# Bellingham Hearing Examiner Approves Small Lot Subdivision in Columbia Neighborhood ## Meeting Overview On the evening of October 8, 2025, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over a hybrid hearing in Bellingham's city council chambers and via Zoom to consider a subdivision request in the Columbia neighborhood. Originally scheduled with two items, the hearing was reduced to a single matter when the second item — a cluster subdivision at 331 Chuckanut Drive — was postponed due to ongoing appeal periods for associated permits. The sole remaining item was a request by property owner Doug Webb, represented by Ali Taishi of AVT Consulting, to subdivide a single lot at 2609 Jaeger Street using the city's "one and one-half rule" provision. This regulation allows lots that are at least 1.6 times the minimum lot size to be split into two parcels, even when they're not quite large enough for a standard two-lot subdivision. The meeting proceeded despite significant technical difficulties with the hybrid hearing system, with Rice noting early on that they were "having technical difficulties with the hybrid hearing system tonight" and repeatedly asking participants to speak loudly to ensure audio capture for the legal record. ## The Jaeger Street Subdivision Request The property at 2609 Jaeger Street sits in a unique position within the Columbia neighborhood — what Taishi described as "really a double corner lot" that abuts three public rights-of-way: two improved streets (Jaeger Street and West North Street) and a gravel alley. The 8,023-square-foot lot currently contains a single-family home positioned on the eastern portion of the property, with existing parking accessed from the rear alley. Taishi presented the proposal with screen-shared visuals, explaining that the subdivision would create two lots in a "front and back" configuration rather than splitting them evenly. The existing home would remain on a lot of approximately 4,000 square feet, while the western portion would become a vacant lot slightly larger than 4,000 square feet. This uneven split was intentional, Taishi explained, designed "to provide as much flexibility for the vacant lot to be developed in the future, because this proposal does not include a development plan for that lot." The project required special approval under the city's "one and one-half rule" found in Bellingham Municipal Code Section 23.08.040.D.2. This provision allows subdivision of lots that are at least 1.6 times the minimum lot size (5,000 square feet in this zone) but not quite large enough for a standard two-lot subdivision. At approximately 8,000 square feet, the Jaeger Street property qualified at about 1.6 times the minimum density. A critical preliminary step had already been completed: Director's Interpretation SUB2025-2018, which determined that the property's legal description as "a portion of a government lot" met the code requirements for using the one-and-half rule. City Planner Ryan Nelson explained that this was "kind of a gray area" because government lots — dating back over a century — don't fit neatly into modern subdivision categories but ultimately qualify as "meets and bounds" descriptions rather than platted lots being re-split. ## Infrastructure and Character Compatibility Both the applicant and city staff emphasized that the subdivision required no new public infrastructure. The property is already served by fully improved streets with travel lanes, curbs, and sidewalks, plus utility connections and the gravel alley. "There's literally no public infrastructure that's necessary, no additional public infrastructure that's necessary to serve this proposed lot," Taishi testified. The question of neighborhood character featured prominently in the discussion. Taishi used aerial imagery to demonstrate that similar-sized lots are common in the immediate vicinity, noting "there are a number of lots that are similar in size, and that it's not out of character." He pointed to recent subdivisions just two lots north and smaller lots to the east and south, observing that "there's any number of 4,000 square foot lots in the neighborhood." Living just three blocks away, Taishi added personal knowledge: "I live 3 blocks to the east of this site, so I'm very familiar with this area. Yeah, so anecdotally, I can attest to that." Staff agreed with this assessment, with Nelson confirming the proposed lot sizes align with existing development patterns. ## Access Requirements and Flexibility A notable discussion centered on vehicle access requirements. One of the recommended conditions required the new lot to take access from the alley rather than creating a new driveway on the street. Initially, the applicant's narrative expressed preference for maintaining access flexibility, but Taishi explained their evolution on this point. The property currently shares a driveway access from West North Street with the neighboring property to the north. "We don't believe that that access will be closed as a part of this plat, because it serves a neighboring property as well, which does not abut the alley," Taishi testified. However, upon further consideration, he said they understood why staff recommended alley access as the preferred option. Nelson explained the city's rationale: "The city strongly encourages alley access. We've got a couple nuances here." He noted that alleys are common throughout the Columbia neighborhood and "really translate into that pedestrian-oriented development that you feel throughout this neighborhood." The condition allows staff discretion for unique circumstances, providing "some flexibility for alternative access points" while establishing alley access as the default expectation. "The likely scenario is that a home on that site would be designed to have a garage access off the alley," Taishi concluded, accepting the condition because "9 out of 10 property buyer... purchasers would utilize the alley for access." ## Environmental