# Land Use Hearing Examiner Meeting — Two Subdivision Projects in Bellingham ## Meeting Overview On the evening of April 16, 2025, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a dual land use hearing in Bellingham City Council chambers to consider two subdivision applications. Rice, an attorney who serves multiple Western Washington jurisdictions as a hearing examiner on contract, presided over what would become a lengthy technical session addressing complex development proposals in established neighborhoods. The meeting was conducted in hybrid format, with participants attending both in-person and virtually via Zoom. The first application concerned a straightforward two-lot subdivision on Humboldt Street in the Sunnyland neighborhood. The second involved a more complex four-lot cluster development on Lynnshire Avenue with significant environmental constraints and preservation requirements. ## The Humboldt Street Short Plat — A Neighborhood Density Debate The first matter addressed a proposal by Glenn and Catherine Whitfield to subdivide their 7,500 square foot property at 2726 Humboldt Street. The application, represented by Jeremy Dish from Power Tech Surveying, sought to use Bellingham's "one and a half rule" to create an additional lot from the existing property. Staff planner Simran Dhaliwal, making his first appearance before the hearing examiner, presented the city's analysis. The existing single-family home would remain on the western portion of the original lot, while a new 3,150 square foot lot would be created on the eastern side. The proposal met minimum lot size requirements for the Residential Single Detached zone and included provisions for required parking and utility connections. Dish explained the surveying details, noting discrepancies between various database measurements of the property: "The county assessor and treasurer does still identify the property as 0.17 acres, which is the 7,405 mentioned in item one of that April 16th letter. City IQ identifies it as 7,510. From a surveying standpoint, I've been surveying for 26 years and can say that very rarely do either of these square footages match, or are consistent with actual square survey square footages." The technical presentation was straightforward, but the proposal faced significant opposition from neighbors concerned about parking, traffic, and neighborhood character. ### Neighbors Voice Density Concerns Ann Grim, who lives on the alley behind the proposed development, delivered passionate testimony about existing infrastructure problems: "Our alley is already used as a street. This warrant another home, and an ADU? Absolutely not. And I urge the hearing examiner to do not close the record until the citizen concerns are addressed." Grim detailed specific problems with the unpaved alley: "The alley is subject to continual erosion due to the water runoff. There is no storm water in the alley. Stormwater only is on the curb in the front, on Humboldt Street... Stormwater runs down the alley down the hill, past my house to East Connecticut, where it pools into a mess at the bottom of the alley." She also raised questions about vehicle impacts, having conducted her own survey: "I surveyed the entire alley to find out how many cars live at each house... On an average 51 vehicles use this stretch of alley daily. Humans, including children who live on the block with their friends, play, run, ride their bikes, play nerf dart guns, hide and seek have fun. 51 cars. The proposed unit will add more cars." Terry Sherman, who has lived in the neighborhood for almost 30 years, echoed concerns about overdevelopment: "There's one very close to us that was just rented. There's 2 units. It was sounds like a similar situation, about 2,500 a piece for each one of those. Now you can't tell me that's not paying somebody's overpriced mortgage, because that's what it is." Sherman argued that recent changes have fundamentally altered the neighborhood character: "What's happened is they continue to put more and more gravel on the potholes year after year, when people complain about it, and then what happens is the water runs down into the properties... This is not what we bought into years ago. We did not purchase our houses to have halfway house across the street to have all of these." ### The Property Owner's Response Glenn Whitfield, the property owner, countered the neighbors' characterizations, emphasizing that his proposal was actually more modest than what zoning would otherwise allow: "What we're doing is not building 2 big ADUs. We're trying to get permission to have a lot so we could have a single family lot with a studio ADU above the garage... if we built ADUs there, it would be less setbacks less parking required, and it could be 2,000 square feet. So this is actually better than what you might fear." Whitfield noted his connection to the area: "I grew up in Bellingham, and I had husbands that lived in this neighborhood, and I visited the neighborhood often... I really do like the neighborhood very much, and I bought. That's the reason I bought the house, and I wanted to create another space there for someone to live." ### Staff Addresses the Broader Context In response to neighborhood concerns, Dhaliwal acknowledged the changing regulatory landscape: "As well as through the Planning... it's a countrywide concern for for just the lack of housing. So we're trying to do whatever we can to implement more infill and more housing to to try and bring down the housing costs and address the the shortage that we're facing." He noted that the city had recently removed parking requirements citywide: "I think it should also be noted that