filed an appeal against a hearing examiner decision, the challenge would go directly to superior court.

“I feel like some of my influence as a citizen in Langley is being undermined,” he said.

“This is a huge change,” added Edgecliff resident Barbara Seitle. “I think this needs to be really thought through as to whether you want to go this large.”

Larry Kwarsick, Langley’s director of development, said the hearing examiner system would mean complex land-use cases would be reviewed by a skilled legal mind, in a way that’s fair, predictable and open to all.

That wasn’t just his opinion, he said.

“Insurance providers, risk pools, attorneys, all recommend this sort of system regardless of the size of government. Whether you’re King County, Island County, or Snohomish, or the city of whatever,” Kwarsick said.

“There’s assurances that the laws are going to be abided by, and there won’t be any undue political influence in the decision-making process.”

Kwarsick also said Edgecliff residents didn’t understand the limits of the proposal. Though the ordinance creating the hearing examiner system spanned 21 pages, Kwarsick noted that the only new pieces were the scattered, underlined sentences in the draft — a point apparently missed by its critics.

“We’re not creating a new list of permits here. These are all permits or processes that currently exist,” Kwarsick said.

City planners also pushed back against those who said the proposal was too far-reaching because it took away most land-use decisions now made by the council or PAB. That was the whole point, they said.

“You’ve got to read the ordinance,” City Planner Jeff Arango told Adams when he continued to protest the proposal.

Councilman Robert Gilman said he supported having a hearing examiner for Langley, though he still wanted the council to be able to overturn the decisions it didn’t like.

Gilman said he “sympathized” with Adams.

“Maybe we’re making this too complex; maybe we’re getting into something that’s really pricier than we need for the community as a whole,” he said.

A hearing examiner wouldn’t live in Langley, he added, while city decision-makers could tap their “local knowledge” when interpreting Langley’s regulations and rules for development.

Gilman also said that some “variances” — the term for land-use requests made by applicants who want to have the rules stretched or suspended — shouldn’t go to a hearing examiner for a decision.

Local officials, he said, would be better able to find a solution “in a small town kind of way.”

The suggestion fell on deaf ears. Other council members said they were committed to adopting a hearing examiner system.

Councilwoman Rene Neff said she felt the council was putting the city in legal jeopardy during its review of Langley Passage.

“It felt like you were walking on a tightrope,” she said.

Now was the time to have those familiar with the law make such decisions.

“It’s really important for the citizens of the city to know that we are not going to put the city in jeopardy,” she said.

Kathleen Waters, also a candidate for the city council, acknowledged her own development disputes with Langley officials in recent years. Hiring a hearing examiner would be an improvement, Waters said.

“This is a real step in the right direction,” she said.

The ordinance passed 4-1, with Gilman voting “no.”