Considerations and Future Development The hearing addressed several environmental factors affecting the property. While initially stating there were no critical areas, Taishi corrected himself when Rice asked about coal mine hazards noted in the staff report: "No, I always forget about coal mine hazards, and so I'll retract that statement. There are... that is... there is a critical area, and it is the coal mine hazard." The coal mine hazard designation is common in Bellingham and would be addressed during future building permit review rather than at the subdivision stage. Similarly, the staff report identified significant trees on the property, particularly in the southwest corner, with conditions requiring tree preservation planning and mitigation ratios for any removal during future development. An overhead power line currently serves the existing home by crossing diagonally across the property. The conditions require this line to be relocated to run along the alley when the new lot is developed, providing more flexibility for future building design. Nelson noted an important consideration for future development: while the current proposal anticipates single-family homes, the city's interim middle housing ordinance means "it could be four infill toolkit units on subject property." This uncertainty influenced staff's emphasis on maintaining development flexibility through alley access and appropriate lot sizing. ## Technical Clarifications and Record Keeping Rice worked through several technical details to ensure an accurate record. She noted discrepancies in the reported lot size — the staff report cited 8,075 square feet, the plat map showed 8,023 square feet, and the narrative stated 8,028 square feet. Taishi explained that the plat map figure, based on a licensed surveyor's work, should be considered most accurate, with the slight variations due to approximate calculations that will be finalized during the formal platting process. The hearing examiner confirmed that this proceeding only decides the subdivision itself — creating one new lot from the existing parcel. Any future development would require separate review: "All that's being decided in this application is the creation of one new lot. And if and when development is proposed in the future, it would then be reviewed for compliance with all of the more detailed regulations, like trees and stormwater impact fees, the mine hazard area." ## Public Participation and Technical Challenges Despite the technical difficulties, the meeting successfully accommodated remote participation. One person, Jeffrey Neubauer, briefly joined the Zoom meeting but left after Rice explained that the Chuckanut Drive hearing had been postponed — suggesting he was there for the other agenda item. The hybrid format struggled throughout the evening, prompting Rice to repeatedly ask participants to speak loudly and to establish a generous post-hearing comment period "strictly and straight for the purpose of allowing post-hearing written public comment from people who were unable to participate for technology reasons." ## Staff Recommendation and Applicant Response Nelson provided a comprehensive staff analysis supporting the subdivision request. He emphasized the project's alignment with the city's infill development goals, noting the location is "close to the park, close to schools" with all infrastructure already in place. Staff found the proposal consistent with comprehensive plan policies encouraging better utilization of lands already served by public infrastructure. "The lift doesn't get much heavier than this one lot short plat," Nelson observed, referencing the multiple approval hurdles required — director's interpretation, hearing examiner review — "for basically creation of one lot." Despite this complexity, he concluded the subdivision "makes perfect sense" given the location and existing infrastructure. The conditions of approval address standard subdivision requirements plus specific items like street tree planting, tree preservation during future development, utility easements, and the inadvertent discovery plan required due to proximity to Squalicum Creek. Both parties expressed satisfaction with the recommended conditions. Taishi concluded his presentation by stating they had "reviewed all of the conditions, the general requirement conditions, and the final plat conditions, and they all seem appropriate, and acceptable" before respectfully requesting approval. ## Procedural Conclusion and Next Steps Rice closed the hearing record on October 8, with a two-business-day window for post-hearing public comment specifically for those who experienced technology difficulties. If no such comments are received, the 10 business day decision deadline falls on October 24. If technology-related public comments are submitted, staff and applicants have until October 14 to respond, extending the decision deadline to October 28. The hearing examiner must determine whether the evidence demonstrates compliance with all applicable subdivision criteria. Given the thorough presentations from both the applicant and staff, the lack of public opposition, and the project's consistency with neighborhood development patterns and city policies, the subdivision appears positioned for approval. This case represents the type of incremental infill development that Bellingham's land use policies encourage — making efficient use of existing infrastructure while maintaining neighborhood character. The one-and-half rule provides a mechanism for property owners to create additional housing opportunities in established neighborhoods, contributing to the city's broader housing goals while respecting existing community patterns. The technical challenges experienced during the hearing underscore the ongoing adjustments required as local governments balance in-person and remote public participation, ensuring that civic engagement remains accessible even when technology falters.

### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner met on October 8, 2025, to consider a "one and one-half rule" short plat subdivision at 2609 Jaeger Street in the Columbia neighborhood. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over the hybrid in-person/Zoom hearing to review a proposal to split an 8,023 square foot lot into two parcels. ### Key Terms and Concepts **One and One-Half Rule:** A Bellingham Municipal Code provision allowing subdivision of lots that are at least 1.5 times the minimum lot size but less than twice the minimum size, creating one additional lot. **Short Plat:** A simplified subdivision process for creating four or fewer lots, requiring hearing examiner approval rather than full Planning Commission review. **Meets and Bounds Legal Description:** A property description that uses physical features and measurements rather than lot numbers from a recorded plat, required to qualify for the one and one-half rule. **Director's Interpretation:** An administrative decision clarifying how city code applies to a specific situation, issued before the subdivision application. **Government Lot:** An older type of property description that predates modern subdivision requirements, falling in a "gray area" for the one and one-half rule. **Infill Development:** Building new housing on vacant or underutilized lots within existing neighborhoods served by infrastructure. **Critical Areas:** Environmentally sensitive areas like wetlands, streams, or geological hazards that require special review and protection measures. **Coal Mine Hazard:** A geological critical area designation for properties with potential underground mining impacts requiring building permit review. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | City-appointed Hearing Examiner | | Ali Taishi | Applicant representative, AVT Consulting | | Doug Webb | Property owner | | Wyatt Rothenbuller | AVT Consulting staff member | | Ryan Nelson | City of Bellingham Planner II | ### Background Context The Columbia neighborhood features a mix of lot sizes, many created through similar subdivisions over the decades. The property at 2609 Jaeger Street sits on a corner with access to two improved streets and a gravel alley, making it well-suited for subdivision. The existing single-family home would remain on one lot, while a new vacant lot would be created for future development. This type of infill subdivision aligns with city housing policies encouraging better utilization of land already served by infrastructure. The one and one-half rule provides a pathway for modest densification without requiring full subdivision review processes, though it still requires hearing examiner approval to ensure code compliance. ### What Happened — The Short Version The hearing proceeded smoothly despite technical difficulties. Applicant Ali Taishi presented the proposal to divide the 8,023 square foot lot into two parcels—one retaining the existing home and one creating a new developable lot. The project required a director's interpretation to qualify under the one and one-half rule because the property has a government lot description rather than a standard meets and bounds description. City Planner Ryan Nelson supported the proposal, noting it meets all applicable criteria and serves city infill objectives. The only conditions involve standard requirements like alley access preference, tree preservation during future development, and an inadvertent discovery plan due to proximity to Squalicum Creek. No public testimony was provided, and the hearing examiner closed the record with a decision deadline of October 24, 2025. ### What to Watch Next - Decision release by October 24, 2025 (or October 28 if post-hearing comments are received) - Future development proposal for the new lot, which could range from single-family to four-unit infill toolkit projects - Building permit review for coal mine hazard and tree preservation requirements ---

**Q:** What is the one and one-half rule? **A:** A code provision allowing subdivision of lots that are 1.5 times the minimum size but less than twice the minimum size, creating one additional lot. **Q:** What is the address of the property being subdivided? **A:** 2609 Jaeger Street in Bellingham's Columbia neighborhood. **Q:** What is the total square footage of the lot being subdivided? **A:** 8,023 square feet according to the licensed surveyor's measurements on the short plat map. **Q:** Who is the hearing examiner for this case? **A:** Sharon Rice, who is contracted with Bellingham and about nine other cities to provide hearing officer services. **Q:** What is the property owner's name? **A:** Doug Webb, represented by Ali Taishi of AVT Consulting. **Q:** What type of streets border this property? **A:** Two improved streets (with travel lanes, curbs, and sidewalks) plus a gravel alley on the south side. **Q:** Why was a director's interpretation needed? **A:** The property has a government lot description, which falls in a gray area between platted lots and meets and bounds parcels required for the one and one-half rule. **Q:** What is the minimum lot size in this zoning district? **A:** 5,000 square feet, making this an approximately 1.6 density lot eligible for subdivision. **Q:** What critical area designation affects this property? **A:** Coal mine hazard, which will be addressed during building permit review for any future development. **Q:** Where is the existing house located on the lot? **A:** On the right (east) side of the property with a front porch facing Jaeger Street. **Q:** What access is preferred for the new lot? **A:** Alley access is strongly encouraged by city policy, with street access available only under special circumstances. **Q:** What is the file number for this short plat? **A:** SUB2025-2018. **Q:** How close is the Eldridge Historic District? **A:** Very close—it includes properties on the west side of West Street and south side of West North Street, but not this property. **Q:** What is required for tree preservation? **A:** A condition requires addressing tree removal with prescribed mitigation ratios during future development. **Q:** When is the decision deadline? **A:** October 24, 2025, or October 28 if post-hearing public comments are received by October 10. **Q:** What utilities need to be relocated? **A:** An overhead power line crossing diagonally across the property must be moved to the alley line during development. **Q:** What future development is possible on the new lot? **A:** Single-family residence, ADUs, or up to four infill toolkit units under current regulations. **Q:** What was postponed at this hearing? **A:** The 331 Chuckanut Drive cluster subdivision hearing due to ongoing Type 2 permit appeals. **Q:** How many lots will exist after subdivision? **A:** Two lots total—the existing developed lot and one new vacant lot for future development. **Q:** What makes this location suitable for infill development? **A:** It's close to parks and schools with full infrastructure already in place, requiring no additional public improvements. ---