on January 13th 2025 Council did approve an interim parking ordinance, removing all minimum parking requirements for the next year within the city of Bellingham for any use. This is an effort to address the housing crisis that the city is facing." When Rice pressed about whether removing parking requirements actually reduces car ownership, Dhaliwal acknowledged: "I don't think that, you know, removing minimum parking for a year is going to remove vehicles. I think that it's really spearheaded an effort to remove the barriers to developing housing." ## The Cool Runnings Cluster Development — Environmental Complexity The second application presented far greater technical complexity. David Campbell and Kristen Danielson sought approval for a four-lot cluster subdivision on a 4.9-acre site at 2825 Lynnshire Avenue, along with two variances related to infrastructure improvements and tree clearing. The site had been zoned industrial for decades but was recently rezoned to residential after neighborhood opposition to commercial development. The proposal called for preserving 72% of the property in a conservation easement while developing four lots on the flatter frontage area. ### A Team of Environmental Professionals Bill Geyer, a certified planner with 48 years of experience, led the applicant team supported by multiple specialists. Ed Miller, a wetland scientist, addressed the complex environmental mitigation requirements. Aubrey Stargell, a certified arborist and forester, testified about tree preservation. Martin Chelstead, a professional engineer with 45 years of experience, covered infrastructure and stormwater management. Miller explained the wetland impacts: "The project proposes direct and indirect wetland fill. Direct wetland fill like what it sounds is just pushing soil or material into the wetland, such that it doesn't function as wetland anymore. Indirect wetland fill is trickier. That's essentially what happens when you take away so much of a required wetland buffer that the wetland doesn't function as well as a wetland." The proposal would impact 2,958 square feet of direct wetland fill and approximately 8,451 square feet of indirect fill. Miller noted: "All of the ratios that we're using meet the city of Bellingham's code and the core and ecology. And then, as Bill discussed, we're proposing to mitigate this at the Lummi Mitigation Bank." ### The Stormwater Challenge Geyer detailed a significant existing problem with city-generated stormwater discharge onto the property: "The city came in 4 years later, 5 years later, and constructed this vault and channeled the rest of the stormwater from that 300 acres into this main, which discharges directly onto 2825, Linshire. It's of note that we have not discovered any license from the city... that is not a public route for stormwater discharge." This unauthorized discharge had created erosion problems: "Unfortunately, the result has been that the discharge of that water across that site has created a ravine and erosion that's anywhere from 6 to 8 feet tall." Chelstead addressed how the new development would handle stormwater: "Each of the sites will have stormwater detention. Maybe some low impact development. The street will have its own detention system... everything will be detained to a point to meet the Bmc 1542." ### The Clearing Variance Dispute The most contentious issue involved the applicants' request for a variance to clear all developable portions of the property simultaneously, rather than lot by lot as development proceeds. Stargell argued for safety and efficiency reasons: "To do it in a phased manner will, in my opinion, yield a much greater operational hazards, resulting in increased risk to worker safety occupants and greater potential damage to built infrastructure and buildings... when you're working with 150 foot tall trees, and you're trying to dodge various objects that have been installed recently... it's difficult to do so." Chelstead supported this from an engineering perspective: "If you're doing one lot at a time, you get to the last lot... it becomes a danger. You... the only place to put the trees down is in the areas you want to preserve. So if you can do this all up front... it seems easier to do it all in one." However, city staff firmly opposed the clearing variance. Ryan Nelson, representing the planning department, cited multiple code sections: "Pursuant to Bmc 1660.080 a 1. No clearing or removal of vegetation shall be permitted on any undeveloped or partially developed lot, partial street or utility, without a valid building permit street or utility construction permit, or an approved management plan." Nelson acknowledged the applicant's arguments but maintained that code compliance required a different approach: "I understand the applicant's argument. If you're looking at just an overall site, and you look at the preservation that's going to occur overall on the site... there's significant area that's going to be preserved with critical areas and associated buffers. So I get that. But there isn't necessarily a hard number." He emphasized the purpose of clearing restrictions: "The clearing code under Bmc 1660.030 is in my mind very clear in terms of the purpose of those provisions which are to minimize the destruction of existing vegetation, and to maintain its existence for as long as possible." ### Limited Public Input Jason Polis, who lives at 2836 Lynnshire Avenue and witnessed the original development of the neighborhood, offered measured comments about infrastructure concerns: "We had requested. Hey, hey! Single family homes! And that was something that was at the time was that was what they're going to do. That was a word that was given to us that that has since changed. I get it, I understand, don't like it, but I understand it's about money." Polis raised practical concerns about construction impacts: "Tearing up Idell. We have one road in one road out. That's Idell. What does that? What's that going to look like when they go into storm monitors? How's that? Gonna are they gonna try to push us out to, you know, over the gas line as a way of getting out." He also questioned why sidewalk improvements wouldn't extend beyond the immediate development: "If there's going to be an increased community, an increased population. They're going to tear up Idell. Why not extend sidewalk all the way down Idell to sunset for the kids that go to school?" ## Procedural Closure and Next Steps Rice concluded both hearings by establishing post-hearing schedules. For both applications, the record would remain open for two business days to accommodate any technology-related participation issues. For the Humboldt Street application, if no additional comments were received, the decision deadline would be May 2nd. For the Cool Runnings project, the same timeline applied unless post-hearing submissions necessitated additional response periods. Both hearings demonstrated the tension between Bellingham's housing goals and neighborhood concerns about density and infrastructure. The Humboldt Street case represented straightforward infill development facing community resistance, while the Lynnshire project showcased the complexity of developing environmentally constrained sites with significant preservation requirements. The proceedings highlighted recurring themes in Bellingham's development discussions: aging infrastructure, stormwater management challenges, parking and traffic concerns, and the balance between housing production and neighborhood character. Both applications would ultimately be decided based on compliance with municipal code criteria, but the extensive public testimony revealed the human dimension of land use decisions in a growing city facing housing pressures.

### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Hearing Examiner held two land use public hearings on April 16, 2025: the Humboldt Street Short Plat and the Cool Runnings Cluster Short Plat with variances. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over both applications, which involved subdividing existing residential properties. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** An independent attorney who makes quasi-judicial land use decisions for cities. Unlike city council members, hearing examiners focus solely on whether applications meet specific legal criteria. **Short Plat/Subdivision:** A process to divide one piece of property into multiple lots. Short plats typically create 2-9 lots and go through a streamlined approval process. **Cluster Short Plat:** A type of subdivision that groups homes on smaller lots while preserving larger areas as open space. Allows more flexible lot sizes in exchange for protecting natural features. **One-and-One-Half Rule:** A Bellingham code provision allowing property owners to create one additional lot if the original lot is at least 1.5 times the minimum lot size for the zone. **ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit):** A smaller, secondary housing unit on the same lot as a primary residence. Often called "granny flats" or in-law units. **Variance:** Permission to deviate from normal development standards when strict application would cause practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. **SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act):** Washington's environmental review process requiring analysis of potential environmental impacts before major decisions. **Critical Areas:** Environmentally sensitive lands like wetlands, steep slopes, or wildlife habitat that receive special protection under city and state laws. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner (contract attorney) | | Christy Bowker | Hearing Clerk | | Simran Dhaliwal | City Planner (new to department) | | Jeremy Dish | Project Land Surveyor, Powertech Surveying | | Glenn Whitfield | Property Owner (Humboldt Street) | | Catherine Whitfield | Property Owner (Humboldt Street) | | Ann Grim | Neighbor/Public Commenter | | Terry Sherman | Neighbor/Public Commenter | | Bill Geyer | Project Representative, Geyer and Associates | | David Campbell | Property Owner, Cool Runnings Construction | | Ed Miller | Wetland Scientist, Miller Environmental Services | | Aubrey Stargill | Certified Arborist and Forester | | Martin Chelstead | Professional Engineer | | Ryan Nelson | Senior City Planner | | Jason Polis | Neighbor/Public Commenter | ### Background Context Both applications represent "infill" development—building on vacant or underused land within existing neighborhoods rather than expanding into new areas. This approach helps address Bellingham's housing shortage while using existing infrastructure efficiently. The Humboldt Street application used the "one-and-one-half rule" to split a 7,500 square foot lot into two lots, with plans for a single-family home plus ADU on the new lot. Neighbors expressed concerns about parking, traffic, and neighborhood character changes. The Cool Runnings project involved a much larger 4.9-acre former industrial site that was recently rezoned residential. The owners proposed a 4-lot cluster development that would preserve 72% of the property (including steep slopes and wetlands) while developing houses on the flat portion along Lynnshire Avenue. This required two variances—one for reduced street improvements and another for simultaneous tree clearing. Both applications reflect ongoing tension between housing needs and neighborhood impacts, as well as evolving city policies around parking requirements and environmental protection. ### What Happened — The Short Version **Humboldt Street Hearing:** The property owners want to split their lot to create space for another house. The city planner recommended approval with standard conditions. The surveyor explained the lot meets size requirements and has adequate utilities. Neighbors opposed the project, citing concerns about parking in the unpaved alley, stormwater runoff problems, and too many rental properties changing neighborhood character. The hearing examiner closed the record and will issue a written decision by May 2nd or 6th depending on any post-hearing comments. **Cool Runnings Hearing:** This was a more complex 4-lot cluster subdivision on a steep, wooded site with wetlands. The development team included multiple experts who testified about their environmental studies and engineering plans. They requested approval for the main subdivision plus two variances—one to reduce required street improvements (approved by staff) and another to clear all development areas at once rather than lot-by-lot (opposed by staff). City staff supported the overall project but opposed simultaneous clearing, arguing it violates tree protection codes. One neighbor expressed concerns about construction impacts and pedestrian safety improvements. ### What to Watch Next • Written decisions on both applications will be issued within 10 days after any post-hearing comment period closes • If approved, the Cool Runnings project would need separate design review and building permits before construction • City Council continues working on interim housing rules that could affect similar future projects ---

**Q:** Who presides over land use hearings in Bellingham? **A:** A Hearing Examiner - an independent contract attorney who makes quasi-judicial land use decisions based on whether applications meet specific legal criteria. **Q:** What is the "one-and-one-half rule"? **A:** A Bellingham code provision allowing property owners to create one additional lot if their original lot is at least 1.5 times the minimum lot size required for that zone. **Q:** How large was the Humboldt Street property being subdivided? **A:** 7,500 square feet according to the survey, though city databases showed slightly different measurements (7,510 or 7,405 square feet). **Q:** What specific concerns did neighbors raise about the Humboldt Street project? **A:** Parking problems in the unpaved gravel alley, stormwater runoff creating potholes and flooding, and too many rental properties changing neighborhood character. **Q:** What is a cluster short plat? **A:** A type of subdivision that groups homes on smaller lots while preserving larger areas as open space, allowing more flexible development in exchange for protecting natural features. **Q:** How much of the Cool Runnings site would be preserved from development? **A:** 72% of the 4.9-acre property would be protected in a conservation easement, including steep slopes and wetlands. **Q:** What two variances did the Cool Runnings project request? **A:** One to reduce required street improvements along Lynnshire Avenue, and another to clear all developable areas simultaneously rather than lot-by-lot. **Q:** Which variance did city staff oppose and why? **A:** Staff opposed the simultaneous clearing variance, arguing it violates tree protection codes that require clearing only when specific development permits are issued. **Q:** What was the original zoning of the Cool Runnings property? **A:** Industrial zoning for about 35 years, until it was rezoned to residential in December 2023 after neighbors objected to proposed commercial traffic. **Q:** How many wetland credits does the Cool Runnings project need to purchase? **A:** 0.165 wetland credits from the Lummi Nation Wetland Mitigation Bank to offset direct and indirect wetland impacts. **Q:** What infrastructure challenge affects the Cool Runnings site? **A:** Stormwater from 300+ acres of developed neighborhoods flows through city pipes and discharges directly onto the property, creating erosion problems. **Q:** When do hearing examiner decisions become final? **A:** 10 days after the record closes, with the record held open 2 business days for technology-related public comments only. **Q:** What is an ADU? **A:** An Accessory Dwelling Unit - a smaller secondary housing unit on the same lot as a primary residence, often called a "granny flat" or in-law unit. **Q:** Why did the surveyor say online square footage information is often inaccurate? **A:** City databases and assessor records use aerial imagery and tax data, while surveys provide actual measured property lines and are more accurate. **Q:** What environmental permits has the Cool Runnings project already obtained? **A:** A critical areas permit issued April 9, 2025, and a SEPA determination of non-significance for environmental review. **Q:** How long might the Cool Runnings development take to complete? **A:** The owner estimated 3-10 years for full buildout, with their personal residence on Lot 1 built first. **Q:** What infrastructure improvements would Cool Runnings provide? **A:** Three-quarter standard street improvements, water and sewer extensions, stormwater management, and a future trail easement for the Parks Department. **Q:** Why did neighbors want single-family homes instead of the current proposal? **A:** They hoped new development would match existing 10,000 square foot lots in the neighborhood rather than allowing higher density development. ---